text:
# 1 The effective potential () in the stationary case (𝑢_𝑖=0) for different relations between the parameters 𝜇_𝑖,𝜆_𝑖.

Three Field Dynamics in (1+1)-dimensions

V.E. Kuzmichev aaa e-mail: specrada@bitp.kiev.ua and V.V. Kuzmichev bbb e-mail: specrada@bitp.kiev.ua; vvkuzmichev@yahoo.com

Bogolyubov Institute for Theoretical Physics, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Metrolohichna St. 14b, Kiev, 03143 Ukraine

Abstract: In a model of nonlinear system of three scalar fields the problem on dynamics of a massive particle moving in effective potential provided by two relativistic fields is solving. The potentials for these fields are chosen in the form of anti-Higgs and Higgs potentials. It is shown that the effective potential has the shape of two-hump barrier localized in spacetime. It tends to constant attractive potential at spacetime infinity. The magnitude of this constant constituent is determined by the Higgs condensate. It is shown that nonlinear equation of motion of a particle has the solutions which describe the capture of a particle by the barrier and the scattering on the barrier.

1. Introduction. Study of the dynamics of few fields interacting between themselves is of interest in the connexion with the problems of physics of nonlinear systems which arise in quantum field theory , in plasma, in hydrodynamics, in optics and so on . In QCD, for example, if one takes into account spin, colour and flavour degrees of freedom in quark-gluon system the requirement of gauge invariance of the theory leads to clear structure of the Lagrangian . However the equations of motion which follow from this Lagrangian prove to be too complicated for analysis and solution. The modelling of peculiar features of the Lagrangians of few-field systems with nonlinear self-interaction and study on this basis of toy models allowing exact or approximate solutions of the nonlinear equations of motion seem to be important.

In the present article nonlinear system of three scalar fields in (1+1)-dimensions is considered. One field is massive while the potentials of two other fields are described by the anti-Higgs and Higgs potentials. In the case when one can separate the slow and rapid motion in spacetime the effective potential of interaction of massive particle with “force field” provided by two relativistic fields is obtained. The mechanism of the formation of this potential is cleared up. It is shown that in general case it has the shape of two-hump barrier localized in spacetime. The potential tends to constant negative value at spacetime infinity. This constant attractive interaction represents the energy determined by the Higgs condensate. It arises in the system as a result of reorganization of vacuum of the field with self-interaction described by the Higgs potential. The equation of motion of massive particle takes into account self-interaction of its field and it is nonlinear. It is shown that the solutions of this equation can describe both capture of a particle by the barrier and the scattering on the barrier. The character of solutions depends on coupling constants of relativistic fields.

2. Effective potential. We shall consider the nonlinear system of three interacting scalar fields $`\varphi (x^\mu ),\phi _1(x^\mu )`$ and $`\phi _2(x^\mu )`$ in two-dimensional spacetime $`x^\mu =\{t,z\}`$. Let us suppose that the field $`\varphi `$ is massive and complex and the fields $`\phi _i`$ are real. We define the Lorentz-invariant Lagrangian in the form

$$=_\mu \varphi ^{}^\mu \varphi \varphi ^{}m^2\varphi +\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}\left[\frac{1}{2}_\mu \phi _i^\mu \phi _i\varphi ^{}U_i(\phi _i)\varphi \right],$$
(1)
where $`m`$ is the mass of the field $`\varphi `$. The functions $`U_i(\phi _i)`$ are chosen in the form of anti-Higgs $`(i=1)`$ and Higgs $`(i=2)`$ potentials respectively

$$U_i(\phi _i)=(1)^i\left[\frac{\mu _i^2}{2}\phi _i^2+\frac{\lambda _i}{4}\phi _i^4\right]$$
(2)
with coupling constants $`\mu _i^2>0`$ and $`\lambda _i>0`$. Variational principle being applied to the Lagrangian (1) leads to the set of three nonlinear field equations:

$$^2\varphi =\left[\underset{i}{}U_i+m^2\right]\varphi ,$$
(3)
$$^2\phi _i=\left|\varphi \right|^2\frac{U_i}{\phi _i}.$$
(4)
We shall limit ourselves to the consideration of the excitation spectrum of the field $`\varphi `$ with energies $`E^{}2m`$. The unitary transformation

$$\varphi =\psi \mathrm{exp}(imt)$$
(5)
in mentioned nonrelativistic limit leads to the Schrödinger equation

$$i_t\psi =\frac{1}{2m}\left[_z^2+V\right]\psi ,$$
(6)
which describes the motion of a particle with the mass $`m`$ in the effective potential

$$V=\underset{i}{}U_i(\phi _i)$$
(7)
provided by the relativistic fields $`\phi _i`$. The equations (4) - (7) describe the system in which one can separate two types of motion: slow variations of the Schrödinger field $`\psi `$ in the spacetime and rapid variations of the fields $`\phi _i`$. Neglecting the dependence of the amplitude $`|\varphi |=|\psi |`$ on variables $`(t,z)`$ we shall find the solution of equations (4) in the form of solitary waves

$$\phi _1=\pm \sqrt{\frac{2\mu _1^2}{\lambda _1}}\text{sech}\left(\mu _1|\psi |s_1\right),$$
(8)
$$\phi _2=\pm \sqrt{\frac{\mu _2^2}{\lambda _2}}\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{\mu _2}{\sqrt{2}}|\psi |s_2\right),$$
(9)
where $`s_i=(zu_it)/\sqrt{1u_i^2}`$, and $`u_i`$ are the velocities (free parameters), $`1<u_i<1`$. Substitution of these solutions into (7) gives the effective potential

$$V(t,z)=\frac{\mu _1^4}{\lambda _1}\text{sech}^2\left(\mu _1|\psi |s_1\right)\mathrm{tanh}^2(\mu _1|\psi |s_1)+\frac{\mu _2^4}{4\lambda _2}\left[\text{sech}^4\left(\frac{\mu _2}{\sqrt{2}}|\psi |s_2\right)1\right].$$
(10)
Its explicit form depends on the relations between the parameters $`\mu _i,\lambda _i`$ and $`u_i`$. In Fig. 1 the typical variants of the potential $`V(t,z)`$ in the stationary case $`(u_i=0)`$ as functions of $`z`$ are shown. The interactions which have the shape of two-hump barrier are the most interesting. As it is well known  the scattering of a particle with positive energy on such potential shows the resonant states. That corresponds to the formation of quasistationary state and subsequent quantum tunneling of a particle through the barrier into the region of large values of $`|z|`$. The wave function of such process out of range of barrier action has the form

$$\psi (z,t)=A(q)\left[\text{e}^{iqz}S(q)\text{e}^{iqz}\right]\text{e}^{iEt},$$
(11)
where $`S(q)`$ is the S-matrix, $`q`$ is the momentum of particle, $`E`$ is the energy, and the factor $`A(q)`$ is determined by the density of the incident flux. Since the amplitude $`|\psi |`$ is the function of $`z`$ which does not decrease on infinities the potential takes the constant negative value in the limit $`|\psi |s_2\pm \mathrm{}`$,

$$V_c=\frac{\mu _2^4}{4\lambda _2}.$$
(12)
Hence the equation (6) being nonlinear with respect to unknown $`\psi `$ reduces to the ordinary Schrödinger equation with constant attractive potential in the shape of square step in the limit of large values of $`|z|`$. If the energy $`E=k^2/2m>0`$ counted from the value $`V(0,0)=0`$ then the momentum $`q`$ in (11) equals to $`q=\sqrt{k^2V_c}`$. By means of simple renormalization of energy, $`\stackrel{~}{E}=EV_c/2m`$, the problem can be reduced to the problem of scattering on the potential $`\stackrel{~}{V}=VV_c`$ which is short-range. We note that such renormalization may be introduced already in the initial Lagrangian (1) by adding the constant term $`V_c`$ to the potential $`U_2`$ which does not change the solitary wave (9). New potential $`\stackrel{~}{U}_2`$ takes the form of the Higgs potential

$$U_2\stackrel{~}{U}_2=\frac{\lambda _2}{4}\left[\phi _2^2\frac{\mu _2^2}{\lambda _2}\right]^2,$$
(13)
which is widely used in different applications of the field theory. Such normalization of $`U_2`$ in particular is convenient in cosmology during the study of the early Universe . For example, it can give the equation of state between the pressure $`p`$ and the density $`ϵ`$ in the form $`p=ϵ`$ which leads to the exponential expansion of the Universe in inflationary models .

In order to clarify the physical contents of the terms in (10) we rewrite it as

$$V(t,z)=\frac{1}{2|\psi |^2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}\left(1u_i^2\right)\epsilon _i(s_i)\frac{\mu _2^4}{4\lambda _2},$$
(14)
where $`\epsilon _i`$ are the energy densities of the fields $`\phi _i`$ and $`\epsilon _2`$ is renormalized according to (13). The functions $`\epsilon _i`$ are localized in spacetime and corresponding total energies $`E_i=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\epsilon _i𝑑z`$ are finite. It means that the fields (8) and (9) form the local spacetime particle-like formations which are the carriers of the effective interaction in the nonlinear three-field system. The field $`\phi _1`$ (8) generates the part of interaction in two-hump barrier shape and the field $`\phi _2`$ (9) smoothes it so that potential $`V`$ takes the value (12) in the limit of large $`|z|`$. This constant can be explained as a result of spontaneous symmetry breaking  of the Lagrangian (1) when the field $`\phi _2`$ comes from unstable vacuum state with $`\phi _2=0`$ to the state with stable vacuum $`\phi _2=v`$, where

$$v=\pm \frac{m_H}{2\sqrt{\lambda }}=\pm \frac{\overline{m}_H}{2\sqrt{\overline{\lambda }}}$$
(15)
is the constant field (the Higgs condensate), $`m_H=2\mu _2m`$ is the Higgs mass, $`\lambda =\lambda _2m^2`$ is Higgs self-constant corresponding to the free field $`\phi _2`$, $`\overline{m}_H=m_H|\psi |`$ and $`\overline{\lambda }=\lambda |\psi |^2`$ are the effective values of these quantities in the presence of the field $`\psi `$. Taking (15) into account the constant constituent (12) can be expressed through the Higgs parameters,

$$V_c=\frac{1}{64\lambda }\frac{m_H^4}{m^2}.$$
(16)
This constant addition to the energy of interaction is proved to be important during the calculation of the time delay caused by the particle being located within the region inside the barrier . This addition permits us introduce the natural cut off of the confinement potential at distances of the order of the range of barrier and provides suppression of the probability of tunneling of a particle through the barrier of constant height and width to the observed (or expected) value. The expression (16) itself can be considered as a relation between the Higgs mass and the Higgs self-constant with the weight multiplier $`V_c`$ being fixed independently .

3. Localization of massive field. According to (10) and (13) the renormalization potential $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ is local in spacetime. Its form is determined by the sech-function and the dependence of the $`|\psi |`$ on the variables $`(t,z)`$ does not change the general behaviour of the effective potential. Therefore the equation (6) approximately can be considered as the ordinary Schrödinger equation. This approximation will be good enough everywhere except the cases when

$$\mu _1^2|\psi |^2s_1^2\frac{3}{5}\text{and/or}\mu _2^2|\psi |^2s_2^2\frac{8}{3}.$$
(17)
In this region of values of $`s_i^2`$ the form of the potential is determined by the wave function $`\psi `$ itself and the equation (6) takes the form of the nonlinear Schrödinger equation

$$i_t\psi +\frac{1}{2m}\left[_z^2+\gamma |\psi |^2\right]\psi =0$$
(18)
with the effective coupling constant

$$\gamma =\frac{\mu _2^6}{4\lambda _2}s_2^2\frac{\mu _1^6}{\lambda _1}s_1^2.$$
(19)
If $`\gamma >0`$ then the motion of a particle is determined mainly by the part of the effective interaction formed by the kink/antikink (9) and the interaction is attractive. If $`\gamma <0`$ then the main contribution to $`V`$ is made by the energy density of sech-wave (8) which forms the barrier. Since $`s_i^2`$ suppose to be small then their dependence on spacetime variables in the equation (18) can be neglected. In such approximation it has single-soliton solution

$$\psi (z,t)=P\sqrt{\frac{2}{\gamma }}\text{sech}\left[P\left(z\frac{Q}{m}t\right)\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[iQz+i\frac{1}{2m}\left(P^2Q^2\right)t\right]$$
(20)
at $`\gamma >0`$ and the boundary condition $`\psi (z,t)0`$ at $`|z|\mathrm{}`$. Here $`P`$ and $`Q`$ are the free parameters (momenta). This solution describes the traveling wave in the form of the local formation with the finite total energy. The case $`\gamma >0`$ is realized in the potentials of the type shown in Fig. 1 (third plot). They have an attractive part in the region inside the barrier. The function (20) describes the particle which is captured by the potential well. This phenomenon can be interpreted as capture of a particle by the barrier with formation of long-live (quasistationary) state. The particle can tunnel outside the barrier with small but finite probability caused by long tails of the wave function (20) coming from the sech-function.

This example shows that nonlinear character of motion of a particle (i.e. a motion with self-interaction originated from the interaction with the scalar fields $`\phi _i`$) can lead to the localization of its wave function in finite region of spacetime.

From the wave function (20) one can restore the form of the wave $`\phi _2`$,

$$\phi _2\mathrm{tanh}\left[P\left(z\frac{Q}{m}t\right)\right].$$
(21)
Comparison with (9) shows that the approximation (17) describes the case of kink/antikink moving with the velocity $`u_2=(Q/m)1`$ and the amplitude $`|\psi |`$ equals to the effective value $`\sqrt{2}P/\mu _2`$.

At $`\gamma <0`$ the particle gets to the repulsion region and corresponding exact particular solution of the equation (18) can be written in the form

$$\psi (z,t)=P\sqrt{\frac{2}{|\gamma |}}\mathrm{sec}\left[P\left(z\frac{Q}{m}t\right)\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[iQzi\frac{1}{2m}\left(P^2+Q^2\right)t\right].$$
(22)
It describes the wave propagating in whole space with the energy $`E=(P^2+Q^2)/2m`$ and amplitude which has the singularities in the points where the function of secant turns into infinity. These singularities apparently do not have the physical meaning and are connected with the approximate character of the calculations. The solution (22) describes the scattering of a particle on the barrier at small values of the parameters $`s_i^2`$.

At $`u_1=(Q/m)1`$ the argument of secant is proportional to $`Ps_1|\psi |s_11`$ and we can write

$$\psi (z,t)P\sqrt{\frac{2}{|\gamma |}}\mathrm{exp}\left[iQziEt\right],$$

where the plane wave is distorted by the influence of the barrier and the coefficient $`P\sqrt{2/|\gamma |}`$ is the effective scattering amplitude.

We should like to express our gratitude to Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (Bonn, Germany) for the assistance during the research.


format: text

text:
# The propensity of molecules to spatially align in intense light fields

## Abstract

The propensity of molecules to spatially align along the polarization vector of intense, pulsed light fields is related to readily-accessible parameters (molecular polarizabilities, moment of inertia, peak intensity of the light and its pulse duration). Predictions can now be made of which molecules can be spatially aligned, and under what circumstances, upon irradiation by intense light. Accounting for both enhanced ionization and hyperpolarizability, it is shown that all molecules can be aligned, even those with the smallest static polarizability, when subjected to the shortest available laser pulses (of sufficient intensity).

Studies of the response of matter to very intense fluxes of electromagnetic radiation address fundamental physics issues of systems driven strongly away from equilibrium. Matter is inherently unstable when subjected to strong electric fields of the type that can be generated in intense laser light. In the case of molecules subjected to laser light of intensity in excess of $``$1012 W cm-2, distortions of potential energy surfaces, with concomitant alterations in electron density distributions, lead to ionization, dissociation, and formation of strong dipole moments ($`\mu `$). With linearly polarized $`𝐄`$ fields of magnitudes that equal, or exceed, interatomic binding fields, the induced dipole moments exert torques on the molecular axes, $`\mu \times 𝐄`$, that can be large enough to spatially reorientate molecules and their ions such that the most polarizable molecular axis points along the light field vector. In early experiments, anisotropic angular distribution of fragment ions were obtained when the light polarization vector was rotated relative to the detector axis, and these were taken to be unambiguous signatures of spatial orientation . In recent studies, it has been recognized that the molecular ionization rate depends on the angle that the internuclear axis makes with the light field vector, and that this also leads to anisotropic angular distributions . Indeed, the ionization rate has to be computed using the field ionization Coulomb explosion model , whose angular dependence arises from the fact that the barrier suppression is given by $`𝐄𝐫`$, where $`𝐫`$ denotes the molecular axis.

Spatial alignment of isolated molecules is a subset of one of the central endeavors of physicists and chemists, namely to control the external degrees of freedom of atomic and molecular species at the microscopic level. The polarizability interaction of an intense, linearly-polarized light field with the induced dipole moment of molecules gives rise to a double-well potential; the resulting angular reorientation of molecular axes is akin to the interconversion of left- and right-handed enantiomers that was considered by Hund over 3 decades ago in terms of similar potentials . Spatial alignment of individual molecules can also justifiably be considered a special facet of the optical Kerr effect . On a more practical level, interest in studies of spatial alignment of molecules has been generated because of tantalizing possibilities of entirely new studies on pendular-state spectroscopy , coherent control experiments , and molecular trapping and focusing . The crucial role of polarization in choosing or altering dissociation pathways has also been experimentally established . It is clearly very important, therefore, to establish, both on the basis of the properties of the molecule under investigation and the characteristics of the laser light that is used, the extent of spatial alignment that occurs. Specific insight is also needed on the relative importance of angle dependent ionization on the one hand and molecular reorientation on the other in making sense of measured anisotropies in fragment ion distributions. In this Letter we present results of a comprehensive study that enables predictions to be made of the propensity of molecules to spatially align in intense, pulsed, polarized light on the basis of parameters that are readily accessible. We show that existing experimental data, spanning work done over the past decade by several groups including our own is explained by our model. We also show that it is possible to align molecules even with extremely short light pulses irrespective of the polarizability.

In any given analysis of spatial alignment three factors play a crucial role: (i) the peak intensity of the laser pulse, (ii) its temporal duration, and (iii) the ratio of the molecular polarizability (ground or excited state) to the moment of inertia ($`R=\frac{\alpha }{\mathrm{I}}`$). At high enough intensities, molecular hyperpolarizabilites may also be significant although their role in the alignment dynamics has not hitherto been explicitly considered. It is also well established that field ionization of molecules is ubiquitous with short pulse lasers. The important conclusion of the field ionization model relevant to alignment is the breakup of the molecule at a critical distance Rc that is larger than the equilibrium internuclear separation Re . The stretching of the internuclear axis increases the moment of inertia and leads to a slowing down of reorientation; dissociation at Rc implies that the molecule will dissociate before the peak intensity is reached, except for ultrashort light pulses.

The process of alignment is modeled by considering a rotor in a time dependent $`𝐄`$ field . In this case the interaction Hamiltonian is given by HI = -$`\mu `$.$`𝐄`$ where $`\mu =\mu _\mathrm{𝟎}+\frac{1}{2}\alpha 𝐄+\frac{1}{24}\gamma \mathrm{𝐄𝐄}`$. The Lagrangian is:

$$L=\frac{\mathrm{I}}{2}\left[\dot{\theta }^2+sin^2\theta \dot{\varphi }^2\right]+\mu .𝐄.$$
(1)
The equation of motion is then given by

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}^2\theta }{\mathrm{dt}^2}=\frac{\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}}{2\mathrm{I}}𝐄(t)^2sin2\theta 2\frac{\dot{\mathrm{r}}}{\mathrm{r}}\dot{\theta },$$
(2)
where $`\alpha _{eff}`$ is the effective polarizability. In the low-field limit this is the linear polarizability. The modification of this in high fields is discussed later. To keep our calculations as realistic as possible we have used a Gaussian laser pulse, $`E(t)=E_0e^{\frac{\mathrm{t}^2}{2\tau ^2}}cos\omega t`$. Spatial variations within the laser beam are not taken into account since it has been shown recently that intensity selective experiments minimize focal volume effects . In Eq. (1), the first term causes reorientation while the second term, the so-called damping term, impedes the motion of the molecular axis towards the light field vector. In the field ionization Coulomb explosion model , the damping term arises due to the elongation of the molecular axis from $`R_e`$ to $`R_c`$ after the removal of one or two electrons by tunnel/over the barrier ionization.

We present our results as follows. We first consider the simplest case where the polarizability is linear and no damping term is present. It is shown that even such a picture is of wide-ranging validity and utility. We then discuss results of calculations that take into account both damping and the hyperpolarizability, and we examine the extent to which our results are modified. Our calculations are compared with experimental observations.

Eq. (2) is solved used a 4th-order Runge-Kutta algorithm for a range of light field parameters. We consider the laser intensity range 1012 \- 1015 W cm-2, and pulse durations from 40 fs to 2 ps. In the linear case, molecule-specific calculations have not been done. Instead the $`A`$-parameter has been taken to lie in the interval 2$`\times `$104 \- 6$`\times `$107 (covering a wide range of light and heavy species, amongst them H2, N2, CS2 and I2). The initial direction of the molecular axis, $`\theta _0`$, is taken to be random in space. After the light pulse is switched on, the angular position is calculated as a function of time for various values of $`\theta _0`$ as shown in figure 1(a). From this one obtains a plot of $`\theta _f`$ vs. $`\theta _i`$ where $`\theta _i`$ is the initial angular position and $`\theta _f`$ is the angular orientation of the molecular axis at a particular instant. This is shown in figure 1(b). It is easy to show that the angular distribution of the molecular axis is proportional to $`(\frac{\mathrm{d}\theta _\mathrm{f}}{\mathrm{d}\theta _\mathrm{i}})^1`$. This procedure can no longer be used when the applied field is so strong that the molecular axis crosses $`\theta `$=0. In such cases we have used a counting method by interpolating the relation between $`\theta _f`$ and $`\theta _i`$ to obtain the angular distribution.

The trajectories shown in figure 1 (a) correspond to H2 exposed to 20 fs pulses at 1015 W cm-2. As can be seen from the slope in figure 1(b) the extent of reorientation in H2 is negligible under these conditions. Similar calculations were carried out for a range of parameters as specified above, and results are shown in figure 2. The surface demarcates the regions where spatial alignment is significant from those where no significant reorientation occurs. All points above the surface, i.e. in regions of larger intensity, polarizability and pulse duration correspond to molecules that are significantly aligned, while the opposite holds for points that lie below the surface. Note that we are dealing here only with linear polarizabilities. The nonlinear polarizability components serve only to strengthen the alignment. Thus, the demarcation based on $`\alpha `$ alone is very rigorous.

It is to be noted that the above calculations pertain to the position of the molecular axis. However alignment is deduced from the anisotropy of fragment ions. To make the connection with experimental data it should be noted that the angular distributions that are shown are those that would practically be measured using a spectrometer with a small acceptance angle. Thus, our calculations are specially relevant to the angular distributions of highly charged ions (that possess large kinetic energies). This is also important in the context of the residual angular momentum as the molecule rotates. This is sufficiently large to cause significant rotation on the time scale of the laser pulse but negligible compared to the energy of the fragment ions which are typically in excess of 1 eV. Illustrative experimental data for various molecules are also shown in the figure and we note the excellent agreement that is obtained between our model and measured data.

We now consider the damping term. Ignoring this term essentially assumes that the molecule is a rigid rotor in the intense field. However, as already noted, when the field is sufficiently large, the ionization dynamics occur through an enhanced ionization (EI) mechanism wherein one or two electrons are removed at the first ionization step. Subsequent to the first ionization step that occurs at the equilibrium internuclear separation, the two residual atomic ions mutually repel each other, leading to an increase in the bond length. This results in one or more Stark-shifted electronic levels rising above the potential barrier that separates the atomic cores, at which point multiple electron ejection occurs, leading to molecular fragmentation. EI can modify the reorientation rate in two ways. Firstly, as the moment of inertia increases, the magnitude of the first term in Eq. (1) will reduce. In addition, the damping term will come into play, leading to a further decrease in the rate at which the molecule rotates towards the light field vector. It is important to investigate the extent EI might modify our first-order calculations. Since EI parameters are available only for a few molecules, we have carried out these calculations for some standard cases. These can be extended to any other molecule once the relevant parameters are known either by calculation or experiment.

Fig. 3 (a) shows the angular distribution for H2 for a pulse duration of 40 fs at a peak laser intensity of 1015 W cm-2, with and without the damping term. It is clear that the reorientation of H2 is not significantly affected when the damping term is included. There are two major reasons for this. Firstly, $`R`$ is extremely large and the torque experienced by H2 is sufficient to induce reorientation despite the presence of an opposing force. Secondly, the fact that the ionization energy (and hence, the appearance intensity) of H2 is quite high, the damping force only comes into play close to the peak of the laser pulse, by which time the molecular axis is already aligned with the light polarization vector. Interestingly, the width of the angular distribution with damping included is actually smaller than when no damping is present. This arises due to the fact that the angular velocity without damping is larger, causing the molecular axis to execute large amplitude oscillations about $`\theta `$=0; hence, there will exist instants at which the peak of the angular distribution will shift away from zero.

A contrary situation is depicted in Fig. 3(b) when linear CS2 molecules are exposed to 100 fs light fields. In this case, the lower ionization energy of the molecule coupled with the relatively small value of $`A`$, leads to a situation where there is virtually no reorientation of the S-C-S axes with the direction of the $`𝐄`$ field at the point at which dissociation occurs. Strong alignment can be expected if it is assumed that the molecule survives undissociated till the peak of the laser pulse, a fact contrary to experimental observation, and illustrates the essentiality of EI in any such model. Similar calculations have been carried out for other molecules like N2 and I2. The situation for N2 is similar to H2 because of the similarity in the relevant parameters. In the case of I2, reorientation of the molecule is not significant even without the damping term. Once the damping term is included there is only a small deflection of the molecular axis.

Hitherto, only the polarization response that arises from the linear term has been considered. To what extent is this justified, especially at intensities in the range of 1012 \- 1015 W cm-2? It is important to note that hyperpolarizabilites are significant only at the highest intensities. This is obvious when we compare the integrals which define the work done by the field on the molecule by each order of the hyperpolarizability. It can be expected that for longer pulses, a model based on linear polarizability is sufficient since the dissociation of the molecule occurs on the rising edge of the pulse. However, as the pulse duration becomes shorter ($`<`$50 fs), the molecule will survive till the maximum intensity is reached, and the reorientation due to the higher order terms will become comparable to that due to the linear term, and may even exceed it!

To incorporate hyperpolarizability in our calculations, certain approximations need to be made. Firstly, the magnitude of the second- and higher-order susceptibilities is not known in most cases . Moreover, these quantities are tensors with numerous components and it is difficult to consider all the components in an exact way. We consider here the case for H2 taking into account the third order term due to the electronic response $`\gamma _e`$. The equation of motion is modified as follows: $`\alpha `$$`sin2\theta `$$`E^2`$$``$ $`\alpha `$$`sin2\theta `$$`E^2`$+$`\gamma _e`$$`sin4\theta `$$`E^4`$ +$`\mathrm{}`$.

Fig. 4 shows the effect of nonlinearity on the reorientation of the molecular axis for H2 acted on by a 20 fs pulse.The inclusion of only the third order term  leads to a significantly larger reorientation of the H-H axis as compared to the case when only the linear term is considered. As noted previously, such effects will be significant only for very short pulses. This is shown in figure 3(a) for the case of a 40 fs pulse wherein the effect of the third order term is much smaller than that for the 20 fs case. We have verified that for longer pulses such higher order terms need no longer be taken into account. Of course, it is obvious that as the laser pulses get shorter even higher order terms will begin to play a significant role. One can speculate that heavy molecules, like I2, may align with sufficiently short pulses because of the contribution from higher order terms. It is clearly necessary to test this conjecture experimentally since very little is known about the high order polarizabilities of almost all molecules.

In summary, we have considered molecular reorientation using a classical model. The justification for using a classical model is two-fold. In intense field-molecule interactions, classical analysis have been shown to be extremely fruitful in explaining much of the experimental data. Also, exact time-dependent analysis of the molecular response to a high-intensity pulsed light field is presently not feasible. We show that, despite the obvious limitations of classical models, the results are considerable utility in understanding a large body of experimental work on alignment, and for enabling predictions to be made on whether or not, and under what circumstances, molecules will be spatially aligned when subjected to intense, polarized, short-duration light fields. The rigor of the model is demonstrated. We have also incorporated, for the first time, (i) the role of enhanced ionization in the reorientation of molecules and (ii) the role of hyperpolarizability. It is shown that higher order contributions to the dipole moment are very important for extremely short light pulses. It is predicted that this will lead to alignment of molecules even for sub-50 fs pulses that are becoming increasingly accessible to experimentalists.

The TIFR high energy, femtosecond laser facility has been set up with substantial funding from the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India.


text:
# Magnetic Excitations in the Spin Gap System TlCuCl3

## Abstract

Single-crystal neutron inelastic scattering was performed in order to investigate the magnetic excitations in the spin gap system TlCuCl3. The constant-$`𝐐`$ energy scan profiles were collected in the $`a^{}c^{}`$ plane. Three excitations are observed for $`E15`$ meV. One of the excitations is identified to be magnetic excitation. The lowest magnetic excitation with $`E0.5`$ meV occurs at $`𝐐=(1,0,1)`$, as observed in KCuCl3. The dispersion relation of the magnetic excitation can be fitted to the dispersion formula derived from the weakly coupled dimer model. The intradimer interaction is evaluated as $`J=5.23`$ meV, which coincides with the value estimated from the susceptibility data. However, one of the interdimer interactions obtained is so large that the weakly coupled dimer model is broken down.

The quantum spin systems with spatial structures such as spin ladders, exchange-alternating chains and coupled antiferromagnetic dimer systems often have the excitation gap (spin gap) between the singlet ground state and the lowest excited triplet. Although the presence of the gap can be recognized through the exponential decrease of the susceptibility toward zero for $`T0`$ and the zero magnetization plateau, the information on the magnetic excitation is necessary to elucidate the microscopic mechanism leading to the gap. The excitations from the singlet ground state essentially have quantum nature , and thus they cannot be described by the classical spin-wave theory. The magnetic excitations in the spin gap systems are new subject in magnetism.

This paper is concerned with the magnetic excitations in the spin gap system TlCuCl3 . This compound is isostructural with KCuCl3, which has a monoclinic structure (space group $`P2_1/c`$) . The feature of the crystal structure is the double chain of edge-sharing CuCl6 octahedra running along the $`a`$-axis, which are separated by Tl+ ions. The magnitude of the spin gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in TlCuCl3 was evaluated from the magnetization process  and ESR measurements  as $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.65`$ meV.

The magnetic excitations of isostructural KCuCl3 have recently been measured by neutron inelastic scattering . The dispersion relation obtained is well described in terms of the weakly coupled antiferromagnetic dimers . Spins on the planar dimer Cu2Cl6 in the double chain form the antiferromagnetic dimer. The neighboring dimers couple along the double chain and in the cleavage plane (1, 0, $`\overline{2}`$). Since the crystal structures of TlCuCl3 and KCuCl3 are the same, it may be assumed that TlCuCl3 is also the weakly coupled dimer system magnetically. However, there is a significant difference between their magnetic properties, $`i.e.`$, the spin gap for TlCuCl3 is one-quarter of that for KCuCl3, while the saturation field for TlCuCl3 is about two times as large as that for KCuCl3 . This suggests that the interdimer interactions in TlCuCl3 is much stronger than those in KCuCl3. Thus we expect that the magnetic excitation in TlCuCl3 is not necessarily similar to those in KCuCl3.

Quite recently the three-dimensional magnetic ordering in TlCuCl3 has been observed in magnetic fields higher than the critical field $`H_\mathrm{c}=5.7`$ T . Nikuni et al.  demonstrated that the field-induced phase transition corresponds to the Bose-Einstein condensation of dilute magnons. The magnon mass can be determined by the curvature of the dispersion around the lowest excitation at zero field. Thus, it is worth while investigating the magnetic excitation in TlCuCl3 by means of neutron inelastic scattering. Since large single crystals can be obtained, TlCuCl3 is advantageous to neutron inelastic scattering.

TlCuCl3 single crystals were grown from a melt by Bridgman method. The details of sample preparation were reported in reference 8. Since the precise structural analysis for TlCuCl3 has not been reported, we performed the single crystal X-ray diffraction. The lattice parameters at room temperature were determined as $`a=3.9815\mathrm{\AA }`$, $`b=14.1440\mathrm{\AA }`$, $`c=8.8904\mathrm{\AA }`$ and $`\beta =96.32^{}`$. The atomic coordinates obtained are shown in Table I. As compared with the isostructural KCuCl3, the chemical unit cell of TlCuCl3 is compressed along the $`a`$-axis and enlarged in the $`bc`$ plane.

The neutron inelastic scattering was carried out using the ISSP-PONTA spectrometer installed at JRR-3M, Tokai. The constant-$`k_\mathrm{f}`$ mode was taken with fixed final neutron energy of $`E_\mathrm{f}`$=14.7 meV. In order to gain intensity, collimations were set as open - monochromator - $`80^{}`$ \- sample - $`80^{}`$ \- analyzer - $`80^{}`$ \- detector. The energy resolution is about 2 meV because of loose collimations. A pyrolytic graphite filter was placed after the sample to suppress the higher order contaminations. We used a sample with a volume of approximately 2.5 cm3. The TlCuCl3 crystal has cleavage planes (0, 1, 0) and (1, 0, $`\overline{2}`$). The sample was mounted in an ILL-type orange cryostat with its $`a^{}`$\- and $`c^{}`$-axes in the scattering plane. Since TlCuCl3 is a monoclinic crystal, the $`a^{}`$\- and $`c^{}`$-axes are not orthogonal to each other. The crystallographical parameters $`a^{}=1.6115`$ 1/$`\mathrm{\AA }`$, $`c^{}=0.71808`$ 1/$`\mathrm{\AA }`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\beta ^{}`$=0.0967 were used at helium temperatures. Excitation data were mainly collected at $`T=1.5`$ K. All excitation spectra shown in this paper were taken by the constant-Q energy scan in the energy range of 2$``$15 meV.

Figure 1 shows an example of the constant-$`𝐐`$ scan in TlCuCl3, which was measured at $`𝐐`$=(1.5,0,0) and at $`T=1.5`$ K. The line widths expected from the spectrometer resolution are represented by horizontal bars. Three excitations are observed near $`E=`$ 3, 7 and 12 meV. The scan profile was fitted with three Gaussians as shown by the solid line in Fig. 1. The background level was determined by the measurement for $`E2`$ meV, where no peak is appreciable. Sharp peaks much narrower than the resolution were excluded from the fitting.

Figure 2 shows the constant-$`𝐐`$ scan for $`𝐐`$=(1,0,0.8) measured at $`T=1.5`$ K and $`58`$ K. The intensity of the second excitation ($`E6`$ meV) is small for $`𝐐`$=(1,0,0.8). The intensity of the lowest excitation ($`E4`$ meV) decreases with increasing temperature, while the highest excitation ($`E11`$ meV) has the same intensity even at $`T=58`$ K. From this result, the lowest excitation can be attributed to the magnetic origin.

In order to obtain the dispersion relation $`\omega (𝐐)`$, we collected scan profiles for selected reciprocal lattice points at $`T=1.5`$ K. We confirmed that the periodicity of $`\omega (𝐐)`$ along the $`a^{}`$-axis is the same as that of the nuclear reciprocal lattice, while the periodicity along the $`c^{}`$-axis is doubled, as observed in KCuCl3 . Scan profiles were measured along $`(h,0,0)`$, $`(h,0,1)`$, $`(1,0,l)`$, $`(1.5,0,l)`$ and $`(h,0,2h1)`$ for $`1l1.5`$ and $`0h1`$. Figure 3 shows representative profiles. Three excitation peaks are observed in almost all of the profiles. The dispersion relation $`\omega (𝐐)`$ determined for TlCuCl3 is shown in Fig. 4. We label these three excitations $`\omega _1`$, $`\omega _2`$ and $`\omega _3`$, respectively. The lower $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$ branches exhibit large dispersion, and intersect, while the highest one is not dispersive.

Here we discuss the present results. The spin-spin interactions in TlCuCl3 can be expressed by the $`S=1/2`$ Heisenberg model $`=_{<i,j>}JS_iS_j`$, because the susceptibilities and the magnetization curves for different field directions coincide, when normalized by the $`g`$-factors . Therefore three excitations observed in TlCuCl3 cannot be understood by the splitting of the triplet excitations due to the large anisotropy energy. In isostructural KCuCl3, we observed an dispersionless excitation with $`E13`$ meV, which is attributed to the phonon excitation . Therefore the dispersionless $`\omega _3`$ excitation $`E12`$ meV in TlCuCl3 may also be attributed to the phonon excitation.

From the temperature dependence of the intensity of the $`\omega _1`$ excitation, its origin was confirmed to be magnetic. Thus we see that the lowest magnetic excitation occurs at $`𝐐=(1,0,1)`$ as observed in KCuCl3 . We measured the incoherent scattering at $`𝐐=(1,0,0.8)`$, and confirmed that its tail is negligible for $`E>2`$ meV. Using the data for $`E>2`$ meV, we estimate the lowest excitation energy as $`E_{\mathrm{min}}0.5`$ meV by the Gaussian fit. The value of $`E_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is compatible with the gap energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.65`$ meV evaluated from the previous magnetization process  and ESR measurements . Quite recently, the field-induced Néel ordering in TlCuCl3 was observed by neutron elastic scattering . In magnetic fields higher than the critical field of $`H_\mathrm{c}=5.7`$ T, magnetic Bragg peaks were observed at $`𝐐=(h,0,l)`$ with odd $`l`$ in the $`a^{}c^{}`$ plane. The result is consistent with the present observation.

The magnetic excitations in isostructural KCuCl3 are well described by the weakly coupled dimer model . Suzuki et al. argued that there exist two excitation modes in KCuCl3, because there are two kinds of dimers, which are located in the corner and the center of the chemical unit cell in the $`bc`$ plane. The excitation modes are expressed as

$$\omega _\pm (𝐐)=\sqrt{J^2JJ_\pm (𝐐)},$$
$`(1)`$
with

$`J_\pm (𝐐)`$ $`=`$ $`2[J_a\mathrm{cos}(2\pi h)+J_{2a}\mathrm{cos}(4\pi h)+J_{2ac}\mathrm{cos}\{2\pi (2h+l)\}]`$
$`\pm 4[J_{abc}\mathrm{cos}\{\pi (2h+k+l)\}+J_{bc}\mathrm{cos}\{\pi (k+l)\}],`$
where $`J`$ is the interaction in the dimer and $`J_a`$, $`J_{2a}`$, $`J_{2ac}`$, $`J_{abc}`$ and $`J_{bc}`$ are the effective interactions between a dimer and those located at $`𝐫=\pm 𝐚`$, $`\pm 2𝐚`$, $`\pm (2𝐚+𝐜)`$, $`\pm (𝐚\pm \frac{1}{2}𝐛+\frac{1}{2}𝐜)`$ and $`\pm (\pm \frac{1}{2}𝐛+\frac{1}{2}𝐜)`$, respectively. For the definition of the effective interdimer interactions , we follow reference 3. $`J_a`$ and $`J_{2a}`$ represent the interaction along the double chain, while $`J_{2ac}`$ and $`J_{abc}`$ are the interactions in the cleavage plane (1, 0, $`\overline{2}`$), in which the hole orbital $`d(x^2y^2)`$ lies. In KCuCl3, $`J_a`$, $`J_{2ac}`$ and $`J_{abc}`$ are dominant interdimer interactions . The intensities are $`I(\omega _+)0`$ and $`I(\omega _{})=0`$ for $`𝐐=(h,0,l)`$, while for $`𝐐=(0,k,0)`$, $`I(\omega _+)=0`$ and $`I(\omega _{})0`$. In the present experimental condition, only the $`\omega _+`$ mode is observable.

We fit eq. (1) for $`\omega _+(𝐐)`$ to the $`\omega _1`$ branch in TlCuCl3, and obtain $`J=5.23`$, $`J_a=0.21`$, $`J_{2a}=0.06`$, $`J_{2ac}=1.56`$, $`J_{abc}=0.34`$ and $`J_{bc}=0.09`$ meV. Solid lines in Fig. 4 are the fitting curves. The fitting looks well. The value of the intradimer interaction $`J`$ agrees well with the value $`J=5.25`$ meV estimated from the maximum susceptibility temperature $`T_{\mathrm{max}}=38`$ K , i.e., when the interdimer interactions are treated as the mean fields, the susceptibility is written as $`\chi =2Ng^2\mu _\mathrm{B}^2\beta /(3+\mathrm{exp}\beta J+\beta J^{})`$, where $`N`$ is the number of dimers, $`\beta =1/k_\mathrm{B}T`$ and $`J^{}`$ is the sum of the neighboring interdimer interactions . From this relation, we have $`J/k_\mathrm{B}T_{\mathrm{max}}=1.60`$.

The interaction parameters for TlCuCl3 should be compared with those obtained for KCuCl3, $`J=4.34`$, $`J_a=0.21`$, $`J_{2a}=0.03`$, $`J_{2ac}=0.45`$, $`J_{abc}=0.28`$ and $`J_{bc}=0.003`$ meV . The significant difference is seen in the value of $`J_{2ac}`$. $`J_{2ac}`$ for TlCuCl3 is four times as large as that for KCuCl3. In TlCuCl3 the value of $`J_{2ac}`$ is so large that the weakly coupled dimer model is broken down. Therefore, it is suggested that TlCuCl3 is magnetically described as coupled exchange-alternating chains parallel to the $`[2,0,1]`$ direction rather than a weakly coupled dimer system.

The dispersion relation of the $`\omega _{}`$ calculated with the interaction parameters obtained does not agree with the $`\omega _2`$ branch. At present, the origin of the dispersive $`\omega _2`$ excitation is unclear.

In conclusion, we have presented the results of neutron inelastic scattering on the spin gap system TlCuCl3. Three excitations were observed. The dispersion relation was determined in the $`a^{}c^{}`$ plane. One dispersive magnetic excitation was identified. It was found that the spin gap corresponds to the excitation at $`𝐐=(1,0,1)`$ as for KCuCl3. From the interaction parameters evaluated from the dispersion relation, it is suggested that TlCuCl3 is magnetically a coupled exchange-alternating chain rather than a weakly coupled dimer system. The authors would like to thank N. Suzuki for useful discussion. This work was partially supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture.


text:
# Asymptotic states in long Josephson junctions in an external magnetic field

## Abstract

Asymptotic states in long Josephson junctions are investigated in an external magnetic field. We show that a choice one of the solution of the stationary Ferrell-Prange equation can carry be out with use of an asymptotic solution of the sine-Gordon equation and that an evolution to that stable solution occurs by passing through metastable states, which is determined with a form of quickly damped initial perturbation. The boundary sine-Gordon and Ferrell-Prange problems were carried out with a numerical simulation. An approximated expression for the vortex and antivortex states is obtained in the case of large values of an external magnetic field.

The problem of magnetic field penetration in long Josephson junctions is in a sense a classical one . Nevertheless, interest in it has not abated . For example, in long Josephson junctions a dynamical chaos was discovered . A long Josephson junction is a very good system to study Josephson vortex (fluxons, solitons) motions and vortex interactions .

It is well known that a weak magnetic field penetrates exponentially in a long Josephson junction. In a strong magnetic field a state of the long Josephson junction arises that is characterized by the appearance of a Josephson vortex. An equation that describes this phenomenon is nonlinear and in a general case it is the driven damped sine-Gordon equation. In a stationary case we have the nonlinear Ferrell-Prange equation and one would think the stationary states of a long Josephson junction represent solutions of the above equation, although it turned out that the Ferrell-Prange equation has more than one solution and the number of them increases by increasing the total length $`L`$ of the long Josephson junction. Consequently, the problem of the selection of solutions arises. Considering this problem from the thermodynamic point of view one can affirm that a solution is realized which corresponds to a minimum of the thermodynamic potential. However, the situation turns out to be more complicated. In fact, if we suppose that the minimum of the thermodynamic potential is satisfied with some solutions of the stationary equation, then this criterion for selection of the solutions turns out to be insufficient. Apparently this is precisely what takes place in our case. In the present work it is shown that the problem of selection of solutions for the stationary Ferrell-Prange equation is unequivocally solved in the following way: An asymptotic solution of the nonstationary sine-Gordon equation is found that coincides with the solution of the stationary Ferrell-Prange equation by $`t\mathrm{}`$, and what is more either of asimptotic solution, which is realized, depends on a form of rapid damped initial perturbation or on a way of switching on an external magnetic field. This exceptionally important role of initial perturbation that appears as a trigger mechanism is obviously explained by system nonlinearity.

We consider a long Josephson junction in an external magnetic field $`H_{ext}`$ perpendicular to the junction. The Josephson phase variable $`\phi (x,t)`$ in a long Josephson junction is satisfied with the one-dimensional sine-Gordon equation

$$\phi _{tt}(x,t)+2\gamma \phi _t(x,t)\phi _{xx}(x,t)=\mathrm{sin}\phi (x,t),$$
(1)
where $`x`$ is the distance along the junction normalized to the Josephson penetration length $`\lambda _J`$,

$$\lambda _J=\left(\frac{c\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{8\pi ^2j_cd}\right)^{1/2},$$

$`t`$ is the time normalized to the inverse of the Josephson plasma frequency $`\omega _J`$,

$$\omega _J=\left(\frac{2\pi cj_c}{C\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\right)^{1/2},$$

$`\gamma `$ is the dissipative coefficient per unit area, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is the flux quantum, $`j_c`$ is the ctitical current density of superconductor, $`d=2\lambda _L+b`$, $`\lambda _L`$ is the London penetration length,$`b`$ is the thickness of the dielectric barrier, $`C`$ is the junction capacitance per unit area.

Conditions corresponding to the presence of the external magnetic field can be modeled by the following boundary conditions:

$$\phi _x(x,t)|_{x=0}=\phi _x(x,t)|_{x=L}=H_{ext}(0,t)=H_{ext}(L,t).$$
(2)
Here and below the magnetic field is normalized to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2\pi \lambda _Jd`$, and the total length of the junction $`L`$ is normalized to $`\lambda _J`$.

First of all we consider an asimptotic solution (by $`t\mathrm{}`$) of Eq. (1) with the boundary conditions (2) and suppose that $`lim_t\mathrm{}H_{ext}(0,t)=H_0`$. At first sight this problem is trivial, since all asymptotic solutions will be stationary on account of dissipation, they will be satisfied with the stationary Ferrell-Prange equation with the corresponding boundary conditions:

$$\begin{array}{c}\phi _{0xx}(x)=\mathrm{sin}\phi _0(x),\phi _{0x}(x)|_{x=0}=\phi _{0x}(x)|_{x=L}=H_0.\end{array}$$
(3)
However, numerical simulations of the boundary problem (1),(2) and (3) show that not all solutions of the problem (3) are asymptotic solutions of the problem (1), (2) or in other words we can say that not all solutions of the problem (3) are physically observed. For example, for the small external fields $`H_0<1`$ there exists a solution of the problem (3) that corresponds to an observed dumping of the magnetic field into a junction. Simultaneously with that solution another solution of the problem (3) exists that gives very strong growth of a field in the same direction into a long Josephson junction. To cut off “nonphysical” solutions supplementry considerations are attracted in the form of a condition of the minimum of a thermodynamic potential, as was mentioned above.

The results of problem (1), (2) simulations showed that “nonphysical” solutions are never realized in the asymptotic approximation. The reason for the lack of the asymptotic “nonphysical” solutions is their instability relative to small perturbations.

We show that the stationary solution $`\phi _0(x)`$ of the problem (3) is stable then and only then when all values of the spectrum $`E`$ are positive, i.e., $`E_{\mathrm{min}}>0`$, for the boundary problem

$$\begin{array}{c}u_{xx}(x)+u(x)\mathrm{cos}\phi _0(x)=Eu(x),\\ u_x(x)|_{x=0}=u_x(x)|_{x=L}=0.\end{array}$$
(4)
To prove this assertion we shall linearize the sine-Gordon equation in the vicinity of stationary solution $`\phi _0(x)`$; i.e., we shall suppose $`\phi (x,t)=\phi _0(x)+\theta (x,t)`$, where $`\theta (x,t)`$ is an infinitesimal perturbation. We obtain the equation for the function $`\theta (x,t)`$ from the sine-Gordon equation taking into account the Ferrell-Prange equation:

$$\begin{array}{c}\theta _{tt}(x,t)+2\gamma \theta _t(x,t)\theta _{xx}(x,t)=\theta (x,t)\mathrm{cos}\phi _0(x),\\ \theta _x(x)|_{x=0}=\theta _x(x)|_{x=L}=0.\end{array}$$
(5)
We can obtain a general solution of the boundary Eq. (5) by means of the expansion of the function $`\theta (x,t)`$ in a series in terms of a complete system of eigenfunctions of the Schrödinger operator with the potential $`\mathrm{cos}\phi _0(x)`$:

$$\theta (x,t)=\underset{n}{}e^{\lambda _nt}u_n(x),$$
(6)
where $`\lambda _n`$ and $`u_n(x)`$ are eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of the Schrödinger operator of the problem (4), respectively. Substituting expansion (6) into Eq. (5) and taking into account Eq. (4), we get for $`\lambda _n`$:

$$\lambda _n=\gamma \pm \sqrt{\gamma ^2E_n}.$$
(7)
It is clear that if even one of the numbers $`\lambda _n`$ has a positive real part, then the infinitesimal perturbations $`\theta (x,t)`$ will increase exponentially in the course of time and, further, if all $`\lambda _n`$ have a negative real part, then the perturbations damp exponentially. Since the Schrödinger operator is a Hermitian operator in a space of functions which have a derivative on the ends of intervals equal to zero, its eigenvalues $`E_n`$ are real. It results from expression (7) that $`\lambda _n`$ can have a positive real part only with $`E_n<0`$. Thus with $`E_n>0`$ all $`\lambda _n<0`$ and perturbations $`\theta (x,t)`$ damp exponentially. It is clear that the condition $`E_{n\mathrm{min}}>0`$ is the condition of the stable solution of the problem (3) with any values $`\gamma >0`$.

One can call unstable solutions $`\phi _0(x)`$ of the problem (3) metastable, since they may be long-lived. Analysis of the spectrum problem gives information about the survival time of metastable states. Let $`\mathrm{}\lambda _n>0`$; then $`\tau =(\mathrm{}\lambda _n)^1`$ makes sense of the characteristic decay time of the metastable state. The corresponding eigenfunctions $`u_n(x)`$ are perturbations that destroy the metastable states.

A detailed analysis of the problem (1), (2), (3), and (4) is failed to be carried out by analytical methods. The numerical simulation results of this problems showed the following.

(1) The number $`N`$ of stable and metastable states, i.e., the number of solutions of the problem (3), increases with increasing $`L`$. For example, with $`H_0>2`$ for $`L=2\pi `$, $`N=4`$, for $`L=20`$, $`N=8`$.

(2) From all solutions of the problem (3) approximately half of the states is stable. For example, with $`H_0=3`$ for $`L=2\pi `$, 2 states out of 4 are stable; for $`L=20`$, 3 states out of 8 are stable; for $`L=40`$, 11 states of 18 are stable.

(3) The numerical investigations of the sine-Gordon Eq. (1) showed that either stable state \[stable solution of the problem (3)\] is realized depending on the method of superposition of an external field in a long Josephson junction. In other words, an established magnetic field and currents in the junction “remember” how an external magnetic field was started.

For the case $`H_0=2`$, $`L=2\pi `$ switching on the magnetic field in the form $`H_{\mathrm{ext}}(0,t)=H_{\mathrm{ext}}(L,t)=H_0[1a\mathrm{exp}(t/5)\mathrm{cos}t]`$ leads to the system coming to one or another state (Fig. 1) depending on the controlling parameter $`a`$. So with $`0a0.36`$ state 4 is realized in Fig. 1; with $`0.37a0.74`$ the one fluxon state 6 is realized; with $`a0.75`$ the two fluxon state 8 is realized.

It turns out that transition to one of the stable asymptotic states occurs through the metastable states. For example, with $`a=0.74`$ state 6 arises from the metastable state 7; with $`a=0.75`$ state 8 arises from the same metastable state 7 (Fig. 1). This property of the system is not characteristic for the case $`H_0=2`$, corresponding to a separatrix. For other values of $`H_0`$ the same property takes place. In Fig. 2 the evolution of the magnetic field is shown for the case $`H_0=2`$ with different values of the parameter $`a`$ into the junction.

In our opinion the conclusion is the most important. Thus, an asymptotic state of a magnetic field, realized in a long Josephson junction depends essentially on a method of switching on an external field, which is a direct result of the sine-Gordon equation. The asymptote of problem (1), (2) taking into account the method of switching on an external field does select one of the stable solutions of the stationary Ferrell-Prange equation. It is possible that this property of the solution is general enough for nonlinear systems. With the condition of minimum thermodynamic potential all stable solutions of problem (3) are satisfied apparently.

We should like to note another interesting fact following from the numerical simulation of problems (1), (2) and (3). Among all the stationary solutions there exists one which corresponds to the maximum of a magnetic field and the another that corresponds to the minimum of a magnetic field. In Fig. 1 these are states 8 and 6, respectively. The states are stable. State 8 in this figure is called a vortex; state 6 in the same figure is called an antivortex. For these states we can obtain an approximate formula solving problem (3) by means of the iteraction method

$$\begin{array}{c}\phi _0(x)lim_k\mathrm{}\phi _0^{(k)}(x),\\ \phi _{0xx}^{(k)}(x)=\mathrm{sin}\phi _0^{(k1)}(x),\\ \phi _{0x}^{(k)}|_{x=0}=\phi _{0x}^{(k)}|_{x=L}=H_0.\end{array}$$
(8)
Suppose $`\phi _0^{(0)}(x)=H_0x+\alpha `$, where $`\alpha `$ is some kind of constant. Then

$$\begin{array}{c}\phi _{0xx}^{(1)}(x)=\mathrm{sin}(H_0x+\alpha ),\\ \phi _{0x}^{(1)}|_{x=0}=\phi _{0x}^{(1)}|_{x=L}=H_0.\end{array}$$
(9)
Integrating (8), we find

$$H^{(1)}\phi _{0x}^{(1)}(x)=H_0\pm \frac{1}{H_0}\left[\mathrm{cos}\left(H_0x\frac{H_0L}{2}\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{H_0L}{2}\right)\right].$$
(10)
In formula (10) the “$`+`$” sign corresponds to a vortex state; the “$``$” sign corresponds to an antivortex state. Expression (10) is correct in the case of large fields. Comparision of the values, obtained by means of formula (10), with results of numerical simulation shows that they practically do not differ for $`H_0=10`$.

In conclusion we note that a swing of deflections of the field $`H^{(1)}(x)`$ from $`H_0`$ makes $`2/H_0`$ and this swing decrease by increasing of the external field. In other words one can say that the number of the stationary states per unit of field increases. In turn this circumstance may lead to the small fluctuations of the external field $`H_0`$ to cause of a “jump” from the one stable state to the other. We hope to discuss this problem in detail in our next work.

1. Solutions of boundary problem (3) for the case $`H_0=2,L=2\pi `$. Solid line (4,6,8), stable states; dashed line (1,2,3,5,7), metastable states.
2. Evolution of magnetic field for the case $`H_0=2,L=2\pi `$ with different values of parameter $`a`$. (a) $`a=0.2`$, (b) $`a=0.5`$, and (c) $`a=1.0`$.


text:
# Connection between type A and E factorizations and construction of satellite algebras

## 1 Introduction

Lie algebraic techniques have proved very useful in explaining the exact solvability of quantum mechanical problems . Such techniques arose from the factorization method, introduced by Schrödinger  and later developed by Infeld and Hull .

More recent developments in algebraic methods, such as the introduction of the potential algebra concept  and the SUSYQM superalgebra scheme  for shape-invariant potentials , also heavily rely on the factorization method (see e.g. ). All these approaches allow one to connect with one another wavefunctions $`\psi ^{(m)}(x)`$ corresponding to the same energy eigenvalue, but to different potentials $`V^{(m)}(x)`$, $`m=0`$, 1, 2, …, $`n1`$, of a given family, which may be called satellite potentials. In the factorization method, the ladder operators connecting $`\psi ^{(m)}(x)`$ to $`\psi ^{(m+1)}(x)`$ or $`\psi ^{(m1)}(x)`$ are $`m`$-dependent. In the potential algebra approach, this $`m`$-dependence is eliminated by introducing some auxiliary variables, so that the resulting operators become the generators of some Lie algebra. The latter is compact or noncompact according to whether $`n`$ is finite or infinite. In the SUSYQM approach, in contrast, the same elimination is performed by transforming the ladder operators into supercharge ones and by introducing a supersymmetric Hamiltonian, thereby giving rise to an su(1/1) superalgebra.

In a recent work , we introduced a new class of symmetry algebras, which may be called satellite algebras. They are similar to the potential algebras in the sense that they also depend upon some auxiliary variables and connect among themselves wavefunctions belonging to different satellite potentials. However, they are more general than the potential algebras, because the related wavefunctions correspond to different energy eigenvalues. There actually exists a conserved quantity, different from the energy, which is the eigenvalue of the algebra Casimir operator.

In the case studied in ref. , which is that of the generalized Morse potential (GMP)  (related to the Manning-Rosen  or Eckart  potential), the conserved quantity is some combination of the potential parameters. This is an interesting property of the GMP satellite algebra, which may find applications in molecular physics. It is indeed well known  that when analysing electromagnetic transitions between rovibrational bands in diatomic molecules, the initial and final electronic states are in general different and therefore give rise to different vibrational potentials, which should be taken into account in the calculation of Frank-Condon factors. It was suggested by Ley-Koo  that finding an algebra that both changes the potential and the vibrational state could be useful in this context. If we identify the initial and final potentials with GMP satellite ones and the initial and final vibrational states with some eigenstates of the latter, the GMP satellite algebra turns out to be a good candidate for such an algebra.

Since this shows that the new class of satellite algebras may be physically relevant, it is worth exploring it in more detail. In ref. , the GMP satellite algebra so(2,2) was constructed in an indirect way by connecting the corresponding Schrödinger equation with either the Laplace equation on the hyperboloid or the Schrödinger equation for the Pöschl-Teller potential, then transferring the known so(2,2) symmetry algebra of the latter to the former. The relation between this procedure and the factorization method, although implicit, was left untouched.

The purpose of the present paper is to investigate the role of the factorization method in the construction of satellite algebras. We shall devise a general procedure for determining an so(2,2) or so(2,1) satellite algebra for all the Hamiltonians that admit a type E factorization. Such a procedure is based upon the known relationship between type A and E factorizations , combined with an algebraization similar to that used in the construction of potential algebras . It should be noted that our procedure is fairly general since the other factorization types (B, C, D), and F may be considered as limiting forms of A and E, respectively.

The general method proposed here will allow us to recover and generalize the results previously obtained for the GMP . Various examples will be presented for illustrative purposes, but it is obvious that detailed numerical applications of each of them do not come within the scope of the present paper and are left for future work.

This paper is organized as follows. The factorization method is briefly reviewed in section 2 and used in section 3 to provide a general construction method of satellite algebras. In sections 4, 5, and 6, the latter is illustrated by considering the cases of the GMP, the Rosen-Morse potential, and the Kepler problem in a space of constant negative curvature, respectively. Finally, section 7 contains the conclusion.

## 2 The factorization method

Following Infeld and Hull , the linear second-order differential equation

$$\frac{d^2y}{dx^2}+r(x,m)y+\lambda y=0$$
(2.1)
where $`m`$ is a nonnegative integer and $`\lambda `$ the eigenvalue to be determined, can be factorized if it can be replaced by each of the following two equations:

$`H^+(m+1)H^{}(m+1)y(\lambda ,m)`$ $`=`$ $`[\lambda L(m+1)]y(\lambda ,m)`$ (2.2)
$`H^{}(m)H^+(m)y(\lambda ,m)`$ $`=`$ $`[\lambda L(m)]y(\lambda ,m)`$ (2.3)
where

$$H^\pm (m)=\pm \frac{d}{dx}+k(x,m).$$
(2.4)
Here $`k(x,m)`$ is some function of $`x`$ and of the parameter $`m`$, and $`L(m)`$ is an $`m`$-dependent real number.

If equation (2.1) can be factorized and $`y(\lambda ,m)`$ is one of its solutions, then $`H^{}(m+1)`$ and $`H^+(m)`$ act as ladder operators, i.e., they give rise to other solutions

$$y(\lambda ,m+1)=H^{}(m+1)y(\lambda ,m)y(\lambda ,m1)=H^+(m)y(\lambda ,m)$$
(2.5)
corresponding to the same $`\lambda `$, but different $`m`$ values. Moreover, the operators $`H^{}(m)`$ and $`H^+(m)`$ are formally mutually adjoint.

In practical cases, it can be checked that if $`y(\lambda ,m)`$ is a square-integrable solution of Eqs. (2.2) and (2.3), and $`L(m)`$ is an increasing (resp. decreasing) function of $`m`$, then the operator $`H^{}(m+1)`$ (resp. $`H^+(m)`$) yields a function $`y(\lambda ,m+1)`$ (resp. $`y(\lambda ,m1)`$) that is also square integrable.

When $`L(m)`$ is an increasing (resp. decreasing) function of $`m`$, the problem is said to be of class I (resp. II). A necessary condition for square-integrable solutions is then that $`\lambda =\lambda _l=L(l+1)`$ (resp. $`\lambda =\lambda _l=L(l)`$), where $`l`$ is an integer and $`m=0`$, 1, …, $`l`$ (resp. $`m=l`$, $`l+1`$, …).

Square-integrable solutions that are also normalized are denoted by $`Y_l^m`$. In addition to equations (2.2) and (2.3), they satisfy the relations

$$H^{}(m+1)Y_l^m=[\lambda L(m+1)]^{1/2}Y_l^{m+1}H^+(m)Y_l^m=[\lambda L(m)]^{1/2}Y_l^{m1}.$$
(2.6)
The possible factorizations types can be found by inserting equation (2.4) into equations (2.2) and (2.3), comparing the results with equation (2.1), and eliminating the function $`r(x,m)`$. This leads to a differential-difference equation for $`k(x,m)`$, which was shown by Infeld and Hull  to have six different nontrivial types of solutions, denoted by the letters A, B, C, D, E, F. From $`k(x,m)`$, it is then possible to find $`r(x,m)`$ and $`L(m)`$.

For type A and E factorizations, to be considered in the remainder of this paper, $`r(x,m)`$, $`k(x,m)`$, and $`L(m)`$ are given in terms of some constants $`a`$, $`c`$, $`d`$, $`p`$, $`q`$ by

$`r(x,m)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a^2(m+c)(m+c+1)+d^2+2ad\left(m+c+\frac{1}{2}\right)\mathrm{cos}[a(x+p)]}{\mathrm{sin}^2[a(x+p)]}}`$ (2.7)
$`k(x,m)`$ $`=`$ $`(m+c)a\mathrm{cot}[a(x+p)]+{\displaystyle \frac{d}{\mathrm{sin}[a(x+p)]}}`$ (2.8)
$`L(m)`$ $`=`$ $`a^2(m+c)^2`$ (2.9)
and

$`r(x,m)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m(m+1)a^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2[a(x+p)]}}2aq\mathrm{cot}[a(x+p)]`$ (2.10)
$`k(x,m)`$ $`=`$ $`ma\mathrm{cot}[a(x+p)]+{\displaystyle \frac{q}{m}}`$ (2.11)
$`L(m)`$ $`=`$ $`a^2m^2{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{m^2}}`$ (2.12)
respectively.

## 3 General construction method of satellite algebras

Let us consider the most general second-order differential equation admitting a type E factorization. From equations (2.1) and (2.10), it is given by

$$\frac{d^2\psi }{dx^2}\left\{\frac{m(m+1)a^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2[a(x+p)]}+2aq\mathrm{cot}[a(x+p)]\right\}\psi +\lambda \psi =0$$
(3.1)
where the normalized eigenfunctions $`Y_l^m`$ corresponding to the discrete eigenvalues $`\lambda =\lambda _l`$ are denoted by $`\psi `$, $`a`$, $`p`$, $`q`$ are some constants, and $`l`$, $`m`$ run over some nonnegative integers. Equation (3.1) can be factorized as shown in equations (2.2), (2.3), with $`y(\lambda ,m)`$ replaced by $`\psi =Y_l^m`$, and $`k(x,m)`$, $`L(m)`$ given in equations (2.11), (2.12), respectively. For definiteness’ sake, in the following we shall restrict ourselves to class I problems, but the results obtained can easily be accommodated to class II problems by replacing $`l+1`$ by $`l`$, and changing the $`m`$ range accordingly.

In the ladder operator definition given in equations (2.4) and (2.11), $`m`$ occurs in the denominator, so that an algebraization along the lines of references  is not possible. To carry out such an algebraization, it is necessary to first transform the type E factorizable equation (3.1) into a type A one, which according to equations (2.1) and (2.7) is given by

$$\frac{d^2\chi }{dy^2}\frac{\overline{a}^2(\overline{m}+\overline{c})(\overline{m}+\overline{c}+1)+\overline{d}^2+2\overline{a}\overline{d}(\overline{m}+\overline{c}+\frac{1}{2})\mathrm{cos}[\overline{a}(y+\overline{p})]}{\mathrm{sin}^2[\overline{a}(y+\overline{p})]}\chi +\overline{\lambda }\chi =0.$$
(3.2)
Here the variable $`x`$ is changed into $`y`$, a bar is put on top of all the constants to distinguish them from those used for type E factorization, and the normalized eigenfunctions $`\overline{Y}_{\overline{l}}^{\overline{m}}`$, corresponding to the eigenvalues $`\overline{\lambda }=\overline{\lambda }_{\overline{l}}`$, are denoted by $`\chi `$. From equations (2.4), (2.8), and (2.9), it follows that the associated ladder operators $`\overline{H}^\pm (\overline{m})`$, which depend linearly on $`\overline{m}`$, and the real constant $`\overline{L}(\overline{m})`$ can be written as

$$\overline{H}^\pm (\overline{m})=\pm \frac{d}{dy}+(\overline{m}+\overline{c})\overline{a}\mathrm{cot}[\overline{a}(y+\overline{p})]+\frac{\overline{d}}{\mathrm{sin}[\overline{a}(y+\overline{p})]}$$
(3.3)
and

$$\overline{L}(\overline{m})=\overline{a}^2(\overline{m}+\overline{c})^2$$
(3.4)
respectively.

By performing two successive changes of variable and of function,

$`z`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}[\mathrm{tan}(a\overline{x}/2)]\overline{x}x+p`$
$`\psi (x)`$ $`=`$ $`[\mathrm{sin}(a\overline{x})]^{1/2}\varphi (z)=(\mathrm{cosh}z)^{1/2}\varphi (z)`$ (3.5)
and

$$y=\mathrm{i}z+\frac{\pi }{2}\varphi (z)=\chi (y)$$
(3.6)
equation (3.1) is transformed into an equation of type (3.2),

$$\frac{d^2\chi }{dy^2}\frac{(\lambda /a^2)(1/4)+2\mathrm{i}(q/a)\mathrm{cos}y}{\mathrm{sin}^2y}\chi +\left(m+\frac{1}{2}\right)^2\chi =0.$$
(3.7)
Comparison between equations (3.2) and (3.7) shows that the type A factorization constants $`\overline{a}`$, $`\overline{c}`$, $`\overline{d}`$, $`\overline{p}`$, and parameter $`\overline{m}`$ are connected with the constants $`a`$, $`q`$, and the eigenvalue $`\lambda `$ of type E factorization through the relations

$`\overline{a}=1\overline{p}=0`$ (3.8)
$`\overline{d}\left(\overline{m}+\overline{c}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)=\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{q}{a}}`$ (3.9)
$`(\overline{m}+\overline{c})(\overline{m}+\overline{c}+1)+\overline{d}^2={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{a^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}.`$ (3.10)
From equation (3.9), we get

$$\overline{m}+\overline{c}+\frac{1}{2}=\frac{\mathrm{i}q}{a\overline{d}}$$
(3.11)
and by substituting this expression into equation (3.10), the latter becomes

$$\frac{q^2}{\overline{d}^2}+a^2\overline{d}^2=\lambda .$$
(3.12)
We know however that for a type E factorizable problem of class I, the eigenvalue $`\lambda `$ is given by

$$\lambda =L(l+1)=a^2(l+1)^2\frac{q^2}{(l+1)^2}$$
(3.13)
where equation (2.12) has been used. By equating the two expressions (3.12) and (3.13) for $`\lambda `$, we obtain a quadratic equation for $`\overline{d}^2`$ with two real solutions, $`\overline{d}^2=(l+1)^2`$ and $`\overline{d}^2=q^2/[a^2(l+1)^2]`$. By using equation (3.11) again, we therefore get four possible choices for $`\overline{d}`$ and $`\overline{m}+\overline{c}+(1/2)`$,

$$\overline{d}=ϵ(l+1)\overline{m}+\overline{c}+\frac{1}{2}=\frac{\mathrm{i}ϵq}{a(l+1)}$$
(3.14)
and

$$\overline{d}=\frac{\mathrm{i}ϵq}{a(l+1)}\overline{m}+\overline{c}+\frac{1}{2}=ϵ(l+1)$$
(3.15)
where $`ϵ=\pm 1`$ is a so far undetermined sign.

After inverting the transformations (3.5) and (3.6), and taking equation (3.8) into account, the type A ladder operators (3.3) lead to ladder operators for the original eigenfunctions $`\psi `$,

$`\stackrel{~}{H}^\pm (\overline{m})`$ $``$ $`[\mathrm{sin}(a\overline{x})]^{1/2}\overline{H}^\pm (\overline{m})[\mathrm{sin}(a\overline{x})]^{1/2}`$ (3.16)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(a\overline{x})}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\overline{x}}}+\mathrm{i}\left(\overline{m}+\overline{c}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\mathrm{cos}(a\overline{x})+\overline{d}\mathrm{sin}(a\overline{x})`$
where any of the two substitutions defined in equations (3.14) and (3.15) may in principle be performed. We shall denote the resulting operators by $`\stackrel{~}{H}_1^\pm (\overline{m})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_2^\pm (\overline{m})`$, respectively.

Such ladder operators can now be transformed into Lie algebra generators by introducing two auxiliary variables $`\xi `$, $`\eta [0,2\pi )`$, and extended eigenfunctions defined by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{s,t}(x,\xi ,\eta )=(2\pi )^1e^{\mathrm{i}s\xi }\psi (x)e^{\mathrm{i}t\eta }$$
(3.17)
where

$$s\frac{\mathrm{i}ϵq}{a(l+1)}tϵ(l+1).$$
(3.18)
Since

$$S_0=\mathrm{i}\frac{}{\xi }T_0=\mathrm{i}\frac{}{\eta }$$
(3.19)
are such that

$$S_0\mathrm{\Psi }_{s,t}=s\mathrm{\Psi }_{s,t}T_0\mathrm{\Psi }_{s,t}=t\mathrm{\Psi }_{s,t}$$
(3.20)
we may replace $`s`$ and $`t`$ by $`\mathrm{i}/\xi `$ and $`\mathrm{i}/\eta `$ when such operators act on the extended eigenfunctions, respectively. By combining the transformations

$$(\mathrm{i})e^{\pm \mathrm{i}\xi }\stackrel{~}{H}_1^{}\left(\overline{m}+\frac{1}{2}\pm \frac{1}{2}\right)S_\pm (\mathrm{i})e^{\pm \mathrm{i}\eta }\stackrel{~}{H}_2^{}\left(\overline{m}+\frac{1}{2}\pm \frac{1}{2}\right)T_\pm $$
(3.21)
with these substitutions, we obtain

$`S_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`e^{\pm \mathrm{i}\xi }\left[\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(a\overline{x})}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{x}}}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{cos}(a\overline{x}){\displaystyle \frac{}{\xi }}\mathrm{sin}(a\overline{x}){\displaystyle \frac{}{\eta }}\right]`$ (3.22)
$`T_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`e^{\pm \mathrm{i}\eta }\left[\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(a\overline{x})}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{x}}}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{cos}(a\overline{x}){\displaystyle \frac{}{\eta }}\mathrm{sin}(a\overline{x}){\displaystyle \frac{}{\xi }}\right].`$ (3.23)
We note that $`S_0`$, $`S_\pm `$ and $`T_0`$, $`T_\pm `$ only differ by the substitutions $`\xi \eta `$, $`/\xi /\eta `$.

It is now straightforward to check that each set of generators $`S_0`$, $`S_+`$, $`S_{}`$ and $`T_0`$, $`T_+`$, $`T_{}`$ satisfies the defining relations of $`\text{su(1,1)}\text{so(2,1)}`$, e.g.,

$$[S_0,S_\pm ]=\pm S_\pm [S_+,S_{}]=2S_0$$
(3.24)
and that any generator of the first set commutes with any generator of the second one. Hence, the six operators generate an $`\text{so(2,2)}\text{su(1,1)}\text{su(1,1)}`$ Lie algebra.

Both Casimir operators

$$C_sS_+S_{}+S_0(S_01)C_tT_+T_{}+T_0(T_01)$$
(3.25)
are equal and given by

$$C_s=C_t=C=\mathrm{sin}^2(a\overline{x})\left[\frac{1}{a^2}\frac{^2}{\overline{x}^2}\frac{^2}{\xi ^2}\frac{^2}{\eta ^2}2\mathrm{i}\mathrm{cot}(a\overline{x})\frac{^2}{\xi \eta }\right].$$
(3.26)
Since from equations (3.13) and (3.18),

$$s^2+t^2=\frac{\lambda }{a^2}st=\frac{\mathrm{i}q}{a}$$
(3.27)
the action of $`C`$ on the extended eigenfunctions (3.17) is given by

$`C\mathrm{\Psi }_{s,t}(x,\xi ,\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi )^1e^{\mathrm{i}(s\xi +t\eta )}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2(a\overline{x})}{a^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{d\overline{x}^2}}2aq\mathrm{cot}(a\overline{x})+\lambda \right]\psi (x)`$ (3.28)
$`=`$ $`m(m+1)\mathrm{\Psi }_{s,t}(x,\xi ,\eta )`$
where in the last step use has been made of equation (3.1).

All the arguments presented so far have been rather formal. For completeness’ sake, we also have to discuss the eigenfunction normalizability conditions, which are known to play an important role in applying the factorization method. This will be considered for some examples in the next sections. At this stage, however, we may already note three important properties at the Lie algebra representation level.

Firstly, it is clear that such representations will be nonunitary. The lack of unitarity actually comes from the normalization change implied by the transformation from $`\psi (x)`$ to $`\varphi (z)`$ in equation (3.5).

Secondly, in practice we shall have to distinguish between trigonometric and hyperbolic potentials, for which $`a`$ in equation (3.1) is real or imaginary, respectively. In the former case, $`s`$, defined in equation (3.18), turns out to be imaginary. This is incompatible with the eigenvalues of $`S_0`$ in an su(1,1) irreducible representation, which should differ from one another by some real integer . Hence, we are only left with the su(1,1) algebra generated by $`T_0`$, $`T_+`$, and $`T_{}`$. In the latter case, on the contrary, by setting $`a=\mathrm{i}\alpha `$ ($`\alpha `$ real), we find that

$$s=\frac{ϵq}{\alpha (l+1)}$$
(3.29)
so that both su(1,1) algebras may be considered. We shall concentrate on this case in the remainder of the present paper, and therefore replace equations (3.1), (3.22), and (3.23) by

$$\frac{d^2\psi }{d\overline{x}^2}\left[\frac{m(m+1)\alpha ^2}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(\alpha \overline{x})}+2\alpha q\mathrm{coth}(\alpha \overline{x})\right]\psi +\lambda \psi =0(\overline{x}x+p)$$
(3.30)
$`S_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`e^{\pm \mathrm{i}\xi }\left[\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\alpha \overline{x})}{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{x}}}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{cosh}(\alpha \overline{x}){\displaystyle \frac{}{\xi }}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{sinh}(\alpha \overline{x}){\displaystyle \frac{}{\eta }}\right]`$ (3.31)
$`T_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`e^{\pm \mathrm{i}\eta }\left[\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\alpha \overline{x})}{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{x}}}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{cosh}(\alpha \overline{x}){\displaystyle \frac{}{\eta }}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{sinh}(\alpha \overline{x}){\displaystyle \frac{}{\xi }}\right]`$ (3.32)
respectively.

Thirdly, from equation (3.28), we note that the so(2,2) irreps may be characterized by $`m`$, so that their basis functions may be denoted by $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{s,t}^{(m)}(x,\xi ,\eta )`$. When acting on such functions, the generators $`S_\pm `$ of the first su(1,1) algebra change $`s`$ into $`s\pm 1`$, while leaving $`t`$ unchanged. In other words, the energy eigenvalue label $`l`$ and the potential parameter $`m`$ do not change, but the other potential parameter $`q`$ becomes $`q^{}=q\pm ϵ\alpha (l+1)`$. When considering instead the generators $`T_\pm `$ of the second su(1,1) algebra, $`s`$ is left unchanged, while $`t`$ changes into $`t\pm 1`$. In this case, the potential parameter $`m`$ is still unchanged, but both $`l`$ and $`q`$ are changed into $`l^{}=l\pm ϵ`$ and $`q^{}=q(l+1\pm ϵ)/(l+1)`$, respectively. It is therefore clear that the so(2,2) generators connect among themselves eigenfunctions belonging to different satellite potentials and different energy eigenvalues. We conclude that any family of type E factorizable Hamiltonians corresponding to hyperbolic potentials has an so(2,2) satellite algebra.

It should be noted that there remains an undetermined sign $`ϵ`$ in the definitions (3.18) and (3.29) of $`s`$ and $`t`$. In all the examples considered in the next sections, we have checked that apart from some irrelevant phase factors, the results are independent of the choice made for $`ϵ`$. Hence, in the remainder of this paper, we shall use the convention

$$ϵ=\frac{q}{|q|}$$
(3.33)
which provides the simplest link with the GMP analysis in reference .

## 4 The generalized Morse potential

As a first example, let us consider the GMP studied in references . The corresponding Schrödinger equation is

$$\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }\frac{d^2\psi }{dr^2}+D\left(1\frac{b}{e^{ar}1}\right)^2\psi E\psi =0b=e^{ar_e}1$$
(4.1)
where $`0r<\mathrm{}`$, and $`D`$, $`b`$, $`a`$ are some parameters regulating the depth, position of the minimum $`r_e`$, and radius of the potential.

In terms of the parameters

$$\alpha _n=\sqrt{kϵ_n}\beta _n=\sqrt{\alpha _n^2+kb(b+2)}m=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\sqrt{1+4kb^2}\right)$$
(4.2)
where

$$k=\frac{2\mu D}{a^2\mathrm{}^2}ϵ_n=\frac{2\mu E_n}{a^2\mathrm{}^2}$$
(4.3)
the energy eigenvalues and corresponding eigenfunctions are given by

$$E_n=D\frac{a^2\mathrm{}^2}{8\mu }\left(n+m+1\frac{kb(b+2)}{n+m+1}\right)^2$$
(4.4)
and

$$\psi _n(r)=N_ny^{\alpha _n}(1+y)^{\beta _n}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(n,n2m1;2\alpha _n+1;y)y\left(e^{ar}1\right)^1$$
(4.5)
where $`n=0`$, 1, …, $`n_{max}`$, $`n_{max}`$ is the largest integer smaller than $`\sqrt{kb(b+2)}m1`$, and $`N_n`$ is some normalization coefficient.

Equation (4.1) can be rewritten as a type E factorizable Hamiltonian corresponding to a hyperbolic potential. By performing the change of variable $`\overline{x}=ar/2`$, it indeed reduces to equation (3.30), where

$$\alpha =1q=kb(b+2)\lambda =4(ϵk)2kb(b+2)$$
(4.6)
and $`m`$ is given by equation (4.2). The corresponding $`L(m)=m^2(q^2/m^2)`$ is an increasing function of $`m`$, so that the GMP problem is of class I. Comparing then $`\lambda =\lambda _l=L(l+1)=(l+1)^2q^2/(l+1)^2`$ with the expression for $`\lambda `$ resulting from equations (4.3), (4.4), and (4.6), we obtain the relation

$$l=n+m$$
(4.7)
between the eigenvalue labels $`n`$ and $`l`$, coming from the resolution of the Schrödinger equation and the factorization method, respectively.

From such a relation, we find that $`s`$ and $`t`$, defined in equations (3.18), (3.29), and (3.33), become

$$s=\frac{kb(b+2)}{n+m+1}=\alpha _n+\beta _nt=nm1=\alpha _n\beta _n$$
(4.8)
and therefore correspond to the quantum numbers $`m`$ and $`g`$ of reference , respectively.<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1Note that the symbols $`l`$ and $`m`$ of reference  correspond to $`m+1`$ and $`s`$ in the present paper, respectively. Moreover, when rewritten in terms of the variables $`y`$, $`\xi `$, $`\eta `$ (see equation (4.5)), the so(2,2) generators $`S_\pm `$, $`T_\pm `$ of equations (3.31) and (3.32) are transformed into

$`S_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`e^{\pm \mathrm{i}\xi }\left(\sqrt{y(y+1)}{\displaystyle \frac{}{y}}\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{2y+1}{2\sqrt{y(y+1)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\xi }}\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{y(y+1)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\eta }}\right)`$ (4.9)
$`T_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`e^{\pm \mathrm{i}\eta }\left(\sqrt{y(y+1)}{\displaystyle \frac{}{y}}\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{2y+1}{2\sqrt{y(y+1)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\eta }}\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{y(y+1)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\xi }}\right)`$ (4.10)
and therefore coincide with the operators $`M^\pm `$ and $`G^\pm `$ of reference . From equation (4.2), it follows that the conserved quantity, given by the eigenvalue $`m`$ of the Casimir operator $`C`$, is here a combination of the potential parameters $`kb^2`$, or $`Db^2/a^2`$. The operators $`S_\pm `$ change $`b`$ into $`b^{}=2(kb^2)b/(2kb^2tb)`$ while leaving $`n`$ unchanged, whereas the operators $`T_\pm `$ change both $`b`$ and $`n`$ into $`b^{}=2tb/(2t\pm b\pm 2)`$ and $`n1`$, respectively. For both types of operators, $`k`$ becomes $`k^{}=kb^2/b^2`$.

We conclude that the results obtained in reference , using some ad hoc arguments, are but special cases of the general formalism developed in the present paper. In the next two sections, we shall prove that other examples can be treated in a similar way.

## 5 The Rosen-Morse potential

The Schrödinger equation for the Rosen-Morse potential  is

$$\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }\frac{d^2\psi }{dx^2}+\left[B\mathrm{tanh}(\alpha x)C\text{sech}^2(\alpha x)\right]\psi E\psi =0$$
(5.1)
where $`\mathrm{}<x<+\mathrm{}`$, $`\alpha `$ determines the radius of the potential, while $`B`$, $`C`$ regulate the position of its minimum $`x_0=\alpha ^1\mathrm{tanh}^1(B/2C)`$ and its depth at the minimum $`V(x_0)=CB^2/(4C)`$, and are restricted by the condition $`|B|<2C`$.

In terms of the parameters

$$a_n=\frac{\beta }{2b_n}b_n=\sqrt{\gamma +\frac{1}{4}}n\frac{1}{2}m=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\sqrt{1+4\gamma }\right)$$
(5.2)
where

$$\beta =\frac{2\mu B}{\mathrm{}^2\alpha ^2}\gamma =\frac{2\mu C}{\mathrm{}^2\alpha ^2}$$
(5.3)
the energy eigenvalues and corresponding eigenfunctions are given by

$$E_n=\frac{\mathrm{}^2\alpha ^2}{2\mu }\left(a_n^2+b_n^2\right)$$
(5.4)
and

$$\psi _n(x)=N_ne^{a_n\alpha x}[\mathrm{cosh}(\alpha x)]^{b_n}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(n,2mn+1;a_n+b_n+1;y)y\frac{1}{2}[1+\mathrm{tanh}(\alpha x)]$$
(5.5)
where $`n=0`$, 1, …, $`n_{max}`$, $`n_{max}`$ is the largest integer smaller than $`m\sqrt{|\beta |/2}`$, and $`N_n`$ is some normalization coefficient .

Equation (5.1) can be rewritten in the form (3.30) by setting

$$p=\mathrm{i}\frac{\pi }{2\alpha }q=\frac{1}{2}\alpha \beta \lambda =\frac{2\mu E}{\mathrm{}^2}$$
(5.6)
while $`m`$ is given by equation (5.2). The corresponding $`L(m)=\alpha ^2m^2\alpha ^2\beta ^2/(4m^2)`$ is a decreasing function of $`m`$. The Rosen-Morse problem is therefore of class II. Comparing $`\lambda =\lambda _l=L(l)=\alpha ^2l^2\alpha ^2\beta ^2/(4l^2)`$ with the expression for $`\lambda `$ resulting from equations (5.2), (5.4), and (5.6), we obtain the relation

$$l=mn$$
(5.7)
between the eigenvalue labels $`n`$ and $`l`$, coming from the resolution of the Schrödinger equation and the factorization method, respectively.

Taking equation (5.6) into account, the operators $`S_\pm `$ of equation (3.31) become

$$S_\pm =e^{\pm \mathrm{i}\xi }\left[\pm \mathrm{i}\frac{\mathrm{cosh}(\alpha x)}{\alpha }\frac{}{x}+\mathrm{sinh}(\alpha x)\frac{}{\xi }+\mathrm{cosh}(\alpha x)\frac{}{\eta }\right]$$
(5.8)
and the operators $`T_\pm `$ are obtained from them by the transformations $`\xi \eta `$, $`/\xi /\eta `$.

From equations (3.18), (3.29), and (3.33) (where $`l+1`$ is replaced by $`l`$ as we have here a class II problem), we get

$$s=\frac{|q|}{\alpha l}=\frac{|\beta |}{2l}=ϵa_nt=ϵl=ϵ(mn)=ϵb_n$$
(5.9)
with $`ϵ=\beta /|\beta |=B/|B|`$. By using equation (5.5) and the results of reference , the corresponding extended eigenfunctions can be written as

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{s,t}^{(m,ϵ)}(x,\xi ,\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi )^1N_{s,t}^{(m,ϵ)}e^{\mathrm{i}(s\xi +t\eta )}e^{ϵs\alpha x}[\mathrm{cosh}(\alpha x)]^{ϵt}`$ (5.10)
$`\times {}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(ϵtm,ϵt+m+1;ϵ(ts)+1;y)`$
$`y\frac{1}{2}[1+\mathrm{tanh}(\alpha x)]`$
where

$$N_{s,t}^{(m,ϵ)}=\frac{1}{2^{ϵt}\mathrm{\Gamma }(ϵ(ts)+1)}\left(\frac{ϵ\alpha (ts)(t+s)\mathrm{\Gamma }(m+ϵt+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(mϵs+1)}{t\mathrm{\Gamma }(mϵt+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(m+ϵs+1)}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(5.11)
After some calculations using well-known properties of the hypergeometric function , we obtain

$`S_\pm \mathrm{\Psi }_{s,t}^{(m,ϵ)}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵi\left({\displaystyle \frac{(ts)(t+s)(ms)(m\pm s+1)}{(ts1)(t+s\pm 1)}}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{\Psi }_{s\pm 1,t}^{(m,ϵ)}`$ (5.12)
$`T_\pm \mathrm{\Psi }_{s,t}^{(m,ϵ)}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵi\left({\displaystyle \frac{(ts)(t+s)(t\pm 1)(mt)(m\pm t+1)}{t(ts\pm 1)(t+s\pm 1)}}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{\Psi }_{s,t\pm 1}^{(m,ϵ)}`$ (5.13)
which, together with equation (3.20), give the action of the so(2,2) generators on the extended eigenfunctions of the Rosen-Morse potential. Here the conserved quantity $`m`$ is related to the potential parameter $`C`$. The operators $`S_\pm `$ change the other potential parameter $`B`$ into $`B^{}=B(s\pm 1)/s`$, while leaving $`n`$ fixed, while $`T_\pm `$ change both $`B`$ and $`n`$ into $`B^{}=B(t\pm 1)/t`$ and $`n^{}=nϵ`$, respectively.

## 6 The Kepler problem in a space of constant negative curvature

In a space of constant negative curvature $`R`$, the radial wavefunction for an electron of mass $`\mu `$ in a Coulomb potential satisfies the equation

$$\frac{d}{dx}\left(\mathrm{sinh}^2x\frac{d\psi }{dx}\right)+\left[(\lambda 2\nu )\mathrm{sinh}^2x+2\nu \mathrm{sinh}x\mathrm{cosh}xl(l+1)\right]\psi =0$$
(6.1)
where $`0x<\mathrm{}`$, $`l`$ is the angular momentum,

$$\nu \frac{ZR}{a_0}\lambda \frac{2\mu R^2}{\mathrm{}^2}E$$
(6.2)
and $`a_0=\mathrm{}^2/(\mu e^2)`$ denotes the Bohr radius. If $`R\mathrm{}`$ and $`x0`$ in such a way that $`xRr`$, then equation (6.1) reduces to that of an electron in a central Coulomb field $`Ze^2/r`$ in Euclidean space.

The negative energy eigenvalues and corresponding eigenfunctions are given by

$$E_n=\frac{Ze^2}{R}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu R^2}\left(n^21\right)\frac{Z^2e^4\mu }{2\mathrm{}^2n^2}n=1,2,\mathrm{},n_{max}$$
(6.3)
and

$$\psi _{n_r,l}(x)=N_{n_r,l}\mathrm{sinh}^lxe^{\left(n_r\frac{\nu }{n}\right)x}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(n_r,l+1+\frac{\nu }{n};2l+2;w)w1e^{2x}$$
(6.4)
respectively. Here

$$n=n_r+l+1$$
(6.5)
where $`n_r`$ is the radial quantum number, as in Euclidean space, but now $`n`$ only takes a finite number of values $`n_{max}`$. The latter corresponds to the number of independent functions (6.4) satisfying the normalization condition

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\mathrm{sinh}^2x|\psi _{n_r,l}(x)|^2=1$$
(6.6)
for a given $`l`$ value, and it is equal to the largest integer smaller than $`\sqrt{\nu }`$.

By setting

$$\psi (x)=\text{cosech}x\varphi (x)$$
(6.7)
equation (6.1) can be rewritten in a form similar to equation (3.30) with

$$p=0\alpha =1q=\nu $$
(6.8)
and $`\psi `$, $`m`$, $`\lambda `$ replaced by $`\varphi `$, $`l`$, $`\lambda 12\nu `$, respectively. The function $`L(m)`$ now becomes $`L(l)=l^2\nu ^2/l^2`$. It is an increasing function of $`l`$. The problem considered is therefore of class I. The counterpart of $`m=0`$, 1, …, $`l`$ in the general theory of section 2 is $`l=0`$, 1, …, $`n1`$, corresponding to $`n_r=n1`$, $`n2`$, …, $`0`$.

From equations (3.18), (3.29), and (3.33) (where $`l`$ is replaced by $`n1`$), we get

$$s=\frac{\nu }{n}t=n.$$
(6.9)
By using equations (6.4), (6.5), and the results of reference , the corresponding extended eigenfunctions can be written as

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{s,t}^{(l)}(x,\xi ,\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi )^1N_{s,t}^{(l)}e^{\mathrm{i}(s\xi +t\eta )}\mathrm{sinh}^lxe^{(s+t+l+1)x}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(t+l+1,s+l+1;2l+2;w)`$ (6.10)
$`w1e^{2x}`$
where

$$N_{s,t}^{(l)}=\frac{2^{l+1}}{(2l+1)!}\left(\frac{(s+t)(st)(lt)!\mathrm{\Gamma }(s+l+1)}{(t)(tl1)!\mathrm{\Gamma }(sl)}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(6.11)
When acting on such extended eigenfunctions, the su(1,1) generators $`S_0`$, $`S_\pm `$ of equations (3.19) and (3.31) become

$$\stackrel{~}{S}_0=\mathrm{i}\frac{}{\xi }\stackrel{~}{S}_\pm =e^{\pm \mathrm{i}\xi }\left[\pm \mathrm{sinh}x\frac{}{x}+\mathrm{cosh}x\left(\mathrm{i}\frac{}{\xi }\pm 1\right)\mathrm{i}\mathrm{sinh}x\frac{}{\eta }\right].$$
(6.12)
The other su(1,1) generators $`T_0`$, $`T_\pm `$ of equations (3.19) and (3.32) are similarly transformed into $`\stackrel{~}{T}_0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{T}_\pm `$, which can be obtained from equation (6.12) by the substitutions $`\xi \eta `$, $`/\xi /\eta `$.

After some calculations using well-known properties of the hypergeometric function , we obtain

$`\stackrel{~}{S}_\pm \mathrm{\Psi }_{s,t}^{(l)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{(s+t)(st)(sl)(s\pm l\pm 1)}{(s+t\pm 1)(st\pm 1)}}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{\Psi }_{s\pm 1,t}^{(l)}`$ (6.13)
$`\stackrel{~}{T}_\pm \mathrm{\Psi }_{s,t}^{(l)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{(s+t)(st)(t1)(t\pm l)(tl1)}{(t)(s+t\pm 1)(st1)}}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{\Psi }_{s,t\pm 1}^{(l)}`$ (6.14)
which, together with equation (3.20), give the action of the so(2,2) generators on the extended eigenfunctions of the Kepler problem. Here the conserved quantity is the angular momentum $`l`$. The operators $`\stackrel{~}{S}_\pm `$ leave $`n`$ (or $`n_r`$) unchanged, but change the potential parameter $`\nu `$ into $`\nu ^{}=\nu (s\pm 1)/s`$, whereas $`\stackrel{~}{T}_\pm `$ change both $`n`$ (or $`n_r`$) and $`\nu `$ into $`n^{}=n1`$ (or $`n_r^{}=n_r1`$) and $`\nu ^{}=\nu (t\pm 1)/t`$, respectively. From the definition of $`\nu `$ in equation (6.2), it is clear that $`\stackrel{~}{S}_\pm `$ (resp. $`\stackrel{~}{T}_\pm `$) relate eigenfunctions of the Kepler problem in spaces of different curvature, $`R`$ and $`R^{}=R(s\pm 1)/s`$ (resp. $`R^{}=R(t\pm 1)/t`$).

## 7 Conclusion

In the present paper, we did show that the factorization method can be used in an effective way to construct satellite algebras for all the Hamiltonians that admit a type E factorization. Special emphasis was laid on the so(2,2) algebras characterizing hyperbolic potentials, but it is clear that a similar analysis could be carried out for the so(2,1) algebras appropriate to trigonometric potentials.

In the examples considered, we found that the conserved quantity, which is the eigenvalue of the satellite algebra Casimir operator, may have various physical meanings: a combination of the potential parameters in the GMP case, one of the two potential parameters for the Rosen-Morse potential, and the angular momentum quantum number in the Kepler problem in a space of constant negative curvature. Similarly, the algebra generators may have various physical effects: relating eigenfunctions belonging to different potentials of the same family in the first two cases, or connecting eigenfunctions in spaces of different curvature in the last one. This hints at the existence of physical applications that may have been overlooked so far.

The approach used in the present paper is not the only one allowing the construction of satellite algebras or, more generally, providing an algebraic treatment of the problems considered. Of particular significance is the work of Wu et al , who determined an so(2,2) algebra for the class of Natanzon potentials , which includes all the potentials solvable in terms of the hypergeometric or confluent hypergeometric function. A treatment of the same in terms of an so(2,1) algebra was also given by Cordero and Salamó . It is worth mentioning too that the Kepler problem in a space of constant negative curvature was analysed in terms of a quadratic algebra . We would like to stress however that our approach is the only one establishing a clear link with the factorization method of Schrödinger , and Infeld and Hull , and that in comparison with other papers we show more explicitly in the examples the effect of the action of the satellite algebra generators in terms of the potential parameters and the energy, what could be important from a physical viewpoint. A more detailed mathematical discussion of the irreducible representations will be given elsewhere.

As mentioned in section 1, considering type A and E factorizations is not a restriction as the other factorization types are but limiting cases of them. In forthcoming publications, we hope to come back to such limiting cases, as well as to a generalization of the factorization method recently proposed by Cariñena and Ramos .