Recovery of chaotic tunneling due to destruction of dynamical localization by external noise

Physical Review E - Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics

Volumn 80, Issue 4, 2009, Pages

  Ishikawa, Akiyuki ^a   Tanaka, Atushi ^a   Shudo, Akira ^a  

^a TOKYO METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHAOTIC REGIONS; CHAOTIC SEA; CHAOTIC STATE; DESTRUCTIVE INTERFERENCE; DYNAMICAL LOCALIZATION; EXTERNAL NOISE; INCREASING FUNCTIONS; LOCALIZATION LENGTH; NOISE INTENSITIES; PERTURBATIVE SCALING; PLANCK'S CONSTANTS; QUANTUM TUNNELING; TUNNELING AMPLITUDE; TUNNELING RATES;

CHAOTIC SYSTEMS; ELECTRON TUNNELING; HAMILTONIANS; TUNNELING (EXCAVATION);

WIND TUNNELS;

EID: 70350068132     PISSN: 15393755     EISSN: 15502376     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.80.046204     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. O. Bohigas, S. Tomsovic, and D. Ullmo, Phys. Rep. 223, 43 (1993). 10.1016/0370-1573(93)90109-Q
2. S. C. Creagh, in Tunneling in Complex Systems, edited by, S. Tomsovic, (World Scientific, Singapore, 1998) p. 35.
3. S. Tomsovic and D. Ullmo, Phys. Rev. E 50, 145 (1994). 10.1103/PhysRevE.50.145
4. E. Doron and S. D. Frischat, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3661 (1995) 10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.3661
5. S. D. Frischat and E. Doron, Phys. Rev. E 57, 1421 (1998). 10.1103/PhysRevE.57.1421
6. S. C. Creagh and N. D. Whelan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 4975 (1996) 10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.4975
7. S. C. Creagh and N. D. Whelan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 5237 (1999) 10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.5237
8. S. C. Creagh and N. D. Whelan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4084 (2000). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.4084
9. G. C. Smith and S. C. Creagh, J. Phys. A 39, 8283 (2006). 10.1088/0305-4470/39/26/003
10. A. Shudo and K. S. Ikeda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 682 (1995) 10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.682
11. A. Shudo and K. S. Ikeda, Physica D 115, 234 (1998) 10.1016/S0167- 2789(97)00239-X
12. T. Onishi, A. Shudo, K. S. Ikeda, and K. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. E 68, 056211 (2003). 10.1103/PhysRevE.68.056211
13. K. Takahashi and K. S. Ikeda, Ann. Phys. 283, 94 (2000) 10.1006/aphy.2000.6050
14. K. Takahashi and K. S. Ikeda, J. Phys. A 36, 7953 (2003) 10.1088/0305-4470/36/29/305
15. K. Takahashi and K. S. Ikeda, Europhys. Lett. 71, 193 (2005) 10.1209/epl/i2004-10538-1
16. K. Takahashi and K. S. Ikeda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 240403 (2006). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.240403
17. O. Brodier, P. Schlagheck, and D. Ullmo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 064101 (2001) 10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.064101
18. O. Brodier, P. Schlagheck, and D. Ullmo, Ann. Phys. 300, 88 (2002). 10.1006/aphy.2002.6281
19. A. Mouchet, C. Miniatura, R. Kaiser, B. Gremaud, and D. Delande, Phys. Rev. E 64, 016221 (2001). 10.1103/PhysRevE.64.016221
20. D. G. Levkov, A. G. Panin, and S. M. Sibiryakov, Phys. Rev. E 76, 046209 (2007). 10.1103/PhysRevE.76.046209
21. V. I. Arnold, Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics (Springer, New York, 1978).
22. M. J. Davis and E. J. Heller, J. Chem. Phys. 75, 246 (1981). 10.1063/1.441832
23. A. Shudo, Y. Ishii, and K. S. Ikeda, J. Phys. A 35, L225 (2002) 10.1088/0305-4470/35/17/101
24. A. Shudo, Y. Ishii, and K. S. Ikeda, Europhys. Lett. 81, 50003 (2008). 10.1209/0295-5075/81/50003
25. A. Ishikawa, A. Tanaka, and A. Shudo, J. Phys. A 40, F397 (2007). 10.1088/1751-8113/40/21/F01
26. G. Casati, B. V. Chirikov, J. Ford, and F. M. Izrailev, Stochastic Behavior in Classical and Quantum Hamiltonian Systems (Springer, Berlin, 1979), p. 334.
27. D. L. Shepelyansky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 677 (1986). 10.1103/PhysRevLett. 56.677
28. S. Fishman, D. R. Grempel, and R. E. Prange, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 509 (1982) 10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.509
29. D. R. Grempel, R. E. Prange, and S. Fishman, Phys. Rev. A 29, 1639 (1984). 10.1103/PhysRevA.29.1639
30. E. Ott, T. M. Antonsen, Jr., and J. D. Hanson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 53, 2187 (1984). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.53.2187
31. S. Adachi, M. Toda, and K. Ikeda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 655 (1988). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.61.655
32. L. Hufnagel, R. Ketzmerick, M.-F. Otto, and H. Schanz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 154101 (2002). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.154101
33. A. Bäcker, R. Ketzmerick, and A. G. Monastra, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 054102 (2005). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.054102
34. M. Wojtkowski, Commun. Math. Phys. 80, 453 (1981). 10.1007/BF01941656
35. L. A. Bunimovich, Chaos 11, 802 (2001). 10.1063/1.1418763
36. More precisely, pcutoff is kept large enough so as to preserve the dynamical localization that occurs in the vicinity of the torus region when the noise term is absent. As shown in Sec., we have nonzero decay rate from torus to chaotic region under the presence of noise. Hence, we choose pcutoff so as to obtain the converged decay rate.
37. Precisely speaking, Pn torus also contains the probability at the chaotic sea near the torus. However the contribution from the chaotic sea is negligible on average, since probability in that region escapes quickly.
38. We mention that an elaborate construction of torus states for more generic cases has recently been developed by Bäcker.
39. We use the term resonance (or off resonance) because the corresponding physical process is governed by the resonance of quasienergies. Note that the quantum resonance often investigated in kicked rotors [F. M. Izrailev and D. L. Shepelyanskii, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 249, 1103 (1979)] is irrelevant in the present study.
40. The discontinuity of the lines of quasienergy is due to artifact of this condition.
41. As the position of the absorbing boundary is set to be pcutoff >L, the probability amplitude obeys a diffusion process in the region of pcutoff >p>L and it escapes through the absorbing boundary.
42. J. B. Keller, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 52, 116 (1962) 10.1364/JOSA.52.000116
43. A. Sommerfeld, Optics (Academic Press, New York, 1954)
44. M. Born and E. Wolf, Principles of Optics (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1987).
45. A. Ishikawa, A. Tanaka and A. Shudo (unpublished).
46. R. Ketzmerick, L. Hufnagel, F. Steinbach, and M. Weiss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1214 (2000). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.1214
47. The reason for the choice of d in case of small β is as follows. Since making β small makes the border move "downward" (i.e., toward smaller p), the Lagrangian manifold of the initial state may cross the border. In order to avoid this, we have to move the border upward or the Lagrangian manifold downward. The latter is infeasible because it is impossible to move continuously the Lagrangian manifold due to the quantization condition of ψtorus (q). Hence we move the border upward by increasing d.
48. The decay rate γ is determined from Pn torus that are not too small (Pn torus >0.1) and n≤ 105, by least square fitting.
49. E. J. Heller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 53, 1515 (1984). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.53. 1515
50. A. Shudo, Y. Ishii and K. S. Ikeda, J. Phys. A 42, 265101 (2009) 10.1088/1751-8113/42/26/265101
51. A. Shudo, Y. Ishii and K. S. Ikeda, J. Phys. A 42, 265102 (2009). 10.1088/1751-8113/42/26/265102
52. T. Geisel, G. Radons, and J. Rubner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 2883 (1986). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.57.2883
53. R. C. Brown and R. E. Wyatt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 1 (1986). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.57.1
54. G. Casati and T. Prosen, Phys. Rev. E 59, R2516 (1999). 10.1103/PhysRevE.59.R2516
55. A. Bäcker, R. Ketzmerick, S. Löck, and L. Schilling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 104101 (2008). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.104101