text:
# Abstract

#### Abstract

A long cylindrical body of circular cross-section and homogeneous density may float in all orientations around the cylinder axis. It is shown that there are also bodies of non-circular cross-sections which may float in any direction. Apart from those found by Auerbach for $`\rho =1/2`$ there are one-parameter families of cross-sections for $`\rho 1/2`$ which have a $`p`$-fold rotation axis. For given $`p`$ they exist for $`p2`$ densities $`\rho `$. There are strong indications, that for all $`p2`$ densities one has the same family of cross-sections.

## 1 Introduction

A long standing problem asked by Stanislaw Ulam in the Scottish Book  (problem 19) is, whether a sphere is the only solid of uniform density which will float in water in any position. A simpler, two-dimensional, question is: Consider a long log of circular cross-section; it will, obviously, float in any position without tending to rotate. (Of course, the axis of the log is assumed to be parallel to the water surface.) Are there any additional cross-section shapes such that the log will float in any position? This question was answered in 1938 by Auerbach  for the special density $`\rho =1/2`$ (the density of water is normalized to unity). He showed, that for this special density there is a large variety of cross-sections.

Here we consider the case $`\rho 1/2`$. We observe that for special densities one may deform the circular cross-section into one with $`p`$-fold symmetry axis and mirror symmetry. There are $`p2`$ densities, for which this is possible. For given $`p`$ the densities appear pairwise as $`\rho `$ and $`1\rho `$. For odd $`p`$ there is also a solution for $`\rho =1/2`$. These solutions can be expanded in powers of the deformation $`ϵ`$. In polar coordinates $`(r,\psi )`$ they are written

$$r(\psi )=\overline{r}(1+2ϵ\mathrm{cos}(p\psi )+2\underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_n\mathrm{cos}(pn\psi )),$$
(1)
where the coefficients $`c_n`$ are functions of $`ϵ`$, with $`c_n=O(ϵ^n)`$. The associated densities depend on $`ϵ`$.

I have carried through the calculations of the coefficients up to order $`ϵ^7`$ and surprisingly I obtain the same expansion for all $`p2`$ solutions, although I did expect agreement only for pairs $`\rho `$ and $`1\rho `$. Thus I conjecture that there is a one-parameter family (parametrized by $`ϵ`$) of bodies for given $`p`$ which floats indifferently at $`p2`$ different densities.

The outline of the paper is as follows: In the next section I derive some general properties of these cross-sections. In the following section I consider the special case $`\rho =1/2`$. The case of $`\rho 1/2`$ is treated in first order of the distortion in section 4 and in higher orders in section 5. Section 6 contains a short conclusion.

## 2 General Considerations

I start with some considerations for general densities $`\rho `$. I denote the cross-section area of the log by $`A`$, the cross-section above the water be $`A_1`$, that below the water $`A_2`$, then

$$A_1=(1\rho )A,A_2=\rho A$$
(2)
according to Archimedes. Moreover I denote by $`m`$ the total mass of the log, by $`m_{1,2}`$ the masses above/below the water-line, by $`C_{1,2}`$ the center of mass above/below the water-line, by $`h_{1,2}`$ the distance of $`C_{1,2}`$ from the water-line, and by $`\widehat{L}`$ the length of the log.

Then the potential energy of the system is

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`m_1gh_1+(mm_2)gh_2=\rho A_1\widehat{L}h_1g+(A_2\widehat{L}A_2\rho \widehat{L})gh_2`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`\rho (1\rho )A\widehat{L}g(h_1+h_2).`$
Thus the difference in height between the two centers of mass, $`h_1+h_2`$, has to be independent of the orientation of the log. This does not imply, that $`h_1`$ and $`h_2`$ are separately constant. Moreover the line $`C_1C_2`$ connecting the two centers of mass has to be perpendicular to the water-level. In the following I will consider convex simply connected cross-sections. This condition may be relaxed, but it is necessary, that the water-level crosses the circumference of the log at exactly two points denoted by $`L`$ and $`R`$. The distance between these two points be $`2l`$.

Figure 1

Let us consider now what happens if we rotate the log by an infinitesimal angle $`\delta \varphi `$. Since the area above and below the water has to be conserved the rotation is around the midpoint $`M`$ of the line $`LR`$. Then on the right the area $`l^2\delta \varphi /2`$ rises above the water and on the left the same area disappears below the water-level. Let us consider the shift of the centers of mass in horizontal direction. There are two changes: Due to the rotation $`C_1`$ moves to the left by $`\delta \varphi h_1`$ and $`C_2`$ to the right by $`\delta \varphi h_2`$. The appearance of the area $`l^2\delta \varphi /2`$ on the right and the disappearance of the same area on the left moves the center $`C_1`$ of mass by $`\delta \varphi (_0^ll^2𝑑l_l^0l^2𝑑l)/A_1=\frac{2}{3}\delta \varphi l^3/A_1`$ to the right. Similarly the center of mass below the water level $`C_2`$ moves to the left by $`\frac{2}{3}\delta \varphi l^3/A_2`$.

In total the shift to the right of $`C_1`$ is $`(h_1+\frac{2}{3}l^3/A_1)\delta \varphi `$ and that of $`C_2`$ $`(h_2\frac{2}{3}l^3/A_2)\delta \varphi `$. Both have to be equal since otherwise a torque would be created. Thus we have

$$\frac{2}{3}l^3(\frac{1}{A_1}+\frac{1}{A_2})=h_1+h_2.$$
(4)
Since the distance $`h_1+h_2`$ has to be constant and also $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ are constant, we obtain the important result, that also $`l`$ is constant. If (4) is not fulfilled, but the left hand side is larger then the right hand side, then the log is in stable equilibrium, if the left hand side is less then the right hand side then the equilibrium is unstable. But here we are interested in an indifferent equilibrium, where equality (4) holds.

When we continue to rotate the log, then in general the mid-point $`M`$ between $`L`$ and $`R`$ will move. It can move only along the direction of the line $`LR`$. We consider now the loci of the points $`M`$ as a function of $`\varphi `$. In order to do this we keep however the orientation of the log fixed and rotate the direction of the gravitational force and the orientation of the watersurface. Since $`M`$ can move only in direction of the line $`LR`$ whose slope is now given by $`\mathrm{tan}\varphi `$ we can parametrize the loci of $`M`$ by $`x_M(\varphi )`$ and $`y_M(\varphi )`$, where $`s(\varphi )d\varphi `$ is the shift of $`M`$ along $`LR`$ as we rotate by $`d\varphi `$. It is now obvious that the solution of the problem can be parametrized by

$`x_R(\varphi )=x_M(\varphi )+l\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,`$ $`y_R(\varphi )=y_M(\varphi )+l\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,`$ (5)
$`x_M(\varphi )=x_M(0)+{\displaystyle _0^\varphi }s(\varphi )\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{d}\varphi ,`$ $`y_M(\varphi )=y_M(0)+{\displaystyle _0^\varphi }s(\varphi )\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{d}\varphi .`$ (6)
$`x_M(\varphi )`$ and $`y_M(\varphi )`$ parametrize the envelope of the water-lines $`LR`$. Considering the boundary of the log we observe, that the part of the circumference which disappears on one side under rotation by $`\delta \varphi `$ below the water-line and appears on the other side is $`\sqrt{s^2+l^2}\delta \varphi `$ on both sides, since in horizontal direction the contribution is $`s\mathrm{d}\varphi `$ and in vertical direction $`l\mathrm{d}\varphi `$. Thus the part of the circumference below the waterline is constant independent of the orientation. Obviously the envelope of the water-line must be closed, that is

$$_0^{2\pi }s(\varphi )\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{d}\varphi =0,_0^{2\pi }s(\varphi )\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{d}\varphi =0$$
(7)
It must be noted however, that the boundary of the log is not only given by eq. (5), but it is also obtained by reversing the sign of $`l`$, that is not only by considering the points $`R`$ but also the points $`L`$

$$x_L(\chi )=x_M(\chi )l\mathrm{cos}\chi ,y_L(\chi )=y_M(\chi )l\mathrm{sin}\chi .$$
(8)
The problem is now to find envelopes, parametrized by $`s(\varphi )`$, so that both descriptions coincide. Of course the arguments $`\varphi `$ and $`\chi `$ are different in both expressions in order to describe the same point on the boundary.

## 3 The case $`\rho =\frac{1}{2}`$

In the special case $`\rho =\frac{1}{2}`$ one has $`A_1=A_2=A/2`$, with the implication that for $`\varphi `$ and $`\varphi +\pi `$ one has the same line $`LR`$ separating the part of the log above and that below the water-level, only $`L`$ and $`R`$ are exchanged, but $`M`$ is the same for $`\varphi `$ and $`\chi =\varphi +\pi `$

$$x_M(\varphi )=x_M(\varphi +\pi ),y_M(\varphi )=y_M(\varphi +\pi ).$$
(9)
If we differentiate these equations with respect to $`\varphi `$ using the representation (6) we obtain the condition

$$s(\varphi +\pi )=s(\varphi )$$
(10)
and taking it for $`\varphi =0`$ yields

$$_0^\pi s(\varphi )\mathrm{cos}\varphi d\varphi =0,_0^\pi s(\varphi )\mathrm{sin}\varphi d\varphi =0$$
(11)
The conditions (10) and (11) and a sufficient ’convexity’ is sufficient to obtain a body which flows in each direction. Curves of this type were already discussed by Zindler in section 6 of  but apparently without reference to this physical problem.

As an example we consider

$$s(\varphi )=a\mathrm{cos}(3\varphi )$$
(12)
which yields

$$x_M(\varphi )=\frac{a}{4}\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi )+\frac{a}{8}\mathrm{sin}(4\varphi ),y_M(\varphi )=\frac{a}{4}\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi )\frac{a}{8}\mathrm{cos}(4\varphi )\frac{a}{8},$$
(13)
a curve which has kinks at ($`\pm 3\sqrt{3}a/16`$, $`a/16`$), (0, $`a/2`$). For $`l>3a`$ the circumference is convex, but it might be that it is sufficient to have $`l>a/2`$, so that the circumference lies completely outside the loci of $`M`$.

Figure 2. This figure shows the loci of M for $`a=4`$ (innermost curve) and the boundaries for $`l=3`$ and $`l=12`$ (outermost curve). A log with the cross-section of the outermost curve and $`\rho =1/2`$ will flow in water in any position without tendency to rotate. The water-line will be tangent to the innermost curve.

One may however, choose a cross-section with very elementary pieces of the boundary. We may e.g. choose a triangle as envelope of the waterlines. Then we obtain a cross-section bounded by six straight lines and six arcs as shown in the next figure. This corresponds to an $`s(\varphi )`$ consisting of a sum of three $`\delta `$-distributions.

Figure 3. Another example for $`\rho =1/2`$.

Figure 4. A further example for $`\rho =1/2`$.

A further possibility is an envelope of a water-line consisting of three arcs which yields a boundary consisting of six arcs as shown in figure 4. In this case $`s(\varphi )`$ is piecewise constant with alternating signs.

## 4 The case $`\rho \frac{1}{2}`$. Linear Theory

We continue our consideration on floating rods for densities $`\rho 1/2`$. We describe the boundary in terms of polar coordinates $`r(\psi )`$. Each point of the boundary can be at the water-level in two orientations given by $`\varphi `$ and $`\chi `$ (figure 5a), thus obeying

$`x(\psi )`$ $`=`$ $`r(\psi )\mathrm{cos}\psi =x_M(\varphi )+l\mathrm{cos}\varphi =x_M(\chi )l\mathrm{cos}\chi ,`$ (14)
$`y(\psi )`$ $`=`$ $`r(\psi )\mathrm{sin}\psi =y_M(\varphi )+l\mathrm{sin}\varphi =y_M(\chi )l\mathrm{sin}\chi .`$ (15)
Figure 5a. The two waterlines meeting at R=L’.

Figure 5b. The picture reflected at the x-axis.

We consider $`\varphi `$ and $`\chi `$ to be functions of $`\psi `$ and differentiate these equations with respect to $`\psi `$,

$`r^{}\mathrm{cos}\psi r\mathrm{sin}\psi `$ $`=`$ $`\varphi ^{}(s(\varphi )\mathrm{cos}\varphi l\mathrm{sin}\varphi )=\chi ^{}(s(\chi )\mathrm{cos}\chi +l\mathrm{sin}\chi ),`$ (16)
$`r^{}\mathrm{sin}\psi +r\mathrm{cos}\psi `$ $`=`$ $`\varphi ^{}(s(\varphi )\mathrm{sin}\varphi +l\mathrm{cos}\varphi )=\chi ^{}(s(\chi )\mathrm{sin}\chi l\mathrm{cos}\chi ).`$ (17)
Multiplying these equations by $`\mathrm{cos}\psi `$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\psi `$ and adding or subtracting them we obtain

$`r^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi ^{}(s(\varphi )\mathrm{cos}(\psi \varphi )+l\mathrm{sin}(\psi \varphi ))`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`\chi ^{}(s(\chi )\mathrm{cos}(\chi \psi )+l\mathrm{sin}(\chi \psi )).`$
$`r`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi ^{}(s(\varphi )\mathrm{sin}(\varphi \psi )+l\mathrm{cos}(\varphi \psi ))`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`\chi ^{}(s(\chi )\mathrm{sin}(\chi \psi )l\mathrm{cos}(\chi \psi )).`$
We first consider the trivial solution of a circular cross-section, where $`r`$ and $`s`$ are constant. For these we obtain

$`\varphi =\psi +\delta _0,`$ $`\chi =\psi +\pi \delta _0,`$ (20)
$`s=s_0=r_0\mathrm{sin}\delta _0,`$ $`l=r_0\mathrm{cos}\delta _0,r=r_0=\sqrt{s_0^2+l^2}.`$ (21)
For the circular case $`\delta _0`$ is the angle between the water-line $`LR`$ and the radius $`OR`$ in figure 5a.

In the next step we allow a variation of our four functions $`r`$, $`s`$, $`\varphi `$ and $`\chi `$ in order to admit non-circular solutions. For this purpose we write

$$r=r_0+\widehat{r}(\psi ),s(\varphi )=s_0+\widehat{s}(\varphi ),\varphi =\psi +\delta _0+\widehat{\varphi }(\psi ),\chi =\psi +\pi \delta _0+\widehat{\chi }(\psi ).$$
(22)
Then the equations (18) to (19) read

$`\widehat{r}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(1+\widehat{\varphi }^{})(\widehat{s}(\psi +\delta _0+\widehat{\varphi })\mathrm{cos}(\delta _0+\widehat{\varphi })r_0\mathrm{sin}\widehat{\varphi }),`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`(1+\widehat{\chi }^{})(\widehat{s}(\psi +\pi \delta _0+\widehat{\chi })\mathrm{cos}(\delta _0\widehat{\chi })r_0\mathrm{sin}\widehat{\chi }),`$ (24)
$`r_0+\widehat{r}`$ $`=`$ $`(1+\widehat{\varphi }^{})(\widehat{s}(\psi +\delta _0+\widehat{\varphi })\mathrm{sin}(\delta _0+\widehat{\varphi })+r_0\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\varphi }),`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`(1+\widehat{\chi }^{})(\widehat{s}(\psi +\pi \delta _0+\widehat{\chi })\mathrm{sin}(\delta _0\widehat{\chi })+r_0\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\chi }).`$ (26)
### 4.1 Linearization

We assume, that the quantities $`\widehat{r}`$, $`\widehat{s}`$, $`\widehat{\varphi }`$, $`\widehat{\chi }`$ are small quantities, which can be expanded in powers of an expansion parameter $`ϵ`$. Suppose we have solved the equations (23) to (26) up to some order in $`ϵ`$ and wish to calculate the next order. Then by expanding these equations in powers of $`ϵ`$ we may extract the contributions in this new order. The linear terms in this new order are unknown, the non-linear ones are already known. We bring the linear terms on the left-hand side of the equations (23) to (26) and the other terms on the right-hand side. This yields the equations

$`\widehat{r}^{}+r_0\widehat{\varphi }\mathrm{cos}\delta _0\widehat{s}(\psi +\delta _0)`$ $`=`$ $`I_1(\psi ),`$ (27)
$`\widehat{r}^{}+r_0\widehat{\chi }+\mathrm{cos}\delta _0\widehat{s}(\psi +\pi \delta _0)`$ $`=`$ $`I_2(\psi ),`$ (28)
$`\widehat{r}r_0\widehat{\varphi }^{}\mathrm{sin}\delta _0\widehat{s}(\psi +\delta _0)`$ $`=`$ $`I_3(\psi ),`$ (29)
$`\widehat{r}r_0\widehat{\chi }^{}\mathrm{sin}\delta _0\widehat{s}(\psi +\pi \delta _0)`$ $`=`$ $`I_4(\psi ).`$ (30)
where the non-linear terms are in the $`I(\psi )`$. Let us expand now our unknowns in Fourier series,

$`\widehat{r}={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\widehat{r}_k\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}k\psi },\widehat{s}(\varphi )={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\widehat{s}_k\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}k\varphi },\widehat{\varphi }={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\widehat{\varphi }_k\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}k\psi },`$ (31)
$`\widehat{\chi }={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\widehat{\chi }_k\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}k\psi },I_n={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}I_{n,k}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}k\psi }.`$ (32)
Then our system of equations reads

$`\mathrm{i}k\widehat{r}_k+r_0\widehat{\varphi }_k+C_{1,k}\widehat{s}_k=I_{1,k},`$ $`C_{1,k}=\mathrm{cos}\delta _0\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}k\delta _0}`$ (33)
$`\mathrm{i}k\widehat{r}_k+r_0\widehat{\chi }_k+C_{2,k}\widehat{s}_k=I_{2,k},`$ $`C_{2,k}=+\mathrm{cos}\delta _0\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}k(\pi \delta _0)}`$ (34)
$`\widehat{r}_k\mathrm{i}kr_0\widehat{\varphi }_k+C_{3,k}\widehat{s}_k=I_{3,k},`$ $`C_{3,k}=\mathrm{sin}\delta _0\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}k\delta _0}`$ (35)
$`\widehat{r}_k\mathrm{i}kr_0\widehat{\chi }_k+C_{4,k}\widehat{s}_k=I_{4,k},`$ $`C_{4,k}=\mathrm{sin}\delta _0\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}k(\pi \delta _0)}.`$ (36)
The determinant of this linear system of equations is $`(1k^2)\widehat{C}_k`$ with

$`\widehat{C}_k`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}k(C_{2,k}C_{1,k})+C_{4,k}C_{3,k}`$ (39)
$`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}2\mathrm{i}(k\mathrm{cos}\delta _0\mathrm{cos}(k\delta _0)+\mathrm{sin}\delta _0\mathrm{sin}(k\delta _0))& k\text{ even}\\ 2(k\mathrm{cos}\delta _0\mathrm{sin}(k\delta _0)\mathrm{sin}\delta _0\mathrm{cos}(k\delta _0))& k\text{ odd}.\end{array}`$
Generally one has

$$\widehat{s}_k=\frac{\widehat{I}_k}{\widehat{C}_k},\widehat{I}_k=\mathrm{i}k(I_{2,k}I_{1,k})+I_{4,k}I_{3,k}.$$
(40)
If $`\widehat{C}_k=0`$, (which is always the case, if $`k=0,\pm 1`$) then a solution exists only, if $`\widehat{I}_k=0`$. With the exception of $`k=\pm 1`$ the choice of $`\widehat{s}_k`$ is arbitrary, and one obtains

$`(1k^2)\widehat{r}_k`$ $`=`$ $`I_{3,k}+\mathrm{i}kI_{1,k}(\mathrm{i}kC_{1,k}+C_{3,k})\widehat{s}_k`$ (41)
$`=`$ $`I_{4,k}+\mathrm{i}kI_{3,k}(\mathrm{i}kC_{2,k}+C_{4,k})\widehat{s}_k`$
$`(1k^2)r_0\widehat{\varphi }_k`$ $`=`$ $`I_{1,k}\mathrm{i}kI_{3,k}(C_{1,k}\mathrm{i}kC_{3,k})\widehat{s}_k`$ (42)
$`(1k^2)r_0\widehat{\chi }_k`$ $`=`$ $`I_{2,k}\mathrm{i}kI_{4,k}(C_{2,k}\mathrm{i}kC_{4,k})\widehat{s}_k`$ (43)
We consider now the cases $`k=\pm 1`$, $`k=0`$, and the special case, where $`\widehat{C}_k`$ vanishes for some other integer $`k=p`$.

### 4.2 Translational Invariance and the case $`k=\pm 1`$

In this subsection we show that the vanishing of the determinant for $`k=\pm 1`$ is related to the translational invariance of the problem. For $`k=\pm 1`$ we have

$$\widehat{s}_{\pm 1}=_0^{2\pi }d\varphi s(\varphi )\mathrm{e}^{\pm \mathrm{i}\varphi }=x_M(2\pi )x_M(0)\pm \mathrm{i}(y_M(2\pi )y_M(0))=0.$$
(44)
Thus we obtain only a solution, if

$$I_{3,\pm 1}=\mathrm{i}I_{1,\pm 1},I_{4,\pm 1}=\mathrm{i}I_{2,\pm 1}.$$
(45)
Then $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ and $`\widehat{\chi }`$ can be expressed by

$$r_0\widehat{\varphi }_{\pm 1}=\mathrm{i}\widehat{r}_{\pm 1}+I_{1,\pm 1},r_0\widehat{\chi }_{\pm 1}=\mathrm{i}\widehat{r}_{\pm 1}+I_{2,\pm 1}$$
(46)
with arbitrary $`\widehat{r}`$.

This arbitrary choice of $`\widehat{r}_{\pm 1}`$ is related to the translational invariance of the problem. We are free to move the system by $`(\delta x,\delta y)`$. Then also the angle $`\psi `$ and the distance $`r`$ from the origin will change,

$`\overline{x}(\psi +\delta \psi )=\overline{r}(\psi +\delta \psi )\mathrm{cos}(\psi +\delta \psi )`$ $`=`$ $`x(\psi )+\delta x=r(\psi )\mathrm{cos}\psi +\delta x,`$ (47)
$`\overline{y}(\psi +\delta \psi )=\overline{r}(\psi +\delta \psi )\mathrm{sin}(\psi +\delta \psi )`$ $`=`$ $`y(\psi )+\delta y=r(\psi )\mathrm{sin}\psi +\delta y.`$ (48)
With $`\overline{r}(\psi )=r(\psi )+\delta r(\psi )`$ one obtains

$`(r(\psi +\delta \psi ))+\delta r)\mathrm{cos}(\psi +\delta \psi )`$ $`=`$ $`r(\psi )\mathrm{cos}(\psi )+\delta x,`$ (49)
$`(r(\psi +\delta \psi ))+\delta r)\mathrm{sin}(\psi +\delta \psi )`$ $`=`$ $`r(\psi )\mathrm{sin}(\psi )+\delta y.`$ (50)
and thus

$`\delta x`$ $`=`$ $`(r^{}\delta \psi +\delta r)\mathrm{cos}\psi r\mathrm{sin}\psi \delta \psi ,`$ (51)
$`\delta y`$ $`=`$ $`(r^{}\delta \psi +\delta r)\mathrm{sin}\psi +r\mathrm{cos}\psi \delta \psi ,`$ (52)
which yields

$`r\delta \psi `$ $`=`$ $`\delta y\mathrm{cos}\psi \delta x\mathrm{sin}\psi ,`$ (53)
$`\delta r`$ $`=`$ $`\delta x\mathrm{cos}\psi +\delta y\mathrm{sin}\psi {\displaystyle \frac{r^{}}{r}}(\delta y\mathrm{cos}\psi \delta x\mathrm{sin}\psi ).`$ (54)
Since we presently consider the circular solution, $`r^{}=0`$ holds, and

$$\delta r=\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\psi }\widehat{r}_1+\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\psi }\widehat{r}_1$$
(55)
with $`\widehat{r}_{\pm 1}=\frac{\delta x\pm \mathrm{i}\delta y}{2}`$. Since we have shifted the system parallel, $`s(\varphi )`$ and $`s(\chi )`$ did not change, $`s_{\pm 1}=0`$, but $`\overline{\varphi }(\psi +\delta \psi )=\varphi (\psi )`$, which yields

$$\delta \varphi =\varphi ^{}\delta \psi =\frac{\delta y}{r}\mathrm{cos}\psi +\frac{\delta x}{r}\mathrm{sin}\psi =\frac{\mathrm{i}\widehat{r}_1}{r}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\psi }+\frac{\mathrm{i}\widehat{r}_1}{r}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\psi }.$$
(56)
One obtains the same result for $`\delta \chi `$. This is in agreement with the homogeneous equations (33) to (36) for $`k=\pm 1`$.

### 4.3 Variation of the density and the case $`k=0`$

A small but constant variation of $`\delta _0\delta _0+\alpha `$ yields for constant $`l=r_0\mathrm{cos}\delta _0`$

$$\widehat{r}_0\mathrm{cos}\delta _0r_0\alpha \mathrm{sin}\delta _0=0.$$
(57)
This variation of $`\delta _0`$ corresponds to a variation of the density $`\rho `$. For $`s`$, $`\varphi `$ and $`\chi `$ we obtain

$$\widehat{s}_0=\widehat{r}_0\mathrm{sin}\delta _0+r_0\alpha \mathrm{cos}\delta _0,\widehat{\varphi }_0=\alpha ,\widehat{\chi }_0=\alpha .$$
(58)
Elimination of $`\alpha `$ yields

$$\widehat{r}_0=\mathrm{sin}\delta _0\widehat{s}_0,r_0\widehat{\varphi }_0=\mathrm{cos}\delta _0\widehat{s}_0,r_0\widehat{\chi }_0=\mathrm{cos}\delta _0\widehat{s}_0$$
(59)
in agreement with the homogeneous solution of (33) to (36) for $`k=0`$.

### 4.4 The case $`\widehat{C}_p=0`$, $`p0,\pm 1`$

If $`\widehat{C}_p(\delta _0)`$ equals 0 for another $`p`$, then again we have a homogeneous solution. This allows us to find non-circular solutions. Let us first consider the zeroes of $`\widehat{C}_k(\delta _0)`$. We find, the $`\widehat{C}`$ vanishes for $`\mathrm{cos}\delta _0=0`$. It turns out, that this is not a single zero, but a three-fold zero. Since moreover $`\widehat{C}_k(\delta _0)=()^k\widehat{C}_k(\delta _0)`$, one finds, that $`\widehat{C}_k`$ is $`\mathrm{cos}^3\delta _0`$ times a polynomial of order $`k2`$ in $`\mathrm{cos}\delta _0`$ for even $`k`$, and $`\mathrm{sin}\delta _0\mathrm{cos}^3\delta _0`$ times a polynomial of order $`k3`$ in $`\mathrm{cos}\delta _0`$ for odd $`k`$. Moreover one has $`C_k(\pi \delta _0)=()^{k1}C_k(\delta _0)`$. Thus the polynomials are even in $`\mathrm{cos}\delta _0`$ or simply polynomials in $`\mathrm{cos}(2\delta _0)`$. With the abbreviations

$$c_{\delta _0}=\mathrm{cos}\delta _0,s_{\delta _0}=\mathrm{sin}\delta _0,c_{2\delta _0}=\mathrm{cos}(2\delta _0)$$
(60)
we write

$`\widehat{C}_{2k+2}`$ $`=`$ $`4\mathrm{i}c_{\delta _0}^3P_k(c_{2\delta _0}),`$ (61)
$`\widehat{C}_{2k+3}`$ $`=`$ $`16s_{\delta _0}c_{\delta _0}^3Q_k(c_{2\delta _0})`$ (62)
and obtain

$`P_0=1,`$ $`Q_0=1,`$ (63)
$`P_1=6c_{2\delta _0}4,`$ $`Q_1=4c_{2\delta _0}1,`$ (64)
$`P_2=20c_{2\delta _0}^216c_{2\delta _0}+1,`$ $`Q_2=12c_{2\delta _0}^24c_{2\delta _0}2,`$ (65)
$`P_3=56c_{2\delta _0}^348c_{2\delta _0}^212c_{2\delta _0}+8,`$ $`Q_3=32c_{2\delta _0}^312c_{2\delta _0}^212c_{2\delta _0}+2.`$ (66)
Limits for the zeroes of $`\widehat{C}_p`$ can be easily given, since the sign of $`\widehat{C}_p`$ can be easily determined, if $`\delta _0`$ assumes integer multiples of $`\pi /(2p)`$. Thus for even $`p`$ one has zeroes $`\delta _{0,l}`$ obeying $`\frac{\pi }{p}(l\frac{1}{2})<\delta _{0,l}<\frac{\pi }{p}l`$ for $`l=1,2,\mathrm{}\frac{p}{2}1`$. For odd $`p`$ one has zeroes $`\frac{\pi }{p}l<\delta _{0,l}<\frac{\pi }{p}(l+\frac{1}{2})`$ for $`l=1,2,\mathrm{}\frac{p3}{2}`$.

The density corresponding to the angle $`\delta _0`$ is

$$\rho _0=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\delta _0}{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{sin}(2\delta _0)}{2\pi }.$$
(67)
Thus in first order in $`\widehat{s}`$ we may distort the body from its circular shape by adding a distortion described by

$$\widehat{s}(\varphi )=\widehat{s}_p\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}p\varphi }+\widehat{s}_p\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}p\varphi }.$$
(68)
and obtain a non-circular body which floats in any orientation. In lowest order of the distortion it has density $`\rho _0`$. The angles and densities for $`p=4\mathrm{}9`$ are listed below.

| $`p`$ | $`l`$ | $`\delta _0[^0]`$ | $`\rho _0`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 4 | 1 | 24.095 | 0.24751 |
| 5 | 1 | 37.761 | 0.13611 |
| 6 | 1 | 15.439 | 0.33255 |
| 6 | 2 | 46.670 | 0.08184 |
| 7 | 1 | 26.291 | 0.22753 |
| 7 | 2 | 52.959 | 0.05273 |
| 8 | 1 | 11.431 | 0.37466 |
| 8 | 2 | 34.361 | 0.16080 |
| 8 | 3 | 57.645 | 0.03585 |
| 9 | 1 | 20.261 | 0.28403 |
| 9 | 2 | 40.605 | 0.11713 |
| 9 | 3 | 61.273 | 0.02543 |

Only the solutions with positive $`\delta _0`$ are listed. Besides them the angles $`\delta _0`$ and the densities $`1\rho _0`$ are also solutions. For odd $`p`$ one has in addition the solution $`\delta _0=0`$ and $`\rho _0=1/2`$. In total we have $`p2`$ solutions $`\delta _0`$ for given $`p`$ without the unphysical solutions $`\mathrm{cos}\delta _0=0`$ (see the discussion after eq. 102). Thus with increasing $`p`$ the densities become arbitrarily dense.

We may also add some $`\widehat{s}_0`$, which however will not change the circular shape but the density in first order in $`\widehat{s}_0`$.

## 5 Higher Orders in the Distortion

Our strategy will now be to calculate the contributions to $`\widehat{I}_k`$ in higher orders in the distortion. As long as $`kp`$, this will yield contributions to $`\widehat{s}_k`$ which depend in higher orders on $`\widehat{s}_0`$ and $`\widehat{s}_{\pm p}`$, but we have also to make sure, that $`\widehat{I}_0`$ and $`\widehat{I}_{\pm p}`$ vanish in all orders in the distortion.

### 5.1 Rotational and Reflection Invariance

The non-circular solution we have found in first order in the distortion has a $`p`$-fold rotation axis and mirror symmetry. In higher orders in the distortion we will obtain higher harmonics and quite generally we can expand $`\psi \delta _0`$, $`\chi \pi +\delta _0`$, $`s`$ and $`r`$ in a Fourier-series which contains only terms proportional to $`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}np\psi }`$ with integer $`n`$. The reason is, that we wish to keep the $`p`$-fold rotation axis. Then only components $`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}m\psi }`$ are allowed, which for $`\psi \psi +2\pi /p`$ reproduce themselves, thus $`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}m2\pi /p}=1`$ is required, which implies, that $`m`$ is an integer multiple of $`p`$. For our expansion we use now $`s_p=u`$ and $`s_p=v`$ as expansion parameters

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{s}_k}{r_0}}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}u\hfill & \hfill k=p\\ v\hfill & \hfill k=p\\ _{n1,n2}c_{\mathrm{s}n_1,n_2}u^{n_1}v^{n_2}\delta _{n,n_1n_2}\hfill & \hfill k=np\\ 0\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{otherwise}\end{array}`$ (73)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{r}_k}{r_0}}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}_{n_1,n_2}c_{\mathrm{r}n_1,n_2}u^{n_1}v^{n_2}\delta _{n,n_1n_2}\hfill & \hfill k=np\\ 0\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{otherwise}\end{array}`$ (76)
and for $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ and $`\widehat{\chi }`$ with coefficients $`c_\varphi `$ and $`c_\chi `$ similarly as for $`\widehat{r}`$ with $`c_\mathrm{r}`$. Thus we have

$`r(\psi )`$ $`=`$ $`r_0{\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}c_{\mathrm{r}m,n}u^mv^n\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}p(mn)\psi },`$ (77)
$`s(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`r_0{\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}c_{\mathrm{s}m,n}u^mv^n\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}p(mn)\varphi },`$ (78)
similarly for $`\varphi (\psi )`$ and $`\chi (\psi )`$.

Secondly we require for our solution the mirror symmetry, which holds in first order in the distortion. If the x-axis is the axis for the mirror symmetry of the cross-section, then (fig. 5b)

$$r(\psi )=r(\psi ),s(\varphi )=s(\pi \varphi ),\varphi (\psi )=\pi \chi (\psi ).$$
(79)
In first order in $`u`$ and $`v`$ we have

$$\widehat{s}(\varphi )=u\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}p\varphi }+v\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}p\varphi }=\widehat{s}(\pi \varphi )=u\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}p(\pi \varphi )}+v\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}p(\pi \varphi )}.$$
(80)
Thus $`u`$ and $`v`$ are connected by $`v=()^pu`$. Moreover we require $`\widehat{s}`$ to be real, which implies $`v=u^{}`$. Thus for even $`p`$ we have real $`u`$ and $`v`$, whereas for odd $`p`$ they are imaginary. We now obtain

$`r(\psi )`$ $`=`$ $`r_0{\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}c_{\mathrm{r}m,n}u^{m+n}()^{np}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}p(mn)\psi }`$
$`=r(\psi )`$ $`=`$ $`r_0{\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}c_{\mathrm{r}m,n}u^{m+n}()^{np}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}(mn)\psi }`$ (81)
$`=`$ $`r_0{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}c_{\mathrm{r}n,m}u^{m+n}()^{mp}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}p(mn)\psi }.`$
Comparison of the coefficients for the same powers of $`u`$ and of $`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}p\psi }`$ yields

$$c_{\mathrm{r}m,n}=()^{(mn)p}c_{\mathrm{r}n,m}.$$
(82)
Similarly one obtains

$$c_{\mathrm{s}m,n}=c_{\mathrm{s}n,m},c_{\chi m,n}=()^{(mn)p+1}c_{\varphi n,m}.$$
(83)
We also see that under this transformation eq.(27) becomes the negative of (28) and eq.(29) becomes (30). In both cases $`\psi `$ translates into $`\psi `$. Thus we have

$$I_{1,m,n}=()^{(mn)p+1}I_{2,n,m},I_{3,m,n}=()^{(mn)p}I_{4,n,m}.$$
(84)
Moreover one has

$$C_{1,(mn)p}=C_{2,(nm)p},C_{3,(mn)p}=C_{4,(nm)p}.$$
(85)
### 5.2 The Expansion

In determining the expansion coefficients $`c_\mathrm{r}`$, $`c_\mathrm{s}`$, $`c_\varphi `$, and $`c_\chi `$ we proceed as follows. First we expand the equations (27) to (30) in powers of $`u^mv^n`$. Then we solve the coefficient equations with increasing $`n+m`$. From the four equations with coefficients $`u^mv^n`$ we use the first three ones in order to express $`c_{\mathrm{r}m,n}`$, $`c_{\varphi m,n}`$, and $`c_{\chi m,n}`$ by the coefficients with either smaller $`m`$ or $`n`$, which appear in the expressions $`I_{\mathrm{1..4},m,n}`$ and by the coefficient $`c_{\mathrm{s}m,n}`$. If $`|mn|>1`$, then we may use the fourth equation in order to determine $`c_{\mathrm{s}m,n}`$. If $`m=n`$, then due to the reflection symmetry $`I_{3,n,n}=I_{4,n,n}`$ and thus $`\widehat{I}=0`$. Thus the four equations are linearly dependent and $`c_{\mathrm{s}n,n}`$ is undetermined at this stage. When we come to $`(m,n)=(n+1,n)`$, then in general $`\widehat{I}_{n+1,n}`$ will not vanish. However it depends on $`c_{\mathrm{s}n,n}`$, which is not yet determined. $`c_{\mathrm{s}n,n}`$ enters in the form

$$\widehat{I}_{n+1,n}=\mathrm{}+2\mathrm{i}\frac{c_{\delta _0}^3p(p^21)}{W}c_{\mathrm{s}n,n}$$
(86)
for even $`p`$. For odd $`p`$ the factor $`\mathrm{i}`$ is absent. Thus $`c_{\mathrm{s}n,n}`$ is uniquely determined from $`\widehat{I}_{n+1,n}=0`$. $`c_{\mathrm{s}n+1,n}`$ is already fixed to be zero with the exception of $`n=0`$, where we have normalized it to $`c_{\mathrm{s1},0}=1`$. Due to the reflection symmetry the equations for $`(n,n+1)`$ are simultaneously solved. A problem could occur, if not only $`\widehat{C}_{\pm p}=\widehat{C}_0=0`$, but also for some $`m`$ one would have $`\widehat{C}_{mp}=0`$. In our calculations which we performed up to $`m+n=7`$, we did not observe any dangerous denominators in the coefficients. The denominators of $`c_\mathrm{r}`$, $`c_\varphi `$, and $`c_\chi `$ contained only powers of $`p^2`$, $`p^21`$, and $`W`$ (see below), and the denominators of $`c_\mathrm{s}`$ only powers of $`p^2`$, despite of the more complicated expressions $`\widehat{C}_{np}`$, which one might have expected in the denominators.

The expansion was performed by use of Maple. In order to implement the condition $`\widehat{C}_p=0`$, eq.(39) I used the representation

$`\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}(p\delta _0)=s_{\delta _0}/W,\\ \mathrm{sin}(p\delta _0)=pc_{\delta _0}/W\end{array}\}`$ $`\text{for even }p`$ (89)
$`\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}(p\delta _0)=pc_{\delta _0}/W,\\ \mathrm{sin}(p\delta _0)=s_{\delta _0}/W\end{array}\}`$ $`\text{for odd }p`$ (92)
$`\text{with }W=\pm \sqrt{p^2c_{\delta _0}^2+s_{\delta _0}^2},`$ (93)
where I used the explicit representation of $`W`$ only at a very late stage.

Here I give the results for $`r`$, $`s`$, $`\varphi `$, and $`\chi `$ up to order $`u^mv^n`$ with $`m+n2`$. For even $`p`$ I obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{r}{r_0}}`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{W}{p^21}}(u\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}p\psi }+v\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}p\psi })+{\displaystyle \frac{(2p^21)W^2}{2(p^21)^2p^2}}(u^2\mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{i}p\psi }+v^2\mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{i}p\psi })`$ (94)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p^4(5+3c_{2\delta _0})4p^2c_{2\delta _0}+c_{2\delta _0}1}{4(p^21)^2p^2}}uv+\mathrm{}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{s}{r_0}}`$ $`=`$ $`c_{\delta _0}+u\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}p\psi }+v\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}p\psi }+{\displaystyle \frac{(4p^21)s_{\delta _0}}{2p^2}}(u^2\mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{i}p\psi }+v^2\mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{i}p\psi })`$ (95)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s_{\delta _0}}{2p^2}}uv+\mathrm{}`$
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\psi +\delta _0{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}(pc_{\delta _0}+\mathrm{i}s_{\delta _0})(c_{\delta _0}\mathrm{i}ps_{\delta _0})}{W(p^21)}}u\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}p\psi }`$ (96)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}(pc_{\delta _0}\mathrm{i}s_{\delta _0})(c_{\delta _0}+\mathrm{i}ps_{\delta _0})}{W(p^21)}}v\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}p\psi }`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(p^2c_{\delta _0}2\mathrm{i}ps_{\delta _0}+c_{\delta _0})s_{\delta _0}(pc_{\delta _0}+\mathrm{i}s_{\delta _0})^2}{2W^2(p^21)p^2}}u^2\mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{i}p\psi }`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(p^2c_{\delta _0}+2\mathrm{i}ps_{\delta _0}+c_{\delta _0})s_{\delta _0}(pc_{\delta _0}\mathrm{i}s_{\delta _0})^2}{2W^2(p^21)p^2}}v^2\mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{i}p\psi }`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s_{\delta _0}c_{\delta _0}(5p^21)}{2(p^21)p^2}}uv+\mathrm{}`$
$`\chi `$ $`=`$ $`\psi +\pi \delta _0+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}(pc_{\delta _0}+\mathrm{i}s_{\delta _0})(c_{\delta _0}\mathrm{i}ps_{\delta _0})}{W(p^21)}}v\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}p\psi }`$ (97)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}(pc_{\delta _0}\mathrm{i}s_{\delta _0})(c_{\delta _0}+\mathrm{i}ps_{\delta _0})}{W(p^21)}}u\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}p\psi }`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(p^2c_{\delta _0}2\mathrm{i}ps_{\delta _0}+c_{\delta _0})s_{\delta _0}(pc_{\delta _0}+\mathrm{i}s_{\delta _0})^2}{2W^2(p^21)p^2}}v^2\mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{i}p\psi }`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(p^2c_{\delta _0}+2\mathrm{i}ps_{\delta _0}+c_{\delta _0})s_{\delta _0}(pc_{\delta _0}\mathrm{i}s_{\delta _0})^2}{2W^2(p^21)p^2}}u^2\mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{i}p\psi }`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s_{\delta _0}c_{\delta _0}(5p^21)}{2(p^21)p^2}}uv+\mathrm{}`$
For odd $`p`$ one has to replace $`u`$ by $`\mathrm{i}u`$ and $`v`$ by $`\mathrm{i}v`$ in $`r`$, $`\varphi `$ and $`\chi `$, but one has to leave the factors $`u`$ and $`v`$ unchanged in $`s`$.

In a next step I have fixed the radius averaged over all angles to $`\overline{r}`$ and further denoted the relative amplitude of the first harmonic by $`2ϵ`$, that is $`r(\psi )=\overline{r}(1+2ϵ\mathrm{cos}(p\psi ))+`$higher harmonics. Then to my surprise I obtained a solution depending only on $`ϵ`$ and $`p`$, but not explicitely on $`\delta _0`$ up to seventh order in $`ϵ`$. Here I report the result up to fifth order

$`{\displaystyle \frac{r(\psi )}{\overline{r}}}`$ $`=`$ $`1+2ϵ\mathrm{cos}(p\psi )`$ (98)
$`+`$ $`2\left({\displaystyle \frac{2p^21}{2p^2}}ϵ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(p^21)(30p^647p^4+12p^23)}{48p^6}}ϵ^4\right)\mathrm{cos}(2p\psi )`$
$`+`$ $`2({\displaystyle \frac{(p^21)(3p^414p^2+3)}{16p^4}}ϵ^3`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3(p^21)^2(9p^8+160p^694p^4+24p^23)}{256p^8}}ϵ^5)\mathrm{cos}(3p\psi )`$
$``$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{30p^877p^6+83p^433p^2+3}{48p^6}}ϵ^4\mathrm{cos}(4p\psi )`$
$`+`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{(p^21)(75p^{10}1011p^8+1414p^6974p^4+255p^215)}{768p^8}}ϵ^5\mathrm{cos}(5p\psi )`$
$`+`$ $`O(ϵ^6).`$
If this expansion continues in higher orders without dependence on $`\delta _0`$, which seems quite likely, then we have for fixed $`p`$ and $`ϵ`$ a non-circular shape which can float in any direction for $`p2`$ different densities. This is an intriguing result.

The densities are functions of $`ϵ`$,

$`\pi \rho `$ $`=`$ $`\pi \rho _0{\displaystyle \frac{(p^21)^2s_{\delta _0}c_{\delta _0}^3}{p^2W^2}}ϵ^2{\displaystyle \frac{(p^21)^2s_{\delta _0}c_{\delta _0}^3P_\rho }{32p^6W^4}}ϵ^4+O(ϵ^6),`$ (99)
$`P_\rho `$ $`=`$ $`3p^826p^620p^422p^2+1+c_{2\delta _0}(3p^824p^6+6p^4+16p^21).`$ (100)
The ratio of the part of the circumference below the water-level $`a`$ to the total circumference $`a_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ also depends on $`ϵ`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi a}{a_{\mathrm{tot}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`\pi 2\delta _0{\displaystyle \frac{s_{\delta _0}c_{\delta _0}(p^21)^2}{p^2W^2}}ϵ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{s_{\delta _0}c_{\delta _0}(p^21)^2P_\mathrm{a}}{64p^6W^4}}ϵ^4+O(ϵ^6),`$ (101)
$`P_\mathrm{a}`$ $`=`$ $`13p^8+50p^612p^4+14p^21+c_{2\delta _0}(13p^86p^48p^2+1).`$ (102)
For $`\rho =1/2`$ all determinants $`(k^21)\widehat{C}_k`$ vanish for odd $`k`$. This is the source for the large variety of cross-sections at $`\rho =1/2`$. We may, however, use the above equations, which were initially solved for general $`c_{\delta _0}`$ and $`s_{\delta _0}`$ and finally insert $`s_{\delta _0}=0`$, $`c_{\delta _0}=1`$, and again we obtain the same boundary (to seventh order in $`ϵ`$).

Finally we may reconsider the ”solution” $`c_{\delta _0}=0`$, $`s_{\delta _0}=\pm 1`$. In this special case formally the boundary and the envelope of water-lines coincide. However, the parametrization is different, since $`r`$ is given as a function of the polar angle $`\psi `$, whereas $`x_M`$, $`y_M`$ are given as function of the direction of the tangent on the curve. Despite the fact that there is no solution for $`\rho =0`$ and $`\rho =1`$ except the circle (in this case the height of the center of gravity above or below the water-line has to be constant, which according to Montejano  is only fulfilled by a circle), our equations are fulfilled for arbitrary closed boundaries, since in this limit $`l=0`$ and thus always $`\varphi =\chi `$. That $`c_{\delta _0}=0`$ appears as a multiple solution is probably a consequence of the fact, that the fictitious water-line is parallel to the boundary and thus the coincidence of $`R`$ and $`L^{}`$ is fulfilled in higher orders. We note that formal substitution of $`c_{\delta _0}=0`$ and $`s_{\delta _0}=\pm 1`$ again yields the same boundary.

There remains the question of the convergency of the $`ϵ`$-expansion. I do not have a definite answer to this. However, if one describes the boundary by $`x_M`$, $`y_M`$ for $`c_{\delta _0}=0`$, then it is apparent, that there is a unique solution only as long as the cross-section is convex, since otherwise $`x_M`$, $`y_M`$ are no longer unique functions of $`\varphi `$. Thus the radius of convergency cannot be larger then the maximal $`ϵ`$ for a convex boundary, which can be estimated $`ϵ1/(2p^2)`$. From the numerical calculations it seems likely, that this is the radius of convergency for $`c_{\delta _0}=0`$. For larger $`c_{\delta _0}`$, that is for $`\rho `$ closer to $`1/2`$ the radius of convergency seems to be larger.

We show now several examples. For given $`p`$ and $`ϵ`$ we have plotted points of the envelope of the water-line for different $`\rho `$ in intervals of $`6^0=\pi /30`$ and the corresponding points on the boundary for various cases. For odd $`p`$ I include the result for $`\rho =1/2`$. As long as $`ϵ1/(2p^2)`$, I also include the points for $`c_{\delta _0}=0`$, which lie on the boundary. If one would include the points calculated for $`c_{\delta _0}=0`$ for $`ϵ=1/p^2`$, then one would see that they scatter around and do not fit on a smooth boundary, indicating the non-convergency of the $`ϵ`$-expansion in this case. All points have been calculated from the expansion of $`x_M`$, $`y_M`$ to order $`ϵ^7`$.

Figure 6. $`p=4`$, $`ϵ=1/(2p^2)`$.

Figure 7. $`p=5`$, $`ϵ=1/p^2`$.

Figure 8. $`p=6`$, $`ϵ=1/(4p^2)`$.

Figure 9. $`p=7`$, $`ϵ=1/(2p^2)`$.

Figure 10. $`p=8`$, $`ϵ=1/p^2`$.

## 6 Conclusion

Here we have shown, that for densities different from $`1/2`$ it is possible to have logs with non-circular cross-sections, which float indifferently in all orientations around the axis. The cross-sections which are presented have a $`p`$-fold rotation axis and $`p`$ mirror lines. For each $`p`$ we have a one-parameter family of solutions at $`p2`$ densities. From the $`\rho 1\rho `$ symmetry it is expected, that the solutions are pairwise equal. However, the expansion in the deformation parameter $`ϵ`$ yields $`p2`$ equal solutions up to order $`ϵ^7`$, from which I conjecture, that one and the same manifold of cross-sections floats indifferently for all $`p2`$ densities. It would be very useful to obtain the curves in a non-perturbative way, in order to verify or falsify the conjecture.

We have obtained these solutions by deforming the circular solution. One may also try to deform the solutions for $`\rho =1/2`$ or the solutions here obtained by looking, if for some $`ϵ`$ again a non-trivial deformation is possible which might yield a solution of even lower symmetry.

Acknowledgment I am indebted to Yacov Kantor for posing the problem in his Physics Questions Series at http://star.tau.ac.il/QUIZ/ and for correspondence.


format: text

text:
# Multifractality at the spin quantum Hall transition

## Abstract

Statistical properties of critical wave functions at the spin quantum Hall transition are studied both numerically and analytically (via mapping onto the classical percolation). It is shown that the index $`\eta `$ characterizing the decay of wave function correlations is equal to 1/4, at variance with the $`r^{1/2}`$ decay of the diffusion propagator. The multifractality spectra of eigenfunctions and of two-point conductances are found to be close-to-parabolic, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_qq(1q)/8`$ and $`X_qq(3q)/4`$.

Disordered two-dimensional electron systems show remarkably rich physics, which is governed by quantum interference effects and depends on the symmetry class to which the system belongs. Recently, unconventional symmetry classes , which can be realized in $`d`$-wave superconductors, have attracted considerable interest. Particular attention was paid to the class C (broken time-reversal invariance), where a transition between localized phases with quantized values of the spin Hall conductance takes place . A network model describing this spin quantum Hall (SQH) transition was constructed in , and critical exponents for the scaling of the localization length were determined numerically. In  a mapping onto a supersymmetric spin chain was performed, providing an alternative method for the numerical study of the critical behavior. Remarkably, some exact analytical results for this model have been obtained by mapping onto the classical percolation problem . In particular, it was found that the density of states (DOS) is critical and scales as $`\rho (ϵ)ϵ^{1/7}`$, while the diffusion propagator $`\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐫,𝐫^{})=G_R(𝐫,𝐫^{})G_A(𝐫^{},𝐫)`$ and the average two-point conductance $`g(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ fall off as $`|𝐫𝐫^{}|^{1/2}`$ at criticality.

The aim of the present paper is to study the statistical properties of wave functions at the SQH critical point. Multifractality of wave functions $`\psi (𝐫)`$ is known to be a hallmark of the localization transition. It has been extensively studied in the context of conventional Anderson and quantum Hall (QH) transitions with non-critical DOS (see e.g.  and references therein), and we remind the reader of some basic results. Multifractality is characterized by a set of exponents $`\tau _qd(q1)+\mathrm{\Delta }_q`$ ($`d`$ is the spatial dimensionality) describing the scaling of the moments of $`|\psi ^2(𝐫)|`$ with the system size, $`|\psi (𝐫)|^{2q}L^{d\tau _q}`$. Anomalous dimensions $`\mathrm{\Delta }_q`$ distinguish a critical point from the metallic phase and determine the scale dependence of wave function correlations. Among them, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2\eta `$ plays the most prominent role, governing the spatial correlations of the “intensity” $`|\psi |^2`$,

$$L^{2d}|\psi ^2(𝐫)\psi ^2(𝐫^{})|(|𝐫𝐫^{}|/L)^\eta .$$
(1)
Correlations of two different (but close in energy) eigenfunctions and the diffusion propagator possess the same scaling properties,

$`L^{2d}|\psi _i^2(𝐫)\psi _j^2(𝐫^{})|,L^{2d}\psi _i(𝐫)\psi _j^{}(𝐫)\psi _i^{}(𝐫^{})\psi _j(𝐫^{}),`$ (2)
$`\rho ^2\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐫,𝐫^{};\omega )(|𝐫𝐫^{}|/L_\omega )^\eta ,`$ (3)
where $`\omega =ϵ_iϵ_j`$, $`L_\omega (\rho \omega )^{1/d}`$ and $`|𝐫𝐫^{}|<L_\omega `$. The moments of the two-point conductance show a power-law scaling as well , $`g^q(𝐫,𝐫^{})|𝐫𝐫^{}|^{X_q}`$ with another set of exponents $`X_q`$, which are related to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_q`$ ,

$$X_q=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }_q+\mathrm{\Delta }_{1q},\hfill & q<1/2\hfill \\ 2\mathrm{\Delta }_{1/2},\hfill & q>1/2\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
In two dimensions the multifractal spectra $`\mathrm{\Delta }_q`$ and $`X_q`$ play a key role in the identification of the conformal field theory governing the critical point, which led to growing interest in the eigenfunction statistics at the QH transition .

Applying naively these results to the SQH transition, one would conclude that the $`r^{1/2}`$ scaling of the diffusion propagator found in  implies $`\eta =1/2`$. However, a more careful examination of the findings of Ref.  gives us a warning: Gruzberg et al. find that $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ and $`g`$ share the same $`r^{1/2}`$ scaling, in contrast to Eqs. (3), (4) predicting different exponents ($`\eta \mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ and $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_{1/2}`$, respectively). This suggests that one should be cautious when trying to apply the above relations between critical exponents obtained for systems with a non-critical DOS to those with a critical one (like the SQH transition). Our analysis below shows that such a caution is well justified.

After this introduction, we turn to our study, which combines numerical and analytical methods. Our main aim is to calculate exponents governing the scaling of $`|\psi |^{2q}`$, $`g^q`$, and $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$, and to understand relations between them. For computer simulations we used the SU(2) network model described in . Each realization of the network is characterized by a unitary evolution operator $`𝒰`$. Diagonalizing $`𝒰`$ using advanced sparse matrix packages  yields eigenfunctions $`\psi _i`$ and eigenvalues $`e^{iϵ_i}`$, where $`i=1,2,\mathrm{}L^2`$. In Fig. 1 we display the DOS for different system sizes $`L`$. It is seen that after a proper rescaling all data collapse onto a single curve, as expected at criticality. At $`ϵ\delta `$ (where $`\delta L^{7/4}`$ is the level spacing at $`ϵ=0`$) the DOS scales as $`\rho (ϵ)ϵ^{1/7}`$, in agreement with the analytical prediction . On the other hand, at $`ϵ\delta `$ one observes an oscillatory structure qualitatively analogous to the behavior found in the random matrix theory for the class C .

We concentrate now on the statistics of eigenfunctions with smallest energies, $`|ϵ|\delta `$, for which the correlation length $`\xi _ϵϵ^{4/7}`$  is of the order of the system size. In Fig. 2 (inset) we plot the eigenfunction autocorrelation function (1), as well as the correlation function of two eigenstates neighboring in energy (the second one in Eq. (3)). The results imply a power-law behavior $`r^\eta `$ of both correlation functions at distances $`1rL`$, with an index $`\eta `$ close to $`1/4`$. On the other hand, our numerics confirms the value 1/2  of the exponent governing the decay of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ (Fig. 2, main panel). To understand the difference between the two exponents, we turn now to an analytical approach.

Consider a correlation function of two wavefunctions,

$`𝒟(e^{},e;ϵ_1,ϵ_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ij\alpha \beta }{}}\psi _{i\alpha }^{}(e)\psi _{j\alpha }(e)\psi _{i\beta }(e^{})\psi _{j\beta }^{}(e^{})`$ (5)
$`\times `$ $`\delta (ϵ_1ϵ_i)\delta (ϵ_2ϵ_j),`$ (6)
where $`e`$, $`e^{}`$ are two edges of the network and $`\alpha ,\beta =1,2`$ are the SU(2) indices. Introducing the Green function $`G(e^{},e;z)=e^{}|(1z𝒰)^1|e`$, we express (5) as

$`𝒟(e^{},e;ϵ_1,ϵ_2)=(2\pi )^2\mathrm{Tr}[G_R(e^{},e;e^{iϵ_1})G_A(e^{},e;e^{iϵ_1})]`$ (7)
$`\times [G_R(e,e^{};e^{iϵ_2})G_A(e,e^{};e^{iϵ_2})],`$ (8)
where $`G_{R,A}`$ are retarded and advanced Green functions, $`G_{R,A}(e^{},e;e^{iϵ_1})=G(e^{},e;e^{i(ϵ_1\pm i0)})`$. We will calculate (7) at zero energy, $`ϵ_{1,2}0`$, but finite level broadening, $`\pm i0\pm i\gamma `$. The scaling behavior of the correlation function (5) at $`ϵ_1,ϵ_2ϵ`$ can then be obtained by substituting $`ϵ`$ for $`\gamma `$. We thus need to calculate

$`𝒟(e^{},e;\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi )^2\mathrm{Tr}[G(e^{},e;z)G(e^{},e;z^1)]`$ (9)
$`\times `$ $`[G(e,e^{};z)G(e,e^{};z^1)],`$ (10)
with a real $`z=e^\gamma <1`$. To do this, we make use of the mapping to the classical percolation, following the approach of . We give only a brief outline of the calculation here; details will be published elsewhere . The Green functions in (9) are represented as sums over paths; the resulting expression is to be averaged over SU(2) matrices $`U_f`$ associated with all network edges $`f`$. The crucial point is that for each edge $`f`$ only paths visiting it 0 or 2 times are to be taken into account. In  this was proven for the average Green function $`\mathrm{Tr}G(e,e;z)`$. The proof is based on the observation that $`U_f^q=c_q\mathrm{𝟏}`$, where $`c_q=0`$ for integer $`q0,\pm 2`$. We generalize the statement to products of two Green functions of the type entering (9) as well as another two-point correlation function,

$`\stackrel{~}{D}(e^{},e;\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi )^2\mathrm{Tr}[G(e,e;z)G(e,e;z^1)]`$ (11)
$`\times `$ $`[G(e^{},e^{};z)G(e^{},e^{};z^1)],`$ (12)
corresponding to the $`|\psi _i^2(e)\psi _j^2(e^{})|`$ correlator, in the following way. Classifying the paths according to the number of times they return to a link $`f`$, we obtain expressions of the type $`_{q_1,q_2=1}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{Tr}U_f^{q_1}AU_f^{q_2}Bx^{q_1+q_2}`$ with $`A,B\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ and $`x`$. Averaging over $`U_f`$ yields now two terms, proportional to $`c_{q_1+q_2}`$ and $`c_{q_1q_2}`$, respectively. While the first one is non-zero only for $`q_1+q_2=2`$ traversals of the link as required, the second one seems to spoil the proof. However, summing over $`q_1`$ at fixed $`q_1+q_2`$, we find that such terms cancel in view of $`_qc_q=c_2+c_0+c_2=1/2+1+(1/2)=0`$. Having established that only paths visiting each link 0 or 2 times are to be considered, we can express, in analogy with , the correlation functions (9) and (11) in terms of sums over paths representing hulls in the percolation problem. In particular, we get for the products of Green functions entering (9)

$`\mathrm{Tr}G(e^{},e;z)G(e,e^{};z)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}G(e^{},e;z^1)G(e,e^{};z^1)`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}P(e^{},e;N)z^{2N},`$ (14)
$`\mathrm{Tr}G(e^{},e;z)G(e,e^{};z^1)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}P_1(e^{},e;N)z^{2N},`$ (15)
where $`P(e^{},e;N)`$ and $`P_1(e^{},e;N)`$ are probabilities that the edges $`e`$ and $`e^{}`$ belong to the same loop of the length $`N`$ (resp. with the length $`N`$ of the part corresponding to the motion from $`e`$ to $`e^{}`$). At $`z=1`$ both (14) and (15) reduce to $`2`$ times the probability $`P(e^{},e)`$ that $`e`$ and $`e^{}`$ belong to the same loop, which is identical (up to the sign) to the expression for the average conductance $`g(e^{},e)`$ at $`ϵ=0`$ obtained in .

The fractal dimension of the percolation hulls is 7/4 , implying  that $`P`$ and $`P_1`$ scale as

$$P(r,N),P_1(r,N)N^{8/7}r^{1/4},rN^{4/7}$$
(16)
and fall off exponentially fast at $`rN^{4/7}`$ ($`r`$ is the distance between $`e`$ and $`e^{}`$). This yields for the correlation functions in (14) and (15) (which we abbreviate as $`G_RG_R`$, $`G_AG_A`$, $`G_RG_A`$)

$`G_RG_R=G_AG_AG_RG_Ar^{1/2},`$ (17)
$`r\xi _\gamma \gamma ^{4/7}`$ (18)
in full agreement with the scaling argument of  and with our numerics. However, when we substitute (14), (15) in (9), these leading order terms cancel since $`_N[P(r,N)P_1(r,N)]=0`$. The result is non-zero due to the factors $`z^{2N}`$ only, implying that relevant $`N`$ are now $`N\gamma ^1`$, so that $`(G_RG_A)(G_RG_A)`$ scales differently compared to (18),

$`𝒟(e^{},e;\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}[P(r,N)P_1(r,N)](1e^{2N\gamma })`$ (19)
$``$ $`P(r,\gamma ^1)\gamma ^1(\xi _\gamma r)^{1/4},r\xi _\gamma .`$ (20)
Using now the definition (5) of $`𝒟`$ and the DOS scaling, $`\rho (ϵ)ϵ^{1/7}\xi _ϵ^{1/4}`$, we find for $`r\xi _ϵ`$

$$L^4\psi _{i\alpha }^{}(e)\psi _{j\alpha }(e)\psi _{i\beta }(e^{})\psi _{j\beta }^{}(e^{})(r/\xi _ϵ)^{1/4}.$$
(21)
The same scaling behavior is obtained for the correlation function $`|\psi _{i\alpha }^2(e)\psi _{j\beta }^2(e^{})|`$ . We thus conclude that $`\eta =1/4`$, consistent with our above numerical results. To shed more light on the difference in scaling between $`GG`$ (or $`g`$), Eq. (18), and $`𝒟`$, Eq. (20), it is instructive to reverse the logic and to ask how (18) can be obtained from the wave function correlations (20), (21). It is straightforward to express $`GG`$ through $`𝒟`$ in the form of an integral over $`ϵ_{1,2}`$ with corresponding energy denominators (dispersion relation). The integral is then dominated by $`ϵ_{1,2}ϵ(r)`$, where $`ϵ(r)`$ is defined by $`\xi _{ϵ(r)}r`$ (i.e. $`ϵ(r)r^{7/4}`$). This yields $`GG𝒟(r;ϵ(r))r^{1/2}`$ (we have used (20) in the last step), in agreement with (18). Therefore, $`GG`$ (or $`g`$) is determined by wave functions with energies $`ϵ(r)`$, which transforms $`\xi _ϵ^{1/4}`$ in (20) into an additional factor $`r^{1/4}`$. We will come back to this argument below to get an analogous relation for higher moments.

In order to study the whole multifractal spectrum $`\mathrm{\Delta }_q`$, we return to numerical simulations. Our procedure based on the evaluation of ensemble averaged moments $`|\psi ^{2q}|`$ and extrapolation to $`L\mathrm{}`$ was described in detail in . The results for $`\tau _q`$ are shown in Fig. 3a. The obtained spectrum is parabolic with a high accuracy. A parabolic spectrum is uniquely determined by $`\eta `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_q=\eta q(1q)/2`$; the above result $`\eta =1/4`$ thus implies

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_qq(1q)/8.$$
(22)
We find, however, clear deviations from the parabolic law (22), as shown in Fig. 3b. One could ask whether these are not an artifact of uncontrollable finite-size corrections to scaling. We observe, however, an almost perfect scaling for all the quantities studied, yielding, in particular, $`\eta =0.252\pm 0.002`$ in a very good agreement with the exact value $`\eta =1/4`$. On the other hand, we find (in standard notations, $`\alpha _q=d\tau _q/dq`$) $`\alpha _02=0.137\pm 0.003`$ and $`2\alpha _1=0.130\pm 0.003`$ (Fig. 3c), while both these quantities would be equal to $`\eta /2`$, should the parabolic law (22) be exact. This makes us believe that the spectrum is only approximately parabolic, in contrast to exact parabolicity found for the QH transition .

Finally, we turn to the statistics of two-point conductances. Generalizing the above argument, we get

$`[\mathrm{Tr}G(e^{},e)G(e,e^{})]^q`$
$`\rho ^{2q}(ϵ(r))L^{4q}|\psi _{ϵ_1}^{2q}(e)\psi _{ϵ_2}^{2q}(e^{})||_{ϵ_{1,2}ϵ(r)}r^{X_q},`$
with an index $`X_q`$ related to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_q`$ and to the scaling dimension $`x_\rho `$ of the DOS (defined by $`\rho (ϵ)\xi _ϵ^{x_\rho }`$) as follows (see also ),

$$X_q=2qx_\rho +2\mathrm{\Delta }_q.$$
(23)
Using $`x_\rho =1/4`$ and Eq. (22) for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_q`$, we find

$$X_qq(3q)/4.$$
(24)
The same scaling is expected to hold for the two-point conductance, $`g^qr^{X_q}`$. However, since $`g`$ is bounded from above, $`g2`$, the exponent for $`g^q`$ should be a non-decreasing function of $`q`$. Therefore, Eq.(24) will hold only for the moments $`g^q`$ with $`qq_c`$, where $`q_c3/2`$ is the maximum of (24), while for higher $`q`$ the exponent saturates, $`X_{qq_c}=X_{q_c}9/16`$ (these moments are determined by the probability to find $`g1`$). Equation (24) corresponds to a normal distribution of $`\mathrm{ln}g`$ (at $`r1`$) with the average $`\mathrm{ln}g(r)\frac{3}{4}\mathrm{ln}r`$ and the variance $`\mathrm{var}[\mathrm{ln}g(r)]\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}r`$. These arguments are fully confirmed by the results of the numerical simulations shown in Fig. 2.

It remains an open question whether the multifractal exponents $`\mathrm{\Delta }_q`$, $`X_q`$ can be computed by the conformal field theory methods . Note that our results do not confirm the proposal of Ref. , where the value $`\eta =1/2`$ was obtained. Apparently, this indicates that the theory considered in  and obtained  from a particular network model with fine-tuned couplings, does not belong to the SQH universality class.

To summarize, we have studied, by combining numerical and analytical methods, the wave function statistics at the SQH transition. In particular, we have shown, using a mapping to classical percolation, that the index $`\eta \mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ \[defined by Eq. (1)\] is equal to 1/4, at variance with the $`r^{1/2}`$ scaling of the diffusion propagator $`\mathrm{\Pi }=G_RG_A`$. The multifractal spectra of wave functions ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_q`$) and two-point conductances ($`X_q`$) are given with a good accuracy by Eqs. (22) and (24) but show detectable deviations from parabolicity.

Discussions and correspondence with J.T. Chalker, I. Gruzberg, A. LeClair, and J.E. Moore are gratefully acknowledged. This work was supported by the SFB 195 and the Schwerpunktprogramm ”Quanten-Hall-Systeme” der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft.