1:
2: % Submitted to Dynamical Systems Int J 25 July 2006
3: % Revised January 2007 and resubmitted June 2007
4:
5: \documentclass{cDSS2e}
6: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.2}
7: \usepackage{amsfonts}
8: \usepackage{amsmath}
9: \usepackage{xspace}
10: %\usepackage{color,graphicx}
11: \usepackage{epsf}
12:
13: \newcommand{\Rset}{\mathbb{R}}
14: \newcommand{\sgn}{\mathop{\mathrm{sgn}}}
15: \newcommand{\etal}{{\it et al.}\@\xspace}
16: \newcommand{\smallin}{{\mbox{\footnotesize in}}}
17: \newcommand{\smallout}{{\mbox{\footnotesize out}}}
18: \newcommand{\smalli}{{\mbox{\footnotesize i}}}
19: \newcommand{\smallr}{{\mbox{\footnotesize r}}}
20: \newcommand{\smallu}{{\mbox{\footnotesize u}}}
21: \newcommand{\smalls}{{\mbox{\footnotesize s}}}
22: \newcommand{\smallPoincare}{{\mbox{\footnotesize Poincar\'e}}}
23:
24: \begin{document}
25: \doi{10.1080/14689360xxxxxxxxxxxxx}
26: \issn{1468-9375}
27: \issnp{1468-9367} \jvol{00} \jnum{00} \jyear{2007} \jmonth{June}
28: \markboth{Kirk and Rucklidge}{Effect of symmetry breaking}
29:
30:
31: \title{The effect of symmetry breaking on the dynamics near a structurally
32: stable heteroclinic cycle between equilibria and a periodic orbit}
33:
34: \author{Vivien Kirk,\thanks{V.Kirk@auckland.ac.nz}
35: Department of Mathematics, University of Auckland,
36: \break Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand
37: \break Alastair M. Rucklidge,\thanks{A.M.Rucklidge@leeds.ac.uk}
38: Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Leeds,
39: Leeds LS2 9JT, UK}
40:
41: \received{\today}
42: \maketitle
43:
44: \begin{abstract}
45: The effect of small forced symmetry breaking on the dynamics near a
46: structurally stable heteroclinic cycle connecting two equilibria and a periodic
47: orbit is investigated. This type of system is known to exhibit complicated,
48: possibly chaotic dynamics including irregular switching of sign of various
49: phase space variables, but details of the mechanisms underlying the complicated
50: dynamics have not previously been investigated. We identify global
51: bifurcations that induce the onset of chaotic dynamics and switching near a
52: heteroclinic cycle of this type, and by construction and analysis of
53: approximate return maps, locate the global bifurcations in parameter space. We
54: find there is a threshold in the size of certain symmetry-breaking terms below
55: which there can be no persistent switching. Our results are illustrated by a
56: numerical example.
57: \end{abstract}
58:
59: \section{Introduction}
60:
61: It is well-established that the presence of symmetries in dynamical systems can
62: result in the existence of heteroclinic cycles that are structurally stable
63: with respect to symmetric perturbations~\cite{F80,GuHo88}. By {\em heteroclinic
64: cycle} we mean a collection of two or more flow invariant sets $\{\xi_1,\dots
65: ,\xi_n\}$ of some system of ordinary differential equations together with a set
66: of heteroclinic connections $\{\gamma_1(t), \dots,\gamma_n(t)\}$, where
67: $\gamma_j(t) \rightarrow \xi_{j}$ as $t \rightarrow -\infty$ and $\gamma_j(t)
68: \rightarrow \xi_{j+1}$ as $t \rightarrow +\infty$, and where $\xi_{n+1}\equiv
69: \xi_1$. In many studies, all the $\xi_i$ are equilibria, but in this paper we
70: explicitly consider the case that one of the $\xi_i$ is a periodic orbit. The
71: connections $\gamma_i$ may be isolated, or there may be a continuum of
72: connections from $\xi_i$ to $\xi_{i+1}$ for one or more $i$.
73:
74: There is a large literature on structurally stable heteroclinic cycles (SSHC),
75: including work establishing conditions for the existence and asymptotic
76: stability of heteroclinic cycles~\cite{KrMe95,KrMe04,M91}, examination of the
77: dynamics near heteroclinic cycles and networks of heteroclinic cycles
78: \cite{KS94,AC98,ACL05,PD05}, and unfolding of bifurcations of heteroclinic
79: cycles~\cite{SC92,CKMS,PD05b}. SSHC arise naturally in mathematical models of
80: physical systems with symmetry or near-symmetry~\cite{BuHe80,AGH88,PJ88,NTDX}. In
81: these models, the physical system is idealised as having perfect symmetry,
82: leading to the existence of invariant subspaces in the model and thus to the
83: robustness of heteroclinic cycles with respect to symmetric perturbations. It
84: is natural to ask how much of the dynamics observed in symmetric models
85: persists under non-symmetric perturbations. Some effects of small
86: symmetry-breaking have been documented~\cite{Me89,Ch93,SaSc95,MPR}, and aspects
87: of the related question of how much of the dynamics persists under the
88: inclusion of small noise have also been considered~\cite{StHo90,ASK03}, but
89: details are likely to vary greatly between different examples. A few cases of
90: experimental observation of near-heteroclinic cycles have been reported,
91: most recently in
92: \cite{NMQ}, but see also the references therein. In these cases, experimental noise and small
93: symmetry-breaking effects prevent exact heteroclinic cycles from occurring,
94: but there is clear evidence for near-heteroclinic structures in certain regimes.
95:
96: Our interest in the particular set-up explored in this paper is motivated by
97: \cite{MPR}, which makes the observation that the addition of small
98: symmetry-breaking terms to a system containing a heteroclinic cycle connecting
99: two equilibria and a periodic orbit (as well as symmetric copies of the cycle)
100: results in seemingly chaotic dynamics, with orbits passing near the various
101: equilibria in the system repeatedly but in an irregular pattern, as illustrated
102: in figure~\ref{fig:MPRexample}. A main point of~\cite{MPR} was to show that
103: repeated switching of orbits in this manner could arise in a simple
104: four-dimensional, nearly symmetric model, but the specific mechanisms
105: underlying the complicated dynamics were not explored in detail.
106:
107: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
108: \begin{figure}
109: \centerline{\epsfxsize=0.9\hsize\epsfbox{kr_fig_mpr_time_series.eps}}
110: \caption{Irregular switching in the time series of a dynamo model studied
111: in~\cite[figure~1]{MPR}. Panels~(a) and (b) show the evolution of different
112: coordinates of the same trajectory, and panel~(c) shows the same coordinate as
113: in~(b) over a longer time interval.}
114: \label{fig:MPRexample}
115: \end{figure}
116: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
117:
118: In this paper, we examine a generalisation of the situation from~\cite{MPR},
119: focusing on the structure and origin of chaotic dynamics in the system and on
120: how switching dynamics is induced. Here and elsewhere in the paper, {\em
121: switching} refers to the itinerary that an orbit follows under the dynamics.
122: Specifically, in the fully symmetric version of our system there is a
123: heteroclinic network consisting of four symmetric copies of the basic
124: heteroclinic cycle. Invariance of various subspaces ensures that an orbit may
125: make repeated passes near only one cycle. Once the symmetries are broken,
126: however, an orbit may {\em switch}, i.e., make traversals near more than one of
127: the original cycles (although, of course, the cycles themselves may not persist
128: when the symmetry is broken).
129:
130: A main result of this paper is that in the case of small symmetry breaking,
131: switching in one variable occurs when a complicated attractor arising from the
132: presence of transverse homoclinic orbits of a periodic orbit crosses the stable
133: manifold of one of the equilibria in the system. The existence of the
134: transverse homoclinic orbits depends on a broken rotation
135: symmetry, while the proximity of the attractor to the stable manifold of the
136: equilibrium is caused by a broken reflection symmetry. Switching in a second
137: variable results from the interaction between broken reflection symmetry and
138: complicated dynamics associated with a heteroclinic bifurcation between the
139: equilibria. Thus, switching results from the right combination of a global
140: bifurcation and small symmetry breaking.
141:
142: A second significant result of this paper is the observation that there is a
143: threshold for the size of symmetry breaking below which
144: persistent switching cannot occur. More precisely, the existence of the
145: heteroclinic cycle requires three separate symmetries to allow structurally
146: stable connections within three invariant subspaces. We control the degree to
147: which the three symmetries are broken by three small parameters, $\epsilon_1$,
148: $\epsilon_2$ and~$\epsilon_3$; $\epsilon_1$~controls the degree
149: to which the periodic orbit in the cycle deviates from a perfect circle, while
150: $\epsilon_2$ and $\epsilon_3$ break reflection symmetries. For fixed small
151: $\epsilon_2$ and~$\epsilon_3$, we find that there is a threshold
152: in~$\epsilon_1$ for persistent switching to occur. For sufficiently
153: small~$\epsilon_1$, there may be a single switch from one part of phase space
154: to another, but it is only for $\epsilon_1$ beyond the threshold value that an
155: orbit can repeatedly visit different parts of the phase space. We find that
156: it is possible to get sustained switching in one or other or both of the
157: variables associated with the reflection symmetries, and that the threshold
158: values of~$\epsilon_1$ are different for switching in the two variables. The threshold does
159: not go to zero as $\epsilon_2$ and~$\epsilon_3$ go to zero.
160:
161: Sustained switching of orbits near heteroclinic cycles and networks has been
162: observed in a number of other settings. Clune and Knobloch~\cite{ClKn94}
163: describe an example in which there are two symmetrically related copies of a
164: non-asymptotically stable heteroclinic cycle, with nearby orbits making
165: repeated passes near each cycle; no mechanism for the switching is suggested in
166: this paper. Aguiar et al.~\cite{ACL05} find switching near a hybrid
167: heteroclinic network formed from transverse heteroclinic connections between
168: equilibria and connections that are robust because of symmetry; switching seems
169: to result from the folding and stretching caused by passage near the
170: transversal heteroclinic connections and by mixing near an equilibrium solution
171: with complex eigenvalues. Kirk et al.~\cite{KLS05} have an example of switching
172: near a heteroclinic network that has no transversal connections; the switching
173: is caused entirely by passage near an equilibrium with complex eigenvalues.
174: Postlethwaite and Dawes~\cite{PD05} describe a variant of switching near a
175: heteroclinic network in which each cycle in the network is unstable along a
176: direction transverse to the cycle; orbits visit cycles in the network in a
177: fixed order (being pushed away from each cycle in the transverse direction,
178: which also happens to be the contracting direction for the next cycle) but the
179: number of traversals of each cycle before switching to the next cycle can be
180: constant or irregular. Ashwin et al.~\cite{ARS04a} describe switching
181: associated with a stuck-on heteroclinic cycle between two invariant subspaces;
182: here the switching is caused by a nonlinear mechanism that chooses between the different
183: possibilities in a manner that is well modelled by a random process. Switching
184: can also be induced by adding noise to a structurally stable heteroclinic
185: network~\cite{ASK03}; noise sensitive switching has been observed
186: by~\cite{RM95,MRWP96}. None of these examples explicitly considers symmetry
187: breaking as a mechanism for switching.
188:
189: We adopt a standard approach to analysis of the system of interest, i.e., we
190: set up a simple symmetric model in which there exists a heteroclinic cycle
191: connecting two equilibria and a periodic orbit (Section~\ref{sec:description}),
192: construct a return map that approximates the dynamics near such a cycle, and
193: then add generic symmetry breaking terms to the return map
194: (Section~\ref{sec:construct}, with details in the Appendix).
195: Analysis of the return map is fruitful in cases
196: where partial symmetry is retained, and allows us to prove the existence and
197: asymptotic stability of periodic orbits, quasiperiodic solutions or
198: heteroclinic cycles in various cases
199: (Sections~\ref{sec:global}--\ref{sec:rotate}). In the completely asymmetric
200: case, the return map is intractable, but we are able to make predictions about
201: the dynamics by assuming there is a generic unfolding of the partially
202: symmetric cases (Section~\ref{sec:full}). The example discussed in
203: Section~\ref{sec:numerics} confirms and illustrates the analysis. Some
204: conclusions are presented in Section~\ref{sec:conclusions}.
205:
206: A complicating factor in the analysis presented in this paper is that the
207: unstable manifolds of one pair of equilibria and of the periodic orbit are
208: two-dimensional, and there are continua of heteroclinic connections along some
209: parts of the cycle in the fully symmetric case. Linearising about a single
210: heteroclinic connection is not appropriate, and the usual method of analysis
211: needs to be adapted to keep track of orbits in a neighbourhood of all the
212: connections. Our approach is similar to that taken in~\cite{AC98,R01,KLS05}. We
213: note that our analysis need not consider the issue of which connection from a
214: continuum is selected by the dynamics (as investigated in, for instance,
215: \cite{AC98,AFRS03,ARS04a,ARS04b}) since in our case breaking of the symmetries
216: forces a discrete set of transversal connections to be selected from each
217: continuum. Note also that some results about the dynamics near a heteroclinic
218: cycle connecting an equilibrium and a periodic orbit in a generic (i.e., non-symmetric)
219: setting are described in \cite{Rademacher, KROCK}, but the
220: phenomena described
221: in those papers
222: will not be seen for small symmetry breaking in our setting,
223: and is not the focus of our interest here.
224:
225: \section{Description of the problem}
226: \label{sec:description}
227:
228: We consider a system of ordinary differential equations $\dot{\mathbf
229: x}={\mathbf f}({\mathbf x})$ where ${\mathbf f}:\Rset^4\to\Rset^4$, and
230: ${\mathbf x}=(x_1,y_1,x_2,x_3)\in\Rset^4$. It is sometimes convenient to use
231: polar coordinates $(r_1,\theta_1)$ such that $z_1\equiv x_1+{\rm i}\, y_1\equiv
232: r_1{\rm e}^{{\rm i}\theta_1}$. Initially, we assume the system is equivariant
233: with respect to the action of a rotation and two reflections:
234: $\kappa_i({\mathbf f}({\mathbf x}))={\mathbf f}(\kappa_i({\mathbf x}))$,
235: $i=1,2,3$, where
236: \begin{alignat*}{2}
237: \kappa_1&\colon(z_1,x_2,x_3) & \to &(z_1{\rm e}^{{\rm i}\phi},x_2,x_3), \\
238: \kappa_2&\colon(z_1,x_2,x_3) & \to &(z_1,-x_2,x_3), \\
239: \kappa_3&\colon(z_1,x_2,x_3) & \to &(z_1,x_2,-x_3),
240: \end{alignat*}
241: with $0\leq\phi<2\pi$.
242: These symmetries generate the group $S^1\times Z_2\times Z_2$, and their
243: presence ensures the existence
244: of some dynamically invariant subspaces. We make the following assumptions
245: about the dynamics in the subspaces, as illustrated in
246: figure~\ref{fig:cyclepicture}:
247: \begin{itemize}
248: \item There exists a hyperbolic periodic orbit $P$ in the invariant
249: plane $x_2=x_3=0$. Within this plane, the periodic orbit is a sink.
250: \item There exist hyperbolic, symmetry-related pairs of equilibria
251: $\pm E_2$ and $\pm E_3$ on the invariant lines $z_1=0$, $x_3=0$ and $z_1=0$,
252: $x_2=0$ respectively. Within these lines, the equilibria are sinks.
253: \item Within the invariant subspace $x_3=0$, $P$ is a saddle and
254: $\pm E_2$ are sinks, and there are two-dimensional manifolds of heteroclinic
255: connections from $P$ to $\pm E_2$ (figure~\ref{fig:cyclepicture}a).
256: \item Within the invariant subspace $z_1=0$, $\pm E_2$ are saddles
257: and $\pm E_3$ are sinks, and there are one-dimensional heteroclinic
258: connections from $+E_2$ to~$\pm E_3$, and from $-E_2$ to~$\pm E_3$
259: (figure~\ref{fig:cyclepicture}b).
260: \item Within the invariant subspace $x_2=0$, $\pm E_3$ are saddles
261: and $P$ is a sink, and there are two-dimensional manifolds of heteroclinic
262: connections from $\pm E_3$ to $P$ (figure~\ref{fig:cyclepicture}c).
263: \end{itemize}
264:
265: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
266: \begin{figure}
267: \centerline{\makebox[0.3\hsize][l]{(a)}
268: \hspace{0.03\hsize}
269: \makebox[0.3\hsize][l]{(b)} \hspace{0.03\hsize}
270: \makebox[0.3\hsize][l]{(c)}}
271: \vspace{0.3ex}
272: \centerline{\epsfxsize=0.3\hsize\epsfbox{kr1_het_cycle_a.eps}
273: \hspace{0.03\hsize}
274: \epsfxsize=0.3\hsize\epsfbox{kr1_het_cycle_b.eps}
275: \hspace{0.03\hsize}
276: \epsfxsize=0.3\hsize\epsfbox{kr1_het_cycle_c.eps}}
277: \caption{The heteroclinic cycle for the fully symmetric system.
278: (a)~One of the connections in the $x_3=0$ subspace, from the periodic orbit
279: $P$ to the equilibrium point~$+E_2$;
280: (b)~the single connection in the $x_1=y_1=0$ subspace, between the equilibria
281: $+E_2$ and~$+E_3$;
282: (c)~one of the connections in the $x_2=0$ subspace, from $+E_3$ to $P$.}
283: \label{fig:cyclepicture}
284: \end{figure}
285: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
286:
287: In the presence of the rotation symmetry $\kappa_1$, the coordinate $\theta_1$
288: decouples from the other coordinates, leaving an equivalent three-dimensional
289: system containing a SSHC connecting three saddle-type equilibria. This cycle
290: may be asymptotically stable, depending on the eigenvalues at the three
291: equilibria~\cite{KrMe95}. The behaviour of trajectories near such a
292: heteroclinic cycle is well understood, with a typical orbit passing near each
293: of the equilibria in a cyclic manner, spending ever increasing periods of time
294: near each equilibrium. The dynamics in the fully symmetric, four-dimensional
295: problem therefore has analogous behaviour: trajectories cycle between two
296: equilibria and a periodic orbit, with the time spent near each equilibrium or
297: the periodic orbit increasing with each subsequent traversal of the
298: cycle~\cite{MPR}. Moving to four dimensions does more than replace one
299: pair of equilibria
300: by a periodic orbit: it also introduces dynamical features that
301: will be important once symmetry is broken. In particular, as can be seen in
302: figure~\ref{fig:cyclepicture}, $\pm E_2$ and $\pm E_3$ are saddle-foci in the
303: four-dimensional problem, and $P$ and $\pm E_3$ have two-dimensional unstable manifolds.
304:
305: A detailed analysis of the effect on the dynamics of small symmetry breaking is
306: performed in the following sections; here we describe some geometric effects.
307: Since $\pm E_2$, $\pm E_3$ and $P$ are assumed to be hyperbolic in the fully
308: symmetric case, they persist and are hyperbolic when sufficiently small
309: symmetry breaking terms are added. However, $+E_2$ and $-E_2$ will generically
310: move off the $x_2$-axis and will no longer be related to each other by
311: symmetry. Generic symmetry breaking will have an analogous effect on $+E_3$ and
312: $-E_3$, and will also break the circular symmetry of $P$ and move it off
313: the plane $x_2=x_3=0$.
314:
315: Sufficiently small symmetry breaking will not change the dimensions of the
316: stable and unstable manifolds of $\pm E_2$, $\pm E_3$ and $P$, but it will
317: destroy the invariant subspaces, and the heteroclinic connections that
318: existed in the subspaces will either cease to exist or change their nature. We
319: consider the geometric effect of symmetry breaking on each of the former
320: heteroclinic connections in turn.
321:
322: The heteroclinic connections from $\pm E_2$ to $\pm E_3$ require the
323: coincidence in $\Rset^4$ of one-dimensional and two-dimensional manifolds;
324: these connections will be destroyed by a generic symmetry-breaking
325: perturbation.
326:
327: The heteroclinic connections from $\pm E_3$ to $P$ occur when the
328: two-dimensional unstable manifolds of $\pm E_3$ intersect the three-dimensional
329: stable manifold of $P$. Depending on the perturbation, we generically expect to
330: see either transversal intersections between these manifolds (in which case
331: there are, for example, at least two robust heteroclinic connections from
332: $+E_3$ to $P$) or no intersections of the manifolds. The special case where the
333: manifolds are tangent can also occur in a codimension-one way. In the case of
334: transversal intersections of manifolds, we might expect to see heteroclinic
335: tangles and the associated complicated dynamics, depending on whether the
336: dynamics elsewhere in the phase space permits reinjection of trajectories into
337: the neighbourhood of the transversal intersections.
338:
339: The heteroclinic connections from $P$ to $\pm E_2$ occur when the
340: two-dimensional unstable manifold of $P$ intersects the three-dimensional
341: stable manifolds of $\pm E_2$. There is a clear analogy with the case of
342: connections from $\pm E_3$ to $P$ and the comments about that case apply
343: equally here.
344:
345: While small symmetry-breaking terms generically destroy the heteroclinic
346: cycle, there will still be an attractor lying close to the original
347: heteroclinic cycle (Melbourne~\cite{Me89} shows this in a closely related
348: case). We show below that the form of this attractor (e.g., periodic,
349: quasiperiodic, chaotic) depends on the nature of the symmetry-breaking
350: perturbations included. In the fully symmetric case, the invariant
351: subspaces defined by $x_2=0$ and by $x_3=0$
352: restrict each trajectory to one quarter of the phase space, but
353: once the reflection symmetries are
354: broken, a single trajectory may explore more of the phase
355: space. We are interested in determining the circumstances under which
356: trajectories exhibit switching, i.e., make passages near two or more quarters
357: of the original heteroclinic attractor.
358:
359: \section{Construction of return maps}
360: \label{sec:construct}
361:
362: We construct and analyse a return
363: map that approximates the dynamics near the cycle. The idea is to define local coordinates
364: and cross-sections near $\pm E_2$, $\pm E_3$ and $P$, then determine local maps
365: valid in a neighbourhood of each of $\pm E_2$, $\pm E_3$ and $P$, and global
366: maps valid in a neighbourhood of each heteroclinic connection. Composing the
367: local and global maps yields the desired return map. Different forms for the return
368: map are obtained depending on which of the symmetries are broken. In this section
369: we list the different cases, but details of map construction are left to the Appendix.
370: The techniques used are, for the most part, standard, although modifications are
371: required to allow for the existence of continua of heteroclinic connections along some
372: parts of the cycle in the fully symmetric case.
373:
374: Throughout, we use a small
375: parameter~$h$ to control the size of the local neighbourhoods ($h\ll1$), and
376: small parameters~$\epsilon_1$, $\epsilon_2$, $\epsilon_3$ to control the extent
377: to which the symmetries $\kappa_1$, $\kappa_2$, $\kappa_3$ are broken.
378: It turns out to be convenient to define the return map on a cross-section near $+E_3$.
379: Using local coordinates $(r_1, \theta_1, x_2, \xi_3)$ near $+E_3$, where coordinates
380: are chosen so that $+E_3$ is at the origin and so that the eigenvectors of the linearised
381: flow align with the coordinate axes in the manner described in the Appendix, we define
382: a cross-section
383: \begin{equation}
384: H_3^\smallin = \left\{(r_1, \theta_1,x_2,\xi_3): 0\leq r_1\leq h,
385: |x_2|=h,
386: |\xi_3|\leq h \right\} \nonumber
387: \end{equation}
388: and then compute the return map, $R : H_3^\smallin \to H_3^\smallin$. The same
389: cross-section works equally well near $-E_3$ and the maps $R$ we compute in fact approximate
390: the dynamics near any of the four possible paths from $\pm E_3$ to $\pm E_3$. See the
391: Appendix for details.
392:
393: Since we are interested in trajectories that switch between positive and
394: negative values of $x_2$ and $x_3$, we introduce the notation $\pm_2$ and
395: $\pm_3$ to indicate whether a trajectory visits $+E_2$ or $-E_2$, and $+E_3$ or
396: $-E_3$. In particular, the trajectory starts at one of four possible sections
397: specified by $H_3^\smallin$, and we use $\pm_2$ to specify whether $x_2=+h$ or
398: $x_2=-h$ (implying that the trajectory recently visited $+E_2$ or $-E_2$). We
399: use $\pm_3$ to specify whether the trajectory is close to $+E_3$ or $-E_3$.
400: When the trajectory next returns to $H_3^\smallin$, we will be interested in
401: whether it visited $+E_2$ or $-E_2$ en route, and whether it returns to $+E_3$
402: or~$-E_3$.
403:
404: First, in the case with full symmetry ($\epsilon_1=\epsilon_2=\epsilon_3=0$),
405: we have:
406: \begin{align}
407: R(r_1,\theta_1,x_2=\pm_2h,\xi_3)=\Big(&
408: \tilde{r}_1=A r_1^{\delta},
409: \tilde{\theta}_1 = \theta_1+\Phi-Q \ln r_1, \nonumber \\
410: &\tilde{x}_2=x_2, \tilde{\xi}_3=B_2 \Big),
411: \label{eq:R_nosb}
412: \end{align}
413: where $A>0$ and $\Phi$ are constants, $\delta=\delta_1\delta_2\delta_3$,
414: $Q=(e_1e_2+e_2c_3+c_3c_1)/e_1e_2e_3$, and the constants $\delta_i$, $e_i$ and $c_i$
415: are defined in the Appendix. If $x_3>0$ initially, the trajectory
416: returns to $+E_3$ after visiting $\pm_2E_2$; if $x_3<0$ initially, the
417: trajectory returns to~$-E_3$.
418:
419: Second, breaking the $\kappa_2$ and $\kappa_3$ symmetries ($\epsilon_1=0$,
420: $\epsilon_2\ne 0$, $\epsilon_3\neq0$) we have:
421: \begin{align}
422: R(r_1,\theta_1,x_2=\pm_2h,\xi_3)=\Big(&
423: \tilde{r}_1=A_2\Big| \epsilon_3 \pm_3 A_1
424: \big| \epsilon_2 \pm_2 A_3 r_1^{\delta_3}
425: \big|^{\delta_1}
426: \Big|^{\delta_2}, \nonumber \\
427: &\tilde{\theta}_1 = \theta_1 + \Phi_1+\Phi_2+\Phi_3
428: -\frac{1}{e_3}\ln r_1\nonumber\\
429: &\phantom{\tilde{\theta}_1 = {}}{}
430: -\frac{1}{e_1}\ln\big|\epsilon_2\pm_2A_3r_1^{\delta_3}\big|\nonumber\\
431: &\phantom{\tilde{\theta}_1 = {}}{}
432: -\frac{1}{e_2}\ln\Big| \epsilon_3 \pm_3 A_1
433: \big| \epsilon_2 \pm_2 A_3 r_1^{\delta_3}
434: \big|^{\delta_1}
435: \Big|,\nonumber \\
436: & \tilde{x}_2=\sgn\left(\epsilon_2\pm_2A_3r_1^{\delta_3}\right)h,
437: \tilde{\xi}_3= B_2 \Big).
438: \label{eq:R_sb23}
439: \end{align}
440: The trajectory visits $+E_2$ or $-E_2$ en route according to the sign of
441: $\epsilon_2\pm_2A_3r_1^{\delta_3}$, and it returns to $+E_3$ or $-E_3$
442: according to the sign of
443: $\epsilon_3\pm_3A_1\big|\epsilon_2\pm_2A_3r_1^{\delta_3}\big|^{\delta_1}$.
444:
445: Third, if we break the $\kappa_1$ symmetry but preserve $\kappa_2$
446: and~$\kappa_3$ ($\epsilon_1\neq0$, $\epsilon_2=\epsilon_3=0$) we have:
447: \begin{align}
448: R(r_1,\theta_1,x_2=\pm_2h,\xi_3)=\Big(&
449: \tilde{x}_1=\epsilon_1 a_\smallr+A_2|\hat{x}_3|^{\delta_2}
450: \cos\hat{\theta}_1,
451: \nonumber \\
452: &\tilde{y}_1=\epsilon_1 a_\smalli+A_2|\hat{x}_3|^{\delta_2}
453: \sin\hat{\theta}_1,
454: \nonumber\\
455: &\tilde{x}_2 = \sgn(\hat{x}_2)h,
456: \tilde{\xi}_3= B_2 \Big),
457: \label{eq:R_sb1}
458: \end{align}
459: where
460: \begin{align*}
461: \hat{x}_2&=\pm_2\left(A_3 +
462: \epsilon_1f_3\left(\theta_1-\frac{1}{e_3}\ln r_1\right)
463: \right)r_1^{\delta_3},\\
464: \hat{x}_3&=\pm_3\left(A_1 +
465: \epsilon_1f_1\left(\theta_1+\Phi_3-\frac{1}{e_3}\ln r_1
466: -\frac{1}{e_1}\ln|\hat{x}_2|
467: \right)
468: \right)|\hat{x}_2|^{\delta_1},\\
469: \hat{\theta}_1&=\theta_1+\Phi_1+\Phi_2+\Phi_3
470: -\frac{1}{e_3}\ln r_1
471: -\frac{1}{e_1}\ln|\hat{x}_2|
472: -\frac{1}{e_2}\ln|\hat{x}_3|\,.
473: \end{align*}
474: The trajectory visits $+E_2$ or $-E_2$ en route according to the sign
475: of~$\hat{x}_2$, and it returns to $+E_3$ or $-E_3$ according to the sign
476: of~$\hat{x}_3$. In this case, these signs are the same as the signs of $x_2$
477: and~$x_3$.
478: The map~(\ref{eq:R_sb1}) can be
479: simplified by assuming that $A_3$ and $A_1$ are order one and dropping the
480: terms proportional to $\epsilon_1$ in the expressions for $\hat{x}_2$
481: and~$\hat{x}_3$. This results in an approximate map:
482: \begin{align}
483: R(r_1,\theta_1,x_2=\pm_2h,\xi_3)=\Big(&
484: \tilde{x}_1=\epsilon_1 a_\smallr+Ar_1^{\delta}
485: \cos\left(\theta_1+\Phi - Q\ln r_1\right),
486: \nonumber \\
487: &\tilde{y}_1=\epsilon_1 a_\smalli+Ar_1^{\delta}
488: \sin\left(\theta_1+\Phi - Q\ln r_1\right),
489: \nonumber\\
490: &\tilde{x}_2 = x_2,
491: \tilde{\xi}_3= B_2 \Big),
492: \label{eq:R_sb1simple}
493: \end{align}
494: where $\delta$ and $Q$ were defined above, and $A$ and $\Phi$ are constants as
495: in equation~(\ref{eq:R_nosb}).
496:
497: Finally, when all symmetries are broken the return map is similar to the
498: map~(\ref{eq:R_sb1}) above, though with definitions of $\hat{x}_2$ and
499: $\hat{x}_3$ that include terms proportional to $\epsilon_2$ and $\epsilon_3$:
500: \begin{align}
501: \hat{x}_2&=\pm_2\left(A_3 +
502: \epsilon_1f_3\left(\theta_1-\frac{1}{e_3}\ln r_1\right)
503: \right)r_1^{\delta_3} \nonumber \\
504: &\phantom{=}{}+\epsilon_2\left(1+\epsilon_1g_3\left(\theta_1-\frac{1}{e_3}\ln r_1\right)
505: \right), \nonumber \\
506: \hat{x}_3&=\pm_3\left(A_1 +
507: \epsilon_1f_1\left(\theta_1+\Phi_3-\frac{1}{e_3}\ln r_1
508: -\frac{1}{e_1}\ln|\hat{x}_2|
509: \right)
510: \right)|\hat{x}_2|^{\delta_1}\nonumber \\
511: &\phantom{=}{}+\epsilon_3\left(1 +
512: \epsilon_1g_1\left(\theta_1+\Phi_3-\frac{1}{e_3}\ln r_1
513: -\frac{1}{e_1}\ln|\hat{x}_2|
514: \right)
515: \right), \nonumber \\
516: \hat{\theta}_1&=\theta_1+\Phi_1+\Phi_2+\Phi_3
517: -\frac{1}{e_3}\ln r_1
518: -\frac{1}{e_1}\ln|\hat{x}_2|
519: -\frac{1}{e_2}\ln|\hat{x}_3|\,.
520: \label{eq:R_sb1complex}
521: \end{align}
522: The trajectory visits $+E_2$ or $-E_2$ en route according to the sign
523: of~$\hat{x}_2$, and it returns to $+E_3$ or $-E_3$ according to the sign
524: of~$\hat{x}_3$. It might seem that terms proportional to~$\epsilon_1$ in
525: $\hat{x}_2$ and $\hat{x}_3$ could be dropped, as they were above. However, the
526: terms $\pm_2A_3r_1^{\delta_3}$ and $\epsilon_2$ could nearly cancel and
527: likewise $\pm_3A_1|\hat{x}_2|^{\delta_1}$ and $\epsilon_3$, so we do not drop
528: the $\epsilon_1$~terms. In fact, it turns out that retaining the $\epsilon_1$
529: terms is essential for understanding the switching mechanisms.
530:
531: It is possible to write down equivalent maps from $H_1^\smallin\to
532: H_1^\smallin$ and $H_2^\smallin\to H_2^\smallin$. Note that the radial
533: coordinates (as defined in the Appendix)
534: play no role in the return maps, at the order to which we are
535: working.
536:
537:
538: \section{Analysis of return maps}
539: \label{sec:analysis}
540:
541: Behaviour in the case without symmetry breaking is well understood and simple:
542: whenever $\delta>1$ and $r$~is small, iteration of map (\ref{eq:R_nosb})
543: results in progressively smaller values of~$r$ and so there is an
544: asymptotically stable heteroclinic cycle. The signs of $x_2$ and $x_3$ cannot
545: change, owing to the presence of invariant subspaces, so each trajectory is
546: confined to one quarter of the phase space. For the remainder of this section,
547: we will assume~$\delta>1$.
548:
549: \subsection{Global bifurcations}
550: \label{sec:global}
551:
552: Global bifurcations are a key ingredient for understanding the dynamics of the
553: non-symmetric system. In this section, we describe the global bifurcations that
554: are most important for our analysis.
555:
556: \subsubsection{Homoclinic bifurcation of $P$}
557: \label{homP}
558:
559: The periodic orbit $P$ has stable and unstable manifolds of dimension three and
560: two, respectively, meaning that transverse intersections of the manifolds, when
561: they occur, do so in a codimension-zero way, while tangencies between the
562: manifolds will be of codimension one. Transverse homoclinic orbits can only
563: occur when all symmetries are broken, as the following argument shows. If
564: $\epsilon_2=0$, the subspace $x_2=0$ is invariant; since $ {\cal W}^\smalls(P)$ lies in that
565: subspace it cannot intersect $ {\cal W}^\smallu(P)$. Similarly, if $\epsilon_3=0$, the
566: subspace $x_3=0$ is invariant; since $ {\cal W}^\smallu(P)$ lies in that subspace it cannot
567: intersect $ {\cal W}^\smalls(P)$. If $\epsilon_1=0$ then the rotation symmetry ensures that
568: any intersection of $ {\cal W}^\smallu(P)$ and $ {\cal W}^\smalls(P)$ will not be transverse.
569:
570: In the case $\epsilon_1=0$, $\epsilon_2\ne 0$, $\epsilon_3 \ne 0$,
571: non-trans\-versal homoclinic orbits of $P$ occur when one branch of the stable
572: manifold of $P$ is coincident with one branch of the unstable manifold of $P$.
573: This event can be located by calculating the image of
574: $ {\cal W}^\smallu(P)$ under $\Psi_{31}\circ \phi_3 \circ \Psi_{23} \circ \phi_2 \circ \Psi_{12}$
575: (see Appendix for definitions of the maps $\phi_i$ and $\Psi_{ij}$)
576: and setting the $x_2$ component
577: of the image to zero; we find that for small symmetry-breaking,
578: non-trans\-versal homoclinic bifurcations of $P$ occur at
579: \begin{equation}
580: \epsilon_2 = -\pm_2 A_3 A_2^{\delta_3}|\epsilon_3|^{\delta_2 \delta_3},
581: \qquad \epsilon_1=0.
582: \label{eq:homP}
583: \end{equation}
584: Homoclinic orbits can be formed by coincidence of either of the two branches
585: of $ {\cal W}^\smallu(P)$ with either of the two branches of $ {\cal W}^\smalls(P)$, resulting in four
586: possible homoclinic bifurcations corresponding to the four separate curves
587: implicit in the expression above. These curves are shown as dashed lines in
588: figure~\ref{fig:globalbifns}.
589: The homoclinic orbit corresponding to the curve in the second quadrant of the
590: $(\epsilon_2,\epsilon_3)$ plane arises from the choice $\pm_2=+$ and
591: $\epsilon_3>0$, and passes close to $+E_2$ and $+E_3$; the three other
592: bifurcation curves correspond to homoclinic orbits with the three other routes
593: past the equilibria, in the obvious way.
594:
595:
596: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
597: \begin{figure}
598: \centerline{\epsfxsize=0.5\hsize\epsfbox{globalbifns.eps}}
599: \caption{Schematic bifurcation set for the case $\epsilon_1=0$, $\epsilon_2$
600: and $\epsilon_3$ small. Regions of asymptotically stable quasiperiodic
601: solutions are bounded by codimension-one curves of global bifurcations, i.e.,
602: non-trans\-verse homoclinic bifurcations of $P$ (dashed curves) and
603: heteroclinic bifurcations of the cycles $\pm E_2 \to \pm E_3 \to \pm E_2$
604: (solid curves). The shapes of the global bifurcation curves correspond to the
605: choice $\delta_1>1$, $\delta_2>1$ and $\delta_3>1$, but similar figures could
606: be drawn for the other cases. As explained in Section~\ref{sec:reflect}, the
607: various shading styles indicate the regions in which four different
608: quasiperiodic solutions occur. Close to the $\epsilon_2$ and $\epsilon_3$ axes,
609: two different quasiperiodic solutions coexist.}
610: \label{fig:globalbifns}
611: \end{figure}
612: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
613:
614: As $\epsilon_1$ changes from zero, each curve of
615: non-trans\-versal homoclinic bifurcations will generically split into two
616: curves of homoclinic tangencies, with the region between the tangencies being
617: parameter values for which there are transverse homoclinic orbits of~$P$. Four
618: curves of homoclinic tangencies and two regions of homoclinic tangles are shown
619: schematically in figure~\ref{fig:globalbifns-sb}.
620:
621: Inspection of the expression for the $x_2$~component of the image of
622: $ {\cal W}^\smallu(P)$ under $\Psi_{31}\circ \phi_3 \circ \Psi_{23} \circ \phi_2 \circ \Psi_{12}$
623: gives more information about loci
624: of the homoclinic bifurcations of~$P$ when $\epsilon_1\neq0$. This component
625: can be written as:
626: \begin{equation}
627: \tilde{x}_2=\pm_2 R_1^{\delta_3} \left(A_3 + \epsilon_1 f_3(\Theta_1)\right)
628: + \epsilon_2 \left(1+\epsilon_1 g_3(\Theta_1)\right),
629: \label{eq:thresholdx2}
630: \end{equation}
631: where $R_1$ and $\Theta_1$ are complicated functions of the coefficients and
632: parameters. In this expression, $A_3 + \epsilon_1 f_3(\Theta_1)$ must remain
633: positive, as explained in the Appendix, and $R_1$ is positive. Expressions for the positions
634: of the homoclinic tangencies in parameter space can be calculated by setting
635: $\tilde{x}_2=0$; these expressions are not included here due to their extreme
636: ugliness. Nonetheless, we note that for $\epsilon_1$ small, when $\pm_2=+$,
637: there are only solutions with~$\epsilon_2<0$; this is consistent with figures
638: \ref{fig:globalbifns} and \ref{fig:globalbifns-sb}, in which each bifurcation
639: curve is confined to a single quadrant. However, if $\epsilon_1$ is large
640: enough that $1+\epsilon_1 g_3(\Theta_1)$ can change sign as $\Theta_1$ varies,
641: the loci of the homoclinic bifurcations of $P$ can change quadrants. Of course,
642: this effect is outside the range of validity of the return maps we have
643: constructed, but the principle is worth bearing in mind as it appears to
644: influence the dynamics observed in the numerical example discussed in
645: Section~\ref{sec:numerics}.
646:
647: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
648: \begin{figure}
649: \centerline{\epsfxsize=0.5\hsize\epsfbox{new-globalbifns-sb.eps}}
650: %\includegraphics[width=0.5\hsize]{globalbifns-sb}
651: \caption{Schematic diagram showing part of the bifurcation set for the case
652: $\epsilon_1$ fixed and non-zero but small (compare with
653: figure~\ref{fig:globalbifns}). Dashed curves correspond to homoclinic
654: tangencies of $P$, solid curves in the first (resp.~fourth) quadrant correspond
655: to heteroclinic tangencies between $ {\cal W}^\smallu(-E_3)$ (resp.~${\cal W}^\smallu(+E_3)$) and
656: ${\cal W}^\smalls(+E_2)$, and the shading shows regions in which the corresponding
657: homoclinic or heteroclinic
658: tangles exist. The dotted horizontal line indicates a path through parameter space
659: discussed in Section~\ref{sec:full}; the labels A -- D indicate schematically
660: parameter
661: values used in section~\ref{sec:numerics}.}
662: \label{fig:globalbifns-sb}
663: \end{figure}
664: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
665:
666:
667: \subsubsection{Heteroclinic bifurcation $\pm E_2 \to \pm E_3 \to \pm E_2$}
668: \label{hetEs}
669:
670: In the case that all symmetries are broken, consideration of the dimensions of
671: the stable and unstable manifolds of the equilibrium points shows that the
672: heteroclinic cycle $+E_2 \to+E_3 \to+E_2$ will occur in a codimension-two
673: manner. However, if $\epsilon_1=0$, the connection $+E_2\to+E_3$ is robust and
674: the intersection of ${\cal W}^\smallu(+E_3)$ and ${\cal W}^\smalls(+E_2)$ is a codimension-one phenomenon,
675: meaning that the heteroclinic cycle as a whole occurs with codimension one.
676: This latter case is of interest since, as we will see, the heteroclinic
677: bifurcation unfolds when $\epsilon_1 \ne 0$ into homoclinic bifurcations of
678: $+E_2$ and $+E_3$ and heteroclinic tangencies between ${\cal W}^\smallu(+E_3)$
679: and ${\cal W}^\smalls(+E_2)$
680: similar to the way each non-trans\-verse homoclinic bifurcation of $P$ splits
681: into two homoclinic tangencies when $\epsilon_1$ is varied from zero (see
682: above). An analogous argument works for heteroclinic cycles involving $-E_2$
683: and/or $-E_3$.
684:
685: Calculations with the local and global maps yields an expression for the
686: parameter values at which these heteroclinic bifurcations occur:
687: $$ \epsilon_3 = - \pm_3A_1|\epsilon_2|^{\delta_1},
688: \qquad\epsilon_1=0.
689: $$
690: See figure~\ref{fig:globalbifns}. This expression is valid for all four cycles
691: $\pm E_2 \to \pm E_3 \to \pm E_2$ so long as $\pm_3$ and the sign of
692: $\epsilon_2$ are chosen appropriately.
693:
694: \subsubsection{Homoclinic bifurcations of $\pm E_2$ and $\pm E_3$}
695:
696: The dimensions of the stable and unstable manifolds of $\pm E_2$ and $\pm E_3$
697: are such that if homoclinic bifurcations of these equilibria occur, they are of
698: codimension one.
699:
700: An argument similar to that used in subsection~\ref{homP} shows that we require
701: $\epsilon_1 \ne 0$ and $\epsilon_3 \ne 0$ if a homoclinic bifurcation of $\pm E_2$
702: is to occur, although $\epsilon_2$ could be zero. Similarly, existence of a
703: homoclinic bifurcation of $\pm E_3$ requires $\epsilon_1\ne0$ and $\epsilon_2\ne0$,
704: although $\epsilon_3$ could be zero. The homoclinic bifurcations of $\pm E_2$
705: (resp.~$\pm E_3$) will be of Shil'nikov type if $\delta_2<1$ (resp.~$\delta_3 <1$)
706: and if $c_2 < 2$ (resp.~$c_3 <2$)~\cite{GS84}.
707:
708: We can in principle calculate parameter values at which these homoclinic
709: bifurcations occur, but the expressions are too nasty to be useful. Instead, we
710: note that there can be two homoclinic bifurcations of $+E_2$, one for each
711: branch of the unstable manifold of $+E_2$, and a further two homoclinic
712: bifurcations of $-E_2$. Similarly, there can be two homoclinic bifurcations of
713: $+E_3$ and two homoclinic bifurcations of $-E_3$. These eight homoclinic
714: bifurcations will in general occur at different parameter values, but in the
715: limit $\epsilon_1 \to 0$, will converge pairwise on the loci of the four
716: heteroclinic bifurcations involving $\pm E_2$ and $\pm E_3$ discussed in the
717: previous subsection. For instance, as $\epsilon_1 \to 0$, a homoclinic orbit of
718: $+E_2$ passing near $-E_3$ and a homoclinic orbit of $-E_3$ passing near $+E_2$
719: will converge in phase space on the heteroclinic cycle $+E_2\to-E_3\to+E_2$,
720: and the parameter values at which the homoclinic bifurcations occur will
721: converge in parameter space on the locus of the heteroclinic bifurcation. For
722: clarity, these bifurcation curves are not shown in
723: figure~\ref{fig:globalbifns-sb}.
724:
725: The dynamics associated with these bifurcations will be
726: discussed further below.
727:
728: \subsection{Breaking the two reflection symmetries}
729: \label{sec:reflect}
730:
731: Here we show that, for $\epsilon_1=0$ and for sufficiently
732: small~$\epsilon_2$ and~$\epsilon_3$, map~(\ref{eq:R_sb23}) generically has
733: at least one asymptotically stable closed invariant curve and the corresponding
734: flow has quasiperiodic solutions. This is not a surprising result, since
735: the coordinate $\theta_1$ decouples from the other coordinates
736: when $\epsilon_1=0$, in which case
737: our system can be reduced to a three-dimensional system with a SSHC between
738: equilibria; earlier work on a system related to our reduced system showed that breaking the reflection
739: symmetries can give rise to asymptotically stable periodic solutions~\cite{SaSc95}.
740: Our main aim in this section is to locate the regions in parameter space in which the
741: quasiperiodic solutions exist, for comparison with the location of some of the global
742: bifurcations described in section~\ref{sec:global}.
743:
744: The $r_1$ component of map~(\ref{eq:R_sb23}) is independent of the other
745: variables, and so we first seek values of $r_1$ for which $F(r_1)=r_1$, where
746: \begin{equation}
747: F(r_1)=A_2\Big| \epsilon_3 \pm_3 A_1
748: \big| \epsilon_2 \pm_2 A_3 r_1^{\delta_3}
749: \big|^{\delta_1}
750: \Big|^{\delta_2}. \label{eq:f_sb23}
751: \end{equation}
752: For each choice of $\epsilon_2$ and $\epsilon_3$, there are two
753: possible signs of each of $\pm_2$ and~$\pm_3$, but the case $(\pm_2=+,\epsilon_2>0)$ is
754: equivalent to $(\pm_2=-,\epsilon_2<0)$, and the case $(\pm_3=+,\epsilon_3>0)$
755: is equivalent to $(\pm_3=-,\epsilon_3<0)$. Without loss of generality, we
756: focus on the case $\pm_2=+$, $\pm_3=+$, and seek values of
757: $\epsilon_2$ and $\epsilon_3$ for which there exist fixed points of
758: map (\ref{eq:f_sb23}). Fixed points of this type have positive values within
759: the absolute value signs in
760: (\ref{eq:f_sb23}), since the signs of $\epsilon_2+A_3 r_1^{\delta_3}$ and
761: $\epsilon_3+A_1|\epsilon_2+A_3r_1^{\delta_3}|^{\delta_1}$ determine the next
762: values of $\pm_2$ and $\pm_3$.
763:
764: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%
765: \begin{figure}
766: \centerline{\epsfxsize=0.9\hsize\epsfbox{map_epsi23.eps}}
767: \caption{Schematic graphs of $F(r_1)$ (equation (\ref{eq:f_sb23}))
768: for the choice $\pm_2=\pm_3=1$ when $\delta_1>1$,
769: $\delta_2>1$, $\delta_3>1$, and $A_1=A_2=A_3=1$. The solid (resp.~dotted) curve
770: indicates values of $r_1$ for which the next values of $\pm_2$ and $\pm_3$ are
771: (resp.~are not) both positive; we seek values of $r_1$ for which the solid
772: curve intersects the diagonal. For small positive~$\epsilon_2$
773: and~$\epsilon_3$, a stable fixed point exists (see panel (b)). This fixed point
774: ceases to exist in the second quadrant when
775: $\epsilon_2=-A_3A_2^{\delta_2}\epsilon_3^{\delta_2\delta_3}$, when there is a
776: non-transversal homoclinic bifurcation of $P$ (limiting case shown in panel
777: (a)). The fixed point is destroyed in the fourth quadrant when
778: $\epsilon_3=-A_1\epsilon_2^{\delta_1}$, when there is a non-transversal
779: heteroclinic connection from $+E_3$ to $+E_2$ (limiting case shown in
780: panel~(c)).}
781: \label{fig:mapepsi23}
782: \end{figure}
783: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%
784:
785: For sufficiently small, positive $\epsilon_2$ and $\epsilon_3$,
786: $F(0)=A_2(\epsilon_3+A_1\epsilon_2^{\delta_1})^{\delta_2}>0$. For $r_1$ larger
787: than $\epsilon_2$ and $\epsilon_3$ but still smaller than one, we have
788: $F(r_1)\sim r_1^{\delta}$, which is less than~$r_1$ since $\delta>1$. Thus, by
789: continuity, the map has a fixed point (see figure~\ref{fig:mapepsi23}(b)).
790: Since $F(r_1)$ is monotonically increasing, the slope of~$F$ at the
791: fixed point is less than one, so a stable fixed point exists for
792: $\epsilon_2>0$, $\epsilon_3>0$.
793:
794: This fixed point (i.e., a fixed point with $\pm_2=\pm_3=+$) also exists in
795: parts of the second and fourth quadrants of the $(\epsilon_2,\epsilon_3)$
796: parameter plane. To determine the region of existence in the
797: fourth quadrant, we fix $\epsilon_2$ at some small positive value and
798: decrease $\epsilon_3$. This shifts the
799: graph of $F(r_1)$ down, from which it is found that a stable fixed point
800: exists until $F(0)=0$, i.e., until
801: $\epsilon_3=-A_1\epsilon_2^{\delta_1}$
802: (figure~\ref{fig:mapepsi23}(c)). Thus the fixed point
803: ceases to exist in the fourth quadrant at the locus of the
804: heteroclinic bifurcation from $+E_3$ to $+E_2$ (c.f.~section~\ref{hetEs}).
805:
806: To determine where the fixed point exists in the second quadrant,
807: we fix $\epsilon_3$ at some small positive value and decrease $\epsilon_2$.
808: This decreases $F(0)$ and also changes the
809: shape of the graph of $F(r_1)$; the graph remains monotonic
810: increasing in $r_1$ while $\epsilon_2$ is positive, but develops a turning point
811: once $\epsilon_2$
812: becomes negative, with $F(r_1)$ decreasing for
813: $r_1$ near zero. The decreasing section is indicated by a dotted curve in
814: figure~\ref{fig:mapepsi23}(a), and corresponds to future values of $\pm_2$ and
815: $\pm_3$ not both being positive. For small enough negative $\epsilon_2$ the
816: dotted section of the graph lies to the left of fixed point, but when
817: $\epsilon_2=-A_3A_2^{\delta_2}\epsilon_3^{\delta_2\delta_3}$, the dotted curve
818: reaches to the diagonal and the fixed point ceases to exist
819: (figure~\ref{fig:mapepsi23}(a)). Thus the fixed point ceases to exist in the second
820: quadrant on the locus of the homoclinic bifurcation of $P$ (c.f.~section \ref{homP}).
821:
822: The region of existence of this stable fixed point is indicated by the left-leaning
823: close hatching in figure~\ref{fig:globalbifns}. Calculations with the other
824: combinations of signs of $\pm_2$ and $\pm_3$ are analogous, and yield different
825: regions of existence for the corresponding fixed points. Fixed points may coexist
826: as shown in
827: figure~\ref{fig:globalbifns}.
828:
829: Since for fixed $r_1$ the $\theta_1$ component of map (\ref{eq:R_sb23}) is a rigid rotation,
830: a fixed point of equation (\ref{eq:f_sb23}) generically corresponds to a closed
831: invariant curve in (\ref{eq:R_sb23}) and to a quasiperiodic solution in the
832: full flow. The angle~$\theta_1$ decouples from the rest of the dynamics, and so the
833: full flow will have an invariant torus foliated by periodic orbits for a dense set of
834: parameter values. Stability of these solutions follows from the stability of the
835: fixed point of~(\ref{eq:f_sb23}).
836:
837: The calculations above were for the case $\delta_1>1$, $\delta_2>1$,
838: $\delta_3>1$. Similar calculations done when one or more of the
839: $\delta_i$ is smaller than one lead to
840: similar regions of existence of quasiperiodic solutions, except that there are
841: additional saddle-node bifurcations of the tori close to the relevant
842: global bifurcations; these saddle-node bifurcations arise since the
843: global bifurcations destroy solutions of different stabilities
844: depending on the sign of $\delta_i -1$.
845:
846: The special case that precisely one of $\epsilon_2$ and $\epsilon_3$ is zero
847: (i.e., only one reflection symmetry is broken) is covered by the analysis
848: above; there will be two fixed points of the map with corresponding (foliated)
849: tori in the flow.
850:
851: In summary, when the two reflection
852: symmetries are broken but the rotation symmetry is preserved, the flow generically
853: has asymptotically stable quasiperiodic
854: solutions that do not exhibit switching. Different quasiperiodic solutions coexist in regions
855: bounded by global bifurcations that will play an important role in generating complex
856: dynamics when $\epsilon_1\neq0$.
857:
858: \subsection{Breaking the rotation symmetry}
859: \label{sec:rotate}
860:
861: In this subsection we show that for sufficiently small values of $\epsilon_1$,
862: with $\epsilon_2=\epsilon_3=0$, the map (\ref{eq:R_sb1simple}) has a stable
863: fixed point.
864:
865: By rescaling $r_1$ and $\epsilon_1$ by order one amounts and moving the origin
866: of the $\theta_1$ coordinate, we can without loss of generality set $A=1$,
867: $a_\smallr=1$ and $a_\smalli=0$ in (\ref{eq:R_sb1simple}). Ignoring for now the
868: $x_2$ and $\xi_3$ components of the map and working with polar coordinates
869: $(\rho,\phi)$ centred at $(x_1,y_1)=(\epsilon_1,0)$ (so that
870: $x_1=\epsilon_1+\rho\cos \phi$ and $y_1=\rho \sin \phi$), map
871: (\ref{eq:R_sb1simple}) reduces to
872: \begin{equation}
873: \begin{cases}
874: \tilde{x}_1=\epsilon_1 + \tilde\rho\cos\tilde\phi\cr
875: \tilde{y}_1=\phantom{\epsilon_1+{}} \tilde\rho\sin\tilde\phi\cr
876: \end{cases}
877: \qquad \mbox{where} \qquad
878: \begin{cases}
879: \tilde\rho = r_1^\delta\cr
880: \tilde\phi = \theta_1+\Phi - Q\ln r_1.\cr
881: \end{cases}
882: \label{eq:Rnorotrhophi}
883: \end{equation}
884: The constant $\Phi$ may take a different value here than in
885: equations~(\ref{eq:R_sb1simple}). Fixed points of (\ref{eq:Rnorotrhophi})
886: satisfy $r_1=\sqrt{{\tilde{x}_1}^2+{\tilde{y}_1}^2}$ and
887: $\theta_1=\arctan\left(\tilde{y}_1/\tilde{x}_1\right)$. To find solutions of
888: the first of these equations, note that circles of radius $r$ about
889: $(x_1,y_1)=(0,0)$ map under~(\ref{eq:Rnorotrhophi}) to circles of radius
890: $r^\delta$ about $(\epsilon_1,0)$. Since $\delta>1$ and for small $r$, these
891: circles will intersect if $r\geq\epsilon_1-r^\delta$ and
892: $r\leq\epsilon_1+r^\delta$; the intersection points are candidate fixed points
893: of the map. For each small fixed value of $\epsilon_1$, there will be some
894: non-zero interval $a\leq r\leq b$ on which the inequalities are both
895: satisfied. See figure \ref{fig:tildephi1}(a--c).
896:
897: The second equation, $\theta_1=\arctan\left(\tilde{y}_1/\tilde{x}_1\right)$, is
898: satisfied for at least one value of~$r$ in $[a,b]$, as the following argument
899: shows. When $r=a$, the circles $(r_1, \theta_1)=(r, \theta_1)$ and
900: $(\rho,\phi)=(r^\delta, \phi)$ intersect at a single point,
901: $(r_1,\theta_1)=(a,0)$, alternatively $(\rho, \phi)=(a^\delta, \pi)$. As $r$ is
902: increased beyond~$a$, the intersection point splits into two (with
903: corresponding $\phi$ values just below $\pi$ and just above $-\pi$). The
904: intersection points come together again at $(r_1,\theta_1)=(b,0)$ or
905: $(\rho,\phi)=(b^\delta,0)$, in the manner shown in
906: figure~\ref{fig:tildephi2}(a). The corresponding value of $\tilde\phi$ for each
907: intersection point can be calculated from~(\ref{eq:Rnorotrhophi}) (see
908: figure~\ref{fig:tildephi2}(b)) from which it is seen that the two branches of
909: $\tilde\phi$, arising from the upper and lower intersections of the two
910: circles, start and end at the same point as each other, as shown in
911: figure~\ref{fig:tildephi2}(c). At least one of the two branches of the graph of
912: $\tilde\phi$ vs $r$ therefore intersects the graph of $\phi$ vs $r$ for that
913: same branch for at least one $r$ in $[a,b]$. Thus, there is at least
914: one fixed point of the map~(\ref{eq:Rnorotrhophi}).
915:
916: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
917: \begin{figure}
918: \centerline{\epsfxsize=0.9\hsize\epsfbox{tildephi1.eps}}
919: % \includegraphics[width=\hsize]{tildephi}
920: \caption{Finding fixed points of equations (\ref{eq:Rnorotrhophi}). Panels
921: (a--c) show schematically the relative positions of the circle of radius $r$
922: around $(x_1,y_1)=(0,0)$ (large circle in each panel) and its image under map
923: (\ref{eq:Rnorotrhophi}) for various sizes of $r$: (a) $r <
924: \epsilon_1-r^{\delta}$, no intersection; (b) $r \geq \epsilon_1-r^{\delta}$ and
925: $r \leq \epsilon_1+r^{\delta}$, one or two intersections; (c) $r >
926: \epsilon_1+r^{\delta}$, no intersections.}
927: \label{fig:tildephi1}
928: \end{figure}
929: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
930:
931: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
932: \begin{figure}
933: \centerline{\epsfxsize=0.9\hsize\epsfbox{tildephi2.eps}}
934: % \includegraphics[width=\hsize]{tildephi}
935: \caption{(a)~Schematic $\phi$ values for intersections of the two circles
936: $(r_1, \theta_1)=(r, \theta_1)$ and $(\rho,\phi)=(r^\delta, \phi)$, in the
937: situation shown in figure~\ref{fig:tildephi1}(b), plotted as a function of $r$;
938: (b)~Schematic showing $\theta_1$ (solid and dashed curves) and $-Q\ln r_1$
939: (dotted curve) for points of intersection of the two circles, plotted as a
940: function of $r$ at the intersection points;
941: (c)~$\phi$ and $\tilde\phi$ values at points of intersection of the two
942: circles. Solid curves correspond to the upper intersection
943: points and their images, dashed curves correspond to the lower intersection
944: points and their images.}
945: \label{fig:tildephi2}
946: \end{figure}
947: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
948:
949: It is straightforward to show that the determinant of the Jacobian of
950: map~(\ref{eq:Rnorotrhophi}) is $\delta r^{2(\delta-1)}$ and that the absolute
951: value of the trace of the Jacobian is bounded above by $
952: \sqrt{(\delta+1)^2+Q^2}\, r^{\delta-1}.$ For each choice of $\epsilon_1$, the
953: value of $r$ at the corresponding fixed point lies in $[a,b]$, where $a$ and
954: $b$ depend on $\epsilon_1$ with $a>0$ and $a$ and $b$ tending to zero as
955: $\epsilon_1 \to 0$. Thus, for sufficiently small $\epsilon_1$, the determinant
956: and trace of the linearised map are small enough to ensure that the
957: relevant fixed point is stable. It follows that the corresponding fixed point
958: of equations (\ref{eq:R_sb1simple}) is also stable, since orbits of that
959: map collapse onto a constant value of the third (radial) coordinate after one
960: iteration of the map.
961:
962: In summary, for sufficiently small $\epsilon_1$ when $\epsilon_2=\epsilon_3=0$, the
963: heteroclinic cycle that occurred in the fully symmetric case is replaced by a
964: stable periodic orbit. Using the reflection symmetries $\kappa_2$ and
965: $\kappa_3$, we find four stable periodic orbits co-exist, one in each quarter
966: of the phase space.
967:
968: \subsection{Breaking all symmetries}
969: \label{sec:full}
970:
971: Direct analysis of the return map valid for the case that all symmetries are
972: broken is not feasible because of the extremely complicated form of that map.
973: Instead, in this section we use our knowledge of the dynamics in the case
974: $\epsilon_1=0$ and arguments about generic unfoldings of this special case to
975: deduce what types of dynamics will be seen in the fully asymmetric case for
976: $\epsilon_1$ near zero, and to (approximately) locate each type of behaviour in
977: parameter space. This procedure allows us to make specific predictions about
978: the mechanisms underlying the complicated dynamics observed in numerical
979: examples, such as the example described in section~\ref{sec:numerics}. We are
980: especially interested in finding mechanisms that cause repeated, non-periodic
981: switching in our system.
982:
983: The dynamics associated with the case $\epsilon_1=0$ is summarised in
984: figure~\ref{fig:globalbifns}, which shows eight curves of global bifurcations
985: bounding regions in which there are asymptotically stable quasiperiodic
986: solutions. In this case the rotation symmetry prevents coupling of the two
987: frequencies associated with each quasiperiodic solution and the dynamics is
988: simple. Once $\epsilon_1$ moves away from zero, we will generically see locking
989: of the frequencies. For instance, if we were to fix $\epsilon_1$ sufficiently
990: small but non-zero and pick $\epsilon_2$ and $\epsilon_3$ positive and with
991: values midway between the two pairs of global bifurcation curves in the first
992: quadrant of figure~\ref{fig:globalbifns-sb}, then along a one-dimensional path
993: through the parameter space such as the dotted line in
994: figure~\ref{fig:globalbifns-sb} there will be intervals of quasiperiodicity
995: interspersed with intervals of locked, periodic behaviour. Associated with the
996: frequency locking there may be complicated dynamics such as period-doubling
997: cascades and chaotic dynamics. However, this behaviour will mostly be confined
998: to regions of phase space near the original quasiperiodic solutions, and is not
999: the main mechanism for switching in our system.
1000:
1001: As shown in section~\ref{homP} and in
1002: figure~\ref{fig:globalbifns-sb}, each curve of non-transverse homoclinic
1003: bifurcations of $P$ seen in figure~\ref{fig:globalbifns} turns into a wedge in
1004: parameter space of transverse homoclinic orbits of $P$
1005: when $\epsilon_1$ changes from zero. There will be horseshoes and chaotic
1006: dynamics associated with the transverse homoclinic orbits, although the chaos
1007: may not be attracting. In numerical examples we might expect to see a mixture
1008: of stable periodic orbits and stable chaotic dynamics, in overlapping regions
1009: of parameter space.
1010:
1011: An interesting consequence of the occurrence of homoclinic tangles is that it
1012: provides a mechanism for switching of orbits with respect to the $x_2$
1013: variable. For instance, for sufficiently small $\epsilon_1$, and with
1014: $\epsilon_2>0$, $\epsilon_3>0$ and both small, solutions that make excursions
1015: near $+E_2$ can get trapped. The trapping region is bounded in part by one
1016: branch of ${\cal W}^\smalls(P)$ and trapped solutions make excursions past
1017: $+E_2$ but cannot cross ${\cal W}^\smalls(P)$ so cannot get close to $-E_2$. If
1018: $\epsilon_2$ is decreased, say by moving along the dotted path shown in Figure
1019: 4 into the homoclinic wedge in the second quadrant, the trapping region
1020: develops a leak when a homoclinic tangency forms between that branch of ${\cal
1021: W}^\smalls(P)$ and a branch of ${\cal W}^\smallu(P)$; solutions are then able
1022: to cross ${\cal W}^\smalls(P)$, and may visit a neighbourhood of $-E_2$. We
1023: call this `switching in $x_2$'. Switching of this type (from positive to
1024: negative $x_2$) can occur for parameter values to the left of the right
1025: boundary of the homoclinic wedge in the second quadrant. A numerical example of
1026: this leaking process is given below in figure~\ref{fig:x2switchp}.
1027:
1028: Once a switching solution arrives in the region with $x_2<0$, it may then get
1029: captured by an attractor lying solely in the negative $x_2$ region of phase
1030: space, in which case no more switching will be observed. Alternatively, if
1031: there is a mechanism for orbits to leak back to the original region of phase
1032: space then there could be sustained switching in $x_2$. This latter case cannot
1033: occur for arbitrarily small $\epsilon_1$ as the following argument shows. For
1034: the case $\epsilon_1=0$, results from section~\ref{sec:reflect} show that
1035: orbits which make repeated excursions near $-E_2$ and $+E_3$ occur in the second
1036: quadrant of figure~\ref{fig:globalbifns-sb} and in the first quadrant as far as
1037: the locus of homoclinic bifurcations of $P$. (This homoclinic bifurcation
1038: involves a different branch of ${\cal W}^\smallu(P)$ than the homoclinic bifurcation
1039: occurring for $\epsilon_2<0$ discussed in the last paragraph.) For small
1040: $\epsilon_1$, there will be a wedge of homoclinic tangencies of the relevant
1041: branches of ${\cal W}^\smallu(P)$ and ${\cal W}^\smalls(P)$, with the wedge lying entirely within the
1042: region $\epsilon_2>0$, $\epsilon_3>0$; orbits that make a number of excursions
1043: past $-E_2$ before switching and passing close to $+E_2$ can only occur for
1044: values of $\epsilon_2$ and $\epsilon_3$ lying to the right of the left boundary
1045: of the wedge. Thus, for sufficiently small $\epsilon_1$, there is no overlap
1046: between the region of parameter space where there is switching from positive to
1047: negative $x_2$ and the region where there is switching from negative to
1048: positive $x_2$, with the consequence that there can be no sustained switching
1049: in $x_2$.
1050:
1051: However, as argued in section~\ref{homP}, for large enough $\epsilon_1$ the
1052: curves of homoclinic tangency may change quadrants in the
1053: $(\epsilon_2,\epsilon_3)$ parameter plane, and then the switching regions can
1054: overlap, making sustained switching in $x_2$ possible. As pointed out in
1055: section~\ref{homP}, our return map construction is not valid for `large'
1056: $\epsilon_1$, so we have not proved the existence of sustained switching, just
1057: shown how it might feasibly occur. It is not possible to determine a priori how
1058: big $\epsilon_1$ would have to be to get sustained switching, but we have shown
1059: that there is a threshold in $\epsilon_1$ below which sustained switching in
1060: $x_2$ is not possible. The value of this threshold does not go to zero as
1061: $\epsilon_2$ and $\epsilon_3$ go to zero, as it comes from the requirement that
1062: $1+\epsilon_1g_3(\Theta_1)$ changes sign (as a function of~$\Theta_1$) in
1063: equation~(\ref{eq:thresholdx2}). Another way of understanding this is to note
1064: that in~(\ref{eq:thresholdx2}), if $\pm_2=+$ and $\epsilon_2>0$, then the only
1065: way of having $\tilde{x}_2$ negative is to have $1+\epsilon_1g_3(\Theta_1)<0$
1066: for some value of~$\Theta_1$. This is a necessary but not sufficient condition,
1067: as the attractor may not explore the required range of~$\Theta_1$.
1068:
1069: The four curves of heteroclinic bifurcations of the cycles $\pm E_2 \to \pm E_3
1070: \to \pm E_2$ shown in figure~\ref{fig:globalbifns} also split when $\epsilon_1$
1071: becomes non-zero, being replaced by eight curves of homoclinic bifurcations and
1072: eight curves of heteroclinic tangencies between ${\cal W}^\smallu( \pm E_3)$
1073: and ${\cal W}^\smalls(\pm E_2)$, as described in section~\ref{hetEs}. If they
1074: are of Shil'nikov type, the homoclinic bifurcations can complicate the dynamics
1075: by inducing chaotic dynamics. The heteroclinic bifurcations are associated with
1076: switching in the $x_3$ coordinate similarly to the way switching in $x_2$ is
1077: associated with homoclinic bifurcations of $P$, described above. More
1078: precisely, the eight curves of heteroclinic tangencies between ${\cal
1079: W}^\smallu(\pm E_3)$ and ${\cal W}^\smalls(\pm E_2)$ come in pairs, with each
1080: pair bounding a wedge in parameter space. At parameter values within each wedge
1081: there is a heteroclinic tangle of one pair of manifold branches. For instance,
1082: for sufficiently small $\epsilon_1$ there will be a heteroclinic wedge
1083: involving one branch of ${\cal W}^\smallu(+E_3)$ and one branch of ${\cal
1084: W}^\smalls(+E_2)$ occurring in the fourth quadrant in the
1085: $(\epsilon_2,\epsilon_3)$ plane. Above this wedge, ${\cal W}^\smalls(+E_2)$
1086: bounds in part a trapping region; orbits in the trapping region make excursions
1087: past $+E_3$ but cannot cross ${\cal W}^\smalls(+E_2)$ to get close to $-E_3$.
1088: The trapping region develops a leak when a heteroclinic tangency forms between
1089: the appropriate branches of ${\cal W}^\smallu(+E_3)$ and ${\cal
1090: W}^\smalls(+E_2)$ thus allowing solutions to cross ${\cal W}^\smalls(+E_2)$. We
1091: call this `switching in $x_3$'. An argument analogous to that used for
1092: switching in $x_2$ can be used here to show that there is a (generically
1093: different) threshold in $\epsilon_1$ below which there can be no persistent
1094: switching in~$x_3$. This threshold does not go to zero when $\epsilon_2$ and
1095: $\epsilon_3$ go to zero.
1096:
1097: The mechanisms inducing switching in $x_2$ and in $x_3$ are distinct, but
1098: orbits that switch persistently in both $x_2$ and $x_3$ are possible for
1099: $\epsilon_1$ above the thresholds for both mechanisms. Switching in each
1100: variable requires the rotation and appropriate reflection symmetry to be
1101: broken. It is possible to have persistent switching in~$x_2$ with
1102: $\epsilon_3=0$, or switching in~$x_3$ with $\epsilon_2=0$, though we will not
1103: explore this possibility in detail. The example in section \ref{sec:numerics}
1104: shows that persistent switching is easily observed in numerical examples.
1105:
1106: Both of the global bifurcations we have identified as inducing switching, i.e.,
1107: homoclinic tangencies of ${\cal W}^\smallu(P)$ and ${\cal W}^\smalls(P)$ and heteroclinic tangencies of
1108: ${\cal W}^\smallu(\pm E_3)$ and ${\cal W}^\smalls(\pm E_2)$, will produce horseshoes in the dynamics. In
1109: the case of homoclinic tangencies, this is a standard result and in the case of
1110: the heteroclinic tangencies, reinjection into the neighbourhood of the
1111: heteroclinic tangle is provided by proximity in phase and parameter space to
1112: the heteroclinic cycle $\pm E_2 \to \pm E_3 \to \pm E_2$. In either case, we
1113: expect the onset of switching to be commonly associated with nearby
1114: chaotic dynamics; chaotic orbits before the onset of switching, chaotic
1115: transients for switching orbits and orbits that switch chaotically might all be
1116: seen. However, other types of switching are also possible, such as
1117: periodic switching where the attractor is a periodic orbit that crosses the
1118: (non-invariant) hyperplanes $x_2=0$ and $x_3=0$ or periodic switching where the
1119: attractor is a `noisy periodic orbit' such as results from a cascade of period
1120: doubling. In the latter case the itinerary of visits to $\pm E_2$ or $\pm E_3$
1121: will be periodic even though the actual orbits are not.
1122:
1123: \section{Example}
1124: \label{sec:numerics}
1125:
1126: We consider the following system of equations to illustrate the dynamics of
1127: interest in this paper:
1128: \begin{align}
1129: {\dot z_1} &= (1+{\rm i})z_1 - |z_1|^2z_1
1130: - (c_2+1)x_2^2z_1
1131: + (e_3-1)x_3^2z_1
1132: + \epsilon_1d_{11} + \epsilon_1d_{12}x_1\,,
1133: \label{eq:modelSBODEsfirst}\\
1134: {\dot x_2} &= x_2 - x_2^3
1135: - (c_3+1)x_3^2x_2
1136: + (e_1-1)|z_1|^2x_2
1137: + \epsilon_2d_{21} + \epsilon_1d_{22}x_1x_2
1138: + \epsilon_1\epsilon_2d_{23}x_1\,,
1139: \\
1140: {\dot x_3} &= x_3 - x_3^3
1141: - (c_1+1)|z_1|^2x_3
1142: + (e_2-1)x_2^2x_3
1143: + \epsilon_3d_{31} + \epsilon_1d_{32}x_1x_3
1144: + \epsilon_1\epsilon_3d_{33}x_1\,,
1145: \label{eq:modelSBODEslast}
1146: \end{align}
1147: These equations were derived by starting with the structurally stable
1148: heteroclinic cycle considered in~\cite{GuHo88}, turning a pair of equilibria of
1149: that cycle into a periodic orbit by adding a trivial phase variable, and adding
1150: the simplest possible terms that break the symmetries in generic ways. The
1151: parameters $\epsilon_1$, $\epsilon_2$ and $\epsilon_3$ in equations
1152: (\ref{eq:modelSBODEsfirst}--\ref{eq:modelSBODEslast}) play the same role as in
1153: the maps derived earlier in this paper.
1154:
1155: The model used in~\cite{MPR} is similar, but differs in two
1156: respects. First, the symmetry-breaking terms in~\cite{MPR} were fifth-order in
1157: the $x$ and $z$ variables, rather than constant, linear and quadratic here.
1158: Second, the model in~\cite{MPR} respects the symmetry
1159: $(z_1,x_2,x_3)\rightarrow(-z_1,-x_2,-x_3)$, as appropriate for a model of
1160: a dynamo instability: the invariant subspace $z_1=x_2=x_3=0$ corresponds to the
1161: absence of any magnetic field. We do not expect the first difference between
1162: models to alter the qualitative behaviour, but the enforced symmetry may
1163: have a significant effect, as discussed briefly in the next section.
1164:
1165: The coefficients in the equations were chosen to be:
1166: $c_1=1.2$, $e_1=1.0$,
1167: $c_2=1.1$, $e_2=1.0$,
1168: $c_3=1.1$, $e_3=1.0$ for the contracting and expanding eigenvalues, and
1169: $d_{11}=d_{12}=10^{-4}$,
1170: $d_{21}=10^{-1}$,
1171: $d_{22}=10^{-1}$,
1172: $d_{23}=10^{3}$,
1173: $d_{31}=10^{-3}$,
1174: $d_{32}=10^{-4}$,
1175: $d_{33}=1$ for the symmetry-breaking coefficients.
1176: The eigenvalues were chosen to be of order one, with contraction dominating
1177: expansion at each point ($\delta_1=1.2$, $\delta_2=1.1$, $\delta_3=1.1$, and an
1178: overall $\delta=1.452$). The symmetry breaking coefficients are notionally
1179: small, but those coefficients ($d_{23}$ and $d_{33}$) that are multiplied by
1180: two $\epsilon$'s were chosen to be larger to compensate for this. The exact
1181: numbers are not important, though they will affect the details of what is
1182: observed. However, choosing $d_{23}$ and $d_{33}$ to be reasonably large
1183: means that the switching dynamics is easier to obtain for small values
1184: of~$\epsilon_1$: in order to get persistent switching, the
1185: $\epsilon_1\epsilon_2d_{23}x_1$ and $\epsilon_1\epsilon_3d_{33}x_1$ terms in
1186: (\ref{eq:modelSBODEsfirst}--\ref{eq:modelSBODEslast}) need to be reasonably
1187: important.
1188:
1189: We integrated the equations numerically using the Bulirsch--Stoer adaptive
1190: integrator \cite{NumRecipes}, with a tolerance for the relative error set to
1191: $10^{-12}$ for each step. Poincar\'e sections were computed using algorithms
1192: from~\cite{PC89}.
1193:
1194: By varying $\epsilon_1$, $\epsilon_2$ and $\epsilon_3$, we are able to find
1195: examples of the important symmetry-breaking effects discussed in the previous
1196: sections of this paper. The cases with full or partial symmetry preserved give
1197: straightforward results, which we describe only briefly; more details are
1198: provided of the case of fully broken symmetry.
1199:
1200: If all symmetries are preserved (all $\epsilon_i=0$) then each solution
1201: starting off the invariant subspaces is attracted to one of four symmetry-related
1202: structurally stable heteroclinic cycles.
1203: If $\epsilon_1 \ne 0$, $\epsilon_2=\epsilon_3=0$ (rotation
1204: symmetry broken, reflections preserved), numerics confirm the predictions of
1205: section~\ref{sec:rotate}, and a single attracting periodic orbit is found in
1206: each quarter of the phase space. If rotation symmetry is preserved as well as
1207: one reflection, and the other reflection is broken, then solutions are
1208: attracted to a foliated torus, as discussed in section~\ref{sec:reflect}. In
1209: the case that both reflections are broken but the rotation symmetry is
1210: preserved, numerics confirm the predictions of section~\ref{sec:reflect}; we
1211: find that there exist attracting quasiperiodic solutions in regions bounded by
1212: curves of global bifurcations, as shown schematically in
1213: figure~\ref{fig:globalbifns}. Analysis of the maps derived earlier allows us to
1214: predict scaling of the loci of various global bifurcations in the limit of
1215: small symmetry breaking. For instance, equation (\ref{eq:homP}) tells us that
1216: for $\epsilon_1=0$ and $\epsilon_3 \to 0$, homoclinic bifurcations of $P$
1217: associated with equations (\ref{eq:modelSBODEsfirst}--\ref{eq:modelSBODEslast})
1218: occur for $\epsilon_2={\rm constant} \times |\epsilon_3|^{\delta_2 \delta_3}$
1219: but the value of the constant is not determined by the map analysis. Numerical
1220: simulations of equations (\ref{eq:modelSBODEsfirst}--\ref{eq:modelSBODEslast})
1221: confirm the scalings for the various global bifurcations.
1222:
1223: To illustrate the phenomena associated with breaking all symmetries, it is
1224: helpful to consider the changes in dynamics seen along a one-dimensional path
1225: such as that shown as the dotted line in figure \ref{fig:globalbifns-sb}. We
1226: first chose a value of~$\epsilon_1$ below the thresholds for persistent
1227: switching in $x_2$ and~$x_3$. For instance, fixing $\epsilon_1=10^{-4}$ and
1228: $\epsilon_3=0.001$ and allowing $\epsilon_2$ to vary, we see the following
1229: types of dynamics.
1230:
1231: Picking $\epsilon_2=3\times10^{-5}$ yields
1232: a point (labelled~A) lying to the right of the homoclinic wedge and to left of the
1233: heteroclinic wedge in the first quadrant of figure~\ref{fig:globalbifns-sb}.
1234: For these $\epsilon_2$ and $\epsilon_3$ values but for $\epsilon_1=0$, there
1235: exists an attracting quasiperiodic solution with $x_2$ and $x_3$ both positive.
1236: With $\epsilon_1=10^{-4}$ the same type of quasiperiodic solution exists. As
1237: $\epsilon_2$ is decreased while $\epsilon_1$ is fixed at $10^{-4}$
1238: we find, as expected, intervals of $\epsilon_2$ in
1239: which there are quasiperiodic attractors interspersed with intervals on which
1240: there is locking of the two frequencies associated with the quasiperiodic
1241: solution (periodic orbits). In some intervals, period doubling cascades are
1242: observed, as is normal near quasiperiodic behaviour. The interchange between
1243: locking and quasiperiodic behaviour persists until we approach the homoclinic
1244: wedge at negative values of $\epsilon_2$.
1245:
1246: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1247: \begin{figure}
1248: \centerline{\epsfxsize=0.9\hsize\epsfbox{kr_fig_x2_switch.eps}}
1249: % \mbox{\includegraphics[width=0.9\hsize]{kr_fig_x2_switch.eps}}
1250: \caption{Onset of switching in $x_2$ for equations
1251: (\ref{eq:modelSBODEsfirst}--\ref{eq:modelSBODEslast}), associated with crossing
1252: into the wedge of homoclinic bifurcations of $P$ in the second quadrant of
1253: $(\epsilon_2,\epsilon_3)$-space. Parameters $\epsilon_1=10^{-4}$,
1254: $\epsilon_3=0.001$ are fixed and $\epsilon_2$ is decreased: (a)
1255: $\epsilon_2=-5.67\times10^{-7}$ gives a chaotic attractor confined to the region
1256: $x_2>0$; (b) $\epsilon_2=-5.68\times10^{-7}$ gives a chaotic transient with $x_2>0$,
1257: then the sign of $x_2$ changes and the orbit is attracted to a quasiperiodic
1258: solution with $x_2<0$. Other coefficients as described in text. The
1259: chaotic nature of the orbit in (a) and the transient in (b) is not apparent on
1260: the timescale used to plot the time series.}
1261: \label{fig:x2switch}
1262: \end{figure}
1263: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1264:
1265: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1266: \begin{figure}
1267: \centerline{\epsfxsize=0.9\hsize\epsfbox{kr_fig_x2_switch_p.eps}}
1268: % \mbox{\includegraphics[width=0.9\hsize]{kr_fig_x2_switch_p.eps}}
1269: \caption{Illustration of how leaking develops as the attractor crosses
1270: ${\cal W}^\smalls(P)$ (approximately $x_2=0$ in this figure).
1271: (a) Poincar\'e map for the orbit shown in
1272: figure~\ref{fig:x2switch}(a); (b)~Poincar\'e map for the orbit in
1273: figure~\ref{fig:x2switch}(b). In each case the Poincar\'e section is
1274: $H_1^\smallin$ with $|x_3|=h=0.005$. In each panel, a dot (resp.~cross)
1275: indicates that the orbit next crosses the Poincar\'e section with $x_2>0$
1276: (resp.~$x_2<0$). In~(b), the upper collection of dots corresponds to the
1277: chaotic transient, which ends in a single cross, after which the orbit switches
1278: to a quasiperiodic attractor, represented by the lower collection of crosses.}
1279: \label{fig:x2switchp}
1280: \end{figure}
1281: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1282:
1283: As this homoclinic wedge is approached, apparently chaotic dynamics is
1284: observed, consistent with the appearance of horseshoes associated with the
1285: impending homoclinic tangency. Before the first tangency is reached
1286: (labelled~B in figure~\ref{fig:globalbifns-sb}), orbits are
1287: trapped in the region with $x_2>0$, $x_3>0$ (figure~\ref{fig:x2switch}a). If
1288: $\epsilon_2$ is decreased past the tangency value (labelled~C), the attractor crosses
1289: ${\cal W}^\smalls(P)$ and so a typical orbit will display a chaotic transient with $x_2>0$,
1290: $x_3>0$, and then switch to $x_2<0$, $x_3>0$, after which the orbit is
1291: attracted to a quasiperiodic solution in that quarter of phase space
1292: (figure~\ref{fig:x2switch}b). Corresponding Poincar\'e maps are shown in
1293: figure~\ref{fig:x2switchp}. With negative
1294: values of~$\epsilon_2$, once the trajectory has switched to $x_2<0$, the
1295: behaviour is analogous to that observed with $\epsilon_2>0$ and~$x_2>0$:
1296: quasiperiodic attractors interspersed with frequency locking. Note there is no
1297: persistent switching in~$x_2$, and no switching in~$x_3$, for these parameter
1298: values.
1299:
1300: If $\epsilon_2$ is now increased from $\epsilon_2=3\times10^{-5}$ while $\epsilon_1$
1301: and $\epsilon_3$ are kept fixed as before, we approach the wedge of
1302: heteroclinic connections from $-E_3$ to $+E_2$ (following the dotted line in
1303: figure~\ref{fig:globalbifns-sb}). Once the left edge of the heteroclinic wedge
1304: has been crossed, orbits can switch from $x_3<0$ to $x_3>0$ (but not from
1305: $x_3>0$ to $x_3<0$). For example, at $\epsilon_2=1.1\times10^{-4}$ (labelled~D in
1306: figure~\ref{fig:globalbifns-sb}), we find a chaotic
1307: transient with $x_3<0$ that has a single switch to a locked periodic orbit
1308: with~$x_3>0$, in a manner similar to the single $x_2$ switch in
1309: figure~\ref{fig:x2switch}(b). For larger $\epsilon_2$, we find other examples
1310: of quasiperiodicity, locked periodic orbits, chaos, chaotic transients and
1311: single switches from $x_3<0$ to $x_3>0$, consistent with the analysis presented
1312: above. We did not find any examples of persistent switching.
1313:
1314: The behaviour for negative values of $\epsilon_2$ and/or $\epsilon_3$ is
1315: analogous: single switches can be found, but there is no persistent switching
1316: for $\epsilon_1=10^{-4}$. However, persistent switching in one or both of $x_2$
1317: and $x_3$ is observed if we increase $\epsilon_1$. Figures~\ref{fig:x2perswitch} and~\ref{fig:x2perswitchp} show an example of
1318: persistent switching in~$x_2$ (but not~$x_3$) for $\epsilon_1=3\times10^{-4}$,
1319: $\epsilon_2=2\times10^{-4}$ and $\epsilon_3=0.001$. The trajectory crosses the
1320: Poincar\'e section in a curve that appears reasonably smooth at the largest
1321: scale (figure~\ref{fig:x2perswitchp}), but the magnified inset shows that the
1322: curve has structure, and that parts of the curve lie below~${\cal W}^\smalls(P)$, leading
1323: to switches from $x_2>0$ to $x_2<0$. For
1324: these parameter values, there appears to be no attractor with $x_2<0$,
1325: and after a short transient, the trajectory switches back to $x_2>0$.
1326: Dynamics with a larger value of $\epsilon_1=0.005$ is shown in
1327: figures~\ref{fig:x2x3switch} and~\ref{fig:x2x3switchp}: here we have persistent
1328: switching in $x_2$ and~$x_3$.
1329:
1330: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1331: \begin{figure}
1332: \centerline{\epsfxsize=0.9\hsize\epsfbox{kr_fig_x2_persistent_switch.eps}}
1333: % \mbox{\includegraphics[width=0.9\hsize]{kr_fig_x2_persistent_switch.eps}}
1334: \caption{Time series showing persistent switching in $x_2$ alone, for equations
1335: (\ref{eq:modelSBODEsfirst}--\ref{eq:modelSBODEslast}) with $\epsilon_1=3\times10^{-4}$,
1336: $\epsilon_2=2\times10^{-4}$, $\epsilon_3=0.001$. The other coefficients are as defined
1337: in text.}
1338: \label{fig:x2perswitch}
1339: \end{figure}
1340: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1341:
1342: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1343: \begin{figure}
1344: \centerline{\epsfxsize=0.9\hsize\epsfbox{kr_fig_x2_persistent_switch_p.eps}}
1345: % \mbox{\includegraphics[width=0.9\hsize]{kr_fig_x2_persistent_switch_p.eps}}
1346: \caption{Poincar\'e section corresponding to the time series shown in
1347: figure~\ref{fig:x2perswitch}. The inset shows an enlargement of the region in
1348: the box marked in the main picture. The Poincar\'e section is $H_1^\smallin$
1349: with $|x_3|=h=0.01$. A dot (resp.~cross) indicates that the orbit next crosses
1350: the Poincar\'e section with $x_2>0$ (resp.~$x_2<0$). The inset shows that
1351: crosses (indicating a switch) occur where the trajectory lies
1352: below~${\cal W}^\smalls(P)$ (approximately $x_2=0$).}
1353: \label{fig:x2perswitchp}
1354: \end{figure}
1355: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1356:
1357: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1358: \begin{figure}
1359: \centerline{\epsfxsize=0.9\hsize\epsfbox{kr_fig_x2_x3_switch.eps}}
1360: % \mbox{\includegraphics[width=0.9\hsize]{kr_fig_x2_x3_switch.eps}}
1361: \caption{Time series showing persistent switching in $x_2$ and $x_3$, for
1362: (\ref{eq:modelSBODEsfirst}--\ref{eq:modelSBODEslast}) with $\epsilon_1=0.005$,
1363: $\epsilon_2=3\times10^{-5}$, $\epsilon_3=0.001$. Other coefficients as defined in
1364: text.}
1365: \label{fig:x2x3switch}
1366: \end{figure}
1367: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1368:
1369: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1370: \begin{figure}
1371: \centerline{\epsfxsize=0.9\hsize\epsfbox{kr_fig_x2_x3_switch_p.eps}}
1372: % \mbox{\includegraphics[width=0.9\hsize]{kr_fig_x2_x3_switch_p.eps}}
1373: \caption{Poincar\'e section corresponding to the time series shown in
1374: figure~\ref{fig:x2x3switch}. The inset shows an enlargement of the region in
1375: the box marked in the main picture. The Poincar\'e section is $H_1^\smallin$
1376: with $|x_3|=h=0.01$. Four symbols are used: a dot (resp.~cross) indicates that
1377: the orbit next crosses the Poincar\'e section with $x_2>0$ (resp.~$x_2<0$) and
1378: with $x_3>0$. A~$+$ (resp.~square) indicates that the orbit next crosses the
1379: Poincar\'e section with $x_2>0$ (resp.~$x_2<0$) and with $x_3<0$. The division
1380: between orbits falling either side of ${\cal W}^\smalls(P)$ is clearly visible. Orbits
1381: falling on opposite sides of ${\cal W}^\smalls(\pm E_2)$ are reasonably well mixed with this
1382: choice of cross-section.}
1383: \label{fig:x2x3switchp}
1384: \end{figure}
1385: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1386:
1387:
1388: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1389: \begin{figure}
1390: \centerline{\epsfxsize=0.9\hsize\epsfbox{kr_fig_x3_fitted_global_map.eps}}
1391: \caption{The function $1+\epsilon_1g_1(\theta)$ fitted to the
1392: data in figures~\ref{fig:x2perswitch} ($\epsilon_1=3\times10^{-4}$)
1393: and~\ref{fig:x2x3switch} ($\epsilon_1=0.005$). This function must be both
1394: positive and negative as a function of~$\theta$ in order to allow persistent
1395: switching in~$x_3$.}
1396: \label{fig:x3fittedmap}
1397: \end{figure}
1398: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1399:
1400: Our understanding of the mechanism behind persistent switching in $x_2$ or
1401: $x_3$ requires that $\epsilon_1$ be large enough that $1+\epsilon_1g_3(\theta)$
1402: or $1+\epsilon_1g_1(\theta)$ can take on positive and negative values, as a
1403: function of~$\theta$. In order to illustrate this effect, we have fitted these
1404: functions using the trajectories in figures~\ref{fig:x2perswitch}
1405: ($\epsilon_1=3\times10^{-4}$) and~\ref{fig:x2x3switch} ($\epsilon_1=0.005$). We have
1406: concentrated on switching in~$x_3$, so the fact that these trajectories are for
1407: different values of~$\epsilon_2$ does not affect our conclusions. We took the
1408: coordinates $(x_3,\theta_1)$ on the section~$H_1^\smallout$ and $\tilde{x}_3$
1409: from the next intersection with~$H_2^\smallin$, and used these data to fit a
1410: map of the form of~$\Psi_{12}$:
1411: $$
1412: \tilde{x}_3= x_3 \left(A_1 + \epsilon_1 f_1(\theta_1)\right)
1413: + \epsilon_3 \left(1 + \epsilon_1g_1(\theta_1)\right),
1414: $$
1415: see equation~(\ref{eq:psi12}). We represented the two functions $f_1$ and~$g_1$
1416: by a finite Fourier series, and were able to fit the data to within one part in
1417: 1000 for all points with the smaller value of~$\epsilon_1$, and to within one
1418: part in 100 for all but a handful of the points for the larger value
1419: of~$\epsilon_1$. As expected, the $A_1+\epsilon_1f_1$ part of the map remains
1420: positive, but $1+\epsilon_1g_1$ can change sign for the larger value
1421: of~$\epsilon_1$, as shown in figure~\ref{fig:x3fittedmap}. Indeed, the
1422: numerical ratio of the amplitudes of the two fitted functions is $16.663$ while
1423: the ratio of the two values of $\epsilon_1$ is $16.667$. Our understanding
1424: requires the change in sign of $1+\epsilon_1g_1$ as a necessary condition for
1425: persistent switching in~$x_3$, which is confirmed by this illustration and by
1426: our other calculations. A similar transition occurs (at a smaller value
1427: of~$\epsilon_1$) at the onset of persistent switching in~$x_2$, and in that
1428: case, the data can be fitted to within 1 part in 10,000 or better.
1429:
1430: We note that we were able to find parameter values associated with persistent
1431: switching in~$x_2$ alone but were unable to get persistent switching in $x_3$
1432: without also having switching in $x_2$. This is a consequence of the particular
1433: choice of symmetry-breaking coefficients we use: the threshold in $\epsilon_1$
1434: for persistent switching in $x_3$ is higher than the threshold for persistent
1435: switching in $x_2$ for the chosen coefficients (since we have $d_{23}>d_{33}$).
1436: For other parameter choices, the
1437: thresholds could be the other way around.
1438:
1439: In the numerical simulations described above, the quantities $\delta_1$,
1440: $\delta_2$, $\delta_3$ and $\delta$ were all greater than one. This choice was
1441: made to ensure that that the heteroclinic cycle was attracting in the fully
1442: symmetric case and to remove any possible complications due to chaotic dynamics
1443: associated with homoclinic bifurcations of $\pm E_2$ and $\pm E_3$. Much of the
1444: same switching dynamics will still occur if one or both of $\delta_2$ and
1445: $\delta_3$ is less than one while $\delta>1$, since the mechanism for switching
1446: we have found does not depend on the size of the individual $\delta_i$. However, in
1447: this case there may be
1448: additional complications in the dynamics associated with the homoclinic
1449: bifurcations of the equilibria.
1450:
1451: \section{Conclusions}
1452: \label{sec:conclusions}
1453:
1454: This paper has investigated the effect of small symmetry-breaking on the
1455: dynamics near a structurally stable heteroclinic cycle connecting two
1456: equilibria and a periodic orbit. The heteroclinic cycle is structurally stable
1457: in the case that there are two reflection symmetries and a rotation symmetry in
1458: the underlying system; we were interested in the dynamics seen when one or more
1459: of the symmetries is broken. It was reported in~\cite{MPR} that this type of
1460: system can exhibit seemingly chaotic dynamics along with repeated but irregular
1461: switching of sign of various variables, but details of the mechanisms
1462: underlying the onset of complicated dynamics were not explored there. In this
1463: paper, we have identified global bifurcations that induce the onset of chaotic
1464: dynamics and switching near a heteroclinic cycle of this type. These turn out
1465: to be homoclinic tangencies between the stable and unstable manifolds of the
1466: periodic orbit, and specific heteroclinic tangencies between stable and
1467: unstable manifolds of the two equilibria. By construction and analysis of
1468: approximate return maps, we were able to locate (approximately) the global
1469: bifurcations in parameter space and hence to isolate instances of the different
1470: types of switching and chaotic dynamics in a specific numerical example.
1471:
1472: In addition to identification of the mechanisms underlying the onset of
1473: switching, two important insights have been gained from this study. First, we
1474: found that interaction of the different symmetry-breaking terms is required for
1475: switching; partial symmetry breaking (where one or two of the three symmetries
1476: are retained) did not result in switching. Switching results from the right
1477: combination of a global bifurcation (which results in turn from breaking of the
1478: rotation symmetry) and small breaking of at least one of the reflection
1479: symmetries. Second, we found there is a threshold in $\epsilon_1$ below which
1480: there can be single switches in the signs of certain variables but no
1481: persistent switching. The important point here is that persistent switching
1482: does not result from arbitrarily small symmetry breaking, but is a `large'
1483: symmetry-breaking effect. Of course, `small' and `large' are relative
1484: terms, and addition of seemingly tiny symmetry-breaking effects might actually
1485: result in persistent switching, as was the case in the numerical example we
1486: investigated in section~\ref{sec:numerics}.
1487:
1488: One aspect of this problem which has not yet been investigated is whether it is
1489: possible to make {\it a priori} predictions about switching rates or derive
1490: scaling laws for switching times. It is plausible that switching rates and
1491: times might depend on the `distance' from the global bifurcation that induces
1492: the switching, but no detailed attempts have yet been made to quantify such a
1493: relationship. The statistics of switching intervals were measured in the
1494: related model of~\cite{MPR}, who report an exponential distribution of
1495: intervals between switches.
1496:
1497: Finally, we note that the dynamo model in~\cite{MPR} has a symmetry
1498: that is never broken (this is the symmetry $(z_1,x_2,x_3) \to (-z_1,-x_2,-x_3)$
1499: in the notation of~\cite{MPR}). Retention of this symmetry while breaking all
1500: others amounts to retaining invariance of the $z_1=x_2=x_3=0$ subspace, and
1501: will have a consequence of relating the dynamics in different parts of
1502: the phase space. For example, if it is possible to switch from $(x_2>0,x_3>0)$
1503: to $(x_2>0,x_3<0)$, it will also be possible to switch from $(x_2<0,x_3<0)$ to
1504: $(x_2<0,x_3>0)$. Our results do not include this effect, and retaining this
1505: symmetry may well have profound effects on the switching properties.
1506: Nevertheless we expect our basic ideas about switching being induced by a
1507: balance between a global bifurcation and symmetry-breaking terms and the
1508: existence of a threshold for persistent switching to apply quite generally, and
1509: to the example in~\cite{MPR} in particular, even if the details turn out not to
1510: be directly relevant.
1511:
1512: \section{Appendix: Details of return map construction}
1513:
1514: \subsection{Coordinates and cross-sections}
1515: \label{sec:coords}
1516:
1517: Following~\cite{KrMe95}, we distinguish radial, contracting, and expanding
1518: directions near the equilibria in the fully symmetric case.
1519: If ${\mathcal P}_1=\{(z_1, x_2, x_3): x_3=0\}$, ${\mathcal P}_2=\{(z_1,
1520: x_2, x_3): z_1=0\}$, ${\mathcal P}_3=\{(z_1, x_2, x_3): x_2=0\}$, with
1521: ${\mathcal P}_0\equiv {\mathcal P}_{3}$, then the radial eigenvalues at $\pm
1522: E_j$ ($j=2, 3$) are the eigenvalues of the linearised vector field at $\pm E_j$
1523: (i.e., eigenvalues of $(d{\mathbf f})_{\pm E_j}$) restricted to ${\mathcal P}_j
1524: \cap {\mathcal P}_{j-1}$. The contracting eigenvalues are the remaining
1525: eigenvalues of $(d{\mathbf f})_{\pm E_j}$ in ${\mathcal P}_{j-1}$, and the
1526: expanding eigenvalues are the remaining eigenvalues in ${\mathcal P}_{j}$. The
1527: radial direction is then the span of the eigenvectors corresponding to the
1528: radial eigenvalues, and similarly for the contracting and expanding directions.
1529: Near $P$ we define the radial direction to be the direction of ${\mathcal P}_1
1530: \cap {\mathcal P}_{3}$ (i.e., the plane $x_2=x_3=0$), the contracting direction
1531: is parallel to the $x_3$-axis, and the expanding direction is parallel to the
1532: $x_2$-axis. These definitions are consistent with those in~\cite{KrMe95}
1533: but are adapted for the case where there is a
1534: periodic orbit in the heteroclinic cycle.
1535:
1536: We choose local coordinates near each of $P$, $\pm E_2$, and~$\pm E_3$ to
1537: make the linearised dynamics as simple as possible. Near $+E_2$ in the fully
1538: symmetric case, we define $\xi_2=x_2-\bar{x}_2$, where $\bar{x}_2$ is the value
1539: of $x_2$ at~$+E_2$, and then use local coordinates $(z_1,\xi_2,x_3)$; $z_1$,
1540: $\xi_2$ and $x_3$ correspond to the contracting, radial and expanding
1541: directions, respectively. Under symmetry breaking, $+E_2$ moves in proportion to
1542: the magnitude of the symmetry breaking, and the local coordinates are measured
1543: from the new position of the equilibrium point. The eigenvalues and
1544: eigenvectors change similarly, but since the eigenvalues are generically
1545: distinct and non-zero, small symmetry-breaking will not change the nature of
1546: the local structure and we can use the slightly altered eigenvectors to define
1547: a slightly altered local coordinate system. We continue to identify radial,
1548: contracting and expanding directions once weak symmetry breaking is introduced,
1549: in the obvious way, and retain the notation $(z_1,\xi_2,x_3)$, for the altered
1550: coordinates, although $z_1$ and $x_3$ may no longer coincide with the
1551: corresponding global coordinates.
1552:
1553: A similar construction is used near $-E_2$ except that $\xi_2=-x_2+\bar{x}_2$,
1554: where $\bar{x}_2$ is the value of $x_2$ at~$-E_2$. The point of defining
1555: $\xi_2$ in this way is that positive values of $\xi_2$ near $+E_2$ are mapped
1556: under the reflection $\kappa_2$ to positive values of $\xi_2$ near $-E_2$, and
1557: this simplifies the maps we derive below. An analogous procedure is used to
1558: define local coordinates near $\pm E_3$.
1559:
1560: To construct local coordinates near $P$, we select a cross-section transverse
1561: to $P$, say $\theta_1=0$. Near~$P$, the flow induces a map from that section to
1562: itself, with $P$ corresponding to a fixed point of the map. We define
1563: $\xi_1=r_1-\bar{r}_1$, where $\bar{r}_1$ is the value of $r_1$ at the fixed
1564: point; $\xi_1$ is the analogue in the map to the radial coordinate for the flow
1565: near $P$. The remaining local coordinates on the cross-section are defined by
1566: restricting the expanding and contracting directions at $P$, as defined above,
1567: to the cross-section. Local coordinates can be extended to a neighbourhood of
1568: the whole of~$P$ in the
1569: fully symmetric case by applying equivariance under $\kappa_1$. Finally, small
1570: symmetry-breaking perturbations will not change the local structure near $P$,
1571: and we can extend to slightly altered local coordinates $(\xi_1, \theta_1, x_2,
1572: x_3)$ in a neighbourhood of $P$ so long as we remember that symmetry-breaking
1573: terms may have a different effect at each value of $\theta_1$, so for instance,
1574: $z_1=\bar{r}_1{\rm e}^{{\rm i}\theta_1}$ where $\bar{r}_1 \equiv r_1(\theta_1
1575: )$ is a function of $\theta_1$. Note that the global polar coordinates $(r_1,
1576: \theta_1)$ are well-defined near $P$ even in the presence of small symmetry
1577: breaking since $P$ is far from the origin.
1578:
1579: Cross-sections in~$\Rset^4$ are defined in terms of local coordinates as
1580: follows:
1581: \begin{align*}
1582: H_1^\smallin &= \left\{(\xi_1,\theta_1,x_2,x_3): |\xi_1| \leq h,
1583: 0 \leq \theta_1 < 2\pi,
1584: |x_2|\leq h,
1585: |x_3|=h \right\},\\
1586: H_1^\smallout &= \left\{(\xi_1,\theta_1,x_2,x_3): |\xi_1| \leq h,
1587: 0 \leq \theta_1 < 2\pi, |x_2|=h,
1588: |x_3|\leq h \right\},\\
1589: H_2^\smallin &= \left\{(z_1,\xi_2,x_3): |z_1|=h,
1590: |\xi_2|\leq h,
1591: |x_3|\leq h \right\},\\
1592: H_2^\smallout &= \left\{(z_1,\xi_2,x_3): |z_1|\leq h,
1593: |\xi_2| \leq h,
1594: |x_3|=h \right\},\\
1595: H_3^\smallin &= \left\{(z_1,x_2,\xi_3): |z_1|\leq h,
1596: |x_2|=h,
1597: |\xi_3|\leq h \right\},\\
1598: H_3^\smallout &= \left\{(z_1,x_2,\xi_3): |z_1|=h,
1599: |x_2|\leq h,
1600: |\xi_3|\leq h\right\}.
1601: \end{align*}
1602: The cross-sections $H_2^{\smallin}$ and $H_2^{\smallout}$
1603: (resp.~$H_3^{\smallin}$ and $H_3^{\smallout}$) work equally well near $\pm E_2$
1604: (resp.~$\pm E_3$) so long as the local coordinate $\xi_2$ (resp.~$\xi_3$) is
1605: interpreted correctly, as described above.
1606:
1607: We also define a Poincar\'e section for the periodic orbit~$P$:
1608: \begin{equation*}
1609: H_1^P = \left\{(\xi_1,\theta_1,x_2,x_3): |\xi_1| \leq h,
1610: \theta_1=0,
1611: |x_2|\leq h,
1612: |x_3|\leq h \right\}.
1613: \end{equation*}
1614: Trajectories visiting~$P$ first cross~$H_1^\smallin$, may then cross $H_1^P$
1615: several times, and eventually leave the neighbourhood of~$P$ on
1616: crossing~$H_1^\smallout$.
1617:
1618: \subsection{Local maps}
1619:
1620: Within a neighbourhood of each of $\pm E_2$, $\pm E_3$ and $P$, so long as
1621: certain non-resonance conditions on the eigenvalues are satisfied, the dynamics
1622: can be linearised using the Hartman--Grobman theorem~\cite{GH86}. In the fully
1623: symmetric case, the dynamics near $P$ can be approximated by:
1624: $$\dot\xi_1= -2\xi,\qquad
1625: \dot\theta_1= 1, \qquad
1626: \dot x_2= e_1 x_2,\qquad
1627: \dot x_3= -c_1 x_3,$$
1628: where $e_1$ and $c_1$ are positive constants. Without loss of
1629: generality, we have assumed that the radial eigenvalue is~$-2$, and that the angular speed is
1630: 1. Solving these equations, we find the local map $\phi_1:H_1^\smallin\to H_1^\smallout$
1631: is given by:
1632: \begin{equation}
1633: \phi_1(\xi_1,\theta_1,x_2,x_3)=\left(
1634: \xi_1\left|\frac{x_2}{h}\right|^{\gamma_1},
1635: \theta_1 -\frac{1}{e_1} \ln \left|\frac{x_2}{h}\right|,
1636: h\sgn(x_2),
1637: h\sgn(x_3)\left|\frac{x_2}{h}\right|^{\delta_1}\right)\,,
1638: \label{eq:phi1map}
1639: \end{equation}
1640: where the initial value of $x_3$ satisfies $|x_3|=h$, where $\sgn(x)=+1$ if $x>0$,
1641: $\sgn(x)=-1$ if $x<0$, and $\sgn(0)=0$, and where
1642: $\delta_1=c_1/e_1$, $\gamma_1=2/e_1$.
1643:
1644: The argument that symmetry-breaking does not affect this local map
1645: goes as follows. The transition from $H_1^\smallin\to H_1^\smallout$
1646: has three parts. First, the trajectory travels from
1647: $H_1^\smallin\to H_1^P$ in less than one circuit around~$P$. The trajectory
1648: does not get very close to~$P$ in this time, having started at least a
1649: distance~$h$ from it. Since the $\epsilon_i$'s, which control the symmetry
1650: breaking, are assumed to be much smaller than~$h$, the fully symmetric flow
1651: yields an adequate approximation of the true flow. Second, the trajectory makes
1652: $n_1$ circuits around the periodic orbit from $H_1^P$ to $H_1^P$, where $n_1$
1653: is a non-negative integer no greater than $T_1/2\pi$. These circuits are
1654: governed by the linearised Poincar\'e map and its Floquet multipliers: ${\rm
1655: e}^{-4\pi}$, ${\rm e}^{2\pi e_1}$ and ${\rm e}^{-2\pi c_1}$ in the radial,
1656: expanding and contracting directions, respectively, where, to leading order in
1657: the~$\epsilon_i$'s, the period of~$P$ is~$2\pi$. The number~$n_1$
1658: is unchanged by the weakly broken symmetry, and so, to leading order, this part
1659: of the map is unchanged. Third, the trajectory travels from $H_1^P\to
1660: H_1^\smallout$ in less than one circuit around~$P$ and again is not too close
1661: to~$P$, so the fully symmetric flow yields an adequate approximate of the true
1662: flow. Composing these three parts yields~(\ref{eq:phi1map}), to
1663: leading order.
1664:
1665: Local maps $\phi_2:H_2^\smallin\to H_2^\smallout$ and
1666: $\phi_3:H_3^\smallin\to H_3^\smallout$ are obtained similarly:
1667: \begin{equation}
1668: \phi_2(r_1=h,\theta_1,\xi_2,x_3)=\left(
1669: h\left|\frac{x_3}{h}\right|^{\delta_2},
1670: \theta_1 -\frac{1}{e_2}\ln\left|\frac{x_3}{h}\right|,
1671: \xi_2\left|\frac{x_3}{h}\right|^{\gamma_2},
1672: h\sgn(x_3)\right)\,,
1673: \label{eq:phi2map}
1674: \end{equation}
1675: \begin{equation}
1676: \phi_3(r_1,\theta_1,x_2,\xi_3)=\left(
1677: h,
1678: \theta_1 -\frac{1}{e_3}\ln\left(\frac{r_1}{h}\right) ,
1679: h\sgn(x_2)\left(\frac{r_1}{h}\right)^{\delta_3},
1680: \xi_3\left(\frac{r_1}{h}\right)^{\gamma_3}\right)\,,
1681: \label{eq:phi3map}
1682: \end{equation}
1683: where $c_i$ and $e_i$ are the absolute
1684: values of the real part of the contracting and expanding eigenvalues
1685: at~$+E_i$, $\delta_i=c_i/e_i$, $\gamma_i=2/e_i$, and $|x_2|=h$. As for $\phi_{1}$, the radial eigenvalues
1686: and the angular speeds are chosen to be $-2$ and $1$.
1687:
1688: \subsection{Global maps}
1689:
1690: The global map $\Psi_{12}:H_1^\smallout\to H_2^\smallin$ takes orbits from a
1691: neighbourhood of $P$ to a neighbourhood of $+E_2$. We write
1692: \begin{equation*}
1693: \Psi_{12}(\xi_1,\theta_1,x_2=h,x_3)=
1694: (\tilde{r}_1=h, \tilde{\theta}_1,
1695: \tilde{\xi}_2, \tilde{x}_3)
1696: \end{equation*}
1697: and initially do not include symmetry-breaking effects. The unstable
1698: manifold of $P$ is two-dimensional and, locally, intersects $H_1^\smallout$ at
1699: \begin{equation}
1700: {\cal W}^\smallu(P) \cap H_1^\smallout = \left\{(\xi_1,\theta_1,x_2,x_3):
1701: \xi_1=0,
1702: 0\leq \theta_1< 2\pi,
1703: x_2=\pm h,
1704: x_3=0 \right\}\,
1705: \label{eq:WuP}
1706: \end{equation}
1707: The manifold ${\cal W}^\smallu(P)$ has two branches: the {\em positive} branch
1708: intersects $H_1^\smallout$ with $x_2=h$ and the {\em negative} branch
1709: intersects $H_1^\smallout$ with $x_2=-h$. The positive branch forms a
1710: connection from $P$ to $+E_2$ and is the solution we now linearise about,
1711: while the negative branch forms a connection from $P$ to $-E_2$ and will be
1712: discussed later. The positive branch of ${\cal W}^\smallu(P)$ intersects
1713: $H_2^\smallin$ at
1714: \begin{equation}
1715: \left\{(r_1, \theta_1,\xi_2,x_3): r_1=h,
1716: 0 \leq \theta_1 < 2\pi,
1717: \xi_2=\bar{\xi}_2,
1718: x_3=0 \right\}\,
1719: \label{eq:WuP2}
1720: \end{equation}
1721: where $\bar{\xi}_2$ is a small constant. The $\kappa_1$
1722: symmetry forces the heteroclinic orbit corresponding to the choice
1723: $\theta_1$ in (\ref{eq:WuP}) to have an angular component in $H_2^\smallin$ of
1724: $\theta_1+\bar{\theta}_1$ for some constant $\bar{\theta}_1$, i.e., the global
1725: map acts on the angle as a rigid rotation. Furthermore, trajectories that are
1726: near but not on the unstable manifold of ${\cal W}^\smallu(P)$ have
1727: $\tilde{\xi}_2$ and $\tilde{x}_3$ depending on the initial $\xi_1$ and $x_3$
1728: but not on~$\theta_1$, while $\tilde{\theta}_1=\theta_1+\bar{\theta}_1$ where
1729: $\bar{\theta}_1$ is a function of the initial $\xi_1$ and $x_3$. Equivariance
1730: under $\kappa_3$ ensures that the subspace $x_3=0$ is invariant, that
1731: $\tilde{x}_3$ is an odd function of $x_3$, and that ${\bar\theta}_1$ and
1732: $\tilde{\xi}_2$ are even functions of~$x_3$. (The $\kappa_2$ symmetry has no
1733: role in determining the form of $\Psi_{12}$ although it can be used to
1734: construct a map from $P$ to $-E_2$ once $\Psi_{12}$ is known.) Writing a Taylor
1735: series in the small quantities $\xi_1$ and $x_3$ therefore yields
1736: \begin{align*}
1737: {\tilde\theta}_1(\xi_1,\theta_1,x_3)=
1738: \theta_1 + {\bar\theta}_1({\xi}_1,x_3) &=
1739: \theta_1+{\bar\theta}_1(0,0)+\mbox{h.o.t.},\\
1740: \tilde{\xi}_2({\xi}_1,x_3) &=
1741: \tilde{\xi}_2(0,0)+\mbox{h.o.t.},\\
1742: \tilde{x}_3({\xi}_1,x_3) &=
1743: \frac{\partial\tilde{x}_3}{\partial x_3}(0,0)\,x_3
1744: +\mbox{h.o.t.},
1745: \end{align*}
1746: where \hbox{h.o.t.} denotes higher order terms. Effectively, so long as
1747: ${\bar\theta}_1$ and $\tilde{\xi}_2$ are non-zero, they can be replaced by
1748: constants, while $\tilde{x}_3$ depends linearly on~$x_3$. We write
1749: $A_1=\frac{\partial\tilde{x}_3}{\partial x_3}(0,0)$ and
1750: $B_1=\tilde{\xi}_2(0,0)$, and note that $A_1>0$ since the region of phase space
1751: with $x_3>0$ is dynamically invariant.
1752:
1753: The effect of weak symmetry breaking on these expressions is as follows.
1754: First, the symmetry $x_3\to-x_3$ is broken by including
1755: terms that are odd in $x_3$ in the expressions for $\tilde{\theta}_1$ and
1756: $\tilde{\xi}_2$, and terms that are even in $x_3$ in the expression for
1757: $\tilde{x}_3$. We multiply all such terms by an overall
1758: factor of~$\epsilon_3$, which is a real constant that controls the magnitude of
1759: the breaking of the $\kappa_3$ symmetry. Then the lowest order contribution to
1760: $\tilde{\theta}_1$ and $\tilde{\xi}_2$ will be a term in $\epsilon_3x_3$ while
1761: $\tilde{x}_3$ will pick up a term linear in~$\epsilon_3$. At leading order all
1762: quadratic terms can be dropped, so the only new term is one linear
1763: in~$\epsilon_3$ in the expression for~$\tilde{x}_3$. Second, breaking
1764: the~$\kappa_1$~symmetry will result in a weak dependence of all the
1765: coefficients on~$\theta_1$, with the dependence being periodic in that
1766: variable. We introduce the parameter $\epsilon_1$, which is a real constant
1767: that multiplies all terms that break the $\kappa_1$ symmetry and that controls
1768: the magnitude of the symmetry-breaking terms. For example, $A_1$ will become
1769: $A_1+\epsilon_1f_1(\theta)$, with the caveat that this term must remain
1770: positive, for all $\theta$ and $\epsilon_1$. Third, weakly breaking the
1771: symmetry $x_2 \to -x_2$ will not affect the form of this map.
1772:
1773: Putting all this together results in a map
1774: $\Psi_{12}:H_1^\smallout\to H_2^\smallin$:
1775: \begin{align}
1776: \Psi_{12}(\xi_1,\theta_1,x_2=h,x_3)=\big(&
1777: \tilde{r}_1=h,
1778: \tilde{\theta}_1=\theta_1 + \Phi_1,
1779: \tilde{\xi}_2=B_1,\nonumber\\
1780: &\tilde{x}_3=A_1 x_3 + \epsilon_3
1781: + \epsilon_1x_3f_1(\theta_1)
1782: + \epsilon_1\epsilon_3g_1(\theta_1)
1783: \big),
1784: \label{eq:psi12}
1785: \end{align}
1786: where $\Phi_1$, $A_1$, $B_1$ are constants, and $f_1$, $g_1$ are
1787: $2\pi$-periodic functions of $\theta_1$. The $\theta_1$ dependence
1788: cannot be treated using Taylor series expansions, as $\theta_1$ is not a small
1789: quantity. We explain below why some quadratic terms ($\epsilon_1x_3$ and
1790: $\epsilon_1\epsilon_3$) need to be kept.
1791:
1792: Similarly, a map from $P$ to $-E_2$ can be constructed. This
1793: has precisely the form of (\ref{eq:psi12}), except that it starts from
1794: $x_2=-h$. Breaking of the $\kappa_2$~symmetry means coefficients in the
1795: map will be slightly different but the map is unchanged at leading order.
1796:
1797: The map $\Psi_{23}:H_2^\smallout\to H_3^\smallin$ is calculated in a similar
1798: way. In the fully symmetric case, we linearise about
1799: $ {\cal W}^\smallu(+E_2)$, which intersects $H_2^\smallout$ at $(z_1=0,\xi_2=0,x_3=h)$ and
1800: $H_3^\smallin$ at $(z_1=0,\xi_2=h,\xi_3=\bar{\xi}_3)$ where $\bar{\xi}_3$ is a
1801: small constant. For orbits near $ {\cal W}^\smallu(+E_2)$, the value of
1802: $\xi_2$ at $H_2^\smallout$ does not influence the final position to leading
1803: order and $z_1$ at $ H_3^\smallin$ depends linearly on the values of $z_1$ at
1804: $H_2^\smallout$: $\tilde{z}_1=A_2{\rm e}^{{\rm i}\Phi_2}z_1$ for real constants
1805: $A_2>0$, $\Phi_2$. If the $\kappa_1$~symmetry is broken,
1806: $ {\cal W}^\smallu(+E_2)$ leaves $H_2^\smallout$ with $z_1=0$ and arrives at $H_3^\smallin$ with
1807: $z_1=\tilde\epsilon_1$, where $\tilde\epsilon_1= \epsilon_1(a_\smallr+{\rm
1808: i}a_\smalli)$ for $a_\smallr$ and $a_\smalli$ real constants and $\epsilon_1$
1809: as defined earlier. Writing the resulting map in terms of the real and
1810: imaginary parts of $\tilde{z}_1$:
1811: \begin{align}
1812: \Psi_{23}(r_1,\theta_1,\xi_2,x_3=h)=\big(&
1813: \tilde{x}_1=\epsilon_1a_\smallr + A_2r_1\cos(\theta_1+\Phi_2),
1814: \nonumber\\
1815: &\tilde{y}_1=\epsilon_1a_\smalli + A_2r_1\sin(\theta_1+\Phi_2),
1816: \nonumber\\
1817: &\tilde{x}_2=h,
1818: \tilde{\xi}_3=B_2\big),
1819: \label{eq:psi23}
1820: \end{align}
1821: where $a_\smallr$, $a_\smalli$, $A_2$, $B_2$ and $\Phi_2$ are real
1822: constants determined by the global flow, and $A_2>0$. As in~$\Psi_{12}$, there
1823: are $2\pi$-periodic functions of~$\theta_1$ in the map, but here the functions
1824: are known explicitly because the $z_1$ variable is small throughout the
1825: transition from $+E_2$ to~$+E_3$, and the dynamics of $z_1$ is well-approximated
1826: by a scaled rotation. Similar maps can be obtained for the three connections
1827: $-E_2 \to +E_3$ and $\pm E_2 \to -E_3$; although the coefficients will be
1828: slightly different in each case, to lowest order we obtain the same map for
1829: each of the other connections so long as the signs of the $x_3$
1830: (resp.~$\tilde{x}_2$) components are chosen appropriately on the incoming
1831: (resp.~outgoing) cross-sections (for example, the map from $-E_2$ to $-E_3$
1832: will have $x_3=-h$ and $\tilde{x}_2=-h$).
1833:
1834: The global map $\Psi_{31}:H_3^\smallout\to H_1^\smallin$ is calculated in a
1835: similar way:
1836: \begin{align}
1837: \Psi_{31}(r_1=h,\theta_1,x_2,\xi_3)=\big(&
1838: \tilde{\xi}_1=B_3,
1839: \tilde{\theta}_1 = \theta_1+\Phi_3,
1840: \nonumber\\
1841: &\tilde{x}_2 = A_3 x_2 + \epsilon_2
1842: + \epsilon_1x_2f_3(\theta_1)
1843: + \epsilon_1\epsilon_2g_3(\theta_1),
1844: \nonumber\\
1845: &\tilde{x}_3 = h\big),
1846: \label{eq:psi31}
1847: \end{align}
1848: where $A_3$, $B_3$ and $\Phi_3$ are real constants, $f_3$ and $g_3$ are
1849: $2\pi$-periodic functions of $\theta_1$, and $\epsilon_1$ controls the size of
1850: the terms that break the $\kappa_1$ symmetry. The parameter $\epsilon_2$
1851: introduced in $(\ref{eq:psi31})$ is analogous to $\epsilon_3$, and is a real
1852: quantity that controls the size of all terms that break the $\kappa_2$
1853: symmetry. Similarly to the case for $A_1$ argued above, we take
1854: $A_3+\epsilon_1f_3(\theta_1)$ to be positive for all values of $\epsilon_1$. A
1855: similar map can be defined near the connections from $-E_3$ to $P$, and will,
1856: to leading order, be identical to (\ref{eq:psi31}) so long as $\tilde{x}_3=h$
1857: is replaced by $\tilde{x}_3=-h$.
1858:
1859: The effect of each of the global maps defined above is, at leading order, to
1860: rotate the angular variable by an order one amount that is independent of other
1861: variables, to set the radial variable to a constant, and, in the absence of
1862: symmetry-breaking, to scale the variable that measures proximity to the cycle.
1863: Symmetry-breaking enters in two ways. First, it destroys
1864: the invariant subspaces thus destroying some of the heteroclinic connections
1865: that made up the cycle. Second, breaking the $\kappa_1$~rotation symmetry
1866: allows $\theta_1$~dependence to enter into the maps, most importantly through
1867: the variables $x_3$ in the $\Psi_{12}$~map and $x_2$ in the $\Psi_{31}$~map. It
1868: is this $\theta_1$ dependence that allows the heteroclinic tangencies discussed
1869: in Section~\ref{sec:description}.
1870:
1871: \subsection{Return maps}
1872:
1873: Return maps approximating the dynamics near the heteroclinic cycle can now be
1874: computed by composing the local and global maps in an appropriate order. For
1875: instance, to obtain the various forms of the map
1876: $R : H_3^\smallin \to H_3^\smallin$ given by equations
1877: (\ref{eq:R_nosb}--\ref{eq:R_sb1complex}) we calculate
1878: $R\equiv \psi_{23} \circ \phi_2 \circ \psi_{12} \circ \phi_1 \circ \psi_{31} \circ \phi_3$
1879: in the usual way.
1880:
1881:
1882:
1883:
1884:
1885: \section*{Acknowledgments}
1886: We thank Ian Melbourne, Edgar Knobloch and Jeff Porter for helpful
1887: conversations. This research has been supported by grants from New Zealand
1888: Institute for Mathematics and its Applications, University of Auckland Research
1889: Council, London Mathematical Society and the Engineering and Physical Sciences
1890: Research Council.
1891:
1892: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
1893: \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax
1894: \def\url#1{\texttt{#1}}\fi
1895: \expandafter\ifx\csname urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi
1896:
1897: \bibitem{F80}
1898: Field, M., 1980,
1899: Equivariant dynamical systems.
1900: {\itshape Trans.~Am.~Math.~Soc.}, {\bfseries 259}, 185--205.
1901:
1902: \bibitem{GuHo88}
1903: Guckenheimer, J. and Holmes, P., 1988,
1904: Structurally stable heteroclinic cycles.
1905: {\itshape Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc.}, {\bfseries 103}, 189--192.
1906:
1907: \bibitem{M91}
1908: Melbourne, I., 1991,
1909: An example of a non-asymptotically stable attractor.
1910: {\itshape Nonlinearity}, {\bfseries 4}, 835--844.
1911:
1912: \bibitem{KrMe95}
1913: Krupa, M. and Melbourne, I., 1995,
1914: Asymptotic stability of heteroclinic cycles in systems with symmetry.
1915: {\itshape Ergod.~Th.~\& Dynam.~Sys.}, {\bfseries 15}, 121--147.
1916:
1917: \bibitem{KrMe04}
1918: Krupa, M. and Melbourne, I., 2004,
1919: Asymptotic stability of heteroclinic cycles in systems with symmetry, II.
1920: {\itshape Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh A}, {\bfseries 134}, 1177--1197.
1921:
1922: \bibitem{KS94}
1923: Kirk, V. and Silber, M., 1994,
1924: A competition between heteroclinic cycles.
1925: {\itshape Nonlinearity}, {\bfseries 7}, 1605--1621.
1926:
1927: \bibitem{AC98}
1928: Ashwin, P. and Chossat, P., 1998,
1929: Attractors for robust heteroclinic cycles with continua of connections.
1930: {\itshape J.~Nonlinear Sci.}, {\bfseries 8}, 103--129.
1931:
1932: \bibitem{ACL05}
1933: Aguiar, M., Castro, S. and Labouriau, I., 2005,
1934: Dynamics near a heteroclinic network.
1935: {\itshape Nonlinearity}, {\bfseries 18}, 391--414.
1936:
1937: \bibitem{PD05}
1938: Postlethwaite, C.M. and Dawes, J.H.P., 2005,
1939: Regular and irregular cycling near a heteroclinic network.
1940: {\itshape Nonlinearity}, {\bfseries 18}, 1477--1509.
1941:
1942: \bibitem{SC92}
1943: Scheel, A. and Chossat, P., 1992,
1944: Bifurcation d'orbites p\'{e}riodiques \`{a} partir d'un cycle
1945: homoclinic sym\'{e}trique.
1946: {\itshape C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris}, {\bfseries 341}, 49--54.
1947:
1948: \bibitem{CKMS}
1949: Chossat, P., Krupa, M., Melbourne, I. and Scheel, A., 1997,
1950: Transverse bifurcations of heteroclinic cycles in symmetric systems.
1951: {\itshape Physica D}, {\bfseries 100}, 85--100.
1952:
1953: \bibitem{PD05b}
1954: Postlethwaite, C.M. and Dawes, J.H.P., 2006,
1955: A codimension-two resonant bifurcation from a heteroclinic
1956: cycle with complex eigenvalues.
1957: {\itshape Dyn. Syst. Int. J.}, {\bfseries 21}, 313--336.
1958:
1959: \bibitem{BuHe80}
1960: Busse, F.H. and Heikes, K.E., 1980,
1961: Convection in a rotating layer -- simple case of turbulence.
1962: {\itshape Science}, {\bfseries 208}, 173--175, 1980.
1963:
1964: \bibitem{PJ88}
1965: Proctor, M.R.E. and Jones, C.A., 1988,
1966: The interaction of two spatially resonant patterns in
1967: thermal convection. I. Exact 1:2 resonance.
1968: {\itshape J. Fluid Mech.}, {\bfseries 188}, 301--335.
1969:
1970: \bibitem{NTDX}
1971: Nore, C., Tuckerman, L.S., Daube, O., and Xin, S., 2003,
1972: The 1:2 mode interaction in exactly counter-rotating von
1973: K\'{a}rm\'{a}n swirling flow.
1974: {\itshape J. Fluid Mech.}, {\bfseries 477}, 51-88.
1975:
1976: \bibitem{AGH88}
1977: Armbruster, D., Guckenheimer, J., Holmes, P., 1988,
1978: Heteroclinic cycles and modulated travelling waves in systems with $O(2)$ symmetry.
1979: {\itshape Physica D}, {\bfseries 29}, 257--282.
1980:
1981: \bibitem{Me89}
1982: Melbourne, I., 1989,
1983: Intermittency as a codimension three phenomenon
1984: {\itshape J. Dyn. Stab. Sys.}, {\bfseries 1}, 347--367.
1985:
1986: \bibitem{Ch93}
1987: Chossat, P., 1993,
1988: Forced reflectional symmetry breaking of an $O(2)$-symmetric homoclinic cycle.
1989: {\itshape Nonlinearity}, {\bfseries 6}, 723--731.
1990:
1991: \bibitem{SaSc95}
1992: Sandstede, B. and Scheel, A., 1995,
1993: Forced symmetry breaking of homoclinic cycles.
1994: {\itshape Nonlinearity}, {\bfseries 8}, 333--365.
1995:
1996: \bibitem{MPR}
1997: Melbourne, I., Proctor, M.R.E. and Rucklidge, A.M., 2001,
1998: A heteroclinic model of geodynamo reversals and excursions.
1999: In: P.~Chossat, D.~Armbruster and I.~Oprea (Eds)
2000: {\itshape Dynamo and Dynamics, a Mathematical Challenge}
2001: (Dordrecht: Kluwer), pp.~363--370.
2002:
2003: \bibitem{StHo90}
2004: Stone, E. and Holmes, P., 1990,
2005: Random perturbations of heteroclinic attractors.
2006: {\itshape SIAM J. Appl. Math.}, {\bfseries 50}, 726--743.
2007:
2008: \bibitem{ASK03}
2009: Armbruster, D., Stone, E., Kirk, V., 2003,
2010: Noisy heteroclinic networks.
2011: {\itshape Chaos}, {\bfseries 13}, 71--79.
2012:
2013: \bibitem{NMQ}
2014: Nore, C., Moisy, F., and Quartier, L., 2005,
2015: Experimental observation of near-heteroclinic cycles in the von
2016: K\'{a}rm\'{a}n swirling flow.
2017: {\itshape Phys.~Fluids}, {\bfseries 17}, 064103.
2018:
2019: \bibitem{ClKn94}
2020: Clune, T. and Knobloch, E., 1994,
2021: Pattern selection in three-dimensional magnetoconvection.
2022: {\itshape Physica D}, {\bfseries 74}, 151--176.
2023:
2024: \bibitem{KLS05}
2025: Kirk, V., Lane, E., Silber, M., 2007,
2026: A mechanism for switching in a heteroclinic network.
2027: In preparation.
2028:
2029: \bibitem{ARS04a}
2030: Ashwin, P., Rucklidge, A.M. and Sturman, R., 2004,
2031: Two-state intermittency near a symmetric interaction of saddle-node and Hopf
2032: bifurcations: a case study from dynamo theory.
2033: {\itshape Physica D}, {\bfseries 194}, 30--48.
2034:
2035: \bibitem{RM95}
2036: Rucklidge, A.M. and Matthews, P.C., 1995,
2037: The shearing instability in magnetoconvection.
2038: In: A.~Brandt and H.J.S.~Fernando (Eds)
2039: {\itshape Double-Diffusive Convection}
2040: (Washington: American Geophysical Union), pp.~171--184.
2041:
2042: \bibitem{MRWP96}
2043: Matthews, P.C., Rucklidge, A.M., Weiss, N.O. and Proctor, M.R.E., 1996,
2044: The three-dimensional development of the shearing instability of convection.
2045: {\itshape Phys. Fluids}, {\bfseries 8}, 1350--1352.
2046:
2047: \bibitem{R01}
2048: Rucklidge, A.M., 2001,
2049: Global bifurcations in the Takens--Bogdanov normal form with $D_4$
2050: symmetry near the $O(2)$ limit.
2051: {\itshape Phys Lett~A}, {\bfseries 284}, 99--111.
2052:
2053: \bibitem{AFRS03}
2054: Ashwin, P., Field, M., Rucklidge, A.M. and Sturman, R., 2003,
2055: Phase resetting effects for robust cycles between chaotic sets.
2056: {\itshape Chaos}, {\bfseries 13}, 973--981.
2057:
2058: \bibitem{ARS04b}
2059: Ashwin, P., Rucklidge, A.M. and Sturman, R., 2004,
2060: Cycling chaotic attractors in two models for dynamics with invariant subspaces.
2061: {\itshape Chaos}, {\bfseries 14}, 571--582.
2062:
2063: \bibitem{Rademacher}
2064: Rademacher, J.D.M., 2005,
2065: Homoclinic orbits near
2066: heteroclinic cycles with one equilibrium and one periodic
2067: orbit. {\itshape J. Diff. Eqns.}, {\bfseries 218}, 390--443.
2068:
2069: \bibitem{KROCK}
2070: Champneys, A.R., Kirk, V., Knobloch, E., Oldeman, B., and Rademacher, J., 2007,
2071: Unfolding a tangent equilibrium-to-periodic heteroclinic cycle. In preparation.
2072:
2073: \bibitem{GS84}
2074: Glendinning, P. and Sparrow, C., 1984,
2075: Local and global behaviour near homoclinic orbits
2076: {\itshape J.~Stat. Phys.}, {\bfseries 35}, 645--696.
2077:
2078: \bibitem{NumRecipes}
2079: Press, W.H., Flannery, B.P., Teukolsky, S.A. and Vetterling, W.T., 1986,
2080: Numerical Recipes -- the Art of Scientific Computing.
2081: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
2082:
2083: \bibitem{PC89}
2084: Parker, T.S. and Chua, L.O., 1989,
2085: Practical Numerical Algorithms for Chaotic Systems.
2086: Springer, New York.
2087:
2088: \bibitem{GH86}
2089: Guckenheimer, J. and Holmes, P., 1986,
2090: Nonlinear Oscillations, Dynamical Systems, and Bifurcations of Vector Fields
2091: (second edition).
2092: Springer-Verlag, New York.
2093: \end{thebibliography}
2094:
2095: \end{document}
2096:
2097:
2098:
2099:
2100:
2101:
2102:
2103:
2104: