Graduate Is there a closed form solution to Kepler's problem?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Will Flannery
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Closed Form
Click For Summary
Kepler's equation, M = E - e*sinE, is a transcendental equation that typically requires numerical methods for solutions. A paper by Tokis claims to provide a closed-form solution using a two-dimensional Laplace technique, but its validity is questioned due to the complexity of the derivation. Attempts to verify Tokis' solution using MATLAB yielded results that suggest inaccuracies, as the calculated eccentric anomaly deviated significantly from expected values. The discussion highlights ongoing confusion regarding the exact analytical solution of Kepler's equation, which has eluded mathematicians for centuries. Further investigation into Tokis' claims and additional resources in celestial mechanics is suggested for clarity.
Will Flannery
Messages
121
Reaction score
36
TL;DR
Kepler's equation is M = E - e*sinE
According to wiki "Kepler's equation is a transcendental equation because sine is a transcendental function, meaning it cannot be solved for E algebraically. Numerical analysis and series expansions are generally required to evaluate E."
However in the paper "A Solution of Kepler's Equation" by Tokis we read " Solution of the universal Kepler’s equation in closed form is obtained with the help of the two-dimensional Laplace technique, ... "
Kepler's equation is M = E - e*sinE

According to wiki - Kepler's equation - "Kepler's equation is a transcendental equation because sine is a transcendental function, meaning it cannot be solved for E algebraically. Numerical analysis and series expansions are generally required to evaluate E."

However in the paper "A Solution of Kepler's Equation" by Tokis we read " Solution of the universal Kepler’s equation in closed form is obtained with the help of the two-dimensional Laplace technique, ... "

I have an MS in math, but ... Tokis' paper is beyond me. Can anyone clarify the situation?

Tokis' paper is also available as a pdf at A Solution of Kepler's Equation
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Have you tried plugging the proposed solution into the problem to see if it is a indeed a solution?
 
  • Like
Likes Motore
Dale said:
Have you tried plugging the proposed solution into the problem to see if it is a indeed a solution?
I haven't. It would be a good thing to try, but even that would require a bit of effort, and I currently don't have MATLAB available since I switched computers. They've plotted graphs using the equation, so I assume it works to some degree of accuracy. However, the question remains, is the derivation valid, and that I can't begin to figure out. And, if it is, why hasn't wiki been updated, etc.?

Also, the paper includes the sentence "In virtually every decade from 1650 to the present, there have appeared papers devoted to the solution of thisKepler’s equation. Its exact analytical solution is unknown, ... ", so it's a little unclear to me what the paper is claiming.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
Well, I studied the paper a bit, and still cannot follow the details (and I'm unfamiliar with Kepler's equation)* The paper claims "we have a new exact solution of the present problem for the universal anomaly as a function of the time." This solution is eq (31). However the universal anomaly is a constructed variable, which isn't the usual eccentric anomaly. The paper continues and we have an expression for the eccentric anomaly as a function of the mean anomaly, eq (40), and I read this to be an exact solution. So, I retrieved my copy of MATLAB and set out to test the formula with the following code:
eps = 0.3; % eccentricity
E = 1; % eccentric anomaly
Me = E - eps*sin(E) % Kepler's eq., mean anomaly as a function of E (2a)
% now we use eq 41 and 40 to calculate E as a function of Me
phi = sqrt(eps^2-[1-(1-eps)*sqrt(1+eps*Me^2/(1-eps)^3)]^2); % (41)
Ec = Me + phi % eccentric anomaly as function of Me (40)
which prints out ...
Me = 0.7476
Ec = 1.0097
An exact solution would not be off by 1 part in 100, so, it doesn't seem to work, or ... I made a mistake :)

Note that there is a restriction (32) on Me in formula (31) and hence (40), that is Me <= 2*sqrt(1-eps^2) which is met in the example above. In a complete elliptical orbit Me goes from 0 to 2*pi, so this is a weird restriction.

*but since solving Kepler's equation arguably represents the beginning of modern physics and mathematics, I'm interested.

I'm still working on this ... may get Celestial Mechanics by Danby (pdf $10.00) - any other suggestions?
 
Last edited:
Thread 'What is the pressure of trapped air inside this tube?'
As you can see from the picture, i have an uneven U-shaped tube, sealed at the short end. I fill the tube with water and i seal it. So the short side is filled with water and the long side ends up containg water and trapped air. Now the tube is sealed on both sides and i turn it in such a way that the traped air moves at the short side. Are my claims about pressure in senarios A & B correct? What is the pressure for all points in senario C? (My question is basically coming from watching...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
56K