Skip to main content
Sandbox Physics

M087 · Geometry / collision maps

Chaotic Billiards Arena

Launch two nearby rays into a circle, ellipse, stadium or square with a central scatterer. Compare analytic collisions, integrable caustics, boundary sections and tangent growth; separate regular bouncing from sensitive trajectories without changing the elastic reflection law.

Interactive modelChaotic Billiards Arena
Reviewed collisionPending\text{Pending}
Retained collisionsPending\text{Pending}
Primary elapsed timePending\text{Pending}
Boundary arclength fractionPending\text{Pending}
Tangential unit-speed componentPending\text{Pending}
Collision-index pair distancePending\text{Pending}
Finite-time growth per collisionPending\text{Pending}
Valid tangent prefixPending\text{Pending}
Initial local area determinantPending\text{Pending}
Derivative refinement disagreementPending\text{Pending}
Maximum tangential reflection defectPending\text{Pending}
Maximum local speed-squared defectPending\text{Pending}
Circle or ellipse invariantPending\text{Pending}
Maximum invariant driftPending\text{Pending}
One-flight reversal defectPending\text{Pending}
Primary record statusPending\text{Pending}

Physics tutorial

Geometry organizes conservative motion

BackgroundMathematical billiards reduce free motion and elastic reflections to a boundary map.

Why it mattersA geometric change can alter trajectory stability without altering the reflection law.

Start with the essentials

Focus question
Can geometry alone create chaos?
One-sentence intuition
Conservation, local stability and a finite statistical picture answer different questions.

Core mathematical model

Same reflection law, different dynamics

v+=v−−2(v−⋅n)n,∣v+∣=∣v−∣\mathbf v_{+}=\mathbf v_{-}-2(\mathbf v_{-}\cdot\mathbf n)\mathbf n,\qquad |\mathbf v_{+}|=|\mathbf v_{-}|

Each free flight ends at the nearest admissible analytic boundary intersection. The normal may point either way; the reflection is unchanged. Corners and grazing encounters are singular.

Use the invariant collision measure

q=sP,p=v⋅t,T∗(dq∧dp)=dq∧dpq=\frac{s}{\mathcal P},\qquad p=\mathbf v\cdot\mathbf t,\qquad T^{*}(dq\wedge dp)=dq\wedge dp

The boundary is oriented with the accessible interior on its left. The outer wall is counterclockwise, the obstacle clockwise. Concatenated arclength uses the total perimeter. The ellipse uses high-order arclength quadrature, not its polar angle as a canonical coordinate.

A circular caustic is an invariant

L=xvy−yvx,rcaustic=∣L∣L=xv_y-yv_x,\qquad r_{\rm caustic}=|L|

The unit-radius circle has constant angular momentum. Every chord is tangent to the same concentric caustic; a triangular orbit is periodic, while an irrational boundary rotation fills a one-dimensional section. Neither dense chords nor a complicated image imply chaos.

Confocal ellipse and hyperbola

λ=b2vx2+a2vy2−(xvy−yvx)2,x2a2−λ+y2b2−λ=1\lambda=b^2v_x^2+a^2v_y^2-(xv_y-yv_x)^2,\qquad \frac{x^2}{a^2-\lambda}+\frac{y^2}{b^2-\lambda}=1

The minor semiaxis is one. The invariant distinguishes elliptic from hyperbolic caustics; the focal separatrix is the degenerate limit. The caustic is an analytic prediction, while the fourth plot audits its invariant along computed collisions.

Finite pairs and tangent vectors differ

λN=1N∑j=0N−1log⁡∥DT(zj)δz^j∥,δz^j+1=DT(zj)δz^j∥DT(zj)δz^j∥\lambda_N=\frac1N\sum_{j=0}^{N-1}\log\|DT(z_j)\widehat{\delta z}_j\|,\qquad \widehat{\delta z}_{j+1}=\frac{DT(z_j)\widehat{\delta z}_j}{\|DT(z_j)\widehat{\delta z}_j\|}

The initial tangent points along boundary position. Every step renormalizes it. A separate finite nearby ray is never reset and can saturate. Growth is per collision, not per unit physical time. The metric uses shortest boundary-coordinate distance and tangential velocity difference.

Audit a smooth local map

det⁡DT≈1,DhT(z)=T(z+hei)−T(z−hei)2h\det DT\approx1,\qquad D_hT(z)=\frac{T(z+h\mathbf e_i)-T(z-h\mathbf e_i)}{2h}

The displayed determinant uses central differences with locally unwrapped coordinates. Halved-difference disagreement is numerical evidence, not a rigorous bound. Derivatives stop across a collision branch change or a curvature seam. A finite positive growth rate does not prove global ergodicity.

Common difficulties

Complex is not chaotic

Typical misconceptionA dense circular trajectory must be chaotic.

Better mental modelIts constant caustic and one-dimensional section show regular motion.

Choose collision coordinates

Typical misconceptionA uniform angle parameter always preserves section area.

Better mental modelUse actual arclength and tangential unit-speed component; ellipse polar angle is not arclength.

Collision count is not time

Typical misconceptionThe two paths are compared at identical physical times.

Better mental modelThey are paired by collision index and have separate flight durations.

Singular directions need honesty

Typical misconceptionThe solver should invent a bounce at a corner.

Better mental modelThe reflection normal is ambiguous; stop and change the initial state. A tangent audit can stop before the primary trajectory does.

Run the experiment

  1. 01

    Start with a triangle

    Select the periodic triangle and review the record.

    What to observe: The same three impact points repeat; the circular caustic stays fixed.
  2. 02

    Change the confocal family

    Compare elliptic and hyperbolic caustic presets.

    What to observe: Different caustic families remain integrable; their invariant drift stays small.
  3. 03

    Change only geometry

    Compare the stadium sensitivity and parallel-wall bouncing.

    What to observe: One table contains exceptional regular trajectories alongside sensitive typical motion.
  4. 04

    Test the diagnostic limits

    Try Sinai, vary the perturbation, extend the record, then select the corner.

    What to observe: Finite pairs saturate, tangent growth can continue, and an undefined collision remains stopped.