JOURNAL OF DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS 91, 168-179 (1991)

Central Configurations with Many Small Masses

ZHIHONG XIA *

Department of Mathematics, Harvard University,

Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

Communicated by Jack K. Hale

Received October 30. 1989

By using the method of analytical continuation, we find the exact numbers of

central configurations for some open sets of n positive masses for any choice of n.
It turns out that the numbers increase dramatically as n increases; e.g., for some
open set of 18 positive masses, some 2.08766 x 10” classes of distinctive central
configurations are found. In the mean time, we obtained some results about the
Hausdorff measure for the set of n positive masses where degenerate central
configuration arises. ‘0 1991 Academic Press, Inc.

1. INTRODUCTION

Consider N point massesm,, m,, .... mN > 0 with positions ql, q2, .... qN,
qi E R2 in the Euclidean plane. These points form a central configuration,
if, for some positive constant 1, the following system of algebraic equations
is satisfied

Rm,qi= C mimj 3 (qj-qj)=$ (1)

j#i llqi-qjll I
for i= 1, 2, .... N, and where

u,q m,m,
i<j 1/4i-4jll
The central configurations are important in n-body problems because
they are bifurcation points for the topological classification of the co-planar
n-body problem (see Easton [6] and Smale [12]); they are the limiting
configurations for colliding particles and for completely parabolic orbits
(see D. Saari [9, 111); they are the only configurations which can be main-
tained all the time in the n-body system; and often they are the starting

* Research supported in part by an NSF grant.

168
0022-0396/91 $3.00
Copyright 0 1991 by Academic Press, Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
 CENTRAL CONFIGURATIONS WITH SMALL MASSES 169

points for finding some new classes of periodic solutions. Questions about
these conligurations were raised by Wintner [lo], Smale [12], Palmore
[S], and many others. Recently there has been an active interest in finding
and classifying the central configurations, e.g., the recent work of Meyer
and Schmidt [ 11, Hall [2], Moeckel [3], and others.
For n = 3, this problem is completely solved and it is a classical result:
There are exactly 3 collinear solutions and 2 equilateral triangular solu-
tions for any 3 positive masses. In case of n = 4, even for 4 equal masses,
the exact number of central configurations is unknown. On the other
hand, Arenstorf [S] obtained the number of central configurations with
one of four masses being very small. He started with one zero mass and
then analytically continue it into positive masses. A very interesting
phenomenon arises in this case, i.e., there are two sets of masses such that
the numbers of central configurations corresponding to these two sets are
different. In this paper, we are going to find the exact number of central
configuration for some open sets of N masses for any N. It turns out that
for any N 2 4, the same phenomenon arises; there are always two open sets
of masses such that the numbers of central configurations corresponding to
these masses are different. From this we conclude that for any Nb4, the
set of masses for which the degenerate central configuration exists has a
positive (N- 1 )-dimensional measure (Haussdorff). This was proved first
by Palmore [S], but it seems difficult to complete all the steps in his proof.
The method we are going to use is analytical continuation. We start with
two zero masses and find the corresponding central configurations, especially
the ones in which two zero masses are at the same point. Under certain
conditions, these central conligurations can be analytically continued into
a full n-body problem with all masses positive. We will see that the central
conliguration with two zero masses at the same point will bifurcate into
several distinctive central configurations of a full n-body problem. By
repeating this processes, for any choice of II, we can find the exact number
of central configurations for at least some open subset of N positive masses.
The central configurations are also called relative equilibria. However,
throughout this paper we only use the name central configuration and save
the relative equilibria for those special central configurations with one or
more zero masses.

2. RESTRICTED PROBLEM OF (n+2)-BODY

Let q* = (q:, qf, .... 9.:) be a solution of Eq. (1), i.e., qr, q:, .... 4.: form
a central configuration; then it is easy to see that kq* = (kq:, kqr, .... kq,;)
and Aq* = (Aq:, Aq:, .... Aq,i$) is also a solution of (l), where k is a con-
stant and A E SO( 2, R j is a rotation matrix. We can define an equivalence
170 ZHIHONG XIA

relation by q-kq and q- Aq. By a central configuration, we will actually

mean an equivalence class of central configurations. An equivalent delini-
tion of central configuration is the critical points of the potential function
U restricted to the sphere I= 1, where I= (l/2) x mj(lqi((* is the moment of
inertia. Then (1) is exactly the equation given by the Lagrange multiplier
method for finding the critical point and d is the Lagrange multiplier. Note
that there is a degenerate direction for U restricted on the sphere I= 1 due
to SO(2, R) action. To remove this degeneracy, let S/h be the quotient
space of the sphere I= 1 with relation q- Aq, A E SO(2, R); then the
equivalence classes of central configurations are the critical points of
VCql) on s/-, where [q] is the equivalent class of q.
A central configuration is called nondegenerate if its equivalence class is
a nondegenerate critical point of U( [q]; i.e., the Hessian is nonsingular at
the critical point. By the implicit function theorem, any nondegenerate
central conliguration can be analytically continued to nearby masses.
We remark that, in (l), the equation for central configuration, one may
fix i. = 1. This only fixes the scale of the central configuration. For any
equivalence class of central configurations, the one with i = 1 can be found.
From now on, we fix J = 1.
Let q* = (q:, qf, .... q;) be a nondegenerate central configuration for the
N-body problem; now we consider an n-body system with n = IV+ 2 in
which we add two small massesto the N-body system. We want to find the
central configurations to this system in which q = (q,, q2, .... qN) is close to
q* = (q;p, q;, .... 4%). The corresponding equations for the central
configurations are

mim.w+2
- 4;) (2)
+ IlqN+Z-qrl13 (qN+Z
for i = 1, 2, .... N, and
N
mNf Iq.%‘+ I = c n1im.w + I

!=, Ilq,+,-qil13(q~-q4.y+1)
mlv, ,nlJv,2
--qN+l) (3)
+ IIqNfI -9.v+zI13 (qY+z

mzv+2qN+2= ;$, llq;yy& (4i - qN+2)

(4)
 CENTRAL CONFIGURATIONS WITH SMALL MASSES 171

Note that in Eqs. (3) and (4) there are factors nz,,,+, and mN+?,
respectively. When dealing with small massesit is convenient to factor out
nlN+ It nl,v+2. Assume this is done. Our next step is to consider the extreme
case where ~~~+,=rn,+~=O. For m,V+,=m,V+2=0, (2) reduces to (l),
and (3 ) and (4) become
.\ m,
q.v+1= c
t-l lIq,~+,-q:l13~q‘y+L-qr*)
m,
q.v+2= i * 3 (q,v+z-q?).
!=I IlqY+2-qi II

Note that the equations for q ,,,+ , , qNfz are identical; we may write them
in a different way as

D Wq .v+ I I= 0, DV,(q ,v+2)=07 (7)

where

v,\r(.Y)
=;=,i Ilq,*-*ul[
mi +P12.
l
Let I* be a solution of DV,,(x) =O; then it is called a relative equi-
librium of the restricted (n + l)-body problem, and it is nondegenerate if
the Jacobian of DVJx) has a rank 2; i.e., if ID’V,(s)l # 0 at x = .Y*. Since
D’V,(x) is symmetric, it has two real valued eigenvalues, say a, and a2,
and by selecting appropriate coordinates, we may write

The objective of this section is to find some central configurations of the

(n + 2)-body problem with two small massesfrom a known relative equi-
librium of the restricted (n + l)-body problem. The following proposition
shows how to find the central configurations where two small massesare
far apart from each other.

PROPOSITION 1. Let q:, q?, .... q,;! he a nondegenerate central con-

figuration for m L, m3, ..,, m,, > 0. Let q$ + , , 4%+ z be nondegenerate relative
equilibria of the restricted (n + l)-body problem, and q$+ , # q$+ 2; then
the central configuration q?, qz, .... qg, qz+ ,, qz.+: for the masses
m,, 1112, . . . . nz,\r, 0, 0, can be analyticallJ1 continued to a central configuration
for an)’ masses in an open neighborhood qf m,, m,, .... mN, 0, 0 in iW,yf2.
172 ZHIHONG XIA

In this proposition, qE+ , # q$+ 2 is required so that the influences of the

two small masses on each other are of high order, therefore the implicit
function theorem applies. In fact, the Jacobian at q:, qf, .... q:,
q$+ ,, qEr+* for (2), (3) and (4) breaks into three parts, one for (2) at
q;, q:, ..., q.:, and the other two for (3) and (4) at qX+, and q$+?,
respectively. All of them are nondegenerate, so the implicit function
theorem gives the proposition.
Observe that, if we have k nondegenerate relative equilibria for the
restricted (n + 1)-body problem, this proposition gives k. (k - 1) distinctive
central configurations for the full (n + 2)-body problem with two small
masses and it is easy to see that, for rn.&,+ ,, HZ,,,+?sufficiently small, this
gives all the central configurations with m,, rn2, .... rnl:v near q:, qf, .... qX
and mNtl, rnN+2 away from one another. It is still possible that there are
some central configurations for which the two small massesnzN+,, mN+Z
are close together; i.e., as the limits of mN+ ,, m,,,+l tend to zero, t~z:v+,,
mN+2 occupy the same point. We consider this case next.
In case of qz,+, = qjcy+2, the influences between two small massesbecome
very large as their massesbecome positive, since the distance between them
is very small. Therefore we can not apply the implicit function theorem
directly. In fact, m,y+l =O=mJv+2, q$+, =qz+? is a singular point for
Eqs. (2), (3), and (4), we will see that the bifurcation of the central
configuration occurs here.
When mN+I >O, m,v+2 > 0 are very small, and qN + , - q.v+ ? is very
small, it is convenient to introduce some new coordinates for mN+ , and
nzNt2; let

and

Then,
for qN+,-&+I, qN+r-q~~+z very small, Eqs. (2), (3), and (4)
become

i= 1, 2, .... N (8)

(9)
 CENTRAL CONFIGURATIONS WITH SMALL MASSES 173

We still have a singularity for (10) at Mu+, =O, rr~~+~=O, and r,=O; a
scaling of variables will remove this singularity. Let rz= (mv+, +mN+2),‘3r;;
(10) becomes

Now, m lV+,=nl:~+~=O, rz = 0 is no longer a singular point for (8) (9)

and (11) and therefore we may use this set of equations for finding the
central configurations with two small masses close together.
Let m ,,,+,=O, mNtl=O and let r:=qE,+,=qz,+, be a nondegenerate
relative equilibrium of the restricted (N+ 1)-body problem; (11) gives

1
aI - W~l13 0
ri = 0, (12)
[ 0 a, - l/llrSII’

where a, and a, are the eigenvalues of DV,,,(r~) and a, # 0, a2 #O. There

are three cases for the solutions of this equation depending on different
values of a I and a, :

(i) a, < 0, a, < 0, i.e., r: is a local maximum of V(X); then there is

no solution at all.
(ii) a, < 0, a, > 0 (or similarly, a, > 0, a, < 0), r: is a saddle point of
V(X); there are two solutions, ri = &(O, CI;‘,~), and the Jacobian at these
solutions is

a,--a2 0
=3(a,-a,)a~#o;
0 30,

so these two solutions can be continued into two classes of central

configurations for a full (n + 2)-body problem.
(iii) a, > 0, a, > 0; there are four solutions in this case,

rk=
_ +(0 u-“~)
--r2 , r2 = +(a;’ 3, 0),

and the Jacobians at these solutions are

al--a2 0 I I 3a, 0
0 3a, ’ 0 a,--a, .

Both of them do not vanish provided that a, #a?, and hence if a, #a,
these four solutions can be continued into four different classes of central
configurations for the full (N+ 2)-body problem with two small masses.
174 ZHIHONG XIA

The following graph illustrates the relative positions of two small masses
in a (4 +2)-body problem.

* “22
* 1124
mI *
*
*+*
*
*-*
7 7
minimum saddle
m, *

Now we have a way for finding the central configurations of the (N+ 2)-
body problem with two small masses even when these two small masses
have the same limit position as their masses tend to zero. We point out
that the central configurations thus found exhaust all the possible ones
with two sufficient small masses and with the large masses m,, m,, .... mN
close to q1*, q2*, .... 4:.
In case (iii), when a, = a, < 0, more complicated bifurcation occurs, and
it depends on high order terms of V,v(x) at s*, it is possible that we have
more than four solutions that can be continued into a full (N+ 2)-body
problem instead of four solutions in the case of a, # a,, a, < 0, and a, < 0.
For example, let us put N equal masses at the vertices of a regular
N-polygon; then the origin is a relative equilibrium and is a local minimum
of V,,v(x), by symmetry, a, = a, < 0. One can show that at least 2N classes
of central configurations of the (N + 2)-problem, with two small masses at
the origin, can be obtained, again by symmetry.
As an application of above results, let us consider a 4-body problem with
two small masses. There are live relative equilibria for a restricted 3-body
problem; two of them are equilateral triangle solutions which are minima
of Vz(.u), and two eigenvalues of D’V(x) are different at these two points,
and the other three of them are collinear solutions which are saddle points
of VJx). All of the live relative equilibria are nondegenerate. Thus,
Proposition 1 gives 5 x 4= 20 classes of central conligurations for the
4-body problem with two small masses which are away from each other
and there are 2 x 4 + 3 x 2 = 14 classes of central conligurations with two
small masses close to each other; therefore, there are totally 34 classes of
central configurations for the 4-body problem with two small masses. This
same result was obtained by Arenstorf [8] by a different method.
 CENTRAL CONFIGURATIONS WITH SMALL MASSES 175

3. THE NUMBERSOF CENTRAL CONFIGURATIONS

In last section, we developed a method to find the number of relative

equilibria of the (N+ 2)-body problem from that of the restricted (N+ 1j-
body problem, and we continued these into the central configurations of
the full (N+ 1)-body problem. If we keep M,~+ z = 0 and only continue
rnN+ i into positive values, then what we obtain are some relative equilibria
of the restricted ((N + 1) + 1)-body problem, so we can use the same
technique again to obtain some central configurations of the (N+ 3)-body
problem, and so on. Before we do that, we must first find the eigenvalues
of D2N,v+ i(s) at these new relative equilibria of the restricted
((N + 1) + 1 )-body problem.
For the relative equilibria given by Proposition 1, i.e., when two small
masses are away from each other, for rnh’+, small enough, D2V,,,+ ,(I) has
the same property as that of D2Vy(x), and therefore the method of the last
section applies again.
In the case of two small masses close to each other, if m,, , is small
enough, then I’,,.+ ,(x) can be approximated by

with

D’V,v(.x)=
[0 a2
a’
1 ’

Corresponding to that three cases of the last section, local properties of

I’,,,.+ i(x) can be shown to be the following.
(i) a, < 0, a2 < 0; no relative equilibrium for the (N + 1) + 1)-body
problem;
(ii) a,<O, a?>0 (and similarly for a,>O, a?<O), r>= &(0,a;‘,3),

again, the relative equilibria are saddle points;

(iii) a,>O, a2>0, a,#az; for the solution r;= +(0,a;‘:3),

and for the solution t-i = +(a; ‘;3, 0),

1+O(?v+
1).
176 ZHIHONG XIA

So two of the relative equilibria are saddle points, while the other two are
minimal of V,,,+ ,(x).
We conclude that, for any saddle point of V,,(x), then for each central
configuration continued from this relative equilibrium, with m,, , suf-
ficiently small, there are always two saddle points of V,+,(x) nearby
mN+ , , and correspondingly, for any minimum of V,%(X), there will always
be two minima and two saddle points nearby mN+ 1 for VI”+ ,(x).
Now, we come back to the 4-body problem we discussed at the end
of the last section. First consider the case with m, and m, large and
m3 sufficiently small. From the above result, there are together
2 x 4 + 3 x 2 + 5 x 4 = 34 relative equilibria. Among these 34 relative equi-
libria of the restricted (3 + I)-body problem, 16 belong to the equilateral
triangle formed by m,, m2, and m, with 2 x 3 = 6 local minima and
2 x 5 = 10 local saddle points. The other 18 belong the collinear central
configurations of m, , m,, and m3 with 3 x 2 local minima and 3 x 4 local
saddle points. By a very careful counting, we conclude that there are
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3 x 4 x 2 + 3 x 4 x 5 = 294 relative equilibria for the restricted (4 + 1)-body
problem.
We now turn our attention to the central configurations with three large
masses. First for any three positive masses, there are five classes of central
configurations; three of them are collinear and two of them are equilateral.
Arenstorf [S] and Palmore [4] showed that for any collinear central con-
figuration there are six relative equilibria for the restricted 4-body problem;
two of them are local minima and the other four of them are saddles. For
the equilateral central configuration, an interesting phenomenon happens.
Arenstorf [S] showed that there are 8 or 10 relative equilibria of the
restricted 4-body problem depending on the three positive masses, and for
most of the masses they are all nondegenerate. A simple topological
argument shows that in the nondegenerate case, among these 8 (or 10)
relative equilibria, 3 (or 4) of them must be local minima and the other 5
(or 6) must be saddle points. Since thee eigenvalues continuously depend
on the masses, it can be shown easily that for most of the masses, at the
minima relative equilibria, D2 V3(x) has distinct eigenvalues.
Therefore for the restricted 4-body problem, for some open set of three
large masses, there are totally 34 relative equilibria. Among them, 22 are
saddle points and the other 12 are local minima, and for some other open
set of three large masses, the total number of relative equilibria is 36.
Among them 24 are saddle points and 14 are local minima. From these
results about the restricted (3 + 1 =4)-body problem and the technique
we developed above, it is easy to see (again, by carefully counting the
numbers), for a 5-body problem, for some open set of masses (with two
large masses, one small mass, and two even smaller masses), there are 294
 CENTRAL CONFIGURATIONS WITH SMALL MASSES 177

classes of central configurations, while for some other open set of masses
(with three large masses and two small masses), there are 374 classes of
central configurations, and all of them are nondegenerate.
Repeating the above procedure, for any N there are two open sets of
massesfor which we can find the exact number of central configurations
corresponding to these two sets of masses.For n from 4 through 10, the
numbers thus found are listed in Table I.
It would be nice if we could develop a general formula depending on
the number of bodies for the number of central configurations thus found.
It turns out that it is even hard to write a recursive formula for these
numbers. In fact, the numbers in Table I are produced by a small Fortran
program.
It is interesting to see how fast the number of the central configurations
increasesas n increases.Let t, be the total number of central configurations
we find for some n positive masses. Since local minima produce more
central configurations when continued into positive masses, t,, must be
greater than the number obtained by considering all local minima as saddle
points. In this way, we have a simple estimate:

t,, > (n + 2)!/24 for n>4.

By a topological argument, Palmore [7] showed that there is a lower

bound, (3n - 4)(n - 1)!/2, on the numbers of central configurations for any
choice of n positive masses.It is interesting to note that the numbers that
are actually found here far exceedsthe lower bound as n becomes large.
Observe that, for any n 2 4, there are two open sets of n positive masses
such that all the corresponding central configurations are nondegenerate
and the numbers of central configurations corresponding to these two sets
are different. This shows the complexity of the problem of central con-
figurations and also give us some information about degeneracy of central
configurations.

TABLE I

Numbers of Central Configurations

n 4 5 6 1 8 9 10

2 Large masses 34 294 3096 38,250 5,536,800 9,036,729 165,191,OOO

3 Large masses 38 374 4512 64,248 1.051,440 19,399,OOO 397,737,OOO

Lower bound 24 132 840 6,120 50,400 463.680 4,717.440

178 ZHIHONG XIA

4. MEASUREOF DEGENERATECENTRAL CONFIGURATION

A long-standing problem in central configurations of the n-body problem

is whether there is only a finite number of central configurations for any
choice of n positive masses. This problem concerns the nature of degenerate
central configurations. The first example of degenerate central configura-
tions was given by Palmore [S] in a 4-body problem. By using some
results of the last section, we can prove the following theorem concerning
of the masses for which the degenerate central configuration exists.

THEOREM. Let .Z, be the set of masses (m,, m2, .... mN) E G2.yfor which
the degenerate central configuration exists; then .Z,v has a positive (N - l)-
dimensional Hausdorff measure.

This is a theorem of Palmore [S], but there is a step in his proof that
seems difficult to complete. Here we give a different proof.

Proof: We have shown that for any n 24, there exist m E 52’: and
m*E[Wy, such that m$Z‘, and rn* $Z,, and the numbers of central
configurations corresponding to m and rn* are different. Let r be any arc
in R’y joining m and m *, then l-r\ Z,\, # 4; otherwise, by analytical con-
tinuation of the central configuration along the arc, we will get the same
number for both m and m* but that is impossible. This proves the theorem.

5. SOME REMARKS

While it seems impossible to find all central configurations and classify

them for any choice of n positive masses, the method we introduced here
can solve this problem for at least some open sets of n positive masses
for any choice of n. It is amazing to see how fast the number of central
confiigurations grows as ii increases.
Note that our open sets of masses consist of two or three large masses
and a small mass, an even smaller mass, .... and so on. An immediate way
to extend our results is to consider three, four, or even more zero masses
as a starting point, i.e., consider first the restricted (N + n)-body problem
and find corresponding central configurations and then continue them into
the full (N+ n)-body problem. It turns out that, after some changing and
resealing of variables, the resulting equations are not much easier to solve
than solving the original equations with N + n positive masses. However, it
might be interesting to solve the problem for n = 3.
Finally, we remark that the above method can also be used to find the
central configurations in R3 and in this way, the author suspects that the
 CENTRAL CONFIGURATIONS WITH SMALL MASSES 179

nonplanar central configurations contribute most to the total number of

central configurations as the number of bodies becomes large.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Part of the writing of this paper was done at Northwestern University and the University
of Cincinnati. The author thanks D. Saari, K. Meyer, D. Schmidt, and G. Hall for reading the
original maniscript and making many useful suggestions. The author also thanks R. Moeckel
for pointing out an error in the original manuscript.

REFERENCES

I. K. MEYER AND D. SCHMIDT, Bifurcations of relative equilibria in the n-body and

Kirchhoff problems, preprint.
2. G. R. HALL, Central configurations in the planar I tn body problem, preprint.
3. R. MOECKEL, Relative equilibria of the 4-body problem, Ergodic Theory Dynamical
Systems 5, 3 (1985).
4. J. PALMORE.Collinear relative equilibria of the planar n-body problem. Celestial Mech. 28.
9 (1982), 17-23.
5. J. PALMORE, Measure of degenerate relative equilibria, I. Ann. qf Math. 104 (1976).
421429.
6. R. EASTON, Some topology of n-body problems, .I. D#erenfial Equations 19 (1975),
258-269.
7. J. PALMORE,Classifying relative equilibria, I, Bull. Amer. Mafh. Sot. 79, 5 (1973). 904-907.
8. R. ARENSTORF,Central configurations of 4-body with one inferior mass. Celestial Mech.
28, 9.
9. D. SAARI, The manifold structure for collision and for hyperbolic-parabolic orbits in the
n-body problem, J. Differential Equations 55, 3 (1984). 300-329.
10. A. WINTNER, “The Analytical Foundations of Celestial Mechanics,” Princeton Univ.
Press, Princeton, NJ, 1941.
1 I. D. SAARI. On the role and properties of n-body central configurations, Celestial Mech. 21
(1980), 9-20.
I?. S. SMALE, Topology and mechanics, I, Incenr. Math. 10 (1970), 305-331.

Primed in Belgium