1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2: %                            REVTEX  FILE

3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

4: \documentstyle[aps,pre,amsfonts,graphicx]{revtex}

5: 

6:  % \setlength{\textwidth}{6.5in}

7:  % \setlength{\textheight}{9.0in}

8:  % \setlength{\topmargin}{0.0in}

9:  % \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0.0in}

10: 

11: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

12: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

13: \def\erre{\hbox{\rm\rlap{I}\kern.1em R}}

14: 

15: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

16: 

17: \begin{document}

18: 

19: \title{Hamiltonian dynamics and geometry of phase transitions in classical

20: XY models}

21: 

22: \author{Monica Cerruti-Sola$^{1,3,}$\cite{moni}, 

23: Cecilia Clementi$^{2,}$\cite{cecilia},

24:  and Marco Pettini$^{1,3,}$\cite{marco}}

25: \address{

26: $^1$Osservatorio Astrofisico di Arcetri, Largo E. Fermi 5, I-50125 Firenze,

27:  Italy \\

28: $^2$Department of Physics, University of California at San Diego, 

29: La Jolla, CA 92093-0319, USA \\

30: $^3$Istituto Nazionale per la Fisica della Materia, Unit\`a di Ricerca di

31: Firenze, Italy }

32: 

33: \date{\today}

34: 

35: \maketitle

36: 

37: \begin{abstract}

38: The Hamiltonian dynamics associated to classical, planar, Heisenberg XY 

39: models is investigated for two- and three-dimensional lattices.

40: Besides the conventional signatures of phase transitions, here obtained

41: through time averages of thermodynamical observables in place of ensemble 

42: averages, qualitatively new information is derived from the 

43: temperature dependence of Lyapunov exponents. A Riemannian geometrization

44: of newtonian dynamics suggests to consider other observables of geometric 

45: meaning tightly related with the largest Lyapunov exponent. The numerical

46: computation of these observables - unusual in the study of phase transitions -

47: sheds a new light on the microscopic dynamical counterpart of 

48: thermodynamics also pointing to the existence of some major change in the 

49: geometry of the mechanical manifolds at the thermodynamical transition. 

50: Through the microcanonical definition of the entropy, a relationship between

51: thermodynamics and the extrinsic geometry of the constant energy surfaces 

52: $\Sigma_E$ of phase space can be naturally established. In this framework, 

53: an approximate formula is worked out, determining a highly non-trivial 

54: relationship between temperature and topology of the $\Sigma_E$. Whence it can

55: be understood that the appearance of a phase transition must be tightly

56: related to a suitable major topology change of the $\Sigma_E$. This contributes

57: to the understanding of the origin of phase transitions in the

58: microcanonical ensemble.

59: \end{abstract}

60: \pacs{PACS: 05.45.+b; 05.20.-y}

61: \newpage

62: 

63: \section{Introduction}

64: \label{intro}

65: The present paper deals with the study of the microscopic Hamiltonian 

66: dynamical phenomenology associated to thermodynamical phase transitions.

67: This general subject is addressed in the special case of planar, classical

68: Heisenberg XY models in two and three spatial dimensions.

69: A preliminary presentation of some of the results and ideas contained in 

70: this paper has been already given in \cite{CCCP}.

71: 

72: There are several reasons to tackle the Hamiltonian dynamical counterpart of

73: phase transitions. On the one hand, we might wonder whether our knowledge

74: of the already wide variety of dynamical properties of Hamiltonian systems

75: can be furtherly enriched by considering the dynamical signatures, if any,

76: of phase transitions. On the other hand, it is {\it a-priori} conceivable

77: that also the theoretical investigation of the phase transition phenomena

78: could benefit of a direct investigation of the natural microscopic dynamics.

79: In fact, from a very general point of view, we can argue that in those times

80: where microscopic dynamics was completely unaccessible to any kind of 

81: investigation, statistical mechanics has been invented just to replace 

82: dynamics. During the last decades, the advent of powerful computers 

83: has made

84: possible, to some extent, a direct access to microscopic dynamics through the

85: so called molecular dynamical simulations of the statistical properties of

86: "macroscopic" systems.

87: 

88: Molecular dynamics can be either considered as a mere alternative to Monte

89: Carlo methods in practical computations, or it can be also seen as a possible

90: link to concepts and methods (those of nonlinear Hamiltonian dynamics) 

91: that could deepen our insight about phase transitions. 

92: In fact, by construction,

93: the ergodic invariant measure of the Monte Carlo stochastic dynamics, commonly

94: used in numerical statistical mechanics, is

95: the canonical Gibbs distribution, whereas there is no general result that 

96: guarantees the ergodicity and mixing of natural (Hamiltonian) dynamics. 

97: Thus, the general interest for any contribution that helps in clarifying 

98: under what conditions equilibrium statistical mechanics correctly describes

99: the average properties of a large collection of particles, safely replacing

100: their microscopic dynamical description. 

101: 

102: Actually, as it has been already shown and confirmed by the 

103: results reported below, there are some intrinsically dynamical observables

104: that clearly signal the existence of a phase transition.

105: Notably, Lyapunov exponents appear as sensitive measurements for phase

106: transitions.

107: They are also probes of a hidden geometry of the dynamics, because Lyapunov 

108: exponents depend on the geometry of certain ``mechanical manifolds''

109: whose geodesic flows coincide with the natural motions.

110: Therefore, a peculiar energy -- or temperature -- dependence of the largest 

111: Lyapunov exponent at a phase transition point also reflects some important

112: change in the geometry of the mechanical manifolds.

113: 

114: As we shall discuss throughout the present paper, also the topology of these

115: manifolds has been discovered to play a relevant role in the phase transition

116: phenomena (PTP).

117: 

118: Another strong reason of interest for the Hamiltonian dynamical

119: counterpart of PTP is related to the equivalence problem of statistical 

120: ensembles. Hamiltonian dynamics has its most natural and tight relationship

121: with microcanonical ensemble. Now, the well known equivalence among

122: all the statistical ensembles in the thermodynamic limit is valid in general 

123: in the absence of thermodynamic singularities, i.e. in the absence of phase 

124: transitions.  This is not a difficulty for statistical mechanics 

125: as it might seem at first sight

126: \cite{Gallavotti}, rather, this is a very interesting and intriguing point.

127: 

128: The inequivalence  of canonical and microcanonical ensembles in presence of 

129: a phase transition has been analytically shown for a particular model by 

130: Hertel and Thirring \cite{Thirring}, it is mainly revealed by the 

131: appearance

132: of negative values of the specific heat and has been discussed by several

133: authors \cite{Lyndenbell,Gross}.

134: 

135: The microcanonical description of phase transitions seems also to offer many

136: advantages in tackling first order phase transitions \cite{Gross2}, and 

137: seems considerably

138: less affected by finite-size scaling effects with respect to the canonical

139: ensemble description \cite{Gross1}.

140: This non-equivalence problem, together with certain advantages of the

141: microcanonical ensemble, strenghtens the interest for the Hamiltonian dynamical

142: counterpart of PTP. Let us briefly mention the existing contributions in the

143: field. 

144: 

145: Butera and Caravati \cite{Butera},

146: considering an XY model in two dimensions, found that 

147: the temperature dependence of the largest Lyapunov exponent changes just

148: near the critical temperature $T_c$ of the

149: Kosterlitz-Thouless phase transition.  Other interesting aspects of the

150: Hamiltonian dynamics of the XY model in two dimensions have been extensively

151: considered in \cite{Leoncini}, where a very rich phenomenology is reported.

152: Recently, the behaviour of Lyapunov exponents

153: has been studied in Hamiltonian dynamical systems: {\it i)} with long-range

154: interactions \cite{Rapisarda,Ruffo,Antoni}, {\it ii)} describing either 

155: clusters of particles or magnetic or gravitational models exhibiting phase 

156: transitions, {\it iii)} in classical

157: lattice field theories with $O(1)$, $O(2)$ and $O(4)$ global symmetries

158: in two and three space dimensions \cite{CCP1,CCCPPG}, {\it iv)} in the XY 

159: model in two and three space dimensions

160: \cite{CCCP}, {\it v)} in the "$\Theta$ - transition" of homopolymeric chains 

161: \cite{polimeri}.

162: The pattern of $\lambda(T)$ close to the critical temperature $T_c$ is

163: model-dependent. The behaviour of Lyapunov exponents near the transition point

164: has been considered also in the case of first- order phase transitions

165: \cite{Dellago,Mehra}. It is also worth mentioning the very intriguing result

166: of Ref.\cite{Berry}, where a glassy transition is accompanied by a sharp

167: jump of $\lambda(T)$. 

168: 

169: $\lambda(T)$ always detects a phase transition and, even if

170: its pattern close to the critical temperature $T_c$ is

171: model-dependent, it can be used as an order parameter -- of dynamical origin --

172: also in the absence of a standard order parameter (as in the case of the

173: mentioned "$\Theta$-transition" of homopolymers and of the glassy transition

174: in amorphous materials).

175: This appears of great prospective interest also in the light of recently

176: developed analytical methods to compute Lyapunov exponents (see Section IV). 

177: 

178: Among Hamiltonian models with long-range

179: interactions exhibiting phase

180: transitions, the most extensively studied is the

181: mean-field XY model \cite{Ruffo,Firpo,Ruffo_prl,Ruffo_talk}, whose

182: equilibrium statistical mechanics

183: is exactly described, in the thermodynamic limit, by mean-field

184: theory \cite{Ruffo}. In this system, 

185: the theoretically predicted temperature dependence of the largest Lyapunov 

186: exponent $\lambda$ displays a non-analytic behavior at the phase transition 

187: point. 

188: 

189: The aims of the present paper are

190: \begin{itemize}

191: \item 

192: to investigate the dynamical phenomenology of Kosterlitz-Thouless and of 

193: second order phase transitions in the $2d$ and $3d$ classical

194: Heisenberg XY models 

195: respectively;

196: \item

197: to highlight the microscopic dynamical counterpart of phase transitions

198: through the temperature dependence of the Lyapunov exponents, also providing

199: some physical interpretation of abstract quantities involved in

200: the geometric theory of chaos (in particular among vorticity, Lyapunov 

201: exponents and sectional curvatures of configuration space);

202: \item

203: to discuss the hypothesis that phase transition phenomena could be originated

204: by suitable changes in the topology of the  constant energy hypersurfaces of 

205: phase space, therefore hinting to a mathematical characterization of phase 

206: transitions in the microcanonical ensemble.

207: \end{itemize}

208: 

209: The paper is organized as follows: Sections $II$ and $III$ are devoted to 

210: the dynamical investigation of the $2d$ and $3d$ XY models respectively.

211: In Section $IV$ the geometric description of chaos is considered, with 

212: the analytic derivation of the temperature dependence of the largest Lyapunov 

213: exponent, the geometric signatures of a second-order phase transition and 

214: the topological hypothesis. 

215: Section $V$ contains a presentation of the relationship between the extrinsic

216: geometry and topology of the energy hypersurfaces of phase space and 

217: thermodynamics; the results of some numeric computations are also reported.

218: Finally, Section $VI$ is devoted to summarize the achievements reported in 

219: the present paper and to discuss their meaning.

220: 

221: \medskip

222: \section{$2d$ XY model}

223: \medskip

224: 

225: We considered a system of planar, classical ``spins'' (in fact rotators) 

226: on a square lattice of $N=n\times n$ sites, and interacting through

227: the ferromagnetic interaction $V=-\sum_{\langle i,j\rangle}J{\bf S}_{i}

228: \cdot {\bf S}_{j}$ (where $\vert{\bf S}_i\vert =1)$. 

229: The addition of standard, i.e. quadratic, kinetic energy

230: term leads to the following choice of the Hamiltonian

231: \beq

232: H= \sum_{i,j=1}^{n} \left \{ \frac{p_{i,j}^2}{2}+J[2- \cos(q_{i+1,j}-q_{i,j})

233: -\cos(q_{i,j+1}-q_{i,j})]\right\}~~,

234: \label{xy2d}

235: \eeq

236: where $q_{i,j}$ are the angles with respect to a fixed direction on

237: the reference plane of the system.

238: In the usual definition of the XY model both the kinetic term and the

239: constant term $2JN$ are lacking; however, their contribution does not modify

240: the thermodynamic averages (because they usually depend only on the 

241: configurational partition function, 

242: $Z_C=\int\prod_{i=1}^N dq_i\exp[-\beta V(q)]$, 

243: the momenta being trivially integrable when the kinetic energy is quadratic).

244: Thus, as we tackle classical systems, the choice of a quadratic

245:  kinetic energy term

246: is natural because it corresponds to  $\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^N \vert

247: {\bf\dot S}_i\vert^2$, written in terms of the momenta $p_{i,j}$ canonically

248: conjugated to the lagrangian coordinates $q_{i,j}$. The constant term $2JN$ is 

249: introduced to make the low energy expansion of Eq. (\ref{xy2d}) coincident

250: with the

251: Hamiltonian of a system of weakly coupled harmonic oscillators.

252: 

253: The theory predicts for this model a Kosterlitz-Thouless phase transition

254: occurring at a critical temperature

255:  estimated around $T_c\sim J$. Many Monte Carlo

256: simulations of this model have been done in order to check the predictions

257: of the theory. Among them, we quote those of

258: Tobochnik and Chester \cite{TobChes} and of Gupta and Baillie \cite{Gupta}

259: which, on the basis of accurate numerical analysis, confirmed the predictions 

260: of the theory and fixed the critical temperature at $T_c=0.89$ ($J=1$).

261: 

262: The analysis of the present work is based on the numerical integration

263: of the equations of motion derived from Hamiltonian (\ref{xy2d}).

264: The numerical integration is performed by means of

265: a bilateral, third order, symplectic algorithm \cite{Lapo}, and it is 

266: repeated at several values of the energy density

267: $\epsilon = E/N$ ($E$ is the total energy of the system which depends upon 

268: the choice of the initial conditions). 

269: While the Monte Carlo simulations perform statistical averages in the canonical

270: ensemble, Hamiltonian dynamics has its statistical counterpart in the 

271: microcanonical ensemble. Statistical averages are here replaced by time 

272: averages of relevant observables. In this perspective, from the microcanonical

273: definition of temperature $1/T=\partial S/

274: \partial E$, where $S$ is the entropy,  

275: two definitions of temperature are available: $T=\frac{2}{N}\langle K\rangle$

276: (where $K$ is the kinetic energy per degree of freedom), if 

277: $S=\log \int\prod_{i=1}^N dq_i dp_i \Theta (H(p,q) - E)$, where $\Theta

278: (\cdot)$ is the Heaviside step function, and

279: $\tilde T=\left[\left(\frac{N}{2}-1\right)\langle K^{-1}\rangle\right]^{-1}$,

280: if $S=\log \int\prod_{i=1}^N dq_i dp_i \delta (H(p,q) - E)$ \cite{Pearson}.

281: $T$ (or $\tilde T$) are numerically

282: determined by measuring the time average of the kinetic energy $K$ 

283: per degree of freedom (or its inverse), i.e. 

284: $T=\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\frac{2}{N}

285: \frac{1}{t}\int_0^td\tau K(\tau)$ (and similarly for $\tilde T$).

286: There is no appreciable difference in the outcomes of the computations of 

287: temperature according to these two definitions.

288: 

289: \medskip

290: \subsection{Dynamical analysis of thermodynamical observables}

291: \medskip

292: 

293: \subsubsection{Order parameter}

294: 

295: The order parameter for a system of planar ``spins'' whose Hamiltonian  

296: is invariant under the action of the group

297: $O(2)$, is the bidimensional vector

298: \beq

299: {\bf M}= (\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}{\bf S}^x_{i,j},

300: \sum_{i,j=1}^{n}{\bf S}^y_{i,j})\equiv (\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}\cos q_{i,j},

301: \sum_{i,j=1}^{n} \sin q_{i,j}),

302: \label{order_par}

303: \eeq

304: which describes the mean spin orientation field.

305: After the 

306: Mermin-Wagner theorem, we know that no symmetry-breaking transition can

307: occur in one and two dimensional systems with a continuous symmetry and

308: nearest-neighbour interactions. This means that, at any non-vanishing 

309: temperature,

310: the statistical average of the total magnetization vector is necessarily

311: zero in the thermodynamic limit.

312: However, a vanishing magnetization is not necessarily expected

313: when computed by means of Hamiltonian dynamics at

314: finite $N$.

315: In fact, statistical averages are equivalent to averages computed through

316: suitable markovian Monte Carlo dynamics that {\it a-priori} can reach

317: any region of phase space, 

318: whereas in principle a true ergodicity breaking is possible in

319: the case of differentiable dynamics. Also an "effective" ergodicity breaking

320: of differentiable dynamics is possible, when the relaxation times -- of time

321: to ensemble averages -- are very fastly increasing with $N$ \cite{Palmer}.

322: 

323: This model has two integrable limits: 

324: coupled harmonic oscillators and free rotators, 

325: at low and high temperatures respectively. Hereafter, $T$ is meant in units

326: of the coupling constant $J$.

327: 

328: For a lattice of $N = 10 \times10$ sites,

329: Figure \ref{figura.spin2d.10e10} shows that 

330: at low temperatures ($T<0.5$)-- being the system almost harmonic --

331: we can observe a persistent

332: memory of the total magnetization associated with the initial condition,

333: which, on the typical time scales of our numeric simulations ($10^6$ units 

334: of proper time), looks almost frozen.

335: 

336: By raising the temperature above a first threshold $T_0\simeq 0.6$,

337: the total magnetization vector -- observed on the same time scale -- 

338: starts rotating on the plane where it is confined.

339: A further increase of the temperature induces a faster rotation of the

340: magnetization vector together with a slight reduction of its average modulus.

341: 

342: At temperatures slightly greater than $1$, we observe that already at 

343: $N=10 \times10$ a random variation of the direction and of the modulus of

344: the vector ${\bf M}(t)$ sets in. 

345: 

346: At $T>1.2$, we observe a fast relaxation and, at high temperatures 

347: ($T\simeq 10$), a sort

348: of saturation of chaos.

349: 

350: At a first glance, the results reported in Fig. 

351: \ref{figura.spin2d.10e10} could suggest 

352: the presence of a phase transition associated with the breaking of the

353: $O(2)$ symmetry.

354: In fact, having in mind the Landau theory, the ring-shaped distribution of

355: the instantaneous magnetization shown

356: by Fig. \ref{figura.spin2d.10e10} is the typical signature of an

357: $O(2)$-broken symmetry phase and the spot-like patterns around zero are

358: proper to the unbroken symmetry phase.

359: 

360: The apparent contradiction of these results with the Mermin-Wagner theorem

361: is resolved by checking whether the observed phenomenology is stable with

362: $N$. Thus, some simulations have been performed at larger values of $N$. 

363: At any temperature, we found that the average modulus 

364: $\langle\vert{\bf M}(t)\vert\rangle_t$ of the vector ${\bf M}(t)$, 

365: computed along the trajectory, systematically

366: decreases by increasing $N$. However, 

367: for temperatures lower than $T_0$, the $N$-dependence 

368: of the order parameter is very weak, whereas,

369: for temperatures greater than $T_0$, the $N$-dependence 

370: of the order parameter is rather strong.

371: In Fig. \ref{fig.spin2d.t0.74} two extreme cases

372: ($N=10 \times10$ and $N=200 \times200$) are shown for $T = 0.74$.

373: The systematic trend of $\langle\vert{\bf M}(t)\vert\rangle$ 

374: toward smaller values at increasing $N$ is 

375: consistent with its expected vanishing in the limit $N\rightarrow\infty$.

376: 

377: At $T = 1$, Fig. \ref{fig.spin2d.t1} shows that,

378: when the lattice dimension is greater than $50\times 50$,

379: ${\bf M}(t)$ displays random variations both in direction (in the interval

380: [0,$2\pi$]) and in 

381: modulus (between zero and a value which is smaller at larger  

382: $N$).

383: 

384: \medskip

385: \subsubsection{Specific heat}

386: \medskip

387: By means of the recasting of a standard formula which relates the average 

388: fluctuations of a generic observable computed in canonical and 

389: microcanonical ensembles \cite{LPV}, and by specializing it to the

390: kinetic energy fluctuations, one obtains a microcanonical estimate 

391: of the canonical specific heat

392: \begin{equation}

393: c_{V}(T)=\frac{C_V}{N}\rightarrow 

394: \cases{

395: %\left\{\begin{array}{1}

396: c_{V}(\epsilon)=\displaystyle{ \frac{k_{B}d}{2}\left[1-\frac{N

397: d}{2}\frac{\langle K^{2}\rangle -\langle K\rangle

398: ^{2}}{\langle K\rangle ^{2}}\right]^{-1}} ~~,\cr

399: T=T(\epsilon)\cr }

400: %\end{array} \right.

401: \label{specheat}

402: \end{equation}

403: where $d$ is the number of degrees of freedom for each particle.

404: Time averages of the kinetic energy fluctuations computed at any

405: given value of the energy density $\epsilon$ yield $C_V(T)$, according

406: to its parametric definition in Eq.(\ref{specheat}).

407: 

408: >From the microcanonical definition $1/C_V=\partial T(E)/\partial E$ of the

409: constant volume specific heat, a formula can be worked out \cite{Pearson},

410: which is exact at 

411: {\it any} value of $N$ (at variance with the expression (\ref{specheat})).

412:  It reads

413: \begin{equation}

414: c_V=\frac{C_V}{N}=[N - (N - 2)\langle K\rangle\langle K^{-1}\rangle]^{-1}

415: \label{cvmicro}

416: \end{equation}

417: and it is the natural expression to be used in Hamiltonian

418: dynamical simulations of

419: finite systems.

420: 

421: The numerical simulations of the Hamiltonian dynamics of the $2d$

422: XY model -- computed with both Eqs.(\ref{specheat}) and (\ref{cvmicro}) -- 

423: yield a cuspy pattern for $c_V(T)$ peaked at $T\simeq 1$

424: (Fig. \ref{calspec_2d}).

425: This is in good agreement with the outcomes of canonical Monte Carlo 

426: simulations reported in Ref. \cite{TobChes,Gupta},

427: where a pronounced peak of $c_{V}(T)$ was detected at $T \simeq 1.02$.

428: 

429: By varying the lattice dimensions, the peak height remains

430: constant, in agreement with the absence of a symmetry-breaking phase

431: transition.  

432: \medskip

433: \subsubsection{Vorticity}

434: \medskip

435: Another thermodynamic observable which can be studied 

436: is the vorticity of the system. Let us briefly recall that if

437: the angular differences of nearby ``spins'' are small, we can suppose the

438: existence of a continuum limit function $\theta({\bf r})$ that conveniently

439: fits a given spatial configuration of the system.

440: Spin waves correspond to regular patterns of $\theta({\bf r})$, whereas the

441: appearance of a singularity in $\theta({\bf r})$ corresponds to a topological 

442: defect, or a vortex, in the ``spin'' configuration. When such a defect is 

443: present, along any closed path ${\cal C}$ that contains the centre of the 

444: defect, one has

445: \begin{equation}

446: \oint_{\cal C}\nabla\theta({\bf r})\cdot d{\bf r}= 2\pi q~,~~~~q=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,

447: \dots

448: \end{equation}

449: indicating the presence of a vortex whose intensity is $q$. For 

450: a lattice model with periodic boundary conditions, there is an equal number 

451: of vortices and antivortices (i.e. vortices rotating in opposite directions).

452: Thus, the vorticity of our model can be defined as the mean total number of 

453: equal sign vortices per unit volume.

454: In order to compute the vorticity ${\cal V}$ as a function of temperature,

455: we have averaged the number of positive vortices along the numerical phase 

456: space trajectories. On the lattice, ${\bf r}$ is replaced by the multi-index 

457: ${\bf i}$ and $\nabla_\mu\theta_i= q_{{\bf i}+\mu} - q_{\bf i}$, then the

458: number of elementary vortices is counted: the discretized version of

459: $\oint_\square\nabla\theta\cdot d{\bf r}=1$ amounts to one elementary vortex 

460: on a plaquette. Thus ${\cal V}$ is obtained by summing over all the plaquettes.

461: 

462: Our results are in agreement with the values obtained 

463: by Tobochnik and Chester \cite{TobChes}

464: by means of Monte Carlo simulations with $N=60\times 60$. 

465: 

466: As shown in Fig. \ref{fig.vort2d},

467: on the $10\times 10$ lattice, 

468: the first vortex shows up at $T\sim0.6$

469: and on the $40\times 40$ lattice 

470: at $T\sim0.5$, when the

471: system changes its dynamical behavior,

472: increasing its chaoticity (see next Subsection).

473:  At lower temperatures, vortices are less probable,

474: due to the fact

475: that the formation of  vortex has a minimum energy cost.

476: Below $T\sim1$, the vortex density steeply grows 

477: with a power law ${\cal V}(T)\sim T^{10}$.

478:  The growth of ${\cal V}$ then slows down, until the saturation is reached at 

479: $T\sim10$.

480: 

481: \medskip

482: \subsection{Lyapunov exponents and chaoticity}

483: \medskip

484: 

485: The values of the largest Lyapunov exponent $\lambda_{1}$

486: have been computed using the standard tangent dynamics equations [see Eqs.

487: (\ref{eqdintang}) and (\ref{bgs})], and are reported  

488: in Fig. \ref{xy2d.lyap.num.fig}.

489: 

490: Below $T\simeq 0.6$, 

491: the dynamical behavior is nearly the same as that of harmonic

492: oscillators and the excitations of the system are only ``spin-waves''.

493: 

494: In the interval $[0., 0.6]$, the observed temperature dependence

495: $\lambda_1(T) \sim T^2$ is equivalent to the 

496: $\lambda_1(\epsilon) \sim\epsilon^2$ dependence (since at low temperature  

497: $T(\epsilon) \propto \epsilon$), already found -- analytically and

498:  numerically --

499: in the quasi-harmonic regime of other systems and characteristic of weakly

500: chaotic dynamics \cite{CCP}.

501:  

502: Above $T \simeq0.6$, vortices begin to form and correspondingly the largest

503: Lyapunov exponent signals a "qualitative" change of the dynamics through a

504: steeper increase vs. $T$.

505: 

506: At $T \simeq0.9$, where the theory predicts a Kosterlitz - Thouless phase 

507: transition, $\lambda_1(T)$ displays an inflection point.

508: 

509: Finally, at high temperatures, the power law $\lambda_{1}(T)\sim T^{-1/6}$

510: is found. 

511: 

512: 

513: \medskip

514: \section{$3d$ XY model}

515: \medskip

516: 

517: In order to extend the dynamical investigation 

518: to the case of second-order phase transitions, we have

519: studied a system described by an Hamiltonian having at the same time

520: the main characteristics

521: of the $2d$ model and the differences necessary to the appearance

522: of a spontaneous symmetry-breaking below a certain critical temperature.

523:  The model

524: we have chosen is such that the spin rotation is constrained on a plane and

525: only the lattice dimension has been increased, in order to elude the

526: ``no go'' conditions of the Mermin-Wagner theorem.

527: This is simply achieved by tackling a system

528: defined on a cubic lattice of $N=n\times n\times n$ sites

529: and described by the Hamiltonian

530: \begin{eqnarray}

531: H&=& \sum_{i,j,k=1}^{n}

532: \{ \frac{p_{i,j,k}^{2}}{2}+J[3-\cos(q_{i+1,j,k}-q_{i,j,k})-\nonumber\\

533: &-&\cos(q_{i,j+1,k}-q_{i,j,k})-\cos(q_{i,j,k+1}-q_{i,j,k})] \}~~.

534: \end{eqnarray}

535: 

536: \medskip

537: \subsection{Dynamical analysis of thermodynamical observables}

538: \medskip

539: The basic thermodynamical phenomenology of a second-order phase transition is 

540: characterized 

541: by the existence of equilibrium

542: configurations that make the order parameter bifurcating away from zero

543: at some critical temperature $T_{c}$  and by a divergence of 

544: the specific heat $c_{V}(T)$ at

545: the same $T_{c}$. 

546: Therefore, this is the obvious starting point for the Hamiltonian dynamical

547: approach.

548: 

549: \medskip

550: \subsubsection{Order parameter}

551: \medskip

552: Below a critical value of the temperature,

553: the symmetry-breaking in a system invariant under the action of the

554: $O(2)$ group, appears

555: as the selection

556:  -- by the average magnetization vector of Eq. (\ref{order_par})--

557:  of a preferred direction  

558:  among all the possible, energetically equivalent choices. 

559: By increasing the lattice dimension, the symmetry breaking is therefore

560: characterized by a sort of simultaneous "freezing"

561:  of the direction of the order parameter ${\bf M}$ and of the

562: convergence of its modulus to a non-zero value.

563: 

564: Figure \ref{mag3d.e2} shows that in the $3d$ lattice, 

565: at $T < 2$, i.e. in the broken-symmetry phase (as we shall see in the 

566: following),  

567: the dynamical simulations yield a thinner spread of the longitudinal

568: fluctuations by increasing $N$ -- that is, $| {\bf M} |$

569: oscillates by exhibiting a trend

570: to  converge to a

571: non-zero value --  and that the transverse 

572: fluctuations damp, ``fixing'' the direction of the oscillations.

573: This direction depends on the initial conditions.

574: 

575: Moreover, the dynamical analysis provides us with a better detail than a 

576: simple distinction between regular and chaotic dynamics. 

577: In fact, it is possible to 

578: distinguish between three different dynamical regimes 

579: (Fig. \ref{fig.1.spin3d.9}).

580: 

581: At low temperatures, up to $T \simeq 0.8$, one observes the

582: persistency of the initial direction and of an equilibrium value of the 

583: modulus $| {\bf M} |$ close to one.

584: 

585: At $0.8 < T < 2.2$, one observes transverse

586: oscillations, whose amplitude increases with temperature.

587: 

588: At $T > 2.2$, 

589: the order parameter exhibits the features typical of an unbroken symmetry

590: phase.

591: In fact, it displays fluctuations peaked at zero, whose

592: dispersion decreases by increasing the temperature (bottom of

593: Fig. \ref{fig.1.spin3d.9}) and,

594: at a given temperature, by increasing the lattice volume (Fig.

595: \ref{3d.fig.spin.altat}a,b). 

596: 

597: We can give an estimate of the order parameter by evaluating the average 

598: of the modulus $\langle | {\bf M}(t)|\rangle

599: = \rho(T)$. At $T < 2.2$, the $N$-dependence is given mainly by   

600: the rotation of the vector, while the longitudinal oscillations are moderate,

601: as shown in Fig. \ref{parord.3d.fig}. At temperatures above $T \simeq2.2$, 

602: we observe the squeezing of $\rho(T)$ to a small value.

603: 

604: The existence of a second order phase transition can be recognized

605: by comparing the temperature behavior and the $N$-dependence of 

606: the thermodynamic observables computed for

607: the $2d$ and the $3d$ models.

608: Both systems exhibit

609: the rotation of the magnetization

610: vector and small fluctuations of its modulus when they are considered on small

611: lattices.

612: In the $2d$ model the average modulus of the order parameter is theoretically 

613: expected to vanish logarithmically with $N$, what seems qualitatively 

614: compatible with the weak $N$ dependence shown in

615: Fig. \ref{fig.spin2d.t0.74}, whereas in the $3d$ model we observe a stability

616: with $N$ of $\langle| {\bf M} |\rangle$, suggesting the convergence

617: to a non-zero value of the order parameter also in the limit

618: $N\rightarrow\infty$, as shown in Fig. \ref{mag3d.e2}.

619: 

620: $T \simeq2.2$ is an approximate value of the critical temperature $T_c$ of the

621: second-order phase transition. This value will be refined in the following

622: Subsection. No finite-size scaling analysis has been performed for two

623: different reasons: {\it i)} our main concern is a qualitative phenomenological

624: analysis of the Hamiltonian dynamics of phase transitions rather than a 

625: very accurate quantitative analysis, {\it ii)} finite-size effects are much 

626: weaker in the microcanonical ensemble than in the canonical ensemble 

627: \cite{Gross1}.

628: 

629: \medskip

630: \subsubsection{Specific heat}

631: \medskip

632: As in the $2d$ model, numerical simulations of the Hamiltonian dynamics

633: have been performed with both Eqs.(\ref{specheat}) and (\ref{cvmicro}).

634: The outcomes

635: show a cusplike pattern of the specific heat, whose peak

636:  makes possible a better determination of 

637: the critical temperature. By increasing the lattice

638: dimension up to $N=15\times 15\times 15$,

639: the cusp becomes more pronounced, 

640: at variance with the case of the $2d$ model.

641: Fig. \ref{calspec.3d.fig} shows that this occurs

642: at the temperature $T_{c}\simeq2.17$.

643: 

644: \medskip

645: \subsubsection{Vorticity}

646: \medskip

647: The definition of the vorticity in the $3d$ case is not a simple extension

648: of the $2d$ case.

649: Vortices are always defined on a plane and if all the ``spins'' could freely

650: move

651: in the three-dimensional space, the concept of vortices would be meaningless.

652: For the $3d$ planar (anisotropic) model considered here, vortices can be

653: defined and studied on two-dimensional

654: subspaces of the lattice. The variables $q_{i,j,k}$ do not contain any

655: information about the position of the plane where the reference direction

656: to measure the angles $q_{i,j,k}$ is assigned.

657: Dynamics is completely independent of this choice, which has no effect on the

658: Hamiltonian. Moreover, as the Hamiltonian is symmetric with respect to the 

659: lattice axes, the three coordinate-planes are equivalent.  This 

660: equivalence implies that vortices can contemporarily exist on three 

661: orthogonal planes. Though the usual pictorial representation of a vortex

662: can hardly be maintained, its mathematical definition is the same as in the 

663: $2d$ lattice case. Hence three vorticity functions exist and their 

664: average values - at a given temperature - should not differ, what is actually

665: confirmed by numerical simulations.

666: 

667: The vorticity function vs. temperature is plotted in 

668: Fig. \ref{vort.fig3d}.

669: On a lattice of $10\times 10\times 10$ spins, the first vortex is  

670: observed at $T \simeq0.8$.

671: The growth of the average density of vortices is very

672: fast up to the critical temperature, above which the saturation is reached.

673: 

674: \medskip

675: \subsection{Lyapunov exponents and symmetry-breaking phase transition}

676: \medskip

677: A quantitative analysis of the dynamical chaoticity is provided by the 

678: temperature dependence  

679: of the largest Lyapunov exponent. 

680: 

681: Figure \ref{lyap.3d.fig} shows the results of this computation. 

682: At low temperatures, in the limit of quasi-harmonic oscillators, the scaling

683: law is again found to be

684:  $\lambda_{1}(T)\sim T^{2}$ and, at high

685: temperatures, the scaling law is again $\lambda_{1}(T)\sim T^{-1/6}$,  

686: as in the $2d$ case.

687: In the temperature range intermediate between $T \simeq0.8$ and 

688: $T_c \simeq2.17$, there is a linear growth of $\lambda_1(T)$.

689: At the critical temperature, the Lyapunov exponent exhibits an angular 

690: point. This makes a remarkable difference between this

691: system undergoing a second order phase transition and 

692: its $2d$ version, undergoing a Kosterlitz-

693: Thouless transition. In fact, the analysis of the $2d$ model has

694: shown a mild transition between the different regimes of $\lambda_{1}(T)$

695: (inset of Fig. \ref{vort.fig3d}),

696: whereas in the $3d$ model this transition 

697: is sharper (inset of Fig. \ref{lyap.3d.fig}).

698: 

699: We have also computed the temperature dependence of the largest Lyapunov 

700: exponent of Markovian random processes which replace the true dynamics on the 

701: energy surfaces $\Sigma_E$ (see Appendix).

702: The results are shown in Fig. \ref{randyn.3d.fig}.  

703: The dynamics is considered

704: strongly chaotic in the temperature range where the patterns  

705: $\lambda_1(T)$ are the same for both random and 

706: differentiable dynamics, i.e. when differentiable dynamics mimics,

707: to some extent,

708: a random process.

709: The dynamics is considered weakly chaotic when the value 

710: $\lambda_1$ resulting from

711: random dynamics is larger than the value $\lambda_1$

712: resulting from differentiable

713: dynamics.

714:  The transition from weak to strong chaos is quite abrupt. 

715: Figure \ref{randyn.3d.fig}  shows that 

716: the pattern of the largest Lyapunov exponent 

717: computed by means of the random dynamics 

718: reproduces that of the true Lyapunov exponent

719: at temperatures $T \geq T_c$. This means that the setting in

720: of strong thermodynamical disorder corresponds to the setting in of strong

721: dynamical chaos. 

722:  The ``window'' of strong chaoticity starts at

723: $T_c$ and ends at $T \sim 10$.

724: The existence of a second transition from strong to weak chaos is

725: due to the existence, for $T\rightarrow\infty$,

726: of the second integrable limit (of free 

727: rotators), whence chaos cannot remain strong at any $T>T_c$.

728: 

729: \medskip

730: \section{Geometry of dynamics and phase transitions}

731: \medskip

732: Let us briefly recall that the geometrization of the dynamics 

733: of $N$-degrees-of-freedom systems defined by a Lagrangian

734: ${\cal L} = K - V$, in which the kinetic energy is quadratic in the velocities:

735: $K=\frac{1}{2}a_{ij} \dot{q}^i\dot{q}^j~$, stems from the fact that

736: the natural motions are the extrema

737: of the Hamiltonian action functional ${\cal S}_H = 

738: \int {\cal L} \, dt$, 

739: or of the Maupertuis' action

740: ${\cal S}_M = 2 \int K\, dt$.

741: In fact, also the geodesics of Riemannian and pseudo-Riemannian 

742: manifolds are the extrema of a functional, the arc-length 

743: $\ell=\int ds$, with $ds^2={g_{ij}dq^i dq^j}$. 

744: Hence, a suitable choice of the metric tensor allows for the 

745: identification of the arc-length with either ${\cal S}_H$ or 

746: ${\cal  S}_M$, and of the geodesics with the natural motions of the

747: dynamical system. Starting from ${\cal  S}_M$, the ``mechanical manifold''

748: is the accessible configuration space endowed with

749: the Jacobi metric \cite{Pettini} 

750: \beq

751: (g_J)_{ij} = [E - V(q)]\,a_{ij}~~,

752: \label{jacobi_metric}

753: \eeq 

754: where $V(q)$ is the potential energy and $E$ is the total energy.

755: A description of the extrema of Hamilton's 

756: action ${\cal S}_H$ as geodesics of a ``mechanical manifold'' 

757: can be obtained using Eisenhart's metric 

758: \cite{Eisenhart} on an enlarged configuration spacetime 

759: ($\{q^0\equiv t,q^1,\ldots,q^N\}$ 

760: plus one real coordinate $q^{N+1}$), whose arc-length is

761: \begin{equation}

762: ds^2 = -2V(\{ q \}) (dq^0)^2 + a_{ij} dq^i dq^j + 2 dq^0 

763: dq^{N+1}~~.

764: \label{ds2E}

765: \end{equation}

766: The manifold has a Lorentzian structure and the dynamical 

767: trajectories are those geodesics satisfying the condition

768: $ds^2 = C dt^2$, where $C$ is a positive constant. 

769: In the geometrical framework, the (in)stability 

770: of the trajectories is the (in)stability 

771: of the geodesics, and it is completely determined by the 

772: curvature properties of the underlying manifold according to

773: the Jacobi equation \cite{Pettini,doCarmo}

774: \begin{equation}

775: \frac{\nabla^2 \xi^i}{ds^2} + R^i_{~jkm}\frac{dq^j}{ds} \xi^k 

776: \frac{dq^m}{ds} = 0~~,

777: \label{eqJ}

778: \end{equation}

779: whose solution $\xi$, usually called Jacobi or geodesic variation field,  

780: locally measures the distance between nearby geodesics; 

781: $\nabla/ds$ stands for the covariant derivative

782: along a geodesic and $R^i_{~jkm}$ are the components of 

783: the Riemann curvature tensor. 

784: Using the Eisenhart metric (\ref{ds2E}),

785: the relevant part of the Jacobi equation 

786: (\ref{eqJ}) is  \cite{CCP}

787: \begin{equation}

788: \frac{d^2 \xi^i}{dt^2} + R^i_{~0k0}\xi^k = 0~~,~~~~i=1,\dots ,N

789: \label{eqdintang}

790: \end{equation}

791: where the only non-vanishing components of the curvature tensor are

792: $R_{0i0j}=\partial^2 V/\partial q_i \partial q_j $. Equation 

793: (\ref{eqdintang}) is the tangent dynamics equation, which is commonly used to

794: measure Lyapunov exponents in standard Hamiltonian systems. 

795: Having recognized its geometric origin, 

796: it has been 

797: devised in Ref.\cite{CCP} a geometric reasoning

798:  to derive from  Eq.(\ref{eqdintang})

799: an {\it effective} scalar stability equation that, {\it independently} of the

800: knowledge of dynamical trajectories, provides an average measure of their

801: degree of instability. 

802: An intermediate step in this derivation yields

803: \beq

804: \frac{d^2 \xi^j}{dt^2} + k_R(t) \xi^j + \delta K^{(2)}{(t)} \xi^j = 0~~,

805: \label{sectional}

806: \eeq

807: where $k_R=K_R/N$ is the Ricci curvature along a geodesic defined as

808: $K_R = \frac{1}{v^2} R_{ij} {\dot{q}^i}{\dot{q}^j}$,

809: with $v^2 = {\dot{q}^i}{\dot{q}_i}$ and 

810: $R_{ij} = R^{k}_{~ikj}$, and $\delta K^{(2)}$ is the local

811:  deviation of sectional

812: curvature from its average value \cite{CCP}.

813: The sectional curvature is defined as $K^{(2)} = R_{~ijkl} \xi^i \dot{q}^j

814: \xi^k \dot{q}^l/ \parallel\xi\parallel^2 \parallel\dot{q}\parallel^2$.

815: 

816: Two simplifying assumptions are made:

817: $(i)$ the ambient manifold is {\em almost isotropic}, i.e. 

818: the components of the curvature tensor --- that for an isotropic manifold

819: (i.e. of constant curvature) 

820: are $R_{ijkm}=k_0(g_{ik} g_{jm} - g_{im} g_{jk})$, $k_0=const$ 

821: -- can be approximated by 

822: $R_{ijkm} \approx k(t)

823: (g_{ik} g_{jm} - g_{im} g_{jk})$

824: along a generic geodesic $\gamma(t)$; $(ii)$

825: in the large $N$ limit, the  ``effective curvature''

826: $k(t)$ can be modeled by a gaussian and $\delta$-correlated stochastic 

827: process.

828: Hence, one derives

829:  an effective

830: stability equation, independent of the dynamics and in the

831: form of a stochastic oscillator equation

832: \cite{CCP},

833: \begin{equation}

834: \frac{d^2\psi}{dt^2} + [k_0 + \sigma_k \eta(t)] \, \psi = 0~~,

835: \label{eqpsi}

836: \end{equation}

837: where $\psi^2 \propto |\xi|^2$. 

838:  The mean $k_0$ and variance $\sigma_k$ of $k(t)$ 

839: are given by  

840: $k_0 =  {\langle K_R \rangle}/{N}$

841: and $\sigma^2_k  =  {\langle (K_R - \langle K_R \rangle)^2 \rangle}/{N}$,

842: respectively, and the averages $\langle\cdot\rangle$ are geometric averages,

843: i.e. integrals computed on the mechanical manifold. These averages are 

844: directly related with microcanonical averages, as it will be seen at the end

845: of Section V.

846: $\eta(t)$ is a gaussian $\delta$-correlated random process of

847: zero mean and unit variance.

848: 

849: The main source of instability of the solutions of Eq.(\ref{eqpsi}),

850: and therefore the main source of Hamiltonian chaos, is 

851: parametric resonance, which is

852:  activated by the variations of the Ricci curvature

853: along the geodesics and which takes place also on positively curved manifolds

854: \cite{CerrutiPettini}. The dynamical instability can be enhanced 

855: if the geodesics encounter regions 

856: of negative sectional curvatures, such that $k_R + \delta K^{(2)}

857: < 0$, as it is evident from Eq. (\ref{sectional}).

858: 

859: In the case of Eisenhart metric, 

860: it is 

861: $K_R\equiv \Delta V = \sum_{i=1}^N ({\partial^2 V}/{\partial q_i^2})$

862: and $K^{(2)} = R_{~0i0j} \xi^i \xi^j/ \parallel \xi \parallel^2 \equiv

863: (\partial^2V/\partial q^i\partial q^j)\xi^i\xi^j/\Vert\xi\Vert^2$.

864: The exponential growth rate $\lambda$ of the 

865: quantity $\psi^2+\dot\psi^2$ of the solutions of Eq. (\ref{eqpsi}),

866: is therefore an estimate of the largest Lyapunov exponent that can be 

867: analytically computed. The final result reads \cite{CCP} 

868: \begin{equation}

869: \lambda = \frac{\Lambda}{2} - \frac{2 k_0}{3 \Lambda}\,,~~

870: \Lambda = \left(2\sigma_k^2 \tau +

871: \sqrt{\frac{64 k_0^3}{27} + 4\sigma_k^4 \tau^2}~\right)^\frac{1}{3}~,

872: \label{lambda}

873: \end{equation}

874: where

875: $\tau = \pi\sqrt{k_0}/(2\sqrt{k_0(k_0 + \sigma_k)}

876: +\pi\sigma_k )$;

877: in the limit $\sigma_k/k_0 \ll 1$ one finds $\lambda \propto \sigma_k^2~$.

878: 

879: \subsection{Signatures of phase transitions from geometrization of 

880: dynamics}

881: 

882: In the geometric picture, chaos is mainly originated by the parametric 

883: instability activated by the fluctuating curvature felt by geodesics,

884: i.e. the fluctuations of the (effective)

885: curvature are the source of the instability of the dynamics.

886: On the other hand, as it is witnessed by the derivation of Eq. (\ref{eqpsi})

887: and by the equation itself, a statistical-mechanical-like treatment of the

888: average degree of chaoticity is made possible by the geometrization of the

889: dynamics. The relevant curvature properties of the mechanical manifolds

890: are computed, at the formal level, as statistical averages, like other

891: thermodynamic observables. Thus, we can expect that some precise relationship

892: may exist between geometric, dynamic and thermodynamic quantities.

893: Moreover, this implies that phase transitions should correspond to peculiar

894: effects in the geometric observables.

895: 

896: In the particular case of the $2d$ XY model, 

897: the microcanonical average kinetic energy $\langle K \rangle$

898: and the average Ricci curvature 

899: $\langle K_R \rangle$ computed 

900: with the Eisenhart metric are linked by the equation 

901: \beq

902: K_{R}=

903: \left \langle \sum _{i,j=1}^{N}\frac{\partial^{2} V}{\partial^2 q_{i,j}}

904: \right \rangle = 2J

905: \sum_{i,j=1}^{N}

906: \left\langle\cos(q_{i+1,j}-q_{i,j})

907: +\cos(q_{i,j+1}-q_{i,j}) \right\rangle =2(J-\langle V \rangle )~~,

908: \label{kinRicci}

909: \eeq

910: so that

911: \beq

912: H=N\epsilon=\langle K \rangle + \langle V \rangle \mapsto\frac{ \langle K 

913: \rangle }{N}=\epsilon-2J+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\langle K_{R} \rangle}{N}~~.

914: \label{cRicci.Uinterna}

915: \eeq

916: Being the temperature defined as $T=2\langle K \rangle /N$

917: (with $k_{B}=1$) and being $d=1$ (because each spin has only one

918: rotational degree of freedom), from Eq.(\ref{specheat}) it follows that

919: 

920: \beq

921: c_{V}=\frac{1}{2}\left(1-\frac{1}{2}\frac{\sigma^{2}_k/N}{T^2}\right)^{-1}.

922: \label{fluttKr.calspec}

923: \eeq

924: 

925: In the special case of these XY systems,

926: it is possible to link the specific heat and the Ricci curvature

927: by inserting Eq.(\ref{cRicci.Uinterna}) into the usual expression for the 

928: specific heat at constant volume. Thus, one obtains the equation

929: \beq

930: c_{V}=-\frac{1}{2N}\frac{\partial \langle K_{R} \rangle(T)}{\partial T}~.

931: \label{calspec,Ricci}

932: \eeq

933: The appearance of a peak in the specific heat function at the critical 

934: temperature

935: has to correspond to a suitable temperature dependence of the Ricci curvature.

936: 

937: In the $3d$ model, the

938: potential energy and the Ricci curvature 

939: are proportional, according to:

940: $\frac{1}{N} \langle V \rangle = 3 - \frac{1}{2 N} \langle K_{R} \rangle~$.

941: 

942: Another interesting point is the relation between a geometric observable

943: and the vorticity function in both models.

944: As already seen in previous sections, the

945: vorticity function is a useful signature of the dynamical chaoticity 

946: of the system. From the geometrical point of view,

947: the enhancement of the instability of the dynamics

948: with respect to the parametric instability due to curvature fluctuations,

949: is linked

950: to the probability of obtaining negative sectional curvatures 

951: along the geodesics (as discussed for $1d$ XY model in Ref.\cite{CCP}).

952: In fact, when vortices are present in the system, 

953: there will surely be two neighbouring spins with an orientation difference 

954: greater than $\pi/2$, such that, if $i,j$ and $i+1,j$ are their coordinates

955: on the lattice, it follows that

956: \beq

957: q_{i+1,j}-q_{i,j} > \frac{\pi}{2} \rightarrow \cos(q_{i+1,j}-q_{i,j})<0~.

958: \label{coord}

959: \eeq

960: The sectional curvature relative to the plane defined 

961: by the velocity ${\bf v}$ along

962: a geodesic and a generic vector  ${\bf \xi}\perp {\bf v}$ is 

963: \beq

964: K^{(2)}= \sum_{i,j,k,l=1}^{N} \frac{\partial^2V}

965: {\partial q_{i,j}\partial q_{k,l}}

966: \frac{\xi^{i,j}\xi^{k,l}}{\|{\bf \xi}\|^{2}}~~.

967: \label{kappa2}

968: \eeq

969: For the $2d$ XY model, it is 

970: \beq

971: K^{(2)}= \frac{J}{\|{\bf \xi}\|^{2}}\sum_{i,j=1}^{N}\{\cos(q_{i+1,j}-q_{i,j})

972: [\xi^{i+1,j}-\xi^{i,j}]^{2} +\cos(q_{i,j+1}-q_{i,j})[\xi^{i,j+1}-\xi^{i,j}]^{2}

973: \}~.

974: \label{curvsezXY}

975: \eeq

976: Thus, a large probability of

977: having a negative value of the cosine of the difference among the directions

978: of two close spins corresponds to a larger probability of obtaining

979: negative values of the sectional curvatures along the geodesics; here for $\xi$

980: the geodesic separation vector of Eq.(\ref{eqdintang}) is chosen.

981: 

982: In the $3d$ model, the sectional curvature relative to

983: the plane defined by the velocity ${\bf v}$ and 

984: a generic vector ${\bf \xi}\perp {\bf v}$ is 

985: \begin{eqnarray}

986: K^{(2)}&=& \frac{J}{\|\xi\|^{2}}\sum_{i,j,k=1}^{N} \{

987: \cos(q_{i+1,j,k}-q_{i,j,k})[\xi^{i+1,j,k}-\xi^{i,j,k}]^{2}+

988: \nonumber\\

989: &+&\cos(q_{i,j+1,k}-q_{i,j,k})[\xi^{i,j+1,k}-\xi^{i,j,k}]^{2}+

990: \cos(q_{i,j,k+1}-q_{i,j,k})[\xi^{i,j,k+1}-\xi^{i,j,k}]^{2}\}

991: \label{curvsez3d}

992: \end{eqnarray}

993: and again the probability of finding negative values of $K^{(2)}$

994: along a trajectory is limited to the probability of finding vortices.

995: 

996: The mean values of the geometric quantities entering Eq.(\ref{eqpsi})

997: can be numerically computed by means of Monte Carlo simulations

998: or by means of time averages along the

999: dynamical trajectories. In fact, due to the lack of an explicit expression

1000: for the canonical partition function of the system,

1001: these averages are not analytically computable.

1002: For sufficiently high

1003: temperatures, the potential energy becomes 

1004: negligible with respect to the kinetic energy, and each spin is free to move

1005: independently from the others. Thus, in the limit of high temperatures,

1006: one can estimate the configurational partition function

1007: $Z_C = \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \prod_{\bf i} dq_{\bf i} e^{-\beta V(q)}$ 

1008: by means of the expression  

1009: \begin{eqnarray}

1010: Z_C& =& e^{-2 \beta JN}

1011: \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \prod_{i,j=1}^{N}

1012: dq_{i,j}\exp\{\beta J \sum_{i,j=1}^{N}[

1013: \cos(q_{i+1,j}-q_{i,j})+\cos(q_{i,j+1}-q_{i,j})]\}\nonumber\\

1014: &\sim& e^{-2 \beta JN}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \prod_{i,j=1}^{N}du_{i,j}dv_{i,j}

1015: \exp\{\beta J \sum_{i,j=1}^{N}[

1016: \cos(u_{i,j})+\cos(v_{i,j})]\}

1017: \label{partition}

1018: \end{eqnarray}

1019: after the introduction of $u_{i,j}= q_{i+1,j}-q_{i,j}$ and 

1020: $v_{i,j}= q_{i,j+1}-q_{i,j}$ as independent variables.

1021: In this way, some analytical estimates of the average Ricci

1022: curvature $k_{0}(T)$ and of its r.m.s. fluctuations 

1023: $\sigma^2_k(T)$ have been obtained for the $2d$ model

1024:  (Fig. \ref {fig.Ricci2d}).

1025: For temperatures above the temperature of the Kosterlitz-Thouless

1026: transition, these estimates

1027: are in agreement

1028: with the numerical computations on a $N=10\times 10$ lattice.

1029: It is confirmed that Hamiltonian dynamical simulations,

1030: already on rather small lattices, 

1031: are useful to predict, with a good approximation, the thermodynamic limit

1032: behavior of relevant observables.

1033: Moreover, the good quality of the high temperature estimate gives

1034: a further information: at the transition temperature,

1035: the correlations among the different degrees of freedom are destroyed,

1036: confirming the

1037: strong chaoticity of the dynamics.

1038: 

1039: The same high temperature estimates of $k_0(T)$ and $\sigma^2_{k}(T)$

1040: have been performed for the $3d$ system.

1041: In Fig. \ref{keflutt.3dfig},

1042: the numerical determination of $\sigma^2_{k}(T)$

1043: shows the appearance of a very pronounced peak at the phase transition point

1044: which is not predicted by the analytic estimate, 

1045: whereas the average Ricci curvature $k_0(T)$ is in agreement

1046: with the analytic values of the high temperature estimate, computed by spin 

1047: decoupling, above the critical temperature, as in the $2d$ model.

1048: 

1049: \medskip

1050: \subsection{Geometric observables and Lyapunov exponents}

1051: \medskip

1052: We have seen that the largest

1053: Lyapunov exponent is sensitive to the phase transition and at the same time

1054: we know that

1055: it is also related to the average curvature properties of the ``mechanical

1056: manifolds''.

1057: Thus, the geometric observables $k_0(T)$ and $\sigma^2_k(T)$

1058: above considered can be used to 

1059: estimate the Lyapunov exponents, as well as to detect the phase transition.

1060: 

1061: In principle, by means of Eq.(\ref{lambda}), one can evaluate

1062: the largest Lyapunov exponent without any need of dynamics,

1063: but simply using 

1064: global geometric quantities of the manifold 

1065: associated to the physical system.

1066: For $2d$ and $3d$ XY models, fully analytic computations are possible only

1067: in the limiting cases of high and low temperatures. Microcanonical averages

1068: of $k_0$ and $\sigma^2_k$ at arbitrary $T$ have been numerically computed

1069: through time averages. We can call this hybrid method semi-analytic.

1070: 

1071: In Fig. \ref{prev.Lyap.2d}, the results of the semi-analytic prediction of the 

1072: Lyapunov exponents for the $2d$ model are plotted vs. temperature and 

1073: compared with the numerical outcomes of the tangent dynamics.

1074: As one can see, the prediction formulated on the basis of Eq.(\ref{lambda}) 

1075: underestimates the numerical values given by the tangent 

1076: dynamics.

1077: The semi-analytic prediction can be improved

1078: by observing that the replacement of the sectional curvature fluctuation

1079: $\delta K^{(2)}$ in Eq.(\ref{sectional}) with a fraction 

1080: of the Ricci curvature [which underlies the derivation of Eq.(\ref{eqpsi})] 

1081: underestimates the frequency of occurrence of negative sectional curvatures,

1082: which was already the case of the $1d$ XY model \cite{CCP}.

1083: The correction procedure can be implemented

1084: by evaluating the probability $P(T)$ of obtaining a negative value of the 

1085: sectional curvature along a generic trajectory and then by operating the 

1086: substitution

1087: \beq

1088: K_{R}(T)\rightarrow \frac{K_{R}(T)}{1+P(T) \alpha}~.

1089: \label{kappafrac}

1090: \eeq

1091: The parameter $\alpha$ is a free parameter to be empirically estimated.

1092: Its value ranges from $100$ to $200$, without appreciable differences in the

1093: final result.

1094: It resumes 

1095: the non trivial information about the more pronounced tendency

1096: of the trajectories towards negative

1097: sectional curvatures with respect to the predictions of the geometric model

1098: describing the chaoticity of the dynamics.

1099: 

1100: The probability $P(T)$ is estimated through the occurrence along 

1101: a trajectory of negative values 

1102: of the sum of the coefficients that appear in the definition

1103: of $K^{(2)}$ [Eqs.(\ref{curvsezXY}) and (\ref{curvsez3d})]

1104: \beq

1105: P(T)\sim \frac{\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}

1106: \Theta (-\cos(q_{k+1,l}-q_{k,l})-\cos(q_{k,l+1}-q_{k,l}))

1107: \exp[-\beta V({\bf q})] \prod_{k,l=1}^{N}dq_{k,l}}

1108: {\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\exp[-\beta V({\bf

1109: q})] \prod_{k,l=1}^{N}dq_{k,l}}~~,

1110: \label{2d.pro.cos.neg}

1111: \eeq

1112: averaged over all the sites

1113: $\forall k,l\in (1,\ldots,N)$; $\Theta$ is the step function.

1114: 

1115: Alternatively, owing to the already remarked relation between vorticity

1116: and sectional curvature $K^{(2)}$,

1117: $P(T)$ can be replaced by the average density of

1118: vortices

1119: \beq

1120: K_{R}(T)\rightarrow \frac{K_{R}(T)}{1+\overline{\alpha} {\cal V}(T)}~,

1121: \label{correction}

1122: \eeq

1123: where $\overline{\alpha}$ a free parameter. 

1124: Actually,

1125: in the $2d$ model, the two corrections, one given by

1126: Eq.(\ref{kappafrac}) with $P(T)$ of Eq. (\ref{2d.pro.cos.neg}), the other 

1127: given by Eq.(\ref{correction}) with the vorticity function in place of $P(T)$,

1128: convey the same information.

1129: The semi-analytic predictions of $\lambda_1(T)$ with correction

1130: are reported in  Fig. \ref{prev.Lyap.2d}.

1131: 

1132: In the limits of high and low temperatures, 

1133: $\lambda_1(T)$ can be given the analytic forms 

1134: $\lambda_{1}(T)\sim T^{-1/6}$ at high 

1135: temperature, and 

1136: $\lambda_{1}(T)\sim T^{2}$ at low temperature.

1137: In the former case, the high temperature approximation (\ref{partition})

1138: is used, and in the latter case the quasi-harmonic oscillators approximation

1139: is done. The deviation of $\lambda_1(T)$ from the quasi-harmonic scaling,

1140: starting at $T \simeq0.6$ and already observed to correspond to the 

1141: appearance of vortices, finds here a simple explanation through the geometry

1142: of dynamics: vortices are associated with negative sectional curvatures,

1143: enhancing chaos.

1144: 

1145: By increasing the spatial dimension of the system, it becomes more and more

1146: difficult to accurately estimate the probability of obtaining negative

1147: sectional curvatures. 

1148: The assumption that the occurrence of negative values

1149: of the cosine of the difference between the directions of two nearby spins

1150: is nearly equal to $P(T)$, is less effective in the $3d$ 

1151: model than in the $2d$ one. 

1152: Again, the vorticity function can be assumed as an estimate of $P(T)$

1153: [Eq. (\ref{correction})].

1154: The quality of the results has a weak dependence upon  

1155: the parameter $\alpha$.

1156: The correction remains good, with $\alpha$ belonging to a broad interval

1157: of values ($100 \div 200$). 

1158: In the limits of high and low temperatures, the model predicts correctly

1159: the same scaling laws of the $2d$ system.

1160: 

1161: In Fig. \ref{prev.Lyap.3d} the semi-analytic

1162:  predictions for the Lyapunov exponents, 

1163: with and without correction, are 

1164: plotted vs. temperature together with the numerical results

1165: of the tangent dynamics.

1166: It is noticeable that the prediction of Eq. (\ref{lambda}) is able to give

1167: the correct asymptotic behavior of the Lyapunov exponents

1168: also at low temperatures, the most difficult part 

1169: to obtain by means of dynamical simulations. 

1170: 

1171: \medskip

1172: \subsection{A topological hypothesis}

1173: \medskip

1174: 

1175: We have seen in Fig. \ref{keflutt.3dfig} that a sharp peak of the 

1176: Ricci-curvature fluctuations

1177: $\sigma_\kappa^2(T)$ is found for the $3d$ model in correspondence of the 

1178: second order phase transition, whereas, for the $2d$ model, 

1179: $\sigma_\kappa^2(T)$ appears regular and in agreement with the theoretically 

1180: predicted smooth pattern.

1181: On the basis of heuristic arguments, in Refs.\cite{CCCP,CCCPPG} we suggested

1182: that the peak of $\sigma_\kappa^2$ observed for the $3d$ XY model, as well as

1183: for $2d$ and $3d$ scalar and vector lattice $\varphi^4$ models, might originate

1184: in some change of the {\it topology} of the mechanical manifolds. In fact,

1185: in abstract mathematical models, consisting of families of surfaces undergoing

1186: a topology change -- i.e. a loss of diffeomorphicity among them -- 

1187: at some critical value of

1188: a parameter labelling the members of the family, we have actually observed the

1189: appearance of cusps of $\sigma_K^2$ at the 

1190: transition point between two subfamilies of surfaces of different topology,

1191: $K$ being the Gauss curvature.

1192: 

1193: Actually, for the mean-field XY model, where both $\sigma_\kappa^2(T)$ and 

1194: $\lambda_1(T)$ have theoretically been shown to loose analyticity at the phase 

1195: transition point, a direct evidence of a ``special'' change of the topology

1196: of equipotential hypersurfaces of configuration space has been given

1197: \cite{cegdcp}. Other indirect and direct evidences of the actual involvement

1198: of topology in the deep origin of phase transitions have been recently

1199: given 

1200: \cite{fps1,fps2} for the lattice $\varphi^4$ model.

1201: 

1202: In the following Section we consider the extension 

1203: of this

1204: topological point of view about phase transitions

1205: from equipotential hypersurfaces of configuration space

1206: to constant energy hypersurfaces of phase space.

1207: 

1208: \medskip

1209: \section{Phase space geometry and thermodynamics.}

1210: \medskip

1211: 

1212: In the preceding Section we have used some elements of intrinsic differential

1213: geometry of submanifolds of configuration space to describe the average

1214: degree of dynamical instability (measured by the largest Lyapunov exponent).

1215: In the present Section we are interested in the relationship

1216: between the extrinsic geometry of the constant energy

1217: hypersurfaces $\Sigma_E$ and thermodynamics.

1218: 

1219: Hereafter, phase space is considered as an even-dimensional subset $\Gamma$

1220: of ${\Bbb R}^{2N}$

1221: and the hypersurfaces $\Sigma_E=\{(p_1,\dots ,p_N,q_1,\dots ,q_N)\in{\Bbb R}

1222: \vert H(p_1,\dots ,p_N,q_1,\dots ,q_N)=E\}$ are manifolds that can be equipped

1223: with the standard Riemannian metric induced from ${\Bbb R}^{2N}$. If, for 

1224: example, a surface is parametrically defined through the equations

1225: $x^i=x^i(z^1,\dots ,z^k)$, $i=1,\dots ,2N$, then the metric $g_{ij}$

1226: {\it induced} on the surface is given by $g_{ij}(z^1,\dots ,z^k)=

1227: \sum_{n=1}^{2N}

1228: \frac{\partial x^n}{\partial z^i} \frac{\partial x^n}{\partial z^j}$. 

1229: The geodesic flow associated with the metric induced on $\Sigma_E$ from

1230: ${\Bbb R}^{2N}$ has nothing to do with the 

1231: Hamiltonian flow that belongs to $\Sigma_E$. Nevertheless, it exists an

1232: intrinsic 

1233: Riemannian metric $g_S$ of phase space $\Gamma$ such that the geodesic 

1234: flow of $g_S$, restricted to $\Sigma_E$, coincides with the Hamiltonian flow

1235: ($g_S$ is the so called Sasaki lift to the tangent bundle

1236: of configuration space of the Jacobi

1237: metric $g_J$ that we mentioned in a preceding Section).

1238: 

1239: The link between extrinsic geometry of the $\Sigma_E$ and thermodynamics

1240: is estabilished through the  microcanonical definition of entropy

1241: \beq

1242: S = k_B \log \int_{\Sigma_E} \frac{d\sigma}{\|{\nabla H}\|}  ~,

1243: \label{entropy}

1244: \eeq

1245: where $d\sigma = \sqrt{det(g)} dx_1...dx_{2N-1}$ is the invariant volume

1246: element of $\Sigma_E \subset{\Bbb R}^{2N}$, ${g}$ is the metric induced from

1247: ${\Bbb R}^{2N}$ and $x_1...x_{2N-1}$ are the coordinates on $\Sigma_E$.

1248: 

1249: Let us briefly recall some necessary definitions and concepts that are needed

1250: in the study of hypersurfaces of euclidean spaces.

1251: 

1252: A standard way to investigate the geometry of an hypersurface $\Sigma^m$ is 

1253: to study the way in which it curves around in ${\Bbb R}^{m+1}$: this is 

1254: measured by the way the normal direction  changes as we move from point to

1255: point on the surface. The rate of change

1256: of the normal direction ${\bf N}$ at a point $x\in\Sigma$ is described by

1257: the {\it shape operator} $L_x({\bf v}) = - \nabla_{\bf v}{\bf N}

1258:  = - (\nabla N_1\cdot{\bf v},\dots ,\nabla N_{m+1}

1259: \cdot{\bf v})$, where

1260: ${\bf v}$ is a tangent vector at $x$ and $\nabla_{\bf v}$ is the directional

1261: derivative of the unit normal ${\bf N}$.

1262: As $L_x$ is an operator of the tangent space at $x$ into

1263: itself, there are $m$ independent eigenvalues \cite{thorpe} $\kappa_1(x),

1264: \dots,\kappa_m(x)$, which are called the principal curvatures of $\Sigma$ at

1265: $x$. Their product is the {\it Gauss-Kronecker curvature}: 

1266: $K_G(x)=\prod_{i=1}^m\kappa_i(x)={\rm det}(L_x)$, and

1267: their sum is the so-called {\it mean curvature}:

1268: $M_1(x)=\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m\kappa_i(x)$.

1269: The quadratic form $L_x({\bf v})\cdot{\bf v}$, associated with the shape 

1270: operator at a point $x$, is called the second fundamental form of $\Sigma$ at 

1271: $x$.

1272: 

1273: It can be 

1274:  shown \cite{doCarmo} that the mean curvature of the energy hypersurfaces

1275:  is given by

1276: \begin{equation}

1277: M_1(x)= -\frac{1}{2N-1}\nabla\cdot\left(\frac{\nabla H(x)}{\Vert\nabla H(x)

1278: \Vert}\right)~~,

1279: \label{emme1}

1280: \end{equation} 

1281: where $\nabla H(x)/\Vert\nabla H(x)\Vert$ is the unit normal to

1282: $\Sigma_E$ at a given point $x=(p_1,\dots ,p_N,q_1,\dots ,q_N)$, and 

1283: $\nabla =(\partial/\partial p_1,\dots,\partial/\partial q_N)$, 

1284: whence the explicit expression

1285: \begin{eqnarray}

1286: (2N-1)\, M_1 = &-&\frac{1}{\Vert\nabla H\Vert}\left[ N + \sum_{\bf i}

1287: \left(\frac{\partial^2V}{\partial q_{\bf i}^2}\right)\right]\nonumber\\

1288: & +& \frac{1}{\Vert\nabla H\Vert^3}

1289: \left[\sum_{\bf i}p_{\bf i}^2 + \sum_{\bf i,j}\left(

1290: \frac{\partial^2V}{\partial q_{\bf i}\partial q_{\bf j}}\right)\left(

1291: \frac{\partial V}{\partial q_{\bf i}}\right)\left(\frac{\partial V}

1292: {\partial q_{\bf j}}\right)\right]~,

1293: \label{M1}

1294: \end{eqnarray}

1295: where ${\bf i,j}$ are multi-indices according to the number of spatial 

1296: dimensions.

1297:  

1298: The link between geometry and physics stems from the microcanonical definition

1299: of the temperature

1300: \begin{equation}

1301: \frac{1}{T}=\frac{\partial S}{\partial E}=\frac{1}{\Omega_{\nu}(E)}\frac

1302: {d\Omega_{\nu}(E)}{dE}~,

1303: \label{temperature}

1304: \end{equation}

1305: where we used Eq.(\ref{entropy}) with $k_B=1$, $\nu =2N-1$, and 

1306: $\Omega_{\nu}(E)=\int_{\Sigma_E}d\sigma /\Vert\nabla H\Vert$. 

1307: >From the formula \cite{laurence} 

1308: \begin{equation}

1309: {d^k \over dE^k} \left( \int_{\Sigma_E} \alpha~d\sigma \right) (E')

1310:         = \int_{\Sigma_{E'}} A^k(\alpha)\, d\sigma~~,

1311: \end{equation}

1312: where $\alpha$ is an integrable function and $A$ is the operator 

1313: $        A(\alpha)= {\nabla \over  \Vert \nabla H\Vert}

1314:          \cdot \left( \alpha \cdot

1315:         {\nabla H \over \Vert \nabla H\Vert} \right),

1316: $

1317: it is possible to work out the result

1318: \begin{equation}

1319: \frac{1}{T}=

1320: \frac{1}{\Omega_{\nu}(E)}\frac{d\Omega_{\nu}(E)}{dE} = \frac{1}{\Omega_{\nu}}

1321: \int_{\Sigma_E} \frac{d\sigma}{\Vert\nabla

1322: H\Vert} \left[ 2 \frac{M_1^\star}{\Vert\nabla H\Vert} - \frac{\triangle H}

1323: {\Vert\nabla H\Vert^2} \right]\simeq \frac{1}{\Omega_{\nu}} 

1324: \int_{\Sigma_E} \frac{d\sigma}

1325: {\Vert\nabla H\Vert}\, \frac{M_1^\star}{\Vert\nabla H\Vert} ~~ ,

1326: \label{ballerotte}

1327: \end{equation}

1328: where $M_1^\star = \nabla (\nabla H/ \Vert\nabla H\Vert)$ is directly

1329: proportional to the mean curvature (\ref{emme1}). In the last term of

1330: Eq.(\ref{ballerotte}) we have neglected a contribution which vanishes

1331: as ${\cal O}(1/N)$. Eq. (\ref{ballerotte}) provides the

1332: fundamental link between extrinsic geometry and thermodynamics \cite{nota1}. 

1333: In fact, the microcanonical average of ${M_1^\star}/{\Vert\nabla H\Vert}$, 

1334: which is a quantity 

1335: tightly related with the mean curvature of $\Sigma_E$, gives the inverse

1336: of the temperature, whence other important thermodynamic observables can be 

1337: derived. For example, the constant volume specific heat

1338: \begin{equation}

1339: \frac{1}{C_V}=\frac{\partial T(E)}{\partial E}~,

1340: \label{cv}

1341: \end{equation}

1342: using Eq.(\ref{temperature}), yields

1343: \begin{equation}

1344: C_V=-\left(\frac{\partial S}{\partial E}\right)^2\,\left(\frac{\partial^2S}

1345: {\partial E^2}\right)^{-1}~~,

1346: \label{cv1}

1347: \end{equation}

1348: becoming at large $N$ 

1349: \begin{equation}

1350: C_V=-\left<\frac{{M_1^\star}}{{\Vert\nabla H\Vert}}\right>_{mc}^2 \left[

1351:  \frac{1}{\Omega_{\nu}} \frac{d}{dE}

1352: \int_{\Sigma_E} \frac{d\sigma}

1353: {\Vert\nabla H\Vert}\,\left( \frac{M_1^\star}{\Vert\nabla H\Vert}+R(E)\right)

1354: - \left<\frac{{M_1^\star}}{{\Vert\nabla H\Vert}}\right>_{mc}^2\right]^{-1}~,

1355: \label{cv2}

1356: \end{equation}  

1357: where the subscript $mc$ stands for microcanonical average, and

1358: $R(E)$ stands for the quantities of order ${\cal O}(1/N)$  

1359: neglected in the last term of Eq.(\ref{temperature})

1360: (a-priori, its derivative can be non negligible and has to be taken into 

1361: account).

1362: Eq. (\ref{cv2}) highlights a more elaborated link between geometry and

1363: thermodynamics: the specific heat depends upon the microcanonical average of

1364: ${M_1^\star}/{\Vert\nabla H\Vert}$ and upon the energy variation rate of the 

1365: surface integral of this quantity. 

1366: 

1367: Remarkably, the relationship between curvature

1368: properties of the constant energy surfaces $\Sigma_E$ and thermodynamic

1369: observables given by Eqs.(\ref{temperature}) and (\ref{cv2}) can be extended

1370: to embrace also a deeper and very interesting relationship between 

1371: thermodynamics and {\it topology} of the constant

1372: energy surfaces. Such a relationship can be discovered through a 

1373: reasoning which, though approximate, is highly non-trivial, for it makes use

1374: of a deep theorem due to Chern and Lashof \cite{ChernLashof}. 

1375: As $\Vert\nabla H\Vert =\{\sum_i p_i^2 + [\nabla_iV(q)]^2\}^{1/2}$ is a

1376: positive quantity increasing with the energy, we can write

1377: \begin{equation}

1378: \frac{1}{T}=

1379: \frac{1}{\Omega_{\nu}}\frac{d\Omega_{\nu}}{dE} \simeq\frac{1}{\Omega_{\nu}}

1380: \int_{\Sigma_E} \frac{d\sigma}

1381: {\Vert\nabla H\Vert}\, \frac{M_1^\star}{\Vert\nabla H\Vert}

1382: = D(E)\frac{1}{\Omega_{\nu}} \int_{\Sigma_E} d\sigma \, M_1~,

1383: \label{deformaz}

1384: \end{equation} 

1385: where we have introduced the factor function $D(E)$ in order to extract the

1386: total mean curvature $\int_{\Sigma_E} d\sigma \, M_1$; $D(E)$ has been 

1387: numerically found to be smooth and very close to $\langle {1}/{\Vert

1388: \nabla H\Vert^2} \rangle_{mc}$ (see Section \ref{5a} and Fig. 

1389: \ref{D(E)}). Then,  

1390: recalling the expression of a multinomial expansion  

1391: \begin{equation}

1392:         (x_1 + \cdots + x_{\nu})^{\nu} = \sum_{_{\{n_i\},\sum n_k =\nu}} 

1393: \frac{\nu !}{n_1!\cdots n_{\nu}!} \cdot x_1^{n_1} \cdots x_{\nu}^{n_{\nu}}~~ ,

1394: \label{somma1}

1395: \end{equation}

1396: and identifying the $x_i$ with the principal curvatures $k_i$, one obtains

1397: \begin{equation}

1398:  M_1^{\nu} = {\nu}! \prod_{i=1}^{\nu} k_i + R = {\nu}! K + R~~~,

1399: \end{equation}

1400: where $K=\prod_i k_i$ is the Gauss-Kronecker curvature,

1401: and $R$ is the sum (\ref{somma1}) without the term with the

1402: largest coefficient ($n_k=1, \ \forall k$).

1403: Using $\nu ! \simeq \nu^{\nu} e^{-\nu} \sqrt{2\pi\nu}$, 

1404: \begin{equation}

1405:   M_1^{\nu} \simeq \nu^{\nu} e^{-\nu} \sqrt{4\pi N}  K + R

1406: \label{pallino}

1407: \end{equation}

1408: is obtained. 

1409: The above mentioned theorem of Chern and Lashof 

1410: states that

1411: \begin{equation}

1412: \int_{\Sigma_E}

1413: \vert K\vert\,d\sigma\geq Vol[{\Bbb S}_1^{\nu}]\sum_{i=0}^{\nu} 

1414: b_i(\Sigma_E )~,

1415: \label{chern1}

1416: \end{equation}

1417: i.e. the total absolute Gauss-Kronecker curvature of a hypersurface is

1418: related with the sum of all its Betti numbers $b_i(\Sigma_E)$. The Betti 

1419: numbers are {\it diffeomorphism invariants} of fundamental topological 

1420: meaning \cite{Betti}, therefore their sum is also a topologic invariant.

1421: ${\Bbb S}_1^\nu$ is a hypersphere of unit radius. Combining Eqs.

1422: (\ref{pallino}) and (\ref{chern1}) and integrating on $\Sigma_E$, we obtain

1423: \begin{equation}

1424:   \int_{\Sigma_E}\vert M_1^{\nu}\vert\, d \sigma \simeq   

1425: \nu^{\nu} e^{-\nu} \sqrt{2\pi\nu} 

1426: \int_{\Sigma_E}\vert K\vert d \sigma + \int_{\Sigma_E}\vert R\vert d \sigma

1427: \ge {\cal A}\,\sum_{i=0}^{\nu} b_i(\Sigma_E ) + {\cal R}(E)~~,

1428: \label{tria}

1429: \end{equation}

1430: with the shorthands        

1431: ${\cal A}=\nu^{\nu} e^{-\nu} Vol(S_1^{\nu})$ and  ${\cal R}=\int_{\Sigma_E}

1432: \vert R\vert d \sigma$. 

1433:  

1434: Now, with the aid of the inequality $\int\Vert f\Vert^{1/n}d\mu\geq\Vert\int f

1435: d\mu\Vert^{1/n}$, we can write

1436: \begin{equation}

1437: \int_{\Sigma_E}\vert M_1\vert\, d \sigma = \int_{\Sigma_E}\vert M_1^{\nu}\vert

1438: ^{1/\nu}\, d \sigma \geq  

1439: \left\vert\int_{\Sigma_E}M_1^{\nu}\,d\sigma\right\vert^{1/\nu}~~.

1440: \label{chern2}

1441: \end{equation}

1442: If $M_1\geq 0$ everywhere on $\Sigma_E$, then 

1443: $\left\vert\int_{\Sigma_E}M_1^{\nu}\,d\sigma\right\vert^{1/\nu} =

1444: \left(\int_{\Sigma_E}\vert M_1^{\nu}\vert\,d\sigma\right)^{1/\nu}$, whence, in 

1445: the hypothesis that $M_1\geq 0$ is largely prevailing \cite{bassi-indici}, 

1446: $\left\vert\int_{\Sigma_E}M_1^{\nu}\,d\sigma\right\vert^{1/\nu} \sim

1447: \left(\int_{\Sigma_E}\vert M_1^{\nu}\vert\,d\sigma\right)^{1/\nu}$. Under the 

1448: same assumption, $\int_{\Sigma_E}M_1d\sigma\sim\int_{\Sigma_E}\vert M_1\vert

1449: d\sigma$ and therefore 

1450: \begin{equation}

1451: \int_{\Sigma_E} M_1\, d \sigma \sim \int_{\Sigma_E}\vert M_1^{\nu}\vert

1452: ^{1/\nu}\, d \sigma \geq  

1453: \left\vert\int_{\Sigma_E}M_1^{\nu}\,d\sigma\right\vert^{1/\nu} \sim  

1454: \left(\int_{\Sigma_E}\vert M_1^{\nu}\vert\,d\sigma\right)^{1/\nu} 

1455: \geq \left[ {\cal A}\sum_{i=0}^{\nu} b_i(\Sigma_E ) + {\cal R}(E)

1456: \right]^{1/\nu}~~.

1457: \label{chern3}

1458: \end{equation}

1459: Finally,

1460: \begin{eqnarray}

1461: \frac{1}{T(E)} = 

1462: \frac{1}{\Omega_{\nu}}\frac{d\Omega_{\nu}}{dE}& \simeq &

1463: \left<\frac{{M_1^\star}}{{\Vert\nabla H\Vert}}\right>_{mc} =\, 

1464: \frac{1}{\Omega_{\nu}} \int_{\Sigma_E} \frac{d\sigma}

1465: {\Vert\nabla H\Vert}\, \frac{M_1^\star}{\Vert\nabla H\Vert}

1466: = D(E)\frac{1}{\Omega_{\nu}} \int_{\Sigma_E} d\sigma \, M_1\nonumber \\

1467: &\geq &  

1468: \frac{D(E)}{\Omega_{\nu}}\left[ {\cal A}

1469: \sum_{i=0}^{\nu} b_i(\Sigma_E ) + {\cal R}(E) \right]^{1/\nu}~~.

1470: \label{thermtop}

1471: \end{eqnarray} 

1472: Equation (\ref{thermtop}) has the remarkable property of relating 

1473: the microcanonical definition of

1474: temperature of Eq.(\ref{deformaz}) with a {\it topologic invariant} of

1475: $\Sigma_E$.

1476: The Betti numbers can be exponentially large with $N$ [for example, 

1477: in the case of $N$-tori ${\Bbb T}^N$, they are $b_k={N\choose k}$], so that 

1478: the quantity $(\sum b_k)^{1/N}$ can converge, at arbitrarily large $N$, to a 

1479: non-trivial limit (i.e. different from one). 

1480: Thus, even though the energy dependence of ${\cal R}$ is

1481: unknown, the energy variation of $\sum b_i(\Sigma_E)$ must be mirrored -- at 

1482: any arbitrary $N$ -- by the energy variation of the temperature. 

1483: By considering Eq.(\ref{cv2}) in the light of Eq.(\ref{thermtop}), we can

1484: expect that 

1485: some suitably abrupt and major change in the topology of the $\Sigma_E$ can 

1486: reflect into the appearance of a peak of the specific heat,

1487: as a consequence of the associated  

1488: energy dependence of $\sum b_k(\Sigma_E)$ and of its derivative with respect 

1489: to $E$. In other words, we see that a link must exist between thermodynamical

1490: phase transitions and suitable topology changes of the constant energy 

1491: submanifolds of the phase space of microscopic variables. 

1492: The arguments given above, though in a still rough formulation, provide a 

1493: first attempt to

1494: make a connection between the topological aspects of the {\it microcanonical} 

1495: description of phase transitions and the already proposed {\it topological 

1496: hypothesis} about topology changes in configuration space and phase transitions

1497: \cite{CCCP,CCCPPG,cegdcp,fps1,fps2}. 

1498: 

1499: Direct support to the {\it topological 

1500: hypothesis} has been given by the analytic study of a mean-field XY model

1501: \cite{cegdcp} and by the numerical computation of the Euler characteristic 

1502: $\chi$ of the equipotential hypersurfaces $\Sigma_v$ of the configuration 

1503: space in a $2d$ lattice $\varphi^4$ model \cite{fps2}.

1504: The Euler characteristic is the alternate sum of all the Betti numbers of

1505: a manifold, so it is another topological invariant, but it identically

1506: vanishes for odd dimensional manifolds, like the $\Sigma_E$. 

1507: In Ref.\cite{fps2},

1508: $\chi (\Sigma_v)$ neatly reveals the symmetry-breaking phase transition

1509: through a sudden change of

1510: its variation rate with the potential energy density $v$. A sudden 

1511: ``second order'' variation of the topology of the $\Sigma_v$ appears in both

1512: Refs.\cite{cegdcp,fps2} as the requisite for the appearance of a phase 

1513: transition. These results strenghten the arguments given in the present 

1514: Section about the role of the topology of the constant energy hypersurfaces.

1515: In fact, the larger is $N$, the smaller are the relative fluctuations

1516: $\langle\delta^2V\rangle^{1/2}/\langle V\rangle$ and $\langle\delta^2K\rangle

1517: ^{1/2}/\langle K\rangle$ of the potential and kinetic energies respectively.

1518: At very large $N$,  the product manifold

1519: $\Sigma^{N-1}_v\times{\Bbb S}_t^{N-1}$, with $v\equiv\langle V\rangle$ and

1520: $t\equiv\langle K\rangle$, $v+t=E$, is a good model manifold to represent 

1521: the part of $\Sigma_E$ that is overwhelmingly sampled by the dynamics and that

1522: therefore constitutes the effective support of the microcanonical measure

1523: on $\Sigma_E$. The kinetic energy submanifolds ${\Bbb S}_t^{N-1}=\{(p_1,\dots 

1524: ,p_N)\in{\Bbb R}^N\vert\sum_{i=1}^N\frac{1}{2}p_i^2=t\}$ are hyperspheres.

1525: 

1526: In other words, at very large $N$ the microcanonical measure 

1527: mathematically extends over a whole energy surface but, as far as physics

1528: is concerned, a non-negligible contribution to the microcanonical measure is

1529: in practice given only by a small subset of an energy surface. This subset can

1530: be reasonably modeled by the product manifold $\Sigma^{N-1}_v\times{\Bbb S}

1531: _t^{N-1}$, because the total kinetic and total potential energies - having

1532: arbitrarily small fluctuations, provided that $N$ is large enough - can be

1533: considered almost constant. Thus, since ${\Bbb S}_t^{N-1}$ at any $t$ is always

1534: an hypersphere, a change in the topology of $\Sigma^{N-1}_v$ directly entails 

1535: a change of the topology of $\Sigma^{N-1}_v\times {\Bbb S}_t^{N-1}$, that is

1536: of the effective model-manifold for the subset of $\Sigma_E$ where the dynamics

1537: mainly ``lives'' at a given energy $E$.

1538: 

1539: At small $N$, the model with a single product manifold is no longer good and 

1540: should be replaced by the non-countable union $\bigcup_{v\in{\cal I}\subset

1541: {\Bbb R}}\Sigma^{N-1}_v\times{\Bbb S}_{E-v}^{N-1}$, with $v$ assuming all the 

1542: possible values in a real interval ${\cal I}$. From this fact the smoothing 

1543: of the energy dependence of thermodynamic variables follows. 

1544: Nevertheless, the geometric and 

1545: topologic signals of the phase transition can remain much sharper than the

1546: thermodynamic signals also at small $N$ $(< 100)$, as it is witnessed by the

1547: $2d$ lattice $\varphi^4$ model \cite{fps1,fps2}.

1548: 

1549: Finally, let us comment about the relationship between intrinsic geometry, 

1550: in terms of

1551: which we discussed the geometrization of the dynamics, and extrinsic

1552: geometry, dealt with in the present Section.

1553: 

1554: The most direct and intriguing link is estabilished by the 

1555: expression for microcanonical averages of generic observables of the kind

1556: $A(q)$, with $q=(q_1,\dots,q_N)$,

1557: \begin{equation}

1558: \langle A\,\rangle_{mc}  = \frac{1}{\Omega_{2N}(E)} \int_{H(p,q)\leq E} 

1559: d^Np\, d^Nq\, A(q)

1560: =\frac{1}{Vol(M_E)}\int_{V(q)\leq E} d^Nq\, [E - V(q)]^{N/2}\, A(q)~,

1561: \label{medie1}

1562: \end{equation}

1563: where $M_E=\{q\in{\Bbb R}^N\vert V(q)\leq E\}$. Eq. (\ref{medie1}) is 

1564: obtained by means of a Laplace-transform method \cite{Pearson}; it is 

1565: remarkable that $[E-V(q)]^N\equiv det(g_J)$, where $g_J$ is the Jacobi metric

1566: whose geodesic flow coincides with newtonian dynamics (see Section $V$),

1567: therefore $d^Nq\, [E - V(q)]^{N/2}\equiv d^N q\, \sqrt{det (g_J)}$

1568: is the invariant Riemannian volume element of $(M_E,g_J)$. Thus, 

1569: \begin{equation}

1570: \frac{1}{Vol(M_E)}\int_{V(q)\leq E} d^Nq\, [E - V(q)]^{N/2}\, A(q) \equiv\;

1571: \frac{1}{Vol(M_E)}\int_{M_E} d^Nq\, \sqrt{det (g_J)}\, A(q)~,

1572: \label{medie2}

1573: \end{equation} 

1574: which means that the microcanonical averages $\langle A(q)\,\rangle_{mc}$ 

1575: can be expressed as Riemannian integrals on the mechanical manifold 

1576: $(M_E,g_J)$. 

1577: 

1578: In particular, this also applies to the microcanonical definition of entropy 

1579: \begin{equation}

1580: S = k_B \log \int_{H(p,q)\leq E} d^N p\, d^N q\, =

1581:  k_B \log \int_0^E dE^\prime \int_{\Sigma_{E^\prime}} \frac{d\sigma}

1582: {\Vert{\nabla H}\Vert}~,  

1583: \label{entropy1}

1584: \end{equation}

1585: which is alternative to that given in Eq.(\ref{entropy}), though equivalent 

1586: to it in the large $N$ limit. We have  

1587: \begin{eqnarray}

1588: S &=& k_B \log \left[ \frac{1}{C \Gamma (N/2+1)} \int_{V(q)\leq E} 

1589: d^Nq \;[E - V(q)]^{N/2}\right] \nonumber \\

1590: &\equiv & k_B \log \int_{M_E} d^N q\, \sqrt{det (g_J)}+\, const\,.~~,

1591: \label{entropy2}

1592: \end{eqnarray}

1593: where the last term gives the entropy as the logarithm of the 

1594: Riemannian volume  of the manifold.  

1595: 

1596: The topology changes of the surfaces $\Sigma_v^{N-1}$, that are to be 

1597: associated with phase transitions, will deeply affect also the geometry of

1598: the mechanical manifolds $(M_E, g_J)$ and $(M\times{\Bbb R}^2, g_E)$ 

1599: and, consequently, they will affect the average instability properties of

1600: their geodesic flows. In fact, Eq.(\ref{lambda}) links some curvature

1601: averages of these manifolds with the numeric value of the largest Lyapunov 

1602: exponent. Loosely speaking, major topology changes of $\Sigma_v^{N-1}$ will

1603: affect microcanonical averages of geometric quantities 

1604: computed through Eq.(\ref{medie1}), likewise entropy, computed

1605: through Eq.(\ref{entropy2}).

1606: 

1607: Thus, the peculiar temperature patterns displayed by the largest Lyapunov 

1608: exponent at a second-order phase transition point -- in the present paper

1609: reported for the $3d$ $XY$ model, in Ref.\cite{CCCPPG} reported for

1610: lattice $\varphi^4$ models -- appear as reasonable consequences of the deep 

1611: variations of the topology of the equipotential hypersurfaces of configuration 

1612: space.

1613: 

1614: We notice that topology seems to provide a common ground to the roots of 

1615: microscopic dynamics and of thermodynamics and, notably, it can account for

1616:  major qualitative changes simultaneously occurring in both dynamics and

1617: thermodynamics when a phase transition is present.

1618: 

1619: \medskip

1620: \subsection{Some preliminary numerical computations}

1621: \label{5a}

1622: \medskip

1623: Let us briefly report on some preliminary numerical computations concerning 

1624: the extrinsic geometry of the hypersurfaces $\Sigma_E$ in the case of the $3d$ 

1625: XY model. 

1626: 

1627: The first point about extrinsic geometry that we numerically addressed was to

1628: check whether the inverse of the temperature, that appears in 

1629: Eq.(\ref{deformaz}), can be reasonably factorized into the product of a smooth 

1630: ``deformation factor'' $D(E)$ and of the total mean curvature 

1631: $\int_{\Sigma_E}M_1d\sigma$.

1632: To this purpose, the two independently computed quantities 

1633: $\langle 1/\Vert\nabla H\Vert^2\rangle_{mc}$ and $D(E)=[\int_{\Sigma_E}

1634: (d\sigma /\Vert\nabla H\Vert )(M_1^\star/\Vert\nabla H\Vert)]\,/\,

1635: [\int_{\Sigma_E}d\sigma M_1]$ are compared in Fig. \ref{D(E)},

1636: showing that actually $\int_{\Sigma_E}(d\sigma /\Vert\nabla H\Vert )

1637: (M_1^\star/\Vert\nabla H\Vert) \simeq

1638: \langle 1/\Vert\nabla H\Vert^2\rangle_{mc}\int_{\Sigma_E}d\sigma M_1$.

1639: In other words, $D(E)\simeq\langle 1/\Vert\nabla H\Vert^2\rangle_{mc}$ 

1640: and no ``singular'' feature in its energy pattern

1641: seems to exist, what suggests that $\int_{\Sigma_E} d\sigma \ M_1$ has to 

1642: convey all the information 

1643: relevant to the detection of the phase transition.

1644: There is no reason to think that the validity of the 

1645: factorization given in Eq.(\ref{deformaz}) is limited to the special case 

1646: of the XY model.

1647: 

1648: The other point that we tackled concerns an indirect quantification of how

1649: a phase space trajectory curves around and knots on the $\Sigma_E$ to which 

1650: it belongs. We can expect that the way in which an hypersurface 

1651: $\Sigma_E$ is ``filled'' by a phase space trajectory living on it will be 

1652: affected by the geometry and the topology of the $\Sigma_E$.

1653: In particular, we computed the normalized autocorrelation function of the time

1654: series $M_1[x(t)]$ of the mean curvature at the points of $\Sigma_E$ visited

1655: by the phase space trajectory, 

1656: that is, the quantity

1657: \begin{equation}

1658: \Gamma (\tau )=\langle \delta M_1(t+\tau )\delta M_1(t)\rangle_t~~,

1659: \label{autocor}

1660: \end{equation}

1661: where $\delta M_1(t)=M_1(t)-\langle M_1(t^\prime )\rangle_{t^\prime}$ is the

1662: fluctuation with respect to the average (the ``process'' $M_1(t)$ is supposed

1663: stationary). Our aim was to highlight the extrinsic

1664: geometric-dynamical counterpart of a symmetry-breaking phase transition.

1665: 

1666: The practical computation of $\Gamma (\tau )$ proceeds by working out the 

1667: Fourier power spectrum $\vert \tilde M_1(\omega )\vert^2$ of $M_1[x(t)]$,

1668: obtained by averaging $15$ spectra computed by an FFT algorithm with a mesh

1669: of $2^{15}$ points and a sampling time $\Delta t=0.1$.

1670: Some typical results for $\Gamma (\tau )$, obtained at different temperatures,

1671: are reported in Fig.\ref{Gamma}. The patterns $\Gamma (\tau )$ display a

1672: first regime of very fast decay, which is not surprising because of the 

1673: chaoticity of the trajectories at 

1674: any energy, followed by a longer tail of slower 

1675: decay. An autocorrelation time $\tau_{corr}$ can be defined

1676: through the first intercept of $\Gamma (\tau )$ with an almost-zero level

1677: ($\Gamma =0.01$).

1678: In Fig.\ref{tau} we report the values of $\tau_{corr}$ so defined vs.

1679: temperature.

1680: In correspondence of the phase transition (whose critical temperature is 

1681: marked by a vertical dotted line), $\tau_{corr}$ changes its temperature 

1682: dependence: by lowering the temperature,

1683: below the transition $\tau_{corr}(T)$ rapidly increases, 

1684: whereas it mildly 

1685: decreases above the transition. Below $T\simeq 0.9$, where the vortices

1686: disappear, the autocorrelation functions of $M_1$ look quite different and 

1687: it seems no longer possible to coherently define a correlation time. 

1688: This result has an intuitive meaning and confirms that the phase transition

1689: corresponds to a change in the microscopic dynamics, as already signaled by

1690: the largest Lyapunov exponent; however, notice that the correlation times 

1691: $\tau_{corr}(T)$ are much longer than the inverse values of the corresponding 

1692: $\lambda_1(T)$. Qualitatively, $\lambda_1(T)$ and $\tau_{corr}^{-1}(T)$

1693: look similar, however the two functions are not simply related.

1694: \medskip

1695: \section{Discussion and perspectives}

1696: \medskip

1697: The microscopic Hamiltonian dynamics of the classical Heisenberg XY model in

1698: two and three spatial dimensions has been numerically investigated.

1699: This has been possible after the addition to the Heisenberg potentials of

1700: a standard (quadratic) kinetic energy term.

1701: Special emphasis has been given to the study of the dynamical counterpart

1702: of phase transitions, detected through the time averages of conventional 

1703: thermodynamic observables, and to the new mathematical concepts that are

1704: brought about by Hamiltonian dynamics.

1705: 

1706: The motivations of the present study are given in the Introduction.

1707: Let us now summarize what are the outcomes of our investigations and comment 

1708: about their meaning.  There are three main topics, tightly related one to 

1709: the other:

1710: \begin{itemize} 

1711: \item{} the phenomenological description of phase transitions through the 

1712: natural, microscopic dynamics in place of the usual Monte Carlo stochastic 

1713: dynamics; 

1714: \smallskip

1715: \item{} the investigation, in presence of phase transitions, of certain  

1716: aspects of the (intrinsic) geometry of the mechanical manifolds where the

1717: natural dynamics is represented as a geodesic flow;

1718: \smallskip

1719: \item{} the discussion of the relationship between the (extrinsic) 

1720: geometry of constant energy hypersurfaces of phase space and thermodynamics.

1721: \smallskip

1722: \end{itemize}

1723: About the first point, we have found that microscopic Hamiltonian dynamics very

1724: clearly evidences the presence of a second order phase transition through the

1725: time averages of conventional thermodynamic observables. Moreover, the 

1726: familiar 

1727: sharpening effects, at increasing $N$, of the specific heat peak and  

1728: of the order parameter bifurcation are observed. The evolution of the 

1729: order parameter with respect to the physical time (instead of the

1730: fictitious Monte Carlo time) is also accessible, showing the appearance of 

1731: Goldstone modes and that, in presence of a second order phase transition,

1732: there is a clear tendency to the freezing of transverse fluctuations

1733: of the order parameter when $N$ is increased. 

1734: The "freezing" is observed together with a reduction of the

1735: longitudinal fluctuations, i.e.  the rotation of the magnetization 

1736: vector slows down, preparing the breaking of the $O(2)$ symmetry at 

1737: $N\rightarrow\infty$. At variance, when a Kosterlitz-Thouless transition is 

1738: present, at increasing $N$ the magnetization vector has a faster rotation

1739: and a smaller norm, preparing the absence of symmetry-breaking in the

1740: $N\rightarrow\infty$ limit as expected. 

1741: 

1742: Remarkably, to detect phase transitions, microscopic Hamiltonian dynamics 

1743: provides us with additional observables of purely dynamical nature, i.e.

1744: without statistical counterpart: Lyapunov exponents. Similarly to what we and 

1745: other authors already reported for other models (see Introduction), also

1746: in the case of the $3d$ XY model a peculiar 

1747: temperature pattern of the largest Lyapunov exponent shows up in presence of

1748: the second order phase transition, signaled by a ``cuspy'' point. 

1749: By comparing the patterns $\lambda_1(T)$ given by Hamiltonian dynamics and by 

1750: a suitably defined random dynamics respectively, we suggest that the 

1751: transition between thermodynamically ordered and disordered phases has its 

1752: microscopic dynamical counterpart in a transition between weak and strong 

1753: chaos. Though $a-posteriori$ physically reasonable, this result is far from

1754: obvious, because the largest Lyapunov exponent measures the average 

1755: {\it local instability} of the dynamics, which $a-priori$ has little to do

1756: with a {\it collective}, and therefore global, phenomenon such as a phase 

1757: transition.

1758: The effort to understand the reason of such a sensitivity of $\lambda_1$ to

1759: a second order phase transition and to other kinds of transitions, as

1760: mentioned in the Introduction, is far reaching. 

1761: 

1762: Here we arrive to the second

1763: point listed above. In the framework of a Riemannian geometrization of

1764: Hamiltonian dynamics, the largest Lyapunov exponent is related to the 

1765: curvature properties of suitable submanifolds of configuration space whose

1766: geodesics coincide with the natural motions. In the mathematical light of this

1767: geometrization of the dynamics, and after the numerical evidence of a sharp

1768: peak of curvature fluctuations at the phase transition point, the peculiar 

1769: pattern of $\lambda_1(T)$ is due to some major change occurring to the geometry

1770: of mechanical manifolds at the phase transition. Elsewhere, we have conjectured

1771: that indeed some major change in the {\it topology} of configuration space

1772: submanifolds should be the very source of the mentioned major change of 

1773: geometry. 

1774: 

1775: Thus, we have made a first attempt to provide an analytic argument

1776: supporting this topological hypothesis (third point of the above list).

1777: This is based on the appearance of a non trivial relationship between the

1778: geometry of constant energy hypersurfaces of phase space with their topology

1779: and with the microcanonical definition of thermodynamics. Even still in a

1780: preliminary formulation, our reasoning already seems to indicate  the 

1781: topology of energy hypersurfaces as the best candidate to explain the deep

1782: origin of the dynamical signature of phase transitions detected through

1783: $\lambda_1(T)$.

1784: 

1785: The circumstance, mentioned in the preceding Section, of the persistence 

1786: at small $N$ of  geometric and topologic signals of the phase transition 

1787: that are much sharper than the thermodynamic signals is of

1788: prospective interest for the study of phase transition phenomena in finite,

1789: small systems, a topic of growing interest thanks to the modern developments

1790: - mainly experimental - about the physics of nuclear, atomic and molecular 

1791: clusters, of conformational phase transitions in homopolymers and proteins,

1792: of mesoscopic systems, of soft-matter systems of biological interest.

1793: In fact, some unambiguous information for small systems - even about the 

1794: existence itself of a phase transition - could be better obtained by means 

1795: of concepts and mathematical tools outlined here and in the quoted papers.

1796: Here we also join the very interesting line of thought of Gross and 

1797: collaborators \cite{Gross,Gross3} about the microcanonical description of phase

1798: transitions in finite systems. 

1799: 

1800: Let us conclude with a speculative comment about another possible direction of

1801: investigation related with this signature of phase transitions through Lyapunov

1802: exponents. 

1803: In a field-theoretic framework, based on a path-integral

1804: formulation of classical mechanics \cite{reuter,gozzi1,gozzi2}, Lyapunov 

1805: exponents are defined through the expectation values of suitable operators. 

1806: In the field-theoretic framework, ergodicity breaking appears related to a

1807: supersymmetry breaking \cite{reuter}, and Lyapunov exponents are related to 

1808: mathematical objects that have many analogies with topological concepts 

1809: \cite{gozzi2}.

1810: 

1811: The new mathematical concepts and methods, that the Hamiltonian 

1812: dynamical approach brings about, could hopefully be useful also in the study 

1813: of more ``exotic'' transition phenomena than those tackled in the present 

1814: work. Besides the above mentioned soft-matter systems, this could be the case 

1815: of transition phenomena occurring in amorphous and disordered materials.

1816: 

1817: \medskip

1818: \section{acknowledgments}

1819: \medskip

1820: We warmly thank L. Casetti, E.G.D. Cohen,R. Franzosi and L. Spinelli for

1821: many helpful discussions.

1822: During the last year C.C. has been supported by the

1823: NSF (Grant \# 96-03839) and by the La Jolla Interfaces in Science

1824: program (sponsored by the Burroughs Wellcome Fund).

1825: This work has been partially supported by I.N.F.M., under the PAIS

1826: {\it Equilibrium and non-equilibrium dynamics in condensed matter systems},

1827: which is hereby gratefully acknowledged.

1828: 

1829: \medskip

1830: \section{Appendix A}

1831: \medskip

1832: 

1833: Let us briefly explain how a random markovian dynamics is constructed on a

1834: given constant energy hypersurface of phase space. The goal is to

1835: compare the energy dependence of the largest Lyapunov exponent computed

1836: for the Hamiltonian flow and for a suitable random walk respectively.

1837: One has to devise an algorithm to generate a random walk on a given energy

1838: hypersurface such that, once the time interval $\Delta t$ separating two

1839: successive steps is assigned, the average increments of the coordinates

1840: are equal to the average increments of the same coordinates for the

1841: differentiable dynamics integrated with a time step $\Delta t$.

1842: In other words, the random walk has to roughly mimick the differentiable 

1843: dynamics with the exception of its possible time-correlations.

1844: 

1845: One starts with a random initial configuration of the coordinates

1846: $q_{i},~ i=1,2,\ldots,N$, uniformly distributed in the interval

1847: $[0,2\pi]$, and with a random gaussian-distributed choice of the 

1848: coordinates $p_{i}$.

1849: The random pseudo-trajectory is generated according to the simple scheme

1850: \begin{eqnarray}

1851: (q_{i})_{(k+1)\Delta t} &\mapsto& (q_{i})_{k \Delta t} +

1852: \alpha _{q} G_{i,k} \Delta t \nonumber\\

1853: (p_{i})_{(k+1)\Delta t} &\mapsto& (p_{i})_{k \Delta t} +

1854: \alpha _{p} G_{i,k} \Delta t~~,

1855: \label{step.micro}

1856: \end{eqnarray}

1857: where $\Delta t$ is the time interval associated to one step $k \mapsto k+1$ 

1858: in the markovian chain, $G_{i,k}$ are gaussian distributed random numbers with

1859: zero expectation value and unit variance; the parameters

1860: $\alpha_{q}$ and $\alpha_{p}$ are the variances of the processes

1861: $(q_i)_k$ and $(p_i)_k$.

1862: These variances are functions of the energy per degree of freedom

1863: $\varepsilon$. They have to be set equal to the 

1864: numerically computed average increments of the coordinates obtained  

1865: along the differentiable trajectories integrated with the same time step 

1866: $\Delta t$, that is

1867: \begin{eqnarray}

1868: \alpha_{q}(\epsilon)&=&\left\langle\left[{\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}

1869: \frac{(q_{i}(t+\Delta t)

1870: -q_{i}(t))^{2}}{\Delta t}}\right]^{1/2}\right\rangle_t \sim

1871: \left\langle\left[ {\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}p_{i}^{2}}\right]^{1/2}

1872: \right\rangle_t\sim \sqrt{T}\nonumber\\

1873: \alpha_{p}(\epsilon)&=&\left\langle\left[{\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}

1874: \frac{(p_{i}(t+\Delta t)-p_{i}(t))^{2}}{\Delta t}}\right]^{1/2}\right

1875: \rangle_t\sim

1876: \left\langle\left[{\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N} \dot{p}_{i}^{2}}\right]^{1/2}

1877: \right\rangle_t~~,

1878: \end{eqnarray}

1879: where $T$ is the temperature.

1880: Then, in order to make minimum the energy fluctuations around any given value

1881: of the total energy, a criterium to accept or reject a new step along the

1882: markovian chain has to be assigned.

1883: A similar problem has been considered by Creutz, who developed

1884: a Monte Carlo microcanonical algorithm \cite{Creutz}, where a 

1885: "Maxwellian demon" gives a part of its energy to the system to let it move to 

1886: a new configuration, or gains energy from the system,

1887: if the new proposed configuration produces an energy lowering. If the demon

1888: does not have enough energy to allow an energy increasing update of the

1889: coordinates, no coordinate change is performed. In this way, the total 

1890: energy remains almost constant with only small fluctuations.

1891: As usual in Monte Carlo simulations, it is appropriate to fix the parameters 

1892: so as the acceptance rate of the proposed updates of the configurations is 

1893: in the range $30\%$ -- $60\%$.

1894: 

1895: A reliability check of the so defined random walk, and of the 

1896: adequacy of the phase space sampling through the number of steps 

1897: adopted in each run, is obtained by computing the averages of typical 

1898: thermodynamic observables of known temperature dependences.

1899: 

1900: An improvement to the above described ``demon'' algorithm  has been 

1901: obtained through a simple reprojection on $\Sigma_E$ of the

1902: updated configurations \cite{Pettini}; 

1903: the coordinates generated by means of (\ref {step.micro})

1904: are corrected with the formulae

1905: \beq

1906: q_{i}(k \Delta t) \mapsto q_{i}(k \Delta t) +

1907: \left[\frac{(\frac{\partial H}{\partial q_{i}}) \Delta E}

1908: {\sum_{i=1}^N (p_{j}^2+

1909: (\frac{\partial H}{\partial q_{j}})^2 )}\right]_{x_{R}({k \Delta t})} \

1910: \eeq

1911: \[

1912: p_{i}({k \Delta t}) \mapsto p_{i}({k \Delta t}) -

1913: \left[\frac{p_{i} \Delta E}{\sum_{j=1}^N (p_{j}^2+

1914: (\frac{\partial H}{\partial q_{j}})^2 )}\right]_{x_{R}({k \Delta t})}~~, \

1915: \]

1916: where $\Delta E$ is the difference between the energy of the new configuration

1917: and the reference energy, and $x_{R}({k \Delta t})$ denotes the random

1918: phase space trajectory.

1919: At each assigned energy, the computation of the largest Lyapunov exponent

1920: $\lambda_{1}^R$ of this random trajectory is obtained by means of the 

1921: standard definition

1922: \begin{equation}

1923: \lambda_{1}^R = \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{n \Delta t}\sum_{k=1}^n

1924: \log \frac{\| \zeta ((k+1) \Delta t)\|}{\| \zeta (k \Delta t)\|}~~,

1925: \label{bgs}

1926: \end{equation}

1927: where $\zeta (t)\equiv (\xi (t),\dot\xi (t))$ is given by the discretized 

1928: version of the tangent dynamics

1929: \begin{equation}

1930: \frac{\xi_i ((k+1)\Delta t)-2 \xi_i(k\Delta t)+\xi_i ((k-1)\Delta t)}

1931: {\Delta {t}^2}+

1932: \left(\frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial q_{i} \partial q_{j}}\right)_

1933: {x_{R}(k \Delta t)}

1934: \xi_j (k \Delta t) = 0~~.

1935: \label{tandynR}

1936: \end{equation}

1937: 

1938: For wide variations of the parameters ($\Delta t$ and

1939: acceptance rate), 

1940: the resulting values of $\lambda_{1}^R$ are in very good agreement.

1941: Moreover, the algorithm is sufficiently stable

1942:  and the final value of $\lambda_{1}^R$ is independent of

1943: the choice of the initial condition.

1944: 

1945: A more refined algorithm could be implemented by constructing a random 

1946: markovian process $q(t_k)\equiv [q_1(t_k),\dots ,q_N(t_k)]$ performing an 

1947: importance sampling of the measure $d\mu =[E-V(q)]^{N/2-1}\,dq$ in 

1948: configuration space. In fact, similarly to what is reported in 

1949: Eq.(\ref{medie1}), one has \cite{Pearson} $\int_{H(p,q)= E} d^Np\, d^Nq\, =

1950: \, const\,\int_{V(q)\leq E} d^Nq\, [E - V(q)]^{N/2-1}$. A random  process

1951: obtained by sampling such a measure -- with the additional property

1952: of a relation between the average increment and the physical time step 

1953: $\Delta t$ as discussed above --

1954:  would enter into Eq.(\ref{tandynR}) to yield $\lambda_1^R$.

1955: However, this would result in much heavier numerical computations (with some

1956: additional technical difficulty at large $N$) which was not worth in view of 

1957: the principal aims of the present work.

1958: 

1959: 

1960: \begin{thebibliography}{999}

1961: 

1962: \bibitem[a]{moni} Electronic address: mcs@arcetri.astro.it

1963: 

1964: \bibitem[b]{cecilia} Electronic address: cclementi@ucsd.edu

1965: 

1966: \bibitem[c]{marco} Also at INFN, Sezione di Firenze, Italy.

1967: Electronic address: pettini@arcetri.astro.it

1968: 

1969: \bibitem{CCCP} L. Caiani, L. Casetti, C. Clementi and M. Pettini,

1970:                Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79}, 4361 (1997).

1971: 

1972: \bibitem{Gallavotti} G. Gallavotti, {\it Meccanica Statistica}, 

1973:                     (Quaderni C.N.R., Roma, 1995).

1974: 

1975: \bibitem{Thirring} P. Hertel, and W. Thirring, Ann. Phys. (NY) {\bf 63},

1976:                    520 (1971).

1977: 

1978: \bibitem{Lyndenbell} R.M. Lynden-Bell, in {\it Gravitational Dynamics},

1979:                      O. Lahav, E. Terlevich and R.J. Terlevich, eds.,

1980:                      Cambridge Contemporary Astrophysics, (Cambridge

1981:                      Univ. Press, 1996)

1982: 

1983: \bibitem{Gross} D.H.E. Gross, Phys. Rep. {\bf 279}, 119 (1997); D.H.E. Gross

1984:            and M.E. Madjet, {\it Microcanonical vs. canonical thermodynamics},

1985:            archived in cond-mat/9611192

1986:      see also the references quoted in these papers. 

1987: 

1988: \bibitem{Gross2} D.H.E. Gross, A. Ecker and X.Z. Zhang, Ann. Physik {\bf 5},

1989:                  446 (1996).

1990: 

1991: \bibitem{Gross1} A. H\"uller, Z. Physik B{\bf 95}, 63 (1994); M. Promberger, 

1992: M. Kostner, and A. H\"uller, {\it Magnetic properties of finite systems: 

1993: microcanonical finite-size scaling}, archived in cond-mat/9904265.

1994: 

1995: \bibitem{Butera} P. Butera and G. Caravati, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 36}, 962 (1987).

1996: 

1997: \bibitem{Leoncini} X. Leoncini, A. Verga, and S. Ruffo, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 57},

1998: 6377 (1998).

1999: 

2000: \bibitem{Rapisarda} A. Bonasera, V. Latora, A. Rapisarda, Phys. Rev. Lett.

2001: {\bf 75}, 3434 (1995).

2002: 

2003: \bibitem{Ruffo} M. Antoni and S. Ruffo, Phys. Rev E {\bf 52}, 2361 (1995).

2004: 

2005: \bibitem{Antoni} M. Antoni and A. Torcini, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 57}, R6233 (1998).

2006: 

2007: \bibitem{CCP1} L. Caiani, L. Casetti and M. Pettini, J. Phys. A:

2008:                Math. Gen., {\bf 31}, 3357 (1998).

2009: 

2010: \bibitem{CCCPPG} L. Caiani, L. Casetti, C. Clementi, G. Pettini,

2011:                  M. Pettini and R. Gatto, Phys. Rev E {\bf 57}, 3886 (1998).

2012: 

2013: \bibitem{polimeri} C. Clementi, {\it Dynamics of homopolymeric chain models},

2014:                    Master Thesis, SISSA/ISAS, Trieste, (1996). 

2015: 

2016: \bibitem{Dellago} Ch. Dellago, H. A. Posch, W. G. Hoover, Phys. Rev. E 

2017: {\bf 53}, 1485 (1996); Ch. Dellago, H. A. Posch, Physica A {\bf 230}, 

2018: 364 (1996); Ch.\ Dellago and H.\ A.\ Posch, Physica A {\bf 237}, 95 (1997); 

2019: Ch.\ Dellago and H.\ A.\ Posch, Physica A {\bf 240}, 68 (1997) .

2020: 

2021: \bibitem{Mehra} V. Mehra, R. Ramaswamy, preprint

2022: {\tt chao-dyn/9706011}.

2023: 

2024: \bibitem{Berry} S. K. Nayak, P. Iena, K. D. Ball and R. S. Berry,

2025:                 J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 108}, 234 (1998).

2026: 

2027: \bibitem{Firpo} M.-C. Firpo, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 57}, 6599 (1998).

2028: 

2029: \bibitem{Ruffo_prl} V. Latora, A. Rapisarda, and S. Ruffo, Phys. Rev. Lett.

2030: {\bf 80}, 692 (1998).

2031: 

2032: \bibitem{Ruffo_talk} V. Latora, A. Rapisarda, and S. Ruffo, Physica D (1998),

2033: in press.

2034: 

2035: \bibitem{TobChes} J. Tobochnik, and G. V. Chester, Phys. Rev. B{\bf 20}, 

2036: 3761 (1979).

2037: 

2038: \bibitem{Gupta} R. Gupta, and C.F. Baillie, Phys. Rev. B{\bf 45}, 2883 (1992).

2039: 

2040: \bibitem{Lapo} L. Casetti, Phys. Scr. {\bf 51}, 29 (1995).

2041: 

2042: \bibitem{Pearson} E. M. Pearson, T. Halicioglu, and W. A. Tiller, Phys. Rev. 

2043: A{\bf 32}, 3030 (1985).

2044: 

2045: \bibitem{Palmer} A thorough discussion about ergodicity breaking, non

2046: interchangeability of $t\rightarrow\infty$ and $N\rightarrow\infty$ limits 

2047: can be found in: R.G. Palmer, Adv. Phys. {\bf 31}, 669 (1982).

2048: 

2049: \bibitem{LPV} J. Lebowitz, J. Percus, and L. Verlet, Phys. Rev.

2050: {\bf 153}, 250 (1967).

2051: 

2052: \bibitem{CCP} L. Casetti, C. Clementi and M. Pettini, Phys. Rev. E

2053:                     {\bf 54}, 5969 (1996).

2054: 

2055: \bibitem{Pettini} M.Pettini, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 47}, 828 (1993).

2056: 

2057: \bibitem{Eisenhart} L. P. Eisenhart, Ann. of Math. {\bf 30}, 591 (1939).

2058: 

2059: \bibitem{doCarmo} M. P. Do Carmo, {\it Riemannian Geometry} (Birkh\"{a}user,

2060:                   Boston, 1992).

2061: 

2062: \bibitem{CerrutiPettini} M.Cerruti-Sola and M. Pettini, Phys. Rev.

2063:                   E{\bf 53}, 179 (1996); M.Cerruti-Sola, R. Franzosi and

2064:                   M. Pettini, Phys. Rev. E{\bf 56}, 4872 (1997).

2065: 

2066: \bibitem{cegdcp} L. Casetti, E.G.D. Cohen, and M. Pettini, Phys. Rev. Lett.

2067: {\bf 82}, 4160 (1999).

2068: 

2069: \bibitem{fps1} R. Franzosi, L. Casetti, L. Spinelli, and M. Pettini,

2070:                Phys. Rev. E{\bf 60}, 5009 (1999).

2071: 

2072: \bibitem{fps2} R. Franzosi, M. Pettini, and L. Spinelli, {\it Topology and

2073: Phase transitions: a paradigmatic evidence}, Phys. Rev. Lett.,

2074: (1999) submitted; archived in cond-mat/9911235.

2075: 

2076: \bibitem{thorpe} J.A. Thorpe, {\it Elementary Topics in Differential Geometry},

2077: (Springer, New York, 1979).

2078: 

2079: \bibitem{laurence} P. Laurence, Zeit. Angew. Math. Phys.{\bf 40}, 258 (1989).

2080: 

2081: \bibitem{nota1} A similar formula is obtained in: H.H. Rugh, J.Phys.A: Math. 

2082: Gen. {\bf 31}, 7761 (1998), though without using the result of 

2083: Ref. \protect\cite{laurence}, and in: C. Giardin\`a, R. Livi, J. Stat. Phys. 

2084: {\bf 98}, 1027 (1998); however in these papers the relation between temperature

2085: and mean curvature was not established.

2086: 

2087: \bibitem{ChernLashof} S. Chern, and R.K. Lashof, Michigan Math. J. {\bf 5},

2088:                       5 (1958).

2089: 

2090: \bibitem{Betti} M. Nakahara, {\it Geometry, Topology and Physics}, 

2091:                (Adam Hilger, Bristol, 1989). 

2092: 

2093: \bibitem{bassi-indici} The mathematical details to justify such an assumption

2094:  are discussed in: R. Franzosi, {\it Geometrical and Topological Aspects

2095:                  in the study of Phase Transitions}, PhD thesis, Department 

2096:                  of Physics, University of Florence, (1999).

2097: 

2098: \bibitem{Gross3}  D.H.E. Gross and E. Votyakov, {\it Phase transitions in

2099:      finite systems = topological peculiarities of the microcanonical entropy 

2100:      surface}, archived in cond-mat/9904073;

2101:     D.H.E. Gross and E. Votyakov, {\it Phase transitions in ``small'' systems},

2102:      archived in cond-mat/9911257; D.H.E. Gross, {\it Phase 

2103:      Transitions without thermodynamic limit}, archived in cond-mat/9805391.

2104: 

2105: \bibitem{reuter} E. Gozzi and M. Reuter, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 233}, 383 (1989).

2106: 

2107: \bibitem{gozzi1} E. Gozzi, M. Reuter and W. D. Thacker, Chaos, Solitons \&

2108:                  Fractals {\bf 2}, 441 (1992).

2109: 

2110: \bibitem{gozzi2}  E. Gozzi and M. Reuter, Chaos, Solitons \&

2111:                  Fractals {\bf 4}, 1117 (1994).

2112: 

2113: \bibitem{Creutz} M. Creutz, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 50}, 1411 (1983).

2114: 

2115: 

2116: \end{thebibliography}

2117: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2118: \newpage

2119: 

2120: \begin{figure}

2121: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.80\linewidth]{Fig01.ps}}

2122: \caption{ The magnetization vector ${\bf M}(t)$ computed along a trajectory

2123: for the $2d$ XY model at different temperatures on a lattice 

2124: of $N= 10 \times 10$. Each point represents a vector ${\bf M}(t)$ at 

2125: a certain time $t$. }

2126: \label{figura.spin2d.10e10}

2127: \end{figure}

2128: \clearpage

2129: %-------------------------------------------------------

2130: 

2131: \begin{figure}

2132: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.80\linewidth]{Fig02.ps}}

2133: \caption{ The magnetization vector ${\bf M}(t)$ at the temperature $T=0.74$,

2134: corresponding to the specific energy $\epsilon = 0.8$ and computed in 

2135: a time interval $\Delta t = 10^5$, with a random initial configuration,

2136: on lattices of $N = 10 \times 10$ (external points)

2137:  and of $N = 200 \times 200$ 

2138: (internal points). }

2139: \label{fig.spin2d.t0.74}

2140: \end{figure}

2141: \clearpage

2142: %-------------------------------------------------------

2143: 

2144: \begin{figure}

2145: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.80\linewidth]{Fig03.ps}}

2146: \caption{ The magnetization vector ${\bf M}(t)$ at the temperature $T=1$,

2147: corresponding to the energy $\epsilon = 1.2$, computed in

2148: a time interval $\Delta t = 10^5$, with a random initial configuration on 

2149: lattices of {\it a)} $N = 10 \times 10$, {\it b)} $N = 50 \times 50$,

2150: {\it c)} $N = 100 \times 100$ and {\it d)} $N = 200 \times 200$ sites, 

2151: respectively. }

2152: \label{fig.spin2d.t1}

2153: \end{figure}

2154: \clearpage

2155: %-------------------------------------------------------

2156: 

2157: \begin{figure}

2158: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.80\linewidth]{Fig04.ps}}

2159: \caption{ Specific heat at constant volume 

2160: computed by means of Eq. (\ref{cvmicro})

2161: on a lattice of $N= 10 \times 10$ (open circles) and of $N= 15\times 15$

2162: (full triangles). Starlike squares refer to specific heat values

2163: computed by means of Eq. (\ref{specheat}) on a lattice of $N= 10 \times 10$

2164: . }

2165: \label{calspec_2d}

2166: \end{figure}

2167: \clearpage

2168: %-------------------------------------------------------

2169: 

2170: \begin{figure}

2171: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.80\linewidth]{Fig05.ps}}

2172: \caption{ Vorticity function (plotted in {\it a)} linear scale

2173: and {\it b)} logarithmic scale) computed at different temperatures

2174: for lattices of $N=10\times 10$ (open circles) and $N=40\times 40$

2175: (full circles). The results of the Monte Carlo

2176: simulations for a lattice of $N=60\times 60$ (crosses)

2177:  are from \protect\cite{TobChes}. 

2178: The dashed line represents the power

2179: law ${\cal V}(t) \sim T^{10}$. }

2180: \label{fig.vort2d}

2181: \end{figure}

2182: \clearpage

2183: %-------------------------------------------------------

2184: 

2185: \begin{figure}

2186: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.80\linewidth]{Fig06.ps}}

2187: \caption{ The largest Lyapunov exponents computed on different lattice 

2188: sizes:

2189: $N = 10 \times 10$ (starred squares), $N= 20 \times 20$ (open triangles),

2190: $N= 40 \times 40$ (open stars), $N= 50 \times 50$ (open squares) and 

2191: $N = 100 \times 100$ (open circles). In the inset, symbols have the same

2192: meaning. } 

2193: \label{xy2d.lyap.num.fig}

2194: \end{figure}

2195: \clearpage

2196: %-------------------------------------------------------

2197: 

2198: \begin{figure}

2199: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.80\linewidth]{Fig07.ps}}

2200: \caption{ The magnetization vector ${\bf M}(t)$, computed at the temperature

2201: $T = 1.7$, on lattices of different sizes. By increasing the lattice 

2202: dimensions,

2203: the longitudinal fluctuations decrease. The time interval $\Delta t = 3.5

2204: \times 10^4 - 8 \times 10^4$ is the same for the four simulations. }

2205: \label{mag3d.e2}

2206: \end{figure}

2207: \clearpage

2208: %-------------------------------------------------------

2209: 

2210: \begin{figure}

2211: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.80\linewidth]{Fig08.ps}}

2212: \caption{ The magnetization vector ${\bf M}(t)$ computed at different 

2213: temperatures on a lattice of $N = 10 \times 10 \times 10$ spins. }

2214: \label{fig.1.spin3d.9}

2215: \end{figure}

2216: \clearpage

2217: %-------------------------------------------------------

2218: 

2219: \begin{figure}

2220: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.50\linewidth]{Fig09a.ps}}

2221: \medskip

2222: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.50\linewidth]{Fig09b.ps}}

2223: \caption{ The magnetization vector ${\bf M}(t)$ computed at 

2224: the temperature $T = 2.22$ (slightly higher than the critical value)

2225: on lattices of {\it a)} $N = 10 \times 10 \times 10$ 

2226: and {\it b)}$N = 15 \times 15 \times 15$, respectively.

2227: The time interval $\Delta t = 0.5 \times 10^4 - 1.5 \times 10^4$ is the same

2228: for both simulations. } 

2229: \label{3d.fig.spin.altat}

2230: \end{figure}

2231: \clearpage

2232: %-------------------------------------------------------

2233: 

2234: \begin{figure}

2235: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.80\linewidth]{Fig10.ps}}

2236: \caption{ The dynamical order parameter,

2237: defined as the average of the modulus $| {\bf M}(t) |$ along a trajectory,

2238: computed on lattices of

2239: $N = 10 \times 10 \times 10$ (full circles)

2240: and $N = 15 \times 15 \times 15$ (open circles). }

2241: \label{parord.3d.fig}

2242: \end{figure}

2243: \clearpage

2244: %-------------------------------------------------------

2245: 

2246: \begin{figure}

2247: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.80\linewidth]{Fig11.ps}}

2248: \caption{ Specific heat at constant volume for the $3d$ model, computed

2249: by means of Eq. (\ref{cvmicro}) on

2250: lattices of $N= 8 \times 8 \times 8$ (open triangles),

2251: $N = 10 \times 10 \times 10$ (open circles), $N = 12 \times 12 \times 12$

2252: (open stars) and $N= 15 \times 15 \times 15$ (open squares) .

2253: Full circles refer to specific heat values computed by means of Eq. (\ref

2254: {specheat}) on a lattice of $N= 10 \times 10 \times 10$. 

2255: The dashed line points out the critical temperature $T_c \simeq 2.17$ at which

2256: the phase transition occurs. }

2257: \label{calspec.3d.fig}

2258: \end{figure}

2259: \clearpage

2260: %-------------------------------------------------------

2261: 

2262: \begin{figure}

2263: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.80\linewidth]{Fig12.ps}}

2264: \caption{ Vorticity function at different temperatures along a dynamical

2265: trajectory on a lattice of $N = 10 \times 10 \times 10$ sites. }

2266: \label{vort.fig3d}

2267: \end{figure}

2268: \clearpage

2269: %-------------------------------------------------------

2270: 

2271: \begin{figure}

2272: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.80\linewidth]{Fig13.ps}}

2273: \caption{ The largest Lyapunov exponents computed at different temperatures

2274: for the $3d$ model.

2275: Numerical results are for lattices of $N= 10 \times 10 \times 10$ (open 

2276: circles) and $N= 15 \times 15 \times 15$ (open stars). 

2277: In the inset, symbols have the same meaning. The dashed line points out the

2278: temperature $T_c \simeq 2.17$ of the phase transition. The solid line puts in

2279: evidence the departure of $\lambda_1(T)$ from the linear growth. }

2280: \label{lyap.3d.fig}

2281: \end{figure}

2282: \clearpage

2283: %-------------------------------------------------------

2284: 

2285: \begin{figure}

2286: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.80\linewidth]{Fig14.ps}}

2287: \caption{ The largest Lyapunov exponents computed by means of the random 

2288: dynamics algorithm (full circles) are plotted 

2289:  in comparison with those computed by means of the standard dynamics

2290: (open stars) for a lattice of $N= 10 \times 10 \times 10$. }

2291: \label{randyn.3d.fig}

2292: \end{figure}

2293: \clearpage

2294: %-------------------------------------------------------

2295: 

2296: \begin{figure}

2297: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.80\linewidth,angle=90]{Fig15.ps}}

2298: \caption{ Time average of Ricci curvature (open circles) and its r.m.s.

2299:  fluctuations

2300: (full circles) at different temperatures computed for a lattice

2301: of $N = 40 \times 40$ sites. Solid lines are the analytic estimates obtained 

2302: from a high temperature expansion. } 

2303: \label{fig.Ricci2d}

2304: \end{figure}

2305: \clearpage

2306: %-------------------------------------------------------

2307: 

2308: \begin{figure}

2309: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.80\linewidth,angle=90]{Fig16.ps}}

2310: \caption{ Time average of Ricci curvature (open triangles) and its r.m.s.

2311:  fluctuations

2312: (full triangles) computed at different

2313: temperatures for a lattice of $N = 10 \times 10 \times 10$.

2314: Open circles and full diamonds refer to a lattice size 

2315: of $N= 15 \times 15 \times 15$. Solid lines are the analytic estimates

2316: in the limit of high temperatures. The dashed line points out the temperature

2317: $T_c \simeq 2.17$ of the phase transition. }

2318: \label{keflutt.3dfig}

2319: \end{figure}

2320: \clearpage

2321: %-------------------------------------------------------

2322: 

2323: \begin{figure}

2324: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.80\linewidth]{Fig17.ps}}

2325: \caption{ Analytic Lyapunov exponents  computed for the $2d$ model by means of 

2326: Eq.(\protect\ref{lambda}) without correction (dots) and incorporating  

2327: the correction that accounts for

2328: the probability of obtaining negative sectional curvatures

2329: (full squares) for a lattice size of

2330: $N = 40 \times 40$

2331: are plotted in comparison with the numerical values 

2332: of Fig. \ref{xy2d.lyap.num.fig}.

2333:  The dashed lines are the asymptotic behaviors at high and low

2334: temperatures in the thermodynamic limit. }

2335: \label{prev.Lyap.2d}

2336: \end{figure}

2337: \clearpage

2338: %-------------------------------------------------------

2339: 

2340: \begin{figure}

2341: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.80\linewidth]{Fig18.ps}}

2342: \caption{ Analytic Lyapunov exponents computed for the $3d$ model by means of 

2343: Eq.(\protect\ref{lambda}) without correction (dots) and

2344: incorporating

2345: the correction that accounts for

2346: the probability of obtaining negative sectional curvatures (full circles)

2347: are plotted in comparison with the numerical values of

2348: Fig. \ref{lyap.3d.fig}.

2349: The dashed lines are the

2350: asymptotic behaviors at high and low temperatures in the thermodynamic 

2351: limit. }

2352: \label{prev.Lyap.3d}

2353: \end{figure}

2354: \clearpage

2355: %-------------------------------------------------------

2356: 

2357: \begin{figure}

2358: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.80\linewidth]{Fig19.ps}}

2359: \caption{ The deformation factor $D(E)=[\int_{\Sigma_E}(d\sigma /\Vert

2360: \nabla H\Vert )(M_1^\star/\Vert\nabla H\Vert)]\,/\,

2361: [\int_{\Sigma_E}d\sigma M_1]$ of Eq. (\ref{deformaz}) (open circles)

2362: is plotted vs. energy density $E/N$ and compared to the quantity

2363: $\langle 1/\Vert\nabla H\Vert^2\rangle$ 

2364: (open triangles). $N=10 \times 10\times 10$. }

2365: \label{D(E)}

2366: \end{figure}

2367: \clearpage

2368: %-------------------------------------------------------

2369: 

2370: \begin{figure}

2371: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.80\linewidth]{Fig20.ps}}

2372: \caption{ The normalized autocorrelation functions $\Gamma(\tau)$ are plotted

2373: vs. time $\tau$ for a lattice of $N=10 \times 10\times 10$ and for 

2374: four different 

2375: values of the temperature (from top to bottom: $T=0.49, 1.28, 1.75, 2.16$). }

2376: \label{Gamma}

2377: \end{figure}

2378: \clearpage

2379: %-------------------------------------------------------

2380: 

2381: \begin{figure}

2382: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.80\linewidth]{Fig21.ps}}

2383: \caption{ Autocorrelation times $\tau_{corr}$ are plotted vs. temperature $T$.

2384: The vertical dashed line points out the temperature $T_c \simeq2.17$ at

2385: which the phase transition occurs. }

2386: \label{tau}

2387: \end{figure}

2388: \clearpage

2389: %-------------------------------------------------------

2390: \end{document}

2391: 

2392: