text:
# Quasiconvexity in the curve complex

## 1. Introduction

Let $`S`$ be a surface of genus $`g`$ with $`n`$ punctures, and assume $`3g3+n>1`$. Associated to $`S`$ is an object $`𝒞(S)`$ called the complex of curves, whose vertices are homotopy classes of nontrivial, nonperipheral simple closed curves. A $`k`$-simplex of $`𝒞(S)`$ is a collection of $`k+1`$ disjoint nonperipheral homotopically distinct simple closed curves. The dimension of the complex is $`3g4+n`$. We are interested in the $`1`$-skeleton $`𝒞_1(S)`$ which is endowed with a metric $`d(,)`$ which assigns length $`1`$ to every edge.

In  we proved that $`𝒞_1(S)`$, with this metric, is $`\delta `$-hyperbolic in the sense of Gromov and Cannon. This fact has applications to the study of mapping class groups and hyperbolic 3-manifolds . See also Bowditch  for a new and more concrete proof of the hyperbolicity theorem.

In the study of Heegaard splittings it is of interest to consider the set of essential curves in the boundary of a handlebody which bound disks – see Casson-Gordon , Hempel , Johannson  and Schleimer . In slightly more generality, for a compact, orientable 3-manifold $`M`$ with boundary component $`S`$ we can define the set of (homotopy classes of) boundaries of essential disks:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(M,S)=\{[D]:(D,D)(M,S)\text{is an essential disk}\}𝒞(S).$$

The purpose of this note is to prove

###### Theorem 1.1.

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(M,S)`$ is a $`K`$-quasiconvex subset of $`𝒞(S)`$, where $`K`$ depends only on the genus of $`S`$.

Recall that a subset $`Y`$ of a geodesic metric space $`(X,d)`$ is $`K`$-quasiconvex if for any pair of points $`y_1,y_2Y`$ any geodesic in $`X`$ joining them stays in a $`K`$-neighborhood of $`Y`$. This theorem can be viewed as something of an analogy to a result on quasiconvexity of sublevel sets in $`𝒞(S)`$ for certain length functions arising from Kleinian representations, which plays a central role in .

Theorem 1.1 will be a special case of more general theorems about quasi-convex subsets of $`𝒞(S)`$ obtained by the combinatorial processes of curve replacement and train-track nesting.

Curve replacement is the standard process of simplifying intersections with a closed curve in a surface by surgery, which is usually used to obtain upper bounds on distance in $`𝒞(S)`$. We will treat this with a bit of care in Section 2, because we need to consider well-nested curve replacements. In Section 4 we will prove:

###### Theorem 1.2.

There exists $`K=K(S)`$ such that the vertices of a well-nested curve replacement sequence form a $`K`$-quasiconvex set in $`𝒞(S)`$, which moreover is Hausdorff distance $`K`$ from a geodesic in $`𝒞(S)`$.

In order to prove this theorem we will consider nested train tracks in Section 3, and prove the following statement (stated more precisely later on):

###### Theorem 1.3.

The vertices of a nested train-track sequence with bounded steps form a $`K`$-quasiconvex set in $`𝒞(S)`$, which moreover is Hausdorff distance $`K`$ from a geodesic in $`𝒞(S)`$.

These two theorems, together with Proposition 2.1 which produces curve-replacement sequences lying in $`\mathrm{\Delta }(M,S)`$, will be enough for the proof of Theorem 1.1, which will appear at the end of Section 4.

## 2. Curve Replacement

A closed curve in $`S`$ is essential if it is homotopically nontrivial and nonperipheral (not homotopic to a puncture of $`S`$). Two essential curves $`a`$ and $`b`$ are in minimal position if they intersect transversely and the number of intersection points $`|ab|`$ is minimal over all representatives of their respective homotopy classes. This number is the geometric intersection number of the homotopy classes, written $`i([a],[b])`$ or just $`i(a,b)`$.

Consider two simple curves $`a`$ and $`b`$ in minimal position, and let $`Ja`$ be an interval with $`Jb\mathrm{}`$. For any $`x,yJ`$ let $`[x,y]`$ denote the subinterval of $`J`$ with endpoints $`x`$ and $`y`$, and similarly $`(x,y)`$, $`(x,y]`$ etc.

A curve replacement with respect to $`(a,b,J)`$ is the construction of a new curve $`a_1`$ and a new interval $`J_1J`$ in one of the following ways:

1. Let $`w`$ be an interval of $`b`$ with $`int(w)a=\mathrm{}`$, and endpoints $`p,qint(J)`$.

If $`w`$ is incident to opposite sides of $`a`$ at its two endpoints, Let $`J_1=[p^{},q^{}]`$ where $`p^{}`$ is slightly to the right of $`p`$ and $`q^{}`$ is slightly to the right of $`q`$, so that $`J_1b=(p,q]b`$. Let $`w^{}`$ be a slight perturbation of $`w`$ in a regular neighborhood so that the endpoints of $`w^{}`$ are $`p^{},q^{}`$ and $`w^{}`$ and $`w`$ are disjoint. Define $`a_1`$ to be the composition $`w^{}J_1`$.

If $`w`$ is incident to the same side of $`a`$ at both endpoints, we call $`w`$ a wave. In this case, let us also assume that $`w`$ is innermost, i.e. that there is no other wave $`w_2`$ with endpoints inside $`[p,q]`$ incident to $`w`$ on the same side of $`J`$ such that $`w`$ and $`w_2`$ are homotopic with endpoints on $`J`$. In this case let $`J_1=[p^{},q^{}]`$ where $`p^{},q^{}(p,q)`$ and $`J_1b=(p,q)b`$. Again move $`w`$ in a regular neighborhood to obtain $`w^{}`$ with endpoints $`p^{},q^{}`$, and let $`a_1=w^{}J_1`$.
2. Let $`w_1`$ and $`w_2`$ be two waves incident to $`J`$ on opposite sides of $`a`$, with endpoints $`p_1,q_1`$ and $`p_2,q_2`$ respectively. Assume that $`p_1<q_1`$ and $`p_2<q_2`$ after fixing some orientation on $`J`$. Suppose either that $`q_1=p_2`$ or $`q_1=q_2`$. Move each of $`w_1`$ and $`w_2`$ slightly inward, as above; in the case $`q_1=q_2`$ do this so that $`q_1^{}=q_2^{}`$. In either case we obtain $`w_i^{}`$ with endpoints $`p_i^{}<q_i^{}`$. Now let $`a_1=w_1^{}[p_1^{},p_2^{}]w_2^{}[q_2^{},q_1^{}]`$. Let $`p^{}=\mathrm{min}(p_1^{},p_2^{})`$. In the case that $`q_1=p_2`$ set $`q^{}=q_2^{}`$, and in the case of $`q_1=q_2`$ set $`q^{}=\mathrm{max}(p_1^{},p_2^{})`$. Finally set $`J_1=[p^{},q^{}]`$.

We call this a double wave curve replacement.

Note that in case (1), and case (2) when $`q_1=q_2`$, $`a_1`$ is simple, and in case (2) when $`q_1=p_2`$ it is homotopic to a simple curve (the arcs $`[p_1,p_2]`$ and $`[q_1,q_2]`$ overlap but after moving them slightly to opposite sides of $`a`$ we get a simple curve). In all cases $`a_1`$ is homotopically nontrivial, which follows from the assumption that $`a`$ and $`b`$ are in minimal position.

In the non-wave and double wave case it is easy to check that $`a_1`$ is also nonperipheral. If $`S`$ is closed then of course $`a_1`$ is always nonperipheral.

We note the special case of a double-wave replacement with $`p_1=p_2`$ and $`q_1=q_2`$. In this case $`i(a,b)=2`$ and $`a_1`$ is homotopic to $`b`$.

One can also check that $`a_1`$ and $`b`$ are in minimal position – here in the single wave case we must use the condition that the wave is innermost.

Note that all intersections of $`a_1`$ with $`b`$ lie in $`J_1`$. For the curve replacements in case (1) and the double wave replacement when $`q_1=q_2`$, we have in particular

$$i(a_1,b)|J_1b|<|Jb|.$$
(1)
For the double wave replacement when $`q_1=p_2`$ the counting is slightly different and we get:

$$i(a_1,b)|J_1b|+1<|Jb|.$$
(2)
We also define, for completeness, a curve replacement in the case that $`Jb=\mathrm{}`$ to be $`a_1=b`$, and $`J_1=\mathrm{}`$. If $`Jb`$ contains exactly one point then we are in the non-wave case of part 1 with $`p=q`$, and the replacement is again $`a_1=b`$, $`J_1=\mathrm{}`$.

### Nested curve replacement

Given $`a`$ and $`b`$ in minimal position, a nested curve replacement sequence is a sequence $`\{(a_i,J_i)\}`$ of curves $`a=a_0,a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_n`$ and segments $`aJ_0J_1\mathrm{}J_n`$ such that $`J_0`$ contains all the points of $`ab`$, and $`a_{i+1},J_{i+1}`$ are obtained by a curve replacement from $`(a,b,J_i)`$.

###### Proposition 2.1.

Given any $`a,b`$ in minimal position, and an interval $`J_0a`$ containing $`ab`$, there exists a nested curve replacement sequence $`\{(a_i,J_i)\}`$ such that

* $`a_i`$ is nonperipheral for all $`i`$.
* If $`S`$ is a boundary component of a compact 3-manifold $`M`$ and $`a`$ and $`b`$ are boundaries of compressing discs, then the $`a_i`$ can be chosen to be boundaries of compressing discs.
* The sequence terminates with $`a_n`$ homotopic to $`b`$.

###### Proof.

The sequence is chosen inductively. To satisfy the first statement, at each stage we choose a curve replacement configuration as in the definition, noting that if there are no non-wave curve replacements and every single wave replacement yields a peripheral curve, then there must be a double wave replacement, which will yield a non-peripheral curve. The intervals $`J_i`$ are automatically nested by the definition. The process terminates, with $`a_n`$ homotopic to $`b`$, because the numbers $`|J_ib|`$ are strictly decreasing by (1) and (2).

To prove the second statement, note first that since $`S`$ is closed the non-peripheral property is automatic. We will inductively construct each $`a_i`$ using a wave curve replacement. We recall from the definition of curve replacements and induction, that for $`i>0`$, $`a_i`$ intersects $`b`$ transversely and $`a_ibJ_i`$ (for $`i=0`$ this is true by hypothesis). Let $`B`$ be a properly embedded disk in $`M`$ with boundary $`b`$, and suppose by induction that there exists a properly embedded disk $`A_i`$ with boundary $`a_i`$. If $`i(a_i,b)=0`$ we are done, so suppose $`i(a_i,b)>0`$.

We may assume that $`A_i`$ and $`B`$ intersect transversely. Their intersection locus can be assumed to consist of properly embedded arcs, since the closed-curve components can be removed by an exchange that does not affect $`a_i`$ and $`b`$. Now let $`e`$ be an innermost intersection arc on $`B`$, i.e. an arc that, together with an arc $`w`$ on $`b`$ bounds a disk $`E`$ in $`B`$ whose interior is disjoint from $`A_i`$. Thus $`int(w)`$ is disjoint from $`a_i`$ and hence from $`J_i`$. The endpoints $`p,q`$ of $`w`$ lie on $`a_i`$, and hence on $`J_i`$. The arc $`[p,q]J_i`$ together with $`e`$ bounds a subdisk of $`F`$ of $`A_i`$. The disk $`EF`$ has boundary $`[p,q]w`$ which, after a slight isotopy, is the curve replacement $`a_{i+1}`$ obtained from $`(a,b,J_i)`$ using the wave $`w`$. ∎

### Distance in $`𝒞(S)`$

Using curve replacements one can bound distance in $`𝒞(S)`$ in terms of intersection number. One such bound is:

$$d(\alpha ,\beta )i(\alpha ,\beta )+1$$
(3)
(see Lemma 1.1 of Bowditch . For large intersection numbers a better bound is logarithmic in $`i(\alpha ,\beta )`$ – see also Hempel  and Masur-Minsky .)

If $`\{(a_i,J_i)\}`$ is a curve replacement sequence, we note that $`|a_{i+1}J_i|2`$. It follows (taking a little care when there are two double-wave replacements in a row) that

$$i(a_i,a_{i+1})4.$$
(4)
From this and (3) we obtain

$$d(a_i,a_{i+1})5.$$
(5)
We note that (5) is probably not sharp, even in the case of double-wave replacements, but it will suffice for our purposes. In the case of one-wave replacements (the only case relevant to Theorem 1.1), we always have $`i(a_i,a_{i+1})=0`$ and $`d(a_i,a_{i+1})1`$.

## 3. Train tracks

A train track on a surface $`S`$ is an embedded $`1`$-complex $`\tau `$ satisfying the following properties (see Penner-Harer  for more details). Each edge (called a branch) is a smooth path with well-defined tangent vectors at the endpoints, and at any vertex, (called a switch) the incident edges are mutually tangent. The tangent vector at the switch pointing toward the interior of an edge can have two possible directions, dividing the ends of edges into “outgoing” and “incoming” directions, neither of which can be empty. For the tracks that we consider there will be a single switch. Each component of $`S\tau `$ has negative generalized Euler characteristic which is the usual Euler characteristic minus $`1/2`$ for every outward pointing cusp (internal angle $`0`$). This means that we exclude annuli, once-punctured discs with smooth boundary, or unpunctured discs with $`0`$, $`1`$, or $`2`$ cusps. The last are called bigons.

A train route is a nondegenerate smooth path in $`\tau `$. It traverses a switch only by passing from incoming to outgoing edge or vice versa. A transverse measure on $`\tau `$ is a non-negative function $`\mu `$ on branches satisfying the switch condition that for any switch the sums of $`\mu `$ over outgoing edges equals the sum over incoming. A closed train route induces counting measure on $`\tau `$.

A train track is recurrent if every branch is contained in a closed train route. A curve $`\beta `$ is carried on $`\tau `$ if there is a homotopy of $`S`$ taking $`\beta `$ to a set of train routes. Then $`\beta `$ induces a measure on $`\tau `$ which uniquely determines it.

A train track $`\sigma `$ is carried by $`\tau `$, written $`\sigma \tau `$, if there is a homotopy of the surface such that every train route of $`\sigma `$ is taken to a train to a train route of $`\tau `$. We also say that $`\sigma `$ is nested in $`\tau `$. We write $`\sigma <\tau `$ if $`\sigma `$ is a subtrack of $`\tau `$; that is, $`\sigma `$ is a train track which is a subset of $`\tau `$.

For a recurrent train track $`\tau `$ let $`P(\tau )`$ denote the polyhedron of transverse measures supported on $`\tau `$. We note that $`P(\tau )`$ is preserved by scaling so it is a cone on a compact polyhedron in a projective space. We can consider all of these polyhedra as subsets of the measured lamination space $`(S)`$, and then $`\sigma \tau `$ is equivalent to $`P(\sigma )P(\tau )`$, and $`\sigma <\tau `$ is equivalent to $`P(\sigma )`$ being a face of $`P(\tau )`$. By $`int(P(\tau ))`$ we will mean the set of measures on $`\tau `$ which are positive on every branch (recurrence implies that this is nonempty).

A vertex of the projectivization of $`P(\tau )`$ is an extreme point, and corresponds to a line in $`P(\tau )`$. By abuse of notation we will let “vertex” denote any non-zero point on this line. After scaling, a vertex can always be realized by the counting measure on a single simple closed curve (see \[6, §4.1\]), which we call a vertex cycle.

Because the set $`vert(\tau )`$ of vertex cycles of $`\tau `$ is finite and there are finitely many homeomorphism classes of train tracks in $`S`$, there is a constant $`B`$ such that

$$diam_{𝒞(S)}\{vert(\tau )\}B.$$

For tracks $`\tau `$ and $`\sigma `$, define

$$d_T(\tau ,\sigma )=\underset{\begin{array}{c}\beta vert(\tau )\\ \alpha vert(\sigma )\end{array}}{\mathrm{min}}d(\beta ,\alpha )$$

Note that this is not a distance function on the set of tracks.

Our goal in this section is to prove Theorem 1.3, which we restate here more precisely:

Theorem 1.3.  Given $`M>0`$ there exists $`K`$ such that if $`\mathrm{}\tau _n\tau _{n1}\mathrm{}\tau _1\tau _0`$ is a sequence of nested train tracks such that $`d_T(\tau _{i+1},\tau _i)M`$ then the set of vertices of the $`\tau _i`$ is $`K`$-quasiconvex in $`𝒞(S)`$.

A track is large if all complementary components of the track are disks or once-punctured disks. We have:

###### Lemma 3.1.

If a train track $`\tau `$ is not large then for any $`\alpha ,\beta `$ carried by $`\tau `$, $`d(\alpha ,\beta )2`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`\tau `$ is not large, there is an essential simple closed curve $`\gamma `$ which misses $`\tau `$, and hence both $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$; hence $`d(\alpha ,\beta )2`$. ∎

This lemma will mean that we will be able to restrict our attention to large tracks. Let $`\sigma `$ be a large track. A diagonal extension of $`\sigma `$ is a track $`\kappa `$ such that $`\sigma <\kappa `$ and every branch of $`\kappa \sigma `$ is a diagonal of $`\sigma `$. This means that it is an edge that terminates in corners of a complementary region of $`\sigma `$.

Let $`E(\sigma )`$ denote the (finite) set of all recurrent tracks which are diagonal extensions of $`\sigma `$. Let

$$PE(\sigma )=\underset{\kappa E(\sigma )}{}P(\kappa )$$

Let $`int(PE(\sigma ))`$ denote the set of measures $`\mu PE(\sigma )`$ which are positive on every branch of $`\sigma `$. Next for $`\tau `$ a large track, let

$$N(\tau )=\underset{\begin{array}{c}\sigma <\tau \\ \sigma \text{ large}\end{array}}{}E(\sigma ),$$

and define

$$PN(\tau )=_{\kappa N(\tau )}P(\kappa ).$$

This can be thought of as a neighborhood of $`P(\tau )`$. Let

$$int(PN(\tau ))=\underset{\begin{array}{c}\sigma <\tau \\ \sigma \text{ large}\end{array}}{}int(PE(\sigma )).$$

We will need the following lemmas proved in .

###### Lemma 3.2.

There is a constant $`D`$ such that if $`\sigma \tau `$ are a pair of large recurrent tracks and $`d_T(\tau ,\sigma )D`$, then $`PN(\sigma )int(PN(\tau ))`$

This lemma is stated in  for generic tracks, i.e. those with trivalent switches, but any track can be perturbed to a generic track without changing its vertex set or polyhedron of measures (by “combing” – see Penner-Harer \[10, §1.4\]), and it is easy to see that this can be done simultaneously for $`\sigma `$ and $`\tau `$.

###### Lemma 3.3.

If $`\sigma `$ is a large track, $`\gamma int(PE(\sigma ))`$ and $`d(\gamma ,\beta )1`$, then $`\beta PE(\sigma )`$.

In fact this implies

###### Lemma 3.4.

If $`\sigma `$ is a large track then

$$𝒩_1(int(PN(\sigma )))PN(\sigma )$$

where $`𝒩_k(int(PN(\sigma )))`$ denotes the $`k`$-neighborhood in $`𝒞(S)`$ of the vertices of $`𝒞(S)`$ contained in $`int(PN(\sigma ))`$.

We will also need the following lemma.

###### Lemma 3.5.

Let $`\tau `$ be a large recurrent track and $`v`$ a vertex of $`\tau `$. Then $`vint(PN(\tau ))`$.

###### Proof.

First we claim that $`dim(P(\tau ))2`$ for any large recurrent track $`\tau `$. Let $`b`$ be the number of branches, $`s`$ the number of switches and $`f`$ the number of complementary discs. Then

$$\chi (S)=fb+s$$

so

$$dim(P(\tau ))bs=f\chi (S),$$

since $`bs`$ is a lower bound for the dimension of the solution set to the switch conditions and the recurrence of $`\tau `$ gives us at least one solution with all positive weights. The latter quantity is at least $`2`$ except in the case that $`S`$ is a punctured torus, where $`\chi (S)=1`$ and $`f=0`$. However in this case it is easily checked directly that $`dim(P(\tau ))=2`$, so the claim is proven.

Suppose now that the lemma is false. By definition then, there must be some large subtrack $`\sigma <\tau `$, and track $`\kappa E(\sigma )`$ such that a representative $`\alpha _1`$ of $`v`$ is carried by $`\kappa `$ and assigns positive weights to the branches of $`\sigma `$. We may assume that $`\alpha _1`$ assigns positive weights to every branch of $`\kappa `$ as well – deleting branches of $`\kappa `$ if necessary. Let $`\alpha _2`$ be a representative of $`v`$ carried on $`\tau `$. We may assume that $`\alpha _2`$ puts positive measure on every branch of $`\tau \sigma `$, otherwise we may remove those branches, obtaining a smaller track containing $`\sigma `$ for which $`v`$ is a vertex. We now wish to arrive at a contradiction.

By an admissible deformation of an edge $`e`$ of $`\kappa \sigma `$, we mean a homotopy, preserving endpoints and tangency to $`\sigma `$, to a path $`e^{}`$ such that $`\sigma e^{}`$ is still a train track. In particular $`e^{}`$ is allowed to have segments tangent to $`\sigma `$.

We say an edge $`e`$ of $`\kappa \sigma `$ intersects an edge $`f`$ of $`\tau \sigma `$ inessentially if $`e`$ can be deformed admissibly to an edge $`e^{}`$ which is either disjoint from the interior of $`f`$, or traverses a train route in $`\sigma f`$. Suppose that all intersections of $`\tau \sigma `$ with $`\kappa \sigma `$ are inessential. Then $`\kappa `$ can be deformed to be carried in a track $`\widehat{\tau }`$ containing $`\sigma `$, on which $`v`$ puts a measure positive on every edge, and such that $`\tau `$ and $`\widehat{\tau }`$ are subtracks of a common train track $`\omega `$.

Suppose first that $`\widehat{\tau }<\tau `$. Since $`\sigma `$ is large so is $`\widehat{\tau }`$, but then by the first claim $`dim(P(\widehat{\tau }))2`$, which means the projectivized polyhedron has dimension at least 1, and any extreme point could not be in its interior. Thus $`vint(P(\widehat{\tau }))`$ means that $`v`$ is not extreme in $`P(\widehat{\tau })`$, and hence not in $`P(\tau )`$.

Next suppose that $`\widehat{\tau }`$ is not a subtrack of $`\tau `$. In this case $`v`$ is represented by two distinct measures on $`\omega `$, which contradicts the injectivity of the map $`P(\omega )(S)`$.

We are left with the possibility that an edge $`b_\tau `$ of $`\tau \sigma `$ has essential intersection with $`b_\kappa `$ in $`\kappa \sigma `$. Both edges lie in some complementary disc or once punctured disc $`R`$ of $`S\sigma `$, and we note that $`b_\kappa `$ is a diagonal but $`b_\tau `$ does not need to be. The representative $`\alpha _2`$ of $`v`$ assigns positive weight to $`b_\tau `$, and the representative $`\alpha _1`$ assigns positive weight to $`b_\kappa `$.

We may assume that $`b_\tau `$ and $`b_\kappa `$ have a unique intersection point $`x`$ if $`R`$ is a disk, or possibly two intersection points if $`R`$ is a punctured disk. Let $`x`$ be one of the points in the latter case. We may also assume, possibly after admissible deformations of $`\kappa `$, that there are no inessential intersections of $`\kappa `$ and $`\tau `$, and that every edge of $`\kappa `$ that is admissibly deformable into $`\tau `$ already lies in $`\tau `$.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$ be the lifts of the tracks $`\tau `$ and $`\kappa `$ to the universal cover. Each contains the lift $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ of $`\sigma `$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{R}`$ be lifts of $`x`$ and $`R`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1,\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_2`$ be lifts of $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2`$ that pass through $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$, and let $`\stackrel{~}{b}_\tau ,\stackrel{~}{b}_\kappa `$ be the lifts of $`b_\tau `$ and $`b_\kappa `$ that intersect at $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$. Since $`\alpha _1\alpha _2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_2`$ must intersect at some other point $`\stackrel{~}{y}`$ so that the segments of $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_2`$ from $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{y}`$ bound a disc $`D`$. The point $`\stackrel{~}{y}`$ may or may not be in the interior of a complementary domain of $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$.

We will now build a track $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_1`$ that contains $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$. To form $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_1`$, add to $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ any branch of $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_2`$ that is entirely contained in $`D`$. Since $`D`$ is embedded none of these branches cross and we obtain a train track. Notice that we do not introduce any bigons, since neither $`\tau `$ nor $`\kappa `$ have any, and we have already deformed $`\kappa `$ so that no edge of $`\kappa \tau `$ is admissibly deformable into $`\tau `$. Thus any complementary disc of $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_1`$ still has negative generalized Euler characteristic.

Next consider $`\stackrel{~}{R}D`$. It is bounded by one or more edges of $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$, a subsegment of $`\stackrel{~}{b}_\tau `$ that goes from a switch $`\stackrel{~}{P}_1`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ and a subsegment of $`\stackrel{~}{b}_\kappa `$ from $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ to a switch $`\stackrel{~}{P}_2`$. Replace this latter pair of segments with a smooth path joining $`\stackrel{~}{P}_1`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{P}_2`$ in the same homotopy class rel endpoints (and maintaining tangency at the switches). The assumption that the intersection is essential implies that the subdisc $`\stackrel{~}{R}^{}`$ of $`D`$ bounded by this smooth path and the edges of $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ is not a monogon. If $`\stackrel{~}{R}^{}`$ is a not a bigon, we add this edge to $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_1`$ and replace $`D`$ with $`D^{}=(D\stackrel{~}{R})\stackrel{~}{R}^{}`$. Note that $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_1`$ still has no bigons. If $`\stackrel{~}{R}^{}`$ is a bigon, the path can be admissibly deformed into $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ and we do not add it to $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_1`$. Now let $`D^{}=D\stackrel{~}{R}`$.

We perform the same construction if $`\stackrel{~}{y}`$ is in the interior of a complementary domain as well, noting that $`\stackrel{~}{y}`$ is also an essential intersection point. The new disc $`D^{\prime \prime }`$ has smooth boundary except possibly for one cusp at the point $`\stackrel{~}{y}`$ (if $`\stackrel{~}{y}`$ was not an interior point). Thus its generalized Euler characteristic is positive. However it is a union of complementary discs of $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_1`$, each of which has negative generalized Euler characteristic. Since generalized Euler characteristic adds, we have a contradiction. ∎

We are now ready to give the proof of the quasiconvexity theorem for nested sequences of tracks.

###### Proof of Theorem 1.3.

Let $`\{\tau _n\}`$ be our nested sequence, so that $`\tau _{i+1}\tau _i`$ and $`d_T(\tau _i,\tau _{i+1})M`$. We may assume that all $`\tau _i`$ are large. For if some $`\tau _i`$ is not large so are all $`\tau _j`$ for $`ji`$, and since all are carried in $`\tau _i`$, Lemma 3.1 implies that $`d_T(\tau _j,\tau _k)<3`$ for all $`j,ki`$, and hence we may ignore these tracks. Using the number $`D`$ given by Lemma 3.2, the condition $`d_T(\tau _i,\tau _{i+1})M`$ implies that we may inductively find a subsequence $`\tau _{i_j}`$ (with $`i_0=0`$) such that

$$Dd_T(\tau _{i_j},\tau _{i_{j+1}})<D+M$$
(6)
and for any $`\tau _n`$ we have

$$d_T(\tau _{i_j},\tau _n)<D$$
(7)
for some $`i_j`$.

Lemma 3.2 then says that

$$PN(\tau _{i_{j+1}})int(PN(\tau _{i_j})),$$

and Lemma 3.4 says that

$$𝒩_1(int(PN(\tau _{i_j})))PN(\tau _{i_j}).$$

Combining these and applying induction we find that

$$𝒩_{k1}(PN(\tau _{i_{j+k}}))int(PN(\tau _{i_j})).$$

Applying this to the vertices, and using Lemma 3.5 we find

$$d_T(\tau _{i_j},\tau _{i_k})|kj|$$
(8)
for any $`j,k`$ in the subsequence.

Inequality (6), together with the bound $`diam\{vert(\tau )\}B`$, implies that any sequence of vertices of the $`\tau _{i_j}`$ forms a $`K`$-quasigeodesic with $`K=K(D,M,B)`$. By $`\delta `$-hyperbolicity of $`𝒞(S)`$, any geodesic joining the vertices of this sequence stays within some fixed distance $`M^{}(M,B,D,\delta )`$ of it. Thus $`vert(\tau _{i_j})`$ is $`M^{}`$-quasi-convex.

Now by (7), $`vert(\tau _i)`$ for any $`i`$ is within $`D+B`$ of some $`vert(\tau _{i_j})`$. Again by $`\delta `$-hyperbolicity, there exists $`M^{\prime \prime }=M^{\prime \prime }(B,D,\delta )`$ such that any geodesic joining vertices of the $`\tau _i`$ stays within distance $`M^{\prime \prime }`$ of a geodesic joining some pair of vertices of the $`\tau _{i_j}`$.

Combining these two facts we see that $`vert(\tau _i)`$ is a $`M^{}+M^{\prime \prime }`$ quasiconvex set, and moreover that it is Hausdorff distance $`M^{}+M^{\prime \prime }`$ from a geodesic connecting vertices of $`\tau _{i_0}`$ and the last $`\tau _{i_j}`$. ∎

## 4. Quasiconvexity of curve replacements

In this section we will restate Theorem 1.2 more precisely, and apply Theorem 1.3 to prove it. In order to do this, given a nested curve replacement sequence $`(a_i,J_i)`$ we will construct a sequence of nested train tracks $`\tau _i`$ carrying $`b`$ such the vertices of $`\tau _i`$ are a bounded $`𝒞(S)`$-distance from $`[a_i]`$.

### One-switch train tracks

Let $`a`$ and $`b`$ be two essential curves intersecting minimally and let $`J`$ be an interval in $`a`$ such that $`Jb`$ is non-empty. We wish to construct a train track $`\tau _J`$ closely associated to the “first return map” of $`b`$ to $`J`$. The quotient of $`Jb`$ obtained by squeezing $`J`$ to a point $`P`$ is a 1-complex, and we may impose a switch structure on $`P`$ by declaring that tangent vectors at $`P`$ pointing to interiors are all outgoing for edges leaving $`a`$ on one side and incoming for edges leaving $`a`$ on the other. This makes the quotient, which we call $`\tau _J^0`$, a “bigon track”: it satisfies all the conditions for being a train track except for the possibility of bigon complementary regions. The other disallowed types of complementary regions fail to occur because $`a`$ and $`b`$ intersect minimimally.

If we identify the opposite sides of any bigon in $`\tau _J^0`$ we obtain a new 1-complex $`\tau _J`$, still with a switch structure. This will be a train track provided that the identification can be performed as a homotopy of the surface $`S`$, and in this case we say that $`J`$ is a good interval. The following lemmas will allow us to use this construction effectively:

###### Lemma 4.1.

Let $`a`$ and $`b`$ be essential curves in $`S`$ intersecting minimally.

1. There exists a good interval $`Ja`$ containing all points of $`ab`$.
2. Any subinterval of a good interval is good.

###### Proof.

A component $`Q`$ of $`Sab`$ is a rectangle if it is a disk and its boundary, traversed from the inside, is a path meeting exactly four intersection points of $`ab`$. By an Euler characteristic argument, there must be at least one region $`Q`$ which is not a rectangle. Let $`Ia`$ be an open interval between two successive points $`x_1,x_2`$ of $`ab`$, which lies on the boundary of a non-rectangle $`Q`$. We claim that $`J=aI`$ is a good interval.

To see this, squeeze $`J`$ to a point and let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be the complementary region of the resulting $`\tau _J^0`$ which contains $`Q`$. For each $`i=1,2`$ the arc of $`b`$ that passes through $`x_i`$ is on the boundary of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and traverses the switch $`P`$ smoothly. If $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ were a bigon, its boundary would consist of two arcs of $`b`$ passing smoothly through $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ and meeting in cusps at both ends. The preimage of these cusps would consist of two arcs of $`ba`$, and this would force $`Q`$ to be a rectangle, a contradiction. Furthermore, because $`\tau _J^0`$ has a single switch $`P`$, the arcs of $`b`$ through $`x_i`$ are the only smooth arcs through $`P`$ on the boundary of complementary regions. As they are on the boundary of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ which is not a bigon, every bigon of $`\tau _J^0`$ meets the switch only at its cusps, and hence has exactly two branches of $`\tau _J^0`$ in its boundary. Consider a connected component of the union of bigons in the complement of the switch. It must be a disk (with punctured boundary) with two branches in its boundary – the only other way of gluing such bigons together gives a sphere minus two points, which is impossible. Hence the collapse of bigons can be performed on each connected component, yielding the desired track $`\tau _J`$.

For part (2): Suppose $`Ja`$ is good, let $`J^{}J`$ be an interval which intersects $`b`$, and suppose $`B`$ is a bigon complementary region of $`\tau _J^{}^0`$. Every arc of $`bJ^{}`$ is a train route for $`\tau _J^0`$, so clearly $`\tau _J^{}^0\tau _J^0`$. Thus after a homotopy of $`S`$ we can assume the branches of $`\tau _J^{}^0`$ travel along branches of $`\tau _J^0`$, and $`B`$ is taken by this homotopy to a collection of complementary regions of $`\tau _J^0`$, attached smoothly along arcs of $`\tau _J^0`$. The generalized Euler characteristic of any complementary region is nonpositive and zero if and only if it is a bigon or an annulus. Since $`B`$ is simply connected and the characteristic of a union of complementary regions is additive, these regions must necessarily be bigons. Hence the bigon collapse $`\tau _J^0\tau _J`$ also collapses $`B`$. Since this collapse can be performed by a homotopy of $`S`$, this same homotopy collapses all the bigons of $`\tau _J^{}^0`$, so $`J^{}`$ is good. ∎

With this in mind, let us say that $`\{(a_i,J_i)\}`$ is a well-nested curve replacement sequence if it is a nested curve replacement sequence and $`J_0a`$ is a good interval. We can now restate Theorem 1.2.

Theorem 1.2.  There exists $`K=K(S)`$ such that, if $`a`$ and $`b`$ are in minimal position and $`\{(a_i,J_i)\}`$ is a well-nested curve replacement sequence, then the vertices $`[a_i]`$ form a $`K`$-quasiconvex set in $`𝒞(S)`$ which moreover are Hausdorff distance $`K`$ from a geodesic in $`C(S)`$.

###### Proof.

Now let $`J_0a`$ be a good interval which contains $`ab`$, and let $`\{(a_i,J_i)\}`$ be a curve replacement sequence, terminating with $`[a_n]=[b]`$. Using Lemma 4.1, each $`J_i`$ is good, and so we obtain a sequence of tracks $`\tau _i=\tau _{J_i}`$. As in the proof of Lemma 4.1, we have:

###### Lemma 4.2.

For each $`i`$, $`\tau _{i+1}\tau _i`$, and furthermore each $`\tau _i`$ carries $`b`$.

Next we observe that

$$d(a_i,vert(\tau _i))5$$
(9)
To prove (9), we observe that $`a_i`$ is composed of one or two arcs of $`b`$ and one or two arcs along $`J_i`$. Hence after after isotopy it intersects $`\tau _i`$ at most twice at the switch $`P`$. Each vertex cycle of $`\tau _i`$ passes through the switch at most twice. Hence $`i(a_i,v)4`$ for any vertex $`v`$ of $`\tau _i`$, and the distance bound follows from (3).

Since, by (5), $`d(a_i,a_{i+1})5`$, we may conclude by the triangle inequality that

$$d_T(\tau _i,\tau _{i+1})15.$$

(As in Section 2, we note that this is probably not sharp. In the case of one-wave replacements the bound obtained is 7.)

Thus the hypotheses of Theorem 1.3 are satisfied, so that $`\{vert(\tau _i)\}`$ form a quasiconvex set. Inequality (9) then gives a quasiconvexity bound for $`\{[a_i]\}`$, completing the proof of Theorem 1.2. ∎

### Proof of the main theorem

The proof of Theorem 1.1 can now be easily assembled:

Given two vertices of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(M,S)`$, represent them in minimal position as $`a,b`$ and let $`J_0a`$ be a good interval containing $`ab`$ (by Lemma 4.1). Proposition 2.1 gives us a nested curve replacement starting with $`(a_0,J_0)`$, which is well-nested by choice of $`J_0`$, and whose vertices are all in $`\mathrm{\Delta }(M,S)`$. By Theorem 1.2, this set is $`K`$-quasiconvex. It follows that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(M,S)`$ is $`K`$-quasiconvex. ∎


format: text

text:
# Tests of quantum-vacuum geometric phases via Casimir’s effect

## Abstract

An experimentally feasible realization of testing quantum-vacuum geometric phases of photons by using a gyrotropic-medium optical fibre via Casimir’s effect is proposed.

PACS: 03.65.Vf, 03.70.+k, 42.70.-a

It was shown in quantum field theory that even in the vacuum, the electromagnetic field does not really vanishes but rather fluctuates. Vacuum thus has very large (even perhaps divergent) zero-point energy density due to this quantum vacuum fluctuation, which leads to Casimir’s effect (where a weakly attractive force exists between two parallel conducting metallic plates in a free vacuum) and atomic spontaneous radiations (caused by the interactions of excited atoms with vacuum zero-point electromagnetic fields). In one of our published papers, we suggested a new physically interesting vacuum effect, i.e., quantum-vacuum geometric phases of photons propagating inside a noncoplanarly curved optical fibre. Here we will propose an experimental realization of this geometric phase at quantum-vacuum level by using gyrotropic-medium optical fibres via Casimir’s effect.

Berry first found that there exists a cyclic adiabatic geometric phase (Berry’s topological phase), in addition to the familiar dynamical phase, of quantum mechanical wave function in a time-dependent quantum adiabatic process. Geometric phases is related close to the geometric nature of the pathway along which quantum systems evolve and therefore possesses the topological and global information on time evolution of quantum systems, and hence attracts considerable attention of investigators in various fields, such as quantum decoherence and topological quantum computation recently. Chiao, Wu et al. proposed and treated in detail a physical realization of Berry’s cyclic adiabatic phase, i.e., the rotation of photon polarization planes of coiled light in a helically curved optical fibre. Based on a second-quantized spin model, Gao and we have previously studied the potential contribution of vacuum quantum fluctuation to photon geometric phases in the noncoplanar fiber and predicted the existence of quantum-vacuum geometric phases.

For convenience, here we consider only the cyclic adiabatic quantum-vacuum geometric phases of left- and right- handed circularly polarized light in a helically coiled fibre, where the direction of momentum (wave vector) of photons travelling along the tangents of curved fibre is expressed by $`(\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\phi ,\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\phi ,\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ in the spherical coordinate system. The geometric phases of left- and right- handed circularly polarized photons are respectively given

$$\varphi _L=\left(n_L+\frac{1}{2}\right)2\pi \left(1\mathrm{cos}\theta \right),\varphi _R=\left(n_R+\frac{1}{2}\right)2\pi \left(1\mathrm{cos}\theta \right),$$
(1)
where $`n_L`$ and $`n_R`$ denote the occupation numbers of left- and right- handed (LRH) polarized photons, respectively. Note that in a cyclic evolution process, $`2\pi \left(1\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)`$ is a solid angle subtended by a curve traced on a sphere, by the direction of wave vector of light, at the centre, which manifests the topological and global properties of time evolution of photon wave function in the fibre. It follows from expressions (1) that the quantum-vacuum geometric phases resulting from quantum vacuum fluctuation are $`\varphi _\pm ^{\mathrm{vac}}=\pm \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)2\pi \left(1\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)`$ with the sign $`\pm `$ corresponding to the right- and left- handed polarized light, respectively. Note that here the quantum-vacuum phase of left-handed polarized light is different from that of right-handed polarized light only by a minus sign. This, therefore, means that the LRH quantum-vacuum geometric phases may be cancelled by each other and in consequence, unfortunately, their presence cannot be easily detected experimentally, since the vacuum zero-point LRH polarized electromagnetic fields are present often accompanied by one another in conventional optical fibres.

So, in the previous fibre experiments, the observed total geometric phases are $`\varphi _L+\varphi _R=\left(\varphi _R\varphi _L\right)2\pi \left(1\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)`$, which is not associated with vacuum fluctuation. Here we suggest strongly that the quantum-vacuum geometric phases also deserved experimental investigation, since it has an important connection with the topological properties of time evolution of quantum vacuum fluctuation. However, the problem we encounter now is: can we truly extract the non-vanishing vacuum geometric phase of left- or right- handed polarized light from the cancelled (and hence vanishing) total vacuum geometric phases? More recently, we propose an idea on experimental realization of this quantum-vacuum geometric phases in the fibre. We think the peculiar wave propagation properties in gyrotropic media may be applicable to the problem mentioned above.

Gyrotropic media is such electromagnetic materials where both the electric permittivity and the magnetic permeability are tensors, which can be respectively written as

$$(ϵ)_{ik}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}ϵ_1& iϵ_2& 0& \\ iϵ_2& ϵ_1& 0& \\ 0& 0& ϵ_3& \end{array}\right),(\mu )_{ik}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mu _1& i\mu _2& 0& \\ i\mu _2& \mu _1& 0& \\ 0& 0& \mu _3& \end{array}\right).$$
(2)
Assuming that the direction of wave vector of electromagnetic wave is parallel to the third component of the Cartesian coordinate system, the optical refractive indices squared of gyrotropic media corresponding to the two directions of polarization vectors are of the form $`n_\pm ^2=(ϵ_1\pm ϵ_2)(\mu _1\pm \mu _2)`$. It is well known that in a finitely large space (e.g., the space between two parallel metallic plates, which is the main equipment of Casimir’s effect experiment), the vacuum-fluctuation electromagnetic field alters its mode structures, namely, the zero-point field with wave vector $`k`$ less than $`\left(\frac{\pi }{a}\right)`$ does not exist in the space with a finite scale length $`a`$. In some certain gyrotropic media, if the electromagnetic parameters $`ϵ_1`$, $`ϵ_2`$ and $`\mu _1`$, $`\mu _2`$ in expressions (2) for electric permittivity and magnetic permeability tensors can be chosen to be $`ϵ_1ϵ_2`$ and $`\mu _1\mu _2`$, then the optical refractive index $`n_{}`$ of left-handed polarized light is very small (or tending to zero) and hence the wave vector $`k_{}0`$ , since in media $`k_{}`$ is proportional to $`n_{}`$. Thus the left-handed polarized zero-point field inside these gyrotropic media is absent if, for example, the media are in a finitely large space, and consequently the only retained quantum-vacuum geometric phase is that of right-handed circularly polarized light. In order to perform the detection of this geometric phase, we should make use of the optical fibre that is fabricated from the above gyrotropic media, and the devices used in Tomita-Chiao fibre experiments should be placed in a sealed metallic chamber or cell, where the zero-point circularly polarized field with lower wave vector does not exist. Thus the measurement of quantum-vacuum geometric phases of photons may be achievable by means of this somewhat ingenious scheme.

Although the infinite vacuum energy in conventional time-independent quantum field theories is harmless and easily removed theoretically by normal-order procedure, here for a time-dependent quantized-field system, we think the existence of quantum-vacuum geometric phases indicates that zero-point fields of vacuum will also participate in the time evolution process and perhaps can be no longer regarded merely as an inactive onlooker in time-dependent quantum field theories such as field theory in curved space-time, e.g., in time-dependent gravitational backgrounds and expanding universe. In order to investigate this fundamental problem of quantum field theory, we hope the vacuum effect presented here would be tested experimentally in the near future. We also hope to see anyone else putting forward some new more clever suggestions of detecting the interesting quantum-vacuum geometric phases.

Acknowledgements This project is supported partially by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under the project No. $`90101024`$.


text:
# Weak measurement of arrival time

## I Introduction

Time plays a special role in quantum mechanics. Unlike other observables, time remains a classical variable. It is well-known, that the self-adjoint operator of time does not exist for bounded Hamiltonians. The problems with the time rise from the fact that in quantum mechanics many quantities cannot have definite values simultaneously. However, the detection of the particles in time-of-flight and coincidence experiments are common, and quantum mechanics should give the method for the calculation of the arrival time. The arrival time distribution may be useful solving the tunneling time problem, as well. Therefore, the quantum description of the arrival time has attracted much attention Aharonov and Bohm (1961); Kijowski (1974); Muga et al. (1998); Baute et al. (2001a); Aoki et al. (2000); Baute et al. (2001b, 2000a, 2000b); Delgado and Muga (1997); Egusquiza and Muga (1999); Grot et al. (1996); Kochański and Wódkiewicz (1999); Leon et al. (2000); Muga et al. (1999); Muga and Leavens (2000).

Aharonov and Bohm introduced the arrival time operator Aharonov and Bohm (1961)

$$\widehat{T}_{\mathrm{AB}}=\frac{m}{2}\left((X\widehat{x})\frac{1}{\widehat{p}}+\frac{1}{\widehat{p}}(X\widehat{x})\right).$$
(1)
By imposing several conditions (normalization, positivity, minimum variance, and a symmetry with respect to the arrival point $`X`$) a quantum arrival time distribution for the free particle has been obtained by Kijowski Kijowski (1974). The Kijowski’s distribution may be associated with the positive operator valued measure generated by the eigenstates of $`\widehat{T}_{\mathrm{AB}}`$. However, Kijowski’s set of conditions cannot be applied in a general case Kijowski (1974). Nevertheless, the arrival time operators can be built even if the particle is not free Muga and Leavens (2000); Brunetti and Fredenhagen (a).

In this paper we take another approach. Since the mean arrival time even in the classical mechanics can be infinite or the particle may not arrive at all, it is convenient to deal not with the mean arrival time and corresponding operator $`\widehat{T}`$, but with the probability distribution of the arrival time. The probability distribution of the arrival time can be obtained from the suitable classical definition. The non-commutativity of the operators in quantum mechanics is circumvented by using the concept of weak measurements. Such an approach has several advantages. It gives, in principle, the procedure of measuring the obtained quantity. Since in the classical mechanics all quantities can have definite values simultaneously, weak measurements give the correct classical limit. The concept of weak measurements has been already applied to the time problem in quantum mechanics Ruseckas and Kaulakys (2001a).

We proceed as follows. In Sec. II we discuss various definitions of the arrival time in the classical mechanics. The weak measurement of the quantum arrival time distribution is presented in Sec. III. The properties of the obtained quantity are analyzed in Sec. IV. Section V summarizes our findings.

## II Arrival time in classical mechanics

In classical mechanics the particle moves along the trajectory $`H(x,p)=const`$ as $`t`$ increases. This allows us to work out the time of arrival at the point $`x(t)=X`$, by identifying the point $`(x_0,p_0)`$ of the phase space where the particle is at $`t=0`$, and then following the trajectory that passes by this point, up to the arrival at the point $`X`$. If multiple crossings are possible, one may define a distribution of arrival times with contributions from all crossings, when no distinction is made between first, second and $`n`$th arrivals. In this article we will consider such a distribution.

We can ask, whether there is a definition of the arrival time, which can be valid both in classical and quantum mechanics. In our opinion, the words “the particle arrives from the left at the point $`X`$ at the time $`t`$” mean that: (i) at time $`t`$ the particle has been in the region $`x<X`$ and (ii) at time $`t+\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }t0`$) the particle has been found in the region $`x>X`$. Now we apply this definition, given by (i) and (ii), to the time of arrival in the classical case.

Since quantum mechanics deals with probabilities, it is convenient to use probabilistic description of the classical mechanics, as well. Therefore, we will consider an ensemble of non interacting classical particles. The probability density in the phase space is $`\rho (x,p;t)`$.

Let us denote the region $`x<X`$ as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and the region $`x>X`$ as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$. The probability that the particle arrives from the region $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ to the region $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ at the time between $`t`$ and $`t+\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is proportional to the probability that the particle is in the region $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ at time $`t`$ and it is in the region $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ at time $`t+\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. This probability is

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_+(t)\mathrm{\Delta }t=\frac{1}{N_+}_\mathrm{\Omega }𝑑p𝑑x\rho (x,p;t),$$
(2)
where $`N_+`$ is the constant of normalization and the region of the phase space $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has the following properties: (i) the coordinates of the points in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are in the space region $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and (ii) if the phase trajectory goes through the point of the region $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ at time $`t`$ then the particle at time $`t+\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is in the space region $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is infinitesimal, the change of the coordinate during the time interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is equal to $`\frac{p}{m}\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. Therefore, the particle arrives from the region $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ to the region $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ only if the momentum of the particle in the point $`X`$ is positive. The phase space region $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ consists from the points with positive momentum $`p`$ and with coordinates between $`Xp/m\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and $`X`$. Then from Eq. (2) we have the probability of arrival time

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_+(t)\mathrm{\Delta }t=\frac{1}{N_+}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑p_{X\frac{p}{m}\mathrm{\Delta }t}^X𝑑x\rho (x,p;t).$$
(3)
Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is infinitesimal and the momentum of every particle is finite, we can replace $`x`$ in Eq. (3) by $`X`$ and obtain the equality

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_+(t,X)=\frac{1}{N_+}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑p\frac{p}{m}\rho (X,p;t).$$
(4)
The obtained arrival time distribution $`\mathrm{\Pi }_+(t,X)`$ is well-known and has appeared quite often in the literature (see, e.g., review Muga and Leavens (2000) and references therein).

The probability current in classical mechanics is

$$J(x;t)=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\frac{p}{m}\rho (x,p;t)𝑑p.$$
(5)
From Eqs. (4) and (5) it is clear that the time of arrival is related to the probability current. This relation, however, is not straightforward. We can introduce the “positive probability current”

$$J_+(x;t)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{p}{m}\rho (x,p;t)𝑑p$$
(6)
and rewrite Eq. (4) as

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_+(t,X)=\frac{1}{N_+}J_+(X;t).$$
(7)
The proposed Allcock (1969); Bracken and Melloy (1994); Muga et al. (1999) various quantum versions of $`J_+`$ even in the case of the free particle can be negative (the so-called backflow effect). Therefore, classical expression (7) for the time of arrival becomes problematic in quantum mechanics.

Similarly, for the arrival from the right we obtain the probability density

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{}(t,X)=\frac{1}{N_{}}J_{}(X;t),$$
(8)
where the negative probability current is

$$J_{}(x;t)=_{\mathrm{}}^0\frac{|p|}{m}\rho (x,p;t)𝑑p.$$
(9)
We see that our definition, given at the beginning of this section, leads to the proper result in the classical mechanics. The conditions (i) and (ii) does not involve the concept of the trajectories. We can try to use this definition also in quantum mechanics.

## III Weak measurement

The proposed definition of the arrival time probability distribution can be used in the quantum mechanics only if the determination of the region, in which the particle is, does not disturb the motion of the particle. This can be achieved using the weak measurements of Aharonov, Albert and Vaidman Aharonov et al. (1987); Aharonov and D. Z. Albert (1988); Duck et al. (1989); Aharonov and Vaidman (1990, 1991, 1998).

We have the detector in the initial state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The detector interacts with the particle only in the region $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$. In order the weak measurements can provide the meaningful information, the measurements must be performed on an ensemble of identical systems. Each system with its own detector is prepared in the same initial state. The readings of the detectors are collected and averaged.

We take the operator describing the interaction between the particle and the detector of the form Ruseckas and Kaulakys (2001a); Ruseckas (2001); Ruseckas and Kaulakys (2001b)

$$\widehat{H}_I=\lambda \widehat{q}\widehat{P}_1,$$
(10)
where $`\widehat{P}_1`$ is the projection operator, projecting into the region $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\lambda `$ characterizes the strength of the interaction with the detector. The interaction operator (10) only slightly differs from the one used by Aharonov, Albert and Vaidman Aharonov and D. Z. Albert (1988). The similar interaction operator has been considered by von Neumann von Neumann (1932) and has been widely used in the strong measurement models (e.g., Aharonov et al. (1998); Joos (1984); Caves and Milburn (1987); Milburn (1988); Gagen et al. (1993); Ruseckas (2002) and many others).

The measurement time is $`\tau `$. We assume that the interaction strength $`\lambda `$ and the time $`\tau `$ are small. A very small parameter $`\lambda `$ ensures the undisturbance of the particle’s evolution. The operator $`\widehat{q}`$ acts in the Hilbert space of the detector. We require a continuous spectrum of the operator $`\widehat{q}`$. For simplicity, we can consider this operator as the coordinate of the detector. The momentum, conjugate to $`q`$, is $`p_q`$.

Since interaction strength $`\lambda `$ and the duration of the measurement $`\tau `$ are small, the probability $`\widehat{P}_1`$ to find the particle in the region $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ does not change significantly during the measurement. The action of the Hamiltonian (10) results in the small change of the mean detector’s momentum $`\widehat{p}_q\widehat{p}_q_0=\lambda \tau \widehat{P}_1`$, where $`\widehat{p}_q_0=\mathrm{\Phi }(0)|\widehat{p}_q|\mathrm{\Phi }(0)`$ is the mean momentum of the detector at the beginning of the measurement and $`\widehat{p}_q=\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau )|\widehat{p}_q|\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau )`$ is the mean momentum of the detector after the measurement. Therefore, in analogy to Ref. Aharonov and D. Z. Albert (1988), we define the “weak value” of the probability to find the particle in the region $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$,

$$W(1)\widehat{P}_1=\frac{\widehat{p}_q_0\widehat{p}_q}{\lambda \tau }.$$
(11)
In order to obtain the arrival time probability using the definition from Sec. II, we measure the momenta $`p_q`$ of each detector after the interaction with the particle. After the time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ we perform the final, postselection measurement on the particles of our ensemble and measure if the particle is found in the region $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$. Then we collect the outcomes $`p_q`$ only for the particles found in the region $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$.

The projection operator projecting into the region $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ is $`\widehat{P}_2`$. In the Heisenberg representation this operator is

$$\stackrel{~}{P}_2(t)=\widehat{U}(t)^{}\widehat{P}_2\widehat{U}(t),$$
(12)
where $`\widehat{U}`$ is the evolution operator of the free particle. After the measurement the state of the particle and the detector is $`\widehat{U}_M(\tau )|\mathrm{\Phi }|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the initial state of the particle and $`\widehat{U}_M`$ is the evolution operator of the particle interacting with the detector. The joint probability that the detector has the momentum $`p_q`$ and the particle after the time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is found in the region $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ is

$$W(p_q,2)=\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Phi }|\widehat{U}_M(\tau )^{}|p_qp_q|\stackrel{~}{P}_2(\mathrm{\Delta }t)\widehat{U}_M(\tau )|\mathrm{\Phi }|\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(13)
where $`|p_q`$ is the eigenfunction of the momentum operator $`\widehat{p}_q`$, $`\widehat{P}_2`$ is the projection operator, projecting into the region $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$. In quantum mechanics the probability that two quantities simultaneously have definite values does not always exist. If the joint probability does not exist then the concept of the conditional probability is meaningless. However, in our case operators $`\widehat{P}_2`$ and $`|p_qp_q|`$ act in different spaces and commute, therefore, the joint probability $`W(p_q,2)`$ exists.

Let us define the conditional probability, i.e., the probability that the momentum of the detector is $`p_q`$, provided that the particle after the time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is found in the region $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$. This probability is given according to the Bayes’s theorem

$$W(p_q|2)=\frac{W(p_q,2)}{W(2)},$$
(14)
where $`W(2)`$ is the probability that the particle after the time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is found in the region $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$. The average momentum of the detector on condition that the particle after the time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is found in the region $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ equals to

$$\widehat{p}_q_2=p_qW(p_q|2)𝑑p_q=\frac{1}{W(2)}\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Phi }|\widehat{U}_M(\tau )^{}\widehat{p}_q\stackrel{~}{P}_2(\mathrm{\Delta }t)\widehat{U}_M(\tau )|\mathrm{\Phi }|\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(15)
where $`\stackrel{~}{P}_2(\mathrm{\Delta }t)=\widehat{U}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)^{}\widehat{P}_2\widehat{U}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ is the operator $`\widehat{P}_2`$ in the Heisenberg picture. According to Eq. (11)

$$W(1|2)=\frac{\widehat{p}_q_0\widehat{p}_q_2}{\lambda \tau }=\frac{\widehat{p}_q_0W(2)\widehat{p}_q_2W(2)}{\lambda \tau W(2)}$$
(16)
is the weak value of probability to find the particle in the region $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ on condition that the particle after the time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is in the region $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$. The probability that the particle is in the region $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and after the time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is in the region $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ equals to

$$W(1,2)=W(2)W(1|2).$$
(17)
When the measurement time $`\tau `$ is sufficiently small, the influence of the Hamiltonian of the particle can be neglected and the evolution operator of the particle and the detector can be expressed as

$$\widehat{U}_M(\tau )=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\lambda \tau \widehat{q}\widehat{P}_1\right).$$

We expand the operator $`\widehat{U}_M(\tau )`$ into the series of the parameter $`\lambda `$, assuming that $`\lambda `$ is small. In the first-order approximation, using Eqs. (16) and (17), we obtain

$$W(1,2)\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{P}_2(\mathrm{\Delta }t)\widehat{P}_1+\widehat{P}_1\stackrel{~}{P}_2(\mathrm{\Delta }t)+\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\left(\widehat{p}_q\widehat{q}Re\widehat{q}\widehat{p}_q\right)[\widehat{P}_1,\stackrel{~}{P}_2(\mathrm{\Delta }t)].$$
(18)
The probability $`W(1,2)`$ is constructed using the conditions (i) and (ii) from Sec. II: the weak measurement is performed to determine if the particle is in the region $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and after the time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ the strong measurement determines if the particle is in the region $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$. Therefore, according to Sec. II, the quantity $`W(1,2)`$ after normalization can be considered as the weak value of the arrival time probability distribution.

Eq. (18) consists of two terms and we can introduce two quantities

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{(1)}=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Delta }t}\widehat{P}_1\stackrel{~}{P}_2(\mathrm{\Delta }t)+\stackrel{~}{P}_2(\mathrm{\Delta }t)\widehat{P}_1$$
(19)
and

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2i\mathrm{\Delta }t}[\widehat{P}_1,\stackrel{~}{P}_2(\mathrm{\Delta }t)].$$
(20)
Then

$$W(1,2)=\mathrm{\Pi }^{(1)}\mathrm{\Delta }t\frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }t}{\mathrm{}}\left(\widehat{p}_q\widehat{q}Re\widehat{q}\widehat{p}_q\right)\mathrm{\Pi }^{(2)}.$$
(21)
If the commutator $`[\widehat{P}_1,\stackrel{~}{P}_2(\mathrm{\Delta }t)]`$ in Eqs. (19)–(21) is not zero then, even in the limit of the very weak measurement, the measured value depends on the particular detector. This fact means that in such a case we cannot obtain the definite value for the arrival time probability. Moreover, the coefficient $`(\widehat{p}_q\widehat{q}Re\widehat{q}\widehat{p}_q)`$ may be zero for the specific initial state of the detector, e.g., for the Gaussian distribution of the coordinate $`q`$ and momentum $`p_q`$.

The quantities $`W(1,2)`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(1)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(2)}`$ are real. However, it is convenient to consider the complex quantity

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_C=\mathrm{\Pi }^{(1)}+i\mathrm{\Pi }^{(2)}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }t}\widehat{P}_1\stackrel{~}{P}_2(\mathrm{\Delta }t).$$
(22)
We name it “complex arrival probability”. We can introduce the corresponding operator

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_+=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }t}\widehat{P}_1\stackrel{~}{P}_2(\mathrm{\Delta }t).$$
(23)
By analogy, the operator

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }t}\widehat{P}_2\stackrel{~}{P}_1(\mathrm{\Delta }t).$$
(24)
corresponds to the arrival from the right.

The introduced operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_+`$ has some properties of the classical positive probability current. From the conditions $`\widehat{P}_1+\widehat{P}_2=1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{P}_1(\mathrm{\Delta }t)+\stackrel{~}{P}_2(\mathrm{\Delta }t)=1`$ we have

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_+\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }t}(\stackrel{~}{P}_2(\mathrm{\Delta }t)\widehat{P}_2).$$

In the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }t0`$ we obtain the probability current, $`\widehat{J}=lim_{\mathrm{\Delta }t0}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_+\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{})`$, as it is in the classical mechanics. However, the quantity $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_+`$ is complex and the real part can be negative, in contrary to the classical quantity $`J_+`$. The reason for this is the non-commutativity of the operators $`\widehat{P}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{P}_2(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$. When the imaginary part is small, the quantity $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_+`$ after normalization can be considered as the approximate probability distribution of the arrival time .

## IV Arrival time probability

The operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_+`$ is obtained without specification of the Hamiltonian of the particle and is suitable to the free particles and to the particles subjected to an external potential as well. In this section we consider the arrival time of the free particle.

The calculation of the “weak arrival time distribution” $`W(1,2)`$ involves the average $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_+`$. Therefore, it is useful to have the matrix elements of the operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_+`$. It should be noted, that matrix elements of the operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_+`$ as well as the operator itself are only auxiliary and does not have independent meaning.

In the basis of momentum eigenstates $`|p`$, normalized according the condition $`p_1|p_2=2\pi \mathrm{}\delta (p_1p_2)`$, the matrix elements of the operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_+`$ are

$`p_1|\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_+|p_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }t}}p_1|\widehat{P}_1\widehat{U}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)^{}\widehat{P}_2\widehat{U}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)|p_2`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }t}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^X}𝑑x_1{\displaystyle _X^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x_2e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}p_1x_1}x_1|\widehat{U}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)^{}|x_2e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}p_2x_2\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\frac{p_2^2}{2m}\mathrm{\Delta }t}.`$
After performing the integration we obtain

$`p_1|\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_+|p_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}}{2\mathrm{\Delta }t(p_2p_1)}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}(p_2p_1)X\right)`$ (26)
$`\times \left(e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }t}{2m}(p_1^2p_2^2)}erfc\left(p_1\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{\Delta }t}{2\mathrm{}m}}}\right)erfc\left(p_2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{\Delta }t}{2\mathrm{}m}}}\right)\right),`$
where $`\sqrt{i}=\mathrm{exp}(i\pi /4)`$. When

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }t}{2m}(p_1^2p_2^2)1,p_1\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }t}{2\mathrm{}m}}>1,p_2\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }t}{2\mathrm{}m}}>1,$$

the matrix elements of the operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_+`$ are

$$p_1|\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_+|p_2\frac{p_1+p_2}{2m}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}(p_2p_1)X\right).$$
(27)
This equation coincides with the expression for the matrix elements of the probability current operator.

From Eq. (26) we obtain the diagonal matrix elements of the operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_+`$

$$p|\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_+|p=\frac{p}{2m}erfc\left(p\sqrt{\frac{i\mathrm{\Delta }t}{2\mathrm{}m}}\right)+\frac{\mathrm{}}{\sqrt{i2\pi \mathrm{}m\mathrm{\Delta }t}}e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\frac{p^2}{2m}\mathrm{\Delta }t}.$$
(28)
The real part of the quantity $`p|\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_+|p`$ is shown in Fig. 1 and the imaginary part in Fig. 2.

Using the asymptotic expressions of the function $`erfc`$ we obtain from Eq. (28) that

$$\underset{p+\mathrm{}}{lim}p|\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_+|p\frac{p}{m}$$

and $`p|\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_+|p0`$, when $`p\mathrm{}`$, i.e., the imaginary part tends to zero and the real part approaches the corresponding classical value as the modulus of the momentum $`|p|`$ increases. Such a behaviour is evident from Figs. 1 and 2, too.

The asymptotic expressions of the function $`erfc`$ are valid when the argument of the $`erfc`$ is large, i.e., $`|p|\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }t}{2\mathrm{}m}}>1`$ or

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t>\frac{\mathrm{}}{E_k}.$$
(29)
Here $`E_k`$ is the kinetic energy of the particle.

The dependence of the quantity $`Rep|\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_+|p`$ from $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is shown in Fig. 3. For small $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ the quantity $`p|\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_+|p`$ is proportional to $`1/\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }t}`$. Therefore, unlike the classical mechanics, in quantum mechanics $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ cannot be zero. Eq. (29) imposes the lower bound to the resolution time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. It follows that our model does not permit determination of the arrival time with the resolution greater than $`\mathrm{}/E_k`$. The relation, similar to Eq. (29), based on measurement models has been obtained by Aharonov *et al.* Aharonov et al. (1998). The time-energy uncertainty realtions, associated with time of arrival distribution, are also discussed in Refs. Baute et al. (2000b); Brunetti and Fredenhagen (b)

## V Conclusion

The definition of density of one sided arrivals is proposed. This definition is extended into quantum mechanics, using the concept of weak measurements by Aharonov *et al.* The proposed procedure is suitable to the free particles and to the particles subjected to an external potential, as well. It gives not only the mathematical expression for the arrival time probability distribution but also the way to measure the obtained quantity. However, this procedure gives no unique expression for the arrival time probability distribution.

In analogy with complex tunneling time the complex arrival time “probability distribution” is introduced (Eq. (22)). It is shown that the proposed approach imposes an inherent limitation, Eq. (29), to the resolution time of the arrival time determination.


text:
# Numerical analysis of solitary waves interaction in nonlinear medium

## Abstract

Using numerical modeling investigated interaction of solitary waves (solitons) of the regularized long wave equation. For reception the stable model of the nonlinear medium are used methods of the linear prediction and progressive approximation. By modeling was determined that depending on ratio of velocities of the solitons and the form of highest derivatives balance is possible self-organization of the medium nonequilibrium state as formation of shock waves and stable on the form solitary waves, created as a result of full or partial mutual penetration of the solitons. Is possible also aggregation of the solitons in third wave. The shock waves can pass into other possible resonance state as a wave front with stable amplitude, which precedes developing in singularity negative front.

Spatially separated solitary waves (SW) are in balance with nonlinear medium if they are resonance to it. At rapprochement of the SW the balance is saved when multiwave field is resonance too. Otherwise the wave field dynamic is difficult predictable. An interaction of the solitary waves of the nonresonance wave field is possible to analyse by numerical modeling. As analyse object we shall choose nonlinear medium, described by the regularized long wave (RLW) equation

$`u_t+\gamma u_x\alpha u_{xxt}+2\beta uu_x=0,`$ (1)
where $`u=u(x,t)`$, $`\gamma =1`$, subscript symbols mark the partial derivatives on spatial $`x`$ and temporal $`t`$ variables. The RLW equation describes haracteristic of the nonlinear medium in more broad dynamic range in contrast with Korteveg - de Vries’s (KdV) equation, however, it is’t solvable by the inverse scattering method and other algebraic methods and so has’t $`N`$-solitons solutions. The RLW equation is considered in literature with pairs of coefficients: $`(\alpha ;\beta )=(1;0.5)`$ , (1;-3)  and (0.5;0.125) . Substitution $`u=w_x`$ and Hopf - Cole’s transformation  as $`w=\lambda (\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Gamma })_x`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,t)=exp(a(xvt))+1`$, $`\lambda `$, $`a`$ – constants, $`v`$ \- velocity, yield the condition of the highest derivatives balance $`6\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_t+\lambda \beta \mathrm{\Gamma }_x=0`$, from which follows that the velocity

$$v=\lambda \beta /6\alpha .$$
(2)
From linear part (1) follows that spectral parameter $`a=\sqrt{(v\gamma )/\alpha v}`$. The solution of the RLW equation with account of the expression for velocity is

$$u(x,t)=\frac{3}{2\beta }(v\gamma )\mathrm{sech}^2\left(\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{v\gamma }{\alpha v}}(x\mathrm{𝑣𝑡})\right).$$
(3)
When $`v>\gamma `$ the function $`u(x,t)`$ describes the solitary wave, which on nature of the dependencies of the amplitude from velocity, locality and conservation of the form at spatio-temporal translations corresponds to the determination of the soliton . When $`v<\gamma `$ the solution

$$u(x,t)=\frac{3}{2\beta }(v\gamma )\mathrm{cos}^2\left(\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{\gamma v}{\alpha v}}(xvt)\right)$$
(4)
is periodically singular. We shall research an interaction of the one-soliton solutions (3) for different ratios of the velocities and pairs of the coefficients $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ using numerical simulation of the dynamic of an initial layer, defined as two waves, given on a square grid with intervals of sampling $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$$`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ on space and time accordingly.

The numerical modeling of nonlinear processes is characterized ambiguous results, since presence power-mode function implies minimum two decisions. If chosen decision will not matched on the dynamic with previous, that the numerical scheme can lose stability. Since a nonlinearity reveals itself as influence of a sought value on itself, that appears the problem of the choice of the supporting area for generation of following values of the net under influence not yet defined value. Therefore computing model of the nonlinear process must be built on scheme of the progressive approximation with restriction on area of possible result values.

Invariance of the solitons to spatio-temporal translation is expressed by equation

$$u_t+vu_x=0$$
(5)
with the dispersion equation $`\omega vk=0`$. Let $`u_{i,j}=u(j\mathrm{\Delta }x,i\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ denotes the samples of the discrete wave field, where $`i,j=0,1,\mathrm{}`$, and $`v_0=\mathrm{\Delta }x/\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is the velocity of the moving wave, matched with the samples net. As follows from equation (5), for the soliton with velocity $`v=mv_0`$, where $`m`$ – integer number (the velocity index), is obviously identity $`u_{i,j}u_{i1,jm}`$. By applying $`z`$-images of the shift on time $`z_t`$ and space $`z_x`$ instead of finite differences the discrete analogue of the equation (5) can be written as $`1z_tz_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}=0`$. For two solitons, moving with multiple $`v_0`$ velocity $`v_1=m_1v_0`$ and $`v_2=m_2v_0`$, the $`z`$-image of the dispersion equation $`(\omega v_1k)(\omega v_2k)=0`$ transforms to $`1z_tz_x^{m_1}z_tz_x^{m_2}+z_t^2z_x^{m_1+m_2}=0`$ and the corresponding difference scheme $`u_{i,j}u_{i1,jm_1}u_{i1,jm_2}+u_{i2,jm_1m_2}0`$. For wave that containing $`N`$ solitons from $`z`$-presentations of the dispersion equation is possible to form following difference scheme.

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{M}{}}}a_{n,l}^0u_{in,jl}0;`$ (6)
$`a_{0,0}^0=1;a_{0,1\mathrm{}M}^0=0;a_{n,p}^0=(1)^n\delta _{p,S};`$
$`S={\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}}m_{\sigma _l};\sigma m_1\mathrm{}m_N;`$
$`n=1,2,\mathrm{},N;p=1,2,\mathrm{},M,`$
where $`M`$ is the sum of $`N`$ velocity indexes $`m_{\sigma _l}`$. If $`p`$ in (6) is equal to the sum of $`n`$ velocity indexes from given ensemble $`N`$ indexes, then $`\delta `$ \- function is an unit, otherwise it’s a zero.

The double sum in expression (6) presents itself equation of the two-dimention linear prediction (LP)  – samples of $`u_{i,j}`$ are possible to define as linear combination of previous, given as matrix of size $`(N+1)\times (M+1)`$. For $`N`$ solitons with arbitrary velocity indexes the LP model is given by

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{l=0}{\overset{M}{}}a_{n,l}u_{in,jl}0;a_{0,0}=1,$$
(7)
where $`M`$ is rounded value of the sum of $`N`$ velocity indexes. The LP parameters $`a_{n,l}`$ may be defined using the least square method on data of the field in initial layer.

The derivatives on $`x`$ and $`t`$ can be presented as finite differences with use the equation (7).

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }t}}(u_{i,j}u_{i1,j})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }t}}\left(u_{i,j}+{\displaystyle \frac{u_{i,j}}{a_{1,0}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{S_{1,0}}{a_{1,0}}}\right),`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }x}}(u_{i,j}u_{i,j1})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }x}}\left(u_{i,j}+{\displaystyle \frac{u_{i,j}}{a_{0,1}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{S_{0,1}}{a_{0,1}}}\right),`$ (9)
where

$$S_{p,q}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{l=0}{\overset{M}{}}_{(n,l)(0,0),(p,q)}a_{n,l}u_{in,jl},$$

indexes in brackets denote the pair values. Such approach allows to increase the supporting area for calculation of the finite differences, as well as allows to normalize supporting areas of differences first and following orders. Using similar (8), (9) presentations of the high order derivatives for the equation (1) shall receive following iteration difference scheme.

$$u_{i,j}(k)=\left(C_0u_{i,j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(k1)+C_2\right)/C_1,$$
(10)
where $`k`$=0,1,… – iteration step number;

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill u_{i,j}(0)=S_{0,0};\\ \hfill C_0=\beta \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }t}{\mathrm{\Delta }x}\left(1\frac{1}{a_{0,1}^2}\right);\\ \hfill C_1=1+\frac{1}{a_{1,0}}\frac{\alpha }{\mathrm{\Delta }x^2}\left(1+\frac{2}{a_{0,1}}\frac{1}{a_{0,2}}+\frac{1}{a_{1,0}}\frac{2}{a_{1,1}}+\frac{1}{a_{1,2}}\right)+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }t}{\mathrm{\Delta }x}\left(\gamma +\frac{\gamma }{a_{0,1}}2\beta \frac{S_{0,1}}{a_{0,1}^2}\right);\\ \hfill C_2=\frac{\alpha }{\mathrm{\Delta }x^2}\left(\frac{2S_{0,1}}{a_{0,1}}+\frac{S_{0,2}}{a_{0,2}}\frac{S_{1,0}}{a_{1,0}}+\frac{2S_{1,1}}{a_{1,1}}\frac{S_{1,2}}{a_{1,2}}\right)+\frac{S_{1,0}}{a_{1,0}}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }t}{\mathrm{\Delta }x}\left(\gamma \frac{S_{0,1}}{a_{0,1}}\beta \frac{S_{0,1}^2}{a_{0,1}^2}\right).\end{array}$$

In equation (10) the nonlinear component is presented as discrete analogue of $`\beta (u^2)_x`$. As can be seen from (10), the LP coefficients must be nonzero. For this the velocity indexes of the waves follow to choose as rational numbers with fractional part not multiple $`2^n`$.

The numerical dynamic model of the initial layer allows to consider the interaction of solitons, moving in forward direction. The study of the models (7), (10) has shown that the model (7) reproduces the one-soliton wave with error linearly increasing from layer to layer, which relative value on a border of the net of size $`500\times 500`$ not more $`0.001`$. The LP model reproduces two and more solitons with relative inaccuracy not more $`0.03`$, moreover, the inaccuracy value sharply increases in cross point of the solitons. Since given inaccuracy is a smooth function, reveals itself on solitons fronts and does’t influence upon their form, that it possible consider as effect of the phase shift. The model (10) reproduces the initial layer of the one-soliton wave with small phase shift. The iterative procedure was checked by convergence condition $`u_{i,j}(k)u_{i,j}(k1)1.e10`$ and was limited by ten steps. Performing the convergence condition was fixed in all nodes of the net. The studies have shown that important is the choice of the model order in accordance with (6) – $`z`$-image of (7) must corresponds to the product of $`N`$ dispersion equations (5) each of solitons. Stability given model depends on magnitude of the LP coefficients, that depend on the choice of the sampling interval and velocity scaling. Is possible also the correction of the LP model order for reason to remove critical magnitude of the coefficients.

On Fig.1 is presented the interaction of two solitons of the RLW equation with parameters (0.5;0.125), when influence of nonlinearity is least. The velocities ratio less 1.2 . The model parameters are following: $`v_0=10`$; $`\mathrm{\Delta }x=0.25`$; $`N=3`$; $`M=2`$; $`m_1=0.605`$$`m_2=0.67`$. Before cross point solitons save the form, their amplitudes summarize linearly. Further occurs qualitative change of the wave form – are formed quick waves with slowly rising amplitude and a shock wave. Simultaneously with growing of the amplitude and narrowing the profile of the shock wave is formed a negative front, an amplitude which sharply increases after the positive front achieved a fixed level. The negative front moves with greater velocity and with increase the distance from saving form positive front it gradually forms a surge in area of great numbers. On correlation of the amplitude and velocity of the positive front, development of the negative front dynamic, smoothly moving over to singularity, possible draw the conclusion that the shock wave is transformed in a wave like (4) accurate to phase shift and scaling multiplier on velocity and amplitude. The numerical decision converges in accordance with presented above criterion in all nodes of the net. The integral value under profile of the wave was saved. Only in the field of sharply growing of the negative front the iterative process falls into closed cycle around neighbour values. If consider (10) as quadratic equation then in this area its discriminant negative. Therefore the model in this area has evaluating nature. The form of singular area greatly is’t changed with increase of quantity of iteration steps.

Within the range of the velocities ratio 1.2…1.25 the solitons interaction carries the elastic nature – the solitons disperse with conservation of the form and velocity. Given interaction possible to characterize and as a full mutual penetration, since in the cross point amplitudes of solitons summarize linearly. Similarly interact solitons with velocity indexes $`m_2=(K\pm 0.25)m_1`$, where $`K`$ is integer value.

On Fig.2 is presented an instance of the solitons interaction with the velocities ratio outside of noted above areas: $`m_1=0.55`$$`m_2=0.7`$. The interaction occurs inelastically. On Fig.3 is presented the consequence of shears of the wave before and after the interaction. From figures is seen that approximately only about half on amplitude and length of the quick soliton continues the motion with the previous velocity as the solitary wave. The length of this wave is a half of the length of the slow soliton. The slow soliton absorbed part of the quick soliton energy and transformed in the shock wave with the same scenario of the behaviour, as on Fig.1.

If consider solitons as a sum of harmonical waves then from presented results follows that exist tunnel zones in neighborhood of multiple magnitudes of the velocities, when harmonic components mutually penetrate. Outside of the tunnel zones more slow wave emerges as potential barrier, through which passes the part of harmonical waves, period which is multiple with respect to length of the barrier. Rest harmonical waves enter in nonlinear interaction with the barrier and create the shock wave. Part of waves, which passed the barrier, creates stable on the form solitary wave, moving with previous velocity. As can be seen from the expression (2), such wave can be considered as solution of the equation (1) with proportionally increased coefficients $`(\alpha ;\beta )`$. Consequently, resonance to the nonlinear medium can be SW, which parameters give appropriate balance of the form and velocity.

In the equation (1) with parameters (1;0.5), (1;-3) the nonlinear component has more deep influence. Therefore mutual penetration of the waves with small distortion was observed only in the tunnel zones with $`K2`$. On Fig.4 is presented the solitons interaction of the RLW equation (1;0.5) with parameters of the model: $`N=2`$; $`M=3`$; $`m_1=0.6`$; $`m_2=0.7`$. The interaction runs with formation before front of the slow soliton the third wave, which gradually accumulates the main part of total energy of the solitons and develops in the shock wave, and next in wave like (4). In this case the transition in the wave like (4) is realized quicker and so the shock wave excites the series of the fluctuations developing in periodical singularites. The third wave is formed as reflection of the slow wave from running up front of the quick wave. Then reflected wave absorbs quick soliton. Such interaction shows that with increase the influence of a nonlinearity grows the ability of the solitons to save the form. The interaction of the solitons of the RLW equation with parameters (1;-3) occurs similarly and differs the inverse sign of the wave.

Presented in article the model has allowed to see result of influence of the nonlinearity on non-equilibrium interaction of the SW. As a groundwork to influence is used the linear model (7), which is equivalent to superposition of the operators (5) each of SW.

$$\left\{\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\frac{}{t}+v_n\frac{}{x}\right)^{p_n}\right\}u(x,t)=0,$$

where $`p_n`$ are integer values, which regulate the filtering characteristic each of multiplier. For realization of the computing scheme (10) the auxiliary linear model can be formed for each layer or counting sample on its neighbourhood. The linear model must be unitary to not influence on processes of damping and excitation of fluctuations. With the help of linear model was eliminated ambiguity of nonlinear equation solution by matching on a dynamic of current and previous samples. Model was researched also with discrete analogue of the nonlinearity as $`u_{i,j1}(u_{i,j}u_{i,j2})/2\mathrm{\Delta }x`$. Such model gave the results, similar mentioned above, but it was less stable in contrast with (10) and amplitude of the shock wave did’t rise up to saturation level.

Possible suppose that transformation of the shock wave in the wave like (4) occurs under influence of $`\gamma u_x`$ in equation (1). To value the level of this factor the model, presented on Fig.1, was researched for $`\gamma =0.25\mathrm{}1.5`$. It was determined that ratio of the amplitude of the shock wave saturation to the average magnitude of the solitons amplitudes is valued as about $`248\gamma `$ and though amplitudes of the solitons with reduction $`\gamma `$ increase the time of the shock wave saturation grows as about $`T(\gamma =1)+160\mathrm{\Delta }t(1\gamma )`$. These results show that $`\gamma `$ affects only partly – with the reduction of $`\gamma `$ decreases ability to saturation. Since a shock wave with high amplitude is’t a solution of the RLW equation with any parameter $`\gamma `$, that the main factor is a process of self-organization of the shock wave under influence of the factors of amplitude, frontage and velocity, in consequence of which the shock wave shapes up the resonance form that is acceptable from condition of the high derivatives balance. This is confirmed following, when the solitons amplitude was changed by parameter $`v_0=10\mathrm{}200`$ the ratio of the amplitude of the shock wave saturation to average magnitude of the solitons amplitudes was valued as about $`8v_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{0.3}`$ and the time of saturation greatly was’t changed. However, was found ranges where does’t occur the shock wave saturation: $`v_0=70\mathrm{}80`$; 125…150; 180…200. The shock waves with high amplitude are formed in these ranges right after collision, or in cross point of the SW. Whereupon the model lost stability. In addition, the double order was needed for stable linear model in these ranges. The model of the KdV equation behaved similarly.

When $`v\gamma `$ the spectral parameter in equation (3) $`a\sqrt{1/\alpha }`$ and so solitons of the RLW equation are spatially quasicoherent. Hence, the nonequilibrium interaction of the quasicoherent solitons can generates solitary and shock waves, self-excited quick waves-harbingers. The shock wave can reach to be tenfold amplitude in contrast with generating it solitons due to the profile narrowing. In the case of weak nonlinearity possible partial mutual penetration with formation of saving form solitary waves. Strong nonlinearity brings about forming the third wave, which accumulates the main part forming it the solitons. The self-excitation of the quick waves-harbingers can be considered as property of a nonlinear medium spontaneously to generate fluctuations under influence of small perturbations.

The model has reflected conversion of the nonlinear medium from one type of the balance of the amplitude and velocity – two solitons (3), to the other, in the form of the stable positive wave front, which precedes developing in singularity negative front. Physical sense of such transition possible to make clear considering other characteristic of concrete phenomena, described by equation (1). For example, the RLW equation (0.5;0.125) describes an ion velocity in Broer - Sluijter’s system of equations of plasma . Numerical modeling of the dynamic of the ion density at the speed on Fig.1 using the direct matrix method has shown that when ion velocity takes the form of the shock wave with stable amplitude and appears negative front the amplitude of fluctuations of the ion density sharply increases. The negative velocity possible to consider as effect of the elastic force reaction on quick ions. The rapprochement with the singular point of the velocity brings about forming the fluctuations of the density with high amplitude, spreading in forward and backward directions. Consequently, the singularity corresponds to excited by colliding ions source of the fluctuations of density.

Solitary waves can meet in nature as multiwave systems and as separate formations, depending on this condition runs their interaction. The first type of the interaction well studied by analytical way. Example of the numerical analysis of the second type of the interaction is presented in this article. Results of modeling allow to draw a conclusion that nonlinearity reveals itself ambiguously – in one event exists the mutual penetration, in the other – full or partial interaction with transition in qualitative other resonance state. Partly the interaction of the SW in nonlinear medium possible to describe qualitatively as processes of the multiplying and mutual passing – reflections of their harmonic components taking into account orthogonality of the harmonics and conservations of total energy.