Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Conditioning — where it appears

How much the answer to a problem moves when its inputs move, which is a property of the problem itself rather than of any method used on it. A badly conditioned problem cannot be rescued by a better algorithm, only by better data or a different formulation, and the distinction matters when deciding what to buy.

Named by 6 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Four conics through one periapsis, drawn by one solve. Distance from the Sun against time for four orbits sharing a periapsis of 0.5 AU, at e = 0.6, e = 1, e = 1.0001, e = 1.4, over 900 days. Every point on every curve came from the same universal Kepler solve — no branch on the conic class anywhere in it — and each curve was then checked against the classical solution of its own kind at the midpoint: Kepler's equation at e = 0.6 agrees to machine precision; Barker's cubic at e = 1 agrees to machine precision; e sinh H − H at e = 1.0001 agrees to machine precision; e sinh H − H at e = 1.4 agrees to machine precision. The curve to read twice is e = 1.0001: over this arc it lies within 0.02% of the parabola and is indistinguishable from it, and it is the only one of the four whose fate the drawing cannot show. What the classical parameterisation costs there is arithmetic rather than impossibility: at the midpoint of this arc, e sinh H − H throws away 3.3 of its sixteen digits to cancellation, against 0.2 at e = 1.4 — enough to matter to an ephemeris and not enough to stop a plot.

The one solve that does not ask which conic it is

Kepler's equation is for ellipses, Barker's cubic for parabolas, and a hyperbolic sine for the rest — three parameterisations of one motion, each worst exactly where its neighbour takes over. The universal variable removes the question, and the removal is not a convenience.

orbits · Universal variables One squaring, and the singularity is gone. Left, a harmonic oscillator: an ellipse centred on the origin, marked at 24 equal steps of its own phase. Right, the same points after squaring as complex numbers, u ↦ u². The image is an ellipse with the origin at a focus — checked here by the focal property, r₁ + r₂ = 2a to nine figures at four points — with semi-axes (A²+B²)/2 = 2.5000 and AB = 1.5000 and the focus at (A²−B²)/2 = 2.0000, which is ae exactly. Three things follow at once. The angle doubles, so one turn of the oscillator is one whole orbit traversed twice as fast in phase; the equal phase steps on the left arrive as the eccentric anomaly on the right, which is why that anomaly and not the true one is what the equations want; and the collision at r = 0, where the inverse square is infinite, is the point u = 0, where the oscillator has a perfectly ordinary velocity. The singularity was a property of the coordinates.

The singularity that is a change of variable

The Kepler problem blows up at zero separation, and a fixed-step integrator falls apart long before it gets there. Divide time by the radius and the equations become a harmonic oscillator — exactly, for every conic at once.

orbits · Universal variables The angle that has nowhere to be measured from. An eccentricity vector carried round a circle of radius 0.034 centred at 0.031 — which is what a secular perturbation does to one, a forced eccentricity with a free one turning about it. Below, the two components e cos ϖ and e sin ϖ, which are smooth, bounded and perfectly ordinary throughout. Above, the longitude of pericentre read off them, which is not: as the eccentricity passes its minimum of 0.0030 the pericentre sweeps through most of a circle, at up to 4080° per unit time against the 12° the free vector itself turns in the same interval. Nothing has happened to the orbit. The pericentre is a place on the orbit, and a nearly circular orbit does not have one — so ω, and Ω with it at zero inclination, are angles measured from a feature that is not there. The equinoctial elements are the pair drawn below, and a propagator written in them steps through this instant without noticing it.

The elements that stop existing

An orbit needs six numbers, and three of the usual six are angles measured from features a perfectly ordinary orbit may not have. At zero eccentricity there is no pericentre to measure from, and the arithmetic knows it.

orbits · Orbital elements One admissible root, 0.01% from the truth. Gauss's reduction of three directions to a distance, drawn as the two relations whose intersection it is. Three observations of Ceres on days 0, 20, 40 of an arc, generated from its elements and used only as sight directions — no range, no radial velocity. The rising curve is geometry: the heliocentric distance a candidate at geocentric distance ρ₂ would have, r₂² = ρ₂² + 2ρ₂(R₂·L̂₂) + R₂², which contains no dynamics at all. The falling curve is dynamics: ρ₂ = A + µB/r₂³, with A and B built from the three sight vectors, the three observer positions and the three times, and containing no orbit. Eliminating ρ₂ between them gives r₂⁸ + a r₂⁶ + b r₂³ + c = 0 — an eighth-degree equation, from a problem with exactly as many equations as unknowns. Here they cross once at a positive ρ₂, at r₂ = 2.5893 AU against the true 2.5890. The other 2 real roots are rejected not by fitting but by sign: the ρ₂ each implies is negative, and an object behind the observer was not the thing observed.

Three observations and no orbit at all

Three directions in space give six numbers for the six elements of an orbit, which sounds like a solved problem. The algebra that solves it is of the eighth degree, and for a near-Earth asteroid three perfect observations can be consistent with three different orbits.

orbits · Orbit determination Energy error over 240 revolutions, at one step size. The relative error in total energy against revolution number, for three integrators run on the same Kepler orbit at e = 0.5 with the same step of 200 per revolution. The exact energy is a constant, so every curve here is the method rather than the problem. Euler climbs steadily: its energy at the end is 106.5% wrong, and the orbit it draws has spiralled outwards. Runge–Kutta 4 begins 4.7e+2 times more accurate than leapfrog and ends at 2.22e-4, having grown by a factor of 10 across the run: the error is SECULAR. Leapfrog oscillates inside a band and stays there — worst error 2.62e-3, and the second half of the run is no worse than the first, which is measured here rather than claimed. That is the property that decides whether a five-billion-year integration means anything, and it is not accuracy: a symplectic method is the exact solution of a Hamiltonian a step-size away from the intended one, so its energy cannot wander, while a more accurate non-symplectic method has no such constraint and eventually wanders further.

Wrong about where, and right about how much

Runge–Kutta is the more accurate method and loses energy steadily; leapfrog is cruder and its energy error never leaves a band. Over five billion years only one of those properties survives — and neither method knows where the planet is.

gravitation · Numerical integration Where each mode turns back: ℓ = 0 through the centre, ℓ = 300 in the outer 2 per cent. Why a set of frequencies is a depth profile and a single frequency is not. An acoustic wave travelling into a star meets a rising sound speed and is refracted back; it turns where its horizontal phase speed matches the local sound speed, which happens at c(r)/r = 2πν/√(ℓ(ℓ+1)). The horizontal axis is the angular degree on a logarithmic scale and the vertical axis is the fractional radius of that turning point, drawn at 2000, 3090, 4000 microhertz. The ordering is the content. A radial mode, ℓ = 0, has no horizontal phase speed at all and passes straight through the centre. Degrees one and two turn deep in the core. By ℓ = 300 the mode is trapped in the outer 2 per cent and knows nothing about anything below. So a frequency measured to a part in ten thousand constrains an average of the interior weighted in a way the mode itself decides, and measuring thousands of modes of different degree gives thousands of differently weighted averages — which is a solvable inverse problem, and is how the base of the convection zone was located at 0.713 of the radius rather than assumed. The sound speed here is a polytrope's rather than a tabulated solar model's, so the curve is the right shape and the wrong star in its outer tenth, where the real Sun is convective and this one is not. What the picture cannot show is the frequency dependence at fixed degree, which is weaker but not negligible: a higher-frequency mode of the same degree turns slightly deeper, and the three curves separating toward the right is that effect.

Every note turns back at its own depth

A sound wave heading into a star is refracted by the rising sound speed and turns around before it reaches the middle. Where it turns depends on which mode it is — so a list of frequencies is not one average of the interior but thousands of differently weighted ones, and that is a solvable problem.

stars · Asteroseismology

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Kepler's equationOrbital energyRegularisationStumpff functionsAcoustic cavityAsteroseismologyAstrometryBarkers equationCollision singularityConic sectionsConservation lawsConvection

All concepts