COUNTING COLLISIONS IN AN N-BILLIARD SYSTEM USING ANGLES BETWEEN COLLISION SUBSPACES arxiv:1815777v1 mathds] 1 Oct 18 SEAN GASIOREK Abstract The principal angles between binary collision subspaces in an N- billiard system in m-dimensional Euclidean space are computed These angles are computed for equal masses and arbitrary masses We then provide a bound on the number of collisions in the planar -billiard system problem Comparison of this result with known billiard collision bounds in lower dimensions is discussed 1 Introduction In a series of papers, BFK1] and BFK] computed a uniform bound for the number of collisions in semi-dispersing billiards in terms of the minimum and maximum masses and radii of the billiard balls We provide an alternate approach to bounding the number of collisions in an N-billiard system through a different billiard model, taking lessons from classical billiard dynamics, linear algebra, and geometry 11 Linear Point Billiards Motivated by the high-energy limit of the N-body problem, FKM] outlined a formulation of the standard billiard dynamical system, though with several caveats, outlined below We consider an N massive point particle system in m-dimensional Euclidean space R m by its configuration space E = (R m ) N R N R m Within E there are ( N ) binary collision subspaces (1) ij = q = (q 1,, q N ) (R m ) N : q i = q j, i j} E where the i th and j th particles collide Call C = i j ij the collision locus A billiard trajectory will be a polygonal curve l : R E, all of whose vertices are collisions (ie vertices of l lie in C) When l intersects a collision subspace ij, it instantaneously changes direction by the law angle of incidence equals angle of reflection, given by equations () and () below We call a collision point a time t for which l(t) ij for some distinct 1 i, j N We assume collision points are discrete and that no edge of l lies within a collision subspace The velocities v, v + of l immediately before and after Mathematics Department, #4111 McHenry Library, Santa Cruz, CA 9564, USA E-mail address: sgasiore@ucscedu 1
COUNTING COLLISIONS collision with ij C are well-defined and locally constant They undergo a jump v v + at collision Define π ij : E ij to be the orthogonal projection onto ij We require that each velocity jump follow the rules () v = v + () π ij (v ) = π ij (v + ) which we consider as conservation of energy and conservation of linear momentum, respectively Without loss of generality, we assume the billiard trajectory l has unit speed An astute reader will notice that equation () is ambiguous if the collision point t belongs to more than one binary collision subspace This is analogous to trying to define standard billiard dynamics at a corner pocket of a polygonal billiard table However, in this paper we only explore the case with N = particles, and hence triple collision is the only way t could be in more than one collision subspace FKM] addresses this by agreeing to choose one of the collision subspaces to which t will belong This construction also leads to non-deterministic dynamics If the binary collision subspaces are codimension d, d 1, for a given v E \ to a t ij, there is a (d 1)-dimensional sphere s worth of choices for outgoing velocities v + Even if d = 1, the dynamics are non-deterministic, as the -sphere consists of two choices It is standard to turn this case into a deterministic process by requiring transversality: v + v at each collision This is exactly what is done for N particles on a line 1 Tensor construction of the N-billiard system Recall that a useful tool in the N-body problem is the mass metric on R N : N (4) v, w M = m i v i w i for vectors v, w R N and masses m i > It follows from this definition that the kinetic energy K( q) = 1 q, q M = 1 N m i q i In the configuration space R N R m, we will use the mass metric on R N and the standard Euclidean inner product on R m Let ε i R N denote the i th standard basis vector Using the mass metric, we see that ε i M = m i ε i, ε i = m i Furthermore, define E i := εi mi so that E i is a unit vector in R N with respect to the mass metric i=1 i=1 We consider a vector (ε 1,, ε N ) R N as a vector which carries with it an index of each billiard ball along with its mass, m i, and a vector q i R m as a vector which
COUNTING COLLISIONS indicates the location of the point mass m i in R m It will be useful to translate the definition of the binary collision subspace into our tensor product construction as the following span of orthonormal elements of R N R m : (5) ij = E 1 q 1,, } ε i + ε j q i,, E N q N : q k R m, q k = 1 mi + m j Remark In our collision subspaces, we ll adopt the convention that the location index will match that of the smaller of the two point mass indices (eg the element ε i+ε j q i will be used instead of εi+εj q j as a basis element in ij ) And we will continue to assume that each q k is itself a unit vector in R m We omit the word span and write subspaces U = u 1,, u N } to mean the R-linear span, U = spanu 1,, u N } We shall also write these subspaces in terms of an orthonormal basis (even though an orthogonal basis is good enough) 1 The Unfolding of Angles If a particle is shot into a wedge of angle α, can such a particle be trapped inside the wedge for infinite time? The answer is negative, and moreover through a simple geometric argument we can provide an upper bound on the total number of collisions of the particle with the boundary Theorem 1 Consider a billiard trajectory inside a wedge with angle measure α By unfolding the angle, the maximum number of collisions within the angle is π α This can clearly be seen as follows Consider an incoming billiard trajectory into the wedge angle α Instead of reflecting the billiard trajectory inside the angle, we reflect the angle itself across the side of impact and unfold the billiard trajectory into a straight line, which is exactly the rule angle of incidence equals angle of reflection This is illustrated in figure 1 Our aim is to use this technique in higher dimensions to bound the total number of collisions by using the collision subspaces as the walls of the wedge 14 Linear algebra and Principal Angles Linear algebra provides a framework for computing the angle between linear subspaces of a vector space Definitions 1 and are equivalent, though it is worth noting that definition is computationally more efficient, as outlined in BG] Definition 1 Let F, G be subspaces of R n with dim(f ) = p dim(g) = q The Jordan angles or principal angles (F, G) = θ 1, θ,, θ q ], are given by cos(θ 1 ) = max u F max v G u =1 v =1 u, v = u 1, v 1 where, is the standard Euclidean inner product For each 1 < k q, cos(θ k ) = max max u F v G u =1 v =1 u,u i = v,v i = u, v = u k, v k
4 SEAN GASIOREK Figure 1 The billiard trajectory enters the wedge angle Note that in each of these pictures, 96 54 radians 4 COUNTING COLLISIONS 4 SEAN GASIOREK Figure 1 The billiard trajectory enters the wedge angle Note that in each of these pictures, 96 54 radians (a) Figure When the trajectory hits the first wall, we reflect the angle across the wall of impact and (b) unfold the angle once Figure 1 The billiard trajectory enters the wedge angle Figure Note When the trajectory hits the first wall, we reflect the that in each of these pictures, 96 54 radians angle across the wall of impact and unfold the angle once Figure When the trajectory hits the first wall, we reflect the angle across the wall of impact and unfold the angle Figure once The complete unfolding of the angle and the billiard trajectory within We have at most d 54e = 6 collisions, as seen in the figure above (c) Definition 1 Let F, G be subspaces of R n with dim(f )=p dim(g) =q The Figure TheJordan complete anglesunfolding or principal angles of the\(f, angle G) = 1, and,, the q], are billiard given by Figure 1 (a) The billiard trajectory enters trajectory within We have at cos( most 1) = max d the wedge angle α max hu, vi = hu uf vg 1,v 1i 54e = 6 collisions, as seen Note that in each of these pictures, α kuk=1 96 kvk=1 in the figure above 54 radians (b) When the trajectory hits the first wall, we reflect the angle across Definition the wall 1 of Let impact F, G be and subspaces unfold of the R n angle withonce dim(f (c) )=p The complete dim(g) =q The Jordan unfolding angles of orthe principal angle αangles and the\(f, billiard G) = trajectory 1,,, within q ], are α given We by have at most π 54 cos( = 1 ) 6 = collisions max max hu, vi = hu 1,v 1 i uf vg kuk=1 kvk=1 for each 1 i k 1 The vectors u k, v k which realize the angle θ k are called Figure Theprincipal complete unfolding vectors of the angle and the billiard trajectory within We have at most d 54e = 6 collisions, as seen in the figure above Definition 1 Let F, GBy be construction, subspaces of R n with we have dim(f that )=p dim(g) θ 1 =q The θ q π/ Jordan angles or principal angles \(F, G) = 1,,, q ], are given by cos( 1 ) = max max hu, vi = hu 1,v 1 i Definition uf vglet F R n p and G R n q with p q be matrices whose columns kuk=1 kvk=1 form orthonormal bases for subspaces F and G, respectively, of R n Further, let the singular value decomposition (SVD) of F G be UΣV where U and V are orthogonal matrices and Σ is a p q matrix with real diagonal entries s 1, s,, s q in decreasing order Then the cosine of the Jordan angles or principal angles are given by cos (F, G) = S(F G) = s 1,, s q ], where (F, G) denotes the vector of principal angles between F and G arranged in increasing order and S(A) denotes the vector of singular values of the matrix A Furthermore, the principal vectors associated to this pair of subspaces are given by the first q columns of FU and GV, respectively
COUNTING COLLISIONS 5 The next lemma and example demonstrate that the angles between linear subspaces follow similar properties to what one would expect in the standard Euclidean geometry Lemma 1 Let F, G be subspaces of R n with dim(f ) = p and dim(g) = q Furthermore let (F, G) and (F, G) denote the vector of principal angles between F and G in increasing order and decreasing order, respectively (1) (F, G) = (G, F ) (),,, (F, G)] =,,, (F, G )], with maxn p q, } zeros on the left and maxp + q n, } zeros on the right (),,, (F, G )] =,,, (F, G)], with maxq p, } zeros on the left and maxp q, } zeros on the right (4) (F, G), π,, π ] =,,, π (F, G )], with maxp q, } π s on the left and maxp + q n, } zeros on the right The first property follows from definition 1, and we do not provide proofs for the rest of the properties Proofs can be found as Theorem 7 in AK] or as Theorems 6-7 in AJK] Example 1 Consider subspaces L and M in R 6 Suppose dim(l) = dim(m) = and (L, M) = π, π ] Then (L, M ) =,, π, π ], and (L, M ) = (L, M) =, π 6 ] Suppose dim(l) = dim(m) = 4 and (L, M) =,, π 4, π ] We conclude (L, M ) = π 4, π ] and (L, M ) = (L, M ) = π 6, π 4 ] Though a subtlety that isn t obvious in the two examples above is that, given (L, M), the angles that appear in the vector (L, M ) are taken from the list (L, M) from largest to smallest For example, if dim(l) = dim(m) = 8 in R 1 and (L, M) =, π 6, π 6, π 4, π, π, π, π ], then π (L, M ) = 4, π, π, π, π ], which are the five largest angles in the vector (L, M) The following corollary will be useful to us in due time, and follows immediately from Lemma 1 Corollary 1 If U, V R n are codimension 1 subspaces, then the nonzero angle between U and V is (U, V ) That is, the nonzero angle between these subspaces is precisely the angle between their normal vectors Our first goal is to compute the angles between the collision subspaces ij and kl for some i, j, k, l N By our definitions of principal angles, we can see that there will be d(n 1) principal angles between the codimension d collision subspaces
6 COUNTING COLLISIONS The Main Angle Theorems between Collision Subspaces 1 Equal Masses We aim to prove the following theorem when considering the particles to have equal masses Through scaling we can assume all masses to be unit When all masses are unit, note that the mass metric is identical to the standard Euclidean metric Theorem Let i, j, k, l be distinct integers satisfying 1 i, j, k, l N a) The first d(n ) principal angles between ij and kl are and the remaining d principal angles are all π b) The first d(n ) principal angles between ij and jk are and the remaining d principal angles are π The proof is computational and appears in full detail in Appendix A However, this theorem can be viewed as a corollary of the next theorem when the masses are arbitrary Arbitrary Masses We now prove the analogous result for arbitrary masses in each of the N bodies Theorem Let i, j, k, l be distinct integers satisfying 1 i, j, k, l N a) The first d(n ) principal angles between ij and kl are and the remaining d principal angles are π b) The first d(n ) principal angles between ij and jk are and the last d principal angles are ( ) (m i + m k ) m j (6) θ = arccos (mi + m j + 4m k )(4m i + m j + m k ) The proof that follows is an abbreviated version of the proof of Theorem in Appendix A Proof Recall the collision subspaces in tensor product form: } ε i + ε j ij = E 1 q 1,, q i, E N q N mi + m j and kl = } ε k + ε l E 1 q 1,, q k, E N q N mk + m l As before, we intend to compute the angle between the subspaces ( ij kl ) ij and ( ij kl ) kl First, we find that } ε i + ε j ε k + ε ij kl = E 1 q 1,, q i,, l q k, E N q N, mi + m j mk + m l
COUNTING COLLISIONS 7 and hence ( ij kl ) = } m j ε i m i ε j mi m j (m i + m j ) β m l ε k m k ε l 1, mk m l (m k + m l ) β for some arbitrary unit vectors β 1, β R m Repeating the same calculations as before, we find that } ( ij kl ) m l ε k m k ε l ij = mk m l (m k + m l ) β and } ( ij kl ) m j ε i m i ε j kl = mi m j (m i + m j ) β 1 Just as before, we have that ( ij kl ) ij ] ( ij kl ) kl ] Therefore regardless of the individual masses, ij and kl are orthogonal to one another when i, j, k, l are distinct We now turn our attention to the case where one of the indices is the same across the two collision subspaces Repeating the same calculations as earlier but keeping track of the mass terms, we find that ij jk = E 1 q 1,, } ε i + ε j + ε k q i,, E N q N mi + m j + m k and ( ij jk ) = } m j ε i m i ε j ε i + ε j ε β 1, k β mi + m j mi + m j + 4m k Repeating the same calculations results in } ( ij jk ) ε i + ε j ε k ij = β mi + m j + 4m k and } ( ij jk ) ε i ε j + ε k kl = β 4mi + m j + m k Therefore the nonzero angle between these two subspaces is given by cos(θ) = (m i + m k ) m j (mi + m j + 4m k )(4m i + m j + m k )
8 COUNTING COLLISIONS Billiard Trajectories and Collision Bounds 1 A Primer on Jacobi Coordinates and the Mass Metric We follow the approach of sections and 7 of RM1] We consider the planar -billiard ball problem whose configuration space is C A vector q = (q 1, q, q ) C represents a located triangle with each of its components representing the vertices of the triangle Definition The mass metric on the configuration space C is the Hermitian inner product v, w = m 1 v 1 w 1 + m v w + m v w A translation of this located triangle q by c C is given by the located triangle q + c1 where 1 = (1, 1, 1) Define C := 1 = q C : m 1 q 1 + m q + m q = } to be the set of planar three-body configurations whose center of mass q cm is at the origin This two-dimensional complex space represents the quotient space of C by translations Definition 4 The Jacobi coordinates for C := q C : q cm = } are given by ( v = µ 1 (q 1 q ), w = µ q m ) 1q 1 + m q m 1 + m where 1 = 1 µ 1 m 1 + 1 m and 1 µ = 1 m + 1 m 1+m These are normalized coordinates diagonalize the restriction of the mass metric to C From this we can define the complex linear projection π tr : C C, (q 1, q, q ) (v, w), which realizes the metric quotient of C by translations It is worthwhile to note that using Jacobi coordinates and our map π tr, all of the triple collision triangles (q, q, q) C are mapped to the origin The Main Collision Bound Theorems Consider equal masses M in the plane This changes our linear projection into π tr : C C, (q 1, q, q ) ( ( 1 M (q 1 q ), q 1 (q 1 + q )) ) The mass M is clearly a dilation factor, so we assume the mass to be unit henceforth Recall our codimension collision subspaces are defined as follows: 1 = (q 1, q, q ) C : q 1 = q } = (q 1, q, q ) C : q = q } 1 = (q 1, q, q ) C : q 1 = q }
COUNTING COLLISIONS 9 Example Using our previous results, we can see that ( 1, ) =,, π, π ] In this case the principal vectors are θ 1 = : 1 (1, 1, 1) and itself θ = : 1 (i, i, i) and itself θ = π : 1 6 ( 1, 1, ) and 1 6 (, 1, 1) θ 4 = π : 1 6 ( i, i, i) and 1 6 ( i, i, i) The image of these subspaces under π tr are 1 SEAN GASIOREK 1 = (v, w) C : v = } = span C (, 1)} = (v, w) C : w = 1 } ( )} v = span C, 1 1 = (v, w) C : w = 1 } ( )} v = span C, 1 Each of these codimension (and dimension ) subspaces are planes in C COUNTING COLLISIONS 1 Each of these codimension (and dimension ) subspaces are planes in C q 1 C C q 1 1 (a) Figure (a) Jacobi vectors; (b) An overhead view of C and are \( 1, )=\( 1, 1 )=\(, 1 )=, the collision subspaces ] p The Main Collision Bound Theorems Consider equal \( 1, ) are masses (, 1) and M in the, 1 for the first angle, and (,i) and plane This changesthrough our linear thisprojection reduction via into Jacobi coordinates, for the second the angle angles But inbetween fact one can check tr : C! C, (q 1,q,q ) 7! p M p 1 r! these that indeed subspaces 1 1 are ( tr p6, p, p =(, 1) 1, ) = ( 1, 1) = (, 1) = π 6 6 and 1, π ] (q 1 q ), q (q p! 1 + q ) tr p6, 1 1 p, p = 6 6, 1 And to further our previous( example, we can observe that the principal vectors for ( The mass M is clearly a dilation 1, ) are (, 1) and ) ( factor, so we assume, 1 for the first angle, and (, i) and ) the mass to be unit henceforth i, 1 i for the second angle But in fact one can check that indeed (( Recall our codimension collision subspaces π tr are defined 1, 1 )) as, collisions follows: = (, 1) 6 6 6 q 1 = (q 1,q,q ) C : q 1 = q } = (q 1,q,q ) C : q = q } 1 = (q 1,q,q ) C : q 1 = q } Example Using our previous results, we can see that, for instance, \( 1, ) =,,, ] In this case the principal vectors are (b) Figure An overhead view of C and the collision subspaces Through this reduction via Jacobi coordinates, the angles between these subspaces And to further our previous example, we can observe that the principal vectors for p i, 1 i Since tr is linear, we know that the image of the other pair of principal vectors between 1 and will also be the principal vectors between 1 and That is, the image of a nonzero principal vector under tr is still a principal vector! Theorem 4 In the equal mass planar -billiard problem, there can be at most To prove the theorem, we need to following lemma
1 COUNTING COLLISIONS and π tr (( 6, 1 6, )) ( ) 1 = 6, 1 Since π tr is linear, we know that the image of the other pair of principal vectors between 1 and will also be the principal vectors between 1 and That is, the image of a nonzero principal vector under π tr is still a principal vector! Theorem 4 In the equal mass planar -billiard problem, there can be at most collisions To prove the theorem, we need to following lemma 14 SEAN GASIOREK Lemma Let V 1 and be arbitrary vectors in two collision subspaces in C and let ˆθ Lemma Let V 1 and V be arbitrary vectors in two collision subspaces denote the angle between the vectors V 1 and V Then π ˆθ in C π and let ˆ denote the angle between the vectors V 1 and V Then apple ˆ apple Proof Without Proof loss Without of generality loss of generality we we consider two ofour our three three collision collision subspaces, subspaces, namely 1 and and consider two arbitrary vectors V 1 and V in namely 1 and and consider two arbitrary vectors V 1 and V in 1 and, respectively 1 and, respectively 1 (, 1) V 1 (,i) p i, 1 i p, 1 V Figure The two subspaces Figure 4 The two subspaces 1 and 1 and along with their orthonormathonormal basis vectors basis vectors In our In our proof we lookto to measure the angle the angle along with their or- between arbitrary between arbitrary vectors vectors V V 1 1 1 1 and V Recall the definition of principal angles: Recall the definition of principal angles: cos( 1 ) = max cos(θ 1 ) = max u 1 v kuk=1 max kvk=1 u 1 v max hu, vi := hu 1,v 1 i, u, v := u 1, v 1, where u 1 and v 1 are the principal vectors which realize this principal angle u =1 v =1 From our earlier calculations, we know that cos( 1 )= and that our principal angles always satisfy apple i apple Because cos( ) is a decreasing function on the
COUNTING COLLISIONS 11 where u 1 and v 1 are the principal vectors which realize this principal angle From our earlier calculations, we know that cos(θ 1 ) = π and that our principal angles always satisfy θ i π Because cos(θ) is a decreasing function on the interval θ π, we see that cos(θ 1 ) = u 1, v 1 V 1, V = cos(ˆθ), because the inner product is maximized Hence the possible angles between the vectors V 1 and V must satisfy π ˆθ π The argument and calculation is the same if we choose any pair of these collision subspaces This proves the lemma In fact, the angle ˆθ = π can be realized if we let V 1 = (, 1 i) and V = ( +i 4, 1+ i 4 ) Using the preceding lemma, the proof of the theorem is short and follows from the unfolding the angle argument We also refer to a sequence of collisions by the order in which the binary collisions occur For example, the collision sequence (1)() indicates that l(t) has a collision point in 1 first and then second Proof If we now consider an arbitrary piecewise linear trajectory l(t) in C, we aim to maximize the number of collisions Again without loss of generality, assume l(t) intersects 1 first Suppose l(t) intersects 1 at time t = t 1 and let V 1 be a vector in 1 whose endpoint is this point of intersection, l(t 1 ) This trajectory may change direction as it is piecewise linear If the next subspace it intersects can be either or 1 is (it certainly cannot stay within as that would mean that the billiard balls 1 and have stuck together after their collision, and l(t) also cannot leave 1 and come back to hit 1 again as this recollision is forbidden by our billiard rules) So without loss of generality, assume l(t) next visits at time t = t, and let the vector V be a vector whose endpoint is this second point of intersection, l(t ) We know from the preceding lemma that the angle ˆθ 1 between V 1 and V satisfies π ˆθ 1 π We now repeat this process again From l(t ), the trajectory l(t) can now travel to either or 1 Without loss of generality, assume 1 is the next subspace Let l(t) intersect 1 at l(t ) for some time t = t and let V be a vector in 1 whose endpoint is at the point of intersection l(t ) Applying our lemma again, the angle ˆθ between V and V satisfies π ˆθ π From there l(t) cannot hit any more collision subspaces At best, ˆθ 1 + ˆθ = π, and any third angle will add at least π by the previous lemma So if we glue together the sectors spanned by V 1 and V, and V and V and flatten this angle, by the unfold the angle argument earlier, the trajectory l(t) can hit no more subspaces This leaves us with a collision bound of π = possible collisions (π/)
1 COUNTING COLLISIONS 16 SEAN GASIOREK 1 1 1 `(t) `(t) 1 ˆ 1 ˆ Figure5 4 The The unfolding unfolding of the of(1)()(1) the (1)()(1) trajectory trajectory An Arbitrary Mass Collision Bound Theorem Considering arbitrary masses Theorem and5 reusing For three thearbitrary proof of point-masses Theorem 4, mwe i,mstate j k, the following: maximum number of collisions is Theorem 5 For three arbitrary point-masses m i, m j, m k, the maximum number of collisions is! (m i + m k ) m j arccos p 6 π ( (mi + m j +4m k )(4m i + m j + m k ) 7 ) (m i + m k ) m j arccos (mi + m j + 4m k )(4m i + m j + m k ) This expression can be simplified slightly Notice the expression above is symmetric This in m i expression and m k,sowritem can be simplified i = m j slightly and m k = Notice m j the Theexpression above then is isnot symmetric in directly m i and dependent m k, soupon write them masses i = αm but j on and them relative k = βm ratios j The of theexpression masses, and then is not directly : dependent upon the masses but on the relative ratios of the masses, α and β:! ( + ) 1 arccos π p 6 ( ) ( +1+4 )(4 +1+ ) 7 (α + β) 1 arccos (α + 1 + 4β)(4α + 1 + β) This expression also provides an interesting bound on the number of collisions As This seen in expression figure 6, the also number provides of an interesting only seems bound to change on the when number is large of collisions with As seen inor figure vice-versa 5, thethis number couldof becollisions seen as accommodating only seems tofor change the when β is large with α β or vice-versa 4 A Detour: The Foch Sequence A result by Murphy and Cohen MC1], MC] states that the bound of the -billiard ball (seen as spheres) problem in R n is four The four-collision sequence (1)()(1)(1) is called the Foch sequence, see
COUNTING COLLISIONS 1 1 8 6 β 4 4 6 8 1 α Figure 5 A contour plot for the maximum number of collisions when (α, β) (, 1] (, 1] and m j = 1 figure 6 Their proof is geometric and makes conditions on the locations of one of the balls in terms of the radii of the other billiard balls However, it is interesting to note that despite how it may look at an initial glance, this Foch sequence does not contradict Theorem 4 In our problem, we are treating the balls as point masses, and so no such considerations are necessary In fact, if the radii shrink to zero and follow the details of their proof, the Foch sequence is no longer possible, and the collision bound jumps from 4 to when the radii reach zero 4 Lines Intersection Collision Subspaces 41 Results in R N Motivated by the results in section, we aim to bound the number of times a billiard trajectory can intersect a collision subspace more generally In this section, we treat the billiard trajectory as a line in E, not a piecewise linear trajectory To start, we bound the number of times a line can intersect arbitrary subspaces of codimension d We also make the assumption that the line does not lie within any of the codimension d subspaces Lemma In R N there are N mutually orthogonal hyperplanes The N 1 principal angles between any two such (distinct) hyperplanes are all except the last angle which is π
14 COUNTING COLLISIONS 18 SEAN GASIOREK A 1 1 1 C D B Figure 7 The Foch Sequence (1)()(1)(1) After the () collision at B, particle has to get around particle in order to collide with particle 1 in the fourth collision The distance particle moves between B and C has been exaggerated in the figure (partial caption from MC]) Figure 6 The Foch Sequence (1)()(1)(1) After the () collision at B, particle has to get around particle in order to collide with particle 1 in the fourth collision The distance particle moves between B and C has been exaggerated in the figure (partial caption from MC]) Note: We use the word 4 Lines orthogonal Intersection throughout Collisionto Subspaces mean that the only nonzero principal angles are π (which is different than the orthogonal complement of the subspaces) 41 Results in R N Motivated by the results in section, we aim to bound the number of times a billiard trajectory can intersect a collision subspace more generally In this section, we treat the billiard trajectory as a line in E, not a piecewise linear trajectory To start, we bound the number of times a line can intersect arbitrary subspaces of codimension d We also make the assumption that the line does not lie within any of the codimension d subspaces Proof Let v 1, v N } be an orthonormal (or just orthogonal) basis for R N Define the hyperplanes by H i = spanv i } for 1 i N The statement about the principal angles follows from definition 1 Lemma 4 In R N there are N mutually orthogonal hyperplanes The N 1 principal angles between any two such (distinct) hyperplanes are all except the last angle which is Proposition 1 A line can intersect at most N hyperplanes in R N Proof First, we note that we plan to avoid the possibility that the trajectory hits any intersection Note: Webetween use the word hyperplanes orthogonal (eg throughout in Rto, mean a trajectory that the only which nonzero hits the x- principal angles are (which is di erent than the orthogonal complement of the axis, y-axis, subspaces) z-axis, or the origin is not allowed) Let l(t) = a + t u denote the linear trajectory and let v 1,, v N } be an orthonormal basis for R N Define the N hyperplanes as H i = spanv i } Without loss ( of generality, we may choose coordinates such that the point N ) a R N \ i=1 H i has all positive coordinates Furthermore, choose u = c 1 v 1 + + c N v N where each coefficient c i for 1 i N That is, we choose u to be a vector which is not parallel to any of the hyperplanes H i By construction, we now see that as l(t) crosses the hyperplane H i, the i th component of l(t) will change from positive to negative, and more importantly, will never become positive again By the choice of u and the point a, we know that eventually all components of l(t) will become negative beyond some finite time < T < That means that
COUNTING COLLISIONS 15 for all t > T, l(t) will not intersect any more hyperplanes By counting the sign changes in each component, we see that this happens at most N times The previous propositions and lemmas are a special case of the following lemma The proof of the theorem is constructive, and motivated by the fact that in R, a line that does not go through the origin can only intersect at most two of the coordinate axes (which is the case N = and d = below) Proposition A line can intersect at most N d + 1 mutually orthogonal codimension d subspaces of R N Proof Fix an integer 1 d < N as the codimension of our subspaces Let B = v 1,, v N } be an orthonormal basis for R N For each I 1,, N} with I = d, define S I = spanv i B : i / I} That is, S I is the codimension d subspace created by removing the d basis vectors from B whose indices are elements of I If for some t >, l(t ) has d components equal to zero simultaneously, then we consider l(t) to have intersected the subspace S I where I is the set of indices of the components which are equal to zero at time t = t If more than d components of l(t ) are zero, then l(t) has intersected an intersection of subspaces S I, which we do not allow for the moment For example, if N = 4 and d =, we would not allow for l(t) = (,,, w) for all t and for all w, as this would mean that the trajectory l(t) would intersect S 1 S 1 S Construct the linear trajectory l(t) = a t u in the following way: Choose u = (,,, 1, 1), where the first d 1 entries of u are zero and the last N d + 1 entries are 1 Without loss of generality, choose a R N such that the first d 1 entries of a are zero and the rest are distinct, positive real numbers That is, choose a = (,, a d, a d+1,, a N ) so that the first d 1 entries are and a i a j for distinct d i, j N Then for each a i, we know l(a i ) = (,,, a d, a d+1,, a i 1,, a i+1,, a N ) which means that l(t) intersects the subspace S 1,,d 1,i} And because the a i are distinct, l(t) will intersect S 1,,d 1,i} for each d i N exactly once Just as before, the i th component of l(t) will change sign after each time t = a i This will produce N (d 1) = N d + 1 such sign changes, and hence l(t) will intersect the subspaces N d + 1 times By construction, for t > maxa i : d i N}, all nonzero components of l(t) will be negative and will never become positive again Because the signs will never change beyond this point, there cannot be any more subspace intersections
16 COUNTING COLLISIONS 4 Results in R Knowing that the angles between our unit-mass collision subspaces are combinations of s, π s, and π s, we consider which such configurations are geometrically, ignoring physical conditions that could constrain our system Proposition Consider planes H i R which all contain the origin (so they are subspaces) Intersect H i with the unit sphere S creates a great circle C i If P 1 and P are the two points of intersection of H i and H j, the nonzero angle between these planes can be measured by measuring the angle between tangent vectors to each C i at P 1 or P Proof Let H 1, H be two distinct planes which form a polyhedral cone (whose point is at the origin) By the definition of principal angles, the first of the two angles between the planes H 1 and H is zero The line of intersection of these two planes is spanned by a single vector, say v 1, and v 1 can be seen as lying in both planes simultaneously To find the second principal angle, we need to first consider all vectors orthogonal to v 1, which can be considered as the plane (v 1 ) But we can translate this plane throughout R as we wish, and this plane can be the tangent plane to the unit sphere at the points P 1, P } = spanv 1 } S But then the second angle formed between H 1 and H is exactly the angle between the tangent vectors to the great circles C 1 = H 1 S and C = H S at say, P 1, because these tangent vectors live in the plane (v 1 ) Therefore we can measure the second principal angle between planes in R by computing the angles between the tangent vectors to the points of intersection of the two great circles Proposition 4 In R it is impossible for a collection of three codimension 1 subspaces to all have mutual principal angles of and π That is, it is impossible for a polyhedral cone with or more faces in R to have faces whose principal angles are and π Proof Consider a polyhedral cone in R with three faces Cut the planes by the unit sphere S to get a collection of three great circles By the preceding proposition, if all of the angles between the tangent vectors to the great circles were indeed π, this would create a spherical triangle, all of whose interior angles are π This contradicts the fact that the sum of the angles of a spherical triangle is always greater than π Thus no such configuration of planes can exist in R It is worth noting that this proposition should be contrasted with the basic example of R seen as the configuration space of three point masses on a line We can consider the three collision subspaces 1,, and 1 as the planes x = y, x = z, and y = z, respectively These three planes intersect in a common line, span(1, 1, 1)} representing triple collision However, this configuration does not create a polyhedral cone as the great circles created by intersection of the collision subspaces with the unit sphere S have common intersection points (1, 1, 1) and ( 1, 1, 1) Seen as a tilted north and south poles, these great circles divide the sphere into six spherical sectors along tilted meridians However, in this case it
COUNTING COLLISIONS 17 is easily seen that there can be at most intersection points between these three planes and a line Figure 7 S tiled by π π π spherical triangles Proposition 5 In R, it is possible to create a polyhedral cone with three codimension 1 subspaces as faces to have pairwise nonzero principal angles π, π, π In such a polyhedral cone, a billiard trajectory can have at most four collisions Proof We again use spherical geometry Consider planes H 1, H, H given by z =, y =, and y = x, respectively, in R We clearly have (H 1, H ) =, π ], (H 1, H ) =, π ], and (H, H ) =, π ] Intersecting these planes with the unit sphere S creates great circles C 1, C, C which bound a spherical triangle (among others) in the first octant with interior angles π at the north pole and angles of π at the equator Luckily we can tile the sphere with 1 such π π π spherical triangles This only necessitates the addition of a fourth plane, H 4 given by y = x These four planes H 1, H, H, H 4 can each only be intersected once by a linear trajectory in R, which correspond to a bound of four collisions of a billiard trajectory One should also note that, even though specific equations of planes are given in the proof above, we can consider many other tilings of S with π π π spherical triangles by SO() acting on this base configuration Though it should be noted that SO() acting on the base configuration does not result in all such tilings
18 COUNTING COLLISIONS Figure 8 S tiled by π π π spherical triangles Proposition 6 In R, it is possible to create a polyhedral cone with three codimension 1 subspaces as faces to have pairwise nonzero principal angles π, π, π In such a polyhedral cone, a billiard trajectory can have at most six collisions Proof The argument is nearly identical to the previous proof, though with appropriate adjustments made Consider planes H 1, H, H given by x =, y =, and 1 x 1 y + 1 z =, respectively, in R We clearly have (H 1, H ) =, π ], (H 1, H ) =, π ], and (H, H ) =, π ] Intersecting these planes with the unit sphere S creates great circles C 1, C, C which bound a spherical triangle (among others) in the first octant with interior angles π at the north pole and angles of π above the equator Luckily we can tile the sphere with 4 such π π π spherical triangles This necessitates three additional planes, H 4, H 5, H 6 given by H 4 : 1 x + 1 y 1 z = H 5 : 1 x 1 y 1 z = H 6 : 1 x + 1 y + 1 z = These six planes H 1, H, H, H 4, H 5, H 6 can each only be intersected once by a linear trajectory in R, which correspond to a bound of six collisions of a billiard trajectory
COUNTING COLLISIONS 19 Just as before, we can consider many other tilings of S with π - π - π spherical triangles as arising from SO() acting on this base configuration, though again this does not account for all such tilings of the sphere Remark These propositions about lines intersecting subspaces should be contrasted with the earlier statements and the theorems in the next subsection, as R can only be the configuration space for three point masses on a line (N =, m = 1) or one point mass in R, for which there are no collisions If the particles are noninteracting (ie can pass through one another) then having three binary collision subspaces makes sense, otherwise the left-most and right-most particles could never interact except at triple collision Interpreting this as a physical system requires the additional conditions that x y and y z if the particles are interacting A similar unfold-the-angle argument leads to as the maximum number of collisions 4 Billiard Bounds on a Line To compare and contrast the results of the previous two subsections and address the remark above, we provide a summary below for known results about collision bounds for billiards on a line Definition 5 On a line, we call 1-dimensional spheres hard rods Through a transformation, we may also treat these hard rods as point masses without affecting their masses Theorem ( 6 (MC] - 199) For N equal mass hard rods on a line, no more than N ) collisions can occur Theorem 7 (LC1] - 7) Consider N hard rods on a line with masses m i, 1 i N If m i m i 1 m i+1, i N 1, then the maximum number of collisions that can occur is ( ) N Corollary (LC1] - 7) Consider N hard rods on a line with masses m i, 1 i N If m i mi 1+mi+1, i N 1, then the maximum number of collisions that can occur is ( ) N In the equal-mass case, these three results agree that ( N ) is the bound on the number of collisions, which matches physical intuition, and matches our commentary at the end of the previous section Theorem 8 (Gal1] - 1981) Consider N hard rods on a line with maximum and minimum masses m max and m min, respectively Then the number of collisions is at most ( 8N (N ) m ) N max m min It is interesting to note that for m max = m min, this bound is significantly larger than the known maximum bound of ( N ) 5 Future Work 51 Barriers to Entry and Next Steps The work in this paper is the result of attempts to solve the original problem: bounding the number of collisions in
COUNTING COLLISIONS an N-billiard system using the computed angles between collision subspaces The main collision theorems were possible due to the symplectic reduction using Jacobi coordinates, which reduced the angles between the reduced collision subspaces to all be nonzero When N > and m >, similar reduction techniques produces angles with measure between subspaces To the author, it seems that the presence of as an angle between subspaces is a significant problem Any suggestions or ideas are welcome This model is also inherently simplistic Geometric and physical considerations are easily ignored (eg when considering hard rods on a line which cannot pass one another), but the bounds may still exist Is there another interpretation of the system that more closely matches a physical system? A more rigorous study of this model to include such constraints is a logical next step Acknowledgements This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation unger Grant No DMS14414 while the author was in residence at the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute in Berkely, California, during the Fall 18 semester Appendix A Proof of Theorem To prove Theorem we begin with a short lemma Lemma 4 dim( ij kl ) = d(n ) = number of angles which are Proof This is obvious by the definition of ij We know ij kl can have an orthonormal basis E 1 q 1,, ε i + ε j q i,, ε k + ε l q k,, E N q N }, which has dimension Nd d = d(n ) And based on our definition of principal angles, the number of angles which are zero will be exactly the dimension of the intersection of the two subspaces From our proof it follows that dim( ij jk ) = d(n ) = number of angles which are But to help prove our theorem, we make the following two observations: The cosine expression for nonzero angles in Theorem part (a) is equivalent to showing that ( ij kl ) ij ] ( ij kl ) kl ] The cosine expression for nonzero angles in Theorem part (b) is equivalent to computing the angle between ( ij jk ) ij ] and ( ij jk ) jk ] Proof We now aim to compute each of the terms above Recall the binary collision subspaces in tensor form: ij = E 1 q 1,, ε } i + ε j q i,, E N q N : q s R m, q s = 1, 1 s N
COUNTING COLLISIONS 1 and kl = E 1 q 1,, ε } k + ε l q k,, E N q N : q s R m, q s = 1, 1 s N It follows that ij kl = E 1 q 1,, ε i + ε j q i,, ε } k + ε l q k,, E N q N and hence ( ij kl ) = εi ε j β 1, ε } k ε l β where β 1 and β are arbitrary unit vectors in R m The β i s can be chosen arbitrarily because the fact that (S R m ) = S R m together with the way inner products of tensor products are computed (ie a b, c d = a, c M b, d ), means that in our construction, we only concern ourselves with orthogonality in the first component of our tensor product We now explicitly compute ( ij kl ) ij : Let v ( ij kl ) ij Then for scalars a, b, c, d, e R, ( ) ( ) εi ε j εk ε v = a l β 1 + b β and ( ) εi + ε j v = c q i + d(ε k q k ) + e(ε l q l ) Then = v v ( ) ( ) ( ) εi ε j εk ε = a l εi + ε β 1 + b β c j q i d(ε k q k ) e(ε l q l ) = (ε i ε j ) a β 1 + (ε k ε l ) b β (ε i + ε j ) c q i ε k dq k ε l eq l ( = ε i ( a β 1 c q i ) + ε j + ε k a β 1 ( b β dq k ) + ε l c ) q i ( b β eq l ) This implies each term on the right of each tensor product must be zero: = a β 1 c q i = a β 1 c q i = b β dq k
COUNTING COLLISIONS = b β eq l The first two equations imply that a = c =, and the last two equations imply b that β = dq k = eq l Thus } ( ij kl ) εk ε l ij = β A similar calculation yields ( ij kl ) kl = } εi ε j β 1 From here it is easy to see the orthogonality argument We clearly have that these two spaces are orthogonal to one another ( ij kl ) ij ] ( ij kl ) kl ] In fact, since ( ij kl ) = εi ε j β 1, ε } k ε l β we can see that this decomposes into a direct orthogonal sum of the two subspaces above This along with Lemma 4 completes the proof of part (a) of Theorem We now focus on proving part (b) of Theorem The calculations are similar This means ij jk = E 1 q 1,, ε } i + ε j + ε k q i,, E N q N and ( ij jk ) = εi ε j β 1, ε } i + ε j ε k β 6 for some unit vectors β 1, β R m We now explicitly compute ( ij jk ) ij Let w ( ij jk ) ij Then for scalars a, b, c, d R, ( ) ( ) εi ε j εi + ε w = a j ε k β 1 + b β 6 and ( ) εi + ε j w = c q i + d(ε k q k ) Then = w w ( ) ( ) ( ) εi ε j εi + ε = a j ε k εi + ε β 1 + b β c j q i d(ε k q k ) 6
COUNTING COLLISIONS = (ε i ε j ) a β 1 + (ε i + ε j ε k ) b β (ε i + ε j ) c q i ε k dq k 6 = ε i ( a β 1 + b 6 β + ε k c ) ( q i + ε j a β 1 + ( b 6 β dq k ) b 6 β c ) q i This implies each term on the right of each tensor product must be zero: = a β 1 + b β c q i 6 = a β 1 + b β c q i 6 = b 6 β dq k The first two equations imply that a =, and hence } ( ij jk ) εi + ε j ε k ij = β 6 A similar calculation yields that ( ij jk ) jk = } εi ε j ε k β 6 It s now easily seen that the nonzero angle between these two spaces is indeed π This completes the proof of Theorem References AJK] AK] BFK1] BFK] BG] FKM] Gal1] KT] A V Knyazev, A Jujunasjvili, and M Argentati, Angles between infinite dimensional subspaces with applications to the Rayleigh-Ritz and alternating projectors methods, J Funct Anal, 59 (1), 6, pp 1145 doi:1116/jjfa1518 A V Knyazev and M E Argentati, Majorization for changes in angles between subspaces, Ritz values, and graph Laplacian spectra, SIAM J Matrix Anal Appl, 9 (6/7), 1, pp 15- (electronic) doi:1117/66497 D Burago, S Ferleger, and A Kononenko, Uniform estimates on the number of collisions in semi-dispersing billiards Annals of Mathematics 147 (1998), 695 78 D Burago, S Ferleger, and A Kononenko, A geometric approach to semi-dispersing billiards Hard Ball Systems and the Lorentz Gas 9 () A Björck and G Golub, Numerical methods for computing angles between linear subspaces, Math Comp, 7(197), pp 579594 http://wwwamsorg/ journals/mcom/197-7-1/s5-5718-197-48991-/ J Féjoz, A Knauf, R Montgomery, Lagrangian Relations and Linear Point Billiards Nonlinearity, (4) (17) G A Galp perin, Systems of local interacting and repelling particles that are moving in space, Trudy Moskov Mat Obshch 4 (1981) 14-196 Kozlov, VV, Treschëv, DV, Billiards: A Genetic Introduction to the Dynamics of Systems with Impacts Translations of Mathematical Monographs, vol 89 Am Math Soc, Providence (1991)
4 COUNTING COLLISIONS LC1] MC1] MC] RM1] Tab] Chen, Lizhou, Proof of Murphy-Cohen conjecture on one-dimensional hard ball systems Chin Ann Math Ser B 8 (7), no, 998 Murphy, TJ and Cohen, EGD, Maximum number of collisions among identical hard spheres, J Statist Phys, 71 (5-6), 199, 16-18 Murphy, TJ and Cohen, EGD, On the sequences of collisions among hard spheres in infinite space, Hard Ball Systems and the Lorentz Gas, Szász, D (ed), Encycl Math Sci 11 (), Springer, Berlin,, 9-49 Montgomery, R, The Three Body Problem and the Shape Sphere Amer Math Monthly, v 1, no 4, pp 99-1, April 15 Tabachnikov, S, Geometry and Billiards Student Mathematical Library, vol Am Math Soc Providence (5)