text:
# Analysis of Optical Pulse Propagation with ABCD Matrices

## I Space-time analogy of beam diffraction and pulse propagation

### I.1 CW Gaussian beam diffraction

The Fresnel-Kirchoff diffraction integral is a well-founded approach to electromagnetic propagation problems, and several textbooks cover the topic from a variety of approaches bk-YarivOE ; bk-Haus ; bk-Born-Wolf . We will briefly review only as much as necessary to establish our argument, limiting our argument to diffraction in 1+1 ($`x`$,$`z`$) dimensions.

An electromagnetic field of radian frequency $`\omega `$ and scalar complex amplitude $`u(x,z)`$ can be represented

$$E(x,z,t)=u(x,z)\mathrm{exp}(i\omega t)$$
(1)
where $`u(x)`$ obeys the wave equation,

$$^2u+k^2u=0,k^2=\omega ^2\mu ϵ=\left(\frac{2\pi n}{\lambda }\right)^2.$$
(2)
This equation admits plane wave solutions of the form $`\mathrm{exp}(\pm ikz)`$ representing propagation along $`z`$ respectively, and indeed, an arbitrary superposition of plane waves, each with the same wavelength, propagating along all possible directions,

$$u(x,z)=\stackrel{~}{u}_0(k_x)\mathrm{exp}[i(k_xx)i\sqrt{k^2k_x^2}z]𝑑k_x$$
(3)
where $`\stackrel{~}{u}_0`$ is the Fourier transform of the input field $`u_0(x,0)`$.

We consider optical beams whose plane wave components propagate at small angles to the $`z`$ axis (paraxial approximation), so that we can expand the square root in (3) in a Taylor series and keep the first two terms,

$`E(x,z)`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`e^{i\omega tikz}{\displaystyle \left[\stackrel{~}{u}_0(k_x)\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{k_x^2}{2k}z\right)\right]\mathrm{exp}(ik_xx)𝑑k_x}`$
$`=`$ $`e^{i\omega tikz}\left[\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{ik}{2\pi z}}}{\displaystyle u_0(x^{})\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{ik(xx^{})^2}{2z}\right]𝑑x^{}}\right]`$
where the term in parentheses defines $`u(z,t)`$, the field envelope,

$$u(z,t)=\sqrt{\frac{ik}{2\pi z}}u_0(x^{})\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{ik}{2z}(xx^{})^2\right]𝑑x^{}$$
(5)
The propagation of continuous-wave (CW) Gaussian beams in free space and rotationally-symmetric quadratic graded-index media is conveniently described by assuming that the envelope has the form bk-YarivOE

$$u=\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\left[P(z)+\frac{k}{2q(z)}r^2\right]\right\}$$
(6)
where, we find by substitution into the wave equation (2) that $`dP/dz=i/q(z)`$ for such media. The $`q`$-parameter describes the Gaussian beam completely,

$$\frac{1}{q(z)}=\frac{1}{R(z)}i\frac{\lambda }{\pi nw^2(z)}.$$
(7)
In the above definition, $`R(z)`$ describes the radius of curvature of the beam, and $`w(z)`$ the beam spot size.

The usefulness of the $`q`$-parameter lies in the bilinear transformation (ABCD law) that characterizes how this parameter evolves with propagation. For an optical system described by a real (or complex) ABCD matrix, the output $`q`$ parameter is given by

$$q_o=\frac{Aq_i+B}{Cq_i+D}.$$
(8)
Separating the real and imaginary parts of $`q_o`$ enables us to calculate the radius of curvature and spot size of the Gaussian beam at the output of the optical system. Many practically important optical systems and their corresponding phenomena can be described by simple ABCD matrices, such as propagation in a uniform medium, focusing via a thin lens, beam transformation at a dielectric interface, propagation through a curved dielectric interface and thick lens, propagation in a medium with a quadratic index variation etc. (bk-YarivOE, , Table 2-1)

### I.2 Gaussian pulse propagation

Consider a single mode in an optical fiber, usually the lowest-order fundamental mode, excited at $`z=0`$, and with an assumed temporal envelope of the Gaussian form,

$$E(z=0,t)=\mathrm{𝐑𝐞}\left[\mathrm{exp}(\alpha t^2+i\omega _0t)\right]$$
(9)
and write as a Fourier transform integral,

$$E(0,t)=\mathrm{𝐑𝐞}\left[\mathrm{exp}(i\omega _0t)\stackrel{~}{u}_0(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Omega }t)𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }\right]$$
(10)
where $`\stackrel{~}{u}_0`$ is the Fourier transform of the Gaussian envelope $`u_0=\mathrm{exp}(\alpha t^2)`$.

As in the spatial case, we can be think of this as a superposition of time-harmonic fields, each with frequency $`(\omega _0+\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and amplitude $`\stackrel{~}{u}_0(\mathrm{\Omega })d\mathrm{\Omega }`$. These waves will experience a phase delay when propagating a distance $`z`$; we multiply each frequency component by its propagation delay factor $`\mathrm{exp}[i\beta (\omega _0+\mathrm{\Omega })z]`$ so that

$$E(z,t)=\stackrel{~}{u}_0(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{exp}[i(\omega _0+\mathrm{\Omega })ti\beta (\omega _0+\mathrm{\Omega })z]𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(11)
Expanding $`\beta (\omega _0+\mathrm{\Omega })`$ in a Taylor series about the optical frequency $`\omega _0`$,

$$\beta (\omega _0+\mathrm{\Omega })=\beta (\omega _0)+\frac{d\beta }{d\omega }|_{\omega =\omega _0}\mathrm{\Omega }+\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2\beta }{d\omega ^2}|_{\omega =\omega _0}\mathrm{\Omega }^2+\mathrm{}$$
(12)
we can write

$`E(z,t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[i(\omega _0t\beta _0z)]\times `$
$`{\displaystyle \stackrel{~}{u}_0(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\left[\mathrm{\Omega }t\beta ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }z\frac{1}{2}\beta ^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Omega }^2z\right]\right\}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }}`$
where the integral defines the field envelope $`u(z,t)`$, so that

$$E(z,t)=u(z,t)\mathrm{exp}[i(\omega _0t\beta _0z)].$$
(14)
The differential equation satisifed by $`u`$ is, to second order of derivatives of $`\beta `$ bk-Agrawal ,

$$\frac{u}{z}+\beta ^{}\frac{u}{t}+\frac{1}{2}\beta ^{\prime \prime }\frac{^2u}{t^2}=0.$$
(15)
The solution (I.2) can be written using the inverse Fourier transform relationship,

$`u(z,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \left[\stackrel{~}{u}_0(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{2}\beta ^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Omega }^2zi\beta ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }z\right)\right]}`$ (16)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Omega }t)d\mathrm{\Omega }`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i2\pi \beta ^{\prime \prime }z}}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle }u_0(t^{})\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\beta ^{\prime \prime }z}}(Tt^{})^2\right]dt^{}`$
where $`T=t\beta ^{}z=tz/v_g`$ is the time coordinate in the frame of reference co-moving with the pulse envelope at the group velocity $`v_g=1/\beta ^{}`$. Dispersion of the group-velocity (GVD) is represented by $`\beta ^{\prime \prime }`$.

The formal similarity between (5) and (16) is the principal motivation for this analysis. We can write down a set of space-time translation rules (see Table 1) to apply results from spatial diffraction to temporal dispersion and vice versa. One family of results that can be derived from this space-time analogy correspond to spatial imaging e.g. the 2-$`f`$ and 4-$`f`$ optical systems. These can be applied to pulse compression or expansion experiments etc art-KolnerNazarathy-1989 .

But we will see in later sections that many linear and nonlinear pulse propagation systems can be described by cascading simple ABCD matrices, and this can result in substantially simpler calculations and more direct physical understanding of the physical processes involved in nonlinear pulse propagation. We will first need to develop some additional facility in characterizing optical systems associated with the pulse propagation equations.

The spatial $`q`$-parameter has a temporal equivalent $`q_t`$ in accordance with the space-time translation rules of Table 1, defined by

$$\frac{1}{q_t(z)}=\frac{1}{R_t(z)}+i\frac{2\beta ^{\prime \prime }}{\tau ^2(z)},$$
(17)
where $`\tau (z)`$ represents the pulse width (scaled in the $`T`$ frame by $`\sqrt{2}`$) and $`R_t(z)`$ its chirp. A Gaussian pulse in linearly dispersive fibers is then represented by the envelope art-Yariv-1999

$`u(z,t)`$ $`=`$ $`u_0{\displaystyle \frac{\tau _0}{\tau (z)}}`$
$`\mathrm{exp}\left[i\mathrm{tan}^1{\displaystyle \frac{z}{\zeta _0}}+i{\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{2\beta ^{\prime \prime }R_t(z)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{\prime \prime }}{|\beta ^{\prime \prime }|}}{\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{\tau ^2(z)}}\right].`$
where the pulse width and chirp satisfy evolution equations in linear dispersive fibers exactly analogous to their spatial counterparts, beam spot size and radius of curvature, in free space art-Yariv-1999

$`\tau ^2(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\tau _0^2\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{z^2}{\zeta _0^2}}\right),`$
$`R_t(z)`$ $`=`$ $`z\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta _0^2}{z^2}}\right)`$ (19)
with $`\zeta _0=\tau _0^2/2|\beta ^{\prime \prime }|`$ defining the dispersion length bk-Agrawal .

## II Components of the ABCD formalism for Gaussian pulse propagation

As a simple example of the application of the above translation rules, we consider the propagation of a Gaussian input pulse with envelope

$$U(0,T)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{T^2}{2T_0^2}\right).$$
(20)
The transmission medium comprises of two concatenated sections of fiber with lengths $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$ and with GVD coefficients $`\beta _1^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`\beta _2^{\prime \prime }`$ respectively. We ignore any nonlinear effects in this simple problem, and assume that the medium is lossless. What are the pulse characteristics at the output of the second medium i.e. what is the pulse width at $`z=z_1+z_2`$?

One way of solving this problem is by recourse to the wave equation (16) solution by the Fourier transform technique. We have,

$`\stackrel{~}{U}(z_2,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{U}(z_1,\omega )\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\beta _2^{\prime \prime }z_1\omega ^2\right)`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{U}(z_0,\omega )\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left(\beta _1^{\prime \prime }z_1+\beta _2^{\prime \prime }z_2\right)\omega ^2\right].`$
Taking the inverse Fourier transform,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}U(z_1+z_2,T)\hfill & =& \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{U}(0,\omega )\left[\frac{i}{2}\left(\beta _1^{\prime \prime }z_1+\beta _2^{\prime \prime }z_2\right)\omega ^2i\omega T\right]𝑑\omega }\\ & =& \left[\frac{T_0^2}{T_0^2i(\beta _1^{\prime \prime }z_1+\beta _2^{\prime \prime }z_2)}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}\hfill \\ & & \times \mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{T^2}{2(T_0^2i(\beta _1^{\prime \prime }z_1+\beta _2^{\prime \prime }z_2)}\right],\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
from which we see that the ratio of the output to input pulse width, therefore, is

$$\frac{T_1}{T_0}=\left[1+\left(\frac{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }z_1+\beta _2^{\prime \prime }z_2}{T_0^2}\right)^2\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(23)
We will now verify (23) using the ABCD matrix approach. The system is described very simply by the product of three matrices,

$`M`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& z_2\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& \frac{\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}\end{array}\right).\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& z_1\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& z_1+\frac{\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}z_2\\ 0& \frac{\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}\end{array}\right)`$ (33)
so that

$`q_2={\displaystyle \frac{Aq_1+B}{Cq_1+D}}={\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}{\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}}q_1+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}{\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}}z_1+z_2.`$ (34)
Using the shorthand notation

$$\begin{array}{cc}R_2R(z_1+z_2),& R_1R(0),\\ \tau _2\tau (z_1+z_2),& \tau _1\tau (0).\end{array}$$
(35)
we have

$$\frac{\frac{1}{R_2}i\frac{2\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}{\tau _2^2}}{\left(\frac{1}{R_2}\right)^2+\left(\frac{2\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}{\tau _2^2}\right)^2}=\frac{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}{\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}\frac{\frac{1}{R_1}i\frac{2\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}{\tau _1^2}}{\left(\frac{1}{R_1}\right)^2+\left(\frac{2\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}{\tau _1^2}\right)^2}+\frac{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}{\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}z_1+z_2$$
(36)
The real and imaginary parts of both sides of the above equation have to be equal, leading to a pair of simultaneous equations. For an unchirped input pulse, $`R_1=0`$ so that equality of the imaginary parts leads to

$$\left(\frac{1}{R_2}\right)^2+\left(\frac{2\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}{\tau _2^2}\right)^2=\left(\frac{2\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}{\tau _2\tau _1}\right)^2.$$

Subsituting this expression into the equation of equality of the real parts of (36) and some algebraic manipulation leads to

$$\frac{\tau (z_1+z_2)}{\tau (0)}=\frac{\tau _2}{\tau _1}=\left[1+\left(\frac{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }z_1+\beta _2^{\prime \prime }z_2}{\tau _1^2/2}\right)^2\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(37)
which is the same as (23), since $`\tau =\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Delta }T`$.

In the above calculation, we have carried out some algebraic simplifications by hand in order to show that the result obtained by the ABCD matrix approach is the same as that obtained by the Fourier transform approach. Nevertheless, the former is computationally much simpler, and separating the real and imaginary parts of (36) as part of a numerical algorithm can be carried out without the notational complexity of, for example, rationalizing the denominator.

While second-order dispersion is conveniently represented by the ABCD matrix approach, there are problems with extending the analysis to higher orders of dispersion. The slowly-varying envelope equation analogous to (15) including the effects of third-order dispersion

$$i\frac{U}{z}=\frac{1}{2}\beta ^{\prime \prime }\frac{^2U}{T^2}+\frac{i}{6}\beta ^{\prime \prime \prime }\frac{^3U}{T^3}$$
(38)
or its solution in terms of the Fourier transformed variables,

$$\stackrel{~}{U}(z,\omega )=\stackrel{~}{U}(0,\omega )\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{2}\beta ^{\prime \prime }z\omega ^2+\frac{i}{6}\beta ^{\prime \prime \prime }z\omega ^3\right)$$
(39)
does not have an equivalent in the CW spatial diffraction context.

To see this, consider the next term in the Taylor expansion of $`\sqrt{k^2k_x^2}`$ in (3), which leads to an expression of the form

$`u_2(x)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{ikz}\times `$
$`{\displaystyle u_1(k_x)\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{k_x^2}{2k}z+i\frac{k_x^4}{8k^3}z\right)\mathrm{exp}(ik_xx)𝑑k_x}.`$
Using the space-time translation rules, we find that the above expression contains a description of second and fourth-order dispersion, not third-order dispersion.

This is obviously a general characteristic of the above Taylor expansion; all odd-order dispersion terms have no spatial paraxial diffraction equivalent in the ABCD matrix content. Recall that the effect of $`\beta ^{}`$ is accounted for by transforming to a moving reference frame $`T=t\beta ^{}z`$.

For completeness, we derive the translation rule for any even-order dispersion in terms of the equivalent term in CW diffractive optics. A little algebra will show that the generalization of (39) yields

$`\stackrel{~}{U}(z,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{U}(0,\omega )\times `$ (42)
$`\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\beta ^{\prime \prime }\omega ^2z+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{6}}\beta ^{\prime \prime \prime }\omega ^3z`$
$`+\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{(2r)!}}\beta ^{(2r)}\omega ^{2r}z),`$
and, correspondingly, for the diffraction of a Gaussian beam,

$`\stackrel{~}{U}(x,k_x)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{U}(0,k_x)\mathrm{exp}[i{\displaystyle \frac{k_x^2}{2k}}z+i{\displaystyle \frac{k_x^4}{8k^3}}z+\mathrm{}`$ (43)
$`+i{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^r}{r!}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{r1}{}}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}l){\displaystyle \frac{k_x^{2r}}{k^{2r1}}}z].`$
Therefore, the translation rule for $`2r`$-order temporal dispersion is given by

$`\beta ^{(2r)}`$ $``$ $`\left[(1)^r{\displaystyle \frac{(2r)!}{r!}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{r1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}l\right)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^{2r1}}}`$ (44)
$`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(2r)!}{r!\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^r}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{r1}{}}}(2l1)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^{2r1}}}.`$
Note that this corrects the statement in art-KolnerNazarathy-1989 :

> The slowly varying envelope equations corresponding to modulated plane waves in dispersive media have the same form as the paraxial equations describing the propagation of monochromatic waves of finite spatial extent (diffraction).

We append that this correspondence holds for all even orders of dispersion, and of course, for $`\beta ^{}`$ as well, by transforming to a moving reference frame.

Our ABCD formalism would be of limited interest if the only phenomena it could capture were that of dispersive propgation. But, as mentioned in an earlier section, the development of the time-lens formalism lets us describe nonlinear mechanisms as well.

By analogy to spatial lenses which are characterized by a lens factor $`\mathrm{exp}(ikr^2/2f)`$ which multiplies an incoming optical beam, we define a temporal lens as a device that multiplies the pulse envelope by a factor art-Yariv-1999 ; art-KolnerNazarathy-1989

$$\mathrm{Lens}\mathrm{Factor}=\mathrm{exp}\left[i\frac{t^2}{2\beta ^{\prime \prime }f_t}\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[ibt^2\right]$$
(45)
The ABCD matrix representing a temporal lens has the same form as that of a spatial lens,

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ \frac{1}{f_t}& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(46)
where $`f_t`$ represents the temporal “focal length”.

A comparison of spatial and temporal lensing is shown in Figure 1. In the spatial case, the lens compensates for the spreading of the beam waist, and “flips” the phase fronts to convert a diverging beam into a converging one. Similarly, a temporal lens reverses the sign of the chirp, so that further propagation in a $`\beta ^{\prime \prime }<0`$ dispersive fiber will compensate for the chirp (phase modulation) caused this far. This is also an interesting and physically illuminating approach to discussing the physics of the formation of solitons (bk-YarivOE, , Chapter 19).

One possible implementation, as proposed in art-Yariv-1999 , is to achieve temporal lensing by self-phase modulation during the passage of the pulse through a section of nonlinear fiber ($`\beta ^{\prime \prime }0`$, $`n_2>0`$). For short distances, $`z\pi \tau _0^2/|\beta ^{\prime \prime }|`$ and when $`\beta ^{\prime \prime }/\tau _0^2(2\pi n_2/\lambda )I_p`$ for peak intensity $`I_p`$, a pulse with input electric field envelope $`u(0,T)`$ emerges from a length $`z`$ of nonlinear fiber with phase modulation

$$u(z,T)=u(0,T)\mathrm{exp}\left[i\frac{\omega _0n_2z}{2c\eta }\left|u(0,T)\right|^2\right]$$
(47)
where $`\eta =\sqrt{\mu /ϵ}`$ defines the impedance of free space. If we write the pulse intensity as

$$I=\frac{|u|^2}{2\eta }=I_p\mathrm{exp}\left[2\left(\frac{T}{\tau _0}\right)^2\right]$$
(48)
and keep the first two terms in the Taylor expansion of the exponential in (47),

$$u(z,T)=u(0,T)\mathrm{exp}\left[i\frac{2\omega _0n_2I_pz}{c\tau _0^2}T^2\right]$$
(49)
modulo a phase term linear in $`z`$ that is independent of $`T`$. The effect of propagation through length $`L`$ of nonlinear fiber is to impart a quadratic chirp to the pulse, which we represent by the multiplicative term $`\mathrm{exp}(ibt^2)`$ so that

$$b=\frac{1}{2\beta ^{\prime \prime }f_t}=\frac{2\omega _0n_2I_pL}{c\tau _0^2}.$$
(50)
Another method of obtaining time lensing is based on the principle of electro-optic modulation art-KolnerNazarathy-1989 . An electro-optic phase modulator driven by a sinusoidal bias voltage of angular frequency $`\omega _m`$ results in a phase modulation that is approximately quadratic under either extremum of the sinusoid. The phase shift can be written as

$$\mathrm{exp}[i\varphi (t)]=\mathrm{exp}\left[iK\left(1\frac{\omega _m^2t^2}{2}\right)\right]$$
(51)
where $`K`$ is the modulation index (bk-YarivOE, , §9.4). In this case,

$$b=\frac{2}{K\omega _m^2}$$
(52)
We have described our temporal lens by a section of nonlinear fiber of $`\beta ^{\prime \prime }0`$, analogous to a spatial thin lens, which is assumed to have no thickness. Just as practical lenses do have some thickness, practical fibers have non-zero $`\beta ^{\prime \prime }`$. For those situations in which this cannot be ignored, or may even be utilized constructively, we derive the corresponding equivalent of a spatial “thick lens”.

Our first step is to characterize the temporal equivalent of a curved dielectric interface: a spatial lens comprises of two such interfaces separated by a length of material of enhanced refractive index. At a planar dielectric interface between two media of refractive indices $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$, a Gaussian beam undergoes a change in the radius of curvature, but is unchanged in beam width,

$$R_2=\frac{n_2}{n_1}R_1,w_1=w_2.$$
(53)
By analogy, a chirped Gaussian pulse at the interface between two fibers of GVD coefficients $`\beta _1^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`\beta _2^{\prime \prime }`$ transforms to a different chirp, but with unchanged pulse width,

$$\frac{1}{\beta _2^{\prime \prime }R_2}=\frac{1}{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }R_1},\tau _1=\tau _2.$$
(54)
Of course, the pulse width evolves differently in the two sections of fiber,

$$\tau _i^2(z)=\tau _{0i}^2\left(1+\frac{z^2}{\zeta _{0i}^2}\right)i=1,2$$
(55)
where $`\zeta _{0i}`$ is the dispersion length in fiber $`i`$.

The ABCD matrix for a (spatial) spherical dielectric interface and its temporal translation are

$$M:\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ \frac{n_2n_1}{n_2R}& \frac{n_1}{n_2}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ \frac{1\beta _2^{\prime \prime }/\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}{R_l}& \frac{\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}\end{array}\right)$$
(56)
What does this represent? We use the ABCD bilinear transformation,

$$q_2=q_1/\left[\frac{1}{R_l}\left(1\frac{\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}\right)q_1+\frac{\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}\right]$$
(57)
which implies that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q_2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{R_2}}+i{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}{\tau _2^2}}\right)`$ (58)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R_l}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{R_1}}+i{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}{\tau _1^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}}`$
After some algebraic manipulation, we can write the above as

$$\beta _1^{\prime \prime }\left(\frac{1}{R_l}\frac{1}{R_2}\right)=\beta _2^{\prime \prime }\left(\frac{1}{R_l}\frac{1}{R_1}\right)$$
(59)
showing explicitly how the chirp transforms at this interface.

The ABCD matrix for a temporal lens of “thickness” $`d`$ is written as the product of three ABCD matrices representing, when read from right to left, a transition from the input fiber to the fiber that defines the thin temporal lens, propagation in the second fiber, and a transition back to the input fiber,

$`M`$ $`=`$ (66)
$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ \frac{1\beta _1^{\prime \prime }/\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}{R_2}& \frac{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}{\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}\end{array}\right).\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& d\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ \frac{1\beta _2^{\prime \prime }/\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}{R_1}& \frac{\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}\end{array}\right)`$
and, multiplying the matrices together, we get a single ABCD matrix which defines the output $`q_t`$ parameter via the usual bilinear transformation $`(Aq_t+B)/(Cq_t+D)`$,

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+\frac{d}{R_1}\left(1\frac{\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}\right)& d\frac{\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}\\ \frac{d}{R_1(R_2)}\left(\frac{\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}1\right)\left(1\frac{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}{\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}\right)\left(\frac{1}{R_1}+\frac{1}{R_2}\right)\left(1\frac{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}{\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}\right)& 1+\frac{d}{R_2}\left(1\frac{\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}\right)\end{array}\right)$$
(67)
The temporal focal length $`\widehat{f_t}`$ is analogous to the spatial focal length and is given by $`A/C`$,

$$\widehat{f_t}=\left[1+\frac{d}{R_1}\left(1\frac{\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}\right)\right]/\left[\left(\frac{1}{R_1}+\frac{1}{R_2}\right)\left(1\frac{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}{\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}\right)\frac{d}{R_1(R_2)}\left(\frac{\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}1\right)\left(1\frac{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}{\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}\right)\right]$$
(68)
The temporal focal length defines the time from the output plane at which an initially unchirped pulse becomes unchirped again.

We can write the above in slightly simpler notation, for the specific case $`R_1=R_2=R`$, and let $`\kappa =d/R`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\beta ^{\prime \prime }=\beta _2^{\prime \prime }\beta _1^{\prime \prime }`$,

$$\widehat{f}_t=\left[\frac{1\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\beta ^{\prime \prime }}{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}}}{1{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\beta ^{\prime \prime }}{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}}}\frac{\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}{\mathrm{\Delta }\beta ^{\prime \prime }}\right]\frac{R}{2}$$
(69)
where the term in parentheses represents an enhancement factor over the “thin lens” formula.

For $`\kappa 1`$, we can simplify the above expression keeping terms of $`O(\kappa )`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f_t}}`$ $``$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\beta ^{\prime \prime }}{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}}\right)\left(1+\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\beta ^{\prime \prime }}{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }\beta ^{\prime \prime }}{R\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}}`$ (70)
$``$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\beta ^{\prime \prime }}{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }\beta ^{\prime \prime }}{R\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}}`$
The above relation confirms our physical intuition that if $`\beta _2^{\prime \prime }\beta _1^{\prime \prime }=\mathrm{\Delta }\beta ^{\prime \prime }<0`$, then we have reduced $`f_t`$, the distance to the point of zero chirp from the output plane, for an initially unchirped input pulse.

We now have the tools we need to analyze a reasonably complicated practical problem: designing the length of a dispersion map so as to get self-consistent eigen-pulses with periodic pulse width and chirp.

## III Dispersion-managed soliton transmission experiment

It has been recently found that a stable, self-consistent pulse solution exists in a dispersion-managed fiber transmission system art-Smith+-1996 . While these are not solitons in the strict mathematical sense, they have been called dispersion-managed solitons, or perhaps more appropriately, breathers. They demonstrate periodic behaviour: the pulse width and chirp of Gaussian breathers, for instance, are periodic functions of the propagation distance. Breathers share a property in common with solitons in that they can propagate indefinitely without losing shape; even though the pulse shape undergoes changes within a disperion map period, the pulse does not disperse away to infinity, or tend to self-focus to a point either of which invalidate the applicability of the nonlinear Schrödinger equation after a certain distance.

A dispersion-mapped (DM) soliton is closer to a Gaussian shape than the hyperbolic secant of the nonlinear Schrödinger equation art-Lakoba-Kaup-1998 , and it is interesting to ask whether our analysis is capable of capturing the essential aspects of its evolution along a dispersion-mapped transmission channel.

We consider, as our example, the paper by Mu et al. art-Mu+-2000  who have simulated DM soliton dynamics in a recirculating fiber loop. Their dispersion map consists of 100 km of dispersion shifted fiber (SMF-LS) with normal dispersion $`D_1`$ equal to -1.10 ps/nm-km at 1551 nm, followed by an “approximately 7-km span” of standard single-mode fiber (SMF-28) with an anomalous dispersion $`D_2`$ equal to 16.6 ps/nm-km at 1551 nm. The results of the paper indicate that Gaussian shaped pulses of pulse duration 5.67 ps and peak power 9 dBm were used. We will derive the result that, for these parameters and given the length of SMF-LS fiber, the length of SMF-28 fiber that needs to be used is indeed “approximately 7-km”. In other words, we will show that this given dispersion map can support lowest-order chirped Gaussian self-consistent solutions, i.e. breathers.

The dispersion map, shown schematically in Figure 2, consists of three fiber segments: a length $`z_1/2`$ equal to 50 km of SMF-LS fiber, followed by a length $`z_2`$ of SMF-28 fiber, whose numerical value is to be determined, and then the remainder $`z_1/2`$ of SMF-LS fiber. Each segment of fiber has nonlinear characteristics, which we model via a time lens situated, for simplicity at the individual midpoints of the respective segments. Consequently, each segment is described by the cascaded product of three ABCD matrices, with two additional matrices representing the transitions between fibers of different $`\beta ^{\prime \prime }`$. For simplicity, we will assume that the nonlinear properties of the fibers are identical.

The overall ABCD matrix for the system can be written down quite easily,

$`M`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& z_1/4\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 1/f_t& 1\end{array}\right).\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& z_1/4\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$ (96)
$`.\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& \beta _1^{\prime \prime }/\beta _2^{\prime \prime }\end{array}\right).\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& z_2/2\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 1/f_t& 1\end{array}\right)`$
$`.\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& z_2/2\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& \beta _2^{\prime \prime }/\beta _1^{\prime \prime }\end{array}\right).\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& z_1/4\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$
$`.\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 1/f_t& 1\end{array}\right).\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& z_1/4\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$
which, after some algebra, can be written as an ABCD matrix with the following elements,

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{z_1}{4f}}\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{z_2}{2f}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{z_1}{4f}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}{\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}}\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{z_1}{4f}}\right)\right]\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{z_1}{4f}}\right)`$ (97)
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{z_1}{4f}}\right)\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{z_2}{2f}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{z_2}{2f}}+\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{z_1}{4f}}\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{z_2}{2f}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{z_1}{4f}}\right]`$
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{z_1}{4f}}\left[\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{z_2}{2f}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}{\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{z_1}{4f}}\right)\right]\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{z_1}{4f}}\right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_2}{2f}}\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{z_2}{2f}}\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{z_2}{2f}}\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{z_1}{4f}}\right)\right]\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{z_1}{4f}}\right)`$ (98)
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{z_1}{4f}}\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{z_2}{2f}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{z_1}{4f}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}{\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}}\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{z_1}{4f}}\right)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{z_1}{4}}\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{z_1}{4f}}\right)`$ (99)
$`+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{z_1}{4f}}\right)\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{z_2}{2f}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{z_2}{2}}+\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{z_1}{4f}}\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{z_2}{2f}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{z_1}{4}}\right]\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{z_1}{4f}}\right)`$
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f}}\left[\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{z_2}{2f}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}{\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{z_1}{4f}}\right)\right]\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{z_1}{4f}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{f}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_2}{2f}}\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{z_2}{2f}}\right)+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{z_2}{2f}}\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{z_1}{4f}}\right)\right]`$ (100)
The algebraic complexity of writing out the expressions explicitly should not mask the simplicity of multiplying two-by-two matrices, usually numerically. Note that the expression (98) for $`D`$ is algebraically identical to that for $`A`$ (97), and it may be verified that $`ADBC=1`$.

The $`q`$-parameter (we have dropped the $`t`$ subscript in this section for notational elegance) evolves according to the bilinear transformation law, and we require that the pulse repeat itself after propagation through one such ABCD matrix,

$$\frac{1}{q}=\frac{A+B/q}{C+D/q}$$
(101)
which has the solution

$$\frac{1}{q}=\frac{DA}{2B}\pm i\frac{\sqrt{1\left({\displaystyle \frac{D+A}{2}}\right)^2}}{B}$$
(102)
Since $`D=A`$ in our above analysis, we already see that $`q`$ is purely imaginary at $`z=0`$ i.e. the pulse has zero chirp at the midplanes, as we would expect a breather to have.

At this stage, we can substitute numerical values for the various parameters (except $`z_2`$, which is what we seek) into the expressions for the $`A`$, $`B`$, $`C`$ and $`D`$ elements (9798) and solve (102) numerically for $`z_2`$. While this is not difficult, and already yields a quick solution to the problem at hand, we can get further insight via a well-justified simplification as follows.

The $`q`$ parameter at the midplanes, where it is purely imaginary, is given by

$$\frac{1}{q_0}=\frac{2|\beta _1^{\prime \prime }|}{\tau _0^2}$$
(103)
where $`\beta _1^{\prime \prime }=1.40\times 10^{27}\mathrm{s}^2/\mathrm{m}`$ and input pulse width $`\tau _0=5.67\times 10^{12}\mathrm{s}`$. Consequently, for such pulses, $`1/q0`$, and since $`A=D`$, this implies that $`A=1`$ in (102).

With the notational substitutions

$$x=\frac{z_2}{2f},y=\frac{z_1}{4f},\beta _r^{\prime \prime }=\frac{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}{\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}$$
(104)
we get the necessary condition

$$\begin{array}{c}\left[(1y)^2(2y)y\right](1x)\beta _r^{\prime \prime }y(2y)(1y)\hfill \\ \frac{1}{\beta _r^{\prime \prime }}(1y)(2x)x=1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(105)
The solution of this equation is given by

$$x=\beta _r^{\prime \prime }\frac{y(2y)}{1y}$$
(106)
or, in terms of the initial variables,

$$z_2=\left|\frac{\beta _1^{\prime \prime }}{\beta _2^{\prime \prime }}\right|\frac{{\displaystyle \frac{z_1}{2}}\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{z_1}{4f}}\right)}{\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{z_1}{4f}}\right)}$$
(107)
which is the necessary condition in order to have a stable self-consistent Gaussian eigen-pulse (breather) solution to the dispersion-map problem.

All that remains is for us to interpret the variables in terms of the original problem and numerically evaluate this expression to get the desired length $`z_2`$ of SMF-28 fiber in this dispersion map. The various numerical values are as follows:

$`\beta _1^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`1.40\times 10^{27}\mathrm{s}^2/\mathrm{m},`$
$`\beta _2^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`2.12\times 10^{26}\mathrm{s}^2/\mathrm{m},`$
$`\tau _0`$ $`=`$ $`5.67\times 10^{12}\mathrm{s},`$
$`z_1`$ $`=`$ $`10^5\mathrm{m}`$
Given the nature of the problem, we realize our time lens with the nonlinear fiber as described earlier (50), so that

$$\frac{1}{f}=4\beta _{NL}^{\prime \prime }\left(\frac{2\pi }{\lambda }\right)\frac{n_2I_pL_{NL}}{\tau ^2}$$
(108)
and take $`\beta _{NL}^{\prime \prime }=\beta _2^{\prime \prime }`$, $`I_p=3.62\times 10^6\mathrm{W}/\mathrm{M}^2`$ so that with fiber core area $`A_{\mathrm{eff}}=47\mu m`$, we get $`P=8\mathrm{mW}=9\mathrm{dBm}`$. Also, we take $`L_{NL}=z_2`$ consistent with our choice of $`\beta _{NL}^{\prime \prime }`$.

The numerical solution (of the quadratic equation) for $`z_2`$ is equal to 7.00 km which is indeed the value “approximately 7 km” stated in the paper art-Mu+-2000 . In spite of apparent exact agreement, we should be careful to appreciate that this analysis is a characterization of only the most important processes in this experiment. Possible sources for approximation include the fact that a DM soliton is only approximately Gaussian, and that we have represented the combined dispersive and nonlinear properties of the fiber segments by a single temporal lens. A better approximation may be to include several temporal lenses for each segment of fiber; this would make the algebraic expressions in this paper quite cumbersome to write down explicitly, but the numerical computation would not be much more difficult, since the matrices are only two-by-two in size, and comprise of purely real elements. The experimental configuration of art-Mu+-2000  also includes several other elements which can affect the pulse shape, such as filters, fiber amplifiers and polarization controllers.

## IV Hermite-Gaussian basis

Our ABCD matrix formalism for pulse propagation applies to chirped Gaussian pulses. To analyze more complicated shapes, we can expand the given pulse shape in a basis of chirped Hermite-Gaussian functions, which form a complete orthonormal basis bk-Haus ; art-Lakoba-Kaup-1998 . The Hermite-Gaussian function (we consider only unchirped Gaussians here for simplicity) of order $`n`$ is defined as the product of the Hermite polynomial of order $`n`$ with a Gaussian function,

$$\psi _n(t)H_n(t)\mathrm{exp}(t^2/2),$$
(109)
where, for example,

$$H_0(t)=1,H_1(t)=2t,H_2(t)=4t^22.$$
(110)
We can expand an arbitrary input amplitude $`u_0(t)`$ in this basis, analogous to expanding a field in terms of plane wave components, as in solution techniques of the standard parabolic diffraction equation by means of the Fourier transform,

$$u_0(t)=\underset{n=0}{}c_nH_n(t)\mathrm{exp}(t^2/2)$$
(111)
where because of orthogonality of the Hermite-Gaussians, the expansion coefficients are given by

$$c_n=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^nn!}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}u_0(t)H_n(t)\mathrm{exp}(t^2/2).$$
(112)
The propagation equation (16) defines the output pulse shape as the convolution of the input shape with a Gaussian kernel. Hermite-Gaussians, when convolved with a Gaussian, yield the product of a Hermite polynomial and a Gaussian bk-Haus ,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\multicolumn{2}{c}{_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t_0\psi _n(t_0)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{a}{2}(tt_0)^2\right]=}& \\ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\sqrt{\frac{2\pi }{a+1}}\left(\frac{a1}{a+1}\right)^{\frac{n}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{at^2}{2(a^21)}\right]\psi _n\left[\frac{a}{\sqrt{a^21}}t\right].}\end{array}$$
(113)
Taking as input the $`n`$-th Hermite-Gaussian mode $`u_0=\psi _n(t)`$ (which has width $`\tau _0=\sqrt{2}`$), we evaluate the amplitude of this mode after propagation through distance $`z`$,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\multicolumn{2}{c}{u_n(z,T)=\sqrt{\frac{1}{1+i\beta ^{\prime \prime }z}}\left[\frac{1+\frac{i}{\beta ^{\prime \prime }z}}{1\frac{i}{\beta ^{\prime \prime }z}}\right]^{n/2}}& \\ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\times \mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{2\beta ^{\prime \prime }z}\frac{T^2}{1+\frac{1}{(\beta ^{\prime \prime }z)^2}}\right]\psi _n\left[\frac{T}{\sqrt{1+(\beta ^{\prime \prime }z)^2}}\right]}\end{array}$$
(114)
which can be seen to agree with (19).

A Hermite-Gaussian therefore maintains its shape during propagation, but adds a chirp (which is the same for all modes) and a scaling of the width according to (19). Power conservation implies that the amplitude correspondingly scales down. The only term that is dependent on the order of the Hermite-Gaussian is a phase term; higher-order modes have greater phase advances, since their spectral content is higher. The important observation is that the orthogonality of the Hermite-Gaussian expansion is preserved, and so this expansion may be used to predict the pulse shape obtained by propagating an input pulse. Our formalism remains valid as long as the differential equation describing the propagation of a particular order Hermite-Gaussian is of the form (15), i.e. the slowly-varying envelope approximation is valid. Therefore, we can expect that the lower-order expansions are usually valid; the results of applying our analysis to higher-order expansion terms generate the residual field corrections to the lower order results art-TchofoDinda+-2000 .

## V Conclusions

We have developed a $`2\times 2`$ ABCD matrix formalism for describing pulse propagation in media described by Maxwell’s equations, accounting for dispersion, nonlinear and gain/loss mechanisms. The method is analogous to techniques used in CW beam diffraction analysis, and correspondingly similar phenomena can be predicted, such as chirp transformation, focusing, periodic pulse width expansion and narrowing etc. The spatial $`q`$ parameter has a time equivalent $`q_T`$ in accordance with the given space-time translation rules. The real and imaginary parts of $`q_T^1`$ represent the chirp and the width of the pulse as a function of propagation distance $`z`$.

The propagation of various input pulse shapes can be described by expanding the given pulse in a basis of Hermite-Gaussian functions; the ABCD formalism applies to each Gaussian wave function separately. Propagation through a complicated system of optical elements is simple to calculate in terms of ABCD matrices: the resultant matrix is the cascaded product of the ABCD matrices of each of the individual elements with the appropriate ordering. The overall $`q_T`$ parameter is given by a bilinear transformation in terms of the ABCD elements of the overall product matrix, exactly analogous to the spatial case.

We have formulated ABCD matrices for pulse propagation in dispersive fibers, and for temporal lenses which can characterize self-phase modulation phenomena. A spatial dielectric interface translates to an interface between fiber segments of dissimilar GVD coefficient $`\beta ^{\prime \prime }`$. The temporal equivalent of a curved dielectric interface is useful for characterizing the transition between such dissimilar $`\beta ^{\prime \prime }`$ fibers with the added presence of fiber nonlinearities arising from the nonlinear index of refraction $`n_2`$. We have used these tools to characterize a reasonably complicated real-life system: calculation of the dispersion map for self-consistent stable propagation of a dispersion-managed soliton.

We believe this method of analysis forms a useful complement to conventional pulse propagation methods, such as the split-step Fourier transform numerical procedures bk-Agrawal  which are substantially more computationally intensive. The ABCD approach is useful for clarifying the important dispersive and nonlinear focusing effects in dispersion-mapped nonlinear fiber segments. Together with the variational approach art-Anderson-1983 , based on modeling the pulse as a dynamical system characterized by a Hamiltonian functional art-Muraki-1991 , the $`q`$-parameter offers an insight into pulse evolution from a theoretical standpoint.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by the Office of Naval Research and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research.


format: text

text:
# 𝜸-RADIATION OF EXCITED NUCLEAR DISCRETE LEVELS IN PERIPHERAL HEAVY ION COLLISIONS

## 1 Introduction

Two photon physics calls for attention. It includes the effects of coherent photon interactions for nuclear peripheral collisions. Such processes takes place at large distances between nuclei, $`b>2R_A`$, where $`b`$ is the impact parameter. The interactions are therefore due to long range electromagnetic processes. The cross section is proportional to $`(\alpha Z)^4`$ for $`Z_1=Z_2=Z`$, where $`Z`$ is a charge of each ion $`A_Z`$. The ions are on essentially undisturbed and fly in the beam direction.

There are many theoretical studies of two virtual photon fusion to a particle of mass $`M`$ in peripheral $`AA`$ collisions:

$$\gamma ^{}+\gamma ^{}M.$$
(1)
Photons fusion can produce particles from $`\mu ^\pm `$, $`\tau ^\pm `$ leptons to Higgs bosons 1 ; 2 ; 3 ; 4 ; 5 . Research in this field can yield fundamental results. A full list of references can be found in the recent reviews 1 ; 2 ; 3 .

We considered three competitive processes in our previous work 5  in which $`\pi ^0`$-mesons are produced in peripheral $`AA`$ collisions. Virtual photon fusion

$$\gamma ^{}+\gamma ^{}\pi ^0$$
(2)
can give $`\pi ^0`$-mesons in the central rapidity region and at $`p_T`$ less than $`75`$ MeV. The photo-disintegration of nucleus

$$\gamma ^{}+A_Z\pi ^0+X$$
(3)
also produces $`\pi ^0`$-mesons with large amount of nuclear fragments in the fragmentation region 6 ; 7 . Hadronic interactions in the tails of the nuclear density at $`b>2R_A`$,

$$A_Z+A_Z\pi ^0+X$$
(4)
produces $`\pi ^0`$s in the whole rapidity region together with the nuclear fragments and other particles in the fragmentation region. We demonstrated 5  that to distinguish the fusion process (2) from processes (3) and (4) it is necessary to choose a strong $`p_T`$ cut, $`p_T<75`$ MeV, for all produced particles. Additionally it is necessary to have an efficient trigger to distinguish photon-photon events from hadronic ones. G.Baur et al. 3  suggested measuring intact nuclei after the interaction. Evidently it is impossible for CMS. The nuclei at such low $`p_T`$ will emit in very small solid angle, $`\theta _A1`$ $`\mu `$rad, at LHC energies and fly into the beam pipe. We are interested in the fusion process (2) where both nuclei preserve their $`A`$ and $`Z`$. It is the necessary to remove the contributions in Eqs. (3) and (4) by the help of the veto-detectors on nuclear fragments.

The separation of peripheral and central $`AA`$ collisions is a hard experimental problem. There are two suggestions to select peripheral events: the correlation between $`b`$ and total transverse energy $`E_T`$ 24Emel  or the correlation of $`b`$ and particle multiplicity 25Nyst . But there are no “event by event” criteria for peripheral collision selection.

Two photon fusion (1) is accompanied by other electromagnetic processes which have to be considered if we want to obtain a clear signature of the process (1).

The pure electromagnetic processes of the electron-positron pair production 8 ; 9 ; 10 ; 11  and bremsstrahlung photons 12 ; 13 ; 14 ; 15  are also studied. These processes are considered as a possible background contribution. The cross section of $`e^+e^{}`$ pair production is huge, 220 Kb for PbPb and 1.5 Kb for CaCa collisions at LHC energies. We will use the fact of the huge $`e^+e^{}`$ cross section below.

The physical program of LHC heavy ions includes the nucleus Pb, Nb, Ar and O. Our calculations for CaCa are close to ArAr collisions. We choose Ca because this nucleus is studied very well, the electromagnetic form factors are well-known from experiments. We have no free parameters in our calculations.

The direct bremsstrahlung from the heavy ion

$$A_Z+A_ZA_Z+A_Z+\gamma _{BS}^{}$$
(5)
is small 12 ; 13 ; 14  with a cross section proportional to $`Z^6\alpha ^3/M_A^2`$. Ref. 15  suggested measuring the bremsstrahlung photons coming from electrons and positrons produced in peripheral ion collisions,

$$A_Z+A_ZA_Z+A_Z+e^+e^{}+\gamma _{BS}^{}.$$
(6)
The cross section is proportional to $`Z^4\alpha ^5/m_e^2`$, larger than the cross section of process (5). We used the result of Ref. 15  for PbPb and found about 10 b for CaCa at LHC energies. The energies of bremsstrahlung photons are small, $`E_{\gamma _{BS}^{}}3`$ MeV, and the angles are near $`\theta _{\gamma _{BS}^{}}=1^{}`$. Such low energy photons are impossible to measure. So they are not a good signature of peripheral $`AA`$ collisions.

In the present work we study a new process in which a nucleus is excited to discrete levels by an electron (positron) produced in electromagnetic interaction between nuclei

$$A_Z+A_ZA_Z^{}+A_Z+e^+e^{}.$$
(7)
The excited nucleus $`A_Z^{}`$ radiates the secondary
photon $`\gamma ^{}`$

$$A_Z^{}A_Z+\gamma ^{}.$$
(8)
As a rule, the nuclear excitation energy is a few MeV 16 . The energies $`E_\gamma ^{}^0`$ of photon in the nucleus rest system are in MeV scale. They will be equal to about 10 GeV or more in the laboratory system at LHC energies. The polar angle $`\theta _\gamma ^{}`$ of the secondary photon is about a few hundred $`\mu `$rad. It allows for a favourable conditions of the photon measurement and using them as a trigger for peripheral collisions. The process (8) was suggested as a possible explanation of the high energy ($`E_\gamma 10^{12}`$ eV) cosmic photon spectrum Balashov .

There are other processes which could produce secondary photons. Mesons are produced by fusion process (1) and decay to photons such as $`\pi ^02\gamma `$. Neutral pions can also be produced by double Pomeron($`IP`$)-exchange 17  in $`AA`$ collisions,

$$IP+IP\pi ^0+X.$$
(9)
The calculations of the PHOJET event generator 18  for Pomeron exchange give an average transverse momentum of about 450 MeV for pions. The calculations in Ref. Roldao  show that cross section of the double Pomeron($`IP`$)-exchange is smaller than fusion process (1) for heavy ions and is comparable for medium nuclei.

There are other competitive processes which also produced secondary photons. Such as nuclear excitation,

$$A_Z+A_ZA_Z^{}+A_Z,A_Z^{}\gamma ^{}+A_Z,$$
(10)
in peripheral collisions at $`b>2R`$. We will show that the cross section is smaller than process (7). It is also possible to excite one nucleus by a virtual photon from other nucleus,

$$\gamma ^{}+A_ZA_Z^{},A_Z^{}\gamma ^{}+A_Z.$$
(11)
The cross section of this process is the same or smaller than (10) for intermediate mass ions with $`Z_A20`$.

Other processes which are also a source of secondary photons are the excitation of nuclei to the continuum with cascade transitions to lower nuclear states that emit photons. Such processes have a large probability to decay, $`A^{}(A4)+{}_{}{}^{4}\text{H}e`$, $`A^{}(A1)+\text{N}`$, if the excitation energy is higher than particle decay threshold 16 . It might be possible to remove these decays by vetoing charged particles. We also need to exclude the secondary photon contribution from nuclear fragments in photo-disintegration reactions

$$\gamma ^{}+A_ZA_1^{}+A_2^{}+\mathrm{},A_k^{}\gamma +A_k.$$
(12)
Our estimates, based on Ref. 6  using RELDIS, show that the nuclear fragments scatter in small angles $`\theta 45`$ $`\mu `$rad. These fragments do not hit the central detectors but can be removed either by the quadruple lens or by the Roman pots of TOTEM 19 .

The TOTEM detector will measure protons at small $`t`$, $`0.02<|t|<0.7`$ (GeV/c)2, corresponding to small polar angles, $`20<\theta <120`$ $`\mu `$rad, with respect to the beam direction. We will shown that cross section of (7) is large, $`\sigma 5`$ barn, so that secondary photons hit the Roman pots with high rates and can be a significant background resulting in degradation of the detector.

There are two ways to use the secondary photons produced by process (7). One possibility is to use them for monitoring the nuclear beam intensity . At RHIC a neutron zero degree calorimeter (ZDC) 20  is used. The beam crossing angle at RHIC is 14 mrad and the ZDC measure neutrons in the region $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta =6`$ mrad. The LHC beam crossing angle is very small, 300 $`\mu `$rad. As yet, a nuclear beam intensity monitor has not developed. The possibility of using (7) to monitor of the nuclear beam at LHC is important.

The second application concerns triggering peripheral nucleus-nucleus collisions in processes such as

$$A_ZA_ZA_Z^{}A_Z+e^+e^{}+M,A_Z^{}\gamma ^{}+A_Z;$$
(13)
$$A_ZA_ZA_Z^{}A_Z+M,A_Z^{}\gamma ^{}+A_Z,$$
(14)
where $`M`$ is the produced particle system. The total trigger requirements include the following features: a signal in the central rapidity region from $`\gamma ^{}\gamma ^{}M`$ events, the absence of charge particles in the nuclear fragmentation region and a photon signal in the Roman pots. We do not calculate these processes here but study the angular and energy distributions of secondary photons in decay (8) for process (7). Note that these distributions should be similar to those of processes (13) and (14).

## 2 Formalism

### 2.1 Secondary nuclear $`\gamma `$-radiation

We study photon radiation of the relativistic nucleus from discrete level

$$A^{}(J^P,E_\gamma ^0)A+\gamma {}_{}{}^{}.$$
(15)
The secondary photon $`\gamma ^{}`$ flies off at angle $`\theta _\gamma ^{}`$ and energy $`E_\gamma ^0`$ in the nucleus rest (NR) system. If a nucleus has Lorenz factor $`\gamma _A`$ then the secondary photon energy is

$$E_\gamma =\gamma _AE_\gamma ^0(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta _\gamma {}_{}{}^{})$$
(16)
in the laboratory system (LS) so that $`0E_\gamma 2\gamma _AE_\gamma ^0`$ and

$$\left|\frac{dE_\gamma }{d\theta _\gamma ^{}}\right|=\gamma _AE_\gamma ^0\mathrm{sin}\theta _\gamma {}_{}{}^{}.$$
(17)
The angles in the LS and the NR systems are related by

$$\mathrm{tan}\theta _\gamma =\frac{1}{\gamma _A}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta _\gamma ^{}}{(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta _\gamma {}_{}{}^{})}.$$
(18)
Then

$$\frac{d\theta _\gamma ^{}}{d\theta _\gamma }=\frac{2\gamma _A}{(1+\gamma _A^2\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _\gamma )\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _\gamma }.$$
(19)
Photon number conserving gives

$$f(E_\gamma )dE_\gamma =f(\theta _\gamma {}_{}{}^{})d\theta _\gamma {}_{}{}^{}.$$
(20)
The angular and energy distributions of the secondary photons in the LS are

$$\frac{dP_A^{}(\theta _\gamma )}{d\theta _\gamma }=f(\theta _\gamma {}_{}{}^{})\frac{d\theta _\gamma ^{}}{d\theta _\gamma },$$
(21)
$$\frac{dP_A^{}(E_\gamma )}{dE_\gamma }=f(\theta _\gamma {}_{}{}^{})\frac{d\theta _\gamma ^{}}{dE_\gamma }=f(\theta _\gamma {}_{}{}^{})\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(2\gamma _AE_\gamma ^0E_\gamma )}{\gamma _AE_\gamma ^0\mathrm{sin}\theta _\gamma ^{}},$$
(22)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)=1`$, if $`x0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)=0`$ if $`x>0`$.

For an isotropic photon distribution in the NR system

$$f(\theta _\gamma {}_{}{}^{})d\theta _\gamma {}_{}{}^{}d\phi _\gamma {}_{}{}^{}=\frac{1}{4\pi }\mathrm{sin}\theta _\gamma {}_{}{}^{}d\theta _\gamma {}_{}{}^{}d\phi _\gamma ^{}$$
(23)
After integration over $`\phi _\gamma ^{}`$, we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dP_A^{}(\theta _\gamma )}{d\theta _\gamma }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta _\gamma {}_{}{}^{}d\theta _\gamma ^{}}{d\theta _\gamma }},`$ (24)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dP_A^{}(E_\gamma )}{dE_\gamma }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\gamma _AE_\gamma ^0}}\mathrm{\Theta }(2\gamma _AE_\gamma ^0E_\gamma ).`$ (25)
For comparison the photon distribution of $`\pi ^0`$ decay is

$$\frac{dP_{\pi ^0}(E_\gamma )}{dE_\gamma }=\frac{1}{\gamma _{\pi ^0}m_{\pi ^0}}\mathrm{\Theta }(\gamma _{\pi ^0}m_{\pi ^0}E_\gamma ).$$
(26)
The angular photon distribution (24) is

$$\frac{dP_A^{}}{d\theta _\gamma }=\frac{2\gamma _A^2\mathrm{sin}\theta _\gamma }{(1+\gamma _A^2\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _\gamma )^2\mathrm{cos}^3\theta _\gamma }$$
(27)
in the LS.

### 2.2 Excitation of discrete nuclear level in quasi-elastic electron scattering

We follow the formalism of Ref. 21 . The cross section for nuclear excitation by electron scattering

$$e+Ae{}_{}{}^{}+A^{}(\lambda ^P,E_\gamma ^0)$$
(28)
is

$$\frac{d\sigma _A^{}}{d\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}=\sigma _M(q)F_\lambda ^2(q).$$
(29)
Here we neglect the nuclear recoil effect. The equation is valid in the NR system where the electron has an energy $`\epsilon _0`$ and the momentum transfer is

$$q=2\epsilon _0\mathrm{sin}\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_e^{}}{2}$$
(30)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }_e^{}`$ is a scattering angle of the electron. The Mott cross section of the electron scattering off charge $`Z_A`$ is

$$\sigma _M(q)=\left(\frac{2Z_Ae^2}{q^2}\epsilon _0\mathrm{cos}(\theta _e^{}/2)\right)^2=\frac{\alpha ^2Z_A^2cos^2(\theta _e^{}/2)}{(2\epsilon _0\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _e^{}/2))^2}.$$
(31)
Here $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$.

A good approximation of the measured inelastic form factor $`F_\lambda (q)`$ 21  is

$`F_\lambda (q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c_\lambda q^\lambda }{Z_A}}\left[1\beta \left(\lambda +{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{4}}(dq)^2\right]e^{(dq)^2/4}`$ (32)
$`c_\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_\lambda \pi \sqrt{2\lambda +1}d^{\lambda +3}}{2^{\lambda +1}}}.`$ (33)
The parameters for 40Ca$`{}_{}{}^{}(3^{}`$, 3.74 MeV) are $`\lambda =3`$, $`N_3=0.0496`$ fm-3, $`d=2.015`$ fm and $`\beta =0.8`$ .

The four-momenta of the electron and nucleus are

$`k_e`$ $`=`$ $`(\epsilon ,p\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\phi ,p\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\phi ,p\mathrm{cos}\theta ),`$
$`k_A`$ $`=`$ $`(E_A,0,0,p_A)`$ (34)
in the laboratory system and

$$k_e{}_{}{}^{}=(\epsilon _0,\stackrel{}{p}_e{}_{}{}^{}),k_A{}_{}{}^{}=(m_A,0)$$
(35)
in the nuclear rest system.

Then

$$\epsilon _0=\frac{1}{m_A}(\epsilon E_A+pp_A\mathrm{cos}\theta ),$$
(36)
$$q_{\text{max}}(\epsilon _0)=2\epsilon _0,$$
(37)
where $`\theta `$ is the polar angle of the electron in the LS with the $`z`$\- axis parallel to $`\stackrel{}{p}_A`$, the nuclear momentum.

Equations (36), (37) allows us to calculate the cross section of quasi-elastic excitation electron scattering in the system of the colliding nuclei.

### 2.3 Nuclear excitation by electron or positron in peripheral heavy ion collisions

In Fig. 1 we show two stage process

$$A_Z+A_ZA_Z^{}+A_Z+e^+e^{},$$
(38)
where the $`e^+e^{}`$ pair is produced by the virtual photons in the nuclear electromagnetic field followed by nuclear excitation by the electron or positron.

The authors of Ref. 8  showed that the energy and angular electron (positron) distribution in the double equivalent photon approximation is

$$\frac{d\sigma _{AA}}{d\epsilon d\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{\alpha ^2}{2}p\underset{\widehat{E}/2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{d\omega }{\omega ^4}\frac{2\omega \widehat{E}}{\stackrel{~}{E}^2}n(\omega )n\left(\frac{\omega \widehat{E}}{2\omega \stackrel{~}{E}}\right)g(\omega ,\theta )$$
(39)
where $`\omega `$ is the energy of the virtual photon. We have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \widehat{E}& =& \epsilon +p\mathrm{cos}\theta ,\hfill \\ \hfill \stackrel{~}{E}& =& \epsilon p\mathrm{cos}\theta ,\hfill \\ \hfill \epsilon ^2& =& p^2+m_e^2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(40)
$$g(\omega ,\theta )=\{\frac{2\omega \omega {}_{}{}^{}m_e^2+(\omega \omega {}_{}{}^{}m_e^2)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{m_e^2(\omega \omega {}_{}{}^{}m_e^2)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }$$

$$\frac{2(\omega \omega {}_{}{}^{}m_e^2)^2\mathrm{sin}^4\theta }{[m_e^2+(\omega \omega {}_{}{}^{}m_e^2)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ]^2}\},$$
(41)
$$\omega {}_{}{}^{}=\frac{\omega \stackrel{~}{E}}{2\omega \widehat{E}},$$
(42)
$$n(\omega )=\frac{2}{\pi }Z_A^2\alpha \left(\frac{c}{v}\right)^2\left[\xi K_0(\xi )K_1(\xi )\frac{v^2\xi ^2}{2c^2}(K_1^2(\xi )K_0^2(\xi ))\right],$$
(43)
$$\xi =\frac{\omega R_{\text{min}}}{\gamma v}.$$
(44)
The equivalent electron approximation 3  is more exact, but the results of that approach are not numerically differ from 8 .

We consider a model of the two independent simultaneous processes in Fig. 1. The cross section of the two-stage process (38) is written as a convolution of Eq. (39) with the probability of nuclear excitation,

$$\sigma _{AA^{}}=𝑑\epsilon 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\frac{d\sigma _{AA}}{d\epsilon d\mathrm{\Omega }}(\epsilon ,\theta )P_A^{}(q(\theta ^{};\epsilon ,\theta )).$$
(45)
We define the probability of nuclear excitation $`P_A^{}(q)`$ as a ratio of the cross section (29) to the sum over all nuclear final states

$$P_A^{}(q)=\frac{d\sigma _A^{}/d\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}{d\sigma _{\text{sum}}/d\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}.$$
(46)
We follow the Glauber model Glauber  to calculate this sum using the property of closure. For electron scattering, we find

$$\frac{d\sigma _{\text{sum}}}{d\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}=[Z_A(Z_A1)S_A^2(q)+Z_A]|f_{ep}(q)|^2$$
(47)
where $`f_{ep}(q)`$ is the elastic electron-proton scattering amplitude and $`S_A(q)`$ is the elastic nuclear form-factor. For our two-stage peripheral process where $`q1/R_A`$,
$`S_A(q)1`$ so that

$$\frac{d\sigma _{\text{sum}}}{d\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}(q)Z_A^2|f_{ep}(q)|^2=\sigma _M(q).$$
(48)
Thus the integrated cross section, Eq. (45), is

$`\sigma _{AA^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\epsilon 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\frac{d\sigma _{AA}}{d\epsilon d\mathrm{\Omega }}(\epsilon ,\theta )F_\lambda ^2(q(\theta ^{};\epsilon ,\theta ))}`$ (49)
$`=`$ $`2\pi ^2\alpha ^2{\displaystyle \underset{\widehat{E}/2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\omega {\displaystyle \underset{m_e}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\epsilon {\displaystyle d\mathrm{cos}\theta d\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}}`$
$`\times `$ $`p(\epsilon ){\displaystyle \frac{2\omega \widehat{E}}{\omega ^4\stackrel{~}{E}^2}}n(\omega )n(\omega ^{})g(\omega ,\theta )F_\lambda ^2(q(\theta ^{},\epsilon ,\theta ))`$
where $`q`$ is defined in Eq. (30).

After electro-excitation at high energies, the nucleus $`A_Z^{}`$ essentially retains its direction. Then the angular and energy distributions of the secondary photon are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{AA^{}}(\theta _\gamma ^{})}{d\theta _\gamma ^{}}}=\sigma _{AA}{\displaystyle \frac{dP_A^{}(\theta _\gamma ^{})}{d\theta _\gamma ^{}}},`$ (50)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{AA^{}}(E_\gamma ^{})}{dE_\gamma ^{}}}=\sigma _{AA}{\displaystyle \frac{dP_A^{}(E_\gamma ^{})}{dE_\gamma ^{}}},`$ (51)
where $`\sigma _{AA}`$ is given in Eq. (49). The functions $`dP_A^{}/d\theta _\gamma `$ and $`dP_A^{}/dE_\gamma `$ depend on the angular distribution of the $`\gamma ^{}`$ in the NR system. For an isotropic $`\gamma ^{}`$ distribution they are given by Eqs. (24) and (25).

### 2.4 Nuclear excitation by the peripheral strong interaction

One possible background for process (7) is a strong interaction in which one of nucleus is excited to a discrete level

$$A_1+A_2A_1^{}+A_2.$$
(52)
We make an rough estimate of the cross section in peripheral collisions with $`b>(R_1+R_2)`$. We write the differential cross section for elastic scattering, $`A_1+A_2A_1+A_2`$ 22 , neglecting distortion effects,

$$\frac{d\sigma _{A_1A_2}}{dq^2}=\frac{d\sigma _{NN}}{dq^2}(q^2)|A_1A_2S_{A_1}(\stackrel{}{q})S_{A_2}(\stackrel{}{q})|^2.$$
(53)
Here $`S_A(\stackrel{}{q})`$ is the nuclear form-factor, equal to unity at $`q=0`$, $`S_A(0)=1`$. We can approximate it simply by a Gaussian nuclear density,

$$S_{A_i}(q)=e^{B_{A_i}q^2/2}.$$
(54)
We use the standard form (see 2 ) for nucleon nucleon scattering cross section

$$\frac{d\sigma _{NN}}{dq^2}(q^2)=\left|\frac{\sigma _{\text{tot}}(NN)}{4\sqrt{\pi }}e^{B_Nq^2/2}\right|^2.$$
(55)
We calculate the energy of an $`AA`$ collision at the LHC with $`\gamma =3500`$ in the nuclear rest system, where $`\gamma _A=2\gamma ^21`$. The energy of an $`NN`$-collision in the rest system is $`E_p=2.5\times 10^7`$ GeV. We find
$`\sigma _{\text{tot}}(NN)100`$ mb and $`B_{NN}20`$ GeV-2 at LHC energies from a good approximation of $`\overline{p}p`$ data at $`\sqrt{s_{\text{pp}}}<540`$ GeV in Ref. 23 .

For the elastic scattering we can write the form-factor $`S_A(\stackrel{}{q})`$ as

$$S_A(q)=2\pi \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}b𝑑bJ_0(qb)T_A(b),T_A(b)=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑z\rho _A(\stackrel{}{b},z),$$

where $`J_0(qb)`$ is a Bessel function and $`\rho _A(\stackrel{}{b},z)`$ is the nuclear density. Using Eq. (54), $`T_A(b)`$ is

$$T_A(b)=\frac{1}{2\pi B_A}e^{b^2/(2B_A)}.$$
(56)
Peripheral collisions will correspond to the integral (2.4) in the region $`b>R`$

$$S_A(q,R)=2\pi \underset{R}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}b𝑑bJ_0(qb)T_A(b).$$
(57)
The amplitude of proton inelastic scattering with nuclear excitation to a state with spin $`\lambda `$ and projection $`\mu `$ in the same approximation is

$$_{pA^{}}(\stackrel{}{q})=Af_{NN}(\stackrel{}{q})G_{\lambda \mu }(\stackrel{}{q}),$$
(58)
where

$$G_{\lambda \mu }(\stackrel{}{q})=d^3\stackrel{}{r}e^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{r}}\rho _{\lambda \mu }(\stackrel{}{r}).$$
(59)
The inelastic nuclear transition density is

$$\rho _{\lambda \mu }(\stackrel{}{r})=\frac{1}{A}\lambda \mu |\underset{j=1}{\overset{A}{}}\delta (\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}_j)|00.$$
(60)
It is simple to show that $`F_{\lambda \mu }(q)|_{q0}q^\mu `$. We define the inelastic nuclear form-factor $`S_A^{}^{(\lambda )}(q)`$ as

$$(S_A^{}^{(\lambda )}(q))^2=\underset{\mu }{}|G_{\lambda \mu }(\stackrel{}{q})|^2.$$
(61)
If we assume that the state with $`\mu =\lambda `$ is dominant, we can approximate the inelastic form-factor $`S_A^{}^{(\lambda )}(q)`$ by Eq. (32). This form agrees with form-factor from inelastic electron scattering 21 . We assume that the charge and nucleon transition densities are the same for a rough estimate. We take the parameters of the inelastic form-factor for $`{}_{}{}^{40}\text{Ca}_{}^{}(\lambda \mu )`$ from Ref. 21  and renormalize the form-factor to $`Z_A/A`$ so that

$$S_A^{}^{(\lambda )}(q)=\frac{Z_A}{A}F_\lambda (q).$$
(62)
The Fourier transformation analogous to Eq. (57) is

$$S_A^{}^{(\lambda )}(q,R)=2\pi \underset{R}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}b𝑑bJ_\lambda (qb)T_A^{}^{(\lambda )}(b),$$
(63)
in peripheral collisions with $`b>R`$ where the function $`T_A^{}^{(\lambda )}(b)`$ can be calculated by the inverse Fourier transform from $`S_A^{}^\lambda (q)`$ to $`T_A^{}^\lambda (b)`$

$$T_A^{}^{(\lambda )}(b)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}q𝑑qJ_\lambda (qb)S_A^{}^{(\lambda )}(q).$$
(64)
We can calculate (64) analytically with the form-factor parameterisation in Eq. (62). We have

$$T_A^{}^{(\lambda )}(b)=\frac{1}{A}\frac{c_\lambda }{2}\left[1\beta \left(\lambda +\frac{3}{2}\right)+\beta \left(\frac{b}{d}\right)^2\right]$$

$$\times \left(\frac{4}{d^2}\right)\frac{\lambda +2}{2}\left(\frac{b^2}{d^2}\right)^{\lambda /2}e^{b^2/d^2}.$$
(65)
Thus Eq. (53) becomes

$$\frac{d\sigma _{A_1^{}A_2}}{dq^2}=\frac{d\sigma _{NN}}{dq^2}(q^2)|A_1A_2S_{A_1^{}}^{(\lambda )}(\stackrel{}{q},R)S_{A_2}(\stackrel{}{q},R)|^2.$$
(66)
The energy and angular distributions of the secondary photons are given by the convolutions:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{A_1^{}A_2}}{dE_{\gamma _1^{}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2q\frac{d\sigma _{A_1^{}A_2}(q)}{dq^2}\frac{dP_{A_1^{}}}{dE_{\gamma _1^{}}}(E_{\gamma _1^{}},\theta _{A_1^{}})};`$ (67)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{A_1^{}A_2}}{d\theta _{\gamma _1^{}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2q\frac{d\sigma _{A_1^{}A_2}(q)}{dq^2}\frac{dP_{A_1^{}}}{d\theta _{\gamma _1^{}}}(|\theta _{\gamma _1^{}}\theta _{A_1^{}}|)}.`$ (68)
For symmetric collisions with $`A_1=A_2=A`$ and small angles, $`\theta _A^{}=q/p_A`$.

## 3 Energy and angular distributions of secondary photons

We consider the peripheral processes (2),(7) and (10), which give us the secondary photons. All three processes preserve the charge $`Z`$ and nuclear number $`A`$ of the nucleus. The nucleus is excited and then emits the photons in processes (7) and (10). The $`\pi ^0`$-meson produced in process (2) by virtual photon fusion decays to two photons .

We study the kinematic dependence of $`E_\gamma `$ on $`\theta _\gamma `$ in the LS for 40Ca (see Fig. 2). The beam luminosity is $`L=(24)\times 10^{30}`$ cm-2 s-1 (see 2 ). The characteristics of Ca discrete level are well known 16 . In Fig. 2 we use five strongly excited levels by electrons 21 . The level $`\lambda ^P=3_1^{}`$, $`E_\gamma ^0=3.74`$ MeV has the largest excitation intensity.

Figure 2 demonstrates that $`E_\gamma `$ falls quickly with $`\theta _\gamma `$ at $`\gamma _A=3500`$. The energy is a few tens of GeV in the solid angle $`\theta <\theta _{\text{cross}}`$. The $`3^{}`$ excitation gives the secondary photons with energies $`2226`$ GeV in the angular range of TOTEM.

Figure 3 shows the cross sections, Eq. (50) and (51), of the two-stage process (7) of the excitation of nucleus Ca by electron (positron) in the virtual photon interaction (section 2.3). The angular distribution of the secondary photons in the NR system are assumed to be isotropic because we average over all initial directions of electrons that excite the nucleus (see Eq. (24)). The energy distribution in Fig. 3a is then uniform.
The level $`3^{}`$, $`E_\gamma ^0=3.74`$ MeV gives the largest contribution to the sum of the angle distributions over other levels in Fig. 3b. The maximum in the angular distribution is $`\theta _\gamma =150`$ $`\mu `$rad.

The integrated cross section of the two-stage
process (7) is equal to $`\sigma _1=4.8`$ barn at $`R_{\text{min}}=1/m_e=386`$ fm. The cross section $`\sigma _1`$ is large because the $`\gamma ^{}\gamma ^{}e^+e^{}`$ cross section is rather large, 1.5 Kb for CaCa collisions at LHC energies. In the TOTEM angular region, the cross section is 16$`\%`$ of $`\sigma _1`$ and in the region up to
$`\theta _{\text{cross}}=300`$ $`\mu `$rad is 56$`\%`$ of $`\sigma _1`$.

The cross section of the process (10), when the nucleus is excited by strong peripheral nuclear interactions, is less, $`\sigma _2=0.1`$ mb, than the process (7), see Fig. 4. We calculate this cross section in Eq. (66). We neglect absorption effects in nucleus-nucleus interactions obtaining an upper estimate. We also assumed that the photon angular distribution in the NR system is isotropic. The calculations are for $`b>R_A`$ with $`R_A=1.2A^{1/3}`$ fm for each nucleus .

The distributions of process (2), photon fusion to $`\pi ^0`$, was calculated in the same way as our previous work 5  for PbPb collisions. The cross section of this process is also small, $`\sigma _3=0.19`$ mb, compared with the two-stage cross section. The energy distribution of photons from $`\pi ^0`$ decays in Fig. 4a has a peak at $`E_\gamma =0`$ because we integrate over all $`\pi ^0`$ direction. The angular distribution in Fig. 4b has a very different dependence compared to the photon angular distribution of nuclear radiation.

## 4 Conclusions

We have presented the energy and angular distributions of secondary photons from nuclear radiation in peripheral ultra-relativistic $`AA`$ collisions at the LHC. The two-stage process of nuclear excitation by an electron or positron, produced by virtual photon interactions has a large cross section, $`5`$ b, along with a specific angular distribution. The secondary $`\gamma `$-radiation at angles $`100`$ $`\mu `$rad and at energies $`20`$ GeV can be measured in the region of TOTEM Roman pots. High energy $`\gamma `$-radiation in peripheral collisions will be a significant background in the nuclear fragmentation region with an intensity of $`10^6`$ photons/s for CaCa collisions at $`L10^{30}`$ cm-2 s-1.

Secondary $`\gamma `$-radiation from nuclei can be used for to monitor the beam intensity, a very difficult problem for nuclear beams. However it is necessary to determine $`R_{\text{min}}`$ for nuclear electromagnetic interaction beforehand.

Finally secondary nuclear photons can be a good method for triggering processes (13) or (14) with the meson system produced in central rapidity region. The full trigger includes a signal in the central rapidity region along with an absence of signals from neutrons and charged nuclear fragments in nuclear fragmentation region and high energy secondary photons in the Roman pots.

We are very grateful to L. I. Sarycheva, V. A. Bodyagin, D. E. Lanskoy, I. A. Pshenichnov and to V. V. Varlamov for the useful discussions and N. P. Karpinskaya for help with a manuscript. We also thank G.Baur, K. Hencken and R. Vogt for helpful comments on our first draft.


text:
# Antiferromagnetically coupled alternating spin chains

## I Introduction

The recent synthesization of quasi-onedimensional bimetallic magnets, with each unit cell containing two kind of different spins, has spurred a growing interest in the low-temperature properties of quantum ferrimagnetic chains. After intensive studies, it was possible to describe properly the thermodynamic properties observed in experiments by including the ferro and antiferromagnetic (AF) features that make this systems specially attractive. These results together with the possible experimental realization of new mixed spin compounds motivated the study of a variety of AF systems with different spin composition, all kind of interactions, and topologies. From the experimental point of view, the ferrimagnetic compounds found are all composed of weakly coupled alternating spin chains (Fig.1(b) represents the ladder case of such a topology). In other family of compounds like $`MnCu(pba)(H_2O)_3.2H_2O`$, with pba=1,3-propylenebis(oxamato), the ground state is a non-magnetic one, although it is composed of weakly coupled alternating spin ($`Mn^{II}Cu^{II}`$) chains (Fig.1(a) and (c)). In fact, using the Heisenberg Hamiltonian for these interacting spin systems and applying Lieb-Mattis theorem, it is easy to prove that in case (a) and (c) the ground state is AF with total spin $`S_{tot}=0`$ whereas in case (b) it is ferrimagnetic with $`S_{tot}0`$. Nonetheless, in the 2D case we will see that the rotational spin symmetry can be broken in the thermodynamic limit. The aforementioned considerations motivated us to focus on the ground state properties of an alternating spin ladder of type (a) and a 2D array of type (c) with the following Hamiltonian,

$$H=J\underset{<i,j>_{}}{}𝐒_𝐢.𝐬_𝐣+J_{}\underset{<i,j>_{}}{}(𝐒_𝐢.𝐒_𝐣+𝐬_𝐢.𝐬_𝐣),$$
(1)
where $`S_i(s_i)`$ represents a spin-1 (spin-1/2)and $`<i,j>_{}`$ ($`<i,j>_{}`$) denotes nearest neighbors along horizontal (vertical) direction. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic study of antiferromagnetically coupled alternating spin chains.

Only recently, this issue has been addressed but for ferrimagnetic ladders (Fig.1(b)). Instead, in the alternating spin ladder we are interested in, (in what follows ASL), the global properties of the system change completely once the chains are coupled. Unlike uniform spin ladders, little is known about the effect of AF interchain coupling in ASL. For instance, in a uniform spin-$`1/2`$ ladder (USL), it is well known that an infinitesimal $`J_{}`$ is required to send the chains off-criticality –with an excitation gap growing linearly with $`J_{}`$– independently of its sign. Besides, it has been pointed out that the absence of broken symmetry in the chains is indeed the crucial feature for such a behaviour. On the other hand, in the spin-$`1`$ case, it has been argued that a interchain coupling $`J_{}`$ makes the gap (already existing in the chains) to decrease with $`J_{}`$, and again no matter the sign of $`J_{}`$. For the mixed case, we are concerned, the situation is rather different as the ferrimagnetic chains are neither gapped nor critical, but they are gapless as a result of a broken symmetry ground state. Hence, one could intuitively say that the effect of interchain coupling should be different to the both uniform cases mentioned above and a finite amount of $`J_{}`$ could be needed to melt order. We shall see, however, that the low dimensionality of the problem (1D) is crucial and that any $`J_{}>0`$ drives the system to a gapped ground state. The study of the spin correlation functions confirms this picture, showing a strong resemblance to USL. Contrary to the ASL, in the 2D case we shall see that the dimensional crossover from 1D is completely smooth and keeps the ground state ordered for the whole range of $`J_{}`$.

The work is organized as follows: in section II we study the dimensional crossover from 1D to 2D within spin wave theory. In section III we give some details of the DMRG method implemented and discuss the results for the ladder case. In section IV we summarize the results and give the concluding remarks.

## II Spin wave theory

Though approximate, it has been shown that the spin wave (SW) series converges correctly to the DMRG results in ferrimagnetic chains. Hence SW appears to be, in principle, a good starting point technique to study the crossover from 1D to 2D where SW is even more reliable. It is also known, however, that for a ladder system SW breaks down (see below). The problem requires a unit cell composed of two spins $`S=1`$ and two spins $`S=1/2`$ (see Fig.1(c)). At the classical level, it is assumed a Néel order and quantum fluctuations are incorporated by four kind of bosons leading to the following Holstein-Primakov transformation,

$$\begin{array}{c}S_A^z=s_1+a^{}aS_A^+=a^{}\left(\sqrt{2s_1a^{}a}\right)\\ S_B^z=s_2b^{}bS_B^+=\left(\sqrt{2s_2b^{}b}\right)b\\ S_C^z=s_1c^{}cS_C^+=\left(\sqrt{2s_1c^{}c}\right)c\\ S_D^z=s_2+d^{}dS_D^+=d^{}\left(\sqrt{2s_2d^{}d}\right).\end{array}$$

Introducing this representation in the Hamiltonian (1), and Fourier transforming to k-space, the SW Hamiltonian can be written as,

$$H_{sw}=const+\underset{k}{}\overline{a}_𝐤^{}\left(\begin{array}{cc}d& \mathrm{\Delta }\\ \mathrm{\Delta }& d\end{array}\right)\overline{a}_𝐤$$

where $`\overline{a}_𝐤^{}=(a_𝐤^{},b_𝐤^{},c_𝐤^{},d_𝐤^{},a_𝐤,b_𝐤,c_𝐤,d_𝐤)`$, $`d=\frac{1}{2}diag(A_1,A_2,A_1,A_2)`$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& C_𝐤& D_{1𝐤}^{}& 0\\ C_𝐤& 0& 0& D_{2𝐤}^{}\\ D_{1𝐤}^{}& 0& 0& C_𝐤\\ 0& D_{2𝐤}^{}& C_𝐤& 0\end{array}\right),$$

and

$$\begin{array}{c}const=4NJs1s2N2J_{}(s_1^2+s_2^2)\\ A_1=(2Js_2+2J_{}s_1),A_2=(2Js_1+2J_{}s_2)\\ D_{1𝐤}^{}=2s1J_{}\mathrm{cos}ky/2,D_{2𝐤}^{}=2s2J_{}\mathrm{cos}ky/2,\\ C_𝐤=2J\sqrt{s_1s_2}\mathrm{cos}kx/2.\end{array}$$

We have para-unitary diagonalized $`H_{sw}`$ which allowed us to calculate the spectrum excitation (with an acoustic and an optic band each one twofold degenerate), the ground state energy and the magnetizations. For the particular case $`J_{}=0`$ we recover the SW predictions of a ferrimagnetic chain, that is, a quadratic gapless dispersion near $`𝐤=0`$ (Fig.2) (which manifests the ferromagnetic character of the system at low-temperature), an antiferromagnetic gapped mode, and the magnetization values $`m_1=0.6951`$ and $`m_2=0.1951`$ for the spin-1 and spin-1/2, respectively. As soon as $`J_{}`$ is switched on the gapless mode becomes linear reflecting the antiferromagnetic character of the coupled system, whereas the optical modes moves upward (Fig.2).

For the isotropic case $`J_{}=1`$ we obtained a ground state energy $`e_0=1.3631`$, and $`m_1=0.7326`$, $`m_2=0.3694`$ for the magnetizations. Notice that $`m_2`$ is bigger than the SW value of the uniform spin-1/2 case $`m=0.303`$. Using mean-field arguments, such a robust spin-1/2 magnetization is due to the more stronger field caused by the spin-1 neighbors (a similar reasoning explains why $`m_1`$ is smaller than the SW value of the uniform spin-1 case $`m=0.803`$). It is also interesting to note that the relative reduction of the magnetizations, $`m_1/S`$ and $`m_2/s`$, are both nearly 0.73 in the isotropic case, while $`m_1/S0.70`$ and $`m_2/S0.40`$ for the ferrimagnetic chain. In Fig.3 we show $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ versus $`J_{}`$. It can be seen that the effect of 2D coupling is to enhance the values of the magnetizations, being the crossover completely smooth. On the other hand, our SW calculation can be adapted to the ladder case (a) by just changing:

$$\begin{array}{c}const=4NJs1s2NJ_{}(s_1^2+s_2^2)\\ A_1=(2Js_2+J_{}s_1),A_2=(2Js_1+J_{}s_2)\\ D_{1𝐤}^{}=s1J_{},D_{2𝐤}^{}=s2J_{},\\ C_𝐤=2J\sqrt{s_1s_2}\mathrm{cos}kx/2.\end{array}$$

and $`𝐤`$ running along the 1D Brillouin zone. Now, the linear behaviour of the gapless mode leads to important quantum fluctuations that prevent the ordering in 1D. This feature was previously pointed out by Fukui et. al  and suggests a possible opening of a spin gap which is impossible to predict within a SW calculation. In spite of such break down we have corroborated that the SW ground state energy compare quite well with the DMRG prediction.

## III Density matrix renormalization group

The difficulty of SW theory to describe ASL leads us to implement the DMRG method, which has shown a great versatility in different quasi-onedimensional systems. We have performed calculations using both, the finite and infinite algorithm, with open boundary conditions (OBC). The procedure follows the usual DMRG steps, thinking the ladder like a chain of rungs. We found out that to avoid great edge effects, because of the OBC, the definition of two different single sites is needed, each one composed of a spin-1/2 rung and spin-1 rung, respectively (see Fig.1(a)). The 4 and 9 states needed to span each rung (otherwise we would need just 6 states) appear at the beginning as a complication to the number of dominant density matrix states kept, $`m`$, but they shown to be just of minor annoyance. Most of the calculations was carried out using $`m`$ between 200 and 400, getting a truncation error $`O(10^8)`$ at worst and $`O(10^{12})`$ in the best case, reassuring us the reliability of the calculation. We have calculated the triplet spin gap which is defined as $`\mathrm{\Delta }(L)=E(L,S_z=1)E(L,S_z=0)`$, with $`E(L,S_z)`$ the ground state energy for a chain with $`L`$ rungs ($`2\times L`$ is the number of sites), and $`z`$ component of total spin $`S_z`$. For each $`J_{}`$, we have extrapolated the gap with $`L`$ ranging from 10 to 100 rungs using a polynomial fit of the form:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(L)=\mathrm{\Delta }+a_1/L+a_2/L^2+a_3/L^3+\mathrm{}.$$
(2)
In Fig.4 it is plotted the gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vs. $`J_{}`$. In the particular case, $`J_{}=1`$, we obtained a value for the gap of $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.334`$. For small values of $`J_{}`$ (below 0.3) the gap of the ASL behaves quadratically as $`\mathrm{\Delta }0.6J_{}^2`$ and beyond $`0.3`$ it turns out quite linear corresponding to the strong coupling regime. Consistently with these features, when extrapolating the gap for different values of $`J_{}`$, we detected a crossover between two different scaling regimes around $`J_{}0.3`$. This is shown in the inset of Fig.4 where we have plotted the scaling for $`J_{}=0.1,0.3,0.8`$ and $`1`$. It is interesting to compare our result for the weakly coupled regime with that of the USL, which is known to behave linearly as $`\mathrm{\Delta }0.41J_{}`$.

We think that this discrepancy reflects the quite distinct underlying physics behind the decoupled regime, that is, a critical state for uniform spin chains and a broken symmetry state for the ferrimagnetic chains. In order to get an insight of the ground state configuration of the ASL we computed the local bond strengths and compared them with the USL. The comparison was made after normalizing each value to its free bond case. Hence, for the very strong coupling regime the values of the bonds along the leg (rung) must go to zero (one). Actually, we calculated the $`z`$ component of these quantities and because of rotational invariance we multiply it by a factor 3. In Fig.5(a), we present the normalized values of $`𝐒_i.𝐬_{i+1}`$ along the leg. A similar monotonic behavior with $`J_{}`$ is observed for ASL and USL. On the other hand, in Fig.5(b) we show the normalized values of $`𝐒_i.𝐒_{i+1}`$ and $`𝐬_i.𝐬_{i+1}`$, corresponding to the vertical spin-1 rungs and spin-1/2 rungs respectively. It can be noticed that the spin-1 rungs are always larger than the spin-1/2 ones, however, what is really remarkable is the crossing between the spin-1/2 rungs values for ASL and USL which occurs just at $`J_{}0.3`$. Even if we have not a microscopic explanation for that we believe that our results for the gap and the local bond strengths are connected and indicate a change of regime for the above value of $`J_{}`$. For the sake of completeness, we studied the correlation functions along the legs. In Fig.6(a), we compare the spin correlations of the USL with the three possible correlations of the mixed spin case, corresponding to $`J_{}=0.1`$. In the inset it is shown in a semilog plot the exponential behaviour of the correlations with an estimated correlation length of $`\xi ^{USL}25`$, and $`\xi ^{ASL}30`$ lattice spacing. It can be noticed, also, that the three possible correlation lengths are the same. We have checked that the correlation functions along the leg decay exponentially for the whole range of interchain coupling and the correlation length $`\xi ^{ASL}\mathrm{}`$ in the limit $`J_{}0`$ like in USL. When $`J_{}`$ is strictly zero there is a transition to two ferrimagnetically ordered chains in the ASL.

In Fig.6(b) we show the correlations for $`J_{}=1`$. Again, the semilog plot (inset) shows the exponential decaying of the correlations with an estimated correlation length of $`\xi ^{ASL}5`$. This value is bigger than the isotropic one $`\xi ^{USL}3`$ found for the uniform case.

## IV Summary and concluding remarks

In summary, we have studied the effect of AF coupling in mixed spin chains for two particular topologies, the ladder and the two dimensional system. In the latter, SW theory leads to a smooth dimensional crossover from 1D to 2D with an enhancement of the magnetizations. Furthermore, as a consequence of the crossover, we detected an important difference in the relative magnetizations, being $`m_1/S`$ and $`m_2/s`$ around 0.73 for $`J_{}=1`$ whereas $`m_1/S0.70`$ and $`m_2/s0.40`$ for $`J_{}=0`$. For the ladder system, where SW breaks down, we used DMRG to study the gap and the correlation functions with $`J_{}`$. For $`J_{}0`$ the ladder system is always gapped with a quadratic behaviour $`\mathrm{\Delta }0.6J_{}^2`$ for $`J_{}`$ lower than $`0.3`$, and then it becomes quite linear for greater values of the interchain coupling. The study of the local bond strengths also indicate a change of regime at $`J_{}0.3`$. In the particular case of $`J_{}=1`$ we found that the gap is $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.334`$ and that the correlation functions decay exponentially with a correlation length about $`\xi ^{ASL}5`$. Except for the differences found in the weakly coupled regime, our results suggest a strong similarity between the ASL and the USL. This close resemblance encourage us to make some general statement regarding an arbitrary number of mixed spin chains, between the two limiting cases we have studied. First, we can rigorously say that any odd number of chains has always a ferrimagnetic ground state, due to Lieb-Mattis theorem, so, it will be gapless –but ordered–. Then, if we complement our results with the conjecture that an even number of chains will be gapped and –similarly to uniform ladders– this gap will decrease to zero in the 2D limit, it is recovered an analogous spin gap behaviour to the uniform spin-1/2 case. In both cases, however, the nature of the gapless states is completely different. We hope our findings could be tested experimentally in a near future.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors would like to thank J. Riera, A. Dobry and O. L. Manuel for very fruitful discussions. This work was partially supported by Fundación Antorchas.


text:
# Mass scales in the RS models: the 𝜇 and cosmological constant11footnote 1Talk presented at CICHEP, Cairo, Egypt, Jan. 9–13, 2001.

## Acknowledgments

This work is supported in part by the BK21 program of Ministry of Education, Korea Research Foundation Grant No. KRF-2000-015-DP0072, and by the Center for High Energy Physics(CHEP), Kyungpook National University.