text:
# Polarisation Patterns and Vectorial Defects in Type II Optical Parametric Oscillators

## I Introduction

Most studies of pattern  and localized structure  formation in optical systems consider light with a fixed linear polarisation. However, the vectorial degree of freedom of light, associated with a space- and time-dependent polarisation, leads to a very interesting phenomenology, as previously shown for Kerr cavities , sodium vapors , lasers  and intra-cavity second harmonic generation . This degree of freedom is also relevant from the point of view of information encoding and processing, because it yields a tool for the control of these structures. Optical vortices have been predicted to occur in optical systems such as lasers  and they have been experimentally observed in lasers  and photo-refractive resonators . More recent theoretical studies revealed the existence of vectorial defects in optical systems .

Among optical systems, optical parametric oscillators (OPO’s) have been the object of intense theoretical study in recent years, which has revealed the existence of patterns  and localized structures ; few examples of defect dynamics have also been published . Finally, experimental results on transverse pattern formation have been recently presented . An OPO consists of a ring (or Fabry-Perot) resonator containing a nonlinear quadratic medium, which performs a parametric down-conversion of an injected laser beam (optical pump) at frequency $`\omega _p`$. Two new fields are generated in the crystal, the signal and the idler, at frequencies $`\omega _s,\omega _i`$ respectively, such that $`\omega _p=\omega _s+\omega _i`$, the last relation indicating the conservation of photon energy. The nonlinear interaction also requires photon momentum to be conserved, i.e. the phase-matching condition $`k_pk_sk_i=0`$, which is usually obtained by exploiting polarized beams and crystal birefringence. This effect often implies that a transverse walk-off between the different polarisation components may occur. The consequences of walk-off have also been considered and convective instabilities and noise-sustained patterns found . Most of these theoretical studies have been performed in the context of a scalar approximation, which is valid for the so called Type I OPO’s; in the Type I interaction the signal and idler fields have the same polarisation, orthogonal to the pump beam. However, there are not many studies involving Type II OPO’s where the polarisation degree of freedom is taken into account. In refs.  the model equations can be valid for an OPO that is non degenerate either in polarisation or in frequency; however the intrinsic physical difference between the two cases was not made evident. In refs.  and  the polarisation non-degenerate case and the polarisation and frequency non-degenerate case have been considered and the role of the walk-off explored. Finally the case of polarisation coupling, due to cavity birefringence and/or dichroism has been analysed for the case of an OPO, showing Bloch walls formation ; these structures were later found also for second harmonic generation .

In this paper we will focus our attention on the polarisation pattern and vectorial defect formation in a Type II, frequency degenerate OPO. In particular we will consider the case in which the pump is not resonated in the cavity and can be eliminated from the dynamics by means of a multiple scale approximation. This simplification has also been made in order to take into account the effects of phase mismatch, which has been only partly studied in connection with Type I OPO’s . In fact, the conservation of the photon momentum need not to be exact for down conversion to occur, the conversion efficiency being lower if $`k_pk_sk_i0`$.

The paper is organized as follows. In section II we present the equations which model the Type II OPO and some exact, stable solutions, which are combinations of traveling waves (TW’s). Due to the vectorial nature of the field these solutions represent spatial polarisation patterns. We also show that these TW’s are spontaneously formed starting from a random perturbation of the trivial steady-state, that is represented by the field below the threshold of signal and idler generation. In section III we show that, on a background made of TW’s, vectorial defects are spontaneously generated. The defects are classified as vectorial dislocations by comparing the quantities characteristic of a dislocation of a complex field with those of the defects obtained in the dynamical system. The dynamics of defects is also studied in this section. The stabilization of a single defect is then presented in section IV. The discussion of the effects due to the presence of the phase mismatch is given in section V and the conclusions presented in section VI. In Appendix I we derive the basic equations in which our study is based, and in Appendix II we derive the corresponding amplitude equation (a Swift-Hohenberg equation) for the instability leading to frequency-converted light generation in our model.

## II Equations and background solutions

We considered a model for a Type II OPO, for which the pump is not resonated in the cavity and in which some mismatch among the interacting waves is allowed. Previous studies of pattern formation, except ref. , neglected mismatch; however real devices are likely to present a residual mismatch due to the selection mechanism of the signal and idler frequencies (see  for details). Since the Type II configuration means that the signal and the idler are orthogonally polarized fields we will use the notation $`A_x,A_y`$ to denote them. The starting point is the slowly varying envelope approximation propagation equations for a Type II interaction which include the mismatch (see for example ). By following the procedure outlined in Appendix I, we obtain the evolution equations for the cavity fields:

$`_tA_x`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _x[(1+i\mathrm{\Delta })A_x+\mu A_y^{}+\sigma |A_y|^2A_x]+ia_x^2A_x`$ (1)
$`_tA_y`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _y[(1+i\mathrm{\Delta })A_y+\mu A_x^{}+\sigma |A_x|^2A_y]+ia_y^2A_y`$ (2)
where $`\gamma _x,\gamma _y`$ are the decay rates of the signal and idler in the cavity, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the cavity detuning, $`a_x,a_y`$ the diffraction coefficients. Note that the detunings of the two fields are made equal to a common value $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$  by choosing the temporal reference frame such that stationary homogeneous states do not have free rotating phases. The other terms which appear in these coupled equations are respectively:

a) a linear parametric coupling with coefficient

$$\mu =E_0exp(\frac{i\mathrm{\Delta }kL}{2})\frac{sin(\mathrm{\Delta }kL/2)}{\mathrm{\Delta }kL/2}$$
(3)
where $`E_0`$ is the injected pump field, $`\mathrm{\Delta }k`$ the photon momentum mismatch and $`L`$ the crystal length ;

b) a cubic nonlinear coupling with coefficient

$$\sigma =\frac{2}{\mathrm{\Delta }k^2L^2}[(cos(\mathrm{\Delta }kL)1)+i(sin(\mathrm{\Delta }kL)\mathrm{\Delta }kL)]$$
(4)
At perfect phase-matching $`\mu =E_0,\sigma =1`$ ; otherwise the coefficients are complex numbers; their real, imaginary parts are shown in fig. 1 for $`E_0=1.5`$. Similar coefficients were also found for a Type I, singly resonant frequency degenerate OPO, by Longhi in ref. , with the same type of analysis. Note that the lasing of an OPO requires $`|\mathrm{\Delta }k|<\pi /L`$ because the parametric gain outside this range is too small and the device tends to ”jump” to another pair of signal-idler frequencies which satisfy this condition . Finally note that all coefficients can become dimensionless as soon as appropriate time, space and field amplitude scaling are performed.

Equations (1,2) have exact traveling wave solutions of the same type as those found in ref. :

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}A_x\\ A_y^{}\end{array}\right)=\sqrt{C}e^{i(\omega t+𝐤𝐫)}\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{i\varphi _0}\\ e^{i(\alpha \varphi _0)}\end{array}\right)$$
(5)
where $`\varphi _0`$ is an arbitrary phase, while the intensity $`C`$ and the phase difference $`\alpha `$ between the signal and the idler are given by

$`C={\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\sigma |^2}}\left[\sigma ^{}+\sigma ^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\pm \sqrt{|\mu |^2|\sigma |^2(\sigma ^{\prime \prime }\sigma ^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }})^2}\right]`$ (6)
$`cos\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\mu |^2}}[\mu ^{}(1\sigma ^{}C)+\mu ^{\prime \prime }(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\sigma ^{\prime \prime }C)]`$ (7)
where $`\sigma ^{}=Re(\sigma ),\sigma ^{\prime \prime }=Im(\sigma )`$, $`\mu ^{}=Re(\mu ),\mu ^{\prime \prime }=Im(\mu )`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\mathrm{\Delta }+|𝐤|^2(\gamma _xa_x+\gamma _ya_y)/(\gamma _x+\gamma _y)`$ is an effective detuning parameter. The TW intensity $`C`$ and the phase difference $`\alpha `$ are shown in fig. 2 for $`E_0=1.5`$.

The frequency shift $`\omega `$ is given by:

$$\omega =\frac{\gamma _x\gamma _y}{\gamma _x+\gamma _y}[(a_ya_x)|𝐤|^2]$$
(8)
This quantity can be zero if the diffraction coefficients are equal for the signal and the idler. Hereafter we will consider only the case of frequency degenerate OPO, i.e. when the frequency of the signal and idler are the same; this also implies that $`\gamma _x\gamma _y`$ (without loss of generality we set $`\gamma _x=\gamma _y=1`$ in our simulations, thus scaling time with the cavity lifetime). The condition $`a_x=a_y=a`$ can be exactly obtained for example by introducing compensating prisms in the cavity, as suggested in Appendix I. Strictly speaking if $`\omega =0`$ the solutions (5) are not traveling waves but rather standing phase waves; however, we will generally refer to them as TW. It is important to note that considering the case $`\omega =0`$ is not restrictive in the sense that all features observed for this case survive also for $`\omega 0`$, at least when a uniform pump and periodic boundary conditions are used. We checked this by integrating eqs. (1,2) also for $`a_xa_y`$; the main difference is that phase waves travel. Under the hypothesis made in this paragraph the effective detuning simply reads $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\mathrm{\Delta }+a|𝐤|^2`$.

TW solutions (5) exist for $`|\mu |^2>1+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2=|\mu _c|^2`$ if $`\sigma ^{}+\sigma ^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}<0`$; in this case only the solution with the plus sign is acceptable in eq. (6). If $`\sigma ^{}+\sigma ^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}>0`$ solutions exist for $`|\mu |^2>|\mu _c|^2\frac{1}{|\sigma |^2}(\sigma ^{}+\sigma ^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }})`$ and there is bistability up to $`\mu _c`$ among the solutions obtained by taking the plus and minus signs. However, when no mismatch is present ($`\mathrm{\Delta }k=0`$), given that $`\sigma ^{}<0`$, no bistability regime exists and TW are found only for $`|\mu |^2>|\mu _c|^2=1`$. Note that if no mismatch is present the solutions also satisfy $`\alpha =0`$ and therefore $`A_x=A_y^{}`$. Hereafter we will consider only the case of perfect phase-matching and leave the observations about the effects of mismatch to section V.

A physical interpretation of the exact solutions can be given in terms of spatial polarisation patterns. In fact, under the assumptions made, the Stokes parameters

$`S_0`$ $`=`$ $`|A_x|^2+|A_y|^2`$ (9)
$`S_1`$ $`=`$ $`|A_x|^2|A_y|^2`$ (10)
$`S_2`$ $`=`$ $`A_xA_y^{}+A_x^{}A_y`$ (11)
$`S_3`$ $`=`$ $`i(A_xA_y^{}A_x^{}A_y)`$ (12)
associated with the TW’s at frequency $`\omega _s=\omega _i=\omega _p/2`$ can be simply calculated as

$`S_0=2C,S_1=0,S_2=2Ccos(2𝐤_𝐜𝐫\alpha ),S_3=2Csin(2𝐤_𝐜𝐫+\alpha )`$ (13)
These equations mean that the coupled-TW solution $`(A_x,A_y)`$ represents an elliptically polarized field with a two-valued spatially periodic azimuth ($`\theta =tan^1(S_2/S_1)/2`$) and with a spatially periodic ellipticity parameter $`\eta (𝐫)=\alpha /2𝐤_𝐜𝐫`$. In particular, in the direction of the wave-vector $`𝐤_𝐜`$ the polarisation changes from linear (with $`\theta =\pi /4`$), to right circular, to linear (with $`\theta =\pi /4`$), then to left circular and back again to linear (with $`\theta =\pi /4`$) with a spatial period $`\lambda _c/2=\pi /k_c`$ (see fig. 3).

Other stable solutions can be found as combinations of the basic TW solutions (5) as shown in ref.  for a triply resonant, non-degenerate OPO. They can be generally written as:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}A_x\\ A_y^{}\end{array}\right)=(f_1exp(ik_cx)+f_2exp(ik_cy)+f_3exp(ik_cx)+f_4exp(ik_cy))\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)$$
(14)
The coefficients $`f_k`$ determine the kind of solution; for example the TW is $`(f_1,f_2,f_3,f_4)=(\sqrt{C},0,0,0)`$ and the standing rolls are $`(\sqrt{C},0,\sqrt{C},0)`$. An interesting solution for this case is that of the alternating rolls $`(f_1,f_2,f_3,f_4)=(\sqrt{C},i\sqrt{C},\sqrt{C},i\sqrt{C})`$ i.e.:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}A_x\\ A_y^{}\end{array}\right)=2\sqrt{C}(cos(k_cx)+icos(k_cy))\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)$$
(15)
that gives rise to a square intensity pattern. We found that this structure is stable with periodic boundary conditions, but it deforms and disappears as soon as other, more realistic, boundary conditions are applied. We show in fig. 4 the square array with periodic boundary conditions after an evolution of $`t=500`$ time units; no appreciable change of the initial condition (15) has been observed.

The equations also have a trivial steady-state solution $`A_x=A_y=0`$, that represents the non lasing state of the OPO and whose stability analysis is similar to that performed in refs. . Briefly, $`A_x=A_y=0`$ becomes unstable for $`|\mu |>1`$ if $`\mathrm{\Delta }<0`$ and for $`\mu >\sqrt{1+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}`$ if $`\mathrm{\Delta }>0`$. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }>0`$ the trivial solution becomes unstable for homogeneous perturbations ($`k_c=0`$) and no pattern or structure is expected to be spontaneously formed. In numerical simulation we observed the transition to a final, stable, homogeneous state of intensity $`C`$, preceded by a transient regime where domain walls form but soon disappear . For $`\mathrm{\Delta }<0`$ the most unstable modes are TW with a critical wave-vector $`|𝐤_𝐜|^2=\mathrm{\Delta }/a`$, i.e. such that the equivalent detuning $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ is zero. Note that the most unstable modes are also exact TW solutions of eqs. (1,2). Although stability of such TW’s was not studied, numerical solutions give evidence that they are stable and moreover that they are spontaneously formed starting from a random perturbation of the trivial steady-state when the pump amplitude is above the threshold of the parametric interaction. Then, the spontaneously selected TW’s have wave-vector modulus $`|𝐤_𝐜|=k_c=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }/a}`$ but a random orientation or phase in different region of space; this causes the occurrence of defects in the patterns as will be shown below. Hereafter we will treat only the case of polarization pattern formation, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }<0`$.

If the pump amplitude is weakly above the threshold ($`5\%`$) two different final situations can be found starting from a random perturbation of the trivial steady-state under periodic boundary conditions. In the first, all defects initially formed tend to annihilate each other and the final state is a single TW of random orientation, whose wave-vector is exactly $`k_c`$. As in the case of non-degenerate OPO’s  no intensity patterns appear but only phase stripe patterns, which correspond to the polarisation patterns described by eqs. (5) and (13). In another case, for the same pump amplitude but with other initial random conditions, ordered structures of defects may form as shown in fig. 5. By looking at the real and imaginary parts of the field $`A_x`$ it is clear that these defects are found along the fronts which separate regions where TW’s with the same wave-vector but with different phase have been selected. From the figure it is also clear that these defects appear on a background of TW solutions, at those points where the stripes do not match.

Defects also appear spontaneously with pump amplitudes well above threshold ($`50\%`$); in this case the positions of the defects are not ordered, as shown for example in fig. 6 a) and b). Defects always appear in both orthogonal polarisation components (i.e. the signal and the idler simultaneously) and therefore they can be classified as vectorial, since the two components of the vector field $`(A_x,A_y)`$ are zero at the same point in space. In fig. 6 c) and d) the phase of the polarisation components is also presented; note that it is not defined at the points where the amplitude goes to zero. Then, such objects require a topological classification that is furnished in the next section. Finally note that setting $`a_xa_y`$ or $`\gamma _x\gamma _y`$ does not alter the basic features observed; defects persist and are advected by the phase waves, which now travel as previously described. This has been cheked by running the same simulation (i.e. that of fig. 5) with and without equal coefficients.

It is always useful to have in mind the general characteristics of the instability of the zero state in our OPO model, in order to relate it to other pattern forming systems. In our case, the instability for $`\mathrm{\Delta }<0`$ is at a non vanishing wavenumber $`k_c`$, so that a Swift-Hohenberg equation for the complex envelope of the unstable modes is the appropriate amplitude-equation description close to threshold. For the case $`a_x=a_y`$, this Swift-Hohenberg equation has real coefficients. This equation is derived from our basic equations (1,2) in Appendix II.

## III Defect classification, formation and dynamics

In this section we analyse the formation and dynamics of defects, in Type II OPO’s. The existence of defects in a Type I non-degenerate triply resonant OPO was pointed out in ref.  where the dynamics of an advected defect pair was also reported. Here, we present a detailed study of the defects which spontaneously appear in the Type II frequency degenerate OPO. The analysis includes: a) the classification of the defect type, showing that these defects are dislocations of the TW pattern; b) the formation process under several different conditions and regimes and c) the trapping and stabilization of a single defect.

A dislocation of a scalar complex field $`A(r,\theta )`$, $`(r,\theta )`$ being spatial polar coordinates, can be defined as a configuration which can be deformed continuously (in a neibourhood of a point $`𝐫_\mathrm{𝟎}`$, which is then identified as the core of the dislocation and it is taken as the origin of the polar coordinates) into the following function:

$$A(r,\theta )=R(r)exp(i(\theta +krcos\theta ))=R(r)exp(i\varphi )$$
(16)
The function $`R(r)`$ is real and depends on the radial coordinate such that $`R(0)=0`$. This condition is necessary because the phase $`\varphi `$ of the field is not defined in the origin of coordinates. In fig. 7 a) we show the real part of $`A`$ from which we can observe that the defect is found at the point where the stripes of the background, whose wave-vector far from the defect is $`k`$, do not match. The phase $`\varphi `$ is shown in fig. 7 b); the defect is centered at the point $`𝐫_\mathrm{𝟎}=0`$, around which the phase changes by $`2\pi `$. The topological charge associated with the phase change is defined by the integral of the phase gradient on a closed contour surrounding the point $`𝐫_\mathrm{𝟎}`$

$$n_0=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{𝐫_\mathrm{𝟎}}\varphi d𝐫=1$$
(17)
Note that there exists also another dislocation obtained by setting $`\theta \theta `$ for which the topological charge $`n_0`$ is equal to $`1`$. However the most interesting feature of a dislocation is that it is characterised by another topological charge. This is associated with the function

$$\psi (x,y)=tan^1\left(\frac{(\varphi )_y}{(\varphi )_x}\right)$$
(18)
where the indices $`x,y`$ of the term on the right hand side refer to the vector components. This function, which defines the orientation angle of the wave-vector $`𝐤`$, is shown in fig. 7 c) for the field $`A`$ defined by eq. (16). Note that there are two points where $`\psi `$ is not defined: one is located at the point $`𝐫_\mathrm{𝟎}`$, corresponding to the point of zero amplitude; the second is at another point $`𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ where $`|𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐫_\mathrm{𝟎}|=k^1`$. Then, the topological charges associated with $`\psi `$ are:

$$m_0=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{𝐫_\mathrm{𝟎}}\psi d𝐫=1$$
(19)
where the integration contour surrounds the point $`𝐫_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ but leaves outside the point $`𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and

$$m_1=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏}}\psi d𝐫=1$$
(20)
where the integration contour surrounds the point $`𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ but leaves outside the point $`𝐫_\mathrm{𝟎}`$. Note that there is not a zero in the amplitude $`R`$ at the point $`𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏}`$.

We now turn our attention back to the Type II OPO and compare the defects which are found in the numerical solutions of eqs. (1,2) with the dislocation just defined. In this section, to better compare numerical and theoretical results only periodic boundary conditions and homogeneous pump beams are considered; more realistic conditions will be explored in section (IV) when stabilization of a dislocation is considered.

The randomly generated defects of figures 5 and 6 are dislocations on a background of TW’s, although in the second case it is difficult to recognize the background solutions since the defects are dense in the integration window. However a fingerprint of TW is found also for the data of fig. 6 by observing the far field in fig. 8. There, a ring of modes of radius $`k_c`$ is clearly observable, a clear indication that the background is made mostly of TW solutions of different orientation but the same wave-number $`k_c`$. The dislocations can be also clearly identified when the quantities $`\psi _x`$ and $`\psi _y`$ (defined again through eq. (18) where the phases are those of $`A_x,A_y`$) are calculated for the same data of fig. 6. The result is presented in figures 9 a) and b) where a contour plot of $`|A_x|,|A_y|`$ taken at a low intensity level to indicate the locations of the zeros of the field, is superimposed on the grey-scale coded images of the functions $`\psi _x`$ and $`\psi _y`$. From fig. 9 we note that in this static condition “chains” of defects of the functions $`\psi _{x,y}`$ are formed. Two zeros of the amplitude (defects of charges $`n_0,m_0`$) are in fact connected by the relative pair of defects of the functions $`\psi _{x,y}`$ at the second point (defects of charge $`m_1`$). This stems from the fact that the phase difference between $`A_x`$ and $`A_y`$ is zero (when there is no mismatch) and thus $`A_x=A_y^{}`$.

Regarding the dynamics  of the spontaneously generated defects, we observe that they appear at the early stage of the process. Some of them are annihilated within a few thousand cavity lifetime units. After this stage we cannot observe any annihilation, up to 100000 cavity lifetime units. The initial number of dislocations and their positions change with different initial conditions. The statistical distribution of the final number of defects, by changing initial conditions, is shown in fig. 10; observe that a Gaussian fit is actually very good. We note that the defect density never reaches that of the square pattern (eq. (15)) with critical wave-vector $`k_c`$. After the initial formation stage, we observe in our runs that defects have a slow, random motion. This regime is mostly dominated by the attraction of pairs of defects of opposite charges $`n_0=\pm 1`$. For longer times the motion tends to stop and an equilibrium condition is reached. Although no detailed statistical study has been conducted we also note, by inspection of fig. 9, that there seems to exist a characteristic length of separation between the defects, which is an indication that an equilibrium is likely to be reached.

To better study defect interaction we use (16) as an initial condition and integrate eqs. (1,2). Due to the periodic boundary conditions a pair of defects is generated, as shown in fig. 11 a). These correspond to two dislocations in the real part of each field (fig. 11 b)), two phase singularities with opposite topological charge (fig. 11 c)) and two pairs of defects associated with the quantity $`\psi _x`$ (fig. 11 d)). At the initial stage the zeros of the amplitude, which have opposite $`n_0`$ charge, attract each other; later, when the $`\psi _x`$ defects (which have the same charge $`m_0=1`$) get closer, this attraction is stopped and an equilibrium position is found . This paired structure is stable at least up to the time explored by numerical solutions.

In general, the detailed behavior of defects dynamics is governed both by local, phase curvature effects and by defect-defect interactions. The range of these interactions depends on the parameters of the system, which determine the spatial extent of the defect. For example if we make the detuning more negative (e.g. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_x=\mathrm{\Delta }_y=1`$ and $`a_x=a_y=1`$) two defects displaced parallel to the background wavefronts either annihilate, if close enough, or repel each other, if further away.

Figure 12 also shows a pair of defects (same parameter values as in Figure 11 but different initial displacement) undergoing motion; the background has a wave-vector of $`2k_c`$ and it is stable when the system is pumped far above threshold. When their separation is small enough, the defects briefly rotate around each other before continuing their transverse motion. As a consequence of this motion and the periodic boundary conditions, the defects collide and annihilate shortly afterwards (not shown).

Figure 13 shows another interesting example. Two defects approach each other while the background phase wave undergoes a zig-zag instability . When they meet they form a bound pair which follows the local curvature of the background phase fronts, changing direction as the slow phase dynamics alters this curvature. The bound defect pair is stable for the duration of the simulation (115000 cavity lifetimes). It also exists for lower pump powers, down to at least five percent above threshold. On the other hand, at slightly higher pump powers than that used in Figure 13, the structure destabilises: after a short time the defect pair rotates slightly before annihilating.

The previous examples show that long–lived defect interactions are important features of the dynamics of Type II OPO’s. This fact is in agreement with instances of long term survival of many defects generated by random initial conditions (e.g. Fig. 6) and is clearly different from vortex dynamics observed, for example, in complex Ginzburg-Landau models .

Close to threshold, it is possible to study the behavior of the Type II OPO dislocations by means of amplitude equations. These are derived in Appendix II where comparisons are made with simulations of the full model.

## IV Trapping of isolated dislocations

We know that periodic boundary conditions always require the total topological charge within the domain to be zero. In this section, we take into account that the pump amplitude $`E_0`$ actually has a spatial dependence and periodic boundary conditions are not applicable. If a spatial Gaussian or super-Gaussian distribution is used for the parametric gain factor $`\mu `$ (eq. (3)), the spontaneously generated defects often tend to move to the region where the field is zero. The trapping of single defects necessary for their experimental observation as single entities is then an interesting issue.

We tried, successfully, to isolate a single defect in a more realistic pump beam, by using, as an initial condition for one of the fields, a doughnut mode. This idea follows the experimental results of induced dislocation formation in quadratic nonlinear interactions . Note that no cavity was used in those experiments and the defect was maintained by forcing a doughnut mode in the field at the crystal input. Here the dislocation is ”written” at the beginning but, after that, no injection is required since the cavity provides the necessary feedback to sustain the structure. The resulting, stable trapped defect is shown in fig. 14. The spiral wave in the phase field spins when $`a_xa_y`$, otherwise it is stationary after the initial formation stage. Note that in order to trap the defect the beam size must be kept smaller than the wavelength of the most unstable TW $`\lambda _c=2\pi /k_c`$ otherwise more defects are induced or the initial defect is dragged outside the beam. The creation of other defects is due to the tendency of the system to generate pairs. If the system size is comparable with the critical wavelength, the paired defect will appear inside the pumping region and will destabilize the original defect. If the size is smaller the second defect will be generated outside the pumping region and therefore will not influence the dynamics of the trapped defect (fig 14 c)). The amplitude profiles of the fields of this single defect are shown in fig. 15.

This way of generating the defects is also useful for understanding the mechanism of their formation. The presence of a defect in one field, say $`A_x`$, induces a defect of opposite charge $`n_0`$ in the other because of the parametric coupling. In fact if $`A_x0`$ at $`t=0`$ the term which dominates the dynamics of $`A_y`$ in the initial regime is the largest linear one, i.e. $`\mu A_x^{}`$. Hence, $`A_y`$ is forced by the complex conjugate of $`A_x`$ and a defect of opposite charge is formed. Eventually the other terms of eqs. (1,2) become significant: the real part of the cubic term provides the saturation which stabilizes the solution and nonlinear phase modulations appear if mismatch is present, due to its imaginary part.

If we initialise a defect with topological charge $`n_0=\pm 2`$ using the technique described above, we observe that it breaks up into two defects of charge $`n_0=\pm 1`$.

Since the generation of such defects has been seeded externally, the question arises whether it is possible to obtain defects for positive detunings. In spite of the absence of stable traveling–wave solutions, single vortices can be trapped by using the same seeding technique.

We also observe that walk-off removes all structures from the pumping region and a single TW is selected asymptotically. However, it is interesting to note that in the transient regime dislocations are formed. They appear at the front which divides two regions where stripes with different wave-vector modulus are selected. The difference in the wave-vectors is due to the walk-off, as shown in ref. .

Finally, we estimate the threshold for the observation of this isolated dislocation in an OPO. Considering data for $`KTiOPO_4`$ : $`\chi =7.33pm/V,n_0=1.8`$ at $`\lambda _0=1.064\mu m`$, and by using the definition of the effective coupling paramater defined in Appendix I ($`\alpha `$) and considering a nonlinear crystal length of $`1cm`$, a mirror transmittivity $`10^2`$, the input field at threshold (E=1) can be evaluated as $`E_{IN,0}\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}10}^4V/m`$ that yields an intensity $`I=n_0/2(\mu _0/ϵ_0)^{1/2}|E_{IN,0}|^21MW/m^2`$ ($`\mu _0,ϵ_0`$ are respectively the vacuum magnetic permeability and electric permittivity constants). The super-Gaussian beam used in the simulation has a beam diameter of about 10 normalized units; a spatial normalized unit corresponds, for the diffraction coefficient of the simulation to about $`0.195mm`$; hence the CW threshold power is about $`0.95W`$. The physical cavity decay rates $`\gamma _{x,y}`$ are about $`0.17GHz`$ while the cavity detuning is $`34MHz`$. All these data are compatible with an experimental realization.

## V Mismatch effects

This section is dedicated to the study of the effects of mismatch ($`\mathrm{\Delta }k0`$) between the fields in the OPO. As previously noted, in real devices it is often possible that the selection rules of the oscillation frequencies force the OPO to emit radiation with a slight mismatch .

The effects of the mismatch, predicted by the analysis of section II, are the following: a) an increase in the threshold for signal generation (i.e. the instability, see eq. (3)); b) a spatial shift of the iso-polarisation lines for the exact TW solutions. The latter effect is due to the appearance of the phase shift $`\alpha 0`$ (see eq. (5)) between polarisation components; this stems from the imaginary parts of the coefficients $`\mu `$ and $`\sigma `$, the contribution of the latter being a nonlinear phase modulation due to the $`\chi ^{(2)}:\chi ^{(2)}`$ cascading effect .

For the case of the spontaneous generation of defects we have been able to determine that the phase shift $`\alpha `$ is non zero in the regions where the background solution dominates. The numerically found value is very close to the value predicted by eq. (7). However, approaching the zeros of the amplitude the phase difference also tends to zero although the phase of the fields is not strictly defined at the defects. In practice the zeros of the spatial function $`\alpha (x,y)`$ are located exactly at the positions of the field defects. This behavior can be explained as follows: close to the defects the cubic terms tend to zero; in particular the term proportional to the imaginary part of $`\sigma `$ (i.e. the Kerr-like phase modulation term) is the first that can be neglected. Although $`\mu =|\mu |exp(i\beta )`$ is complex, by an appropriate re-definition of the variables as $`\stackrel{~}{A_j}=A_jexp(i\beta /2)`$ $`j=1,2`$ we can obtain a set of equations for $`\stackrel{~}{A_j}`$ where the parametric gain is purely real ($`\mu ^{\prime \prime }=0`$). Thus, we reduce the problem to the case where no mismatch is present (see eq. (7)) and therefore $`\alpha 0`$.

The final number of spontaneously generated dislocations seems also to be affected by the phase mismatch. We note that this number decreases by changing the mismatch from negative to positive values, keeping all the other parameters fixed. In particular it seems that positive values of the mismatch encourage the annihilation of the pairs of dislocations. This has been verified by numerical integrations with the same parameters and initial conditions as fig. 11 but with non zero mismatch. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }k>0`$ we observed that the pair is annihilated, while for $`\mathrm{\Delta }k<0`$ the pair reaches a stable configuration. A possible cause of this asymmetry is the phase modulation $`\alpha `$ introduced by the mismatch, which changes sign according to the sign of the mismatch (see fig. 2).

The effect of phase mismatch on the trapped defect is to destabilise it, by generating asymmetries in the fields for both positive and negative values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }k`$.

## VI Conclusions

In conclusion we have studied the polarisation pattern and vectorial defect formation in a Type II frequency degenerate optical parametric oscillator.

We found that the preferred solutions, those that are selected out of an initial perturbation of the zero state, are conjugate traveling waves in the two components of the polarisation. A spatial polarisation pattern is then formed: the state of polarisation changes along the spatial coordinate parallel to the selected wave-vector $`𝐤_𝐜`$ with period equal to $`\lambda _c/2=\pi /k_c`$. In particular the state of polarisation changes along the meridian of the Poincare sphere which passes through the linearly polarized states of azimuth $`\theta =\pm \pi /4`$ if $`\mathrm{\Delta }k=0`$. The magnitude of the wave-vector of the selected solution is fixed by the parameters and has a single random orientation close to threshold and multiple random orientations far from threshold. Combinations of traveling waves, that form square patterns are also stable solutions and, close to the threshold of the instability, ordered arrays of defects can form spontaneously.

Such defects are isolated zeros of the two linear components of the polarisation, i.e. they are vectorial defects. They are dislocations which form in spatial positions where the background solutions (traveling waves) do not match spatially. Two different kinds of topological charge must be defined: one kind of charge is associated with the phase and two charges with the director angle of the field wave-vector. The first charge, located at the point where the amplitude goes to zero, can be $`\pm 1`$ and is always opposite in the two polarisation components. The charge associated with the wave-vector is always $`+1`$ at the point where the amplitude is zero and $`1`$ at the paired point, where the amplitude is not zero. The polarisation components are totally correlated; in fact all defects, both in the phase and wave-vector fields, have a corresponding defect in the other polarisation component. In this way the defects form chains in which the separation among defects seems to have a typical size, which is of the order of the background wavelength.

The trapping of an isolated defect has also been demonstrated. This is accomplished by keeping the size of the pump beam smaller than the critical wavelength of the preferred traveling wave such that a second defect cannot be created inside the pump beam but rather lies outside and does not influence the dynamics.

Finally, we have addressed the effects which may arise when the nonlinear interaction is slightly phase mismatched, i.e. the increase in the threshold of signal generation, and the linear and nonlinear phase shifts among the polarisations, the latter due to the cascading effect. Numerical results showed that a positive mismatch can favor the annihilation of dislocations.

Possible applications of defects can be foreseen in the field of particle and atom trapping .

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work is supported by the European Commission through the Project QSTRUCT (ERB FMRX-CT96-0077); Financial support is also acknowledged from EPSRC (UK)(Grants Nos. GR/M 19727 and GR/M 31880), SHEFC (UK) (Grant VIDEOS) and MCyT (Spain) (Project BMF2000-1108). G-LO acknowledges support from SGI.

## VII Appendix I

In this appendix we derive the dynamical equations for a cw Type-II OPO in the presence of diffraction. We start from the amplitude equations for the pump, signal and idler fields in the crystal

$`_zE_0+{\displaystyle \frac{n_0}{c}}_tE_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2k_0}}^2E_0{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \mathrm{\Omega }_0\chi }{n_0c}}E_xE_ye^{i\mathrm{\Delta }kz}`$ (21)
$`_zE_x+{\displaystyle \frac{n_x}{c}}_tE_x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2k_x}}^2E_x+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \mathrm{\Omega }_x\chi }{n_xc}}E_0E_y^{}e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }kz}`$ (22)
$`_zE_y+{\displaystyle \frac{n_y}{c}}_tE_y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2k_y}}^2E_y+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \mathrm{\Omega }_y\chi }{n_yc}}E_0E_x^{}e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }kz}.`$ (23)
where $`E_0,E_x,E_y`$ are the slowly varying amplitudes of pump, signal and idler respectively, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=\mathrm{\Omega }_x+\mathrm{\Omega }_y`$ is the frequency constraint on the OPO, $`k_i=n_i\mathrm{\Omega }_i/c`$ are the wave-numbers, $`\mathrm{\Delta }k=k_0k_xk_y`$ is the phase mismatch, $`\chi `$ is the second order susceptibility of the crystal, and $`c`$ is the speed of light. We treat here the perfectly matched case ($`\mathrm{\Delta }k=0`$) in order to focus on the form of the diffraction coefficients of the final equations. The phase matching condition implies that once the three frequencies and two refractive indices are given, then the third refractive index is determined. For example for $`n_0`$ we have

$`n_0={\displaystyle \frac{n_x\mathrm{\Omega }_x+n_y\mathrm{\Omega }_y}{\mathrm{\Omega }_x+\mathrm{\Omega }_y}}n_0={\displaystyle \frac{n_x+n_y}{2}}`$ (24)
where the second equation is valid at frequency degeneracy. It is also useful to introduce $`\mathrm{\Omega }_x=\mu \mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_y=\nu \mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ with $`\mu +\nu =1`$ and the effective coupling parameter $`\alpha =4\pi \mathrm{\Omega }_0\chi /(nc)`$ to obtain

$`_zE_0+{\displaystyle \frac{n_0}{c}}_tE_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2k_0}}^2E_0\alpha E_xE_y`$ (25)
$`_zE_x+{\displaystyle \frac{n_x}{c}}_tE_x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2k_x}}^2E_x+\mu \alpha E_0E_y^{}`$ (26)
$`_zE_y+{\displaystyle \frac{n_y}{c}}_tE_y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2k_y}}^2E_y+\nu \alpha E_0E_x^{}.`$ (27)
All these equations describing the fields in the crystal have a similar form of the kind

$`_zE_i+{\displaystyle \frac{n_i}{c}}_tE_i=id_i^2E_i+\beta _iNLT(E_j,E_m)`$ (28)
where $`NLT`$ stands for Non Linear Terms and the indices $`i,j,m`$ take the symbolic values $`0,x,y`$.

We consider a ring cavity of legth $``$ with a crystal length $`L`$ and apply longitudinal boundary conditions and the standard Mean Field Limit (MFL). We consider here the triply resonant case, the doubly-resonant case of non resonated pump being a subset of this general frame. We then obtain

$`_t^{}E_i+{\displaystyle \frac{cL}{+(n_i1)L}}_zF_i=\gamma _iF_ii\widehat{\delta }_iE_i+ia_i^2E_i+\gamma _iE_{IN,i}+\widehat{\beta }_iNLT(E_j,E_m)`$ (29)
where

$`t^{}`$ $`=`$ $`t+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{L}{c}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{z}{L}}`$ (30)
$`\gamma _i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c\sigma _i\epsilon }{+(n_i1)L}};\widehat{\delta }_i={\displaystyle \frac{c\delta _i}{+(n_i1)L}}={\displaystyle \frac{(\omega _i\mathrm{\Omega }_i)}{+(n_i1)L}};`$ (31)
$`a_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{2k_i[+(n_i1)L]}};\widehat{\beta }_i={\displaystyle \frac{c\beta _iL}{+(n_i1)L}}.`$ (32)
Note that the presence of birefringence introduces an explicit dependence on the refractive indices in the coefficients of the final equations. This is a consequence of the tight comb of resonances observed when the length of the cavity is scanned .

Finally, we introduce a linear transformation of the fields

$`A_0={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha L}{\epsilon }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \nu }{\sigma _x\sigma _y}}}F_0A_x={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha L}{\epsilon }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{\sigma _0\sigma _y}}}F_xA_y={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha L}{\epsilon }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\sigma _0\sigma _x}}}F_y,`$ (33)
and a final normalisation of the parameters

$`E(x,y)={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha L}{\epsilon }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \nu }{\sigma _x\sigma _y}}}E_{IN,0}\mathrm{\Delta }_i={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\delta }_i}{\gamma _i}}={\displaystyle \frac{\omega _i\mathrm{\Omega }_i}{\gamma _in_i}}.`$ (34)
The final equations read

$`_t^{}A_0`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _0[(1+i\mathrm{\Delta }_0)A_0+E(x,y)A_xA_y]+ia_0^2A_0`$ (35)
$`_t^{}A_x`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _x[(1+i\mathrm{\Delta }_x)A_x+A_0A_y^{}]+ia_x^2A_x`$ (36)
$`_t^{}A_y`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _y[(1+i\mathrm{\Delta }_y)A_y+A_0A_x^{}]+ia_y^2A_y`$ (37)
where

$`\gamma _i={\displaystyle \frac{c\sigma _i\epsilon }{+(n_i1)L}};a_i={\displaystyle \frac{c}{2k_i[+(n_i1)L]}}.`$ (38)
These equations clearly show that the loss and diffraction coefficients depend critically on the refractive indices even in the frequency degenerate case.

Since our analysis starts from stationary homogeneous solutions, the choice of the temporal reference frame is fixed by the condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }_x=\mathrm{\Delta }_y=\mathrm{\Delta }`$ which excludes phase rotations for the stationary homogeneous states . In this case the final equations are

$`_t^{}A_0`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _0[(1+i\mathrm{\Delta }_0)A_0+E(x,y)A_xA_y]+ia_0^2A_0`$ (39)
$`_t^{}A_x`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _x[(1+i\mathrm{\Delta })A_x+A_0A_y^{}]+ia_x^2A_x`$ (40)
$`_t^{}A_y`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _y[(1+i\mathrm{\Delta })A_y+A_0A_x^{}]+ia_y^2A_y.`$ (41)
We note that it is still possible to have equal loss and diffraction coefficients for the three waves if we consider cavities of different lengths $`_i`$ for each field. This can be achieved by inserting compensating prisms of chosen length $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ and refractive indices $`N_i`$. In this case the equations are the same as (39) but with redefined loss and diffraction coefficients

$`\gamma _i={\displaystyle \frac{c\sigma _i\epsilon }{_i+(n_i1)L+(N_i1)\mathrm{\Lambda }_i}};a_i={\displaystyle \frac{c}{2k_i[_i+(n_i1)L+(N_i1)\mathrm{\Lambda }_i]}}.`$ (42)
By adjusting losses $`\sigma _i`$ and compensating prism coefficients, one can select equal $`\gamma _i`$. In this way the compensating prism parameters can be left free to adjust the diffraction coefficients $`a_i`$. In particular, we want $`a_x=a_y`$ at degeneracy which means

$`n_x[_x+(n_x1)L+(N_x1)\mathrm{\Lambda }_x]=n_y[_y+(n_y1)L+(N_y1)\mathrm{\Lambda }_y]`$ (43)
which leaves a lot of flexibility for the final setting.

Finally, we observe that in the absence of a cavity for the pump field there are just two equations for the signal and idler waves remaining. By setting $`A_0=EA_xA_y`$ in equations (39), we obtain equations (1,2) for the oppositely polarized fields $`A_x`$ and $`A_y`$ in a doubly-resonant configuration.

## VIII Appendix II

In this Appendix we perform a weakly nonlinear analysis in the region $`k_c1`$ and close to threshold in order to determine the appropriate amplitude-equation description for the instability. Related derivations have been presented in . For simplicity, consider the case

$`\gamma _x`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _y=\gamma `$ (44)
$`a_x`$ $`=`$ $`a_y=a`$ (45)
With the benefit of some a posteriori knowledge, we rewrite the field equations in terms of the variables $`F_1=A_x+A_y^{}`$ and $`F_2=A_xA_y^{}`$:

$`_tF_1`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma \left[(E1)F_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_1^{}\left(F_1^2F_2^2\right)\right]+i\left(a^2\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }\right)F_2`$ (46)
$`_tF_2`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma \left[(E+1)F_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_2^{}\left(F_1^2F_2^2\right)\right]+i\left(a^2\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }\right)F_1.`$ (47)
We define a smallness parameter $`ϵ`$ and perform appropriate scalings and expansions:

$$E=1+ϵ^2P,T=ϵ^2t,X=\sqrt{ϵ}x,Y=\sqrt{ϵ}y,\mathrm{\Delta }=ϵ\delta ,F_i=ϵF_{i1}+ϵ^2F_{i2}+\mathrm{}$$
(48)
We can then proceed order by order in $`ϵ`$ in a straightforward manner. At third order we have

$`_tF_1`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma \left[(E1)F_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}|F_1|^2F_1\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a}{\gamma }}^2\mathrm{\Delta }\right)^2F_1`$ (49)
$`F_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a}{\gamma }}^2\mathrm{\Delta }\right)F_1`$ (50)
The important point is that there is a single order parameter ($`F_1`$) governed by a Swift-Hohenberg equation (SHE)  and a second field ($`F_2`$) which is slaved to $`F_1`$. In other words, the dynamics of the system is described by a single complex scalar field. Note that it is only when $`A_x=A_y^{}`$ that the order parameter becomes real . An extra imaginary transverse Laplacian term appears in (52) when $`a_xa_y`$.

Despite the assumptions underlying its derivation (Equations (48)), the SHE can sometimes offer a good description of the system even outside its expected range of validity. For example when integrating eq. (49) with the same parameter values as in Figure 11, the final state is essentially the same stable defect pair. Nonetheless, notable failures of the SHE can be found; for example in reproducing the movement of the bound defect pair in Figure 13. This indicates that the original dynamics is not well reproduced when the assumptions leading to (48,49) are violated, and serves as a warning about the limitations of order parameter equations such as (49).

FIGURE CAPTIONS:

Fig. 1: The solid (dashed) curve is the real (imaginary) part of $`\mu `$ and the dashed-dotted (dotted) curve the real (imaginary) part of $`\sigma `$ as functions of the mismatch ($`E_0=1.5`$).

Fig. 2: The solid (dashed) curve is the traveling wave solution intensity $`C`$ (phase difference $`\alpha `$) as a function of the mismatch, as given by eqs. (6,7) for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=0`$.

Fig. 3: The change of the state of polarisation of the solution (5) ($`𝐤_𝐜=(k_c,0),C=0.8,\alpha =0,\varphi _0=0`$) is shown at the spatial points of coordinates $`x=n\pi /8,n=\mathrm{0..7}`$ (left to right and top to bottom).

Fig. 4: The amplitude ($`|A_x|`$) of the alternating roll solution (15) at $`t=500`$ time units ($`a=0.8,\mathrm{\Delta }=0.8,E_0=1.5`$, the integrating window size was $`X_L=Y_L=62.8`$ units).

Fig. 5: Ordered arrays of dislocations obtained close to threshold ($`E_0=1.05`$): a) $`|A_x|`$; b) $`Re(A_x)`$; c) $`Im(A_x)`$. The other parameters were $`a_x=2,a_y=2.05,\gamma _x=1,\gamma _y=1.025,\mathrm{\Delta }=0.8,X_L=Y_L=80,t=4000`$.

Fig. 6: Amplitude and phase of the polarisation components of the field well above threshold ($`E_0=1.5,a=1,\mathrm{\Delta }=0.25,X_L=Y_L=80,t=2000`$). a) $`|A_x|`$; b) $`|A_y|`$: c) $`tan^1[Im(A_x)/Re(A_x)]`$; d) $`tan^1[Im(A_y)/Re(A_y)]`$. Note that the defects are always in pairs and that signs of the charge $`n_0`$ are opposite in the two components.

Fig. 7: Dislocation of a complex field: a) $`Re(A)`$; b) $`\varphi `$; c) $`\psi `$; where $`A,\varphi `$ are defined by eq. (16) and $`\psi `$ by eq. (18) ($`k=1,R(0)=0,R(\mathrm{})=1`$).

Fig. 8: The amplitude of the far field (Fourier transform) of $`A_x`$ for the same data of fig. 6. The average modulus of the wavenumber of the modes in the ring is about 0.47 and the predicted value is $`k_c=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }/a}=0.5`$.

Fig. 9: Functions a) $`\psi _x`$ and b) $`\psi _y`$ for the data of fig. 6. Contour plots, with a contour level close to zero, of $`|A_x|,|A_y|`$ have been superimposed to locate the positions of the amplitude zeros.

Fig. 10: Distribution (bars) of the final number of defects for different random initial conditions ($`a=1,\mathrm{\Delta }=0.4,E_0=1.5,X_L=Y_L=50`$). The Gaussian fit average and variance are those obtained form the data.

Fig. 11: Pair of dislocations obtained by integrating (1,2) with a single dislocation (16) as an initial condition for $`A_x`$ and a random initial condition for $`A_y`$: a) $`|A_x|`$; b) $`Re(A_x)`$; c) $`\varphi _x`$; d) $`\psi _x`$. The integration parameters were: $`a=2,\mathrm{\Delta }=0.2,E_0=1.5,X_L=Y_L=100,t=2000`$

Fig. 12: Interaction of two vortices (labelled $`1`$ and $`2`$) for $`\gamma _x=\gamma _y=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.2`$ and $`a_x=a_y=2`$, $`X_L=Y_L=16\pi /k_c`$. The images show $`|A_1|`$ at intervals of $`50`$ cavity lifetimes.

Fig. 13: A bound defect pair for $`\gamma _x=\gamma _y=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$ and $`a_x=a_y=1`$, $`X_L=Y_L=32\pi /k_c`$. Figures (a), (c), (e) and (g) show the real part of $`A_x`$ at t=5500, 11000, 36000 and 54000 cavity lifetimes respectively. The figures in the rightmost column show $`|A_x|`$ at the corresponding times. The arrows indicate the direction of transverse motion of the defects.

Fig. 14: Isolated defect: a) $`|A_x|`$; b) $`\varphi _x`$; c) $`\psi _x`$. The initial condition for $`A_x`$ was a doughnut mode of the form $`A_x(x,y)=0.01(x+iy)exp((x^2+y^2)/200)`$ while $`A_y`$ was random. The parameters of the integration were: $`a=2,\mathrm{\Delta }=0.2,E_0=1.5,X_L=Y_L=60,t=2000`$.

Fig. 15: Amplitude profile of the isolated defect of fig. 14: $`|A_x|`$ solid curve, $`|A_y|`$ dashed curve.


format: text

text:
# On the Gabai-Eliashberg-Thurston Theorem

## 1. Straddling

The following proposition will be used repeatedly throughout the paper.

###### Proposition 1.1.

Let $`(M,\xi )`$ be a tight contact 3-manifold with convex boundary, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ a component of $`M`$, and $`\gamma ,\gamma ^{}`$ a pair of parallel disjoint curves in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Suppose there is a bypass $`_\alpha M`$ attached along an arc $`\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ that starts on $`\gamma ^{}`$, crosses $`\gamma `$, and then ends on a third curve in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Sigma }(\gamma \gamma ^{})`$. Let $`\beta `$ be a Legendrian arc in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ that starts on $`\gamma `$, crosses $`\gamma ^{}`$, ends on a point of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Sigma }(\gamma \gamma ^{})`$, and does not intersect $`\alpha `$ or any other points of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Then attaching a bypass $`_\beta `$ to $`M`$ along $`\beta `$ produces a manifold contact isomorphic to the manifold obtained by removing a convex neighborhood of $`_\alpha `$.

###### Proof.

Let $`B\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a regular neighborhood of the union of $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, and the annulus in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ bounded by $`\gamma `$ and $`\gamma ^{}`$ — we assume $`B`$ is convex with Legendrian boundary. Let $`V`$ be a small neighborhood of the union of $`B`$, $`_\alpha `$, and $`_\beta `$. See Figure 1. Topologically, $`V`$ is the product of an annulus and an interval, i.e., a solid torus. After the necessary edge-rounding, we see that the dividing set of $`V`$ has two components, each of which intersects a compressing disk in a single point. There is a unique tight contact structure on $`V`$ with this boundary condition, as can be seen by splitting $`V`$ along the compressing disk and appealing to Eliashberg’s uniqueness theorem on a ball . It remains to verify that the contact structure on $`V`$ is indeed tight — for this we simply remark that an explicit model can be found inside the unique (product) tight contact structure on $`V`$. Since the contact structure on $`V`$ is a product, it follows that adding a bypass along $`\beta `$ is equivalent to removing a bypass along $`\alpha `$. ∎

Let $`(M,\xi )`$ be a tight contact 3-manifold with convex boundary and let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a connected component of $`M`$ of genus $`g`$ which satisfies the extremal condition $`e(\xi ),\mathrm{\Sigma }=(2g2)`$. It follows that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}`$ has zero Euler characteristic and is a disjoint union of annuli $`A_i`$, for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Denote $`A_i=\gamma _i^0\gamma _i^1`$, and call $`\gamma _i^0`$ and $`\gamma _i^1`$ a parallel pair of dividing curves.

We say a dividing curve $`\gamma _i^j`$ is straddled if there is a bypass in $`M`$ with an attaching arc $`\alpha _i^j`$ which starts on $`\gamma _i^{1j}`$, crosses $`\gamma _i^j`$, and ends on (i) a point of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Sigma }(\gamma _i^0\gamma _i^1)`$ or on (ii) $`\gamma _i^0`$ or $`\gamma _i^1`$, but only after first going around a nontrivial loop on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ which is not parallel to $`\gamma _i^j`$. Our bypasses may be degenerate, i.e., the two endpoints of the arc of attachment are allowed to coincide. The attaching arcs of these bypasses are called straddling arcs.

A closed convex surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of genus $`g>1`$ which is a connected component of $`M`$ admits a full marking if the following hold:

1. $`\xi `$ is extremal along $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and satisfies $`e(\xi ),\mathrm{\Sigma }=(2g2)`$.
2. The components of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}`$ are pairwise nonparallel annuli.
3. There is a collection $`S=\{\alpha _i\}`$ of straddling arcs (called a straddling set) and a corresponding collection of bypasses $`𝔹=\{_{\alpha _i}\}`$ in $`M`$ such that:

1. at least one curve in each parallel pair of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is straddled by a bypass in $`𝔹`$,
    2. every curve in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is straddled by at most one bypass in $`𝔹`$,
    3. if $`ij`$, then either $`_{\alpha _i}`$ and $`_{\alpha _j}`$ are disjoint or intersect only at the endpoints of their corresponding arcs of attachment, and
    4. $`S`$ is an essential family, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_+(_{i=1}^n\alpha _i)`$ has no disk components. (Equivalently, a thickening of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}(_{i=1}^n\alpha _i)`$ is an incompressible subsurface of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.)

###### Proposition 1.2.

Let $`(M,\xi )`$ be a tight contact manifold with convex boundary, and let $`(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{\xi })`$ be a finite cover. If $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a boundary component of $`(M,\xi )`$ which admits a full marking, then the preimage $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ admits a full marking in $`(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{\xi })`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`S`$ be the straddling set for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`𝔹`$ the corresponding set of bypasses. Their preimages $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝔹}`$ satisfy all of the axioms necessary for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ to admit a full marking, except that there may be several arcs in $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ which straddle the same dividing curve of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$. Removing extra components of $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ decreases the Euler characteristics of the complementary regions. Thus no disk components are produced, and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ is fully straddled. ∎

###### Proposition 1.3.

Let $`(M,\xi )`$ be a tight contact manifold with convex boundary, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ a boundary component of $`M`$ which admits a full marking, and $`S`$ a corresponding straddling set. Let $`\alpha `$ be an arc of $`S`$ which straddles the dividing curve $`\gamma `$. Suppose there exists an arc $`\alpha ^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ such that:

1. $`S\{\alpha ^{}\}`$ is an embedded, essential family of arcs, and
2. $`\alpha ^{}`$ starts on $`\gamma `$, crosses the dividing curve $`\gamma ^{}`$ parallel to $`\gamma `$, and ends on a point of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Sigma }(\gamma \gamma ^{})`$, while intersecting no other points of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

Then the manifold $`(M^{},\xi ^{})`$, obtained by attaching a bypass along $`\alpha ^{}`$ to $`(M,\xi )`$, also admits a full marking along the boundary component $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. If $`(M,\xi )`$ is universally tight, then so is $`(M^{},\xi ^{})`$.

###### Proof.

Attaching a bypass along $`\alpha ^{}`$ decreases the number of dividing curves on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ by two. The new collection of straddling arcs $`S^{}`$ is defined to be $`S\{\alpha \}`$. To see that $`S^{}`$ is an essential family of arcs, it is necessary to relate the complementary region $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_+^{}(_{\beta S^{}}\beta )`$ to the corresponding complementary region $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_+(_{\beta S}\beta )`$. Performing the bypass along $`\alpha ^{}`$ is equivalent to the following two steps:

* First cut $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ along a subarc of $`\alpha ^{}`$. This creates no disks since $`S\{\alpha ^{}\}`$ is an essential family.
* Next attach a band between two disjoint intervals on the boundary of the modified $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. This can only decrease the Euler characteristic of the complementary regions.

Finally, deleting $`\alpha `$ from $`S`$ decreases the Euler characteristic of the complementary regions, and hence $`S^{}`$ is an essential family. The universal tightness of $`(M^{},\xi ^{})`$ follows directly from Proposition 1.1. ∎

###### Proposition 1.4.

Let $`M`$ be a closed hyperbolic manifold, $`\xi `$ a universally tight contact structure on $`M`$, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ an incompressible, closed, convex surface in $`M`$ which satisfies the extremal condition. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ be a boundary component of $`M\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ which admits a full marking. If $`\gamma `$ and $`\gamma ^{}`$ form a parallel pair of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0}`$ and $`\gamma `$ is straddled, then $`\gamma ^{}`$ is unstraddled, i.e., there is no bypass in $`(M\mathrm{\Sigma },\xi )`$ straddling $`\gamma ^{}`$.

###### Proof.

We argue by contradiction. Let $`S`$ be the straddling set for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$, $`𝔹`$ be the corresponding set of bypasses, and $`\alpha `$ be the arc in $`S`$ which straddles $`\gamma `$. Suppose there exists a straddling arc $`\beta `$ for $`\gamma ^{}`$. We claim there exists a finite cover $`\pi :(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{\xi })(M,\xi )`$ in which components $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ of preimages of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ straddle a parallel pair of dividing curves $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{}`$, and are disjoint. To prove the claim we use the following theorem of Allman-Hamilton .

###### Theorem 1.5 (Abelian subgroup separability).

Let $`M`$ be a hyperbolic 3-manifold. Then abelian subgroups $`H`$ of $`\pi _1(M,)`$ are separable, i.e., for any $`g\pi _1(M,)H`$ there exists a finite index subgroup $`KH`$ which does not contain $`g`$.

Let $`\sigma `$ be the core of the annulus $`A`$ bounded by $`\gamma `$ and $`\gamma ^{}`$. If $`\alpha `$ intersects only two dividing curves, let $`\overline{\alpha }`$ be a closed loop formed by the union of $`\alpha `$ and a subarc of $`\sigma `$. From the definition of a straddling arc, $`\overline{\alpha }`$ is not in the subgroup $`\sigma `$ generated by $`\sigma `$. According to Theorem 1.5, after passing to a finite cover, we may assume that $`\alpha `$ intersects 3 distinct dividing curves. Similarly, we may assume that $`\beta `$ intersects 3 distinct dividing curves. Next, by applying Theorem 1.5 to the trivial subgroup $`H=\{e\}`$ (or by using residual finiteness), there exists a finite cover $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ which does not contain $`\sigma ^k`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ be a component of the preimage of $`\alpha `$ which intersects a component $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ of the preimage of $`A`$ in an arc. If $`k`$ is large enough, there is a component $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ of the preimage of $`\beta `$ which straddles the other boundary component of $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ and is disjoint from $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$. This proves the claim.

Now, Proposition 1.1 shows that attaching a bypass along $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ from the exterior of $`\stackrel{~}{M}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ produces a contact structure isomorphic to the one obtained by digging out the bypass in $`\stackrel{~}{M}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ attached along $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$, and, in particular, this new contact structure must be universally tight. On the other hand, $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ is assumed to be the attaching arc for a bypass in $`\stackrel{~}{M}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$, and it follows that attaching a bypass along $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ to the outside of $`\stackrel{~}{M}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ produces an overtwisted disk. This is a contradiction. ∎

If $`\xi `$ is a universally tight contact structure and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a component of $`M`$ which admits a full marking, then let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(S)`$ be the union of the dividing curves of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ which are straddled by the (full) straddling set $`S`$. In view of Proposition 1.4, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(S)`$ is an invariant of $`\xi `$.

We now consider the case where $`M=\mathrm{\Sigma }\times [0,1]`$ has convex boundary which consists of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i=\mathrm{\Sigma }\times \{i\}`$, $`i=0,1`$, and where each $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_i}`$ is just a single pair of parallel dividing curves. We proved the following classification theorem in .

###### Theorem 1.6.

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a closed oriented surface of genus $`g2`$ and $`M=\mathrm{\Sigma }\times [0,1]`$. Suppose that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_i}`$, $`i=0,1`$, is a pair $`\gamma _i\gamma _i^{}`$ of parallel nonseparating curves which cobound an annulus $`A_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ and that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_1}`$. Choose a characteristic foliation $``$ on $`M`$ which is adapted to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_1}`$. Then there exist, up to isotopy rel boundary, exactly 4 tight contact structures which satisfy the boundary condition $``$, and all of them are universally tight. Moreover:

1. For each of the 4 tight contact structures, both $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ are fully straddled, and the 4 cases exactly correspond to the 4 possible choices of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(S)`$, consisting of pairs of straddled curves, one from each $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_i}`$.
2. Let $`\delta _i`$ be a closed Legendrian curve on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ which has geometric intersection $`|\delta _i\gamma _i|=1`$. Then there exists a (degenerate) bypass in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times I`$ along $`\delta _i`$ which straddles the straddled curve of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_i}`$.

Remark. The focus of this paper is on surfaces of genus greater than one. However, the definitions of straddled, unstraddled, and full marking make sense on a torus with only slight modification to allow for the necessity of more than two parallel dividing curves. The statements and proofs above apply to tori, with one exception: the uniqueness statement for universally tight contact structures on $`T^2\times I`$ with a given full marking. The classification theorem in this setting requires an additional nonnegative integer invariant called the torsion (see , , ).

## 2. Gluing along surfaces which admit full markings

The atoroidal hypothesis in the following Gluing Theorem allows us to assume $`M`$ is hyperbolic and apply Proposition 1.4. A substantially similar argument can be made without the atoroidal hypothesis by using results of Long-Niblo  instead of Allman-Hamilton .

###### Theorem 2.1 (Gluing Theorem).

Let $`(M,\xi )`$ be an atoroidal contact manifold which is extremal along a closed, convex, incompressible surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^1`$ be the boundary components of $`M\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Suppose that, for each $`i=0,1`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^i`$ admits a full marking in $`M\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with a straddling set $`S^i`$, and the dividing curves of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^i`$ are straddled if and only if they are unstraddled in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{1i}`$. Suppose further that $`S^0S^1`$ is an embedded, essential family of arcs in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Then $`(M,\xi )`$ is universally tight if and only if $`(M\mathrm{\Sigma },\xi |_{M\mathrm{\Sigma }})`$ is universally tight.

###### Proof.

The proof that $`(M,\xi )`$ is tight also applies to finite covers of $`(M,\xi )`$, in light of Proposition 1.2. Atoroidal Haken 3-manifolds are hyperbolic, and hence have residually finite fundamental groups. Therefore, any overtwisted disk that exists in the universal cover also exists in some finite cover, and the proof below will also imply that $`(M,\xi )`$ is universally tight.

The general strategy for proving tightness is explained in detail in  and , so we will only provide a brief summary. Arguing by contradiction, we assume $`(M,\xi )`$ contains an overtwisted disk $`D`$. There exists a sequence $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_0,\mathrm{\Sigma }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ of isotopic surfaces, where each step is a single bypass attachment and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ is disjoint from $`D`$. Since we can extricate $`D`$ from (isotopic copies of) $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in stages, if we show that each $`\xi |_{M\mathrm{\Sigma }_i}`$ is tight, this implies the tightness of $`\xi |_M`$. Now, for universal tightness, we pass to a large finite cover $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ of $`M`$ and extricate some lift $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ of $`D`$ from the preimage $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Lifting to a cover has the following advantages:

1. A bypass which is $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-increasing can be made trivial by using the residual finiteness of $`M`$.
2. A bypass whose attaching arc intersects only two distinct curves but is not trivial or $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-increasing can be made to intersect three distinct curves by Theorem 1.5.

Therefore, by lifting as necessary so that each bypass satisfies Conditions 1 and 2 above, we have a sequence

$$(\stackrel{~}{M}_0=M,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_0=\mathrm{\Sigma },\stackrel{~}{\xi }_0=\xi ),(\stackrel{~}{M}_1,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_1,\stackrel{~}{\xi }_1),\mathrm{},(\stackrel{~}{M}_n,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_n,\stackrel{~}{\xi }_n),$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_i\stackrel{~}{M}_i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{i+1}`$ is a finite cover of $`\stackrel{~}{M}_i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_i`$ is the pullback of $`\xi `$ to $`\stackrel{~}{M}_i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{i+1}`$ is obtained from the preimage of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_i`$ by attaching a bypass along an arc which straddles three distinct curves, and a lift $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ of $`D`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{M}_n`$ is disjoint from $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_n`$. If we can show that $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_i|_{\stackrel{~}{M}_i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_i}`$ is universally tight for all $`i`$, we are done. This involves making sure that at each step the contact structure admits a full marking and satisfies the conditions of the theorem — therefore we need to exercise extra care when choosing the covers.

Consider the attachment of the first bypass. We start with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`M`$, and take a finite cover which satisfies Conditions 1 and 2. (To simplify notation, we will still write $`M`$ for the finite cover of $`M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ for the preimage of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.) Then the bypass $`_\alpha `$ has an attaching arc $`\alpha `$ which intersects three distinct dividing curves of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Denote the copies of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in $`M\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^i`$, $`i=0,1`$, and let $`S^i`$ be the straddling set for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^i`$. By Proposition 1.2, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ admits a full marking on both sides (i.e., on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ and on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^1`$), and it is clear that the union $`S^0S^1`$ is still an embedded essential family of arcs. After passing to a larger finite cover and removing duplicate stradding arcs which straddle the same dividing curve as in Proposition 1.2:

1. The arc of attachment of a bypass can be made disjoint from the straddling sets $`S^i`$, $`i=0,1`$, by using residual finiteness as in the proof of Proposition 1.4.

Suppose we dig out $`_\alpha `$ from the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ side and reattach $`_\alpha `$ along $`\alpha `$ to the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^1`$ side. This gives us $`M\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ is a surface parallel to and disjoint from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. By Proposition 1.4, the curve $`\gamma `$ straddled by $`\alpha `$ must be in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(S^0)`$ . Since $`\gamma `$ is straddled by an element $`\beta _0`$ of $`S^0`$ if and only if $`\gamma `$ is unstraddled by an element of $`S^1`$, it follows that the parallel curve $`\gamma ^{}`$ is straddled by an arc $`\beta _1S^1`$.

It is clear that digging $`_\alpha `$ preserves universal tightness. Since $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta _1`$ are disjoint (by Condition 3), Proposition 1.1 tells us that, on $`M\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, digging $`_\alpha `$ out is equivalent to attaching a bypass $`_{\beta _1}^{}`$ along $`\beta _1`$ onto the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ side, i.e., $`M(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha )`$ is contactomorphic to $`M^{}=\overline{(M\mathrm{\Sigma })N(_{\beta _1}^{})}`$, where $`N(F)`$ is a small neighborhood of $`F`$. We will write $`M^{}=(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^1`$. By Proposition 1.3, since $`S^0\{\beta _1\}`$ is essential, $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})^0M^{}`$ admits a full marking obtained by dropping $`\beta _0`$ from $`S^0`$. On the other hand, by Proposition 1.1 again, attaching a bypass $`_\alpha ^{}`$ to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^1M^{}`$ along $`\alpha `$ is equivalent to digging a bypass $`_{\beta _1}`$ along $`\beta _1`$. In other words, $`M^{}N(_\alpha ^{})`$ is contactomorphic to $`M^{}_{\beta _1}`$ and also to $`M\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. Therefore, $`\xi |_{M\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}`$ is universally tight and admits full markings $`S^0\{\beta _0\}`$ on the $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})^0`$ side and $`S^1\{\beta _1\}`$ on the $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})^1`$ side (by applying Proposition 1.3 again). The union of the two straddling sets is an embedded essential family of arcs.

We can now inductively construct $`(\stackrel{~}{M}_i,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_i,\stackrel{~}{\xi }_i)`$ that admit full markings on both sides which satisfy the conditions of the theorem, by choosing finite covers where Conditions 1, 2, and 3 are met. This ensures universal tightness of each step and finishes the proof. ∎

## 3. The Gabai-Eliashberg-Thurston Theorem

###### Proof of Theorem 0.1.

According to Gabai , there is a well-groomed sutured manifold decomposition of $`M`$,

$$M\stackrel{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}(M_1,\gamma _1)\stackrel{S_1}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{S_{n1}}{}(M_n,\gamma _n)=(B^3,S^1\times I),$$

where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a nonseparating surface. Since $`M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are closed, $`\gamma _1=\mathrm{}`$. For $`i1`$, $`S_i`$ may be chosen to have nonempty boundary (see , Theorem 1.3 for a statement of this version of Gabai’s theorem). It follows that for $`i2`$, $`(M_i,\gamma _i)`$ has annular sutures, that is, all sutures are annuli and every component of $`M_i`$ contains at least one suture.

By the results of , the sutured manifold decomposition

$$(M_2,\gamma _2)\stackrel{S_2}{}(M_3,\gamma _3)\stackrel{S_3}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{S_{n1}}{}(M_n,\gamma _n)=(B^3,S^1\times I),$$

gives rise to a convex decomposition

$$(M_2,\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)\stackrel{(S_2^{},\sigma _2)}{}(M_3,\mathrm{\Gamma }_3)\stackrel{(S_3^{},\sigma _3)}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{(S_{n1}^{},\sigma _{n1})}{}(M_n,\mathrm{\Gamma }_n)=(B^3,S^1),$$

and then (and this requires that each of the $`(M_i,\mathrm{\Gamma }_i)`$ above have annular sutures) $`(M_2,\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)`$ carries a universally tight contact structure by Theorem 6.1 of . Note that the proof of Theorem 6.1 in  uses the perturbation of a taut foliation into a universally tight contact structure; we give a foliation-theory-free proof of the same fact in .

Gabai’s construction gives $`(M_1,\gamma _1=\mathrm{})\stackrel{S_1}{}(M_2,\gamma _2)`$, so to apply Theorem 6.1 of , it is necessary to produce a convex structure $`(M_1,\mathrm{\Gamma }_1)`$ with annular sutures (in particular, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{}`$) and a splitting surface $`(S_1^{},\sigma _1)`$ such that $`(M_1,\mathrm{\Gamma }_1)\stackrel{(S_1^{},\sigma _1)}{}(M_2,\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^1`$ be the components of $`M_1`$ corresponding to the original splitting surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Since $`S_1`$ is well-groomed, the components of $`S_1\mathrm{\Sigma }^i`$, $`i=0,1`$, are parallel oriented nonseparating curves in the isotopy class $`s_i`$. Let $`A_i`$ be an annular neighborhood of a curve dual to $`s_i`$, and denote $`A_i=\delta _i\delta _i^{}`$. Define $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=\delta _0\delta _0^{}\delta _1\delta _1^{}`$. The convex structure $`(M_1,\mathrm{\Gamma }_1)`$ is defined by decreeing that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^iA_i(\mathrm{\Sigma }^i)_+`$ and $`A_i(\mathrm{\Sigma }^i)_{}`$ if and only if the orientation induced from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }A`$ agrees with the outward pointing normal orientation on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^iA_i`$.

Now, $`(S_1^{},\sigma _1)`$ is defined so that $`S_1^{}=S_1`$ and $`\sigma _1`$ is the unique dividing set which is $``$-parallel and gives rise to $`(M_2,\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)`$ after the splitting. The bypasses corresponding to the $``$-parallel dividing curves straddle curves of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$. Due to the well-grooming of $`S_1`$, there is a unique choice of straddled curve for each pair $`\delta _i\delta _i^{}`$. It now follows that there is a universally tight contact structure on $`(M_1,\mathrm{\Gamma }_1)`$ and that $`M_1`$ admits a full marking with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(S)=\delta _0\delta _1`$, for example.

Next consider $`M=M_1(\mathrm{\Sigma }\times [0,1])`$, where we identify $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^i`$ with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times \{i\}`$, $`i=0,1`$. By Theorem 1.6, there is a (unique) universally tight contact structure on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times I`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(\mathrm{\Sigma }\times I)}=\delta _0\delta _0^{}\delta _1\delta _1^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(S)=\delta _0^{}\delta _1^{}`$. We apply Theorem 2.1 twice to obtain a universally tight contact structure on $`M`$, as follows. First consider the gluing of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times \{0\}`$. Denote the straddling set for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ by $`S^0`$ and the straddling set for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times \{0\}`$ by $`S^1`$. Then $`S^0`$ consists of one closed curve isotopic to $`s_0`$ (note that the corresponding bypass is degenerate). Choose $`S^1`$ so that it consists of one closed curve dual to $`\delta _0`$ and $`S^0S^1`$ is an embedded, essential family on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0=\mathrm{\Sigma }\times \{0\}`$. This is easily arranged since the genus of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ is $`2`$. Finally, by (2) of Theorem 1.6, there exists a (degenerate) bypass in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times I`$ along the unique closed curve in $`S^1`$ which straddles $`\delta _0^{}`$. Now we can apply Theorem 2.1. The second gluing is identical. ∎


text:
# Extension of quantum information theory to curved spacetimes

## I Introduction

Quantum information theory has many faces and uses variety of techniques. Among them two concepts are of outstanding importance, as can be seen from the standard monographs \[1-6\]. The first concept is a generalization of the elementary representation of measurements by projection valued measures, associated with self-adjoint operators (this description is variously labeled as von Neumann measurement, standard measurement, or PVM). The most general description of a measurement is given by positive operator valued measures (POVM, or generalized measurement). Next, state transformations are given in terms of completely positive maps (superoperators), which include the measurement induced transformation. An extension of this formalism to curved spaces is the subject of this paper.

While many quantum information experiments are performed with photons, most discussions are restricted to non-relativistic quantum mechanics in general, and finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces in particular chu:b . Undoubtedly this is sufficient for conventional quantum information processing. Nevertheless, there is nothing in the mathematical structure of the theory that prevents its application to objects that are described by quantum field theories in flat or curved spaces. Both concepts (generalized measurements and state transformations) could and should be applied in this context. One of the initial stimuli to the investigations that led to quantum information theory was quantum optics d:b . Moreover, C\* and W\* algebras are employed both in studies of information dynamics d:b ; ing  and in field theories ha:b ; ar ; wa:q .

Several aspects of the POVM formalism in relativistic quantum theory were recently discussed. It was applied to construct unsharp position observables for field theories in Minkowski space time ali ; bu , that were investigated also from the algebraic point of view gia . Causality properties of general state transformations and measurements were also investigated, pe:00 ; pr:01 ; pr:02 .

In this paper we show that the POVM formalism and general state transformations can be successfully applied to quantum field theories in general curved spacetimes, even in the case when different Hilbert space representations of canonical commutation or anticommutation relations are unitarily inequivalent. First we present some essential facts about generalized measurements and state transformations. Next, we review how algebraic field theory deals with the extraction of unambiguous physical predictions from unitarily inequivalent representations. Finally we use this result to extend the basic notions of quantum information theory in general globally hyperbolic spacetime.

## II Basics of quantum information

We begin from the standard mathematical formalism of a measurement d:b ; ho:b ; bu:b . A PVM description of quantum measurements, which is only a particular case of generalized measurements in quantum information theory, is still used in the monographs on quantum field theory ha:b ; ar . An observable is represented by a self-adjoint operator $`A`$ on a Hilbert space $``$. Its expectation value on a state $`\rho `$ is given by $`\mathrm{tr}\rho A`$. The spectral theorem rs:1  gives a correspondence between self-adjoint operators and projection valued measures (PVM):

$$A=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}xP(dx),$$
(1)
where $`P()`$ is a PVM. The probability that a measurement of $`A`$ on the state $`\rho `$ will give a result in (the Borel) set $`X`$ is

$$p_\rho ^A(X)=\mathrm{tr}[\rho P(X)].$$
(2)
This description is adequate for the prediction of energy levels, scattering cross sections and many other physical properties. On the other hand, joint measurements of conjugate observables, time-of-arrival measurements, position measurements in relativistic theory and other detection problems in information theory require more general formalism.

The existence of self-adjoint operators is not an essential part of the formalism. What is really needed is a method to construct a probability measure. Thus a generalized description of measurement by a normalized positive operator valued measure (POVM) is defined as follows. If $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a (locally compact) set with a $`\sigma `$-algebra $``$ then a POVM is a map $`E:^+()`$ (a map from the set of possible results to the set of positive bounded operators on the Hilbert space) such that

$$E(X)E(\mathrm{})=0,$$
(3)
for all $`X`$. For a countable collection of disjoint sets in $``$, we have

$$E\left(\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}X_n\right)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}E(X_n),$$
(4)
and

$$E(\mathrm{\Omega })=I,$$
(5)
while the probability is calculated according to

$$p_\rho ^E(X)=\mathrm{tr}[\rho E(X)].$$
(6)
Therefore POVMs are extensively involved in information problems in finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces pe:b ; chu:b . In relativistic quantum theory they are indispensable for the construction of reasonable position observables ali . Leaving aside the issue of actual hardware realization of a given POVM we consider the following important result (Neumark’s theorem).

Let $`E`$ be a POVM on a Borel $`\sigma `$-algebra of a compact metrisable space $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`E(X)()`$. Then, there is a PVM $`P()`$ on a Hilbert space $`𝒦`$ such that if $`P`$ is the projection of $`𝒦`$ onto $``$, then $`E(X)`$ is the restriction of $`PP(E)P`$ to $``$ for all Borel sets $`X\mathrm{\Omega }`$. For a separable $``$ the space $`𝒦`$ can be taken separable.

Kraus’s ‘second representation theorem’ is based on this result krau ; bu:b ; chu:b . It guarantees that any POVM can be realized by adjoining auxiliary system and performing unitary transformations and standard von Neumann measurements.

The most general state transformation $`T(\rho )`$ is a normal completely positive linear map. It can be represented by a (non-unique) set of bounded operators via the ‘first representation theorem’ d:b ; krau ,

$$T[\rho ]=\underset{nN}{}A_n^{}\rho A_n,$$
(7)
where the indexing set $`N`$ may be taken countable if $``$ is separable. The operators $`A_n`$ satisfy $`A_n^{}A_n1`$, with the equality holding when the operation that is represented by $`T`$ is non-selective (i.e., accomplished with certainty).

The only strong mathematical requirement in both representation theorems is a demand for Hilbert space to be separable. This requirement may appear problematical, since there is a persistent belief that quantum field theory necessarily implies non-separable Hilbert spaces. It is not so: this misconception was dismissed on general grounds a long time ago pct . Fock spaces built from one-particle spaces of free field theories are separable. Actual Hilbert spaces in various important curved spacetime models, such as Hawking radiation or Unruh effect, are indeed separable wa:q ; ha:75 ; un .

Transformations that are described by Eq. (7) form a semigroup. A Lindblad equation l  governs the time evolution of the states (or in dual picture, of the observables). Typically in the relativistic theory $`\rho `$ is the input and $`T[\rho ]`$— the output scattering state. Usually $`T`$ is given by the $`S`$-matrix, which is unitary (either rigorously or formally). Hawking has introduced a non-unitary superscattering operator that maps density matrices describing the initial situation to density matrices describing the final situation for the process of black hole formation and evaporation ha:s . Such a step has been considered controversial in the conventional framework, but it is quite natural in quantum information theory.

## III A result in algebraic field theory

It is well-known that different representations of canonical commutation relations (CCR) or canonical anticommutation relations (CAR) in field theories lead to unitarily inequivalent representations ha:b ; wa:q ; fu . In the case of Minkowski spacetime existence of preferred vacuum state enables to define a unique Hilbert space representation. A similar construction is possible in stationary curved spacetimes wa:q ; fu . However, in a general globally hyperbolic spacetime this is impossible and one is faced with multiple inequivalent representations. The simplest example is the Unruh effect, where the operators of Bogolybov transformation are unitary only formally un ; un:w . The algebraic approach to the field theory makes it possible to overcome this difficulty.

Algebraic quantum field theory is presented in the books of Haag ha:b  and Araki ar , and mathematical exposition of its results is given in the monograph of Baumgärtel and Wellenberg ne . It can be naturally applied to quantum field theory in curved spacetime ha:b ; wa:q ; wa:91 . We mention here only some simple facts. A basic structure of the theory is an algebra of local operators (i.e. ones confined to some open regions of spacetime), that actually are suitably smeared field operators. States are normalized positive linear functionals on the algebra. A representation of an algebra is obtained using suitably defined inner product via the so-called GNS (Gelfand, Neumark, Segal) construction. After having an one-particle space (in the case of free field theories), a Fock space is constructed in the usual way. Canonical commutation relations lead to unbounded operators, so to be able to utilize the machinery of C\*-algebras it is customary to consider the unitary Weyl algebra that is constructed by formal exponentiation of the CCR algebra.

Since not all the observables are included in this algebra, the set of states defined by being positive linear functionals of unit norm is too large. The most obvious (and painful) example is the expectation value of the quantum energy-momentum tensor: a renormalization procedures actually lead to a restriction to ‘physical’ states wa:q ; fu . This restriction can be given a rigorous mathematical meaning wa:q ; wa:91 .

The algebraic approach to field theory leads to the conclusion that physical predictions of the theory are independent of the choice of a representation (in the case of a PVM description of measurements) ha:b ; wa:q . This proof is built in several steps that will be now outlined. Our claim that both POVM and general state transformation formalism are independent of representation will be based on it.

First, it should be noted that any measurement can actually be performed only with a finite accuracy, a finite number of outcomes, and a finite number of times. Suppose that we measure the value $`q`$ of the observable $`Q`$ and among $`N`$ runs a value $`q_j`$ is obtained $`n_j`$ times. A relative frequency $`w_j=n_j/N`$ is used to extract a probability estimate or it is taken at face value and interpreted as the estimate. Thus the information about a state $`\rho `$ can be formulated as ar ; pe:t

$$|p_\rho ^Q(q_j)w_j|<ϵ_j,$$
(8)
for some positive $`ϵ_j`$. These inequalities induce a natural topology on the state space, which is called a ‘physical topology’ ar . Mathematically, they define a weak-\* topology on the state space and weak topology on the set of observables ha:b ; ar ; rs:1 .

The second important fact is that CAR C\*-algebra and the Weyl C\*-algebra that represents CCR are simple si , i.e. do not contain maximal non-trivial ideals. Therefore, their representations are faithful (i.e. have zero kernel). In this case a theorem of Fell fe  says that every positive functional on the algebra that is associated with one of its representations is a weak-\* limit of finite sums of positive functionals associated with any other representation.

Therefore, one arrives to the conclusion that the determination of a finite number of expectation values of the elements of $`𝒜`$, each made with finite accuracy, cannot distinguish between different representations ha:b ; ar ; wa:q . Following Wald wa:q  suppose that $`(_1,\pi _1)`$ and $`(_2,\pi _2)`$ are unitarily inequivalent representations of $`𝒜`$. Let $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_n𝒜`$ and let $`ϵ_1,\mathrm{}ϵ_n>0`$. Let $`\omega _1`$ be an algebraic state corresponding to a density matrix on $`_1`$. Then there exists a state $`\omega _2`$ corresponding to a density matrix on $`_2`$ such that

$$|\omega _1(A_i)\omega _2(A_i)|<ϵ_i,i.$$
(9)
If the algebra under consideration is a von Neumann algebra, it includes all the projections associated with its self-adjoint operators ne  and the desired conclusion easily follows. If the algebra is considered to be only a C\*-algebra, the process is more elaborated but still leads to the same conclusion wa:q .

## IV Extension of the formalism

However, what about using a POVM? The problem of (an approximate) localization of particles requires it. When there is a preferred representation of the algebra, or several unitarily equivalent representations, the generalization is straightforward. What happens when there is no unitary equivalence? Fortunately, since a position POVM is constructed from suitably smeared field operators and related projections, the discussion in the previous section is sufficient. They can be approximated arbitrarily close by polynomial functions of algebra elements, and thus belong either to an algebra (von Neumann case) or to its weak closure. In any case, the choice of the representation remains irrelevant.

In particular, in the case of Unruh effect both inertial and accelerated observer would agree on the localization of the detected particle in the phase space, i.e., its unsharp position and momenta. A simpler example of such an agreement is a position detection un ; un:w . The corresponding states are thermal ($`kT=a/2\pi `$) for accelerated observer and Minkowski vacuum. The probability calculations (from first order perturbation theory) can be cast into POVM form. The POVM consists of two operators,

$$E_1=\alpha a^{}(\chi )a(\chi ),E_2=1E_1$$
(10)
where $`\chi `$ is a detector mode function and $`\alpha `$ is the probability of detection un:w . An application of the formal unitary operator by $`UE_iU^{}`$, suitably truncated wa:q ; un:w , gives its Minkowskian counterpart.

Considering POVMs in general, a question arises whether we can give to all the operators on a particular Hilbert space an invariant meaning. It turns out that this is always possible.

We start from some representation $`(,\pi )`$ of the algebra $`𝒜`$. We adjoin to it the set of all POVM $`E(X)`$ operators, and consider the smallest algebra that contains the union of $`\pi (𝒜)`$ and the set of all POVMs. It is easy to see that this algebra is again simple. It is a representation of some simple abstract algebra $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}`$, with $`𝒜`$ being a proper subalgebra. Then $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}𝒜`$ itself is described by the action of algebraic states on its elements. We just invert final steps in the GNS construction of the representation space ha:b ; ar ; wa:91 . For any POVM operator $`E`$ on $``$ that cannot be expressed as a function of elements of $`\pi (𝒜)`$ we define the action of the state $`\omega _\alpha `$ by

$$\omega (\pi ^1(E)):=\mathrm{tr}(\rho _\omega E),$$
(11)
where $`\rho _\omega `$ is a density matrix on $``$ that corresponds to the algebraic state $`\omega `$ via GNS construction. Thus we arrive to the minimal algebra that contains the canonical relations of the theory and all possible observables in it. From this point the derivation leading to Eq. (9) is straightforward.

Incidentally, we get an argument in favor of considering an initial CCR/CAR algebra $`𝒜`$ as a von Neumann algebra. The reason is that in our POVM analysis we had to expand this initial algebra. By doing so we have adjoined also all the projections operators that correspond to self-adjoint operators of $`𝒜`$ (a PVM is a particular case of POVM).

Now we are able to turn to the question of state transformation. We show that to any transformation of density matrices on a Hilbert space we can define an algebraic state transformation. Since the converse of the statement is obvious, we establish a correspondence between such transformations on different representation spaces. We define an algebraic transformation $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ via its dual action on the elements of $`𝒜`$, following a usual practice in Banach spaces krau ; rs:1  :

$$\mathrm{\Phi }[\omega ](A):=\omega (\mathrm{\Phi }^{}[A]),A𝒜.$$
(12)
When there is a single Hilbert space a definition of the adjoint map $`T^{}`$ is given by krau

$$\mathrm{tr}(\rho T^{}[B]):=\mathrm{tr}(T[\rho ]B),$$
(13)
where $`B()`$. To reconstruct $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ from its representation $`\pi (\mathrm{\Phi })=T`$ on the representation space $``$ we limit ourselves to $`B\pi (\stackrel{~}{A})`$. We set

$$\omega (\mathrm{\Phi }^{}[A]):=\mathrm{tr}(\rho _\omega T^{}[\pi (A)]).$$
(14)
To ensure that a continuity of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ follows from the continuity of $`T`$ we have to take $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}`$ to be a von Neumann algebra ne . It is straightforward to check that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ has all the properties required from a valid state transformation (of course, whether this transformation is compatible with the requirements of causality is a different question pe:00 ; pr:01 ).

## V Summary

We showed that the basic structures of quantum information theory can be applied to field theory in curved spacetimes. It gives us a potentially powerful tool for the analysis of the relations of information, entropy and black holes. In particular, discussion of the information loss paradox, superscattering operator, etc., gets a different perspective.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Discussions with Asher Peres and his help in the preparation of the manuscript are gratefully acknowledged. This work is supported by a grant from the Technion Graduate School.