Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Generator

The kepler-iteration generator

Newton's method on Kepler's equation
Newton's method on Kepler's equation. The residual of Kepler's equation after each Newton iteration, on a logarithmic axis, for three eccentricities. The number of correct digits doubles at every step once the iteration has caught, which is why four iterations are enough for any practical purpose.

The residual of Kepler's equation after each Newton iteration, on a logarithmic axis, for three eccentricities. The number of correct digits doubles at every step once the iteration has caught, which is why four iterations are enough for any practical purpose.

4 essays call kepler-iteration. The drawing above is what it returns with no arguments at all; every call below passes it something, because a placement that passes nothing draws whichever member of the family the generator happens to default to rather than the one its essay argues about.

Where it is called

Every figure listed here is the same construction drawn at different numbers, so a correction to one is a correction to all of them.

The three anomalies at E = 1.15 rad. The auxiliary circle construction. The eccentric anomaly E is measured at the centre, the true anomaly ν at the focus, and the mean anomaly M is time expressed as an angle. Here E = 1.150, ν = 1.827 and M = 0.602 radians, related by M = E − e sin E. Orbits

The position that has no formula, and is computed anyway

Kepler's equation relates where a body is to when it is there. It cannot be solved in elementary functions, Kepler said so, and nobody has managed it since — which has stopped nothing.

 One series, two eccentricities, and a limit between them. The Lagrange series for E − M, summed to 1, 2, 3, 6, 22 terms, against the exact solution of Kepler's equation, over half a revolution. Left, at e = 0.5: the partial sums close on the exact curve and the last two are indistinguishable from it. Right, at e = 0.8: they do not, and the 22-term sum is worse than the 1-term one, missing the exact value by 0.24 radians at M = π/2. Nothing about the orbit changes between the two panels — an eccentricity of 0.8 is an ordinary comet — and nothing about the equation changes either. What changes is that a singularity of E as a function of complex e has come inside the circle of radius e, at the Laplace limit 0.6627434, which is the root of e·exp√(1+e²) = 1 + √(1+e²) and has no astronomical meaning whatever. The coefficients are computed from the Bessel expansion in logarithms; the first two are sin M and ½sin 2M exactly, which is what the generator asserts before drawing. Orbits

The formula that exists, and is not used

Kepler's equation does have a closed-form solution — an infinite series in the eccentricity, written down by Lagrange. It converges up to e = 0.6627434 and not one part beyond, and that number has nothing to do with astronomy.

 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. Gravitation

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.

 The adaptive step starts 5.7× more accurate and ends 7.5× worse. The envelope of the relative energy error against elapsed revolutions — the worst error within each plotted interval rather than the error at one sample in it — for the same second-order symplectic integrator run two ways on a Kepler orbit at e = 0.5. The flat band is a fixed step of one 200th of a period: its error oscillates once per revolution and the envelope does not grow, because a symplectic method at constant h is the exact solution of a nearby Hamiltonian and is conserving that one. The rising curve is the same method with the step refined where the orbit is fast — h ∝ r^3/2, the free-fall time, varying by a factor of 5 around the orbit — which is the first thing anybody reaches for at a close encounter and which is strictly more accurate step for step: over its first three revolutions it stays a factor of 5.7 below the fixed run. By 1500 revolutions it is a factor of 7.5 above it and still climbing. Changing the step changes which Hamiltonian is being conserved, the errors from successive steps stop cancelling, and what is left is a random walk with no bound at all. The practical consequence is that a solar-system integration cannot adapt its step: it either keeps a step short enough for the closest encounter it will ever meet, or it detects the encounter and hands that piece of the trajectory to an entirely different, non-symplectic method for the duration — which is what every long-term integration of the planets actually does. Gravitation

A step that must not be adapted

A symplectic integrator's bounded energy error is a property of a fixed step. It is conserving a Hamiltonian a step-size away from the intended one, and changing the step changes which Hamiltonian — so refining the step at a close encounter, which is the first thing anybody does, destroys the only property the method was chosen for.

The whole library · All essays