Paper detail

Lyapunov vs. Geometrical Stability Analysis of the Kepler and the Restricted Three Body Problem

In this letter we show that although the application of standard Lyapunov analysis predicts that completely integrable Kepler motion is unstable, the geometrical analysis of Horwitz et al [1] predicts the observed stability. This seems to us to provide evidence for both the incompleteness of the standard Lyapunov analysis and the strength of the geometrical analysis. Moreover, we apply this approach to the three body problem in which the third body is restricted to move on a circle of large radius which induces an adiabatic time dependent potential on the second body. This causes the second body to move in a very interesting and intricate but periodic trajectory; however, the standard Lyapunov analysis, as well as methods based on the parametric variation of curvature associated with the Jacobi metric, incorrectly predict chaotic behavior. The geometric approach predicts the correct stable motion in this case as well.

preprint2010arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.