text:
# Scarring Effects on Tunneling in Chaotic Double-Well Potentials

## I Introduction

Many chemical reactions must proceed through a potential barrier before the final dissociation of the products of the reaction can take place. Thus, the reaction rate is governed by tunneling . Radioactive decay of nuclei also involves crossing a potential barrier, dictated by a combination of short-ranged strong binding forces and a longer-ranged Coulomb repulsion . A typical experimental situation is the absorption of a slow neutron; the resulting metastable nucleus decays predominantly by tunneling through a saddle point, and the distribution of resonance widths is well described by random matrix theory . Another important example of quantum tunneling is the conductance of mesoscopic devices . In more than one dimension, when the classical dynamics can be chaotic, quantum chaos plays a role. For instance, in the tunneling diode junction, in which electrons are driven by an applied electric field but must tunnel through potential barriers at either end of the device, the dynamics, in the presence of a magnetic field, is chaotic and scarring of a short periodic orbit is known to dominate the conduction . In this paper we study chaotic tunneling in a simple model potential, and establish the connection to scar theory, both qualitatively and quantitatively. We prefer to study tunneling by calculating splittings in a double-well potential rather than resonance widths in a metastable well, because the former is an easier computational task, as we will see later in Sec. II. The relation between splittings in a double-well potential and resonance widths in a metastable well will be discussed immediately below, where we will observe that the two quantities are related by known overall normalization factors.

The double-well potential we will work with, in two dimensions, has the very simple form

$$V(x,y)=x^4x_0^2x^2+ay^2+\lambda x^2y^2+\underset{i}{}b_ie^{((xx_i)^2+(yy_i)^2)/\sigma _i^2}.$$
(1)
The parameters $`x_0`$, $`a`$, $`\lambda `$, $`b_i`$, $`x_i`$, $`y_i`$ and $`\sigma _i`$ will be specified below. For $`x_0^2>0`$, a barrier along the $`y`$-axis separates the potential at low energies ($`E<0`$) into two wells. The $`\lambda x^2y^2`$ term ensures that the potential is not separable, while the Gaussian perturbations, the parameters of which may be changed at will, allow us to generate an ensemble of statistically independent eigenstates near any given energy. If the positions and heights of the Gaussians are chosen suitably, the potential has reflection symmetries in the $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions. The symmetry under reflection in $`y`$ means that there will always be a short periodic orbit on the $`x`$-axis, in each of the two wells.

The principal result of this paper is that the size of the level splittings in the two-dimensional double well, the classical dynamics of which is chaotic, is directly correlated with the scarring of eigenfunctions along the $`x`$-axis, which we believe to be the primary channel for tunneling. The evidence for this is that (1) the distribution of splittings, once the average exponential trend in energy is scaled out, displays oscillations as a function of energy of the sort expected by scar theory. In particular, the action distance between successive peaks is precisely $`h`$. However, the dependence of the mean splitting on action is not well reproduced quantitatively by linear scar theory, because non-linear effects appear to be important. (2) The rescaled splittings are correlated with the overlap of the eigenstate with a Gaussian test state lying on the periodic orbit on the $`x`$-axis, a measure of scarring. (3) The correlation of the splittings with the overlaps is further supported by the fact that the distribution of overlaps has the same energy-dependent oscillations as the distribution of splittings.

According to one-dimensional WKB theory, the splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=E_{\mathrm{anti}\mathrm{symm}}E_{\mathrm{symm}}`$ in a symmetric double well is given in the semiclassical limit by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E=\left(\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{\pi }\right)e^{S/\mathrm{}},$$
(2)
while the resonance width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for the state at the same energy in a metastable well is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\left(\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{4\pi }\right)e^{2S/\mathrm{}}.$$
(3)
Here $`\omega `$ is the frequency of the classical periodic motion at energy $`E_{\mathrm{symm}}`$ and the imaginary action for going under the barrier is

$$S=_{x_{\mathrm{tp}}}^{x_{\mathrm{tp}}}𝑑x\sqrt{V(x)E},$$
(4)
$`x_{\mathrm{tp}}>0`$ being the position of the classical turning point at energy $`E_{\mathrm{symm}}`$ . In order for the semiclassical theory to apply, $`E_{\mathrm{symm}}`$ must be sufficiently far below the barrier that $`S/\mathrm{}1`$. Note the factor of two in the exponent in Eq. (3).

These one-dimensional formulae may be generalized to the two-dimensional (or higher-dimensional) potential well as follows. We expect tunneling to be dominated by paths that cross the barrier close to the $`x`$-axis, which has the smallest action integral $`S`$. The splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ will then be proportional to the exponential factor $`e^{S/\mathrm{}}`$.

The correct generalization of the frequency of attempts to cross the barrier, $`\omega `$, to two or more dimensions, is the frequency with which one returns to a Planck-sized cell in phase space that lies on the horizontal periodic orbit. This horizontal periodic orbit is the real continuation of the least-action path across the barrier. The time for returning to such a cell (or to any other cell in an ergodic well) is the Heisenberg time $`T_H=h/\mathrm{\Delta }(E)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(E)`$ is the mean level spacing near energy $`E`$ (i.e., the spacing between doublets in the double-well system). Then the frequency of attempts to cross the barrier is just proportional to the mean level spacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }(E)`$. Thus, we expect on general grounds that the splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is given in order of magnitude by $`\mathrm{\Delta }E\mathrm{\Delta }(E)e^{S(E)/\mathrm{}}`$, which gives us the trend of the splittings as a function of energy. This expression for the mean splitting will be confirmed by the exact semiclassical theory to be discussed below.

For any given state, we should expect that its splitting will be large or small compared with the mean value at that energy according to whether its amplitude is large or small on the horizontal periodic orbit which leads to optimal tunneling. For simplicity we can study the wave function amplitude near the turning point of the horizontal periodic orbit. The value of the wave function at the turning point in the two-dimensional chaotic system is (ignoring scar-related effects which are the main focus of this paper) given approximately by a Gaussian-distributed random variable, as random matrix theory would predict. Thus, $`|\psi (x_{\mathrm{tp}})|^2`$ has, according to random matrix theory, a Porter–Thomas distribution for all energies far enough below the barrier (near zero energy the horizontal periodic orbit becomes stable and the distribution of splittings rolls over to one having many more large and small splittings, corresponding to wave functions that live near or avoid this stable orbit). However, what is relevant to tunneling in $`d`$ dimensions is not just the value of the wave function exactly at the turning point but rather its behavior in a whole $`\mathrm{}^{d1}`$sized region surrounding the periodic orbit. We shall see below that the right quantity to consider is the inner product of the wave function with a Gaussian centered on the periodic orbit (at the turning point or at some other location). This has as well a Porter–Thomas distribution, within the random matrix theory approximation. Scar-related effects and finite-$`\mathrm{}`$ effects on the distribution of splittings will be discussed below.

The viewpoint summarized above is in agreement with the theoretical work of Creagh and Whelan . First, they find that the mean splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ at a given energy is given by the product of an exponential factor $`e^{S/\mathrm{}}`$, a factor proportional to the mean spacing between doublets, as described above, and a third factor that carries information about the monodromy matrix of the (imaginary time) tunneling orbit. Then they show that, for chaotic and symmetric double wells, the splitting for a particular eigenvalue, relative to the mean splitting, may be written in the semiclassical limit as a matrix element of the wave function $`\psi `$ near the real continuation $``$ of the complex trajectory that passes through the barrier with minimum (imaginary) action. This imaginary-time trajectory and its real-time continuation may be thought of as the optimal route for tunneling. The matrix element $`\mathrm{\Delta }E\psi |𝒯|\psi `$ involves integration over a Poincaré surface transverse to the real continuation $``$. The kernel $`𝒯`$ is a semiclassical Green’s function which, in the approximation that the dominant contribution to the tunneling matrix element comes from the neighborhood of $``$, becomes a Gaussian centered on the intersection of $``$ with the Poincaré section. The width of the Gaussian is of $`O(\mathrm{}^{1/2})`$ in both directions (e.g. $`y`$ and $`p_y`$) tangent to the surface of section. \[The results may of course be easily generalized to dimensions $`d>2`$, where the resulting Gaussian has width of $`O(\mathrm{}^{1/2})`$ in all $`2d2`$ directions along the surface of section.\]

In the case that the real continuation $``$ happens to lie on a short periodic orbit, which will always be true when a reflection symmetry across the $`x`$-axis is present, this matrix element may be regarded as a measure of scarring on the periodic orbit. The Creagh–Whelan theory predicts, therefore, that strong scarring should be correlated with large splittings, confirming the intuitive expectation that high tunneling rates should occur for those wave functions that have large amplitude along the path with optimal tunneling. Neither in Ref.  nor in Ref. , however, do the authors demonstrate the connection between scarring and splittings on a state-by-state basis. In the latter work, they confirm their formula for the tunneling matrix element by deriving from it an analytical prediction for the statistical distribution of splittings. This prediction is in agreement with numerical calculations for potentials in which the real continuation of the optimal tunneling orbit is not a periodic orbit; when it is, the random-matrix assumption in their derivation breaks down due to scarring on this periodic orbit. Thus, the present paper, while confirming the predictions of Creagh and Whelan, goes beyond their results by establishing conclusively the link between scarring and tunneling and by showing, with better statistics, that the distribution of scaled splittings indeed becomes approximately Porter–Thomas, but only after scarring effects have been taken into account.

## II Method

The wave functions and splittings were calculated numerically using the discrete variable representation . The matrix elements of the position operators $`X`$ and $`Y`$ and of the kinetic energy operators $`K_x`$ and $`K_y`$ were first evaluated analytically using standard identities, in a basis of up to the first 300 Gauss-Hermite functions in each dimension. Then, in order to take advantage of the two reflection symmetries in $`x`$ and $`y`$, the two operators $`X^2`$ and $`Y^2`$ were diagonalized. The reason for using $`X^2`$ and $`Y^2`$ instead of the usual choice of $`X`$ and $`Y`$ is that $`X^2`$, $`K_x`$, $`Y^2`$ and $`K_y`$ are all block-diagonal, connecting only basis elements within one of the four symmetry classes (even–even, even–odd, odd–even and odd–odd). Since we are interested only in even–even potentials of the form $`V(X,Y)=_if_i(X^2)g_i(Y^2)`$ we can just as well compute $`V`$ at the eigenvalues of $`X^2`$ and $`Y^2`$ as at those of $`X`$ and $`Y`$, but using the basis obtained by diagonalizing $`X^2`$ and $`Y^2`$ ensures that the final Hamiltonian $`H=K_x+K_y+V`$ will be itself also block diagonal. The four symmetry classes may therefore be analyzed separately. In the basis chosen the potential $`V`$ is of course diagonal, while, in two or more dimensions, the kinetic energy matrix will be sparse. More precisely, if $`N`$ is the dimension of one of the blocks in the Hamiltonian matrix, the total number of non-zero matrix entries scales as $`N^{1+1/d}`$, or $`N^{3/2}`$ in the two-dimensional system. Since we require large values of $`N`$ in order to observe semiclassical behavior, a sparse matrix routine is the method of choice for diagonalizing $`H`$. The accuracy of the computed eigenvalues was tested for convergence under increase of $`N`$, and for the parameters given below we found convergence to $`\pm 10^{12}`$ for $`N3500`$, corresponding to about 200 Gauss-Hermite functions in the $`x`$ direction and about 100 in the $`y`$ direction.

The amount of phase space covered by the region $`E<0`$, and thus the number of states under the barrier and the computation time, increases very rapidly with $`x_0`$. If all other parameters in the Hamiltonian are kept fixed, the number of states grows as $`x_0^6`$, and so the largest value of $`x_0`$ we can easily attain is about $`x_0=6`$, for $`a=1`$ and $`\lambda =10`$. At these parameter values, each well has a depth of $`x_0^4/4=324`$ and about 100 bound states, where $`\mathrm{}`$ is taken to be unity here and in the following. The typical level spacing near the top of the well is $`1`$, and the splittings range from $`<1`$ near the top of the well to $`<10^6`$ near $`E=50`$; below this energy many of the splittings become too small ($`<10^{12}`$) to be resolved numerically. Therefore we take $`E=50`$ to be the lower cutoff for the energies to be analyzed in Sec. III.

## III Results

The potential given by Eq. (1), apart from the Gaussian perturbation, is mostly integrable for all energies except those near the top of the barrier. When the Gaussian perturbations are introduced, the classical mechanics becomes more chaotic, but if these perturbations are too small it is still possible that they would not be seen by the quantum mechanics, which would remain effectively integrable. Thus, in order to render the quantum mechanics at energies corresponding to the bound states chaotic as well, it is necessary to introduce a Gaussian perturbation that is at least as large as the wavelength in question, and whose height is comparable in magnitude to the depth of the potential well. The simplest choice is to place large Gaussian perturbations above the minima of the potential well at $`(\pm x_0/\sqrt{2},0)`$, which will be seen by every bound trajectory as it crosses the center of the well and which thus effectively make the dynamics chaotic at energies down to the lowest considered ($`E=50`$). This was checked classically by examining the Poincaré surfaces of section and may also be seen to be true quantum-mechanically in Fig. 1, where typical eigenfunctions are shown. Here, we have chosen the parameters of the double-well potential to be $`x_0=6`$, $`a=1`$ and $`\lambda =10`$, and for the central Gaussian perturbation we use a height $`b=150`$ (to be compared with a well depth of $`V(\pm x_0/\sqrt{2},0)=324`$) and a width $`\sigma =0.5`$.

We generate an ensemble of 625 systems by placing four further Gaussians (and their reflections in $`x`$ and $`y`$) at $`x=\pm 2,\pm 3,\pm 4,\pm 5`$ and $`y=\pm 1`$, with heights $`b_i=20n_i`$, $`n_1,\mathrm{},n_4=1,\mathrm{},5`$, and with equal widths $`\sigma _i=0.5`$ as above. A contour plot of the potential for a typical member of the ensemble is given in Fig. 2; note the symmetrical distortion of the contours due to the perturbation.

We proceed to analyze statistically the splittings between states in the even–even and even–odd sectors. The results, for the parameters described, are given in Figs. 3 and 4. As expected, the size of the splittings falls off exponentially with decreasing energy in Fig. 3, as the barrier becomes wider and tunneling is suppressed. The trend is approximately linear on a semi-log plot, over six decades as $`E`$ varies from 0 to $`50`$. In Fig. 4 we rescale the splittings as a function of energy by $`ss/e^{S(E)}`$. We find very pronounced oscillations in the distribution of splittings as a function of energy. As discussed in Sec. I, we expect theoretically that the rescaled splitting should be proportional to the overlap in a Poincaré section of the eigenfunction with a Gaussian on the horizontal periodic orbit. If the Gaussian may be assumed to have area exactly $`h`$ in the Poincaré section, such overlaps are described by scar theory . We expect the results to be qualitatively the same even if the Gaussian in the Poincaré section given by the theory of Creagh and Whelan is not a minimum-uncertainty state, as long as it is not too large compared to $`h`$ (in the latter limit, scar effects must go to zero in accord with the Schnirelman ergodicity theorem ). In fact, in the data presented below the area of the Creagh–Whelan Gaussian ranged from $`1.5h`$ to $`4h`$. The prediction of scar theory is that, at a given energy, the distribution of splittings should be Porter–Thomas, and that the mean wave function intensity and therefore the mean splitting should oscillate as energy is varied by an amount that depends on the Lyapunov exponent and the monodromy matrix of the unstable periodic orbit. An important confirmation of the scarring picture is obtained when we plot, in Fig. 5, the rescaled splittings versus the action (divided by $`2\pi `$) of the horizontal periodic orbit at the energy eigenvalue. We find that the oscillations are periodic in action with period $`2\pi `$, which indicates that the EBK quantization condition for scarring holds. The EBK quantization condition for the action reads $`A=2\pi (n+1/2+n_c/4)`$ where $`n`$ is an integer and $`n_c`$ is the number of conjugate points in one period of the orbit ($`n_c=3`$ in the case of the horizontal orbit in our system).

A direct correlation between splittings and scarring is found by plotting, in Fig. 6, the rescaled splitting of each eigenvalue versus the overlap of the corresponding eigenfunction with a Gaussian test state lying on the horizontal periodic orbit, a measure of the degree with which this eigenfunction is scarred. The two quantities are correlated, with a slope of 2 on a log-log scale. The correlation coefficient of the logarithms is 0.78; it may be that the degree of correlation would be improved if the Gaussian were chosen to be properly aligned with respect to the monodromy matrix of the optimal tunneling path. The observed correlation nevertheless confirms that there is a direct connection, on a state-by-state basis, between scarring and tunneling, as predicted by the theory of Creagh and Whelan . As a check on our results, we show in Fig. 7 that the overlaps display the same energy-dependent oscillations as do the splittings, as they must if the phenomenon of scarring underlies the behavior of both.

The connection between scarring and tunneling can be tested quantitatively in two ways. First, scar theory in the semiclassical limit predicts that the short-time (smooth) envelope describing the oscillations in the mean rescaled splitting versus action is given by the Fourier transform of the autocorrelation function $`A(m)=\varphi |\varphi (m)`$, where $`\varphi `$ is a Gaussian wave packet (living in the Poincaré section) centered on the horizontal periodic orbit and $`\varphi (m)`$ is its iterate after $`m`$ bounces. The Gaussian $`\varphi `$ is chosen to have the same orientation and aspect ratio in the $`(y,p_y)`$-plane as the Gaussian called for by the Creagh–Whelan theory, but linearly rescaled so as to have area $`h`$ as needed for scar theory. Linearizing the dynamics around the horizontal periodic orbit we find, when the Gaussian wave packet is optimally aligned along the stable and unstable manifolds of the periodic orbit,

$$A(m)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{cosh}\lambda m}},$$
(5)
where $`\lambda `$ is the Lyapunov exponent of the periodic orbit. In the special case of orthogonal stable and unstable manifolds, a circular Gaussian will be one example of an optimally aligned wave packet. If the Gaussian is not optimally aligned, this formula may be generalized as follows:

$$A(m)=2\sqrt{\frac{det(M)}{det(M+(J^m)^TMJ^m)}},$$
(6)
where $`M`$ describes a Gaussian of the form $`(\mathrm{const})\mathrm{exp}(x^TMx)`$ with $`x=(y,p_y)^T`$ representing the coordinates in the surface of section, and $`J`$ is the Jacobian of the Poincaré mapping evaluated at the periodic orbit ($`\mathrm{Tr}J=2\mathrm{cosh}\lambda `$). The matrix $`M`$ is computed as specified in the Creagh–Whelan theory from the monodromy matrix of the complex orbit that begins at the Poincaré section on the right, goes through the barrier, and ends at the Poincaré section in the left well . Here, the Lyapunov exponent $`\lambda `$ and Jacobian $`J`$ vary with energy over the range $`50<E<9`$. At higher energies, the trajectory spends less time near the Gaussian at the center of the well, and thus experiences less deflection, leading to greater stability, eventually becoming stable for $`E>9`$. The short-time envelope obtained as the Fourier transform of $`A(m)`$ in either Eq. (5) or Eq. (6) may be compared with the mean rescaled splitting plotted versus action. As shown in Fig. 8, with either form of the autocorrelation function we do find peaks in the predicted envelope of splittings at the right values of action for energies $`E<9`$ (for energies $`E>9`$ the horizontal periodic orbit becomes stable, so the scar theory does not apply and no prediction about the distribution of splittings can be made), but the heights of the maxima and minima between the peaks are not well reproduced. The contrast predicted by Eq. (6) is closer to the numerical data than that predicted by Eq. (5). The quantitative failure of semiclassical scar theory is attributable to the fact that, for our parameter values, the linearizable region around the horizontal periodic orbit is not large compared to $`h`$. In fact, the size of the linearizable region is only about 0.15$`h`$ for the energies considered. Its size, however, is approximately independent of energy for $`50<E<0`$, and this may explain the weak dependence of the peak height on energy observed in the numerical data. Nevertheless, we see that not only is scarring associated with larger splittings in the coarse sense of Fig. 6 but also the enhancement factor in the distribution of splittings, as a function of energy or of action, does oscillate with energy or action in agreement with the analytical prediction of scar theory; only the precise magnitude of these oscillations remains unexplained within the present linear theory.

A second quantitative test of scar theory in relation to tunneling is to examine the change in the distribution of splittings upon change in the Lyapunov exponent. The horizontal periodic orbit can easily be made more stable by keeping the height of the main Gaussian bump fixed at 150 while increasing its width. An ensemble of eigenstates and associated splittings was computed, just as above, for a larger value of the bump width, namely $`0.63`$ instead of $`0.50`$. The expectation from scar theory would be for the distribution of splittings to have many more smaller and larger splittings at the resulting smaller Lyapunov exponent. At $`\sigma =0.5`$, the horizontal periodic orbit is stable down to $`E=9.1`$; the Lyapunov exponent then increases from zero with decreasing energy to a value of $`\lambda =2.0`$ at $`E=50`$. For $`\sigma =0.63`$ it is stable down to $`E=49.8`$ and attains only a value of $`\lambda =0.11`$ at $`E=50`$. The numerical data, however, show no marked difference between the two computations at $`\sigma =0.5`$ and $`\sigma =0.63`$; see Fig. 9. The lack of any difference between the distributions of splittings despite the difference in stability is an indication that we are not far enough into the semiclassical limit (see discussion below). In both cases the distribution of rescaled splittings (see the histograms in Fig. 9) has many more small and large splittings, and consequently fewer splittings around $`s/s=1`$, than a Porter–Thomas distribution would have (except for the sharp cutoff at $`s/s5`$, which will be discussed below). Thus, the prediction of scar theory that there should be many more small and large splittings, relative to the prediction of random matrix theory, is confirmed. Also, the divergence of the probability distribution near zero splitting in the case of scarring on the real continuation of the optimal tunneling path differs markedly from the results, both analytical and numerical, of Creagh and Whelan  for the case when the real continuation is not a periodic orbit, which show a probability distribution tending to zero at zero splitting. Our numerical results for the scarring case improve on their statistics and allow us to discern the scar corrections to Porter–Thomas behavior. In particular, we note the excess of very small splittings; these correspond to the phenomenon of antiscarring, as seen in Fig. 5 at actions halfway between values of action given by the EBK quantization condition for maximal scarring. As studied by Kaplan , in an open quantum system coupled to the environment by one channel located on a short unstable periodic orbit, antiscarring causes the probability to remain in the system at times large compared to the Heisenberg time to be substantially enhanced relative to the prediction of random matrix theory. Therefore, we must expect that antiscarring, which we have demonstrated now for the case of level splittings in a smooth chaotic double-well potential, would markedly alter, away from random matrix theory predictions, the distribution of resonance widths in a chaotic metastable potential, and also the long-time probability to remain in such a well.

In Fig. 10 we show the relation between the rescaled splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }E/e^S`$ and the mean level spacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, which decreases from about 3 at $`E=50`$ to about 1 at $`E=0`$, aside from some fluctuations. There is no direct correlation between $`\mathrm{\Delta }E/e^S`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, thus refuting the intuitive expectation that the tunneling rate should be proportional only to the rate of attempts to cross the barrier given by the classical motion, as discussed above in Section I. In the presence of scarring on the horizontal periodic orbit, tunneling is enhanced by the tendency to remain near the horizontal periodic orbit. At energies for which scarring takes place, the typical wave function intensity measured using a Gaussian at the turning point will be enhanced by a factor of $`O(1/\lambda )`$ compared with the naive expectation, where $`\lambda `$ is the Lyapunov exponent. At energies for which antiscarring, a tendency to avoid the horizontal periodic orbit, takes place, this typical intensity will be strongly suppressed, by an amount that is exponentially small in $`\lambda `$ for small $`\lambda `$. The actual distribution of the rescaled splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }E/e^S`$ versus the level spacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }(E)`$ includes the same energy-dependent oscillations seen in Fig. 4, as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(E)`$ rather than of $`E`$ itself. It is evident, then, that chaotic tunneling in two dimensions must be thought of as a quantum-coherent phenomenon, in which the probability of tunneling through the barrier is greater if one comes back in phase when making repeated attempts to cross the barrier, as happens for scarred eigenfunctions. We also note that the horizontal periodic orbit becomes more unstable at lower energies, leading to smaller scar peaks in the mean wave function intensity on the orbit, and thus compensating to some extent for an increase in the mean level spacing at lower energies. This may partly explain the absence a clear trend in the data of Fig. 10.

We now discuss how our data are limited by the fact that we must work at finite $`\mathrm{}`$. First, the sharp cutoff at large splittings in the numerical data relative to the Porter–Thomas distribution in Fig. 9 is a finite-$`\mathrm{}`$ effect. This can be understood as follows. Let the Poincaré surface of section have area $`N`$ in units of $`h`$. Then the expected squared overlap $`s`$ of an eigenstate with a Gaussian test state will be $`1/N`$, because the test state covers an area $`h`$ in phase space while the eigenstate is, on average, spread evenly over the entire phase space. Now the cutoff arises from the fact that no matter how scarred or otherwise localized the eigenstate is, its overlap with a test state cannot be greater than unity. So $`s<1`$ by construction, or $`s/s<N`$. Thus the cutoff increases to infinity in the semiclassical limit (i.e., as $`\mathrm{}`$ tends to zero), even while $`s`$ itself is decreasing. Assuming random matrix theory, the modified form of the Porter–Thomas distribution for finite $`N`$ can be computed. One takes an ensemble of randomly oriented vectors in $`N`$ dimensions, normalizes them so they lie on the unit sphere, and takes $`N`$ times the square of the $`z`$-component. This quantity has mean 1 and a sharp cutoff at $`N`$. The Porter–Thomas distribution is recovered in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$. For an analytical form for the Porter–Thomas distribution for finite $`N`$, see Brody et al. in Ref. , especially their Eq. (7.10). In Fig. 11 we see that the modified Porter–Thomas distribution for $`N=6`$, corresponding roughly to the effective dimension of our Hilbert space, reproduces the cutoff in the numerical data of Fig. 9. The scarring corrections (extra splittings at large and small $`s/s`$ with fewer splittings around $`s/s=1`$) relative to the modified Porter–Thomas distribution are still present in Fig. 11.

A second test of the effect of finite $`\mathrm{}`$ is to repeat the calculation at different values of $`\mathrm{}`$. Since we are near the computational limit already, we consider only the case of larger $`\mathrm{}`$. This is done by scaling the coordinates $`(x,y)(x^{},y^{})=(cx,cy)`$, $`0<c<1`$. Under this transformation the potential becomes

$$V(x^{},y^{})=\frac{x^4}{c^4}\frac{x_0^2x^2}{c^2}+\frac{ay^2}{c^2}+\frac{\lambda x^2y^2}{c^4}+\underset{i}{}b_ie^{((x^{}cx_i)^2+(y^{}cy_i)^2)/(c\sigma _i)^2},$$
(7)
while the kinetic energy remains

$$\frac{^2}{x^2}\frac{^2}{y^2}$$
(8)
since the momenta are not affected by the transformation. The complete transformation of the Hamiltonian may be regarded as the product of three transformations: (i) the scaling of coordinates by a factor of $`c^{1/2}`$ and momenta by a factor of $`c^{1/2}`$, which does not change the quantum mechanics, (ii) scaling both coordinates and momenta by a common factor of $`c^{1/2}`$ while also replacing the Hamiltonian $`H`$ by $`cH`$, which preserves the classical mechanics exactly but is not area-preserving, and thus affects the quantum mechanics by changing the effective value of $`\mathrm{}`$, and (iii) scaling the Hamiltonian by a factor of $`1/c`$, which trivially rescales the spectrum back into the original range. The reason we use this transformation is to keep the classical mechanics, all the periodic orbits, their stability properties, etc. unchanged as we change the effective value of $`\mathrm{}`$, so the results for different values of the effective $`\mathrm{}`$ (which scales as $`1/c`$) are directly comparable.

For $`c=0.8`$ we find the same oscillations observed previously in the distribution of rescaled splittings as a function of energy, only now there are four peaks in the range from $`E=50`$ to $`E=0`$ compared to the five that we saw before, corresponding to a larger effective value of $`\mathrm{}`$ in the new system. The distribution of splittings is given by the scarring corrections to the modified Porter–Thomas distribution for $`N=4`$ now, compared to $`N=6`$ above. Thus, the same conclusions continue to hold but with the expected modifications for larger $`\mathrm{}`$. This indicates that at $`c=1`$ we are far enough into the semiclassical regime to see characteristic semiclassical behavior for the locations of the scarring peaks, if not for their precise heights.

## IV Conclusions

We have demonstrated that scarring on the real continuation of the optimal tunneling path, if it is an unstable periodic orbit, enhances tunneling and thus leads to larger splittings between the symmetric and antisymmetric in $`x`$ eigenfunctions at energies near the scarring energies (likewise, antiscarring in between the scarring energies leads to smaller splittings). The energy dependence of the distribution of splittings displays EBK quantization, and the shape of the smooth envelope is roughly consistent with the prediction of scar theory, though the magnitude of the oscillations is not quantitatively predicted by the simple linearized dynamics; a better understanding of the shape of the envelope would require extending scar theory to the non-linear regime. Also, the distribution of splittings is approximately Porter–Thomas with scarring corrections, as we would expect on the basis of scar theory combined with the theory of Creagh and Whelan, discussed in Section I. We do not find, however, the expected dependence on the Lyapunov exponent of the horizontal periodic orbit. This is presumably due to the fact that our calculations do not probe very far into the semiclassical limit, our well being only a few wavelengths across in the transverse ($`y`$) direction. Finite-$`\mathrm{}`$ effects cut off the far tail of the splitting distribution at all energies.

According to Eqs. (2) and (3), suitably generalized to the chaotic double-well potential in two dimensions as discussed in Section I, the rescaled resonance widths in a single metastable well, the potential of which agreed with the double-well potential we are using for $`x<+x_0/\sqrt{2}`$, would have the same distribution as the rescaled splittings we have computed. Thus, our results imply a non-statistical distribution of resonance widths in a chaotic metastable well. In view of its importance for chemical physics, this conclusion deserves further investigation.

Finally, we discuss the prospects for many-dimensional systems. If there exists an unstable periodic orbit near the real continuation of the optimal tunneling path in a double well or metastable well, scarring and antiscarring will again play a role. The only question is whether the degree of instability is small enough for scarring to be important; for a Lyapunov exponent $`\lambda `$ large compared to unity the short-time envelope approaches the uniform limit of random matrix theory. However, as long as the sum of all instability exponents in directions transverse to the reaction coordinate does not become large, scarring effects are expected to appear, just as in the two-dimensional case discussed in the present paper.

## V Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. CHE-9610501, by the Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG03-00-ER41132, and by the Institute for Theoretical Atomic and Molecular Physics at the Harvard-Smithsonian Observatory.


format: text

text:
# Partial wave contributions to the antikaon potential at finite momentum

## I Introduction

Understanding the behavior of matter under extreme conditions of density and temperature, such as those found in neutron stars or in heavy-ion collisions, requires a good knowledge and control on the modification of the properties of hadrons in the nuclear medium. In particular, the in-medium effects on antikaons have received much attention over the last years, especially after the speculation of the possible existence of an antikaon condensed phase .

Empirical analysis of kaonic atoms  predict a strong attractive $`K^{}`$-nucleus potential, but, recently, the data have also been shown to be compatible with a potential which is four times less attractive . This last potential was obtained from a microscopic self-consistent calculation  using the chiral non-perturbative model of ref. that reproduces the $`\overline{K}N`$ scattering observables. A recent fine-tuning of this potential , was shown to produce a $`\chi ^2`$ as low as that of ref. . These observations imply that the data on kaonic atoms, although giving a strong indication of attraction, do not really constrain the size of the $`K^{}`$ optical potential at nuclear matter saturation density.

The dynamics of the $`\overline{K}N`$ interaction is particularly rich due to the presence of an isospin 0 resonance, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$, which lies only 27 MeV below the $`\overline{K}N`$ threshold. As a result, the isospin averaged $`\overline{K}N`$ interaction in free space is in fact repulsive. It was soon pointed out, however, that in the medium the Pauli blocking on nucleon states moves the resonance to higher energies and makes the interaction attractive . This particular (resonant-like) energy dependence of the $`\overline{K}N`$ interaction at subthreshold energies requires an especially careful treatment of all in-medium effects. In fact, when the attraction felt by the antikaon is self-consistently incorporated in the calculation  it compensates partly the effects induced by Pauli blocking and the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ resonance gets broader and moves back to lower energies, around its free space location. Moreover, since an extremely important ingredient to generate the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ resonance is the coupling of the $`\overline{K}N`$ system to the $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ one, the modification of the pion properties was also included in ref. , with the result that the resonance width increased further more and the peak shifted upwards to an energy slightly above the free space one.

Heavy-ion collisions can also provide information on the modification of hadronic properties. In particular the enhanced $`K^{}/K^+`$ ratio measured at GSI  can also be understood assuming that the antikaons feel a strong attraction . This lowers the threshold for $`K^{}`$ production, hence enhancing the ratio at subthreshold energies. In a recent work , it has been shown that the increase on this ratio could also be explained from the in-medium enhanced production of antikaons through $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ hyperons due to the shifting of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ resonance to higher energies, a mechanism that was already suggested in ref.  to explain the data of $`K^{}`$ absorption at rest on 12C .

The situation on the antikaon properties in the medium is, at present, far from being clear. Although it is commonly accepted that to explain kaonic atom data and the results on heavy-ion collisions the $`K^{}`$ must feel some attraction, the magnitude of it has not been really determined by the available observations.

One may aim at extracting this information from theoretical models that have been well constrained in free space by the $`\overline{K}N`$ scattering observables. Due to the special dynamics of the $`\overline{K}N`$ interaction, these models must treat carefully all medium effects, as well as the energy and momentum dependences of the in-medium $`\overline{K}N`$ interaction. The momentum dependence of the $`\overline{K}`$ optical potential is particularly important in the analysis of heavy-ion collisions since antikaons are created at a finite momentum of around $`250500`$ MeV/c.

Intimately connected with the momentum dependence is the role of higher partial waves of the $`\overline{K}N`$ interaction. For a relative momentum of the $`\overline{K}N`$ pair as large as that explored in heavy-ion collisions, the importance of the higher partial waves, beyond the commonly considered $`L=0`$ component, might become quite relevant.

The purpose of the present work is to study all these effects using the $`\overline{K}N`$ interaction of the Jülich group , which is based on meson-exchange. The Jülich potential predicts the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ resonance to be a quasibound $`\overline{K}N`$ state and reproduces satisfactorily the $`\overline{K}N`$ scattering observables. The matrix elements of this interaction depend on the incident and outgoing three-momenta, as well as on the total invariant center-of-mass energy. A partial wave decomposition is also given in ref. , hence allowing the investigation on how the different partial waves contribute to the $`\overline{K}`$ optical potential in the nuclear medium.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. II we present the formalism to derive the in-medium effective $`\overline{K}N`$ interaction and the corresponding $`\overline{K}`$ optical potential. Our results are shown in Sect. III, where particular attention is paid to study the effects of the higher partial waves on the $`\overline{K}`$ optical potential as obtained with two different self-consistent schemes. Our conclusions are summarized in Sect. IV.

## II In-medium $`\overline{K}N`$ interaction and $`\overline{K}`$ optical potential in nuclear matter

In this section we present the formalism to obtain the self-energy or single-particle potential of a $`\overline{K}`$ meson embedded in infinite symmetric nuclear matter. This self-energy accounts for the interaction of the $`\overline{K}`$ with the nucleons and its calculation requires the knowledge of the in medium $`\overline{K}N`$ interaction, which we will describe by a $`G`$-matrix. The medium effects incorporated in this $`G`$-matrix include the Pauli blocking on the nucleons in the intermediate states as well as the dressing of the $`\overline{K}`$ and the different baryon lines. We will explore different ways of dressing the intermediate states in solving the $`G`$-matrix, which will define the type of self-consistency of the calculation giving rise to the different approaches discussed in this paper.

### A Effective $`\overline{K}N`$ interaction

The effective $`\overline{K}N`$ interaction in the nuclear medium or $`G`$-matrix is obtained from the bare $`\overline{K}N`$ interaction derived in the meson exchange framework . As the bare interaction allows for the transition from the $`\overline{K}N`$ channel to the $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ channels, all having strangeness $`S=1`$, we are confronted with a coupled channel problem. The resultant meson-baryon (MB) $`G`$-matrices can be grouped in a matrix notation, where each box corresponds to one channel. The $`\overline{K}N`$ channel can have isospin $`I=0`$ or $`I=1`$. In the first case, it can only couple to the $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ channel and the corresponding matrix has the following structure

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}G_{\overline{K}N\overline{K}N}& G_{\overline{K}N\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }}\\ G_{\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{K}N}& G_{\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }}\end{array}\right),`$while for $`I=1`$ it can couple to both the $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ channels

$`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}G_{\overline{K}N\overline{K}N}& G_{\overline{K}N\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }}& G_{\overline{K}N\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }}\\ G_{\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{K}N}& G_{\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }}& G_{\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }}\\ G_{\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{K}N}& G_{\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }}& G_{\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }}\end{array}\right).`$

Keeping this structure in mind, the $`G`$-matrix is formally given by

$`M_1B_1G(\mathrm{\Omega })M_2B_2`$ $`=M_1B_1V(\sqrt{s})M_2B_2`$ (2)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{M_3B_3}{}}M_1B_1V(\sqrt{s})M_3B_3{\displaystyle \frac{Q_{M_3B_3}}{\mathrm{\Omega }E_{M_3}E_{B_3}+i\eta }}M_3B_3G(\mathrm{\Omega })M_2B_2`$
In Eq. (2), $`M_i`$ and $`B_i`$ represent the possible mesons ($`\overline{K}`$, $`\pi `$) and baryons ($`N`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$), respectively, and their corresponding quantum numbers such as spin, isospin, strangeness, and linear momentum. The function $`Q_{M_3,B_3}`$ stands for the Pauli operator which allows only intermediate nucleon states compatible with the Pauli principle. The energy variable $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the so called starting energy that we will always take as a real quantity, while $`\sqrt{s}`$ is the invariant center-of-mass energy which enters into the definition of the bare potential , i.e. $`\sqrt{s}=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }^2P^2}`$, where $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\stackrel{}{P})`$ is the total meson-baryon fourmomentum in a frame in which nuclear matter is at rest.

The former equation for the $`G`$-matrix has to be considered together with a prescription for the single-particle energies of all the mesons and baryons participating in the reaction and in the intermediate states. These energies can be written as

$$E_{M_i(B_i)}(k)=\sqrt{k^2+m_{M_i(B_i)}^2}+U_{M_i(B_i)}(k,E_{M_i(B_i)}^{qp}),$$
(3)
where $`U_{M_i(B_i)}`$ is the single-particle potential of each meson (baryon) calculated at the real quasi-particle energy $`E_{M_i(B_i)}^{qp}`$, obtained by solving the following equation

$$E_{M_i(B_i)}^{qp}(k)=\sqrt{k^2+m_{M_i(B_i)}^2}+\mathrm{Re}U_{M_i(B_i)}(k,E_{M_i(B_i)}^{qp}).$$
(4)
In the present paper we have considered the single-particle potential for the $`\overline{K}`$ meson and all baryons. While for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ hyperons we use the simplified form

$$U_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma }}=30\frac{\rho }{\rho _0},$$
(5)
where $`\rho _0`$ is the saturation nuclear matter density, for nucleons we take the density dependent parametrization

$$U_N(\rho ,k)=\alpha (\rho )+\frac{\beta (\rho )}{1+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k}{\gamma (\rho )}}\right]^2},$$
(6)
that was fitted to the single-particle potentials obtained from variational calculations using realistic $`NN`$ interactions. The density-dependent real parameters $`\alpha (\rho )`$, $`\beta (\rho )`$ and $`\gamma (\rho )`$ are given in Table I of ref. . The nucleon potential at $`\rho =\rho _0`$ amounts to $`70`$ MeV.

In the Brueckner-Hartree-Fock approach, the $`\overline{K}`$ self-energy is schematically given by

$$U_{\overline{K}}(k,E_{\overline{K}}^{qp})=\underset{NF}{}\overline{K}NG_{\overline{K}N\overline{K}N}(\mathrm{\Omega }=E_N^{qp}+E_{\overline{K}}^{qp})\overline{K}N,$$
(7)
where the summation over nucleon states is limited by the nucleon Fermi momentum.

At the required $`\overline{K}`$ energies, the $`G`$-matrix in the above equation becomes complex due to the possibility of $`\overline{K}`$$`N`$ decaying into the $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ channels. As a consequence, the potential $`U_{\overline{K}}`$ is also a complex quantity. The explicit calculation of $`U_{\overline{K}}`$ will be discussed in the next subsection.

The influence of the medium on the $`G`$-matrix is studied by considering different approaches to the self-consistent single-particle energy used for the $`\overline{K}`$ meson in Eq. (2). We have taken two prescriptions: a) the real quasi-particle energy defined in Eq. (4) and b) the complex $`E_{\overline{K}}`$ defined in Eq. (3) which also contains the imaginary part of $`U_{\overline{K}}`$ calculated at $`E_{\overline{K}}^{qp}`$.

We solve the $`G`$-matrix equation by doing first a partial wave decomposition. Using the quantum numbers of the relative and center-of-mass motion, the $`G`$-matrix equation in this basis reads

$`(M_1B_1);k^{\prime \prime }|G^{LJI}(P,\mathrm{\Omega })|(M_2B_2);k`$ $`=(M_1B_1);k^{\prime \prime }|V^{LJI}(\sqrt{s})|(M_2B_2);k`$ (11)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{M_3B_3}{}}{\displaystyle k^2𝑑k^{}(M_1B_1);k^{\prime \prime }|V^{LJI}(\sqrt{s})|(M_3B_3);k^{}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\overline{Q}_{M_3B_3}(k^{},P)}{\mathrm{\Omega }\sqrt{M_{B_3}^2+\stackrel{~}{k_{B_3}^2}}\sqrt{M_{M_3}^2+\stackrel{~}{k_{M_3}^2}}U_{B_3}(\stackrel{~}{k_{B_3}^2})U_{M_3}(\stackrel{~}{k_{M_3}^2})+i\eta }}`$
$`\times (M_3B_3);k^{}|G^{LJI}(P,\mathrm{\Omega })|(M_2B_2);k,`$
where the variables $`k`$, $`k^{}`$, $`k^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`L`$ denote relative linear momenta and orbital momentum, respectively, while $`P`$ is the linear center-of-mass momentum. The functions $`\stackrel{~}{k_B^2}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{k_M^2}`$ are, respectively, the square of the momentum of the baryon and that of the meson in the intermediate states, averaged over the angle between the total momentum $`\stackrel{}{P}`$ and the relative momentum $`\stackrel{}{k}^{}`$ (see the definitions in appendix A)

$`\stackrel{~}{k_B^2}(k^{},P)`$ $`=`$ $`k^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_B}{M_M+M_B}}\right)^2P^2`$ (12)
$`\stackrel{~}{k_M^2}(k^{},P)`$ $`=`$ $`k^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_M}{M_M+M_B}}\right)^2P^2.`$ (13)
The angle average of the Pauli operator, $`\overline{Q}_{M_3B_3}(k^{},P)`$, is shown explicitly in appendix A and differs from unity only in the case of the $`\overline{K}N`$ channel. The total angular momentum and isospin are denoted by $`J`$ and $`I`$, respectively. For each $`J`$, two values of orbital angular momentum, $`L=J+1/2`$ and $`L=J1/2`$, are allowed. However, due to parity conservation, the interaction can not mix these two states and, as a consequence, the orbital angular momentum is also a conserved quantity.

### B $`\overline{K}`$ single-particle energy in Brueckner-Hartree-Fock approximation

By using the partial wave decomposition of the $`G`$-matrix, the Brueckner-Hartree-Fock approximation to the single-particle potential of a $`\overline{K}`$ meson embedded in a Fermi sea of nucleons \[Eq. (7)\] becomes

$`U_{\overline{K}}(k_{\overline{K}},\omega =E_{\overline{K}}^{qp}(k_{\overline{K}}))`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{L,J,I}{}}(2J+1)(2I+1)(1+\xi )^3{\displaystyle _0^{k_{max}}}k^2𝑑kf(k,k_{\overline{K}})`$ (15)
$`\times (\overline{K}N);k|G^{LJI}(\overline{P^2},E_{\overline{K}}^{qp}(k_{\overline{K}})+E_N^{qp}(\overline{k_N^2}))|(\overline{K}N);k,`$
where $`\overline{P^2}`$ and $`\overline{k_N^2}`$ are the square of the center-of-mass momentum and nucleon momentum, respectively, averaged over the angle between the external $`\overline{K}`$ momentum in the lab system, $`\stackrel{}{k}_{\overline{K}}`$, and the $`\overline{K}N`$ relative momentum, $`\stackrel{}{k}`$, used as integration variable in Eq. (15) (see appendix B for details). These angle averages eliminate the angular dependence of the $`G`$-matrix and allow to perform the angular integration in Eq. (15) analitically, giving rise to the weight function, $`f(k,k_{\overline{K}})`$,

$$f(k,k_{\overline{K}})=\{\begin{array}{cc}1& \mathrm{for}k\frac{k_F\xi k_{\overline{K}}}{1+\xi },\hfill \\ 0& \mathrm{for}|\xi k_{\overline{K}}(1+\xi )k|>k_F,\hfill \\ \frac{k_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}[\xi k_{\overline{K}}(1+\xi )k]^2}{4\xi (1+\xi )k_{\overline{K}}k}& \text{otherwise,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
where $`\xi ={\displaystyle \frac{M_N}{M_{\overline{K}}}}`$ and $`k_F`$ is the Fermi momentum. The magnitude of the relative momentum $`k`$ is constrained by

$$k_{max}=\frac{k_F+\xi k_{\overline{K}}}{1+\xi }.$$
(17)
After self-consistency for the on-shell value $`U_{\overline{K}}(k_{\overline{K}},E_{\overline{K}}^{qp})`$ is achieved, one can obtain the complete energy dependence of the self-energy, $`U_{\overline{K}}(k_{\overline{K}},\omega )`$, which can be used to determine the $`\overline{K}`$ single-particle propagator in the medium,

$$D_{\overline{K}}(k_{\overline{K}},\omega )=\frac{1}{\omega ^2k_{\overline{K}}^2m_{\overline{K}}^22m_{\overline{K}}U_{\overline{K}}(k_{\overline{K}},\omega )},$$
(18)
and the corresponding spectral density

$$S_{\overline{K}}(k_{\overline{K}},\omega )=\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{I}mD_{\overline{K}}(k_{\overline{K}},\omega ).$$
(19)
## III Results

We start this section by showing explicitly the most characteristic medium modification of the $`\overline{K}N`$ amplitude, which is obtained when the Pauli blocking on the intermediate nucleons is incorporated. The real and imaginary parts of the resulting in-medium $`\overline{K}N`$ amplitudes for a total momentum $`\stackrel{}{k}_{\overline{K}}+\stackrel{}{k}_N=\stackrel{}{0}`$ are shown in Fig. 1 as functions of the invariant center-of-mass energy, for three different densities: $`\rho =0`$ (dotted lines), $`\rho =\rho _0/2`$ (dot-dashed lines), and $`\rho =\rho _0`$ (solid lines), with $`\rho _0=0.17`$ fm-3 being the saturation density of nuclear matter. We clearly see, as noticed already by all earlier microscopic calculations, the repulsive effect on the resonance produced by having moved the threshold of intermediate allowed $`\overline{K}N`$ states to higher energies, as a result of Pauli blocking acting on the nucleon.

Clearly, this shift of the resonance changes the $`\overline{K}N`$ interaction at threshold ($`1432`$ MeV) from being repulsive in free space to being attractive in the medium. Since this effect is intimately connected with the strong energy dependence of the $`\overline{K}N`$ interaction, important changes can be expected from a self-consistent incorporation of the $`\overline{K}`$ properties on the $`\overline{K}N`$ $`G`$-matrix, as already noted by Lutz  and confirmed in ref. .

This type of self-consistent calculations are also common in Brueckner-Hartree-Fock studies of the $`NN`$ interaction, where it is costumary to take the nucleon single-particle energies as real quantities. This amounts to disregard the imaginary part of the in medium $`NN`$ amplitude in the calculation of the single-particle energy for nucleons above the Fermi momentum. We have attempted a similar type of approximate scheme for the $`\overline{K}`$ meson, although in this case the $`\overline{K}N`$ amplitude is already complex at threshold due to the $`\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ channels. In this simplified self-consistent scheme, only the real part of the $`\overline{K}`$ potential is retained in the solution of the $`G`$-matrix, i.e. the $`\overline{K}`$ energy appearing in Eq. (2) is taken to be the real quasi-particle energy of Eq. (4).

Once self-consistency is achieved, we calculate both real and imaginary parts of the $`\overline{K}`$ potential, which are displayed in Fig. 2 as functions of the antikaon momentum, for normal nuclear matter density $`\rho =\rho _0`$. We explicitly show the separate contribution of the various partial waves of the $`\overline{K}N`$ interaction. At zero momentum the real part of the $`\overline{K}`$ potential is about $`100`$ MeV and the partial waves higher than the $`L=0`$ component give a negligible contribution. Both the real and imaginary parts of the potential show some structure between $`200`$ MeV/c and $`400`$ MeV/c. This is connected to the behavior of the in-medium $`\overline{K}N`$ amplitude which, in this simplified self-consistent scheme, still retains the resonant-like shape at $`\rho =\rho _0`$. We observe that the high partial waves start being non-negligible for momenta larger than $`200`$ MeV/c. It is interesting to focus our attention on the imaginary part of the $`\overline{K}`$ potential which at low momentum is rather small. This is due to the supressed coupling to intermediate $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ states as a result of the strong attraction felt by the antikaon combined with the attraction of around $`70`$ MeV felt by the nucleon. The in-medium $`\overline{K}N`$ system then explores energies below those available for $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ excitations and the antikaon width becomes extremely small. In this low momentum region the imaginary part of the $`\overline{K}`$ potential is essentially due to the coupling to $`\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ states in the relatively weak $`I=1`$ channel. As seen in the figure, for the $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ channel to start giving a contribution to the imaginary part, it is necessary to provide the $`\overline{K}`$ with a finite momentum (around 200 MeV/c), such that the condition $`E_{\overline{K}}^{qp}+E_N^{qp}>m_\pi +m_\mathrm{\Sigma }+U_\mathrm{\Sigma }1300`$ MeV can be fulfilled.

The substantial attraction obtained for the $`\overline{K}`$ optical potential combined with the extremely small imaginary component of the $`\overline{K}`$ optical potential might induce to think that the chances of producing very narrow, hence observable, deeply bound $`\overline{K}`$-nucleus states are quite high. If these results were confirmed by more sofisticated treatments of the in-medium effects, an experimental search for these states should be indeed encouraged. However, as we will show in the following, the use of a more realistic self-consistent scheme wears this finding off.

Our second method consists of determining the complete complex $`\overline{K}`$ single-particle energy given in Eq. (3) self-consistently. That means that the dressing of the $`\overline{K}`$ in the intermediate states of the $`G`$-matrix equation is taken into account through a complex but energy-independent self-energy. This gives rise to the so-called “quasi-particle” spectral density, which has the energy dependence of a Lorentzian distribution. Although this is an approximation with respect to the more sophisticate attempts made in Refs. , where the full energy dependence of the $`\overline{K}`$ self-energy is self-consistently determined, it is sufficiently good for the studies we are carrying out in the present work. Moreover, at the end of the self-consistent scheme, we evaluate the spectral density of the $`\overline{K}`$ keeping the complete momentum and energy dependence of the $`\overline{K}`$ self-energy.

We first show, in Fig. 3, the effect of dressing the antikaon with a complex self-energy on the in medium $`\overline{K}N`$ amplitude. Comparing with the results shown in Fig. 1, we observe that the resonance peak stays now pretty close or even lower than its free space location. As mentioned above, this is due to the attraction felt by the $`\overline{K}`$ that compensates the repulsive effect induced by Pauli blocking on the nucleon. Secondly, both real and imaginary parts of the $`\overline{K}N`$ amplitude become much smoother, as a result of the $`\overline{K}`$ strength being spread out over energies. The resonance gets wider and dilutes much earlier with increasing density. We note that these effects are in total agreement with those obtained with the self-consistent approaches of refs. .

Our results for the antikaon potential at $`\rho =\rho _0`$ obtained with this complete self-consistent scheme are shown in Fig. 4. The real part of the $`\overline{K}`$ potential at zero momentum increases to $`87`$ MeV. It is worth noticing that the new scheme has produced a drastically different imaginary part. The small value of $`3`$ MeV at zero momentum obtained using the simplified scheme turns out to be now around $`25`$ MeV, hence making the observation of bound $`\overline{K}`$ nuclear states more difficult. This is a consequence of the fact that the in-medium $`\overline{K}N`$ amplitude becomes smoother and wider when the $`\overline{K}`$ energies are complex. Since the $`\overline{K}`$ spectral density develops a width and, in turn, the $`\overline{K}`$ feels a reduced attraction, the $`\overline{K}N`$ states can couple more easily to the $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ states than in the previous self-consistent scheme. From these results one must conclude that any approach claiming for narrow bound $`\overline{K}`$ nuclear states must be looked at with caution, because the self-consistent scheme affects enormously the predicted $`\overline{K}`$ properties in the medium.

The effect of including the higher partial waves of the $`\overline{K}N`$ interaction is also seen in Fig. 4. We observe that at zero $`\overline{K}`$ momentum there is already some contribution of partial waves higher than $`L=0`$ due to the fact that the $`\overline{K}`$ meson interacts with nucleons that occupy states up to the Fermi momentum, giving rise to finite $`\overline{K}N`$ relative momenta of up to around 90 MeV/c. Clearly, the effect of the higher partial waves increases with increasing $`\overline{K}`$ momentum, flattening out the real part of the optical potential and producing more structure to the imaginary part. At a $`\overline{K}`$ momentum around 500 MeV/c, the inclusion of higher partial waves makes the real part more attractive, from $`28`$ MeV to $`52`$ MeV, and practically doubles the size of the imaginary part.

In Fig. 5 we represent the real and the imaginary part of $`U_{\overline{K}}`$ for different densities, obtained with the scheme that considers the complex potential for the antikaon. As we increase the density we obtain a more attractive potential due to two facts. On one hand, as discussed previously, the interaction is more attractive at higher densities. On the other hand, the $`\overline{K}`$ feels the interaction of many more nucleons. The momentum dependence is moderate for the real part. In contrast, the imaginary part for densities around the saturation density and beyond shows more structure. This momentum dependence is smoother than that obtained in ref.  from a phenomenological model using the information of the vacuum $`\overline{K}N`$ amplitudes, where the antikaon optical potential at normal nuclear matter density $`\rho _0`$ increases from $`140`$ MeV at zero momentum to around $`50`$ MeV at high momenta.

Starting from the self-consistent $`\overline{K}`$ optical potential shown in Fig. 3 and reproduced by the solid line in Fig. 5, we perform two different tests in order to check some of the approximations used in the literature. First, we compute the optical potential neglecting the nucleon recoil corrections, as done in ref. . This amounts to calculate the $`\overline{K}`$ potential at momentum $`k_{\overline{K}}`$ from a $`G\rho `$ type expression, with $`G`$ being the in-medium $`\overline{K}N`$ interaction between a $`\overline{K}`$ of momentum $`k_{\overline{K}}`$ and a nucleon of zero momentum. The results are displayed by the dashed lines in Fig. 5. While the real part is barely affected by this simplified approximation, the imaginary part shows some non-negligible differences at low momenta. Secondly, we have neglected, in addition, the nucleon single-particle potential, which has been claimed to be unimportant in ref. . Note that in this later reference a small imaginary part of around 10 MeV for the nucleon optical potential is used, but the real part is set to zero. The results are shown by the dotted line. The differences with the dashed line are quite appreciable at low momenta, both for the real and imaginary parts of the $`\overline{K}`$ optical potential.

Finally, once self-consistence is reached, we calculate the full energy dependence of the $`\overline{K}`$ self-energy which defines the in-medium $`\overline{K}`$ single-particle propagator and its spectral density through Eqs. (18) and (19). The spectral density at zero momentum is shown in Fig. 7 for several densities. As density increases the peak of the $`\overline{K}`$ pole moves towards lower energies since the $`\overline{K}`$ optical potential becomes more attractive. The in medium $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ resonance gets wider and, although not signaled by any clear peak in the figure, its presence can be indirectly noticed from examining the $`\overline{K}`$ spectral density on the right hand side of the quasiparticle peak, which falls off more slowly than that on the left hand side. We also notice some structure of the spectral function to the left of the quasiparticle peak at energies of the $`\overline{K}`$ of around $`320360`$ MeV, the origin of which can be traced back to a pole of the free $`\overline{K}N`$ amplitude obtained with the Jülich interaction in the $`L=1`$, $`I=1`$ channel at an energy $`\sqrt{s}=1230`$ MeV, about 200 MeV below the $`\overline{K}N`$ threshold. This pole comes from the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ pole diagram of the bare Jülich potential which moves $`35`$ MeV up in energy due to the iteration process involved in $`T`$-matrix. Hence, the peak in the spectral function is the in-medium reflection of this singularity in the free space $`T`$-matrix. The dotted line shows the spectral density at $`\rho =\rho _0`$ but keeping only the $`L=0`$ component of the $`\overline{K}N`$ interaction. In agreement with the behavior of the optical potential at zero momentum, we observe that the location of the quasiparticle peak only moves a few MeV, while the width (height) gets reduced (increased) by about 30%.

## IV Conclusions

We have performed a microscopic self-consistent calculation of the single-particle potential of a $`\overline{K}`$ meson embedded in symmetric nuclear matter, using the meson-exchange Jülich $`\overline{K}N`$ interaction.

Due to the strong energy dependence of the $`\overline{K}N`$ $`G`$-matrix it becomes crucial to follow a self-consistent procedure to evaluate the $`\overline{K}`$ self-energy. In this work we have analyzed two self-consistent schemes which produce substantial different results. When only the real part of the $`\overline{K}`$ optical potential is retained in the self-consistent procedure, one obtains an attraction of about $`100`$ MeV at zero momentum and a very small imaginary part of around $`3`$ MeV. This optical potential would lead to extremely narrow deeply bound kaonic states in nuclei. However, when the complete complex optical potential is self-consistently determined, the real part becomes 15% less attractive and the imaginary part increases to around $`25`$ MeV, as a consequence of the widening of the antikaon strength which produces a $`\overline{K}N`$ amplitude smoother and more spread out over energies.

We have obtained the kaon optical potential as a function of the $`\overline{K}`$ momentum, up to regions that are relevant in the analysis of heavy-ion collisions where antikaons are created with a finite momentum. Our results for the optical potential show a momentum dependence which is moderate for the real part and significantly more relevant for the imaginary part, which is especially important for densities around the saturation density.

We have also studied the effect of including the higher partial waves of the $`\overline{K}N`$ interaction. Some influence is already seen at zero $`\overline{K}`$ momentum but the largest effects appear clearly at large momenta, where the inclusion of the $`L>0`$ partial waves of the $`\overline{K}N`$ interaction can practically double the size of the optical potential. At a $`\overline{K}`$ momentum of 500 MeV/c the complex optical potential changes from the $`L=0`$ value of $`(28,39)`$ MeV to $`(52,61)`$ MeV when all partial waves are included.

## Acknowledgments

We are very grateful to Monika Hoffmann for providing us with the codes of the Jülich $`\overline{K}N`$ interaction and to E. Oset for useful discussions. This work is partially supported by DGICYT contract number PB98-1247 and by the Generalitat de Catalunya under project SGR98-11. One of us (L.T.) wishes to acknowledge support from a doctoral fellowship of the Ministerio de Educación y Cultura (Spain).

## Appendix A

In this appendix we show how to compute the angular average of the Pauli operator, $`Q_{\overline{K}N}`$. Defining $`\stackrel{}{P}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ as the total and relative momenta of the $`\overline{K}N`$ pair, respectively

$$\stackrel{}{P}=\stackrel{}{k}_{\overline{K}}+\stackrel{}{k}_N,\stackrel{}{k}=\frac{M_N\stackrel{}{k}_{\overline{K}}M_{\overline{K}}\stackrel{}{k}_N}{M_{\overline{K}}+M_N},$$
(A.1)
we can rewrite the nucleon and antikaon momenta in the laboratory system, $`\stackrel{}{k}_N`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}_{\overline{K}}`$, as

$$\stackrel{}{k}_N=\stackrel{}{k}+\frac{\xi }{1+\xi }\stackrel{}{P},\stackrel{}{k}_{\overline{K}}=\stackrel{}{k}+\frac{1}{1+\xi }\stackrel{}{P},$$
(A.2)
where a galilean transformation has been used and $`\xi ={\displaystyle \frac{M_N}{M_{\overline{K}}}}`$. The Pauli operator acts only on the nucleonic line and, in symmetric nuclear matter, it reads

$$Q_{\overline{K}N}(\stackrel{}{P},\stackrel{}{k})=\theta \left(\frac{\xi }{1+\xi }\stackrel{}{P}\stackrel{}{k}k_F\right),$$
(A.3)
which depends on the angle between $`\stackrel{}{P}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}`$. In order to eliminate this dependence, we introduce an angle average

$$\overline{Q}_{\overline{K}N}(P,k)=\frac{1}{2}_0^\pi 𝑑\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta Q(\stackrel{}{P},\stackrel{}{k}),$$
(A.4)
such that the resulting function, given by

$$\overline{Q}_{\overline{K}N}(P,k)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}\left[1+\frac{k^2+\left(\frac{\xi }{1+\xi }\right)^2P^2k_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2kP\frac{\xi }{1+\xi }}\right]& \mathrm{for}\frac{\xi }{1+\xi }Pk_F<k<\frac{\xi }{1+\xi }P+k_F,\hfill \\ 1& \mathrm{for}k>\frac{\xi }{1+\xi }P+k_F\mathrm{or}k<\frac{\xi }{1+\xi }Pk_F,\hfill \\ 0& \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array},$$
(A.5)
depends only on the modulus of the relative and total momenta of the $`\overline{K}N`$ state.

## Appendix B

In this appendix we show how to compute an appropiate average of the $`\overline{K}N`$ center-of-mass momentum, $`\stackrel{}{P}`$, and the nucleon momentum, $`\stackrel{}{k}_N`$, given an external antikaon momentum, $`\stackrel{}{k_{\overline{K}}}`$, and a relative $`\overline{K}N`$ momentum, $`\stackrel{}{k}`$, used as integration variable in Eq. (15). From Eqs. (A.1) and (A.2) one obtains

$$\stackrel{}{P}=(1+\xi )(\stackrel{}{k}_{\overline{K}}\stackrel{}{k}),\stackrel{}{k}_N=\xi \stackrel{}{k}_{\overline{K}}1+\xi \stackrel{}{k}.$$
(B.1)
The angle average of the center-of-mass momentum is defined as

$`\overline{P^2}(k_{\overline{K}},k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle d(\mathrm{cos}\theta )P^2(k_{\overline{K}},k,\mathrm{cos}\theta )}}{{\displaystyle d(\mathrm{cos}\theta )}}},`$ (B.2)
where $`P^2(k_{\overline{K}},k,\mathrm{cos}\theta )=(1+\xi )^2(k_{\overline{K}}^2+k^22k_{\overline{K}}k\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$, with $`\theta `$ being the angle between $`\stackrel{}{k}_{\overline{K}}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}`$. Similarly, for $`\overline{k_N^2}`$ we have

$`\overline{k_N^2}(k_{\overline{K}},k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle d(\mathrm{cos}\theta )k_N^2(k_{\overline{K}},k,\mathrm{cos}\theta )}}{{\displaystyle d(\mathrm{cos}\theta )}}},`$ (B.3)
where $`k_N^2(k_{\overline{K}},k,\mathrm{cos}\theta )=\xi ^2k_{\overline{K}}^2+(1+\xi )^2k^22\xi (1+\xi )k_{\overline{K}}k\mathrm{cos}\theta `$.

In both cases, the integration runs from $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _m`$ to 1, where the expression for $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _m`$ depends on two regions of integration, according to the restrictions imposed by Pauli blocking, and is given by

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta _m=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\xi ^2k_{\overline{K}}^2+(1+\xi )^2k^2k_F^2}{2\xi k_{\overline{K}}(1+\xi )k}& \mathrm{for}\frac{|k_F\xi k_{\overline{K}}|}{1+\xi }k\frac{k_F+\xi k_{\overline{K}}}{1+\xi },\hfill \\ 1& \mathrm{for}k\frac{k_F\xi k_{\overline{K}}}{1+\xi }\hfill \end{array}$$
(B.4)
The resulting angle averages for $`\stackrel{}{P}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}_N`$ are given by

$$\overline{P^2}(k_{\overline{K}},k)=\{\begin{array}{cc}(1+\xi )^2\left[(k_{\overline{K}}^2+k^2)\frac{[\xi k_{\overline{K}}+(1+\xi )k]^2k_F^2}{2\xi (1+\xi )}\right]& \mathrm{for}\frac{|k_F\xi k_{\overline{K}}|}{1+\xi }k\frac{k_F+\xi k_{\overline{K}}}{1+\xi },\hfill \\ (1+\xi )^2(k_{\overline{K}}^2+k^2)& \mathrm{for}k\frac{k_F\xi k_{\overline{K}}}{1+\xi }\hfill \end{array}$$
(B.5)
$$\overline{k_N^2}(k_{\overline{K}},k)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\xi ^2k_{\overline{K}}^2+(1+\xi )^2k^2\frac{[\xi k_{\overline{K}}+(1+\xi )k]^2k_F^2}{2}& \mathrm{for}\frac{|k_F\xi k_{\overline{K}}|}{1+\xi }k\frac{k_F+\xi k_{\overline{K}}}{1+\xi },\hfill \\ \xi ^2k_{\overline{K}}^2+(1+\xi )^2k^2& \mathrm{for}k\frac{k_F\xi k_{\overline{K}}}{1+\xi }\hfill \end{array}$$
(B.6)


text:
# Loading a continuous-wave atom laser by optical pumping techniques

## I Introduction

An atom laser is a device which generates an atomic beam which is both intense and coherent . It is typically defined by direct analogy with the optical laser. As in the case of an optical laser, if a threshold condition is satisfied the atom laser will operate far from equilibrium in a dynamical steady state . In this regime, the macroscopically occupied quantum state is continuously depleted by loss to the output field, and continuously replenished by pumping from an active medium. The threshold condition for the atom laser is analogous to the critical point associated with the phase transition from a normal gas to a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC). A version of the “pulsed” atom laser  was demonstrated soon after the first experimental realizations of BEC in dilute alkali gases .

The three basic components of an atom laser are: a cavity (or resonator), an active medium (or reservoir), and an output coupler. The cavity is typically a three-dimensional magnetic trap which for containment uses the force on the atomic magnetic dipole via an inhomogeneous potential. The active medium may be composed of a saturated dilute thermal gas formed through evaporative cooling or other techniques. Saturated in this context implies that the energy distribution function of the atoms is such that thermodynamic relaxation of the gas through binary collisions would result in the stimulated accumulation of atoms into the ground state. The output coupler can be implemented by either applying a short radio-frequency (RF) pulse to the condensate and thereby separating the condensate into a trapped component and an un-trapped component , or alternatively by creating a situation in which the atoms tunnel out through a potential barrier . A recent demonstration of a quasi-continuous atom laser used an optical Raman pulse to drive transitions between trapped and un-trapped magnetic sublevels giving the output-coupled BEC fraction a non-zero momentum .

To date, no continuous wave (CW) atom laser has been demonstrated in which there is replenishing of the reservoir in direct analogy with CW-optical laser. Replenishing the reservoir is required in steady state to compensate for the loss due to output coupling as well as to compensate for various intrinsic loss mechanisms such as collisions with hot atoms from the background vapor and inelastic two-body and three-body collisions between trapped atoms .

In this paper we propose a scheme for loading the thermal cloud into a magnetic trap by optically pumping atoms from an external cold atomic beam source. Optical pumping is necessary since the magnetic potential is conservative and therefore a dissipative process is required for confinement of the atoms to be achieved. When combined with evaporative cooling, our approach may allow both steady state BEC and the CW atom laser to be demonstrated. The crucial point is that while one is trying to obtain a steady state BEC by injecting atoms into the magnetic trap, the loading mechanism itself should not heat the system or destroy the delicate condensate component.

There have been related proposals to ours using single atom “dark states” for reaching low temperatures by purely optical means—even well below the photon recoil limit . As shown by Castin et al. in Ref. , the main hurdle in achieving BEC in all these schemes is that of photon reabsorption. Each reabsorption can remove one atom from the dark state and increment the energy of the cloud on average by one recoil energy. We engineer the analogous effect in our scheme to be negligible by configuring the frequency of the emitted photons and adjusting the spatial geometry of the system to reduce the probability of reabsorption by the condensate.

## II The Model

We consider atoms whose internal degrees of freedom are described by a three level atomic system as shown in Fig. 1. Our description of the loading scheme is motivated by the experimental setup in Ref. . There the atoms were loaded from a background vapor and precooled in a magneto-optical trap (MOT). They were then launched into the second MOT, optically pumped to the desired internal atomic hyperfine state, and transfered to a magnetically confining potential in which evaporative cooling was implemented. Here we study the possibility for loading the thermal cloud into the magnetic trap directly and continuously. This would allow the evaporative cooling to be carried out in steady state, which is the situation considered in Ref. .

Our scheme is illustrated in Fig. 2. Atoms are injected into the trap in state $`|g`$. As the atoms enter the spatial region containing the thermal cloud they pass through a laser field and are coherently pumped to the excited state $`|e`$ from which they may spontaneously emit a photon and end up in the trap state $`|t`$.

As will be shown later the spontaneously emitted photons may be out of resonance with the bare $`|t|e`$ transition and therefore reabsorption by atoms in the thermal cloud is greatly reduced (the exception to this general statement is the negligible fraction of thermal atoms in the localized spatial region of the focussed laser beam.) Using this approach atoms may be continuously loaded into the thermal cloud and be confined by the trapping potential without prohibitive reabsorption of the spontaneous photons emitted in the required dissipative process.

We use a master equation  to study the evolution of this system. We define the spontaneous emission rates between the excited state and trap state and between the trap state and ground state as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_e`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t`$ respectively, and for simplicity neglect spontaneous emission directly from $`|e`$ to $`|g`$. Assuming that the laser is on resonance with the atomic transition frequency (detuning $`\delta =0`$), the coherent interaction can be modeled by the Hamiltonian in the interaction picture

$$H=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}\mathrm{}(\sigma _+^{ge}+\sigma _{}^{ge})$$
(1)
where $`\sigma _+^{ge},\sigma _{}^{ge}`$ are the raising and lowering operators respectively between the ground state $`|g`$ and the excited state $`|e`$. The master equation for the reduced density operator of the atom includes terms due to both the spontaneous emission and a part corresponding to the coherent driving source. In the interaction picture this takes the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}}[\sigma _+^{ge}+\sigma _{}^{ge},\rho ]`$ (4)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_e}{2}}(2\sigma _{}^{et}\rho \sigma _+^{et}\sigma _+^{et}\sigma _{}^{et}\rho \rho \sigma _+^{et}\sigma _{}^{et})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_t}{2}}(2\sigma _{}^{gt}\rho \sigma _+^{gt}\sigma _+^{gt}\sigma _{}^{gt}\rho \rho \sigma _+^{gt}\sigma _{}^{gt}),`$
where $`\sigma _+^{et},\sigma _{}^{et}`$ are the raising and lowering operators respectively between the excited and trap state and $`\sigma _+^{gt},\sigma _{}^{gt}`$ are the raising and lowering operators respectively between the trap state and ground state. From the above master equation we obtain the coupled differential equations for the evolution of matrix elements of $`\rho `$ with the constraint Tr$`[\rho ]=1`$. The atomic population in the three levels given by the matrix elements $`\rho _{gg}(t),\rho _{ee}(t)`$ and $`\rho _{tt}(t)`$ are obtained for values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_e=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=5`$ and initial condition given by $`\rho _{gg}(0)=1`$, $`\rho _{ee}(0)=\rho _{tt}(0)=0`$. We consider two different values for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t`$; $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t=2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t=0`$, which give qualitatively distinct dynamics. The zero value for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t`$ corresponds to optically pumping the atom from the ground to trap state, and leads to complete transfer of population at long times. The non-zero value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t`$ gives a steady-state solution for the level populations in which the atom cycles indefinitely, which will be useful later for the calculation of the spectrum of the spontaneously emitted photons.

The steady state spectrum of spontaneously emitted photons on the $`|e|t`$ transition is given by the Fourier transform of the two-time correlation function

$$K(t+\tau ,t)=\sigma _+^{et}(t+\tau )\sigma _{}^{et}(t),$$
(5)
the differential equation for which is obtained by combining the equation for $`\rho _{tg}`$ and $`\rho _{te}`$ above along with the quantum regression theorem (QRT) .

The QRT states that for a set of operators $`Y_i`$, which evolve in steady-state according to

$$\frac{}{\tau }Y_i(\tau )=\underset{j}{}G_{ij}Y_j(\tau ),$$
(6)
then two-time averages can be related to the one-time expectation values by

$$\frac{}{\tau }Y_i(t+\tau )Y_l(t)=\underset{j}{}G_{ij}Y_j(t+\tau )Y_l(t),$$
(7)
where the $`G_{ij}`$’s are the same coefficients in both Eq. (6) and Eq. (7). For a general non-steady-state problem in which transient dynamics must be considered, application of the QRT is typically more complicated. For simplicity our approach is to take a fictitious non-zero value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t`$, and then consider the limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t0`$. The spectrum defined as

$$S(\omega )=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}_t^t𝑑\tau K(\tau )e^{i\omega \tau }$$
(8)
is then given by

$`S(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{tt}^{ss}}{\pi \mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{eff}}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\left(i\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_e}{4}+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{2}\right)\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_e}{4}+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_t}{2}\right)}{\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_e}{4}+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_t}{2}\right)^2+\left(\omega +\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{2}\right)^2}}\right]`$ (10)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{tt}^{ss}}{\pi \mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{eff}}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\left(i\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_e}{4}+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{2}\right)\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_e}{4}+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_t}{2}\right)}{\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_e}{4}+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_t}{2}\right)^2+\left(\omega \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{2}\right)^2}}\right]`$
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{eff}}=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_e^2/4}`$

In Fig. 4 we plot $`|S(\omega )|^2`$ shown by the solid curve for the limiting case of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t0`$. The spectrum is AC-Stark split into two Lorentzians separated by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. This spectrum is commonly referred to as the Autler-Townes doublet .

For comparison we now use the method described in Ref.  to provide an alternative calculation of the fluorescence spectrum, extending our treatment to include the possibility for the time dependence of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. This involves the decomposition into “quantum trajectories”, where the evolution is conditional on a certain record of dissipative events. In the case of the evolution conditional on the spontaneous emission of no photons, the quantum trajectory $`|\psi (t)`$, evolves according to

$$\frac{|\psi (t)}{t}=\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}H_{\mathrm{eff}}|\psi (t),$$
(11)
where $`H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian defined by

$$H_{\mathrm{eff}}=Hi\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_e}{2}\sigma _+^{et}\sigma _{}^{et}.$$
(12)
For the evolution conditional on the spontaneous emission of one photon, each quantum trajectory $`|\psi _{\omega _j}(t)`$ is labelled by the frequency of the photon $`\omega _j`$. If we consider a time interval $`t[0,\tau ]`$, then according to the Fourier sampling theorem a complete description requires choosing each $`\omega _j`$ from a discrete but infinite set of frequencies spaced $`(2\pi /\tau )`$ apart. The observed spectrum may then be defined as

$$S(\omega )=\psi _\omega (\tau )|\psi _\omega (\tau )$$
(13)
with (see Ref. )

$$\frac{d}{dt}|\psi _{\omega _j}(t)=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_e}{\tau }}\sigma _{}^{et}|\psi (t)+\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}(H_{\mathrm{eff}}+\mathrm{}\omega _j)|\psi _{\omega _j}(t).$$
(14)
By solving the coupled Eqns. (11) and (14) we get

$$\begin{array}{ccc}|\psi _{\omega _j}(t)\hfill & =& \left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ f_{\omega _j}(t)\end{array}\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
where

$`f_{\omega _j}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`qN^1\left((i\omega _j\mathrm{\Gamma }_e/4)^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{eff}}^2/4\right)^1`$ (16)
$``$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{eff}}t}{2}}\right)e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_et/4}(i\omega _j\mathrm{\Gamma }_e/4)`$ (18)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{eff}}t}{2}}\right)e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_et/4}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{2}}e^{i\omega _jt}`$
$`q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_e}{\tau }}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _+\lambda _{}}{\lambda _+\lambda _{}}}\right]`$ (19)
The single-photon spectrum which is so obtained, $`|S(\omega )|^2`$, is shown by dot-dashed curve in Fig. 4. The normalization constant $`N`$ is introduced so that $`|f_{\omega _j}|^21`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$. We see a close agreement between the spectra calculated by the two methods, the quantum regression theorem and the quantum trajectory approach of solving conditional dynamics. The crucial observation is the absence of a significant contribution in the zero-frequency region of the fluorescence spectrum where there would be strong photon reabsorption by the thermal cloud. Virtually all of the spontaneous photons are off resonance with the bare $`|t|e`$ transition which is the resonant frequency for all thermal atoms out of the laser field focus.

## III  Effect of time dependent $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and finite detuning on the transient spectrum

The assumed time independent nature of the interaction picture Hamiltonian (1) may not be a realistic situation. In an actual experiment, as the atoms pass through the laser beam they would see a continuously changing intensity and hence a changing $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. At the same time, existence of finite detuning $`\delta `$ (assumed previously to be zero for simplicity), may result in the time dependence of the operators $`\sigma _+^{ge}`$ and $`\sigma _{}^{ge}`$ given by

$$\sigma _\pm ^{ge}(t)=\sigma _\pm ^{ge}e^{\pm i\delta t}$$
(20)
Thus, in a more realistic situation the interaction picture Hamiltonian of Eq.(1) should be replaced by the time dependent form

$$H(t)=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }(t)}{2}\mathrm{}(\sigma _+^{ge}e^{i\delta t}+\sigma _{}^{ge}e^{i\delta t})$$
(21)
Using this interaction Hamiltonian we now recalculate the AC-Stark split spectrum. Firstly we consider the $`\delta =0`$ case with the time dependence solely due to $`\mathrm{\Omega }(t)`$. Since the problem is a transient one in which population is completely transferred to the trap state over a certain time scale, the variation of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ over this time scale is crucial. Also, from the calculations in the previous section it is clear that a large value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is favorable for our scheme. We therefore consider various time scales over which $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ reaches its maximum value compared to the optical pumping time as shown in Fig. 5. The corresponding spectrum shown in Fig. 6 is calculated using the method of conditional dynamics discussed in the previous section. The calculation shows that the crucial requirement for our model i.e. that the emitted photons cannot be resonantly absorbed by the thermal cloud outside the laser focus,is only satisfied if the atom sees a field increasing in intensity on a time scale which is short compared to the time it takes to optically pump the population from $`|g`$ to $`|t`$. For a particular average velocity of the atoms in the atom beam source, this gives the requirement for the spatial variation of the laser intensity associated with the beam waist. Alternatively, the laser field could be pulsed on and off to achieve a sufficiently rapid rise time.

Now we consider the effect of finite detuning, $`\delta `$, in addition to the time dependence of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. For the case of constant $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, a finite $`\delta `$ has the effect of transforming $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }^2+\delta ^2}`$ . Therefore, even if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ depends on time, it is intuitive to expect a similar effect resulting in an increased AC-Stark splitting. This is illustrated in Fig. 7 where the spectrum is calculated for the case of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(t)`$ shown by dot-dashed curve of Fig. 5 for various values of $`\delta `$. Thus a large detuning may seem to be favorable for our purpose since the spontaneous photons are emitted further away from resonance. On the other hand, large detuning means slower optical pumping rate and hence a wider laser focus will be required for the same $`\mathrm{\Omega }(t)`$ as illustrated in the inset of Fig. 7. Therefore, it is important to achieve an optimum set of parameters that would allow a maximum possible splitting depending on the average atomic speed and line width of the atomic levels under consideration.

## IV Conclusion

The AC-Stark splitting of the spectrum indicates that this scheme may potentially be used to provide a method for continuous loading of the thermal cloud in an atom laser. In the case of constant $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the spectrum of the spontaneously emitted photons consists of two peaks separated by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. Even for the realistic case of time varying $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, large splitting between the two peaks can be achieved provided that the rise time of the laser field intensity is sufficiently small. The splitting can be further enhanced by introducing a finite detuning.

Large splitting of the spectrum is essential to avoid heating due to inelastic multiple scattering of photons. Usually heating in an optical pumping scheme is caused by photon reabsorption and re-emission. Each reabsorption can remove one atom from the tr ap state and increment the energy of the cloud on average by one recoil energy. This effect is significantly reduced in our model since the spontaneously emitted photons are off-resonance with the $`|t|e`$ transition and cannot be reabsorbed by atoms outside the laser focus. Therefore the heating of the thermal component due to photon reabsorption may be suppressed. One can also reduce the cross section for photon reabsorption by designing the shape of the trap, for example a cigar shape or disc shape, such that there is a limited solid angle for photon reabsorption. Another possibility is to align the optical pumping laser and the geometry of the trap to use the intrinsic dipole radiation pattern to reduce spontaneous emission into unfavorable directions.

Our model requires that the atoms be in the trap state before they are out of the laser field, which may place a limit on the maximum speed of atoms in the atomic beam source. However, the faster the incoming atoms, the smaller the rise time of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ which as previously discussed is required to avoid the emission of photons at zero-frequency. The optimum speed of incoming atoms is therefore a balance between these two requirements. Since our goal is to obtain BEC in a steady state and not just BEC, one possibility to obtain sufficiently slow speeds is to use a condensate prepared in another trap as a source instead of just laser precooled atoms formed from a magneto-optical-trap.

For a typical alkali atom, the Zeeman level diagram is composed of many hyperfine levels. Even though our three level system is a simplification of a real situation, most of the omitted processes, such as imperfect optical pumping to the trapping state, will lead to additional loss of atoms and modify the effective incident flux. This will impact the possibility for achieving a sufficiently high pumping rate of cold atoms to allow the CW atom laser and steady state BEC to be achieved, as discussed in Ref. .

We would like to thank Eric Cornell, John Cooper and R. Walser for discussions. We acknowledge support from the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences via the Chemical Sciences, Geosciences and Biosciences Division.