Three-Body Problem: Soluble or Insoluble?

  • Thread starter Isaac Newton
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Body
In summary, the three-body problem, also known as the n-Body problem, is a special case of the n-Body problem that is sometimes called the three orbit problem. It has been shown that there is no analytical solution for this problem, meaning that it cannot be solved by a mathematical method. However, numerical methods have been used to accurately predict the motion of bodies in this system, but there is a limit to how far into the future these predictions can be made due to the possibility of chaotic dynamics. The presence of chaos also means that there is no simple analytical solution for this problem.
  • #1
Isaac Newton
3
0
I won't describe the problem, on the assumption that the people who know the answer to my question will already know what the problem is. It's sometimes called the three orbit problem, and it's a special case of the n-Body Problem.

There's a Wikipedia article about it, though it's not a very good article.

My question:

Is it more correct to say that the problem has been shown forever insoluble?

Or is it more correct to say that it cannot be solved by any known mathematical method?

(I understand there are special cases which are soluble. I understand that it can be "solved" by successive approximations, which grow increasingly inaccurate as the number of iterations increases.)

I'm not a mathematician or astronomer. I'm writing a book, in which I want to use this as an analogy for other things. I want to get it right.

It's my understanding that quantum computers, if they ever exist, will not have infinite computing power. If so, as far as I know, the three body problem will remain insoluble. Correct?

Thanks in advance.

Isaac
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
Welcome to PF, mr. Newton.

Unlike the two-body problem, it is not possible to find an analytical solution to the three-body problem, that is a solution that would allow you to calculate the position of the bodies as a function of time for some given initial conditions. With various restrictions in the degrees of freedom in a three-body system you can derive some characterization of the possible orbits, but nothing that is considered an analytical solution.

However, it is not especially hard to analyze and solve the three-body (or indeed the n-body) problem if we turn to numerical methods. Such analysis can even include much more complex models (non-uniform planets, non-gravitational forces) that allow for all sorts of special perturbations to be included, so in terms of being able to accurately model and predict, say, the motion of the bodies in the solar system, the computers of today are quite up to the task. I'm not current on the latest research in the area, but to me it seems that the challenge today in getting more accurate celestial science is not the lack of computing power but the uncertainty regarding the precise details of relevant physical laws and measured data.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Filip Larsen said:
Welcome to PF, mr. Newton.
However, it is not especially hard to analyze and solve the three-body (or indeed the n-body) problem if we turn to numerical methods. Such analysis can even include much more complex models (non-uniform planets, non-gravitational forces) that allow for all sorts of special perturbations to be included, so in terms of being able to accurately model and predict, say, the motion of the bodies in the solar system, the computers of today are quite up to the task. I'm not current on the latest research in the area, but to me it seems that the challenge today in getting more accurate celestial science is not the lack of computing power but the uncertainty regarding the precise details of relevant physical laws and measured data.

Thank you, Filip.

If I'm not mistaken, you're talking about the method of successive iterations. My understanding is that this is reasonably accurate for millions of years into the future, but beyond a certain number of iterations, adding up to many millions of years, predictions about the future position and velocities of the planets in the solar system become hopelessly inaccurate.

Have I misunderstood?

Cheers,

Isaac
 
  • #4
Isaac Newton said:
If I'm not mistaken, you're talking about the method of successive iterations. My understanding is that this is reasonably accurate for millions of years into the future, but beyond a certain number of iterations, adding up to many millions of years, predictions about the future position and velocities of the planets in the solar system become hopelessly inaccurate.

Have I misunderstood?

That is correct. Depending on what you want to analyse and how accurate your model and data is, there is a limit to how far into the future you can accurately predict trajectories. In general, both purely gravitational systems and systems which has friction (which in case of n-body simulation could be gravitational energy that ends up as heat in the core of moons and planets) has the possibility for so-called chaotic dynamics.

As you may know from simulation of the weather, presence of chaos effectively limits how far into the future you can predict individual trajectories since chaotic motion will amplify any microscopic inaccuracies in initial data to macroscopic differences later on. The same goes with gravitational systems although the time-frame here is much longer. The possibility of chaos in a system also mean that there is no real hope of finding a simple analytical solution for the motion since such solutions would be incapable of reproducing the structure found in chaotic motion.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Filip Larsen said:
That is correct. Depending on what you want to analyse and how accurate your model and data is, there is a limit to how far into the future you can accurately predict trajectories. In general, both purely gravitational systems and systems which has friction (which in case of n-body simulation could be gravitational energy that ends up as heat in the core of moons and planets) has the possibility for so-called chaotic dynamics.

Hello Filip,

I have always had the impression that the three-body problem is inherently chaotic, even in the absence of friction, even if the starting positions, masses and trajectories are known precisely. Is this incorrect?

Isaac
 
  • #6
Isaac Newton said:
I have always had the impression that the three-body problem is inherently chaotic, even in the absence of friction, even if the starting positions, masses and trajectories are known precisely. Is this incorrect?

Depends on the exact type of problem. There are situations with the three body problem which are not chaotic, and there appear to be situations that are. If you have two objects in a circular orbit, and a small satellite that doesn't affect the two other bodies, you don't have chaos. My intuition is that in the general situation where you have two planets and a satellite, you don't get chaos.

Showing that a system is or is not chaotic is sometimes quite difficult, and there is a lot of interesting math involved.
 
  • #7
Isaac Newton said:
Is it more correct to say that the problem has been shown forever insoluble?

It depends what you mean by "solve".

It's my understanding that quantum computers, if they ever exist, will not have infinite computing power. If so, as far as I know, the three body problem will remain insoluble. Correct?

I think that someone has come up with a solution to the three body problem that involves infinite series. The trouble is that once you've come up a three body solution, you add a fourth body, and that causes things to be really complicated.

Also there is a difference between "we don't know how to do this" and "we can prove that it can't be done." A lot of math involves proving that something just cannot be done. For example, Galois proved that you cannot solve a fifth degree polynomial function with a finite number of basic algebra steps.

In the situation with celestial mechanics, things are complex enough so that proving that you *can't* solve the problem for a given definition of solve gets you quite interesting mathematics.
 
  • #8
One other idea that is important in chaotic systems is something called the Lynapanov exponent. Basically that number gives you an idea of how quickly the system blows up. I think the number for the solar system is five million years.

The other curious thing about the solar system is that the planets appear to be "chaotic but stable." What seems to be the situation is that the solar system is set up so that you can't figure out exactly where the planets are going to be over long periods of time, but it's set up in a way that you can be certain that planets are going to end up flying out of the solar system.
 
  • #9
twofish-quant said:
The other curious thing about the solar system is that the planets appear to be "chaotic but stable." What seems to be the situation is that the solar system is set up so that you can't figure out exactly where the planets are going to be over long periods of time, but it's set up in a way that you can be certain that planets are going to end up flying out of the solar system.

I don't think that the presence of chaotic orbits in the region of the planets current state (position and velocity) imply that a planet have to escape the solar system at some point in future time, i.e. that "chaos" implies "blow up", if that is what you mean. As far as I recall, it should be possible to have a solar system where planets in chaotic orbit are bounded in non-overlapping finites regions. Whether that is true or not for our solar system, I don't know. I guess the problem with predicting the precise state of our solar system on a very long term basis, is that it really is not a closed system, but may be affected from (yet unknown) objects from, say, the Oort cloud, nearby stars or similar.
 
  • #10
twofish-quant said:
Also there is a difference between "we don't know how to do this" and "we can prove that it can't be done." A lot of math involves proving that something just cannot be done. For example, Galois proved that you cannot solve a fifth degree polynomial function with a finite number of basic algebra steps.

And there is also analytical vs numerical. A fifth degree polynomial is unsolvable analytically in that way, but quite easy to solve numerically.

Likewise, the many-body problem may have an analytical solution that we don't know about, but it's entirely possible (perhaps even likely) that this analytical solution is more difficult to calculate than a numerical solution, in which case it's of fairly little practical use.
 
  • #11
twofish-quant said:
It depends what you mean by "solve".
Exactly. Saying that the three body problem is insoluble is rather sloppy. What people really mean when they say that is that the three body problem is insoluble in terms of elementary methods. What constitutes elementary methods is a bit arbitrary and is a bit meaningless. The trig functions are elementary, but that does not mean we can compute an exact values for, say, sin(1) or acos(0).

I think that someone has come up with a solution to the three body problem that involves infinite series.
That was Karl Sundman, and it's pretty much useless. The problem is that the series converges very, very slowly. The three body problem has singularities (there are lots of ways bodies can collide). While those singularities are a space of measure zero, they mess up the series a lot.
 
  • #12
I wonder if this might be helpful for this discussion, on March 18, 2010 there was a full press release for the First Clay Mathematics Institute Millennium Prize For Resolution of the Poincaré Conjecture Awarded to Dr. Grigoriy Perelman.
Full press release: http://www.claymath.org/poincare/millenniumPrizeFull.pdf [Broken]
http://www.claymath.org/
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-03/tcmi-tcm031910.php

Congratulations Dr. Perelman.:biggrin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
The only connection between the Poincaré Conjecture and the n-body problem is that Henri Poincaré worked on both. He worked on a lot of very distinct problems.
 
  • #14
D H, I was only addressing *your* mention of "singularities" as was in the pdf I earlier presented.:biggrin:

Perelman's breakthrough proof of the Poincaré conjecture was made possible by a number of new elements. He achieved a complete understanding of singularity formation in Ricci flow, as well as the way parts of the shape collapse onto lower-dimensional spaces. He introduced a new quantity, the entropy, which instead of measuring disorder at the atomic level, as in the classical theory of heat exchange, measures disorder in the global geometry of the space. This new entropy, like the thermodynamic quantity, increases as time passes. Perelman also introduced a related local quantity, the L-functional, and he used the theories originated by Cheeger and Aleksandrov to understand limits of spaces changing under Ricci flow. He showed that the time between formation of singularities could not become smaller and smaller, with singularities becoming spaced so closely – infinitesimally close – that the Ricci flow method would no longer apply. Perelman deployed his new ideas and methods with great technical mastery and described the results he obtained with elegant brevity. Mathematics has been deeply enriched.
 
  • #15
FFS, ViewsofMars. Singularities can appear throughout mathematics. Just because they do appear in two areas does not mean that those two areas have anything to do with one another.
 
  • #16
My reponse is on the next page.LOL! ( I wonder if one of those pranksters is up to mischief today!) (tee hee, I love it.)
 
Last edited:
  • #17
D H said:
FFS, ViewsofMars. Singularities can appear throughout mathematics. Just because they do appear in two areas does not mean that those two areas have anything to do with one another.

FFS, D H:smile:

"Singularities are to Ricci flow what black holes are to the evolution of the cosmos. Perelman also introduced a kind of geometric entropy, akin to the entropy studied in the exchange of heat, as in a turbine or motor."(Please refer to the link from Ereaka Alert that I earlier presented.):smile: I provided an award given to Perelman who did discuss sigularities. Perhaps you would like to explain sigularities by way of a link (url) in particular the issue of two areas that don't have anything to do with the another.

Also, let's remember the OP Isaac Newton did earlier state, "I'm not a mathematician or astronomer. I'm writing a book, in which I want to use this as an analogy for other things. I want to get it right." His statement may imply an open door policy here on this topic. Math and astronomy, eh? He is writing a book and may wish to include both. Also, Isaac did say, "It's sometimes called the three orbit problem, and it's a special case of the n-Body Problem." The topic is "Three Body Problem."

I need to do my own research on "the three orbit problem", "n-body problem", and "three body problem." Foremost, do we have a problem?:wink:

I also have to remember that information changes quite fast in the realm of Science and Math. I do recall in Astromony or Cosmology there is mention of singularity or singularities. I have to hunt for that one.

People do love to learn. Life is a dance. It's fun!

Have a nice day,

Mars
 
Last edited:
  • #18
@ViewsofMars: 1.) Why the double post?

@ViewsofMars & D H2.)... what is "FFS" ?
 
  • #19
Frame Dragger said:
@ViewsofMars: 1.) Why the double post?

@ViewsofMars & D H2.)... what is "FFS" ?

I don't know!:eek: I just now saw it. Weird. I was trying to make a few corrections on it and it appeared on this page. I'm going to try to erase the one on the previous page. Sorry.

Ok, I fixed it. I have to run or I'm going to miss my appointment.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
Frame Dragger said:
@ViewsofMars & D H2.)... what is "FFS" ?

Frame Dragger, FFS means "FOR FURTHER STUDY.":wink:
 
  • #21
ViewsofMars, 1/x has a singularity at x=0. That singularity has nothing to do with the Poincaré Conjecture.

FrameDragger, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FFS. You decide.As far as the three body problem is concerned, the oft-cited claim that it is insoluble is essentially wrong. The correct claim is that it is insoluble by means of elementary techniques. In that sense, so what? [itex]\int_{-\infty}^x \exp(-t^2) dt[/itex] is insoluble by elementary techniques, as are the solutions to host of differential equations (e.g., the gamma function, Bessel functions, ...). That these integrals cannot be expressed in terms of elementary functions does not mean we have to throw up our hands in despair. Numerical techniques can do quite a nice job solving these non-elementary integrals.

That said, the n-body problem appears to be chaotic. That means that numerical integration can only take us so far into the future. The numerical integration will yield a definite answer, but that result will essentially be garbage if the integration period is too long. The solar systems Lyapunov time appears to be 5-10 million years. Using numerical techniques on that kind of time scale will yield meaningless nonsense. The distances from the Sun might be close to correct, but where the planets lie on their orbits will be very wrong.
 
  • #22
ViewsofMars said:
Frame Dragger, FFS means "FOR FURTHER STUDY.":wink:

Ahhh... ok... I'll um, take your word on that, even though another definition occurred to me after posting. :biggrin:

A friend is working on the 2-body problem (Numerical GR), and his take on the 3+ is that it's utterly impossible at this time, or any concievable future time. *shrug* I'd say that's a pretty big problem! From what he's said, the 2-body is amazingly complex, and rooted in the need for perfect initial conditions and a LOOOOOT of HPDE's.

EDIT: @D H: OH. So that other definition is applicaple. I am backing away very slowly now!
 
  • #23
The three body problem is not utterly impossible at this time. Think about it this way: How could we have sent vehicles to the Moon or other planets if it were utterly impossible?
 
  • #24
D H said:
The three body problem is not utterly impossible at this time. Think about it this way: How could we have sent vehicles to the Moon or other planets if it were utterly impossible?

I should clarify: impossible to find an exact solution over any given time-scale a la the 2-body problem. I should also add that something may be lost in the translation between my friend, and here, or he may have simplified matters for my sake.
 
  • #25
That the three body problem does not have a solution in the elementary functions is well-known and has been for a long time. That does not mean the three body problem is insoluble. It just means that it doesn't have a solution in the elementary functions.
 
  • #26
D H said:
That the three body problem does not have a solution in the elementary functions is well-known and has been for a long time. That does not mean the three body problem is insoluble. It just means that it doesn't have a solution in the elementary functions.

What is the alternative?
 
  • #27
Numerical techniques.
 
  • #28
D H said:
Numerical techniques.

...Which are unable at present time to achieve that goal. I'm still confused, and I'm not pushing an agenda here, but this flies in the face of what I though I knew.
 
  • #29
To achieve what goal? We do send vehicles to other planets, you know. It can take years to get from here to there. New Horizons, for example, launched in January 2006 and won't arrive at Pluto until July 2015. On route it passed close enough to Jupiter to receive a gravity assist to help it get to Pluto. We have to know where those planets will be (not are) to a very high degree of accuracy to plan and execute missions such as these.
 
  • #30
D H said:
To achieve what goal? We do send vehicles to other planets, you know. It can take years to get from here to there. New Horizons, for example, launched in January 2006 and won't arrive at Pluto until July 2015. On route it passed close enough to Jupiter to receive a gravity assist to help it get to Pluto. We have to know where those planets will be (not are) to a very high degree of accuracy to plan and execute missions such as these.

When I am thinking of the n-body problems I am thinking of degenerate orbits of binary BH's or neutron stars as the simple 2-body model. So the goal is: advancing theory.
 
  • #31
D H said:
Numerical techniques.

Or infinite series.

Or use non-elementary functions.
 
  • #32
Frame Dragger said:
When I am thinking of the n-body problems I am thinking of degenerate orbits of binary BH's or neutron stars as the simple 2-body model. So the goal is: advancing theory.

If you want to advance mathematical theory you'd like use topological and geometrical techniques in which the inability to calculate exact results from simple functions is an interesting but not terribly important fact.
 
  • #33
twofish-quant said:
If you want to advance mathematical theory you'd like use topological and geometrical techniques in which the inability to calculate exact results from simple functions is an interesting but not terribly important fact.

Is that what you would use in research into gravitational waves? That would explain my confusion, and why I'm just plain wrong about the nature of the problem in general.
 
  • #34
D H,

Frame Dragger is talking abbout numerical relativity. Full fledged GR.
 
  • #35
Frame Dragger said:
Is that what you would use in research into gravitational waves? That would explain my confusion, and why I'm just plain wrong about the nature of the problem in general.

One way of thinking about it is that you have lots of mathematical tools in the toolbox, and if you can't use tool A, you can use tools B, C, D and E. Anything involving GR you are likely to be using numerical techniques to do any realistic calculations.
 
<h2>1. What is the Three-Body Problem?</h2><p>The Three-Body Problem is a mathematical problem that involves predicting the motion of three celestial bodies, such as planets or stars, based on their initial positions and velocities, and the gravitational forces between them.</p><h2>2. Is the Three-Body Problem soluble or insoluble?</h2><p>The Three-Body Problem is insoluble, meaning that there is no exact mathematical solution to predict the motion of three bodies. This is due to the complex and chaotic nature of the gravitational forces involved.</p><h2>3. Why is the Three-Body Problem important?</h2><p>The Three-Body Problem is important because it is a fundamental problem in physics and astronomy, and understanding its complexities can help us better understand the behavior of celestial bodies in our universe.</p><h2>4. What are some methods used to approximate solutions to the Three-Body Problem?</h2><p>Some methods used to approximate solutions to the Three-Body Problem include numerical simulations, perturbation theory, and the use of special cases where simplified solutions can be found.</p><h2>5. How does the Three-Body Problem relate to the stability of our solar system?</h2><p>The Three-Body Problem is relevant to the stability of our solar system because it helps us understand the interactions between multiple celestial bodies and how they can affect each other's orbits. It also allows us to predict potential scenarios where the stability of our solar system may be at risk.</p>

1. What is the Three-Body Problem?

The Three-Body Problem is a mathematical problem that involves predicting the motion of three celestial bodies, such as planets or stars, based on their initial positions and velocities, and the gravitational forces between them.

2. Is the Three-Body Problem soluble or insoluble?

The Three-Body Problem is insoluble, meaning that there is no exact mathematical solution to predict the motion of three bodies. This is due to the complex and chaotic nature of the gravitational forces involved.

3. Why is the Three-Body Problem important?

The Three-Body Problem is important because it is a fundamental problem in physics and astronomy, and understanding its complexities can help us better understand the behavior of celestial bodies in our universe.

4. What are some methods used to approximate solutions to the Three-Body Problem?

Some methods used to approximate solutions to the Three-Body Problem include numerical simulations, perturbation theory, and the use of special cases where simplified solutions can be found.

5. How does the Three-Body Problem relate to the stability of our solar system?

The Three-Body Problem is relevant to the stability of our solar system because it helps us understand the interactions between multiple celestial bodies and how they can affect each other's orbits. It also allows us to predict potential scenarios where the stability of our solar system may be at risk.

Similar threads

  • Biology and Chemistry Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Chemistry
Replies
4
Views
721
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
2
Replies
56
Views
4K
  • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • General Engineering
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
16
Views
924
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top