text:
# Untitled Document

hep-th/0205266 KUCP0210

D5-brane in Anti-de Sitter Space and Penrose Limit

Shigenori Seki seki@phys.h.kyoto-u.ac.jp; The author will change the affiliation to Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Kobe University, Kobe 657-8501, Japan on July 2002.

Department of Fundamental Sciences, FIHS

Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan

abstract

We consider the Penrose limit of the solution of D5-brane given in the Anti-de Sitter space and analyse the shape of the D5-brane in the pp-wave background. We find that the D5-brane leads to the branes and the throats connecting the branes. The branes spread on $`𝐑^4`$ with periodic values of the light-cone time $`x^+`$ and the throats lie along $`x^+`$. We also give some comments on holography.

May 2002

1. Introduction

In the last several years, a lot of works have been done on the AdS/CFT correspondence \[1,,2\], by which supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories are associated with string theories in Anti-de Sitter spaces. When there are $`N`$ coincident D3-branes, we obtain an Anti-de Sitter space $`AdS_5`$ at the near-horizon limit.

Recently the string theory on a pp-wave background has been studied. The pp-wave background is known as one of maximally supersymmetric geometries. The Type IIB string theory on this background can be exactly solved by the Green-Schwarz formalism in light-cone gauge \[36\]. On the other hand, it has been pointed out that any space-time has a plane wave as a limit . This limit is called the Penrose limit. Taking the Penrose limit for $`AdS_5\times S^5`$, we obtain the pp-wave geometry. It has been found that the spectra of the string theory on the pp-wave background correspond to the operators of $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory \[8,,9\]. A lot of related works have been done on orbifolds , D-branes , holography \[1215\] and so on .

In the AdS/CFT correspondence the baryon vertex in the world-volume theory on the $`N`$ coincident D3-branes is constructed by the D5-brane wrapped on $`S^5`$ . The D5-brane surrounds the D3-branes and $`N`$ open strings connect these D-branes. This configuration is analysed in terms of the Born-Infeld action of D5-brane \[18,,19\]. The solution of the D5-brane has a spike sticking out toward the D3-branes and the tension of spike is equal to that of $`N`$ fundamental open strings. The direction of the spike can be identified with the holographic direction. On the other hand, the holography in the pp-wave background has been studied in \[1215\], but it has not been clear yet. Though the dual gauge theory of the string theory in pp-wave background has been found, we do not know where the dual theory lives, in other words, we do not have D-brane configurations as in the AdS/CFT correspondence. In this paper we consider the Penrose limit of the solution of D5-brane given in the Anti-de Sitter space by the use of reasonable coordinate systems. We then analyse the shape of the D5-brane in the pp-wave background.

In Section 2 we introduce two types of coordinates of $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ and confirm that the metrics written by such coordinates lead to the pp-wave metrics by the Penrose limit. In Section 3 the solution of D5-brane in $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ is reviewed. We then calculate the Penrose limit of the solution and study the location of the D5-brane in the pp-wave background. We find the branes connected by throats with each other. Section 4 is devoted to conclusions and some comments on the holography.

2. Anti-de Sitter space and Penrose limit

The metric with $`N`$ coincident D3-branes has been known and it becomes $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ at the near-horizon limit. In the AdS/CFT correspondence we have often used the metric,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill ds^2& =\left(\frac{u}{R}\right)^2\left(dt^2+\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}dx_i^2\right)+\left(\frac{R}{u}\right)^2du^2+R^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2,\hfill & (2.1)\hfill \\ & R^4=4\pi g_sNl_s^4,\hfill & (2.2)\hfill \end{array}$$

for $`AdS_5\times S^5`$. $`g_s`$ is a string coupling and $`l_s`$ is a string length. But for the convenience of later analyses we rescale the coordinates and describe the metric as

$$ds^2=R^2\left[l^2\left(dt^2+\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}dx_i^2\right)+\frac{1}{l^2}dl^2\right]+R^2\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta d\psi ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_3^2\right).$$

In this coordinate system it is easy to find the descriptions of D-branes but it is hard to consider the Penrose limit. In order to make ready for taking the limit, we change the coordinates as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill t& =\frac{\mathrm{cosh}\rho \mathrm{sin}\tau }{\mathrm{cosh}\rho \mathrm{cos}\tau n_4\mathrm{sinh}\rho },\hfill & (2.3)\hfill \\ \hfill x_i& =\frac{n_i\mathrm{sinh}\rho }{\mathrm{cosh}\rho \mathrm{cos}\tau n_4\mathrm{sinh}\rho },(i=1,2,3)\hfill & (2.4)\hfill \\ \hfill l& =\mathrm{cosh}\rho \mathrm{cos}\tau n_4\mathrm{sinh}\rho ,\hfill & (2.5)\hfill \\ & n_1^2+n_2^2+n_3^2+n_4^2=1.\hfill & \end{array}$$

Substituting (2.3), (2.4) and (2.5) into (2.3), we obtain the metric

$$ds^2=R^2(d\rho ^2\mathrm{cosh}^2\rho d\tau ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\rho d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2)+R^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta d\psi ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_3^2).$$

Now let us consider the Penrose limit. We reparametrize the coordinates as

$$\rho =\frac{r}{R},\tau =x^++\frac{x^{}}{R^2},\theta =\frac{y}{R},\psi =x^+\frac{x^{}}{R^2},$$

and take $`R\mathrm{}`$. The metric (2.6) then becomes

$$ds^2=4dx^+dx^{}(r^2+y^2)(dx^+)^2+dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2+dy^2+y^2d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_3^2.$$

$`(r,\mathrm{\Omega }_3)`$ and $`(y,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_3)`$ describe $`𝐑^4\times 𝐑^4`$. One of the two $`𝐑^4`$’s comes from $`AdS_5`$ and the other comes from $`S^5`$, but we can not distinguish between them at the Penrose limit. The radial coordinate of $`AdS_5`$, which is associated with the holographic direction in the AdS/CFT correspondence, leads to $`r`$. But $`r`$ and $`y`$ play same roles in the Penrose limit . So it is difficult to find the holographic direction in the limit. We will give some comments on this problem in the final section.

On the other hand, the metric (2.6) can be identified with the pp-wave metric which includes Ramond-Ramond flux,

$$F_{+1234}=F_{+5678}=1,$$

where the suffices 1234 and 5678 denote the first and the second $`𝐑^4`$ respectively.

3. Penrose limit of D5-brane

Firstly we consider the D5-brane in $`AdS_5\times S^5`$. In order to find a baryon vertex , we set the D5-brane to wrap $`S^5`$. The action of D5-brane is represented by Born-Infeld action and Chern-Simons action. The static solution of the action has been shown in \[18,,19\]. Let $`(\xi _\alpha )`$ be coordinates on the world-volume of D5-brane. The action of D5-brane is described as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill S& =S_{BI}+S_{CS},\hfill & (3.1)\hfill \\ & S_{BI}=T_5𝑑\xi ^6\sqrt{det(g+)},\hfill & (3.2)\hfill \\ & S_{CS}=T_5AC^{(5)},\hfill & (3.3)\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`T_5`$ is the tension of D5-brane. $`g`$ is an induced metric, that is, $`g^{\alpha \beta }=G^{ij}\frac{X_i}{\xi _\alpha }\frac{X_j}{\xi _\beta }`$, where $`G^{ij}`$ is a space-time metric. $`(=_\alpha A_\beta _\beta A_\alpha )`$ is a gauge field strength on the D5-brane and $`C^{(5)}`$ is a five-form RR field strength. We suppose that the D5-brane is embedded in $`(t,\theta ,\mathrm{\Omega }_4)`$ directions of the metric (2.3). We also set only $`l`$ and the gauge field $`A_t`$ to depend on $`\theta `$ . $`l`$ is one of the coordinates denoting the location of D5-brane. The action (3.1) is written down as

$$S=T_5V_4𝑑t𝑑\theta R^4\mathrm{sin}^4\theta \left[\sqrt{R^4(l^2+l^2)(_\theta A_t)^2}+4A_t\right],$$

where $`V_4`$ is the volume of unit four-sphere and  denotes the derivative by $`\theta `$. By the Legendre transformation and partial integral of the above action, we obtain the energy of D5-brane \[18\],

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill E& =T_5V_4𝑑\theta R^6\sqrt{l^2+l^2}\sqrt{f(\theta )^2+\mathrm{sin}^8\theta },\hfill & (3.4)\hfill \\ & f(\theta )\left[\frac{3}{2}(\nu \pi \theta )+\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta +\mathrm{sin}^3\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta \right],\hfill & (3.5)\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\nu `$ is an integral constant and satisfies $`0\nu 1`$. From $`(3.4)`$, we obtain the equation of motion for $`l`$,

$$\frac{d}{d\theta }\left[\frac{l^{}}{\sqrt{l^2+l^2}}\sqrt{f(\theta )^2+\mathrm{sin}^8\theta }\right]=\frac{l}{\sqrt{l^2+l^2}}\sqrt{f(\theta )^2+\mathrm{sin}^8\theta }.$$

On the other hand, the BPS condition of the D5-brane has been discovered by  and is denoted by

$$\frac{l^{}}{l}=\frac{\mathrm{sin}^5\theta +f(\theta )\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{sin}^4\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta f(\theta )\mathrm{sin}\theta }.$$

Note that (3.6) is independent of $`R`$ because $`f(\theta )`$ does not include $`R`$. We can confirm that the solutions of the BPS condition satisfy the equation of motion (3.6). Since (3.6) is a first order differential equation, it is, in other words, the first integral of (3.6). Though (3.6) seems to be too difficult to be solved, (3.6) has been solved \[18,,19\] and the solution is

$$l=\frac{c}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }\left[\frac{\theta \pi \nu \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta }{\pi (1\nu )}\right]^{\frac{1}{3}},$$

where $`c`$ is any constant. We should note that (3.6) and (3.6) have scale invariance for $`l`$, so we can introduce any scale parameter $`c`$.

Now let us consider the Penrose limits of the coordinates $`l,t,x_i`$ in (2.3) and make it clear the correspondences between the coordinates in (2.3) and in (2.6). Substituting (2.6) into (2.3), (2.4) and (2.5), we obtain

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill t& =\frac{\mathrm{cosh}\frac{r}{R}\mathrm{sin}\left(x^++\frac{x^{}}{R^2}\right)}{\mathrm{cosh}\frac{r}{R}\mathrm{cos}\left(x^++\frac{x^{}}{R^2}\right)n_4\mathrm{sinh}\frac{r}{R}},\hfill \\ \hfill x_i& =\frac{n_i\mathrm{sinh}\frac{r}{R}}{\mathrm{cosh}\frac{r}{R}\mathrm{cos}\left(x^++\frac{x^{}}{R^2}\right)n_4\mathrm{sinh}\frac{r}{R}},\hfill \\ \hfill l& =\mathrm{cosh}\frac{r}{R}\mathrm{cos}\left(x^++\frac{x^{}}{R^2}\right)n_4\mathrm{sinh}\frac{r}{R}.\hfill \end{array}$$

We can then calculate the limit $`R\mathrm{}`$ as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill t& \mathrm{tan}x^+,\hfill & (3.6)\hfill \\ \hfill x_i& 0,\hfill & (3.7)\hfill \\ \hfill l& \mathrm{cos}x^+.\hfill & (3.8)\hfill \end{array}$$

In $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ the D3-branes, on which the dual gauge theory exists, spread on the $`(t,x_i)`$ directions. (3.7) implies that the space directions of the D3-branes shrink to zero size, while from (3.6) we can read that the time direction of the D3-brane is included in the light-cone time $`x^+`$. So the location of D3-brane in the pp-wave background is not clear.

We consider the Penrose limit of the right hand side of (3.6). Substituting $`\theta =\frac{y}{R}`$ into (3.6), we obtain

$$l(y)=\frac{c}{\mathrm{sin}\frac{y}{R}}\left[\frac{\frac{y}{R}\pi \nu \mathrm{sin}\frac{y}{R}\mathrm{cos}\frac{y}{R}}{\pi (1\nu )}\right]^{\frac{1}{3}}.$$

When we take the limit $`R\mathrm{}`$, the two cases which are $`\nu =0`$ and $`\nu 0`$ give us different results. Firstly we suppose that $`\nu `$ is equal to zero. If $`c`$ is independent of $`R`$, the right hand side of (3.9) then converges on

$$c\left(\frac{2}{3\pi }\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}.$$

We set that $`c`$ has a scale of $`R^m`$. If $`m`$ is negative, (3.9) goes to zero for that limit, while, if $`m`$ is positive, then (3.9) diverges. Note that the limit of (3.9) should take a value from $`1`$ to $`1`$ on account of (3.8). So the solutions of D5-brane with the scale $`R^m`$ $`(m>0)`$ are not visible in the pp-wave background. For $`m=0`$, that is, $`c`$ is independent of $`R`$, we should take $`|c|\left(\frac{3\pi }{2}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}`$. As a result the solutions of D5-brane in $`x^+`$-$`y`$ plane are

$$x^+=\pm \mathrm{constant}+2k\pi ,k𝐙.$$

Next we suppose that $`\nu 0`$. (3.9) converges on a non-trivial function by $`R\mathrm{}`$ only if $`c=\frac{a}{R}`$, where $`a`$ is a constant independent of $`R`$. We then obtain

$$l(y)\frac{a}{y}\left(\frac{\nu }{\nu 1}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}.$$

Note that if $`c`$ has the scale of $`R^m`$ with $`m<1`$, $`l(y)`$ shrinks to zero, and that if $`m>1`$, $`l(y)`$ goes away to infinity. Let us analyse the case $`c=\frac{a}{R}`$ in detail. From (3.8) and (3.9), the solution of D5-brane at the Penrose limit is described as

$$\mathrm{cos}x^+=\frac{a}{y}\left(\frac{\nu }{\nu 1}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}.$$

(3.9) is still naive. Since $`y`$ is a radial direction, $`y`$ should be positive. This condition can be satisfied by changing the sign of $`a`$. Finally we obtain

$$y=\left(\frac{\nu }{1\nu }\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}\left|\frac{a}{\mathrm{cos}x^+}\right|.$$

We should remember that $`\nu `$ is the integral constant satisfying $`0\nu 1`$. Since $`y|\mathrm{cos}x^+|=|a|\left(\frac{\nu }{1\nu }\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}`$ from (3.9), at the limit $`\nu 0`$ we obtain $`y=0`$ or $`\mathrm{cos}x^+=0`$. These solutions can be rewritten by

$$y=0,x^+=\frac{\pi }{2}+k\pi (k𝐙).$$

On the other hand, let us take the limit $`\nu 1`$. From the equation $`\frac{1}{y|\mathrm{cos}x^+|}=\frac{1}{a}\left(\frac{1\nu }{\nu }\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}`$, we obtain $`y=\mathrm{}`$ because $`1\mathrm{cos}x^+1`$.

fig. 1 The Penrose limit of the D5-brane

(a) The D5-branes with three values of $`\nu `$ are described on $`y`$-$`\mathrm{cos}x^+`$ plane and they approach the axes when $`\nu `$ becomes smaller. (b) The D5-branes are depicted on $`y`$-$`x^+`$ plane.

The shape of the D5-brane is represented in fig. 1. When $`\nu `$ goes to zero, the D5-brane approaches the axes in fig. 1 (a). The solution of D5-brane has periodicity for $`x^+`$ with period $`\pi `$. From fig. 1 (b) we can see that the D5-brane has throats at $`y=0`$. When $`\nu `$ goes to zero, the throats are sharpened. Since the D5-brane was wrapped on the three-sphere $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_3`$ in $`AdS_5\times S^5`$, it is also wrapped on the three-sphere $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_3`$ in the pp-wave background. So at $`x^+=\frac{\pi }{2}+k\pi `$ $`(k𝐙)`$ we obtain the branes spreading on $`𝐑^4`$ whose metric is given by $`dy^2+y^2d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_3^2`$ in (2.6).

fig. 2 Throats and branes as the Penrose limit of the D5-brane.

In fig. 2 the branes lying on $`𝐑^4`$’s at $`x^+=\pm \frac{\pi }{2}`$ are depicted. The throat connects these two branes.

In the Anti-de Sitter space $`\psi `$ is periodic with period $`2\pi `$. Since $`x^+`$ is denoted by $`\frac{\tau +\psi }{2}`$, $`x^+`$ has $`\pi `$ periodicity. That is the reason why we have found that the D-branes appear at the periodic values of $`x^+`$ with period $`\pi `$ in the pp-wave background.

4. Conclusions and comments

We have introduced mainly two types of the metrics for $`AdS_5\times S^5`$. One is (2.3), by which we can easily analyse the AdS/CFT correspondence. The solution of D5-brane in $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ has been known \[18,,19\]. The other is (2.6), which is convenient for us to consider the Penrose limit. But in this metric it is difficult to find the solution of D5-brane. We have shown the relations between the two metrics and obtained the pp-wave metric from the Penrose limit of (2.3). Using this limit, we have analysed branes in the pp-wave background. In $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ the D5-brane has a spike sticking out along the radial direction of $`AdS_5`$, while in the pp-wave metric we have found throats around $`y=0`$ and they lie along the light-cone time direction $`x^+`$. At $`x^+=\frac{\pi }{2}+k\pi `$ $`(k𝐙)`$ the brane spreads on the $`y`$ direction and also wraps $`S^3`$ whose metric is $`y^2d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_3^2`$ in (2.6). So we can say that the brane lies on $`𝐑^4`$. This $`𝐑^4`$ is derived from a part of $`S^5`$ in $`AdS_5\times S^5`$. In the pp-wave metric there is the other $`𝐑^4`$ coming from a part of $`AdS_5`$. Since there is no difference between these two $`𝐑^4`$’s, we would be able to find the brane wrapped on the latter $`𝐑^4`$.

In the Penrose limit we have obtained the solution of D5-brane with $`\pi `$ periodicity for $`x^+`$ direction. It is better that the light-cone time $`x^+`$ is defined without a periodicity. In order to find non-periodic solutions of the branes, we should adopt other choice of coordinate transformations .

Though some proposals on the holography in the pp-wave background have been done, we have not clearly known where the holographic direction exists yet. In  it is shown that the spikes sticking out from D-branes can be identified with open strings. Let us remember fig. 2. The D5-brane in the Anti-de Sitter space leads to the branes wrapping $`𝐑^4`$’s with the fixed values of $`x^+`$ and the throats connecting the branes. The throats are sharpened as $`\nu `$ goes to zero. We can regard the throats as open strings and they are ending on the D3-branes lying on $`𝐑^4`$. So we may be able to suggest that the holographic direction is $`x^+`$, which is transverse to the D3-branes. But the correspondences between the gauge theory and the string theory in the pp-wave background may be essentially different from the AdS/CFT correspondence. In order to make clear the holography in the pp-wave background, we need to consider the Born-Infeld action directly in the pp-wave metric and to find the solutions of D-branes.

Acknowledgement

I am grateful to K. Sugiyama for useful discussions.

References

relax J. M. Maldacena, “The Large N Limit of Superconformal Field Theories and Supergravity”, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 231; Int. J. Theor. Phys. 38 (1999) 1113, hep-th/9711200. relax E. Witten, “Anti De Sitter Space and Holography”, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 253, hep-th/9802150. relax R. R. Metsaev, “Type IIB Green-Schwarz Superstring in Plane Wave Ramond-Ramond Background”, Nucl. Phys. B625 (2002) 70, hep-th/0112044. relax R. R. Metsaev and A. A. Tseytlin, “Exactly Solvable Model of Superstring in Plane Wave Ramond-Ramond Background”, hep-th/0202109. relax M. Blau, J. Figueroa-O’Farrill, C. Hull and G. Papadopoulos, “A New Maximally Supersymmetric Background of IIB Superstring Theory”, JHEP 0201 (2002) 047, hep-th/0110242; “Penrose Limits and Maximal Supersymmetry”, Class. Quant. Grav. 19 (2002) L87, hep-th/0201081. relax M. Blau, J. Figueroa-O’Farrill and G. Papadopoulos, “Penrose Limits, Supergravity and Brane Dynamics”, hep-th/0202111. relax R. Penrose, “Any space-time has a plane wave as a limit”, Differential geometry and relativity, Reidel, Dordrecht (1976) pp. 271-275. relax D. Berenstein, J. Maldacena and H. Nastase, “Strings in Flat Space and PP Waves from $`𝒩=4`$ Super Yang Mills”, JHEP 0204 (2002) 013, hep-th/0202021. relax D. Berenstein, E. Gava, J. Maldacena, K. S. Narain and H. Nastase, “Open Strings on Plane Waves and their Yang-Mills Duals”, hep-th/0203249. relax N. Itzhaki, I. R. Klebanov and S. Mukhi, “PP Wave Limit and Enhanced Supersymmetry in Gauge Theories”, JHEP 0203 (2002) 048, hep-th/0202153; J. Gomis and H. Ooguri, “Penrose Limit of N=1 Gauge Theories”, hep-th/0202157; M. Alishahiha and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, “The PP-wave Limits of Orbifolded $`AdS_5\times S^5`$”, hep-th/0203018; “Strings in PP-waves and Worldsheet Deconstruction”, hep-th/0204174; T. Takayanagi and S. Terashima, “Strings on Orbifolded PP-waves”, hep-th/0203093; N. Kim, A. Pankiewicz, S.-J. Rey and S. Theisen, “Superstring on PP-wave Orbifold from Large-N Quiver Gauge Theory”, hep-th/0203080; E. Floratos and A. Kehagias, “Penrose Limits of Orbifolds and Orientifolds”, hep-th/0203134; K. Oh and R. Tatar, “Orbifolds, Penrose Limits and Supersymmetry Enhancement”, hep-th/0205067; Y. Hikida and Y. Sugawara, “Superstrings on PP-wave Backgrounds and Symmetric Orbifolds”, hep-th/0205200. relax A. Dabholkar and S. Parvizi, “Dp Branes in PP-wave Background”, hep-th/0203231; A. Kumar, R. R. Nayak and Sanjay, “D-Brane Solutions in PP-wave Background”, hep-th/0204025; D. Bak, “Supersymmetric Branes in PP Wave Background”, hep-th/0204033; K. Skenderis and M. Taylor, “Branes in AdS and PP-wave Spacetimes”, hep-th/0204054; M. Alishahiha and A. Kumar, “D-Brane Solutions from New Isometries of PP-waves”, hep-th/0205134. relax S. R. Das, C. Gomez and S.-J. Rey, “Penrose Limit, Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking and Holography in PP-wave Background”, hep-th/0203164. relax E. Kiritsis and B. Pioline, “Strings in Homogeneous Gravitational Waves and Null Holography”, hep-th/0204004. relax R. G. Leigh, K. Okuyama and M. Rozali, “PP-waves and Holography”, hep-th/0204026. relax D. Berenstein and H. Nastase, “On Lightcone String Field Theory from Super Yang-Mills and Holography”, hep-th/0205048. relax J. G. Russo and A. A. Tseytlin, “On Solvable Models of Type IIB Superstring in NS-NS and R-R Plane Wave Backgrounds”, JHEP 0204 (2002) 021, hep-th/0202179; M. Hatsuda, K. Kamimura and M. Sakaguchi, “From Super-$`AdS_5\times S^5`$ Algebra to Super-pp-wave Algebra”, hep-th/0202190; “Super-PP-wave Algebra from Super-$`AdS\times S`$ Algebras in Eleven-dimensions”, hep-th/0204002; M. Billo’ and I. Pesando, “Boundary States for GS Superstrings in an Hpp Wave Background”, hep-th/0203028; M. Cvetic, H. Lu and C. N. Pope “Penrose Limits, PP-waves and Deformed M2-branes”, hep-th/0203082; “M-theory PP-waves, Penrose Limits and Supernumerary Supersymmetries”, hep-th/0203229; U. Gursoy, C. Nunez and M. Schvellinger, “RG Flows from Spin(7), CY 4-fold and HK Manifolds to AdS, Penrose Limits and PP Waves”, hep-th/0203124; J. Michelson, “(Twisted) Toroidal Compactification of PP-waves”, hep-th/0203140; S. R. Das, C. Gomez and S.-J. Rey, “Penrose Limit, Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking and Holography in PP-wave Background”, hep-th/0203164; C.-S. Chu and P.-M. Ho, “Noncommutative D-brane and Open String in PP-wave Background with B-field”, hep-th/0203186; J. P. Gauntlett and C. M. Hull, “PP-waves in 11-dimensions with Extra Supersymmetry”, hep-th/0203255; P. Lee and J. Park “Open Strings in PP-wave Background from Defect Conformal Field Theory”, hep-th/0203257; H. Lu and J. F. Vazquez-Poritz, “Penrose Limits of Non-standard Brane Intersections”, hep-th/0204001; M. Spradlin and A. Volovich, “Superstring Interactions in a PP-wave Background”, hep-th/0204146; Y. Imamura, “Large Angular Momentum Closed Strings Colliding with D-branes”, hep-th/0204200; S. Frolov and A. A. Tseytlin, “Semiclassical Quantization of Rotating Superstring in $`AdS_5\times S^5`$”, hep-th/0204226; H. Takayanagi and T. Takayanagi, “Open Strings in Exactly Solvable Model of Curved Spacetime and PP-wave Limit”, hep-th/0204234; I. Bakas and K. Sfetsos, “PP-waves and Logarithmic Conformal Field Theories”, hep-th/0205006; C. Ahn, “More on Penrose Limit of $`AdS_4\times Q^{1,1,1}`$”, hep-th/0205008; “Comments on Penrose Limit of $`AdS_4\times M^{1,1,1}`$”, hep-th/0205109; A. Parnachev and D. A. Sahakyan, “Penrose Limit and String Quantization in $`AdS_3\times S^3`$”, hep-th/0205015; H. Singh, “M5-branes with 3/8 Supersymmetry in PP-wave Background”, hep-th/0205020; C. Kristjansen, J. Plefka, G. W. Semenoff and M. Staudacher, “A New Double-Scaling Limit of N=4 Super Yang-Mills Theory and PP-wave Strings”, hep-th/0205033; N. R. Constable, D. Z. Freedman, M. Headrick, S. Minwalla, L. Motl, A. Postnikov and W. Skiba, “PP-wave String Interactions from Perturbative Yang-Mills Theory”, hep-th/0205089; P. Bain, P. Meessen and M. Zamaklar, “Supergravity Solutions for D-branes in Hpp-wave Backgrounds”, hep-th/0205106; S. D. Mathur, A. Saxena and Y. K. Srivastava, “Scalar Propagator in the PP-wave Geometry Obtained from $`AdS_5\times S^5`$”, hep-th/0205136; R. Gopakumar, “String Interactions in PP-waves”, hep-th/0205174; K. Dasgupta, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari and M. V. Raamsdonk, “Matrix Perturbation Theory for M-theory on a PP-wave”, hep-th/0205185; L. A. P. Zayas and J. Sonnenschein, “On Penrose Limits and Gauge Theories”, hep-th/0202186; G. Bonelli, “Matrix Strings in PP-wave Backgrounds from Deformed Super Yang-Mills Theory”, hep-th/0205213. relax E. Witten, “Baryons and Branes in Anti de Sitter Space”, JHEP 9807 (1998) 006, hep-th/9805112. relax C. G. Callan, A. Guijosa and K. G. Savvidy, “Baryons and String Creation from the Fivebrane Worldvolume Action”, Nucl. Phys. B547 (1999) 127, hep-th/9810092. relax C. G. Callan, A. Guijosa, K. G. Savvidy and O. Tafjord “Baryons and Flux Tubes in Confining Gauge Theories from Brane Actions”, Nucl. Phys. B555 (1999) 183, hep-th/9902197. relax Y. Imamura, “Supersymmetries and BPS Configurations on Anti-de Sitter Space”, Nucl. Phys. B537 (1999) 184, hep-th/9807179. relax C. G. Callan and J. M. Maldacena, “Brane Dynamics from the Born-Infeld Action”, Nucl. Phys. B513 (1998) 198, hep-th/9708147.


format: text

text:
# Focusing of atoms with strongly confined light potentials

## I Introduction

Focusing of light is of importance both in fundamental studies and for technical applications. Microscopy, spectroscopy, optical data storage are only a few of the fields utilizing focused light. The first treatments of electromagnetic focusing problems are due to IgnatowskyIgnatowsky . However, the detailed structure of the wave-field in the focal region was clarified by Wolf and coworkers, who did the first detailed studies of electromagnetic focusing systemsWolf ; Richards ; Boivin . Here the socalled Debye approximation was adopted, where only the plane waves with propagation vectors that fall inside the geometrical cone whose apex is at the focal point contribute to the field in the focal regionWolf ; Debye . The Debye approximation predicts that the electromagnetic field is symmetrical about the focal plane. However, later it was found that the Debye theory is valid only when the focal point is located many wavelengths away from the aperture, and the angular aperture is sufficiently largeWolf1 . When these conditions are not fulfilled, the electromagnetic field is not symmetrical about the focal planeStamnes ; Stamnes1 ; Li ; Dhayalan .

Recently, focusing of spatially inhomogenous polarization distributions have triggered a lot of interest due to their potential applications in data storage and for manipulation of moleculesHelseth ; Youngworth ; Biss ; Novotny . Such distributions may be efficiently produced by spatial light modulators (e.g. LCD’s) or interferometric methodsTidwell ; Tidwell1 ; Grosjean ; Bomzon . The potential of of these polarization distributions is not yet fully exploited, and many interesting discoveries may occur in the future. Of particular interest here is effective focusing of atoms.

Focusing of neutral atoms using light has attracted considerable interest the last 25 years, since the atomic wavelength is much smaller than the optical wavelength, and because atoms interact with matter in a different manner than other particles. An atom in a radiation field experiences two different forcesAshkin ; Minogin1 . The spontaneous emission force results from absorption and random spontaneous emission of photons, and is basically radiation pressure. The magnitude of this force is limited by the rate of spontaneous emission, and saturates as the laser intensity increases. The second force is the socalled gradient or dipole force, which derives from the interaction of the induced atomic dipole moment with the nonuniform light distribution. It can be made arbitrary large by increasing the intensity gradient, and is dependent on the amount of detuning from the atomic resonance frequency. For red-detuned light the force is in the direction of increasing intensity, whereas for blue-detuned light the sign of the force is reversed. The first demonstration of focusing of an atomic beam with the dipole force was presented by Bjorkholm et al. Bjorkholm ; Bjorkholm1 . They showed that using a red-detuned continous wave laser a spot size of 28 $`\mu m`$ is obtainable. The resolution was here limited by spontaneous emission processes, which effectively introduced aberrations in the focused beam. Later Balykin et al. reported experiments using two counterpropagating laser beams acting as an atom lensBalykin ; Balykin1 . In this way they were able to demonstrate imaging of atomic sources, but were limited by similar aberrations as Bjorkholm et al.Bjorkholm ; Bjorkholm1 . To avoid this, Balykin and Letokhov suggested the application of a hollow, blue-detuned laser beam. This dipole potential has the advantage that the atoms go through a region of low intensity, so that the spontaneous emission is rather small. Two more detailed studies of this type of lens were later presented in Refs. Gallatin ; McClelland .

More recently, focusing of atoms using a standing wave field has attracted considerable attentionMcClelland1 ; Natarajan ; Meneghini ; Anderson ; Cohen ; Lee1 ; Prentiss ; Sleator ; Timp . When an atomic beam is incident transverse to a standing wave field, the field gradient acts as a sequence of lenses for the atoms. At the focal plane the atomic spatial distribution consists of a periodic set of lines or dots distanced from each other by $`\lambda /2`$, where $`\lambda `$ is the wavelength of the light. Atomic beams of Na, metastable He and Cr has been focused using standing wave fieldsMcClelland1 ; Prentiss ; Sleator ; Timp . With Cr widths as small as a few tens of nanometers have been producedAnderson . However, it has been pointed out that its application in atomic lithography is restricted, since arbitrary patterns cannot be produced. Thus, some alternative methods have been suggested. For example, it has been proposed that it is possible to form an atom lens using the near field from a fiber tip, thus obtaining resolutions of less than 10 nmBalykin2 . A particularly interesting proposal was given by Dubetsky and BermanDubetsky . They proposed to use a conical mirror and an inhomogeneously polarized pulsed laser beam to obtain the wanted dipole potential. This configuration is in many ways similar to that of Bjorkholm et al., but avoids the problems with spontaneous emission aberrations.

In the current paper we investigate how a strongly confined light potential can be used to focus atoms. We are particularly interested in beams with cylindrical symmetry, since these provide a symmetric optical potential. To that end, we first need to determine the properties of such light potentials. Here we use the Debye approximation to calculate the electric field in the focal region. In particular, it is found that a radially polarized beam may be used in red-detuned focusing, whereas the azimuthal distribution is useful for blue-detuned focusing.

## II High aperture focusing of light

In previous studies only weakly focused light was consideredBalykin ; Gallatin . However, it is also of interest to consider strongly confined light potentials generated by high aperture focusing. Such potentials may give higher intensity gradients and shorter atomic focal lengths, which is of interest in certain applications. However, if linearly polarized light is strongly focused, the light intensity is no longer symmetric in the focal region, which may reduce the resolution of an atom focusing system. Thus, it is necessary to examine the properties of strongly focused light more carefully. We start by assuming that our focusing system has high angular aperture and that the focal point is placed many wavelengths away from the aperture. Then the diffracted field near the focal plane can be calculated in the Debye approximation asStamnes

$$𝑬=\frac{ikC}{2\pi }_\mathrm{\Omega }𝑻(𝒔)exp[ik(s_xx+s_yy+s_zz)]𝑑s_x𝑑s_y,$$
(1)
where C is a real constant, $`k=2\pi /\lambda `$ is the wavenumber, $`𝒔=(s_x,s_y,s_z)`$ is the unit vector along a typical ray, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the solid angle formed by all the geometrical rays, $`𝑻(𝒔)`$ is the vector pupil distribution which accounts for the polarization, phase and amplitude distributions at the exit pupil.

In spherical coordinates, the unit wave vector is defined as

$$𝒔=(sin\theta cos\varphi ,sin\theta sin\varphi ,cos\theta ).$$
(2)
The position vector can be written as

$$𝒓_c=(r_csin\theta _ccos\varphi _c,r_csin\theta _csin\varphi _c,z).$$
(3)
This gives the following diffraction integral:

$$𝑬=\frac{iC}{\lambda }_0^\alpha _0^{2\pi }𝑻(\theta ,\varphi )\mathrm{exp}[ik\kappa ]sin\theta 𝑑\theta 𝑑\varphi ,$$
(4)
where $`\alpha `$ is the convergence semiangle and

$$\kappa =zcos\theta +r_csin\theta sin\theta _ccos(\varphi \varphi _c).$$
(5)
The amplitude vector for each ray is given by

$$𝑻(\theta ,\varphi )=𝑷(\theta ,\varphi )B(\theta ,\varphi ),$$
(6)
where $`𝑷(\theta ,\varphi )`$ is the polarization distribution and $`B(\theta ,\varphi )`$ the amplitude and phase distribution at the exit pupil. We emphasize that $`B(\theta ,\varphi )`$ can be used to desribe any focusing systems (with lenses and mirrors). For an aplanatic system $`B(\theta )=\sqrt{cos\theta }`$. Other examples are found in Ref. Stamnes .

The state of the polarization incident on the focusing system influences the structure of the elctric field near the focal plane. To discuss this question quantitatively, we must find a general expression for the polarization vector. To this end, we assume a polarization which may in general depend on the polar and azimuthal angles

$$𝐏_\mathrm{𝟎}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}a(\theta ,\varphi )& & \\ b(\theta ,\varphi )& & \\ 0& & \end{array}\right].$$

Then the polarization vector can be written as

$$𝐏(\theta ,\varphi )=R^1CRP_0.$$
(7)
Here $`𝑹`$ describes the rotation of the coordinate system around the optical axis

$$𝐑=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}cos\varphi & sin\varphi & 0\\ sin\varphi & cos\varphi & 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right],$$

and $`𝑪`$ describes the change of polarization on propagation through the lens

$$𝐂=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}cos\theta & 0& sin\theta \\ 0& 1& 0\\ sin\theta & 0& cos\theta \end{array}\right].$$

The result is

$$𝐏(\theta ,\varphi )=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}a[cos\theta cos^2\varphi +sin^2\varphi ]+b[cos\theta sin\varphi cos\varphi sin\varphi cos\varphi ]& & \\ a[cos\theta cos\varphi sin\varphi sin\varphi cos\varphi ]+b[cos\theta sin^2\varphi +cos^2\varphi ]& & \\ asin\theta cos\varphi bsin\theta sin\varphi & & \end{array}\right].$$

The procedure presented above can be used to calculate the electric field in the focal region for any combinations of polarization, phase and amplitude distributions at the exit pupil. Here we will consider only two different polarization distributions; radial and azimuthal polarized light, see Fig. 1. In both cases a singularity occurs at the origin. Thus, practical generation of these beams usually involves blocking out the central portion of the beam. However, in our theoretical calculations the singularity does not affect the results, and we may ignore it (but keeping in mind its existence).

### II.1 Radial polarization

In the case of radial polarization we may write $`a(\varphi )=cos\varphi `$ and $`b(\varphi )=sin\varphi `$, which results in the following expression:

$$𝐏(\theta ,\varphi )=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}cos\theta cos\varphi & & \\ cos\theta sin\varphi & & \\ sin\theta & & \end{array}\right].$$

When inserted in Eq. (4), this gives

$$E_x^{rad}=\frac{2C\pi }{\lambda }I_1^{rad}cos\varphi _c,$$
(8)
$$E_y^{rad}=\frac{2C\pi }{\lambda }I_1^{rad}sin\varphi _c,$$
(9)
$$E_z^{rad}=\frac{2C\pi i}{\lambda }I_0^{rad},$$
(10)
where

$$I_0^{rad}=_0^\alpha B(\theta )sin^2\theta J_0(kr_csin\theta sin\theta _c)\mathrm{exp}(ikzcos\theta )𝑑\theta ,$$
(11)
and

$$I_1^{rad}=_0^\alpha B(\theta )cos\theta sin\theta J_1(kr_csin\theta sin\theta _c)\mathrm{exp}(ikzcos\theta )𝑑\theta .$$
(12)
Here the z component is completely independent of the azimuthal angle, and its importance increases with increasing angular aperture. In Fig. 2 $`|E_z|^2`$ (solid line) and $`|E_x|^2`$ (dash - dotted line) are shown for the case $`B(\theta )=\sqrt{cos\theta }`$, $`\alpha =80^{}`$ and $`\varphi _c=0^{}`$. Here the peak of $`|E_x|^2`$ is only 5 $`\%`$ of $`|E_z|^2`$. The x component can be made much smaller by using an aperture wich blocks out the central part of the beam. The dashed line in Fig. 2 shows the case when $`\alpha _1=70^{}`$ has been blocked out and and the total semiconvergence angle is $`\alpha =80^{}`$. Note that although the central lobe has shrinked, more energy is distributed into the sidelobes. This is a general feature valid not only for radially polarized light (see e.g. Ref. Stamnes  and references therein).

Let us now consider an annular aperture with $`\alpha 90^{}`$, B=1 and where most of the central part (except the rim) of the exit pupil is blocked out. Then the x and y components of the electric field at the focal plane are almost zero. On the other hand, for z=0 the z component can be approximated by

$$E_z^{rad}\frac{2C_1\pi i}{\lambda }J_0(kr_c),$$
(13)
where $`C_1`$ is a constant. We assume here that all the light is distributed into the transmitting zone in order to optimize the light intensity. This can be done by using a holographic beamshaper or an axicon combined with a proper lens systemLee . Close to the geometric focal point the intensity becomes

$$I^r=\frac{1}{2\eta }|E_z^{rad}|^2\frac{2}{\eta }\left(\frac{C_1\pi }{\lambda }\right)^2\left(1\frac{(kr_c)^2}{2}\right),$$
(14)
where $`\eta =377`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the impedance of vacuum. We see that near the maximum the intensity behaves as a parabola, which may be useful for focusing of atoms.

### II.2 Azimuthal polarization

Another polarization mode of interest is the azimuthal distribution. In this case we may write $`a=sin\varphi `$ and $`b=cos\varphi `$, which results in

$$𝐏(\theta ,\varphi )=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}sin\varphi & & \\ cos\varphi & & \\ 0& & \end{array}\right].$$

When inserted in Eq. (4), we find:

$$E_x^{asi}=\frac{2C\pi }{\lambda }I_1^{asi}sin\varphi _c,$$
(15)
$$E_y^{asi}=\frac{2C\pi }{\lambda }I_1^{asi}cos\varphi _c,$$
(16)
$$E_z^{asi}=0,$$
(17)
where

$$I_1^{asi}=_0^\alpha B(\theta )sin\theta J_1(kr_csin\theta sin\theta _c)\mathrm{exp}(ikzcos\theta )𝑑\theta .$$
(18)
As expected, the electric field near focus has no longitudinal component. Furthermore, we note that electric field vector is circularly symmetric, and is zero on the optical axis. In Fig. 3 the solid line shows the intensity $`|E|^2`$ at the focal plane for the case $`B(\theta )=\sqrt{cos\theta }`$ and $`\alpha =30^{}`$. Note that the two peaks are located approximately $`\lambda `$ away from the origin, and this distance is tuned by altering the angular aperture.

Let us now assume an annular aperture where B=1, $`\alpha 90^{}`$ and most of the exit pupil (except the rim) is blocked out. Then we may write (for z=0)

$$I^a\frac{2\pi ^2C_1^2}{\lambda ^2\eta }J_1(kr_c).$$
(19)
For small distances from the geometric focal point, the intensity can be written as

$$I^a\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{C_1k\pi r_c}{\lambda }\right)^2.$$
(20)
As for the radial polarization, the intensity near the focal point behaves as a parabola, but now the origin is at the minimum intensity.

## III Atom focusing

To calculate the the evolution of the atomic beam we use the path-integral technique of Refs. Gallatin ; Feynman . Here the wave function is given by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(𝒓_b,t_b)=d^3𝒓_aK(𝒓_b,t_b,𝒓_a,t_a)\mathrm{\Psi }(𝒓_a,t_a),$$
(21)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝒓_a,t_a)`$ is the initial wavefunction and $`K(𝒓_b,t_b,𝒓_a,t_a)`$ is the propagator

$$K(𝒓_b,t_b,𝒓_a,t_a)=_a^b\delta 𝒓exp\left[\left\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}S[𝒓(t)]\right\}\right].$$
(22)
The integration is over all possible paths $`𝒓(t)`$ that starts at ($`𝒓_a,t_a`$) and ends at ($`𝒓_b,t_b`$), and S denotes the action evaluated along that path:

$$S[𝒓(t)]=_{t_a}^{t_b}𝑑t\left\{\frac{m}{2}[_t𝒓(t)]^2U(𝒓)\right\}.$$
(23)
In general, the spatial variations of the optical potential are slow compared to the atomic wavelength, which means that the propagator integral can be evaluated by the method of stationary phase, thus resulting inGallatin ; Feynman

$$K(𝒓_b,t_b,𝒓_a,t_a)N\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}S_c[𝒓(t)]\right\}.$$
(24)
This approximation is a semiclassical one, since $`S_c[𝒓(t)]`$ is now evaluated along the classical trajectory. N is in general a time and space dependent normalization factor which varies slowly compared with the phase factor, and is therefore neglected here. We now consider a collimated monoenergetic atomic beam travelling parallel to the optical axis with velocity $`𝑽_1`$. Well defined collimation of Cr was demonstrated by Scholten $`et`$ $`al`$.Scholten , and is therefore within the reach of current technology. The initial wave function can then be taken as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(𝒓_a,t_a)=\mathrm{exp}[ikz_a(i/\mathrm{})Et_a].$$
(25)
Ovchinnikov has pointed out the importance of using pulsed lasers for focusing of atoms in order to minimize spontaneous decay aberrationsOvchinnikov . We will therefore assume that the potential is switched on and off so fast that the atomic kinetic energy does not change during the switching time, i.e. $`\tau 1/\omega `$, where $`\omega =\mathrm{}k^2/2m`$ is the recoil frequency of an atom with mass m. At the time $`t=\tau /2`$ an optical pulse of duration $`\tau `$ is applied, thus resulting in an attraction or repulsion of the atoms. In fact, the intensity gradient of the laser beam results in a force $`𝑭=\mathbf{}U(𝒓)`$, where

$$U(𝒓)=\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{8\mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{I}{I_s}.$$
(26)
Here I is the laser intensity, $`I_s`$ is the atomic transition saturation intensity, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the natural linewidth, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\omega _L\omega _R`$ is the detuning of the laser frequency $`\omega _L`$ from the atomic resonance frequency $`\omega _R`$. For this potential to be valid the laser must be detuned far from the transition, $`|\mathrm{\Delta }|\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

After the optical potential is turned off, the atoms again behave as free particles travelling with constant velocity, see Fig. 4. In fact, their wavefunctions represent a spherical wavefront converging to the focal region, where the aberrations depend on the detailed shape of the optical potential. The atoms move with a velocity given by

$$𝑽_2=\frac{𝒓_a+𝑹}{t}.$$
(27)
Here $`𝒓_a`$=$`(x_a,y_a,z_a)`$ is the position vector from the aperture to the ’focal point’, $`𝑹`$=$`(x,y,z)`$ is the position vector from the origin to the observation point, and $`t`$ the time of flight. For a perfect optical potential, the focal distance is given by $`f=V_2t`$.

We can write the classical action as

$$S_c\left[𝒓(t)\right]=\frac{m\left(𝒓_a+𝑹\right)^2}{2t}U(𝒓)\tau .$$
(28)
Since we work with small angular apertures and assumes that $`Rr_a`$, the time of flight is nearly equal for all atoms, i.e. independent of position. Moreover, $`V_2V_1`$. If we consider only those atoms located near the focus of the optical potential, we can omit the integration over $`z_a`$, and the wavefunction in the focal region becomes

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)𝑑x_a𝑑y_a\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{m𝒓_a\mathbf{}\text{ }𝑹}{\mathrm{}t}+i\mathrm{\Phi }(r_a)\right],$$
(29)
where

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(r_a)=\frac{m(x_a^2+y_a^2)}{2\mathrm{}t}\frac{U(𝒓_a)\tau }{\mathrm{}}.$$
(30)
Here the integration is taken over the aperture set up by the laser pulse. We see that the if the optical potential is harmonic, the quadratic phase-factor vanishes. This equation is similar to that of the electric field amplitude obtained in the scalar Debye approximation. Thus we may say that Eq. (29) is the Debye approximation for focusing of atoms.

Let us consider a circular aperture for the atomic beam. Then we may switch to cylindrical coordinates, and set

$$𝒓_a=(\rho cos\gamma ,\rho sin\gamma ,f\frac{\rho ^2}{2f}),$$
(31)
and

$$𝑹=(rcos\beta ,rsin\beta ,z),$$
(32)
where we have used the expansion $`z_a=\sqrt{f^2\rho ^2}f\frac{\rho ^2}{2f}`$, which is valid for reasonably small angular apertures. The wavefunction in the focal region is then expressed by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(r)_0^aJ_0\left(\frac{2\pi \rho r}{\lambda _Df}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{\pi \rho ^2}{\lambda _Df^2}z\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[i\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )\right]\rho 𝑑\rho .$$
(33)
where a is the aperture radius and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )=\frac{\pi \rho ^2}{\lambda _Df}\frac{U(\rho )\tau }{\mathrm{}}$$
(34)
To derive the wavefunction for this particular symmetry we have used the following identity:

$$_0^{2\pi }\mathrm{exp}(ik\rho cos\varphi )𝑑\varphi =2\pi J_0(k\rho ).$$
(35)
Equation (33) is similar to that given in Ref.Born , but with the atomic de Broglie wavelength and a different aberration function. The atomic density can now be found by computing $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(r)|^2`$. Although the similarities between focusing of light and atoms are well knownBjorkholm ; Balykin1 , we have not seen Eq. (33) been derived from a path-integral approach in any previous papers. Note in particular that Eq. (33) can be used to compute the wavefunction slightly away from focus for any potential of optic or magnetic origin, although this property will not be used here. On the other hand, it is also important to point out that this approximation is not valid for large convergence angles or large wavefront aberrations, as is also the case for the scalar Debye approximation for focusing of lightBorn  (Eq. (4) is the electromagnetic Debye approximation, which is valid for large convergence angles). Furthermore, the path-integral approach clearly does not take into account any polarization effects associated with e.g. permanently induced dipoles. That is, we assume that the only effect of the focused light is to give the atoms a ’kick’ in the right direction. Finally, we have ignored the small effects which may be induced by the quantized electromagnetic fieldRohwedder .

### III.1 Red-detuned focusing

A red-detuned gradient potential utilizes a large and negative atom-field detuning, which means that the atom will be attracted to the high intensity region. To obtain a symmetrical wavefunction in the focal region, it is of importance that the gradient potential also is symmetric. To that end, both linear and radial polarization distributions may be used, but with certain restrictions. For example, focusing of linearly polarized light gives rise to both y and z components of the focused light which are proportional to $`sin2\varphi _c`$ and $`cos\varphi _c`$, respectively. The z component may have a peak intensity of 25 $`\%`$ compared to the x component, and could therefore alter the gradient potentialHelseth . However, these effects are rather small as long as the angular aperture is kept sufficiently small. Here we will examine more closely focusing of atoms with a tightly focused radial laser beam. The advantage of such a scheme is that the beam is symmetric, and only the z component is significant when the angular aperture is large and the center beam is blocked out.

The radial polarization distribution is perhaps better suited to provide the necessary symmetry. In fact, we have seen that by using a large aperture combined with a suitable aperture, only the z component will be of importance. To that end, the aberration function is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )=\frac{\pi \rho ^2}{\lambda _Df}AJ_0^2(k\rho ),$$
(36)
where A is the socalled field area,

$$A=\frac{\tau k^2C_1^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{16\eta I_s\mathrm{\Delta }}.$$
(37)
The field area is easily modulated by changing the power of the laser beam. Here we are mostly interested in a general description and will not be concerned with the exact laser power, which should be optimized in the particular experimental setup.

For small values of $`\rho `$, the focal distance in the laboratory frame is

$$f^r=\frac{\lambda ^2}{2\pi A\lambda _D}.$$
(38)
In Fig. 5 $`f^r`$ is plotted as a function of the field area for two different atoms with the same intial velocity (100 m/s). The solid line corresponds to <sup>52</sup>Cr with $`m=8.68\times 10^{26}`$ kg and $`\lambda `$ = 0.43 $`\mu m`$, whereas the dashed line corresponds to <sup>23</sup>Na with $`m=3.84\times 10^{26}`$ kg and $`\lambda `$ = 0.59 $`\mu m`$. One sees that typical focal distances range from a few microns to hundred microns. However, care must be taken when selecting the field area, since this together with the aperture determine the aberrations of the focusing system. Figure 6 shows the phase function (dash-dotted line) for Cr atoms with velocity 500 m/s and A=-1. It is seen that the phase function is nearly constant within an aperture of $``$ 0.1$`\mu m`$, where the aberrations are negligible. Figure 7 shows $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(r)|^2`$ for focusing of <sup>52</sup>Cr with a velocity of 500 m/s and aperture a = 0.1 $`\mu m`$. The solid line shows the atomic density when A = -100 (A is negative because the laser light is red-detuned), whereas the dashed line corresponds to A=-20. Here the focal lengths are 19 and 96 $`\mu m`$, respectively. We used a rather narrow atomic beam in order to block out most of the aberrations, thus allowing a resolution of $``$ 1 nm (A=-100).

### III.2 Blue-detuned focusing

In the case of blue-detuned focusing, the atom-field detuning is large and positive, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Thus, the atom will be expelled from the high intensity region. For this purpose the intensity near the focal region of an azimuthal polarization distribution aberration may be useful. In this case the aberration function is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )=\frac{\pi \rho ^2}{\lambda _Df}AJ_1^2(k\rho ),$$
(39)
which is identical to that used by Dubetsky and BermanDubetsky , except for the constant A. This is due to the fact that we consider here only the intensity gradient and neglect any effects of the polarization gradient. For small values of $`\rho `$, the focal distance in the laboratory frame is

$$f^a=\frac{\lambda ^2}{\pi A\lambda _D}.$$
(40)
## IV Discussion

Two systems for practical atom lithography are shown in Figs. 8 and 9, respectively. The first, which applies a 1D standing light wave, has been successfully adopted for focusing of many different atomsRehse . The disadvantage of this system is the low power and gradients (since the light is distributed over a large area). A more promising scheme for depositing atoms directly onto a transparent substrate is shown in Fig. 9. Here the atoms are incident on the opposite side of the substrate, and the lens system do not disturb the atomic beam. In practice the light beam should be slightly defocused on the far side of the substrate (where the atoms come in). Thus, if the light beam is properly corrected for the spherical aberrations introduced by the substrate, the electric field is the same as in Sec. II. We have shown that such a system could in principle give a resolution of 1 nm, but the system requirements are rather strict. Thus, it is indeed necessary to perform further investigations before a scheme similar to that of Fig. 9 can be applied in practice.

It has already been mentioned that the spontaneous emission aberrations must be reduced to a minimum in order to achieve a diffraction limited distribution. This can be obtained by using a pulsed laser beam, typically of pulse length 10 ns or shorter. Moreover, it is also of importance to reduce the chromatic aberrations. Again, a pulsed laser seems to be the solution, since then the focusing properties are less dependent on the atomic velocity. On the other hand, it should be pointed out that for an atom laser (where the atoms are monochromatic) chromatic aberrations are not a problem.

Notice that both for radial and azimuthal beams it is possible to alter the intensity gradients by manipulating the phase and amplitude distribution at the exit pupil. A more general formulation of the electromagnetic field in presence of arbitrary exit pupils are found in Ref. Helseth . By inserting an appropriate aperture it should be possible to manipulate the optical intensity gradient so that it looks more like a parabola. A further improvement would be to use an annular atomic beam. In this way one may use a smaller part of the optical potential. Then one may expect smaller aberration, since it should in principle be easier to make a small part of the optical intensity distribution look like a parabola than the whole atomic aperture. Naturally, this approach would lead to lower atomic densities, which in many applications is a big disadvantage.

## V Conclusion

Focusing of inhomogenously polarized light is studied, and expressions for the electric field in the focal region are given. It is seen that some polarization distributions at the exit pupil may give intensity distributions near the focal plane which are of interest for focusing of atoms. To this end, focusing of an atomic beam using near-resonant laser light is also studied, and the wave function in the focal region is found. Moreover, it is suggested how different light forces may be used in red and blue-detuned focusing of atoms.


text:
# On controlling simple dynamics by a disagreement function.

## 1 Introduction

The Ising spin system is one of the most frequently used models of statistical mechanics. Its simplicity (binary variables) makes it appealing to researchers from other branches of science including biology , sociology  and economy . In sociophysics models of opinion formation based on the social impact theory (reviewed in ), the individual opinion is decribed by the Ising spin. This corresponds not only to typical ”yes”-”no” questions, but also to important issues where the distribution of opinion seems to be bimodal, peaked on extreme values. In general, in these models the influence flows inward from the border to the center, like in the majority rules, where the site in the middle takes the state of the majotiry of neighbouring sites. In contrast, in our (USDF) model  (reviewed in ) an outward flow of influence is imposed. In the USDF model, an isolated person does not convince others; however, a group of people sharing the same opinion influences their neighbors. In spite of simple rules the model exhibited complicated dynamics in one  and more (references in ) dimensions. In less than a year, this model has found several applications: e.g. it was used to explain the distribution of votes among candidates in Brazilian local election  and to model the price dynamics .

In this paper we introduce the ”disagreement function”  which is used control the dynamics of the model. We show that for a one dimensional Ising spin chain in zero temperature this leads to four different phases: ferromagnetic, antiferromagnetic, (2,2) antiphase and a doubly degenerated phase in which both ferromagnet and antiferromagnet are equally probable stable steady states of the system. Apart of structural differences between phases the difference in relaxation will be shown. The system in general will relax in two different ways depending on the phase. Moreover, a sharp change of the relaxation time on borders of the phases will be observed.

## 2 The model

Recently a simple model for opinion evolution in closed community was proposed . In this model the community is represented by a horizontal chain of Ising spins, which are either up or down. A pair of parallel neighbors forces its two neighbors to have the same orientation (in random sequential updating), while for an antiparallel pair, the left neighbor takes the orientation ot the right part of the pair, and left neighbor follows the right part of the pair. Thus the model can be described by two simple dynamic rules:

* $`D_1`$: $`S_{i1}(t+1)=S_i(t)`$ and $`S_{i+2}(t+1)=S_i(t)`$ if $`S_i(t)S_{i+1}=1`$
* $`D_2`$: $`S_{i1}(t+1)=S_{i+1}(t)`$ and $`S_{i+2}(t+1)=S_i(t)`$ if $`S_i(t)S_{i+1}=1`$.

In contrast to usual majority rules , in this model the influence does not flow inward from the surrounding neighbors to the center site, but spreads outward from the center to the neighbors. The model thus describes the spread of opinions. The dynamic rules leads to two different stable steady states (ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic) with equal probability. The second dynamic rule ($`D_2`$) of the model has been already changed in two different ways. In case of antiparallel spins the neighboring spins can either flip with probability 1/2  ($`D_{2A}`$) or remain unchanged  ($`D_{2B}`$). In both cases ($`D_{2A}`$ and $`D_{2B}`$) the only final state is ferromagnet. It is worth to mention that the ferromagnetic state for both rules, $`D_{2A}`$ and $`D_{2B}`$, is always reached (even in two dimensions) in contrast to the Ising spin system under Glauber dynamics . In the case of $`D_{2B}`$ besides of ferromagnetic stable steady states, the antiferromagnetic unstable steady state exsits.

Since, we have up till now three different rules for the case of antiparallel spins, we propose a generalization of the previous models. The generalized model consits of two components, hence the name TC model:

* The dynamics: choose a pair of spins $`S_{i+1}`$ and $`S_{i+2}`$ and change its next nearest neighbors $`S_i`$ and $`S_{i+3}`$
* The rules: control the dynamics of the $`i`$-th and $`(i+3)`$-th spins by the disagreement function.

In the next sections we introduce the disagreement function and show that TC model includes as a special cases all earlier proposed models . Moreover, TC model consits of more then those three subcases which we present on its phase diagram. Using Monte Carlo simulations we show how the system described by TC model relax.

## 3 How to control dynamics?

Let us assume for a while that we have the formula for a function that can control TC dynamics and denote it by $`E`$. We choose at random a pair of spins $`S_{i+1}`$ and $`S_{i+2}`$ and we calculate $`E^+=E(S_i,S_{i+1},S_{i+2})`$. Next we calculate $`E^{}=E(S_i,S_{i+1},S_{i+2})`$ in the case of flipped $`i`$-th spin. If $`E^{}<E^+`$ then we will flip the $`i`$-th spin, if not the spin will remain unchanged. We do the same for the second neighbor of the choosen pair i.e. for the spin $`S_{i+3}`$.

Our dynamics looks now similar to the Glauber dynamics in zero temperature, where $`E`$ plays the role of energy. However, there are three main differences between these two dynamics:

* In Glauber dynamics we flip the $`i`$-th spin according to the interactions with $`(i1)`$-th and $`(i+1)`$-th spins, here we look at $`(i+1)`$-th and $`(i+2)`$-th spins.
* In Glauber dynamics the flip is done even if the old energy is equal to the new one. It doesn’t seem natural in zero temperature but it is needed to get the ground state (in two dimensions even this is not enough ).
* In our case $`E`$ is called the disagreement function, since it is not the energy.

Now we will look for the formula for $`E`$. We shall deal with the lattice model where each lattice site $`i`$ is occupied by an ising spin $`S_i=\pm 1`$. Usually, the spins are assumed to interact through pairwise coupling of the form $`J_{ij}S_iS_j`$, where $`J_{ij}`$ are exchange integrals. Of course, the ordering of the spins is determined by the interactions. One of the best studied examples is the nearest neighbour (nn) Ising model with ferromagnetic coupling, i.e. $`J_{ij}=J>0`$ for neighbour spins $`S_i`$ and $`S_j`$, while $`J_{ij}=0`$ for more distant spins. Certainly, in a such model, the spins form the ferromagnetic state (all spins up or all spins down) in low temperature. For $`J<0`$ the antyferromagnetic state is formed in low temperture.

In TC model the $`i`$-th spin interacts with its two neighbors, and the 1D hamiltonian can be written in the following form:

$$H=J_1\underset{i}{}S_iS_{i+1}J_2\underset{i}{}S_iS_{i+2}.$$
(1)
For $`J_1>0`$ and $`J_2<0`$ this is the well known ANNNI (axial next-nearest neighbour Ising) model introduced in  and reviewed in . It describes the Ising spin chain with ferromagnetic interaction $`J_1>0`$ between nearest neighbours (nn) and antiferromagnetic interactions between next nearest neighbours (nnn). Of course, in the one-dimensional case truly ordered states are stable only in zero temperature $`T=0`$. If we introduce the competition ratio $`r=J_2/J_1`$ we get in $`T=0`$ ferromagnetic state for $`r<1/2`$ and (2,2) structure for $`r>1/2`$.

Now, we will use the nnn Ising hamiltonian  to construct the dissagrement function $`E`$. Chowdbury and Stauffer introduced similary a dissagrement function based on the simple nn Ising hamiltonian to the model of finantial market . We write $`E`$ in the following form:

$$E=J_1S_iS_{i+1}J_2S_iS_{i+2}.$$
(2)
Each individual would like to minimize the corresponding disagreement function. In the TC dynamics we choose a pair $`S_{i+1}`$ and $`S_{i+2}`$ and we change its neighbour $`S_i`$ (we also change $`S_{i+3}`$ spin calculating $`E=J_1S_{i+3}S_{i+2}J_2S_{i+3}S_{i+1}`$, but for simplicity we further write only about $`i`$-th spin). For these three spins ($`S_i,S_{i+1},S_{i+2}`$) we have four values of $`E`$:

1. $`+++`$ or $``$ gives $`E_1=(J_1+J_2)`$
2. $`++`$ or $`+`$ gives $`E_2=J_1+J_2`$
3. $`++`$ or $`+`$ gives $`E_3=J_1J_2`$
4. $`+`$ or $`++`$ gives $`E_4=J_2J_1`$

It is worth to notice that the possible transitions are only between states 1 and 2 or between 3 and 4. Now we can derive from the TC model all previous models:

* USDF model :
if $`S_{i+1}(t)S_{i+2}(t)=1`$ then $`S_i(t+1)=S_{i+1}(t)`$ i.e. $`E_1<E_2`$
if $`S_{i+1}(t)S_{i+2}(t)=1`$ then $`S_i(t+1)=S_{i+2}(t)`$ i.e. $`E_3<E_4`$.
Thus USDF model correspond to the TC model with $`J_2<J_1<J_2`$.
* The model of financial market :
if $`S_{i+1}(t)S_{i+2}(t)=1`$ then $`S_i(t+1)=S_{i+1}(t)`$
if $`S_{i+1}(t)S_{i+2}(t)=1`$ then $`S_i(t+1)=S_i(t)`$ with probability $`1/2`$.
This corresponds to the TC model with $`E_1<E_2`$ and $`E_4<E_3`$ $`J_2<J_1`$ and $`J_1>J_2`$.
* Other models reviewed in :
if $`S_{i+1}(t)S_{i+2}(t)=1`$ then $`S_i(t+1)=S_{i+1}(t)`$ i.e. $`E_1<E_2`$
if $`S_{i+1}(t)S_{i+2}(t)=1`$ then $`S_i(t+1)=S_i(t)`$ i.e. $`E_3=E_4`$
These models correspond to the TC model with $`J_1=J_2`$.

There are of course more subcases of the TC model depending on interaction coefficients $`J_1`$ and $`J_2`$. On the Figure 1 all possible phases, depending on interaction coefficients, are presented. The North (doubly degenerated) phase corresponds to the original rule $`D_2`$. The East (ferromagnetic) phase corresponds to rule $`D_{2A}`$ (the flip in case of antiparallel spins is made at random). The line between these two phases corresponds to rule $`D_{2B}`$ (the flip is possible only in case of parallel spins). On this line the antiferromagnetic steady state still exists but it becomes unstable and we never reach it outside of this state. It is also interesting to see what happens on other border lines. The border between the ferromagnetic state and the (2,2) antiphase (see Fig.2) is infinitely degenerated. Let us define (after ) a $`k`$-band formed by $`k`$ adjacent, identically oriented spins, terminated at the both ends by opposite oriented spins. With such a definition, the ferromagnetic structure is zero-band, antiferromagnetic is one-band and (2,2) antiphase is a two-band structure. On the line between ferromagnet and (2,2) antiphase any sequence of $`k`$-band ($`k2`$) is equally probable (see Fig.2). The line between (2,2) antiphase and antiferromagnet is also degenerated, and any sequence of k-band (with k=1,2) is the steady state (see Fig.2).

There is also another interesting feature which differs phases from each other - the time and the style in which the system relax. We will describe it in the next section.

## 4 How does the system relax?

What happens when we suddenly cool our system from a high temperature to zero temperature? As we mentioned previously the system will relax to one of the possible final states described by the phase diagram (Fig.1). But how does it relax? We studied this using Monte Carlo simulations. We found out that the relaxation process strongly depends on phase. The system can reach antiferromagnetic state in the West (antiferromagnetic) phase as well as in the North (degenerated) phase. However, it will relax to this state differently in each case. In the antiferromagnetic phase the system will be almost totally ordered after several Monte Carlo Steps (MCS). Then the system will oscillate oround the final state. These oscillations will decrease in time and finally the system will reach the steady state. In the degenerated phase the system will order very slowly.

In Figure 3 the examples of relaxations in all four phases are presented. To show this relaxation we choose the opinion changes, since the model was proposed to investigate the opinion dynamics. We defined the opinion  as a magnetization of the system:

$$m=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}S_i,$$
(3)
For such a choice the system will relax to $`|m|=1`$ (ferromagnet) or $`|m|=0`$ (antiferromagnet or (2,2) antiphase). Of course, one could also choose the two point correlation function $`g=<S_iS_{i+1}>`$ to see how the system relaxes. We have done it to recognize the final state ($`g=1,1`$ or $`0`$ for ferromagnet, antiferromagnet and (2,2) antiphase respectively). For $`J_1>J_2`$ (North and East part of the diagram in Fig.1) the ordering of the system is very slow. Sometimes the opinion can change dramaticaly in a short time (see Fig.3). The long time trends are observed, which reminds very much of the real sociological procesess . For $`J_1<J_2`$ the system is almost ordered after several Monte Carlo steps, however, then it takes a long time to reach the real final steady state. The opinion is fluctuating around zero and these fluctuations are decreasing in time (see Fig.3). Although the way in which the system relaxes in the North and East phases is the same, the relaxation time in each of these phases is different. About a two times shorter (in average) time is needed to reach the final state in the degenerated phase. The relaxation time changes very sharply on the border between these two phases (Fig.4). A similar effect is observed also on the border between the antiferromagnetic and degenerated phases.

## 5 Summary

We proposed the new generalized model of opinion formation. The disagrement function was introduced to control the simple dynamics of an Ising spin chain in zero temperature. This allowed to generalize the previous model of opinion dynamics. It was shown that the phase diagram for that system described by such a model consists of four different phases. The most interesting is the existence of the doubly degenerated phase in which the system can reach the antiferromagnetic steady state or the ferromagnetic steady state with the same probability. Moreover, it was shown that the system can relax in two different ways depending on the interaction coefficients. Surprisingly the system can reach the antiferromagnetic state in two different ways. In the antiferromagnetic phase the system will be almost ordered after several Monte Carlo steps and then decreasing oscillations around the final state will lead the system into this state. In the degenerated phase, the system will behave ”blindly” making a long ”random” walk to the final state. It would be probably worth to look at the system described by such a model in higher dimensions and higher temperature. We also hope that the generalized TC model will find so many applications as its older brothers .

I would like to thank the Fundation for Polish Science (FNP) for the finantial support.