1: %% LyX 1.1 created this file. For more info, see http://www.lyx.org/.
2: %% Do not edit unless you really know what you are doing.
3: \documentclass[11pt]{article}
4: \usepackage[]{fontenc}
5: \usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
6: \usepackage{graphics}
7:
8: \makeatletter
9:
10:
11: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% LyX specific LaTeX commands.
12: \providecommand{\LyX}{L\kern-.1667em\lower.25em\hbox{Y}\kern-.125emX\@}
13:
14: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% User specified LaTeX commands.
15: \usepackage[]{fontenc}
16: \usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
17: \usepackage{graphics}
18:
19: \makeatletter
20:
21:
22: \usepackage[]{fontenc}
23: \usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
24:
25: \makeatletter
26:
27:
28: \usepackage{amssymb}
29:
30: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
31: \usepackage[]{fontenc}
32: \usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
33: \usepackage{geometry}
34: \usepackage{setspace}
35: \usepackage[]{fontenc}
36: \usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
37: \usepackage{graphics}
38: \usepackage{graphicx}
39:
40: \geometry{verbose,a4paper,lmargin=25mm,rmargin=25mm}
41: \onehalfspacing
42: \makeatletter
43: \providecommand{\LyX}{L\kern-.1667em\lower.25em\hbox{Y}\kern-.125emX\@}
44: \makeatletter
45: \textheight 24truecm
46: \textwidth 16truecm
47: \pagestyle {plain}
48: \pagenumbering {arabic}
49: \makeatother
50: \makeatother
51:
52:
53: \makeatother
54:
55: \makeatother
56:
57: \makeatother
58:
59: \begin{document}
60:
61: {\par\centering {\huge Multi-channel pulse dynamics in a stabilized Ginzburg-Landau
62: system} \par}
63:
64: \vspace{12mm}
65:
66: {\par\centering {\large H.E. Nistazakis\( ^{1} \), D.J. Frantzeskakis\( ^{1} \),
67: J. Atai\( ^{2} \), B.A. Malomed\( ^{3} \), N. Efremidis\( ^{4} \), and K.
68: Hizanidis\( ^{4} \)} \vspace{3mm} \par}
69:
70: {\par\centering \( ^{(1)} \)\textit{Department of Physics, University of Athens,
71: Panepistimiopolis, 15784 Athens, Greece}\\
72: \( ^{(2)} \)\textit{School of Electrical and Information Engineering, The University
73: of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia}\\
74: \vspace{1.5mm} \par}
75:
76: {\par\centering \( ^{(3)} \)\textit{Department of Interdisciplinary Studies,
77: Faculty of Engineering, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel}\\
78: \( ^{(4)} \)\textit{Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National
79: Technical University of Athens, 15773 Athens, Greece} \vspace{15mm} \par}
80:
81: {\par\centering \textbf{\large Abstract} \par}
82:
83: {\par\centering \vspace{5mm}\par}
84:
85: We study the stability and interactions of chirped solitary pulses in a system
86: of nonlinearly coupled cubic Ginzburg-Landau (CGL) equations with a group-velocity
87: mismatch between them, where each CGL equation is stabilized by linearly coupling
88: it to an additional linear dissipative equation. In the context of nonlinear
89: fiber optics, the model describes transmission and collisions of pulses at different
90: wavelengths in a dual-core fiber, in which the active core is furnished with
91: bandwidth-limited gain, while the other, passive (lossy) one is necessary for
92: stabilization of the solitary pulses. Complete and incomplete collisions of
93: pulses in two channels in the cases of anomalous and normal dispersion in the
94: active core are analyzed by means of perturbation theory and direct numerical
95: simulations. It is demonstrated that the model may readily support fully stable
96: pulses whose collisions are quasi-elastic, provided that the group-velocity
97: difference between the two channels exceeds a critical value. In the case of
98: quasi-elastic collisions, the temporal shift of pulses, predicted by the analytical
99: approach, is in semi-quantitative agrement with direct numerical results in
100: the case of anomalous dispersion (in the opposite case, the perturbation theory
101: does not apply). We also consider a simultaneous collision between pulses in
102: \emph{three} channels, concluding that this collision remains quasi-elastic,
103: and the pulses remain completely stable. Thus, the model may be a starting point
104: for the design of a stabilized wavelength-division-multiplexed (WDM) transmission
105: system.\\
106: PACS: 42.81.Dp, 42.65.Tg, 42.81.Qb
107:
108: \newpage
109:
110:
111: \section{Introduction}
112:
113: It is commonly known that complex cubic Ginzburg-Landau (CGL) equations constitute
114: a class of universal models for the description of pattern formation in various
115: nonlinear dissipative media \cite{ref1}. Equations of the CGL type are also
116: frequently used in nonlinear fiber optics, to describe the formation, stability,
117: and interactions of solitary pulses (SPs). CGL equations with constant coefficients
118: apply to a long nonlinear optic-fiber link if the pulses in it are broad enough,
119: so that the corresponding dispersion length is essentially larger than the amplification
120: spacing. In this case, the periodically placed amplifiers and filters (which
121: limit the gain to a relatively narrow spectral band) may be considered in the
122: uniformly-distributed approximation, neglecting their discreteness \cite{ref2}.
123:
124: The single-component CGL equation with the cubic nonlinearity possesses a well-known
125: exact solitary-pulse solution \cite{ref3}, which includes an internal chirp
126: (phase curvature across the pulse). However, a fundamental drawback of this
127: solution is that it is \emph{unstable}, as the zero solution to the cubic CGL
128: equation, i.e., a background on top of which the pulse is built, is unstable
129: due to the presence of linear gain in the equation. Development of physically
130: realistic models in which solitary pulses are fully stable is a problem of an
131: obvious interest in its own right, and it also has profound importance for fiber-optic
132: communications (see the book \cite{ref2} and, for instance, a recent work \cite{ref4}),
133: as well as for the design of soliton-generating fiber-loop lasers \cite{ref5}.
134: In the context of optical telecommunications, an issue of fundamental significance
135: is the development of adequate models for multi-component systems, corresponding
136: to a wavelength-division-multiplexed (WDM) multi-channel scheme implemented
137: in the optical fiber. An objective is then to design a system supporting pulses
138: in all the channels, which must be stable against small perturbations and mutual
139: collisions (see, e.g., books \cite{ref6}, \cite{ref7} and a recent paper \cite{ref8}).
140:
141: A single-channel system, which may suppress the instability of the zero solution,
142: simultaneously allowing for the existence of stationary pulses and thus opening
143: way for them to be stable, was proposed and studied by means of analytical perturbative
144: methods in Ref. \cite{ref9}, and then tested by direct simulations in Ref.
145: \cite{ref10}. In this system, the CGL equation is linearly coupled to an additional
146: dissipative equation, which is a linear one in the most fundamental and physically
147: relevant version of the model \cite{ref10,pla1}. In the context of optical
148: fibers, the system may be realized as a \emph{dual-core} fiber, in which an
149: active core carries the linear gain, filtering, temporal dispersion, and Kerr
150: nonlinearity, while the parallel-coupled core is lossy, its intrinsic nonlinearity,
151: dispersion, and filtering being negligible. It has recently been shown \cite{ref11}
152: that this model may describe transmission of fully stable optical solitary pulses
153: with an internal \emph{chirp} (intrinsic phase structure) in an indefinitely
154: long fiber-optic communication link.
155:
156: In this paper, we study the stability and collisions of chirped solitary pulses
157: in a system of nonlinearly coupled CGL equations stabilized by means of the
158: aforementioned scheme, i.e., by linearly coupling each CGL equation to its own
159: linear dissipative counterpart. In its simplest versions that are considered
160: in this work, the model includes two or three nonlinearly coupled stabilized
161: subsystems, which is a prototype of a \emph{stabilized WDM system}. The most
162: interesting issues, on which we focus in this work, are the stability of SPs
163: in this system and collisions between them (including a simultaneous collision
164: between three pulses belonging to three channels). Besides the obvious relevance
165: to optical telecommunications, the obtained results are of interest in their
166: own right, demonstrating a new type of stable traveling pulses and collisions
167: between them in a generalized (multicomponent) CGL system.
168:
169: The paper is structured as follows. In section 2, we give a detailed formulation
170: of the model with two channels, and exact solutions for SPs in each channel.
171: In section 3, we develop an analytical approach to the collision problem, based
172: on the perturbation theory. In particular, a prediction for position shifts
173: of the pulses in the case of a quasi-elastic collision is obtained in a fully
174: analytical form. In section 4, results of systematic direct simulations of the
175: collisions are displayed for both inelastic and quasi-elastic cases; in the
176: latter case, the analytical predictions are found to be in good agreement with
177: the numerical results (in a parametric region where the perturbation theory
178: applies). In the same section, a region in the model's parametric space is identified,
179: in which the pulses are \emph{fully} stable, i.e., against both small perturbations
180: and mutual collisions. A generalization for a three-channel model is briefly
181: considered in section 5, with a conclusion that the pulses are also stable against
182: simultaneous collision of three of them. The paper is concluded by section 6.
183:
184:
185: \section{The two-channel model and exact solutions for the pulses}
186:
187:
188: \subsection{The model}
189:
190: The simplest version of the model describes the propagation of two waves, \( u \)
191: and \( v \), carried by two different wavelengths in the active core of a dual-core
192: optical fiber. The waves interact through the cross-phase modulation induced
193: by the Kerr effect in the active core. The fields \( u \) and \( v \) are
194: assumed to be linearly coupled to two other fields, \( \phi \) and \( \psi \)
195: respectively, which propagate in the passive core placed parallel to the active
196: one. In fact, it is not necessary to assume that all the long fiber-optic link
197: has a dual-core structure; instead, it is sufficient to have short segments
198: of the dual-core fiber periodically installed into the link. Then, in the same
199: uniformly-distributed approximation which was mentioned above in relation to
200: amplification and filtering, we may consider an \emph{effectively homogeneous}
201: dual-core fiber link. In fact, this approximation was already applied to the
202: single-channel dual-core model in Ref. \cite{ref12}.
203:
204: Thus, the model is based on the following system of normalized equations governing
205: the propagation of the four above-mentioned electromagnetic waves in the two
206: linearly coupled fiber cores: \begin{eqnarray}
207: i\left( u_{z}+cu_{t}\right) +\left( \frac{1}{2}D-i\right) u_{tt}-iu+\left( |u|^{2}+\sigma |v|^{2}\right) u & = & K\phi ,\label{eq1} \\
208: i\left( v_{z}-cv_{t}\right) +\left( \frac{1}{2}D-i\right) v_{tt}-iv+\left( |v|^{2}+\sigma |u|^{2}\right) v & = & K\psi ,\label{eq2} \\
209: i\left( \phi _{z}+\delta \cdot \phi _{t}\right) +i\Gamma \phi & = & Ku,\label{eq3} \\
210: i\left( \psi _{z}-\delta \cdot \psi _{t}\right) +i\Gamma \psi & = & Kv,\label{eq4}
211: \end{eqnarray}
212: where the complex electric field envelopes \( u \), \( v \), \( \phi \),
213: and \( \psi \) are functions of the propagation distance \( z \) and retarded
214: time \( t \) which are defined in the usual way \cite{ref2}. In the active
215: core, which is equipped with the amplification and filtering, the fields \( u \)
216: and \( v \) obey Eqs. (\ref{eq1}) and (\ref{eq2}), that include the nonlinear
217: self-phase modulation, linear gain, and effective filtering (the latter term
218: is formally tantamount to diffusion in the \( t \)-space). Coefficients in
219: front of the terms in Eqs. (\ref{eq1}) and (\ref{eq2}) accounting for these
220: three basic effects are all normalized to be equal to 1. On the other hand,
221: the dispersion coefficient \( D \) is explicitly present in the equations,
222: \( D>0 \) and \( D<0 \) corresponding, respectively, to anomalous and normal
223: dispersion. The field envelopes \( u \) and \( v \) in the active core are
224: nonlinearly coupled to each other, interacting through the cross-phase modulation
225: (XPM) induced by the Kerr effect, which gives rise to the XPM coupling coefficient
226: \( \sigma =2 \) in Eqs. (\ref{eq1}) and (\ref{eq2}). The fields \( u \)
227: and \( v \) are linearly coupled, through the corresponding coefficient \( K \),
228: to their counterparts \( \phi \) and \( \psi \) in the linear dissipative
229: core, which is characterized by a loss coefficient \( \Gamma \). Finally,
230: the parameters \( c \) and \( \delta \) in Eqs. (\ref{eq1})-(\ref{eq4})
231: stand for the inverse-group-velocity differences between the co-propagating
232: waves in the active and passive (lossy) cores.
233:
234: A numerical value of \( c \) (assuming that \( \delta =c \)) will play an
235: important role below. To estimate the value that is of practical interest, we
236: note that the difference in the inverse group velocity is simply related to
237: the frequency separation \( \Delta \omega \) between the channels, \( c=\beta \Delta \omega \),
238: where \( \beta =k^{\prime \prime } \) is the standard physical dispersion coefficient
239: \cite{ref2,ref6}. The frequency difference can be expressed in terms of the
240: wavelength separation \( \Delta \lambda \), \( \Delta \omega =-\left( 2\pi nc_{0}/\lambda ^{2}\right) \Delta \lambda \),
241: where \( \lambda \) is the wavelength proper, \( c_{0} \) is the light velocity
242: in vacuum, and \( n \) is the refractive index. For applications, the case
243: of interest is the one with the pulse's temporal width \( \sim 10 \) ps \cite{ref2,ref6,ref7}
244: and the wavelength separation between \( 1 \) nm and \( 0.1 \) nm \cite{ref7}.
245: Using these values, and typical values of the dimensional parameters for which
246: the present model provides for the best stability of the pulses (see Eqs. (\ref{eq13})
247: and (\ref{eq14}) below), an estimate similar to that presented, e.g., in Ref.
248: \cite{ref13} shows that relevant dimensionless values of \( c \) belong to
249: an interval \begin{equation}
250: \label{20}
251: c\sim 20-200\, .
252: \end{equation}
253: Numerical results will be presented for this region of the values of \( c \)
254: (see Figs. 6 and 7 below).
255:
256:
257: \subsection{The linear spectrum}
258:
259: Before proceeding to the analysis of the full system, it is relevant to consider
260: its linear spectrum in the dissipationless limit, i.e., in the case when the
261: gain, filtering, and loss terms are dropped in Eqs. (\ref{eq1})-(\ref{eq4}).
262: In the linear limit, the two subsystems (\( u,\phi \)) and (\( v,\psi \))
263: are decoupled, and, looking for the solution to the linearized equations in
264: the ordinary form \( \sim \exp \left( ikz-i\omega t\right) \), one arrives
265: at the following dispersion relations between the propagation distance \( k \)
266: and frequency \( \omega \): \begin{equation}
267: \label{q}
268: q=\frac{1}{4D}\left\{ \left( c-\delta \right) ^{2}-D^{2}\xi ^{2}\pm \sqrt{\left[ \left( c-\delta \right) ^{2}-D^{2}\xi ^{2}\right] ^{2}+16D^{2}K^{2}}\right\} ,
269: \end{equation}
270: where \begin{equation}
271: \label{qchi}
272: q\equiv k\mp \delta \cdot \omega ,\, \, \, \, \xi \equiv \omega \pm \left( c-\delta \right) /D,
273: \end{equation}
274: In the definitions (\ref{qchi}) of the shifted propagation constant and frequency,
275: the upper and lower signs pertain, respectively, to the (\( u,\phi \)) and
276: (\( v,\psi \)) subsystems, while in the dispersion relation (\ref{q}) the
277: two different signs yield two different branches of the dispersion curve, see
278: Fig. 1.
279:
280: It follows from Eq. (\ref{q}) that the spectrum shown in Fig. 1 always has
281: a \emph{gap}, \begin{equation}
282: \label{gap}
283: 0<-\, 4Dq<\sqrt{\left( c-\delta \right) ^{4}+16D^{2}K^{2}}-\left( c-\delta \right) ^{2},
284: \end{equation}
285: inside which, following the general principles \cite{Martijn}, one may expect
286: the existence of a family of \textit{gap solitons} (note that the full dissipationless
287: version of the present model, including the nonlinear terms in Eqs. (\ref{eq1})
288: and (\ref{eq2}), is definitely nonintegrable, therefore {}``solitons{}''
289: are meant here simply as solitary waves). However, the objective of this work
290: is not to study that possible family, but to focus on the search for stable
291: pulses in the full model, including the gain, filtering and loss, which is much
292: more relevant to applications.
293:
294:
295: \subsection{Solitary-pulse solutions}
296:
297: If the field is launched into one channel only, the system (\ref{eq1})-(\ref{eq4})
298: reduces to a subsystem of Eqs. (\ref{eq1}) and (\ref{eq3}), or (\ref{eq2})
299: and (\ref{eq4}), each including a CGL equation linearly coupled to its linear
300: dissipative counterpart. If, additionally, there is no difference in the group-velocity
301: mismatch in the active and passive core (i.e., \( c=\delta \)), then, in the
302: reference frame moving with the common group velocity, each subsystem (\ref{eq1}),
303: (\ref{eq3}) or (\ref{eq2}), (\ref{eq4}), decoupled from the other one, possesses
304: its own pair of exact analytical solutions for chirped SPs, which were actually
305: found in Ref. \cite{pla1}. In the reference frame moving with the common inverse
306: velocity \( c=\delta \), the exact solution takes the form
307:
308: \begin{eqnarray}
309: u & = & A\exp (ikz)\left[ \mathrm{sech}(\eta t)\right] ^{1+i\mu },\label{eq5} \\
310: \phi & = & AK(i\Gamma -k)^{-1}\exp (ikz)\left[ \mathrm{sech}(\eta t)\right] ^{1+i\mu },\label{eq6}
311: \end{eqnarray}
312: where the definition of the retarded time \( t \) is adjusted to the above-mentioned
313: moving reference frame, and the chirp coefficient is
314:
315: \begin{equation}
316: \label{eq7}
317: \mu =-\frac{3}{4}D+\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{32+9D^{2}}.
318: \end{equation}
319: The SP's inverse width \( \eta \) and squared amplitude \( A^{2} \) (which
320: is the peak power, in the application to optics) are expressed in terms of the
321: wavenumber \( k \),
322:
323: \begin{eqnarray}
324: \eta ^{2} & = & \frac{2k\left( \Gamma -1\right) }{k\left( D\mu -2\right) +\Gamma \left[ \left( 1-\mu ^{2}\right) D+4\mu \right] },\nonumber \\
325: & & \nonumber \\
326: A^{2} & = & \left( 3+\frac{1}{4}D^{2}\right) \mu \eta ^{2},\label{eq9}
327: \end{eqnarray}
328: and, finally, the wavenumber itself is determined by a cubic equation,
329:
330: \begin{equation}
331: \label{eq10}
332: \left( \mu D-2\right) (k^{2}-1)k+\left( \left( 1-\mu ^{2}\right) D+4\mu \right) \left( k^{2}-\Gamma \left( K^{2}-\Gamma ^{2}\right) \right) =0.
333: \end{equation}
334:
335:
336: Clearly, physical solutions of Eq. (\ref{eq10}) are those which yield a real
337: wavenumber \( k \) and \( \eta ^{2}>0 \). Physical solutions usually exist
338: in pairs, and only the one with a larger value of the peak power may be stable.
339: As it was demonstrated in Refs. \cite{ref10,pla1,ref11}, the SP solution with
340: the larger amplitude is indeed stable in a fairly vast region in the parameter
341: space \( \left( \Gamma ,K,D\right) \). These pulses definitely remain stable
342: in the framework of the full system (\ref{eq1}) - (\ref{eq4}). Indeed, because
343: the two above-mentioned subsystems (\ref{eq1}), (\ref{eq3}) and (\ref{eq2}),
344: (\ref{eq4}) are coupled solely by the nonlinear XPM terms, the only additional
345: stability condition for a pulse belonging to either subsystem is the linear
346: stability of the zero solution in the mate subsystem, which is always the first
347: condition imposed on parameters of the eligible model.
348:
349: Note that the exact SP solution displayed above can be extended to the full
350: system of the four equations (\ref{eq1})-(\ref{eq4}) if the group-velocity
351: differences vanish, i.e., \( c=\delta =0 \) : the expressions (\ref{eq5})-(\ref{eq10})
352: then yield a solution to the system of the four equations after the transformation
353: \( u,v\rightarrow (u,v)/\sqrt{3} \), \( \phi ,\psi \rightarrow (\phi ,\psi )/\sqrt{3} \),
354: and setting \( u=v \) and \( \phi =\psi \).
355:
356: In the most general case, \( c\neq \delta \), no exact solution for SPs is
357: available, but pulses can be found numerically, see below. In any case, pulses
358: generated by the decoupled subsystems (\ref{eq1}), (\ref{eq3}) and (\ref{eq2}),
359: (\ref{eq4}) move at different velocities, hence they may collide. The strong
360: XPM-induced nonlinear coupling between the channels, together with the dissipative
361: character of the system (\ref{eq1})-(\ref{eq4}), may give rise to complex
362: dynamical behavior as a result of the collisions.
363:
364: Our objective in this work is to study in detail collisions between SPs in the
365: system (\ref{eq1})-(\ref{eq4}) and their stability. Note, in particular, that
366: in the case when the inverse-group-velocity differences in the active and passive
367: cores are large and nearly equal, i.e., \( c\approx \delta \gg 1 \), the subsystems
368: (\ref{eq1}), (\ref{eq3}) and (\ref{eq2}), (\ref{eq4}) nearly decouple, therefore
369: quasi-elastic collisions are expected in this case, while at smaller values
370: of the group-velocity mismatch collisions may be strongly inelastic. These expectations
371: are corroborated by numerical simulations which are displayed below.
372:
373:
374: \section{An analytical approach to collisions between solitary pulses}
375:
376:
377: \subsection{The perturbation theory}
378:
379: In the cases of practical interest to fiber-optic telecommunications, the model
380: is far from any exactly integrable limit, therefore only direct numerical simulations
381: of collisions between pulses (and of their stability), results of which will
382: be summarized in the next section, are really relevant. Nevertheless, some qualitative
383: insight into the collision problem can be gained from an analytical approach,
384: assuming that pulses may be approximated as quasi-solitons. Within the framework
385: of such an approach in its most general possible form, each pulse, in its own
386: reference frame (in which an exact solution is given by Eqs. (\ref{eq5}) -
387: (\ref{eq10}), assuming that \( \delta =c \)), is taken as \begin{eqnarray}
388: u & = & A\, f(\eta (t-T))\exp (ikz-i\omega t)\, ,\label{upert} \\
389: \phi & = & \Phi \, g(\eta (t-T))\exp (ikz-i\omega t)\, ,\label{phipert} \\
390: v & = & \, A\, f(\eta (t+T))\exp (ikz+i\omega t),\label{vpert} \\
391: \psi & = & \Phi \, g(\eta (t+T))\exp (ikz+i\omega t).\label{psipert}
392: \end{eqnarray}
393: Here \( f(\eta t) \) and \( g(\eta T) \) are (generally speaking, complex)
394: functions accounting for a particular shape of the unperturbed pulses, \( \eta \)
395: being their inverse temporal width, \( A \) and \( \Phi \) are amplitudes
396: of their two components, and \( \pm \omega \) and \( \pm T \) are shifts
397: of the pulses' central frequencies and temporal positions due to the interaction
398: between them (we consider the interaction between identical pulses, hence the
399: symmetry between the expressions (\ref{upert}), (\ref{phipert}) and (\ref{vpert}),
400: (\ref{psipert})). Each component of the pulse has its own effective mass, for
401: instance, \begin{equation}
402: \label{M}
403: M_{u}=A^{2}\eta ^{-1}\int _{-\infty }^{+\infty }\left| f(x)\right| ^{2}dx,\, \, M_{\phi }=\Phi ^{2}\eta ^{-1}\int _{-\infty }^{+\infty }\left| g(x)\right| ^{2}dx
404: \end{equation}
405: (note that, in the absence of losses and gain, \( M_{u}+M_{\phi } \), as well
406: as \( M_{v}+M_{\psi } \), are the conserved optical energies in each subsystem).
407: For the pulse given by the solution (\ref{eq5}) - (\ref{eq10}), one finds
408: \begin{equation}
409: \label{Mparticular}
410: M_{u}=2\eta ^{-1}A^{2},\, \, M_{\phi }=M_{u}K^{2}/\left( k^{2}+\Gamma ^{2}\right) .
411: \end{equation}
412:
413:
414: The XPM-induced coupling between the two subsystems gives rise to a potential
415: force of attraction between the pulses, which can be calculated by means of
416: well-known methods (see, e.g., Refs. \cite{ref13,ref14}), provided that XPM
417: may be treated as a small perturbation (conditions for applicability of this
418: assumption will be considered below). It is also known that the filtering term
419: in Eqs. (\ref{eq1}) and (\ref{eq2}) gives rise to an effective friction force,
420: which, in the most general case, can be evaluated and combined with the potential
421: force by means of the balance equation for the pulse's momentum (as it was done,
422: for instance, in Refs. \cite{me}). As a result, one arrives at evolution equations
423: for the soliton's position and frequency shifts in the following general form,
424: \begin{eqnarray}
425: \frac{dT}{dz} & = & -D\omega ,\label{T} \\
426: & & \nonumber \\
427: \frac{d\omega }{dz} & = & -\kappa \eta ^{2}\frac{M_{u}}{M_{u}+M_{\phi }}\omega -\frac{A^{4}}{\left( M_{u}+M_{\phi }\right) }U\, ^{\prime }(\eta \left( T+cz\right) )\, ,\label{omega}
428: \end{eqnarray}
429: where the prime stands for the derivative, and the friction coefficient and
430: interaction potential are \begin{eqnarray}
431: \kappa & = & \frac{\int _{-\infty }^{+\infty }\left| df(x)/dx\right| ^{2}dx}{\int _{-\infty }^{+\infty }\left| f(x)\right| ^{2}dx}\, ,\label{kappa} \\
432: & & \nonumber \\
433: U(y) & = & \int _{-\infty }^{+\infty }\left| f(x-y)\right| ^{2}\left| f(x+y)\right| ^{2}dx\, \label{U}
434: \end{eqnarray}
435: (the XPM coefficient \( \sigma \) was set equal to its physical value \( 2 \)).
436: The additional term \( cz \) in the argument of the potential in Eq. (\ref{omega})
437: is generated by the group-velocity difference between the two channels, and
438: the ratio of the masses in the friction term on the right-hand side of Eq. (\ref{omega})
439: appears since the friction force acts only on the \( u \)-component of the
440: pulse, but not on its \( \phi \)-component. Note that these general equations
441: are also valid in the case of dispersion management, when \( D \) is not a
442: constant, but a function of \( z \) \cite{me}.
443:
444: For the pulses with the shape given by Eqs. (\ref{eq5}) - (\ref{eq10}), one
445: can find, from the expressions (\ref{kappa}) and (\ref{U}), that \begin{eqnarray}
446: \kappa & = & \left( 4/3\right) \left( 1+\mu ^{2}\right) ,\, \, \frac{M_{u}}{M_{u}+M_{\phi }}=\frac{1}{1+\displaystyle \frac{K^{2}}{k^{2}+\Gamma ^{2}}},\label{kappaparticular} \\
447: & & \nonumber \\
448: U(y) & = & 4\frac{2y\cosh (2y)-\sinh (2y)}{\sinh ^{3}(2y)}\, \, .\label{Uparticular}
449: \end{eqnarray}
450: It is worthy to mention that the expression (\ref{Uparticular}) contains no
451: singularity at \( y\rightarrow 0 \).
452:
453: To predict results of the collisions in the general case, the nonlinear non-autonomous
454: (\( z \)-dependent) ODEs (ordinary differential equations) (\ref{T}) and (\ref{omega})
455: with the effective potential (\ref{Uparticular}) must be solved numerically.
456: In view of the complexity of this ODE system and its approximate character,
457: it makes sense to focus, instead, on direct simulations of the underlying PDEs
458: (partial differential equations) (\ref{eq1}) - (\ref{eq4}, which will be done
459: below. Nevertheless, some results can be obtained directly from ODEs (\ref{T})
460: and (\ref{omega}). In particular, the most essential effect observed in direct
461: simulations of the underlying PDEs is an inelastic outcome of the collision
462: (merger or complete decay of the pulses), provided that the group-velocity difference
463: \( c \) is below a certain critical (threshold) value \( c_{\mathrm{cr}} \).
464: This value may be, very roughly, estimated as that at which the friction and
465: potential forces in Eq. (\ref{omega}) are comparable, that yields \begin{equation}
466: \label{estimate}
467: c_{\mathrm{cr}}\sim \frac{|D|A^{2}}{\eta \left( 1+\mu ^{2}\right) }\, .
468: \end{equation}
469: To obtain this estimate, it was set that \( M_{u}/\left( M_{u}+M_{\phi }\right) \approx 1 \),
470: which is true in the cases considered below, the expression (\ref{kappaparticular})
471: for the friction coefficient was used, and it was naturally assumed that, for
472: a nontrivial collision, the maximum value of the frequency shift \( \omega \)
473: is on the order of \( Dc \), see Eq. (\ref{T}). Below, it will be seen that
474: the crude estimate (\ref{estimate}) helps to understand the fact that \( c_{\mathrm{cr}} \)
475: is much smaller for the case of normal dispersion than for pulses propagating
476: under anomalous dispersion.
477:
478:
479: \subsection{Collision-induced position shifts of the pulses}
480:
481: The ODEs (\ref{T}) and (\ref{omega}) can be used to obtain \emph{quantitative}
482: results in the limiting case of large \( c \), so that \begin{equation}
483: \label{condition}
484: \left| \frac{dT}{dz}\right| \ll c.
485: \end{equation}
486: In fact, this is the case when the interaction of the pulses due to XPM may
487: be treated as a small perturbation, and all the above approach is strictly valid.
488: In this case, the term \( \eta T \) in the argument of the potential in Eq.
489: (\ref{omega}) may be omitted, hence the equation immediately becomes linear.
490: Upon Substitution of \( \omega =-D^{-1}dT/dz \) from Eq. (\ref{T}) into Eq.
491: (\ref{omega}) and integrating once, it reduces to the following first-order
492: linear equation: \begin{equation}
493: \label{final}
494: \frac{d\left( \eta T\right) }{d\left( c\eta z\right) }+\kappa \frac{\eta }{c}\left( \eta T\right) =\frac{A^{2}D}{2c^{2}}U(c\eta z)
495: \end{equation}
496: (it is more natural to consider, as final dynamical variables, the renormalized
497: temporal shift \( \eta T \) and propagation distance \( c\eta z \)). To obtain
498: Eq. (\ref{final}), it was again assumed that \( M_{u}/\left( M_{u}+M_{\phi }\right) \approx 1 \),
499: which will be the confirmed below, and it was substituted \( M_{u}=2A^{2}/\eta \),
500: as per Eq. (\ref{Mparticular}).
501:
502: Equation (\ref{final}) can be further simplified if, in addition to the condition
503: (\ref{condition}), the group-velocity difference between the channels is large
504: enough in comparison with an effective friction force, so that \begin{equation}
505: \label{condition2}
506: \kappa \eta \ll c.
507: \end{equation}
508: In fact, this condition turns out to be less restrictive than the one (\ref{condition}),
509: see below. Neglecting the friction term, Eq. (\ref{final}) takes the form \begin{equation}
510: \label{simplest}
511: \frac{d\left( \eta T\right) }{d\left( c\eta z\right) }=\frac{A^{2}D}{2c^{2}}U(c\eta z)
512: \end{equation}
513:
514:
515: Equations (\ref{final}) and (\ref{simplest}) show that the collision is elastic
516: in the present case, as the inverse-group-velocity shift \( dT/dz \) is zero
517: at \( z=\pm \infty \), i.e., both before and after the collision. Nevertheless,
518: the result of the collision is not trivial. Indeed, Eq. (\ref{simplest}) can
519: be used to evaluate an important characteristic of the elastic collision, viz.,
520: a residual temporal (position) shift of the pulse, \begin{equation}
521: \label{shift}
522: \eta \Delta T\equiv \eta \left[ T(z=+\infty )-T(z=-\infty )\right] =\frac{A^{2}D}{2c^{2}}\int _{-\infty }^{+\infty }U(x)dx\, .
523: \end{equation}
524: This shift is important as it gives rise to the collision-induced temporal
525: \emph{jitter} of the pulses, see, e.g., Refs. \cite{ref13} and \cite{ref14}.
526: In particular, for the potential (\ref{Uparticular}) one has \( \int _{-\infty }^{+\infty }U(x)dx=2 \),
527: hence \begin{equation}
528: \label{finalshift}
529: \eta \Delta T=A^{2}D/c^{2}\, .
530: \end{equation}
531: This analytical prediction will be compared below with results of direct simulations.
532:
533: To conclude the analytical consideration, we note that the general condition
534: (\ref{condition}) takes a simple form in terms of \( \Delta T \). Indeed,
535: in the present case the characteristic collision distance \( \Delta z \) is
536: determined by the pulse's temporal width \( 1/\eta \), so that \( \Delta z\sim 1/\left( \eta c\right) \),
537: and \( dT/dz \) may then be estimated as \( \Delta T/\Delta z\sim \eta c\Delta T \).
538: Inserting this into Eq. (\ref{condition}), one arrives at a simple result:
539: \begin{equation}
540: \label{smallshift}
541: \eta \left| \Delta T\right| \ll 1,
542: \end{equation}
543: which means that the linear equation (\ref{final}) applies to the description
544: of collisions between pulses if the resulting normalized temporal shift of the
545: pulse is small.
546:
547:
548: \section{Numerical analysis of collisions and stability of pulses}
549:
550:
551: \subsection{The approach to the problem}
552:
553: We have employed the split-step Fourier algorithm to solve Eqs. (\ref{eq1})-(\ref{eq4})
554: numerically, using, as initial conditions, a superposition of separated waveforms
555: (\ref{eq5}) and (\ref{eq6}), which yield exact SP solutions for the two decoupled
556: subsystems (\ref{eq1}), (\ref{eq3}) and (\ref{eq2}), (\ref{eq4}). Thus,
557: the following initial configurations are used:
558:
559: \begin{eqnarray}
560: u\left( 0,t\right) & = & A\left[ \mathrm{sech}\left( \eta \left( t-T\right) \right) \right] ^{1+i\mu },\, \, \, \, \, \, \, \, \, \, \, \, \, \, \, \, \, \, \, \, \, \, v\left( 0,t\right) =A\left[ \mathrm{sech}\left( \eta \left( t+T\right) \right) \right] ^{1+i\mu },\label{eq11} \\
561: & & \nonumber \\
562: \phi \left( 0,t\right) & = & \frac{AK}{i\Gamma -k}\left[ \mathrm{sech}\left( \eta \left( t-T\right) \right) \right] ^{1+i\mu },\, \, \, \, \, \, \, \, \psi \left( 0,t\right) =\frac{AK}{i\Gamma -k}\left[ \mathrm{sech}\left( \eta \left( t+T\right) \right) \right] ^{1+i\mu },\label{eq12}
563: \end{eqnarray}
564: which incorporate an initial temporal separation \( 2T \) between the pulses.
565: We will then be able to study both \textit{incomplete} and \textit{complete}
566: collisions, corresponding to \( T=0 \) and \( T\neq 0 \) respectively (i.e.,
567: collisions between initially overlapped and separated SPs, see, e.g., Refs.
568: \cite{ref13} and \cite{ref14} for the discussion of relative importance of
569: both types of the collisions).
570:
571: As for the choice of parameters, in most cases we have used the values \( \Gamma =5 \)
572: and \( K=4 \), which are located almost in the center of the stability domain
573: of the exact SP solution to the decoupled subsystems (\ref{eq1}), (\ref{eq3})
574: and (\ref{eq2}), (\ref{eq4}) \cite{ref11}. For the dispersion parameter \( D \)
575: we have chosen the values \( D=\pm 18 \), in the anomalous- and normal-dispersion
576: regimes, respectively. These two values of \( D \) actually correspond to the
577: carrier wavelength near the zero-dispersion point in a dispersion-shifted fiber
578: \cite{ref11} (recall that Eqs. (\ref{eq1}) and (\ref{eq2}) are normalized
579: so that the effective filtering coefficients in them are set equal to \( 1 \)).
580: As was shown in Ref. \cite{ref11}, for a typical physically relevant value
581: of the filtering, the corresponding values \( |D| \) are indeed close to \( 18 \).
582: Also, this value of \( D \) gives rise to the best stability characteristics
583: for SPs in the single channel model. Using these values for \( \Gamma \),
584: \( K \), and \( D \), the other parameters of the exact-SP solution can be
585: found from Eqs. (\ref{eq5})-(\ref{eq10}): in the case of anomalous dispersion
586: (\( D=+18 \)),
587:
588: \begin{equation}
589: \label{eq13}
590: \mu =0.074,\, \, \, \, \, \, \eta =1.57,\, \, \, \, \, \, k=23.35,\, \, \, \, \, \, A^{2}=44.56,
591: \end{equation}
592: and for the normal dispersion (\( D=-18 \)),
593:
594: \begin{equation}
595: \label{eq14}
596: \mu =27.074,\, \, \, \, \, \, \eta =0.058,\, \, \, \, \, \, k=23.35,\, \, \, \, \, \, A^{2}=22.37.
597: \end{equation}
598: In the anomalous-dispersion regime, the pulses are much narrower, and (quite
599: naturally) have a much smaller chirp than their counterparts existing in the
600: case of the normal dispersion. Note that, for these values of the parameters,
601: \( M_{\phi }\approx 0.028\cdot M_{u} \) according to Eqs. (\ref{Mparticular}),
602: i.e., the mass of the passive-core component of the pulse is negligible in comparison
603: with its active-core component's mass.
604:
605: Our first objective is to study in detail all possible outcomes of collisions
606: of stable moving pulses. In the numerical simulations we have found that, depending
607: on the value of the inverse group-velocity mismatch \( c \) in the active core,
608: three different outcomes of the collisions occur: (a) both SPs perish ({}``decay{}'');
609: (b) only one SP survives the collision, while the other one is destroyed (this
610: outcome may also be considered as a merger of two pulses into one); (c) the
611: pulses undergo a quasi-elastic collision, so that both reappear unscathed after
612: the collision.
613:
614: Formation of a true stable bound state of two solitons as a result of the collision
615: has never been observed in the simulations. However, it will be shown below
616: that, in some special cases (see Fig. 5(a)), a metastable bound state is observed,
617: which exists over a very long propagation distance, but finally collapses into
618: a single pulse.
619:
620: As far as the above-mentioned outcomes (a) and (b) are concerned, it is important
621: to mention that, in most cases (apart from the exception corresponding to the
622: formation of the metastable bound state, which will be specially considered
623: below), we have found that the corresponding collision distances are quite short,
624: \( z_{\mathrm{coll}}\lesssim 60 \). Thus, in these cases, after passing the
625: short collision distance, there remains, at most, one pulse. Obviously, the
626: only outcome acceptable for applications to the optical telecommunications is
627: a quasi-elastic collision, when both SPs restore their shapes after the interaction.
628:
629: Detailed results obtained for the incomplete and complete collisions in both
630: normal- and anomalous-dispersion regimes, as well as results for the stability
631: of isolated moving pulses, are summarized below. In all the simulations, the
632: XPM coupling coefficient in Eqs. (\ref{eq1}) and (\ref{eq2}) was set equal
633: to its physical value, \( \sigma =2 \).
634:
635:
636: \subsection{Incomplete Collisions}
637:
638: The results for incomplete collisions (\( T=0 \) in Eqs. (\ref{eq11}) and
639: (\ref{eq12})) in the case \( c=\delta \) are summarized in Table 1, where
640: the three above-mentioned possible outcomes, namely {}``Decay{}'', {}``Merger{}''
641: and {}``Elastic{}'', are indicated. As is shown, for both the normal- and
642: anomalous-dispersion regimes, there exists a critical (i.e., minimum) value
643: \( c_{\mathrm{cr}} \) of the velocity \( c \), above which the collision is
644: always elastic. More importantly, the value of \( c_{\mathrm{cr}} \) in the
645: case of the normal dispersion is much smaller, by a factor \( \approx 5 \),
646: than that for the anomalous-dispersion regime. As the smaller critical velocity
647: difference between the channels makes it possible to have a \emph{denser} WDM
648: system, this result shows that the normal-dispersion regime may have an advantage
649: over the more traditional, from the viewpoint of the soliton transmission \cite{ref2},
650: anomalous-dispersion regime. On the other hand, an advantage of the latter regime
651: is that, inside a given channel, the pulses forming a data-carrying stream may
652: be packed with a higher density, as their width is much smaller according to
653: Eqs. (\ref{eq13}) and (\ref{eq14}). In fact, the best approach to the enhancement
654: of the bit-rate of the fiber-optic telecommunication link is to use the channels
655: in \emph{both} the anomalous- and normal-dispersion bands.
656:
657: The fact that the critical value \( c_{\mathrm{cr}} \) is much smaller in the
658: normal-dispersion regime can be explained by the crude estimate (\ref{estimate})
659: obtained above on the basis of the analytical consideration. Indeed, the ratio
660: of the values which the expression (\ref{estimate}) takes for the parameters
661: (\ref{eq13}) and (\ref{eq14}) corresponding to the anomalous and normal regimes
662: is very small (however, the estimate is too crude for a detailed quantitative
663: comparison with the numerical results).
664:
665: Typical examples of the three different outcomes of the incomplete collisions
666: are shown in Figs. 2(a)-(c) (for \( D=-18 \)) and Figs. 3(a)-2(c) (for \( D=+18 \))
667: in the form of contour plots. As is readily observed, SPs in the normal-dispersion
668: regime are indeed much broader than those in the case of the anomalous dispersion,
669: in accordance with what is predicted by the analytical solution, see Eqs. (\ref{eq13})-(\ref{eq14}).
670: In order to test the sensitivity of \( c_{\mathrm{cr}} \) to a possible mismatch
671: of the interchannel inverse-group-velocity differences \( \delta \) and \( c \)
672: between the two cores, we have also simulated incomplete collisions in the case
673: \( \delta \neq c \), viz., \( \delta =1.1c \) and \( \delta =2c \). The results
674: are summarized in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. It is found that, in both normal-
675: and anomalous-dispersion regimes, a mismatch in the values of the inverse-group-velocity
676: differences in the active and passive cores results in an \emph{increase} of
677: the critical value \( c_{\mathrm{cr}} \), which was again found to be much
678: larger in the case of the anomalous dispersion. As was mentioned above, for
679: the applications it is necessary to make the critical value \( c_{\mathrm{cr}} \)
680: as small as possible. The results presented here clearly show that the optimum
681: will be attained when \( \delta =c \), i.e., when the group-velocity differences
682: between the channels are the same in the active and passive cores, which is
683: not difficult to understand in qualitative terms. Indeed, a group-velocity mismatch
684: between the two cores makes it necessary for the main component (in the active
685: core) to {}``drag{}'' its counterpart in the passive core, which inevitably
686: generates additional losses through the filtering term, thus enhancing inelasticity
687: of collisions between the pulses, cf. the perturbative treatment of the collision
688: in the previous section.
689:
690:
691: \subsection{Complete Collisions}
692:
693:
694: \subsubsection{Inelastic and elastic collisions}
695:
696: The results of the simulations for complete collisions (i.e., for a case of
697: a sufficiently large initial separation between the colliding pulses) in the
698: case \( \delta =c \) are summarized in Table 4. In the simulations, the initial
699: temporal separation between the solitons is taken to be equal, approximately,
700: to five pulse widths, i.e., \( \eta T=2.34 \) (see Eqs. (\ref{eq5}) and (\ref{eq6})).
701: According to Eqs. (\ref{eq13}) and (\ref{eq14}), this choice implies \( T=40 \)
702: and \( T=1.5 \), in the regions of normal and anomalous dispersion, respectively.
703:
704: The results shown in Table 4 suggest that, contrary to the case of incomplete
705: collisions, in the normal-dispersion regime the three outcomes, {}``decay{}'',
706: {}``merger{}'' and {}``elastic{}'', alternate with the increase of \( c \),
707: up to the threshold value \( c_{\mathrm{cr}}=13.92 \), past which only elastic
708: collisions take place. Notice, in particular, a small interval, \( 7.85\leq c<8.09 \),
709: where the pulses undergo elastic collisions, which is found \emph{between} the
710: regions where at least one pulse disappears after the collisions. Typical examples
711: of the {}``merger{}'', {}``decay{}'' and {}``elastic{}'' outcomes for
712: \( D=-18 \) are shown in Figs. 4(a) through 4(c). Notice that the collision
713: distance in all the cases does not exceed \( z\sim 5 \).
714:
715: On the other hand, in the anomalous dispersion regime, outcomes of complete
716: collisions resemble what was observed in the case of the incomplete collisions:
717: there are only three, relatively broad intervals of \( c \), where the outcomes
718: are {}``merger{}'', {}``decay{}'' and {}``elastic{}'', with a value of
719: \( c_{\mathrm{cr}} \) slightly smaller than that in the normal-dispersion regime.
720: However, in the case of \( D=+18 \) it is important to note that, in the {}``merger{}''
721: interval (\( 0\leq c<3.33 \)), the pulses demonstrate a behavior which is remarkably
722: different from that observed in the case of the {}``decay{}'' or {}``merger{}''
723: outcomes of incomplete or complete collisions in all the other cases. In this
724: interval, the pulses stick together and propagate in such a quasi-bound state
725: over a long distance (up to \( z\, \sim 3000 \)), after which one of the pulses
726: eventually decays. This behavior is demonstrated in Fig. 5(a) for \( c=2 \),
727: where the colliding SPs form the locked configuration immediately (see the inset
728: in Fig. 5(a)), and then they propagate, keeping this configuration, up to \( z\sim 3000 \),
729: where the merger eventually takes place through the destruction of one of the
730: pulses. Examples of other outcomes of the collision, namely, decay of both pulses
731: and their elastic collision, are shown in Figs. 5(b) and 5(c), respectively,
732: with the collision distance being very small, \( z\sim 0.1 \).
733:
734:
735: \subsubsection{Position shifts of the pulses in the case of elastic collisions}
736:
737: A significant post-collision effect, in the case of the complete elastic collisions
738: between the SPs, is a temporal shift \( \Delta T \). The shift is apparent,
739: for instance, in Figs. 4(c) and 5(c). We have performed simulations to obtain
740: the normalized temporal shift \( \eta \Delta T \) as a function of the inverse-group-velocity
741: difference \( c=\delta \), for different initial separations between SPs.
742: The results are shown in Fig. 6 (for \( D=-18 \)) and Fig. 7 (for \( D=+18 \));
743: note that these figures display the region of the values of \( c \) which is
744: relevant to the applications, according to the estimate (\ref{20}). Each curve
745: starts from the maximum value of the temporal shift corresponding to the critical
746: value \( c=c_{\mathrm{cr}} \). As is seen, the smallest value of the temporal
747: shift is attained in the case of the normal dispersion. Also, it is observed
748: that a larger initial separation \( \eta T \) leads to smaller values of the
749: temporal shift in the case of the normal dispersion, while the opposite holds
750: in the anomalous-dispersion case.
751:
752: It is quite relevant to compare the numerical results displayed in Figs. 6 and
753: 7 with the analytical prediction (\ref{finalshift}), which should be relevant
754: under the conditions (\ref{smallshift}) and (\ref{condition2}). First of all,
755: the substitution of the expression (\ref{finalshift}) into the condition (\ref{smallshift})
756: leads to an inequality \( c^{2}\gg A^{2}|D| \). The values of the parameters
757: being taken as per Eqs. (\ref{eq13}) and (\ref{eq14}), we conclude that this
758: inequality holds in the parts of Figs. 6 and 7 where irregular oscillations
759: go over into a systematic decay of \( \eta \Delta T \) with the increase of
760: \( c \).
761:
762: Next, using the expression (\ref{kappaparticular}) for the effective friction
763: coefficient which appears in the second condition (\ref{condition2}), and the
764: same values of the parameters from Eqs. (\ref{eq13}) and (\ref{eq14}), one
765: sees that this condition readily holds in the case of the anomalous dispersion,
766: shown in Fig. 7, and in the case of normal dispersion (Fig. 6) it holds for
767: large values of \( c \), where the above-mentioned systematic decay of \( \eta \Delta T \)
768: takes place.
769:
770: Thus, one may expect that the analytical result (\ref{finalshift}) may be correct
771: for sufficiently large values of \( c \) in both cases. The inspection of Figs.
772: 6 and 7 corroborates this expectation: despite a considerable scatter of the
773: values of the normalized shift, depending on the initial value of the temporal
774: separation between the pulses, the analytically predicted dependence (\ref{finalshift})
775: not only qualitatively agrees with the numerical results for large \( c \),
776: but also, as one can readily check, numerical values of the shift, as predicted
777: analytically and found from the simulations, are fairly close.
778:
779:
780: \subsection{The full-stability region for the solitary pulses}
781:
782: The results presented above were restricted to the fixed values of the loss
783: and coupling coefficients, \( \Gamma =5 \) and \( K=4 \). It is also important
784: to investigate pulse collisions in the full parameter space (\( \Gamma ,K,c \))
785: , and, in particular, to identify parametric domains where solely elastic complete
786: collisions occur. These domains actually represent regions of the \emph{full
787: stability} of SPs in the system of Eqs. (\ref{eq1})-(\ref{eq4}), since collisions
788: are natural finite perturbations in this model, against which the pulses must
789: be stable, as well as against infinitesimal perturbations (in this extended
790: definition of the stability, we take into regard only complete collisions, which
791: are inherent perturbations, and disregard incomplete collisions, that strongly
792: depend upon particular initial conditions).
793:
794: The thus defined full-stability domains, found by means of systematic simulations,
795: are displayed in Figs. 8 and 9 for the cases of the normal and anomalous dispersion,
796: respectively, as gray regions in the (\( \Gamma ,K \)) parametric plane for
797: different values of the group-velocity parameter within \( 0\leq c\leq 10 \).
798: Notice that the domains have, roughly speaking, a boomerang-like shape, resembling
799: the corresponding domain found earlier in the single-channel stabilized CGL
800: model, described by the decoupled subsystems (\ref{eq1}), (\ref{eq3}) or (\ref{eq2}),
801: (\ref{eq4}) \cite{ref11}. More importantly, in both cases \( D=\pm 18 \),
802: there exists a minimum value of \( c \) necessary for the collisions to be
803: elastic, which is significantly lower in the case of the anomalous dispersion,
804: namely \( c_{\mathrm{min}}=2 \) for \( D=+18 \), and \( c_{\mathrm{min}}=6 \)
805: for \( D=-18 \). It should also be noted that the unshaded triangular region
806: shown in Fig. 9 corresponds to the case where the two pulses co-propagate undistorted
807: without actual interaction over a very long distance (\( z\approx 4000 \)).
808:
809:
810: \section{The three-channel model}
811:
812: The model considered in this work can be extended to explicitly include a larger
813: number of WDM channels, i.e., a larger number of the CGL equations, each being
814: coupled to its linear dissipative counterpart. The simplest generalization contains
815: three channels, which are described by the following system of the coupled CGL
816: equations: \begin{eqnarray}
817: i\left( u_{z}+2cu_{t}\right) +\left( \frac{1}{2}D-i\right) u_{tt}-iu+\left( |u|^{2}+2|v|^{2}+2|w|^{2}\right) u & = & K\phi ,\label{eq15} \\
818: iw_{z}+\left( \frac{1}{2}D-i\right) w_{tt}-iw+\left( |w|^{2}+2|u|^{2}+2|v|^{2}\right) w & = & K\chi ,\label{eq16} \\
819: i\left( v_{z}-2cv_{t}\right) +\left( \frac{1}{2}D-i\right) v_{tt}-iv+\left( |v|^{2}+2|u|^{2}+2|w|^{2}\right) v & = & K\psi ,\label{eq17} \\
820: i\left( \phi _{z}+2c\phi _{t}\right) +i\Gamma \phi & = & Ku,\label{eq18} \\
821: i\chi _{z}+i\Gamma \chi & = & Kw,\label{eq19} \\
822: i\left( \psi _{z}-2c\psi _{t}\right) +i\Gamma \psi & = & Kv,\label{eq20}
823: \end{eqnarray}
824: where we have assumed that each channel has the same group velocity in the
825: active and passive cores, while the relative velocity between adjacent channels
826: is \( 2c \), as in the above model (\ref{eq1})-(\ref{eq4}). Although detailed
827: study of the extended model is beyond the scope of this work, we give here an
828: example of the existence of \emph{fully stable} pulses in the system (\ref{eq15})-(\ref{eq20}),
829: which undergo elastic complete collisions with each other. As is shown in Fig.
830: 10 (for \( \Gamma =5 \), \( K=4 \), \( c=20 \), and \( \eta T=2.34 \)),
831: the three pulses after traveling a distance of \( z\approx 1 \) collide and
832: then restore their shapes and propagate undistorted. Thus, we may conjecture
833: that the proposed stabilized scheme may be generalized to include a larger number
834: of channels in which case stable pulses may still experience elastic collisions.
835:
836:
837: \section{Conclusion}
838:
839: In this paper we have studied in detail collisions of chirped solitary pulses
840: in nonlinearly coupled cubic Ginzburg-Landau (CGL) equations, each being linked
841: to a stabilizing dissipative linear equation. Primarily, the two-channel model
842: was considered. The model may be realized as wavelength-separated data-transmission
843: channels co-existing in a nonlinear dual-core optical fiber, which contains
844: an active core with gain, and a passive core, where the propagation is governed
845: by the linear dissipative equations. Each channel has its components in the
846: active and passive cores, with a linear coupling between them. Nonlinear interaction
847: between different channels is induced by the cross-phase modulation (XPM), which
848: acts in the active core only. Thus, the model describes a WDM multi-channel
849: fiber-optic transmission system, provided that the dispersion length of the
850: pulses is essentially larger than the amplification and filtering spacing, so
851: that the system may be considered in the approximation which assumes a uniformly
852: distributed bandwidth-limited gain in the active core (and a continuous passive
853: core, which, in reality, may consist of short segments periodically inserted
854: into the long fiber-optic link, together with amplifiers and filters).
855:
856: If the CGL subsystems are decoupled, they possess stable chirped pulse solutions,
857: which can be found in an exact analytical form, provided that the group-velocity
858: parameter is identical in the cubic and linear equations. The XPM-induced nonlinear
859: coupling between the subsystems gives rise to interactions when the pulses belonging
860: to the different subsystems collide. By means of direct simulations, we have
861: studied incomplete and complete collisions in detail. Three different possible
862: outcomes of the collision have been found, in the cases when the dispersion
863: in the active core is anomalous or normal: destruction of both pulses, destruction
864: of one of them, and a quasi-elastic collision. In the latter case, both pulses
865: reappear unscathed after the collision (with some positional shifts), provided
866: that the group-velocity difference between the channels exceeds a critical value.
867: As a result, regions in the model's parameter space have been identified where
868: the pulses are stable against both small perturbations and mutual (complete)
869: collisions. An analytical perturbation theory was developed to predict the positional
870: shifts. The analytical results agree well with the numerical ones in the cases
871: when applicability conditions for the perturbation theory hold.
872:
873: For WDM applications, it is important not only to guarantee the quasi-elastic
874: character of the collisions between pulses belonging to different channels,
875: but also to have the critical group-velocity difference between adjacent channels,
876: necessary for the elasticity of the collisions, as small as possible, so that
877: the wavelength separation between the channels may be minimized. To this end,
878: we have found that, in the case of incomplete collisions, the normal-dispersion
879: regime provides an essentially smaller critical velocity, whereas in the case
880: of complete collisions, the critical velocities are almost equal for both signs
881: of the dispersion. However, the region in the parameter space where complete
882: collisions are always elastic is essentially larger in the case of anomalous
883: dispersion, and another advantage of the latter case is that the temporal width
884: of the pulses is much smaller. On the other hand, the residual effect of elastic
885: collisions, viz., the temporal shift of the pulses, which contributes to the
886: soliton jitter in optical communications, is weakest in the case of normal dispersion.
887: Actually, the best solution may be to use the channels in \emph{both} normal-dispersion
888: and anomalous-dispersion bands in the fiber. Finally, we have shown that the
889: model may be extended to include more than two WDM channels, giving rise, in
890: an appropriate region of the corresponding parameter space, to completely stable,
891: three-pulse collisions being quasi-elastic.
892:
893: \newpage
894:
895: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
896: \bibitem{ref1}M.C. Cross and P.C. Hohenberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. \textbf{65,} 851 (1993).
897: \bibitem{ref2}A. Hasegawa and Y. Kodama, Solitons in Optical Communications (Oxford University
898: Press, Oxford 1995).
899: \bibitem{ref3}L.M. Hocking and K. Stewartson, Proc. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A \textbf{326,}
900: 289 (1972); N.R. Pereira and L. Stenflo, Phys. Fluids \textbf{20,} 1733 (1977).
901: \bibitem{ref4}J.I. Silva, R. Holz, and A.S. Sombra, Canad. J. Phys. \textbf{77,} 481-490 (1999).
902: \bibitem{ref5}L.E. Nelson, D.J. Jones, K. Tamura, H.A. Haus, E.P. Ippen, Appl. Phys. B: Lasers
903: Opt. \textbf{65,} 277 (1997).
904: \bibitem{ref6}G.P. Agrawal, \textit{Fiber-Optic Communication Systems} (A Wiley Interscience
905: Publication: New York, 1997).
906: \bibitem{ref7}E. Iannone, F. Matera, A. Mecozzi, and M. Settembre. \textit{Nonlinear Optical
907: Communi}\( c \)\textit{ation Networks} (A Wiley-Interscience Publication: New
908: York, 1998).
909: \bibitem{ref8}M. Kowalewski, M. Marciniak, and A. Sedlin, J. Opt. A: Pure Appl. Opt. \textbf{2,}
910: 319 (2000).
911: \bibitem{ref9}B.A. Malomed and H.G. Winful, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{53,} 5365 (1996).
912: \bibitem{ref10}J. Atai and B.A. Malomed, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{54,} 4371 (1996).
913: \bibitem{pla1}J. Atai and B.A. Malomed, Phys. Lett. A \textbf{246,} 412 (1998).
914: \bibitem{ref11}E. Efremidis, K. Hizanidis, B.A. Malomed, H.E. Nistazakis and D.J. Frantzeskakis,
915: J. Opt. Soc. Am. B \textbf{17,} 952 (2000); see also Phys. Scripta \textbf{T84,}
916: 18 (2000).
917: \bibitem{Martijn}C.M. de Sterke and J.E. Sipe, Progr. Optics \textbf{33}, 203 (1994).
918: \bibitem{ref12}J. Atai and B.A. Malomed, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B \textbf{17,} 1134 (2000).
919: \bibitem{ref13}D.J. Kaup, B.A. Malomed, and J. Yang, Opt. Lett. \textbf{23,} 1600 (1998).
920: \bibitem{ref14}M.J. Ablowitz, G. Biondini, and E.S. Olson, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B \textbf{18,}
921: 577 (2001).
922: \bibitem{me}B.A. Malomed, Opt. Commun. \textbf{147}, 157 (1998); Opt. Lett. \textbf{23},
923: 1250 (1998).
924: \end{thebibliography}
925: \newpage
926:
927: {\par\centering \textbf{Figure Captions} \par}
928:
929: \vspace{1cm}
930:
931: Figure 1. A typical form of the dispersion curves \( q(\chi ) \) (the shifted
932: propagation constant and frequency are defined in Eqs. (\ref{qchi})) for the
933: linearized system in the dissipationless approximation. The curves are shown
934: for \( D=+18 \) (the case of the anomalous dispersion) and \( c=\delta \).
935: For normal dispersion (\( D=-18 \)), the dispersion curves are mirror images
936: of those shown in this figure.\\
937:
938:
939: Figure 2. Incomplete collisions of two pulses in the normal-dispersion regime
940: (\( D=-18 \)). (a) Decay of both pulses, with \( c=\delta =6 \). (b) Merger
941: of the pulses, with \( c=\delta =9 \). (c) An elastic collision, with \( c=\delta =14 \).
942: \\
943:
944:
945: Figure 3. Incomplete collisions of two pulses in the anomalous-dispersion regime
946: (\( D=+18 \)). (a) Decay of both pulses, with \( c=\delta =40 \). (b) Merger
947: of the pulses, with \( c=\delta =2 \). (c) An elastic collision , with \( c=\delta =48 \).\\
948:
949:
950: Figure 4. Complete collisions of two pulses in the normal-dispersion regime
951: (\( D=-18 \)). (a) Merger of the pulses, with \( c=\delta =10 \). (b) Decay
952: of both pulses, with \( c=\delta =13 \). (c) An elastic collision, with \( c=\delta =14 \).\\
953:
954:
955: Figure 5. Complete collisions of two pulses in the anomalous-dispersion regime
956: (\( D=+18 \)). (a) The merger, with \( c=\delta =2 \). The two pulses get
957: stuck almost immediately (see the inset showing the initial stage of the collision
958: in detail), and then they propagate, keeping this shape up to \( z\approx 3000 \),
959: where the merger (in fact, destruction of one of the pulses) eventually takes
960: place. (b) Decay of both pulses, with \( c=\delta =5 \). (c) An elastic collision,
961: with \( c=\delta =48 \).\\
962:
963:
964: Figure 6. Relative temporal shift vs. the inverse-group-velocity mismatch \( c=\delta \)
965: in the case of normal dispersion (\( D=-18 \)).\\
966:
967:
968: Figure 7. Relative temporal shift vs. the inverse-group-velocity mismatch \( c=\delta \)
969: in the case of anomalous dispersion (\( D=+18 \)).\\
970:
971:
972: Figure 8. The full-stability region (implying the stability of the solitary
973: pulses against both arbitrary infinitesimal perturbations, and against collisions
974: with a pulse moving in the other channel) in the \( \left( K,\Gamma \right) \)
975: parametric plane, at different fixed values of the inverse-group-velocity difference
976: between the channels, in the case of normal dispersion (\( D=-18 \)).\\
977:
978:
979: Figure 9. The same as in Fig. 8 for the case of anomalous dispersion (\( D=+18 \)).\\
980:
981:
982: Figure 10. An elastic complete collision between \emph{three} solitary pulses
983: in the three-channel model, in the case of normal dispersion (\( D=-18 \)),
984: with \( c=\delta =20 \) and \( \eta T=2.34 \).
985:
986: \newpage
987:
988: {\par\centering \textbf{Table Captions} \par}
989:
990: \vspace{1cm}
991:
992: Table 1. Outcomes of incomplete collisions for \( \delta =c \).\\
993:
994:
995: Table 2. Outcomes of incomplete collisions for \( \delta =1.1c \).\\
996:
997:
998: Table 3. Outcomes of incomplete collisions for \( \delta =2c \).\\
999:
1000:
1001: Table 4. Outcomes of complete collisions for \( \delta =c \) and \( \eta T=4.7 \).
1002:
1003:
1004: \newpage
1005:
1006: {\centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
1007: \hline
1008: \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{\textbf{Incomplete Collisions (\( {\delta =c} \))}}\\
1009: \hline
1010: \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{\textbf{Normal Dispersion (\( {D=-18} \))}}&
1011: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{Anomalous Dispersion (\( {D=+18} \))}}\\
1012: \hline
1013: \textbf{Velocity}&
1014: \textbf{Outcome}&
1015: \textbf{Velocity}&
1016: \textbf{Outcome}\\
1017: \hline
1018: \( c<8.35 \)&
1019: Decay &
1020: \( c<3.52 \)&
1021: Merger \\
1022: \hline
1023: \( 8.35\leq c<9.53 \)&
1024: Merger &
1025: \( 3.52\leq c<46.98 \)&
1026: Decay \\
1027: \hline
1028: \( c>9.53 \)&
1029: Elastic &
1030: \( c\geq 46.98 \)&
1031: Elastic \\
1032: \hline
1033: \end{tabular}\par}
1034:
1035: \vspace{1cm}
1036:
1037: {\par\centering Table 1. Nistazakis, Physical Review E\par}
1038:
1039: \newpage
1040:
1041: {\centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
1042: \hline
1043: \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{\textbf{Incomplete Collisions (\( {\delta =1.1c} \))}}\\
1044: \hline
1045: \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{\textbf{Normal Dispersion (\( {D=-18} \))}}&
1046: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{Anomalous Dispersion (\( {D=+18} \))}}\\
1047: \hline
1048: \textbf{Velocity}&
1049: \textbf{Outcome}&
1050: \textbf{Velocity}&
1051: \textbf{Outcome}\\
1052: \hline
1053: \( c<9.88 \)&
1054: Decay &
1055: \( c<2.42 \)&
1056: Merger \\
1057: \hline
1058: \( 9.88\leq c<10.87 \)&
1059: Merger &
1060: \( 2.42\leq c<59.29 \)&
1061: Decay \\
1062: \hline
1063: \( 10.87\leq c<14.17 \)&
1064: Decay &
1065: \( c\geq 59.29 \)&
1066: Elastic \\
1067: \hline
1068: \( c\geq 14.17 \)&
1069: Elastic &
1070: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{ }\\
1071: \hline
1072: \end{tabular}\par}
1073:
1074: \vspace{1cm}
1075:
1076: {\par\centering Table 2. Nistazakis, Physical Review E\par}
1077:
1078: \newpage
1079:
1080: {\centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
1081: \hline
1082: \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{\textbf{Incomplete Collisions (\( {\delta =2c} \))}}\\
1083: \hline
1084: \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{\textbf{Normal Dispersion (\( {D=-18} \))}}&
1085: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{Anomalous Dispersion (\( {D=+18} \))}}\\
1086: \hline
1087: \textbf{Velocity}&
1088: \textbf{Outcome}&
1089: \textbf{Velocity}&
1090: \textbf{Outcome}\\
1091: \hline
1092: \( c<14.26 \)&
1093: Decay &
1094: \( c<1.73 \)&
1095: Merger \\
1096: \hline
1097: \( c\geq 14.26 \)&
1098: Elastic &
1099: \( 1.73\leq c<122.17 \)&
1100: Decay \\
1101: \hline
1102: \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{}&
1103: \( c\geq 122.17 \)&
1104: Elastic \\
1105: \hline
1106: \end{tabular}\par}
1107:
1108: \vspace{1cm}
1109:
1110: {\par\centering Table 3. Nistazakis, Physical Review E\par}
1111:
1112: \newpage
1113:
1114: \vspace{0.3cm}
1115:
1116: {\centering \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
1117: \hline
1118: \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{\textbf{Complete Collisions (\( {\delta =c\, \, \, and\, \, \, \eta T=4.7} \))}}\\
1119: \hline
1120: \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{\textbf{Normal Dispersion (\( {D=-18} \))}}&
1121: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\textbf{Anomalous Dispersion (\( {D=+18} \))}}\\
1122: \hline
1123: \textbf{Velocity}&
1124: \textbf{Outcome}&
1125: \textbf{Velocity}&
1126: \textbf{Outcome}\\
1127: \hline
1128: \( c<1.88 \)&
1129: Decay &
1130: \( c<3.33 \)&
1131: Merger \\
1132: \hline
1133: \( 1.88\leq c<2.56 \)&
1134: Merger &
1135: \( 3.33\leq c<12.82 \)&
1136: Decay \\
1137: \hline
1138: \( 2.56\leq c<7.85 \)&
1139: Decay &
1140: \( c\geq 12.82 \)&
1141: Elastic \\
1142: \hline
1143: \( 7.85\leq c<8.09 \)&
1144: Elastic &
1145: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{}\\
1146: \hline
1147: \( 8.09\leq c<11.71 \)&
1148: Merger &
1149: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{}\\
1150: \hline
1151: \( 11.71\leq c<13.92 \)&
1152: Decay &
1153: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{}\\
1154: \hline
1155: \( c\geq 13.92 \)&
1156: Elastic &
1157: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{ }\\
1158: \hline
1159: \end{tabular}\par}
1160:
1161: \vspace{0.3cm}
1162:
1163: \vspace{1cm}
1164:
1165: {\par\centering Table 4. Nistazakis, Physical Review E\par}
1166: \end{document}
1167: