4.6 Article

Structuring coflowing and counterflowing currents of polariton condensates in concentric ring-shaped and elliptical potentials

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW B
卷 103, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.103.075305

关键词

-

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) through the collaborative research center TRR142 [231447078]
  2. Heisenberg program [270619725]
  3. Paderborn Center for Parallel Computing, PC2
  4. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11804064]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study reveals that in different ring-shaped potentials, the current flow direction of microcavity polariton condensates can change according to the specific configuration of the potentials, with co-flowing currents in concentric rings and counterflowing currents in eye-shaped configurations.
We investigate the current flow of microcavity polariton condensates loaded into concentric ring-shaped potentials. The tunneling of the condensates between different potential rings results in different phase-locked states, depending on the separation of the potential rings. As a consequence, the condensate currents in different rings can flow either in the same or opposite direction, depending on the specific configuration of the ring-shaped potentials. In two concentric standard ring-shaped potentials, the condensates always circulate in the same direction (coflowing current), and the vortices formed in the two rings share the same topological charge because of the azimuthally uniform distribution of their phase difference. In this case, increasing the number of the potential rings enables the excitation of Bessel-like solutions. If the two ring-shaped potentials are engineered into an eye shape, with the inner ring being standard ring-shaped and the outer ring being elliptically ring-shaped, the phase differences of the condensates in the two rings along the major and minor axes of the ellipse can be opposite, which gives rise to counterflowing condensate currents.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据