Central Configurations and Action Minimizing Orbits in Kite Four-Body Problem

Benhammouda, B.; Mansur, A.; Shoaib, M.; Szücs-Csillik, I.; Offin, D.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/5263750

Advances in Astronomy

On this page

Abstract Introduction Conclusions Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Special Issue

Recent Trends in Celestial Mechanics

View this Special Issue

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2020 | Article ID 5263750 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/5263750

Central Configurations and Action Minimizing Orbits in Kite Four-Body Problem

B. Benhammouda,¹A. Mansur,¹M. Shoaib,¹I. Szücs-Csillik,²and D. Offin³

Guest Editor: Elbaz I. Abouelmagd

Received19 Feb 2020

Accepted22 Apr 2020

Published01 Aug 2020

Abstract

In the current article, we study the kite four-body problems with the goal of identifying global regions in the mass parameter space which admits a corresponding central configuration of the four masses. We consider two different types of symmetrical configurations. In each of the two cases, the existence of a continuous family of central configurations for positive masses is shown. We address the dynamical aspect of periodic solutions in the settings considered and show that the minimizers of the classical action functional restricted to the homographic solutions are the Keplerian elliptical solutions. Finally, we provide numerical explorations via Poincaré cross-sections, to show the existence of periodic and quasiperiodic solutions within the broader dynamical context of the four-body problem.

1. Introduction

To understand the dynamics presented by a total collision of the masses or the equilibrium state of a rotating system, we are led to the concept of central configurations. A configuration of bodies is central if the acceleration of each body is a scalar multiple of its position [1–4]. Let and denote the position and the mass of the th body, respectively. Also, let represent the distance between the th and th bodies. An -body system forms a planar noncollinear central configuration [5, 6] ifwhere and represent the area of the triangle determined by the sides and .

The four-body problem can be considered from two different perspectives. The perturbative approach where we study the dynamical aspects as a perturbation of the three-body dynamics and assume that one of the masses is vanishingly small, or the global approach where we allow the masses to vary independently and stay positive. In this paper, we take the global approach and will study analytically the problem of central configurations and their dynamical aspects.

The computation of central configurations is a difficult problem for . To overcome this difficulty, symmetries or other restriction methods are used to reduce the number of variables and obtain partial answers; see, for example, Cors and Roberts [7]; Albouy et al. [8]; Shoaib et al. [9]; Érdi and Czirják [10]. In this paper, we consider a four-body problem with one axis of symmetry so that the four different masses make a convex or concave kite.

Since the classification of central configurations as one of the problems for the 21st century by Smale [11], it has attracted a lot of attention in recent years and has helped in the understanding of the -body problem [12–23]. Ji et al. [24] and Waldvogel [25] study a rhomboidal four-body problem with two pairs of masses and use Poincaré sections to find regions of stability for the rhomboidal four-body problem. In addition, Waldvogel [25] also takes advantage of the simplicity of the equations and study its collisions and escape manifolds. Yan [26] considers the same problem for four equal masses and studies the linear stability of its periodic orbits. One of our results will consider the same model but with only one pair of masses. We will analytically derive regions of central configurations and will also investigate the existence of periodic orbits. Mello and Fernandez [27] prove the existence of kite central configurations for four- and five-body problems on a circle. In one special case, our rhomboidal model is similar to their model for which we also identify a number of periodic orbits and discuss its action minimizing orbits. Gordon [28] has proved that the elliptic Keplerian orbit minimizes the Lagrangian action of the two-body problem with periodic boundary conditions. It is also known that the Eulerian and Lagrangian elliptical solutions for the planar three-body problem are the variational minimizers of the Lagrangian action functional [29, 30]. In the study by Mansur and Offin [31]; Mansur et al. [32]; Mansur et al. [33], the authors have extended these ideas to prove that the homographic solutions to the constrained parallelogram four-body problem are the variational minimizers of the Lagrangian action functional. In this paper, we prove that the minimizers for the action functional restricted to the homographic solutions are the Keplerian elliptical solutions for the four-body problem with three equal and unequal masses. Perez-Chavela and Santoprete [13] show the existence of kite central configurations for a pair of symmetric masses and show that such a configuration must always possess a symmetry. Similarly, Celli [34] proves the existence of planar diamond and trapezoidal central configurations for two pairs of equal masses. Corbera and Llibre [35] give a complete classification of the same problem and show that this setup has exactly 34 different classes of central configurations.

More recently, Deng et al. [36] and Corbera et al. [37] prove that any four-body setup with perpendicular diagonals must be a kite [35, 38]. Santoprete [39] studies a four-body problem with a pair of equal masses and a pair of parallel opposite sides and show that if the opposite masses are equal, then the four-body arrangement must have a line of symmetry and will be a kite.

The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 discusses the equations of motion for the four-body problem. Section 3 discusses the existence of central configurations and the action minimizing orbits for the four-body problem where three masses are equal and arranged at vertices of an isosceles triangle and the fourth mass is on the axis of symmetry. In Section 4, we discuss the variational techniques where the action functional corresponding to these family of solutions is shown to be a minimizer. Section 5 discusses the existence of central configurations and the action minimizing orbits for the four-body problem where two symmetric masses are equal on the horizontal axis and two nonequal masses are on the vertical axis.

2. Equations of Motion

Consider four positive point masses , , , and having position vectors and interbody distances . For a general four-body setup, equation (1) gives the following six central configuration equations when :

Lemma 1. Consider a four-body problem with masses , , , and and position vectors , , , and , where and , then(a)The symmetric masses and are equal.(b)The central configuration equations are

Proof. Consider four positive masses , , , and with position vectors , , , and , where and . Using the definitions of , , and , we obtainwithUsing the symmetry of the problem and the relations (4) and (5), it is trivial to see thatSince and , therefore . This completes the proof of Lemma 1 (a).
From the geometry of the problem, and are both isosceles, and therefore , , and and hence . This also implies that . By a similar argument, it can be shown that . This leaves two independent equations and from the set of equations given in (2). This completes the proof of Lemma 1.

3. Three Equal Masses at the Vertices of a Triangle and a Fourth Mass on the Axis of Symmetry

In this section, we consider a four-body problem where three equal masses are arranged at the vertices of an isosceles triangle and a fourth mass is on the axis of symmetry as shown in Figure 1. We start by showing the existence of central configuration for a concave kite four-body problem and then explicitly find regions where such a configuration exists for positive masses. We also discuss the action minimizing orbits for this particular problem.

3.1. Central Configurations

Theorem 1. Consider four point masses and having position vectors , , , and , where and . Then, there exists a unique mass ratio :such that is a central configuration for in subject to the constraint . The region and the constraint are given below:where and .
Before we attempt to prove Theorem 1, we will need help from the following lemmas.

Lemma 2. The function defined by (8) is negative for all and .

Proof. Let and , then we haveConsider the equation of the straight line segment that lies in the first quadrant:For positive and ,is equivalent toTo prove that , we need to show thatFor , it is trivial to see thatSimilarly, to show that , we needInequality (16) is equivalent toExpanding the left-hand side of (17), we obtain the following:For positive and ,Consequently, for and .
This completes the proof of Lemma 2.

Lemma 3. The partial derivative of defined by (3) satisfies , for all and .

Proof. For positive and , we havewhere and is the derivative of w.r.t. .
Since for all and , thenUsing the fact that and , we getSince and are positive, thereforeThis completes the proof of Lemma 3.

Remark 1. Numerically, it is easy to show that when and . For , and , when , see Figure 2. Therefore, by intermediate value theorem has at least one root when .

Lemma 4. Consider the function defined by (3). Then, for any there exists an interval containing and an interval containing such that there is a unique continuously differentiable function defined on with that satisfies .

Proof. Let be any number in the interval ; then, using Lemma 3, we have . Then, numerically, one can check that for . Thus, by the mean value theorem, there exists at least one , solution of . By Lemma 3, for all , hence the solution is unique. Since has continuous partial derivatives and , with , then by the implicit function theorem, there exists an open interval containing and an interval containing such that there is a unique continuously differentiable function defined on with that satisfies . This completes the proof of Lemma 4.

Proof of Theorem 1. Let and , and then from Lemma 1, we obtain the following central configuration equations:Solving the above equations, we obtainsuch that constraint (3) holds, where and . It is proved in Lemmas 2, 3, and 4 that constraint (8) is satisfied by showing the existence of a smooth curve:To find the region where , we solve the following inequality for and :The functions and are positive in and , respectively, whereTherefore, the configuration shown in Figure 1 forms a central configuration in , wheresuch that (8) holds. Since has an absolute minimum at and is monotonically decreasing for and increasing for . Therefore, for . Hence, the region simplifies toThe region is shown in Figure 3. This completes the proof of Theorem 1.
To be able to comment on the values of in the central configuration region, we use interpolation techniques and write the solution of as , whereThe function accurately approximates the solution of in the central configuration region where is positive. The approximation error is between and . This gives as a function of as follows:The function is a bounded, well-defined continuous function of except when . To identify the values of where , we write it asThe numerical solution of shows that it has three real roots , , and . However, a careful observation of the region of existence of central configuration for the four-body problem in Figure 1 shows that defines a boundary between the region of existence and nonexistence and and are outside the domain of interest. Hence, uniquely defines the positive values of the mass ratio for the four-body problem as described in Theorem 1. The region of existence of central configuration for the four-body problem with three equal masses is given in Figure 3. Taking advantage of the interpolated expression , is given for in Figure 4 which shows to be an increasing function of with the minimum and maximum at the end points of the domain.

3.2. Action Minimizing Orbits in the Triangular Four-Body Problem

In this section, we introduce the analytical description of a family of periodic solutions in the four-body problem using variational techniques.

Theorem 2. For the four-body problem considered in Theorem 1, the minimizers for restricted to the homographic solutions are precisely the Keplerian elliptical solutions and the minimum of the action is equal to .
Define the Lagrangian action aswhere the Lagrangian is defined byLet us call the -coordinate of the center of mass in the configuration described earlier in Section 2, thenand the center of mass isIn this case, we have the following Cartesian coordinates for the points :Observe thatWe focus on solutions of the form . These solutions are called homographic solutions. We will restrict the action functional to solutions of this type.

Proof of Theorem 2. The kinetic energy term is equal towhere we have used . The potential energy is given byand using , we getMultiplying and dividing by , we obtainAs defined previously, we use , and by letting , we haveNow, we are ready to compute the action restricted to this class of homographic solutions. We haveLetThen,The infimum of isBy Gordon’s result, we haveThen,Let , then attains its infimum at if and only if attains its infimum at . It is challenging to see that for positive values of and , the function is convex and coercive. However, we have proved that can be written as and used interpolation to find as given in equation (31). Hence, we can now write , and as functions of one variable. For convexity, we use the second derivative test and show that when Hence, is convex when . For coercivity, we see that is continuous for all positive values of , as , and when , , which implies is coercive. Hence, attains at unique and satisfies .

4. Three Unequal Masses

In this section, we discuss a four-body problem which has two symmetric equal masses on the horizontal axis and two nonequal masses and on the vertical axis. The position vectors of the four masses , , , and are , , , and , respectively. For , the four masses make an isosceles triangle with inside the triangle (Figure 5), and for , the convex kite configuration is obtained (Figure 6).

4.1. Central Configurations

Theorem 3. Consider four point masses , having position vectors , , , and , where and such that is a central configuration.(a)Then, there exist unique mass ratios:(b)The region of existence of central configuration where the four positive masses are arranged in a concave kite configuration is given by(c)The region of existence of central configuration where the four positive masses are arranged in a convex kite configuration is given by

Proof of Theorem 3. Consider four point masses with position vectors and masses , , and , where . The solution of and giveswhere , , and . The mass ratios and are well-defined functions of and except at and .
To find central configuration regions where , it is sufficient to show that and have the same sign. It is trivial to see that when . Similarly, when . Hence, is positive inThe complement of , where , is given byIt is to be noted that the sign of will be determined according to whether the four-body configuration is concave or convex. After some simplifications, the central configuration region for is given bySimilarly, the central configuration region for is given byConsider the mass ratio . Let . Since , therefore for , must have the same sign. It is trivial to see that when and for all and . Therefore, inSimilarly, when (rhomboidal configuration), the central configuration region where is given byHence, the region of existence of central configuration for the concave kite four-body problem where all the masses , , and are positive is given by and the corresponding convex kite central configuration region is given by , whereThe regions and are shown in Figures 7 and 8, respectively.

4.2. Action Minimizing Orbits in the Convex Kite Four-Body Problem

In this section, we discuss the minimization property of a four-body problem which has two equal masses on the horizontal axis and two positive masses and on the vertical axis, which is also the axis of symmetry.

Theorem 4. For the four-body problem considered in Theorem 1, the minimizers for restricted to the homographic solutions are precisely the Keplerian elliptical solutions, and the minimum of the action is equal to .
Let us call the -coordinate of the center of mass in the configuration described earlier in Section 3.1, thenand the center of mass is . Observe that

Proof of Theorem 4. The kinetic energy term is equal towhere we have used the fact that .
On the other hand, the potential energy is given byand using , we getMultiplying and dividing by , we obtainDefining , , and ,Now, we are ready to compute the action restricted to this class of homographic solutions:LetTherefore,The infimum of isBy Gordon’s result, we haveThen,Let , and then attains its infimum at if and only if attains its infimum at . Similar to the concave case, we need to show that for positive values of and , the function is convex and coercive. For convexity, we compute the Hessian matrix for and numerically show that is positive semidefinite in the region .
That concludes that the function is convex. For coercivity, we see that is continuous for all positive values of and , as , and when and , tends to , which implies is coercive. Hence, attains at unique , , , and satisfies.

5. Hamiltonian Formulation of the Problem: Some Numerical Examples

It is well known that the study of the trajectories of celestial bodies under their mutual gravitational attractions is important for understanding their movement and navigation. In that sense, a special type of the four-body problem with analytical and numerical investigation can contribute to the understanding of the dynamical behavior of quadruple stellar systems (e.g., the HD 98800 quadruple system with two pairs of stars orbiting each other). Several authors studied the stability and dynamical evolution of symmetric quadruple systems for stars and exoplanetary systems of two planets [40, 41]. In this section, we will study the periodic behavior of the kite four-body problem.

Consider the four-body problem introduced in Lemma 1, which has a pair of equal masses and one axis of symmetry. Using the symmetries and position coordinates from Lemma 1, we obtain the following reduced Hamiltonian in the case of unequal masses:whereand and , , are the generalized coordinates and momenta (we assume for simplicity that the gravitational constant is equal to 1).

For the investigation of the reduced Hamiltonian equations of motion (75), we have selected examples from concave and convex kite four-body problems introduced in Section 2. We have used classical numerical methods and found periodic orbits for a given vector field. The stability of a periodic orbit for an autonomous vector field can be calculated by Poincaré maps, which replaces the flow of the -dimensional continuous vector field with an -dimensional map [42]. In this article, the analysis of periodic and quasiperiodic orbits is performed using the Poincaré surface of the section technique by picking the phase element . In the -dimensional case, the Poincaré surface of the section has dimensionality . The intersection points of the solution curves with the corresponding (, ), , plane still lie on a smooth curve [43].

In order to construct the Poincaré surface of the section and to find the corresponding periodic orbits, we plot the motion from the phase space in a “cut plane” . Since is conserved, any point on this surface of the section will uniquely define the orbit. Our Poincaré surface of sections (Figures 9–11) describe the concave four-body problem in the unequal mass case with energy values , plotting versus , and , , , , and . The initial conditions considered here satisfy the central configuration equations introduced in Section 2. We wish to note that in case of the energy level , we can see many little islands of quasiperiodic orbits. It should be emphasized that increasing the energy levels increase the Poincaré surface of sections in size, as a blowing up effect (see Figures 9–11).

Another interesting unequal mass case is for increased masses , , and compared to the previous case. Similarly, using different energy levels, in this case for energy values , the variation of the “horseshoe with open side to the left” as the letter D shape to the “horseshoe with open side to the right” as the letter C shape can be observed (Figures 12–14). As earlier, in this particular case, we observe quasiperiodic orbits and the increasing size of the Poincaré surface of sections.

In the equal mass case, we have chosen the following particular case: , , , and . In this situation, we detected an interesting transformation of the Poincaré surface of sections through the energy levels . In the case of lower energy levels, the outside part of the orbit indicates chaotic behavior. Moreover, by increasing the energy levels, the inside part of the orbit disintegrates, but the size of the Poincaré surface of sections has just a minor variation (Figure 15).

Consequently, we developed the surface of sections with around 300 points, which presents the progressive disintegration of the surfaces of solution curves of regular motion (KAM surface) generated with the increase in from to in our first example (Figures 9–11), from to in our second example (Figures 12–14), and from to in our third example (Figure 15). It seems that there exist invariant curves (for example, in the plots for equal to ) near resonances. These invariant curves could form “island sequences” (small groups in a row) and “islands cycles” (small islands inside of islands). One can observe that transitions between levels fuse at progressive integration, and the KAM surfaces progressively disappear.

In both cases (nonequal and equal masses), the surfaces show unique types of orbits, including quasiperiodic and island orbits. Let us mention that comparing both cases, when the values of are increased, then there is a noticeable effect influence on the stability and the existence of quasiperiodic orbits in concave and convex kite four-body problems. In other words, we conjecture that the increasing central mass plays a stabilizing role.

The described Poincaré surface of sections allows to study the local stability of the kite four-body problem, the transition from ordered to stochastic motion. They contribute significantly in numerical studies and in verification of the concordance between analytical and numerical results.

6. Conclusions

In this paper, we investigated the central configurations of convex and concave kite four-body problems, deriving regions of central configuration. Three four-body arrangements are discussed which include two concave four-body configurations and one convex four-body configuration. In one of the concave configurations, three of the masses on the vertices of the triangle are equal and the mass on the axis of symmetry can take various positive values. In the second case of concave configuration and the case of the convex configuration, there is only a pair of equal masses and the two masses on the axis of symmetry are nonequal. In each of the three cases, regions of central configuration are derived for positive masses. In the first concave case, we can write the mass ratios as a function of one variable and show its optimum values give values of the parameter. In the other two cases, the mass ratios are written as functions of two variables. The action minimizing orbits for both the concave and convex configurations is analyzed, and it is shown that the minimizers of the action functional restricted to the homographic solutions are the Keplerian elliptical solutions. Using the Hamiltonian formalism, we have identified regions with periodic and quasiperiodic orbits. Moreover, we studied the chaotic behavior in the phase space utilizing the Poincaré surface of sections. It was shown that increasing the value of the central mass plays a stabilizing role in the case of both convex and concave four-body problems.

Data Availability

No data were used to support this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

I. Szücs-Csillik was partially supported by a grant of the Romanian Ministry of National Education and Scientific Research, RDI Programme for Space Technology and Advanced Research—SAFE SPACE, project number 236/04.04.2018. II. Daniel Offin was partially supported by a Discovery Grant from NSERC of Canada.

References

C. Deng and S. Zhang, “Planar symmetric concave central configurations in Newtonian four-body problems,” Journal of Geometry and Physics, vol. 83, pp. 43–52, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. D. MacMillan and W. Bartky, “Permanent configurations in the problem of four bodies,” Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 34, no. 4, p. 838, 1932.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Shoaib, A. R. Kashif, and A. Sivasankaran, “Planar Central Configurations of symmetric five-body problems with two pairs of equal masses,” Advances in Astronomy, vol. 2016, Article ID 9897681, 11 pages, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Simó, “Relative equilibrium solutions in the four body problem,” Celestial Mechanics, vol. 18, pp. 165–184, 1978.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Llibre, “A note on the Dziobek central configurations,” Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 143, no. 8, pp. 3587–3591, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Llibre, R. Moeckel, and C. Simó, Central Configurations, Springer, Basel, Switzerland, 2015.
J. M. Cors and G. E. Roberts, “Four-body co-circular central configurations,” Nonlinearity, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 343–370, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Albouy, Y. Fu, and S. Sun, “Symmetry of planar four-body convex central configurations,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, vol. 464, no. 2093, pp. 1355–1365, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Shoaib, A. R. Kashif, and I. Szücs-Csillik, “On the planar central configurations of rhomboidal and triangular four- and five-body problems,” Astrophysics and Space Science, vol. 362, no. 10, p. 182, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Érdi and Z. Czirják, “Central configurations of four bodies with an axis of symmetry,” Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, vol. 125, no. 1, pp. 33–70, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Smale, “Mathematical problems for the next century,” The Mathematical Intelligencer, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 7–15, 1998.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Barutello and S. Terracini, “Action minimizing orbits in then-body problem with simple choreography constraint,” Nonlinearity, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 2015–2039, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Perez-Chavela and M. Santoprete, “Convex four-body central configurations with some equal masses,” Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, vol. 185, no. 3, pp. 481–494, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K.-C. Chen, “Action-minimizing orbits in the parallelogram four-body problem with equal masses,” Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, vol. 158, no. 4, pp. 293–318, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K.-C. Chen, “Variational methods on periodic and quasi-periodic solutions for the N-body problem,” Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 1691–1715, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Bakker and S. Simmons, “Stability of the rhomboidal symmetric-mass orbit,” Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems—A, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 1–23, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Simmons and E. Perez-Chavela, “The rhomboidal four-body problem,” Global Flow on the Total Collision manifold, The Geometry of Hamiltonian Systems:, Springer, New York, NY, USA, 1991.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Gidea and J. Llibre, “Symmetric planar central configurations of five bodies: euler plus two,” Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, vol. 106, no. 1, pp. 89–107, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. A. Lacomba and E. Pérez-Chavela, “A compact model for the planar rhomboidal 4-body problem,” Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 343–355, 1992.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Piña and P. Lonngi, “Central configurations for the planar Newtonian four-body problem,” Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, vol. 108, no. 1, pp. 73–93, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Shoaib, B. A. Steves, and A. Széll, “Stability analysis of quintuple stellar and planetary systems using a symmetric five-body model,” New Astronomy, vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 639–645, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Shoaib, “Central configurations in the trapezoidal four-body problems,” Applied Mathematical Sciences, vol. 9, no. 40, pp. 1971–1979, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Sivasankaran, B. A. Steves, and W. L. Sweatman, “A global regularisation for integrating the Caledonian symmetric four-body problem,” Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, vol. 107, no. 1-2, pp. 157–168, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J.-h. Ji, X.-h. Liao, and L. Liu, “The phase space structure of the rhomboidal four-body problem,” Chinese Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 381–386, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Waldvogel, “The rhomboidal symmetric four-body problem,” Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, vol. 113, no. 1, pp. 113–123, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Yan, “Existence and linear stability of the rhomboidal periodic orbit in the planar equal mass four-body problem,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 388, no. 2, pp. 942–951, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. F. Mello and A. C. Fernandes, “New classes of spatial central configurations for the -body problem,” Nonlinear Analysis: Real World Applications, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 723–730, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. B. Gordon, “A minimizing property of Keplerian orbits,” American Journal of Mathematics, vol. 99, no. 5, pp. 961–971, 1977.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Q. Zhang and Q. Zhou, “A minimizing property of Lagrangian solution,” Acta Mathematica Sinica, English Series, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 497–500, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Zhang and Q. Zhou, “A minimizing property of Eulerian solutions,” Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, vol. 90, no. 3-4, pp. 239–243, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. M. Mansur and D. C. Offin, “A minimizing property of homographic solutions,” Acta Mathematica Sinica, English Series, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 353–360, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Mansur, D. Offin, and M. Lewis, “Instability for a family of homographic periodic solutions in the parallelogram four body problem,” Qualitative Theory of Dynamical Systems, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 671–688, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Mansur, D. Offin, and A. Arsie, “Extensions to chen’s minimizing equal mass parallelogram solutions,” Taiwanese Journal of Mathematics, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 1437–1453, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Celli, “The central configurations of four masses x, −x, y, −y,” Journal of Differential Equations, vol. 235, no. 2, pp. 668–682, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Corbera and J. Llibre, “Central configurations of the 4-body problem with masses and smmall,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, vol. 246, pp. 121–147, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Deng, B. Li, and S. Zhang, “Some notes on four-body co-circular central configurations,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 453, no. 1, pp. 398–409, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Corbera, J. M. Cors, and G. E. Roberts, “A four-body convex central configuration with perpendicular diagonals is necessarily a kite,” Qualitative Theory of Dynamical Systems, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 367–374, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Corbera, J. M. Cors, J. Llibre, and E. Pérez-Chavela, “Trapezoid central configurations,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, vol. 346, pp. 127–142, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Santoprete, “Four-body central configurations with one pair of opposite sides parallel,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 464, no. 1, pp. 421–434, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. A. Steves and A. E. Roy, “Some special restricted four-body problems-I. Modelling the Caledonian problem,” Planetary and Space Science, vol. 46, no. 11-12, pp. 1465–1474, 1998.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. E. Roy and B. A. Steves, “The caledonian symmetrical double binary four-body problem I: surfaces of zero-velocity using the energy integral,” New Developments in the Dynamics of Planetary Systems, vol. 78, pp. 299–318, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Szücs-Csillik, “The lie integrator and the hénon-heiles system,” Romanian Astronomical Journal, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 49–66, 2010.
View at: Google Scholar
E. S. Cheb-Terrab and H. P. Oliveira, “Poincaré sections of Hamiltonian systems,” Computer Physics Communications, vol. 95, no. 2-3, pp. 171–189, 1996.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2020 B. Benhammouda et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

705

Downloads

1297

Citations