0
$\begingroup$

If we solve numerically a three (or $N$) body planar problem, it's easy to calculate the distances of the bodies as function of time. Conversely if we know the interparticle distances as functions of time and the angle of one distance, we can calculate the positions of all three (or $N$) bodies up to a reflection of the configuration (and of course translation). This is known as the distance geometric problem.

  • So is it possible to write differential equations for the distances $r_{12}, r_{13}$ and $r_{23}$ and say an angle $a$ in case of three bodies or generally $N$ bodies?

In the case of two bodies (for example in the Kepler problem) that of course is possible and well known.

  • Moreover, might the equations for the distances be of the form
    $$ \frac{\mathrm{d}^2r_{12}}{\mathrm{d}t^2} = f(r_{12}, r'_{12};r_{12},r'_{12},r_{23},r'_{23}) $$ (written for distance between bodies 1 and 2) that is, independent of the angle variable a like is the case with 2-body case?
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ If you know how the old and new coordinates can be expressed in terms of one another, isn't it just a matter of applying the chain rule? Have you tried that? $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 29, 2020 at 3:19

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

The equations of motion cannot be written as $$ \ddot{r}_{ij} = f_{ij}(r_{12},\ldots, r_{n-1,n}, \dot{r}_{12},\ldots, \dot{r}_{n-1,n}) $$ Consider $n$ equally massive particles arranged equidistantly around a circle. If they are all initially stationary, the system will collapse to the centre of the circle. But if they are rotating at the correct speed, the system will be in equilibrium with all distances remaining constant. At time $0$ both systems have the same $r_{ij}$ and $\dot{r}_{ij}=0$.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Nice argument. I think there's something to be clarified with the OP, though: The OP asserts that such a representation is possible in the 2-body case, which sounds like the OP regards the dependence on the angular momentum as something one can just ignore - but really, it's there. I therefore suspect that the OP would likewise view an $f_{ij} $ that did depend on angular momenta as acceptable. However, in that case, your two scenaria are indeed distinguishable. The OP hasn't really posed the question very well. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 29, 2020 at 17:54

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .