No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Non-integrability of the restricted three-body problem
Part of:
Differential equations in the complex domain
Asymptotic theory
Finite-dimensional Hamiltonian, Lagrangian, contact, and nonholonomic systems
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2024
Abstract
The problem of non-integrability of the circular restricted three-body problem is very classical and important in the theory of dynamical systems. It was partially solved by Poincaré in the nineteenth century: he showed that there exists no real-analytic first integral which depends analytically on the mass ratio of the second body to the total and is functionally independent of the Hamiltonian. When the mass of the second body becomes zero, the restricted three-body problem reduces to the two-body Kepler problem. We prove the non-integrability of the restricted three-body problem both in the planar and spatial cases for any non-zero mass of the second body. Our basic tool of the proofs is a technique developed here for determining whether perturbations of integrable systems which may be non-Hamiltonian are not meromorphically integrable near resonant periodic orbits such that the first integrals and commutative vector fields also depend meromorphically on the perturbation parameter. The technique is based on generalized versions due to Ayoul and Zung of the Morales–Ramis and Morales–Ramis–Simó theories. We emphasize that our results are not just applications of the theories.
- Type
- Original Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Acosta-Humánez, P. B., Lázaro, J. T., Morales-Ruiz, J. J. and Pantazi, C.. Differential Galois theory and non-integrability of planar polynomial vector field. J. Differential Equations 264 (2018), 7183–7212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acosta-Humánez, P. B. and Yagasaki, K.. Nonintegrability of the unfoldings of codimension-two bifurcations. Nonlinearity 33 (2020), 1366–1387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, V. I.. Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics, 2nd edn. Springer, New York, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, V. I., Kozlov, V. V. and Neishtadt, A. I.. Dynamical Systems III: Mathematical Aspects of Classical and Celestial Mechanics, 3rd edn.. Springer, Berlin, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayoul, M. and Zung, N. T.. Galoisian obstructions to non-Hamiltonian integrability. C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris 348 (2010), 1323–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrow-Green, J.. Poincaré and the Three-Body Problem. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogoyavlenskij, O. I.. Extended integrability and bi-Hamiltonian systems. Comm. Math. Phys. 196 (1998), 19–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boucher, D.. Sur la non-intégrabilité du problème plan des trois corps de masses égales. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math. 331 (2000), 391–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boucher, D. and Weil, J.-A.. Application of J.-J. Morales and J.-P. Ramis’ theorem to test the non-complete integrability of the planar three-body problem. From Combinatorics to Dynamical Systems. Ed. Fauvet, F. and Mitschi, C.. de Gruyter, Berlin, 2003, pp. 163–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Combot, T.. A note on algebraic potentials and Morales–Ramis theory. Celestial Mech. Dynam. Astronom. 115 (2013), 397–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crespo, T. and Hajto, Z.. Algebraic Groups and Differential Galois Theory. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guardia, M., Martín, P. and Seara, T. M.. Oscillatory motions for the restricted planar circular three body problem. Invent. Math. 203 (2016), 417–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guckenheimer, J. and Holmes, P.. Nonlinear Oscillations, Dynamical Systems, and Bifurcations of Vector Fields. Springer, New York, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozlov, V. V.. Integrability and non-integarbility in Hamiltonian mechanics. Russian Math. Surveys 38 (1983), 1–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozlov, V. V.. Symmetries, Topology and Resonances in Hamiltonian Mechanics. Springer, Berlin, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Llibre, J. and Simó, C.. Oscillatory solutions in the planar restricted three-body problem. Math. Ann. 248 (1980), 153–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maciejewski, A. J. and Przybylska, M.. Non-integrability of the three-body problem. Celestial Mech. Dynam. Astronom. 110 (2011), 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melnikov, V. K.. On the stability of the center for time periodic perturbations. Trans. Moscow Math. Soc. 12 (1963), 1–56.Google Scholar
Meyer, K. R. and Offin, D. C.. Introduction to Hamiltonian Dynamical Systems and the N-Body Problem, 3rd edn. Springer, Cham, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morales-Ruiz, J. J.. Differential Galois Theory and Non-Integrability of Hamiltonian Systems. Birkhäuser, Basel, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morales-Ruiz, J. J.. A note on a connection between the Poincaré–Arnold–Melnikov integral and the Picard–Vessiot theory. Differential Galois Theory (Banach Center Publications, 58). Ed. Crespo, T. and Hajto, Z.. Institute of Mathematics of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, 2002, pp. 165–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morales-Ruiz, J. J. and Ramis, J.-P..
Galoisian obstructions to integrability of Hamiltonian systems
. Methods Appl. Anal. 8 (2001), 33–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morales-Ruiz, J. J., Ramis, J.-P. and Simó, C.. Integrability of Hamiltonian systems and differential Galois groups of higher variational equations. Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér. (4) 40 (2007), 845–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morales-Ruiz, J. J., Simó, C. and Simon, S.. Algebraic proof of the non-integrability of Hill’s problem. Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. 25 (2005), 1237–1256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morales-Ruiz, J. J. and Simon, S.. On the meromorphic non-integrability of some
$N$
-body problems. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 24 (2009), 1225–1273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
$N$
-body problems. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 24 (2009), 1225–1273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarMoser, J.. Stable and Random Motions in Dynamical Systems. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1973.Google Scholar
Motonaga, S. and Yagasaki, K.. Obstructions to integrability of nearly integrable dynamical systems near regular level sets. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 247 (2023), 44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Motonaga, S. and Yagasaki, K.. Nonintegrability of forced nonlinear oscillators. Jpn. J. Ind. Appl. Math. 41 (2024), 151–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poincaré, H.. Sur le probléme des trois corps et les équations de la dynamique. Acta Math. 13 (1890), 1–270; Engl.transl. The Three-Body Problem and the Equations of Dynamics. Transl. by D. Popp. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2017.Google Scholar
Poincaré, H.. New Methods of Celestial Mechanics, Vol. 1. AIP Press, New York, 1992 (original 1892).Google Scholar
Simó, C. and Stuchi, T.. Central stable/unstable manifolds and the destruction of KAM tori in the planar Hill problem. Phys. D 140 (2000), 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsygvintsev, A.. La non-intégrabilité méromorphe du problème plan des trois corps. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math. 331 (2000), 241–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsygvintsev, A.. The meromorphic non-integrability of the three-body problem. J. Reine Angew. Math. 537 (2001), 127–149.Google Scholar
Tsygvintsev, A.. Sur l’absence d’une intégrale premi
$\grave{r}$
e mŕomorphe supplémentaire dans le probléme plan des trois corps. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math. 333 (2001), 125–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
$\grave{r}$
e mŕomorphe supplémentaire dans le probléme plan des trois corps. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math. 333 (2001), 125–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarTsygvintsev, A.. Non-existence of new meromorphic first integrals in the planar three-body problem. Celestial Mech. Dynam. Astronom. 86 (2003), 237–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsygvintsev, A.. On some exceptional cases in the integrability of the three-body problem. Celestial Mech. Dynam. Astronom. 99 (2007), 23–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Put, M. and Singer, M. F.. Galois Theory of Linear Differential Equations. Springer, Berlin, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittaker, E. T.. A Treatise on the Analytical Dynamics of Particles and Rigid Bodies, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1937.Google Scholar
Wiggins, S.. Introduction to Applied Nonlinear Dynamical Systems and Chaos, 2nd edn. Springer, New York, 2003.Google Scholar
Xia, Z.. Mel’nikov method and transversal homoclinic points in the restricted three-body problem. J. Differential Equations 96 (1992), 170–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yagasaki, K.. Nonintegrability of nearly integrable dynamical systems near resonant periodic orbits. J. Nonlinear Sci. 32 (2022), 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yagasaki, K.. A new proof of Poincaré’s result on the restricted three-body problem. Preprint, 2022, arXiv:2111.11031 [math.DS].Google Scholar
Yoshida, H.. A criterion for the non-existence of an additional integral in Hamiltonian systems with a homogeneous potential. Phys. D 29 (1987), 128–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziglin, S. L.. Self-intersection of the complex separatrices and the non-existing of the integrals in the Hamiltonian systems with one-and-half degrees of freedom. J. Appl. Math. Mech. 45 (1982), 411–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziglin, S. L.. Bifurcation of solutions and the nonexistence of first integrals in Hamiltonian mechanics. I. Funct. Anal. Appl. 16 (1982), 181–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziglin, S. L.. On involutive integrals of groups of linear symplectic transformations and natural mechanical systems with homogeneous potential. Funct. Anal. Appl. 34 (2000), 179–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zung, N. T.. A conceptual approach to the problem of action-angle variables. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 229 (2018), 789–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar