Why is solving the 3-body mechanical problem considered impossible?

AI Thread Summary
The 3-body mechanical problem is considered unsolvable in general terms because it lacks a solution in elementary functions, making it impossible to find an analytic solution. This issue is linked to chaos theory, where minor changes in initial conditions can lead to vastly different outcomes, complicating predictability. Numerical solutions exist, but they are limited by the "small divisors" problem, which affects the convergence of perturbation theory near resonances. While supercomputers can provide numerical approximations, they cannot overcome the inherent unpredictability of the system due to the precision required for initial conditions. Ultimately, the complexity of the 3-body problem highlights the limitations of both analytical and numerical methods in classical mechanics.
SpY]
Messages
63
Reaction score
0
I've heard that it's apparently impossible to solve a 3-body mechanical problem, but I'd just like to know why. I'm told there are so many integrals and n'th order differential equations that you can't find an analytic solution, only a numerical one, but I want to know is it physically impossible, or just too difficult? I also know it's to do with chaos theory - that a small change in the initial condition makes a huge change in the whole system. But can supercomputers do it?

For instance to find the motion between the sun, Earth and moon simultaneously.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The three body problem does not have a general solution in the elementary functions. This is a well-known result -- and so what? Lots and lots and lots of differential equations do not have solutions in the elementary functions. All that means is the things we have somewhat arbitrarily decided to denote as the elementary functions are not sufficiently powerful to describe a lot of differential equations.

As far as the three body problem is concerned, there is a series solution discovered about 100 years ago -- and it is pretty much worthless. There is nothing wrong with numerical solutions. Even the elementary functions require numerical solutions. What is sin(1)?
 
SpY],

What you read is probably a journalist's view on the KAM theorem and the "small divisors" problem in classical mechanics (like the htree body system).

You can easily find more material on the web about what the "small divisors" problem is.
Essentially it means that the pertubation theory fails to give convergent solution series near resonnances. This problem cannot be overcome by using "better methods", nor numerical methods. It actually implies, that in some circumstances you need a huge amount of information (numerical precision) to predict some outcome to questions like "is the solar system stable". Practically this sets a limit on predictability since we never know the inititial condition with an arbitrary precision. However, the importance of this problem may depend on the system under study: for example it is less acute for the sun-earth-moon system than for the whole solar system.

Please not that the precision of the calculation does not wipe out the resonance effect (or "the problem").
It still remains true that small changes in the initial conditions could change drastically the outcome.
It is furthermore alway possible to find a problem that will defeat any computer in this respect.
This does not imply that we cannot understand such sistuations by other means that simply calcualting the trajectories with ever increasing precision.

I can't tell you more about the KAM since this is known to be a very difficult topic and it far beyond my mathematical abilities.

Michel
 
Consider an extremely long and perfectly calibrated scale. A car with a mass of 1000 kg is placed on it, and the scale registers this weight accurately. Now, suppose the car begins to move, reaching very high speeds. Neglecting air resistance and rolling friction, if the car attains, for example, a velocity of 500 km/h, will the scale still indicate a weight corresponding to 1000 kg, or will the measured value decrease as a result of the motion? In a second scenario, imagine a person with a...
Scalar and vector potentials in Coulomb gauge Assume Coulomb gauge so that $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A}=0.\tag{1}$$ The scalar potential ##\phi## is described by Poisson's equation $$\nabla^2 \phi = -\frac{\rho}{\varepsilon_0}\tag{2}$$ which has the instantaneous general solution given by $$\phi(\mathbf{r},t)=\frac{1}{4\pi\varepsilon_0}\int \frac{\rho(\mathbf{r}',t)}{|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}'|}d^3r'.\tag{3}$$ In Coulomb gauge the vector potential ##\mathbf{A}## is given by...
Thread 'Griffith, Electrodynamics, 4th Edition, Example 4.8. (First part)'
I am reading the Griffith, Electrodynamics book, 4th edition, Example 4.8 and stuck at some statements. It's little bit confused. > Example 4.8. Suppose the entire region below the plane ##z=0## in Fig. 4.28 is filled with uniform linear dielectric material of susceptibility ##\chi_e##. Calculate the force on a point charge ##q## situated a distance ##d## above the origin. Solution : The surface bound charge on the ##xy## plane is of opposite sign to ##q##, so the force will be...
Back
Top