text:
# Diffraction in the Semiclassical Approximation to Feynman’s Path Integral Representation of the Green Function

## 1 Introduction

It was some three hundred years after Descarte’s work on diffraction theory that Keller provided a sound mathematical foundation for the theory by examining the asymptotic expansion of the energy Green function. Armed with that solid footing, and using considerable physical insight, Keller and co-workers and others found a host of applications. Though the theory has had any number of successes, its application can sometimes be cumbersome and its validity is limited to the deep-shadow region. The limitation is not really a restriction in the asymptotic evaluation for high energies, since any point in this case is either in the lit or the deep shadow region of an obstacle. It does however point to the limitations of the approach itself that have only been overcome by considering a different expansion in the penumbra.

All these approaches are purely classical, based on the eikonal- (or ray-) approximation to the wave equation. The asymptotic forms of the wave function and of the energy Green function thereby obtained give the diffraction pattern for wave number $`k\mathrm{}`$, providing the leading correction to geometrical optics due to diffraction. Keller interpreted his result geometrically in terms of paths, including those of certain ”creeping” rays, a very physical and useful way of viewing the problem. We here study diffraction from the point of view of a semiclassical expansion. Our starting point is the Feynman path integral representation for the Green function of a massless scalar field in the presence of ideal obstacles. To simplify the presentation we assume Dirichlet boundary conditions for the field at the surface of the obstacles and often assume a uniform surrounding medium. We analyze and approximate the path integral representation of the Green function semiclassically. Note that Feynman’s approach was published in 1949, but its advantages for obtaining asymptotic solutions – not only technically, but in the clearer physical picture it provides – may not have been apparent at the time the modern version of diffraction theory was developed. Furthermore, it seemed natural to attack a classical theory classically. In fact, Gutzwiller and others have made significant advances in the semiclassical evaluation of the path integral. To our knowledge these advantages of Feynman’s formulation and Gutzwiller’s semiclassical evaluation have never been fully exploited in the case of diffraction theory. (Some related approaches by others will be briefly commented on below.) We here hope to help close this gap.

That an asymptotic analysis of the classical wave equation for large $`k`$ should give the same result as the semiclassical expansion is well known but may nevertheless warrant a remark. For simplicity, we assume for the moment that the medium is uniform. Since the connection between the local wave number $`k`$ and the energy $`E`$ of a massless particle is

$$k=E/(\mathrm{}v(E)),$$
(1)
where $`v(E)`$ is the phase velocity in the medium, letting $`k`$ be arbitrarily large is equivalent to letting $`\mathrm{}`$ be arbitrarily small.

Our final result is equivalent to those obtained previously in certain limits. However, the present development may have a number of conceptual advantages. The illuminated region, the penumbra and the umbra are all treated in a unified fashion. The approach furthermore is probably more accessible to most physicists than the original one, and might provide new insights. By providing a different point of view of the phenomenon, it may also suggest other (interpolating) approximations. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the present formulation is that it provides a systematic geometrical framework that in principle allows one to obtain asymptotic expressions for diffraction for many systems, although considerable numerical work may be necessary if the geometrical setting is sufficiently complicated; in particular, it shows that diffraction can be understood as a special case of quantum mechanical tunnelling in the sense that the corresponding motion is classically forbidden and that the semiclassical approximation is obtained by analytic continuation in some of the parameters of the problem.

We will study the semiclassical approximation, $`G(𝐘,𝐗;E)`$, to the energy Green function

$$𝒢(𝐗,𝐘;E)𝐘|\widehat{𝒢}(E+i\eta )|𝐗=𝐘|(\widehat{H}Ei\eta )^1|𝐗,$$
(2)
the coordinate representation of the Laplace transform of the time evolution operator. For simplicity we will study only the propagation of a free massless scalar particle in a medium which, for the most part, will be taken to be homogeneous. We require that $`𝒢`$ vanish for $`|𝐗𝐘|\mathrm{}`$ and also whenever $`𝐗`$ or $`𝐘`$ are on a smooth compact (but not necessarily connected) two-dimensional surface $``$. These Dirichlet boundary conditions are also the appropriate ones for a particular polarization of the electromagnetic field in the presence of ideal conductors. Note that semiclassically only photons whose polarization is normal to the surface can diffract in the case of an ideal conductor.

Green functions are among the most basic concepts in physics. Thus, for example, the trace of $`\widehat{𝒢}(E+i\eta )`$ is the response function $`g(E)`$, whose imaginary part gives the spectral density $`\varrho (E)`$, where $`\varrho (E)dE`$ is the number of states with energy between $`E`$ and $`E+dE`$. Unfortunately, Green functions can rarely be obtained exactly. An exceedingly useful result, largely due to Gutzwiller, is the observation that the semi-classical approximation to $`𝒢(𝐘,𝐗;E)`$ and $`g(E)`$ are usually completely determined by the solution of a corresponding classical problem. Unfortunately, the solution must be modified if it is to be used in the case of diffraction. The corresponding classical trajectories are non-holonomic constrained extrema of the action that are not stationary; the dependence of the action on the fluctuations therefore contains linear terms. A naive application of the usual semiclassical approximation fails. We will see that the semiclassical Green function $`G(𝐘,𝐗;E)`$ nevertheless is given by the solution to a corresponding classical problem in this case too. The corresponding classical problem one has to solve in the case of diffraction is that of the motion of a non-relativistic particle in two dimensions under the influence of a generally time-dependent gravitational-like acceleration inversely proportional to $`R(s(t))`$ in the presence of a ceiling; $`R(s(t))`$ is the radius of curvature of the constrained classical trajectory connecting $`𝐗`$ and $`𝐘`$ as a function of the arc length $`s(t)`$.

Our interest in semiclassical diffraction theory was rekindled in the course of a study of Casimir effects. We found that a semiclassical evaluation gives the leading behavior whenever the Casimir energy diverges  as one length scale of the problem is taken to be much larger than any other. In many cases this asymptotic evaluation is sufficient to determine the Casimir energy exactly. A phenomenologically interesting example is Derijaguin’s problem of the Casimir force between two conducting spheres of radii $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ in the limit where their separation $`d`$ is arbitrarily small compared to $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$. This force had been determined using very plausible arguments, but the semi-classical calculation provided what we believe to be the first rigorous derivation of this result. The Casimir force in this limiting case is proportional to $`\overline{R}/d^3`$, where $`\overline{R}=R_1R_2/(R_1+R_2)`$, and diverges as $`\overline{R}/d\mathrm{}`$; the semiclassical calculation gives the correct coefficient. On the other hand, for separations large compared with the radius of either sphere, the Casimir-Polder force falls off as $`1/d^8`$ and a priori one cannot assert that the semiclassical approximation must be exact in this case. To see whether this approximation qualitatively reproduces the $`1/d^8`$ behavior of the force in this limit, one has to take diffraction into account at least semiclassically. The effort to include these effects and thus perhaps extend the validity of the semiclassical calculation beyond the regime $`d<<\overline{R}`$ led us to the present study. The extension to $`d\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{>}{}\overline{R}`$ is under consideration.

In Sec. II we present a heuristic argument based on Fermat’s principle to derive the effective action for the semiclassical approximation to the path-integral representation of the energy Green function of a massless particle in the presence of idealized obstacles. There is no stationary classical path that can describe propagation into the shadow region of the obstacle. The situation turns out to be analogous to that of calculating the amplitude that a non-relativistic particle move in finite time from the ceiling to the ceiling under the influence of a gravitational force. We show in Sec. III that an analytic continuation in the parameters solves the problem by changing it to that of a non-relativistic particle moving in finite time from the floor to the floor under the influence of a gravitational-like force – the same problem encountered in the semiclassical description of ”whispering galleries”. The remainder of Sec. III is devoted to an analytical study of diffraction by a sphere. In Sec. IV we relate the description by classical trajectories in a gravitational-like field to Keller’s asymptotic evaluation of the energy Green function for this example. In particular, we also derive the power corrections of the asymptotic expansion within this unified approach.

There is an immense literature on the subject. See, for example Gutzwiller and Reichl, and references therein. We also include a small sampling of recent developments on caustics.

## 2 The Action: A Heuristic Argument

Our ultimate goal is to obtain the semiclassical approximation $`G(𝐗,𝐘;E)`$ to $`𝒢(𝐗,𝐘;E)`$, the probability amplitude that a photon of energy $`E`$ at the initial point $`𝐗`$ will at some time appear at $`𝐘`$. Since the semiclassical energy Green function is essentially determined by the quadratic action $`S^{sc}`$ for the fluctuations – as we will discuss later – we first determine the form of this action. (See Eq. (19) below.)

### 2.1 The Action for the Fluctuations to Quadratic Order

We argue that the contribution to the energy Green function of a continuous path $`\gamma `$ from $`𝐗`$ to $`𝐘`$ is determined by the action

$$S(\gamma ,E)=E\tau (\gamma ,E)=E_0^T𝑑t|\dot{𝐗}(t)|/v(𝐗(t),E).$$
(3)
A path $`\gamma `$ from $`𝐗`$ to $`𝐘`$ in this context is defined by the three continuous functions on the interval $`0tT`$ that make up the vector $`𝐗(t)`$ and satisfy $`𝐗(0)=𝐗`$ and $`𝐗(T)=𝐘`$. The variable $`t[0,T]`$ need not be the actual time, since the integral in Eq. (3) does not depend on how the path is parameterized. Using the arc length $`s`$ along the path $`\gamma `$, one may rewrite $`S(\gamma ,E)`$ as

$$S(\gamma ,E)=E_0^{L_\gamma }\frac{ds}{v(s,E)},$$
(4)
where $`L_\gamma `$ is the path’s total length. For the semiclassical quantization it will be important that Eq. (3) in fact does not depend on the ”speed” $`|\dot{𝐗}|`$, subject to the restriction that $`|\dot{𝐗}|`$ never vanish along the path (or equivalently that the arc length is a monotonically increasing function of the parameter $`t`$). $`2\pi \nu \tau (\gamma ,E)`$ is the phase lag of a monochromatic wave of frequency $`\nu =E/(2\pi \mathrm{})`$ along the path $`\gamma `$ with the phase velocity $`v(s,E)`$ related to the local index of refraction $`n(s,\nu )=c/v(s,E)`$ of the medium along the path. Fermat’s principle is the statement that the “classical” trajectory $`\gamma _c`$ of a monochromatic ray is an extremum of $`\tau `$. It is the phase velocity that determines the trajectory of a monochromatic ray (as is for instance evident from Snell’s law). Other than when the medium is a vacuum, the time $`\tau (\gamma _c,E)`$ is not the time between emission at $`𝐗`$ and absorption at $`𝐘`$ of a photon of frequency $`\nu `$. The travel time for a photon or, classically, a wave-packet, is determined by the local group velocity $`v_g(s,E)`$ along the path,

$$v_g^1(s,E)=\frac{}{E}\left(\frac{E}{v(s,E)}\right),$$
(5)
that is, the time $`𝒯`$ for a photon of energy $`E`$ to travel from $`𝐗`$ to $`𝐘`$ is

$$𝒯=_0^{L_\gamma }\frac{ds}{v_g(s,E)}=\frac{}{E}_0^{L_\gamma }𝑑s\frac{E}{v(s,E)}=\frac{S(\gamma ,E)}{E}.$$
(6)
The relation Eq. (6) between the total time $`𝒯`$ and the quantity $`S`$ defined by Eq. (3), in conjunction with Fermat’s principle, identifies $`S(\gamma ,E)`$ as the classical action that describes the motion of a massless particle (uniquely up to an irrelevant constant that does not depend on the energy nor on the path $`\gamma `$). Hamilton’s principal function $`R(𝐗,𝐘;𝒯)`$ with the independent variable $`𝒯`$ is the Legendre transform of $`S`$,

$$R(𝐗,𝐘;𝒯)=S(𝐗,𝐘,E)E𝒯=E^2\frac{}{E}_0^{L_\gamma }\frac{ds}{v(s,E)}|_{EE(𝒯)}$$
(7)
and vanishes in a vacuum, as it must, because the Minkowski distance between the events vanishes and Hamilton’s principal function is proportional to it.

We temporarily restrict our considerations to the situation where the phase velocity $`v(𝐗(t),E)=v(E)`$ is constant when $`𝐗(t)`$ is exterior to the volume $`𝒱`$ with surface $``$ and vanishes when $`𝐗(t)`$ is in the interior of $`𝒱`$. This is an idealized limit of the physical situation where obstacles with a very high index of refraction are embedded in a homogeneous medium. The index of refraction in the physical case depends smoothly on the coordinates and the classical paths are stationary points of the action. The action defined by Eq. (3) of a path that avoids $`𝒱`$ in going from $`𝐗`$ to $`𝐘`$ is proportional to its length. The vanishing phase velocity in the interior of $`𝒱`$ leads to a non-holonomic constraint on the classical motion. We will see that the situation is akin to motion in a gravitational-like potential in the presence of a ceiling. The classical motion is still an extremum of the action, simply because the constraint can be viewed as a particular limit of the physical case. In the limit, the extremum generally is not a stationary point of the action. The change of the action under some small deviations from the extreme path can no longer be made arbitrarily small in this limit, that is, the functional derivative of the action at the extremum does not exist.

Fig. 1: The semiclassical expansion. The bold curve is a schematic plot of a classical path $`\gamma _c`$ of extremal length from $`𝐗`$ to $`𝐘`$ that is excluded from the (smooth) volume $`𝒱`$. The length of $`\gamma _c`$ is extremal but not stationary, since it ”creeps” along the surface between the points $`𝐗_o`$ and $`𝐘_o`$. A non-extremal path $`\gamma `$ in the vicinity of this classical path is shown as a thin line and the local coordinate frame at the point $`𝐐\left(t\right)`$ of $`\gamma _c`$ is sketched. The fluctuation $`\gamma `$ is fully described by the coordinates $`x_r\left(t\right)`$ and $`x_{}\left(t\right)`$ of local coordinate frames along the whole classical path. Note that $`𝐞^{}`$ lies in the surface $``$.

As can be seen from Fig.1, the classical trajectory of extremal length from $`𝐗`$ to $`𝐘`$ can be rather complicated even in the presence of smooth obstacles. It may consist not only of straight sections and reflections off points on the surface, but also of segments that “creep” along the surface. The classical trajectory is by definition continuous and of extremal length in coordinate space. It is natural to parameterize it by the “intrinsic” time $`t`$ for which $`s(t)=v(E)t`$ is the arc length along the classical path. In this case the instantaneous velocity $`\dot{𝐗}_c(t)`$ and the instantaneous acceleration $`\stackrel{}{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{}}𝐗_c(t)`$ are orthogonal vectors, since $`|\dot{𝐗}_c(t)|=v(E)`$ does not depend on time.

This singles out a natural local orthonormal coordinate frame at each point along curved sections of the classical path. The basis vectors of this local coordinate frame are

$$𝐞^{||}(t)=\frac{\dot{𝐗}(t)}{v(E)},𝐞^r(t)=\frac{R(t)}{v^2(E)}\stackrel{}{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{}}𝐗(t),𝐞^{}(t)=𝐞^{||}(t)\times 𝐞^r(t),$$
(8)
where the local radius of curvature of the classical path is related to the instantaneous acceleration by $`R(t)=v^2(E)/|\stackrel{}{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{}}𝐗(t)|`$. $`𝐞^{||}(t)`$ clearly is parallel to the velocity $`\dot{𝐗}(t)`$ and thus tangent to the classical path, $`𝐞^r(t)`$ lies in the local plane of motion (and is normal to the surface of the obstacle) while $`𝐞^{}(t)`$ is perpendicular to the local plane (and lies in the surface of the obstacle). On straight sections of the classical path a similar local orthonormal coordinate frame exists, but is not uniquely defined with respect to rotations about the classical path.

We next introduce local coordinates that give the deviation of the path $`\gamma `$ from a classical path $`\gamma _c`$ that is an extremum of the action in Eq. (3). Let $`𝐗_c(t)`$ and $`𝐗(t)`$ describe a point on the classical trajectory $`\gamma _c`$ and a point on the path $`\gamma `$ in a (time-independent) global coordinate frame at the intrinsic time $`t`$ of the classical path. The coordinates $`x_{||}(t),x_r(t)`$ and $`x_{}(t)`$ for the fluctuations in the local basis at time $`t`$ are then defined by

$$𝐗(t)=𝐗_c(t)+x_{||}(t)𝐞^{||}(t)+x_r(t)𝐞^r(t)+x_{}(t)𝐞^{}(t).$$
(9)
where $`𝐗(t)`$ is a point on $`\gamma `$. (See Fig. 1). It is important to note that certain fluctuations just reparameterize the classical path. This follows from our earlier observation that the speed along the path plays no role. More formally, if instead of the intrinsic time $`t`$ one had chosen $`t^{}`$, where

$$t^{}=t+\eta (t),$$
(10)
to parameterize the classical path, then to first order in $`\eta (t)`$

$$𝐗_c(t^{})=𝐗_c(t)+\eta (t)\dot{𝐗}_c(t)+\mathrm{}=𝐗_c(t)+\eta (t)v(E)𝐞^{||}(t)+\mathrm{}$$
(11)
An infinitesimal longitudinal fluctuation, $`x_{||}(t)=\eta (t)v(E)`$, thus describes the same classical path and is equivalent to the use of a slightly different “clock” to parameterize the classical path. To avoid this ambiguity and have a one-to-one correspondence between the fluctuations and paths, one considers only fluctuations in the planes

$$x_{||}(t)=0.$$
(12)
We can do so, because the local coordinates $`x_r(t)`$ and $`x_{}(t)`$ in each plane along the classical path $`\gamma _c`$ completely specify $`\gamma `$. The geometrical meaning and uniqueness of this construction can be seen in Fig. 1.

We will also need to know how the basis vectors defined by Eq. (8) rotate with time. Since, by Eq. (8),

$$\dot{𝐞}^{||}(t)=\stackrel{}{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{}}𝐗(t)/v(E)=v(E)𝐞^r(t)/R(t)$$
(13)
is in the direction of one of the basis vectors, the rotation of the coordinate frame with time is specified by only two (generally time-dependent) angular velocities, instead of the usual three. The basis at time $`t`$ is related to the basis at time $`t+dt`$ by an infinitesimal orthogonal transformation $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. $`𝐞^{||}(t+dt)`$ thus is given in terms of the elements of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and of the $`𝐞(t)`$’s of Eq. (8). Comparing the resulting expression with Eq. (13) determines two of the three independent elements of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Denoting the as yet to be determined independent element of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ by $`\alpha (t)`$, one obtains

$$\dot{𝐞}^{||}(t)=\frac{v(E)}{R(t)}𝐞^r(t),\dot{𝐞}^r(t)=\frac{v(E)}{R(t)}𝐞^{||}(t)\alpha (t)𝐞^{}(t),\dot{𝐞}^{}(t)=\alpha (t)𝐞^r(t).$$
(14)
Explicitly differentiating $`𝐞^r(t)`$ in Eq. (8) and taking the inner product with $`𝐞^{}(t)`$ determines $`\alpha (t)`$ as

$$\alpha (t)=\frac{R(t)}{v^2(E)}(\stackrel{\mathrm{}}{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{}}𝐗_c(t)𝐞^{}(t)).$$
(15)
$`\alpha (t)`$ vanishes if the classical trajectory lies in a plane and thus is a measure of its skewness. It is the rate at which the coordinate frame rotates about the tangent vector to the classical path. For a helix on a cylinder of radius $`R_{\mathrm{cyl}}`$, a velocity $`v_z`$ parallel to the cylinder axis and an angular velocity $`\omega `$, one finds $`\alpha (t)=\omega v_z/\sqrt{v_z^2+(\omega R_{\mathrm{cyl}})^2}`$, independent of time.

We are now in a position to expand the action of Eq. (3) to quadratic order in the fluctuations $`x_{||}=0,x_r(t),x_{}(t)`$ that uniquely describe a path in the vicinity of the classical one. Taking the time derivative of Eq. (9) and using Eq. (14) to describe the time dependence of the basis one finds

$`\dot{𝐗}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\left(\dot{x}_r(t)+\alpha (t)x_{}(t)\right)𝐞^r(t)+\left(\dot{x}_{}(t)\alpha (t)x_r(t)\right)𝐞^{}(t)\right]`$ (17)
$`+v(E)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{x_r(t)}{R(t)}}\right)𝐞^{||}(t).`$
As noted earlier $`v(E)𝐞^{||}(t)`$ is the velocity $`\dot{𝐗}_c(t)`$ along the classical trajectory. \[ Eq. (8) gives the same relationship, but with $`𝐗_c(t)`$ rather than $`𝐗(t)`$. There is no inconsistency, since we have chosen $`x_{||}(t)=0`$.\] Expanding the action of Eq. (3) to quadratic order in the fluctuations using Eq. (17), one finally obtains

$`S_{\gamma _c}^{sc}(\gamma ,E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\tau (\gamma _c,E)}}dt\{E+E{\displaystyle \frac{x_r(t)}{R(t)}}`$ (19)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{E}{2v^2(E)}}[(\dot{x}_r(t)+\alpha (t)x_{}(t))^2+(\dot{x}_{}(t)\alpha (t)x_r(t))^2]\}`$
for the action of the path $`\gamma `$ in semiclassical approximation, when the classical path is $`\gamma _c`$. Note that the term linear in the fluctuations of the semiclassical action (19) is due to the fact that the classical path, constrained to lie outside of $`𝒱`$, is extremal, but not stationary. Since the classical trajectory described by $`x_r(t)=x_{}(t)=0`$ creeps along the surface $``$ whenever $`0<R(t)<\mathrm{}`$ and since $`𝐞^r(t)`$ is normal to $``$ at that point, the coordinate $`x_r(t)`$ takes only positive values on a creeping segment. The kinetic terms in Eq. (19) are those of a non-relativistic particle of mass

$$m_E=E/v^2(E)$$
(21)
moving in a plane that is rotating with angular velocity $`\alpha (t)`$. To explicitly see this, we perform a time-dependent orthogonal transformation of the coordinates

$`x_r(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{¯}{x}_r(t)\mathrm{cos}\theta (t)\underset{¯}{x}_{}(t)\mathrm{sin}\theta (t)`$ (22)
$`x_{}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{¯}{x}_r(t)\mathrm{sin}\theta (t)+\underset{¯}{x}_{}(t)\mathrm{cos}\theta (t)`$ (23)
with

$$\theta (t)=_0^t𝑑t^{}\alpha (t^{}).$$
(24)
The expressions in Eq. (19) are then

$`\dot{x}_r(t)+\alpha (t)x_{}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{x}}_r(t)\mathrm{cos}\theta (t)\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{x}}_{}(t)\mathrm{sin}\theta (t)`$ (25)
$`\dot{x}_{}(t)\alpha (t)x_r(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{x}}_r(t)\mathrm{sin}\theta (t)+\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{x}}_{}(t)\mathrm{cos}\theta (t).`$ (26)
Written in terms of $`\underset{¯}{x}_r(t)`$ and $`\underset{¯}{x}_{}(t)`$ the semiclassical action of Eq. (19) becomes

$$S_{\gamma _c}^{sc}(\gamma )=_0^{\tau (\gamma _c,E)}𝑑t_{\gamma _c}(\underset{¯}{x}_r,\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{x}}_r,\underset{¯}{x}_{},\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{x}}_{};E,t),$$
(27)
where the two-dimensional Lagrangian,

$`_{\gamma _c}(\underset{¯}{x}_r,\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{x}}_r,\underset{¯}{x}_{},\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{x}}_{};E,t)`$ $`=`$ $`E+{\displaystyle \frac{m_E}{2}}\left(\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{x}}_r^2(t)+\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{x}}_{}^2(t)\right)`$ (29)
$`V_E[\underset{¯}{x}_r(t)\mathrm{cos}\theta (t)\underset{¯}{x}_{}(t)\mathrm{sin}\theta (t);t],`$
contains an explicitly time-dependent potential term

$$V_E[z;t]=E\{\begin{array}{ccc}z/R(t)& ,\hfill & \mathrm{if}z0\mathrm{and}0<R(t)<\mathrm{}\hfill \\ \mathrm{}& ,\hfill & \mathrm{if}z<0\mathrm{and}0<R(t)<\mathrm{}\hfill \\ 0& ,\hfill & \mathrm{otherwise},\hfill \end{array}$$
(31)
that vanishes at times $`t`$ for which the classical path does not lie on the surface $``$.

### 2.2 The Semiclassical Green function

The semiclassical action of Eq. (27) can be interpreted as describing the non-relativistic motion of a particle of mass $`m_E=E/v^2(E)`$ in a homogeneous but time-dependent gravitational-like potential in two dimensions. To complicate matters there is a (generally time-dependent) restriction that $`x_r(t)=\underset{¯}{x}_r(t)\mathrm{cos}\theta (t)+\underset{¯}{x}_{}(t)\mathrm{sin}\theta (t)0`$ whenever $`0<R(t)<\mathrm{}`$. In analogy to motion in a gravitational field, the restriction $`x_r(t)0`$ will be referred to as due to a (time-dependent) ceiling. Since the force is always directed away from the ceiling, there is no classical trajectory that starts from the ceiling and ends at the ceiling after a finite time $`\tau (\gamma _c,E)`$. However, the quantum mechanical amplitude for again observing the particle at the ceiling after a time $`\tau (\gamma _c,E)`$ does not vanish. We now proceed to calculate this amplitude and thus describe diffraction semiclassically.

To simplify the notation, let us introduce the two-dimensional position- and momentum- vectors

$$\underset{¯}{\overset{}{x}}=(\underset{¯}{x}_r,\underset{¯}{x}_{}),\underset{¯}{\overset{}{\pi }}=(m_E\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{x}}_r,m_E\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{x}}_{})$$
(32)
to describe the motion of the particle in phase space. The semiclassical Hamiltonian $`H_{\gamma _c}`$ of our two-dimensional problem depends on the classical path $`\gamma _c`$ and is explicitly time dependent. It is given by a Legendre transformation of the Lagrangian of Eq. (29) and in the notation of Eq. (32) reads

$$H_{\gamma _c}(\underset{¯}{\overset{}{x}},\underset{¯}{\overset{}{\pi }};t)=\underset{¯}{\overset{}{\pi }}\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{\stackrel{}{x}}}_{\gamma _c}=\frac{\underset{¯}{\overset{}{\pi }}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{2m_E}+V_E(x_r(\underset{¯}{\overset{}{x}},t);t)E.$$
(33)
Note that the parameter $`E`$ of this two-dimensional Hamiltonian also determines the zero of the energy scale. This constant is unimportant for the dynamics at a given value of $`E`$, but is relevant when comparing the phases of the amplitudes at different wave numbers. Upon quantization of the classical problem described by the Hamiltonian of Eq. (33), the amplitude that a particle in this two-dimensional world found initially at the transverse deviation $`\underset{¯}{\overset{}{x}}=\stackrel{}{a}`$ from the classical path will appear with transverse deviation $`\underset{¯}{\overset{}{x}}=\stackrel{}{b}`$ a time $`\tau (\gamma _c,E)`$ later is the causal Green function

$`𝒢_{\gamma _c}(\stackrel{}{a},\stackrel{}{b};\tau (\gamma _c,E))`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{b}|\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\tau (\gamma _c,E)}}𝑑t\widehat{H}_{\gamma _c}(\underset{¯}{\overset{}{x}},\underset{¯}{\overset{}{\pi }};t)\right\}|\stackrel{}{a}`$ (34)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\gamma }[dx]\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}S_{\gamma _c}^{sc}(\gamma ).`$ (35)
The (time-ordered) exponential in Eq. (34) is the time-evolution operator generated by a time-dependent Hamiltonian for a fixed time interval – here $`\tau (\gamma _c,E)`$, for given $`E`$ – and the paths $`\gamma `$ in the latter representation of the Green function as a path integral in coordinate space are described by their transverse deviations, $`\stackrel{}{a}`$ at $`t=0`$ and $`\stackrel{}{b}`$ at $`t=\tau (\gamma _c,E)`$, from the classical path $`\gamma _c`$. (We use the notation $`𝒢`$ and $`G`$ for exact and semiclassical Green functions. Rather than introduce a new symbol, we choose to write $`𝒢_{\gamma _c}`$ for the exact Green function to the semiclassical Hamiltonian of Eq. (33) for the classical path $`\gamma _c`$.)

The semiclassical energy Green function $`G(𝐗,𝐘;E)`$ is proportional to the sum over all classical trajectories $`\gamma _c`$ of the amplitudes, $`_{\gamma _c}𝒢_{\gamma _c}(\stackrel{}{a}=\stackrel{}{b}=0;\tau (\gamma _c,E))`$. As noted in Appendix A, the two Green functions are related by a factor that depends only on the local group velocities $`v_g(𝐗,E)`$ and $`v_g(𝐘,E)`$ at the endpoints of the classical trajectories,

$$G(𝐗,𝐘;E)=\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}\sqrt{v_g(𝐗,E)v_g(𝐘,E)}}\underset{\gamma _c}{}𝒢_{\gamma _c}(\stackrel{}{a}=\stackrel{}{b}=0;\tau (\gamma _c,E)).$$
(36)
For a homogeneous medium, the group velocity in fact does not depend on the location outside $`𝒱`$ and $`v_g(𝐗,E)=v_g(𝐘,E)=v_g(E)`$ and Eq. (36) simplifies accordingly.

## 3 An Example: Diffraction by a Sphere in a Uniform Medium

To better understand the general case of Eq. (34), it is illustrative to consider the example of diffraction when the excluded volume $`𝒱`$ is a sphere of radius $`R`$. The exact expressions for the Green functions are known for this case and their asymptotic expansion for large $`kR=ER/(\mathrm{}v(E))`$ has been obtained. Besides making contact with previous work, the spherical case also exhibits some analytical properties of the Green function $`𝒢_{\gamma _c}`$ that are essential in the construction of the solution for a more general obstacle.

Fig. 2:The classical path, from $`𝐗`$ at $`t=0`$ to $`𝐘`$ at $`t=\tau _c`$ with winding number $`w=+1`$, for a spherical excluded volume $`𝒱`$ of radius $`R`$. The path is planar and $`l_x`$ and $`R`$ fix the location of $`𝐗`$ with respect to the center of the sphere, $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$, and $`l_o`$ and $`l_y`$ then determine $`𝐘`$. Note that for $`\left|w\right|>1`$, the classical path would completely encircle the sphere. The phase velocity is $`v\left(E\right)`$, and $`\tau _x=l_x/v\left(E\right),\tau _o=l_o/v\left(E\right),\tau _y=l_y/v\left(E\right)`$, with $`\tau _c=\tau _x+\tau _o+\tau _y`$.

The initial point $`𝐗`$, the final point $`𝐘`$ and the center $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$ of the sphere $`𝒱`$ define a plane. Every classical trajectory lies wholly in this plane and the angle $`\alpha (t)`$ vanishes. As is evident from Fig. 2, classical trajectories in this case can be assigned an integer $`w=0,\pm 1,\pm 2\mathrm{}`$ that represents the number of times and the direction that the classical trajectory winds around the sphere in going from $`𝐗`$ to $`𝐘`$. $`w=0`$ corresponds to the direct trajectory and does not occur if, for given $`𝐗`$, $`𝐘`$ lies in the shadow cast by the sphere. $`w=\pm 1`$ are the two trajectories of opposite winding sense that do touch the sphere but do not wind fully around it, $`w=\pm 2`$ is assigned to the two trajectories that wind once but not twice around the sphere, etc…. In addition to the sense in which it winds around the sphere, a classical trajectory $`\gamma _c`$ is characterized by three lengths, $`l_x,l_o`$ and $`l_y`$. $`l_x`$ is the length of the straight line segment of the trajectory that is tangent to the sphere and extends from $`𝐗`$ to a point $`𝐗_o`$ on the surface of the sphere. Similarly $`l_y`$ is the length of the straight line segment of the trajectory that is tangent to the sphere and extends from $`𝐘`$ to a point $`𝐘_o`$ on the surface of the sphere. Finally $`l_o`$ denotes the length of the classical trajectory that “creeps” along the surface of the sphere between $`𝐗_o`$ and $`𝐘_o`$. The time intervals corresponding to these lengths are $`\tau _x=l_x/v(E)`$, $`\tau _y=l_y/v(E)`$ and $`\tau _o=l_o/v(E)`$, respectively, with

$$\tau _c=\tau (\gamma _c,E)=\tau _x+\tau _o+\tau _y.$$
(37)
It is not difficult to ascertain that such a trajectory is of extremal length.

The Green function $`𝒢_{\gamma _c}(\stackrel{}{a}=\stackrel{}{b}=0;\tau _c)`$ is a function of the parameters $`E,v(E),R`$ and of the variables $`\tau _x,\tau _y,\tau _o`$ describing the classical path. Since $`\alpha (t)=0`$, it follows that $`\underset{¯}{x}_r=x_r`$ and that $`\underset{¯}{x}_{}=x_{}`$. The potential in Eq. (33) therefore does not depend on $`x_{}`$. The hamiltonian of Eq. (33) in this case is of the form

$$H_{\gamma _c}=H_{}(\pi _{})+H_r(x_r,\pi _r;t)E,$$
(38)
and the dynamics of the perpendicular and radial degrees of freedom separates. The time-independent Hamiltonian

$$H_{}(\pi _{})=\frac{\pi _{}^2}{2m_E}$$
(39)
describes the one-dimensional motion of a free non-relativistic particle of mass $`m_E=E/v^2(E)`$, whereas

$$H_r(x_r,\pi _r;t)=\frac{\pi _r^2}{2m_E}+V_E(x_r;t)$$
(40)
governs the radial dynamics. The boundary conditions $`\stackrel{}{a}=\stackrel{}{b}=0`$ imply that $`x_r(0)=x_r(\tau _c)=0`$ and $`x_{}(0)=x_{}(\tau _c)=0`$. By virtue of the form of Eq. (38), the Green function $`𝒢_{\gamma _c}(\stackrel{}{a}=\stackrel{}{b}=0;\tau _c)`$ decomposes into the product of two Green functions and an exponential, and we can write

$$𝒢_{\gamma _c}(\stackrel{}{0},\stackrel{}{0};\tau _c)=\mathrm{exp}(iE\tau _c/\mathrm{})𝒢_0(0,0;\tau _c)𝒢_r(0,0;\tau _c),$$
(41)
where, for arbitrary $`x`$, $`y`$ and $`\tau `$,

$$𝒢_0(x,y;\tau )=\sqrt{\frac{m_E}{2\pi i\mathrm{}\tau }}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{im_E(xy)^2}{2\mathrm{}\tau }\right)$$
(42)
is the Green function for a free non-relativistic particle of mass $`m_E`$ in one dimension and

$$𝒢_r(x,y;\tau )=y|\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}_0^\tau 𝑑t\widehat{H}_r(x,\pi ;t)\right\}|x$$
(43)
is the Green function corresponding to the time-evolution generated by the radial Hamiltonian of Eq. (40). The exponential factor in Eq. (41) originates in the $`E`$ term in Eq. (38) and is the phase associated with the classical path. The explicit time dependence of the radial Hamiltonian in the case of a sphere is quite simple since the curvature of a classical path $`\gamma _c`$ is of the form

$$\frac{1}{R(t)}=\{\begin{array}{ccc}1/R& ,\hfill & \tau _x<t<\tau _x+\tau _o\hfill \\ 0& ,\hfill & \mathrm{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}.$$
(44)
In the time intervals $`[0,\tau _x]`$ and $`[\tau _x+\tau _o,\tau _x+\tau _o+\tau _y]`$ the Hamiltonian of Eq. (40) describes the time evolution of a free non-relativistic particle of mass $`m_E`$. If the radial coordinate states were complete, $`𝒢_r`$ could be further decomposed as

$`𝒢_r(0,0;\tau _c)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑a{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑b𝒢_0(0,a;\tau _x)𝒢_R(a,b;\tau _o)𝒢_0(b,0;\tau _y)`$ (46)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{k}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{da}{\sqrt{l_x}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{db}{\sqrt{l_y}}}𝒢_R(a,b;\tau _o)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{ika^2}{2l_x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{ikb^2}{2l_y}}\right),`$
where we used Eq. (42) in the latter expression. Here $`a`$ and $`b`$ denote the radial deviations of $`\gamma `$ from $`\gamma _c`$ at the points $`𝐗_o`$ and $`𝐘_o`$ of Fig. 2. We will see in Sec. 4.4 that the propagation to a point at the surface of the obstacle is only approximately described by the free Green function. (Roughly speaking, a photon with large but finite $`k`$ effectively penetrates a small distance into the sphere.) The assumption that $`𝒢_r`$ separates in the form of Eq. (46) neglects subleading terms of the asymptotic expansion in the penumbra.

$`𝒢_R`$ is the coordinate representation of the time evolution operator generated by the time-independent Hamiltonian

$$H_R(\pi ,x)=\frac{\pi ^2}{2m_E}\frac{E}{R}x$$
(48)
in the half-space $`x>0`$. The integrals over $`a`$ and $`b`$ in Eq. (46) extend only from zero to infinity because $`𝒢_R(a,b;\tau )`$ vanishes whenever either $`a`$ or $`b`$ are negative. We recognize that the one-dimensional quantum mechanical problem described by Eq. (48) is the propagation of a non-relativistic particle of mass $`m_E=E/v^2(E)`$ under the influence of a constant force leading to an acceleration $`|g|=v^2(E)/R`$ directed away from $`x=0`$. Note that $`𝒢_R(x,y;\tau )=𝒢_R^{}(y,x;\tau )`$, because the Hamiltonian Eq. (48), although not bounded below, is hermitian. By definition, the causal Green function $`𝒢_R`$ satisfies the second order differential equation

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_E}\frac{^2}{x^2}+\frac{Ex}{R}\right)𝒢_R(x,y;\tau )=i\mathrm{}\frac{}{\tau }𝒢_R(x,y;\tau )$$
(49)
in the half-space $`x>0,y>0`$ and the initial condition

$$𝒢_R(x,y;0)=\delta (xy).$$
(50)
The solution to Eq. (49) and Eq. (50) is completely specified by imposing the boundary conditions

$$𝒢_R(0,y;\tau )=0\mathrm{and}\underset{x\mathrm{}}{lim}𝒢_R(x,y;\tau )=0,$$
(51)
and requiring that the magnitude of $`𝒢_R`$ remain bounded for $`\tau \mathrm{}`$

$$|𝒢_R(x,y;\tau \mathrm{})|<\mathrm{}.$$
(52)
The latter condition excludes any solution which increases exponentially and is just the requirement that the presence of an obstacle should not lead to the production of photons in the shadowed region.

### 3.1 The spectral representation of $`𝒢_R`$

The Hamiltonian (48) is hermitian and bounded below only for negative values of the parameter $`R`$. In this case it can be interpreted as describing a non-relativistic particle in a homogenous gravitational field in the half-space $`x>0`$ above a table. The spectral representation of the solution to Eqs. (49) and (50) that satisfies the boundary conditions in Eqs. (51) and (52) is well known. Our strategy is as follows. For $`R>0`$ waves diffract and there are no classical orbits, while for $`R<0`$ there are classical orbits, a much simpler situation. We will therefore analyze the $`R>0`$ case by first considering the $`R<0`$ case, and then return to the $`R>0`$ case of interest by analytic continuation.

With $`R`$ replaced by $`R`$, we have

$$𝒢_R(x,y;\tau _o)=\frac{k}{\sigma R}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_n(x)\mathrm{\Psi }_n(y)\mathrm{exp}\left(i\tau _ov(E)ϵ_n\sigma \right),$$
(53)
where the inverse length scale $`\sigma `$ is

$$\sigma =\frac{k}{2^{1/3}(kR)^{2/3}},$$
(54)
and the wave function

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_n(x)=\mathrm{Ai}(\frac{kx}{\sigma R}ϵ_n)/|\mathrm{Ai}^{}(ϵ_n)|$$
(55)
is given by the Airy function and its derivative, $`\mathrm{Ai}^{}(z)=(d/dz)\mathrm{Ai}(z)`$. Considered as a function on the complex plane, the Airy function $`\mathrm{Ai}(z)`$ is the solution to the differential equation

$$\frac{d^2}{dz^2}\mathrm{Ai}(z)=z\mathrm{Ai}(z)$$
(56)
with the asymptotic behavior for $`|z|\mathrm{}`$,

$`\mathrm{Ai}(z)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi }}}z^{1/4}\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}z^{3/2}),|\mathrm{arg}z|<\pi `$ (57)
$`\mathrm{Ai}(z)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }}}z^{1/4}\mathrm{sin}({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}z^{3/2}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}),|\mathrm{arg}z|<{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{3}}.`$ (58)
The first of the boundary conditions of Eq. (51) relates the $`ϵ_n`$’s to the zero’s of the Airy function

$$\mathrm{Ai}(ϵ_n)=0,n=0,1,\mathrm{}$$
(59)
Since the zero’s of the Airy function are all on the negative real axis, the $`ϵ_n`$ are real and positive and are ordered as $`0<ϵ_n<ϵ_{n+1}`$. That $`\mathrm{Ai}^{}(ϵ_n)`$ gives the proper normalization of the wave functions follows from the identity,

$$_z^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\mathrm{Ai}^2(x)=\left(\mathrm{Ai}^{}(z)\right)^2z\mathrm{Ai}^2(z).$$
(60)
Eq. (60) is proven by taking the derivative of both sides and using Eq. (56). Choosing $`z=ϵ_n`$ in Eq. (60), dividing by $`[\mathrm{Ai}^{}(ϵ_n)]^2`$, and redefining the integration variable as $`x\sigma xϵ_n`$, one finds that $`_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\mathrm{\Psi }_n^2(x)=1/\sigma `$. Since the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$ are eigenfunctions of a hermitian operator corresponding to the eigenvalue $`ϵ_n`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_m`$ are orthogonal for $`nm`$ and therefore,

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\mathrm{\Psi }_n(x)\mathrm{\Psi }_m(x)=\delta _{nm}/\sigma .$$
(61)
The completeness of the spectrum of the bounded hermitian operator $`H_R`$ in the space of normalizable functions on the half space $`x>0`$ that vanish at $`x=0`$, together with Eq. (61), proves that Eq. (53) also fulfills Eq. (50). Thus the spectral representation Eq. (53) would be the (unique) solution of Eq. (49) and Eq. (50) we are looking for if the parameter $`R`$ in Eq. (49) were negative.

### 3.2 The spectral representation of $`𝒢_R`$ by analytic continuation

To obtain the spectral representation of $`𝒢_R`$ for positive real values of $`R`$, we analytically continue $`𝒢_R`$ in the complex plane. With $`R`$ the modulus of the complex number $`R_\varphi `$,

$$R_\varphi =Re^{i\varphi },$$
(62)
the analytic continuation of the spectral representation Eq. (53) $`𝒢_{R_\varphi }`$ in the phase $`\varphi `$ is uniquely given by requiring that Eq. (52) hold for all $`0\varphi \pi `$. The dependence of the inverse scale factor $`\sigma `$ on the phase is

$$\sigma _\varphi =\sigma e^{2i\varphi /3}.$$
(63)
For sufficiently large positive values of $`x`$, $`\frac{\pi }{3}<\mathrm{arg}(kx/(\sigma _\varphi R_\varphi )ϵ_n)0`$ for any fixed $`n`$ and the Airy function decays exponentially as given in Eq. (57). Note, however, that the behavior of the wave functions for large arguments becomes oscillatory with a power-law decay at the endpoint $`\varphi =\pi `$ of the interval. This is consistent with the fact that there is only one turning point of a trajectory with fixed energy in this case. The boundary conditions Eq. (51) thus hold for all $`\varphi [0,\pi ]`$. Finally, because

$$\mathrm{Im}\sigma _\varphi <0\mathrm{for}0<\varphi \pi ,$$
(64)
the Green function of Eq. (53) decays for large times $`\tau `$ and Eq. (52) holds. Note that the only dependence of $`𝒢_R`$ on the arc length $`l_o`$ of the creeping section of the trajectory is via $`\tau =\tau _o=l_o/v(E)`$. $`𝒢_R`$ thus decays exponentially with the length $`l_o`$ of the creeping section with an exponent that is proportional to $`l_o(kR)^{1/3}/R`$. This dependence of the exponent on the cube root of the wave number is somewhat unusual and perhaps unexpected for a semiclassical expansion, but is typical for diffraction. Setting $`\varphi =\pi `$ in Eq. (53), $`RR_\pi =R`$ and therefore $`\sigma \sigma _\pi \overline{\sigma }`$, where

$$\overline{\sigma }=\frac{ke^{2\pi i/3}}{2^{1/3}(kR)^{2/3}}.$$
(65)
Using Eqs. (53) and (55), one thus finally obtains

$$𝒢_R(x,y;\tau _o)=𝒢_{R_\pi }(x,y;\tau _o)=\frac{k}{\overline{\sigma }R}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{Ai}(\frac{kx}{\overline{\sigma }R}ϵ_n)\mathrm{Ai}(\frac{ky}{\overline{\sigma }R}ϵ_n)}{[\mathrm{Ai}^{}(ϵ_n)]^2}e^{i\overline{\sigma }l_oϵ_n},$$
(66)
as the spectral representation of the Green function that satisfies Eqs. (49) and (50) as well as the boundary conditions Eqs. (51) and (52).

Inserting Eq. (66) in Eq. (46), $`𝒢_r`$ is found to have the representation

$$𝒢_r(0,0;\tau _c)=\frac{ik}{4\pi \overline{\sigma }R}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝒟_n\left(\overline{\sigma }l_x\right)𝒟_n\left(\overline{\sigma }l_y\right)e^{i\overline{\sigma }l_oϵ_n},$$
(67)
with amplitudes

$$𝒟_n(\xi )=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\rho \frac{\mathrm{Ai}(\rho \sqrt{\xi }ϵ_n)}{|\mathrm{Ai}^{}(ϵ_n)|}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i\rho ^2}{4}\right),$$
(68)
the result previously obtained for the asymptotic behavior in the deep shadow region. Within the semiclassical approximation it might appear to be consistent to further approximate the Airy function and its zeros semiclassically and evaluate the integral in Eq. (68) in saddle point approximation. This is done in Appendix B and indeed was part of the original approach. However, although perfectly reasonable, one should perhaps point out that it is not simple to justify this procedure from the semiclassical point of view: the error of the semiclassical approximation is largest for the lowest zeros of the Airy function, which apparently dominate the sum in Eq. (67) in the semiclassical limit. An alternative to the semiclassical approximation of the spectral representation of the Green function and associated integrals is the direct semi-classical evaluation of the path-integral discussed below. It gives corrections to the above procedure that become important outside the deeply shadowed region.

## 4 Diffraction by a Sphere: Semiclassical Evaluation of the Path Integral

In the previous section we constructed the exact spectral representation, given by Eqs. (67) and (68), of the Green-function Eq. (43) for the radial motion by analytic continuation. At the end of the calculation we argued that the semiclassical approximation of the zeros, $`ϵ_n`$, and of the remaining integrals $`𝒟_n`$ may not be fully justified. We now proceed to do the calculation in reverse; we first obtain the semiclassical approximation to $`𝒢_r`$ for negative values of the parameter $`R`$ and then analytically continue the semiclassical result to positive values of $`R`$. Although this procedure is of only pedagogical value in the case of a sphere, it has the great advantage of being generalizable to more complex situations. We will see that this method of evaluation is also interesting for conceptual reasons.

The point is that there are classical trajectories for the radial motion from $`x`$ to $`y`$ in time $`\tau `$ if the parameter $`R`$ in the definition Eq. (31) of the potential $`V_E(x_r;t)`$ of the Hamiltonian $`H_r`$ given in Eq. (40) is negative. In this case the force on the particle is either absent or directed toward the endpoint at $`x_r=0`$. The force of magnitude $`E/R`$ is turned on at “time” $`\tau _x`$ and lasts only for a finite time $`\tau _o`$. Using the horizontal axis to denote the time and the vertical one to denote the “height” $`x(t)`$, the classical trajectory during the time interval $`\tau _o`$ is that of a ball bouncing up and down vertically on a table. See Fig. 3. There are many classical trajectories that start with an initial height $`x(0)=x`$ and which, at $`\tau _c=\tau _x+\tau _o+\tau _y`$, attain a final height $`x(\tau _c)=y`$. They are distinguished by the number of bounces, $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$. If the initial or final point are above the table, the classification of a classical trajectory by the number of bounces is not unique. There are classical trajectories with the same number of bounces that differ in the directions of the initial and/or final momentum. The ambiguity for a given $`n`$ is at most 4-fold. If $`x0`$ and $`y0`$, this ambiguity is removed since the ball has to be above the table in the intermediate region. The signs of the initial and final momenta must be positive and negative, respectively, and the classification of a classical trajectory by the number $`n`$ is unique. Eventually we are interested only in trajectories that start and end level with the table. To avoid unnecessary (and irrelevant) complications, we consider only the situation where the initial and final points satisfy $`x0`$ and $`y0`$, that is, are below or level with the table.

Fig. 3: Radial deviations with $`n=0`$ (no bounces) and $`n=2`$ (two bounces) from a particular classical path $`\gamma _c`$ for a spherical obstacle of radius $`R`$. In the time intervals $`[0,\tau _x]`$ and $`[\tau _x+\tau _o,\tau _c]`$, there is no acceleration and these sections of the paths are straight lines; the motion in the interval $`[\tau _x,\tau _x+\tau _o]`$ is governed by a constant acceleration $`g=v^2\left(E\right)/R`$. The initial and final radial deviations from $`\gamma _c`$, $`x=x_n\left(0\right)`$ and $`y=x_n\left(\tau _c\right)`$, not labeled in the figure, do not depend on $`n`$. $`\tau _i^{\left(n\right)}`$ is the $`i`$-th turning point of the path with $`n`$ bounces, $`\tau _B^{\left(n\right)}`$ is the time between successive bounces, or successive turning points.

The classical trajectory $`\gamma _n`$ connecting $`x`$ and $`y`$ in time $`\tau _c`$ with $`n`$ bounces is a piecewise connected solution to the equation of motion

$$\stackrel{..}{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{}}x_n(t)=g(t)$$
(69)
with $`x(0)=x`$ and $`x(\tau _c)=y`$ and $`x(t)0`$ for $`\tau _x<t<\tau _x+\tau _o`$ that apart from the $`n`$ points corresponding to bounces is continuous in phase space. Since the (negative) acceleration $`g(t)=v^2(E)/R=g`$ does not depend on time in the interval $`\tau _x<t<\tau _x+\tau _o`$, the “energy” (for notational convenience we extract the scale to have a dimensionless energy)

$$e_n=\frac{2}{m_EgR}\left(\frac{\pi _n^2(t)}{2m_E}+m_Egx_n(t)\right)=\frac{\pi _n^2(t)}{(\mathrm{}k)^2}+2\frac{x_n(t)}{R},$$
(70)
is a real positive constant of motion that characterizes the trajectory in this time interval. In the initial and final time intervals $`t[0,\tau _x]`$ and $`t[\tau _x+\tau _o,\tau _c]`$ the acceleration vanishes and the momenta are constant. We also introduce dimensionless initial and final “momenta”,

$`p_n`$ $`=`$ $`\pi _n(0)/(\mathrm{}k)=\pi _n(\tau _x)/(\mathrm{}k)>0,`$ (71)
$`p_n^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\pi _n(\tau _c)/(\mathrm{}k)=\pi _n(\tau _x+\tau _o)/(\mathrm{}k)>0.`$ (72)
The signs have been chosen so that $`p_n`$ and $`p_n^{}`$ are both positive for initial and final points $`x0`$ and $`y0`$. The equation of motion (69) with $`g(t)=0`$ implies that

$$x_n(\tau _x)=x+l_xp_n\mathrm{and}x_n(\tau _x+\tau _o)=y+l_yp_n^{}.$$
(73)
Demanding continuity of the classical trajectory in phase space at $`t=\tau _x`$ and $`t=\tau _x+\tau _o`$, we determine $`p_n`$ and $`p_n^{}`$ in terms of $`e_n`$. They are given by

$`p_n`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{e_n+(l_x/R)^22x/R}l_x/R`$ (74)
$`p_n^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{e_n+(l_y/R)^22y/R}l_y/R.`$ (75)
The signs of the square roots have been chosen so that both scaled momenta, $`p_n`$ and $`p_n^{}`$, are positive for initial and final heights $`x0`$ and $`y0`$.

To completely specify the trajectory, we need an equation for $`e_n`$. The acceleration is constant for $`\tau _x<t<\tau _x+\tau _o`$ and the first turning point of the trajectory occurs at $`t=\tau _1^{(n)}`$, where

$$\tau _1^{(n)}=\tau _x+p_nR/v(E).$$
(76)
The last turning point, the $`(n+1)^{\mathrm{th}}`$, occurs at $`t=\tau _{n+1}^{(n)}`$, where

$$\tau _{n+1}^{(n)}=\tau _x+\tau _op_n^{}R/v(E).$$
(77)
The equation of motion (69) for constant acceleration finally relates the time $`\tau _B^{(n)}`$ between successive bounces (or successive turning points) when there are $`n`$ bounces in all to the conserved ”energy” $`e_n`$,

$$\tau _B^{(n)}=2\sqrt{e_n}R/v(E).$$
(78)
The time to the first turning point plus the time for $`n`$ bounces plus the time from the last turning point to the end of the trajectory is the total time $`\tau _c`$ of the trajectory. We thus have that $`\tau _1^{(n)}+n\tau _B^{(n)}+(\tau _c\tau _{n+1}^{(n)})=\tau _c`$, or

$$p_n+p_n^{}+2n\sqrt{e_n}=l_o/R.$$
(79)
Eq. (79) together with Eq. (74) is a fourth order algebraic equation for $`e_n`$ whose roots can be found analytically. There is only one real and positive solution $`e_n`$, because the left hand side of Eq. (79) is a monotonically increasing function of $`e_n`$ that vanishes at $`e_n=0`$ and goes as $`2(n+1)\sqrt{e_n}`$ for large values of $`e_n`$. We remark that $`e_n,p_n`$ and $`p_n^{}`$ given by Eq. (79) and Eq. (74) depend only on the lengths $`l_x,l_o`$ and $`l_y`$ of the problem and the scaled initial and final heights $`x`$ and $`y`$ (all measured in units of $`R`$). The solution $`e_n`$ of Eq. (79) therefore does not depend on $`E`$ nor $`v(E)`$. The action $`S_n(x,y)`$ of the classical trajectory with $`n`$ bounces is proportional to $`ER/v(E)=\mathrm{}kR`$. After some algebra, $`S_n(x,y)`$ can be expressed in terms of $`e_n,p_n`$ and $`p_n^{}`$ implicitly given by Eq. (79) and Eq. (74). We find

$$\frac{S_n(x,y)}{\mathrm{}kR}=\frac{p_n^3+p_n^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}+2ne_n^{3/2}}{3}+\frac{p_n^2l_x+p_n^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}l_ye_nl_o}{2R}.$$
(80)
Using Eq. (74), one explicitly verifies that

$$\frac{S_n(x,y)}{e_n}=\frac{\mathrm{}kR}{2}(p_n+p_n^{}+2n\sqrt{e_n}l_o/R).$$
(81)
Eq. (79) thus selects the energy $`e_n`$ at which the action is stationary. This fact will be of some consequence when we compare the present approach to the one of section 3.

The semiclassical approximation $`G_r(x,y;\tau _c,R)`$ to the Green function$`𝒢_r(x,y;\tau _c,R)`$ defined in Eq. (43) might seem to be the sum of the asymptotic contributions from the infinite number of classical path. The semiclassical contribution of a single classical path is known; it is given by Van Vleck’s formula. If we could simply sum over the asymptotic contributions of all classical trajectories, we would (in this one dimensional case) obtain

$$G_r(0,0;\tau _c,R)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi i\mathrm{}}}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\sqrt{\frac{^2S_n(x,y)}{xy}}|_{x=y=0}\mathrm{exp}i\left(\frac{S_n(0,0)}{\mathrm{}}\frac{3\pi n}{2}\right).$$
(82)
(There are $`n`$ conjugate points and $`n`$ points of reflection on the classical trajectory with $`n`$ bounces, contributing in total a phase factor of $`\mathrm{exp}(i3\pi n/2)`$.)

Although each term of the sum is the correct asymptotic contribution from a particular classical trajectory, we now show that Eq. (82) does not give the asymptotic behavior of the Green function $`𝒢_r`$ for $`kR\mathrm{}`$. The cause of the problem is that for any fixed value of $`kR`$, the classical trajectories and their corresponding action $`S_n`$ become indistinguishable as $`n\mathrm{}`$. The ”floor” at $`x=0`$ is a zero-dimensional caustic of the classical motion. It then is not possible to interchange the implicit $`kR\mathrm{}`$ limit with the sum over $`n`$ in Eq. (82).

To see that the interchange is not allowed, we examine the asymptotic behavior of the classical action $`S_n`$ for trajectories with large $`n`$, assuming for the moment that Eq. (82) is valid. We begin by observing that the second derivatives of the action appearing in Eq. (82) can be evaluated in terms of the solutions $`p_n,p_n^{}`$ and $`e_n`$ of Eq. (79) and Eq. (74) for $`x=y=0`$. The classical equations of motion imply that the initial momentum $`\pi _n(0)`$ is given by

$$\frac{S_n(x,y)}{x}=\pi _n(0)=\mathrm{}kp_n.$$
(83)
Eq. (83) can be checked explicitly by taking the derivative of Eq. (80) and using Eqs. (74) and (79). From Eq. (83) we thus have that

$$\frac{^2S_n(x,y)}{xy}|_{x=y=0}=\mathrm{}k\frac{p_n}{y}|_{x=y=0}.$$
(84)
The variation of the initial momentum with the endpoint of the trajectory required in the latter expression is implicitly given by Eq. (79) and the definitions Eq. (74). After some algebra we obtain

$$\frac{^2S_n(x,y)}{xy}=\frac{\mathrm{}ke_n}{l_o(p_n+\frac{l_x}{R})(p_n^{}+\frac{l_y}{R})+p_nl_x(p_n^{}+\frac{l_y}{R})+p_n^{}l_y(p_n+\frac{l_x}{R})}.$$
(85)
Note that in Eq. (82) we need only know the right hand side of Eq. (85) at $`x=y=0`$. To evaluate the function Eq. (82) it thus is sufficient to solve Eq. (79) with $`x=y=0`$.

The solution $`e_n`$ of Eq. (79) will be small compared to either $`l_x^2/R^2`$ or $`l_y^2/R^2`$ when $`n`$ is sufficiently large. For $`x=y=0`$, we then may expand the roots occurring in Eq. (74) and thus solve Eq. (79) asymptotically for large $`n`$ with the result

$$\sqrt{e_n}=\frac{1}{2n}\left(l_o/R\right)+O(n^3,x/l_x,y/l_y).$$
(86)
The scaled momenta $`p_n`$ and $`p_n^{}`$ defined by Eq. (74) therefore are of order $`n^2`$ and

$$\frac{^2S_n(x,y)}{xy}|_{x=y=0}=\frac{\mathrm{}kl_o}{4l_xl_yn^2}+O(n^4).$$
(87)
Note that in this limit

$$S_n(0,0)=\frac{\mathrm{}kl_o^3}{24R^2n^2}+O(n^4)$$
(88)
depends neither on $`l_x`$ nor on $`l_y`$. This is readily understood. For $`n`$ bounces within a given time interval $`\tau _c`$, their height becomes exceedingly small compared to $`l_x`$ or $`l_y`$. For $`x=y=0`$ and large $`n`$, the initial and final momenta of the trajectory are of order $`n^2`$ and the free sections of the trajectory therefore do not contribute appreciably to the classical action. One can check that Eq. (88) indeed is just the action for a classical trajectory with $`n`$ bounces that altogether take a time $`\tau _o=l_o/v(E)`$. The asymptotic behavior in Eqs. (87) and (88) implies that the sum in Eq. (82) converges to a logarithm for large $`n`$.

The asymptotic form Eq. (88), however, also shows that the actions of classical trajectories differ by much less than $`\mathrm{}`$ for $`n\sqrt{kR}`$. For a fixed value of $`kR`$, the classical paths with sufficiently large $`n`$ therefore could (and should) be considered quantum fluctuations of each other. It becomes a matter of exchanging limits: the asymptotic weight of a particular classical path characterized by $`n`$ bounces in the limit $`kR\mathrm{}`$ is indeed given by its contribution to Eq. (82). However, we actually would like to know how the (infinite) sum of classical paths contribute to the Green function for a large, but fixed value of $`kR`$. The problem arises because the trajectory $`lim_{n>\mathrm{}}x_n(t)=x_{\mathrm{}}(t)=0`$ is a caustic that is approached by an infinite number of classical trajectories. Note, however, that the sum in Eq. (82) would be cut off at a finite value $`n=n_{max}`$ for a negative value of the initial point $`x`$ or final point $`y`$. Due to the non-vanishing initial and/or final momentum, the “energy” $`e_n`$ of a trajectory in this case is bounded from below, $`e_n\mathrm{Max}((x/l_x)^2,(y/l_y)^2)`$, and Eq. (79) can be solved only for $`nn_{\mathrm{max}}`$. Eq. (82) in this case would give the correct asymptotic expression for sufficiently large $`kR`$.

For a given geometry and wave number $`k`$, successive terms of the sum in Eq. (82) tend to interfere destructively for sufficiently high $`n`$ – one thus should reorder the sum and collect terms of similar phase. To do so, we make use of our earlier observation in Eq. (81) that Eq. (79) gives the stationary point of $`S_n`$ with respect to a variation of the “energy” $`e_n`$. The second derivative of the action at this stationary point is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2S_n(0,0)}{e_n^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}kR}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_n+l_x/R}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_n^{}+l_y/R}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_n+p_n^{}l_o/R}{e_n}}\right)|_{x=y=0}`$ (91)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}k[l_o(p_n+\frac{l_x}{R})(p_n^{}+\frac{l_y}{R})+p_nl_x(p_n^{}+\frac{l_y}{R})+p_n^{}l_y(p_n+\frac{l_x}{R})]}{4e_n(p_n+l_x/R)(p_n^{}+l_y/R)}}|_{x=y=0}>0`$
$`,`$
where we have used the definitions (74) to write the numerator in terms of $`p_n`$ and $`p_n^{}`$ only.

We will show just below that it is consistent, within the semiclassical approximation, to replace Eq. (82) by the integral expression

$$G_r(0,0;\tau _c,R)=\frac{i}{\pi \mathrm{}}_0^{\mathrm{}}e𝑑eB(e)e^{iS(e)/\mathrm{}}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{inf(e)},$$
(92)
where

$$f(e)=\frac{2kR}{3}e^3\frac{3\pi }{2}.$$
(93)
In Eq. (92) the factor $`B(e)`$ is given by Eqs. (85) and (91) with $`e_n`$ replaced by $`e^2`$, that is,

$`B(e)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{^2S_n(x,y)}{xy}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2S_n(x,y)}{e_n^2}}}|_{x=y=0;e_n=e^2}`$ (94)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}k}{2\left[(e^2+(l_x/R)^2)(e^2+(l_y/R)^2)\right]^{1/4}}},`$ (95)
and $`S(e)`$ is related to the action of Eq. (80),

$$S(e)=\mathrm{}kR\left(\frac{p^3+p^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}}{3}+\frac{p^2l_x+p^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}l_ye^2l_o}{2R}\right),$$
(96)
where here too $`e_n`$ has been replaced by $`e^2`$. In addition the only explicitly $`n`$-dependent term in $`S_n(x,y)`$ of Eq. (80) has been separated out. In Eqs. (94) and (96) the variables $`p`$ and $`p^{}`$ are the dimensionless initial and final momenta of Eq. (74) for $`x=y=0`$ and ”energy” $`e^2`$, that is

$$p=\sqrt{e^2+(l_x/R)^2}l_x/R,p^{}=\sqrt{e^2+(l_y/R)^2}l_y/R.$$
(97)
To show the semiclassical equivalence of Eqs. (82) and (92), recall that the phase of the integrand in Eq. (92) for a given $`n`$ is stationary at $`e=\sqrt{e_n}`$. Expanding about $`e=\sqrt{e_n}`$, and evaluating the resultant Gaussian integral, one finds that Eqs. (82) and (92) are indeed equivalent term by term.

The asymptotic contribution of a classical path with a given $`n`$ to the Green function in Eq. (92) thus is precisely the same as in Eq. (82). On the other hand we now can interchange the limits and obtain the correct asymptotic expansion by summing the geometrical series in Eq. (92) for a given value of $`kR`$. With a small positive imaginary component of $`e`$, the sum in Eq. (92) is evaluated as

$$\underset{\eta 0^+}{lim}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{in(f(e)+i\eta )}=\underset{\eta 0^+}{lim}\frac{1}{1e^{i(f(e)+i\eta )}}.$$
(98)
The integrand of Eq. (92) therefore has simple poles just below the real axis at $`f(e)=2\pi mi\eta `$ for integer $`m`$. Apart from these simple poles, the integrand is analytic in the shaded region of Fig. 4. The integration over $`e`$ in Eq. (92) along the real axis therefore is equivalent to integrating along the contours $`𝒞_{sd}`$ and $`𝒞_{}`$ shown in Fig. 4 and including the residues from the enclosed poles. The paths $`𝒞_{sd}`$ and $`𝒞_{}`$ in the complex plane are chosen so that, as shown below,

* the contribution from $`𝒞_{}`$ to the integral is negligible for sufficiently large $``$, and
* the modulus of the integrand in Eq. (92) decreases monotonically and as fast as possible along $`𝒞_{sd}`$, the path of steepest descent.

The semi-classical evaluation of the integral in Eq. (92) thus has three distinct contributions, to be denoted by $`G_{\mathrm{poles}},G_𝒞_{}`$ and $`G_{𝒞_{\mathrm{sd}}}`$. We discuss them separately.

Fig. 4: Contours of integration. Apart from discrete poles just below the positive real axis, the integrand of Eq. (92) is analytic in the shaded region of the complex plane. The integral along the positive real axis in Eq. (92) from the origin to $``$ is evaluated by integrating along the contours $`𝒞_{\mathrm{sd}}`$ and $`𝒞_{}`$, taking the residues of the poles inside the closed contour into account. $`𝒞_{\mathrm{sd}}`$ is the path of steepest descent of the integrand that starts at the origin. It asymptotically approaches the dashed line with arg $`e=\pi /4`$ for large $`\left|e\right|\mathrm{}`$.

### 4.1 The Contribution from Poles with Integer $`m0`$

In the shaded region of the complex plane of Fig. 4, the integrand of Eq. (92) is analytic except for simple poles at

$$e=e(m)=\left(\frac{3\pi (m+3/4)}{kR}\right)^{1/3}=\left(\frac{2}{kR}\right)^{1/3}\sqrt{\overline{ϵ}_m},$$
(99)
just below the real axis for any integer $`m0`$. Note that $`\overline{ϵ}_m`$ corresponds to a semiclassical determination of the $`(m+1)^{\mathrm{th}}`$ zero $`ϵ_m`$ of the Airy function. The contribution $`G_{\mathrm{poles}}(R)`$ to $`G_r(0,0;\tau _c,R)`$ from the poles is

$$2\pi i\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left\{\begin{array}{c}\text{residue of}\\ \text{pole at }e(m)\end{array}\right\}=\frac{i}{\mathrm{}kR}\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{B(e(m))}{e(m)}e^{iS(e(m))/\mathrm{}}.$$
(100)
Using Eqs. (54) (94), (97), (96) and (99), $`G_{\mathrm{poles}}(R)`$ can be rewritten as

$$G_{\mathrm{poles}}(R)=\frac{k}{4\pi i\sigma R}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}D_n\left(\sigma l_x\right)D_n\left(\sigma l_y\right)e^{i\sigma l_o\overline{ϵ}_n},$$
(101)
with diffraction amplitudes

$$D_n(\xi )=\frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{[\overline{ϵ}_n(\overline{ϵ}_n+\xi ^2)]^{1/4}}\mathrm{exp}i\left(\frac{2\overline{p}_n^3(\xi )}{3}+\xi \overline{p}_n^2(\xi )\right).$$
(102)
The $`D_n(\xi )`$ depend on $`\overline{ϵ}_n`$ defined by Eq. (99) and the corresponding (rescaled) ”momenta”

$$\overline{p}_n(\xi )=\sqrt{\overline{ϵ}_n+\xi ^2}\xi .$$
(103)
Since $`\overline{p}_n(\xi )e(n)n^{1/3}`$ for large $`n`$, the $`n^{\mathrm{th}}`$ and $`(n+1)^{\mathrm{th}}`$ contribution to the sum in Eq. (101) differ by a finite phase. By first summing in Eq. (92) rather than semiclassically evaluating the integral over $`e`$ for each summand, one avoids the problem discussed earlier that for fixed wave number $`k`$, classical paths near a caustic interfere with one another. \[Note that the individual summands of Eq. (101) do not correspond to contributions from individual classical paths of the original problem.\]

The similarity between the expressions in Eqs. (101) and (67) is no coincidence. We show in Appendix B that apart from approximating the zero’s of the Airy function $`ϵ_n`$ by $`\overline{ϵ}_n`$, $`D_n`$ is proportional to the integral of Eq. (68) evaluated in saddle point approximation. We thus could have obtained the expression Eq. (101) by evaluating all integrals in saddle-point approximation and replacing the wave-functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n(x)`$ and corresponding energies $`ϵ_n`$ in Eq. (67) by their WKB counterparts. The fact that such a procedure ignores any asymptotic contribution from the integration along $`𝒞_{sd}`$ and $`𝒞_{}`$ indicates that this may not be the whole story, and indeed it is not.

### 4.2 The Contribution $`G_𝒞_{}`$

The contribution to the Green function from integrating along the arc $`𝒞_{}`$ is negligible for sufficiently large $``$. To see this, we use Eqs. (92)- (98) to write this contribution to $`G_r`$ in the form

$$G_𝒞_{}(R)=\frac{i}{\pi \mathrm{}}_𝒞_{}e𝑑eB(e)\frac{e^{i[(S(e)/\mathrm{})f(e)]}}{1e^{if(e)}},$$
(104)
where the contour $`𝒞_{}`$ is shown in Fig. 4.

Consider the behavior of the integrand in Eq. (104), with the contour $`𝒞_{}`$ chosen to be an arc of very large radius $`=|e|`$ centered on the origin that extends from the positive real axis into the lower half of the complex plane with $`\pi /3<\mathrm{arg}e<0`$. The real part of $`if(e)`$ on the arc is positive and proportional to $`|e|^3`$. $`e^{if(e)}`$ therefore is exponentially small on $`𝒞_{}`$ and for sufficiently large $`=|e|`$ is negligible compared to $`1`$ – the denominator of the integrand thus approaches unity. To expand $`(S(e)/\mathrm{})f(e)`$ for large $`|e|`$ and $`\pi /3<\mathrm{arg}e<0`$, note that $`pel_x`$ and $`p^{}el_y`$ in this region. The leading $`e^3`$ term of $`S(e)`$ for $`|e|\mathrm{}`$ is cancelled by the leading term of $`f(e)`$ and one has, for $`|e|\mathrm{}`$ and $`\frac{\pi }{2}<\mathrm{arg}e<0`$,

$$(S(e)/\mathrm{})f(e)\frac{k}{2}(l_x+l_y+l_o)e^2,.$$
(105)
Since $`\mathrm{Re}(ie^2)<0`$, Eq. (105) shows that the contribution of $`𝒞_{}`$ to the integral in Eq. (104) vanishes in the limit $`\mathrm{}`$.

### 4.3 The Contribution $`G_{𝒞_{\mathrm{sd}}}`$

The contribution $`G_{𝒞_{\mathrm{sd}}}(R)`$ is given by Eq. (104), with $`𝒞_{}`$ replaced by $`𝒞_{\mathrm{sd}}`$. The section $`𝒞_{\mathrm{sd}}`$ of the contour is chosen to coincide with the path of steepest descent that begins at the origin. From Eq. (105) we see that $`\mathrm{arg}e`$ along this path approaches $`\pi /4`$ for very large values of $`|e|`$. Because $`p`$ and $`p^{}`$ are both proportional to $`e^2`$ for small $`|e|`$, the leading behavior in this limit is (using Eqs. (93) and (96))

$`(S(e)/\mathrm{})f(e)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{kl_o}{2}}e^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2kR}{3}}e^3\right]+O(e^4),`$ (107)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}<\mathrm{arg}e<0.`$
When $`l_o>0`$, the path $`𝒞_{\mathrm{sd}}`$ of steepest descent starts at the origin of the complex plane with $`\mathrm{arg}e=\pi /4`$. Unless $`R`$ is very large compared to $`l_x`$ and $`l_y`$, the terms of order $`e^4`$ of Eq. (107) are negligible in the semiclassical approximation. However, at grazing angles, $`l_o/R0`$, the leading dependence on the wave number comes from the term of order $`e^3`$ in Eq. (107). To obtain a semiclassical expansion that is uniformly valid in the whole classically shadowed region, one therefore has to retain all exponential terms with exponents that are of cubic or lower order for small $`e`$. To semiclassical accuracy we have, using Eq. (107), $`\sigma `$ given by Eq. (54), $`B(0)`$ by Eq. (94) and $`f(e)`$ by Eq. (93),

$`G_{𝒞_{\mathrm{sd}}}(R)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\pi \mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _{𝒞_{\mathrm{sd}}}}e𝑑eB(e){\displaystyle \frac{e^{i[(S(e)/\mathrm{})f(e)]}}{1e^{if(e)}}}`$ (108)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B(0)}{2\pi i\mathrm{}(kR)^{2/3}}}P\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\right)^{\frac{2}{3}}\sigma l_o\right)={\displaystyle \frac{(kR)^{1/3}}{4\pi i\sqrt{l_xl_y}}}P\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\right)^{\frac{2}{3}}\sigma l_o\right).`$ (109)
(Note that this contribution to the Green function neatly separates into the product of free one-dimensional Green functions over distances $`l_x`$ and $`l_y`$ and a factor that depends on $`l_o`$ and $`R`$.) For positive real values of $`z`$, the function $`P(z)`$ has the integral representation,

$$P(z)=i\sqrt[3]{18}_{𝒞_{sd}}\xi 𝑑\xi \frac{e^{i(z\xi ^2+\xi ^3)}}{1+ie^{i\xi ^3}}.$$
(110)
$`P(z)`$ is an entire function that is defined in the whole complex plane by the convergent series (derived in Appendix C),

$$P(z)=i\left(\frac{2i}{3}\right)^{1/3}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(ze^{5\pi i/6}\right)^{n1}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2n/3)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)}\mathrm{Li}_{2n/3}(i),$$
(111)
where

$$\mathrm{Li}_\nu (\rho )=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\rho ^n}{n^\nu }$$
(112)
is the poly-logarithm of order $`\nu `$. Of particular interest are the asymptotic values of $`P(z)`$ for large and small $`z`$, corresponding to large and small values of $`kl_o`$:

$`P(0)`$ $`=`$ $`i\left({\displaystyle \frac{2i}{3}}\right)^{1/3}\mathrm{\Gamma }(2/3)\mathrm{Li}_{2/3}(i)0.966e^{0.00347\pi i}`$ (113)
$`P(z)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3^{2/3}e^{\frac{\pi i}{4}}}{2^{7/6}z}}{\displaystyle \frac{0.927e^{\frac{\pi i}{4}}}{z}},\mathrm{for}|z|\mathrm{},{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}<\mathrm{arg}z<{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}.`$ (114)
The asymptotic forms of Eq. (113) are most easily obtained from Eq. (110); see Appendix C.

To finally obtain $`G_r(0,0;\tau _c,R)`$ we again analytically continue the expressions in Eqs. (108) and (101) to negative values of $`R`$ in such a manner that $`G_r`$ remains bounded for large values of $`l_o`$. We thus find that the semiclassical approximation to the Green function for the radial coordinate from a single extremal path whose end-point is in the shadow of a sphere of radius $`R`$ is

$$G_r(0,0;\tau _c,R)=\frac{ik}{4\pi \overline{\sigma }R}\left[\frac{P\left((3/4)^{\frac{2}{3}}\overline{\sigma }l_o\right)}{2^{2/3}\overline{\sigma }\sqrt{l_xl_y}}+\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}D_n\left(\overline{\sigma }l_x\right)D_n\left(\overline{\sigma }l_y\right)e^{i\overline{\sigma }l_o\overline{ϵ}_n}\right]$$
(116)
The diffraction amplitudes $`D_n(\xi )`$ are defined by Eqs. (102) and (103), with $`\overline{ϵ}_n`$ given by Eq. (99) and $`\overline{\sigma }`$ by Eq. (65). The function $`P(z)`$ for complex $`z`$ is defined by the expansion Eq. (111).

### 4.4 The Penumbra near the Glancing Ray with $`l_o=0`$

The correction from the contour $`𝒞_{\mathrm{sd}}`$ in Eq. (116) is essential for describing the penumbra. We compare our result with the asymptotic form of the exact solution in the penumbra obtained in. In the penumbra $`kl_o<<kR`$ and one can expand $`G_r`$ in powers of $`kl_o`$. The leading term in this expansion of $`G_r`$ is

$$G_r(0,0;\tau _c,R)|_{l_o=0}=\frac{ik}{4\pi \overline{\sigma }R}\left[\frac{P(0)}{2^{2/3}\overline{\sigma }\sqrt{l_xl_y}}+\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}D_n\left(\overline{\sigma }l_x\right)D_n\left(\overline{\sigma }l_y\right)\right].$$
(117)
The sum in Eq. (117) is exponentially damped and converges for any value of $`kR`$. Let $`\xi =\overline{\sigma }l`$, with $`l=l_x`$ or $`l_y`$; $`\overline{\sigma }`$ is given by Eq. (65). For $`\overline{ϵ}_n|\xi |^2`$, we find on using Eq. (103) that

$$\overline{p}_n(\xi )\overline{ϵ}_n^{1/2}\xi ,$$
(118)
and therefore that

$$\frac{2}{3}\overline{p}_n^3(\xi )+\xi \overline{p}_n^2(\xi )\frac{2}{3}\overline{ϵ}_n^{3/2}\xi \overline{ϵ}_n.$$
(119)
Since $`\mathrm{Im}(\xi )<0`$, $`D_n(\xi )`$ defined by Eq. (102) therefore decays exponentially and the contribution to the sum in Eq. (117) from terms with $`\overline{ϵ}_n|\xi |^2`$ is negligible.

We now assume that $`\overline{ϵ}_n<<|\xi |^2`$. For $`|\overline{ϵ}_n/\xi ^2|<<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$,

$$\overline{p}_n(\xi )\overline{ϵ}_n/(2\xi )+O(|\xi |^3).$$
(120)
Since $`|\xi |(kR)^{1/3}`$, we can simplify the sum in Eq. (117) in the asymptotic limit we are interested in. Retaining only leading terms in $`kR`$, the definition Eq. (102) of the diffraction amplitudes leads to the simplification

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_D`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}D_n\left(\overline{\sigma }l_x\right)D_n\left(\overline{\sigma }l_y\right)`$ (121)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\overline{\sigma }\sqrt{l_xl_y}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(\overline{ϵ}_n)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[i{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{ϵ}_n^2}{4\overline{\sigma }}}{\displaystyle \frac{l_x+l_y}{l_xl_y}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\overline{\sigma }\sqrt{l_xl_y}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{\Phi }(n)`$ (122)
The sum over $`n`$ in Eq. (121) is effectively cut off when $`ϵ_n^2`$ becomes of order $`1/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ or larger, where

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{l_x+l_y}{|\overline{\sigma }|l_xl_y}.$$
(123)
Since for large values of $`\xi `$, $`\overline{ϵ}_n1/Lambda|\xi |<<|\xi |^2`$, the sum in Eq. (121) effectively never extends to values of $`n`$ where the expansion of Eq. (120) is not justified.

We appeal to the Abel-Plana formula,

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }(n)=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(0)}{2}+_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑n\mathrm{\Phi }(n)+i_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑z\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(iz)\mathrm{\Phi }(iz)}{\mathrm{exp}(2\pi z)1},$$
(124)
to evaluate the sum in Eq. (121) asymptotically. In the evaluation of the first and third terms of Eq. (124), we approximate the exponential factor in Eq. (121) by unity. We find, using Eq. (99) that,

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(0)}{2}=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\overline{ϵ}_0}}=\left(\frac{1}{9\pi }\right)^{1/3}+O(\mathrm{\Lambda }),$$
(125)
to leading order in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. To the same accuracy, the third term of Eq. (124) becomes,

$$2\left(\frac{2}{3\pi }\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑z\frac{\mathrm{Im}[(iz+\frac{3}{4})^{\frac{1}{3}}]}{\mathrm{exp}(2\pi z)1}+O(\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$
(126)
To evaluate the integral over $`n`$ of the second term in Eq. (124), we change the integration variable from $`n`$ to $`\overline{ϵ}_n`$, using Eq. (99). We then find that

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑n\mathrm{\Phi }(n)=_{\frac{(9\pi )^{2/3}}{4}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dϵ}{\pi }\mathrm{exp}\left[i\frac{ϵ^2}{4\overline{\sigma }}\frac{l_x+l_y}{l_xl_y}\right]\sqrt{\frac{i\overline{\sigma }l_xl_y}{\pi (l_x+l_y)}}\frac{(9\pi )^{2/3}}{4\pi }+O(\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$
(127)
Collecting the results and using the them in Eq. (117), the Green function at the grazing angle is found to have the asymptotic form,

$$G_r(0,0;\tau _c,R)|_{l_o=0}=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{k}{2\pi i(l_x+l_y)}}+K\frac{(kR)^{\frac{1}{3}}e^{\pi i/3}}{4\pi i\sqrt{l_xl_y}}+O\left(\frac{R(l_x+l_y)}{(l_xl_y)^{\frac{3}{2}}}\right).$$
(128)
For large values of $`kR`$, the Green function at the grazing angle is just half the direct term, with an additional contribution proportional to $`(kR)^{\frac{1}{3}}`$. The proportionality constant $`K`$ of the latter is

$`K`$ $`=`$ $`P(0)+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{(9\pi /4)^{1/3}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{9\pi }{4}}\right)^{\frac{2}{3}}2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑z{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}(iz+\frac{3}{4})^{\frac{1}{3}}}{\mathrm{exp}(2\pi z)1}}`$ (129)
$`=`$ $`P(0)2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}P(0)=P^{}(0)0.966e^{0.00347\pi i}.`$ (130)
$`()\mathrm{Re}K`$ differs from the coefficient $`c0.996`$ for the glancing contribution to the Green function of Rubinow and Wu  by about 3%; we find $`\mathrm{Im}P(0)=\mathrm{Im}K=`$ to be very small, while in it is found to be zero. The small discrepancy arises because the integral over a ratio of Airy functions that defines $`c`$ is evaluated numerically in , rather than in saddle point approximation. Our approach is perhaps slightly more consistent – that does not imply that it is more accurate – and in any event, the difference is quite small.

It perhaps is of some interest that the correction of order $`(kR)^{1/3}`$ for the glancing ray does not appear in $`𝒢_r(0,0;\tau _c)`$. Eqs. (50) and (46) imply that

$`𝒢_r(0,0;\tau _c)|_{\tau _o=0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{da}{\sqrt{l_x}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{db}{\sqrt{l_y}}}\delta (ab)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{ika^2}{2l_x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{ikb^2}{2l_y}}\right)`$ (131)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2\pi i(l_x+l_y)}}},`$ (132)
without further corrections. Physically, this discrepancy can be traced to the assumed decomposition of the radial Green function in Eq. (46). The lower bound of the integral over the radial coordinates in Eq. (46) can be set to zero only for $`k=\mathrm{}`$. For large but finite wave number $`k`$, the correction of order $`(kR)^{1/3}`$ is reproduced by assuming that the fluctuations effectively penetrate the obstacle a small distance $`d_o(k,R)`$. Replacing the lower bound of the radial integrals in Eq. (131) by $`d_o(k,R)`$, one finds,

$`𝒢_r(0,0;\tau _c)|_{\tau _o=0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2\pi i\sqrt{l_xl_y}}}{\displaystyle _{d_o}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑a\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{ika^2(l_x+l_y)}{2l_xl_y}}\right)`$ (133)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2\pi i(l_x+l_y)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{kd_o}{2\pi i\sqrt{l_xl_y}}}+O(d_o^3).`$ (134)
Comparison of Eq. (133) with Eq. (128) leads to

$$d_o(R,k)K\frac{(kR)^{1/3}e^{\pi i/3}}{2k}$$
(135)
for $`d_o(k,R)`$. The effective depth of penetration thus vanishes rather slowly, as $`k^{2/3}`$. The phase $`e^{\pi i/3}`$ in the expression Eq. (135) for $`d_o`$ has its origin in the analytic continuation of $`R`$ to $`R`$, and the proportionality constant $`K`$ is very close to $`1`$.

The true semiclassical Green function $`G_r`$ does not in general separate into free- and creeping- Green functions, and approximately reproduces the subleading asymptotic contributions as well (to within about 3%).

## 5 Discussion, Generalization and Conclusion

The semiclassical description of diffraction is closely associated with extremal classical paths that satisfy Fermat’s principle but are not stationary. Such paths arise due to the non-holonomic constraints imposed by ”obstacles”. The associated Lagrangian is given in Eq. (29). It depends on the transverse deviations $`\underset{¯}{x}_r(t),\underset{¯}{x}_{}(t)`$ from the classical path and describes the two-dimensional motion of a non-relativistic particle of mass $`m_E=E/v^2(E)`$ under the influence of a spatially constant but in general time-dependent, force $`m_Eg(t)`$. The acceleration $`g(t)`$ is inversely proportional to the curvature of the classical path and vanishes for time intervals in which the classical path $`\gamma _c`$ is not constrained by an obstacle. On ”creeping” sections of the classical trajectory, fluctuations are in addition restricted to the half-space exterior to the obstacle.

Depending on the sign of the curvature, $`g(t)`$ is either directed toward or away from the obstacle’s surface – corresponding to the presence of (a generally time dependent) ”floor” or ”ceiling” in an analogous 1-dimensional gravitational-like problem. Motion in the presence of a ”floor” is relevant for ”whispering-galleries”, for example, whereas the presence of a ”ceiling” corresponds to diffraction into the classical shadow of an obstacle.

Diffraction is semiclassically described by the amplitude that the particle moves from the ceiling to the ceiling in a fixed time interval with acceleration $`g(t)`$. This motion is classically forbidden. To calculate the amplitude semiclassically, we relate it to the one for motion from the ”floor” to the ”floor” with acceleration $`g(t)`$. The latter problem, that of a ”whispering gallery”, admits classical solutions. The amplitudes of the two problems are related by analytic continuation in the phase $`\varphi `$ of the curvature $`R(t)|R(t)|e^{i\varphi }`$ of the classical path.

The existence of a caustic, the ”floor”, that is approached by an infinite number of classical paths poses an additional problem in the semiclassical description. For any fixed value of $`k`$, there are distinct classical paths whose actions differ by much less than $`\mathrm{}`$. The fluctuations about different classical paths therefore cannot be separated and tend to interfere with each other. Attempting to evaluate the path integral asymptotically by summing the asymptotic contributions of every individual classical path becomes highly inaccurate.

The problem was solved for the special case of a classical ray that partially creeps along the surface of a sphere; the asymptotic analysis of the same problem was also at the heart of the original geometrical interpretation of diffraction. The curvature of this trajectory is piecewise constant and corresponds to an acceleration $`g(t)`$ that is piecewise constant in time. A path with $`n`$ bounces in total time $`\tau _c`$ is stationary with respect to a variation of the (conserved) ”energy”, $`e_n`$, of the particle in the region of constant acceleration. One thus can express the asymptotic contribution from a classical path to given $`n`$ as the result of an integral over the ”energy” $`e`$ that is evaluated semiclassically at the saddle point $`e=e_n`$. This manipulation is consistent with the semiclassical approximation and allows one to sum over $`n`$ for a given ”energy” $`e`$ before evaluating the remaining integral over $`e`$ asymptotically.

In the case of a sphere, the exact expression for the Green function of a massless particle is known and has been evaluated asymptotically in the umbra of the sphere as well as in its penumbra. Quite different asymptotic forms were found for the two cases. The procedure outlined above and described in more detail in section 3 gives a uniform asymptotic expansion that is valid in both regions: the exponentially decaying terms arise from pole contributions to the final integral over $`e`$, whereas power corrections (previously obtained separately for the penumbra) turn out to be associated with an end-point contribution to the integral at $`e=0`$.

The basic analysis through section 4 is applicable to a much more general case, but the derivation of a relatively simple explicit form of the asymptotic Green function, Eq. (116), was obtained only for the spherical case. The procedure can in principle be modified to include cases where the curvature $`R(t)`$ is not piecewise constant. Because the acceleration is not constant, the energy $`e_n`$ in this case is not conserved on the creeping segment. One nevertheless may, for instance, express the action $`S_n(h_n)`$ of a classical path with $`n`$ bounces in terms of, say, the maximal ”height” $`h_n`$ of the classical trajectory. It is not difficult to verify that $`h_n`$ is a stationary point of $`S_n(h)`$ if one allows this height to vary while keeping fixed the endpoints and number of ”bounces” $`n`$. One can then proceed as in section 4 and express the semiclassical approximation to the Green function as an integral over $`h`$ and first sum over the number of bounces $`n`$ before evaluating the integral over $`h`$ asymptotically. However, unlike the case considered in section 4, the summation over $`n`$ generally cannot be performed in closed form if the acceleration is not piecewise constant. One nevertheless may sometimes be able to pick out the smallest values of $`h`$ for which the sum over $`n`$ becomes singular and thus (numerically) obtain the leading asymptotic approximation in the general case.

With a view to applying the method to electromagnetic problems with ideal conductors, we considered only Dirichlet boundary conditions, with a change in the phase by $`(1)`$ at each reflection. Semiclassically, other idealized boundary conditions change the phase by a different value. Furthermore, if absorption cannot be neglected, the modulus of the reflection coefficient is less than unity. Although the physical effect of such changes can be dramatic, since the poles are moved, it is a great virtue of the semiclassical approximation that neither changes in the boundary conditions nor the inclusion of absorption alter the procedure in any fundamental way.

We briefly comment now on two related papers. Our approach is similar in spirit to the one of V.N. Buslaev. Buslaev writes the Green function $`G`$ as a ”continuum integral” product of Green functions for infinitesimal time intervals and uses the saddle point method to obtain the asymptotic form of each factor. We do not explicitly use the product form and treat the problem by expansion about the classical paths of extremal, but finite, length. Our approach appears to be simpler and reduces the diffraction problem to the propagation of a particle in a two-dimensional space under the influence of a gravitational-like force. However, Buslaev considers a mathematically more general problem than we do, that is asymptotic solutions to general parabolic equations. He also does not restrict the dimensionality of space to three. Furthermore, our treatment of the boundary conditions is very different from that of Budaev. McLaughlin and Keller note that Buslaev’s result agrees with Keller’s geometrical theory of diffraction for the field of a surface diffracted ray. An interesting alternative to these methods may be the solution of the wave equation by analytic continuation of a random walk proposed in ref..

Acknowledgements: We thank J.B. Keller for bringing references and to our attention and for a number of useful comments. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation with Grant PHY-0070525. M.S. greatly enjoyed the hospitality of New York University.

## Appendix A The Proportionality Factor

To derive the relation of Eq. (36) between the semiclassical energy Green function $`G(𝐗,𝐘;E)`$ and the Green functions $`𝒢_{\gamma _c}`$ defined in Eq. (34) that describes transverse deviations from a classical path $`\gamma _c`$, consider first the general case of a medium with a smooth, everywhere differentiable index of refraction $`n(𝐗,E)`$. In this case classical trajectories $`\gamma _c`$ from $`𝐗`$ to $`𝐘`$ are stationary points of the action and the usual semiclassical formalism applies. In particular, the semiclassical energy Greenfunction is given by,

$$G(𝐗,𝐘;E)=\underset{\gamma _c}{}\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}\sqrt{D_{\gamma _c}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}S(\gamma _c,E)\right).$$
(136)
For a given classical path $`\gamma _c`$, $`D_{\gamma _c}`$ is the determinant of a $`4\times 4`$ matrix,

$$D_{\gamma _c}=det\left(\begin{array}{cc}\begin{array}{c}\\ \frac{^2S(\gamma _c,E)}{𝐗𝐘}\end{array}& \frac{^2S(\gamma _c,E)}{𝐗E}\\ & \\ & \\ \frac{^2S(\gamma _c,E)}{𝐘E}& \frac{^2S(\gamma _c,E)}{E^2}\end{array}\right),$$
(137)
with elements that are $`3\times 3`$, $`3\times 1`$, $`1\times 3`$ and $`1\times 1`$ matrices. The form of $`D_{\gamma _c}`$ can be simplified by choosing a local coordinate system in the neighborhood of the trajectory $`\gamma _c`$ from $`𝐗`$ to $`𝐘`$: the coordinate axis for $`x_{||}`$ runs along the particular trajectory and the remaining coordinates $`\stackrel{}{x}=(x_r,x_{})`$ are transverse to the trajectory. Since $`1/v_g`$ at the endpoint of a trajectory is just the change in the total time Eq. (6) associated with an infinitesimal displacement of the endpoint in a direction tangent to the trajectory, two of the second variations of the action in Eq. (137) are given by the group velocities at the endpoints, namely,

$`v_g^1(𝐗,E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒯}{x_{||}}}={\displaystyle \frac{^2S(\gamma _c,E)}{x_{||}E}}`$ (138)
$`v_g^1(𝐘,E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒯}{y_{||}}}={\displaystyle \frac{^2S(\gamma _c,E)}{y_{||}E}}`$ (139)
In this coordinate system, $`D_{\gamma _c}`$ becomes

$$D_{\gamma _c}=\frac{1}{v_g(𝐗,E)v_g(𝐘,E)}det\left(\frac{^2S(\gamma _c,E)}{\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}}\right),$$
(140)
proportional to the determinant of a $`2\times 2`$ matrix. Crucial in deriving Eq. (36) is the observation that the matrix of second derivatives of $`S`$ with respect to transverse deviations from the classical path $`\gamma _c`$ at the endpoints can also be obtained by expanding $`S`$ to quadratic order in the transverse deviations of the path $`\gamma `$ from the classical path $`\gamma _c`$. We thus have that

$$\left(\frac{^2S(\gamma _c,E)}{\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}}\right)=\left(\frac{^2S_{\gamma _c}^{sc}(\stackrel{}{a}=\stackrel{}{b}=0;\tau (\gamma _c,E))}{\stackrel{}{a}\stackrel{}{b}}\right)$$
(141)
On the other hand, if $`v(𝐗,E)`$ is a smooth function of the coordinate, the classical trajectory $`\gamma _c`$ is stationary and $`S^{sc}`$ is quadratic in the fluctuations. In this case, the semiclassical approximation to $`𝒢_{\gamma _c}(\stackrel{}{a},\stackrel{}{b};\tau )`$ is exact. The solution to the equation of motion for a quadratic action $`S^{sc}`$ is unique and there is only one classical trajectory $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_c`$ from $`\stackrel{}{a}`$ to $`\stackrel{}{b}`$ in time $`\tau `$ that contributes to the two-dimensional Greenfunction $`𝒢_{\gamma _c}(\stackrel{}{a},\stackrel{}{b};\tau )`$. Van Vleck’s formula in two-dimensional space then gives

$$𝒢_{\gamma _c}(\stackrel{}{a},\stackrel{}{b};\tau )=\frac{1}{2\pi i\mathrm{}}\sqrt{det\left(\frac{^2S_{\gamma _c}^{sc}(\stackrel{}{a},\stackrel{}{b};\tau )}{\stackrel{}{a}\stackrel{}{b}}\right)}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}S_{\gamma _c}^{sc}(\stackrel{}{a},\stackrel{}{b};\tau )\right\}.$$
(142)
Note that the only classical trajectory from $`\stackrel{}{a}=0`$ to $`\stackrel{}{b}=0`$ in time $`\tau (\gamma _c,E)`$ is the trivial one with vanishing transverse deviation everywhere and that therefore

$$S(\gamma _c,E)=S_{\gamma _c}^{sc}(\stackrel{}{a}=\stackrel{}{b}=0;\tau (\gamma _c,E)).$$
(143)
Comparing Eq. (142) with Eq. (136) for $`\tau =\tau (\gamma _c,E)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{a}=\stackrel{}{b}=0`$ and using Eqs. (143), (141) and (140), one arrives at the relation Eq. (36).

Strictly speaking the validity of Eq. (36) has only been shown for a smooth, everywhere differentiable phase velocity $`v(𝐗,E)`$. In this case the classical trajectories $`\gamma _c`$ are stationary points of the action and the semiclassical expressions we employed are valid. We argue that Eq. (36) also holds when $`v(𝐗,E)`$ is a step function that vanishes within $`𝒱`$, because Eq. (36) does not explicitly depend on the spatial dependence of $`v(𝐗,E)`$ and involves only the group velocities at the endpoints of the classical trajectories. Eq. (36) does not depend on the nature of the obstacle and the discontinuous spatial dependence of the phase velocity of interest can be considered as a limiting case. One similarily can argue that because Eq. (36) holds for endpoints $`𝐗`$ and $`𝐘`$ connected by classical trajectories that do not touch the obstacle, the relation should by continuity remain valid when one of the endpoints lies in the classical shadow region of the other.

## Appendix B Proof that $`𝒟_n(\xi )D_n(\xi )`$ for $`n\mathrm{}`$

It is instructive to see that the diffraction amplitudes defined in Eqs. (68) and (102) coincide in the limit of large $`n`$ for any fixed real value of $`\xi `$. For large $`n\mathrm{}`$ the zero’s of the Airy function $`ϵ_n`$ approach $`\overline{ϵ}_n`$ defined by Eq. (99); in particular, $`ϵ_n`$ becomes arbitrarily large for $`n\mathrm{}`$.

Fig. 5: The contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in the representation for the Airy-function $`\mathrm{Ai}\left(z\right)`$ of Eq. (144). For large values of $`\left|t\right|`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ approaches the asymptotes with arg $`t=\pm 2\pi /3`$ shown as dashed lines.

The Airy function can be represented by the contour integral

$$\mathrm{Ai}(z)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_\mathrm{\Gamma }𝑑te^{tzt^3/3},$$
(144)
where the contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is sketched in Fig. 5. The expression for $`𝒟_n(\xi )`$ of Eq. (68) then becomes

$$𝒟_n(\xi )=\frac{1}{2\pi i|\mathrm{Ai}^{}(ϵ_n)|}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\rho _\mathrm{\Gamma }𝑑te^{i\frac{\rho ^2}{4}\frac{t^3}{3}+t\rho \sqrt{\xi }tϵ_n}.$$
(145)
For large values of $`ϵ_n`$ the saddle-point approximation to the integral of Eq. (145) is accurate. The two saddle points of the integrand are located at

$$\overline{\rho }_n^\pm =2\sqrt{\xi }\overline{p}_n^\pm (\xi ),\overline{t}_n^\pm =i\overline{p}_n^\pm (\xi )),$$
(146)
with

$$\overline{p}_n^\pm (\xi )=\pm \sqrt{ϵ_n+\xi ^2}\xi .$$
(147)
For large values of $`n`$, $`\overline{\rho }_n^{}`$ is negative and does not contribute to the saddle point approximation of the integral. The path of integration can, however, be deformed to pass over the other stationary point at $`(\overline{\rho }_n^+,\overline{t}_n^+)`$. The integral of Eq. (145) in saddle point approximation thus becomes,

$$𝒟_n(\xi )\frac{1}{|\mathrm{Ai}^{}(ϵ_n)|(ϵ_n+\xi ^2)^{1/4}}\mathrm{exp}i\left[\frac{2}{3}\left(\overline{p}_n^+(\xi )\right)^3+\xi \left(\overline{p}_n^+(\xi )\right)^2\right].$$
(148)
One finally arrives at the expression of Eq. (102) for $`D_n(\xi )`$ by using the asymptotic formula for the Airy function. Eq. (57) implies that for large $`n`$,

$$ϵ_n\overline{ϵ}_n,\overline{p}_n^+(\xi )\overline{p}_n(\xi )\mathrm{and}|\mathrm{Ai}^{}(ϵ_n)|\overline{ϵ}_n^{1/4}/\sqrt{\pi },$$
(149)
where $`\overline{ϵ}_n`$ and $`\overline{p}_n(\xi )`$ are defined in Eqs. (99) and (103), respectively. Although the amplitudes $`𝒟_n(\xi )`$ and $`D_n(\xi )`$ coincide for large values of $`n`$, this does not mean that the contribution from the poles of Eq. (101), by itself, gives the correct asymptotic expansion of the Green function. The asymptotic expansion of the Green function is in fact dominated by low-$`n`$ terms, and we indeed obtained asymptotic corrections to the pole contributions in the semiclassical approximation.

## Appendix C Asymptotics of $`P(z)`$

The function $`P(z)`$ defined by Eq. (110) may be written as a McLaurin series,

$$P(z)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(iz)^{n1}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)}P_n,$$
(150)
with coefficients $`P_n`$ given by

$$P_n=\sqrt[3]{18}_{𝒞_{sd}}\xi ^{2n1}𝑑\xi \frac{ie^{i\xi ^3}}{1+ie^{i\xi ^3}}=\sqrt[3]{18}\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(i)^k_{𝒞_{sd}}\xi ^{2n1}𝑑\xi e^{ik\xi ^3}.$$
(151)
For given $`k`$, the integral for the contour $`𝒞_{sd}`$ of Fig. 4 can be performed by making the substitution

$$\xi =\sqrt[3]{\rho /k}e^{i\pi /6},$$
(152)
where $`\rho `$ is real, and using the definition (112). We then have

$`P_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt[3]{18}}{3}}e^{i\pi n/3}\mathrm{\Gamma }(2n/3){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(i)^k}{k^{2n/3}}}`$ (153)
$`=`$ $`i\left(2i/3\right)^{1/3}e^{\frac{i\pi (n1)}{3}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(2n/3)\mathrm{Li}_{2n/3}(i).`$ (154)
Eqs. (150) and (153) give the convergent series of Eq. (111). Note that the series in Eq. (111) uniquely defines $`P(z)`$ in the whole complex plane but for $`|z|1`$, the accurate evaluation of $`P(z)`$ requires a sizable number of terms and is numerically not very efficient.

For $`|z|1`$, terms of order $`\xi ^3`$ in the exponent may be ignored to leading order of the steepest descent method and the integral of Eq. (110) approaches the asymptotic form in Eq. (113),

$$P(z1)i\sqrt[3]{18}_{𝒞_{\mathrm{sd}}}\xi 𝑑\xi \frac{e^{iz\xi ^2}}{1+i}=\frac{3^{2/3}}{2^{7/6}z}e^{i\pi /4}.$$
(155)
For real $`x`$, $`P(x)`$ is a rather slowly changing function of $`x`$ that smoothly interpolates between $`P(0)`$ and $`P(x1)`$. For real positive $`x`$, $`P(x)`$ is numerically approximated by the rational function

$$P(x)\frac{0.7(1i)}{0.7(1i)+x}$$
(156)
to within about $`10\%`$.