3
$\begingroup$

For this question, a "cycle" is a sequence of distinct points $X = (x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_k)\in\mathbb{R}^3$ which defines a piecewise linear path starting at $x_1$ and visiting the points in order and returning to $x_k$ (below we use the cyclic indexing notation $x_{k+1}=x_1$ and $x_0=x_k$).

Given a cycle $X$, the "velocity variables" are the unit vectors $$ v_j = \frac{x_{j+1}-x_j}{|x_{j+1}-x_j|}. $$ At each point in the cycle we then define the normal vector $$ n_j = \frac{v_j - v_{j-1}}{|v_j-v_{j-1}|} $$ and the angle of reflection $$ \theta_j = \cos^{-1}(-v_j\cdot v_{j-1}) $$

The interpretation is as follows: the pair $(x_j,n_j)$ represents a small mirror placed at the point $x_j$ and oriented to have normal vector $n_j$. Then the cycle $(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_k)$ is a valid trajectory of a beam of light exiting at $x_1$ along the direction $v_1$ and bouncing off each mirror in order and then returning to $x_1$. The angles $\theta_j$ are the angles between the outgoing and incoming rays.

The question is as follows: can there exist a nontrivial permutation of the cycle which keeps the normal vectors $n_j$ and the angles $\theta_j$ fixed? In other words, is it possible to set up a finite set of mirrors that admits two distinct periodic trajectories that each hit all of the mirrors with the same angles of reflection?

$\endgroup$
5
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Isn’t this already possible in 2D with “spirograph” type configurations (the $x_i$ being vertices of a regular polygon). $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 29, 2022 at 4:17
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Even more explicitly: compare a (regular) pentagon and pentagram. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 29, 2022 at 4:25
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, good point. I missed a detail when I (incorrectly) translated another problem into this question about lasers and mirrors. The very important detail that I missed is I would like the angle of reflection off of each mirror to be the same. I think the correct thing to do on MO is to leave this question as is and perhaps ask my corrected question separately, after more carefully checking that it is not trivial. $\endgroup$
    – felipeh
    Commented Nov 29, 2022 at 4:30
  • $\begingroup$ I think it’s sometimes okay to change the question if you left something off. But regarding your proposed change: I’m confused how you could know all the angles but not know the entire trajectory. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 29, 2022 at 4:40
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @SamHopkins In R^3 the unit vectors have 2 degrees of freedom, and specifying the angle removes only one of them so there's still a cone of possible directions. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 29, 2022 at 4:46

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .