SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Physics / 2018 / Cilt: 42 - Sayı: 6

The field blocking on the interface with nonlinear response between nonlinear focusing media

Sergey E. SAVOTCHENKO
Pages
721–736
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The conditions of the field blocking effect existence's dependence on the interface and media characteristics are found.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:We consider the nonlinear nonsymmetrical spatially distributed excitations near the thin layer with nonlinear properties separated with two media with Kerr-type focusing (positive) nonlinearity.
📊
Key Findings & Data:We use the nonlinear Schrödinger equation with nonlinear potential containing two parameters to describe the new types of nonlinear stationary states.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The conditions of the field blocking effect existence's dependence on the interface and media characteristics are found.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Planar defect · interface · nonlinear wave

Abstract

We consider the nonlinear nonsymmetrical spatially distributed excitations near the thin layer with nonlinear properties separated with two media with Kerr-type focusing (positive) nonlinearity. We use the nonlinear Schrödinger equation with nonlinear potential containing two parameters to describe the new types of nonlinear stationary states. The problem is reduced to the solution of nonlinear Schrödinger equations on half spaces with the nonlinear boundary conditions at the interface plane. We obtain and analyze the two types of nonlinear excitations describing the effect of the field blocking passing through the interface into one half-space from another one. The field blocking effect is the localization of the nonlinear spatially periodic wave during the transition from one half-space to another one where the wave function is monotonically damping from the interface. We derive the exact energy levels of states of special kinds in explicit form. The conditions of the field blocking effect existence's dependence on the interface and media characteristics are found.

🔖

Cite This Article

SAVOTCHENKO, S. E. (2018). The field blocking on the interface with nonlinear response between nonlinear focusing media. Turkish Journal of Physics, Cilt: 42 - Sayı: 6, 721–736. https://ajindex.com/articles/378322

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (23)

  1. Gorshkov, K. A.; Ostrovskiy, L. A.; Papko, V. V. J. Exper. Theor. Phys. 1976, 44, 306-311.
  2. Nayanov, V. I. Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 1986, 44, 245-247.
  3. Panyaev, S.; Sannikov, D. G. J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 2016, 33, 220-229.
  4. Panyaev, S.; Sannikov, D. G. Computer Optics 2017, 41, 183-191.
  5. Kivshar, Yu. S.; Agrawal, G. P. Optical Solitons: From Fibers to Photonic Crystals; Academic Press:
  6. San Diego, CA, USA, 2003. Carretero-González, R.; Cuevas-Maraver, J.; Frantzeskakis, D.; Karachalios, N.; Kevrekidis P.; Palmero-Acebedo F. Localized Excitations in Nonlinear Complex Systems; Springer Science & Business Media: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
  7. Ahmediev, N. N.; Korneev, V. I.; Kuzmenko, U. V. J. Exper. Theor. Phys. 1985, 88, 107-115.
  8. Boardman, D.; Shabat, M. M.; Wallis, R. F. J. Phys. D Appl. Phys. 1991, 24, 1702-1707.
  9. Bludov, Y. V.; Smirnova, D. A.; Kivshar, Yu. S.; Peres, N. M. R.; Vasilevsky, M. I. Phys. Rev. B 2014, 89, 035406. Aceves, B.; Moloney, J. V.; Newell A. C. Phys. Rev. A 1989, 39, 1809. Aceves, B.; Moloney, J. V.; Newell A. C Phys. Rev. A 1989, 39, 1828. Savotchenko, S. E. Condensed Matter and Interphases 2017, 19, 567-572.
  10. Savotchenko, S. E. Bulletin of Voronezh State University Series Physics Mathematics 2018, 1, 44-52.
  11. Alfassi, B.; Rotschild, C.; Manela, O.; Segev, M.; Christodoulides, D. N. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2007. 98, 213901. Dikshtein, E.; Nikitov, S. A.; Nikitov, D. S. Phys. Solid State + 1998, 40, 1710-1714. Men’shov, V. N.; Tugushev, V. V. J. Exper. Theor. Phys. 2001, 93, 786-795. Men’shov, V.N.; Tugushev, V.V. Phys. Solid State + 2002, 44, 1727-1735.
  12. Kivshar, Yu. S.; Kosevich, A. M.; Chubykalo, O. A. Phys. Lett. A 1987, 125, 35-40.
  13. Kivshar, Yu. S.; Kosevich, A. M.; Chubykalo, O. A. Phys. Rev. A 1990, 41, 1677-1688.
  14. Savotchenko, S. E. Russian Phys. J. 2000, 43, 876-881.
  15. Savotchenko, S. E. Russian Phys. J. 2004, 47, 556-562.
  16. Krasilnikov, V. V.; Savotchenko, S. E. Phys. Stat. Sol. (C) 2004, 1, 2757-2760.
  17. Savotchenko, S. E. Russian Phys. J. 2005, 48, 915-918.
  18. Savotchenko, S. E. Russian Phys. J. 2006, 49, 177-182.
  19. Davydov, A. S. Journal of Theoretical Biology 1977, 66, 379-387.
  20. Bogdan, M. M.; Gerasimchuk, I. V.; Kovalev, A. S. Low Temp. Phys. 1997, 23, 197-207.
  21. Gorentsveig, V. I.; Kivshar, Yu. S.; Kosevich, A. M.; Syrkin, E. S. Fizika Nizkikh Temperatur 1990, 16, 1472-1482.
  22. Abdullaev, F. K.; Baizakov, B. B.; Umarov, B. A. Opt. Com. 1998, 156, 341-346.
  23. Gerasimchuk, I. V.; Kovalev, A. S. Low Temp. Phys