I Which version of the Kepler Problem is correct?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Will Flannery
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Kepler
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on two interpretations of the Kepler Problem: one expresses the solution as r and θ as functions of time, while the other uses 1/r as a function of θ. The first approach, supported by Fitzpatrick and the Royal Society, emphasizes determining an object's position in a Keplerian orbit over time. In contrast, the second method, which derives u(θ), provides a simpler way to describe the orbit's shape but lacks temporal information. Both solutions are deemed correct depending on the specific needs of the analysis, with no definitive preference established between them.
Will Flannery
Messages
121
Reaction score
36
TL;DR Summary
Two versions of the solution exist, r and θ as a function of time, and 1/r as a function of θ. Which one is correct?
On one hand:
wiki - Kepler Problem - There doesn't seem to be a clear statement of what the problem is. There is a section on the solution which is given as a function u(θ) where u = 1/r.

In Classical Dynamics, Thornton, et. al., the section on Planetary motion - Kepler's Problem - "The equation for the path of a particle moving under the influence of a central force ... ", followed by a derivation of u(θ) where u = 1/r (eq 8.41)

On the other hand:
In R. Fitzpatrick's Kepler Problem we read "In a nutshell, the so-called Kepler problem consists of determining the radial and angular coordinates, r and θ, respectively, of an object in a Keplerian orbit about the Sun as a function of time." Kepler's equation is derived, and a numerical method is given for solving it.

From On Newton's Solution to Kepler's Problem - The Monthly Notes of the Royal Astronomical Society (1882) - "The equation to be solved by successive approximation is x - e sin x = z where e is the eccentricity, z is the known mean anomaly, and x is the eccentric anomaly to be determined." The mean anomaly plays the role of time, and the eccentric anomaly plays the role of position.

https://ocw.aprende.org/courses/physics/8-01sc-physics-i-classical-mechanics-fall-2010/central-force-motion/central-force-motion-and-the-kepler-problem/MIT8_01SC_coursenotes28.pdf- "Since Johannes Kepler first formulated the laws that describe planetary motion, scientists endeavored to solve for the equation of motion of the planets. In his honor, this problem has been named The Kepler Problem." **However, the solution derived is u(θ) and I don't see any derivation of r and θ as a function of time in the entire module.

wiki - Equations of motion - "In physics, equations of motion are equations that describe the behavior of a physical system in terms of its motion as a function of time."

I'm sure that Fitzpatrick's and the Royal Society's, r and θ as a function of time, is correct, but I'm wondering how the alternate solution, 1/r as a function of θ, came into acceptance.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Delta2
Physics news on Phys.org
What if you did a parametric polar plot of r using the Fitzpatrick equation and a second polar plot using the Kepler equation. If the two give the same orbit, then both are correct.
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2 and Vanadium 50
Well, I think finding the solution of u(Θ) is the easiest part of the problem, but only solves part of the problem. It gives you the shape of the orbit, but doesn't give you a way to determine where the planet is along the orbit as a function of time. You need this in order to truly solve the Kepler problem.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, Delta2, sophiecentaur and 1 other person
.

Both solutions are "correct". Particular needs determine which form is better.
If you wish to draw the path then ##r(\theta)## is probably most useful. If you need to know times of events then the parameterization in terms of t is required
I don't see why a global value judgement is either important or interesting.

.
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2
Will Flannery said:
Summary:: Two versions of the solution exist, r and θ as a function of time, and 1/r as a function of θ. Which one is correct?

[snip]

I'm sure that Fitzpatrick's and the Royal Society's, r and θ as a function of time, is correct, but I'm wondering how the alternate solution, 1/r as a function of θ, came into acceptance.

Note that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_problem# and other u=\displaystyle\frac{1}{r} approaches obtain a convenient differential equation whose solution is
$$u \equiv \frac{1}{r} = -\frac{km}{L^2} (1+e\cos(\theta-\theta_0))$$

You can see the same type of equation as (254) in http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/lectures/node40.html
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, hutchphd and Delta2
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top