text:
# Observing Gibbons-Hawking quantum radiation in linearly expanding cigar-shaped Bose-Einstein condensates

## Abstract

We propose an experimental scheme to observe the Gibbons-Hawking effect in the acoustic analog of a 1+1-dimensional de Sitter universe, produced in an expanding, cigar-shaped Bose-Einstein condensate. It is shown that a two-level system created at the center of the trap, an atomic quantum dot interacting with phonons, observes a thermal Bose distribution at the de Sitter temperature.

Cosmology in the early universe is a branch of physics which is, for all too obvious reasons, removed far from experiment. To use a concise formulation of the primary dilemma which cosmology faces, there exists nothing like the possibility of “reproducing” experiments, because there has in fact “only ever been one experiment, still running, and we are latecomers watching from the back” pickett . While there can be no truly experimental cosmology, as regards in particular the reproduction of the (presumed) extreme conditions which prevailed in the early stages of the universe, one might look for analogous phenomena in condensed matter experiments, which are indeed reproducible, and can be done at energy scales smaller by many orders of magnitude Grisha .

An archetypical model of cosmology is the de Sitter universe, in which space is essentially empty, and the curvature of space-time is due to a nonvanishing cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ deSitter . The de Sitter space-time is used in inflationary models of the cosmos Linde , displays a cosmological horizon, and is associated with a thermal spectrum of particles at a temperature $`T_{\mathrm{dS}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ Gibbons .

Atomic Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) Anglin  have emerged as one of the most suitable condensed matter systems for the simulation of quantum phenomena in effective space-times SlowLight ; Garay ; CSM ; Leonhardt ; Ourselves ; BLV . In the present study, we investigate an effective 1+1–dimensional (1+1D) de Sitter universe and the associated thermal phonon spectrum of the Gibbons-Hawking type Gibbons . We examine the propagation of axial low-energy modes in expanding, strongly elongated condensates, and find that the spectrum consists of one massless (phonon) mode and a sequence of massive excitations, moving in an effective curved 1+1D space-time. It is demonstrated that a 1+1D version of the de Sitter metric deSitter  can be realized by the massless phonon mode in a linearly expanding Bose-Einstein condensate with constant particle interaction. We show that an atomic quantum dot (AQD) AQD , placed at the center of the cloud, can be used to measure the Gibbons-Hawking quantum process. The detector’s coupling to the superfluid is constructed in such a way that the natural time interval of the detector is equal to the time interval in the de Sitter metric. Therefore, the detector inside the expanding condensate is capable of measuring a thermal state at the de Sitter temperature. The Gibbons-Hawking effect is a curved space-time generalization of the Unruh-Davies effect, in which a constantly accelerated detector in vacuum responds as if it were placed in a thermal bath with temperature proportional to its acceleration unruh76 ; BirrellDavies . Therefore, our proposal represents a means to confirm the observer dependence of the particle content of a quantum field in curved space-time fulling .

Our approach is based on the by now well established identity of the action of a massless scalar field propagating on a curved space-time background in $`D+1`$ dimensions and the action of the phase fluctuations $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in a moving inhomogeneous superfluid unruh ; Matt ; PGRiemann  (we set $`\mathrm{}=m=1`$, where $`m`$ is the mass of a superfluid particle):

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^{D+1}x\frac{1}{2g}\left[\left(\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}𝒗\mathrm{\Phi }\right)^2+c^2(\mathrm{\Phi })^2\right]}`$ (1)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^{D+1}x\sqrt{𝗀}𝗀^{\mu \nu }_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }}.`$
Here, $`𝒗(𝒙,t)`$ is the superfluid background velocity, $`c(𝒙,t)=\sqrt{g\rho _0}`$ the velocity of sound, $`\rho _0(𝒙,t)`$ the background density, and $`g=4\pi a_s`$ is the coupling constant describing the short-range interaction between the particles in the superfluid; $`a_s`$ is the $`s`$-wave scattering length. In the second line of (1), the conventional hydrodynamic action is identified with the action of a minimally coupled scalar field in an effective curved space-time. In the following, we derive the effective 1+1D action of the form (1) for the lowest axial excitations of an elongated condensate from the full 3D dynamics of hydrodynamic excitations of the cigar-shaped condensate, and identify the metric tensor $`𝗀_{\mu \nu }`$.

We consider a large condensate confined in a strongly anisotropic harmonic trap, characterized by the frequencies $`\omega _{}`$ and $`\omega _{}`$ in the axial and radial directions, respectively ($`\omega _{}\omega _{}`$). The initial condensate density is given by the usual Thomas-Fermi (TF) expression $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{TF}}|^2=\rho _m(1r^2/R_{}^2z^2/R_{}^2).`$ Here, $`\rho _m`$ is the maximum initial density and the squared TF radii are $`R_{}^2=2\mu /\omega _{}^2`$ and $`R_{}^2=2\mu /\omega _{}^2`$, where $`\mu =\rho _mg`$ is the (initial) chemical potential. According to Scaling , the temporal evolution of a Bose-Einstein-condensed atom cloud under variation of the trapping frequencies is described by the scaling condensate wave function

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(r/b_{},z/b)=\left(\rho _0+\delta \rho \right)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}\left[i(\mathrm{\Phi }_0+\mathrm{\Phi })\right].$$
(2)
Here, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=g\rho _0(0,t)𝑑t+\dot{b}z^2/2b+\dot{b}_{}r^2/2b_{}`$ is the background phase, where $`b_{}(t)`$ and $`b(t)`$ are the scaling parameters describing the condensate expansion in the radial ($`\widehat{r}`$) and axial ($`\widehat{z}`$) directions, cf. Fig. 1. The mean-field condensate density $`\rho _0=|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{TF}}|^2(r/b_{},z/b)/(b_{}^2b)`$ contains the scaling volume $`b_{}^2b`$, and $`\delta \rho `$ are the fluctuations of the density around mean-field.

The elementary excitations above the ground state of the BEC in the limit $`\omega _{}/\omega _{}\mathrm{}`$ were first studied in Zaremba . The description of the modes is based on an adiabatic separation for the axial and longitudinal variables of the phase fluctuation field:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(r,z,t)=\underset{n}{}\varphi _n(r)\chi _n(z,t),$$
(3)
where $`\varphi _n(r)`$ is the radial wavefunction characterized by the quantum number $`n`$ (we consider only zero angular momentum modes). For long wavelength axial excitations, the dispersion relation reads Zaremba

$$ϵ_{nk}^2=2\omega _{}^2n(n+1)+c_0^2k^2,$$
(4)
where $`c_0=\sqrt{\mu /2}`$ and $`k`$ is the axial wavenumber ($`kR_{}1`$). In the action (1), we use Eq. (3), with the rescaled radial wavefunction $`\varphi _n\varphi _n(r/b_{})`$, and integrate over the radial coordinate. We then find the following effective action for the axial modes of a given radial quantum number $`n`$,

$`S_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }dtdz{\displaystyle \frac{b_{}^2C_n}{2g}}[(\dot{\chi }_nv_z_z\chi _n)^2`$ (5)
$`+\overline{c}_n^2(_z\chi _n)^2+M_n^2\chi _n^2].`$
Here, the common factor $`C_n(z)`$ is given by $`b_{}^2C_n(z)=_{r<r_m}d^2r\varphi _n^2,`$ the averaged speed of sound is $`\overline{c}_n^2(z,t)=gC_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}b_{}^2_{r<r_m}d^2r\rho _0\varphi _n^2`$, and the effective mass term $`M_n^2(z,t)=gC_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}b_{}^2_{r<r_m}d^2r\rho _0[_r\varphi _n]^2`$; the radial cigar size is given by $`r_m^2=R_{}^2b_{}^2(1z^2/R_{}^2b^2)`$. The phonon branch of the excitations corresponds to the $`n=0`$ solution of Eq. (4), for which the radial wavefunction $`\varphi _0=`$ const. Zaremba ; hence the mass term $`M_0=0`$ and $`C_0(0)=\pi R_{}^2`$, $`\overline{c}(0,t)\overline{c}_{n=0}(0,t)=c_0/(b_{}b^{1/2}).`$

The action (5) can be identified with the action of a minimally coupled scalar field in 1+1D, close to the center of the condensate. The line element reads unruh ; Matt

$$ds^2=A_c\left[(c^2v_z^2)dt^22v_zdtdz+dz^2\right],$$
(6)
where $`A_c`$ is some arbitrary (space and time dependent) conformal factor and we set $`c=\overline{c}(z=0,t)`$. The actions (1) and (5) can be made consistent if we renormalize the phase field according to $`\mathrm{\Phi }=Z\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ and require that $`Z^2b_{}^2C_0(0)/g=1/\overline{c}(0)`$, leading to

$$B\frac{b_{}}{b^{1/2}}=8\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2}}\frac{1}{Z^2}(\rho _ma_s^3)^{1/2}\left(\frac{\omega _{}}{\mu }\right)^2=\mathrm{const}.$$
(7)
The constant factor $`Z`$ in the above relations does not influence the equation of motion, and corresponds to a renormalization of the field amplitude, $`\mathrm{\Phi }=Z\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$, which determines the coupling of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ to a detector No3 .

We require that the space-time metric is, in appropriately chosen coordinates, identical to that of a 1+1D de Sitter universe. We first apply the transformation $`c_0d\stackrel{~}{t}=c(t)dt`$, connecting the laboratory time $`t`$ to the time variable $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$. Defining $`v_z/c=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }}z=(B\dot{b}/c_0)z`$ (note that the “dot” on $`b`$ and other quantities always refers to ordinary laboratory time), this results, up to the conformal factor $`A_c`$, in the line element $`ds^2=c_0^2(1\mathrm{\Lambda }z^2)d\stackrel{~}{t}^22c_0z\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }}d\stackrel{~}{t}dz+dz^2`$. We then employ a second transformation $`c_0d\tau =c_0d\stackrel{~}{t}+z\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }}dz/(1\mathrm{\Lambda }z^2)`$, with a time independent $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, to obtain the 1+1D de Sitter metric deSitter ; Gibbons

$$ds^2=c_0^2\left(1\mathrm{\Lambda }z^2\right)d\tau ^2+\left(1\mathrm{\Lambda }z^2\right)^1dz^2.$$
(8)
The quantity $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=B^2\dot{b}^2/c_0^2`$ is a “cosmological constant,” provided $`\dot{b}`$ does not depend on $`t`$. The transformation between $`t`$ and the de Sitter time $`\tau `$, at a given coordinate $`z`$, then involves the exponential “acceleration,” $`t/t_0=\mathrm{exp}[B\dot{b}\tau ],`$ where $`t_02\pi /\omega _{}`$ is set by the initial conditions. The (conformally invariant) temperature associated with the effective metric (8) is the Gibbons-Hawking temperature Gibbons

$`T_{\mathrm{dS}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c_0}{2\pi }}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }}={\displaystyle \frac{B}{2\pi }}\dot{b},`$ (9)
and the horizon(s) are located at $`z=\pm z_\mathrm{H}=\pm R_{}(\omega _{}^2/2\mu \mathrm{\Lambda })^{1/2}.`$ Combining the latter relation with (9), we see that $`z_\mathrm{H}/R_{}1`$, if $`T_{\mathrm{dS}}\omega _{}/4\pi `$. We are thus justified in neglecting the $`z`$ dependence in $`C_0`$ and $`\overline{c}`$ to describe the physics inside the horizon surfaces.

According to Eq. (5), the equation of motion $`\delta S_0/\delta \chi _0=0`$ is given, at constant $`B`$, by

$$B^2b^2\frac{d}{dt}\left(b^2\frac{d}{dt}\chi _0\right)\frac{1}{C_0(z_b)}_{z_b}\left[\overline{c}^2(z_b)C_0(z_b)_{z_b}\chi _0\right]=0,$$
(10)
where $`z_b=z/b`$ is the scaling coordinate. Apart from the factor $`C_0(z_b)`$, stemming from averaging over the perpendicular direction, this equation corresponds to the hydrodynamic equation of phase fluctuations in inhomogeneous superfluids Stringari .

At $`t\mathrm{}`$, the condensate is in equilibrium and the quantum vacuum phase fluctuations close to the center of the condensate can be written in the following form

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\widehat{\chi }_0=\underset{k}{}\sqrt{\frac{g}{4C_0(0)R_{}ϵ_{0k}}}\widehat{a}_ke^{iϵ_{0k}t+ikz}+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(11)
where $`\widehat{a}_k,\widehat{a}_k^{}`$ are the annihilation and creation operators of a phonon. The intial quantum state of phonons, which we call the “adiabatic vacuum,” is the ground state of the superfluid and is annihilated by the operators $`\widehat{a}_k`$ (this definition of vacuum and excitations corresponds to the “adiabatic basis” of BirrellDavies ). Assuming that the expansion is switched on adiabatically, the density fluctuation operator, which is conjugate to $`\widehat{\chi }_0`$, then reads

$`\delta \widehat{\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_{0k}}{4C_0(0)R_{}g}}}`$ (12)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left\{\widehat{a}_k\mathrm{exp}[i{\displaystyle ^t}{\displaystyle \frac{dt^{}ϵ_{0k}}{Bb^2}}+ikz_b]\right\}+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.`$
The above equation completely characterizes the $`n=0`$ evolution of the condensate density fluctuations.

The particle content of a quantum field state in curved space-time depends on the observer fulling . We now show that the de Sitter time interval $`d\tau =dt/bB=dt/b^{1/2}b_{}`$ can be effectively measured by an Atomic Quantum Dot AQD . Here, the AQD is an effective two-level system with a time-dependent level splitting (see Fig. 2). It can be made in a gas of atoms possessing two hyperfine ground states $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. The atoms in the state $`\alpha `$ represent the superfluid cigar, and are used to model the expanding universe. The AQD itself is formed by trapping atoms in the state $`\beta `$ in a tightly confining optical potential $`V_{\mathrm{opt}}`$. The interaction of atoms in the two internal levels is described by a set of coupling parameters $`g_{cd}=4\pi a_{cd}`$ ($`c,d=\{\alpha ,\beta \}`$), where $`a_{cd}`$ are the $`s`$-wave scattering lengths characterizing short-range intra- and inter-species collisions; $`g_{\alpha \alpha }g`$, $`a_{\alpha \alpha }a_s`$. The on-site repulsion between the atoms $`\beta `$ in the dot is $`Ug_{\beta \beta }/l^3`$, where $`l`$ is the characteristic size of the ground state wavefunction of atoms $`\beta `$ localized in $`V_{\mathrm{opt}}`$. In the following we consider the collisional blockade limit of large $`U>0`$, where only one atom of type $`\beta `$ can be trapped in the dot. This assumes that $`U`$ is larger than all other relevant frequency scales in the dynamics of both the AQD and the expanding superfluid. (The value of $`g_{\beta \beta }`$ may be increased using Feshbach resonances feshbach .) As a result, the appropriate collective coordinate of the AQD is modeled by a pseudo-spin-$`1/2`$, with spin-up/spin-down state corresponding to occupation by a single/no atom in state $`\beta `$.

Conversion of atoms between the states $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ is caused by a laser-driven transition characterized by Rabi frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The Hamiltonian of the AQD interacting with the superfluid is

$`H_{\mathrm{AQD}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{\mathrm{\Delta }+g_{\alpha \beta }[\rho _0(0,t)+\delta \rho (0,t)]\right\}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(1+\sigma _z\right)}{2}}`$
$`+\mathrm{\Omega }\left(\rho _0(0,t)l^3\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}[i(\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Phi }_0)]\sigma _++\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.,`$
where we use Pauli matrix notation, i.e. $`\sigma _+=\sigma _x+i\sigma _y`$. We introduce the wavefunction of the AQD in the form $`\psi =\psi _\beta \mathrm{exp}[i(\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Phi }_0)]|\beta +\psi _\alpha |\alpha `$. Using the scaling expression (2) for the condensate wave function, we find

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{d\psi _\beta }{d\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{bB[\mathrm{\Delta }+\rho _0(g_{\alpha \beta }g)]+\delta V\right\}\psi _\beta +{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0}{2}}\psi _\alpha ,`$
$`i{\displaystyle \frac{d\psi _\alpha }{d\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0}{2}}\psi _\beta ,`$ (14)
where $`\tau `$ is the *de Sitter time*, and $`\omega _0=2\mathrm{\Omega }(\rho _ml^3)^{1/2}`$ is independent of $`\tau `$. The perturbation potential

$$\delta V(\tau )=(g_{\alpha \beta }g)Bb(\tau )\delta \rho (0,\tau )$$
(15)
provides the coupling between the AQD and the expanding superfluid (if $`g_{\alpha \beta }g`$, higher order terms in the density fluctuations have to be taken into account in the Rabi term of (Observing Gibbons-Hawking quantum radiation in linearly expanding cigar-shaped Bose-Einstein condensates)). We suggest to operate the detector at $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t)=(g_{\alpha \beta }g)\rho _0(0,t)=(g_{\alpha \beta }g)\rho _m/(\dot{b}^2B^2t^2)`$, so that in zeroth order in $`\delta V`$ we obtain an effective two-level system with the level splitting $`\omega _0`$, which plays the role of a frequency standard of the detector. By adjusting the laser intensity contained in the Rabi frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, one can change $`\omega _0`$, and thus probe the response of the detector for various frequencies.

The detector response can be calculated using the two-point correlation function of the coupling operator $`\delta \widehat{V}`$. The probabilities for the detector to “click,” corresponding to excitation ($`P_+`$) and de-excitation ($`P_{}`$) of the detector, per unit of de Sitter time, are given by unruh76 ; BirrellDavies :

$$\frac{dP_\pm }{d\tau }=\underset{𝒯\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{𝒯}^𝒯^𝒯𝑑\tau 𝑑\tau ^{}\delta \widehat{V}(\tau )\delta \widehat{V}(\tau ^{})e^{i\omega _0(\tau \tau ^{})}.$$
(16)
Using the explicit form of the detector-to-field coupling (15), we obtain

$$\delta \widehat{V}(\tau )\delta \widehat{V}(\tau ^{})(\rho _ma_s^3)^{1/2}\left(\frac{\omega _{}}{\mu }\right)^2\frac{B^2(g_{\alpha \beta }/g1)^2T_{\mathrm{dS}}^2}{\mathrm{sinh}^2[\pi T_{\mathrm{dS}}(\tau \tau ^{})]}.$$
(17)
This correlation function is proportional to one characterizing a thermal phonon state at a temperature $`T_{\mathrm{dS}}`$ in a condensate at rest. This means that our de Sitter detector at the center of the condensate responds to the scaling vacuum as if it were placed in a thermal bath at a temperature $`T_{\mathrm{dS}}`$. Indeed, substituting the correlator (17) into Eq. (16) we find that the quantities $`dP_\pm /d\tau `$ at late times are time independent, and satisfy detailed balance conditions corresponding to thermal equilibrium at the de Sitter temperature given in Eq. (9):

$$\frac{dP_+/d\tau }{dP_{}/d\tau }=\frac{n_\mathrm{B}}{1+n_\mathrm{B}},$$
(18)
where $`n_\mathrm{B}=(\mathrm{exp}[\omega _0/T_{\mathrm{dS}}]1)^1`$ is the Bose distribution function. We stress that the AQD observes a thermal spectrum, even though the quantum state of the fluctuations is adiabatically connected to the initial vacuum state, i.e., no excitations in the adiabatic basis characterized by the $`\widehat{a}_k`$ are created (note that the time interval of the adiabatic vacuum is $`dt/Bb^2=d\tau /b`$). The latter process corresponds to “cosmological” quasiparticle production Ourselves ; BLV , which can be neglected in our situation.

Our experimental proposal consists in the following steps: (a) Preparation of a large TF condensate at very low temperatures. (b) Introduction of an AQD at the center (respectively an array of AQDs to increase the signal), which can be used to determine the initial temperature of the cloud. (c) Linear axial expansion of the condensate according to (7). The Rabi oscillations of the AQD can be used to monitor the thermal distribution $`n_\mathrm{B}`$ in (18). Since $`Z^2(\rho _ma_s^3)^{1/2}\left(\omega _{}/\mu \right)^2`$ and $`P_\pm Z^2`$ No3 , the initial condensate has to be quite dense and close to the quasi-1D régime. The particle density throughout the cloud decreases like $`t^2`$. Therefore, the rate of three-body losses quickly decreases during expansion, and comparatively long observation times are feasible.

The AQD as a detector is suitable to measure the de Sitter time interval, because it couples linearly to the square root of the density of the superfluid gas. In principle, one can construct detectors coupling to different powers of density or superfluid velocity, and then more generally experimentally study the non-uniqueness of the particle content of various quantum states in curved space-time fulling . For example, outcoupling pairs of atoms by photoassociation is a means to set up a detector which has $`d\tau /dt\rho _0`$. Finally, we note that while in this paper we have studied only the $`n=0`$ massless axial phonon modes, strongly elongated condensates can also be used to study the evolution of massive bosonic excitations. Together with a natural Planck scale $`E_{\mathrm{Planck}}\mu `$, this provides the opportunity to investigate, on a laboratory scale, the influence of finite quasiparticle mass and the trans-Planckian spectrum on the propagation of relativistic quantum fields in curved space-time.

We thank E. A. Cornell for an inspiring discussion on the experimental feasibility of our theoretical ideas. We acknowledge helpful discussions with R. Parentani, R. Schützhold, G. E. Volovik, P. Zoller, and A. Recati. P. O. F. has been supported by the Austrian FWF and the Russian RFRR, and U. R. F. by the FWF. We gratefully acknowledge support from the ESF Programme “Cosmology in the Laboratory.”


format: text

text:
# Reflectivity of cholesteric liquid crystals with spatially varying pitch

## 1 Introduction

Photonic band structures can be made to vary spatially by varying the lattice repeat distance as one penetrates the sample. An example where this technique has been used with great success is that of cholesterics. In such liquid crystals the director (the direction of high refractive index) rotates on moving perpendicularly to itself to give a helical structure, see the sketch fig. 1. These structures are known devries51  to have a single photonic stop gap for normal incidence of circularly polarized light of the same handedness as the helical cholesteric and no gap for light of the opposite handedness.

We study here variable pitch cholesterics (VPCs). The motivation for spatially varying structures is to have reflection over a broader range of frequencies than simply that provided by the gap of a uniform system. This has been usefully employed in wide band reflectors and circular polarizers for display purposes. The idea employed to interpret such effects is that light of a given frequency penetrates until the repeat distance of the solid is locally that of the wavelength of this light in the solid. At this point a Bragg-de Vries condition is satisfied and reflection occurs. Our purpose is to explore whether such an approach has any utility and what limitations arise, for instance unwittingly allowing unwanted transmission under some circumstances. The counter argument to this simple argument would be that Bragg effects are coherent – one needs very many such repeats to get sharp and total Bragg interference and in a varying medium this is achieved nowhere. To some extent the answer must be that significant evanescence of the wave must occur between first encountering the gap and leaving it. We explore this numerically and by approximate methods. A rather different theoretical approach has used the Berreman matrix formulation lu-li97 .

Since cholesterics are locally nematic and therefore also fluid, a VPC must be solidified to stabilize the pitch gradient once it has been set up. One method is to photo-induce a concentration gradient in a blend of chiral and achiral photo-crosslinkable mesogens Broer ; Broer\_99 . A network (elastomer) is formed which freezes in the structure. Otherwise, thermal diffusion between two cholesteric layers with different pitches can be used to set up a variation in pitch which can then be frozen in by quenching to the glassy state mitov-boudet98 .

## 2 Governing equations

In conventional cholesteric liquid crystals, the nematic director $`𝒏`$ rotates uniformly in a plane as one advances in a line perpendicular to this plane. We shall adopt the following convention: the nematic director $`𝒏`$ is confined to the $`xy`$-plane, and the direction in which the director changes is therefore the $`z`$-axis, see fig. 1. The director of ordinary cholesteric liquid crystals subsequently becomes

$$𝒏=(\mathrm{cos}\varphi (z),\mathrm{sin}\varphi (z),0)\text{with}\varphi (z)=\frac{2\pi }{p_0}z,$$
(1)
where $`p_0`$ is the pitch length.

To allow for the most general phase evolution, we look at the governing equation for electromagnetic waves in a cholesteric liquid crystal whose pitch does not need to be a constant. In other words, we do not assume the specific form $`\varphi =(2\pi /p_0)z`$ in eq. (1), but leave the phase in the most general form $`\varphi (z)`$. On the other hand, we restrict ourselves to electromagnetic waves which propagate along the $`z`$-axis only, i.e. perpendicular to the director $`𝒏`$. Therefore the electric and magnetic fields of the wave only have $`x`$ and $`y`$ components jackson75 .

The anisotropy of the liquid crystalline phase described by the director $`𝒏`$ implies that locally the dielectric tensor respects the uniaxial symmetry of the liquid crystalline phase. It therefore assumes the following form:

$$\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathit{ϵ}}}=ϵ_1\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{𝜹}}+\left(ϵ_2ϵ_1\right)𝒏𝒏^𝖳,$$
(2)
where $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{𝜹}}`$ is the $`3\times 3`$ unit matrix and where $`ϵ_2`$ and $`ϵ_1`$ are the dielectric constants parallel and perpendicular to the director $`𝒏`$ respectively. Since $`𝒏`$ rotates in the $`xy`$-plane along the $`z`$-axis eq. (1), the dielectric tensor $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathit{ϵ}}}`$ eq. (2) depends too on the $`z`$-coordinate.

In the present case, the electromagnetic wave equation (assuming a unit magnetic permeability $`\mu =1`$), reads jackson75 :

$$\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{^2𝑫_𝒕}{t^2}=\frac{^2𝑬_𝒕}{z^2},$$
(3)
with the dielectric displacement field $`𝑫_𝒕=\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathit{ϵ}}}𝑬_𝒕`$.

Introducing the time dependence $`𝑬_𝒕(z)=e^{i\omega t}𝑬(z)`$ (and similarly for $`𝑫`$), all time derivatives become a mere multiplication by $`i\omega `$, and we obtain:

$$k_0^2𝑫=\frac{^2𝑬}{z^2}\text{with}k_0=\frac{\omega }{c}.$$
(4)
Note that the tensor $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathit{ϵ}}}`$ is in general not diagonal in the fixed laboratory frame $`(xyz)`$ (cf. eqs. (1) and (2)), however due to its symmetry given by eq. (2), the dielectric tensor is diagonal in the frame defined by the rotating director $`𝒏(z)`$. In this frame, which we denote by a tilde and $`(\xi ,\eta )`$ coordinates, the electric displacement field is simply given by:

$$\stackrel{~}{D}_\xi =ϵ_1\stackrel{~}{E}_\xi \text{and}\stackrel{~}{D}_\eta =ϵ_2\stackrel{~}{E}_\eta .$$
(5)
We take $`\eta `$ to be the direction along $`𝒏`$ and hence typically $`ϵ_2>ϵ_1`$.

The coordinate transform into the rotating frame (attached to the director $`𝒏`$), reads as follows:

$$\stackrel{~}{𝑬}=\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{𝑹}}(z)𝑬\text{with}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{𝑹}}(z)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\varphi (z)& \mathrm{sin}\varphi (z)\\ \mathrm{sin}\varphi (z)& \mathrm{cos}\varphi (z)\end{array}\right).$$
(6)
In this new frame, eq. (4) transforms into

$$k_0^2\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathit{ϵ}}}\stackrel{~}{𝑬}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}_z^2+\varphi ^{}& 2\varphi ^{}_z+\varphi ^{\prime \prime }\\ (2\varphi ^{}_z+\varphi ^{\prime \prime })& _z^2+\varphi ^{}\end{array}\right)\stackrel{~}{𝑬},$$
(7)
where $`_z=/z`$ and $`\varphi ^{}=\varphi /z`$, and $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathit{ϵ}}}`$ is now the diagonal $`2\times 2`$ dielectric tensor $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}ϵ_1& 0\\ 0& ϵ_2\end{array}\right)`$ in the $`(\xi ,\eta )`$ frame. Dropping the tilde, here and henceforth, eq. (7) reads:

$`k_0^2ϵ_1E_\xi `$ $`=`$ $`E_\xi ^{\prime \prime }+E_\xi \varphi ^2+2E_\eta ^{}\varphi ^{}+E_\eta \varphi ^{\prime \prime }`$
$`k_0^2ϵ_2E_\eta `$ $`=`$ $`E_\eta ^{\prime \prime }+E_\eta \varphi ^22E_\xi ^{}\varphi ^{}E_\xi \varphi ^{\prime \prime }.`$ (8)
## 3 Cholesterics with constant pitch

Ordinary cholesteric liquid crystals are characterised by a constant pitch $`p_0`$. Hence the director $`𝒏`$ performs a steady rotation as one travels in $`z`$-direction. The physical system is periodic in $`\frac{p_0}{2}`$, although eq. (1) is only periodic in $`p_0`$, reflecting the fact that both $`𝒏`$ and $`𝒏`$ describe the axis of anisotropy of a uniaxial system equally well, see eq. (2).

For constant pitch, the phase $`\varphi (z)`$ is given by $`\varphi =q_0z`$ with $`q_0=\frac{2\pi }{p_0}=\mathrm{const}.`$ and hence $`\varphi ^{}=q_0`$ and $`\varphi ^{\prime \prime }=0`$ – the classical problem of de Vries. The wave equation (8) is exactly solvable devries51  in the $`(\xi ,\eta )`$ frame using the solution:

$$𝑬=\left(\begin{array}{c}A\\ iB\end{array}\right)e^{ikz}.$$
(9)
We obtain two linear homogeneous equations for the coefficients $`A`$ and $`B`$. There can only be a non-trivial solution if the determinant of the corresponding matrix equals zero:

$$k^4k^2(k_0^2[ϵ_1+ϵ_2]+2q_0^2)+(ϵ_1k_0^2q_0^2)(ϵ_2k_0^2q_0^2)=0.$$
(10)
This quadratic equation in $`k^2`$ establishes a relationship between the temporal frequency $`\omega =k_0c`$ and the corresponding wave vector $`k`$. In the reduced zone scheme, the relationship $`k_0`$ as a function of $`k`$ is shown in fig. 2(a).

The ratio $`A/B=E_\xi /E_\eta `$ of the field components also varies as $`k(k_0)`$ is varied:

$$\frac{A}{B}(k_0)=\frac{2kq_0}{k^2+q_0^2ϵ_2k_0^2},$$
(11)
where $`k`$ and $`k_0`$ are related by eq. (10), see fig. 2(b). The choice of the dielectric constants $`ϵ_1`$ and $`ϵ_2`$ in this illustration corresponds to refractive indices perpendicular and parallel to $`𝒏`$ of $`n_1=1.5`$ and $`n_2=1.8`$.

Equation (10) allows two pairs of solutions: for each fixed frequency $`k_0=\frac{\omega }{c}`$, there are two solutions whose wave vector $`k`$ have the same magnitude, but opposite sign, reflecting the fact that there are waves travelling in the two opposite directions along the $`z`$-axis. Apart from this trivial pairing, there are two genuinely different solutions to eq. (10). One of them exhibits a band gap in the frequency range $`\omega /c[q_0/\sqrt{ϵ_2},q_0/\sqrt{ϵ_1}]`$. Note that due to the periodicity in the cholesteric structure, the graphs in fig. 2(a) were shifted by 1 along the $`k`$-axis to yield the reduced zone representation.

The non-trivial pair of solutions, the de Vries eigenstates, are in general of elliptical polarization, the principal directions of which rotate with $`𝒏`$. At the two band edges at $`k_0=q_0/\sqrt{ϵ_2}`$ and $`q_0/\sqrt{ϵ_1}`$, the states are plane polarized with the plane of polarization rotating with $`𝒏`$.

Light with the same handedness as the cholesteric has states $`(E_\xi ,0)`$ and $`(0,E_\eta )`$ at the band edges, corresponding to $`𝑬`$ respectively along $`𝒏`$ or perpendicular to $`𝒏`$. The ratio $`A/B`$ is then $`\mathrm{}`$ or 0 respectively. The former is along a polarizable direction and hence produces a lower energy that the latter even though the spatial variation $`k`$ is the same — a gap has been produced. Light rotating with the opposite handedness does not couple coherently to the cholesteric and retains a gapless dispersion relation, the dashed line in fig. 2. The de Vries problem, in this photonic band structural language of fig. 2, can be extended to non-uniform but periodical director rotation bermel-warner02 .

## 4 Cholesterics with varying pitch

In varying pitch cholesterics (VPCs) the nematic director $`𝒏`$ rotates non-uniformly along the $`z`$-axis, i.e., the phase $`\varphi (z)`$ of eq. (1) does not have the simple form $`\varphi (z)=q_0z=2\pi z/p_0`$ with $`q_0=\mathrm{const}`$, but assumes a more general form. It has been reported that the local pitch can vary exponentially with $`z`$ lu-li97 , i.e., we can write $`q=q_0\mathrm{exp}(\kappa z)`$. Other careful, scanning electron microscopy investigations Broer ; Broer\_99 ; mitov-boudet98 , showed the pitch to be linear over a range of $`z`$-values. Here, we assume the simplest possible inverse pitch variation, namely a linear dependency on $`z`$, leading to a quadratic dependence of the phase $`z`$:

$$q=q_0+\gamma q_0^2z\varphi (z)=\left(q_0+\frac{1}{2}\gamma q_0^2z\right)z.$$
(12)
### 4.1 Local de Vries approximation

A simple framework for considering a wide band circular polarizer, filter or reflector now presents itself Broer ; Broer\_99 ; mitov-boudet98 . As light of a given frequency enters and accordingly has a given wavelength in the medium, then since $`q(z)`$ changes, there will be a depth at which a Bragg-like condition will be satisfied, and at this depth the wave will be totally reflected. This is where the wavelength in the medium matches the local periodicity $`2\pi /q(z)`$. We examine how much credence to put in this description. For Bragg reflection to occur, one requires a semi infinite medium, at least a thickness of sample corresponding to very many wavelengths. In the variable pitch cholesteric, the Bragg condition is met strictly only at a point and a Bragg mechanism fails. Indeed, instead of a total reflection, there may be circumstances where it is only partial, as we find below.

One can take an analogous approach of applying de Vries theory locally to argue for reflection of light of a given wavelength at the particular point in the VPC where for light at this frequency a de Vries gap is encountered.

In the constant pitch case, one can determine an eigen wave vector $`k`$ given a frequency $`\omega `$ (or equivalently $`k_0`$), see fig. 2. The pitch wave vector $`q_0`$ played the role of a parameter in the function $`k=k(\omega )`$. Let us now change perspective and consider the frequency $`\omega `$ or $`k_0=\frac{\omega }{c}`$ as a parameter, but allow the inverse pitch length $`q`$ to change according to eq. (12). In the following, we choose $`k_0=\frac{\omega }{c}=2`$, $`ϵ_1=2.25`$, $`ϵ_2=3.24`$, $`q_0=1`$, and $`\gamma =0.05`$.

By this reasoning, we are able to determine a wave vector $`k`$ satisfying the de Vries condition eq. (10) given a particular cholesteric inverse pitch length $`q`$, which in turn depends on the $`z`$-coordinate by means of eq. (12). Hence, we can plot an hypothetical wave vector $`k`$ against the local position $`z`$, fig. 3. Note that for a given frequency $`k_0`$, there are again four solutions derived from eq. (10). Figure 3 only shows two branches, one of them becoming imaginary between $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$, with $`z_i=\frac{1}{q_0^2\gamma }\left(\sqrt{ϵ_i}k_0q_0\right)`$.

The second pair of branches can be constructed trivially by introducing minus signs: $`kk`$. In the region $`[z_1,z_2]`$ where the frequency $`k_0`$ falls into the band gap for two of the four branches, the corresponding wave vector $`k`$ becomes imaginary, indicating an evanescent behaviour of the wave. We expect there a decaying and increasing solution (see eq. (9) for imaginary $`k`$).

One can now return to the question of reflection, or equivalently transmission. The band gap starts at $`z_1`$ and extends to $`z_2`$. Transmission depends on how close $`z_2`$ is to $`z_1`$ and how rapid the exponential decay in this gap is.

### 4.2 Numerical investigation

The above tentative interpretation of the solution being locally de Vries-like is qualitatively confirmed by looking at a full numerical solution in fig. 4. Here, we have chosen the initial conditions at $`z=0`$ such that we obtain a decaying solution in the forbidden zone as opposed to an increasing solution, which one obtains for different initial conditions.

From the simultaneous field equations (8) for $`E_\xi `$ and $`E_\eta `$, it is clear that one could divide through by a constant, say $`E_\eta (z=0)`$. The required 4 boundary conditions then reduce to 3 choices, the 4th being thus set to $`E_\eta =1`$ at $`z=0`$, reflecting the arbitrariness of the overall scale in the problem.

Several features of this solution are important for what follows. The amplitudes on either side of the gap region differ considerably. The small amplitude to the right of the gap after partial transmission gives a small Poynting flux, $`𝑬𝑯`$, of energy in the positive $`z`$ direction. Although the amplitudes on the left are much larger, they correspond to the sum of an incident and reflected wave resulting in a correspondingly small Poynting vector. The ratio $`A/B`$ of the field amplitudes is approximately constant away from the band edges at $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$. In the de Vries, constant pitch solution this ratio is respectively $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`0`$ at these points, extreme values that are not achieved in this case of partial barrier penetration. The ratio also becomes very large at $`z=20`$ which for our value $`0.05`$ of $`\gamma `$ is the point where there is no rotation of the director at all, that is where $`q(z)0`$. Locally the medium is achiral and there is no need for the two-component, de Vries-like solution.

One can now qualitatively analyze reflection and transmission. With rising $`q`$ vector on penetrating the VPC, one must eventually reach what would be the lower band edge in a uniform de Vries system. However, the gap translates into a spatial region of decaying gap states, and ultimate transmission is determined by how wide this region is. In particular does significant decay of the wave function occur before the propagating region of $`z>z_2`$ is attained? If not, then transmission is higher and reflection lower. Decay depends therefore in part on the gap’s spatial extent

$$z_2z_1=\frac{k_0}{q_0^2\gamma }(\sqrt{ϵ_2}\sqrt{ϵ_1})$$
(13)
over which decay occurs. Clearly, if the spatial variation is weaker, i.e. $`\gamma `$ small, then the gap is spatially more extended and decay has a greater length over which to take place (see also the discussion of the transmission coefficient leading up to eq. (19)).

### 4.3 Approximate solutions

For constant (inverse) pitch, the solution eq. (9) was a plane wave. In the case of a cholesteric with a $`z`$-dependent (inverse) pitch, we choose a more general trial function, namely a WKB-like (Wentzel, Kramers and Brillouin) ansatz, assuming for simplicity that the two field components $`E_\xi `$ and $`E_\eta `$ share the same phase $`S(z)`$:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}E_\xi \\ E_\eta \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}A\\ iB\end{array}\right)e^{iS(z)}.$$
(14)
Inserting eq. (14) into the wave equation (8) yields two linear equations for $`A`$ and $`B`$, which have a non-trivial solution only if the corresponding determinant is zero. Therefore, the analogous equation to eq. (10) is:

$`+S^{\prime \prime }\gamma ^2q_0^2\left(i(ϵ_1+ϵ_2)k_0^22iq_0^2w^2q_0^2S^{\prime \prime }\right)`$
$`+S^4q_0^4\gamma ^4+S^{}4iq_0^4w\gamma ^2`$ (15)
$`S^2\gamma ^2q_0^2\left((ϵ_1+ϵ_2)k_0^2+2q_0^2w^2+2iq_0^2\gamma ^2S^{\prime \prime }\right)`$
$`ϵ_1ϵ_2k_0^4(ϵ_1+ϵ_2)k_0^2q_0^2w^2+q_0^4w^4+q_0^4\gamma ^2`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
where we have used a rescaled variable $`w=1+q_0\gamma z`$. Also note that the prime denotes the differentiation with respect to the new variable $`w`$: $`S^{}S(w)/w`$.

This equation is not just an algebraic equation like eq. (10), but rather a non-linear second order differential equation for $`S`$. An approximation is buried in this procedure. The components $`A`$ and $`B`$ were taken as constants, any variation with $`z`$ they might have in common being taken up as logarithmic terms in the general phase $`S(z)`$ (including any usual pre-exponential terms like $`(S^{})^{1/4}`$ that one would find in conventional WKB). However, we know from eq. (11) and fig. 2(b) that the ratio $`A/B`$ in the uniform case depends on $`k`$ which is now varying with respect to $`q(z)`$ since the pitch is spatially varying. Hence even in a local de Vries picture, $`A/B`$ must be a function of $`z`$ through $`q(z)`$. This variation has been ignored on inserting (14) into eq. (8). The full numerical solution, fig. 4, indeed shows the ratio $`A/B`$ to vary spatially. From fig. 2(b), one can see that the de Vries value is $`\mathrm{}`$ at the lower edge and $`0`$ at the upper. However, the variation $`A/B`$ goes to zero as $`\gamma 0`$, as expected, and can be estimated for small $`\gamma `$ to be proportional to $`\gamma k_0`$, implying a small variation of $`A/B`$ for small $`\gamma `$.

Furthermore, the form (14) is expected to be valid in the regions where the variation $`A/B`$ is small. By looking at fig. 2 with the axes interchanged, one recognizes that the variation of $`A/B`$ is strong near the gap edges, but weak otherwise.

Ignoring this potential shortcoming in the ansatz (14), and neglecting terms involving $`S^{\prime \prime }(w)`$, the determinental consistency equation (15) for $`A`$ and $`B`$ reduces to a 4th order algebraic equation for $`S^{}(w)`$. This equation can be solved analytically, giving a very long and complicated expression $`S_1^{}`$ for this approximation to $`S^{}(w)`$.

In fig. 5 we compare this solution $`S_1^{}`$ to a further simplified approach: after switching back to the old $`z`$ variable, we take $`\gamma 0`$ to obtain $`S_2^{}`$; this corresponds exactly to the de Vries wavevector function derived from eq. (10) and used in fig. 3: $`S_2^{}`$ stands for the local wave vector $`k(z)`$ of a plane wave with frequency $`\omega =k_0c`$ in a cholesteric with a inverse pitch $`q(z)`$, which we consider as locally constant – thus taking $`\gamma =0`$ here means that we ignore derivatives of the phase $`\varphi `$, in other words an adiabatic approximation:

$`S_2^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\pm (\frac{1}{2}k_0^2(ϵ_1+ϵ_2)+q^2`$
$`\pm \frac{1}{2}k_0\sqrt{(ϵ_1ϵ_2)^2k_0^2+8q^2(ϵ_1+ϵ_2)})^{1/2},`$
where $`q=q(z)`$ again is given by eq. (12).

We note that, for the branch with the forbidden zone, the approximation which takes us from $`S_1^{}`$ to $`S_2^{}`$ is valid far away from the points $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$, where the phase variation is zero on the transition from being real to becoming imaginary or vice versa. However, close to these points, approximating $`S_1^{}`$ with $`S_2^{}`$ clearly breaks down, as fig. 5 shows. In any event at the band edges where $`S^{}(z)0`$ the WKB-like approach breaks down for the usual reasons.

### 4.4 Comparison of approximate schemes with numerical solutions

So far, we have only compared the validity of two consecutive approximations $`S_1^{}`$ and $`S_2^{}`$ with each other. However, the true test is to compare the approximation to the full numerical solution.

Figure 6 compares the numerical solution with the approximate solution obtained by using $`S_2^{}`$. For this purpose, we choose the approximate solution $`S_2^{}`$ corresponding to the branch (2) in fig. 3, integrate it numerically and obtain the resulting wave by eq. (14). The numerical solution is obtained by first evaluating eq. (14) at an anchor point $`z_0`$ giving the four necessary initial conditions: the two field components $`E_\xi `$ and $`E_\eta `$, and their gradients $`E_\xi ^{}`$ and $`E_\eta ^{}`$. In fig. 6 (a), we chose $`z_0=0`$, and in figs. 6 (b)–(d) $`z_0=70`$. We observe that the agreement between the two solutions breaks down on approaching $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$. This has a plausible explanation: we have seen in fig. 5 that the approximation $`S_2^{}`$ breaks down near the points $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$ as in WKB. We therefore expect the corresponding solution of the wave equation that is generated from $`S_2^{}`$ to fail dramatically at the same point.

The discrepancy at $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$ between the approximate and numerical solution can also be explained from another viewpoint: between $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$, we ideally expect two fundamental solutions, the one increasing and the other decreasing in an exponential-like fashion. As the procedure described in the last paragraph introduces small errors in the initial conditions at $`z_0`$, the numerically computed solution does carry components of the two fundamental solutions. As $`z`$ enters the region between $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$, one solution decays rapidly, but the other (initially only marginally present) increases quickly, becoming the dominant contribution in the region $`[z_1,z_2]`$. Away from the gap the agreement is very good – over large distances above the gap (indicating great stability) and even backwards to the point $`z=20`$ where locally the pitch is infinite.

### 4.5 Transmission coefficient

One can estimate the dependence of the transmission coefficient on the principal variables $`q_0`$, $`\gamma `$, $`k_0`$, $`ϵ_1`$ and $`ϵ_2`$.

Our system is analogous to the simple quantum mechanical barrier problem for a free particle (see for example davydov76 ; here we have a vector field $`𝑬`$ with two components rather than one): outside a region $`[0,l]`$, propagation is described by the Schrödinger equation of a free particle with an oscillating wave function and allowing for an incoming and an outgoing wave.

However, in the region $`[0,l]`$, the particle moves across a potential $`V`$. If the potential $`V`$ is constant and greater than the particle’s energy $`E`$, the solutions to the wave equation are either exponentially decaying or increasing. The reflection or transmission coefficients can easily be calculated exactly. For a general potential barrier $`V(z)`$, the transmission coefficient can be estimated davydov76 :

$$T\mathrm{exp}\left(2\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}_0^l𝑑z\sqrt{2m(V(z)E)}\right).$$

We estimate the transmission coefficient $`T`$ as the square of the ratio of the fields $`E_\xi `$ or $`E_\eta `$ at $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$:

$`T\left|{\displaystyle \frac{E_\eta (z_2)}{E_\eta (z_1)}}\right|^2\left|{\displaystyle \frac{E_\xi (z_2)}{E_\xi (z_2)}}\right|^2\left|{\displaystyle \frac{e^{iS(z_2)}}{e^{iS(z_1)}}}\right|^2`$
where the latter form arises from our assumption (14). The barrier form of $`T`$ now yields

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`\left|\mathrm{exp}\left(2i\left[S(z_2)S(z_1)\right]\right)\right|`$ (17)
$`\mathrm{exp}\left(2i{\displaystyle _{z_1}^{z_2}}𝑑zS_2^{}(z)\right),`$
where we have implicitly assumed that the integral of $`S_2^{}(z)`$ over $`z`$ between $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$ is purely imaginary, yielding a real number in the final exponential of eq. (17). In the forbidden zone $`[z_1,z_2]`$, there are two solutions for $`S_2^{}`$ (see. eq. (4.3)); both are purely imaginary, but of opposite signs. Therefore, we have to choose the correct one to be inserted into eq. (17), corresponding to the decaying wave.

The function $`S_2^{}(z)`$ in (4.3) has divergent slopes at the boundary points $`z_2`$ and $`z_1`$ and assumes a maximum in between with

$$S_{2\mathrm{max}}^{}=\frac{ϵ_2ϵ_1}{\sqrt{8}\sqrt{ϵ_1+ϵ_2}}k_0.$$

Therefore one might approximate $`S_2^{}(z)`$ by an ellipse between the points $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$ with a maximum value of $`S_{2\mathrm{max}}^{}`$:

$`S_2^{}(z)`$ $``$ $`S_{2\mathrm{app}}^{}(z)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ik_0}{\sqrt{ϵ_1+ϵ_2}}}\sqrt{\left(q\sqrt{ϵ_1}k_0\right)\left(\sqrt{ϵ_2}k_0q\right)},`$
where $`q=q_0+q_0^2\gamma z`$. Figure 7 shows the $`S_2^{}(z)`$ and overlaid the approximation $`S_{2\mathrm{app}}^{}`$ of eq. (4.5). The inset shows the relative error $`(S_2^{}S_{2\mathrm{app}}^{})/S_2^{}`$.

Finally, this expression can be integrated analytically to give an estimate for the integral in eq. (17), which corresponds to the area under the curve in fig. 7. We obtain

$`T`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_0^2}{q_0^2\gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\sqrt{ϵ_1}\sqrt{ϵ_2}\right)^2}{\sqrt{ϵ_1+ϵ_2}}}\right)`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}}{\displaystyle \frac{q_0^2\gamma \left(z_1z_2\right)^2}{\sqrt{ϵ_1+ϵ_2}}}\right)`$
using eq. (13) for the scaling of $`z_1z_2`$.

To arrive at this estimate (19) of $`T`$, we used the approximation $`S_2^{}(z)`$, which breaks down near the edges of the stop gap at $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$, as fig. 5 shows. However, as one can see from fig. 7, the dominant behaviour of $`T`$ is determined by the large imaginary values of $`S_2^{}`$. These occur deep inside the stop gap where the approximations are valid.

Our expectation at eq. (13) has been confirmed: the wider the spatial extent of the stop gap the smaller the penetration and hence the lower the transmission. Small $`\gamma `$, that is slow spatial variation of the band structure, gives lower transmission (however providing that the sample is thicker than the spatial extent of the gap!). One requires $`\gamma (n_2n_1)^2(k_0/q_0)^2`$ for effective reflection at the effective frequency $`k_0`$.

## 5 Conclusions

The numerical solution of the field amplitudes for light in a spatially varying cholesteric (a photonic solid) has been presented. Fields decay in the region where, for the relevant frequency of light, a uniform cholesteric would have its stop gap. Transmission is low for sufficiently slow variation of the pitch. Thus the simple idea that each component of a broad spectrum of light is reflected where its Bragg (strictly its de Vries) condition is satisfied, is partially borne out.

Approximate field amplitudes are derived by taking this local de Vries condition literally. They are reasonable approximations far from the gap, but less good at the gap, for reasons we discuss.

Slower spatial variation, $`\gamma `$ of pitch gives much lower transmission, in fact exponentially lower, varying as $`e^{A/\gamma }`$. This leads to better utility as broad band reflectors in devices.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Peter Haynes for inspiring discussions, especially regarding the interpretation of numerical results and WKB. S.K. acknowledges the financial support of EPSRC.


text:
# Question

Action Minimizing Solutions of the

Newtonian n-body Problem: From

Homology to Symmetry

A. Chenciner Astronomie et Systèmes Dynamiques, IMCCE, UMR 8028 du CNRS, 77, avenue Denfert-Rochereau, 75014 Paris, France & Département de Mathématiques, Université Paris VII-Denis Diderot, 16, rue Clisson, 75013 Paris, France. E-mail: chencine@bdl.fr

(A la mémoire de Nicole Desolneux)

Abstract

An action minimizing path between two given configurations, spatial or planar, of the $`n`$-body problem is always a true – collision-free – solution. Based on a remarkable idea of Christian Marchal, this theorem implies the existence of new “simple” symmetric periodic solutions, among which the Eight for 3 bodies, the Hip-Hop for 4 bodies and their generalizations.

2000 Mathematics Subject Classification: 70F07, 70F10, 70F16, 34C14, 34C25.

Keywords and Phrases: $`n`$-body problem, Action, Symmetry.

0. Introduction

Finding periodic geodesics on a riemannian manifold as length minimizers in a fixed non-trivial homology or homotopy class is commonplace lore. Advocated by Poincaré \[P\] as early as 1896, the search for periodic solutions of a given period $`T`$ of the $`n`$-body problem as action minimizers in a fixed non-trivial homology or homotopy class is rendered difficult by the possible existence of collisions due to the relative weakness of the newtonian potential: the action of a solution stays finite even when some of the bodies are colliding. Very few results are available: among them Gordon’s characterization of Kepler solutions \[G\] for 2 bodies in $`IR^2`$, Venturelli’s characterization of Lagrange equilateral solutions \[V1\] for 3 bodies in $`IR^3`$, Arioli, Gazzola and Terracini’s characterization of retrograde Hill’s orbits \[AGT\] for the restricted 3-body problem in $`IR^2`$. In particular, no truly new solution of the $`n`$-body problem was found in this way; indeed, these results confirm the view that the action-minimizing periodic solutions are the “simplest” ones in their class. The action minimization method has recently been given a new impetus by the replacement of the topological constraints by symmetry ones. This idea was first introduced by the italian school \[C-Z\]\[DGM\]\[SeT\] as another mean of forcing coercivity of the problem, i.e. forbidding a minimizer to be “at infinity”. The bodies were forced to occupy, after half a period, a position symmetrical of the original one with respect to the center of mass of the system. It is proved in \[CD\] that in a space of even dimension, say $`IR^2`$, the minimizers in this symmetry class include relative equilibrium solutions (i.e. solutions which are “rigid body like”); moreover all minimizers are of this form provided a certain “finiteness” hypothesis is verified (see \[C3\]). Such relative equilibria can occur only for the so called central configurations \[AC\], the most famous of which is Lagrange equilateral triangle.

Recently, a new type of symmetry was considered, which originates in the invariance of the Lagrangian under permutations of equal masses. This has led to the discovery of a whole world of new solutions in the case when all the bodies have the same mass. The most surprising ones are the “choreographies” whose name, given by Carles Simó, fits the beautiful figures they display on the screen in animated computer experiments (\[CGMS\],\[S2\]). Referring to my survey article \[C3\] for a bibliography and a description of the few cases in which existence proofs are available (the Hip-Hop \[CV\] for 4 bodies in $`IR^3`$, the Eight \[CM\] for 3 bodies in $`IR^2`$, Chen’s solutions \[Ch\] for 4 bodies in $`IR^2`$), I mainly address here a powerful theorem which solves completely the collision problem for the fixed ends problem in the case of arbitrary masses. This is pertinent because, as we shall see, it allows one to prove the existence of collision-free minimizers under well chosen symmetry constraints. This theorem is the result of the efforts of Richard Montgomery, Susanna Terracini, Andrea Venturelli \[V2\], and, for the last – fundamental – stone, Christian Marchal \[M2\] \[M3\]. I present here a complete proof and, in particular, a simplified version of Marchal’s remarkable idea, which avoids numerical computations. I discuss also new applications to minimization under symmetry constraints and open problems.

Notations. By a configuration of $`n`$ bodies in an euclidean space $`(E,)`$ we understand an $`n`$-tuple $`x=(\stackrel{}{r}_1,\stackrel{}{r}_2,\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{r}_n)E^n`$. The configuration space of the $`n`$-body problem is the quotient of the set of configurations by the action of translations (see \[AC\]). It may be identified as in \[C3\] with the set $`𝒳`$ of configurations whose center of mass $`\stackrel{}{r}_G=(_{i=1}^nm_i)^1_{i=1}^nm_i\stackrel{}{r}_i`$ is at the origin. It is endowed with the “mass scalar product” $`(\stackrel{}{r}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{r}_n)(\stackrel{}{s}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{s}_n)=_{i=1}^nm_i(\stackrel{}{r}_i\stackrel{}{r}_G),(\stackrel{}{s}_i\stackrel{}{s}_G)`$. The non-collision configurations – the ones such that no two bodies $`\stackrel{}{r}_i`$ coincide – form an open dense subset $`\widehat{𝒳}`$ of $`𝒳`$. The functions $`I=xx,J=xy,K=yy`$, defined on the phase space $`\widehat{𝒳}\times 𝒳`$ (whose elements are noted $`(x,y)`$) are the basic isometry-invariants of the $`n`$-body problem They are respectively the moment of inertia of the configuration with respect to its center of mass, half its time derivative and twice the kinetic energy in a galilean frame which fixes the center of mass. The potential function (opposite of the potential energy), the Hamiltonian (=total energy) and the Lagrangian are respectively defined by

$$U=\underset{i<j}{}m_im_j\stackrel{}{r}_i\stackrel{}{r}_j^1,H=\frac{1}{2}KU,L=\frac{1}{2}K+U.$$

In terms of the gradient $``$ for the mass metric, the equations of the $`n`$-body problem,

$$m_i\ddot{r}_i(t)=\underset{ji}{}m_im_j\frac{\stackrel{}{r}_j(t)\stackrel{}{r}_i(t)}{\stackrel{}{r}_j(t)\stackrel{}{r}_i(t)^3},i=1,\mathrm{},n,$$

can be written $`\ddot{x}=U(x)`$. They are the Euler-Lagrange equations of the action, which to a path $`x(t)`$ associates the real number

$$𝒜_T\left(x(t)\right)=_0^TL(x(t),\dot{x}(t))𝑑t.$$

Remark. In the perturbations, we shall not bother about fixing the center of mass because replacing $`K=_{i=1}^nm_i\stackrel{}{v}_i\stackrel{}{v}_G^2`$ by $`m_i\stackrel{}{v}_i^2`$ only increases the action.

1. The fixed-ends problem

###### Question

Given two configurations, – possibly with collisions – of $`n`$ point masses in $`IR^3`$ (resp. $`IR^2`$) and a positive real number $`T`$, does there exist a solution of the Newtonian $`n`$-body problem which connects them in the time $`T`$ ?

A natural way of looking for a solution is to seek for a minimizer of the action $`𝒜_T(x)`$ over the space $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^T(x_i,x_f)`$ of paths $`x(t)`$ in the configuration space $`\widehat{𝒳}`$ which start at time $`0`$ in the configuration $`x_i`$ and end at time $`T`$ in the configuration $`x_f`$. For the integral to be defined, it is natural to work in the Sobolev space of paths which are square integrable together with their first derivative in the sense of distributions.

The main problem, already mentioned by Poincaré in 1896 (see \[P\] where he introduces the method in a slightly different context), is that a minimum could well be such that, for a non-empty set of instants (necessarily of measure zero), the system undergoes a collision of two or more bodies, which prevents it form being a true solution (see \[C3\]; existence is not a problem here because fixing the ends gives coercivity). At an isolated collision time, the renormalized configuration is known to be approaching the set of central configurations (the ones which admit homothetic motion \[C2\]) but very little is understood of these configurations for more than 3 bodies. Continuous families of such configurations could exist (the “finiteness problem”) and even if they didn’t, there would be no garantee that at collision the renormalized configuration has a limit : it might have one only modulo rotations ( the “infinite spin problem”). Nevertheless, we prove the

###### Theorem

A minimizer of the action in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^T(x_i,x_f)`$ is collision-free on the whole open interval $`]0,T[`$. Hence, the answer to the Question is yes, both in $`IR^3`$ and $`IR^2`$.

In the next paragraph, Marchal’s idea to prove that isolated collisions do not occur in a (local) minimizer is explained on the Kepler problem. If the finiteness problem is supposed to be solved, it works in the same way for the general $`n`$-body problem (surprisingly, the infinite spin problem is irrelevant). We then address the finiteness problem with Terracini’s technique of blow up, which reduces the problem of isolated collisions to the case of parabolic homothetic solutions; finally we show, following Montgomery and Venturelli, that accumulation of collisions do not occur in a minimizer provided no subclusters collide. The theorem then follows by induction on the number of bodies involved in a collision. Remark. A similar assertion, based on numerical experiments, was made by Tiancheng Ouyang in Guanajuato (Hamsys, march 2001) but no proof has yet appeared.

2. The Kepler problem as a model for the study of isolated collisions

The case of two bodies contains already many ingredients of the general situation. As is well-known, the 2-body problem is equivalent to the problem of a particle attracted to a fixed center 0, the so-called Kepler problem (or 1-fixed center problem). We call collision-ejection a solution in which the particle follows a straight line segment from its initial position $`\stackrel{}{r}_i`$ to the attracting center and (possibly) another straight line segment from the attracting center to its final position $`\stackrel{}{r}_f`$.

###### A test assertion

A collision-ejection solution of the Kepler problem does not minimize the action in the Sobolev space $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^T(\stackrel{}{r}_i,\stackrel{}{r}_f)`$ of paths joining $`\stackrel{}{r}_i`$ to $`\stackrel{}{r}_f`$.

At least four proofs may be given of the truth of this assertion but only the fourth one using Marchal’s idea is robust enough to lead to complete generalization. In the first one, we use the explicit knowledge of the solutions of the 2-body problem \[A1\] to identify the minimizers with the “direct” arcs of solution, not going “around” the attracting center (this arc is uniquely determined provided $`\stackrel{}{r}_i`$, O and $`\stackrel{}{r}_f`$ do not lie on a line in this order). In the second one, we find a “simple” path without collision (straight line, circle, uniform motion) which has lower action. In the third one, supposing that a minimizer $`\stackrel{}{r}(t)`$ has a collision with the fixed center at time $`0`$, we find a local deformation $`\stackrel{}{r}_ϵ(t)=\stackrel{}{r}(t)+ϵ\phi (t)\stackrel{}{s}`$, which has lower action and no collision. Such deformations were used by many people, including Susanna Terracini, Gianfausto Dell’Antonio, Richard Montgomery and Christian Marchal. If we chose, with Montgomery, $`\phi (t)=1`$ if $`0tϵ^{\frac{3}{2}},\phi (t)=ϵ^1(ϵ^{\frac{3}{2}}+ϵt)`$ if $`ϵ^{\frac{3}{2}}tϵ^{\frac{3}{2}}+ϵ`$ and $`\phi (t)=0`$ if $`tϵ^{\frac{3}{2}}+ϵ`$, the gain in action is $`c\sqrt{ϵ}\left(1+O(\sqrt{ϵ}\mathrm{log}(1/\sqrt{ϵ}))\right)`$ provided the unit vector $`\stackrel{}{s}`$ is well chosen. We come to the fourth proof, for which we must distinguish two cases according to the dimension of the ambient space.

(i) The case of $`IR^3`$. Let $`t\stackrel{}{r}(t)`$ be a collision-ejection solution of the Kepler problem, $`\ddot{\stackrel{}{r}}(t)=\stackrel{}{r}(t)/|\stackrel{}{r}(t)|^3`$, such that $`\stackrel{}{r}(T^{})=\stackrel{}{r}_i,\stackrel{}{r}(0)=0,\stackrel{}{r}(T)=\stackrel{}{r}_f,T,T^{}>0`$. We consider the following family of continuous deformations of $`\stackrel{}{r}(t)`$, parametrized by an element $`\stackrel{}{s}`$ of the unit sphere $`S^2`$ in $`IR^3`$ : if $`R^{}(t)=(1+\frac{t}{T^{}})\rho `$ and $`R(t)=(1\frac{t}{T})\rho `$,

$$\stackrel{}{r}_\stackrel{}{s}(t)=\stackrel{}{r}(t)+R^{}(t)\stackrel{}{s}\text{if}T^{}t0,\stackrel{}{r}_\stackrel{}{s}(t)=\stackrel{}{r}(t)+R(t)\stackrel{}{s}\text{if}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}tT.$$

It is a simplification of Marchal’s original choice but the idea is the same : to show that the action $`𝒜`$ of $`\stackrel{}{r}(t)`$ is strictly bigger than the average $`𝒜_m=_{S^2}𝒜(\stackrel{}{r}_\stackrel{}{s}(t))𝑑\sigma `$, where $`d\sigma `$ denotes the normalized area form, that is the unique rotation invariant probability measure on $`S^2`$. This will imply the existence of at least one direction $`\stackrel{}{s}`$ for which $`\stackrel{}{r}_\stackrel{}{s}(t)`$ has lower action than $`\stackrel{}{r}(t)`$ (because the set of good $`\stackrel{}{s}`$ has positive measure we could choose $`\stackrel{}{s}`$ so that $`\stackrel{}{r}_\stackrel{}{s}`$ is collision-free but this is irrelevant).

The linearity of the integral and the similar behaviour of ejection and collision allow to replace in the proof $`\stackrel{}{r}(t)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{r}_\stackrel{}{s}(t)`$ by their restrictions to the interval $`[0,T]`$. Moreover, it follows from the “blow-up” method (see 3.2) that it is enough to consider a parabolic solution $`\stackrel{}{r}(t)`$, that is $`\stackrel{}{r}(t)=\gamma t^{\frac{2}{3}}\stackrel{}{c}`$, with $`\gamma =(9/2)^{\frac{1}{3}}`$ if $`|\stackrel{}{c}|=1`$. By Fubini theorem applied to the positive integrand,

$$𝒜_m=_{S^2}𝑑\sigma _0^T\left(\frac{|\dot{\stackrel{}{r}_\stackrel{}{s}}|^2}{2}+\frac{1}{|\stackrel{}{r}_\stackrel{}{s}|}\right)𝑑t=_0^T𝑑t_{S^2}\left(\frac{|\dot{\stackrel{}{r}_\stackrel{}{s}}|^2}{2}+\frac{1}{|\stackrel{}{r}_\stackrel{}{s}|}\right)𝑑\sigma ,\text{ and }$$

$$𝒜_m𝒜=_0^T𝑑t\left[\frac{\dot{R}(t)^2}{2}+_{S^2}\dot{R}(t)\stackrel{}{s}\stackrel{}{r}(t)𝑑\sigma \right]+_0^T𝑑t\left[_{S^2}\frac{d\sigma }{|\stackrel{}{r}_\stackrel{}{s}(t)|}\frac{1}{|\stackrel{}{r}(t)|}\right].$$

The first integral reduces to $`\frac{1}{2}_0^T\dot{R}(t)^2𝑑t=\rho ^2/2T`$ because of the antisymmetry in $`\stackrel{}{s}`$ of the scalar product. The second is the difference in potential resulting from the replacement of the particle $`\stackrel{}{r}(t)`$ by a homogeneous hollow sphere of the same mass and increasing radius $`R(t)`$. Because of the harmonicity of Newton potential in $`IR^3`$, the potential $`U_0(\stackrel{}{r},R):=\frac{d\sigma }{|\stackrel{}{r}R\stackrel{}{s}|}=\frac{d\sigma }{|\stackrel{}{r}+R\stackrel{}{s}|}`$ of a homogeneous hollow sphere of radius $`R`$ is

$$U_0(\stackrel{}{r},R)=\frac{1}{R}\text{if}|\stackrel{}{r}|R,U_0(\stackrel{}{r},R)=\frac{1}{|\stackrel{}{r}|}\text{if}|\stackrel{}{r}|R.$$

If $`0`$ leaves this sphere at time $`t_0`$, $`|\stackrel{}{r}(t_0)|=R(t_0)`$, i.e. $`\rho =\gamma t_0^{\frac{2}{3}}+O(t_0^{\frac{5}{3}})`$, and

$$𝒜𝒜_m=\frac{\rho ^2}{2T}+_0^{t_0}\left[\frac{1}{R(t)}\frac{1}{|\stackrel{}{r}(t)|}\right]𝑑t=\frac{2}{\gamma }t_0^{\frac{1}{3}}+O(t_0^{\frac{4}{3}})0\text{if }\rho \text{, hence }t_0\text{, is small. }$$

(ii) The case of $`IR^2`$. The Newtonian potential is not harmonic in $`IR^2`$ and this makes things somewhat more complicated. Marchal proposes to replace the sphere by a disk of radius $`R`$ endowed with the projection $`\sigma (\theta ,x)=1/\left(2\pi R\sqrt{R^2x^2}\right)`$ (in polar coordinates) of the uniform density on the sphere of the same radius. The potential fonction $`U_0(\stackrel{}{r},R)`$ of such a disk (total mass 1) may be recovered from the general computation done, via complex function theory, for a thin elliptic plate with a given density which is constant on homothetic ellipses (see \[B\]):

$$U_0(\stackrel{}{r},R)=\frac{\pi }{2R}\text{if}|\stackrel{}{r}|R,U_0(\stackrel{}{r},R)=\frac{1}{R}\mathrm{arcsin}\left(\frac{R}{|\stackrel{}{r}|}\right)\text{if}|\stackrel{}{r}|R.$$

It does not coincide any more, but asymptotically, with Newton’s potential $`1/|\stackrel{}{r}|`$ of the center of mass outside the disk but it is still constant in the interior and the proof works as well as in the spatial case: as $`\mathrm{arcsin}(x)x+(\frac{\pi }{2}1)x^3`$ for $`x0`$, the difference in actions between the mean of the modified actions when $`\stackrel{}{s}`$ belongs to the unit disk and the original becomes

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝒜_m𝒜& =\frac{\rho ^2}{2T}+_0^{t_0}\left[\frac{\pi }{2R(t)}\frac{1}{|\stackrel{}{r}(t)|}\right]𝑑t+_{t_0}^T\left[\frac{1}{R(t)}\mathrm{arcsin}\left(\frac{R(t)}{|\stackrel{}{r}(t)|}\right)\frac{1}{|\stackrel{}{r}(t)|}\right]𝑑t\hfill \\ & \frac{\rho ^2}{2T}+\left[\frac{\pi T}{2\rho }\mathrm{log}(1\frac{t}{T})\frac{3}{\gamma }t^{\frac{1}{3}}\right]_0^{t_0}+_0^{t_0}(\frac{\pi }{2}1)\rho ^2(1\frac{t}{T})^2\frac{1}{\gamma ^3t^2}𝑑t\hfill \\ & =\frac{\gamma ^2t_0^{\frac{4}{3}}}{2T}\left(1+O(t_0)\right)+(\frac{\pi }{2}3)\frac{1}{\gamma }t_0^{\frac{1}{3}}\left(1+O(t_0)\right)+(\frac{\pi }{2}1)\frac{1}{\gamma }t_0^{\frac{1}{3}}+O\left(t_0^{\frac{4}{3}}\mathrm{log}(\frac{1}{t_0})\right)\hfill \\ & =(\pi 4)\frac{1}{\gamma }t_0^{\frac{1}{3}}+O\left(t_0^{\frac{4}{3}}\mathrm{log}(\frac{1}{t_0})\right)0\text{ for }\rho \text{, hence }t_0\text{, small.}\hfill \end{array}$$

3. Proof of the theorem

3.1 The induction. We define the following statements about a minimizer $`x(t)`$: $`(I_p)`$ If a collision of $`p`$ bodies occurs in $`x(t)`$ for $`t]0,T[`$, it is isolated.

$`(II_p)`$ No collision of $`mp`$ bodies occurs in $`x(t)`$ for $`t]0,T[`$. In 3.2 we prove that $`(I_p)`$ implies that no collision of $`p`$ bodies occurs in $`]0,T[`$, hence that $`(II_p)`$ and $`(I_{p+1})`$ imply $`(II_{p+1})`$. In 3.3 we prove that $`(II_p)`$ implies $`(I_{p+1})`$. As $`(II_1)`$ is empty, it implies $`(I_2)`$, hence $`(II_2)`$, etc… up to $`(II_n)`$ which is the conclusion. If $`k`$-collisions are present in $`x_i`$ or $`x_f`$ but not $`j`$-collisions for $`j<k`$, the induction proves that $`j<k`$-collisions are absent. The next step proves that $`k`$-collisions, including the ones at the ends, are isolated and everything goes through. Remark. The induction may succeed because a $`p`$-body collision cannot be a limit of $`q`$-body collisions with $`q>p`$. Still, accumulation of collisions involving bodies in different clusters could a priori occur, e.g. a sequence of double collisions 23, 12, 34, 23, 13, 24, 23, … converging to a quadruple collision 1234, or even a converging sequence of such sequences. Induction on the number of bodies in the clusters fortunately avoids having to deal with such problems.

3.2 Elimination of isolated collisions. 3.2.1 The blow-up technique. This technique was introduced by S. Terracini and developped in the thesis of A. Venturelli \[V2\]. It is based on the homogeneity of the potential (compare \[C2\]). It allows proving the

###### Proposition

If a minimizer $`x(t)`$ of the fixed ends problem for $`n`$-bodies possesses an isolated collision of $`pn`$ bodies, there is a parabolic (i.e. zero energy) homothetic collision-ejection solution $`\overline{x}(t)`$ of the $`p`$-body problem which is also a minimizer of the fixed ends problem.

Proof. To keep the exposition as simple as possible, I describe the case of a total collision. In the general case of partial (and possibly simultaneous) collisions, everything goes through in the same way because the blow up sends all bodies not concerned by the collision to infinity (for more details, see \[V2\]). Assuming that the collision occurs at $`t=0`$, we define $`x^\lambda (t)=\lambda ^{\frac{2}{3}}x(\lambda t)`$ for $`\lambda >0`$. If $`x(t)`$ is a solution of the $`n`$-body problem, so is $`x^\lambda (t)`$. Moreover, for any path $`x(t)`$ in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{T_1}^{T_2}(x_i,x_f))`$, the path $`x^\lambda (t)`$ belongs to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{T_1}^{T_2}(x^\lambda (T_1),x^\lambda (T_2))`$ and its action is equal to $`\lambda ^{\frac{1}{3}}`$ times the action of the restriction of $`x(t)`$ to the interval $`[\lambda T_1,\lambda T_2]`$. Hence, if $`x(t)`$ is action minimizer in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{T_1}^{T_2}(x_i,x_f)`$, so is $`x^\lambda `$ in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{T_1}^{T_2}(x^\lambda (T_1),x^\lambda (T_2))`$. Now, Sundman’s estimates recalled above imply that, $`\{x^\lambda ,0<\lambda <\lambda _0\}`$ is bounded in $`H^1([T_1,T_2],𝒳)`$, hence weakly compact, so that there exists a sequence $`\lambda _n0`$ such that $`x^{\lambda _n}`$ converges weakly (and hence uniformly) in $`H^1([0,T],𝒳)`$ to a solution $`\overline{x}`$. One shows that $`\overline{x}`$ is made of a parabolic homothetic collision solution followed by a parabolic homothetic ejection solution (the two central configurations involved are a priori distinct). Moreover, it follows from the weak lower semi-continuity of the action that $`\overline{x}`$ is a minimizer in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{T_1}^{T_2}(\overline{x}(T_1),\overline{x}(T_2))`$ (see \[V2\]). 3.2.2 The mean perturbed action. We shall deal only with the case of $`IR^3`$ and refer the reader to the Kepler case for the modifications needed in the case of $`IR^2`$. Thanks to “blow up”, we may suppose that our minimizer $`x(t)`$ is a parabolic homothetic collision-ejection solution $`x(t)=(\stackrel{}{r}_1(t),\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{r}_p(t))=x_0|t|^{\frac{2}{3}}`$ of the $`p`$-body problem. As in the Kepler case, we may restrict to the ejection part, corresponding to $`t[0,T]`$. One studies deformations of $`x(t)`$ of the form

$$x_\stackrel{}{s}^k(t)=(\stackrel{}{r}_1(t),\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{r}_k(t)+R(t)\stackrel{}{s},\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{r}_p(t)),$$

where, as before, $`R(t)=(1\frac{t}{T})\rho `$ with $`\rho `$ a small positive real number and $`\stackrel{}{s}`$ belongs to the unit sphere. The same computation as in the Kepler case leads to an average action $`𝒜_m^k`$ such that

$$𝒜_m^k𝒜\frac{m_k}{2}\frac{\rho ^2}{T}+\underset{jk,jp}{}m_jm_k_0^{t_{jk}}\left[\frac{1}{R(t)}\frac{1}{r_{jk}(t)}\right]𝑑t,$$

where $`r_{jk}=|\stackrel{}{r}_k\stackrel{}{r}_j|`$ and $`t_{jk}`$ is defined by $`r_{jk}(t)=R(t)`$ (the inequality sign comes from the fact that the deformations do not keep the center of mass fixed).

As $`r_{jk}(t)=c_{jk}t^{\frac{2}{3}}`$, one concludes as in the Kepler case that $`𝒜_m^k𝒜<0`$. Remark. We could have dispensed with “blow up” in case similitude classes of central configurations were isolated but certainly not otherwise. This is because, the best control Sundman’s theory may give us on the asymptotic behaviour of the colliding bodies is that their moment of inertia $`I_c`$ with respect to their center of mass and their potential $`U_c`$ are respectively equivalent to $`I_0t^{\frac{4}{3}}`$ and $`U_0t^{\frac{2}{3}}`$ (see \[C2\]). This implies the existence, for $`1j<kp`$, of $`0<a_{jk}b_{jk}`$ such that for $`t`$ small enough, one has $`a_{jk}t^{\frac{2}{3}}r_{jk}(t)b_{jk}t^{\frac{2}{3}}`$. It follows that

$$𝒜_m^k𝒜\frac{m_k}{2T}b_{jk}^2t^{\frac{4}{3}}+O(t_{jk}^{\frac{7}{3}})\underset{jk,jp}{}m_jm_k\left(\left[\frac{1}{a_{jk}}+\frac{3}{b_{jk}}\right]t_{jk}^{\frac{1}{3}}+o(t_{jk}^{\frac{1}{3}})\right).$$

If similitude classes of central configurations are isolated, there is a limit shape and we may take $`a_{jk}`$ and $`b_{jk}`$ as close as we wish. Otherwise we cannot conclude.

3.3 The elimination of non-isolated collisions. It remains to prove that $`(II_p)`$ implies $`(I_{p+1})`$. We use energy considerations, an idea which goes back to R. Montgomery and was further developed in Venturelli’s thesis \[V2\].

###### Proposition

Let $`x(t)`$ be a minimizer of the fixed ends problem. If $`x(t)`$ has no $`p`$-body collisions for $`p<p_0`$, collisions of $`p_0`$ bodies are isolated.

Sketch of proof. I shall give the proof in the case of a total collision (i.e. $`p_0=n`$) and then explain what has to be changed in the general case. (i) Using the behavior of the action under reparametrization, let us prove that the energy stays constant along a minimizer, whatever be the collisions. For this let us consider variations $`x_ϵ(t)`$ of the form $`x_ϵ(t)=x(\phi _ϵ(t))`$ where $`t\tau =\phi _ϵ(t)`$ is a differentiable family of diffeomorphisms of $`[0,T]`$ starting from $`\phi _0(t)t`$ :

$$𝒜(x_ϵ)=_0^T\left(\frac{\dot{x}_ϵ(t)^2}{2}+U(x_ϵ(t))\right)𝑑t=_0^T\left(\frac{1}{\lambda _ϵ(\tau )}\frac{\dot{x}(\tau )^2}{2}+\lambda _ϵ(\tau )U(x(\tau ))\right)𝑑\tau ,$$

where $`\lambda _ϵ=dt/d\tau =1/\dot{\phi }_ϵ(\phi _ϵ^1(\tau ))`$. The derivative at $`ϵ=0`$ of $`a(ϵ)=𝒜(x_ϵ)`$ is

$$\frac{da}{dϵ}(0)=_0^T\left(\frac{\dot{x}(\tau )^2}{2}U(x(\tau ))\right)\delta \lambda (\tau )𝑑\tau =_0^TH(x(\tau ),\dot{x}(\tau ))\delta \lambda (\tau )𝑑\tau ,$$

where $`\delta \lambda (\tau )=\frac{d\lambda _ϵ(\tau )}{dϵ}|_{ϵ=0}`$. As the variations $`\delta \lambda `$ satisfy the constraint $`_0^T\delta \lambda (\tau )𝑑\tau =0`$, which comes from the fact that $`_0^T\lambda _ϵ(\tau )𝑑\tau =T`$, we get that there exists a real constant $`c`$ such $`H(x(\tau ),\dot{x}(\tau ))=c`$ wherever it is defined.

(ii) Let $`t_0`$ be an instant at which total collisions accumulate. Let us chose two sequences $`(a_n)`$ and $`(b_n)`$ of instants of total collision which converge to $`t_0`$ and are such that no total collision occurs in the open intervals $`]a_n,b_n[`$. The moment of inertia $`I`$ of the system with respect to its center of mass is equal to zero at each of the instants $`a_n`$ or $`b_n`$ and hence has at least one maximum $`\xi _n`$ in the interval $`]a_n,b_n[`$. As no partial collision occurs, the motion is regular in each of these intervals and at each such maximum, the second time-derivative $`\ddot{I}(\xi _n)`$ has to be non positive. But the value $`U(\xi _n)`$ of the potential function tends to $`+\mathrm{}`$ as $`n+\mathrm{}`$, while the energy $`H`$ stays constant. One then deduces from the Lagrange -Jacobi relation $`\ddot{I}=4H+2U`$ that $`\ddot{I}(\xi _n)+\mathrm{}`$, which is a contradiction. In the general case, when $`\mu `$ is some cluster not containing all the bodies, the energy $`H_\mu `$ of $`\mu `$ is no more constant but one can get from a refinement of the same proof that it is still an absolutely continuous function of time as long as no collision occurs between a body of the cluster and a body of the complementary cluster (see \[V2\]). This implies that $`H_\mu `$ stays locally bounded and allows the argument of (ii) to work because, by hypothesis, no partial collision occurs in the cluster.

4. Periodic solutions

4.1 Homological or homotopical constraints. Going back to the 1896 Note of Poincaré already alluded to, the idea of constructing periodic solutions of the $`n`$-body problem as the “simplest” (action minimizing) ones in a given homology or homotopy class of the configuration space is very natural if one compares to the construction of periodic geodesics as minimizing the length in a non trivial homology or homotopy class. As already noticed by Poincaré, this works beautifully in the so-called “strong force problem”, corresponding to a potential in $`1/r^2`$ or stronger, where each collision path has infinite action \[CGMS\]. Unfortunately, in the Newtonian case, most of the time minimizers have collisions and hence are not true periodic solutions \[M\]. This is already true in the planar Kepler problem: it follows from Gordon’s work \[G\] (see also \[C3\]) that the only minimizers of the action among the loops of a fixed period $`T`$ whose index in the punctured plane is different from $`0,\pm 1`$, is an ejection-collision one ! (for an analogue result in the planar three-body problem, see \[V1\]). In such cases, solving the fixed ends problem is of no use. Among the cases where minimizers in a fixed homology or homotopy class have no collision are

1) Gordon’s theorem for the planar Kepler problem when one fixes the index to $`\pm 1`$ (resp. when one insists only on the index being different from 0): a minimizer is any elliptic solution of the given period.

2) The generalization \[V1\],\[ZZ1\] of Gordon’s theorem to the planar three-body problem whith homology class fixed in such a way that along a period, each side of the triangle makes exactly one complete turn in the same direction: a minimizer is any elliptic homographic motion of the equilateral triagle, of the given period. 4.2 Symmetry constraints. In order to find “new” solutions as action minimizers, another type of constraints on the loops must be introduced, which somewhat allows using fixed ends type results. We ask the loops to be invariant under the action of a finite group $`G`$. An invariant loop is completely defined by its restriction to an interval of time on which $`G`$ induces no constraint. The restriction to such a“fundamental domain” of a minimizer among $`G`$-invariant loops is a minimizer of the fixed ends problems between its extremities. This leads to a new collision problem: a minimizer could well have a collision at the initial or final instant. (i) Choreographies. We first show, following Andrea Venturelli, the

###### Theorem

A minimizer among $`n`$-choreographies has no collision.

Recall that the choreographies are fixed loops under the action of the group $`ZZ/nZZ`$ whose generator cyclically permutes equal-mass bodies after one $`n`$-th of the period (see \[CGMS\]); hence a fundamental domain can be chosen as any time interval of length $`T/n`$. If there were collisions at the ends, one would get a contradiction with the theorem by just shifting the fundamental domain to the right or to the left. One can prove (using \[CD\]) that the regular $`n`$-gon is action minimizing when it minimizes $`\stackrel{~}{U}=I^{\frac{1}{2}}U`$. But this is no more true for $`n6`$. So, what is the min ? (ii) Generalized Hip-Hops. This works also for the “italian” (anti)symmetry:

###### Theorem

A minimizer among loops $`x(t)`$ in $`IR^3`$ such that $`x(t+T/2)=x(t)`$ has no collision. Moreover, it is never a planar solution.

The last assertion comes from the fact that a relative equilibrium $`x(t)`$ whose configuration $`x_0`$ minimizes $`\stackrel{~}{U}=I^{\frac{1}{2}}U`$ is always a minimizer among the planar (anti)symmetric loops (\[CD\] and \[C3\]). But, applied to a variation $`z(t)=z_0\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi t}{T}`$ normal to the plane of $`x(t)`$, the Hessian of the action is easily seen \[C4\] to be

$$d^2𝒜(x(t))(z(t,z(t))=I_0^{\frac{1}{2}}d^2\stackrel{~}{U}(x_0)(z_0,z_0)_0^T\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{2\pi t}{T}dt,$$

where $`I_0=x_0x_0`$. Now, results of Pacella and Moeckel \[Mo1\] say that one can always choose $`z_0`$ such that $`d^2\stackrel{~}{U}(x_0)(z_0,z_0)<0`$. Hence, a relative equilibrium ceases being a minimizer in $`IR^3`$. This ends the proof because other possible minimizers of the planar problem would have the same action as a relative equilibrium (thanks to A. Venturelli for this remark). In reference to \[CV\], I propose to call generalized Hip-Hops these minimizers. They are the best approximations I can think of in $`IR^3`$ to the non-existing relative equilibria of non-planar central configurations (recall that, according to \[AC\] such relative equilibria exist in $`IR^4`$). (iii) Eights with less symmetry. As another example, we prove the existence, for three equal masses, of solutions “of the Eight type” but with less a priori symmetry than the full symmetry group $`D_6=\{s,\sigma |s^6=1,\sigma ^2=1,s\sigma =\sigma s^1\}`$ (see \[C3\]) of the space of oriented triangles (“shape sphere” in \[CM\]). We consider the subgroups $`ZZ/\mathit{6}ZZ=\{s\}`$ and $`D_3=\{s^2,\sigma \}`$.

###### Theorem

A minimizer among $`ZZ/\mathit{6}ZZ`$-invariant loops has no collision. The same is true for a minimizer among $`D_3`$-invariant loops.

Instead of minimizing the action over one twelfth of the period between an Euler configuration at time 0 and an isosceles one at time $`T/12`$ (see \[CM\]), one minimizes only over one sixth of the period: in the first case from an isosceles configuration at time $`t_0`$ to a symmetric one at time $`t_0+T/6`$, in the second one from an Euler configuration at time $`0`$ to another one at time $`T/6`$. Venturelli’s trick of translating the fundamental domain works in the first case where $`t_0`$ is arbitrary (a translation of time transforms a minimizer into a minimizer) but not in the second one where, as for the initial $`D_6`$-action, an Euler configuration can only occur at times which are integer multiples of $`T/6`$. To prove the absence of collisions at the initial and the final instant in the second case, we notice that such a collision is necessarily a triple (i.e. total) collision. If this happens, the action of the path is greater than the one of a homothetic ejection solution of equilateral type, a path which is not of the required type, but this is irrelevant here. The conclusion follows because the action of this last path is itself greater than the one of one sixth of the “equipotential model” (see \[C3\],\[CM\]). If a minimizer among $`ZZ/\mathit{6}ZZ`$ or $`D_3`$ symmetric loops possesses the whole $`D_6`$ symmetry of the Eight is unknown. (iv) The $`P_{12}`$ family. Marchal discovered the $`P_{12}`$ family, which continues the Eight solution in three-space up to Lagrange equilateral solution, through choreographies in a rotating frame \[M1\]. It is parametrized by an angle $`u`$ between $`0`$ and $`\frac{\pi }{6}`$: the solution labeled by $`u`$ is supposed to minimize the action in fixed time $`T/12`$ between configurations which are symmetric with respect to a line $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ through the origin which contains body $`0`$ and configurations which are symmetric with respect to a plane $`P`$ through the origin which contains body 2 and makes angle $`u`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. We shall think of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as being horizontal and of $`P`$ as being vertical (Figure 1).

Figure 1 (fixed frame)

For $`u=0`$, one gets the Eight in the vertical plane orthogonal to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (and hence to $`P`$); for $`u=\frac{\pi }{6}`$, one gets Lagrange solution in the horizontal plane (containing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and orthogonal to $`P`$). In a frame rotating around the vertical axis of an angle $`u`$ in time $`T/12`$, one gets a family of $`D_6`$-symmetric choreographies of period $`T`$ between the Eight and twice Lagrange (figure 2).

Figure 2 (rotating rame)

The relevant action of $`D_6`$ on the configuration space of three bodies in $`IR^3`$ is a direct generalization of the one which leaves the Eight invariant. It is defined as follows (the notations are the ones of \[C3\]):

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \alpha (s)(\stackrel{}{r}_0,\stackrel{}{r}_1,\stackrel{}{r}_2)=(\mathrm{\Sigma }\stackrel{}{r}_2,\mathrm{\Sigma }\stackrel{}{r}_0,\mathrm{\Sigma }\stackrel{}{r}_1),\beta (s)(t)=t+T/6,\hfill \\ & \alpha (\sigma )(\stackrel{}{r}_0,\stackrel{}{r}_1,\stackrel{}{r}_2)=(\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{r}_0,\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{r}_2,\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{r}_1),\beta (\sigma )(t)=t,\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$) denotes the symmetry with respect to the horizontal plane (resp. to the line $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$).

Thanks to the fact that a minimizer of the fixed-ends problem has no collision, we need only show that a minimizing path has no collisions at its ends, which can be done using local deformations as in one of the proofs of the test assertion for the Kepler problem. The surprise is that, using as a model the horizontal Lagrange family (which satisfies the symmetry requirements), one can give a simple direct proof of the absence of collisions in a minimizer:

1) the action of an admissible path undergoing a collision is bigger than the action $`\widehat{A}_2=2^{\frac{5}{3}}3^{\frac{2}{3}}\pi ^{\frac{2}{3}}T^{\frac{1}{3}}`$ (masses =1) of the horizontal relative equilibrium solution $`x_0`$ of an equilateral triangle which rotates by $`\frac{\pi }{3}`$ in the same amount of time $`T/12`$;

2) this last action is, for any $`u\frac{\pi }{3}`$, bigger than the one $`A(u)=\widehat{A}_2\left[\frac{3}{\pi }(\frac{\pi }{3}u)\right]^{\frac{2}{3}}`$ of the horizontal relative equilibrium solution $`x_u`$ of an equilateral triangle which rotates by an angle $`(\frac{\pi }{3}u)`$ during the given amount of time.

The first estimation, better than the one in \[CM\] ($`\widehat{A}_2=2^{\frac{1}{3}}A_2`$) , appears in \[ZZ2\] in the case of the Eight. It follows from the remark (at the basis of \[V1\] and \[ZZ1\]) that the action of a 3-body problem splits into the sum of three terms, each of which is one third of the action of the Kepler problem with attraction constant equal to the total mass $`M=3`$. As the configurations at $`t`$ and $`t+T/2`$ are symmetric with respect to the horizontal plane (compute $`\alpha (s^3)`$ and $`\beta (s^3)`$), any collision which occurs at $`t_0`$ occurs also at $`t_0+T/2`$. The lower bound of the Kepler action during a period $`T`$ is then twice the minimum of the Kepler action of an ejection-collision wih attraction constant 3 and period $`T/2`$. But this is exactly the action of $`x_0`$ during the period.

Finally, we prove that, for $`0u<\frac{\pi }{6}`$, the Lagrange solution $`x_u`$ is not a minimizer. This is because the value $`d^2𝒜(x_u)(\xi ,\xi )`$ of the Hessian of the action on the vertical variation

$$\xi =(\mathrm{sin}(\frac{2\pi t}{T}),\mathrm{sin}(\frac{2\pi t}{T}+\frac{2\pi }{3}),\mathrm{sin}(\frac{2\pi t}{T}+\frac{4\pi }{3}))$$

which “opens” $`x_u`$ in the direction of the Eight, is negative for $`u<\pi /6`$ and positive for $`u>\pi /6`$. Indeed, the Hessian of $`x_u`$ is positive when $`\pi /6<u\pi /3`$, which supports Marchal’s claim that $`x_u`$ is the minimizer when $`\pi /6u\pi /3`$ (notice that its size increases to infinity and its action decreases to 0 when $`u`$ tends to $`\pi /3`$).

Questions. 1) Prove that for $`u=0`$, (the) minimum is planar, hence (the) Eight.

2) Our argument works for one value of $`u`$ at a time. As no uniqueness is proved, neither is continuity with $`u`$ of the family. Such continuity would imply the existence among the family of spatial 3-body choreographies in the fixed frame.

Remark. The first continuation of the Eight into a family of rotating planar choreographies was given by Michel Hénon \[CGMS\] using the same program as in \[H\]. A third family should exist, rotating around an axis orthogonal to the first two.

5. Related results and open problems

Two global questions seem to be out of reach at the moment: unicity and possible extra symmetries of minimizers.

As an example of the first, numerical evidence by Simó suggests unicity of the Eight but in \[CM\] we do not even prove that each lobe is convex, only that it is star-shaped (the problem is near the crossing point). This is nevertheless enough to imply that the braid it defines in space time $`IR^2\times IR/TZZ`$ (equivalent to the homotopy class in the configuration space) is the “Borromean rings”, the signature of a truly triple interaction (also noticed in \[Ber\] in a different context).

As an example of the second one, we do not know if the $`ZZ/\mathit{4}ZZ`$-symmetry and the “brake” property of the Hip-Hop solution \[CV\] follow automatically from minimizing the action among loops such that $`x(t+T/2)=x(t)`$ (compare 4.2 (ii)). One is tempted to compare this problem to the celebrated result of Alain Albouy \[A2\] which states the existence of some symmetry in any central configuration of 4 equal masses (and implies that there is only a finite number of them). But there is Moeckel’s numerical example \[Mo2\] of a central configuration of eight equal masses without any symmetry. And according to \[SW\], there exists such an example minimizing $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ for $`n=46`$. For more on symmetry, see \[V2\]. Identifying minimizers, even when one knows that they are collision-free, is usually too difficult a problem (see 4.2 (i) and (ii)). Understanding their stability properties may sometimes be attempted theoretically \[Ar\],\[O\], or numerically \[S1\].

Another type of questions is connected with minimization with mixed constraints: symmetry and homology or homotopy. One can ask, for example, if the Eight is a minimizing choreography in its homology class $`(0,0,0)`$ (each side of the triangle has zero total rotation). An interesting example of mixed conditions may be found in \[V2\] where generalizations of the Hip-Hop lead to spatial choreographies of 4 equal masses. But, as for most choreographies, no proof was found of the existence of Gerver’s “supereight” with four equal masses \[CGMS\], \[C3\]. I am indebted to Christian Marchal, Richard Montgomery, David Sauzin, Susanna Terracini and Andrea Venturelli for many illuminating discussions and comments.

References

\[A1\] Albouy A. Lectures on the two-body problem, Classical and Celestial Mechanics: The Recife Lectures, H. Cabral F. Diacu ed. (in press at Princeton University Press).

\[A2\] Albouy A. Symétrie des configurations centrales de quatre corps, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 320, 217–220 (1995) & The symmetric central configurations of four equal masses, Contemporary Mathematics, vol. 198 (1996), 131–135.

\[AC\] Albouy A. and Chenciner A., Le problème des $`n`$ corps et les distances mutuelles, Inventiones Mathematicæ, 131 (1998), 151–184.

\[AGT\] Arioli G., Gazzola F. and Terracini S. Minimization properties of Hill’s orbits and applications to some $`N`$-body problems, preprint, (October 1999).

\[Ar\] Arnaud M.C. On the type of certain periodic orbits minimizing the Lagrangian action Nonlinearity 11 (1998), 143–150.

\[B\] Betti E. Teorica delle forze newtoniane e sue applicazioni all’ elestrotatica e al magnetismo, Pisa, Nistri (1879).

\[Ber\] Berger M.A. Hamiltonian dynamics generated by Vassiliev invariants, Journal of Physics A: Math. Gen. 34 (2001), 1363–1374.

\[Ch\] Chen K.C. Action minimizing orbits in the parallelogram four-body problem with equal masses, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 158, no. 4 (2001), 293–318.

\[C1\] Chenciner A. Introduction to the N-body problem, Ravello summer school (09-1997), http://www.bdl.fr/Equipes/ASD/person/chenciner/chenciner. htm

\[C2\] Chenciner A. Collisions totales, Mouvements complètement paraboliques et réduction des homothéties dans le problème des $`n`$ corps, Regular and chaotic dynamics, V.3, 3 (1998), 93–106.

\[C3\] Chenciner A. Action minimizing periodic solutions of the $`n`$-body problem, “Celestial Mechanics, dedicated to Donald Saari for his 60th Birthday”, A. Chenciner, R. Cushman, C. Robinson, Z.J. Xia ed., Contemporary Mathematics 292 (2002), 71–90.

\[C4\] Chenciner A. Simple non-planar periodic solutions of the $`n`$-body problem Proceedings of the NDDS Conference, Kyoto, (2002).

\[CD\] Chenciner A. and Desolneux N. Minima de l’intégrale d’action et équilibres relatifs de $`n`$ corps, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris. t. 326, Série I (1998), 1209–1212. Corrections in C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris. t. 327, Série I (1998), 193 and in \[C3\].

\[CGMS\] Chenciner A., Gerver J., Montgomery R. and Simó C. Simple choreographies of $`N`$ bodies: a preliminary study, Geometry, Mechanics and Dynamics, Springer, (to appear).

\[CM\] Chenciner A. and Montgomery R. A remarkable periodic solution of the three body problem in the case of equal masses, Annals of Math., 152 (2000), 881–901.

\[CV\] Chenciner A. and Venturelli A. Minima de l’intégrale d’action du Problème newtonien de $`4`$ corps de masses égales dans $`IR^3`$ : orbites “hip-hop”, Celestial Mechanics, vol. 77 (2000), 139–152.

\[C-Z\] Coti Zelati V. Periodic solutions for $`N`$-body type problems, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré, Anal. Non Linéaire, v. 7, no. 5 (1990), 477–492.

\[DGM\] Degiovanni M., Giannoni F. and Marino A., Periodic solutions of dynamical systems with Newtonian type potentials, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. 15 (1988), 467–494.

\[G\] Gordon W.B. A Minimizing Property of Keplerian Orbits, American Journal of Math. vol. 99, no. 15 (1977), 961–971.

\[H\] Hénon M. Families of periodic orbits in the three-body problem, Celestial Mechanics 10 (1974), 375–388.

\[M1\] Marchal C. The family $`P_{12}`$ of the three-body problem. The simplest family of periodic orbits with twelve symmetries per period, Fifth Alexander von Humboldt Colloquium for Celestial Mechanics, (2000).

\[M2\] Marchal C. How the method of minimization of action avoids singularities, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, (to appear).

\[M3\] Marchal C. Handwritten supplement to the above paper and private discussions.

\[Mo1\] Moeckel R. On central configurations, Math. Z. 205 (1990), 499–517.

\[Mo2\] Moeckel R. Some Relative Equilibria of N Equal Masses, N=4,5,6,7; Addendum: N=8; unpublished paper describing numerical experiments ($`1990`$).

\[M\] Montgomery R. Action spectrum and collisions in the three-body problem, “Celestial Mechanics, dedicated to Donald Saari for his 60th Birthday”, A. Chenciner, R. Cushman, C. Robinson, Z.J. Xia ed., Contemporary Mathematics 292 (2002), 173–184.

\[O\] Offin D. Maslov index and instability of periodic orbits in Hamiltonian systems, preprint, 2002.

\[P\] Poincaré H. Sur les solutions périodiques et le principe de moindre action, C.R.A.S. t. 123 (1896), 915–918.

\[SeT\] Serra E. and Terracini S. Collisionless Periodic Solutions to Some Three-Body Problems, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., 120 (1992), 305–325.

\[S1\] Simó C. Dynamical properties of the figure eight solution of the three-body problem, “Celestial Mechanics, dedicated to Donald Saari for his 60th Birthday”, A. Chenciner, R. Cushman, C. Robinson, Z.J. Xia ed., Contemporary Mathematics 292, (2002), 209–228.

\[S2\] Simó C. New families of Solutions in $`N`$-Body Problems, Proceedings of the Third European Congress of Mathematics, C. Casacuberta et al. eds. Progress in Mathematics, 201 (2001), 101–115.

\[SW\] Slaminka E. & Woerner K. Central configurations and a theorem of Palmore Celestial Mechanics 48 (1990), 347–355.

\[V1\] Venturelli A. Une caractérisation variationnelle des solutions de Lagrange du problème plan des trois corps, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris, t. 332, Série I (2001), 641–644.

\[V2\] Venturelli A. Thèse, Paris (to be defended in 2002).

\[ZZ1\] Zhang S. & Zhou Q., A Minimizing Property of Lagrangian Solutions, Acta Mathematica Sinica, English Series, Vol. 17, No.3 (2001), 497–500.

\[ZZ2\] Zhang S. & Zhou Q., Variational method for the choreography solution to the three-body problem, Science in China (Series A), Vol. 45 No. 5 (2002), 594–597.