1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %
3: % Semiclassical cross section correlations
4: %
5: % B. Eckhardt, S. Fishman, I. Varga
6: %
7: % bruno.eckhardt@physik.uni-marburg.de
8: %
9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
10: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
11: %\documentstyle[aps,preprint,epsfig,pre]{revtex}
12: \documentstyle[aps,epsfig,multicol]{revtex}
13: %\documentstyle[aps,multicol%,psfig
14: %]{revtex}
15: %\documentstyle[11pt,multicol]{article}
16:
17: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
18: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
19: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
20: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
21: \newcommand{\eps}{\varepsilon}
22: \begin{document}
23: %\draft
24: %\widetext
25: \title{Semiclassical cross section correlations}
26: \author{Bruno Eckhardt$^1$, Shmuel Fishman$^2$ and Imre Varga$^{1,3}$}
27: \address{$^1$Fachbereich Physik, Philipps Universit\"at Marburg,
28: D-35032 Marburg, Germany}
29: \address{$^2$Department of Physics, Technion,
30: Haifa 32000, Israel}
31: \address{$^3$Elm\'eleti Fizika Tansz\'ek, Fizikai Int\'ezet,
32: Budapesti M\H uszaki \'es Gazdas\'agtudom\'anyi Egyetem,
33: H-1524 Budapest, Hungary}
34: \date{\today}
35: \maketitle
36:
37: \begin{abstract}
38: We calculate within a semiclassical approximation the autocorrelation
39: function of cross sections. The starting point is the
40: semiclassical expression for the diagonal matrix elements of
41: an operator. For general operators with a smooth classical limit
42: the autocorrelation function of such matrix elements has two
43: contributions with relative weights determined by classical
44: dynamics. We show how the random matrix result can be
45: obtained if the operator approaches a projector onto
46: a single initial state.
47: The expressions are verified in calculations for the
48: kicked rotor.
49: \end{abstract}
50:
51: \pacs{05.45.Mt, 31.15.Gy, 24.60-k}
52:
53: \begin{multicols}{2}
54: \section{Introduction}
55: Quantum systems whose classical limit is chaotic show fluctuations
56: in cross sections and eigenvalue positions whose statistical
57: properties seem to fall into a few universality classes
58: \cite{Haake,Bohigas,Guhr}.
59: Among the many measures that have been applied to characterize
60: these statistical features, much attention has been
61: given to two-point correlation functions since they can
62: under certain assumptions be related to the classical
63: dynamics \cite{Berry85}. For the case of spectra of bounded systems
64: this has worked remarkably well and in addition one
65: of the main predictions of the semiclassical analysis, the existence
66: of long range correlations due to periodic orbits \cite{Berry85,Wintgen85},
67: has been confirmed many times \cite{Haake,Stoeckmann}.
68:
69: More recently investigations of the statistical behaviour of
70: directly observable quantities, such as cross sections, have been
71: worked out within the nonlinear sigma model for disordered systems
72: \cite{Alhassid,Alhassid2}. The correlation function was found to have
73: two contributions, a Lorentzian and a derivative of a Lorentzian with
74: respect to its parameter. The ratio between the two terms is fixed and
75: depends on symmetry only.
76: Since there is no semiclassical expression
77: for the individual wave functions from which the
78: cross sections could be calculated, the derivation of
79: such correlation functions within semiclassics poses a
80: serious challenge. A first step in this direction
81: was undertaken by Agam \cite{Agam}, who exploits
82: quantum properties of the matrix elements and does
83: not use previously established formulas for diagonal
84: matrix elements \cite{Wilkinson,Eckh92b}. The
85: derivation presented here is similar in spirit but
86: starts from the semiclassical expression
87: for diagonal matrix elements and specializes to the case of
88: the cross section in the end. In particular,
89: we show how the relative weight between the two contributions
90: to the correlation function can be changed.
91: The final expressions are compared with data for
92: cross sections in an open kicked rotor model.
93:
94: In section 2 we present the semiclassical derivation of the
95: correlation function between cross sections.
96: This calculation is actually straightforward and closely
97: patterned after calculations for other two point
98: correlations~\cite{Berry85}.
99: In section 3 we discuss the limit that has to be
100: taken in the observable to arrive at the correlation
101: function for cross sections. In section 4 we discuss
102: numerical simulations for an open kicked rotator.
103: Some concluding comments are given in section 5.
104:
105: \section{Semiclassical correlation functions for smooth operators}
106: Quantum cross sections for the transition from an initial state
107: $|i\rangle$ to a set of final states $|n\rangle$ which are eigenstates
108: of a Hamiltonian, $H|n\rangle=E_n |n\rangle$, are proportional
109: to
110: \beq
111: \sigma(E) \propto
112: \sum_n \langle n|D|i\rangle \langle i|D |n\rangle \delta(E-H)
113: \eeq
114: where $D$ denotes the dipole operator. Using the projection
115: operator
116: \beq
117: A = D|i\rangle \langle i|D
118: \eeq
119: and Greens function $G=1/(E-H)$ the cross section becomes (dropping the
120: proportionality factors implied in (1))
121: \beq
122: \sigma_A(E) = -{1\over\pi} \mbox{Im\ tr} (G\, A) \,.
123: \eeq
124: If the operator $A$ is sufficiently smooth and has a non-singular
125: classical limit, there is a semiclassical expression for
126: $\sigma(E)$ which naturally divides into two pieces
127: \cite{Wilkinson,Eckh92b},
128: \beq
129: \sigma^{(sc)}_A(E) = \sigma_0(E) + \sigma_{A,fl}(E)\,.
130: \eeq
131: The first term,
132: a smoothly varying background contribution from paths of
133: `zero length', is determined by integration over the energy
134: shell of the Wigner transform $A_W$ of the observable with the
135: measure $d\mu = d^dp d^dq / h^d$ (in $d$-degrees of freedom),
136: \beq
137: \sigma_0(E) = \int d\mu A_W \delta(E-H) \,.
138: \label{sigma0}
139: \eeq
140: The second term describes the fluctuations around it and is
141: determined by classical periodic orbits,
142: \beq
143: \sigma_{A,fl}(E) =
144: \frac{1}{\pi\hbar}
145: \mbox{Re\ } \sum_p A_p w_p e^{iS_p/\hbar}
146: \eeq
147: where $S_p$, $T_p$ and $w_p$ are the action, period and weight of the
148: periodic orbit $p$, respectively, and
149: \beq
150: A_p = \int_0^{T_p} dt\, A_W(p(t),q(t))
151: \eeq
152: is the integral of the observable (again the Wigner transform
153: of $A$) over the periodic orbit $p$.
154: This result is derived under the condition that the observable is
155: sufficiently smooth so that it does not affect the stationary
156: phase evaluation that singles out periodic orbits.
157: Wigner transformations of projection operators are critical
158: in this respect since they typically approach delta functions
159: in momenta as $\hbar$ goes to zero, i.e. become rather
160: singular. This is the main limitation that prevents
161: a direct application of the above expression to the calculation
162: of the autocorrelation function of the cross sections.
163: We therefore adopt the following strategy: We first calculate
164: the auto-correlation function for $\sigma_A(E)$ within a semiclassical
165: approximation for a smooth observable $A$ and then discuss
166: the limit of a singular operator.
167:
168: The object we want to calculate is the normalized
169: autocorrelation function
170: of the fluctuations around the mean cross section $\sigma_0(E)$,
171: \beq
172: C(\eps) = \langle \sigma_{A,fl}(E+\eps/2) \sigma_{A,fl}(E-\eps/2) \rangle
173: /\langle \sigma_0\rangle^2\,
174: \eeq
175: where $\langle\ldots\rangle$ denotes an average over energy.
176: The energy scale is set quantum mechanically by the mean
177: spacing $\Delta$ between neighboring levels, calculated from
178: the mean density of states
179: \beq
180: \rho_0=1/\Delta = \int d\mu \delta(E-H)\,.
181: \eeq
182: The associated
183: time scale is the Heisenberg time $T_H = 2\pi\hbar \rho_0 = h/\Delta$.
184: The scale for the observable is set by the phase space
185: average of its Wigner transform,
186: \beq
187: \overline{A} = {\int d\mu A_W \delta(E-H) \over \int d\mu \delta(E-H)}
188: \eeq
189: so that $\sigma_0 = \overline{A} \rho_0 = \overline{A} / \Delta$.
190:
191: Substituting the fluctuating part from the periodic orbits gives
192: \bea
193: C(\eps) &=& \frac{\Delta^2}{2\overline{A}^2\pi^2\hbar^2} \times
194: \nonumber\cr
195: &\ &
196: \mbox{Re} \left\langle
197: \sum_{p,p'} A_p^* A_{p'} w_p^* w_{p'}
198: e^{i(S_p(E+\eps/2)-S_{p'}(E-\eps/2))/\hbar} \right\rangle\,.
199: \eea
200: The classical action in the exponent can be expanded for small $\eps$,
201: \bea
202: S_p(E+\eps/2) &-& S_{p'}(E-\eps/2) \approx \nonumber\cr
203: &\ & S_p(E)-S_{p'}(E) + \eps (T_p+T_{p'})/2 \,.
204: \eea
205: In the diagonal approximation \cite{Berry85}
206: the correlation function becomes
207: \beq
208: C_{diag}(\eps) =\frac{g\Delta^2}{2\bar{A}^2\pi^2\hbar^2} \mbox{Re}
209: \sum_{p}|A_p|^2 |w_p|^2 e^{iT_p \eps/\hbar} \,
210: \eeq
211: the factor $g$ accounts, as usual, for degeneracies in case of real
212: symmetric Hamiltonians, $g=2$, while for hermitian Hamiltonians $g=1$.
213:
214: For the next step we use the periodic orbit sum rule
215: \cite{HOdA} and follow the steps in \cite{Eckh95}.
216: The periodic orbits proliferate exponentially with time so that
217: the sum on $p$ can be replaced by an integral over time.
218: The density of orbits is given by $e^{\mu T}/T$
219: with $\mu$ the topological entropy
220: and their weight by $|w_p|^2 = e^{-\lambda T}$ with $\lambda$
221: the Lyapunov exponent. The difference between
222: the Lyapunov exponent and the topological entropy is the
223: classical escape rate,
224: \beq
225: \Gamma = \lambda - \mu \,.
226: \eeq
227: The integrals $A_p$ of the observable along the orbit vary considerably
228: among orbits of similar length. The high density of periodic orbits
229: allows to capture this probabilistically through the distribution
230: $P(A)$
231: of values obtained for all orbits with periods in a small interval
232: around $T$. If the correlations in
233: the classical dynamics fall off sufficiently rapidly,
234: the distribution will be Gaussian,
235: \beq
236: P(A) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}s_A} e^{-(A-\tilde{A})^2/s_A^2}
237: \eeq
238: with a mean $\tilde{A} = \bar{A} T$ following from ergodicity and a
239: variance $s^2_A=\alpha T$ that increases linearly with time.
240: With this distribution function and the assumption
241: that there are no correlations between
242: weights $w_p$ and observables $A_p$, the mean square average
243: of the $A_p$'s from orbits with periods near $T$
244: changes with time like
245: \beq
246: \langle |A_p|^2 \rangle (T) = \bar{A}^2 T^2 +
247: \alpha T \,.
248: \label{Asquare}
249: \eeq
250: Thus summing the contributions of orbits in the
251: diagonal approximation we obtain
252: \bea
253: C_{diag}(\eps) &=& \frac{g\Delta^2}{2\bar{A}^2\pi^2\hbar^2}\times
254: \nonumber\cr
255: &\ &
256: \mbox{Re}
257: \int_0^{T_H} dT \frac{e^{(\mu-\lambda+i\eps/\hbar) T}}{T}
258: \left( \overline{A}^2 T^2 +\alpha T\right) \,.
259: \eea
260: For bounded systems ($\mu=\lambda$) and for $\epsilon=0$ we obtain
261: the expression for the variance of matrix elements derived in
262: \cite{Eckh95} and tested and verified in many situations
263: \cite{Mehlig,Keating,Baecker}.
264: If the system is sufficiently open so that
265: $\Gamma T_H\gg 1$ the contributions from the off-diagonal terms
266: can be neglected and the integration continued to infinity (as explained
267: in the next paragraph). Then
268: \beq
269: C_{diag}(\eps) \approx
270: \frac{g\Delta^2}{2\overline{A}^2\pi^2\hbar^2} \mbox{Re\ }
271: \left(\alpha \frac{1}{\Gamma-i\eps/\hbar} +
272: \overline{A}^2 \frac{1}{(\Gamma-i\eps/\hbar)^2} \right) \,.
273: \eeq
274: With the energy and time scales mentioned
275: above, i.e. $\eps = \tilde\eps \Delta$ and
276: $\Gamma = 2\pi \tilde\Gamma / T_H = \tilde\Gamma \Delta /\hbar$,
277: the correlation function becomes
278: \beq
279: C(\eps) \approx \frac{g}{\pi}\left(
280: \frac{\alpha}{\overline{A}^2 T_H}
281: \frac{\tilde\Gamma}{\tilde\Gamma^2+\tilde\eps^2} +
282: \frac{1}{2\pi}
283: \frac{\tilde\Gamma^2-\tilde\eps^2}{(\tilde\Gamma^2+\tilde\eps^2)^2}
284: \right)
285: \,.
286: \label{final}
287: \eeq
288: As in the calculation of Fyodorov and Alhassid \cite{Alhassid}
289: the correlation function has two terms, a Lorentzian and
290: a derivative of a Lorentzian with respect to the width.
291: However, in contrast to their formula, where the relative weight between
292: the two terms was fixed, it here depends on the observable and
293: the Heisenberg time. This point will be taken up again in the next section.
294:
295: The above derivation is based on the usual assumptions on the diagonal
296: approximation, the validity of a periodic orbit sum rule and the
297: replacement of a sum over orbits by an integral in time.
298: As a consequence deviations can be expected for short times where isolated
299: periodic orbits dominate, an effect that should be particularly noticeable
300: near bifurcations. Deviations from the diagonal approximations are
301: strong for the orthogonal ensemble and absent for the unitary ensemble,
302: at least up to the Heisenberg time \cite{FK}.
303: The extension of the time integration
304: up to infinity rather than the Heisenberg time is justified if
305: the system is very open, i.e. if $\Gamma T_H\gg 1$, so that the
306: corrections due to off-diagonal terms for times beyond the Heisenberg time
307: can be neglected. When approaching bounded systems
308: $\Gamma$ vanishes and the corrections have to be taken
309: into account. The final expression is thus reasonable
310: only for sufficiently open systems where $\Gamma/\hbar\gg\Delta$.
311: In this limit the contributions from long orbits are
312: quickly suppressed and the differences between the unitary
313: and orthogonal ensembles should disappear, except of course for the
314: factor of $2$.
315: It is possible to go beyond this by assuming
316: that the form factor is the random matrix form factor times
317: an exponential damping, as suggested also by
318: Alhassid and Fyodorov \cite{Alhassid2,Dresden}.
319:
320: The derivative of the Lorentzian in the second term,
321: weighted by the mean of the operator can be traced back to the
322: autocorrelation function of the density of states (without operator)
323: as calculated earlier \cite{Eckh92}.
324: The width $\Gamma$ that enters here is the classical escape rate,
325: since that is what determines the modification of the classical
326: sum rule. The prediction then is that the quantum resonances have
327: half that width, since it is the probabilities and not the
328: amplitudes that have to follow the classical behaviour.
329: %%%%% changed
330: In many
331: cases, especially with a finite number of channels, the situation
332: presumably is more complex, since the quantum resonances have
333: a distribution of widths and it is not clear which quantity
334: (average width, maximum of distribution, longest life time
335: etc) dominates the form factor \cite{Borgonovi}.
336: %%%%% added
337: In the semiclassical limit of an infinite number of channels
338: some information can be drawn from the results of Fyodorov and
339: Sommers for random matrix models with fixed transmission \cite{Sommers} and
340: from the distribution of resonance widths calculated by
341: Haake {\it et al.} \cite{Haake2}: in both cases a single width parameter,
342: given by half the classical escape rate in the first case and
343: by half the gap in the distribution in the second case
344: suffices to describe the correlation function.
345:
346: Finally, we note that if the classical correlations do not decay sufficiently
347: rapidly the average of the square of the integrals along the orbits can be
348: expressed as an integral over the correlation function as in the previous
349: calculation of matrix elements \cite{Eckh95}.
350:
351: \section{The limit of projection operators}
352: The final result for the correlation function given in Eq.
353: (\ref{final}) has the two functional dependencies also
354: identified in Alhassid and Fyodorov \cite{Alhassid},
355: but the relative weighting depends on the observable.
356: Even worse, the first term contains $T_H$ in the denominator
357: and therefore seems to vanish in the semiclassical limit
358: where $T_H$ diverges. Then the correlation function
359: is of the form of a derivative of the Lorentzian only.
360: So how can one obtain Alhassid and Fyodorov's result
361: $\alpha/\overline{A}^2T_H=1$ within this semiclassical approach?
362:
363: The key to the problem is the observation that the
364: semiclassical approximation assumes the observable to
365: have a nonsingular classical limit whereas the quantum
366: cross sections are obtained from observables that
367: are projectors on the initial state (weighted with
368: the dipole operator). The Wigner transform of a
369: projector is itself a function of Planck's constant
370: and becomes singular in the semiclassical limit.
371: More specifically, one can visualize the Wigner
372: transform of a projector as a characteristic
373: function that in $d$ dimensions lives on a phase space cell of
374: volume $h^d$, since that is the phase space volume
375: occupied by a single state.
376: The observables for which the semiclassical trace formula
377: was derived were smooth with a non-singular limit, that is
378: to say they covered an increasing number of quantum states
379: in the semiclassical limit. This smearing over many states
380: suppresses the first term in the correlation function.
381:
382: It is possible to estimate the consequences of this observation
383: on the operator $A$ in a simple model of a uniformly
384: damped quantum map. Consider a 2-d chaotic map
385: on a finite phase space and its quantum representation by
386: an $N\times N$ unitary operator $U$. The dimension $N$
387: of $U$, Planck's constant $h$ and the volume $\Omega_0$ of
388: the classical phase space are connected by $h = \Omega_0/N$.
389: Damping is introduced uniformly everywhere in phase space
390: and on all quantum states.
391: The projector is modelled by an observable that takes on
392: the value $a_0$ in some part of phase space of area $\Omega_A$
393: and vanishes everywhere else.
394:
395: On the classical side the integrals of the observable along
396: the periodic orbit are replaced by sums over the points of the orbit.
397: If there are no correlations between different time steps,
398: the average value of the $A_p$ over all orbits with period $n$
399: is given by $\langle A_p\rangle = n a_0 p$, where $p=\Omega_A/
400: \Omega_0$ is the probability for a randomly chosen point
401: to lie in the phase space area where the observable does
402: not vanish. The second moment of the distribution is
403: given by
404: \beq
405: \langle A_p^2\rangle = a_0^2 p^2\, n^2 + a_0^2 p (1-p)\, n\,.
406: \eeq
407: By comparison with Eq.~(\ref{Asquare}) we read off
408: $\overline{A} = a_0 p$
409: and $\alpha=a_0^2 p (1-p)$. The Heisenberg time is $T_H=N$,
410: the dimension of the Hilbert space. Therefore,
411: \beq
412: {\alpha\over \overline{A}^2 T_H} = {a_0^2 p (1-p) \over a_0^2 p^2 N} =
413: {1-p \over pN}
414: \,.
415: \eeq
416: With an escape rate $\tilde\Gamma$ expressed in units of the
417: Heisenberg time the correlation function then becomes
418: \beq
419: C(\eps) =\frac{g}{\pi}
420: \left(
421: \frac{1- p}{p\, N}
422: \frac{\tilde\Gamma}{\tilde\Gamma^2+\eps^2} + \frac{1}{2\pi}
423: \frac{\tilde\Gamma^2-\eps^2}{(\tilde\Gamma^2+\eps^2)^2}
424: \right)\,.
425: \eeq
426: This expression clearly shows the suppression of the first term
427: in the semiclassical limit of large $N$ if $p$ is fixed.
428:
429: However, if the observable is a projector onto a single state
430: its Wigner transform should localize on a cell of
431: phase space volume $h$. Thus, $\Omega_A = \Omega_0/N$ and
432: $p=1/N$, so that the product $pN=1$. Except for the
433: tiny correction $1/N$ to the correct ratio of $1$
434: this is the result obtained by Alhassid and Fyodorov
435: \cite{Alhassid}.
436: In addition, it suggests a way to modify the
437: relative weighting between the two terms: consider
438: transitions not from a single state but from
439: $M$ states in an incoherent superposition, i.e.,
440: \beq
441: A = D \sum_m |m\rangle\langle m| \, D\,.
442: \label{Aproj}
443: \eeq
444: Then the phase space area covered by $A$ will increase
445: $M$-fold and the weight of the Lorentzian will
446: decrease correspondingly,
447: \beq
448: C(\eps) \approx \frac{g}{\pi}
449: \left(
450: \frac{1}{M}
451: \frac{\tilde\Gamma}{\tilde\Gamma^2+\eps^2} + \frac{1}{2\pi}
452: \frac{\tilde\Gamma^2-\eps^2}{(\tilde\Gamma^2+\eps^2)^2}
453: \right)\,.
454: \label{ceps}
455: \eeq
456: (where it is assumed that $M \ll N$).
457: The resolution to the problem of the relative weight between
458: the two terms in the correlation function posed at the
459: beginning of this section
460: thus is that by focusing on initial states which
461: are projectors the classical observable also depends on
462: $\hbar$, and this $\hbar$-dependence influences the classical
463: quantities as well. Indeed, if the classical observable becomes very
464: localized in phase space, it is rarely visited, the
465: return time becomes large and the variance increases much more
466: slowly, on a timescale also set by the return time. In this way
467: the Heisenberg time enters the classical
468: quantities.
469:
470: \section{Numerical tests on the kicked rotor}
471: The model of the previous section clearly
472: stretches the applicability of the
473: semiclassical expressions for the matrix elements
474: to their limits and requires numerical tests. We use
475: the kicked rotor in the momentum space
476: quantization of Izrailev \cite{Izraelev} for this purpose,
477: \beq
478: U_{nm}=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{l=0}^{N-1}e^{-iKN V(2\pi l/N)}
479: %\cos(2\pi l/N)}
480: e^{-2i\pi l(n-m)/N} e^{-i2\pi m^2/N} \, ,
481: \eeq
482: where \cite{Dresden} $V(\phi )= \cos\phi - \sin (2\phi)$
483: is the kicking potential. This model is known to belong to the
484: unitary universality class ($g=1$) due to the second term in the
485: potential that breaks the conjugation symmetry~\cite{BS,Maribor}.
486: If the kicking strength is sufficiently
487: large the correlations decay very quickly and one ends up with
488: essentially random values for the momenta. The calculations
489: were done for $K=7$~\cite{shepel} and matrix sizes $N=101$,
490: $201$, $401$, $801$ and $1601$.
491: The initial states were taken to be momentum eigenstates
492: of the unperturbed map. From the eigenstates $|\nu\rangle$ and
493: eigenphases $\phi_\nu$
494: a cross section was formed with the operator $A$ from
495: Eq.~(\ref{Aproj}) according to
496: \beq
497: \sigma(\phi) = \mbox{Re} \sum_\nu
498: {\langle \nu | A | \nu \rangle \over
499: 1 - \exp(i(\phi-\phi_\nu)-\Gamma/2)}\,.
500: \label{dos}
501: \eeq
502: The damping $\Gamma/2$ is uniform for all eigenstates
503: and models the coupling of the system to a continuum
504: %%%% changed
505: (for a discussion of this point see the previous section
506: and the references cited there).
507: % That all states have the same decay rate is not very
508: % realistic but helps to avoid problems due to a
509: % variability in the damping constants and may \cite{Borgonovi}.
510: %%%%%
511: The role of the energy is now taken over by the phase
512: $\phi$ and the mean and correlation function are calculated
513: over the periodicity interval $2\pi$. The mean separation
514: between eigenphases is $\Delta=2\pi/N$.
515: Figure 1 shows the correlation function obtained
516: for a different number of initial states and constant
517: damping. For a single initial state the contribution from the
518: derivative of a Lorentzian is barely noticeable but as the
519: number of initial states increases the deviations from the
520: Lorentzian become larger.
521: In particular, the correlation function develops a
522: zero for $M/2\pi>\tilde\Gamma$.
523: %%%%% this sentence is messed up:
524: Fitting Eq. (\ref{final}) with
525: the coefficient of the Lorentzian and $\tilde\Gamma$ as free
526: parameters yields a broadening $\tilde\Gamma\approx\Gamma$
527: independent of $M$
528: %%%%% and now what: AND or ?
529: and the coefficient of the Lorentzian in Eq.
530: (\ref{final}) is proportional to $M^{-1}$ as expected from
531: Eq. (\ref{ceps}).
532:
533: A random matrix calculation \cite{Maribor} shows that
534: the quantity that controls the relative weight between the two
535: terms is the ratio between the variance $s_A^2$ of the matrix elements
536: and the square of the average for different matrix sizes. This
537: quantity, $(s_A/\langle A\rangle)^2$ should equal $(1-p)/pN$.
538: As shown in Figure 2, the renormalized quantity
539: $(s_A/\langle A\rangle)^2pN$ follows the expected
540: $1-p$ behaviour rather closely, albeit with large fluctuations.
541: It thus seems that the assumptions that enter in our semiclassical
542: derivation of the correlation function can be satisfied in
543: chaotic systems.
544:
545: \section{Final remarks}
546: We have shown how within a semiclassical approximation
547: correlation functions for cross sections in open
548: systems can be calculated. The calculations could
549: be supported with simulations in the standard map
550: and in particular the changes in the relative weight
551: between the two contributions to the correlation
552: function could be demonstrated.
553:
554: Actually, the calculation works much better than
555: can reasonably be expected:
556: it is well known that the calculation of wave function
557: usually requires in addition to periodic orbits also
558: recurrent orbits \cite{Bogomolny,Huepper}. Their
559: importance depends on the width of the initial
560: state \cite{Eckh92b}. It may happen, however, that in
561: a statistical sense the differences between
562: the contributions from recurrent and periodic orbits
563: cancel. A related problem concerns the higher moments
564: of the distribution and thus the form of the full
565: distribution. Even in the singular limit of small
566: $p$ considered in the model, the distribution of
567: classical contributions remains Gaussian, or perhaps
568: Poissonian\cite{Maribor}, but the distribution for transition
569: strengths expected from random matrix theory is
570: exponential (for the unitary ensemble) or
571: Porter-Thomas (for the orthogonal ensemble).
572: Further calculations indeed show that while the first
573: and second moments agree, the higher moments and the full
574: distributions differ \cite{Maribor}.
575:
576: Among the consequences that seem worthwhile to pursue are
577: the dependence on the initial state and the possibility
578: to highlight the non-Lorenzian part, the modification to
579: allow for non-exponential classical escape \cite{Dresden,Maribor}
580: and the singular contributions from periodic orbits
581: near bifurcations~\cite{Hamburg}.
582:
583: \section*{Acknowledgments}
584: We thank O. Agam, Y. Alhassid and Y. Fyodorov for discussions.
585: This work was supported in part by the Alexander von Humboldt foundation
586: the Minerva Center for Non--linear Physics of Complex Systems and
587: by OTKA grants No. T029813, T032116 and F024135.
588:
589: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
590: % References
591: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
592: \begin{references}
593: \bibitem{Haake}F. Haake, Quantum Signatures of Chaos,
594: Springer, Berlin (1991);
595:
596: \bibitem{Bohigas}
597: O. Bohigas, Chaos and Quantum Physics, Les Houches Lecture Notes,
598: Session LII, M.J. Giannoni, A. Voros and J. Zinn-Justin (eds),
599: North Holland, Amsterdam, 1991, p. 87;
600:
601: \bibitem{Guhr} T. Guhr, A. M\"uller-Gr\"ohling, H.A. Weidenm\"uller,
602: Phys. Rep. {\bf 299}, 189 (1999).
603:
604: \bibitem{Berry85} M.V. Berry, Proc. R. Soc. (London)
605: {\bf A400}, 229 (1985).
606:
607: \bibitem{Wintgen85} D. Wintgen, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 58}, 1589 (1987).
608:
609: \bibitem{Stoeckmann} H.J. St\"ockmann, Quantum chaos: an introduction,
610: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
611:
612: \bibitem{Alhassid}Y.V. Fyodorov and Y. Alhassid,
613: Phys. Rev. {\bf A58}, R3375 (1998).
614: % Y. Alhassid and Y. Fyodorov, cond-mat/9802105 and cond-mat/9808003
615:
616: \bibitem{Alhassid2} Y. Alhassid and Y. V. Fyodorov,
617: J. Phys. Chem. {\bf 102}, 9577 (1998).
618:
619: \bibitem{Agam} O. Agam,
620: Phys. Rev. {\bf A60}, R2633 (1999); Phys. Rev. {\bf E61}, 1285 (2000).
621:
622: \bibitem{Wilkinson} M. Wilkinson,
623: J. Phys. A {\bf 20}, 2415 (1987); J. Phys. A {\bf 21}, 1173 (1988).
624:
625: \bibitem{Eckh92b} B. Eckhardt, S. Fishman, K. M\"uller and D. Wintgen,
626: Phys. Rev. {\bf A45} 3531 (1992).
627:
628: \bibitem{HOdA} L.P. Kadanoff and C. Tang,
629: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci USA {\bf 81}, 1276 (1984);
630: J.H. Hannay and A.M. Ozorio de Almeida, J. Phys. A {\bf 17}, 3429 (1984);
631: P. Cvitanovi{\'c} and B. Eckhardt, J. Phys. A {\bf 24}, L237 (1991).
632:
633: \bibitem{Eckh95} B. Eckhardt, S. Fishman, J. Keating, O. Agam, J. Main
634: and K. M\"uller, Phys. Rev. {\bf E52}, 5893 (1995).
635:
636: \bibitem{Mehlig} B. Mehlig, D. Boose and K. M\"uller,
637: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 75}, 57 (1995);
638: D. Boose, J. Main, B. Mehlig and K. M\"uller,
639: Europhys. Lett. {\bf 32} 295 (1995);
640: %
641: %\bibitem{BK96} E.B. Bogomolny and J.P. Keating,
642: %Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 77}, 1472 (1996).
643: %
644: %\bibitem{MME}
645: B. Mehlig, K. Mehlig and B. Eckhardt,
646: Phys. Rev. {\bf E59}, 5272 (1998).
647:
648: \bibitem{Keating}
649: T.O. Carvalho, J.P. Keating and J.M. Robbins,
650: J. Phys. A, {\bf 31}, 5631 (1998).
651:
652: \bibitem{Baecker}
653: A. B\"acker, R. Schubert, P. Stifter, Phys. Rev. E, {\bf 57}, 5425 (1998);
654: Erratum {\bf 58}, 5192 (1998)
655:
656: \bibitem{FK} S. Fishman and J.P. Keating,
657: J. Phys. A {\bf 31}, L313 (1998).
658:
659: \bibitem{Dresden} B. Eckhardt, P.~Pollner and I. Varga,
660: Physica E, (2000) in press
661:
662: \bibitem{Eckh92} B. Eckhardt,
663: Chaos {\bf 3}, 613 (1993).
664:
665: \bibitem{Borgonovi} F. Borgonovi, I. Guarneri, and D.L. Shepelyansky,
666: Phys. Rev. {\bf A43}, 4517 (1991).
667:
668: \bibitem{Sommers}Y.V. Fyodorov and H.-J. Sommers
669: J. Math. Phys. {\bf 38}, 1918 (1997).
670:
671: \bibitem{Haake2} Haake, F. Izrailev, N. Lehmann, D. Saher, and H.-J. Sommers
672: Z. Phys. B {\bf 88}, 359 (1992).
673:
674: \bibitem{Izraelev} F.M. Izrailev,
675: Phys. Rep. {\bf 196}, 299 (1990).
676:
677: \bibitem{BS}R. Bl\"umel and U. Smilansky,
678: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 69}, 217 (1992).
679:
680: \bibitem{Maribor} B. Eckhardt, I. Varga and P. Pollner, Prog.
681: Theor. Phys. Suppl. {\bf 139}, (2000) in press.
682: % Proc. of
683: %the 4th International Summer School and Conference ``Let's Face
684: %Chaos through Nonlinear Dynamics'', submitted.
685:
686: \bibitem{shepel}G. Casati, G. Maspero, and D.L. Shepelyansky,
687: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}, 524 (1999).
688:
689: \bibitem{Bogomolny} E.B. Bogomolny,
690: Physica(Amsterdam) {\bf 31D}, 169 (1988).
691:
692: \bibitem{Huepper} B. H\"upper and B. Eckhardt,
693: Phys. Rev. {\bf A57}, 1536 (1998).
694:
695: \bibitem{Hamburg} I. Varga, P. Pollner and B. Eckhardt,
696: Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) {\bf 8}, SI265 (1999).
697:
698: \end{references}
699:
700: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
701: % Figures
702: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
703:
704: \begin{figure}
705: \vspace{-0.3in}
706: \epsfxsize=8cm
707: \epsfbox{fig1.eps}
708: \vspace{0.5cm}
709: \narrowtext
710: \caption[]{Cross section correlation function for different widths of
711: the observable, increasing from $M=1$ (top curve) to $3$, $10$
712: and $50$ (bottom curve). The width of the resonances was uniform throughout
713: the quantum spectrum: $\Gamma=\Delta$ (see Eq. (\protect\ref{dos})).
714: The continuous curves are fits to the functional form of
715: Eq.~(\protect\ref{final}) with $\tilde\Gamma$ and the coefficient of the
716: Lorentzian as fitting parameters with the condition $C(0)=1$.
717: }\label{correl}
718: \end{figure}
719:
720:
721: \begin{figure}
722: \vspace{-0.3in}
723: \epsfxsize=8cm
724: \epsfbox{fig2.eps}
725: \vspace{0.5cm}
726: \narrowtext
727: \caption[]{
728: Ratio between variance and average squared for observables
729: of different widths. The different symbols correspond to different
730: sizes of the matrix and thus to different values of $\hbar$.
731: }\label{variance}
732: \end{figure}
733:
734:
735: \end{multicols}
736: \end{document}
737: