1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %%% Cohen and Kottos (December 1999, revised September 2000).
3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4:
5: % FIGURES:
6: % Fig.1: lds_contours.eps; lds_poincare.eps
7: % Fig.2: comega.eps
8: % Fig.3: profile_cl.eps
9: % Fig.4: profiles.eps
10: % Fig.5: lds_anlys.eps
11:
12: \documentstyle[aps,pre,multicol,epsf]{revtex}
13: \textheight9.6in
14: \begin{document}
15: \newcommand{\tbox}[1]{\mbox{\tiny #1}}
16: \newcommand{\half}{\mbox{\small $\frac{1}{2}$}}
17: \newcommand{\mbf}[1]{{\mathbf #1}}
18:
19: \title{Parametric dependent Hamiltonians, wavefunctions, \\
20: random-matrix-theory, and quantal-classical correspondence}
21:
22: \author
23: {
24: Doron Cohen$^1$ and Tsampikos Kottos$^2$\\
25: %
26: \footnotesize
27: %
28: $^1$
29: Department of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138 \\
30: %
31: $^2$
32: Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Str\"omungsforschung,
33: 37073 G\"ottingen, Germany
34: }
35:
36: \date{December 1999, revised September 2000}
37:
38: \maketitle
39:
40: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
41:
42: \begin{abstract}
43:
44: We study a classically chaotic system which is described
45: by a Hamiltonian ${\cal H}(Q,P;x)$ where $(Q,P)$ are
46: the canonical coordinates of a particle in a 2D well,
47: and $x$ is a parameter. By changing $x$ we can deform
48: the `shape' of the well. The quantum-eigenstates of the
49: system are $|n(x)\rangle$. We analyze numerically how the
50: parametric kernel $P(n|m)= |\langle n(x)|m(x_0)\rangle|^2$
51: evolves as a function of $\delta x \equiv (x{-}x_0)$.
52: This kernel, regarded as
53: a function of $n-m$, characterizes the shape of the wavefunctions,
54: and it also can be interpreted as the local density of states (LDOS).
55: The kernel $P(n|m)$ has a well defined classical limit,
56: and the study addresses the issue of
57: quantum-classical correspondence (QCC).
58: Both the perturbative and the non-perturbative regimes
59: are explored. The limitations of the random-matrix-theory (RMT)
60: approach are demonstrated.
61:
62: \end{abstract}
63:
64: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
65: \begin{multicols}{2}
66:
67: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
68: \section{Introduction}
69:
70: Consider a system whose total Hamiltonian is ${\cal H}(Q,P;x)$,
71: where $(Q,P)$ is a set of canonical coordinates,
72: and $x$ is a constant parameter. This parameter
73: may represent the effect of some externally controlled field.
74: We assume that both ${\cal H}_0 = {\cal H}_0(Q,P;x_0)$
75: and ${\cal H} = {\cal H}(Q,P;x)$
76: generate classically chaotic dynamics of similar nature.
77: Moreover, we assume that $\delta x \equiv (x{-}x_0)$
78: is {\em classically small},
79: meaning that it is possible to apply linear analysis
80: in order to describe how the energy surfaces ${\cal H}(Q,P;x)=E$
81: are deformed as a result of changing the value of $x$.
82: %
83: %
84: Quantum mechanically, we can use a basis where
85: ${\cal H}_0 = \mbf{E}_0$ has a diagonal representation,
86: while
87: %
88: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e1}
89: {\cal H} \ \ = \ \ \mbf{E}_0 \ + \ \delta x \ \mbf{B}
90: \end{eqnarray}
91: %
92: %
93: For reasonably small $\hbar$, it follows from general
94: semiclassical considerations \cite{mario},
95: that $\mbf{B}$ is a {\em banded matrix}.
96: Generically, this matrix {\em looks random},
97: as if its off-diagonal elements were {\em independent} random numbers.
98:
99:
100: It was the idea of Wigner \cite{wigner} forty years ago,
101: to study a simplified model, where the Hamiltonian is
102: given by Eq.(\ref{e1}), and where
103: $\mbf{B}$ is a {\em random} banded matrix. This is
104: known as Wigner's banded random matrix (WBRM) model.
105: The applicability of such a model is a matter
106: of {\em conjecture}. Obviously this conjecture
107: should be tested$^\dag$. The most direct way to
108: test it, which we are going to apply, is to
109: take the matrix $\mbf{B}$ of a `physical' Hamiltonian,
110: and then to randomize the signs of its off-diagonal
111: elements. The outcome of such operation will be referred to
112: as the {\em effective} WBRM model that is associated
113: with the {\em physical} Hamiltonian. One issue of this paper
114: is to make a comparison between the eigenstates of
115: the physical Hamiltonian, and those of the associated
116: effective WBRM model.
117:
118:
119: The {\em standard} WBRM model (unlike the `effective' one)
120: involves an additional simplification. Namely, one
121: assumes that $\mbf{B}$ has a rectangular band profile.
122: The theory of eigenstates for the standard WBRM model
123: is well known \cite{wigner,casati,fyodo}.
124: %
125: Increasing $x$, starting from $\delta x=0$
126: the eigenstates of Eq.(\ref{e1}) change their nature.
127: %
128: The general questions to address are:
129: %
130: \begin{enumerate}
131: \item
132: What are the {\em parametric regimes} in the
133: parametric evolution of the eigenstates;
134: \item
135: How the structure of the eigenstates
136: changes as we go via the subsequent regimes.
137: \end{enumerate}
138: %
139: %
140: Recently some ideas have been introduced \cite{frc,vrn,wls}
141: how to go beyond Wigner's theory in case of physical Hamiltonians.
142: It has been suggested that there are at least three generic
143: parametric scales
144: $\delta x_c^{\tbox{qm}}\ll
145: \delta x_{\tbox{prt}}\ll
146: \delta x_{\tbox{SC}}$
147: that control the parametric evolution of the eigenstates.
148: We shall define these parametric scales later.
149: Accordingly one should distinguish between
150: the standard perturbative regime ($\delta x \ll \delta x_c^{\tbox{qm}}$),
151: the core-tail regime
152: ($\delta x_c^{\tbox{qm}} \ll \delta x \ll \delta x_{\tbox{prt}}$),
153: and the semiclassical regime
154: ($\delta x \gg \delta x_{\tbox{SC}}$).
155:
156:
157:
158: The purpose of this paper is not just to numerically
159: establish (for the first time) the existence of the
160: parametric regimes suggested in \cite{frc,vrn,wls},
161: but mainly to address question {\bf (2)} above \cite{prm}.
162: Namely, we would like to study how the structure of the
163: eigenstates changes as we go via the subsequent regimes.
164: In particular we would like to understand the significance
165: of RMT assumptions in the general theoretical considerations.
166: The latter issue has been left unexplored in the
167: `quantum chaos' literature. (Note however that literally
168: the same question is addressed in numerous publication once
169: spectral statistics of eigenvalues,
170: rather than eigenstate structure, is concerned).
171: We also suggest a new procedure for `region analysis' of the
172: eigenstate structure. We are going to distinguish between
173: first-order tail regions (FOTRs), higher-order far-tail
174: regions, and non-perturbative (core) region. Our main
175: conclusion is going to be that RMT is inadequate for
176: the analysis of any features that go beyond
177: first-order perturbation theory.
178:
179:
180: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
181: \section{The model Hamiltonian}
182:
183: We study the Hamiltonian
184: %
185: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e2}
186: {\cal H}(Q,P;x) = \half(P_1^2{+}P_2^2 + Q_1^2{+}Q_2^2)
187: + x \cdot Q_1^2 Q_2^2
188: \end{eqnarray}
189: %
190: with $x=x_0+\delta x$ and $x_0=1$.
191: This Hamiltonian describes the motion of
192: a particle in a 2D well (see Fig.1).
193: The units are chosen such that the mass is equal to one,
194: the frequency for small oscillations is one,
195: and for $\delta x=0$ the coefficient of the
196: anharmonic term is also one. The energy $E$
197: is the only dimensionless parameter of the
198: classical motion. Our numerical study is
199: focused on an energy window around $E \sim 3$
200: where the motion is mainly chaotic.
201:
202:
203: In the classical analysis there is only one
204: parametric scale, which is $\delta x_c^{\tbox{cl}} \sim 1$.
205: This scale determines the regime of
206: (classical) linear analysis.
207: For $\delta x \ll \delta x_c^{\tbox{cl}}$
208: the deformation of the energy surface
209: ${\cal H}_0(Q,P;x)=E$ can be described
210: as a linear process. Later we are going to
211: give a precise mathematical formulation of
212: this idea. From now on assume that we
213: are in the classical linear regime.
214:
215:
216:
217: \ \\
218: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
219: \epsfysize=1.3in
220: \epsffile{lds_contours.eps}
221: \ \ \
222: \epsfysize=1.3in
223: \epsffile{lds_poincare.eps}
224: \noindent \\
225: {\footnotesize {\bf FIG.1}:
226: {\em Left:} equipotential contours of the model
227: Hamiltonian (\ref{e2}) with $x=x_0=1$.
228: {\em Right:} A Poincare section of a long trajectory
229: ($0<t<1300$) that we have picked in order to get the
230: fluctuating quantity ${\cal F}(t)$.
231: The initial conditions are \mbox{$(Q_1,Q_2,P_1,P_2)=(1,0,1,2)$}
232: corresponding to $E=3$. The trajectory is quite ergodic.
233: It avoids some small quasi-integrable islands
234: (the main one is around $(0,0)$). } \\
235: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
236:
237:
238:
239:
240: Let us pick a very long ergodic trajectory
241: $(Q(t),P(t))$ that covers densely the energy
242: surface $E$. See Fig.1.
243: Let us define the fluctuating quantity
244: %
245: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e_2}
246: {\cal F}(t) \ \equiv \
247: -(\partial {\cal H}/\partial x)
248: \ = \ -Q_1^2 Q_2^2
249: \end{eqnarray}
250: %
251: For the later analysis it is important to know
252: the distribution of the variable ${\cal F}$,
253: and to characterize its temporal correlations.
254: The average value is $F = \langle {\cal F} \rangle$.
255: The angular brackets stand for microcanonical average
256: over $(Q(0),P(0))$, which should be the same as
257: time ($t$) average (due to the assumed ergodicity).
258: The auto-correlation function of ${\cal F}(t)$ is
259: %
260: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e_3}
261: C(\tau) \ \ = \ \
262: \langle \ ({\cal F}(t)-F) \ ({\cal F}(t{+}\tau)-F) \ \rangle
263: \end{eqnarray}
264: %
265: Note that $C(\tau)$ is independent of $t$, and
266: that average over $t$ should give the same result
267: as a microcanonical average over $(Q(0),P(0))$.
268:
269:
270:
271: The variance of the fluctuations
272: is $C(0) = \langle ({\cal F}-F)^2 \rangle$.
273: The correlation time will be denoted by
274: $\tau_{\tbox{cl}}$. Note that with our choice
275: of units $\tau_{\tbox{cl}} \sim 1.0$
276: within the energy range of interest.
277: The power spectrum $\tilde{C}(\omega)$
278: of the fluctuating ${\cal F}(t)$, is obtained
279: via a Fourier transform of $C(\tau)$. See Fig.2.
280: The average $F$ and the variance $C(0)$ determine
281: just the first two moments of the ${\cal F}$
282: distribution. The probability density of ${\cal F}$
283: will be denoted by $P_{\tbox{F}}({\cal F})$.
284:
285:
286:
287: All the required information for the
288: subsequent semiclassical analysis is contained
289: in the functions $C(\tau)$ and $P_{\tbox{F}}({\cal F})$
290: as defined above. All we have to do in
291: order to numerically determine them is
292: to generate one very long ergodic trajectory (see Fig.1),
293: to compute the respective ${\cal F}(t)$,
294: and from it to extract the desired information
295: (see Fig.2 and Fig.3).
296: It is convenient to express $P_{\tbox{F}}({\cal F})$
297: in terms of a scaling function as follows
298: %
299: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e_4}
300: P_{\tbox{F}}({\cal F}) \ = \ \frac{1}{\sqrt{C(0)}}
301: \hat{P}_{\tbox{cl}}\left(-\frac{{\cal F}-F}{\sqrt{C(0)}}\right)
302: \end{eqnarray}
303: %
304: By this definition the scaled distribution
305: $\hat{P}_{\tbox{cl}}(f)$ is characterized
306: by a zero average ($\langle f \rangle = 0$),
307: a unit variance ($\langle f^2 \rangle = 1$),
308: and it is properly normalized. Note that
309: $\hat{P}_{\tbox{cl}}(-f)$ rather than
310: $\hat{P}_{\tbox{cl}}(f)$ correspond
311: to $P_{\tbox{F}}({\cal F})$. This has been done
312: for later convenience.
313:
314:
315: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
316: \section{The quantized Hamiltonian}
317:
318:
319: Upon quantization we have a second
320: dimensionless parameter $\hbar$.
321: For obvious reasons we are considering
322: a de-symmetrized ($1/8$) well with Dirichlet
323: boundary conditions on the lines
324: $Q_1{=}0$ and $Q_2{=}0$ and $Q_1{=}Q_2$.
325: The matrix representation of ${\cal H}={\cal H}(Q,P;x)$
326: in the basis which is determined
327: by ${\cal H}(Q,P;0)$ is very simple.
328: The eigenstates ($n=1,2,3\cdots$) of the chaotic
329: Hamiltonian ${\cal H}_0={\cal H}(Q,P;1)$
330: has been found numerically.
331:
332:
333: The phase space volume ($dQdP$ integral)
334: which is enclosed by an energy surface
335: ${\cal H}(Q,P;x)=E$ is given by a function
336: $n=\Omega(E,x)$. It is convenient to measure
337: phase space volume in units of $(2\pi\hbar)^d$,
338: where $d=2$ is the dimensionality of our system.
339: Upon quantization the phase space volume $n$
340: corresponds to the level index ($n=1,2,3\cdots$).
341: This is known as Weyl law. It follows that
342: $g(E)=\partial_E\Omega(E,x)$ corresponds
343: to the density of states, and
344: $\Delta = 1/g(E) \propto \hbar^d $
345: is the mean level spacing.
346:
347:
348: In the following presentation we are
349: going to assume the our interest is restricted
350: to an energy window which is `classically small'
351: but `quantum mechanically large'.
352: In the numerical analysis of our model Hamiltonian
353: the energy window was $2.8<E<3.1$, where the
354: classical motion is predominantly chaotic.
355: The mean level spacing for $E\sim 3$
356: is given approximately by the formula
357: $\Delta\approx 4.3*\hbar^2$.
358: Our numerical analysis has been carried
359: out for $\hbar=0.03$ and for $\hbar=0.015$.
360: Smaller values of $\hbar$ where beyond our
361: numerical capabilities since the maximal
362: matrix that we can handle is of size $5000 \times 5000$.
363:
364:
365:
366: The representation of $Q_1^2 Q_2^2$,
367: in the basis which is determined by the chaotic
368: Hamiltonian ${\cal H}_0$, gives
369: the matrix $\mbf{B}$ of Eq.(\ref{e1}).
370: The banded matrix $\mbf{B}$ and the band profile
371: are illustrated in Fig.2.
372: The band profile is implied by the semiclassical
373: relation \cite{mario}:
374: %
375: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e_5}
376: |\mbf{B}_{nm}|^2 \ \ \approx \ \
377: \frac{\Delta}{2\pi\hbar}
378: \tilde{C}\left(\frac{E_n-E_m}{\hbar}\right)
379: \end{eqnarray}
380: %
381: As we see from Fig.2 the agreement
382: with this formula is remarkable.
383: For the bandwidth Eq.(\ref{e_5}) implies that
384: $\Delta_b=2\pi\hbar/\tau_{\tbox{cl}}$.
385: It is common to define $b=\Delta_b/\Delta$.
386:
387: \ \\
388: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
389: \epsfysize=1.65in
390: \epsffile{comega.eps}
391: \noindent \\
392: {\footnotesize {\bf FIG.2}:
393: The band profile $(2\pi\hbar/\Delta)\cdot|\mbf{B}_{nm}|^2$
394: versus $\omega = (E_n{-}E_m)/\hbar$ is compared
395: with the classical power spectrum $C(\omega)$.
396: {\em Inset}: An image of a piece of the $\mbf{B}$ matrix. } \\
397: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
398:
399:
400: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
401: \section{Definition of the LDOS profile}
402:
403:
404: The quantum-eigenstates of the Hamiltonian
405: ${\cal H}(Q,P;x)$ are $|n(x)\rangle$,
406: and the ordered eigen-energies are $E_n(x)$.
407: We are interested in the parametric kernel
408: %
409: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e3}
410: P(n|m) \ = \ |\langle n(x)|m(x_0)\rangle|^2
411: \ = \ \mbox{trace}(\rho_n\rho_m)
412: \end{eqnarray}
413: %
414: In the equation above $\rho_m(Q,P)$ and $\rho_n(Q,P)$
415: are the Wigner functions that correspond to the
416: eigenstates $|m(x_0)\rangle$ and $|n(x)\rangle$
417: respectively. The trace stands for $dQdP/(2\pi\hbar)^d$
418: integration.
419:
420:
421:
422: We can identify $P(n|m)$ as the local density of states (LDOS),
423: by regarding it as a function of $n$, where $m$ is considered
424: to be a fixed reference state. An average of $P((m+r)|m)$ over
425: several $m$-states leads to the LDOS profile $P(r)$.
426: %
427: Alternatively, fixing $n$, the vector $P(n|m)$ describes
428: the shape of the $n$-th eigenstate in the ${\cal H}_0$ representation.
429: By averaging $P(n|(n-r))$ over few eigenstates one obtains
430: the average shape of the eigenstate (ASOE).
431: The ASOE is just $P(-r)$. Thus the ASOE and the LDOS are
432: given by the same function. One would have to be more careful
433: with these definitions if ${\cal H}_0$ were
434: integrable while ${\cal H}$ non-integrable.
435:
436:
437:
438: The kernel $P(n|m)$ gives the overlap between
439: the $n$th eigenstate of ${\cal H}$ and the
440: $m$th eigenstate of ${\cal H}_0$.
441: For $\delta x=0$ we have simply $P(n|m)=\delta_{nm}$.
442: For $\delta x > 0$ the kernel develops a structure,
443: which is described by the LDOS profile $P(r)$.
444: If $\delta x$ is very small then evidently
445: $P(r)$ consists of Kronecker delta (at $r=0$)
446: and tail regions ($|r|>0$). Later we are going to
447: distinguish between first-order tail regions (FOTRs),
448: and higher order far-tail regions.
449: As $\delta x$ becomes larger a non-perturbative
450: core region appears around $r=0$.
451: Namely, the profile exhibits a bunch of states
452: (rather than one) that share most of the probability.
453: If $\delta x$ becomes even larger, the distinction between
454: core and tail regions become meaningless, and
455: the LDOS profile becomes purely non-perturbative.
456: We are going to explain that the non-perturbative
457: profile reflects the underlying classical
458: phase space structure.
459:
460:
461: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
462: \section{The classical approximation for the LDOS}
463:
464:
465: The classical approximation \cite{felix2,frc,vrn,wls}
466: for $P(n|m)$ follows naturally from the definition Eq.(\ref{e3}).
467: It is obtained if we approximate $\rho_n(Q,P)$
468: by a microcanonical distribution that
469: is supported by the energy surface
470: ${\cal H}(Q,P;x)=E_n(x)$. Namely,
471: %
472: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
473: \rho_n(Q,P) \ &=& \
474: \frac{1}{g(E)}\delta({\cal H}(Q,P;x)-E_n(x))
475: \\ \label{e_mc}
476: \ &=& \ \delta(\Omega({\cal H}(Q,P;x)) - n)
477: \end{eqnarray}
478: %
479: and a similar expression (with $x=x_0$) for
480: $\rho_m(Q,P)$. In the classical limit $n$ is
481: the phase space volume by which we label energy surfaces.
482: Each energy surface $n$ is associated
483: with a microcanonical state $\rho_n(Q,P)$.
484: The classical LDOS profile will be denoted
485: by $P_{\tbox{cl}}(r)$. The $\delta x$ regime where
486: the classical approximation $P(r) \approx P_{\tbox{cl}}(r)$
487: applies will be discussed in a later section.
488:
489:
490:
491: By definition, for $\delta x \ll \delta x_c^{\tbox{cl}}$
492: the deformed energy surfaces departs linearly
493: from the $\delta x=0$ surfaces. As already
494: stated in the Introduction, being in this classical
495: linear regime is a fixed assumption of this
496: paper. Now we want to explain the consequences
497: of this assumption. One may consider these consequences
498: as giving an operational definition for the classical
499: linear regime.
500: %
501: The dispersion (square-root of the variance) of
502: the classical profile in the classical linear regime is
503: %
504: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e_6}
505: \delta E_{\tbox{cl}} \ \ = \ \ \sqrt{C(0)} \times \delta x
506: \end{eqnarray}
507: %
508: (This should be divided by $\Delta$ if we want the
509: dispersion in proper $r$ units. See (\ref{e_7}) below).
510: For our model Hamiltonian, for energies $E \sim 3$,
511: we have found that $\delta E_{\tbox{cl}}\approx 0.38*\delta x$.
512: Eq.(\ref{e_6}) can be regarded as a special consequence
513: of the following scaling relation which we are going to derive below:
514: %
515: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e4}
516: P_{\tbox{cl}}(r) \ = \
517: \frac{\Delta}{\sqrt{C(0)}\ \delta x} \cdot
518: \hat{P}_{\tbox{cl}}\left(\frac{\Delta \cdot r}{\sqrt{C(0)}\ \delta x}\right)
519: \end{eqnarray}
520: %
521: The scaling function has already been defined
522: in Eq.(\ref{e_4}), and it is illustrated in Fig.3.
523: The classical profile $P_{\tbox{cl}}(r)$ is in general
524: non-symmetric, but it follows from Eq.(\ref{e4})
525: that it must be characterized by $\langle r \rangle = 0$.
526: [By definition the scaling function of Eq.(\ref{e_4})
527: gives zero average]. Another obvious feature
528: is having sharp cutoffs, beyond which $P_{\tbox{cl}}(r)=0$.
529: The existence of these outer `classically forbidden' regions
530: follows from the observation that for large enough $r$
531: there is no longer classical overlap between the
532: energy surfaces that correspond to $|m(x_0)\rangle$
533: and $|n(x)\rangle$ respectively.
534:
535:
536: The rest of this section is dedicated to technical
537: clarifications of Eq.(\ref{e4}), and it can be skipped
538: in first reading. The derivation is done in two steps.
539: The first step is to establish a relation
540: between $P_{\tbox{cl}}(r)$ and its trivially related
541: version $P_{\tbox{E}}(\epsilon)$. The second step is to
542: demonstrate that $P_{\tbox{E}}(\epsilon)$ is related
543: to $P_{\tbox{F}}({\cal F})$ of Eq.(\ref{e_4}).
544: It is also possible to make a one-step derivation
545: that relates $P_{\tbox{cl}}(r)$ to $P_{\tbox{F}}({\cal F})$,
546: but we find the derivation below more physically
547: appealing.
548:
549:
550: \ \\
551: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
552: \epsfysize=1.3in
553: \epsffile{profile_cl.eps} \\
554: \noindent
555: {\footnotesize {\bf FIG.3}:
556: The scaled classical profile $\hat{P}_{\tbox{cl}}()$.
557: One unit on the horizontal axis correspond to
558: energy difference $\delta E_{\tbox{cl}}\approx 0.38*\delta x$.
559: Note that $r = 0$ implies $(E_n(x){-}E_m(x_0))>0$.
560: The caustic is located at $(E_n(x){-}E_m(x_0))=0$,
561: while the anti-caustic is located at $(E_n(x){-}E_m(x_0)) = 1.65*x$.
562: The ``forbidden regions'' are defined
563: as those regions where $P_{\tbox{cl}}(r) = 0$.
564: They are located to the left of the caustic
565: and to the right of the anti-caustic. } \\
566: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
567:
568:
569: By differentiating of $n=\Omega(E,x)$,
570: keeping $n$ constant, we get the relation
571: $\delta E = - F(x) \delta x$, where
572: $F(x) = \partial_x\Omega(E,x)/g(E)$
573: is known as the (generalized) conservative force.
574: Using the latter expression it is a straightforward
575: exercise to prove that
576: $F(x) = \langle {\cal F} \rangle \equiv F$.
577: Alternatively, we can eliminate $E$ from
578: the relation $n=\Omega(E,x)$, and write the
579: result as $E=E_n(x)$. Accordingly
580: $F(x) = -(\partial E_n(x)/\partial x)$.
581: Now we can write the following relation:
582: %
583: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
584: E_n(x) - E_m(x_0) \ = \
585: \left. \frac{\partial E}{\partial x} \right|_n \delta x
586: + \left. \frac{\partial E}{\partial n} \right|_x (n-m)
587: \end{eqnarray}
588: %
589: which can be re-written in the following form
590: %
591: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e_7}
592: \epsilon \ \ = \ \
593: -F(x) \ \delta x \ \ + \ \ ({1}/{g(E)}) \ r
594: \end{eqnarray}
595: %
596: Whenever we regard the kernel $P(n|m)$ as a function
597: of $n-m$ we use the notation $P(r)$.
598: But sometimes it is convenient to regard $P(n|m)$
599: as an energy distribution $P_{\tbox{E}}(\epsilon)$.
600: Due to the change of variables (\ref{e_7}) we have
601: the following relation:
602: %
603: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e_8}
604: P(r) \ \ = \ \
605: \frac{1}{g(E)} \ P_{\tbox{E}}\left(
606: \frac{1}{g(E)} r - F(x)\delta x \right)
607: \end{eqnarray}
608: %
609: The energy distribution $P_{\tbox{E}}(\epsilon)$
610: can be formally defined as follows:
611: %
612: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e_9}
613: P_{\tbox{E}}(\epsilon) \ = \
614: \sum_n P(n|m) \ \delta(\epsilon-(E_n(x){-}E_m(x_0)))
615: \end{eqnarray}
616: %
617: In the classical limit the summation over
618: $n$ should be interpreted as a $dn$ integral.
619: For $P(n|m)$ in the above expression
620: we can substitute the definition Eq.(\ref{e3})
621: with $\rho_n$ and $\rho_m$ approximated
622: as in Eq.(\ref{e_mc}). A straightforward manipulation
623: leads to the result:
624: %
625: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
626: P_{\tbox{E}}(\epsilon) \ &=& \
627: \langle \delta(\epsilon -
628: ({\cal H}(Q,P;x)-{\cal H}(Q,P;x_0))) \rangle
629: \\ \nonumber
630: \ & = & \
631: \langle \delta(\epsilon + \delta x {\cal F}(t) ) \rangle
632: \ = \
633: \frac{1}{\delta x}
634: P_{\tbox{F}}\left(-\frac{1}{\delta x}\epsilon\right)
635: \end{eqnarray}
636: %
637: Together with (\ref{e_4}) and (\ref{e_8}),
638: we get Eq.(\ref{e4}) along with the implied
639: special result (\ref{e_6}).
640:
641:
642:
643: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
644: \section{Numerical determination of LDOS profiles}
645:
646:
647: Given $\delta x$ we can determine numerically
648: the LDOS profile $P(r)$. Representative profiles
649: are displayed in Fig.4. For the purpose
650: of further discussion we introduce the following definitions:
651: %
652: \begin{itemize}
653: \item
654: The classical LDOS profile $P_{\tbox{cl}}(r)$
655: \item
656: The quantum mechanical LDOS profile $P(r)$
657: \item
658: The effective WBRM LDOS profile $P_{\tbox{RMT}}(r)$
659: \item
660: The first-order perturbative profile $P_{\tbox{prt}}(r)$
661: \end{itemize}
662: %
663: We have already discussed the classical LDOS profile.
664: Below we explain how we numerically determine the
665: quantum mechanical LDOS profiles $P(r)$ and $P_{\tbox{RMT}}(r)$,
666: and we also define the profile $P_{\tbox{prt}}(r)$.
667:
668:
669: The numerical procedure for finding $P(r)$
670: is straightforward. For a given $\delta x$ we
671: have to diagonalize the matrix~(\ref{e1}).
672: The columns of the diagonalization matrix $\mbf{T}_{mn}$ are
673: the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian, and
674: by definition we have $P(n|m)= |\mbf{T}_{mn}|^2$.
675: Then $P(r)$ is computed by averaging over
676: roughly 300 reference states that are located
677: within the classically-small energy window $2.8<E<3.1$.
678: Fig.4 displays typical profiles.
679:
680:
681: The effective WBRM Hamiltonian is obtained by randomizing
682: the signs of the off-diagonal elements in the $\mbf{B}$ matrix.
683: For the effective WBRM Hamiltonian exactly the same
684: procedure (as for $P(r)$) is applied leading to $P_{\tbox{RMT}}(r)$.
685:
686:
687:
688:
689: In order to analyze the structure of either $P(r)$ or
690: $P_{\tbox{RMT}}(r)$ we have defined the first-order
691: perturbative profile as follows:
692: %
693: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e5}
694: P_{\tbox{prt}}(r) \ = \
695: \frac{\delta x^2 \ |\mbf{B}_{nm}|^2}{\Gamma^2 + (E_n{-}E_m)^2}
696: \end{eqnarray}
697: %
698: It is implicit in this definition that
699: $(E_n{-}E_m)$ and $|\mbf{B}_{nm}|^2$
700: should be regarded as a function of $r$.
701: The $r=0$ value of the band-profile should be
702: re-defined by an interpolation.
703: The parameter $\Gamma \equiv b_0\Delta$ is determined
704: (for a given $\delta x$) such that the $P_{\tbox{prt}}(r)$
705: has a unit normalization. Note that Wigner's Lorentzian
706: would be obtained if the band profile were flat.
707:
708:
709:
710:
711: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
712: \section{Region analysis for the quantal LDOS}
713:
714:
715: By comparing $P(r)$ to $P_{\tbox{prt}}(r)$ as in Fig.4,
716: we can determine$^\ddag$
717: the range $b_1\mbox{[left]} < r < b_1\mbox{[right]}$
718: where $P_{\tbox{prt}}(r)$ is a reasonable approximation for $P(r)$.
719: Loosely speaking (avoiding the distinction between
720: the `left' and the `right' sides of the profile) we shall say
721: that $P_{\tbox{prt}}(r)$ is a reasonable approximation for $|r| < b_1$.
722: The core is defined as the region $|r|<b_0$.
723: The FOTRs are $b_0<|r|<b_1$. The far-tail regions are $|r|>b_1$.
724:
725:
726: \ \\
727: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
728: \epsfysize=5.8in
729: \epsffile{profiles.eps} \\
730: \noindent
731: {\footnotesize {\bf FIG.4}:
732: The quantal profile $P(r)$ is compared with
733: $P_{\tbox{prt}}(r)$ and with $P_{\tbox{RMT}}(r)$.
734: We are using here the $\hbar=0.015$ output.
735: The insets are normal plots while
736: the main figures are semilog plots.
737: In the lower plot ($\delta x = 0.2123$)
738: the classical LDOS profile $P_{\tbox{cl}}(r)$
739: is represented by heavy dashed line. } \\
740: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
741:
742: \ \\
743:
744:
745: The results of this region analysis are summarized by Fig.5.
746: In the following sections we are going to present a detailed
747: discussion of this analysis.
748: For the convenience of the reader we summarize:
749: %
750: \begin{itemize}
751: \item
752: $b_0 \ = \ $ border of the core region
753: \item
754: $b_1 \ = \ $ border of the first order tail region (FOTR)
755: \end{itemize}
756: %
757: Having $b_0 \ll 1$ implies a standard perturbative
758: structure. Having $1 \ll b_0 \ll b_1$ implies that
759: we have a well developed core-tail structure.
760: Having $b_0 \sim b_1$ implies a purely
761: non-perturbative structure. In the latter case
762: the distinction between core and tail regions
763: become meaningless.
764:
765:
766:
767: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
768: \section{The standard perturbative regime}
769:
770: The standard perturbative regime
771: $\delta x \ll \delta x_c^{\tbox{qm}}$
772: is defined by the requirement $b_0(\delta x) \ll 1$.
773: This condition implies that $P(n|m) \sim \delta_{nm}$.
774: For numerical purpose it is convenient
775: to define $\delta x_c^{\tbox{qm}}$ as the
776: value of $\delta x$ for which $P(r=0) \approx 0.5$.
777: The theoretical considerations of \cite{frc}
778: imply that $\delta x_c^{\tbox{qm}} \propto \hbar^{(1{+}d)/2}$.
779: The prefactor is a classical quantity whose
780: precise value depends on the operational
781: definition of $\delta x_c^{\tbox{qm}}$.
782: With the operational definition given above
783: we have extracted the result
784: $\delta x_c^{\tbox{qm}} \approx 3.8*\hbar^{3/2}$.
785:
786:
787: In the standard perturbative regime we can write
788: schematically
789: %
790: \begin{eqnarray}
791: P(n|m) \ \ \approx \ \ \delta_{nm} + \mbox{Tail}
792: \end{eqnarray}
793: %
794: The `Tail' is composed of FOTRs and far-tail
795: regions. The former are given by Eq.(\ref{e5}),
796: while the latter are determined by higher orders
797: of perturbation theory. Note that for the {\em standard}
798: WBRM we have by construction $b_1 \equiv b$, and more generally
799: $n$-th order perturbation theory becomes essential
800: for $(n{-}1) \times b < |r| < n \times b$.
801: In case of our physical Hamiltonian, as well as
802: for the associated {\em effective} WBRM model, the
803: boundary $b_1$ is $\delta x$ dependent.
804:
805:
806: By comparing $P(r)$ with $P_{\tbox{RMT}}(r)$ we can see
807: that RMT cannot be trusted for the analysis of the far-tails,
808: because system-specific interference phenomena becomes
809: important there. Namely, the RMT profile $P_{\tbox{RMT}}(r)$
810: is almost indistinguishable from $P_{\tbox{prt}}(r)$.
811: In contrast to that, the far-tails of $P(r)$ are dominated
812: by either destructive interference (left tail),
813: or by constructive interference (right tail).
814:
815:
816:
817: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
818: \section{The core-tail regime}
819:
820: The core-tail regime
821: $\delta x_c^{\tbox{qm}} \ll \delta x \ll \delta x_{\tbox{prt}}$
822: is defined by the requirement $1 \ll b_0 \ll b_1$.
823: The theoretical considerations of \cite{frc}
824: imply that $\delta x_{\tbox{prt}} \propto \hbar$.
825: The prefactor is a classical quantity whose
826: precise value depends on the operational
827: definition of $\delta x_{\tbox{prt}}$.
828: In our numerical analysis we have defined $\delta x_{\tbox{prt}}$
829: as the $\delta x$ for which the contribution of the FOTRs
830: to the variance becomes less than $80\%$.
831: With this operational definition
832: we have extracted (using the lower subplot of Fig.5)
833: the result $\delta x_{\tbox{prt}} \approx 5.3*\hbar$.
834:
835:
836: In the core-tail regime we can write schematically
837: %
838: \begin{eqnarray}
839: P(n|m) \ \ \approx \ \ \mbox{Core} + \mbox{Tail}
840: \end{eqnarray}
841: %
842: Disregarding the far-tail regions, the large-scale
843: behavior of $P(r)$ can be approximated by that
844: of $P_{\tbox{prt}}(r)$. As in the standard
845: perturbative regime one observes that the far-tails are
846: dominated by either destructive interference (left tail),
847: or by constructive interference (right tail).
848:
849:
850:
851: The core is a non-perturbative region. It means,
852: that unlike the far-tail, it cannot be obtained
853: from any finite-order perturbation theory.
854: %
855: Once the core appears, the validity of first-order
856: perturbation theory becomes a non-trivial matter.
857: In \cite{frc} a non-rigorous argument
858: is suggested in order to support the claim
859: that, disregarding smoothing effect,
860: the local mixing of neighboring levels does not
861: affect the growth of the tail.
862: An important ingredient in this argumentation is
863: the (self consistent) assumption that
864: most of the probability is well-contained in
865: the core region. Indeed the analysis which is
866: presented in Fig.5 is in agreement with this
867: assumption.
868:
869:
870: The observation that the local mixing of
871: neighboring levels does not affect the growth
872: of the tail, implies that the tail grows
873: as $\delta x^2$ and not like say $\delta x$.
874: (The latter type of dependence is implied
875: by an over-simplified argumentation).
876: Having indeed $\delta x^2$ behavior is implied by
877: observing that $P(r) \approx P_{\tbox{prt}}(r)$
878: for the FOTRs.
879:
880:
881: Finally, it should be emphasized that the local mixing of levels on
882: the small scale $b_0$ is not reflected by Eq.(\ref{e5}).
883: In particular, one should not expect Eq.(\ref{e5})
884: to be literally valid within the core region ($|r|<b_0$).
885:
886:
887: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
888: \section{The non-perturbative regime }
889:
890: In the non-perturbative regime
891: ($\delta x \gg \delta x_{\tbox{prt}}$)
892: one may say that the core spills over the FOTRs
893: and therefore $P(n|m)$ becomes purely non-perturbative.
894: As an example for non-perturbative profile let
895: us consider the lower plot of Fig.4,
896: corresponding to $\delta x = 0.2123$.
897: We see that there is poor resemblance
898: between $P(r)$ and $P_{\tbox{prt}}(r)$.
899: The LDOS profile $P(r)$ no longer contains a predominant FOTRs.
900: This claim can be quantified using the analysis
901: in Fig.5. The lower subfigure there
902: displays the FOTR contribution to the dispersion.
903: For $\delta x > \delta x_{\tbox{prt}}$
904: the dispersion is no longer determined
905: by the FOTR contribution.
906:
907:
908: The complete disappearance of FOTRs is guaranteed
909: only for $\delta x \gg \delta x_{\tbox{prt}}$.
910: Evidently, for $\delta x \gg \delta x_{\tbox{prt}}$
911: the FOTRs must disappear, because $P(r)$ goes on expanding,
912: while $P_{\tbox{prt}}(r)$ saturates.
913: This is not captured by our numerics since
914: for $\hbar=0.015$ we cannot satisfy the strong inequality
915: $\delta x \gg \delta x_{\tbox{prt}}$, and have
916: a classically small $\delta x$ at the same time.
917:
918:
919:
920: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
921: \section{The semiclassical regime}
922:
923: Looking back at the lower plot of Fig.4,
924: we see that detailed QCC with the classical profile
925: (represented by heavy dashed line) starts to develop.
926: The right far tail contains a component where $P(r)$
927: and $P_{\tbox{cl}}(r)$ are indistinguishable.
928: This detailed QCC obviously does not hold for the RMT profile.
929:
930: Being in the non-perturbative regime does not imply
931: detailed QCC \cite{crs,frc,vrn}. Detailed QCC means
932: that $P(r)$ can be approximated by $P_{\tbox{cl}}(r)$.
933: Having $\delta x \gg \delta x_{\tbox{prt}}$ is a necessary
934: rather than sufficient condition for detailed QCC.
935:
936: A sufficient condition for detailed QCC is
937: $\delta x \gg \delta x_{\tbox{SC}}$.
938: The parametric scale $\delta x_{\tbox{SC}}$
939: is defined in \cite{frc}, and for our system we can
940: obtain the (theoretical) rough estimate
941: $\delta x_{\tbox{SC}}\approx 4*\hbar^{2/3}$.
942:
943: In our numerical study we could not make
944: $\hbar$ small enough such that
945: $\delta x_{\tbox{SC}} \ll \delta x_c^{\tbox{cl}}$.
946: Therefore, the lower profile in Fig.4
947: is neither reasonably approximated by
948: $P_{\tbox{prt}}(r)$, nor by $P_{\tbox{cl}}(r)$.
949: However, we have verified (by comparing the $\hbar=0.03$
950: output to the $\hbar=0.015$ output) that
951: detailed QCC between $P(r)$ and $P_{\tbox{cl}}(r)$
952: is easily improved by making $\hbar$ smaller.
953: Comparing $P(r)$ to $P_{\tbox{cl}}(r)$ on the one
954: hand, and $P_{\tbox{rmt}}(r)$ to $P_{\tbox{cl}}(r)$
955: on the other hand, leaves no doubt regarding the
956: manifestation of underlying classical structures.
957:
958:
959: Using a phase-space picture \cite{frc,vrn} it is evident
960: that larger $\delta x$ leads to better QCC.
961: The WBRM model does not have a classical limit,
962: and one finds a quite different scenario \cite{casati}.
963: For large enough $\delta x$ the eigenstates of
964: Eq.(\ref{e1}) become Anderson localized.
965: This localization shows up in the ASOE
966: {\em provided} the eigenstates are properly centered
967: prior to averaging. In the (non-averaged) LDOS
968: localization manifests itself as sparsity,
969: and therefore the various moments of the LDOS profile
970: are not affected. This latter remark should be kept
971: in mind while reading the next section.
972:
973:
974:
975:
976: \ \\ \ \\
977: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
978: \epsfysize=2.6in
979: \epsffile{lds_anlys.eps} \\
980: \noindent
981: {\footnotesize {\bf FIG.5}
982: The results of region analysis.
983: The common horizontal axis is $\delta x$.
984: The {\em upper subfigure} presents the $r$ boundaries
985: as a function of $\delta x$.
986: The dotted lines $\pm b_0$ define the core region ($|r|<b_0$).
987: The solid lines define the $r$ region in which $50\%$
988: of the probability is concentrate.
989: The dashed lines are $b_1\mbox{[left]}$ and $b_1\mbox{[right]}$.
990: The FOTRs are the regions where $b_0<|r|<b_1$.
991: The light solid lines and the light dashed lines
992: are for the effective WBRM model.
993: %
994: The {\em lower subfigure} displays the
995: dependence of $\delta E_{\tbox{cl}}$ and $\delta E_{\tbox{qm}}$
996: and $\delta E_{\tbox{prt}}$ on $\delta x$.
997: The quantal and the classical results
998: are almost indistinguishable, whereas $\delta E_{\tbox{prt}}$
999: approaches saturation.
1000: The contribution of the FOTRs to $\delta E_{\tbox{qm}}$
1001: is also displayed. } \\
1002: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1003:
1004:
1005:
1006:
1007:
1008: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1009: \section{Restricted QCC}
1010:
1011:
1012: It is important to distinguish between detailed QCC
1013: and restricted QCC. Let us denote the dispersion of
1014: the quantal LDOS profile by $\delta E_{\tbox{qm}}$,
1015: The corresponding classical quantity is given
1016: by Eq.(\ref{e_6}). The two types of QCC are defined
1017: as follows:
1018: %
1019: \begin{itemize}
1020: \item
1021: Detailed QCC means \ \ \ $P(r) \approx P_{\tbox{cl}}(r)$
1022: \item
1023: Restricted QCC means \ \ $\delta E_{\tbox{qm}} \approx \delta E_{\tbox{cl}}$
1024: \end{itemize}
1025: %
1026: Obviously restricted QCC is a trivial consequence
1027: of detailed QCC, but the converse is not true.
1028: It turns out that restricted QCC is much more
1029: robust than detailed QCC. In Fig.5 we see that
1030: the dispersion $\delta E_{\tbox{qm}}$ of either
1031: $P(r)$ or $P_{\tbox{RMT}}(r)$ is almost indistinguishable
1032: from $\delta E_{\tbox{cl}}$. This is quite remarkable
1033: becuase the corresponding LDOS profiles
1034: (quantal versus classical) are very different!
1035:
1036:
1037:
1038: It is important to realize that restricted QCC
1039: is implied by first order perturbation theory.
1040: If we use Eq.(\ref{e5}) and take into accound
1041: the FOTR dominace which is implied by
1042: $\delta x \ll \delta x_{\tbox{prt}}$, then we get simply
1043: %
1044: \begin{eqnarray} \label{e_pr}
1045: \delta E_{\tbox{qm}} =
1046: \sum_n P(n|m) \ (E_n{-}E_m)^2 =
1047: \delta x^2 \sum_n'|\mbf{B}_{nm}|^2
1048: \end{eqnarray}
1049: %
1050: where prime indicates omission of the $n=m$ term.
1051: Using Eq.(\ref{e_5}) one realizes that this
1052: result is in complete agreement with Eq.(\ref{e_6}).
1053: In contrast to that higher moments of the perturbative
1054: profile are vanishingly small compared with the corresponding
1055: classical result. The latter fact is just a reflection
1056: of the absence of detailed QCC.
1057:
1058:
1059:
1060: One may wonder what happens with Eq.(\ref{e_pr})
1061: if we try to do a better work, taking into account the core width,
1062: as well as higher order far-tails contributions.
1063: One may think that Eq.(\ref{e_pr}) is only
1064: the lowest order approximation, which would imply
1065: that restricted QCC should become worse as $\delta x$ grows.
1066: However, the latter speculation turns out to be wrong.
1067:
1068:
1069:
1070: We already saw that restricted QCC is implied
1071: on the one hand (for small $\delta x$)
1072: by first-order perturbation theory, and on the other
1073: hand (for large $\delta x$) by detailed QCC.
1074: Now we would like to argue that
1075: restricted QCC holds in general.
1076: It simply follows from the observation
1077: that $\delta E_{\tbox{qm}}$ is determined
1078: just by the band profile.
1079: %
1080: The prove is very simple \cite{casati}.
1081: The variance of $P(n|m)$ is determined
1082: by the first two moments of the Hamiltonian
1083: in the unperturbed basis. Namely
1084: %
1085: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
1086: \delta E_{\tbox{qm}}^2 =
1087: \langle m | {\cal H}^2 |m \rangle - \langle m| {\cal H} |m \rangle^2
1088: \\ \nonumber
1089: = \delta x^2
1090: (\langle m | \mbf{B}^2 |m \rangle - \langle m| \mbf{B} |m \rangle^2)
1091: \end{eqnarray}
1092: %
1093: Thus, we get the same result as in first order
1094: perturbation theory without invoking any special
1095: assumptions regarding the nature of the profile.
1096: Having $\delta E_{\tbox{qm}}$ that is determined
1097: only by the band profile, is the reason for detailed QCC,
1098: and is also the reason why restricted QCC is not sensitive
1099: to the RMT assumption.
1100:
1101: \ \\
1102:
1103: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1104:
1105: We thank Felix Izrailev for suggesting to study the
1106: model (\ref{e2}). We also thank ITAMP for their support.
1107:
1108: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1109:
1110: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1111: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1112:
1113: \bibitem[\dag]{note1}
1114: To be more specific, one should be aware that there
1115: is an hierarchy of challenges where the applicability
1116: of the RMT approach should be tested. Namely:
1117: The study of spectral statistics;
1118: The study of eigenstates;
1119: The study of quantum dynamics.
1120: In a previous work \cite{wbr} we have argued that
1121: the RMT approach does not generally apply to the
1122: study of wavepacket dynamics, since it leads to
1123: a contradiction with the QCC principle.
1124: On the other hand, it is well known that spectral statistics
1125: is much more robust. In most of the RMT literature
1126: (including the later works by Wigner himself),
1127: it is assumed that for the purpose of
1128: `quantum chaos' studies one can consider
1129: full (rather than banded) matrices, and
1130: the first term in Eq.(\ref{e1}) is generally neglected.
1131: In spite of these enormous simplifications,
1132: it turns out that the so-called Gaussian invariant ensembles
1133: (GOE,GUE) provide a valid description of some major
1134: spectral properties.
1135:
1136:
1137: \bibitem[\ddag]{note2}
1138: The determination of $b_1$ has been done using the following
1139: numerical procedure. We define relative error function
1140: $\mbox{RE}(r) = (P-P_{\tbox{prt}})/(P+P_{\tbox{prt}})$
1141: and then cumulative error
1142: function $\mbox{CRE}(r) = |\sum_0^r \mbox{RE}(r')|$.
1143: Note that by this definition `positive' relative error can
1144: be compensated by 'negative' relative error.
1145: As we go away from $r=0$, the function $\mbox{CRE}(r)$ fluctuates,
1146: and later shoots up. The regime $|r|<b_1$
1147: has been determined by the condition
1148: $\mbox{CRE}(r)<\mbox{Threshold}$.
1149: The threshold has been determined using adaptively procedure.
1150:
1151:
1152: \bibitem{mario}
1153: M. Feingold and A. Peres, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 34} 591, (1986).
1154: M. Feingold, D. Leitner, M. Wilkinson, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 66}, 986 (1991).
1155: M. Wilkinson, M. Feingold, D. Leitner, J. Phys. A {\bf 24}, 175 (1991).
1156: M. Feingold, A. Gioletta, F. M. Izrailev, L. Molinari, Phys. Rev. Lett.
1157: {\bf 70}, 2936 (1993).
1158:
1159: \bibitem{wigner}
1160: E. Wigner, Ann. Math {\bf 62} 548 (1955); {\bf 65} 203 (1957).
1161:
1162: \bibitem{casati}
1163: G. Casati, B.V. Chirikov, I. Guarneri, F.M. Izrailev,
1164: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 48}, R1613 (1993);
1165: \ Phys. Lett. A {\bf 223}, 430 (1996).
1166: V.V. Flambaum, A.A. Gribakina, G.F. Gribakin and M.G. Kozlov,
1167: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 50} 267 (1994).
1168:
1169: \bibitem{fyodo}
1170: Y.V. Fyodorov, O.A. Chubykalo, F.M. Izrailev and G. Casati,
1171: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 76}, 1603 (1996).
1172:
1173: \bibitem{frc}
1174: D. Cohen, Ann. Phys. {\bf 283}, 175-231 (2000).
1175:
1176: \bibitem{vrn} D. Cohen, lecture notes,
1177: {\em in} Proceedings of the International
1178: School of Physics `Enrico Fermi' Course CXLIII
1179: ``New Directions in Quantum Chaos'',
1180: Edited by G. Casati, I. Guarneri and U. Smilansky,
1181: IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2000.
1182:
1183: \bibitem{wls}
1184: D. Cohen and E.J. Heller,
1185: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 2841 (2000).
1186:
1187: \bibitem{prm}
1188: In a later work regarding "Parametric Evolution for a Deformed Cavity",
1189: (D. Cohen, A. Barnett and E.J. Heller, nlin.CD/0008040),
1190: further study of the various parametric regimes is introduced.
1191: In our present paper the emphasis is on generic features of
1192: parametric evolution, while in nlin.CD/0008040 the emphasize is
1193: on non-generic features which have been discussed in \cite{wls}.
1194:
1195: \bibitem{felix2}
1196: F. Borgonovi, I. Guarneri and F.M. Izrailev,
1197: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 57}, 5291 (1998).
1198: L. Benet, F.M. Izrailev, T.H. Seligman and A. Suarez-Moreno,
1199: chao-dyn/9912035.
1200:
1201: \bibitem{crs}
1202: D. Cohen, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}, 4951 (1999)
1203:
1204: \bibitem{wbr}
1205: D. Cohen, F.M. Izrailev and T. Kottos,
1206: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84} 2052 (2000).
1207:
1208: \end{thebibliography}
1209: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1210: \end{multicols}
1211: \end{document}
1212: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1213: