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

2: %%%% Gilad Rosenberg and Doron Cohen (Sept 2005, Jan2006)

3: %%%% "pml" Quantum stirring of particles in closed devices

4: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5: 

6: \documentclass{iopart}

7: 

8: \usepackage{fleqn}

9: 

10: % special 

11: \usepackage{ifthen}

12: \usepackage{ifpdf}

13: 

14: % fonts

15: \usepackage{latexsym}

16: %\usepackage{amsmath}

17: %\usepackage{setstack}

18: \usepackage{txfonts}

19: \usepackage{amssymb}

20: \usepackage{bm}

21: 

22: 

23: % figures

24: \ifpdf

25: \usepackage{graphicx}

26: \usepackage{epstopdf}

27: \else

28: \usepackage{graphicx}

29: \usepackage{epsfig}

30: \fi

31: 

32: % math symbols I

33: \newcommand{\sinc}{\mbox{sinc}}

34: \newcommand{\const}{\mbox{const}}

35: \newcommand{\trc}{\mbox{trace}}

36: \newcommand{\intt}{\int\!\!\!\!\int }

37: \newcommand{\ointt}{\int\!\!\!\!\int\!\!\!\!\!\circ\ }

38: \newcommand{\ar}{\mathsf r}

39: \newcommand{\im}{\mbox{Im}}

40: \newcommand{\re}{\mbox{Re}}

41: 

42: 

43: % math symbols II

44: \newcommand{\eexp}{\mbox{e}^}

45: \newcommand{\bra}{\left\langle}

46: \newcommand{\ket}{\right\rangle}

47: 

48: 

49: % more math commands

50: \newcommand{\tbox}[1]{\mbox{\tiny #1}}

51: \newcommand{\bmsf}[1]{\bm{\mathsf{#1}}} 

52: %\newcommand{\amatrix}[1]{\begin{matrix} #1 \end{matrix}} 

53: \newcommand{\amatrix}[1]{\matrix{#1}} 

54: \newcommand{\pd}[2]{\frac{\partial #1}{\partial #2}}

55: 

56: 

57: % equations

58: \newcommand{\be}[1]{\begin{eqnarray}\ifthenelse{#1=-1}{\nonumber}{\ifthenelse{#1=0}{}{\label{e#1}}}}

59: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray}} 

60: 

61: 

62: % graphics

63: \newcommand{\drawline}{\begin{picture}(500,1)\line(1,0){500}\end{picture}}

64: \newcommand{\hide}[1]{ }

65: \newcommand{\Cn}[1]{\begin{center} #1 \end{center}}

66: \newcommand{\mpg}[2][\hsize]{\begin{minipage}[b]{#1}{#2}\end{minipage}}

67: \newcommand{\putgraph}[2][\hsize]   {\includegraphics[#1]{#2} }

68: 

69: \begin{document}

70: 

71: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

72: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

73: 

74: \hide{

75: 

76: LIST OF FIGURES

77: 

78: -- Fig1 (models)

79: pmp_scat

80: pmt_fig_d

81: ClosedGeometry2Deltas

82: ClosedGeometry2DeltasWithPerturbation

83: 

84: -- Fig2 (models/schematic)

85: ClosedGeometry

86: OpenGeometry3

87: 

88: -- Fig.3 (cycles)

89: PumpingCycle2

90: pmp_cyc_b3

91: 

92: -- Fig.4 (cycles/B)

93: pmp_cyc_a4

94: pmp_cyc_a3

95: 

96: -- Fig.5  (Q, classical) 

97: ClassicalChargeAllBW

98: ClassicalChargelogX2BW

99: 

100: -- Fig.6 (sigma)

101: DensityOfDegeneracies_normalX2allBW

102: 

103: -- Fig.7 (Q, quantum)

104: OneDegeneracyRoutesDiagram

105: QuantumChargeDiagram

106: NDegeneraciesRoutesDiagram

107: QuantumChargeNDegeneraciesDiagram

108: 

109: -- Fig.8 (degeneracies, 2delta)

110: Diagram7LevelsDegeneraciesFlat

111: Diagram7LevelsDegeneraciesAndAvoidedCrossings2

112: 

113: 

114: -- Fig.9 (degeneracies, 3delta)

115: Diagram7LevelsDegeneraciesPerturbation

116: 

117: -- Fig.10 (Q, numerical)

118: QuantumChargeRoutesBW

119: QuantumChargeBW

120: 

121: 

122: -- Fig.11 (g1, chaotic)

123: OneDeltaOneComplexBarrierGraphBW

124: 

125: -- Fig.12 (UCF)

126: DensityLowTransmissionLogBW

127: 

128: }

129: 

130: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

131: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

132: 

133: \title[Quantum Stirring]

134: {Quantum stirring of particles in closed devices}

135: 

136: \author{Gilad Rosenberg and Doron Cohen}

137: 

138: \address{

139: Department of Physics, Ben-Gurion University, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel

140: }

141: 

142: 

143: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

144: 

145: \begin{abstract}

146: We study the quantum analog of stirring

147: of water inside a cup using a spoon.

148: This can be regarded as a prototype example

149: for quantum pumping in closed devices.

150: The current in the device is induced by

151: translating a scatterer. Its calculation is done using the Kubo formula

152: approach.

153: The transported charge is expressed as a line integral that encircles chains

154: of Dirac monopoles. For simple systems

155: the results turn out to be counter intuitive:

156: e.g. as we move a small scatterer ``forward"

157: the current is induced ``backwards".

158: One should realize that the route towards

159: quantum-classical correspondence has to

160: do with ``quantum chaos" considerations,

161: and hence assumes greater complexity of the device. We also point out the

162: relation to the

163: familiar $S$ matrix formalism which is used

164: to analyze quantum pumping in open geometries.

165: \end{abstract}

166: 

167: 

168: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

169: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

170: \section{Introduction}

171: 

172: Consider a closed ring that contains particles (Fig.1a). 

173: Assume that one wants to create a current in this ring. 

174: If the particles are charged then one way to do it 

175: is by creating an electro motive force (EMF). 

176: This can be induced by varying an Aharonov-Bohm flux $\Phi$, 

177: such that by Faraday's law $\mbox{EMF}=-\dot{\Phi}$.

178: But there is another way to create a current 

179: that does not involve EMF, and hence does not assume 

180: charged particles. The idea is to change 

181: in time the scalar potential $V(\bm{r}; X_1(t),X_2(t))$.  

182: Here $\bm{r}$ is the coordinate of a representative particle 

183: in the ring, while $X_1$ and $X_2$ are some control 

184: parameters. By making a cycle in the $(X_1,X_2)$ space 

185: we can push non-zero net charge $Q$ through the system. 

186: Thus an ``AC driving" gives rise to a ``DC" component 

187: in the current.  This is known in the literature as ``quantum pumping". 

188: 

189: \vspace{3mm}

190: 

191: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

192: \mpg{

193: \Cn{

194: \putgraph[height=0.2\hsize]{pmp_scat}

195: \\ 

196: \putgraph[height=0.2\hsize]{pmt_fig_d}

197: }

198: 

199: {\footnotesize 

200: {\bf Fig.1.} 

201: %

202: Models for the analysis of quantum stirring. 

203: %

204: (a) Upper panel: A scatterer (big black dot) 

205: is translated inside a Sinai billiard. 

206: A chaotic trajectory of a representative 

207: particle in this billiard is illustrated. 

208: %

209: (b) Lower panels: Network models for 

210: quantum stirring. The scatterer 

211: (big black dot) is translated along 

212: one of the bonds. The vertical 

213: dotted line is the section through 

214: which the current is measured. 

215: From left to right: chaotic network;  

216: double barrier model; triple barrier model. 

217: }

218: }

219: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

220: 

221: \vspace{3mm}

222: 

223: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

224: \mpg{

225: \putgraph[width=0.4\hsize]{ClosedGeometry}

226: \hspace{0.1\hsize}

227: \putgraph[width=0.4\hsize]{OpenGeometry3} 

228: 

229: {\footnotesize 

230: {\bf Fig.2.} 

231: %

232: (a) Left panel: A schematic representation  

233: of the network model. The vertical 

234: dotted line is the section through 

235: which the current is measured.  

236: The moving scatterer is indicated by its transmission $g_0$,   

237: while $X_1$ is its displacement along the bond. 

238: %

239: (b) Right panel: The corresponding 

240: open geometry where the left and right 

241: leads are connected to reservoirs 

242: with the same chemical potentials.

243: }

244: }

245: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

246: 

247: \vspace{3mm}

248: 

249: 

250: In this paper we would like to consider a prototype 

251: pumping problem, which we call ``quantum stirring". 

252: It is the simplest scheme to create a current 

253: with a non-vanishing DC component. Referring to Fig.2   

254: we define $X_1$ as the location of a scatterer,  

255: while $X_2$ is its ``size". By ``size" we mean either 

256: the cross section or the reflection coefficient.

257: One can regard the scatterer as a ``piston" 

258: or as a ``spoon" with which it is possible 

259: to ``push" the particles.  A prototype example 

260: for a pumping cycle is illustrated in Fig.3. 

261: During the main stage of the cycle the 

262: scatterer is translated to the right 

263: a distance $\Delta X_1$. 

264: Consequently a charge $Q$ is transported.    

265: In the second stage the size of the scatterer

266: is ``lowered", and it is displaced back to 

267: its original location, where its original ``size" 

268: is restored. By repeating this cycle many times 

269: we can create a current with a DC component.   

270: 

271: 

272: In the following analysis we assume that the system 

273: consists of non-interacting spinless particles.  

274: All the particles have (formally) charge~$e$, 

275: even if they are not actually charged. 

276: We assume that there is no magnetic field in the system. 

277: Still, for the sake of a later mathematical 

278: formulation, it is convenient to introduce 

279: a third parameter $X_3=\Phi$, 

280: where $\Phi$ is an Aharonv-Bohm flux. 

281: The pumping cycle in the ${(X_1, X_2, X_3)}$ space 

282: is illustrated in Fig.3.    

283: 

284: 

285: \vspace{3mm}

286: 

287: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

288: \mpg{

289: \Cn{

290: \putgraph[width=0.45\hsize]{PumpingCycle2}

291: \putgraph[width=0.4\hsize]{pmp_cyc_b3}

292: }

293: 

294: {\footnotesize 

295: {\bf Fig.3.} 

296: %

297: A prototype example for a pumping cycle. 

298: During the main stage of the cycle the 

299: scatterer is translated to the right 

300: a distance $\Delta X_1$. Consequently 

301: a charge $Q$ is transported.    

302: % 

303: (a) Left panel:  

304: The pumping cycle in the 2-dimensional $(X_1,X_2)$ plane. 

305: %

306: (b) Right panel: The same pumping cycle in 

307: the three dimensional ${(X_1, X_2, X_3)}$ space, 

308: where $X_3=\Phi$ is the Aharonov Bohm flux 

309: via the ring. 

310: }

311: }

312: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

313: 

314: 

315: \vspace{3mm}

316: 

317: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

318: \mpg{

319: \Cn{

320: \putgraph[width=0.3\hsize]{pmp_cyc_a4}

321: \hspace{0.1\hsize}

322: \putgraph[width=0.3\hsize]{pmp_cyc_a3}

323: }

324: 

325: {\footnotesize 

326: {\bf Fig.4.}

327: %

328: (a) Left panel: The calculation of the charge $Q$ is a line integral 

329: over $G$ that can be regarded as a calculation 

330: of the flux of $\bm{B}$ via a two dimensional curve.  

331: $\vec{ds}$ is a normal vector to the pumping cycle.

332: The black dot in the middle symbolizes the 

333: presence of ``magnetic charge" which is characterized 

334: by a density $\sigma(X_1,X_2)$. In the quantum mechanical 

335: analysis this should be understood as the density 

336: of ``Dirac chains". 

337: %

338: (b) Right panel: In the embedding ${(X_1, X_2, X_3)}$ space 

339: the magnetic charge is organized as vertical charged chains.

340: Each chain consists of ``Dirac monopoles" which are located 

341: at $\vec{X}$ points where an occupied level has a degeneracy 

342: with a nearby level. The ellipse represents a possible 

343: pumping cycle that may encircle either one or many chains. 

344: }

345: }

346: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

347: 

348: 

349: \vspace{3mm}

350: 

351: 

352: 

353: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

354: \subsection{Linear response theory and the Dirac chains picture} 

355: 

356: We are going to analyze the stirring problem 

357: within the framework of linear response theory. 

358: If we have EMF then we expect to get in the DC limit 

359: Ohm law $\mathcal{I}=-G\dot{\Phi}$, 

360: while if we change slowly either $X_1$ or $X_2$ 

361: we expect to get in the DC limit  $\mathcal{I}=-G^1\dot{X}_1$ 

362: or  $\mathcal{I}=-G^2\dot{X}_2$ respectively. 

363: So in general we can write 

364: %

365: \be{1}

366: Q = \oint_{\tbox{cycle}} Idt 

367: = -\oint (G^1 dX_1 + G^2 dX_2) 

368: =  \oint \bm{B} \cdot \vec{ds} 

369: =  \iint  \sigma(X_1,X_2) dX_1 dX_2 

370: \ee     

371: %

372: In the second expression we define the normal 

373: vector $\vec{ds}=(dX_2,-dX_1)$ and use the 

374: notations ${\bm{B}_1=-G^2}$ and ${\bm{B}_2=G^1}$. 

375: See Fig.4a for an illustration. 

376: The third expression is obtained via the 

377: two dimensional version of the divergence 

378: theorem. If we regard  $\bm{B}$ as a fictitious magnetic 

379: field, then $\sigma$ is the two dimensional density 

380: of magnetic charge.  

381:  

382: 

383: 

384: It turns out that in the strict adiabatic 

385: limit the vector field $\bm{B}$ is 

386: related to the theory of Berry phase \cite{berry,BR}. 

387: The formulation of this relation is as 

388: follows. Assume that the system 

389: is adiabatically cycled in the ${(X_1, X_2, X_3)}$ space. 

390: In such case the Berry phase can be 

391: calculated as a line integral over a 

392: ``vector potential" (also called ``1~form") $\bm{A}$. 

393: This can be converted by the Stokes theorem into 

394: a surface integral over a ``magnetic field" 

395: (also called ``2~form") $\bm{B}$. 

396: The  $\bm{B}$ field is defined as the ``rotor" of $\bm{A}$. 

397: It is a divergence-less field but it can have 

398: singularities  which are known as ``Dirac monopoles".

399: These monopoles are located at $\vec{X}$ points 

400: where an occupied energy level has a degeneracy 

401: with a nearby level.  

402: Because of ${\Phi\mapsto\Phi+(2\pi\hbar/e)}$ gauge invariance    

403: the Dirac monopoles form vertical chains 

404: as illustrated in Fig.4b. Hence we have a distribution  

405: of what we call ``Dirac chains" \cite{pmc,pme}, 

406: which is characterized by a density $\sigma(X_1, X_2)$. 

407: 

408: 

409: \newpage

410: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

411: \subsection{Background and objectives} 

412:   

413: Most of the literature about quantum pumping 

414: deals with the open geometry of Fig.2b. 

415: The most popular approach is the $S$-scattering  

416: formalism which leads 

417: to the B{\"u}ttiker, Pr\^{e}tre and Thomas (BPT) formula \cite{BPT,brouwer}

418: for the generalized conductance $G$. 

419: The BPT formula, is essentially a generalization 

420: of the Landauer formula. In previous publications \cite{pmo,pme}  

421: we have demonstrated that the BPT formula can be 

422: regarded as a  special limit of the Kubo formula. 

423: Our Kubo formula approach to pumping \cite{pmc,pmp} 

424: leads to ``level by level" understanding of the 

425: pumping process, and allows to incorporate 

426: easily non-adiabatic and environmental effects.

427: In the strict adiabatic limit   

428: it reduces in a transparent way 

429: to the theory of adiabatic transport \cite{thouless,avronRev},  

430: also known as ``geometric magnetism \cite{BR}. 

431: On the other hand, in the non-adiabatic(!) 

432: ``DC limit" of an open geometry it reduces 

433: to the $S$ matrix picture, hence resolving 

434: some puzzles that had emerged in older publications.

435:  

436: 

437: The question ``how much charge is pushed 

438: by translating a scatterer" has been addressed 

439: in Ref.\cite{avron} in the case of an open 

440: geometry using the BPT formula.  We have 

441: addressed the corresponding problem 

442: of quantum stirring in closed geometry 

443: in a previous short publication \cite{pmt}, 

444: but the connection with the Dirac chains  

445: picture has not been illuminated. 

446: Furthermore, in \cite{pmt} only the quantum 

447: chaos limit was considered. 

448: 

449: 

450: In the present publication we put an emphasis on clarifying 

451: the route towards quantum-classical correspondence (QCC). 

452: We shall see that quantum mechanical 

453: effects are pronounced in {\em simple} systems. 

454: As the system becomes more chaotic QCC emerges. 

455: The Dirac chains picture leads to new  

456: insights regarding the route towards QCC.

457: These insights are easily missed if we stick 

458: to the formal Green function calculation of 

459: our earlier work \cite{pmt}. 

460: %

461: From the above it should be clear that the main objectives 

462: of the present study are:

463: %

464: \begin{itemize}

465: %

466: \item Derivation of a classical formula for $Q$ (assuming a stochastic picture).

467: %

468: \item Derivation of a quantum result for $Q$ using the Dirac chains picture.

469: %

470: \item Exposing some counter-intuitive results for $Q$ in the case of the simplest models.

471: %

472: \item Illuminating the route towards QCC as we go from ``simple" to ``chaotic" systems.

473: %

474: \end{itemize}

475: %

476: We note that in \cite{pmt} we have presented  

477: the classical formula for $Q$ without the derivation. 

478: 

479: 

480: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

481: \subsection{Physical motivation and experimental feasibility} 

482: 

483: In the previous section we have explained 

484: the theoretical motivations for dealing with 

485: the stirring problem. In the present section 

486: we would like to further discuss the practicality  

487: of this line of study, and the feasibility 

488: of actual experiments. 

489: 

490: It is quite clear that the main focus of today's 

491: experiments is on {\em open} devices (with leads), 

492: whereas our interest is in {\em closed} devices. 

493: Our believe is that {\em ``wireless"} mesoscopic 

494: or molecular size devices are going to be  

495: important building blocks of future ``quantum electronics". 

496: This is of course a vision that people may doubt.    

497: However, on the scientific side our task is  

498: to analyze its feasibility. 

499: 

500: 

501: It is possible to fabricate closed mesoscopic rings, 

502: and to measure the persistent or the induced currents. 

503: Experiments with closed devices have been performed 

504: already~10 years ago. As an example we mention Ref.\cite{orsay} 

505: where a large array of rings has been fabricated. 

506: The current measurement has been achieved by coupling 

507: the rings to a highly sensitive electromagnetic 

508: superconducting micro-resonator. 

509: 

510: 

511: The conceptually simplest way to drive a current 

512: is by inducing an electro motive force (EMF). 

513: In the setup of Ref.\cite{orsay} the EMF 

514: has been induced by a ``wire" that spirals on top 

515: of the array. In our view an attractive alternative option 

516: would be to induce currents by changing gate voltages 

517: so as to induce stirring. The advantage of such 

518: a possibility for the purpose of integrating 

519: wireless devices in future quantum electronics 

520: is quite obvious: It is much easier to control 

521: gate voltages than fluxes of magnetic field.

522: 

523: 

524: As far as {\em electronic devices}  

525: are concerned there is no question about the 

526: feasibility of realizing quantum stirring by 

527: manipulating gate voltages, and measuring 

528: the electrical currents.

529: But we would like to argue that such possibility 

530: is open also in case of {\em neutral atoms}.  

531: It is well known that ``billiards" that confine 

532: cold atoms can be realized and manipulated \cite{raiz,nir}.

533: Furthermore, there is no question regarding the 

534: possibility of creating a ``moving" optical  

535: barrier so as to create a stirring effect. 

536: There are variety of techniques to measure the 

537: induced neutral currents. 

538: For example one can exploit the Doppler effect 

539: at the perpendicular direction, which is known as  

540: the rotational frequency shift \cite{doppler}.

541: 

542:     

543: There is one more issue which might be of relevance 

544: in case of an actual experiment. The Kubo formalism 

545: assumes that the system settles into a steady state, 

546: whereas the preparation in case of an actual experiment 

547: is not very well controlled. We would like to 

548: argue that the results of the linear response analysis  

549: are quite robust. This issue is discussed 

550: in section~4 of Ref.\cite{pms}:  What we get for~$Q$ 

551: in the Kubo analysis is not merely a formal result, 

552: but rather a prediction that has an actual physical significance. 

553: 

554: 

555: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

556: \subsection{Outline} 

557: 

558: 

559: In the first part of this paper  

560: we review the result for $G$ 

561: in the case of an open system using the BPT formula.  

562: %

563: Then we present two equivalent derivations 

564: of the corresponding {\em classical} result 

565: in the case of a closed geometry. 

566: %

567: We use the term ``classical" in the Boltzmann 

568: sense. This means that interference within the 

569: ring is neglected, while the reflection by 

570: the scatterers (``cross section") is calculated  

571: quantum mechanically. 

572: The first derivation is based on a direct solution 

573: of a master equation, while the second 

574: is a straightforward application of the Kubo formula.

575: %

576: The classical calculation implies an expression 

577: for the density $\sigma(X_1,X_2)$ of the monopoles. 

578: The BPT formula implies $\sigma(X_1,X_2)$ that 

579: can be regarded as a special case of this calculation. 

580: 

581: 

582: In the second part of this paper  

583: we turn to the quantum mechanical analysis. 

584: As a preliminary stage we discuss the general 

585: conditions for having a degeneracy point $\vec{X}$ 

586: in the case of a one dimensional ring.   

587: Then we review how the pumped charge $Q$ 

588: can be estimated by calculating a line 

589: integral that encircles ``Dirac chains". 

590: Thus we realize that we have to figure out 

591: what` the distribution $\sigma(X_1,X_2)$ of these 

592: chains looks like. 

593: Specifically, we consider the model systems 

594: that are illustrated in Fig.1, 

595: and schematically in Fig.2.  

596: The simplest is a ring where both $g_1$ 

597: and $g_0$  are modeled as delta barriers. 

598: The result for $Q$ is quite remote from 

599: the classical expectation. 

600: Consequently we try to figure out what happens 

601: to  $\sigma(X_1,X_2)$  as the system becomes 

602: more complex: First we add a second fixed barrier, 

603: and finally we consider what happens 

604: in the case of a ``chaotic" barrier which 

605: is modeled using random matrix theory.

606: We make it clear that the route to 

607: the classical limit is intimately related 

608: to so called ``quantum chaos" considerations.   

609:  

610: 

611: 

612: 

613: 

614: 

615: \newpage

616: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

617: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

618: \section{Pushing particles in an open geometry}

619: 

620: 

621: Let us consider the model of Fig.2b, where 

622: we have a scatterer within a single mode wire 

623: which is connected to two reservoirs with 

624: the same chemical potential.

625: In this section we assume non-interacting 

626: spinless electrons and zero temperature Fermi 

627: occupation.  The scatterer is described by   

628: %

629: \be{0}

630: V(r;X_1,X_2) = X_2\delta(r-X_1)

631: \ee

632: %

633: Hence, for some fixed values of $X_1$ and $X_2$ 

634: its transmission is 

635: %

636: \be{0}

637: g_0(X_2)=

638: \left[ 1 

639: + \left( \frac{\mathsf{m}}{\hbar^2k_{\tbox{F}}}  X_2 \right)^2 

640: \right]^{-1}

641: \ee

642: %

643: where $\mathsf{m}$ is the mass of the particle 

644: and $k_{\tbox{F}}$ is the Fermi momentum. 

645: From now on we work with units such that $\hbar=1$. 

646: The $S$ matrix of the scattering region 

647: can be written in the general form 

648: %

649: \be{0}

650: \mathbf{S} = 

651: \eexp{i\gamma}

652: \left(\matrix{i\sqrt{1-g}\eexp{i\alpha} & \sqrt{g}\eexp{-i\phi} \cr

653: \sqrt{g}\eexp{i\phi} &  i\sqrt{1-g}\eexp{-i\alpha}}\right)

654: \ee

655: %

656: where $\gamma$ is the total phase shift, 

657: $\alpha$ is the reflection phase shift, 

658: and $\phi=e\Phi/\hbar$ represents 

659: the flux which we assume to be zero.   

660: %

661: In the setup of Fig.~2b the length 

662: of the right lead is $L_A-X_1$ 

663: and the length of the left lead 

664: is  $L_B+X_1$. Hence 

665: %

666: \be{0}

667: g &=& g_0

668: \\

669: \gamma &=& k_{\tbox{F}} (L_A+L_B) 

670: -\arctan\left( \frac{\mathsf{m}}{\hbar^2k_{\tbox{F}}}  X_2 \right)  

671: \\

672: \alpha &=& k_{\tbox{F}} (L_A-L_B) 

673: - 2k_{\tbox{F}} X_1 

674: \ee

675: %

676: Now that we know the dependence of the $\mathbf{S}$ matrix 

677: on the parameters $(X_1,X_2)$, the calculation of $G$ 

678: is quite straightforward. We use the BPT formula    

679: %

680: \be{0}

681: G^{j} = \frac{e}{2\pi i}

682: \trc\left(\bm{P}_{\tbox{lead}}\frac{\partial \bm{S}}{\partial X_j}

683: \bm{S}^{\dag}\right)

684: \ee

685: %

686: where $\bm{P}_{\tbox{lead}}$ projects on the channels of 

687: the lead where the current is measured. As indicated in Fig.2b  

688: the current is measured via a section which is located on 

689: the right lead. Using the BPT formula we get

690: %

691: \be{0}

692: G^{1} &=& -(1-g_0) \ \frac{e}{\pi}k_{\tbox{F}}\\

693: G^{2} &=& - g_0  \ \frac{e}{4\pi\hbar v_{\tbox{F}}} 

694: \ee

695: %

696: where $v_{\tbox{F}}$ is the Fermi velocity 

697: corresponding to $k_{\tbox{F}}$. The result 

698: for $G^1$ is our main interest. It has been 

699: discussed in Ref.\cite{avron}, 

700: where the term ``snow plow" has been coined 

701: in order to describe its physical interpretation. 

702: Namely, for zero temperature Fermi occupation  

703: the density of electrons in the wire is ${k_{\tbox{F}}/\pi}$. 

704: Therefore the number of electrons that are pushed 

705: by the scatterer is ${dN=(k_{\tbox{F}}/\pi) \times dX_1}$. 

706: If the transmission of the scatterer is not zero, 

707: some of the electrons pass through it and consequently 

708: we have to multiply $dN$ by the reflection probability ${1-g_0}$. 

709: 

710:  

711: 

712: 

713: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

714: \section{Stirring of particles in a closed geometry}

715: 

716: Let us consider the model of Fig.2a, where the system is closed. 

717: We assume that the transmission of the ring without 

718: the moving scatterer is $g^{cl}_1$, while the transmission 

719: of the scatterer itself is $g_0$. In the following two subsections 

720: we shall present two optional derivations of the ``classical" 

721: result for $G$. We use the term ``classical" in the Boltzmann 

722: sense. Namely, we regard the scattering from 

723: either $g^{cl}_1$ or $g_0$ as a stochastic process. 

724: Thus interference within the arms of the ring is 

725: not taken into account. 

726: For sake of comparison with the BPT-based result 

727: we still assume zero temperature Fermi occupation 

728: (while in later sections we shall allow any arbitrary occupation).   

729: Within this framework we obtain:

730:  %

731: \be{0}

732: G^{1} &=& 

733: - \left[\frac{ (1-g_0) g^{cl}_1 }{ g_0 + g^{cl}_1 - 2g_0 g^{cl}_1 } \right]

734: \ \frac{e}{\pi}k_{\tbox{F}}\\

735: G^{2} &=& 

736: - \left[\frac{ (1-g^{cl}_1) g_0 }{ g_0 + g^{cl}_1 - 2g_0 g^{cl}_1 } \right]

737: \ \frac{e}{4\pi\hbar v_{\tbox{F}}} 

738: \ee

739: % 

740: We note that the amount of charge which is pushed 

741: by translating a scatterer a distance $\Delta X_1$   

742: can also be written as \cite{pmt}

743: %  

744: \be{13}

745: Q = -G^{1} \Delta X_1 = 

746: \left[ \frac{1-g_0}{g_0}\right]

747: \left[ \frac{g_T}{1-g_T}\right]

748: \ \frac{e}{\pi}k_{\tbox{F}} \times \Delta X_1

749: \ee

750: %

751: where $g_T$ is the overall transmission of 

752: the ring (including the moving scatterer) 

753: if it were opened: 

754: %

755: \be{0}

756: \left[ \frac{1-g_T}{g_T}\right] = 

757: \left[ \frac{1-g_0}{g_0}\right] + 

758: \left[ \frac{1-g^{cl}_1}{g^{cl}_1}\right]

759: \ee

760: %

761: As expected the charge $Q$ which is 

762: transported as a result of an $X_1$ displacement 

763: depends in a monotonic way on 

764: the reflection coefficient ${1-g_0}$. 

765: It monotonically increases from zero, 

766: and attains half of its maximal value 

767: for $g_0=g^{cl}_1$.  

768: A plot of $Q$ versus the ``size" of the 

769: scatterer is presented in Fig.~5 for three 

770: representative values of $g^{cl}_1$.   

771: We also plot $Q$ against $X_2$, 

772: assuming that the scatterer is modeled as 

773: a delta function.      

774: 

775: \vspace{10mm}

776: 

777: 

778: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

779: \mpg{

780: \Cn{

781: \putgraph[width=0.4\hsize]{ClassicalChargeAllBW}

782: \putgraph[width=0.4\hsize]{ClassicalChargelogX2BW}

783: }

784: 

785: {\footnotesize 

786: {\bf Fig.5.}

787: Plots of $Q$ as a function of the ``size" 

788: of the scatterer. We use arbitrary units 

789: such that $Q=1$ in the maximum.  

790: %

791: (a) Left panel:  $Q$ is plotted against the reflection 

792: coefficient ${(1-g_0)}$ for ${g^{cl}_1=0.1}$, 

793: for ${g^{cl}_1=0.5}$, and for ${g^{cl}_1=0.9}$. 

794: The dotted lines highlight that $Q$ 

795: for $g_0=g^{cl}_1$ is half its maximum value.

796: Note that the BPT based result corresponds 

797: to ${g^{cl}_1=0.5}$. 

798: %  

799: (b) Right panel: Here $Q$ is plotted against $X_2$ 

800: assuming that the scatterer is a delta function, 

801: and setting~$\mathsf{m} / (\hbar^2 k_{\tbox{F}}) = 1$.   

802: }

803: }

804: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

805: 

806: 

807: \vspace{3mm}

808: 

809: It is important to realize that the result for an {\em open geometry} 

810: is formally a special case corresponding to $g^{cl}_1=1/2$. 

811: This value of $g^{cl}_1$ means that memory is completely 

812: lost once a particle is scattered by the ``surroundings". 

813: Namely, if $g^{cl}_1=1/2$ then after a collision a particle 

814: has equal probability to go in either direction, and any information  

815: about its initial direction is lost. This observation 

816: generalizes our discussion in Ref.\cite{kbf} regarding  

817: the relation between the Kubo and the Landauer conductance.

818: 

819:   

820: The classical expression for $G$ implies  

821: the following result for the density $\sigma(X_1,X_2)$,   

822: which is illustrated in Fig.6. 

823: %

824: \be{15}

825: \sigma(X_1,X_2) 

826: = \frac{d \bm{B}_2 }{dX_2}

827: = -\frac{e\mathsf{m}}{\pi\hbar^2} 

828: \frac

829: { 2 (1-g^{cl}_1) g^{cl}_1}

830: { \left[ 1 

831: + \left( 

832: \left( \frac{\mathsf{m}}{\hbar^2k_{\tbox{F}}} X_2 \right)^2

833: -1 \right) 

834: g^{cl}_1 \right]^2 }

835: \left( \frac{\mathsf{m}}{\hbar^2k_{\tbox{F}}}  X_2 \right)

836: \ee

837: 

838: 

839: 

840: \vspace{3mm}

841: 

842: %%%%%%%%%%%

843: \mpg{

844: \Cn{

845: \putgraph[width=0.5\hsize]{DensityOfDegeneracies_normalX2allBW}

846: }

847: 

848: {\footnotesize 

849: {\bf Fig.6.}

850: The classically deduced density $\sigma$ 

851: as a function of ${X_2}$ 

852: for ${g^{cl}_1=0.1}$, 

853: for ${g^{cl}_1=0.5}$, 

854: and for ${g^{cl}_1=0.9}$. 

855: We use arbitrary units for $\sigma$, 

856: and set~$\mathsf{m} / (\hbar^2 k_{\tbox{F}}) = 1$.

857: The dotted vertical lines correspond  

858: to the median $X_2$ values  

859: which are determined by the 

860: equation ${g_0(X_2) = g^{cl}_1}$. 

861: }

862: }

863: %%%%%%%%%%%

864: 

865: \vspace{3mm}

866: 

867: 

868: In the following sections we give 

869: two optional derivations of the classical result. 

870: The first derivation is based on a physically 

871: appealing master equation approach, 

872: in the spirit of the Boltzmann equation.   

873: The second derivation is a straightforward  

874: application of the Kubo formula. 

875: The calculation is done for $G^1$ and can be 

876: easily modified in order to get $G^2$. 

877: The advantage of the Kubo formula approach 

878: is that it can be generalized 

879: to the quantum mechanical case, 

880: and it allows the incorporation 

881: of non-adiabatic and environmental effects.  

882: 

883: 

884: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

885: \section{Classical derivation using a master equation}

886: 

887: We consider a ring with two scatterers: a moving 

888: scatterer $g_0$ whose velocity is $\dot{X}$,  

889: and a fixed scatterer $g_1$. A collision of a particle 

890: with the moving scatterer implies that its velocity 

891: is changed $v \mapsto v \pm 2\dot{X}$, 

892: where the sign depends on whether the collision 

893: is from the right or from the left. 

894: The associated change in the kinetic energy 

895: is ${E\mapsto E \pm 2\mathsf{m}v\dot{X} + \mathcal{O}(\dot{X}^2) }$ 

896: respectively. There are two regions ($x<0$ and $x>0$) 

897: on the two sides of the $g_0$ scatterer. 

898: Accordingly we have four distribution functions  

899: that satisfy the following balance equations: 

900: %

901: \be{0}

902: \frac{\partial\rho_{+}^{\rightarrow}}{\partial t} 

903: &=& 

904: - \left[\rho_{+}^{\rightarrow}v\right]  

905: + g_0 \left[\rho_{-}^{\rightarrow}v\right]

906: + (1-g_0) \left[\rho_{+}^{\leftarrow}v\right]_{E-2\mathsf{m}v\dot{X}}  

907: \\  

908: \frac{\partial\rho_{+}^{\leftarrow}}{\partial t} 

909: &=& 

910: - \left[\rho_{+}^{\leftarrow}v\right]  

911: + g_1 \left[\rho_{-}^{\leftarrow}v\right]

912: + (1-g_1) \left[\rho_{+}^{\rightarrow}v\right] 

913: \\

914: \frac{\partial\rho_{-}^{\rightarrow}}{\partial t} 

915: &=& 

916: - \left[\rho_{-}^{\rightarrow}v\right]  

917: + g_0 \left[\rho_{+}^{\rightarrow}v\right]

918: + (1-g_0) \left[\rho_{-}^{\leftarrow}v\right] 

919: \\

920: \frac{\partial\rho_{-}^{\leftarrow}}{\partial t} 

921: &=& 

922: - \left[\rho_{-}^{\leftarrow}v\right]  

923: + g_1 \left[\rho_{+}^{\leftarrow}v\right]

924: + (1-g_1) \left[\rho_{-}^{\rightarrow}v\right]_{E+2\mathsf{m}v\dot{X}}  

925: \ee

926: %

927: The zero order solution in $\dot{X}$ is to have all 

928: the four distribution functions equal 

929: to some arbitrary function $f(E)$.  

930: In the presence of driving, assuming that the 

931: system has reached a steady state, 

932: we still have to satisfy the two $\dot{X}$-free 

933: equations, leading to 

934: %

935: \be{0}

936: \rho_{+}^{\leftarrow} &=& 

937: g_1 \rho_{-}^{\leftarrow} + 

938: (1-g_1) \rho_{+}^{\rightarrow}

939: \\

940: \rho_{-}^{\rightarrow} &=& 

941: g_1 \rho_{+}^{\rightarrow} + 

942: (1-g_1) \rho_{-}^{\leftarrow}

943: \ee 

944: %

945: Substitution into the two other equations 

946: leads after linearization to 

947: %

948: \be{0}

949: \rho_{+}^{\rightarrow}(E)-\rho_{-}^{\leftarrow}(E) = 

950: -2\mathsf{m}v\dot{X} \left(\frac{1-g_0}{g_0+g_1-2g_0g_1}\right) 

951: \frac{\partial f(E)}{\partial E}  

952: \ee

953: %

954: and for the current we get

955: %

956: \be{0}

957: I &=& \int_0^{\infty} \frac{dp}{2\pi} 

958: \ (\rho_{\pm}^{\rightarrow}-\rho_{\pm}^{\leftarrow}) ev

959: =   \int_0^{\infty} \frac{dp}{2\pi} 

960: g_1 (\rho_{+}^{\rightarrow}-\rho_{-}^{\leftarrow}) ev

961: \\

962: &=&  -\dot{X} 

963: \int_0^{\infty} 

964: \left[\frac{e}{\pi}\left(\frac{(1-g_0)g_1}{g_0+g_1-2g_0g_1}\right) \mathsf{m}v \right] 

965: \frac{\partial f(E)}{\partial E} dE 

966: \ee 

967: %

968: With the assumption of zero temperature Fermi occupation 

969: this gives the cited result for $G^1$. 

970: 

971: 

972: 

973: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

974: \section{Classical derivation using the Kubo formula}

975: 

976: The generalized fluctuation-dissipation version of 

977: the Kubo formula (see Ref.\cite{pme} and further references therein)  

978: relates the generalized conductance to the the cross   

979: correlation function of the current ${\mathcal{I}}$ and the 

980: generalized force ${\mathcal{F}}=-\partial\mathcal{H}/\partial X$.

981: If $X$ is the displacement $X_1$ of the scatterer then 

982: %

983: \be{25}

984: \mathcal{F} 

985: = -\frac{\partial\mathcal{H}}{\partial X_1}

986: = X_2 \delta'(x-X_1)

987: \ee

988: %    

989: For the sake of comparison with previous results 

990: we assume zero temperature Fermi occupation.

991: Then the Kubo formula takes the form 

992: %

993: \be{26}

994: G = \mathsf{g}(E_{\tbox{F}})  \int_0^{\infty} 

995: \langle {\cal I}(\tau) {\cal F}(0) \rangle  d\tau

996: = \frac{L}{\pi \hbar v_{\tbox{F}}}  \langle {\cal Q} {\cal F} \rangle

997: \ee

998: %

999: where $\mathsf{g}(E)=L/(\pi \hbar v_{\tbox{F}})$ 

1000: is the density of states. This density of states 

1001: is proportional to the total ``volume" of the network 

1002: which is $L$.  In the second expression 

1003: we got rid of the time by introducing the notation 

1004: %

1005: \be{27}

1006: \mathcal{Q} = \int_0^{\infty} {\cal I}(\tau)  d\tau

1007: \ee 

1008: %

1009: It should be clear that both the generalized force $\mathcal{F}$

1010: and the transported charge $\mathcal{Q}$ are functions 

1011: in phase space, and that ${\langle...\rangle}$ 

1012: stands for phase space average over position and velocity.  

1013: For $\mathcal{F}$ we already have an explicit expression Eq.(\ref{e25}).  

1014: Now we have to figure out what is $\mathcal{Q}$. 

1015: 

1016: 

1017: On the ring there are two scatterers, 

1018: and one point $x=x_0$  where the current 

1019: is measured. Hence the ring is divided 

1020: into 3 segments. In addition, there are two possible 

1021: directions of motion (clockwise, anticlockwise). 

1022: Hence the phase space is divided into 6 regions. 

1023: It is obvious that the outcome from Eq.(\ref{e27}) 

1024: depends merely on which region the classical 

1025: trajectory had started its journey in.

1026: In fact we need to consider only the 4 regions 

1027: where the particle starts in the vicinity of the 

1028: moving scatterer, else $\mathcal{F}$ vanishes.

1029: So we have the $``+"$ region between the moving 

1030: scatterer and $x_0$, and the  $``-"$ 

1031: region on the other side between the two scatterers.   

1032: Accordingly the four possible outcomes from Eq.(\ref{e27}) are: 

1033: %

1034: \be{28}

1035: Q_{+}^{\rightarrow} &=& e\left[\frac{1}{2(1-g_T)}\right]

1036: \\ \label{e29}

1037: Q_{+}^{\leftarrow} &=& - e\left[\frac{1}{2(1-g_T)} - 1 \right]

1038: \\ \label{e30}

1039: Q_{-}^{\rightarrow} &=& \left[\frac{g_0}{1-(1-g_1)(1-g_0)} 

1040: -\frac{g_1(1-g_0)}{1-(1-g_1)(1-g_0)}\right] Q_{+}^{\rightarrow} 

1041: =\frac{g_0-g_1+g_0g_1}{g_0+g_1-g_0g_1} Q_{+}^{\rightarrow}

1042: \\ \label{e31}

1043: Q_{-}^{\leftarrow} &=& -\frac{g_1-g_0+g_0g_1}{g_0+g_1-g_0g_1} Q_{+}^{\rightarrow}

1044: \ee

1045: %

1046: The derivation of the above expressions is as follows.

1047: It is simplest if the particle starts in the $``+"$ region, 

1048: because then we can regard the two scatterers as one 

1049: effective scatterer $g_T$.  Assume that at time $t=0$ the 

1050: particle approach $x=x_0$ from the left. 

1051: The charge that goes through the section after a round trip 

1052: is suppressed by a factor $(2g_T-1)$ 

1053: due to the scattering (we sum the clockwise 

1054: and the anticlockwise contributions). 

1055: Thus we find that the total charge that 

1056: goes through the section due to multiple 

1057: reflections is a geometric sum that leads 

1058: to Eq.(\ref{e28}). If we start in the $``+"$ 

1059: region in the opposite direction, then we have 

1060: the same sequence but with the opposite sign 

1061: and without the first term. Hence we get Eq.(\ref{e29}).   

1062: Next assume that at $t=0$ the particle starts in the $``-"$ 

1063: region, and approaches $g_0$ from the left. 

1064: Then we can have at a later time 

1065: a positive pulse of current. The probability 

1066: for that is the geometric summation over 

1067: $g_0 ((1-g_0)(1-g_1))^{\tbox{integer}}$. 

1068: Otherwise, we get a negative pulse of 

1069: current, with a complementary probability 

1070: that can be regarded as a geometric summation over 

1071: $g_1 ((1-g_0)(1-g_1))^{\tbox{integer}} (1-g_0)$. 

1072: Thus the total current through the section,  

1073: taking into account all subsequent multiple reflections 

1074: (rounds) is given by Eq.(\ref{e30}). 

1075: A similar calculation leads to Eq.(\ref{e31}). 

1076: 

1077: 

1078: 

1079: Since there are only four possible values for $\mathcal{Q}$ 

1080: the calculation of the phase space average becomes trivial: 

1081: %

1082: \be{-1}

1083: \langle {\cal Q} {\cal F} \rangle 

1084: = \frac{1}{2L} \left[ \int_{+}\mathcal{F}dr \right] Q_{+}^{\rightarrow}

1085: + \frac{1}{2L} \left[ \int_{+}\mathcal{F}dr \right] Q_{+}^{\leftarrow}

1086: + \frac{1}{2L} \left[ \int_{-}\mathcal{F}dr \right] Q_{-}^{\rightarrow}

1087: + \frac{1}{2L} \left[ \int_{-}\mathcal{F}dr \right] Q_{-}^{\leftarrow} 

1088: \ee

1089: %

1090: The integral over $\mathcal{F}$ is taken either 

1091: within the $``+"$ or within the $``-"$ region. It is 

1092: trivially related to the momentum impact 

1093: and yields the result

1094: %

1095: \be{0}

1096: \int_{\pm}\mathcal{F}dr = \mp \mathsf{m}v_{\tbox{F}}^2

1097: \ee

1098: %   

1099: Putting everything together we get the desired result for $G^1$. 

1100: With some minor modifications we can calculate $G^2$ using 

1101: the same procedure. 

1102: 

1103: 

1104: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1105: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1106: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1107: \section{The quantum mechanical picture}

1108: 

1109: The Kubo formula holds also in the quantum mechanical case. 

1110: But now $\mathcal{I}$ and $\mathcal{F}$ are operators,

1111: so it is more convenient to express the Kubo formula 

1112: using their matrix elements. After some algebra one 

1113: obtains the result: 

1114: %

1115: \be{33}

1116: G = \sum_{m(\ne n)}

1117: \frac{ 2\hbar  \im[\mathcal{I}_{nm}] \mathcal{F}_{mn} }

1118: {(E_m-E_n)^2 + (\Gamma/2)^2}

1119: \ee

1120: %

1121: For more details see Ref.\cite{pme} and further references therein.  

1122: In the above formula it is assumed that only one energy level ($n$) 

1123: is occupied. If we have zero temperature Fermi occupation, 

1124: then we have to sum over all the occupied levels. 

1125: The Kubo formula incorporates a parameter~$\Gamma$ that 

1126: reflects either the non-adiabaticity of the driving, 

1127: or environmentally induced ``memory loss" due to decoherence.   

1128: For a strictly isolated system in the strict adiabatic limit  

1129: we have $\Gamma=0$. Then we identify $G$ as an element 

1130: of Berry's field $\bm{B}$,  

1131: as explained in the introduction. The effect of $\Gamma$ 

1132: on $\bm{B}$ will be discussed below. 

1133: 

1134: 

1135: 

1136: 

1137: We would like to see how the classical result can emerge 

1138: in some limit from the above quantum expression. 

1139: It turns out that this does not require a detailed calculation. 

1140: We can use some topological properties of $\bm{B}$ 

1141: in order to figure out the answer!  The main observations 

1142: that we further explain below are: 

1143: %

1144: \begin{itemize}

1145: \item[\bf{(1)}] The $\bm{B}$ is divergence-less with the exception of Dirac monopoles  

1146: \item[\bf{(2)}] The monopoles are arranged in $\vec{X}$ space as vertical chains  

1147: \item[\bf{(3)}] The far field of $\bm{B}$ is like a two-dimensional electrostatic problem 

1148: \item[\bf{(4)}] Only non-compensated chains give net contribution   

1149: \end{itemize}

1150: %

1151: As long as the occupied level $n$ does not have a degeneracy with 

1152: a nearby level,  $\bm{B}$ is finite and divergence-less. 

1153: Only at degeneracies can it become singular. It can be argued     

1154: that these singularities must have their charge quantized in units 

1155: of $\hbar/2$ else the Berry phase would be ill defined.

1156: We have defined $X_3=\Phi$ as the Aharonov-Bohm flux through the ring. 

1157: This means that if we change $X_3$ by $2\pi\hbar/e$  then by 

1158: gauge invariance we have another degeneracy.  This means 

1159: that the Dirac monopoles are arranged as vertical chains, 

1160: and that the average charge per unit length is $e/(4\pi)$.

1161: Thus the far field of a Dirac chain is as in a two dimensional 

1162: electrostatic problem. If we calculate the line integral  

1163: of Eq.(\ref{e1}) then we get, within the framework of the far field 

1164: approximation, $Q=1$. Thus we conclude that if we have several 

1165: Dirac chains of the same ``sign", then $Q$ simply counts how 

1166: many are encircled. 

1167: 

1168: We have to notice that if we have 

1169: Fermi occupation, then the {\em net} contribution comes only 

1170: from degeneracies of the last occupied level with the first 

1171: unoccupied level. This is what we meant above (item 4) 

1172: by ``non-compensated". In order to avoid 

1173: misunderstanding of the ``compensation" issue 

1174: let us discuss with some more details what happens 

1175: if two neighboring levels $n$ and $m$ are occupied.

1176: With the level $n$ we associate a field $\bm{B}^{(n)}$, 

1177: while with $m$ we associate a field $\bm{B}^{(m)}$. 

1178: In general $\bm{B}^{(m)} \ne -\bm{B}^{(n)}$. If we are near 

1179: a degeneracy than we may say that $\bm{B}^{(n)}$ 

1180: emerges from a Dirac chain which is associated 

1181: with level $n$, while $\bm{B}^{(m)}$ emerges from 

1182: a Dirac chain which is associated with level $m$. 

1183: By inspection of Eq.(\ref{e33}), taking into account 

1184: that ${\im[\mathcal{I}_{nm}]=-\im[\mathcal{I}_{mn}]}$, 

1185: we realize that the two Dirac chains have opposite 

1186: charge. Their corresponding fields do not cancel  

1187: each other, but the total field is no longer singular, 

1188: implying that the {\em net} charge is zero.

1189: 

1190: 

1191: In the quantum stirring problem we shall see that the 

1192: $X_1$ distance between non-compensated chains is simply 

1193: half the De-Broglie wavelength $\lambda_E=2\pi/k_E$. 

1194: From this it follows that the amount of charge which is pushed 

1195: by a very ``large" scatterer is  

1196: %

1197: \be{34}

1198: Q \approx 

1199: e \frac{\Delta X_1}{\lambda_{\tbox{E}}/2}

1200: = e \frac{k_{\tbox{E}}}{\pi} \times \Delta X_1 

1201: \ee

1202: %

1203: What happens if the cycle is not in the ``far field" 

1204: but rather passes through the distribution of the monopoles? 

1205: To be more specific let us consider what happens 

1206: to $Q$ if we displace the scatterer a distance $\Delta X_1$. 

1207: What is the dependence on $X_2$?

1208: Do we get the classical result as in Fig.5?

1209: Obviously, in order to get the classical result 

1210: the distribution $\sigma(X_1,X_2)$ 

1211: should be in accordance with Eq.(\ref{e15}). 

1212: Strictly speaking this is {\em not} the case 

1213: because we have a discrete set of monopoles rather 

1214: than a smooth distribution of ``magnetic charge". 

1215: Still we can hope that $\sigma(X_1,X_2)$

1216: would be classical-like upon course graining. 

1217: We discuss further this issue in the next paragraphs.

1218: 

1219: 

1220: 

1221: If we make a pumping cycle in the vicinity of a monopole 

1222: then it is obvious that the result would be 

1223: very different from the classical prediction. 

1224: What we expect to get in the quantum mechanical case is 

1225: illustrated in the upper panel of Fig.7.

1226: For a cycle that goes very close to a monopole 

1227: the charge can be huge. In reality it is very difficult 

1228: to satisfy the adiabatic condition near a degeneracy, 

1229: or else there are always environmental effects. 

1230: Either way, once we have a finite $\Gamma$, the result 

1231: that we get for $Q$ is smoothed.  

1232:  

1233: 

1234: If the pumping cycle passes through a distribution 

1235: of many monopoles then what we expect to get  

1236: (as we deform or shift the cycle) are huge 

1237: fluctuations as illustrated in the lower panel of Fig.7.   

1238: Again, the effect of either non-adiabaticity or environmental 

1239: effects is to smooth away these fluctuations. 

1240: The interested reader can find some further discussion 

1241: of this point including a numerical example in \cite{pmt}.  

1242: 

1243: 

1244: 

1245: \vspace{3mm}

1246: 

1247: %%%%%%%%%%%

1248: \mpg{

1249: \Cn{

1250: \putgraph[width=0.3\hsize]{OneDegeneracyRoutesDiagram}

1251: \hspace{0.05\hsize}

1252: \putgraph[width=0.4\hsize]{QuantumChargeDiagram} 

1253: \\ \vspace{5mm}

1254: \putgraph[width=0.3\hsize]{NDegeneraciesRoutesDiagram} 

1255: \hspace{0.05\hsize}

1256: \putgraph[width=0.4\hsize]{QuantumChargeNDegeneraciesDiagram} 

1257: }

1258: 

1259: {\footnotesize 

1260: {\bf Fig.7.}

1261: Several pumping cycles are indicated  

1262: in the left panels: It is implicit that 

1263: each segment is closed as in Fig.3. 

1264: The black points represent degeneracies. 

1265: For each pumping cycle one can calculated $Q$. 

1266: The qualitative expectation for the outcome 

1267: is illustrated in the right panels. 

1268: In the upper illustration we assume 

1269: that the pumping cycle encircles only 

1270: one degeneracy, while in the lower 

1271: illustration we assume that it encircles $N$ 

1272: degeneracies. In a later section we 

1273: display numerical results that support 

1274: the illustrated expectations.

1275: }

1276: }

1277: %%%%%%%%%%%

1278: 

1279: \vspace{3mm} 

1280: 

1281: 

1282: 

1283: Coming back to the quantum-classical correspondence (QCC) 

1284: issue, we realize that at best QCC can be satisfied  

1285: in a statistical sense.  So we ask whether the 

1286: coarse grained $\sigma(X_1,X_2)$ agrees 

1287: with the classical expectation Eq.(\ref{e15}).

1288: The answer which we give in the following sections, 

1289: is that QCC is not realized in the case of simple 

1290: non-chaotic models. In the ``simple" cases we 

1291: get a non-classical $\sigma(X_1,X_2)$ 

1292: and hence a different dependence of $Q$ on $X_2$.

1293:  

1294: 

1295: 

1296: 

1297: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1298: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1299: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1300: \section{The degeneracies in $X$ space}

1301: 

1302: We can use the scattering approach in order to find the 

1303: energy levels of a ring. In this approach the ring is opened 

1304: at some arbitrary point and the $S$ matrix of the 

1305: open segment is specified. It is more convenient to  

1306: use the row-swapped matrix, such that the transmission amplitudes 

1307: are along the diagonal:

1308: %

1309: \be{0}

1310: \tilde{\mathbf{S}}(E;X_1,X_2) = 

1311: \eexp{i\gamma}

1312: \left( \amatrix{\sqrt{g}\eexp{i\phi} &  i\sqrt{1-g}\eexp{-i\alpha} \cr

1313: i\sqrt{1-g}\eexp{i\alpha} & \sqrt{g}\eexp{-i\phi}} \right)

1314: \ee

1315: %

1316: The periodic boundary conditions imply the following 

1317: secular equation      

1318: %

1319: \be{0}

1320: \det(\tilde{\mathbf{S}}(E;X_1,X_2) -\bm{1}) = 0

1321: \ee

1322: %

1323: Using

1324: %

1325: \be{0}

1326: && \det(\tilde{\mathbf{S}}-I) = \det(\tilde{\mathbf{S}})-\trc{(\tilde{\mathbf{S}})}+1 \\

1327: && \det(\tilde{\mathbf{S}}) = (\eexp{i\gamma})^2  \\

1328: && \trc{(\tilde{\mathbf{S}})} = 2\sqrt{g}\eexp{i\gamma}\cos{\phi}

1329: \ee

1330: %

1331: we get 

1332: %

1333: \be{0}

1334: \cos(\gamma(E)) = \sqrt{g(E)} \cos(\phi)

1335: \ee

1336: %

1337: In order to find the eigen-energies we plot both sides as 

1338: a function of $E$. The left hand side oscillates between $-1$ 

1339: and $+1$,  while the right hand side may have a smaller 

1340: amplitude. It is not difficult to realize that the only way 

1341: to have two eigen-energies coincide is to get  

1342: %

1343: \be{0}

1344: \begin{array}{cc}

1345: \left\{ \begin{array}{ccc}

1346: \phi &=& 0 \ \mbox{mod}(2\pi)\\

1347: g &=& 1 \\ 

1348: \gamma &=& n_{\tbox{even}}\pi

1349: \end{array}

1350: \right\}

1351: \hspace{0.05\hsize} \mbox{or} \hspace{0.05\hsize}

1352: \left\{ \begin{array}{ccc}

1353: \phi &=& \pi \ \mbox{mod}(2\pi)\\

1354: g &=& 1 \\ 

1355: \gamma &=& n_{\tbox{odd}}\pi

1356: \end{array}

1357: \right\}

1358: \end{array}

1359: \ee

1360: %

1361: where $n$ is either even or odd integer that can 

1362: be exploited (if we keep track over $\gamma$) as a level counter.

1363: 

1364: 

1365: Both $g$ and $\gamma$ depend on $(E;X_1,X_2)$. 

1366: Since we want $g$ to be maximal the condition 

1367: for having a degeneracy involves 4 rather than 3 equations 

1368: as we are going to see below. 

1369: An immediate conclusion is that we have 

1370: two types of Dirac chains: those that have monopoles 

1371: in the plane of the pumping cycle ($X_3=\Phi=0$), 

1372: and the others that have monopoles off 

1373: the plane of the pumping cycle.

1374: 

1375: In our model system we have two scatterers. 

1376: One is the moving scatterer and the other 

1377: is the rest of the network. The two are connected 

1378: by arms of length $L_A-X_1$ and  $L_B+X_1$. 

1379: The constants $L_A$ and $L_B$ can be absorbed into the definition 

1380: of the surrounding network. Each scatterer is fully characterized 

1381: by the set of parameters ${ \{ g_i, \gamma_i, \alpha_i, \phi_i \} }$.

1382: Note that we do not absorb $X_1$ into the definition 

1383: of $\alpha_0$.  After some algebra we find the following expressions 

1384: for the transmission coefficient and for the total phase shift: 

1385: %

1386: \be{0}

1387: g &=& 

1388: \frac{g_0 g_1}

1389: {2 - g_0 - g_1  +  g_0 g_1 + 2\sqrt{(1-g_0)(1-g_1)}

1390: \cos(\gamma_0 + \gamma_1 + \alpha_0 + \alpha_1 - 2k_E X_1)}

1391: \\

1392: \gamma &=& \gamma_0+\gamma_1 

1393: \ee

1394: %

1395: where $k_E$ is the wavenumber that corresponds to the energy $E$.  

1396: Thus the conditions for having a degeneracy take the form   

1397: %

1398: \be{43}

1399: \left\{ \begin{array}{l}

1400: X_3 = \mbox{integer flux} \\

1401: g_0(X_2) = g_1 \\ 

1402: \alpha_0 + \alpha_1 - 2 k_E X_1 = \pi \ \mbox{mod}(2\pi) \\

1403: \gamma_0 + \gamma_1 =  n_{\tbox{even}}\pi

1404: \end{array}

1405: \right.

1406: \left\{ \begin{array}{l}

1407: X_3 = \mbox{half integer flux} \\

1408: g_0(X_2) = g_1 \\ 

1409: \alpha_0 + \alpha_1 - 2 k_E X_1 = 0 \ \mbox{mod}(2\pi) \\

1410: \gamma_0 + \gamma_1 = n_{\tbox{odd}}\pi

1411: \end{array}

1412: \right.

1413: \ee

1414: %

1415: We have highlighted the dependence on the parameters $(X_1,X_2,X_3)$. 

1416: There is of course also an implicit dependence 

1417: of ${ \{ g_i, \gamma_i, \alpha_i \} }$ on the energy $E$. 

1418: The conditions that are listed above are very intuitive: 

1419: The system should have time reversal symmetry; 

1420: The barriers should ``balance"  each other;  

1421: The phases which are associated 

1422: with the reflections should lead to destructive interference;  

1423: And the total phase shift should respect the periodic boundary conditions.   

1424:  

1425: From Eq.(\ref{e43}c) we see that in general 

1426: the $X_1$ distance between degeneracies that belong to the same level  

1427: is roughly half the De-Broglie wavelength as stated previously. 

1428: The question that we would like to address is how these degeneracies are 

1429: distributed with respect to $X_2$. 

1430:  

1431: 

1432: 

1433: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1434: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1435: \section{Quantum stirring in simple rings}

1436: 

1437: We would like to find the distribution 

1438: of degeneracies with respect to $X_2$ 

1439: in the simplest model: a ring with two 

1440: delta scatterers (see Fig.1). The arms 

1441: that connect the two scatterers are 

1442: of length $L_A+X_1$ and $L_B-X_1$. 

1443: For the $S$ matrix that represents 

1444: the fixed scatterer (including the arms) we have 

1445: %

1446: \be{0}

1447: g_1(E) &=& 

1448: \left[ 1 + \left( \frac{\mathsf{m}}{\hbar^2k_{\tbox{F}}} V \right)^2 \right]^{-1}

1449: \\ 

1450: \gamma_1(E) &=& k_E (L_A+L_B)

1451: -\arctan\left( \frac{\mathsf{m}}{\hbar^2k_{\tbox{F}}}  X_2 \right)

1452: \\ 

1453: \alpha_1(E) &=& k_E (L_A-L_B)

1454: \ee

1455: %

1456: Since the dependence of $g_0$ and $g_1$ on the 

1457: barrier ``size" has the same functional form,  

1458: the condition Eq.(\ref{e43}c) implies $X_2=V$ 

1459: irrespective of $E$.

1460: Thus we get that all the degeneracies  

1461: are concentrated at the same $X_2$. 

1462: This is clearly very different from 

1463: the classically expected distribution. 

1464: 

1465: 

1466: In Fig.8 we display an example. The degeneracies 

1467: that are associated with the first 7 levels are 

1468: indicated. Filled circles stand for $\phi=0$ degeneracies, 

1469: while hollow circles stand for $\phi=\pi$ degeneracies. 

1470: Only the last (7th) level contributes non-compensated monopoles. 

1471: The $X_1$ distance between the non-compensated monopoles 

1472: is roughly half De-Broglie wavelength. 

1473: 

1474: 

1475: In Fig.9 we show what happens to the degeneracies 

1476: if we add a second fixed scatterer. We have chosen 

1477: an additional scatterer that can be treated 

1478: as a perturbation. The calculation was done 

1479: using perturbation theory. 

1480: We shall not present the details 

1481: of this lengthy calculation here. 

1482: For larger perturbations (not presented) we had 

1483: to solve the secular equation numerically. 

1484: This was done using an efficient

1485: algorithm \cite{holger}. In any case, the purpose

1486: of Fig.9 is merely to demonstrate that once the

1487: symmetry of the system is broken the degeneracies

1488: spread out in the $X_2$ direction. 

1489: 

1490: 

1491: \vspace{3mm}

1492: 

1493: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1494: \mpg{

1495: \Cn{

1496: \putgraph[width=0.49\hsize]{Diagram7LevelsDegeneraciesFlat}

1497: \putgraph[width=0.49\hsize]{Diagram7LevelsDegeneraciesAndAvoidedCrossings2}

1498: }

1499: 

1500: {\footnotesize 

1501: {\bf Fig.8.}

1502: The degeneracies in the double delta model of Fig.1.

1503: We set $L_A=10.23$ and $L_B=0$, so that $X_1$ measures 

1504: the distance from the fixed scatterer. 

1505: The ``size" of the fixed delta scatterer is $V=1274.56$.   

1506: We use units such that $\mathsf{m}=\hbar=1$.

1507: We assume that only the lower~7~levels are occupied.

1508: The filled circles are degeneracies on the flux zero plane 

1509: and the empty circles are degeneracies on the 

1510: flux $\pi$ plane. The left graph shows the actual 

1511: arrangement in the $(X_1,X_2)$ plane. Namely, 

1512: all the degeneracies are on the line ${X_2=V}$. 

1513: In the right graph the degeneracies were displaced 

1514: for the sake of clarity. Only the~7th occupied level 

1515: contributes non-compensated monopoles.  

1516: }

1517: }

1518: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1519: 

1520: \vspace{3mm}

1521: 

1522: 

1523: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1524: \mpg{

1525: \Cn{

1526: \putgraph[width=0.6\hsize]{Diagram7LevelsDegeneraciesPerturbation}

1527: }

1528: 

1529: {\footnotesize 

1530: {\bf Fig.9.}

1531: The degeneracies in the triple delta model of Fig.1.

1532: Namely, to the model of Fig.8 we have added a delta

1533: barrier of ``size" $V_P=10^{-5}$, located at ${x=7.61}$.

1534: This additional delta barrier can be treated as a small

1535: perturbation. As a result of this perturbation the degeneracies  

1536: shift and spread out in the $X_2$ direction. 

1537: Degeneracies that belong to the same level 

1538: are connected by a line. As in the previous figure 

1539: only the~7th occupied level contributes non-compensated monopoles. 

1540: }

1541: }

1542: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1543: 

1544: \vspace{3mm}

1545: 

1546: 

1547: The distribution $\sigma(X_1,X_2)$ in the case of a ring with 

1548: a single fixed scatterer is very different from the 

1549: classical prediction. Consequently also $Q$ comes

1550: out very different from Eq.(\ref{e15}) [and see also Fig.6].

1551: The reader might be curious to know how $Q$ depends 

1552: on the ``size" ($X_2$) of the scatterer in the case of   

1553: Fermi occupation. So we have calculated $G$ 

1554: numerically using Eq.(\ref{e33}), and integrated 

1555: over it to get $Q$. The numerical results are displayed in Fig.10.     

1556: Further analysis of the crossover 

1557: from ``near field" to ``far field" cycles 

1558: will be published in a separate work \cite{pms}.

1559:   

1560: 

1561: \vspace{3mm}

1562: 

1563: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1564: \mpg{

1565: \Cn{

1566: \putgraph[width=0.49\hsize]{QuantumChargeRoutesBW}

1567: \putgraph[width=0.49\hsize]{QuantumChargeBW}

1568: }

1569: 

1570: {\footnotesize 

1571: {\bf Fig.10.}

1572: Several pumping routes are displayed 

1573: in the left panel. For each of them $Q$ 

1574: has been calculated numerically.  

1575: The results are displayed in the right panel. 

1576: Note the agreement with the qualitative 

1577: expectation that has been expressed in Fig.7.

1578: The calculation is done for the double 

1579: delta model of Fig.1 with $L_A=1000.23$  

1580: and $L_B=0$. The ``size" of the fixed 

1581: barrier is $V=810.56$. The energy level 

1582: involved are $n=998$ and $m=999$. 

1583: We use units such that $\mathsf{m}=\hbar=1$.

1584: }

1585: }

1586: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1587: 

1588: 

1589: 

1590: 

1591: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1592: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1593: \section{Quantum stirring in chaotic rings}

1594: 

1595: We would like to find the distribution 

1596: of degeneracies with respect to $X_2$ 

1597: in case of a chaotic network (see an example in Fig.1).

1598: Let us try to extend the approach that 

1599: has been used in the previous section.

1600: A hypothetical illustration of $g_1(E)$ in the chaotic    

1601: case is displayed in Fig.11. The universal conductance 

1602: fluctuations of $g_1$ are characterized by a one parameter  

1603: probability distribution $P(g_1;\bar{g}_1)$ which 

1604: we discuss below. This probability distribution 

1605: depends on one parameter, which we choose to be 

1606: the average transmission$\bar{g}_1$.

1607: 

1608: \vspace{3mm}

1609: 

1610: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1611: \mpg{

1612: \Cn{

1613: \putgraph[width=0.4\hsize]{OneDeltaOneComplexBarrierGraphBW}

1614: }

1615: 

1616: {\footnotesize  

1617: {\bf Fig.11.}

1618: A hypothetical illustration of $g_1(E)$ 

1619: in the case of a complex ``chaotic" barrier.

1620: Such a barrier can be modeled as a network (Fig.1a), 

1621: or it can be characterized using random matrix theory. 

1622: The smooth curves are the transmission $g_0(E;X_2)$ 

1623: of the delta scatterer for 3 different values of $X_2$.     

1624: }

1625: }

1626: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1627: 

1628: \vspace{3mm}

1629: 

1630: In order to get a degeneracy, a necessary but insufficient 

1631: condition is that the transmission of the two barriers 

1632: is equal (${g_0(E;X_2) = g_1(E)}$). The solution 

1633: of this equation can be determined graphically via Fig.11. 

1634: In fact in most practical applications we can 

1635: assume that our interest is restricted to some 

1636: small energy window such that the smooth $E$ 

1637: dependence of $g_0$ can be neglected. So the 

1638: equation is in fact ${g_0(X_2) = g_1(E)}$. 

1639: For a given $E$ we can find an ${X_2^{(E)}}$ such that this 

1640: equation is satisfied. By playing with $X_1$ we can 

1641: satisfy the $\alpha$ related phase condition 

1642: for having a degeneracy. 

1643: But we still have to satisfy also the $\gamma$ related 

1644: phase condition, which leads to the quantization 

1645: of the energy $E$. Hence the erratic ${X_2^{(E)}}$ 

1646: is sampled. Still it is reasonable to assume that 

1647: the the distribution of the so-obtained $X_2$ values 

1648: is not affected by this random-like sampling. 

1649: We therefore conclude the following relation:   

1650: %

1651: \be{48}

1652: \mbox{Prob}\Big[X_2 < X_2^{(E)} < X_2+dX_2\big] 

1653: \ \ = \  \

1654: \mbox{Prob}\Big[g_0(X_2) < g_1 < g_0(X_2+dX_2)\big] 

1655: \ee

1656: %

1657: This implies a simple relation between $\sigma(X_1, X_2)$ 

1658: and the probability function $P(g_1;\bar{g}_1)$

1659: %

1660: \be{49}

1661: \sigma(X_1,X_2) = \const \times \frac{dg_0(X_2)}{dX_2} P(g_0(X_2)) 

1662: \ee

1663: %

1664: Thus the problem of finding $\sigma(X_1, X_2)$ has reduced 

1665: to the problem of finding $P(g_1;\bar{g}_1)$. 

1666: 

1667: 

1668: We can now proceed in three directions: 

1669: {\bf (A)} To determine $P()$ from simple heuristic 

1670: quantum chaos considerations; 

1671: {\bf (B)} To determine $P()$ from formal random  

1672: matrix theory considerations; 

1673: {\bf (C)} To use reverse engineering in order 

1674: to determine what is $P()$ that would give the 

1675: classical result. 

1676: It should be clear that universality can be 

1677: expected only if $\bar{g}_1 \ll 1$.  

1678: In Fig.12 we make a comparison between 

1679: the outcomes of these three procedures 

1680: for $\bar{g}_1 = 0.001$.  In the following 

1681: paragraph we give the details of the calculation. 

1682: 

1683: \vspace{3mm}

1684: 

1685: %%%%%%%%%%

1686: \mpg{

1687: \Cn{

1688: \putgraph[width=0.49\hsize]{DensityLowTransmissionLogBW}

1689: }

1690: 

1691: {\footnotesize 

1692: {Fig.12.}

1693: A plot of the distribution $P(g_1;\bar{g}_1)$ according to several different 

1694: expressions. In this calculation we assume that the average  

1695: transmission is ${\bar{g}_1=0.001}$, which is represented in the 

1696: figure by a vertical dashed line. The ``heuristic" result is based on 

1697: sampling of the random variable $g_1=\bar{g}_1\eta_1\eta_2$ where $\eta$ 

1698: is Porter-Thomas distributed. The ``RMT" result is based on Eq.(\ref{e51}).

1699: The ``classical" result is based on Eq.(\ref{e52}). 

1700: }

1701: }

1702: %%%%%%%%%%

1703: 

1704: \vspace{3mm}

1705: 

1706:  

1707: The heuristic approach is based on the idea that the transmission 

1708: via a chaotic network depends on the amplitudes of the wavefunctions 

1709: at the entrance and exit points. One might expect $g_1=\bar{g}_1\eta_1\eta_2$, 

1710: where $\eta$ has the Porter-Thomas distribution \cite{haake}

1711: ${P_{\tbox{GOE}}(\eta) = ({1}/{\sqrt{2\pi\eta}})\eexp{-{\eta}/{2}}}$. 

1712: This leads to the ``heuristic" result in Fig.12. 

1713: In fact this result should not be taken too 

1714: seriously. The formal RMT calculation \cite{BB} 

1715: of the probability distribution $P(g_1;\bar{g}_1)$

1716: leads to the following expressions:

1717: %

1718: \be{51}

1719: P_{\tbox{RMT}}(g_1;\bar{g}_1) = 

1720: \left\{ 

1721: \amatrix{

1722: ({2}/{\pi^2 \bar{g}_1}) \ g_1^{-1/2} & \ \ \mbox{for} \ g_1 \ll (\bar{g}_1)^2 \ll 1 

1723: \cr

1724: ({4\bar{g}_1}/{\pi^2}) \ g_1^{-3/2} & \ \ \mbox{for} \ (\bar{g}_1)^2 \ll g_1 \ll 1

1725: }\right.

1726: \ee

1727: %

1728: The small $g_1$ approximation is universal:   

1729: it merely assumes that the system has time reversal 

1730: symmetry. It has been confirmed \cite{KS} 

1731: that this universal behavior holds also for network 

1732: systems. But for larger values of $g_1$ there are 

1733: deviations that has to do with semiclassical considerations. 

1734: It is therefore in the latter region where one might 

1735: expect quantum-classical correspondence.    

1736: 

1737: 

1738: The probability distribution $P(g_1;\bar{g}_1)$

1739: that would reproduce the classical 

1740: result Eq.(\ref{e15}) via Eq.(\ref{e49}) is:

1741: %

1742: \be{52}

1743: P_{\tbox{CL}}(g_1;\bar{g}_1) =

1744: \frac{(1-g^{cl}_1)g^{cl}_1}{(g_1+g^{cl}_1-2g_1g^{cl}_1)^2}

1745: \ee

1746: %

1747: with ${g_1^{cl} \approx 0.12\bar{g_1}}$. 

1748: In order to compare with the RMT result we note that 

1749: %

1750: \be{53}

1751: P_{\tbox{CL}}(g_1;\bar{g}_1) \approx 

1752: \left\{ 

1753: \amatrix{

1754: (1/g^{cl}_1) \ (1-2g_1/g_1^{cl}) & \ \ \ \mbox{for} \ g_1 \ll g^{cl}_1 \ll 1 \cr

1755: g^{cl}_1 \ g_1^{-2} & \ \ \ \mbox{for} \ g^{cl}_1 \ll g_1 \ll 1 

1756: }\right.

1757: \ee

1758: %

1759: We see that in the large $g_1$ region, where one  

1760: might expect quantum-classical correspondence,  

1761: there is no agreement between  $P_{\tbox{CL}}()$ 

1762: and $P_{\tbox{RMT}}()$. 

1763: We suspect that $P_{\tbox{RMT}}()$ cannot 

1764: be trusted there. Otherwise we have to conclude  

1765: that Eq.(\ref{e49}) fails to take into account  

1766: strong correlations in the arrangement of Dirac monopoles.

1767: Either way it seems that RMT alone 

1768: is not enough in order to reproduce the classical result.   

1769:      

1770: 

1771: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1772: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1773: \section{The emergence of the classical limit}

1774: 

1775: With simple minded RMT reasoning we have failed to 

1776: get a quantitative correspondence with the classical result.   

1777: We therefore look for a different way to get 

1778: an estimate for either $\bm{B}_2$ or $\sigma(X_1,X_2)$

1779: in the case of a chaotic network. One obvious 

1780: way is to use the result of Ref.\cite{diabolic} 

1781: regarding the distribution of degeneracies (diabolic points).

1782: The perturbation term which is associated with $X_2$ is 

1783: %

1784: \be{530}

1785: \mathcal{W} 

1786: = \frac{\partial\mathcal{H}}{\partial X_2}

1787: = \delta(x-X_1)

1788: \ee

1789: %   

1790: and the density of the degeneracies 

1791: should be \cite{diabolic}  

1792: %

1793: \be{0} 

1794: \sigma(X_1,X_2) 

1795: \ \ = \ \ 

1796: \frac{\pi}{3} \mathsf{g}(E)^2 

1797: \ \mbox{RMS}[\mathcal{F}_{nm}] 

1798: \ \mbox{RMS}[\mathcal{W}_{nm}] 

1799: \ \ \propto \ \  \mbox{RMS}[\mathcal{W}_{nn}]

1800: \ee

1801: %

1802: where $\mathsf{g}(E)$ is the density of states.

1803: In the first equality it is implicit that 

1804: the root mean square (RMS) of {\em near~diagonal} 

1805: matrix elements should be estimated. 

1806: In fact only  $\mbox{RMS}[\mathcal{W}_{nm}]$ 

1807: is required in order to find the $X_2$ dependence.

1808: For a quantum chaos system with time reversal symmetry 

1809: the variance of the near diagonal elements 

1810: equals half the variance of the diagonal 

1811: elements \cite{agam}, leading to the second expression.  

1812: 

1813: 

1814: There is a well known semiclassical recipe \cite{mario1,mario2} 

1815: for calculating the variance of the near diagonal 

1816: matrix elements $\mathcal{W}_{nm}$. 

1817: One should find the classical correlation function 

1818: ${C(\tau)=\langle \mathcal{W}(t) \mathcal{W}(0) \rangle - \langle \mathcal{W} \rangle^2 }$,  

1819: and then integrate over $\tau$. 

1820: If $\mathcal{W}$ were the current operator 

1821: then $\langle \mathcal{W} \rangle$ would be equal to zero, 

1822: and we could proceed as in section~5. 

1823: But in case of Eq.(\ref{e530}) there is a problem: 

1824: The sign of $\mathcal{W}(t)$ does not fluctuate, 

1825: and it is essential to take into account 

1826: the distribution of the delay times 

1827: inside the network. Therefore there is no obvious 

1828: relation to the transmissions $g_0$ and $g_1$. 

1829: 

1830: 

1831: An optional possibility is to try to 

1832: evaluate  $\mbox{RMS}[\mathcal{W}_{nn}]$, 

1833: where $\mathcal{W}_{nn}=|\psi_{\tbox{barrier}}|^2$ 

1834: is the ``intensity" of the wavefunction 

1835: at the location of the scatterer. Obviously 

1836: the result depends on both $g_0$ and $g_1$, 

1837: and requires considerations which are at least 

1838: as difficult as estimating universal conductance 

1839: fluctuations. So it seems that we would run 

1840: into the same problems as in the previous section.

1841: 

1842:   

1843: Still there is the option to calculate $G^1=\bm{B}_2$ 

1844: from the Green function of the system. 

1845: This has been done in \cite{pmt}:  

1846: Writing the Green function as a sum over trajectories, 

1847: we have expressed $G^1$ as a double sum over paths.

1848: If this double sum is averaged over the energy 

1849: one obtains the diagonal approximation, 

1850: leading to the classical result. At first glance 

1851: the energy averaging is not quite legitimate, 

1852: because the energy is quantized. But one can justify 

1853: this procedure in the case of a ``quantum chaos system".  

1854: We have further supported this claim by the numerical 

1855: analysis of the chaotic network of Fig.1 \cite{pmt}.   

1856: We therefore conclude that for a chaotic network 

1857: the distribution of degeneracies should be in accordance 

1858: with Eq.(\ref{e15}). 

1859:      

1860: 

1861: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1862: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1863: \section{Conclusions}

1864: 

1865: As we translate a scatterer of ``size" $X_2$ 

1866: a distance $\Delta X_1$ along a single mode wire, 

1867: the amount of charge which is pushed is    

1868: %  

1869: \be{0}

1870: Q \ \ = \ \ r(X_2) \times \frac{e}{\pi}k_{\tbox{F}} \times \Delta X_1

1871: \ee

1872: %

1873: where $k_{\tbox{F}}$ is the Fermi momentum. If the 

1874: scatterer is very ``large" (${X_2\rightarrow\infty}$)

1875: then we expect to have $r(X_2)=1$. 

1876: This expectation is based on the ``snow plow" picture 

1877: that has been explained in the conclusion of section~2.  

1878: This result is also confirmed by the formal BPT based 

1879: calculation in the case of an {\em open} geometry. 

1880: It also can be formally derived for a {\em closed}  

1881: geometry using the ``Dirac chains picture". 

1882: In the latter case the key observation is 

1883: that the $X_1$ distance between contributing 

1884: degeneracies is roughly half the De-Broglie wavelength.

1885: See Eq.(\ref{e34}).

1886: 

1887: 

1888: Next we ask what happens to  $r(X_2)$ as $X_2$ becomes smaller. 

1889: In the case of an {\em open} geometry the intuitive naive 

1890: guess, which is based on the ``snow plow" picture,  

1891: turns out to be correct. 

1892: Namely, ${r(X_2)=1-g_0 }$ is simply the reflection 

1893: coefficient: Some of particles are not ``pushed" 

1894: by the scatterer because of its partial transparency.   

1895: In the case of a {\em closed} geometry we have 

1896: shown that the {\em classical} result for $r(X_2)$ is modified: 

1897: now it depends also on the overall transmission of 

1898: the device. See Eq.(\ref{e13}).

1899: 

1900: 

1901: It is important to realize that the {\em classical} result 

1902: for $r(X_2)$ is in complete agreement with the common  

1903: sense expectation. Namely, we have ${0 < r(X_2) < 1 }$, 

1904: and the dependence on the ``size" of the 

1905: scatterer is monotonic. 

1906: But once we go to the quantum mechanical analysis 

1907: we have a surprise. The results that we get  

1908: are counter-intuitive. They are most puzzling (Fig.10) 

1909: in the case of the simplest model, in which the ring contains 

1910: only one fixed delta barrier ($V$). 

1911: As we decrease $X_2$ the transported charge $Q$ 

1912: becomes larger(!). Moreover, once $X_2$ becomes 

1913: smaller than $V$, the coefficient $r(X_2)$ 

1914: changes sign. This means that as we push the particles 

1915: ``forward" the current is induced ``backwards".

1916: 

1917: 

1918: The reason for the failure of our intuition is 

1919: our tendency to regard ``adiabatic transport"  

1920: as a zero order adiabatic approximation, 

1921: while in fact it is based on a first order analysis 

1922: (for a detailed discussion see section~4 of \cite{pms}). 

1923: As a parameter in the system  is changed, 

1924: the induced current can be in either direction.    

1925: 

1926: 

1927: In order to understand the route towards quantum-classical 

1928: correspondence it is essential to figure out how 

1929: the degeneracies spread out in $\vec{X}$ space. 

1930: As the system becomes more complex, we get for $r(X_2)$   

1931: a result that resembles the classically implied one.  

1932: The resemblance is at best only on a coarse grained scale: 

1933: the quantum result has strong fluctuations.   

1934: These are related to universal conductance fluctuations. 

1935:    

1936: We have made an attempt to deduce from RMT considerations 

1937: the ``chaotic" distribution of the degeneracies, 

1938: and hence the dependence of $r(X_2)$ on $X_2$. 

1939: The quantitative results do not agree. We therefore 

1940: suspect that RMT considerations alone are not enough 

1941: in order to establish quantum-classical correspondence.

1942: Rather we had used \cite{pmt} semiclassical tools 

1943: in order to establish this correspondence. 

1944:  

1945: 

1946: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1947: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1948: 

1949: \vspace{3mm} 

1950: 

1951: \ack

1952: 

1953: We thank Nir Davidson for illuminating us regarding 

1954: the feasibility of measuring neutral currents in 

1955: cold atom systems. We also had the pleasure to have 

1956: very helpful discussions with Itamar Sela, 

1957: Tsampikos Kottos, Holger Schanz and Michael Wilkinson.  

1958: This research was supported by 

1959: the Israel Science Foundation (grant No.11/02),

1960: and by a grant from the GIF, the German-Israeli Foundation 

1961: for Scientific Research and Development.

1962: 

1963: 

1964: 

1965: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1966: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1967: 

1968: %\Bibliography{99}

1969: \section*{References}

1970: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1971: 

1972: \bibitem{berry} 

1973: M.V. Berry, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A {\bf 392} (1984) 45.

1974: 

1975: \bibitem{BR} 

1976: M.V. Berry and J.M. Robbins, 

1977: Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A {\bf 442} (1993) 659. 

1978: 

1979: \bibitem{pmc} 

1980: D. Cohen, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 68} (2003) 155303.

1981: 

1982: \bibitem{pme} 

1983: For a mini-review and further references see:   

1984: D. Cohen, Physica E {\bf 29}, 308 (2005).

1985: 

1986: \bibitem{BPT} 

1987: M.~B{\"u}ttiker et al, Z.~Phys.~B-Condens.~Mat., {\bf 94} (1994) 133.

1988: 

1989: \bibitem{brouwer} 

1990: P. W. Brouwer, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 58} (1998) R10135. 

1991: 

1992: \bibitem{pmo}

1993: D. Cohen, Phys. 

1994: Rev. B {\bf 68} (2003) 201303(R).

1995: 

1996: \bibitem{pmp} 

1997: D. Cohen, Solid State Communications {\bf 133}, 583 (2005).

1998: 

1999: \bibitem{thouless} 

2000: D. J. Thouless, Phys. Rev. {\bf B27} (1983) 6083.

2001: 

2002: \bibitem{avronRev}

2003: J.E. Avron et al, 

2004: Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 60} (1988) 873.

2005: 

2006: \bibitem{avron}

2007: J. E. Avron et al, 

2008: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 62}, R10 (2000) 618.

2009: 

2010: \bibitem{pmt}

2011: D. Cohen, T. Kottos and H. Schanz, 

2012: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 71}, 035202(R) (2005).

2013: 

2014: 

2015: \bibitem{orsay} 

2016: B. Reulet M. Ramin, H. Bouchiat and D. Mailly, 

2017: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 75}, 124 (1995). 

2018: 

2019: \bibitem{raiz}

2020: C.F. Bharucha, J.C. Robinson, F.L. Moore, 

2021: K.W. Madison, S.R. Wilkinson, Bala Sundaram, and M.G. Raizen, 

2022: Atomic Physics {\bf 15}, 62 (World Scientific, Singapore, 1997). 

2023: \ V. Milner, J.L. Hanssen, W.C. Campbell, and M.G. Raizen,  

2024: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 1514 (2001).

2025: 

2026: \bibitem{nir}

2027: N. Friedman, A. Kaplan, D. Carasso, and N. Davidson, 

2028: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86},  1518 (2001).

2029: \ M. Andersen, and N. Davidson, 

2030: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 274101 (2001).

2031: 

2032: 

2033: \bibitem{doppler}

2034: I. Bialynicki-Birula and Z. Bialynicka-Birula, 

2035: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 78}, 2539 (1997).

2036: 

2037: 

2038: \bibitem{pms} 

2039: I. Sela and D. Cohen, cond-mat/0512500.

2040: 

2041: 

2042: \bibitem{kbf}

2043: D. Cohen and Y. Etzioni,

2044: J. Phys. A {\bf 38}, 9699 (2005).

2045: 

2046: 

2047: \bibitem{holger} 

2048: We thank H. Schanz for suggesting the numerical algorithm.

2049: 

2050: 

2051: \bibitem{haake} 

2052: F. Haake, Quantum Signatures of Chaos (Springer 2001).

2053: 

2054: \bibitem{BB} 

2055: P.W. Brouwer and C.W.J. Beenakker, 

2056: Phys. Rev. B. {\bf 50}, 11263 (1994). 

2057: 

2058: \bibitem{KS} 

2059: T. Kottos and U. Smilansky, 

2060: J. Phys. A {\bf 36}, 3501-3524 (2003).

2061: 

2062: \bibitem{diabolic} 

2063: M. Wilkinson and E. J. Austin,  

2064: Phs. Rev. A {\bf 47}, 4 (1993).

2065: 

2066: \bibitem{agam}

2067: B. Eckhardt, S. Fishman, J. Keating, O. Agam, J. Main and K. Muller, 

2068: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 52}, 5893 (1995); and further references therein.

2069: 

2070: \bibitem{mario1}

2071: M. Feingold and A. Peres, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 34} 591, (1986).

2072: 

2073: \bibitem{mario2}

2074: M. Feingold, D. Leitner, M. Wilkinson, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 66}, 986 (1991). 

2075:  

2076: 

2077: \end{thebibliography}

2078: 

2079: 

2080: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2081: \end{document}

2082: