text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

One of the most important features of quantum mechanics is the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen  effect, in which strong correlations are observed between presently noninteracting particles that have interacted in the past. The problem of understanding the consequences of the EPR effect is still controversial . Experiments on entangled particle states have verified the ‘nonlocal’ nature of quantum mechanics . One disturbing feature of the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is that the nonlocal nature of the entanglement process has been divorced from our common intuitive ideas about spacetime events and causality. The standard interpretation asserts that for photons (or electrons) positioned at A and B, separated by a spacelike distance, there is no exchange of classical information and superluminal signals between A and B are impossible according to special relativity. With the advent of the possibility of constructing quantum computers and performing ‘teleportation’ experiments, the whole issue of the spacetime reality of the EPR process becomes more problematic.

There exists also the fundamental puzzle that contemporary quantum mechanics is nonlocal on a macroscopic level, whereas gravitation described by Einstein’s general relativity (GR) is a strictly local macroscopic theory. This causes a tension to exist between the two fundamental pillars of modern physics .

We can adopt three possible positions:

1. There is no problem. Quantum mechanics is nonlocal and we should accept that there is no possible causal phenomenon associated with a space and time interpretation of entanglement as dictated by classical special relativity and Bell’s inequality .
2. Quantum mechanics should be altered in some way to bring about a causal, space and time description of quantum mechanics.
3. Classical spacetime locally described by a flat, Minkowskian metric with one light cone, is not adequate to explain the physics of quantum entanglement. The standard, classical description of spacetime must be extended when quantum mechanical systems are measured.

According to (1) quantum entanglement is a purely quantum phenomenon and classical concepts associated with causally connected events in space are absent. This is the point of view advocated by practitioners of standard quantum mechanics. One should abandon any notion that physical space plays a significant role for distant correlations of entangled quantum states. For those who remain troubled by this abandonment of a causal spatial connection between entangled states, it is not clear how attempting to change quantum mechanics would help matters. This leaves the possibility (3) that classical special relativity is too restrictive to allow for a complete spacetime, causal description of quantum entanglement.

In the following, we adopt position (3) and propose a scenario based on a ‘bimetric’ description of spacetime. This kind of construction has been successful in cosmology, in which it provides an alternative to the standard inflationary cosmologies . In the present application of the bimetric description of spacetime to the quantum entanglement problem, we picture that a quantum mechanical metric frame is related to a gravitational metric frame by the gradients of a scalar field $`\varphi `$. The gravitational metric describes locally a Minkowski light cone with constant speed of gravitational waves (gravitons) $`c_g`$, while the quantum mechanical metric describes locally a different light cone with an increased speed of light $`c>c_0`$, where $`c_0`$ is the currently observed speed of light. When the dimensionless parameter $`\gamma =c/c_g=1`$, spacetime is described locally by a flat Minkowski metric with one fixed lightcone and we can choose units such that $`c=c_g=c_0=1`$.

The amount of entanglement of a quantum mechanical bipartite system is given by the density matrix of its von Neumann entropy. For a pure non-entangled state, the speed of transmitted signals travels with the standard classical, special relativity value $`c_0`$, but for entangled states, quantum mechanical superluminal signals can travel in the quantum mechanical metric frame, thereby providing a Lorentz invariant spacetime description of quantum entanglement phenomena. When an entangled quantum system suffers decoherence due to environmental effects, the system rapidly becomes a classical one with the spacetime structure determined by the gravitational metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, corresponding locally to Minkowski spacetime with a single lightcone.

## 2 Bimetric Gravity Theory

We postulate that four-dimensional spacetime is described by the bimetric structure :

$$\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }+\alpha _\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi ,$$
(1)
where $`\alpha >0`$ is a constant with dimensions of $`[\mathrm{length}]^2`$ and we choose the scalar field $`\varphi `$ to be dimensionless. The metric $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ is called the matter quantum mechanical metric, while $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is the gravitational metric. The scalar field $`\varphi `$ belongs to the gravitational sector. We choose the signature of flat spacetime to be described by the Minkowski metric $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$. The inverse metrics $`\widehat{g}^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`g^{\mu \nu }`$ satisfy

$$\widehat{g}^{\mu \alpha }\widehat{g}_{\nu \alpha }=\delta _{}^{\mu }{}_{\nu }{}^{},g^{\mu \alpha }g_{\nu \alpha }=\delta _{}^{\mu }{}_{\nu }{}^{}.$$
(2)
We assume that only non-degenerate values of $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ with $`\mathrm{Det}(\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu })0`$ correspond to physical spacetime.

The action is given by

$$S=S_G[g]+S_\varphi [g,\varphi ]+\widehat{S}_M[\widehat{g},\psi ^I],$$
(3)
where

$$S_G[g]=\frac{1}{\kappa }𝑑td^3x\sqrt{g}(R[g]+2\mathrm{\Lambda }),$$
(4)
and

$$S_\varphi [g,\varphi ]=\frac{1}{\kappa }𝑑td^3x\sqrt{g}\left(\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi V(\varphi )\right).$$
(5)
Moreover, the matter stress-energy tensor is

$$\widehat{T}^{\mu \nu }=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\widehat{g}}}\frac{\delta \widehat{S}_M}{\delta \widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }},$$
(6)
$`\kappa =16\pi G/c_0^4`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the cosmological constant and $`\psi ^I`$ denotes matter fields. We have constructed the matter action $`\widehat{S}_M`$ using the matter quantum mechanical metric $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }`$. The stress-energy tensor for the scalar field $`\varphi `$ is given by

$$T_\varphi ^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{\kappa }\left[g^{\mu \alpha }g^{\nu \beta }_\alpha \varphi _\beta \varphi \frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }g^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha \varphi _\beta \varphi +g^{\mu \nu }V(\varphi )\right].$$
(7)
An alternative choice of bimetric structure is :

$$\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }+\alpha \psi _\mu \psi _\nu ,$$
(8)
where $`\psi _\mu `$ is a vector field and

$$F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \psi _\nu _\nu \psi _\mu $$
(9)
is the field strength tensor. In the following, we shall consider only the bimetric tensor-scalar spacetime structure defined by (1).

Variation of the action $`S`$ in (3) gives the field equations

$$G^{\mu \nu }=\frac{\kappa }{2}(s\widehat{T}^{\mu \nu }+T_\varphi ^{\mu \nu })+\mathrm{\Lambda }g^{\mu \nu },$$
(10)
$$_\mu ^\mu \varphi +V^{}(\varphi )\kappa s\alpha \widehat{T}^{\mu \nu }\widehat{}_\mu \widehat{}_\nu \varphi =0,$$
(11)
where $`G^{\mu \nu }=R^{\mu \nu }(1/2)g^{\mu \nu }R`$ is the Einstein tensor and $`s=\sqrt{\widehat{g}}/\sqrt{g}`$. Moreover, $`_\mu `$ and $`\widehat{}_\mu `$ denote the covariant differential operators associated with $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }`$, respectively, $`V(\varphi )`$ is the potential for the field $`\varphi `$ and $`V^{}(\varphi )=V(\varphi )/\varphi `$. For a free scalar field $`\varphi `$ the potential will be $`V(\varphi )=\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi ^2`$, where $`m`$ is the mass of the particle associated with the scalar field $`\varphi `$. The energy-momentum tensor $`\widehat{T}^{\mu \nu }`$ satisfies the conservation laws

$$\widehat{}_\nu \left[\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\widehat{T}^{\mu \nu }\right]=0.$$
(12)
## 3 Bimetric Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics

The local special relativity metric is given by $`g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ with

$$ds^2\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =c_g^2dt^2(dx^i)^2,$$
(13)
where ($`i,j=1,2,3`$). The quantum mechanical metric for the choice (1) is

$$d\widehat{s}^2\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =(\eta _{\mu \nu }+\alpha _\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi )dx^\mu dx^\nu .$$
(14)
The latter can be written as

$$d\widehat{s}^2=c_0^2dt^2\left(1+\frac{\alpha }{c_0^2}\dot{\varphi }^2\right)(\delta _{ij}\alpha _i\varphi _j\varphi )dx^idx^j,$$
(15)
where $`\dot{\varphi }=d\varphi /dt`$. We see that the speed of light in the quantum mechanical metric is space and time dependent. If we assume that $`_i\varphi 0`$, then we have 111In GR, with one local lightcone, we can always perform a diffeomorphism transformation to remove the time dependence of $`c`$. This correponds to being able to choose units in which rigid ruler and clock measurements yield $`\mathrm{\Delta }c/c=0`$. In the bimetric gravity theory, we cannot simultaneously remove the time dependence of $`c`$ and $`c_g`$ by performing a diffeomorphism transformation. If we choose $`c_g`$ to be constant, then the time dependence of $`c`$ is non-trivially realized.

$$c(t)=c_0\left(1+\frac{\alpha }{c_0^2}\dot{\varphi }^2\right)^{1/2}.$$
(16)
The null cone equation $`ds^2=0`$ describes gravitational wave signals moving with the constant measured speed $`c_g`$, whereas $`d\widehat{s}^2=0`$ cannot be satisfied along the same null cone lines, but determines an expanded null cone with the speed of light $`c>c_0`$. The bimetric null cone structure is described in Fig.1.

Fig. 1. Bimetric light cones showing the timelike communication path between the two entangled states at A and B in the quantum mechanical metric $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }`$.

Both metrics (13) and (14) are separately invariant under local 222We consider a small patch of spacetime in which $`g_{\mu \nu }\eta _{\mu \nu }`$, so that we can restrict our attention to local Lorentz transformations. Lorentz transformations

$$x^{}_{}{}^{}\mu =\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\mu }{}_{\nu }{}^{}x^\nu ,$$
(17)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\mu }{}_{\nu }{}^{}`$ are constant matrix coefficients which satisfy the orthogonality condition

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\mu }{}_{\nu }{}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\sigma }=\delta _{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\sigma }.$$
(18)
The ‘physical’ matter metric $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ describes the geometry in which quantum matter propagates and interacts. Because all quantum matter fields are coupled to the same metric $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ in the same way, the weak equivalence principle is satisfied in this metric frame. However, because $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ does not couple to matter in the same way as in GR unless $`\varphi =0`$, the strong equivalence principle is not satisfied.

If we choose a spacelike surface for each individual metric $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, then a Cauchy initial value solution of the field equations for given initial data on these spacelike surfaces can be obtained, which preserves the causal evolution of the fields and field equations . If we consider a vector field $`V_\mu `$, which is timelike (or null) with respect to both metrics $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, then an observer would see a normal, causal ordering of timelike events. However, we could picture a situation in which an observer at $`A`$, in Fig.1, observes that the vector field $`V_\mu `$ is timelike with respect to the smaller light cone, but is spacelike with respect to the second larger lightcone. In this sense, causality in the bimetric gravity theory is observer dependent. Thus, by performing a Lorentz transformation to a boosted frame in the second, larger light cone, events connected by a ‘superluminal’ quantum information signal would appear to be acausal with respect to the observer at $`A`$, i.e. the emission of a light signal would appear to take place later than its reception. However, In the ‘physical’ matter metric frame described by $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }`$, an observer at $`B`$ would see a proper timelike and causal ordering of events, provided the observer is restricted to observing a timelike vector field. Thus, the emission of quantum matter information signals would be causal with respect to the observer at $`B`$ in the metric frame described by $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }`$.

In classical physics, information is communicated through space with a limiting speed $`c=c_0`$. Information can affect events only in the forward light cone. We are concerned with the transmission of ‘quantum information’ (QI), which is transported through space at some speed $`v_{QI}`$. Let us consider a smallest cone with $`\theta _{QI}`$ the angle of the cone to the vertical. Then $`v_{QI}=0`$ corresponds to $`\theta _{QI}=0`$, $`v_{QI}=c_0=c_g`$ to $`\theta _{QI}=\pi /4`$, and $`v_{QI}=\mathrm{}`$ corresponds to $`\theta _{QI}=\pi /2`$ . We can also define an inverse speed of QI:

$$w_{QI}=\mathrm{cot}\theta _{QI}=\left(\frac{c_0}{v_{QI}}\right).$$
(19)
Then, $`v_{QI}=c_g=c_0`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ correspond to $`w_{QI}=1`$ and $`0`$, respectively. The case $`w_{QI}=1`$ is related to the classical special relativity metric frame with the constant values $`c=c_0=c_g`$, while $`0w_{QI}1`$ corresponds to the quantum mechanical metric lightcone swept out by the time dependence of $`c=c(t)`$ for $`\alpha 0`$.

We require a local relativistic description of quantum mechanics. To this end, we introduce the concept of a general spacelike surface in Minkowski spacetime, instead of the flat surface $`t=\mathrm{constant}`$. We demand that the normal to the surface at any point $`x`$, $`n_\mu (x)`$, be time-like: $`n_\mu (x)n^\mu (x)>0`$. We denote a spacelike surface by $`\sigma `$. A local time $`t(\stackrel{}{x})`$ is assigned, so that in the limit that the surface becomes plane, each point has the same time $`t=\mathrm{constant}`$. We can now define the Lorentz invariant functional derivative $`\delta /\delta \sigma (x)`$ and the Tomonaga-Schwinger equation

$$i\mathrm{}c_0\frac{\delta \psi (\sigma )}{\delta \sigma (x)}=_{\mathrm{int}}(x)\psi (\sigma ),$$
(20)
where

$$H_{\mathrm{int}}(t)=d^3x_{\mathrm{int}}(x),$$
(21)
is the Hamiltonian operator in the interaction representation, and $`_{\mathrm{int}}(x)`$ is the Lorentz invariant Hamiltonian density. Eq. (20) is a relativistic extension of the Schrödinger equation

$$i\mathrm{}_t\psi (t)=H(t)\psi .$$
(22)
It is essential that the domain of variation of $`\sigma `$ is restricted by the integrability condition

$$\frac{\delta ^2\psi (\sigma )}{\delta \sigma (x)\delta \sigma (x^{})}\frac{\delta ^2\psi (\sigma )}{\delta \sigma (x^{})\delta \sigma (x)}=0.$$
(23)
This equation in turn implies that

$$[_{\mathrm{int}}(x),_{\mathrm{int}}(x^{})]=0,$$
(24)
for $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$ on the spacelike surface $`\sigma `$. In quantum field theory, it is usual to work in the interaction picture, so that the invariant commutation rules for the field operators automatically guarantee that (24) is satisfied for all interacting fields with local nonderivative couplings.

The Tomonaga-Schwinger equation evolves unitarily in the special relativity metric $`g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ with $`\alpha =0`$, before a measurement of a quantum mechanical state is performed and before the collapse of the state wave function. After a measurement is performed on a quantum state and $`\alpha `$ is ‘switched on’, then depending upon the spatial distance of the causal communication between two entangled states $`A`$ and $`B`$, and the size of $`\alpha `$ required to make $`A`$ and $`B`$ timelike separated, the Tomonaga-Schwinger equation and its non-relativistic counterpart – the Schrödinger equation – will have a spacelike region outside the quantum mechanical metric lightcone to evolve unitarily. For $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$ this spacelike region will shrink to zero and $`A`$ and $`B`$ will be timelike separated by an infinite spatial distance and $`v_{QI}=\mathrm{}`$.

We introduce the concept of a locally Lorentz invariant density matrix:

$$\rho (\sigma (x))=|\psi (\sigma )\psi (\sigma )|.$$
(25)
The density matrix operator $`\rho (\sigma )`$ satisfies the invariant Heisenberg equation of motion

$$i\mathrm{}c_0\frac{\delta \rho (\sigma )}{\delta \sigma }=[_{\mathrm{int}}(x),\rho (\sigma )].$$
(26)
A local relativistic measure of the entanglement of a bipartite quantum state is given by

$$S(\rho _m)(\sigma )=\mathrm{Tr}_m\rho (\sigma )\mathrm{log}\rho (\sigma ),$$
(27)
where $`S(\rho _m)(\sigma )`$ is the relativistic entropy of the subsystems A and B. Moreover, $`\rho _A=\mathrm{Tr}_B|\psi \psi |`$ is the reduced density matrix obtained by tracing the whole system’s pure state density matrix $`\rho _{AB}=|\psi \psi |`$ over A’s degrees of freedom, while $`\rho _B=\mathrm{Tr}_A|\psi \psi |`$ is the partial trace over B’s degrees of freedom. In the non-relativistic limit, (27) reduces to the pure bipartite entropy measure of entanglement . 333We consider in the following only the simple physical system of two photons (or two electrons). The entanglement measure for a mixed state and a multiparticle state is controversial and no consensus has been reached on how to define it.

For a non-entangled state for which the $`\psi (\sigma )`$ can be expressed as a tensor product $`\psi _A(\sigma )\psi _B(\sigma )`$, we have $`S(\rho )(\sigma )=0`$, $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }`$ and there is no signal transmitted between the bipartite states $`A`$ and $`B`$ by light signals associated with the special relativity metric (13) light cone with $`c_g=c_0`$, for they are now spacelike separated.

For an entangled state $`\alpha 0`$ the spacetime is described by the local metric (14). Since the speed of light can become much larger in the quantum mechanical metric frame, it is now possible to transmit signals at ‘superluminal’ speeds without violating the spatial causality notions that prevail in the familiar classical special relativity frame. In this way, by introducing a bimetric spacetime, we have incorporated the notions of spacetime events and causality for quantum mechanical entangled states.

## 4 Conclusions

An observer who detects a quantum mechanical system with some measuring device and subsequently observes an entangled state with $`\alpha 0`$ in the quantum mechanical metric frame, will also observe an exchange of quantum information with the spatially distant other component of the entangled state. In the quantum mechanical metric frame, the speed of the light signal $`c`$ emitted, say, at a counter at A and received at a distant counter B will be finite but large compared to the measured value of the speed of light $`c_0`$ in the classical, local gravitational metric frame, and A and B are no longer ‘spacelike’ separated.

A possible experiment to verify the bimetric spacetime scenario would be to attempt to measure a decrease in the communication signals associated with the solutions of the fields $`\varphi `$ with $`\alpha 0`$. Since electromagnetic (photon) communication can take place over large cosmological distances in the universe, then given enough transmission energy the two entangled states $`A`$ and $`B`$ could communicate at large spatially separated distances without an observer detecting a significant decrease in the amount of entanglement and correlation of A and B. The current correlation experiments have a separation distance $``$ 11 kilometres and it is estimated in a preferred frame that $`c10^4c_0`$ . It is possible that when experiments are performed at larger spatial separations, a dilution of the correlation between entangled states will be observed. Until then, we cannot exclude our alternative proposal, based on an extended spacetime structure using a bimetric geometry.

In our bimetric scenario, the Bell inequalities would not exclude our extension of special relativity theory and gravitation theory. The observed experimental violations of Bell’s inequality tell us that the assumption of classical locality, based on one metric and one Minkowski light cone, is not compatible with quantum mechanics. But the observed violation of Bell’s inequality does not exclude the extended concept of locality possessed by the bimetric two-lightcone structure and quantum mechanics.

In our generalized bimetric gravity theory, we no longer have the peculiar tension that exists between GR and quantum mechanics, caused by classical gravity theory being a strictly local theory at macroscopic distances (equivalence principle) and the nonlocal behavior of spatially separated entangled states in quantum mechanics. This may lay the groundwork for a consistent quantum gravity theory.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. I thank Michael Clayton and Pierre Savaria for stimulating and helpful conversations.


format: text

text:
# Instabilities in the two-dimensional cubic nonlinear Schrödinger equation

## I Introduction

The two-dimensional cubic nonlinear Schrödinger equation (NLS) is given by

$$i\psi _t+\alpha \psi _{xx}+\beta \psi _{yy}+\gamma |\psi |^2\psi =0,$$
(1)
where $`\psi =\psi (x,y,t)`$ is a complex-valued function, and $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ are real constants. Among many other situations, NLS arises as an approximate model of the evolution of a nearly monochromatic wave of small amplitude in pulse propagation along optical fibers Manakov (1974) where $`\alpha \beta >0`$, in gravity waves on deep water Benney and Roskes (1969) Davey and Stewartson (1974) where $`\alpha \beta <0`$ and in Langmuir waves in a plasma Pecseli (1985) where $`\alpha \beta >0`$. As a description of a superfluid Donnelly (1991), NLS is known as the Gross-Pitaevskii equation Gross (1963) Pitaevskii (1961) with $`\alpha \beta >0`$. Sulem and Sulem Sulem and Sulem (1999) examine NLS in detail.

NLS admits a large class of one-dimensional traveling wave solutions of the form

$$\psi (x,y,t)=\varphi (ax+byst)\text{e}^{i\lambda t+ia\overline{s}x+ib\overline{s}y+i\eta },$$
(2)
where $`\varphi `$ is a real-valued function, $`\overline{s}=s/(2\alpha a^2+2\beta b^2)`$ and $`a`$, $`b`$, $`s`$, $`\lambda `$ and $`\eta `$ are real parameters. By making use of the symmetries of NLS Sulem and Sulem (1999), all solutions of this form can be considered by studying the simplified form

$$\psi (x,y,t)=\varphi (z)\text{e}^{i\kappa x+i\lambda t},$$
(3)
where $`\varphi `$ is a real-valued function, $`z=x2\alpha \kappa t`$, and $`\kappa `$ and $`\lambda `$ are real parameters.

If $`\alpha \gamma >0`$, then NLS admits the following two solutions of the form (3)

$$\varphi (z)=\sqrt{2\frac{\alpha }{\gamma }}k\text{cn}(z,k),\text{with}\lambda =\alpha (2k^21\kappa ^2),$$
(4)
$$\varphi (z)=\sqrt{2\frac{\alpha }{\gamma }}\text{dn}(z,k),\text{with}\lambda =\alpha (2k^2\kappa ^2).$$
(5)
If $`\alpha \gamma <0`$, then NLS admits the following solution

$$\varphi (z)=\sqrt{2\frac{\alpha }{\gamma }}k\text{sn}(z,k),\text{with}\lambda =\alpha (1+k^2+\kappa ^2).$$
(6)
Here $`k[0,1]`$ is a free parameter known as the elliptic modulus and $`\text{cn}(,k)`$, $`\text{dn}(,k)`$, and $`\text{sn}(,k)`$ are Jacobi elliptic functions. Byrd and Friedman Byrd and Friedman (1954) provide a complete review of elliptic functions. If $`k<1`$, then each function $`\varphi (z)`$ is periodic. As $`k1`$, the period of each increases without bound, and $`\varphi (z)`$ limits to an appropriate hyperbolic function, which we call a “solitary wave.”

These solutions, plus the “Stokes’ wave” (plane wave)

$$\psi (x,t)=A\text{e}^{i\kappa xi(\alpha \kappa ^2\gamma |A|^2)t},$$
(7)
comprise the entire class of bounded traveling wave solutions of NLS with trivial phase Carr et al. (2000). Davey and Stewartson Davey and Stewartson (1974) show that a Stokes’ wave is unstable unless either $`\alpha \beta \gamma =0`$, or $`\alpha \beta >0`$ and $`\alpha \gamma <0`$. In the remainder of this paper, we concentrate on (4), (5) and (6), and on their instabilities.

Zakharov and Rubenchik Zakharov and Rubenchik (1974) establish that (4) and (5) with $`k=1`$ are unstable with respect to long-wave transverse perturbations. Pelinovsky Pelinovsky (2001) reviews the stability of solitary wave solutions of NLS with $`\alpha \beta <0`$ and $`\alpha \gamma >0`$, and presents an analytical expression for the growth rate of the instability near a cut-off. Extensive reviews of the stability of solitary wave solutions are given in Kuznetsov et al. (1986); Rypdal and Rasmussen (1989); Kivshar and Pelinovsky (2000). The periodic problem has not been studied in as much detail, though Martin, Yuen and Saffman Martin et al. (1980) examine numerically the stability of the solution given in (5) for a range of parameters.

We present four main results in this paper. First, every one-dimensional traveling wave with trivial phase is unstable with respect to some infinitesimal perturbation with two-dimensional structure. For *all* choices of the parameters, there are unstable perturbations with long transverse wavelength. This generalizes the result of Zakharov and Rubenchik (1974).

Second, if $`\alpha \beta >0`$, then the only unstable perturbations have transverse wavelength longer than a well-defined cut-off.

Third, if $`\alpha \beta <0`$, then there is no such cut-off. There are unstable perturbations with arbitrarily short wavelengths in both transverse and longitudinal directions. These short wavelength instabilities seem to have been overlooked in previous analyses.

Fourth, for $`\alpha \beta <0`$, the unstable perturbations with short wavelength have transverse wavenumbers that are confined to narrower and narrower intervals as the transverse wavenumber grows without bound. In these unstable intervals, as the transverse wavenumber grows without bound, the maximum growth rate approaches a well-defined limit. As $`k1`$, this limiting growth rate tends to zero if $`\alpha \gamma >0`$, and to a finite non-zero limit if $`\alpha \gamma <0`$.

## II Stability Analysis

We consider perturbed solutions, $`\psi __p=\psi __p(x,y,t)`$, with the following structure

$$\psi __p=(\varphi (z)+ϵu(x,y,t)+iϵv(x,y,t)+O(ϵ^2))\text{e}^{i\kappa x+i\lambda t},$$
(8)
where $`u(x,y,t)`$ and $`v(x,y,t)`$ are real-valued functions, $`ϵ`$ is a small real parameter, $`z=x2\alpha \kappa t`$, and $`\varphi (z)\text{e}^{i\kappa x+i\lambda t}`$ is one of the solutions presented in the previous section. Substituting (8) into (1), linearizing and separating into real and imaginary parts gives

$$(\alpha \kappa ^2+\lambda )u+3\gamma \varphi ^2u+\beta u_{yy}+\alpha u_{xx}=v_t,$$
(9a)
$$(\alpha \kappa ^2+\lambda )v+\gamma \varphi ^2v+\beta v_{yy}+\alpha v_{xx}=u_t.$$
(9b)
Without loss of generality, assume that $`u(x,y,t)`$ and $`v(x,y,t)`$ have the forms

$$u(x,y,t)=U(z,\rho )\text{e}^{i\rho y\mathrm{\Omega }t}+c.c.,$$
(10a)
$$v(x,y,t)=V(z,\rho )\text{e}^{i\rho y\mathrm{\Omega }t}+c.c.,$$
(10b)
where $`\rho `$ is a real constant, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a complex constant, $`U`$ and $`V`$ are complex-valued functions and $`c.c.`$ denotes complex conjugate. This leads to

$$(\alpha \kappa ^2+\lambda )U3\gamma \varphi ^2U+\beta \rho ^2U\alpha _z^2U=\mathrm{\Omega }V,$$
(11a)
$$(\alpha \kappa ^2+\lambda )V\gamma \varphi ^2V+\beta \rho ^2V\alpha _z^2V=\mathrm{\Omega }U.$$
(11b)
These are the central equations in this paper. We assume that $`U`$ and $`V`$ are periodic with the same period as $`\varphi `$. More general boundary conditions are discussed in Carter (2001). Instability occurs if (11b) admits a periodic solution with $`Re(\mathrm{\Omega })<0`$. Without loss of generality, for the remainder of this paper we assume $`\kappa =0`$ by redefining $`\lambda `$.

In Sections III and IV, we examine (11b) using small-$`\rho `$ and large-$`\rho `$ asymptotic analyses respectively. In Section V, we present results from a numerical study in which (11b) was solved for a wide range of $`\rho `$ values.

## III Small-$`\rho `$ limit

Generalizing the work in Zakharov and Rubenchik (1974), we assume that for fixed $`k`$ and for fixed small $`\rho `$, (11b) admits solutions of the form

$$Uu_0(z)+\rho u_1(z)+\rho ^2u_2(z)+\mathrm{},$$
(12a)
$$Vv_0(z)+\rho v_1(z)+\rho ^2v_2(z)+\mathrm{},$$
(12b)
$$\mathrm{\Omega }^2\rho ^2\omega _1+\rho ^3\omega _2+\mathrm{},$$
(12c)
where the $`\omega _j`$ are complex constants and the $`u_j`$ and $`v_j`$ are complex-valued periodic functions with the same period as $`\varphi `$.

This assumption leads to the “neck” mode

$$U_n(z,\rho )=O(\rho ),$$
(13a)
$$V_n(z,\rho )=\varphi +O(\rho ),$$
(13b)
$$\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2=\alpha \beta \rho ^2\omega _{1n}+O(\rho ^3),$$
(13c)
and the “snake” mode

$$U_s(z,\rho )=\frac{d\varphi }{dz}+O(\rho ),$$
(14a)
$$V_s(z,\rho )=O(\rho ),$$
(14b)
$$\mathrm{\Omega }_s^2=\alpha \beta \rho ^2\omega _{1s}+O(\rho ^3),$$
(14c)
where $`\omega _{1n}`$ and $`\omega _{1s}`$ are functions of the elliptic modulus of the unperturbed solution. Complicated but exact expressions for $`\omega _{1n}`$ and $`\omega _{1s}`$ are derived in Carter (2001). The final results are presented in Fig. 1, where we plot $`\omega _{1n}`$ and $`\omega _{1s}`$, the growth rates, versus $`k`$ for (4), (5) and (6).

These plots establish that $`\omega _{1n}<0`$ for (4) and (5) and $`\omega _{1s}<0`$ for (6). Therefore, if $`\alpha \beta >0`$, (4) and (5) are unstable with respect to long-wave transverse perturbations corresponding to the neck mode and (6) is unstable with respect to long-wave transverse perturbations corresponding to the the snake mode.

These plots also establish that $`\omega _{1s}>0`$ for (4) and (5) and $`\omega _{1n}>0`$ for (6). Therefore, if $`\alpha \beta <0`$, (4) and (5) are unstable with respect to the snake mode and (6) is unstable with respect to the neck mode.

It follows from these results that a trivial-phase solution of NLS is unstable to a growing neck mode if $`\beta \gamma >0`$, and to a growing snake mode if $`\beta \gamma <0`$.

## IV Large-$`\rho `$ limit

If $`\alpha \beta >0`$ and $`\rho `$ is chosen to be large enough to satisfy

$$\rho ^2>5|\frac{\alpha }{\beta }|,$$
(15)
then the two operators on the left side of (11b) have the same sign, so $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2<0`$. Therefore, there is no large-$`\rho `$ instability if $`\alpha \beta >0`$.

If $`\alpha \beta <0`$ and $`\rho `$ is large, then one can show that there is no instability unless $`\mathrm{\Omega }=O(1)`$. Therefore, we assume

$$U\zeta _1(\mu z)+\rho ^2\zeta _2(\mu z)+\mathrm{},$$
(16a)
$$V\xi _1(\mu z)+\rho ^2\xi _2(\mu z)+\mathrm{},$$
(16b)
$$\mathrm{\Omega }w_1+\rho ^2w_2+\mathrm{},$$
(16c)
$$\alpha \mu ^2=\beta \rho ^2+\nu +O(\rho ^2),$$
(16d)
where $`\nu `$ is a real constant, the $`w_j`$ are complex constants, and the $`\zeta _j`$ and $`\xi _j`$ are complex-valued periodic functions with the same period as $`\varphi `$.

Substituting (16d) into (11b), one finds at leading order

$$U\zeta _{11}\mathrm{sin}(\mu z+z_0)+O(\rho ^2),$$
(17a)
$$V\xi _{11}\mathrm{sin}(\mu z+z_0)+O(\rho ^2),$$
(17b)
where $`\zeta _{11}`$, $`\xi _{11}`$ and $`z_0`$ are constants. Requiring $`U`$ and $`V`$ to have the same period as $`\varphi (z)`$ forces $`\mu `$ to take on discrete values: $`\mu =2\pi N/L`$, where $`L`$ is the period of $`\varphi (z)`$, and $`N`$ is an integer. To satisfy (16d), $`N1`$. At the next order in $`\rho `$, solutions are periodic only if

$$w_1=\pm \sqrt{\gamma f\lambda +\nu }\sqrt{\lambda 3\gamma f\nu },$$
(18)
where $`f`$ is the Fourier coefficient (in $`\mathrm{sin}(\mu z+z_0)`$) of $`\varphi ^2(z)\mathrm{sin}(\mu z+z_0)`$ and $`\nu `$ is $`O(1)`$ but otherwise arbitrary. Minimizing the negative root in (18) with respect to $`\nu `$ leads to

$$w_{min}=|\gamma f|,$$
(19)
when $`\nu =(\lambda 2\gamma f)`$. Then (16d) defines $`\rho __N`$, the value of $`\rho `$ at which the Nth unstable mode achieves its maximum growth rate:

$$\beta \rho __N^2=\alpha (2\pi N/L)^2+2\gamma f\lambda .$$
(20)
We also find how for $`\rho `$ can deviate from $`\rho __N`$ before $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ becomes negative

$$\delta \rho __N|\gamma |f/(2|\beta |\rho __N)=O(1/N),\text{for}N1.$$
(21)
Analytic expressions for the $`f`$ corresponding to the solutions given in (4), (5) and (6) are not known. But, in the large-$`\rho `$ limit, the Riemann-Lebesgue Lemma Guenther and Lee (1988) can be used to determine approximate expressions. As $`\rho \mathrm{}`$, for the solution given in (4),

$$f\frac{1}{2K(k)}\left|\frac{\alpha }{\gamma }\right|\left(E(\text{am}(4K(k)))+4(k^21)K(k)\right),$$
(22)
for the solution given in (5),

$$f\frac{1}{K(k)}\left|\frac{\alpha }{\gamma }\right|\left(E(\text{am}(2K(k)))\right),$$
(23)
and for the solution given in (6),

$$f\frac{1}{2K(k)}\left|\frac{\alpha }{\gamma }\right|\left(4K(k)E(\text{am}(4K(k)))\right).$$
(24)
In each of these expressions, $`\text{am}()`$ gives the Jacobi amplitude and $`K()`$ and $`E()`$ are the complete elliptic integrals of the first and second kind respectively Byrd and Friedman (1954).

Plots of $`w_{min}/|\alpha |`$, a growth rate, versus $`k`$ are given in Fig. 2. This argument establishes that all finite-period one-dimensional trivial phase solutions are unstable with respect to arbitrarily short-wavelength transverse perturbations if $`\alpha \beta <0`$, and that the growth rate of the instability remains bounded as $`\rho \mathrm{}`$.

Note that as $`k1`$, $`\varphi (z)`$ in (6) approaches a hyperbolic tangent and the growth rate approaches that of the Stokes’ wave with an amplitude of $`\sqrt{2\alpha /\gamma }`$. This establishes that there are an infinite number of of unstable branches if $`\alpha \beta <0`$ and $`\alpha \gamma <0`$.

Also note that as $`k1`$, $`\varphi (z)`$ in both (4) and (5) approaches a hyperbolic secant, and the corresponding growth rate limits to zero. This establishes that there is no large-$`\rho `$ instability in the solitary wave limit if $`\alpha \gamma >0`$.

## V Monodromy

The system of equations in (11b) is Hamiltonian in $`z`$, with periodic boundary conditions. The coordinates on the phase space are $`p_1=dU/dz`$, $`p_2=dV/dz`$, $`q_1=U`$ and $`q_2=V`$. The Hamiltonian is

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(p_1^2p_2^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha }}(\lambda +\beta \rho ^23\gamma \varphi ^2(x))q_1^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha }}(\lambda +\beta \rho ^2\gamma \varphi ^2)q_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\alpha }}q_1q_2.`$ (25)
Such a Hamiltonian system necessarily has a monodromy structure with invariants Meyer and Hall (1992). We used this structure to identify the periodic solutions of (11b) by numerically integrating (11b) over one period of $`\varphi `$.

The growth rates obtained from numerical simulations corresponding to (6) with $`k=\sqrt{0.8}`$ and $`\alpha =\beta =\gamma =1`$ are included in Fig. 3 as dots. The line is obtained from the small-$`\rho `$ results. The dashed curve is obtained from the large-$`\rho `$ results with $`N=5`$. Each dotted curve corresponds to a different unstable mode. A plot of the spatial structure of the mode corresponding to $`(\rho =3.5,\mathrm{\Omega }=0.99,N=5)`$ is given in Fig. 4.

Figure 3 demonstrates strong agreement between the numerical results and the small-$`\rho `$ analysis when $`\rho `$ is near zero. It also demonstrates agreement between the numerical results and the large-$`\rho `$ analysis.

Figure 4 demonstrates that the $`U`$ and $`V`$ obtained numerically are similar in form to the $`U`$ and $`V`$ obtained in the large-$`\rho `$ analysis.

This work was supported by National Science Foundation Grants DMS-9731097, DMS-98-10751, and DMS-0139771. We acknowledge useful discussions with Bernard Deconinck and Nathan Kutz.


text:
# Anisotropy of heavy hole spin splitting and interference effects of optical polarization in semiconductor quantum wells subjected to an in-plane magnetic field

## I Introduction

The linear optical polarization $`\rho `$ of photo-luminescence (PL) in quantum wells (QWs) are very sensitive to low symmetry interactions $`V`$, which can be responsible for this polarization (Refs KusrPRL ; Gaj ; RyabchE ; RyabchNATO ). A typical situation corresponds to relatively weak $`V`$, which mixes the light hole (LH) and heavy hole (HH) states. By this virtue the polarization reaches the magnitude about $`\epsilon =\left|V\right|/\mathrm{\Delta }_{HL}`$ ( $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{HL}`$ is HH - LH energy splitting) without external magnetic field (RefsGaj ; RyabchE ).

Strong polarization of luminescence from  - oriented quantum wells Cd1-xMnxTe /CdTe/ Cd1-xMnxTe and its $`\pi `$-periodic anisotropy (i.e. dependence on sample rotation about QW normal) has been observed in Refs KusrPRL ; RyabchNATO  under in-plane magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}`$. There was assumed that these properties are due to $`C_{2v}`$ symmetry potential of a hole in QW. It was found that polarization and its anisotropy increases sharply with increasing of in-plane magnetic field and reaches few tens percents. This fact cannot be consistent with small value of ratio $`\epsilon `$. Moreover, strong polarization effects as well as the significant contribution of fourth harmonic of aforementioned anisotropy for narrow QWs remains so far unexplainedKusrPRL . The phenomenological approach developed in RefKusrPRL  in terms of bilinear in $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ representation of $`\rho `$ cannot describe the strong effects when $`\rho 1`$.

The complementary approach of Ref.KusrPRL  in terms of pseudospin formalism requires the proper determination of pseudospin basic functions both for real electron spin operators and for non-spin part of interaction being responsible for optical transitions. Moreover different kinds of HH interactions, which determine the HH splitting under in-plane magnetic field need further consideration. This means that for correct description of above experimental data it is necessary to have a microscopic theory in terms of actual electron and hole spins rather then pseudospins.

Here, we pay attention to the well-known fact that any interaction splitting the degenerate electron and HH levels imposes some phase correlations between the electron and hole wave functions. In addition to above small contribution caused by LH-HH mixing, this correlation forms the polarization and its anisotropy associated with some pair of distinguishable electron - hole optical transitions regardless of spin levels splitting value.

On the other hand, there are different possible interactions which are able to lift the HH degeneracy in a magnetic field (Ref.Pikus ). Latter interactions impose their specific correlations between electron and hole $`\psi `$ \- function phases as well as the period and phase of optical polarization anisotropy (OPA), i.e. polarization dependence on QW rotation about its normal. Thus, if one of the four possible electron - HH transitions prevails (for instance, due to low enough temperatures), one can expect the appearance of strong optical polarization.

In this paper, we provide a quantitative microscopic analysis of optical polarization anisotropy caused by different low-symmetry interactions of a hole in QW. First, we discuss the general expression for OPA in terms of electron and HH $`\psi `$\- functions phases. Then we show that the different interactions leading to HH splitting reveal the various OPA dependencies on in-plane magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ rotation. This demonstrates the necessity to account for joint contribution of aforementioned terms to OPA resulting in qualitatively new peculiarities due to interference effects. Finally, in the framework of our theory, we explain quantitatively the most interesting experimental results that are accessible from literature.

## II Theoretical background

### II.1 Photoluminescence linear polarization

We are interested in the linear polarization of PL-spectrum that involves four optical transitions from two electron spin sub-levels to two HH sub-levels. To avoid the problems of these components spectral shifts in a magnetic field (see below) we assume that integral PL intensities $`I_\alpha `$ of polarization $`\alpha `$ can be extracted from experiment and associated with transition probabilities in terms of thermal population of spin sub-levels. Thus, according to definition

$$\rho _\alpha =\frac{I_\alpha I_\alpha ^{}}{I_\alpha +I_\alpha ^{}},$$
(1)
where the plane of $`\alpha ^{}`$-polarization is perpendicular to that of $`\alpha `$ polarization. Then, we introduce the reference frame associated with main crystal axes so that $`\stackrel{}{OZ}`$ is parallel to growth axis $`[001]`$, while $`\stackrel{}{OX}[100]`$ and $`\stackrel{}{OY}[010]`$ lay into QW plane.

The electron (or HH) spin splitting $`\omega =\omega _e`$ (or $`\omega =\omega _h`$) is assumed to be described by following matrix Hamiltonian in certain basis $`|n`$, $`n=1`$, $`2`$,

$$H_{n,n^{}}=\frac{\omega }{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& e^{i\theta }\\ e^{i\theta }& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(2)
where $`\omega =2\left|H_{1,2}\right|`$, $`\mathrm{sin}\theta =2\mathrm{Im}H_{1,2}/\omega `$. Eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of Hamiltonian (2) are

$$E_\pm =\pm \frac{1}{2}\omega ;\psi ^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\pm e^{i\theta /2}|1+e^{i\theta /2}|2\right).$$
(3)
In the case of electron subjected to in-plane magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}=B\{\mathrm{cos}\phi ,\mathrm{sin}\phi ,0\}`$, $`\psi ^\pm \psi _c^\pm `$, Hamiltonian $`H=\omega _e\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{s}`$ takes the form (2) in representation of $`|1=S`$ and $`|2=S`$, where $`S`$ is a periodic part of conductivity band Bloch function, $``$ and $``$ are the eigenstates of spin projection $`s_z`$. Here $`\omega _e`$ means electron Zeeman spin splitting, $`\theta =\phi `$ is an angle between $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{OX}`$ .

In the case of HH, $`\psi ^\pm \psi _v^\pm `$, the basis $`|1=L_+`$, $`|2=L_{}`$ corresponds to $`\pm 3/2`$ projection of HH angular momentum on $`z`$-direction, $`L_\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(X\pm iY)`$, $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are the periodic parts of valence band Bloch functions. The dependence $`\theta =\theta (\phi )`$ have to be found for each specific form of HH Hamiltonian (see below).

The operator of interband optical transition with polarization plane rotated relative to the magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}=B\{\mathrm{cos}\phi ,\mathrm{sin}\phi ,0\}`$ by angle $`\alpha `$ about the $`\stackrel{}{OZ}`$ axis (see Fig.1) takes the form

$$\widehat{V}_\alpha =p_{}e^{i(\phi +\alpha )}+p_+e^{i(\phi +\alpha )},$$
(4)
where $`p_\pm =\frac{1}{2}\left(e_x\pm ie_y\right)`$, $`e_x`$ and $`e_y`$ are transformed as $`x`$ and $`y`$.

Using the definitions (3) and (4), one can easily find the matrix element $`M_{k,j}^\alpha =\psi _c^k\left|\widehat{V}_\alpha \right|\psi _v^j`$ of electro-dipole optical transition between electron states $`\psi _c^k`$, $`k=\pm 1`$, and HH states $`\psi _v^j`$, $`j=\pm 1`$, and corresponding probability $`W_{k,j}^\alpha =\left|M_{k,j}^\alpha \right|^2`$

$$W_{k,j}^\alpha \{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{sin}^2\left(3\phi /2+\alpha \theta /2\right),\hfill & k=j;\hfill \\ \mathrm{cos}^2\left(3\phi /2+\alpha \theta /2\right),\hfill & kj,\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
where unimportant dimensional coefficient has been dropped. Similarly, one can find the optical transition probability $`W_{k,j}^\alpha ^{}`$ for perpendicular polarization plane that formally means the substitution $`\alpha \alpha ^{}=\alpha +\pi /2`$ in Eq.(5). Since the contribution of each of optical transitions $`kj`$ to total PL intensity $`I_\alpha `$ is proportional to spin sub-level populations of electron $`P_e^ke^{k\omega _e/2T_e}/\left(e^{\omega _e/2T_e}+e^{\omega _e/2T_e}\right)`$ and HH $`P_h^je^{j\omega _h/2T_h}/\left(e^{\omega _h/2T_h}+e^{\omega _h/2T_h}\right)`$ ($`T_e`$ and $`T_h`$ are the electron and HH spin temperatures in energy units that can differ from lattice temperature $`T`$), general Eq. (1) takes following form

$$\rho _\alpha ^{(0)}=\frac{{\displaystyle \underset{k,j}{}}P_e^kP_h^j\left(W_{k,j}^\alpha W_{k,j}^\alpha ^{}\right)}{{\displaystyle \underset{k,j}{}}P_e^kP_h^j\left(W_{k,j}^\alpha +W_{k,j}^\alpha ^{}\right)}.$$
(6)
Substitution of Eq. (5) and expressions for $`P_e^k`$ and $`P_h^j`$ into Eq. (6) leads after some algebra to following simple result

$`\rho _\alpha ^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`P_{eh}\mathrm{cos}\left(3\phi +2\alpha \theta \right);`$ (7)
$`P_{eh}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tanh}\left(\omega _e/2T_e\right)\mathrm{tanh}\left(\omega _h/2T_h\right).`$ (8)
Notice that Eq. (7) does not describe all possible polarization effects in QW. A closer look at the derivation of Eq. (7) shows that low symmetry perturbations $`V`$ of HH basis wave functions $`|1`$ and $`|2`$ should also be taken into account along with HH splitting in spite of small value $`\epsilon =\left|m\left|V\right|m\pm \mathrm{\Delta }m\right|/\mathrm{\Delta }_{HL}`$, where $`|m`$ and $`|m\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ are non perturbed HH ($`\left|m\right|=3/2`$) and LH ($`\left|m\mathrm{\Delta }m\right|=1/2`$) basis functions. Doing so needs a distinction between the case $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=1`$, leading to HH splitting in the third order and the case $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=2`$, leading to formation of effective $`g`$\- factor in the first order. Thus, the perturbation $`V`$ gives rise to corrections $`\delta \rho _\alpha \epsilon ^{3\mathrm{\Delta }m}`$ to total polarization that can be now written as a sum

$$\rho _\alpha =\rho _\alpha ^{(0)}+\delta \rho _\alpha .$$
(9)
Explicit form of $`\delta \rho _\alpha `$ depends on specific form of interaction leading to HH-LH mixing.

Comparing two contributions of different mechanisms to Eq. (9), let us note that electron-HH spin correlations ($`\rho _\alpha ^{(0)}`$-term) dominate in OPA at sufficiently low temperatures. However, the $`\delta \rho _\alpha `$ -term can dominate at high temperatures or zero (small) magnetic field. In the following, we concentrate on two important cases: polarization $`\rho _0`$ along a magnetic field direction with $`\alpha =0^{}`$ and polarization $`\rho _{45}`$ in the plane rotated relatively $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ by $`\alpha =45^{}`$.

### II.2 Spectral dependence of linear polarization

In this subsection we discuss the effects of spectral shifts of electron-HH optical transitions caused by spin splitting (3). A simplest situation corresponds to the electron-HH optical line splitting into the four plainly distinguishable components with polarizations $`\rho _{\alpha k,j}=\left(W_{k,j}^\alpha W_{k,j}^\alpha ^{}\right)/\left(W_{k,j}^\alpha +W_{k,j}^\alpha ^{}\right)=kj\mathrm{cos}\left(3\phi +2\alpha \theta \right)`$ and intensities $`I_{kj}P_e^kP_h^j`$. If these components overlap with each other (i.e. splitting of spectral components are smaller than their linewidth $`\sigma _{kj}`$ ), the polarization depends on spectral position at the contour of a composite line of optical transitions. Thus, it is convenient to determine the spectral-dependent polarization

$$\rho _\alpha \left(\omega \right)=\frac{I_\alpha \left(\omega \right)I_\alpha ^{}\left(\omega \right)}{I_\alpha \left(\omega \right)+I_\alpha ^{}\left(\omega \right)}.$$
(10)
The intensity $`I_\alpha \left(\omega \right)`$ of optical transition at the frequency $`\omega `$ depends on lineshape of each electron - HH transition $`f_{k,j}\left(\omega \right)=f(\omega (\omega _0+k\frac{\omega _e}{2}j\frac{\omega _h}{2}))`$, where possible dependence of $`\omega _0`$ on magnetic field describes the effect of the lines center-of-mass shift in a magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}`$. We assume also that linshapes $`f_{k,j}\left(\omega \right)`$ with linewidth $`\sigma _{kj}=\sigma `$ are same for all transitions $`|k|j`$. So, Eq. (10) takes the form

$$\rho _\alpha ^{(0)}\left(\omega \right)=\frac{\underset{k,j}{}f_{k,j}\left(\omega \right)\left(W_{k,j}^\alpha W_{k,j}^\alpha ^{}\right)P_e^kP_h^j}{\underset{k,j}{}f_{k,j}\left(\omega \right)\left(W_{k,j}^\alpha +W_{k,j}^\alpha ^{}\right)P_e^kP_h^j}.$$
(11)
In the case of small magnetic field shifts $`\omega _e`$ and $`\omega _h\sigma `$, the lineshape function can be expanded into power series

$$f_{k,j}\left(\omega \right)f(\mathrm{\Delta }\omega )\frac{1}{2}f^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }\omega )(k\omega _ej\omega _h)+\frac{1}{8}f^{\prime \prime }(\mathrm{\Delta }\omega )(k\omega _ej\omega _h)^2,$$
(12)
where $`f^{}(\omega )`$ and $`f^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$ are the first and second derivatives of $`f(\omega )`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega =\omega \omega _0`$. Substitution of this expansion into the Eq. (11) with regard to Eq. (5) results in net effect similar to that of Eq. (7) where $`P_{eh}`$ should be changed by

$`P_T(\omega )=\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _e}{2T_e}}\right)\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _h}{2T_h}}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma f^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }\omega )}{2f(\mathrm{\Delta }\omega )}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _h}{\sigma }}\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _e}{2T_e}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\omega _e}{\sigma }}\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _h}{2T_h}}\right)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^2f^{\prime \prime }(\mathrm{\Delta }\omega )}{4f(\mathrm{\Delta }\omega )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _e\omega _h}{\sigma ^2}}.`$ (13)
Latter equation displays sharp polarization dependence on the detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$. Moreover, this dependence is determined by specific lineshape. In the case of Gaussian or Lorentzian shape $`P_T(\omega )P_{eh}+\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\omega ^2}{\sigma ^2}\right)\frac{\omega _e\omega _h}{\sigma ^2}`$ or $`P_T(\omega )P_{eh}+\frac{\sigma ^23\mathrm{\Delta }\omega ^2}{2(\sigma ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }\omega ^2)^2}\frac{\omega _e\omega _h}{\sigma ^2}`$, respectively.

Finally, we have to consider the intermediate case, $`\omega _h\sigma \omega _e`$. This is because inequality $`\omega _h\omega _e`$ usually takes place in a wide range of the magnetic fields. Two components $`k=\pm `$ of different electron spin states have intensities $`I_kP_e^k`$and opposite signs of polarization with OPA in the form similar to (7), with

$$P_{T,k}(\omega )=k(\mathrm{tanh}\left(\omega _h/2T_h\right)\frac{\sigma f^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }\omega )}{2f(\mathrm{\Delta }\omega )}\frac{\omega _h}{\sigma }).$$
(14)
to be substituted instead $`P_{eh}`$.

The difference between Gaussian and Lorentzian shapes of spectral lines displays, respectively, $`P_{T,k}(\omega )k(\mathrm{tanh}\left(\omega _h/2T_h\right)+\mathrm{\Delta }\omega \omega _h/\sigma ^2)`$ and $`P_{T,k}(\omega )k(\mathrm{tanh}\left(\omega _h/2T_h\right)+\mathrm{\Delta }\omega \omega _h/(\mathrm{\Delta }\omega ^2+\sigma ^2))`$ that is evident at the wing of the lines.

Evidently, an in-plane magnetic field contributes to linear polarization of the optical spectra of absorption, reflectivity, etc. In these cases, the mechanism of wave functions phase correlations can become apparent due to HH and electron spin splitting also. As distinct from PL, in these cases optical transitions occur between completely populated valence electron states and empty conductivity electron ones. Therefore, Eqs (13) and (14) describe this situation in the limit $`T_e`$ and $`T_h\mathrm{}`$. However the polarization of reflectivity spectra should be described in terms of standard equation for reflection coefficient with transition probabilities (5).

In subsequent calculations, we primarily focus on PL polarization (Eqs (7) and (8)) since it has been thoroughly studied experimentally in the literature.

## III The HH interactions

We consider sequentially the HH interactions according to lowering the symmetry of QW potential. In doing so these interactions assume to be small perturbations with respect to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{HL}`$.

### III.1 Zeeman interaction

Zeeman interaction in terms of hole effective angular momentum $`J=3/2`$ is isotropic

$$V_Z=\stackrel{}{G}_h\stackrel{}{J}=G_h(J_X\mathrm{cos}\phi +J_Y\mathrm{sin}\phi ).$$
(15)
Here $`\stackrel{}{G}_h`$ is an effective in-plane magnetic field in energy units that can include the effects of carrier-ion (hole-ion) exchange interaction in the case of DMS quantum structure.DMSQW ; DMS2  In the case of $`[001]`$-orientated QW $`V_Z`$ does not split the HH states in first and second orders in perturbation. Third order can be represented by effective Hamiltonian with Pauli matrices $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ in terms of basis functions $`|1`$ and $`|2`$, calculated in second order of perturbation theory according to Löwdin procedure (see Ref.BirPikus )

$$V_Z^{(3)}=\frac{3}{4}\mathrm{\Delta }_{HL}h^3(\sigma _x\mathrm{cos}3\phi +\sigma _y\mathrm{sin}3\phi ),$$
(16)
where we introduce dimensionless parameter $`h=G_h/\mathrm{\Delta }_{HL}`$.

The Eq. (16) gives isotropic HH splitting $`\omega _Z=\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{HL}h^3`$ and $`\psi `$-function phase $`\theta =3\phi `$. According to Eq. (7) this corresponds to isotropic polarization $`\rho _\alpha ^{(0)}=P_{eh}\mathrm{cos}2\alpha `$. The polarization is maximal along or across magnetic field direction ($`\alpha =0`$ or $`90^{}`$). The polarization is absent for $`\alpha =45^{}`$, that can be also expected from symmetry considerations. If magnetic field is weak enough, one can find $`P_{eh}G_h^3G_e/T_eT_h\mathrm{\Delta }_{HL}^2B^4`$. In this case the contribution from LH admixture can be more important. The calculation of LH contribution to HH polarization stemming from LH admixture to the basis functions $`|1`$ and $`|2`$ gives rise to the corrections $`\delta \rho _0^{(2)}=h^2`$ and $`\delta \rho _{45}^{(2)}=0`$.

### III.2 Non Zeeman interaction with a magnetic field

Symmetry of Luttinger Hamiltonian admits the existence of non-Zeeman interaction of holes with a magnetic field in the form

$$V_q=q_1G_h\left(J_x^3\mathrm{cos}\phi +J_y^3\mathrm{sin}\phi \right),$$
(17)
where $`q_1`$ is a relatively small parameter reflecting the interaction between valence and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{15}`$ -conductivity bands (Ref.Ivch ). This Hamiltonian has non-zero matrix elements between HH states $`|3/2`$ and $`|3/2`$ that defines the effective HH Hamiltonian in first order in perturbation (17)

$$V_q^{(1)}=\frac{3}{4}\mathrm{\Delta }_{HL}q_1h\left(\sigma _x\mathrm{cos}\phi \sigma _y\mathrm{sin}\phi \right).$$
(18)
Comparison of Eq. (18) with Eq. (2) gives isotropic HH splitting $`\omega _q=\frac{3}{2}q_1G_h`$ and $`\psi `$-function phase $`\theta =\phi `$. Therefore interaction (17) can be responsible for fourth harmonic of OPA (7), $`\rho _\alpha ^{(0)}=P_{eh}\mathrm{cos}(4\phi +2\alpha )`$, which correlate with a cubic anisotropy of Luttinger Hamiltonian. Note that in-plane g-tensor $`g_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ that can be defined in terms of Eq. (18) for HH pseudospinIvch  $`\stackrel{~}{s}_x=\sigma _x/2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{s}_y=\sigma _y/2`$ is isotropic i.e. $`g_{xx}^{}=g_{yy}^{}`$, $`g_{xy}^{}=g_{yx}^{}=0`$.

### III.3 Potentials of C2v symmetry

Most OPA experiments performed up to now have found some $`\pi `$-periodic component of OPA. It was assumed, that such kind of anisotropy is due to the hole potentials of $`C_{2v}`$ symmetry. KusrPRL ; Gaj ; RyabchNATO ; Pikus  We consider two reasons for appearance of $`C_{2v}`$ hole potential in QW. First is a $`C_{2v}`$ constituent (so-called interface $`C_{2v}`$ potential) of heterojunction potential inherent in  oriented structures composed of zinc-blend semiconductors.IvchVoisin ; Voisin ; YakovIvch  In QW structures with common anion (cation), the contributions of two interface potentials compensate each other. However, this compensation is not complete in the case of non-identical barriers or interface profile.Gaj  This kind of interaction can be written in terms of hole angular moment in the form IvchVoisin  $`V_{if}=t_{if}\{J_x,J_y\}`$, where $`t_{if}`$ is an interaction constant ($`\left|t_{if}\right|\mathrm{\Delta }_{HL}`$), $`\{J_x,J_y\}=(J_xJ_y+J_yJ_x)/2`$. Additionally to $`V_{if}`$, there is also $`C_{2v}`$ potential $`V_d=d\epsilon _{x_dy_d}\{J_{x_d},J_{y_d}\}`$ caused by in-plane strains.Pikus  Here $`d`$ is a deformation potential; $`\epsilon _{x_dy_d}`$ is the strain with $`x_d`$ and $`y_d`$ principal axes forming some angle with $`[100]`$ and $`[010]`$ directions. Actually, we do not need to consider $`V_{if}`$ and $`V_d`$ separately since their sum is also $`C_{2v}`$ potential $`V_t`$, which takes the canonical form in terms of total amplitude $`T_t`$ and axes $`x^{}`$ and $`y^{}`$ forming angle $`\varphi `$ with $`[100]`$ and $`[010]`$ directions

$$V_t=T_t\{J_x^{},J_y^{}\}.$$
(19)
As an illustration, Fig.1 shows a position of the coordinate axes defining the angles $`\phi `$, $`\varphi `$ and $`\alpha `$.

The potential (19) does not lift the $`\pm 3/2`$ HH degeneracy but results in $`1/2`$ LH admixture in first order of perturbation theory. This generates some temperature and magnetic field independent polarization Gaj  $`\delta \rho _\alpha ^{(1)}`$ with respect to polarization plane $`\alpha `$: $`\delta \rho _\alpha ^{(1)}=t\mathrm{sin}2(\phi \varphi +\alpha )`$, where $`t=T_t/\mathrm{\Delta }_{HL}`$.comm2

In the presence of a magnetic field, the potential $`V_t`$ generates an effective in-plane $`g`$-factor for HHs.Pikus  This effect can be taken into account in lowest order as interference of $`V_Z`$ (15) and $`V_t`$ (19). In terms of Pauli matrices, the HH splitting is described by the effective Hamiltonian

$$V_{ht}^{(2)}=\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{HL}ht\left(\sigma _x\mathrm{sin}\left(\phi +2\varphi \right)\sigma _y\mathrm{cos}\left(\phi +2\varphi \right)\right),$$
(20)
which defines the phase $`\theta =\phi +2\varphi +\pi /2`$ and isotropic HH splitting $`\omega _{ht}=3\mathrm{\Delta }_{HL}ht`$. In spite of this fact, representation of Eq.(20) in the form of Zeeman interaction for pseudospin $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$ determines anisotropic g-tensor. In terms of $`x^{}`$ and $`y^{}`$ reference system, one can find $`g_{x^{}x^{}}^{}=g_{y^{}y^{}}^{}=0`$, $`g_{x^{}y^{}}^{}=g_{y^{}x^{}}^{}`$.comm3  So, the effect of $`C_{2v}`$ -OPA (7) is described by $`\rho _\alpha ^{(0)}=P_{eh}\mathrm{sin}2\left(\phi \varphi +\alpha \right)`$. If a magnetic field is sufficiently weak, one can find $`P_{eh}3G_hG_e/4T_eT_hB^2`$.KusrPRL  Note once again that the nature of polarization $`\rho _\alpha ^{(0)}`$ calculated with non-perturbed basic functions $`|\pm 3/2`$ is different from that of $`\delta \rho _\alpha ^{(1)}`$ calculated with LH admixture in first order. Thus, one can easily imagine a situation when $`\rho _\alpha ^{(0)}\delta \rho _\alpha ^{(1)}`$ despite the fact that $`V_{ht}^{(2)}`$ generates $`\rho _\alpha ^{(0)}`$ in second perturbation order in $`V_Z`$ and $`V_t`$, while $`\delta \rho _\alpha ^{(1)}`$ arises in first order in $`V_t`$.

### III.4 Random potential of HH localization

The PL in QWs is known to come from the localized electronic (hole) states, which are formed by a random potential (interface roughness, defects, etc). In general case, the profile of this potential (and therefore the hole density) is not symmetric in QW plane. In-plane asymmetry of localized hole $`\psi `$-function leads to mixing of HH $`\mathrm{\Psi }_H`$ and LH $`\mathrm{\Psi }_L`$ states that results in appearance of a finite HH $`g`$-factor (Ref.Ivch ). Corresponding Hamiltonian, describing the splitting of localized HHs can be represented as some $`C_{2v}`$ potential (see Ref.Sem02  for details)

$$V_{h\varkappa }^{(2)}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{HL}h\varkappa \left(\sigma _x\mathrm{cos}\left(\phi +2\varphi _\varkappa \right)+\sigma _y\mathrm{sin}\left(\phi +2\varphi _\varkappa \right)\right).$$
(21)
Here $`\varphi _\varkappa `$ determines the axes $`\xi `$ and $`\eta `$ for canonical form (19) representation of $`V_{h\varkappa }^{(2)}`$ potential by means of an angle between $`x^{}`$ and $`\xi `$, $`\varkappa =\overline{\gamma }\mathrm{}^2(K_\xi ^2K_\eta ^2)/m_0\mathrm{\Delta }_{HL}`$ and $`K_\alpha ^2=\mathrm{\Psi }_H\mathrm{\Psi }_L\mathrm{\Psi }_L\left|^2/\nu ^2\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_H`$, $`\nu =\xi `$, $`\eta `$; $`\gamma _2<\overline{\gamma }<\gamma _3`$, $`\gamma _2`$ and $`\gamma _3`$ are Luttinger parameters. In the case of axially symmetric $`\psi `$ function, the equality $`K_\xi ^2=K_\eta ^2`$ gives zero $`V_{h\varkappa }^{(2)}`$ potential. In general case, $`K_\xi ^2K_\eta ^2`$ , the potentials (20) and (21) can be combined into single quantity $`V_{ht\varkappa }^{(2)}`$ that takes the form (20) with effective amplitude $`t_\varkappa `$ and angle $`\varphi _r`$ instead of $`t`$ and $`\varphi `$:

$`t_\varkappa `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\left(t+\varkappa \mathrm{cos}2\varphi _\varkappa \right)^2+\left(\varkappa \mathrm{sin}2\varphi _\varkappa \right)^2},`$ (22)
$`\varphi _r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{arcsin}{\displaystyle \frac{\varkappa \mathrm{sin}2\varphi _\varkappa }{t_\varkappa }}+\varphi .`$ (23)
It should be emphasized that the Eq. (21) has to do with a single hole localized on some fluctuation of random QW potential. The observable PL polarization is the result of addition of a great number of localized state contributions with random amplitudes and principal axes directions. Thus, the complete description of PL polarization has to include an averaging over the parameters $`\varkappa `$ and $`\varphi _\varkappa `$ with some distribution functions. If there is no preferential directions for HH localization in QW plane, the potential $`V_{h\varkappa }^{(2)}`$ cannot lead to OPA. Moreover, numerical analysis shows that random potential (21) can greatly suppress the magnitude of polarization and therefore amplitude of OPA as soon as it exceeds other regular (non-random) interactions. In subsequent discussion we omit the contribution of $`V_{h\varkappa }^{(2)}`$ into OPA for simplicity. Nevertheless, taking into account the random potential influence may be in need for a description of realistic experimental situations.

Magnetic polaron effectYakovlev  should also be considered as an intensification factor for the parameter $`\varkappa `$.

## IV Interference effects

Foregoing analysis shows few important polarization properties attributed to different kinds of HH interactions in QW. We have found that HH splitting is isotropic for each HH Hamiltonian (16), (18) and (20). However, they reveal different OPA’s that points to possible interplay among these contributions. Let us consider joint manifestation of interactions that can split HH states

$$V=V_Z^{(3)}+V_q^{(1)}+V_{ht}^{(2)}.$$
(24)
First, we should find the total module $`\omega _h/2`$ and phase $`\theta `$ for matrix element

$$V_{1,2}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\omega _Ze^{i3\phi }+\omega _qe^{i\phi }+\omega _{ht}e^{i(\phi +2\varphi +\pi /2)}\right).$$
(25)
After some algebra, the HH splitting can be written in terms of two expressions $`Q`$ and $`R`$

$`\omega _h`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{HL}h\sqrt{Q^2+R^2};`$ (26)
$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`2t\mathrm{cos}2\left(\phi \varphi \right)q_1\mathrm{sin}4\phi ;`$ (27)
$`R`$ $`=`$ $`h^2+2t\mathrm{sin}2\left(\phi \varphi \right)+q_1\mathrm{cos}4\phi .`$ (28)
In a similar manner, we calculate the polarization (7) where $`\theta `$ have to be found from definition (25). Thus, after some identical manipulations, we obtain $`\rho _\alpha `$ for two values of $`\alpha `$

$$\rho _\alpha =\{\begin{array}{cc}P_{eh}\frac{R}{\sqrt{Q^2+R^2}}h^2t\mathrm{sin}2(\phi \varphi ),\hfill & \alpha =0^{};\hfill \\ P_{eh}\frac{Q}{\sqrt{Q^2+R^2}}t\mathrm{cos}2(\phi \varphi ),\hfill & \alpha =45^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(29)
Here for completeness, we take also into account the corrections for LH-HH mixing. The Eq.(29) with Eqs (8) and (26) are the final results of our calculations that cover the most practically important cases.

One can see that HH splitting (26) reveals magnetic anisotropy with finite magnitudes of $`t`$ and $`q_1`$ despite the isotropic character of HH splitting of each of terms (24) taken separately. Moreover, the effective HH transversal $`g`$-factor $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{}=\omega _h/G_h`$ can be turned to zero at some direction and amplitude of a magnetic field. To demonstrate this fact let us note that equation $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{}=\frac{3}{2}\sqrt{Q^2+R^2}=0`$ agrees with the system of two equations $`Q=0`$ and $`R=0`$ in variables $`\phi `$ (the angle) and $`h`$ (amplitude). Simplest solution of this system can be obtained in the case of $`\varphi =0`$, namely $`\phi =\pm \pi /4`$ and $`h=\sqrt{\pm 2t+q_1}`$.

## V Discussion. Comparison with experiment

As it is obvious from the Eq.(29), the anisotropy and possible random degeneration of HH splitting do not influence OPA for high temperatures $`T_h\omega _h`$, (or $`P_{eh}\omega _h`$). In this case we may expect the additive contributions of different aforementioned OPA mechanisms: $`\rho _0^{(0)}\frac{3}{2}R\frac{G_h}{T_h}\mathrm{tanh}\left(\omega _e/2T_e\right)`$, $`\rho _{45}^{(0)}\frac{3}{2}Q\frac{G_h}{T_h}\mathrm{tanh}\left(\omega _e/2T_e\right)`$, i.e. the amplitude of second harmonic of OPA is proportional to $`t`$ while that of fourth harmonic is proportional to $`q_1`$.

If HH splitting is not small as compared to temperature $`T_h`$ in some range of angles $`\phi `$, the Eq.(29) shows qualitatively different character of OPA. Namely, the higher harmonics with large amplitudes can appear. This can be regarded as a manifestation of higher powers in expansion of $`\mathrm{tanh}\left(\omega _h/2T_h\right)`$. The Fig.2 reports some calculated curves of OPA and corresponding effective $`g`$-factor anisotropy demonstrating a new net effect without the influence of cubic anisotropy of $`V_q`$.

Very interesting experimental data had been obtained in Ref.KusrPRL , where second and visible fourth harmonics of the OPA were detected in PL of 20 $`\stackrel{̊}{A}`$ CdTe QW with semimagnetic $`Cd_{1x}Mn_xTe`$ barriers. Exchange interaction with magnetic ions in the barriers and interfaces enlarges HH splitting that makes possible to reach a significant magnitude of HH and electron spin polarization at liquid helium temperature.DMSQW  Quantitative analysis carried out in terms of Eqs (29) and (26) shows that parameters $`h=0.056`$, $`\omega _e=0.014\mathrm{\Delta }_{HL}`$, $`T_e=T_h=\mathrm{\Delta }_{HL}/720`$, $`t=0.001`$ and $`q_1=0.0006`$ describe nicely the OPA experimental data of Ref.KusrPRL  (see Fig.3) assuming that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{HL}=125`$ meV and electron and hole spin temperatures are equal to lattice temperature $`T=2K`$. These calculations explain also the effect of great OPA amplification from $`0.1\%`$ (that could not be detected in Ref.KusrPRL  because of experimental errors) to $`15\%`$ under the magnetic field action.

Successful description of experiment raises the question about the relationship of above obtained parameters with those for QWs with other widths. There are few mechanisms of QW width $`L_w`$ influence on OPA. (i) Effective fields $`G_e`$ and $`G_h`$ originated from carriers exchange interaction with magnetic ions are proportional to overlap of electron and hole $`\psi `$ functions densities with semimagnetic barriers and interfaces. One can expect significant decreasing of this exchange field in very wide non-magnetic wells. On the other hand, the strengths of exchange fields can have non-monotonic dependencies on QW width due to effect of giant paramagnetic enhancement.DMSQW ; Siviniant  However, we can expect a reduction of a magnetic field influence on the OPA with QW broadening, especially for $`V_Z^{(3)}`$ contribution (16), which is proportional to $`G_h^3G_e`$. (ii) The HH-LH splitting depends primarily on $`L_w`$. In the case of high QW barriers, one can expect $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{HL}1/L_w^2`$ that increases the roles of terms $`V_Z^{(3)}`$, $`V_{ht}^{(2)}`$ and $`V_{h\varkappa }^{(2)}`$ with QW broadening but does not influence the term $`V_q^{(1)}`$. This can be principal mechanism decreasing the role of fourth harmonic with respect to second harmonic of OPA in Ref.KusrPRL . (iii) Narrow QWs are most favorable for carrier localization on the fluctuations of random potential as well as for polaron formation. This increases the role of random potential (21) that can suppress the OPA, as noted in Section III.

Aforementioned analysis explains qualitatively why fourth harmonic of OPA is evident for most narrow QW in the experiment Ref.KusrPRL . On the other hand, it shows that situation with dependence of the OPA on the $`L_w`$ may be very complicated. Most adequate approach to this problem seems to consist in independent determination of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{HL}`$ as well as $`G_e`$ and $`G_h`$ from magnetooptical measurements. Then, microscopic constants in Hamiltonian (24) should be found from comparison of general expressions (29) with experimentally observed OPA. The cited data of Ref. KusrPRL  do not allow to perform this program due to the loss of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{HL}`$, $`G_e`$ and $`G_h`$ data.

## VI Conclusion

We have developed a microscopic theory of OPA in QWs subjected to the in-plane magnetic field. Two types of optical polarization contributions should be distinguished. First is due to admixture of LH to HH states. This effect is small as perturbation theory predicts. A HH splitting in a magnetic field determines other type of polarization mechanism owing to phase correlations of electron and hole $`\psi `$ functions. This effect can lead to almost 100% polarization for suitably distinguishable four spectral lines of electron-HH optical transitions in spite of relatively small interactions ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_{HL}`$) responsible for HH splitting. Besides, we have considered spectral properties of OPA. These polarization peculiarities turns out sensitive to PL (absorption, reflectivity, etc) lineshape in the case of relatively small Zeeman splitting.

Theory considers Zeeman interaction, non Zeeman HH splitting and $`C_{2v}`$ potentials as sources of different OPA. Their joint manifestation reveals peculiar OPA behavior due to interference effects. A random potential, localizing HHs should be considered separately as a depolarization factor of the PL. We predicted some new effects, (i) the anisotropy of HH splitting (or $`g`$-factor) due to interference of different HH potentials, (ii) manifestation of fourth and higher harmonic in OPA caused by only $`C_{2v}`$ potential (Fig.2), (iii) polarization suppression at the conditions of crossing (anti-crossing) of HH levels, (iv) depolarization effect of random potential influence. Our theory gives full qualitative description for some important experimental details of OPA found earlier.

The work was supported, in part, by the INTAS 99-015 grant and by grant of State Fundamental Research Foundation of Ukraine 02.07/0125.