1: \documentclass[a4paper,twocolumn,showpacs]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{amsmath,amsfonts,amssymb}
3: \usepackage{psfrag}
4: \usepackage{graphicx}
5: %\usepackage{showkeys}
6: \bibliographystyle{prsty}
7:
8: \begin{document}
9:
10: \title{Tunable Lyapunov exponent in inverse magnetic billiards}
11:
12: \author{Zolt\'an V{\"o}r{\"o}s$^1$, Tam\'as Tasn\'adi$^2$, J{\'o}zsef Cserti$^1$, P{\'e}ter Pollner$^1$}
13: \affiliation{$^1$Department of Physics of Complex Systems}
14:
15: \affiliation{$^2$Department of Solid State Physics, E{\"o}tv{\"o}s
16: University, H--1117 Budapest, P\'azm\'any P{\'e}ter s{\'e}t\'any 1/A, HUNGARY}
17:
18: %======================================================================
19: \begin{abstract}
20: The stability properties of the classical trajectories of
21: charged particles are investigated in a two dimensional stadium-shaped
22: inverse magnetic domain, where the magnetic field is zero inside the
23: stadium domain and constant outside. In the case of infinite magnetic
24: field the dynamics of the system is the same as in the Bunimovich billiard,
25: i.e., ergodic and mixing. However, for weaker magnetic fields the phase space
26: becomes mixed and the chaotic part gradually shrinks.
27: The numerical measurements of the Lyapunov exponent (performed with a
28: novel method) and the integrable/chaotic phase space volume ratio show
29: that both quantities can be smoothly tuned by varying the external
30: magnetic field.
31: A possible experimental realization of the arrangement is also discussed.
32:
33: \end{abstract}
34: %======================================================================
35: \pacs{05.45.-a,73.63.-b,73.40.-c}
36:
37: %\date{\today}
38:
39: \maketitle
40:
41: In the past two decades, developments in nanotechnology have made
42: it possible to electrostatically confine a two-dimensional electron
43: gas (2DEG) in high mobility heterostructures~\cite{Houten}.
44: In these systems the
45: dynamics of the electrons is dominated by ballistic motion.
46: Recently, a new perspective of the research of semiconductor systems
47: has been emerged by the application of spatially inhomogeneous
48: magnetic fields.
49: The inhomogeneity of the magnetic field can be
50: realized experimentally either by varying the topography of the
51: electron gas~\cite{topografia}, or
52: using ferromagnetic materials~\cite{ferro},
53: or depositing a superconductor on top of the 2DEG~\cite{supra}.
54: Numerous theoretical works also show the increasing interest in the study
55: of electron motion in inhomogeneous magnetic field~\cite{elmelet}.
56:
57: The aim of this Letter is to present
58: a novel, experimentally realizable ballistic
59: 2DEG system which exhibits a crossover between a well known, ergodic
60: and mixing billiard system (the Bunimovich stadium
61: billiard~\cite{Bun:79}), and a pathological integrable system, as the
62: applied magnetic field is changed.
63: We suppose that the system is in the ballistic regime, like in many
64: other works (see e.g.~\cite{Houten,antidot}), and our treatment is
65: purely classical.
66: Two characteristic quantities of the dynamics of this
67: so-called {\em inverse magnetic billiard} are calculated
68: numerically as a function of the external magnetic field $\beta$: the
69: Lyapunov exponent $\lambda(\beta)$ (of the dominating chaotic
70: component), and the integrable/chaotic phase space volume
71: ratio $\varrho(\beta)$. The obtained numerical results show that both
72: quantities are smooth functions of the magnetic field which means that
73: the global dynamics of the system passes continuously from the integrable
74: ($\beta=0$) to the fully chaotic case ($\beta=\infty$).
75: As we shall see below, there is also a clearly visible correlated dependence
76: between the variation of the quantities $\lambda(\beta)$ and
77: $\varrho(\beta)$.
78: These results, i.e., the fact that {\em the degree of chaoticity can
79: smoothly be tuned} by the external magnetic field, may motivate
80: the experimental realization and study of our presently proposed system.
81: Kosztin et al.\ have made similar investigations and observations in Andreev
82: billiard systems~\cite{Kosztin}.
83:
84:
85: More specifically, the system we suggest is a 2DEG in an
86: inhomogeneous magnetic field applied perpendicularly to the
87: system.
88: %(see Fig~\ref{f:system}).
89: The magnetic field is considered to be zero inside
90: a stadium-shaped region and constant $\beta$ outside.
91: This arrangement can be realized experimentally by depositing a
92: stadium-shaped superconductor patch on the top of a 2DEG and applying
93: an external homogeneous magnetic field perpendicular to this structure.
94: The magnetic field is excluded from the region covered by the
95: superconductor, due to the Meissner effect.
96: %% =======================================================================
97: %\begin{figure}
98: %\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{}
99: %\caption{\label{f:traj} The experimental realization of the inverse
100: %magnetic billiard.}
101: %\end{figure}
102: % =======================================================================
103: A part of a typical classical
104: trajectory is depicted in Fig~\ref{f:traj}, for an intermediate value
105: of the magnetic field $\beta= 2$.
106: % =======================================================================
107: \begin{figure}[t]
108: \psfrag{r=1}{$r=1$}
109: \psfrag{a=2}{$a=2$}
110: \psfrag{R}{$R_c$}
111: \psfrag{c}{}
112: \psfrag{X}{$\mu$}
113: \psfrag{A}{$A$}
114: \includegraphics[scale=0.3]{def1.eps}
115: \caption{\label{f:traj} The trajectories of a charged particle in the
116: inverse magnetic billiard. The cyclotron radius is $R_c=1/\beta =1/2$,
117: in dimensionless units.}
118: \end{figure}
119: % =======================================================================
120: The trajectories in the configuration space are straight segments inside
121: the stadium, and circular arcs of cyclotron radius
122: $R_c=\frac{1}{\beta}$ out of this domain.
123: (We assume, for simplicity, that the particle has unit mass,
124: charge and speed.) At the boundary of the domain the two pieces of the
125: trajectory join tangentially. As the magnetic
126: field tends to infinity, $\beta \to \infty$, the electrons spend less and
127: less time outside the stadium, and it is also easy to see
128: that in the limiting case their motion is
129: described by an elastic reflection from the wall. For this reason we call our
130: system {\it inverse magnetic billiard}, although in the case of finite
131: field no real scatterings take place at the boundaries.
132:
133: %==========================================================================
134: \begin{widetext}
135: \begin{figure*}
136: \psfrag{cos}{$\sin \mu$}
137: \psfrag{x}{$x$}
138: \includegraphics[scale=0.45]{ps0_05.eps}
139: \includegraphics[scale=0.45]{ps0_3a.eps}
140: \includegraphics[scale=0.45]{ps1b.eps} \\
141: {\qquad (a)}\hfill {\qquad (b)}\hfill {\qquad (c)}\hspace*{\fill}
142: \caption{\label{f:Poinc} The Poincar{\'e} section of the phase
143: space. The points in the dominating chaotic region
144: were obtained by 50000 iterations of a single
145: trajectory, while for depicting the islands corresponding to the
146: integrable regions, a few different initial conditions were used. The
147: values of the cyclotron radii are $R_c =0.05$, $R_c =0.3$, $R_c =1$,
148: respectively.}
149: \end{figure*}
150: \end{widetext}
151: %==========================================================================
152:
153: According to the result of Bunimovich \cite{Bun:79}, the
154: stadium-shaped inverse magnetic billiard system is ergodic and mixing in
155: the $\beta=\infty$ case, but as the magnetic field is decreased, the
156: dynamics becomes partially integrable and gradually more and more phase
157: space volume is occupied by the KAM tori (mixed phase space).
158: This phenomenon can clearly be observed on the Poincar{\'e} sections
159: (see Fig.~\ref{f:Poinc}) made for different
160: magnetic field values. The individual points in the Poincar{\'e} sections
161: are plotted each time the particle enters the zero magnetic field
162: region and crosses the boundary of the stadium. The $x$ coordinate of
163: the points ($0\le x < 4+2\pi$) gives the position of the crossing,
164: measured in anti-clockwise direction from the point $A$ along
165: the perimeter of the stadium, while the $y$ coordinate of the
166: points ($-1 \le y \le 1$) denotes the sine of
167: the angle $\mu$ representing the direction of the trajectory, relative
168: to the normal of the boundary (see Fig.~\ref{f:traj}).
169: It is well-known that in this parameter space the Poincar{\'e} map is
170: area preserving~\cite{arepres_tangent_cikkek}.
171:
172: It is evident from Fig.~\ref{f:Poinc} that for high magnetic fields the
173: system is (almost) completely chaotic but with decreasing magnetic field,
174: the volume of the integrable regions gradually increases. As we have seen
175: before, for $\beta=\infty$ the system is identical to the Bunimovich
176: billiard, however, in the $\beta \to 0$ limit the system becomes
177: pathological in the sense that the cyclotron radius tends to infinity, so
178: the electron returns to the stadium domain after longer and longer time
179: intervals.
180:
181: In order to quantitatively characterize this change of the phase space
182: portrait we have numerically investigated the integrable/chaotic phase
183: space volume ratio $\varrho$ as a function of the cyclotron radius
184: $R_c =1/\beta$ (i.e., the inverse magnetic field), and the results are
185: shown in Fig.~\ref{f:area}.
186: The function $\varrho(R_c)$, measured by the box-counting method with
187: a grid of $250\times 250$ rectangular sites, is smooth,
188: and its behavior is characteristically different for
189: higher and lower magnetic fields. For cyclotron radii less than $R_1
190: \approx 0.01$ (i.e., for magnetic fields larger than $\beta_1 \approx 100$)
191: the system is dominantly chaotic, the area of the integrable phase space
192: regions is practically negligible (see also Fig.~\ref{f:Poinc}.a).
193: For cyclotron radii larger than $R_2 \approx 0.3$, however, the chaotic part
194: increases on the Poincar{\'e} section (see
195: also Fig.~\ref{f:Poinc}.c). Between these two extremities, i.e., for
196: cyclotron radii comparable to the characteristic size of the billiard, the
197: phase space of the system is definitely mixed (Fig.~\ref{f:Poinc}.b)
198: with integrable islands of considerable area.
199:
200: %==========================================================================
201: \begin{figure}
202: \psfrag{radius}{$R_c$}
203: \psfrag{ratio}{\small $\varrho(R_c)$}
204: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{ratio.eps}
205: \caption{\label{f:area} The integrable/chaotic phase space volume
206: ratio as a function of $R_c =1/\beta$.}
207: \end{figure}
208: %==========================================================================
209:
210:
211: Although the volume of the chaotic bands inside the integrable
212: islands (ignored in our treatment) is nonzero in principle,
213: the numerical simulations demonstrate (see Fig~\ref{f:Poinc}) that their
214: contribution to the chaotic phase space volume is negligible for this
215: system.
216:
217: Since the positivity of the Lyapunov exponent $\lambda(R_c)$ is one of
218: the most characteristic features of chaotic systems,
219: we have also numerically computed $\lambda(R_c)$
220: of the dominating chaotic component as a function of the cyclotron
221: radius $R_c$ (see Fig.~\ref{f:Lyap}).
222: \begin{figure}
223: \psfrag{radius}{$R_c$}
224: \psfrag{exp}{$\lambda(R_c)$}
225: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{l2.eps}
226: \caption{\label{f:Lyap} Lyaponov exponent as a function of
227: $R_c= 1/\beta$.}
228: \end{figure}
229:
230: The obtained function $\lambda(R_c)$ is again smooth,
231: as $\varrho(R_c)$. It is also
232: clearly visible that the numerical value of the Lyapunov exponent strongly
233: correlates with the integrable phase space ratio $\varrho(R_c)$ measured
234: previously. For weak magnetic fields
235: (if $\beta \lessapprox \beta_2 \approx 2$) the Lyapunov exponent is also
236: small, but as the magnetic field grows, the value of $\lambda$ increases,
237: too, and for strong fields (if $\beta \gtrapprox \beta_1 \approx 100$)
238: it saturates at the value
239: $\lambda_{\infty} \approx 0.43$, which agrees well with the
240: Lyapunov exponent of the ordinary Bunimovich
241: billiard~\cite{Stadion_ljap}.
242:
243: In order to measure the Lyapunov exponent, we have investigated the
244: infinitesimal variations of the trajectories with the method of
245: Jacobi fields, which was originally developed for the stability analysis of
246: the geodetic flow on curved Riemannian manifolds \cite{KoNo:69}. The method
247: has successfully been applied to magnetic billiard systems on planar
248: \cite{TT:97} as well as curved surfaces \cite{TT:96,TT:98}. The main idea
249: of the method is to study the evolution of the so-called Jacobi fields
250: along a particular trajectory in the configuration space, which describe the
251: infinitesimal variations of the trajectory. This technique is essentially
252: the same as the method using the tangent map
253: \cite{arepres_tangent_cikkek}, but our approach is more transparent.
254: The basic technical novelty is that in our investigations
255: the coordinates describing the infinitesimal variations are chosen
256: in a more natural way: they are
257: related to the unvaried trajectory itself, and not to the somewhat
258: artificial parameters of the space of the Poincar{\'e} section. As a result,
259: the stability matrices (i.e., the tangent maps) have a much simpler form.
260:
261: In more details, let $\gamma_0(t)$ denote the trajectory in the
262: configuration space $\cal M$, whose stability properties we intend to
263: investigate, and let $\gamma_\varepsilon (t)$ be a one-parameter family of
264: varied trajectories around the unvaried one $\gamma_0$, i.e., for all
265: $\varepsilon \in (-\varepsilon_0, \varepsilon_0)$, $\varepsilon_0 >0$ the
266: curve $\gamma_\varepsilon$ is a real trajectory in the configuration space,
267: $\gamma_{\varepsilon =0} =\gamma_0$, and the map $\gamma : (-\varepsilon_0,
268: \varepsilon_0) \times {\mathbb R} \to {\cal M}$, $(\varepsilon,t) \mapsto
269: \gamma_{\varepsilon} (t)$ is everywhere continuous, and piecewise smooth.
270: (It is not smooth at the boundary of the billiard.) The {\it Jacobi field}
271: or {\it infinitesimal variation vector field} $V_{\gamma_0}$ corresponding
272: to the variation $\gamma_{\varepsilon}$ is the partial derivative
273: $V_{\gamma_0} (t)=\left. \frac{\partial \gamma_{\varepsilon}
274: (t)}{\partial \varepsilon}\right|_{\varepsilon=0}$.
275:
276:
277: It can be shown that the Jacobi fields $V_{\gamma_0} (t)$ satisfy certain
278: second order differential equation, called {\it Jacobi equation}; it is
279: due to the fact that the varied curves $\gamma_{\varepsilon}$ are also real
280: trajectories \cite{KoNo:69,TT:96}. In two dimensional billiard systems we
281: found it convenient to fix the base vectors $\big\{ \Dot{\gamma}_0(t),
282: \Dot{\gamma}_0^{\perp} (t) \big\}$ of the coordinate system to the
283: investigated trajectory $\gamma_0 (t)$, in such a way that
284: $\Dot{\gamma}_0(t)$ is the (unit) vector tangential to the trajectory at
285: the time instant $t$, and $\Dot{\gamma}_0^{\perp} (t)$ is obtained from
286: $\Dot{\gamma}_0(t)$ by a rotation through $+90^{\circ}$. In this basis the
287: Jacobi field is written as $V_{\gamma_0} (t) =\xi(t) \cdot
288: \Dot{\gamma}_0(t) +\eta(t) \cdot \Dot{\gamma}_0^{\perp} (t)$, and for
289: characterizing a given infinitesimal variation the initial conditions
290: $\xi(t_0)$, $\eta(t_0)$, $\Dot{\xi}(t_0)$ and $\Dot{\eta}(t_0)$ have to be
291: given. (The real functions $\xi$ and $\eta$ are the coordinates of
292: the Jacobi field $V_{\gamma_0}$.)
293:
294: The number of these initial data can further be reduced by two, if
295: we notice that {\it i)} the longitudinal variations $\xi(t)$ as well as
296: {\it ii)} the variations altering the speed (i.e., for which $\dot{\xi}
297: \ne 0$) are irrelevant in the present investigation, and they decouple from
298: the other coordinates, so they can be disregarded. (In the case {\it i)} the
299: Jacobi field is tangential to the unvaried trajectory $\gamma_0$, thus the
300: varied curves are just time-shifts of the original one, while {\it ii)}
301: means that we restrict the attention to a constant energy shell of the
302: phase space, as it is usual in Hamiltonian systems.)
303:
304: In planar billiard systems it is an elementary geometric problem to find
305: the solutions of the Jacobi equation in terms of the transverse coordinates
306: $\eta (t)$ and $\Dot{\eta}(t)$ (see e.g. \cite{TT:97}).
307: Generally, the solution is given by a linear transformation $\Big[
308: \begin{smallmatrix} \eta' \\ \Dot{\eta}' \end{smallmatrix} \Big]=
309: \mathbf{L} \Big[ \begin{smallmatrix} \eta \\ \Dot{\eta} \end{smallmatrix}
310: \Big]$, where the matrix $\mathbf L$ has the following special forms for
311: the straight flight in zero magnetic field ($\mathbf P$), for the curved
312: flight in nonzero magnetic field ($\mathbf E$) and for the boundary
313: transition ($\mathbf T$) with magnetic field change $\Delta \beta$,
314: respectively:
315: \begin{subequations}\label{e:PET}
316: \begin{align}
317: \mathbf{P}(t) &= \begin{bmatrix} 1
318: & t \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix},
319: \\
320: \mathbf{E}(t,\beta) &= \begin{bmatrix} \cos(\beta t) &
321: \frac{1}{\beta} \sin(\beta t) \\ -\beta \sin(\beta t) & \cos(\beta t)
322: \end{bmatrix},
323: \\
324: \mathbf{T}(\Delta \beta, \mu) &= \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\
325: \Delta \beta \tan \mu & 1 \end{bmatrix}.
326: \end{align}
327: \end{subequations}
328: Here $t$ is the time of flight (so $\beta t$ is the angle of flight),
329: $\beta$ denotes the magnetic field and $\mu$ is the angle of incidence at
330: the boundary, measured in the way shown in Fig~\ref{f:traj}. It is worth
331: noticing that all the three types of matrices are one-parameter subgroups
332: of $SL(2,{\mathbb R})$, i.e., of the group of two by two real
333: matrices with unit determinant. The matrices $\mathbf P$ and $\mathbf T$
334: are parabolic, while the transformations $\mathbf E$ are elliptic.
335:
336: For investigating the long time stability of a given trajectory $\gamma_0$
337: the eigenvalues (or the trace) of the product matrix
338: \begin{equation}\label{e:TETP}
339: \dots ({\mathbf T}'_3{\mathbf E}_3{\mathbf T}_3{\mathbf P}_3)
340: ({\mathbf T}'_2{\mathbf E}_2{\mathbf T}_2{\mathbf P}_2)
341: ({\mathbf T}'_1{\mathbf E}_1{\mathbf T}_1{\mathbf P}_1)
342: \end{equation}
343: have to be calculated, where the individual matrices in the expression
344: describe, in reverse order, the stability of the corresponding segments of
345: the motion (in the billiard, through the boundary outwards, in the magnetic
346: field and back again into the billiard through the boundary).
347: This group of four matrices corresponds to a cycle in
348: the Poincar{\'e} sections of Fig.~\ref{f:Poinc}.
349: (The matrices ${\mathbf T}$, ${\mathbf T}'$
350: correspond to the outward and inward passage through the boundary,
351: respectively.)
352:
353: In our simulations the matrices \eqref{e:PET} and the product
354: \eqref{e:TETP} corresponding to about 25000 cycles were calculated
355: explicitly, and the Lyapunov exponents, shown in Fig.~\ref{f:Lyap}
356: were computed as the logarithm of the largest eigenvalue
357: (practically, the trace) of the resulting matrix
358: divided by the total time of flight.
359:
360: %==========================================================================
361: The fact that in the $\beta \to \infty$ limit the inverse magnetic billiard
362: gives back the dynamics of the normal billiard system with elastic walls
363: can be checked also in terms of the stability matrices. A bit lengthy but
364: straightforward calculation yields that if the billiard wall is a circle of
365: curvature $q$, then
366: \begin{equation}
367: \lim_{\beta \to \infty} \big( {\mathbf T}(-\beta, -\mu){\mathbf
368: E}(t, \beta){\mathbf T}(\beta, \mu) \big) =-
369: \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ -\frac{2q}{\cos \mu} & 1 \end{bmatrix},
370: \end{equation}
371: which is the stability matrix corresponding to an elastic reflection on the
372: wall of curvature $q$ \cite{TT:96}, as it is expected. (The signs of the
373: arguments of $\mathbf T$ can be obtained by elementary geometric
374: considerations.)
375:
376: %==========================================================================
377:
378:
379: We now turn to the discussion of the conditions of the experimental
380: realization of the inverse magnetic billiards using GaAs/AlGaAs
381: heterostructure.
382: There are four characteristic lengths in the system: the Fermi
383: wavelength (typically $\lambda_{\rm{F}}=40$~nm~\cite{Houten}),
384: the radius $r$ of the stadium, the
385: cyclotron radius $R_c$ and the mean free path $l$ (which can be as
386: high as $10^4$~nm~\cite{Houten}).
387: The classical ballistic motion of the electrons
388: requires that $\lambda_{\rm{F}}\ll r, R_c \ll l$. (The last condition
389: assures that the electron travels through several
390: Poincar{\'e} cycles without scattering on impurities.)
391: Fig.~\ref{f:Lyap} shows that
392: the relevant values of the ratio $r/R_c$ are in the range of $0.01-1.0$.
393: The magnetic field
394: can be as high as $2$ T without destroying
395: superconductivity. This implies that $R_c \gtrapprox 50$~nm
396: (using that the effective mass of electrons $m_{\rm{eff}}=0.067m_e$,
397: where $m_e$ is the mass of the electron,
398: and $E_{\rm{F}} = 14 \,\,\mathrm{meV}$~\cite{Houten}).
399: Assuming that the size of a superconductor grain is about $r=1$~$\mu$m,
400: the cyclotron radii are $50,\, 300,\, 1000$~nm corresponding to
401: data $R_c/r$ in Fig.~\ref{f:Poinc}. This implies that
402: parameter $\beta$ in Fig.~\ref{f:Poinc} corresponds to
403: the experimental values of the magnetic field $ 2, 0.3, 0.2$~T, respectively.
404: It is clear that these experimental values do not perfectly fit the condition
405: of the classical motion. The semiclassical or full quantum mechanical
406: treatment of the problem can be an extension of our work.
407:
408: The advantage of our suggested setup in comparison with
409: Andreev billiards (which is another proposed
410: experimental setup for magnetically tunable chaoticity)
411: is that in our system the electrons travel in a homogeneous
412: heterostructure without any scattering on the boundary of the stadium,
413: whereas in the case of Andreev billiards the normal reflections may
414: suppress the effect as discussed in Ref.~\onlinecite{Kosztin}.
415:
416: We remark that in a real experiment, the profile of the magnetic field
417: cannot be approximated by a step function as we assumed before.
418: However, the deviation of the magnetic field from the sharp profile
419: can easily be included in classical calculations.
420:
421: In practice, one would measure the conductance or susceptibility,
422: which should be sensible to the chaotic nature of the system tuned by
423: magnetic field \cite{Marcus}.
424:
425:
426:
427: One of us (J.\ Cs.) gratefully acknowledges very helpful discussions
428: with C. Lambert and A. Voros.
429: This work is supported in part by
430: the Hungarian-British Intergovernmental Agreement on Cooperation in
431: Education, Culture, and Science and Technology,
432: and the Hungarian Science Foundation OTKA TO34832 and D37788.
433:
434:
435: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
436:
437: \bibitem{Houten} C. W. J. Beenakker and H. van Houten, Solid State
438: Phys. {\bf 44}, 1 (1991).
439:
440: \bibitem{topografia}
441: C.~L. Foden, M.~L. Leadbeater, J.~H. Burroughes, and M. Pepper, J. Phys.:
442: Condens. Matter {\bf 6}, L127 (1994);
443: M.~L. Leadbeater {\it et~al.}, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 52}, R8629 (1995).
444:
445: \bibitem{ferro}
446: M.~L. Leadbeater {\it et~al.}, J. Appl. Phys. {\bf 69}, 4689 (1991);
447: K.~M. Krishnan, Appl. Phys. Lett. {\bf 61}, 2365 (1992).
448:
449: \bibitem{supra}
450: A.~K. Geim {\it et~al.}, Nature (London) {\bf 390}, 259 (1997);
451: A. Smith {\it et~al.}, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 50}, 14726 (1994).
452:
453: \bibitem{elmelet}
454: J.~E. M\"uller, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 68}, 385 (1992);
455: F.~M. Peeters and P. Vasilopoulos, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 47}, 1466 (1993);
456: M. Calvo, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 48}, 2365 (1993);
457: F.~M. Peeters and A. Matulis, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 48}, 15166 (1993);
458: A. Matulis and F.~M. Peeters, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 72}, 1518 (1994);
459: I.~S. Ibrahim and F.~M. Peeters, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 52}, 17321 (1995);
460: H.-S. Sim {\it et~al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80}, 1501 (1998);
461: N. Kim, G. Ihm, H.-S. Sim, and K.~J. Chang, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 60}, 8767
462: (1999);
463: N. Kim, G. Ihm, H.-S. Sim, and T.~W. Wang, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 63}, 235317
464: (2001);
465: S.~M. Badalyan and F.~M. Peeters, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 64}, 155303 (2001);
466: M. Governale and D. Boese, Appl. Phys. Lett. {\bf 77}, 3215 (2000);
467: J. Reijniers, F.~M. Peeters, and A. Matulis, cond-mat/0106368
468: (unpublished);
469:
470: \bibitem{Bun:79}
471: L.Bunimovich, Funct. Anal. Appl. {\bf 8}, 73 (1974);
472: L.~A. Bunimovich, Commun. Math. Phys. {\bf 65}, 295 (1979);
473: L.A. Bunimovich, Commun. Math. Phys. {\bf 130}, 599 (1990).
474:
475:
476: \bibitem{antidot}
477: C. W. J. Beenakker and H. van Houten, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 63}, 1857
478: (1989);
479: R. Fleischmann, T. Geisel and R. Ketzmerick, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf
480: 68}, 1367 (1992).
481:
482: \bibitem{Kosztin}
483: I. Kosztin, D. L. Maslov and P. M. Goldbart, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf
484: 75}, 1735 (1995).
485:
486: \bibitem{arepres_tangent_cikkek}
487: M. V. Berry, Eur. J. Phys. {\bf 2}, 91 (1981);
488: O. Meplan, F. Brut, and C. Gignoux, J. Phys. A {\bf 26}, 237 (1993).
489:
490: \bibitem{Stadion_ljap}
491: G. Benettin and J.M. Strelcyn, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 17}, 773 (1978);
492: O. Biham and M. Kvale, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 46}, 6334 (1992).
493:
494: \bibitem{KoNo:69}
495: S. Kobayashi and K. Nomizu, {\em Founditions of Differential Geometry},
496: No.~15
497: in {\em Interscience Tracts in Pure and Appied Mathematics} (Interscience
498: Publishers, New York, London, Sydney, 1969).
499:
500: \bibitem{TT:97}
501: T. Tasn\'adi, Commun. Math. Phys. {\bf 187}, 597 (1997).
502:
503: \bibitem{TT:96}
504: T. Tasn\'adi, J. Math. Phys. {\bf 37}, 5577 (1996).
505:
506: \bibitem{TT:98}
507: T. Tasn\'adi, J. Math. Phys. {\bf 39}, 3783 (1998).
508:
509: \bibitem{Marcus}
510: C. M. Marcus, A. J. Rimberg, R. M. Westervelt, P.F. Hopkins, and
511: A. C. Gossard, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 69}, 506 (1992).
512: % C. M. Marcus and R. M. Westervelt, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 48}, 2460 (1993).
513:
514:
515:
516:
517: \end{thebibliography}
518:
519: %\bibliography{IMB}
520:
521:
522: \end{document}
523: