The two-body problem deals with two planets revolving around a common center relative to one another. Why doesn't the model ever exhibit a jagged orbit and it is always smoothly elliptical? Is there something about the math actively enforcing the smooth orbit?
2026-03-25 12:53:00.1774443180
Why isn't a jagged orbit ever observed in the two-body problem?
128 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in ORDINARY-DIFFERENTIAL-EQUATIONS
- The Runge-Kutta method for a system of equations
- Analytical solution of a nonlinear ordinary differential equation
- Stability of system of ordinary nonlinear differential equations
- Maximal interval of existence of the IVP
- Power series solution of $y''+e^xy' - y=0$
- Change of variables in a differential equation
- Dimension of solution space of homogeneous differential equation, proof
- Solve the initial value problem $x^2y'+y(x-y)=0$
- Stability of system of parameters $\kappa, \lambda$ when there is a zero eigenvalue
- Derive an equation with Faraday's law
Related Questions in CELESTIAL-MECHANICS
- Meaningful interpretation of an integral
- Coupled second order differential equations for radial field
- Seeking an example of potential.
- Reparametrization of ellipse with constant trajectory "speed".
- Object Intercept in Space question
- Different kinds of stability that apply to planar periodic orbits, and what do they mean?
- Two Body Problem with differential equations?
- Equation of Motion of a particle
- Normal distance
- A very simple question on motion in a circle.
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
As you are asking a question about inertial motion and gravitational forces, this question might have been better suited to Physics SE.
It is not only the two-body problem which has smooth trajectories. n-body problems also result in smooth (although far more complex) trajectories.
In special cases gravitational trajectories can change direction abruptly. For example, the 1D motion of a smaller body oscillating in a tunnel through the centre of a larger body. However, this trajectory is the limiting case of an ellipse with eccentricity $e \to 1$, and the velocities change smoothly through zero at the extremes so there is never an infinite acceleration. Another example is the 'sling-shot' motion of a light point-like particle passing very close to a much heavier moving particle. On a 'grand' scale this looks like a discontinuous change of speed and direction but on a sufficiently fine scale the trajectory is smooth and the acceleration remains finite (although possibly very large).
The motion of objects results from the interaction between a Force Law $f(r)$ and Inertial Law $f(r)=m\ddot r$. The gravitational and electrostatic force laws $f(r)=G\frac{Mm}{r^2}$ and $f(r)=k\frac{Qq}{r^2}$ are long-range and vary smoothly and continuously with separation $r$ between objects. The inertial law (Newton's 2nd Law) which links force and motion is linear; finite accelerations are guaranteed because mass $m$ is constant and finite. Because force $f(r)$ changes smoothly then so does acceleration $\ddot r$.
By contrast, contact forces are discontinuous (for practical purposes) which is why the trajectories of billiard balls are not smooth (when viewed macroscopically). And it is conceivable (in a different universe) that mass could vary discontinuously with force, resulting in infinite accelerations and non-smooth trajectories.