1: \documentclass[10pt]{article}
2: %\usepackage{a4wide},a4paper
3: \usepackage{amssymb,latexsym}
4: \usepackage{amsmath}
5: \usepackage{amsfonts}
6: \usepackage{amsthm}
7: \usepackage{graphicx}
8: \usepackage{subfigure}
9: \usepackage[import,arrow,line,curve]{xy}
10:
11: \addtolength{\voffset}{-1.2cm}
12: \topmargin -.3cm
13: \textheight 22cm
14: \textwidth 14cm
15: \evensidemargin 1.1cm
16: \oddsidemargin 1.1cm
17:
18: \newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}[section]
19: \newtheorem{theorem}[lemma]{Theorem}
20: \newtheorem{corollary}[lemma]{Corollary}
21: \theoremstyle{definition}
22: \newtheorem{example}[lemma]{Example}
23: \newtheorem{definition}[lemma]{Definition}
24:
25: \makeatletter
26: \def\keywords{
27: \vspace{1ex}
28: \noindent
29: \if@twocolumn
30: \small{\bf Keywords}\/---$\!$ \else
31: \begin{center}
32: \small\ {\bf Keywords}
33: \end{center}
34: \quotation\small
35: \fi}
36: \def\endkeywords{\vspace{0.6em}\par\if@twocolumn\else\endquotation\fi
37: \normalsize\rm}
38: \def\keywrds{
39: \vspace{1ex}
40: \noindent
41: \if@twocolumn
42: \small{\bf Mathematics subject classifications}\/---$\!$ \else
43: \begin{center}\small\ {\bf AMS subject
44: classifications}\end{center}\quotation\small
45: \fi}
46: \def\endkeywrds{\vspace{0.6em}\par\if@twocolumn\else\endquotation\fi
47: \normalsize\rm}
48: \makeatother
49:
50: \bibliographystyle{plain}
51:
52: \begin{document}
53: \title{On kink-dynamics of Stacked-Josephson Junctions}
54: \author{H. Susanto, T.P.P Visser, \& S. A. van Gils \\
55: {\small Department of Applied Mathematics,}\\
56: {\small University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede,}\\
57: {\small The Netherlands}
58: }
59: % \and
60: \date{}
61: \maketitle
62: \begin{abstract}
63: Dynamics of a fluxon in a stack of coupled long Josephson junctions is
64: studied numerically. Based on the numerical simulations, we show that
65: the dependence of the propagation velocity $c$ on the external
66: bias current $\gamma$ is determined by the ratio of the critical
67: currents of the two junctions $J$.
68: \end{abstract}
69:
70: \section{Introduction}
71:
72: The stacked-Josephson junctions we consider here consist of three
73: slabs of superconducting material which have an insulating barrier
74: between two superconductors. An important application of these
75: long Josephson junctions (LJJ) is the magnetic flux quanta
76: (fluxons). The fluxon, which is a circulating current, can move
77: along the junctions if there is a biased current applied.
78:
79: The one dimensional stacked-LJJ can be modelled by a perturbed
80: sine-Gordon equation which, in normalized form, may be written as
81: \cite{mms}:
82: \begin{equation}
83: \begin{array}{ll}
84: \phi^{1}_{xx}-\phi^{1}_{tt}-
85: \sin{\phi^{1}}-S\phi^{2}_{xx}=\alpha\phi^{1}_t-\gamma, \\
86: \phi^{2}_{xx}-\phi^{2}_{tt}-
87: \sin{\phi^{2}}/J-S\phi^{1}_{xx}=\alpha\phi^{2}_t-\gamma.
88: \end{array}
89: \label{cjjs}
90: \end{equation}
91: Here $\phi^i$ is the superconducting phase difference across the
92: junction $i$ \cite{bp}. The term $\alpha\phi_t$ models the damping
93: due to quasi particle tunnelling, $\alpha>0$. The driving force,
94: corresponding to the normalized bias current $\gamma$, typically
95: lies in the interval $0\leq\gamma\leq 1$. $S\in [-1,0]$ is the
96: coupling parameter of the two junctions and $J$ is the ratio of
97: the critical current of of the two junctions.
98:
99: One of the solutions of the unperturbed-sine-Gordon equation
100: ($\phi_{xx}-\phi_{tt}=\sin\phi$) is the soliton
101: \begin{equation}
102: \phi_0=4\arctan{[ \exp{(\frac{x-ct-\xi_0}{\sqrt{1-c^2}})}]},
103: \end{equation}
104: which is moving with velocity $c$, $|c|<1$. In the unperturbed
105: equation this parameter is not determined. The wave speed will
106: become a function of $\gamma$ when $\alpha$ and $S$ do not vanish
107: and the damping is balanced by the driving force. Therefore, $c$
108: is a function of $\gamma$ for given $\alpha$ and $S$. The free
109: parameter $\xi_0$ determines the initial position of the fluxon.
110: In physics, this soliton solution is related with units of the
111: flux quantum or fluxon. The system (\ref{cjjs}) has, when
112: $S=\alpha=\gamma=0$, the solution $(\phi_0,0)$ in the primary
113: state $[1|0]$.
114:
115: In this paper, we investigate the relation of $c$ and $\gamma$ for
116: spesific values of $\alpha$ and $S$ in the primary state $[1|0]$.
117: To represent the configuration, the notation $[n|m]$ is used to
118: denote the state where $n$ solitons are located in the first
119: junction and $m$ solitons in the other. Negative numbers are used
120: for antisolitons. In Sec.~\ref{sec1} we consider the case of
121: identical junctions. Unequal junctions are considered in
122: Secs.~\ref{sec2} and \ref{sec3}. The junctions considered in these
123: sections differ only on the critical currents. In Sec.~\ref{sec4}
124: we draw conclusions.
125:
126: \section{Identical Junctions}
127: \label{sec1}
128:
129: We look at travelling wave solutions to the equation (\ref{cjjs}).
130: So we assume that the solution only depends on $\xi=x-ct$. The
131: partial differential equation is thus reduced to a system of
132: ordinary differential equations
133: \begin{equation}
134: \begin{array}{ll}
135: (1-c^2)\phi^{1}_{\xi\xi}-
136: \sin{\phi^{1}}-S\phi^{2}_{\xi\xi}=-c\alpha\phi^{1}_\xi-\gamma, \\
137: (1-c^2)\phi^{2}_{\xi\xi}-
138: \sin{\phi^{2}}/J-S\phi^{1}_{\xi\xi}=-c\alpha\phi^{2}_\xi-\gamma.
139: \end{array}
140: \label{sjj}
141: \end{equation}
142:
143: \begin{figure}[h]
144: \begin{center}
145: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=7cm,angle=-0]{sp1.eps}}
146: \hspace{0.5cm}
147: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=7cm,angle=-0]{sp2.eps}}
148: \end{center}
149: \caption{The relation between $\gamma$ (vertical axis) and $c$
150: (horizontal axis) which is known as the IV-characteristic is presented. Picture (a) shows the complete relation of $\gamma$ and $c$. Picture (b) magnifies a part of the plot (a) where it becomes clear that the curve indeed contains a spiral.} \label{spicurve}
151: \end{figure}
152:
153: Considering (\ref{sjj}) in $(\phi^1,\phi^1_\xi,\phi^2,\phi^2_\xi)^T$
154: phase space, the problem of computing solitary wave profiles and
155: speeds for (\ref{cjjs}) with $[1|0]$ state is equivalent to finding
156: heteroclinic orbits connecting two fixed points:
157: \begin{equation}
158: (\phi^1,\phi^2)=(\arcsin\gamma,0)
159: \end{equation}
160: and
161: \begin{equation}
162: (\phi^1,\phi^2)=(\arcsin\gamma+2\pi,0).
163: \end{equation}
164: We can calculate the parameter combinations for which there exist
165: such a heteroclinic solution numerically, using the program AUTO
166: \cite{auto}. First, we consider the case when $J=1$. In this case,
167: the system of equations (\ref{sjj}) can be rewritten to
168: \begin{equation}
169: \left[
170: (1-c^2)-\frac{S}{1-c^2}\right]\phi^{1,2}_{\xi\xi}-\sin\phi^{1,2}
171: -\frac{S}{1-c^2}\sin\phi^{2,1}=\frac{S}{1-c^2}(\alpha
172: c\phi^{2,1}_\xi-\gamma)+\alpha c\phi^{1,2}_\xi-\gamma
173: \end{equation}
174: from which we see a singularity at $1-c^2=\pm S$ or $|c_\pm
175: |=\sqrt{1\pm S}$. These values of $c$ are called the {\it Swihart
176: velocity}. Note that $|c_+|<|c_-|$ because $S$ is negative.
177:
178: In Fig. \ref{spicurve}, the numerically obtained $(c,\gamma)$
179: picture (in the future we call these kind of pictures
180: IV-characteristics) is shown. The numerical values used in all
181: calculations are $S=-0.25$ and $\alpha=0.17$.
182:
183: \begin{figure}[h]
184: \begin{center}
185: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=7cm,angle=-0]{solaj=1.eps}}
186: \hspace{0.5cm}
187: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=7cm,angle=-0]{solbj=1.eps}}
188: \end{center}
189: \caption{$\phi^1$ (a) and $\phi^2$ (b) as functions of $\xi$ at
190: the first four turning points of the spiral in the IV-characteristic. The lowest solution corresponds to the first turning point. The $i$-th solution is shifted $(i-1)$ unit(s) in the vertical direction for clarity. The space variable $x$ has been scaled such that it is in the interval $[0,1]$.} \label{soltosp}
191: \end{figure}
192:
193: Somehow, near the edge of the IV-characteristic, we have a spiral
194: shaped curve. Previously, this kind of spiral in the
195: IV-characteristic has been observed in a single long Josephson
196: junction by Brown {\it et al.} \cite{dlb}. Later on, it is shown
197: in \cite{bgv,tv} that such a spiral exists in the single Josephson
198: junction if the dissipation due to surface resistance, {\it i.e.}
199: adding a term $\beta\phi^{1,2}_{xxt}$ in Eq.~(\ref{cjjs}), is
200: taken into account.
201:
202: However, there is a difference between the spiral we have in this
203: case and spiral in a single long Josephson junction. The spiral in
204: the single long Josephson junction has its center located at
205: $|c|=1$ which is the maksimum velocity possibly achieved by a
206: fluxon. In our case here, the center is below the lowest Swihart
207: velocity $|c_+|=\sqrt{1+S}$ \cite{ukc}. The first four turning
208: points are given in Table \ref{tp1}. The plot of the solitons
209: related to those turning points is given in Figure \ref{soltosp}.
210:
211: \begin{table}[ht]
212: \begin{center}
213: \begin{tabular}{c|c}
214: \hline
215: $\gamma$ & c \\ \hline
216: 0.7489735 & -0.8622143\\ \hline
217: 0.4900705 & -0.8625241\\ \hline
218: 0.5161983 & -0.8625433\\ \hline
219: 0.5121004 & -0.8625403\\ \hline
220: \end{tabular}
221: \end{center}
222: \caption{The first four turning points of the curve in the $\gamma-c$ space.}
223: \label{tp1}
224: \end{table}
225:
226: Goldobin {\it et al.} \cite{gmu} give a 'proof' which shows that
227: the fluxon in the state $[1|0]$ with $J=1$ cannot pass the lowest
228: Swihart velocity $|c_+|$. The result says that if $|c_+|$ is
229: reached, there is at least a fluxon in the second junction which
230: then gives the $[1|1]$ state.
231:
232: \section{Unequal Junctions: $J>1$}
233: \label{sec2}
234:
235: An interesting situation occurs if the two junctions forming the
236: stack are not identical. We assume that only the critical currents
237: of the two are unequal, which translates to the condition that
238: $J$ in Eq.~(\ref{sjj}) is not equal to $1$.
239:
240: Goldobin {\it et al.} \cite{gwu} mention for the first time that
241: there is a 'back-bending' phenomenon in the IV-characteristic. With
242: AUTO we can continue the backbending such that we get the
243: full-branch of the IV-characteristic. The result is shown in Fig.
244: \ref{backban}.
245:
246: Goldobin {\it et al.} \cite{gmu} also show that the velocity
247: $|c_+|$ cannot be reached at this case.
248:
249: \begin{figure}[tbh]
250: \begin{center}
251: {\includegraphics[width=7cm,angle=-0]{j-1.eps}}
252: \end{center}
253: \caption{The IV-characteristic of the stacked Josephson junction with $J>1$. The critical current ratio $J$ in this calculation is taken to be $1.5$. Using AUTO, the 'back-bending' curve can be traced. It is known that solutions which lie on the upper/right branch are unstable.}
254: \label{backban}
255: \end{figure}
256:
257: \begin{figure}[h]
258: \begin{center}
259: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=7cm,angle=-0]{solaj-1.eps}}
260: \hspace{0.5cm}
261: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=7cm,angle=-0]{solbj-1.eps}}
262: \end{center}
263: \caption{Two pairs of solution to (\ref{sjj}) for $J=1.5$ and $\gamma=0.17$ on the left and right branch of the IV-characteristic are compared. Picture (a) and (b) compare the $\phi^1$'s and $\phi^2$'s respectively. The solutions on the right branch is given in dashed-dotted line.}\label{solbackban}
264: \end{figure}
265:
266: In Fig.~\ref{solbackban}, two solutions for the same value of
267: $\gamma$ are plotted. In the first junction there is hardly any
268: change, but in the second junction there is a big difference. On
269: the left branch there is only a small 'image' in the second
270: junction, which then if we follow the IV-characteristic, this
271: image has grown to a large hump.
272:
273: The stability of solutions on the right branch has been tested
274: numerically in \cite{tv}. By taking the solution as calculated
275: with AUTO and using this as initial solution to the PDE-solver
276: \cite{tv1}, we conclude that all solutions on the right branch are
277: unstable. All solutions at the left branch up to the point where
278: $d\gamma/dc=0$ are stable. Solutions on the right branch are in
279: the domain of attraction of the solution for the same value of
280: $\gamma$ on the left branch.
281:
282: The instability of the solution can be seen clearer when we follow
283: the right branch in the direction of decreasing $\gamma$. In the
284: limit $\gamma$ tends to $0$, there is a fluxon-antifluxon pair in
285: junction $2$ or the stack is in $[1|1,-1]$ \cite{gmu}. Because the
286: fluxon and antifluxon are attracting each other, if we apply a
287: bias current, they will collide and a new different state is
288: formed. This is the physical argument to show that this state is
289: unstable.
290:
291: \section{Unequal Junctions: $J<1$}
292: \label{sec3}
293:
294: A somewhat different behavior happens when we look at case the
295: $J<1$. While in the case $J\geq 1$, the velocity is bounded by
296: $c_+$, $|c|\leq |c_+|$, in the case $J<1$ we have that $|c|$ can
297: exceed the value $|c_+|$. When fluxons move with velocities above
298: the lowest Swihart velocity, {\it Cherenkov radiation} takes
299: place.
300:
301: \begin{figure}[tbh]
302: \begin{center}
303: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=7cm,angle=-0]{j_1.eps}}
304: \hspace{0.5cm}
305: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=7cm,angle=-0]{jlain_1.eps}}
306: \end{center}
307: \caption{The same as Figure \ref{backban} but with $J<1$ where $J$ is taken to be $0.5$. In (a) we present the well known IV-characteristic where the curve can pass the lowest Swihart velocity $c_+$. Because of the singularity, the AUTO calculation here stops at $c_+$. In (b) another IV-characteristic is shown. All solutions lying on this 'back-bending' curve are unstable.}
308: \label{ivj}
309: \end{figure}
310:
311: Cherenkov radiation is the emission of waves behind the moving
312: fluxon. Behind the fluxon we will find an oscillating tail which
313: is the emitted waves. E. Goldobin {\it et al.} \cite{gwu,gwtu}
314: observe Cherenkov radiation happening in the $[1|0]$ state
315: numerically and experimentally.
316:
317: The IV-characteristic of the state is given in Fig.~\ref{ivj}(a).
318: Unfortunately, the IV-characteristic stops at $c_+$ because our
319: equation becomes singular at that value and AUTO cannot continue
320: the calculation through the singularity. Therefore, all solutions
321: that lie in this IV-characteristic do not have such emitted wave
322: behind the fluxon.
323:
324: \begin{figure}[tbh]
325: \begin{center}
326: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=7cm,angle=-0]{solalainj_1.eps}}
327: \hspace{0.5cm}
328: \subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=7cm,angle=-0]{solblainj_1.eps}}
329: \end{center}
330: \caption{Two pairs of solution to (\ref{sjj}) for $J=0.5$ and
331: $\gamma=0.17$ that lie on the left and right branch of the 'back-bending' curve (see Fig. \ref{ivj}(b)) are compared. Solutions on the right branch are given in dashed-dotted lines.}
332: \label{solivjlain}
333: \end{figure}
334:
335: If we keep increasing the applied bias current, the velocity of
336: the fluxon increases up to the maximum velocity
337: $|u_{max}^{[1|0]}|$. This maximum velocity is a function of
338: $J,\,S,\, \alpha$ \cite{gwu}. By now, the analytic form of the
339: maximum velocity for this state is still unknown.
340:
341: Another branch is found when we use one solution on the right
342: branch of the IV-characteristic for $J>1$ as the initial solution
343: of AUTO. Using this initial condition, then we decrease the
344: parameter $J$ up to $J=0.5$. In fact, we get a backbending curve
345: for the IV-characteristic of the case $J<1$. The curve is given in
346: Fig. \ref{ivj}(b). If for $J>1$, we see hardly any changes when
347: comparing solutions in the first junction, while something
348: different happens in the second junction (Fig. \ref{solbackban}),
349: for the case we have the opposite result. In junction 2 we almost
350: have seen nothing, while there is a difference in the solutions in
351: the first junction. In Fig. \ref{solivjlain} we compare two
352: solutions on the left and right branch for the same value of
353: $\gamma$.
354:
355: A further analysis is needed to see the stability of solutions
356: lying on this branch. We conjecture that all the solutions are
357: unstable. The same argument might be used as in the case $J>1$
358: before. Numerical simulation confirms as well that the solutions
359: go to the corresponding solutions at the other branch. We have
360: done that also using PDE-solver where we use a solution resulted
361: by AUTO as the initial solution of the PDE-solver.
362:
363: \section{Conclusion}
364: \label{sec4}
365:
366: We have given several calculations showing that stacked-Josephson
367: junctions have very rich behavior. Just with $[1|0]$ state and
368: changing $J$, we already have qualitatively different
369: IV-characteristics, while there are many more states that can
370: exist in the junctions.
371:
372: How the IV-characteristics corresponding to the state $[n|m]$
373: change when $J$ passes through $1$ needs to be investigated
374: further. Also the stability of the various patterns needs to be
375: determined.
376:
377: Goldobin {\it et al.} \cite{gwu} state that for the $[1|0]$ state
378: not only the condition $J<1$ leads to $|c|>|c_+|$, but also the
379: asymmetry of the applied bias current of the two-fold stack, i.e.
380: when we have $\gamma^1>\gamma^2$. Therefore, it might be
381: interesting to consider also in the near future the possibility of
382: having branches of the system under condition
383: $\gamma^1\neq\gamma^2$.
384:
385: \begin{thebibliography}{999}
386: \bibitem {bp} A. Barone \& G. Paterno, {\it Physics and Applications
387: of the Josephson Effect}, Wiley, New York, 1970.
388: \bibitem {wgu} A. Wallraff, E. Goldobin \& A.V. Ustinov, {\it J. Appl.
389: Phys.} 80(11):6523-6535, 1996.
390: \bibitem {ukc} A. V. Ustinov, H. Kolstedt, M. Cirillo, N. F. Pedersen,
391: G. Hallmanns \& C. Heiden, {\it Phys. Rev. B} 48:10614, 1993.
392: \bibitem {dlb} D.L. Brown, M.G. Forest, B.J. Miller \& N.A.
393: Petersson, {\it SIAM J. Appl. Math.} 54(4):1048-1066, 1994.
394: \bibitem {gmu} E. Goldobin, B. A. Malomed \& A. V. Ustinov, {\it Phys.
395: Letters A} 266:67-75, 2000.
396: \bibitem {gwu} E. Goldobin, A. Wallraff \& A. V. Ustinov, {\it J.
397: Low Temp. Phys.} 119(5/6):589-614, 2000.
398: \bibitem {gwtu} E. Goldobin, A. Wallraff, N. Thyssen \& A. V. Ustinov,
399: {\it Phys. Rev. B} 57(1):130-133, 1998.
400: \bibitem {auto} E.J. Doedel, R.C. Paffenroth, et. al., {\it AUTO2000:
401: Continuation and Bifurcation Software for Ordinary Differential Equations
402: (with HomCont)}, Concordia University, Canada, {\it
403: ftp.cs.concordia.ca/pub/doedel/auto}.
404: \bibitem {mms} M. B. Mineev, G. S. Mkrtchjan \& V. V. Schmidt, {\it J.
405: Low Temp. Phys.} 45:497, 1981.
406: \bibitem {bgv} J.B. van den Berg, S.A. van Gils \& T.P.P. Visser,
407: {\it Parameter Dependance of Homoclinic Solutions in a Single Long Josephson
408: Junction}, submitted to {\it Nonlinearity}.
409: \bibitem {tv} T.P.P Visser, {\it Modelling and Analysis of Long
410: Josephson Junctions}, Twente University Press, 2002.
411: \bibitem {tv1} T.P.P. Visser, {\it PDE-solver}, Twente
412: University, the Netherlands.
413: \end{thebibliography}
414:
415: \end{document}
416: