Scattering Dynamics and Chaotic Motions in a Relativistic Two-Centre Problem

Gian Marco Canneori; Stefano Baranzini

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 31 references

Scattering Dynamics and Chaotic Motions in a Relativistic Two-Centre Problem

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that the relativistic two-centre problem contains a compact invariant set whose first-return map is semi-conjugated to a chaotic subshift of finite type, with every admissible crossing sequence realised by a collision-free

desk verdict Genuinely new results on critical two-centre coding, but the proof has two load-bearing gaps—especially the uniform-time claim in Proposition 6.3—so the paper needs major revision before it is citable. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.20099 v1 pith:XLB5IJEY submitted 2026-07-22 math.DS math-phmath.MP

Stefano Baranzini , Gian Marco Canneori This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.DSmath-phmath.MP MSC 70F1034C2870G7537B1037N0570H40

keywords two-centreproblemrelativisticdynamicsMaupertuisfunctionalstrong-forcesingularitysymbolicchaoticsubshiftscatteringtrajectoriesvariationalmethods

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 shows that the special-relativistic two-centre problem can be reparametrised in time so that it becomes a classical two-centre system with inverse-square strong-force singularities. At energies above the infimum of the effective potential, every admissible symbolic itinerary of crossings between two distinguished curves is realised by a collision-free solution, including bounded, scattering, and one-sided trapped orbits. The bounded trajectories form a compact invariant set on which the first-return map is semi-conjugated—and, for the unperturbed case, conjugated—to a chaotic subshift of finite type. A sympathetic reader should care because this turns a non-integrable relativistic model into a variational problem where complex motions can be prescribed combinatorially.

What carries the argument

Carrying object: the Maupertuis functional M_h(γ)=(1/2∫|γ̇|²)(∫[h+V(γ)]), minimised in homotopy classes of the twice-punctured plane; critical points are exactly energy-fixed solutions. The relativistic surface is rewritten as a classical Hamiltonian with potential (h_rel+V_rel)²/2mc², inverse-square near each centre, so minimisers are collision-free and taut-loop geometry controls them. Two collision minimisers ψ1, ψ2 asymptotic to the centres serve as transversal sections; the itinerary map records signed crossings. Compactness confines all periodic minimisers to one disk per k, and periodic minimisers of growing period converge to the coded bi-infinite orbits.

What would settle it

For a high-energy classical reduction satisfying (11), compute the [α1α2] minimiser φ and a minimiser γ in another admissible class such as [α1 α2 α1]; if γ has any point outside the disk D bounded by φ, or if φ and γ intersect exactly once, Lemma 5.3 is false and the coding theorem's disk-confinement collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the relativistic two-centre flow, after a time-reparametrisation, is equivalent to a generalised classical two-centre problem with critical inverse-square strong-force singularities. In that system, every admissible sequence over {±1,±2}—no run longer than k, no (±1,∓1) or (±2,∓2) patterns—is realised by a collision-free trajectory whose signed crossings of two curves Γ1, Γ2 reproduce the sequence. Bounded orbits form a compact invariant set on which the first-return map is semi-conjugated to a subshift of finite type, and the semi-conjugation is a conjugation when R=0. The same coding yields scattering solutions with prescribed asymptotic directions and trapped

Load-bearing premise

The coding theorem rests on two partially verified geometric facts: the collision minimisers ψ1 and ψ2 can be chosen as non-intersecting transversal curves, and every periodic minimiser outside the class [α1α2] stays inside the disk D bounded by the [α1α2] minimiser; the paper asserts the latter in Lemma 5.3 without proving that every such minimiser must meet ∂D, and Proposition 6.3 states without proof that minimisers enter every small ball around a centre in uniform time—if

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the coding theorem is correct, the relativistic two-centre problem at admissible energies has positive topological entropy and contains a Cantor set of bounded orbits realising every k-admissible itinerary.
For R=0, the conjugation means distinct itineraries correspond to distinct trajectories, so the invariant set is faithfully described by the subshift rather than merely shadowed by it.
The scattering result constructs collision-free trajectories with any finite word and any incoming and outgoing asymptotic directions, so the interaction region behaves as a deterministic scatterer with prescribed symbolic winding.
Trapped orbits interpolate between the two regimes: asymptotically free in the past and exhibiting full one-sided symbolic complexity in the future.
Because the classical reduction is proven equivalent, all these existence statements transfer to the original relativistic equations after the time-change.
The same coding holds for the classical two-centre reduction, giving a unified description of the relativistic and classical models.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper: the same time-reparametrisation turns any relativistic N-centre superposition into a sum of inverse-square singularities, so the coding approach likely extends to N≥3 with a 2N-symbol alphabet; the authors do not state this extension.
The conjugation for R=0 rests on negative curvature of the Jacobi-Maupertuis metric. The curvature formula in Remark 6.7 offers a testable sign condition for perturbations; checking it numerically would predict when semi-conjugation upgrades to conjugation.
The uniform-distance result suggests the chaotic set persists under slightly weaker singularities (exponent just below 2) but breaks down before the Coulomb exponent 1; a numerical continuation in the singularity exponent would locate that breakdown. This is an extrapolation, not a claim of the paper.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

You should know two things about arXiv:2607.20099. First, the main results are genuinely new: they extend the variational symbolic-dynamics scheme to the critical 1/r^2 two-centre system (without Levi-Civita regularization) and obtain coding, scattering, and trapping for the relativistic problem with perturbations. Second, the paper as written is not ready: two load-bearing steps in the proof are not actually proved, and the curvature remark has algebraic errors. The theorems may well be true, but a referee would need substantial additions.

What is new and good: the reduction from the relativistic to the classical strong-force problem was already in [12,10], but the treatment of the critical exponent 2 with this machinery, plus the new scattering and trapping theorems, is a real contribution. The compactness and asymptotic lemmas in Section 7 are carefully done. Borrowing the topological and approximation machinery from [5] is legitimate—the paper is just not self-contained, which is acceptable if [5] is solid.

The soft spots are in proportion: the biggest is Proposition 6.3. The proof of existence of collision minimisers ends with the claim that minimisers enter a fixed small ball around the centre in uniform time. The justification given—"there exists at least a point of ∂B_r at infinite distance from q"—is not an argument. Without a uniform-time bound, the diagonal limit may not converge to the centre, and the curves Γ1, Γ2 that define the itinerary are not established. I believe the claim is true and can be fixed by comparing with a path that goes from q to a boundary point and then radially inward; that gives a length bound logarithmic in 1/|q_n|, which controls the exit time. But the text does not do that.

Second, Lemma 5.3 (confinement of all other minimisers to D) only treats minimisers that intersect ∂D. A minimiser lying entirely outside D would belong to [(α1α2)^m], and that case is not ruled out. This lemma is used to keep the approximating orbits in a fixed compact region, so it matters.

Third, Remark 6.7: the curvature formula has at least two algebraic slips—the h' term should be 1/|q-c|^3, and the denominator of R(q) has a typo. The sign of the curvature likely survives correction, but the conjugation claim for R=0 is not yet justified.

Overall: the paper is for people working on singular variational methods and celestial mechanics. It deserves peer review, but only with a strong request for revision. I would not cite it in its current form.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the planar relativistic two-centre problem at fixed energy, with potential V_rel = μ1/|q-c1| + μ2/|q-c2| + R(q). The authors show that, up to a time reparametrisation, the relativistic dynamics is orbitally equivalent to a classical two-centre system with a critical strong-force potential (V_rel + h_rel)^2. They then use variational methods for the Maupertuis functional to construct collision-free solutions with prescribed symbolic itineraries, proving a coding theorem (every bi-infinite k-admissible sequence is realised), a scattering theorem (solutions with prescribed asymptotic directions and finite admissible itineraries), and a trapping theorem (solutions asymptotically free in the past and prescribed symbolic behaviour in the future). The main theorems are stated both for the reduced classical system (Theorems 2.1--2.3) and, via the reduction, for the original relativistic system (Theorems 1.3--1.5).

Significance. If rigorously established, the results would be a significant step: they provide symbolic dynamics and chaotic subsystems for a non-integrable relativistic two-centre problem, extending the variational approach to critical strong-force singularities and complementing earlier work on classical N-centre problems. The reduction of the relativistic problem to a classical strong-force problem is elegant, and the proposed compactness and confinement strategy is natural. The paper explicitly builds on the authors' previous work [5], and the new material in Sections 4--7 is intended to adapt that framework to the present setting. However, several load-bearing arguments are only sketched or asserted, so the current manuscript is not yet convincing as a complete proof.

major comments (5)

[§6.1, Proposition 6.3] The proof of existence of collision minimisers contains a central unproved claim: after the diagonal limit γ is constructed, the text states 'minimizers must enter an Euclidean ball of fixed small radius in a uniform time' and claims that otherwise 'there exists at least a point of ∂B_r at infinite distance from q'. This justification is logically invalid: sequences n_k and S_k → ∞ with γ_{n_k}(S_k) ∉ B_r do not produce a point of ∂B_r at infinite distance. The uniform-time control is exactly what is needed to conclude lim_{s→∞} γ(s) = c. Without it, γ may fail to be a collision minimiser in the sense of Definition 6.1. Since Γ1 and Γ2 in §6.2 are constructed from these collision minimisers, and the itinerary map π in (21) depends on them, this gap directly affects Theorem 2.1 and hence Theorem 1.3. The claim needs a real proof, for example via a last-exit argument combined with the abse
[§5.1, Lemma 5.3] The proof of confinement of all periodic minimisers to the disk D bounded by the [α1α2] minimiser is incomplete. The text says: 'assume by contradiction that a minimiser in H(τ) has one transversal intersection with φ. Then, it must intersect φ at least twice...' This only treats the case of at least one intersection. The zero-intersection case is not handled: the paper does not prove that a minimiser in a non-trivial class different from [α1α2] must intersect ∂D at all. Without that, the conclusion that its support lies entirely in D does not follow. This is load-bearing because Lemma 5.3 is used to define the compact region D and to justify the symbolic framework of Section 6.
[§7.1, Proof of Theorem 2.2] The passage from the compactness limit γ_R → γ_∞ to the identification of the asymptotic velocity is not rigorous. After equation (22), the proof says 'Take an interval (-n,n) large enough so that |γ_∞(t)|=1/ε for some t∈(0,n)' and then derives an estimate with ε and O(ε^{β-1}). The logic is unclear, and the estimate does not establish lim_{t→+∞} \dot γ_∞(t) = √(2h) e^{iθ_+}. A correct argument would need to compare \dot γ_R(t) with √(2h)e^{iθ_+} uniformly on intervals whose time shifts go to infinity as R→∞, or use a different method to transfer the asymptotic direction from the approximating sequence to the limit. Since this is the core of the scattering theorem, the gap is substantial.
[§7.2, Proof of Theorem 2.3] The trapping theorem is proved by a sketch rather than a complete argument. In particular, the statement 'From Lemma 5.3, we know that (|γ_∞(t)|>K for all t<0, |γ_∞(t)|<K for all t>0)' is not a consequence of Lemma 5.3 as stated. The proof also does not justify that the approximating minimisers γ_m have uniformly bounded times before entering B_K, nor that the fixed endpoint q in the construction does not prevent the limit from being globally defined and asymptotically free in the past. More details are needed for the convergence and for the transfer of the positively infinite itinerary to γ_∞.
[§7.1, construction of minimisers between tangent lines] The proof of Theorem 2.2 considers minimisers γ_{q^-,q^+}^R with endpoints on tangent lines ℓ± and a prescribed finite itinerary. However, Theorem 4.1 was proved only for endpoints satisfying |q^+|=|q^-| (condition (14)). The text asserts that the fixed-end results apply uniformly for endpoints outside B_{R0}, but the required extension to unequal radii is not proved. Since the existence of the approximate minimisers is the starting point of the scattering argument, this is a genuine gap, although it may be repairable by repeating the proof of Theorem 4.1 with a minor modification.

minor comments (5)

[Throughout] There are numerous typos and grammatical slips, e.g. 'rotation rotation' in Section 2, 'indipendently' in Lemma 5.6, 'mimimiser' in the caption of Figure 6, and 'Moreover,xhas' in the statement of Theorem 2.2. These should be corrected.
[§6.2] The set T is described as 'the union of two open cylinders', but as defined it is a union of two one-dimensional submanifolds of the energy shell; the word 'open' is potentially misleading. Also, the decomposition into components C_i^± is not made precise.
[Remark 6.7] The computation of the negative curvature for R=0 contains several notational confusions, including the reuse of R for both the perturbation and a newly defined function in the displayed formula, and a typo in the denominator of the third term of R(q). The authors should rewrite this remark carefully, since the conjugation claim in the unperturbed case rests on it.
[Proof of Theorem 2.1] The proof delegates a key approximation and compactness step to [5, Lemma 6.11] with 'the same argument as'. Since this lemma is central to passing from finite periodic minimisers to a limit realising a non-periodic bi-infinite sequence, the authors should either state the lemma explicitly or reproduce the proof in sufficient detail for the present setting.
[Lemma 7.1] In the proof of assertion iii), the argument that v_∞ must be parallel to e^{iϑ_∞} appears after the proof of existence of v_∞ and ϑ_∞; the structure is confusing and should be reorganized. This is a presentation issue, not a mathematical error.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation chain is not self-referential; the main gap (Prop 6.3) is an omitted proof, not circularity.

full rationale

I walked the claimed derivation chain: relativistic problem → Maupertuis/classical reduction (Section 2.1) → fixed-end and periodic minimisers (Section 4) → compactness bounds (Section 5) → collision minimisers Γ1, Γ2 (Section 6.1) → coding theorem via periodic approximants and a limit argument (Section 6.2) → scattering and trapping (Section 7). I find no step where a 'prediction' is identical to an input by construction. The admissible sequences are defined independently of the minimisers, and the itinerary map π is defined through geometric crossings of Γ1, Γ2; the claim that a minimiser in the homotopy class [γ_s] has itinerary s is a geometric/minimal-intersection claim, not a definitional identity. The main self-citations are to the authors' prior [5]: Maupertuis functional facts (Prop. 3.8), the chaotic subshift lemma (Lemma 6.4), the limit argument ('With the same argument as in [5, Lemma 6.11]'), and details for the conjugation claim (Remark 6.7). These are load-bearing for parts of the proof, but they are citations to a separate published result with stated assumptions, not to an assumption of the target theorem; under the stated rules they count as independent support rather than circularity. The central new content — Lemmas 5.6–5.8, Lemma 7.1, and the scattering/trapping constructions — is proved in this paper. I do flag a serious proof gap unrelated to circularity: in Proposition 6.3 the assertion that minimisers enter a small ball about a centre in uniform time ('Note that minimizers must enter an Euclidean ball of fixed small radius in a uniform time') is not established; the given justification does not prove the claim, so the conclusion lim γ(s)=c is not justified. This is a correctness risk, not a circular reduction, and does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on strong-force singularity assumptions and decay hypotheses that are standard for the problem, but several key technical facts (tautness, the symbolic-dynamics machinery, the existence of collision minimisers) are either imported from the authors' own [5] or proved with gaps. There are no fitted free parameters: the constants µ1, µ2, m, c, hrel are inputs, k is a theorem parameter, and R(q) is an arbitrary admissible perturbation.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The potential V has the form V(x)=f_j(x)/|x-c_j|^2 + W_j(x) near each centre, with f_j positive and bounded below.
This is the strong-force structure inherited from the relativistic reduction (Section 2.1, Lemma 2.4); it is assumed for the general theorems 2.1-2.3.
domain assumption V satisfies the decay condition (8): |∇V| and |⟨∇V,Jx⟩| ≤ C/|x|^β with β>1 at infinity.
Used in Lemma 7.1 to define asymptotic directions and free scattering; without it scattering statements are not meaningful.
standard math Maupertuis functional is coercive, weakly lower-semicontinuous, and its critical points are solutions of (9)-(10) (Propositions 3.7, 3.8).
The paper cites [2,5]; these are standard variational facts for singular potentials.
domain assumption Minimisers are taut: they have no singular 1-gons or 2-gons (Prop 5.1) and pairs of minimisers in distinct classes are in minimal position (Prop 5.2).
Imported from [5] (same authors); used in Lemma 5.3 and Prop 6.2 and not proved in this paper.
ad hoc to paper The subshift (X,σ) is chaotic and X is a Cantor set, and the approximation argument of [5, Lemma 6.11] used in the proof of Theorem 2.1.
Deferred to [5] by the same authors; no independent proof is given in the text.
ad hoc to paper Negative Jacobi curvature for the unperturbed case R=0 in Remark 6.7.
The computation appears to contain algebraic errors; the conclusion (negative curvature, hence full conjugacy) is not established as written.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scattering Dynamics and Chaotic Motions in a Relativistic Two-Centre Problem." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XLB5IJEY

@misc{pith2026260720099,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scattering Dynamics and Chaotic Motions in a Relativistic Two-Centre Problem},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XLB5IJEY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.20099}
}

read the original abstract

We study the planar relativistic two-centre problem at fixed energy, including a class of perturbations of the Keplerian potential. Up to a reparametrisation of time, the relativistic dynamics is equivalent to a classical two-centre system with critical strong-force singularities. This reduction allows us to apply variational methods based on the Maupertuis functional. We construct collision-free relativistic trajectories with prescribed symbolic itineraries and obtain a coding of the dynamics by admissible sequences. In particular, we prove the existence of bounded orbits, scattering solutions with prescribed asymptotic directions, and trapped trajectories that are asymptotically free in one time direction and exhibit prescribed symbolic behaviour in the other.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20099 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The (finite) itinerary of the curve γ is (1, 2, 1, −1, 2) Definition 1.1 (Itinerary of a curve). Let D be a compact subset of R 2 and let Γ1, Γ2 ⊂ D be two oriented non-intersecting curves. Let γ : I → D be an oriented curve such that • every intersection with Γ1 ∪ Γ2 is isolated and transverse; • γ intersects Γ1 ∪ Γ2 infinitely many times in both time directions. Let (ti)i∈Z be the strictly increasing sequence of i… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The generators of the fundamental group π1(R 2 \ {c1, c2}). of radius R > 0 containing the centers c1 and c2. There exist constants C1, C2 > 0 such that, for R large enough |∇Vrel| ≤ C1 µ1 + µ2 |q| 2 + |∇R| ≤ C2 1 |q|min{β,2} , since the perturbation R satisfies |∇R(q)| ≤ C|q| −β with β > 1. This, together with condition (5), implies that the gradient of V satisfies |∇V | = 1 mc2 (Vrel + hrel)|∇Vrel| ≤ C3 1 |q|min{β… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Singular 1-gon and 2-gon, cf. Definition 3.4. Definition 3.1. For two paths γ : [t0, t1] → R 2 \ {c1, c2} and ϕ: [τ0, τ1] → R 2 \ {c1, c2}, if γ(t1) = ϕ(τ0) we can define their concatenation as the path γ#ϕ: [t0, τ1] → R 2 \ {c1, c2}. For the purposes of this paper, we need to define the geometric self-intersections number of paths. Note that we will always refer to unsigned intersections. Our main reference is [21]… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: An example of fixed-end path in Hˆ q± (1, −2, −2, −1, 2). and its weak H1 closure Hq± (s1, . . . , sm) (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The four possibilities described in Lemma 5.3 iii) if q ± ∈ R 2 \D, then, for any finite alternating sequence s1, . . . , sm of (1, 2) or (−1, −2), the support of every minimiser of Mh in Hˆ q± (s1, . . . , sm) lies entirely outside D¯. If q ± ∈ ∂D, then the support of…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Proof of Lemma 5.3. Here, φ is a minimiser in the homotopy class [α1α2], while γ is a mimimiser in another homotopy class. The dashed red region is bounded by a singular 2-gon, not tolerated by Proposition 5.2. 0 q1 q0 0 q0 q1 γ ψ ∂Bρ ∂Bρ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Definition 5.5: the path γ has winding number 1 with respect to the origin, hence γ ∈ Γq0,q1 (1); on the right, ψ ∈ Γq0,q1 (2). Without loss of generality, we assume c1 = (0, 0) and fix r ∈ (0, |c2|/2) so that V (x) = f1(x) |x| 2 + W1(x), for x ∈ Br (cf. (7)). For any …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

[5]

Baranzini and G.M

S. Baranzini and G.M. Canneori. Chaotic phenomena for generalisedN-centre problems.Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 248(3):Paper No. 39, 55, 2024

2024
[1]

Ambrosetti and V

A. Ambrosetti and V. Coti Zelati. Closed orbits of fixed energy for singular Hamiltonian systems.Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., 112(4):339–362, 1990

1990
[2]

Ambrosetti and V

A. Ambrosetti and V. Coti Zelati.Periodic solutions of singular Lagrangian systems. Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and their Applications, 10. Birkh¨ auser Boston Inc., Boston, MA, 1993

1993
[3]

C. M. Andersen and H. C. von Baeyer. On classical scalar field theories and the relativistic Kepler problem.Ann. Physics, 62:120–134, 1971

1971
[4]

Baranzini, G

S. Baranzini, G. M. Canneori, and S. Terracini. Frozen planet orbits for then-electron atom.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 406:290, 2025

2025
[6]

Baranzini, G.M

S. Baranzini, G.M. Canneori, and S. Terracini. Mountain pass frozen planet orbits in the helium atom model.Ann. Inst. H. Poincar’e C Anal. Non Lin’eaire, 43(3):615–637, 2026

2026
[7]

Barutello, G.M

V. Barutello, G.M. Canneori, and S. Terracini. Symbolic dynamics for the anisotropicN-centre problem at negative energies.Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 242(3):1749–1834, 2021

2021
[8]

S. V. Bolotin and V. V. Kozlov. Topological approach to the generalizedn-centre problem.Uspekhi Mat. Nauk, 72(3(435)):65–96, 2017

2017

Show all 31 references

[9]

S. V. Bolotin and V. V. Kozlov. Topology, singularities and integrability in Hamiltonian systems with two degrees of freedom.Izv. Ross. Akad. Nauk Ser. Mat., 81(4):3–19, 2017

2017
[10]

Boscaggin and W

A. Boscaggin and W. Dambrosio. Reparametrizing the relativistic Kepler equation: a bridge to Levi-Civita-type models, 2026

2026
[11]

Boscaggin, W

A. Boscaggin, W. Dambrosio, and G. Feltrin. Prescribed energy periodic solutions of Kepler problems with relativis- tic corrections. InTopological methods for delay and ordinary differential equations—with applications to continuum mechanics, volume 51 ofAdv. Mech. Math., page...

2024
[12]

Boscaggin, W

A. Boscaggin, W. Dambrosio, and E. Mu˜ noz-Hern´ andez. A Maupertuis-type principle in relativistic mechanics and applications.Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations, 62:95, 2023

2023
[13]

Boscaggin, W

A. Boscaggin, W. Dambrosio, and D. Papini. Parabolic solutions for the planarN-centre problem: multiplicity and scattering.Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4), 197(3):869–882, 2018

2018
[14]

Boscaggin, G

A. Boscaggin, G. Feltrin, and D. Papini. Nearly-circular periodic solutions of perturbed relativistic Kepler problems: the fixed-period and the fixed-energy problems.Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations, 64:64, 2025

2025
[15]

T. H. Boyer. Unfamiliar trajectories for a relativistic particle in a Kepler or Coulomb potential.Amer. J. Phys., 72:992– 997, 2004

2004
[16]

Castelli

R. Castelli. Topologically distinct collision-free periodic solutions for theN-center problem.Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 223(2):941–975, 2017

2017
[17]

Chen and G

K.C. Chen and G. Yu. Variational construction for heteroclinic orbits of the N-center problem.Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations, 59(1):4, 2020

2020
[18]

Felmer and K

P. Felmer and K. Tanaka. Scattering solutions for planar singular Hamiltonian systems via minimization.Advances in Differential Equations, 5(10–12):1519–1544, 2000. 32 STEF ANO BARANZINI AND GIAN MARCO CANNEORI

2000
[19]

Ferrario and S

D.L. Ferrario and S. Terracini. On the existence of collisionless equivariant minimizers for the classicaln-body problem. Invent. Math., 155(2):305–362, 2004

2004
[20]

Goldstein, C

H. Goldstein, C. Poole, and J. Safko.Classical Mechanics. Addison Wesley, San Francisco, 2002

2002
[21]

Hass and P

J. Hass and P. Scott. Intersections of curves on surfaces.Israel J. Math., 51(1-2):90–120, 1985

1985
[22]

L. Jia. Approximate Kepler’s elliptic orbits with the relativistic effects.Int. J. Astron. Astrophys., 3:29–33, 2013

2013
[23]

Lacomba, J

E. Lacomba, J. Llibre, and A. Nunes. Invariant tori and cylinders for a class of perturbed Hamiltonian systems. InThe Geometry of Hamiltonian Systems, volume 22 ofMath. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ., pages 373–385. Springer, New York, 1991. Berkeley, CA, 1989

1991
[24]

T. J. Lemmon and A. R. Mondragon. Kepler’s orbits and special relativity in introductory classical mechanics. arXiv:1012.5438v6 [astro-ph.EP]

arXiv
[25]

Lind and B

D. Lind and B. Marcus.An introduction to symbolic dynamics and coding. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995

1995
[26]

Moser.Stable and random motions in dynamical systems

J. Moser.Stable and random motions in dynamical systems. Annals of Mathematics Studies, No. 77. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1973. With special emphasis on celestial mechanics, Hermann Weyl Lectures, the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, N. J

1973
[27]

Mu˜ noz and I

G. Mu˜ noz and I. Pavic. A Hamilton-like vector for the special-relativistic Coulomb problem.European J. Phys., 27:1007– 1018, 2006

2006
[28]

Nunes, J

A. Nunes, J. Casasayas, and J. Llibre. A perturbation of the relativistic Kepler problem. InPredictability, Stability, and Chaos in N-Body Dynamical Systems, volume 272 ofNATO Adv. Sci. Inst. Ser. B: Phys., pages 547–554. Plenum, New York, 1991. Cortina d’Ampezzo, 1990

1991
[29]

Soave and S

N. Soave and S. Terracini. Symbolic dynamics for theN-centre problem at negative energies.Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., 32(9):3245–3301, 2012

2012
[30]

P. J. Torres, A. J. Ure˜ na, and M. Zamora. Periodic and quasi-periodic motions of a relativistic particle under a central force field.Bull. Lond. Math. Soc., 45(1):140–152, 2013

2013
[31]

Giuseppe Peano

G. Yu. Periodic solutions of the planarN-center problem with topological constraints.Discrete and Continuous Dynam- ical Systems, 36(9):5131–5162, 2016. S. Baranzini Universit` a San Raffaele di Roma Via di Val Cannuta 247, 00166 Roma, Italy Ruhr-Universit¨ at Bochum Universit...

2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [5]

Baranzini and G.M

S. Baranzini and G.M. Canneori. Chaotic phenomena for generalisedN-centre problems.Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 248(3):Paper No. 39, 55, 2024

2024

[2] [1]

Ambrosetti and V

A. Ambrosetti and V. Coti Zelati. Closed orbits of fixed energy for singular Hamiltonian systems.Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., 112(4):339–362, 1990

1990

[3] [2]

Ambrosetti and V

A. Ambrosetti and V. Coti Zelati.Periodic solutions of singular Lagrangian systems. Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and their Applications, 10. Birkh¨ auser Boston Inc., Boston, MA, 1993

1993

[4] [3]

C. M. Andersen and H. C. von Baeyer. On classical scalar field theories and the relativistic Kepler problem.Ann. Physics, 62:120–134, 1971

1971

[5] [4]

Baranzini, G

S. Baranzini, G. M. Canneori, and S. Terracini. Frozen planet orbits for then-electron atom.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 406:290, 2025

2025

[6] [6]

Baranzini, G.M

S. Baranzini, G.M. Canneori, and S. Terracini. Mountain pass frozen planet orbits in the helium atom model.Ann. Inst. H. Poincar’e C Anal. Non Lin’eaire, 43(3):615–637, 2026

2026

[7] [7]

Barutello, G.M

V. Barutello, G.M. Canneori, and S. Terracini. Symbolic dynamics for the anisotropicN-centre problem at negative energies.Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 242(3):1749–1834, 2021

2021

[8] [8]

S. V. Bolotin and V. V. Kozlov. Topological approach to the generalizedn-centre problem.Uspekhi Mat. Nauk, 72(3(435)):65–96, 2017

2017