- Home
- Documents
*Numerical solution of time-dependent nonlinear Schrödinger equations using domain truncation...*

prev

next

out of 12

View

213Category

## Documents

Embed Size (px)

ISSN 1054660X, Laser Physics, 2011, Vol. 21, No. 8, pp. 14911502. Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2011.Original Text Astro, Ltd., 2011.

1491

1 1. INTRODUCTION

We propose and compare some numerical schemesto solve the general Schrdinger equations inunbounded media

(1)

The wave function is defined in the unboundeddomain N (N 1). In view of a numerical computation, different solutions may be used. For example,one usual scheme consists in splitting the Laplacianand potentialnonlinear parts of the equation and nextsolving the first linear equation, e.g., by FFT methodsand exactly integrating the second nonlinear one (see,e.g., [1]). This kind of scheme is efficient and accurateif the solution remains confined within the computational domain (for instance for solving the GrossPitaevskii equations). Indeed, then periodic boundaryconditions may be applied for the Fourier solutionsince the wave vanishes on the boundary of a largeenough computational domain. In the same situation,other schemes may be used as for example CrankNicolson schemes, RungeKutta methods in time

1 The article is published in the original.

it

x t,( ) x t,( ) V x t,( ) x t,( )+ +

+ f ( ) x t,( ) 0,=

x t,( ) N

]0 T[,,

x 0,( ) 0 x( ), x N

.=

and finite difference or finite element in space. Spectral techniques may be applied too (see [2] for moredetails about some of these techniques). Independently of the numerical discretization, one commonproblem arises when the solution does not remaininside the computational domain. This is for examplethe case for the defocusing nonlinear cubicSchrdinger equation, for linear Schrdinger equation with laser ionization of a onedimensional heliumatom [3], for strong field laser atom interaction [4]Then, it is wellknown that Dirichlet or periodicboundary conditions on the boundary of the computational domain are not adapted. Our goal here is not tofocus on all the physical situations which can arise butrather to propose some different ways of truncatingaccurately the computational domain for (1) andcompare them numerically.

Concerning truncation methods, the case of thefree Schrdinger equation is now mastered and manypossible solutions can be developed. We refer to [5] foran overview of the techniques. Considering now thelinear Schrdinger equation with potential requiresmore developments. For example, time dependent butspace independent potentials can be considered easilyby gauge change and be treated as the freespace case.The situation of a space variable potential is muchmore complex. In some exceptional cases, explicitexact boundary conditions may be written at the fictitious boundary. However, in most situations, approximate boundary conditions must be derived. Theseboundary conditions are usually called AbsorbingBoundary Conditions (ABCs) since they try to absorb

Numerical Solution of TimeDependent Nonlinear Schrdinger Equations Using Domain Truncation Techniques Coupled

with Relaxation Scheme1

X. Antoinea, *, C. Besseb, **, and P. Kleina, ***a Institut Elie Cartan Nancy, NancyUniversit, CNRS UMR 7502, INRIA CORIDA Team,

Boulevard des Aiguillettes B.P. 239, 54506 VandoeuvrelsNancy, Franceb Laboratoire Paul Painlev, Univ Lille Nord de France, CNRS UMR 8524, INRIA SIMPAF Team, Universit Lille 1 Sciences et Technologies, Cit Scientifique, 59655 Villeneuve dAscq Cedex, France

*email: Xavier.Antoine@iecn.unancy.fr**email: Christophe.Besse@math.univlillel.fr

***email: Pauline.Klein@iecn.unancy.frReceived October 29, 2010; in final form November 16, 2010; published online July 4, 2011

AbstractThe aim of this paper is to compare different ways for truncating unbounded domains for solvinggeneral nonlinear one and twodimensional Schrdinger equations. We propose to analyze ComplexAbsorbing Potentials, Perfectly Matched Layers and Absorbing Boundary Conditions. The time discretization is made by using a semiimplicit relaxation scheme which avoids any fixed point procedure. The spatialdiscretization involves finite element methods. We propose some numerical experiments to compare theapproaches.

DOI: 10.1134/S1054660X11150011

PHYSICS OF COLDTRAPPED ATOMS

1492

LASER PHYSICS Vol. 21 No. 8 2011

ANTOINE et al.

waves striking the nonphysical boundary. We refer to[5] for such examples in the onedimensional case. Inthe twodimensional case, only a few solutions can befound for the free and potential cases [5]. In the nonlinear case which is much more complicate, the ABCsat hand are often formally built from the linear casewith potential. To the best of our knowledge, only afew papers propose some ABCs [611]. For the twodimensional case, the only strategies for simulatingABCs have been proposed in [11, 12]. We propose andnumerically test in this paper some new ABCs for (1)for the one and twodimensional cases which arerelated to the ABCs for potentials developed in [13,14]. A very common method in physics is related toComplex Absorbing Potentials (CAPs) [15]. The ideawhich is physically natural consists in adding to thelinear Schrdinger equation a complex absorbingpotential to damp the incoming wave in a surroundinglayer. We try to extend this approach here to (1). As wewill see, this approach fails to work and generates largereflections. In particular, the choice of the absorbingpotential and its parameters is non trivial and extension to a nonlinear problem does not appear as natural. A related technique not analyzed here is themethod of Exterior Complex Scaling (see examples in[16, 17]). A closely powerful method introduced byBrenger [18] for electromagnetic waves is the Perfectly Matched Layer (PML) approach. The methodintroduces dissipation but inside the Laplacian termand not the potential term. We apply this techniquehere [19] to (1) to show its accuracy. It appears that theaccuracy that can be expected from the ABCs andPMLs approaches is about the same, generally showing an error of reflection of the order of 0.1% or less,and is therefore useful for practical computations. Foran easier implementation of all the truncation techniques, we use a semiimplicit relaxation scheme [20]which leads to a flexible implementation of themethod. In particular, it does not require any iterationlike in a fixed point or Newton procedure for the nonlinearity. Since the PML and ABCs approaches areaccurate for the onedimensional case, we next introduce their extension to twodimensional problems. We

detail the discretization issues and analyze their accuracy in the case of the propagation of a soliton in acubic media.

The plan of the paper is the following. In Section 2,we introduce the ABCs, CAPs and PMLs techniquesfor the onedimensional Eq. (1). We propose someschemes based on relaxation techniques coupled toFinite Element Methods (FEM). Finally, we numerically test and compare the different approaches. In thethird Section, we extend our methods and discretizations to the twodimensional nonlinear Schrdingerequation. Some numerical simulations confirm theaccuracy of the methods. Finally, Section 4 gives aconclusion. Let us note here that the codes corresponding to Sections 2 and 3 can be, downloadedfreely at http://microwave.math.cnrs.fr/code/index.html if the reader wants to know more about theimplementation issues of all these techniques.

2. ONEDIMENSIONAL NONLINEAR PROBLEMS

2.1. Absorbing Boundary Conditions (ABCs)

The first approach that we investigate concernsabsorption at the boundary. We consider the timedependent onedimensional nonlinear Schrdingerequation with a variable potential and a nonlinearterm

(2)

We assume here that := ]xl, xr[ represents a boundedcomputational domain of boundary := := {xl, xr}and set T := ]0; T[, t := ]0; T[ (see Fig. 1).

Furthermore, 0 is supposed to be a compactlysupported initial data inside . If the potential V andnonlinear interaction f are constant outside , werespectively call them localized potential and interaction. Then exact absorption at the boundary can beobtained. To write this boundary condition (also calledtransparent), let us assume that the potentials areequal to zero outside . Then, it is now standard thatthe boundary condition is given by

(3)

where n is the outwardly directed unit normal vector

to . The operator is the halforder derivativeoperator

(4)

it x t,( ) x2 x t,( ) V x t,( ) x t,( )+ +

+ f ( ) x t,( ) 0,=

x t,( ) T,

x 0,( ) 0 x( ), x .=

n x t,( ) ei/4 t

1/2 x t,( )+ 0, on T,=

t1/2

t1/2 x t,( ) := t

1

x,( )

t .d

0

t

n

xl xr

T

M(xr, t)

Tt

n

Fig. 1. Computational domain T and fictitious boundaryT = ]0; T[.

LASER PHYSICS Vol. 21 No. 8 2011

NUMERICAL SOLUTION OF TIMEDEPENDENT 1493

It can be proved that system (2)(3) is wellposed in amathematical setting and that we have the energybound

(5)

for any time t > 0, where ||u(, t)||0, designates the 2norm of over

which can also be interpreted as the probability offinding in and translates the absorbing property ofthe boundary condition. The boundary condition (3)is exact in the sense that there is no reflection back intothe computational domain. Mathematically, thisimplies that the solution to (2)(3) is strictly equal to

the restriction , solution to (1).

In the case of unbounded potential and interaction, then the situation is much more complex. Essentially, the possibility of writing the exact boundarycondition (3) is related to the fact that for localizedinteractions, the Laplace transform can be used in theleft and right exterior domains to write down theboundary condition through the Green function. Inthe case of nonlocal interactions, this no longer possible. Except in some special s