Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
F ij = force on ith by j th
and to write
F ji
F ij = F
as an expression of Newtons 3
3 -body forces
rd
action = reaction
(1.1)
F i,jk = force on j th due to membership in i, j, k
and to consider it to be a requirement of an enlarged 3rd Law that2
F i,jk + F j,ki + F k,ij = 0
(1.2)
(2.1)
x1 , x2 , x3 ) and require
For a 3-particle system we introduce U interaction (x
1 + 2 + 3 )U interaction (x
x1 , x2 , x3 ) = 0
(
..
.
(2.2)
r 23 . . . r 2n
: total of N = 12 n(n 1) such r s
..
r n1,n
2
Introduction
Rotational insensitivity
V interaction (Rrr12 , Rrr13 , . . .) = V interaction ( r 12 , r 13 , . . .)
pretty evidently requires that the translationally invariant interaction potential
depend upon its arguments r ij only through their dot products
rij,kl = r ij r kl = xi xk xi xl xj xk + xj xl
of which there is a symmetric array with a total of
1
2 N (N
elements.
n
2
1
2 (n
n + 2)(n 1)n
1
2
3
4
0
1
6
21
5
6
55
120
1 U + 2 U = 0
where rij rij,ij = r ij r ij and from which arguments of the form rij,kl
(three or more indices distinct) are absent. To create a many-body celestial
mechanics Newton would, in eect, have us set
it to be the case that particles m1 and m2 are subject to no forces except for
the conservative central forces which they exert upon each other. Proceeding
in reference to a Cartesian inertial frame,5 we write
1 =
1 U
x1 x2 ) (x
x1 x2 )
m1x
(x
(3)
2 =
2 U
x1 x2 ) (x
x1 x2 )
m2x
(x
A change of variables renders this system of equations much more amenable to
solution. Writing
X
m1x1 + m2x2 = (m1 + m2 )X
(4.1)
x1
x2 =
R
we have
x1 = X +
x2 = X
m2
m1 +m2 R
m1
m1 +m2 R
whence
2
R
r 1 = + m1m+m
2
1
r 2 = m1m+m
R
2
(4.2)
=
R
1
m1
1
m2
U (R)
(5.1)
(5.2)
Equation (5.1) says simply that in the absence of externally impressed forces
4
m1
r1
x1
r2
X
m2
x2
1
m1
1
m2
m1 m2
m1 +m2
(6)
= U (R)R
(7)
Gm1 m2
R in the gravitational case
R2
Figure 3 illustrates the sense in which the one -body problem posed by (5.2)
is equivalent to the two -body problem from which it sprang.
x1 , x2 , . . . , xN } mark (relative to an inertial
DIGRESSION:6 Suppose vectors {x
frame) the instantaneous positions of a population {m1 , m2 , . . . , mN } of N > 2
particles. We have good reasonrooted in the (generalized) 3rd Law7 to
expect the center of mass
1
XM
mi x i : M
mi
i
to retain its utility, and know that in many contexts the relative coordinates
X , r 1 , r 2 , . . . , r N } as independent
r i xi X do too. But we cannot adopt {X
variables, for the system has only 3N (not 3N
+ 3) degrees of freedom, and the
r i are subject at all times to the constraint i mir i = 0. To drop one (which
one?) of the r i would lead to a formalism less symmetric that the physics it
would describe. It becomes therefore natural to ask: Can the procedure (4) that
served so well in the case N = 2 be adapted to cases N > 2 ? The answer is:
Yes, but not so advantageously as one might have anticipated or desired.
Reading from Figure 4b, we have
R 2 = x1 x2
1
R 3 = m1 +m
(m1x1 + m2x2 ) x3
2
R4 =
X =
1
m1 +m2 +m3 (m1 x 1 + m2 x 2 + m3 x 3 ) x 4
1
x
x
x
x
m1 +m2 +m3 +m4 (m1 1 + m2 2 + m3 3 + m4 4 )
m1 +m2 +m3
m1 +m2 +m3 +m4 R 4
m4
m1 +m2 +m3 +m4 R 4
m4
m1 +m2 +m3 +m4 R 4
m4
m1 +m2 +m3 +m4 R 4
= X + r4
+
+
m1 +m2
m1 +m2 +m3 R 3
m3
m1 +m2 +m3 R 3
m3
m1 +m2 +m3 R 3
= X + r3
m1
m1 +m2 R 2
m2
m1 +m2 R 2
= X + r2
= X + r1
(8)
x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 } that serve
Figure 4a: Shown above : the vectors {x
to describe the instantaneous positions of {m1 , m2 , m3 , m4 } relative
to an inertial frame. Shown below: the vector X that marks the
position of the center of mass and the vectors {rr1 , r 2 , r 3 , r 4 } that
serveredundantlyto describe position relative to the center of
mass.
m3
R3
m2
R4
m4
R2
m1
Through presented in the case N = 4, it is clear how one would extend (8)
to higher order. To pull back to order N = 3 one has only to strike the rst
equation and then to set m4 = 0 in the equations that remain.
10
= 12 m1 + m2 X X + 12 2R 2 R 2
1
2 m1 x 1 x 1 + m2 x 2 x 2 + m3 x 3 x 3
= 12 m1 + m2 + m3 X X + 12 2R 2 R 2 + 12 3R 3 R 3
1
2 m1 x 1 x 1 + m2 x 2 x 2 + m3 x 3 x 3 + m4 x 4 x 4
= 12 m1 + m2 + m3 + m4 X X + 12 2R 2 R 2 + 12 3R 3 R 3 + 12 4R 4 R 4
..
.
1
2
where
2
3
4
..
.
1
m1
1
m2
1
2
1
m3
1
3
1
m4
1
1
1
m1 m2
m1 +m2
(m1 +m2 )m3
m1 +m2 +m3
(9)
r1
r 2 =M R 2
R3
r3
2
+ m1m+m
2
m1
M m1 +m2
m3
+ m1 +m
2 +m3
m3
+ m1 +m
: Note that M is 3 2
+m
2
3
1 +m2
m1m+m
2 +m3
m1
M T 0
0
0
m2
0
0
2
M=
0
0
m3
0
3
But while the R -variables are well-adapted to the description of kinetic energy,
11
we see from9
r1 r2 =
R2
r1 r3 =
r2 r3 =
m2
m1 +m2 R 2
m2
m1 +m2 R 2
1
m1m+m
R2
2
r2 r4 =
1
m1m+m
R2
2
r1 r4 =
r3 r4 =
R3
m3
m1 +m2 +m3 R 3
R3
m3
m1 +m2 +m3 R 3
m1 +m2
m1 +m2 +m3 R 3
+ R4
+ R4
+ R4
2 2
1
2
2
U = G m1 m2 R22 2 + m1 m3 m1m+m
R2 + m1m+m
R 2R 3 + R32 2
2
2
2 2
1
m1
2 2
1
+ m2 m3 m1m+m
R
R
+
R
2
3
2
3
m1 +m2
2
= Gm1 m2 / R 2R 2 when m3 is extinguished
which provides one indication of why it is that the 2 -body problem is so much
easier than the 3 -body problem, but at the same time suggests that the variables
R 2 and R 3 may be of real use in this physical application. As, apparently,
they turn out to be: consulting A. E. Roys Orbital Motion (), I discover
R 2 and R
R 3 were introduced by Jacobi and
(see his 5.11.3) that r R
Lagrange, and are known to celestial mechanics as Jacobian coordinates. For
an interesting recent application, and modern references, see R. G. Littlejohn
& M. Reinseh, Gauge elds in the separation of rotations and internal motions
in the n-body problem, RMP 69, 213 (1997).
It is interesting to note that the pretty idea from which this discussion
has proceeded (Figure 4b) was elevated to the status of (literally) ne art
by Alexander Calder (), the American sculptor celebrated for his
invention of the mobile.
9
A little practice shows better than any explanation how the procedure works,
and how wonderfully ecient it is.
12
the system
L(r , r ) = 12 r r U (r)
(10)
x2 .
where I have written r for the vector that came to us (Figure 3) as R x1 x
Equivalently
1
H(pp, r ) = 2
p p + U (r)
(11)
where
p L/ r = r
The Lagrange equations read
r + U = 0 or (compare (5.2))
r = r1 U (r) r
which in the Hamiltonian formalism are rendered
r = 1 p
p = r1 U (r) r
(12)
(13)
(14)
while from the manifest rotational invariance of the Lagrangian it follows (on
those same grounds) that angular momentum10 is conserved
L = r p is a vectorial constant of the motion
(15)
We can anticipate that once values have been assigned to E and L the general
solution r (t; E, L) of the equation(s) of motion (12) will contain two adjustable
parameters. In Hamiltonian mechanics (14) reduces to the triviality [H, H ] = 0
while (15) becomes
[H, L ] = 0
(16)
Since L stands to the plane dened by r and p,11 and since also L is
invariant, it follows that the vectors r (t) are conned to a planethe orbital
plane, normal to L, that contains the force center as a distinguished point. The
existence of an orbital plane can be understood physically on grounds that
because the force is centralthe particle never experiences a force that would
pull it out of the plane dened by {rr(0), r (0)}.
10
13
(17)
(18)
But from
while -independence implies conservation of p L/ = r2 .
L3 = r1 p2 r2 p1 = r cos (r sin + r cos ) r sin (r cos r sin )
= r2
(19)
we see that p , L3 and ( are just dierent names for the same thing. From (18)
we obtain
r = 2 E U (r) r2 2
= (/r2
which by
becomes
2
E U (r)
2
2r 2
(20)
(21)
r0
1
2
E U (r)
2
2r 2
dr
(22)
2r 2
14
2
2r 2
dr
(23)
(24)
has been reduced, in short, to the problem posed by the eective Lagrangian
L
= 12 r 2 U
(r)
The beauty of the situation is that in 1-dimensional problems it is possible
to gain powerful insight from the simplest of diagramatic arguments. We will
rehearse some of those, as they relate to the Kepler problem and other special
cases, in later sections. In the meantime, see Figure 5.
Bound orbits arise when the values of E and ( are such that r is trapped
between turning points rmin and rmax . In such cases one has
angular advance per radial period
rmax
(/r2
=2
dr
2
2
rmin
E
U
(r)
2r
(25)
U (r) = kr2
U (r) = k/r
:
:
isotropic oscillator
Kepler problem
have the property that every bound orbit closes (and in both of those cases
closure occurs after a single circuit.
I return to this topic in 7, but in the meantime, see 3.6 and Appendix A
in the 2nd edition () of H. Goldsteins Classical Mechanics. . Or see 2.3.3
in J. V. Jose & E. Saletan, Classical Dynamics: A Contemporary Approach
().
12
15
(2
2r02
2
r0
E =2 ( 2 =2
2r0
2
r02 = (/
E = (
We will return also to this topic in 7, but in the meantime see Goldstein12
or thermodynamics & statistical mechanics (), pages 162164.
13
16
17
Orbital design
n = 0, 1, 2, . . .
2
r0 =
k
2
k
E= 2
2
k 2 1
22 n2
n = 1, 2, 3, . . .
2
2r 2
dr
(26)
Even for simple power-law potentials U = krn the integrals (25) and (26)
are analytically intractable except in a few cases (so say the books, and
Mathematica appears to agree). Certainly analytical integration is certainly
out of the question when U (r) is taken to be one or another of the standard
phenomenological potentialssuch, for example, as the Yukawa potential
r
U (r) = ke
r
trajectory (or orbit) from motion along a trajectory. We have entered now into
a subject area which in fact sprang historically from a statement concerning
orbital design: the 1st Law () of Johannes Kepler () asserts that
planetary orbits are elliptical, with the sun at one focus. We look to what
can be said about orbits more generally (other central force laws).
We had at bottom of page 13 a dierential equation satised by (r). For
many purposes it would, however, be more convenient to talk about r(), and
in pursuit of that objective it would be very much to our benet if we could
18
r r2 = dr
U (r)
f (r)
r 2 /r3 = f (r)
From (20) it follows also that
d
dt
d
= (/r2 ) d
so we have
d 1 d
3
(2 /) r12 d
r 2 d r (1/r ) = f (r)
Introduce the new dependent variable u = 1/r and obtain
2d 2d 1
u d u d u u3 = (/2 )f ( u1 )
whence
d 2 u + u = (/2 ) 1 f ( 1 )
u2
u
d2
d U ( u1 )
= (/2 )
du
(27.1)
(27.2)
The most favorable cases, from this point of view, are n = 1 and n = 2.
EXAMPLE: Harmonic central potential
d 2 u + u = (/)2 u3
d2
(28)
and, because our objective is mainly to check the accuracy of recent assertions, we agree to work backwards; i.e., from foreknowledge of the elementary
fact that the orbit of an isotropic oscillator is a centered ellipse. In standard
orientation
x2 + y 2 = 1
a2
b2
r() =
b2
cos2
a2 b2
+ a2 sin2
Orbital design
Figure 8: Figure derived from (29), inscribed on the a, b -plane,
shows a hyperbolic curve of constant angular momentum and several
circular arcs of constant energy. The energy arc of least energy
intersects the -curve at a = b: the associated orbit is circular.
19
20
(29.1)
(29.2)
2
E
a =
1 1
2
E
2
b2 = E 2 1 1
E
2
which simply rearms what we already knew: all isotropic oscillator orbits are
closed/periodic (see Figure 9).
4. The Kepler problem: attractive 1/ r 2 force. Here
U (r) = k r1
k>0
=
1 + cos( )
with v u p
r() =
(30)
21
22
r=
with = 0.75, 1.00, 1.25.
0=
1+
4p/q 2
2
1 + 2E2
k
< 1 : ellipse
= 1 : parabola
> 1 : hyperbola
(31)
k 2
22
i.e., E2 = 12 k 2
(32.1)
23
while the semi-minor axis (got by computing the maximal value assumed by
r() sin ) is
b=
= a
(32.2)
2
1
=
: real for that same reason
2E
The distance from center to focus is f = a so the distance from focus to
apocenter is (1 )a = /(1 + ) = rmin : this little argument serves to establish
that the force center really does reside at a focal point.
Concerning secular progress along an orbit: the area swept out by r is
A() = 12
r2 () d
so the rate of growth of A is
A = 12 r2 =
1
2
1
Multiplication by the period gives 2
= ab = a a whence (by (31))
2 =
4 2 2 3
4 2 3
a
a
=
2
k
(34)
m 1 m2
1
1
=
=
k
Gm1 m2 m1 + m2
G(m1 + m2 )
If one had in mind a system like the sun and its several lesser planets one might
write
2
1
M + m2 a1 3
=
2
M + m1 a2
and with the neglect of the planetary masses obtain Keplers 3rd Law ()
2 3
1
a1
(35)
2
a2
It is interesting to note that the harmonic force law would have supplied, by
1
the same reasoning (but use (29.1)), 2
= ab = / whence
= 2/
24
t
period
(known to astronomers as the mean anomaly) and importing from the physics
of the situation only Keplers 2nd Law, one arrives at Keplers equation (also
called the equation of time)
= 0 sin 0
(36)
25
Keplers equation
0
center
focus
r = a(1 cos 0 )
(37)
tan 12 = 1 + tan 12 0
1
These equations serve, in eect, to provide a parametric description
{r(0 ), (0 )} of the polar representation of a Keplerian ellipse (by
which phrase I mean an ellipse with one focus at the polar origin).
Elimination of the parameter would give back
r=
a(1 2 )
1 + cos
26
with x1 = x0 + (y y0 )
with x2 = x1 + (y y1 )
..
.
EXAMPLE: Suppose the problem is to solve 1.5000 = K(x; 0.2). To the command
FindRoot[1.5000==K[x,0.2], {x,1.5}]
Mathematic responds
x 1.69837
27
Keplers equation
We make our way now through the crowd at this convention of problemsolvers to engage Bessel15 in conversation. Bessels ideawhich16 iin retrospect
seems so straightforward and naturalwas to write
0 ( ) = sin 0 ( ) = 2
Bn sin n
From the theory of Fourier series (which was a relative novelty in ) one has
1
Bn = [0 ( ) ] sin n d
0
1
= n [0 ( ) ] d(cos n )
0
1
1
= n [0 ( ) ] cos n + n
cos n d[0 ( ) ]
0
0
= 0 because 0 ( ) vanishes at the apses
1
1
= n cos n d0 ( ) n cos n d
0
0
= 0 for n = 1, 2, 3 . . .
1
= n
cos n(0 sin 0 ) d0
0
15
28
Jn (x) 1
cos(n x sin ) d
0
serves to dene the Bessel function of integral order n. Bessels inversion of the
Kepler equation can now be described
0 ( ) = + 2
n Jn (n) sin n
(38)
= 1.50000 + 2 0.09925 + 0.00139 0.00143 0.00007 + 0.00005 +
= 1.69837
which is precise to all the indicated decimals. The beauty of (38) is, however,
that it speaks simultaneously about the 0 ( ) that results from every value of
, whereas Keplers method requires one to reiterate at each new -value. For
small values of Bessels (38) supplies
1 5
0 ( ) = + 18 3 + 192
+ . . . sin
+ 12 2 16 4 + sin 2
27 5
+ 38 3 128
sin 3
+ 13 4 + sin 4 +
Bessel pioneered the application of Fourier analysis to a variety of astronomical
problems, and had more to say also about its application to the inversion of
Keplers equation: for discussion of the fascinating details, see pages 27 40 in
Colwell.14
6. The Runge-Lenz vector. While the history of linear algebra is a famously
29
x = rk3 x
d
x x ) = 0, from which Gibbs obtains the angular momentum
it follows that dt
(x
vector as a constant of integration:
x x = L
constant
d
dt
x L
x
expression on the right = k
r 3 x (x x )
k
x x )x
x (x
x x)x
= r3 (x
= k
x r2x
r 3 (r r)x
1
d
= dt
k r x
entail
x L = k 1r x + K
where
K = x L k 1r x
constant of integration
The bookbased upon class notes that Gibbs had developed over a period
of nearly two decadeswas actually written by Wilson, a student of Gibbs
who went on to become chairman of the Physics Department at MIT and later
acquired great distinction as a professor at Harvard. Gibbs admitted that he
had not had time even to puruse the work before sending it to the printer.
The book contains no bibliography, no reference to the literature apart from
an allusion to work of Heaviside and F
opple which can be found in Wilsons
General Preface.
19
The argument was intended to illustrate the main point of 61, which is
that the . . . integration of vector equations in which the dierentials depend
upon scalar variables needs but a word.
30
b
f
L kr x
p L
(39)
trying to tell us? Go to either of the apses (points where the orbit intersects
the principal axis) and it becomes clear that
K runs parallel to the principal axis
L and x both do). Dotting (39) into itself we get
(because at those points p L
K K =
=
=
2 1
1
k
p L p L
p L
2 (p L ) (p L ) 2 r (p L ) x + k r 2 x x
2
1 2 2
k
by evaluation at either
2 p 2 r pr + k
2
2 1 2
k 2
2 p r + k
of the apses
giving
K2 =
which by (31) becomes
2
2
m E
= (k)2
+ k2
(40)
In Prehistory of the Runge -Lenz vector (AJP 43, 737 (1975)) Goldstein
traces the history of what he calls the Laplace -Runge -Lenz vector back to
Laplace (). Reader response to that paper permitted him in a subsequent
paper (More on the prehistory of the Laplace-Runge -Lenz vector, AJP 44,
1123 (1976)) to trace the idea back even further, to the work of one Jacob
Hermann () and its elaboration by Johann Bernoulli ().
31
P
O
C
K
q
Q
K
1 2
k
x
p r L x
32
giving
K + (k/2 )L
Lx
p = (/2 )K
= (constant vector of length
K
)
k
)
(radius) (displacement) = 2E
>0
=0
<0
:
:
:
elliptical orbit
parabolic orbit
hyperbolic orbit
L kr x
p L
r=
1 2
kr
2 /k
1 + cos
(41)
And this, we have known since (30/31), provides a polar description of the
Keplerian orbit. It is remarkable that K provides a magical high-road to the
construction of both G and H.
We are in position now to clear up a dangling detail: at the pericenter (39)
assumes the form
K = (vector of length 2 /rmin directed toward the pericenter)
+ (vector of length k directed toward the apocenter)
But from (41) it follows that
2 /rmin = k(1 + ) k
so for non-circular orbits ( > 0) the former vector predominates: the K vector
is directed toward the pericenter, as was indicated in Figure 14. From results
33
Accidental symmetry
now in hand it becomes possible to state that the center of the orbital ellipse
resides at
= (f /k)K
K = (a/k)K
K
C = f K
It will be appreciated that the invariance of the Runge-Lenz vector is a
property special to the Kepler problem. Quite generally,
= [K
K
K, H ]
and if 22
H=
1
2 p p
x x)n/2
(x
rn
the implication being that K n may be a more natural object to discuss in
such a connection than K itself.
6. Accidental symmetry. Conservation laws speak to us of symmetry. When a
U (r) we
particle m moves in the presence of an impressed central force F =
expect generally to have four conservation laws
[H, H] = 0
and
[H, L ] = 0
1
2m p p
k
x x
(42)
34
To what symmetry can (42) refer? That L -conservation refers to the rotational
symmetry of the system can be construed to follow from the observation that
the Poisson bracket algebra
[L1 , L2 ] = L3
[L2 , L3 ] = L1
[L3 , L1 ] = L2
is identical to the commutator algebra satised by the antisymmetric generators
of 3 3 rotation matrices: write
a2
0 a3
R = eA with A = a3
0 a1 = a1 L1 + a2 L2 + a3 L3
a2
a1
0
and observe that
[ L1 , L2 ] = L3
[ L2 , L3 ] = L1
[ L3 , L1 ] = L2
[L1 , K3 ] = K2
[L2 , K3 ] = +K1
[L3 , K1 ] = +K2
[L2 , K1 ] = K3
[L3 , K2 ] = K1
[K1 , K2 ] = (2H/m)L3
[K2 , K3 ] = (2H/m)L1
[K3 , K1 ] = (2H/m)L2
Dening
J K/
2H/m
[Li , Lj ] = ijk Lk
[Li , Jj ] = ijk Jk
[ Ji , Jj ] = ijk Lk
we therefore have
(43)
(44)
35
Accidental symmetry
and that
[L2 , J 2 ] = 0
with L2 L L and J 2 J J , but heavy calculation is required to establish
nally that
2 1
L2 + J 2 = k 2 m
H
(45)
On a
0
b
1
b2
b3
b1 b2 b3
0
a3 +a2
= a1 L1 + a2 L2 + a3 L3 + b1 J1 + b2 J2 + b3 J3
+a3
0
a1
a2 +a1
0
[ Li , Lj ] = ijk Lk
[ Li , Jj ] = ijk Jk
[ Ji , Jj ] = ijk Lk
(46)
are structurally identical to (44). The clear implication is that the accidental
x, p), J2 (x
x, p), J3 (x
x, p) have joined L1 (x
x, p), L2 (x
x, p),
constants of motion J1 (x
x, p) to lead us beyond the group O(3) of spherical symmetries written
L3 (x
onto the face of every central force system. . . to a group O(4) of canonical
transformations that live in the 6 -dimensional phase space of the system. The
x, p) t naturally within the framework provided by Noethers theorem, but
Li (x
x, p) refer to a symmetry that lies beyond Noethers reach.
the generators Ji (x
The situation is claried if one thinks of all the Keplerian ellipses that can
be inscribed on some given/xed orbital plane, which we can without loss of
generality take to be the {x1 , x2 }-plane. The lively generators are then
L3 (x1 , x2 , p1 , p2 ), J1 (x1 , x2 , p1 , p2 ) and J2 (x1 , x2 , p1 , p2 ),
which support the closed Poisson bracket sub-algebra
[ J1 , J2 ] = L3
[ J2 , L3 ] = J1
[L3 , J1 ] = J2
To emphasize the evident fact that we have now in hand the generators of
another copy of O(3) we adjust our notation
J1 S1
J2 S2
L3 S3
so that the preceding relations become simply
[Si , Sj ] = ijk Sk
(47.1)
36
(47.2)
37
Accidental symmetry
(48.1)
(48.2)
[ Li , Lj ] = ijk Lk
[ Li , Jj ] = ijk Jk
[ Ji , Jj ] = ijk Lk
(49)
H = 12 (a1 a1 + a2 a2 )
with
ak
ak
m xk + ipk / m
m xk ipk / m
Dene
G1
G2
G3
1
2 (a1 a1
1
2 (a1 a2
1
2i (a1 a2
a2 a2 ) =
2
2
2 2
1
1
2m (p1 p2 ) + 2 m (x1
2
1
m p1 p2 + m x1 x2
+ a2 a1 ) =
a2 a1 ) = (x1 p2 x2 p1 )
x22 )
38
1
2 H
1
2 Gi
1
4
S1 =
1
4
S2 =
1
4
S3 =
1
4
a1
a2
a1
a2
a1
a2
a1
a2
T
T
T
T
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
i
i
0
a1
a2
a1
a2
a1
a2
a1
a2
39
Accidental symmetry
r() =
a2
sin ( ) + b2 cos2 ( )
2
40
and that the traceless hermitian 2 2 matrices are Pauli matrices, well known
to be the generators of the group SU (2) of 2 2 unitary matrices with unit
determinant.
Historically, the accidental symmetry issue has been of interest mainly to
quantum physicists, who sought to understand why it is that the energy spectra
of some systems (most notably the hydrogen atom and the isotropic oscillator)
display accidental degeneracymore degeneracy than can be accounted for
by obvious symmetry arguments. We have touched here only on one side of the
story, the classical side: the more peculiarly quantum side of the story has to
do with the fact that the systems known to display accidental degeneracy are
systems in which the Schodinger equation can be separated in more than one
coordinate system.24
7. Virial theorem, Bertrands theorem. I have taken the uncommon step of linking
comun/symm/symm.html.
25
See his collected Scientic Papers, Volume II, page 410.
26
Consult Google to gain a sense of the remarkable variety of its modern
applications.
27
See, for example, H. Goldstein, Classical Mechanics (2nd edition ) 3-4.
Many applications are listed in Goldsteins index. The 3rd edition ()
presents the same argument, but omits the list of applications.
28
See thermodynamics & statistical mechanics (), pages 162166.
41
x, p) one has
it follows that for any observable A(x
d
dt A
n
A H
H A
xi pi
xi pi
i=1
[A, H ]
(50)
1
2m p p +
x)
U (x
1
x)]
= [ p x, 2m
p p ] + [ p x, U (x
1
= m p p x U
Writing
a(t) 1
we have
d
dt A
A( ) A(0)
= 2T + x U
(51)
12 x F
1
2
42
and the set of such hypervirial theorems can be expanded even further by
admitting Hamiltonians of more general design.
In quantum mechanics (50) becomes (in the Heisenberg picture)30
d
i dt
A = [A, H]
43
(52)
If, in particular, the central force derives from a potential of the form U = krn
(with k taking its sign from n) then f (r) = nkrn1 and we have33
$2 = nmkrn+2
1
1
2
n
which entails T = 2mr
= (n/2)U and so could have been obtained
2 $ = 2 nkr
directly from the virial theorem. A circular orbit of radius r0 will, however, be
stable (see again Figure 5) if an only if the eective potential
U (r) = U (r) +
$2
2mr2
is locally minimal at r0 : U
(r0 ) = 0 and U
(r0 ) > 0. In the cases U = krn the
rst condition is readily seen to require
r0n+2 =
$2
mnk
Bertrands sister Louise was married to his good friend, Charles Hermite,
who was also born in , and survived Bertrand by one year.
33
Note how odd is the case n = 2 from this point of view! . . . as it is also
from other points of view soon to emerge.
44
It was remarked already on page 14 that the equation of radial motion can
be obtained from the eective Lagrangian
L = 12 mr 2 U
(r)
To describe motion in the neighborhood of r0 we write r = r0 + and obtain
L = 12 m 2 U
(r0 ) + U
(r0 ) + 12 U
(r0 )2 +
= 12 m 2 2 2 +
The small amplitude solutions will oscillate or explode according as
2 U
(r0 )
is positive or negative. Looking again to the cases U = krn we compute
U
(r0 ) = kn(n + 2)r0n2
which is positive if and only n > 2. And even when that condition is
satised, circular orbits with radii dierent from r0 are unstable. Stability
is the exception, certainly not the rule.
The argument that culminates in Bertrands theorem has much in common
with the argument just rehearsed, the principal dierence being that we will
concern ourselvesinitially in the nearly circular casenot with the temporal
oscillations of r(t) but with the angular oscillations of u() 1/r(). At (27.1)
we had
d 2 u + u =J(u)
d2
(53)
with
J(u) = (m/$2 ) u12 f ( u1 ) = (m/$2 )
d U ( u1 )
du
while at (51) we found that u0 will refer to a circular orbit (whether stable
ormore probablynot) if and only if $2 = mu3
0 f (1/u0 ), which we are in
position now to express
u0 = J(u0 )
(54)
Writing u = u0 + x, we now have
d 2 x + x = J (u )x + 1 J (u )x2 + 1 J (u )x3
0
0
0
2
6
d2
(55)
= 1 (m/$2 ) 2 u13 f u1 +
1
u
d
= 3 f (1/u)
f
du
u
uu0
1 d
1
u2 du f u
uu0
(56)
45
(57)
which leads to this very weak conclusion: orbital closure of a perturbed circular
orbit requires that be rational.
That weak conclusion is strengthened, however, by the observation that
all {E, $}-assignments that lead to nearly circular orbits must entail the same
rational number . Were it otherwise, one would encounter discontinuous
orbital-design adjustments as one ranged over that part of parameter space.
We observe also that (56) can be written34
r d
f (r) dr f (r)
d log f
d log r
= 2 3
(58)
To relax the nearly circular assumption we must bring into play the
higher-order contributions to (55), and to preserve orbital periodicity/closure
we must have35
x = a1 cos + a0 + a2 cos 2 + a3 cos 3 +
(59)
Here is a device introduced to identify the terms we expect to be small in the
neighborhood of the circle of radius 1/u0 : once it has done its work it will be
set equal to unity. Introducing (59) into (55)which now reads
d 2 x + 2 x = 1 J (u )x2 + 1 J (u )x3 +
0
0
2
6
d2
we execute the command Series[expression,{, 0, 1}], then set = 1,
then command TrigReduce[expression] to turn cos2 and cos3 terms into their
multiple-angle equivalents, and are led by these manipulations to write
2 a0 + 0 3 2 a2 cos 2 8 2 a3 cos 3 +
1 2
2 1
1
=
+
4 a1 J + a1 4 a0 + 8 a2 J
+ a1 a0 + 12 a2 J + 18 a21 a1 + a3 J + cos
+ 14 a1 a1 + 2a3 J + 14 a21 a0 + a2 J + cos 2
1
+ 12 a1 a2 J + a21 24
a1 + 14 a3 J + cos 3 +
d
d
Use u du
= r dr
, which follows directly from u = 1/r.
It is without loss of generality that we have dropped the -term from (57),
for it can always be absorbed into a redenition of the point from which we
measure .
34
35
46
0=
a2
a1
a3
a1
=
=
1 a1
a1 1 a0
1 a2
4 u0 J2 + u0 4 u0 + 8 u0 J3 +
a
a1 u00 + 12 ua20 J2 + 18 ua10 ua10 + ua30 J3 +
13 14 ua10 + 2 ua30 J2 + 14 ua10 ua00 + ua20 J3 +
1 a
1 a3
1
18 12 ua20 J2 + ua10 24
u0 + 4 u0 J3 +
0=
a2
a1
1 a1
4 u J2
a10 a0
1 a2
u0 a1 + 2 a1
1 a1
12
u0 J2
J2 +
1 a1 a1
8 u0 u0 J3
Feeding the rst and third of these equations into the second, we obtain
2
1 a1 2
1 a1 2
0 = 24
5J2 + 3J3 = 24
5(1 2 )2 + 3(1 + 2 )(1 2 )
u0
u0
2
1 a1 2
= 12
5 2 + 4
u0
47
and are brought thus (with Bertrand) to the conclusion that the 2 in
f (r) = k r
is constrained to satisfy
( 2 4)( 2 1) = 0
The attractive central forces that give rise to invariably closed bounded orbits
are twoand only twoin number:
f (r) = kr+1
f (r) = +kr
harmonic
keplerian
36
48
we obtain px = mx,
py = my whence
1
2
2 m(x
+ y 2 ) 12 m 2 (x2 + y 2 )
H(x, y, px , py ) = px x + py y L(x, y, x,
y)
2
1
2
2 2
1
= 2m px + py + 2 m (x + y 2 )
and the time-independent Hamilton-Jacobi equation becomes
1
2m
S 2
1
2
( x ) + ( S
+ 2 m 2 (x2 + y 2 ) = E
y )
+ 12 m 2 x2 = 12 E +
(60.1)
+ 12 m 2 y 2 = 12 E
where is a separation constant (as was E ). The initial PDE has been resolved
into an uncoupled pair of ODEs.
Separation in polar coordinates: Write
x = r cos
y = r sin
Then L = 12 m(r 2 + r2 2 ) 12 m 2 r2 gives pr = mr,
p = mr2 whence
H(r, , pr , p ) = pr r + p L(r, , r,
)
=
1 2
2m pr
2
1
2mr 2 p
+ 12 m 2 r2
1
S 2
2mr 2 ( )
+ 12 m 2 r2 = E
1 dR 2
2m ( dr )
1 dT 2
2m ( d )
2 2
1
1
2 m r + r 2
=0
=E
(60.2)
49
for many applications more attractive than, the familiar polar coordinate system
is the alternate polar system dened
x = aes cos
: a has arbitrary value, dimensions of length
y = aes sin
From L = 12 ma2 e2s (s 2 + 2 ) 12 m 2 a2 e2s we obtain ps = ma2 e2s s,
p = ma2 e2s
whence
2
2s
1
H(s, , ps , p ) = 2ma
ps + p2 + 12 ma2 2 e2s
2e
and the H-J equation becomes
1
2s S 2
2
1
( s ) + ( S
+ 2 ma2 2 e2s = E
2ma2 e
)
Assume S(s, ) to have the form
S(s, ) = S(s) + T ()
and obtain the separated equations
1
S 2
2ma2 ( s )
1
dT 2
2ma2 ( d )
2 4s
2s
+ 12 ma2 e
Ee
= +
(60.3)
1 2
2m pr
2
1
2mr 2 p
k
r
1
S 2
2mr 2 ( )
k
r
=E
=0
=E
(61.1)
work that
H(s, , ps , p ) =
2s
1
2ma2 e
p2s + p2 ka es
50
so we have
2s
1
2ma2 e
S 2
k s
2
( s ) + ( S
ae = E
)
1
S 2
2ma2 ( s )
1
dT 2
2ma2 ( d )
2s
k s
a e Ee
= +
(61.2)
L = 12 m(x 2 + y 2 ) + k
x2 + y 2
The coordinate system of present interest (see Figure 18) arises when one
writes37
x = 12 (2 2 )
y =
Straightforward calculation supplies
L = 12 m(2 + 2 )( 2 + 2 ) +
k
2 + 2
2k
+
p
2
2m
The H-J equation therefore reads
S 2
1
S 2
2k = (2 + 2 )E
2m ( ) + ( )
Assuming S(, ) to have the form
S(, ) = M () + N ()
we obtain separated equations
1 dM 2
2m ( d )
1
dN 2
2m ( d )
2 E = k +
2 E = k
(61.3)
that are notable for their elegant symmetry. It will be noted that when E < 0
these resemble an equation basic to the theory of oscillators.
37
See P. Moon & D. E. Spencer, Field Theory Handbook (), page 21.
51
52