Downloaded from rsnr.royalsocietypublishing.

org on January 26, 2012

On the shapes of Newton's revolving orbits

D. Lynden-Bell and R. M. Lynden-Bell Notes Rec. R. Soc. Lond. 1997 51, 195-198 doi: 10.1098/rsnr.1997.0016

Email alerting service

Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article - sign up in the box at the top right-hand corner of the article or click here

To subscribe to Notes Rec. R. Soc. Lond. go to: http://rsnr.royalsocietypublishing.org/subscriptions

Downloaded from rsnr.royalsocietypublishing.org on January 26, 2012

Notes Rec. R. Soc. Lond. 51 (2), 195198 (1997)

1997 The Royal Society

ON THE SHAPES OF NEWTONS REVOLVING ORBITS

by D. LYNDEN-BELL, F.R.S.*, AND R.M. LYNDEN-BELL* * School of Mathematics and Physics, The Queens University, Belfast BT7 1NN, UK

PPARC Senior Fellow, On leave from the Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge CB3 0HA, UK INTRODUCTION

Newtons beautiful theorem on revolving orbits is described in propositions 43 and 44 of Principia .1 From Mottes translation revised by Cajori2 (see also Chandrasekhar,3 who first drew our attention to this theorem4).
43. It is required to make a body move in a curve that revolves about the centre of force in the same manner as another body in the same curve at rest. 44. The difference of the forces by which two bodies may be made to move equally, one in a fixed, the other in the same orbit revolving varies inversely as the cubes of their common altitudes (radii).

We have added (radii) because the term altitude is no longer used in this context. Those who read these propositions without consulting the expositions that follow them are likely to believe that Newton was considering two orbits, the first in fixed axes and the second in uniformly rotating axes. This is not the case. Indeed, that could not be so because unless the orbits were circular, the second particle would not then sweep out equal areas in equal times relative to fixed axes, so the force could not be central.. Newtons subtlety lies in choosing the rate of rotation of the axes proportional to the of the particle in the fixed orbit, where is the azimuth. With that construction the second particle, when seen from fixed axes, sweeps in equal times equal areas proportional to those swept by the first. A Keplerian ellipse in fixed axes will generate the same ellipse in Newtons nonuniformly rotating axes when we add an inverse cube force. But what shape will that ellipse make relative to axes rotating uniformly at the same mean rate as Newtons?

DISCUSSION For eccentric orbits the angular motions at aphelia are appreciably less than the mean, thus when the axes rotate fast a particle at aphelion must move backwards relative to them. Thus such orbits relative to our uniformly rotating axes must become figures

195

Downloaded from rsnr.royalsocietypublishing.org on January 26, 2012

196

D. Lynden-Bell and R.M. Lynden-Bell

of 8. At the onset of such figures the orbit must move radially, in our axes, at aphelion. With (t) the azimuth in the first orbit, whose angular momentum is h, then (t) will be the azimuth of the second particle relative to fixed axes and h its angular momentum. If P is the period of the first orbit then the azimuth of the second particle relative to our uniformly rotating axes will be * = ( 1) 2t/P. When t is P then = 2, so * is 2 also. As both particles achieve equal radii at equal times, the above formula for the azimuth together with the properties of Keplerian motion suffice to define the shapes. These depend on two parameters, and e, the eccentricity of the orbit. As the effects that concern us are most pronounced for rather eccentric orbits, we have chosen to illustrate them for orbits fathered by a Keplerian ellipse of eccentricity 0.8. It is simple to show that * = 0 at aphelion when

= 1

(1 e)1/2 (1 + e)3/2

Thus the critical curve, that just fails to make a figure of 8 but has a radial cusp at aphelion, has = 1.227.27. = c for e = 0.8. For any curve the extra radial attractive force needed to achieve a given value of is ( 2 - 1) h2r3; this just cancels out the extra centrifugal force that arises in the second orbit because the angular momentum . is now h in place of h. However, the extra ( 1) carries the particle further around to give the precession. Figure 1 shows the precessing orbit of the second particle but drawn in fixed axes ~ for = c. The orbit precesses forward by 0.22727 360 80 between aphelia and generates a rosette. Figure 2 shows (dotted) the ellipse e = 0.8 that such an orbit makes relative to Newtons non-uniformly rotating axes and the curve that is strongly cusped at aphelion, which this = c-orbit makes relative to our uniformly rotating axes. Also shown in uniformly rotating axes are the less distorted curve corresponding to = 1.15 and (dashed) the violently distorted figure of 8 given by taking = 2. For such an orbit the absolute azimuth is twice as large as it is in the fixed Kepler orbit. The process of distortion of the figure of 8 is taken very much further in figure 3. Here we show the original ellipse = 1 with the curve for = 3. For the latter the outer lobe of the figure of 8 is so bulbously distended that it reaches back into the first and fourth quadrants and with a little more distortion it would touch again at * = 0. In the final lightly drawn orbit = 3.5, these two lobes have crossed over one another. The process of distortion continues with ever more intricate windings as is increased. However, of greater simplicity and therefore of greater interest are the backward precessing orbits found for < 1. Figure 4 illustrates these starting from the unperturbed = 1 dotted and proceeding to = 0.5 dashed and = 0 gives a radial straight line. The particle has no angular momentum and oscillates between the inverse cube repulsion at small r and the inverse square attraction at large r. Finally, we draw = 0.5. For this curve the angular momentum is backwards, but the axes rotate backwards even faster so that relative to them the particle, though starting out backwards near perihelion, nevertheless later proceeds forwards to close

Downloaded from rsnr.royalsocietypublishing.org on January 26, 2012

On the Shapes of Newtons Revolving Orbits

197

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

FIGURE 1. (a) A fathering ellipse of eccentricity 0.8 is caused to precess forwards by 0.22727 turns per radial period by an extra inverse cube attraction (2 1) h2 r2 with = c = 1.227.27. (b) The fathering ellipse of eccentricity 0.8 (dotted), which is also the orbit seen relative to Newtons non-uniformly rotating axes. Relative to our uniformly rotating axes that remove the precession, the = c orbit gives the curve that is strongly cusped at aphelion. The less distorted = 1.15 orbit is also drawn with the highly distorted figure-of-8 orbit given by = 2. (C) Following the = 2 curve of figure 2 we have more violently distorted figures-of-8 for = 3 (dashed) and = 3.5. The dotted curve is the fathering ellipse. (d) Backward precession is generated by inverse cube repulsion, < 1. The fathering ellipse is dotted = 1. The dashed curve has = 0.5. The heavy cusped curve has = 0, while = 0.5 is lightly drawn. For further discussion see text.

Downloaded from rsnr.royalsocietypublishing.org on January 26, 2012

198

D. Lynden-Bell and R.M. Lynden-Bell

with only one net turn about the origin. Our orbits relative to uniformly rotating axes are beautifully depicted by the continual release of particles from the orbits pericentre in these axes. Then one orbit gets fully populated. It can be seen at any moment and the whole thing is seen to rotate uniformly. Indeed the method of averaging in the gravitational perturbation theory of one orbit on another uses this device. No similar construction is possible in Newtons axes, which speed up as the particle approaches pericentre. Particles at different phases around the orbit need the axes to speed up at different times. We hope the reader has gained some amusement from the variety of these curves and some enlightenment concerning Newtons fine theorem on revolving orbits.

NOTES
1 2 3 4 I. Newton, Principia (Royal Society, London, 1687). F. Cajori, Newtons Principia, Mottes translation, revised, pp.135140 (UCLA Press, Berkeley, California, 1934). Chandrasekhar, Newtons Principia for the common reader, pp.183193 (Oxford University Press, 1995). D. Lynden-Bell, Notes Rec. R. Soc. 50, 253 (1996).