1:
2: \documentclass{article}
3:
4: \begin{document}
5:
6: \begin{center}
7: {\Large Solitons in a Three-Wave System with Intrinsic Linear Mixing and
8: Walkoff}
9:
10: \bigskip
11:
12: Arkady Kaplan$^{1}$ and Boris A. Malomed$^{2}$
13: \end{center}
14:
15: \bigskip
16:
17: $^{1}$CeLight Inc., 12200 Tech Road, Silver Spring, MD 20904, USA
18:
19: $^{2}$Department of Interdisciplinary Studies, Faculty of Engineering, Tel
20: Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel
21:
22: \bigskip
23:
24: \begin{center}
25: {\large Abstract}
26: \end{center}
27:
28: \bigskip
29:
30: A modification of the usual Type-II second-harmonic-generation model is
31: proposed, which includes two additional features: linear conversion and
32: walkoff (group-velocity difference) between two components of the
33: fundamental-frequency (FF) wave. Physical interpretations of the model are
34: possible in both temporal and spatial domains. In the absence of the
35: intrinsic walkoff, the linear mixing makes real soliton solutions stable or
36: unstable, depending on the relative sign of the two FF components. Unstable
37: solitons spontaneously re-arrange themselves into stable ones. Fundamental
38: solitons change their shape (in particular, they develop chirp) but remain
39: stable if the intrinsic walkoff is included. In addition, quasi-stable
40: double-humped solitary waves are found in the latter case.
41:
42: \newpage
43:
44: \section{Introduction and formulation of the model}
45:
46: Spatial and temporal solitons in various models with quadratic ($\chi ^{(2)}$)
47: ) nonlinearity, including the second-harmonic-generating (SHG) and more
48: general three-wave (3W) systems, have attracted a lot of attention, see
49: reviews \cite{Torner,Jena,Aussie} and a special volume \cite{Boardman}. The
50: simplest (degenerate) SHG model involves only two waves, the
51: fundamental-frequency (FF) one and its second harmonic (SH). In a general
52: situation, one is dealing with a 3W system, that involves two ``daughter''
53: waves and a pump; it is known that the 3W system also gives rise to soliton
54: solutions \cite{3W}. A case of great practical interest is a more special
55: version of the 3W system, known as the Type-II SHG model, in which both
56: ``daughters'' represent two polarizations of the FF wave, while SH has a
57: single polarization. The latter model corresponds to the most typical
58: experimental conditions \cite{Torner}, and its three-component soliton
59: solutions (also called vectorial solitons) were studied in detail \cite
60: {vector,Peschel,Dawn,Jena}.
61:
62: Various modifications of the Type-II system were introduced, and the soliton
63: solutions in them were studied [see, e.g., Refs. \cite{modified}]. These
64: modifications were focused on adding extra quadratic terms to the model's
65: equations. Another possibility which has not yet been considered, except for
66: Ref. \cite{Mak} (see below), is to introduce linear coupling (mixing)
67: between the two FF components. The simplest physical realization of this
68: possibility may be found in terms of the Type-II SHG process in a fiber-like
69: birefringent waveguide, which is subjected to a twist that mixes the two FF
70: polarizations. Note that twist-induced linear mixing between two linear
71: polarizations is a well-known feature of optical fibers with the Kerr ($\chi
72: ^{(3)}$) nonlinearity \cite{twist}. Of course, application of the twist to a
73: monocrystalline waveguide in which SHG takes place is problematic, but an
74: effective twist, without applying any mechanical torque, can be created in
75: an evident way in the practically important case when SHG itself is induced
76: by means of periodic poling of the host medium (see a review \cite{Fejer}).
77:
78: A system of equations to describe the Type-II SHG in a birefringent medium
79: in the presence of the linear mixing can be derived as a straightforward
80: generalization of the model developed in Ref. \cite{Peschel}:
81: \begin{eqnarray}
82: i\delta A_{z}+ib_{1}A_{\tau }+\left( 1/2\right) A_{\tau \tau }-\beta
83: A+B^{\ast }C &=&\kappa B, \label{A} \\
84: i\delta ^{-1}B_{z}+ib_{2}B_{\tau }+\left( 1/2\right) B_{\tau \tau }-\beta
85: ^{-1}B+A^{\ast }C &=&\kappa A, \label{B} \\
86: i\sigma C_{z}+\left( 1/2\right) DC_{\tau \tau }-\alpha C+AB &=&0, \label{C}
87: \end{eqnarray}
88: where the asterisk and subscripts stand, respectively, for the complex
89: conjugation and partial derivatives, the evolution in the temporal domain is
90: implied, $\tau $ being the standard reduced-time variable \cite{Agrawal},
91: complex fields $A(z,\tau )$, $B(z,\tau )$ and $C(z,\tau )$ represent the two
92: FF components and SH wave, respectively, $\beta $ is a phase-birefringence
93: parameter, $\alpha $ measures the phase mismatch between the FF and SH
94: waves, $\delta >0$ is another parameter taking into regard asymmetry between
95: the two FF components \cite{Peschel}, $D$ is a relative SH/FF dispersion
96: coefficient, and $\sigma >0$ determines a relative propagation constant, all
97: these parameters being real.
98:
99: New (in comparison with the known model) terms introduced in Eqs. (\ref{A})
100: and (\ref{B}) are the linear-mixing ones with the real coefficient $\kappa$,
101: and group-velocity-birefringence (temporal-walkoff) terms with real
102: coefficients $b_{1,2}$ [the reference frame is defined so that the
103: group-velocity term vanishes in Eq. (\ref{C})]. Note that in the absence of
104: the linear mixing, $\kappa =0$, the walkoff terms can be easily removed from
105: the model by means of phase transformations and change of the reference
106: frame, therefore the model elaborated in Ref. \cite{Peschel} did not include
107: these terms. However, these terms are irreduceable if $\kappa \neq 0$.
108:
109: The model may also be interpreted in the spatial domain, with $\tau $ is
110: replaced by the transverse coordinate $x$, $b_{1,2}$ being spatial walkoff
111: \cite{walkoff} parameters. In fact, the linear coupling between the FF
112: components in the 3W model in the spatial domain (a planar optical waveguide
113: with the $\chi ^{(2)}$ nonlinearity) may be induced in a simple way by means
114: of a Bragg grating (a system of parallel scores) written on the waveguide
115: \cite{Mak}. In the latter case, all the fields have the same polarization,
116: the difference between the two FF components being in the direction of their
117: Poynting vectors.
118:
119: An objective of this work is to find fundamental-soliton solutions of the
120: model and test their stability by means of precise numerical simulations.
121: Prior to that, we will consider the model's linear spectrum, which is
122: necessary in order to realize what type of solitons may exist in it.
123:
124: For $\kappa \neq 0$ but $b_{1,2}=0$, stationary soliton solutions to Eqs.
125: (\ref{A}), (\ref{B}), and (\ref{C}) can be easily found. A dynamical test
126: will show that the stationary solitons may be both stable and unstable in
127: this case, depending on the relative sign of the two FF components, which is
128: a difference from the results reported in Ref. \cite{Peschel} for the
129: Type-II SHG model without the linear mixing ($\kappa =0$). With the
130: introduction of the walkoff parameters ($b_{1,2}\neq 0$), numerical solution
131: of the stationary equations becomes difficult, therefore we rely upon direct
132: simulations in this case: propagation of an initial solitary-wave
133: configuration, which is taken as a stable soliton for the same values of
134: parameters but with $b_{1}=b_{2}=0$, generates a stable fundamental soliton,
135: featuring intrinsic chirp, after a transient process. Additionally, we also
136: find quasi-stable double-humped solitary waves in the latter case.
137:
138: \section{The linear spectrum}
139:
140: Solitons are represented by solutions to Eqs. (\ref{A}) - (\ref{C}) of the
141: form
142: \begin{equation}
143: A(z,\tau )=e^{iKz}a(\tau ),\,B(z,\tau )=e^{iKz}b(\tau ),\,C(z,\tau
144: )=e^{2iKz}c(\tau ), \label{soliton}
145: \end{equation}
146: where $K$ is a real propagation constant, and $a(\tau )$, $b(\tau )$, and
147: $c(\tau )$ are even functions (complex ones, in the general case) that must
148: vanish at $\left| \tau \right| \rightarrow \infty $. As is commonly known,
149: (bright) soliton solutions may only exist at values of $K$ that do not
150: overlap with the continuous spectrum of the FF part of the system. The
151: spectrum is determined by the substitution of the continuous-wave solution,
152: \begin{equation}
153: A(z,\tau )=A_{0}\exp \left( iKz-i\omega \tau \right) ,B(z,\tau )=B_{0}\exp
154: \left( iKz-i\omega \tau \right) ,\ \label{cw}
155: \end{equation}
156: into linearized versions of Eqs. (\ref{A}) and (\ref{B}).
157:
158: As for the SH component, a similar condition for the existence of solitons
159: (the non-overlapping with the continuous spectrum) is not always necessary
160: in it, since situations are possible when the SH equation may \emph{not} be
161: linearized, its quadratic term being everywhere (at all values of $\tau $,
162: including $\left| \tau \right| \rightarrow \infty $) on the same order of
163: magnitude as the linear terms. Such a situation is possible as the quadratic
164: and linear terms in the SH equation are composed of different fields: the
165: former one contains only the FF components, while the linear terms are
166: expressed in terms of the SH field, see Eq. (\ref{C}). Eventually, this
167: leads to a possibility of the existence of the so-called embedded solitons,
168: for which the SH propagation constant $2K$ [see Eq. (\ref{soliton})] indeed
169: falls into the linear spectrum of the SH wave \cite{embedded,Alan}.
170:
171: The combination of the linear coupling and group-velocity difference between
172: the two FF components in Eqs. (\ref{A}) and (\ref{B}) makes the present
173: system somewhat akin to $\chi ^{(2)}$ models in which effective dispersion
174: and/or diffraction are induced by a Bragg grating, while the intrinsic
175: dispersion (or diffraction) are neglected. Models of this type, which have a
176: finite gap in their linear spectrum and, accordingly, give rise to \textit{\
177: gap solitons} supported by the quadratic nonlinearity, have attracted
178: considerable attention, see Refs. \cite{gap,gap2,Thomas,Mak}. However, the
179: present model, despite its similarity to the gap-soliton ones, has the
180: linear spectrum of a different type, which contains no finite gap but,
181: instead, the usual semi-infinite gap extending to $K\rightarrow +\infty$.
182: Indeed, taking, in order to avoid ponderous formulas, Eqs. (\ref{A}) and
183: (\ref{B}) with $\delta =1$, $\beta =1$, $b_{1}=-b_{2}\equiv b$, and
184: substituting the expressions (\ref{cw}) into the linearized equations, one
185: can easily obtain the following expression for the linear spectrum:
186: \begin{equation}
187: K=-\left( 1+\omega ^{2}/2\right) \pm \sqrt{\left( b\omega \right)
188: ^{2}+\kappa ^{2}}. \label{spectrum}
189: \end{equation}
190: It is straightforward to see that the combination of two branches of this
191: spectrum does not yield any finite gap [that would exist, in the form
192: $\left( K+1\right) ^{2}<\kappa ^{2}$, if the dispersion terms in Eqs. (\ref{A})
193: and (\ref{B}), and hence the term $\omega ^{2}/2$ in Eq. (\ref{spectrum}),
194: were omitted]. On the other hand, all sufficiently large positive values of
195: $K$ do not belong to the linear spectrum, forming the above-mentioned
196: semi-infinite gap (in the case $\kappa ^{2}>b^{4}$, it simply takes the form
197: $K>0$).
198:
199: Thus, the present system combines, to a certain extent, previously studied
200: ordinary soliton models and those which give rise to gap solitons, which
201: makes it interesting to search for solitons in it.
202:
203: \section{Solitons in the model without intrinsic walkoff}
204:
205: \subsection{Unstable solitons}
206:
207: We start by seeking for soliton solutions to Eqs. (\ref{A}) - (\ref{C}) in
208: the case $b_{1,2}=0$ (no intrinsic walkoff, while the linear mixing is
209: present, $\kappa \neq 0$). The stationary version ($\partial /\partial z=0$)
210: of the system of Eqs. (\ref{A}), (\ref{B}) and (\ref{C}) then becomes real,
211: and, accordingly, stationary solutions are looked for in a real form by
212: means of the shooting method. Note that, in the absence of the linear mixing
213: ($\kappa =0$), solutions differing by a relative sign of the FF components,
214: $A$ and $B$, are, obviously, equivalent. However, this is not the case if
215: $\kappa \neq 0$ (which is similar to the situation in a $\chi ^{(2)}$ model
216: of a dual-core waveguide, where linear terms couple FF fields in two cores
217: \cite{dual-core}). In particular, it is obvious that Eqs. (\ref{A}) -- (\ref
218: {C}) can be derived from a Hamiltonian, its term which accounts for the
219: linear mixing being
220: \begin{equation}
221: H_{\mathrm{mix}}=\kappa \int_{-\infty }^{+\infty }\left( A^{\ast }B+AB^{\ast
222: }\right) d\tau \,. \label{mixing}
223: \end{equation}
224: In the case of real solutions, and taking, by definition, $\kappa >0$, one
225: may expect that the solutions with $\mathrm{sgn}A=\mathrm{sgn}B$ should be
226: unstable, as they make the term (\ref{mixing}) of the Hamiltonian positive,
227: while solutions with $\mathrm{sgn}A=-\mathrm{sgn}B$ may be stable, as they
228: yield $H_{\mathrm{mix}}<0$ (a known principle states that a solution which
229: makes the value of the Hamiltonian larger is likely to be unstable \cite
230: {Berge'}).
231:
232: The application of the shooting method to the stationary real equations (\ref
233: {A}) - (\ref{C}) with $b_{1,2}=0$ indeed yields stationary solitons in a
234: broad parametric region, provided that the relative dispersion coefficient
235: is positive, $D>0$. A typical example of a solution with $\mathrm{sgn}A=
236: \mathrm{sgn}B$, generated by the shooting method, is displayed in Fig. 1.
237:
238: Direct simulations of the dynamical stability of the thus found stationary
239: solitons were performed by means of the implicit Crank-Nicholson scheme. As
240: is known \cite{Yevick}, this scheme has advantages over the split-step
241: method for very long beam-propagation simulations. To control the accuracy
242: of the direct simulations, we made use of the fact that the underlying
243: system (\ref{A}) -- (\ref{C}) conserves the net energy of the three fields,
244: \begin{equation}
245: E=\int_{-\infty }^{+\infty }\left( \delta \left| A\right| ^{2}+\delta
246: ^{-1}\left| B\right| ^{2}+\sigma \left| C\right| ^{2}\right) d\tau \,.
247: \label{E}
248: \end{equation}
249: Results of the simulations complied with the conservation of the integral
250: (\ref{E}) to a very high accuracy.
251:
252: The application of the Crank-Nicholson scheme to the soliton shown in Fig. 1
253: has produced a picture which is displayed, in the contour-plot form, in Fig.
254: 2. This result, as well as many other runs of simulations for other
255: stationary solitons, demonstrate that, in accordance with the general
256: argument presented above, all the real solitons with $\mathrm{sgn}A=\mathrm{
257: \ sgn}B$ are unstable. It is relevant to compare a characteristic
258: propagation length $z_{\mathrm{stab}}$ before the onset of the instability,
259: which is $\simeq 80$ in Fig. 2, and the soliton period for the same pulse
260: (which is defined as the propagation length necessary for the change of the
261: internal phase of the soliton by $\pi /2$ \cite{Agrawal}), that can be
262: estimated for the soliton shown in Fig. 1, in terms of its width $W$, as $z_{
263: \mathrm{sol} }\sim \pi W^{2}\simeq 15$. This means that the unstable soliton
264: can pass $\sim 5$ soliton periods as a quasi-stable object. In a typical
265: experimental situation for spatial solitons, their diffraction length is
266: $\sim 1$ mm, while the size of a sample is a few cm \cite{Torner}, hence both
267: the unstable soliton itself and its instability may be experimentally
268: observed in the spatial domain.
269:
270: In fact, Fig. 2 displays a typical scenario of the development of the
271: instability of solitons with $\mathrm{sgn}A=\mathrm{sgn}B$: after a
272: relatively long period of a very slow ``latent'' growth of the instability,
273: an abrupt explosion occurs, as a result of which the soliton sheds off some
274: amount of radiation in the SH component, and rearranges itself into a new,
275: completely stable, soliton (these stable solitons will be described below).
276: Figure 3 shows the quasi-stable-propagation distance $z_{\mathrm{stab}}$ of
277: the unstable solitons vs. the coupling constant $\kappa $, for several
278: different values of the relative SH dispersion coefficient $D$. The fact
279: that, irrespective of the value of $D$, the distance $z_{\mathrm{stab}}$
280: diverges as $\kappa \rightarrow 0$ is quite natural, as in this limit we get
281: back to the usual model without the linear mixing, where the real solitons
282: are stable irrespective of the relative sign of their two FF components \cite
283: {Peschel}.
284:
285: If SH dispersion coefficient $D$ is very small, the character of the
286: instability development becomes qualitatively different from that
287: illustrated by Fig. 2: as is seen in Fig. 4, in this case only the SH
288: component of the soliton survives. Note that, in the case $D=0$, Eqs. (\ref
289: {A}), (\ref{B}), and (\ref{C}) have an obvious solution corresponding to the
290: eventual state observed in Fig. 4: $A=B=0$, $C(z,\tau )=\exp \left( -i\alpha
291: \sigma ^{-1}z\right) \cdot c(\tau )$, where $c(\tau )$ is an arbitrary
292: function.
293:
294: \subsection{Stable solitons}
295:
296: In the case $b_{1}=b_{2}=0$, another class of real stationary soliton
297: solutions can be found (by means of the shooting method too), with opposite
298: signs of the two FF components ($\mathrm{sgn}A=-\mathrm{sgn}B$). A typical
299: example of such a soliton is shown in Fig. 5. In accordance with the
300: qualitative arguments given above [based on the sign of the coupling term
301: (\ref{mixing}) in the Hamiltonian], the solitons of this type are found to be
302: completely stable in direct simulations of their evolution. An example is
303: displayed in terms of the contour plots in Fig. 6 (note that the full
304: propagation distance presented in Fig. 6 is $\sim 100$ soliton periods; in
305: fact, the stability was seen, in much longer simulations, to persist
306: indefinitely).
307:
308: An accurate analysis of the stable pulses, the formation of which was
309: observed as a result of the development of the instability of the stationary
310: solitons with $\mathrm{sgn}A=+\mathrm{sgn}B$ (see Fig. 2), shows that the
311: appearing stable pulses are identical to the stable solitons of the type
312: considered here, with $\mathrm{sgn}A=-\mathrm{sgn}B$. Thus, these solitons
313: are really robust, playing a role of \emph{attractors} in the evolution of
314: unstable pulses (the existence of effective attractors in a conservative
315: nonlinear-wave system is possible due to radiation losses).
316:
317: \section{Solitons in the system with the intrinsic walkoff}
318:
319: \subsection{Single-humped solitons}
320:
321: It is quite interesting to understand how solitons are modified if the
322: group-velocity (walkoff) terms are restored in Eqs. (\ref{A}) and (\ref{B}).
323: Search for stationary soliton solutions of the full system of Eqs. (\ref{A})
324: - (\ref{C}), which include the walkoff terms, turns out to be much harder
325: than in the case $b_{1}=b_{2}=0$, as it appears quite difficult to secure
326: convergence of results produced by the shooting method. Therefore, we
327: adopted an approach based on direct simulations of the full equations in the
328: following fashion: stationary solutions corresponding to stable solitons
329: (with $\mathrm{sgn}A=-\mathrm{sgn}B$), which were found above for the case
330: $b_{1}=b_{2}=0$ (for instance, the soliton shown in Fig. 5), were used as
331: initial conditions for simulations of the evolution equations (\ref{A}) --
332: (\ref{B}) with the same values of all the parameters but $b_{1}$ and $b_{2}$.
333: Note that the introduction of the walkoff terms must essentially rearrange
334: the input pulses, as they are real, while stationary solutions to Eqs. (\ref
335: {A}) -- (\ref{B}) with $b_{1,2}\neq 0$ cannot be real.
336:
337: A typical example of the evolution of the thus chosen input pulse is shown,
338: by means of contour plots, in Fig. 7 [in this figure, we display the
339: evolution of local powers $\left| A(\tau )\right| ^{2}$, $\left| B(\tau
340: )\right| ^{2}$, and $\left| C(\tau )\right| ^{2}$]. The propagation distance
341: in Fig. 7 is extremely large ($\simeq 200$ soliton periods), which was taken
342: in order to make it sure that a final soliton, if any, takes a sufficiently
343: well-established form. The result of the evolution is shown in Fig. 8.
344:
345: A conclusion suggested by this and many other runs of simulations is that
346: stable solitons with intrinsic chirp establish themselves in the presence of
347: the intrinsic walkoff, although radiation shed off from the soliton in the
348: course of its self-adjustment separates from it very slowly. The latter
349: peculiarity can be understood. Indeed, the radiation tail attached to the
350: soliton in Fig. 8 (upper panel) is all built of the SH field, which has zero
351: group velocity in the underlying equation (\ref{C}), hence it does not
352: readily separate from the zero-velocity soliton. It seems very plausible
353: (although detailed consideration of the issue is beyond the scope of this
354: work) that Eqs. (\ref{A}) -- (\ref{C}) may also generate moving
355: (``walking'') solitons, in which case the separation of the soliton from the
356: radiation ``garbage'' would probably be faster.
357:
358: To further check that the (quasi-) soliton (called this way because of the
359: radiation tail attached to it), whose formation and structure are shown in
360: Figs. 7 and 8, has long since completed any essential evolution, in Fig. 9
361: we show the evolution (vs. $z$) of the net energy (or intensity, in the case
362: of beams in the spatial domain) of each component of the soliton, i.e.,
363: \begin{equation}
364: \int_{-\infty }^{+\infty }\left| A(z,\tau )\right| ^{2}d\tau
365: ,\,\int_{-\infty }^{+\infty }\left| B(z,\tau )\right| ^{2}d\tau
366: ,\,\int_{-\infty }^{+\infty }\left| C(z,\tau )\right| ^{2}d\tau \label{net}
367: \end{equation}
368: ($\int_{-\infty }^{+\infty }$ is realized as the integral over the whole
369: simulation domain), and Fig. 10 displays the evolution of the total energy
370: defined by Eq. (\ref{E}). A very small initial loss of the total energy (see
371: Fig. 10) is explained by leakage across borders of the integration domain in
372: the process of the initial rearrangement of the soliton. Note that intensive
373: energy exchange between the $A$ and $C$ fields (see Fig. 9) is limited to
374: approximately the same initial stage of the evolution at which the energy
375: loss takes place; then, any tangible evolution ceases, in terms of the
376: integral field characteristics (\ref{net}).
377:
378: \subsection{Double-humped structures}
379:
380: The approach described above produces stable \textit{fundamental} solitons,
381: i.e., single-humped ones. On the other hand, it is well known that $\chi
382: ^{(2)}$ models readily give rise to higher-order solitons -- first of all,
383: double-humped ones \cite{unstabledoublehumped} -- which, however, are always
384: unstable in standard models, including the 3W Type-II model \cite{Jena}.
385: Search for \emph{stable} double-humped solitons in various systems is a
386: problem of considerable interest for physical applications, see, e.g., Refs.
387: \cite{stabledouble}. In fact, the first examples of (numerically) stable
388: one-dimensional double-humped solitons were found in 3W models combining
389: $\chi ^{(2)}$ nonlinearity and linear coupling (which was induced by the
390: Bragg grating) between two components of the FF field \cite{Mak,Thomas}.
391: Moreover, the model introduced in Ref. \cite{Mak}, that seems to be closest
392: to the one considered in the present work, gives rise also to vast families
393: of double- and multi-humped embedded solitons \cite{Alan}, although the
394: stability of those solutions was not studied in detail.
395:
396: We made an attempt to search for double-humped solitary-wave structures in
397: the present model. In the absence of the linear mixing ($b_{1,2}=0$), they
398: have never been found, which seems quite natural in view of the
399: above-mentioned results obtained in allied models. However, structures of
400: that type can indeed be found at finite (actually, quite small) values of
401: $\left| b_{1,2}\right| $, and they seem to be nearly stable, although they
402: are not completely stationary.
403:
404: To this end, the stationary version of Eqs. (\ref{A}) - (\ref{C}), produced
405: by the substitution of the waveforms (\ref{soliton}), was first solved
406: numerically with high but finite accuracy, starting from the numerically
407: exact solution for $b_{1}=b_{2}=0$, such as the one shown in Fig. 5, and
408: gradually increasing the parameter $b_{1}=-b_{2}\equiv b$. As it was
409: mentioned above, in the presence of the walkoff terms with $b_{1,2}\neq 0$
410: straightforward application of the shooting technique does not provide for
411: convergence of soliton solutions to indefinitely high accuracy, this is why
412: the accuracy was finite, as mentioned above. It was observed that if other
413: parameters keep constant values (for instance those which are mentioned in
414: the caption to Fig. 11), the increase of $b$ makes the (finite-accuracy)
415: soliton broader, and \emph{splitting} of the soliton's crest into two takes
416: place at $b=0.00274$. A typical example of the appearing double-humped
417: structure is shown, for a slightly larger value $b=0.003$, in the upper
418: panel of Fig. 11.
419:
420: The simulated evolution of this structure over a very long propagation
421: distance shows that this solitary wave is not a genuine steady-state
422: solution, but it is quite close to being one. It keeps a well-pronounced
423: double-humped shape over, at least, $15$ soliton periods. This implies that
424: the double-humped structure is robust enough to be observed in\ an
425: experiment.
426:
427: Further increase of $b$ makes the double-humped pulses still less localized,
428: and, eventually, permanent leakage of one of the FF components from the
429: pulse starts. It is difficult to find a critical value of $b$ at which this
430: pulse ceases to exist as a solitary-wave solution, as an extended ``tail''
431: of the FF field, the appearance of which signals the onset of the leakage,
432: has a vanishingly small amplitude when it emerges.
433:
434: \section{Conclusion}
435:
436: We have proposed a modification of the usual three-wave
437: second-harmonic-generation model which incorporates two features that are
438: new to the usual model: linear mixing between two components of the
439: fundamental-frequency wave, and a group-velocity mismatch (walkoff) between
440: them. Although the new system is akin to gap-solitons models, its linear
441: spectrum contains no finite gaps. In the temporal domain, the model may be
442: interpreted as the one adding an (effective) twist of the fiber-like
443: waveguide to the birefringence, the latter feature being typical for the
444: Type-II $\chi ^{(2)}$ systems. In the spatial domain, the two FF components
445: differ, physically, not by their polarizations, but rather by the
446: orientation of their Poynting vectors in a planar waveguide, the linear
447: coupling being induced by the Bragg grating.
448:
449: In the absence of the intrinsic walkoff, the linear mixing induces a
450: difference between real soliton solutions with the opposite relative signs
451: between the two FF components, so that they are stable for one sign, and
452: unstable for the other. The development of the instability leads to
453: rearrangement of unstable solitons into stable ones. Adding the
454: intrinsic-walkoff terms, we have found that the evolution leads to formation
455: of stable chirped fundamental solitons, and, additionally, quasi-stable
456: double-humped solitary waves were found.
457:
458: \section*{Acknowledgement}
459:
460: This work was supported in a part by a grant from the Research Authority of
461: the Tel Aviv University.
462:
463: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
464: \bibitem{Torner} G.I. Stegeman, D.J. Hagan and L. Torner, Opt. Quantum
465: Electron. \textbf{28}, 1691 (1996).
466:
467: \bibitem{Dawn} B. Malomed, in: \textit{Nonlinear Science at the Dawn of the
468: 21st Century} (ed. by P.L. Christiansen, M.P. Sorensen, and A.C. Scott), p.
469: 247-262. (Springer: Berlin, 2000).
470:
471: \bibitem{Jena} C. Etrich, F. Lederer, B.A. Malomed, T. Peschel, and U.
472: Peschel, Progr. Opt. \textbf{41}, 483 (2000).
473:
474: \bibitem{Aussie} A.V. Buryak, P. Di Trapani, D.V. Skryabin, and S. Trillo,
475: Phys. Rep. (in press).
476:
477: \bibitem{Boardman} Advanced Photonics with Second-Order Optical Nonlinear
478: Processes, Eds. A.D. Boardman, L. Pavlov, and S. Tanev (Kluwer Academic
479: Publishers: Dordrecht, 1998).
480:
481: \bibitem{3W} H.~T.~Tran, Opt. Commun. \textbf{118}, 581 (1995);
482: B.A.~Malomed, D.~Anderson, and M.~Lisak, Opt. Commun. \textbf{126}, 251
483: (1996).
484:
485: \bibitem{vector} A.V. Buryak, Yu.S. Kivshar and S. Trillo, Phys. Rev. Lett.
486: \textbf{77}, 5210 (1996).
487:
488: \bibitem{Peschel} U. Peschel, C. Etrich, F. Lederer, and B.A. Malomed,
489: Phys. Rev. E \textbf{55}, 7704 (1997).
490:
491: \bibitem{modified} S. Trillo and G. Assanto, Opt. Lett. \textbf{19}, 1825
492: (1994); A.D. Boardman, P. Bontemps, and K. Xie, Opt. and Quant. Electron.
493: \textbf{30}, 891 (1998); I. Towers, A.V. Buryak, R.A. Sammut, and B.A.
494: Malomed, Opt. Lett. \textbf{24}, 1738 (1999).
495:
496: \bibitem{Mak} W.C.K. Mak, B.A. Malomed, and P.L. Chu, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{
497: 58}, 6708 (1998).
498:
499: \bibitem{twist} A. Mecozzi, S. Trillo, S. Wabnitz, and B. Daino, Opt. Lett.
500: \textbf{12}, 275 (1987); E.M. Wright, G.I. Stegeman, and S. Wabnitz, Phys.
501: Rev. A \textbf{40}, 4455 (1989); S. Trillo, S. Wabnitz, E.M. Wright, and
502: G.I. Stegeman, Opt. Commun. \textbf{70}, 166 (1989).
503:
504: \bibitem{Fejer} M.M. Fejer, in: \textit{Beam Shaping and Control with
505: Nonlinear Optics}, ed. by F. Kajzar and R. Reinisch, vol. 369 of NATO ASI
506: Series B: Physics (Plenum: New York, 1998), p. 375.
507:
508: \bibitem{Agrawal} G.P. Agrawal. \textit{Nonlinear Fiber Optics} (Academic
509: Press: San Diego, 1995).
510:
511: \bibitem{walkoff} L. Torner, D. Mazilu, and D. Mihalache, Phys. Rev. Lett.
512: \textbf{77}, 2455 (1996).
513:
514: \bibitem{gap} C. Conti, S. Trillo and G. Assanto, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{
515: 78}, 2341 (1997); Phys. Rev. E \textbf{57}, R1251 (1998); Opt. Express
516: \textbf{3}, 389 (1998); C. Conti, G. Assanto and S. Trillo, Electron. Lett.
517: \textbf{34}, 689 (1989).
518:
519: \bibitem{gap2} H. He, and P.D. Drummond Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{78}, 4311
520: (1997); Phys. Rev. E \textbf{58}, 5025 (1998).
521:
522: \bibitem{Thomas} T. Peschel, U. Peschel, F. Lederer, and B.A. Malomed,
523: Phys. Rev. E \textbf{55}, 4730 (1997).
524:
525: \bibitem{embedded} A.R. Champneys, B.A. Malomed, J. Yang, and D.J. Kaup,
526: Physica D \textbf{152-153}, 340 (2001).
527:
528: \bibitem{Alan} A.R. Champneys and B.A. Malomed, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{61},
529: 886 (2000).
530:
531: \bibitem{dual-core} W. Mak, B.A. Malomed, and P.L. Chu, Phys. Rev. E
532: \textbf{55}, 6134 (1997); \textit{ibid}. \textbf{57}, 1092 (1998).
533:
534: \bibitem{Berge'} L. Berg{\'{e}}, Phys. Rep. \textbf{303}, 260 (1998).
535:
536: \bibitem{Yevick} D. Yevick and B. Hermansson, IEEE J. Quant. Electr.
537: \textbf{QE-26}, 109 (1990).
538:
539: \bibitem{unstabledoublehumped} A.D. Boardman, K. Xie, and A. Sangarpaul,
540: Phys. Rev. A \textbf{52} (1995) 4099; H. He, M.J. Werner, and P.D. Drummond,
541: Phys. Rev. E \textbf{54}, 896 (1996).
542:
543: \bibitem{stabledouble} E.A. Ostrovskaya, Yu.S. Kivshar, D.V. Skryabin and
544: W.J. Firth, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{83}, 296 (1999); K.Y. Kolossovski, A.V.
545: Buryak, and R.A. Sammut, Phys. Lett. A \textbf{279}, 355 (2001).
546: \end{thebibliography}
547:
548: \newpage
549:
550: \begin{center}
551: {\Large Figure Captions}
552: \end{center}
553:
554: Fig. 1. An example of a stationary real soliton solution with $\mathrm{sgn}
555: A= \mathrm{sgn}B$. The parameters are $\delta =2$, $\beta =0.778$, $\kappa
556: =0.2$, $\sigma =3$, $D=1$, $\alpha =0.156$, $b_{1,2}=0$ (no walkoff between
557: the two fundamental-frequency wave components). In this and subsequent
558: figures, the argument $x$ attached to the horizontal axis replaces the
559: variable $\tau $ for a case when the model is interpreted in the spatial
560: domain, where $x$ is the transverse coordinate (see the text).
561:
562: Fig. 2. Evolution of the soliton shown in Fig. 1.
563:
564: Fig. 3. The distance necessary for the onset of the instability of the
565: soliton with $\mathrm{sgn}A=\mathrm{sgn}B$ (as detected in the
566: second-harmonic component) vs. the linear-mixing constant $\kappa $.
567:
568: Fig. 4. Evolution of the soliton in the case $D=0.03$, other parameters
569: taking the same values as in Fig. 1.
570:
571: Fig. 5. An example of a stationary real soliton with $\mathrm{sgn}A=-\mathrm{
572: sgn}B$ for the same values of parameters as in Fig. 1.
573:
574: Fig. 6. Evolution of the soliton shown in Fig. 5.
575:
576: Fig. 7. Evolution of the input pulse identical to the soliton shown in Fig.
577: 5 at the same values of parameters as in Fig. 5, except for
578: $b_{1}=-b_{2}=0.1 $ (cf. Fig. 6, which pertains to the case $b_{1,2}=0$).
579:
580: Fig. 8. Panels (a) and (b) display, respectively, the distribution of local
581: powers, $\left| A(\tau )\right| ^{2}$, $\left| B(\tau )\right| ^{2}$, and
582: $\left| C(\tau )\right| ^{2}$, and local chirps, $\left( \phi _{A}\right)
583: _{\tau \tau }$, $\left( \phi _{B}\right) _{\tau \tau }$, and $\left( \phi
584: _{C}\right) _{\tau \tau }$ ($\phi $ stands for the phase of field), of the
585: three waves in the (quasi)soliton generated by the evolution process
586: displayed in Fig. 7.
587:
588: Fig. 9. The net energies of the three components of the soliton, defined as
589: per Eq. (\ref{net}), vs. the propagation distance $z$, for the same case as
590: in Fig. 7.
591:
592: Fig. 10. The total energy (\ref{E}) of all the three fields vs. $z$, shown
593: for the same case as in Fig. 9. Note that the energy loss, due to some
594: leakage through the edges of the integration domain, is very small (see
595: numerical values on the vertical axis).
596:
597: Fig. 11. An example of a quasi-stable double-humped solitary-wave structure
598: found for $\delta =2$, $\beta =0.778$, $\kappa =0.2$, $\sigma =4$, $D=1$,
599: $\alpha =0.156$, and $b_{1}=-b_{2}=0.003$. The upper and lower panels show,
600: respectively, the initial configuration at $z=0$, obtained as a
601: finite-accuracy shooting solution of the stationary equations, and the final
602: configuration obtained at $z=4000$. As well as in Fig. 8, the distribution
603: of the field powers across the solitary wave is shown here.
604:
605: \end{document}
606: