Paper detail

The Optimal Double Bubble for Density $r^p$

In 1993 Foisy et al. proved that the optimal Euclidean planar double bubble---the least-perimeter way to enclose and separate two given areas---is three circular arcs meeting at 120 degrees. We consider the plane with density $r^p$, joining the surge of research on manifolds with density after their appearance in Perelman's 2006 proof of the Poincaré Conjecture. Dahlberg et al. proved that the best single bubble in the plane with density $r^p$ is a circle through the origin. We conjecture that the best double bubble is the Euclidean solution with one of the vertices at the origin, for which we have verified equilibrium (first variation or "first derivative" zero). To prove the exterior of the minimizer connected, it would suffice to show that least perimeter is increasing as a function of the prescribed areas. We give the first direct proof of such monotonicity for the Euclidean case. Such arguments were important in the 2002 Annals proof of the double bubble in Euclidean 3-space

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.