- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review E

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Regular dynamics of low-frequency fluctuations in external cavity semiconductor lasers

Ruslan L. Davidchack1, Ying-Cheng Lai2, Athanasios Gavrielides3, and Vassilios Kovanis3,4

  • 1Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, United Kingdom
  • 2Departments of Mathematics, Electrical Engineering, and Physics, Center for Systems Science and Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287
  • 3Nonlinear Optics Group, Air Force Research Laboratory DELO, Kirtland AFB, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87117
  • 4Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131

PDF

Phys. Rev. E 63, 056206 – Published 16 April, 2001

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.63.056206

Abstract

It is commonly believed that the dynamics responsible for low-frequency fluctuations (LFF’s) in external cavity semiconductor lasers is stochastic or chaotic. A common approach to address the origin of LFF’s is to investigate the dynamical behavior of, and the interaction among, various external cavity modes in the Lang-Kobayashi (LK) paradigm. In this paper, we propose a framework for understanding of the LFFs based on a different set of fundamental solutions of the LK equations, which are periodic or quasiperiodic, and which are characterized by a sequence of time-locked pulses with slowly varying magnitude. We present numerical evidence and heuristic arguments, indicating that the dynamics of LFF’s emerges as a result of quasiperiodic bifurcations from these solutions as the pumping current increases. Regular periodic solutions can actually be observed when (1) the feedback level is moderate, (2) pumping current is below solitary threshold, and (3) the linewidth enhancement factor is relatively large.

View figure in article

References (32)

  1. R. D. Driver, Ordinary and Delay Differential Equations, Applied Mathematical Sciences Vol. 20 (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1977).
  2. M. C. Mackay and L. Glass, Science 197, 287 (1977).
  3. K. Ikeda, Opt. Commun. 30, 257 (1979).
  4. J. P. Goedgebuer, L. Larger, and H. Porte, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2249 (1998).
  5. R. Lang and K. Kobayashi, IEEE J. Quantum Electron. QE-16, 347 (1980).
  6. L. Goldberg, H. F. Taylor, A. Dandridge, J. F. Weller, and R. O. Miles, IEEE J. Quantum Electron. QE-18, 555 (1982).
  7. C. Risch and C. Voumard, J. Appl. Phys. 48, 2083 (1977).
  8. A. Gavrielides et al., Phys. Rev. A 60, 1577 (1999).
  9. E. Ott, C. Grebogi, and J. A. Yorke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 1196 (1990).
  10. M. J. Feigenbaum, J. Stat. Phys. 19, 2 (1978).
  11. See, for example, D. Auerbach, P. Cvitanović, J.-P. Eckmann, G. H. Gunaratne, and I. Procaccia, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 2387 (1987); ibid.G. H. Gunaratne and I. Procaccia, 59, 1377 (1987); C. Grebogi, E. Ott, and J. A. Yorke, Phys. Rev. A 37, 1711 (1988); ibid.D. P. Lathrop and E. J. Kostelich, 40, 4028 (1989); P. Cvitanović, Chaos 2, 1 (1992)]; D. Pierson and F. Moss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 2124 (1995); ibid.D. Christini and J. J. Collins, 75, 2782 (1995); X. Pei and F. Moss, Nature (London) 379, 619 (1996); P. So, E. Ott, S. J. Schiff, D. T. Kaplan, T. Sauer, and C. Grebogi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 4705 (1996); ibid.Y.-C. Lai, Y. Nagai, and C. Grebogi, 79, 649 (1997).
  12. The new solutions are apparently more complicated than the ECM’s, and it is unlikely that we will ever be able to derive them analytically from the LK model without any approximations. However, this does not mean that they are less fundamental than the ECM solutions. Numerical simulations show that the new solutions are structurally stable and exist in a wide range of parameter values. We believe that the study of the origin and properties of these solutions will facilitate the analysis and understanding of the LFF regime.
  13. P. M. Alsing, V. Kovanis, A. Gavrielides, and T. Erneux, Phys. Rev. A 53, 4429 (1996).
  14. C. H. Henry and R. F. Kazarinov, IEEE J. Quantum Electron. QE-22, 294 (1986).
  15. A. Hohl, H. J. C. van der Linden, and R. Roy, Opt. Lett. 20, 2396 (1995).
  16. J. Mørkl, B. Tromborg, and J. Mark, IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 28, 93 (1992).
  17. J. Mørk, B. Tromborg, and P. L. Christiansen, IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 24, 123 (1988).
  18. T. Sano, Phys. Rev. A 50, 2719 (1994).
  19. G. H. M. van Tartwijk, A. M. Levine, and D. Lenstra, IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 1, 466 (1995).
  20. M. Giudici et al., Phys. Rev. E 55, 6414 (1997); M. C. Eguia, G. B. Mindlin, and M. Giudici, 58, 2636 (1998); ibid.M. C. Eguia and G. B. Mindlin, 60, 1551 (1999).
  21. G. Vaschenko et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5536 (1998).
  22. D. W. Sukow et al., Phys. Rev. A 60, 667 (1999).
  23. G. Huyet et al., Phys. Rev. A 60, 1534 (1999).
  24. A. Hohl and A. Gavrielides, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1148 (1999).
  25. D. W. Sukow, J. R. Gardner, and D. J. Gauthier, Phys. Rev. A 56, R3370 (1997); J. Mulet and C. R. Mirasso, Phys. Rev. E 59, 5400 (1999).
  26. For the general set of delay-differential equations dy(t)/dt=f(y(t),y(t−τ)), where y=(ER,EI,n) is a three-component vector, the fourth-order Adams-Bashford-Moulton predictor-corrector method has the following form. The predictor is yn+1*=yn+(h/24)(55fn−59fn−1+37fn−2−9fn−3), where fn−i=f(yn−i,yn−N−i), i=0, 1, 2, and 3; the corrector is yn+1=yn+(h/24)(9fn+1*+19fn−5fn−1+fn−2), where fn+1*=f(yn+1*,yn−N+1); and the step size is h=τ/N.
  27. I. Ficsher et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 220 (1996).
  28. Note that “mode locking” of pulses occurs in the phase delay variable Δ(t), and thus cannot be interpreted as each pulse being emitted at a steady frequency associated with a particular ECM. Our computations show substantial deviations of the instantaneous frequency during the pulse away from the ECM frequency suggested by Δs.
  29. Ruelle and Takens considered four frequency quasiperiodic flows on the torus T4. They showed that it was possible to make arbitrarily small, but carefully chosen, smooth perturbations to the flow so that the flow becomes chaotic [D. Ruelle and F. Takens, Commun. Math. Phys. 20, 167 (1971); ibid.23, 343 (1971)]. ibid.Newhouse, Ruelle, and Takens subsequently showed that the same held for a three-frequency quasiperiodic flow on the torus T3 [S. Newhouse, D. Ruelle, and F. Takens, 64, 35 (1978)].
  30. In our simulations we are able to reach the quasiperiodic and periodic regime only for α≳5. Otherwise, the coupling between ECM’s is not strong enough, and, as the pumping is lowered below threshold, the system dynamics becomes localized around one of the ECM’s before it reaches the quasiperiodic and periodic regime. However, we stress that regular solutions exist in the same parameter range as the LFF’s. The difference is that for smaller α they are most likely to be unstable with respect to other solutions (such as ECM’s, or chaotic solutions). The fact that we do not observe them in the simulation, does not mean that they do not exist, but rather that they are simply unstable. The only reason it is easier to observe them at larger α is that they are stable in this parameter range.
  31. T. Heil, I. Fischer, and W. Elsässer, Phys. Rev. A 58, R2672 (1998).
  32. G. Huyet, P. A. Porta, S. P. Hegarty, J. G. McInerney, and F. Holland, Opt. Commun. 180, 339 (2000).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. E 63, 056206– Published 16 April, 2001
  • Received 21 August 2000

© 2001 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation