text:
# Untitled Document

Geometry and dynamics of billiards in symmetric phase space

S.V. Naydenov 111E-mail: naydenov@isc.kharkov.com, V.V. Yanovsky

Institute for Single Crystals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine,

60 Lenin ave., 61001 Kharkov, Ukraine

Abstract

The billiard problem of statistical physics is considered in a new geometric approach with a symmetric phase space. The structure and topological features of typical billiard phase portrait are defined. The connection between geometric, dynamic and statistic properties of smooth billiard is established. Other directions of the theory on development are pointed out.

1. Introduction

Billiard is one of the most important models of statistical physics and chaotic dynamics. G.D. Birkhov suggested regarding billiard as a typical conservative system . A.N. Krylov based his explanation of solid spheres gas statistic properties on exponential divergence of its “billiard” trajectories . In the works by Ya.G. Sinai and L.A. Bunimovich on phase trajectories mixing in scattering and defocusing billiards Boltzmann’s hypothesis of molecular chaos found its further grounding . Now billiard became a paradigm of deterministic chaos  of classical systems and is often applied  for the research of their quantum “twins”. A lot of applied physics problems can be reduced to a billiard problem .

A classical billiard problem is in studying its character and distribution of its trajectories. Among the typical billiard motions one can point out the following: periodical, quasiperiodical (integrable) and irregular (chaotic) motions. Compound billiard dynamics appears in the phase portrait structure of the corresponding mapping. The latter is plotted using different geometric methods or Poincare sections. For the specification of a billiard ray it’s usual to choose local Birkhov coordinates: natural parameter $`l`$ in the reflection point on the border of the billiard $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the incidence angle $`\theta `$ in the same point. They stand for canonical variables – the coordinate and the moment for Hamiltonian description of the system. Many important properties at this choice of phase space coordinates stay unnoticed. Let us choose another unifying approach. It identifies billiards with reversible mapping (with projective involution) in a symmetrical phase space. In its framework one can join together geometric, dynamic and statistic properties of billiards. Such fundamental mechanisms are analyzed in this paper.

2. Symmetric Coordinates

Let us describe geometric propagation of the rays of billiard (Fig.) as a reversible mapping $`B`$ of the phase space $`Z`$with symmetric coordinates $`(z_1,z_2)`$. The pair of these coordinates defines two successive reflections of a billiard ray from $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. At the same time, each of the coordinates corresponds to some parameterization of the billiard border, $`\stackrel{}{r}|_\mathrm{\Omega }=\stackrel{}{r}(z)=(x(z),y(z))`$. The following topological construction appears: $`Z\mathrm{\Omega }\times \mathrm{\Omega }`$. For a closed planar billiard one can accept $`zS^1`$ (circle) or $`zI=[0,1]`$ the periodicity being $`\stackrel{}{r}(z)=\stackrel{}{r}(z+1)`$. So we’ll have a phase space as a torus $`Z=T^2=S^1\times S^1`$ or its unfolding $`\mathrm{\Pi }=I\times I`$ on the plane. After each reflection of an arbitrary (incoming) billiard ray with the coordinates $`(z_1,z_2)`$, we have a (reflected) ray with new coordinates $`(z_1^{},z_2^{})`$. As a result, the evolution of these successive reflections is described with a billiard cascade $`(z_1,z_2)(z_1^{},z_2^{})`$ of the form

$$B:=\{\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}z_1^{}=z_2& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ z_2^{}=f(z_1,z_2)& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array};f(f(z_1,z_2),z_2)=z_1;g(f,z_2)=g(R(z_1,z_2),z_2));R(z,z^{})=\frac{a(z^{})z+b(z^{})}{b(z^{})za(z^{})}$$
(1)
with the involution $`f=f(z_1,z_2)`$ (on the first argument$`z_1`$), which is defined by implicit dependence on the corresponding fractional rational involution $`R`$, $`R(R(z,z^{}),z^{})=z`$. The coefficients $`a(z)=n_x^2(z)n_y^2(z)`$; $`b(z)=2n_x^2(z)n_y^2(z)`$ are expressed with (Cartesian) components of the exterior normal field $`\stackrel{}{n}(z)=\stackrel{}{n}_{ext}|_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ on the border $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\stackrel{}{n}=(n_x;n_y)=(y^{}(z);x^{}(z))`$ (the stroke marks differentiation). Function $`g`$ depends on the form of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`g(z_1,z_2)=g(z_2,z_1)=`$ $`=\left[x(z_1)x(z_2)\right]/\left[y(z_1)y(z_2)\right]`$. The choice of Cartesian coordinates is rather relative, because every covariant substitution $`z_1\xi B(z_1);z_2\xi B(z_2)`$ preserves the form of the mapping (1). The mapping built can be used for the description of billiard with a border of the most general type. During its derivation only the condition of elastic reflection and no restrictions of smoothness, curvature, convexity, simple connectivity of the border and so on were introduced.

The mapping (1) is invariant to the substitution, $`S:=z_1z_2;z_2z_1`$, of the incoming ray to the reflected one, i.e. $`BS=SB`$ for the composition of transformations. This means reversibility of the constructed mappings. The physical reason of this is reversibility of the system to the changes of the time sign (the direction of the motion). This is a global property. In the billiard cascade, phase trajectories with opposite directions of the motion or with opposite-directional initial rays $`(z_{10},z_{20})`$ è $`(z_{20},z_{10})`$are present simultaneously. This requirement of local reversibility is stronger. The inverse of the ray reflected with its successive reflection makes the initial incoming ray. Mathematically it leads to the appearance of a involution $`f`$ in the mapping (1). The symmetry (reversibility) leads to the symmetry of the phase space and the phase portrait of the mappings (1). For every element $`Z`$ there is one symmetrical to it relative to the diagonal $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\left\{(z_1,z_2)Z\right|z_1=z_2\}`$. For every function $`\chi `$ on $`Z`$

$$\chi (z_1,z_2)=\chi (z_2,z_1).$$
(2)
That’s why it’s natural to regard the coordinates of $`Z`$ as symmetrical. This symmetricity essentially sets them apart from the variables of Hamiltionian description of the billiard. In particular, the locality of Birkhov coordinates causes explicit mappings to be obtained only for the simplest geometry $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In non-local coordinates, $`(z_1,z_2)`$ this problem can have a general solution.

In the research of periodical trajectories of the billiard the powers of billiard mapping $`B^k`$ are also used

$$B^k:=\left\{z_1^{}=f_{k1}(z,z);z_2^{}=f_k(z_1,z_2)\right\};f_k(z_1,z_2)=f(f_{k2}(z_1,z_2),f_{k1}(z_1,z_2)).$$
(3)
They include billiard “compositions” $`f_k`$, where $`k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$; $`f_1=f`$; $`f_0=z_2`$; $`f_1=z_1`$. They lose the property of involution, but preserve reductibility to fractional rational transformations. The mappings (3) describe “pruned” billiard trajectories with the omission of a set of $`(k1)`$ links (successive reflections).

3. Billiard Geometry: Involution Properties

All the geometric properties of a billiard are established in the specialization of mappings (1). They are concretized in the features of the involution$`f`$. In the appropriate (local) coordinates it can be reduced to fractional rational involution $`R`$. Projective transformations are described with fractional rational functions. Billiard is one of those transformations. In every reflection point incoming and reflected rays are joined together by a harmonic transformation $`G`$. For $`G`$ projective invariant (a complex relation of four rays , incoming $`i`$, reflected $`r`$, normal $`n`$ and tangent $`t`$) is equal to $`(i,r,n,t)=1`$. In geometric terms involution looks the simplest

$$r=G(i;n,t);GG=Id,$$
(4)
$`Id`$ is an identical transformation. Let us emphasize the locality of the projective property of the billiard. The concrete form of $`G`$ depends on the guiding-lines of the normal in the point of reflection, that is, on the form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Harmonic mapping (4) is an involution and changes the sequence order of the ordered projective elements to the opposite. The monotony of $`f`$ on the first argument is the consequence of this. This monotony of piece-wise continuous $`f`$ (involution can stand discontinuity) is true for every billiard. Using the correlations (1), the involution can be laced of local branches of the form $`f=g^1Rg`$ (the choice of $`g^1`$ branch is dictated by the variational principle, the minimality of distance between the points of reflection). From that the property of monotony immediately follows

$$f(z_1,z_2)/z_1<0.$$
(5)
Fractional rational functions are dense everywhere in the space of continuous functions. In fact, this means the possibility of arbitrary precise approximation of different physical systems with their billiard models. This fact is used, for instance, in the analysis of energetic spectra of multi-particle systems, the description of kinetic properties of continuum (Lorenz gas model) etc. If sinus and cosine have physically appeared from the problem of oscillator, then fractional rational functions can be generated by billiard.

The reflection of ray beams from the border of the billiard can be of diffractive, focusing and neutral character. This depends on the curvature of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The representation (1) gives the following property

$$sign\left\{\frac{f(z_1,z_2)}{z_2}\right\}=sign\left\{\widehat{K}(z_2)\right\},$$
(6)
where $`\widehat{K}`$ is oriented curvature in the point of reflection. For the convex border $`\widehat{K}>0`$ involution appears to be a monotonous function on both arguments. (For instance, for a circle, $`f(z_1,z_2)=2z_2z_1(mod\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1})`$.) On a torus, $`Z=T^2`$, such involution has no breaks (Unlike everywhere dispersive billiard, $`\widehat{K}<0`$, with lacunas in phase space.)

Involutivity and projectivity are the main geometric properties of a billiard. The geometry (form) of its border defines the explicit form of involution. At the same time, it also defines the dynamics of the billiard.

4. Billiard Dynamics: the Structure of Symmetric Phase Space

Let us analyze the structure of symmetric phase space of a typical billiard (see Fig.). This principally solves the question of the types of dynamics and stability. For more simplicity let us regard the border $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ as a differentiable as many times as needed. The research of billiards in polygons (without curvature) needs some peculiarities.

For high-quality research of phase portrait of the mappings and its local bifurcations normal Poincare forms are especially useful . In the symmetric approach the theory of normal billiard forms appears to be the most advanced. This is connected with the flexibility (a wider class of allowable variables) of reversible systems. Any changes of variables in Hamiltonian approach are to preserve the conservation character of the mapping with the Jacobian $`J=1`$ (canonical changes). Whereas the mapping (1) doesn’t demand it. It Jacobian $`J=f(z_1,z_2)/z_1>0`$ can take arbitrary values, $`0<J1;J1`$. As a weak limitation, the demand for the mapping (1) to preserve measure remains. This means that $`J=J(\stackrel{}{z})=\rho (\stackrel{}{z})/\rho (B(\stackrel{}{z}))`$, where $`\stackrel{}{z}=(z_1,z_2);B\stackrel{}{z}=(z_2,f(z_1,z_2))`$ should be true. The proof uses the equation of Frobenius–Perron for the density $`\rho `$ of invariant measure (see further) and the symmetry (2) for it, $`\rho (z_1,z_2)=\rho (z_2,z_1)`$. This limitation can always be met preserving the main property of involution $`ff=id`$ in new coordinates.

Omitting the details, let us present the expression for universal normal billiard form in symmetric coordinates. It is true in the neighbourhood of an arbitrary cycle of $`p`$order (periodic trajectory of $`p`$period)

$$NB^p:=\{\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}z_1^{}=\mu _{p1}z_1+\nu _{p1}z_2+z_1P(z_1z_2)& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ z_2^{}=\mu _pz_1+\nu _pz_2+z_2Q(z_1z_2)& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array},$$
(7)
where the coefficients of the linear part are defined by the expansion of “compositions” $`f_{p1}`$ and $`f_p`$ (see formula (3)) in the initial point neighbourhood of the cycle under consideration. They constitute the matrix of $`\widehat{L}`$ linear part. Its determinant is equal to one, $`det\widehat{L}=1`$, that agrees with conservation of measure and the condition $`J(C)=1`$ for every cycle $`C`$ of mapping (1). Homogeneous polynomials $`P,Q`$ (without absolute terms) define nonlinear additives. Their explicit form depends on the involution of billiard $`f`$, that is, on the form of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

The character of the cycle depends on the size of trace $`tr\widehat{L}`$. For an elliptic cycle $`\left|tr\widehat{L}\right|<2`$, for a hyperbolic one $`\left|tr\widehat{L}\right|>2`$. In the neutral case, for instance, for a billiard in a circle, $`tr\widehat{L}=2`$. It can be shown that for any cycle, corresponding to a periodic trajectory, passing through a concave section with concavity $`\widehat{K}(z_2)<0`$, $`tr\widehat{L}<2`$ will be true. That’s why the trajectories near such cycles always are unstable and exponentially diverge from one another. Near elliptic cycles, including 2-cycles, regions of regular motion form. With the loss of ellipticity they are ruined, first forming stochastic layers and then, when the latter are covered, a chaotic sea. In reality this mechanism looks much more complicated, for example, with an intermediate pass through Cantor-tori etc. Normal forms (7) let us trace typical properties of such bifurcations, taking place when the billiard border is deformed.

The diagonal $`\mathrm{\Delta }(z_1=z_2)`$ contains all fixed points of the billiard, $`B\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }`$. This follows from the diagonal property $`f(z,z)=z`$ of billiard involution, resulting from its coordinate expression (1). For a convex billiard in the neighbourhood of the phase space diagonal, normal form (7) can be reduced to the mapping of a turn, i.e. a particular case of a billiard in a circle. Here the structure of elliptic and hyperbolic cycles of arbitrary high order is shown. The motion stays regular. The appearing of negative curvature ruins this situation. There is no unified transformation (or the integral of motion) near the diagonal because of appearing breaks of billiard involution.

Analytic research of the symmetric phase space structure can be continued using geometric methods. Here the important advantages of the new approach are seen. In addition to regular and chaotic components of motion the phase portrait can contain regions of forbidden motion – “lacunas” $`L`$and regions of degenerated motion – “discriminants” $`D`$.

Lacunas (Fig.) appear in the billiards with regions of negative curvature. They occupy the phase space part, the points of which correspond to the rays lying outside of the billiard region $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The coordinates of these rays meet the condition $`\stackrel{}{r}(z_1)\stackrel{}{r}(z_2)\mathrm{\Omega }`$. This condition defines the inner region of lacuna $`L`$ in $`Z`$. The form of the lacuna is defined by its border $`L:=\{(z_1,z_2)Z|z_1=\lambda (z_2)\}`$. (Another parameterization is possible $`z_2=\lambda ^1(z_1)`$. In this case functions $`\lambda (z)`$ and $`\lambda ^1(z)`$ specify the same simple closed curve, but passable in different directions. When one its branch is higher than $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$and the other is lower, and vice versa.) The border $`L`$ comes to the diagonal $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ transversally and crosses it twice in the points with coordinates $`(z_0,z_0)`$, corresponding to the points of inflexion, $`\widehat{K}(z_0)=0`$.

The forbidden billiard rays (points of lacuna) lie in classically inaccessible region – geometric shade, generated by the regions $`\widehat{K}<0`$. The number of lacunas (on a torus $`Z=T^2`$ ) is equal to the number of negative curvature components $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Every lacuna is a simply connected set. The contrary would mean non-closed character of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. With the appearance of lacunas a part of diagonal $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is cut out. The corresponding fixed points disappear. For everywhere dispersive Sinai billiard, lacuna absorbs all the diagonal and the mapping (1) will lack all fixed points. At a special configuration of such a border $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ one can cut out cycles of higher order, $`p2`$.

In a topological way one can glue up the lacuna on the torus with a two-dimensional manifold. According to the rule of $`L`$ bypass, it can be only a piece of a projective plane. This is directly connected with the projectivity of the billiard. On a projective plane, metric conceptions “inside” and “outside” of a closed region lose their sense. (For example, a closed curve and a right line that doesn’t cross it on a plane may have common points after central projection onto the other plane.) That’s why “forbidden” rays turn out to be involved into the general billiard flow. Such global motion takes place on non-oriented manifold.

On the projective plane the initial involution $`f`$ also rules the motion of the rays. Almost every such ray (exceptional cases are of measure null) is continued to an ordinary billiard ray, further dynamics of which is known. As a result of further evolution, this ray after some time will return to the section of negative curvature $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, corresponding to the lacuna under consideration. This is specified by the mentioned hyperbolicity of cycles that contain points on the concave border. Being continued then to a classically inaccessible region (preserving the direction of motion), it would give a new position of the initial ray (phase point in the lacuna). A recurrent mapping appears. It is defines by one of the “compositions” $`f_k`$, included in the equation (3), the order $`k`$ always depending on the coordinates of the initial ray (the initial point of the lacuna). The lacuna plays the role of a secant for the Poincaré section of the billiard flow. Similar evolution also takes place with other points of all lacunas. Only phase trajectories of ordinary billiard rays remain in this case “visible”.

The condition of “connecting” for the inner rays, that are tangent to the concave region in the point $`\stackrel{}{r}(z_3)`$ and that cross $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in the points $`\stackrel{}{r}(z_1),\stackrel{}{r}(z_2)`$ outside of it, defines the border of the corresponding lacuna

$$(\stackrel{}{r}(z_1)\stackrel{}{r}(z_2),\stackrel{}{n}(z_3))=0;(z_1,z_2)Z|L;(z_1,z_3)L;(z_3,z_2)L;\widehat{K}(z_3)<0,$$
(8)
where $`(.,.)`$ is the scalar product of the vectors. Solving the equation (8) according to the theorem about an implicit function, we have $`z_1=\lambda _1(z_3);z_2=\lambda _2(z_3)`$. Excluding $`z_3`$, we come to the desired equation $`z_1=\lambda (z_2);\lambda =\lambda _1\lambda _2^1`$.

The discriminants $`D`$ correspond to the zone of “stuck-together” trajectories or “non-continuable” trajectories that cross special (corner) points of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. That’s why they appear in the billiards with straight regions of borders, $`\widehat{K}=0`$. Topologically the discriminants have a lacuna-like structure. Their border $`D`$ is defined by

$$(\stackrel{}{r}(z_1)\stackrel{}{r}(z_2),\stackrel{}{n}(z_2))=0;(z_1,z_2)Z|L;\widehat{K}(z_2)=0.$$
(9)
It also can have explicit form $`z_1=\mu (z_2)`$. The discriminants have regular shape – squares (Fig.) with a diagonal, which coincide with a part of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(z_1=z_2)`$ in the region corresponding to the straight-line component $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

Lacunas and discriminants make a principal property of a symmetric phase space. In fact, they are filled with the rays of the billiard that fell out of its ordinary dynamics. (At their passing it’s easy to show that the billiard involution $`f`$ breaks (on the first and the second arguments), the breaks being different from the factor of periodicity $`(mod\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})`$ and are not removed when passing to a torus, $`Z=I^2Z=T^2`$.) There are no such non-local elements in the phase space of Hamiltonian approach. At the same time, these formally hidden “topological” obstacles (Fig.) for the billiard flow to flow around, and the diagonal $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, on which they arise, play an important role in the chaotic dynamics and must be included into the full description.

5. Billiard Kinetics: Invariant Distributions

The geometry of phase space structural elements depends on the form of the border $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and (or) involution $`f`$. Let us show that in the symmetrical approach not only dynamics but also kinetics of the billiard is connected with these characteristics. The kinetics becomes apparent in the case of chaotic billiard, whose deterministic trajectories (unique groups of successive points of reflection) have all the properties of random sequences in the asymptotic limit of infinitely large number of reflections. That requires statistic description of (two-dimensional) dynamic system in the manner of deterministic chaos conception .

In the mixed dynamics of a typical billiard both integrable and ergodic (as a rule, with intermixing) types of motion are present. In this case, the general characteristic of the trajectories distribution in the billiard is the invariant measure of the dynamic system. Absolutely continuous distributions are of the greatest physical interest. It’s important for them to be individualized, i.e. depending on the geometry of a concrete billiard. That’s why universal measures like conserved Liouville volume (Birkhov measure  for all billiards) are of little use here. A symmetric measure with density $`\rho (z_1,z_2)=\rho (z_2,z_1)`$ already possesses this individuality.

From the operator equation $`B\rho =\rho `$ for an invariant measure after transformations using piece-wise monotony (5) we have

$$\rho (z_1,z_2)=\rho (z_2,z_1)=\rho (z_2,f(z_1,z_2))\left(\frac{f(z_1,z_2)}{z_1}\right)=\rho (z_2,f(z_1,z_2))J(z_1,z_2).$$
(10)
In some cases (integrable billiards) one can find its explicit solution. Geometrically, $`\rho `$ is a two-point density; it depends on the coordinates of two points on the border $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The topology of the direct product $`Z\mathrm{\Omega }\times \mathrm{\Omega }`$ causes one to choose a special factorized solution, $`\rho (z_1,z_2)=\omega (z_1)\omega (z_2)`$. Instead of the expression (10) we get a functional equation for one-point plane $`\omega (z)`$:

$$\omega (z)=\omega (f)J(z,z^{});f=f(z,z^{})\omega (z)dz=\omega (f)df,$$
(11)
written in total differentials. The factorization is coordinated with the symmetry of $`\rho `$ and preserves its normalization $`\omega =_0^1\omega (z)𝑑z=1`$.

The physical sense of $`\omega (z)`$ is an asymptotic plane of billiard flow reflection points (with coordinates $`\stackrel{}{r}(z)\mathrm{\Omega },zI`$). This is a truncate distribution in the sense that the dimension falls twice. It will be very useful in the description of physical characteristics in different billiard problems, for instance, the “probability” of ray escaping from a fixed place of resonator, wave-guide or detector. Besides, it is directly connected with the involution and geometry of the billiard. After integrating the differential relation (11) for $`\omega `$ we have

$$\left(\underset{z_0}{\overset{f}{}}\underset{z_1}{\overset{z_0}{}}\right)\omega (z)dz=C(z_2);f=f(z_1,z_2),$$
(12)
where $`z_0`$ is an arbitrary initial point on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$; $`C(z)`$ is the function to define. With different character of border $`\mathrm{\Omega }C(z)`$ has different forms. For everywhere convex billiard it’s one can just use the diagonal condition $`f(z,z)=z`$, so $`C(z)=2_{z_0}^z\omega (z^{})𝑑z^{}`$. In the general case the border $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_+\mathrm{\Omega }_{}\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ contains regions of positive, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_+`$, negative, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\_}`$, and zero, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, curvature. During the defining of $`C(z)`$ the solutions in symmetric “halves” of phase space over and under the diagonal $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, that is, in the involutionally connected regions with coordinates $`(z_1,z_2)`$ and $`(f(z_1,z_2),z_2)`$ are laced. In the presence of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\_}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ components connecting takes place on the borders of corresponding lacunas and discriminants. Summing it up, let us set the border $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, that divides different symmetric components of ordinary cascade $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (outside special zones)

$$(z_1,z_2)\mathrm{\Sigma }z_1=\mathrm{\Lambda }(z_2)=\{\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}z_2,(z_1,z_2)\mathrm{\Delta }& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \lambda (z_2),(z_1,z_2)L& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \mu (z_2),(z_1,z_2)D& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}$$
(13)
with known dependencies in the cases of lacunas and discriminants (see above). Let us note that in each half of the phase space $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)`$ is a multi-valued function (the number of branches doesn’t exceed the doubled number of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\_}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ components, but self-intersections and multiple connection $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are forbidden by the uniqueness of the flow. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)`$ is the functional of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$form. Connecting on the border $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ gives us

$$\left(\underset{z_0}{\overset{f(\mathrm{\Lambda }(z),z)}{}}\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)}{\overset{z_0}{}}\right)\omega (z^{})dz^{}=C(z)\left(\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }(z_2)}{\overset{f(z_1,z_2)}{}}\underset{z_1}{\overset{f(\mathrm{\Lambda }(z_2),z_2)}{}}\right)\omega (z)dz=0.$$
(14)
The dependence of the initial point $`z_0`$, as would be expected, falls out. The equation obtained lets one to restore billiard involution $`f`$ on the one-point billiard distribution function $`\omega `$and vice versa. At the same time both functions are connected with the equation of border $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ by the expressions (13) and (1). The billiard problem takes on a single meaning from dynamic, statistic and geometric points of view.

Direct solution for $`\omega `$ on $`f`$ can be obtained by differentiation of Eq.(11)

$$\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\omega (f)}{df}=\frac{^2f(z_1,z_2)\mathrm{/}z_1z_2}{f(z_1,z_2)\mathrm{/}z_1f(z_1,z_2)\mathrm{/}z_2}.$$
(15)
Having performed the change $`z_1f(z_1,z_2)`$ and using the relation $`ff=id`$ for calculating the derivatives, this equation for $`\omega `$ can be written as

$$\left[\mathrm{ln}\omega (z_1)\right]_{z_1}^{}=\frac{f_{z_1z_2}^{\prime \prime }}{f_{z_1}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}f_{z_2}^{}}+\frac{f_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{z_z^2}{}^{}}{f_{z_1}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}};f=f(z_1,z_2),$$
(16)
where strokes mark partial derivatives. The right part of the equation (16) shouldn’t depend on $`z_2`$. This limits, on the one hand, the type of involution (not every involution can be billiard, that corresponds to the stressed role of projective transformations), and, on the other hand, the choice of phase space variables, allowing factorization of two-point measure to one-point ones. Covariant changes, leading to “factorizing” coordinates, correspond to the choice of a certain frame and way of border $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ parameterization.

In the equations (10) and (16) the densities $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ are uniquely defined by the involution of billiard $`f`$. The latter is uniquely defined by the border $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$equation, according to the representation (2). The invariant measures of the billiard become its individual characteristics. In a chaotic billiard they acquire the character of equilibrium statistic distributions.

So, on the whole billiard analysis in symmetrical coordinates shows that its main characteristics are uniquely connected with one another

$$\mathrm{\Omega }f(z_1,z_2)\rho (z_1,z_2)\omega (z)f(z_1,z_2)\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(17)
where arrows indicate passing from one object to another.

One of the most designing and old problems of statistical physics is finding out the transition from the reversibility of deterministic motion equations to irreversibility of statistic ones, see for ex. . Generally accepted point of view is that irreversibility appears at roughening in the macroscopic description of the system on the kinetic stage of evolution and is connected with the fundamental principle of correlations unlinking. Here usually the problem of distribution functions calculation with given Hamiltonian (the equations of motion) is posed. In physical applications the inverse problem may also appear: to restore the dynamic law for a chaotic system (not necessarily of mechanic origin) with known statistic characteristics. It can be of special actuality for the system with a small number of freedom degrees.

Statistic irreversibility prevents the reverse of the “time arrow”, but doesn’t necessarily break the feedback of kinetic and dynamic. A remarkable peculiarity of the billiard is the possibility to solve direct as well as indirect problems. The form of the border $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ defines involution, on which the invariant measure is calculated. And vice versa: the involution (that is, the dynamic of the billiard) is restored from the one-point distribution of reflections on the border. The border of the billiard can be restored by its involution . By the way such closure is the consequence of geometric (projective) nature of the billiard.

6. Summary

In the conclusion let us note the characteristic properties of the symmetrical approach.

1. The symmetricity of the phase space. Equality of phase coordinates rights. Non-local character of the geometric elements involved into the dynamics.

2. Unification of billiards as reversible dynamic systems (mappings) with projective involution. Reversibility and projectivity of the billiard.

3. Geometric character of the phase space structure, taking into account billiard border properties (its diagonal, lacunas, discriminants). Universal character of symmetrical normal forms, describing the dynamics and local bifurcations in the neighbourhood of cycles and special zones of the billiard.

4. Individualization of invariant distributions defined by the form of the billiard. The reduction of the measure (one-point factorization) without loss of statistic description. The division of quick and slow variables is not necessary.

5. The unity of dynamics, kinetics and geometry of the billiard. The solution of direct and indirect problems on the restoration of involution, invariant measure and the form of the border.

Symmetric approach allows direct generalization on the multiply connected, multi-dimensional and other cases of different billiard border topology. The peculiarities named preserve here their key role.

Acknowledgment

The authors feel great pleasure to express their deep gratitude to S.V. Peletminsky and to Yu.L. Bolotin for the attention paid to this paper.

References

 G.D. Birkhov, Dynamical Systems, (American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rode Island, 1927).

 N.S. Krylov, Works on the Foundation on Statistical Physics, (English translation: Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1979).

 Ya.G. Sinai, Dynamical systems with elastic reflections, Russ. Math. Serv. 25, 137 (1970); L.A. Bunimovich, On ergodic properties of some billiards, Funct. Anal. Appl. 8, 73 (1974).

 Proc. of the Intern. Conf. on Classical and Quantum Billiards, J. Stat. Phys. 83, No. 1-2 (1996).

 V.F. Lazutkin, KAM Theory and Semiclassical Approximations to Eigenfunctions, (Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg, 1993); M.G. Gutzwiller, Chaos in Classical and Quantum mechanics, (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1990).

 C.M. Marcus, A.J. Rimberg et al, Conductance fluctuations and chaotic scattering in ballistic microstructures. Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 506 (1992); C. Ellegaard, T. Ghur et al, Spectral statistics of acoustic resonances in aluminum blocs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1546 (1995); H. Alt, H.D. Graf et al, Chaotic dynamics in a three-dimensional superconductiving microwave billiard, Phys.Rev. E 54, 2303 (1996); J.U. Nocel, A.D. Stone, Ray and wave chaos in assymmetric resonant optical cavities, Nature 385, 45 (1997); and others.

 S.V. Naydenov, V.V. Yanovsky, The geometric-dynamic approach to billiard systems. I.- II., Theor. and Math. Phys. 127, # 1, 500-512 (2001) \[English edition\]; 128, 116 (2001) \[Russian edition\].

 V.I. Arnold, Dopolnitelnye Glavy Teorii Obyknovennych Differenzcialnych uravnenii, (Moskva, Nauka, 1978) \[in Russian\].

 H.G. Shuster, Deterministic Chaos (Springer, Heidelberg, 1982).

 A.I. Akhiezer, S.V. Peletminsky, Metody Statisticheskoy Fiziki, (Moskva, Nauka, 1977) \[in Russian\].

Figure

The geometry of a billiard and the schematic form of typical billiard symmetric phase space. Elliptic zones of regular motion $`R`$, a chaotic region $`C`$, the diagonal $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, lacunas $`L`$ and discriminants $`D`$.


format: text

text:
# On the Møller Energy-Momentum Complex of the Melvin Magnetic Universe

## Introduction

The subject of energy-momentum localization in general relativity continues to be an open one because there is no given yet a generally accepted expression for the energy-momentum density. Even they are coordinate dependent, various energy-momentum complexes give the same energy distribution for a given space-time.

Aguirregabiria, Chamorro and Virbhadra  obtained that the energy-momentum complexes of Einstein , Landau and Lifshitz , Papapetrou , and Weinberg  give the same result for the energy distribution for any Kerr–Schild metric. Also, recently, Virbhadra investigated  if these definitions lead to the same result for the most general nonstatic spherically symmetric metric and found they disagree. Only the energy-momentum complex of Einstein gives the same expression for the energy when the calculations are performed in the Kerr–Schild Cartesian and Schwarzschild Cartesian coordinates. The Møller energy-momentum complex allows to compute the energy in any coordinate system.

Some results recently obtained - sustain that the Møller energy-momentum complex is a good tool for obtaining the energy distribution in a given space-time. Also, in his recent paper, Lessner  gave his opinion that the Møller definition is a powerful concept of energy and momentum in general relativity. Very important is the Cooperstock  hypothesis which states that the energy and momentum are confined to the regions of non-vanishing energy-momentum tensor of the matter and all non-gravitational fields. Also, Chang, Nester and Chen  showed that the energy-momentum complexes are actually quasilocal and legitimate expression for the energy-momentum.

In this paper we calculate the energy distribution of the Melvin magnetic universe in the Møller prescription. We use geometrized units ($`G=1,c=1`$) and follow the convention that Latin indices run from 0 to 3.

## Energy in the Møller Prescription

The Melvin magnetic universe ,  is described by the electrovac solution to the Einstein–Maxwell equations and consists in a collection of parallel magnetic lines of forces in equilibrium under their mutual gravitational attraction. The Einstein–Maxwell equations are

$$R_i^k\frac{1}{2}g_i^kR=8\pi T_i^k,$$
(1)
$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\left(\sqrt{g}F^{ik}\right)_{,k}=4\pi J^i,$$
(2)
$$F_{ij,k}+F_{jk,i}+F_{ki,j}=0.$$
(3)
The energy-momentum tensor of the electromagnetic field is given by

$$T_i^k=\frac{1}{4\pi }\left[F_{im}F^{km}+\frac{1}{4}g_i^kF_{mn}F^{mn}\right].$$
(4)
The electrovac solution corresponds to $`J^i=0`$ and is given by the metric

$$ds^2=L^2(dt^2dr^2r^2d\theta ^2)L^2r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2,$$
(5)
where

$$L=1+\frac{1}{4}B_0^2r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta .$$
(6)
The Cartan components of the magnetic field are

$$\begin{array}{c}H_r=L^2B_0\mathrm{cos}\theta ,\hfill \\ H_\theta =L^2B_0\mathrm{sin}\theta .\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
$`B_0`$ is the magnetic field parameter and is a constant in the solution given by (5) and (6).

The energy-momentum tensor has the non-vanishing components

$$\begin{array}{c}T_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}}=T_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}=\frac{B_0^2(12\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )}{8\pi L^4},\hfill \\ T_0^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}}=T_3^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}}=\frac{B_0^2}{8\pi L^4},\hfill \\ T_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}}=T_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}=\frac{2B_0^2\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta }{8\pi L^4}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
The Møller energy-momentum complex $`M_i^k`$  is given by

$$M_i^k=\frac{1}{8\pi }\chi _{i,l}^{kl},$$
(9)
where

$$\chi _i^{kl}=\chi _i^{lk}=\sqrt{g}\left(\frac{g_{in}}{x^m}\frac{g_{im}}{x^n}\right)g^{km}g^{nl}.$$
(10)
Also, $`M_i^k`$ satisfies the local conservations laws

$$\frac{M_i^k}{x^k}=0.$$
(11)
$`M_0^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.17em}0}}`$ is the energy density and $`M_\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.17em}0}}`$ are the momentum density components.

The energy and momentum are given by

$$E=M_0^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}}𝑑x^1𝑑x^2𝑑x^3=\frac{1}{8\pi }\frac{\chi _0^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}l}}{x^l}𝑑x^1𝑑x^2𝑑x^3.$$
(12)
For the Melvin magnetic universe we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}\chi _0^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}01}}=\frac{B_0^2r^3\mathrm{sin}^3\theta }{(1+1/4B_0^2r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )},\hfill \\ \chi _0^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}02}}=\frac{B_0^2r^2\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{(1+1/4B_0^2r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
After some calculations, applying the Gauss theorem and plugging (13) into (12) we obtain the energy distribution

$$E(r)=\frac{1}{3}B_0^2r^3\frac{1}{15}B_0^4r^5+\frac{1}{70}B_0^6r^7.$$
(14)
Put the $`G`$ and $`c`$ at their places we get

$$E(r)=\frac{1}{3}B_0^2r^3\frac{1}{15}\frac{G}{c^4}B_0^4r^5+\frac{1}{70}\frac{G^2}{c^8}B_0^6r^7.$$
(15)
The first term represents twice of the classical value of energy  obtained in the Landau and Lifshitz and Papapetrou prescriptions. The other terms are due to the relativistic correction.

## Discussion

Many results recently obtained sustain the viewpoint of Bondi . He gave his opinion that a nonlocalizable form of energy is not admissible in relativity.

We obtain the energy distribution of the Melvin magnetic universe using the energy-momentum complex of Møller. The energy depends on the magnetic field. The result is different as that obtained by Xulu  using the energy-momentum complexes of Landau and Lifshitz and those of Papapetrou. The first term represents twice of the classical value of energy  obtained in the Landau and Lifshitz and Papapetrou prescriptions. The third term, that is due to the relativistic correction, is twice of value of energy obtained in . Also, the Møller energy-momentum complex does not need to carry out calculations in any particular coordinates.

## 1 Acknowledgments

I. -C. Yang thanks the National Science Council of the Republic of China for financial support under the contract number NSC 90-2112-M-143-003.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Accurate modeling and simulation of turbulent flow is a topic of intense ongoing research. Two main approaches are identified, differing by the amount of detail that is included in the physical and numerical description. Direct numerical simulation (DNS) aims to calculate the full, unsteady solution to the governing Navier-Stokes equations. While accurate in principle, DNS is severely restricted by limitations in spatial resolution. This situation summons alternative simulation approaches that are aimed at capturing the primary features of the flow above a certain length-scale only. A prominent example of this is the large-eddy simulation (LES) strategy in which a smoothing of the flow features and a corresponding reduction in the flow complexity is introduced by spatial filtering, at the expense of introducing a ‘subgrid’ closure problem.

We consider so-called Leray regularization of the convective contributions \[100leray\] . This gives rise to a subgrid parameterization which involves both explicit filtering and (approximate) inversion. The Leray model also arises from the $`\alpha `$-modeling strategy derived via Kelvin’s circulation theorem \[100geurtsholm2002a\] . We study the dynamics associated with the Leray model in a turbulent mixing layer and compare predictions with filtered DNS results and findings due to dynamic (mixed) models \[100vreman\_jfm\] . In particular, the kinetic energy, momentum thickness and energy-spectra are analyzed, establishing favorable performance of the Leray model and robustness at arbitrarily high Reynolds number. This is unique for a similarity-type model that does not contain an explicit eddy-viscosity term.

We provide the basic Leray formulation in section 2 together with the numerical inversion of the filter. Application to turbulent mixing is presented in section 3 and concluding remarks are collected in section 4 .

## 2 Basic Leray formulation

In the filtering approach the evolution of the filtered solution $`\{\overline{u}_i,\overline{p}\}`$ is governed by the spatially smoothed Navier-Stokes equations. Filtering the nonlinear terms gives rise to the turbulent stress tensor $`\tau _{ij}=\overline{u_iu_j}\overline{u}_i\overline{u}_j`$. Here $`\overline{u}_i=L(u_i)`$ is the filtered velocity field in the $`x_i`$ direction, with $`L`$ denoting the linear filtering operation which we assume to have a (formal or approximate) inversion $`L^1`$. Likewise, $`\overline{p}=L(p)`$ is the filtered pressure. Expressing $`\tau _{ij}`$ in terms of the filtered velocity is the basic closure problem in LES.

Leray regularization provides an intuitively appealing method for modeling $`\tau _{ij}`$. In this formulation the convective fluxes are replaced by $`\overline{u}_j_ju_i`$, i.e., the solution $`𝐮`$ is convected with a smoothed velocity $`\overline{𝐮}`$. Consequently, the nonlinear effects are reduced by an amount governed by the smoothing properties of $`L`$. For commuting filters $`L`$ the governing equations in the Leray formulation can be written as

$$_ju_j=_j\overline{u}_j=0;_tu_i+\overline{u}_j_ju_i+_ip\frac{1}{Re}_{jj}u_i=0$$
(1)
Uniqueness and regularity of the solution to these equations have been established rigorously \[100leray\] . The Leray formulation contains the unfiltered Navier-Stokes equations as a limiting case. The unfiltered solution can readily be eliminated, giving rise to a closed formulation for $`\{\overline{u}_i,\overline{p}\}`$:

$$_t\overline{u}_i+_j(\overline{u}_j\overline{u}_i)+_i\overline{p}\frac{1}{Re}_{jj}\overline{u}_i+_jm_{ij}^L=0$$
(2)
where the asymmetric, filtered similarity-type Leray model $`m_{ij}^L`$ arises:

$$m_{ij}^L=L\left(\overline{u}_jL^1(\overline{u}_i)\right)\overline{u}_j\overline{u}_i$$
(3)
In LES, one commonly adopts compact support filters with filter-kernel $`G`$. In one spatial dimension such filtering can be expressed as

$$\overline{u}(x)=L(u)=_{\mathrm{\Delta }/2}^{\mathrm{\Delta }/2}G(z)u(x+z)𝑑z$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the filter-width. In actual simulations the resolved fields are known only at a set of grid points $`\{x_m\}_{m=0}^N`$. Numerical filtering corresponds to kernels

$$G(z)=a_j\delta (zz_j);|z_j|\mathrm{\Delta }/2$$
(5)
We consider three-point filters with $`a_0=1\alpha `$, $`a_1=a_1=\alpha /2`$ and $`z_0=0`$, $`z_1=z_1=\mathrm{\Delta }/2`$. In addition, we use $`\alpha =1/3`$ which corresponds to Simpson quadrature of the top-hat filter. The application of $`L^1`$ to a general discrete solution $`\{u(x_m)\}`$ can be specified using discrete Fourier transformation as \[100kgvg99\]

$$L^1(u_m)=\underset{j=n}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\frac{\alpha 1+\sqrt{12\alpha }}{\alpha }\right)^{|j|}(12\alpha )^{1/2}u_{m+rj/2}$$
(6)
where the subgrid resolution $`r=\mathrm{\Delta }/h`$ (with $`h`$ the grid-spacing) is assumed to be even. An accurate and efficient inversion can be obtained with only a few terms, recovering the original signal to within machine accuracy. At fixed $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, variation of the subgrid resolution $`r`$ allows an independent control over flow-smoothing and numerical representation \[100geurtsfroehlich2002\] .

## 3 Shear layers at arbitrary Reynolds number

The turbulent mixing layer \[100vreman\_jfm\] is simulated in a volume $`L^3`$ at various $`Re`$. At a modest $`Re=50`$, an assessment of the quality of Leray modeling is obtained by comparing with filtered DNS data and dynamic models. Moreover, we consider this flow at high $`Re`$, adopting a fourth order accurate spatial discretization.

Visualization of the DNS, obtained on $`192^3`$ cells, demonstrates a well developed flow beyond $`t=40`$. In Fig. 1 (a) the evolution of the momentum thickness shows Leray predictions to compare well with filtered DNS data and with dynamic (mixed) models at $`32^3`$. This is improved using $`64^3`$ points. In Fig. 1 (b) the streamwise kinetic energy spectrum at $`t=75`$ on $`32^3`$ shows improved capturing of the large and intermediate scales, compared to dynamic models. The dissipation of the smaller scales is significantly improved on $`64^3`$. The Leray model shows both forward and backward scattering of energy \[100geurtsholm2002a\] .

A particularly appealing property of Leray modeling is the robustness at very high and even infinite Reynolds number, cf. Fig. 2 (a,b). Although comparison with filtered DNS data is impossible, we observed that the smoothed flow dynamics is properly captured and a nearly grid-independent solution is obtained as $`r=\mathrm{\Delta }/h4`$ \[100geurtsfroehlich2002\] . The kinetic energy is likely to be slightly over-predicted. At high $`Re`$ the spectrum displays a region with $`k^{5/3}`$ behavior.

## 4 Concluding remarks

The Leray model was found to predict the momentum thickness properly while exhibiting both forward and backward transfer of energy. Further analysis shows reliable levels of turbulence intensities and correct behavior of kinetic energy. The Leray model has a tendency to underestimate dissipation. The computational overhead associated with the Leray model is lower than that of dynamic (mixed) models and no introduction of ad hoc parameters is required. The regularized dynamics shows an appealing robustness at high $`Re`$.

\[ this page is intentionally left blank \]


text:
# Clash of symmetries on the brane

## I Introduction

The notion of symmetry lies at the base of modern particle theory, as exemplified by the standard model. Some symmetries, such as electromagnetic gauge invariance, are manifest: the zero-temperature vacuum state and all material systems except for superconductors exhibit the symmetry in an explicit fashion. The Glashow-Weinberg-Salam SU(2)$`{}_{L}{}^{}`$U(1)Y electroweak symmetry, on the other hand, is spontaneously broken: the symmetry of the Lagrangian is not shared by the vacuum state. In the standard model, the self-interactions of elementary Higgs bosons are responsible for making the vacuum asymmetric.

A common opinion is that spontaneous symmetry breaking via Higgs bosons is not completely satisfactory, because of the proliferation of parameters it brings. In the standard model these are predominantly Yukawa coupling constants, while in extended theories parameters in the Higgs potential can also abound. Hierarchies in a priori arbitrary parameter values can also be seen as troubling. For these reasons, and as an end in itself, a search for new ways of breaking symmetries is well motivated.

The purpose of this work is not to do away with elementary Higgs fields, but rather to show how they can induce more symmetry breakdown than allowed by conventional theory. The scope of the paper is to illustrate the basic idea through a non-trivial toy model, and then to discuss possible future developments (especially a connection with $`E_6`$).

In a conventional theory such as the standard model, the Higgs field configuration is assumed to be spatially homogeneous, with a vacuum expectation value derived by minimising the Higgs potential. However, it is well known that completely stable solitonic configurations can also exist if the vacuum manifold has the appropriate topology . Although such configurations have higher energy than the vacuum state, their topological stability allows their use as a background field. In this work, we will use domain wall configurations associated with spontaneously broken discrete symmetries. We will show how the symmetry group at the centre of a domain wall can be smaller than what you get with a homogeneous vacuum configuration, through a phenomenon we term the “clash of symmetries”. It arises when the symmetry group $`H`$ of the vacuum manifold can be embedded in several ways within the parent group $`G`$. The enhanced symmetry breakdown is caused by the clash of the different internal orientations of $`H`$ within $`G`$. We will use the $`I`$, $`U`$ and $`V`$spin U(2) subgroups of U(3) in our toy model.

There is no observational evidence for a domain wall Higgs background of the conventional type in our $`3+1`$-dimensional universe . To use the clash of symmetries for realistic model building, we will therefore ultimately have to identify our universe as a submanifold of a higher dimensional space . If the submanifold is infinitely thin in the extra dimensions, then it is commonly called a “brane”, with its complement termed the “bulk”. We will identify our universe with the centre of a domain wall configuration dynamically induced by Higgs fields which exist in the bulk. The symmetry group at the centre of the wall is then the symmetry group of our universe. By taking the appropriate limit, the domain wall can be made infinitely thin – our universe becomes a brane. Actually, in our toy model the most theoretically appealing configuration will be a junction of three semi-infinite walls separated from each other by angles of $`2\pi /3`$. In this case, it seems most natural to identify our (toy!) universe with the three-way intersection point, the nexus. We will call this the “three-star configuration”.Although our toy model will not incorporate gravity, it is reassuring to note that gravity can be localised to such a brane junction in the Randall-Sundrum scenario, provided a single fine-tuning between the cosmological constant and brane tensions is satisfied .

The proposal that we live in a domain wall was made long ago . In recent times, the study of branes and/or submanifolds has become a major activity. Motivations include string theory, Regge-Teitelbaum gravity and the hierarchy problem . It is interesting that our motivation to consider brane physics is the independent argument presented above. Combining the clash of symmetries idea with other brane-world ideas may be a fruitful direction for future work.

Working independently and with a completely different motivation, Pogosian and Vachaspati recently discovered a class of SU($`N`$)$`Z_2`$ Higgs-adjoint kinks featuring the clash of symmetries idea . They consider an SU($`N`$)-adjoint Higgs field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, with Higgs potential

$$V\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\right)=m^2\mathrm{tr}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^2\right)+\gamma \mathrm{tr}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^3\right)+\lambda _1\mathrm{tr}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^4\right)+\lambda _2\left[\mathrm{tr}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^2\right)\right]^2.$$
(1)
In the absence of the cubic term ($`\gamma =0`$), there is a $`Z_2`$ phase symmetry, $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }`$, which is outside SU($`N`$) for odd $`N5`$. For example, in the region of Higgs-parameter space where SU(5) breaks to SU(3)$``$SU(2)$``$U(1), the authors find domain wall solutions, for which the clash of symmetries results in additional symmetry breaking to SU(2)$`{}_{}{}^{2}`$U(1)2.It is interesting to note that stable wall structures can exist even if a discrete symmetry is explicitly broken . This can apply for wall configurations having an everywhere non-vanishing Higgs field, a condition satisfied by the cases of interest in this paper.

In this context, quite different from the brane-world motivation, our paper will present another example of this type of kink configuration, within a U(3)$``$S3 three-Higgs-triplet model. The S3 symmetry is a permutation symmetry acting on the three Higgs triplets. Like Pogosian and Vachaspati, we impose the discrete symmetry by hand, by restricting terms that may appear in the Higgs potential. We, however, utilise a permutation rather than phase discrete symmetry because it can be easily generalised to other groups and other Higgs representations. This is a significant difference from the Pogosian-Vachaspati scenario, and for an SU(3) model seems to be a necessary ingredient.§§§It turns out that the exact SU(3) analogue of the Pogosian-Vachaspati kink does not exist because of an accidental SO(8) symmetry. The threefold structure of our vacuum manifold will lead us to construct the three-star wall-junction configuration mentioned above, an exercise that is also of intrinsic technical interest .

The rest of the paper is structured as follows. In the next section, we introduce the toy model and discuss its one-dimensional kink configurations. Section III is devoted to the three-star configuration. We describe a possible connection with $`E_6`$ in Section IV. Conclusions and future directions are aired in Section V. The Appendix establishes that the domain walls exhibiting the clash of symmetries will be globally stable in a region of parameter space.

## II Toy model and its one-dimensional kink solutions

### A The Higgs potential and the vacuum manifold

Consider a model with three Higgs triplets $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{1,2,3}`$ interacting through the potential

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`m^2(\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_1+\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_2+\mathrm{\Phi }_3^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_3)+\kappa (\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_1+\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_2+\mathrm{\Phi }_3^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_3)^2`$ (2)
$`+`$ $`\lambda _1(\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_2+\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_2\mathrm{\Phi }_3^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_3+\mathrm{\Phi }_3^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_3\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_1)`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`\lambda _2(\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_2\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_1+\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_3\mathrm{\Phi }_3^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_2+\mathrm{\Phi }_3^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_3).`$ (4)
The symmetry group of this potential is

$$G=G_{\text{cts}}G_{\text{discrete}}=\text{SU}(3)\text{U}(1)_1\text{U}(1)_2\text{U}(1)_3\text{S}_3,$$
(5)
where the U(1)’s are individual overall phase symmetries for the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$’s. The diagonal subgroup of the U(1)’s can be merged with SU(3) to form U(3), so $`G_{\text{cts}}=\text{U}(3)\text{U}(1)^2`$ also. The role of the discrete permutation symmetry S3 is to provide topological stability for domain wall configurations. The $`\lambda _2`$ term ensures that the continuous symmetry has a common SU(3) for all three multiplets, and the sign of $`\lambda _2`$ will cause kinks displaying the clash of symmetries (“asymmetric kinks”) to have a different energy from those that do not (“symmetric kinks”). We show below that the asymmetric kink has lower energy if $`\lambda _2>0`$, while the symmetric kink has lower energy if $`\lambda _2<0`$.

The U(1) phase symmetries are not germane to our analysis. The potential in Eq. (4) was chosen purely for simplicity. By including terms such as $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_2+\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_3+\mathrm{\Phi }_3^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_1+\text{H.c.}`$, the symmetry group can be reduced to the more elegant U(3)$``$S3. Inclusion of such terms would change the details of our analysis but not its spirit.

To simplify the exposition, we set $`\kappa =1`$ in Eq. (4) by rescaling the field and spacetime coordinates and measure all mass-dimension quantities in units of $`|m|`$, which is equivalent to setting $`m^2=1`$.

A straightforward analysis shows that there exist three degenerate global minima of the form

$`\text{Vacuum I}:`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_2=\mathrm{\Phi }_3^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_3=0,`$ (6)
$`\text{Vacuum II}:`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_1=\mathrm{\Phi }_3^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_3=0,`$ (7)
$`\text{Vacuum III}:`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_3^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_1=\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_2=0,`$ (8)
for the parameter region

$$\lambda _1>0,\lambda _1+\lambda _2>0.$$
(9)
(Positivity of the potential requires the weaker conditions $`\lambda _1>3`$ and $`\lambda _1+\lambda _2>3`$.) Each global minimum of Eqs. (68) induces the spontaneous breakdowns

$`\text{S}_3`$ $``$ $`\text{S}_2\text{Z}_2,`$ (10)
$`\text{U}(3)\text{U}(1)^2`$ $``$ $`\text{U}(2)\text{U}(1)^2.`$ (11)
At the level of global vacuum configurations, a $`G_{\text{cts}}`$ transformation can always be used to bring the nonzero $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ into the form $`(1/\sqrt{2},0,0)^T`$. If this is done, then the unbroken U(2) and S2 subgroups act on the second and third entries of the triplets. The vacuum manifold consists of three disconnected pieces labelled I-III in Eqs. (68), with each piece being the set of all $`G_{\text{cts}}`$ transforms of $`(1/\sqrt{2},0,0)^T`$ for the non-vanishing $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$.

### B Clash of symmetries

A kink or one-dimensional domain wall configuration interpolates between elements of I and II, or II and III, or I and III, with the vacuum states reached at spatial infinity, $`z=\pm \mathrm{}`$. (We will call $`z`$ the coordinate perpendicular to the wall. For the purposes of the following mathematics, it does not matter how many additional spatial directions exist.) For the sake of the example, focus on I $``$ II kinks. Let us use our SU(3) freedom to set the vacuum I state at $`z=\mathrm{}`$ to be

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1=(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}},0,0)^T,\mathrm{\Phi }_2=(0,0,0)^T,\mathrm{\Phi }_3=(0,0,0)^T.$$
(12)
The unbroken symmetry there is clearly U(2)$`_\text{I}`$, where U(2)$`_{\text{I},\text{II},\text{III}}`$ is defined to act on the $`(23,31,12)`$ entries of the triplets.In the old days these were called $`V`$-spin, $`U`$-spin and $`I`$-spin. A priori, the vacuum II state at $`z=+\mathrm{}`$ can be any element of piece II of the vacuum manifold. While all such kinks are in the same topological class, they are energetically distinguished by the $`\lambda _2`$ term in $`V`$. Only the lowest energy member of the class is guaranteed topological stability (see below).

The extreme cases are given by the symmetric kink for which

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(\mathrm{})=({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}},0,0)^T,\mathrm{\Phi }_2(\mathrm{})=(0,0,0)^T,`$ (13)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(+\mathrm{})=(0,0,0)^T,\mathrm{\Phi }_2(+\mathrm{})=({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}},0,0)^T,`$ (14)
and by the asymmetric kink for which

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(\mathrm{})=({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}},0,0)^T,\mathrm{\Phi }_2(\mathrm{})=(0,0,0)^T,`$ (15)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(+\mathrm{})=(0,0,0)^T,\mathrm{\Phi }_2(+\mathrm{})=(0,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}},0)^T,`$ (16)
with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_3(z)=0`$ for both cases.

The basic clash of symmetries phenomenon is displayed by the asymmetric kink. The symmetric kink has U(2)$`_\text{I}`$ unbroken for all $`z`$. For the asymmetric kink, the $`z=\mathrm{}`$ symmetry is U(2)$`_\text{I}`$ while the $`z=+\mathrm{}`$ symmetry is the different group U(2)$`_{\text{II}}`$. At all $`z`$ in between, the symmetry is reduced to

$$H_{\text{I}\text{II}}=\text{U}(2)_\text{I}\text{U}(2)_{\text{II}}=\text{U}(1)_{\text{III}},$$
(17)
where U(1)$`_{\text{III}}`$ multiplies the third entry of each $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ by the same phase. \[The groups U(1)$`_{\text{I,II}}`$ are similarly defined through cyclic permutations of the subscripts, and all three should not be confused with U(1)1,2,3.\] Because the symmetry groups at $`z=\pm \mathrm{}`$ have two additional U(1) factors given our simplified Higgs potential, the unbroken symmetry for $`|z|<\mathrm{}`$ is actually U(1)$`_{\text{III}}`$$``$U(1)2. The extra generators are easily determined, and we will not display them.

### C Kink profiles

To derive the kink profiles, one solves for static $`z`$-dependent solutions to the Euler-Lagrange equations. Adopting the ansatz

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1=(\varphi _1,0,0)^T,\mathrm{\Phi }_2=(0,\varphi _2,0)^T,\mathrm{\Phi }_3=(0,0,\varphi _3)^T,$$
(18)
with $`\varphi _1`$, $`\varphi _2`$ and $`\varphi _3`$ *real*, the equations for the asymmetric kinks are

$$\varphi _1^{\prime \prime }=\varphi _1[1+2\varphi _1^2+(2+\lambda _1)(\varphi _2^2+\varphi _3^2)]\text{and cyclic permutations},$$
(19)
where the prime denotes differentiation with respect to $`z`$. We justify the ansatz of Eq. (18) in Appendix A, where we shall see that it is both necessary and sufficient to obtain stable domain wall configurations.

Returning to our I $``$ II example, we set $`\varphi _3=0`$, and rewrite the two remaining equations in terms of

$$S\varphi _1+\varphi _2,A\varphi _1\varphi _2$$
(20)
to obtain

$`S^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`S+(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1}{4}})S^3+(1{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1}{4}})SA^2,`$ (21)
$`A^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`A+(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1}{4}})A^3+(1{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1}{4}})AS^2.`$ (22)
Notice that the value of $`\lambda _2`$ has no effect on the asymmetric kink profile.

The special parameter point $`\lambda _1=4`$ sees the equations decouple. The solutions with the correct boundary conditions are then simply

$`S(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}},`$ (23)
$`A(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{z}{\sqrt{2}}},`$ (24)
or, equivalently,

$`\varphi _1(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}\left(1\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{z}{\sqrt{2}}}\right),`$ (25)
$`\varphi _2(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}\left(1+\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{z}{\sqrt{2}}}\right).`$ (26)
The hyperbolic tangent function is the archetypal kink profile because it is analytically simple. If $`\lambda _14`$, then kink solutions still exist but can usually be found numerically only (there is another analytic solution describing a stable kink for $`\lambda _1=\mathrm{}`$ which we discuss below). A feature of the hyperbolic tangent solution is that $`\varphi _{1,2}(z)+\varphi _{1,2}(z)=1/\sqrt{2}`$.

The brane limit corresponds to the wall being infinitely thin. To access it, the mass parameter $`|m|`$ must be reinstated and taken to infinity ($`z`$ becomes $`|m|z`$). In this limit

$$\varphi _1(|m|z)\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(z)}{\sqrt{2}},\varphi _2(|m|z)\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(+z)}{\sqrt{2}},$$
(27)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the Heaviside function. The function $`(1+\mathrm{tanh}|m|z)/2`$ is a “regularisation” of $`\mathrm{\Theta }(z)`$.

One can push the analysis a little further by using perturbation theory. Let $`ϵ\lambda _14`$ be a small expansion parameter. Writing

$`S(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}+ϵ\delta S(z),`$ (28)
$`A(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{z}{\sqrt{2}}}+ϵ\delta A(z),`$ (29)
substituting in Eqs. (21) and (22), equating terms $`O(ϵ)`$, and solving the resulting equations subject to the boundary conditions, we find that

$`\delta S(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\sqrt{2}}}\left[\sqrt{2}z\mathrm{sinh}\sqrt{2}z2\mathrm{cosh}\sqrt{2}z\mathrm{ln}\left(2\mathrm{cosh}{\displaystyle \frac{z}{\sqrt{2}}}\right)+1\right],`$ (30)
$`\delta A(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{z}{32}}\left(\mathrm{tanh}^2{\displaystyle \frac{z}{\sqrt{2}}}1\right).`$ (31)
These results give a taste for how the profiles change when one is away from the special point but in its neighbourhood. Note that $`\varphi _{1,2}(z)+\varphi _{1,2}(z)=1/\sqrt{2}`$ no longer holds. Examples of kink solutions are exhibited in Figs. 1, 2 and 3 for $`\lambda _1=`$ $`0.1`$, $`4`$ and $`100`$, respectively. We have confirmed that the perturbative results describe the curves well for sufficiently small $`ϵ`$.

We next calculate the energy per unit area $`\sigma `$ of the wall, which is given by

$$\sigma =_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑z\left[(\varphi _1^{})^2+(\varphi _2^{})^2+V(\varphi _1,\varphi _2)+\frac{1}{4}\right],$$
(32)
where the $`1/4`$ subtracts off the zero point energy. At the special parameter point $`\lambda _1=4`$, one obtains

$$\sigma =\frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}.$$
(33)
In Appendix B we use this result to show that the solution exhibited in Eqs. (25) and (26) is globally stable. For other parameter values, the energy can be computed numerically, as displayed in Fig. 4.

As mentioned above, there is a second analytic solution valid for all $`\lambda _1`$,

$$\varphi _2(z)=\{\begin{array}{cc}(1/\sqrt{2})\mathrm{tanh}z/\sqrt{2}& \mathrm{for}z>0,\\ 0& \mathrm{for}z<0,\end{array}$$
(34)
with $`\varphi _1(z)=\varphi _2(z)`$. This solution has energy per unit area $`\sigma =2\sqrt{2}/3`$ and though perturbatively unstable for all finite $`\lambda _1`$, it is stable in the $`\lambda _1\mathrm{}`$ limit. This means that $`2\sqrt{2}/3`$ provides an analytic upper bound on $`\sigma `$ for all values of $`\lambda _1`$ and, in particular, establishes the existence of finite-energy solutions.

It is apparent from Fig. 4 that $`\sigma `$ is monotonically increasing with $`\lambda _1`$. We now establish this result analytically. Consider a certain value of $`\lambda _1>0`$, for which the kink solution is $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1=(\varphi _1,0,0)^T`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2=(0,\varphi _2,0)^T`$. The $`\lambda _1`$ term in $`V`$ is then simply $`\lambda _1\varphi _1^2\varphi _2^2`$, which is non-negative for all $`z`$. Therefore if we reduce the value of $`\lambda _1`$, the same configuration (which now no longer solves the Euler-Lagrange equations) has lower energy per unit area. But the true solution by definition solves the Euler-Lagrange equations, so it necessarily has an even lower energy, energy and action minimisation being equivalent for static configurations.

With these results in hand, we may compare the asymmetric kinks with their symmetric cousins. To do that, we simply change the ansatz by moving $`\varphi _2`$ from the second to the first entry in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$. The Euler-Lagrange equations are the same as Eq. (19), save for the substitution

$$\lambda _1\lambda _1+\lambda _2.$$
(35)
The solutions look very similar, except that the special “hyperbolic tangent point” is now $`\lambda _1+\lambda _2=4`$.

So, for given values of $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ obeying Eq. (9) there are both asymmetric and symmetric kink solutions. Which one is energetically favoured and therefore stable? We immediately observe that it depends simply on which of $`\lambda _1`$ or $`\lambda _1+\lambda _2`$ is larger, i.e. on the sign of $`\lambda _2`$. The clash of symmetries is energetically favoured if $`\lambda _2>0`$ and energetically disfavoured if $`\lambda _2<0`$.

## III Planar wall-junction configuration

### A Overview and numerical solution

Our toy model was chosen to produce a vacuum manifold of three disconnected pieces I-III as per Eqs. (6)-(8). (The threefold structure is motivated by $`E_6`$, see Section IV below.) Each one-dimensional kink configuration, however, makes use of only two out of the three possibilities. In the context of model building, even if we are only playing with toys at this stage, it seems more natural to use all three pieces equally. Perhaps more importantly, clash-induced symmetry breaking will be enhanced through the presence of all three vacuum types.

To that end, we search for a domain wall junction configuration as depicted in Fig. 5. Three semi-infinite walls meet at a point, the origin or nexus, at angles of $`2\pi /3`$, dividing the two-dimensional plane into three sectors labelled I-III. Let $`(r,\theta )`$ be the usual plane polar coordinates. We impose boundary conditions in the obvious way: for a given $`\theta `$ in sector I, the configuration is required to tend to a vacuum I state as $`r\mathrm{}`$, with corresponding conditions in sectors II and III. Away from the nexus, and close to a wall, we expect the configuration to tend to a one-dimensional kink as a function of the coordinate perpendicular to the wall. Let us call this set-up a “three-star”. To calculate it, one must solve the equations of motion, this time using the two-dimensional Laplacian in place of $`d^2/dz^2`$ on the left-hand side of Eq. (19), static and $`z`$-independent solutions being sought.

The brane limit is most conveniently written in terms of the Mandelstam-like variables (see Fig. 5),

$$u=x,v=\frac{1}{2}x+\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}y,w=uv=\frac{1}{2}x\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}y,$$
(36)
as

$$\varphi _1\mathrm{\Theta }(u)\mathrm{\Theta }(w),\varphi _2\mathrm{\Theta }(v)\mathrm{\Theta }(u),\varphi _3\mathrm{\Theta }(w)\mathrm{\Theta }(v).$$
(37)
(It is tempting to “regularise” this configuration by replacing each $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ with a $`(1+\mathrm{tanh})/2`$. We have checked that this suggestive form captures the spirit of the three-star we have produced numerically, but not its detail.)

There are three different types of three-stars: totally symmetric, totally asymmetric, and mixed. The symmetric star has the asymptotic vacuum states being cyclic permutations of \[$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1=(1/\sqrt{2},0,0)^T`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2=(0,0,0)^T`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_3=(0,0,0)^T`$\]. There is no clash of symmetries anywhere for this case: the unbroken symmetry is U(2)$`_\text{I}`$ everywhere.

The configuration we want is the totally asymmetric star, defined by the vacuum states:

$`\text{Sector I:}\mathrm{\Phi }_1=(1/\sqrt{2},0,0)^T,\mathrm{\Phi }_2=(0,0,0)^T,\mathrm{\Phi }_3=(0,0,0)^T,`$ (38)
$`\text{Sector II:}\mathrm{\Phi }_1=(0,0,0)^T,\mathrm{\Phi }_2=(0,1/\sqrt{2},0)^T,\mathrm{\Phi }_3=(0,0,0)^T,`$ (39)
$`\text{Sector III:}\mathrm{\Phi }_1=(0,0,0)^T,\mathrm{\Phi }_2=(0,0,0)^T,\mathrm{\Phi }_3=(0,0,1/\sqrt{2})^T.`$ (40)
Ignoring the superfluous U(1)’s, the clash of symmetries has the pattern:

$`H_{\text{I}\text{II}}=\text{U}(2)_\text{I}\text{U}(2)_{\text{II}}=\text{U}(1)_{\text{III}}\text{along wall III},`$ (41)
$`H_{\text{II}\text{III}}=\text{U}(2)_{\text{II}}\text{U}(2)_{\text{III}}=\text{U}(1)_\text{I}\text{along wall I},`$ (42)
$`H_{\text{III}\text{I}}=\text{U}(2)_{\text{III}}\text{U}(2)_\text{I}=\text{U}(1)_{\text{II}}\text{along wall II}.`$ (43)
At the nexus, the symmetry is completely destroyed:

$$H_{\text{I}\text{II}\text{III}}=\text{U}(2)_\text{I}\text{U}(2)_{\text{II}}\text{U}(2)_{\text{III}}=\{1\}.$$
(44)
The totally asymmetric star is energetically favoured over the mixed and symmetric stars for the same region of parameter space in which the asymmetric kink is favoured over the symmetric one. We place our toy $`3+1`$-dimensional universe at the nexus.

Figures 6, 7 and 8 show the $`\varphi _1`$, $`\varphi _2`$ and $`\varphi _3`$ components of the numerically computed asymmetric three-star for the parameter point $`\lambda _1=4`$. Figure 9 displays the energy density of the three-star as a function of $`x`$ and $`y`$. We expect that the three-star, defined by the $`2\pi /3`$ angular separation of the walls, is the lowest energy three-wall junction configuration because it minimises the total length of the domain walls. We have checked this numerically: in our simulations, junctions with unequal angles between the walls relax to the $`2\pi /3`$ angular configuration we describe.

### B Partial analytical results

We now present some analytical results for two different asymptotic regimes: off-wall and near-wall, both at large $`r`$.

Note first, though, that the threefold symmetry of the star implies that if

$$\varphi _1(r,\theta )=\psi (r,\theta )$$
(45)
then

$$\varphi _2(r,\theta )=\psi (r,\theta \frac{2\pi }{3}),\varphi _3(r,\theta )=\psi (r,\theta +\frac{2\pi }{3}).$$
(46)
Also, the function $`\varphi _1`$ must be symmetric under the reflection $`vv`$, $`\varphi _2`$ under $`ww`$, and $`\varphi _3`$ under $`uu`$. This is because a sector I vacuum preserves the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2\mathrm{\Phi }_3`$ discrete symmetry, and so on.

#### 1 Large r, off-wall behaviour

At large $`r`$, put

$$\varphi _1(r,\theta )=f(\theta )+ϵ(r,\theta ),$$
(47)
where

$$f(\theta )=\{\begin{array}{cc}1/\sqrt{2}& \text{in sector I}\\ 0& \text{elsewhere,}\end{array}$$
(48)
and $`ϵ(r,\theta )1`$. Equation (46) is then used to determine $`\varphi _{2,3}(r,\theta )`$. The perturbative requirement that the function $`ϵ(r,\theta )`$ be small is met off-wall and at large $`r`$.

Substituting Eq. (47) into the Euler-Lagrange equations, and equating like powers of $`ϵ`$ one obtains to zeroth order

$$\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{d^2f}{d\theta ^2}(\theta )=f(\theta )\left\{1+2f(\theta )^2+(2+\lambda _1)\left[f(\theta \frac{2\pi }{3})^2+f(\theta +\frac{2\pi }{3})^2\right]\right\},$$
(49)
and to first order

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\theta ^2}}\right]ϵ(r,\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{1+6f(\theta )^2+(2+\lambda _1)\left[f(\theta {\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{3}})^2+f(\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{3}})^2\right]\right\}ϵ(r,\theta )`$ (50)
$`+`$ $`2(2+\lambda _1)f(\theta )\left[f(\theta {\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{3}})ϵ(r,\theta {\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{3}})+f(\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{3}})ϵ(r,\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{3}})\right].`$ (51)
The zeroth order equation is satisfied by the $`f`$ defined in Eq. (48).

The right-hand side of Eq. (51) must be treated on a sector by sector basis. It gives rise to

$$\left[\frac{^2}{r^2}+\frac{1}{r}\frac{}{r}+\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{^2}{\theta ^2}\right]ϵ(r,\theta )=\{\begin{array}{cc}2ϵ(r,\theta )& \text{for}\theta \text{in sector I},\\ \frac{\lambda _1}{2}ϵ(r,\theta )& \text{elsewhere,}\end{array}$$
(52)
remembering that we must stay off-wall.

To solve Eq. (52), we look for separated variable solutions,

$$ϵ(r,\theta )=R(r)T(\theta ).$$
(53)
Substituting in Eq. (52) produces

$`T^{\prime \prime }(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`n^2T(\theta ),`$ (54)
$`R^{\prime \prime }(r)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}R^{}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(k^2+{\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{r^2}}\right)R(r),`$ (55)
where $`k^2=2`$ for $`\theta `$ in sector I and $`k^2=\lambda _1/2`$ otherwise, and we define $`k`$ to be positive. The separation constant is $`n^2`$, and we require it to be positive. Equation (54) is solved by $`T(\theta )=T_n(\theta )\mathrm{cos}(n\theta +\delta )`$, where periodicity in $`\theta `$ requires $`n`$ to be an integer, and $`\delta `$ is determined by requiring symmetry under $`vv`$ (if $`\theta =0`$ is the $`v=0`$ line bisecting sector I, then $`\delta =0`$).

The radial equation (55) has general solution

$$R(r)=c_1I_n(kr)+c_2K_n(kr)$$
(56)
where $`c_{1,2}`$ are constants and $`I_n`$ and $`K_n`$ are modified Bessel functions. The boundary conditions require us to choose

$$R(r)R_n(r)K_n(kr),$$
(57)
which, for all $`n`$, has asymptotic behaviour

$$R_n(r)\frac{e^{kr}}{\sqrt{kr}}.$$
(58)
Writing the general solution to Eq. (52) as a sum over $`n`$ of $`R_n(r)T_n(\theta )`$ with undetermined coefficients, we find that

$$ϵ(r,\theta )\frac{e^{kr}}{\sqrt{kr}}F(\theta ),$$
(59)
where $`F`$ is an undetermined angular function. The nature of $`F`$ may well be different in sectors II and III from sector I, just as the inverse decay length $`k`$ takes different values if $`\lambda _14`$. Notice that $`\lambda _1=4`$ is the same special point that produces hyperbolic tangent kinks. We saw earlier that these kinks have the special property $`\varphi _{1,2}(z)+\varphi _{1,2}(z)=1/\sqrt{2}`$ (taking the I $``$ II case). The equality of the $`k`$’s on both sides of the wall is a similar special property for the star configuration.

#### 2 Large $`r`$, near-wall behaviour

We will now explore near-wall behaviour far from the nexus, using wall II as our example. To begin with, the relevant coordinates are $`\rho `$, the radial distance directly along the wall, and $`w`$, perpendicular to the wall.

We again use a perturbative approach, writing

$`\varphi _1(\rho ,w)`$ $`=`$ $`g(w)+\delta (\rho ,w),`$ (60)
$`\varphi _2`$ $``$ $`0,`$ (61)
$`\varphi _3(\rho ,w)`$ $`=`$ $`g(w)+\delta (\rho ,w),`$ (62)
where $`\delta `$ is small. The $`w`$-parity relationship between $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _3`$ is dictated by the threefold and reflection symmetries of the configuration. Although the $`\varphi _2`$ field is of order $`\delta (\rho ,w)`$ along wall II at large $`\rho `$, it enters quadratically into the Euler-Lagrange equations for $`\varphi _{1,3}`$ so can be set to zero *a priori*.

Note that the regime we explore here is physically separated from the off-wall regime probed above, even though both lie far from the nexus. If we set $`w`$ to some finite value and take $`\rho \mathrm{}`$, then the angular distance from the wall goes to zero: $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta w/\rho 0`$. By contrast, the off-wall region requires finite $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$.

Substitution of Eqs. (60)-(62) into the Euler-Lagrange equations yields the zeroth order result

$$g^{\prime \prime }(w)=g(w)\left[1+2g(w)^2+(2+\lambda _1)g(w)^2\right].$$
(63)
By symmetry, a similar equation with $`ww`$ also holds. Defining

$$S_0(w)=g(w)+g(w),A_0(w)=g(w)g(w),$$
(64)
we recover Eqs. (21) and (22). This shows very clearly that the perpendicular near-wall behaviour far from the origin is exactly the appropriate one-dimensional kink.

The first order analysis depends on the function $`g`$. To proceed analytically, we restrict the following to the special $`\lambda _1=4`$ case, so that $`g(w)=[1+\mathrm{tanh}(w/\sqrt{2})]/2\sqrt{2}`$. Setting

$$S\varphi _1+\varphi _3=S_0(w)+\delta S,A\varphi _1\varphi _3=A_0(w)+\delta A,$$
(65)
substituting in the Euler-Lagrange equations, and equating terms to first order in $`\delta S`$ and $`\delta A`$ we obtain:

$`^2(\delta S)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta S(1+6S_0^2)=2\delta S,`$ (66)
$`^2(\delta A)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta A(1+6A_0^2),`$ (67)
where we have also used $`S_0(w)=1/\sqrt{2}`$.

We now switch to polar coordinates $`(r,\eta )`$ where $`\mathrm{tan}\eta =w/\rho `$ and $`r^2=\rho ^2+w^2`$. Searching for separated variable solutions in these coordinates, we set

$$\delta S(r,\eta )=P(r)[W(\eta )+W(\eta )],\delta A(r,\eta )=P(r)[W(\eta )W(\eta )].$$
(68)
Substitution in Eq. (66) then immediately yields

$$P^{\prime \prime }(r)+\frac{1}{r}P^{}(r)=(2+\frac{n^2}{r^2})P(r),$$
(69)
where $`n^2>0`$ is the separation constant. We conclude that

$$P(r)\frac{e^{\sqrt{2}r}}{\sqrt{\sqrt{2}r}},n$$
(70)
which matches exactly the asymptotic radial behaviour, Eq. (58), found earlier in the off-wall regime.

Consider now Eq. (67). Using Eq. (69) and the known function $`g`$, defining $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\eta )=W(\eta )W(\eta )`$, we obtain

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^{\prime \prime }(\eta )}{r^2\mathrm{\Delta }(\eta )}=3\frac{n^2}{r^2}+3\mathrm{tanh}^2\left(\frac{r\mathrm{sin}\eta }{\sqrt{2}}\right).$$
(71)
For large $`r`$, the term depending on the separation constant $`n^2`$ is suppressed and can be omitted. For small $`\eta `$, we can change variables to $`w=r\eta `$ to get

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^{\prime \prime }(w)}{\mathrm{\Delta }(w)}3+3\mathrm{tanh}^2\frac{w}{\sqrt{2}}.$$
(72)
The solution with the correct antisymmetry in $`w`$ is then

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(w)\left[3\mathrm{tanh}\frac{w}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{w}{\sqrt{2}}\left(13\mathrm{tanh}^2\frac{w}{\sqrt{2}}\right)\right].$$
(73)
The collection of results above demonstrates that one can make some progress in understanding the three-star configuration analytically, even though an exact analytic solution is at present lacking.

## IV Discussion

Our toy model was chosen not only to be mathematically simple, but also because it can serve as a prototype for a more realistic theory motivated by E6. While it is beyond the scope of this paper to explore this connection in detail, we would like to comment and speculate on possible future directions.

The most direct connection is with the maximal SU(3)3 subgroup of E6, augmented by a discrete Z3 symmetry that rotates the SU(3) factors. The complex, anomaly-free representation

$$(3,\overline{3},1)(1,3,\overline{3})(\overline{3},1,3),$$
(74)
which arises from the decomposition of the $`27`$ of E6, naturally generalises the three triplet Higgs boson content of the toy model. As is well known, one generation of quarks and leptons can be placed in a similar representation. It would be interesting to apply the clash of symmetries idea in this context, to see what symmetry breaking patterns can be produced.

In the future pursuit of serious brane model-building, there is no reason to restrict Higgs potentials to quartic form. If, for instance, we have a three-star configuration in mind, then the underlying spacetime is at least $`5+1`$ dimensional, where renormalisability requires at most cubic potentials (which are necessarily unbounded from below and thus presumably unacceptable). The question of renormalisation should sensibly be deferred until such time as a connection with a proper theory of quantum gravity can be made. We recognise that many string-theoretic brane and brane junction scenarios have already been proposed .

If the full E6 is considered rather than just the SU(3)3 subgroup, then an important issue is domain wall stability. The Z3 symmetry of the reduced theory, useful for wall stability, is then presumably embedded within the continuous E6 symmetry. According to the general understanding of defect formation, the breakdown of E6 to, first, SU(3)3 $``$ Z3, and then to some smaller subgroup, will imply the existence of unstable vortex-wall hybrid structures rather than topologically stable walls. While it may be possible for the instability timescale to be very long, a bulk scalar field in the $`27`$ of E6 offers another natural possibility. Recognising that singlets arise in the products $`27\overline{27}`$ and $`272727`$, we see that a general Higgs potential will respect a $`Z_3`$ phase symmetry that may not be contained within E6.

The number “3” plays a prominent role in the group theory of E6: there are three SU(3) factors in the maximal subgroup under discussion, and there are also three ways to embed electric charge $`Q`$ within the group. The latter fact has been remarked on before , but perhaps it has not received the attention it deserves. From the perspective of the subgroup chain E6 $``$ SO(10)$``$U(1)′′ $``$ SU(5)$``$U(1)$``$U(1)′′, the three electric charge assignments correspond to the standard case where $`Q`$ lies within SU(5), the flipped SU(5) case where U(1) is also involved, and the flipped SO(10) case where U(1)′′ enters the definition of $`Q`$. Now, there is another long-standing mystery pertaining to the number three: the apparently superfluous replication of quark-lepton families. The lack of a compelling explanation despite years of thought suggests that new approaches should be seriously considered. We speculate that the three $`Q`$ embeddings, the three-star configuration derived from the triply degenerate vacuum structure, and threefold quark/lepton family replication may be connected.

## V Conclusion

Using a model field theory comprising three U(3) Higgs triplets interacting through a permutation symmetric quartic potential, we have shown that domain wall and wall-junction solutions exist displaying the “clash of symmetries”. This symmetry breaking mechanism goes beyond standard spontaneous breaking by exploiting different embeddings of isomorphic subgroups in the parent group. Our example used the $`I`$-, $`U`$\- and $`V`$-spin U(2) subgroups of U(3). We found topologically stable domain wall solutions which asymptote to vacuum states corresponding to differently embedded unbroken U(2) subgroups on opposite sides of the wall. Non-asymptotically, the symmetry is further broken to the intersection of the asymptotically unbroken subgroups. This phenomenon has been previosuly displayed in a different model and with different motivations in Ref. . We propose that such a kink-like configuration in the thin-wall or brane limit may exist in a large extra dimension, with our universe identified with the brane. In that case, some of the symmetry breaking in our universe may be due to the clash of symmetries. Increasing the number of spatial dimensions (notionally) to five, we numerically constructed a wall-junction three-star configuration that exploits the clash phenomenon to the full, with the joint or nexus identified with our (toy) universe. Future work is motivated on several fronts: a possible connection with E6, a possible connection between the three-star and threefold family replication, and degree of freedom localisation to the brane.

## A Justification of the kink ansatz

In this appendix, we justify the asymmetric kink ansatz used in Section II C. We consider the case $`\lambda _2>0`$ and show that a globally stable kink must fit this ansatz, Eq. (18). (Analogous arguments show that the symmetric kink is globally stable for $`\lambda _2<0`$.)

### 1 The two-triplet model

We begin by considering a simpler model with just two triplets and an exchange discrete symmetry. The Higgs potential is obtained from Eq. (4) by taking $`\mathrm{\Phi }_3=0`$.

Consider a general trial solution of the form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_i(z)=(\varphi _{i,1}(z),\varphi _{i,2}(z),\varphi _{i,3}(z))^T,$$
(A1)
with $`i=1,2,3`$, which satisfies the asymmetric boundary conditions:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(\mathrm{})=({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}},0,0)^T,\mathrm{\Phi }_2(\mathrm{})=(0,0,0)^T,`$ (A2)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(+\mathrm{})=(0,0,0)^T,\mathrm{\Phi }_2(+\mathrm{})=(0,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}},0)^T.`$ (A3)
Define

$$\theta _i=\sqrt{\varphi _{i,1}^{}\varphi _{i,1}+\varphi _{i,2}^{}\varphi _{i,2}+\varphi _{i,3}^{}\varphi _{i,3}},$$
(A4)
and consider a second trial solution of the form

$`\mathrm{\Theta }_1(z)`$ $`=`$ $`(\theta _1(z),0,0)^T,`$ (A5)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }_2(z)`$ $`=`$ $`(0,\theta _2(z),0)^T.`$ (A6)
We will show that the configuration of Eq. (A6) has energy less than or equal to the energy of the initial trial solution of Eq. (A1). It is clear that this configuration satisfies the boundary conditions.

Consider first the potential energy density $`V[\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_2]`$. Clearly $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_1=\mathrm{\Theta }_1^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_2=\mathrm{\Theta }_2^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_2`$, so we need only consider the term in the potential dependent on $`\lambda _2`$. But if $`\lambda _2>0`$, then this term is positive for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{1,2}`$ of the form of Eq. (A1) but zero for the configuration of Eq. (A6). Thus $`V[\mathrm{\Theta }_1,\mathrm{\Theta }_2]V[\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_2]`$.

We now turn to the kinetic energy density $`T[\mathrm{\Theta }_1,\mathrm{\Theta }_2]`$:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{\Theta }_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_i^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left(\theta _i^{}\right)^2`$ (A7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\theta _i^2}}(\varphi _{i,1}^{}\varphi _{i,1}^{}+\varphi _{i,2}^{}\varphi _{i,2}^{}+\varphi _{i,3}^{}\varphi _{i,3}^{}+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.)^2`$ (A8)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\theta _i^2}}\left(\left|\varphi _{i,1}\right|\left|\varphi _{i,1}^{}\right|+\left|\varphi _{i,2}\right|\left|\varphi _{i,2}^{}\right|+\left|\varphi _{i,3}\right|\left|\varphi _{i,3}^{}\right|\right)^2`$ (A9)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\left|\varphi _{i,1}\right|^2+\left|\varphi _{i,2}\right|^2+\left|\varphi _{i,3}\right|^2\right)}{\theta _i^2}}\left(\left|\varphi _{i,1}^{}\right|^2+\left|\varphi _{i,2}^{}\right|^2+\left|\varphi _{i,3}^{}\right|^2\right)`$ (A10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{},`$ (A11)
by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. So $`T[\mathrm{\Theta }_1,\mathrm{\Theta }_2]T[\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_2]`$, also.

#### a The three-triplet Model

We now add the third triplet to the model. Staying with $`\lambda _2>0`$ and applying the arguments of the previous section, it suffices to consider a trial solution of the form

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(z)`$ $`=`$ $`[\varphi _1(z),0,0]^T,`$ (A12)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_2(z)`$ $`=`$ $`[0,\varphi _2(z),0]^T,`$ (A13)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_3(z)`$ $`=`$ $`[0,0,\varphi _3(z)]^T,`$ (A14)
with $`\varphi _i`$ real. Note that the boundary conditions on $`\varphi _3`$ require it to vanish asymptotically. We now establish that this trial solution has energy greater than or equal to the alternative trial solution,

$`\mathrm{\Theta }_1(z)`$ $`=`$ $`(\sqrt{\left[\varphi _1(z)\right]^2+\left[\varphi _3(z)\right]^2},0,0)^T,`$ (A15)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }_2(z)`$ $`=`$ $`(0,\varphi _2(z),0)^T,`$ (A16)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }_3(z)`$ $`=`$ $`(0,0,0)^T.`$ (A17)
Observe that $`\xi (z)\sqrt{\left[\varphi _1(z)\right]^2+\left[\varphi _3(z)\right]^2}`$ obeys the correct boundary conditions. Now, the kinetic energy density due to $`\xi `$ obeys $`(\xi ^{})^2<(\varphi _1^{})^2+(\varphi _3^{})^2`$ by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. In the potential energy density function, we need only consider the $`\lambda _1`$ term. For trial solution Eq. (A14) this term is $`\lambda _1(\varphi _1^2\varphi _2^2+\varphi _2^2\varphi _3^2+\varphi _3^2\varphi _1^2)`$, while for trial solution Eq. (A17) it is $`\lambda _1(\xi ^2\varphi _2^2)=\lambda _1(\varphi _1^2\varphi _2^2+\varphi _3^2\varphi _2^2)`$. The latter is obviously smaller than the former.

So globally stable solutions in the two-triplet model are also globally stable in the full three-triplet model.

## B Global stability of the $`\lambda _1=4`$ analytic solution

Consider the special parameter point $`\lambda _1=4`$. We prove global stability of the analytic solution, Eqs. (25) and (26), by Bogomolnyi’s method . The energy density $`ϵ[\varphi _1,\varphi _2]`$ of any solution fitting the ansatz given in Eq. (18) is

$`ϵ[\varphi _1,\varphi _2]`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\varphi _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+V(\varphi _1,\varphi _2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}`$ (B1)
$`=`$ $`\left(\varphi _1^{}+\varphi _1^2+\varphi _2^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)^2+\left(\varphi _2^{}+2\varphi _1\varphi _2\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dz}}\left(\varphi _1{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\varphi _1^32\varphi _2^2\varphi _1\right).`$ (B2)
The first two terms of this equation are non-negative, so the total kink energy is

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}ϵ[\varphi _1,\varphi _2]𝑑z_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑z\frac{d}{dz}\left(\varphi _1\frac{2}{3}\varphi _1^32\varphi _2^2\varphi _1\right)=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{3},$$
(B3)
where we have substituted for the boundary conditions. Since the analytic solution given in the main text, Eq. (33) saturates this lower bound, it is globally stable.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

BFT was supported by the Commonwealth of Australia and the University of Melbourne. RRV is supported by the Australian Research Council and the University of Melbourne. He would very much like to thank the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev for the award of a Dozor Fellowship during which some of this work was performed. He would also like to thank his co-authors Aharon Davidson and Kamesh Wali for great hospitality at their home institutions while portions of this work were completed. KCW was supported in part by a grant from NSF, Division of International Programs (U.S.-Australia Cooperative Research) and also in part by a grant from DOE.


text:
# DENIS Survey Data Probing Different Types of PNe

## References

Clayton, G.C. 2001, Ap&SS, 275, 143

Corradi, R.L.M., Brandi, E., Ferrer, O.E., & Schwarz, H.E. 1999, A&A, 343, 841

Epchtein, N., et al. 1997, The Messenger, 87, 27

Hron, J., & Kerschbaum, F. 1994, Ap&SS, 217, 137

Koesterke, L. 2001, Ap&SS, 275, 41

Peña, M., Stasińska, G., & Medina, S. 2001, A&A, 367, 983

Schmeja, S., & Kimeswenger, S. 2001a, RevMexAC, in press, astro-ph/0105244

Schmeja, S., & Kimeswenger, S. 2001b, A&A, 377, L18

Szczerba, R., Górny, S. K., Stasińska, G., Siódmiak, N., & Tylenda, R. 2001, Ap&SS, 275, 113

Whitelock, P.A. 1985, MNRAS, 213, 59

Zijlstra, A.A. 2001, Ap&SS, 275, 79