format: text

text:
# I INTRODUCTION

## I INTRODUCTION

Numerous experiments using unstable nuclear beams have succeeded to reveal exotic properties of $`\beta `$-unstable nuclei, including a neutron halo structure. Especially, the shift of the closed-shell structure is a characteristic behavior of systems with weakly bound neutrons. Recently, the contributions of the $`sd`$ shell have been analyzed in $`N=8`$ nuclei based on the shell model. A calculation has shown that the slow $`\beta `$-decay of 12Be to 12B can be explained by an admixture of the $`sd`$ shell in 12Be ($`N=8`$) in which the closed $`p`$-shell component must be less than 30$`\%`$. This shows that the concept of magic numbers is vague in 12Be.

On the other hand, an $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ structure is well established in the Be and B region. Typically in 9Be, a microscopic $`\alpha `$+$`\alpha `$+$`n`$ model has reproduced the properties of low-lying states including the level inversion of $`1/2^{}`$ in the $`p`$-shell and $`1/2^+`$ in the $`sd`$ shell. Also in 10Be, the microscopic $`\alpha `$-cluster models have been applied , and we have quantitively shown the mechanism for the lowering of the $`sd`$ orbits related with the clustering of the core.

According to our previous results for 10Be, the main properties of this nucleus have been well described by the $`\alpha `$+$`\alpha `$+n+n model, where the orbits for the two valence neutrons are classified based on the molecular-orbit (MO) model. The dominant configuration of the two valence neutrons for the second $`0^+`$ state is $`(1/2^+)^2`$, and the level inversion between $`1/2^{}`$ and $`1/2^+`$ in 9Be also holds in 10Be. Here, the two valence neutrons stay along the $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ axis, and reduce the kinetic energy by enhancing the $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ distance (up to around 4 fm). Therefore, the $`1/2^+`$ orbit in this case is not a spherical $`s`$-wave, but a polarized orbit with the $`d`$-wave component. This feature of $`sd`$ mixing in the $`1/2^+`$ orbit can be qualitatively interpreted in terms of deformed models ( expression in the Nilsson diagram).

The main purpose of this paper is to show the mechanism for the appearance of this $`(1/2^+)^2`$ configuration in low-lying energy in detail. In our previous work, the calculated excitation energy of the second $`0^+`$ state has been higher by $``$5 MeV without the spin-orbit interaction than the experimental one. The spin-orbit interaction has been found to decrease the excitation energy by 3 MeV by adding a single optimal wave function with $`S=1`$. Hence, it is necessary to analyze the contribution of the spin-orbit interaction more precisely to clarify the lowering mechanism of the second $`0^+`$ state. The other reduction mechanism of the kinetic energy by more accurate description of the neutron-tail should also be taken into account.

Firstly, the spin-orbit interaction is able to contribute to the second $`0^+`$ state, when spin-triplet states for the valence neutrons are included among the basis states. If the $`1/2^+`$ state consists of the pure s-orbit, naturally there is no contribution of the spin-orbit interaction. In Be isotopes, the state contains the $`d`$-orbit component. However, the spin-orbit interaction again vanishes, when the two valence neutrons occupy along the $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ axis, since two neutrons with the same spatial distribution construct only the spin-singlet state. This has been the situation in traditional MO models. It will be shown that when one of the valence neutrons deviates from the $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ axis, the spin-triplet state can be constructed, and the spin-orbit interaction strongly acts between this state and the original $`(1/2^+)^2`$ configuration with the spin-singlet. The extension of the model space also enables us to improve the description of the neutron-tail. We estimate the reduction of the kinetic energy due to the improvement of the neutron-tail. These improvements will be shown to largely decrease the excitation energy of the second $`0^+`$ state, and that the calculated energy just corresponds to the experimental value.

Using the present extended MO model, negative-parity states in 10Be are also investigated. The mixing of different spin structure $`(S=0,S=1)`$ is found to also be important in the negative-parity states. The $`K`$-mixing effect strongly acts on the $`2^{}`$ state, and the calculated small-level spacing between $`1^{}`$ and $`2^{}`$ ($``$300 keV) agrees with the experimental value.

Also, in 12Be these two important mechanism for lowering the $`(1/2^+)^2`$ configuration are examined. In 12Be, the configuration for four valence neutrons around the $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ core is considered to correspond to the two pair configurations, $`(3/2^{})^2`$ and $`(1/2^+)^2`$. These two pair configurations appear in the ground $`0^+`$ state and the second $`0^+`$ state of 10Be, respectively. The energy surface for the ground state of 12Be will be shown, in which the spin-orbit interaction is seen to make the binding for the $`(3/2^{})^2(1/2^+)^2`$ configuration properly stronger in comparison with the $`(3/2^{})^2(1/2^{})^2`$ configuration. This is related to the breaking of the $`N=8`$ (closed $`p`$-shell) neutron-magic number.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we summarize a description of the single-particle orbits around the two $`\alpha `$ clusters based on the MO model. In Sec. III, the contribution of the spin-orbit interaction to the $`(1/2^+)^2`$ configuration and the reduction of the kinetic energy due to an improvement of the neutron-tail are considered. These effects are discussed in detail for the second $`0^+`$ state of 10Be (A), for the negative parity states of 10Be (B), and for 12Be (C). The conclusion is given in Sec. IV.

## II extended Molecular Orbital model

We introduce a microscopic $`\alpha `$+$`\alpha `$+$`2n`$ model for 10Be and $`\alpha `$+$`\alpha `$+$`4n`$ model for 12Be. The neutron configurations are classified according to the molecular-orbit (MO) picture. The details of the framework are given in Ref.; here, the essential part is presented.

The Hamiltonian is the same as in Ref., and consists of a kinetic-energy term, a central two-body interaction term, a two-body spin-orbit interaction term, and a Coulomb interaction term:

$$=\underset{i}{}T_iT_{cm}+\underset{i<j}{}V_{ij}+\underset{i<j}{}V_{ij}^{ls}+\underset{i<j}{}\frac{e^2}{4r_{ij}}(1\tau _z^i)(1\tau _z^j).$$
(1)
The effective nucleon-nucleon interaction is Volkov No.2 for the central part and the G3RS spin-orbit term for the spin-orbit part, as follows:

$$V_{ij}=\{V_1e^{a_1r_{ij}^2}V_2e^{a_2r_{ij}^2}\}\{WMP^\sigma P^\tau +BP^\sigma HP^\tau \},$$
(2)
$$V_{ij}^{ls}=V_0^{ls}\{e^{a_1r_{ij}^2}e^{a_2r_{ij}^2}\}\stackrel{}{L}\stackrel{}{S}P_{31},$$
(3)
where $`P_{31}`$ is a projection operator onto the triplet odd state. The parameters are $`V_1=60.650`$ MeV, $`V_2=61.140`$ MeV, $`a_1=0.980`$ fm-2 and $`a_2=0.309`$ fm-2 for the central interaction, and $`V_0^{ls}`$ = 2000 MeV, $`a_1=5.00`$ fm-2, and $`a_2=2.778`$ fm-2 for the spin-orbit interaction. We employ the Majorana exchange parameter, $`M=0.6`$ ($`W=0.4`$), the Bartlett exchange parameter, $`B=0.125`$, and the Heisenberg exchange parameter, $`H=0.125`$, for the Volkov interaction (using $`B`$ and $`H`$, there is no neutron-neutron bound state). All of these parameters are determined from the $`\alpha +n`$ and $`\alpha +\alpha `$ scattering phase shifts and the binding energy of the deuteron.

The total wave function is fully antisymmetrized and expressed by a superposition of terms centered to different relative distances between the two $`\alpha `$ clusters ($`d`$) with various configurations of the valence neutrons. The projection to the eigen-states of angular momentum $`(J)`$ is performed numerically. All nucleons are described by Gaussians with the oscillator parameter $`(s)`$ equal to 1.46 fm. The $`\alpha `$ clusters located at $`d/2`$ and $`d/2`$ on the $`z`$-axis consist of four nucleons:

$$\varphi ^{(\alpha )}=G_{R_\alpha }^pG_{R_\alpha }^pG_{R_\alpha }^nG_{R_\alpha }^n\chi _p\chi _p\chi _n\chi _n.$$
(4)
$`G`$ represents Gaussians:

$$G_{R_\alpha }=\left(\frac{2\nu }{\pi }\right)^{\frac{3}{4}}\mathrm{exp}[\nu (\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{R}_\alpha )^2],\nu =1/2s^2,\stackrel{}{R}_\alpha =\{d\stackrel{}{e}_z/2,d\stackrel{}{e}_z/2\}.$$
(5)
Each valence neutron ($`\varphi _{ci}\chi _{ci}`$) around the $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ core is expressed by a linear combination of local Gaussians:

$$\varphi _{ci}\chi _{ci}=\underset{j}{}g_jG_{R_n^j}\chi _{ci},$$
(6)
$$G_{R_n^j}=\left(\frac{2\nu }{\pi }\right)^{\frac{3}{4}}\mathrm{exp}[\nu (\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{R}_n^j)^2],\nu =1/2s^2.$$
(7)
The level structure is solved by superposing basis states with different $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ distances and configurations after the angular momentum projection.

In the MO model, valence neutrons are expressed by a linear combination of orbits around two $`\alpha `$ clusters. The orbit around each $`\alpha `$ cluster is called the atomic orbit (AO). Here, we note that the valence neutrons and neutrons in the $`\alpha `$ clusters are identical particles, and antisymmetrization imposes the AO forbidden space. The lowest AO has one node and parity minus, which is the $`p`$-orbit. When a linear combination of two AOs ($`p`$-orbit) around the left-$`\alpha `$ cluster and the right-$`\alpha `$ cluster is summed up by the same sign, the resultant MO also has negative parity and one node. In this case, the MO is restricted to spread along an axis perpendicular to the $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ $`(z)`$ axis, which is the so-called $`\pi `$-orbit. It cannot spread along the $`z`$-axis where the two $`\alpha `$ clusters are already located. If two $`p`$-orbits are summed up by different signs, the resultant MO has two nodes and positive parity. This MO can spread to all directions, and the optimal direction becomes the $`z`$-direction. This is the so-called $`\sigma `$-orbit, and the energy becomes lower as the distance between two $`\alpha `$ clusters increases.

In Be isotopes, the low-lying orbits with $`K^\pi =3/2^{}`$, $`1/2^+`$, and $`1/2^{}`$ are important; these are classified based on the MO mode1. The $`1/2^+`$ state is the $`\sigma `$-orbit, and the spin-orbit interaction splits the $`\pi `$-orbit to $`3/2^{}`$ and $`1/2^{}`$. In the present framework, each valence neutron is introduced to have a definite $`K^\pi `$ at the zero limit of centers of local Gaussians $`(\{R_n^j\})`$ describing the spatial distribution of the orbit. The precise positions of $`\{R_n^j\}`$ are determined variationally for each $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ distance before the angular-momentum projection. Since the values of $`\{R_n^j\}`$ are optimized to be finite, the orbits are not exactly the eigen-state of $`K^\pi `$, and are labeled as $`\overline{K}^\pi `$.

In 10Be, when two valence neutrons occupy these single particle orbits, three configurations with the total $`\overline{K}=\overline{K}_1+\overline{K}_2=0`$ are generated. For the ground state, valence neutrons occupy orbits with $`\overline{K}^\pi =3/2^{}`$ and $`\overline{K}^\pi =3/2^{}`$; these $`\pi `$-orbits are expressed as linear combinations of $`p_x`$ and $`p_y`$:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(3/2^{},3/2^{})=𝒜[\varphi _1^{(\alpha )}\varphi _2^{(\alpha )}(\varphi _{c1}\chi _{c1})(\varphi _{c2}\chi _{c2})].$$
(8)
$$\varphi _{c1}\chi _{c1}=\{(p_x+ip_y)_{+a}+(p_x+ip_y)_a\}|n,$$
(9)
$$\varphi _{c2}\chi _{c2}=\{(p_xip_y)_{+a}+(p_xip_y)_a\}|n.$$
(10)
Each MO is constructed from two AOs around a left and right $`\alpha `$ cluster. We introduce a variational parameter $`(a)`$ on the $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ axis ($`z`$-axis); and $`(p_x\pm ip_y)_{+a}`$ is $`p_x\pm ip_y`$, whose center is $`+a`$ on the $`z`$-axis; and $`(p_x\pm ip_y)_a`$ is $`p_x\pm ip_y`$, whose center is $`a`$ on the $`z`$-axis. Here, the spatial part and the spin part of $`\overline{K}`$ in Eqs. (9) and (10) are introduced to be parallel, for which the spin-orbit interaction acts attractively. The spin-up valence neutron has $`\overline{K}_1^\pi =3/2^{}`$ ($`rY_{11}|n`$), and the spin-down valence neutron has $`\overline{K}_1^\pi =3/2^{}`$ ($`rY_{11}|n`$). There $`(p_x)_{+a}`$, $`(p_x)_a`$, $`(p_y)_{+a}`$, and $`(p_y)_a`$ are expressed as the combination of two Gaussians, whose centers are shifted by a variational parameter $`(b)`$ perpendicular to the $`z`$-axis. For example,

$$(p_x)_{+a}=G_{a\stackrel{}{e}_z+b\stackrel{}{e}_x}G_{a\stackrel{}{e}_zb\stackrel{}{e}_x},(p_y)_{+a}=G_{a\stackrel{}{e}_z+b\stackrel{}{e}_y}G_{a\stackrel{}{e}_zb\stackrel{}{e}_y}.$$
(11)
These parameters $`a`$ and $`b`$, are optimized by using the Cooling Method in antisymmetrized molecular dynamics (AMD)  for each $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ distance.

The $`\sigma `$-orbit pair, $`(1/2^+)^2`$, is prepared, where each $`\sigma `$-orbit is expressed by subtracting two AOs at $`+a=d/2`$ and $`a=d/2`$:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(1/2^+,1/2^+)=𝒜[\varphi _1^{(\alpha )}\varphi _2^{(\alpha )}(\varphi _{c1}\chi _{c1})(\varphi _{c2}\chi _{c2})],$$
(12)
$$\varphi _{c1}\chi _{c1}=\{(\stackrel{}{p})_{+a}(\stackrel{}{p})_a\}|na=d/2,$$
(13)
$$\varphi _{c2}\chi _{c2}=\{(\stackrel{}{p})_{+a}(\stackrel{}{p})_a\}|na=d/2,$$
(14)
where,

$$(\stackrel{}{p})_{\pm a}=(G_{+\stackrel{}{b}}G_\stackrel{}{b})_{\pm a}.$$
(15)
Since the $`\sigma `$-orbit has two nodes, the direction of the orbit is not limited due to the Pauli principle. It can thus take all directions. Therefore, the direction and value of parameter $`\stackrel{}{b}`$ for the center of the Gaussians are optimized. As a result, it is optimized to the direction of the $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ axis. This basis state shares the dominant component of the second $`0^+`$ state.

## III RESULTS obtained using the extended MO model space

### A $`J^\pi =0^+`$ states in 10Be

Before giving the results, we summarize the calculated energies and the optimal $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ distance for three configurations ($`(3/2^{})^2`$, $`(1/2^{})^2`$, and $`(1/2^+)^2`$) discussed in Ref.. In Fig. 1, the $`0^+`$ energy curves of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(3/2^{},3/2^{})`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(1/2^+,1/2^+)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(1/2^{},1/2^{})`$ in 10Be are presented as a function of the $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ distance $`(d)`$. These configurations are the dominant components of the first, second, and third $`0^+`$ states in 10Be, respectively.

————–

Fig. 1

————–

The energy of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(1/2^+,1/2^+`$) (dominant component of $`0_2^+`$) becomes lower as $`d`$ increases, and the energy becomes minimum at an $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ distance of $`45`$ fm. However, it should be noted that the energy difference between $`\mathrm{\Phi }(1/2^+,1/2^+)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(3/2^{},3/2^{})`$ in Fig. 1 is about 11 MeV. This is much larger than the experimental excitation energy of the second $`0^+`$ state (6.26 MeV) by 5 MeV.

There are two reasons for this lack of binding energy by 5 MeV in the second $`0^+`$ state. One is that the contribution of the spin-orbit interaction is not taken into account; the other is that the tail of the valence neutron is not correctly described. As for the spin-orbit interaction, in the traditional MO model, the spin-orbit interaction has not contributed to the $`0^+`$ state with this configuration. This is because, the two valence neutrons occupy the same spatial configurations with opposite spin direction, and construct a spin-singlet state. Since it is impossible for two valence neutrons with the same spin direction to occupy the same $`\sigma `$-orbit along the $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ axis, the spin-triplet state is prepared by making one of the valence neutrons deviate from the $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ axis. As for the tail effect of the valence neutrons, in this analysis, the tail behavior is expressed by the superposition of local Gaussians.

These two improvements are shown for the $`\mathrm{\Phi }(1/2^+,1/2^+)`$ configuration with the optimal $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ distance of 4 fm. The optimized parameter $`\stackrel{}{b}`$ is $`2.02\stackrel{}{e}_z`$ (fm). As listed in Table I, the spin-singlet $`\mathrm{\Phi }(1/2^+,1/2^+)`$ configuration has a $`0^+`$ energy of $`46.3`$ MeV. As shown in Eqs. (12)-(15), each valence neutron is described as a linear combination of four local Gaussians. When we optimize their linear combination, the energy slightly decreases to $`47.7`$ MeV (noted as $`S=0`$ $`(\sigma )^2`$ in Table I).

————–

Table I

————–

Next, the contribution of the spin-orbit interaction is taken into account to this spin-singlet state by preparing the spin-triplet state ($`S_z=1`$). One of the valence neutrons ($`\varphi _{c1}\chi _{c1}`$) occupies the $`\sigma `$-orbit, and another one ($`\varphi _{c2}\chi _{c2}`$) with the same spin-direction deviates from the $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ axis. The later one is described by a local Gaussian centered at $`\stackrel{}{R}`$; $`\varphi _{c2}\chi _{c2}=G_\stackrel{}{R}|n`$. The calculated energy surface for the second $`0^+`$ state as a function of the parameter $`\stackrel{}{R}`$ is given in Fig. 2. The orthogonality of the ground $`0^+`$ state to the ground $`0^+`$ state is ensured in this calculation. The point on the $`x`$-$`z`$ plain in Fig. 2 shows the position of the parameter $`\stackrel{}{R}`$, and the contour map shows the total energy obtained by taking into account this coupling with the spin-triplet states.

————-

Fig. 2

————-

The lowest energy of $`50.9`$ MeV is seen at $`\stackrel{}{R}=(x,z)=(1.0,2.0)`$ (fm) on the energy surface. The contribution of the spin-orbit interaction decreases the energy by more than 3 MeV in comparison with the case of the spin-singlet state. Although the energy of such a spin-triplet state, itself, is much higher than that of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(1/2^+,1/2^+)`$ by about 20 MeV, the large coupling between the spin-singlet and spin-triplet states enables the spin-orbit interaction to attractively act. As a result, more than half of the under-binding by 5 MeV for the second $`0^+`$ state is explained by this spin-orbit contribution.

To see this effect more correctly, a lot of spin-triplet states with different $`\stackrel{}{R}`$ values are adopted. The employed $`\stackrel{}{R}`$ values are 0.0, 1.0, 2.0 (fm) for the $`x`$-direction (perpendicular to the $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ direction) and 0.0, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 (fm) for the $`z`$-direction (the $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ direction). In Table I, the column noted as spin-orbit gives the energy of the second $`0^+`$ state when these 15 spin-triplet states with different $`\stackrel{}{R}`$ values are superposed. The calculated energy is $`51.2`$ MeV; this is lower than the energy minimum point in Fig. 2 by only 300 keV. This is because, the spin-triplet basis states around the core have a large overlap with each other, and those apart from the core do not contribute to this coupling. This result shows that the contribution of the spin-orbit interaction for the $`(1/2^+)^2`$ state is approximately taken into account when we employ only one Slater determinant on the energy surface.

In this calculation, many spin-triplet states are employed; however, it should be noted that the spin-singlet state is only represented by the $`\mathrm{\Phi }(1/2^+,1/2^+)`$ configuration. Thus, to improve the tail of the valence neutron in the second $`0^+`$ state of 10Be, it is necessary to superpose further the $`S_z=0`$ basis states with many different $`\stackrel{}{R}`$ values, which contain the spin-singlet component. The distance of $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ is 4 fm, where one of the valence neutrons ($`\varphi _{c1}\chi _{c1}`$) occupies the $`\sigma `$-orbit, and the other valence neutrons ($`\varphi _{c2}\chi _{c2}`$) with the opposite spin-direction is described by local Gaussian centered at $`\stackrel{}{R}`$. The later one has the form of $`\varphi _{c2}\chi _{c2}=G_\stackrel{}{R}|n`$. We superpose 15 basis states with $`S_z=0`$, and the employed $`\stackrel{}{R}`$ values are 0.0, 1.0, 2.0 (fm) for the $`x`$-direction (perpendicular to the $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ direction) and 0.0, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 (fm) for the $`z`$-direction (the $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ direction). As listed in Table I, the energy becomes $`52.7`$ MeV. These basis states increase the binding of the second $`0^+`$ state by 1.5 MeV compared with $`51.2`$ MeV for the third row. Here, it is noted that these $`S_z=0`$ basis states contain both the spin-single and spin-triplet components. However, the increase of the binding energy by adding these $`S_z=0`$ basis states is due to the spin-singlet basis states, since it is considered that the functional space of the spin-triplet states are already exhausted by the $`S_z=1`$ states. These results show that by taking into account both the spin-orbit interaction (spin-triplet basis states) and the tail effect (spin-singlet basis states), the under-binding for the second $`0^+`$ state by 5 MeV is fully explained. The calculated excitation energy of the second $`0^+`$ state agrees with the experimental one.

To confirm the component of the spin-triplet configurations introduced, the expectation value of the spin-square $`(\widehat{S}^2`$) in the second $`0^+`$ state of 10Be was calculated. The value is 0.26. This means that the spin-triplet configuration mixes in this state by about 13$`\%`$.

In this analysis, the $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ distance is restricted to 4 fm, but we now examine the contribution of the spin-orbit interaction with respect to the $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ distance.

————–

Table II

————–

Table II gives the contribution of spin-orbit interaction for the second $`0^+`$ state with the $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ distance of 3 fm, 4 fm, and 5 fm. The column noted as $`S=0`$ $`(\sigma )^2`$ gives the energy for the $`\mathrm{\Phi }(1/2^+,1/2^+)`$ configuration, where the linear combination of Gaussians is optimized. The column noted as $`+S_z=1`$ gives the energy when we include the spin-orbit interaction by employing the spin-triplet basis states. The results show that the smaller is the $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ distance, the larger is the contribution of the coupling with the spin-triplet state. When the $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ distance is 5 fm, the coupling increases the binding energy by about 3 MeV; however, when the $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ distance is 3 fm, the coupling increases the binding energy by about 4.5 MeV. Therefore, the coupling with the spin-triplet becomes stronger as the $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ distance becomes small. The column noted as $`+S_z=0,1`$ gives the energy when we further include the spin-singlet basis state to express the tail of the valence neutron. This effect does not have a strong dependence on the $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ distance, and almost constantly decreases the binding energy by 1.5 MeV.

Finally, the calculation where all of these basis states with different $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ distance are superposed is performed based on the generator coordinate method (GCM). When we superpose all of the basis states in Table II, the calculated energy of the second $`0^+`$ state becomes $`54.3`$ MeV. Here, we superpose the basis states with $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ distances of 3, 4, 5, and 6 fm, and the spin-triplet states are represented by one Slater determinant for each $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ distance, which correspond to the minimum point on the energy surface (Fig. 2). This calculated energy of $`54.3`$ MeV is lower than a result calculated with only the $`\mathrm{\Phi }(1/2^+,1/2^+)`$ configuration (employed $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ distances are the same) by 4.6 MeV.

### B Negative-parity states in 10Be

We examine this spin-mixing effect for the negative-parity states in 10Be. Here, one of the valence neutrons is introduced to occupy a $`\pi `$-orbit with negative parity; another one occupies a $`\sigma `$-orbit with positive parity. In this way, two configurations with $`S_z=0`$ and $`S_z=1`$ can be constructed. The $`S_z=0`$ basis state ($`\mathrm{\Phi }(3/2^{},1/2^+)`$) has $`K^\pi =1^{}`$.

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(3/2^{},1/2^+)=𝒜[\varphi _1^{(\alpha )}\varphi _2^{(\alpha )}(\varphi _{c1}\chi _{c1})(\varphi _{c2}\chi _{c2})].$$
(16)
$$\varphi _{c1}\chi _{c1}=\{(p_x+ip_y)_{+a}+(p_x+ip_y)_a\}|n,$$
(17)
$$\varphi _{c2}\chi _{c2}=\{(\stackrel{}{p})_{+a}(\stackrel{}{p})_a\}|n.$$
(18)
This basis state gives $`47.7`$ MeV for $`1^{}`$ and $`46.7`$ MeV for $`2^{}`$ at the optimal $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ distance of 3 fm. This energy splitting between $`1^{}`$ and $`2^{}`$ by 1 MeV is much larger than the experimental value of 300 keV (experimentally, the excitation energies of the $`1^{}`$ state and the $`2^{}`$ state are 5.96 MeV and 6.26 MeV, respectively). At first, we only examine the tail effect of the valence neutrons with $`S_z=0`$. We introduce a parameter $`\stackrel{}{R}`$ for $`\varphi _{c2}\chi _{c2}`$, which originally occupies the $`\sigma `$-orbit:

$$\varphi _{c2}\chi _{c2}=G_\stackrel{}{R}|n.$$
(19)
However, even if we superpose states with many different positions ($`\stackrel{}{R}`$), the energy splitting between these states is still about 1 MeV ($`1^{}`$ state is $`49.9`$ MeV and the $`2^{}`$ state is $`48.9`$ MeV). The employed $`\stackrel{}{R}`$ values are 0.0, 1.0, 2.0 (fm) for the $`x`$-direction (perpendicular to the $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ direction) and 0.0, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 (fm) for the $`z`$-direction ($`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ direction).

Therefore, to improve this discrepancy, we next include the basis states with $`S_z=1`$; $`\mathrm{\Phi }(3/2^{},1/2^+)`$. The $`S_z=1`$ basis state generates $`K^\pi =2^{}`$ band. As a result of the calculation, the energy of the $`2^{}`$ state with $`K^\pi =2^{}`$ (spin triplet) is found to be accidentally close to the energy of the $`2^{}`$ state with $`K^\pi =1^{}`$ projected from the $`S_z=0`$ basis states. Thus, the coupling effect between the $`S_z=0`$ basis states and the $`S_z=1`$ basis states is larger for the $`2^{}`$ state than for the $`1^{}`$ state, and the energy splitting becomes comparable to the experimental one. To see this effect, we superpose many $`S_z=1`$ basis states characterized by the Gaussian center $`\stackrel{}{R}`$; $`\varphi _{c2}\chi _{c2}=G_\stackrel{}{R}|n`$. When we include many states with different $`\stackrel{}{R}`$ values in our bases states, the energies become $`51.6`$ MeV ($`1^{}`$) and $`51.2`$ MeV ($`2^{}`$). The employed $`\stackrel{}{R}`$ values are 0.1, 1.0, 2.0 (fm) for the $`x`$-direction and 0.0, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 (fm) for the $`z`$-direction. The experimental small level splitting between $`1^{}`$ and $`2^{}`$ is found to be evidence of the spin vibration in the $`2^{}`$ state.

### C The structure of 12Be

The large contribution of this spin-orbit interaction will be discussed concerning 12Be. In the previous subsection, we have discussed for 10Be that this effect is more important as the $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ becomes smaller, and in 12Be, we show that the distance is smaller than that of the second $`0^+`$ state of 10Be. In 12Be, four valence neutrons rotate around two $`\alpha `$ clusters and, mainly, two configurations are important for the $`0^+`$ ground state. One is $`(3/2^{})^2(1/2^{})^2`$ for the four valence neutrons, which corresponds to the closed $`p`$-shell configuration of the neutrons at the zero limit of the $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ distance. The other configuration is $`(3/2^{})^2(1/2^+)^2`$, where two of the four valence neutrons occupy the $`\sigma `$-orbit. It is necessary to compare the energy of these two configurations as a function of the $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ distance. The configurations of $`(3/2^{})^2(1/2^{})^2`$ and $`(3/2^{})^2(1/2^+)^2`$ are constructed as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(3/2^{},3/2^{},1/2^{},1/2^{})=𝒜[\varphi _1^{(\alpha )}\varphi _2^{(\alpha )}(\varphi _{c1}\chi _{c1})(\varphi _{c2}\chi _{c2})(\varphi _{c3}\chi _{c3})(\varphi _{c4}\chi _{c4})]$$
(20)
$$\varphi _{c1}\chi _{c1}=\{(p_x+ip_y)_{+a}+(p_x+ip_y)_a\}|n,$$
(21)
$$\varphi _{c2}\chi _{c2}=\{(p_xip_y)_{+a}+(p_xip_y)_a\}|n,$$
(22)
$$\varphi _{c3}\chi _{c3}=\{(p_xip_y)_{+a}+(p_xip_y)_a\}|n,$$
(23)
$$\varphi _{c4}\chi _{c4}=\{(p_x+ip_y)_{+a}+(p_x+ip_y)_a\}|n,$$
(24)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }(3/2^{},3/2^{},1/2^+,1/2^+)=𝒜[\varphi _1^{(\alpha )}\varphi _2^{(\alpha )}(\varphi _{c1}\chi _{c1})(\varphi _{c2}\chi _{c2})(\varphi _{c3}\chi _{c3})(\varphi _{c4}\chi _{c4})]$$
(25)
$$\varphi _{c1}\chi _{c1}=\{(p_x+ip_y)_{+a}+(p_x+ip_y)_a\}|n,$$
(26)
$$\varphi _{c2}\chi _{c2}=\{(p_xip_y)_{+a}+(p_xip_y)_a\}|n,$$
(27)
$$\varphi _{c3}\chi _{c3}=\{(\stackrel{}{p})_{+a}(\stackrel{}{p})_a\}|na=d/2,$$
(28)
$$\varphi _{c4}\chi _{c4}=\{(\stackrel{}{p})_{+a}(\stackrel{}{p})_a\}|na=d/2.$$
(29)
The dotted line in Fig. 3 shows $`0^+`$ energies of $`(3/2^{})^2(1/2^+)^2`$ and the dashed line shows $`(3/2^{})^2(1/2^{})^2`$ with respect to the $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ distance.

————-

Fig. 3

————-

When the $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ distance is small, for example 2 fm, the dominant configuration of the four valence neutrons is $`(3/2^{})^2(1/2^{})^2`$ for the ground state, which corresponds to the closed $`p`$-shell configuration at the limit of the $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ distance, zero. On the other hand, the $`(3/2^{})^2(1/2^+)^2`$ configuration for the four valence neutrons becomes lower as the $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ distance is increased. However, it is still higher than the $`(3/2^{})^2(1/2^{})^2`$ configuration by a few MeV. Here, we show the importance of the coupling between the $`(3/2^{})^2(1/2^+)^2`$ configuration and the spin-triplet state for the last two neutrons ($`(1/2^+)^2`$). The spin-triplet state for $`(1/2^+)^2`$ is introduced as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(3/2^{},3/2^{},1/2^+,G_\stackrel{}{R}|)=𝒜[\varphi _1^{(\alpha )}\varphi _2^{(\alpha )}(\varphi _{c1}\chi _{c1})(\varphi _{c2}\chi _{c2})(\varphi _{c3}\chi _{c3})(\varphi _{c4}\chi _{c4})]$$
(30)
$$\varphi _{c1}\chi _{c1}=\{(p_x+ip_y)_{+a}+(p_x+ip_y)_a\}|n,$$
(31)
$$\varphi _{c2}\chi _{c2}=\{(p_xip_y)_{+a}+(p_xip_y)_a\}|n,$$
(32)
$$\varphi _{c3}\chi _{c3}=\{(\stackrel{}{p})_{+a}(\stackrel{}{p})_a\}|na=d/2,$$
(33)
$$\varphi _{c4}\chi _{c4}=G_\stackrel{}{R}|n.$$
(34)
The coupling between the $`(3/2^{})^2(1/2^+)^2`$ configuration and the spin-triplet states is shown in Fig. 4 as a function of the parameter $`\stackrel{}{R}`$.

————-

Fig. 4

————-

The point on the $`x`$-$`z`$ plain in Fig. 4 shows the Gaussian-center $`\stackrel{}{R}`$ in the spin-triplet state. The contour map shows the energy calculated by taking into account this coupling with the spin-triplet state. This $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ distance is 3 fm, and this optimal distance is smaller than that for the second $`0^+`$ state of 10Be by about 1 fm, since two of the four valence neutrons occupy the $`(3/2^{})^2`$ configuration and increase the binding energy of the system. Because of this effect, the coupling effect of the spin-triplet states is more important than in the case of the second $`0^+`$ state of 10Be. The minimal point of the surface shows that the energy gain due to the couplings is about 4 MeV in 12Be.

The solid line in Fig. 3 shows the $`0^+`$ energy calculated by taking into account the coupling effect between the $`(3/2^{})^2(1/2^+)^2`$ configuration and the $`S_z=0,1`$ basis states for the last two valence neutrons. Due to the spin-orbit coupling, the energy is almost the same as that of $`(3/2^{})^2(1/2^{})^2`$ corresponding to the closed $`p`$-shell configuration. Furthermore, the energy of $`(3/2^{})^2(1/2^+)^2`$ is suggested to become even lower than $`(3/2^{})^2(1/2^{})^2`$ when the pairing effect between $`(3/2^{})^2`$ and $`(1/2^{})^2`$ is taken into account. These effects plays crucial roles in accounting for breaking of the $`N=8`$ magic number.

## IV CONCLUSION

The second $`0^+`$ state of 10Be has been shown to be characterized by the $`\sigma `$-orbit of the two valence neutrons in terms of the molecular orbit (MO) model. The two valence neutrons stay along the $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ axis (the $`1/2^+`$ orbit) and reduce the kinetic energy by enlarging the $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ distance. This simple description for the second $`0^+`$ state gives a higher excitation energy by 5 MeV compared to the experimental one. To improve the description, spin-triplet basis states which have not been included in the traditional MO models are prepared by allowing a deviation of the neutron orbit from one just along the $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ axis. Thus, the spin-orbit interaction can be taken into account, and the calculated second $`0^+`$ state becomes lower by 3.5 MeV. The precise description of the neutron-tail also decreases the excitation energy by 1.5 MeV. The discrepancy between the experimental excitation energy and the calculated one is compensated by these two effects.

The spin-mixing effects were studied for the negative parity state of 10Be. If we restrict ourselves to the $`S_z=0`$ basis state, this energy splitting between the $`1^{}`$ state and $`2^{}`$ state is about 1 MeV, which is much larger than the experimental value of 303 keV. As a result of adding basis states with $`S_z=1`$, where the spin directions of the two valence neutrons are the same, the $`K`$-mixing occurs especially for the $`2^{}`$ state. The contribution of the $`S_z=1`$ state is larger for the $`2^{}`$ state. The resultant energy splitting becomes comparable to the experimental one. Therefore, the experimental small level splitting between $`1^{}`$ and $`2^{}`$ is considered to be a result of the spin vibration induced by the spin-orbit interaction in the $`2^{}`$ state.

The coupling with the spin-triplet basis states is also important in the case of 12Be. Without the spin-triplet basis state, the energy of the configuration $`(3/2^{})^2(1/2^+)^2`$ is much higher than that of the closed $`p`$-shall configuration ($`(3/2^{})^2(1/2^{})^2`$) by 4 MeV. However, the energy of $`(3/2^{})^2(1/2^+)^2`$ is drastically decreased by coupling with the spin-triplet states. This is because the effect becomes stronger as the $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ distance becomes shorter, and 12Be has an optimal $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ distance around 3 fm, which is smaller than the second $`0^+`$ state of 10Be by 1 fm. The study shows that an energy of $`(3/2^{})^2(1/2^+)^2`$ is almost the same as $`(3/2^{})^2(1/2^{})^2`$, or even lower. This effect is suggested to play a crucial role in accounting for the dissipation of the $`N=8`$ magic number in 12Be. It is an interesting subject to analyze the binding mechanism and properties of the ground state by taking into account the pairing mixing among states with configurations of $`(3/2^{})^2(1/2^{})^2`$, $`(3/2^{})^2(1/2^+)^2`$, and $`(1/2^{})^2(1/2^+)^2`$. A detail analysis is going to be performed not only for this state, but also for excited states where new states with cluster structure have been recently observed.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors would like to thank Prof. I. Tanihata for various effective suggestions. They also thank other members of RI beam science laboratory in RIKEN for discussions and encouragements. One of the authors (N.I) thanks fruitful discussions with Prof. R. Lovas, Prof. H. Horiuchi, Prof. T. Otsuka, Prof. Y. Abe, Prof. K. Katō, Prof. K. Yabana, Dr. A. Ohnishi, and Dr. Y. Kanada-En’yo.


text:
# Macroscopic Quantum Self-trapping and Atomic Tunneling in Two-species Bose-Einstein Condensates

## I Introduction

Recently, much attention has been paid to the investigations of systems consisting of two weakly interacting Bose-Einstein condensates \[1-17\] due to the appearance of quantum interference \[18-34\] and new macroscopic quantum phenomena \[35-37\]. In principle, such condensate systems can be produced in a double trap with two condensates coupled by quantum tunneling and ground collisions, or in a system with two different magnetic sublevels of an atom, in which case the two species condensates correspond two electronic states involved. The coupling between two condensates could be realized by the near-resonant dipole-dipole interaction.

The first experiment  involving interactions between two condensates was performed with atoms evaporatively cooled in the $`|F=2,M_f=2`$ and $`|1,1`$ spin states of $`{}_{}{}^{87}Rb`$. One of the latest experimental advances  in this direction is the realization of measurements of relative phase in two-component Bose-Einstein condensates. In experiments at JILA , two condensates in two different internal atomic states are produced by using a single two-photon coupling pulse. The two condensates have a well defined relative phase. After a time during which the condensates evolve in the trapping potentials, the two condensates interfere through mixing coherently the two internal atomic states. Then, the relative phase of the two condensates is obtained from the spatial interference pattern. The realization of measurements of the relative phase between two condensates opened the fascinating possibility of experimentally examing the phase-related phenomena in Bose condensates, such as atomic Josephson effect and macroscopic quantum self-trapping (MQST) .

Theoretical studies of such systems began in Ho and Shenoy’s work  which shown that binary mixtures of condensates of alkali atoms have a great variety of ground state and vortex structures. Then, the stability and collective excitations of two-species condensate systems  have been extensively studied. More recently, Smerzi and coworkers  have shown that the in a system of two Bose condensates the quantum coherent atomic tunneling between two condensates induces two types of interesting effects. One is an atomic Josephson effect in Bose condensates, which  is a generalization of the sinusoidal Josephson effects familiar in superconductors. The other is macroscopic quantum self-trapping (MQST), which is a kind of a self-locked population imbalance between two Bose condensates. It arises because of the interatomic nonlinear self-interaction. The MQST has a quantum nature, involving the coherence of a macroscopic number of atoms in the two condensates. It has been known that the MQST depends upon the trap parameters, the total atoms and initial states of the system and is self-maintained in a closed conserved system without external drives. As pointed out in Ref., it is easier to observe the MQST in Bose condensates than self-trapping phenomena in other systems, such as the single-electron Coulomb Blockade effect  arising from the Coulomb interaction between electrons, single polaron trapping in a medium  which arises from single electrons, interacting with a polarizable lattice, and external gravitational effects on He II baths .

In Ref., Smerzi and coworkers only considered the MQST induced by interatomic nonlinear self-interaction in each condensate. However, in a system consisting of two Bose condensates, there are not only nonlinear self-interaction but also interspecies nonlinear interaction. Questions that naturally arise are, what is the effect of the interspecies nonlinear interaction on the MQST and quantum coherent atomic tunneling? Does interspecies nonlinear interaction strengthen or weaken the MQST and the atomic tunneling current between them?

In this paper, we present a theoretical treatment of the MQST and the quantum coherent atomic tunneling in a more general two-species Bose condensate system in terms of a two-mode approximate model and the rotating wave approximation. Our treatment involves not only the interatomic nonlinear self-interaction in each species but also the interspecies nonlinear interaction. We find that the presence of the interspecies nonlinear interaction gives rise to new insight to the MQST and the atomic tunneling between the two condensates. This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we establish our model and present an approximate analytic solution. In Sec. III, we discuss the collapse and revival (CR) phenomenon on population imbalance between two condensates. In Sec. IV, we investigate the MQST in the two-condensate system, and discuss the dependence of the MQST upon the initial states and the tunneling interaction and the nonlinear interactions. In Sec. V, we study quantum dynamics of the atomic tunneling current and its $`dc`$ characteristics. We shall conclude our paper with discussions and remarks in the last section.

## II Model and Solution

We consider a zero-temperature two-species Bose condensate system in which the atoms interact via $`aa`$ and $`bb`$ and $`ab`$ elastic collisions, and there is a Josephson-like coupling term denoted by $`a^{}b`$ and $`ab^{}`$. In the formalism of the second quantization, Hamiltonian of such a system can be written as

$`\widehat{H}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{H}_1+\widehat{H}_2+\widehat{H}_{int}+\widehat{H}_{Jos},`$ (1)
$`\widehat{H}_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d𝐱\widehat{\psi }_i^{}(𝐱)[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}^2+V_i(𝐱)`$ (3)
$`+U_i\widehat{\psi }_i^{}(𝐱)\widehat{\psi }_i(𝐱)]\widehat{\psi }_i(𝐱),(i=1,2),`$
$`\widehat{H}_{int}`$ $`=`$ $`U_{12}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐱\widehat{\psi }_1^{}(𝐱)\widehat{\psi }_2^{}(𝐱)\widehat{\psi }_1(𝐱)\widehat{\psi }_2(𝐱)},`$ (4)
$`\widehat{H}_{Jos}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐱[\widehat{\psi }_1^{}(𝐱)\widehat{\psi }_2(𝐱)+\widehat{\psi }_1(𝐱)\widehat{\psi }_2^{}(𝐱)]},`$ (5)
where $`\widehat{\psi }_i(𝐱)`$ and $`\widehat{\psi }_i^{}(𝐱)`$ are the atomic field operators which annihilate and create atoms at position $`𝐱`$, respectively, they satisfy the commutation relation

$$[\widehat{\psi }_i(𝐱),\widehat{\psi }_j^{}(𝐱^{})]=\delta _{ij}\delta (𝐱𝐱^{}).$$
(6)
In Eq.(1), $`\widehat{H}_1`$ and $`\widehat{H}_2`$ describe the evolution of each condensate in the absence of interspecies interaction. $`\widehat{H}_{int}`$ describes interspecies collisions. $`\widehat{H}_{Jos}`$ is the Josephson-like tunneling coupling term. Atoms are confined in harmonic potentials $`V_i(𝐱)(i=1,2)`$ of frequencies $`\omega _i`$. Interactions between atoms are described by a nonlinear self-interaction term $`U_i=4\pi \mathrm{}^2a_i^{sc}/m`$ and a term that corresponds the nonlinear interaction between different condensates $`U_{12}=4\pi \mathrm{}^2a_{12}^{sc}/m`$, where $`a_i^{sc}`$ is $`s`$-wave scattering length of condensate $`i`$ and $`a_{12}^{sc}`$ that between condensate 1 and 2. For simplicity, throughout this paper we let $`\mathrm{}=1`$ and assume that $`a_1^{sc}=a_2^{sc}=a^{sc}`$, and $`V_1(𝐱)=V_2(𝐱)`$.

It is well known that the above Hamiltonian can be reduced to two-mode boson Hamiltonian \[30-32, 35,36\] through expanding the atomic field operators over single-particle states :

$$\widehat{\psi }_i(𝐱)=\widehat{a}_i\varphi _{iN}(𝐱)+\stackrel{~}{\psi }_i(𝐱),$$
(7)
where $`\widehat{a}_i^{}=𝑑𝐱\varphi _{iN}(𝐱)\widehat{\psi }_i^{}(𝐱)`$ create particles with distributions $`\varphi _{iN}(𝐱)`$ with $`[\widehat{a}_i,\widehat{a}_i^{}]=1`$. The first term in the mode expansion (6) acts only on the condensate state vector, whereas the second term $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_i(𝐱)`$ accounts for noncondensed atoms. Substituting the mode expansions of the atomic field operators into the Hamiltonian (1), retaining only the first term representing the condensates, we arrive at the following two-mode approximate Hamiltonian

$`\widehat{H}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _0(\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_1+\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{a}_2)+q(\widehat{a}_1^2\widehat{a}_1^2+\widehat{a}_2^2\widehat{a}_2^2)`$ (9)
$`+g(\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_2+\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{a}_1)+2\chi \widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_1\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{a}_2,`$
where the frequency and the coupling constants are defined by

$`\omega _0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}{\displaystyle }d𝐱[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}|\varphi _{iN}(𝐱)|^2+V(𝐱)(|\varphi _{iN}(𝐱)|^2],`$ (10)
$`q`$ $`=`$ $`U_0{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐱(|\varphi _{1N}(𝐱)|^2+|\varphi _{2N}(𝐱)|^2)},`$ (11)
$`g`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐱(\varphi _{1N}^{}(𝐱)\varphi _{2N}(𝐱)+\varphi _{1N}(𝐱)\varphi _{2N}^{}(𝐱))},`$ (12)
$`\chi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}U_{12}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐱|\varphi _{1N}^{}(𝐱)|^2|\varphi _{2N}(𝐱)|^2}.`$ (13)
From Eqs.(6) and (7) we can see that the two-mode approximation essentially consists in neglecting all modes except the condensate modes. At zero temperature, this amounts to ignoring the atoms which have left the condensate mode due to the two-body interactions. In other words, what the two-mode approximation involves is only the first order effects of interactions. The mode expansion of the condensate function over single-particle states (6) makes the condensate shape not to be changed, this limits migration of condensed atoms from one condensate to the other. The constraint on the shapes of condensates implies that the two-mode approximation can be applied only for weak nonlinearity. The valid conditions of the two-mode approximation were demonstrated in Refs., which indicate that this approximation provides a reasonably accurate picture for weak many-body interactions , i.e., for small number of condensed atoms. For large condensates, the mode functions of condensates are altered due to the collisional interactions, and the two-mode approximation breaks down. As shown in Ref., a simple estimate shows that this happens when the number of atoms $`Na^{sc}r_0`$, where $`a^{sc}`$ is a typical scattering length and $`r_0`$ is a measure of the trap size. If we consider a large trap with the size $`r_0=10\mu `$m and the typical scattering length $`a^{sc}=5`$ nm, the two-mode approximation is applicable for $`N2000`$. This is the case which we consider here. We shall show that the MQST and atomic tunneling between the two condensates are strongly affected by the nonlinear many-body interactions.

We note that the two-mode approximate Hamiltonian has the same form with that of a two-mode nonlinear optical directional coupler . The two-mode Hamiltonian (7) can not be exactly solved, but for weak nonlinear interactions a closed analytical solution can be obtained under the rotating wave approximation suggested by Alodjanc et al. .

In order to obtain an approximate analytic solution of the Hamiltonian (7), we introduce a new pair of bosonic operators $`\widehat{A}_1`$ and $`\widehat{A}_2`$ by the following expressions::

$$\widehat{a}_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\widehat{A}_1e^{igt}i\widehat{A}_2e^{igt}),\widehat{a}_2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\widehat{A}_1e^{igt}+i\widehat{A}_2e^{igt}),$$
(14)
where $`\widehat{A}_1`$ and $`\widehat{A}_2`$ are slowly varying operators, they satisfy the usual bosonic commutation relations: $`[\widehat{A}_i,\widehat{A}_j]=0`$, and $`[\widehat{A}_i,\widehat{A}_j^{}]=\delta _{ij}`$ with $`\widehat{A}_i^{}`$ being the hermitain conjugation of $`\widehat{A}_j`$. Then the Hamiltonian (7) reduces to the following form

$`\widehat{H}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega \widehat{N}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}q[3\widehat{N}^2(\widehat{A}_1^{}\widehat{A}_1\widehat{A}_2^{}\widehat{A}_2)^2]`$ (17)
$`+g(\widehat{A}_1^{}\widehat{A}_1\widehat{A}_2^{}\widehat{A}_2)+{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{2}}\widehat{N}^2`$
$`\chi \widehat{A}_1^{}\widehat{A}_1\widehat{A}_2^{}\widehat{A}_2+\widehat{H}^{},`$
where the detuning is given by $`\omega =\omega _0(\chi +q)/2`$, the total number operator $`\widehat{N}`$ is a conserved constant which is given by

$$\widehat{N}=\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_1+\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{a}_2=\widehat{A}_1^{}\widehat{A}_1+\widehat{A}_2^{}\widehat{A}_2,$$
(18)
and $`\widehat{H}^{}`$ is a nonresonant term which is given by

$$\widehat{H}_1^{}=\frac{1}{2}(\chi q)(\widehat{A}_1^2\widehat{A}_2^2e^{i4gt}+\widehat{A}_2^2\widehat{A}_1^2e^{i4gt}),$$
(19)
which oscillates at the frequency $`4g`$. The account of the fast oscillating term results only in some addtional oscillations which play no essential role in the evolution of the measurable quantities specifying the macroscopic quantum phenomena of the two-condensate system, so that it is fully negligible. This means the rotating wave approximation . After neglecting the nonresonant term $`H^{}`$, we get the following approximate Hamiltonian:

$`\widehat{H}_A`$ $`=`$ $`\omega \widehat{N}+g(\widehat{A}_1^{}\widehat{A}_1\widehat{A}_2^{}\widehat{A}_2)`$ (22)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}q[3\widehat{N}^2(\widehat{A}_1^{}\widehat{A}_1\widehat{A}_2^{}\widehat{A}_2)^2]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\chi \widehat{N}^2\chi \widehat{A}_1^{}\widehat{A}_1\widehat{A}_2^{}\widehat{A}_2.`$
In order to solve the Hamiltonian (16) we introduce two Fock spaces of $`(\widehat{A}_1,\widehat{A}_2)`$ and $`(\widehat{a}_1,\widehat{a}_2)`$ in which the bases are defined by

$`|n,m)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{n!m!}}}\widehat{A}_1^n\widehat{A}_2^m|0,0),`$ (23)
$`|n,m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{n!m!}}}\widehat{a}_1^n\widehat{a}_2^m|0,0.`$ (24)
where $`n`$ and $`m`$ take non-negative integers. Obviously, $`\widehat{H}_A`$ is diagonal in the Fock space of $`(\widehat{A}_1,\widehat{A}_2)`$, and we find that

$`\widehat{H}_A|n,m)`$ $`=`$ $`E(n,m)|n,m),`$ (25)
$`E(n,m)`$ $`=`$ $`\omega (n+m)+g(nm)`$ (28)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(3q+\chi )(n+m)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}q(nm)^2`$
$`\chi nm.`$
Consider two coherent states defined in Fock spaces of $`(\widehat{A}_1,\widehat{A}_2)`$ and $`(\widehat{a}_1,\widehat{a}_2)`$, respectively,

$`|\alpha _1,\alpha _2`$ $`=`$ $`D_{\widehat{a}_1}(\alpha _1)D_{\widehat{a}_2}(\alpha _2)|0,0,`$ (29)
$`|u_1,u_2)`$ $`=`$ $`D_{\widehat{A}_1}(u_1)D_{\widehat{A}_2}(u_2)|0,0),`$ (30)
where $`D_{\widehat{a}_i}(\alpha _i)`$ and $`D_{\widehat{A}_i}(u_i)`$ are displacement operators defined by

$`D_{\widehat{a}_i}(\alpha _i)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(\alpha _i\widehat{a}_i+\alpha _i^{}\widehat{a}_i^{}),`$ (31)
$`D_{\widehat{A}_i}(u_i)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(u_i\widehat{A}_i+u_i^{}\widehat{A}_i^{}).`$ (32)
Note the fact that $`|0,0)=|0,0`$, we can find a useful relation to connect $`|\alpha _1,\alpha _2`$ and $`|u_1,u_2)`$ with each other

$`|\alpha _1,\alpha _2`$ $`=`$ $`|{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1+\alpha _2}{\sqrt{2}}},{\displaystyle \frac{i(\alpha _1\alpha _2)}{\sqrt{2}}}),`$ (33)
$`|\alpha _1,\alpha _2)`$ $`=`$ $`|{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1i\alpha _2}{\sqrt{2}}},{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1+i\alpha _2}{\sqrt{2}}}.`$ (34)
Following the arguments of Bose broken symmetry, we assume that the two condensates are initially in the coherent states $`|\alpha _1`$ and $`|\alpha _2`$, which are eigenstates of $`\widehat{a}_1`$ and $`\widehat{a}_2`$, respectively. Then the wave function of the two species condensate system at time $`t`$ can be explicitly expressed as

$`|\mathrm{\Phi }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{1}{2}N}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{n!m!}}}u_1^n(iu_2)^m`$ (36)
$`\times e^{iE(n,m)t}|n,m),`$
where

$`u_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\alpha _1+\alpha _2),u_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\alpha _1\alpha _2)`$ (37)
$`N`$ $`=`$ $`|\alpha _1|^2+|\alpha _2|^2=|u_1|^2+|u_2|^2,`$ (38)
where we have used Eqs.(25), (26) in the derivation of Eq.(27).

## III collapse and revivals of Population imbalance

In this section we show that the two condensate system under our consideration exhibits a collapse and revival phenomenon of population imbalance between two condensates. Denote the number difference of atoms between the two condensates by

$$D(t)=N_1(t)N_2(t).$$
(39)
Then from Eq.(27) we can find that at time $`t`$, the number of atoms in each condensate $`N_i(t)=\widehat{a}_i^{}\widehat{a}_i`$ is given by

$`N_i(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{N(1)^i2|u_1||u_2|\mathrm{cos}[4gt+\theta (t)]`$ (41)
$`\times e^{2N\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{1}{2}(q\chi )t}\},(i=1,2)`$
where we have used the following symbols:

$$u_i=|u_i|e^{i\phi _{u_i}},\theta (t)=(\phi _{u_2}\phi _{u_1})+u_{21}\mathrm{sin}(q\chi )t,$$
(42)
with $`u_{21}`$ and $`\phi _{u_i}`$ being defined by

$`u_{21}`$ $`=`$ $`|u_2|^2|u_1|^2,`$ (43)
$`\phi _{u_i}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tan}^1\{{\displaystyle \frac{|\alpha _1|\mathrm{sin}\phi _1(1)^i|\alpha _2|\mathrm{sin}\phi _2}{|\alpha _1|\mathrm{cos}\phi _1(1)^i|\alpha _2|\mathrm{cos}\phi _2}}\}.`$ (44)
Then, the population difference is given by

$`D(t)`$ $`=`$ $`2|u_1||u_2|\mathrm{cos}[4gt+\theta (t)]`$ (46)
$`\times e^{2N\mathrm{sin}^2(\frac{1}{2}(q\chi )t},`$
where $`N=|\alpha _1|^2+|\alpha _2|^2`$ is the total number of the atoms in the two condensates. Eq.(35) indicates that the population imbalance periodically oscillates with the time evolution. From Eq.(35) we can see that $`D(t)`$ exhibits collapse and revival phenomenon which is a kind of nonclassical effect well known in the Jaynes-Cummings model  to describe interaction between a single-mode radiation field and a two-level atom. The CR is also found in a Bose condensate system . From Eq.(35) we see that the CR of the population imbalance in the two-condensate system depends on the tunneling interaction ($`g`$) and interatomic nonlinear interactions ($`q`$ and $`\chi `$). When $`g>|q\chi |/8`$, since the function $`\mathrm{cos}[4gt+\theta (t)]`$ is the rapidly varying part in (35), so that the shape of the CR is determined by the envelope function $`\mathrm{exp}[2N\mathrm{sin}^2(\frac{1}{2}(q\chi )t]`$. The maximal revivals take place at time $`t=2n\pi /|q\chi |`$, where $`n`$ is an integer. When $`g<|q\chi |/8`$, the function $`\mathrm{exp}[2N\mathrm{sin}^2(\frac{1}{2}(q\chi )t]`$ becomes the rapidly varying part in (35), the CR then is determined by the envelope function $`\mathrm{cos}[4gt+\theta (t)]`$. In Fig. 1 we plot the evolution of the population difference between the two condensates with respect to the time which is in units of $`|q\chi |`$, when the two condensates are in the initial state of $`\alpha _1=5`$ and $`\alpha _2=4`$, and the tunneling coupling is $`g=25|q\chi |`$. Fig. 1 clearly indicates the CR phenomenon of the population difference.

It is worthwhile to note that when $`q=\chi `$, the population difference (35) becomes

$$D(t)=2|u_1||u_2|\mathrm{cos}[4gt+(\phi _{u_2}\phi _{u_1})],$$
(47)
which is a simple sinusoidal oscillation, no CR occurs. The suppression of the CR can be explained by looking at the expression (35) which indicates that both the self-interaction ($`q`$) and the interspecies interaction ($`\chi `$) can induce the CR, but the CR produced by one can weaken that by another. It is the CR produced by the self-interaction completely counteracts the CR by the interspecies interaction that leads to the suppression of the CR.

When there is no nonlinear interactions, i.e., $`q=\chi =0`$, from Eq.(35) it is easy to find that the population imbalance has the same form with that of the case $`q=\chi 0`$. This means that the CR vanishes when the nonlinearity vanishes. Hence, the CR of the population imbalance is a consequence of nonlinear interactions in condensates. The CR of the oscillatory transfer of atoms between the two condensates constitutes a novel macroscopic quantum phenomenon induced by interatomic nonlinear interactions for the two species condensate system.

## IV Macroscopic Quantum Self-trapping

In this section we are concerned with the MQST. The MQST effect is characterized by the nonzero time mean value of the fractional population imbalance between the two condensates defined by

$$p(t)=\frac{N_1(t)N_2(t)}{N}.$$
(48)
From Eqs.(35) and (37) we get that

$`p(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2|u_1||u_2|}{N}}\mathrm{cos}[4gt+\theta (t)]`$ (50)
$`\times e^{2N\mathrm{sin}^2(\frac{1}{2}(q\chi ))t}.`$
In order to investigate the MQST, we expand the above equation as

$`p(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2|u_1||u_2|}{N}}e^N{\displaystyle \underset{n,m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}J_n(u_{21})I_m(N)`$ (53)
$`\times \mathrm{cos}\{[(n+m)(q\chi )+4g]t`$
$`+(\phi _{u_2}\phi _{u_1})\},`$
where $`J_n(A)`$ and $`I_n(A)`$ are Bessel function and modified Bessel function. From Eq.(35) it is easy to find that when the tunneling interaction and nonlinear interactions satisfy the condition:

$$4g=K(\chi q),$$
(54)
where $`K`$ is an integer, we can get a nonzero time-averaged value of population imbalance

$`\overline{p}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2|u_1||u_2|}{N}}e^N{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}J_n(u_{21})I_{Kn}(N)`$ (56)
$`\times \mathrm{cos}(\phi _{u_2}\phi _{u_1}),`$
which indicates the existence of the MQST. Eq.(40) is the condition under which the MQST happens.

From Eq.(39) we can see that when the tunneling interaction vanishes and nonlinear self-interaction equals nonlinear interspecies interaction, i.e., $`g=0`$ and $`q=\chi `$, we arrive at a constant population imbalance

$$p(t)=\frac{2|u_1||u_2|}{N}\mathrm{cos}(\phi _{u_2}\phi _{u_1}).$$
(57)
This is a time-independent state, called the self-trapping stationary state, which is the consequence of competing between nonlinear self-interaction and nonlinear interspecies interaction.

When there exists the tunneling coupling, i.e., $`g0`$, from Eq.(40) we can find the critical value of the tunneling coupling at which the MQST happens $`g_c=|q\chi |/4`$. This critical value $`g_c`$ depends upon only the difference between the nonlinear self-interaction and interspecies nonlinear interaction, not the nonlinear self-interaction and interspecies nonlinear interaction themselves. Therefore, it becomes possible that the MQST occurs only when the tunneling coupling equals or exceeds the critical value $`g_c`$.

In Fig.2 we plot the time evolution of the fractional population imbalance when the two condensates are in the initial state of $`\alpha _1=10`$ and $`\alpha _2=0`$ for (a) $`K=1`$, (b) $`K=20`$. Here the time is in units of $`|q\chi |`$. From Fig.2 (a) and (b) we can see that the weaker the tunneling coupling $`(g)`$, the more apparent the MQST becomes. This indicates that the MQST is an effect induced by interatomic nonlinear interactions $`q`$ and $`\chi `$ not the tunneling interaction $`(g)`$. In what follows we shall discuss the dependence of the MQST in detail upon the initial states and nonlinear interactions for specific cases.

A. The initial state dependence

We here discuss the dependence of the MQST on the initial states of the two condensates in the following four cases.

Case 1: $`|\alpha _1|=|\alpha _2|`$, $`\phi _1\phi _2`$. In this case, the two condensates initially have the same number of atoms but different phases. From Eq.(32) and (33) we get that $`|u_1|^2=N\mathrm{cos}^2[(\phi _1\phi _2)/2]`$, $`|u_2|^2=N\mathrm{sin}^2[(\phi _1\phi _2)/2]`$, and $`u_{21}=N\mathrm{cos}(\phi _1\phi _2)`$. Making use of Eq.(28), from Eqs.(35) and we can see that the fractional population periodically evolves with respect to time, $`p(t)0`$ except that $`\phi _1\phi _2=n\pi `$, where $`n`$ is an integer. If $`4g/(\chi q)=K`$ (an integer), we get the locked population imbalance

$`\overline{p}`$ $`=`$ $`|\mathrm{sin}(\phi _1\phi _2)|\mathrm{cos}(\phi _{u_1}\phi _{u_2})e^N`$ (59)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}J_n(N\mathrm{cos}(\phi _1\phi _2))I_{Kn}(N),`$
which implies that the MQST does exist, even if the two condensates initially have the same number of the atoms provided that they have different initial phases. And less the total atomic number is, stronger the MQST becomes.

Case 2: $`|\alpha _1||\alpha _2|`$, $`\phi _1=\phi _2`$. In this case the two condensates initially have the same phases but the different number of atoms. From Eq.(38) we see that when $`4g/(\chi q)=K`$ (an integer), the MQST occurs with the following locked population imbalance:

$$\overline{p}=\frac{|\alpha _1|^2+|\alpha _2|^2}{2N}e^N\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}J_n(2|\alpha _1|\alpha _2|)I_{Kn}(N).$$
(60)
Case 3: $`N=|\alpha _1|^2`$, $`|\alpha _2|=0`$. In this case, the system starts with all atoms being in one condensate. Making use of Eq.(28), we get that $`u_1=u_2=\alpha _1/\sqrt{2}`$, and $`\theta (t)=0`$. The fractional population evolution is given by

$$p(t)=e^N\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}I_n(N)\mathrm{cos}\{[n(q\chi )+4g]t,$$
(61)
So that when the tunneling interaction and the nonlinear interactions satisfy the relation $`4g/(\chi q)=K`$ (an integer), we can see the appearance of the MQST with the locked population imbalance

$$\overline{p}=e^NI_K(N).$$
(62)
Case 4: $`|\alpha _1|=|\alpha _2|`$ and $`\phi _1=\phi _2`$. In this case the two condensates initially have the same number of atoms and the same phases. From Eq.(28) we have $`u_2=0`$. Making use of Eq.(38) we can see that the oscillations of the population imbalance vanish, i.e., $`p(t)=0`$, and no MQST occurs. This is in agreement with the result in Ref..

B. The dependence on nonlinear interactions

Then, we turn to the dependence of the MQST upon the tunneling coupling ($`g`$) and the nonlinear interactions between atoms, which are described by the parameters $`q`$ and $`\chi `$ corresponding to self-interactions and interspecies interactions, respectively.

Case 1: $`g=0`$, $`q0`$, and $`\chi 0`$. In this case there is no tunneling interaction, but there exists interatomic nonlinear interactions. From Eq.(39) we find that the fractional population imbalance becomes

$`p(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2|u_1||u_2|}{N}}e^N{\displaystyle \underset{n,m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}J_n(u_{21})I_m(N)`$ (64)
$`\times \mathrm{cos}\{[(n+m)(q\chi )]t+(\phi _{u_2}\phi _{u_1})\},`$
which indicates that no MQST occurs if the coupling of interatomic self-interaction does not equals that of interspecies nonlinear interaction, i.e., $`q\chi `$. However, when the self-interaction equals the interspecies interaction, i.e., $`q=\chi `$, we can observe the self-trapping stationary state with a constant population imbalance $`p(t)=p(0)`$.

Case 2: $`g0`$, $`q=\chi =0`$. In this case, we consider only the effect of the tunneling coupling while the interatomic nonlinear interactions are not involved. Eq.(38) tells us that the MQST does not occur, although there exists oscillations of the population imbalance between the two condensates. This further confirms the validity of Smerzi et al.’s conclusion  which the MQST arises from the interatomic nonlinear interaction.

Case 3: $`g0`$, and $`q=\chi 0`$. In this case there exist both the tunneling interaction and the nonlinear interactions, but self-interaction equals interspecies interaction. Frme Eq.(38) we can find that the population imbalance exhibits a simple oscillation with

$$p(t)=\frac{2|u_1||u_2|}{N}e^N\mathrm{cos}[4gt+(\phi _{u_2}\phi _{u_1})],$$
(65)
which means that the MQST vanishes.

Case 4: $`g0`$, $`q0`$, $`\chi =0`$, or $`g0`$, $`q=0`$, $`\chi 0`$. In this case, there exist the tunneling interaction and one of the self-interaction and the interspecies interaction. It is easy to see that the fractional population imbalance Eq.(38) reduces to

$`p(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|u_1||u_2|}{N}}e^N{\displaystyle \underset{n,m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}J_n(u_{21})I_m(N)`$ (67)
$`\times \mathrm{cos}\{[(n+m)\kappa +4g]t+(\phi _{u_2}\phi _{u_1})\},`$
where $`\kappa =q`$ or $`\chi `$. Eq.(49) reflects the fact that when $`4g/\kappa =n+m=K`$ (an integer), the MQST happens with the nonzero $`\overline{p}`$ given by Eq.(41). This implies that both the nonlinear self-interaction in each condensate and the interspecies nonlinear interactions contribute to the MQST. Since the values of $`K`$ to determine $`\overline{p}`$ have opposite signs for the self-interaction ($`\chi `$) and the interspecies interaction ($`q`$), the MQST produced by the self-interaction can weaken that by the interspecies interaction. It is the competition between the MQST induced by the nonlinear self-interactions of each condensate and that by the interspecies nonlinear interaction that leads to the quenching of the MQST in the above case 3.

## V The Coherent Atomic Tunneling Current

In this section, we study quantum dynamics of the coherent atomic tunneling current between two condensates and its $`dc`$ characteristics, and discuss the influence of the initial state of condensates and the tunneling interaction and the nonlinear interactions. The coherent atomic tunneling current between the two condensates is defined by $`I(t)=\dot{N}_1(t)\dot{N}_2(t)`$. Making use of Eq.(31), it is straightforward to get that

$`I(t)`$ $`=`$ $`2|u_1||u_2|\{4g\mathrm{sin}(\theta (t))`$ (70)
$`+(q\chi )[|u_1|^2\mathrm{sin}((q\chi )t\theta (t))`$
$`+|u_2|^2\mathrm{sin}((q\chi )t+\theta (t))]\}.`$
This indicates that the atomic tunneling current periodically changes, atoms periodically transfer between the two condensates with the time evolution.

In order to see $`dc`$ characteristic of the atomic tunneling current, we expand the atomic tunneling current (50) as the following expression

$`I(t)`$ $`=`$ $`2|u_1||u_2|e^N{\displaystyle \underset{n,m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}\{8gJ_n(u_{21})`$ (74)
$`(q\chi )[|u_1|^2J_{n1}(u_{21})|u_2|^2J_{n+1}(u_{21})]\}`$
$`\times I_m(N)\mathrm{sin}\{[(m+n)(q\chi )+4g]t`$
$`+(\phi _{u_2}\phi _{u_1})\},`$
which implies that when the tunneling coupling, and nonlinear couplings satisfy the condition:

$$4g=K(\chi q),$$
(75)
we get the $`dc`$ component of the atomic tunneling current with the following form,

$`I_{dc}(K)`$ $`=`$ $`2|u_1||u_2|(q\chi )\mathrm{sin}(\phi _{u_2}\phi _{u_1})e^N`$ (78)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}\{2KJ_n(u_{21})[|u_1|^2J_{n1}(u_{21})`$
$`|u_2|^2J_{n+1}(u_{21})]\}I_{Kn}(N),`$
where $`K`$ is an integer. This indicates that the $`dc`$ component of the atomic tunneling current exhibits a step structure with respect to the integer $`K`$. This step structure is a resonant phenomenon among the tunneling interaction and nonlinear interactions with the resonant condition given by Eq.(51). It is the analogue of the Shapiro steps observed in the superconductor Josephson junction , so that we call the steps in the step structure of the $`dc`$ component of the atomic tunneling current the Shapiro-like steps. In what follows we discuss in detail the dependence of the atomic tunneling current and the Shapiro-like steps upon the initial states and nonlinear interactions for some specific cases.

A. The initial state dependence

In this subection we discuss the initial-state dependence of the atomic tunneling current and the Shapiro-like steps for the following four cases.

Case 1: $`|\alpha _1|=|\alpha _2|`$, $`\phi _1\phi _2`$. In this case, the two condensates initially have the same number of atoms but different phases. From Eq.(50) we can get the expression of the atomic tunneling current

$`I(t)`$ $`=`$ $`N|\mathrm{sin}(\phi _1\phi _2)|\{4g\mathrm{sin}(\theta (t))`$ (81)
$`+(q\chi )N[\mathrm{cos}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\phi _1\phi _2)\mathrm{sin}((q\chi )t\theta (t))`$
$`+\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\phi _1\phi _2)\mathrm{sin}((q\chi )t+\theta (t))]\},`$
where

$$\theta (t)=(\phi _{u_1}\phi _{u_2})N\mathrm{cos}(\phi _1\phi _2)\mathrm{sin}((q\chi )t.$$
(82)
Form Eq.(54) we can obtain the $`dc`$ component of the tunneling current with the following result,

$`I_{dc}(K)`$ $`=`$ $`N(q\chi )|\mathrm{sin}(\phi _1\phi _2)|\mathrm{sin}(\phi _{u_2}\phi _{u_1})`$ (87)
$`\times e^N{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}\{2KJ_n(N\mathrm{cos}(\phi _1\phi _2))`$
$`N[\mathrm{cos}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\phi _1\phi _2)J_{n1}(N\mathrm{cos}(\phi _1\phi _2))`$
$`\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\phi _1\phi _2)J_{n+1}(N\mathrm{cos}(\phi _1\phi _2))]\}`$
$`\times I_{Kn}(N),`$
where $`n`$ is an integer. Eq.(56) gives rise to the Shapiro-like steps of the atomic tunneling current.

It is interesting to note that when the initial phases of two condensates satisfy the condition: $`\phi _1\phi _2=n\pi `$, where $`n`$ is an integer, we can find zero atomic tunneling current. This means that the blockade of the atomic tunneling happens.

When the initial phases satisfy the relation: $`\phi _1\phi _2=(2n+1)\pi /2`$, $`n`$ being an integer, we find that

$`I(t)`$ $`=`$ $`4gN\mathrm{sin}(\phi _{u_2}\phi _{u_1})`$ (89)
$`+(q\chi )N\mathrm{cos}(\phi _{u_2}\phi _{u_1})\mathrm{sin}(2(q\chi )t),`$
which indicates that the atomic tunneling current is a simple superpositon of a alternating current with the sinusoidal oscillations and a $`dc`$ current. The $`dc`$ component is

$$I_{dc}=4gN\mathrm{sin}(\phi _{u_2}\phi _{u_1}),$$
(90)
which implies that the $`dc`$ component of the atomic tunneling current depends only upon the tunneling coupling, it is independent of the nonlinear interactions in two condensates, and increases linearly with the tunneling strength $`(g)`$ and the the total number of the atoms $`(N)`$. In this case no Shapiro-like steps appears.

Case 2: $`|\alpha _1||\alpha _2|`$, $`\phi _1=\phi _2`$. In this case, the two condensates initially have the same phases but the different number of atoms. The atomic tunneling current is given by

$`I(t)`$ $`=`$ $`|\alpha _1^2\alpha _2^2|\{4g\mathrm{sin}(\theta (t))`$ (93)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(q\chi )[(\alpha _1+\alpha _2)^2\mathrm{sin}((q\chi )t\theta (t))`$
$`+(\alpha _1\alpha _2)^2\mathrm{sin}(q\chi )t+\theta (t))]\},`$
where

$$\theta (t)=2\alpha _1\alpha _2\mathrm{sin}(q\chi )t.$$
(94)
And the $`dc`$ component of the atomic tunneling current has the following form,

$`I_{dc}(K)`$ $`=`$ $`|\alpha _1^2\alpha _2^2|(q\chi )\mathrm{sin}(\phi _{u_2}\phi _{u_1})`$ (98)
$`\times e^N{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}\{2KJ_n(2\alpha _1\alpha _2)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[(\alpha _1\alpha _2)^2J_{n1}(2\alpha _1\alpha _2)`$
$`(\alpha _1\alpha _2)^2J_{n+1}(2\alpha _1\alpha _2)]\}I_{Kn}(N).`$
In FIG. 3, we plot the time evolution of the atomic tunneling current between the two condensates. Results are shown for the case of $`g=0.25`$ and $`q\chi =0.1`$ when the two condensates are in the initial state with $`\alpha _1=5`$ and $`\alpha _2=4`$. FIG. 3 indicates that the atomic tunneling current exhibits complicated oscillating behaviors.

Case 3: $`N=|\alpha _1|^2`$, $`|\alpha _2|=0`$. In this case, the system starts with all atoms being in one condensate. Taking into account Eqs.(32) and (33), from Eq.(50) we find the atomic tunneling current to be

$$I(t)=(q\chi )N^2\mathrm{sin}(q\chi )t,$$
(99)
which is a pure sinusoidal alternating atomic current with the period $`T=2\pi /|q\chi |`$ without $`dc`$ component. It is worthwhile to note that the atomic tunneling current (62) depends on only the difference between the self-coupling $`q`$ and the interspecies coupling $`\chi `$, it is independent of the tunneling coupling $`g`$ at all. Thus, we can conclude that the nonlinear interactions can induce the atomic tunneling, even if there is no tunneling coupling between two condensates.

Case 4: $`|\alpha _1|=|\alpha _2|`$ and $`\phi _1=\phi _2`$. In this case, the two condensates initially have the same number of atoms and phases. we see that the atomic tunneling current vanishes, and no Shapiro-like step occurs.

The above analyses indicate that the atomic tunneling current and the Shapiro-like steps strongly depend on the initial number of atoms in each condensate and the initial phase difference between the two condensates.

B. The dependence on nonlinear interactions

In what follows we show that the interatomic nonlinear interactions also significantly affect the atomic tunneling current and the Shapiro-like steps.

If we consider only the influence of the tunneling coupling while the interatomic nonlinear interactions are not involved, i.e., $`g0`$, $`q=\chi =0`$, we find that

$$I(t)=8g|u_1||u_2|\mathrm{sin}[4gt+(\phi _{u_2}\phi _{u_1})].$$
(100)
This atomic tunneling current is a pure sinusoidally alternating atomic current with the period $`T=\pi /2g`$. without $`dc`$ component. Hence no Shapiro-like steps appears.

It is interesting to note that when the interatomic nonlinear interactions are involved, but $`q=\chi 0`$, we get the same results with those of the case of $`q=\chi =0`$ for the atomic tunneling current and the Shapiro-like steps. This indicates that the contributions of the nonlinear self-interaction ($`q`$) in each condensate to the atomic tunneling can counteract that of the interspecies nonlinear interactions ($`\chi `$). It is the competition between the nonlinear self-interaction and the interspecies nonlinear interaction that leads to a simple form of the atomic tunneling current and the suppression of the Shapiro-like steps.

In particular, we note that when $`g=0`$, i.e., there is no tunneling coupling, and $`q\chi `$, we find that

$`I(t)`$ $`=`$ $`2|u_1||u_2|(q\chi )[|u_1|^2\mathrm{sin}((q\chi )t\theta (t))`$ (102)
$`+|u_2|^2\mathrm{sin}((q\chi )t+\theta (t))],`$
where $`\theta (t)`$ is given by Eq.(32). In FIG. 4, we display the time evolution of the atomic tunneling current (64) when the tunneling coupling vanishes. Results are shown for the case of $`q\chi =0.1`$ when the two condensates are in the initial state with $`\alpha _1=10`$ and $`\alpha _2=5`$. From FIG.4 we see that the evolution of the atomic tunneling current exhibits the CR phenomenon.

Eq.(64) implies that the atomic tunneling current is nonzero, but no the Shapiro-like steps appears. From Eq.(64) we can see that even though there is no the tunneling coupling between the two condensates $`(g=0)`$, the atomic tunneling between the two condensates may happen. This atomic tunneling is completely induced by the nonlinearity of interatomic interactions which are characterized by interatomic collisions ($`q`$ and $`\chi `$). Therefore, we may conclude that the nonlinearity of interatomic interactions in the two condensates can lead to the atomic tunneling between the two condensates.

## VI Concluding Remarks

We have studied the MQST and the quantum coherent atomic tunneling in a two species Bose condensate system in the presence of nonlinear self-interaction of each species, the interspecies nonlinear interaction, and the Josephson-like tunneling interaction, and have given new insight to the MQST and the atomic tunneling. We have shown that the interatomic nonlinear interactions in the two condensates induce not only the MQST but also the CR of the population difference between two condensates, The CR phenomenon can be considered as a novel macroscopic quantum effect. We have indicated that the nonlinear interactions significantly affect the atomic tunneling, and the Shapiro-like steps of the atomic tunneling current. Comparing with Smerzi and coworkers’ work , the present work involves the interspecies nonlinear interaction. The involvement of the interspecies nonlinear interaction gives rise to new characteristics on the MQST and the atomic tunneling. We have shown that when both the nonlinear self-interaction $`(q)`$ and the interspecies nonlinear interaction $`(\chi )`$ present at the same time, the atomic tunneling dynamics and the MQST and the Shapiro-like steps depends upon the difference $`(q\chi )`$, not $`q`$ and $`\chi `$ themselves. We have also found that the interspecies nonlinear interaction generates the MQST at the same level with nonlinear self-interaction. However, contribution from the interspecies interaction to the MQST and that from the self-interaction weaken themselves with each other. It is the competing effects between the nonlinear self-interaction in each species and the interspecies nonlinear interaction that leads to the quenching of the MQST and the suppression of the CR and the Shapiro-like steps of the atomic tunneling current. Especially, we have revealed that the nonlinearity of interatomic interactions in the two condensates can induce the coherent atomic tunneling between two condensates occurs, even though there does not exist the Josephson-like tunneling coupling. It should be mentioned that these results are obtained under the two-mode approximation and the rotating wave approximation, so they are valid for weak nonlinear interactions between atoms. Finally, It should be noted that in order to observe macroscopic quantum phenomena such as MQST and Shapiro-like steps in Bose condensates, one has to control various interactions between atoms. This controlling can be carried out through manipulating interatomic scattering lengthes. Several theoretical and experimental approaches \[46-51\] to alter the scattering length have been proposed. In particular, recent experiments on Feshbach resonances in a Bose condensate  have indicated that the scattering length of ultracold atoms can be altered through Feshbach resonance. These experimental progresses provide the possibility to observe the MQST and Shapiro-like steps in Bose condensates.

Acknowledgments

L. M. Kuang would like to acknowledge the Abdus Salam International Center for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, for its hospitality where part of this work was done. This work was supported in part by the climbing project of China, NSF of China, Educational Committee Foundation and NSF of Hunan Province, special project of NSF of China via Institute of theoretical Physics, Academia Sinica.

Figure Captions

FIG. 1. Diagram of the time evolution of the population difference between the two condensates. The time is in units of $`|q\chi |`$. Results are shown for the case of $`g=25|q\chi |`$, when the two condensates are in the initial state with $`\alpha _1=5`$ and $`\alpha _2=4`$.

FIG.2. Diagram of the time evolution of the fractional population imbalance. The time is in units of $`|q\chi |`$. Results are shown for (a) $`K=1`$, and (b) $`K=20`$ when the two condensates are in the initial state with $`\alpha _1=10`$ and $`\alpha _2=0`$.

FIG.3. The atomic tunneling current between the two condensates as a function of time $`t`$ (in arbitrary units). Results are shown for the case of $`g=0.25`$ and $`q\chi =0.1`$ when the two condensates are in the initial state with $`\alpha _1=5`$ and $`\alpha _2=4`$.

FIG.4. The atomic tunneling current between the two condensates as a function of time (in arbitrary units) when there does not exist the tunneling coupling. Results are shown for the case of $`q\chi =0.1`$ when the two condensates are in the initial state with $`\alpha _1=10`$ and $`\alpha _2=5`$.