text:
# 1 INTRODUCTION

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Orbits for Pandora and Prometheus in the form of precessing ellipses of fixed shape were fit to Voyager data by Synnott et al. (1981, 1983) and Jacobson (personal communication). Mean motions were determined from images and precession rates were calculated to be consistent with the gravity field of the Saturnian system (Nicholson and Porco 1988; Campbell and Anderson 1989).

Observations with HST made during the 1995-1996 Sun and Earth ring plane crossings led to the discovery that Prometheus was lagging its predicted longitude based on the Voyager ephemeris by about $`20^{}`$ (Bosh and Rivkin 1996, Nicholson et al. 1996). Subsequently McGhee (2000) found that Pandora was leading the Voyager ephemeris prediction by a similar amount. These discrepancies have been confirmed by French et al. (1999, 2000, 2001, 2002), Murray et al. (2000), McGhee et al. (2001), and Evans (2001).

These and other researchers looked for a dynamical origin of the longitude discrepancies. Several hypotheses were investigated including: perturbations exerted by an undetected coorbital satellite of Prometheus (see French et al. 1998); interactions with clumps in the F ring, or 1 to 5 km objects in the F ring, or the F ring itself (Showalter et al. 1999a, 1999b); long-term resonance dynamics (Dones et al. 1999), and chaos (Dones et al. 2001). However, none of these attempts provide a clear resolution of this puzzle. That is the goal of our paper.

We focus on direct interactions between Pandora and Prometheus because their longitude discrepancies have comparable magnitudes and opposite signs (French et al. 2002). This suggests that the satellites are exchanging angular momentum and energy and that their orbits are chaotic. Results from orbit integrations presented in §2 of the paper confirm this suspicion. Implications of these findings for estimates of the age of Saturn’s rings are discussed in §3. This section also reproduces evidence from French et al. (2002) that supports our finding that sudden changes in mean motion tend to occur around times when the satellites’ apses are anti-aligned.

## 2 Confirmation of Chaos

### 2.1 Calculational Method

Working in a planet centered coordinate system and adopting conventional notation, the vector equation of motion for each satellite reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐫_i}{dt^2}}=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{GM𝐫_i}{r_i^3}}\left[\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{m_i}{M}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}J_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{r_i}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{15}{8}}J_4\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{r_i}}\right)^4+{\displaystyle \frac{35}{16}}J_6\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{r_i}}\right)^6\right]`$
$``$ $`Gm_j\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐫_i𝐫_j}{\left|𝐫_i𝐫_j\right|^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐫_j}{r_j^3}}\right),`$
where $`i`$ and $`j`$ ($`ij`$) assume values 1 and 2. We integrate only four first order scalar differential equations for each body since to observational accuracy the orbits of Prometheus and Pandora lie in Saturn’s equatorial plane.

Equations (2.1) admit energy and angular momentum integrals given by

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[m_1\left|\dot{𝐫}_1\right|^2+m_2\left|\dot{𝐫}_2\right|^2{\displaystyle \frac{\left|m_1\dot{𝐫}_1+m_2\dot{𝐫}_2\right|^2}{M+m_1+m_2}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{Gm_1m_2}{\left|𝐫_1𝐫_2\right|}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{GMm_1}{r_1}}\left[1J_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{r_1}}\right)^2J_4\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{r_1}}\right)^4J_6\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{r_1}}\right)^6\right]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{GMm_2}{r_2}}\left[1J_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{r_2}}\right)^2J_4\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{r_2}}\right)^4J_6\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{r_2}}\right)^6\right],`$
and

$$H=m_1\left(𝐫_1\times \dot{𝐫}_1\right)+m_2\left(𝐫_2\times \dot{𝐫}_2\right)\frac{\left(m_1𝐫_1+m_2𝐫_2\right)\times \left(m_1\dot{𝐫}_1+m_2\dot{𝐫}_2\right)}{M+m_1+m_2}.$$
(3)
Numerical integrations of the equations of motion are carried out using the algorithm of Bulirsch and Stoer (1980) which offers the luxury of a variable time step. Fractional changes in total energy and angular momentum are of order $`10^{10}`$ for integrations of $`10^3\mathrm{yr}`$. For comparison, jumps in these quantities are of order $`10^5`$ at each conjunction.

Initial conditions are computed from Jacobson’s equinoctial elements (Jacobson, personal communication) and the transformation between cylindrical elements and epicyclic elements derived in Borderies-Rappaport and Longaretti (1994). The same transformation is applied to compute the epicyclic eccentricity and the epicyclic mean longitude at each output step. We also output values of the angular momentum and energy (neglecting the interaction term) for each satellite, and the total angular momentum and energy (including the interaction term).

To compute Lyapunov exponents we integrate the orbits of two shadow bodies whose initial conditions differ slightly from those of Prometheus and Pandora. We reset the state vector of the shadow bodies to reduce the magnitude of their phase space separation from the physical bodies whenever it exceeds a preset tolerance. In practice rescaling is done when the longitudinal separations that dominate the phase space separations are slightly less than $`10^4`$ radians.

### 2.2 Results

Variations over 20 years of orbital longitudes for Prometheus and Pandora are displayed in Figs. 1 and 2. Initial values for the satellites’ epicyclic eccentricities and mean motions obtained following the prescription described in §2.1 are presented in Table 1; this table also contains the ratios of the satellites’ masses to Saturn’s mass. The simulation begins with Prometheus at periapse and Pandora at apoapse and with the satellites’ apsidal lines in phase. To emphasize the chaotic irregularities of the mean motions, we subtract a drift rate based on the initial mean motion from the longitude of each satellite. These figures reproduce the characteristics of the puzzling longitude discrepancies reported in the papers referenced in §1. Line widths are due to epicyclic longitude oscillations which have full amplitudes of $`4e`$ radians.

Table I. Initial values of Prometheus and Pandora eccentricities and mean motion, and masses scaled to Saturn’s mass.

| Satellite | $`e`$ | $`n`$ (rd/s) | $`m_i/M`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Prometheus | $`2.29\times 10^3`$ | $`1.1864\times 10^4`$ | $`1.19\times 10^9`$ |
| Pandora | $`4.37\times 10^3`$ | $`1.1571\times 10^4`$ | $`7.65\times 10^{10}`$ |

Figure 3 displays the difference between the apsidal angles over 20 years, and Fig. 4 shows the behavior of the magnitude of the relative eccentricity vector. The two orbits come closest together and the magnitude of the relative eccentricity peaks when the apsidal lines are anti-aligned. This occurs at about $`t=3.1\mathrm{yr}`$, $`9.3\mathrm{yr}`$, and $`15.5\mathrm{yr}`$. Comparison with Figs. 1 and 2 reveals that these mark the times at which abrupt changes in the satellites’ mean motions take place. Note that net changes in mean motion around $`t=3.1\mathrm{yr}`$ and $`15.5\mathrm{yr}`$ years are of comparable magnitude but opposite sign, but that the net change in mean motion that takes place around $`t=9.3\mathrm{yr}`$ is much smaller. This is another indication of chaos.

Additional evidence for chaos is found in plots of epicyclic eccentricity vs. time shown in Figs. 5 and 6. Two distinct types of eccentricity variation are apparent. Small jumps occur at conjunctions separated by about 24.8 days. These have magnitudes of order $`\mu \left(a/\mathrm{\Delta }r\right)^210^5`$, where $`\mu `$ is the mass of the perturbing satellite divided by the mass of Saturn, $`a`$ is the mean orbit radius, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ is the radial distance between the satellites at conjunction. As expected, the largest jumps occur when the satellites’ apses are near anti-alignment. Quasi-periodic variations of eccentricity are associated with the relative apsidal precession period of 6.2 years. They arise from secular perturbations which promote the exchange of angular momentum but not of energy. Since secular eccentricity variations are entirely due to angular momentum exchanges, Prometheus’s and Pandora’s are 180 degrees out of phase. Although the secular variations are somewhat larger than the jumps, they are small in comparison to the mean eccentricity. Their small size is a consequence of the dominance of Saturn’s oblate gravitational equipotentials in forcing the differential precession; secular terms in the satellites’ interaction potential contribute only a small fraction of the differential precession rate. Eccentricity jumps and secular eccentricity variations are not the entire story, nor even the most important part of it. That distinction goes to the lack of periodicity over the differential precession cycle which is a clear signature of chaos.

To prove that the mean motion variations arise from chaos, we compute the Lyapunov exponent for the Prometheus-Pandora system. Figure 7 illustrates its behavior over an interval of 3000 years. The figure also includes a dashed line showing a constant plus $`\left(\mathrm{log}t\right)/t`$ fit to the final point of the solid curve. This is the behavior that would be expected in the absence of chaos. Evidence for chaos is overwhelming. The Lyapunov exponent is of order $`0.35\mathrm{yr}^1`$.

Figures 8-11 derived from data spaced by $`0.1\mathrm{d}`$ show perturbations near conjunctions in greater detail. Variations of epicyclic eccentricity are depicted in Figs. 8 and 9 while Figs. 10 and 11 provide data on energy and angular momentum accrued during the numerical integration. Each panel covers an interval of one year centered either on $`t=3.1\mathrm{yr}`$, when the apses are anti-aligned, or on $`t=6.1\mathrm{yr}`$, when they are aligned. Perturbations are noticeably larger during the former than during the latter. Fractional jumps of the energy and angular momentum of each satellite at conjunctions are $`\mu \left(a/\mathrm{\Delta }r\right)^2`$ and $`\mu \mathrm{\Delta }e\left(a/\mathrm{\Delta }r\right)^3`$, respectively.111$`\mathrm{\Delta }e`$ is the magnitude of the relative eccentricity vector. Each of these is of order $`10^5`$. That our estimates are reasonable can be seen by noting that the energy and angular momenta of Prometheus and Pandora are $`10^{33}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^2`$ and $`10^{37}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$, and that their jumps are $`10^{27}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^2`$ and $`10^{31}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$. Spikes seen in the plots of energy and angular momentum are arise from the strong interactions near conjunctions. Their widths of a few hours are marginally resolved.

## 3 Discussion

The suggestion that interactions between Saturn’s F-ring shepherds make their motions chaotic is not new. It was raised long ago in an article we wrote with Scott Tremaine (Borderies et al. 1984). For us its confirmation is almost like a dream come true. Below we quote from this earlier work because a full 20 years after it was written we could scarcely improve upon it.222Our article was prepared for a conference held in the summer of 1982. We have, however, added a footnote to introduce modern notation.

“As external satellites extract angular momentum from the rings, their orbits expand. Calculations based on the formula for the linear satellite torque predict remarkably short time scales for the recession of close satellites from the rings (Goldreich and Tremaine 1982).” “Thus these short time scales remain perhaps the most intriguing puzzle in planetary ring dynamics.” “The severe nature of the problem is well-illustrated by the system composed of the F-Ring and its two shepherd satellites, 1980S26 and 1980S27, hereafter called S26 and S27.”3331980S26 and 1980S27 were renamed Pandora and Prometheus by the International Astronomical Union. “The outward movement of the system could be reduced if S26 were involved in a resonance with a more massive outer satellite.” “No resonance has been found linking S26 with one or more outer satellites. What might this imply? Are the F ring and its shepherd satellites very young? Does the long sought resonance exist awaiting detection? A most interesting possibility is that S26 is transferring angular momentum to Mimas even though the two bodies are not in an exact orbital resonance. This could be accomplished if the motion of S26 were chaotic, i.e., if the value of its mean motion were undergoing a slow random walk. We have proven that if the mean longitude of S26 were subject to a significant random drift, in addition to its dominant secular increase, angular momentum transfer to Mimas would take place by virtue of the near resonance between S26 and Mimas. By significant drift, we mean of order one radian on the circulation time scale of the critical argument associated with the near resonance. To check this hypothesis, we must first determine whether the orbital motion of S26 is chaotic. To do so we need to investigate the perturbations of its orbit produced by S27. Solution of this and the other outstanding theoretical problems will await results of ongoing research.”

Proving that the F-ring shepherds move chaotically as the result of their mutual interactions is an important step. What it implies about the lifetime of Saturn’s rings remains to be determined.

We would be remiss if we failed to mention that chaotic motions of Prometheus and Pandora are discussed in Poulet and Sicardy (2001), Dones et al. (2001), and French et al. (2002). Poulet and Sicardy (2001) investigate the long term evolution of the system and find intervals of chaos. Dones et al. (2001) suggest that chaos might account for unexplained motions of the satellites but do not identify the specific mechanism responsible for creating it. French et al (2002) raise the possibility that changes of opposite sign in the mean motions of Prometheus and Pandora may signal the exchange of energy between their orbits. However, they do not simulate the effects of interactions between the shepherds. Instead they present evidence that external satellites can excite chaotic motions of test particles in a portion of a region of $`2\times 10^3\mathrm{km}`$ width covering the semimajor axes of both shepherds.

We close this paper by displaying evidence in support of our finding that abrupt changes in mean motions tend to occur around times during which the satellites’ apses are anti-aligned. Figure 12 reproduces, with embelishments, panels from Figs. 3 and 5 of French et al. (2000). It shows that Prometheus and Pandora underwent oppositely directly changes of their mean motions around the end of year 2000, shortly after the time at which their apsidal longitudes differed by $`180^{}`$.

## 4 Acknowledgments

We thank R. French for providing us with a copy his preprint which contains the latest results on the motions of Prometheus and Pandora, and for allowing us to reproduce from it the material in our Fig. 12. We are grateful to R. Jacobson for advice on initializing our integrations in a manner compatible with the Voyager ephemerides. Research by PG was supported by NSF grant AST-0098301 and that by NR by NASA Planetary Geology and Geophysics grant 344-30-53-02.

## 5 References

Borderies, N., P. Goldreich, and S. Tremaine 1984: Unsolved Problems in Planetary Ring Dynamics, in Planetary Rings, Editors: Richard Greenberg and André Brahic, The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona, pages 713-734.

Borderies-Rappaport N., and P.-Y. Longaretti 1994: Test Particle Motion around an Oblate Planet, Icarus 107, 129-141.

Bosh, A.S. and A.S. Rivkin 1996: Observations of Saturn’s inner satellites during the May 1995 ring-plane crossing, Science 272, 518-521.

Bulirsch, R., and J. Stoer 1980: Introduction to Numerical Analysis, Springer Verlag, New York.

Campbell, J.K. and J.D. Anderson 1989: Gravity Field of the Saturnian System from PIONEER and VOYAGER Tracking Data, Astron. J. 97, 1485-1495.

Dones, L., M.R. Showalter, R.G. French, and J.J. Lissauer 1999: The Perils of Pandora, BAAS DPS Meeting #31.

Dones, L., H.F. Levison, J.J. Lissauer, R.G. French, and C.A. Mcghee 2001: Saturn’s Coupled Companions, Prometheus and Pandora, BAAS DPS Meeting #33.

Evans, M. 2001: The determination of orbits from spacecraft imaging, Ph. D. Dissertation, Queen Mary College, University of London.

French, R.G., K.J. Hall, C.A. Mcghee, P.D. Nicholson, J. Cuzzi, L. Dones, and J. Lissauer 1998: The Perigrinations of Prometheus, BAAS DPS Meeting #30.

French, R.G., C.A. Mcghee, P.D. Nicholson, L. Dones, and J. Lissauer 1999: Saturn’s wayward shepherds: Pandora and Prometheus, BAAS DPS Meeting #31.

French, R.G., C. Mcghee, L. Dones, and J.J. Lissauer 2000: The Peripatetics of Prometheus and Pandora, BAAS DPS Meeting #32.

French, R.G., C.A., Mcghee, L. Dones, and J.J. Lissauer 2001: The Renegade Roamings of Prometheus and Pandora, BAAS DPS Meeting #33.

French, R.G., C.A. Mcghee, L. Dones, and J.J. Lissauer 2002: Saturn’s Wayward Shepherds: The Perigrinations of Prometheus and Pandora, Icarus, submitted for publication.

Goldreich, P. and S. Tremaine 1982: The Dynamics of Planetary Rings, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 20, 249-283.

Mcghee, C. A. 2000: Comet Shoemaker-Levy’s 1994 collision with Jupiter and Saturn’s 1995 ring plane crossing, Ph. D. Dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

Mcghee, C.A., P.D. Nicholson, R.G. French, and K.J. Hall 2001: HST Observations of Saturnian Satellites during the 1995 Ring Plane Crossings, Icarus 152, 282-315.

Murray, C.D., M.W. Evans, C.C. Porco, and M.R. Showalter 2000: The Orbits of Prometheus, Pandora and Atlas in 1980 and 1981, BAAS DPS Meeting #32.

Nicholson, P.D., and C.C. Porco 1988: A New Constraint on Saturn’s Zonal Gravity Harmonics from Voyager Observations of an Eccentric Ringlet, J. Geophys. Res. 93, 10,209-10,224.

Nicholson, P.D., M.R. Showalter, L. Dones, R.G. French, S.M. Larson, J.J. Lissauer, C.A. Mcghee, P. Seitzer, B. Sicardy, and G.E. Danielson 1996: Observations of Saturn’s ring–plane crossings in August and November 1995, Science 272, 509-515.

Poulet, F. and B. Sicardy 2001: Dynamical evolution of the Prometheus-Pandora System,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 322, 343-355.

Showalter, M.R., L. Dones, and J.J. Lissauer 1999a: Interactions between Prometheus and the F Ring, BAAS DPS Meeting \# 31.

Showalter, M.R., L. Dones, and J.J. Lissauer 1999b: Revenge of the Sheep: Effects of Saturn’s F Ring on the Orbit of Prometheus, BAAS DPS Meeting # 31.

Synnott, S.P., C.F. Peters, B.A. Smith, and L.A. Morabito 1981: Orbits of the Small Satellites of Saturn, Science 212, 191-192.

Synnott, S.P., R.J. Terrile, R.A. Jacobson, and B.A. Smith 1983: Orbits of Saturn’s F Ring and Its Shepherding Satellites, Icarus 53, 156-158.

## 6 Figure Captions

FIGURE 1: Prometheus longitude from numerical integration as a function of time. A drift rate based on the initial mean motion is subtracted from the longitude. Units are degrees and years.

FIGURE 2: Pandora longitude from numerical integration as a function of time. A drift rate based on the initial mean motion is subtracted from the longitude. Units are degrees and years.

FIGURE 3: Difference between the epicyclic apsidal longitudes (in degrees) of Prometheus and Pandora over 20 years.

FIGURE 4: Magnitude of the Prometheus and Pandora relative eccentricity vector. Note that the peaks correspond to anti-aligned apses.

FIGURE 5: Prometheus epicyclic eccentricity as a function of time. The epicyclic frequency is computed from the state in rectangular coordinates following Borderies-Rappaport and Longaretti (1994).

FIGURE 6: Pandora epicyclic eccentricity as a function of time. The epicyclic frequency was computed from the state in rectangular coordinates following Borderies-Rappaport and Longaretti (1994).

FIGURE 7: Lyapunov exponent for the Prometheus-Pandora system over a period of $`3\times 10^3\mathrm{yr}`$ (solid line). The dashed line depicts a constant $`+\left(\mathrm{log}t\right)/t`$ fit to the final point of the solid curve. The unit for the Lyapunov exponent is $`\mathrm{yr}^1`$.

FIGURE 8: Prometheus and Pandora epicyclic eccentricities during an interval of one year centered on $`t=3.1\mathrm{yr}`$ when the apses are anti-aligned.

FIGURE 9: Prometheus and Pandora epicyclic eccentricities during an interval of one year centered on $`t=6.2\mathrm{yr}`$ when the apses are aligned.

FIGURE 10: Prometheus (solid lines) and Pandora (dotted lines) variations in energy (in $`\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^2`$) and angular momentum (in $`\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$) during an interval of one year centered on $`t=3.1\mathrm{yr}`$ when the apses are anti-aligned. The dot-dashed lines display differences between current and initial total energies and angular momenta.

FIGURE 11: Prometheus (solid lines) and Pandora (dotted lines) variations in energy (in $`\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^2`$) and angular momentum (in $`\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$) during an interval of one year centered on $`t=6.2\mathrm{yr}`$ when the apses are aligned. The dot-dashed lines display differences between current and initial total energies and angular momenta.

FIGURE 12: Evidence for sudden jumps in the mean motions of Prometheus and Pandora at the end of year 2000. Reproduced, with permission, from French et al. (2002). The solid vertical lines mark the time at which the satellites’ apses were anti-aligned.


format: text

text:
# Which phase is measured in the mesoscopic Aharonov-Bohm interferometer?

## I Introduction

Recent advances in the fabrication of nanometer scale electronic devices raised much interest in the quantum mechanics of quantum dots (QDs), which represent artificial atoms with experimentally controllable properties. The quantum nature of the QD is reflected by resonant tunneling through it, as measured when the QD is connected via metallic leads to electron reservoirs. The measured conductance $`G`$ shows peaks whenever the Fermi energy of the electrons crosses a bound state on the QD. Experimentally, the energies of these bound states are varied by controlling the plunger gate voltage on the QD, $`V`$. Quantum mechanically, the information on the tunneling is contained in the complex transmission amplitude, $`t_{QD}=\sqrt{T_{QD}}e^{i\alpha _{QD}}`$. It is thus of great interest to measure both the magnitude $`T_{QD}`$ and the phase $`\alpha _{QD}`$, and study their dependence on $`V`$. Although the former can be deduced from measuring $`G`$, via the Landauer formula , $`G=\frac{2e^2}{h}T`$, experimental information on the latter has only become accessible since 1995, using the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) interferometer.

In the AB interferometer, an incoming electronic waveguide is split into two branches, which join again into the outgoing waveguide (see Fig. 1(a)). Aharonov and Bohm predicted that a magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ through the ring would add a difference $`\varphi =e\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{}c`$ between the phases of the wave functions in the two branches of the ring, yielding a periodic dependence of the overall transmission $`T`$ on $`\varphi `$. Placing a QD on one of the branches, one expects $`T`$ also to depend on $`t_{QD}`$. Indeed, the experiments found a periodic dependence of $`T(\varphi )`$, and fitted the results to a Fourier expansion of the form

$$T=A+B\mathrm{cos}(\varphi +\beta )+C\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi +\gamma )+\mathrm{},$$
(1)
with the conventions $`B,C>0`$.

In a simple two-slit situation, there is no reflection of electrons from either the source or the “screen” which collects them. Therefore, the electron passes through each branch (including the QD) only once, and the total transmission amplitude is equal to the sum of the amplitudes in the two branches,

$$t=t_1e^{i\varphi }+t_2.$$
(2)
(Gauge invariance allows one to attach the AB phase $`\varphi `$ to either branch). Assuming also that $`t_1=|t_1|e^{i\alpha _1}=ct_{QD}`$, and that both $`c=|c|e^{i\delta }`$ and $`t_2=|t_2|e^{i\alpha _2}`$ do not depend on $`V`$ near the QD’s resonances, one obtains Eq. (1), with $`B=2|ct_2t_{QD}|`$, $`C=0`$ (i.e. no higher harmonics) and $`\beta =\alpha _{QD}+\delta \alpha _2`$. Below we subtract from $`\alpha _{QD}`$ and from $`\beta `$ their values at large negative $`V`$, far away from the resonances, thus removing $`V`$-independent quantities like $`\delta \alpha _2`$. For the “closed” two-terminal geometry of Fig. 1(a), as used by Yacoby et al., the expectation that $`\beta =\alpha _{QD}`$ (equivalent to the two-slit situation) was clearly not borne out by the measurements: Unitarity (conservation of current) and time reversal symmetry imply the Onsager relations , which state that $`G(\varphi )=G(\varphi )`$, and therefore $`\beta `$ (as well as $`\gamma `$ etc.) must be equal to zero or $`\pi `$. Indeed, the experimental  $`\beta `$ “jumps” from 0 to $`\pi `$ whenever $`V`$ crossed a resonance of the QD, and then exhibits an a priori unexpected “phase lapse” back to 0, between every pair of resonances. Later experiments opened the interferometer, using the six-terminal configuration shown schematically in Fig. 1(b); the additional leads allow losses of electronic current, thus breaking unitarity. Indeed, the resulting data gave a gradual increase of $`\beta `$ through each resonance, accompanied by a peak in the amplitude $`B`$, but maintained the sharp “phase lapse” back to zero between resonances, which were accompanied by zeroes in $`B`$. In the present paper we present a theoretical model, aimed to imitate the experimental setups of Fig. 1(a) and (b). Figure 2 shows examples of our model calculations for $`A,B,C`$ and $`\beta `$ versus $`V`$. Qualitatively, these plots look similar to those found experimentally. However, as discussed below, the quantitative results for the open interferometers depend on details of the opening.

The above experimental results led to much theoretical discussion. Some of this  emphasized the non-trivial effects of the ring itself on the measured results, even for the closed case. Other theoretical papers  assumed that the measured $`\beta `$ represents the correct $`\alpha _{QD}`$, and discussed the possible origins of the observed features, e.g. the “phase lapse” and the similarity between the data at many resonances. However, not much attention was given to the validity of this assumption. Since $`\beta `$ is equal to 0 or $`\pi `$ for the closed interferometer, and deviates from these values for the open one, it is clear that $`\beta `$ must depend on the details of how the system was opened. Indeed, Ref.  considered one example of an open interferometer, and showed that the deviation of $`\beta `$ from its trivial values (0 and $`\pi `$) increases monotonically with the strength of the coupling to the “lossy” channel. Although different values of this coupling gave qualitatively similar $`\beta (V)`$ curves, which were also similar to the experimental results, the detailed dependence of $`\beta `$ on $`V`$ varied with that strength. As a result, Ref.  posed the challenge of finding clear criteria as to when the experimental $`\beta `$ is really equal to the intrinsic $`\alpha _{QD}`$.

In the present paper we address this challenge. Sec. II presents a simple model for the QD, which contains resonances and “phase lapses”. Typical results for the “intrinsic” $`T_{QD}`$ and $`\alpha _{QD}`$ are shown in Fig. 3. The latter is also reproduced in Fig. 2 (calculated with the same QD parameters), for comparison with $`\beta `$. We are not aware of any earlier quantitative comparisons of this kind. Sections III and IV then present a simple model for the (closed and open) interferometer, and discusses the optimal way to open the interferometer, so that the “measured” $`\beta `$ will be close to the theoretical “intrinsic” $`\alpha _{QD}`$. Our exact analytical results confirm the intuitive expectations of Ref. : to have $`\beta =\alpha _{QD}`$, the electron must cross each branch only once. One necessary condition for this was appreciated qualitatively before : the electron must practically never be reflected from the “forks” where the ring meets the incoming and outgoing terminals, in order to recover the two-slit result (2). In our model, this is achieved by having a very small net transmission after crossing each of the additional “lossy” channels $`C_{\mathrm{}},C_r`$ and $`C_d`$ in Fig. 1(b). However, we find two additional conditions: first, the transmission through the upper branch, $`t_1`$, should have the same phase (up to a $`V`$-independent additive constant) as $`t_{QD}`$, i.e. $`\alpha _{QD}`$. In general, the scattering of the electron from the gates into channels $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`C_r`$ might cause “rattling” of the electron back and forth through the QD, introducing more phase shifts into $`t_1`$. We avoid that by also having a very small reflection from the scatterers $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`C_r`$. Below we introduce a parameter, $`J_x`$, which relates to the tunneling probabilities of the electron from the ring onto the “lossy” channels. As $`J_x`$ increases, the transmission through the “lossy” scatterers decreases, but the reflection from them increases. Therefore, there is only an intermediate range of $`J_x`$ where $`\beta =\alpha _{QD}`$ (shown in the lower left box in Fig. 2). The second new condition is that there should be no direct losses from the QD itself; as explained below, these “smear” the “phase lapses”. In Sec. V we discuss these results, and propose additional experiments which would check if an open interferometer indeed reproduces the desired “intrinsic” QD information.

## II Model for the QD

As in many earlier calculations, our analytic calculations are based on the single-electron tight-binding model (which can be viewed as a finite difference version of the continuum case): the system is made of discrete sites $`\{i\}`$, with nearest neighbor (nn) real tunneling amplitudes $`J_{ij}`$ and site energies $`ϵ_i`$. All nn distances are set equal to $`a`$. The Schrödinger wave equation is thus written as $`(Eϵ_i)\psi _i=_jJ_{ij}\psi _j`$, where the sum is over nn’s of $`i`$. In each calculation, we have a scattering element connected to two one-dimensional (1D) leads, which have $`J_{i,i+1}=J,ϵ_i=0`$. The scattering solution for a wave coming from the left, with wave vector $`k`$ and energy $`E=2J\mathrm{cos}ka`$, is described by $`\psi _m^L=e^{ikam}+re^{ikam}`$ on the left, and by $`\psi _m^R=te^{ikam}`$ on the right. The calculation of the transmission and reflection amplitudes, $`t`$ and $`r`$, then amounts to solving a finite set of linear equations for the wave functions inside the scatterer.

The QD may be described as a single dot, with many discrete energy levels. We model it by a set of smaller dots, each containing a single resonant state, with energy $`\{E_R=ϵ_{QD}=E_R(n),n=1,\mathrm{},N\}`$. Each such state is connected to its left and right nn’s on the leads via bonds with hopping amplitudes $`\{J_L(n),J_R(n),n=1,\mathrm{},N\}`$. The QD can thus be described by $`N`$ wave functions $`\psi _n`$, obeying $`[EE_R(n)]\psi _n=J_L(n)\psi _0^LJ_R(n)\psi _0^R`$ (where we choose $`\psi _0^L=1+r,\psi _0^R=t`$). The exact transmission amplitude is easily found to be

$$t_{QD}=\frac{S_{LR}2i\mathrm{sin}ka}{(S_{LL}+e^{ika})(S_{RR}+e^{ika})|S_{LR}|^2},$$
(3)
where $`S_{XY}=_nJ_X(n)J_Y(n)^{}/[EE_R(n)]/J,X,Y=L,R`$ represent “bare” Green’s functions for sites $`L`$ and $`R`$.

In the following, we use equidistant bound state energies, $`E_R(n)=V+U(n1)`$. The “gap” $`U`$ can be viewed as the Hartree energy for an electron added to a QD which already has $`n1`$ other electrons, thus capturing some aspects of the Coulomb blockade behavior of the scattered electron. We study $`t_{QD}`$ as function of the energy $`V`$, which represents the plunger gate voltage on the QD. Fig. 3 shows typical results for the transmission $`T_{QD}`$ and for the “intrinsic” phase $`\alpha _{QD}`$, where the zero of $`\alpha _{QD}`$ is set at its ($`k`$dependent) value at large negative $`V`$. In this figure and below, we choose $`ka=\pi /2`$, so that $`E=0`$ and the resonances of the transmission, where $`T_{QD}=1`$, occur exactly when $`E_R(n)=E=0`$, i.e. when $`V=U(n1)`$ . Results are not sensitive to $`k`$ near the band center. We also use the simple symmetric case, $`J_L(n)=J_R(n)J`$, and measure all energies in units of $`J`$. Interestingly, this model reproduces the apparently observed behavior of $`\alpha _{QD}`$: it grows smoothly from 0 to $`\pi `$ as $`E`$ crosses $`E_R(n)`$, and exhibits a sharp “phase lapse” from $`\pi `$ to 0 between neighboring resonances, at points where $`T_{QD}=0`$. These latter points, associated with zeroes of $`S_{LR}`$, represent Fano-like destructive interference between the states on the QD .

Many earlier theoretical (e.g. ) and experimental (e.g. ) papers approximated $`t`$ by a sum of the single resonance Breit-Wigner-like (BW) expressions,

$`t{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2ika}2i\mathrm{sin}kaJ_L(n)J_R(n)^{}}{EE_R(n)+e^{ika}[|J_L(n)|^2+|J_R(n)|^2]/J}}.`$ (4)
Although this form gives an excellent approximation for $`t_{QD}`$ near each resonance, it completely misses the Fano-like zeroes and the “phase lapses” between resonances. This happens because the approximation moves the zeroes off the real energy axis. As a result, the approximate $`\alpha _{QD}`$ never reaches 0 or $`\pi `$, and exhibits a smooth decrease from a maximum to a minimum near the correct “phase lapse” values of $`V`$. Since our aim here is to check on accurate measurements of the “intrinsic” phase, for a broad range of the parameters, and since the phase lapse has been a topic of much recent discussion , we prefer to use the exact solutions everywhere. This is particularly important since typically, available experimental data  show quite broad resonances, so that the BW approximation is bound to fail between them.

We emphasize again: in spite of the close similarity of our “intrinsic” transmission results with the experiments, the purpose of this paper is not to relate the calculated $`t_{QD}`$ to the experimental systems. This would require a justification for our choice of the same $`J_L(n)`$’s and $`J_R(n)`$’s for all the resonances, which goes beyond the scope of the present paper. Rather, we aim to check when the AB interferometer reproduces the “input” behavior of the QD, by yielding $`\beta =\alpha _{QD}`$ for all $`V`$. If this fails for our simple model then it would surely fail in the more complicated cases, where electron-electron interactions (beyond our simple Hartree approximation) become important .

## III Model for the closed AB interferometer

We next place the above QD on the upper branch of the closed AB interferometer, as shown in Fig. 1(a). We now treat the whole ring as our scatterer: each segment $`s`$ on the ring is modeled by a 1D tight binding model of $`M_s`$ sites, with $`ϵ_i=0`$ and $`J_{i,i+1}=J_s`$ ($`s=\mathrm{},r,d`$ for the left and right upper segments and for the lower path, respectively). Taking advantage of gauge invariance, we attach the AB phase factor $`e^{i\varphi }`$ to the hopping amplitude from the right hand “fork” onto its nn on branch $`r`$, which we write as $`J_re^{i\varphi }`$. Writing the wave functions in segment $`s`$ as $`\psi _m^s=A_s\eta _s^m+B_s\eta _s^m`$, with $`\eta _s`$ given by $`E=J_s(\eta _s+\eta _s^1)`$, it is easy to express the total transmission and reflection amplitudes through the interferometer, $`t`$ and $`r`$, in terms of the six amplitudes $`\{A_s,B_s\}`$, and obtain six linear equations whose coefficients also contain $`\{S_{XY}\}`$. Having solved these equations, one finally finds that the dependence of the total transmission amplitude $`t`$ on the AB phase $`\varphi `$ has the general form

$$t=\frac{F+Ge^{i\varphi }}{W+Z\mathrm{cos}\varphi },$$
(5)
where the complex functions $`F,G,W`$ and $`Z`$ all depend on the other parameters of the QD (including $`V`$), the interferometer and the electron wave vector $`k`$. It is easy to convince oneself that, apart from an overall multiplicative factor, the numerator represents the two-slit situation of one crossing through each branch of the ring, while the $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ term in the denominator comes from a sum over an infinite geometrical series of additional motions around the ring: clock- and counterclockwise contributions contain factors of $`e^{i\varphi }`$ and $`e^{i\varphi }`$, multiplying the same complex coefficient. Except for the detailed dependence of the coefficients on $`V`$, these facts are model independent. In fact, the form (5) appeared in many earlier model calculations (e.g. ). In fact, Eq. (5) implies that the exact form for $`T(\varphi )`$ is

$$T(\varphi )=|t|^2=\frac{A+B\mathrm{cos}(\varphi +\beta )}{1+P\mathrm{cos}\varphi +Q\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi }.$$
(6)
A fit to this equation, instead of the Fourier expansion (1), would be much more accurate (with only five parameters), and would enable an easier comparison of the data with theoretical calculations of $`F,G,W`$ and $`Z`$.

Using exact integration on $`T(\varphi )`$, the $`V`$-dependence of the coefficients in the expansion (1) are presented for the closed interferometer in Fig. 2 (upper left), for the same QD parameters as in Fig. 3. (The figure was produced with $`M_{\mathrm{}}=M_r=6,M_d=12`$, but the results for the closed case do not depend on these numbers). For the closed interferometer, time reversal symmetry implies that the ratio $`F/G`$ in Eq. (5) must be real, and thus $`T`$ depends only on $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$, in agreement with Onsager’s relations. This yields the same jumps of $`\beta `$ between zero and $`\pi `$ as in Yacoby et al.’s experiments, coincident with peaks and zeroes of $`B`$.

## IV Model for the open AB interferometer

Pursuing one possible scenario , we model the “leaking” from each of the three segments on the ring (imitating $`C_{\mathrm{}},C_r`$ and $`C_d`$ in the experiment, Fig. 1(b)) by connecting each site on the three ring segments to a 1D lead, which allows only an outgoing current to an absorbing reservoir (Fig. 1(c)). Each such segment is thus replaced by a “comb” of absorbing “teeth”.

We start by investigating the properties of a single “comb”. The “base” of the “comb” is described by a chain of $`M`$ tight-binding sites, with $`J_{m,m+1}=J_c`$ and $`ϵ_m=0`$. Each “tooth” is represented by a 1D tight-binding chain, with $`ϵ_j=0`$. The first bond on the “tooth” has $`J_{m,0}=J_x`$, while $`J_{j,j+1}=J`$ for $`j0`$. Assuming only outgoing waves on the teeth, with wave functions $`t_xe^{ikaj}`$ and energy $`E=2J\mathrm{cos}ka`$, one can eliminate the “teeth” from the equations. The wave functions on the “base” of the comb are then given by $`\psi _m^c=A_c\eta _c^m+B_c\eta _c^m`$, where $`\eta _c`$ is a solution of the (complex energy) equation $`E+J_x^2e^{ika}/J=J_c(\eta _c+\eta _c^1)`$. When this “comb” is treated as our basic scatterer, i.e. connected via $`J_{in}`$ and $`J_{out}`$ to our “standard” two leads, then the transmission and reflection amplitudes via the “comb” are given (up to unimportant phases) by $`t=J_{out}(A_c\eta _c^N+B_c/\eta _c^N)/J`$ and $`r=J_{in}(A_c\eta _c+B_c/\eta _c)/Je^{ika}`$, and one ends up with two linear equations for $`A_c`$ and $`B_c`$. The results for $`T=|t|^2`$ and $`R=|r|^2`$ are shown, for three values of $`M`$, in Fig. 4, as functions of $`ka[0,\pi ]`$ in the free electron energy band, for $`J_x=.7J`$ (left), and as functions of $`J_x`$, for $`ka=\pi /2`$ (right). In the figure, $`J_c=J_{in}=J_{out}=J`$. It is rewarding to observe that both $`T`$ and $`R`$ are almost independent of the electron energy $`E`$ over a broad range near the band center. It is also interesting to note that for these parameters, $`T`$ decreases with $`J_x`$, but $`R`$ increases with $`J_x`$. For fixed $`J_x`$, $`T`$ and $`R`$ exhibit some even-odd oscillations with $`M`$, but basically $`T`$ decreases with $`M`$ while $`R`$ increases towards an almost constant value for $`M>6`$. This is understandable: a strong coupling to the “teeth” causes a strong decay of the wave function along the “comb”. Thus, for each value of $`M`$ one can find an intermediate optimal region in which both $`T`$ and $`R`$ are small. This region broadens, and has smaller $`T`$ and $`R`$, for larger $`M`$.

We next place three such “combs” on the AB interferometer, as in Fig. 1(c), and study the AB transmission $`T`$ as function of the various parameters. For simplicity, we set the same parameters for all the combs, and vary the coupling strength $`J_x`$. Since each “tooth” of the “comb” can be replaced by adding the complex number $`J_x^2e^{ika}/J`$ to the energy $`E`$ in the equations for $`\psi _m^s`$ on the ring segments, the mathematics is similar of that of the “bare” closed interferometer. The main difference in the results is that now $`\eta _c`$ is complex, yielding a decay of the wave function through each comb. This also turns the ratio $`F/G`$ in Eq. (5) complex, yielding non-trivial values for $`\beta `$. To demonstrate qualitative results, we choose $`M_{\mathrm{}}=M_r=6,M_d=12`$, use $`J_{\mathrm{}}=J_r=J_d=J_c=J`$ and keep $`ka=\pi /2`$ and the QD parameters $`J_L(n)=J_R(n)=J,N=4,U=20J`$. The choice for the “comb” parameters ensures that $`A`$ and $`B`$ in Eq. (1) are of the same order. Other choices give similar qualitative results. Fig. 2 shows results for $`A,B,C`$ and $`\beta `$ as function of $`V`$, for several values of $`J_x`$. Clearly, $`J_x=.15J`$ gives a phase $`\beta `$ which is intermediate between the Onsager jumps of the upper left Fig. 2 and the exact intrinsic $`\alpha _{QD}`$ of Fig. 3. Increasing $`J_x`$ yields a saturation of $`\beta `$ onto $`\alpha _{QD}`$, which persists for a broad range between $`J_x=.5J`$ and $`J_x=.9J`$. However, larger values of $`J_x`$, e.g. $`J_x=1.5J`$, cause a deviation of $`\beta `$ from $`\alpha _{QD}`$, due to the increase of the reflection from each “comb”. Interestingly, this deviation is in the same direction as for small $`J_x`$! The reason for this is clear: as the reflection of each comb increases, the electron “rattles” in and out of the QD. This localizes it on the QD, and reduces the width of the QD resonances. For these large values of $`J_x`$, one has $`|Z/W|1`$ in Eq. (5). Thus, the two-slit conditions hold, and one has $`B|t_1|`$ and $`\beta =\alpha _1`$. We have solved the equations for the transmission through the upper branch only (disconnecting the lower branch altogether), and found that indeed, the coefficient $`c`$ in $`t_1=ct_{QD}`$ is a constant as long as the reflection of the combs is small. However, as $`J_x`$ increases above about $`.9J`$, $`c`$ is no longer a constant. The narrower resonances shown in Fig. 2 (lower right) fully agree with this modified upper branch transmission. In any case, “optimal combs”, with small $`T`$ and $`R`$, do yield $`\beta =\alpha _{QD}`$.

So far, we assumed no direct losses from the QD itself. It is easy to add such losses, by connecting a “lossy” channel to each resonant state $`n`$ , similar to the “teeth” of our “combs”, with a tunneling amplitude $`J_x^{}`$. As before, this introduces a complex addition $`J_x^2e^{ika}`$ to $`EE_R(n)`$. Fig. 5 shows the results for the same parameters as above, but with $`J_x=J_x^{}=.9J`$. Clearly, the new imaginary parts eliminate the Fano-like zero in $`B`$, and yield a smooth variation of $`\beta `$ near the “intrinsic phase lapses”. Although similar to the behavior arising in the BW approximation, the present effects are real, due to physical breaking of the unitarity on the QD. It is interesting to note that the data of Ref.  show similar (and otherwise unexplained) smooth features. It is however possible that the latter come from finite temperature averaging.

## V Discussion

In conclusion, we find that the AB interferometer yields quantitative information on the QD resonances only if the electron crosses each segment on the ring, as well as the QD itself, only once. As stated, this can be rephrased by two criteria: having the two-slit condition – i.e. effectively no reflections back from the “forks” into the ring’s branches, and having no “rattling” around the QD – i.e. having little reflection from the “lossy” terminals. A third criterion requires no direct losses from the QD itself.

The two-slit conditions are easy to examine: a small $`|Z/W|`$ in Eq. (5) implies small amplitudes for all except the first harmonic in Eq. (1), as indeed seen by the decreasing relative values of $`C`$ for increasing $`J_x`$ in Fig. 2. This is also easily checked in the analysis of the experimental data. It might be interesting to fit intermediate range data to the exact Eq. (6), instead of using a truncated Fourier series as in Eq. (1).

The second condition, which has not been emphasized in the literature before, is somewhat harder to confirm. One way to check this is to vary $`J_x`$ experimentally, and look for the value which gives the largest width of the resonances. Other ways require disconnecting the lower branch, and studying the conductance through the “lossy” path including the QD and the two “combs”. The “combs” are acceptable for our purposes only below a threshold $`J_x`$, as long as the conductance peaks remain independent of $`J_x`$.

It is worth emphasizing that the experimental data (as reflected in Fig. 2) actually contain more than the AB phase shift $`\beta `$. As stated after Eq. (2), the two-slit condition implies that $`B=2|t_1t_2|`$. Since $`t_2`$ is independent of $`V`$, this gives $`B|t_1|`$. Assuming also that the “combs” on the upper branch do not modify the $`V`$ dependence (i.e. that $`c`$ is $`V`$-independent), we conclude that $`T_{QD}=|t_{QD}|^2=(B/B_{max})^2`$, where $`B_{max}`$ is the maximum of $`B(V)`$. Indeed, we confirmed that our “data” in Fig. 2 obey this relation in the optimal range of $`J_x`$. Moving away from these optimal conditions causes a steeper increase in $`\beta `$, and a related narrower peak in $`B`$. Both of these widths should be largest for the optimal conditions. In fact, a third way to ensure a correct measurement of $`\alpha _{QD}`$ would be to measure $`T_{QD}`$ directly, from the conductance of the isolated QD, and compare it with the normalized $`B^2`$ in the interferometer measurement. Obviously, all of the latter experiments require modifications of the mesoscopic circuitry, and may thus not be straightforward to follow.

Although we presented results for only one set of parameters, we emphasize that similar results can be obtained for many other sets. In particular, the results for $`\beta `$ and for $`B/B_{max}`$ do not depend on the parameters of the lower branch. Varying these parameters only adds $`V`$-independent factors, and changes the $`V`$-dependence of $`A`$ (which is dominated by the ratio $`|t_1/t_2|`$). The results are also not sensitive to the sizes $`M_s`$ of the “combs”. However, too broad combs imply too small values of the total transmission through the interferometer (at optimum), giving very small outgoing currents which may be difficult to measure. Thus, although Weidenmüller is right in wishing many terminals, this is not enough. One could also vary other parameters, like $`J_c`$, but this might introduce additional resonances, due to the “combs” and not to the QD. Similar undesired comb-related resonances also arise when $`ka`$ is close to the band edge, but will not arise when one abandons the special 1D treatment of the leads and branches, a situation which is better modeled near the center of the band.

Our analysis also shows that even away from optimum, the locations of both the resonances and the Fano-like zeroes (or “phase lapses”) are reproduced correctly, independently of the coupling strength $`J_x`$. The main purpose of optimizing the interferometer is thus to obtain accurate values of the intrinsic resonance widths, which should agree with those found from the direct measurements of the peaks in the isolated QD conductance.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank M. Heiblum, Y. Levinson, A. Schiller, H. A. Weidenmüller and A. Yacoby for helpful conversations. This project was carried out in a center of excellence supported by the Israel Science Foundation, with additional support from the Albert Einstein Minerva Center for Theoretical Physics at the Weizmann Institute of Science, from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) within the Framework of the German-Israeli Project Cooperation (DIP) and from the NSF grant DMR 99-81283.


text:
# Veech surfaces and complete periodicity in genus 2

## Abstract.

We announce several results pertaining to Veech surfaces and completely periodic translation surfaces in genus $`2`$. A translation surface is a pair $`(M,\omega )`$ where $`M`$ is a Riemann surface and $`\omega `$ is an abelian differential on $`M`$. Equivalently, a translation surface is a two-manifold which has transition functions which are translations and a finite number of conical singularities arising from the zeroes of $`\omega `$. A saddle connection is a geodesic segment connecting two (not necessarily distinct) conical singularities with no singularities in its interior.

A direction $`v`$ on a translation surface is completely periodic if any trajectory in the direction $`v`$ is either closed or ends in a singularity, i.e. if the surface decomposes as a union of cylinders in the direction $`v`$. Then, we say that a translation surface is completely periodic if any direction in which there is a saddle connection joining a singularity to itself or at least one cylinder of closed trajectories is completely periodic. There is an action of the group $`SL(2,)`$ on the space of translation surfaces. A surface which has a lattice stabilizer under this action is said to be Veech. Veech proved that any Veech surface is completely periodic, but the converse is false.

In this announcement, we use the ”$`J`$-invariant” of Kenyon and Smillie to obtain a classification of all Veech surfaces in the space $`(2)`$ of genus $`2`$ translation surfaces with corresponding abelian differentials which have a single double zero. Furthermore, we obtain a classification of all completely periodic surfaces in genus $`2`$.

A translation surface is a pair $`(M,\omega )`$ where $`M`$ is a closed Riemann surface and $`\omega `$ is an abelian differential on $`M`$. Away from the zeroes of $`\omega `$, a chart $`z`$ can be chosen so that $`\omega =dz`$, which determines a Euclidean metric in that chart. The change of coordinates away from the zeroes of $`\omega `$ are of the form $`zz+c`$. In the neighborhood of a zero, one can choose a coordinate $`z`$ so that $`\omega =z^kdz`$. The total angle about this zero is $`2(k+1)\pi `$ and the order of the zero is $`k`$. Such zero is called a conical singularity. As a result of this definition, a translation surface can also be thought of as a two-manifold with transition functions which are translations and which has a finite number of conical singularities, arising from the zeroes of $`\omega `$. Each of these singularities has total angle $`2\pi n`$ for $`n^+`$. Thus, one can also think of a translation surface as a finite number of polygons in the plane $`^2`$, glued along parallel sides. Throughout, we will often denote a translation surface by $`S`$, and this notation should be thought of as incorporating both the Riemann surface $`M`$ and the differential $`\omega `$.

If $`S`$ is a translation surface, a saddle connection is a geodesic connecting two (not necessarily distinct) conical singularities of $`S`$ which has no singularities in its interior. Note that since the metric on $`S`$ is Euclidean away from the zeroes of $`\omega `$, saddle connections are straight lines, but in general, geodesics are unions of saddle connections where the line segments comprising the geodesic are allowed to switch directions at the conical singularities of $`S`$. A closed geodesic on $`S`$ determines a cylinder of parallel freely homotopic closed curves such that the boundaries of the cylinder consist of unions of saddle connections. A direction $`v`$ on $`S`$ is said to be completely periodic if all the trajectories in the direction $`v`$ are either closed or terminate at a singularity. In other words, $`v`$ is completely periodic if in the direction $`v`$, the surface decomposes as a union of cylinders. A surface $`S`$ is completely periodic if any direction in which there is at least one cylinder or a saddle connection connecting a zero to itself is completely periodic.

It can be shown that if a translation surface $`S`$ has genus $`g1`$, then the number of zeroes of $`\omega `$, counting multiplicity, is $`2g2`$. Let $`\alpha `$ be a partition of $`2g2`$, that is a collection of positive integers $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _k`$ such that $`\alpha _1+\mathrm{}+\alpha _k=2g2`$. Thus, if $`\omega `$ has $`k`$ distinct zeroes, and $`\alpha _i`$ is the multiplicity of one of the $`k`$ zeroes, then $`\omega `$ determines a partition of $`2g2`$. Now, fix a genus $`g`$ and a partition $`\alpha `$ of $`2g2`$. We let $`(\alpha )`$ denote the space of translation surfaces $`(M,\omega )`$ where $`M`$ is a Riemann surface of genus $`g`$ and $`\omega `$ is an abelian differential on $`M`$ whose zeroes correspond in the way described above to the partition $`\alpha `$. For example, the set of translation surfaces of genus $`2`$ is stratified as $`(1,1)(2)`$, where in $`(1,1)`$ the 1-form has two distinct simple zeroes, and in $`(2)`$ it has a single double zero.

There is an action of the group $`SL(2,)`$ on each stratum $`(\alpha )`$. If we think of a translation surface $`S`$ as a two-manifold with transition functions which are translations and which has a finite number of conical singularities, and if $`gSL(2,)`$, then $`gS`$ is the two manifold which has charts which are given by $`gf_i`$ where $`f_i`$ is a chart of $`S`$. It is easily checked that the transition functions of $`gS`$ are still translations and the number of singularities and their total angles are preserved. Alternatively, if $`S=P_1\mathrm{}P_n`$, where each $`P_i`$ is a polygon in the plane $`^2`$, then $`gS=gP_1\mathrm{}gP_n`$. A translation surface is said to be Veech if its stabilizer under this action of $`SL(2,)`$ is a lattice. It is a theorem of Veech that Veech surfaces are completely periodic, but the converse is not true.

For a curve $`\gamma S`$, let $`p(\gamma )`$ denote $`_\gamma (\omega )`$, where $`\omega `$ is the $`1`$-form defining the translation surface structure. We identify $`^2`$ with $``$. Define a translation surface $`S`$ to be quadratic if there exists $`d>0`$ (not a perfect square) such that $`p(H_1(S,))(\sqrt{d})\times (\sqrt{d})`$. Any Veech surface in genus $`2`$ (perhaps after rescaling) is known to be quadratic.

Let $`C`$ be a cylinder of periodic trajectories in the direction $`v`$. We use the term width for the length of the periodic trajectory, and height for the distance across the cylinder in the orthogonal direction. If $`w`$ is any other direction, we can talk about the twist of $`C`$ along $`w`$. Let $`v^{}`$ be the direction orthogonal to $`v`$ given by the right hand rule, and let $`w^{}`$ be the vector in the direction $`w`$ whose projection onto $`v^{}`$ has length equal to the height of the cylinder. Now, suppose that the angle $`\theta `$ between $`v`$ and $`w`$ satisfies $`0\theta \pi /2`$. Then we can define the twist $`t`$ in the direction $`w`$ to be the length of the projection of $`w^{}`$ onto $`v`$ modulo the width of the cylinder. If $`\pi /2<\theta \pi `$, then we define the twist to be the width of the cylinder minus the length of the projection of $`w^{}`$ onto $`v`$ modulo the width of the cylinder.

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`S`$ be a Veech surface in $`(2)`$ which cannot be rescaled so that $`p(H_1(S,))\times `$. Let $`v`$ be a completely periodic direction for $`S`$. Suppose the cylinder decompositon in the direction $`v`$ has two cylinders. Let $`w_1,w_2,h_1,h_2,t_1,t_2`$ be the widths, heights and twists of these two cylinders. The twists are measured along some direction $`w`$ which we assume is also completely periodic. After rescaling the surface, we may assume that these variables are algebraic integers in $`(\sqrt{d})`$ where $`d`$ is some square-free, positive integer. Then the following equations are satisfied:

(1) $`w_1\overline{h}_1`$ $`=w_2\overline{h}_2`$
(2) $`\overline{w_1}t_1+\overline{w_2}t_2+\overline{w_1}w_2`$ $`=w_1\overline{t_1}+w_2\overline{t_2}+w_1\overline{w_2},0t_1<w_1,0t_2<w_2`$
(where the bar denotes conjugation in $`(\sqrt{d})`$.)

Conversely, let $`S`$ be a surface in $`(2)`$. Suppose there exists a direction $`v`$ in which there is a cylinder decomposition for which the heights, widths and twists (along some direction $`w`$) belong to $`(\sqrt{d})`$ and satisfy (1) and (2). Then $`S`$ is Veech.

(If $`S(2)`$ is Veech and has a one cylinder decomposition in some direction $`v`$, then $`p(H_1(S,))\times `$.)

We note that a different classification of Veech surfaces in genus $`2`$, formulated in terms of Jacobians with real multiplication, was obtained by C. McMullen in \[M\].

Let $`𝒪_d^+`$ denote the positive algebraic integers in $`(\sqrt{d})`$.

###### Lemma 1.

For fixed integers $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$, the equations (1), (2) and

(3)
$$w_1h_1+w_2h_2=2(c_1+c_2\sqrt{d})$$

have finitely many solutions in $`𝒪_d^+`$, up to the action by the group of units. Let us denote this finite number by $`H(c_1,c_2)`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a set containing one element for each Veech surface in $`(2)`$, where we identify any two surfaces in the same $`GL(2,)`$ orbit. Let $`P`$ denote the set of positive solutions in algebraic integers in $`(\sqrt{d})`$ to (1) and (2). Then in view of Theorem (1) there exists a map $`f_1:P\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Now if $`S`$ is a Veech surface, then there is a surface $`S^{}`$ in the $`GL(2,)`$ orbit of $`S`$ such that $`p(H_1(S^{}))`$ is a primitive sublattice of $`𝒪_d\times 𝒪_d`$ with no common factor. The area of $`S^{}`$ is independent of the choice of $`S^{}`$. Let $`f_2:\mathrm{\Omega }𝒪_d^+`$ denote the map which sends (the equivalence class of) $`S`$ to the area of $`S^{}`$.

###### Corollary 1.

(Classification of Veech surfaces in $`(2)`$). The maps $`f_1:P\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`f_2:\mathrm{\Omega }𝒪_d^+`$ are finite-to-one. In fact, the cardinality of $`(f_1f_2)^1(2(c_1+c_2\sqrt{d}))`$ is $`H(c_1,c_2)`$.

We now state some results for $`(1,1)`$. Suppose $`v`$ is a completely periodic direction for $`S(1,1)`$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that in the direction $`v`$, $`S`$ decomposes into three cylinders, and for $`1i3`$, let $`w_i`$, $`h_i`$ and $`t_i`$ denote the widths, heights and twists. After renumbering, we may assume that $`w_3=w_1+w_2`$. Denote $`s_1=h_1+h_3`$, $`s_2=h_2+h_3`$, $`\tau _1=t_1+t_3`$, $`\tau _2=t_2+t_3`$. For $`c_1+c_2\sqrt{d}𝒪_d^+`$, consider the following equations:

(4) $`w_1\overline{s}_1`$ $`=w_2\overline{s}_2`$
(5) $`\overline{w}_1\tau _1+\overline{w}_2\tau _2+\overline{w}_1w_2`$ $`=w_1\overline{\tau }_1+w_2\overline{\tau }_2+w_1\overline{w}_2,0t_1<w_1,0t_2<w_2`$
(6) $`w_1s_1+w_2s_2`$ $`=2(c_1+c_2\sqrt{d})`$
###### Theorem 2.

Let $`(c_1,c_2)`$ denote the set of surfaces in $`(1,1)`$ which are completely periodic and for each completely periodic direction $`v`$, the lengths heights and twists of the cylinder decomposition in that direction satisfy (4), (5) and (6). Then $`(c_1,c_2)`$ is a closed subset of dimension $`3`$ which is invariant under the $`SL(2,)`$ action. It is non-empty provided (4) (5) and (6) have a solution in $`𝒪_d^+`$, and any Veech surface in $`(1,1)`$ is contained in such a subset.

We also obtain a classification of the completely periodic surfaces in genus $`2`$. In fact

###### Theorem 3.

In $`(2)`$ every completely periodic surface is Veech. In $`(1,1)`$, a surface is completely periodic if it has a cylinder decomposition in some direction $`v`$, such that the heights widths and twists satisfy (4) (5) and (6). Conversely, if $`S(1,1)`$ is completely periodic then after rescaling, either $`p(H_1(S))\times `$ or $`p(H_1(S))(\sqrt{d})\times (\sqrt{d})`$ for some square-free $`d>0`$. If $`S`$ cannot be rescaled so that $`p(H_1(S))\times `$ and if $`v`$ is any completely periodic direction, then (4) (5) and (6) hold, where the $`w_i,h_i,t_i`$ denote the widths, heights and twists of the cylinder decomposition along $`v`$ (and the twists are measured along another completely periodic direction $`v^{}`$).

The proofs of the results stated here use the $`J`$ invariant for translation surfaces defined by Kenyon and Smillie in their paper “Billiards on rational angled triangles” as follows. First if $`P`$ is a polygon in $`^2`$ with vertices $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_n`$ in counterclockwise order about the boundary of $`P`$, then $`J(P)=v_1v_2+\mathrm{}+v_{n1}v_n+v_nv_1`$. Then, if $`S`$ is a translation surface with a cellular decomposition into planar polygons $`P_1\mathrm{}P_k`$, $`J(S)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^kJ(P_i)`$. Furthermore, there are two linear projections $`J_{xx}`$ and $`J_{yy}`$ from $`^2_{}^2`$ to $`_{}`$ given on basis elements as

$$J_{xx}\left(\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a}{b}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{c}{d}\right)\right)=ac$$

$$J_{yy}\left(\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a}{b}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{c}{d}\right)\right)=bd$$

and one linear projection $`J_{xy}`$ from $`^2_{}^2`$ to $`_{}`$ defined on basis elements as

$$J_{xy}\left(\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a}{b}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{c}{d}\right)\right)=adcb.$$

Let $`v`$ be some direction on a translation surface $`S`$. If $`v`$ is either the horizontal or vertical direction, $`J_{vv}`$ has already been defined. Suppose that $`v`$ is neither the horizontal nor vertical direction, and let the vector $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{q}\right)`$ represent the direction $`v`$. If $`g`$ is any matrix in $`SL(2,)`$ such that $`g\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{q}\right)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}\right)`$, then we define $`J_{vv}(S)=J_{yy}(gS)`$. It can be shown that this quantity is independent of the choice of matrix $`g`$. Also, given a pair of linearly independent directions $`v,w`$ on $`S`$, let $`v^{}`$, $`w^{}`$ be vectors in the directions $`v`$ and $`w`$ so that there exists an element $`gSL(2,)`$ such that $`gv^{}=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}\right)`$ and $`gw^{}=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{1}\right)`$ and define $`J_{vw}(S)=J_{xy}(gS)`$. (In the case that $`v=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{1}\right)`$ and $`w=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}\right)`$, define $`J_{vw}(S)=J_{yx}(S)`$ where $`J_{yx}(\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a}{b}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{c}{d}\right))=bcda`$.) It can be shown that a different choice of $`v^{},w^{}`$ will multiply each of the components of each of the tensors comprising $`J_{vw}`$ by the same number.

An alternative formula for the Kenyon-Smillie invariant is:

$$J=2\underset{i=1}{\overset{g}{}}p(a_i)p(b_i)$$

where $`a_i,b_i`$ is a symplectic homology basis for the surface $`S`$.

It is proven in Kenyon and Smillie that if the horizontal direction $`x`$ on a translation surface $`S`$ is completely periodic, then $`J_{yy}=0`$.

We define a direction $`v`$ to be homological if there exists $`\lambda H_1(S)`$ and $`r`$ such that $`rv=p(\lambda )`$. Note that $`\lambda `$ is not assumed to be simple.

We say that a translation surface $`S`$ has Property X if for any homological direction $`v`$ on $`S`$, $`J_{vv}=0`$. I have proven the following theorems regarding property $`X`$.

###### Theorem 4.

If a genus $`2`$ translation surface has property $`X`$, then it is completely periodic.

###### Theorem 5.

If a translation surface is completely periodic, then it has property $`X`$. In particular, any Veech surface has Property $`X`$.

###### Theorem 6.

If a surface in $`(2)`$ has property $`X`$, then it is Veech.

###### Proposition 1.

Let $`S`$ be a quadratic translation surface which cannot be rescaled so that $`p(H_1(S,))\times `$. Let $`v`$ and $`w`$ be any two linearly independent directions such that $`J_{vv}=J_{ww}=0`$. We may write $`J_{vw}(S)=c_1(11)+c_2(1\sqrt{d})+c_3(\sqrt{d}1)+c_4(\sqrt{d}\sqrt{d})`$ where $`c_i`$. Then $`S`$ has property $`X`$ if and only if $`c_2=c_3`$ and $`c_1=dc_4`$.

A straightforward calculation shows the following:

###### Lemma 2.

Let $`S(2)`$ be a quadratic translation surface which cannot be rescaled so that $`p(H_1(S,))\times `$. Assume that $`S`$ has a two cylinder decomposition in the horizontal direction. Let $`w_1,w_2,h_1,h_2,t_1,t_2`$ be the widths, heights and twists of these two cylinders. Then $`J_{xx}=0`$ if and only if (2) holds. Furthermore the equations $`c_1=dc_4`$ and $`c_2=c_3`$ defining property $`X`$ are equivalent to (1).

Now Theorem 1 follows from Theorem 5, Theorem 6, Proposition 1, and Lemma 2. The proof of Theorem 6 uses Theorem 4 and Lemma 1. The proof of Theorem 2 also uses Theorem 4 and Lemma 1.

We say that a translation surface $`S`$ is hyperperiodic if any homological direction on $`S`$ is completely periodic. Clearly hyperperiodicity implies both complete periodicity and property $`X`$. The following theorem was obtained in joint work with A. Eskin and M. Boshernitzan (see \[BCE\]).

###### Theorem 7.

Any quadratic Veech surface is hyperperiodic. Also, in genus $`2`$, hyperperiodicity, complete periodicity and property X are equivalent.

We note that Theorem 7 gives a complete description of the periodic directions in e.g. the regular pentagon. We also note that hyperperiodicty remains invariant under the deformation where the absolute homology is fixed and the relative homology changes.

Department of Mathematics, University of Chicago, Chicago IL 60637, USA;
kcalta@math.uchicago.edu