Contact geometry of Hill’s approximation in a spatial restricted four-body problem

Cengiz Aydin

arXiv: 2407.06927v2 · PDF · 18 March 2025
Categories: math.SG, math.DS
Licence: CC BY 4.0 The site shows the text.

Abstract

It is well-known that the planar and spatial circular restricted three-body problem (CR3BP) is of contact type for all energy values below the first critical value. Burgos-García and Gidea extended Hill’s approach in the CR3BP to the spatial equilateral CR4BP, which can be used to approximate the dynamics of a small body near a Trojan asteroid of a Sun–planet system. Our main result in this paper is that this Hill four-body system also has the contact property. In other words, we can "contact" the Trojan. Such a result enables to use holomorphic curve techniques and Floer theoretical tools in this dynamical system in the energy range where the contact property holds.

Items 18

Main result

XX4I

For the planar CR3BP it is well-known that below the first critical value, the two bounded components of the energy level sets, after Moser regularization, are of contact type [albers_frauenfelder_koert_paternain]. Each component corresponds to the unit cotangent bundle of S^2 with the standard contact structure, meaning that each contact manifold corresponds to (S^*S^2,\xi_{st}). The same result for the spatial case was shown in [cho_jung_kim], where each contact manifold corresponds to (S^*S^3,\xi_{st}). We note that [frauenfelder_koert, Chapter 6.1] proved the same result for the classical planar Hill 3BP.

Theorem

Theorem 1.1

6DYQ

For any given \mu \in [0,\frac{1}{2}] it holds that

\begin{aligned} \widetilde{\Sigma}_c^b &\cong (S^*S^3,\xi_{st}),\quad \textit{if } c < H(L_{1/2}), \\ \widetilde{\Sigma}_c^b|_{\text{Fix}(\sigma)} &\cong (S^*S^2,\xi_{st}),\quad \textit{if } c < H(L_{1/2}). \end{aligned}

Remark

Remark 2.1

CBGG

In [aydin_sym] it shown that the Hill 3BP (\mu = 0) has two special properties.

i) The spatial linear symmetries already determine the planar ones. The same phenomenon is also true for all \mu \in [0,\frac{1}{2}]. To see this, let us denote by \Sigma_s and \Sigma_p each set of spatial and planar linear symmetries. Consider the projection map given by the restriction to \text{Fix}(\sigma),
\pi \colon \Sigma_s \to \Sigma_p,\quad \rho \mapsto \rho | _{\text{Fix}(\sigma)}.
If \rho \in \Sigma_s, then \rho | _{\text{Fix}(\sigma)} \in \Sigma_p with the corresponding (anti-)symplectic property. While \pi is not injective (since \pi (\rho_1) = \pi (\rho_2)), it is surjective. If \rho \in \Sigma_p is symplectic (or anti-symplectic), then a symplectic (or anti-symplectic) extension is given by z \mapsto z and p_z \mapsto p_z (or z\mapsto -z and p_z \mapsto p_z).
ii) There are no other linear symmetries. This statement also holds for all \mu \in [0,\frac{1}{2}]. Its proof uses the equations (?) and the properties of linear symplectic and anti-symplectic involutions. Since the exact same computations work for (?) for all \mu \in [0,\frac{1}{2}], we forgo its proof in this paper.

Definition

Definition 3.1

R9LK

Let M be a smooth manifold of odd dimension 2n +1. A “contact form” on M is a 1-form \alpha \in \Omega^1(M) such that \alpha \wedge (d\alpha)^{\wedge n} \neq 0. Given a contact form \alpha, the hyperplane field \xi = \text{ker}\alpha \subset TM is oriented by d\alpha, and this oriented codimension-1 field is called the “contact structure”. The pair (M,\xi) is called “contact manifold”. The “Reeb vector field” R_{\alpha} is the unique vector field defined by the equations d \alpha (R_{\alpha}, \cdot) = 0 and \alpha(R) = 1, whose flow is called “Reeb flow”.

Definition

Definition 3.2

J8L7

A “Liouville vector field” X on a symplectic manifold (M,\omega) is a vector field satisfying \mathscr{L} _X \omega = \omega, where \mathscr{L} denotes the Lie derivative, i.e., the Lie derivative along X preserves \omega.

Example

Example 3.5

UT6N

The cotangent bundle T^* Q of a smooth manifold Q of dimension n is endowed with the so-called “Liouville one-form”. In local coordinates (q_1,...,q_n) on Q and dual coordinates (p_1,...,p_n) on the fibers of T^* Q, the Liouville one-form is defined by \lambda_{can} = \sum _{i=1} ^n p_i dq_i. Since the standard symplectic form is characterized by \omega_{can} = d \lambda_{can} = \sum_{i=1}^n dp_i \wedge dq_i, the “natural Liouville vector field” X on T^* Q associated to \lambda_{can} is defined by \iota_X \omega_{can} = \lambda_{can}. In local coordinates,

X = \sum_{i=1}^n p_i \frac{\partial}{\partial p_i},

that is, the radial vector field in fiber direction.

Proposition

Proposition 3.6

JKBP

For any given \mu \in [0,\frac{1}{2}] assume that c < H (L_{1/2}) = - \frac{3}{2} \sqrt[3]{\lambda_2}. Then the bounded component \Sigma_c^b of the energy level set, as defined by (?), is transverse to X.

Proof of Proposition 3.6

We show that

\begin{aligned} d H (X) | _{\Sigma_c^b} > 0. \end{aligned}

The differential of the Hamiltonian (?) is given by

\begin{aligned} dH = & p_x dp_x + p_y dp_y + p_z dp_z + p_x dy + y dp_x - p_y dx - x dp_y \\ & + 2ax dx + 2by dy + z dz + \frac{x}{r^3} dx + \frac{y}{r^3} dy + \frac{z}{r^3} dz. \end{aligned}

By inserting the Liouville vector field (?) into (Proof) we obtain

\begin{aligned} dH(X) = p_x y - p_y x + 2ax^2 + 2by^2 + z^2 + \frac{1}{r}. \end{aligned}

Recall that a = \frac{1}{2}(1-\lambda_2) and b = \frac{1}{2}(1 - \lambda_1). In spherical coordinates the Liouville vector field (?) becomes

X = \rho \frac{\partial}{\partial \rho},

and (Proof) reads

\begin{aligned} dH(X) = & p_x \rho \sin \theta \sin \varphi - p_y \rho \cos \theta \sin \varphi + (1 + \lambda_2) \rho^2 \cos^2 \theta \sin^2 \varphi \\ & + (1 - \lambda_1) \rho^2 \sin^2 \theta \sin^2 \varphi + \rho^2 \cos^2 \varphi + \frac{1}{\rho}. \end{aligned}

In view of \frac{\partial U}{\partial \rho} from (Proof), we write (Proof) in the form

\begin{aligned} dH(X) = \rho \sin \theta \sin \varphi (p_x + \rho \sin \theta \sin \varphi) - \rho \cos \theta \sin \varphi (p_y - \rho \cos \theta \sin \varphi) + \rho \frac{\partial U}{\partial \rho}, \end{aligned}

which we estimate by using the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality,

\begin{aligned} dH(X) &\geq \rho \frac{\partial U}{\partial \rho} - \rho \sin \varphi \sqrt{ (p_x + \rho \sin \theta \sin \varphi)^2 + (p_y - \rho \cos \theta \sin \varphi)^2 } \\ & = \rho \frac{\partial U}{\partial \rho} - \rho \sin \varphi \sqrt{ 2 (H - U) - p_z^2 } \\ & \geq \rho \frac{\partial U}{\partial \rho} - \rho \sin \varphi \sqrt{2 (H - U)}. \end{aligned}

Therefore, we have

dH(X) | _{\Sigma_c^b} \geq \rho \left( \frac{\partial U}{\partial \rho} - \sin \varphi \sqrt{2(c-U)} \right).

Since the right hand side is independent of the momentum coordinates, to prove (Proof) it is suffices to show that

\begin{aligned} \left( \frac{\partial U}{\partial \rho} - \sin \varphi \sqrt{2(c-U)} \right) \bigg| _{\mathscr{K}_c^b} > 0. \end{aligned}

Let (\rho,\theta,\varphi) \in \mathscr{K}_c^b. In particular, U(\rho,\theta,\varphi) \leq c. By Corollary 3.8, we have \rho < r, and by (Proof) it holds that U(r,\theta,\varphi) > c. Therefore, it exists \tau \in [0,r-\rho) such that

U(\rho + \tau, \theta, \varphi) = c.

By using Lemma 3.9 and Lemma 3.10 we obtain

\begin{aligned} \left( \frac{\partial U}{\partial \rho} (\rho,\theta,\varphi) \right)^2 &= \left( \frac{\partial U}{\partial \rho} (\rho + \tau,\theta,\varphi) \right)^2 - \int_{0}^{\tau} \frac{d}{dt} \left( \frac{\partial U}{\partial \rho} (\rho + t,\theta,\varphi) \right)^2 dt \\ &> -2 \int_{0}^{\tau} \frac{\partial U}{\partial \rho} (\rho + t,\theta,\varphi) \frac{\partial^2 U}{\partial \rho^2} (\rho + t,\theta,\varphi) dt \\ &\geq 2 \sin^2 \varphi \int_{0}^{\tau} \frac{\partial U}{\partial \rho} (\rho + t,\theta,\varphi) dt \\ &= 2 \sin^2 \varphi \left( U(\rho + \tau,\theta,\varphi) - U(\rho,\theta,\varphi) \right) \\ &= 2 \sin^2 \varphi \left( c - U(\rho,\theta,\varphi) \right). \end{aligned}

Therefore, by using Lemma 3.9 once more, we imply

\frac{\partial U}{\partial \rho} (\rho,\theta,\varphi) > \sin \varphi \sqrt{ 2 \left( c - U(\rho,\theta,\varphi) \right)},

which shows (Proof) and thereby the proposition.

Uses Proof, Corollary 3.8, Proof, Lemma 3.9, Lemma 3.10

Lemma

Lemma 3.7

NL5R

For fixed radius \rho \in (0,1) the function U_{\rho} := U(\rho, \cdot, \cdot) has its minimum at (\theta,\varphi) = (0,\frac{\pi}{2}).

Used by Proof

Proof of Lemma 3.7

The differential is given by

dU_{\rho} (\theta,\varphi) = \rho^2 (\lambda_2 - \lambda_1) \cos \theta \sin \theta \sin^2 \varphi d \theta + \rho^2 \sin \varphi \cos \varphi (\lambda_2 \cos^2 \theta + \lambda_1 \sin^2 \theta + 1) d \varphi.

Since \lambda_2 > \lambda_1, and the term \lambda_2 \cos^2 \theta + \lambda_1 \sin^2 \theta + 1 is strictly positive, we find four critical points at (0,0), (0,\frac{\pi}{2}), (\frac{\pi}{2}) and (\frac{\pi}{2},\frac{\pi}{2}). The corresponding Hessians are given by

\begin{aligned} H_{U_{\rho}} (0,0) &= \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & -\rho^2(\lambda_2 + 1) \end{pmatrix},\quad H_{U_{\rho}} (0,\frac{\pi}{2}) = \begin{pmatrix} \rho^2 (\lambda_2 - \lambda_1) & 0 \\ 0 & \rho^2(\lambda_2 + 1) \end{pmatrix} \\ H_{U_{\rho}} (\frac{\pi}{2},0) &= \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & -\rho^2(\lambda_1 + 1) \end{pmatrix},\quad H_{U_{\rho}} (\frac{\pi}{2},\frac{\pi}{2}) = \begin{pmatrix} - \rho^2 (\lambda_2 - \lambda_1) & 0\\ 0 & \rho^2(\lambda_1 + 1) \end{pmatrix}. \end{aligned}

Therefore, the function U_{\rho} attains its minimum at (\theta,\varphi) = (0,\frac{\pi}{2}).

Corollary

Corollary 3.8

V87J

The bounded part of Hill’s region, \mathscr{K}_c^b, is contained in B_r(0).

Used by Proof

Proof of Corollary 3.8

Let (\rho,\theta,\varphi) \in \partial B_r(0), i.e., \rho = r = 1 / \sqrt[3]{\lambda_2}. Then, by Lemma 3.7,

\begin{aligned} U(r,\theta,\varphi) \geq U(r,0,\frac{\pi}{2}) = - \frac{1}{r} - \frac{1}{2}r^2 \lambda_2 = - \frac{3}{2}\sqrt[3]{\lambda_2} = H(L_{1/2}) > c. \end{aligned}

Therefore, (r,\theta,\varphi) does not lie in \mathscr{K}_c^b, and hence, \partial B_r(0) \cap \mathscr{K}_c^b = \emptyset. Since \mathscr{K}_c^b is connected and contains the origin in its closure, \mathscr{K}_c^b is contained in B_r(0).

Uses Lemma 3.7

Lemma

Lemma 3.9

613Y

For every (\rho,\theta,\varphi) \in B_r(0) with \rho \in (0,r) it holds that \frac{\partial U}{\partial \rho} (\rho,\theta,\varphi) > 0.

Used by Proof

Proof of Lemma 3.9

Let (\rho,\theta,\varphi) \in B_r(0) with \rho \in (0,r). Since \lambda_2 > \lambda_1 we have the following equivalences

\begin{aligned} (\lambda_1 - \lambda_2)\sin^2 \theta \leq 0 \quad \Leftrightarrow \quad \lambda_2(\cos^2 \theta - 1) + \lambda_1 \sin^2 \theta \leq 0 \quad \Leftrightarrow \quad \lambda_2 \cos^2 \theta + \lambda_1 \sin^2 \theta \leq \lambda_2. \end{aligned}

By using (Proof), we estimate

\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial U}{\partial \rho} = \frac{1}{\rho^2} - \rho \left( \lambda_2 \cos^2 \theta \sin^2 \varphi + \lambda_1 \sin^2 \theta \sin^2 \varphi - \cos^2 \varphi \right) \geq \frac{1}{\rho^2} - \lambda_2 \rho > 0. \end{aligned}

The last strict inequality holds since the function f \colon (0,r) \to \mathbb{R}, x \mapsto \frac{1}{x^2} - \lambda_2 x is strictly positive on its domain.

Lemma

Lemma 3.10

087L

For every (\rho,\theta,\varphi) \in B_r(0) with \rho > 0 it holds that \frac{\partial^2 U}{\partial \rho^2} (\rho,\theta,\varphi) \leq - \sin^2 \varphi.

Used by Proof

Proof of Lemma 3.10

Let (\rho,\theta,\varphi) \in B_r(0) with \rho > 0. Since the function f \colon (0,r] \to \mathbb{R}, x \mapsto - \frac{1}{x^3} takes the maximal value at x=r, and because \lambda_2 \geq 2, we estimate

\frac{\partial^2 U}{\partial \rho^2} = - \frac{2}{\rho^3} + \cos^2 \varphi - \sin^2 \varphi \left( \lambda_2 \cos^2 \theta + \lambda_1 \sin^2 \theta \right) \leq - \frac{2}{r^3} + 1 = -2 \lambda_2 + 1 \leq -3 \leq - \sin^2 \varphi. \qedhere

Proposition

Proposition 3.11

W2IA

For \varepsilon > 0 small enough, the natural Liouville vector field on T^*S^3 given by

\begin{aligned} X = \sum_{i = 0}^{3} \eta_i \frac{\partial}{\partial \eta_i}, \end{aligned}

is transverse to Q^{-1}(\frac{1}{2}) over points (\xi,\eta) satisfying (?).

Proof of Proposition 3.11

We show that for \varepsilon > 0 small enough it holds that

\begin{aligned} dQ(X) | _{Q^{-1}(\frac{1}{2})} > 0. \end{aligned}

The computation of dQ(X), in view of (?) and (3.11), yields

\begin{aligned} dQ(X) &= |\eta|^2 f(\xi,\eta)^2 + |\eta|^2 f(\xi,\eta) \sum_{i=0}^{3} \frac{\partial f}{\partial \eta_i} (\xi,\eta) \eta_i \\ &= 2 Q + |\eta|^2 f(\xi,\eta) (1-\xi_0) ( \eta_1 \xi_2 - \eta_2 \xi_1 + 2a g_1^2 + 2b g_2^2 + g_3^2 ). \end{aligned}

In order to prove (Proof), we first show that we can choose \varepsilon > 0 so small such that

\begin{aligned} |f(\xi,\eta)| \geq \frac{1}{2}. \end{aligned}

Since the energy value c < H(L_{1/2}) = -\frac{3}{2}\sqrt[3]{\lambda_2} is negative, and in fact less then -\frac{3}{2}, the quantity c + \frac{1}{2} is negative as well. Notice from Figure ? that a<0, |a|\leq 1 and b>0. Therefore, b g_2^2 + \frac{1}{2} g_3^2 - (c + \frac{1}{2}) is positive. By using these, we estimate

\begin{aligned} |f(\xi,\eta)| &= \left| 1 + (\eta_1 \xi_2 - \eta_2 \xi_1)(1-\xi_0) + (a g_1^2 + b g_2^2 + \frac{1}{2} g_3^2)(1 - \xi_0) - (c + \frac{1}{2})(1 - \xi_0) \right| \\ &= \left| 1 + ( b g_2^2 + \frac{1}{2} g_3^2 - (c + \frac{1}{2}) )(1-\xi_0) + (\eta_1 \xi_2 - \eta_2 \xi_1)(1-\xi_0) + a g_1^2(1 - \xi_0) \right| \\ &\geq 1 - |\eta_1 \xi_2 - \eta_2 \xi_1|(1-\xi_0) - |a|g_1^2(1-\xi_0) \\ &\geq 1 - |\eta_1 \xi_2 - \eta_2 \xi_1|(1-\xi_0) - g_1^2(1-\xi_0). \end{aligned}

Furthermore, |\eta_1 \xi_2 - \eta_2 \xi_1| \leq |\eta||\xi|, and because |\xi|=1, we have in view of (?),

\begin{aligned} |\eta_1 \xi_2 - \eta_2 \xi_1|(1-\xi_0) \leq |\eta|(1-\xi_0) < \varepsilon. \end{aligned}

This implies,

|f(\xi,\eta)| \geq 1 - \varepsilon - g_1^2(1-\xi_0).

If \varepsilon approaches 0, then \xi_0 \to 1, which means that we can choose \varepsilon so small such that (Proof) holds. By using the level set condition Q^{-1}(\frac{1}{2}) together with the lower bound (Proof) for |f(\xi,\eta)|, we find

\frac{1}{2} = Q(\xi,\eta) = \frac{1}{2} |\eta|^2 f(\xi,\eta)^2 \geq \frac{1}{2} |\eta|^2 \frac{1}{2},

which gives an upper bound for |\eta|, i.e.,

\begin{aligned} |\eta| \leq 2. \end{aligned}

We may write

Notice that by (Proof) we obtain

|\eta||\eta||f(\xi,\eta)| \leq 2 \sqrt{ 2Q(\xi,\eta) } = 2 \sqrt{2 \frac{1}{2}} = 2,

which implies, together with (Proof),

\begin{aligned} dQ(X) &\geq 1 -2 \left( \left| (1-\xi_0) (\eta_1 \xi_2 - \eta_2 \xi_1) \right| + \left| (1-\xi_0) (2a g_1^2 + 2b g_2^2 + g_3^2 ) \right| \right) \\ &\geq 1 -2 \varepsilon \left(1 + |2a g_1^2 + 2b g_2^2 + g_3^2| \right). \end{aligned}

Since the latter term can be bounded by some constant A on a compact set away from the origin, we obtain

dQ(X) \geq 1 - 2\varepsilon (1 + A).

Now we choose \varepsilon sufficiently small such that dQ(X)>0, which proves (Proof).

Source and licence

The text on this page is from arXiv:2407.06927v2 by Cengiz Aydin, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.

The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2407/2407.06927.jsonl.