text:
# Torsionally excited methanol at 44.9 GHz

## 1 Introduction

Of the molecular species observed in interstellar space, methanol has by far the largest number of detected transitions, both in thermal and maser emission. Interstellar methanol masers are associated with regions of active star formation, and fall into two classes (Menten 1991a). Class I masers are normally seen apart from compact continuum sources, while Class II masers are found close to ultra-compact H ii regions. The difference between the two classes is likely due to a difference in pumping mechanism: collisional excitation produces Class I masers while radiative excitation produces Class II masers (e.g., Cragg et al. 1992). Torsionally excited interstellar methanol was first detected by Lovas et al. (1982) who observed the $`6_15_0`$ E, $`1_02_1`$ E, $`2_11_1`$ E, and $`2_01_0`$ E rotational transitions of the first torsionally excited state ($`v_t=1`$) towards the Orion Kleinmann-Low (KL) nebula. Later, other transitions between torsionally excited levels were detected by Menten et al. (1986b), with the $`10_111_2`$ A+, $`v_t=1`$ transition probably being inverted in W3(OH). Sobolev and Deguchi (1994) suggested that pumping cycles through the first two torsionally excited states may play an important role in the pumping of the brightest Class II methanol masers at 6.7 GHz and 12 GHz. Such a model is able to explain the observed brightnesses at 6.7 GHz and 12 GHz as well as the ratio of their intensities. This model predicts weak maser emission in the $`2_03_1`$ transition of the first torsionally excited state of E-type methanol at 44.9 GHz (Sobolev et al. 1997), although no obvious correlation between 44.9 GHz brightness and that of other known transitions was expected. Thus, observations of this transition may be a valuable test of the Class II methanol maser pumping model. The goal of this work is to search for $`2_03_1`$ E, $`v_t=1`$ emission towards some of the brightest known Class II masers. In addition, we reobserved this line in Orion KL, which is the only source where 44.9 GHz emission was previously detected (Saito et al. 1989).

## 2 Observations

For our observations in June and July of 2000 we used the radome-enclosed 37-m telescope at the Haystack Observatory, Westford, MA. A 35.5$``$49 GHz tunable maser amplifier receiver was used at the $`2_03_1`$ E, $`v_t=1`$ rest frequency 44955.8$`\pm `$0.05 MHz (Tsunekawa et al. 1995) with typical system noise temperature between 150 K and 400 K. The notable exception is the low declination source NGC 6334F for which the system temperature was often as high as 700 K. All system temperatures are given on a corrected antenna temperature ($`T_\mathrm{A}^{}`$) scale. The backend was an autocorrelator operating with a bandwidth of 5.93 MHz split into 8192 channels. During postprocessing, each of 32 adjacent channels were averaged and then additional Hanning smoothing was applied, yielding 128 channels with a velocity resolution of 0.309 km s-1. At 44.9 GHz, the beamwidth was 45 arcsec and the aperture efficiency was about 0.27. A corrected antenna temperature of 1 K corresponds to a flux density of 9.5 Jy. From observations of Jupiter and Venus we estimate that this calibration is accurate to about $`\pm `$30%. The observations were carried out in the beam switching mode with a switching frequency of 10 Hz. The pointing accuracy was about 12″.

## 3 Results and individual sources

Our source list contains 7 sources, 6 known bright Class II methanol masers and Orion KL, which is a Class I methanol maser. In spite of the rather high noise level we detected 44.9 GHz emission towards W3(OH) (at a level of $`9\sigma `$)111The signal to noise ratio was determined as the quotient of the integrated flux density and its uncertainty, both given in the column 5 of Table 1. and Orion KL ($`5\sigma `$). For NGC 6334 we present a marginal detection ($`3.5\sigma `$). These three spectra are shown in Fig. 1. The other four sources brought no detections. Table 1 contains observed positions and velocities as well as achieved rms noise levels for all observed sources. The table also shows results of Gaussian fitting for the three sources with detected 44.9 GHz emission features. Fitting errors are given in parenthesis.

### 3.1 Orion KL

As mentioned above, Orion KL is the only source for which a detection of the $`2_03_1`$, $`v_t=1`$ line at 44.9 GHz was previously reported (Saito et al. 1989). Our values for the linewidth and the peak flux density are in agreement with those observations within the errors of our measurement. The peak radial velocity of 6.5 km s-1 is typical for this region, e.g., emission of the hot core component (HC) peaks at velocities about $`35`$ km s-1 and emission of the methanol emission core (MEC, located about 10″ south of our observed position) peaks at $`78`$ km s-1 (Johansson et al. 1984; Menten et al. 1986b).

Wilson et al. (1989) found the peak of the $`10_19_2`$ A- methanol line emission at a velocity of about 8.0 km s-1. They attributed the narrow component in the spectrum of this line to the MEC, and a broad and weak component to the HC. It should be mentioned that the $`10_19_2`$ A- line is formed via a transition between levels with energies 140 K above the ground, which is rather low in comparison to about 300 K for the levels of the torsionally excited transition studied here. Minh et al. (1993) mapped the $`15_314_4`$ A- line emission of methanol, originating from levels at 329 K above the ground. The map shows a source of elongated shape between the HC and the MEC, and peaks at the MEC, the radial velocity of the maximum being 7.5 km s-1. The same velocity and position properties were observed for some torsionally excited lines seen towards Orion KL (Menten et al. 1986b). So, most of the $`2_03_1`$, $`v_t=1`$ emission is probably associated with the MEC. The velocity difference of about 1 km s-1 may be attributed to fitting errors because the line may have a complex non-Gaussian profile similar to that reported for other lines (Minh et al. 1993; Johansson et al. 1984), as well as to the 50 kHz uncertainty in the adopted rest frequency which corresponds to an uncertainty in velocity of about 0.33 km s-1. If the 44.9 GHz emission comes from the MEC the flux density shown in Table 1 is slightly underestimated (we would detect about 90% of the total flux) because the position of the MEC is about $`\frac{1}{4}`$ of the beamwidth away from the beam center. Cragg et al. (2001) detected the $`1_02_1`$ E, $`v_t=1`$ line at 93.1 GHz which belongs to the same $`\mathrm{J}_0(\mathrm{J}+1)_1`$ E line series as the observed 44.9 GHz transition. The peak velocity and the peak flux density were about 7.6 km s-1 and 3.5 Jy, respectively.

### 3.2 W3(OH)

Towards W3(OH) the $`2_03_1`$ E, $`v_t=1`$ line has a peak at $``$44.6 km s-1. Such a value allows us to associate this emission with the gas located in front of the ultra-compact H ii region in W3(OH) rather than with the nearby ($`7`$″apart) warmer region W3(H$\_2$O) – the cluster of water vapor masers. According to Wilson et al. (1991) the gas around W3(OH) is responsible for emission at velocities greater than $``$45 km s-1 while W3(H$\_2$O) shows a velocity of about $``$48 km s-1. The $`10_111_2`$ A+, $`v_t=1`$ and $`12_211_1`$ A-, $`v_t=1`$ lines detected by Menten et al. (1986b) peak at a velocity of $``$44.0 km s-1 which also implies an association with W3(OH). The velocity of about $``$44.6 km s-1 falls in the range covered by masers in W3(OH), though weak masers in this source usually have the strongest spike at a velocity of $``$43.2 km s-1 (e.g., Sutton et al. 2001). The observed linewidth of the 44.9 GHz line in W3(OH) is about 1.9 km s-1 while broad and probably non-maser lines in this source usually have widths 2 or 3 times larger (e.g., Slysh et al. 1995; Kalenskii et al. 1997). However, torsionally excited lines detected by Menten et al. (1986b) near $``$44.6 km s-1 are as narrow as the 44.9 GHz line in our observations. This most probably reflects the fact that lines formed by transitions between levels with high excitation energy originate from a rather compact region (for example, near the exciting source) and, hence, the velocity dispersion is small in comparison to the majority of lines with considerably lower excitation energy.

### 3.3 NGC 6334F

NGC 6334F is a marginal detection: the peak flux density is only a factor of 2 higher than the rms noise in the spectrum (see Table 1). However, Menten and Batrla (1989) detected many non-maser lines including the torsionally excited $`10_111_2`$ A+, $`v_t=1`$ line at a velocity of about $``$6 km s-1. This gives a hint that this feature can be real. The maser velocity of about $``$10.1 km s-1 is not present in our spectrum, so the line, if any, probably has a quasi-thermal origin. Towards this source Cragg et al. (2001) detected $`1_02_1`$ E, $`v_t=1`$ emission at 93.1 GHz produced by a transition from the same $`\mathrm{J}_0(\mathrm{J}+1)_1`$ E series as the 44.9 GHz line. The velocity was about $`8`$ km s-1, and the line was interpreted as quasi-thermal too.

## 4 Discussion

### 4.1 Is the 44.9 GHz emission in W3(OH) a low gain maser?

The weak 44.9 GHz line may represent either a thermal feature or a weak maser. It is possible to prove the low gain maser nature of the observed weak feature in W3(OH) by an analysis of the excitation temperature of the $`2_13_0`$ E transition of the ground torsional state at 19.9 GHz. The latter transition is important for two reasons. Firstly, rather strong maser emission was detected at 19.9 GHz towards W3(OH) (Wilson et al. 1985). Secondly, each level of the 44.9 GHz transition is connected by a strong allowed radiative transition with only one level of the 19.9 GHz transition and vice versa, while other transitions with a change of torsional quantum number are forbidden. These facts provide the basis for the following estimates.

The subsystem of the levels of the two transitions is given in Fig. 2, where arrows show allowed transitions. The levels $`2_0`$, $`3_1`$ of the first torsionally excited state and the levels $`3_0`$, $`2_1`$ of the ground torsional state are labeled a,b,c,d respectively. The formal definition of the excitation temperature corresponds to the following relation:

$$\frac{\nu _{\mathrm{ab}}}{T_{\mathrm{ex},\mathrm{ab}}}=\frac{\nu _{\mathrm{ad}}}{T_{\mathrm{ex},\mathrm{ad}}}\frac{\nu _{\mathrm{bc}}}{T_{\mathrm{ex},\mathrm{bc}}}+\frac{\nu _{\mathrm{dc}}}{T_{\mathrm{ex},\mathrm{dc}}}\text{,}$$
(1)
where $`T_{\mathrm{ex},ij}`$ is the excitation temperature of the transition between two levels, $`i`$ and $`j`$, and $`\nu _{ij}`$ is its frequency. From Fig. 2 it is obvious that

$$\nu _{\mathrm{ab}}=\nu _{\mathrm{ad}}+\nu _{\mathrm{dc}}\nu _{\mathrm{bc}}\text{.}$$
(2)
Further, we are making the important assumption that both transitions with a change of torsional quantum number, $`\mathrm{ad}`$ and $`\mathrm{bc}`$, have excitation temperatures equal to the temperature $`T_\mathrm{R}`$ of the external radiation field at the transition frequency of about $`6\times 10^{12}`$ Hz.

Methanol masers are generally assumed to be pumped by diluted emission of the hot dust (e.g., Sobolev and Deguchi 1994; Sutton et al. 2001). Hence, $`T_\mathrm{R}`$ can be derived from the dust temperature using guesses on dilution and dust opacity. The best fit model of Sutton et al. (2001) yields $`T_\mathrm{R}83`$ K while the brightness temperature at the $`\mathrm{ad}`$ frequency is 0.3 K higher than that at the $`\mathrm{bc}`$ one. In principle, such a difference helps inverting the 44.9 GHz transition (see considerations below). However, for the sake of simplicity this difference will be neglected.

The equality of excitation and radiation temperatures is expected when collisional rates for transitions between different torsional states are negligible and is confirmed by modeling (Ostrovskii, priv. comm.). So, such equality implies that for transitions $`\mathrm{ad}`$ and $`\mathrm{bc}`$ (see Fig. 2) the value of $`C/A`$ is small compared to $`B\overline{I}/A=W\tau _\mathrm{d}/(\mathrm{exp}\left(h\nu /kT_\mathrm{d}\right)1)`$ and $`C/A1`$. Here $`A`$ and $`B`$ are Einstein coefficients, $`C`$ is the collisional transition rate and $`\overline{I}`$ represents the average intensity at the transition frequency $`\nu `$. Further parameters of the dust layer responsible for pumping are the temperature $`T_\mathrm{d}`$, the dilution factor $`W`$ and the optical depth $`\tau _\mathrm{d}`$. The experiments conducted by Lees and Haque (1974) in conjunction with a hard sphere approximation yield C=$`1.3\times 10^4`$ s-1 for methanol collisions with para-H2 at a hydrogen density of $`10^6`$ cm-3 and a kinetic temperature of 100 K. The spontaneous emission rates for both transitions are about 0.2 s-1 (Mekhtiev et al. 1999), so, $`C/A6.5\times 10^4`$. Hence, for a dust temperature of 175 K, the collisions are negligible in comparison to induced transitions if $`W\tau _\mathrm{d}2.7\times 10^3`$. The best fit model of Sutton et al. (2001) has $`W\tau _\mathrm{d}=0.18`$ ($`W=0.5`$ and $`\tau _\mathrm{d}=0.36`$ at a frequency around $`6\times 10^{12}`$ Hz). Note that collisional rates for transitions with a change of torsional quantum number are believed to be considerably lower than the values obtained using a hard sphere approximation due to a large energy separation of the levels (Umanskii 1979; Massey 1979), and this increases the prevalence of induced transitions.

It follows from (1) and (2) that

$$\frac{1}{T_{\mathrm{ex},\mathrm{ab}}}=\alpha \left(\frac{1\alpha }{\alpha T_\mathrm{R}}+\frac{1}{T_{\mathrm{ex},\mathrm{dc}}}\right)\text{,}$$
(3)
where $`\alpha =\nu _{\mathrm{dc}}/\nu _{\mathrm{ab}}>0`$ – the ratio of the frequencies. The small difference in $`\mathrm{ad}`$ and $`\mathrm{bc}`$ excitation temperatures (see above) results in an additional negative term $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on the right side of (3), increasing the degree of 44.9 GHz inversion

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{\nu _{ad}}{\nu _{ab}T_\mathrm{R}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T_\mathrm{R}}{T_\mathrm{R}+\mathrm{\Delta }T_\mathrm{R}}\right)\nu _{ad}\left(1\alpha \right)\frac{d}{d\nu }\frac{1}{T_\mathrm{R}}\text{,}$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_\mathrm{R}`$ is the difference between brightness temperatures of the radiation field at $`\nu _{ad}`$ and $`\nu _{bc}`$ (see Fig. 2 for level description). When the pumping radiation corresponds to black-body the correction equals to zero because the temperature of the radiation is constant. In the considered case of diluted radiation of the optically thin dust the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is negative because $`\alpha <1`$ and the radiation temperature grows with frequency.

For the case with $`\alpha <1`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{ex},\mathrm{dc}}<0`$ the $`\mathrm{ab}`$ transition will be inverted if

$$T_\mathrm{R}<\frac{1\alpha }{\alpha }T_{\mathrm{ex},\mathrm{dc}}<0\text{.}$$
(5)
This expression is directly applicable to the case of the 44.9 GHz line in W3(OH) because $`\alpha `$ is about 0.44 and the 19.9 GHz transition is inverted. So, to show that the 44.9 GHz line is inverted in W3(OH) one can estimate the excitation temperature of the 19.9 GHz transition and compare it with the radiation temperature at frequencies around $`6\times 10^{12}`$ Hz.

The peak optical depth is determined by both the excitation temperature and the specific (divided by the line width) column density of molecules in the upper level of the considered transition. Assuming that the excitation temperature is constant throughout the source and the line profile is Gaussian, one obtains the following expression for the optical depth in the 19.9 GHz ($`\mathrm{dc}`$) line center:

$$\tau _{\mathrm{dc}}=\frac{c^3A_{\mathrm{dc}}\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}2}}{4\pi ^{3/2}\nu _{\mathrm{dc}}^3}\left(exp(\frac{h\nu _{\mathrm{dc}}}{kT_{\mathrm{ex},\mathrm{dc}}})1\right)\left(\frac{N_\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\mathrm{dc}}}\right)\text{,}$$
(6)
where $`A_{\mathrm{dc}}`$ is the spontaneous decay rate and $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\mathrm{dc}}`$ is the full line width at half maximum (FWHM) for the 19.9 GHz transition, $`N_\mathrm{d}`$ is the column density of the molecules at the level $`\mathrm{d}`$. Transformation of (6) provides us with the following dependence of the excitation temperature on $`\tau _{\mathrm{dc}}`$ and the specific column density $`\left(N_\mathrm{d}/\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\mathrm{dc}}\right)`$

$$T_{\mathrm{ex},\mathrm{dc}}=\frac{h\nu _{\mathrm{dc}}}{k}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(1\beta \left(\frac{N_\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\mathrm{dc}}}\right)^1\right)\right]^1\text{,}$$
(7)
where $`\beta `$ denotes the critical specific column density of the molecules in the transition’s upper level

$$\beta =\frac{4\pi ^{3/2}\nu _{\mathrm{dc}}^3\tau _{\mathrm{dc}}}{c^3A_{\mathrm{dc}}\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}2}}\text{.}$$
(8)
When the specific column density is equal to $`\beta `$ the case of maximum possible inversion is realized, i.e., there are no molecules in the lower level of the masing transition.

According to Wilson et al. (1985) the 19.9 GHz maser in W3(OH) amplifies the background emission by a factor of 100 at the peak velocity. At the velocity of the 44.9 GHz emission the flux density is about 5 times weaker, yielding the optical depth $`\tau _{\mathrm{dc}}3`$. Adopting the spontaneous decay rate $`A_{\mathrm{dc}}=1.66\times 10^8`$ s-1 (Mekhtiev et al. 1999) and the rest frequency $`\nu _{\mathrm{dc}}=19967.43`$ MHz (Xu and Lovas 1997), one obtains $`\beta =1.4\times 10^9`$ cm-3 s.

The dependence (7) is almost linear for $`\left(N_\mathrm{d}/\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\mathrm{dc}}\right)\beta `$ and the condition (5) becomes

$$\left(\frac{1\alpha }{\alpha }\right)\left(\frac{h\nu _{\mathrm{dc}}}{k\beta }\right)\left(\frac{N_\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\mathrm{dc}}}\right)<T_\mathrm{R}\text{.}$$
(9)
This yields $`\left(N_\mathrm{d}/\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\mathrm{dc}}\right)<9.2\times 10^{10}`$ cm-3 s for reasonable values of $`T_\mathrm{R}80`$ K. The fraction of molecules populating the $`\mathrm{d}`$ level with respect to the total number of molecules (including both A and E species of methanol under the assumption of equal abundances) is estimated to be less than $`3\times 10^3`$ (equilibrium value for a temperature of 175 K is about $`5\times 10^4`$ and the value of the best fit model of Sutton et al. (2001) is about $`1.5\times 10^4`$), giving the condition in terms of the full specific column density $`\left(N/\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\mathrm{dc}}\right)<3\times 10^{13}`$ cm-3 s. Wilson et al. (1985) report a linewidth $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\mathrm{dc}}<1`$ km s-1 for the 19.9 GHz feature at a velocity near that of the 44.9 GHz line in W3(OH). Therefore the transition at 44.9 GHz is inverted if the line at 19.9 GHz originates from a region with a methanol column density $`N<3\times 10^{18}`$ cm-2.

Published estimates of the total column density of methanol ($`N`$) in W3(OH) are well below this limit. Using the 96 GHz emission line data Kalenskii et al. (1997) estimated $`N`$ to be about $`6.7\times 10^{15}`$ cm-2. Analysis of the 25 GHz absorption line data by Menten et al. (1986a) provides $`N5.8\times 10^{16}`$ cm-2 under the assumption that all relevant excitation temperatures are equal to the estimate of the rotational temperature $`T_{rot}=73`$ K. The best fit model of Sutton et al. (2001) corresponds to $`N4\times 10^{16}`$ cm-2. So, the line detected at 44.9 GHz towards W3(OH) is likely to be a low gain maser. However, our method does not allow us to determine the value of optical depth and, hence, it cannot be used to predict 44.9 GHz line intensities on the basis of observed masers at 19.9 GHz. Further, the small difference in $`\mathrm{ad}`$ and $`\mathrm{bc}`$ excitation temperatures occurring due to the difference in the brightness temperatures at the respective transition frequencies (see above) can provide an inversion of the 44.9 GHz even in the case when the associated 19.9 GHz maser is weak or absent. The gain difference as well as the difference in brightness of amplified or pumping emission between maser spots is very influential. Hence, the 44.9 GHz emission in W3(OH) may be associated with a weaker 19.9 GHz feature while the brightest 19.9 GHz feature has no 44.9 GHz counterpart.

The estimates of the 44.9 GHz optical depth using a single line are very rough and arbitrary. However, the optical depth can be estimated from the flux ratio under assumptions that the background amplification dominates in the 44.9 GHz maser output and that the continuum and the line sources in W3(OH) have the same diameter. The value of the line flux $`F_\mathrm{l}=0.4`$ Jy is small compared to the continuum flux $`F_\mathrm{c}=3`$ Jy (Wilson et al. 1991). So, the value of the optical depth is about $`\tau F_\mathrm{l}/F_\mathrm{c}0.13`$.

### 4.2 Non-detections of masers

Except for W3(OH), no reliable emission has been detected towards other bright Class II methanol masers. The marginal detection in NGC 6334F is at a velocity near $``$6.7 km s-1, which is different from the typical maser velocity of $``$10.1 km s-1 and gives an argument in favor of its non-maser nature. It was shown that the inversion of the 44.9 GHz transition is expected, if the transition at 19.9 GHz is masing. Strong 19.9 GHz masers have been detected both in W3(OH) (Wilson et al. 1985) and NGC 6334F (Menten and Batrla 1989). However, in our spectrum there is not any hint of 44.9 GHz emission at the velocity of the 19.9 GHz maser in NGC 6334F. This can be explained by poor sensitivity of our NGC 6334F data. Other possibilities are the smaller (by absolute value) optical depth and the smaller brightness of background emission in comparison to W3(OH).

### 4.3 Application to other lines

In the case of a rather strong maser in the ground state transition the method described above can be used to predict the inversion of transitions between the levels of the first torsionally excited state with the same quantum numbers K (see Fig. 2) and close quantum numbers J ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{J}=0,\pm 1`$). Therefore, we can consider the $`1_02_1`$ E, $`v_t=1`$ transition at 93.1 GHz as $`\mathrm{ab}`$ instead of the $`2_03_1`$ E, $`v_t=1`$ transition at 44.9 GHz. In this case $`\alpha 0.21`$ and the relation (9) requires a methanol column density $`N<10^{18}`$ cm-2 on the 93.1 GHz line inversion, which is about half an order of magnitude less then that for the 44.9 GHz line. However, the estimates of the column density cited above satisfy the relation as well. Therefore, the transition at 93.1 GHz seems also to be inverted in W3(OH). As was mentioned already, the inversion of the line can not be considered as an indication of observable masers, because the actual gain and, hence, observed brightness may be arbitrary. Information on the 93.1 GHz line in W3(OH) is not published at present.

The strongest methanol masers were found in the $`5_16_0`$ A+ transition at 6.7 GHz (Menten 1991b) and the $`2_03_1`$ E transition at 12.2 GHz (Batrla et al. 1987). However, corresponding lines of the first torsionally excited state have very high frequencies (about $`10^{12}`$ Hz) and very low $`\alpha `$. So, the described method is not applicable. The situation for the bulk of known Class II maser transitions is similar, both for the A and E species of methanol.

Important exceptions, besides the $`2_13_0`$ E transition at 19.9 GHz, are the masers in the $`9_210_1`$ A+ transition at 23.1 GHz and the $`8_29_1`$ A- transition at 28.9 GHz detected by Wilson et al. (1984, 1993). Corresponding transitions in the first torsional state are $`8_19_2`$ A+ at 118 GHz, $`9_110_2`$ A+ at 69.6 GHz, $`10_111_2`$ A+ at 20.9 GHz, $`7_18_2`$ A- at 169 GHz, $`8_19_2`$ A- at 121 GHz and $`9_110_2`$ A- at 73.8 GHz. However, ground state masers at 23.1 GHz and 28.9 GHz are usually weaker than the 19.9 GHz maser and for most of the mentioned torsional transitions the value of $`\alpha `$ is smaller than that in the case of the 44.9 GHz line. So, the tendency of these torsional transitions to be inverted in the sources with maser emission at 23.1 GHz or 28.9 GHz is less pronounced.

Regarding the $`10_111_2`$ A+, $`v_t=1`$ transition at 20.9 GHz, Menten et al. (1986b) observed this transition and concluded that it is probably inverted in W3(OH). The method described here cannot be directly applied to this transition because $`\alpha `$ is greater than 1.

### 4.4 Thermal nature of 44.9 GHz emission in Orion KL

Orion KL is a Class I methanol maser source and displays no maser emission at 19.9 GHz (Wilson et al. 1985) as is common for this class of objects. We cannot draw any conclusion on 44.9 GHz inversion in this case. Menten et al. (1986b) performed a Boltzmann analysis using a rotational diagram method (Johansson et al. 1984) for a number of methanol lines observed towards Orion KL including torsional excited lines. In general, the data were consistent with the assumption of LTE, yielding a rotation temperature of 139 K and a methanol column density of about $`10^{17}`$ cm-2 under the assumption that the source size is 30″. Our observations yield the integrated flux density $`S(v)𝑑v=2.5`$ Jy km s-1 for Orion KL (see Table 1). Assuming $`A=3.78\times 10^7`$ s-1 (Mekhtiev et al. 1999) for the 44.9 GHz transition, one obtains $`\mathrm{ln}\left(N_u/g_u\right)=29.0`$, with a source size of 30″. In the latter equation $`N_u`$ is the column density of the molecule in the upper level of the 44.9 GHz transition, and $`g_u`$ is the statistical weight. The energy corresponding to the 44.9 GHz levels is about 300 K above the ground level and our data are in perfect agreement with the rotational diagram by Menten et al. (1986b). The $`1_02_1`$ E, $`v_t=1`$ line at 93.1 GHz detected by Cragg et al. (2001) belongs to the same $`\mathrm{J}_0(\mathrm{J}+1)_1`$ E line series as the observed 44.9 GHz transition and should show similar behavior. Cragg et al. (2001) find $`S(v)𝑑v=11.8`$ Jy km s-1 for Orion KL. Along with $`A=3.74\times 10^6`$ s-1 (Mekhtiev et al. 1999) and $`E_u291`$ K for the 93.1 GHz transition this gives $`\mathrm{ln}\left(N_u/g_u\right)=28.8`$ which is in agreement with the results of Menten et al. (1986b). Hence, both torsionally excited lines at 44.9 GHz and 93.1 GHz have a quasi-thermal nature in Orion KL.

## 5 Summary

We have observed the $`2_03_1`$ E, $`v_t=1`$ methanol line at 44.9 GHz towards six bright Class II methanol masers and Orion KL where this line was previously observed. We confirm (at a level of $`5\sigma `$) the previous detection and report two new detections – a reliable ($`9\sigma `$) detection in W3(OH) and a marginal ($`3.5\sigma `$) detection in NGC 6334F. We show that this line may be a low gain maser in W3(OH) and probably has a quasi-thermal nature in NGC 6334F. The line in Orion KL has a quasi-thermal nature.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank V.S. Strelnitskii, V.I. Slysh, S.V. Kalenskii, and D.M. Cragg for several valuable remarks and helpful discussions which undoubtedly improved the publication and A.B. Ostrovskii for the help with model data. We also thank an anonymous referee for helpful remarks. This project was partially supported by the NSF/REU grant AST-9820555. MAV and AMS were supported by the INTAS grant no. 97-1451. MAV was also supported by the RFBR grants no. 98-02-16916 and no. 01-02-16902 and the Radio Astronomy Research and Education Center (project no. 315).


format: text

text:
# Quantum Potential and Random Phase-Space Dynamics

## Abstract

We analyze limitations upon any kinetic theory inspired derivation of a probabilistic counterpart of the Schrödinger picture quantum dynamics. Neither dissipative nor non-dissipative stochastic phase-space processes based on the white-noise (Brownian motion) kinetics are valid candidates unless additional constraints (a suitable form of the energy conservation law) are properly incorporated in the formalism.

PACS number(s): 02.50.-r, 05.40.-a, 03.65.-w

Born’s statistical interpretation postulate in quantum theory may be viewed as a justification for seeking stochastic counterparts of the Schrödinger picture quantum dynamics, see e.g.  \-  and references there-in. The pertinent random dynamics typically has been introduced and analyzed in the configuration space of the system, in terms of Markovian diffusion-type processes which are compatible both with the time evolution of the probability density $`\rho =|\psi |^2`$ and that of the wave function phase $`S`$ in the Madelung decomposition $`\psi =\rho ^{1/2}exp(iS)`$, the sigle-valuedness condition being implicit, .

In the corresponding hydrodynamical description of the Schrödinger dynamics, we encounter two local conservation laws: the continuity equation $`_t\rho =\stackrel{}{}(\stackrel{}{v}\rho )`$ for the probability density $`\rho `$ and the Euler - type equation, controlling the space-time dependence of the current velocity $`\stackrel{}{v}(\stackrel{}{x},t)=\frac{\mathrm{}}{m}\stackrel{}{}S(\stackrel{}{x},y)`$ (a gradient of the modified Hamilton-Jacobi equation for $`S`$):

$$(_t+\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{})\stackrel{}{v}=\frac{1}{m}\stackrel{}{F}\stackrel{}{}Q_q$$
(1)
where $`Q_q=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^{1/2}}{\rho ^{1/2}}`$ is the familiar de Broglie - Bohm quantum potential, . By $`\stackrel{}{F}`$ we indicate the external force field acting upon particles which in the conservative case coincides with $`\stackrel{}{}V`$ for a suitable potential $`V(\stackrel{}{x})`$, while the non-conservative case in our further discussion will be restricted to the Lorentz force example $`\stackrel{}{F}=e(\stackrel{}{E}+\stackrel{}{v}\times \stackrel{}{B})`$ for charge $`e`$.

The de Broglie - Bohm potential $`Q_q`$ is usually interpreted to have a pure quantum origin, hence one may be tempted to lend a status of an amusing curiosity to the fact that pressure-type potentials of the very same (de Broglie -Bohm) functional form notoriously appear in the so-called moment equations (local conservation laws) associated with certain kinetic partial differential equations, like e.g. the Fokker - Planck - Kramers equation for the phase-space random transport.

Indeed, hydrodynamical conservation laws for dissipative and non-dissipative stochastic phase - space processes give rise to Euler-type and respective Hamilton-Jacobi equations where the pertinent contribution appears in the characteristic form $`\pm \stackrel{}{}\left[2d^2(t)\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^{1/2}}{\rho ^{1/2}}\right]`$, .

In particular, the free Brownian motion is known  to induce the current velocity $`\stackrel{}{v}=D\frac{\stackrel{}{}\rho }{\rho }`$ which obeys the continuity equation (that trivially yields $`_t\rho =D\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$) and the local momentum conservation law

$$(_t+\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{})\stackrel{}{v}=2D^2\stackrel{}{}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^{1/2}}{\rho ^{1/2}}$$
(2)
where $`D`$ is the diffusion constant (set formally $`D\mathrm{}/2m`$ for comparison with Eq. (1)). Notice the negative sign on the right-hand-side of that equation, to be compared with the corresponding quantum mechanical law.

This deceivingly minor sign issue locates the standard Brownian motion in the framework of so-called Euclidean quantum mechanics , and stays behind the ”Brownian recoil principle” idea of Refs. , which was a proposed recipe to circumvent the breakdown of microscopic momentum and energy conservation laws (a typical though not much disputed feature of the Brownian motion).

Inspired by the recent paper  let us consider those issues from a broader kinetic theory perspective. We investigate circumstances (including various constraints) under which the classical phase-space kinetics can approximate and eventually may become transformed into a stochastic counterpart of the Schrödinger picture quantum dynamics.

To this end we need to analyze phase-space probability densities $`f(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{u},t)`$ whose dynamics is governed by the kinetic equation of the form

$$\left(_t+\stackrel{}{u}\stackrel{}{}_\stackrel{}{x}+\frac{1}{m}\stackrel{}{F}\stackrel{}{}_\stackrel{}{u}\right)f=C(f)$$
(3)
where $`m`$ is a mass parameter, and the term $`C(f)`$, in analogy with the standard kinetic theory reasoning , is a substitute for the so-called collision integral and encompasses all details about the environment (surrounding medium) action and reaction upon the propagated particle.

Evaluation of moment equations (local conservation laws) associated with the kinetic equation (3) relies on the concrete choice of $`C(f)`$ and especially on the microscopically conserved quantities. In particular, the mass (probability) conservation directly follows from $`C(f)d^3u=0`$. The system total momentum is known to be conserved in the force-free case, only if $`\stackrel{}{u}C(f)d^3u=\stackrel{}{0}`$.

To elucidate the particular role of those ”collision invariants” let us consider specific substitutes for the collision integral, which impose limitations on the number of respected microscopic conservation rules.

Case 1: $`C(f)d^3u=0`$ only

Let us consider the standard Brownian motion in external conservative force fields, . We know a priori that the external noise intensity is determined by a parameter $`q=D\beta ^2`$ where $`D=\frac{kT}{m\beta }`$, while the friction parameter $`\beta `$ is given by the Stokes formula $`m\beta =6\pi \eta a`$. Consequently, the effect of the surrounding medium on the motion of the particle is described by two parameters: friction constant $`\beta `$ and bath temperature $`T`$. Assumptions about the asymptotic (equilibrium) Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution and the fluid reaction upon the moving particle are here implicit.

The resulting (Markov) phase - space diffusion process is completely determined by the transition probability density $`P(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{u},t|\stackrel{}{x}_0,\stackrel{}{u}_0,t_0)`$, which is typically expected to be a fundamental solution of the Kramers equation, so that an initially given phase-space distribution $`f(\stackrel{}{x}_0,\stackrel{}{u}_0,t_0)`$ is propagated according to:

$$\left(_t+\stackrel{}{u}\stackrel{}{}_\stackrel{}{x}+\frac{\stackrel{}{F}}{m}\stackrel{}{}_\stackrel{}{u}\right)f=C(f)=\left(q_\stackrel{}{u}^2+\beta \stackrel{}{u}\stackrel{}{}_\stackrel{}{u}\right)f$$
(4)
First of all let us notice that in the present case $`C(f)d^3u=0`$, while $`\stackrel{}{u}C(f)d^3u\stackrel{}{0}`$.

Accordingly, the continuity equation holds true for the marginal (spatial) probability density $`\rho =fd^3u`$ while $`\frac{1}{\rho }\stackrel{}{u}C(f)d^3u=\beta \stackrel{}{v}(\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ where $`\stackrel{}{v}\frac{1}{\rho }\stackrel{}{u}fd^3u`$. That has a devastating effect on the form of the corresponding moment equation.

The large friction (Smoluchowski) regime of the above phase-space random dynamics is a classic . In fact, by following the traditional pattern of the hydrodynamical formalism, , we easily infer the closed system of two (which is special to Markovian diffusions !) local conservation laws for the Smoluchowski process taking place in the configuration space, :

$`_t\rho +\stackrel{}{}\left(\stackrel{}{v}\rho \right)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (5)
$`(_t+\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{})\stackrel{}{v}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }Q\right)`$ (6)
where $`\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{v}(\stackrel{}{x},t)=\frac{\stackrel{}{F}}{m\beta }D\frac{\stackrel{}{}\rho }{\rho }`$ defines the so-called current velocity of Brownian particles and, when inserted to the continuity equation allows to obtain the Fokker-Planck equation, . Here, the volume force (notice the positive sign) $`+\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ instead of $`\stackrel{}{}V`$ as should have been to comply with Eq. (1), reads:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{F}}{m\beta }\right)^2+D\stackrel{}{}\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{F}}{m\beta }\right)$$
(7)
while the pressure-type contribution $`\stackrel{}{}Q`$ explicitly involves,  (see also )

$$Q=2D^2\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^{1/2}}{\rho ^{1/2}}$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\stackrel{}{}^2`$ is the Laplace operator.

Eq. (6) plays the role of the local momentum conservation law in the formalism. Let us however recall that $`\stackrel{}{u}`$ was not a microscopic ”collision invariant” of the system. This fact, when combined with the large friction regime, enforces a marked difference in the local momentum conservation law in comparison with the standard Euler equation for a nonviscous fluid or gas:

$$(_t+\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{})\stackrel{}{v}=\frac{\stackrel{}{F}}{m}\frac{\stackrel{}{}P}{\rho }$$
(9)
where $`P(\stackrel{}{x})`$ stands for the pressure function (to be fixed by a suitable equation of state) and $`\stackrel{}{F}`$ is the very same (conservative $`\stackrel{}{}V`$) force acting upon particles as that appearing in the Kramers equation (3).

To have a glimpse of a dramatic difference between physical messages conveyed respectively by equations (6) and (9), it is enough to insert in (9) the standard equation of state $`P(\stackrel{}{x})=\alpha \rho ^\beta `$ with $`\alpha ,\beta >0`$ and choose $`\stackrel{}{F}=\omega ^2\stackrel{}{x}`$ to represent the harmonic attraction in Eqs. (2) - (9), see also .

Comment 1: In view of the breakdown of microscopic momentum and energy conservation laws in the considered dissipative Brownian framework, one needs supplementary procedures that would compensate those failures on the level of local conservation laws. Markovian diffusion processes with the inverted sign of $`\stackrel{}{}(\mathrm{\Omega }Q)`$ in the local momentum conservation law (6) i. e. respecting

$`(_t+\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{})\stackrel{}{v}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{}\left(Q\mathrm{\Omega }\right)`$ (10)
instead of Eq. (6), were considered in Ref.  as implementations of the ”third Newton law in the mean” and could have been related to the Schrödinger-type dynamics according to:

$$i_t\psi =D\mathrm{\Delta }\psi +\frac{1}{2mD}\mathrm{\Omega }\psi ,$$
(11)
see e.g. Refs. . Nonetheless, also under those premises, the volume force term $`\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in Eq. (11) does not in general coincide with the externally acting conservative force contribution (e.g. acceleration) $`\frac{1}{m}\stackrel{}{F}=\frac{1}{m}\stackrel{}{}V`$ akin to Eqs. (9) or (1).

Comment 2: Effects of external force fields acting upon particles are significantly distorted while passing to the local conservation laws in the large friction (Smoluchowski) regime. That becomes even more conspicuous in case of the Brownian motion of a charged particle in the constant magnetic field. In the Smoluchowski (large friction) regime, friction completely smoothes out any rotational (due to the Lorentz force) features of the process. In the corresponding local momentum conservation law there is no volume force contribution at all and merely the ”pressure-type” potential $`Q`$ appears in a rescaled form, :

$$Q=\frac{\beta ^2}{\beta ^2+\omega _c^2}2D^2\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^{1/2}}{\rho ^{1/2}}$$
(12)
where $`\beta `$ is the (large) friction parameter and $`\omega _c=\frac{eB}{m}`$ is the rotational frequency of the charge $`q_e`$ particle in a constant homogeneous magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}=(0,0,B)`$. Clearly, for moderate frequency values $`\omega _c`$ (hence the magnetic field intensity) and sufficiently large $`\beta `$ even this minor scaling remnant of the original Lorentz force would effectively disappear, yielding the free Brownian dynamics (2).

The last observation should be compared with results of Refs.  where frictionless stochastic processes were invoked to analyze situations present in magnetospheric environments. Specifically, one deals there with charged particles in a locally uniform magnetic field which experience stochastic electrical forcing. In the absence of friction, the rotational Lorentz force input should clearly survive when passing to the local conservation laws, in plain contrast with the Smoluchowski regime. By disregarding friction it is also possible to reproduce exactly the conservative external force acting upon particles in the local conservation laws, as originally suggested by .

Case 2: $`C(f)d^3u=0`$ and $`\stackrel{}{u}C(f)d^3u=\stackrel{}{0}`$

Let us consider the frictionless phase - space dynamics in some detail. Clearly, that corresponds to dropping the frictional ($`\beta `$-dependent) contribution in the right-hand-side of Eq. (4). We immediately realize that the previous obstacle pertaining to the ”collision invariant” $`\stackrel{}{u}`$ disappears. Indeed, now $`\stackrel{}{u}C(f)d^3u=\stackrel{}{0}`$.

Let us discuss the non-dissipative random dynamics in two phase-space dimensions instead of six. The motion is governed by a transition density $`P(x,u,t|x_0,u_0,t_0)`$ which uniquely defines the corresponding time homogeneous phase-space Markovian diffusion process. Here, the function $`P`$ is the fundamental solution of the Fokker-Planck equation:

$$\frac{P}{t}=u\frac{P}{x}+q\frac{^2P}{u^2}$$
(13)
in the form first given by Kolmogorov :

$$P\left(x,u,t|x_0,u_0,t_0=0\right)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{\sqrt{12}}{2qt^2}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\left(uu_0\right)^2}{4qt}\frac{3\left(xx_0\frac{u+u_0}{2}t\right)^2}{qt^3}\right].$$
(14)
Here $`q`$ stands for the noise intensity parameter which may take an arbitrary non-negative value (in contrast to the dissipative case where fluctuation-dissipation relations set a connection of $`q`$ with $`\beta `$ and $`T`$).

We are interested in passing to a hydrodynamical picture, following the traditional recipes . To this end we need to propagate certain initial probability density and investigate effects of the random dynamics. Let us choose most obvious (call it natural) example of:

$$f_0(x,u)=\left(\frac{1}{2\pi a^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\left(xx_{ini}\right)^2}{2a^2}\right)\left(\frac{1}{2\pi b^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\left(uu_{ini}\right)^2}{2b^2}\right).$$
(15)
so that at time $`t`$ we have $`f(x,u,t)=P\left(x,u,t|x_0,u_0,t_0=0\right)f_0(x_0,u_0)𝑑x_0𝑑u_0`$.

Since $`P(x,u,t|x_0,u_0,t_0)`$ is the fundamental solution of the Kramers equation, the joint density $`f(x,u,t)`$ is also the solution and can be written in the familiar, , form of

$$W(R,S)=\left(\frac{1}{4\pi ^2\left(egh^2\right)}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{gR^22hRS+eS^2}{2\left(egh^2\right)}\right]$$
(16)
for $`f(x,u,t)=W(R,S)`$. However, in the present case functional entries are adopted to the frictionless motion and read as follows:

$$S=uu_{ini}$$

$$R=xx_{ini}u_{ini}t$$

$$e=a^2+b^2t^2+\frac{2}{3}qt^3$$

$$g=b^2+2qt$$
(17)
$$h=b^2t+qt^2.$$

The marginals $`\rho (x,t)=f(x,u,t)𝑑u`$ and $`\rho (u,t)=f(x,u,t)𝑑x`$ are

$$\rho (x,t)=\left(\frac{1}{2\pi f}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{R^2}{2f}\right)=\left(\frac{1}{2\pi \left(a^2+b^2t^2+\frac{2}{3}qt^3\right)}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\left(xx_{ini}u_{ini}t\right)^2}{2\left(a^2+b^2t^2+\frac{2}{3}qt^3\right)}\right)$$
(18)
and

$$\rho (u,t)=\left(\frac{1}{2\pi g}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{S^2}{2g}\right)=\left(\frac{1}{2\pi \left(b^2+2qt\right)}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\left(uu_{ini}\right)^2}{2\left(b^2+2qt\right)}\right)$$
(19)
Let us introduce an auxiliary (reduced) distribution

$$\stackrel{~}{W}\left(S|R\right)=\frac{W(S,R)}{W(S,R)𝑑S}=\left(\frac{1}{2\pi \left(g\frac{h^2}{e}\right)}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\left|S\frac{h}{e}R\right|^2}{2\left(g\frac{h^2}{e}\right)}\right)$$
(20)
where in the denominator we recognize the marginal spatial distribution $`W(S,R)𝑑S=\rho `$.

Following the standard hydrodynamical picture method  we define local (configuration space conditioned) moments: $`u_x=u\stackrel{~}{W}𝑑u`$ and $`u^2_x=u^2\stackrel{~}{W}𝑑u`$. From (20) it follows that

$$u_x=u_{ini}+\frac{h}{e}R=u_{ini}+\frac{b^2t+qt^2}{a^2+b^2t^2+\frac{2}{3}qt^3}\left[xx_{ini}u_{ini}t\right]$$
(21)
$$u^2_xu_x^2=\left(g\frac{h^2}{e}\right)=\frac{qt^3\left(2b^2+qt\right)+3a^2\left(b^2+2qt\right)}{3a^2+t^2\left(3b^2+2qt\right)}$$
(22)
The continuity ($`0`$-th moment) and the momentum conservation (first moment) equations come out in the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}\left(u_x\rho \right)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (23)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\left(u_x\rho \right)+{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}\left(u^2_x\rho \right)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (24)
These equations yield the local momentum conservation law in the form (set $`v(x,t)<u>_x`$:

$$\left(\frac{}{t}+u_x\frac{}{x}\right)u_x=\frac{1}{w}\frac{P_{kin}}{x}$$
(25)
where we encounter the standard  textbook notion of the pressure function

$$P_{kin}(x,t)=\left[u^2_xu_x^2\right]w(x,t).$$
(26)
The marginal density $`\rho `$ obeys $`\frac{\rho }{\rho }=2e\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^{1/2}}{\rho ^{1/2}}\right]`$ and that in turn implies

$$\frac{1}{w}\frac{P_{kin}}{x}=2\left(egh^2\right)\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^{1/2}}{\rho ^{1/2}}\right].$$
(27)
As a consequence, the local conservation law takes the form (we ultimately set $`<u>_xv`$):

$$\left(\frac{}{t}+v\right)v=\frac{P_{kin}}{\rho }=+2\left(egh^2\right)\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^{1/2}}{\rho ^{1/2}}\right]+Q$$
(28)
where (we point out the plus sign in the above, see e.g. Eq. (10))

$$egh^2=a^2b^2+2a^2qt+\frac{2}{3}b^2qt^3+\frac{1}{3}q^2t^4D^2(t)$$
(29)
and by adopting the notation $`D^2(t)egh^2`$ we get $`\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{P_{kin}}{x}=+\stackrel{}{}Q`$ with the functional form of $`Q(\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ given by Eq. (8). Here, instead of a diffusion constant $`D`$ we insert the (positive) time -dependent function $`D(t)`$.

With those notational adjustments, we recognize in Eq. (28) a consistent Euler form of the local momentum conservation law, in case of vanishing volume forces (c.f. Eqs. (6), (8), (10) for comparison).

A carefully executed, tedious calculation allows to demonstrate, , that an analogous result holds true in case of a harmonic attraction and for a nonconservative example of the Lorentz force in action. Both volume forces appear undistorted (that was not the case in the large friction regime) in the corresponding local momentum conservation laws. Indeed, we recover a universal relationship:

$$\left[_t+\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{}\right]\stackrel{}{v}=\frac{\stackrel{}{F}}{m}+2d^2(t)\stackrel{}{}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^{1/2}}{\rho ^{1/2}}\right]$$
(30)
where $`\stackrel{}{F}`$ denotes external force acting on the particle, and $`d=\left(detC\right)^{\frac{1}{n}}`$ where $`C`$ is the covariance matrix of random variables (vectors) $`\stackrel{}{S}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{R}`$ (defined for each system) and $`n`$ stands for the dimension of configuration space of an appropriate system.

1. free particle: $`\stackrel{}{R}=x`$, $`F0`$, $`n=1`$
2. charged particle in a constant magnetic field: $`\stackrel{}{R}=(x,y)`$, $`\stackrel{}{F}=e\stackrel{}{u}_\stackrel{}{x}\times \stackrel{}{B}`$, $`n=2`$
3. harmonically bound particle: $`\stackrel{}{R}=x`$, $`F=m\omega ^2x`$, $`n=1`$

In case of harmonic and magnetic confinement, we need to have identified parameter range regimes that allow for a positivity of the time dependent coefficient $`d(t)D(t)`$ (in the force-free case it is positive with no reservations), in the pressure-type contribution acquiring a characteristic form of $`\frac{\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{P}}{w}=+\stackrel{}{}Q`$. Indeed, only by means of a proper balance between $`q`$ and $`\omega _c`$ we can achieve a positivity of the coefficient $`d^2`$ in case of the charged particle in a magnetic field:

$$d^2(t)=egh^2k^2=$$
(31)
$$a^2b^2\frac{8q^2}{\omega _c^4}+\frac{4b^2qt}{\omega _c^2}+\frac{4q^2t^2}{\omega _c^2}+2a^2qt+\frac{8q^2}{\omega _c^4}\mathrm{cos}(t\omega _c)\frac{4b^2q}{\omega _c^3}\mathrm{sin}(t\omega _c).$$

The time-dependent coefficient for the frictionless harmonic attraction reads:

$$d^2(t)=egh^2=$$
(32)
$$\frac{q^2+2b^2qt\omega ^2+2q^2t^2\omega ^2+2a^2b^2\omega ^4+2a^2qt\omega ^4+q^2\mathrm{cos}(2t\omega )+q\omega \left(b^2+a^2\omega ^2\right)\mathrm{sin}(2t\omega )}{2\omega ^4}$$

and a proper balance between $`q`$ and $`\omega `$ needs to be maintained again to secure a positivity of $`d^2(t)`$.

In Ref.  we have investigated the above expressions in the low noise intensity regime and for rather short duration times of the pertinent stochastic processes. That was motivated by the major conceptual input of  that undamped random flights in external force fields may have physical relevance when dissipative time scales are much longer than the time duration of processes of interest, including the particle life-time. Under those premises, we can view the noise intensity parameter $`q`$ as a book-keeping label and investigate leading terms in all expressions encompassing small $`q`$/short time$`t`$ effects in the hitherto considered random dynamics. In particular, it is obvious that by neglecting all $`q`$-dependent terms we readily arrive at the leading term: $`d^2(t)a^2b^2D^2`$. After adopting this notation, Eq. (31) acquires a conspicuous quantum mechanical form in the leading order of $`q`$-dependent series expansion.

To elucidate the previous observation, let us explicitly associate the $`q1`$ local momentum conservation law with that known to be appropriate for quantum harmonic oscillator.

We impose the following condition on the dispersion parameters $`a=\sqrt{x^2x^2}`$ and $`b=\sqrt{v^2v^2}`$ of initial distributions $`\rho _0\left(x\right)`$ and $`\rho _0\left(v\right)`$ respectively

$$d^2(0)=a^2b^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{2m}\right)^2.$$
(33)
This condition is obviously equivalent to imposing a priori the Heisenberg uncertainty relation $`a\left(mb\right)=\sqrt{x^2x^2}\sqrt{mv^2mv^2}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}`$. Upon an additional demand $`b^2=a^2\omega ^2`$ which is an identity for the choice of $`b^2=\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2m}`$, $`a^2=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2m\omega }`$, we recover

$$\rho (x,t)=\left(\frac{m\omega }{\mathrm{}\pi }\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{m\omega }{\mathrm{}}\left(xx_{ini}\mathrm{cos}\omega t\right)^2\right)$$
(34)
which directly corresponds to the quantum evolution of the coherent state of the harmonic oscillator.

Let us point out that the Planck constant entered the formalism through an additional assumption about an initial form (widths) of the phase-space probability density, see Eq. (33).

To conclude, we have demonstrated that neither large friction nor frictionless cases may be regarded as valid probabilistic phase-space motion ancestors for a consistent stochastic counterpart of the quantum Schrödinger picture dynamics.

The formal reason for those failures is rooted in violations of the microscopic conservation laws as expressed through the non-vanishing ”collision integrals”. However, the frictionless case appears to be sufficiently close (at least in the small $`q`$ and short duration time $`t`$ regime) to the quantum dynamics in its hydrodynamical description. Large friction dynamics, even if augmented by the concept of the ”Brownian recoil principle”, , is incapable of reproducing correctly the external force effects in the local momentum conservation laws

An interesting point, worth further exploration, is that in the frictional case one only ”collision invariant” has been respected, while in case of the frictionless dynamics, two basic ”collision invariants” were in usage. It is rather obvious that in case of the Brownian motion inspired kinetics, the ”collision integral” $`\stackrel{}{u}^2C(f)d^3u`$ is non-vanishing. Therefore, any kinetic framework exploiting $`\stackrel{}{u}^2`$ or its analog (cf. ) as a microscopically conserved quantity (that is the case in Ref. , albeit this restriction is not used at all in major derivations) must definitely depart form the ”plain” white noise scenario. The usage of additional constraints that are capable of compensating violations of the microscopic energy conservation law, is unavoidable.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

At present, the majority of studies on the Quantum-Classical Corresponcence (QCC) of chaotic systems concern bounded motion, for which very important results have been obtained . Most works also treat the situation when chaos is fully developed. Here we would like to contribute to the understanding of the QCC for open systems with mixed chaotic motion, in particular we consider particle motion in two-dimensional (2D) billiards whose phase space is characterized by incomplete (Smale) horse-shoes. As is well known, 2D billiards are popular models of ballistic mesoscopic systems  and microwave cavities .

Usually and naturally, QCC is explored by means of semiclassical calculations . Unfortunatelly, this approach poses limitations since semiclassical quantities involve the cumbersome determination of the action associated with the trajectories and sums which often do not converge. However, as Baranger and co-workers  have found through their semiclassical calculations of conductance, the dominant contributions to the average quantum conductance are classical. This motivates us to construct purely classical counterparts of the Scattering Probability (SP) matrix $`S_{n,m}^2`$ and Husimi distributions for 2D open billiards. In a previous paper  we showed that knowledge of the classical counterpart of the SP matrix enables us to predict the global structure of the quantum SP matrix. Here we further our study, specializing to the case of mixed chaotic motion, by: 1) analyzing in more detail the type of trajectories responsible for the formation of certain structures in the classical and quantum SP matrices; 2) comparing Husimi distributions with classical phase space structures; and 3) identifying certain purely quantum effects in the behaviour of the conductance.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section II we review the definition of the SP matrix and the construction of its classical counterpart. In Section III the 2D waveguide model is presented, as well as its resulting quantum and classical SP matrices for a large number of modes. Section IV concerns the dynamical analysis of the classical SP matrix, the existence of whispering gallery orbits, and the structure that these create in the classical SP matrix. Some aspects of the QCC are studied in Section V in terms of Husimi distributions and their classical counterparts, the Transient Poincarè Maps. The appearance of purely quantum effects in our system is analyzed in Section VI and in Sect. VII we make some concluding remarks.

## 2 Quantum and Classical SP matrices

Quantum SP matrix

Quantum scattering is studied via the $`S`$ matrix, $`\widehat{𝐒}`$, which relates incoming to outgoing waves,

$$V^{out}=\widehat{𝐒}V^{in},$$
(1)
where the $`V^{in}`$ and $`V^{out}`$ vectors specify, respectively, waves coming into and going out of the interaction region. In the case of a 2D waveguide of arbitrary shape connected to two leads, say, left (L) and right (R) leads, the wavefunction in the leads are of the form

$`\mathrm{\Psi }^L(x,y)={\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{M_L}{}}}\left[a_m^L\mathrm{exp}(ik_m^Lx)+b_m^L\mathrm{exp}(ik_m^Lx)\right]\varphi _m^L(y)`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }^R(x,y)={\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{M_R}{}}}\left[a_m^R\mathrm{exp}(ik_m^Rx)+b_m^R\mathrm{exp}(ik_m^Rx)\right]\varphi _m^R(y)`$ (2)
where

$$\varphi _m^{L,R}(y)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{d_{L,R}}}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{m\pi y}{d_{L,R}}\right)$$
(3)
is the part of the wavefunction associated with the motion perpendicular to the direction of propagation; $`d_L`$ ($`d_R`$) is the constant width of the left (right) lead, and $`M_L`$ ($`M_R`$) is the total number of propagating modes supported by the left (right) lead at a given Fermi energy $`E`$. For the rest of the paper we shall consider $`d_L=d_R=d`$, and hence $`M_L=M_R=M`$.

Note that with this notation the $`S`$ matrix and the incoming and outgoing wave vectors take the form

$`\widehat{𝐒}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}t\hfill & r^{}\hfill \\ r\hfill & t^{}\hfill \end{array}\right),V^{in}=\left(\begin{array}{c}a^L\hfill \\ b^R\hfill \end{array}\right),V^{out}=\left(\begin{array}{c}a^R\hfill \\ b^L\hfill \end{array}\right),`$ (10)
where $`t`$ ,$`t^{}`$, $`r`$, and $`r^{}`$ are the transmission and reflection $`M\times M`$ matrices. $`M`$ is the highest mode (the largest $`m`$ beyond which the longitudinal wave vector $`k_m^{L,R}=\sqrt{\frac{2E}{\mathrm{}^2}\frac{m^2\pi ^2}{d_{L,R}^2}}`$ becomes complex). The symbols $`a^{L,R}`$ and $`b^{L,R}`$ stand for the vectors $`a_m^{L,R}`$ and $`b_m^{L,R}`$, $`m=1`$, $`2\mathrm{}M`$. The elements of the transmission ($`t`$ and $`t^{}`$) and reflection ($`r`$ and $`r^{}`$) matrices are the transmission and reflection amplitudes given, respectively, by $`t_{mn}(E)=(\sqrt{k_n/k_m})a_n^R/a_m^L`$, $`t_{mn}^{}(E)=(\sqrt{k_n/k_m})b_n^L/b_m^R`$, $`r_{mn}(E)=(\sqrt{k_n/k_m})b_n^L/a_m^L`$, and $`r_{mn}^{}(E)=(\sqrt{k_n/k_m})a_n^R/b_m^R`$. The squared modulo element $`t_{n,m}^2`$ ($`t_{n,m}^{}^2`$) gives the probability amplitude for a left (right)-incoming mode $`m`$ to be transmitted to the right (left) lead into the mode $`n`$. Similarly, $`r_{n,m}^2`$ ($`r_{n,m}^{}^2`$) is the probability for a left (right)-incoming mode $`m`$ to be reflected to the left (right) lead into mode $`n`$.

The Scattering Probability (SP) matrix is defined by the $`2M`$ by $`2M`$ matrix $`S_{n,m}^2`$, representing the transition probability for the incoming mode $`m`$ to transmit or reflect into an outgoing mode $`n`$.

Classical SP matrix

Given the expression for the energy in the leads

$$E=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_e}\left(k_m^2+\frac{m^2\pi ^2}{d^2}\right),$$
(11)
where $`k_m`$ and $`\frac{m\pi }{d}`$ are, respectively, the longitudinal and transversal components of the total wave vector K with magnitude $`K=\sqrt{2m_eE}/\mathrm{}`$, the angle $`\theta _m`$ between $`k_m`$ and $`K`$ is given by

$`\theta _m=\mathrm{sin}^1\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m\pi }{d}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{K}}\right]=\mathrm{sin}^1\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m\pi \mathrm{}}{d\sqrt{2m_eE}}}\right].`$ (12)
Classically a particle can enter the lead at any angle in the continuous range $`\frac{\pi }{2}<\theta <\frac{\pi }{2}`$, but since the $`M`$ open modes for a given energy $`E`$ are discrete, we associate a range of angles $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _m\theta _m\theta _{m1}`$ to each mode $`m`$. That is, we coarse-grain the classical angles. Clearly the classical limit is $`M=\mathrm{}`$.

We now explain the procedure to construct the purely classical counterpart of $`S_{n,m}^2`$. Consider a classical particle entering the cavity of the waveguide, say, from the left lead and making an angle $`\theta _i`$ within a range corresponding to a given mode $`m`$. The particle (ray) will generally collide with the walls of the cavity of the waveguide a few times before exiting the cavity either to the left or to the right lead, making a certain angle $`\theta _f`$ to which we can associate a mode $`n`$ if $`\theta _f\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _n`$. To specify the initial conditions for the trajectory of the i-th particle, the initial position $`(x_i,y_i)`$ and the initial angle $`\theta _i`$ must be given. In order to account for all possible types of trajectories, we take a large number (typically $`10^5`$) of initial positions for each incoming angle $`\theta _i`$. By recording the number of particles scattered into the various ranges of $`\theta `$ associated with different outgoing modes $`n`$, we obtain a distribution of outgoing modes for each incoming mode $`m`$. This distribution gives the classical counterpart of the matrix elements $`t_{n,m}^2`$ and $`r_{n,m}^2`$ of the quantum SP matrix. Similarly, to obtain the classical counterpart of $`t_{n,m}^{}^2`$ and $`r_{n,m}^{}^2`$ we repeat the above process but for particles entering from the right lead. This defines the procedure for constructing the classical SP matrix.

## 3 The System

We chose the geometry of the cavity of the waveguide to be that of the “rippled” billiard, which consists of two hard walls: a rippled wall modulated by a periodic function $`y(x)=d+a\xi (x)`$ \[$`\xi (x+L)=\xi (x)`$\], and a flat wall at $`y=0`$; $`d`$ is the width of the waveguide and $`a`$ the modulation parameter. For concretenes, the periodic function in this paper is given by $`\xi (x)=1\mathrm{cos}(2\pi x/L)`$. To form the waveguide, we attach two semi-infinite collinear leads of width $`d`$ to a cavity whose length is an integer multiple of the period $`L`$. Fig. 1 shows the geometry for a two-period rippled cavity.

This finite length version of the rippled billiard, a model of a quantum or electromagnetic waveguide, has been used to study certain transport manifestations of chaos in the classical  and quantum  regimes. Moreover, studies of the infinitely long (periodic with no leads) rippled billiard, originally introduced to model beam acceleration problems , has also provided insight in the understanding of general features of periodic structures (e. g., energy band structure, structure of eigenfunctions, etc.) and has been utilized to explore the problem of quantum-classical correspondence of classically chaotic systems .

Before analyzing our scattering system (cavity connected to leads) it is instructive to look at the dynamics of the infinitely long periodic (i.e., $`x`$ mod. $`L`$) billiard. A Poincarè Map (PM) of the system supplies us with the dynamical panorama. We choose the Poincarè Surface of Section (PSS) as the bottom boundary, $`y=0`$ and the PM is generated by the iteration of the Birkhoff pair of variables $`(x_j,\theta _j)`$, labeling the longitudinal component of the position and the angle the total momentum of the particle makes with the $`x`$-axis right after its $`j^{th}`$ collision with the bottom wall. Previous studies  have shown that the motion can be either regular, mixed, or fully chaotic depending on the relationship between the geometrical parameters $`(d,a,L)`$. A representative picture of a mixed phase space (obtained with the set of parameters $`(d,a,L)=(1,0.305,5.55)`$) is shown in Fig. 2.

In this work, we analyze the waveguide system defined by a cavity formed by a single period of the rippled billiard \[with the same values $`(d,a,L)`$ used in Fig. 2\] attached to two aligned semi-infinite leads each of width $`d`$. The period one and period four resonance island structure of Fig. 2 is formed by trapped orbits within the region $`0<x<L`$. In particular the central resonance is formed by trajectories colliding nearly perpendicular with the walls in the neighbourhood of $`x=L/2`$, the widest part of the cavity. Since the left (right) lead is attached to the cavity at $`x=0`$ ($`x=L`$), such island structure is also present in the waveguide system. Note that the orbits forming these islands are classically not accesible to scattering trajectories.

In Figures 3 and 4 we present, respectively, the quantum and classical SP matrix for the one-period waveguide with $`M=200`$ open channels. The quantum SP matrix was calculated by the recursive Green’s function method , and the classical SP matrix by the procedure described above with $`10^3`$ ensambles (each characterized by a different $`\theta _i`$) of $`10^5`$ different initial conditions. Note the rich structure present mainly in the transmission part ($`t_{n,m}^2`$ and $`t_{n,m}^{}^2`$) of the SP matrix. We note that $`t=t^{}`$ and $`r=r^{}`$, as expected from the symmetry of the system.

The similarity between quantum and classical SP matrices is remarkable in the case of a large number of modes (here $`M=200`$), suggesting that the motion belongs to the deep semiclassical regime. Nevertheles, we have also seen a resemblance between the quantum and classical SP matrices even for a number of modes as low as 10. Hence the calculation of the classical SP matrix as a tool for prediction becomes relevant in quantum regimes.

## 4 Dynamical analysis of the classical SPM

First we focus on the transmission part of the classical SP matrix which is presented in Fig. 5, this time as a function of angles. The first clear and interesting structure to analyze is in the region $`0.345\theta 0.48`$, for which an enlargement is made in Fig 6. The existence of Whispering Gallery Orbits (WGO) is well known in cavities with concave walls. These are guided orbits along the inner surface of such cavities, see e.g. . Note that our cavity has a concave part in $`L/4<x<3L/4`$. In recent works, it has been shown that WGOs produce self-similar structures . Here we can see that a self-similar structure also shows up in the SPM, in particular in the transmission part of the classical SPM (Fig. 6).

We find that the structure of Fig. 6 is formed by trajectories that hit only on the concave part of the upper boundary before being transmitted: the outer part of the structure ($`\theta >0.465`$) is due to trajectories that hit it only once; the second generation ($`\theta [0.41,0.465]`$) is due to trajectories that hit it twice, the next generation ($`\theta [0.39,0.41]`$) to trajectories that hit the boundary three times, and so on. The point of convergence of the self-similar structure (not shown in Fig. 5 due to numerical lack of resolution) is $`\theta =0.3325`$, the angle at the inflection point of the profile ($`x=L/4`$). A particle that would hit the upper boundary at $`x=L/4`$ with $`\theta _i=0.3325`$ would hit the concave part of the billiard an infinite number of times before leaving it at an angle $`\theta _f=0.3325`$. In Fig. 7 whispering gallery trajectories selected from different generations of the structure of Fig. 6 are shown.

Similarly, we can discover the types of particle motion that produce the various structures in the transmission part of the classical SP matrix. Fig. 8 shows typical trajectories that contribute to the zones marked in Fig. 5. All these orbits are very stable: small variations of the initial conditions $`(x_i,y_i,\theta _i)`$ follow closely the same trajectory, with the same number of collisions with the upper and lower boundaries and with very similar final angles $`\theta _f`$. Noting that the marix elements $`S_{n,m}^2`$ gives a measure of the number of trajectories connecting a pair of angles $`\theta _i\theta _f`$, then for every high intensity structure in the classical SP matrix there corresponds a boundle of stable trajectories. Moreover, since all the high intensity structures present in the classical SP matrix are also present in its quantum counterpart we can expect the stable orbits of the underlying classical motion to play the dominant role in determining quantum transport properties.

## 5 Transient Poincarè Map (TPM)

A complementary tool to analyze a waveguide system is the Transient Poincarè Map (TPM) which has the same meaning as the Poincarè Map (PM) but now taken for the scattering system in the range of interaction. The TPM (with surface of section at $`y=0`$) is presented in Fig. 9. Fig. 9a shows the part of the TPM generated by trajectories whose initial conditions start in the left lead only and Fig. 9b shows the contribution of trajectories starting from both, right and left leads. Comparison of Fig. 9b with Fig. 2 shows, as expected, that the stability regions present in the PM for the infinite billiard become forbidden phase space regions in the TPM.

Now we can ask about the location in the TPM of the whispering gallery orbits (WGO). For this purpose we construct the TPM choosing now as surface of section the top boundary because, as explained in Sect. IV, the WGOs are guided orbits along the concave part of the boundary. The upper TPM is constructed by the pairs $`(x_j,\theta _j^{})`$ corresponding, respectively, to the longitudinal component of the position and the angle made by the total momentum with the tangent of the boundary at $`x_j`$, right after the $`j^{th}`$ collision with the upper wall. The location of the WGO in the TPM is shown (highlighted) in Fig. 10, where the numbers label the number of collisions the particles make with the upper boundary. A structure of this type in phace space formed by WGOs has been reported in . We see that this pattern evolves from top to bottom; the higher the number of collisions with the upper wall, the closer the angle $`\theta ^{}`$ is to zero. In the limit $`\theta ^{}=0`$, a particle will collide an infinite number of times along the concave part of the boundary.

A popular tool used to explore quantum-classical correspondence in billiards is the Husimi distribution ; it is the projection of a given quantum state onto a coherent state of minimum uncertainty. The Husimi distribution can be viewed as a quantum phase space probability density that can be directly compared with the classical phase space. See  for details of the calculation of the Husimi distributions for the infinetly periodic rippled billiard. Here, for our waveguide system we calculate the Husimi distributions for each one of the $`m`$ opened modes at certain Fermi energy and compare them with the TPM generated solely by trajectories starting with the corresponding $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _m`$. Then, using a Fermi energy that supports 20 modes we present in Figures 11a-11d the TPM’s generated by particles entering from the left lead with angles corresponding to the $`2^{nd}`$, $`5^{th}`$, $`10^{th}`$, and $`20^{th}`$ mode, together with the corresponding Husimi distributions. Note that Husimi distributions coincide with the regions of phase space with the largest density of points. This agreement suggests that the TPM can be a used to predict, at last qualitatively, the Husimi distributions.

## 6 Purely Quantum Features

Recently, Ketzmerick and co-workers  obtained important results concerning the transport properties of waveguides which classically produce fully chaotic or mixed dynamics. Specifically, they showed that the behavior of the Landauer conductance $`G`$ (given by $`\frac{2e}{\mathrm{}^2}_n_mt_{n,m}^2`$, where $`t_{n,m}`$ are the transmission elements of the $`S`$ matrix) and the Wigner delay time can clearly distinguish between full and mixed chaos. See also . In our geometry, this distinction is exemplified in Fig. 12 where we contrast the dimensionless conductance $`G`$, in a range of energy that supports $`20`$ modes, for the cases of mixed (Fig. 12a) and globally chaotic dynamics (Fig. 12b). For the mixed case we used the same geometrical parameters as before \[$`(d,a,L)=(1,0.305,5.55)`$\] and for the globally chaotic case we use $`(d,a,L)=(1,0.305,2.77)`$. The difference is clear: while for mixed dynamics the conductance $`G`$ fluctuates strongly with sharp resonances, for global chaos it is a smooth function of energy. These wild fluctuations in the mixed chaos case are due to the existence of resonance and hierarchical states, as argued in .

So far we have seen that the similarity between the classical SP matrix and its quantum counterpart enabled us to understand various quantum features in terms of purely classical dynamics (see also ). We have also seen a nice agreement between the TPM and its quantum counterpart, the Husimi distributions. The energies for which such a good agreement occurs were chosen at random. However, if we select now an energy value corresponding to a sharp dip or peak in the conductance (mixed case) we find substancial differences between the classical and quantum quantities. As an example, in Fig. 13 we plot the same modes as in Fig. 11 but with an energy corresponding to a typical dip in the conductance, see inset of Fig. 12. Note that in contrast with Fig. 11 the Husimis lie predominantly on classically forbidden regions of phase space. In particular, for this energy they have their support on the four-period resonance. The culprit of this phenomenom is Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle that allows the wavefunction to tunnel through the KAM barriers.

It is also instructive to look at the wavefunctions in configuration space for the non-resonant and resonant cases, see Fig. 14. The plots on the left (right) of this figure correspond to the non-resonant (resonant) case. The non-resonant (resonant) energy is the same as that used in Fig. 11 (Fig. 13) for modes 2, 5 and 20. These plots reveal a striking difference. In the resonant case we notice a “bow-tie” pattern which shadows the classical trajectory of a particle in a four-period periodic orbit, corresponding to the four islands in the TPM. As mentioned above, the phase space region of the period four islands is not accessible to classical particle incoming from the right or left leads; only trajectories originated in the interior of the cavity can be trapped and form this pattern. It is precisely this bow-tie pattern that has been exploited experimentally in  for the construction of high gain microlasers with directional emission with closed resonators of high refractive index. We see that such a pattern can be obtained also for open cavities because quantum mechanically the wavefunction, due to Heisenberg’s uncertainty, can penetrate into the classically forbidben areas. Thus, as we have proposed in , directional emission microlasers may also be constructed with open cavities. We have also computed “classical wavefunctions” for these type of cavities, constructed basically in the same way as the TPM with a box-counting method to mimic intensity in configuration space . The classical wavefuntions that we obtained look very much like the truly quantum wave functions for the non-resonant case except for interference patterns. Of course, the classical wavefunctions do not reproduce the resonance structure as this is a purely quantum effect.

## 7 Concluding Remarks

The objective of this work has been to contribute to the understanding of the classical-quantum correspondence as regards scattering in open billiards which serve as models of mesoscopic electron waveguides as well as microwave cavities. Here we make a comparative analysis betweeen the Scattering Probability (SP) matrix and the Husimi distributions with their classical counterparts, namely the classical SP matrix and the Transient Poincarè Maps (TPM), respectively. As a paradigm of open billiards, we use a model of a ballistic 2D waveguide formed by a rippled cavity attached to two colinear leads. The classical particle motion in such cavity is known to undergo the generic (Hamiltonian) transition to chaos . For the purpose of this work, the parameters of the cavity were chosen to produce mixed chaos (a ternary incomplete horshoe ).

We find a very good global similarity between classical and quantum SP matrices and, as expected, this similarity is greater as the number of open modes in the quantum system increases. However, even for a moderate number of modes ($`1020`$) the similarity between classical and quantum SP matrices allows to extract important information about general as well as individual features of the quantum system. In particular, all high intensity patterns in the classical SP matrix, found to be produced by bundles of stable trajectories, appear also in the quantum SP matrix. Hence, knowledge of the structure of the classical SP matrix allows us to predict which incoming modes contribute dominantly to transmission or reflection in the quantum system . We have also shown that certain self-similar structure in the transmission part of the classical SP matrix is due to Whispering Gallery Orbits (WGO).

On the other hand, important differences are revealed for energy values corresponding to sharp peaks or dips in the conductance. For these resonance energies, the wavefunctions tunnel (thanks to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle) into forbidden classical phase space regions (resonance islands), associated with stable periodic orbits within the cavity.

Similarly, the Husimi distributions and the TPM show an excellent agreement in the case of non-resonant energies. The agreement suggests the usefulness of the TPM as a tool to predict the support of Husimi distributions for each open mode in the system. Also, we have seen for a certain resonant energy, where substantial differences between TPM and Husimi distributions occur, the wavefunctions of the system form a bow-tie pattern. We have exploited this phenomenom to propose the construction of microlaser resonators in open cavities .

Acknowledgementes: The authors thank B. Huckestein for the calculation of the $`S`$ matrix used to construct Fig. 3. JAMB wishes to thank the University Hradec Kralove and the Institute of Physics, Czech Academy of Sciences for they kind hospitality. We wish to acknowledge financial support from CONACyT (Mexico) grant No. 26163-E, and from project II-63G01, VIEP, BUAP.

FIGURE CAPTIONS

Fig. 1 Geometry of the waveguide for a two-period rippled cavity. $`\xi (x)=1\mathrm{cos}(2\pi x/L)`$.

Fig. 2 Poincarè Map for $`(d,a,L)=(1,0.305,5.55)`$. The Poincarè Surface of Section is located at $`y=0`$.

Fig. 3 Quantum SPM, $`|S_{n,m}|^2`$, for the one-period waveguide with $`(d,a,L)=(1,0.305,5.55)`$, and $`M=200`$.

Fig. 4 Classical SPM, $`|S_{n,m}|^2`$, for the one-period waveguide with $`(d,a,L)=(1,0.305,5.55)`$, and $`M=200`$.

Fig. 5 Transmission part of the classical SPM, $`|t_{n,m}|^2`$ as a function of angles.

Fig. 6 Enlargement of the transmission part of the CSM for $`0.345\theta 0.48`$.

Fig. 7 Trajectories that contribute to the first six generations of the structure of Fig. 6 (from only one kick on the top boundary to six kicks before leaving the concave part of that boundary).

Fig. 8 Typical trajectories that contribute to the zones marked in Fig. 5.

Fig. 9 (a) Transient Poincarè Map (TPM) generated by particles entering to the cavity of the waveguide from the left lead. (b) TPM generated by particles from both leads. In both cases the Poincarè Surface of Section is located at $`y=0`$.

Fig. 10 Transient Poincarè Map with Poincarè Surface of Section at the top boundary and the location (highlighted) of the WGO that contribute to the structure of Fig. 6.

Fig. 11 Fraction of the Transient Poincarè Map with Poincarè Surface of Section at $`y=0`$ for particles from the left lead (black dots) and the correspondig Husimi distribution (gray-white) for the (a) $`2^{nd}`$, (b) $`5^{th}`$, (c) $`10^{th}`$, and (d) $`20^{th}`$.

Fig. 12 Dimensionless conductance G for the range of energy that supports $`20`$ modes for the (a) mixed case, $`(d,a,L)=(1,0.305,5.55)`$; and (b) chaotic case, $`(d,a,L)=(1,0.305,2.77)`$. The one-period waveguide is used.

Fig. 13 Fraction of the Transient Poincarè Map with Poincarè Surface of Section at $`y=0`$ for particles from the left lead (black dots) and the correspondig Husimi distribution (gray-white) for the (a) $`2^{nd}`$, (b) $`5^{th}`$, (c) $`10^{th}`$, and (d) $`20^{th}`$; the resonant energy of the inset of Fig. 12 is used.

Fig. 14 Wavefuntions for the modes (a) $`2^{nd}`$, (b) $`5^{th}`$, and $`20^{th}`$ for a non-resonant (left column) and the resonant energy of the inset of Fig. 12 (right column).


text:
# Cosmic Shear and Power Spectrum Normalization with the Hubble Space Telescope

## 1. Introduction

Weak gravitational lensing by large-scale structure has been shown to be a valuable method of measuring mass fluctuations in the universe (see Mellier at al. 2001 for a review). This effect has been detected both from the ground (Wittman et al. 2000; van Waerbeke et al. 2000, 2001; Bacon et al. 2000, 2002; Kaiser et al. 2000; Hoekstra et al. 2002) and from space (Rhodes, Refregier, & Groth 2001, RRGII; Hämmerle et al. 2001). These results bode well for the prospect of measuring cosmological parameters and the mass distribution of the universe using weak lensing.

In this letter, we present the highest significance detection of cosmic shear using space-based images. It is based on images from the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) Medium Deep Survey (MDS; Ratnatunga et al. 1999). We apply the methods for the correction of systematic effects and detection of shear we have previously developed (Rhodes, Refregier, and Groth 2000; RRGI) to 271 WFPC2 fields in the MDS. The method of RRGI is specifically adapted to HST images and takes advantage of the small PSF of the HST (0.1” as compared to $``$0.8” from the ground). This affords us a higher surface density of resolved galaxies as well as a diminished sensitivity to PSF smearing when compared to ground-based measurements. We develop an optimal depth-weighted average of selected MDS fields to extract a weak lensing signal. We then use this signal to derive constraints on the amplitude of the mass power spectrum and compare this to measurements from previous cosmic shear surveys and from other methods.

## 2. Data

The MDS consists of primary and parallel observations taken with the Wide Field Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2) on HST. We selected only the I-band images in chips 2,3, and 4 to study weak lensing. To ensure random lines-of-sight, we discarded fields which were pointed at galaxy clusters, leaving us with 468 I-band fields. To ensure that our fields are independent, we selected 291 fields separated by at least 10’, beyond which scale the lensing signal drops considerably (see Figure 2).

We used the MDS object catalogs (Ratnatunga et al. 1999) to determine the position, magnitude, and area of each object, as well as to separate galaxies from stars. We used the chip-specific backgrounds listed in the MDS skysig files, which are consistent with backgrounds calculated using the IRAF task imarith. Not using object-specific backgrounds necessitated the discarding of another 20 fields with a large sky gradient. Our final catalog thus consisted of 271 WFPC2 fields amounting to an area of about 0.36 deg2.

## 3. Procedure

The procedure we used for measuring galaxy ellipticities and shear from the source images is described in detail in RRGI (1999) (see also RRGII and Rhodes 1999). It is based on the method introduced by Kaiser, Squires, and Broadhurst (1995), but modified and tested for applications to HST images. The usefulness of our method was demonstrated by our detection of cosmic shear in the HST Groth Strip (RRGII).

We correct for camera distortion and convolution by the anisotropic PSF using gaussian-weighted moments. Camera distortions were corrected using a map derived from stellar astrometric shifts (Holtzman, et al., 1995). PSF corrections were determined from HST observations of four stellar fields These fields were chosen to span the focus range of the HST as shown by Biretta et al. (2000). Finally, we derive the ellipticities $`ϵ_i`$ of the galaxies and convert them into shear estimates using $`\gamma _i=G^1ϵ_i`$, where $`G`$ is the shear susceptibility factor given by equation (30) in RRGI.

To limit the impact of noise and systematics, we made a number of cuts to select our galaxy sample. We first discarded objects for which $`ϵ>4`$ after deconvolution. To avoid using galaxies with low signal-to-noise, we included only galaxies that have a magnitude $`I<(I_m^{}+2)`$, where $`I_m^{}`$ is the median magnitude (before the cut) of the field and chip in which the galaxy lies. This is consistent with the magnitude cut we made in RRGII. We also discarded small galaxies (size $`d<1.5`$ pixels) in order to minimize the effects of the anisotropic PSF on our measurements (see RRGI). The final galaxy sample contained about $`3.1\times 10^4`$ galaxies. The distribution of the median magnitude $`I_m`$ (after the cuts) of our fields is shown in Figure 1, which reveals a wide range of depth for the MDS.

For the magnitude range of the MDS ($`19<I<27`$), we use spectroscopic redshift determinations from the DEEP survey (DEEP Collaboration, 1999) and the Hubble Deep Fields (Lanzetta et al. 1996) to determine that the median redshift $`z_m`$ in a field is related to the median magnitude $`I_m`$ by the equation

$$z_m0.722+0.149\times (I_m22.0)$$
(1)
This agrees well with an extrapolation of the CFRS redshift distribution (Lilly et al. 1995) we used to determine the median redshift of objects in the Groth Strip (RRGII). Both methods give $`z_m=0.9\pm 0.1`$ for the Groth Strip ($`I_m=23.6`$), where the error gives a measure of the $`1\sigma `$ systematic uncertainty in the above relation.

## 4. Estimator for the Shear Variance

We wish to derive a measure of the shear variance on different angular scales by averaging over the $`N_c=3`$ chips in each of the $`N_f=271`$ fields. As explained in §3, the fields have varying depths but are are sufficiently far apart to be statistically independent. As in RRGII, the total mean shear $`\gamma _{icf}`$ in chip $`c`$ and field $`f`$ can be measured by averaging over all the selected galaxies that it contains. It is equal to the sum of contributions from lensing, from noise and from systematics, and can thus be written as $`\gamma _{icf}=\gamma _{icf}^{\mathrm{lens}}+\gamma _{icf}^{\mathrm{noise}}+\gamma _{icf}^{\mathrm{sys}}`$. The noise variance $`\sigma _{\mathrm{noise},cf}^2|\gamma _{cf}^{\mathrm{noise}}|^2`$ can be measured from the data by computing the error in the mean $`\gamma _{icf}`$ from the distribution of the galaxy shears inside the chip. As RRGI showed, the systematics are greatly reduced if the shear is averaged over the chip scale and if small galaxies (with $`d<0.15^{\prime \prime }`$) are discarded. In this case, the systematics are dominated by the time-variations of the PSF and induce a shear variance $`\sigma _{\mathrm{sys},cf}^2|\gamma _{cf}^{\mathrm{sys}}|^2`$ approximately equal to $`0.0011^2`$ (see RRGII).

For each field $`f`$, an estimator for the shear variance $`\sigma _{\mathrm{lens}}^2`$ on the chip scale is given by

$$\widehat{\sigma ^2}_{\mathrm{lens},f}=\frac{1}{N_c}\underset{c}{}|\gamma _{cf}|^2\sigma _{\mathrm{noise},f}^2\sigma _{\mathrm{sys},f}^2,$$
(2)
where $`\sigma _{\mathrm{noise},f}^2=N_c^1_c\sigma _{\mathrm{noise},cf}^2`$, and similarly for $`\sigma _{\mathrm{sys},f}^2`$. Assuming gaussian statistics, the error variance of the combined estimator is given by (see Bacon, Refregier & Ellis 2000 for the case $`N_c=2`$)

$`\sigma ^2[\widehat{\sigma ^2}_{\mathrm{lens},f}]`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_c}}\left[\sigma _{\mathrm{lens},\mathrm{f}}^2+\sigma _{\mathrm{noise},\mathrm{f}}^2+\sigma _{\mathrm{sys},\mathrm{f}}^2\right]^2`$ (3)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N_c^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{cc^{}}{}}\sigma _{\times cc^{}f}^2,`$
where $`\sigma _{\times cc^{}f}^2=\gamma _{1cf}^{\mathrm{lens}}\gamma _{1c^{}f}^{\mathrm{lens}}+\gamma _{2cf}^{\mathrm{lens}}\gamma _{2c^{}f}^{\mathrm{lens}}`$ is the cross-correlation between chips $`c`$ and $`c^{}`$ and can also be measured from the data. The term $`\sigma _{\mathrm{lens},\mathrm{f}}^2`$ corresponds to cosmic variance, and the last term arises because the chips within a field are not statistically independent. While the lensing shear field is known to be non-gaussian on scales smaller than about 10’ (eg. Jain & Seljak 1997), the non-gaussian corrections to this error estimate are small for noise-dominated 2-point statistics like the variance (see discussion in RRGII and White & Hu 2000).

Because the fields have a range of depths, it is desirable to combine the individual estimators $`\widehat{\sigma ^2}_{\mathrm{lens},f}`$ using a weighting scheme of the form

$$\widehat{\sigma ^2}_{\mathrm{lens}}=\underset{f}{}w_f\widehat{\sigma ^2}_{\mathrm{lens},f}/\underset{f}{}w_f.$$
(4)
A convenient choice for the weights is given by

$$w_f=\sigma _{\mathrm{noise},\mathrm{f}}^4,$$
(5)
i.e. to the inverse square of the noise contribution to the error in $`\widehat{\sigma ^2}_{\mathrm{lens},f}`$. This weighting scheme is nearly optimal, and avoids including the lensing signal $`\sigma _{\mathrm{lens},f}^2`$ itself. The average weights $`w_f`$ in several magnitude bins are shown in Figure 1. As expected, deeper fields have larger weights since they contain a larger number of galaxies and thus have a smaller value of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{noise},\mathrm{f}}`$.

To measure the shear variance on the field scale, we first average the shear within each field and apply the same procedure. This time, however, the cross-correlation term in Equation (3) vanishes since each field is independent. Similarly, we can consider pairs of chips to measure the shear variance on intermediate scales.

## 5. Results

Our measurement for the shear variance $`\sigma _{\mathrm{lens}}^2(\theta )`$ on different scales is shown in Figure 2. The angular scale $`\theta `$ is the radius of an effective circular cell whose mean pair separation equals that of the chip configuration considered ($`\theta 0.72^{},1.11^{}`$, and $`1.38^{}`$, for 1, 2 and 3 $`1.27^{}`$ chips, respectively). The outer $`1\sigma `$ error bars include both statistical errors and cosmic variance (from Eq. ), while the inner error bars only include statistical errors (i.e. by setting $`\sigma _{\mathrm{lens}}^2`$ and $`\sigma _\times ^2`$ to 0 on the right-hand side of this Eq.). For instance, on the chip scale we obtain $`\sigma _{\mathrm{lens}}^2(0.72^{})=(3.5\pm 0.9\pm 1.1)\times 10^4`$, yielding a detection significance (inner error) of $`3.8\sigma `$ with this scale alone. As a check of systematics, we analyzed our signal into $`E`$ and $`B`$-modes using the aperture mass $`M_{\mathrm{ap}}(0.67^{})`$ statistic on the chip scale (Schneider et al. 1998; van Waerbeke et al. 2001). For $`E`$-modes, we find the upper limit $`M_{\mathrm{ap},E}^2=(0.4\pm 1.7)\times 10^4`$ ($`1\sigma `$) which is consistent with the signal expected in a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model ($`M_{\mathrm{ap},E}^20.6\times 10^4`$; Schneider et al. 1998). For the $`B`$-modes, we find $`M_{\mathrm{ap},B}^2=(0.3\pm 1.7)\times 10^4`$ ($`1\sigma `$), as expected in the absence of systematics (which corresponds to $`M_{\mathrm{ap},B}^20`$).

The measurements from other groups are also plotted in Figure 2, along with the predictions for a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model with $`\sigma _8=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.21`$. The central value for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is close to the recent measurement of this parameter from galaxy clustering (eg. Percival et al. 2001), while keeping the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Omega }_mh`$ relation valid for $`h=0.7`$. The predictions are plotted for a range of galaxy redshifts $`z_m=0.9\pm 0.1`$, corresponding approximately to the uncertainty and dispersion of this parameter in the different surveys. In our case, the effective median I-magnitude of our measurement is $`I_m=_fw_fI_{m,f}/_fw_f23.5`$, which corresponds to a median redshift of $`z_m=0.95\pm 0.10`$ (see Eq. ). The effective magnitude and corresponding redshift are plotted in Figure 1. Given the range of median redshifts in the different surveys and the correlation between angular bins for the variance, our results are in good agreement with these other measurements and with the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model.

Our measurements can be used to constrain cosmological parameters. Because our measurements on different scales are not independent, we conservatively only consider the shear variance on the chip scale ($`\theta =0.72^{}`$). Within a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model, it is predicted to be (see RRGII), within an excellent approximation,

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{lens}}0.0202\left(\frac{\sigma _8}{1}\right)^{1.27}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_m}{0.3}\right)^{0.56}\left(\frac{z_m}{0.95}\right)^{0.89}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{0.21}\right)^{0.19},$$
(6)
where $`\sigma _8`$ is the amplitude of mass fluctuations on 8 $`h^1`$Mpc scales, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ is the matter density parameter. Inverting this equation, we find that our measurement of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{lens}}^2`$ yields $`\sigma _8=(0.94\pm 0.10\pm 0.12)(\mathrm{\Omega }_m/0.3)^{0.44}(\mathrm{\Gamma }/0.21)^{0.15}(z_m/0.95)^{0.70}`$, where the first error is statistical only and the second also includes cosmic variance. To this error must be added that arising from the uncertainty in the median effective redshift $`z_m=0.95\pm 0.10`$. After propagating this error, we obtain

$$\sigma _8=(0.94\pm 0.10\pm 0.14)\left(\frac{0.3}{\mathrm{\Omega }_m}\right)^{0.44}\left(\frac{0.21}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)^{0.15},$$
(7)
where the first error reflects statistical errors only, and the latter is the total error and includes statistical errors, cosmic variance, and redshift uncertainty (all $`1\sigma `$).

Figure 3 shows the comparison of our measurement of $`\sigma _8`$ (HST/WFC2) with that from other weak lensing surveys and from other methods. A $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.21`$ was assumed (except for van Waerbeke et al. 2001 who marginalized over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$). Our $`\sigma _8`$ value is consistent with the other recent cosmic shear measurements of Bacon et al. (2002), Hoekstra et al. (2002), and van Waerbeke et al. (2002) and also with the ‘old’ normalization from cluster abundance (eg. Pierpaoli et al. 2001). This was recently revised to a lower normalization, by using the observed mass-temperature relation rather than that derived from numerical simulations (eg. Seljak 2001). A similar normalization was derived by combining measurements of galaxy clustering from 2dF and CMB anisotropy (Lahav et al. 2001). Our results are consistent with this new normalization at the $`1.4\sigma `$ level.

## 6. Discussion and Conclusion

We have achieved the highest significance detection of cosmic shear using space-based images to date. Using the MDS, we have detected the shear variance on 0.7’ to 1.4’ scales with a significance greater than $`3.8\sigma `$. From the amplitude of the signal we derived a normalization of the matter power spectrum given by Equation (7), with errors which include statistical errors, (gaussian) cosmic variance and the uncertainty in the galaxy redshift distribution. Our results agree with previous measurements of the rms shear using both ground and space based images at the $`1\sigma `$ level and with the ‘old’ (eg. Pierpaoli et al. 2001) and ‘new’ (eg. Seljak 2001) cluster abundance normalization at the $`0.4\sigma `$ and $`1.4\sigma `$ level, respectively.

A weighted average of the four recent cosmic shear measurements shown in Figure 3 yields $`\sigma _8=0.91\pm 0.02`$, for a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.21`$ (see vertical bars in Figure 3). This is consistent with the old cluster normalization at the $`1.2\sigma `$ level, but somewhat inconsistent with the new cluster normalization at the $`2.5\sigma `$ level, where the uncertainty is dominated by that from cluster abundance. This discrepancy could be caused by unknown systematics in the cluster abundance or cosmic shear methods. For the latter case, the calibration of the shear measurement methods would need to be revisited, in the context of current and upcoming surveys. The inaccuracy of the calculation of the non-linear power spectrum and of the halo mass function may also contribute to the error budget. If confirmed however, this discrepancy could have important consequences for our understanding of the physics of clusters, or may require extensions of the standard $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM paradigm for structure formation.

We thank David Bacon, Richard Massey and Richard Ellis for fruitful discussions, and the anonymous referee for useful suggestions. AR was supported by an EEC fellowship from the TMR network on Gravitational Lensing and by a Wolfson College Research Fellowship. EJG was supported by NASA Grant NAG5-6279. JR was supported by an National Research Council-GSFC Research Associateship. The Medium Deep Survey catalog is based on observations with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy.