Kepler’s Orbits and Special Relativity in Introductory Classical Mechanics Tyler J. Lemmon * and Antonio R. Mondragon † (Dated: April 21, 2016) Kepler’s orbits with corrections due to Special Relativity are explored using the Lagrangian formalism. A very simple model includes only relativistic kinetic energy by defining a Lagrangian that is consistent with both the relativistic momentum of Special Relativity and Newtonian gravity. The corresponding equations of motion are solved in a Keplerian limit, resulting in an approximate relativistic orbit equation that has the same form as that derived from General Relativity in the same limit and clearly describes three characteristics of relativistic Keplerian orbits: precession of perihelion; reduced radius of circular orbit; and increased eccentricity. The prediction for the rate of precession of perihelion is in agreement with established calculations using only Special Relativity. All three characteristics are qualitatively correct, though suppressed when compared to more accurate general-relativistic calculations. This model is improved upon by including relativistic gravitational potential energy. The resulting approximate relativistic orbit equation has the same form and symmetry as that derived using the very simple model, and more accurately describes characteristics of relativistic orbits. For example, the prediction for the rate of precession of perihelion of Mercury is one-third that derived from General Relativity. These Lagrangian formulations of the special-relativistic Kepler problem are equivalent to the familiar vector calculus formulations. In this Keplerian limit, these models are supposed to be physical based on the likeness of the equations of motion to those derived using General Relativity. The resulting approximate relativistic orbit equations are useful for a qualitative understanding of general-relativistic corrections to Keplerian orbits. The derivation of this orbit equation is approachable by undergraduate physics majors and nonspecialists whom have not had a course dedicated to relativity. PACS numbers: 45.20.Jj, 03.30.+p, 45.50.Pk, 04.25.Nx I. INTRODUCTION The relativistic contribution to the rate of precession of perihelion of Mercury is calculated accurately using General Relativity [1–6]. However, the problem is commonly discussed in undergraduate and graduate classical mechanics textbooks, without introduction of an entirely new, metric theory of gravity. One approach [7–10] is to define a Lagrangian that is consistent with both the momentum-velocity relation of Special Relativity and Newtonian gravity. The resulting equations of motion are solved perturbatively, and an approximate rate of precession of perihelion of Mercury is extracted. This approach is satisfying in that a familiar element of Special Relativity—relativistic momentum—produces a small modification to a familiar problem—Kepler’s orbits—and results in a characteristic of general-relativistic orbits— precession of perihelion. On the other hand, one must be content with an approximate rate of precession that is one-sixth the correct value. Another approach [11–15] * Colorado College † Colorado College; [email protected]is that of a history lesson and mathematical exercise. A modification to Newtonian gravity is postulated, resulting in an equation of motion that is the same as that derived from General Relativity. The equation of motion is solved perturbatively, and the correct rate of precession of perihelion of Mercury is extracted. This method is satisfying in that the modification to Newtonian gravity results in the observed value for the relativistic contribution to perihelic precession. On the other hand, one must be content with a mathematical exercise, rather than an understanding of the metric theory of gravity from which the modification of Newtonian gravity is derived. Both approaches provide an opportunity for students of introductory classical mechanics to learn that relativity is responsible for a small contribution to perihelic precession and to calculate that contribution. A review of the approach using only Special Relativity and an alternative solution of the equations of motion in a Keplerian limit are presented—resulting in an approximate relativistic orbit equation. This orbit equation has the same form as that derived using General Relativity and clearly describes three relativistic corrections to Keplerian orbits: precession of perihelion, reduced radius of circular orbit, and increased eccentricity. arXiv:1012.5438v6 [astro-ph.EP] 20 Apr 2016
13
Embed
in Introductory Classical Mechanics - arXiv · Kepler’s Orbits and Special Relativity in Introductory Classical Mechanics Tyler J. Lemmon and Antonio R. Mondragony (Dated: April
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Kepler’s Orbits and Special Relativity
in
Introductory Classical Mechanics
Tyler J. Lemmon∗ and Antonio R. Mondragon†
(Dated: April 21, 2016)
Kepler’s orbits with corrections due to Special Relativity are explored using the Lagrangian
formalism. A very simple model includes only relativistic kinetic energy by defining a Lagrangian
that is consistent with both the relativistic momentum of Special Relativity and Newtonian gravity.
The corresponding equations of motion are solved in a Keplerian limit, resulting in an approximate
relativistic orbit equation that has the same form as that derived from General Relativity in the
same limit and clearly describes three characteristics of relativistic Keplerian orbits: precession
of perihelion; reduced radius of circular orbit; and increased eccentricity. The prediction for the
rate of precession of perihelion is in agreement with established calculations using only Special
Relativity. All three characteristics are qualitatively correct, though suppressed when compared to
more accurate general-relativistic calculations. This model is improved upon by including relativistic
gravitational potential energy. The resulting approximate relativistic orbit equation has the same
form and symmetry as that derived using the very simple model, and more accurately describes
characteristics of relativistic orbits. For example, the prediction for the rate of precession of perihelion
of Mercury is one-third that derived from General Relativity. These Lagrangian formulations of the
special-relativistic Kepler problem are equivalent to the familiar vector calculus formulations. In this
Keplerian limit, these models are supposed to be physical based on the likeness of the equations
of motion to those derived using General Relativity. The resulting approximate relativistic orbit
equations are useful for a qualitative understanding of general-relativistic corrections to Keplerian
orbits. The derivation of this orbit equation is approachable by undergraduate physics majors and
nonspecialists whom have not had a course dedicated to relativity.
three characteristics of relativistic orbits: precession of
perihelion; reduced radius of circular orbit; and increased
eccentricity. The predicted rate of precession of perihelion
of Mercury is in agreement with that of established
calculations using only Special Relativity. Each of these
characteristics of relativistic Keplerian orbits is exactly
one-sixth of the corresponding correction described by
General Relativity in this limit—providing a qualitative
description of corrections to Keplerian orbits due to
General Relativity.
This simple model is improved upon by including
relativistic gravitational force using the replacement
m → γm in Newtonian gravity, Fg = γGMm/r2. An
approximation consistent with the Keplerian limit results
in a conservative force, from which a relativistic potential
energy is derived that is useful in a Lagrangian formulation
of the special-relativistic Kepler problem. A solution of
the corresponding equations of motion in a Keplerian
limit results in an approximate relativistic orbit equation
Eq. (42) that has the same form as that derived using
the simplest model Eq. (26), thereby describing the same
three characteristics of relativistic orbits. Each of these
characteristics of relativistic Keplerian orbits is exactly
one-third of the corresponding correction described by
General Relativity in this limit Eq. (27).
The Lagrangian formalism applied to the special-
relativistic Kepler problem is instructive, providing
several challenges appropriate for an introductory classical
mechanics course, including: solve Newton’s force
equation using vector calculus to verify the unfamiliar
relativistic kinetic energy term in the Lagrangian—as
outlined in the last paragraph of Sec. III and in Sec. IV A;
derive a potential energy function from a conservative
force; apply Lagrange’s equations to derive the conserved
relativistic angular momentum and equation of motion;
and transform and solve a differential equation to derive
an approximate relativistic orbit equation in terms
of planar coordinates. This approach also provides
an opportunity to use less familiar problem solving
strategies, including: variable transformations to cast the
differential equation into familiar form; approximation
10
methods that simplify the differential equation; and
usage of the correspondence principle to identify a
constant of integration. Most importantly, students
are rewarded with a clear understanding that a small
relativistic modification to a familiar problem results in
an approximate relativistic orbit equation that clearly
demonstrates that relativity is responsible for a small
contribution to perihelic precession, and the satisfaction
of calculating that contribution.
These models are appealing because they are easy to
motivate and, most importantly, they produce equations
of motion that are similar to those derived using General
Relativity, as discussed in Sec. VI B. A larger class
of models may be solved using similar methods and
approximations. This is demonstrated using a toy model
in App. A and in Sec. VI C, wherein a more broadly-
defined Keplerian limit is described. Exact solutions of
the special-relativistic Kepler problem require a thorough
understanding of special relativistic mechanics [72, 73] and
are, therefore, inaccessible to many undergraduate physics
majors. The present approach and method of solution is
understandable to nonspecialists, including undergraduate
physics majors whom have not had a course dedicated to
relativity.
[1] A. Einstein, “Erklarung der Perihelbewegung des Merkuraus der allgemeinen Relativitatstheorie,” Sitzungsber.Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys.) 1915, 831–839(1915).
[2] A. Einstein, “Explanation of the perihelion motion ofmercury from the general theory of relativity,” in TheCollected Papers of Albert Einstein, translated by A. Engel(Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1997), Vol. 6,pp. 112–116. This article is the English translation ofRef. 1.
[3] A. Einstein, “Die Grundlage der allgemeinenRelativitatstheorie; von A. Einstein,” Ann. d. Phys. 354(7), 769–822 (1916).
[4] Reference 2, pp. 146–200. This article is the Englishtranslation of Ref. 3.
[5] K. Schwarzschild, “Uber das Gravitationsfeld einesMassenpunktes nach der Einsteinschen Theorie,”Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss., Phys.-Math. Kl. 1916,189–196 (1916). Reprinted in translation as “On theGravitational Field of a Mass Point according to Einstein’sTheory,” arXiv: physics/9905030v1 [physics.hist-ph].
[6] J. Droste, “Het veld van een enkel centrum in Einstein’stheorie der zwaartekracht, en de beweging van eenstoffelijk punt in dat veld,” Versl. Akad. Amst. 25, 163–180 (1916-1917). Reprinted in translation as “The fieldof a single centre in Einstein’s theory of gravitation,and the motion of a particle in that field,” Proc. K.Ned. Akad. Wetensch. 19 (1), 197–215 (1917), <adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1917KNAB...19..197D>.
[7] H. Goldstein, C. Poole, and J. Safko, Classical Mechanics(Addison Wesley, San Francisco, 2002), 3rd ed., pp. 312–314 and p. 332 (Exercise 26).
[8] J. V. Jose and E. J. Saletan, Classical Dynamics:A Contemporary Approach (Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, 1998), pp. 209–212 and pp. 276–277(Problem 11).
[9] P. C. Peters, “Comment on ‘Mercury’s precessionaccording to special relativity’ [Am. J. Phys. 54, 245(1986)],” Am. J. Phys. 55 (8), 757 (1987).T. Phipps, Jr., “Response to ‘Comment on “Mercury’sprecession according to special relativity,”’[Am. J. Phys.55, 757 (1987)],” Am. J. Phys. 55 (8), 758 (1987).T. Phipps, Jr., “Mercury’s precession according to specialrelativity,” Am. J. Phys. 54 (3), 245 (1986).
[10] L. Jia, “Approximate Kepler’s Elliptic Orbits with theRelativistic Effects,” Int. J. Astron. Astrophys. 3, 29–33(2013).
[11] Reference 7, pp. 536–539.[12] S. T. Thornton and J. B. Marion, Classical Dynamics of
Particles and Systems (Thomson Brooks/Cole, Belmont,CA, 2004), pp. 292–293 and pp. 312–316.
[13] V. D. Barger and M. G. Olsson, Classical Mechanics: AModern Perspective (McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 1995),pp. 306–309.
[14] G. R. Fowles, Analytical Mechanics (Holt, Rinehart andWinston, New York, 1977), pp. 161–164.
[15] L. N. Hand and J. D. Finch, Analytical Mechanics(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998), pp. 420–422 (Problems 18 and 19).
[16] Reference 12, pp. 578–579.Reference 13, p. 366 (Problem 10-12).
[17] J. M. Potgieter, “Derivation of the equations of Lagrangefor a relativistic particle,” Am. J. Phys. 51 (1), 77 (1983).
[18] E. A. Desloge and E. Eriksen, “Lagrange’s equations ofmotion for a relativistic particle,” Am. J. Phys. 53 (1),83–84 (1985).
[19] Y.-S. Huang and C.-L. Lin, “A systematic method todetermine the Lagrangian directly from the equations ofmotion,” Am. J. Phys. 70 (7), 741–743 (2002).
[20] S. Sonego and M. Pin, “Deriving relativistic momentumand energy,” Eur. J. Phys. 26, 33–45 (2005).
[21] T. J. Lemmon and A. R. Mondragon, “First-OrderSpecial Relativistic Corrections to Kepler’s Orbits” (2010)unpublished, arXiv: 1012.5438v1 [astro-ph.EP].
[22] Reference 7, p. 87.Reference 8, p. 84.Reference 12, p. 292.Reference 14, p. 148.
[23] P. Hamill, Intermediate Dynamics (Jones and BartlettPublishers, LLC, Sudbury, MA, 2010), p. 330.
[24] Reference 7, pp. 92–96.Reference 8, pp. 84–86.Reference 12, pp. 300–304.Reference 14, pp. 137–157.Reference 23, pp. 307–343.
[25] P. Smith and R. C. Smith, Mechanics (John Wiley &Sons, Chichester, 1990), pp. 195–202.
[26] T. J. Lemmon and A. R. Mondragon, “Alternativederivation of the relativistic contribution to perihelicprecession,” Am. J. Phys. 77 (10), 890–893 (2009);arXiv: 0906.1221v2 [astro-ph.EP].
[27] A. Singh and B. K. Patra, “Relativistic corrections to thecentral force problem in a generalized potential approach,”(2014), arXiv: 1404.2940v2 [physics.class-ph].
[28] F. Bunchaft and S. Carneiro, “Weber-like interactions andenergy conservation,” (1997), arXiv: gr-qc/9708047v1.
[29] R. A. V. Hidalgo-Gato, “Towards an extension of 1905relativistic dynamics with a variable rest mass measuringpotential energy,” (2012), arXiv: 1210.4157v1 [physics.gen-ph].
[30] T. E. Phipps, Jr., “On Gerber’s Velocity-dependentGravitational Potential,” (2004) unpublished,http://studylib.net/doc/5885051/on-gerber-s-
velocity-dependent-gravitational-potential.[31] R. L. Kurucz, “The Precession of Mercury and
the Deflection of Starlight from Special RelativityAlone,” (2009) unpublished, kurucz.harvard.edu/
papers/deflection/deflection.pdf.[32] C. G. Vayenas, A. Fokas, and D. Grigoriou, “Gravitational
mass and Newton’s universal gravitational law underrelativistic conditions,” J. Phys: Conf. Series 633 (2015)012033.
[33] M. A. Abramowicz, A. M. Beloborodov, X. Chen, andI. V. Igumenshchev, “Special Relativity and pseudo-Newtonian potential,” (1996) unpublished, arXiv: astro-ph/9601115v1.
[34] D. H. Frisch, “Simple aspects of post-Newtoniangravitation,” Am. J. Phys. 58 (4), 332–337 (1990).
[35] S. M. Carroll, An Introduction to General Relativity:Spacetime and Geometry (Addison-Wesley, San Francisco,2004), pp. 205–216.
[36] J. Plebanski and A. Krasinski, An Introduction to GeneralRelativity and Cosmology (Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, 2006), pp. 176–182.
[37] C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler,Gravitation (Freeman, San Francisco, 1973), pp. 1110–1115.
[38] S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology (John Wiley &Sons, New York, 1972), pp. 194–201.
[39] W. Rindler, Relativity: Special, General, andCosmological (Oxford University Press, New York, 2001),pp. 238–245.
[40] H. Ohanian and R. Ruffini, Gravitation and Spacetime (W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1994), pp. 401–408.
[41] R. D’Inverno, Introducing Einstein’s Relativity (OxfordUniversity Press, New York, 1995), pp. 195–198.
[42] M. P. Hobson, G. P. Efstathiou, and A. N. Lasenby,General Relativity: An Introduction for Physicists(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006), pp. 205–216 and pp. 230–233.
[43] K. Doggett, “Comment on ‘Precession of the perihelionof Mercury,’ by Daniel R. Stump [Am. J. Phys. 56, 1097–1098 (1988)],” Am. J. Phys. 59 (9), 851–852 (1991).
[44] D. R. Stump, “Precession of the perihelion of Mercury,”Am. J. Phys. 56 (12), 1097–1098 (1988).
[45] G. Ovanesyan, “Derivation of relativistic corrections tobounded and unbounded motion in a weak gravitationalfield by integrating the equations of motion,” Am. J. Phys.71 (9), 912–916 (2003).
[46] A. M. Nobili and I. W. Roxburgh, “Simulation of generalrelativistic corrections in long term numerical integrationsof planetary orbits,” in Relativity in Celestial Mechanicsand Astrometry: High Precision Dynamical Thoeriesand Observational Verifications, J. Kovalevsky andV. A. Brumberg (IAU, Dordrecht, 1986), pp. 105–110,<adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986IAUS..114..105N>.
[47] C. Magnan, “Complete calculations of the perihelionprecession of Mercury and the deflection of light bythe Sun in General Relativity,” (2007) unpublished,arXiv: 0712.3709v1 [gr-qc].
[48] M. M. D’Eliseo, “The first-order orbital equation,” Am.J. Phys. 75 (4), 352–355 (2007).
[49] D. R. Brill and D. Goel, “Light bending and perihelionprecession: A unified approach,” Am. J. Phys. 67 (4),316–319 (1999).
[50] B. Dean, “Phase-plane analysis of perihelion precessionand Schwarzschild orbital dynamics,” Am. J. Phys. 67(1), 78–86 (1999).
[51] N. Ashby, “Planetary perturbation equations based onrelativistic Keplerian motion,” in Relativity in CelestialMechanics and Astrometry: High Precision DynamicalThoeries and Observational Verifications, edited byJ. Kovalevsky and V. A. Brumberg (IAU, Dordrecht,1986), pp. 41–52, <adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986IAUS.
.114...41A>.[52] R. M. Wald, General Relativity (University of Chicago
Press, Chicago, 1984), pp. 136–143.[53] J. B. Hartle, Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein’s
General Relativity (Addison-Wesley, San Francisco, 2003),pp. 191–204.
[54] A. Schild, “Equivalence principle and red-shiftmeasurements,” Am. J. Phys. 28 (9), 778–780 (1960).
[55] A. Larranaga and L. Cabarique, “Advance of PlanetaryPerihelion in Post-Newtonian Gravity,” Bulg. J. Phys. 30,1–7 (2005), arXiv: 1202.4951v1 [gr-qc].
[56] Reference 53, pp. 230–232.[57] M. G. Stewart, “Precession of the perihelion of Mercury’s
orbit,” Am. J. Phys. 73 (8), 730–734 (2005).[58] D. Brouwer and G. M. Clemence, “Orbits and masses of
planets and satellites,” in The Solar System: Planets andSatellites, edited by G. P. Kuiper and B. M. Middlehurst(University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1961), Vol. III,pp. 31–94.
[59] C. Sigismondi, “Astrometry and relativity,” Nuovo Cim.B 120, 1169–1180 (2005).
[60] Reference 37, pp. 660–662, Box 25.6.[61] F. Y.-H. Wang, “Relativistic orbits with computer
algebra,” Am. J. Phys. 72 (8), 1040–1044 (2004).[62] A. Harvey, “Newtonian limit for a geodesic in a
Schwarzschild field,” Am. J. Phys. 46 (9), 928–929 (1978).[63] L. Okun, “The Concept of Mass,” Physics Today (June,
1989), 31–36.[64] E. Hecht, “Einstein on mass and energy,” Am. J. Phys.
77 (9), 799–806 (2009).[65] E. P. Manor, “Gravity, Not Mass Increases with Velocity,”
J. Mod. Phys. 6, 1407–1411 (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2015.610145.
[66] R. I. Khrapco, “Rest mass or inertial mass?,” (2001)unpublished, arXiv: physics/0103008v2 [physics.gen-ph].
[67] P. M. Brown, “On the concept of mass in relativity,” (2007)unpublished, arXiv: 0709.0687v2 [physics.gen-ph].
[68] G. Oas, “On the abuse and use of relativistic mass,”(2005), arXiv: physics/0504110v2 [physics.ed-ph].G. Oas, “On the Use of Relativistic Mass in VariousPublished Works,” (2005), arXiv: physics/0504111v1[physics.ed-ph].
[69] C. G. Adler, “Does mass really depend on velocity, dad?,”Am. J. Phys. 55 (8), 739–743 (1987).
[70] S. A. Vasiliev, “On the Notion of the Measure of Inertiain the Special Relativity Theory,” App. Phys. Res. 4 (2),136–143 (2012).
[71] Reference 37, ch. 7.[72] W. Rindler, Special Relativity (Oliver and Boyd, London,
1960), pp. 79–103.[73] J. L. Synge, Relativity: The Special Theory (North-
Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1958), pp. 394–399.
Appendix A: A Toy Model
The possibility of including relativistic gravitationalpotential by simply replacing m→ γm in the Newtoniangravitational potential energy and using the Lagrangianformalism is explored. This toy model is useful fordescribing methods for solving problems with moregeneral modifications to Newtonian gravity, for whicha more broadly-defined Keplerian limit is needed. TheLagrangian for this model is
L = −mc2γ−1 + γGMm
r. (A1)
Lagrange’s equations result in an abstruse set ofdifferential equations
d
dt
{γr2θ
[1− (γ/c)2V (r)
]}= 0, (A2)
and
γr[1− (γ/c)2V (r)
]+ γr
[1− 3(γ/c)2V (r)
]+ γ
GM
r2− γrθ2
[1− (γ/c)2V (r)
]+ (γ/c)2V (r)γ
r2
r= 0,
(A3)
where V (r) ≡ −GM/r is the Newtonian gravitationalpotential. Mercury’s orbit is approximately circularwith radius of the same order of magnitude as itssemimajor axis r ∼ a ≈ 5.79 × 1010 m, and its velocityis very small when compared to the speed of light, sothat (γ/c)2V (r) ∼ V (a)/c2 ∼ −10−8. Ignoring termsproportional to (γ/c)2V (r) results in the equations ofmotion derived in Sec. IV, Eqs. (30) and (31), therebyreproducing the orbit equation, Eqs. (33) and (42)
rc(1− ε)r
≈ 1 + e(1 + ε) cos (1− ε)θ. (A4)
Another solution to the equations of motion,Eqs. (A2) and (A3), is derived using a more broadly-defined Keplerian limit. For near-circular approximately
Newtonian orbits, r and γ are very slowly varyingfunctions, so that the higher-order terms γr and(γ/c)2V (r)γr2/r are taken to be negligible. [ForMercury’s orbit (γ/c)2V (a)γ/a ∼ −10−18 m−1.]
˜≡ γr2θ[1− (γ/c)2V (r)
]= constant, (A5)
and
γr[1− (γ/c)2V (r)
]+ γ
GM
r2
− γrθ2[1− (γ/c)2V (r)
]≈ 0.
(A6)
Conservation of angular momentum Eq. (A5) is used toeliminate the explicit occurrence of θ in the equation ofmotion Eq. (A6)
γrθ2[1− (γ/c)2V (r)
]=
˜2
γr3 [1− (γ/c)2V (r)]. (A7)
Time is eliminated by successive applications of the chainrule, together with the conserved angular momentum;
r = −˜
γ[1− (γ/c)2V (r)]
d
dθ
1
r, (A8)
and, therefore, (again taking γr to be negligible)
γr[1−(γ/c)2V (r)] ≈ −˜2
γ[1− (γ/c)2V (r)]r2
d2
dθ2
1
r. (A9)
Substituting Eqs. (A7) and (A9) into the equation ofmotion Eq. (A6) results in
˜2 d2
dθ2
1
r− γ2[1− (γ/c)2V (r)]GM +
˜2
r= 0. (A10)
Anticipate a solution of Eq. (A10) that is near Keplerianand introduce the radius of a circular orbit for anonrelativistic particle with the same angular momentum,rc ≡ ˜2/GM . The result is
d2
dθ2
rc
r+rc
r= 1 + λ, (A11)
where λ ≡ γ2[1 − (γ/c)2V (r)] − 1 is a correction toNewtonian orbits due to Special Relativity. [Tildenotation is used to emphasize that quantities dependon the exact conserved quantity ˜ defined in Eq. (A5),rather than the angular momentum ` defined in Eq. (30).]
The orbit equation is derived following the methoddescribed in Sec. III. The correction term λ isapproximated by expanding to first-order in 1/c2,neglecting the radial component of velocity, and usingangular momentum to eliminate θ
λ ≈ (˜/rc)2 − V (r)/c2. (A12)
The equation of motion Eq. (A11) is now expressedapproximately as
where ε ≡ (GM/˜c)2. An orbit equation is derived, asdescribed in Sec. III. The equation of motion Eq. (A13)is linearized using rc/r = 1 + 1/s, and (rc/r)
where sc ≡ (1− 3ε)/(2ε). The solution is similar to thatof Eq. (11)
sc
s≈ 1 +A cosα, (A15)
where A is an arbitrary constant of integration. In termsof the original coordinates, and defining e ≡ 2εA, an orbitequation in the Keplerian limit is described concisely by
rc(1− 2ε)
r≈ 1 + e(1 + ε) cos (1− 3
2 ε)θ. (A16)
This orbit equation does not have the symmetry of thosederived using the two simple models, Eqs. (26) and (42).The methods and approximations used to derive this orbitequation may be applied to other, more physical, modelsthat include relativistic corrections to Kepler’s orbits. Seethe discussions in Sec. VI B and Sec. VI C.