text:
# Ordered clusters and dynamical states of particles in a vibrated fluid

## Abstract

Fluid-mediated interactions between particles in a vibrating fluid lead to both long range attraction and short range repulsion. The resulting patterns include hexagonally ordered micro-crystallites, time-periodic structures, and chaotic fluctuating patterns with complex dynamics. A model based on streaming flow gives a good quantitative account of the attractive part of the interaction.

PACS: 45.70.Qj,47.15.Cb, 05.65.+b

Many important systems consist of granular material flowing while immersed in fluid. In early experiments, Bagnold used fluid saturated granular flows to remove the effects of gravity . Others have avoided interstitial fluid (even removing air) in order to observe pure granular behavior. However, the fluid can produce interactions between particles resulting in interesting macroscopic effects. For example, granular heaping due to fluid interactions has been investigated in vertically vibrated deep granular beds . Also, a variety of interaction effects are important in sedimentation (for example ). Several systems show combinations of attractive and repulsive interactions which result in ordering of particles .

In this letter, we present experimental studies of novel phenomena that occur as a consequence of both attractive and repulsive interactions between non-brownian particles when they are vibrated in a fluid. The observations include clustering, ordered crystalline patterns, and dynamical fluctuating states. The fluid mediated interactions can be tuned to produce a striking variety of dynamical phenomena, and this provides an interesting new mechanism for self-assembly of ordered structures.

The attractive interaction can be understood quantitatively using a theory based on the mean streaming flow generated by the oscillating particles. A short-range repulsive interaction is also observed at large vibrational acceleration. This repulsion shows a very sharp onset as the acceleration is increased. Together the combination of attraction and repulsion results in particles being bound together without contact over a range of parameters. We demonstrate how these interactions allow micro-crystallites to form, for example hexagons surrounding a particle center. Small numbers of particles can form stable structures, while larger numbers of particles ($`>7`$) move chaotically in a bound state with no long range order, a “mesoscopic liquid”.

The experimental setup in shown in Fig. 1. We conduct all experiments in a rigid 6 cm diameter by 1.5 cm tall cylindrical aluminum container vibrated vertically by an electromagnetic vibrator. We completely fill the container with a water/glycerol mixture of kinematic viscosity $`\nu =8`$ cS (density=1.15 gm/cm3) and a sub-monolayer of uniform stainless steel spheres of diameter $`d=0.794`$ mm and density 8.0 gm/cm3. A glass window seals the top of the cylinder to provide optical access and to avoid surface waves. The bottom plate is made of glass since its smoothness reduces random horizontal particle motion. We have used both flat glass and a concave lens for the bottom surface. The concave lens (focal length -1 m) makes no measurable change in the particle interactions; it is used to keep particles from slowly drifting to the edges of the cell due to imperfect leveling or slightly non-linear vibrational motion.

Both the frequency ($`\omega =2\pi f`$) and amplitude ($`M`$) of the vibration of the container are controlled externally. The nondimensional acceleration is given by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\omega ^2M/g`$. The container oscillations cause the particles to vibrate vertically, typically contacting the cell bottom once each cycle. The particles remain within 1 or 2 particle diameters from the bottom over a wide range of accelerations. We image the entire system from above using a fast CCD camera. When the system is illuminated from an oblique angle, it is possible to measure the positions of the shadows of particles, and thereby to determine the amplitude of their vertical motion, $`A`$, defined as half the peak to peak displacement. The particle Reynolds number, $`Re=dA\omega /\nu `$, ranges from 2 to 10.

In Fig. 2 we show the time evolution of an initially random distribution of particles. After the vibrator is started, the particles quickly collect into localized clusters, and the clusters then slowly coalesce in a manner reminiscent of coarsening in phase transitions.

A two particle system provides a particularly simple flow in which the particle attraction can be compared with theory. Figure 3 shows the distance between the centers of two particles as a function of time. The approach rate increases until they come into contact. The shape of these curves provides clear evidence that the clustering is due to a fluid-mediated interaction, and not to inelastic collisions, which cause clustering in a similar system with no fluid . The separation also shows a small periodic modulation with the period of the vertical vibration. Particles separate near their lowest point and approach near the highest point of their motion.

The attractive interaction can be quantified by considering the flow produced by each individual particle’s motion. The vibrations produce an oscillatory flow around each particle, which is well approximated as a potential flow, outside of a boundary layer with approximate thickness $`\delta _{osc}=\sqrt{2\nu /\omega }`$. In the experiment at $`f=50`$ Hz, $`\delta _{osc}=0.2\mathrm{mm}`$, which is smaller than the particle radius, $`a=0.397`$ mm. The potential flow near each oscillating particle is $`𝐮=\varphi `$, where $`\varphi =\frac{1}{2}A\omega \mathrm{sin}(\omega t)a^3\mathrm{cos}(\theta )/r^2`$; here the origin is at the middle of the particle, and $`\theta `$ is the angle between a given location on the sphere and the forcing direction. At the particle surface, the component of the velocity field parallel to its surface is $`u_{||}(\theta )=\frac{1}{2}A\omega sin(\omega t)sin(\theta )`$ .

Long ago Lord Rayleigh pointed out that when the magnitude of the oscillatory flow $`u_{||}=u_{||}(\theta )`$ varies along a solid surface, such as that of the particle, a steady secondary flow is generated . For flow near the surface, mass conservation then requires that there is also a flow perpendicular to the boundary with magnitude $`u_{}\delta _{osc}_{||}u_{||}`$. Since this flow is not entirely out of phase with $`u_{||}`$ in the boundary layer, every oscillation cycle transports a finite amount of momentum into the boundary layer. Hence there is a time independent force density on the fluid in the boundary layer, which is parallel to the boundary and of order $`\rho u_{||}_{||}u_{||}`$, where $`\rho `$ is the fluid density and $``$ denotes time average over a cycle. This forcing produces a steady flow, which when balanced against the viscous force $`\rho \nu u_{steady}/\delta _{osc}^2`$ gives the magnitude of the steady flow at the edge of the oscillatory boundary layer $`u_{steady}u_{||}_{||}u_{||}/\omega `$.

Hence, a steady flow is produced with a magnitude $`u_{steady}A^2\omega /a`$. A careful analysis  shows that this steady flow pushes fluid away from the poles of each particle; and so there is a perpendicular inflow velocity towards the equator. This steady inflow is the origin of the attractive interactions between two particles.

To compute the rate at which particles come together, we must determine the inflow velocity far from the particle. Besides the oscillatory boundary layer, there is also a boundary layer caused by the steady flow itself , with a scale $`\delta _{steady}=a/\sqrt{\mathrm{Re}_{\mathrm{steady}}}`$, where $`\mathrm{Re}_{\mathrm{steady}}=A^2\omega /\nu `$ is the Reynolds number of the steady secondary flow. A matching argument, connecting the flows in the boundary layers to a potential flow far away, determines the inflow velocity to be $`v(r)=0.53A\sqrt{\omega \nu }a^2/r^3`$ at a distance $`r`$ from the center of the sphere. Thus, if $`R(t)`$ denotes the distance between the particle centers, it follows that $`dR/dt=2v(R)`$ since the particles follow the slow changes in the horizontal motion of the fluid. This implies that the separation between the two spheres should decrease according to the law

$$R(t)=(R_0^44.24A\sqrt{\omega \nu }a^2t)^{1/4}.$$
(1)
This formula assumes that (i) $`\delta _{osc}/\delta _{steady}<1`$, which can be rewritten $`A<a/\sqrt{2}`$; (ii) the particles are far enough apart that they do not affect each other’s boundary layers; and (iii) neglects the influence of the bottom plate. Our estimates indicate that assumption (i) holds when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is small or $`f`$ is large; (ii) holds except at the final moments of approach; and (iii) holds except during the small interval in each cycle when the particle bounces off the plate.

In Fig. 3, the central dashed line shows the approach curves predicted by Eq. 1 for the conditions of the experiment. The agreement of the data with both the predicted functional form and rate of approach is quite good considering that all the parameters used by the theory are independently determined. At 20 Hz (Fig. 3a), the measured trajectories approach somewhat more slowly than the theory predicts. At 50 Hz (Fig 3b), the measured approach rate is closer to the prediction, and the functional form agrees better, most likely because the oscillatory boundary layer is thinner in this case and so assumption (i) above is better satisfied. The upper and lower dashed curves show the effect of measurment uncertainty in $`A`$. Since at 50 Hz the amplitude is very small and the vertical motion is chaotic, the uncertainty is rather large in this case. Overall, the theory quite accurately captures the approach of two particles, and it seems unambiguous that the attraction is caused by the streaming mechanism.

At larger accelerations, a short-range repulsion becomes prominent and limits the closeness of approach. This can be seen in Fig. 4, which displays the steady state separation between two particles as a function of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for several different forcing frequencies. At each frequency, there is a step-like rise in separation at a characteristic $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ that moves to higher $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as the frequency increases. It is interesting to note (Figure 4b) that there is no sharp change in the amplitude of the vertical motion of the particles with increasing $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, so the onset of non-zero separation must be due to the fluid flow and not to changes in the bouncing dynamics. The onset of separation at each frequency appears when the particles have a peak-to-peak vertical amplitude of approximately $`1.4d`$.

A fully quantitative theory of this effect is not available. One possible explanation is that the repulsion becomes important when the oscillatory boundary layer is thicker than the steady boundary layer. An alternate possibility suggested by flow visualization is that the repulsion is due to recirculating zones near the particles created by deflection of the downward part of the streaming flow by the plate. Explaining the details of the repulsive interaction remains as a challenge for future work.

Systems of more than two particles display a range of fascinating patterns and dynamics, including ordered crystallites, time-dependent ordered patterns, and bound states with complex particle motion. For example, one might expect that when attraction and repulsion are both important, the three particle system would form a stable symmetric triangular configuration. For low acceleration this is nearly the case, but as the acceleration increases, the system breaks symmetry to a state with two paired and one distant particle as shown in Fig. 5(a). This state is fairly stable, but over long times the distant particle can wander close enough to cause a new pairing.

In a system with 7 particles, stable hexagonal states form over the range $`2.8<\mathrm{\Gamma }<3.0`$ (Fig. 5b). At slightly higher acceleration, the system switches to a time dependent state with 2 central particles rotating inside a ring of 5 others (Fig 5c). Particle motion here is periodic and quite stable, and an animation of this “dance” is available online . At yet higher acceleration, 7 particle clusters exhibit apparently chaotic motion.

For larger numbers of particles, the presence of both attraction and repulsion leads to even more complex many body effects, which are generally time-dependent. Figures 5(d-f) show a system of many particles at 3 different accelerations. Here the onset of a non-zero separation between particles occurs at higher acceleration than for the two particle case. As shown in Fig. 5(d) ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }=3.7`$), particles near the center of the cluster can remain in contact even when particles near the periphery have separated. One reason for this is that the vertical motion of particles is significantly smaller at the center of the cluster than at the edges, causing weaker repulsion. At $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=3.9`$, (Fig 5e) the inner particles have separated and the system forms a bound state with weakly chaotic motion of all the particles, a “mesoscopic liquid”. One interesting feature of this state is that the preferred distance between particles results in the formation of closed shells. At the parameters of Fig 5(e) there are two more particles than fit in the closed shells, and these “valence” particles move more freely than the others. Further increase of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ results in increased interparticle distance and more rapid particle motion (Fig 5f). Animations of these time-dependent states are available .

We emphasize that the chaotic motion of particles in the clusters is not a result of external effects such as roughness of the driving surface. A single particle bounces regularly with possibly a slow drift due to imperfect leveling or slightly non-vertical vibrator motion. Multiple particles exhibit complicated motion as a result of the nonlinearity of the flow of the interstitial fluid.

In summary, we have shown that fluid mediated interactions between particles can be delicately tuned to produce a great variety of ordered and time-dependent dynamical states of these many body systems.

This work has been supported in part by NSF grants DMR-0079909 to Haverford College, DMR-0072203 to The University of Pennsylvania, and DMS-0296056 to Harvard Universtiy. We appreciate the hospitality of the Aspen Center for Physics, where this collaboration began.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In a recent paper , Verlinde has discussed the cosmological bounds on entropy for spacetimes of dimension $`d>2`$. These are based on the holographic principle , which states that the entropy contained into a given region of space should be bounded by the area of the spacelike surface that encloses it. Another important result of  is that the Friedmann equation of cosmology for a radiation-dominated universe can be shown to be equivalent to the Cardy formula for the entropy of a conformal field theory describing the radiation. This observation has of course important implications, which have not been fully clarified yet.

The context of the original proposal of Verlinde was $`d>2`$ cosmology. Although the Cardy-Verlinde formula has been generalized to describe other gravitational systems , in particular black holes, a discussion of the $`d=2`$ case is still lacking. The two-dimensional (2D) limit of the Cardy-Verlinde proposal is interesting for various reasons. From investigations of the anti-de Sitter (AdS)/Conformal Field Theory (CFT) correspondence, we know that there are 2D gravitational systems that admit 2D CFTs as duals . In this case one can make direct use of the original Cardy formula  to compute the entropy . A comparison of these results with a 2D generalization of the Cardy-Verlinde formula could be very useful in particular for the understanding of the puzzling features of the AdS/CFT correspondence in two dimensions . Another point of interest in extending the Cardy-Verlinde formula to $`d=2`$ is the clarification of the meaning of the holographic principle for 2D spacetimes. The boundaries of spacelike regions of 2D spacetimes are points, so that even the notion of holographic bound is far from trivial.

A generalization of the work of Verlinde to two spacetime dimensions presents several difficulties, essentially for dimensional reasons. First of all, in two dimensions one cannot establish a area law, since black hole horizons are isolated points. Moreover, the spatial coordinate is not a ”radial” coordinate and hence one cannot impose a natural normalization on it. As we shall see later on this paper in detail, this fact is connected, at least for the 2D gravity model we consider here, to a scale symmetry of 2D gravity . Related to this symmetry is also the fact that the 2D gravitational coupling constant $`G`$ is dimensionless, and hence one cannot even define a ”Planck” length. Finally, if one works, as we do in this paper, in the context of scalar-tensor theories of gravity, the 2D cosmological equations are quite different from their Friedmann-Robertson-Walker $`d>2`$ counterparts.

Some of these problems may of course be solved if one considers gravity in two dimensions as a dimensionally reduced theory. However, if one wants to keep a purely two-dimensional point of view, one has to deal with the particular features of 2D gravity.

In this paper, we wish to extend Verlinde’s results to a radiation-dominated 1+1 universe, in which the gravitational interaction is governed by a Jackiw-Teitelboim (JT) model . We shall see that this goal can be achieved, provided that some free parameters appearing in the solutions are fixed using the scale symmetry of the theory.

The paper is organized as follows: in sect. 2 we discuss the cosmological model derived from the JT model. In sect. 3 we discuss how the standard cosmological bounds on the entropy can be generalized to our case. In sect. 4 we use the scale symmetry of the gravitational theory to fix the free dimensionless parameters appearing in the bounds. In sect. 5 we investigate the relations between the cosmological equations and the Cardy formula. The cosmological bounds on the temperature of a radiation-dominated universe are discussed in sect. 6. Finally, in sect. 7, we present our conclusions.

## 2 Two-dimensional cosmology

Let us consider the action for JT gravity minimally coupled to matter,

$$I=d^2x\sqrt{g}\left(\eta \frac{2\lambda ^2}{16\pi G}+L_M\right),$$
(1)
where $`\eta `$ is a scalar field (the dilaton), $`G`$ is the dimensionless 2D Newton constant, which could be absorbed in a redefinition of the dilaton, $`\lambda ^2`$ is a cosmological constant and $`L_M`$ is the matter lagrangian. We want to discuss a radiation-dominated 1+1 universe, in which case $`L_M`$ describes free (or weak interacting) massless particles. In general, $`L_M`$ can be given in terms of a 2D CFT. Because the matter lagrangian is that of a perfect fluid, it can be taken proportional to its density, $`L_M=\rho `$ . A constrained variation of (1) gives the field equations

$`=2\lambda ^2,`$
$`(_\mu _\nu g_{\mu \nu }^2)\eta +\lambda ^2g_{\mu \nu }\eta =8\pi T_{\mu \nu },`$ (2)
where $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ is the standard energy-momentum tensor of a perfect fluid, $`T_{\mu \nu }=p_Mg_{\mu \nu }+(\rho +p_M)u_\mu u_\nu `$, with $`p_M`$ the pressure of the fluid. The field equations (2) tell us that, independently of the matter, the spacetime has constant, positive curvature. It is therefore given by a 2D de Sitter (dS) spacetime.

We make the ansatz $`ds^2=dt^2+R^2(t)dx^2`$, $`\eta =\eta (t)`$, with $`0x2\pi `$. Since we take $`x`$ periodic, we are considering a closed 1+1 universe. However, our considerations can be easily extended to a open universe. The field equations then take the form

$`\ddot{R}\lambda ^2R=0,`$
$`\dot{R}\dot{\eta }\lambda ^2R\eta =8\pi GR\rho ,`$
$`\ddot{\eta }\lambda ^2\eta =8\pi Gp_M.`$ (3)
Combining the field equations, one obtains the energy momentum conservation in the form $`\dot{\rho }=(p_M+\rho )\dot{R}/R`$. For a perfect fluid, $`p_M=\gamma \rho `$, and this relation can be integrated to yield $`\rho R^{1+\gamma }=`$ const $`=M/2\pi `$. We are considering the case in which the matter is constituted of pure radiation, for which $`\gamma =1`$, so that we have,

$$\rho =\frac{M}{2\pi R^2}.$$
(4)
The general solution of the first of Eqs. (2) is

$$R(t)=\overline{a}\mathrm{e}^{\lambda t}+\overline{b}\mathrm{e}^{\lambda t}.$$
(5)
Depending on the relative sign of the integration constants $`\overline{a}`$ and $`\overline{b}`$, and with a suitable choice of the origin of time, the solution can assume three qualitatively different forms:

$`\mathrm{I})`$ $`R={\displaystyle \frac{a}{\lambda }}\mathrm{e}^{\lambda t},`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{II})`$ $`R={\displaystyle \frac{a}{\lambda }}\mathrm{sinh}\lambda t,`$ (7)
$`\mathrm{III})`$ $`R={\displaystyle \frac{a}{\lambda }}\mathrm{cosh}\lambda t.`$ (8)
where $`a`$ is a dimensionless parameter (we choose this normalization, in order to give to $`R`$ the physical dimension of a length).

The solutions for the scalar field are, respectively

$`\mathrm{I})`$ $`\eta =\eta _0\mathrm{e}^{\lambda t}{\displaystyle \frac{4GM}{3a^2}}\mathrm{e}^{2\lambda t},`$ (9)
$`\mathrm{II})`$ $`\eta =\eta _0\mathrm{cosh}\lambda t+{\displaystyle \frac{4GM}{a^2}}\left(1+\mathrm{cosh}\lambda t\mathrm{log}\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda t}{2}}\right),`$
$`\mathrm{III})`$ $`\eta =\eta _0\mathrm{sinh}\lambda t{\displaystyle \frac{4GM}{a^2}}\left(1+\mathrm{sinh}\lambda t\mathrm{arctan}\mathrm{sinh}\lambda t\right),`$
with $`\eta _0`$ an integration constant. All solutions are of course locally isomorphic to de Sitter spacetime, but with different parametrization, covering different regions of the 2D manifold. In particular, I and II possess a horizon at $`t=\mathrm{}`$ and $`t=0,`$ respectively. Moreover for all solutions I, II and III the scalar field $`\eta `$ has a zero at a finite value $`t_0`$ of the cosmological time $`t`$. Since we are dealing with a Brans-Dicke-like theory of gravity, $`\eta ^1`$ represents a time-dependent effective Newton constant. The instant $`t=t_0`$ may therefore be interpreted as an initial singularity and we will restrict ourselves to consider only times $`tt_0`$, when $`\eta 0`$.

In two dimensions there is no direct analog of the $`d`$-dimensional Friedmann equation

$$H^2=\lambda ^2+\frac{16\pi G}{(d1)(d2)}\rho \frac{1}{R^2},$$
(10)
where $`H\dot{R}/R`$ is the Hubble parameter (Notice that the Friedmann equation (10) is singular for $`d=2`$). However, an equation for $`H^2`$ can be obtained by integrating the first equation in (2):

$$H^2=\lambda ^2\frac{\alpha }{R^2}.$$
(11)
The constant of integration $`\alpha `$ for the solutions I-III is respectively, 0, $`a^2`$, $`a^2`$. For a radiation-dominated universe, one can use Eq. (4) into Eq. (11), to obtain an expression formally similar to (10),

$$H^2=\lambda ^2+8\pi G\rho \frac{\overline{\alpha }}{R^2},$$
(12)
where $`\overline{\alpha }=\alpha +4GM`$. Notice that we are using the arbitrariness of the integration constant $`\alpha `$ to make the metric of the spacetime dependent on the matter. Consistently with the field equations (2) the effect of the matter on the metric can be only encoded in the choice of integration constants.

Our gravity model (1) has a cosmological constant different from zero. Therefore, one can assign to the vacuum an energy $`E_\lambda =\lambda ^2R/4G`$ and a pressure $`p_\lambda =E_\lambda `$. This permits to write Eq. (12) in terms of the total energy $`E=(E_\lambda +E_M)`$, where $`E_M=M/R`$ is the energy of the matter,

$$H^2=\frac{4GE}{R}\frac{\overline{\alpha }}{R^2}.$$
(13)
## 3 Entropy bounds

In $`d>2`$ a bound on the entropy of a macroscopic system, $`SS_B`$, is believed to hold, where the Bekenstein entropy $`S_B`$ is defined as

$$S_B=\frac{2\pi }{d1}ER,$$
(14)
with $`E`$ the total energy and $`R`$ the linear size of the system. This bound is verified for standard gases, but the numerical factor in front of $`ER`$ is fixed by the assumption that the bound is saturated by black holes.

A generalization of this bound to two dimensions is not straightforward. Consider for example the 2D anti-de Sitter black hole , which is a solution of the gravity model (1) with negative $`\lambda ^2`$,

$$ds^2=(\lambda ^2x^2m^2)dt^2+(\lambda ^2x^2m^2)^1dx^2\eta =\eta _0\lambda x$$
(15)
A horizon occurs at $`x_0=m/\lambda `$, and one can associate to it the temperature $`T=\lambda m/2\pi `$ and the entropy $`S=2\pi \eta _0m`$. Moreover, by standard methods, one can assign to the black hole the ADM mass $`=\eta _0\lambda m^2/2`$. Thus one gets the relation

$$S=\frac{4\pi x_0}{m^2}$$
(16)
If one identifies the energy $`E`$ of the black hole with its ADM mass and its size $`R`$ with the length $`x_0`$, one finds $`SER`$, but the ratio $`S/ER`$ grows without limit for small $`m`$ (in the limit $`m0`$, however, all quantities vanish). The same situation occurs in more general two-dimensional models. The problem is connected to the fact that in two dimensions there is no radial coordinate and hence the coordinate $`x`$ cannot be properly normalized, or equivalently to the scale symmetry of the model, which will be discussed in the next section.

Thus, although one can envisage a Bekenstein bound of the form

$$SS_B=2\pi ϵER,$$
(17)
which can also be deduced from the thermodynamics of a one-dimensional gas, the coefficient $`ϵ`$ is not clearly determined. Notice that in the radiation-dominated cosmological model of the previous section $`S_B=2\pi M`$ is a conserved quantity, proportional to the matter density.

The Bekenstein bound is believed to hold when the gravitational energy of the system is small with respect to its total energy, i.e in a weak-gravitating regime. For strong-gravitating systems, i.e. systems for which $`HR>1`$, a different bound must be introduced. In order to establish in which regime a given system is, it is useful to define a Bekenstein-Hawking entropy $`S_{BH}`$ as the Bekenstein entropy of a system with $`HR=1`$ . From the ”Friedmann” equation (13) one obtains

$$S_{BH}=\frac{V}{4GR}(1+\overline{\alpha })=\frac{\pi }{2G}(1+\overline{\alpha }),$$
(18)
where $`V=2\pi R`$ is the spatial volume. Recalling the definition of $`\overline{\alpha }`$, Eq. (18) can also be written as

$$S_{BH}=\frac{\pi }{2G}(1+\alpha )+2\pi M$$
(19)
This is the sum of two constant contributions: the first depends only on the geometry, while the second, which is proportional to $`S_B`$, depends only on the matter content and is not present in $`d>2`$. In absence of matter, the second contribution vanishes. The appearance of a factor $`\alpha `$ proportional to $`a^2`$ is again a consequence of the scale invariance of the theory, which does not fix the scale of the spatial coordinate in the solutions.

Notice that the bound $`SS_{BH}`$ is a truly holographic bound for a 2D spacetime. The boundary of a spatial section of a 2D universe are two points: thus the holographic principle states that the entropy can only depend on the Newton constant $`G`$ and on a dimensionless parameter.

In a cosmological contest and when $`HR>1`$ the Bekenstein bound must be replaced by a holographic bound. However, it has been argued that the Bekenstein-Hawking bound $`SS_{BH}`$ is not the right choice. A suitable bound is given by the Hubble entropy $`S_H`$, defined as the entropy of a universe filled with black holes of the size of a particle horizon . Later, a weaker definition of $`S_H`$ was proposed, in which the maximal size of the black holes is the Hubble radius $`H^1`$ . In our 2D context, $`S_H`$ can be calculated as follows . From Eq. (18), a black hole of radius $`H^1`$ has entropy $`(1+\overline{\alpha })HV_H/4G`$. Since the universe can contain $`N_H=V/V_H`$ black holes, one obtains

$$S_H=\frac{VH}{4G}(1+\overline{\alpha })=\frac{\pi RH}{2G}(1+\overline{\alpha })$$
(20)
Notice that, while the solution I and II have a particle horizon of the size of the Hubble radius, in case III the size of the particle horizon grows exponentially with time.

To conclude, although in the 2D case one may be able to obtain different entropy bounds, they do not seem to be universal. The entropy bounds $`SS_{BH}`$ and $`SS_H`$ depend on the arbitrary, dimensionless parameters $`\overline{\alpha }`$ and $`ϵ`$. They appear to be defined up to arbitrary scales. In the next section we will show that this fact is a consequence of a scale symmetry of a our 2D gravity model. This scale symmetry is a peculiarity of two-dimensional gravity and is related to the impossibility of defining an area law for the entropy.

## 4 Scale symmetry and entropy bounds

It is well known that 2D AdS space has $`SL(2,R)`$ as isometry group (see for instance Ref. ). The spacetime metric is therefore invariant under the subgroup of $`SL(2,R)`$ describing dilatations, which for the ground state $`m=0`$ in Eq. (15) is realized as

$$x\nu x,tt/\nu .$$
(21)
Under this scale transformation the dilaton $`\eta `$ is not invariant, $`\eta \nu \eta `$, but the scale factor $`\nu `$ can be absorbed in a different definition of the integration constant $`\eta _0`$ appearing in Eq. (15). It is evident that this scale transformation is a classical symmetry of the theory because under $`\eta \nu \eta `$ the action for pure gravity changes just for an overall constant factor.

This scale symmetry is also a classical invariance of our (de Sitter) action (1) in absence of matter. In the matter-coupled case the scale transformation just changes by a constant factor the Newton constant $`G`$.

It is not difficult to realize that the presence of the integration constants $`\eta _0,m`$ (in the AdS solution) and of $`\eta _0,a`$ (in the dS solution) is a consequence of the scale symmetry. The transformation (21) maps one solution of the fields equations characterized by $`\eta _0,m`$ into an other solution with different values of the integration constants, $`\eta _0^{},m^{}`$. It is therefore evident that we can use the scale symmetry (21) to write the entropy bounds in a form that is independent of the dimensionless parameters $`\overline{\alpha },ϵ`$.

Instead of directly working on the cosmological solution, it is more instructive to fix these parameters by considering the two-dimensional black hole. Since the 2D cosmological solutions are the analytical continuation $`\lambda i\lambda `$ of the black hole solutions (15), one can fix $`\overline{\alpha },ϵ`$ using the latter as the maximum entropy configuration.

The problem reduces then to fix the dependence on $`m`$ of the thermodynamical parameters $`E=,T,S`$ of the AdS2 black hole (15). Introducing the length scale $`L=1/\lambda `$ and the central charge $`c=12\eta _0`$ of the thermal CFT arising in the AdS2/CFT correspondence one has

$$T=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{m}{L},S=2\pi \frac{c}{12}mE=\frac{c}{24}\frac{m^2}{L}.$$
(22)
For a generic black hole solution the behavior under the scale transformations has been given in Ref . The AdS2 black hole metric (15) is invariant under the scale transformations,

$$x\nu x,t\frac{t}{\nu },\nu ^2.$$
(23)
The dilaton transforms as

$$\eta \nu \eta ,$$
(24)
whereas, $`T,S,E`$ scale as

$$T\nu T,S\nu S,E\nu ^2E.$$
(25)
The physical meaning of this scale invariance of the theory can be easily understood. It is a general feature of all metric theories of gravity that lengths (or masses) can be only measured with reference to an (asymptotic) reference frame. For asymptotically Minkowskian solutions this frame is given by Minkowski space with the usual normalization ($`ds^2=dt^2+dx^2`$). Owing to the dilatation isometry of AdS2, for solutions which are asymptotically AdS there is no such “preferred” reference frame. We are free to change the length of our rule using the scale transformations (23), without changing the physics. We have a sort of gauge symmetry, stating that black hole solutions connected by the scale transformations (23) are physically equivalent111Also the geodesic motion is unaffected by a rescaling of $`m`$, which simply shifts the definition of the energy of a test particle.. However, the energy $`E`$ and entropy $`S`$ change under the scale transformation, they are not gauge-invariant quantities. For this reason, although we cannot find an absolute upper bound for $`S`$, every $`m`$-dependent bound of the form $`S(m)S_H(m)`$ has a gauge-invariant meaning. Thus, fixing the gauge we can remove from the entropy bounds the dependence on the dimensionless parameters $`\alpha ,ϵ,m`$. This can be easily done by using Eqs. (25) with $`\nu =1/m`$ into Eqs. (22) to remove the $`m`$-dependence of $`T,S,E`$,

$$T=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{1}{L},S=\frac{c}{12}2\pi E=\frac{c}{24}\frac{1}{L},$$
(26)
and choosing the value of $`m`$ to fix, by means of Eq. (24), $`\eta _0`$ (hence the central charge $`c`$) in terms of the Newton constant $`G`$,

$$\eta _0=\frac{c}{12}=\frac{1}{2G}.$$
(27)
With this choice, one has for the two-dimensional black hole

$$S_B=2\pi ER,$$
(28)
fixing $`ϵ=1`$ in the Bekenstein bound (17). Moreover, if one identifies $`S_{BH}`$ with the entropy of the AdS2 black hole given by Eq. (26), one finds $`\overline{\alpha }=1`$. It follows immediately

$$S_{BH}=\frac{\pi }{G},$$
(29)
and hence

$$S_H=\frac{\pi RH}{G}.$$
(30)
With these definitions, one has the relation

$$S_H^2=S_{BH}(2S_BS_{BH}).$$
(31)
Once the value of $`\overline{\alpha }`$ has been fixed, $`\overline{\alpha }=1`$ the cosmological equation (13) takes the Friedmann form

$$H^2=\frac{4GE}{R}\frac{1}{R^2}.$$
(32)
## 5 Cardy-Verlinde formula for 2D cosmology

Recalling the definition of the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy, one can define a Bekenstein-Hawking energy $`E_{BH}`$, as the energy corresponding to the condition $`S_B=S_{BH}`$, at which the gravitational system becomes strong-coupled:

$$E_{BH}=\frac{1}{2RG}$$
(33)
Using Eqs. (30),(33) and (32) one gets a first form of the 2D Cardy-Verlinde formula

$$S_H=2\pi R\sqrt{E_{BH}(2EE_{BH})}$$
(34)
Following Verlinde  it is now useful to split the total energy $`E`$ in extensive $`E_E`$ and non-extensive (Casimir) part $`E_C/2`$ 222The Casimir energy is of course $`E_C/2`$. We adopt this rather odd notation in order to conform to ref.  and to simplify some of the following formulas.

$$E=E_E+\frac{E_C}{2},$$
(35)
where $`E_C`$ is defined as

$$E_CE+pVTS$$
(36)
with $`p=p_M+p_\lambda `$.

The scaling behavior of $`E_C`$ follows from general arguments (for instance the form of the Casimir energy of a CFT on the cylinder), $`E_C(\mathrm{\Lambda }S,\mathrm{\Lambda }V)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^1E_C(S,V)`$. Moreover, conformal invariance implies that $`ER`$ is independent of the volume $`V=2\pi R`$. Combined with the scaling behavior of $`E_E`$, which by definition is $`E_E(\mathrm{\Lambda }S,\mathrm{\Lambda }V)=\mathrm{\Lambda }E_E(S,V)`$, this gives

$$E_E=\frac{b}{4\pi R}S^2,E_C=\frac{d}{2\pi R}$$
(37)
where $`b,d`$ are arbitrary constants. Using this equation and (35) one gets

$$S=\frac{2\pi R}{\sqrt{bd}}\sqrt{E_C(2EE_C)}$$
(38)
Eq. (38) becomes the Cardy formula if we take $`bd=1`$ and consider a 2D CFT on the cylinder. In fact, in this case the total and Casimir energy are given by

$$E=\frac{l_0}{R},\frac{E_C}{2}=\frac{c}{24R},$$
(39)
where $`c`$ and $`l_0`$ are the central charge and the eigenvalue of the Virasoro operator $`L_0`$ of the CFT and $`R`$ is the radius of the cylinder. Inserting the previous equations into Eq. (38) one finds the Cardy formula

$$S=2\pi \sqrt{\frac{c}{6}\left(l_0\frac{c}{24}\right)}.$$
(40)
Comparing Eq. (34) with Eq. (38) ($`bd=1`$) we find that they agree if we take $`S=S_H`$ and $`E_{BH}=E_C`$. We are therefore led to a cosmological bound for the Casimir energy

$$E_CE_{BH},$$
(41)
analogous to the one proposed for higher-dimensional cosmology . Using the Friedmann Equation (32), one easily finds that for $`HR1`$, $`EE_{BH}`$. Hence for strongly gravitating systems we have

$$E_CE_{BH}E.$$
(42)
This bound shares some nice features with its higher-dimensional counterpart: (a) It is always valid and does not break down for $`HR1`$. (b) Its physical meaning is that the cosmological energy by itself is not sufficient to produce a black hole of the size of the entire universe. In fact, the AdS2 black hole saturates the bound. (c) For $`HR>1`$ it is equivalent to the Hubble bound $`S<S_H`$. (d) When the bound is saturated $`E_C=E_{BH}`$ and the cosmological equation (32) becomes the Cardy formula (40). The translation table between 2D cosmology and 2D CFT is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{12}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2G}},`$
$`l_0`$ $``$ $`ER,`$
$`S`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi RH}{G}}.`$ (43)
## 6 Limiting temperature

The cosmological equation (2) can be used, in conjunction with Eq. (32), to give a lower bound for temperature in a radiation-dominated universe. From (2) and (32) follows

$$\dot{H}=\lambda ^2\frac{4GE}{R}+\frac{1}{R^2}=\frac{14GM}{R^2}.$$
(44)
Defining the Hubble temperature

$$T_H=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{\dot{H}}{H},$$
(45)
and using the definition of $`S_H`$ and $`E_{BH}`$, Eq. (44) becomes

$$E_{BH}=T_HS_H+E+pV.$$
(46)
Comparing (46) with (36) and using the bounds $`SS_H`$, $`E_CE_{BH}`$ one obtains a lower bound for $`T`$,

$$TT_H.$$
(47)
## 7 Conclusions

We have shown that the analysis of Verlinde on cosmological entropy bounds and their relations with CFT can be extended to a two-dimensional model, in spite of the difficulties related to the definition of a holographic principle in two dimensions. The identification of the Friedmann equation with the Cardy formula requires the use of the scaling invariance of the theory in order to fix some dimensionless parameters.

The most striking feature of the mapping between 2D cosmology and 2D CFT is the identification of the Newton constant in terms of the central charge of the CFT. The correspondence between cosmological equations and the Cardy formula requires $`c=6/G`$. This relation has an obvious holographic nature. In higher dimensions the holographic principle requires $`cV/GR`$. Extended to the 2D case where $`V=2\pi R`$ this relation reproduces our result. Further support to the holographic origin of this relation, comes from the fact that it can also be deduced using the AdS/CFT correspondence in two dimensions . In this context, it has been found that the central charge of the CFT living on the boundary of AdS2 is given by $`c=12\eta _0`$, which is our present result, because $`\eta _0`$, is proportional to the inverse of the 2D Newton constant. Owing to the dilatation symmetry of our model, under which $`\eta _0`$ scales as in Eq. (24), the coefficient of proportionality between $`\eta _0`$ and $`G^1`$ depends on the dilatation-gauge we choose.


text:
# Controlling strong scarring for quantized ergodic toral automorphisms

## 1 Introduction

The Schnirelman theorem states that if a quantum system has an ergodic classical limit, then “most” of its eigenfunctions equidistribute (on the energy surface) in phase space in the semi-classical limit. This result has been proven in many different contexts: for the Laplace-Beltrami operator on compact Riemannian manifolds with an ergodic geodesic flow in \[Sc\] \[Z1\] \[CdV\], for ergodic billiards in \[GL\] \[ZZ\], for non-relativistic quantum mechanics in the classical limit in \[HMR\], for quantum maps in \[BDB\] \[Z2\]. A precise statement in the latter context will be given below (Theorem 1.3).

The theorem raises obvious questions: do there exist exceptional sequences of eigenfunctions allowing no semi-classical limiting measure or a limit different from Liouville measure? It is well known that the limit must in that case be an invariant probability measure of the dynamics. Clearly, one would like to better characterize the class of invariant measures that are obtained as limit measures from sequences of eigenfunctions. Particularly simple candidates are delta measures concentrated on the periodic orbits of the dynamics and (finite) convex combinations thereof. Numerical and theoretical investigations for ergodic billiards and for quantum maps \[Bog\] \[He\] suggest the possibility that there exist sequences of eigenfunctions concentrating to some degree on (unstable) periodic orbits. This imperfectly defined enhancement phenomenon is loosely referred to as “scarring”. It is not clear from the available evidence whether some sequences of eigenfunctions may concentrate sufficiently strongly on one or more periodic orbits to lead to a limiting Dirac measure on those orbits: no such example is known to date and many researchers in the field seem to think this should not be possible. In \[CdV\], for example, it is conjectured that such sequences should not exist on constant negative curvature surfaces. Partial results in this direction have been obtained using number theoretic methods for certain arithmetic hyperbolic surfaces \[RS\] \[LS\] \[S3\] (see \[S1\], \[S2\] for a review).

In this paper we analyze the above problem for a simpler class of models that has attracted much attention, namely the quantized ergodic automorphisms of the $`2d`$-torus. We prove here that for these models such sequences do not exist (Theorem 1.1). We also obtain a stronger result that controls the pure point component of the limiting measures and thereby limits the class of limit measures (Theorem 1.2). Our proofs are based on an intuitively clear argument that combines the use of the exponential instability common to all ergodic toral automorphisms (whether they are Anosov or not) with the algebraic properties of those maps and some basic semi-classical analysis. They have a distinct dynamical flavour and work in all dimensions. To put our result in perspective, we will review the previously known results for the case $`d=1`$ below. In that case the ergodic automorphisms are all Anosov and are often referred to as “cat maps”.

We now describe our results in detail. Unfamiliar concepts and notations are explained in Section 2. Let $`\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}=\mathrm{}^{2d}/\mathrm{}^{2d}`$ be the $`d`$-dimensional torus, viewed as a symplectic manifold with the canonical two-form inherited from $`\mathrm{}^{2d}`$. Let $`A`$ be a symplectic and ergodic toral automorphism, i.e. $`A`$ is a symplectic $`2d\times 2d`$-matrix with integer entries none of whose eigenvalues are roots of unity. It is known that in that case at least one of its eigenvalues lies outside the unit cercle so that each rational point on the torus is an unstable periodic point for $`A`$. Given such a periodic orbit $`\tau =\{x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_{T_\tau }\}`$, we define the delta measure

$$\mu _\tau =\frac{1}{T_\tau }\underset{i=1}{\overset{T_\tau }{}}\delta _{x_i},$$

which is of course an $`A`$-invariant measure on $`\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}`$. Given a finite family $`𝒞=_{i=1}^K\tau _i`$ of periodic orbits, we will also consider the measures

$$\mu _{𝒞,\alpha }=\underset{j=1}{\overset{K}{}}\alpha _j\mu _{\tau _j},\underset{j=1}{\overset{K}{}}\alpha _j=1,0\alpha _j1,$$
(1.1)
which are finite convex combinations of the previous ones. These are all $`A`$-invariant pure point measures with discrete (i.e.) finite support. All invariant Radon measures are obtained by taking the weak closure of those \[Ma\]. Let $`M(A)`$ be the unitary quantization of $`A`$, acting on the $`N^d`$-dimensional Hilbert space $`_{\mathrm{}}(\kappa )`$, as defined in Section 2 (We suppress the $`N`$ and $`\kappa `$ dependence of $`M(A)`$ in the notations). Our main results are the following.

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`A`$ be an ergodic symplectic toral automorphism and let $`\psi _N_{\mathrm{}}(\kappa ),N\mathrm{}`$ be a family of normalized eigenfunctions of $`M(A)`$. If the Wigner functions $`W_N`$ of the $`\psi _N`$ converge weakly to some measure $`\mu `$ on $`\mathrm{𝕋}^d`$, then $`\mu \mu _{𝒞,\alpha }`$, for any choice of $`𝒞`$ and $`\alpha `$. In other words, the $`W_N`$ can not converge to a pure point measure with discrete support. The same is true for the Husimi functions $`h_N`$ of the $`\psi _N`$.

This result can be paraphrased by saying that the eigenfunctions can not concentrate semi-classically on a finite number of periodic orbits. It is a particular case of the following more general result.

###### Theorem 1.2.

Let $`A`$ be an ergodic symplectic toral automorphism and let $`\psi _N_{\mathrm{}}(\kappa ),N\mathrm{}`$ be a family of normalized eigenfunctions of $`M(A)`$. Suppose $`\nu `$ is a continuous, $`A`$-invariant probability measure on $`\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}`$ such that for some $`0\beta 1`$ and for all $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d})`$

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\psi _N|Op^Wf\psi _N_{_{\mathrm{}}(\kappa )}=\beta \mu _{𝒞,\alpha }(f)+(1\beta )\nu (f)\mu (f)$$
(1.2)
for some $`𝒞`$ and $`\alpha `$. Then $`0\beta (1\beta )^{1/2}`$ or, equivalently, $`\beta (\sqrt{5}1)/20,62`$.

Here $`Op^Wf`$ stands for the Weyl quantization of $`f`$. Since (1.2) is equivalent to the same statement with Weyl quantization replaced by anti-Wick quantization (see Section 2) it is easy to see that (1.2) is equivalent to saying that the absolutely continuous measures $`\mu _N=h_N(x)dx`$ converge weakly to $`\mu `$. Here $`h_N`$ is the Husimi function of $`\psi _N`$ (See Section 2 for a precise definition). The result can therefore loosely be rephrased as follows.

> If the pure point component of the limiting measure $`\mu `$ is concentrated on a finite number of periodic orbits, then its mass is less than two thirds of the total mass.

In \[RS\], a sequence $`\psi _N`$ is defined to “scar strongly on $`𝒞`$” if (1.2) holds with $`\nu `$ given by Lebesgue measure. Theorem 1.2 does not rule out the possibility of strong scarring, but limits the size of the scar. In fact, strong scarring does occur in the systems considered. Indeed, it is proven in \[DBFN\] that, for $`d=1`$, there exists a sequence $`N_k\mathrm{}`$, so that for each choice of $`𝒞`$ and $`\alpha `$ as above, there exists a sequence of eigenfunctions $`\psi _{N_k}`$ so that

$$\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}\psi _{N_k}|Op^Wf\psi _{N_k}_{_{\mathrm{}}(\kappa )}=\frac{1}{2}\mu _{𝒞,\alpha }(f)+\frac{1}{2}_{\mathrm{𝕋}^2}f(x)𝑑x.$$
(1.3)
This also shows that, whereas the upper bound on $`\beta `$ in the theorem is probably not optimal, one can not do better than $`\beta 1/2`$.

Theorems 1.11.2 can be seen as partial results on the characterization of the measures obtained in the semi-classical limit from the eigenfunctions of quantized ergodic symplectic automorphisms of $`\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}`$. Such measures are sometimes called “quantum limits”. As such these results are to be compared with previous ones for the two-torus available in the literature. Let us first recall the precise statement of the Schnirelman theorem for ergodic symplectic toral automorphisms \[BDB\].

###### Theorem 1.3.

Let $`A`$, $`M(A)`$ be as above. Let, for each $`N`$, $`\{\psi _1,\psi _2,\mathrm{}\psi _{N^d}\}`$ be a basis of eigenfunctions of $`M(A)`$. Then, for each $`N\mathrm{}`$, there exists a subset $`E(N)\{1,\mathrm{},N^d\}`$ such that:

(i) $`\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}E(N)}{N^d}}=1;`$

(ii) For any $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d})`$, for any sequence $`(j_NE(N))_N\mathrm{}`$, one has

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\psi _{j_N}^{(N)}|Op^Wf\psi _{j_N}^{(N)}_{_{\mathrm{}}(\kappa )}=_{\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}}f(x)𝑑x.$$
(1.4)
The strongest possible statement improving on this that one may a priori have hoped to prove is this:

Let, for each $`N\mathrm{},\psi _N_{\mathrm{}}(\kappa )`$ be a normalized eigenfunction of $`M(A)`$. Then, for each $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d})`$, one has

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\psi _N|Op_\kappa ^W(f)\psi _N_{_{\mathrm{}}(\kappa )}=_{\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}}f(x)𝑑x.$$
(1.5)
This is sometimes referred to (in what we feel is a somewhat unfortunate terminology) as “quantum unique ergodicity” and – as already pointed out – has not been proven in any chaotic system. Of course, in view of (1.3) it is obviously not true in the present context of ergodic toral automorphisms. One nevertheless expects the sequences that satisfy (1.3) to be rather exceptional: there do indeed exist two results in the direction of (1.5), valid for a particular but rather large class of hyperbolic toral automorphisms in $`d=1`$. The first one is this.

###### Theorem 1.4.

\[KR1\] If $`A`$ SL$`(2,\mathrm{})`$ is hyperbolic and $`A𝕀_2`$ mod $`4`$, then there exists for each $`N`$ a basis $`\{\psi _1,\psi _2,\mathrm{}\psi _N\}`$ of eigenfunctions of $`M(A)`$ so that (1.4) holds with $`E(N)=\{1,\mathrm{},N\}`$.

This obviously constitutes a strengthening of the Schnirelman theorem for the particular class of $`A`$ considered. The basis for which the result holds is explicitly described in \[KR1\]. Note the difference between Theorem 1.4 and (1.5). Indeed, the eigenvalues of $`M(A)`$ may be degenerate so that it is possible that exceptional sequences of eigenfunctions not belonging to the above basis have a different semi-classical limit. This is all the more true since there exists a sequence $`N_k`$ for which the eigenspaces have a $`N_k/\mathrm{ln}N_k`$ fold degeneracy \[BonDB\]. It is precisely this sequence of $`N`$ that is used to construct the sequence of eigenfunctions in (1.3). Another result in the direction of (1.5) is the following.

###### Theorem 1.5.

\[KR2\] If $`A`$ SL$`(2,\mathrm{})`$ is hyperbolic and $`a_{11}a_{12}0a_{21}a_{22}`$ mod $`2`$, then there exists a density one sequence of integers $`(N_{\mathrm{}})_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}`$ along which (1.5) holds.

Theorem 1.5 states that “quantum unique ergodicity” holds along a subsequence of values of $`N`$. It is furthermore shown in \[KR2\] that, along this sequence, the degeneracies of the eigenspaces grow sufficiently slowly so that it is disjoint from the sequence $`N_k`$ mentioned above, as it should be in order not to contradict (1.3). It is therefore seen in both theorems that the obstacle to the validity of (1.5) for all $`N`$ is the existence of growing degeneracies of the eigenspaces of $`M(A)`$ for large $`N`$, as expected.

Our result in Theorem 1.2 is of a somewhat different nature than Theorems 1.4 and 1.5. For any $`A`$, $`d`$ or $`N`$ it restricts the candidate limit measures to those that have a “not too large” pure point component. In particular, it completely rules out the most “obvious” candidates, namely pure point measures with discrete support. Our result therefore shows in particular that even the very high degeneracies of the sequence $`N_k`$ can not be exploited to construct eigenfunctions that concentrate completely on unstable periodic orbits.

Quantum mechanics on the torus is usually studied only in the case $`d=1`$. Different people have different reasons for imposing this restriction. First, when doing numerics, higher dimensions quickly poses practical problems of storage size and computation speed since the dimension of the Hilbert spaces grows as $`\mathrm{}^d`$. Next, on the theoretical side, the Schnirelman theorem is obviously true in all dimensions $`d`$ since it is proven with dimension-independent arguments exploiting only the ergodicity of the dynamics, so there is nothing to be gained from introducing the notational complications associated with the higher $`d`$ problems. To prove sharper results, however, one needs to exploit finer properties of the classical maps. The proofs of Theorems 1.4 and 1.5 in \[KR1\] \[KR2\] do this by exploiting detailed number theoretic properties of a particular class of hyperbolic automorphisms of the two-torus and do therefore not carry over in any obvious way to higher dimensions or to general ergodic symplectic toral automorphisms. In order to stress that the sharpening of the Schnirelman theorem proven in this paper (Theorems 1.1-1.2) exploits only the exponential instability shared by all ergodic automorphisms of the $`2d`$-torus (even if they are not hyperbolic), as well as their algebraic structure, we have chosen to consider in the following the general case throughout.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we describe quantum mechanics on the $`2d`$-torus, and the quantization of symplectic toral automorphisms, following \[BDB\]. We will be as brief as possible, referring to \[BDB\] \[BonDB\] \[DB\] and references therein for further information and motivation. In section 3 we recall some basic facts on ergodic symplectic automorphisms of the $`2d`$-torus. Section 4 is devoted to the proof of Theorem 1.2. In section 5, finally, we give an alternative proof of Theorem 1.1 valid only for the case $`d=1`$ and for a subclass of ergodic automorphisms when $`d>1`$. It is based on a result on the propagation of initially localized states (Theorem 5.1) that generalizes a result of \[BonDB\]. We feel this result is of interest on its own and in addition it clearly brings out the central dynamical idea underlying all the results of this paper.

## 2 Quantum mechanics on the $`2d`$-torus

In this section we will recall standard facts about quantum mechanics on the 2d–torus $`\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}=\mathrm{}^{2d}/\mathrm{}^{2d}`$ as well as the quantization of the symplectic toral automorphisms which was first performed in \[HB\]. Further background and references, as well as proofs, which are omitted here, can be found in \[BonDB, BDB\].

We shall write indifferently $`x=(q,p)\mathrm{}^{2d}`$ or $`x=(q,p)\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}`$, where in the latter case $`q,p[0,1[^d`$. Let $`ab=_ia^ib^i`$, for $`a,bR^d`$ and let $`(q,p),(q^{},p^{})=qp^{}q^{}p`$ be the symplectic form on $`\mathrm{}^{2d}`$. Let $`U(a)=\mathrm{exp}\frac{i}{2\mathrm{}}a,X`$, for $`a\mathrm{}^{2d}`$ and $`X=(Q,P)`$, be the usual representation of the Heisenberg group on $`L^2(\mathrm{}^d)`$, where

$$(Q_j\psi )(y)=y_j\psi (y),(P_j\psi )(y)=\frac{\mathrm{}}{i}\frac{\psi }{y_j}(y).$$

Let $`n=(n_1,n_2)\mathrm{}^d\times \mathrm{}^d`$ and $`\kappa =(\kappa _2,\kappa _1)\mathrm{}^{2d}/2\pi Z^{2d}`$ and let us define

$$_{\mathrm{}}(\kappa )=\{\psi 𝒮^{}(\mathrm{}^d)U(n)\psi =\mathrm{exp}\frac{i}{2\mathrm{}}n_1n_2\mathrm{exp}i\kappa ,n\psi \}.$$

###### Lemma 2.1.

We have $`_{\mathrm{}}(\kappa )\{\mathrm{}\}`$ iff $`N\mathrm{}^{}`$ such that $`(2\pi \mathrm{})N=1`$, in which case $`\mathrm{dim}_{\mathrm{}}(\kappa )=N^d`$. Moreover, in that case, $`U(n/N)_{\mathrm{}}(\kappa )=_{\mathrm{}}(\kappa )`$ for all $`n\mathrm{}^{2d}`$ and there is a unique Hilbert space structure such that $`U(n/N)`$ is unitary for each $`n\mathrm{}^{2d}`$.

We shall not introduce a different notation for the restriction of $`U(n/N)`$ to $`_{\mathrm{}}(\kappa )`$ and in particular not indicate its $`\kappa `$dependence. If $`\varphi ,\psi _{\mathrm{}}(\kappa )`$, we shall write $`\varphi |\psi _{_{\mathrm{}}(\kappa )}`$ or simply $`\varphi |\psi `$ for their inner product.

We then define Weyl quantization of a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ function $`f(x)=_{n\mathrm{}^{2d}}f_ne^{i2\pi n,x}`$ as

$$Op_\kappa ^W(f)=\underset{n\mathrm{}^{2d}}{}f_nU(\frac{n}{N}).$$

Recall that the map

$$S(\kappa )=(\underset{m}{}\mathrm{exp}i\kappa _2mU(0,m))(\underset{n}{}\mathrm{exp}i\kappa _1nU(n,0))$$

defines a surjection of the space of Schwartz functions $`𝒮(\mathrm{}^d)`$ onto $`_{\mathrm{}}(\kappa )𝒮^{}(\mathrm{}^d)`$.

Let $`\eta _xL^2(\mathrm{}^d)`$ denote the usual gaussian Weyl–Heisenberg coherent state centered on $`x\mathrm{}^{2d}`$:

$$\eta _0(y)=\frac{1}{(\pi \mathrm{})^{\frac{d}{4}}}e^{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}}y^2},\eta _x(y)=(U(x)\eta _0)(y).$$

We then define coherent states on the torus as

$$\eta _{x,\kappa }S(\kappa )\eta _x_{\mathrm{}}(\kappa ).$$
(2.6)
We will find it convenient to use the physicists’ “bra-ket” notation and to write:

$$|x\eta _xL^2(\mathrm{}^d)\mathrm{and}|x,\kappa \eta _{x,\kappa }_{\mathrm{}}(\kappa ).$$

In particular, we use the notation $`|x,\kappa x,\kappa |`$ to designate the rank one operator associated to $`|x,\kappa `$. Coherent states on the torus satisfy the following resolution of the identity

$$\text{Id}_{_{\mathrm{}}(\kappa )}=_{\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}}|x,\kappa x,\kappa |\frac{dx}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^d}$$
(2.7)
and permit us to define the anti-Wick quantization $`Op_\kappa ^{AW}(f)`$ of $`fL^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d})`$ as the operator on $`_{\mathrm{}}(\kappa )`$ defined by

$$Op_\kappa ^{AW}(f)=_{\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}}f(x)|x,\kappa x,\kappa |\frac{dx}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^d}.$$
(2.8)
For each $`\psi _{\mathrm{}}(\kappa )`$ we define its Wigner function as the distribution $`W_\psi (x)`$ such that

$$\psi |Op_\kappa ^W(f)\psi =_{\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}}f(x)W_\psi (x)𝑑xfC^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d})$$

and its Husimi function

$$h_\psi (x)=N|\psi |x,\kappa |^2$$
(2.9)
which satisfies

$$\psi |Op_\kappa ^{AW}(f)\psi =_{\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}}f(x)h_\psi (x)𝑑xfL^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}).$$

Anti-Wick and Weyl quantization satisfy for each $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d})`$ the following estimate:

$$Op_\kappa ^{AW}(f)Op_\kappa ^W(f)\frac{C_f}{N},$$
(2.10)
for some positive constant $`C_f0`$. Moreover

$$U(\frac{n}{N})|x,\kappa =e^{i\pi n,x}|x+\frac{n}{N},\kappa .$$
(2.11)
Finally let us come to the quantization of an ergodic symplectic toral automorphism defined by a matrix $`ASp(d,\mathrm{})`$. The metaplectic representation of $`Sp(d,\mathrm{})`$ defines for each $`ASp(d,\mathrm{})`$ a unitary propagator $`M(A)`$ in $`L^2(\mathrm{}^d)`$ (see \[F\]); up to a phase it is the unique operator which satisfies

$$M(A)^1U(a)M(A)=U(A^1a)a\mathrm{}^{2d}.$$
(2.12)
The quantization of $`ASp(d,\mathrm{})`$ on the torus is then straightforward:

###### Lemma 2.2.

For each ergodic $`ASp(d,\mathrm{})`$ and each $`N\mathrm{}^{}`$ there exists at least one $`\kappa \mathrm{}^{2d}/\mathrm{}^{2d}`$ such that

$$M(A)_{\mathrm{}}(\kappa )=_{\mathrm{}}(\kappa ).$$

Proof.XBy applying (2.12) one can see that there exists $`\kappa _A\mathrm{}^{2d}/(2\pi \mathrm{})^{2d}`$ such that, for each $`n\mathrm{}^{2d}`$ and $`\psi _{\mathrm{}}(\kappa )`$,

$$U(n)M(A)\psi =e^{i\pi NA^1n_1A^1n_2}e^{iA\kappa ,n}M(A)\psi =e^{i\pi Nn_1n_2}e^{i\kappa _A,n}M(A)\psi .$$

As a result $`M(A)_{\mathrm{}}(\kappa )=_{\mathrm{}}(\kappa _A)`$. Indeed let us write $`A^1=(\alpha _{ij})_{ij=1,2}`$ with $`\alpha _{ij}`$ $`d\times d`$ matrices. Since $`A^1`$ is symplectic we have $`\alpha _{11}^{}\alpha _{22}\alpha _{21}^{}\alpha _{12}=1`$, $`\alpha _{11}^{}\alpha _{21}=\alpha _{21}^{}\alpha _{11}`$ and $`\alpha _{12}^{}\alpha _{22}=\alpha _{22}^{}\alpha _{12}`$. Consequently a simple computation shows that

$$A^1n_1A^1n_2n_1n_2=\omega _A,n\mathrm{mod}2$$

where

$$\omega _A=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{diag}(\alpha _{12}^{}\alpha _{22})\\ \mathrm{diag}(\alpha _{11}^{}\alpha _{21})\end{array}\right)$$

and

$$\kappa _A=A\kappa +\pi N\omega _A\mathrm{mod}2\pi .$$
(2.13)
Since $`A`$ is ergodic, $`1`$ is not an eigenvalue of $`A`$ and equation (2.13) admits at least one fixed point $`\kappa _A=\kappa `$.

In the following, we shall always assume that $`\kappa `$ has been chosen as in the Lemma, but we shall not explicitly indicate the $`N`$ or $`A`$ dependence of $`\kappa `$. Similarly, we shall use the symbol $`M(A)`$ to indicate the restriction of $`M(A)`$ to $`_N(\kappa )`$ for a suitable $`\kappa `$ as above, without indicating its $`N`$ or $`\kappa `$ dependence.

From this construction it follows easily that, for each $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d})`$,

$$M(A)^1Op_\kappa ^WfM(A)=Op_\kappa ^W(fA),fC^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}).$$
(2.14)
In other words “quantization and evolution commute”.

## 3 Ergodic automorphisms of the torus

We collect here some rather basic facts about ergodic automorphisms of the torus. Let $`A`$ SL$`(2d,\mathrm{})`$, then $`A`$ defines an ergodic toral automorphism if and only if none of the eigenvalues of $`A`$ are roots of unity \[M\]. Ergodic toral automorphisms are automatically mixing as well \[M\]. In addition, their eigenvalues can not all lie on the unit circle: at least one of them has to have a modulus strictly bigger than $`1`$. This is an immediate consequence of the Kronecker theorem (\[N\], Theorem 2.1), applied to the characteristic polynomial of $`A`$. As a result, in the decomposition of $`\mathrm{}^{2d}`$ into $`A`$-invariant subspaces \[KH\] \[Li\] given by

$$\mathrm{}^{2d}=E_{}E_0E_+,$$

where $`E_+`$ (respectively $`E_0,E_{}`$) is the root space of $`A`$ corresponding to eigenvalues of modulus strictly bigger than (respectively equal to, strictly smaller than) $`1`$, we are sure that $`E_{}`$, $`E_+`$ are non-trivial. A matrix $`A`$ is said to be hyperbolic iff $`E_0=\{0\}`$. The corresponding dynamical system on $`\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}`$ is then Anosov. If $`E_0\{0\}`$, $`A`$ is called quasi-hyperbolic in \[Li\]. Clearly, when $`d=1`$, all ergodic toral automorphisms are Anosov, but this is no longer true in higher dimension.

We will need the following result:

###### Lemma 3.1.

Let $`n\mathrm{}^{2d}`$. Then $`nE_0E_{}`$. Moreover, there exist $`\gamma >0,C_\pm >0`$ and $`0k2d2`$ so that, for all $`t\mathrm{}`$ large enough

$$C_{}t^ke^{\gamma t}A^tnC_+t^ke^{\gamma t}.$$

Proof: The first statement, namely that $`E_0E_{}\mathrm{}^{2d}=\{0\}`$, can be found in \[Ka\]\[Li\]. The estimate is then a simple application of the Jordan normal form.It should be noted that $`\gamma >0,C_\pm >0`$ and $`0k2d2`$ depend on $`n`$ in the above estimate. The lower bound above is an expression of the exponential instability common to all ergodic toral automorphisms and is the only information about them we shall need to prove Theorems 1.1 and 1.2.

To prove Theorem 5.1 however, we will need the following result from \[Ka\], which is the generalization to higher dimensions of the obvious diophantine inequality satisfied in the case $`d=1`$ by the slopes of the stable and unstable directions of $`A`$.

###### Lemma 3.2.

Let $`\mathrm{}^{2d}=V_1V_2`$, with $`V_i`$ invariant spaces for $`A`$ such that

* $`A|_{V_1}`$ and $`A|_{V_2}`$ don’t have common eigenvalues;
* $`V_1\mathrm{}^{2d}=\{0\}`$.

Then there exists $`C>0`$ such that for each $`n\mathrm{}_{}^{2d}`$ we have ($`m=\mathrm{dim}V_1`$)

$$d_{\mathrm{}^{2d}}(n,V_1)\frac{C}{n^m}.$$

## 4 Proof of Theorem 1.2

We will need the following simple technical lemma.

###### Lemma 4.1.

Let $`B`$ be a Borel subset of $`\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}`$. Then, under the hypotheses of Theorem 1.2, one has

$$\mu (\text{int }B)\underset{N+\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\psi _N|Op_\kappa ^{AW}(\chi _B)\psi _N\underset{N+\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\psi _N|Op_\kappa ^{AW}(\chi _B)\psi _N\mu (\overline{B}).$$
(4.15)
where $`\chi _B`$ is the characteristic function of $`B`$.

Proof: This is a standard result in measure theory, we include the proof for completeness. Let us introduce, for all $`ϵ>0`$,

$$B_{}^ϵ=\{xB|d_{\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}}(x,B)>ϵ\}BB_+^ϵ=\{x\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}|d_{\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}}(x,B)<ϵ\},$$

where $`d_{\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}}`$ designates the Euclidean distance on the torus. Then we have $`_{ϵ>0}B_{}^ϵ=\text{int }B\text{and }_{ϵ>0}B_+^ϵ=\overline{B},`$ so that

$$\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\mu (B_{}^ϵ)=\mu (\text{int }B)\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\mu (B_+^ϵ)=\mu (\overline{B}).$$
(4.16)
Now let $`\eta C_0^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{}^{2d})`$ be a spherically symmetric positive function, with support in the ball of radius $`1`$, equal to $`1`$ on the ball of radius $`1/2`$ and such that $`\eta (x)𝑑x=1`$. We set $`\eta _ϵ(x)=\frac{1}{ϵ^{2d}}\eta (\frac{x}{ϵ}),`$ and define $`\chi _\pm ^ϵ(y)=_{B_\pm ^ϵ}\eta _ϵ(yx)𝑑x.`$ Clearly

$`\chi _+^ϵ(y)=1\text{if }yB`$ $`\chi _+^ϵ(y)=0\text{if }y\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}B_+^{2ϵ}`$
$`\chi _{}^ϵ(y)=1\text{if }yB_{}^{2ϵ}`$ $`\chi _{}^ϵ(y)=0\text{if }y\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}B.`$
This implies in particular that $`\chi _{}^ϵ\chi _B\chi _+^ϵ,`$ so that the positivity of anti-Wick quantization implies that $`Op_\kappa ^{AW}(\chi _{}^ϵ)Op_\kappa ^{AW}(\chi _B)Op_\kappa ^{AW}(\chi _+^ϵ).`$ Using (1.2) and (2.10) we then find

$`\mu (B_{}^{2ϵ})\mu (\chi _{}^ϵ)`$ $``$ $`\underset{N+\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\psi _N|Op_\kappa ^{AW}(\chi _B)\psi _N`$
$``$ $`\underset{N+\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\psi _N|Op_\kappa ^{AW}(\chi _B)\psi _N\mu (\chi _+^ϵ)\mu (B_+^{2ϵ})`$
so that the result follows by taking $`ϵ0`$ and using (4.16).

Define, for any finite set of points $`𝒞`$ (not necessarily a set of periodic points of the dynamics) and for each $`a>0`$

$$B_a=\{x\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}d_{\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}}(x,𝒞)<a\}.$$
(4.17)
We also introduce

$$\delta _𝒞=\mathrm{min}\{d_{\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}}(x,y)|x,y𝒞,xy\},$$
(4.18)
provided $`𝒞`$ contains more than one point. Otherwise we define $`\delta _𝒞=1/\sqrt{2}`$.

Proof of Theorem 1.2: Since $`\nu `$ is a continuous measure, the Wiener theorem says that

$$\underset{K+\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{(2K+1)^d}\underset{nK}{}|\widehat{\nu }(n)|^2=0.$$

Here, $`\widehat{\nu }`$ is the Fourier transform of $`\nu `$. This implies immediately that there exists a density one subset $`G`$ of $`\mathrm{}^{2d}`$ so that

$$\underset{n\mathrm{},nG}{lim}\widehat{\nu }(n)=0.$$
(4.19)
On the other hand, $`𝒞`$ is a finite collection of rational points on $`\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}`$ and we call $`S`$ the least common multiple of the denominators of those points. Then, for each $`nS\mathrm{}^{2d}`$ and for all $`x𝒞`$, clearly $`\chi _n(x)\mathrm{exp}2\pi in,x=1`$ and consequently

$$\mu _{𝒞,\alpha }(\chi _n)=1.$$

Hence, for such $`n`$,

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\psi _N|U(\frac{n}{N})\psi _N=\beta +(1\beta )\widehat{\nu }(n).$$
(4.20)
Since $`S\mathrm{}^{2d}`$ is a positive density subset of $`\mathrm{}^{2d}`$, it follows that $`S\mathrm{}^{2d}G`$ is positive density as well. As a result, given $`ϵ>0`$, there exists $`nS\mathrm{}^{2d}G`$, depending on $`ϵ`$, so that

$$|\widehat{\nu }(n)|ϵ.$$
(4.21)
We then have, using respectively (2.14), (2.7) and (2.11)

$`\psi _N|U({\displaystyle \frac{n}{N}})\psi _N`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _N|M(A)^tU({\displaystyle \frac{n}{N}})M(A)^t\psi _N`$ (4.22)
$`=`$ $`\psi _NU({\displaystyle \frac{A^tn}{N}})\psi _N`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}}}\psi _Nx,\kappa x,\kappa U({\displaystyle \frac{A^tn}{N}})\psi _N{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^d}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}}}\psi _Nx,\kappa x{\displaystyle \frac{A^tn}{N}},\kappa \psi _N{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^d}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _{B_a}}\psi _Nx,\kappa x{\displaystyle \frac{A^tn}{N}},\kappa \psi _N{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^d}}`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle _{\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}B_a}}\psi _Nx,\kappa ^2{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^d}}\right)^{1/2},`$
where $`B_a`$ is defined in (4.17). Note that this inequality holds for each choice of $`t,N,a`$. Now choose $`M>3`$ and such that

$$\frac{1}{\gamma }(\mathrm{ln}\frac{M}{C_+}\mathrm{ln}\frac{3}{C_{}})>1+\frac{k}{\gamma },$$
(4.23)
where $`C_\pm ,k`$ and $`\gamma `$ are defined in Lemma 3.1. We recall they depend on $`n`$. We will show below that then, for all $`a>0`$, the following is true:

$$N>N_a=\frac{C_{}e^\gamma }{3}\frac{1}{a},t_N\mathrm{}\text{so that }3a\frac{A^{t_N}n}{N}Ma<\delta _𝒞/3.$$
(4.24)
Introducing

$$𝒜(a,M)=\{x\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}2ad_{\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}}(x,𝒞)(M+1)a\},$$
(4.25)
it is then clear that

$$xB_ax\frac{A^{t_N}n}{N}𝒜(a,M).$$

The important point here is that $`𝒜(a,M)`$ does not depend on $`N`$. Inequality (4.22) now yields, upon using a Schwartz inequality in the first term

$`|\psi _NU({\displaystyle \frac{n}{N}})\psi _N`$ $``$ $`\psi _NOp_\kappa ^{AW}(\chi _{B_a})\psi _N^{1/2}\psi _NOp_\kappa ^{AW}(\chi _{𝒜(a,M)})\psi _N^{1/2}`$ (4.26)
$`+\psi _NOp_\kappa ^{AW}(\chi _{\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}B_a})\psi _N^{1/2}`$
$``$ $`\psi _NOp_\kappa ^{AW}(\chi _{𝒜(a,M)})\psi _N^{1/2}`$
$`+\psi _NOp_\kappa ^{AW}(\chi _{\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}B_a})\psi _N^{1/2}.`$
Note that, given $`ϵ>0`$, this inequality holds for $`n`$ satisfying (4.21), for all $`a`$ small enough (depending on $`n`$), and for all $`N`$. We now take the limsup for $`N`$ to $`+\mathrm{}`$, and apply Lemma 4.1 in the right-hand side and (4.20)-(4.21) in the left-hand side to obtain:

$$\beta (1\beta )ϵ(1\beta )^{1/2}\nu (\overline{𝒜(a,M)})^{1/2}+(1\beta )^{1/2}\nu (\overline{\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}B_a})^{1/2}.$$
(4.27)
Finally, taking, for $`ϵ`$ and $`M`$ fixed, $`a`$ to $`0`$ in this inequality, the continuity of the measure $`\nu `$ yields

$$\beta (1\beta )ϵ(1\beta )^{1/2}.$$

Since this holds for all $`ϵ`$, this is the desired result.

It remains to prove (4.24). From Lemma 3.1 we see that (4.24) will be proven provided we show there exists, for each $`N\mathrm{}`$, $`NN_a`$ a $`t_N\mathrm{}`$ so that

$$3aNC_{}t_N^ke^{\gamma t_N},C_+t_N^ke^{\gamma t_N}NMa,$$

or, equivalently

$$D_{}\frac{1}{\gamma }[\mathrm{ln}N+\mathrm{ln}a+\mathrm{ln}\frac{3}{C_{}}]t_N+\frac{k}{\gamma }\mathrm{ln}t_N\frac{1}{\gamma }[\mathrm{ln}N+\mathrm{ln}a+\mathrm{ln}\frac{M}{C_+}]D_+.$$

Introducing for $`t\mathrm{}_{}`$, $`g(t)=t+\frac{k}{\gamma }\mathrm{ln}t`$, one sees that for all $`t\mathrm{}_{}`$ $`g(t+1)g(t)1+\frac{k}{\gamma }`$. Hence, to obtain (4.24) it is sufficient that

$$D_+D_{}=\frac{1}{\gamma }(\mathrm{ln}\frac{M}{C_+}\mathrm{ln}\frac{3}{C_{}})>1+\frac{k}{\gamma },$$

and that $`D_{}g(1)`$, but this is guaranteed by condition (4.23) and the definition of $`N_a`$ in (4.24).

## 5 Propagating localized states

In this section we present a generalization of the main result of \[BonDB\]. When $`d>1`$, it only holds under some mild additional hypotheses on $`A`$ specified below. Under these conditions, it provides an alternative proof of Theorem 1.1. We feel this result is of interest on its own, and in addition it clearly brings out the basic “dynamical” intuition underlying the proofs of the previous section.

We will impose, in addition to ergodicity, two more conditions on $`A`$. First, we ask that $`A`$Sp$`(d,\mathrm{})`$ does not leave any non-trivial sublattice of $`\mathrm{}^{2d}\mathrm{}^{2d}`$ invariant. This excludes, for example, in the case $`d=2`$, matrices of the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}A_1& 0\\ 0& A_2\end{array}\right)$$

where each bloc $`A_1,A_2`$ is a hyperbolic matrix in SL$`(2,\mathrm{})`$. In addition, we impose the following condition. Let $`e^{\gamma _+}`$ be the maximal modulus of the eigenvalues of $`A`$ and let $`E_{\gamma _+}`$ be the corresponding root space (i.e. $`E_{\gamma _+}=_{|\lambda |=e^{\gamma _+}}E_\lambda `$); we demand that the restriction of $`A`$ to $`E_{\gamma _+}`$ is diagonalizable. This will obviously be the case if all roots of the characteristic polynomial of $`A`$ are distinct, for example. We need some more notations. Let $`m_{\gamma _+}=\mathrm{dim}E_{\gamma _+}`$ and $`m_+=\mathrm{dim}(E_+E_0)`$; of course $`1m_{\gamma _+}m_+d`$.

We remark that in $`d=1`$ any ergodic matrix $`ASL(2,\mathrm{})`$ satisfies these requirements.

###### Theorem 5.1.

Let $`A`$ be as above and let $`\mu `$ be a pure point probability measure on $`\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}`$, with finite support $`𝒞`$. Let $`\psi _N_{\mathrm{}}(\kappa ),\psi _N=1`$ be a sequence of normalized vectors in $`_{\mathrm{}}(\kappa )`$ such that, for all $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d})`$

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\psi _NOp_\kappa ^W(f)\psi _N=\mu (f).$$
(5.28)
Let $`a_N`$ be a sequence of positive numbers tending to $`0`$ with the property that

$$_{B_{a_N}}h_N(x)𝑑x1,$$
(5.29)
where $`B_{a_N}`$ is defined in (4.17) and $`h_Nh_{\psi _N}`$ in (2.9). Then, there exist $`t_\pm 0`$ so that, for any sufficiently slowly growing sequence of integers $`\theta _N`$ ( i.e. $`\theta _N<\frac{(1ϵ)(1+m_+)}{m_+\gamma _+(2d+1m_{\gamma _+})}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{a_N}`$ for some $`ϵ>0`$), one has, for each $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d})`$,

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\psi _NM(A)^tOp_\kappa ^W(f)M(A)^t\psi _N=_{\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}}f(x)𝑑x$$
(5.30)
uniformly for all $`t`$ in the region

$$\frac{1}{\gamma _+}\mathrm{ln}Na_N+t_{}+(2dm_{\gamma _+})\theta _Nt\frac{1}{\gamma _+}\mathrm{ln}\frac{N}{a_N^{1/m_+}}t_+\theta _N$$
(5.31)
Note that here the $`\psi _N`$ are of course not assumed to be eigenvectors of the dynamics. Remark furthermore that the hypothesis (5.28) immediately implies the existence of a sequence $`a_N`$. It is finally clear from the definition of the Husimi functions in Section 2 that $`a_N\sqrt{N}`$ is bounded away from $`0`$.

As an example, suppose $`𝒞=\{x_1,x_2,\mathrm{}x_p\}`$ is a set of $`p`$ points on the torus and take

$$\psi _N=\frac{1}{\sqrt{p}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}|x_i,\kappa .$$

In that case $`a_N=N^{\frac{1}{2}+ϵ}`$ for any $`ϵ`$. It is also easy to check that the $`\psi _N`$ are normalized up to an exponentially small factor. The case $`p=1`$ and $`d=1`$ was treated in \[BonDB\] but with a worse upper bound on the times in (5.31). As explained already in \[BonDB\], the upper bound in Theorem 5.1 is the optimal one for this case; it is obtained here using an argument borrowed from \[DBFN\].

Alternative proof of Theorem 1.1 for $`A`$ as above: The proof goes by contradiction. Suppose a sequence of eigenfunctions exists, so that (5.28) holds with $`\mu =\mu _{𝒞,\alpha }`$ (see (1.1)). Since the $`\psi _N`$ are eigenfunctions, one trivially finds, for all $`t\mathrm{}`$:

$$\psi _NM(A)^tOp_\kappa ^W(f)M(A)^t\psi _N=\psi _NOp_\kappa ^W(f)\psi _N,$$

so that (5.30) implies that

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\psi _NOp_\kappa ^W(f)\psi _N=_{\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}}f(x)𝑑x,$$

which is in obvious contradiction to the hypothesis (5.28). In other words, we have just proven that, if a sequence of eigenfunctions concentrates semi-classically on a finite family of periodic orbits, then it equidistributes. We conclude that such a sequence does not exist.

Proof of Theorem 5.1: Writing

$$f=\underset{nM_N}{}f_n\chi _n+\underset{nM_N}{}f_n\chi _n,$$

the fast decrease of the $`f_n`$ implies that for all $`K\mathrm{}`$, there exists $`C_f,C_{f,K}>0`$ so that

$$|\psi _NM(A)^tOp_\kappa ^W(f)M(A)^t\psi _N_{\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}}f(x)𝑑x|$$

$$C_f\underset{0<nM_N}{sup}\psi _NM(A)^tU(\frac{n}{N})M(A)^t\psi _N+C_{f,K}M_N^K.$$
(5.32)
Hence it will be enough to show that there exist a sequence $`M_N\mathrm{}`$ (depending on $`\theta _N`$) with $`M_N+\mathrm{}`$ so that

$$\underset{0<nM_N}{sup}\psi _NM(A)^tU(\frac{n}{N})M(A)^t\psi _N0$$

for $`t`$ in the range given in (5.31). For that purpose, first note that for each $`n\mathrm{}^{2d}\{0\}`$, $`t\mathrm{},a>0`$, we have (as in (4.22))

$`\psi _NM(A)^tU({\displaystyle \frac{n}{N}})M(A)^t\psi _N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}}}\psi _Nx,\kappa x,\kappa U({\displaystyle \frac{A^tn}{N}})\psi _N{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^d}}`$ (5.33)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _{B_a}}\psi _Nx,\kappa x+{\displaystyle \frac{A^tn}{N}},\kappa \psi _N{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^d}}`$
$`+\sigma _N(a)`$
where

$$\sigma _N(a)=\left(_{\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}B_a}h_{\psi _N}(x)𝑑x\right)^{1/2}.$$

The hypothesis (5.29) implies that $`\sigma _N(a_N)0`$.

Below, we shall prove that, for each $`N`$, there exists $`M_N\mathrm{}`$ so that

$$xB_{a_N},n\mathrm{}^{2d},0<nM_Nx+\frac{A^tn}{N}B_{a_N},$$
(5.34)
for all $`t`$ in the region (5.31). It then follows from (5.33) and the Schwartz inequality that, for each $`nM_N`$ and for those $`t`$

$$\psi _NM(A)^tU(\frac{n}{N})M(A)^t\psi _N\sigma _N(a_N)+\sigma _N(a_N).$$

Hence

$$|\psi _NM(A)^tOp_\kappa ^W(f)M(A)^t\psi _N_{\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}}f(x)𝑑x|2C_f\sigma _N(a_N)+C_{f,K}M_N^K.$$
(5.35)
We now prove (5.34). For simplicity of notation, let us first consider the case where $`𝒞=\{0\}`$ so that $`B_{a_N}`$ is the ball of radius $`a_N`$ around $`0\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}`$. We define

$$\stackrel{~}{B}_{a_N}=\{y\mathrm{}^{2d}|d_{\mathrm{}^{2d}}(y,\mathrm{}^{2d})<a_N\}.$$

Then $`B_{a_N}`$ is the image of $`\stackrel{~}{B}_{a_N}`$ under the natural projection of $`\mathrm{}^{2d}`$ to $`\mathrm{𝕋}^{2d}`$ so that (5.34) is equivalent to

$$x\stackrel{~}{B}_{a_N},n\mathrm{}^{2d},0<nM_Nd_{\mathrm{}^{2d}}(x+\frac{A^tn}{N},\mathrm{}^{2d})a_N.$$

But this is guaranteed if for all $`t`$ in (5.31)

$$n\mathrm{}^{2d},0<nM_Nd_{\mathrm{}^{2d}}(\frac{A^tn}{N},\mathrm{}^{2d})2a_N.$$
(5.36)
This is what we now prove. First, let

$$e^\gamma _{}=\mathrm{max}\{|\lambda |<1\lambda \text{is an eigenvalue of }A\}.$$

In other words, $`e^\gamma _{}`$ is the modulus of the largest eigenvalue of $`A`$ strictly inside the unit disc. Since $`A`$ does not leave any non-trivial sublattice invariant, it is clear that the component along $`E_{\gamma _+}`$ of any $`n\mathrm{}_{}^{2d}`$ is different from zero and Lemma 3.2 can therefore be used with $`V_2=E_{\gamma _+}`$; since $`A`$ is diagonalizable on $`E_{\gamma _+}`$, we conclude that there exist $`C_\pm >0`$ so that for all $`n\mathrm{}_{}^{2d}`$ and for all $`t`$ one has

$$\frac{C_{}}{n^{2dm_{\gamma _+}}}e^{\gamma _+t}A^tnC_+e^{\gamma _+t}n.$$
(5.37)
By using (5.37), if

$$\frac{C_{}}{NM_N^{2dm_{\gamma _+}}}e^{\gamma _+t}2a_N,$$

it is clear that for each $`n\mathrm{}_{}^{2d}`$ such that $`nM_N`$ we have

$$\frac{A^tn}{N}2a_N.$$

So, if we choose $`M_N=e^{\gamma _+\theta _N},t_{}=\frac{1}{\gamma _+}\mathrm{ln}\frac{2}{C_{}}`$, this latter inequality is satisfied for all $`t`$ in (5.31). We note for later reference that, since $`2dm_{\gamma _+}m_+`$,

$$M_N\left(\frac{1}{a_N}\right)^{\frac{1+m_+}{m_+(2d+1m_{\gamma _+})}}CN^{1/2}$$
(5.38)
for some $`C>0`$, in view of the constraint on $`\theta _N`$ and the fact that $`a_N\sqrt{N}`$ is bounded away from $`0`$. Now, for each $`n\mathrm{}^{2d},0<nM_N`$ there exists $`n_{t,N}\mathrm{}^{2d}`$ so that

$$d_{\mathrm{}^{2d}}(\frac{A^tn}{N},\mathrm{}^{2d})=\frac{A^tn}{N}n_{t,N}.$$

Consequently, if $`n_{t,N}=0`$ then $`d_{\mathrm{}^{2d}}(\frac{A^tn}{N},\mathrm{}^{2d})2a_N`$ for all $`t`$ in the region (5.31). Suppose therefore that $`n_{t,N}0`$ so that $`\frac{A^tn}{N}1/2`$. Let $`n=n_++n_0+n_{}E_+E_0E_{}`$. Then we have

$`d_{\mathrm{}^{2d}}({\displaystyle \frac{A^tn}{N}},\mathrm{}^{2d})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A^tn}{N}}n_{t,N}{\displaystyle \frac{A^t(n_++n_0)}{N}}n_{t,N}{\displaystyle \frac{A^tn_{}}{N}}`$
$``$ $`d_{\mathrm{}^{2d}}(n_{t,N},E_+E_0){\displaystyle \frac{A^tn_{}}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_o}{n_{t,N}^{m_+}}}{\displaystyle \frac{A^tn_{}}{N}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_o}{(\sqrt{d/2}+A^tn/N)^{m_+}}}{\displaystyle \frac{A^tn_{}}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_1}{A^tn/N^{m_+}}}{\displaystyle \frac{A^tn_{}}{N}}`$
$``$ $`C_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{N}{M_N}}e^{\gamma _+t}\right)^{m_+}C_3{\displaystyle \frac{M_N}{N}}t^{(d1)}e^{\gamma _{}t}`$
$`=`$ $`C_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{N}{M_N}}e^{\gamma _+t}\right)^{m_+}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{C_3}{C_2}}e^{(m_+\gamma _+\gamma _{})t}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_N}{N}}\right)^{m_++1}t^{(d1)}\right]`$
$``$ $`2a_N,`$
where we used in the second line Lemma 3.2 applied to $`V_1=E_+E_0`$, in the third line the fact that $`A^tn/N1/2`$, in the fourth line the upper bound in (5.37) and a standard estimate on $`A^tn_{}`$. To obtain the last line one defines $`t_+`$ via $`e^{\gamma _+t_+m_+}=C_2/4`$, one uses $`M_N=\mathrm{exp}\gamma _+\theta _N`$ and (5.31) to obtain

$$e^{(m_+\gamma _+\gamma _{})t}\left(\frac{M_N}{N}\right)^{m_++1}t^{(d1)}\frac{e^{m_+\gamma _+t_+}}{a_N}\frac{M_N}{N}e^{\gamma _{}t}t^{(d1)}d_1e^{\gamma _{}t}t^{(d1)}<1/2.$$

It is then clear that (5.36) holds for all $`t`$ in the region (5.31).

The general case, where $`𝒞`$ is a finite set of points is easily treated by noting that there exists $`S\mathrm{}_{}`$ so that $`S𝒞\mathrm{}^{2d}`$ so that

$$d_{\mathrm{}^{2d}}(y,𝒞+\mathrm{}^{2d})=S^1d_{\mathrm{}^{2d}}(Sy,S𝒞+S\mathrm{}^{2d})S^1d_{\mathrm{}^{2d}}(Sy,\mathrm{}^{2d}).$$

Acknowledgments: SDB whishes to thank S. Nonnenmacher for helpful conversations and M. Belliart for guiding him to the literature on ergodic toral automorphisms.