Skip to main content

Timeline for Optic fibers after Joseph O'Rourke

Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0

24 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Nov 18, 2022 at 16:23 comment added Anton Petrunin @alesia I see counterexamples in dimension 2 (constructedd by Arseniy Akopyan) and in Riemannian case, but so far I do not see examples of 3-dimensional tubes (assuming that the walls are smooth).
Nov 18, 2022 at 15:38 comment added alesia @AntonPetrunin yes, however my question was why is it true that your definition of optical fiber precludes the existence of such rays. What I understand from the comment on Riemannian manifolds suggests that you take it for granted or obvious, and I don't see why it is so
Nov 18, 2022 at 12:11 comment added Anton Petrunin @alesia I changed the wording, hope it is clear now. But anyway look at the example with ellipses --- if you shoot a random geodesic from inside, then with positive probability it does not reach the boundary. For the Riemannian case, think of surface of revolution of a horizontal line with small bump on it (so it is almost cylinder). If you shoot a geodesic from the bump then with positive probability it will stay in the bump forever.
Nov 18, 2022 at 12:07 history edited Anton Petrunin CC BY-SA 4.0
added 68 characters in body
Nov 17, 2022 at 21:47 comment added alesia @AntonPetrunin to clarify, I was thinking of both side infinite rays that stay in the optic fiber without ever reaching the ends of it. I'd imagine these would correspond to trapped geodesics in the manifold obtained by identifying two copies of the optic fiber along their common boundary tube.
Nov 17, 2022 at 20:56 comment added alesia but such geodesics never hit the ends of the tube, so the assumptions don't preclude their existence do they?
Nov 17, 2022 at 19:47 comment added Anton Petrunin @alesia here by trapped I mean both-side infinite geodesics that spend all time in the manifold --- actually I mean positive measure of initial data for such geodesics.
Nov 17, 2022 at 17:41 comment added alesia You said there are counterexamples in the Riemaniann geometry framework but that those involve trapped rays. Why are your assumptions inconsistent with the existence of trapped rays?
Nov 17, 2022 at 16:39 history edited Anton Petrunin CC BY-SA 4.0
+ Riemannian
Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 history edited CommunityBot
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
Oct 30, 2014 at 4:07 history edited Anton Petrunin CC BY-SA 3.0
deleted 4 characters in body
Oct 30, 2014 at 0:59 history edited Anton Petrunin CC BY-SA 3.0
added 85 characters in body
Oct 30, 2014 at 0:20 history edited Anton Petrunin CC BY-SA 3.0
added 384 characters in body
May 20, 2012 at 15:45 history edited Anton Petrunin CC BY-SA 3.0
added 421 characters in body
Apr 12, 2012 at 21:33 answer added Marcos Cossarini timeline score: 3
Mar 1, 2012 at 14:33 comment added Cam McLeman The title of this question always makes me think this would make for a fantastic sci-fi movie.
Oct 13, 2011 at 18:04 answer added Gerhard Paseman timeline score: 2
Oct 11, 2011 at 0:50 history edited Anton Petrunin CC BY-SA 3.0
added 310 characters in body
Oct 11, 2011 at 0:39 comment added Anton Petrunin No, I want optic fiber to be bidirectional (I will make it more clear). But you right, if you just want to send all rays from the first end to the second that you can get many more examples.
Oct 10, 2011 at 5:35 comment added Gerhard Paseman Other than that they may not be bidirectional with respect to light transmission, why disallow frustrums (truncated cones)? Gerhard "Ask Me About System Design" Paseman, 2011.10.09
Oct 10, 2011 at 1:34 history edited Anton Petrunin CC BY-SA 3.0
added 116 characters in body
Oct 8, 2011 at 19:58 history edited Anton Petrunin CC BY-SA 3.0
added 112 characters in body
Oct 8, 2011 at 14:26 answer added Joseph O'Rourke timeline score: 2
Oct 8, 2011 at 5:53 history asked Anton Petrunin CC BY-SA 3.0