- 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

Thermal decay of a metastable state: Influence of rescattering on the quasistationary dynamical rate

M. V. Chushnyakova1,2,* and I. I. Gontchar1,3

  • 1Physics Department, Omsk State Technical University, 644050 Omsk, Russia
  • 2Physics Department, Akdeniz University, 07058 Antalya, Turkey
  • 3Physics and Chemistry Department, Omsk State Transport University, 644046 Omsk, Russia

  • *maria.chushnyakova@gmail.com
PDF

Phys. Rev. E 97, 032107 – Published 12 March, 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.97.032107

Abstract

We study the effect of backscattering of the Brownian particles as they escape out of a metastable state overcoming the potential barrier. For this aim, we model this process numerically using the Langevin equations. This modeling is performed for the wide range of the friction constant covering both the energy and spatial diffusion regimes. It is shown how the influence of the descent stage on the quasistationary decay rate gradually disappears as the friction constant decreases. It is found that, in the energy diffusion regime, the rescattering absents and the descent stage does not influence the decay rate. As the value of friction increases, the descent alters the value of the rate by more than 50% for different values of thermal energy and different shapes of the potential. To study the influence of the backscattering on the decay rate, four potentials have been considered which coincide near the potential well and the barrier but differ beyond the barrier. It is shown that the potential for which the well and the barrier are described by two smoothly joined parabolas (“the parabolic potential”) plays a role of a dividing range for the mutual layout of the quasistationary dynamical rate and the widely used in the literature Kramers rate. Namely, for the potentials with steeper tails, the Kramers rate RKM underestimates the true quasistationary dynamical rate RD, whereas for the less steep tails the opposite holds (inversion of RD/RKM). It is demonstrated that the mutual layout of the values of RD for different potentials is explained by the rescattering of the particles from the potential tail.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (30)

  1. H. A. Kramers, Physica 7, 284 (1940).
  2. G. Klein, Proc. R. Soc. London A 211, 431 (1952).
  3. H. C. Brinkman, Physica 22, 149 (1956).
  4. V. M. Strutinsky, Phys. Lett. B 47, 121 (1973).
  5. P. Hanggi, P. Talkner, and M. Borkovec, Rev. Mod. Phys. 62, 251 (1990).
  6. V. I. Melnikov, Phys. Rep. 209, 1 (1991).
  7. I. I. Gonchar and G. I. Kosenko, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 53, 86 (1991).
  8. G. D. Adeev, A. V. Karpov, P. N. Nadtochy, and D. V. Vanin, Phys. Part. Nucl. 36, 378 (2005).
  9. Huan-Xiang Zhou, Q. Rev. Biophys. 43, 219 (2010).
  10. R. E. Lagos and T. P. Simoes, Physica A 390, 1591 (2011).
  11. P. Talkner and P. Hanggi, New Trends in Kramers' Reaction Rate Theory (Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin, 2012).
  12. Z. Jiang, V. N. Smelyanskiy, S. V. Isakov et al., Phys. Rev. A 95, 012322 (2017).
  13. A. Sharma, R. Wittmann, and J. M. Brader, Phys. Rev. E 95, 012115 (2017).
  14. C.-C. Chien, S. Kouachi, K. A. Velizhanin, Y. Dubi, and M. Zwolak, Phys. Rev. E 95, 012137 (2017).
  15. K. Mazurek, P. N. Nadtochy, E. G. Ryabov, and G. D. Adeev, Eur. Phys. J. A 53, 79 (2017).
  16. M. Buttiker, E. P. Harris, and R. Landauer, Phys. Rev. B 28, 1268 (1983).
  17. I. I. Gontchar, M. V. Chushnyakova, N. E. Aktaev, A. L. Litnevsky, and E. G. Pavlova, Phys. Rev. C 82, 064606 (2010).
  18. E. G. Pavlova, N. E. Aktaev, and I. I. Gontchar, Physica A 391, 6084 (2012).
  19. A. V. Karpov, P. N. Nadtochy, E. G. Ryabov, and G. D. Adeev, J. Phys. G 29, 2365 (2003).
  20. P. N. Nadtochy, A. Kelić, and K.-H. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. C 75, 064614 (2007).
  21. E. G. Demina and I. I. Gontchar, Phys. At. Nucl. 78, 185 (2015).
  22. I. I. Gontchar and M. V. Chushnyakova, Pramana J. Phys. 88, 90 (2017).
  23. I. I. Gontchar, P. Fröbrich, and N. I. Pischasov, Phys. Rev. C 47, 2228 (1993).
  24. I. I. Gontchar and P. Fröbrich, Nucl. Phys. A 551, 495 (1993).
  25. D. Boilley, A. Marchix, B. Jurado, and K.-H. Schmidt, Eur. Phys. J. A 33, 47 (2007)
  26. A. J. Sierk, Phys. Rev. C 96, 034603 (2017).
  27. V. L. Litnevsky, V. V. Pashkevich, G. I. Kosenko, and F. A. Ivanyuk, Phys. Rev. C 89, 034626 (2014).
  28. H. Risken, The Fokker-Planck Equation (Springer, Berlin, 1984).
  29. I. I. Gontchar and R. A. Kuzyakin, Phys. Rev. C 84, 014617 (2011).
  30. P. E. Kloeden and E. Platen, Numerical Solution of Stochastic Differential Equations (Springer, Berlin, 1992).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. E 97, 032107– Published 12 March, 2018
  • Received 8 August 2017
  • Revised 20 January 2018
Crossmark - Check for updates button

©2018 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation