text:
# 1 Introduction and the Statement of Main Results

## 1  Introduction and the Statement of Main Results

In the present work we consider the billiards on two-dimensional surfaces $`M`$ of constant Gaussian curvature $`r`$ in the presence of a homogeneous magnetic field of magnitude $`\beta `$, which is perpendicular to $`M`$. Inside the billiard domain $`Q`$ the pointlike particle of unit charge and mass moves at unit velocity along curves of constant geodesic curvature $`\beta `$ and reflects elastically at the boundary $`Q`$. In the following, we will call these dynamical systems as magnetic billiards and $`M`$ as magnetic surface if $`\beta 0`$.

Magnetic billiards on the plane have been considered in many works \[BR\], \[K\], \[BK\], \[Ta1\] and on the hyperbolic plane in \[Ta2\]. The study of such billiards is strongly motivated by mesoscopic physics, where such billiard models are used as simplified version of the mesoscopic devices in the presence of magnetic fields. In the present paper we treat the magnetic billiards simultaneously on all surfaces of constant curvature (sphere, plane and hyperbolic plane). For all values of $`r`$ and $`\beta `$ we establish a common criterion for hyperbolicity of the billiard dynamics, whose geometric realization depends only on the type of linearized dynamics (geometric optics) on $`M`$. This extends our recent results \[GSG\] for non-magnetic surfaces of constant curvature.

The dynamics on $`M`$ depend crucially both on the curvature of the surface and on the strength of magnetic field. Firstly, let us consider the case $`\beta =0`$. On the plane the neighboring trajectories separate only linearly with time, so that the motion of the point mass between collisions with the boundary is neutral. Exponential separation of billiard trajectories can only occur if the successive reflections from the boundaries introduce sufficient instability. On the hyperbolic plane the negative curvature induces exponential divergence of geodesics. Thus, the boundary of hyperbolic billiard can be neutral (i. e., with zero curvature), and the chaotic dynamics will be provided by the metric. On the sphere, in contrast, any two geodesics intersect twice at focal points. Thus, the boundary reflections have to compensate for the focusing effect of the sphere, in order to produce chaotic dynamics. We will call the mentioned above types of linearized dynamics arising on the plane, hyperbolic plane and sphere as parabolic , hyperbolic  and elliptic  respectively.

In the presence of a constant magnetic field, an additional focusing effect appears. To simplify matters, let us discuss first the planar case when $`\beta 0`$. Consider an infinitesimal beam of trajectories which emerges from the same point at the time $`t=0`$ (fig. 1a). Then, by elementary calculations (see e.g., \[K\]) the curvature of the infinitesimal beam at the time $`t=s`$ is given by

$$\chi (s)=\beta \mathrm{cot}(\beta s).$$
(1)
Consider now the reflection of infinitesimal beams at the boundary. Let $`m`$ be the bouncing point, let $`C`$ be the osculating circle at $`m`$ and let $`m^{}`$ be the second point in which the particle trajectory intersects $`C`$. Denote by $`\chi _{}`$, $`\chi _+`$ the curvatures of the infinitesimal beam immediately before and after reflection. Then, the change of the curvature under the reflection \[Ta1\], \[K\] at the bouncing point $`m`$ (see fig. 1b) is given by

$$\chi _+\chi _{}=2\beta \mathrm{cot}(\beta d),$$
(2)
where $`2d=\overline{mm^{}}`$ is the signed length of particle trajectory between $`m`$ and $`m^{}`$ (when the curvature of the boundary at $`m`$ is positive, $`2d`$ is simply the time which the particle spends after (before) reflection in the osculating circle $`C`$). It is a simple observation, that eqs. (1), (2) are actually the same ones, which have appeared in \[GSG\] for the non-magnetic billiards on the sphere of radius $`\beta ^1`$, where the parameters $`s`$ and $`d`$ have the same geometric meaning. Thus, the geometric optics (or linearized dynamics) on the plane in the presence of a magnetic field $`\beta `$ is equivalent to the geometric optics on the non-magnetic sphere of radius $`\beta ^1`$. More generally, we demonstrate in the body of the paper the equivalence of geometric optics on the surfaces of constant Gaussian curvature $`r`$ in the presence of magnetic field $`\beta `$ to the geometric optics on the non-magnetic surfaces of constant Gaussian curvature $`r_{eff}=r+\beta ^2`$. As a consequence, the type of linearized dynamics (elliptic, parabolic or hyperbolic) depends only on the sign of $`r_{eff}`$. We will call the parameter $`r_{eff}`$ as effective curvature of the surface and will refer to the cases $`r_{eff}=0`$, $`r_{eff}<0`$, $`r_{eff}>0`$ as Parabolic (P), Hyperbolic (H) and Elliptic (E) respectively.

Up to now, the study of hyperbolic billiards has been mainly restricted to the Euclidean plane (see \[Tab\] for review). See, however, \[Ta2\] for some results on chaotic billiards on the hyperbolic plane, and \[Vet1\], \[Vet2\], \[KSS\] for some results on hyperbolic billiards on a general Riemannian surface. In our recent work \[GSG\] we have generalized Wojtkowski’s criterion of hyperbolicity for planar billiards \[Wo2\] to billiards on arbitrary surfaces of constant curvature. On the basis of the equivalence of geometric optics on magnetic and non-magnetic surfaces of constant curvature, we extend in the present paper the criterion of \[GSG\] to the case of magnetic billiards.

The hyperbolicity criterion in \[GSG\] can be formulated in terms of a special class of trajectories, which generalize two-periodic orbits. Let $`Q`$ be a billiard table on a surface of constant curvature. The billiard map $`\varphi :VV`$ acts on the phase space $`V`$, which consists of pairs $`v=(m,\theta )`$. Here $`m`$ is the position of the ball on the boundary $`Q`$ of $`Q`$, and $`\theta `$ is the angle between the outgoing velocity and the tangent to $`Q`$ at $`m`$. The billiard map preserves a natural probability measure $`\mu `$ on $`V`$. We denote the images of $`v`$ after $`n`$ iterations by $`(m_{n+1},\theta _{n+1})=\varphi ^n(v)`$. The trajectory $`\varphi ^n(v)`$ is a generalized two-periodic trajectory  (g.t.p.t.) if the following conditions are satisfied:
1. The incidence angle and the curvature of the boundary $`\kappa _n`$ at the bouncing points have period 2: $`\theta _{2n}=\theta _2`$, $`\theta _{2n+1}=\theta _1`$, $`\kappa _{2n}=\kappa _2`$, $`\kappa _{2n+1}=\kappa _1`$;

2. The length of trajectory between consecutive bouncing points is constant: $`s=\overline{m_nm}_{n+1}`$ (see fig. 2).

If $`\theta _i=\pi /2`$, the g.t.p.t. is an usual two-periodic orbit.

Along a g.t.p.t. the linearized map $`D_v\varphi `$ is two-periodic, and the stability of a g.t.p.t. is determined by $`D_v\varphi ^2`$. For each surface of constant curvature, the stability type of a g.t.p.t. is completely determined by the triplet of parameters $`(d_1,d_2,s)`$, where $`2d_1`$ (resp. $`2d_2`$) is the signed length of the chord generated by the intersection of the trajectory $`m_1m_2`$ with the osculating circle at $`m_1`$ (resp. $`m_2`$). We shall use the symbol $`T(d_1,d_2,s)`$ for the g.t.p.t. with parameters $`(d_1,d_2,s)`$.

Let us consider g.t.p.t.s for planar, non-magnetic billiards in some detail. Here $`s`$ is the euclidean distance between consecutive bouncing points, and $`d_i=r_i\mathrm{sin}\theta _i`$, $`i=1,2`$, where $`r_i`$ are the radii of curvature of the boundary $`Q`$ at the respective points. If the curvature of the boundary at the bouncing point is zero we take $`r_i=\mathrm{}`$ as the radius of curvature and $`d_i=\mathrm{}`$ respectively. By an elementary computation, $`T(d_1,d_2,s)`$ is unstable if and only if

$$s\{\begin{array}{cc}[d_1,d_2][d_1+d_2,\mathrm{})\hfill & \text{if }d_1,d_20\hfill \\ [0,\mathrm{})\hfill & \text{if }d_1,d_20\hfill \\ [0,d_1+d_2][d_1,\mathrm{})\hfill & \text{if }d_10,d_20\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
Moreover, the trajectory is hyperbolic (i. e., strictly unstable) if $`s`$ is in the interior of the corresponding interval, and the trajectory is parabolic if $`s`$ is a boundary point (in the limiting case $`d_1=d_2=\mathrm{}`$ the trajectory is parabolic for any value of $`s`$).

We consider two classes of unstable g.t.p.t.s. The g.t.p.t. $`T(d_1,d_2,s)`$ is B-unstable if in eq. (3) $`s`$ belongs to a “big interval”:

$$s\{\begin{array}{cc}[d_1+d_2,\mathrm{})\hfill & \text{if }d_1,d_20\hfill \\ [0,\mathrm{})\hfill & \text{if }d_1,d_20\hfill \\ [d_1,\mathrm{})\hfill & \text{if }d_10,d_20\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
On the contrary, if $`s`$ belongs to a “small interval”, then $`T(d_1,d_2,s)`$ is S-unstable:

$$s\{\begin{array}{cc}[d_1,d_2]\hfill & \text{if }d_1,d_20\hfill \\ [0,d_1+d_2]\hfill & \text{if }d_10,d_20\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
Note that a small interval shrinks to a point when $`|d_1|=|d_2|`$.

It has been demonstrated in \[GSG\], that the notions of B-unstable and S-unstable g.t.p.t.s are generalized to arbitrary surfaces of constant curvature, where the analogs of (3,4,5) exist. The concept of g.t.p.t.s and the associated structures make sense for billiard on any surface immersed in a magnetic field. Since the stability properties of the trajectories depend only on the linearized dynamics (geometrical optics) of the system, one has essentially the same stability intervals (in terms of the parameters $`(s,d_1,d_2)`$) for g.t.p.t.s on the surface of constant Gaussian curvature $`r`$ immersed in the magnetic field $`\beta `$ and for g.t.p.t.s on the non-magnetic surface of constant Gaussian curvature $`r_{eff}=r+\beta ^2`$. As a consequence, one can extend the notions of B-unstable and S-unstable g.t.p.t.s to magnetic surfaces of constant curvature as well.

Equipped with the mentioned above definitions, we are ready now to formulate the main results of the present paper. Let $`Q`$ be a billiard table on a magnetic surface of constant curvature, and let $`\lambda (v)0`$ be the Lyapunov exponent of the billiard. With any point $`v=(m_1,\theta _1)V`$ of the phase space we associate a formal g.t.p.t. $`T(v)`$. Let $`\varphi (v)=(m_2,\theta _2)`$. We set $`d_1=d(v)`$, $`d_2=d(\varphi (v))`$ and $`s=\overline{m_1m_2}`$ for the length of particle trajectory between $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$. Then $`T(v)`$ is determined by the triple $`(d_1,d_2,s)`$. The formal g.t.p.t. $`T(v)`$ can be realized as an actual g.t.p.t. $`T(d_1,d_2,s)`$ in an auxiliary billiard table $`Q_v`$, constructed from the boundary $`Q`$ around $`m_i`$ (see \[GSG\]). Let $`\varphi _v`$ be the map in $`Q_v`$ corresponding to the g.t.p.t. $`T(v)`$, and let $`\overline{\lambda }(v)=lim_{n\pm \mathrm{}}\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}D\varphi _v^n0`$ be the Lyapunov exponent of $`T(v)`$. Then the sufficient condition for hyperbolic dynamics in $`Q`$ can be formulated as follows (see also Theorem 1 for the alternative formulation in the body of the paper).

Main Theorem.  If for $`\mu `$ almost every point $`vV`$, $`T(v)`$ is B-unstable, and for $`\mu `$ almost every point $`vV`$, $`T(\varphi ^n(v))`$ is strictly B-unstable for some $`n`$, then the billiard in $`Q`$ is hyperbolic ($`\lambda (v)`$ is positive $`\mu `$ almost everywhere).

After deriving the conditions, which insure that g.t.p.t.s are B-unstable (analogs of (4)), this theorem turns to be a geometric criterion for hyperbolicity of the billiard dynamics. In particular, for planar non-magnetic billiards, the Main Theorem yields Wojtkowski’s criterion for hyperbolic dynamics \[Wo2\]. Let $`Q`$ be a billiard table satisfying the assumptions of the Main Theorem. Following the approach of Wojtkowski’s \[Wo2\], the metric entropy $`h(Q)=_V\lambda (v)𝑑\mu `$ of the billiard can be actually estimated from below (Theorem 2 in the body of the paper):

$$h(Q)_V\overline{\lambda }(v)𝑑\mu .$$
(6)
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we provide the necessary preliminaries and establish the relationship between the geometric optics (i. e., the rules of propagation and reflection of infinitesimal light beams) on magnetic and non-magnetic surfaces of constant curvature. In Section 3 we apply these results to obtain explicit analogs of (3-5) for all magnetic (non-magnetic) surfaces of constant Gaussian curvature. We obtain a linear instability conditions for g.t.p.t.s and show that they distinguish between B-unstable and S-unstable trajectories in a natural way. In Section 4, we reformulate the Main Theorem in a slightly different way and prove it using the invariant cone fields method. We define our cone fields for magnetic billiards on all surfaces of constant curvature exactly as in \[GSG\]. Using the geometric optics language, the proof of the preservation of the cone field under the assumptions of the Main Theorem is reduced to the corresponding non-magnetic problem. The Lyapunov exponent estimation (6) follows from the results of \[GSG\] by the same arguments. In Section 5, for each type of linearized dynamics we derive the criterion of hyperbolicity for elementary billiard tables (the boundary of these billiards consists of arcs of constant geodesic curvature). We apply it to construct several classes of magnetic billiard tables with hyperbolic dynamics on surfaces of constant curvature. Finally, for each type of linearized dynamics we formulate some general principles for the design of the magnetic billiard tables satisfying the conditions of the Main Theorem. Several examples of billiards satisfying these principles are also given here. The derivation of the differential condition on the boundary of billiards satisfying the Main Theorem is given in the Appendix.

## 2  Geometric Optics

Let $`M`$ be a surface of constant Gaussian curvature $`r`$. We will distinguish three cases: $`M=𝐑^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ -plane ($`r=0`$), $`M=𝐒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ -sphere ($`r>0`$) and $`M=𝐇^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ -hyperbolic plane  ($`r<0`$). Let us consider the dynamical system arising on $`M`$ from the motion of particle of unit charge, mass and velocity in the presence of homogeneous magnetic field perpendicular to the surface. We will denote by $`M(r,\beta )`$ the corresponding surface $`M`$ in the presence of magnetic field of strength $`\beta `$. We can assume, without loss of generality, that $`\beta 0`$. The particle trajectories on $`M(r,\beta )`$ are curves of constant geodesic curvature $`\beta `$ (circles, paracycles or hypercycles). We call $`g^s`$ the corresponding flow on $`M(r,\beta )`$.

Let $`Q`$ be a connected domain in $`M(r,\beta )`$, with a piecewise smooth boundary $`Q`$. The billiard in $`Q`$ is the dynamical system arising from the motion of a point mass inside $`Q`$ under the action of magnetic field $`\beta `$, with specular reflections at the boundary. The phase space $`V`$ of the billiard consists of unit tangent vectors, with origin points on $`Q`$, pointing inside $`Q`$. The first return associated with $`V`$ is the billiard map, $`\varphi :VV`$. We denote the probabilistic invariant measure on $`V`$ as $`\mu `$ (for its realization in the planar case see e.g., \[BK\]). We will use the standard coordinates $`(l,\theta )`$ on $`V`$, where $`l`$ is the arclength parameter on $`Q`$ and $`\theta ,0\theta \pi `$, is the angle between the vector and $`Q`$.

Let $`D_v\varphi :T_vVT_{\varphi (v)}V`$ denote the derivative of $`\varphi `$. In what follows, we are interested in the action of $`D\varphi `$ on the projectivization $`B`$ of the tangent space $`TV`$, see \[Wo1\], \[Wo2\]. The space $`B=B_v`$, which is the set of straight lines in the tangent planes $`T_vV`$, $`vV`$, can be conveniently represented using the language of geometric optics. An oriented curve $`\gamma M`$, of class $`C^2`$, defines a “light beam”, i.e., the family of particle trajectories orthogonal to $`\gamma `$. The trajectories intersecting $`\gamma `$ infinitesimally close to a point, $`m\gamma `$, form an “infinitesimal beam”, which is completely determined by the normal unit vector $`\stackrel{}{n}T_mM`$ to $`\gamma `$, and by the geodesic curvature $`\chi `$ of $`\gamma `$ at $`m`$. Let $`\stackrel{}{n}=vV`$ (the point $`m`$ belongs to the boundary of $`Q`$). We denote by $`(v,\chi )`$ the infinitesimal beam determined by the pair $`(v,\chi )`$, $`vV`$, $`\chi 𝐑\mathrm{}`$.

On the other hand, each pair $`(v,\chi )`$ uniquely defines the line $`b(v,\chi )B`$, see e.g., \[Wo2\]. Here the vector $`v`$ defines the corresponding plane $`T_vV`$, and the curvature $`\chi `$ defines the direction of the line. Thus, infinitesimal beams yield a geometric representation of $`B=B_v`$, where $`\chi `$ can be used as a projective coordinate on the space $`B_v`$, see \[Wo2\], \[GSG\]. As a result, one can study the action of $`D\varphi `$ on $`B`$ in terms of the action of $`\varphi `$ on the curvature of infinitesimal beams $``$.

Let $`\rho _m:T_mMT_mM`$, $`mQ`$ be the linear reflection about the tangent line to $`Q`$. We will use the same letters, $`\varphi `$, $`\rho `$, and $`g`$, for the differentials of these mappings. Since the billiard map is the composition:

$$\varphi =\rho g,$$
(7)
it remains to compute the action of $`g`$ and $`\rho `$ on the curvature of infinitesimal beams. In other words, we need to know how the geodesic curvature of an infinitesimal beam changes: a) along free-flight trajectory on $`M(r,\beta )`$; b) under reflection.

a) Bouncless propagation. Let us consider the change of the geodesic curvature $`\chi (s)`$ of an infinitesimal beam along a particle trajectory on $`M(r,\beta )`$. As it has been shown in \[Ta2\], \[Ta3\] (see also \[K\] for the planar case) the free-flight evolution of $`\chi `$ satisfies the Ricatti equation:

$$\dot{\chi }=r_{eff}+\chi ^2,$$
(8)
where $`r_{eff}=r+\beta ^2`$ is the effective curvature of $`M(r,\beta )`$. For convenience we introduce also the parameter $`\xi =|r_{eff}|^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (then $`\xi ^1`$ is the radius of the non-magnetic surface, which has the same linearized dynamics as $`M(r,\beta )`$). Let $`\chi =\chi (0)`$ be the geodesic curvature of an infinitesimal beam at the initial point, set $`\chi ^{}=\chi (s)=g^s\chi `$ be the geodesic curvature after the time $`s`$ of free-flight evolution. Using eq. (8) one can immediately obtain the relation between $`\chi `$ and $`\chi ^{}`$. We will distinguish three cases:

(E) -Elliptic $`(r_{eff}>0)`$. $`M`$ is either $`𝐒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, or $`𝐑^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, or $`𝐇^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ with $`\beta ^2>|r|`$ (strong field).

$$\chi ^{}/\xi =\mathrm{cot}(\xi s)+\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2(\xi s)}{\mathrm{cot}(\xi s)\chi /\xi };$$
(9)
(P) -Parabolic $`(r_{eff}=0)`$. $`M`$ is $`𝐇^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`\beta ^2=|r|`$, or $`M`$ is $`𝐑^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`\beta =0`$.

$$\chi ^{}=s^1+\frac{s^2}{s^1\chi };$$
(10)
(H) -Hyperbolic $`(r_{eff}<0)`$. $`M`$ is $`𝐇^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`\beta ^2<|r|`$ (weak field).

$$\chi ^{}/\xi =\mathrm{coth}(\xi s)+\frac{\mathrm{sinh}^2(\xi s)}{\mathrm{coth}(\xi s)\chi /\xi }.$$
(11)
Note, for $`M=𝐇^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ in the case (E) the particle trajectories are circles (trajectories of finite length), in the case (P) they are paracycles (trajectories of infinite length, which touch the boundary of Poincar$`\stackrel{´}{\mathrm{e}}`$ disc) and in the case (H) they are hypercycles (trajectories of infinite length, which have two points on the boundary of Poincar$`\stackrel{´}{\mathrm{e}}`$ disc).

b) Reflection. Let $`\chi _{}`$, $`v_{}T_mM`$ be the geodesic curvature and the direction of the infinitesimal beam just before the reflection at the point $`mM`$. We denote $`\chi _+=\rho \chi _{}`$, $`vv_+=\rho v_{}V`$ to be the geodesic curvature and the direction of the infinitesimal beam immediately after reflection. Let $`\kappa `$ be the curvature of $`Q`$ at $`m`$, and let $`\theta `$ be the angle between $`v`$ and the positive tangent vector to $`Q`$ at $`m`$. Then, the extension of the well known formula for planar billiards (see e.g., \[Si\]) to magnetic billiards on arbitrary surfaces (see \[Ta2\], \[Ta3\]) gives

$$\chi _+=\chi _{}+2K(v),\text{ where }K(v)=\frac{\kappa +\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{sin}\theta }.$$
(12)
Using classical formulas for surfaces of constant curvature (\[Vi\], see also \[Ta1\], \[Ta2\]), it is possible to give a geometric interpretation of the function $`K()`$.

Let $`vV`$, and let $`lQ`$ be the origin point of $`v`$. Let $`C(l)M`$ be the osculating circle (resp. paracycle or hypercycle if $`M=𝐇^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`|\kappa (l)|\xi `$) of $`Q`$. The free-flight particle trajectory, $`G(v)`$, corresponding to $`v`$ intersects $`C(l)`$ at $`l`$ and at another point $`l^{}`$. In the cases (E) and (P) ($`r_{eff}0`$) let $`d(v)`$ be one half of the signed distance between $`l`$ and $`l^{}`$, along $`G(v)`$. To eliminate the ambiguity (when $`K(v)=0)`$, we choose the following intervals for $`d(v)`$: $`d(v)[\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$ in the case (P) and $`\xi d(v)[\pi /2,\pi /2)`$ in the case (E). In the case (H) ($`r_{eff}<0`$) we will use the following classification of points of the phase space $`V`$, see fig. 3. We say that $`vV`$ is of type $`A`$ (resp. $`B`$) if $`|K(v)|\xi `$ (resp. $`|K(v)|<\xi `$). Let $`V^A,V^B`$ be the corresponding subsets of $`V`$. Then $`V=V^AV^B`$ is a partition. We denote by $`d^A(v)`$ ($`d^B(v)`$) one half of the signed distance between $`l`$ and $`l^{}`$ along $`G(v)`$ if $`vV^A`$ (resp. $`vV^B`$). To unite both cases we will use the notation:

$`d(v)=\{\begin{array}{cc}d^A(v)\hfill & \text{if }vV^A\hfill \\ d^B(v)+i\frac{\pi }{2}\hfill & \text{if }vV^B\text{.}\hfill \end{array}`$ (13)
Then we have

$`K^1(v)=\{\begin{array}{cc}d(v)\hfill & \text{in the case (P)}\hfill \\ \xi ^1\mathrm{tan}(\xi d(v))\hfill & \text{in the case (E)}\hfill \\ \xi ^1\mathrm{tanh}(\xi d(v))\hfill & \text{in the case (H).}\hfill \end{array}`$ (14)
As one can see from eqs. (9-14), the geometric optics (described in terms of parameters $`d`$, $`s`$) depend only on the value $`r_{eff}`$. This fact allows to study the linearized dynamics problems on $`M(r,\beta )`$ using the corresponding results for the non-magnetic surfaces of the constant Gaussian curvature $`r_{eff}=r+\beta ^2`$. The corresponding transition $`M(r,\beta )M(r_{eff},0)`$ is schematically illustrated by fig. 4.

## 3  Stability of Generalized Two-Periodic Trajectories

Let $`Q`$ be a billiard table on $`M(r,\beta )`$. For each $`vV`$ let $`t(v)`$ be the corresponding past semitrajectory in $`Q`$. Consider the curvature evolution of an infinitesimal beam along $`t(v)`$. Starting with $`(\varphi ^kv,\chi )`$ for arbitrary $`\chi `$, we obtain after $`k`$ steps forward the infinitesimal beam $`(v,\chi ^{(k)})`$, $`\chi ^{(k)}=\varphi ^k\chi `$. Eqs. (9-11) and (12) describe the action of the billiard map on the curvature of infinitesimal beams. Assuming $`k`$ to be infinity, we obtain a formal continued fraction corresponding to the semitrajectory $`t(v)`$:

$$c(v)=\chi ^{(\mathrm{})}=a_0+\frac{b_0}{a_1+{\displaystyle \frac{b_1}{a_2\mathrm{}}}}.$$
(15)
The coefficients of the continued fraction are determined by $`d_i=d(\varphi ^iv)`$, and by the lengths $`s_i`$ of consecutive billiard segments as follows:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(P)\hfill & a_i=2s_i^1+2d_i^1,\hfill & b_i=s_i^2;\hfill \\ (E)\hfill & a_i=2\mathrm{cot}(\xi s_i)+2\mathrm{cot}(\xi d_i),\hfill & b_i=\mathrm{sin}^2(\xi s_i);\hfill \\ (H)\hfill & a_i=2\mathrm{coth}(\xi s_i)+2\mathrm{coth}(\xi d_i),\hfill & b_i=\mathrm{sinh}^2(\xi s_i).\hfill \end{array}$$

The continued fractions (15) determines the stability type of the trajectory: $`t(v)`$ is unstable if $`c(v)`$ is convergent (see e.g., \[Si\]). Since for a given sequence of $`d_i`$ and $`s_i`$, $`c(v)`$ is completely determined by $`r_{eff}`$, one can reduce the problem of stability trajectories on $`M(r,\beta )`$ to the corresponding “non-magnetic” problem on $`M(r_{eff},0)`$.

As it has been mentioned in the introduction, we are interested in the stability properties of generalized two periodic trajectories. A trajectory is a generalized two periodic trajectory (g.t.p.t.) if its parameters $`d_i`$ are periodic: $`d_{2i+1}=d_1`$, $`d_{2i}=d_2`$ and $`s_i=s`$ are the same along the trajectory (see fig. 2). Obviously, a g.t.p.t. yields a periodic continued fraction. We denote by $`T(d_1,d_2,s)`$ the g.t.p.t. with parameters $`(d_1,d_2,s)`$ and by $`c(d_1,d_2,s)`$ the associated continued fraction.

The stability of $`T(d_1,d_2,s)`$, or equivalently, the convergence of the two periodic continued fraction $`c(d_1,d_2,s)`$ has been studied in \[GSG\] for non-magnetic surfaces of constant curvature. On the basis of the equivalence between the magnetic and non-magnetic problems we can immediately generalize the results of \[GSG\] to the case $`\beta 0`$.

Proposition 1. The continued fraction $`c(d_1,d_2,s)`$ converges if and only if the following inequalities are satisfied.

$$\begin{array}{cc}(P)\hfill & (sd_1)(sd_2)(sd_1d_2)s0;\\ (E)\hfill & \mathrm{sin}(\xi (sd_1))\mathrm{sin}(\xi (sd_2))\mathrm{sin}(\xi (sd_1d_2))\mathrm{sin}(\xi s)0;\\ (H)\hfill & \mathrm{sinh}(\xi (sd_1))\mathrm{sinh}(\xi (sd_2))\mathrm{sinh}(\xi (sd_1d_2))\mathrm{sinh}(\xi s)0.\end{array}$$

Below we reformulate Proposition 1 explicitly as conditions for the instability of the corresponding g.t.p.t.

(P) $`T(d_1,d_2,s)`$ is unstable if and only if

$$s\{\begin{array}{cc}[d_1,d_2][d_1+d_2,\mathrm{})\hfill & \text{if }d_1,d_20\hfill \\ [0,\mathrm{})\hfill & \text{if }d_1,d_20\hfill \\ [0,d_1+d_2][d_1,\mathrm{})\hfill & \text{if }d_10,d_20.\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
(E) In this case $`0\xi s2\pi `$, and we set $`\overline{\pi }=\pi \xi ^1`$,

$$s\mathrm{mod}\overline{\pi }=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{s}\hfill & \text{if }s\overline{\pi }\hfill \\ \mathrm{s}\overline{\pi }\hfill & \text{if }s>\overline{\pi }.\hfill \end{array}$$

Then $`T(d_1,d_2,s)`$ is unstable if and only if

$$s\mathrm{mod}\overline{\pi }\{\begin{array}{cc}[\mathrm{d}_1+\mathrm{d}_2,\overline{\pi }][\mathrm{d}_1,\mathrm{d}_2]\hfill & \text{if }d_1,d_20\hfill \\ [0,\mathrm{d}_1+\mathrm{d}_2+\overline{\pi }][\overline{\pi }\mathrm{d}_1,\overline{\pi }\mathrm{d}_2]\hfill & \text{if }d_1,d_20\hfill \\ [\mathrm{d}_2,\overline{\pi }+\mathrm{d}_1][0,\mathrm{d}_1+\mathrm{d}_2]\hfill & \text{if }d_10,d_20,|d_2||d_1|\hfill \\ [\mathrm{d}_2,\overline{\pi }+\mathrm{d}_1][\overline{\pi }+\mathrm{d}_2+\mathrm{d}_1,\overline{\pi }]\hfill & \text{if }d_10,d_20,|d_2||d_1|.\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
(H) It matters whether $`v_iV^A`$ or $`v_iV^B`$ for $`i=1,2`$. We say that $`T(d_1,d_2,s)`$ is of type $`(AA)`$ if $`v_1V^A`$ and $`v_2V^A`$. The other types: $`(AB)`$, $`(BA)`$, and $`(BB)`$ are defined analogously. We formulate the explicit criteria of instability for $`T(d_1,d_2,s)`$ type-by-type.

Type $`(AA)`$:

$$s\{\begin{array}{cc}[d_1^A,d_2^A][d_1^A+d_2^A,\mathrm{})\hfill & \text{if }d_1^A,d_2^A0\hfill \\ [0,\mathrm{})\hfill & \text{if }d_1^A,d_2^A0\hfill \\ [0,d_1^A+d_2^A][d_1^A,\mathrm{})\hfill & \text{if }d_1^A0,d_2^A0\text{,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(18)
Type $`(BB)`$:

$$s\{\begin{array}{cc}[d_1^B+d_2^B,\mathrm{})\hfill & \text{if }d_1^B+d_2^B0\hfill \\ [0,\mathrm{})\hfill & \text{if }d_1^B+d_2^B0\text{,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(19)
Types $`(AB)`$ or $`(BA)`$:

$$s\{\begin{array}{cc}[d_1^A,\mathrm{})\hfill & \text{if }d_1^A0\hfill \\ [0,\mathrm{})\hfill & \text{if }d_1^A0\text{,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
It is worth mentioning that in Proposition 1 (resp. eqs. (16-20)) the hyperbolicity of $`T(d_1,d_2,s)`$ corresponds to strict inequalities (resp. inclusions in the interior). The equality case (resp. boundary case) corresponds to the parabolicity of $`T(d_1,d_2,s)`$. There are also two special cases when $`T(d_1,d_2,s)`$ is parabolic independently of the value of $`s`$: (P), $`d_1=d_2=\mathrm{}`$ and (H), $`|d_1^A|=|d_2^A|=\mathrm{}`$.

We call the right hand side of eqs. (16-20) the instability set of $`T(d_1,d_2,s)`$. In general, it is a union of two intervals, where one of them degenerates when $`|d_1|=|d_2|`$, while the other is always nontrivial. Following the terminology of our previous work \[GSG\], we will say that the interval which persists is a “big interval”, while the other one is a “small interval”. We will say that $`T(d_1,d_2,s)`$ is (strictly) B-unstable if $`s`$ belongs to the (interior of the) big interval of instability. The proposition below makes this terminology explicit.

Proposition 2. The g.t.p.t. $`T(d_1,d_2,s)`$ is B-unstable if (and only if) the triple $`(d_1,d_2,s)`$ satisfies the following conditions:

(P)

$$s\{\begin{array}{cc}[d_1+d_2,\mathrm{})\hfill & \text{if }d_1,d_20\hfill \\ [0,\mathrm{})\hfill & \text{if }d_1,d_20\hfill \\ [d_1,\mathrm{})\hfill & \text{if }d_10,d_20\hfill \end{array}$$
(21)
(E)

$$s\mathrm{mod}\overline{\pi }\{\begin{array}{cc}[\mathrm{d}_1+\mathrm{d}_2,\overline{\pi }]\hfill & \text{if }d_1,d_20\hfill \\ [0,\mathrm{d}_1+\mathrm{d}_2+\overline{\pi }]\hfill & \text{if }d_1,d_20\hfill \\ [\mathrm{d}_2,\overline{\pi }+\mathrm{d}_1]\hfill & \text{if }d_10,d_20\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
(H) The case $`(AA)`$

$$s\{\begin{array}{cc}[d_1^A+d_2^A,\mathrm{})\hfill & \text{if }d_1^A,d_2^A0\hfill \\ [0,\mathrm{})\hfill & \text{if }d_1^A,d_2^A0\hfill \\ [d_1^A,\mathrm{})\hfill & \text{if }d_1^A0,d_2^A0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(23)
or $`|d_1^A|=|d_2^A|=\mathrm{}`$ and arbitrary $`s`$.

(H) The case $`(BB)`$

$$s\{\begin{array}{cc}[d_1^B+d_2^B,\mathrm{})\hfill & \text{if }d_1^B+d_2^B0\hfill \\ [0,\mathrm{})\hfill & \text{if }d_1^B+d_2^B0\hfill \end{array}$$
(24)
(H) The cases $`(AB)`$ or $`(BA)`$

$$s\{\begin{array}{cc}[d_1^A,\mathrm{})\hfill & \text{if }d_1^A0\hfill \\ [0,\mathrm{})\hfill & \text{if }d_1^A0\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(25)
Obviously, the conditions (21-25) for B-unstable g.t.p.t.s are the same as those which appeared in \[GSG\] for the corresponding non-magnetic cases.

## 4  The Main Theorem

Let $`Q`$ be a billiard table and $`vV`$ be an arbitrary point in the phase space of the billiard map. Set $`v_1=v,v_2=\varphi (v),d_i=d(v_i),i=1,2`$, and let $`s=s(v)`$ be the length of the particle trajectory between the origin points of $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ respectively. We will associate with $`v`$ a formal g.t.p.t. $`T(v)=T(d_1,d_2,s)`$, which parameters are defined by the triplet $`(d_1,d_2,s)`$. We denote by $`\lambda (v)`$ the Lyapunov exponent of the billiard $`Q`$ and by $`\overline{\lambda }(v)`$ the Lyapunov exponent of $`T(v)`$ (see Sect. 1), which are defined for $`\mu `$-almost all $`vV`$.

Using Proposition 2 we introduce the following special class of points of the phase space of the billiard map.

Definition 1. A point $`vV`$ of the billiard phase space is

a) B-hyperbolic (or strictly B-unstable) if the corresponding g.t.p.t. $`T(v)`$ is strictly B-unstable;

b) B-parabolic if the corresponding g.t.p.t. $`T(v)`$ is B-unstable and parabolic (i.e., $`s`$ belongs to the boundary of the appropriate interval (21-25) );

c) B-unstable if the corresponding g.t.p.t. $`T(v)`$ is B-unstable (i.e., B-parabolic or B-hyperbolic);

d) eventually strictly B-unstable if there is some integer $`n`$ such that $`T(\varphi ^i(v))`$ is B-unstable for $`0i<n`$ and $`T(\varphi ^n(v))`$ is strictly B-unstable.

Below we formulate the main theorem of the present work.

Theorem 1. Let $`Q`$ be a billiard table on $`M(r,\beta )`$. If $`\mu `$-almost every point of the billiard phase space is eventually strictly B-unstable, then the Lyapunov exponent $`\lambda `$ is positive $`\mu `$-almost everywhere.

Proof. The proof of the theorem is based on the cone field method which has been initially applied to the planar billiards in \[Wo1\], \[Wo2\].

A cone in $`T_vV`$ corresponds to an interval in the projectivization $`B_v`$. Therefore, a cone field, $`𝒲`$, is determined by a function, $`W()`$, on $`V`$, where each $`W(v)`$ is an interval in the projective coordinate $`\chi `$. We define the function $`W(v)`$ as in \[GSG\]. For completeness, we repeat this definition below.

$$\begin{array}{cc}\text{ (P) and (E) }& W(v)=\{\begin{array}{cc}[K(v),+\mathrm{}]\hfill & \text{if }K(v)0\hfill \\ [\mathrm{},K(v)]\hfill & \text{if }K(v)0\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ & \\ \text{ (H) }& W(v)=\{\begin{array}{cc}[K(v),+\mathrm{}]\hfill & \text{if }K(v)\xi \hfill \\ [\mathrm{},K(v)]\hfill & \text{if }K(v)\xi \hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$

As it follows from Lemma 2 in \[GSG\], this cone field is eventually strictly preserved by the billiard map if the conditions of Theorem 1 are satisfied. By this fact the proof of the theorem follows immediately from Wojtkowski’s theorem (Theorem 1 in \[Wo2\]). $`\mathrm{}`$

Applying the method developed in \[Wo2\], one can actually estimate from below the Lyapunov exponent using the cone field defined above. The result is given by the next theorem.

Theorem 2. Let $`Q`$ be a billiard table satisfying the assumptions of Theorem 1, then

$$h(\varphi )=_V\lambda (v)𝑑\mu _V\overline{\lambda }(v)𝑑\mu .$$

Proof. The proof follows immediately by the repetition of calculations given in the proof of the analogous theorem for the non-magnetic case (see Theorem 2 in \[GSG\]). $`\mathrm{}`$

## 5  Applications and Examples

Theorem 1 together with Proposition 2 lead to a simple geometric criterion for billiard tables with hyperbolic dynamics. In this section we apply this criterion to construct various classes of hyperbolic billiards on $`M(r,\beta )`$.

### 5.1 Elementary billiard tables

There is a class of billiard tables, where the application of Theorem 1 gives an especially simple criterion for hyperbolicity. This class consists of billiard tables $`Q`$, whose boundary is a finite union of arcs, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$, of constant geodesic curvature, $`\kappa (\mathrm{\Gamma }_i)=\kappa _i`$. We call these tables elementary. We will use the notation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^+`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{}`$) if $`\kappa (\mathrm{\Gamma }_i)>0`$ (resp. $`\kappa (\mathrm{\Gamma }_i)0`$). Let $`C_i`$ be the curve of constant geodesic curvature such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_iC_i`$ and $`D_iM`$ be the corresponding disk ($`C_i=D_i`$). Since the representation $`Q=_{i=1}^N\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ is unique, we call $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ the components of $`Q`$. In the following, we consider elementary billiard tables for which $`|\kappa _i|\beta `$. One may easily see that the fulfillment of this inequality is necessary for billiards satisfying the conditions of Theorem 1 (see discussion in the Section 5.2 for billiards with boundaries of general type).

(E) Elliptic case ($`r_{eff}>0`$). Let $`DM`$ be a disc such that $`D`$ is the circle whose geodesic curvature $`\kappa `$ satisfies $`\kappa \beta `$. We define the component $`DM`$ as set of the points $`m^{}M`$ satisfying the condition $`\overline{m^{}m}=\overline{\pi }`$ for some point $`mD`$, where $`\overline{m^{}m}`$ is the length of the particle trajectory between the points $`m`$, $`m^{}`$. We will refer to $`D`$ as the dual component of $`D+D`$. Straightforward analysis shows that $`D`$ is the ring whose width equals to the diameter of $`D`$ and its radius is defined by $`\xi `$ (for $`M=𝐑^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ its radius is $`\beta ^1`$), see figs. 5a,b,c. When $`M=𝐒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`\beta =0`$, $`D`$ is the disk obtained from $`D`$ by reflection about the center of $`𝐒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, as it has been defined in \[GSG\].

Let us also introduce the terminology: If $`RSM`$ are regions with piecewise $`C^1`$ boundaries, we call an inclusion $`RS`$ proper if $`RintS\mathrm{}`$. The application of Theorem 1 to the elementary billiard tables in the case $`r_{eff}>0`$ leads to the following criterion for hyperbolicity.

Corollary E. Let $`QM`$ be an elementary billiard table whose boundary consists of $`N>1`$ components of type plus or minus. Suppose $`Q`$ satisfies the following conditions:

Condition E1. For every component $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^+`$ of $`Q`$ we have $`D_iQ`$. Besides, either $`D_iQ`$, or $`D_iMQ`$, where the inclusions are proper;

Condition E2. For every component $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^{}`$ we have $`D_jMQ`$, and the inclusions $`D_jMQ`$, or $`D_jQ`$ are proper.

Then the billiard in $`Q`$ is hyperbolic.

Outline of proof: The assumptions of Corollary E imply those of Theorem 1.

Remark. Suppose $`Q^{}=MQ`$ is connected. If $`Q`$ satisfies Conditions E1 and E2, then $`Q^{}`$ also does, and hence the billiard in $`Q^{}`$ is hyperbolic.

Examples. “Lorenz gas” billiards. Such billiards are obtained by removing from $`M`$ a number of disjoint discs $`D_i`$, so that $`Q=MD_i`$. If all the intersections $`D_i\pm D_j`$ $`ij`$, are empty, then the billiard in $`Q`$ is hyperbolic by Corollary E. The simplest example of such hyperbolic billiard is obtained by removing two disks from the magnetic plane, see fig. 6a.

The intersections $`D_i\pm D_j`$ $`ij`$, are always empty, if all the discs are contained inside of a free-flight particle trajectory (i.e., if all the discs lie inside a circle of geodesic curvature $`\beta `$). Such billiards are the “magnetic” analogs of the non-magnetic hyperbolic billiard tables on the sphere, obtained by removing a finite number of disjoint disks from one hemisphere \[GSG\]. The examples of hyperbolic billiards of this type on $`𝐒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, $`𝐑^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`𝐇^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ are shown in fig. 6b,c,d.

One can consider also unbounded billiard tables $`Q`$ obtained by removing an infinite number of disjoint disks from $`𝐑^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, $`𝐇^\mathrm{𝟐}`$. The simplest example of this type is obtained by removing a chain of equal disks from $`M=𝐑^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, as shown in fig. 7a (this billiard can be also seen as cylinder with one hole). Because of the translation symmetry, one needs to check the non-intersection condition only for one disk. The non-intersection condition is also necessary for hyperbolicity of such billiards. If it is not satisfied, then $`Q`$ has at least two stable g.t.p.t.s (see fig. 7a).

Another type of unbounded hyperbolic billiard tables can be obtained by removing a lattice of the disks from $`M=𝐑^\mathrm{𝟐},𝐇^\mathrm{𝟐}`$. The example of such billiard shown in fig. 7b, is equivalent to the torus with one hole. Here, again, because of the translation symmetry, one has to check the non-intersection condition only for a single disk.

“Flowers” like billiards. Consider a simply connected billiard table $`Q`$, whose boundary consists of several circular arcs of positive and negative curvature satisfying the condition $`|\kappa _i|\beta `$. Such billiards were originally introduced by Bunimovich \[Bu1\] \[Bu2\] as examples of planar (non-magnetic) hyperbolic billiards with convex boundary. It has been demonstrated that for $`r=0`$, $`\beta =0`$ such billiards are hyperbolic if the conditions $`D_iQ`$ are satisfied for each convex component of the boundary. For $`r_{eff}>0`$ we have by Corollary E the additional requirement: $`QD_i=\mathrm{}`$ for each component of the boundary (compare with the analogous conditions in \[GSG\] for the case $`\beta =0`$, $`M=𝐒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$). The examples of hyperbolic billiards $`Q`$ on $`𝐒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, $`𝐑^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, $`𝐇^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ of “flower” type satisfying the conditions of Corollary E are shown in fig. 8a,b,c. It follows from the remark above that billiards in the domain $`Q^{}=MQ`$ are also hyperbolic.

(H+P) Hyperbolic and parabolic cases ($`r_{eff}0`$). The criterion for hyperbolicity in this case is given by the following corollary.

Corollary H. Let $`QM`$ be an elementary billiard table, and let $`Q`$ consist of $`N>1`$ components. If $`Q`$ satisfies conditions:

Condition H1. For every convex component $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^+`$ of $`Q`$, we have $`D_iQ`$;

Condition H2. For every concave component of $`Q`$, we have $`\kappa (\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{})\beta `$ and for every convex component $`\kappa (\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^+)\xi `$.

Then the billiard in $`Q`$ is hyperbolic.

Outline of proof: The assumptions of Corollary H imply those of the Theorem 1.

Remark. When $`\beta 0`$ and $`r0`$, the condition H2 is automatically fulfilled and Corollary H turns to be the classical criterion of Bunimovich \[Bu2\] for hyperbolicity of planar, non-magnetic billiard tables.

Examples. Analogs of Sinai billiards. The boundary of these billiards consists of concave arcs $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{}`$ of constant curvature (see fig. 9). If the condition $`\kappa (\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{})\beta `$ is satisfied for each component of the boundary, then the billiard is hyperbolic by Corollary H.

Analogs of Bunimovich billiards. The example of hyperbolic billiard table with convex components satisfying the conditions H1, H2 is shown in fig. 10.

Remark. The assumptions in Corollaries E and H that $`N>1`$ and that the inclusions be proper are needed only to exclude certain degenerate situations, where each $`vV`$ is B-parabolic. This is the case, for instance, if $`Q`$ is a disc, or the annulus between concentric circles.

### 5.2  Hyperbolic billiard tables with boundary of general type

Let us consider billiard tables on $`M(r,\beta )`$ with piecewise smooth boundary, $`Q=_i\gamma _i`$ of general type. The components $`\gamma _i`$ are $`C^2`$ smooth curves parameterized by the arclength $`l`$, whose curvature $`\kappa _i(l)`$ has the same sign along each $`\gamma _i`$. We will refer to $`\gamma _i`$ as convex component if $`\kappa _i(l)>0`$, or as concave component if $`\kappa _i(l)0`$. Let us denote $`\kappa (\gamma _i)=\mathrm{max}\{\kappa _i(l),l\gamma _i\}`$ for the convex components, and $`\kappa (\gamma _i)=\mathrm{min}\{\kappa _i(l),l\gamma _i\}`$ for the concave components.

Following the terminology in \[Wo2\], we introduce the class of convex scattering curves on $`M(r,\beta )`$.

Definition 2. A smooth convex curve $`\gamma M`$ is (strictly) convex scattering if for any $`vV`$, such that the origin points of $`v`$ and $`\varphi (v)`$ belong to $`\gamma `$, the corresponding g.t.p.t. $`T(v)`$ is (strictly) B-unstable.

A curve $`\gamma `$ is convex scattering if one of the relevant conditions (21-25) is satisfied for each pair of points on $`\gamma `$. Regarding the planar non-magnetic case, this leads to the definition of Wojtkowski \[Wo2\] for convex scattering curve. Let us introduce the parameter $`R(l)=(\kappa (l)\beta )^1`$. Considering the infinitesimally close points on $`\gamma `$ we show in Appendix that the condition $`R^{\prime \prime }(l)0`$ is necessary for $`\gamma `$ to be convex scattering. It should be noted, that this condition is also sufficient in the planar, non-magnetic case (see \[Wo2\]), but not for generic parameters $`r`$, $`\beta `$ (see \[GSG\] for $`\beta =0`$ case).

In what follows, we formulate the principles for design of hyperbolic billiards satisfying the conditions of Theorem 1. Let $`Q`$ be a billiard table satisfying the conditions of Theorem 1. Then each convex component of $`Q`$ has to be convex scattering and consequently, the condition $`R^{\prime \prime }0`$ holds along each convex component of the boundary. There is an additional restriction on the curves $`\gamma _i`$ which compose the boundary of $`Q`$. It follows from Proposition 2 that for billiards satisfying the conditions of Theorem 1 the sign of $`K(v)`$ ($`d(v)`$) depends only on the origin point of $`v`$ (there is no dependence on $`\theta `$) for any $`vV`$, i.e., $`K(v)`$ ($`d(v)`$) has the same sign along $`\gamma _i`$ as $`\kappa (\gamma _i)`$. This happens if for each component $`\gamma _i`$, $`|\kappa (\gamma _i)|\beta `$ (the magnetic field is sufficiently weak). Thus, in what follows we particularly exclude from our consideration the magnetic billiards with flat boundaries. Such billiards do not satisfy the conditions of Theorem 1.

Design of hyperbolic billiard tables in the (E) case.

By Definition 2 a curve $`\gamma `$ is convex scattering if it is convex and the condition

$$d_1+d_2s\overline{\pi },$$
(26)
holds for any pair of points on $`\gamma `$. For simplicity of exposition, we will restrict our attention for $`M=𝐑^\mathrm{𝟐},𝐇^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ to the bounded billiard tables and for $`M=𝐒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ to the billiard tables which can be placed in a hemisphere. Theorem 1 yields the following principles for the design of piecewise billiard tables with hyperbolic dynamics in (E) case:

P1: $`|\kappa (\gamma _i)|\beta `$ for all components.

P2: All convex components of $`Q`$ are convex scattering.

P3: Any convex component of $`Q`$ has to be “sufficiently far”, but not “too far”, from any other component. Any concave component has to be not “too far”, from any other concave component.

The precise meaning of P3 is that the parameters of any two consecutive bouncing points, which belong to different components of the boundary, satisfy the condition (22). In particular it implies the set of restrictions on the angles between consecutive components of the boundary. It can be formulated as an additional principle.

P4: Let $`\gamma _i,\gamma _{i+1}Q`$ be two adjacent components, meeting at a vertex. If both $`\gamma _i`$ and $`\gamma _{i+1}`$ are convex, then the interior angle at the vertex is greater than $`\pi `$. If $`\gamma _i`$ and $`\gamma _{i+1}`$ have different sign of curvature, then the angle in question is greater or equal to $`\pi `$.

Another restriction which arises from P3 is that the length (equivalently the time) of free-flight between any two consequent bouncing points on the boundary of the billiard has to be not greater than $`\overline{\pi }`$. In other words, the billiard table has to be “smaller” than circle drawn by a free-flight particle on $`M(r,\beta )`$.

Examples. The examples of the hyperbolic billiards on $`𝐑^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ satisfying the above principles are shown in fig. 11a,b. A bounded Sinai-like billiard, whose boundary consists of (strictly) concave components (fig. 11a) always satisfies the principles P1-P4 for sufficiently weak magnetic field.

The example of a convex billiard is shown in fig. 11b. It is a cardioid, whose boundary is strictly convex scattering curve for $`\beta =0`$ (see \[Wo2\]). For $`\beta =0`$ this billiard is hyperbolic, as it follows from Theorem 1. Since strictly convex scattering curve remains to be such under small perturbations of $`\beta `$, the billiard in fig. 11b is hyperbolic for sufficiently weak magnetic field.

Design of hyperbolic billiard tables in the (P+H) case.

Definition 2 leads to the following geometric conditions on the convex scattering curve in the (P+H) case. A convex curve $`\gamma `$ is convex scattering if $`\kappa (\gamma )\xi `$ and for each pair of points on $`\gamma `$

$$d_1+d_2s.$$
(27)
Theorem 1 yields the following principles for the design of billiard tables with hyperbolic dynamics in the (P+H) case:

P1: $`\kappa (\gamma _i)\xi `$ for any convex component of $`Q`$ and $`\kappa (\gamma _i)\beta `$ for any concave component of $`Q`$.

P2: All convex components of $`Q`$ are convex scattering.

P3: Any convex component of $`Q`$ is “sufficiently far” from any other component.

More precisely, condition P3 means that any two consecutive bouncing points of the billiard ball, which belong to different components, satisfy eqs. (23-25). In particular, this yields, the same inequalities (P4) as in (E) case, for the interior angles between consecutive components of $`Q`$.

Examples. In (P+H) case, any concave billiard is hyperbolic if the condition $`\kappa (\gamma _i)\beta `$ is fulfilled for each component of the boundary. As in the case (E), the examples of the convex hyperbolic billiards can be obtained from their non-magnetic counterparts satisfying the conditions of Theorem 1.

Finally, it should be noted, that formulated above principles for design of hyperbolic billiards on $`M(r,\beta )`$ are robust under small perturbations of $`\beta `$, $`r`$ and the billiard wall. Generally, one can construct hyperbolic billiards on magnetic surfaces of constant curvature on the basis of the corresponding non-magnetic planar billiards satisfying Wojtkowski’s criterion.

## 6  Conclusions

In the present paper we have formulated the criterion for hyperbolic dynamics in billiards on surfaces of constant Gaussian curvature $`r`$ in the presence of a homogeneous magnetic field $`\beta `$ perpendicular to the surface. The criterion is valid for all values of $`r`$, $`\beta `$ and its geometric realization depends only on the type of linearized dynamics (elliptic, parabolic or hyperbolic). In this way we extend our recent results in \[GSG\] to the case of magnetic surfaces of constant curvature. The basic property, which allows unification of the hyperbolicity criteria for the magnetic and non-magnetic billiards on surfaces of constant curvature, is the equivalence between the geometric optics in both cases. In fact, in terms of special parameters $`d_i`$, $`s_i`$ the geometric optics depend only on the effective curvature $`r_{eff}=r+\beta ^2`$ of the surface. It is important to stress, that the dynamics in magnetic and non-magnetic billiards are very different (e.g., the magnetic field breaks time reversal symmetry). It is the only linearized dynamics, which are the same for the considered systems. Applying the hyperbolicity criterion, we were able to construct the different classes of hyperbolic billiards for each type of the linearized dynamics (equivalently for each of the signs of $`r_{eff}`$).

There are two types of necessary conditions which arise for hyperbolic billiards satisfying our criterion. The first one is a requirement for the convex components of the boundary to be convex scattering. As a consequence, the inequality $`R^{\prime \prime }(l)0`$ has to be satisfied along each convex component. This inequality is generalization of well-known Wojtkowski’s condition \[Wo2\] for convex component of planar (non-magnetic) hyperbolic billiard. It has been demonstrated for planar non-magnetic billiards in \[Bu3\], \[Bu4\], \[Do\] that Wojtkowski’s criterion can be considerably strengthened. This suggests, in particular, that condition $`R^{\prime \prime }(l)0`$ can be relaxed for general parameters $`r`$, $`\beta `$ by employing invariant cone fields, different from the one used in the present paper (see discussion in \[GSG\]). The second type of conditions is specific for magnetic billiards. This is a requirement of “weakness” for the magnetic field compared to the curvature of the billiard boundary. For generic systems, such condition is expected, in order to prevent stable skipping orbits close to the boundary. It has been shown in \[BR\], (see also \[BK\]) that billiard with sufficiently smooth boundary possesses invariant tori corresponding to skipping trajectories. It seems that in the strong field regime a part of stable periodic orbits has to survive even if the smoothness of the boundary is broken. It remains, however an open question, whether the condition $`|\kappa _i|\beta `$ can be relaxed for generic billiard.

The positive Lyapunov exponent for a billiard implies strong mixing properties: countable number of ergodic components, positive entropy, Bernoulli property etc. It should be pointed out, however, that ergodicity does not automatically follow from the positivety of Lyapunov exponent. Nevertheless, one can expect that billiards satisfying the conditions of Theorem 1 will be typically ergodic. It seems that the methods developed for the proof of ergodicity of planar hyperbolic billiards can be extended to the class of billiards considered in the present paper.

## Acknowledgment

The author is indebted to Professor U. Smilansky for proposing this investigation and for critically reading the manuscript. The author would like to thank Andrey Shapiro de Brosh for interesting and inspiring discussions, and various valuable remarks.

This work was supported by the Minerva Center for Nonlinear Physics of Complex Systems.

## 7  Appendix

We will investigate the conditions under which a convex arc on the surface of constant curvature $`M`$ in the presence of magnetic field $`\beta `$ is convex scattering.

For simplicity of exposition, we consider the case, when $`M`$ is magnetic plane. Let $`\gamma (l)M`$ be any smooth curve parameterized by arclength $`l`$, and let $`\kappa (l)`$ be the geodesic curvature of $`\gamma `$. Let now $`\gamma (l_0)`$ and $`\gamma (l_1)`$ be two points on $`\gamma `$, such that the arc of $`\gamma `$ between $`\gamma (l_0)`$ and $`\gamma (l_1)`$ lies entirely on one side of straight line passing through $`\gamma (l_0)`$ and $`\gamma (l_1)`$. We choose cartezian coordinate system $`(x,y)`$ in such a way that $`y(l_0)=y(l_1)=0`$, $`x(l_0)=x(l_1)`$ and the arc of $`\gamma `$ between $`\gamma (l_0)`$ and $`\gamma (l_1)`$ lies above $`x`$-axis, see fig. 12. Let $`\alpha (l)`$ be the angle, which $`\frac{d\gamma }{dl}`$ makes with $`x`$-axis , then

$$\frac{dx}{dl}=\mathrm{cos}\alpha ;\frac{dy}{dl}=\mathrm{sin}\alpha ;\frac{d\alpha }{dl}=\kappa .$$
(28)
We introduce also an auxiliary variable $`\delta `$, such that $`\beta x=\mathrm{sin}\delta `$.

For $`\beta >0`$ there are two different particle trajectories connecting the points $`\gamma (l_0)`$ and $`\gamma (l_1)`$ (resp. two different g.t.p.t.s corresponding to these points), see fig. 12. Below, we consider the trajectory which lies in the lower halfplane. Then, the results for trajectory in the upper halfplane are obtained by the change of the sign of $`\beta `$ to the opposite. Let $`\theta =\alpha +\delta `$. Then, at the points $`l_{0,1}`$, $`\theta (l_{0,1})`$ are the angles between $`\gamma `$ and the particle trajectory connecting $`\gamma (l_0)`$ and $`\gamma (l_1)`$. Set $`\mathrm{\Delta }=sd_1d_2`$. By eq. 14 we get

$`\mathrm{\Delta }=\beta ^1{\displaystyle \left[d\left(\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{\beta \mathrm{sin}\theta }{\kappa \beta \mathrm{cos}\theta }\right)\right)+d\delta \right]}`$
$$=𝑑l\left(\frac{\kappa ^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta +\kappa \left(\kappa +\beta \frac{\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{\mathrm{sin}\delta }\right)\left(\frac{\mathrm{cos}\alpha }{\mathrm{cos}\delta }\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)}{\kappa ^2+\beta ^22\beta \kappa \mathrm{cos}\theta }\right)$$
(29)
We separate the last integral into the sum of two parts. The first one is

$`I={\displaystyle 𝑑l\left(\frac{\kappa ^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta }{\kappa ^2+\beta ^22\beta \kappa \mathrm{cos}\theta }\right)}={\displaystyle 𝑑y\left(\frac{R^{}}{1+4R^2\kappa \beta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta /2}\right)},`$
where $`R^1(l,\beta )=\kappa (l)\beta `$. Since $`y(l_0)=y(l_1)=0`$, we obtain

$$I=𝑑l\left(\frac{yR^{\prime \prime }}{1+4R^2\kappa \beta \mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}}\frac{yR^{}(4R^2\kappa \beta \mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2})^{}}{(1+4R^2\kappa \beta \mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2})^2}\right)=\frac{R^{\prime \prime }L^3\kappa }{12}+O(L^4),$$
(30)
where $`L=l_1l_0`$ is the length of the curve between the points $`\gamma (l_0)`$, $`\gamma (l_1)`$. Analogously, for second part we have

$`II={\displaystyle 𝑑l\left(\frac{\kappa \left(\kappa +\beta \frac{\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{\mathrm{sin}\delta }\right)\left(\frac{\mathrm{cos}\alpha }{\mathrm{cos}\delta }\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)}{\kappa ^2+\beta ^22\beta \kappa \mathrm{cos}\theta }\right)}`$
$`={\displaystyle 𝑑y\left(\frac{\kappa \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta }{\mathrm{cos}\delta }\left(\kappa \frac{\mathrm{sin}\delta }{\mathrm{sin}\alpha }+\beta \right)}{\kappa ^2+\beta ^22\beta \kappa \mathrm{cos}\theta }\right)}=O(L^4).`$
Adding both parts we obtain finally

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=I+II=\frac{R^{\prime \prime }L^3\kappa }{12}+O(L^4).$$
(31)
Thus, if the curve $`\gamma `$ is convex scattering, then the condition $`R^{\prime \prime }(l,\beta )0`$ holds everywhere on $`\gamma `$. Considering trajectories of the second type (i.e., trajectories which lay in the upper halfplane), we obtain the condition $`R^{\prime \prime }(l,\beta )0`$ for convex scattering curves. However, it easy to see, that $`R^{\prime \prime }(l,\beta )0`$ actually implies $`R^{\prime \prime }(l,\beta )0`$.

Repeating the same analysis for general $`M(r,\beta )`$ we have found (see also \[GSG\] for $`\beta =0`$ case) that eq. 31 holds for all surfaces of constant curvature. As a consequence, $`R^{\prime \prime }0`$ is a necessary condition for convex scattering on $`M(r,\beta )`$. On the contrary, if the strict inequality $`R^{\prime \prime }<0`$ holds along $`\gamma `$, then by eq. 31, any sufficiently small piece of $`\gamma `$ is convex scattering.


format: text

text:
# Limits on magnetic field strength of the extended nebula of PSR B1706-44 from optical, X-ray and TeV observations

## 1 Introduction

PSR B1706-44 is a young Vela-like pulsar (spin-down age 17.5 kyr), with a period of 102 ms and a large spin-down power (Ė = 3.4 x 1036 ergs/s). It was discovered during a 20 cm radio pulsar survey of the southern Galactic plane (Johnston et al. 1992), and later detected in soft X-rays during the ROSAT mission (Becker et al. 1992, 1995) and identified as a pulsed GeV source by EGRET (Thompson et al. 1992). Very high energy (VHE) $`\gamma `$-ray observations above 1 TeV from CANGAROO (Kifune et al. 1995; Kifune 1997) and above 0.3 TeV from Durham (Chadwick et al. 1997) detected and confirmed the existence of unpulsed radiation of statistical significance from this source. The CANGAROO detection is consistent with a point source, with angular extend not exceeding $`0.^{}12`$ – the pixel size of the imaging camera. A dispersion based distance measure of Taylor & Cordes (1993) places PSR B1706-44 at $``$1.8 kpc. A possible SNR G 343.1-2.3 association with the pulsar was proposed by McAdam et al. (1993), but this was later found to be unlikely by Frail et al. (1994) and Nicastro et al. (1996).

Chakrabarty & Kaspi (1998) gave a red-band upper limit of $`R>\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}18}`$ to the pulsar. A 3$`\sigma `$ upper limit to the pulsar magnitude of $`V=24.5`$ was given by Lundqvist et al. (1999), and this is consistent with the theoretical prediction of $`V=24.12`$ (Urama & Okeke 1998, and references therein). Mignani et al. (1999), using the same data as Lundqvist et al., obtained an upper limit of $`V>\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}27.5}`$.

The photon flux above 1 TeV from this unpulsed source is only two times smaller compared to the flux of the Crab Nebula at the same energy. This is remarkable in the context of a synchrotron-inverse Compton (on external photon fields) interpretation for the TeV $`\gamma `$-rays from PSR B1706-44, since the synchrotron nebula of this source is very weak compared to the Crab Nebula’s synchrotron intensity. Whereas the Crab Nebula’s intense synchrotron emission is the result of a large $`B`$ ($`10^4`$ G) field, we must have a much weaker field for this plerion to avoid a bright synchrotron nebula.

De Jager (1995) speculated that a Vela-like compact synchrotron nebula ($`<1^{}`$, Harnden et al. 1985) may be present, which would account for most of the unpulsed X-ray emission from this source, since the pulsar wind magnetic field (which scales as $`B1/R`$) would predict a compact synchrotron nebula, if the conditions are similar to Vela. The corresponding particle density required for the synchrotron nebula would however be too low to produce a detectable inverse Compton compact nebula, since the target photon density from the CMBR and Galactic disk would be too small.

A compact nebula was indeed discovered (Finley et al. 1998), which confirms the abovementioned interpretation. The scenario of Harding & de Jager (1997), with a detailed analysis by Aharonian et al. (1997) may apply in this case: electrons are streaming away from the compact X-ray nebula into a low-B extended plerion. If the diffusion coefficient for electrons in the extended plerion is small enough, it may be possible to trap enough electrons to account for the TeV emission by IC scattering.

Frail et al. (1994) detected a radio synchrotron nebula associated with the pulsar, which has a radius of $`2^{}`$ at 20 cm wavelength. This may represent the low energy counterpart of the TeV nebula, since the associated $`B`$ in the radio nebula is smaller than the pulsar driven field in the compact X-ray nebula, and the size is just smaller than the angular resolution of the CANGAROO telescope.

If the TeV $`\gamma `$-rays originate from the extended (radio?) nebula, we will expect a bright extended nebula in optical and/or X-rays, if the field strength is large enough. No extended X-ray nebula was however seen, resulting in an upper limit of four times the flux of the point source/compact X-ray nebula at 1 keV, for $`R=2^{}`$ (K. Brazier 1998, personal communication). This is consistent with the expectation that the pulsar field strength (which drops as $`1/R`$ outside the light cylinder) should start to drop below the ambient field strength of a few $`\mu `$G at a distance of a few arcminutes (de Jager & Harding 1998). The consequence of this is that both the synchrotron brightness and synchrotron characteristic frequencies should drop with increasing $`R`$. Scaling from the Durham detection above 0.3 TeV, and the expected $`B3\mu `$G in the extended nebula (de Jager & Harding 1998), we may use equation (5) of Aharonian et al. (1997) to calculate the synchrotron frequency which corresponds to the Durham detected $`\gamma `$-rays near 0.3 TeV, assuming that the CMBR is mostly responsible for the inverse Compton scattering. This gives a frequency of

$$\nu 1.5\times 10^{15}\left(\frac{E_\gamma }{0.3TeV}\right)\left(\frac{B}{3\mu G}\right)Hz,$$

which is within a factor of 3 from the V-band. The non-detection of the unpulsed component at 20 GeV (Thompson et al. 1996) hints at a marginal turnover in the $`\gamma `$-ray spectrum (de Jager & Harding 1998), which corresponds to a turnover frequency as low as $`10^{14}`$ Hz, which is well below the V-band.

At a distance of 1.8 kpc to the source, we expect significant interstellar absorption in the blue and UV bands. We therefore take wide field V-band images as a compromise between interstellar absorption and avoiding a spectral turnover at too low frequencies. By taking overlapping images, we cover a total field-of-view of about $`10^{}`$, which should include the expected TeV source. Even if the full extend of the TeV source is $`10^{}`$, we still expect a typically centrally brightened image, resulting in a radial gradient from the source. Failure to detect the optical counterpart will allow us to set upper limits on the magnetic field strength in the extended nebula, since any stronger field should have resulted in a brighter optical nebula.

## 2 Observations and data analyses

V band CCD observations of PSR B1706-44 were carried out on May 24, 1999 at the South African Astronomical Observatory (SAAO) 1.0 m telescope in Sutherland. Five frames, each $`5.^{^{}}3\times 5.^{^{}}3`$ (pixel size = 0.31 arcsec), were taken. The first one was centered on the radio pulsar position (Johnston et al. 1992, 1995), whereas the other four frames were offset in such a way that they have an overlap of $``$10% with each other around the pulsar position. The overall region observed around the pulsar is $`9.^{^{}}5\times 9.^{^{}}5`$. The observation time for each frame was 12 minutes. Table 1 gives the position (RA, Dec), the starting time (MJD), $`K`$ values and the duration time (seconds) log for the five frames.

Observations were affected by the moonlight (about 60% bright). The average counts for each frame were decreasing with time, probably due to the moon’s effect across the sky. The data were cleaned and flat-fielded using the IRAF image-processing software. Fig. 1 shows a V band CCD image of the central frame with the pulsar and the standard star positions labeled + and 1 (Mignani et al. 1999, their Figs. 1 & 2), respectively. Only the inner part (25% of the total area) of Frame 1 is shown on Fig. 1.

For each frame, we made a histogram of the number of pixels versus intensity per pixel using a logarithmic binning procedure prescribed by

$$K=N_o\mathrm{log}(N/N_{min}),$$

where $`N_o`$ ($`=99/\mathrm{log}(N_{max}/N_{min})`$) is a normalizing constant, as shown in Fig. 2 for the central frame. This binning procedure ensures that all intensities are confined to the interval $`K=1`$ and 100.

Whereas the diffuse emission is expected to be confined to a rather narrow low-$`K`$ peak in the histogram, the pixels contaminated by point sources should show a broad tail. Fig. 2 indeed shows such behaviour. It can be shown that the weak plerionic emission is expected to contribute to the low $`K`$-values ($`K<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}25}`$), so that we can reject the star–like objects by cutting at $`K30`$ (for frame 1) as shown in Fig. 2. This rejects only 10% of the pixels, so that we preserve 90% of the plerionic component. The threshold value of K for each frame is given in Table 1, and probably depends on the phase of the moon and the background bright stars (in each frame), which contribute to the background for each frame. Note that the final results are not sensitive to the threshold $`K`$.

By renormalising the count rate of each frame to the count rate of the central frame, we were able to construct a composite image of a $`10^{^{}}\times 10^{^{}}`$ region around the pulsar. Since the plerionic structure is expected to be circular around the pulsar (the radio nebula is at least circular), we constructed annuli around the pulsar and made a plot of the mean count rate per pixel versus radius of the annuli. These count rates are constant with radius within statistics for $`R=0`$ to $`5^{^{}}`$, which means that there is no evidence for a centrally brightened source, and hence no evidence for a plerionic structure centered on the pulsar.

## 3 Upper limits

The 3$`\sigma `$ upper limits for plerionic emission confined in circles, as well as annuli, are shown in Fig. 3. These upper limits were converted to absolute intensities, $`S_V`$, using the observed counts from Star 1 (see Fig. 1) of Chakrabarty & Kaspi (1998) with $`V=17.4`$ mag.

The 3$`\sigma `$ $`S_V`$ upper limits increase with $`R`$ as expected, and at $`R=0.^{^{}}5`$ (compact X-ray nebula), our 3$`\sigma `$ upper limit is $`V15`$, while for an extended nebula of about 4 arcminutes, the upper limit is $`V>\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}12}`$.

Assuming that the synchrotron spectral index, $`\alpha `$, of the nebula is the same in both the optical and X-ray regions, the monochromatic X-ray flux, $`S_{1keV}`$, at 1 keV is given by $`S_{1keV}=S_V(ϵ_x/ϵ_o)^\alpha ,`$ where $`ϵ_x`$ (= 1 keV) and $`ϵ_o`$ (= 2.3 eV) are the X-ray and optical energies, respectively. The observed optical flux can be expressed as $`S(V)=S_V\mathrm{exp}(\tau _\nu )`$, where $`\tau _\nu `$ is the optical depth due to interstellar absorption, with $`\tau _\nu 1.8`$ for $`d=1.8`$ kpc. Using the above relations and the de Jager et al. (1995) expression for the TeV $`\gamma `$-ray IC energy spectrum (their Equation 2), we calculate the upper limits to the magnetic fields for different values of $`\alpha `$ between 1.0 and 2.5, inclusively. Fig. 4 shows the curves for $`\alpha `$ = 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5, as well as the magnetic field limits from the X-ray upper limits for $`R=2^{}`$ for similar values of $`\alpha `$. The magnetohydrodynamic curve of Kennel & Coroniti (1984) model, with $`\sigma =1.0`$ (equipartition between particles and fields), is superimposed on Fig. 4, and it is considered as the lower limit to the extended nebula at large radii ($`R>\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}.^{^{}}0`$). Also shown in Fig. 4 are the Galactic field strengths at the source according to Heiles (1996) and Broadbent et al. (1990).

## 4 Discussions

Our search for an extended nebula synchrotron counterpart to the TeV nebula did not reveal any nebular structure around PSR B1706-44. The TeV observations do hint at the existence of such a plerionic structure, but our results constrain the nebular magnetic field strength if we assume that the TeV $`\gamma `$-rays originate from the IC scattering of energetic pulsar wind electrons on the CMBR. At $`R=2^{}`$, we find that the optical and X-ray limits are complementary: the spectral index is constrained to $`\alpha =1.5`$ to 2.3, whereas $`B3`$ $`\mu `$G. This limit is barely above the pulsar wind solution, but below the average Galactic field values shown in Figure 4. Furthermore, our constraints on $`\alpha `$ are marginally consistent with $`\alpha =1.3\pm 0.3`$ measured for the compact X-ray nebula (Finley et al. 1998).

Our optical observations and the information gathered from other wave bands (mainly from X-ray and $`\gamma `$-ray energies) show that better quality observations (dark moon) should improve these limits, or, result in a detection. Polarimetry of the “extended nebula” of PSR B1706-44 may also help to clarify the status of synchrotron emission.