Euler integral and perihelion librations (Q2211131)

The paper investigates the two-center problem in the spirit of the author's earlier study [Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 131, No. 5, Paper No. 22, 30 p. (2019; Zbl 1448.70022)]. Firstly considered by Euler in 1760, the two-center problem is physically unrealistic but remarkable for being integrable in the sense of Liouville. It describes the motion of a particle in the gravitational field of two fixed centers of attraction. Euler showed that equations of motion admit two independent first integrals. Jacobi showed that the equations of motion can be integrated in terms of elliptic functions. However, the concept of Liouville-Arnold tori foliating the phase space of a compact integrable system, in the sense of Lagrange, was not clear until the middle part of the 20th century. The goal behind this study in part is to address the shortcomings of classical studies by constructing action-angle coordinates of periodic motions and the complete picture of the bifurcation diagram. The starting point of the study is the classical result of Soviet mathematicians [\textit{A. A. Bekov} and \textit{T. B. Omarov}, Integrable cases of the Hamilton-Jacobi equation and some nonsteady problems of celestial mechanics, Sov. Astron. 22, 366--370 (1978)] demonstrating that in the limit of merging centers the two-center problem reduces to the Kepler problem. However, the two-center problem also reduces to the Kepler problem under the assumption that one of the fixed centers has a mass close to zero. The paper under review could be loosely considered as an application of averaging methods to one of classical \textit{Euler integrals}. Let \(m\) be a mass of the moving particle \((\mathbf{p},\mathbf{x})\) and \(\mathcal{M}\), and \(\mathcal{M}'\) are the masses of the two attracting centers located at \(\mathbf{0},\mathbf{x}'\) respectively. Then Hamiltonian of the two-center problem is given as \[ H = \frac{\|\mathbf{p}\|^2}{2m} -\frac{m\mathcal{M}}{\|\mathbf{x}\|}-\frac{m\mathcal{M}'}{\|\mathbf{x}'-\mathbf{x}\|}. \] Apart for negligible additive terms, the classical Euler integral is given as \[ E = \|M\|^2-\mathbf{x}'\cdot\mathbf{L} +m^2\mathcal{M}'\frac{(\mathbf{x}'-\mathbf{x})\cdot\mathbf{x}'}{\|\mathbf{x}'-\mathbf{x}\|} \] where \[ \mathbf{M} := x\times p, \ \ \mathbf{L}:= p\times M-m^2\mathcal{M}\frac{\mathbf{x}}{\|\mathbf{x}\|}=m^2\mathcal{M}e\mathbf{P} \] are the \textit{angular momentum} and the \textit{eccentricity vector} of the associated Kepler Hamiltonian \[ H_0 = \frac{\|\mathbf{p}\|^2}{2m} -\frac{m\mathcal{M}}{\|\mathbf{x}\|}. \] Note that \(e\) and \(\mathbf{P}\) are the eccentricity and the perihelion direction. With these notations, \(H\) reduces to a Kepler Hamiltonian either for \(\mathbf{x}'=0\) (symmetric case) or for \(\mathcal{M}'=0\) (asymmetric case). In the later case \(E\) becomes \[ E_0 = \|M\|^2-\mathbf{x}'\cdot\mathbf{L} \] From this point on the author uses techniques pioneered in [loc. cit.]. Those consist of the use of special \textit{partial Kepler map} which reduce \(H\) to a two-degree freedom Hamiltonian in new canonical coordinates. The Newtonian potential in the original Hamiltonian function is replaced by Lagrange average and shown to possess \textit{renormalizable integrability} property introduced in [loc. cit.]. The main technical part of the paper is section 2 in which the author defines the \(\mathcal{K}\)-coordinates (canonical coordinates) and provides expressions for Hamiltonian, Euler Integral, and Lagrange average of Newtonian potential. In new \(\mathcal{K}\)-coordinates the problem is \textit{renormalizable integrable}. This is used in section 4 to discuss dynamical consequences and discover \textit{perihelion librations} (small oscillations of the the perihelion of the instantaneous ellipse accompanied by a periodic change of the shape of the ellipse). I left from this review the relation of \(\mathcal{K}\)-coordinates to the chains of reference frames firstly used by \textit{A. Deprit} [Celest. Mech. 30, 181--196 (1983; Zbl 0623.70010)] and later extended by the author and her Ph. D. advisor \textit{L. Chierchia} in [Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 109, No. 3, 285--301 (2011; Zbl 1270.70035). ]. The details of the proofs of the main ideas are not easy to follow due to the strange notational choices but well organized. The notation is consistent with the author's previous publications. I am skeptical of the claims that the techniques could be useful for the study of the 3-body problem. The little blurb about it (section 5) introduces another physically unrealistic assumption (the three bodies have equal masses).