Collinear and triangular solutions to the coplanar and circular three-body problem in the parametrized post-Newtonian formalism
Abstract
This paper investigates the coplanar and circular three-body problem in the parametrized post-Newtonian (PPN) formalism, for which we focus on a class of fully conservative theories characterized by the Eddington-Robertson parameters and . It is shown that there can still exist a collinear equilibrium configuration and a triangular one, each of which is a generalization of the post-Newtonian equilibrium configuration in general relativity. The collinear configuration can exist for arbitrary mass ratio, , and . On the other hand, the PPN triangular configuration depends on the nonlinearity parameter but not on . For any value of , the equilateral configuration is possible, if and only if three finite masses are equal or two test masses orbit around one finite mass. For general mass cases, the PPN triangle is not equilateral as in the post-Newtonian case. It is shown also that the PPN displacements from the Lagrange points in the Newtonian gravity , and depend on and , whereas those to and rely only on .
pacs:
04.25.Nx, 45.50.Pk, 95.10.Ce, 95.30.SfI Introduction
The three-body problem is among the classical ones in physics. It led to the notion of the chaos Goldstein . On the other hand, particular solutions such as Euler’s collinear solution and Lagrange’s equilateral one Danby ; Marchal express regular orbits and they have still attracted interest e.g. Asada ; Torigoe ; Seto ; Schnittman ; Connors . If one mass is zero and the other two masses are finite, the collinear solution and triangular one correspond to Lagrange points , , , and as particular solutions for the coplanar restricted three-body problem.
In his pioneering work Nordtvedt , Nordtvedt found that the position of the triangular points is very sensitive to the ratio of the gravitational mass to the inertial mass in gravitational experimental tests, where the post-Newtonian (PN) terms are not fully taken into account.
Krefetz Krefetz and Maindl Maindl studied the restricted three-body problem in the PN approximation and found the PN triangular configuration for a general mass ratio between two masses. These investigations were extended to the PN three-body problem for general masses Yamada2010 ; Yamada2011 ; Ichita2011 ; Yamada2012 ; Yamada2015 ; Yamada2016 , and the PN counterparts for Euler’s collinear Yamada2010 ; Yamada2011 and Lagrange’s equilateral solutions Ichita2011 ; Yamada2012 were obtained. It should be noted that the PN triangular solutions are not necessarily equilateral for general mass ratios and they are equilateral only for either the equal mass case or two test masses. The stability of the PN solution and the radiation reaction at 2.5PN order were also examined Yamada2015 ; Yamada2016 .
In a scalar-tensor theory of gravity, a collinear configuration for three-body problem was discussed Zhou . In addition to such fully classical treatments, a possible quantum gravity correction to the Lagrange points was proposed Battista2015a ; Battista2015b .
Moreover, the recent discovery of a relativistic hierarchical triple system including a neutron star Ransom has generated renewed interest in the relativistic three-body problem and the related gravitational experiments Archibald ; Will2018 ; Voisin .
The main purpose of the present paper is to reexamine the coplanar and circular three-body problem especially in the PPN formalism. One may ask if collinear and triangular configurations are still solutions for the coplanar three-body problem in the PPN gravity. If so, how large are the PPN effects of the three-body configuration? We focus on the Eddington-Robertson parameters and , because the two parameters are the most important ones; measures how much nonlinearity there is in the superposition law for gravity and measures how much space curvature is produced by unit rest mass Will ; Poisson . Hence, preferred locations, preferred frames or a violation of conservation of total momentum will not be considered in this paper. We confine ourselves to a class of fully conservative theories. See e.g. Klioner for the celestial mechanics in this class of PPN theories.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section II, collinear configurations are discussed in the PPN formalism. Section III investigates PPN triangular configurations. In Section IV, the PPN corrections to the Lagrange points are examined. For brevity, the Lagrange points defined in Newtonian gravity are referred to as the Newtonian Lagrange points in this paper. Section V summarizes this paper. Throughout this paper, . and label three masses.
II Collinear configuration in PPN gravity
II.1 Euler’s collinear solution in Newton gravity
Let us begin with briefly mentioning the Euler’s collinear solution for the circular three-body problem in Newton gravity Danby ; Marchal , for which each mass () at is orbiting around the common center of mass (COM) at , and the orbital velocity and acceleration are denoted as and , respectively. In this section, we suppose that three masses are always aligned, for which it is convenient to use the corotating frame with a constant angular velocity on the orbital plane chosen as the plane.
Without loss of generality, we assume for . Let denote the relative position of each mass from the COM at . Namely, . Note that unless is chosen. We define the relative vector between masses as , for which the relative length is . See Figure 1 for a configuration of the Euler’s collinear solution.

The coordinate origin is chosen between and , such that , and . By taking account of this sign convention, the equation of motion becomes
(1) | |||||
(2) | |||||
(3) |
We define the distance ratio as , which plays a key role in the following calculations. Note that by definition. We subtract Eq. (2) from Eq. (1) and Eq. (3) from Eq. (2). By combining the results including the same angular velocity , we obtain a fifth-order equation for as
(4) |
for which there exists the only positive root Danby ; Marchal . In order to obtain Eq. (4), we do not have to specify the coordinate origin e.g. . This is because Eq. (4) does not refer to any coordinate system. Once Eq. (4) is solved for , we can obtain by substituting into any of Eqs. (1)-(3).
II.2 PPN collinear configuration
In a class of fully conservative theories including only the Eddington-Robertson parameters and , the equation of motion is Will ; Poisson
(5) |
where
(6) |
For three aligned masses, Eq. (5) becomes the force-balance equation as
(7) |
where we define , the mass ratio for , and
(8) |
(9) |
and
(10) |
By rearranging Eq. (5) for the collinear configuration by the same way as in subsection II.A, we find a seventh-order equation for as
(11) |
where the coefficients are
(12) |
(13) |
(14) |
(15) |
(16) |
(17) |
(18) |
(19) |
It follows that Eq. (11) recovers the PN collinear configuration by Eq. (13) of Reference Yamada2011 if and only if . The uniqueness is because the number of the parameters , is two for eight coefficients .
From Eq. (7) for obtained above, the angular velocity of the PPN collinear configuration is obtained as
(20) |
where is the Newtonian angular velocity. The subscript denotes the Newtonian case.
III Triangular configuration in PPN gravity
III.1 Lagrange’s equilateral solution in Newtonian gravity
In this subsection, we suppose that the three masses are in coplanar and circular motion with keeping the same separation between the masses, namely for a constant .
It is convenient to choose the coordinate origin as the COM,
(21) |
for which the equation of motion for each mass in the equilateral triangle configuration takes a compact form as Danby
(22) |
See e.g. Eq. (8.6.5) in Reference Danby for the derivation of Eq. (22). A triangular configuration is a solution, if the Newtonian angular velocity satisfies
(23) |
The orbital radius of each mass around the COM is Danby
(24) | ||||
(25) | ||||
(26) |
III.2 PPN orbital radius
We suppose again that three masses in circular motion are in a triangular configuration with a constant angular velocity . By noting that a vector in the orbital plane can be expressed as a linear combination of and , Eq.(5) becomes
(27) |
where Eq. (23) is used and
(28) |
By a cyclic permutation, we obtain the similar equations for and .
The second and third terms in the right-had side of Eq. (27) are the PPN forces. The second term is parallel to , whereas the third term is parallel to Note that is not parallel to in circular motion.
The location of the COM in the fully conservative theories of PPN Baker1978 ; Baker1979 remains the same as that in the PN approximation of general relativity MTW ; LL
(29) |
where is defined as
(30) |
This coincidence allows us to obtain the PPN orbital radius around the COM by straightforward calculations. The orbital radius of is formally obtained as
(31) | |||||
and the similar expressions of and for the orbital radius of and are obtained.
III.3 Equilateral condition
First, we discuss a condition for an equilateral configuration.
For Eq. (27) to hold, the coefficient of the velocity vector must vanish, because there are no other terms including . The coefficient is proportional to . The same thing is true also of and . For any value of , therefore, the equilateral configuration in the PPN gravity can be present if and only if three finite masses are equal or two test masses orbit around one finite mass.
Note that one can find a very particular value of satisfying
(32) |
which leads to the vanishing coefficient of the velocity vector . However, this choice is very unlikely, because the particular value of is dependent on the mass ratio and it is not universal. Hence, this case will be ignored.
III.4 PPN triangular configuration for general masses
Next, let us consider a PPN triangle configuration for general masses. For this purpose, we introduce a nondimensional parameter at the PPN order, such that each side length of the PPN triangle can be expressed as
(33) |
The equilateral case is achieved by assuming for every masses. See Figure 2 for the PPN triangular configuration.

In order to fix the degree of freedom corresponding to a scale transformation, we follow Reference Yamada2012 to suppose that the arithmetic mean of the three side lengths is unchanged as
(34) |
The left-hand side of Eq. (34) is in the Newtonian case, which leads to
(35) |
This is a gauge fixing in .
In terms of , Eq. (27) is rearranged as
(36) |
where
(37) |
By a cyclic permutation, the equations for and can be obtained.
A triangular equilibrium configuration can exist if and only if the two conditions (A) and (B) are simultaneously satisfied; (A) Each mass satisfies Eq. (36), and (B) the configuration is unchanged in time.
Eq. (36) is the equation of motion for . To be more accurate, therefore, in Eq. (36) should be denoted as . Similarly, we introduce and in the equations of motion for and , respectively. Then, Condition (B) means .
Condition (A) is equivalent to Condition (A2); The coefficient of in the equation of motion vanishes as
(38) |
(39) |
(40) |
Therefore, the PPN triangle is inequilateral depending on via but not on . This suggests that also the PPN Lagrange points corresponding to and are sensitive to but are free from , as shown in Section IV.
It follows that Eqs. (41)-(43) recover the PN counterpart of Eq. (26)-(28) of Reference Yamada2012 if and only if . The uniqueness is because the PPN parameter is only for three equations as Eqs. (41)-(43).
Condition (B) is satisfied, if , where means the angular velocity of the PPN configuration. By substituting Eqs. (41) and (43) into Eq. (36), is obtained as
(44) |
where, by using Eq. (28), the PPN correction is
(45) |
There is a symmetry among in the second line of Eq. (45), which means that is the same for all bodies. Condition (B) is thus satisfied.
IV PPN corrections to the Lagrange points
IV.1 PPN Lagrange points , and
In this section, we discuss PPN modifications of the Lagrange points that are originally defined in the restricted three-body problem in Newton gravity. We choose , and , where is the the mass ratio of the secondary object (a planet).
First, we seek PPN corrections to and . There are three choices of how to correspond and to the Sun, a planet and a test mass in the collinear configuration. Indeed the three choices lead to the Lagrange points , and .
We consider the collinear solution by Eq. (11). We denote the physical root for Eq. (11) as for the Newtonian root with using a small parameter () at the PPN order. We substitute into Eq. (11) and rearrange it to obtain as
(46) |
where is discarded because of being at the 2PN order, and and denote the Newtonian and PPN parts of , respectively, as ( and because there are no counterparts in the Newtonian case).
Eq. (46) is used for calculating the PPN corrections to and . The PPN displacement from the Newtonian Lagrange point is thus obtained as
(47) |
where , and are chosen as a planet, a test mass and the Sun, respectively.
Similarly, the PPN displacement from the Newtonian Lagrange point becomes
(48) |
where , and are chosen as the Sun, a planet and a test mass, respectively. The PPN displacement from the Newtonian Lagrange point is
(49) |
where , and are chosen as a planet, the Sun and a test mass, respectively. Here, a value of depends on , or , which is given by Eq. (4).
IV.2 PPN Lagrange points and
Next, we discuss PPN corrections to the Lagrange points and , for which we consider the PPN triangular solution. Let denote the orbital separation between the primary object and the secondary one, which equals to . Therefore, , where denotes the second order in . By using this for and , we obtain , and .
The PPN displacement from the Newtonian Lagrange point (and ) with respect to the Sun is obtained as
(50) |
where , and are used in the last line.
In the similar manner, the PPN displacement from the Newtonian Lagrange point (and ) with respect to the planet
(51) |
Lagrange points | PPN displacement [m] | |
---|---|---|
-Sun | ||
-Jupiter |
IV.3 Example: the Sun-Jupiter case
The PPN corrections to the , and can be expressed as a linear function in and . The PPN corrections to and are in a linear function only of . The results for the Sun-Jupiter system are summarized in Table 1, where the sign convention is chosen along the direction from the Sun to a planet.
Before closing this section, we mention gravitational experiments. The lunar laser ranging experiment put a constraint on as Williams1996 ; Williams2004 . If one wish to constrain at the level of by using the location of the Lagrange points, the Lagrange point accuracy of about a few millimeters (e.g. for ) is needed in the solar system, though this is very unlikely in the near future.
On the other hand, possible PPN corrections in a three-body system may be relevant with relativistic astrophysics in e.g. a relativistic hierarchical triple system and a supermassive black hole with a compact binary Rosswog ; Suzuki ; Fang ; Kunz2021 ; Kunz2022 . This subject is beyond the scope of the present paper.
V Conclusion
The coplanar and circular three-body problem was investigated for a class of fully conservative theories in the PPN formalism, characterized by the Eddington-Robertson parameters and .
The collinear configuration can exist for arbitrary mass ratio, and . On the other hand, the PPN triangular configuration depends on the nonlinearity parameter but not on . This is far from trivial, because the parameter is not separable from apparently at the level of Eq. (5). For any value of , the equilateral configuration in the PPN gravity is possible, if and only if three finite masses are equal or two test masses orbit around one finite mass. For general mass cases, the PPN triangle is not equilateral.
We showed also that the PPN displacements from the Newtonian Lagrange points , and depend on both and , while those to and rely only upon . It is left for future to study the stability of the PPN configurations.
VI Acknowledgments
We thank Kei Yamada and Yuuiti Sendouda for fruitful conversations. This work was supported in part by Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) SPRING, Grant Number, JPMJSP2152 (Y.N.), and in part by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research, No. 20K03963 (H.A.).
References
- (1) H. Goldstein, Classical Mechanics (Addison-Wesley, MA, 1980).
- (2) J. M. A. Danby, Fundamentals of Celestial Mechanics (William-Bell, VA, 1988).
- (3) C. Marchal, The Three-Body Problem (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1990).
- (4) H. Asada, Phys. Rev. D 80 064021 (2009).
- (5) Y. Torigoe, K. Hattori and H. Asada, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 251101 (2009).
- (6) N. Seto, T. Muto, Phys. Rev. D 81 103004 (2010).
- (7) J. D. Schnittman, Astrophys. J. 724 39 (2010).
- (8) M. Connors, P. Wiegert and C. Veillet, Nature 475, 481 (2011).
- (9) K. Nordtvedt, Phys. Rev. 169 1014 (1968).
- (10) E. Krefetz, Astron. J 72, 471 (1967).
- (11) T. I. Maindl, Completing the Inventory of the Solar System, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Proceedings, edited by T.W. Rettig and J.M. Hahn, (Astronomical Society of the Pacific, San Francisco, 1996), 107, 147.
- (12) K. Yamada, H. Asada, Phys. Rev. D 82, 104019 (2010).
- (13) K. Yamada, H. Asada, Phys. Rev. D 83, 024040 (2011).
- (14) T. Ichita, K. Yamada, H. Asada, Phys. Rev. D 83, 084026 (2011).
- (15) K. Yamada and H. Asada, Phys. Rev. D 86, 124029 (2012).
- (16) K. Yamada, T. Tsuchiya and H. Asada Phys. Rev. D 91, 124016 (2015).
- (17) K. Yamada and H. Asada, Phys. Rev. D 93, 084027 (2016).
- (18) T. Y. Zhou, W. G. Cao, and Y. Xie, Phys. Rev. D 93, 064065 (2016).
- (19) E. Battista, S. Dell’Agnello, G. Esposito, and J. Simo, Phys. Rev. D 91, 084041 (2015); Erratum, Phys. Rev. D 93, 049902(E) (2016).
- (20) E. Battista, S. Dell’Agnello, G. Esposito, L. Di Fiore, J. Simo, and A. Grado, Phys. Rev. D 92, 064045 (2015); Erratum, Phys. Rev. D 93, 109904(E) (2016).
- (21) S. M. Ransom, I. H. Stairs, A. M. Archibald, J. W. T. Hessels, D. L. Kaplan and et al. Nature, 505, 520 (2014).
- (22) Anne M. Archibald, Nina V. Gusinskaia, Jason W. T. Hessels, Adam T. Deller, David L. Kaplan and et al. Nature, 559, 73 (2018).
- (23) C. M.Will, Nature, 559, 40 (2018).
- (24) G. Voisin, I. Cognard, P. C. C. Freire, et al., Astron. Astrophys. 638, A24 (2020).
- (25) C. M. Will, Living Rev. Relativity, 17, 4 (2014).
- (26) E. Poisson, and C. M. Will, Gravity, (Cambridge Univ. Press, UK. 2014).
- (27) S. A. Klioner and M. H. Soffel, Phys. Rev. D 62, 024019 (2000).
- (28) B. M. Barker and R. F. O’Connell, Phys. Lett. A 68, 289 (1978).
- (29) B. M. Barker and R. F. O’Connell, J. Math. Phys. 20, 1427 (1979).
- (30) C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation (Freeman, New York, 1973).
- (31) L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, The Classical Theory of Fields (Pergamon, New York, 1962).
- (32) J. G. Williams, X. X. Newhall, and J. O. Dickey, Phys. Rev. D 53, 6730 (1996).
- (33) J. G. Williams, S. G. Turyshev, and D. H. Boggs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 261101 (2004).
- (34) S. Rosswog, R. Speith, and G. A. Wynn, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 351, 1121 (2004).
- (35) H. Suzuki, Y. Nakamura, and S. Yamada, Phys. Rev. D 102, 124063 (2020).
- (36) Y. Fang, and Q. G. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 102, 104002 (2020).
- (37) A. Kuntz, F. Serra, and E. Trincherini, Phys. Rev. D 104, 024016 (2021).
- (38) A. Kuntz, Phys. Rev. D 105, 024017 (2022).