## AN INVARIANT REGION FOR THE COLLISIONAL DYNAMICS OF TWO BODIES ON KEPLERIAN ORBITS

Dario Benedetto

Dipartimento di Matematica, Sapienza Universit` a di Roma benedetto@mat.uniroma1.it

Flavia Lenti

Dipartimento di Scienza e di alta Tecnologia Universit` a dell'Insubria flavia.lenti@uninsubria.it

ABSTRACT. We study the dynamics of two bodies moving on elliptic Keplerian orbits around a fixed center of attraction and interacting only by means of elastic or inelastic collisions. We show that there exists a bounded invariant region: for suitable values of the total energy and the total angular momentum (explicitly computable) the orbits of the bodies remain elliptic, whatever are the number and the details of the collisions. We show that there exists a bounded invariant region even in the case of two bodies interacting by short range potential.

Planetary systems, Planetary rings, Elastic collisions, Inelastic collisions MSC 70F15, MSC 37N05

## 1. INTRODUCTION

The interest in the collisional dynamics in a planetary system goes back to Poincar´ e. In particular, in [12] he studies the planetary three-body problem, with one body of large mass (the Sun) and two bodies of small mass (the planets). He indicates how to find periodic solutions (of deuxi` eme esp` ece ), as perturbations of periodic collisional solutions he can construct when the mass of the planets are infinitely small and the distance between them becomes infinitely small. In this approximation, the two bodies are on Keplerian ellipses until the 'choc' (i.e. the interaction), which moves the bodies on two other Keplerian ellipses. During the interaction, only the total energy and the total momentum are conserved, and the choc acts as an elastic collision. It should be noted that the collision can moves the bodies also on hyperbolic orbits but Poincar´ e is only interested in elliptic case.

In this work, we prove that, for this collisional dynamics, there exists an invariant bounded region of of positive measure in the phase space. More precisely, we consider two bodies moving on elliptic Keplerian orbits around a center, interacting only by means of collisions. A collision changes the orbital parameters of the bodies, and a sequence of collisions can move one of the bodies out of the system, on parabolic or hyperbolic orbits. Weshow that for suitable values of the total energy and the total angular momentum (easily computable), the bodies remain on elliptic colliding orbits. Moreover, we extend this result to the case of two point particles interacting by means a bounded short range potential.

We are neglecting the gravitational interaction between the bodies and the influence on the attractive center. These approximations can be only justified for very light particles and for a few revolution times (the time between two consecutive collisions can be very long with respect to the revolution period of the particles). Considering this, our result has the following interpretation for real systems: the particles can not leave the system due to the collisions, unless other perturbations change enough the orbital parameters.

Our result seems not known in the literature, despite its simplicity and despite the great interest in research on planetary systems. We run in the result while we were studying a numerical models for the dynamics of inelastic particles of planetary rings. It is known (see [13], [1], and [2]) that the inelasticity of the collisions is sufficient to guarantee the persistence of the rings. In contrast, in the case of elastic collisions, almost all the particles leave the system on hyperbolic orbits. Here we prove that in the case of only two particles,

the inelasticity is not needed to avoid that the orbits become hyperbolic or parabolic; in this sense, two colliding particles are a stable subsystem of a ring. This observation and its consequences can be interesting for the study of various models of planetary rings. In particular, in some models it is assumed that the collisions are elastic for small relative velocities (see [5] for experimental result on the inelasticity of ice balls).

From the mathematical point of view, it can be interesting to study how the particles moves on the invariant region. Preliminary two-dimensional numerical simulations, in which the impact parameter is randomly chosen, show that the two orbits are approximately tangent, for most of the time. It is difficult to implement a numerical simulation for the more realistic three-dimensional case. The problem is that it is not easy to find efficiently the values of the anomalies which correspond to collisional configurations. Some useful suggestion and some technical insight can be obtained analyzing the solutions to the problem of finding the critical points of the distance from two elliptic orbits (see [4]).

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we establish the mathematical notation and the exact nature of the problem. In section 3, we analyze a simplified model considering a two-dimensional dynamics of the orbits instead of the dynamics of the to bodies. We consider more general cases in section 4 (two bodies in R 2 ) and in section 5, in which we analyze the case of two bodies in R 3 ; here we also analyze the case of point particles interacting by means a short range potential.

## 2. THE PROBLEM

The system we analyze consists in two spherical bodies, of mass m 1 and m 2 and radii R 1 and R 2 respectively, which are attracted by a fixed gravitational center and interact by means of elastic or inelastic collisions. We indicate with x i and v i the position of the center and the velocity of the body i = 1 2, with , M = m 1 + m 2 the total mass and with m i = mi / M the fraction of the total mass carried by the body i . We choose the units of measure in such that the gravitational potential energy of the body i is mi / ri , where ri = | x i | is the distance from the attracting center.

In the case of hard spheres, inelastic collisions can be modeled supposing that only a part of the normal impulse is transferred, while the tangential one is conserved. Let us denote with n =( x 1 -x 2 ) / ( R 1 + R 2 ) the direction of the relative position at the moment of the impact, and with w = v 1 -v 2 the relative velocity. The particles are in the incoming configuration iff n w · &lt; 0. The relative velocity after the collision is

$$( 1 ) \quad \ \ w ^ { \prime } = ( I - n \times n ) \, w - ( 1 - 2 \varepsilon ) ( n \times n ) \, w \quad \ \.$$

where I is the identity matrix, ( x × y ) i j = xi y j is the tensor product, n × n is the projector on the direction of n , I -n × n is the projector on the orthogonal plane to n , and finally e ∈ [ 0 0 5 , . ] is the parameter of inelasticity, which is 0 in the case of the elastic collision.

The outgoing velocities v ′ 1 , v ′ 2 can be obtained from w ′ using the conservation of the velocity of the center of mass

$$\mathfrak { v } ^ { \prime } = \mu _ { 1 } \mathfrak { v } _ { 1 } ^ { \prime } + \mu _ { 2 } \mathfrak { v } _ { 2 } ^ { \prime } = \mu _ { 1 } \mathfrak { v } _ { 1 } + \mu _ { 2 } \mathfrak { v } _ { 2 } = \mathfrak { v }$$

If the collision is inelastic, the normal component of w is reduced in modulus:

$$w ^ { \prime } \cdot n = - ( 1 - 2 \varepsilon ) w \cdot n, \quad | w ^ { \prime } \cdot n | \leq | w \cdot n |, \\ \cdot \quad \, \cdot \quad \, \cdot \quad \, \cdot \quad \, \cdot \quad \, \cdot \quad \, \cdot \quad \, \cdot \quad \, \cdot \quad \, \cdot \quad \,.$$

where ( 1 -2 e ) ∈ [ 0 1 , ) is the coefficient of restitution which is 1 in the elastic case. The kinetic energy T = m 1 | v 1 | 2 / 2 + m 2 | v 2 | 2 / 2 decreases and becomes

$$T ^ { \prime } = \frac { 1 } { 2 } \left ( m _ { 1 } | \mathbf v _ { 1 } ^ { \prime } | ^ { 2 } + m _ { 2 } | \mathbf v _ { 2 } ^ { \prime } | ^ { 2 } \right ) = T - 2 M \mu _ { 1 } \mu _ { 2 } \varepsilon ( 1 - \varepsilon ) ( \mathbf w \cdot \mathbf n ) ^ { 2 }.$$

We remark that in some model it is assumed that also the tangential component ( I -n × n ) w is reduced (see [2] and [7]). Moreover the restitution coefficient can depend on the

relative velocity, as shown in a huge number of theoretical and experimental studies (see e.g. [3], [6], and references therein). In all these models the kinetic energy decreases.

Let us describe what it can be happen to the orbits after a collision of the two bodies. Before the collision both energies are negative:

$$\bar { \frac { m _ { i } } { 2 } } \mathbf v _ { i } ^ { 2 } - \frac { \bar { m _ { i } } } { | \mathbf x _ { i } | } < 0, \ \ i \in 1, 2. \\ \text{alent to}$$

These conditions are equivalent to

$$& ( 3 ) \quad \ \ \ \ \ \ \ | \mathfrak { v } + \mu _ { 2 } \mathfrak { w } | ^ { 2 } < 2 | \mathfrak { x } _ { 1 } |, \ \ | \mathfrak { v } - \mu _ { 1 } \mathfrak { w } | ^ { 2 } < 2 | \mathfrak { x } _ { 2 } |, \\ & \quad \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \$$

with | x 1 -x 2 | = R 1 + R 2. If

$$| \mathbf w | < \min \left ( ( \sqrt { 2 | \mathbf x _ { 1 } | } - | \mathbf v | ) / \mu _ { 2 }, ( \sqrt { 2 | \mathbf x _ { 2 } | } - | \mathbf v | ) / \mu _ { 1 } \right ) \\ \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \end{array}$$

the inequalities (3) are satisfied, then, after the collision, the orbits remain elliptic because | w ′ | ≤ | w | , as follows from eq.s (1), (2). The hypothesis (4) is not sufficient to avoid that one of the particles leaves the system, because the next collision can take place at other points with very different values of w v x , , 1 and x 2. More in general, a sequence of collisions on different points can end with a particle which leaves the system on an hyperbolic orbit.

In the next section we show how to control the condition of ellipticity, regardless the collision history. Let us first note that, for bodies with vanishing radii, the possible points of collision are at most two, which is the maximum number of intersection of two non identical co-focal Keplerian orbits. As noted by Poincar´ e in [12], if two orbits have two points of intersections the points and the center of gravity are on a line or the two orbits are in a plane. Then we start our analysis in section 3 with the two dimensional case, also simplifying the dynamics considering two point particles.

## 3. THE INVARIANT REGION FOR TWO POINT-PARTICLES IN R 2

In this section we consider a simplified bi-dimensional mathematical model. We suppose that the bodies are point particles moving on co-focal Keplerian orbits in a plane. In order to allow the particles collide, we have to assume that the orbits intersect (note that this can happen at most in two points). Although this condition is satisfied, the particles can not collide because the cross section is zero for dimensionless bodies. In order to avoids this problem, we considered the dynamics of the orbits : we choose as variables the parameters of two orbits o 1 and o 2, and we evolve the system with the following procedure: we choose one of the points of intersection, we consider in that point two fictitious particles on the two orbits, we choose an impact parameter n and we consider the resulting orbits o ′ 1 and o ′ 2 after the collision of the two particles. We will show, in Theorem 3.1, that for sufficiently low value of the total energy, the new orbits o ′ 1 and o ′ 2 remain intersecting ellipses, for any choice between the two possible collision points and for any choice of the impact parameter n . The keys points of the proof are the conservation of the total momentum, the decrease of the energy, and the fact that the condition of intersection of the orbits is a feature preserved by the dynamics.

For the orbit oi of the particle i , w i is the angle between the x axis and the position of the periapsis (the point of the orbit of the minimal distances from the attractive center); J i is the true anomaly, i.e. the angle in the orbital plane between the particle and the periapsis of the orbit; Ei = v 2 i / 2 -1 / ri is the specific energy (i.e. the energy for unit of mass); Li = r 2 i ˙ J i is the specific angular momentum; ei = √ 1 + 2 EiL i 2 is the eccentricity. The position of the particle i in orbits is given by

$$\mathbf x _ { i } = \frac { L _ { i } ^ { 2 } } { 1 + e _ { i } \cos \vartheta _ { i } } \binom { \cos ( \vartheta _ { i } + \omega _ { i } ) } { \sin ( \vartheta _ { i } + \omega _ { i } ) }$$

/C8/CB/CU/D6/CP/CV

All the quantities Ei and Li are conserved during the Keplerian motion but only the combinations m E 1 1 + m E 2 2 (the total energy) and m L 1 1 + m L 2 2 (the total angular momentum) are conserved in the elastic collisions, moreover m E 1 1 + m E 2 2 decreases if the collisions are inelastic. We fix the initial values of the specific energy and the specific angular momentum of the whole system:

$$\begin{smallmatrix} L = \mu _ { 1 } L _ { 1 } + \mu _ { 2 } L _ { 2 } \\ E = \mu _ { 1 } E _ { 1 } + \mu _ { 2 } E _ { 2 } \end{smallmatrix}$$

We can assume L ≥ 0 without loss of generality, and we consider E &lt; 0, which is the case of a couple of elliptic orbits. We rewrite the orbital parameters in terms of the differences of the energy and angular momentum:

$$& ( 7 ) \quad \delta E = E _ { 1 } - E _ { 2 } \quad \text{ from which } \quad E _ { 1 } = E + \mu _ { 2 } \delta E \quad \text{ and } \quad L _ { 1 } = L + \mu _ { 2 } \delta L \\ & \quad E _ { 2 } = E - \mu _ { 1 } \delta E \quad \text{ and } \quad L _ { 2 } = L - \mu _ { 1 } \delta L. \\ & \text{ from those an CONTINUE} \, \text{ and } \text{the dimension}$$

From these quantities we can obtain the shapes (i.e. the eccentricities) and the dimensions of the orbits. Theirs positions in the framework are specified by the angles w i , but we are only interested in the relative position of the two orbits, which is given by dw = w 1 -w 2.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0347v1-figure-8bbfb87f-34fc-4238-8688-b2946ebf98a0.jpg)

L

1

e

2

= 0

= 0

1

= 0

L

2

= 0

-

2

/B4/CQ/B5

EL

=

-

0 4

.

FIGURE 1. m 1 = 0 45: . the region of the admissible values for EL 2 = -0 6 and . EL 2 = -0 4. .

Not all the values of d E and d L correspond to couple of orbits: namely the energy Ei and the angular momentum Li must satisfy the condition 0 ≤ e 2 i = 1 + 2 EiL i 2 , i.e.

$$\frac { 1 } { \mu _ { 2 } } \left ( - E - \frac { 1 } { 2 L _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } } \right ) \leq \delta E \leq \frac { 1 } { \mu _ { 1 } } \left ( E + \frac { 1 } { 2 L _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } } \right )$$

These inequalities define, in the space d L , d E , the region of admissibility

A

= (

d

L

,

d

E

)

eq.s (8) hold

,

which we show in fig. 1. The boundary of A corresponds to e 1 = 0, i.e. d E = -1 m 2 ( E + 1 2 L 2 1 ) ,

{

|

}

and e 2 = 0 i.e. d E 1 m 1 ( E + 1 2 L 2 2 ) . As follows from easy calculations, the topology of the set A depends on the value of EL 2 . If EL 2 &lt; -1 / 2, as in fig. 1 (a), the region is not connected (this condition is equivalent to the non existence of the 'mean orbit', i.e. the orbit of energy E and angular momentum L , whose eccentricity is √ 1 + 2 EL 2 ). If -1 / 2 ≤ EL 2 &lt; 0, as in fig. 1 (n), the region is connected.

If d E ∈ ( E / m 1 , -E / m 2 ) the orbits are both elliptic, while if d E &gt; -E / m 2 (i.e. E 1 &gt; 0) the first orbit is hyperbolic and if d E &lt; E / m 1 (i.e. E 2 &gt; 0 ) the second orbit is hyperbolic. If d L ∈ -( L / m 1 , L / m 2 ) both the particles move counterclockwise, while if d L = L / m 2 (i.e. L 1 = 0) or d L = -L / m 1 (i.e. L 2 = 0) one of the orbits degenerates.

We fix m 1 ≤ m 2 without loss of generality, and we consider the case E &lt; 0.

δE

E

E

1

2

= 0

= 0

/D6/CT/D4/D0/CP
/CT/D1/CT/D2/D8/D7

/C8/CB/CU/D6/CP/CV

/D6/CT/D4/D0/CP
/CT/D1/CT/D2/D8/D7

e

δL

## Theorem 3.1. Let be

(9)

where

(10)

$$\sigma = \sigma ( \mu _ { 1 }, \mu _ { 2 } ) = - \frac { ( 1 - e ^ { 2 } ) ( \mu _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } + \mu _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } e ) ^ { 2 } } { 2 \mu _ { 2 } e ^ { 2 } }$$

$$e = \left ( \sqrt { ( \mu _ { 1 } / \mu _ { 2 } ) ^ { 4 } + 8 ( \mu _ { 1 } / \mu _ { 2 } ) ^ { 2 } } - ( \mu _ { 1 } / \mu _ { 2 } ) ^ { 2 } \right ) / 4.$$

If initially

$$E L ^ { 2 } < \sigma$$

the orbits remain elliptic for all times.

Moreover, | L 1 | and | L 2 | are bounded and ei ≤ ci &lt; 1 for suitable constants c 1 , c 2 .

## Remarks.

- i. As we will see in the proof, if the orbits intersect, the value of EL 2 is bounded from below: EL 2 ≥-1 / 2.
- ii. According to the spatial scale invariance of the problem, the behavior of the system depends only on the product EL 2 of the two invariant quantities E and L .
- iii. In the proof, we study the condition of intersection in terms of the orbital parameters; for a similar analysis see [8].
- iv. If M is the mass of the central body, G the Newton constant and k = GM the standard gravitational parameter of the system, the major semi-axes of the orbit i is L i 2 / ( k ( 1 -ei )) where the eccentricity is ei = √ 1 + 2 L i 2 Ei / k 2 . The condition (11) must be rewritten in term of EL 2 / k 2 .
- v. The invariant region is large, from two point of view: it contains couples of orbits which can be very different, and the orbits live in a huge region on the configuration space. For instance, in the case m 1 = m 2 = 0 5, the critical value is . EL 2 = -27 64, / and, for this value, if one of the particles has the same orbit of the Earth, the other particle can intersect the Jupiter orbit, and can arrive at 6 95 U.A. from the Sun. If we . consider two orbits with L 1 = L 2 = L and E 1 = E 2 = E , their eccentricity is √ 5 / 32 ≈ 0 40 and the ratio between the major and the minor semi-axis is approximately 2 33. . .
- vi. We have fixed the attractive center, therefore we are not considering here a three body problem, in which we can fix only the center of mass. The planetary three body system is usually described as a perturbation of the system obtained in the canonical heliocentric variables neglecting the terms of order m m 1 2 (see e.g. [9]). This unperturbed system is a system of two particles moving independently on Keplerian orbits, with respect the position of the large body. The standard gravitational parameters are G M ( + mi ) , and can be different for the two particles. Our results also hold in this case, with minor modifications.
- vii. We have done some preliminary numerical simulations for this model, with n &gt; 2 particles. For n = 3, if initially all the particles can collide with the others, in the elastic case one of the particle leaves the system after few collisions; in the inelastic case one of the particle stops to interact with the others after few collisions, and the orbits of the others two particles converge. A system of a large amount of colliding particles exhibits a complex behavior: a certain number of particles (decreasing with the parameter of inelasticity e ) leaves the system, the others particles asymptotically separate in non interacting clusters of one particle or two colliding particles. Let us note that for some different inelastic model (somewhat artificial), it can be proved the existence of 'ringlets' i.e. the existence of a state of n particle which does not cease to interact, and whose orbits converge (see [7]).

Proof. We prove the theorem in the case of elastic collisions, for which E L , and EL 2 are conserved quantities, and then the condition (11) is invariant for the dynamics. In the case

of inelastic collisions, the thesis follows from the fact that L is conserved and E and EL 2 can only decrease, then the condition (11) is invariant for the dynamics also in this case.

The proof follows from the fact that if EL 2 is sufficiently close to -0 5, and the orbits . intersect, then the two orbits are elliptic, as we now show.

The two orbits intersect if x 1 = x 2 for some value of the anomalies J 1 and J 2. Using eq. (5), this condition is expressed by the equalities

$$\vartheta _ { 2 } - \vartheta _ { 1 } = \omega _ { 1 } - \omega _ { 2 } = \delta \omega \quad \text{and} \ \ L _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } ( 1 + e _ { 2 } \cos \vartheta _ { 2 } ) = L _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } ( 1 + e _ { 1 } \cos \vartheta _ { 1 } ). \\ \intertext { r \dots \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \end{matrix}$$

Inserting in the last equation that J 2 = J 1 + dw , we obtain an equation in the unknown J 2 that can be solved if and only if

$$& ( 1 2 ) & & e _ { 1 } e _ { 2 } \cos \delta \omega \leq 1 + L _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } E _ { 1 } + L _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } E _ { 2 } \\ & \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \end{array}$$

Let us define the set of the values of ( d L , d E ) for which two orbits of parameters L 1 , E 1 and L 2 , E 2 intersect if the angle between the periapsides is dw = h :

$$& ( 1 3 ) & & I _ { \eta } = \{ ( \delta L, \delta E ) \in A | e _ { 1 } e _ { 2 } \cos \eta \leq 1 + L _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } E _ { 1 } + L _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } E _ { 2 } \} \\ & \text{n....... }$$

By definition

$$I _ { \eta _ { 1 } } & \subset I _ { \eta _ { 2 } } \text{ if } \eta _ { 1 } < \eta _ { 2 }, \\ [ \Omega \pi ] \text{ This immediately that if } \text{w}.$$

and in particular I h ⊂ I p if h ∈ [ 0 , p ] . This implies that, if we rotate two intersecting orbits, in such a way that the two periapsides become in opposition ( dw = p ), we obtain two orbits which intersect. The intersection condition is invariant for the dynamics, then all the values ( d L , d E ) during the evolution are in the set

$$& ( 1 4 ) & I _ { \pi } = \{ ( \delta L, \delta E ) \in A | e _ { 1 } e _ { 2 } \geq - ( 1 + L _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } E _ { 1 } + L _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } E _ { 2 } ) \} \\ & \tau _ { 1 } \dots \dots \alpha _ { 2 } \dots \tau _ { 2 } \colon \colon \dots \dots \alpha _ { 2 } \colon \colon \dots$$

Therefore the set I p is invariant for the dynamics.

Now we show that I p is contained in the region in which both the orbits are elliptic, if EL 2 is sufficiently small. The set I p as defined in (14) is the union of the set of values of d L and d E in A which solve

$$( 1 5 ) & & e _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } e _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } = ( 1 + 2 E _ { 1 } L _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } ) ( 1 + 2 E _ { 2 } L _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } ) \geq ( 1 + L _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } E _ { 1 } + L _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } E _ { 2 } ) ^ { 2 } \\ & & \dots \cdots \cdots \cdots$$

provided that

$$& \quad 1 + L _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } E _ { 1 } + L _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } E _ { 2 } \leq 0, \\ & \quad \dots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \end{cases}$$

and the set of values which solve

$$& 1 + L _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } E _ { 1 } + L _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } E _ { 2 } \geq 0, \\ & \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \end{cases}$$

Note that this last equation identifies the region I p / 2 , i.e. the region of intersecting orbits with perpendicular semi-major axis, and it is equivalent to

$$& ( 1 8 ) & \delta E ( \mu _ { 1 } \mu _ { 2 } \delta L + ( \mu _ { 1 } - \mu _ { 2 } ) ) \leq 1 + 2 E L ^ { 2 } - ( \mu _ { 1 } - \mu _ { 2 } ) E \delta L, \\ & \tau _ { - } \, \nu \, \varepsilon \, \vdots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \,.$$

Eq. (15) is equivalent to

$$& ( 1 9 ) \quad \delta E ^ { 2 } ( \mu _ { 1 } L _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } + \mu _ { 2 } L _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } ) ^ { 2 } - 2 \delta E ( L _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } - L _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } ) ( 1 + E ( \mu _ { 1 } L _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } + \mu _ { 2 } L _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } ) ) + E ^ { 2 } ( L _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } - L _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } ) ^ { 2 } \leq 0 \\ & \dots \colon \colon \dots \colon \dots \colon \colon \colon$$

which can be solved if

$$( 2 0 ) & & ( L _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } - L _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } ) ^ { 2 } ( 1 + 2 E ( \mu _ { 1 } L _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } + \mu _ { 2 } L _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } ) ) \geq 0 \\ \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau - \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau + \tau } ) \times 0.$$

$$& \delta L ^ { 2 } \leq \frac { 1 - 2 | E | L ^ { 2 } } { 2 | E | \mu _ { 1 } \mu _ { 2 } } \\ & \text{The boundary of the region identified by the inequality (19) is $\varepsilon$}$$

If | L 1 | glyph[negationslash] = | L 2 | this condition is equivalent to 1 + 2 E L ( 2 + m m d 1 2 L 2 ) ≥ 0 then the set I p is non void if and only if 1 + 2 EL 2 ≥ 0, and it is bounded by the condition

The boundary of the region identified by the inequality (19) is given by the functions

$$( 2 2 ) \quad \delta E = \frac { L _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } - L _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } } { ( \mu _ { 1 } L _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } + \mu _ { 2 } L _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } ) ^ { 2 } } \left ( 1 + E ( \mu _ { 1 } L _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } + \mu _ { 2 } L _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } ) \pm \sqrt { 1 + 2 E ( \mu _ { 1 } L _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } + \mu _ { 2 } L _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } ) } \right )$$

/C8/CB/CU/D6/CP/CV

/D6/CT/D4/D0/CP
/CT/D1/CT/D2/D8/D7

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0347v1-figure-c4faa4f9-d25a-4aea-b778-91fc5d202d19.jpg)

/C8/CB/CU/D6/CP/CV

/D6/CT/D4/D0/CP
/CT/D1/CT/D2/D8/D7

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0347v1-figure-05bce9a8-a1c1-4c35-b7b2-7c0498578810.jpg)

-

-

FIGURE 2. m 1 = 0 45: the set . I p for EL 2 = -0 41 and . EL 2 = -0 445. . Over the line E 1 = 0, the orbit 1 is hyperbolic.

which have the sign of L 2 1 -L 2 2 .

In figure 2 we show the region I p , identified by the inequality (18) (region I p / 2 ⊂ I p ) and the inequality (19) (region I p \ I p / 2 ). In figure 2 (a), the value of EL 2 is -0 41, and the . region I p intersects the region E 1 ≥ 0 (i.e. d E &gt; | E | / m 2). Then, after a collision, one of the outgoing orbits can become hyperbolic. In figure 2 (b), the value of EL 2 is smaller and the invariant region I p is completely contained in the region d E ∈ -| ( E | / m 2 , | E | / m 1 ) in which both the orbits are elliptic. Then, whatever are the details of the collisions, the two orbits remain elliptic, whit ei ≤ ci &lt; 1 for some constants c 1 , c 2, and | L 1 | , | L 2 | are bounded via (21) and (6).

Now we will show that the behavior of the system is driven by EL 2 : there exists a critical value which separates the two cases. Let us define

$$& ( 2 3 ) & & \bar { d } ( \delta L, \delta E ) = \frac { L _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } } { 1 + e _ { 1 } } - \frac { L _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } } { 1 - e _ { 2 } }. \\ & \text{This quantity is the distance from the neriansis of the orbits 1 and the a}$$

This quantity is the distance from the periapsis of the orbits 1 and the apoapsis of the orbit 2, in the case of w = p . The value of ¯ is 0 on the boundary of d I p in the first quadrant, out of I p / 2 (see fig. 2). Then the critical value of E e L is such that

$$E _ { 1 } = 0, \, e _ { 1 } = 1, \, \bar { d } ( \delta E, \delta L ) = 0, \, \frac { \partial \bar { d } } { \partial \delta L } ( \delta E, \delta L ) = 0$$

(the gradient of ¯ d ( d E , d L ) is vertical in the point of tangency to the line E 1 = 0). By deriving ¯ with respect to d d L we obtain

$$& ( 2 4 ) \quad \partial _ { \delta _ { L } } \bar { d } = 2 \mu _ { 2 } \frac { L _ { 1 } } { 1 + e _ { 1 } } + 2 \mu _ { 1 } \frac { L _ { 2 } } { 1 - e _ { 2 } } - 2 \mu _ { 2 } E _ { 1 } L _ { 1 } \frac { L _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } } { e _ { 1 } ( 1 + e _ { 1 } ) ^ { 2 } } + 2 \mu _ { 1 } E _ { 2 } L _ { 2 } \frac { L _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } } { e _ { 2 } ( 1 - e _ { 2 } ) ^ { 2 } } \\ & \text{black} \quad \underset { 1 } { \lambda } \ \in \ \mathcal { N } \ \mathcal { N } ^ { 2 } - 1 \ \mathcal { N } ^ { 2 } \ \text{black} \quad \underset { 1 } { \lambda }$$

which, using -2 EiL i 2 = 1 -e 2 i , becomes (25)

$$\partial _ { \delta L } \bar { d } = 2 \mu _ { 2 } \frac { L _ { 1 } } { 1 + e _ { 1 } } + 2 \mu _ { 1 } \frac { L _ { 2 } } { 1 - e _ { 2 } } \mu _ { 2 } L _ { 1 } \frac { 1 - e _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } } { e _ { 1 } ( 1 + e _ { 1 } ) ^ { 2 } } - \mu _ { 1 } L _ { 2 } \frac { 1 - e _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } } { e _ { 2 } ( 1 - e _ { 2 } ) ^ { 2 } } = \frac { \mu _ { 2 } } { e _ { 1 } } L _ { 1 } - \frac { \mu _ { 1 } } { e _ { 2 } } L _ { 2 }. \\ \intertext { T h a c o n d i t i o n } \Delta _ { \bar { A } } - \Delta \, \partial \, \text{th a d i f i t i o n } \Delta _ { \bar { I } } \, \text{ in as a l u m o t o s o l u m o t o } \Delta _ { \bar { I } } \, \text{ in }$$

The condition ¶d L d ¯ = 0 and the definition of L in eq. (6) allow us to calculate L 1, L 2 in terms of e 1, e 2:

$$\begin{array} { c } L _ { 1 } = \mu _ { 1 } e _ { 1 } L / ( \mu _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } e _ { 1 } + \mu _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } e _ { 2 } ) \\ L _ { 2 } = \mu _ { 2 } e _ { 2 } L / ( \mu _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } e _ { 1 } + \mu _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } e _ { 2 } ) \end{array}$$

Using these expressions in ¯ d = 0 with e 1 = 1 we obtain the following equation for e 2:

$$2 \mu _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } e _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } = \mu _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } ( 1 - e _ { 2 } ),$$

/C8/CB/CU/D6/CP/CV

/D6/CT/D4/D0/CP
/CT/D1/CT/D2/D8/D7

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0347v1-figure-645ac925-c704-4ba4-8152-46803141c453.jpg)

0 3

.

L

2

/B4/CQ/B5

EL

δE

=

0 52

.

-

E

2

δL

= 0

-

FIGURE 3. m 1 = 0 45: . the values of ¯ in grayscale, in the case d EL 2 = -0 445 and . EL 2 = -0 52. .

which has only one solution in ( 0 1 , given by eq. , ) (10). Substituting this value in the expression of L 2, we obtain the critical values of EL 2 as in (11), imposing 1 + E L 2 2 2 = e 2 2 , with E 2 = E / m 1 and e 1 = 1:

$$E L ^ { 2 } = - ( 1 - e _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } ) ( \mu _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } + \mu _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } e _ { 2 } ) ^ { 2 } / ( 2 \mu _ { 2 } e _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } ). \\ \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \end{array}$$

Note that we can find a similar condition for which the region I p is tangent to the line E 2 = 0, but in the case m 1 ≤ m 2 this second critical value of EL 2 is greater then the previous, then it can be ignored. glyph[square]

## 4. THE INVARIANT REGION FOR TWO BODIES IN R 2

In this section, the case of two bodies and the case of point particles which interact by means of a short range potential are analyzed.

Theorem 4.1. We consider two circular bodies in R 2 of radii R 1 and R , interacting by 2 means of elastic or inelastic collisions. If EL 2 &lt; s m ( 1 , m 2 ) , with s as defined in eq. (9) , and D = R 1 + R 2 is sufficiently small, then the two bodies remain on elliptic orbits.

Proof. We show that if two orbits have points whose distance is less then or equal to D , and EL 2 &lt; s and D is sufficiently small, then the orbits are elliptic. We remark that the condition on the distance is preserved by the dynamics.

Fixed L 1 , L 2 , E 1 , E 2, assuming that the two bodies can collide, we need to distinguish two situations: it exists dw such that the orbits intersect, and then ( d L , d E ) ∈ I p , or the orbits do not intersect for any dw . One of them, named orbit 2, is contained in the other. But min dw min J 1 , J 2 | x 1 -x 2 | ≤ D , and the minimum is reached for dw = p , then 0 &lt; ¯ d ( d L , d E ) ≤ D (note that if the orbit of the particle 1 is contained in the orbit of the particle 2, we have to define ¯ as in (23), but exchanging the indexes 1 d ↔ 2).

If EL 2 &lt; s , the distance between the level set ¯ d = 0 (the boundary of I p ) and the critical lines E 1 = 0, E 2 = 0, is strictly positive. Then, if D is sufficiently small, the set ¯ d ≤ D does not intersect the region in which E 1 ≥ 0 or E 2 ≥ 0, and this proves the theorem. glyph[square]

In figure 3 we show the level sets of ¯ . d In figure 3 (a), EL 2 = -0 445 and the invariant . set I p and the values of ¯ in the complementary region are shown: the black color corred sponds to ¯ d = 0, the white color corresponds to ¯ d ≥ L 2 / 10, while the grays correspond to the values ¯ d ∈ ( 0 , L 2 / 10 . The critical value of ) D is approximately 0 034 . L 2 . Figure 3 (b) is relative to the case EL 2 = -0 52, in which the set . I p is void. Nevertheless, the set ¯ d ≤ D is invariant and is contained in the region of elliptic orbits if D is sufficiently small. In the graphics, the black color corresponds to ¯ d = 0 2 . L 2 , the white to ¯ d ≥ 0 3 . L 2 . In this case, the critical value for D is approximately 0 25 . L 2 .

We are not able to give a simple expression for the critical values of EL 2 and D , but for the case m 1 = m 2 = 1 / 2, in which the particles have the same mass.

/C8/CB/CU/D6/CP/CV

/D6/CT/D4/D0/CP
/CT/D1/CT/D2/D8/D7

E

1

0 2

.

= 0

L

2

2

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0347v1-figure-19f592c5-054b-4033-a103-9e42de34d827.jpg)

-

3 0

.

FIGURE 4. m 1 = m 2 = 0 5: the critical value of . EL 2 in function of D L / 2 .

Theorem 4.2. If m 1 = m 2 = 1 / 2 , the conditions on EL 2 and D are

$$E L ^ { 2 } < - \frac { ( 1 - e ^ { 2 } ) ( 1 + e ) ^ { 2 } } { 1 6 e ^ { 2 } } \ w h e r e \, e = \gamma - \sqrt { \gamma ^ { 2 } - \gamma + 1 } \, \text{ with } \gamma = 2 L ^ { 2 } / D > 1$$

Proof. We proceed as in the proof of Theorem 3.1. Assuming m 1 = m 2 = 1 / 2 and EL 2 &lt; -27 64, the critical condition / ¶d L d ¯ ( d E , d L ) = 0 allows us to obtain the value of L 1 and L 2 as in eq. (26), which becomes

$$\begin{array} { c } L _ { 1 } = 2 e _ { 1 } L / ( e _ { 1 } + e _ { 2 } ) \\ L _ { 2 } = 2 e _ { 2 } L / ( e _ { 1 } + e _ { 2 } ) \end{array}$$

Using these values in ¯ d = D with e 1 = 1, we obtain the following equation for e 2

$$2 L ^ { 2 } ( 1 - 2 e _ { 2 } ) = D ( 1 - e _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } ),$$

which is solved in ( 0 1 , ) by

$$e _ { 2 } = \gamma - \sqrt { \gamma ^ { 2 } - \gamma + 1 } \quad \text{where} \quad \gamma = 2 L ^ { 2 } / D \quad \text{with} \quad D < 2 L ^ { 2 }. \\ \int _ { \dots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \\ \int _ { \dots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cd� \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \colon \quad \end{array}$$

The corresponding value of EL 2 is given by EL 2 = -( 1 -e 2 2 )( 1 + e 2 ) 2 / ( 16 e 2 2 ) . glyph[square]

In figure 4 we plot these values in function of D L / 2 . Let us recall that for EL 2 &lt; -0 5 . the two orbits do not intersect.

The last extension we consider in the two dimensional case is that of two point particles interacting by means of a force of symmetric potential energy V ( | x 1 -x 2 | ) , with a compact support.

Theorem 4.3. Let us consider two point particles interacting by means of a force of potential energy V = V ( | x 1 -x 2 | ) , such that V ( r ) = 0 if r ≥ D for some D &gt; 0 and V ( r ) ≥-U with U ≥ 0 .

If EL 2 &lt; s m ( 1 , m 2 ) , with s as in eq. (9) , and and D and U are sufficiently small, then the particles remains on bounded orbits.

Proof. The specific angular momentum L = m 1 L 1 + m 2 L 2 is conserved at any time also in this case, because the potential energy is symmetric. If | x 1 -x 2 | ≥ D the energy of the interaction is zero and the specific energy of the system is exactly

$$E = \mu _ { 1 } \left ( \frac { \mathbf v _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } } { 2 } - \frac { 1 } { | \mathbf x _ { 1 } | } \right ) + \mu _ { 2 } \left ( \frac { \mathbf v _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } } { 2 } - \frac { 1 } { | \mathbf x _ { 2 } | } \right ) \\ \text{he twoarticles leave the region of the interaction. we c}.$$

Therefore, when the two particles leave the region of the interaction, we can apply Theorem 4.1, concluding that the particles remain on elliptic orbits until the next interaction.

To achieve the proof, we have to discuss the motion of the particles during the interaction, i.e. when their distance is less than D . If | x 1 -x 2 | &lt; D , we can consider the two 'osculating' Keplerian orbits, i.e. the Keplerian orbits which correspond to the two couple position-velocity ( x 1 , v 1 ) , and ( x 2 , v 2 ) . The specific energies of this two orbits are

$$E _ { 1 } = \mathbf v _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } / 2 - 1 / | \mathbf x _ { 1 } |, \quad E _ { 2 } = \mathbf v _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } / 2 - 1 / | \mathbf x _ { 2 } |. \\ \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots \end{cases}$$

These quantities are not the specific energies of the two particles (because the contribution of the interaction is not zero), but verify

$$\tilde { E } = \mu _ { 1 } E _ { 1 } + \mu _ { 2 } E _ { 2 } = E - V ( | \mathbf x _ { 1 } - \mathbf x _ { 2 } | ) / ( m _ { 1 } + m _ { 2 } ) \leq E + U / ( m _ { 1 } + m _ { 2 } ) \\ \intertext { a t i n d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d o d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d e d s e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n s e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i in s e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i s e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i m d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i in d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i s t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e s t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t e n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s e t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s s e t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i in d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n d e s t i n$$

by the conservation of the total energy. If EL 2 &lt; s and U is sufficiently small, we have also that ˜ EL 2 &lt; s , then we can apply Theorem 4.1, using ˜ E instead of E . Therefore, if D is sufficiently small, as in the hypothesis of Theorem 4.1, the two osculating orbits are elliptic, with bounded value of L 1, L 2, and ei ≤ ci &lt; 1, as follows from the compactness of the set I p ∪{ ¯ d ( d L , d E ) ≤ D } ⊂ ( -L / m 1 , L / m 2 ) × ( E / m 1 , -E / m 2 ) . glyph[square]

## 5. THE INVARIANT REGION FOR TWO BODIES IN R 3

Here we discuss the three dimensional case. We indicate with L i = x i ∧ v i the vector which express the specific angular momentum of the particle i in the positi'on x i whit velocity v i , and with L the specific angular momentum of the whole system L = m 1 L 1 + m 2 L 2, which is a conserved vector. In this case, they hold the analogous of Theorems 3.1, 4.1, 4.3, where the role of L is played by | L | . We summarize these results in the following theorem.

Theorem 5.1. (1) The invariant region for the orbital dynamics in R 3 , defined as in section 3, is given by

$$E | \mathbf L | ^ { 2 } < \sigma \\ e i n \, e a \, \mathbf L \mathbf 0$$

with s = s m ( 1 , m 2 ) defined as in eq. (9) .

- (2) The invariant region for the collisional dynamics of two hard spheres in R 3 , of radii R 1 and R , with D 2 = R 1 + R , is given by E 2 | L | 2 &lt; s with D sufficiently small.
- (3) The invariant region for two point particles interacting by means a potential energy V as in Theorem 4.3, is given by E | L | 2 &lt; s with D and U sufficiently small.

Proof. We prove the theorem staring from the last case, which includes the others as particular ones. As in the proof of Theorem 4.3, we define

$$E _ { 1 } = 1 / 2 \mathbf v _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } - 1 / | \mathbf x _ { 1 } |, \ \ E _ { 2 } = 1 / 2 \mathbf v _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } - 1 / | \mathbf x _ { 2 } |, \ \tilde { E } = \mu _ { 1 } E _ { 1 } + \mu _ { 2 } E _ { 2 }$$

and we note that

$$\tilde { E } & = E \quad \text{ if } \quad | \mathbf x _ { 1 } - \mathbf x _ { 2 } | \geq D \\ \tilde { E } & \leq E + U / ( m _ { 1 } + m _ { 2 } ) \quad \text{ if } \quad | \mathbf x _ { 1 } - \mathbf x _ { 2 } | < D. \\ \text{ while } \tilde { T } - | \mathbf x _ { 1 } | \text{ that modulo of the amount of the output of}$$

Weindicate whit ˜ Li = | L i | the modulus of the angular momentum of the orbit of the particle i , and we define

$$\tilde { L } = \mu _ { 1 } \tilde { L } _ { 1 } + \mu _ { 2 } \tilde { L } _ { 2 }$$

which verifies

$$| \mathbf L | = | \mu _ { 1 } \mathbf L _ { 1 } + \mu _ { 2 } \mathbf L _ { 2 } | \leq \tilde { L } \text{ and } \, E \tilde { L } ^ { 2 } \leq E | \mathbf L | ^ { 2 }$$

( E is negative). Moreover

$$\tilde { E } \tilde { L } ^ { 2 } \leq \left ( E + \frac { U } { m _ { 1 } + m _ { 2 } } \right ) | \tilde { L } ^ { 2 } |$$

then, if E L 2 &lt; s as in the hypothesis, for U

$$\tilde { E } \tilde { L } ^ { 2 } < \sigma$$

| | sufficiently small, it also holds

Let us indicate whit oi the Keplerian orbit identified by the position x i and the velocity v i ; its energy is Ei and its angular momentum is L i . If the particles can interact, o 1 and o 2 have points at distance less then D . We consider the orbits ˜1 o and ˜2 o we obtain rigid rotating in R 3 , around the center, o 1 and o 2, in such that ˜1 o and ˜2 o are in the same plane, and the periapsides of ˜1 o and ˜2 o are in opposition. The energy and the eccentricity of the orbits ˜ oi are the same of the orbits oi , while we can identify the angular momentum of ˜ oi with the positive scalar quantity ˜ Li . This two planar orbits intersect or have points at distance less that D . In the first case, we can apply Theorem 3.1 using (28), and we can conclude that the ˜1, o ˜2, and then o o 1 and o 2 are elliptic. In the second case, we can apply Theorem 4.1, and we can again conclude that, if D is sufficiently small, the orbits are elliptic.

The case of spherical bodies can be considered as a particular case, in which V =+ ¥ , if | x 1 -x 2 | ≤ D . Now U = 0 and we have only to require a sufficiently small value of D . Finally, the case of the orbital dynamics can be considered as the particular case in which D = 0. The hypothesis E | L | 2 &lt; s is then sufficient to achieve the thesis. glyph[square]

## Remarks.

- i. The values of D in Theorem 4.1 can be very large with respect to the scale L 2 of the semi-axis of the orbits, but, if it is so, the system is in the region EL 2 &lt; -1 / 2, in which the orbits do not intersect. Therefore, the system is made of two particle which can interact only by means of grazing collisions.
- ii. It can be interesting to analyze the case of Theorem 4.3 when V is unbounded from below. The particles can leave the system only if their distance remains less then D , and, in this case, we can expect that the center of mass of the two particles moves on an approximately elliptic orbit. On the other hand, there are no a priori bounds on the kinetic energy or on the position of this center of mass.
- iii. It can be also interesting to analyze the case of n &gt; 2 particles, with positive radii. In particular it can be expected that there exist stable ringlets in which the collisions are grazing.

## Acknowledgments

The authors thank L. Biasco, E. Caglioti, G. F. Gronchi, P. Negrini, for usefull suggestions on this subject.

## REFERENCES

- [1] Braich A.: Systems of colliding bodies in a gravitational field. I - Numerical simulation of the standard model , Astron. Astroph. 54 no. 3, pp. 895-907 (1977).
- [2] Braich A., H´ enon M.: Systems of colliding bodies in a gravitational field: II. Effect of transversal viscosity , Astron. Astroph. 59 no. 1, pp. 1-7 (1977).
- [3] Djerassi S.: Collision with friction; Part A: Newton's hypothesis , Multibody Syst. Dyn. 21 , pp. 37-54 (2009) doi:10.1007/s11044-008-9126-2.
- [4] Gronchi G.F.: On the stationary points of the squared distance between two ellipses with a common focus , SIAM Jour. Sci. Comp. 24 1, pp. 61-80 (2002).
- [5] Hatzes A.P., Briges F.G., Lin D.N.C.: Collisional properties of ice spheres at low impact velocities , Royal Astr. Soc. 231 , pp. 1091-1115 (1988).
- [6] Hertzsch J.-M., Scholl H., Spahn F., Katzorke I.: Simulation of collisions in planetary rings , Astron. Astrophys. 320 , pp. 319-324 (1997).
- [7] Kawai T., Shida K.: An inelastic collision model for the evolution of 'Planetary Rings' , Jour. Phys. Soc. Jap. 59 no. 1, pp. 381-388 (1990).
- [8] Laskar J.: On the spacing of planetary systems , Phy. Rev. Let. 84 no. 15, pp. 3240-3243 (2000) .
- [9] Laskar J., Robutel P.: Stability of the planetary three-body problem I , Cel. Mech. Dyn. Astr. 62 , pp. 193-217 (1995).
- [10] Marsden J.E., Ross S.D.: New method in celestial mechanics and mission design , Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 43 1, pp. 43-73 (2005).
- [11] Papaloizou J.C.B.: Planetary system formation , Science 321 pp. 777-778 (2008).
- [12] Poincar´ e H.: Les m´ ethodes nouvelles de la m´ ecanique c´ eleste (1889), tome III, chapitre XXII, Lib. Sci. Tech. A. Blanchard, Paris (1987)
- 12 AN INVARIANT REGION FOR THE COLLISIONAL DYNAMICS OF TWO BODIES ON KEPLERIAN ORBITS
- [13] Poincar´ e H., Vergne H.: Lecons sur les hypotheses cosmogoniques , A. Hemann et fils, Paris (1911).
Dario Benedetto Flavia Lenti
An invariant region for the collisional dynamics of two bodies on Keplerian orbits
We study the dynamics of two bodies moving on elliptic Keplerian orbits
around a fixed center of attraction and interacting only by means of elastic or
inelastic collisions. We show that there exists a bounded invariant region: for
suitable values of the total energy and the total angular momentum (explicitly
computable) the orbits of the bodies remain elliptic, whatever are the number
and the details of the collisions. We show that there exists a bounded
invariant region even in the case of two bodies interacting by short range
potential.