Are Saturn's Rings Caused by Fractal Structures?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimster41
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Paper Rings
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on Mikhail Zelikin's paper, "The Fractal Theory of the Saturn Ring," which proposes that the partitioning of Saturn's rings into numerous sub-rings is explained by the Zelikin-Lokutsievskiy-Hildebrand theorem regarding fractal structures in piece-wise smooth Hamiltonian systems. The paper asserts that the instability of two-dimensional models of rings with continuous surface density is demonstrated for both Newtonian and Boltzmann equations. While the paper raises significant questions about the stability of Saturn's rings, it does not claim to have resolved these issues, instead suggesting avenues for further research.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Hamiltonian systems
  • Familiarity with fractal geometry
  • Knowledge of Boltzmann equations
  • Basic principles of dynamical systems
NEXT STEPS
  • Read "The Fractal Theory of the Saturn Ring" by Mikhail Zelikin (arXiv:1506.02908)
  • Explore James Clerk Maxwell's 1859 paper "On the Stability of the Motion of Saturn's Rings"
  • Investigate the implications of satellite resonance on ring stability
  • Study the applications of Boltzmann models in astrophysical contexts
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, physicists, and researchers interested in planetary ring dynamics and stability, as well as those studying the mathematical frameworks of dynamical systems.

Jimster41
Gold Member
Messages
782
Reaction score
83
It's very recent, but it discusses the question of cause of and stability of Saturn's and other ring systems. I came to this site wondering about them. I got the impression from answers received here they were well understood? This paper seems to suggest there are a number of big questions, and has some interesting (if a bit exotic) ideas about what's going on with them. Anyone heard of the guy?

I'm interested in other references to the topic.

The fractal theory of the Saturn Ring
Mikhail Zelikin
(Submitted on 9 Jun 2015)
The true reason for partition of the Saturn ring as well as rings of other planets into great many of sub-rings is found. This reason is the theorem of Zelikin-Lokutsievskiy-Hildebrand about fractal structure of solutions to generic piece-wise smooth Hamiltonian systems. The instability of two-dimensional model of rings with continues surface density of particles distribution is proved both for Newtonian and for Boltzmann equations. We do not claim that we have solved the problem of stability of Saturn ring. We rather put questions and suggest some ideas and means for researches.
Comments: 19 pages, 1 figure
Subjects: Dynamical Systems (math.DS); Mathematical Physics (math-ph)
Cite as: arXiv:1506.02908 [math.DS]
(or arXiv:1506.02908v1 [math.DS] for this version)

http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.02908
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ralf_Srama/publication/42345171_An_evolving_view_of_Saturn%27s_dynamic_rings/links/00b4951d46424cb9d3000000.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Jimster41
Jimster41 said:
It's very recent, but it discusses the question of cause of and stability of Saturn's and other ring systems. I came to this site wondering about them. I got the impression from answers received here they were well understood? This paper seems to suggest there are a number of big questions, and has some interesting (if a bit exotic) ideas about what's going on with them. Anyone heard of the guy?

I'm interested in other references to the topic.

The fractal theory of the Saturn Ring
Mikhail Zelikin
(Submitted on 9 Jun 2015)
The true reason for partition of the Saturn ring as well as rings of other planets into great many of sub-rings is found. This reason is the theorem of Zelikin-Lokutsievskiy-Hildebrand about fractal structure of solutions to generic piece-wise smooth Hamiltonian systems. The instability of two-dimensional model of rings with continues surface density of particles distribution is proved both for Newtonian and for Boltzmann equations. We do not claim that we have solved the problem of stability of Saturn ring. We rather put questions and suggest some ideas and means for researches.
Comments: 19 pages, 1 figure
Subjects: Dynamical Systems (math.DS); Mathematical Physics (math-ph)
Cite as: arXiv:1506.02908 [math.DS]
(or arXiv:1506.02908v1 [math.DS] for this version)

http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.02908
James Clerk Maxwell worked on the structure and stability of the rings in 1857 and won the Adam's Prize at Cambridge for his work. His public paper was published in 1859 "On the Stability of the Motion of Saturn's Rings". He also made a mechanical model showing the particles having four modes of vibration. Sorry, that's all I know.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Jimster41 and Dr. Courtney
tech99 said:
James Clerk Maxwell worked on the structure and stability of the rings in 1857 and won the Adam's Prize at Cambridge for his work. His public paper was published in 1859 "On the Stability of the Motion of Saturn's Rings". He also made a mechanical model showing the particles having four modes of vibration. Sorry, that's all I know.

Yeah, the paper refs LaPlace, Boltzmann and that very Maxwell paper, he then works through a Boltzmann model, applies the stationary (non-time dependent) Maxwell solution, then "proves" the solutions cannot explain observation.

P.12 "Hence the steady state surface density in two-dimensional model B cannot be smooth relative to the space variables"

I couldn't follow his Diff EQ but I got some of it. I'd be interested in hearing a real explanation and critique of it.

The paper DrCourtney linked is from 2010, but does reference the "as yet undetected satellite resonance influences" something like that. Which seems to be where he's coming from.

The gist of his theory has to do with the polyhedron of satellites and their effect, and solutions to the Boltzmann model related to the "Fuller Problem" and "Pontryagin type Hamiltonian Problems" page 15 is totally Greek to me. Wish I understood it. The "Concluding remarks" section is wild. He quotes Maxwell at the end. It seems like a wild paper, but I want to understand how far our understanding is advanced, what is and isn't well understood.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 96 ·
4
Replies
96
Views
11K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
9K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
17K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K