text:
# RADIATION FROM A CHARGE CIRCULATING INSIDE A WAVEGUIDE WITH DIELECTRIC FILLING

## 1 Introduction

The wide applications of the synchrotron radiation (see, for example  and the references therein) motivate the importance of investigations for various mechanisms of control of the radiation parameters. From this point of view, it is of interest to investigate the influence of a medium on the spectral and angular distributions of the synchrotron emission. This study is also important with respect to some astrophysical problems . The radiation from a charged particle circulating in a homogeneous medium was considered by Tsytovich in  (see also ). It had been shown that the interference between the synchrotron and Cerenkov radiations leads to interesting effects. The radiation from a charge rotating around a dielectric ball enclosed by a homogeneous medium is investigated in papers . The presence of the ball leads to interesting effects: if for substance of the ball and particle velocity the Cerenkov condition is satisfied, there are strong narrow peaks in the radiation intensity. At these peaks the radiated energy exceeds the corresponding quantity in the case of a homogeneous medium by some orders of magnitude. A similar problem for the case of the cylindrical symmetry we have considered in Refs. . In the paper  a recurrent scheme is developed for constructing the Green function of the electromagnetic field for a medium consisting of an arbitrary number of coaxial cylindrical layers. The investigation of the radiation from a charged particle circulating around a dielectric cylinder immersed in a homogeneous medium , has shown that under the Cerenkov condition for the material of the cylinder and the velocity of a charge there are narrow peaks in the angular distribution of the number of quanta emitted into the exterior space. For some values of parameters the density of the number of quanta in these peaks exceeds the corresponding quantity for the radiation in the vacuum by several orders.

The present paper is devoted to the radiation from a charge rotating inside a cylindrical waveguide filled by a homogenous dielectric. The contribution of waves of the electric and magnetic type to the total radiation intensity is determined. The results of the corresponding numerical calculations are presented and a comparison with the intensity of the synchrotron radiation in a homogenous medium is carried out.

## 2  Electromagnetic fields inside a waveguide

To determine the electromagnetic field of a charged particle rotating inside a cylindrical waveguide with conducting walls and filled by a material with dielectric permittivity $`\epsilon _0`$, firstly we shall consider a more general problem. Let a charge $`q`$ moves with the velocity $`v`$ along a circle of radius $`\rho _0`$ in the plane $`z=0`$ inside a cylinder of radius $`\rho _1`$ and axis $`z`$. The permittivity of the medium inside the cylinder is $`\epsilon _0`$ and it is immersed in a homogeneous medium with permittivity $`\epsilon _1`$ ( for simplicity we shall assume that the permeability is equal to 1). The 4-potential $`A_i=(\phi ,𝐀)`$ of the corresponding electromagnetic field can be determined via the Green function (being a second rank tensor) by the formula

$$A_i(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2c}G_{il}(x,x^{})j_l(x^{})d^4x^{},x=(t,𝐫),i,l=0,1,2,3,$$
(1)
where a summation over index $`l`$ is assumed, $`c`$ is the speed of light in the vacuum, and $`j_l(x)`$ is the 4-vector of the current density of the charge. In the cylindrical coordinates $`(\rho ,\phi ,z)`$ the spatial components of the latter are in form

$$j_l=\frac{vq}{\rho _0}\delta (\rho \rho _0)\delta (\phi \omega _0t)\delta (z)\delta _{l2},v=\omega _0\rho _0,l=1,2,3$$
(2)
(the values of indices $`l=1,2,3`$ correspond to the coordinates $`\rho ,\phi ,z`$ respectively). A recurrent scheme for the construction of the Green function in a medium consisting of an arbitrary number of coaxial cylindrical layers is developed in . The Green function for the problem under consideration can be derived from the general formulae of this paper. By using the problem symmetry we can write the following Fourier expansion for the Green function:

$$G_{il}(x,x^{})=\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑k_z𝑑\omega G_{il}(\omega ,m,k_z,\rho ,\rho ^{})\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\left[m(\phi \phi ^{})+k_z(zz^{})\omega (tt^{})\right]\right\}.$$
(3)
In the Lorentz gauge for the components we need here and for $`\rho =\rho _0<\rho _1`$, $`\rho <\rho _1`$ from the general formulae of Ref.  one has

$$G_{il}(\omega ,m,k_z,\rho ,\rho _0)=\frac{\pi }{4i^{l1}}\underset{\alpha =1,1}{}\alpha ^l\left[J_{m+\alpha }(\lambda _0\rho _<)H_{m+\alpha }(\lambda _0\rho _>)+B_m^{(\alpha )}J_{m+\alpha }(\lambda _0\rho )\right],l=1,2,$$
(4)
where $`\rho _<=\mathrm{min}(\rho ,\rho _0)`$, $`\rho _>=\mathrm{max}(\rho ,\rho _0)`$, $`J_m(x)`$ is the Bessel function, $`H_m(x)H_m^{(1)}(x)`$ is the Hankel function of the first kind. In (4) the coefficients $`B_m^{(\alpha )}`$ are defined by the expressions

$`B_m^{(\alpha )}`$ $`=`$ $`J_{m+\alpha }(\lambda _0\rho _0){\displaystyle \frac{W(H_{m+\alpha },H_{m+\alpha })}{W(J_{m+\alpha },H_{m+\alpha })}}+`$ (5)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha \lambda _1H_m(\lambda _1\rho _1)H_{m+\alpha }(\lambda _1\rho _1)}{\pi \rho _1^2\beta _1W(J_{m+\alpha },H_{m+\alpha })}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=\pm 1}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{J_{m+p}(\lambda _0\rho _0)}{W(J_{m+p},H_{m+p})}},`$
where, as in the paper , we use notations

$`\lambda _{1,0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m\omega _0}{c}}\sqrt{\epsilon _{1,0}{\displaystyle \frac{c^2k_z^2}{m^2\omega _0^2}}}`$ (6)
$`\beta _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _0}{\epsilon _1\epsilon _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _0}{2}}J_m(\lambda _0\rho _1){\displaystyle \underset{l=\pm 1}{}}l{\displaystyle \frac{H_{m+l}(\lambda _1\rho _1)}{W(J_{m+l},H_{m+l})}}`$ (7)
with

$$W(a,b)=a(\lambda _0\rho _1)\frac{b(\lambda _1\rho _1)}{\rho _1}b(\lambda _1\rho _1)\frac{a(\lambda _0\rho _1)}{\rho _1}.$$
(8)
In formula (9) the summand with $`m=0`$ does not depend on time and hence does not give a contribution to the radiation field. Therefore in the consideration of the radiation field we can assume $`m0`$.

Substituting Eq. (2) and expressions (3), (4) for the Green function into formula (1) we receive

$$A_l(x)=\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}e^{im(\phi \omega _0t)}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k_ze^{ik_zz}A_{ml}(k_z,\rho ),$$
(9)
where in the Lorentz gauge

$`A_{ml}(k_z,\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{vq}{4ci^{l1}}}\left\{A_{ml}^{(0)}+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =\pm 1}{}}\alpha ^lB_m^{(\alpha )}J_{m+\alpha }(\lambda _0\rho )\right\},l=1,2,`$ (10)
$`A_{m3}(k_z,\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$
Here the term

$$A_{ml}^{(0)}=\underset{\alpha =1,1}{}\alpha ^lJ_{m+\alpha }(\lambda _0\rho _<)H_{m+\alpha }(\lambda _0\rho _>),$$
(11)
corresponds to the field of a charge in a homogeneous medium with permittivity $`\epsilon _0`$.

The vector potential of the electromagnetic field inside a waveguide with conducting walls can be obtained from the formulae given above taking the limit $`\epsilon _1\mathrm{}`$. From formulae (5)-(8) it follows that $`\lambda _1(\epsilon _1)`$ enters only in the argument of the Hankel function. By a simple calculation in view of the asymptotic formulae of this function for large values of the argument  it can be seen that in the limit $`\epsilon _1\mathrm{}`$ the coefficients (5) take the form

$`B_m^{(\alpha )}`$ $`=`$ $`J_{m+\alpha }(\lambda _0\rho _0){\displaystyle \frac{H_{m+\alpha }(\lambda _0\rho _1)}{J_{m+\alpha }(\lambda _0\rho _1)}}`$ (12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha J_{m\alpha }(\lambda _0\rho _1)}{\pi \rho _1\lambda _0J_m(\lambda _0\rho _1)J_m^{}(\lambda _0\rho _1)}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=\pm 1}{}}p{\displaystyle \frac{J_{m+p}(\lambda _0\rho _0)}{J_{m+p}(\lambda _0\rho _1)}}.`$
Thus, the field inside a cylindrical waveguide is determined by formulae (9), (10), where the coefficients $`B_m^{(\alpha )}`$ are defined according to Eq. (12). Note, that in the limit $`\rho _0\rho _1`$ one has $`B_m^{(\alpha )}=H_{m+\alpha }(\lambda _0\rho _0)`$, and in virtue of Eq. (11) fields (10) tend to zero. We could expect this result as when the charge approaches the wall of a waveguide the particle and its mirror image cancel each other. Before to proceed further calculations we shall consider the analytical properties of $`A_{ml}(k_z,\rho )`$ in Eq. (9), as a function on the complex variable $`k_z`$. From formulae (6), (11), (12) it can seem, that the points $`k_z=\pm m\omega _0\sqrt{\epsilon _0}/c`$ are branchpoints for this function. However, by using the expansions of the cylindrical functions (see, for example, ), it can be seen that actually $`A_{ml}(k_z,\rho )`$ is a function on $`\lambda _0^2`$ only: $`A_{ml}=A_{ml}(\lambda _0^2,\rho )`$. Note that the logarithmic singularity $`\mathrm{ln}\lambda _0`$ contained in the expansion of the Hankel function in $`A_{ml}^{(0)}`$ is cancelled with the corresponding singularity of the first term in Eq. (12). As a result the function $`A_{ml}(k_z,\rho )`$ is meromorphic on the complex plane $`k_z`$. From the formulae (11), (12) it follows that this function has poles corresponding to the zeros of the Bessel function $`J_m(\lambda _0\rho _1)`$ and its derivative:

$$k_z=\pm k_n^{(\sigma )}\pm \sqrt{\frac{m^2\omega _0^2}{c^2}\epsilon _0\frac{j_{m,n}^{(\sigma )2}}{\rho _1^2},}\sigma =0,1,J_m^{(\sigma )}(\lambda _0\rho _1)=J_m^{(\sigma )}(j_{m,n}^{(\sigma )})=0,n=1,2,\mathrm{},$$
(13)
with the notation $`J_m^{(\sigma )}(x)=d^\sigma J_m/dx^\sigma `$. Note that the singularities in the first and second terms on the right of formula (12) corresponding to the zeros of the functions $`J_{m\pm 1}(\lambda _0\rho _1)`$ are cancelled, and consequently the functions $`B_m^{(\pm 1)}`$ are regular at these points. In Eq. (13) $`j_{m,n}^{(\sigma )}`$ are positive zeros of the Bessel function ($`\sigma =0`$) and its derivative ($`\sigma =1`$), arranged in ascending order, $`j_{m,n}^{(\sigma )}<j_{m,n+1}^{(\sigma )}`$. All these zeros are simple, and hence the values of $`k_z`$ given by Eq. (13) correspond to simple poles of the function $`A_{ml}(k_z,\rho )`$. They describe the eigenmodes of a cylindrical waveguide and are known as TM modes in the case $`\sigma =0`$ and TE modes in the case $`\sigma =1`$ .

For real values of $`\epsilon _0`$ poles (13) are situated on the real axis of the complex plane $`k_z`$, for $`j_{m,n}^{(\sigma )}m\omega _0\rho _1\sqrt{\epsilon _0}/c`$, and are purely imaginary otherwise. In formula (9) to derive unambiguous result for the integral over $`k_z`$ it is necessary to specify the rules to escape the real poles (see Section 3). For this purpose note that in physically realistic situations the permittivity is complex: $`\epsilon _0=\epsilon _0^{}+i\epsilon _0^{\prime \prime }`$, where the imaginary part $`\epsilon _0^{\prime \prime }>0`$ describes the absorbtion in the medium. From here it follows that the radicals $`\pm k_n^{(\sigma )}`$ from Eq. (13) with a positive/negative real part are situated in the upper/lower half of the complex plane $`k_z`$. This leads to the following rule to circle the poles in (9): in the integral over $`k_z`$ the positive poles should be circled from below, and negative ones – from above. Note also that if the walls of the waveguide have finite conductivity, then to the wave number $`k_z`$ an additional imaginary part is added (see, for example, ), which leads to the same rule to escape the poles.

## 3  Radiation intensity

In this section we shall consider the radiation field travelling inside the cylinder at large distances from the charge. First of all let us show that in Eq. (10) the fields $`A_{ml}^{(0)}`$ and the term corresponding to the first summand in definition (12) do not contribute to the radiation field. This immediately follows from the estimate of the integral over $`k_z`$ in Eq. (9) by using the stationary phase method (see, for example, ). As in this integral the phase $`k_zz`$ has no stationary points, for large $`\left|z\right|`$ the integral tends to zero faster than any power of $`1/\left|z\right|`$, provided that the coefficient of the exponential function belongs to the class $`C^{\mathrm{}}(R)`$. It follows from here that the the singularities of this coefficient can only give the contribution to the radiation field. As it has been mentioned in the previous section, for the integral over $`k_z`$ in Eq. (9) the singularities correspond to the poles of the second summand in Eq. (12) at $`k_z=\pm k_n^{(\sigma )}`$, defined by relations (13). To determine the corresponding contributions to the integral we note that, as it has been mentioned above, by taking into account the absorption, the points $`k_z=k_n^{(\sigma )}(k_n^{(\sigma )})`$ are situated in the upper (lower) half of the complex plane $`k_z`$. Therefore the integration contour over $`k_z`$ in Eq. (9) can be closed by a semicircle of a large radius in the upper (lower) half-plane. This choice is stipulated by the fact that for large $`\left|z\right|`$ the integrand exponentially tends to zero in the upper (lower) half-plane for $`z>0(<0)`$. As a result the corresponding integral vanishes when the radii of the semicircles go to infinity. Thus, for large $`\left|z\right|`$, $`z>(<)0`$ the integral over $`k_z`$ in (9), according to the residue theorem, is equal to the sum of the residues at poles $`k_z=k_n^{(\sigma )}(k_n^{(\sigma )})`$ multiplied by $`2\pi i`$. For large $`n`$, when $`j_{m,n}^{(\sigma )}>m\omega _0\rho _1\sqrt{\epsilon _0}/c`$, the poles $`\pm k_n^{(\sigma )}`$ are purely imaginary in the limit $`\epsilon _0^{\prime \prime }0`$ and the corresponding contribution tends to zero exponentially for $`z\mathrm{}`$. As a result these poles do not contribute to the radiation field. Therefore, the radiation field far from the charge takes the form

$$A_l(𝐫,t)=2\pi i\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}e^{im(\phi \omega _0t)}\underset{\sigma =0,1}{}\underset{n=1}{\overset{n_{\mathrm{max}}^{(\sigma )}}{}}\mathrm{Res}_{k_z=k_n^{(\sigma )}}A_{ml}e^{ik_zz},$$
(14)
where the maximal value $`n_{\mathrm{max}}^{(\sigma )}`$ is defined by the conditions

$$j_{m,n_{\mathrm{max}}^{(\sigma )}}^{(\sigma )}\sqrt{\epsilon _0}m\frac{v}{c}\frac{\rho _1}{\rho _0},j_{m,n_{\mathrm{max}}^{(\sigma )}+1}^{(\sigma )}>\sqrt{\epsilon _0}m\frac{v}{c}\frac{\rho _1}{\rho _0}.$$
(15)
Thus, at large distances from the charge the radiation field inside the waveguide is presented in the form of waves with discrete set of values of the wave vector projection on the waveguide axis, $`k_z=k_n^{(\sigma )}`$, $`n=1,2,\mathrm{},n_{\mathrm{max}}^{(\sigma )}`$, defined by formula (13). Having $`A_{ml}`$ we can find the scalar potential by using the Lorentz gauge condition. As a result the electric and magnetic fields can be presented in the form of sums of the TE and TM waves:

$$F_l(𝐫,t)=\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}e^{im(\phi \omega _0t)}\underset{\sigma =0,1}{}\underset{n=1}{\overset{n_{\mathrm{max}}^{(\sigma )}}{}}F_{ml}^{(\sigma )}(j_{m,n}^{(\sigma )},\rho ),F=E,H.$$
(16)
For the $`z`$-components of the fields corresponding to the elementary waves one has

$`E_{m3}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2q}{\epsilon _0\rho _1^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{J_m(j_{m,n}^{(0)}\rho _0/\rho _1)}{J_m^2(j_{m,n}^{(0)})}}J_m(j_{m,n}^{(0)}\rho /\rho _1),H_{m3}^{(0)}=0,\mathrm{for}\mathrm{TM}\mathrm{waves},`$ (17)
$`H_{m3}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2qvi}{c\rho _1^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{j_{m,n}^{(1)2}J_m(j_{m,n}^{(1)}\rho /\rho _1)}{k_n^{(1)}(m^2j_{m,n}^{(1)2})}}{\displaystyle \frac{J_m^{}(j_{m,n}^{(1)}\rho _0/\rho _1)}{J_m^2(j_{m,n}^{(1)})}},E_{m3}^{(1)}=0,\mathrm{for}\mathrm{TE}\mathrm{waves}.`$ (18)
The transverse components can be found from the formulae (see, for example, )

$`𝐄_{mt}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ik_n^{(0)}\rho _1^2}{j_{m,n}^{(0)2}}}_t\mathrm{\Psi },𝐇_{mt}^{(0)}={\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _0m\omega _0}{ck_n^{(0)}}}\left[𝐞_3𝐄_{mt}^{(0)}\right],`$
$`𝐇_{mt}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ik_n^{(1)}\rho _1^2}{j_{m,n}^{(1)2}}}_t\mathrm{\Psi },𝐄_{mt}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{m\omega _0}{ck_n^{(1)}}}\left[𝐞_3𝐇_{mt}^{(1)}\right],`$ (19)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }=E_{m3}^{(0)}`$ for TM waves and $`\mathrm{\Psi }=H_{m3}^{(1)}`$ for TE waves, $`_t=(/\rho ,im/\rho ,0)`$, and $`𝐞_3`$ is the unit vector along the axis $`z`$. The energy flux through the cross section of the waveguide per unit time interval is given by the Poynting’s vector $`𝐒`$:

$$I=_0^{\rho _1}\rho 𝑑\rho _0^{2\pi }𝑑\phi (𝐞_3𝐒),𝐒=\frac{c}{4\pi }\left[\mathrm{𝐄𝐇}\right],$$
(20)
where the fields are defined by expansions (16). Substituting these expansions into Eq. (20) and using the formulae for the integrals involving products of the Bessel functions  it can be seen that the contribution of the terms $`\left[𝐄_m^{(\sigma )}(j_{m,n}^{(\sigma )},\rho )𝐇_m^{}^{(\sigma ^{})^{}}(j_{m^{},n^{}}^{(\sigma ^{})},\rho )\right]`$ is proportional to $`\delta _{mm^{}}\delta _{nn^{}}\delta _{\sigma \sigma ^{}}`$. As a result the intensity $`I`$ can be presented as a sum of the radiation intensities on separate modes:

$$I=\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\underset{n=1}{\overset{n_{\mathrm{max}}^{(1)}}{}}I_{mn}^{(\mathrm{TE})}+\underset{n=1}{\overset{n_{\mathrm{max}}^{(0)}}{}}I_{mn}^{(\mathrm{TM})}\right),$$
(21)
where the energy radiated on the frequency $`\omega =m\omega _0`$ in the form of the TE and TM modes per per unit time interval is determined by the formulae

$`I_m^{(\mathrm{TM})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{n_{\mathrm{max}}^{(0)}}{}}}I_{mn}^{(\mathrm{TM})},I_{mn}^{(\mathrm{TM})}={\displaystyle \frac{2q^2vm}{\epsilon _0\rho _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_n^{(0)}}{j_{m,n}^{(0)2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{J_m^2(j_{m,n}^{(0)}\rho _0/\rho _1)}{J_{m+1}^2(j_{m,n}^{(0)})}},`$ (22)
$`I_m^{(\mathrm{TE})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{n_{\mathrm{max}}^{(1)}}{}}}I_{mn}^{(\mathrm{TE})},I_{mn}^{(\mathrm{TE})}={\displaystyle \frac{2q^2v^3m}{c^2\rho _1^2\rho _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{j_{m,n}^{(1)2}}{k_n^{(1)}(j_{m,n}^{(1)2}m^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{J_m^2(j_{m,n}^{(1)}\rho _0/\rho _1)}{J_m^2(j_{m,n}^{(1)})}}.`$ (23)
In these expressions the terms with fixed $`n`$ correspond to the waves with a given value $`k_z=`$ $`k_n^{(\sigma )}`$ of the wave vector projection on the waveguide axis. Note that in the limit $`\rho _0\rho _1`$ the radiation goes to zero. Expanding the Bessel functions in the numerators of Eqs. (22) and (23) in this limit we receive

$`I_{mn}^{(\mathrm{TM})}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2q^2\omega _0m}{\epsilon _0}}k_n^{(0)}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _0}{\rho _1}}\right)^2,`$ (24)
$`I_{mn}^{(\mathrm{TE})}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2q^2\omega _0^3m}{c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(j_{m,n}^{(1)2}m^2)}{k_n^{(1)}}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _0}{\rho _1}}\right)^2`$ (25)
under the assumption $`j_{m,n}^{(\sigma )}(1\rho _0/\rho _1)1`$. As a necessary condition for the presence of a radiation of a given type on the frequency $`\omega =m\omega _0`$ one has

$$n\omega _0>\omega _{m,1}^{(\sigma )},\omega _{m,n}^{(\sigma )}=c\frac{j_{m,n}^{(\sigma )}}{\rho _1\sqrt{\epsilon _0}},$$
(26)
where we have introduced the boundary frequency $`\omega _{m,n}^{(\sigma )}`$ for given $`m,n`$ and for a given type of waves ($`\sigma =0,1`$). In terms of the charge velocity it looks like $`v\sqrt{\epsilon _0}/c>(j_{m,1}^{(\sigma )}/m)(\rho _0/\rho _1)`$. In particular, by taking into account the inequality $`j_{m,1}^{(\sigma )}m`$ (see, for example, ), as a necessary condition for the presence of a radiation flux through the cross-section of the waveguide we have $`v\sqrt{\epsilon _0}/c>\rho _0/\rho _1`$. If this condition does not satisfied we have an interesting situation when the rotating particle does not radiate. Note that the boundary frequency $`\omega _{m,n}^{(\sigma )}`$ is a characteristic of the waveguide and does not depend on the parameters of the charge (energy, radius of the orbit). In formulae (22) the quantities $`k_n^{(\sigma )}`$ are expressed through the boundary frequency by the formula

$$k_n^{(\sigma )}=\frac{\sqrt{\epsilon _0}}{c}\sqrt{m^2\omega _0^2\omega _{m,n}^{(\sigma )2}}.$$
(27)
From Eqs. (22), (27) it follows that if the charge is orbiting with frequency $`\omega _0=\omega _{m,n}^{(\sigma )}/m`$, i.e. if the frequency of radiation coincides with the one of boundary frequencies (26), the radiation intensity for the TE waves goes to infinity. Note that in this limit the projection $`k_z=k_n^{(\sigma )}`$ goes to zero. However, it is necessary to take into account that under these conditions the absorption in the medium and in the walls of the waveguide becomes important, and consequently it is necessary to take into account the imaginary part $`\epsilon _0^{\prime \prime }`$ of the permittivity of the filling medium and finite conductivity of the waveguide walls (the damping constant in the waveguide walls depending on the conductivity is presented, for example, in  ). Thus, formulae (22) are valid for frequencies, not too close to the boundary ones, when $`k_n^{(\sigma )}\beta _\lambda ,m\omega _0\sqrt{\epsilon _0^{\prime \prime }}/c`$, where $`\beta _\lambda `$ is the damping constant due to the ohmic losses in the walls of the waveguide.

Introducing $`\gamma _{m,n}^{(\sigma )}j_{m,n}^{(\sigma )})\rho _0/m\rho _1`$, the arguments of the Bessel functions in the numerators of Eqs. (22), (23) can be written as $`m\gamma _{m,n}^{(\sigma )}`$. Note that for these quantities one has the following inequalities $`\rho _0/\rho _1<\gamma _{m,n}^{(\sigma )}v\sqrt{\epsilon _0}/c`$. Let us consider the radiation intensities (22), (23) for large values of $`m`$. From the well known properties of the Bessel functions for large values of the order it follows that the behavior of these intensities essentially depends on the sign of $`1\gamma _{m,n}`$.

First of all assume that the Cerenkov condition is not satisfied, $`v\sqrt{\epsilon _0}/c<1`$, and synchrotron radiation is present only. For $`1v\sqrt{\epsilon _0}/c1`$ the radiation intensity has maximum for $`\omega \omega _c=m_c\omega _0`$, with $`m_c=(1\gamma _{m_c,n_{max}}^{(\sigma )2})^{3/2}`$, and as it follows from Eq. (15) $`m_c<(1v^2\epsilon _0/c^2)^{3/2}`$. For the frequencies $`\omega \omega _c`$ the emitted power exponentially decreases. If the Cerenkov condition is satisfied, for the modes with $`\gamma _{m,n}^{(\sigma )}>1`$ in addition to the synchrotron radiation we also have Cerenkov radiation. Note that in the waveguide the sufficient condition for this radiation at a given harmonic $`m`$ is $`\gamma _{m,n_{max}}^{(\sigma )}>1`$ instead of $`v\sqrt{\epsilon _0}/c>1`$. For this modes the radiation intensity for large $`m`$ approximately linearly increases in the mean with frequency. This is a characteristic feature of the Cerenkov radiation. In this case to obtain a finite result for the total intensity (21) it is necessary to take into account the dispersion for the permittivity. Consider now the limiting case of large values of the waveguide radius $`\rho _1\mathrm{}`$. In this limit the main contribution to the radiation intensity is due to large values $`j_{m,n}^{(\sigma )}`$, when we can use the asymptotic formula

$$j_{m,n}^{(\sigma )}\pi \left(n+\frac{m1}{2}+\frac{(1)^\sigma }{4}\right).$$
(28)
From this relation it follows that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda _0=(j_{m,n+1}^{(\sigma )}j_{m,n}^{(\sigma )})/\rho _1=\pi /\rho _1`$. Now dividing and multiplying expressions (22) by $`\pi /\rho _1`$ and taking the limit $`\rho _1\mathrm{}`$ the sum over $`n`$ can be replaced by the integration over $`\lambda _0`$. As a result one has

$`I_{0m}^{(\mathrm{TM})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q^2vm}{\epsilon _0\rho _0}}{\displaystyle _0^{m\omega _0\sqrt{\epsilon _0}/c}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{m^2\omega _0^2\epsilon _0/c^2\lambda _0^2}}{\lambda _0}}J_m^2(\lambda _0\rho _0)𝑑\lambda _0,`$ (29)
$`I_{0m}^{(\mathrm{TE})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q^2v^3m}{c^2\rho _0}}{\displaystyle _0^{m\omega _0\sqrt{\epsilon _0}/c}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _0}{\sqrt{m^2\omega _0^2\epsilon _0/c^2\lambda _0^2}}}J_m^2(\lambda _0\rho _0)𝑑\lambda _0.`$ (30)
By introducing a new integration variable $`\theta `$ according to $`\lambda _0`$ ($`m\omega _0\sqrt{\epsilon _0}/c)\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ for the total radiation intensity (including the regions $`z>0`$ and $`z<0`$) with the frequency $`\omega =m\omega _0`$ in the limit $`\rho _1\mathrm{}`$ we receive

$`I_{0m}`$ $`=`$ $`2(I_{0m}^{(\mathrm{TE})}+I_{0m}^{(\mathrm{TM})})={\displaystyle \frac{2q^2m^2\omega _0^2}{c\sqrt{\epsilon _0}}}\times `$ (31)
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^{\pi /2}}[\mathrm{cot}^2\theta J_m^2(mv\sqrt{\epsilon _0}\mathrm{sin}\theta /c)+{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{c^2}}\epsilon _0J_m^2(mv\sqrt{\epsilon _0}\mathrm{sin}\theta /c)]\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta `$
This formula coincides with the expression for the radiation intensity of a point charge circulating in a homogeneous medium .

We carried out numerical calculations for the number of the emitted quanta per one period of the particle orbiting,

$$N_m^{(\mathrm{TE})}=\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}m\omega _0^2}I_m^{(\mathrm{TE})},N_m^{(\mathrm{TM})}=\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}m\omega _0^2}I_m^{(\mathrm{TM})},$$
(32)
for various values of the parameters $`\epsilon _0`$, $`\rho _1/\rho _0`$. In figures 1 and 2 the quantities $`N_m^{(\mathrm{TE})}`$, $`N_m^{(\mathrm{Tm})}`$ for the harmonic $`m=24`$ are presented as functions on the ratio $`\rho _1/\rho _0`$ for an electron with the energy $`2MeV`$ and for the media with permittivities $`\epsilon _0=3`$ and $`\epsilon _0=1`$, respectively. The narrow peaks in the graphs of the number of quanta for TE waves correspond to the singularities on the boundary frequencies $`\omega _{m,n}^{(\sigma )}`$. For the values of parameters corresponding to figure 1 one has $`v\sqrt{\epsilon _0}/c1.67`$ and the Cerenkov condition is satisfied.

As $`j_{m,1}^{(0)}/m1.24`$, $`j_{m,1}^{(1)}/m1.1`$, then the condition (26) is satisfied for all values of the ratio $`\rho _1/\rho _01`$. As a result the radiation is nonzero for any $`\rho _1/\rho _0>1`$. For values of the parameters corresponding to fig. 2 the Cerenkov’s condition is not satisfied ($`v\sqrt{\epsilon _0}/c0.97`$) and the radiation corresponds to the synchrotron emission.

Note that in this case the radiation is much more weaker in comparison to the case of figure 1. Now there is a range of values of the ratio $`\rho _1/\rho _0`$ for which condition (26) is not satisfied and in this region the radiation is absent. It is well seen in fig. 2. We also carried out numerical calculations for an energy of an election equal to 0.6 MeV and for the same values of the remaining parameters, as in figure 1. In this case the Cerenkov condition is not satisfied and, as calculations have shown, the qualitative behaviour of the $`N_m^{(\mathrm{TM})}`$ and $`N_m^{(\mathrm{TE})}`$ in dependance of the ratio $`\rho _1/\rho _0`$ is similar to the case presented in figure 2, and the radiation intensity is much more weaker to compared with the case of figure 1.

For comparison we have presented in figure 3 the dependances on the permittivity of the number of quanta emitted from an electron in the form of the TM and TE waves in a waveguide and in a homogeneous medium on the harmonic $`m=24`$. The energy of an electron is $`2`$ $`MeV`$, and $`\rho _1/\rho _0=1.5`$.

Note that the intensities of the both types of radiation increase when the permittivity increases.

## Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Professor A. R. Mkrtchyan, L. Sh. Grigoryan, S. R. Arzumanian and H. F. Khachatryan for useful discussions and suggestions. This work was supported in part by the Armenian Ministry of Education and Science (Grant No. 1361).


format: text

text:
# Orbits of turning points for maps of finite graphs and inverse limit spaces

## 1. Introduction

Every one-dimensional continuum is an inverse limit on finite graphs, and many, though not all, are homeomorphic to an inverse limit on a finite graph with a single bonding map. These spaces also naturally appear in dynamical systems. R.F. Williams showed that if a manifold diffeomorphism $`F`$ has a one-dimensional hyperbolic attractor $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (with associated stable manifold structure)then $`F`$ restricted to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is topologically conjugate with the shift homeomorphism on an inverse limit of a piecewise monotone map $`f`$ of some finite graph, , and Barge and Diamond, , remark that for any map $`f:GG`$ of a finite graph there is a homeomorphism $`F:^3^3`$ with an attractor on which $`F`$ is conjugate to the shift homeomorphism on $`\underset{}{lim}\{G,f\}`$. More recently, Anderson and Putnam, , have shown that the dynamics arising from a substitution tiling is often conjugate to the action of a shift-map on an inverse limit of a branched d-manifold. They then demonstrate how to use knowledge about the inverse limit space to compute the cohomology and K-theory of a space of tilings. Extending these ideas, Barge, Jacklitch and Vago, , use inverse limits induced by certain Markov maps on wedges of circles to analyze one-dimensional substitution tiling spaces and one-dimensional unstable manifolds of hyperbolic sets. Many of their results rely on showing that certain pairs of these inverse limit spaces are not homeomorphic.

It is often quite difficult to distinguish between inverse limit spaces, even when the dynamics of the bonding maps are very different. Many papers have been written to this end, , , , , and . However most of the techniques have been focused on maps of the interval. Perhaps one of the easiest ways to decide if two inverse limit spaces are not homeomorphic is to count their endpoints. Barge and Martin have shown that the number of endpoints of $`\underset{}{lim}\{[0,1],f\}`$ is the same as the number of elements in the $`\omega `$-limit set of the turning points of the bonding map, $`f`$, when $`f`$ has a dense orbit and finitely many turning points, .

In this paper we distinguish between these inverse limit spaces by showing that many of the points have neighborhoods homeomorphic to the product of a zero-dimensional set and $`(0,1)`$, and we show that the exceptional points are those that always project onto the $`\omega `$-limit set of the turning points. We do this for inverse limits on graphs, but of course, the result holds for inverse limits on the interval. In the case of the interval, our theorem is still an extension of Barge and Martin’s result, because there are many bonding maps that give rise to a three-endpoint indecomposable continua that have more than three points in the $`\omega `$-limit set of their turning points. Our theorem can be used to easily distinguish between these inverse limit spaces.

## 2. Preliminaries

By a continuum we mean a compact, connected, metric space, and by a mapping we mean a continuous function. We will say a mapping, $`f`$, is monotone on $`A`$ if, and only if, $`f^1(x)`$ is connected for all $`xA`$. The inverse limit induced by a single bonding map, $`f`$, on a continuum $`M`$ is defined as follows:

$$\underset{}{lim}\{M,f\}=\{(x_0,x_1,\mathrm{})|x_iM\text{and}f(x_{i+1})=x_i\}.$$

Since $`M`$ is metric and $`f`$ is a mapping, $`\underset{}{lim}\{M,f\}`$ is a continuum with the metric:

$$d(x,y)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{d_M(x_iy_i)}{2^i},$$

where $`d_M`$ is the metric on $`M`$ and we assume that $`d_M(x,y)<1`$ for all $`x,yM`$. Define the projection maps $`\pi _n:\underset{}{lim}\{M,f\}M`$ by $`\pi _n(x)=x_n`$, where $`x=(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{})\underset{}{lim}\{M,f\}`$. Also, define the shift homeomorphism $`h:\underset{}{lim}\{M,f\}\underset{}{lim}\{M,f\}`$ by

$$h(x)=(f(x_0),f(x_1),f(x_2),\mathrm{})=(f(x_0),x_0,x_1,\mathrm{}).$$

A linear chaining, or just chaining, of a continuum $`M`$ is a finite sequence, $`L_1,L_2,L_3,\mathrm{},L_n`$ of open subsets of $`M`$ such that $`L_i`$ intersects $`L_j`$ if and only if $`|ij|<2`$. The open sets comprising the chain are called the links of the chain. The mesh of a chain is the largest of the diameters of its links. A continuum $`M`$ is said to be chainable provided that for each positive number $`ϵ`$ there is a chaining of $`M`$ with mesh less than $`ϵ`$, such a chain is called an $`ϵ`$-chain. It is a well-known fact that an inverse limit of chainable continua is a chainable continuum. A closed chain is a chain whose links are closed sets and if $`ij`$, then $`L_iL_j=`$Bd$`(L_i)`$Bd$`(L_j)`$ if, and only if, $`|ij|<2`$. We lose no generality in assuming that all of the chains in this paper are taut, i.e. if $`L_iL_j=\mathrm{}`$ then $`\overline{L_i}\overline{L_j}=\mathrm{}`$, . Notice that if $``$ is a taut chaining of an inverse limit space and $`L_iL_j=\mathrm{}`$ then it is possible to find a positive integer, $`q`$, large enough so that $`\pi _q(\overline{L_i})\pi _q(\overline{L_j})=\mathrm{}`$, which implies that $`\pi _q()`$ is a chain.

A finite graph, $`G`$, is a continuum that can be written as the union of finitely many arcs any two of which are either disjoint or intersect at only one of their endpoints. For any finite graph, $`G`$, there is a finite set of points called vertices, $`V=\{v_1,v_2,\mathrm{},v_n\}`$, and a set of arcs, $`E`$, with endpoints from $`V`$ called edges, with the property that if $`v_ke_{ij}E`$ then either $`k=i`$ or $`k=j`$, and if two edges meet, they meet only at a single common vertex. For simplicity, we adopt the convention that, since $`e_{ij}=e_{ji}`$, if we label an edge $`e_{ij}`$ then $`i<j`$. For every point, $`xG`$, define the degree of $`x`$, deg$`(x)`$, to be the number of edges in $`G`$ that have $`x`$ as an endpoint. Let $`V^{}V`$ be the set of all points, $`x`$, with deg$`(x)3`$.

Let $`a,bG`$. We will denote an arc between $`a`$ and $`b`$ by $`\overline{ab}`$. Clearly this arc is not uniquely determined. However if $`a,be_{ij}`$ then there is a unique arc with endpoints $`a`$ and $`b`$ that is contained in $`e_{ij}`$. We will denote this arc by $`[a,b]`$, assuming that $`a`$ is closer to $`v_i`$ in the linear ordering of $`e_{ij}`$ that has $`v_i`$ as its least element, otherwise we denote it $`[b,a]`$.

We will now extend the idea of linear-chains to graph-chains. Let $`n`$ be a positive integer and let $`R`$ be a relation on $`\{1,2\mathrm{}n\}`$ with the property that if $`(i,j)R`$ then $`i<j`$. For every $`(i,j)R`$, let $`𝒞_{i,j}=\{C_1^{i,j},C_2^{i,j},\mathrm{},C_{n_{i,j}}^{i,j}\}`$ be a taut chain with the closure of every link of $`𝒞_{i,j}`$ being disjoint from the closure of every link of $`𝒞_{k,l}`$ whenever $`(k,l)(i,j)`$, except $`C_1^{i,j}`$ which meets every link of the form $`C_1^{i,k}`$ and every $`C_{n_{m,i}}^{m,i}`$ and also except for $`C_{n_{i,j}}^{i,j}`$ which meets every link of the form $`C_1^{j,k}`$ and every $`C_{n_{m,j}}^{m,j}`$. Call $`𝒞_{i,j}`$ an edge-chain. Let

$$𝒞=\underset{(i,j)R}{}𝒞_{i,j}.$$

Call $`𝒞`$ a graph-chain. Let $`G`$ be a finite graph with vertex set, $`V`$, and edge set $`E`$. A graph-chaining of $`G`$ is a graph-chain with $`R=\{(i,j)|e_{ij}E\}`$ such that each vertex, $`v_i`$, is only in links of the form $`C_1^{i,j}`$ or $`C_{n_{m,i}}^{m,i}`$, and each edge-chain, $`𝒞_{i,j}`$, is a chaining of the corresponding edge, $`e_{ij}`$.

For a given graph-chain $`𝒞`$, call the set $`E^{}=R`$ the edge index set. For notational convenience we will often denote a graph-chain by

$$𝒞=\{C_1^i,C_2^i,\mathrm{}C_{n_i}^i|iE^{}\}$$

using $`i`$ to represent an ordered pair in $`E^{}`$.

A continuum, $`M`$, is said to be graph-chainable provided that for each positive number $`ϵ`$ there exists a graph-chaining of $`M`$ with mesh less than $`ϵ`$. By a closed graph-chain we will mean a graph-chain $`𝒞`$ such that every link of $`𝒞`$ is closed and if $`A`$ and $`B`$ are different links in $`𝒞`$ with $`AB\mathrm{}`$, then $`AB=`$Bd$`(A)`$Bd$`(B)`$. Notice that this implies that the only point in common to links of the form $`C_1^{i,j}`$ and $`C_{n_{k,i}}^{k,i}`$ is the vertex $`v_i`$.

It is easy to show that the inverse limit induced by maps on graph-chainable continua is itself a graph-chainable continuum.

## 3. Markov Graph-Maps

First, we extend the definition of a Markov map of the interval (see  or )to a Markov map of a graph. Let $`f`$ be a mapping of a finite graph, $`G`$, with vertex set $`V`$ and edge set $`E`$ and define a Markov graph-chaining, $`𝒯^f`$, of $`G`$ with respect to $`f`$ to be a closed graph-chaining of $`G`$ where, for every $`iE^{}`$, $`|𝒯_i^f|=n_i`$, $`f`$ restricted to each link is monotone but not constant, and for every $`iE^{}`$ and $`kn_i`$ there exists a subset of $`E^{}\times `$, $`A_{i,k}`$, such that

$$f(T_k^i)=\underset{(p,r)A_{i,k}}{}T_r^p.$$

We will call a set of the form $`A_{i,k}`$ the index set for $`(i,k)`$ under $`f`$, and we will call a map that admits such a Markov graph-chain a Markov graph-map or simply a Markov map. The endpoints of each link of $`𝒯^f`$ determine a Markov partition of each edge. We define the Markov partition of the graph to be the set

$$B_f=\{v_i=c_0^{i,j}<c_1^{i,j}<\mathrm{}<c_{n_{i,j}}^{i,j}=v_j|(i,j)E^{}\}$$

where $`c_k^{i,j}`$ and $`c_{k+1}^{i,j}`$ are the endpoints of $`T_{k+1}^{i,j}`$. Notice that $`f(B_f)B_f`$, $`f`$ is not constant on $`[c_{k1}^{i,j},c_k^{i,j}]`$, and $`f`$ restricted to each such arc is monotone.

Also define the set $`S_{i,k}E^{}\times `$ such that $`(p,r)S_{i,k}`$ if and only if $`[f^1(T_k^i)]^{}T_r^p\mathrm{}`$ i.e. $`S_{i,k}`$ is the collection of indices of links of $`𝒯_f`$ that are mapped onto $`T_k^i`$ by $`f`$. We will call the set $`S_{i,k}`$ the inverse index set of $`(i,k)`$ under $`f`$.

Let $`f:G_1G_2`$ be a a map between finite graphs $`G_1`$ and $`G_2`$. Then $`xG_1`$ is a turning point of $`f`$ if there is an arc, $`\overline{ab}G_1`$, containing $`x`$ in its interior, such that $`f[\overline{ab}]=\overline{zf(x)}`$ where $`z\{f(a),f(b)\}`$ and both of $`f|_A`$ and $`f|_B`$ are monotone, where $`A=\overline{ax}\overline{ab}`$ and $`B=\overline{xb}\overline{ab}`$. Denote the set of turning points of $`f`$ by $`P_f`$.

Generally there is much freedom in determining the Markov chain; however we assume that the Markov chains used in this paper are “natural” in the sense that elements of the Markov partition are either vertices, turning points, or in the orbit of a turning point or vertex. In the next section we will need to assume that $`f^1(x)`$ consists of only isolated points, for all $`xG`$. The next theorem demonstrates that we lose no generality in assuming this when $`f`$ is Markov.

###### Theorem 3.1.

Let each of $`f`$ and $`g`$ be a Markov mapping of $`G`$, a finite graph, with associated Markov partitions, $`B_f=\{c_0^i<c_1^i<\mathrm{}<c_{n_i}^i|iE^{}\}`$ and $`B_g=\{d_0^i<d_1^i<\mathrm{}<d_{n_i}^i|iE^{}\}`$. Suppose that for every $`iE^{}`$ and $`kn_i`$ there is a $`pE^{}`$ and a $`rn_p`$ such that $`f(c_k^i)=c_r^p`$ if and only if $`g(d_k^i)=d_r^p`$, then $`\underset{}{lim}\{G,f\}`$ is homeomorphic to $`\underset{}{lim}\{G,g\}`$.

Before presenting the proof of this theorem we will present a few useful facts about graph-chainable continua.

Let $`𝒞`$ be a closed graph-chaining of a continuum, $`M`$, with edge index set $`R`$, and let $`𝒞^{}`$ be a refinement of $`𝒞`$ with edge index set $`R^{}`$. Let $`h`$ be a function such that for every link, $`C_k^{}_{}{}^{}i𝒞^{}`$, let $`h(i,k)=(p,r)`$ if and only if $`C_k^{}_{}{}^{}i`$ is a subset of $`C_r^p`$ in $`𝒞`$. In this case we shall say that $`𝒞^{}`$ follows pattern $`h`$ in $`𝒞`$. The proof of the next theorem is quite obvious, and so it has been omitted.

###### Theorem 3.2.

Let $`A`$ be a graph-chainable continuum, and let $`\{𝒞_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a sequence of refining graph-chainings of $`A`$ such that

$$\underset{i\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{mesh}(𝒞_i)=0$$

and $`𝒞_i`$ follows pattern $`h_i`$ in $`𝒞_{i1}`$. If $`B`$ is also a graph-chainable continuum with a sequence of refining graph-chainings, $`\{𝒟_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$, such that

$$\underset{i\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{mesh}(𝒟_i)=0$$

and $`𝒟_i`$ follows pattern $`h_i`$ in $`𝒟_{i1}`$ then $`A`$ is homeomorphic to $`B`$.

Suppose that $`f:GG`$ is a Markov mapping of a finite graph, $`G`$, with vertex set $`V=\{v_1,v_2,\mathrm{},v_n\}`$ and edge set $`E`$, and let $`𝒯^f`$ be a Markov chain of $`G`$ for $`f`$ where, for every $`iE^{}`$, $`|𝒯_i^f|=n_i`$. Suppose that $`𝒞`$ is a closed refinement of $`𝒯^f`$ with $`|𝒞_i|=m_i`$, such that $`𝒞`$ follows pattern $`h`$ in $`𝒯^f`$. We define the Markov graph-chain function, $`\widehat{f}`$, on the elements of $`𝒞`$ by the following. (We denote the lexicographical ordering on $`E^{}`$ by $``$.)

First let $`j`$ be the least integer, $`k`$, such that $`(1,k)E^{}`$ and define

$$\widehat{f}_{p,r}(C_1^{1,j})=f^1(C_1^{1,j})T_r^p$$

where $`(p,r)S_{h((1,j),1)}`$. For $`(k,\mathrm{})E^{}`$ and $`(p,r)S_{h((k,\mathrm{}),1)}`$ let

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\widehat{f}_{p,r}(C_1^{k,\mathrm{}})\hfill & =\hfill & \left[f^1(C_1^{k,\mathrm{}})T_r^p\right]\left[\underset{(q,s)E^{},(q,s)(k,\mathrm{})}{}\widehat{f}_{p,r}(C_1^{q,s})\right]^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

For $`(p,r)S_{h((1,j),n_{i,j})}`$ define

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\widehat{f}_{p,r}(C_{n_{1,j}}^{1,j})\hfill & =\hfill & \left[f^1(C_{n_{1,j}}^{1,j})T_r^p\right]\left[\underset{(j,\mathrm{})E^{}}{}\widehat{f}_{p,r}(C_1^{j,\mathrm{}})\right]^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

For $`(k,\mathrm{})E^{}`$ and $`(p,r)S_{h((k,\mathrm{}),n_{k,\mathrm{}})}`$, let

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\multicolumn{4}{c}{\widehat{f}_{p,r}(C_{n_{k,\mathrm{}}}^{k,\mathrm{}})=}\\ & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{f^1(C_{n_{k,\mathrm{}}}^{k,\mathrm{}})T_r^p}\\ & & & \left(\left[\underset{(\mathrm{},m)E^{}}{}\widehat{f}_{p,r}(C_1^{\mathrm{},m})\right]^{}\left[\underset{(q,s)E^{},(q,s)(k,\mathrm{})}{}\widehat{f}_{p,r}(C_{n_{q,s}}^{q,s})\right]^{}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

Finally for any $`(j,k)E^{}`$, $`1<m<n_{j,k}`$ and $`(p,r)S_{h((j,k),m)}`$ let

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\widehat{f}_{p,r}(C_m^{j,k})\hfill & =\hfill & \multicolumn{2}{c}{f^1(C_m^{j,k})T_r^p}\\ & & & \left(\left[\widehat{f}_{p,r}(C_{m1}^{j,k})\right]^{}\left[\widehat{f}_{p,r}(C_1^{j,k})\right]^{}\left[\widehat{f}_{p,r}(C_{n_{j,k}}^{j,k})\right]^{}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

Define

$$\widehat{f}(𝒞)=\left\{\widehat{f}_{p,r}(C_k^{i,j})\right|(i,j)E^{},kn_i\text{and}(p,r)S_{h((i,j),k)}\}.$$

Notice that since $`f`$ restricted to each link of $`𝒯^f`$ is monotone, $`f`$ restricted to each link of $`𝒞`$ is monotone. So each element of $`\widehat{f}(𝒞)`$ is connected.

###### Lemma 3.1.

If $`𝒞`$ is a closed refinement of $`𝒯^f`$ then $`\widehat{f}(𝒞)`$ is a closed graph-chain and the components of $`\widehat{f}(𝒞)`$ refine $`𝒯^f`$.

###### Proof.

For every $`iE^{}`$, let $`m_i=|𝒞_i|`$. Every element of $`\widehat{f}(𝒞)`$ is closed and $`\widehat{f}(𝒞)`$ covers $`G`$. Suppose now that $`C_k^iC_r^p=\mathrm{}`$, but $`\widehat{f}(C_k^i)\widehat{f}(C_r^p)\mathrm{}`$. Let $`x\widehat{f}(C_k^i)\widehat{f}(C_r^p)`$. This implies that $`f(x)C_k^iC_r^p`$, a contradiction. So the only elements of $`\widehat{f}(𝒞)`$ which intersect are images of links of $`𝒞`$ which intersected, and since $`𝒞`$ is a closed graph-chaining of $`G`$, $`\widehat{f}(𝒞)`$ is also a closed graph-chaining of $`G`$. By definition, links of $`\widehat{f}(𝒞)`$ intersect only on their boundary and the components of $`\widehat{f}(𝒞)`$ refine $`𝒯^f`$. ∎

Now suppose that $`g`$ is another Markov mapping of $`G`$ and let

$$𝒮^g=\{S_0^i,\mathrm{}S_{n_i}^i|iE^{}\}$$

be the Markov graph-chain associated with $`g`$ where, for every $`iE^{}`$, $`|𝒮_i|=n_i`$. Denote the corresponding Markov partition by

$$B_g=\{d_0^{i,j}<d_1^{i,j}<\mathrm{}<d_{n_{i,j}}^{i,j}|(i,j)E^{}\}.$$

We are now ready to prove Theorem 3.1.

###### Proof of 3.1.

Choose a positive number $`\delta _1`$ such that if $``$ is a closed graph-chaining of $`G`$ with mesh less than $`\delta _1`$ which refines $`𝒯^f`$ or $`𝒮^g`$ then $`\pi _1^1()\underset{}{lim}\{G,f\}`$ and $`\pi _1^1()\underset{}{lim}\{G,g\}`$ both have mesh less than $`\frac{1}{2}`$. For every $`iE^{}`$ and $`jn_i`$ , let $`Q_j^i`$ be a positive integer such that $`\delta _1Q_j^i>\mathrm{diam}(T_j^i)`$ and $`\delta _1Q_j^i>\mathrm{diam}(S_j^i)`$.

Let $`𝒞_1`$ be a closed graph-chaining of $`G`$ with mesh less than $`\delta _1`$ which refines $`𝒯^f`$ such that, for every $`iE^{}`$ and $`jn_i`$, there are $`Q_j^i`$ links of $`𝒞_1`$ contained in $`T_j^i`$. Let $`𝒥_1`$ be defined similarly with respect to $`g`$ and $`𝒮^g`$.

Let $`𝒟_1=\pi _1^1(𝒞_1)\underset{}{lim}\{G,f\}`$ and let $`𝒦_1=\pi _1^1(𝒥_1)\underset{}{lim}\{G,g\}`$. It is easy to see that both of $`𝒟_1`$ and $`𝒦_1`$ are closed graph-chainings of $`\underset{}{lim}\{G,f\}`$ and $`\underset{}{lim}\{G,g\}`$ respectively with mesh less than $`\frac{1}{2}`$.

By lemma 3.1 both of $`\widehat{f}(𝒞_1)`$ and $`\widehat{g}(𝒥_1)`$ are closed graph-chainings of $`G`$ which refine $`𝒯^f`$ and $`𝒮^g`$ respectively. Let $`\delta _2`$ be a positive number so that any closed graph-chaining of $`G`$, $``$, with mesh less than $`\delta _2`$ has $`\pi _2^1()\underset{}{lim}\{G,f\}`$ and $`\pi _2^1()\underset{}{lim}\{G,g\}`$ both have mesh less than $`\frac{1}{4}`$.

By the hypothesis of the theorem, $`\widehat{f}_{p,r}(C_j^i)`$ is defined if and only if $`\widehat{g}_{p,r}(J_j^i)`$ is defined. Notice that by the construction of $`𝒞_1`$ and $`𝒥_1`$, there is a function, $`\mathrm{}`$, such that $`𝒞_1`$ follows pattern $`\mathrm{}`$ in $`𝒯^f`$ and $`𝒥_1`$ also follows pattern $`\mathrm{}`$ in $`𝒮^g`$. So for every $`iE^{}`$, $`jn_i`$, and $`(p,r)S_{\mathrm{}(i,j)}`$, let $`Q_{i,j}^{p,r}`$ be a positive integer such that $`Q_{i,j}^{p,r}\delta _2>\mathrm{diam}(\widehat{f}_{p,r}(C_j^i))`$ and $`Q_{i,j}^{p,r}\delta _2>\mathrm{diam}(\widehat{g}_{p,r}(J_j^i))`$. Let $`𝒞_2`$ be a refinement of $`\widehat{f}(𝒞_1)`$ such that there are $`Q_{i,j}^{p,r}`$ links of $`𝒞_2`$ inside each $`\widehat{f}_{p,r}(C_j^i)`$. Let $`𝒥_2`$ be a refinement of $`\widehat{g}(𝒥_2)`$ defined similarly. Define $`𝒟_2`$ to be $`\pi _2^1(𝒞_2)\underset{}{lim}\{G,f\}`$ and define $`𝒦_2`$ to be $`\pi _2^1(𝒥_2)\underset{}{lim}\{G,g\}`$.

Notice that if $`A`$ is a subset of $`\widehat{f}_{p,r}(C_j^i)`$ then

$$\pi _2^1(A)\underset{}{lim}\{G,f\}\pi _1^1(C_j^i)\underset{}{lim}\{G,f\},$$

and similarly if $`A`$ is a subset of $`\widehat{g}_{p,r}(J_j^i)`$ then

$$\pi _2^1(A)\underset{}{lim}\{G,g\}\pi _1^1(J_j^i)\underset{}{lim}\{G,g\}.$$

So, since we have exactly $`Q_{i,j}^{p,r}`$ links of $`𝒞_2`$ and $`𝒥_2`$ in $`\widehat{f}_{p,r}(C_j^i)`$ and $`\widehat{g}_{p,r}(J_j^i)`$ respectively, $`𝒟_2`$ follows the same pattern, $`h_2`$, in $`𝒟_1`$ that $`𝒦_2`$ follows in $`𝒦_1`$.

Clearly, chains of $`\underset{}{lim}\{G,f\}`$ and $`\underset{}{lim}\{G,g\}`$, $`𝒟_3`$ and $`𝒦_3`$ can be constructed such that $`\mathrm{mesh}(𝒟_3)<\frac{1}{8}`$, $`\mathrm{mesh}(𝒦_3)<\frac{1}{8}`$, and both $`𝒟_3`$ and $`𝒦_3`$ follow pattern $`h_3`$ in $`𝒟_2`$ and $`𝒦_2`$ respectively.

So it is easy to see that we can build a sequence of refining chainings, $`\{𝒟_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$, of $`\underset{}{lim}\{G,f\}`$ such that $`𝒟_i`$ follows pattern $`h_i`$ in $`𝒟_{i1}`$ and

$$\underset{i\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{mesh}(𝒟_i)=0,$$

and we can build a sequence of refining chainings, $`\{𝒦_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$, of $`\underset{}{lim}\{G,g\}`$ such that $`𝒦_i`$ follows pattern $`h_i`$ in $`𝒦_{i1}`$ and

$$\underset{i\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{mesh}(𝒦_i)=0.$$

Thus, by Theorem 3.2, $`\underset{}{lim}\{G,f\}`$ is homeomorphic to $`\underset{}{lim}\{G,g\}`$. ∎

This theorem provides some justification for the assumption that we make in the next section that $`f^1(x)`$ is completely disconnected for all $`xG`$. It shows that for a bonding map with finitely many turning points each on a finite orbit that we lose no generality in making this assumption. It also has an interesting, and immediate, corollary which is an extension of a theorem of Holte (, Theorem 3.2).

###### Corollary 3.2.1.

Let each of $`f`$ and $`g`$ be Markov maps of the interval with associated Markov partitions, $`B_f=\{0=c_0<c_1<\mathrm{}<c_n=1\}`$, and $`B_g=\{0=d_0<d_1<\mathrm{}<d_n=1\}`$. Suppose that $`f(c_i)=c_j`$ if, and only if, $`g(d_i)=d_j`$, then $`\underset{}{lim}\{[0,1,f\}`$ is homeomorphic to $`\underset{}{lim}\{[0,1],g\}`$.

This corollary extends Holte’s theorem in the sense that the Markov partitions for $`f`$ and $`g`$ do not need to be the same set of points in the interval. So it allows for not only eliminating flat spots, but also dramatically changing slopes and shifting turning points around.

## 4. Inverse Limit Spaces

In this section we will assume that $`f:GG`$ is continuous, has finitely many turning points and, for every $`xG`$, $`f^1(x)`$ is completely disconnected. We will also assume that for every $`yG`$ there exists a positive integer $`n`$ such that $`f^n(y)`$ consists of more than one point and if $`CG`$ is connected then $`\mathrm{diam}(C^{})\mathrm{diam}(C)`$ for every component, $`C^{}`$ of $`f^1(C)`$.

Let $`E_GG`$ be the set of endpoints of $`G`$. The $`\omega `$-limit set of a point $`x`$ under a mapping $`f`$, $`\omega _f(x)`$ or simply $`\omega (x)`$, is given by

$$\omega (x)=\underset{N}{}\overline{\{f^n(x)|nN\}},$$

and the $`\omega `$-limit set of a set, $`X`$, is given by $`\omega (X)=_{xX}\omega (x).`$

Denote the elements of $`P_f`$, the turning points of $`f`$, in the edge $`e_{i,j}`$ by $`t_{1,0}^{i,j}<t_{2,0}^{i,j}\mathrm{}<t_{m,0}^{i,j}`$, where $`<`$ is the linear ordering of the arc $`e_{i,j}`$ that has $`v_i`$ as its least element, and for every $`t_{k,0}^{i,j}`$ denote the orbit of $`t_{k,0}^{i,j}`$ by

$$\text{orb}(t_{k,0}^{i,j})=\{t_{k,\mathrm{}}^{i,j}=f^{\mathrm{}}(t_{k,0}^{i,j})|\mathrm{}\}.$$

Let

$$\text{orb}(P_f)=\underset{t_{k,0}^{i,j}P_f}{}\text{orb}(t_{k,0}^{i,j}).$$

###### Theorem 4.1.

Let $`x\underset{}{lim}\{G,f\}`$ have the property that for some $`N`$, if $`nN`$ then deg$`(x_n)\{0,2\}`$. Then there is a positive number $`ϵ`$ and a zero-dimensional set $`S`$ with the property that $`B_ϵ(x)`$ is homeomorphic to $`(0,1)\times S`$ if, and only if:

* there is a positive number, $`\delta `$, and a positive integer, $`s`$, such that $`B_\delta (x_s)f^p(E_G)=\mathrm{}`$ for every $`p0`$, and
* there exists a positive integer, $`m`$, such that $`x_m\omega (P_f)`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`N`$ such that if $`nN`$ then deg$`(x_n)<3`$, and let $`mN`$ be such that $`x_m\omega (P_f)`$. Since $`f[\omega (P_f)]\omega (P_f)`$, if $`nm`$ then $`x_n\omega (P_f)`$. Let $`nm`$. Since $`x_n\omega (P_f)`$, $`x_n\omega (t_{k,0}^{i,j})`$ for every $`t_{k,0}^{i,j}P_f`$. By the definition of the $`\omega `$-limit set, for every $`t_{k,0}^{i,j}P_f`$, there is a positive integer, $`p_{k,0}^{i,j}`$ with the property that $`x_n\overline{\{t_{k,r}^{i,j}|rp_{k,0}^{i,j}\}}`$. Since there are only finitely many turning points for $`f`$, there exists a positive integer, $`q`$, such that $`x_n\overline{\{t_{k,r}^{i,j}|rq\}}`$ for all $`t_{k,0}^{i,j}P_f`$. So $`x_{n+q+1}`$ is not in $`\overline{\{t_{k,r}^{i,j}|r\}}`$ for all $`t_{k,0}^{i,j}P_f`$. Let $`p=n+q+1`$. There is a positive number, $`\lambda _p<\delta `$, such that

$$B_{\lambda _p}(x_p)\left[\underset{t_{k,0}^{i,j}P_f}{}\{t_{k,r}^{i,j}|r\}\right]=\mathrm{},$$

and if $`yB_{\lambda _p}(x_p)`$ then deg$`(y)`$ is either $`0`$ or $`2`$. So $`B_{\lambda _p}(x_p)`$ is homeomorphic to $`(0,1)`$, and if $`q`$ and $`A`$ is any component of $`f^q[B_{\lambda _p}(x_p)]`$ then $`A`$ is homeomorphic to $`(0,1)`$. Let $`ϵ`$ be a positive number such that $`\pi _p[B_ϵ(x)]B_{\lambda _p}(x_p)`$. Let $`A=\pi _p[B_ϵ(x)]`$. Let $`A_1,A_2,\mathrm{}A_n`$ be the components of $`f^1(A)`$. For each $`in`$, $`f|_{A_i}`$ is monotone and $`A_if^m(E)=\mathrm{}`$ for all $`m0`$. For each $`in`$, let $`A_1^i,A_2^i,\mathrm{}A_{n_i}^i`$ be the components of $`f^1(A_i)`$. Again, for each $`jn_i`$, $`f|_{A_j^i}`$ is monotone and $`A_j^if^m(E)=\mathrm{}`$ for all $`m0`$. Assuming that $`A_k^{i,j,\mathrm{}p,t}`$ is a component of $`f^1[A_t^{i,j,\mathrm{}p}]`$, define $`A_1^{i,j,\mathrm{}k},A_2^{i,j\mathrm{}k}\mathrm{}A_{n_{i,j,\mathrm{}k}}^{i,j,\mathrm{}k}`$ to be the components of $`f^1[A_k^{i,j,\mathrm{}t}]`$.

Let $`S`$ be a collection of sequences of positive integers such that $`y_iS`$ if, and only if, $`A_{y_1}`$ is defined and for every other $`i`$, $`A_{y_{i+1}}^{y_1,\mathrm{}y_i}`$ is defined. Clearly $`S`$ is zero-dimensional. Each sequence, $`y_i`$ in $`S`$ defines a sequence of open arcs, $`A_{y_1},A_{y_2}^{y_1},\mathrm{}`$, with the property that $`f`$ maps $`A_{y_{i+1}}^{y_1,y_2,\mathrm{}y_i}`$ onto $`A_{y_i}^{y_1,y_2\mathrm{}y_{i1}}`$ monotonically. So $`\underset{}{lim}\{A_{y_{i+1}}^{y_1,y_2,\mathrm{}y_i},f\}`$ is homeomorphic to $`(0,1)`$, and

$$B_ϵ(x)=\underset{y_iS}{}\underset{}{lim}\{A_{y_{i+1}}^{y_1,y_2,\mathrm{}y_i},f\}$$

is homeomorphic to $`S\times (0,1)`$.

Now assume that $`x`$ does not satisfy either (i) or (ii) in the theorem. First let $`ϵ`$ be a positive number, and consider the $`ϵ`$-neighborhood around $`x`$, $`B_ϵ(x)`$. Let $`n`$ be a positive integer and let $`\gamma `$ be a positive number such that $`\pi _n^1[B_\gamma (x_n)]B_ϵ(x)`$, $`B_\gamma (x_n)`$ meets $`P_f`$ at at most one point, and if $`yB_\gamma (x_n)`$ then deg$`(y)<3`$.

If for every positive number $`\delta <\gamma `$ and every positive integer $`M`$, there exists a positive integer, $`m>M`$, such that every image under $`f^m`$ of $`B_\delta (x_n)`$ meets the set of endpoints for $`G`$, $`E_G`$, then clearly for every positive number, $`\lambda `$, we can $`\lambda `$-chain $`\underset{}{lim}\{G,f\}`$ with a linear subchain that starts at $`x`$. Thus there is a chainable endcontinuum in $`G`$ having $`x`$ as an endpoint, and $`B_ϵ(x)`$ cannot be homeomorphic to $`(0,1)\times S`$ where $`S`$ is a zero-dimensional set.

Instead, now suppose that $`\gamma `$ is small enough and $`n`$ is large enough so that $`f^m(B_\gamma (x_n))`$ misses $`E_G`$ for every positive integer $`m`$. Let $`A=B_\gamma (x_n)`$, and as above, enumerate the components of the preimages of $`A`$, $`A_1,A_2,\mathrm{}A_n`$. Continuing as previously, let $`S`$ be the set of sequences of positive integers, $`y_i`$, where $`y_iS`$ if, and only if, for every positive integer $`i`$, $`A_{y_{i+1}}^{y_1,\mathrm{}y_i}`$ is a component of $`f^1(A_{y_i}^{y_1,\mathrm{}y_{i1}})`$. Let $`t_{k,0}^{i,j}P_f`$ with $`x_n\omega (t_{k,0}^{i,j})`$. Then for infinitely many positive integers, $`m`$, $`t_{k,m}^{i,j}A`$. So there are infinitely many connected subsets of $`G`$, $`A_{y_{r+1}}^{y_1\mathrm{}y_r}`$ that contain $`t_{k,0}^{i,j}`$. If there exists one of these subsets, $`A_{y_{r+1}}^{y_1,\mathrm{}y_r}`$ that only meet $`B_f`$ at the singleton $`t_{k,0}^{i,j}`$ then, since these components do not contain any endpoints or vertices of $`G`$, every component of the preimages of $`A_{y_{r+1}}^{y_1,\mathrm{}y_r}`$ is mapped with a single fold across $`A_{y_{r+1}}^{y_1,\mathrm{}y_r}`$. Thus $`B_ϵ(x)`$ contains a subspace homeomorphic to a neighborhood of $`(0,1)`$ in the $`\mathrm{sin}(1/x)`$-continuum, and it cannot be homeomorphic to $`(0,1)\times T`$, where $`T`$ is a zero-dimensional set. If instead, for some $`A_{y_{r+1}}^{y_1,\mathrm{},y_r}`$ we have $`A_{y_{r+1}}^{y_1,\mathrm{}y_r}B_f`$ is a finite set then clearly we can restrict the size of $`A_{y_{r+1}}^{y_1,\mathrm{},y_r}`$ in order to make the subset meet $`B_f`$ at a singleton and produce a similar subspace.

So suppose that each subset, $`A_{y_{r+1}}^{y_1,\mathrm{}y_r}`$ that contains a turning point meets $`B_f`$ on an infinite set. Pick one of these subsets and call it $`A_1`$. Let $`A_2`$ be a connected subset of $`G`$ such that $`f^{n_1}(A_2)=A_1`$ and $`A_2P_f\mathrm{}`$. Given $`A_i`$ define $`A_{i+1}`$ to be a connected subset of $`G`$ with the property that $`f^{n_i}(A_{i+1})=A_i`$ and $`A_{i+1}`$ meets $`P_f`$. Then since $`A`$ is small enough to not meet $`P_f`$ at two points and since all of these subsets are preimages of $`A`$, they must all meet $`P_f`$ at a single point. Similarly, they must all miss $`V^{}`$ and the set of endpoints of $`G`$. Thus, for every positive integer, $`i`$, $`f|_{A_i}`$ is a two-pass map, and $`f^{n_i}|_{A_{i+1}}`$ is at least a two-pass map. Thus $`\underset{}{lim}\{A_i,f|_{A_i}\}`$ is an indecomposable subcontinuum, and $`B_ϵ(x)`$ contains an indecomposable subcontinuum. Hence, $`B_ϵ(x)`$ is not homeomorphic to $`(0,1)\times T`$ where $`T`$ is a zero-dimensional set. ∎

###### Corollary 4.1.1.

Suppose that $`f`$ and $`g`$ are maps of $`[0,1]`$ with the properties listed above. Further suppose that $`|\omega (P_f)|=n`$ and $`|\omega (P_g)|=m`$. If $`nm`$ then $`\underset{}{lim}\{[0,1],f\}`$ is not homeomorphic to $`\underset{}{lim}\{[0,1],g\}`$.

###### Proof.

Notice that for every point in $`\omega (P_f)`$ there is a point in the inverse limit that either is an endpoint or is in a neighborhood homeomorphic to a neighborhood of $`(0,1)`$ in the $`\mathrm{sin}(1/x)`$-continuum. Also notice that any other point in the inverse limit has a neighborhood homeomorphic to the product of $`(0,1)`$ with a zero-dimensional set, $`S`$. These properties are preserved by homeomorphism, and so any space homeomorphic to it must have the same number of points in the $`\omega `$-limit set of its turning points. ∎