Relative Periodic Orbits in the Gutzwiller-type Anisotropic Kepler Problem and $n$-body Problem

Xijun Hu; Yifan Yang; Yuwei Ou; Zhiwen Qiao

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 29 references

Relative Periodic Orbits in the Gutzwiller-type Anisotropic Kepler Problem and $n$-body Problem

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The Gutzwiller-type anisotropic Kepler problem has infinitely many periodic orbits on every compact regular energy surface.

desk verdict Genuinely new rotation-number bound and a clean volume comparison, but the main theorem leans on an in-press result from the same group in exactly the regime the n-body applications use. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12901 v1 pith:QHMNEJ2T submitted 2026-08-13 math.DS math.CAmath.SG

Xijun Hu , Yuwei Ou , Zhiwen Qiao , Yifan Yang This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.DSmath.CAmath.SG MSC 70F1037J4653D1253D10

keywords n-bodyproblemperiodicorbitship-hopsymmetryrotationnumberGutzwilleranisotropicKeplerSeifertcontactvolumeCHHLformula

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper studies the Gutzwiller-type anisotropic Kepler problem, a family of reduced Hamiltonian systems with two degrees of freedom that contains the classical anisotropic Kepler model, the reduced hip-hop $(1+2n)$-body problem, and the $n$-pyramidal problem. It tries to establish that, on every compact regular energy surface in the parameter range $-C^2<2h\varpi^2<-A_0^2$, the system admits infinitely many periodic orbits whenever the weighted anisotropy sum $\sum_{i=1}^n A_iB_i$ is at least $\sum_{i=0}^n A_i$. The proof computes the Seifert rotation number of a special planar Kepler orbit via the Hill equation and compares it with the contact volume through the CHHL two-or-infinity formula. If true, the result supplies infinite families of hip-hop-symmetric relative periodic orbits in the $(1+2n)$-body problem and infinitely many pyramidal relative periodic orbits, extending earlier work that covered only $B_1\le 1$ in the classical case.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the reduced energy surface $M$, the planar Kepler orbit $\zeta_p$, and two numerical invariants attached to it: the contact volume $\operatorname{vol}(M,\lambda)$ and the Seifert rotation number $\hat\rho_p$. After reduction of the $z$-axis symmetry, the Hamiltonian flow on $M$ is the Reeb flow of the contact form $\lambda$, so periodic Reeb orbits correspond exactly to relative periodic orbits of the original system. The transverse linearized flow along $\zeta_p$ decouples into a radial and a vertical part; after a $2\pi$-periodic symplectic change of frame, the vertical part becomes the Hill stability equation $\ddot{x}+x+\frac{\beta}{1+e\cos\theta}x=0$ with $\beta=D/C-1$, and its mean Maslov index determines $\hat\rho_p$. For $\beta>0$, the paper establishes $\hat\rho_{p,\beta,e}>\sqrt{1+\beta}$ for every $e\in(0,1)$: large $\beta$ by a blow-up comparison argument, and the moderate range near $e=1$ by importing an in-press inequality from [13]. On the volume side, Jensen's inequality applied to the strictly convex function $f(x)=(x+r^2)^{-1/2}$ gives $\operatorname{vol}(M,\lambda)\ge\operatorname{vol}(\hat M_0,\hat\lambda_0)=T_p^2/\sqrt{1+\beta}$, with equality only in the isotropic equal-anisotropy case. The CHHL two-or-infinity formula then converts the resulting inequality $\hat\rho_p\ge T_p^2/\operatorname{vol}(M,\lambda)$ into the existence of infinitely many periodic orbits.

What would settle it

Numerically integrate the Hill stability equation with $\beta=0.02$ and $e=0.995$ (a parameter pair in the moderate range where the paper relies on the imported inequality) and compute the Seifert rotation number of its fundamental solution. If the result does not satisfy $\hat\rho_{p,\beta,e}>\sqrt{1+\beta}\approx1.00995$, the comparison at the heart of Theorem 1.1 fails in exactly the parameter regime used by the hip-hop and pyramidal applications.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the reduced phase space $\mathbb{R}^2\times\mathbb{R}_+\times\mathbb{R}$ with symplectic form $\omega=dp_r\wedge dr+dp_z\wedge dz$, the Hamiltonian is $H=\tfrac12(p_r^2+p_z^2)+\frac{\varpi^2}{2r^2}-\frac{A_0}{r}-\sum_{i=1}^n \frac{A_i}{\sqrt{r^2+B_i z^2}}$. Let $C=\sum_{i=0}^n A_i$ and $D=\sum_{i=1}^n A_iB_i$. When $-C^2<2h\varpi^2<-A_0^2$, the energy surface $M=H^{-1}(h)$ is a compact regular three-sphere carrying a contact form $\lambda$ with $d\lambda=\omega$. The planar Kepler orbit $\zeta_p\subset M\cap\{p_z=z=0\}$ has radial expression $r_p(\theta)=\varpi^2/(C(1+e\cos\theta))$, minimal Reeb period $T_p$, and Seifert rotation number $\hat\rho_p$. Theorem 1.1 asserts that if $D\ge C$, then $\hat\rho_p\ge T_p^2/\operatorname{vol}(M,\lambda)$, with equality if and only if $A_0=0$ and $B_i=1$ for every $i$. Because a tight contact three-sphere with exactly two simple Reeb orbits would have to satisfy $\operatorname{vol}=T_i^2/\hat\rho_i$ for both orbits, the strict inequality in every non-Kepler admissible case leaves no room for a two-orbit flow, so infinitely many periodic orbits exist on every such energy surface. The paper verifies the hypothesis $D\ge C$ for the hip-hop $(1+2n)$-body problem and for the $n$-pyramidal problem with $2\le n\le 472$, giving Corollaries 1.2 and 1.3.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the planar Kepler orbit's Seifert rotation number exceeds $\sqrt{1+\beta}$ for every eccentricity $e\in(0,1)$ and every $\beta>0$; the paper proves this for large $\beta$ by its own blow-up argument, but for moderate $\beta$ near $e=1$ it relies without proof on an in-press companion result, so a failure there would undo exactly the parameter regime used in the n-body applications.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every compact regular energy surface of the Gutzwiller-type Hamiltonian satisfying $-C^2<2h\varpi^2<-A_0^2$ and $\sum_{i=1}^n A_iB_i\ge\sum_{i=0}^n A_i$ carries infinitely many periodic orbits of the Reeb flow, equivalently infinitely many relative periodic orbits after undoing the angular reduction.
For the classical Gutzwiller anisotropic Kepler problem, combining Theorem 1.1 with the earlier $B_1\in(0,1]$ result gives infinitely many periodic orbits on every compact regular energy surface for every $B_1>0$.
In the hip-hop $(1+2n)$-body problem, for every $n\ge2$ and every central mass ratio $m_0\ge0$ with compact regular reduced energy surface, there are infinitely many hip-hop-symmetric relative periodic orbits.
In the $n$-pyramidal problem, for $2\le n\le 472$ and all mass ratios $\alpha>0$ whose energy surface is compact and regular, infinitely many relative periodic orbits exist around the planar elliptic relative equilibrium.
The equality case is characterized: the comparison $\hat\rho_p=T_p^2/\operatorname{vol}(M,\lambda)$ holds only for the reduced spatial Kepler problem with $A_0=0$ and $B_i=1$ for all $i$, so any genuine anisotropy forces strict inequality.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The restriction $2\le n\le 472$ in the pyramidal corollary comes from a finitely checked inequality $n>a(n)$; if that inequality is verified for larger $n$, the same infinite-periodic-orbits conclusion would extend to those cases as well.
The paper proves the rotation-number inequality $\hat\rho_{p,\beta,e}>\sqrt{1+\beta}$ only for large $\beta$, importing the moderate-$\beta$ range from [13]; a self-contained proof of that range would remove the only external dependency in Theorem 1.1.
The Jensen volume comparison suggests a general principle: any compact mechanical three-sphere whose potential lies pointwise below a single-anisotropy comparison potential may satisfy the same rotation-number/volume bound, so the theorem likely extends to other perturbed Kepler systems.
Because strict inequality is universal in genuinely anisotropic cases, the Seifert rotation number of the planar orbit can be read as a quantitative measure of how much anisotropy enforces periodic dynamics beyond the Kepler benchmark.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague — read this one if you care about the contact-geometry program for periodic orbits in celestial mechanics. The genuinely new piece is Theorem 4.3: a sharper explicit bound β*(e) with β*(e) < 6/e+3, proved by a blow-up comparison. The volume comparison in Section 3, using Jensen to dominate the multi-term potential by a single-anisotropy comparison system, is clean and does what it claims. From those two ingredients, the derivation of Theorem 1.1 is coherent: the rotation number of the planar Kepler orbit depends on β = D/C − 1, and CHHL does the heavy lifting as an external theorem. I checked the relations (19)–(25) and the splitting of e∈(0,2/3] vs [2/3,1); the comparison argument and the final β* bound look sound. This is a real extension of the group's earlier [16], and the hip-hop application's verification d(n,m0) > c(n,m0) is a direct, valid inequality.

The soft spots are real but not fatal to the central claim. First, the inequality ρ̂_{p,β,e} > √(1+β) is needed for all β>0, but Theorem 4.3 only proves it for β>β*(e). The complement β∈(0,β*(e)] is imported verbatim from the authors' in-press [13] (Theorem 4.2), so the paper is not self-contained in a regime that matters: in Corollary 1.2, β→0 as m0→∞, and in Corollary 1.3, β→0 as α→0. If [13] changes or has a gap, those applications lose their footing. That is load-bearing, but it is a dependency issue, not an internal contradiction. Second, the abstract states the n-pyramidal result without the restriction 2≤n≤472 that Corollary 1.3 actually contains; for n>472 the condition n>a(n) fails. Third, the finitely many cases 2≤n≤472 are disposed of by assertion, with no table or algorithm shown; that should be supplied. None of these undermines the proof of Theorem 4.3 or the volume comparison. The central infinitely-many-orbits statement is likely correct, and the citation pattern is heavy on the authors' own earlier work but not abusive given the direct lineage.

Who is this for? People working on Reeb dynamics, Maslov index, and symmetric n-body problems. It deserves a serious referee. My recommendation: send to review, and have the referee check Theorem 4.2 in [13] carefully, ask for the abstract/corollary mismatch to be fixed, and request the finite verification for n≤472.

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the reduced Gutzwiller-type anisotropic Kepler problem, a two-degree-of-freedom Hamiltonian of the form (3). Under the parameter condition sum_{i=1}^n A_i B_i >= sum_{i=0}^n A_i and the energy-range assumption -C^2 < 2hϖ^2 < -A_0^2, the authors prove (Theorem 1.1) that the Seifert rotation number ρ̂_p of the planar Kepler orbit satisfies ρ̂_p >= T_p^2 / vol(M,λ), with equality only in the isotropic Kepler case, and conclude via the CHHL two-or-infinity formula that every compact regular energy surface carries infinitely many periodic orbits. The proof combines a Jensen-type volume comparison with the comparison system (13)–(14), estimates of the rotation number via the Hill stability equation (6), and applications of the CHHL theorem. The result is then specialized to the hip-hop (1+2n)-body problem (Corollary 1.2) and the n-pyramidal problem (Corollary 1.3), yielding infinitely many relative periodic orbits in those systems.

Significance. If the main theorem holds, the paper gives a substantial generalization of earlier work on the anisotropic Kepler problem and provides new infinite families of relative periodic orbits in two classical n-body problems. The volume comparison argument in Section 3 is clean and the large-β rotation-number estimate in Theorem 4.3 is proved in detail with explicit bounds. The paper also gives an explicit verification of the coefficient conditions for the hip-hop and pyramidal applications. The main reservation is that the proof of Theorem 1.1 for the moderate-β regime depends on an inequality quoted without proof from the in-press paper [13]; this is a load-bearing external dependency that should be addressed before publication.

major comments (1)

[§4.3, Theorems 4.2 and 4.3, proof of Theorem 1.1] The proof of Theorem 1.1 for β>0 uses the inequality ρ̂_{p,β,e} > √(1+β) for every β>0 and e∈(0,1). Theorem 4.3 establishes this inequality only for β>β*(e). For the complementary range β∈(0,β*(e)] the paper quotes Theorem 4.2 from the in-press paper [13] and gives no proof. Since the authors themselves show β*(e)<6/e+3, the moderate-β interval is not covered by any argument in this manuscript. Remark 4.1 then shows that the hip-hop parameter β(n,m0)→0 as m0→∞ and the pyramidal parameter β(α)→0 as α→0, so the applications advertised in the abstract lie precisely in the unproved regime. This is a load-bearing external dependency: if Theorem 4.2 of [13] were false or unavailable, Theorem 1.1 would lose exactly the small-β cases. Please include a complete proof of the moderate-β inequality, or state the theorem as conditional and provide the proof of the quoted result for the reader.

minor comments (4)

[§4.3, Theorem 4.3] The assertion that β*(e) is continuous on (0,1) is made without showing that the two branches agree at e=2/3; please add the one-line verification.
[§4.5, Corollary 1.3] The phrase '2≤n≤472 is equalent to n > a(n)' is imprecise; the numerical range is a sufficient condition, not an equivalence. Please rephrase and correct the spelling of 'equivalent'.
[§4.3, Eq. (25)] The displayed count of zeros of the comparison solution includes the initial point t=0 through the '+1' term; this does not affect the limit in Eq. (23), but the formula as written only holds for the closed interval [0,τ0]. It would be clearer to count zeros in (0,τ0] and drop the '+1'.
[Title, Abstract, Introduction] There are several typos, including 'then-pyramidal problem' in the abstract and introduction and the missing space in the title 'andn-body problem'. Please correct them throughout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No constructed circularity: the CHHL-based proof is not equivalent to its inputs; same-group citations to [13] and [16] are load-bearing but non-circular dependencies.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular in the sense of reducing by construction. The mechanism that converts the rotation-number/volume inequality into infinitely many periodic orbits is the external CHHL two-or-infinity theorem (Theorem 2.1, from [6]), not a fitted or self-defined quantity. The volume comparison Proposition 3.1 is an independent Jensen-inequality estimate, and the rotation-number lower bound is proved inside the paper for the large-β range via the blow-up and comparison argument in Theorem 4.3. However, the moderate-β range β∈(0,β*(e)] is covered only by Theorem 4.2, quoted verbatim from [13], an in-press paper with three overlapping authors, and no proof is reproduced here. Remark 4.1 confirms that the hip-hop and pyramidal applications include β→0, so this same-group citation is load-bearing for exactly the advertised regime. The comparison-volume formula vol(M0,λ0)=T_p^2/√(1+β) is likewise cited from [16]/[18] rather than re-derived. These are external mathematical statements whose hypotheses do not include this paper's Theorem 1.1, so they are dependencies rather than circular reductions; still, the paper is not fully self-contained against its own prior work. Hence no self-definitional, fitted-input, ansatz-smuggling, or renaming circularity is present, and the score remains at 2 rather than higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted; all constants A0,Ai,Bi,h,ϖ are inputs. The paper introduces no new physical entities. The central derivation relies on external theorems (CHHL, Long's index theory, Hofer-Zehnder contact-type theorem) and on two prior results from the same group ([13], [16]) that are not re-derived here.

assumptions (5)

standard math CHHL theorem: a tight contact three-sphere has either two or infinitely many simple Reeb orbits, and if exactly two, vol = T_i^2/ρ̂_i
External theorem of Cristofaro-Gardiner, Hryniewicz, Hutchings, Liu [6,7], used in Corollary 2.1 to turn the inequality into existence of infinitely many orbits. Not proved in this paper.
domain assumption Theorem 4.2 from [13] (same group, in press at Geom. Topol.): ρ̂_{β,e} > √(1+β) for β∈(0,6/e+3]
Imported for the moderate-β range in the proof of Theorem 1.1 (Section 4.3). Not proved here; the paper proves an overlapping large-β estimate in Theorem 4.3 only.
domain assumption Volume formula for the comparison system: vol(M̂0,λ̂0) = T_p^2/√(1+β), from [16] Proposition 2.3
Used in Section 4.3 to convert the volume inequality into T_p^2/vol ≤ √(1+β). Cited from prior work by the same group.
standard math Mechanical Hamiltonian energy surfaces of this form are tight contact-type three-spheres in R^4 when compact (Hofer-Zehnder [12] Theorem 4.8)
Needed for CHHL and for well-defined contact volume and Seifert rotation number. Standard but unproved in the paper.
domain assumption Numerical fact: n > a(n) for 2≤n≤472, where a(n)=1/4 Σ csc(kπ/n)
Used in Corollary 1.3 to ensure D≥C for the pyramidal problem. Asserted without proof in Section 4.5.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Relative Periodic Orbits in the Gutzwiller-type Anisotropic Kepler Problem and $n$-body Problem." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QHMNEJ2T

@misc{pith2026260812901,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Relative Periodic Orbits in the Gutzwiller-type Anisotropic Kepler Problem and $n$-body Problem},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QHMNEJ2T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12901}
}

abstract

We study the relative periodic orbits in the Gutzwiller-type anisotropic Kepler problem, which is a generalized model derived from the classical Gutzwiller anisotropic Kepler problem. By reducing the rotational symmetry of the $z$-axis, we obtain a reduced system with two degrees of freedom and its energy surface forms a compact and regular three-sphere in a certain parameter range. Combining the estimation of the Seifert rotation number of the planar Kepler orbit and the CHHL formula introduced in \cite{CHHL23}, we prove that this system admits infinitely many periodic orbits on every compact regular energy surface. This model can be applied to the $(1+2n)$-body problem to find infinitely many relative periodic orbits with hip-hop symmetry as well as relative periodic orbits in the $n$-pyramidal problem.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12901 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The degenerate curves Γj (1), Γj (−1), j ∈ Z+ of the Hill stability equation. To be more intuitive, we provide the numerical figure of the degenerate curves {Γj (±1)}j∈Z+ as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The graphs of β∗(e) (red for 2/3 ≤ e < 1, blue for 0 < e ≤ 2/3) and 6/e + 3 (dashed) One can directly check that dQ dτ = 1 2 Q 2 + q 2 − 1, dq dτ = − 1 2 qQ, (19) and the following lemma hold. Notice that E(Q, q) := q 2 (Q 2 /2 + q 2 /2 − 1) = (e 2 − 1)/2, (20) is a first integral of the system (19) and Te = τ (2π) is the period of new time variable τ . Lemma 4.1. Let Te = τ (2π) be the new time period above. The fo… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** When n=20 , the parameter region that ensures the energy surface is compact. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

[16]

X. Hu, Y. Ou, and Z. Qiao. Relative periodic orbits in the spatial anisotropic Kepler problem.Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., 52:434–447, 2026

work page 2026
[13]

X. Hu, L. Liu, Y. Ou, Z. Qiao, and P. A. S. Salom˜ ao. ECH constraints and twist dynamics in the spatial isosceles three-body problem.Geom. Topol., 2026. arXiv:2602.24025, to appear in G&T

work page arXiv 2026
[1]

V. M. Alekseev. Quasirandom oscillations and qualitative problems in celestial mechanics. InNinth Mathematical Summer School (Kaciveli, 1971) (Russian), pages 212–341, 1972. Three papers on smooth dynamical systems

work page 1971
[2]

Barrab´ es, J

E. Barrab´ es, J. M. Cors, C. Pinyol, and J. Soler. Hip-hop solutions of the 2n-body problem.Cele. Mech. Dyna. Astr., 95(1–4):55–66, 2006

work page 2006
[3]

Barrab´ es, J

E. Barrab´ es, J. M. Cors, C. Pinyol, and J. Soler. Highly eccentric hip-hop solutions of the 2n-body problem.Physica D, 239(5):214–219, 2010

work page 2010
[4]

Barutello, S

V. Barutello, S. Terracini, and G. Verzini. Entire parabolic trajectories as minimal phase transitions.Calc. Var. Part. Diff. Equa., 49(1-2):391–429, 2014

work page 2014
[5]

Chenciner and A

A. Chenciner and A. Venturelli. Minima de l’int´ egrale d’action du probl` eme new- tonien de 4 corps de masses ´ egales dansR3: orbites “hip-hop”.Cele. Mech. Dyna. Astr., 77(2):139–152, 2000

work page 2000
[6]

Cristofaro-Gardiner, U

D. Cristofaro-Gardiner, U. Hryniewicz, M. Hutchings, and H. Liu. Contact three- manifolds with exactly two simple Reeb orbits.Geom. Topo., 27(9):3801–3831, 2023

work page 2023

Show all 29 references

[7]

Cristofaro-Gardiner, U

D. Cristofaro-Gardiner, U. Hryniewicz, M. Hutchings, and H. Liu. Proof of Hofer- Wysocki-Zehnder’s two or infinity conjecture.J. Am. Math. Soc., 2026. online first. 20

2026
[8]

Davies, A

I. Davies, A. Truman, and D. Williams. Classical periodic solutions of the equal- mass 2n-body problem, 2n-ion problem and then-electron atom problem.Phys. Lett. A, 99(1):15–18, 1983

1983
[9]

J. L. G. Guirao, J. Llibre, and J. A. Vera. Periodic orbits of Hamiltonian systems: applications to perturbed Kepler problems.Chaos Solitons Fractals, 57:105–111, 2013

2013
[10]

M. C. Gutzwiller. The anisotropic Kepler problem in two dimensions.J. Math. Phys., 14:139–152, 1973

1973
[11]

M. C. Gutzwiller.Chaos in Classical and Quantum Mechanics, volume 1 ofInter- disciplinary Applied Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1990

1990
[12]

Hofer and E

H. Hofer and E. Zehnder.Symplectic invariants and Hamiltonian dynamics. Birkh¨ auser Advanced Texts: Basler Lehrb¨ ucher. [Birkh¨ auser Advanced Texts: Basel Textbooks]. Birkh¨ auser Verlag, Basel, 1994

1994
[14]

X. Hu, L. Liu, Y. Ou, P. A. S. Salom˜ ao, and G. Yu. A symplectic dynamics approach to the spatial isosceles three-body problem.J. Euro. Math. Soci. (2025), online first, 2025

2025
[15]

Hu and Y

X. Hu and Y. Ou. Collision index and stability of elliptic relative equilibria in planarn-body problem.Comm. Math. Phys., 348(3):803–845, 2016

2016
[17]

X. Hu, Y. Ou, and X. Tang. Linear stability of an elliptic relative equilibrium in the spatialn-body problem via index theory.Regu. Chao. Dyna., 28:731–755, 2023

2023
[18]

X. Hu, Z. Qiao, and G. Yu. Relative periodic solutions in spatial Kepler problem with symmetric perturbation.Nonlinearity, 39:025001, 2026

2026
[19]

X. Hu, L. Wu, and R. Yang. Morse index theorem of Lagrangian systems and stability of brake orbit.J. Dyna. Diff. Equa., 32(1):61–84, 2020

2020
[20]

Hu and G

X. Hu and G. Yu. An index theory for zero energy solutions of the planar anisotropic Kepler problem.Comm. Math. Phys., 361(2):709–736, 2018

2018
[21]

Llibre and A

J. Llibre and A. Makhlouf. Periodic orbits of the spatial anisotropic Manev prob- lem.J. Math. Phys., 53(12):122903, 7, 2012

2012
[22]

Long.Index Theory for Symplectic Paths with Applications, volume 207 of Progress in Mathematics

Y. Long.Index Theory for Symplectic Paths with Applications, volume 207 of Progress in Mathematics. Birkh¨ auser Verlag, Basel, 2002. 21

2002
[23]

Magnus and S

W. Magnus and S. Winkler.Hill’s Equation. Interscience Publishers, Wiley, New York, 1966

1966
[24]

Mart´ ınez, C

R. Mart´ ınez, C. Sam` a, and C. Sim´ o. Analysis of the stability of a family of singular- limit linear periodic systems inR 4. Applications.J. Diff. Equa., 226(2):652–686, 2006

2006
[25]

R. Moeckel. Heteroclinic phenomena in the isosceles three-body problem.SIAM J. Math. Anal., 15(5):857–876, 1984

1984
[26]

Sakaguchi and M

S. Sakaguchi and M. Shibayama. A minimax approach to relative periodic orbits in symmetric three-degree-of-freedom Hamiltonian systems. 2026. arXiv:2607.00517

2026 arXiv
[27]

Sitnikov

K. Sitnikov. The existence of oscillatory motions in the three-body problems.Sovi. Phys. Dokl., 5:647–650, 1960

1960
[28]

Terracini and A

S. Terracini and A. Venturelli. Symmetric trajectories for the 2n-body problem with equal masses.Arch. Rati. Mech. Anal., 184(3):465–493, 2007

2007
[29]

G. Yu. Positive energy solutions in the anisotropic Kepler problem with homoge- neous potential.Commun. Math. Phys., 407, 2026. 22

2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [16]

X. Hu, Y. Ou, and Z. Qiao. Relative periodic orbits in the spatial anisotropic Kepler problem.Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., 52:434–447, 2026

work page 2026

[2] [13]

X. Hu, L. Liu, Y. Ou, Z. Qiao, and P. A. S. Salom˜ ao. ECH constraints and twist dynamics in the spatial isosceles three-body problem.Geom. Topol., 2026. arXiv:2602.24025, to appear in G&T

work page arXiv 2026

[3] [1]

V. M. Alekseev. Quasirandom oscillations and qualitative problems in celestial mechanics. InNinth Mathematical Summer School (Kaciveli, 1971) (Russian), pages 212–341, 1972. Three papers on smooth dynamical systems

work page 1971

[4] [2]

Barrab´ es, J

E. Barrab´ es, J. M. Cors, C. Pinyol, and J. Soler. Hip-hop solutions of the 2n-body problem.Cele. Mech. Dyna. Astr., 95(1–4):55–66, 2006

work page 2006

[5] [3]

Barrab´ es, J

E. Barrab´ es, J. M. Cors, C. Pinyol, and J. Soler. Highly eccentric hip-hop solutions of the 2n-body problem.Physica D, 239(5):214–219, 2010

work page 2010

[6] [4]

Barutello, S

V. Barutello, S. Terracini, and G. Verzini. Entire parabolic trajectories as minimal phase transitions.Calc. Var. Part. Diff. Equa., 49(1-2):391–429, 2014

work page 2014

[7] [5]

Chenciner and A

A. Chenciner and A. Venturelli. Minima de l’int´ egrale d’action du probl` eme new- tonien de 4 corps de masses ´ egales dansR3: orbites “hip-hop”.Cele. Mech. Dyna. Astr., 77(2):139–152, 2000

work page 2000

[8] [6]

Cristofaro-Gardiner, U

D. Cristofaro-Gardiner, U. Hryniewicz, M. Hutchings, and H. Liu. Contact three- manifolds with exactly two simple Reeb orbits.Geom. Topo., 27(9):3801–3831, 2023

work page 2023