text:
# Remarks on magnetic flows and magnetic billiards, Finsler metrics and a magnetic analog of Hilbert’s fourth problem

## 1 Introduction and background material

This paper concerns the motion of a charged particle in a magnetic field, a popular object of study in mathematics and mathematical physics. In the Euclidean plane, the strength of the magnetic field is given by a function $`B(x_1,x_2)`$, and the particle moves with a constant speed, satisfying the equation

$`\ddot{x}=B(x_1,x_2)J\dot{x}\mathrm{where}J(v_1,v_2)=(v_2,v_1)`$ (1)
If one fixes the speed $`|v|`$ then the magnetic field prescribes the curvature of the trajectory at every point. In particular, if the field is constant then the trajectories are circles of the Larmor radius $`|v|/|B|`$. Our sign convention is that if $`B>0`$ then the circles are traversed in the counterclockwise direction.

In general, a magnetic field on a Riemannian manifold $`M`$ is a closed differential 2-form $`\beta `$, and the magnetic flow is the Hamiltonian flow of the Riemannian Hamiltonian function $`|p|^2/2`$ on the cotangent bundle $`T^{}M`$ with respect to the twisted symplectic structure $`\omega +\pi ^{}(\beta )`$ where $`\omega =dpdq`$ is the standard symplectic structure on $`T^{}M`$ and $`\pi :T^{}MM`$ is the projection. We refer to  for a variety of results on magnetic flows on Riemannian manifolds.

If a charged particle is confined to a domain with ideally reflecting boundary then one has a magnetic billiard. The particle moves inside according to equation (1) and undergoes elastic reflections off the boundary: the tangential component of the velocity remains the same and the normal one changes sign. In dimension two, this amounts to the familiar law of geometrical optics: the angle of incidence equals that of reflection. Magnetic billiards have attracted a considerable attention: see ; see also  for a survey of various aspects of billiard systems.

In this paper we interpret a magnetic flow as a geodesic flow of a Finsler metric. We mostly consider the 2-dimensional case. In Section 2 we interpret magnetic billiards as Finsler ones and describe the magnetic version of the string construction that recovers a billiard table by a caustic of the billiard map. We also characterize the Finsler metrics for which the Finsler billiard enjoys the familiar law “angle of incidence equals angle of reflection” (Theorem 2 and Corollary 3). In Section 3 we describe the Finsler metrics in the plane whose geodesics are circles of a fixed radius; we give analytic and synthetic descriptions in Theorems 6,7,8. This is an analog of the celebrated Hilbert’s fourth problem of describing the Finsler metrics in a domain in projective space whose geodesics are straight lines . Our solution has an unexpected connection to another classical and well studied question: the Pompeiu problem .

We will now review basics of Finsler geometry (see, e.g., ) and Finsler billiards, recently introduced in . Finsler geometry describes the propagation of light in an inhomogeneous anisotropic medium. This means that the velocity of light depends on the point and the direction. There are two equivalent descriptions of this process corresponding to the Lagrangian and the Hamiltonian approaches in classical mechanics, and we will mostly use the former.

The optical properties of a medium are described by a quadratically convex smooth hypersurface, called the indicatrix, in the tangent space at each point. The indicatrix consists of the velocity vectors of the propagation of light at a point in all directions. It plays the role of the unit sphere in Riemannian geometry. We do not assume that the indicatrices are centrally symmetric.

Equivalently, a Finsler metric on a manifold $`M`$ is determined by a smooth nonnegative fiber-wise convex Lagrangian function $`L(x,v)`$ on the tangent bundle $`TM`$, homogeneous of degree 1 in the velocity:

$$L(x,tv)=tL(x,v)\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}t>0.$$

The restriction of $`L`$ to a tangent space $`T_xM`$ gives the Finsler length of vectors in $`T_xM`$, and the indicatrix at $`x`$ is the unit level hypersurface of $`L(x,v)`$. Given a smooth curve $`\gamma :[a,b]M`$, its length is

$$(\gamma )=_a^bL(\gamma (t),\gamma ^{}(t))𝑑t.$$

The integral does not depend on the parameterization. A Finsler geodesic is an extremal of the functional $``$. The Finsler geodesic flow is the flow in $`TM`$ in which the foot point of a vector moves along the Finsler geodesic tangent to it, so that the vector remains tangent to this geodesic and preserves its Finsler length. The Finsler geodesic flow is described by the Euler-Lagrange equation

$`dL_v(x,v)/dtL_x(x,v)=0\mathrm{or}L_{vv}\dot{v}+L_{vx}vL_x=0.`$ (2)
The dual, Hamiltonian approach describes the propagation of light in terms of wave fronts and the Finsler geodesic flow as a Hamiltonian flow in the cotangent bundle $`T^{}M`$. Let $`IT_xM`$ be the indicatrix. The figuratrix $`JT_x^{}M`$ is the dual hypersurface constructed as follows. Given a vector $`uI`$, the respective covector $`pJ`$ is defined by the conditions:

$$\mathrm{Ker}p=T_uI\mathrm{and}p(u)=1.$$

This gives a diffeomorphism $`IJ`$, called the Legendre transform. In the same way as the field of indicatrices determines the Lagrangian $`L`$, the field of figuratrices determines a Hamiltonian $`H`$ on $`T^{}M`$. The Hamiltonian vector field of the function $`H`$ is also called the Finsler geodesic flow; the Legendre transform identifies the two flows.

Example 1: Hilbert’s fourth problem in dimension two. The Euclidean metric is given by the Lagrangian $`L(x,v)=|v|`$; its geodesics are straight lines. Such metrics are called projective. Following , let us describe all symmetric projective Finsler metrics in the plane, that is, a solution to Hilbert’s fourth problem in dimension 2.

A synthetic approach, due to Busemann, makes use of integral geometry, namely, the Crofton formula . Consider the set of oriented lines in the plane, topologically, the cylinder. An oriented line can be characterized by its direction $`\alpha [0,2\pi )`$ and its signed distance $`p`$ from the origin. The 2-form $`\omega _0=dpd\alpha `$ is the standard area form on the space of oriented lines; this symplectic form is a particular case of a symplectic structure on the space of trajectories of a Hamiltonian system on a fixed energy level, in particular, the space of oriented geodesics of a Finsler metric – see, e.g.,  and a discussion in Section 3. The Crofton formula gives the Euclidean length of a plane curve $`\gamma `$ in terms of $`\omega _0`$. The curve determines a function on the space of oriented lines, the number of intersections of a line $`l`$ with $`\gamma `$. Then

$`\mathrm{length}(\gamma )=(1/4){\displaystyle \mathrm{\#}(l\gamma )\omega _0}.`$ (3)
Let $`f(p,\alpha )`$ be a positive continuous function. Then $`\omega =f(p,\alpha )dpd\alpha `$ is also an area form on the space of oriented lines. Formula (3), with $`\omega `$ replacing $`\omega _0`$, defines a projective Finsler metric, and all such metrics can be obtained by an appropriate choice of the function $`f`$.

Next we describe an analytic solution to Hilbert’s fourth problem in dimension two. First, a Lagrangian $`L(x,v)`$, homogeneous of degree 1 in $`v`$, gives a projective Finsler metric if and only if the mixed second partial derivative matrix $`L_{xv}`$ is symmetric; this is Hamel’s theorem of 1903, and it holds in any dimension. The Lagrangians satisfying Hamel’s condition have the following integral representation:

$`L(x_1,x_2,v_1,v_2)={\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}|v_1\mathrm{cos}\varphi +v_2\mathrm{sin}\varphi |f(x_1\mathrm{cos}\varphi +x_2\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,\varphi )𝑑\varphi `$ (4)
where $`f(p,\varphi )`$ is a smooth positive function on the cylinder representing the space of oriented lines. Moreover, if $`f`$ is even in $`\varphi `$ then it is uniquely determined by $`L`$. The function $`f`$ is the same as in (3): the length of a curve with respect to the Finsler metric (4) is given, up to a multiplicative constant, by (3). If $`f`$ depends on the angle $`\varphi `$ only then one obtains a translation invariant metric, called a Minkowski metric. If $`f`$ is a constant then one has the Euclidean metric.

Let $`M`$ be a 2-dimensional Finsler manifold with boundary, a curve $`N`$. The Finsler billiard system is defined in  as follows. A point moves inside $`M`$ freely, according to the Finsler geodesic flow, until it hits the boundary. The reflection is described in terms of the indicatrix $`I`$ at the impact point $`x`$ – see figure 1. The vectors $`u`$ and $`v`$ are the Finsler unit vectors along the incoming and outgoing trajectories. The tangent lines to $`I`$ at $`u`$ and $`v`$ are concurrent with the tangent line to $`N`$ at $`x`$. This definition satisfies a variational principle: for every points $`a,bM`$, the reflection point $`x`$ extremizes the Finsler length $`|ax|+|xb|`$. If the indicatrix is a circle centered at the origin then the vectors $`u`$ and $`v`$ make equal angles with the boundary curve $`N`$; this is the familiar law of Euclidean billiard reflection. The multi-dimensional version of the Finsler billiard reflection is defined similarly, and we do not dwell on it – see .

Example 2: projective Finsler billiard reflection. Consider a symmetric projective Finsler metric (4). In polar coordinates, $`v_1=r\mathrm{cos}\alpha ,v_2=r\mathrm{sin}\alpha `$, and

$`L(x_1,x_2,r,\alpha )/2=r{\displaystyle _{\alpha \pi /2}^{\alpha +\pi /2}}\mathrm{cos}(\alpha \varphi )f(x_1\mathrm{cos}\varphi +x_2\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,\varphi )𝑑\varphi .`$ (5)
Let $`\alpha `$ be the direction of the billiard curve at the impact point $`x`$ and $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ the directions of the incoming and the outgoing billiard trajectories – see figure 2. The projective Finsler reflection law specializes to the following formula.

###### Lemma 1.1

One has:

$$_{\gamma \pi /2}^{\beta \pi /2}\mathrm{cos}(\alpha \varphi )f(x_1\mathrm{cos}\varphi +x_2\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,\varphi )𝑑\varphi =$$

$$_{\gamma +\pi /2}^{\beta +\pi /2}\mathrm{cos}(\alpha \varphi )f(x_1\mathrm{cos}\varphi +x_2\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,\varphi )𝑑\varphi .$$

For example, if $`f=1`$ then integration yields: $`\mathrm{cos}(\beta \alpha )=\mathrm{cos}(\gamma \alpha )`$ or $`\beta \alpha =\gamma \alpha `$, the familiar law of equal angles.

Proof. Denote the integral in (5) by $`g(x,\alpha )`$. Then the polar equation of the indicatrix at point $`x`$, chosen as the origin, is $`r=1/g(x,\alpha )`$. It is a matter of a straightforward calculation to find the coordinates of the intersection point $`P`$ in figure 2:

$$P(\beta )=\frac{(\mathrm{cos}\alpha ,\mathrm{sin}\alpha )}{g(\beta )\mathrm{cos}(\alpha \beta )+g^{}(\beta )\mathrm{sin}(\alpha \beta )}.$$

Equating $`P(\beta )`$ and $`P(\gamma )`$ yields:

$`g(\beta )\mathrm{cos}(\alpha \beta )+g^{}(\beta )\mathrm{sin}(\alpha \beta )=g(\gamma )\mathrm{cos}(\alpha \gamma )+g^{}(\gamma )\mathrm{sin}(\alpha \gamma ).`$ (6)
It follows from (5) that

$$g^{}(\beta )=_{\beta \pi /2}^{\beta +\pi /2}\mathrm{sin}(\beta \varphi )f(x_1\mathrm{cos}\varphi +x_2\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,\varphi )𝑑\varphi ,$$

and similarly for $`\gamma `$. It remains to substitute to (6) and to collect terms. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 2 Magnetic billiards as Finsler billiards

Consider the plane motion of a charged particle in a magnetic field with strength $`B(x_1,x_2)`$. The Lagrangian for this motion is

$$\overline{L}(x,v)=\frac{1}{2}|v|^2+\alpha (x)(v)$$

where $`\alpha (x)=f(x_1,x_2)dx_1+g(x_1,x_2)dx_2`$ is a differential 1-form such that $`d\alpha =B(x_1,x_2)dx_1dx_2`$. The choice of $`\alpha `$ is not unique: one can always add a closed 1-form to a Lagrangian without effecting the dynamics. The Euler-Lagrange equation for $`\overline{L}`$ is (1). In particular, the Lagrangian for a constant magnetic field is

$$\overline{L}(x,v)=\frac{1}{2}|v|^2+\frac{B}{2}[v,x]$$

where $`[,]`$ is the cross-product.

Following the Maupertuis principle (see, e.g., ), we replace the Lagrangian $`\overline{L}`$ by

$`L(x,v)=|v|+\alpha (x)(v).`$ (7)
The extremals of the Lagrangian (7) coincide with those of $`\overline{L}`$, corresponding to the motion with the unit speed. In particular, the extremals of

$`L(x,v)=|v|+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2R}}[v,x]`$ (8)
are the counterclockwise oriented circles of radius $`R`$.

The Lagrangian (7) defines a non-symmetric Finsler metric in the domain where $`L(x,v)>0`$ for all $`v0`$. This is the case if $`|\alpha (x)|<1`$, and we assume this condition to hold throughout this section. In other words, we assume that the magnetic field is sufficiently weak. Under this assumption, we consider the unit speed magnetic flow as the Finsler geodesic flow.

Consider a plane domain and the magnetic billiard inside it. One also has the Finsler billiard inside the domain, associated with the Lagrangian (7). One expects the two systems to coincide, that is, to have the same reflection laws.

###### Theorem 1

The Finsler billiard reflection law, associated with the Lagrangian (7), is the law of equal angles: the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection.

Proof. The indicatrix of the Finsler metric at point $`x`$ is given by the equation $`|v|+\alpha (x)(v)=1`$. Choose Cartesian coordinates in such a way that $`\alpha (x)(v)=tv_1`$ for some $`t𝐑`$. Then the equation of the indicatrix can be rewritten as

$`(1t^2)^2\left(v_1+{\displaystyle \frac{t}{1t^2}}\right)^2+(1t^2)v_2^2=1.`$ (9)
Recall that the equation of a conic, centered at the origin in the $`(v_1,v_2)`$-plane, is

$$\frac{(v_1+c)^2}{a^2}+\frac{v_2^2}{b^2}=1$$

where $`a^2c^2=b^2`$. Clearly, (9) has this form. Hence the indicatrix is an ellipse, centered at the origin.

Thus the theorem reduces to the following geometrical property of conics. Let $`I`$ be a conic with focus $`O`$, let $`X,YI`$, and let $`Z`$ be the intersection point of the tangent lines to $`I`$ at $`X`$ and $`Y`$. Then the line $`OZ`$ bisects the angle $`XOY`$ – see figure 3. This property holds indeed; it is known as the Poncelet “first little theorem”, see . This completes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

In fact, the law of equal angles is characteristic of the conics, centered at a focus.

###### Theorem 2

Let $`I`$ be a smooth plane curve, star-shaped with respect to point $`O`$, with the following property. Let $`X,YI`$ be arbitrary points, $`Z`$ be the intersection point of the tangent lines to $`I`$ at $`X`$ and $`Y`$; then the line $`OZ`$ bisects the angle $`XOY`$. It follows that $`I`$ is a conic with focus $`O`$.

Proof. Let $`O`$ be the origin, and give $`I`$ a parameterization $`I(t)`$ so that $`[I(t),I^{}(t)]1`$. Then $`I^{\prime \prime }(t)=f(t)I(t)`$ for some function $`f(t)`$; thus we view $`I`$ as an orbit in a central force field. We claim that $`f(t)=C/|I(t)|^3`$ for a constant $`C`$. Assuming this claim, it follows that $`I`$ is an orbit in Newton’s force field, and therefore a conic with focus $`O`$.

Let $`X=I(t_1)=I_1,Y=I(t_2)=I_2`$. A direct computation yields the point $`Z`$:

$$Z=I_1+\frac{[I_2I_1,I_2^{}]}{[I_1^{},I_2^{}]}I_1^{}=I_2+\frac{[I_1I_2,I_1^{}]}{[I_2^{},I_1^{}]}I_2^{}.$$

The equal angle condition reads: $`[Y,Z]/|Y|=[Z,X]/|X|`$, or

$`|I_2|(1[I_1,I_2^{}])=|I_1|(1[I_2,I_1^{}]).`$ (10)
Now set: $`t_1=t,t_2=t+\epsilon `$ and shorthand $`I(t)`$ to $`I`$ and $`f(t)`$ to $`f`$. Then the Taylor expansion yields:

$$I_2=I\left(1\frac{\epsilon ^2}{2}f\frac{\epsilon ^3}{6}f^{}\right)+I^{}\left(\epsilon \frac{\epsilon ^3}{6}f\right)+O(\epsilon ^4),$$

$$I_2^{}=I^{}\left(1\frac{\epsilon ^2}{2}f\frac{\epsilon ^3}{3}f^{}\right)I\left(\epsilon f+\frac{\epsilon ^2}{2}f^{}+\frac{\epsilon ^3}{6}(f^{\prime \prime }f^2)\right)+O(\epsilon ^4),$$

and

$$|I_2|=|I|+\epsilon \frac{II^{}}{|I|}+O(\epsilon ^2).$$

Substitute to (10) and collect terms to obtain: $`|I|^2f^{}+3II^{}f=0.`$ This differential equation is easily solved: $`f^{}/f=3II^{}/|I|^2`$ and hence $`f=C/|I|^3`$, as claimed. $`\mathrm{}`$

As a consequence, we obtain a description of Finsler metrics for which the Finsler billiard reflection law is the law of equal angles.

###### Corollary 3

The Finsler billiard reflection satisfies the law “angle of incidence equals angle of reflection” for every billiard curve if and only if the metric is given by a Lagrangian

$`L(x,v)=f(x)(|v|+\alpha (x)(v))`$ (11)
where $`f(x)`$ is a non-vanishing function and $`\alpha (x)`$ is a 1-form.

Proof. Replacing a metric by a conformally-equivalent one changes the indicatrices by a dilation and does not effect the law of equal angles. Theorem 1 implies that the metrics (11) satisfy this law of equal angles. Conversely, if this law holds then, by Theorem 2, the indicatrices are ellipses (depending on the point of the plane), centered at their foci. A general equation of such an ellipse is $`f(x)(|v|+\alpha (x)(v))=1`$, and the result follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

It is shown in  that some familiar properties of the usual billiards extend to the Finsler ones. Although  concerned symmetric Finsler metrics, the results hold in the non-symmetric case as well; however one should be careful with the order of points: the distance from $`A`$ to $`B`$ may differ from the distance from $`B`$ to $`A`$. Let us consider the case of a constant magnetic field, that is, the Finsler metric given by the Lagrangian (8) whose geodesics are counterclockwise oriented arcs of radius $`R`$.

Let $`A`$ and $`B`$ be two points on an arc of radius $`R`$ with the center $`C`$ and the angle measure $`\theta `$. Denote the Finsler distance between points by $`d(A,B)`$ and identify points with their position vectors. Let $`(\gamma )`$ denote the Finsler length of a curve $`\gamma `$.

###### Lemma 2.1

One has:

$$d(A,B)=\frac{1}{2}\theta R+\frac{1}{2R}[BA,C].$$

For a simple oriented closed curve $`\gamma `$, one has:

$`(\gamma )=l(\gamma ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}S(\gamma )`$ (12)
where $`l(\gamma )`$ and $`S(\gamma )`$ are the Euclidean length and the Euclidean signed area bounded by $`\gamma `$.

Proof. To obtain (12), one integrates $`|v|+[v,x]/(2R)`$ over $`\gamma `$ and makes use of the fact that $`[v,x]/2`$ is negative the derivative of the signed area swept by the position vector of $`\gamma `$.

Let $`O`$ be the origin. The distance $`d(A,B)`$ equals the integral of $`|v|+[v,x]/(2R)`$ over the arc $`AB`$. The integral of $`|v|`$ is the arclength of the arc, that is, $`\theta R`$. The integral of $`[v,x]/(2R)`$ equals $`S/R`$ where $`S`$ is the area of the curvilinear triangle $`OAB`$.

Assume first that $`O=C`$. Then the latter area is $`\theta R^2/2`$, and $`d(A,B)=\theta R/2`$. If the origin is translated through vector $`C`$ then the Lagrangian changes by the term $`[v,C]/(2R)`$, and its integral by $`[BA,C]/(2R)`$. This yields the first formula. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 2.2

Formula (12), along with its proof, holds for closed immersed curves as well: the area term should be understood as the integral of the 1-form $`(xdyydx)/2`$ over the curve.

The orientation of $`\gamma `$ determines a coorientation: the pair (coorientation vector, orientation vector) gives the positive orientation of the plane. If $`\gamma `$ is a counterclockwise oriented simple curve then the positive coorientation is the outward one. Given a real number $`t`$, consider the parallel curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$ at distance $`t`$ from $`\gamma `$. The curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$ is the time-$`t`$ wave front, starting at $`\gamma =\mathrm{\Gamma }(0)`$. More precisely, one translates the contact elements of $`\gamma `$ in the orthogonal direction through distance $`t`$ (along the coorienting vector, if $`t>0`$, and in the opposite direction, if $`t<0`$), and the obtained 1-parameter family of contact elements consists of the contact elements of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$. The curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$ may have singularities, generically, semi-cubic cusps. If $`\gamma `$ is a positively oriented circle of radius $`r`$ then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$ is a circle of radius $`r+t`$.

Formula (12) admits the following interpretation.

###### Lemma 2.3

For an oriented simple closed curve $`\gamma `$, one has:

$`(\gamma )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}\left(\pi R^2S(\mathrm{\Gamma }(R))\right)`$ (13)
where the area $`S(\mathrm{\Gamma }(R))`$ is understood as in Remark 2.2.

Proof. For a closed immersed curve, the following well known formula holds:

$$S(\mathrm{\Gamma }(t))=S(\gamma )+tl(\gamma )+\pi t^2w$$

where $`w`$ is the Whitney winding number of $`\gamma `$. Therefore the right hand side of (12) equals $`(1/R)(\pi R^2S(\mathrm{\Gamma }(R)))`$, and the result follows from Lemma 2.1. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 2.4

Formula (13) expresses Finsler lengths in terms of areas, and it serves a magnetic analog of the Crofton formula (3). The curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(R)`$ is the locus of the centers of positively oriented circles of radius $`R`$, tangent to $`\gamma `$ and having the same orientation as $`\gamma `$ at the tangency point. The curve $`\gamma `$ can be reconstructed from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(R)`$ as the envelope of the family of circles of radius $`R`$ centered at points of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(R)`$.

Formula (13) also resembles the area-length duality for spherical curves, discussed in . Let $`\gamma `$ be a simple smooth closed curve on the unit sphere, and let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be its spherically dual curve, namely, the curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi /2)`$, in the sense of spherical geometry. Then one has: $`l(\gamma )=2\pi S(\mathrm{\Gamma }).`$

Let us return to billiards. Recall that a caustic of a 2-dimensional billiard is a curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ inside it with the following property: if a segment of a billiard trajectory is tangent to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ then so is the reflected segment. Given a convex caustic $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, can one reconstruct the billiard table? For the usual, Euclidean billiard the answer is given by the string construction: a billiard curve $`N`$ is the locus of points $`X`$ of a string of fixed length, wrapped around $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

It is shown in  that the string construction extends to Finsler billiards as well. For non-symmetric Finsler metrics one needs to consider oriented caustics $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ so that the orientation of billiard trajectories, tangent to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, agrees with the orientation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Applying these considerations to billiards in a constant magnetic field, we obtain the following corollary.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be an oriented closed convex curve. For a point $`X`$ outside of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, let $`F(X)`$ be the Finsler length, associated with the metric (8), of the shortest closed curve from $`X`$ to $`X`$ around the obstacle $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, whose orientation agrees with that of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ – see figure 4.

###### Corollary 4

The level curves of the function $`F(X)`$ are the boundaries of magnetic billiard tables that have $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as a caustic.

Recall the optical property of an ellipse: a ray emanating from one focus reflects to another focus. As a particular case of Corollary 4, one may construct a magnetic analog of an ellipse.

###### Corollary 5

Let $`A`$ and $`B`$ be fixed points (“foci”) and $`N`$ be the locus of points $`X`$ such that $`d(A,X)+d(X,B)=\mathrm{const}`$. Then every trajectory of the magnetic billiard, starting at $`A`$, reflects in $`N`$ to $`B`$.

Note that the two foci play different roles and cannot be interchanged in the above formulation. If the points $`A`$ and $`B`$ merge then the “ellipse” $`N`$ becomes a Euclidean circle centered at this point.

## 3 Finsler metrics whose geodesics are circles of a fixed radius

In this section we develop a magnetic analog of the solution to Hilbert’s fourth problem, outlined in Example 1 above. Start with an analytic description of the Lagrangians, homogeneous of degree 1 in the velocity, whose extremals are positively oriented circles of radius $`R`$.

###### Lemma 3.1

The extremals of $`L(x,v)`$ are positively oriented circles of radius $`R`$ if and only if $`L`$ satisfies the equation:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{|v|}{R}}L_{vv}(Jv)+L_{vx}(v)=L_x`$ (14)
where $`J(v_1,v_2)=(v_2,v_1)`$.

Proof. Let $`x(t)`$ be a parameterized curve, $`v=x^{}`$. The curve is a counterclockwise oriented circle if and only if

$$\left(\frac{v}{|v|}\right)^{}=\frac{1}{R}J(v).$$

Differentiate to express the acceleration vector:

$`v^{}={\displaystyle \frac{|v|}{R}}J(v)+{\displaystyle \frac{(vv^{})v}{|v|^2}}.`$ (15)
Since the Lagrangian is homogeneous of degree 1, the Euler equation $`L_vv=L`$ holds, and hence $`L_{vv}(v)=0.`$ It remains to substitute $`v^{}`$ from (15) to the Euler-Lagrange equation

$$L_{vv}(v^{})+L_{vx}(v)=L_x,$$

and the result follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

We are ready to prove the main analytical result of this section.

###### Theorem 6

Every Lagrangian, homogeneous of degree 1 in the velocity, whose extremals are positively oriented circles of radius $`R`$ can be represented, in polar coordinates, as follows:

$$L(x,v)=L(x_1,x_2,r,\alpha )=r(_0^{\alpha +\pi /2}\mathrm{cos}(\alpha \varphi )g(x_1+R\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,x_2+R\mathrm{sin}\varphi )d\varphi +$$

$`a(x_1,x_2)\mathrm{cos}\alpha +b(x_1,x_2)\mathrm{sin}\alpha )`$ (16)
where $`g`$ is a positive density function in the plane such that the center of mass of every circle of radius $`R`$ is its center, and $`a,b`$ are two functions, satisfying

$`a_{x_2}(x_1,x_2)b_{x_1}(x_1,x_2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}g(x_1+R,x_2).`$ (17)
Proof. In polar coordinates, $`v_1=r\mathrm{cos}\alpha ,v_2=r\mathrm{sin}\alpha `$, and one has: $`L(x,v)=|v|p(x_1,x_2,\alpha )`$ for some function $`p`$.

Fix a point $`x=(x_1,x_2)`$ and consider the indicatrix $`I`$ at $`x`$, chosen as the origin. The polar equation of $`I`$ is $`r=1/p(x,\alpha )`$. Therefore $`p(x,\alpha )`$ is the support function of the dual curve, the figuratrix $`J`$ (see ). Parameterize $`J`$ by the angle $`\varphi `$ made by its tangent vector with the horizontal axis. Let $`f(x,\varphi )`$ be the radius of curvature at point $`J(\varphi )`$ and let $`(a(x),b(x))`$ be the coordinates of the point $`J(0)`$. One has:

$$J^{}(\varphi )=f(x,\varphi )(\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\mathrm{sin}\varphi ),$$

and hence

$$J(\alpha +\pi /2)=J(0)+_0^{\alpha +\pi /2}f(x,\varphi )(\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\mathrm{sin}\varphi )𝑑\varphi ,$$

see figure 5. It follows that

$$p(x,\alpha )=(\mathrm{cos}\alpha ,\mathrm{sin}\alpha )J(\alpha +\pi /2)=$$

$`a(x)\mathrm{cos}\alpha +b(x)\mathrm{sin}\alpha +{\displaystyle _0^{\alpha +\pi /2}}\mathrm{cos}(\alpha \varphi )f(x,\varphi )𝑑\varphi .`$ (18)
Differentiating (18) twice, one recovers the function $`f`$ from $`p`$:

$$f(x,\alpha +\pi /2)=p(x,\alpha )+p^{\prime \prime }(x,\alpha ).$$

Note that every function of the form $`p+p^{\prime \prime }`$ is $`L^2`$ orthogonal to $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\alpha `$. Thus

$`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}f(x,\alpha )\mathrm{cos}\alpha d\alpha ={\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}f(x,\alpha )\mathrm{sin}\alpha d\alpha =0;`$ (19)
this also follows from the integral representation (18) and periodicity of $`p`$ as a function of $`\alpha `$.

Next we use the equation (14) in the integral representation (18). One rewrites the differential operators $`^2v,vx`$ and $`x`$ in polar coordinates and applies to $`L(x_1,x_2,r,\alpha )=rp(x_1,x_2,\alpha )`$, given by (18). Taking into account that $`v=r(\mathrm{cos}\alpha ,\mathrm{sin}\alpha )`$, a computation reveals that

$$\frac{|v|}{R}L_{vv}(Jv)=\frac{rf(x,\alpha +\pi /2)}{R}(\mathrm{sin}\alpha ,\mathrm{cos}\alpha ),$$

and

$$L_xL_{vx}(v)=r(_0^{\alpha +\pi /2}(\mathrm{cos}\varphi f_{x_2}(x,\varphi )\mathrm{sin}\varphi f_{x_1}(x,\varphi ))d\varphi +$$

$$a_{x_2}(x)b_{x_1}(x))(\mathrm{sin}\alpha ,\mathrm{cos}\alpha ).$$

Therefore, by (14),

$$\frac{1}{R}f(x,\alpha +\pi /2)=_0^{\alpha +\pi /2}(\mathrm{cos}\varphi f_{x_2}(x,\varphi )\mathrm{sin}\varphi f_{x_1}(x,\varphi ))𝑑\varphi +$$

$`a_{x_2}(x)b_{x_1}(x).`$ (20)
In particular,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}f(x,0)=a_{x_2}(x)b_{x_1}(x).`$ (21)
Differentiating (20) with respect to $`\alpha `$, one gets:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}f_\alpha (x,\alpha )=\mathrm{cos}\alpha f_{x_2}(x,\alpha )\mathrm{sin}\alpha f_{x_1}(x,\alpha ).`$ (22)
We claim that

$`f(x_1,x_2,\alpha )=g(x_1+R\mathrm{cos}\alpha ,x_2+R\mathrm{sin}\alpha )`$ (23)
for an appropriate function of two variables $`g`$.

Indeed, consider the vector field

$$\eta =\frac{1}{R}\alpha +\mathrm{sin}\alpha x_1\mathrm{cos}\alpha x_2$$

on the solid torus $`𝐑^2\times S^1`$. Then (22) can be written as $`\eta (f)=0`$. The trajectories of $`\eta `$ are:

$$\alpha (t)=\frac{t}{R},x_1(t)=R\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{t}{R}\right)+a,x_2(t)=R\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{t}{R}\right)+b$$

where $`t`$ is the “time” parameter and $`a,b`$ are constants. One can take the plane $`\alpha =0`$ as a section. Then the $`\eta `$-invariant function $`f`$ is determined by its values on this section, a function of two variables $`g`$. Consider a point $`(\alpha ,x_1,x_2)`$. The trajectory through this point intersects the section at point $`(a,b)=(x_1+R\mathrm{cos}\alpha ,x_2+R\mathrm{sin}\alpha )`$. Hence $`f(x_1,x_2,\alpha )=g(a,b)`$, and (23) follows.

Equations (19) imply that the center of mass of the circle of radius $`R`$, with the density function $`g`$, centered at $`(x_1,x_2)`$, is the point $`(x_1,x_2)`$. Combining (21) and (23), we obtain (17). $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 3.2

The term $`r(a(x)\mathrm{cos}\alpha +b(x)\mathrm{sin}\alpha )`$ in (16), the formulation of Theorem 6, can be written as $`\nu (x)(v)`$ where $`\nu (x)=a(x)dx_1+b(x)dx_2`$ is a 1-form. The choice of this form is not unique but $`d\nu `$ is uniquely determined by the function $`g`$ via (17). This is consistent with the remark we already made: adding a closed 1-form to the Lagrangian does not effect the Euler-Lagrange equations.

To proceed, we recall basic facts about the symplectic reduction. Let $`(M,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ be a symplectic manifold and $`H:M𝐑`$ a Hamiltonian function. Consider the Hamiltonian vector field $`\xi =\mathrm{sgrad}H`$. Since $`H`$ is $`\xi `$-invariant, the field $`\xi `$ is tangent to the level hypersurfaces of $`H`$. Consider such a hypersurface $`S`$, and assume that the space of trajectories of $`\xi `$ on $`S`$ is a smooth manifold $`N=S/\xi `$; locally, this is always the case. The restriction of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to $`S`$ has a 1-dimensional kernel spanned by $`\xi `$, and hence $`\mathrm{\Omega }|_S`$ descends to a symplectic structure $`\omega `$ on $`N`$. This is the symplectic reduction of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

One applies this construction as follows. Given a Finsler manifold $`M`$, the symplectic manifold in question is the cotangent bundle $`T^{}M`$ with its standard symplectic structure $`dpdx`$ where $`xM`$ is the position and $`pT_x^{}M`$ the momentum. The function $`H`$ is the Finsler metric Hamiltonian, and the hypersurface $`S`$ consists of the unit covectors; it is fibered over $`M`$ and the fibers are the figuratrices. The vector field $`\xi `$ is the Finsler geodesic flow, and the space of trajectories identifies with the space of non-parameterized oriented geodesics.

Consider the tangent bundle $`TM`$ and the unit vector hypersurface $`U`$ in it. The Legendre transform $`(x,v)(x,p=L_v)`$ identifies $`U`$ with $`S`$ and the Finsler geodesic flow $`\zeta `$ on $`U`$ with the geodesic flow $`\xi `$ on $`S`$. The pull-back of the Liouville form $`pdx`$ is the 1-form $`\lambda =L_vdx`$ on $`TM`$. The form $`\lambda `$ is a contact form on $`U`$, and $`\zeta `$ is its Reeb vector field: $`\lambda (\zeta )=1,i_\zeta d\lambda =0`$. The reduction of the 2-form $`d\lambda `$ yields the symplectic structure on the quotient space $`U/\zeta `$, the space of oriented Finsler geodesics.

Given a smooth curve $`\gamma `$ on $`M`$, one lifts it to the curve $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ on $`U`$ by assigning the unit tangent vector to every point of $`\gamma `$. Then the Finsler length of $`\gamma `$ equals

$$_{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}\lambda .$$

For a reference on this symplectic approach, see, e.g., .

Now we are in a position to compute the symplectic structure on the space of circles of radius $`R`$, associated with the Lagrangian (16). A circle is characterized by its center, and the space of circles is the plane with Cartesian coordinates $`(u,v)`$.

###### Theorem 7

The symplectic structure $`\omega `$ on the space of circles of radius $`R`$, associated with the Lagrangian (16), is given by the formula:

$`\omega ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}g(u,v)dudv.`$ (24)
Proof. The manifold $`U`$ consists of the Finsler unit tangent vectors in the plane and has coordinates $`\alpha ,x_1,x_2`$. We use the notation from the proof of Theorem 6. The formulas derived in that proof yield:

$$\zeta =\frac{1}{p(x,\alpha )}\left(\mathrm{cos}\alpha x_1+\mathrm{sin}\alpha x_2+\frac{1}{R}\alpha \right),$$

$$\lambda =L_vdx=\left(_0^{\alpha +\pi /2}\mathrm{cos}\varphi f(x,\varphi )𝑑\varphi +a(x)\right)dx_1+$$

$$\left(_0^{\alpha +\pi /2}\mathrm{sin}\varphi f(x,\varphi )𝑑\varphi +b(x)\right)dx_2$$

and, taking (20) and (21) into account,

$$d\lambda =f(x,\alpha +\pi /2)\left(\mathrm{cos}\alpha d\alpha dx_2\mathrm{sin}\alpha d\alpha dx_1\frac{1}{R}dx_1dx_2\right).$$

In view of (23),

$$d\lambda =g(x_1R\mathrm{sin}\alpha ,x_2+R\mathrm{cos}\alpha )(\mathrm{cos}\alpha d\alpha dx_2$$

$`\mathrm{sin}\alpha d\alpha dx_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}dx_1dx_2).`$ (25)
Now consider the projection $`UU/\zeta =𝐑^2`$. To compute the symplectic structure $`\omega `$ in $`𝐑^2`$, consider a section $`j:𝐑^2U`$ and let $`\omega `$ be the pull-back of $`d\lambda `$; the result is independent of the choice of $`j`$. As a section one may take

$$j(u,v)=(\alpha ,x_1,x_2)\mathrm{with}\alpha =\frac{\pi }{2},x_1=u+R,x_2=v,$$

see figure 6. It remains to substitute to (25), and the result follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

As a consequence, the Finsler metric (16) can be recovered, up to summation with a closed 1-form, from the area form (24) – see Remark 3.2.

Next we consider an analog of formula (13) for a general Finsler metric (16) whose geodesics are circles of radius $`R`$. The following result expresses the Finsler length in terms of the area form on the space of circles and is analogous to the synthetic solution to Hilbert’s fourth problem, that is, the Crofton formula, used as a definition of a projective metric.

###### Theorem 8

Given an oriented simple closed curve $`\gamma `$, one has:

$`(\gamma )=S(\mathrm{\Gamma }(R))+C`$ (26)
where $`S(\mathrm{\Gamma }(R))`$ is the area bounded by the curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(R)`$ with respect to the area form (24), and $`C`$ is the common Finsler length of all positively oriented circles of radius $`R`$.

Proof. Note first that the geodesics are extremals of the length functional $``$. The space of geodesics identifies with the plane which is a critical manifold of $``$. A function is constant on its critical manifold, hence all positively oriented circles of radius $`R`$ have equal Finsler length.

To prove the result we consider a variation of the curve $`\gamma `$ and show that both sides of (26) have the same variations. This being established, one can deform $`\gamma `$ to a circle of radius $`R`$ for which the result holds.

Assume that $`\gamma `$ is parameterized by the Euclidean arc-length. Then $`\gamma ^{}=(\mathrm{cos}\alpha ,\mathrm{sin}\alpha )`$. The lift of $`\gamma `$ to $`U`$ is the curve $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }=(\gamma ,\alpha )`$. Consider a variation of the curve, that is, a vector field $`w`$ along $`\gamma `$. It is straightforward to compute that the respective variation of $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ is the vector field

$`\stackrel{~}{w}=w+[\gamma ^{},v^{}]\alpha .`$ (27)
One has:

$$(\gamma )=_{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}\lambda $$

where $`\lambda `$ is the contact form as in the proof of Theorem 7. Therefore the variation of the length $`(\gamma )`$ is given by the formula

$$_{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}i_{\stackrel{~}{w}}𝑑\lambda $$

where $`d\lambda `$ is as in (25). Let $`k(t)`$ be the curvature at $`\gamma (t)`$. Then $`d\alpha =kdt`$. A computation using (25) and (27) reveals that

$`{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}}i_{\stackrel{~}{w}}𝑑\lambda ={\displaystyle g(x_1R\mathrm{sin}\alpha ,x_2+R\mathrm{cos}\alpha )[\gamma ^{},w]\left(\frac{1}{R}k\right)𝑑t}.`$ (28)
On the other hand, one has:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(R)=(X_1,X_2)=(x_1R\mathrm{sin}\alpha ,x_2+R\mathrm{cos}\alpha ).$$

Therefore the variation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(R)`$ is given by the vector field

$$u=(w_1R[\gamma ^{},v^{}]\mathrm{cos}\alpha ,w_2R[\gamma ^{},v^{}]\mathrm{sin}\alpha ).$$

Then

$$dX_1=(1Rk)\mathrm{cos}\alpha dt,dX_2=(1Rk)\mathrm{sin}\alpha dt.$$

Since $`\omega =(1/R)g(X_1,X_2)dX_1dX_2`$, it is straightforward to compute the variation of the area $`S(\mathrm{\Gamma }(R))`$:

$$_{\mathrm{\Gamma }(R)}i_u\omega =g(x_1R\mathrm{sin}\alpha ,x_2+R\mathrm{cos}\alpha )[\gamma ^{},w]\left(\frac{1}{R}k\right)𝑑t.$$

This is the same as (28), and we are done. $`\mathrm{}`$

Note the following corollary of formula (26).

###### Corollary 9

The integral of the area form (24) is the same over all discs of radius $`R`$.

Proof. Let $`\gamma `$ degenerate to a point in (26), so that $`(\gamma )=0`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(R)`$ is a circle of radius $`R`$, and the $`\omega `$-area, bounded by it, equals $`C`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 3.3

One can give a somewhat different proof of Theorem 8 that does not use the specifics of the Euclidean plane and applies to other surfaces, for example, the sphere. Let us outline the argument. Pick a point $`O`$ inside $`\gamma `$ and consider an infinitesimally small loop $`\delta `$ around $`O`$ whose orientation is the same as that of $`\gamma `$. The Finsler unit tangent vector fields to $`\gamma `$ and to $`\delta `$ extend to a unit vector field in the annulus $`A`$ bounded by $`\gamma `$ and $`\delta `$. This vector field provides a lift $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ of the annulus to $`U`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{A}=\stackrel{~}{\gamma }\stackrel{~}{\delta }`$. By Stokes’ theorem,

$$_{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}\lambda _{\stackrel{~}{\delta }}\lambda =_{\stackrel{~}{A}}𝑑\lambda .$$

The second integral on the left hand side is infinitesimally small. The integral on the right can be understood as the symplectic area of the set of circles of radius $`R`$ whose centers lie between the curves $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(R)`$ and the circle of radius $`R`$, centered at $`O`$, and (26) follows. This also shows that the symplectic area of a circle of radius $`R`$ is independent on its choice.

One can revert the arguments and and define the respective Finsler metric, as in Theorem 6, starting with an area form $`\omega =g(x_1,x_2)dx_1dx_2`$, satisfying the property that the $`\omega `$-area of every disc of radius $`R`$ is the same. Then the function $`g(x_1,x_2)`$ should be $`L^2`$ orthogonal to cosine and sine on every circle of radius $`R`$.

###### Lemma 3.4

The integrals of a function $`g`$ over all discs of radius $`R`$ is the same if and only if $`g`$ is orthogonal to cosine and sine on every circle of radius $`R`$.

Proof. Let $`S`$ be a circle of radius $`R`$ with center $`x=(x_1,x_2)`$. Consider its variation given by an infinitesimal parallel translation through vector $`v=(v_1,v_2)`$. The variation of the $`\omega `$-area of the disc is

$$_Si_v\omega =_0^{2\pi }g(x_1+R\mathrm{cos}\alpha ,x_2+R\mathrm{sin}\alpha )(v_1\mathrm{sin}\alpha v_2\mathrm{cos}\alpha )𝑑\alpha .$$

This vanishes for all $`v`$ if and only if $`g`$ is orthogonal to $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\alpha `$. $`\mathrm{}`$

How restrictive are these two equivalent conditions on function $`g`$? This question goes to the heart of the Pompeiu problem, see . Given a compact set $`K`$, one considers the continuous functions with zero integrals over all isometric images of $`K`$. For which sets $`K`$ must such functions be identically zero? D. Pompeiu, who posed this problem in the late 1920-s, erroneously thought that the disc in the plane has this property. In fact, if $`K`$ is a disc then there are plenty of functions with zero integrals over all congruent discs; although there is a wealth of results on this subject, the general solution to the Pompeiu problem is not known yet.

If a function $`g`$ has a constant integral over all discs of radius $`R`$ then it can be written as Const + $`h(x_1,x_2)`$ where $`h`$ has zero integrals over all discs of radius $`R`$. The following result, standard in the literature on the Pompeiu problem, provides a substantial supply of such functions. We need to recall the definition of the Bessel functions.

The Bessel functions $`J_n(w),n𝐙`$, are defined by the generating function

$`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{w}{2}}\left(t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t}}\right)\right)={\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}J_n(w)t^n.`$ (29)
An explicit formula is as follows:

$$J_n(w)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^jw^{n+2j}}{2^{n+2j}(n+j)!j!},n0;J_n(w)=J_n(w).$$

We will need the following property:

$`{\displaystyle J_0(w)w𝑑w}=wJ_1(w).`$ (30)
###### Lemma 3.5

Let $`a`$ be a root of the first Bessel function $`J_1`$, and let $`f(\beta )`$ be a function on the circle. Then the functions

$`h(x_1,x_2)={\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a}{R}}\left(x_1\mathrm{cos}\beta +x_2\mathrm{sin}\beta \right)\right)f(\beta )𝑑\beta `$ (31)
and

$$h(x_1,x_2)=_0^{2\pi }\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{a}{R}\left(x_1\mathrm{cos}\beta +x_2\mathrm{sin}\beta \right)\right)f(\beta )𝑑\beta $$

have zero integrals over all discs of radius $`R`$.

One may also take linear combinations of such function over different roots of $`J_1`$.

Proof. Let $`D`$ be the disc of radius $`R`$ centered at the origin, and let $`\xi `$ be its characteristic function. The condition on function $`h`$ reads: $`\xi h=0`$ where $``$ denote the convolution. Take the Fourier transform to obtain:

$`\widehat{\xi }\widehat{h}=0.`$ (32)
Let us compute $`\widehat{\xi }`$:

$$\widehat{\xi }(\lambda )=_De^{i\lambda x}𝑑x=_0^R_0^{2\pi }e^{ir\rho \mathrm{cos}(\alpha \beta )}𝑑\alpha r𝑑r$$

where $`x=r(\mathrm{cos}\alpha ,\mathrm{sin}\alpha ),\lambda =\rho (\mathrm{cos}\beta ,\mathrm{sin}\beta )`$. One has:

$$ir\rho \mathrm{cos}(\alpha \beta )=\frac{r\rho }{2}\left(e^{i\theta }e^{i\theta }\right)$$

where $`\theta =\alpha \beta \pi /2`$. Using the definition of Bessel functions (29), it follows that

$$_0^{2\pi }e^{ir\rho \mathrm{cos}(\alpha \beta )}𝑑\alpha =\underset{n}{}J_n(r\rho )_0^{2\pi }e^{in\theta }𝑑\theta =2\pi J_0(r\rho ).$$

By (30), one has:

$$_0^RJ_0(r\rho )r𝑑r=\frac{R}{\rho }J_1(R\rho )$$

and hence

$$\widehat{\xi }(\lambda )=\frac{2\pi R}{\rho }J_1(R|\lambda |).$$

The condition (32) holds if the support of $`\widehat{h}`$ is contained in the union of circles, centered at the origin, whose radii are $`a/R`$ where $`a`$ is a root of $`J_1`$. Fix one such root and let

$$\widehat{h}(\rho ,\beta )=f(\beta )\delta _{\frac{a}{R}}(\rho ).$$

Taking the inverse Fourier transform yields:

$$h(x_1,x_2)=_0^{2\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}f(\beta )\delta _{\frac{a}{R}}(\rho )e^{i\rho (x_1\mathrm{cos}\beta +x_2\mathrm{sin}\beta )}\rho 𝑑\rho 𝑑\beta =$$

$$\frac{a}{R}_0^{2\pi }f(\beta )e^{i\frac{a}{R}(x_1\mathrm{cos}\beta +x_2\mathrm{sin}\beta )}𝑑\beta .$$

One concludes by taking the real and imaginary parts. $`\mathrm{}`$

For example, let $`f`$ in (31) be the delta function $`\delta _0`$. Then $`h=\mathrm{cos}(ax_1/R)`$. Substitute $`g=1+\mathrm{cos}(ax_1/R)`$ into (16) to obtain an “exotic” Finsler metric whose geodesics are circles of radius $`R`$.

###### Remark 3.6

One may consider the problem of description of Finsler metrics whose geodesics are circles of a fixed geodesic radius $`R`$ on the unit sphere. Theorem 8 and Corollary 9 still apply, see Remark 3.3. However the situation is different on $`S^2`$, as far as the continuous functions are concerned whose integrals vanish over all geodesic discs of radius $`R`$. For all but countably many special values of $`R`$, such functions are identically zero, see . This implies an interesting “almost everywhere” rigidity: for a generic $`R`$, there is only one (up to summation with exact 1-forms) Finsler metric whose geodesics are circles of radius $`R`$; this unique metric is an analog of the metric (8) in $`𝐑^2`$. Of course, in the plane, all values of the radius $`R`$ are equivalent, due to similarity.

Acknowledgments. I am grateful to Karl Friedrich Siburg for numerous stimulating discussions; his visit at Penn State and a talk on the preprint  were the starting points for this work. It is a pleasure to acknowledge fruitful discussions with J. C. Alvarez, M. Berger, D. Khavinson, M. Levi and L. Zalcman.


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

ON THE BEHAVIOUR OF A RIGID CASIMIR CAVITY

IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD

Giuseppe Bimonte, Enrico Calloni, Luciano di Fiore, Giampiero Esposito, Leopoldo Milano, Luigi Rosa

Università di Napoli Federico II, Dipartimento di Scienze Fisiche, Complesso Universitario di Monte S. Angelo, Via Cintia, 80126 Napoli, Italy Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Napoli, Complesso Universitario di Monte S. Angelo, Via Cintia, 80126 Napoli, Italy

Abstract. A detailed investigation is presented of the energy-momentum tensor approach to the evaluation of the force acting on a rigid Casimir cavity in a weak gravitational field. Such a force turns out to have opposite direction with respect to the gravitational acceleration. The order of magnitude for a multi-layer cavity configuration is derived and experimental feasibility is discussed, taking into account current technological resources.

1. Introduction

Although much progress has been made in the evaluation and experimental verification of effects produced by vacuum energy in Minkowski space-time it remains unclear why the observed universe exhibits an energy density much smaller than the one resulting from the application of quantum field theory and the equivalence principle. Various hypotheses have been put forward on the interaction of virtual quanta with the gravitational field. For instance some arguments seem to suggest that virtual photons do not gravitate , while other authors have suggested that Casimir energy contributes to gravitation . So far it seems fair enough to say that no experimental verification that vacuum fluctuations can be treated according to the equivalence principle has been obtained as yet, even though there are expectations, as we agree, that this should be the case.

Motivated by all these considerations, our paper computes the effect of a gravitational field on a rigid Casimir cavity, evaluating the net force acting on it. The order of magnitude of the resulting force, although not allowing an immediate experimental verification, turns out to be compatible with the current extremely sensitive force detectors, actually the interferometric detectors of gravitational waves. We evaluate the force acting on this non-isolated system at rest in the gravitational field of the earth by studying the regularized energy-momentum tensor and recovering the same result as mode by mode evaluation with the assumption that virtual photons do gravitate and suffer gravitational read shift. The associated force turns out to have opposite direction with respect to gravitational acceleration. Orders of magnitude are discussed bearing in mind the current technological resources as well as experimental problems, and physical relevance of the analysis is stressed.

2. Evaluation of the force

In order to evaluate the force due to the gravitational field let us suppose that the cavity has geometrical configuration of two parallel plates of proper area $`A=L^2`$ separated by the proper length $`a`$. The system of plates is taken to be orthogonal to the direction of gravitational acceleration $`\stackrel{}{g}`$.

In classical general relativity, the force density can be evaluated according to

$$f_\nu =\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{det}g}}\frac{}{x^\mu }(\sqrt{\mathrm{det}g}T_\nu ^\mu )+\frac{1}{2}\frac{g_{\rho \sigma }}{x^\nu }T^{\rho \sigma },$$
$`(1)`$
where $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ is the energy-momentum tensor of matter, representing the energy densities of all non-gravitational fields, and gravity couples to $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ via the Einstein equations: $`R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }R=8\pi GT_{\mu \nu }`$. However, we are eventually interested in quantum field theory in curved space-time, where gravitation is still treated classically, while matter fields are quantized. At this stage the key assumption is that one can take the expectation value of the quantum energy-momentum tensor in some state and evaluate the external force as if it were a classical force. This should therefore represent the expectation value of the “quantum force” in the given state. According to this theoretical model, we have to find the regularized energy-momentum tensor $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ and insert it into the right-hand side of Eq. (1) to find eventually $`f_\nu `$. If we were in Minkowski space-time with metric $`\eta `$, we might exploit the result of Ref. , according to which

$$T^{\mu \nu }=\frac{\pi ^2\mathrm{}c}{180a^4}\left(\frac{1}{4}\eta ^{\mu \nu }\widehat{z}^\mu \widehat{z}^\nu \right),$$
$`(2)`$
where $`\widehat{z}^\mu =(0,0,0,1)`$ is the unit spacelike 4-vector orthogonal to the plates’ surface. If such an analysis is performed for an accelerated but locally orthonormal reference frame in curved space-time, corresponding to our system at rest in the earth’s gravitational field, the Minkowski line element should be replaced by the line element near the observer’s world line and this reads (neglecting possible rotation effects)

$$ds^2=(1+2A_jx^j)(dx^0)^2+\delta _{jk}dx^jdx^k+O_{\alpha \beta }(|x^j|^2)dx^\alpha dx^\beta .$$
$`(3)`$
Here $`c^2\stackrel{}{A}`$ (with components $`(0,0,|\stackrel{}{g}|)`$), the observer’s acceleration with respect to the local freely falling frame, shows up in the correction term $`2A_jx^j`$ to $`g_{00}`$, which is proportional to distance along the acceleration direction. Note that first-order corrections to the line element are unaffected by space-time curvature. Only at second order, which is beyond our aims, does curvature begin to show up. With this understanding we find, on setting

$$K\frac{\pi ^2\mathrm{}c}{180a^4},$$
$`(4)`$
that the non-vanishing components of the regularized energy-momentum tensor which contribute to $`f_z`$ are

$$T_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}}^3=T^{33}=\frac{3}{4}K;T^{00}=\frac{K}{4}\frac{1}{1+2Az}.$$
$`(5)`$
Since (of course $`x^3z`$ and hence $`f_3`$ denotes $`f_z`$)

$$f_z=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+2Az}}\frac{}{x^\mu }(\sqrt{1+2Az}T_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}}^\mu )+\frac{1}{2}\frac{g_{\eta \rho }}{z}T^{\eta \rho }=(\frac{3}{4}K+\frac{1}{4}K)\frac{A}{1+2Az},$$
$`(6)`$
we find for the component of the full force along the $`z`$-axis the formula

$$F_zaL^2f_zaL^2gK,$$
$`(7)`$
where integration over the volume $`V=aL^2`$ has reduced to a simple multiplication by $`aL^2`$ to our order of approximation.

Interestingly, the resulting force has opposite direction with respect to the gravitational acceleration. Note also that the force density in Eq. (6), and hence the force itself in Eq. (7), is the sum of two terms: the latter, proportional to $`g\frac{K}{4}`$, arises from the Casimir energy encoded into $`T^{00}`$, and can be interpreted as the Newtonian repulsive force (i.e. “push”) on an object with negative energy. The former term, proportional to $`\frac{3}{4}gK`$, results from the pressure along the acceleration axis and can be interpreted as the mass contribution of the spatial part of the energy-momentum tensor. With this understanding, our result agrees with the equivalence principle, according to which for every pointlike event of space-time, there exists a sufficiently small neighbourhood such that in every local, freely falling frame in that neighbourhood, all laws of physics obey the laws of special relativity (as a corollary, the gravitational binding energy of a body contributes equally to the inertial mass and to the passive gravitational mass). In particular, we agree with the statement that a system with a given rest energy momentum tensor $`T^{\overline{00}}`$ has the inertial mass tensor $`m^{ij}=T^{\overline{00}}\delta ^{ij}+T^{\overline{ij}}`$.

Furthermore, it is very important to note that, when considering the total force acting on the real cavity, which is an isolated system, the contribution to the force resulting from the spatial part of the energy-momentum tensor is balanced by the contribution of the mechanical energy-momentum tensor, and hence should not be considered for experimental evaluation. The resulting force is then the Newtonian force on the sum of the rest Casimir energy and rest mechanical mass: the contribution of vacuum fluctuations leads to a gravitational push on the Casimir apparatus expressed by the formula

$$\stackrel{}{F}\frac{\pi ^2L^2\mathrm{}c}{720a^3}\frac{g}{c^2}\stackrel{}{e}_r,$$
$`(8)`$
which should be tested against observation. As far as we can see, our calculation suggests that the electromagnetic vacuum state in a weak gravitational field is red-shifted, possibly adding evidence in favour of virtual quanta being able to gravitate, a non-trivial property on which no universal agreement has been reached in the literature , as we already noticed in the introduction. To further appreciate this point, we now find it appropriate and helpful to show that the same result can be derived from a mode-by-mode analysis. Recall indeed that in Minkowski space-time the zero-point energy of the system can be evaluated, in the case of perfect conductors, as

$$U=\frac{\mathrm{}cL^2}{2}\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\sqrt{k^2+\left(\frac{n\pi }{a}\right)^2},$$
$`(9)`$
where we have considered the normal modes labelled by the integer $`n`$ and the transverse momentum $`k`$. On performing the integral by dimensional regularization, the energy takes the well known Casimir expression

$$U_{\mathrm{reg}}=\frac{\pi ^2L^2\mathrm{}c}{720a^3},$$
$`(10)`$
where the final result is independent of the particular regularization method.

Consider next the cavity at rest in a Schwarzschild geometry. On assuming that virtual quanta do gravitate, and bearing in mind that the modes remain unchanged, the energy of each mode is red-shifted by the factor $`\sqrt{g_{00}}=\sqrt{1\frac{\alpha }{r}}`$, with $`\alpha \frac{2GM}{c^2}`$. Hence the total energy can be written as (the suffix $`S`$ referring to Schwarzschild)

$$U_S=\frac{\mathrm{}cL^2}{2}\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\sqrt{\left(k^2+\left(\frac{n\pi }{a}\right)^2\right)(\sqrt{g_{00}})^2}.$$
$`(11)`$
On performing dimensional regularization one finds therefore

$$(U_S)_{\mathrm{reg}}=(g_{00})^{\frac{1}{2}}U_{\mathrm{reg}}=\left(1\frac{\alpha }{r}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{\pi ^2L^2\mathrm{}c}{720a^3}.$$
$`(12)`$
Now we assume that minus the gradient of $`(U_S)_{\mathrm{reg}}`$ with respect to $`r`$ yields the force exerted by the gravitational field on the rigid Casimir cavity. If $`r>>\alpha `$, we find the result in Eq. (10) by working at the same level of approximation, so that the vacuum contribution to the force acting on the cavity can be interpreted as the (lack of) weight of virtual photons that are not allowed to resonate in the cavity.

3. Towards the experimental verification

In considering the possibility of experimental verification of the extremely small forces linked to this effect we point out that such measurements cannot be performed statically; this would make it necessary to compare the weight of the assembled cavity with the sum of the weights of its individual parts, a measure impossible to perform. On the contrary, the measurements we are interested in should be performed dynamically, by modulating the force in a known way; the effect will be detected if the modulation signal will be higher than the sensitivity of the detector. In this spirit we focus on the sensitivity reached by the present technology in detection of very small forces on a macroscopic body, on earth, paying particular attention to detectors of the extremely small forces induced by a gravitational wave. As an example, gravitational wave signals $`h`$ of order $`10^{25}`$, corresponding to forces of magnitude $`510^{17}N`$ at frequency of few tens of Hz, are expected to be detected with the Virgo gravitational wave detector presently under construction, after a month of integration time.

In the course of studying experimental possibilities of verification of the force on a rigid Casimir cavity, we evaluate this force on a macroscopic body, having essentially the same dimensions of mirrors for gravitational wave detection and obtained through a multi-layer sedimentation by a series of rigid cavities. Each rigid cavity consists of two thin metallic disks, of thickness of order 100 nm separated by a dielectric material, inserted to maintain the cavity sufficiently rigid. By virtue of presently low costs and facility of sedimentation, and low absorption in a wide range of frequencies, $`SiO_2`$ can be an efficient dielectric material.

From an experimental point of view we point out that the Casimir force has so far been tested down to a distance $`a`$ of about $`60`$ nm, corresponding to a frequency $`\nu _{\mathrm{min}}`$ of the fundamental mode equal to $`2.510^{15}Hz`$. This limit results from the difficulty to control the distance between two separate bodies, as in the case of measurements of the Casimir pressure. As stated before, in our rigid case, present technologies allow for cavities with much thinner separations between the metallic plates, of the order of few nanometers. At distances of order 10 nm, finite conductivity and dielectric absorption are expected to play an important role in decreasing the effective Casimir pressure, with respect to the case of perfect mirrors . In this paper we discuss experimental problems by relying on current technological resources, considering cavities with plates’ separation of 5 nm and estimating the effect of finite conductivity by considering the numerical results of Ref. ; this corresponds to a decreasing factor $`\eta `$ of about $`710^2`$ for Al. Moreover, to increase the total force and obtain macroscopic dimensions, $`N_l=10^6`$ layers can be used, each having a diameter of 20 cm, and thickness of 100 nm, for a total thickness of about 10 cm. Last, one should also consider corrections resulting from finite temperature and roughness of the surfaces, although one might hope to minimize at least the former by working at low temperatures.

With these figures, the total force $`\stackrel{}{F}^T`$ acting on the body can be calculated with the help of Eq. (8), modified to take into account the refractive index $`n`$ for $`SiO_2`$, the decreasing factor $`\eta `$, the area A of disk-shape plates, and the $`N_l`$ layers:

$$\stackrel{}{F}^T\eta N_l\frac{A\pi ^2\mathrm{}c}{720(na)^3}\frac{g}{c^2}\stackrel{}{e}_r.$$
$`(13)`$
This formula describes a static effect, while the need for a feasible experiment makes it mandatory to modulate the force, and various experimental possibilities are currently under study. As first, we are investigating the possibility of modulating $`\eta `$, by varying the temperature, so as to achieve a periodic transition from conductor to superconductor regime. In this case, making it impossible for the cavity to have modes at dielectric absorption frequencies, the index $`n`$ can be approximated to unity. By doing so one can obtain $`\eta _{\mathrm{max}}`$ of order $`510^1`$ , and the magnitude of the force at the modulation frequency can reach $`10^{14}N`$. Even though such a force is apparently more than two orders of magnitude larger than the force which the Virgo gravitational antenna is expected to detect, we should consider that the signal there is at reasonable high frequency (some tens of Hz), while our calculated signal remains at lower frequencies, i.e. tens of mHz. Moreover, the technical problems resulting from stress induced in changing temperature require careful consideration before saying that modulation is feasible. For this reason we are also estimating the possibility of building cavities which have, by construction, some resonance frequencies at dielectric absorption frequencies. Calculations of efficiency of small length modulations under these conditions, to allow for a measurable signal, are currently being performed.

4. Conclusions

The relation of the Casimir energy with the geometry of bounding surfaces is still under investigation, and another open problem of modern physics, i.e. the cosmological constant problem, results from calculations which rely on the application of the equivalence principle to vacuum energy , and this adds interest to our calculations, that we have performed by focusing on a Casimir apparatus.

Our original contributions are given by the evaluation of the force acting on a macroscopic body which mimics the rigid Casimir cavity, and by a detailed estimate of the expected order of magnitude of such a force.

As far as we can see, there is room left for an assessment of our investigation, i.e.: (i) how to make sure that the cavity is sufficiently rigid; (ii) the task of verifying that corrugations or yet other defects do not affect substantially our estimates; (iii) how to perform signal modulation, which is still beyond our reach.

The experimental verification of the calculated force, which was our main concern, might be performed if the problem of signal modulation could be solved. On the other hand, in the authors’ opinion, the order of magnitude of the calculated force can be already of interest to demonstrate that experiments involving effects of gravitation and vacuum fluctuations are not far from what can be obtained with the help of present technological resources.

Acknowledgments

The INFN financial support is gratefully acknowledged. The work of G. Bimonte and G. Esposito has been partially supported by the Progetto di Ricerca di Interesse Nazionale SINTESI 2002. We are indebted to Bernard Kay and Serge Reynaud for correspondence, and to Giuseppe Marmo for conversations. More important, we acknowledge the lovely support of Cristina, Michela, Patrizia and Tonia.

References

 R.P. Feynman, A.R. Hibbs, Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals, McGraw Hill, New York, 1965, pp. 244–246; for an up-to-date presentation, with references, see P.S. Wesson, Astrophys. J. 378 (1991) 466.

 D.W. Sciama, in: The Philosophy of Vacuum, eds. S. Saunders and H.R. Brown, Clarendon, Oxford, p. 137.

 C. Moller, The Theory of Relativity, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1972.

 L.S. Brown, G.J. Maclay, Phys. Rev. 184 (1969) 1272.

 A. Lambrecht, S. Reynaud, Eur. Phys. J. D 8 (2000) 309.

 E. Calloni, L. Di Fiore, G. Esposito, L. Milano, L. Rosa, quant-ph/0109142.


text:
# Disk-Driven Outflows in AGNs

## 1. Observational Background

Recent observational work has strengthened the evidence for the common existence of gas outflows from the centers of active galaxies. In the case of Seyfert 1 galaxies, high-resolution UV and X-ray spectroscopy (involving, in particular, HST, FUSE, Chandra, and XMM/Newton) has pointed to the presence of gas outflowing111The outflow speeds are inferred from measurements of line blueshifts relative to the systemic velocity of the galaxy, and are typically significantly smaller than the line widths of the BELR gas ($`<10^4\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$). The latter have been attributed to either rotation, turbulence, or the effect of electron scattering. at $`10^210^3\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and most likely originating on the scale of the broad emission-line region (BELR) — $`R_{\mathrm{BELR}}0.1L_{45}^{0.7}\mathrm{pc}`$ (where $`L_{45}`$ denotes the optical luminosity in units of $`10^{45}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1`$; Kaspi et al. 2000).

The outflowing gas in Sy 1 galaxies is often seen in absorption and is inferred to have a global covering factor $`>0.5`$ (e.g., Crenshaw et al. 1999). At high resolution the absorbing gas separates into distinct kinematic components that are characterized by a range of physical properties (such as the value of the ionization parameter $`Un_\nu /n_\mathrm{H}L_{\mathrm{ion}}/n_\mathrm{H}r^2`$, the ratio of the number densities of ionizing photons and hydrogen nuclei) and of FWHM widths (up to $`400\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ in the Crenshaw et al. 1999 sample, indicative of macroscopic motions). Although the strongest absorption components evidently lie completely outside of the BELR, the high line-of-sight covering factors derived in certain cases suggest that at least some of the absorbing gas lies close to the nucleus. This conclusion is supported by direct estimates of the density in a number of sources, which indicate that the respective absorbing component must lie at a distance of less than a fraction of a parsec from the continuum source (e.g., Netzer et al. 2002; Gabel et al. 2002). The effect of the partially ionized “warm absorber” gas is manifested in both the UV and X-ray spectra, and there is evidence that at least some of the UV and X-ray components overlap. An important issue, not yet fully resolved in most cases, is the relationship between the different kinematic and ionization components that are identified in a given source: are they best described as a single-phase or a multiphase outflow?

Spectral variability studies can help answer the question of whether the flow is uniform or clumpy. Typical variability time scales are months to years, and, although in some cases the origin of the variability is apparently a change in the irradiating continuum (e.g., Kraemer et al. 2002a), in other cases the preferred explanation is a change in the column density of the absorbing gas (e.g., Crenshaw & Kraemer 1999): this can be attributed to the transit or evolution of density inhomogeneities that intercept our line of sight.

Measurements of variability in P Cygni profiles of UV lines have been interpreted as evidence for a systematic acceleration of the BELR gas in the Sy 1 galaxy NGC 3516 (Hutchings et al. 2001). Inferences from X-ray spectroscopy of an increase in the outflow speed with decreasing degree of ionization in a number of sources (e.g., Sako et al. 2001; Kaastra et al. 2002) are consistent with this picture. Evidence for a systematic acceleration has also been inferred for the narrow emission-line region (NELR) gas in both Sy 1 (Crenshaw et al. 2000) and Sy 2 (Crenshaw & Kraemer 2000) galaxies over distances $`>10^2\mathrm{pc}`$.

Broad absorption-line QSOs (BALQSOs) are another class of AGNs where there is strong evidence for distinct outflow components. Typical speeds are $`10^310^4\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, but values of up to $`0.1c`$ have been inferred. Similarly to the warm-absorber component in Sy 1 galaxies, at least some of this gas evidently lies outside of the BELR, and the covering factor at the source is $`>0.3`$ (e.g., Goodrich 1997). However, in contrast with Sy 1 galaxies, which are typically viewed at a comparatively small angle to the symmetry axis, BALR outflows may be observed at a relatively large angle to the axis (see §2). The so-called “associated” QSO absorption systems (e.g., Richards et al. 1999), which are blueshifted relative to the source by up to $`0.1c`$, may potentially originate in the QSO itself just like BALQSO outflows. This possibility has proven hard to verify because of the difficulty in pinning down the distance from the QSO, which might be $`R_{\mathrm{BELR}}`$.

Another potentially important ingredient is dust. The presence of dust within the outflow has been inferred in some warm absorbers and BALQSOs. There is also a direct indication from spectropolarimetry in the Sy galaxy NGC 1622 for dust moving toward us at a speed of $`10^3\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (Goodrich 1989).

## 2. Association of Outflows with Disks

The BELR emission is characterized by single-peaked lines and a variability pattern in which a change in the continuum flux produces an earlier response in the red wing of a line like H$`\beta `$ than in the blue wing. These characteristics are most naturally interpreted in terms of a rapidly accelerated outflow from a rotationally supported disk (e.g., Chiang & Murray 1996). This interpretation applies to the two main proposed driving mechanisms of disk outflows: line driving by the disk radiation (e.g., Murray & Chiang 1997) and centrifugal driving along open magnetic field lines that thread the disk (e.g., Bottorff et al. 1997).

A disk-like geometry for the BELR has been inferred from an observed correlation between the peak line width and the radio-axis inclination to the line of sight in radio-loud QSOs (e.g., Vestergaard et al. 2000; Hough et al. 2002). An equatorial disk geometry has also been indicated for BALR outflows by spectropolarimetric observations of BALQSOs (e.g., Goodrich & Miller 1995; Cohen et al. 1995).

## 3. Theoretical Framework

A broadly consistent picture of the BELR and BALR in terms of disk outflows can be summarized as follows:

$``$ The BELR gas (or at least its high-ionization componet) in Seyfert galaxies and QSOs corresponds to a disk-driven outflow that is photoionized by the central continuum radiation.

$``$ The BALR outflow is BALQSOs likely has a dominant contribution from the radiation pressure force exerted by the central continuum, which accelerates the gas along comparatively low-latitude trajectories.

$``$ The photoionized gas at the base of the outflow can naturally account for the X-ray and UV warm-absorber component. The X-rays are typically absorbed by a larger column than the UV radiation This can be attributed to clumpiness (the UV absorption occurs in low-filling-factor “clouds”) or to the UV absorption occurring predominantly in the outer, less strongly ionized regions of the photoionized nuclear gas.

$``$ The partially ionized gas likely also contributes to the X-ray absorption in BALQSOs. The comparatively rapid upward acceleration of the disk outflow results in a vertical density stratification that gives rise to a systematic decrease in the absorbing column with increasing latitude. This explains why BALQSOs, which are evidently viewed close to the disk plane, have low X-ray fluxes that in most cases can be attributed to a large absorbing column (e.g., Brandt et al. 2000; Green et al. 2001). Part of the absorption in BALQSOs and Sy 2 galaxies may occur in a dusty, molecular “torus” located outside the BELR. This proverbial “torus,” which is the basis of the unification scheme of type 1 and type 2 sources (either Seyferts or QSOs; e.g., Antonucci 1993) can be associated with the dusty outer region (beyond the dust sublimation radius $`R_{\mathrm{subl}}`$) of the disk outflow (Königl & Kartje 1994).222The sublimation radius can be naturally identified with the outer boundary of the BELR (Netzer & Laor 1993). Some dust absorption in Sy 2 galaxies evidently originates on larger scales ($`>1010^2\mathrm{pc}`$), probably in molecular clouds located in the plane of the host galaxy (e.g., Crenshaw & Kraemer 2001; Risaliti et al. 2002), but the bulk of the absorption in Compton-thick sources likely arises in the more compact “torus” (e.g., Guainazzi et al. 2001).

To flesh out this modeling framework, several key questions need to be addressed:

1) Is the gas uplifted from the disk surface (radiative driving by intrinsic or reprocessed disk radiation, or a hydromagnetic wind)?

2) If radiation pressure on atoms is efficient, what provides the requisite shielding of the central continuum — A “failed” radiation pressure-driven wind? The inner region of a hydromagnetic disk outflow?

3) Is radiation pressure on dust important for the outflow dynamics?

4) Is the BELR/BALR gas composed primarily of “clouds”, as has been traditionally assumed, or can it be attributed to a continuous outflow (Murray et al. 1995)? If clouds are present, are they coherent, long-lived entities, and, if so, how are they confined?

In the following sections I discuss these issues in greater detail.

## 4. Radiative Driving

Various observations have pointed to a potentially central role for radiation pressure in driving the observed outflows. In particular, the detection of a “ghost of Ly$`\alpha `$” (a signature of the radiative acceleration of the N V ion by Ly$`\alpha `$ flux imprinted on the C IV BAL profile) has provided direct evidence for radiative acceleration in BALQSOs (e.g., Arav 1996). In the case of the warm-absorber component in Sy 1 galaxies, the inferred outflow speeds were shown to be consistent with radiative driving involving the O VII and O VIII absorption edges (e.g., Reynolds & Fabian 1995).333Some of the edge identifications have, however, been questioned in view of new Chandra and XMM/Newton observations (e.g., Branduardi-Raymont et al. 2001). In fact, the size of the warm-abosrber region has been deduced by comparing observed flux variability time scales to the recombination times of the relevant oxygen ions (e.g., Netzer et al. 2002).444Note in this connection that, if a given ion can be identified as dominating the acceleration $`g_{\mathrm{rad}}`$, then an independent measure of the characteristic gas-injection radius $`r_0`$ can be obtained from the inferred terminal speed $`V_{\mathrm{}}`$ in view of the fact that radiative acceleration typically occurs over a scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }rr_0`$ (e.g., Arav et al. 1994). Thus $`V_{\mathrm{}}[2g_{\mathrm{rad}}(r_0)r_0]^{1/2},g_{\mathrm{rad}}L_{\mathrm{ion}}/r^2,V_{\mathrm{}}r_0^{1/2}.`$

Explicit models of radiatively driven disk winds in AGNs have been constructed semianalytically (Murray et al. 1995) and numerically (Proga et al. 2000). These models account for the requisite shielding of the radiatively driven gas in terms of a “failed” inner outflow. The numerical simulations suggest that time-dependent dynamical effects could give rise to strong localized density enhancements and to apparently distinct outflow components. These results are, however, subject to the following potential caveats:

$``$ The ability of the disk to radiatively uplift the postulated outflow as a result of either external or internal heating has not yet been self-consistently calculated.

$``$ In view of the sensitive dependence of radiative acceleration on the irradiating spectrum, radiative transfer effects beyond simple attenuation need to be incorporated into the numerical models (Everett 2002 and these Proceedings).

$``$ The radiatively driven disk outflow model has recently been tested by HST observations of two high-state cataclysmic variables (Hartley et al. 2002): the strong positive correlation between UV brightness and wind activity predicted by these models was found to be disobeyed by both binaries, indicating that nonradiative factors may control the mass-loss rate in these systems.

## 5. Magnetic Driving

Magnetically mediated disk outflows (specifically, centrifugally driven winds; e.g., Blandford & Payne 1982) are commonly invoked in low-luminosity astrophysical systems such as low-mass protostars (e.g., Königl & Pudritz 2000). Magnetic driving is also believed to underlie AGN jets (e.g., Blandford 2000). An open field configuration that is compatible with this picture has been inferred from polarization measurements in the Galactic center circumnuclear disk (Hildebrand et al. 1993).

Magnetic driving can produce high-speed, high-momentum-discharge disk outflows; such outflows transport angular momentum efficiently and hence may arise naturally in accretion disks. AGN outflows of this type would have a strongly stratified vertical density profile and would be photoionized in their inner regions and dusty in their outer parts. As was demonstrated by Königl & Kartje (1994), these winds could naturally account for the visual obscuration and UV/X-ray attenuation inferred in Type 2 AGNs. Such winds, in fact, give rise to effective obscuring tori that are “fuzzy,” as has been inferred in objects like NGC 4151 ( Crenshaw et al. 2000). The comparatively high opacity of the dusty regions results in the “flattening” (by radiation pressure) of the “torus” in high-luminosity sources (a trend that has been inferred observationally), and the reprocessing of the central continuum radiation by the wind and disk in the dusty outer regions by and large reproduces the measured near/mid-infrared spectra of Seyfert galaxies. The predicted electron and dust distributions can also account for the distinct optical/UV continuum polarization properties of Sy 1 and Sy 2 galaxies (Kartje 1995). Furthermore, the magnetic pressure of these outflows provides an effective confining agent for embedded clouds, and internal MHD turbulence can contribute to the line broadening exhibited by the BELR gas (Bottorff & Ferland 2000).

As a first step toward investigating the combined effect of magnetic and radiative driving, Everett (2002 and these Proceedings) constructed a semianalytic model in which magnetic stresses uplift the gas from the disk surface and the central continuum contributes radial radiative driving further up (after the gas rises to a height where the inner portions of the stratified outflow provide an optimal shielding of the nuclear continuum). His model also incorporates clouds (uplifted by the ram pressure of the continuous wind and confined by the wind magnetic pressure) and dust. In a complementary approach, Proga (2002) carried out exploratory numerical simulations of magnetically/radiatively driven disk winds under a variety of (sometimes strong) simplifications.

## 6. Multiphase Outflows

As was noted in §1, high-resolution UV and X-ray observations of the warm absorber gas in Sy 1 galaxies have identified several velocity and ionization-parameter components in each source. In the case of NGC 3783, for example, photoionization modeling has implied a correspondence of two distinct ionization components to a single kinematic component (Kraemer et al. 2001), which provides strong support for the presence of a multiphase outflow. This conclusion is supported by the inferred smooth variation of the continuum covering factor in the wings of the individual kinematic absorption components in this source, which was interpreteed as pointing to a (cloud?) substructure (Gabel et al. 2002). Although the existing data are not yet sufficient for drawing general conclusions, there have been indications for the coexistence of at least two distinct ionization components also in other sources (e.g., Mrk 509; Kraemer et al. 2002b). The presence of a two-component gas has also been suggested for the NELR of certain Seyfert galaxies (e.g., Ogle et al. 2000; Komossa 2001).

There is also growing evidence for the existence of multiphase outflows in BALQSOs. For example, in the case of FBQS 1044, absorption features that, when interpreted in the context of a single-phase model imply a distance from the central continuum source of $`0.7\mathrm{kpc}`$, yield a much smaller, physically more reasonable scale of $`4\mathrm{pc}`$ when reinterpreted in terms of a shielded, continuous, low-density wind with embedded dense clouds (Everett et al. 2002 and these Proceedings). Similar apparent difficulties in other sources (e.g., the radio-loud galaxy 3C 191; Hamann et al. 2001) might be resolved in the same way. The inference that an obscuring cloud is responsible for the X-ray absorption in the lensed BALQSO UM 425 (Aldcroft & Green, these Proceedings) is consistent with this picture.

The notion of discrete clouds in the BELR has been challenged by cross-correlation spectral analyses (e.g., Arav et al. 1998; Dietrich et al. 1999), which indicate that an implausibly high number of clouds may be required to account for the smoothness of the measured line profiles. This conclusion could, however, be mitigated if MHD turbulence, and not just thermal motions, contributes to the intrinsic line widths (Bottorff & Ferland 2000). Discrete clouds could be entrained into the continuous disk outflow at the disk surface (in analogy with coronal mass ejections in the Sun). Such clouds could be subsequently confined by the wind magnetic field (e.g., Everett et al. 2002; Everett 2002). An alternative possibility is that the clouds represent transient condensations (which need not be confined) in a turbulent medium (e.g., Bottorff & Ferland 2001) — these two possibilities would have similar spectral signatures and thus may be hard to distinguish observationally.555Note, however, that a strong magnetic contribution to the line widths (which implies $`P_{\mathrm{magnetic}}P_{\mathrm{thermal}}`$ in the emitting gas) likely corresponds to transient density enhancements rather than to long-lived clouds (which require pressure confinement), since magnetic confinement of clouds is optimized when $`P_{\mathrm{magnetic},\mathrm{cloud}}P_{\mathrm{thermal},\mathrm{cloud}}`$ and $`P_{\mathrm{magnetic},\mathrm{confining}}P_{\mathrm{thermal},\mathrm{cloud}}`$.

## 7. Further Progress

Theory

$``$ Semianalytic models have reached the level where the basic qualitative aspects of the interplay between magnetic and radiative driving, and the dynamics of a multiphase outflow, can be studied. Incorporating the effect of a disk radiation field (in addition to a central continuum) is the next step in this effort.

$``$ 2D numerical simulations, which have revealed several suggestive features, need to be combined with a photoionization code and generalized to 3D. The most important questions that need to be answered are: Can the full observed range of outflow speeds be reproduced with this mechanism? Can radiative driving alone account for the requisite uplifting, shielding, and acceleration for realistic AGN radiation fields and disk models? Can the nonsteady effects identified in the simulations account for the observed spectral characteristics?

$``$ 2D and 3D MHD simulations of centrifugally driven disk outflows have already been carried out, but their observational implications to AGN spectra have not yet beed studied. Ultimately, a comprehensive radiative/magnetic driving model should be simulated with a single code.

Observations

$``$ Use high-resolution optical/UV/X-ray spectroscopy to relate the distinct kinematic and ionization components identified in warm-absorber and BALQSO outflows; in particular, can a general case be made for a multiphase outflow?

$``$ Continue to refine the tool of spectropolarimetry in AGN research; in particular, can the results derived in BALQSOs be obtained also in Seyfert galaxies, and can more evidence be uncovered for high-velocity dust?

$``$ Attempt to carry out detailed searches for a correlation between UV brightness and wind activity to test radiatively driven outflow models (as has recently been done for CVs).

$``$ Search for spectral signatures of high-velocity outflows in low-$`L_{\mathrm{ion}}`$ sources (e.g., BL Lac objects) in an effort to discriminate between magnetic and radiative disk-outflow models.

## References

Antonucci, R.: 1993, ARA&A, 31, 473

Arav, N.: 1996, ApJ, 465, 17

Arav, N., Li, Z.-Y., & Begelman, M.C.: 1994, ApJ, 432, 62

Arav, N., et al.: 1998, MNRAS, 297, 990

Blandford, R.D.: 2000, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A, 358, 1

Blandford, R.D., & Payne, D.G.: 1982, MNRAS, 199, 883

Bottorff, M.C., et al.: 1997, ApJ, 479, 200

Bottorff, M.C., & Ferland, G.: 2000, MNRAS, 316, 103

Bottorff, M.C., & Ferland, G.: 2001, MNRAS, 549, 118

Brandt, W.N., Laor, A., & Wills, B.J.: 2000, ApJ, 528, 637

Branduardi-Raymont, G., et al.: 2001, A&A, 365, 162

Chiang, J., & Murray, N.: 1996, ApJ, 466, 704

Cohen, M.H., et al.: 1995, ApJ, 448, L77

Crenshaw, D.M., et al.: 1999, ApJ, 516, 750

Crenshaw, D.M., et al.: 2000, ApJ, 120, 1731

Crenshaw, D.M., & Kraemer, S.B.: 1999, ApJ, 521, 572

Crenshaw, D.M., & Kraemer, S.B.: 2000, ApJ, 532, L101

Crenshaw, D.M., & Kraemer, S.B.: 2001, ApJ, 562, L29

Dietrich, M., et al.: 1999, A&A, 351, 31

Everett, J.: 2002, ApJ, submitted

Everett, J., Königl, A., & Arav, N.: 2002, ApJ, 569, 671

Gabel, J.R., et al.: 2002, ApJ, submitted (astro-ph/0209484)

Goodrich, R.W.: 1989, ApJ, 340, 190

Goodrich, R.W.: 1997, ApJ, 474, 606

Goodrich, R.W., & Miller, J.S.: 1995, ApJ, 448, L73

Green, P.J., et al.: 2001, ApJ, 558, 109

Guainazzi, M., et al.: 2001, MNRAS, 327, 323

Hamann, F.W., et al.: 2001, ApJ, 550, 142

Hartley, L.E., et al.: 2002, MNRAS, 332, 127

Hildebrand, R.H., et al.: 1993, ApJ, 417, 565

Hough, D.H. et al.: 2002, ApJ, 123, 1258

Hutchings, J.B., et al.: 2001, ApJ, 559, 173

Kaastra, J.S., et al.: 2002, A&A, 386, 427

Kartje, J. F.: 1995, ApJ, 452, 565

Kaspi, S., et al.: 2000, ApJ, 553, 631

Kaspi, S., et al.: 2002, ApJ, 574, 643

Königl, A., & Kartje, J.: 1994, ApJ, 434, 446

Königl, A., & Pudritz, R.E.: 2000, in Protostars & Planets IV, 759

Kraemer, S.B., et al.: 2002a, ApJ, 577, 98

Kraemer, S.B., et al.: 2002b, ApJ, submitted (astro-ph/0208478)

Murray, N., & Chiang, J.: 1997, ApJ, 474, 91

Murray, N., et al.: 1995, ApJ, 451, 498

Netzer, H., et al.: 2002, ApJ, 571, 256

Netzer, H., & Laor, A.: 1993, ApJ, 404, L51

Ogle, P.M., et al.: 2000, ApJ, 545, L81

Proga, D.: 2002, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0210642)

Proga, D., Stone, J.M., & Kallman, T.R.: 2000, ApJ, 543, 686

Reynolds, C.S., & Fabian, A.C.: 1995, MNRAS, 273, 1167

Richards, G. T., et al.: 1999, ApJ, 513, 576

Risaliti, G., Elvis, M., & Nicastro, F.: 2002, ApJ, 571, 234

Sako, M., et al.: 2001, A&A, 365, L168

Vestergaard, M., Wilkes, B.J., & Barthel, P.D.: 2000, ApJ, 538, L103