The Motion Of A Spring Released From Uniform Circular Motion

Abstract: A weak spring is connected at one end to a rotor turning at constant angular velocity. The spring extends to a stretched length as determined by the spring mass, rest length, spring constant, rotor radius and rotor angular velocity. When released from the rotor, the inner end of the spring pulls away as expected, causing a wave to travel down the spring as it collapses. During this time interval, the outer end of the spring continues to move along its original circular path in uniform circular motion, as if the spring were still connected to the rotor. This is analogous to the effect of a hanging Slinky released from rest whose bottom end remains at a fixed position above the ground until a wave from the top of the Slinky reaches the bottom of the Slinky. Values from a numerical model and measurements from video analysis show that upon release the inner end travels along a circle of similar radius as the outer end. The effect appears as a series of alternating semi-circles. In addition, the simulation and data agree that (1) the spring extension and drag angle increase with the angular velocity of the rotor; (2) the droop angle decreases with angular velocity of the rotor; (3) the collapse time and bend angle of the collapsing spring are independent of the angular velocity.

\section{\label{sec:Experiment}Experiment}
A long, weak spring (such as a Slinky) hanging vertically, held at one end reaches an equilibrium length under the pull of gravity, if given sufficient time for oscillations to dampen. When the top end is released, the stationary bottom end of the spring does not react until sufficient time has elapsed for a wave to propagate from the top end to the bottom. Calkin \cite{calkin} and Cross and Wheatland \cite{rccross:ajp12} develop the theory behind this phenomenon.  Seen in person or especially in high-speed video\cite{macisaac:tpt13}$^,$\cite{veritasium:awesomeHDslinky} the phenomenon is striking, even if expected.

Here we extend this experiment into the realm of circular motion. If a spring is whirled in a circle with one end free, the free end  extends outward due to its own inertia or, expressed in terms of a rotating reference frame, the action of centrifugal force. Given sufficient time for initial oscillations to dampen, the free end travels in uniform circular motion. If the inner end of the spring is released, we expect the free end to continue in uniform circular motion as before, until such time as a wave propagates from the inner end to the outer.

To test this hypothesis, we use a custom-built turntable shown in Fig. \ref{apparatus}  that has a hold-and-release mechanism. The turntable has a maximum angular speed, unloaded, of 270 revolutions per minute. A tall rectangular box sitting atop the turntable contains a horizontal bar into which 0.25 inch pins may be affixed, at distances from 2 cm to 24 cm from the axis, in 2-cm increments, on both sides of the axis. For this experiment only one pin was used, positioned 24 cm from the turntable axis, onto which one end of the subject spring is hooked. When the bar is manually raised, a strong internal spring is compressed and the bar is latched. When the turntable is rotating, a signal from an infrared remote control triggers a servo which trips the latch. The bar drops, retracting the pin and releasing the inner end of the whirling spring. We generally refer to the apparatus holding the spring as the rotor. An excellent video \cite{regester:spinningsprings} demonstrating the device will help the reader to better visualize the process.

\begin{figure}[h!]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[height=2.5in]{apparatus}
	\caption{A photo of the apparatus, stationary, with the thin Slinky hanging from the raised pin.}
	\label{apparatus}
\end{figure}

Experimental data were collected in the form of high-speed (300 fps and 600 fps) video recorded from a position 8.4 m above the floor on which the turntable was sitting. Videos were analyzed using the free, open-source video analysis software \emph{Tracker}\cite{trackerweb}$^,$\cite{tracker}. The inner end of the spring is held near the top of the pin,  41.8 cm above the floor, so the rotating spring can droop due to gravity up to 41.8 cm from the horizontal plane without the free end touching the floor.  For low-stiffness springs like a Slinky, the apparatus is set on a table to allow a larger droop of the spring without touching the floor.

Two springs are used for this experiment. One is a standard PASCO spring with a spring constant of 3.28 N/m. The second is a thin Slinky chosen for its low spring constant of 0.38 N/m.

\section{\label{sec:Theory}Quasi-Static Theory}

The motion of a spinning spring in the absence of air resistance and gravity will first be solved analytically. The result is needed for the simulation discussed later.
The spring will be modeled as a series of point masses connected by short massless springs (Fig \ref{fig:restspring}). The spring has a rest length $L_o$, and each point mass is separated at regular intervals. A coordinate system placed along the spring is labeled $x$ and each mass is located at positions, $x_1, x_2, ...$ and so on up to the final mass at $x_n$. For an unstretched spring, the separation between any two adjacent masses, $x_i$-$x_{i-1}$, is constant and is labeled $\Delta x$.

\begin{equation}
\Delta x=L_o/n
\label{deltan}
\end{equation}

\begin{figure}[h!]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[height=0.75in]{restspring}
	\caption{The coordinate system of the spring at rest.}
	\label{fig:restspring}
\end{figure}

Each spring between adjacent masses will have a spring constant $k$ given by
\begin{equation}
k=n \times K
\label{lilk}
\end{equation}

where $K$ is the spring constant for the whole spring. Each mass has a value of

\begin{equation}
m=M/n
\label{lilm}
\end{equation}

where $M$ is the total mass of the spring.

When the spring is connected to a rotor rotating with an angular velocity $\omega$, it stretches out to a new length. The axis of rotation is labeled $z$. In the rotating reference frame, each mass has a spring force acting to its right and left as well as the fictitious centrifugal force to the right. The masses are located on a coordinate system labeled $r$, and the displacement of a mass from its rest position is $u$ (Fig. \ref{fig:stretchspring}).

\begin{figure}[h!]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[height=1.0in]{stretchspring}
	\caption{The coordinate system of the stretched spring attached to a rotating rotor of radius $r_o$.}
	\label{fig:stretchspring}
\end{figure}

Summing the forces on a point mass gives

\begin{equation}
+k(r_{i+1}-r_i)-k(r_i-r_{i-1})=-m\omega^2 r_i
\label{roteqnb}
\end{equation}

Keep in mind that the mass attached to the rotor cannot move before release and is labeled $r_o$.

The equation for the final mass ($i=n$) is different because it is pulled by only one spring and the rest length of the spring is not canceled out by the rest length of a second spring.
\begin{equation}
-k \times (r_n-r_{n-1}-\Delta x)=-m\omega^2 r_n
\label{roteqnrb}
\end{equation}

The above equations can be generalized for a continuous system to give a differential equation for the initial state of the spring in the rotating system. Its solution can be used to find the stretched length of the spring as a function of position and angular velocity $\omega$.

From Fig. \ref{fig:stretchspring}, $r=u+x+r_o$. So, substituting for $r$ in Eq. (\ref{roteqnb}) gives
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
 +k(u_{i+1}-u_i)-k (u_i-u_{i-1})\\
 +k(x_{i+1}-x_i)-k (x_i-x_{i-1}) =-m\omega^2 r_i
\label{roteqn2}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
But, since all $\Delta x$ values were defined for the rest spring and are the same, they cancel out leaving
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
 +k(u_{i+1}-u_i)-k(u_i-u_{i-1})=-m\omega^2 (u_i + x_i + r_o)
\label{roteqn3}
\end{split}
\end{equation}

Since, $k=(n)(K)$ and $m=M/n$. Then,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
 +(n)(K)(u_{i+1}-u_i)-(n)(K) (u_i-u_{i-1})=\\
-(M/n) \omega^2 (u_i + x_i + r_o)
\label{roteqn4}
\end{split}
\end{equation}

\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
 (u_{i+1}-u_i)- (u_i-u_{i-1})=-(M/Kn^2) \omega^2 (u_i + x_i + r_o)
\label{roteqn5}
\end{split}
\end{equation}

Since $n=L_o/{\Delta x}$, $n$ can be substituted into the above equation, giving
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
 (u_{i+1}-u_i)- (u_i-u_{i-1})=-\frac{M\Delta x^2}{KL_o^2} \omega^2 (u_i + x_i + r_o)
\label{roteqn6}
\end{split}
\end{equation}

Dividing by $\Delta x$ twice gives,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\frac{ \frac{(u_{i+1}-u_i)}{\Delta x}- \frac{(u_i-u_{i-1})}{\Delta x}}{\Delta x}=-\frac{M\omega^2}{KL_o^2} (u_i + x_i + r_o)
\label{roteqn7}
\end{split}
\end{equation}

In the limit as $\Delta x$ goes to zero, the left side of the above equation becomes the second derivative of $u$ with respect to x, giving

\begin{equation}
\frac{d^2u}{dx^2}=-\frac{M\omega^2}{KL_o^2}(u + x + r_o)
\label{diffeqn}
\end{equation}

Now, let
\begin{equation}
\frac{M\omega^2}{KL_o^2}=\alpha^2
\label{alpha-eq}
\end{equation}

Then upon reordering,

\begin{equation}
\frac{d^2u}{dx^2}+\alpha^2 u=-\alpha^2 (x + r_o)
\label{diffeqn2}
\end{equation}

The solution to this equation will give the position of a point on a rotating spring relative to its position when the spring is at rest. Two boundary conditions are needed to solve the equation. The position of the first mass will give the radius of the rotor. Also, the first derivative of $u$ is set equal to zero at the end of the spring since the final mass is infinitesimal and should not cause any stretching of the spring. Using the standard tools for ordinary differential equations yields the following solution.

\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
u=A\cos(\alpha x +\phi)-(x+r_o)\\
A=\frac{r_o}{cos(\phi)}\\
\tan(\phi)= \frac{(-1/(r_o \alpha)-\sin(\alpha L_o))}{\cos(\alpha L_o)}
\label{gensol}
\end{split}
\end{equation}

Since, $r=u+(x+r_o)$, the stretched position of a point mass on the spring is,

\begin{equation}
r=A\cos(\alpha x +\phi)=\frac{r_o}{cos(\phi)}\cos(\alpha x +\phi)
\label{r-quasistatic-eq}
\end{equation}

The inner end of the spring is at the $x=0$ position, and the solution gives the correct position the radius of the rotor.

\begin{equation}
r_{inner\, end}=\frac{r_o}{cos(\phi)}\cos(\phi)=r_o
\end{equation}

The outer end of the spring is at the $x=L_o$ position, so the predicted stretch for the end of the spring is,
\begin{equation}
r_{outer\, end}=\frac{r_o}{cos(\phi)}\cos(\alpha L_o +\phi)
\end{equation}

Finally, if the spring is not spinning, then $\alpha$ is equal to zero. However, naively putting $\alpha=0$ in the solution will give the wrong answer. One must take the limit as $\alpha$ goes to zero, then the outer position will give the rest length of the spring plus the rotor radius.

\section{\label{sec:Simulation}Simulation}
The real spring will be deflected a small amount by a quadratic air resistance term. Also, once the spring is released, the motion will produce coupled sets of equations. For these reasons, the system was numerically simulated and results were compared with experimental data.

\subsection{Initial Condition}

The motion of a spring released from a rotating rotor was simulated using the equations found above. The program, Easy Java Simulations (EJS)\cite{ejs}$^,$\cite{ejsweb}$^,$\cite{ejstpt} was employed to create the simulation. EJS is a Java-based application for numerical modeling using the Open Source Physics\cite{ospweb}$^,$\cite{osp} library. A Runge-Kutta 4 algorithm was used to numerically solve the differential equations. EJS comes with a wide selection of numerical integration algorithms. Runge-Kutta 4  was used in this simulation because it is a well known-algorithm sufficiently sophisticated to yield robust results, yet is among the first numerical integration techniques taught at the undergraduate, and even high-school, level.

Though the stretched length was solved for the continuous case, the simulation is for a discrete set of masses. However, the solution for the continuous case will give initial positions for the masses very close to where they should be. The system is then allowed to relax into its quasi-static state under the effects of gravity and air resistance. If the masses are started too far from their initial positions, the system will become to unstable and the simulation will fail.

The spring is simulated as 100 point masses connected by short massless springs. The initial position of each point mass must be correctly determined so that it satisfies the quasi-static initial condition. Fig. \ref{fig:generalspring} shows the labeling of each mass.

\begin{figure}[h!]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[height=2in]{generalspring}
	\caption{General diagram for a spring freely moving through space after being released from a rotating rotor.}
	\label{fig:generalspring}
\end{figure}

Each vector locates the mass in all three dimensions. The spring forces are summed with air resistance and gravity and set equal to the mass times acceleration as follows.

\begin{equation}
+k(\vec{r}_{i+1}-\vec{r}_i)-k(\vec{r}_i-\vec{r}_{i-1})+\vec{A}_i-mg\hat{z}=m\ddot{\vec{r_i}}
\label{roteqn}
\end{equation}

The position vector $\vec{r}_i$ is the standard three dimensional Cartesian vector.
\begin{equation}
\vec{r}_i=x_i\hat{x}+y_i\hat{y}+z_i\hat{z}
\end{equation}

Air resistance $\vec{A}_i$ is directed opposite the velocity vector for each mass. The best results are obtained by setting air resistance proportional to the square of the mass velocity. \begin{equation}
\vec{A}_i=-bv_i^2\hat{v}_i
\end{equation}
The constant $b$ is adjusted for each spring to give the best results for all angular velocities examined.

Before release, the system is in its quasi-static state. It is moving in uniform circular motion with each mass maintaining the same radial distance from the center. Each mass will have a radial position close to the position calculated for the continuous case. So, in the simulation, the spring will start out in a perfectly straight horizontal position with the radial position of each mass determined by the solution for the continuous case. The stretched radial position of mass $i$ is initially given as $i\Delta{x}$
\begin{equation}
r_i=\frac{r_o}{cos(\phi)}\cos(\alpha (i\Delta{x}) +\phi)
\end{equation}

When the simulation starts, the spring will be pulled down by gravity and pushed back by air resistance. The system is allowed to evolve until all radial motion stops and all parts of the spring settles down into uniform circular motion. Resistive forces damp out transient motion. The first mass of the spring is attached to a central rotor which keeps the whole spring spinning at a set angular velocity, just like the experimental apparatus.

\subsection{Air Resistance and Angular Deflection}

As discussed above, the springs are observed to suffer a small amount of air resistance, causing the stretched spring to be deflected away from the angle of the rotor (see Fig \ref{fig:subfiguresa}). The simulation includes air resistance through a weak quadratic resistive term.

\begin{equation}
A=-bv^2\hat{v}
\end{equation}

The initial transient motion of the simulated spring can be made to die out more quickly by applying a strong resistive force in the radial direction and vertical direction. In the quasi-static state there is no radial or vertical motion so air resistance in these directions can be set artificially high. In a sense, the masses are moving through ``syrup'' in the radial and vertical direction, allowing them to relax to their final positions. The air resistance tangential to the circular path of motion is its lower value that reflects the real effect of air resistance. When the spring is released, the ``syrup" like forces are removed and the spring moves under the influence of normal air resistance in all directions.

Once the transient oscillations die out, the spring returns to the quasi-static state but is no longer oriented radially outward from the center of the rotor. Fig. \ref{fig:simwithdrag} shows the simulated spring with an angular deflection of about 9 degrees due to air resistance.

\begin{figure}[h!]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[height=2.0in]{simwithdrag}
	\caption{Simulated spring in the quasi-static state with drag before release. The inner circle is the path of the inner end of the spring, and the outer circle is the path of the outer end (or free end) of the spring.}
	\label{fig:simwithdrag}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Droop Angle}
The spring forms a fairly straight line that is bent downwards from the horizontal. The is referred to as the droop angle. As expected, the droop angle becomes smaller at larger angular velocities.

\subsection{True Rest Length}
There is a small improvement in the simulation if a ``True Rest Length" is introduced. The PASCO spring has a measured hook-to-hook rest length of 10.4 cm. However, the spring is under compression when at rest. It ``wants" to collapse to a smaller length but is prevented from doing so by the thickness of the spring's wire. The force in the spring is determined by how far the spring is displaced from its rest length, hence an estimate of the true rest length is needed. This corrected rest length was found by running the simulation for different rest lengths and checking against the results. For the PASCO spring a rest length of 8 cm gave the best results for the total spring extension while rotating.

\subsection{Non-Linear Spring }
The simulation method described above works well for a linear spring. That is a spring that reasonably obeys Hooke's Law for spring extensions seen in this experiment. The simulation for the PASCO spring works well treating the PASCO spring as linear. However, a Slinky behaves in a non-linear manner.

In our first version of the simulation, the simulated values and the data agreed for low angular velocities, but the Slinky extension failed at larger velocities. This was due to the Slinky's non-linear stretch at high angular velocities. The experimental Slinky was therefore tested to destruction. Fig. \ref{fig:slinkystretch} shows a graph of  force vs. stretch for the Slinky. When the non-linear stiffness of the Slinky is accounted for, the spring extension in the simulation agrees well with experimental data measured from video analysis.

\begin{figure}[h!]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[height=2.0in]{slinkystretch}
	\caption{Force vs. stretch for the Slinky up to destruction.}
	\label{fig:slinkystretch}
\end{figure}

The Slinky force as a function of stretch was fitted with a third order polynomial. This fit was sufficient for the extension that the Slinky experiences in this experiment. The function is given as,
\begin{equation}
	F=0.0133x^3-0.0256x^2+0.3718x
\end{equation}

where $x$ is the spring extension from rest in meters and $F$ is in newtons.

For a linear spring, the simulation starts with the spring rotating with the correct extension, mass distribution and angular velocity needed when there is no air resistance. With air resistance, the system takes a few simulation seconds to adjust and settle down into a quasi-static state. In the non-linear case, the spring starts out extended further than it should be, so additional time is needed to let the Slinky slowly relax into the correct extension and drag angle. This usually takes about 15 seconds of simulation time.

\section{Results}
Fig. \ref{fig:subfigures} shows images of the collapsing spring at various times after it is released. After release, the outer end continues on its original circular path and the inner end folds over to form a V-shape similar to a chevron. As a wave propagates from the inner end to the outer end of the spring, the collapsed portion of the spring (including the inner end) and the stretched portion of the spring (including the outer end) continue to make a chevron shape. As the wave propagates, the collapsed portion of the spring gets longer and the stretched portion of the spring gets shorter until the wave reaches the outer end and the spring is once again straight.  Fig. \ref{fig:simsubfigures} shows a similar set of frames from the simulation.

\begin{figure}[h!]
	\begin{center}
		%
		\subfigure[(one)]{%
			\label{fig:subfiguresa}
			\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{fram1}
		}%
		\subfigure[(two)]{%
			\label{fig:subfiguresb}
			\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{fram2}
		}\\
		\subfigure[(three)]{%
			\label{fig:subfiguresc}
			\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{fram3}
		}%
		\subfigure[(four)]{%
			\label{fig:subfiguresd}
			\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{fram4}
		}%
		%
	\end{center}
	\caption{%
		Four images of the spring after it is released. Note the ``chevron'' in the spring in the third figure.
	}%
	\label{fig:subfigures}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[h!]
	\begin{center}
		%
		\subfigure[(one)]{%
			\label{fig:simsubfiguresa}
			\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{cap1}
		}%
		\subfigure[(two)]{%
			\label{fig:simsubfiguresb}
			\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{cap2}
		}\\
		\subfigure[(three)]{%
			\label{fig:simsubfiguresc}
			\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{cap3}
		}%
		\subfigure[(four)]{%
			\label{fig:simsubfiguresd}
			\includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{cap4}
		}%
		%
	\end{center}
	\caption{%
		Four images of the spring after it is released. The heavy lines show the trajectories of the ends of the spring; the light connecting line is the string of point masses representing the spring. Note the ``chevron'' in the spring in the third figure.
	}%
	\label{fig:simsubfigures}
\end{figure}

When the wave reaches the outer end of the spring, it reflects and propagates back toward the inner end. This causes the motion of the spring to repeat (again forming a chevron shape), and each end of the spring follows a semi circular path with a radius equal to the quasi-static radius followed by the outer end of the spring. This is shown in the strobographic photo in Fig. \ref{fig:apparatus_release}.

\begin{figure}[h!]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[height=2.8in]{apparatus_release}
	\caption{A strobographic photo of a 0.4 N/m spring rotating counterclockwise at 49 RPM prior to release. The outer end of the spring (blue) continues its circular motion for approximately 0.27 seconds after the inner end (red) is released, during which time it covers approximately 80$^\circ$ in angular displacement. }
	\label{fig:apparatus_release}
\end{figure}

Fig. \ref{fig:semicirc} Shows an example of the simulated semicircular motion from the simulation over a greater range. The long straight line is the center of mass motion after release. Once released, the system conserves angular momentum about its center of mass. As the wave propagates to the free end, angular momentum is being transfered to the released end. Finally, the free end is pulled from its original circular path and the angular momentum is transfered back causing it to move on a new semicircular path. This continues as the wave moves back and forth to each end of the spring with each end taking turns in forming the circular arc.

\begin{figure}[h!]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[height=2.0in]{semicirc}
	\caption{The paths of the inner and outer masses after release for one simulation. Note the semicircular paths.The straight line is the center of mass motion.}
	\label{fig:semicirc}
\end{figure}

A cursory view of the figures supports our hypothesis that after release, the free end of the spring would continue in uniform circular motion as before, until such time as a wave propagates from the inner end to the outer. From the data, we measured and graphed $\theta(t)$ for the inner end and outer end of the spring before and after release for both the PASCO spring and Slinky, with the origin at the axle of the rotor. See Fig. \ref{fig:thetavtdata}.

\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centerin
\mbox
\subfigure[PASCO spring]{
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{data-theta-t}

\subfigure[Slinky]{
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{slinky-data-theta-t}
}
}
\caption{$\theta(t)$ for the inner and outer ends of the PASCO spring and Slinky.}
\label{fig:thetavtdata}
\end{figure*}

The slope of $\theta(t)$ for the outer end of the PASCO spring is the same before and after release and is the same as the slope of $\theta(t)$ for the inner end before release. After release, $\theta(t)$ for the inner end is linear showing that its angular velocity is constant, but with a smaller value than before release. The difference in the $\theta$-intercept for the inner end and outer end of the spring in Fig. \ref{fig:thetavtdata} is due to the outer end lagging behind the inner end as the spring rotates. This lag is caused by air resistance and is what we call the drag angle. The drag angle is visually apparent in the video frame in Fig. \ref{fig:subfiguresa} and in the simulation in Fig. \ref{fig:simwithdrag}.

The graph of $\theta(t)$ for the Slinky differs qualitatively from the PASCO spring when the inner end is released. Whereas the inner end of the PASCO spring experiences an abrupt change in $\omega(t)$ when it is released, the inner end of the Slinky experiences an angular acceleration during a longer time interval after it is released.  Thus, the jerk on the inner end of the PASCO spring is much larger (due to the smaller time interval) than the jerk on the Slinky.

\subsection{Measurable Quantities}
The quantities used to describe the motion of the spring fall into three categories: (1) the ``Static'' variables used as input parameters to the simulation; (2) the ``Quasi-static'' variables that describe the initial state of the spring on the rotating rotor; and (3) the ``Dynamic'' variables for the collapsing spring after it is released from the rotating rotor.

\subsubsection{Static Variables}
These are variables related to the spring and the system at rest.

\begin{itemize}
\setlength{\itemsep}{1pt}
\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}
\setlength{\parsep}{0pt}
\item Spring Mass
\item Spring Constant
\item Rotor Radius
\item Spring Rest Length
\end{itemize}

\subsubsection{Quasi-static Variables}
These are measurements of the rotating spring before it is released.

\begin{itemize}
\setlength{\itemsep}{1pt}
\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}
\setlength{\parsep}{0pt}
\item Spring Extension
\item Drag Angle
\item Droop Angle
\end{itemize}

The spring extension is the total length of the rotating spring before it is released. Air resistance causes the spring to lag behind the straight line defined by the radius of the rotor. The angle between the spring and the rotor is the drag angle. As the spring rotates, gravity pulls it down at an angle from the horizontal plane. This is called the droop angle.

\subsubsection{Dynamic Variables}

These are measurements of the system after the spring is released, while it is collapsing. There are many variables that can be measured, but the following two variables seem to be the most useful.

\begin{itemize}
\setlength{\itemsep}{1pt}
\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}
\setlength{\parsep}{0pt}
\item Bend Angle
\item Collapse Time
\end{itemize}

The bend angle is the angle formed by the chevron. The collapse time is the time interval for the wave to travel from the inner end of the spring to the outer end of the spring.

\subsection{Measured Data, Simulated Values, and Graphs}

To test the veracity of the theoretical description of the quasi-static and dynamic state of the spring, the dependence of the quasi-static and dynamic variables on the angular velocity of the rotor were measured for two different springs: a standard PASCO  spring and a thin Slinky. The Slinky is a spring that stretches under its own weight, whereas the PASCO spring needs an extra external force to make it stretch. Five plots of interest are

\begin{itemize}
\setlength{\itemsep}{1pt}
\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}
\setlength{\parsep}{0pt}
\item Collapse Time vs. Angular Velocity
\item Bend Angle vs. Angular Velocity
\item Spring Extension vs. Angular Velocity
\item Drag Angle vs. Angular Velocity
\item Droop Angle vs. Angular Velocity
\end{itemize}

Measurements of the quasi-static and dynamic variables for the PASCO spring (and Slinky) for various angular velocities are available on ComPADRE \cite{compadre} under the listing "Supplemental Data and Graphs". This file also contains tables of results from the computer simulations.

\subsubsection{PASCO Spring Data}

Measurements of the static variables for the PASCO spring at rest are listed in Table \ref{table:pascorestdata}. The true rest length is the rest length of the spring used in the simulation to give best results.

\begin{table}[h!]
	\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
		\hline mass & 9.1 g \\
		\hline spring constant & 3.28 N/m \\
		\hline rotor radius & 25.3 cm \\
		\hline hook-to-hook rest length & 10.4 cm \\
		\hline coil-to-coil rest length & 7.2 cm \\
		\hline true rest length & 8.0 cm  \\
		\hline
	\end{tabular}
	\caption{Data for static variables for the PASCO spring.}
	\label{table:pascorestdata}
\end{table}

\subsubsection{Simulated PASCO Spring Values}

The simulation was run for the PASCO spring for the same angular velocities measured with video analysis. Values determined from the simulation are available on ComPADRE \cite{compadre}.

Data from video analysis and values from the simulation for quasi-static variables are plotted in the three graphs shown in Fig. \ref{fig:pascosimdatafigqs}.

\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centerin
\mbox
\subfigure[spring extension]
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{data-extension-omega-sim}

\subfigure[drag angle]{
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{data-drag-angle-omega-sim}

\subfigure[droop angle]{
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{data-droop-angle-omega-sim}
}
}
\caption{Measured data and simulated values for quasi-static variables for the PASCO spring.}
\label{fig:pascosimdatafigqs}
\end{figure*}

Data from video analysis and values from the simulation for dynamic variables are plotted in the two graphs shown in Fig. \ref{fig:pascosimdatafigdyn}. The simulation shows broad agreement with the experimental data for all dynamic variables.

\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centerin
\mbox
\subfigure[collapse time]{
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{data-collapse-time-omega-sim}

\subfigure[bend angle]{
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{data-kink-angle-omega-sim}
}
}
\caption{Measured data and simulated values for dynamic variables for the PASCO Spring.}
\label{fig:pascosimdatafigdyn}
\end{figure*}

\subsubsection{Slinky Data}

Measurements of the static variables for the Slinky at rest are listed in Table \ref{table:slinkdata}.

\begin{table}[h!]
	\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
		\hline mass & 28.485 g \\
		\hline spring constant & 0.38 N/m \\
		\hline rotor radius & 25.3 cm \\
		\hline coil-to-coil rest length & 3.3 cm \\
		\hline true rest length & 3.3 cm  \\
		\hline
	\end{tabular}
	\caption{Data for static variables for the Slinky.}
	\label{table:slinkdata}
\end{table}

Measurements of the quasi-static and dynamic variables for the Slinky for various angular velocities are available on ComPADRE \cite{compadre}. The Slinky has a larger mass and lower spring constant than the PASCO spring. This gives the Slinky a much greater extension than the PASCO spring. The angular velocities used for the Slinky are roughly one fourth the angular velocities used for the PASCO spring.

\subsubsection{Simulated Slinky Values}

The simulation was run for the Slinky for the same angular velocities measured with video analysis. The results of the simulation are available on ComPADRE  \cite{compadre}.

Data from video analysis and values from the simulation are plotted in the three graphs shown in Fig. \ref{fig:slinkydataqs} for the quasi-static variables.

\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centerin
\mbox
\subfigure[spring extension]
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{slinky-data-extension-omega-sim}

\subfigure[drag angle]{
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{slinky-data-drag-angle-omega-sim}

\subfigure[droop angle]{
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{slinky-data-droop-angle-omega-sim}
}
}
\caption{Measured data and simulated values for quasi-static variables for the Slinky.}
\label{fig:slinkydataqs}
\end{figure*}

Data from video analysis and values from the simulation are plotted in the two graphs shown in Fig. \ref{fig:slinkydatadyn} for the dynamic variables.

\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centerin
\mbox
\subfigure[collapse time]{
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{slinky-data-collapse-time-omega-sim}

\subfigure[bend angle]{
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{data-kink-angle-omega-sim}
}
}
\caption{Measured data and simulated values for dynamic variables for the Slinky}
\label{fig:slinkydatadyn}
\end{figure*}

\subsubsection{Collapse Time}
For a nonrotating spring under tension, the time for a wave to propagate down its length is independent of its stretch. Conceptually, the propagation time is longer for longer distances, but the propagation speed is likewise larger due to the greater tension required to stretch the spring. Taking the equation for wave velocity on a string,
\begin{equation}
\nu = \sqrt{\frac{T}{M/L}}
\end{equation}
where T is tension, M the spring's mass and L its length, Hooke's law is substituted for the tension. Assuming the unstretched length of the spring is small compared to the stretched length, the time for a wave to propagate down the spring is,
\begin{equation}
t=\frac{L}{\nu}=\frac{L}{\sqrt{\frac{(k)(\Delta L)}{M/L}}}\approx \frac{L}{\sqrt{\frac{(k)(L^2)}{M}}}=\sqrt{\frac{M}{k}}
\end{equation}
In the approximation, the time of collapse is independent of its length. In the rotating-spring situation described here, the tension varies along the length of the spring (maximum at the inner end, minimum at the free outer end) but the argument still holds in a piecewise and therefore global fashion down the length of a spring with varying tension. This is borne out by comparing $\sqrt{\frac{M}{k}}$ for the PASCO spring and the mini-Slinky (0.053 and 0.27 sec, respectively with the collapse times displayed in Fig. \ref{fig:slinkydatadyn} and Fig. \ref{fig:pascosimdatafigdyn}.

\section{Conclusion}
It has been demonstrated that when a vertical, hanging spring is released from rest, the bottom of the spring remains in equilibrium until a wave from the top end reaches the bottom.

In this experiment, this property has been generalized to the case of a rotating spring. When rotating about a circle, the outer end of the spring continues on its circular path until a wave from the inner end reaches the outer end.

Our computational model does a reasonable job of reproducing the data. Both the simulation and data show that upon release, there is an initial jerk on the inner end of the spring, but eventually the inner end will travel along a circle of constant radius and constant angular velocity as the spring is collapsing. In addition, the simulation and data agree that (1) the spring extension and drag angle increase with the angular velocity of the rotor; (2) the droop angle decreases with angular velocity of the rotor; (3) the collapse time and bend angle of the collapsing spring are independent of the angular velocity.

We feel this phenomenon serves as an easily-understood exemplar and introduction to the concept of locality. The original statement of locality is attributed to Issac Newton \cite{newton} ``��Tis unconceivable that inanimate brute matter should (without the mediation of something else which is not material) operate upon \& affect other matter without mutual contact."

All forces are now described in terms of fields that preserve locality. From Einstein's space time field that allows for gravity waves to the quanta of force mediating fields. Classroom discussions of these topics, and even more esoteric topics such as quantum entanglement, may be more meaningful following an introduction to the concept of locality using the straightforward example of springs in circular motion presented here.

\section{Acknowledgements}

This research was initiated by Matthew Carnaghi, a student in Briana Fiser's first-year course for physics majors at High Point Unviersity called \emph{Research and Scientific Writing in Physics}. The idea for the project was first suggested by High Point University's Martin DeWitt.  Collaboration with Jeff Regester and Tom Dooling was a result of presentations at the annual North Carolina Section AAPT meetings (NCSAAPT). We acknowledge the benefit of undergraduate research in the freshman year and the valuable collaborations made possible by regional Sections of AAPT.


Classifications of linear operators preserving elliptic, positive and non-negative polynomials

Abstract: We characterize all linear operators on finite or infinite-dimensional spaces of univariate real polynomials preserving the sets of elliptic, positive, and non-negative polynomials, respectively. This is done by means of Fischer-Fock dualities, Hankel forms, and convolutions with non-negative measures. We also establish higher-dimensional analogs of these results. In particular, our classification theorems solve the questions raised in [9] originating from entire function theory and the literature pertaining to Hilbert's 17th problem.

\section{Introduction}\label{s-in}

The dynamics of zero sets of polynomials and transcendental entire functions
under linear transformations is a central topic in geometric function theory
with applications ranging from statistical mechanics and probability theory
to combinatorics, analytic number theory, and matrix theory; see, e.g.,
\cite{BB-LY}--\cite{BBL} and the references therein. Describing linear
operators that preserve non-vanishing properties is a basic question that
often turns out to be quite difficult. For instance, the problem  -- going
back to Laguerre and P\'olya-Schur
\cite{PS} -- of
characterizing linear operators preserving univariate real polynomials with
{\em all real zeros}
remained unsolved until very recently \cite{BB-A}. Just as fundamental
are the problems -- originating from entire function theory
\cite{CC,CC1,CC2,H,PSz} and the
literature pertaining to Hilbert's
17th problem \cite{H-P,PD,R} -- of classifying linear operators preserving
the set of
univariate real polynomials with {\em no real zeros} or the closely related
sets of positive, respectively non-negative polynomials. Let us formulate
these problems explicitly.

Given $d\in \bN_0$, where $\bN_0$ is the additive
semigroup of non-negative integers,
let $\bR_d[x]=\{p\in\bR[x]:\deg(p)\le d\}$ and set
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&POS=\{p\in\bR[x]:p(x)>0,\,x\in\bR\},\quad POS_d=POS\cap\bR_d[x],\\
&SOS=\left\{\sum_{i=1}^{r}p_i(x)^2:p_i\in\bR[x],\,1\le i\le r<\infty\right\},
\quad SOS_d=SOS\cap\bR_d[x],\\
&ELL=\{p\in\bR[x]: p(x)\neq 0,\,x\in\bR\},\quad ELL_d=ELL\cap\bR_d[x].
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
It is well-known that
$SOS=\overline{POS}:=\{p\in\bR[x]:p(x)\ge0,\,x\in\bR\}$,
$ELL=POS\cup(-POS)$, and $POS=\cup_{a>0}(SOS+a)$.
Polynomials in $POS,SOS,ELL$ are called {\em positive},
{\em non-negative} or
{\em sos} (sums of squares), and {\em elliptic}, respectively.
Let $\mathfrak{L}_d$ be the set of all linear operators
$T:\bR_d[x]\to\bR[x]$ and $\mathfrak{L}$ be the semigroup of all linear
operators $T:\bR[x]\to\bR[x]$. For $V\in\{POS,SOS,ELL\}$ and $d\in\bN_0$
define
$$
\mathfrak{L}(V)=\{T\in\mathfrak{L}:T(V)\subseteq V\},\quad
\mathfrak{L}_d(V)=\{T\in\mathfrak{L}_d:T(V_d)\subseteq V\}.
$$

\begin{problem}\label{prob1}
Characterize $\mathfrak{L}_d(POS)$, $\mathfrak{L}_d(SOS)$, $\mathfrak{L}_d(ELL)$ for each
even $d\in\bN_0$.
\end{problem}

\begin{problem}\label{prob2}
Characterize the semigroups $\mathfrak{L}(POS)$, $\mathfrak{L}(SOS)$, $\mathfrak{L}(ELL)$.
\end{problem}

In physics it is useful to distinguish between between ``soft'' and ``hard''
theorems asserting the non-vanishing of partition functions in certain
regions.\footnote{This dichotomy stems
from ``soft-core'' vs.~``hard-core'' pair interactions in lattice-gas models
and does not refer to the level of difficulty in proving such theorems but
rather to the fact that in some sense ``soft'' theorems are constraint-free
while ``hard'' theorems involve constraints of various kinds such as the
maximum degree of a graph; see, e.g., \cite{BB-LY} and the
references therein.}
By analogy with this terminology and the one used in the classification
of linear preservers of real-rooted polynomials \cite{BB-LY,BB-A}, one may
say that results pertaining to
Problem~\ref{prob1} are ``hard'' or ``algebraic'' (bounded degree) while
those for Problem~\ref{prob2} are ``soft'' or ``transcendental''
(unbounded degree).
Special cases of Problems \ref{prob1}--\ref{prob2} were recently studied
in \cite{BGS}, where one can also find a list of partial results known so far
and corrections to some erroneous claims from the existing literature.

In this paper we give complete solutions to
Problems \ref{prob1}--\ref{prob2}.
In particular, this supersedes \cite{BGS}
whose main results are now immediate corollaries of the classification
theorems in \S \ref{s-uni}. In \S \ref{s-multi} we answer multivariate
versions of Problems \ref{prob1}--\ref{prob2} while in \S \ref{s-rem} we
establish some related results and discuss further directions.

One of the tools that we use both in the univariate and the multivariate
case is the following inner product structure on polynomial spaces. Recall
(cf., e.g., \cite{BB-P} and the
references therein) that the {\em Fischer-Fock} or {\em Bargmann-Segal}
{\em space} $\mathcal{F}_n$ is the Hilbert
space of holomorphic functions $f$ on $\bC^n$ such that
$$
\| f \|^2 :=
\pi^{-n}\int_{\bC^n}
|f(\bz)|^2 e^{-|\bz|^2} dV(\bz)<\infty,
$$
where $\bz=(z_1,\ldots,z_n)\in\bC^n$, $|\bz|^2=\sum_{i=1}^n|z_i|^2$, and
$dV(\bz)$ is the volume element (Lebesgue measure) in $\bC^n$.
The inner product in $\mathcal{F}_n$ is
given by
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\langle f, g \rangle  &=
\pi^{-n}\int_{\bC^n}
f(\bz)\overline{g(\bz)} e^{-|\bz|^2} dV(\bz) \\
&=f(\pa/\pa z_1,\ldots,\pa/\pa z_n)g(z_1,\ldots,z_n)\Big|_{z_1=\cdots=z_n=0}
=\sum_{\al\in\bN_0^n}\al!a_\al\overline{b}_\al.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Here
$\al!=\al_1!\cdots\al_n!$ for $\al=(\al_1,\ldots,\al_n)\in\bN_0^n$ while
$\sum_\alpha a_\al\bz^\alpha$, respectively
$\sum_\alpha b_\al\bz^\alpha$, is the Taylor expansion of $f$,
respectively $g$, where $\bz^\al=z_1^{\al_1}\cdots z_n^{\al_n}$.
Clearly, the space of all polynomials in $n$ variables with real coefficients
$\bR[z_1,\ldots,z_n]$ is contained in $\mathcal{F}_n$ and thus inherits a natural
inner product structure. Given a cone $K\subseteq \bR[z_1,\ldots,z_n]$ we let
$K^*\subseteq \bR[z_1,\ldots,z_n]$ be its {\em dual} cone, i.e.,
$$
K^*=\{f\in\bR[z_1,\ldots,z_n]: \langle f,g\rangle \ge 0,\,g\in K\}.
$$

The Fischer-Fock space $\mathcal{F}_n$ was used by Dirac to define second
quantization and its inner product has since been rediscovered in
various contexts, for instance in number theory -- where the corresponding
norm is known as the Bombieri norm -- and the theory of real homogeneous
polynomials \cite{R}. In $\calD$-module
theory and microlocal Fourier analysis one usually works with
the inner product on $\mathcal{F}_n$ defined by
$(f(\bz),g(\bz))=\langle f(i\bz), g(i\bz)\rangle$.
For these and further properties
of $\mathcal{F}_n$ (such as its Bergman-Szeg\H{o}-Aronszajn reproducing kernel) see,
e.g., the references in \cite{BB-P}.

Another main ingredient in our characterization theorems is the theory of
positive definite kernels, Hankel forms, and moment problems in one or
several variables. There is a vast literature on these topics ranging from
classical works on univariate and multivariate moment problems
\cite{Ak,C,Ham,Hav,Ka,ST,W} to recent contributions
\cite{BCR,H-P,Pu-S,Pu-Sm,Pu-V,R} and we refer to these for additional details.
As usual, a
$k\times k$ real symmetric matrix $A$ is said to be positive semidefinite
(respectively,
positive definite)
if $\bx^t A\bx\ge 0$ for all $\bx\in\bR^k$ (respectively, $\bx^t A\bx> 0$
for all $\bx\in\bR^k\setminus \{0\}$).

Let $\mathfrak{M}_1^+$ denote the class of
non-negative measures $\mu$ on $\bR$ with all finite moments, that is,
$\int\!|t^m|d\mu(t)<\infty$, $m\in \bN_0$. Hamburger's theorem \cite{Ham}
asserts that a sequence of real numbers
$\{a_m\}_{m\in\bN_0}$ is the moment sequence of
a measure $\mu\in\mathfrak{M}_1^+$, i.e.,
$$
a_m=\int\!t^m d\mu(t),\quad m\in\bN_0,
$$
if and only if the Hankel matrix $(a_{i+j})_{i,j=0}^{m}$ is positive
semidefinite for any $m\in\bN_0$. If such a $\mu$ is unique
the corresponding moment problem is said to be determined.

Haviland's theorem \cite{Hav} is a multivariate analog of Hamburger's
theorem that may be stated as follows (cf., e.g., \cite[Chap.~6]{BCR}).
Let $n\in\bN$ and
$\mathfrak{M}_n^+$ be the class of
non-negative measures $\mu$ on $\bR^n$ with all finite moments, that is,
$\int\!|\bt^\al|d\mu(\bt)<\infty$, $\al\in \bN_0^n$, where
$\bt=(t_1,\ldots,t_n)\in\bR^n$ and $\bt^\al=t_1^{\al_1}\cdots t_n^{\al_n}$
for $\al=(\al_1,\ldots,\al_n)\in\bN_0^n$. A sequence of real numbers
$\{a_\al\}_{\al\in\bN_0^n}$ satisfies
$$
a_\al=\int\!\bt^\al d\mu(\bt),\quad \al\in\bN_0^n,
$$
for some $\mu\in\mathfrak{M}_n^+$ if and only if the following holds: the real-valued
linear functional $L$ on $\bR[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ determined by
$L(\bx^\al)=a_\al$,
$\al\in\bN_0^n$, satisfies $L(f)\ge 0$ for any non-negative polynomial
$f\in\bR[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ (i.e., $f(\bx)\ge 0$, $\bx\in\bR^n$).

\medskip

\noindent
{\em Acknowledgement.~}I would like to thank the anonymous referee for
interesting remarks and useful suggestions.

\section{Univariate Polynomials}\label{s-uni}

\subsection{Preliminaries}\label{s-prel}

For convenience, we recall some elementary properties of
the classes of linear operators under consideration.
If $T\in\mathfrak{L}_d$ and $T(1)\inELL$ then the following are
equivalent: (i) $T\in \mathfrak{L}_d(ELL)$; (ii) $T\in \mathfrak{L}_d(POS)$ or
$-T\in \mathfrak{L}_d(POS)$; (iii) $T\in \mathfrak{L}_d(SOS)$ or $-T\in \mathfrak{L}_d(SOS)$.
Similarly, if $T\in\mathfrak{L}$ and
$T(1)\inELL$ then the following are equivalent:
(i$'$) $T\in \mathfrak{L}(ELL)$; (ii$'$) $T\in \mathfrak{L}(POS)$ or $-T\in \mathfrak{L}(POS)$;
(iii$'$) $T\in \mathfrak{L}(SOS)$ or $-T\in \mathfrak{L}(SOS)$.
If one drops the assumption $T(1)\inELL$ then
(i) $\Leftrightarrow$ (ii) $\Rightarrow$ (iii) and
(i$'$) $\Leftrightarrow$ (ii$'$) $\Rightarrow$ (iii$'$). Furthermore,
if $T\in\mathfrak{L}(SOS)$ and $T(1)\equiv 0$ then $T\equiv 0$.
These are simple consequences of straightforward homotopy
arguments (see, e.g., Remark \ref{r-hom} below and \cite{BGS}).

\subsection{Transcendental Characterizations}\label{s-trans}

We
start with the ``soft'' (unbounded degree) case and the three
classification questions
stated in Problem \ref{prob2}. Recall that any linear operator
$T\in\mathfrak{L}$ may be uniquely represented as
a formal power series in $D:=\frac{d}{dx}$ with polynomial coefficients, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{w-1}
T=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}q_i(x)D^i,\quad q_i\in\bR[x],\,i\in\bN_0,
\end{equation}
see, e.g., \cite{BB-P}. Given $T$ as above
we associate to it a
one-parameter family of linear differential operators with {\em constant}
coefficients
$\{T_y\}_{y\in\bR}$ defined as follows:
\begin{equation*}
T_y=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}q_i(y)D^i.
\end{equation*}
Note that in general $T_y$ has infinite
order and $T_y=T$, $y\in\bR$, if $T$ has constant coefficients.
For each $y\in\bR$ and $m\in\bN_0$ we also define a polynomial
$p_{y,m}=p_{_{T_y,m}}$ of
degree at most $m$ and an $(m+1)\times(m+1)$ Hankel matrix
$\mathcal{H}_{y,m}=\mathcal{H}_{_{T_y,m}}$ by
\begin{equation*}
p_{y,m}(x)=\sum_{i=0}^{m}q_i(y)x^i\in\bR[x],\quad
\mathcal{H}_{y,m}=\big((i+j)!q_{i+j}(y)\big)_{i,j=0}^{m}.
\end{equation*}

\begin{remark}\label{r-term}
Clearly, $p_{y,m}(x)\in\bR[x,y]$ for each $m\in\bN_0$. We call this
polynomial in two variables the $m$-{\em truncated symbol} of the operator
$T\in\mathfrak{L}$.
\end{remark}

Our first theorem characterizes the semigroup $\mathfrak{L}(SOS)$ of
linear operators preserving the cone $SOS$ of non-negative$/$sos polynomials.

\begin{theorem}\label{th-s}
Let $T\in\mathfrak{L}$ be as in \eqref{w-1}. The following assertions are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] $T\in\mathfrak{L}(SOS)$;
\item[(2)] $T_y\in\mathfrak{L}(SOS)$ for all $y\in\bR$;
\item[(3)] $\langle p_{y,2m},f\rangle\ge 0$ for all $y\in\bR$, $m\in\bN_0$,
$f\inSOS_{2m}$, i.e., $p_{y,m}\inSOS^*_{2m}$;
\item[(4)] $\mathcal{H}_{y,m}$ is positive semidefinite
for all $y\in\bR$, $m\in\bN_0$;
\item[(5)] For any $s\in\bR$ there exists $\mu_s\in\mathfrak{M}_1^+$ such that
$\int\! t^id\mu_s(t)\in \bR[s]$, $i\in\bN_0$, and
$i!q_i(y)=\int\! t^id\mu_y(t)$, $y\in\bR$, $i\in\bN_0$.
The family of operators $\{T_y\}_{y\in\bR}$ is then given by the convolutions
$$
T_y(f)(x)=\int\! f(t+x)d\mu_y(t),\quad f\in \bR[x],\,y\in\bR.
$$
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Clearly, (2) $\Rightarrow$ (1). If (1) holds then since $SOS$ is invariant
under shift operators $e^{aD}$, $a\in\bR$, one gets
$e^{-aD}Te^{aD}\in\mathfrak{L}(SOS)$ hence
\begin{equation*}
\label{sum}
\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}q_i(x-a)f^{(i)}(x)\ge 0
\end{equation*}
for any $f\inSOS$ and $a,x\in\bR$, which proves (2) (note that for each
$f\in\bR[x]$
the sum in the above inequality is finite). Next, if
$a,y\in\bR$ and $f\in\bR_d[x]$, $d\in\bN_0$, then
\begin{equation}\label{eq-f}
T_y(f)(a)=\sum_{i=0}^{d}q_i(y)f^{(i)}(a)=\langle p_{y,d},e^{aD}f\rangle.
\end{equation}
Since $f\inSOS_d\Leftrightarrow e^{aD}f\inSOS_d$, $a\in\bR$, identity
\eqref{eq-f}
shows that if (2) holds then $\langle p_{y,d}, f\rangle \ge 0$ for all
$y\in\bR$, $d\in\bN_0$, $f\inSOS_d$. In particular, this is true for all even
$d$, which proves (3). Conversely, if (3) holds then (2) follows from
\eqref{eq-f} since any $f\inSOS$ has even degree.
Now, for $m\in\bN_0$, $y\in\bR$,
and $g(x)=\sum_{i=0}^{m}a_ix^i\in\bR_m[x]$ one has
$$
\langle p_{y,2m},g^2\rangle=\sum_{i,j=0}^{m}(i+j)!q_{i+j}(y)a_ia_j
$$
and thus (3) $\Leftrightarrow$ (4) since any $f\inSOS$ is a sos.
Finally, by
Hamburger's theorem (see \S \ref{s-in}) the
following holds for each $y\in\bR$: $\mathcal{H}_{y,m}$ is positive semidefinite
for all $m\in\bN_0$ if
and only if there exists $\mu_y\in\mathfrak{M}_1^+$ such that
$i!q_i(y)=\int\! t^id\mu_y(t)$, $i\in\bN_0$. Since all $q_i$ must be
polynomials we conclude that
(4) $\Leftrightarrow$ (5), which completes the proof of the theorem.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
By Carleman's sufficient condition for the Hamburger moment
problem to be determined \cite{C}, if $y\in\bR$ is such that
$\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}[(2i)!q_{2i}(y)]^{-1/2i}=\infty$ then the corresponding
measure $\mu_y\in\mathfrak{M}_1^+$ in Theorem \ref{th-s} (5) is unique. Recent progress
on the determinateness of multivariate moment problems has been made in
\cite{Pu-S,Pu-Sm,Pu-V}.
\end{remark}

The following analog of Theorem \ref{th-s} characterizes the semigroup
$\mathfrak{L}(POS)$ of linear operators preserving the cone $POS$ of positive
polynomials.

\begin{theorem}\label{th-p}
Let $T\in\mathfrak{L}$ be as in \eqref{w-1}. The following assertions are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] $T\in\mathfrak{L}(POS)$;
\item[(2)] $T_y\in\mathfrak{L}(POS)$ for all $y\in\bR$;
\item[(3)] $\langle p_{y,2m},f\rangle> 0$ for all $y\in\bR$, $m\in\bN_0$,
$f\inPOS_{2m}$;
\item[(4)] $\mathcal{H}_{y,m}$ is positive definite for all $y\in\bR$, $m\in\bN_0$;
\item[(5)] $\det(\mathcal{H}_{y,m})> 0$ for all $y\in\bR$, $m\in\bN_0$;
\item[(6)] For any $s\in\bR$ there exists $\mu_s\in\mathfrak{M}_1^+$ whose support
$\supp(\mu_s)$ is an infinite set such that
$\int\! t^id\mu_s(t)\in \bR[s]$, $i\in\bN_0$, and
$i!q_i(y)=\int\! t^id\mu_y(t)$, $y\in\bR$, $i\in\bN_0$.
The family of operators $\{T_y\}_{y\in\bR}$ is then given by the convolutions
$$
T_y(f)(x)=\int\! f(t+x)d\mu_y(t),\quad f\in \bR[x],\,y\in\bR.
$$
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Recall that
$POS=\cup_{a>0}(SOS+a)$ and note that if $T\in\mathfrak{L}(POS)$ then $q_0\inPOS$.
Using these observations and the fact that the cones
$POS$, $POS_{2m}$, $m\in \bN_0$, are invariant under shift operators
$e^{aD}$, $a\in\bR$, one then gets (1) $\Leftrightarrow$ (2)
$\Leftrightarrow$ (3) $\Leftrightarrow$ (4) $\Leftrightarrow$ (6)
as in the proof of Theorem \ref{th-s} (see, e.g.,
\cite[Theorem 1.2]{ST} and Remark 2.3 in \cite[Chap.~6]{BCR} for the
extra condition that the supports of the representing measures should be
infinite sets, which is not required in Theorem \ref{th-s} (5)).
The equivalence (4)
$\Leftrightarrow$ (5) is a classical result in matrix theory due to Jacobi and
independently to Hurwitz,
cf., e.g., \cite{Ka,ST}.
\end{proof}

By the remarks in \S \ref{s-prel} Theorem \ref{th-p} also yields a
description of the semigroup $\mathfrak{L}(ELL)$ of linear operators preserving the
set of elliptic polynomials. Problem~\ref{prob2} is therefore completely
solved.

\subsection{Algebraic Characterizations}\label{s-alg}

Since there are no positive, non-negative or elliptic polynomials of odd
degree, for the ``hard'' (bounded degree) classification questions stated in
Problem \ref{prob1} it is enough to consider only linear operators
$T\in\mathfrak{L}_d$ with $d=2k$, $k\in\bN_0$. It is well-known that any such operator
may be viewed as an
element of the Weyl algebra $\cA_1(\bR)$ of order at most $d$ (cf., e.g.,
\cite{BB-P}), that is, a
linear ordinary differential operator with polynomial coefficients of the
form
\begin{equation}\label{w1}
T=\sum_{i=0}^{d}q_i(x)D^i,\quad q_i\in\bR[x],\,i\in\bN_0.
\end{equation}
By analogy with the ``soft'' case treated in \S \ref{s-trans} we associate
to $T$ a one-parameter family of
linear differential operators of order at most $d$ with {\em constant}
coefficients
$\{T_y\}_{y\in\bR}$, a one-parameter family of polynomials
$\{p_{y,d}\}_{y\in\bR}$ in $\bR_d[x]$, and a one-parameter family of
$(d+1)\times (d+1)$ Hankel matrices $\{\mathcal{H}_{y,d}\}_{y\in\bR}$ defined as
follows:
\begin{equation*}
T_y=\sum_{i=0}^{d}q_i(y)D^i,\quad
p_{y,d}(x)=\sum_{i=0}^{d}q_i(y)x^i\in\bR_d[x],\quad
\mathcal{H}_{y,d}=\big((i+j)!q_{i+j}(y)\big)_{i,j=0}^{d}.
\end{equation*}

\begin{remark}\label{r-algs}
Given $d\in\bN_0$ it is clear that $p_{y,d}\in\bR[x,y]$. This two variable
polynomial is called the {\em algebraic symbol} of the operator $T\in\mathfrak{L}_d$.
\end{remark}

The finite degree versions of Theorem \ref{th-s} and Theorem \ref{th-p}
given below describe the sets $\mathfrak{L}_d(SOS)$ and $\mathfrak{L}_d(POS)$, respectively.
We omit their proofs since they are almost identical to those of
Theorems \ref{th-s}--\ref{th-p}.

\begin{theorem}\label{th-sd}
For $d=2k$ and $T\in\mathfrak{L}_d$ as in \eqref{w1} the following are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] $T\in\mathfrak{L}_d(SOS)$;
\item[(2)] $T_y\in\mathfrak{L}_d(SOS)$ for all $y\in\bR$;
\item[(3)] $\langle p_{y,d},f\rangle\ge 0$ for all $y\in\bR$,
$f\inSOS_d$, i.e., $p_{y,d}\inSOS_d^*$;
\item[(4)] $\mathcal{H}_{y,d}$ is positive semidefinite for all $y\in\bR$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}

\begin{remark}
In his work \cite{Ri} on the truncated
Hamburger moment problem M.~Riesz showed that the Hankel matrix
associated to a given finite sequence of real numbers is positive semidefinite
if and only if the sequence satisfies certain equalities and inequalities
involving moments of non-negative measures. Using this result one
can add a fifth condition to
Theorem \ref{th-sd} (equivalent to those already stated) which is similar
to Theorem \ref{th-s} (5).
\end{remark}

\begin{theorem}\label{th-pd}
For $d=2k$ and $T\in\mathfrak{L}_d$ as in \eqref{w1} the following are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] $T\in\mathfrak{L}_d(POS)$;
\item[(2)] $T_y\in\mathfrak{L}_d(POS)$ for all $y\in\bR$;
\item[(3)] $\langle p_{y,d},f\rangle> 0$ for all $y\in\bR$,
$f\inPOS_d$;
\item[(4)] $\mathcal{H}_{y,d}$ is positive definite for all $y\in\bR$;
\item[(5)] $\det(\mathcal{H}_{y,m})>0$
for all $y\in\bR$, $0\le m\le d$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}

\begin{remark}
In the case of finite order linear ordinary differential operators
with constant coefficients Theorems \ref{th-s}--\ref{th-p} reduce to classical
results of Hurwitz \cite{H} and Remak \cite{Re}, see also P\'olya-Szeg\H{o}'s
\cite[Chap.~VII]{PSz}.
\end{remark}

Note that from Theorem \ref{th-pd} and the observations in \S \ref{s-prel}
one also gets a characterization of the set $\mathfrak{L}_d(ELL)$. Therefore,
these results fully solve Problem \ref{prob1}.

\section{Multivariate Polynomials}\label{s-multi}

We will now establish multivariate analogs of the characterization
theorems in \S \ref{s-uni}. Given $n\in\bN$ and
$\al=(\al_1,\ldots,\al_n)\in\bN_0^n$ let
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\bR_\al[x_1,\ldots,x_n]&=\{p\in \bR[x_1,\ldots,x_n]: \deg_{x_i}(p)\le \al_i,
\,1\le i\le n\}, \\
POS(n)&=\{p\in\bR[x_1,\ldots,x_n]:p(x_1,\ldots,x_n)> 0,
\,(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\in\bR^n\},\\
\overline{POS}(n)&=\{p\in\bR[x_1,\ldots,x_n]:p(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\ge 0,
\,(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\in\bR^n\},\\
SOS(n)&=\left\{\sum_{i=1}^{r}p_i(x_1,\ldots,x_n)^2:
p_i\in\bR[x_1,\ldots,x_n],\,1\le i\le r<\infty\right\},\\
ELL(n)&=\{p\in\bR[x_1,\ldots,x_n]:p(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\neq 0,
\,(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\in\bR^n\},\\
V_\al&=V\cap\bR_\al[x_1,\ldots,x_n],\,
V\in\{POS(n),\overline{POS}(n),SOS(n),ELL(n)\}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
These sets are the natural multivariate analogs of the ones defined in
\S \ref{s-in} for $n=1$. Note that $SOS(n)\subseteq \overline{POS}(n)$ with strict
inclusion in general.
Let $\mathfrak{L}(n)$ be the space of all linear operators
$T:\bR[x_1,\ldots,x_n]\to \bR[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$. As is well-known (cf., e.g.,
\cite{BB-P}), any
$T\in\mathfrak{L}(n)$ may be uniquely represented as an
({\em \`a priori} infinite order)
linear partial differential operator with polynomial coefficients:
\begin{equation}\label{w-n}
T=\sum_{\al\in\bN_0^n}q_\al(\bx)
\pa^\al,\quad q_\al\in\bR[x_1,\ldots,x_n],\,
\al\in\bN_0^n,
\end{equation}
where $\bx=(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$,
$\pa^\al=\pa_{x_1}^{\al_1}\cdots \pa_{x_n}^{\al_n}$ for
$\al=(\al_1,\ldots,\al_n)\in\bN_0^n$ and $\pa_{x_i}=\pa/\pa x_i$,
$1\le i\le n$. We then associate to $T$ an $n$-parameter family of
linear partial differential operators with {\em constant} coefficients
$\{T_\by\}_{\by\in\bR^n}$ given by
$$
T_\by=\sum_{\al\in\bN_0^n}q_\al(\by)
\pa^\al
$$
for any fixed $\by=(y_1,\ldots,y_n)\in\bR^n$. Moreover, for all
$\al=(\al_1,\ldots,\al_n)\in\bN_0^n$ we define an $n$-parameter family of
polynomials
$\{p_{\by,\al}\}_{\by\in\bR^n}$ by
$$
p_{\by,\al}(\bx)=\sum_{\be\le \al}q_\be(\by)\bx^\be\in \bR[x_1,\ldots,x_n]
$$
for each fixed $\by=(y_1,\ldots,y_n)\in\bR^n$, where
$\bx^\be=x_1^{\be_1}\cdots x_n^{\be_n}$
for $\bx=(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$, $\be=(\be_1,\ldots,\be_n)\in\bN_0^n$,
and we use the standard (product)
partial order on $\bN_0^n$: $\be\le \al$ provided that $\be_i\le \al_i$,
$1\le i\le n$.
Let us also introduce an $n$-parameter family of real-valued
maps $\{\mathcal{H}_\by\}_{\by\in\bR^n}$ on the additive semigroup $\bN_0^n$ by
setting
$$
\mathcal{H}_\by(\al)=\al!q_\al(\by),\quad \al=(\al_1,\ldots,\al_n)\in\bN_0^n,
$$
for any fixed $\by=(y_1,\ldots,y_n)\in\bR^n$, where as before
$\al!=\al_1!\cdots\al_n!$.

\begin{remark}\label{r-symb-m}
Clearly, $p_{\by,\al}\in\bR[x_1,\ldots,x_n,y_1,\ldots,y_n]$ for each
$\al\in\bN_0^n$. By analogy with the terminology
used in the univariate case (cf.~Remark \ref{r-term})
we call this $2n$ variable
polynomial the $\al$-{\em truncated symbol} of the operator $T$.
\end{remark}

Set
$2\al=(2\al_1,\ldots,2\al_n)\in\bN_0^n$ whenever
$\al=(\al_1,\ldots,\al_n)\in\bN_0^n$. The following theorem
characterizes all linear operators in $\mathfrak{L}(n)$ that
preserve the cone $\overline{POS}(n)$ of non-negative polynomials in $n$ variables.

\begin{theorem}\label{th-nn}
For $T\in\mathfrak{L}(n)$ as in \eqref{w-n} the following assertions are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] $T(\overline{POS}(n))\subseteq \overline{POS}(n)$;
\item[(2)] $T_\by(\overline{POS}(n))\subseteq \overline{POS}(n)$ for all $\by\in\bR^n$;
\item[(3)] $\langle p_{\by,2\al},f\rangle \ge 0$ for all $\by\in\bR^n$,
$\al\in\bN_0^n$, $f\in\overline{POS}(n)_{2\al}$, i.e.,
$p_{\by,2\al}\in\overline{POS}(n)_{2\al}^*$;
\item[(4)] For any $\bs=(s_1,\ldots,s_n)\in\bR^n$ there exists
$\mu_\bs\in\mathfrak{M}_n^+$ such that
$\int\!\bt^\al d\mu_\bs(\bt)\in\bR[s_1,\ldots,s_n]$, $\al\in\bN_0^n$, and
$\mathcal{H}_\by(\al)=\int\!\bt^\al d\mu_\by(\bt)$, $\by\in\bR^n$, $\al\in\bN_0^n$,
where $\bt^\al=t_1^{\al_1}\cdots t_n^{\al_n}$ for
$\bt=(t_1,\ldots,t_n)\in\bR^n$.
The family of operators $\{T_\by\}_{\by\in\bR^n}$ is then given by the
convolutions
$$
T_\by(f)(\bx)=\int\! f(\bt+\bx)d\mu_\by(\bt),\quad f\in\bR[x_1,\ldots,x_n],\,
\by\in\bR^n.
$$
\end{itemize}
Furthermore, each of these conditions implies:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(5)] The map $\mathcal{H}_\by:\bN_0^n\to \bR$ is a
positive semidefinite kernel on $\bN_0^n\times\bN_0^n$
for each $\by\in\bR^n$, i.e., the Hankel
matrix
$
\big(\mathcal{H}_\by(\al^i+\al^j)\big)_{i,j=1}^{m}
$
is positive semidefinite for any $m\in\bN$ and
$\{\al^1,\ldots,\al^m\}\subset \bN_0^n$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
For each $\al=(\al_1,\ldots,\al_n)\in\bN_0^n$ the cone
$\overline{POS}(n)_\al$ is invariant under shift operators $e^{\ba\cdot\pa}$,
$\ba=(a_1,\ldots,a_n)\in\bR^n$, where
$\ba\cdot\pa=a_1\pa/\pa x_1+\cdots+a_n\pa/\pa x_n$. Moreover,
one has
$$
T_\by(f)(\ba)=\sum_{\be\le \al}q_\be(\by)\pa^{\be}f(\ba)=
\langle p_{\by,\al}, e^{\ba\cdot\pa}f\rangle, \quad
f\in\bR_\al[x_1,\ldots,x_n].
$$
Note also that if $f\in\overline{POS}(n)$ then
$\deg_{x_i}(f)\equiv 0\bmod 2$, $1\le i\le n$.
The equivalences (1) $\Leftrightarrow$ (2) $\Leftrightarrow$ (3) follow
readily from
these facts and straightforward extensions of the arguments in the proof of
Theorem \ref{th-s} to the multivariate case.

Next, since $T_\by(f)(\bo)=\langle p_{\by,\be},f\rangle$ if
$f\in\bR_\be[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$, $\be\in\bN_0^n$, Taylor's formula yields
(4) $\Rightarrow$ (3). To prove the converse,
for $\by\in\bR^n$ we let $L_\by:\bR[x_1,\ldots,x_n]\to\bR$
be the linear functional determined by $L_\by(\bx^\be)=\mathcal{H}_\by(\be)$,
$\be\in\bN_0^n$. It follows that
$$
L_\by(f)=\langle p_{\by,\be},f\rangle,\quad f\in\bR_\be[x_1,\ldots,x_n],\,
\be\in\bN_0^n.
$$
In particular, if (3) holds then $L_\by(f)\ge 0$ for all $f\in\overline{POS}(n)_{2\al}$,
$\al\in\bN_0^n$.
From Haviland's theorem (cf.~\S \ref{s-in}) and the fact
that $\mathcal{H}_\by(\be)$ is a polynomial in $\by$ for each $\be\in\bN_0^n$ we
deduce that (3) $\Rightarrow$ (4).

Let now $m\in\bN$, $\{\al^1,\ldots,\al^m\}\subset \bN_0^n$, $c_i\in\bR$,
$1\le i\le m$, and set
$$
g(\bx)=\sum_{i=1}^{m}c_i\bx^{\al^i}\in\bR[x_1,\ldots,x_n].
$$
If $\al\in\bN_0^n$ is such that $\al^i+\al^j\le \al$, $1\le i,j\le m$,
one has the identity
\begin{equation}\label{eq-extra}
\langle p_{\by,\al},g^2\rangle=\sum_{i,j=1}^m\mathcal{H}_\by(\al^i+\al^j)c_ic_j.
\end{equation}
Since $g^2\in\overline{POS}(n)$ this proves that (3) $\Rightarrow$ (5).
\end{proof}

The next theorem gives a characterization of all linear operators in $\mathfrak{L}(n)$
that preserve the cone $POS(n)$ of positive polynomials in $n$ variables.

\begin{theorem}\label{th-pm}
For $T\in\mathfrak{L}(n)$ as in \eqref{w-n} the following assertions are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] $T(POS(n))\subseteq POS(n)$;
\item[(2)] $T_\by(POS(n))\subseteq POS(n)$ for all $\by\in\bR^n$;
\item[(3)] $\langle p_{\by,2\al},f\rangle > 0$ for all $\by\in\bR^n$,
$\al\in\bN_0^n$, $f\inPOS(n)_{2\al}$;
\item[(4)] For any $\bs=(s_1,\ldots,s_n)\in\bR^n$ there exists
$\mu_\bs\in\mathfrak{M}_n^+$ whose support is not contained in a proper real algebraic
variety\footnote{In other words, $\supp(\mu_\bs)$ is not a subset of
$f^{-1}(0)$ for some $f\in\bR[x_1,\ldots,x_n]\setminus \{0\}$.} such that
for all $\al\in\bN_0^n$ one has
$\int\!\bt^\al d\mu_\bs(\bt)\in\bR[s_1,\ldots,s_n]$ and
$\mathcal{H}_\by(\al)=\int\!\bt^\al d\mu_\by(\bt)$, $\by\in\bR^n$.
The family of operators $\{T_\by\}_{\by\in\bR^n}$ is then given by the
convolutions
$$
T_\by(f)(\bx)=\int\! f(\bt+\bx)d\mu_\by(\bt),\quad f\in\bR[x_1,\ldots,x_n],\,
\by\in\bR^n.
$$
\end{itemize}
Furthermore, each of these conditions implies:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(5)] The map $\mathcal{H}_\by:\bN_0^n\to \bR$ is a
positive definite kernel on $\bN_0^n\times\bN_0^n$
for each $\by\in\bR^n$, i.e., the Hankel
matrix
$
\big(\mathcal{H}_\by(\al^i+\al^j)\big)_{i,j=1}^{m}
$
is positive definite for any $m\in\bN$ and
$\{\al^1,\ldots,\al^m\}\subset \bN_0^n$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Since $POS(n)_{2\al}$ is invariant under shift operators $e^{\ba\cdot\pa}$,
$\ba\in\bR^n$, the arguments in the proof of Theorem \ref{th-nn}
carry over {\em mutatis mutandis}
to the present situation so we will not repeat them.
The only novelty concerns the extra condition in (4) above
on the support of the
 measures $\mu_\bs$ (this condition does not appear in
Theorem \ref{th-nn}~(4)) for which we refer to e.g.~Exercise 3.14 in
\cite[Chap.~6]{BCR}.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
Elementary homotopy arguments show that $ELL(n)=POS(n)\cup(-POS(n))$ and
if $T\in\mathfrak{L}(n)$ then
$T(ELL(n))\subseteq ELL(n)$ if and only if either
$T(POS(n))\subseteq POS(n)$ or $T(POS(n))\subseteq -POS(n)$. Therefore,
Theorem \ref{th-pm} also yields
a description of all linear operators in $\mathfrak{L}(n)$ preserving
the set $ELL(n)$ of elliptic polynomials in $n$ variables.
\end{remark}

The above theorems solve the multivariate analogs of the ``soft''
(transcendental/unbounded
degree) classification questions stated in Problem \ref{prob2}. It is clear
that one gets ``hard'' (algebraic/bounded
degree) theorems in similar fashion. More precisely,
given $\al\in\bN_0^n$ and a linear operator $T:\bR_{2\al}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]\to
\bR[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ it follows from the proofs of
Theorems \ref{th-nn}--\ref{th-pm} that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
T(\overline{POS}(n)_{2\al})\subseteq \overline{POS}(n) &\Leftrightarrow
T_\by(\overline{POS}(n)_{2\al})\subseteq \overline{POS}(n) \,\text{ for all }\,\by\in\bR^n \\
&\Leftrightarrow
\langle p_{\by,2\al},f\rangle \ge 0 \,\text{ for all }\,\by\in\bR^n,
f\in\overline{POS}(n)_{2\al}
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
(i.e., $p_{\by,2\al}\in\overline{POS}(n)_{2\al}^*$ for all $\by\in\bR^n$) and
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
T(POS(n)_{2\al})\subseteq POS(n) &\Leftrightarrow
T_\by(POS(n)_{2\al})\subseteq POS(n) \,\text{ for all }\,\by\in\bR^n \\
&\Leftrightarrow
\langle p_{\by,2\al},f\rangle > 0 \,\text{ for all }\,\by\in\bR^n,
f\inPOS(n)_{2\al}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
These equivalences answer the multivariate analogs of the classification
questions raised in Problem \ref{prob1}.

\section{Related Results and Further Directions}\label{s-rem}

\noindent
{\bf 1.}~It is interesting to compare
the classification theorems established here with those obtained
in \cite{BB-LY,BB-A,BB-P} for linear operators preserving real-rooted
polynomials or their multivariate analogs. A common feature is the use of
appropriately defined operator symbols, see Remarks \ref{r-term},
\ref{r-algs}, and \ref{r-symb-m}. However, the truncated symbols
introduced here are employed in a different way than the symbols used in
\cite{BB-LY,BB-A}.
Note for instance that if $T\in\mathfrak{L}(POS)$ is as in
\eqref{w-1} then for each $m\in\bN_0$ its $2m$-truncated symbol
$p_{y,2m}(x)$ is a positive polynomial in variables $x,y$ (since all
even degree truncations of the exponential series are positive) but the
converse statement is not true, as one can see from
e.g.~Corollary \ref{c-fo} (b) below. By contrast, the main results
in \cite{BB-A} essentially assert that a linear operator
preserves the set of univariate real-rooted polynomials if and only if its
symbol is a ``real-rooted'' polynomial in two variables (in some appropriate
sense).

We should also note that there are plenty of linear differential
operators of positive order in the Weyl algebra $\cA_1(\bR)$ which
preserve real-rootedness
(these are characterized in \cite{BB-A,BB-P}) whereas
no such operators preserve positive, non-negative or elliptic polynomials
(cf.~Corollary \ref{c-fo}).

The equivalent conditions in our main results successively describe linear
operators preserving non-negativity by means of linear differential operators
with constant coefficients, Fischer-Fock dual cones,
positive semidefinite Hankel forms, and convolution operators induced
by non-negative measures (Theorems \ref{th-s} and \ref{th-nn}).
The Fischer-Fock product was also used in Theorem 1.11 of \cite{BB-P}
which asserts that
an operator $T\in \cA_1(\bR)$ preserves real-rootedness if and only if its
Fischer-Fock adjoint $T^*$ has the same property. Note that this duality
fails for linear
operators preserving positive, non-negative or elliptic polynomials since
multiplication by a positive polynomial clearly
preserves the sets $SOS$, $POS$, $ELL$ but differential operators of positive
order in $\cA_1(\bR)$ do not. Nevertheless, Theorem \ref{th-s} (3) and
Theorem \ref{th-nn} (3) show that appropriate Fischer-Fock dualities
(in one or
several variables) do hold in the present context as well.

\bigskip

\noindent
{\bf 2.}~The classification theorems in \S \ref{s-trans}--\ref{s-alg}
yield in particular
the following improvements
of the main results in \cite{BGS} (Theorem A, Corollary, and
Theorem B in {\em op.~cit.}).

\begin{corollary}\label{c-fo}
In the above notations one has:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] If $T\in\mathfrak{L}$ is an element of the Weyl algebra $\cA_1(\bR)$ of
order
$d\ge 1$ then for any even integer $\ell>d$ one has
$T(V_\ell)\setminus V\neq\emptyset$
whenever $V\in \{POS,SOS,ELL\}$;
\item[(b)] There are no linear ordinary differential operators with polynomial
coefficients of finite
positive order in $\mathfrak{L}(POS)\cup \mathfrak{L}(SOS)\cup \mathfrak{L}(ELL)$;
\item[(c)] If $T\in\mathfrak{L}\setminus\{0\}$ is a linear
ordinary differential operator with constant coefficients then
$T\in\mathfrak{L}(POS)\Leftrightarrow T\in\mathfrak{L}(SOS)\Leftrightarrow
T\in\mathfrak{L}(ELL)\Leftrightarrow T$ is a convolution operator of the form
$$
T(f)(x)=\int\! f(t+x)d\mu(t),\quad f\in \bR[x],
$$
for some $\mu\in\mathfrak{M}_1^+$.
\end{itemize}
\end{corollary}

\begin{proof}
To prove (a) it is enough to show that $T\notin \mathfrak{L}_\ell(V)$
for the smallest even integer $\ell>d$ and
$V=SOS$ (the arguments for $V=POS$ and $V=ELL$ are similar). Let
$$
T=\sum_{i=0}^{d}q_i(x)D^i,\quad q_i\in\bR[x],\,i\in\bN_0,\,q_d\not\equiv 0,
$$
and $y\in\bR$ be such that $q_d(y)\neq 0$. If $d$ is odd set $q_{d+1}(y)=0$.
Then the
determinant of the lower right $2\times 2$ principal submatrix of $\mathcal{H}_{y,d+1}$
is $-q_d(y)^2$ so $\mathcal{H}_{y,d+1}$ is not positive
semidefinite and by Theorem \ref{th-sd}
$T\notin \mathfrak{L}_{d+1}(SOS)$. If $d$ is even set
$q_{d+1}(y)=q_{d+2}(y)=0$ and suppose that $T\in\mathfrak{L}_d(SOS)$
(if $T\notin\mathfrak{L}_d(SOS)$ there is nothing to prove since
$SOS_d\subset SOS_{d+2}$). By Theorem \ref{th-sd}
$\mathcal{H}_{y,d}$ is positive semidefinite hence $q_d(y)>0$.
The
determinant of the lower right $3\times 3$ principal submatrix of $\mathcal{H}_{y,d+2}$
equals $-q_d(y)^3$ and thus $\mathcal{H}_{y,d+2}$ cannot be positive semidefinite.
By Theorem \ref{th-sd} again we conclude that $T\notin\mathfrak{L}_{d+2}(SOS)$.

Clearly, (a) $\Rightarrow$ (b)
while (c) follows from Theorem \ref{th-s} and the fact that
if $T\in\mathfrak{L}(SOS)$ and $T(1)\equiv 0$ then $T\equiv 0$ (cf.~\S \ref{s-prel}).
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
Corollary \ref{c-fo} (a) asserts that a linear
ordinary differential operator of
order $d\ge 1$ with polynomial coefficients cannot preserve positivity,
non-negativity, or ellipticity
when acting on $\bR_\ell[x]$, where $\ell$ is any even
integer greater than $d$. In particular, this implies part (b) stating
that there are no
linear ordinary differential operators of finite positive order (acting on
$\bR[x]$) that preserve
positivity, non-negativity, or ellipticity.
Finally, part (c) asserts that a non-trivial
linear ordinary differential operator with constant coefficients (acting on
$\bR[x]$) preserves each of the sets $POS$, $SOS$, $ELL$ provided that it
preserves at least one of them and any such operator is a convolution with
a non-negative measure with all finite moments.
\end{remark}

\medskip

\noindent
{\bf 3.~}From Theorems \ref{th-nn}--\ref{th-pm} we deduce that any linear
partial differential operator with constant coefficients that preserves
non-negativity or positivity is actually a convolution operator induced by a
non-negative measure with all finite moments. More precisely, we have the
following multivariate analog of Corollary \ref{c-fo} (c).

\begin{corollary}\label{c-2}
Let $T\in\mathfrak{L}(n)$ be a linear partial differential operator with constant
coefficients.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] The following assertions are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $T(\overline{POS}(n))\subseteq \overline{POS}(n)$;
\item[(b)] There exists $\mu\in\mathfrak{M}_n^+$ such that $T$ may be represented as
the convolution
$$
T(f)(\bx)=\int\! f(\bt+\bx)d\mu(\bt),\quad f\in\bR[x_1,\ldots,x_n].
$$
\end{itemize}
\item[(ii)] The following assertions are also equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(c)] $T(POS(n))\subseteq POS(n)$;
\item[(d)] There exists $\mu\in\mathfrak{M}_n^+$ whose support is not contained in a
proper real algebraic
variety such that $T$ may be represented as the convolution
$$
T(f)(\bx)=\int\! f(\bt+\bx)d\mu(\bt),\quad f\in\bR[x_1,\ldots,x_n].
$$
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\end{corollary}

A similar corollary follows for diagonal operators in the standard monomial
basis of $\bR[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$, i.e., operators $T\in\mathfrak{L}(n)$ given by
$T(\bx^\be)=\la_\be \bx^\be$, where $\la_\be\in\bR$, $\be \in\bN_0^n$. It is
easy to see that such an operator may be uniquely represented as
$$
T=\sum_{\al\in\bN_0^n}a_\al\bx^\al \pa^\al,\quad a_\al\in\bR,\,\al\in\bN_0^n,
$$
and that $\la_\be=\sum_{\al\le \be}(\be)_\al a_\al$ for $\be \in\bN_0^n$,
where as usual $(\be)_\al=(\be_1)_{\al_1}\cdots (\be_n)_{\al_n}$ and
$(m)_k=m(m-1)\cdots (m-k+1)$ whenever $k,m\in\bN_0$ with $k\le m$. Elementary
computations then yield the following implication:
$$
\al!a_\al=\int \bt^\al d\mu(\bt),\,\al\in\bN_0^n\,\,\,\Longrightarrow \,\,\,
\la_\be=\int (\bt+\bone)^\be d\mu(\bt)=\int \bs^\be d\nu(\bs),\,
\be\in \bN_0^n,
$$
where $\bone$ denotes the all ones vector and $\bs=\bt+\bone$
(note in particular that for $\mu,\nu$ as above one has
$\mu\in\mathfrak{M}_n^+\Leftrightarrow \nu\in\mathfrak{M}_n^+$). Hence, if the condition in the
left-hand side of the above implication holds we deduce that the diagonal
operator $T$ is given by
$$
T(f)(\bx)=\int f(\bs\bx)d\nu(\bs),\quad f\in\bR[x_1,\ldots,x_n],
$$
where $\bs\bx=(s_1x_1,\ldots,s_nx_n)$. The next statement is therefore an
immediate consequence of these arguments and
Theorems \ref{th-nn}--\ref{th-pm}.

\begin{corollary}\label{c-3}
Let $T\in\mathfrak{L}(n)$ be a diagonal operator given by
$T(\bx^\be)=\la_\be \bx^\be$, $\la_\be\in\bR$, $\be \in\bN_0^n$.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] The following assertions are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $T(\overline{POS}(n))\subseteq \overline{POS}(n)$;
\item[(b)] There exists $\nu\in\mathfrak{M}_n^+$ such that $T$ may be represented as
$$
T(f)(\bx)=\int f(\bs\bx)d\nu(\bs),\quad f\in\bR[x_1,\ldots,x_n].
$$
\end{itemize}
\item[(ii)] The following assertions are also equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(c)] $T(POS(n))\subseteq POS(n)$;
\item[(d)] There exists $\nu\in\mathfrak{M}_n^+$ whose support is not contained in a
proper real algebraic
variety such that $T$ may be represented as
$$
T(f)(\bx)=\int f(\bs\bx)d\nu(\bs),\quad f\in\bR[x_1,\ldots,x_n].
$$
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\end{corollary}

\begin{remark}\label{r-hom}
Let $T\in\mathfrak{L}(n)$ be either a partial differential operator with
constant coefficients or a diagonal operator. Note that $T(1)$ is then
a constant polynomial and suppose that $T(\overline{POS}(n))\subseteq \overline{POS}(n)$.
If $T(1)=0$ it
follows from Corollary \ref{c-2} (i) (respectively, Corollary \ref{c-3} (i))
that
the the non-negative measure $\mu$ (respectively, $\nu$) has total mass zero
and then $T\equiv 0$. Therefore, if $T\not\equiv 0$ then $T(1)>0$ and so if
$f\inPOS(n)$ one gets $T(f)=T(f-a)+aT(1)\inPOS(n)$, where
$a>0$ is such that $f-a\inPOS(n)$ (clearly, such $a$ exists for any
$f\inPOS(n)$). We conclude that if $T\in\mathfrak{L}(n)\setminus \{0\}$ is as in
Corollary \ref{c-2} or Corollary \ref{c-3}
then $T(\overline{POS}(n))\subseteq \overline{POS}(n)\Leftrightarrow
T(POS(n))\subseteq POS(n)$.
\end{remark}

\medskip

\noindent
{\bf 4.~}If $n\ge 2$ one has
in general $SOS(n)\subsetneq \overline{POS}(n)$ and it is
natural to ask
for a characterization of the set $\{T\in\mathfrak{L}(n): T(SOS(n))\subseteq \overline{POS}(n)\}$
(obviously, this set contains the semigroup
of all $T\in\mathfrak{L}(n)$ such that $T(\overline{POS}(n))\subseteq \overline{POS}(n)$ that we already
described in Theorem \ref{th-nn}).
The following theorem provides an answer to this question.

\begin{theorem}\label{th-sn}
For $n\ge 2$ and $T\in\mathfrak{L}(n)$ as in \eqref{w-n} the following are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] $T(SOS(n))\subseteq \overline{POS}(n)$;
\item[(2)] $T_\by(SOS(n))\subseteq \overline{POS}(n)$ for all $\by\in\bR^n$;
\item[(3)] $\langle p_{\by,2\al},f\rangle \ge 0$ for all $\by\in\bR^n$,
$\al\in\bN_0^n$, $f\inSOS(n)_{2\al}$, i.e., $p_{\by,2\al}\inSOS(n)_{2\al}^*$;
\item[(4)] The map $\mathcal{H}_\by:\bN_0^n\to \bR$ is a
positive semidefinite kernel on $\bN_0^n\times\bN_0^n$
for each $\by\in\bR^n$, i.e., the Hankel
matrix
$
\big(\mathcal{H}_\by(\al^i+\al^j)\big)_{i,j=1}^{m}
$
is positive semidefinite for any $m\in\bN$ and
$\{\al^1,\ldots,\al^m\}\subset \bN_0^n$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Since $SOS(n)=\cup_{\al\in\bN_0^n}SOS(n)_{2\al}$ and each cone
$SOS(n)_{2\al}$ is invariant under shift operators
$e^{\ba\cdot\pa}$, $\ba\in\bR^n$, the implications (1) $\Leftrightarrow$
(2) $\Leftrightarrow$ (3) $\Rightarrow$ (4) follow
as in the proof of Theorem~\ref{th-nn}. To show that (4) $\Rightarrow$ (3)
note that $f\in SOS(n)_{2\al}$ if and only if $f=\sum_{j=1}^{r}g_j^2$ for some
$r\in\bN$ and $g_j\in\bR_{\al}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$, $1\le j\le r$. Given
$\al\in\bN_0^n$ let $m=m(\al)$ be the cardinality of
$\{\be\in\bN_0^n:\be\le \al\}$ (which is clearly finite) and order this set
lexicographically as $\{\al^1,\ldots,\al^m\}$. Any
$g\in\bR_{\al}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ may then be written as
$$
g(\bx)=\sum_{i=1}^{m}c_i\bx^{\al^i},\quad c_i\in\bR,\,1\le i\le m,
$$
so the desired conclusion follows from \eqref{eq-extra}.
\end{proof}

In view of Theorem \ref{th-sn} and Corollary \ref{c-2} one may ask whether the
following analog of Hilbert's 17th problem holds, cf.~\cite[Problem 17]{BBCV}.

\begin{question}
Is it true that for any $p\in\overline{POS}(n)$ there exist $f\inSOS(n)$ and a linear
partial
differential operator with constant coefficients $T\in\mathfrak{L}(n)$ such that
$T(SOS(n))\subseteq \overline{POS}(n)$ and $T(f)=p$?
\end{question}

Classical Analysis and ODEs (math.CA); Functional Analysis (math.FA)