The Nonlinear Schrödinger Equation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the nonlinear Schrödinger equation, specifically the transformation of its form through normalization and the implications of parameters involved. Participants explore the derivation steps necessary to arrive at an alternative representation of the equation, addressing issues related to the introduction of constants and the application of differentiation rules.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the nonlinear Schrödinger equation and attempts to derive an alternative form, expressing confusion over the appearance of extra terms involving ##\sqrt{P_0}## and ##P_0##.
  • Another participant suggests resolving the remaining differentiations using the product rule and chain rule.
  • Some participants assert that there is no extra ##P_0## and encourage checking the derivation again.
  • There is a discussion about whether to factor out the ##\sqrt{P_0}## terms from the derivation and how to incorporate the "sign β2" expression related to the GVD parameter.
  • Clarifications are sought regarding the application of the product rule in the context of the derivatives involved.
  • A participant notes that if ##P_0## is a constant, it can be taken out from the derivatives, which may clarify the confusion regarding the terms.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the presence of extra terms in the derivation, with some asserting there are no extra terms while others remain uncertain. The discussion regarding the application of the product rule and the treatment of constants also reflects a lack of consensus.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating through the mathematical steps of transforming the nonlinear Schrödinger equation, which involves assumptions about the nature of the parameters and their roles in the equations. The discussion highlights the complexity of the derivation process and the potential for misunderstanding in the application of differentiation rules.

roam
Messages
1,265
Reaction score
12
According to my textbook the nonlinear Schrödinger equation:

$$\frac{\partial A(z,T)}{\partial z} = -i \frac{\beta_2}{2} \frac{\partial^2A}{\partial T^2} + i \gamma |A|^2 A \ \ (1)$$

can be cast in the form

$$\frac{\partial U(z,\tau)}{\partial z} = -i \frac{sign \beta_2}{2} \frac{1}{L_D} \frac{\partial^2 U}{\partial \tau^2} + i \frac{1}{L_{NL}} |U|^2 U \ \ (2)$$

by normalizing with: ##\tau = \frac{T}{T_0},## and ##A(z,T) = \sqrt{P_0} U(z, \tau).##

But my textbook does not show the steps involved, and I can't arrive at equation (2) when I try to do this myself.

So substituting the two parameters into (1) we get

$$\frac{\partial (\sqrt{P_0} U(z, \tau))}{\partial z} = -i \frac{\beta_2}{2} \frac{\partial^2(\sqrt{P_0} U(z, \tau))}{\partial (\tau T_0)^2} + i \gamma |(\sqrt{P_0} U(z, \tau))|^2 (\sqrt{P_0} U(z, \tau))$$

We know that the dispersion length is given by ##L_D = \frac{T_0^2}{|\beta_2|}## and the the nonlinear length is ##L_{NL} = \frac{1}{\gamma P_0}.## When substituting these two the expression becomes

$$\frac{\partial (\sqrt{P_0} U(z, \tau))}{\partial z} = -i \frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{L_D} \frac{\partial^2(\sqrt{P_0} U(z, \tau))}{\partial \tau^2} + i \frac{1}{L_{NL}} \sqrt{P_0} P_0 U^2 U.$$

So, what can we do about the extra ##\sqrt{P_0}##'s and the extra ##P_0## (peak power)? What is wrong here?

Any explanation is greatly appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Resolve the remaining differentiations using the product rule and chain rule.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: roam
roam said:
extra ##P_0##
There is no extra ##P_0##. Check your derivation again.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: roam
DrClaude said:
There is no extra ##P_0##. Check your derivation again.

Sorry I meant that we get:

$$\frac{\partial (\boxed{\sqrt{P_0}} U(z, \tau))}{\partial z} = -i \frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{L_D} \frac{\partial^2 (\boxed{\sqrt{P_0}} U(z, \tau))}{\partial \tau^2} + i \frac{1}{L_{NL}} \boxed{ \sqrt{P_0}} U^2 U.$$

with the the P0 terms boxed. Do we then need to take the ##\sqrt{P_0}## terms out of the derivation and divide both sides by ##\sqrt{P_0}##? :confused:

Also how do I introduce the "sign β2" expression (sign of the GVD parameter) in there? That is either ##\pm 1## (for the focusing/defocusing case).

A. Neumaier said:
Resolve the remaining differentiations using the product rule and chain rule.

I am not sure what you mean. Are you referring to ##\partial / \partial z \sqrt{P_0} U(z, \tau)##, and ##\partial^2 / \partial^2 \tau \sqrt{P_0} U(z, \tau)##? Some more explanation would be very helpful.
 
roam said:
I am not sure what you mean. Are you referring to ∂/∂z√P0U(z,τ)\partial / \partial z \sqrt{P_0} U(z, \tau), and ∂2/∂2τ√P0U(z,τ)\partial^2 / \partial^2 \tau \sqrt{P_0} U(z, \tau)? Some more explanation would be very helpful.
I think he meant the product rule.
 
DrClaude said:
I think he meant the product rule.

But how is the product rule applicable in this case?
 
roam said:
Do we then need to take the √P0P0\sqrt{P_0} terms out of the derivation and divide both sides by √P0P0\sqrt{P_0}?
Check in your book what ##P_0## is, if it turns out to be a constant then you can take it out from the derivatives.
roam said:
Also how do I introduce the "sign β2" expression (sign of the GVD parameter) in there?
In defining ##L_D##, you use ##|\beta_2|## instead of ##\beta_2##. That explains why ##\textrm{sign }\beta_2## appears in the final equation - for any real number ##N##, you can always write it as ##|N| \textrm{sign }N ##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: roam
Thank you very much for the clarification.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K