format: text

text:
# Scar functions in the Bunimovich Stadium billiard.

## 1 Introduction

During the past few years, research carried out on chaotic eigenfunctions has provided very important results. Berry and Voros  conjectured that, in the semiclassical limit, these eigenfunctions would be locally like random superpositions of plane waves; this conjecture is supported by theorems of Shnirelman  and Colin de Verdière . But Heller  found that a large number of highly excited eigenfunctions of the Bunimovich stadium billiard  have density enhancements along the shortest periodic orbits (POs). Since then several studies have focused on these phenomena and led to theoretical developments  and experimental observations such as in macroscopic billiard-shaped microwave cavities , tunnel junctions  and Hydrogen atoms in strong magnetic fields .

Recently, a variety of new aproaches to study the structure of chaotic eigenfunctions have been developed . One of them consists of the semiclassical construction of resonances with hyperbolic structure associated to unstable periodic orbits . These resonances were studied both analytically and numerically. They are classically motivated constructions that take into account complete classical information in the neighbourhood of a PO. The so-called scar functions, as they have been named, can be obtained by a linear combination of resonances  of a periodic orbit at a given energy with minimum energy dispersion. Resonances span a basis and are obtained by applying a creation operator over a vacuum state. The vacuum state (i.e. a resonance with no transverse excitations) is constructed with a (conveniently selected) Gaussian wave packet that follows a modified transverse motion along the chosen orbit. The modified motion, which is the result of dropping the pure hyperbolic one, describes a bunch of POs surrounding the chosen trajectory. For instance, the eigenvectors of the monodromy matrix evolve without the exponential contraction-dilation that is expected in this kind of hyperbolic dynamics. Instead, after one period they return to themselves (up to a minus sign in some cases). In the same way, the wave packet returns to itself with an accumulated phase that is an integral multiple of $`2\pi `$, guaranteeing its continuity.

Billiards are among the most interesting and well-studied systems in quantum chaos. We are going to work with the Bunimovich stadium billiard. For billiards, the boundary is the natural Poincaré section. We present a formulation of resonances and scar functions over the boundary. This reduction makes the calculations easier and it is a clear advantage when exploring a great number of eigenfunctions. Of course this is not the only reason to obtain these scar functions expressions, since they are more than tools for investigating numerically the structure of chaotic eigenfunctions. They are the cornerstone of the semiclassical theory of short periodic orbits of References . In this context it is possible to obtain all quantum information of a chaotic Hamiltonian system just by knowing classical information of a small number of short POs (in fact, the shortest ones, whose number increases at most linearly with a Heisemberg time). This is accomplished by evaluating the interaction between POs. In previous calculations  only vacuum states of a handful of the shortest POs were used. For higher energies it is necessary to incorporate excitations to these vacuum states and also longer POs. All this can be done by using scar functions associated to a greater number of POs than the ones needed at low energy values. It is evident that working on the billiard domain will not be the best choice in these cases, and expressions on the boundary become essential. Hence, we need to develop an efficient method to evaluate them, this being one of the main goals of this article.

We also go further by taking into account the non linear behaviour of the unstable and stable manifolds. Then, we are able to extend the validity of scar functions beyond the linear regime. The chosen approach is general in nature, and despite it is applied to the special case of the Bunimovich stadium it can be extended to general systems in a straight forward way. These new ingredients do not significantly alter the construction of scar functions, which preserve their compact character. These new expressions provide a more comprehensive description of the phase space in the neighbourhood of each orbit. They are the other main goal of the present work.

This paper is organised as follows, Section 2 consists of a detailed explanation of the construction of resonances on the billiard domain. Here we address many subtleties involved in the wave function calculations and local expressions are provided. Moreover, a comprehensive approach is offered for resonances including vacuum states and excitations in a single formulation. Though the construction may seem complex the great advantage is that it is a general one, suitable for any billiard. In Section 3 the construction is extended with expressions on the boundary. In this part explicit formulas amenable to extensive and high energies calculations are presented. Also a brief summary of the results from the previous section and their application to the construction of scar functions on the billiard boundary is developed; here, we give explicit examples. Finally, Section 4 is devoted to conclusions.

## 2 Resonances on the billiard domain

In this section we give a thorough explanation of the construction of the resonances associated to a given trajectory $`\gamma `$ of length $`L`$ belonging to the Bunimovich stadium. We define a coordinate $`x`$ along the trajectory and a coordinate $`y`$ perpendicular to it (such that $`y=0`$ defines the orbit). The evolution of an initial displacement $`(y,p_y)`$ at $`x=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ into $`(y(x),p_y(x))`$ at $`x`$ can be obtained by means of the symplectic stability matrix $`M(x)`$ with elements $`m_{ij}`$,

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}y(x)\\ p_y(x)\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{11}(x)& m_{12}(x)\\ m_{21}(x)& m_{22}(x)\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}y\\ p_y\end{array}\right).$$

The eigenvectors $`\xi _u`$ and $`\xi _s`$ of $`M`$ give the unstable and stable directions associated to the orbit. These vectors evolve as $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_u(x)=M(x)\xi _u`$. After one period they return over themselves, $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_u(L)=(1)^\mu e^{\lambda L}\xi _u`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_s(L)=(1)^\mu e^{\lambda L}\xi _s`$, where $`\mu `$ is the total number of half turns made by $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_u(x)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_s(x)`$ during its evolution along the orbit. For a billiard this number corresponds to $`\mu =\nu +N_{ref}`$ where $`\nu `$ is the maximum number of conjugated points (in particular, for the stadium $`\nu `$ is exactly the number of bounces with the circle). $`N_{ref}`$ is the total number of reflections with the billiard boundary and the symmetry lines. This point will be addressed later when we refer to quantisation conditions.

We are going to decompose the motion given by $`M(x)`$ into a purely hyperbolic and a periodic one. In order to do so we need to specify the contraction-dilation rate along the manifolds. This can be done by first finding one of the $`x_0`$ points on the trajectory where the projections of $`\xi _u(x_0)`$ and $`\xi _s(x_0)`$ on $`y`$ and $`p_y`$ are equal in absolute value, i.e., the unstable and stable directions would be symmetrical with respect to the axes. There are $`2\nu `$ points like these on the orbit. They can be found by using the fact that $`M_{x_0}`$ (the return map starting at $`x=x_0`$) has equal diagonal elements when this condition on the eigenvectors is met. By means of the relation $`M_{x_0}=M(x_0)M(L)M(x_0)^1`$ this condition can be easily implemented.

Then, we decompose $`M(x)`$ into a periodic matrix $`F(x)`$ describing the evolution of the manifolds and a matrix which is responsible of the contraction-dilation along them. This is just an application of Floquet theorem :

$$M(x)=F(x)\mathrm{exp}[f(x)\lambda K],$$
(1)
where $`KBDB^1`$ with $`D`$ a diagonal matrix of elements $`d_{11}=1`$ and $`d_{22}=1`$ and $`B=(\xi _u\xi _s)`$, i.e., the symplectic matrix transforming coordinates from the new axes $`\xi _u`$ and $`\xi _s`$ to the old ones $`y`$ and $`p_y`$. The real function $`f(x)`$ (required to fulfill $`f(0)=0`$ and $`f(L)=L`$) can be seen as the relation between the lengths of $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_u(x)`$ and $`\xi _u`$, but the plane $`y`$-$`p_y`$ has no defined norm so establishing this relation is in general impossible. Further conditions can be imposed on $`f(x)`$, (see Ref. ). However, without loss of generality, we are going to consider the easier choice $`f(x)=x`$ for the present calculations. On the other hand the neutral motion given by $`F(x)`$ can be obtained by its action on $`\xi _u`$ and $`\xi _s`$, allowing us to define the set $`y_u(x)`$, $`y_s(x)`$, $`p_u(x)`$ and $`p_s(x)`$ of periodic functions:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}y_u(x)\\ p_u(x)\end{array}\right)\xi _u(x)F(x)\xi _u=e^{f(x)\lambda }M(x)\xi _u,$$
(2)
and

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}y_s(x)\\ p_s(x)\end{array}\right)\xi _s(x)F(x)\xi _s=e^{f(x)\lambda }M(x)\xi _s.$$
(3)
Since $`F(x)`$ is area preserving, these functions satisfy the sympletic property $`y_u(x)p_s(x)y_s(x)p_u(x)=\xi _u(x)\xi _s(x)=\xi _u\xi _s=J`$ ($`J`$ being the unit of action in the $`y`$-$`p_y`$ plane).

A resonance can be essentially seen as the product of a plane wave in the $`x`$ direction, being the semiclassical approximation for the unidimensional motion along the orbit, and a Gaussian wave packet in the transverse coordinate, which follows a dynamics without dilation-contraction along the unstable and stable manifolds of the trajectory. The vacuum state (semiclassically normalised to unity) is given by :

$$\psi _\gamma ^{(0)}(x,y)=\frac{\mathrm{exp}\{i[S(x)+y^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)/2]/\mathrm{}i\varphi (x)/2\}}{\sqrt{T\dot{x}}[\pi (\mathrm{}/J)|Q(x)|^2]^{1/4}},$$
(4)
where $`T`$ is the period of the orbit and $`\varphi (x)`$ is the angle swept by $`Q(x)`$ while evolving from $`0`$ to $`x`$. In this expression $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)=P(x)/Q(x)`$, where $`Q(x)`$ and $`P(x)`$ are the components of a complex vector constructed with the stable and unstable manifolds. These components are obtained as:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}Q(x)=y_u(x)+iy_s(x)\\ P(x)=p_u(x)+ip_s(x)\end{array}\right)\xi _u(x)+i\xi _s(x)=M(x)B\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{f(x)\lambda }\\ ie^{f(x)\lambda }\end{array}\right).$$
(5)
For billiards we take a slightly modified evolution matrix ($`\stackrel{~}{M}(x)`$) in order to have a continuous $`Q(x)`$; since the phase $`\varphi (x)`$ of $`Q(x)`$ must be known in detail for resonances construction, continuity is a very reasonable condition to ask for. This can be done by means of $`\stackrel{~}{M}(x)(1)^{N(x)}M(x)`$, with $`N(x)`$ being the number of reflections while evolving from $`0`$ to $`x`$. In turn, this matrix can be constructed by using two types of matrices:

$$M_1(l)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& l\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),\mathrm{and}M_2(\theta )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 2/\mathrm{cos}(\theta )& 1\end{array}\right).$$

$`M_1(l)`$ describes the evolution for a path of length $`l`$ without bounces with the circle (the transverse momentum is measured in units of the momentum along the trajectory). $`M_2(\theta )`$ takes into account a bounce with the circle ($`\theta `$ defines the angle between the incoming trajectory and the radial direction). In the following we assume this matrix instead of the original one given for the most general expressions in the previous theoretical introduction. The reflections related phase will be included in the expressions directly.

Taking the wave functions defined in Eq (4) as the vacuum state for appropriate creation-anihilation operators (see ), the following expression results for a resonance with $`m`$ transverse excitations:

$$\psi _\gamma ^{(m)}(x,y)=\frac{e^{im\varphi (x)}}{\sqrt{2^mm!}}H_m\left[\frac{y\sqrt{J/\mathrm{}}}{|Q(x)|}\right]\psi _\gamma ^{(0)}(x,y),$$
(6)
where $`\varphi (x)`$ is the phase introduced in Eq (4), and $`H_m(z)`$ are the Hermite polynomials ($`H_0=1`$, $`H_1=2\xi `$, $`H_2=4\xi ^22`$, $`\mathrm{}`$). It is easy to see that $`\psi _\gamma ^{(m)}`$ is also a product of two functions; the solution for the motion along the orbit and $`m`$ excitations of a transverse Gaussian wave packet which evolves following the same periodic motion previously mentioned.

Inside each family, resonances are identified by the integer number $`n=0,1,\mathrm{}`$, the number of excitations along the orbit and by $`m=0,1,\mathrm{}`$, the transverse excitations. The wave number $`k`$ depends on $`\gamma `$, $`n`$ and $`m`$ through the rule:

$$S(L)/\mathrm{}N_b\pi /2(m+1/2)\mu \pi =2\pi n,$$
(7)
which guarantees the continuity of $`\psi _\gamma ^{(m)}`$ at $`x=L=0`$. In this expression $`S(L)=_0^Lp_x𝑑x`$ is the dynamical action and $`\mu `$ is the topological phase; that is, the number of half turns made by the manifolds along the orbit. Finally, $`N_b`$ is a pure quantum phase related to the boundary conditions (see ), which is equal to the number of reflections satisfying Dirichlet boundary conditions minus the number of reflections satisfying Neumann conditions.

Rule (7) can be divided into the $`m\mu `$ even and odd cases:

$$S(L)/\mathrm{}N_b\pi /2\mu \pi /2=2\pi (n+m\mu /2)$$
(8)
for $`m\mu `$ even, and

$$S(L)/\mathrm{}N_b\pi /23\mu \pi /2=2\pi [n+(m1)\mu /2],$$
(9)
for the odd case. For the desymmetrized stadium billiard it results in

$$S(L)/\mathrm{}=Lk;N_b=N_s+s_hN_h+s_vN_v$$

and $`\mu =N_{ref}+\nu `$ with $`N_{ref}=N_s+N_h+N_v`$ where $`N_s`$, $`N_h`$ and $`N_v`$ are the number of reflections with the stadium boundary and the horizontal and vertical symmetry lines respectively. Finally, $`\nu `$ is the number of bounces with the quarter of the circle. The value of $`s_h`$ is $`0`$ or $`1`$ depending on the symmetry with respect to the horizontal axis being even or odd; this is equivalent for $`s_v`$, where the vertical symmetry is considered. The set of allowed $`m`$ values can range from $`0`$ or $`1`$ (depending on $`m\mu `$ being even or odd) to $`m<A_{eff}/2\pi \mathrm{}`$ (where $`A_{eff}`$ is the transverse area in which the construction is valid). For simplicity, we are going to consider $`0(1)m<n`$ as a satisfactory criterion.

The time reversal properties of the system under study can be applied to Eq (6), giving a real resonance expression. Resonances are constructed explicitely for the stadium billiard by assigning a semiclassical expression to each straight line of the orbit. The first one of these lines is the segment of $`\gamma `$ that begins in $`x_1=0`$. Let $`x_2`$ ($`>x_1`$) be the value of $`x`$ where the path reaches the border of the stadium after the corresponding evolution. The path departing from $`x_2`$ defines the second line and so on until $`x=L/2`$ is reached. If we define local coordinates $`(x^{(j)},y^{(j)})`$ over each line in such a way that $`x^{(j)}=x`$ inside the desymmetrized billiard, the expression for the $`j`$th line turns out to be \[we are going to use $`(x,y)`$ in the following expressions, understanding that they represent the variables $`(x^{(j)},y^{(j)})`$ of the $`j`$th line\]

$`\psi _j^{(m)}(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{kR}{|Q(x)|^2}}\right)^{1/4}f^{(m)}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{kR}y}{|Q(x)|}}\right]`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{L}}}\mathrm{sin}[ky^2g_j(x)+kxN_b(x_j^+)\pi /2`$
$`(m+1/2)\mathrm{\Phi }_j(x)F_0mG_0].`$
Here $`N_b(x_j^+)`$ is defined in the same way as $`N_b`$ but taking account of the bounces up to the point $`x_j`$ (including it), the corresponding term takes into account the quantum phase associated to boundary conditions and this is the resonance counterpart of the phase considered in the quantisation conditions. Furthermore,

$$g_j(x)Re[\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)/2]=\frac{y_up_u+y_sp_s}{2(y_u^2+y_s^2)},$$
(11)
where the $`x`$ dependence is understood. We would like to point out that the factor $`k`$ in the term $`ky^2g_j(x)`$ in Eq (10) is different from the factor $`1/\mathrm{}`$ in Eq (4). This is due to the fact that momenta in the expression for $`g_j(x)`$ are measured in units of $`\mathrm{}k`$, i.e., the momentum along the trajectory. The oscillator functions are defined by

$$f^{(m)}(\xi )=\pi ^{1/4}(2^mm!)^{1/2}e^{\xi ^2/2}H_m(\xi ),$$

where $`H_m`$ is the $`m`$th degree Hermite polynomial. The $`sine`$ function in Eq (10) was chosen in order to obtain real resonances by virtue of the time reversal symmetry of the system. We have taken $`T\dot{x}=L`$ in Eq (4) and considered $`J=\mathrm{}kR`$ in Eq (6), with $`k`$ the wave number from the quantisation conditions and $`R`$ the circle radius of the stadium. Finally $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j(x)=N_{ref}(x_j^+)\pi +[\stackrel{~}{\phi }_j+\varphi _j(x)+\alpha _j(x)]`$, with $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_j=\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{j1}+\varphi _{j1}(x_j)+\alpha _{j1}(x_j)`$ for $`j2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_1=0`$, follows the actual phase of $`Q(x)`$. In the first term of this expression we introduce the jumps in the sign of $`Q(x)`$ due to reflections on hard walls, that were avoided by using the $`\stackrel{~}{M}(x)`$ matrix instead of the right one. In fact, this is the only place where this change is needed because $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ keeps its sign. The remaining term of this function, i.e., $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_j+\varphi _j(x)+\alpha _j(x)`$ is explained in the subsection 2.1.

The initial phase of the resonances $`\psi _j^{(m)}`$, Eq (10), is essential to satisfy the boundary conditions. We have set $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_1=0`$ in the relations that define $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_j`$, and account for the initial phase by means of two quantities, $`F_0`$ and $`G_0`$, which take values as shown in Fig. 1. $`F_0`$ accounts for the initial phase in order to obtain an even (odd) function when symmetry is even (odd), without considering the symmetry of the oscillator functions (this will be addressed by $`G_0`$). In the case of having only one path to consider at the initial bounce, like in the first diagrams for both rows, the corresponding function must obey the symmetry by itself. In the second case of the first row the symmetry related path is added but multiplied by $`1`$ (see the final sum in this section and explanation thereby). Finally, in the two remaining cases (of the second row) an even function is needed since the function obtained by adding the symmetry related path multiplied by $`1`$ ($`1`$) is (anti)symmetric. $`G_0`$ takes into account the symmetry of the Hermite polynomials, which goes like $`m`$, the number of transverse excitations. Its value depend on the starting angle of the trajectory. If this angle is zero, the symmetry of the resonance is the one given by the $`F_0`$ choice. In the other case, the symmetry of the oscillator function (i.e. Hermite polynomials) comes into play and in order to have the right final result we need to consider it. This can be easily accomplished by the choice of the $`G_0`$ value according to Fig. 1.

The transformation of local coordinates $`(x^{(j)},y^{(j)})`$ over the $`j`$ line to $`(X,Y)`$ coordinates that belong to the horizontal and vertical directions respectively, can be obtained in a simple way by means of an usual transformation. If $`(X_j,Y_j)`$ are the coordinates of the point $`x_j`$, and $`\alpha _j`$ is the angle between the $`j`$ line and the horizontal direction, $`(x^{(j)}x_j,y^{(j)})=G_j(X,Y)`$ is given by

$$G_j(X,Y)=(XX_j,YY_j)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _j)& \mathrm{sin}(\alpha _j)\\ \mathrm{sin}(\alpha _j)& \mathrm{cos}(\alpha _j)\end{array}\right).$$

Finally, the family of resonances $`\psi _\gamma `$ is constructed by means of all the lines including symmetries (see Fig. 2 where this procedure is illustrated for one of the shortest periodic orbits of the stadium billiard), this avoids unnecesary evaluation of reflection points over the symmetry lines, considering only those over the boundary:

$$\psi _\gamma (X,Y)=\underset{j}{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{m_h}{}}\underset{l=1}{\overset{m_v}{}}h_iv_l\psi _j[(x_j,0)+G_j(s_lX,s_iY)].$$
(12)
where $`s_i(1)^{i+1}`$ and $`s_l(1)^{l+1}`$. $`h_i=[\delta _{i,1}+\delta _{i,2}(12s_h)]`$ and $`v_l=[\delta _{l,1}+\delta _{l,2}(12s_v)]`$. $`m_h`$ and $`m_v`$ depend on $`j`$ and are specified like this: $`m_h=1`$ or $`2`$ if the line is symmetrical or not with respect to the horizontal axis respectively, and the same happens with the number $`m_v`$ for the vertical axis, although $`m_h=2`$ and $`m_v=1`$ if the line goes through the origin. This is the only considered choice of the two possible ones (the other is $`m_h=1`$ and $`m_v=2`$) such that the right number of lines are included in the case of having symmetry with respect to the origin.

This construction of resonances allows us to reduce calculations by exploiting the spatial symmetries of the system. We will explain the role of all these indices and coodinate rotations. The values of the function $`\psi _\gamma `$ in the general coordinates $`(X,Y)`$ in the domain are obtained from their corresponding ones in local coordinates over each line. This is the reason why in the case of lines having no symmetry with respect to the axis $`X`$ or $`Y`$, $`m_h`$ and $`m_v`$ adopt the value 2 in such a way that the two symmetry related lines are included (in the case of showing that symmetry, $`m_h`$ and $`m_v`$ have value 1 and the only line considered is the original one). Then, the values given to $`s_l`$ and $`s_i`$ complete this process by reflecting the corresponding coordinate. The main point about this mechanism in Eq (12) is that when second lines are involved the boundary conditions at the axes have to be met also. To achieve this result they are added with positive or negative sign if the symmetry is even ($`s_h`$ or $`s_v`$ equal to 0) or odd ($`s_h`$ or $`s_v`$ equal to 1). This can be directly verified by replacing $`i`$ and $`l`$ by 2 in the formulas for $`h_i`$ and $`v_l`$, and also $`s_h`$ and $`s_v`$ by their corresponding values (always referring to the reflected lines). To satisfy the boundary conditions when a line goes through the origin of $`(X,Y)`$, only one reflection must be considered, this is the reason why this case is treated separately in our general rules of assignment for the $`m_h`$ and $`m_v`$ values.

Now that we have completed the construction of resonances on the domain of the billiard it is convenient to introduce the expression for the hyperbolic part of the Hamiltonian applied to these functions. As shown in Ref.  it has a simple form in terms of conveniently defined creation-anihilation operators and also can be expressed as:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\widehat{H}E)}{\mathrm{}^2/2\mathrm{M}}}\psi _j^{(m)}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha (x)[\sqrt{(m+1)(m+2)}\psi _j^{(m+2)}+`$ (13)
$`+\sqrt{(m1)m}\psi _j^{(m2)}],`$
with $`\alpha (x)=s\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\mathrm{M}\dot{x}/\mathrm{}f^{}(x)\lambda /2=skf^{}(x)\lambda `$ (where $`f^{}(x)=1`$, $`s`$ is the sign of the slope of the unstable direction with respect to the $`y`$ axis at the initial point $`x=x_0`$, and M the mass of the particle). The case $`m=0`$ corresponds to the expression given in . This formula or its version on the boundary which is derived in Section 3, is the cornerstone of the short periodic orbits theory and also plays a crucial role in the construction of scar functions.

### 2.1 Following the phase of $`Q(x)`$: a local expression for resonances

We have pointed out that function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j(x)`$ is the phase accumulated by $`Q(x)`$ from the point $`x_1=0`$ to $`x`$ over the trajectory, followed in a continuous way and incorporating jumps due to rigid walls afterwards (we isolated them by using $`\stackrel{~}{M}(x)`$). In this subsection we are going to explain the calculation of the continuous part in detail.

The function $`\varphi _j(x)=\mathrm{arg}[Q_j(x)]\mathrm{arg}[Q_j(x_j)]`$, where arg takes the argument of a complex number in the interval $`[0;2\pi )`$, follows the phase of $`Q(x)`$ after the bounce in $`x_j`$. We must be careful in the analysis because the phase of $`Q_j(x)`$ is divided by 2. Then, the proposed method will be to consider the phase of $`Q_j(x)`$ in an arbitrary point of the line $`j`$. The complex vectors $`Q(x)`$ and $`P(x)`$ are obtained by

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}Q_j(x)\\ P_j(x)\end{array}\right)=M_1(xx_j)\left(\begin{array}{cc}a_j& b_j\\ c_j& d_j\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{(xx_j)\lambda }\\ ie^{(xx_j)\lambda }\end{array}\right),$$

where

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}a_j& b_j\\ c_j& d_j\end{array}\right)=\stackrel{~}{M}(x_j^+)B\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{x_j\lambda }& 0\\ 0& e^{x_j\lambda }\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}y_u(x_j)& y_s(x_j)\\ p_u(x_j)& p_s(x_j)\end{array}\right).$$

Here $`x_j^+`$ means (for $`j2`$) that $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ (the stability matrix multiplied by $`(1)^{N_b(x_j^+)}`$) is evaluated after the bounce over the boundary in $`x_j`$. It can be easily verified that

$`Q_j(x)`$ $`=`$ $`[a_j+(xx_j)c_j]\mathrm{exp}[\lambda (xx_j)]+`$ (14)
$`+i[b_j+(xx_j)d_j]\mathrm{exp}[\lambda (xx_j)].`$
The first conclusion that we can derive from this expression is that for $`x\mathrm{}`$, $`Q(x)`$ is real, with sign equal to $`\mathrm{sgn}(c_j)`$, and for $`x+\mathrm{}`$ is pure imaginary, with its sign given by $`\mathrm{sgn}(d_j)`$. We will define the new variable $`\stackrel{~}{x}=xx_j`$. With this definition we can easily write $`Q_j(\stackrel{~}{x})=(a_j+\stackrel{~}{x}c_j)\mathrm{exp}(\lambda \stackrel{~}{x})+i(b_j+\stackrel{~}{x}d_j)\mathrm{exp}(\lambda \stackrel{~}{x})`$. We are going to divide the $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ axis, having in mind the places where the real and imaginary part of $`Q(\stackrel{~}{x})`$ change signs. These are located at $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{Re}=a_j/c_j`$ for the real part and at $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{Im}=b_j/d_j`$ for the imaginary one. It is easy to see that $`Q(\stackrel{~}{x}_{Re})`$ is pure imaginary with sign given by $`\mathrm{sgn}[(b_jc_ja_jd_j)/c_j]=\mathrm{sgn}(1/c_j)=\mathrm{sgn}(c_j)`$. On the other hand, $`Q(\stackrel{~}{x}_{Im})`$ is real and $`\mathrm{sgn}Q(\stackrel{~}{x}_{Im})=\mathrm{sgn}[(d_ja_jb_jc_j)/d_j]=\mathrm{sgn}(1/d_j)=\mathrm{sgn}d_j`$. Moreover, once the signs of $`c_j`$ and $`d_j`$ are given, the order relation between $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{Re}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{Im}`$ is specified. For instance, for $`c_j>0`$ and $`d_j>0`$, and using the fact that $`a_jd_jb_jc_j=1`$ there results $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{Re}=a_j/c_j<b_j/d_j=\stackrel{~}{x}_{Im}`$.

The only idea that motivates the previous reasoning is the continuous evolution of $`Q(\stackrel{~}{x})`$, without necessarily being a monotonous one. Hence, we can have four possible sign combinations and orderings of $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{Re}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{Im}`$, as shown in Fig. 3. The same Figure also shows the evolution of $`Q(\stackrel{~}{x})`$ in the complex plane.

In these figures we have labelled the three sectors of the $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ axis that are defined by $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{Re}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{Im}`$ with $`1`$, $`0`$ and $`1`$. They are the three quadrants where $`Q(\stackrel{~}{x})`$ time evolution takes place, evolving from $`1`$ to $`0`$ and then to $`1`$. This labelling can be defined through the function:

$$n_j(\stackrel{~}{x})=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 1& \mathrm{if}\stackrel{~}{x}>\mathrm{max}(a_j/c_j,b_j/d_j)\hfill \\ \hfill 1& \mathrm{if}\stackrel{~}{x}<\mathrm{min}(a_j/c_j,b_j/d_j)\hfill \\ \hfill 0& \mathrm{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Though rather technical, introducing $`n_j`$ allows us to define the resonances in a local form, and this is a very important feature of them. The curve representing $`Q(\stackrel{~}{x})`$ (in Fig. 3) is only qualitative and, of course, it does not imply monotony in the evolution. In the case of Figures corresponding to $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{Re}>\stackrel{~}{x}_{Im}`$, for instance when $`d_j<0`$, the imaginary component of $`Q`$ in the $`1`$ region grows while $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ decreases in absolute value; but in some point it must begin to decrease in absolute value in order to pass through zero in a continuous way, following the signs of the quadrant. Something similar happens in the other cases for both asymptotic limits. The arrows over the real and imaginary axes in these four schemes represent $`Q(\stackrel{~}{x}_{Re})`$ if they are over the imaginary axis and $`Q(\stackrel{~}{x}_{Im})`$ if they are over the real axis.

Let s put again the analysis in terms of the $`x`$ variable over the trajectory. Not all the changes of quadrant imply a jump in the phase of $`Q(x)`$ given by the arg function. While it is true that inside of each quadrant there is no need of monotony, it is needed among the quadrants (this is a kind of discrete monotony that allows us to say that the phase of $`Q(x)`$ is greater in 1 than in 0, and it is greater in 0 than in -1). Let s suppose now that there has been a change of region (or quadrant). In the case of $`\stackrel{~}{x}>0`$ (there has been an evolution from the point $`x_j`$) but $`\varphi _j(x)<0`$ (the phase of $`Q(x)`$ relative to the one that it had in $`x_j`$ is lower), or $`\stackrel{~}{x}<0`$ and $`\varphi _j(x)>0`$ (there has been a backward evolution but the phase grows), we are in a situation where the real positive axis has been crossed. Thus, we have to add or substract $`2\pi `$, respectively, in order to continuously keep track of the phase (because if $`\stackrel{~}{x}>0`$ there has been an evolution from $`x_j`$ and the crossing has been in the counterclockwise or positive sense, and it is negative if $`\stackrel{~}{x}<0`$). To summarize, if $`n_j(x)n_j(x_j)`$ and $`(xx_j)\varphi _j(x)<0`$ a phase $`\alpha _j(x)=2\pi \mathrm{sgn}(xx_j)`$ must be added; otherwise $`\alpha _j(x)=0`$. If $`c_j=0`$ or $`d_j=0`$, $`x_j`$ can be replaced by any other point over the $`j`$ line, inside the desymmetrized billiard.

Finally, we can see that $`\varphi _j(x)+\alpha _j(x)`$ defines the angle swept by $`Q_j(x^{(j)})`$ in a continuous way. Hence, $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_j=\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{j1}+\varphi _{j1}(x_j)+\alpha _{j1}(x_j)`$ for $`j2`$ prevents the phase from jumping when changing from one line to the next one.

## 3 Resonances on the billiard boundary

In Section 2 we described the construction of resonances on the billiard domain. This is only suitable for calculations carried out in the low energy region, where these wave functions are simple. If we include longer orbits as well as higher energy families of the shortest ones we need to consider a reduction to a surface of section. Also, for calculations of matrix elements and for obtaining explicit expressions in terms of classical quantities when $`\mathrm{}0`$ is essential to perform this reduction. As a surface of section we can take any differentiable curve $`\xi `$ with a coordinate $`q`$ along it and another $`\eta `$ orthogonal to $`\xi `$ at the point $`q`$ ($`\eta =0`$ over the curve). Consider an orbit $`\gamma `$, its $`l`$ crossings with this curve (taken to be at $`q_j`$ ($`j=1,\mathrm{},l)`$, with angles $`\theta _j`$ on $`\xi `$ and at $`x_j`$ on $`\gamma `$) define a number $`l`$ of $`m`$th excited wave packets as the function $`\psi _\gamma ^{(m)}`$ is considered only over $`\xi `$. This is in fact the representation of $`\psi _\gamma ^{(m)}`$ on the section. In the case of billiards, systems that are bounded by rigid walls, we can take this boundary as the surface of section, equipped with Birkhoff cordinates, i.e., the boundary arclength $`q`$ and the tangential momentum $`p`$ at the bounce. The origin of $`q`$ is at the point $`(X,Y)=(0,R)`$ and it grows in the clockwise sense. But for Dirichlet boundary conditions $`\psi _\gamma `$ is null to order $`\sqrt{\mathrm{}}`$ on this surface. Then, we can take

$$\phi _\gamma ^{(m)}(q)\frac{\psi _\gamma ^{(m)}}{\eta }(x,y)$$
(15)
as the representation of $`\psi _\gamma ^{(m)}`$ on the section. We are going to obtain the general expression for this function. In the neighbourhood of a bounce point, $`\phi _\gamma ^{(m)}`$ is given by the combination of 2 terms, one corresponding to the incoming path and the other to the outgoing one (see Fig. 4).

From this Figure we see that the normal $`n`$ (the former general $`\eta `$ coordinate specialized for this case) and tangential $`t`$ coordinates can be related to the trajectory coordinates by means of simple rotations (being $`x_j=\mathrm{sin}(\theta _j)t\mathrm{cos}(\theta _j)n`$, $`y_j=\mathrm{cos}(\theta _j)t+\mathrm{sin}(\theta _j)n`$ and $`x_{j1}=\mathrm{sin}(\theta _j)t+\mathrm{cos}(\theta _j)n`$, $`y_{j1}=\mathrm{cos}(\theta _j)t+\mathrm{sin}(\theta _j)n`$). We can consider $`tR((qq_j)/R(qq_j)^3/(6R^3))`$ for the tangential coordinate, where $`R`$ is the curvature at the bounce. Also, for the normal and tangential coordinates to the boundary at the bounce point, the relation $`nt^2/(2R)`$ is valid (over the boundary). For this reason we are going to take $`y\mathrm{cos}(\theta )t\mathrm{cos}(\theta )(qq_j)`$ and $`x\mathrm{sin}(\theta )(qq_j)`$ in expressions on the boundary at the lowest order in $`\mathrm{}`$. As stated above, we can write the general expression for resonances near the $`j`$th bounce as a sum of two contributions of the type described by Eq (6), arising from the incoming and outgoing paths, respectively. We can write a real expression for the normal derivative to the lowest order in $`\mathrm{}`$ (we remember here Eq (10) and that the sin function vanishes to order $`\sqrt{\mathrm{}}`$ on the boundary):

$`\phi _j^{(m)}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`k\mathrm{cos}\theta _j\left({\displaystyle \frac{kR}{|Q(x_j)|^2}}\right)^{1/4}f^{(m)}(\xi )`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{L}}}\mathrm{cos}[k\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _j(qq_j)^2g_j(x_j)+k\mathrm{sin}\theta _j(qq_j)+\mathrm{\Delta }]`$
where $`f^{(m)}(\xi )`$ is the same defined after Eq (10) in Section 2, but now taking $`\xi =\sqrt{kR}(qq_j)\mathrm{cos}\theta _j/|Q(x_j)|`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=kx_jN_b(x_j^+)\pi /2(m+1/2)\mathrm{\Phi }_j(x_j)F_0mG_0`$.

As previously mentioned we have evaluated the expression on the boundary by means of the $`\sqrt{\mathrm{}}`$ order approximation in the $`x`$ and $`y`$ variables, this being a linear approximation in the boundary variable $`q`$. Note that the ordering of bounces and lines is as follows: $`q_1`$ be the first bounce on the boundary of the stadium, then $`j=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}`$ is the outgoing line from it; this process extends up to $`L/2`$. It is important to mention that if two lines reach the bounce point, then an additional factor of 2 is needed in order to account for the different weight that these points have in “self-retracting orbits (librations)” with respect to turning points; in the case of rotations the overall factor can be considered part of the normalization condition.

We want to obtain expressions for resonances on the boundary of the first quarter of the billiard. Symmetry properties must be taken into account and one way to do so is by considering “contributions” coming from bounces that lie outside the first quarter of the boundary (see Fig. 5). The domain counterpart of these bounces are taken into account by Eq (12) of Section 2. In fact lines are continued outside the desymmetrised domain. But regarding boundary expressions we must explicitely introduce them. It is clear that in the semiclassical limit these contributions will tend to zero, but for finite $`\mathrm{}`$ we must add to the previous expressions the same ones but evaluated at $`q_j^{}=q_j`$; $`\theta _j^{}=\theta _j`$ when $`q_j0`$, and $`q_j^{}=L/2q_j`$; $`\theta _j^{}=\theta _j`$ when $`q_jL/4`$ (see Fig. 5). The case “c” of Fig. 5 can be disregarded.

Then, by adding up all the contributions at each bounce along the trajectory we arrive at the complete expression for the resonance on the boundary. This procedure is analogous to the one devised to construct the resonance on the domain by adding all contributions coming from different paths. For completeness we are going to define the hyperbolic part of the Hamiltonian acting over a resonance on the boundary as:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\widehat{H}E)/(\mathrm{}^2/2\mathrm{m})}{n}}\psi _j^{(m)}|_\xi \widehat{H}_{eff}\phi _j^{(m)}(q)=`$
$`skf^{}(x)\lambda [\sqrt{(m+1)(m+2)}\phi _j^{(m+2)}+\sqrt{(m1)m}\phi _j^{(m2)}],`$ (17)
In the remaining part of this section we introduce corrections to the general expression for the resonance over the boundary at each bounce. They take into account the curvature of the manifolds that is not included in the previous linear approximation. Furthermore, they apply in a direct way to the already defined expressions for the resonances and the hyperbolic Hamiltonian.

Eq (16) describes the normal derivative of the resonance on a tangential section to the boundary at a given bounce point. But this is not enough if we want to make calculations with these expressions. We therefore need to include the way manifolds depart from the unstable and stable directions given by the vectors $`\xi _u`$ and $`\xi _s`$ respectively. We will denote the points on the unstable (or the stable) manifold corresponding to the fixed point $`(q_0,p_0)`$ by $`(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{p}(\stackrel{~}{q}))=(qq_0,pp_0)`$. A description of this situation can bee seen in Fig. 6. In this Figure $`\stackrel{~}{p}(\stackrel{~}{q})`$ is the function that defines the unstable manifold (this procedure applies equally well to the stable manifold). In the following we drop the subindex labelling the $`j`$th bounce so that making the notation easier. In order to proceed we need to change coordinates from the Birkhoff set to the ones defined by the unstable and stable directions. This task is done by the matrix $`^1`$:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}u(\stackrel{~}{q})\\ s(\stackrel{~}{q})\end{array}\right)=^1\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{q}\\ \stackrel{~}{p}(\stackrel{~}{q})\end{array}\right),$$

where $``$ is the matrix with columns given by the unstable and stable vectors. They are evaluated at “half a bounce” and projected on the Poincaré section. This can be obtained by means of:

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}1/\mathrm{cos}\theta & 0\\ 0& \mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ R/\mathrm{cos}\theta & 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right),$$

where the first matrix projects the vectors on the section and the second matrix stands for subtracting half a bounce to the third one on the right. In this last case, columns are the unstable and stable vectors evaluated after the considered bounce (see previous Section for details).

With these functions at hand it is easy to see that the direction of the chord that goes through the points $`(q_0,p_0)`$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{p}(\stackrel{~}{q}))`$ is given by the vector $`\xi _u+f_u(\stackrel{~}{q})\xi _s`$ with $`f_u(\stackrel{~}{q})s(\stackrel{~}{q})/u(\stackrel{~}{q})=\alpha _u\stackrel{~}{q}+\beta _u\stackrel{~}{q}^2+\mathrm{}`$ In order to evaluate the effect on the wavefunctions this description of the manifolds should be averaged, and we propose a heuristic method to do it. A numerically verified convenient choice turns out to be the following weighted average:

$$\overline{f}_u(\stackrel{~}{q})_0^{\stackrel{~}{q}}f_u(q^{})\frac{\stackrel{~}{q}^{}dq^{}}{\stackrel{~}{q}^2/2}=\frac{2}{3}\alpha _u\stackrel{~}{q}+\frac{1}{2}\beta _u\stackrel{~}{q}^2+\mathrm{}$$
(18)
Of course, this can also be done for the function $`\overline{f}_s(\stackrel{~}{q})`$ which can be expanded in terms of $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ as

$$\overline{f}_s(\stackrel{~}{q})=\frac{2}{3}\alpha _s\stackrel{~}{q}+\frac{1}{2}\beta _s\stackrel{~}{q}^2+\mathrm{}$$
(19)
which gives a complete description of these second order effects. Then, the correction to the vectors $`\xi _u(\stackrel{~}{q})`$ and $`\xi _s(\stackrel{~}{q})`$ is the most direct method to include them in the resonances. The new vectors now depend on the boundary variable $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ and must satisfy also the normalization condition $`\xi _u(\stackrel{~}{q})\xi _s(\stackrel{~}{q})=J`$. In fact, the normalization factor does not play any role in the wave function since, for instance, it cancels out in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{q})`$. Therefore, we do not show it in the following formulae for the $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ dependent unstable and stable vectors:

$$\xi _u(\stackrel{~}{q})=(1+\eta \overline{f}_u)[\xi _u+\overline{f}_u(\stackrel{~}{q})\xi _s],\mathrm{and}\xi _s(\stackrel{~}{q})=(1+\eta \overline{f}_s)[\xi _s+\overline{f}_s(\stackrel{~}{q})\xi _u],$$
(20)
where $`\eta =sgn(q_uq_s)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$. The factors $`(1+\eta \overline{f}_u)`$ and $`(1+\eta \overline{f}_s)`$ are due to the fact that, for high values of $`p`$, projecting the unstable and stable vectors on the Poincaré section results into a stretching of them in $`q`$ direction and a contraction in $`p`$. Then, when modified to consider nonlinear effects by means of $`\overline{f}_u(\stackrel{~}{q})`$ and $`\overline{f}_s(\stackrel{~}{q})`$, a similar definition for both vectors is guaranteed by this factor. Finally, the way in which all this corrections enter the previous expressions is by new versions of $`Re[P(\stackrel{~}{q})/Q(\stackrel{~}{q})]`$ and $`\varphi (\stackrel{~}{q})`$ expanded in powers of $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$. It is worth to mention that these $`Q`$ and $`P`$ are different from those obtained in the previous section, the new ones are on the surface of section. Then, the final expressions can be obtained by taking into account that now, for instance, $`Q=(q_u+\overline{f}_u(\stackrel{~}{q})q_s)(1+\eta \overline{f}_u(\stackrel{~}{q}))+i(q_s+\overline{f}_s(\stackrel{~}{q})q_u)(1+\eta \overline{f}_s(\stackrel{~}{q}))`$ and equivalently for $`P`$. Then, it is easy to see that

$$\stackrel{~}{g}(\stackrel{~}{q})=Re\left(\frac{P}{2Q}(\stackrel{~}{q})\right)=\frac{p_uq_u+p_sq_s}{2(q_u^2+q_s^2)}+\frac{g_qR\stackrel{~}{q}}{3(q_u^2+q_s^2)^2}+𝒪(\stackrel{~}{q}^2),$$
(21)
with $`g_q=(\alpha _u+\alpha _s)(q_u^2q_s^2)+2(\alpha _u\alpha _s)|q_uq_s|\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$, and where the $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ independent part can be related to the expression for $`g(x)`$ given previously (see Section 2). In that case expressions were valid in the domain but here they are given on the boundary (notice the different coordinate dependence). Finally,

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\varphi +\frac{2}{3}[(\alpha _sq_u^2\alpha _uq_s^2)+(\alpha _u\alpha _s)|q_uq_s|\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ]\frac{\stackrel{~}{q}}{q_u^2+q_s^2}+𝒪(\stackrel{~}{q}^2).$$
(22)
Then, the expression for the resonance on the boundary (at each bounce) becomes:

$`\phi ^{(m)}(\stackrel{~}{q})`$ $`=`$ $`k\mathrm{cos}\theta \left({\displaystyle \frac{kR}{|Q_0|^2}}\right)^{1/4}f^{(m)}(\xi )`$ (23)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{L}}}\mathrm{cos}[k\stackrel{~}{g}(\stackrel{~}{q})\stackrel{~}{q}^2+k\mathrm{sin}(\theta )\stackrel{~}{q}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}]`$
with $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ the same as in Eq (16) but taking $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ in place of $`\varphi `$ in the expression for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. As can be seen we have corrected the phase only since the amplitude corrections are not relevant. To summarise, we have modified the vectors $`\xi _u`$ and $`\xi _s`$ in order to take into account the effect of the curvature of the manifolds in the resonances on the boundary. Our approach allows us to keep the expressions in their compact fashion.

### 3.1 Scar function: from the domain to the boundary

Now that we have obtained a basis of resonances expressed on the billiard boundary for a given trajectory $`\gamma `$ and for a quantized energy $`E_\gamma `$ (Eq (23)), we can translate this to the scar functions. They are linear combinations of resonances having the form :

$$\varphi _\gamma =\underset{j=0}{\overset{N}{}}c_j\psi _\gamma ^{(4j)}/\sqrt{\underset{j=0}{\overset{N}{}}c_j^2},$$
(24)
with minimum dispersion $`\sigma `$, where

$$\sigma ^2<\varphi _\gamma |(\widehat{H}E_\gamma )^2|\varphi _\gamma >=<\varphi _\gamma |\widehat{H}_h^2|\varphi _\gamma >.$$
(25)
The boundary representation only amounts to take the normal derivative in each term in the previous sum. Also, the second order corrections enter immediately through each resonance. We illustrate this by means of Figs. 7 and 8, where several examples of short periodic orbits and linear density plots of the Husimi distributions of the corresponding scar functions are displayed. In this latter case the solid lines that pass through each fixed point on the Poincaré section represent the unstable and stable manifolds. Finally, the relevance of the new formulation can be appreciated with the aid of Fig. 9, where the scar function in the linear approximation can be observed, in this case the one corresponding to orbit 2 (see Fig. 7 for reference).

For comparison purposes, we would like to show the scar functions on the domain also. The same set of orbits is used for constructing them. They can be seen in Figure 10.

## 4 Conclusions

Resonances on periodic orbits form a convenient basis for the investigation of chaotic eigenfunctions. In the present paper we have extended the construction of resonances without excitations in the Bunimovich stadium billiard domain to resonances with transversal excitations and also to scar functions. A detailed explanation is given, providing an explicit local expression for these wave functions. We have also extended the construction of resonances and scar functions from the domain to the boundary of this billiard. This procedure enables different sorts of applications, the most remarkable one being the possibility to extend calculations of eigenstates (in the context of the semiclassical theory of short periodic orbits ) well above the first low-lying ones. In principle this task could have been carried out on the domain also, but it would have been very demanding in terms of numerical effort and practically turns out to be impossible. The construction of resonances and scar functions on the boundary is one of the main results of this paper.

We have also accounted for the departure of the unstable and stable manifolds from the linear regime, which is the other important main result of the present work. The departure is reflected in modified expressions for the resonances and scar functions. The developed method is of general scope and not only can be applied to general systems but also to any kind of non linear behaviour of the unstable and stable manifolds. This is important to underline, since the previous construction of resonances was related only to the linear motion around the trajectories, and its area of approximate validity shrinks as the energy grows. With the improved but still compact expressions for the resonances and scar functions we are able to work with a constant effective area.

Moreover, the direct geometrical approach involved in accounting for second order effects due to the projection on the boundary Poincaré section makes the expressions extremely suitable for calculations. A deep exploration of a great number of highly excited eigenfunctions arises as a realistic possibility due to the improved speed inherent to one dimensional calculations. This will allow us to study large sets of eigenfunctions and evaluate statistical measures.

Finally, with these expressions several integrals made on the domain will turn out to be one dimensional Gaussian integrals now, simplifying the theoretical analyses.

## Acknowledgments

This work was partially supported by SECYT-ECOS. We are grateful to Henning Schomerus for his helpful suggestions on the original manuscript.


text:
# Mg II Absorption Lines in z=2.974 Damped Lyman-𝛼 system toward Gravitationally Lensed QSO APM 08279+5255: Detection of Small-scale Structure in Mg II Absorbing CloudsBased on data collected at Subaru Telescope, which is operated by the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan.

## 1 Introduction

The gravitationally lensed QSO APM 08279+5255 (zem=3.911) has been given much attention since its discovery by Irwin et al. (1998). There are two major gravitationally lensed images “A” and “B” with a separation of 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$38 and flux ratio of fB/fA=0.77 (Ibata et al. 1999). Third faint image “C” was also reported by Ibata et al. (1999) between A and B, with a separation of A-C=0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$15 and with the flux ratio of fC/fA=0.18.

Petitjean et al. (2000) suggested a probable damped Lyman-$`\alpha `$ (DLA) system at zabs=2.974 which has 19.8 $`<`$ log N(HI) \[cm-2\] $`<`$ 20.3 from data obtained with Keck HIRES (Ellison et al. 1999a,b). The low metallicity (\[X/H\] $``$ -2.3) derived from weak metal lines (Fe, Al, Si, C and O) suggest a very small dust amount in the cloud. Thus, this DLA system is an important object which supports the idea that there may be a metallicity evolution of DLA in z $`>`$ 3 (see discussions in Petitjean et al. 2000, Pettini et al. 1997, 1999).

Another interest of the DLA system is any difference of absorption features in the line of sight to the images A, B, and C. The small separation of A-B, which is estimated at $``$ 200h$`{}_{}{}^{1}{}_{75}{}^{}`$ pc (Petitjean et al. 2000), gives us a unique opportunity to investigate small ($`<`$ 1 kpc) spatial structure of DLA systems at high-z. A systematic study of small-scale structure of high-ionization gas (C IV) at high redshift was performed by Rauch et al. (2001) by observing a number of gravitationally lensed QSOs with Keck HIRES. They found C IV clouds do not seem to have small scale structure for regions smaller than a few hundred parsecs. Lopez et al. (1999) also show that O VI is spread out over large scales.

However, there is a strong interest in lower-ionization clouds since they trace the neutral hydrogen gas (e.g., Wolfe & Prochaska 2000a) which should be the source of star-forming molecular clouds. If high-z DLAs are the progenitor of the present-day disk galaxies (e.g., Storrie-Lombardi & Wolfe 2000 and references therein), the spatial-structure of low-ionization clouds gives us insights into how the “protogalaxies” are assembled from building blocks (e.g., Haehnelt, Steinmetz, & Rauch 1998, Wolfe & Prochaska 2000b). Although Rauch et al. (1999) found a strong variation of low-ionization C II and Si II absorption at z $`=`$ 3.538 along two sight-lines separated by only 26h$`{}_{}{}^{1}{}_{50}{}^{}`$ pc for Q1422+231 (z$`{}_{em}{}^{}=`$ 3.628), it cannot be excluded that the system is somehow associated with the quasar as discussed by Rauch et al. (1999) because the velocity difference between the QSO and the system is only 6000 km s-1.

Mg II absorption lines are one of the most promising probes for studying such low-ionization clouds (Churchill & Vogt 2001). The Mg II $`\lambda \lambda `$ 2796,2803 doublet absorption lines are most noted as being associated with galaxies (Bergeron & Boissé 1991; Steidel, Dickinson & Persson 1994) and its kinematics for low to intermediate redshift DLAs are comprehensively studied (Churchill & Vogt 2001 and references therein). However, there has been no detailed Mg II absorption line study for high-redshift (z $`>`$ 2.5) DLAs because Mg II doublet absorption line shifts into the near-infrared ($`\lambda >`$ 1 µm) in the observer’s frame and until recently there has been no capability of high-resolution near-infrared spectroscopy with a large aperture telescope.

Here we present near-infrared 1.02$``$1.16 $`\mu `$m spectra of APM 08279+5255 with 40$``$45 km s-1 spectral resolutoin, obtained with the near-infrared spectrograph IRCS at the Subaru Telescope. In this rest-frame UV spectra, we have detected Mg II doublet and Fe II absorption lines originated from the DLA system at zabs=2.974. Although future higher resolution ($`<`$ 10 km s-1) study is in order, the present data gives us a variety of information on the DLA system with reasonable signal-to-noise. Also, a difference of the Mg II absorption lines between the images A and B was clearly detected in our spectrum under excellent seeing condition. In the following, §2 describes the observation and §3 describes the results and preliminary analysis.

## 2 Observations

Near-infrared 1.02$``$1.18 $`\mu `$m spectra of APM 08279+5255 were obtained on 11 January 2001 UT during the scientific commissioning run of IRCS, a 1$``$5 $`\mathrm{\mu m}`$ near-infrared camera and spectrograph at the Japanese Subaru 8.2m telescope (Tokunaga et al. 1998, Kobayashi et al. 2000) on Mauna Kea, Hawaii. We used the cross-dispersed Echelle mode of IRCS, which provides a spectral resolution of 15 km s-1 ($`\lambda /\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$ 20,000) with a 0.15-arcsec slit. The pixel scale is 0.075-arcsec per pixel in spatial direction and about 7.5 km s-1 per pixel in the dispersion direction. The entire IRCS “zJ-band” (1.02$``$1.18 $`\mu `$m ) was covered simultaneously in one exposure with the cross-disperser used in order 6 and the echelle in order 48 to 55. Although seeing was good throughout the observing time (0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$3 to 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$55 in zJ-band), we used a wider slit (0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$6) to maximize the throughput of the slit. Thus, the spectral resolution was determined by the seeing size and the resultant spectral resolution was 40 $``$ 45 km s-1 ($`\lambda /\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$ 7,000) in the observed wavelength range.

The slit length was 3.8-arcsec and the slit angle was set to P.A. $`=`$ 32 so that both the lensed images A and B are in the slit. The object was nodded along the slit by about 2$`\mathrm{}`$ after a 300 sec exposure for sky-background and dark subtraction. Because of the fine pixel scale needed for adaptive optics images and the high spectral resolution, it is impossible to reach the background-limit within a single exposure (300$``$600 sec) which was less than the time-variation of the sky OH-emission. Four sets of data were obtained, resulting in a total exposure time of 2400 sec. Spectra of bright telluric standard stars (HR 4905: A0p, HR 5191: B3V) at similar airmass were obtained in similar fashion, but only HD 5191 was used in the following analysis because HD 4905 had several unidentified stellar absorption lines.

The obesrving log is shown in Table 1. Although we started the observing right after focusing the secondary mirror of the telescope, the image quality had gradually changed during the observing due to a seeing change from 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$30 to 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$55 in zJ-band in an hour. Thus, we had good image quality only for the first few frames, in which we could resolve the images A and B with 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$38 separation in the echellogram (discussed in detail in §3.2).

All the data were reduced following standard procedures using the IRAF111IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which are operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation noao.imred.echelle package: sky subtraction (subtraction of two frames), flat-fielding (halogen lamp with an integrating sphere), and aperture extraction. Argon lamp spectra which were taken at the end of the observing night were used for wavelength calibration. Using atmospheric absorption lines in the object and standard spectra, we confirmed that the pixel shift along the dispersion direction was less than 1-pixel throughout the observing time including the calibration.

## 3 Results and Discussions

### 3.1 Mg II and Fe II Absorption Lines

Figure 1 shows 1.02$``$1.16 $`\mu `$m spectrum of APM 08279+5255. The raw spectrum was smoothed to 3 pixels (22.5 km s-1) with a boxcar function for better signal-to-noise. Strong Mg II $`\lambda \lambda `$2796,2803 absorption lines as well as Fe II $`\lambda `$2587 and $`\lambda `$2600 absorption lines from the DLA system at z$`{}_{abs}{}^{}=`$ 2.974 are clearly seen in this spectrum. Mg I $`\lambda `$2853 absorption line is probably detected at the expected wavelength for the redshift, but qutantitative numbers for this line should be taken with cautions because of the strong atmospheric absorption lines at 1.12$``$1.15 µm.

The detected absorption lines are summarized in Table 2. Because the equivalent width ratio222The ratio of the Mg II doublet equivalent width (W(2796)/W(2803)) should be 2 for non-saturated case and 1 for fully-saturated case. W(2796)/W(2803) is about 1.4, the Mg II $`\lambda `$2796 absorption line should have saturated velocity components. Fe II $`\lambda `$2600 may be also saturated judging from the relatively deep absorption of our low resolution spectrum. Petitjean et al. (2000) showed that the Fe II $`\lambda `$1608 absorption line has 40% absorption at the core of the line with $``$8 km s-1 resolution. Because the oscillator strength of Fe II $`\lambda `$2600 (f$`=`$0.2239; Morton 1991) is about three times larger than that of Fe II $`\lambda `$1608 (f$`=`$0.064408; Savage & Sembach 1996), the Fe II $`\lambda `$2600 line is most likely partly saturated.

The column density and metallicity of Fe II, Mg II, and Mg I estimated from the equivalent widths are also summarized in Table 2. In view of the large equivalent widths, Fe II $`\lambda `$2600, Mg II $`\lambda \lambda `$2796,2803 lines should be saturated (see examples in Churchill et al. 1999, Churchill et al. 2000a and Churchill et al. 2000b). Thus, the estimated column densities for those lines are a lower-limit. We assumed that Fe II $`\lambda `$2587, Mg I $`\lambda `$2583 lines are not saturated. The following equation for optically thin limit from Savage and Sembach (1996) was used for estimating the column densities: N\[cm-2\] $`=`$ 1.13 $`\times `$ 1017 W\[mÅ\] $`/`$ (f $`\lambda ^2`$\[Å\]), where $`\lambda `$ is rest wavelength, f is oscillator strength, and W is equivalent width of the line. The estimated metallicity of Fe II and Mg II in Table 1 is consistent with the result for other metal lines in Petitjean et al (2000), supporting their conclusion that the DLA system has quite low-metallicity (\[X/H\] $``$ -2.0 $``$ -2.5) and may suggest the system’s “young” nature compared to lower-redshift DLA systems (Petitjean et al. 2000).

Figure 2 shows the line profile of Mg II doublet and Fe II $`\lambda `$2600 absorption lines on a velocity scale with the origin at zabs=2.9740. In our spectrum, all three lines show two major velocity components at v $``$ -10 km s-1 (hereafter “main component”) and $``$ +45 km s-1 (hereafter “subcomponent”). Gaussian fit to the two components was performed for Mg II doublet and Fe II $`\lambda `$2600 using IRAF splot task (Table 2). We did not use Voigt profile fitting because the spectral resolution is not high enough to extract high precision information. We performed a simple Gaussian fitting with maximum two components and the decomposition of absorption lines is only approximate. The fitted Gaussian FWHM suggests that the main component has a velocity spread no more than 80 km s-1. The main component should be saturated for both Mg II $`\lambda \lambda `$ 2796, 2803 and probably for Fe II $`\lambda `$ 2600. The subcomponent is weaker, but the equivalent width ratio of the Mg II doublet is Wsub(2796)/Wsub(2803) $``$ 1 and this may suggest that the subcomponent is saturated. The relatively large equivalent width (W$`{}_{rest}{}^{}`$0.1Å ) also suggests that at least Mg II $`\lambda `$2796 line is saturated (Churchill & Vogt 2001).

Petitjean et al (2000) identified three major velocity components at around -28 km s-1, +5 km s-1, and +45 km s-1 for 10 metal absorption lines in Keck HIRES data with velocity resolution of $``$8 km s-1. Because Petitjean et al. 2000 does not list the velocity of the three components, we estimated the velocity from the vertical lines in their Figure 12. An additional velocity components may be present between -28 and +5 km s-1 components in their Figure 12 and, in particular, it is clearly seen in Al II $`\lambda `$1670 absorption spectrum. With lower spectral resolution, three velocity components (-28 km s-1, -10 km s-1, +5 km s-1) should be blended and the peak position would shift to about -10 km s-1. Thus, we identified our “main component” as the mixture of those three components in Petitjean et al. (2000). Their +45 km s-1 component coincides with our “subcomponent” seen in Mg II $`\lambda \lambda `$ 2796,2803 and Fe II $`\lambda `$2600 absorption lines. The identification is summarized in Table 3.

### 3.2 Spatially-resolved Spectra of Images A and B

Because the seeing was less than 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$4 at the beginning of observing, two images of the gravitationally lensed QSO, A and B with 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$38 separation, were resolved in the first three frames of 300 sec exposure (see §2 and Table 1). In all the three frames it was noticed that only image A has the “subcomponent” at +45 km s-1 while both have the “main component” in common at around -10 km s-1 (Figure 3). We combined those three frames and extracted spectra of A and B separately to examine any difference of the DLA absorption lines. Extracted spectra for A and B (Figure 4) also show the difference clearly.

Figure 5 shows the cross-cuts of the combined spectrum in spatial direction. The light grey line shows continuum profile on both sides of the Mg II absorption lines while dark grey line shows the profile at +45 km s-1 component. In this plot it is clearly shown that image A has significantly less flux at +45 km s-1 than at the continuum while image B has almost similar flux as at the continuum. A slight dip of the dark grey line near image C may suggest that the flux from image C also sigfinicantly decreased at +45 km s-1. However, that is not clear because the spatial resolution ($``$0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$35) is not enough for the small separation between A and C (0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$15). Therefore, we performed a gaussan fitting to the spatial profiles for Mg II $`\lambda `$2796 line (Figure 6). The continuum profile was fitted well with the combination of three gaussians at A, B, and C positions with the exact flux ratio as in Ibata et al. (1999). The profile at +45 km s-1 was well fitted similarly with 50% less flux for A and 80% less flux for C (see black lines in the right panel). We tried to fit the +45 km s-1 profile without decreasing the C flux, but could not reproduce the dip at C-position well (see grey lines in the same panel). This result suggests that the +45 km s-1 component is present also in image C and significantly decrease the flux from C. However, in view of the uncertainty of the profile data (see e.g., the difference of two continuum profiles for Mg II 2796 line, which indicates the uncertainty of the profile in Figure 5), the fitting results for image C should be treated with caution. In a summary, we conclude that: (1) image B does not have any absorption from the +45 km s-1 component, (2) image A has $``$50% absorption from the +45 km s-1 component, (3) image C may have very strong absorption from the +45 km s-1 component.

Because the estimated distance between images A and B of APM 08279+5255 is only 200h$`{}_{}{}^{1}{}_{75}{}^{}`$ pc at the redshift of the z$`=`$2.974 DLA system (Petitjean et al. 2000), our results suggest that there is a small-scale structure ($`<`$ 200 pc) in the DLA system. Figure 5 shows that the fractional change in column density of the subcomponent from A to B is almost 1, suggesting a sharp cut-off of this subcomponent. If the strong absorption from the subcomponent truly exists in C as suggested from the above analysis, it sets a lower limit on the size of the absorbing cloud of $``$80h$`{}_{}{}^{1}{}_{75}{}^{}`$ pc, which corresponds to the separation of A and C (= 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$15). For high-ion C IV clouds, Rauch et al. (2001) found that they are mostly featureless on scales below $``$ 300 pc and the fractional change in column density is mostly less than 0.2 for such small scales (see Figures 8 & 9 in Rauch et al. 2001). Our results suggest that low-ionization clouds may have finer structure than high-ionization clouds at high-z, but a more systematic study is needed to address this point.

The velocity difference of the subcomponent to the main component is about 50 km s-1 and the subcomponent is classified as “moderate” velocity subsystem in the classification of kinematic Mg II subsystems by Churchill & Vogt (2001). The velocity of the subsystem and the equivalent width is well within the ranges for low to intermediate redshift DLAs studied by Churchill & Vogt (2001). They found that the high or moderate velocity subsystem is probably not higher redshift analogues to the Galactic high velocity clouds (HVCs) in the halo or intergalactic space because the H I column density of the substems is too low for HVCs. Churchill & Charlton (1999) found that the Mg II subsystems are more like compact clouds which are embedded in extended highly ionized gas like Galactic coronae. From the ionization modeling of those clouds, they inferred the masses and sizes of the Mg II clouds at $``$ few $`\times `$ 10 M and $``$ few $`\times `$ 10 $``$ 100 pc. Their inferred size is consistent with our results for the subsystem of the DLA at z$`{}_{abs}{}^{}=`$2.974 ($``$ 200 pc). Although more systematic study is in order, our result presents the first glimpse of small-scale structure of low-ionization Mg II clouds in a DLA system at high redshift.

We are grateful to all of the IRCS team members and the Subaru Telescope observing staff for their efforts that made it possible to obtain these data. We thank National Astronomical Observatory Japan for the financial support and encouragement for the construction of the IRCS.


text:
# Two-gap superconductivity in MgB2: clean or dirty?

## Abstract

A large number of experimental facts and theoretical arguments favor a two-gap model for superconductivity in MgB2. However, this model predicts strong suppression of the critical temperature by interband impurity scattering and, presumably, a strong correlation between the critical temperature and the residual resistivity. No such correlation has been observed. We argue that this fact can be understood if the band disparity of the electronic structure is taken into account, not only in the superconducting state, but also in normal transport.

Most researchers ascribe the superconductivity in MgB2 akimitsu  to the electron-phonon mechanism, enhanced by interband anisotropy of the order parameter liu ; choi . Interband anisotropy, as expressed by the two-gap model liu ; shulga , offers a simple explanation of many anomalous experimental findings, most importantly of tunneling and thermodynamic measurements review . But there is a strong argument against it: As illustrated in Fig. 1, existing bulk samples of MgB2 have essentially the *same* critical temperature although their residual resistivities, $`\rho _0,`$ vary greatly, between 0.4 and 40 $`\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$ cm. Such a behavior is expected for $`s`$-wave pairing (Anderson’s theorem), but not when *two* gaps are present. In that case one expects $`T_c`$ to fall with increasing $`\rho _0.`$ Indeed, impurity interband scattering (magnetic and nonmagnetic) with rate $`\gamma _{\mathrm{inter}}`$ suppresses two-band superconductivity as: $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c\gamma _{\mathrm{inter}}/\left(\pi T_c\right)`$ golubov , and it is tempting to assume that $`\gamma _{\mathrm{intra}}\gamma _{\mathrm{inter}}\rho _0.`$ For a sample with $`\rho _040`$ $`\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$ cm it seems unlikely that $`\gamma _{\mathrm{inter}}`$ can be smaller than $`\pi T_c`$. In fact, the body of experimental evidence (Fig. 1) can be reconciled with the two-gap model only if $`\gamma _{\mathrm{inter}}\gamma _{\mathrm{intra}}`$. Until this paradox is resolved, the two-gap model for superconductivity in MgB2 cannot be accepted, despite much compelling evidence. Two further problems are: (a) The high-temperature slope of the resistivity is clearly correlated with the residual resistivity (violation of Matthiessen’s rule) review , and (b) the plasma frequency estimated from the measured infrared reflectivity is 5 times smaller than the calculated one kaindl ; Tu ; kuzm .

In this letter we shall show that the paradox can be resolved to support the two-gap model. It turns out that due to the particular electronic structure of MgB$`_2,`$ the impurity scattering *between* the $`\sigma `$\- and $`\pi `$-bands is exceptionally small. Thus, the large variation of the residual resistivities reflects primarily a large variation of the scattering rate *inside* the $`\sigma `$\- and the $`\pi `$-bands, while the interband $`\sigma \pi `$-scattering plays *no* role in normal transport. In the superconducting state, the two different gaps in the $`\sigma `$\- and the $`\pi `$-bands are preserved even in dirty samples due to the extreme weakness of the $`\sigma \pi `$-interband impurity scattering.

MgB2 has two $`\pi `$ and three $`\sigma `$-bands (Fig. 2) formed by, respectively, the two B $`p_z`$ and the three bond-orbitals per cell, or, more correctly, by the corresponding Wannier-like functions. A bond orbital is the bonding linear combination of the two B $`sp^2`$-hybrids which are directed along a B-B bond. The attractive potential from the Mg2+ ions in the hollows between the hexagonal boron layers is felt much stronger by a $`p_z`$-electron than by a bond-electron and, as a result, the $`\pi `$-band is pulled so far down in energy that $``$0.17 holes are left at the top of the $`\sigma `$-band. The strong coupling of these holes to the optical bond-stretching modes kong  is what drives the superconductivity. Since the top of the $`\sigma `$-band is at $`𝐤_{}(k_x,k_y)=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and is doubly degenerate, the holes are distributed in an upper *heavy* and a lower *light* band.

The basic reason why $`\sigma \pi `$-impurity scattering is small is that the $`\sigma `$ and $`\pi `$-bands are formed from different local orbitals, and therefore are orthogonal on the *atomic* scale, rather than merely on an intermediate scale because of Bloch factors. Moreover, the layered structure and the compactness of the B $`2s`$ and $`2p`$ orbitals makes the $`\sigma \pi `$-disparity in MgB2 much stronger than, say, the $`sd`$-disparity in a transition metal, where the $`sd`$-hybridization gap is almost as large as the $`d`$-bandwidth.

Specifically, since a $`p_z`$-orbital has odd-parity, and a bond-orbital has even parity with respect to the B-layer, the only route for $`\sigma \pi `$-hybridization is via interlayer hopping, from a $`p_z`$-orbital in one layer to a bond orbital in another layer. The corresponding hopping integral, $`t_{bz},`$ is, essentially, the geometrical average of the integrals $`t_{bb}^{}0.1`$ eV and $`t_{zz}^{}1`$ eV, responsible for the $`k_z`$-dispersions of the $`\sigma `$ and $`\pi `$-bands kong , and therefore small. Two further factors limit $`\sigma \pi `$-coupling: The second is that, in its interaction with the nearest bond-orbitals in the next layer, the B $`p_z`$-orbital picks up merely the *axial* projection, which is essentially the $`s`$*-character*, on the boron above (or below) it. Near the top of the $`\sigma `$-band, the linear combinations of the three bond orbitals are, however, such that the contributions from the B $`s`$-orbitals *cancel,* so that the top of the $`\sigma `$-band is purely B $`p_x,p_y`$-like. Hence, the only source of B $`s`$-character is tails of B $`p`$-orbitals centered at other sites. It turns out that the wavefunctions for the heavy and light holes $`\left(\nu =h,l\right)`$ are: $`|\sigma _\nu ,𝐤_𝐓\left[p_\nu \left(𝐫+\tau 𝐓\right)p_\nu \left(𝐫\tau 𝐓\right)\right]e^{i𝐤𝐓},`$ where $`𝐓`$ are the lattice translations, $`\pm \tau `$ are the positions of the two borons in the cell (i.e., in a bond), and $`p_{h/l}\left(𝐫\right)`$ is a B $`p`$-orbital directed transverse/longitudinal to the $`𝐤_{}`$-vector. From this representation, illustrated in Fig. 2, it may be realized that the B $`s`$-character often vanishes completely, and that it generally vanishes proportional to $`k_{}^2`$ for the heavy-holes, and proportional to $`k_{}`$ for the light holes. The third limiting factor is the matching of the phase, $`\phi ,`$ between the two $`p_z`$-orbitals in a bond, $`|\pi _{},𝐤_𝐓\left[p_z\left(𝐫+\tau 𝐓\right)e^{i\phi \left(𝐤_{}\right)}p_z\left(𝐫\tau 𝐓\right)\right]e^{i𝐤𝐓},`$ and the phase between the corresponding B $`s`$-characters arising from the antibonding combination, $`p_n\left(𝐫+\tau \right)p_n\left(𝐫\tau \right).`$ In the nearest-neighbor orthogonal tight-binding model for the $`\pi `$-bands, $`\phi \left(𝐤_{}\right)=\mathrm{arg}\left\{1+e^{i𝐤𝐚}+e^{i𝐤\left(𝐚𝐛\right)}\right\},`$ where $`𝐚`$ and $`𝐛`$ are the primitive translations of the layer.

Due to their even/odd parity, the $`\sigma `$ and $`\pi `$-bands can only hybridize when $`k_z\frac{\pi }{c}\times `$integer. Even then, as seen in Fig. 2, the $`\pi _+`$-band neither hybridizes with the heavy $`\sigma `$-band when $`𝐤_{}`$ is along a bond, nor with the light $`\sigma `$-band when $`𝐤_{}`$ is perpendicular to a bond. As may be realized from the pictures of the $`\sigma `$-orbitals (Fig. 2), the crossing with the heavy band occurs because the B $`s`$-character of that band vanishes exactly along this $`𝐤`$-line, and the crossing with the light band occurs because, along that $`𝐤`$-line, the B $`s`$-character is purely antibonding between two borons, whereas the $`\pi _+`$-band is purely bonding $`\left(\phi =0\right).`$ The two $`\sigma \pi `$-gaps seen in the figure are 0.2–0.3 eV, i.e., the hybridization matrix elements, $`|\sigma 𝐤|H|\pi 𝐤|,`$ are merely a per cent of the $`\sigma `$ and $`\pi `$ bandwidths!

We now discuss impurity scattering and use allen :

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nn^{}}=\frac{2}{\mathrm{}N_n\left(0\right)}\underset{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}{}\delta (\epsilon _{n𝐤})|n𝐤|V|n^{}𝐤^{}|^2\delta (\epsilon _{n^{}𝐤^{}}),$$
(1)
for the rate of scattering to band $`n^{}`$ of an electron in band $`n,`$ by a weak localized impurity potential, $`V\left(𝐫\right).`$ Here, $`_𝐤`$ denotes the average over the Brillouin zone, $`\epsilon _{n𝐤}`$ is the band energy with respect to the Fermi level, and $`N(0)=_nN_n\left(0\right)=_{n𝐤}\delta (\epsilon _{n𝐤})`$ is the density of states per spin and cell. Typical defects for MgB2 are Mg-vacancies and Mg-substitutional impurities, which form easily, and B-site substitutions like N and C, which have a higher energy cost. The potential $`V\left(𝐫\right)`$ for a localized Mg-defect has the full point-symmetry of the site and, like the Mg2+potential in the crystal, is felt more by a $`p_z`$-orbital than by a bond orbital. Hence, the largest matrix elements are those involving $`p_z`$-orbitals near the impurity, i.e., the largest perturbation is of the energies of the $`p_z`$-orbitals on the B hexagons immediately above and below the impurity, and of the corresponding $`t_{zz}^{}.`$ This means that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi \pi }`$ should be large. Screening perturbs the energies of the bond orbitals surrounding the impurity, and also perturbs $`t_{bb}^{},`$ but to a lesser extent. Hence, we expect that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi \pi }>\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \sigma }`$ for Mg-defects, albeit not for B-site substitutions. What contributes to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \pi },`$ are matrix elements involving a $`p_z`$ and a bond-orbital, and most importantly, those on either side of a Mg-defect. Since this matrix element is the perturbation of $`t_{zb},`$ it is expected to be intermediate between those of $`t_{zz}^{}`$ and $`t_{bb}^{},`$ like for the $`\sigma \pi `$-hybridization. Moreover, since the impurity potential is fairly constant around a neighboring boron, a $`p_z`$-orbital still picks up merely the B $`s`$-character which vanishes as $`k_{}^2`$ for the heavy and as $`k_{}`$ for the light holes. This makes $`|\sigma 𝐤|V|\pi 𝐤^{}|`$ minute because $`k_{Fh}`$ and $`k_{Fl}`$ are very small. Also the mismatch of phases between the $`\sigma `$ and $`\pi `$-functions will tend to reduce $`|\sigma 𝐤|V|\pi 𝐤^{}|.`$ Finally, squaring this small matrix element and inserting it in (1), leads to an exceedingly small $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \pi }.`$

To gain quantitative understanding of the disparity between the scattering rates we have performed LMTO supercell calculations for various impurities. Since the induced $`\sigma \pi `$-gaps, $`2|\sigma 𝐤|V|\pi 𝐤^{}|,`$ are sensitive to their position within the $`\sigma `$-band (the B $`s`$-factor), we must choose a supercell which provides band-foldings near $`\epsilon _F.`$ The results shown in Fig. 2 were obtained with a $`6\times 2\times 1`$ supercell. The bands labeled Mg12B24 are the same as those in the left panel, but folded into the smaller zone. The heavy $`\sigma `$-band now crosses itself closely below $`\epsilon _F,`$ while the heavy-light and light-light crossings are a bit further down. The $`\pi _{}`$-band (fat) slightly above the top of the $`\sigma `$-band was originally at ML/2 and has been folded 3 times into $`\mathrm{\Gamma }.`$ The Mg11B24 bands illustrate the effects of a Mg-vacancy: While the three $`\pi `$-bands get split by 0.35 eV, and the heavy and light $`\sigma `$-bands by 0.27 eV (but by 0.04 eV at $`\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, the $`\sigma \pi `$-splitting of the heavy band is merely 0.015 eV and that of the light band is merely 0.030 eV! The squares of these splittings give estimates for the corresponding $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$’s. For Mg-vacancies therefore,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi \pi }>\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \sigma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \pi }.$$
(2)
We found very similar results for systems in which the Mg-vacancy was compensated by substitution of B by two C or one N: For Mg15B31N, the $`\pi \pi `$-splitting was 0.4 eV, the $`\sigma \sigma `$-splitting 0.3 eV, and the $`\sigma \pi `$-splittings less than 0.03 eV.

Let us now investigate how the relation (2) infuences the transport properties. These depend both on the impurity scattering and on the electron-phonon interaction (EPI). The interband anisotropy should be taken into account both in the impurity scattering (as outlined above), and in the EPI. The latter can be characterized by two sets of four spectral functions each: the standard Eliashberg functions $`\alpha ^2F_{nn^{}}(\omega )`$, which define the superconducting properties and thermodynamical properties like the electronic specific heat and the de Haas-van Alphen mass renormalizations, and the transport Eliashberg functions $`\alpha _{\mathrm{tr}}^2F_{nn^{}}(\omega )`$. Of the calculated $`\alpha ^2F_{nn^{}}\left(\omega \right)`$ functions Gol-heat  (the details of the calculations are as in Ref. kong ), $`\alpha ^2F_{\sigma \sigma }(\omega )`$ exhibits a large peak at $`\omega 70`$ meV. Defining $`\lambda _{nn^{}}=2\omega ^1\alpha ^2F_{nn^{}}(\omega )𝑑\omega `$, we obtain the partial EPI constants, shown in Table 1, which are similar to those obtained in liu . In the following we assume that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{inter}}=0`$, so the clean limit is appropriate ($`T_c`$ is independent of the intraband $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$’s). The superconducting properties in the clean two-band model have been investigated in detail choi ; Gol-heat . Therefore we shall now concentrate on the normal transport.

The explicit expression for the conductivity in the two-band model is allenrho  (omitting Cartesian indices)

$`1/\rho _{\mathrm{DC}}(T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{n=\sigma ,\pi }{}}\omega _{\mathrm{pl}n}^2/W_n(0,T),`$ (3)
$`W_\sigma (0,T)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _\sigma +{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{T}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega {\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\mathrm{sinh}^2(\omega /2T)}}`$
$`\times `$ $`\left[\alpha _{\mathrm{tr}}^2(\omega )F_{\sigma \sigma }(\omega )+\alpha _{\mathrm{tr}}^2(\omega )F_{\sigma \pi }(\omega )\right],`$
where $`\gamma _\sigma =\gamma _{\sigma \sigma }+\gamma _{\sigma \pi }`$, $`\gamma _\pi =\gamma _{\pi \pi }+\gamma _{\pi \sigma }`$, and $`\gamma _{nn^{}}2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nn^{}}.`$ Eq. (3) is essentially the standard parallel-conductor formula. Our assumptions are that $`\gamma _{\pi \sigma }0`$ and that $`\gamma _\sigma `$ differs much less than $`\gamma _\pi `$ between ‘good’ (e.g., Ref.wires ) and ‘bad’ samples (e.g. Tu ).

The role of interband anisotropy, clearly visible in Table 1, is different in superconductivity and electric transport. For instance, the critical temperature is given by the maximum eigenvalue of the $`\lambda `$-matrix allen ; allenrho  (i.e., mostly by its maximum element), while the conductivity (3) is the sum of the partial conductivities. At high temperature, therefore, the slope $`d\rho /dT`$ is determined by $`_n\omega _{\mathrm{pl}\text{ }n}^2/\lambda _{trn},`$ i.e., by the smallest $`\lambda _{\mathrm{tr}n}_n^{}\lambda _{\mathrm{tr}nn^{}}.`$

In Fig.3 we show the temperature dependence of the DC resistivity for (a) a clean case with $`\gamma _\sigma =\gamma _\pi =2`$ meV, and (b) a dirty case with $`\gamma _\sigma =54`$ meV and $`\gamma _\pi =1.2`$ eV. In the two cases, all plasma frequencies are the same. The model is seen to describe both cases well. Note that $`\gamma _\sigma `$ and $`\gamma _\pi `$ determine not only the residual resistivity, but also the temperature dependence of the resistivity. In a one-band model, it would be impossible to reconcile the data of Refs. Tu ; kuzm  with those of Ref. wires  if they differ only by impurity concentrations, and the corresponding violation of Matthiessen’s rule would be totally inexplicable.

Why is the temperature dependence of the resistivity so different in these two cases? Let us compare the clean limit, $`\gamma _\sigma =\gamma _\pi =0,`$ with the dirty-Mg-layer’s limit, $`\gamma _\pi =\mathrm{}`$, $`\gamma _\sigma =0`$. Of the two parallel conducting channels, in the former case the $`\pi `$-bands are responsible for conductivity at high temperatures, as was mentioned above, and even at $`T0`$ the conductivity is mostly due to the $`\pi `$-bands, their plasma frequency being higher than that one of the $`\sigma `$-bands. Since the EPI constant for the $`\pi `$-bands is small, the temperature dependence of the resistivity is weak. On the contrary, in the dirty case, the $`\pi `$-bands do not conduct, due to an overwhelming impurity scattering, and the electric current is carried only by the $`\sigma `$-bands. It is the strong EPI for this band which causes the temperature dependence of the resistivity in dirty samples..

To conclude, we suggest a new model for electric transport in MgB2. The main ingredients of the model are (i) *interband* impurity scattering in MgB2 is small, even in low-quality samples; (ii) *intraband* impurity scattering in the $`\sigma `$-band is small relative to the *intraband* $`\pi `$-band scattering; (iii) high-resistivity samples differ from good samples mostly by the *intraband* $`\pi `$-band scattering rate. Of course, (iv) the phonon scattering is stronger in the $`\sigma `$-band. This model explains well such seemingly inexplicable experimental facts as (1) absence of direct correlation between the residual resistivity and the critical temperature, expected in the two-gap model and (2) a strong correlation between the residual resistivity and the slope $`d\rho /dT`$ in the normal state. Finally, we would like to point out that the existence of two qualitatively different scattering rates in the two bands should manifest itself in other experiments, such as optical and microwave spectroscopy, or Hall effect. In particular, seemingly mysterious observations of the anomalously small Drude weight in infrared absorptionkaindl ; Tu ; kuzm  are probably due to overdamping of the Drude contribution from the $`\pi `$-bands, so that the observed Drude peak comes essentially from the $`\sigma `$-bands. The latter have small plasma frequencies and are additionally renormalized by the electron-phonon coupling. At the same time, the overdamped Drude peak from the $`\pi `$-electrons manifest itself as a broad background extending to high frequencies.

###### Acknowledgements.

JK would like to thank the Schloeßmann Foundation for financial support. IIM acknowledge partial support from the Office of Naval Research.