Discontinuities in a Poincare map for a double pendulum

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on generating Poincaré sections for a double pendulum, specifically addressing the issue of unexpected discontinuities in the plots. The standard conditions applied are ##\theta_1 = 0## and ##\dot{\theta}_1 > 0##. The user identifies that the problematic sections arise when the initial condition requires ##\dot{\theta}_1 < 0##, leading to visual anomalies in the Poincaré map. The hypothesis suggests a potential mismatch in angle ranges between the user's calculations and the inverse trigonometric functions used, particularly around ##\dot\theta = \pi##.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Poincaré maps and their significance in dynamical systems.
  • Familiarity with double pendulum dynamics and energy conservation principles.
  • Knowledge of inverse trigonometric functions and their range limitations.
  • Experience with numerical simulations and plotting tools for dynamical systems.
NEXT STEPS
  • Investigate the properties of Poincaré sections in chaotic systems.
  • Explore the behavior of inverse trigonometric functions in different angle ranges.
  • Examine the impact of initial conditions on the stability of double pendulum simulations.
  • Learn about numerical methods for resolving discontinuities in dynamical systems plots.
USEFUL FOR

Researchers and students in physics and mathematics, particularly those studying chaotic systems, dynamical systems, and numerical simulations of mechanical systems.

eddy_purcell
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I'm generating poincare sections of a double pendulum, and they mostly look okay, but some of them have weird discontinuities that seem wrong.
The condition for these sections is the standard ##\theta_1 = 0## and ##\dot{\theta}_1 > 0##. Looking at one of the maps, we see that most of the sections look fine, but there are some weird intersections in the bottom:
Screen Shot 2019-07-16 at 10.47.32 AM.png
If we look at just one of these sections, we see that the top part is being flipped upside down:
246726


Indeed, if we just multiply the bottom bit by ##−1##, it looks just fine:
246727


This is weird, right? None of the analogous plots I've seen in the literature look like this; they all have symmetric limits along the vertical axis.

The fact that the other sections seem fine makes me think that I transposed the equations correctly, but this problem has been extremely frustrating to diagnose. I've been able to figure out that all of the affected sections are those whose initial condition required ##\dot{\theta}_1<0## in order to get a condition with the correct total energy, but I have no idea why that would make them look like this.

Any ideas about what I'm missing?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Looks like it's happening at ##\dot\theta=\pi##. My guess would be that one of your inverse trig functions believes in angles in the range ##-\pi \rightarrow \pi##, while you believe them to lie in ##0\rightarrow 2\pi##.
 
Ibix said:
Looks like it's happening at ##\dot\theta=\pi##. My guess would be that one of your inverse trig functions believes in angles in the range ##-\pi \rightarrow \pi##, while you believe them to lie in ##0\rightarrow 2\pi##.
Interesting idea, and I'll look into it, but I think that that was just a coincidence. Taking another one of the problematic sections, we see that it occurs lower down:
246729
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
13K
Replies
9
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K