text:
# Are There “Neutrino Flavors”? : More on the Equation 𝐻=𝑚𝑣²

(Posted: Feb. 26, 2003 Updated: Mar. 25, 2003)

Abstract:
In a recent work by the author it was demonstrated that the “neutrino” that is currently being detected in solar reactions (and possibly in other high energy nuclear reactions) is not Pauli’s particle; as it became clear that such a particle is an unnecessary proposition in explaining the beta-decay reaction. In addition, it became obvious that concepts such as “flavor oscillations” of the solar neutrinos are superfluous. In this paper it is further demonstrated that if certain key experiments of the past are reinterpreted in view of the total energy equation $`H=mv^2`$, then the principle of the existence of different neutrino “flavors” is itself very questionable.

1. Introduction:
In an entertaining book by the title “The God Particle” , distinguished experimental physicist Leon Lederman describes the first experiment in which the different “neutrino flavors” were detected. He wrote: “In almost all of our events, however, the product of the neutrino collision was a muon. Our neutrinos refused to produce electrons. Why? …somehow “muon” was imprinted on them”. In that 1962 experiment, Lederman and his co-experimenters demonstrated, by using a spark chamber, that a number of muon events that originated inside the chamber were very possibly due to the neutrino that was thought to be generated in the decay reaction

$$\pi ^\pm \mu ^\pm +\nu .$$
(1)
That reaction was postulated by Lattes et al. in 1947 in order to satisfy Einstein’s equation $`H=mc^2`$, since it was observed that the pion($`\pi `$) and the muon($`\mu `$) are particles with different masses. Since the neutrino generated in that reaction was considered to be the prime candidate for the events observed by Lederman and his colleagues, a number of other important explanations for the 1962 experiment were unfortunately overlooked111The author regrets that numerous attempts to communicate with professor Lederman before the publication of this paper were unsuccessful. (this is particularly true in view of recent knowledge that wasn’t available in 1962).
In an earlier paper by the author it was demonstrated that a total energy equation that will satisfy the theory of special relativity as well as the fundamental postulates of the wave mechanics introduced by Compton and de Broglie will be the equation $`H=mv^2`$, where $`m`$ is the relativistic mass of a particle and $`v`$ is its velocity. It was shown that while the traditional quantity $`H=mc^2`$ does emerge in certain experimental cases (such as in electron-positron annihilation), it fails to emerge in many other cases (such as in modern nuclear fission experiments; beta-decay; etc). The conclusion that emerged from that work was that the expression $`H=mc^2`$ is to be understood as a special case of the broader expression $`H=mv^2`$, which does explain all the observed experimental facts. The total energy as given by the quantity $`mc^2`$ is of course obtained only when the velocity of a particle in a given reaction is close to $`c`$.
In this paper we will discuss Lederman’s experiment in view of the total energy equation $`H=mv^2`$ and in connection with three earlier key experiments,, in which the decay of neutral and charged pions was discovered. This paper is organized as follows: in Sec.2 we will discuss first the 1950 experiments of Bjorklund et al. and of Steinberger et al. that dealt with the decay of neutral pions. It will be demonstrated that the results of those two experiments very strongly support the equation $`H=mv^2`$, not $`H=mc^2`$. In Sec.3, the experiment of Lattes et al. in which the decay of charged pions was discovered will be discussed. It will be shown that the data presented by the authors, if interpreted within the framework of the theory of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD), it rules out the possibility of the emission of a neutrino and further supports the total energy equation $`H=mv^2`$. Hence, it will be proven once again that the neutrino is an unnecessary proposition in explaining the decay of a pion into a muon. Finally, Lederman’s 1962 experiment will be discussed. Given the absence of a neutrino in $`\pi ^\pm `$ decay, and given recent experimental findings that were likely unknown in 1962, a very plausible interpretation of the result of that experiment will be given. Accordingly, the principle of the existence of a “muon neutrino” becomes very questionable. Sec.4 summarizes the conclusions of this paper, along with an explanation of why a reaction such as $`\mu ^+e^++\gamma `$ has never been observed.
2. The neutral pion ($`\pi ^0`$) decay experiments and further verification of the equation $`H=mv^2`$:
In a series of two key experiments performed in the period of 1949-1950 at the radiation laboratory at Berkeley, neutral pions were generated and studied for the first time in the laboratory. Bjorklund et al. performed the first experiment. The second experiment was performed by Steinberger et al. and used an improved experimental technique. Both experiments show results from which we can withdraw some very important conclusions about the principle of mass-energy equivalence.
2.1. The experiment of Bjorklund et al.:
In the first experiment by Bjorklund et al., a carbon target was placed inside a cyclotron chamber and bombarded with protons accelerated to different energies. The authors observed the emission of high-energy photons from the target, the spectrum of which does not fit that of a bremsstrahlung. The explanation was that a neutral meson must be decaying into two photons, as predicted by Lewis, Oppenheimer and Wouthuysen a few years earlier. The results of that experiment were summarized in one figure that was given by the authors (Fig.4a in the authors’ manuscript):

Figure 1: Distribution of the photon energies detected in the decay of neutral pions as given by Bjorklund et al. (the dotted portions of the curves are not shown in the authors’ figure). The difficulty of detecting photons at an angle of precisely 180 degrees indicate the impossibility of the decay of a stationary pion. The very wide distribution of the energies of the pions support the total energy equation $`H=mv^2`$, not $`H=mc^2`$ (see discussion).
This figure shows the yield of the observed $`\gamma `$ photons versus the measured energy of the photons. Curve A shows the results when the incident proton energy was 180Mev. Curves B through D correspond to higher proton energies. For each curve, the authors showed the angle at which the photon detector was able to detect the emitted photons (the angles are as indicated on the figure). The curves show some remarkable facts:

* Observation of the decay photons did not start at an angle of precisely $`180^{}`$, but at an angle of $`178^{}`$ instead (curve A). This indicates the impossibility of detecting the decay of a stationary pion (a stationary pion decays into two back-to-back photons emitted at angles of exactly $`0^{}`$ and $`180^{}`$). The impossibility of detecting the decay of stationary pions, is, of course, in agreement with the prediction of the equation $`H=mv^2`$ (since $`H=0`$ at rest). We must note here that the energy used to obtain curve A was 180Mev, which was just above the production threshold of the pion (which the authors estimated to be about 175Mev or higher). Therefore it is not inconceivable that some of the pions so produced must be almost stationary; yet the decay of those almost stationary pions wasn’t of course observed.
* The estimated mass of the $`\pi ^0`$ in those early experiments was about 150Mev/$`c^2`$. The modern estimate (based on a relativistic calculation) is 135Mev/$`c^2`$. If we take the modern estimate, then we would expect that the energy of each emitted photon to be always higher than $`\frac{1}{2}m_0c^2`$, or 67.5Mev. Yet, as the curves show, photons of energies as low as 30Mev were observed. The authors argued in their manuscript that this effect is just due to Doppler shift, as a result of the high velocities of the pions. However, it is difficult to make a case for a Doppler shift for two reasons: first, the photon is obviously emitted after the decay of the particle, not before. Hence, a measure of the total energy of the particle should be expected. Secondly, it is actually a very simple problem of kinematics to prove that if the photon is observed, then the momentum of the decaying particle with respect to the observer must be positive, not negative. Hence, a negative Doppler shift as argued by the authors must be ruled out. The plausible explanation, therefore, is that the total energy equation $`H=mv^2`$ must be valid. Note that we have showed the “missing” portions of the curves as dotted lines, since, of course, those portions weren’t obtained experimentally (detecting the decay of a slow pion would require a narrower observation angle).

From these experimental facts it is clear that, just as in the case of beta-decay, the spectrum of pion decay is obviously a continuous spectrum. This does not support the mathematical expression $`H=mc^2`$ (since it has a minimum limit of $`m_0c^2`$), but rather the expression $`H=mv^2`$.
2.2. The experiment of Steinberger et al.:
The experiment by Steinberger et al. is very similar to the one by Bjorklund et al. It is mentioned here, however, because the experimenters attempted a measurement that was not attempted by the first group: they directly attempted to detect the decay of stationary pions. In that experiment, a target was bombarded with photons (x-rays) instead of protons. A pair of telescopes positioned at variable angles around the target detected the photon pairs resulting from the decay of the neutral pions. In their paper, the authors indicated that they intentionally adjusted the energy of the incident beam to 175Mev, which was just above the production threshold of the pions, and positioned the telescopes at angles of $`0^{}`$ and $`180^{}`$. Of course, they reported that the observed photon yield was 50 times smaller than the yield at higher energies. They then concluded that coincidences at $`180^{}`$ are “rare”. This conclusion, again, is unquestionable proof that the decay of a stationary pion is impossible.
3. Reinterpretation of the charged pion ($`\pi ^\pm `$) experiments:
3.1. The experiment of Lattes et al. and the questionability of the presence of a neutrino in charged pion decay:
In the 1947 experiment of Lattes et al., the decay of a charged pion into a lighter particle, the muon, was observed for the first time. The authors demonstrated that a highly energetic positive pion from a cosmic shower will be scattered by a nucleus in the photographic emulsion that was exposed to that shower, and, in the process, its mass decreases considerably. The lighter particle was called a “$`\mu `$ meson” by the authors. To satisfy Einstein’s equation $`H=mc^2`$, they postulated that a neutrino or another neutral particle must be emitted along with the muon, since the total energy of the muon was obviously considerably less than that of the pion. We shall now proceed to examine this experiment and reach an important conclusion: the data presented by the authors, together with the theory of QCD, do in fact rule out the possibility of the emission of a second particle and further support the total energy equation $`H=mv^2`$.
When we consider a problem such as the one presented in that experiment, the first question that we must ask is whether the scattering of the incoming pion was an elastic or inelastic process. The crucial fact that was presented by the authors was that the resulting muon was always emitted with a constant kinetic energy (about 4Mev), while the incoming pion seemed to have widely different kinetic energies. This fact (whether we accept the idea of the emission of a second particle or not) undoubtedly point to an inelastic collision of the incoming pion, since it indicates that a mass-energy transformation (but no kinetic energy transformation) gives rise to the muon. In other words, this fact indicates that the pion likely loses its kinetic energy almost entirely upon collision with a nucleus in the emulsion, and then a mass-energy transformation process gives rise to another particle with a lower mass and constant kinetic energy: the muon. There are two questions that must now be answered: first, how such a process can be understood within the framework of the QCD theory?; secondly: if the incoming pion loses its kinetic energy entirely (and hence its total energy $`H_\pi =0`$), how the muon is then generated? We shall answer these two questions in order, and, in the process, we shall reach some very surprising conclusions.
According to QCD, the transformation $`\pi ^+\mu ^+`$ can be understood in the following manner (note that the positive pion is a quark doublet composed of an up quark and an anti-down quark):

$`\overline{d}\overline{u}+\mu ^++\nu `$
$`(u+\overline{u})+\mu ^++\nu `$ (2)
$`\text{Kinetic Energy}+\mu ^++\nu `$
In the first reaction, the anti-down quark $`\overline{d}`$ decays into an anti-up quark $`\overline{u}`$, a muon $`\mu ^+`$ and a neutrino $`\nu `$ (we shall shortly demonstrate that the generation of a neutrino is impossible). Note that, generally, this reaction is possible if the mass of the $`\overline{d}`$ quark is taken to be the relativistic mass, not the rest mass (which is known to be about 5Mev to 8Mev ). In the second reaction, the up quark annihilates with its anti-particle ($`\overline{u}`$) and the resulting energy appears as kinetic energy of the particles that were generated in the first reaction. In the earlier paper by the author it was demonstrated that in the case of the annihilation of a particle with its anti-particle it is reasonable to assume that a quantity of energy equal to $`2m_0c^2`$ will be obtained. We now note that the quantity $`2m_0c^2`$, where $`m_0`$ is the rest mass of the up quark, is approximately 3 to 9Mev according to the latest theoretical estimates. This figure, of course, agrees very well with the muon kinetic energy of 4Mev given by Lattes et al. ! This result suggests that it is very doubtful that a neutrino is generated along with the muon in the process of pion decay, especially since the authors estimated that the neutrino must carry away an energy of approximately 29Mev in order to balance the relativistic mass-energy of the pion! Quite clearly, the expected Q-value of the reaction is in agreement with the measured kinetic energy of the muon, without the need for the neutrino hypothesis.
We next consider the question of how the muon is generated and why this data does in fact support the total energy equation $`H=mv^2`$. If we calculate the velocity $`v`$ of the resulting muon, using its known rest mass (105.66Mev/$`c^2`$), and based on a kinetic energy of 4Mev, we find that $`v0.27c`$ (i.e., sub-relativistic). At sub-relativistic velocities, the total energy $`H=mv^2`$ is twice the kinetic energy; hence $`H_\mu 8`$ Mev. But if we reach the conclusion that $`H_\pi =0`$, then how the muon is generated? This process obviously occurs in the vicinity of a nucleus in the emulsion, as a result of the interaction of the electrostatic field of the nucleus with the constituent quarks in the pion. If we look at the overall mass-energy transformation equation, this equation can be written as follows

$$u\overline{d}H_\mu (=8\text{Mev})$$
(3)
The two quarks, of course, being charged, will acquire kinetic and potential energy terms as a result of the presence of a nearby electrostatic field. As we indicated, since we expect the annihilation of a particle and an antiparticle in this process, then it is reasonable to assume that an amount of energy equal to $`m_0c^2`$ will be obtained for each of the particles involved in the reaction (see the discussion in ref.). The expected mass-energy of the two quarks in Eq.(3) will be therefore given by the sum $`m_0c^2(u)+m_0c^2(d)`$. This quantity is approximately 6.5 to 13Mev, according to the latest estimates. It is now clear that this result supports the prediction of a total muon energy ($`H_\mu `$) of 8Mev, in agreement with the total energy equation $`H=mv^2`$! Of course, it is also clear from this discussion that one must proceed with great caution in interpreting particle reactions, since the traditional quantity of energy $`mc^2`$ may indeed appear in certain cases as we have seen.
To summarize the above discussion: the theory of QCD, together with the data presented by Lattes et al., rule out the possibility of the emission of a neutrino and further support the total energy equation $`H=mv^2`$. On the other hand, the application of the total energy equation $`H=mc^2`$ results in an energy deficit of 29Mev (or 34Mev according to the modern estimates) that cannot be accounted for.
3.2. The experiment of Danby et al. and the questionability of the existence of a “muon neutrino”:
The 1962 experiment of Danby et al. (which Lederman described in his book “The God Particle”) was designed to detect the presence of neutrinos in the decay of pions and kaons. In that experiment, pions, kaons and neutrons (products of the collision of 15Gev protons with a beryllium target) traveled through an unshielded distance of 21 meters, followed by another distance of 13.5 meters through a steel shield. Any particle that survived the path through the steel shield finally entered a carefully designed spark chamber. The essential requirement in the experiment (designed to detect the neutrinos only) was that a meaningful “event” must be one that originates inside the chamber. In other words, to reject muons or other charged particles that survive the steel shield, it was necessary that an event that counts must be one that is initiated by a neutral particle that penetrates the chamber. Such a neutral particle would then impact the aluminum plates inside the chamber, generating an energetic electron or muon. This objective was achieved by counting only those events in which the first two spark gaps in the chamber did not ignite, indicating that the event was induced by a neutral particle. Of course, the primary candidate for the cause of those observed events was the neutrino. However, since most of those events resulted in an energetic muon, Lederman and his colleagues reached the conclusion that the neutrino in this case must be a neutrino of a different “flavor”: a “muon neutrino”.
In view of the above discussion of the Lattes et al. experiment, how can we interpret Lederman’s experiment if we reach the conclusion that pion decay does not result in a neutrino? There are two potential explanations for the events that were observed in that experiment (regrettably, these were not considered by the experimenters):
1. A decay sequence such as

$`K^+`$ $``$ $`\pi ^+\pi ^0`$
$`\pi ^0`$ $``$ $`\mu ^{}e^+`$ (4)
In that decay sequence, a charged kaon decays into a charged pion and a neutral pion. Since the mean lifetime of the charged kaon is on the order of $`10^8`$ sec., and since relativistic time dilation should be expected (given the relativistic velocities of the particles as they emerge from the target), we can see that the charged kaon can very reasonably be expected to travel a major distance through the steel shield before it decays. In the second reaction one of the decay products, the neutral pion, penetrates the chamber, but decays only after it passes the first two spark gaps. The resulting positron is then immediately absorbed in the aluminum plates, while the muon continues through the gaps and hence gets detected as an “event”. Now we note that the first decay reaction has a branching ratio of about 21%. The second reaction, however, has a branching ratio on the order of $`10^8`$ (for the combined $`\mu ^{}e^++\mu ^+e^{}`$ decays); but this is actually much higher than the percentage of events observed in the experiment and attributed to the neutrino. Understandably, the 1962 experimenters believed that reactions that violate the empirical law of lepton number conservation (such as this one) cannot occur; but recent evidence suggests otherwise.
2. Danby et al. convincingly ruled out the possibility that the cause of the events is the neutrons that originated from the target; they also convincingly demonstrated that the cause must be the pions and the kaons. However, the possibility of “delayed” neutrons was not considered. Delayed neutrons can be generated along the flight path of the pions, by means of the reaction

$$\pi ^++p\pi ^++\pi ^++n$$
(5)
In this reaction, a charged pion travels a certain distance through the steel shield, strikes a proton and gives rise to a delayed neutron. Those delayed neutrons can then cause the events observed in the spark chamber (note that the decay of the charged pions is what gave rise to the large numbers of charged muons that successfully penetrated the shield, as documented by the experimenters. This leaves little doubt that delayed neutrons that share the same origin will also penetrate the shield).
In summary, if we rule out the possibility of the existence of a “muon neutrino”, then there are other potentially plausible explanations for the events observed by Lederman and his colleagues in the famous 1962 experiment.
4. Summary and additional conclusions:
Since the introduction of the neutrino hypothesis by Pauli in 1930, the neutrino became the standard vehicle that is relied upon to compensate for the failure of the equation $`H=mc^2`$ to explain the majority of the experimental facts. In view of this paper and the earlier paper by the author, the neutrino must be understood within a very limited context: it is likely a highly penetrating particle that emerges in certain high-energy nuclear reactions, such as solar reactions, but it is not Pauli’s particle and it should not be used as the standard “solution” when the equation $`H=mc^2`$ fails to explain the experimental results. As we have seen, such failure has led to a path of enormous difficulties and has necessitated the introduction of exotic concepts like “neutrino flavors” and “flavor oscillations”. It is indeed regrettable that particle physics has reached such a sad state of affairs.
To terminate our discussion, we show in Fig.2 below the spectrum of the electron’s kinetic energy that is typically obtained in muon decay experiments,:

Figure 2: Typical plot of the distribution of the electron’s (or positron’s) kinetic energy in muon decay experiments. Like many other cases in particle physics, the expected quantity of energy $`m_\mu c^2`$ (105.6Mev) fails to emerge. The distribution can be understood in terms of the quantity $`m_\mu v_\mu ^2`$, rather than the hypothesis of $`m_\mu c^2`$ minus two neutrinos.

As we can observe from Fig.2, the spectrum of the kinetic energy of the electron or positron that emerges from the decay of a muon is a continuous spectrum, just like many other cases in particle physics. In view of the total energy equation $`H=mv^2`$, this distribution can be understood as follows: the principle of conservation of energy implies that $`mv^2`$(muon) = $`mv^2`$(electron). But since the electron emerges with a relativistic velocity, then $`mv^2`$(electron) is approximately equal to its kinetic energy $`E_k`$ (since the mass-energy of 0.511Mev is negligible). Moreover, given the fact that the muon usually decays while traveling at sub-relativistic velocities, then we have

$$E_km_\mu v_\mu ^2,$$
(6)
where $`m_\mu `$ is the rest mass of the muon. Since the velocity of the decaying muon can vary widely, we can now clearly see that this expression explains perfectly the distribution in Fig.2. In addition, it is now obvious why a reaction such as

$$\mu ^+e^++\gamma $$
(7)
has never been observed experimentally. There is simply no “lost energy” in muon decay that must appear in the form of a photon or a neutrino222Note that since muons decay in matter, then the principle of momentum conservation implies that the momentum of a nearby nucleus must be factored in the momentum balance. The measured kinetic energy of the electron, however, will be nearly equal to the total energy of the reaction due to the electron’s tiny mass.. Wouldn’t the total energy equation $`H=mv^2`$ be a simpler explanation than the hypothesis of “a muon decays into an electron plus a neutrino plus an anti-neutrino”? One only has to look at a figure like Fig.2 and wonder why it took more than 70 years to reach the conclusion that $`H=mc^2`$ is an inaccurate physical law.
Acknowledgements:
The author is grateful to Dr. Walter Becker, retired, for valuable suggestions on improving the paper. The author also thanks Dr. Christopher Peters of the New Jersey Institute of Technology for many useful discussions about the issues presented.


format: text

text:
# STABILITY OF TRIPLE STAR SYSTEMS WITH HIGHLY INCLINED ORBITS

## 1 Introduction

Discrepancy between observation and theoretical predictions of the apsidal motion of certain detached binary stars has remained an outstanding problem for two decades. In the cases of AS Cam and DI Her, for example, observed apsidal motion rates are a fraction of the theoretical predictions based on stellar structure, tidal, and relativistic effects.

As was first pointed out by Rudkjøbing (1959), the effect of relativistic gravity is significant in the case of a number of detached binary stars. Although he considered only DI Her in detail, the number of interesting cases has grown to about half a dozen (Koch, 1977; Moffat, 1984), including AS Cam (Maloney et al., 1989).

The discovery of anomalous apsidal motion by Martynov and Khaliullin (1980) was initially considered a possible challenge to general relativity. Moffat (1984) invented an alternative theory of gravity that harbored differing predictions for the apsidal motion of binary stars and yet maintained agreement with other tests of general relativity. The predictive power of this theory is weakened by the existence of a new adjustable parameter for each star. Moreover, increasingly severe tests of general relativity such as in Taylor and Weisberg (1989) make such large deviations at AU scales seem unlikely. Several other, less exotic, solutions have been proposed. In one scenario the rapid circularization of the orbit occurs because of dissipation of angular momentum from stellar oscillations or a large amount of mass loss. Another reasonable guess is that the close binary system (CBS) orbit is surrounded by a resisting medium in the form of gas clouds. The required density well exceeds observational limits in the case of DI Her, however. These and other alternatives are reviewed in Guinan and Maloney (1985), Maloney et al. (1989), and Claret (1997, 1998). It is the purpose of this paper to demonstrate the feasibility of one particular explanation that has been put forward in the literature. Our considerations may also find application in other triple star or suspected triple star systems such as in Coe et al. (2002) where a triple star model for the X-ray pulsar AX J0051-733 is proposed to explain puzzling features of the spectrum of a candidate optical counterpart.

It is well known that the hypothesis of third stars in outer orbits of these close binary systems can bring theory into line with observed apsidal periods (Khaliullin et al., 1991; Khodykin and Vedeneyev, 1997), but the stability of such triple star systems has been in doubt (Harrington, 1968). We show here that the inclusion of the apsidal motion as an additional perturbation leads to the conclusion that such triple star motions can be stable. In particular, the triple star models of Khodykin and Vedeneyev (1997) and Khaliullin et al. (1991) which reconcile the cases of AS Cam and DI Her with observations are shown to be stable. Furthermore, we show that observations utilizing the new Keck interferometer should be able to directly image the putative third bodies in these two systems.

## 2 The Lagrange Planetary Equations for the Hierarchical Three Body System

We have studied numerically the dynamical evolution of a hierarchical triple system consisting of a massive CBS and a third star of moderate mass. Figure 1 shows the notation used. The calculations were done perturbatively using the disturbing function method (Kopal, 1978). We have assumed that the three stars are pointlike and isolated from other stars. We ignore internal dynamical exchanges such as synchronization, angular momentum exchange, and orbital precession of the CBS. Classical tidal effects and relativistic effects are assumed to be independent and additive.

The disturbing functions for the CBS and the third-body are adapted from Brown & Shook (1933, p. 14). They are, respectively,

$`R`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{m_3}{r}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r^{}}}\right)^3{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_1^n(m_2)^n}{(m_1+m_2)^n}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r^{}}}\right)^{n1}P_{n+1}`$ (1)
$`R^{tb}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_1+m_2+m_3}{(m_1+m_2)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_1m_2}{m_3}}R`$ (2)
We average $`R`$ and $`R_{tb}`$ over the mean anomalies of the CBS and third-body (hence, twice averaged). The first-order terms of the twice-averaged disturbing functions, $`R_2`$ and $`R_2^{tb}`$, are

$`R_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2q^{}m_1a^2}{2(1e^2)^{3/2}a^3}}[3N^2(1e^2)15e^2Q^2+(6e^21)]`$ (3)
$`R_2^{tb}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q(1+q+q^{})}{q^{}(1+q)^2}}R_2`$ (4)
where the masses are included via the ratios $`q=m_2/m_1`$ and $`q^{}=m^{}/m_1`$. We choose our units of measurement to be AU, years, and solar masses, so that the Newtonian gravitational constant is $`G=4\pi ^2`$. The orientation of the third-body orbital plane with respect to the close binary orbital plane is described by the direction cosines ($`Q`$,$`S`$,$`N`$) of the unit vector normal to the third-body orbital plane. We refer the direction cosines to the periastron, a perpendicular to the periastron, and the direction normal to the close binary orbit. Let $`ϵ`$ be the angle between the two orbital planes, and call the angle measured from the periastron to the line of intersection of the orbital planes $`\varphi `$. We then have

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}ϵ\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ (5)
$`S`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}ϵ\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ (6)
$`N`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}ϵ`$ (7)
Since we are averaging over the mean anomaly, there is no Lagrange planetary equation for $`M`$ and furthermore the semimajor axis $`a`$ has no time dependence. The planetary equations for the perturbation of the remaining CBS orbital elements by the third-body are

$`({\displaystyle \frac{da}{dt}})_{tb}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (8)
$`({\displaystyle \frac{de}{dt}})_{tb}`$ $`=`$ $`5AeQS={\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}Ae\mathrm{sin}^2ϵ\mathrm{sin}2\varphi `$ (9)
$`({\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{dt}})_{tb}`$ $`=`$ $`A\left[25Q^2N^2N\mathrm{cot}i\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+4e^2}{1e^2}}Q\mathrm{sin}\omega +S\mathrm{cos}\omega \right)\right]`$ (10)
$`({\displaystyle \frac{di}{dt}})_{tb}`$ $`=`$ $`AN\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1+4e^2}{1e^2}}Q\mathrm{cos}\omega S\mathrm{sin}\omega \right]`$ (11)
$`({\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{dt}})_{tb}`$ $`=`$ $`AN\mathrm{csc}i[S\mathrm{cos}\omega +{\displaystyle \frac{1+4e^2}{1e^2}}Q\mathrm{sin}\omega )]`$ (12)
where

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi (1e^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}Pq^{}}{2(1e^2)^{\frac{3}{2}}P^2(1+q+q^{})}}`$ (13)
The planetary equations for the perturbation of the third-body orbital elements are

$`({\displaystyle \frac{da^{}}{dt}})_{tb}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (14)
$`({\displaystyle \frac{de^{}}{dt}})_{tb}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (15)
$`({\displaystyle \frac{d\omega ^{}}{dt}})_{tb}`$ $`=`$ $`B\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3e^2+2}{2(1e^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+4e^2}{1e^2}}Q^2+S^2\right)+\mathrm{cot}i^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+4e^2}{1e^2}}QT+SU\right)\right]`$ (16)
$`({\displaystyle \frac{di^{}}{dt}})_{tb}`$ $`=`$ $`B\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1+4e^2}{1e^2}}QF+SG\right]`$ (17)
$`({\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}{dt}})_{tb}`$ $`=`$ $`B\mathrm{csc}i^{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1+4e^2}{1e^2}}QT+SU\right]`$ (18)
where

$`B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi q(1e^2)P^{\frac{4}{3}}}{2(1e^2)^2P^{7/3}(1+q)^{4/3}(1+q+q^{})^{2/3}}}`$ (19)
In writing equations (1618) we have introduced the direction cosines of the nodal line of the third-body referred to the same CBS axes by which $`Q`$,$`S`$, and $`N`$ are defined above. These cosines are

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{cos}i\mathrm{sin}\omega +\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{cos}\omega `$ (20)
$`G`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{cos}i\mathrm{cos}\omega \mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{sin}\omega `$ (21)
$`H`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{sin}i`$ (22)
Finally, we use cosines of the direction perpendicular to the third body nodal line and behind the visual plane. These cosines are

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{cos}i\mathrm{cos}i^{}+\mathrm{sin}i\mathrm{sin}i^{}\right]\mathrm{sin}\omega \mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{cos}i^{}\mathrm{cos}\omega `$ (23)
$`U`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{cos}i\mathrm{cos}i^{}+\mathrm{sin}i\mathrm{sin}i^{}\right]\mathrm{cos}\omega +\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{cos}i^{}\mathrm{sin}\omega `$ (24)
$`V`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{sin}i\mathrm{cos}i^{}\mathrm{cos}i\mathrm{sin}i^{}`$ (25)
## 3 An Alternative Formulation of the Equations of Motion

It is worth noting that the equations of motion can be written in a particularly elegant fashion by noting that they determine nothing more than an instantaneous rotation that can be referred to the CBS coordinates. The problem is then to express $`d\omega /dt`$, $`di/dt`$, $`d\varphi /dt`$, and $`dϵ/dt`$ in terms of this angular velocity vector(Goldstein et al., 2002, p. 174). Referring to this angular velocity as $`𝚿`$, we first resolve it into three components: $`𝚿=𝚿_\omega +𝚿_i+𝚿_z`$. These components are related by rotation(s) to the angular velocity components. For example, $`𝚿_i`$ is just $`di/dt`$ referred to the nodal line $`\xi \xi ^{}`$. Referring to figure 1, we see that a rotation by $`\omega `$ about the $`z`$-axis brings this angular velocity into the CBS system; thus

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}X\\ Y\\ Z\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}\omega & \mathrm{sin}\omega & 0\\ \mathrm{sin}\omega & \mathrm{cos}\omega & 0\\ 0& & 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{di}{dt}\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)`$ (35)
where $`X`$, $`Y`$, and $`Z`$ are the components of $`𝚿`$ in the CBS coordinates. Proceeding in this manner, one obtains three equations giving $`X`$, $`Y`$, and $`Z`$ in terms of $`d\omega /dt`$, $`di/dt`$, and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }/dt`$. These equations are inverted to yield

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cot}i[X\mathrm{sin}\omega +Y\mathrm{cos}\omega ]+Z`$ (36)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{di}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`X\mathrm{cos}\omega +Y\mathrm{sin}\omega `$ (37)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{csc}i[X\mathrm{sin}\omega +Y\mathrm{cos}\omega ]`$ (38)
Similar considerations for a circular third-body orbit result in

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dϵ}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`X\mathrm{cos}\varphi +Y\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ (39)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cot}ϵ(X\mathrm{sin}\varphi Y\mathrm{cos}\varphi )+Z.`$ (40)
Comparing equations (3638) with (1012), we determine the rate of rotation of the CBS frame, as measured by CBS coordinates, to be

$`(X,Y,Z)=A(NQ{\displaystyle \frac{1+4e^2}{1e^2}},NS,N^2+5Q^22)`$ (41)
It has been pointed out by Kiseleva et al. (1998) (using different angles to define orbit orientations) that this formulation admits two exact integrals and leads to a first-order elliptical differential equation for the eccentricity. Our calculations, however, are entirely numerical and are based on equations (812) and (1418).

## 4 The Instability Problem of Hierarchical Triple Star Systems

There are a couple of ways of seeing the problem of instability. One approach utilizes the conservation of angular momentum. We assume that $`i\pi /2`$, so that the $`\mathrm{cot}i`$ term in equation (10) can be ignored. This leads to a large eccentricity excursion due to the angular momentum exchange between the CBS and the third-body. Since the disturbing function $`R_2^{tb}`$ depends on neither $`M^{}`$ (the mean anomaly) nor $`\omega ^{}`$ (the longitude of the periastron of the third-body with respect to the ascending node), there is no secular variation of the third-body semimajor axis $`a^{}`$ and eccentricity $`e^{}`$. Therefore, the orbit of the third-body maintains its shape, and the magnitude of its orbital angular momentum $`𝐋^{}`$ is a constant of motion. The direction of the third-body orbital angular momentum, however, will change, as the following argument shows. The orbital angular momentum of the close binary system $`𝐋_{\mathrm{𝐁𝐒}}`$ is 3–10 times smaller than $`𝐋^{}`$ for the systems under investigation. Since the rotational angular momentum of the stars is about 2 orders of magnitude less than $`𝐋^{}`$, the total angular momentum of the system is $`𝐋_{\mathrm{𝐓𝐎𝐓}}=𝐋_{\mathrm{𝐁𝐒}}+𝐋^{}`$. Calculations reveal that the CBS angular momentum is transferred to the third star. Since the magnitude of $`𝐋^{}`$ can not change, this angular momentum transfer forces a change in the orientation of the third-body orbit with respect to the total angular momentum. Conservation of angular momentum dictates the connection between $`ϵ`$ and $`e`$ shown in figure 2. As angular momentum is transferred, the coordinate values $`(e,ϵ)`$ slide along one of the integral curves determined from the initial values of the eccentricities $`e`$ and $`e^{}`$, mass ratios $`q`$ and $`q^{}`$, relative inclination $`ϵ`$ and ratio of the semimajor axes $`a/a^{}`$. In the presence of a small but nonzero $`\mathrm{cot}i`$ the above argument does not take the orbit all the way to $`e=0`$, but the eccentricity may become close enough to unity that tidal effects or even collision destroy the system. This turns out to be the case for DI Her and AS Cam.

We can gain additional insight into the dynamics of the eccentricity by looking directly at the equations of motion. More specifically, we look at equation (10) neglecting the $`\mathrm{cot}i`$ term and further assume that the motion of the nodal line $`\eta \eta ^{}`$ caused by nutation and precession of the orbits is small. Under these assumptions,

$`({\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{dt}})_{tb}`$ $``$ $`A\left[25Q^2N^2\right]`$ (42)
$`({\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{dt}})_{tb}`$ $``$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{dt}})_{tb}`$ (43)
First, we note that for $`ϵ30\mathrm{°}`$ we have $`Q,S<<1`$. We see then that the righthand side of equation (10) is always positive. Thus $`\omega `$ and $`\varphi `$ change monotonically and run over all quadrants, never coming to rest. Therefore, the perturbations in the eccentricity (equation (9)) are periodic, and the eccentricity suffers no excursion to a value nearing unity. The situation is much different if $`ϵ>30\mathrm{°}`$. At such inclinations, equation (10) implies in general four values of $`\varphi `$ for which $`d\omega /dt=0`$. Let us examine the motion of $`\varphi `$ at these roots. Equations (42) and (43) together imply

$`({\displaystyle \frac{d^2\varphi }{dt^2}})_{tb}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2ϵ\mathrm{sin}2\varphi ({\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{dt}})_{tb}`$ (44)
This tells us that the four points of stationary $`\omega `$ (and $`\varphi `$) will be stable only if $`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi <0`$. Looking at equation (9) we see that this same condition guarantees $`(de/dt)_{tb}>0`$. Thus $`\varphi `$ will wander until it reaches a value that results in an eccentricity excursion. Again, we emphasize that these semi-quantitative arguments are limited to the extent that we neglect the $`\mathrm{cot}i`$ term in equation (10).

The characteristic time scale for the change of eccentricity can be obtained from equation (9):

$`\tau _e`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1e}{\left(\frac{de}{dt}\right)}}0.1\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1e}{1+e}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1e^2)^{3/2}a^3}{ePm^{}}}`$ (45)
For DI Her and AS Cam these times are about 700 and 400 yr respectively, as was confirmed directly by numerical integration. Thus at first glance the conclusion seems to be that only nearly coplanar hierarchical triple systems can be stable for more than a few hundred years. If this conclusion were correct, the third-body hypothesis would be eliminated as a probable solution to the apsidal motion discrepancy.

## 5 A Possible Resolution of the Problem of Instability

We now explore the consequences of including the effect of stellar structure (namely tidal-rotational deformation of the CBS pair) and the relativistic effect as additive perturbations on the motion of $`\omega `$. We assume that the structure effect $`(d\omega /dt)_{cl}`$ and the relativistic effect $`(d\omega /dt)_{rel}`$ act in simple superposition with the effect of the third-body $`(d\omega /dt)_{tb}`$, so that their influence can be represented by simply adding them to $`(d\omega /dt)_{tb}`$. If the combined effect of these two additional terms is of the same order or greater than the third-body effect, that is, if

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{dt}}\right)_{tb}`$ $`\stackrel{<}{}`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{dt}}\right)_{cl}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{dt}}\right)_{rel}`$ (46)
then the motion of $`\omega `$ will not stop. Thus $`\omega `$ and $`\varphi `$ will change monotonically, resulting in periodic perturbations of the orbital elements of the CBS leading to stability, as in the case of low inclinations discussed above.

We can derive stability criteria on the basis of equation (46). We consider the cases in which either the classical deformation effect or the relativistic effect dominates using well-known relationships for $`(d\omega /dt)_{cl}`$ from Kopal (1978) and $`(d\omega /dt)_{rel}`$ from Rudkjøbing (1959) and Martynov and Khaliullin (1980).

If the classical effect dominates in the sense that $`|(d\omega /dt)_{tb}|<(d\omega /dt)_{cl}`$, we have

$`S_{tb}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1e^2)^7}{(1e^2)^{3/2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a}{a^{}}}\right)^3{\displaystyle \frac{q^{}}{q(1+q)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\mathrm{cos}^2ϵ\right)<S_{cl}=10k_2r^5`$ (47)
If the relativistic effect is predominant \[$`|(d\omega /dt)_{tb}|<(d\omega /dt)_{rel}`$\], then

$`S_{tb}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1e^2)^{3/2}}{(1e^2)^{3/2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a}{a^{}}}\right)^3{\displaystyle \frac{q^{}a}{M_1(1+q)^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\mathrm{cos}^2ϵ\right)<S_{rel}={\displaystyle \frac{G}{c^2}}=10^8`$ (48)
Table 1 displays the application of these criteria to AS Cam and DI Her. We see that, according to our hypothesis, both of these supposed triple star systems are predicted to be stable. The stability of AS Cam is provided by the classical effect whereas DI Her is stable because of the relativistic apsidal motion.

We have confirmed this behavior by means of numerical integrations of the equations of motion. The calculations were done perturbatively using the disturbing function method (Kopal, 1978). We have assumed that the stars are pointlike, and the close encounters are ignored. We ignore internal dynamical exchanges such as synchronization, angular momentum exchange, and orbital precession of the CBS. The apsidal motion in the CBS caused by both the classical tidal-rotational deformation of the components and the relativistic apsidal motion is described by disturbing functions as in Khaliullin et al. (1991). The classical tidal effects and relativistic effects are assumed to be independent and additive. The results for AS Cam are shown in figure 2. Thus the angular momentum is transferred back and forth between the third-body and the CBS. These periodical variations in $`e`$ and $`ϵ`$ can be visualized as a flapping of the CBS and third-body orbits, almost like a butterfly (figure 3).

## 6 Discussion

We begin our discussion by contrasting our stability criteria with those of Roy (1979), Szebehely and Zare (1977), and Eggleton and Kiseleva (1995) for the case of DI Her using the same orbital parameters as Khaliullin et al. (1991).

Roy (1979) allows a very close orbit of the third-body, the restriction being only that the semimajor axis satisfy $`a^{}0.3\mathrm{AU}`$ corresponding to a period $`P^{}18.3\mathrm{days}`$. This seems much too close to the inner binary for stability at any inclination of the third-body orbit.

Although Szebehely and Zare (1977) deal primarily with the case of coplanar orbits, they indicate how their results may be extended to third-body orbits inclined to the inner binary orbit. We have applied their stability criteria assuming that the third-body orbit is perpendicular to the inner binary orbital plane. The result is that stability criterion requires $`a^{}2.9\mathrm{AU}`$ ($`P^{}1.5\mathrm{yr}`$). This seems more reasonable, but in fact numerical simulations suggest that this is still too close (Khodykin and Vedeneyev, 1997).

Finally, Eggleton and Kiseleva (1995) predict that the system is stable for any third-body orbit with $`a^{}1.2\mathrm{AU}`$ ($`P^{}0.39\mathrm{yr}`$).

The criteria we propose prove more restrictive. From equation (48) we determine that $`a^{}9.5\mathrm{AU}`$ ($`P^{}9\mathrm{yr}`$). We have confirmed the stability of the purported three body system of DI Her under this restriction on the third-body orbit. We also wish to emphasize that the criteria of Roy (1979), Szebehely and Zare (1977), and Eggleton and Kiseleva (1995) are all based on the purely Newtonian gravitational theory of point mass orbits. Our criteria depend on structure effects and/or general relativity. In the case of DI Her the effect of general relativity dominates. It appears that the stability of the hypothetical three body system of DI Her is to be found in the physics of general relativity rather than structure effects. Thus general relativity itself provides stability to the three-body model of DI Her, which seems necessary to bring its theoretical apsidal motion into line with observations. A similar stabilizing role for general relativity was found by Holman et al. (1997) in their investigations of a planet orbiting one star of a binary system. Our criteria are somewhat more general in that structure effects are also considered.

We close with a discussion of the prospects of making direct observations of these hypothetical third-body companions of AS Cam and DI Her in light of recent advances in optical interferometry and adaptive optics.

Indirect evidence for a third-body in AS Cam (B+B9.5, P=3.43 days, e=0.17, V=8.6) has already been found by Kozyreva et al. (1999) and Kozyreva and Khaliullin (1999), who found, imposed upon the timing of eclipse minima, a cyclic variation with a period of 2.2 yr. They have interpreted this signal as due to the Roemer-like influence of a third star. The calculations of Khodykin and Vedeneyev (1997) indicate that in order to account for the anomalous apsidal motion of AS Cam, the third-body should be of about $`1M_{\mathrm{}}`$. Using this estimate, binary masses of $`3.3`$ and $`2.5M_{\mathrm{}}`$ (Hilditch, 1972), and the 2.2 yr period, the semimajor axis of the orbit would be 3.2 AU. This corresponds to a light-travel time of 27 minutes. Combining this with the amplitude of 4.18 minutes measured by Kozyreva et al. (1999) yields an orbital inclination of $`9\mathrm{°}`$ with respect to the line of sight, so that nearly the full 3.2 AU is visible to the observer. Assuming a distance of $`480\mathrm{pc}`$, the maximum angular elongation is $`0\mathrm{}.007`$. This is twice the resolution limit of the Keck interferometer operating at $`1.5\mu \mathrm{m}`$ with its $`85\mathrm{m}`$ baseline. The interpretation of eclipse timings by Kozyreva et al. (1999) and Kozyreva and Khaliullin (1999) also predicts the times of maximum elongation.

In the case of DI Herculis, no indirect indication of third light exists. However, information from past theoretical analyses provides hope that present interferometers should be capable of directly observing the putative third-body. The analysis of Khaliullin et al. (1991) suggests that the minimum third-body mass is about $`0.8M_{\mathrm{}}`$ and that the minimum period is about 7 yr. Assuming binary masses of $`5.15`$ and $`4.52M_{\mathrm{}}`$ (Popper, 1982), we conclude that the semimajor axis is at least 8 AU. Since the orbit is expected to be highly inclined, and the distance to DI Her is about $`500\mathrm{pc}`$, we expect a maximum angular elongation of $`0\mathrm{}.02`$.

Of course, the ability to resolve these third bodies is of little use unless they are sufficiently bright. Here infrared observations are a great advantage, since the compact binary stars are relatively massive in comparison with the hypothesized third bodies. For example, applying the mass-luminosity relationship to AS Cam, we conclude that the third star should have a total luminosity less than the system by 4.3 mag. A simple calculation based on the Planck distribution and assumed temperatures of $`20,000`$ and $`6000\mathrm{K}`$ for the binary and third star, respectively, predicts that, in the $`H`$ ($`1645\pm 155\mathrm{nm}`$) and $`K`$ ($`2200\pm 480\mathrm{nm}`$) bands, the third star is dimmer by only about 1 mag. A similar calculation for DI Her predicts that in the $`H`$ and $`K`$ bands the third star is dimmer than the system by 3.5 mag. Finally, the magnitudes of these systems are such that the compact binary stars may serve as natural guide stars for adaptive optics in the case of the Keck interferometer.

Bolstered by indirect evidence in the case of AS Cam and dynamical stability indicated by the considerations of this paper, the case for a third-body solution to the long standing problem of anomalous apsidal motion is stronger than ever. The final judgment, however, may soon be expected from the current generation of interferometers.