1: \tolerance = 10000

2: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

3: %\documentclass[showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

4: \usepackage{epsfig,psfrag}

5: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point

6: \usepackage{bm}% bold math

7: \usepackage{graphicx}

8: \usepackage{color}

9: %\documentstyle[pra,aps,epsf,floats]{revtex}

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

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

12: \newcommand{\s}{{\sigma}}

13: \newcommand{\psib}{{\bar{\psi}}}

14: \newcommand{\rb}{{\bar{\rho}}}

15: \newcommand{\phib}{{\bar{\phi}}}

16: \newcommand{\dt}{{\Delta}}

17: \newcommand{\dva}{{\frac{\vp\times\va}{2\pi}-\rb}}

18: \newcommand{\dvab}{{\frac{\vp\times(\va-\vb)}{4p\pi}}}

19: \newcommand{\w}{{\omega}}

20: \newcommand{\zh}{{\hat{z}}}

21: \newcommand{\qh}{{\hat{q}}}

22: \newcommand{\vA}{{\vec{A}}}

23: \newcommand{\va}{{\vec{a}}}

24: \newcommand{\vrr}{{\vec{r}}}

25: \newcommand{\vj}{{\vec{j}}}

26: \newcommand{\vE}{{\vec{E}}}

27: \newcommand{\vB}{{\vec{B}}}

28: \def\ve{{\varepsilon}}

29: \def\bA{{\mathbf A}}

30: \def\bm{{\mathbf m}}

31: \def\bsig{{\mathbf \sigma}}

32: \def\bB{{\mathbf B}}

33: \def\bp{{\mathbf p}}

34: \def\bI{{\mathbf I}}

35: \def\bn{{\mathbf n}}

36: \def\bM{{\mathbf M}}

37: \def\bq{{\mathbf q}}

38: \def\br{{\mathbf r}}

39: \def\bs{{\mathbf s}}

40: \def\bS{{\mathbf S}}

41: \def\bQ{{\mathbf Q}}

42: \def\bs{{\mathbf s}}

43: \def\bB{{\mathbf B}}

44: \def\bl{{\mathbf l}}

45: \def\bPi{{\mathbf \Pi}}

46: \def\bJ{{\mathbf J}}

47: \def\bR{{\mathbf R}}

48: \def\bz{{\mathbf z}}

49: \def\ba{{\mathbf a}}

50: \def\bk{{\mathbf k}}

51: \def\bP{{\mathbf P}}

52: \def\bg{{\mathbf g}}

53: \def\bX{{\mathbf X}}

54: \def\a{{\alpha}}

55: \def\b{{\beta}}

56: \def\g{{\gamma}}

57: \def\d{{\delta}}

58: \newcommand{\etab}{\mbox{\boldmath $\eta $}}

59: \newcommand{\sigmab}{\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma $}}

60: \newcommand{\vx}{{\vec{x}}}

61: \newcommand{\vq}{{\vec{q}}}

62: \newcommand{\vQ}{{\vec{Q}}}

63: \newcommand{\vd}{{\vec{d}}}

64: \newcommand{\vb}{{\vec{b}}}

65: \newcommand{\vp}{{\vec{\partial}}}

66: \newcommand{\p}{{\partial}}

67: \newcommand{\gr}{{\nabla}}

68: \newcommand{\ra}{{\rightarrow}}

69: \def\lam{\lambda}

70: \def\dd{d^{\dagger}}

71: \def\sb{{\bar{s}}}

72: \def\half{{1\over2}}

73: \def\third{{1\over3}}

74: \def\twof{{2\over5}}

75: \def\threes{{3\over7}}

76: \def\rhob{{\bar \rho}}

77: \def\ua{\uparrow}

78: \def\da{\downarrow}

79: \def\eqa{\begin{eqnarray}}

80: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}

81: \def\beqr{\begin{eqnarray}}

82: \def\eeqr{\end{eqnarray}}

83: \parindent=4mm

84: %\addtolength{\textheight}{0.9truecm}

85: 

86: \begin{document}

87: 

88: \title{ Ballistic Quantum Dots with Disorder and Interactions: A numerical study on the Robnik-Berry billiard}

89: \author{    Ganpathy Murthy$^1$, R. Shankar$^2$, and Harsh Mathur$^3$}

90: \affiliation{$^1$Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Kentucky, Lexington KY 40506-0055\\

91: $^2$ Department of Physics, Yale University, New Haven CT 06520\\ $^3$

92: Physics Department, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH

93: 44106-7079}

94: \date{\today}

95: %\tightenlines

96: %\widetext

97: %\advance\leftskip by 57pt

98: %\advance\rightskip by 57pt

99: \begin{abstract}

100: { In previous work we have found a regime in ballistic quantum

101: dots where interelectron interactions can be treated

102: asymptotically exactly as the Thouless number $g$ of the dot

103: becomes very large. However, this work depends on some assumptions

104: concerning the renormalization group and various properties of the

105: dot obeying Random Matrix Theory predictions at scales of the

106: order of the Thouless energy. In this work we test the validity of

107: those assumptions by considering a particular ballistic dot, the

108: Robnik-Berry billiard, numerically. We find that almost all of our

109: predictions based on the earlier work are borne out, with the

110: exception of fluctuations of certain matrix elements of

111: interaction operators. We conclude that, at least in the

112: Robnik-Berry billiard, one can trust the results of our previous

113: work at a qualitative and semi-quantitative level. }

114: \end{abstract}

115: \vskip 1cm \pacs{73.50.Jt}

116: \maketitle

117: 

118: 

119: \section{Introduction}

120: The quest for a satisfactory theory of quantum dots is driven not only

121: by their obvious importance as mesoscopic devices revealed by a series

122: of groundbreaking experiments\cite{recent-expts}, but also by their

123: challenge as a unique confluence of disorder, interactions and

124: finite-size effects\cite{reviews}. For weak interactions, the

125: Universal Hamiltonian\cite{H_U,univ-ham} (UH) provides a satisfactory

126: description. For ballistic/chaotic quantum dots, we have

127: espoused\cite{mm,qd-ms1,longpaper} an approach based on the fermionic

128: Renormalization Group\cite{rg-shankar} (RG), $1/N$ expansions and the

129: fact that energy eigenstates around the Fermi energy in disordered

130: systems ought to be described by Random Matrix Theory

131: (RMT)\cite{alt1,RMT}. Our approach not only explains the UH as a fixed

132: point of the RG but also describes the physics outside its basin of

133: attraction. It predicts a phase transition at strong coupling and

134: allows a fairly detailed study\cite{longpaper} of the new phase and

135: the quantum critical region\cite{critical-fan} separating it from that

136: governed by the UH.

137: 

138: Our results, however, were predicated on a variety of RMT and RG

139: assumptions. To test our assumptions and the conclusions deduced from

140: them, we performed a detailed numerical study on a ballistic but

141: chaotic billiard (the Robnik-Berry billiard\cite{robnik-berry}) and we

142: report our findings here. Our expectations are borne out, with one

143: notable exception.

144: 

145: We recall our strategy and assumptions briefly so that the reader may

146: see in advance what sort of ideas are put to test in our study. In the

147: primordial problem of interest to us one has electrons confined to a

148: ballistic dot of size $L$, with no impurities inside, and edges so

149: irregular that classical motion is chaotic. The electrons experience

150: the Coulomb interaction. In momentum space, all momenta within the

151: bandwidth (of order $k_F$, the Fermi momentum) exist.  The

152: semiclassical ergodicization time for an electron within the dot is a

153: few bounces, or $\tau_{erg}\simeq L/v_F$. By the uncertainty principle

154: this leads to an important energy scale, the Thouless energy

155: $E_T\simeq\hbar v_F/L$ which has a dual significance. First, it

156: controls the dimensionless conductance of a dot strongly coupled to

157: leads, as follows. Since the transport through the dot takes place in

158: a time such that energy is uncertain by an amount $E_T$, all single

159: particle states that fit into this band will each contribute a unit of

160: dimensionless conductance. If the average single-particle level

161: spacing is $\delta$, then the dimensionless conductance is

162: $g=E_T/\delta$. Second, in the other limit of dots very weakly coupled

163: to leads (which we focus on in this work), the Thouless band of width

164: $E_T$ centered on $E_F$, marks the scale deep within which RMT should

165: apply to the energies and eigenfunctions\cite{alt1}. In this context

166: $g$ is better denoted the Thouless number.

167: 

168: Since we are only interested in a narrow band of energies of width

169: $E_T <<E_F$, the first step in the program\cite{mm} is to use the RG

170: for fermions\cite{rg-shankar} to get an effective low energy theory by

171: eliminating all momentum states outside $E_T$.  Should we worry that

172: we are not eliminating exact single particle eigenstates (labelled

173: here by $\a$)? No, because the disorder due to the boundaries will mix

174: momentum states at roughly the same energy, and it does not matter

175: whether we eliminate momentum states within any annulus of energy

176: thickness $E_T$ or the single particle states they evolve

177: into. Indeed, even the mixing within $E_T$ is due to the fact that

178: momentum itself not well defined in a finite dot, a point we will

179: elaborate on shortly. However, once we come down to within $E_T$

180: of $E_F$, we cannot eliminate the remaining states in one shot since

181: it is the flow of couplings {\em within} this band that is all

182: important in the RG.

183: 

184:  Now it is

185: known\cite{rg-shankar} that the clean system RG (justified above)

186: leads to Landau's Fermi liquid interaction\cite{agd}

187: %

188: \beq

189: V=\sum_{\bk \bk'} F(\theta_{\bk}-\theta_{\bk'})\delta n(\bk

190: )\delta n(\bk' )

191: \eeq

192: %

193: at an energy scale $E_L$ which is small compared

194: to $E_F$. But since $E_L$ is a bulk scale it can always be made larger

195: than $E_T$ which vanishes as $L\to

196: \infty$. Thus Murthy and Mathur\cite{mm} perform their RG on the

197: hamiltonian (focussing on the spinless case for simplicity)

198: %

199: \beq H=\sum_{\a}c^{\dag}_{\a}c_{\a}\varepsilon_{\a}+

200: \sum\limits_{\a \b \g \d}V_{\a \b \g

201: \d}c^{\dag}_{\a}c^{\dag}_{\b}c_{\g}c_{\d}

202: \eeq

203: %

204: where

205: %

206: \beqr

207:  V_{\a \b

208: \g \d} =&{1\over4} \sum\limits_{ \bk \bk'}F(\theta_{\bk}-\theta_{\bk'})(\phi^{*}_{\a}(\bk )\phi^*_{\b}(\bk')-\phi^*_{\b}(\bk)\phi^*_{\a}(\bk'))\nonumber\\

209: &\times(\phi_\g(\bk')\phi_\d(\bk)-\phi_\d(\bk')\phi_\g(\bk)) \label{wof1}

210: \eeqr

211: %

212: is simply the Landau interaction written in the basis of exact

213: eigenstates, a statement that needs some elaboration. In usual RMT

214: treatments,   $\phi_{\a}(\bk )$ is the exact eigenstate $\a$ written

215: in the infinite dimensional basis of all momentum states. In our

216: version which uses  the RG to reduce the Hilbert space, the states

217: labeled by $\bk$ are approximate momentum states with an uncertainty

218: $\delta k\simeq 1/L$ in both directions. The number of such wave

219: packets that fit into an annulus of radius $k_F$ and thickness

220: $E_T/v_F$ is ${\mathcal{O} } (k_F L)=g$. We call them the

221: Wheel-of-Fortune (WOF) states, see Figure (\ref{wof}). One way to

222: construct such packets is to pick $g$ plane waves of equally spaced

223: momenta on the Fermi circle and to chop them off at the edges of the

224: dot to respect the boundary conditions. This is what we mean by

225: $\bk$ in $\phi_{\a}(\bk )=\langle \bk |\a\rangle$.

226: 

227: 

228: \begin{figure}[ht]

229: %\narrowtext

230: %\epsfxsize=2.4in\epsfysize=2.4in

231: \includegraphics*[width=2.4in,angle=0]{fig1.eps}

232: %\vskip 0.15in

233: \caption{The $g$ wheel-of-fortune states in the Thouless band.

234: They are packets in $\bk$ space with average momenta equally

235: spaced on the Fermi circle.} \label{wof}

236: \end{figure}

237: 

238: 

239:  We are now ready to state our two assumptions.\\

240: {\em {\bf Assumption 1}: We assume that the $g$ approximate

241: momentum states generated as above form a complete basis for the

242: $g$ exact eigenstates in the Thouless shell}.

243: 

244: {\bf Assumption II}: The energy eigenvalues $\varepsilon_{\a}$

245: obey RMT statistics as do the wavefunctions. For example we assume

246: that the ensemble averages (denoted by $\langle \rangle$) obey

247: \beq \langle \phi^{*}_{\mu}(\bk_1 )\phi^{}_{\mu}(\bk_2

248: )\phi^{*}_{\nu}(\bk_3 )\phi^{}_{\nu}(\bk_4) \rangle

249: ={\delta_{12}\delta_{34}\over g^2} +O(1/g^3) \label{4pt}\eeq

250: 

251: To some, Assumption I seems remarkable -- How can we furnish {\em in

252: advance, independent of the dot shape} a basis of $g$ states for

253: expanding the $g$ exact eigenstates within $E_T$? After all, these

254: eigenstates are supposed to resemble those of a random matrix.  The

255: point is that no matter how chaotic the dot, it can only mix states at

256: the same energy. While this sounds like Berry's

257: ansatz\cite{berry-ansatz} it is somewhat different in both scope and

258: content: Berry's ansatz states that every exact eigenstate $\a$ can be

259: expanded in terms of an {\it infinite number} of $\bk$ states (with

260: the same energy $\epsilon_{\a}=\bk^2/2m$)in the bulk, while we claim

261: that only $g$ of WOF states are needed. Secondly, we claim that the

262: {\it same} $g$ WOF states can be used to describe all the states

263: within the Thouless band.

264: 

265: In this work we will show that these states are nearly orthonormal and

266: that the exact state right in the middle of the band has 99.9\%

267: overlap with the WOF states. The success of this extension of Berry's

268: conjecture to a finite dot exceeds our expectations in this

269: regard. However, we find that the $g$ WOF states become less effective

270: at describing states as we move away from $E_F$: the overlap drops to

271: 50\% at $E_{\a}=E_F\pm E_T/2$. This

272: prepares us for the possibility that nonuniversal quantities may be

273: quantitatively inaccurate in our approach.

274: 

275: As for Assumption II, we have verified RMT behavior for the

276: eigenvalues (as have others before

277: us\cite{stone-bruus,alhassid-lewenkopf}) but not the eigenfunctions.

278: What we did instead was to see what extent the solution of a specific

279: dot resembled the picture we drew based on these two assumptions. We

280: begin by describing how one starts from Eqn. (\ref{wof1}), which

281: describes the effective hamiltonian, and use our two assumptions with

282: large-$N$ ideas to make our predictions\cite{qd-ms1,longpaper}. These

283: predictions are asymptotically exact as $g\to\infty$.

284: 

285: First one expands the Landau function as 

286: %

287: \beq F(\theta ) = \sum_m u_m

288: e^{im\theta}.

289: \eeq 

290: %

291: Barring accidents, the phase transition occurs in one channel with

292: some $m$ (recall superconductivity). This allows us to focus on a

293: single $u_m\ne 0$, ignoring all others. Then we carry out a

294: Hubbard-Stratovich transformation on the interaction using a

295: collective field $\sigmab$. We then formally integrate out the

296: fermions and get an effective action $S(\sigmab )$ for $\sigmab$.  In

297: this process we make use of assumption II. The action in terms of

298: $\sigmab$ is obtained by summing one loop Feynman diagrams with

299: varying numbers of external $\sigmab$'s connected to a single fermion

300: line running around the loop. Each diagram is a sum over fermion

301: energy denominators multiplying products of a string of $\phi_{\a}(\bk

302: )$'s.  We are able to show that these products may be replaced by

303: their ensemble averages in the large $g$ limit. In other words the sum

304: over so many terms in each diagrams leads to self-averaging. For the

305: averages we use relations like Eqn.  (\ref{4pt}). When this is done,

306: the effective action can be cast into a form which has a $g^2$ in

307: front of it\cite{qd-ms1,longpaper}, so that the saddle point gives

308: exact answers as $g \to \infty$. 

309: 

310: At this point let us collect all the results and predictions of the

311: RMT + large-$N$ theory\cite{longpaper} with a view to comparing them

312: with similar results without using Assumptions I and II on the

313: Robnik-Berry billiard.

314: \begin{itemize}

315: \item{}  In the large-$g$ limit there is a sharp transition to a

316: phase in which $\sigmab$ acquires a vacuum expectation value. The

317: critical value of $u_m$ in our approximation turns out to be

318: $-1/\log{2}$ in the spinless case and $-1/2\log{2}$ in the spinful

319: case. The true critical value is most likely to be the bulk value

320: $-2$ (spinless) or $-1$ (spinful), as has been found in an

321: explicitly solvable model by Adam, Brouwer, and Sharma

322: recently\cite{nowindow}. This is an example of the nonuniversal

323: quantity alluded to earlier, that we cannot predict exactly in our

324: approach even as $g\to \infty$.

325: 

326: \item{}  For finite $g$, instead of a sharp phase transition, there is

327: a crossover from the weak-coupling regime through a quantum critical

328: regime to a strong-coupling regime. Due to the explicit

329: symmetry-breaking at order $1/g$, there is always some nonzero order

330: parameter, which increases to a number of order $g$ (in the

331: normalization we use here, which is different from that of

332: ref.\cite{longpaper}) in the strong-coupling regime.

333: 

334: \item{} For symmetry-breaking in  odd angular momentum channels there are

335: two exactly degenerate minima for every sample arising from

336: time-reversal invariance.

337: 

338: \item{} The ground state energy at the minimum in the strong-coupling

339: regime is lower than that in the weak-coupling regime by a number of

340: order $g^2\d$.

341: 

342: \item{} The effective potential landscape in the strong-coupling

343: regime is in the approximate shape of a Mexican Hat, with the ripples

344: at the bottom of the hat being of order $g\d$.

345: 

346: \item{} In the quantum-critical and strong-coupling regimes,

347: even low-energy quasiparticles acquire large widths given on average by

348: %

349: \beq

350: \Gamma(\varepsilon)\approx {\d\over\pi}\log(\varepsilon/\d)

351: \eeq

352: %

353: \end{itemize}

354: 

355: We found that most of these predictions are verified by our

356: numerical results on the Robnik-Berry billiard, except that the

357: ripples at the bottom of the Mexican Hat turn out to be much

358: larger than expected for the $m=2$ Landau interaction channel.

359: 

360: %

361: \section{The Robnik-Berry billiard}

362: %

363: In this section we will describe how the dot is chosen and how the

364: single particle energy levels $\varepsilon_{\a}$ and eigenfunctions

365: $\phi_{\a}(\br )$ are determined. We use a trick invented by Robnik

366: and Berry\cite{robnik-berry} and elaborated upon by

367: Stone and Bruus\cite{stone-bruus}. Consider a unit circle $|z|=1$ in the complex

368: plane of $z=x+iy$. The analytic function

369: %

370: \beq

371: w(z) = {z+bz^2+cz^3e^{i\chi}\over \sqrt{1+2b^2+3c^2}}

372: \label{conformal-map}\eeq

373: %

374: defines a map

375: under which the unit circle in $z$ gets mapped into a new shape in

376: $w$, which will be our dot. The shape of the dot can be varied by

377: varying the parameters $b,\ c, \ \mbox{and}\ \chi$. The denominator

378: ensures that the billiard has the same area ($\pi$) as the unit disc.

379: The wavefunction $\phi_{\a}(w,\bar{w}) =\phi_{\a}(u, v) $ is required

380: to vanish at the boundary and obey

381: %

382: \begin{eqnarray}

383: &-&\left( {\p^2\over \p

384: u^2}+{\p^2\over \p v^2}\right) \phi_{\a}(u,v)\nonumber \\

385: &=&-4{\p \over \p w} {\p \over \p \bar{w}}\phi_{\a}(w,\bar{w})

386: =\varepsilon_{\a} \phi_{\a}(w,\bar{w}).

387: \end{eqnarray}

388: %

389: (We have

390: chosen $\hbar = 2m =1$). If we now go the $z$ plane where the

391: wavefunction is $\phi_{\a}(w(z),\bar{w}(\bar{z}))$, the

392: Schr\"{o}dinger equation and boundary condition are

393: %

394: \beq

395: -4{\p

396: \over \p z} {\p \over \p

397: \bar{z}}\phi_{\a}(z,\bar{z})=\varepsilon_{\a}|w'(z)|^2

398: \phi_{\a}(z,\bar{z}) \label{se} \ \ \ \ \phi_{\a}(|z=1|)=0

399: \eeq

400: %

401: where $w'(z)=dw/dz$. This differential equation in the continuum

402: is next converted to a discrete matrix equation by writing

403: %

404: \beq

405: \phi_{\a}(z,\bar{z})\equiv \phi_{\a}(r,\theta)=\sum_j {1\over

406: \g_j}C^{\a}_{j}\psi_j(r,\theta )\label{exp}

407: \eeq

408: %

409: where

410: $\psi_j(r,\theta ) $ is the solution to the  free Schr\"odinger

411: equation in the unit disk vanishing on the boundary:

412: %

413: \beq

414: -\nabla^2 \psi_j(r,\theta )=\g^{2}_{j}\psi_j(r,\theta ).

415: \eeq

416: %

417: (That is, these are Bessel functions in $r$ times angular momentum

418: eigenfunctions in $\theta$. ) Feeding this expansion into Eqn.

419: (\ref{se}) one obtains the matrix equation \beq \sum_j

420: M_{ij}C^{\a}_{j}={1 \over \varepsilon_{\a}}C^{\a}_{i}\eeq where

421: \beq M_{ij}={1\over \g_i}\langle i||w'|^2|j\rangle {1\over \g_j}.

422: \eeq (Without the $1/\g_j$ in the expansion Eqn. (\ref{exp}), $M$

423: would not have been Hermitian. )

424: 

425: In practice one truncates $M$ to a finite size (we used 585

426: states) and expects the lower energy levels and wavefunctions to

427: be unaffected.

428: 

429: The parameters $b,c,\chi$ are chosen to lie in the range where

430: classical behavior is chaotic, and where quantum chaos as reflected in

431: the eigenvalue distribution has been established\cite{stone-bruus}. A

432: value we used repeatedly was $b=c=.2,\chi =.85$. A nonzero $\chi$ ensures

433: that the billiard has no reflection symmetry. This shape is often

434: called the Africa Billiard based on its resemblance to that continent,

435: as seen in Fig \ref{fig1} for our chosen values of parameters.

436: 

437: \begin{figure}[ht]

438: %\narrowtext

439: %\epsfxsize=2.4in\epsfysize=2.4in

440: \includegraphics*[width=2.4in,angle=0]{fig2.eps}

441: %\vskip 0.15in

442: \caption{The shape of the Robnik-Berry billiard for $b=c=0.2$, and $\chi=0.85$.}

443: \label{fig1}

444: \end{figure}

445: 

446: We shall refer to these eigenfunctions and eigenvalues as exact even

447: though they come from solving a truncated problem because we can

448: easily increase the accuracy by increasing the size of the truncated

449: Hilbert space.

450: 

451: \subsection{ Testing Assumptions I and II}

452: 

453: Our ability to solve the Schr\"odinger equation (to high accuracy)

454: implies in principle that we can test our two assumptions.

455: 

456: In the next subsection we will test Assumption I, i.e.,  see in

457: detail how well the WOF states serve a basis within the Thouless

458: band.

459: 

460: As for Assumption II, we and our predecessors

461: \cite{stone-bruus,alhassid-lewenkopf} have shown that the

462: eigenvalues and single eigenfunctions obey the distribution

463: expected by RMT for a GOE. (The ensemble is generated by varying

464: the parameters in $w(z)$.)

465: 

466: Similar information about  wavefunction correlations is not known

467: in the ballistic problem (despite some recent progress using

468: supersymmetry methods\cite{supersymm}). We did not try to do this

469: here since  our computing capabilities did not allow us to

470: generate an ensemble.

471: 

472: Instead we computed the fate of the interacting system without

473: recourse to Assumptions I and II and compare  to our predictions

474: based on these assumptions.

475: 

476: \subsection{Completeness of the WOF basis}

477: Let $E_F$ be the Fermi energy. Then $g\simeq \sqrt{4\pi

478: N}\simeq\sqrt{\pi E_F}$, which we arrive at as follows. The Fermi

479: circle has a circumference $2\pi K_F$ and into this will fit

480: $g=2\pi K_F/(2\pi /L)$ WOF states each of width $2\pi /L$ in the

481: tangential direction. Finally $E_F=K_{F}^{2}/2m = K_{F}^{2}$,

482: $N=k_F^2L^2/4\pi$ and $L=\sqrt{\mbox{Area}}=\sqrt{\pi}$.

483: 

484: As a test case when we picked the Fermi energy to be the 100-th

485: level, we found $g=37$. How well is this state $|F>$ at $E_F$

486: spanned by the $g$ WOF states at the Fermi energy?

487: 

488: First we first take $g$ equally spaced points $\bk_n$ on the Fermi

489: circle and form the WOF states \beq \psi_{WOF-n}(\br ) = {1\over

490: \sqrt{\pi}}e^{i\bk \cdot \br} \Theta (\mbox{dot})\eeq where $\Theta

491: (\mbox{dot})$ is unity inside the dot and zero outside. These states

492: are very close to being orthonormal. For example the overlaps of $n=1$

493: state (with $\bk $ along the $y$-axis) with the others as we go around

494: the circle is shown in Fig. (\ref{fig2a}).

495: 

496: \begin{figure}[ht]

497: %\narrowtext

498: %\epsfxsize=2.4in\epsfysize=2.4in

499: \includegraphics*[width=2.4in,angle=0]{fig3.eps}

500: %\vskip 0.15in

501: \caption{The absolute value of $\langle n|1\rangle$, the inner

502: product of WOF state number 1 with the other$g-1=36$ states. }

503: \label{fig2a}

504: \end{figure}

505: 

506: 

507: Next we ask how much of the  state $|F>$ at the Fermi energy is

508: contained in the WOF states. We find $\sum_{n=1}^{g}|\langle

509: n-WOF|F\rangle |^2 = .9993$. This is a rather remarkable result. It

510: says that $|F>$, which is a vector with 580 components (which was

511: the size of our truncated problem) can be expanded almost completely

512: in terms of $g=37 $ WOF states which are given in advance. In other

513: words as one changes the shape of the dot and works at fixed Fermi

514: energy, the state $|F>$ changes in a random way, but that randomness

515: is only in which particular combination of WOF states describes it,

516: not in the completeness of the WOF basis.

517: 

518: While this is very satisfactory we need more to implement our scheme:

519: we need to be expand all $g$ states in the WOF basis. Here we find

520: that as we move off the center of the Thouless band, the fractional

521: norm captured by the WOF basis drops. In a typical case, with $g=37$,

522: there are roughly 12 states (one third of $g$) where the number lies

523: above 95\%. At band edge this drops to 50\%, as shown in Fig

524: (\ref{fig2b}).  Thus there is inevitably some error in transcribing

525: the Landau interaction written in terms of the WOF states labelled by

526: $\bk$ into the basis of $g$ exact eigenstates labelled by $\a$. This

527: just means that the location of the critical point will not be

528: correctly predicted by our RMT based analysis, as pointed out recently

529: by Adam, Brouwer, and Sharma\cite{nowindow}.

530: 

531: \begin{figure}[ht]

532: %\narrowtext

533: %\epsfxsize=2.4in\epsfysize=2.4in

534: \includegraphics*[width=2.4in,angle=0]{fig4.eps}

535: %\vskip 0.15in

536: \caption{The norm of the projection of the $n^{th}$ exact eigenstate from $E_F$ 

537: on to the subspace spanned by the WOF states. It can be seen that more

538: and more of the exact eigenstate lies outside this subspace as one

539: moves away from $E_F$. } \label{fig2b}

540: \end{figure}

541: 

542: 

543: This concludes our (partial) test of Assumptions I and II. We turn

544: to a comparison of our results based on these assumptions with a

545: direct solution of the problem with no recourse to the

546: assumptions.

547: 

548: \subsection{Hartree-Fock  solution of  interacting problem}

549: 

550: 

551: How can  the knowledge of the "exact" eigenfunctions and

552: eigenvalues in the billiard  help in the solution of the problem

553: with interactions? The tactic will be illustrated in schematic

554: form first. Suppose we have a four-Fermi  interaction added to a

555: free hamiltonian which in first-quantization is given by some

556: differential operator $H_0$. Then the path integral becomes

557: %

558: \beq Z=\int d\psi d\bar{\psi} e^{S}

559: \eeq

560: %

561: where

562: %

563: \beq S= \int

564: d\tau \left[ \bar{\psi} \left( i\partial_{\tau} - H_0 \right) \psi

565: +{u\over 2}  (\bar{\psi}\psi )^2\right] .

566: \eeq

567: %

568: Using a Hubbard-Stratanovich transformation we can write

569: %

570: \beq Z=\int d\psi d\bar{\psi} d\sigma

571: e^{S}

572: \eeq

573: %

574: where

575: %

576: \beq S= \int d\tau \left[ \bar{\psi} \left[

577: i\partial_{\tau} - H_0-\sigma  \right] \psi -{\sigma^2\over 2u}

578: \right] .

579: \eeq

580: %

581: If the fermions are integrated out we will get an effective action

582: $S_{eff}(\sigma )$. {\em To find the minimum we need just the

583: action for static $\sigma$. } In this case it is clear that

584: %

585: \beq

586: \int d\psi

587: d\bar{\psi}\exp \left[ \int d\tau  \bar{\psi} \left[

588: i\partial_{\tau} - H_0+\sigma \right] \psi \right]=

589: e^{-E_0(\sigma) T}

590: \eeq

591: %

592: where $T\to \infty$ is the length of the imaginary time $\tau$- axis

593: and $E_0(\sigma ) $ is the ground state energy of $\psi^{\dag}

594: (H_0+\sigma )\psi$. To find $E_0(\sigma )$ one simply solves for the

595: single particle levels of $ (H_0+\sigma )$ and fills up the ones with

596: negative energy. The effective action for static configurations, which

597: is also the effective potential, is

598: %

599: \beq

600: V_{eff}=E_0(\sigma )+{\sigma^2 \over 2u}.

601: \label{effpot}\eeq

602: %

603: 

604: At this point we have a mean-field theory. We still need to

605: justify its use by showing that fluctuations of the collective

606: field $\sigmab$ around its minimum are small. In our previous

607: work, based on Assumptions I and II we showed that the

608: fluctuations were indeed small in the limit of large $g$, since

609: the $g^2$ in front of the actions  limits fluctuations. In the

610: billiard we will justify the mean field similarly, based on the

611: depth and curvature of the minimum.

612: 

613: When the  Landau  interaction is factorized,  the hamiltonian

614: whose ground state  gives us $E_0(\sigma )$ is

615: %

616: \beq

617: \sum_{\a \b} \psi^{\dag}_{\a} (\delta_{\a \b}{\large

618: \varepsilon}_{\b}+\sigmab\cdot \bM_{\a \b})\psi_{\b}

619: \label{ham-to-diag}\eeq

620: %

621: where, for the case $m=1$, for example,

622: %

623: \beq \bM_{\a \b}=\sum_{\bk} \phi^{*}_{\a}(\bk )\phi_{\b}(\bk )

624: {\bk \over k}

625: \eeq

626: %

627: and $\a , \b, \bk$ are not restricted to the Thouless band. This is

628: because we want to solve the problem without any of the assumptions

629: that led to the effective low energy theory within the Thouless

630: band. Note that $\sigmab$ has two components, because the Landau

631: interaction associated with $u_m$ has two parts:

632: %

633: \beq

634: V_{L}= {u_m\over2}\sum_{\bk \bk'} \delta n_{\bk}

635: \delta n_{\bk'}(\cos m \theta_{\bk} \cos m \theta_{\bk'}+ \sin m

636: \theta_{\bk} \sin m \theta_{\bk'}).

637: \eeq

638: %

639: Once $S_{eff}$ is known (on a grid of points in the $\sigmab$

640: plane) one can ask if and when the minimum moves off the origin.

641: 

642: So far our considerations have been fairly generic, and the Landau

643: interaction has been written in momentum space. However, in testing

644: our approach in the billiard, we will find it more convenient to

645: represent the Landau interaction in real space, since the

646: eigenfunctions are known as linear combinations of Bessel functions

647: whose integrals are best carried out in real space. We have carried

648: out calculations for two Laudau parameters corresponding to $m=1$ and

649: $m=2$. The $m=1$ Landau interaction is chosen to be (in

650: second-quantized notation)

651: %

652: \beqr

653: \half &\int d^2r \Psi^{\dag}(\vrr){1\over(2mH_0)^{1/4}}(-i{\vec\nabla}){1\over(2mH_0)^{1/4}}\Psi(\vrr) \cdot\nonumber\\

654: &\times\int d^2r' \Psi^{\dag}(\vrr'){1\over(2mH_0)^{1/4}}(-i{\vec\nabla}'){1\over(2mH_0)^{1/4}}\Psi(\vrr')

655: \eeqr

656: %

657: The factors of ${1\over(2mH_0)^{1/4}}$ on each side of the $\nabla$

658: have the effect of $1/|\bk|$ in momentum space. Since momentum does

659: not commute with the free Hamiltonian $H_0$, the factors have to be

660: placed symmetrically. Note that this corresponds only to the $\vq=0$

661: part of the Landau interaction. In reality, all values of $\vq$ up to

662: the scale $E_L/v_F$ exist in the Hamiltonian. Depending on the shape

663: of the dot a particular combination of them may break symmetry to give

664: the best energy. Still, we expect that since at large $g$ we are close

665: to the zero-dimensional limit, the best combination will consist

666: largely of very small $\vq$ parts of the Landau interaction. In any

667: case, the energy of the true symmetry-broken state can only be

668: lower than what we calculate, so what we have here is a conservative

669: estimate of symmetry-breaking. Similarly the $m=2$ interaction (also

670: at $\vq=0$) is

671: %

672: \beqr

673: \half&\int d^2r \Psi^{\dag}(\vrr){1\over(2mH_0)^{1/2}}(\nabla_x^2-\nabla_y^2){1\over(2mH_0)^{1/2}}\Psi(\vrr) \cdot\nonumber\\

674: &\times\int d^2r'

675: \Psi^{\dag}(\vrr'){1\over(2mH_0)^{1/2}}((\nabla')_x^2-(\nabla')_y^2){1\over(2mH_0)^{1/2}}\Psi(\vrr')\nonumber\\

676: &+\half\int d^2r

677: \Psi^{\dag}(\vrr){1\over(2mH_0)^{1/2}}2\nabla_x\nabla_y{1\over(2mH_0)^{1/2}}\Psi(\vrr)

678: \nonumber\\

679: &\times\int d^2r'

680: \Psi^{\dag}(\vrr'){1\over(2mH_0)^{1/2}}2(\nabla')_x(\nabla')_y{1\over(2mH_0)^{1/2}}\Psi(\vrr')

681: \eeqr

682: %

683: The integrals are over $(w,\bar{w})$, but can be converted to

684: integrals over the disk by using the conformal mapping of Eq.

685: (\ref{conformal-map}). Of course, the derivative operators must

686: also be transformed in the process. In order to find the matrix

687: elements of $\bM_{\a \b}$ we had to take the matrix elements of

688: the above operators in the basis of exact billiard states. We

689: carried out the angular part of the integrals analytically, but

690: had to turn to numerical integration to evaluate the radial

691: integrals. This is a computationally  intensive calculation, but

692: once the matrix $\bM$ has been constructed, one simply

693: diagonalizes the Hamiltonian of Eq. (\ref{ham-to-diag}) for a mesh

694: of $\sigmab$ in the plane, adds up the energies of the lowest $N$

695: particles to obtain the fermionic ground state energy, and obtains

696: the effective potential landscape from Eq. (\ref{effpot}) for

697: various values of the coupling strength $u$. After this, it is a

698: simple matter to identify the global minimum, which gives us the

699: lowering of ground state energy and the value of the order

700: parameter as a function of $u$.

701: 

702: Let us proceed to the results,  displayed in pictorial form. In

703: Fig. \ref{fig3} we show the absolute value of the order parameter,

704: normalized by the nominal value of $g=\sqrt{4\pi N}$, for three

705: values of the number of particles $N$. The bulk transition happens

706: at $u^*_{bulk}=2$. As can be seen, there is a nonzero order

707: parameter for any nonzero $u$, and it grows smoothly and

708: continuously as $u$ increases. Nothing discontinuous happens at

709: $u=2$ or even beyond, indicating that the instability does not

710: suddenly become first-order at the bulk value of $u^*$. Of course,

711: in these finite systems, the Thouless and bulk scales are related

712: by a factor $g/4\pi$, which is not that large (4.4 for the largest

713: system we considered, with $N=245$). So somewhere between $u=2.25$

714: and $u=2.5$ the instability seems to reach the bulk scale.

715: However, note that the size of systems we have considered

716: correspond quite closely to actual ballistic

717: samples\cite{recent-expts}, which typically have a few hundred

718: electrons. Further, the three curves seem to track each other

719: fairly closely, indicating that the expectation value of

720: $|\sigmab|$ indeed scales with $g$, as predicted by our earlier

721: work based on RMT assumptions.

722: 

723: \begin{figure}[ht]

724: %\narrowtext

725: %\epsfxsize=2.4in\epsfysize=2.4in

726: \includegraphics*[width=2.4in,angle=0]{fig5.eps}

727: %\vskip 0.15in

728: \caption{The absolute value of the order parameter normalized by $g$

729:  as a function of coupling strength $u$ for three values of the number

730:  of particles $N$.  The fact that the curves track each other closely

731:  indicates that the order parameter does indeed scale like

732:  $g$. Furthermore, nothing discontinuous happens at the bulk critical

733:  coupling strength $u^*_{bulk}=2$.}

734: \label{fig3}

735: \end{figure}

736: 

737: In Fig. \ref{fig4} we show the corresponding reduction in ground state

738: energy normalized by $g^2$. Once again, the curves track each other

739: fairly closely, indicating that the energy reduction due to

740: interactions is indeed of order $g^2$, as predicted by our earlier

741: work.

742: 

743: \begin{figure}[ht]

744: %\narrowtext

745: %\epsfxsize=2.4in\epsfysize=2.4in

746: \includegraphics*[width=2.4in,angle=0]{fig6.eps}

747: %\vskip 0.15in

748: \caption{Reduction in ground state energy normalized by $g^2$ for three values of the number of particles $N$.}

749: \label{fig4}

750: \end{figure}

751: 

752: In Fig. \ref{fig5} we show the effective potential landscape for

753: $m=2$, with $N=245$, at a value of $u=2.15$, at which the minimum is

754: well-developed, but the order parameter is still within the nominal

755: Thouless scale and has not reached the bulk scale. The RMT analysis

756: predicted a Mexican Hat landscape with ``small'' ripples (down by

757: $1/g$) in the circle of minima of the Mexican Hat. The landscape we

758: see bears no resemblance to this. Instead, it appears to be an

759: isolated minimum at a nonzero $\sigmab$. Upon close inspection it can

760: be seen that the minimum is shallower in the transverse direction than

761: in the radial direction, but this is the only indication we could find

762: of a (perhaps) incipient Mexican Hat structure.

763: 

764: \begin{figure}[ht]

765: %\narrowtext

766: %\epsfxsize=2.4in\epsfysize=2.4in

767: \includegraphics*[width=2.4in,angle=0]{fig7.eps}

768: %\vskip 0.15in

769: \caption{Effective potential landscape for symmetry-breaking in the

770: $m=2$ channel. Instead of a Mexican Hat minimum structure with small

771: ripples we see an isolated minimum. The minimum does seem shallower in

772: the transverse direction. }

773: \label{fig5}

774: \end{figure}

775: 

776: 

777: Fig. \ref{fig6} shows a similar effective potential landscape for

778: symmetry breaking in the $m=1$, channel, where the two exactly

779: degenerate minima expected from time-reversal invariance

780: considerations can be seen. The landscape also appears more

781: Mexican-Hat-like than in the $m=2$ case.

782: 

783: \begin{figure}[ht]

784: %\narrowtext

785: %\BoundingBox{180,180}

786: \includegraphics*[width=2.4in,angle=0]{fig8.eps}

787: %\vskip 0.15in

788: \caption{Effective potential landscape for symmetry-breaking in the

789: $m=1$ channel for $N=200$ and $u=2.15$. The two exactly degenerate

790: minima required by time-reversal invariance can be seen, as can a

791: Mexican-Hat-like structure.}

792: \label{fig6}

793: \end{figure}

794: 

795: 

796: To trace the origin of this difference in behavior, we investigated

797: the average absolute value $\langle |M^i_{\a\b}|\rangle$ and the rms

798: deviation of the matrix elements from the mean absolute value,

799: $\sqrt{\langle |M^i_{\a\b}|^2\rangle-\langle |M^i_{\a\b}|\rangle^2}$

800: for the two cases $m=1,2$. The results for the $i=1$ (corresponding to

801: $\nabla_x$ for $m=1$ and $\nabla_x^2-\nabla_y^2$ for $m=2$) shown in

802: Fig. \ref{fig7} are an energy average for a particular billiard, with

803: the parameters $b=c=0.20, \d=0.85$. (We have confirmed similar

804: behavior of the matrix elements for other parameter values as well.)

805: Fig.

806: \ref{fig7}  shows these quantities  as a function of the energy

807: difference between the two states $\a$ and $\b$. There are two

808: features that are particularly noteworthy.

809: 

810: \begin{itemize}

811: \item There is a ``hole'' in the $m=1$ matrix element near zero

812: energy difference.

813: 

814: \item The rms deviation of the $m=2$ matrix elements from their

815: mean absolute value is huge. As a rough estimate, if the matrix

816: elements were Gaussian distributed complex numbers, the rms

817: deviation should be roughly half the mean modulus.

818: \end{itemize}

819: 

820: \begin{figure}[ht]

821: %\narrowtext

822: %\BoundingBox{180,180}

823: \includegraphics*[width=2.4in,angle=0]{fig9.eps}

824: %\vskip 0.15in

825: \caption{A plot of the absolute value and the rms deviation  of the matrix elements

826: $M^x_{\a\b}$ from their mean absolute value as a function of

827: $\ve_{\a}-\ve_{\b}$ for the two cases $m=1,2$.}

828: \label{fig7}

829: \end{figure}

830: 

831: However, the $i=2$ component (corresponding to $\nabla_y$ for $m=1$

832: and $2\nabla_x\nabla_y$ for $m=2$) shows very different behavior in

833: Fig. \ref{fig8}. While the $m=1$ case looks similar to the $i=1$

834: component, the fluctuations of the $m=2$ $i=2$ component are strongly

835: suppressed by almost an order of magnitude below the mean.

836: 

837: \begin{figure}[ht]

838: %\narrowtext

839: %\BoundingBox{180,180}

840: \includegraphics*[width=2.4in,angle=0]{fig10.eps}

841: %\vskip 0.15in

842: \caption{A plot of the absolute value and the rms deviation  of the matrix elements

843: $M^y_{\a\b}$ from their mean absolute value as a function of

844: $\ve_{\a}-\ve_{\b}$ for the two cases $m=1,2$.}

845: \label{fig8}

846: \end{figure}

847: 

848: Consider first the "hole" at $E_F$ for $m=1$.  By symmetry

849: considerations alone one can understand that the diagonal matrix

850: element $M_{\a\a}$ for $m=1$ has to be zero sample by sample in the

851: absence of an external magnetic field. Focusing on the $x$ component

852: of the order parameter

853: %

854: \beq

855: M^{x}_{\a\a}=\sum\limits_{\bk} \cos(\theta_{\bk}) \phi^*_{\a}(\bk)\phi_{\a}(\bk)

856: \eeq

857: %

858: By time-reversal invariance $\phi^*_{\a}(\bk)=\phi_{\a}(-\bk)$. Noting

859: that $\theta_{-\bk}=\theta_{\bk}+\pi$, and that the $\cos$ term

860: changes sign, one concludes that $M_{\a\a}=-M_{\a\a}=0$. The reason

861: the "hole'' persists for finite energy differences for the operator

862: ${\vec p}=-i{\vec\nabla}$ can be explained by noting

863: that\cite{barnett-pvt} for a billiard

864: %

865: \beqr

866: {\vec p}=&im[\vrr,H]\nonumber\\

867: \Rightarrow (-i{\vec\nabla})_{\a\b}=&-im(\vrr)_{\a\b} (\ve_\a-\ve_\b)

868: \eeqr

869: %

870: which means that the matrix element must vanish at least linearly

871: with the energy difference. In fact, such ``banded'' matrix

872: elements have been found for many operators in ballistic

873: dots\cite{barnett}.

874: 

875: Consider next the fact that  the distribution of the matrix

876: elements of $M^x_{\a\b}$ for the $m=2$ case is much broader than

877: for the $m=1$ case, while the $M^y_{\a\b}$ matrix elements have a

878: very narrow distribution. The RMT answer would have the rms

879: deviation of $M_{\a\b}$ from the mean to be of the same order as

880: the mean absolute value. This seems to be roughly true for both

881: components of $m=1$ but grossly untrue for the $i=1$ component of

882: $m=2$. Since it is these mesoscopic fluctuations in $M_{\a\a}$

883: which determine the size of the ripples at the bottom of the

884: Mexican Hat in the RMT scenario, this broad distribution of

885: $M_{\a\b}$ seems to be the cause of the failure of the RMT

886: prediction that the ripples should be subdominant by $1/g$. While

887: it is tempting to try to explain this in relation to the shape of

888: the billiard (Fig. \ref{fig1}), which certainly appears to favor

889: an $x^2-y^2$ type of symmetry, a satisfactory explanation  of the

890: broad distribution of the $m=2$, $i=1$ matrix elements eludes us.

891: 

892: 

893: Our knowledge of the eigenfunctions at the global minimum allow us

894: to compute the  effective action for time-dependent $\sigmab$ at

895: that minimum. Since the quasiparticles couple to this collective

896: field, the interaction induces a decay width for the

897: quasiparticles (details can be found in ref.\cite{longpaper}). In

898: Fig. \ref{fig9} we compare the numerically calculated values of

899: the width to the parameter-free theoretical prediction (solid

900: line) based on RMT\cite{longpaper}. On average, the RMT based

901: prediction seems consistent with the numerics, though there is a

902: lot of variation in the widths driven by large variations in the

903: matrix elements coupling the quasiparticle levels to the

904: collective mode.

905: 

906: 

907: \begin{figure}[ht]

908: %\narrowtext

909: %\epsfxsize=2.4in\epsfysize=2.4in

910: \includegraphics*[width=2.4in,angle=0]{fig11.eps}

911: %\vskip 0.15in

912: \caption{A plot of the decay width of quasiparticles induced by their coupling to

913: fluctuations of the collective field $\sigmab$, for $N=245$, $m=2$,

914: and $u=2.15$. The solid line is the theoretical prediction from our

915: previous RMT-based analysis\cite{longpaper}. While the prediction does

916: well on average there are huge variations in the widths due to large

917: variations in how strongly each level couples to the collective mode.}

918: \label{fig9}

919: \end{figure}

920: 

921: 

922: \section{Conclusions}

923: \medskip

924: 

925: In our earlier work, we used a global RG assumption to reduce the

926: problem on the scale of the Thouless energy to that of a disordered

927: noninteracting problem with Fermi-liquid interactions. This is quite

928: plausible for ballistic dots on very general grounds. To proceed

929: further we had to make two further assumptions; (i) That the $g$

930: approximate momentum states at the Fermi energy were a good basis in

931: which to expand the exact disorder eigenstates, and (ii) That the wave

932: functions of the exact eigenstates in the momentum basis obeyed all

933: the statistical properties of RMT. Based on these two assumptions we

934: were able to construct a solution to the problem which was

935: asymptotically exact in the limit $g\to\infty$. This solution led to

936: specific predictions for various physical quantities, including the

937: size of the order parameter, the reduction in energy due to

938: interactions, the shape of the energy landscape, and the size of the

939: quasiparticle decay widths.

940: 

941: In this paper we have carried out a calculation which is still

942: predicated on the validity of the Fermi-liquid form of the

943: interactions on a scale $E_L$ much larger than the Thouless energy

944: $E_T$. In retaining this assumption we are on firm ground, since after

945: all, the Thouless energy can be made as small as one wishes merely by

946: increasing the size of the system. We also assumed that the mean-field

947: description of the Landau Fermi-liquid interactions is valid, which is

948: justified by the fact that the minima in the effective potential

949: landscape are indeed of order $g^2\d$. However, we explicitly eschewed

950: the other two assumptions that we made in previous work, with a view

951: to independently testing their validity. We found that our first

952: assumption, that the approximate momentum states were a good basis in

953: which to expand the exact disorder eigenstates, was extremely good

954: near the Fermi energy, but became increasingly inaccurate as one went

955: to the edge of the Thouless shell. We did not test the second

956: assumption about wavefunction correlations explicitly, but indirectly

957: through its effects on the predictions of our earlier work. We found

958: that most of the predictions held up, with the exception of the shape

959: of the effective potential landscape in the case of symmetry-breaking

960: in the $m=2$ channel. Even here, the minimum is shaped more like a

961: crescent, indicating the possible emergence of the Mexican Hat

962: structure at larger values of $g$ (we went to the largest value of $g$

963: that we could given that we kept only 585 states and had to keep at

964: least half the states empty). We traced the discrepancy back to the

965: anomalously broad distribution (compared to estimates based on a

966: complex gaussian distribution) of the matrix elements

967: $M^x_{\a\b}$. However, we were unable to pin down a physical reason

968: for this broad distribution for the $m=2$ case.

969: 

970: In conclusion, much of the physics we uncovered using our RMT

971: assumptions seems to be valid in the Robnik-Berry billiard. The

972: second-order transition that we uncovered in the $g\to\infty$ limit

973: seems to indeed be broadened into a smooth croossover as expected,

974: belying fears that it may be overtaken by a first-order bulk

975: transition. The question of how large $g$ has to be before RMT becomes

976: fully applicable remains open; another way to phrase the question is

977: to ask what the nonuniversal corrections to RMT are in ballistic

978: systems. Finally, an important open question is whether the broad

979: distributions of matrix elements of interaction operators is a generic

980: feature of ballistic systems, rather than being a special feature of

981: the Robnik-Berry billiard, and if so, what physics determines the

982: width of those distributions. However, our results here give us

983: encouragement that the RMT assumptions can indeed be used with

984: confidence in making predictions in ballistic systems, at a

985: qualitative and semi-quantitative level.

986: %

987: \section{Acknowledgements}

988: %

989: We would like to thank Yoram Alhassid, Alex Barnett, Piet Brouwer,

990: and Doug Stone for illuminating conversations, and the Aspen

991: Center for Physics where part of this work was carried out. We are

992: also grateful to the NSF for partial support under grants DMR

993: 0311761 (GM), DMR 0354517(RS).

994: 

995: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

996: \bibitem{recent-expts} U. Sivan {\it et al}, \prl\  {\bf 77}, 1123 (1996);

997: S. R. Patel {\it et al}, \prl\ {\bf 80}, 4522 (1998); F. Simmel {\it

998: et al}, \prb\ {\bf 59}, 10441 (1999); D. Abusch-Magder {\it et al},

999: Physica E\ {\bf 6}, 382 (2000); F. Simmel, T. Heinzel, and

1000: D. A. Wharam, Eur. Lett. \ {\bf 38}, 123 (1997); J. A. Folk {\it et

1001: al},

1002: \prl\ {\bf 86}, 2102 (2001); S. L\"uscher {\it et al}, \prl\ {\bf 86}, 2118 (2001).

1003: \bibitem{reviews} For recent reviews, see, T. Guhr, A. M\"uller-Groeling,

1004: and H. A. Weidenm\"uller, Phys. Rep. {\bf 299}, 189 (1998);

1005: Y. Alhassid, \rmp\ {\bf 72}, 895 (2000); A. D. Mirlin, Phys. Rep. {\bf

1006: 326}, 259 (2000).

1007: \bibitem{H_U} A.  V.  Andreev and A.

1008: Kamenev, \prl {\bf 81}, 3199 (1998); P.  W.  Brouwer, Y.  Oreg, and B.

1009: I.  Halperin, \prb {\bf 60}, R13977 (1999); H.  U.  Baranger, D.

1010: Ullmo, and L.  I.  Glazman, \prb {\bf 61}, R2425 (2000); I.  L.

1011: Kurland, I.  L.  Aleiner, and B.  L.  Al'tshuler, \prb\ {\bf 62},

1012: 14886 (2000).

1013: \bibitem{univ-ham}I. L. Aleiner, P. W. Brouwer, and L. I. Glazman,

1014: Phys. Rep. {\bf 358}, 309 (2002), and references therein; Y. Oreg, P. W. Brouwer,

1015: X. Waintal, and B. I. Halperin, cond-mat/0109541, and references

1016: therein.

1017: \bibitem{mm} G. Murthy and H. Mathur, \prl\ {\bf 89}, 126804 (2002).

1018: \bibitem{qd-ms1} G. Murthy and R. Shankar, \prl {\bf 90}, 066801 (2003).

1019: \bibitem{longpaper} G. Murthy, R. Shankar, D. Herman, and H. Mathur,

1020: \prb {\bf 69}, 075321 (2004).

1021: \bibitem{rg-shankar} R. Shankar, {\it Physica}\ {\bf A177},

1022: 530 (1991); R.Shankar, { Rev. Mod. Phys.} {\bf 66}, 129 (1994).

1023: \bibitem{alt1} K. B. Efetov, Adv. Phys. {\bf 32}, 53 (1983);

1024: B. L. Al'tshuler ad B. I. Shklovskii, { Sov. Phys. JETP}\

1025: {\bf 64}, 127 (1986).

1026: \bibitem{RMT} M. L. Mehta, {\it Random Matrices}, Academic Press, San

1027: Diego, 1991.

1028: \bibitem{critical-fan} S. Chakravarty, B. I. Halperin, and

1029: D. R. Nelson, \prl\ {\bf 60}, 1057 (1988); \prb\ {\bf 39}, 2344

1030: (1989); For a detailed treatment of the generality of the phenomenon,

1031: see, S. Sachdev, {\it Quantum Phase Transitions}, Cambridge University

1032: Press, Cambridge 1999.

1033: \bibitem{robnik-berry} M. Robnik, J. Phys. A {\bf 17}, 1049 (1984);

1034: M. V. Berry and M. Robnik, J. Phys. A {\bf 19}, 649 (1986).

1035: \bibitem{agd} A. A.  Abrikosov, L. P. Gorkov, and I. E. Dzyaloshinski,

1036: {\it Methods of Quantum Field Theory in Statistical Physics}, Dover

1037: Publications, New York, 1963.

1038: \bibitem{berry-ansatz} M. V. Berry, J. Phys. A {\bf 10}, 2083 (1977).

1039: \bibitem{stone-bruus} A. D. Stone and H. Bruus, Physica B {\bf 189}, 43 (1993);

1040: Surface Science {\bf 305}, 490 (1994).

1041: \bibitem{alhassid-lewenkopf} Y. Alhassid and C. H. Lewenkopf, \prb {\bf 55}, 7749 (1997).

1042: \bibitem{supersymm} K. B. Efetov and V. R. Kogan, \prb\ {\bf 67}, 245312 (2003), 

1043: and references therein. 

1044: \bibitem{nowindow} S. Adam, P. W. Brouwer, and P. Sharma,\prb {\bf 68}, 241311 (2003)

1045: \bibitem{barnett-pvt} A. H. Barnett, private communication (2004).

1046: \bibitem{barnett} A. H. Barnett, ``Asymptotic rate of quantum ergodicity in

1047: chaotic Euclidean billiards'', Courant Institute preprint, 2004.

1048: \end{thebibliography}

1049: \end{document}

1050: