Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T03:38:32.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Coupling of Gaussian Beam and Finite Difference Solvers for Semiclassical Schrödinger Equations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2015

Emil Kieri ,
Gunilla Kreiss  and
Olof Runborg
Emil Kieri*
Affiliation:
Division of Scientific Computing, Department of Information Technology, Uppsala University, Sweden
Gunilla Kreiss
Affiliation:
Division of Scientific Computing, Department of Information Technology, Uppsala University, Sweden
Olof Runborg
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics and Swedish e-Science Research Center (SeRC), KTH, Sweden
*
*Corresponding author. Email: emil.kieri@it.uu.se (E. Kieri), gunilla.kreiss@it.uu.se (G. Kreiss), olofr@nada.kth.se (O. Runborg)
Get access

Abstract

In the semiclassical regime, solutions to the time-dependent Schrödinger equation for molecular dynamics are highly oscillatory. The number of grid points required for resolving the oscillations may become very large even for simple model problems, making solution on a grid intractable. Asymptotic methods like Gaussian beams can resolve the oscillations with little effort and yield good approximations when the atomic nuclei are heavy and the potential is smooth. However, when the potential has variations on a small length-scale, quantum phenomena become important. Then asymptotic methods are less accurate. The two classes of methods perform well in different parameter regimes. This opens for hybrid methods, using Gaussian beams where we can and finite differences where we have to. We propose a new method for treating the coupling between the finite difference method and Gaussian beams. The new method reduces the needed amount of overlap regions considerably compared to previous methods, which improves the efficiency.

Keywords

35Q4141A6065M06Gaussian beamssemiclassical Schrödinger equationhybrid methods
Type
Research Article
Information
Advances in Applied Mathematics and Mechanics , Volume 7 , Issue 6 , December 2015 , pp. 687 - 714
Copyright
Copyright © Global-Science Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1]Babič, V. M. and Buldyrev, V. S., Short-Wavelength Diffraction Theory: Asymptotic Methods, Volume 4 of Springer Series on Wave Phenomena, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 1991.Google Scholar
[2]Bérenger, J.-P., A perfectly matched layer for the absorption of electromagnetic waves, J. Comput. Phys., 114 (1994), pp. 185–200.Google Scholar
[3]Bona, J. L., Sun, S. M., and Zhang, B.-Y., A non-homogeneous boundary-value problem for the Korteweg-de Vries equation in a quarter plane, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 354 (2002), pp. 427–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Carpenter, M. H., Gottlieb, D., and Abarbanel, S., Time-stable boundary conditions for finite-difference schemes solving hyperbolic systems: Methodology and application to high-order compact schemes, J. Comput. Phys., 111 (1994), pp. 220–236.Google Scholar
[5]Červený, V., Popov, M. M., and Pšenčík, I., Computation of wave fields in inhomogeneous media-Gaussian beam approach, Geophys. J. R. Astr. Soc, 70 (1982), pp. 109–128.Google Scholar
[6]Engquist, B. and Runborg, O., Computational high frequency wave propagation, Acta Numer., 12 (2003), pp. 181–266.Google Scholar
[7]Hagedorn, G. A., Raising and lowering operators for semiclassical wave packets, Ann. Phys., 269 (1998), pp. 77–104.Google Scholar
[8]Heller, E. J., Time-dependent approach to semiclassical dynamics, J. Chem. Phys., 62 (1975), pp. 1544–1555.Google Scholar
[9]Hill, N. R., Gaussian beam migration, Geophysics, 55 (1990), pp. 1416–1428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Hochbruck, M., Lubich, C., and Selhofer, H., Exponential integrators for large systems of differential equations, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 19 (1998), pp. 1552–1574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Hochbruck, M. and Ostermann, A., Exponential Runge-Kutta methods for parabolic problems, Appl. Numer. Math., 53 (2005), pp. 323–339.Google Scholar
[12]Hochbruck, M. and Ostermann, A., Exponential integrators, Acta Numer., 19 (2010), pp. 209–286.Google Scholar
[13]Jin, S., Markowich, P., and Sparber, C., Mathematical and computational methods for semi-classical Schrödinger equations, Acta Numer., 20 (2011), pp. 121–209.Google Scholar
[14]Jin, S. and Qi, P., A hybrid Schrödinger/ Gaussian beam solver for quantum barriers and surface hopping, Kinet. Relat. Models, 4 (2011), pp. 1097–1120.Google Scholar
[15]Keller, J. B., Geometrical theory of diffraction, J. Opt. Soc. Amer., 52 (1962), pp. 116–130.Google Scholar
[16]Kormann, K., Kronbichler, M., and Müller, B., Derivation of strictly stable high order difference approximations for variable-coefficient PDE, J. Sci. Comput., 50 (2012), pp. 167–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17]Kosloff, D. and Kosloff, R., A Fourier method solution for the time dependent Schrödinger equation as a tool in molecular dynamics, J. Comput. Phys., 52 (1983), pp. 35–53.Google Scholar
[18]Kreiss, H.-O. and Oliger, J., Comparison of accurate methods for the integration of hyperbolic equations, Tellus, 24 (1972), pp. 199–215.Google Scholar
[19]Kreiss, H.-O. and Scherer, G., Finite element and finite difference methods for hyperbolic partial differential equations, in Mathematical Aspects of Finite Elements in Partial Differential Equations, pages 195–212, New York, NY, 1974, Academic Press.Google Scholar
[20]Kreiss, H.-O. and Scherer, G., On the existence of energy estimates for difference approximations for hyperbolic systems, Technical report, Department of Computer Sciences, Uppsala University, 1977.Google Scholar
[21]Liu, H., Runborg, O., and Tanushev, N. M., Error estimates for Gaussian beam superpositions, Math. Comput., 82 (2013), pp. 919–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[22]Mattsson, K., Summation by parts operators for finite difference approximations of second-derivatives with variable coefficients, J. Sci. Comput., 51 (2012), pp. 650–682.Google Scholar
[23]Mattsson, K. and Nordström, J., Summation by parts operators for finite difference approximations of second derivatives, J. Comput. Phys., 199 (2004), pp. 503–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[24]Motamed, M. and Runborg, O., Taylor expansion and discretization errors in Gaussian beam superposition, Wave Motion, 47 (2010), pp. 421–439.Google Scholar
[25]Nissen, A. and Kreiss, G., An optimized perfectly matched layer for the Schrödinger equation, Commun. Comput. Phys., 9 (2011), pp. 147–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[26]Nissen, A., Kreiss, G., and Gerritsen, M., High order stable finite difference methods for the Schrödinger equation, J. Sci. Comput., 55 (2013), pp. 173–199.Google Scholar
[27]Popov, M. M., A new method of computation of wave fields using Gaussian beams, Wave Motion, 4 (1982), pp. 85–97.Google Scholar
[28]Ralston, J., Gaussian beams and the propagation of singularities, in Studies in Partial Differential Equations, Volume 23 of MAA Stud. Math., pages 206–248, Math. Assoc. America, Washington, D.C., 1982.Google Scholar
[29]Taflove, A., Computational Electrodynamics: The Finite-Difference Time-Domain Method, Artech House, Boston, MA, 1995.Google Scholar
[30]Tannor, D. J., Introduction to Quantum Mechanics: A Time-Dependent Perspective, University Science Books, Sausalito, CA, 2007.Google Scholar
[31]Tanushev, N. M., Superpositions and higher order Gaussian beams, Commun. Math. Sci., 6 (2008), pp. 449–475.Google Scholar
[32]Tanushev, N. M., Tsai, Y.-H. R., and Engquist, B., A coupled finite difference–Gaussian beam method for high frequency wave propagation, in Engquist, B., Runborg, O., and Tsai, Y.-H. R., editors, Numerical Analysis of Multiscale Computations, Volume 82 of Lecture Notes in Computational Science and Engineering, pages 401–420, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2012.Google Scholar