## Regularisation by Hamiltonian extension

Andreas Knauf ∗

August 5, 2024

## Abstract

↦

We consider the Kepler potential and its relatives q →-∥ ∥ q -2(1 -1 /n ) , n ∈ N in arbitrary dimension d . We derive a unique real-analytic symplectic extension of phase space on which the Hamiltonian flow is complete and still real-analytic.

## Contents

| 1             | Introduction            | 2                                                                       |
|---------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2             | Analytic regularisation | 3                                                                       |
|               | 2.1                     | Levi-Civita-like regularisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 |
|               | 2.2 Proof               | of Theorem 1.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5          |
|               | 2.2.1                   | The domain ̂ U ε . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6           |
|               | 2.2.2                   | Hamiltonian and angular momentum . . . . . . . . . . . 7                |
|               | 2.2.3                   | Time as a phase space variable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8            |
|               | 2.2.4                   | The generalised Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector . . . . . . . . 9             |
|               | 2.2.5                   | Phase space functions that are not real-analytic . . . . . 11           |
|               | 2.2.6                   | Phase space extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12          |
|               | 2.2.7                   | The symplectic structure on U ε . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13          |
| References 16 | References 16           | References 16                                                           |

∗ Department of Mathematics, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg. Cauerstr. 11, D-91058 Erlangen, Germany, knauf@math.fau.de

## 1 Introduction

There has been a long tradition to regularise the two-body problem of celestial mechanics, in order to deal with (near) collision orbits. Here we present a method that works not only for any spatial dimension, but also for a known discrete family of homogeneous potentials. Specifically, we consider for dimension d ∈ N (negative) potentials of (negative) homogeneity α n := 2(1 -1 /n ) with n ∈ N , n ≥ 2 :

$$U _ { n } \colon \mathbb { R } _ { q } ^ { d } \langle 0 \} \to \mathbb { R } \ \, \ U _ { n } ( q ) = Z \| q \| ^ { - \alpha _ { n } } \,,$$

with strength of interaction Z &gt; 0 . For reasons of comparison, we also look at the free case with n = 1 and U 1 constant.

These potentials were discussed by McGehee in [McG]. For them a regularisation of Levi-Civita type in dimension d = 2 , that is, R d q ∼ = C , is of the form q = Q n , n = 2 being Kepler's case. Not knowing a name for them, we tentatively call them McGehee potentials .

Some typical trajectories for motion in these potentials at energy 0 are shown in Figure 2.1. The solution curves for U 3 ( q ) = Z q ∥ ∥ -4 3 / at total energy zero are Tschirnhaus cubics.

The unregularised 1 phase space is the cotangent bundle

$$\widehat { P } \coloneqq T ^ { * } \widehat { M } \text{ \ of configuration space } \widehat { M } \coloneqq \mathbb { R } _ { q } ^ { d } \langle 0 \}$$

with its canonical symplectic form ̂ ω . Then with mass m &gt; 0 the Hamiltonian function

$$\widehat { H } \, \colon \widehat { P } \rightarrow \mathbb { R } \ \, \ \ \widehat { H } ( q, p ) = \frac { \| p \| ^ { 2 } } { 2 m } - U _ { n } ( q )$$

is real-analytic. Our main result is a generalisation of the physical case d = 3 in [Kn, Theorem 5.1], to arbitrary dimensions d ∈ N , and additionally to all α n . It is similar in spirit to the regularisation of the Kepler case by Ligon and Schaaf in [LS] which was discussed by Heckmann and de Laat in [HdL]. However, one important difference already for α 2 = 1 is that our regularisation includes all energies.

## 1.1 Theorem (completion by analytic extension)

For n ∈ N and d ≥ 2 there exists a unique Hamiltonian system ( P, ω, H ) which is a real-analytic extension of ( ̂ P,ω,H ̂ ̂ ) , having a complete vector field X H .

## 1.2 Remark (existence and uniqueness)

For dimension d = 1 , too there exists such a Hamiltonian system ( P, ω, H ) , but it is not uniquely defined (see Remark 2.7.1).

1 Unregularised quantities wear a hat.

For d ≥ 2 uniqueness up to isomorphisms is granted because every collision orbit must contain exactly one collision point, and there is only one continuous way to continue it after collision, comparing with nearby non-collision orbits. So the article basically shows existence of such a ( P, ω, H ) . ✸

Although the solutions of the Hamiltonian equations only have an essential dependence on n , we kept the constants m and Z for later applications.

Two basic ideas lead to our construction:

- · We consider (physical) time t as a phase space function T near collision and complement it by suitable constants of motion to obtain a symplectic chart. These functions on phase space are simply total energy, angular momentum and a generalised Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector.
- · We deal with the fact that - unlike for free and Kepler motion - for n ≥ 3 the Hamiltonian flow is not super-integrable. This follows from Bertrand's Theorem and means that for negative energies the typical orbit is not closed. So a generalised Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector can only exist locally in phase space. But it turns out that this suffices for our construction.

Acknowledgement: I sincerely thank Alain Albouy for many discussions about regularisation and the McGehee potentials.

## 2 Analytic regularisation

To get a feel for the dynamics associated to the potentials U n , in the first subsection we shortly present their regularisation à la Levi-Civita. Then in Section 2.2 we turn to the proof of Theorem 1.1, which makes some use of Section 2.1.

## 2.1 Levi-Civita-like regularisation

Because of conservation of angular momentum, for any dimension d the solution curves lie in a plane. So we assume that ̂ M = C × so that ̂ P ∼ = C × × C .

Up to time parameterisation, the curves that correspond to Hamiltonian orbits at energy E (and do not touch the boundary circle U n ≡ -E of Hill's region for E &lt; 0 ) coincide with the unit speed geodesics for the Jacobi-Maupertuis metric ̂ g E on ̂ M that equals W := 2 m ( E + U n ) times the Euclidean metric.

Although the hypersurfaces ( ̂ H -E ) -1 (0) and ( ( ̂ H -E /W ) ) ) -1 (0) of ̂ P coincide, the factor of time reparameterisation is non-trivial:

$$\frac { \mathrm d s } { \mathrm d t } = W ( q ( t ) ) \ \text{ or conversely} \ \frac { \mathrm d t } { \mathrm d s } = \frac { 1 } { W ( Q ( s ) ) } = \frac { m } { 2 } \frac { | Q ( s ) | ^ { 2 ( n - 1 ) } } { Z + E | Q ( s ) | ^ { 2 ( n - 1 ) } } \,. \quad ( 2. 1 )$$

When, as in [McG, Section 8], we consider the n -fold branched covering

$$\pi \, \colon \mathbb { C } \to \mathbb { C } \ \, \ \pi ( Q ) = Q ^ { n } \quad \text{and} \ \hat { \pi } \, \coloneqq \pi | _ { \mathbb { C } ^ { \times } }$$

then ˆ π is unbranched. The lift of U n has the form U n ◦ ˆ( π Q ) = Z Q | | 2(1 -n ) , so that the lift of the Jacobi metric ̂ g E equals, for Re( Q ) = Q 1 and Im( Q ) = Q 2

$$\hat { \pi } ^ { * } \widehat { g } _ { E } ( Q ) = 2 n ^ { 2 } m \left ( Z + E ( Q \bar { Q } ) ^ { 2 n - 2 } \right ) \left ( d Q _ { 1 } \otimes d Q _ { 1 } + d Q _ { 2 } \otimes d Q _ { 2 } \right ). \quad ( 2. 2 )$$

Since n ∈ N , this uniquely extends to a real-analytic metric g E on C if E ≥ 0 , respectively on lifted Hill's region { Q ∈ C | | Q | 2( n -1) &lt; -Z/E } if E &lt; 0 . So the geodesic flow on the covering surface with metric g E is real-analytic in the time parameter s and the initial conditions.

The factor d t d s of time reparameterisation is real-analytic too, see (2.1).

In particular, for E = 0 , the geodesics are straight lines. Their projections to the q -plane via π are curves of degree n . Some of them are shown in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1: Solution curves with potential U n for energy zero. From left to right: n = 2 (Kepler parabola), n = 3 (Tschirnhaus curve), n = 4 , n = 6 . Despite their appearance (due to the small parameter range shown), their asymptotic directions lim t →±∞ | q t ( ) q t ( ) | coincide if n is even, and are opposite if n is odd.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00877v1-figure-02229f61-1ff3-4dc8-b867-402d03cc4bc5.jpg)

## 2.1 Remark (Topology of the regularised energy surface)

The n -fold covering ̂ Π of phase space ̂ P has the form

$$( q, p ) = \widehat { \Pi } ( Q, P ) = ( Q ^ { n }, P \bar { Q } ^ { 1 - n } ) \quad \left ( ( Q, P ) \in \mathbb { C } ^ { \times } \times \mathbb { C } \right ),$$

with position Q and momentum 2 P . When restricted to C × × C ,

↦

$$\Phi \, \colon \mathbb { C } ^ { 2 } \to \mathbb { C } ^ { 2 } \ \, \ \ ( Q, P ) \mapsto \exp ( \imath 2 \pi / n ) \, ( Q, P )$$

2 We kept the mnemonic notation P for the momentum on covering space, although P also denotes the regularised phase space.

generates the group of covering transformations Φ k ( k ∈ Z /n Z ) for ̂ Π . The canonical symplectic form

$$\omega \coloneqq d q _ { 1 } \wedge d p _ { 1 } + d q _ { 2 } \wedge d p _ { 2 } = \text{Re} ( d q \wedge d \bar { p } )$$

pulls back to Ω := Π ( ̂ ∗ ω ) = n Re( dQ ∧ dP ¯ ) . So ̂ Π is only locally canonical up to a factor n .

## · The lift of angular momentum

$$L ( q, p ) = \text{Im} ( p \, \bar { q } ) \quad \left ( ( q, p ) \in \mathbb { C } \times \mathbb { C } \right )$$

equals

$$L \circ \widehat { \Pi } \left ( Q, P \right ) = \text{Im} \left ( P \, \bar { Q } \right ) \quad \left ( \left ( Q, P \right ) \in \mathbb { C } ^ { \times } \times \mathbb { C } \right ).$$

This uniquely extends to the real-analytic function

$$\mathbf L \, \colon \mathbb { C } \times \mathbb { C } \to \mathbb { R } \ \, \ \mathbf L ( Q, P ) = \text{Im} ( P \bar { Q } ) \,.$$

- · The lifted Hamiltonian equals

$$\widehat { H } \circ \widehat { \Pi } \left ( Q, P \right ) = \frac { \frac { | P | ^ { 2 } } { 2 m } - Z } { | Q | ^ { 2 ( n - 1 ) } } \quad \left ( ( Q, P ) \in \mathbb { C } ^ { \times } \times \mathbb { C } \right ).$$

Multiplying ̂ H ◦ ̂ Π -E by | Q | 2( n -1) , this extends to the real-analytic function

$$\frac { | P | ^ { 2 } } { 2 m } - E | Q | ^ { 2 ( n - 1 ) } - Z \quad \left ( ( Q, P ) \in \mathbb { C } \times \mathbb { C } \right ).$$

- (a) For E &lt; 0 and n ≥ 2 its zero level is diffeomorphic to the standard sphere S 3 ⊆ C × C , via radial projection. Then the Φ k , k = 0 , . . . , n -1 , when restricted to the energy surface, are the covering transformations of (2.3), acting freely on the energy surface. This implies that the regularised energy surface is diffeomorphic to the lens space L n, ( 1) = S 3 / ( Z /n Z ) . In particular for the Kepler case we get real projective space R P(3) = L (2 , 1) . The fundamental group equals π 1 ( L n, ( 1)) = ∼ Z /n Z .
- (b) For energy E ≥ 0 , for all n ≥ 2 the regularised energy surface is diffeomorphic to R 2 × S 1 , like for free motion in d = 2 dimensions. However, the non-trivial topology also leaves its traces here: The Lagrange manifolds corresponding to the scattering orbits with an arbitrary given initial direction fold over configuration space, with non-trivial topological degree, see [KK, Section 5]. ✸

## 2.2 Proof of Theorem 1.1

We will begin with the definition of an open phase space neighbourhood ̂ U ε ⊆ ̂ P . Then we will prove analyticity properties of phase space functions defined on it.

## 2.2.1 The domain ̂ U ε

The domain ̂ U ε of a phase space chart, to be introduced in the following lemma, will be the intersection of a domain U ε ⊆ P of a chart on extended phase space P and the domain ̂ P ⊆ P of the ( q, p ) chart, with P = ̂ P ∪ U ε .

2.2 Lemma We consider a maximal solution ( q, p ) : ( t -, t + ) → ̂ U ε of the Hamiltonian equation for (1.1) , on the open subset near the excluded fiber T ∗ 0 R d q

$$\widehat { U } ^ { \varepsilon } \coloneqq \left \{ ( q, p ) \in \widehat { P } \, \Big | \, \| q \| < \varepsilon \,, \, \widehat { H } ( q, p ) > \frac { - Z } { 2 n \| q \| ^ { \alpha _ { n } } } \right \} \quad ( \varepsilon > 0 ).$$

Then d dt ⟨ q, p ⟩ &gt; Z nε αn . This implies that the length t + -t -&gt; 0 of the time interval has a uniform upper bound 2 ε 2 -1 /n √ n/Z and

- · the solution either intersects the real-analytic hypersurface

$$\widehat { S } ^ { \varepsilon } \coloneqq \left \{ ( q, p ) \in \widehat { U } ^ { \varepsilon } \ | \ \langle q, p \rangle = 0 \right \}$$

exactly once and transversally, in a pericenter (meaning d dt ⟨ q, p ⟩ &gt; 0 ),

- · or it is a collision solution , that is, lim t ↘ t -q t ( ) = 0 or lim t ↗ t + q t ( ) = 0 .
- · Every collision solution ( q, p ) : ( t -, t + ) → ̂ P intersects ̂ U ε .

Proof: Note that ̂ U ε is open in T ∗ R d , too since ̂ P ⊆ T ∗ R d is open.

̸

- · ̂ S ε is a real-analytic hypersurface, since q, p = 0 for ( q, p ) ∈ ̂ U ε .
- · The squared distance from the origin is strictly convex as a function of time t :

$$\frac { 1 } { 2 } \frac { d ^ { 2 } } { d t ^ { 2 } } \| q \| ^ { 2 } & = \frac { d } { d t } \left \langle q, p \right \rangle = \frac { \| p \| ^ { 2 } } { m } - \frac { \alpha _ { n } Z } { \| q \| ^ { \alpha _ { n } } } = 2 \widehat { H } ( q, p ) + \frac { 2 Z } { n \| q \| ^ { \alpha _ { n } } } > \frac { Z } { n \| q \| ^ { \alpha _ { n } } } > \frac { Z } { n \varepsilon ^ { \alpha _ { n } } }, \\ \cdot \quad \sim \, \real \, \dots \quad \real \, \real \, \real \, \dots \,.$$

using Definition (2.5) in the last two inequalities.

↦

So if t →∥ q t ( ) ∥ is strictly increasing on ( t -, t + ) , then lim t ↘ t -q t ( ) = 0 and

$$\varepsilon ^ { 2 } \geq \lim _ { t \nearrow t _ { + } } \| q ( t _ { + } ) \| ^ { 2 } \geq \int _ { t _ { - } } ^ { t _ { + } } ( t - t _ { - } ) \frac { 2 Z } { n \varepsilon ^ { \alpha _ { n } } } \, \mathrm d t = ( t _ { + } - t _ { - } ) ^ { 2 } \frac { Z } { n \varepsilon ^ { \alpha _ { n } } } \,. \quad \, ( 2. 8 )$$

Equation (2.8) leads to the upper bound ε 2 -1 /n √ n/Z for total time t + -t -, and lim t ↘ t -q t ( ) = 0 implies collision at t -. By reversibility of the flow, the strictly decreasing case is similar.

- · Otherwise there is a t 0 ∈ ( t -, t + ) , with ( q t ( 0 ) , p ( t 0 ) ) ∈ ̂ S ε . Then (2.8) implies ε 2 ≥ ( t ± -t 0 ) 2 Z nε αn , q t ( 0 ) is a pericenter, and the only time of intersection with ̂ S ε . In both cases we get the upper bound 2 ε 2 -1 /n √ n/Z for t + -t -.

- · For a collision solution in ̂ P , by preservation of total energy ̂ H , in the limit of collision time ∥ ∥ p 2 / (2 m ) ∼ Z ∥ ∥ q αn . But the condition ̂ H q, p ( ) &gt; -Z 2 n q ∥ ∥ αn in (2.5) is equivalent to ∥ p ∥ 2 2 m &gt; (1 -1 2 n ) Z ∥ ∥ q αn . So the collision solution intersects ̂ U ε . ✷

## 2.3 Remarks (Lemma 2.2)

- 1. (Definition of ̂ U ε ) The factor 1 / (2 n ) in the second condition of (2.5) is not entirely arbitrary: Only factors in the interval (0 , 1 /n ) could be chosen, since
- · circular orbits have to be excluded from ̂ U ε , as they do not have a unique pericenter. But for them ∥ p ∥ 2 2 m = (1 -1 n ) Z ∥ ∥ q αn , so that ̂ H q, p ( ) = -Z n q ∥ ∥ αn .
- · Conversely all collision orbits should enter ̂ U ε , since we want to regularise them by extending ̂ U ε . For them ∥ p ∥ 2 2 m ∼ Z ∥ ∥ q αn in the limit of collision time.
- 2. (Repulsive case) For the repulsive case Z &lt; 0 , where there are no collision orbits and no regularisation is needed, the second condition in (2.5) is automatically fulfilled, and the estimates of Lemma 2.2 apply, too. This may be useful for applications to n -particle systems interacting via Coulombic forces.
- 3. (Perturbations) Lemma 2.2 persists under perturbations, with slightly worse constants: Changing the potential in (1.1) to U q ( ) := Z ∥ ∥ q αn -W q ( ) with W defined on a neighbourhood of the origin and twice continuously differentiable,

$$\frac { d } { d t } \langle q, p \rangle = \frac { \| p \| ^ { 2 } } { m } - \frac { \alpha _ { n } Z } { \| q \| ^ { \alpha _ { n } } } - \langle q, \nabla W ( q ) \rangle > \frac { Z } { n \| q \| ^ { \alpha _ { n } } } - \langle q, \nabla W ( q ) \rangle > \frac { Z } { 2 n \varepsilon ^ { \alpha _ { n } } },$$

for ε &gt; 0 small, using (2.5). This would then substitute inequality (2.7). ✸

## 2.2.2 Hamiltonian and angular momentum

We now regularise the motion by introducing new canonical coordinates on ̂ U ε and then extending ̂ U ε to U ε ⊆ P . These coordinates will be shown to be real-analytic and, taken together, will rectify the flow.

Total energy and angular momentum are treated first. They are real-analytic from the outset. We denote the restriction of the real-analytic Hamiltonian (1.1) to ̂ U ε by ̂ H , too.

Angular momentum ˆ L : ̂ U ε → Λ ( 2 R d ) equals ˆ ( L q, p ) = q ∧ p . As a function with values in the Lie algebra so ( d, R ) = Λ ( ∼ 2 R d ) it has entries

$$\hat { L } _ { i, j } ( q, p ) = q _ { j } p _ { i } - q _ { i } p _ { j } \,,$$

and we set

$$\hat { \mathfrak { L } } ^ { 2 } \colon \widehat { U } ^ { \varepsilon } \to [ 0, \infty ) \ \, \ \ \hat { \mathfrak { L } } ^ { 2 } \colon = \frac { 1 } { 2 } \text{tr} ( \widehat { L } \widehat { L } ^ { * } ) \,.$$

Thus ˆ L 2 generalises the squared norm of the angular momentum vector from d = 3 to arbitrary dimensions. Both ˆ L and ˆ L 2 are real-analytic.

Depending on the value E of the energy, we can bound the image of ˆ L 2 in (2.10) from above. If ∥ ∥ q = ε , then ˆ L 2 ( q, p ) is maximal if ⟨ p, q ⟩ = 0 and then takes the value 1 2 ∥ ∥ p 2 ε 2 . In terms of E = ∥ p ∥ 2 2 m -U n ( ε ) we conclude that then ˆ L 2 ( q, p ) = m E ( + U n ( ε )) ε 2 . For E &lt; 0 , ∥ ∥ q = ε may lie outside Hill's region, but still the upper bound ˆ L 2 ( q, p ) ≤ m E ( + U n ( ε )) ε 2 is valid.

## 2.2.3 Time as a phase space variable

Let ̂ T : ̂ U ε → R be the time elapsed since the solution was at its pericenter in ̂ S ε , respectively since collision. By (2.9) there is only one such pericenter or collision of the orbit. So the phase space function ̂ T is defined.

- · It is obvious that ̂ T is real-analytic on the open subset of ̂ U ε where the angular momentum does not vanish. This follows from transversality of the real-analytic flow to the real-analytic hypersurface ˆ S ε .
- · To see that ̂ T has this property everywhere, including on collision orbits, we first consider dimension d = 2 . The lift of the domain ̂ U ε defined in (2.5) via ̂ Π from (2.3) equals

$$\widehat { \mathbf U } ^ { \varepsilon } \coloneqq \widehat { \Pi } ^ { - 1 } ( \widehat { U } ^ { \varepsilon } ) = \left \{ ( Q, P ) \in \mathbb { C } ^ { \times } \times \mathbb { C } \ | \ \| P \| ^ { 2 } > 2 m ( 1 - \frac { 1 } { 2 n } ) Z \right \}.$$

The defining equation is independent of Q , and we add the points with Q = 0 , obtaining U ε ⊇ ̂ U ε .

$$\hat { \mathbf S } ^ { \varepsilon } \coloneqq \widehat { \Pi } ^ { - 1 } ( \hat { S } ^ { \varepsilon } ) \subseteq \widehat { \mathbf U } ^ { \varepsilon }$$

̸

has the form Re( PQ ) = 0 , with Q = 0 . As P does not vanish on U ε , we can drop the non-vanishing condition for Q . We thus obtain a real-analytic hypersurface

$$\mathbf S ^ { \varepsilon } \subseteq \mathbf U ^ { \varepsilon } \,,$$

which is transversal with respect to the geodesic flow.

Noticing that the factor d t d s in (2.1) of time reparameterisation is real-analytic, by integrating d t d s along the orbit segment, we obtain a real-analytic function T : U ε → R . Its restriction to ̂ U ε is the lift

$$\widehat { \mathbf T } = \widehat { T } \circ \widehat { \Pi } \, \colon \widehat { \mathbf U } ^ { \varepsilon } \rightarrow \mathbb { R }$$

of the above ̂ T . This shows that ̂ T is real-analytic, since the Jacobi-Maupertuis metric g E , see (2.2), is real-analytic in the position Q and the parameter E .

- · The generalisation to arbitrary dimensions d ≥ 2 is immediate, since ̂ T is invariant under the symplectic lift of the SO( ) d action on ̂ M to ̂ P .

## 2.4 Example (Kepler case, n = 2 )

The pericenter in ̂ S ε has radius ˆ r min , see Paragraph 2.2.5 below. There, Formula (2.18) includes the case of collision, with ˆ = 0 L .

In the Kepler case, explicit integration is possible. Then ̂ T is given by

$$\widehat { T } ( p, q ) = \int _ { \hat { r } _ { \min } ( p, q ) } ^ { \| q \| } \frac { \text{d} r } { \sqrt { 2 \left ( \widehat { H } ( p, q ) + Z r - \hat { \mathfrak { L } } ^ { 2 } ( p, q ) / ( 2 m r ^ { 2 } ) \right ) } } \cdot \text{sign} ( \langle q, p \rangle ).$$

Since n is even, the lower limit ˆ r min of the integral is real-analytic. That ̂ T is a real-analytic phase space function, too, can be seen by explicit evaluation of the indefinite integral

$$& \int \frac { r ^ { 1 / 2 } } { \sqrt { 2 Z + 2 r E - \ell ^ { 2 } / ( m r ) } } \, \mathrm d r = \\ & \frac { r } { \sqrt { 2 E } } \sqrt { 1 + \frac { Z } { r E } - \frac { \ell ^ { 2 } } { 2 m r ^ { 2 } E } } - \frac { Z } { ( 2 E ) ^ { 3 / 2 } } \ln \left ( E r + \frac { 1 } { 2 } Z + \sqrt { E ( r ^ { 2 } E + Z r - \ell ^ { 2 } / ( 2 m ) ) } \right )$$

for E &gt; 0 (and similarly for E ≤ 0 , see Thirring [Th, Chap. 4.2]): With ˆ r min from (2.18) the contribution of the lower bound of integration in (2.11) simplifies to

$$\frac { - Z \log \left ( \frac { h l ^ { 2 } } { 2 m } + ( Z / 2 ) ^ { 2 } \right ) } { 2 ( 2 h ) ^ { 3 / 2 } }.$$

## 2.2.4 The generalised Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector

Our last task is to construct a generalisation of the Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector of the Kepler case n = 2 . We will first work in d = 2 dimensions and then generalise to arbitrary d .

## 2.5 Example (Laplace-Runge-Lenz for the Kepler problem)

For n = 2 this flow-invariant, real-analytic function on ̂ P has in complex coordinates the form

$$\widehat { V } \, \colon \widehat { P } \to \mathbb { C } \ \, \ \widehat { V } ( q, p ) \, \coloneqq \, - \left ( Z \frac { q } { | q | } + \imath \, p L ( q, p ) \right ) \,.$$

Using (2.4),

$$\widehat { V } ( q, p ) = p \, \text{Re} ( p \bar { q } ) - Z \frac { q } { | q | } = \frac { 1 } { 2 } p ^ { 2 } \bar { q } + q \widehat { H } ( q, p ) \,.$$

So it vanishes exactly for the points on circular orbits.

Otherwise its direction ̂ V / V | ̂ | is defined. For non-collision solutions it points towards the pericenter of the orbit, where ı pq ¯ is real.

Note that for n ≥ 3 a non-trivial generalisation of ̂ V does not exist as a function ̂ P → C on phase space, since then (following from Bertrand's Theorem for central-force potentials and analyticity) almost all orbits are not closed for negative energies, see Figure 2.2. But here we are just to construct a map ̂ V : ̂ U ε → C , and ̂ U ε does not contain any maximal orbit. ✸

Figure 2.2: Solutions for n = 3 and negative energy. Left, right: periodic orbit. Middle: quasiperiodic orbit. Angular momentum increases from left to right.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00877v1-figure-1d495fbc-d2f9-4255-ad2e-d7ec94eebc77.jpg)

In order to locally generalise Example 2.5 to arbitrary n ∈ N , we start with the auxiliary function

$$\mathfrak { V } \colon \mathbb { C } \times \mathbb { C } \to \mathbb { C } \ \, \ \ \mathfrak { V } ( q, p ) = p ^ { n } \bar { q } ^ { n - 1 } \,.$$

Via (2.3), this lifts to

$$\mathfrak { V } \circ \widehat { \Pi } ( Q, P ) = P ^ { n } \quad \left ( ( Q, P ) \in \mathbb { C } ^ { \times } \times \mathbb { C } \right ),$$

which trivially extends to a real-analytic function on C × C . We now define the lifted Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector

$$\mathbf V \colon \mathbf U ^ { \varepsilon } \rightarrow \mathbb { C }$$

by setting V ( Q,P ) equal to P n 0 , where ( Q , P 0 0 ) ∈ S ε is on the orbit through ( Q,P ) . By transversality of the flow with respect to S ε , V is real-analytic.

For n = 2 , on ̂ U ε the argument V V / | | of V coincides with ̂ V / V | ̂ | ◦ ̂ Π in (2.13). As both are invariant under the respective flow, it suffices to compare them on S ε . There, both terms in (2.14) are dependent over the reals, and the first one equals 1 2 V ( q, p ) .

For n ≥ 3 , too the generalised Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector transforms under orthogonal transformations via

$$\widehat { V } ( O q, O p ) = O \widehat { V } ( q, p ) \quad ( O \in O ( 2 ) ),$$

since both V ( q, p ) and the flow transform covariantly under O(2) .

For points ( q, p ) ∈ ̂ S ε (which then belong to non-collision orbits), using (2.4),

$$\widehat { V } ( q, p ) = \imath ^ { n - 1 } L ( q, p ) ^ { n - 1 } \, p \quad \text{and} \quad \widehat { V } ( q, p ) = \frac { \imath ^ { n } L ( q, p ) ^ { n } } { \bar { q } } = \frac { \imath ^ { n } L ( q, p ) ^ { n } q } { | q | ^ { 2 } } \,.$$

For n even, this is a real multiple of q , for n odd a real multiple of p .

Collision orbits in R d do not lie in a unique two-plane, since p and q are linearly dependent. However, ̂ V ( q, p ) does not depend on the choice of the plane. Then the momentum P only depends on p and ∥ ∥ q , and the direction of P does does not change with the flow. From (2.3) we conclude that in these cases ̂ V ( q, p ) (which is still defined and non-zero via the covering construction) is linear dependent on both p and q .

So in d dimensions for all n ∈ N the direction

$$\widehat { A } \colon \widehat { U } ^ { \varepsilon } \to \mathbb { S } ^ { d - 1 } \ \, \ \widehat { A } \coloneqq \frac { \widehat { V } } { \| \widehat { V } \| }$$

of the generalised Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector is well-defined and real-analytic. Similarly,

$$\widehat { B } \colon \widehat { U } ^ { \varepsilon } \to \mathbb { R } ^ { d } \ \, \ \widehat { B } \colon = \widehat { L } \widehat { A }$$

is real-analytic and perpendicular to ̂ A , by antisymmetry of ̂ L .

## 2.2.5 Phase space functions that are not real-analytic

One might think that the pericentric radius is real-analytic, too, since this happens to be so for the Kepler potential U 2 . However, as we show now, this only generalises to U n with n even.

ˆ r min : ̂ U ε → [0 , ε ) denotes the radius of the pericenter in ̂ S ε , and ˆ r min := 0 for a collision orbit. It depends on the phase space point through E and ℓ 2 : ˆ r min = r min ( ̂ H, ˆ L 2 ) . In both cases r min is given as a solution of the equation

$$U _ { \text{eff} } ( r ) = - E \, \, \text{with} \ U _ { \text{eff} } ( r ) \coloneqq U _ { n } ( r ) - \frac { \ell ^ { 2 } } { 2 r ^ { 2 } } \,.$$

Thus r 2 min is a non-negative root of the polynomial

↦

$$r ^ { 2 } \mapsto ( - E r ^ { 2 } + \frac { 1 } { 2 } \ell ^ { 2 } ) ^ { n } - r ^ { 2 }$$

of degree n , if α = α n . There is exactly one such root if E ≥ 0 and two for E &lt; 0 and ℓ 2 small. In the latter case r 2 min is the smaller one. We conclude that r 2 min is real-analytic in E and ℓ 2 . r min is then real-analytic in E and ℓ iff n is even.

## 2.6 Example (Kepler case, n = 2 ) Here the roots of (2.17) lead to

̸

$$\hat { r } _ { \min } ( p, q ) & \coloneqq \begin{cases} \frac { - Z + \sqrt { Z ^ { 2 } + 2 \widehat { H } ( p, q ) \hat { \mathbb { L } } ^ { 2 } ( p, q ) / m } } { 2 \widehat { H } ( p, q ) } &, \widehat { H } \neq 0 \\ \frac { 1 } { 2 } \hat { \mathfrak { L } } ^ { 2 } ( p, q ) / ( m Z ) &, \widehat { H } = 0 \end{cases}.$$

This is a real-analytic function on ̂ U ε

. ✸

## 2.2.6 Phase space extension

We recapitulate what we have proven in Subsection 2.2.2, 2.2.3, in (2.15) and in (2.16) for dimension d ∈ N and n ∈ N : There is a real-analytic map

$$\widehat { \Psi } \, \coloneqq \, ( \widehat { T }, \widehat { H } ; \widehat { B }, \widehat { A } ) \, \colon \widehat { U } ^ { \varepsilon } \, \longrightarrow \, T ^ { * } ( \mathbb { R } \times \mathbb { S } ^ { d - 1 } ) \,,$$

and all entries except ̂ T are constants of the motion.

The image ̂ Ψ( ̂ U ε ) misses the zero section ∼ = R × S d -1 of the cotangent bundle, since the collision orbits are characterised by zero angular momentum and thus ̂ B = 0 , and the point of collision on such an orbit corresponds to ̂ T → 0 .

We now complete phase space by defining it as a set as the disjoint union

$$P \coloneqq \widehat { P } \ \sqcup \ ( \mathbb { R } \times \mathbb { S } ^ { d - 1 } )$$

of a 2 d -dimensional and a d -dimensional manifold. We think of P as arising from T ∗ R d by exchanging the fiber T ∗ 0 R d ∼ = R d over 0 ∈ R d by R × S d -1 .

## 2.7 Remarks

- 1. (One spatial dimension) For d = 1 we glue in | S 0 | = 2 copies of the energy axis. For given total energy E we then have to choose how to glue two points with two ( E &lt; 0 ) respectively four ( E ≥ 0 ) open intervals to obtain a completion of the energy surface. For one choice the particle changes between positions q &gt; 0 and q &lt; 0 , for the other it keeps on one side.

In accordance with the unique completions for d ≥ 2 , the first choice is natural for n odd, the second for n even. In the latter case, including Kepler, in dimension d = 1 the phase space P is disconnected, unlike for d ≥ 2 . Then P is homeomorphic to the disjoint union R × S 1 × S 0 of two cylinders, for the particles keeping on the left respectively right half axis of configuration space.

- 2. (Dependence on ε ) The phase space region ̂ U ε defined in (2.5) projects to a ball of radius ε in configuration space. Whereas some estimates of Lemma 2.2 depend on the value of ε , the basic constructions leading to phase space regularisation do not. Consequently, several maps whose domain or image depend on that value are not indexed by ε . It will only be in the application of Kepler regularisation, that the value of ε has to be chosen small enough that the perturbative technique of Remark 2.3.3 is applicable. ✸

P becomes a real-analytic manifold by introducing a map Ψ with domain U ε ⊆ P ,

$$U ^ { \varepsilon } \coloneqq \widehat { U } ^ { \varepsilon } \sqcup ( \mathbb { R } \times \mathbb { S } ^ { d - 1 } )$$

$$\Psi \coloneqq \left ( T, H ; B, A \right ) \colon U ^ { \varepsilon } \longrightarrow T ^ { * } ( \mathbb { R } \times S ^ { d - 1 } ) \,,$$

$$\Psi \restriction _ { \widehat { U } ^ { e } } \coloneqq \dot { \Psi } \text{ and } \Psi \restriction _ { \mathbb { R } \times S ^ { d - 1 } } ( h, a ) \coloneqq ( 0, h ; 0, a ) \,.$$

We define a topology on U ε by declaring Ψ to be a homeomorphism on its image. and a real-analytic structure by the one inherited from T ∗ ( R × S d -1 ) .

Finally, we extend the pericentral hypersurface ̂ S ε of ̂ U ε defined in (2.6) to

$$S ^ { \varepsilon } \coloneqq T ^ { - 1 } ( 0 ) \ \, \, \text{so that } S ^ { \varepsilon } = \widehat { S } ^ { \varepsilon } \sqcup \left ( \mathbb { R } \times \mathbb { S } ^ { d - 1 } \right ). \quad \ \ ( 2. 2 3 )$$

As zero is a regular value of T , S ε is a real-analytic hypersurface in U ε .

## 2.2.7 The symplectic structure on U ε

This subsection finishes the proof of Theorem 1.1, by showing that the extension Ψ of ̂ Ψ is a diffeomorphism onto its image, and that the corresponding extension of ̂ ω leads to a (known) symplectic structure.

2.8 Lemma (symplectic structure) For all n ∈ N , ̂ Ψ is a diffeomorphism onto its image. On the completed phase space region U ε for all 1 ≤ i, j ≤ d

$$\{ H, T \} = 1 \ \, \ \ \{ H, A _ { i } \} = \{ H, B _ { i } \} = 0 \ \, \ \ \{ T, A _ { i } \} = \{ T, B _ { i } \} = 0 \,,$$

$$\{ A _ { i }, A _ { j } \} = 0 \ \, \ \ \{ A _ { i }, B _ { j } \} = \delta _ { i, j } - A _ { i } A _ { j } \ \, \ \ \{ B _ { i }, B _ { j } \} = L _ { i, j } \,.$$

So ( P, ω, H ) , with ω ↾ T ∗ ( R d \{ } 0 ) the natural symplectic form and H ∈ C ω ( P, R ) , becomes a real-analytic complete Hamiltonian system, extending ( ̂ P,ω,H ̂ ̂ ) .

## 2.9 Remark (free and Kepler case)

For n = 1 and n = 2 all these phase space functions are explicitly known and one can calculate the Poisson brackets directly. For n = 2 , from the commutation relation { ̂ V , V i ̂ j } = +2 mHL ̂ ̂ i,j of the Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector (2.13) (see,

e.g. Thirring [Th], §4.2) we conclude that the matrix of Poisson brackets equals

$$\left ( \{ \widehat { A } _ { i }, \widehat { A } _ { j } \} \right ) _ { i, j } = \frac { 2 m \widehat { H } } { \| \widehat { V } \| ^ { 4 } } \left ( \| \widehat { V } \| ^ { 2 } \widehat { L } - \widehat { V } \widehat { V } ^ { \top } \widehat { L } - \widehat { L } \widehat { V } \widehat { V } ^ { \top } \right ).$$

So we show that ̂ ̂ V V ⊤ ̂ L + ̂̂ ̂ LV V ⊤ = ∥ ̂ V ∥ 2 ̂ L to prove that these Poisson brackets vanish. For d = 1 both sides vanish. The property rank ( ̂ L x ( ) ) ≤ 2 allows us to reduce the remaining cases to dimension d = 2 , where the statement is obvious. As the flow generated by the Hamiltonian vector field X H is not explicitly given for n ≥ 3 , in these cases one needs abstract arguments to prove Lemma 2.8. ✸

## Proof of Lemma 2.8:

- · We noticed that ̂ Ψ from (2.19) is real-analytic. As a by-product of the calculation of the Poisson brackets, it is a local diffeomorphism. ̂ Ψ is injective, since the vectors ̂ A and ̂ B determine the plane or line of motion in configuration space, and then energy, time to and direction of the pericenter together with (scalar) angular momentum allow to reconstruct the particle position on the trajectory. So ̂ Ψ is a diffeomorphism onto its image.
- · Along solutions of the Hamiltonian equations ̂ T is their time parameter, up to an additive constant. So { ̂ H,T ̂ } = 1 .

As ̂ A and ̂ B are constants of the motion, their Poisson brackets with ̂ H vanish.

- · To show that { ̂ A , A i ̂ j } = 0 , like in Remark 2.9 we need only consider the case of d = 2 dimensions. Then ̂ A 2 1 + ̂ A 2 2 = 1 , so that { ̂ A , A 1 ̂ 2 } = 0 .

↦

- · The Poisson brackets { ̂ T, A ̂ i } vanish for the following reason: The Hamiltonian vector field of the function ( q, p ) → ⟨ p, q ⟩ is tangential to the hypersurface ̂ S ε = ̂ T -1 (0) . It acts as a dilation and thus does not change the vector ̂ A on ̂ S ε . It follows that { ̂ T, A ̂ i } vanishes on ̂ S ε . On the other hand d dt { ̂ T, A ̂ i } = { ̂ H, { ̂ T, A ̂ i } } = 0 , using the Jacobi identity, { ̂ H,T ̂ } = 1 and { ̂ H,A ̂ i } = 0 .
- · Since ̂ A transforms like a vector, { ̂ L r,m , A ̂ n } = δ m,n ̂ A r -δ r,n ̂ A m . So the Poisson brackets { ̂ A , B i ̂ j } equal δ i,j -̂ ̂ A A i j .
- · The commutation relations for angular momentum are

$$\left \{ \widehat { L } _ { i, j }, \widehat { L } _ { k, \ell } \right \} = \delta _ { i, \ell } \widehat { L } _ { j, k } - \delta _ { i, k } \widehat { L } _ { j, \ell } - \delta _ { j, \ell } \widehat { L } _ { i, k } + \delta _ { j, k } \widehat { L } _ { i, \ell } \,. \quad \, ( 2. 2 4 )$$

To show that { ̂ B , B i ̂ j } = ̂ L i,j , one substitutes the definition (2.16) of ̂ B , uses (2.24) and ∥ ̂ A ∥ = 1 .

By real-analyticity of the variables and the symplectic form, and since ̂ U ε is dense in U ε , we can omit the hats in the Poisson brackets.

- · The flow of the Hamiltonian system ( P, ω, H ) is complete, since the only incomplete trajectories of ( ̂ P,ω,H ̂ ̂ ) are the collision trajectories. ✷

## 2.10 Remarks

- 1. (Poisson structure) Using the Euclidean Riemannian metric on T ∗ R d ∼ = R d q × R d p , T ∗ S d -1 embeds into T ∗ R d . T ∗ S d -1 contains the image of ( B,A ) in (2.22) is a symplectic submanifold, given as F -1 (0) for the regular value 0 of

↦

$$F \equiv ( F _ { 1 }, F _ { 2 } ) \, \colon T ^ { * } \mathbb { R } ^ { d } \to \mathbb { R } ^ { 2 } \ \, \ \ ( p, q ) \mapsto \left ( \langle q, q \rangle - 1, \langle q, p \rangle \right ).$$

The corresponding Poisson structure given by Lemma 2.8 is the one of the Dirac bracket (see, e.g. Marsden and Ratiu [MR, Proposition 8.5.1]). Namely, as { F , F 1 2 } = ⟨ q, q ⟩ equals 2 on T ∗ S d -1 , restricted to T ∗ S d -1 we have

$$\{ a, b \} _ { \text{Dirac} } = \{ a, b \} + \frac { 1 } { 2 } \{ a, F _ { 1 } \} \{ F _ { 2 }, b \} - \frac { 1 } { 2 } \{ a, F _ { 2 } \} \{ F _ { 1 }, b \} \,.$$

for a, b ∈ C ∞ ( T ∗ R d , R ) . So for indices i, k = 1 , . . . , d ,

$$\{ q _ { i }, q _ { k } \} _ { \text{Dirac} } = 0 \, \ \{ q _ { i }, p _ { k } \} _ { \text{Dirac} } = \delta _ { i, k } - q _ { i } q _ { k } \, \ \{ p _ { i }, p _ { k } \} _ { \text{Dirac} } = q _ { i } p _ { k } - q _ { k } p _ { i } \,.$$

In physics, these Poisson brackets are known as the ones of Snyder space-time [Sn] (that is, de-Sitter space-time as a Lorentz manifold), for the restrictions of momentum respectively position variables on phase space T ∗ S d -1 ⊆ T ∗ R d , see Leiva, Saavedra and Villanueva [LSV], Section III.

- 2. (Time change) Although ( P, ω, H ) is a real-analytic Hamiltonian system, the projection from phase space P to configuration space R d q ,

$$\Pr \colon P \to \mathbb { R } _ { q } ^ { d } \, \ \Pr ( T _ { q } ^ { * } ( \mathbb { R } ^ { d } \, \langle \{ 0 \} ) ) = \{ q \} \text{ and } \Pr ( \mathbb { R } \times \mathbb { S } ^ { d - 1 } ) = \{ 0 \} \ \ ( 2. 2 5 )$$

is not smooth for n &gt; 1 . This follows, since the radius ∥ q t ( ) ∥ of collision orbits as a function of time t asymptotically varies like t 1 (2 / -1 /n ) , and since time T is one of the phase space coordinates on U ε .

## 3. (Topology of regularised phase space)

Except for d = 1 degrees of freedom the regularised phase space ( P, ω ) of the Kepler problem is not a cotangent bundle with its canonical symplectic form.

̸

Consider d = 1 first, see Remark 2.7. There P consists of two components homeomorphic to cylinders S 1 × R . When there is no collision ( sign( q ) =

↦

0 ), then the value of the Runge-Lenz map A : U ε → S 0 equals -sign( q ) , and this sign is continuously extended to the collision. We thus need only consider one of these two components, and show it to be diffeomorphic to S 1 × R . We use the auxiliary map r ∈ C ∞ ( R + , R + ) , r q ( ) = √ 2 m Z/q ( + ) q . Hence H r q , q ( ( ) ) = q . Then we connect the end points of each interval [ -r q , r ( ) ( q )] ×{ } ⊆ q ̂ P ⊆ P by the curve [2 T -( x 0 ) , 0] → P , t → Φ( t, x 0 ) , with x 0 := ( ( r q , q ) ) for the Hamiltonian flow Φ . These subsets of P are mutually disjoint, homeomorphic to S 1 , parameterized by q ∈ R + , and their union equals P , see Figure 2.3. Smoothening the map yields a diffeomorphism.

Figure 2.3: Topology of regularised phase space in dimension d = 1

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00877v1-figure-cf52c544-4003-443d-abdf-67231f946c66.jpg)

For d ∈ N and energies E &lt; 0 the energy surface H -1 ( E ) ⊆ P is compact. 3 This hypersurface is the boundary of the two non-compact manifolds H -1 (( -∞ , E ]) and H -1 ([ E, + ∞ ]) . For d &gt; 1 this contradicts the existence of a diffeomorphism P → T N ∗ for some d -dimensional manifold N . ✸

## References

[HdL] Gert Heckman, Tim de Laat: On the Regularization of the Kepler Problem. Journal of symplectic geometry 10 , 463-473 (2012)

[KK] Andreas Knauf, Markus Krapf: The non-trapping degree of scattering. Nonlinearity 21 , 2023-2041 (2008)

3 By Moser regularisation it is homeomorphic to the unit tangent bundle T 1 S d of S d .

- [Kn] Andreas Knauf: The n -centre problem of celestial mechanics for large energies. Journal of the European Mathematical Society 4 , 1-114 (2002)
- [LS] Thomas Ligon, Manfred Schaaf: On the global symmetry of the classical Kepler problem. Reports on Mathematical Physics 9 , 281-300 (1976)
- [LSV] Carlos Leiva, Joel Saavedra, Julio Villanueva: The Kepler problem in the Snyder space. Pramana 80 , 945-951 (2013)
- [McG] Richard McGehee: Double collisions for a classical particle system with nongravitational interactions. Commentarii Mathematici Helvetici 56 , 524557 (1981)
- [MR] Jerrold Marsden, Tudor Ratiu: Introduction to Mechanics and Symmetry. Berlin: Springer, 2003
- [Sn] Hartland Snyder: Quantized Space-Time. Physical Review 71 , 38-40 (1947)
- [Th] Walter Thirring: A course in Mathematical Physics 1: Classical dynamical systems. Springer, 2012.
Andreas Knauf
Regularisation by Hamiltonian extension
We consider the Kepler potential and its relatives $q\mapsto
-\|q\|^{-2(1-1/n)}$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$ in arbitrary dimension $d$. We derive a
unique real-analytic symplectic extension of phase space on which the
Hamiltonian flow is complete and still real-analytic.