Chronology |
Current Month |
Current Thread |
Current Date |

[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |

*From*: John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>*Date*: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:19:48 -0700

Hi --

As everybody knows, the Kepler problem conserves angular momentum and

conserves energy. The same is true of any other problem with a central

force that is the gradient of some potential.

What is rather less well known is that the Kepler problem has another

symmetry, a hidden four-dimensional symmetry. This leads to conservation

of the Laplace–Runge–Lenz vector.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%E2%80%93Runge%E2%80%93Lenz_vector

In case you're wondering whether this is useful, it is. I recently got

yet another object lesson in the importance of the "Check Your Work"

principle. In my Kepler spreadsheet, I decided to calculate the velocity.

I decided to uphold the Check Your Work principle by calculating the LRL

vector ... and lo and behold, it wasn't constant. To make a long story

short, I had dyslexified one of the equations, writing cos instead of

sin and sin instead of cos. Even after I knew there was a bug, I had to

stare at the equation for a while before I figured out what was wrong.

Note that since the LRL vector is a vector, it is two or three times

more sensitive than the energy as a check on the calculations. In

particular, for a zero-eccentricity orbit, the energy check would not

have caught the aforementioned error.

In addition to the LRL check and the energy check, you can also do an

approximate check by approximating the velocity via finite differences:

Δr/Δt. That is not a super-accurate check on the numerical methods,

if you're trying to calculate the velocity to machine precision, but

it's plenty good enough for catching typos.

The main lesson is that it's good practice to study the problem long

enough to figure out a set of incisive checks, and actually run the

checks.

As a related point: Set a good example for the students. Pride

goeth before a fall. If you pretend to be so smart you can get

the right answer without doing the checks, (a) you're going to

make a mistake sooner or later, and (b) "even" if you don't get

caught, and maybe /especially/ if you don't get caught, you are

modeling bad behavior in front of the students.

Also related: Rather than just preaching about the principle of

the thing, it helps to show students concrete examples of what

it looks like in practice. Even if they don't understand the LRL

vector check, they should understand the kinetic energy / binding

energy check.

A lesson for students is to /leave the checks in the spreadsheet/

so that they can re-check the work later, and so that others can

re-check it. Resist the temptation to make the spreadsheet "smaller"

or "more elegant". Hide the columns if necessary, but don't delete

them.

Such checks cannot solve all the world's problems: As Dykstra

was fond of pointing out, testing can demonstrate the presence

of bugs, but it can never prove the absence of bugs.

OTOH testing is a whole lot better than no testing. Typesetting a

web page and then plugging the equations into a spreadsheet is a

serious check. It increases the reliability by at least an order

of magnitude.

========

I upgraded my web document to include a section that collects most of

the relevant equations in one place, using a consistent set of symbols:

http://www.av8n.com/physics/kepler-equal-areas.htm#sec-eq-motion

All of the equations are findable in the references, but you would

need to look through three or four references to find everything you

need, and you would need to wade through a lot of stuff you don't

need ... and they don't all use the same notation.

==============================

Wildly tangential remark: For those who are interested in the

history of such things: I never cease to be amazed by the date on

Kepler's equation: 1609. A transcendental equation in 1609! By

way of contrast, Galileo was working at about the same time, and

was not exactly the village idiot, but there is AFAICT no evidence

that Galileo ever wrote an equals sign in his life. Most people

who were masters of the mathematics of the day relied on geometrical

proofs rather than algebra and equations.

The "=" sign was invented in 1557 and was not fully established

until circa 1700.

The telescope was invented in 1608/1609 and played no role in Tycho

Brahe's observations or Kepler's analyses. These were amazingly

tough and determined guys.

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: [Phys-L] LRL vector == another Kepler symmetry + Check Your Work***From:*Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>

**References**:**[Phys-L] diagram swindle +- Kepler's equal-area law***From:*John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>

- Prev by Date:
**[Phys-L] The Randomistas' War On Global Poverty (was Chocolate Makes You Smart)** - Next by Date:
**Re: [Phys-L] LRL vector == another Kepler symmetry + Check Your Work** - Previous by thread:
**[Phys-L] diagram swindle +- Kepler's equal-area law** - Next by thread:
**Re: [Phys-L] LRL vector == another Kepler symmetry + Check Your Work** - Index(es):