text:
# A simple variational approach to the quantum Frenkel-Kontorova model

## Abstract

We present a simple and complete variational approach to the one-dimensional quantum Frenkel-Kontorova model. Dirac’s time-dependent variational principle is adopted together with a Hatree-type many-body trial wavefunction for the atoms. The single-particle state is assumed to have the Jackiw-Kerman form. We obtain an effective classical Hamiltonian for the system which is simple enough for a complete numerical solution for the static ground state of the model. Numerical results show that our simple approach captures the essence of the quantum effects first observed in quantum Monte Carlo studies.

1. Introduction. The Frenkel-Kontorova (FK) model  is a simple one-dimensional model used to study incommensurate structures appearing in many condensed-matter systems, such as charge-density waves, magnetic spirals, and adsorbed monolayers . These modulated structures arise as a result of the competition between two or more length scales. The FK model describes a chain of atoms connected by harmonic springs subjected to an external sinusoidal potential. In an important development in the study of the classical FK model, Aubry  first made use of the connection between the FK model, the so-called “standard map”, and the Kolmogorov-Arnold-Moser (KAM) theorem to reveal many interesting features of the FK model. Particularly, he showed that when the mean distance (also called the winding number) between two successive atoms is rational, the system is always pinned. But when the winding number is irrational, there exits a critical external field strength below (above) which the system is unpinned (pinned). This transition is called by Aubry a “transition by breaking of analyticity”, and is closely connected with the breakup of a KAM torus. It is very analogous to a phase transition, and various critical exponents and questions of universality have been extensively studied in the past.

In recent years, the FK model has been applied to the study of transmission in Josephson junction and atomic-scale friction-nanoscale tribology . In these cases, quantum effects are very important. Unlike the classical case, study of quantum FK models is rather scanty. It was first considered in a quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) analysis in . Their main observation is that the map appropriate to describe the quantum case is no longer the standard map, but rather a map with a sawtooth shape. An explanation of this phenomenon was later attempted in  using a mean field theory in which the inclusion of the contribution from quasidegenerate states is essential. But the mean field computations with these states are rather involved, and the quantum map that is to replace the classical standard map in different quantum regimes is not clearly identified. More recently, a less complicated approach was proposed in  which uses the squeezed state function to demonstrate that the sawtooth behavior is simply the result of quantum fluctuations. In our opinion, the approach adopted in  is very appealing in principle. However, we believe that some difficulties in this work need to be overcome before it could be considered satisfactory. First, the assumed squeezed state many-body ground state is general enough so as to include the correlations of the positions of the atoms, expressed by the covariances $`G_{ij}=(x_i\overline{x}_i)(x_j\overline{x}_j)`$ ($`ij`$), where $`x_i`$ is the position of the $`i`$th atom, $`\mathrm{}`$ is the expectation value in a given quantum state, and $`\overline{x}_i=x_i`$. However, to find the equilibrium state of the model, one has to solve a system of coupled equations of the variables $`x_i`$ and the $`G_{ij}`$. The equations obtained are so complicated that the task of solving them within a single numerical framework is very difficult. In fact, in  a hybrid numerical analysis was adopted in which the equations for the $`G_{ij}`$ were not solved. Instead, the values of $`G_{ij}`$ were taken from QMC data. These values were then treated as initial conditions in solving the equations for the atomic positions $`x_i`$’s. Technically, such hybrid analysis is not satisfactory. Second, the covariance terms $`G_{ij}`$ ($`ij`$) are constrained by the values of the fluctuation terms $`G_{ii}`$ and $`G_{jj}`$ through the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. These constraints guarantee the boundedness from below of the effective Hamiltonian . But then this also calls for a proper variational principle that has to take care of the interdependence of the $`G_{ij}`$ terms.

In this letter we shall show that all the essential features observed in the QMC studies can be obtained from an independent-particle picture of the many-body ground state without the covariance terms. In the independent-particle picture the many-body trial wavefunction are factorizable into single-particle states. One can assume the single-particle state to have the form of a squeeze state. For the quantum FK model, a simpler and, in our view, more elegant approach is to use the Jackiw-Kerman (JK) function  as the single particle state. We shall show that this simple independent-particle approach produces an effective classical Hamiltonian which is bounded below, admits simple numerical solution of the ground state without recourse to QMC analysis, and reproduces the essential features observed in QMC studies.

2. Effective Hamiltonian. The Hamiltonian of the quantum FK model is given by

$$=\underset{i}{}\left[\frac{\widehat{p}_i^2}{2m}+\frac{\gamma }{2}\left(\widehat{q}_{i+1}\widehat{q}_i\right)^2V\mathrm{cos}(l_0\widehat{q}_i)\right].$$
(1)
Here $`\widehat{q}_i`$ and $`\widehat{p}_i`$ are the position and momentum operators, respectively, of the $`i`$th atom, $`\gamma `$ the elastic constant of the spring, $`V`$ and $`2\pi /l_0`$ are the strength and the period of the external potential. As in , it is convenient to use the dimensionless variables $`\widehat{Q}_i=l_0\widehat{q}_i`$, $`\widehat{P}_i=l_0\widehat{p}_i/\sqrt{m\gamma }`$, and $`K=Vl_0^2/\gamma `$. With these new variables, we obtain the following dimensionless Hamiltonian $`H`$

$$H=\underset{i}{}\left[\frac{\widehat{P}_i^2}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\left(\widehat{Q}_{i+1}\widehat{Q}_i\right)^2K\mathrm{cos}(\widehat{Q}_i)\right].$$
(2)
We have $`=\gamma H/l_0^2`$. The effective Planck constant is $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}l_0^2/\sqrt{m\gamma }`$. For the classical FK model, the Aubry transition occurs at the critical value $`K_c=0.971635\mathrm{}`$.

To study the ground state properties of the quantum FK model in (2), we adopt here the time-dependent variational principle pioneered by Dirac . In this approach, one first constructs the effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=𝑑t\mathrm{\Psi },t|i\mathrm{}_t|\mathrm{\Psi },t`$ for a given system described by $``$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi },t`$. Variation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is then the quantum analogue of the Hamilton’s principle. The time-dependent Hatree-Fock approximation emerges when a specific ansatz is made for the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi },t`$. We now assume the trial wavefunction of the ground state of our quantum FK system to have the Hatree form $`|\mathrm{\Psi },t=_i|\psi _i,t`$, where the normalized single-particle state $`|\psi _i,t`$ is taken to be the JK wavefunction :

$`Q_i|\psi _i,t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}G_i)^{1/4}}}\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}}}\left(Q_ix_i\right)^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G_i^12i\mathrm{\Pi }_i\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}}}p_i\left(Q_ix_i\right)\right\}.`$ (3)
The real quantities $`x_i(t)`$, $`p_i(t)`$, $`G_i(t)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i(t)`$ are variational parameters the variations of which at $`t=\pm \mathrm{}`$ are assumed to vanish. The JK wavefunction can be viewed as the $`Q`$-representation of the squeeze state . We prefer to use the JK form since the physical meanings of the variational parameters contained in the JK wavefunction are most transparent, as we shall show below. Furthermore, the JK form is in the general Gaussian form so that integrations are most easily performed.

It is not hard to check that $`x_i`$ and $`p_i`$ are the expectation values of the operators $`\widehat{Q}_i`$ and $`\widehat{P}_i`$: $`x_i=\mathrm{\Psi }|\widehat{Q}_i|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`p_i=\mathrm{\Psi }|\widehat{P}_i|\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Also, one has $`\mathrm{\Psi }|(\widehat{Q}_ix_i)^2|\mathrm{\Psi }=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}G_i`$, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }|i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_t|\mathrm{\Psi }=_i(p_i\dot{x}_i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}G_i\dot{\mathrm{\Pi }}_i)`$, where the dot represents derivative with respect to (w.r.t.) time $`t`$. It is now clear that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}G_i`$ is the mean fluctuation of the position of the $`i`$-th atom, and that $`G_i>0`$. With these expectation values, the (rescaled) effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for the dimensionless $`H`$ can be worked out to be $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,p,G,\mathrm{\Pi })=𝑑t[_i\omega _0^1(p_i\dot{x}_i+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Pi }_i\dot{G}_i)H_{eff}]`$, where $`\omega _0=\sqrt{\gamma /m}`$ is the angular frequency of the spring, and $`H_{eff}=\mathrm{\Psi }|H|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the effective Hamiltonian given by

$`H_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[p_i^2+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}G_i^1+4\mathrm{\Pi }_i^2G_i\right)\right]`$ (4)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(x_{i+1}x_i\right)^2`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}}{2}}\left(G_{i+1}+G_i\right)`$ (6)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}K\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}}{2}}G_i\right)\mathrm{cos}x_i.`$ (7)
The last term in (7) can be very easily obtained from $`\mathrm{\Psi }|F(Q_i)|\mathrm{\Psi }=_{m=0}^{\mathrm{}}F^{(2m)}(x_i)(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}G_i)^m/(2m)!!`$, where $`F^{(n)}(x)=^nF(x)/x^n`$, and $`n!!n(n2)(n4)\mathrm{}1`$. Eq. (7) is bounded from below. One sees from the form of the effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ that $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i`$ is the canonical conjugate of $`G_i`$.

Varying $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ w.r.t. $`x,p,G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ then gives the equations of motion in the Hatree-Fock approximation. Since we are mainly concerned with the static properties of the ground state of the quantum FK model, we must set the time derivatives of these variables to zero. This gives the equations which determine the values of variational parameters corresponding to the equilibrium states (which include the ground state). Equivalently, we can obtain the equations for the equilibrium states by directly varying the effective Hamiltonian $`H_{eff}`$ w.r.t. the variables. Varying $`H_{eff}`$ w.r.t. $`p_i`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i`$, $`x_i`$ and $`G_i`$ give, respectively,

$`p_i`$ $`=`$ $`0,4\mathrm{\Pi }_iG_i=0,`$ (8)
$`x_{i+1}`$ $``$ $`2x_i+x_{i1}=K\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}}{2}}G_i\right)\mathrm{sin}x_i,`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}G_i^2`$ $``$ $`K\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}}{2}}G_i\right)\mathrm{cos}x_i2=4\mathrm{\Pi }_i^2.`$ (10)
The second equation in (8) implies $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i=0`$ as $`G_i>0`$. This in turn means that the right hand side of eq.(10) is equal to zero:

$$\frac{1}{4}G_i^2K\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}}{2}G_i\right)\mathrm{cos}(x_i)2=0.$$
(11)
In the limit $`\mathrm{}=0`$, eq.(9) is equivalent to the standard map. We note that eq.(9) was also obtained in . This is because in the formulation in  the covariances $`G_{ij}`$’s decoupled from the $`x_i`$ and the fluctuations $`G_{ii}`$ ($`G_i`$ in our case) in the variation of their Hamiltonian w.r.t $`x_i`$. Unlike our case, of course, these covariance terms do actually influence the solutions of (9) through other equations obtained by variation of the Hamiltonian w.r.t. the $`G_{ii}`$ and $`G_{ij}`$. And it is these equations that caused the difficulties mentioned in the Introduction. In particular, the values of the $`G_{ii}`$ were input from the QMC data in order to solve for the $`x_i`$ in (9). Our simple approach, on the other hand, allows us to solve for both the values of $`x_i`$ and $`G_i`$ coupled by eqs.(9) and (11) consistently by a single numerical method.

¿From $`p_i=\mathrm{\Pi }_i=0`$ and (7), we see that the problem of finding the static ground state of the quantum FK model reduces to the problem of minimizing w.r.t. to $`x_i`$ and $`G_i`$ the following effective potential

$`V_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(x_{i+1}x_i\right)^2`$ (12)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}}{8}}G_i^1+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}}{2}}\left(G_{i+1}+G_i\right)`$ (13)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}K\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}}{2}}G_i\right)\mathrm{cos}x_i.`$ (14)
Eq.(9) and (11) are just the conditions $`V_{eff}/x_i=0`$ and $`V_{eff}/G_i=0`$, respectively.

3. Numerical results. We numerically solve for the set of variables $`x_i`$ and $`G_i`$ which characterize the ground state using the Newton method . In all our numerical computations the winding number $`P/Q=610/987`$, which is an approximation of the golden mean winding number $`(\sqrt{5}1)/2`$, is used with the periodic boundary condition $`x_{i+Q}=x_i+2\pi P`$. This winding number is much more accurate than those used in previous works to approximate the golden mean number, thus giving us better accuracy in the computations of physical quantities related to the ground state. We emphasize that all values of $`x_i`$ and $`G_i`$ are determined by the same numerical method consistently. In particular, we do not have to input the values of $`G_i`$ from quantum Monte Carlo results in order to solve for the $`x_i`$.

Having obtained the values of $`x_i`$ which give the mean positions of the quantum atoms in the chain, we can compare the results with the classical configuration, following , in two ways: (1) by the quantum hull function, which is the plot of $`x_i`$ (mod $`2\pi `$) of the atoms against their unperturbed positions $`2\pi iP/Q`$ (mod $`2\pi `$); (2) by the so-called $`g`$-function, defined by

$$g_iK^1(x_{i+1}2x_i+x_{i1})$$
(15)
versus the actual atomic positions $`x_i`$. ¿From (9), we also have

$$g_i=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}}{2}G_i\right)\mathrm{sin}x_i.$$
(16)
Here $`G_i`$ is related to $`x_i`$ by eq.(11). We see from this equation that quantum fluctuations $`G_i`$ will modify the shape of the classical $`sine`$-map. In addition to these two types of graphs, we also plot the graph of $`G_i`$ against the unperturbed and the actual positions. The formal graph was first introduced in  to show the strong correlation of the fluctuations of atoms’ positions with their unperturbed positions. We introduce the latter type of graphs here since we think that such graphs provide better picture about how the quantum fluctuations of the atoms are related to their actual positions.

In Fig. 1 we show the four graphs mentioned above with different values of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$ for the supercritical case $`K=5`$. Fig. 1(a) shows the quantum hull functions. For small values of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$ the quantum hull function consists of a countable set of steps discontinuities, just as in the classical case: the atoms are in a pinning phase. In fact, the atoms are more likely to be located near the valley of the external potential well, namely, near $`x_i=0`$ (mod $`2\pi `$). As the quantum effect increases, i.e., for increasing values of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$, the quantum hull function gradually changes into a monotonic analytic function, signifying that the system is entering the depinning phase. There exists a critical value, approximately $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_c=6.58`$ for $`K=5`$, above which the quantum hull function changes from an nonanalytic function to an analytic one. This is a quantum analogue of the Aubry transition in the classical case, and can therefore be called the quantum Aubry transition.

Next in Fig. 1(b) we show the graphs of the $`g`$-function. The curve defined by (16) with $`G_i`$ satisfying (11) are shown here as dashed curves for different $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$. In the classical limit ($`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}=0`$) this curve is simply the standard map ($`sine`$-curve). As $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$ increases, the amplitude of the curve decreases. For sufficiently large $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$, the curve resembles more closely a “sawtooth” shape. This is first noted in QMC study in . Here we see that it comes out very naturally from the equation of motion (11) and (16). In the supercritical case ($`K=5`$), when $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}<\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_c`$, the positions $`x_i`$ of the atoms cover only a subset of the $`g`$-curves. This is in accord with the fact that the atoms are in the pinning phase \[cf. Fig. 1(a)\]. As $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$ increases, the points begin to spread along the $`g`$-curve. When $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}>\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_c`$, the $`g`$-graph is completely covered as the system has entered the depinning phase.

Fig. 1(c) shows the quantum fluctuations $`G_i`$ plotted against the actual atomic positions $`x_i`$. The dashed curves represent the curves of eq.(11) for different $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$. For small $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$, the atoms are located near $`x_i=0`$ (mod $`2\pi `$) with small values of $`G_i`$ which means, from (3), that the wavefunctions are highly peaked at these positions. As the quantum effect increases, the external potential is so modified that now the atoms could be found at other positions, but with atoms at $`x_i=\pi `$ (mod $`2\pi `$) having the largest value of $`G_i`$. This indicates that wavefunctions of the atoms near the top of the potential are more extended with smaller amplitudes. Again, when $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}>\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_c`$, the curves of (11) are completely covered by the solutions $`x_i`$. To compare with the results in , we plot the values of $`G_i`$ against the unperturbed positions in Fig. 1(d). One sees that the values of $`G_i`$ are strongly correlated with the unperturbed positions, as first noted in . For $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}<\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_c`$ the graphs consists of steps discontinuities, and for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}>\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_c`$ the graphs are continuous. This is correlated with the graphs of the quantum hull function in Fig. 1(a), since from (11) any fixed value of $`x_i`$ correspond to a fixed value of $`G_i`$.

Next we show in Fig. 2 the corresponding graphs for the case $`K=1.5`$. This represents the situation which is slightly over the critical classical case. The general trends of the behavior of the graphs are the same as those in Fig. 1. As expected, quantum Aubry transition takes place at a smaller $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_c=1.17`$. We note here that the shape of the $`g`$-function at large $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$ in this case is intermediate between a $`sine`$ and a sawtooth map.

We have also checked the subcritical cases with $`K<K_c`$. The classical system is already in the depinning phase in this regime. Quantum fluctuations only enhance the trend of depinning. The $`g`$-function is found to be closer to a $`sine`$-shape with smaller amplitude for higher $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$. This is consistent with the QMC results .

Finally, we note here that, while we have reproduced the essential features first observed in the QMC studies of the quantum FK model, there is also slight discrepancy between the results of these two approaches. The difference is that, for a fixed value of $`K`$, the QMC results  indicated that the sawtooth shape of the $`g`$-function appeared at a lower value of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$, and that the atoms began to spread along the $`g`$-curve also at a smaller $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$. For example, at $`K=5`$ the QMC results showed that the above situation already appeared at $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}=0.2`$, while our results (cf. Fig. 1(b)) indicate that at $`K=5`$ and at a higher $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}=2`$ the system is still closer to the classical case. We believe this could be explained as follows. First, our independent-particle wavefunction is only the lowest order approximation of the many-body wavefunction of the quantum FK system. A more accurate description of the system will require a better assumption of the wavefunction than that assumed here. This presumably may require the inclusion of the effects of the covariance terms as advocated in , but with a more appropriate variational principle to circumvent the difficulties already mentioned in the Introduction. Second, our results are obtained at zero temperature, while those in the QMC analysis were obtained, by the nature of the method itself, at small but finite temperatures (temperature T=0.0067 as given in ). It is natural that thermal fluctuations will cause the atoms to spread away from their zero-temperature positions.

4. Summary. In conclusion, we have presented a simple and complete variational approach to the quantum FK model based on a Hatree-type many-body trial wavefunction of the JK form. The effective Hamiltonian obtained is bounded below, and is simple enough for a complete numerical solution for the static ground state of the model in various quantum regimes. Numerical results show that our simple approach captures the essence of the quantum effects first observed in QMC studies. The map appropriate for the quantum FK model is well described by eq.(16) and (11). In contrast to previous approaches, we do not require the existence of the complicated quasidegenerate states, or the partial help from quantum Monte Carlo data in order to obtain these results.

Acknowledgments

This work is supported in part by the R.O.C Grant NSC 89-2112-M-032-004. Part of the work was done while one of us (CLH) was visiting the Theory Division at KEK (Japan) under the auspices of the exchange program between KEK (Japan) and the National Center for Theoretical Sciences (Taiwan). He would like to thank the staff and members of the theory group of KEK for their hospitality and support. After the paper was submitted, we were kindly informed by Prof. B. Hu that he and W.M. Zhang in their previous incomplete work  had obtained a Hamiltonian similar to our eq.(7), but that they had not studied the ground state properties.

Figures captions

Structure of the quantum ground state for $`K=5`$ and winding number $`P/Q=610/987`$ at $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}=2`$ (black dots), $`6`$ (white dots) and $`7`$ (black curve). (a) quantum hull function plotted against unperturbed atomic positions; (b) $`g`$-function plotted against actual atomic positions (the dashed curves represent eq.(16) with $`G_i`$ satisfying (11); (c) and (d) quantum fluctuations $`G_i`$ plotted against the actual and unperturbed positions, respectively. The dashed curves in (c) represent the curves of eq.(11) for different $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$.

Same as Fig. 1 for $`K=1.5`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}=0.5`$ (black dots), $`1.0`$ (white dots) and $`2`$ (black curve).


format: text

text:
# Wilson Lines Near the Light Cone

## 1 Introduction

Many empirical data point towards a nontrivial vacuum structure in QCD. The question arises what is the effect of vacuum condensates on the dynamics near the light cone. High energy reactions have a very elegant formulation in light cone coordinates which present an enormous simplification, by reducing the number of relevant diagrams in perturbation theory. In recent years the extension of light cone theory to a calculation of wave functions and bound state spectra, i.e. soft physics has been presented in previous light cone conferences and reviews . In light cone theory a trivial vacuum is the starting basis. Naively spoken, with only positive momentum fractions complicated many particle configurations cannot be contained in the vacuum. In this theory on the light cone with a trivial vacuum, the difficult object is not the vacuum, but the Hamiltonian itself which may contain terms beyond the naive Lagrangian which result from the elimination of one half of the Hilbert space, namely the negative energy states.

We propose an approach  which starts near the light cone, preserving the nonperturbative features of QCD, but aims at the derivation of an effective light cone Hamiltonian in a controlled limiting procedure. The Cauchy problem is well defined in near light cone coordinates, since the initial data are given on a space-like surface. Such a formulation avoids the solution of constrained equations, which on the quantum field theoretic level may be very complicated. The problem of a nontrivial vacuum appears in a solvable form related to the transverse dynamics. This is physically very appealing, since in high energy reactions the incoming particles propagate near the light cone and interact mainly through particle exchanges with transverse momenta.

Near light cone QCD has a nontrivial vacuum which cannot be neglected even in the light cone limit. Generally, if the zero mode theory has massive excitations, then these masses diverge like $`\frac{1}{\eta }`$ in the light cone limit $`\eta 0`$. Massless excitations in the zero mode theory, however, do not decouple in the light cone limit. Genuine nonperturbative techniques must be used to investigate the behaviour of this limit. In principle the additional parameter which labels the coordinate system can be chosen arbitrarily. The zero mode Hamiltonian depends on an effective coupling constant containing this parameter and evolves towards an infrared fixed point. We choose the following near light cone coordinates which smoothly interpolate between the Lorentz and light front coordinates:

$`x^t=x^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left\{\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2}{2}}\right)x^0+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2}{2}}\right)x^3\right\},`$
$`x^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(x^0x^3\right).`$ (1)
The transverse coordinates $`x^1`$, $`x^2`$ are unchanged; $`x^t=x^+`$ is the new time coordinate, $`x^{}`$ is a spatial coordinate. As finite quantization volume we will take a torus and its extension in spatial “-” direction, as well as in “1, 2” direction is $`L`$. The scalar product of two 4-vectors $`x`$ and $`y`$ is given with $`\stackrel{}{x}_{}\stackrel{}{y}_{}=x^1y^1+x^2y^2`$ as

$`x_\mu y^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`x^{}y^++x^+y^{}\eta ^2x^{}y^{}\stackrel{}{x}_{}\stackrel{}{y}_{}`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`x_{}y_++x_+y_{}+\eta ^2x_+y_+\stackrel{}{x}_{}\stackrel{}{y}_{}.`$
Obviously, the light cone is approached as the parameter $`\eta `$ goes to zero. The gauge fixing procedure in the modified light-cone gauge $`_{}A_{}=0`$ allows zero modes dependent on the transverse coordinates only. These zero mode fields carry zero linear momentum $`p_{}`$ in near light cone coordinates, but finite amount of $`p_0+p_3`$. They correspond to “wee” or low $`x`$ \- partons in the language of Feynman. In color $`SU(2)`$ the zero-mode fields $`a_{}^3(x_{})`$ can be chosen color diagonal proportional to $`\tau ^3`$. The use of an axial gauge is very natural for the light-cone Hamiltonian even more so than in the equal-time Hamiltonian. The asymmetry of the background zero mode naturally coincides with the asymmetry of the space coordinates on the light cone. The zero-mode fields describe disorder fields. Depending on the effective coupling the zero mode transverse system will be in the massive or massless phase. Our main objective has been to derive the precise relation between the nearness to the light cone $`\eta `$ and the transverse resolution $`a`$. In principle these are two independent parameters. A considerable simplification can be achieved if the limit towards the light cone is synchronized with the continuum limit.

## 2 Near Light Cone QCD Hamiltonian

In ref.  we have derived the near light cone Hamiltonian. We refer to this paper for further details. The light cone Hamiltonian on the finite light like $`x^{}`$ interval of length L has Wilson line or Polyakov operators similarly to QCD formulated on a finite interval in imaginary time at finite temperature.

$$P(\stackrel{}{x}_{})=\frac{1}{2}\text{tr P}\mathrm{exp}\left(ig\underset{0}{\overset{L}{}}𝑑x^{}A_{}(\stackrel{}{x}_{},x^{})\tau ^3/2\right).$$
(3)
The underlying Hamiltonian governing the dynamics of these Polyakov operators is a part of the full Hamiltonian $`H`$:

$$H=d^3xH(\stackrel{}{x}),$$
(4)
with

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`\text{tr}\left[_1A_2_2A_1ig[A_1,A_2]\right]^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\eta ^2}}\text{tr}\left[\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}\left(_{}\stackrel{}{A}_{}ig[a_{},\stackrel{}{A}_{}]\right)\right]^2`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\eta ^2}}\text{tr}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}\stackrel{}{e}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}}_{}a_{}\right]^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2L^2}}p^{}(\stackrel{}{x}_{})p^{}(\stackrel{}{x}_{})`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{L}{}}}𝑑z^{}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{L}{}}}𝑑y^{}{\displaystyle \underset{p,q,n}{\overset{}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{G_{qp}(\stackrel{}{x}_{},z^{})G_{pq}(\stackrel{}{x}_{},y^{})}{\left[\frac{2\pi n}{L}+g(a_{,q}(\stackrel{}{x}_{})a_{,p}(\stackrel{}{x}_{}))\right]^2}}e^{2\pi in(z^{}y^{})/L}.`$
The prime indicates that the summation is restricted to $`n0`$ if $`p=q`$. The operator $`G_{}`$ gives the right hand side of Gauss’s law:

$$G_{}\left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)=\stackrel{}{}_{}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}\left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)+gf^{ab3}\frac{\lambda ^a}{2}\stackrel{}{A}_{}^b\left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)\left(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^3\left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)\frac{1}{L}\stackrel{}{e}_{}^3\left(\stackrel{}{x}_{}\right)\right)+g\rho _m(\stackrel{}{x}),$$
(6)
with $`\rho _m`$ the matter density. The above Hamiltonian shows rather clearly that a naive limiting procedure $`\eta 0`$ does not work. There are severe divergencies in this limit. The diverging terms reappear in the usual light cone Hamiltonian as constraint equations which are extremely difficult to solve on the quantum level in $`3+1`$ dimensions. The zero mode part of the full Hamiltonian is coupled to the three-dimensional modes in the rest of the Hamiltonian. In the following we will concentrate on universal properties of the zero mode Hamiltonian which will survive the renormalization of the $`(2+1)`$ transverse dynamics due to the coupling to the $`(3+1)`$ dimensional rest. The zero mode Hamiltonian contains the Jacobian $`J(a_{})`$ which takes into account the Haar measure of $`SU(2)`$ $`J\left(a_{}(\stackrel{}{x}_{})\right)=\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{gL}{2}a_{}(\stackrel{}{x}_{})\right)`$. It stems from the gauge fixing procedure, effectively introducing curvilinear coordinates. It also appears in the functional integration volume element for calculating matrix elements. It is convenient to introduce dimensionless variables

$$\phi (\stackrel{}{x}_{})=\frac{gLa_{}(\stackrel{}{x}_{})}{2},$$
(7)
which vary in a compact domain $`0\phi \pi `$. We regularize the above Hamiltonian $`h_{\mathrm{red}}`$ by introducing a lattice constant $`a`$ on the lattice in the transverse directions. Next we appeal to the physics of the infinite momentum frame and factorize the reduced true energy from the Lorentz boost factor $`\gamma =\sqrt{2}/\eta `$ and the cut-off by defining $`h_{\mathrm{red}}`$

$$h=\frac{1}{2\eta a}h_{\mathrm{red}}.$$
(8)
For small lattice spacing we obtain the reduced Hamiltonian

$$h_{\mathrm{red}}=\underset{\stackrel{}{b}}{}\left\{g_{\mathrm{eff}}^2\frac{1}{J}\frac{\delta }{\delta \phi (\stackrel{}{b})}J\frac{\delta }{\delta \phi (\stackrel{}{b})}+\frac{1}{g_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}\underset{\stackrel{}{\epsilon }}{}\left(\phi (\stackrel{}{b})\phi (\stackrel{}{b}+\stackrel{}{\epsilon })\right)^2\right\}.$$
(9)
with the effective coupling constant

$$g_{\mathrm{eff}}^2=\frac{g^2L\eta }{4a}.$$
(10)
In the continuum limit of the transverse lattice theory we let $`a`$ go to zero. In ref.  we have done a Finite Size Scaling (FSS)  analysis obtaining a second order transition between a phase with massive excitations at strong coupling and a phase with massless excitations in weak coupling. The critical coupling is calculated as $`g^2=0.17\pm 0.03`$, which is, however, not a universal quantity and subject to renormalization from the $`(3+1)`$ dimensional modes. A calculation in the epsilon expansion  gives the zero of the $`\beta `$-function as an infrared stable fixed point. Therefore the limit of large transverse and longitudinal dimensions $`L`$ is well defined. Using the running coupling constant

$$g_{\mathrm{eff}}^2=g^2+\left(\xi _0g^2\right)^{1/\nu }\left(\frac{a}{L}\right)^{1/\nu },$$
(11)
the lattice constant over the correlation length $`L`$ approaches zero at the critical coupling:

$$\frac{a}{L}=\frac{1}{\xi _0g^2}\left(g_{\mathrm{eff}}^2g^2\right)^\nu ,$$
(12)
with $`\nu =0.56\pm 0.05`$. If we infer in addition that the coupling to the three-dimensional modes will produce the usual running gauge coupling $`g^2`$ of $`SU(2)`$ QCD: $`g^2=\frac{g_0^2}{\mathrm{log}\left(L/a\right)}`$, then we can synchronize the approach to the light cone, i.e. the limit $`\eta 0`$ with the continuum limit $`a0`$. The condition that the three-dimensional evolution of $`g^2`$ has to be compatible with the two-dimensional evolution of $`g_{\mathrm{eff}}^2`$ yields that for $`a0`$ the light cone parameter $`\eta `$ approaches zero as

$$\eta (a)=\frac{4a}{L}\frac{g^2}{g^2}.$$
(13)
## 3 High Energy Scattering and Wilson Lines

The dynamics of high energy reactions is characteristically different from a description of a single hadron. The fast projectile partons propagate near one light cone direction, whereas the target partons cut the trajectories of the projectile partons coming from the opposite light cone direction. Balitsky  has coined the phrase that a shock wave is encountered by the fast partons piercing through the target. In a theory of total cross sections the nonperturbative infrared dynamics in the transverse plane is essential. The model of the stochastic vacuum  allows to connect confinement with high energy diffractive scattering. The underlying idea is to approximate the projectile and target by two color dipoles. The color and anticolor components of these dipoles acquire phase factors running along the respective light cones. These phase factors are path ordered exponentials, i.e. Wilson lines along the light cone. Polyakov variables near the light cone enter the calculations of high energy cross sections in refs. . After a transformation to Minkowski space time nonvanishing correlators of the stochastic vacuum model arise between gauge field strengths $`<F_{+i}F_j>`$ arising from the phases on opposite light cones. For these calculations correlations between Polyakov lines on lightlike lines along the projectile and target directions are important.

There are two inherent deficiencies of a naive translation of the Gaussian stochastic model to the light cone. Firstly, the correlation function of Wilson lines along the same light cone, i.e. correlators $`<F_{+i}F_{+j}>`$ vanish. Here the more carefully derived Hamiltonian in this paper can make an important contribution. It generates a transverse confining interaction for particles propagating along the same light cone. The correlations in transverse direction depend on the nearness to the light cone. Secondly, the model of soft scattering does lead to an energy independent high energy cross section. This is not so bad an approximation for large dipole-dipole scattering, like proton-proton scattering where the energy dependence is weak $`s^{0.08}`$, but for the scattering of small dipoles on the proton HERA experiments show a very strong energy dependence $`s^{0.35}`$. The weak energy dependence can be interpreted as a weakly increasing cloud of very soft sea partons in the proton which with increasing energy produces a growing total cross section. The increasing cross section of small dipoles may have hard gluons as its origin. These arise from the radiative corrections to the correlation function of the Wilson line operators along the same light cone under evolution towards the light cone, c.f. ref. . This equation contains no external mass scale. Here the above treatment of the near light cone nonperturbative dynamics may come in to give such a mass scale which limits the diffusion into large transverse distances under evolution.


text:
# Laser Shaping and Optimization of the Laser-Plasma Interaction

## Introduction

Recent advances in laser technology allow one to create laser pulses with virtually arbitrary temporal intensity profiles using amplitude and phase shapers shapers ; murnane ; downer . Such laser pulses with non-Gaussian axial intensity are now being considered for applications as drivers in Laser Wakefield Accelerators (LWFA). Shaped lasers provide the means of controlling the generation of plasma wake and thus offer the possibility of optimization of wake excitation and accelerating efficiency. However, progress in finding “the optimal” shape has been hindered by the apparent complexity of the problem. Not only is the parameter space of possible shape functions huge, but also the generated wakefield is a nonlinear function of laser intensity, requiring numerical solution of differential equations in a variational calculation. As a result, several groups turned to trial and error methods such as genetic algorithms for optimization murnane ; downer . Still, even these methods require consistent classification of laser shapes so that different pulses can be meaningfully cross-compared while desired properties such as wake amplitude or efficiency are optimized. In this paper we reanalyze the process of wake generation and argue that the only two physical parameters that describe a laser shape from the stand point of wake excitation are the total pulse energy and its depletion length. Using these parameters we find the analytic expression for the family of optimal laser shapes that maximize both the wakefield and the accelerating efficiency. We also develop a method for determining the shape of a laser that produces a required value of wakefield without explicitly solving the wake equation. This opens the way for obtaining laser shapes that satisfy other optimization criteria specific to given experimental conditions.

## Energy transfer in LWFA

Wakefield accelerators such as the laser-driven LWFA tajima  or electron beam driven Plasma Wakefield Accelerator (PWFA) chen1  can be viewed as two-step energy transfer systems: in the first step the driver deposits energy into wake excitation of the plasma, and in the second step the energy is taken from the wake by the accelerating beam. While the second step is the same for both accelerating schemes, the physics of driver energy deposition is quite different between them. In PWFA the electron beam loses energy to the plasma through interaction with the induced electrostatic field, while in the LWFA laser energy loss occurs via photon red-shift or deceleration wilks . This process can be understood as follows. Poderomotive force of the laser modifies both the density $`n_e`$ and the Lorentz factor $`\gamma `$ of the plasma electrons. This produces modulations in the nonlinear index of the refraction $`\eta [1(\omega _p/\omega )^2n_e/\gamma n_p]^{1/2}`$, where $`\omega _p\sqrt{4\pi e^2n_p/m_e}`$ is the unperturbed plasma frequency, and $`\omega `$ is the frequency of the laser. The wake-induced modulations of the refractive index appear stationary in the reference frame comoving with the laser and cause laser photons to red- or blue-shift depending on the sign of refractive index gradient mori1 . Due to negligible scattering in the setting of laser accelerators, the photon number in the laser is essentially constant, and the energy deposition into the plasma is therefore determined by the photon deceleration. To address this quantitatively we consider a laser propagating along the $`z`$ axis with initial frequency $`\omega _0\omega _p.`$ In the laser comoving frame, the plasma response can be written in terms of the independent dimensionless variables $`\zeta =k_p(zv_gt)`$ and $`\tau =k_pct`$, where $`k_p`$ is the plasma wavenumber, and $`v_gc`$ is the laser group velocity (for convenience, the laser is moving in the negative $`z`$ direction). Introducing dimensionless normalized scalar and vector potentials $`\varphi (\zeta )`$ and $`a(\zeta )`$, the parallel and perpendicular electric fields are $`E_{}=(mc^2k_p/e)\varphi /\zeta `$ and $`E_{}=(mc/e)a/t=(mc^2k_p/e)a/\zeta `$. The wakefield generation equation can then be written as sprangle2 ; esarey :

$$\frac{d^2x}{d\zeta ^2}=\frac{n_e}{n_p}1=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1+a^2(\zeta )}{x^2}1\right),$$
(1)
where $`x1+\varphi `$ is the modified electrostatic potential, and $`a^2(\zeta )`$ is the dimensionless laser intensity envelope averaged over fast oscillations. Prior to the arrival of the laser the normalized wakefield $`eE_{}/mc\omega _p=dx/d\zeta `$ is zero. A formal solution for the electric field outside the laser can be written as the first integral of (1): $`[^{out}(\zeta )]^2=(x1)^2/x+_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}a^2x^{}/x^2𝑑\zeta `$, which reaches a maximum value at $`x=1`$:

$$[_{max}^{out}]^2=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}a^2(\zeta )\left(\frac{}{\zeta }\frac{1}{x}\right)𝑑\zeta .$$
(2)
This expression can be understood in terms of the deposition of laser energy into plasma. For this we use the formula for local frequency shift of laser photons obtained from the analysis of laser evolution equation frshift ; AAC98 :

$$\frac{\omega }{z}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\omega _p^2}{\omega }k_p\frac{}{\zeta }\frac{n_e}{\gamma n_p}=\frac{\omega _p^2}{2\omega }k_p\left(\frac{}{\zeta }\frac{1}{x}\right).$$
(3)
The energy density in the wake from (2) can then be interpreted as the intensity-weighted integral of the photon deceleration throughout the pulse. Let’s denote the wake-dependent part of the photon deceleration function as $`\kappa (\zeta )x^{}/x^2`$. The value of the peak wakefield in (2) is then bounded from above by the total laser energy (the integral of $`a^2`$) and the maximum photon deceleration $`\kappa _{max}`$:

$$[_{max}^{out}]^2=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}a^2(\zeta )\kappa (\zeta )𝑑\zeta \kappa _{max}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}a^2(\zeta )𝑑\zeta ,$$
(4)
where $`\kappa _{max}`$ is the maximum of $`\kappa (\zeta )`$ inside the laser. Maximum photon deceleration $`\kappa _{max}`$ actually has a simple physical interpretation. It is closely related to the characteristic laser depletion length $`l_d`$, or the distance in which the maximally decelerated laser slice red-shifts down to $`\omega _p`$ (assuming no evolution of the wakefield). From (3) this characteristic depletion length is:

$$l_d=[(\omega _0/\omega _p)^21]/k_p\kappa _{max}.$$
(5)
The peak wakefield outside the laser then scales with depletion length $`l_d`$ and dimensionless pulse energy $`\epsilon _0_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}a^2(\zeta )𝑑\zeta `$ as: $`_{max}^{out}\sqrt{[(\omega _0/\omega _p)^21]\epsilon _0/k_pl_d}.`$ The range of achievable wakefields is therefore set by the total pulse energy and its depletion length. For pulses of fixed energy and depletion length the actual value of the wakefield within this range will depend only on particular laser shape, and can be optimized by varying the shape subject to constraints.

## Wakefield optimization

One possible optimization problem can be formulated as follows: given some fixed laser energy $`\epsilon _0`$ and the desired depletion length ($`\kappa _{max}=\kappa _0`$), what laser shape would produce the largest possible wakefield? According to (4) this amounts to finding a shape that maintains the largest $`\kappa (\zeta )`$ for the duration of the pulse. Since the maximum $`\kappa (\zeta )`$ is fixed by the depletion length, such a shape should have a constant photon deceleration throughout the pulse, $`\kappa (\zeta )=\kappa _0`$. If the laser is present for $`\zeta >0`$, then in order to satisfy the boundary condition of quiescent plasma before the laser, the photon deceleration should rise from $`0`$ to value $`\kappa _0`$ at the very beginning of the pulse, e.g., like a step-function: $`\kappa (\zeta )=\kappa _0\theta (\zeta ^+)`$. Here, $`\zeta ^+\zeta 0^+`$ in order to avoid ambiguities with the values of step-function at 0. The corresponding laser profile is then found from the wake equation (1):

$$a_l^2(\zeta )=\frac{2\kappa _0\delta (\zeta ^+)}{(1\kappa _0\zeta )^4}+\frac{4\kappa _0^2\theta ^2(\zeta ^+)}{(1\kappa _0\zeta )^5}+\frac{1}{(1\kappa _0\zeta )^2}1,$$
(6)
where $`\zeta [0,\zeta _f<1/\kappa _0]`$, and $`\delta (\zeta ^+)`$ is a delta-function such that $`_0^{\zeta >0}\delta (y^+)𝑑y=1`$. A schematic drawing of the optimal laser intensity variation and its associated plasma wakefield are shown in Fig. 1. Generally, the shape consists of a $`\delta `$-function at the front followed by a ramp in intensity which is cut off at $`\zeta _f`$. In the linear regime, when $`a^21`$, $`\kappa _00`$, the ramp reduces to a triangular shape found in AAC98 ; kyoto : $`a^2=2\kappa _0(\delta (\zeta ^+)+\zeta )`$. We note that (6) describes a family of shapes, rather than a fixed shape. The actual profile of the optimal pulse depends on the deceleration parameter $`\kappa _0`$ set by the desired depletion length and the pulse length $`\zeta _f`$, which is determined from the available total energy:

$$\epsilon _0=2\kappa _0+\frac{\zeta _f[\kappa _0^2+(1\kappa _0\zeta _f)^3]}{(1\kappa _0\zeta _f)^4}.$$
(7)
Although the pulse length cannot exceed $`\zeta _c1/\kappa _0`$, the rise of $`a^2`$ towards the end of the pulse guarantees that any finite laser energy can be accommodated for $`\zeta _f<\zeta _c`$. The two terms in (7) represent the energy contained in the $`\delta `$-function precursor and the main pulse. It is clear that for a fixed total energy there exists a maximum value of $`\kappa _0=\epsilon _0/2`$ which is achieved when $`\zeta _f0`$, i.e., all of the energy is concentrated in the $`\delta `$-function. This shape, which is a particular case of the general optimal shape (6), excites the largest possible wakefield and has the smallest depletion length among all pulses of fixed energy. For circularly polarized pulses with cylindrical transverse crossection of radius $`r_0`$ and wavelength $`\lambda `$, the maximum achievable wake is then given by:

$$E_{\mathrm{max}}=6.54E_{wb}\left[\frac{U_0}{1\mathrm{J}}\right]\left[\frac{\lambda }{1\mu \mathrm{m}}\right]^2\left[\frac{10\mu \mathrm{m}}{r_0}\right]^2\left[\frac{n_p}{10^{18}\mathrm{cm}^3}\right]^{1/2}$$
(8)
where $`U_0`$ is the total pulse energy (in Joules) and $`E_{wb}=96[n_p/10^{18}\mathrm{cm}^3]\mathrm{GV}/\mathrm{m}`$ is the nonrelativistic wavebreaking field.

## Efficiency optimization

While generation of large accelerating gradients is a prerequisite for a successful accelerating scheme, the efficiency of acceleration should also be considered. For an accelerating scheme that involves transfer of energy from the driver beam to the accelerating beam, efficiency is measured in terms of the transformer ratio, or the ratio of the maximum rate of energy gain per particle of accelerating beam to the maximum rate of energy loss per particle of the driving beam. In the case of laser-plasma accelerators, where the driving and accelerating beams consist of particles of different species, the following kinematic definition is more useful:

$$R\frac{|\gamma _a/z|_{max}}{|\gamma _d/z|_{max}},$$
(9)
where $`\gamma _d`$ and $`\gamma _a`$ are Lorentz factors for the driving and accelerating beams. In LWFA the particles in the trailing electron bunch are accelerated via electrostatic interaction with the wake, so $`|\gamma _a/z|_{max}=|eE_{}^{max}|/m_ec^2=k_p|_{max}^{out}|`$. For the laser propagating in plasma $`\gamma _d\omega /\omega _p`$, so $`|\gamma _d/z|`$ is the photon frequency shift given by (3). The transformer ratio for LWFA is then:

$$R^{\mathrm{L}WFA}=\frac{2\omega }{\omega _p}\frac{|x/\zeta |_{max}^{out}}{|(1/x)/\zeta |_{max}^{in}}||_{max}^{out}k_pl_d.$$
(10)
Defined this way the transformer ratio can have several interpretations. On the one hand, it is a measure of local accelerating efficiency, or the amount of increase in $`\gamma `$ of the accelerating electron per unit loss of $`\gamma `$ of the laser. On the other hand, transformer ratio is proportional to the maximum energy that can be transferred to the accelerating beam particle over the laser depletion length (assuming no evolution of the wake during propagation). Therefore, an efficient accelerating scheme should attempt to maximize the transformer ratio.

There are several ways to find the laser shape that maximizes $`R`$. Among the pulses of fixed energy and depletion length, $`R`$ is maximized by a pulse that produces the largest wakefield as can be seen from (10). The optimal shape found in Eq. (6) satisfies this requirement. Alternatively, one can relax the energy constraint and instead look for a laser profile that has the largest depletion length among all the shapes that produce a given maximum wakefield behind the laser. Although this reasoning leads to the same resulting shape, we include the proof for completeness as it demonstrates a useful technique for determining laser shapes that satisfy constraints on the values of the wakefield.

In order to find the shape that maximizes the transformer ratio, we vary the photon deceleration function $`\kappa (\zeta )`$ inside the laser. We require that $`\kappa (\zeta )`$ be positive definite, i.e., laser photons only lose energy to the plasma and do not reabsorb energy from the wake. The advantage of varying $`\kappa (\zeta )`$ rather than $`a^2(\zeta )`$ directly is that one can immediately write down the solution for the wakefield potential $`x(\zeta )`$ in terms of the photon energy deposition function $`\psi (\zeta )_{\mathrm{}}^\zeta \kappa (\zeta _1)𝑑\zeta _1`$, i.e., $`x(\zeta )=1/(1\psi (\zeta ))`$. The corresponding laser shape is then determined from the wakefield equation (1):

$`a^2(\zeta )=(2x^{\prime \prime }(\zeta )+1)x(\zeta )^21={\displaystyle \frac{2\psi ^{\prime \prime }(\zeta )}{[1\psi (\zeta )]^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\psi ^{}(\zeta )^2}{[1\psi (\zeta )]^5}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{[1\psi (\zeta )]^2}}1.`$ (11)
Note that not all functions $`\psi (\zeta )`$ should produce physical, i.e., positive $`a^2(\zeta )`$, and the validity of a given $`\kappa (\zeta )`$ should be checked through (11). By considering photon energy deposition in the pulse all possible laser shapes that produce a given wakefield can be mapped onto a bounded space of monotonically increasing functions $`\psi (\zeta )`$, whose end values on the interval $`[0,\zeta _f]`$ and derivatives at $`\zeta _f`$ are constrained by the required maximum value of the wakefield. From the first integral of the wakefield equation we can relate the modified potential $`x_fx(\zeta _f)`$ and the electric field $`x_f^{}x^{}(\zeta _f)`$ evaluated at the end of the pulse:

$$(_{max}^{out})^2=\frac{(x_f1)^2}{x_f}+(x_f^{})^2=\frac{\psi (\zeta _f)^2}{(1\psi (\zeta _f))}+\frac{\psi ^{}(\zeta _f)^2}{(1\psi (\zeta _f))^4}.$$
(12)
Monotonicity of $`\psi (\zeta )`$ follows from the requirement $`\kappa (\zeta )0`$, and the bounds on $`\psi (\zeta )`$ are $`0=\psi (0)\psi (\zeta )\psi _{max}<1`$. A few sample solutions for $`\psi (\zeta )`$ and corresponding photon deceleration and laser shapes are plotted in Fig. 2. The function $`\psi (\zeta )`$ that results in the largest transformer ratio should possess the smallest maximal slope in the interval $`[0,\zeta _f]`$ – this will maximize the depletion length for a fixed $`_{max}^{out}`$. Such curve is unique and is represented by curve 2 in figure 2. It is a straight line with slope $`\psi ^{}(\zeta _f)=\psi (\zeta _f)_{\mathrm{crit}}/\zeta _f`$, where the value of $`\psi (\zeta _f)_{\mathrm{crit}}`$ is determined from substituting $`\psi ^{}(\zeta _f)`$ into eq. (12). Let’s show that this line has the smallest maximum slope. Since $`\psi ^{}(\zeta _f)`$ is a decreasing function of $`\psi (\zeta _f)`$ for a fixed $`_{max}^{out}`$ (eq. (12)), all curves $`\psi (\zeta )`$ with $`\psi (\zeta _f)<\psi (\zeta _f)_{\mathrm{crit}}`$ (such as curve 1 in figure 2) will automatically have larger slope at $`\zeta _f`$: $`\psi ^{}(\zeta )>\psi (\zeta _f)_{\mathrm{crit}}/\zeta _f`$. On the other hand, the curves with $`\psi (\zeta _f)>\psi (\zeta _f)_{\mathrm{crit}}`$ (such as curves 3 and 4) should have a slope larger than $`\psi (\zeta _f)_{\mathrm{crit}}`$ somewhere between $`0`$ and $`\zeta _f`$ in order to be larger than $`\psi (\zeta _f)_{\mathrm{crit}}`$ at $`\zeta _f`$. We therefore prove that the function $`\psi (\zeta )=\kappa _0\zeta `$, where $`\kappa _0\psi (\zeta _f)_{\mathrm{crit}}/\zeta _f`$, is an integrated photon deceleration profile that maximizes the transformer ratio.

The photon deceleration function associated with this $`\psi (\zeta )`$ is a constant $`\kappa (\zeta )=\kappa _0`$ and the resulting laser shape is the same as given by (6). The optimal transformer ratio associated with this shape can be found from (10):

$$R^{\mathrm{L}WFA}=\frac{2\omega }{\omega _p}\sqrt{\frac{1+(k_pL_p)^2[1\kappa _0(k_pL_p)]^3}{[1\kappa _0(k_pL_p)]^4}},$$
(13)
where $`L_p=\zeta _f/k_p`$ is the pulse length. In the linear regime optimal transformer ratios for both LWFA and PWFA schemes scale identically with the pulse/beam length: $`R^{\mathrm{L}WFA}(2\omega /\omega _p)\sqrt{1+(k_pL_{pulse})^2},`$ $`R^{\mathrm{P}WFA}\sqrt{1+(k_pL_{beam})^2}`$ chen2 . The LWFA scheme is intrinsically more efficient by a factor of $`2\omega /\omega _p`$, which is needed for viability of LWFA since lasers are typically “slower” drivers than electron beams.

## Utility of pulse shaping

The advantage of using the optimal pulse shape is best seen in comparison with the unshaped (Gaussian) pulse. For a given Gaussian pulse (or any other non-optimal shape) one can always construct a corresponding optimally shaped pulse with the same laser energy such that the photon deceleration across the optimal pulse equals to the peak photon deceleration in the unshaped one (i.e., both pulses have equal depletion lengths). Unshaped pulses deplete first in the region where photon deceleration is the largest, whereas a laser with the optimal shape loses all its energy in a depletion length due to uniform photon deceleration, thus enhancing instantaneous energy deposition and wakefield. For a numerical example, we consider the optimal and Gaussian pulses of total energy $`0.5\mathrm{J}`$, wavelength $`1\mu \mathrm{m}`$ and cylindrical radius $`10\mu \mathrm{m}`$ in a plasma with $`n_p=10^{18}\mathrm{cm}^3`$. The transformer ratio, the maximum wakefield, the required pulse length, and the corresponding peak $`a_0`$ are shown in Fig. 3 as a function of depletion length.

From Fig. 3 we see that the transformer ratio and the maximum wakefield are consistently larger for shaped pulses. In fact, the lines for optimal pulse wakefield and transformer ratio represent the theoretical upper limits for all pulses of given energy. The Gaussian pulse achieves a maximum transformer ratio when its length (measured here as FWHM) equals $`1/2`$ of the relativistic plasma wavelength. The effects of shaping are especially prominent for longer pulses, where Gaussian pulse yields almost no wake excitation due to plasma oscillations inside the pulse that cause part of the laser photons to absorb energy from the wake. On the other hand, a shaped laser postpones plasma oscillation until the end of the pulse, and all photons decelerate uniformly. For very short pulses, the differences between the two shapes are minimal. This is due to the fact that very short Gaussian pulses of fixed energy asymptotically approach the delta-function limit of the short optimal shape. For these short pulses the wakefield attains the maximum value given by (8) as the depletion length reaches the minimal value for given pulse energy.

Although short pulses generally produce the largest wakefields, their efficiency is close to minimal possible, as the depletion length decreases faster than increase in the wake. Therefore, the choice of the appropriate pulse shape for LWFA stage will depend on specific experimental conditions. If the laser-plasma interaction distance is limited by instabilities, diffraction or dephasing, then in order to maximize the electron energy gain one should try to achieve the largest accelerating gradient, which can be accomplished with ultrashort pulses. For some regimes of plasma density and laser energy available laser systems may be unable to produce pulses short enough so that the pump depletion length is longer than the characteristic instability or dephasing length. In this case shaping the laser will increase the wakefield over the interaction distance, even though it will be below the maximum possible if a shorter pulse were used. If the interaction length is less constrained, such as the case for propagation in plasma channels channels , then using a finite-length shaped pulse will result in a greatly improved overall energy gain per stage as can be seen from Fig. 3. An added benefit of pulse shaping is the suppression of modulational instability that affects unshaped pulses that are longer than plasma wavelength. When all photons red-shift, or “slow down”, at the same rate, different slices of the laser do not overrun each other, and the 1D laser self-modulation is suppressed.

## Realistic pulse shaping

As the optimal pulse shape is associated with a delta-function precursor, the feasibility of such a structure may be a concern. We note that the purpose of this precursor is to bring the photon deceleration from zero in the quiescent plasma before the laser to a finite value $`\kappa _0`$ at the beginning of the main pulse. This can also be achieved with a more physical prepulse, whose shape can be found from the wake equation once a smooth function $`\kappa (\zeta )`$ is chosen.

For our example we choose a photon deceleration function that varies as a hyperbolic tangent: $`\kappa (\zeta )=\kappa _0[1+\mathrm{tanh}(\alpha (\zeta \zeta _0))]/2`$, where $`\alpha `$ is a steepness parameter and $`\zeta _0`$ is an arbitrary offset. The photon energy deposition is then $`\psi (\zeta )=\kappa _0[\zeta +\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{cosh}(\alpha (\zeta \zeta _0)))/\alpha ]/2`$, and the corresponding laser shape is found from equation (11):

$$a^2(\zeta )=\frac{\kappa _0\alpha \mathrm{s}ech^2(\alpha (\zeta \zeta _0))}{\chi ^4(\zeta )}+\frac{\kappa _0^2[1+\mathrm{tanh}(\alpha (\zeta \zeta _0))]^2}{\chi ^5(\zeta )}+\frac{1}{\chi ^2(\zeta )}1,$$
(14)
where $`\zeta \zeta _f`$ and the function in the denominator is $`\chi (\zeta )=1+(\kappa _0/2\alpha )\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{2}+\zeta _0\kappa _0/2\psi (\zeta )`$. As before, the pulse length $`\zeta _f`$ can be found from the total available energy of the pulse. By varying $`\alpha `$ we can change the slope of $`\kappa (\zeta )`$ as it rises from $`0`$ to $`\kappa _0`$ and construct a pulse shape that satisfies experimental constraints yet retains essential physics of the optimal shape. For a step-function photon deceleration ($`\alpha \mathrm{}`$) expression (14) asymptotes to equation (6). However, for finite values of $`\alpha `$ the delta-function precursor spreads out and can even disappear as shown in Fig. 4. The family of shapes given by (14) is better suited for the finite-bandwidth laser systems that have a lower limit on achievable feature size. The values of maximum wakefield for pulses in Fig. 4 is within few percent of the value for a delta-function optimal pulse of the same energy and depletion length. This is due to the fact that the bulk of the laser pulse still experiences constant maximal photon deceleration. The wakefield further degrades with longer rise times of $`\kappa (\zeta )`$.

The pulse shaping techniques described so far have assumed that the laser is incident on an unperturbed plasma. However, this does not have to be the case, and we can construct an optimally-shaped laser that enters the plasma at some phase of a pre-existing plasma oscillation. Such oscillation could be left from a precursor laser pulse or electron beam as shown in Fig. 5. When there is an existing plasma wave, the value $`x_0`$ of the modified electrostatic potential at the beginning of the optimal pulse will generally be different from unity. In this case the expression for the optimal pulse without the delta-function precursor is modified into:

$$a_l^2(\zeta )=\frac{4\kappa _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{[x_0^1\kappa _0(\zeta \zeta _0)]^5}+\frac{1}{[x_0^1\kappa _0(\zeta \zeta _0)]^2}1,$$
(15)
where we assume that the main pulse lies between $`\zeta _0`$ and $`\zeta _f`$, and $`\kappa _0=x^{}(\zeta _0)/x_0^2`$. If this shape is placed in a correct phase of the oscillation (so that $`a_l^2(\zeta _0)`$ from (15) is positive), it acts as an amplifier of the existing wakefield. The ratio of maximum wakefield behind the optimal pulse to the field in front of it scales as $`(R/x_0^2)(\omega _p/2\omega )`$ which for pulse lengths around $`\lambda _p`$ from Fig. 3 can be of order $`10`$. A detailed discussion of this scheme and a comparison to the resonant laser-plasma accelerator concept RLPA  will be reported elsewhere.

## Discussion

As we have shown, the huge phase space involved in shaping laser drivers for applications in laser wakefield accelerators can be described using only two parameters: total pulse energy and characteristic depletion length. The shape of photon energy deposition (photon deceleration) inside the pulse plays a crucial role for both the wake excitation and the evolution of the laser driver. By varying the shape of the photon deceleration function for pulses of fixed energy and depletion length we were able to optimize both the generated wakefield and the efficiency of the accelerating scheme. The method used for obtaining the optimal shapes (6) and (14) is actually more general and can be used to determine laser shapes that generate other variations in the nonlinear index of refraction. Having a physical requirement for the refractive index, which in this case is the requirement of uniformity of photon deceleration, provides a constraint on the functional form of the wakefield, which can then be used to find the required laser shape. Alas, such a “reverse” solution is not always guaranteed to yield a physical (i.e., positive) $`a^2(\zeta )`$, so, in general, caution is advised.

Several issues should be addressed before the laser pulse shaping concept can be fully utilized. Even without the delta-function precursor, the finite laser bandwidth will necessarily smooth out steep rises and falls of the optimal pulse shape. Although we do not anticipate adverse effects when the feature size is much smaller than the plasma wavelength, the 1D self-consistent laser evolution and stability of realistic optimal shapes are currently under investigation. Another consideration is the influence of the laser-plasma interaction in the transverse dimension on the evolution of the pulse. Many of the laser-plasma instabilities are seeded by the wakefield-induced perturbations of the index of refraction. As we have demonstrated in this paper, the nonlinear index of refraction can be effectively controlled through laser shaping, thus suggesting the method of delaying the onset of these instabilities. Whether this approach increases the growth rates of other instabilities, particularly in the transverse dimension, remains to be investigated.

We would like to thank J. Arons, A. Charman, T. Katsouleas, W. B. Mori, and J. Wurtele for fruitful discussions and suggestions.