I'm studying Classical mechanics on Arnold's "Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics". In a problem I am asked to find for which α the circular orbits in the central field problem are Lyapunov stable with the potential in the form U(r)=rα,−2≤α<∞
- What is the difference between these two types of stability?
- Is Lyapunov one stronger, and in which sense it is?
- How i can prove that if α=2 circular orbits are Lyapunov stable?
Answer
Let me call radial stability the stability of r around r0, where r0 is the radius of the circular orbit. The difference between this one and the Lyapunov stability is that the latter looks not only to r but also to the polar angle θ (for a central force) and their conjugated momenta. So in this sense I would say Lyapunov is stronger.
Basically an orbit λ(t) on the phase space is Lyapunov stable if it remains arbitrarily close to the orbit λ0(t) (the circular orbit) as long as we make the initials conditions of both cases arbitrarily close. Now if we restrict this Lyapunov criteria only for the radial coordinate then it coincides with the radial stability criteria.
I will not prove the result claimed by Arnold but I can give you some intuition. Consider for example the attractive inverse square force whose potential is U=−r−1. A perturbed (around the circular) orbit is an ellipse. By Kepler's third law we have that the period of this perturbed orbit is T2p∝a3.
Now consider an isotropic harmonic oscillator, U=r2. The orbit can be obtained by a superposition of two harmonic motions, with same frequency, orthogonally placed on the plane. Since the period of each harmonic motion is independent of the amplitude, the period of the isotropic oscillator also is independent of amplitude. The difference |θp(t)−θ0(t)| is therefore constant and can be done arbitrarily small by choosing arbitrarily close initial conditions. The isotropic oscillator is Lyapunov stable.
I think that a proof of Arnold's claim would be to propose attractive and radially stable power-law potentials, U∝rn, n>−3, and then show that only for n=2 the period of the perturbed orbit equals the period of the circular orbit.
No comments:
Post a Comment