Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Denjoy subsystems and horseshoes
- Impact Hamiltonian systems and polygonal billiards
- Some remarks on the classical KAM theorem, following Pöschel
- Some recent developments in Arnold diffusion
- Viscosity solutions of the Hamilton–Jacobi equation on a noncompact manifold
- Holonomy and vortex structures in quantum hydrodynamics
- Surfaces of locally minimal flux
- A symplectic approach to Arnold diffusion problems
- Hamiltonian ODE, homogenization, and symplectic topology
- References
Impact Hamiltonian systems and polygonal billiards
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 May 2024
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Denjoy subsystems and horseshoes
- Impact Hamiltonian systems and polygonal billiards
- Some remarks on the classical KAM theorem, following Pöschel
- Some recent developments in Arnold diffusion
- Viscosity solutions of the Hamilton–Jacobi equation on a noncompact manifold
- Holonomy and vortex structures in quantum hydrodynamics
- Surfaces of locally minimal flux
- A symplectic approach to Arnold diffusion problems
- Hamiltonian ODE, homogenization, and symplectic topology
- References
Summary
The dynamics of a beam held on a horizontal frame by springs and bouncing off a step is described by a separable two degrees of freedom Hamiltonian system with impacts that respect, point wise, the separability symmetry. The energy in each degree of freedom is preserved, and the motion along each level set is conjugated, via action angle coordinates, to a geodesic flow on a flat two-dimensional surface in the four-dimensional phase space. Yet, for a range of energies, these surfaces are not the simple Liouville–Arnold tori – these are compact orientable surfaces of genus two, thus the motion on them is not conjugated to simple rotations. Namely, even though energy is not transferred between the two degrees of freedom, the impact system is quasiintegrable and is not of the Liouville–Arnold type. In fact, for each level set in this range, the motion is conjugated to the well-studied and highly nontrivial dynamics of directional motion in L-shaped billiards, where the billiard area and shape as well as the direction of motion vary continuously on isoenergetic level sets.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Hamiltonian SystemsDynamics, Analysis, Applications, pp. 29 - 66Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
Arnold, V. I., Mathematical methods of classical mechanics, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 60, Springer, 1978.Google Scholar
Arnold, V. I., Kozlov, V. V., and Neishtadt, A. I., Mathematical aspects of classical and celestial mechanics, 3rd ed., Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences 3, Springer, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Athreya, J. S., Eskin, A., and Zorich, A., “Right-angled billiards and volumes of moduli spaces of quadratic differentials on ℂP1”, Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér. (4) 49:6 (2016), 1311–1386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, J. and Wojtkowski, M. P., “Linear stability of a periodic orbit in the system of falling balls”, pp. 53–71 in The geometry of Hamiltonian systems (Berkeley, CA, 1989), edited by Ratiu, T., Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ. 22, Springer, 1991.Google Scholar
DeMarco, L., “The conformal geometry of billiards”, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 48:1 (2011), 33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dragović, V. and Radnović, M., Poncelet porisms and beyond, Springer, 2011. Integrable billiards, hyperelliptic Jacobians and pencils of quadrics.Google Scholar
Dragović, V. and Radnović, M., “Pseudo-integrable billiards and arithmetic dynamics”, J. Mod. Dyn. 8:1 (2014), 109–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dragović, V. and Radnović, M., “Periods of pseudo-integrable billiards”, Arnold Math. J. 1:1 (2015), 69–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dullin, H. R., “Linear stability in billiards with potential”, Nonlinearity 11:1 (1998), 151–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fedorov, Y. N., “An ellipsoidal billiard with quadratic potential”, Funktsional. Anal. i Prilozhen. 35:3 (2001), 48–59, 95–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frączek, K., “Recurrence for smooth curves in the moduli space and an application to the billiard flow on nibbled ellipses”, Anal. PDE 14:3 (2021), 793–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frączek, K. and Rom-Kedar, V., “Non-uniform ergodic properties of Hamiltonian flows with impacts”, Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems 43:1 (2023), 190–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
K., Frączek, R., Shi, and Ulcigrai, C., “Genericity on curves and applications: pseudo-integrable billiards, Eaton lenses and gap distributions”, J. Mod. Dyn. 12 (2018), 55–122.Google Scholar
Gorelyshev, I. and Neishtadt, A., “Jump in adiabatic invariant at a transition between modes of motion for systems with impacts”, Nonlinearity 21:4 (2008), 661–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorelyshev, I. V. and Ne˘ıshtadt, A. I., “On the adiabatic theory of perturbations for systems with elastic reflections”, Prikl. Mat. Mekh. 70:1 (2006), 6–19.Google Scholar
Kim, D. H., Marchese, L., and Marmi, S., “Long hitting time for translation flows and L-shaped billiards”, J. Mod. Dyn. 14 (2019), 291–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kloc, M. and Rom-Kedar, V., “Smooth Hamiltonian systems with soft impacts”, SIAM J. Appl. Dyn. Syst. 13:3 (2014), 1033–1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kloc, M. and Rom-Kedar, V., “Smooth Hamiltonian systems with soft impacts”, SIAM J. Appl. Dyn. Syst. 13:3 (2014), 1033–1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozlov, V. V. and Treshchëv, D. V., Billiards, Translations of Mathematical Monographs 89, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1991.Google Scholar
Lerman, L. and Rom-Kedar, V., “A saddle in a corner—a model of collinear triatomic chemical reactions”, SIAM J. Appl. Dyn. Syst. 11:1 (2012), 416–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, I. and Wojciechowski, S., “When is a Hamiltonian system separable?”, J. Math. Phys. 29:6 (1988), 1338–1346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pnueli, M. and Rom-Kedar, V., “On near integrability of some impact systems”, SIAM J. Appl. Dyn. Syst. 17:4 (2018), 2707–2732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pnueli, M. and Rom-Kedar, V., “On the structure of Hamiltonian impact systems”, Nonlinearity 34:4 (2021), 2611–2658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radnovic, M., “Topology of the elliptical billiard with the hooke’s potential”, Theoretical and Applied Mechanics 42:1 (2015), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturman, R., “The role of discontinuities in mixing”, Advances in Applied Mechanics 45 (2012), 51–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veech, W. A., “Gauss measures for transformations on the space of interval exchange maps”, Ann. of Math. (2) 115:1 (1982), 201–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wojtkowski, M. P., “Hamiltonian systems with linear potential and elastic constraints”, Fund. Math. 157:2-3 (1998), 305–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wojtkowski, M. P., “Complete hyperbolicity in Hamiltonian systems with linear potential and elastic collisions”, pp. 301–312 in Proceedings of the XXX Symposium on Mathematical Physics (Toruń, 1998), vol. 44, 1999.Google Scholar
Yaniv, O. and Rom-Kedar, V., “Quantum pseudointegrable Hamiltonian impact system”, Phys. Rev. E 107:5 (2023), Paper No. 054221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zharnitsky, V., “Invariant tori in Hamiltonian systems with impacts”, Comm. Math. Phys. 211:2 (2000), 289–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zorich, A., “Square tiled surfaces and Teichmüller volumes of the moduli spaces of abelian differentials”, pp. 459–471 in Rigidity in dynamics and geometry (Cambridge, 2000), edited by Burger, M. and Iozzi, A., Springer, 2002.Google Scholar
Zorich, A., “Flat surfaces”, pp. 437–583 in Frontiers in number theory, physics, and geometry, I, edited by Cartier, P. et al., Springer, 2006.Google Scholar