Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge / 2014 / iii / Paper 59 / 3

Validity and the complete angular equation. The Lagrange planetary equations here describe a planar, circular-planet, small-orbital eccentricity, weakly perturbed exterior mean-motion resonance. Require $M_{\mathrm{pl}}/M_{\star }\ll 1$, $e\ll 1$, one isolated slowly varying resonant argument, perturbation times long compared with an orbital period, and no close planetary encounters. Other resonant harmonics and short-period terms must be negligible; coefficients may be frozen only across a narrow range of semi-major axis. Take $p>0$, $q=1$ or $2$ in a reduced integer ratio. Exactly $e=0$ makes the longitude of periapsis undefined, so the displayed angular variables must then be replaced by nonsingular eccentricity vector components.

Neglecting the perturbation to the accumulated mean longitude gives $\dot{\lambda }\simeq n(a)$; this is an accumulated-phase approximation, not differentiation of a fictitious expression $n(t)t$ while discarding $t\dot{n}$. With $n^2{a}^3=G{M}_{\star }$,Differentiating, using $\dot{n}=-3n\dot{a}/(2a)$ and the supplied orbital element equations, gives the full result within this constant-coefficient model:An equivalent formula replaces the last two terms in brackets by $q^2{C}_r{e}^{q-2}[(p+q)n-p{n}_{\mathrm{pl}}-2q{C}_s]-2q^3{C}_r^2{e}^{2q-4}\cos \varphi$. No derivatives of $C_r,C_s$ are included because they were specified as constants.

A full fixed point requires $\sin \varphi =0$ and $\dot{\varphi }=0$. Hence ${\varphi }_{\ast }=0$ or $\pi$, with its corresponding detuned semi-major axis fixed byAt either point $\dot{a}=\dot{e}=0$. The longitude of periapsis still precesses, so the fixed point refers to the reduced resonant dynamics.

Linear stability analysis and encounter geometry. Linearizing the full equation about a fixed point givesFor $q=2$, $\pi$ is a center equilibrium and zero is a saddle equilibrium. For $q=1$, $\pi$ is always a center equilibrium, while zero is a saddle equilibrium ifAt sufficiently small orbital eccentricity the full truncated equations instead admit a center at zero as well; equality is a degenerate case requiring higher-order analysis. Thus an unconditional instability claim at zero does not follow from the full equation. In the usual fixed-eccentricity weak-resonance regime the inequality holds and the stable libration center is $\pi$ for either order.

The physical explanation is resonance protection. At equal mean longitudes, the conjunction direction relative to periapsis obeys $q(\Lambda -\varpi )=\varphi$ modulo $2\pi$. For $q=1$, $\varphi =0$ places conjunction near periapsis, where the exterior particle comes closest to the planet; $\varphi =\pi$ places it near apoapsis. For $q=2$, zero includes both apsidal conjunctions, one of them near periapsis, whereas $\pi$ places the two conjunction branches near quadrature. The protected arrangements give restoring kicks in the positive-$C_r$ leading-harmonic model. This geometric explanation is conditional on its non-crossing, small-orbital eccentricity approximation; it does not override the low-$e$ term retained in the full stability calculation.

Small resonant-argument librations. Define the nominal resonant semi-major axis and the displaced center byThis follows by expanding $n=n_r[1-3(a-a_r)/(2a_r)]$ and taking $\cos (\pi +\delta )=-1+O({\delta }^2)$. It gives the requested initial semi-major axis to first order in the precession-induced detuning; $e_0=e(0)$ and $\delta =\Delta \varphi$.

For the pendulum approximation of a mean-motion resonance, also require fractional changes in $e$ small across a libration, and precession terms small compared with $n$. In particular $C_r/(n_r{e}_0^3)\ll 1$ for $q=1$ makes the extra full-equation curvature negligible; for $q=2$, small fractional eccentricity changes require $C_r/(n_r{e}_0^2)\ll 1$. Freeze $e=e_0$ in the leading restoring coefficient and setThen $u=\varphi -\pi$ obeys simple harmonic motion. Using $u(0)=\delta$, $\dot{u}(0)=0$ and integrating the remaining Lagrange planetary equations givesThe omitted apsidal modulation comes from higher perturbative orders and $u^2$. All expressions are leading resonant approximations, valid while the omitted fractional changes remain small. The small-libration phase portrait iswith period $2\pi /{\omega }_0$. The semi-major axis half-width is $2a_r{\omega }_0|\delta |/(3p{n}_{\mathrm{pl}})$ and the orbital eccentricity half-width is $q{C}_r{e}_0^{q-1}|\delta |/{\omega }_0$.

Dividing the original $\dot{e}$ and $\dot{a}$ equations gives the exact invariant of their retained terms,Thus the $e$–$a$ plot is a segment of this increasing curve traversed back and forth, not a closed ellipse. Locally its slope is $q/[2(p+q)e_0{a}_c]$.

Finite amplitude and the separatrix. Keep the same weak-resonance approximation but allow $\delta$ to be finite. The leading angular equation is $\ddot{\varphi }={\omega }_0^2\sin \varphi$, or $\ddot{u}=-{\omega }_0^2\sin u$. Multiplication by $\dot{u}$ givesThis resonant pendulum energy is constant in the pendulum approximation of a mean-motion resonance. It is not an exact integral of the earlier full equation when $e$ and its restoring coefficient vary: the $\dot{\varphi }\sin \varphi$ term alone prevents that conclusion in general.

For $|\delta |<\pi$ the phase portrait has closed libration curves around $\pi$, withwhere $K$ is the complete elliptic integral of the first kind. The largest speed is $2{\omega }_0\sin (|\delta |/2)$ and the leading semi-major axis half-width is $4a_r{\omega }_0\sin (|\delta |/2)/(3p{n}_{\mathrm{pl}})$. As $|\delta |\to \pi$, the energy approaches $2{\omega }_0^2$, the separatrix through the saddles at zero and $2\pi$; the particle spends increasingly long intervals near those saddles. With $ϵ=\pi -|\delta |$,At exactly $\delta =\pi$, $\dot{\varphi }=0$, the particle stays at the unstable fixed point in the ideal model. Nonstationary separatrix trajectories approach the saddle only in infinite time; above separatrix energy, the resonant argument circulates and resonance protection is lost. These distinctions matter when describing the limiting motion.