The Physics of Life, the Universe and Everything (In One Easy Equation)

Everyone knows that the answer to life, the universe and everything is “42”.  But if it’s the question that you want, then you can either grab a towel and a copy of The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, or you can go into physics and begin the search for yourself. 

What you may find is that the question boils down to an extremely simple formula

This innocuous-looking equation carries such riddles, such surprises, such unintuitive behavior that it can become the object of study for life.  This equation is called a vector flow equation, and it can be used to capture the essential physics of economies, neurons, ecosystems, networks, and even orbits of photons around black holes.  This equation is to modern dynamics what F = ma was to classical mechanics.  It is the starting point for understanding complex systems.

The Phase Space of Everything

The apparent simplicity of the “flow equation” masks the complexity it contains.  It is a vector equation because each “dimension” is a variable of a complex system.  Many systems of interest may have only a few variables, but ecosystems and economies and social networks may have hundreds or thousands of variables.  Expressed in component format, the flow equation is

where the superscript spans the number of variables.  But even this masks all that can happen with such an equation. Each of the functions fa can be entirely different from each other, and can be any type of function, whether polynomial, rational, algebraic, transcendental or composite, although they must be single-valued.  They are generally nonlinear, and the limitless ways that functions can be nonlinear is where the richness of the flow equation comes from.

The vector flow equation is an ordinary differential equation (ODE) that can be solved for specific trajectories as initial value problems.  A single set of initial conditions defines a unique trajectory.  For instance, the trajectory for a 4-dimensional example is described as the column vector

which is the single-parameter position vector to a point in phase space, also called state space.  The point sweeps through successive configurations as a function of its single parameter—time.  This trajectory is also called an orbit.  In classical mechanics, the focus has tended to be on the behavior of specific orbits that arise from a specific set of initial conditions.  This is the classic “rock thrown from a cliff” problem of introductory physics courses.  However, in modern dynamics, the focus shifts away from individual trajectories to encompass the set of all possible trajectories.

Why is Modern Dynamics part of Physics?

If finding the solutions to the “x-dot equals f” vector flow equation is all there is to do, then this would just be a math problem—the solution of ODE’s.  There are plenty of gems for mathematicians to look for, and there is an entire of field of study in mathematics called “dynamical systems“, but this would not be “physics”.  Physics as a profession is separate and distinct from mathematics, although the two are sometimes confused.  Physics uses mathematics as its language and as its toolbox, but physics is not mathematics.  Physics is done best when it is done qualitatively—this means with scribbles done on napkins in restaurants or on the back of envelopes while waiting in line. Physics is about recognizing relationships and patterns. Physics is about identifying the limits to scaling properties where the physics changes when scales change. Physics is about the mapping of the simplest possible mathematics onto behavior in the physical world, and recognizing when the simplest possible mathematics is a universal that applies broadly to diverse systems that seem different, but that share the same underlying principles.

So, granted solving ODE’s is not physics, there is still a tremendous amount of good physics that can be done by solving ODE’s. ODE solvers become the modern physicist’s experimental workbench, providing data output from numerical experiments that can test the dependence on parameters in ways that real-world experiments might not be able to access. Physical intuition can be built based on such simulations as the engaged physicist begins to “understand” how the system behaves, able to explain what will happen as the values of parameters are changed.

In the follow sections, three examples of modern dynamics are introduced with a preliminary study, including Python code. These examples are: Galactic dynamics, synchronized networks and ecosystems. Despite their very different natures, their description using dynamical flows share features in common and illustrate the beauty and depth of behavior that can be explored with simple equations.

Galactic Dynamics

One example of the power and beauty of the vector flow equation and its set of all solutions in phase space is called the Henon-Heiles model of the motion of a star within a galaxy.  Of course, this is a terribly complicated problem that involves tens of billions of stars, but if you average over the gravitational potential of all the other stars, and throw in a couple of conservation laws, the resulting potential can look surprisingly simple.  The motion in the plane of this galactic potential takes two configuration coordinates (x, y) with two associated momenta (px, py) for a total of four dimensions.  The flow equations in four-dimensional phase space are simply

Fig. 1 The 4-dimensional phase space flow equations of a star in a galaxy. The terms in light blue are a simple two-dimensional harmonic oscillator. The terms in magenta are the nonlinear contributions from the stars in the galaxy.

where the terms in the light blue box describe a two-dimensional simple harmonic oscillator (SHO), which is a linear oscillator, modified by the terms in the magenta box that represent the nonlinear galactic potential.  The orbits of this Hamiltonian system are chaotic, and because there is no dissipation in the model, a single orbit will continue forever within certain ranges of phase space governed by energy conservation, but never quite repeating.

Fig. 2 Two-dimensional Poincaré section of sets of trajectories in four-dimensional phase space for the Henon-Heiles galactic dynamics model. The perturbation parameter is &eps; = 0.3411 and the energy E = 1.

Hamilton4D.py

#!/usr/bin/env python3
# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
"""
Hamilton4D.py
Created on Wed Apr 18 06:03:32 2018

@author: nolte

Derived from:
D. D. Nolte, Introduction to Modern Dynamics: Chaos, Networks, Space and Time, 2nd ed. (Oxford,2019)
"""

import numpy as np
import matplotlib as mpl
from mpl_toolkits.mplot3d import Axes3D
from scipy import integrate
from matplotlib import pyplot as plt
from matplotlib import cm
import time
import os

plt.close('all')

# model_case 1 = Heiles
# model_case 2 = Crescent
print(' ')
print('Hamilton4D.py')
print('Case: 1 = Heiles')
print('Case: 2 = Crescent')
model_case = int(input('Enter the Model Case (1-2)'))

if model_case == 1:
    E = 1       # Heiles: 1, 0.3411   Crescent: 0.05, 1
    epsE = 0.3411   # 3411
    def flow_deriv(x_y_z_w,tspan):
        x, y, z, w = x_y_z_w
        a = z
        b = w
        c = -x - epsE*(2*x*y)
        d = -y - epsE*(x**2 - y**2)
        return[a,b,c,d]
else:
    E = .1       #   Crescent: 0.1, 1
    epsE = 1   
    def flow_deriv(x_y_z_w,tspan):
        x, y, z, w = x_y_z_w
        a = z
        b = w
        c = -(epsE*(y-2*x**2)*(-4*x) + x)
        d = -(y-epsE*2*x**2)
        return[a,b,c,d]
    
prms = np.sqrt(E)
pmax = np.sqrt(2*E)    
            
# Potential Function
if model_case == 1:
    V = np.zeros(shape=(100,100))
    for xloop in range(100):
        x = -2 + 4*xloop/100
        for yloop in range(100):
            y = -2 + 4*yloop/100
            V[yloop,xloop] = 0.5*x**2 + 0.5*y**2 + epsE*(x**2*y - 0.33333*y**3) 
else:
    V = np.zeros(shape=(100,100))
    for xloop in range(100):
        x = -2 + 4*xloop/100
        for yloop in range(100):
            y = -2 + 4*yloop/100
            V[yloop,xloop] = 0.5*x**2 + 0.5*y**2 + epsE*(2*x**4 - 2*x**2*y) 

fig = plt.figure(1)
contr = plt.contourf(V,100, cmap=cm.coolwarm, vmin = 0, vmax = 10)
fig.colorbar(contr, shrink=0.5, aspect=5)    
fig = plt.show()

repnum = 250
mulnum = 64/repnum

np.random.seed(1)
for reploop  in range(repnum):
    px1 = 2*(np.random.random((1))-0.499)*pmax
    py1 = np.sign(np.random.random((1))-0.499)*np.real(np.sqrt(2*(E-px1**2/2)))
    xp1 = 0
    yp1 = 0
    
    x_y_z_w0 = [xp1, yp1, px1, py1]
    
    tspan = np.linspace(1,1000,10000)
    x_t = integrate.odeint(flow_deriv, x_y_z_w0, tspan)
    siztmp = np.shape(x_t)
    siz = siztmp[0]

    if reploop % 50 == 0:
        plt.figure(2)
        lines = plt.plot(x_t[:,0],x_t[:,1])
        plt.setp(lines, linewidth=0.5)
        plt.show()
        time.sleep(0.1)
        #os.system("pause")

    y1 = x_t[:,0]
    y2 = x_t[:,1]
    y3 = x_t[:,2]
    y4 = x_t[:,3]
    
    py = np.zeros(shape=(2*repnum,))
    yvar = np.zeros(shape=(2*repnum,))
    cnt = -1
    last = y1[1]
    for loop in range(2,siz):
        if (last < 0)and(y1[loop] > 0):
            cnt = cnt+1
            del1 = -y1[loop-1]/(y1[loop] - y1[loop-1])
            py[cnt] = y4[loop-1] + del1*(y4[loop]-y4[loop-1])
            yvar[cnt] = y2[loop-1] + del1*(y2[loop]-y2[loop-1])
            last = y1[loop]
        else:
            last = y1[loop]
 
    plt.figure(3)
    lines = plt.plot(yvar,py,'o',ms=1)
    plt.show()
    
if model_case == 1:
    plt.savefig('Heiles')
else:
    plt.savefig('Crescent')
    

Networks, Synchronization and Emergence

A central paradigm of nonlinear science is the emergence of patterns and organized behavior from seemingly random interactions among underlying constituents.  Emergent phenomena are among the most awe inspiring topics in science.  Crystals are emergent, forming slowly from solutions of reagents.  Life is emergent, arising out of the chaotic soup of organic molecules on Earth (or on some distant planet).  Intelligence is emergent, and so is consciousness, arising from the interactions among billions of neurons.  Ecosystems are emergent, based on competition and symbiosis among species.  Economies are emergent, based on the transfer of goods and money spanning scales from the local bodega to the global economy.

One of the common underlying properties of emergence is the existence of networks of interactions.  Networks and network science are topics of great current interest driven by the rise of the World Wide Web and social networks.  But networks are ubiquitous and have long been the topic of research into complex and nonlinear systems.  Networks provide a scaffold for understanding many of the emergent systems.  It allows one to think of isolated elements, like molecules or neurons, that interact with many others, like the neighbors in a crystal or distant synaptic connections.

From the point of view of modern dynamics, the state of a node can be a variable or a “dimension” and the interactions among links define the functions of the vector flow equation.  Emergence is then something that “emerges” from the dynamical flow as many elements interact through complex networks to produce simple or emergent patterns.

Synchronization is a form of emergence that happens when lots of independent oscillators, each vibrating at their own personal frequency, are coupled together to push and pull on each other, entraining all the individual frequencies into one common global oscillation of the entire system.  Synchronization plays an important role in the solar system, explaining why the Moon always shows one face to the Earth, why Saturn’s rings have gaps, and why asteroids are mainly kept away from colliding with the Earth.  Synchronization plays an even more important function in biology where it coordinates the beating of the heart and the functioning of the brain.

One of the most dramatic examples of synchronization is the Kuramoto synchronization phase transition. This occurs when a large set of individual oscillators with differing natural frequencies interact with each other through a weak nonlinear coupling.  For small coupling, all the individual nodes oscillate at their own frequency.  But as the coupling increases, there is a sudden coalescence of all the frequencies into a single common frequency.  This mechanical phase transition, called the Kuramoto transition, has many of the properties of a thermodynamic phase transition, including a solution that utilizes mean field theory.

Fig. 3 The Kuramoto model for the nonlinear coupling of N simple phase oscillators. The term in light blue is the simple phase oscillator. The term in magenta is the global nonlinear coupling that connects each oscillator to every other.

The simulation of 20 Poncaré phase oscillators with global coupling is shown in Fig. 4 as a function of increasing coupling coefficient g. The original individual frequencies are spread randomly. The oscillators with similar frequencies are the first to synchronize, forming small clumps that then synchronize with other clumps of oscillators, until all oscillators are entrained to a single compromise frequency. The Kuramoto phase transition is not sharp in this case because the value of N = 20 is too small. If the simulation is run for 200 oscillators, there is a sudden transition from unsynchronized to synchronized oscillation at a threshold value of g.

Fig. 4 The Kuramoto model for 20 Poincare oscillators showing the frequencies as a function of the coupling coefficient.

The Kuramoto phase transition is one of the most important fundamental examples of modern dynamics because it illustrates many facets of nonlinear dynamics in a very simple way. It highlights the importance of nonlinearity, the simplification of phase oscillators, the use of mean field theory, the underlying structure of the network, and the example of a mechanical analog to a thermodynamic phase transition. It also has analytical solutions because of its simplicity, while still capturing the intrinsic complexity of nonlinear systems.

Kuramoto.py

#!/usr/bin/env python3
# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
"""
Created on Sat May 11 08:56:41 2019

@author: nolte

Derived from:
D. D. Nolte, Introduction to Modern Dynamics: Chaos, Networks, Space and Time, 2nd ed. (Oxford,2019)
"""

# https://www.python-course.eu/networkx.php
# https://networkx.github.io/documentation/stable/tutorial.html
# https://networkx.github.io/documentation/stable/reference/functions.html

import numpy as np
from scipy import integrate
from matplotlib import pyplot as plt
import networkx as nx
from UserFunction import linfit
import time

tstart = time.time()

plt.close('all')

Nfac = 20   # 25
N = 20      # 50
width = 0.2

# function: omegout, yout = coupleN(G)
def coupleN(G):

    # function: yd = flow_deriv(x_y)
    def flow_deriv(y,t0):
                
        yp = np.zeros(shape=(N,))
        for omloop  in range(N):
            temp = omega[omloop]
            linksz = G.node[omloop]['numlink']
            for cloop in range(linksz):
                cindex = G.node[omloop]['link'][cloop]
                g = G.node[omloop]['coupling'][cloop]

                temp = temp + g*np.sin(y[cindex]-y[omloop])
            
            yp[omloop] = temp
        
        yd = np.zeros(shape=(N,))
        for omloop in range(N):
            yd[omloop] = yp[omloop]
        
        return yd
    # end of function flow_deriv(x_y)

    mnomega = 1.0
    
    for nodeloop in range(N):
        omega[nodeloop] = G.node[nodeloop]['element']
    
    x_y_z = omega    
    
    # Settle-down Solve for the trajectories
    tsettle = 100
    t = np.linspace(0, tsettle, tsettle)
    x_t = integrate.odeint(flow_deriv, x_y_z, t)
    x0 = x_t[tsettle-1,0:N]
    
    t = np.linspace(1,1000,1000)
    y = integrate.odeint(flow_deriv, x0, t)
    siztmp = np.shape(y)
    sy = siztmp[0]
        
    # Fit the frequency
    m = np.zeros(shape = (N,))
    w = np.zeros(shape = (N,))
    mtmp = np.zeros(shape=(4,))
    btmp = np.zeros(shape=(4,))
    for omloop in range(N):
        
        if np.remainder(sy,4) == 0:
            mtmp[0],btmp[0] = linfit(t[0:sy//2],y[0:sy//2,omloop]);
            mtmp[1],btmp[1] = linfit(t[sy//2+1:sy],y[sy//2+1:sy,omloop]);
            mtmp[2],btmp[2] = linfit(t[sy//4+1:3*sy//4],y[sy//4+1:3*sy//4,omloop]);
            mtmp[3],btmp[3] = linfit(t,y[:,omloop]);
        else:
            sytmp = 4*np.floor(sy/4);
            mtmp[0],btmp[0] = linfit(t[0:sytmp//2],y[0:sytmp//2,omloop]);
            mtmp[1],btmp[1] = linfit(t[sytmp//2+1:sytmp],y[sytmp//2+1:sytmp,omloop]);
            mtmp[2],btmp[2] = linfit(t[sytmp//4+1:3*sytmp/4],y[sytmp//4+1:3*sytmp//4,omloop]);
            mtmp[3],btmp[3] = linfit(t[0:sytmp],y[0:sytmp,omloop]);

        
        #m[omloop] = np.median(mtmp)
        m[omloop] = np.mean(mtmp)
        
        w[omloop] = mnomega + m[omloop]
     
    omegout = m
    yout = y
    
    return omegout, yout
    # end of function: omegout, yout = coupleN(G)



Nlink = N*(N-1)//2      
omega = np.zeros(shape=(N,))
omegatemp = width*(np.random.rand(N)-1)
meanomega = np.mean(omegatemp)
omega = omegatemp - meanomega
sto = np.std(omega)

nodecouple = nx.complete_graph(N)

lnk = np.zeros(shape = (N,), dtype=int)
for loop in range(N):
    nodecouple.node[loop]['element'] = omega[loop]
    nodecouple.node[loop]['link'] = list(nx.neighbors(nodecouple,loop))
    nodecouple.node[loop]['numlink'] = np.size(list(nx.neighbors(nodecouple,loop)))
    lnk[loop] = np.size(list(nx.neighbors(nodecouple,loop)))

avgdegree = np.mean(lnk)
mnomega = 1

facval = np.zeros(shape = (Nfac,))
yy = np.zeros(shape=(Nfac,N))
xx = np.zeros(shape=(Nfac,))
for facloop in range(Nfac):
    print(facloop)
    facoef = 0.2

    fac = facoef*(16*facloop/(Nfac))*(1/(N-1))*sto/mnomega
    for nodeloop in range(N):
        nodecouple.node[nodeloop]['coupling'] = np.zeros(shape=(lnk[nodeloop],))
        for linkloop in range (lnk[nodeloop]):
            nodecouple.node[nodeloop]['coupling'][linkloop] = fac

    facval[facloop] = fac*avgdegree
    
    omegout, yout = coupleN(nodecouple)                           # Here is the subfunction call for the flow

    for omloop in range(N):
        yy[facloop,omloop] = omegout[omloop]

    xx[facloop] = facval[facloop]

plt.figure(1)
lines = plt.plot(xx,yy)
plt.setp(lines, linewidth=0.5)
plt.show()

elapsed_time = time.time() - tstart
print('elapsed time = ',format(elapsed_time,'.2f'),'secs')

The Web of Life

Ecosystems are among the most complex systems on Earth.  The complex interactions among hundreds or thousands of species may lead to steady homeostasis in some cases, to growth and collapse in other cases, and to oscillations or chaos in yet others.  But the definition of species can be broad and abstract, referring to businesses and markets in economic ecosystems, or to cliches and acquaintances in social ecosystems, among many other examples.  These systems are governed by the laws of evolutionary dynamics that include fitness and survival as well as adaptation.

The dimensionality of the dynamical spaces for these systems extends to hundreds or thousands of dimensions—far too complex to visualize when thinking in four dimensions is already challenging.  Yet there are shared principles and common behaviors that emerge even here.  Many of these can be illustrated in a simple three-dimensional system that is represented by a triangular simplex that can be easily visualized, and then generalized back to ultra-high dimensions once they are understood.

A simplex is a closed (N-1)-dimensional geometric figure that describes a zero-sum game (game theory is an integral part of evolutionary dynamics) among N competing species.  For instance, a two-simplex is a triangle that captures the dynamics among three species.  Each vertex of the triangle represents the situation when the entire ecosystem is composed of a single species.  Anywhere inside the triangle represents the situation when all three species are present and interacting.

A classic model of interacting species is the replicator equation. It allows for a fitness-based proliferation and for trade-offs among the individual species. The replicator dynamics equations are shown in Fig. 5.

Fig. 5 Replicator dynamics has a surprisingly simple form, but with surprisingly complicated behavior. The key elements are the fitness and the payoff matrix. The fitness relates to how likely the species will survive. The payoff matrix describes how one species gains at the loss of another (although symbiotic relationships also occur).

The population dynamics on the 2D simplex are shown in Fig. 6 for several different pay-off matrices. The matrix values are shown in color and help interpret the trajectories. For instance the simplex on the upper-right shows a fixed point center. This reflects the antisymmetric character of the pay-off matrix around the diagonal. The stable spiral on the lower-left has a nearly asymmetric pay-off matrix, but with unequal off-diagonal magnitudes. The other two cases show central saddle points with stable fixed points on the boundary. A very large variety of behaviors are possible for this very simple system. The Python program is shown in Trirep.py.

Fig. 6 Payoff matrix and population simplex for four random cases: Upper left is an unstable saddle. Upper right is a center. Lower left is a stable spiral. Lower right is a marginal case.

Trirep.py

#!/usr/bin/env python3
# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
"""
trirep.py
Created on Thu May  9 16:23:30 2019

@author: nolte

Derived from:
D. D. Nolte, Introduction to Modern Dynamics: Chaos, Networks, Space and Time, 2nd ed. (Oxford,2019)
"""

import numpy as np
from scipy import integrate
from matplotlib import pyplot as plt

plt.close('all')

def tripartite(x,y,z):

    sm = x + y + z
    xp = x/sm
    yp = y/sm
    
    f = np.sqrt(3)/2
    
    y0 = f*xp
    x0 = -0.5*xp - yp + 1;
    
    plt.figure(2)
    lines = plt.plot(x0,y0)
    plt.setp(lines, linewidth=0.5)
    plt.plot([0, 1],[0, 0],'k',linewidth=1)
    plt.plot([0, 0.5],[0, f],'k',linewidth=1)
    plt.plot([1, 0.5],[0, f],'k',linewidth=1)
    plt.show()
    

def solve_flow(y,tspan):
    def flow_deriv(y, t0):
    #"""Compute the time-derivative ."""
    
        f = np.zeros(shape=(N,))
        for iloop in range(N):
            ftemp = 0
            for jloop in range(N):
                ftemp = ftemp + A[iloop,jloop]*y[jloop]
            f[iloop] = ftemp
        
        phitemp = phi0          # Can adjust this from 0 to 1 to stabilize (but Nth population is no longer independent)
        for loop in range(N):
            phitemp = phitemp + f[loop]*y[loop]
        phi = phitemp
        
        yd = np.zeros(shape=(N,))
        for loop in range(N-1):
            yd[loop] = y[loop]*(f[loop] - phi);
        
        if np.abs(phi0) < 0.01:             # average fitness maintained at zero
            yd[N-1] = y[N-1]*(f[N-1]-phi);
        else:                                     # non-zero average fitness
            ydtemp = 0
            for loop in range(N-1):
                ydtemp = ydtemp - yd[loop]
            yd[N-1] = ydtemp
       
        return yd

    # Solve for the trajectories
    t = np.linspace(0, tspan, 701)
    x_t = integrate.odeint(flow_deriv,y,t)
    return t, x_t

# model_case 1 = zero diagonal
# model_case 2 = zero trace
# model_case 3 = asymmetric (zero trace)
print(' ')
print('trirep.py')
print('Case: 1 = antisymm zero diagonal')
print('Case: 2 = antisymm zero trace')
print('Case: 3 = random')
model_case = int(input('Enter the Model Case (1-3)'))

N = 3
asymm = 3      # 1 = zero diag (replicator eqn)   2 = zero trace (autocatylitic model)  3 = random (but zero trace)
phi0 = 0.001            # average fitness (positive number) damps oscillations
T = 100;


if model_case == 1:
    Atemp = np.zeros(shape=(N,N))
    for yloop in range(N):
        for xloop in range(yloop+1,N):
            Atemp[yloop,xloop] = 2*(0.5 - np.random.random(1))
            Atemp[xloop,yloop] = -Atemp[yloop,xloop]

if model_case == 2:
    Atemp = np.zeros(shape=(N,N))
    for yloop in range(N):
        for xloop in range(yloop+1,N):
            Atemp[yloop,xloop] = 2*(0.5 - np.random.random(1))
            Atemp[xloop,yloop] = -Atemp[yloop,xloop]
        Atemp[yloop,yloop] = 2*(0.5 - np.random.random(1))
    tr = np.trace(Atemp)
    A = Atemp
    for yloop in range(N):
        A[yloop,yloop] = Atemp[yloop,yloop] - tr/N
        
else:
    Atemp = np.zeros(shape=(N,N))
    for yloop in range(N):
        for xloop in range(N):
            Atemp[yloop,xloop] = 2*(0.5 - np.random.random(1))
        
    tr = np.trace(Atemp)
    A = Atemp
    for yloop in range(N):
        A[yloop,yloop] = Atemp[yloop,yloop] - tr/N

plt.figure(3)
im = plt.matshow(A,3,cmap=plt.cm.get_cmap('seismic'))  # hsv, seismic, bwr
cbar = im.figure.colorbar(im)

M = 20
delt = 1/M
ep = 0.01;

tempx = np.zeros(shape = (3,))
for xloop in range(M):
    tempx[0] = delt*(xloop)+ep;
    for yloop in range(M-xloop):
        tempx[1] = delt*yloop+ep
        tempx[2] = 1 - tempx[0] - tempx[1]
        
        x0 = tempx/np.sum(tempx);          # initial populations
        
        tspan = 70
        t, x_t = solve_flow(x0,tspan)
        
        y1 = x_t[:,0]
        y2 = x_t[:,1]
        y3 = x_t[:,2]
        
        plt.figure(1)
        lines = plt.plot(t,y1,t,y2,t,y3)
        plt.setp(lines, linewidth=0.5)
        plt.show()
        plt.ylabel('X Position')
        plt.xlabel('Time')

        tripartite(y1,y2,y3)

Topics in Modern Dynamics

These three examples are just the tip of the iceberg. The topics in modern dynamics are almost numberless. Any system that changes in time is a potential object of study in modern dynamics. Here is a list of a few topics that spring to mind.

Bibliography

D. D. Nolte, Introduction to Modern Dynamics: Chaos, Networks, Space and Time, 2nd Ed. (Oxford University Press, 2019) (The physics and the derivations of the equations for the examples in this blog can be found here.)

Publication Date for the Second Edition: November 18, 2019

D. D. Nolte, Galileo Unbound: A Path Across Life, the Universe and Everything (Oxford University Press, 2018) (The historical origins of the examples in this blog can be found here.)

George Stokes’ Law of Drag

The triumvirate of Cambridge University in the mid-1800’s consisted of three towering figures of mathematics and physics:  George Stokes (1819 – 1903), William Thomson (1824 – 1907) (Lord Kelvin), and James Clerk Maxwell (1831 – 1879).  Their discoveries and methodology changed the nature of natural philosophy, turning it into the subject that today we call physics.  Stokes was the elder, establishing himself as the predominant expert in British mathematical physics, setting the tone for his close friend Thomson (close in age and temperament) as well as the younger Maxwell and many other key figures of 19th century British physics.

            George Gabriel Stokes was born in County Sligo in Ireland as the youngest son of the rector of Skreen parish of the Church of Ireland.  No miraculous stories of his intellectual acumen seem to come from his childhood, as they did for the likes of William Hamilton (1805 – 1865) or George Green (1793 – 1841).  Stokes was a good student, attending school in Skreen, then Dublin and Bristol before entering Pembroke College Cambridge in 1837.  It was towards the end of his time at Cambridge that he emerged as a top mathematics student and as a candidate for Senior Wrangler.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Skreen_Church_-_geograph.org.uk_-_307483.jpg
Church of Ireland church in Skreen, County Sligo, Ireland

The Cambridge Wrangler

Since 1748, the mathematics course at Cambridge University has held a yearly contest to identify the top graduating mathematics student.  The winner of the contest is called the Senior Wrangler, and in the 1800’s the Senior Wrangler received a level of public fame and admiration for intellectual achievement that is somewhat like the fame reserved today for star athletes.  In 1824 the mathematics course was reorganized into the Mathematical Tripos, and the contest became known as the Tripos Exam.  The depth and length of the exam was legion.  For instance, in 1854 when Edward Routh (1831 – 1907) beat out Maxwell for Senior Wrangler, the Tripos consisted of 16 papers spread over 8 days, totaling over 40 hours for a total number of 211 questions.  The winner typically scored less than 50%.  Famous Senior Wranglers include George Airy, John Herschel, Arthur Cayley, Lord Rayleigh, Arthur Eddington, J. E. Littlewood, Peter Guthrie Tait and Joseph Larmor.

Pembroke College
Pembroke College, Cambridge

            In his second year at Cambridge, Stokes had begun studying under William Hopkins (1793 – 1866).  It was common for mathematics students to have private tutors to prep for the Tripos exam, and Tripos tutors were sometimes as famous as the Senior Wranglers themselves, especially if a tutor (like Hopkins) was to have several students win the exam.  George Stokes became Senior Wrangler in 1841, and the same year he won the Smith’s Prize in mathematics.  The Tripos tested primarily on bookwork, while the Smith’s Prize tested on originality.  To achieve top scores on both designated the student as the most capable and creative mathematician of his class.  Stokes was immediately offered a fellowship at Pembroke College allowing him to teach and study whatever he willed.

Part I of the Tripos Exam 1890.

            After Stokes graduated, Hopkins suggested that Stokes study hydrodynamics.  This may have been in part motivated by Hopkins’ own interest is hydraulic problems in geology, but it was also a prescient suggestion, because hydrodynamics was poised for a revolution.

The Early History of Hydrodynamics

Leonardo da Vinci (1452 – 1519) believed that an artist, to capture the essence of a subject, needed to understand its fundamental nature.  Therefore, when he was captivated by the idea of portraying the flow of water, he filled his notebooks with charcoal studies of the whorls and vortices of turbulent torrents and waterfalls.  He was a budding experimental physicist, recording data on the complex phenomenon of hydrodynamics.  Yet Leonardo was no mathematician, and although his understanding of turbulent flow was deep, he did not have the theoretical tools to explain what he saw.  Two centuries later, Daniel Bernoulli (1700 – 1782) provided the first mathematical description of water flowing smoothly in his Hydrodynamica (1738).  However, the modern language of calculus was only beginning to be used at that time, preventing Daniel from providing a rigorous derivation. 

            As for nearly all nascent mathematical theories of the mid 1700’s, whether they be Newtonian dynamics or the calculus of variations or number and graph theory or population dynamics or almost anything, the person who placed the theory on firm mathematical foundations, using modern notions and notations, was Leonhard Euler (1707 – 1783).  In 1752 Euler published a treatise that described the mathematical theory of inviscid flow—meaning flow without viscosity.  Euler’s chief results is

where ρ is the density, v is the velocity, p is pressure, z is the height of the fluid and φ is a velocity potential, while f(t) is a stream function that depends only on time.  If the flow is in steady state, the time derivative vanishes, and the stream function is a constant.  The key to the inviscid approximation is the dominance of momentum in fast flow, as opposed to creeping flow in which viscosity dominates.  Euler’s equation, which expresses the well-known Bernoulli principle, works well under fast laminar conditions, but under slower flow conditions, internal friction ruins the inviscid approximation.

            The violation of the inviscid flow approximation became one of the important outstanding problems in theoretical physics in the early 1800’s.  For instance, the flow of water around ship’s hulls was a key technological problem in the strategic need for speed under sail.  In addition, understanding the creation and propagation of water waves was critical for the safety of ships at sea.  For the growing empire of the British islands, built on the power of their navy, the physics of hydrodynamics was more than an academic pursuit, and their archenemy, the French, were leading the way.

The French Analysts

In 1713 when Newton won his priority dispute with Leibniz over the invention of calculus, it had the unintended consequence of setting back British mathematics and physics for over a hundred years.  Perhaps lulled into complacency by their perceived superiority, Cambridge and Oxford continued teaching classical mathematics, and natural philosophy became dogmatic as Newton’s in Principia became canon.  Meanwhile Continental mathematical analysis went through a fundamental transformation.  Inspired by Newton’s Principia rather than revering it, mathematicians such as the Swiss-German Leonhard Euler, the Frenchwoman Emile du Chatelet and the Italian Joseph Lagrange pushed mathematical physics far beyond Newton by developing Leibniz’ methods and notations for calculus.

The matematicians Newton, Navier and Stokes

            By the early 1800’s, the leading mathematicians of Europe were in the French school led by Pierre-Simon Laplace along with Joseph Fourier, Siméon Denis Poisson and Augustin-Louis Cauchy.  In their hands, functional analysis was going through rapid development, both theoretically and applied, far surpassing British mathematics.  It was by reading the French analysts in the 1820’s that the Englishman George Green finally helped bring British mathematics back up to speed.

            One member of the French school was the French engineer Claude-Louis Navier (1785 – 1836).  He was educated at the Ecole Polytechnique and the School for Roads and Bridges where he became one of the leading architects for bridges in France.  In addition to his engineering tasks, he also was involved in developing principles of work and kinetic energy that aided the later work of Coriolis, who was one of the first physicists to recognize the explicit interplay between kinetic energy and potential energy.  One of Navier’s specialties was hydraulic engineering, and he edited a new edition of a classic work on hydraulics.  In the process, he became aware of serious deficiencies in the theoretical treatment of creeping flow, especially with regards to dissipation.  By adopting a molecular approach championed by Poisson, including appropriate boundary conditions, he derived a correction to the Euler flow equations that included a new term with a new material property of viscosity

Navier-Stokes Equation

Navier published his new flow equation in 1823, but the publication was followed by years of nasty in-fighting as his assumptions were assaulted by Poisson and others.  This acrimony is partly to blame for why Navier was not hailed alone as the discoverer of this equation, which today bears the name “Navier-Stokes Equation”.

Stokes’ Hydrodynamics

Despite the lead of the French mathematicians over the British in mathematical rigor, they were also bogged down by their insistence on mechanistic models that operated on the microscale action-reaction forces.  This was true for their theories of elasticity, hydrodynamics as well as the luminiferous ether.  George Green in England would change this.  While Green was inspired by French mathematics, he made an important shift in thinking in which the fields became the quantities of interest rather than molecular forces.  Differential equations describing macroscale phenomena could be “true” independently of any microscale mechanics.  His theories on elasticity and light propagation relied on no underlying structure of matter or ether.  Underlying models could change, but the differential equations remained true.  Maxwell’s equations, a pinnacle of 19th-century British mathematical physics, were field equations that required no microscopic models, although Maxwell and others later tried to devise models of the ether.

            George Stokes admired Green and adopted his mathematics and outlook on natural philosophy.  When he turned his attention to hydrodynamic flow, he adopted a continuum approach that initially did not rely on molecular interactions to explain viscosity and drag.  He replicated Navier’s results, but this time without relying on any underlying microscale physics.  Yet this only took him so far.  To explain some of the essential features of fluid pressures he had to revert to microscopic arguments of isotropy to explain why displacements were linear and why flow at a boundary ceased.  However, once these functional dependences were set, the remainder of the problem was pure continuum mechanics, establishing the Navier-Stokes equation for incompressible flow.  Stokes went on to apply no-slip boundary conditions for fluids flowing through pipes of different geometric cross sections to calculate flow rates as well as pressure drops along the pipe caused by viscous drag.

            Stokes then turned to experimental results to explain why a pendulum slowly oscillating in air lost amplitude due to dissipation.  He reasoned that when the flow of air around the pendulum bob and stiff rod was slow enough the inertial effects would be negligible, simplifying the Navier-Stokes equation.  He calculated the drag force on a spherical object moving slowly through a viscous liquid and obtained the now famous law known as Stokes’ Law of Drag

in which the drag force increases linearly with speed and is proportional to viscosity.  With dramatic flair, he used his new law to explain why water droplets in clouds float buoyantly until they become big enough to fall as rain.

The Lucasian Chair of Mathematics

There are rare individuals who become especially respected for the breadth and depth of their knowledge.  In our time, already somewhat past, Steven Hawking embodied the ideal of the eminent (almost clairvoyant) scientist pushing his field to the extremes with the deepest understanding, while also being one of the most famous science popularizers of his day as well as an important chronicler of the history of physics.  In his own time, Stokes was held in virtually the same level of esteem. 

            Just as Steven Hawking and Isaac Newton held the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge, Stokes became the Lucasian chair in 1849 and held the chair until his death in 1903.  He was offered the chair in part because of the prestige he held as first wrangler and Smith’s prize winner, but also because of his imposing grasp of the central fields of his time. The Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge is one of the most famous academic chairs in the world.  It was established by Charles II in 1664, and the first Lucasian professor was Isaac Barrow followed by Isaac Newton who held the post for 33 years.  Other famous Lucasian professors were Airy, Babbage, Larmor, Dirac as well as Hawking.  During his tenure, Stokes made central contributions to hydrodynamics (as we have seen), but also the elasticity of solids, the behavior of waves in elastic solids, the diffraction of light, problems in light, gravity, sound, heat, meteorology, solar physics, and chemistry.  Perhaps his most famous contribution was his explanation of fluorescence, for which he won the Rumford Medal.  Certainly, if the Nobel Prize had existed in his time, he would have been a Nobel Laureate.

Derivation of Stokes’ Law

The flow field of an incompressible fluid around a smooth spherical object has zero divergence and satisfies Laplace’s equation.  This allows the stream velocities to take the form in spherical coordinates

where the velocity components are defined in terms of the stream function ψ.   The partial derivatives of pressure satisfy the equations

where the second-order operator is

The vanishing of the Laplacian of the stream function

allows the function to take the form

The no-slip boundary condition on the surface of the sphere, as well as the asymptotic velocity field far from the sphere taking the form v•cosθ  gives the solution

Using this expression in the first equations yields the velocities, pressure and shear

The force on the sphere is obtained by integrating the pressure and the shear stress over the surface of the sphere.  The two contributions are

Adding these together gives the final expression for Stokes’ Law

where two thirds of the force is caused by the shear stress and one third by the pressure.

Stokes flow around a sphere. On the left is the pressure. On the right is the y-component of the flow velocity.

Stokes Timeline

  • 1819 – Born County Sligo Parish of Skreen
  • 1837 – Entered Pembroke College Cambridge
  • 1841 – Graduation, Senior Wrangler, Smith’s Prize, Fellow of Pembroke
  • 1845 – Viscosity
  • 1845 – Viscoelastic solid and the luminiferous ether
  • 1845 – Ether drag
  • 1846 – Review of hydrodynamics (including French references)
  • 1847 – Water waves
  • 1847 – Expansion in periodic series (Fourier)
  • 1848 – Jelly theory of the ether
  • 1849 – Lucasian Professorship Cambridge
  • 1849 – Geodesy and Clairaut’s theorem
  • 1849 – Dynamical theory of diffraction
  • 1850 – Damped pendulum, explanation of clouds (water droplets)
  • 1850 – Haidinger’s brushes
  • 1850 – Letter from Kelvin (Thomson) to Stokes on a theorem in vector calculus
  • 1852 – Stokes’ 4 polarization parameters
  • 1852 – Fluorescence and Rumford medal
  • 1854 – Stokes sets “Stokes theorem” for the Smith’s Prize Exam
  • 1857 – Marries
  • 1857 – Effect of wind on sound intensity
  • 1861 – Hankel publishes “Stokes theorem”
  • 1880 – Form of highest waves
  • 1885 – President of Royal Society
  • 1887 – Member of Parliament
  • 1889 – Knighted as baronet by Queen Victoria
  • 1893 – Copley Medal
  • 1903 – Dies
  • 1945 – Cartan establishes modern form of Stokes’ theorem using differential forms

Further Reading

Darrigol, O., Worlds of flow : A history of hydrodynamics from the Bernoullis to Prandtl. (Oxford University Press: Oxford 2005.) This is an excellent technical history of hydrodynamics.

How Number Theory Protects You from the Chaos of the Cosmos

We are exceedingly fortunate that the Earth lies in the Goldilocks zone.  This zone is the range of orbital radii of a planet around its sun for which water can exist in a liquid state.  Water is the universal solvent, and it may be a prerequisite for the evolution of life.  If we were too close to the sun, water would evaporate as steam.  And if we are too far, then it would be locked in perpetual ice.  As it is, the Earth has had wild swings in its surface temperature.  There was once a time, more than 650 million years ago, when the entire Earth’s surface froze over.  Fortunately, the liquid oceans remained liquid, and life that already existed on Earth was able to persist long enough to get to the Cambrian explosion.  Conversely, Venus may once have had liquid oceans and maybe even nascent life, but too much carbon dioxide turned the planet into an oven and boiled away its water (a fate that may await our own Earth if we aren’t careful).  What has saved us so far is the stability of our orbit, our steady distance from the Sun that keeps our water liquid and life flourishing.  Yet it did not have to be this way. 

The regions of regular motion associated with irrational numbers act as if they were a barrier, restricting the range of chaotic orbits and protecting other nearby orbits from the chaos.

Our solar system is a many-body problem.  It consists of three large gravitating bodies (Sun, Jupiter, Saturn) and several minor ones (such as Earth).   Jupiter does influence our orbit, and if it were only a few times more massive than it actually is, then our orbit would become chaotic, varying in distance from the sun in unpredictable ways.  And if Jupiter were only about 20 times bigger than is actually is, there is a possibility that it would perturb the Earth’s orbit so strongly that it could eject the Earth from the solar system entirely, sending us flying through interstellar space, where we would slowly cool until we became a permanent ice ball.  What can protect us from this terrifying fate?  What keeps our orbit stable despite the fact that we inhabit a many-body solar system?  The answer is number theory!

The Most Irrational Number

What is the most irrational number you can think of? 

Is it: pi = 3.1415926535897932384626433 ? 

Or Euler’s constant: e = 2.7182818284590452353602874 ?

How about: sqrt(3) = 1.73205080756887729352744634 ?

These are all perfectly good irrational numbers.  But how do you choose the “most irrational” number?  The answer is fairly simple.  The most irrational number is the one that is least well approximated by a ratio of integers.  For instance, it is possible to get close to pi through the ratio 22/7 = 3.1428 which differs from pi by only 4 parts in ten thousand.  Or Euler’s constant 87/32 = 2.7188 differs from e by only 2 parts in ten thousand.  Yet 87 and 32 are much bigger than 22 and 7, so it may be said that e is more irrational than pi, because it takes ratios of larger integers to get a good approximation.  So is there a “most irrational” number?  The answer is yes.  The Golden Ratio.

The Golden ratio can be defined in many ways, but its most common expression is given by

It is the hardest number to approximate with a ratio of small integers.  For instance, to get a number that is as close as one part in ten thousand to the golden mean takes the ratio 89/55.  This result may seem obscure, but there is a systematic way to find the ratios of integers that approximate an irrational number. This is known as a convergent from continued fractions.

Continued fractions were invented by John Wallis in 1695, introduced in his book Opera Mathematica.  The continued fraction for pi is

An alternate form of displaying this continued fraction is with the expression

The irrational character of pi is captured by the seemingly random integers in this string. However, there can be regular structure in irrational numbers. For instance, a different continued fraction for pi is

that has a surprisingly simple repeating pattern.

The continued fraction for the golden mean has an especially simple repeating form

or

This continued fraction has the slowest convergence for its continued fraction of any other number. Hence, the Golden Ratio can be considered, using this criterion, to be the most irrational number.

If the Golden Ratio is the most irrational number, how does that save us from the chaos of the cosmos? The answer to this question is KAM!

Kolmogorov, Arnold and Moser: (KAM) Theory

KAM is an acronym made from the first initials of three towering mathematicians of the 20th century: Andrey Kolmogorov (1903 – 1987), his student Vladimir Arnold (1937 – 2010), and Jürgen Moser (1928 – 1999).

In 1954, Kolmogorov, considered to be the greatest living mathematician at that time, was invited to give the plenary lecture at a mathematics conference. To the surprise of the conference organizers, he chose to talk on what seemed like a very mundane topic: the question of the stability of the solar system. This had been the topic which Poincaré had attempted to solve in 1890 when he first stumbled on chaotic dynamics. The question had remained open, but the general consensus was that the many-body nature of the solar system made it intrinsically unstable, even for only three bodies.

Against all expectations, Kolmogorov proposed that despite the general chaotic behavior of the three–body problem, there could be “islands of stability” which were protected from chaos, allowing some orbits to remain regular even while other nearby orbits were highly chaotic. He even outlined an approach to a proof of his conjecture, though he had not carried it through to completion.

The proof of Kolmogorov’s conjecture was supplied over the next 10 years through the work of the German mathematician Jürgen Moser and by Kolmogorov’s former student Vladimir Arnold. The proof hinged on the successive ratios of integers that approximate irrational numbers. With this work KAM showed that indeed some orbits are actually protected from neighboring chaos by relying on the irrationality of the ratio of orbital periods.

Resonant Ratios

Let’s go back to the simple model of our solar system that consists of only three bodies: the Sun, Jupiter and Earth. The period of Jupiter’s orbit is 11.86 years, but instead, if it were exactly 12 years, then its period would be in a 12:1 ratio with the Earth’s period. This ratio of integers is called a “resonance”, although in this case it is fairly mismatched. But if this ratio were a ratio of small integers like 5:3, then it means that Jupiter would travel around the sun 5 times in 15 years while the Earth went around 3 times. And every 15 years, the two planets would align. This kind of resonance with ratios of small integers creates a strong gravitational perturbation that alters the orbit of the smaller planet. If the perturbation is strong enough, it could disrupt the Earth’s orbit, creating a chaotic path that might ultimately eject the Earth completely from the solar system.

What KAM discovered is that as the resonance ratio becomes a ratio of large integers, like 87:32, then the planets have a hard time aligning, and the perturbation remains small. A surprising part of this theory is that a nearby orbital ratio might be 5:2 = 1.5, which is only a little different than 87:32 = 1.7. Yet the 5:2 resonance can produce strong chaos, while the 87:32 resonance is almost immune. This way, it is possible to have both chaotic orbits and regular orbits coexisting in the same dynamical system. An irrational orbital ratio protects the regular orbits from chaos. The next question is, how irrational does the orbital ratio need to be to guarantee safety?

You probably already guessed the answer to this question–the answer must be the Golden Ratio. If this is indeed the most irrational number, then it cannot be approximated very well with ratios of small integers, and this is indeed the case. In a three-body system, the most stable orbital ratio would be a ratio of 1.618034. But the more general question of what is “irrational enough” for an orbit to be stable against a given perturbation is much harder to answer. This is the field of Diophantine Analysis, which addresses other questions as well, such as Fermat’s Last Theorem.

KAM Twist Map

The dynamics of three-body systems are hard to visualize directly, so there are tricks that help bring the problem into perspective. The first trick, invented by Henri Poincaré, is called the first return map (or the Poincaré section). This is a way of reducing the dimensionality of the problem by one dimension. But for three bodies, even if they are all in a plane, this still can be complicated. Another trick, called the restricted three-body problem, is to assume that there are two large masses and a third small mass. This way, the dynamics of the two-body system is unaffected by the small mass, so all we need to do is focus on the dynamics of the small body. This brings the dynamics down to two dimensions (the position and momentum of the third body), which is very convenient for visualization, but the dynamics still need solutions to differential equations. So the final trick is to replace the differential equations with simple difference equations that are solved iteratively.

A simple discrete iterative map that captures the essential behavior of the three-body problem begins with action-angle variables that are coupled through a perturbation. Variations on this model have several names: the Twist Map, the Chirikov Map and the Standard Map. The essential mapping is

where J is an action variable (like angular momentum) paired with the angle variable. Initial conditions for the action and the angle are selected, and then all later values are obtained by iteration. The perturbation parameter is given by ε. If ε = 0 then all orbits are perfectly regular and circular. But as the perturbation increases, the open orbits split up into chains of closed (periodic) orbits. As the perturbation increases further, chaotic behavior emerges. The situation for ε = 0.9 is shown in the figure below. There are many regular periodic orbits as well as open orbits. Yet there are simultaneously regions of chaotic behavior. This figure shows an intermediate case where regular orbits can coexist with chaotic ones. The key is the orbital period ratio. For orbital ratios that are sufficiently irrational, the orbits remain open and regular. Bur for orbital ratios that are ratios of small integers, the perturbation is strong enough to drive the dynamics into chaos.

Arnold Twist Map (also known as a Chirikov map) for ε = 0.9 showing the chaos that has emerged at the hyperbolic point, but there are still open orbits that are surprisingly circular (unperturbed) despite the presence of strongly chaotic orbits nearby.

Python Code

#!/usr/bin/env python3
# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
"""
Created on Wed Oct. 2, 2019
@author: nolte
"""
import numpy as np
from scipy import integrate
from matplotlib import pyplot as plt
plt.close('all')

eps = 0.9

np.random.seed(2)
plt.figure(1)
for eloop in range(0,50):

    rlast = np.pi*(1.5*np.random.random()-0.5)
    thlast = 2*np.pi*np.random.random()

    orbit = np.int(200*(rlast+np.pi/2))
    rplot = np.zeros(shape=(orbit,))
    thetaplot = np.zeros(shape=(orbit,))
    x = np.zeros(shape=(orbit,))
    y = np.zeros(shape=(orbit,))    
    for loop in range(0,orbit):
        rnew = rlast + eps*np.sin(thlast)
        thnew = np.mod(thlast+rnew,2*np.pi)
        
        rplot[loop] = rnew
        thetaplot[loop] = np.mod(thnew-np.pi,2*np.pi) - np.pi            
          
        rlast = rnew
        thlast = thnew
        
        x[loop] = (rnew+np.pi+0.25)*np.cos(thnew)
        y[loop] = (rnew+np.pi+0.25)*np.sin(thnew)
        
    plt.plot(x,y,'o',ms=1)

plt.savefig('StandMapTwist')

The twist map for three values of ε are shown in the figure below. For ε = 0.2, most orbits are open, with one elliptic point and its associated hyperbolic point. At ε = 0.9 the periodic elliptic point is still stable, but the hyperbolic point has generated a region of chaotic orbits. There is still a remnant open orbit that is associated with an orbital period ratio at the Golden Ratio. However, by ε = 0.97, even this most stable orbit has broken up into a chain of closed orbits as the chaotic regions expand.

Twist map for three levels of perturbation.

Safety in Numbers

In our solar system, governed by gravitational attractions, the square of the orbital period increases as the cube of the average radius (Kepler’s third law). Consider the restricted three-body problem of the Sun and Jupiter with the Earth as the third body. If we analyze the stability of the Earth’s orbit as a function of distance from the Sun, the orbital ratio relative to Jupiter would change smoothly. Near our current position, it would be in a 12:1 resonance, but as we moved farther from the Sun, this ratio would decrease. When the orbital period ratio is sufficiently irrational, then the orbit would be immune to Jupiter’s pull. But as the orbital ratio approaches ratios of integers, the effect gets larger. Close enough to Jupiter there would be a succession of radii that had regular motion separated by regions of chaotic motion. The regions of regular motion associated with irrational numbers act as if they were a barrier, restricting the range of chaotic orbits and protecting more distant orbits from the chaos. In this way numbers, rational versus irrational, protect us from the chaos of our own solar system.

A dramatic demonstration of the orbital resonance effect can be seen with the asteroid belt. The many small bodies act as probes of the orbital resonances. The repetitive tug of Jupiter opens gaps in the distribution of asteroid radii, with major gaps, called Kirkwood Gaps, opening at orbital ratios of 3:1, 5:2, 7:3 and 2:1. These gaps are the radii where chaotic behavior occurs, while the regions in between are stable. Most asteroids spend most of their time in the stable regions, because chaotic motion tends to sweep them out of the regions of resonance. This mechanism for the Kirkwood gaps is the same physics that produces gaps in the rings of Saturn at resonances with the many moons of Saturn.

The gaps in the asteroid distributions caused by orbital resonances with Jupiter. Ref. Wikipedia

Further Reading

For a detailed history of the development of KAM theory, see Chapter 9 Butterflies to Hurricanes in Galileo Unbound (Oxford University Press, 2018).

For a more detailed mathematical description of the KAM theory, see Chapter 5, Hamiltonian Chaos, in Introduction to Modern Dynamics, 2nd edition (Oxford University Press, 2019).

See also:

Dumas, H. S., The KAM Story: A friendly introduction to the content, history and significance of Classical Kolmogorov-Arnold-Moser Theory. World Scientific: 2014.

Arnold, V. I., From superpositions to KAM theory. Vladimir Igorevich Arnold. Selected Papers 1997, PHASIS, 60, 727–740.

Science 1916: A Hundred-year Time Capsule

In one of my previous blog posts, as I was searching for Schwarzschild’s original papers on Einstein’s field equations and quantum theory, I obtained a copy of the January 1916 – June 1916 volume of the Proceedings of the Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences through interlibrary loan.  The extremely thick volume arrived at Purdue about a week after I ordered it online.  It arrived from Oberlin College in Ohio that had received it as a gift in 1928 from the library of Professor Friedrich Loofs of the University of Halle in Germany.  Loofs had been the Haskell Lecturer at Oberlin for the 1911-1912 semesters. 

As I browsed through the volume looking for Schwarzschild’s papers, I was amused to find a cornucopia of turn-of-the-century science topics recorded in its pages.  There were papers on the overbite and lips of marsupials.  There were papers on forgotten languages.  There were papers on ancient Greek texts.  On the origins of religion.  On the philosophy of abstraction.  Histories of Indian dramas.  Reflections on cancer.  But what I found most amazing was a snapshot of the field of physics and mathematics in 1916, with historic papers by historic scientists who changed how we view the world. Here is a snapshot in time and in space, a period of only six months from a single journal, containing papers from authors that reads like a who’s who of physics.

In 1916 there were three major centers of science in the world with leading science publications: London with the Philosophical Magazine and Proceedings of the Royal Society; Paris with the Comptes Rendus of the Académie des Sciences; and Berlin with the Proceedings of the Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences and Annalen der Physik. In Russia, there were the scientific Journals of St. Petersburg, but the Bolshevik Revolution was brewing that would overwhelm that country for decades.  And in 1916 the academic life of the United States was barely worth noticing except for a few points of light at Yale and Johns Hopkins. 

Berlin in 1916 was embroiled in war, but science proceeded relatively unmolested.  The six-month volume of the Proceedings of the Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences contains a number of gems.  Schwarzschild was one of the most prolific contributors, publishing three papers in just this half-year volume, plus his obituary written by Einstein.  But joining Schwarzschild in this volume were Einstein, Planck, Born, Warburg, Frobenious, and Rubens among others—a pantheon of German scientists mostly cut off from the rest of the world at that time, but single-mindedly following their individual threads woven deep into the fabric of the physical world.

Karl Schwarzschild (1873 – 1916)

Schwarzschild had the unenviable yet effective motivation of his impending death to spur him to complete several projects that he must have known would make his name immortal.  In this six-month volume he published his three most important papers.  The first (pg. 189) was on the exact solution to Einstein’s field equations to general relativity.  The solution was for the restricted case of a point mass, yet the derivation yielded the Schwarzschild radius that later became known as the event horizon of a non-roatating black hole.  The second paper (pg. 424) expanded the general relativity solutions to a spherically symmetric incompressible liquid mass. 

Schwarzschild’s solution to Einstein’s field equations for a point mass.

          

Schwarzschild’s extension of the field equation solutions to a finite incompressible fluid.

The subject, content and success of these two papers was wholly unexpected from this observational astronomer stationed on the Russian Front during WWI calculating trajectories for German bombardments.  He would not have been considered a theoretical physicist but for the importance of his results and the sophistication of his methods.  Within only a year after Einstein published his general theory, based as it was on the complicated tensor calculus of Levi-Civita, Christoffel and Ricci-Curbastro that had taken him years to master, Schwarzschild found a solution that evaded even Einstein.

Schwarzschild’s third and final paper (pg. 548) was on an entirely different topic, still not in his official field of astronomy, that positioned all future theoretical work in quantum physics to be phrased in the language of Hamiltonian dynamics and phase space.  He proved that action-angle coordinates were the only acceptable canonical coordinates to be used when quantizing dynamical systems.  This paper answered a central question that had been nagging Bohr and Einstein and Ehrenfest for years—how to quantize dynamical coordinates.  Despite the simple way that Bohr’s quantized hydrogen atom is taught in modern physics, there was an ambiguity in the quantization conditions even for this simple single-electron atom.  The ambiguity arose from the numerous possible canonical coordinate transformations that were admissible, yet which led to different forms of quantized motion. 

Schwarzschild’s proposal of action-angle variables for quantization of dynamical systems.

 Schwarzschild’s doctoral thesis had been a theoretical topic in astrophysics that applied the celestial mechanics theories of Henri Poincaré to binary star systems.  Within Poincaré’s theory were integral invariants that were conserved quantities of the motion.  When a dynamical system had as many constraints as degrees of freedom, then every coordinate had an integral invariant.  In this unexpected last paper from Schwarzschild, he showed how canonical transformation to action-angle coordinates produced a unique representation in terms of action variables (whose dimensions are the same as Planck’s constant).  These action coordinates, with their associated cyclical angle variables, are the only unambiguous representations that can be quantized.  The important points of this paper were amplified a few months later in a publication by Schwarzschild’s friend Paul Epstein (1871 – 1939), solidifying this approach to quantum mechanics.  Paul Ehrenfest (1880 – 1933) continued this work later in 1916 by defining adiabatic invariants whose quantum numbers remain unchanged under slowly varying conditions, and the program started by Schwarzschild was definitively completed by Paul Dirac (1902 – 1984) at the dawn of quantum mechanics in Göttingen in 1925.

Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955)

In 1916 Einstein was mopping up after publishing his definitive field equations of general relativity the year before.  His interests were still cast wide, not restricted only to this latest project.  In the 1916 Jan. to June volume of the Prussian Academy Einstein published two papers.  Each is remarkably short relative to the other papers in the volume, yet the importance of the papers may stand in inverse proportion to their length.

The first paper (pg. 184) is placed right before Schwarzschild’s first paper on February 3.  The subject of the paper is the expression of Maxwell’s equations in four-dimensional space time.  It is notable and ironic that Einstein mentions Hermann Minkowski (1864 – 1909) in the first sentence of the paper.  When Minkowski proposed his bold structure of spacetime in 1908, Einstein had been one of his harshest critics, writing letters to the editor about the absurdity of thinking of space and time as a single interchangeable coordinate system.  This is ironic, because Einstein today is perhaps best known for the special relativity properties of spacetime, yet he was slow to adopt the spacetime viewpoint. Einstein only came around to spacetime when he realized around 1910 that a general approach to relativity required the mathematical structure of tensor manifolds, and Minkowski had provided just such a manifold—the pseudo-Riemannian manifold of space time.  Einstein subsequently adopted spacetime with a passion and became its greatest champion, calling out Minkowski where possible to give him his due, although he had already died tragically of a burst appendix in 1909.

Relativistic energy density of electromagnetic fields.

The importance of Einstein’s paper hinges on his derivation of the electromagnetic field energy density using electromagnetic four vectors.  The energy density is part of the source term for his general relativity field equations.  Any form of energy density can warp spacetime, including electromagnetic field energy.  Furthermore, the Einstein field equations of general relativity are nonlinear as gravitational fields modify space and space modifies electromagnetic fields, producing a coupling between gravity and electromagnetism.  This coupling is implicit in the case of the bending of light by gravity, but Einstein’s paper from 1916 makes the connection explicit. 

Einstein’s second paper (pg. 688) is even shorter and hence one of the most daring publications of his career.  Because the field equations of general relativity are nonlinear, they are not easy to solve exactly, and Einstein was exploring approximate solutions under conditions of slow speeds and weak fields.  In this “non-relativistic” limit the metric tensor separates into a Minkowski metric as a background on which a small metric perturbation remains.  This small perturbation has the properties of a wave equation for a disturbance of the gravitational field that propagates at the speed of light.  Hence, in the June 22 issue of the Prussian Academy in 1916, Einstein predicts the existence and the properties of gravitational waves.  Exactly one hundred years later in 2016, the LIGO collaboration announced the detection of gravitational waves generated by the merger of two black holes.

Einstein’s weak-field low-velocity approximation solutions of his field equations.
Einstein’s prediction of gravitational waves.

Max Planck (1858 – 1947)

Max Planck was active as the secretary of the Prussian Academy in 1916 yet was still fully active in his research.  Although he had launched the quantum revolution with his quantum hypothesis of 1900, he was not a major proponent of quantum theory even as late as 1916.  His primary interests lay in thermodynamics and the origins of entropy, following the theoretical approaches of Ludwig Boltzmann (1844 – 1906).  In 1916 he was interested in how to best partition phase space as a way to count states and calculate entropy from first principles.  His paper in the 1916 volume (pg. 653) calculated the entropy for single-atom solids.

Counting microstates by Planck.

Max Born (1882 – 1970)

Max Born was to be one of the leading champions of the quantum mechanical revolution based at the University of Göttingen in the 1920’s. But in 1916 he was on leave from the University of Berlin working on ranging for artillery.  Yet he still pursued his academic interests, like Schwarzschild.  On pg. 614 in the Proceedings of the Prussian Academy, Born published a paper on anisotropic liquids, such as liquid crystals and the effect of electric fields on them.  It is astonishing to think that so many of the flat-panel displays we have today, whether on our watches or smart phones, are technological descendants of work by Born at the beginning of his career.

Born on liquid crystals.

Ferdinand Frobenius (1849 – 1917)

Like Schwarzschild, Frobenius was at the end of his career in 1916 and would pass away one year later, but unlike Schwarzschild, his career had been a long one, receiving his doctorate under Weierstrass and exploring elliptic functions, differential equations, number theory and group theory.  One of the papers that established him in group theory appears in the May 4th issue on page 542 where he explores the series expansion of a group.

Frobenious on groups.

Heinrich Rubens (1865 – 1922)

Max Planck owed his quantum breakthrough in part to the exquisitely accurate experimental measurements made by Heinrich Rubens on black body radiation.  It was only by the precise shape of what came to be called the Planck spectrum that Planck could say with such confidence that his theory of quantized radiation interactions fit Rubens spectrum so perfectly.  In 1916 Rubens was at the University of Berlin, having taken the position vacated by Paul Drude in 1906.  He was a specialist in infrared spectroscopy, and on page 167 of the Proceedings he describes the spectrum of steam and its consequences for the quantum theory.

Rubens and the infrared spectrum of steam.

Emil Warburg (1946 – 1931)

Emil Warburg’s fame is primarily as the father of Otto Warburg who won the 1931 Nobel prize in physiology.  On page 314 Warburg reports on photochemical processes in BrH gases.     In an obscure and very indirect way, I am an academic descendant of Emil Warburg.  One of his students was Robert Pohl who was a famous early researcher in solid state physics, sometimes called the “father of solid state physics”.  Pohl was at the physics department in Göttingen in the 1920’s along with Born and Franck during the golden age of quantum mechanics.  Robert Pohl’s son, Robert Otto Pohl, was my professor when I was a sophomore at Cornell University in 1978 for the course on introductory electromagnetism using a textbook by the Nobel laureate Edward Purcell, a quirky volume of the Berkeley Series of physics textbooks.  This makes Emil Warburg my professor’s father’s professor.

Warburg on photochemistry.

Papers in the 1916 Vol. 1 of the Prussian Academy of Sciences

Schulze,  Alt– und Neuindisches

Orth,  Zur Frage nach den Beziehungen des Alkoholismus zur Tuberkulose

Schulze,  Die Erhabunen auf der Lippin- und Wangenschleimhaut der Säugetiere

von Wilamwitz-Moellendorff, Die Samie des Menandros

Engler,  Bericht über das >>Pflanzenreich<<

von Harnack,  Bericht über die Ausgabe der griechischen Kirchenväter der dri ersten Jahrhunderte

Meinecke,  Germanischer und romanischer Geist im Wandel der deutschen Geschichtsauffassung

Rubens und Hettner,  Das langwellige Wasserdampfspektrum und seine Deutung durch die Quantentheorie

Einstein,  Eine neue formale Deutung der Maxwellschen Feldgleichungen der Electrodynamic

Schwarschild,  Über das Gravitationsfeld eines Massenpunktes nach der Einsteinschen Theorie

Helmreich,  Handschriftliche Verbesserungen zu dem Hippokratesglossar des Galen

Prager,  Über die Periode des veränderlichen Sterns RR Lyrae

Holl,  Die Zeitfolge des ersten origenistischen Streits

Lüders,  Zu den Upanisads. I. Die Samvargavidya

Warburg,  Über den Energieumsatz bei photochemischen Vorgängen in Gasen. VI.

Hellman,  Über die ägyptischen Witterungsangaben im Kalender von Claudius Ptolemaeus

Meyer-Lübke,  Die Diphthonge im Provenzaslischen

Diels,  Über die Schrift Antipocras des Nikolaus von Polen

Müller und Sieg,  Maitrisimit und >>Tocharisch<<

Meyer,  Ein altirischer Heilsegen

Schwarzschild,  Über das Gravitationasfeld einer Kugel aus inkompressibler Flüssigkeit nach der Einsteinschen Theorie

Brauer,  Die Verbreitung der Hyracoiden

Correns,  Untersuchungen über Geschlechtsbestimmung bei Distelarten

Brahn,  Weitere Untersuchungen über Fermente in der Lever von Krebskranken

Erdmann,  Methodologische Konsequenzen aus der Theorie der Abstraktion

Bang,  Studien zur vergleichenden Grammatik der Türksprachen. I.

Frobenius,  Über die  Kompositionsreihe einer Gruppe

Schwarzschild,  Zur Quantenhypothese

Fischer und Bergmann,  Über neue Galloylderivate des Traubenzuckers und ihren Vergleich mit der Chebulinsäure

Schuchhardt,  Der starke Wall und die breite, zuweilen erhöhte Berme bei frügeschichtlichen Burgen in Norddeutschland

Born,  Über anisotrope Flüssigkeiten

Planck,  Über die absolute Entropie einatomiger Körper

Haberlandt,  Blattepidermis und Lichtperzeption

Einstein,  Näherungsweise Integration der Feldgleichungen der Gravitation

Lüders,  Die Saubhikas.  Ein Beitrag zur Gecschichte des indischen Dramas

Karl Schwarzschild’s Radius: How Fame Eclipsed a Physicist’s own Legacy

In an ironic twist of the history of physics, Karl Schwarzschild’s fame has eclipsed his own legacy.  When asked who was Karl Schwarzschild (1873 – 1916), you would probably say he’s the guy who solved Einstein’s Field Equations of General Relativity and discovered the radius of black holes.  You may also know that he accomplished this Herculean feat while dying slowly behind the German lines on the Eastern Front in WWI.  But asked what else he did, and you would probably come up blank.  Yet Schwarzschild was one of the most wide-ranging physicists at the turn of the 20th century, which is saying something, because it places him into the same pantheon as Planck, Lorentz, Poincaré and Einstein.  Let’s take a look at the part of his career that hides in the shadow of his own radius.

A Radius of Interest

Karl Schwarzschild was born in Frankfurt, Germany, shortly after the Franco-Prussian war thrust Prussia onto the world stage as a major political force in Europe.  His family were Jewish merchants of longstanding reputation in the city, and Schwarzschild’s childhood was spent in the vibrant Jewish community.  One of his father’s friends was a professor at a university in Frankfurt, whose son, Paul Epstein (1871 – 1939), became a close friend of Karl’s at the Gymnasium.  Schwarzshild and Epstein would partially shadow each other’s careers despite the fact that Schwarzschild became an astronomer while Epstein became a famous mathematician and number theorist.  This was in part because Schwarzschild had large radius of interests that spanned the breadth of current mathematics and science, practicing both experiments and theory. 

Schwarzschild’s application of the Hamiltonian formalism for quantum systems set the stage for the later adoption of Hamiltonian methods in quantum mechanics. He came dangerously close to stating the uncertainty principle that catapulted Heisenberg to fame.

By the time Schwarzschild was sixteen, he had taught himself the mathematics of celestial mechanics to such depth that he published two papers on the orbits of binary stars.  He also became fascinated in astronomy and purchased lenses and other materials to construct his own telescope.  His interests were helped along by Epstein, two years older and whose father had his own private observatory.  When Epstein went to study at the University of Strasbourg (then part of the German Federation) Schwarzschild followed him.  But Schwarzschild’s main interest in astronomy diverged from Epstein’s main interest in mathematics, and Schwarzschild transferred to the University of Munich where he studied under Hugo von Seeliger (1849 – 1924), the premier German astronomer of his day.  Epstein remained at Strasbourg where he studied under Bruno Christoffel (1829 – 1900) and eventually became a professor, but he was forced to relinquish the post when Strasbourg was ceded to France after WWI. 

The Birth of Stellar Interferometry

Until the Hubble space telescope was launched in 1990 no star had ever been resolved as a direct image.  Within a year of its launch, using its spectacular resolving power, the Hubble optics resolved—just barely—the red supergiant Betelgeuse.  No other star (other than the Sun) is close enough or big enough to image the stellar disk, even for the Hubble far above our atmosphere.  The reason is that the diameter of the optical lenses and mirrors of the Hubble—as big as they are at 2.4 meter diameter—still produce a diffraction pattern that smears the image so that stars cannot be resolved.  Yet information on the size of a distant object is encoded as phase in the light waves that are emitted from the object, and this phase information is accessible to interferometry.

The first physicist who truly grasped the power of optical interferometry and who understood how to design the first interferometric metrology systems was the French physicist Armand Hippolyte Louis Fizeau (1819 – 1896).  Fizeau became interested in the properties of light when he collaborated with his friend Léon Foucault (1819–1868) on early uses of photography.  The two then embarked on a measurement of the speed of light but had a falling out before the experiment could be finished, and both continued the pursuit independently.  Fizeau achieved the first measurement using a toothed wheel rotating rapidly [1], while Foucault came in second using a more versatile system with a spinning mirror [2].  Yet Fizeau surpassed Foucault in optical design and became an expert in interference effects.  Interference apparatus had been developed earlier by Augustin Fresnel (the Fresnel bi-prism 1819), Humphrey Lloyd (Lloyd’s mirror 1834) and Jules Jamin (Jamin’s interferential refractor 1856).  They had found ways of redirecting light using refraction and reflection to cause interference fringes.  But Fizeau was one of the first to recognize that each emitting region of a light source was coherent with itself, and he used this insight and the use of lenses to design the first interferometer.

Fizeau’s interferometer used a lens with a with a tight focal spot masked off by an opaque screen with two open slits.  When the masked lens device was focused on an intense light source it produced two parallel pencils of light that were mutually coherent but spatially separated.  Fizeau used this apparatus to measure the speed of light in moving water in 1859 [3]

Fig. 1  Optical configuration of the source element of the Fizeau refractometer.

The working principle of the Fizeau refractometer is shown in Fig. 1.  The light source is at the bottom, and it is reflected by the partially-silvered beam splitter to pass through the lens and the mask containing two slits.  (Only the light paths that pass through the double-slit mask on the lens are shown in the figure.)  The slits produce two pencils of mutually coherent light that pass through a system (in the famous Fizeau ether drag experiment it was along two tubes of moving water) and are returned through the same slits, and they intersect at the view port where they produce interference fringes.  The fringe spacing is set by the separation of the two slits in the mask.  The Rayleigh region of the lens defines a region of spatial coherence even for a so-called “incoherent” source.  Therefore, this apparatus, by use of the lens, could convert an incoherent light source into a coherent probe to test the refractive index of test materials, which is why it was called a refractometer. 

Fizeau became adept at thinking of alternative optical designs of his refractometer and alternative applications.  In an address to the French Physical Society in 1868 he suggested that the double-slit mask could be used on a telescope to determine sizes of distant astronomical objects [4].  There were several subsequent attempts to use Fizeau’s configuration in astronomical observations, but none were conclusive and hence were not widely known.

An optical configuration and astronomical application that was very similar to Fizeau’s idea was proposed by Albert Michelson in 1890 [5].  He built the apparatus and used it to successfully measure the size of several moons of Jupiter [6].  The configuration of the Michelson stellar interferometer is shown in Fig. 2.  Light from a distant star passes through two slits in the mask in front of the collecting optics of a telescope.  When the two pencils of light intersect at the view port, they produce interference fringes.  Because of the finite size of the stellar source, the fringes are partially washed out.  By adjusting the slit separation, a certain separation can be found where the fringes completely wash out.  The size of the star is then related to the separation of the slits for which the fringe visibility vanishes.  This simple principle allows this type of stellar interferometry to measure the size of stars that are large and relatively close to Earth.  However, if stars are too far away even this approach cannot be used to measure their sizes because telescopes aren’t big enough.  This limitation is currently being bypassed by the use of long-baseline optical interferometers.

Fig. 2  Optical configuration of the Michelson stellar interferometer.  Fringes at the view port are partially washed out by the finite size of the star.  By adjusting the slit separation, the fringes can be made to vanish entirely, yielding an equation that can be solved for the size of the star.

One of the open questions in the history of interferometry is whether Michelson was aware of Fizeau’s proposal for the stellar interferometer made in 1868.  Michelson was well aware of Fizeau’s published research and acknowledged him as a direct inspiration of his own work in interference effects.  But Michelson also was unaware of the undercurrents in the French school of optical interference.  When he visited Paris in 1881, he met with many of the leading figures in this school (including Lippmann and Cornu), but there is no mention or any evidence that he met with Fizeau.  By this time Fizeau’s wife had passed away, and Fizeau spent most of his time in seclusion at his home outside Paris.  Therefore, it is unlikely that he would have been present during Michelson’s visit.  Because Michelson viewed Fizeau with such awe and respect, if he had met him, he most certainly would have mentioned it.  Therefore, Michelson’s invention of the stellar interferometer can be considered with some confidence to be a case of independent discovery.  It is perhaps not surprising that he hit on the same idea that Fizeau had in 1868, because Michelson was one of the few physicists who understood coherence and interference at the same depth as Fizeau.

Schwarzschild’s Stellar Interferometer

The physics of the Michelson stellar interferometer is very similar to the physics of Young’s double slit experiment.  The two slits in the aperture mask of the telescope objective act to produce a simple sinusoidal interference pattern at the image plane of the optical system.  The size of the stellar diameter is determined by using the wash-out effect of the fringes caused by the finite stellar size.  However, it is well known to physicists who work with diffraction gratings that a multiple-slit interference pattern has a much greater resolving power than a simple double slit. 

This realization must have hit von Seeliger and Schwarzschild, working together at Munich, when they saw the publication of Michelson’s theoretical analysis of his stellar interferometer in 1890, followed by his use of the apparatus to measure the size of Jupiter’s moons.  Schwarzschild and von Seeliger realized that by replacing the double-slit mask with a multiple-slit mask, the widths of the interference maxima would be much narrower.  Such a diffraction mask on a telescope would cause a star to produce a multiple set of images on the image plane of the telescope associated with the multiple diffraction orders.  More interestingly, if the target were a binary star, the diffraction would produce two sets of diffraction maxima—a double image!  If the “finesse” of the grating is high enough, the binary star separation could be resolved as a doublet in the diffraction pattern at the image, and the separation could be measured, giving the angular separation of the two stars of the binary system.  Such an approach to the binary separation would be a direct measurement, which was a distinct and clever improvement over the indirect Michelson configuration that required finding the extinction of the fringe visibility. 

Schwarzschild enlisted the help of a fine German instrument maker to create a multiple slit system that had an adjustable slit separation.  The device is shown in Fig. 3 from Schwarzschild’s 1896 publication on the use of the stellar interferometer to measure the separation of binary stars [7].  The device is ingenious.  By rotating the chain around the gear on the right-hand side of the apparatus, the two metal plates with four slits could be raised or lowered, cause the projection onto the objective plane to have variable slit spacings.  In the operation of the telescope, the changing height of the slits does not matter, because they are near a conjugate optical plane (the entrance pupil) of the optical system.  Using this adjustable multiple slit system, Schwarzschild (and two colleagues he enlisted) made multiple observations of well-known binary star systems, and they calculated the star separations.  Several of their published results are shown in Fig. 4.

Fig. 3  Illustration from Schwarzschild’s 1896 paper describing an improvement of the Michelson interferometer for measuring the separation of binary star systems Ref. [7].
Fig. 4  Data page from Schwarzschild’s 1896 paper measuring the angular separation of two well-known binary star systems: gamma Leonis and chsi Ursa Major. Ref. [7]

Schwarzschild’s publication demonstrated one of the very first uses of stellar interferometry—well before Michelson himself used his own configuration to measure the diameter of Betelgeuse in 1920.  Schwarzschild’s major achievement was performed before he had received his doctorate, on a topic orthogonal to his dissertation topic.  Yet this fact is virtually unknown to the broader physics community outside of astronomy.  If he had not become so famous later for his solution of Einstein’s field equations, Schwarzschild nonetheless might have been famous for his early contributions to stellar interferometry.  But even this was not the end of his unique contributions to physics.

Adiabatic Physics

As Schwarzschild worked for his doctorate under von Seeliger, his dissertation topic was on new theories by Henri Poincaré (1854 – 1912) on celestial mechanics.  Poincaré had made a big splash on the international stage with the publication of his prize-winning memoire in 1890 on the three-body problem.  This is the publication where Poincaré first described what would later become known as chaos theory.  The memoire was followed by his volumes on “New Methods in Celestial Mechanics” published between 1892 and 1899.  Poincaré’s work on celestial mechanics was based on his earlier work on the theory of dynamical systems where he discovered important invariant theorems, such as Liouville’s theorem on the conservation of phase space volume.  Schwarzshild applied Poincaré’s theorems to problems in celestial orbits.  He took his doctorate in 1896 and received a post at an astronomical observatory outside Vienna. 

While at Vienna, Schwarzschild performed his most important sustained contributions to the science of astronomy.  Astronomical observations had been dominated for centuries by the human eye, but photographic techniques had been making steady inroads since the time of Hermann Carl Vogel (1841 – 1907) in the 1880’s at the Potsdam observatory.  Photographic plates were used primarily to record star positions but were known to be unreliable for recording stellar intensities.  Schwarzschild developed a “out-of-focus” technique that blurred the star’s image, while making it larger and easier to measure the density of the exposed and developed photographic emulsions.  In this way, Schwarzschild measured the magnitudes of 367 stars.  Two of these stars had variable magnitudes that he was able to record and track.  Schwarzschild correctly explained the intensity variation caused by steady oscillations in heating and cooling of the stellar atmosphere.  This work established the properties of these Cepheid variables which would become some of the most important “standard candles” for the measurement of cosmological distances.  Based on the importance of this work, Schwarzschild returned to Munich as a teacher in 1899 and subsequently was appointed in 1901 as the director of the observatory at Göttingen established by Gauss eighty years earlier.

Schwarzschild’s years at Göttingen brought him into contact with some of the greatest mathematicians and physicists of that era.  The mathematicians included Felix Klein, David Hilbert and Hermann Minkowski.  The physicists included von Laue, a student of Woldemar Voigt.  This period was one of several “golden ages” of Göttingen.  The first golden age was the time of Gauss and Riemann in the mid-1800’s.  The second golden age, when Schwarzschild was present, began when Felix Klein arrived at Göttingen and attracted the top mathematicians of the time.  The third golden age of Göttingen was the time of Born and Jordan and Heisenberg at the birth of quantum mechanics in the mid 1920’s.

In 1906, the Austrian Physicist Paul Ehrenfest, freshly out of his PhD under the supervision of Boltzmann, arrived at Göttingen only weeks before Boltzmann took his own life.  Felix Klein at Göttingen had been relying on Boltzmann to provide a comprehensive review of statistical mechanics for the Mathematical Encyclopedia, so he now entrusted this project to the young Ehrenfest.  It was a monumental task, which was to take him and his physicist wife Tatyanya nearly five years to complete.  Part of the delay was the desire by the Ehrenfests to close some open problems that remained in Boltzmann’s work.  One of these was a mechanical theorem of Boltzmann’s that identified properties of statistical mechanical systems that remained unaltered through a very slow change in system parameters.  These properties would later be called adiabatic invariants by Einstein. 

Ehrenfest recognized that Wien’s displacement law, which had been a guiding light for Planck and his theory of black body radiation, had originally been derived by Wien using classical principles related to slow changes in the volume of a cavity.  Ehrenfest was struck by the fact that such slow changes would not induce changes in the quantum numbers of the quantized states, and hence that the quantum numbers must be adiabatic invariants of the black body system.  This not only explained why Wien’s displacement law continued to hold under quantum as well as classical considerations, but it also explained why Planck’s quantization of the energy of his simple oscillators was the only possible choice.  For a classical harmonic oscillator, the ratio of the energy of oscillation to the frequency of oscillation is an adiabatic invariant, which is immediately recognized as Planck’s quantum condition .  

Ehrenfest published his observations in 1913 [8], the same year that Bohr published his theory of the hydrogen atom, so Ehrenfest immediately applied the theory of adiabatic invariants to Bohr’s model and discovered that the quantum condition for the quantized energy levels was again the adiabatic invariants of the electron orbits, and not merely a consequence of integer multiples of angular momentum, which had seemed somewhat ad hoc

After eight exciting years at Göttingen, Schwarzschild was offered the position at the Potsdam Observatory in 1909 upon the retirement from that post of the famous German astronomer Carl Vogel who had made the first confirmed measurements of the optical Doppler effect.  Schwarzschild accepted and moved to Potsdam with a new family.  His son Martin Schwarzschild would follow him into his profession, becoming a famous astronomer at Princeton University and a theorist on stellar structure.  At the outbreak of WWI, Schwarzschild joined the German army out of a sense of patriotism.  Because of his advanced education he was made an officer of artillery with the job to calculate artillery trajectories, and after a short time on the Western Front in Belgium was transferred to the Eastern Front in Russia.  Though he was not in the trenches, he was in the midst of the chaos to the rear of the front.  Despite this situation, he found time to pursue his science through the year 1915. 

Schwarzschild was intrigued by Ehrenfest’s paper on adiabatic invariants and their similarity to several of the invariant theorems of Poincaré that he had studied for his doctorate.  Up until this time, mechanics had been mostly pursued through the Lagrangian formalism which could easily handle generalized forces associated with dissipation.  But celestial mechanics are conservative systems for which the Hamiltonian formalism is a more natural approach.  In particular, the Hamilton-Jacobi canonical transformations made it particularly easy to find pairs of generalized coordinates that had simple periodic behavior.  In his published paper [9], Schwarzschild called these “Action-Angle” coordinates because one was the action integral that was well-known in the principle of “Least Action”, and the other was like an angle variable that changed steadily in time (see Fig. 5). Action-angle coordinates have come to form the foundation of many of the properties of Hamiltonian chaos, Hamiltonian maps, and Hamiltonian tapestries.

Fig. 5  Description of the canonical transformation to action-angle coordinates (Ref. [9] pg. 549). Schwarzschild names the new coordinates “Wirkungsvariable” and “Winkelvariable”.

During lulls in bombardments, Schwarzschild translated the Hamilton-Jacobi methods of celestial mechanics to apply them to the new quantum mechanics of the Bohr orbits.  The phrase “quantum mechanics” had not yet been coined (that would come ten years later in a paper by Max Born), but it was clear that the Bohr quantization conditions were a new type of mechanics.  The periodicities that were inherent in the quantum systems were natural properties that could be mapped onto the periodicities of the angle variables, while Ehrenfest’s adiabatic invariants could be mapped onto the slowly varying action integrals.  Schwarzschild showed that action-angle coordinates were the only allowed choice of coordinates, because they enabled the separation of the Hamilton-Jacobi equations and hence provided the correct quantization conditions for the Bohr electron orbits.  Later, when Sommerfeld published his quantized elliptical orbits in 1916, the multiplicity of quantum conditions and orbits had caused concern, but Ehrenfest came to the rescue, showing that each of Sommerfeld’s quantum conditions were precisely Schwarzschild’s action-integral invariants of the classical electron dynamics [10].

The works by Schwarzschild, and a closely-related paper that amplified his ideas published by his friend Paul Epstein several months later [11], were the first to show the power of the Hamiltonian formulation of dynamics for quantum systems, foreshadowing the future importance of Hamiltonians for quantum theory.  An essential part of the Hamiltonian formalism is the concept of phase space.  In his paper, Schwarzschild showed that the phase space of quantum systems was divided into small but finite elementary regions whose areas were equal to Planck’s constant h-bar (see Fig. 6).  The areas were products of a small change in momentum coordinate Delta-p and a corresponding small change in position coordinate Delta-x.  Therefore, the product DxDp = h-bar.  This observation, made in 1915 by Schwarzschild, was only one step away from Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation, twelve years before Heisenberg discovered it.  However, in 1915 Born’s probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics had not yet been made, nor the idea of measurement uncertainty, so Schwarzschild did not have the appropriate context in which to have made the leap to the uncertainty principle.  However, by introducing the action-angle coordinates as well as the Hamiltonian formalism applied to quantum systems, with the natural structure of phase space, Schwarzschild laid the foundation for the future developments in quantum theory made by the next generation.

Fig. 6  Expression of the division of phase space into elemental areas of action equal to h-bar (Ref. [9] pg. 550).

All Quiet on the Eastern Front

Towards the end of his second stay in Munich in 1900, prior to joining the Göttingen faculty, Schwarzschild had presented a paper at a meeting of the German Astronomical Society held in Heidelberg in August.  The topic was unlike anything he had tackled before.  It considered the highly theoretical question of whether the universe was non-Euclidean, and more specifically if it had curvature.  He concluded from observation that if the universe were curved, the radius of curvature must be larger than between 50 light years and 2000 light years, depending on whether the geometry was hyperbolic or elliptical.  Schwarzschild was working out ideas of differential geometry and applying them to the universe at large at a time when Einstein was just graduating from the ETH where he skipped his math classes and had his friend Marcel Grossmann take notes for him.

The topic of Schwarzschild’s talk tells an important story about the warping of historical perspective by the “great man” syndrome.  In this case the great man is Einstein who is today given all the credit for discovering the warping of space.  His development of General Relativity is often portrayed as by a lone genius in the wilderness performing a blazing act of creation out of the void.  In fact, non-Euclidean geometry had been around for some time by 1900—five years before Einstein’s Special Theory and ten years before his first publications on the General Theory.  Gauss had developed the idea of intrinsic curvature of a manifold fifty years earlier, amplified by Riemann.  By the turn of the century alternative geometries were all the rage, and Schwarzschild considered whether there were sufficient astronomical observations to set limits on the size of curvature of the universe.  But revisionist history is just as prevalent in physics as in any field, and when someone like Einstein becomes so big in the mind’s eye, his shadow makes it difficult to see all the people standing behind him.

This is not meant to take away from the feat that Einstein accomplished.  The General Theory of Relativity, published by Einstein in its full form in 1915 was spectacular [12].  Einstein had taken vague notions about curved spaces and had made them specific, mathematically rigorous and intimately connected with physics through the mass-energy source term in his field equations.  His mathematics had gone beyond even what his mathematician friend and former collaborator Grossmann could achieve.  Yet Einstein’s field equations were nonlinear tensor differential equations in which the warping of space depended on the strength of energy fields, but the configuration of those energy fields depended on the warping of space.  This type of nonlinear equation is difficult to solve in general terms, and Einstein was not immediately aware of how to find the solutions to his own equations.

Therefore, it was no small surprise to him when he received a letter from the Eastern Front from an astronomer he barely knew who had found a solution—a simple solution (see Fig. 7) —to his field equations.  Einstein probably wondered how he could have missed it, but he was generous and forwarded the letter to the Reports of the Prussian Physical Society where it was published in 1916 [13].

Fig. 7  Schwarzschild’s solution of the Einstein Field Equations (Ref. [13] pg. 194).

In the same paper, Schwarzschild used his exact solution to find the exact equation that described the precession of the perihelion of Mercury that Einstein had only calculated approximately. The dynamical equations for Mercury are shown in Fig. 8.

Fig. 8  Explanation for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury ( Ref. [13]  pg. 195)

Schwarzschild’s solution to Einstein’s Field Equation of General Relativity was not a general solution, even for a point mass. He had constants of integration that could have arbitrary values, such as the characteristic length scale that Schwarzschild called “alpha”. It was David Hilbert who later expanded upon Schwarzschild’s work, giving the general solution and naming the characteristic length scale (where the metric diverges) after Schwarzschild. This is where the phrase “Schwarzschild Radius” got its name, and it stuck. In fact it stuck so well that Schwarzschild’s radius has now eclipsed much of the rest of Schwarzschild’s considerable accomplishments.

Unfortunately, Schwarzschild’s accomplishments were cut short when he contracted an autoimmune disease that may have been hereditary. It is ironic that in the carnage of the Eastern Front, it was a genetic disease that caused his death at the age of 42. He was already suffering from the effects of the disease as he worked on his last publications. He was sent home from the front to his family in Potsdam where he passed away several months later having shepherded his final two papers through the publication process. His last paper, on the action-angle variables in quantum systems , was published on the day that he died.

Schwarzschild’s Legacy

Schwarzschild’s legacy was assured when he solved Einstein’s field equations and Einstein communicated it to the world. But his hidden legacy is no less important.

Schwarzschild’s application of the Hamiltonian formalism of canonical transformations and phase space for quantum systems set the stage for the later adoption of Hamiltonian methods in quantum mechanics. He came dangerously close to stating the uncertainty principle that catapulted Heisenberg to later fame, although he could not express it in probabilistic terms because he came too early.

Schwarzschild is considered to be the greatest German astronomer of the last hundred years. This is in part based on his work at the birth of stellar interferometry and in part on his development of stellar photometry and the calibration of the Cepheid variable stars that went on to revolutionize our view of our place in the universe. Solving Einsteins field equations was just a sideline for him, a hobby to occupy his active and curious mind.


[1] Fizeau, H. L. (1849). “Sur une expérience relative à la vitesse de propagation de la lumière.” Comptes rendus de l’Académie des sciences 29: 90–92, 132.

[2] Foucault, J. L. (1862). “Détermination expérimentale de la vitesse de la lumière: parallaxe du Soleil.” Comptes rendus de l’Académie des sciences 55: 501–503, 792–596.

[3] Fizeau, H. (1859). “Sur les hypothèses relatives à l’éther lumineux.” Ann. Chim. Phys.  Ser. 4 57: 385–404.

[4] Fizeau, H. (1868). “Prix Bordin: Rapport sur le concours de l’annee 1867.” C. R. Acad. Sci. 66: 932.

[5] Michelson, A. A. (1890). “I. On the application of interference methods to astronomical measurements.” The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 30(182): 1-21.

[6] Michelson, A. A. (1891). “Measurement of Jupiter’s Satellites by Interference.” Nature 45(1155): 160-161.

[7] Schwarzschild, K. (1896). “Über messung von doppelsternen durch interferenzen.” Astron. Nachr. 3335: 139.

[8] P. Ehrenfest, “Een mechanische theorema van Boltzmann en zijne betrekking tot de quanta theorie (A mechanical theorem of Boltzmann and its relation to the theory of energy quanta),” Verslag van de Gewoge Vergaderingen der Wis-en Natuurkungige Afdeeling, vol. 22, pp. 586-593, 1913.

[9] Schwarzschild, K. (1916). “Quantum hypothesis.” Sitzungsberichte Der Koniglich Preussischen Akademie Der Wissenschaften: 548-568.

[10] P. Ehrenfest, “Adiabatic invariables and quantum theory,” Annalen Der Physik, vol. 51, pp. 327-352, Oct 1916.

[11] Epstein, P. S. (1916). “The quantum theory.” Annalen Der Physik 51(18): 168-188.

[12] Einstein, A. (1915). “On the general theory of relativity.” Sitzungsberichte Der Koniglich Preussischen Akademie Der Wissenschaften: 778-786.

[13] Schwarzschild, K. (1916). “Über das Gravitationsfeld eines Massenpunktes nach der Einstein’schen Theorie.” Sitzungsberichte der Königlich-Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: 189.

Limit-Cycle Oscillators: The Fast and the Slow of Grandfather Clocks

Imagine in your mind the stately grandfather clock.  The long slow pendulum swinging back and forth so purposefully with such majesty.  It harks back to slower simpler times—seemingly Victorian in character, although their origins go back to Christiaan Huygens in 1656.  In introductory physics classes the dynamics of the pendulum is taught as one of the simplest simple harmonic oscillators, only a bit more complicated than a mass on a spring.

But don’t be fooled!  This simplicity is an allusion, for the pendulum clock lies at the heart of modern dynamics.  It is a nonlinear autonomous oscillator with system gain that balances dissipation to maintain a dynamic equilibrium that ticks on resolutely as long as some energy source can continue to supply it (like the heavy clock weights).    

This analysis has converted the two-dimensional dynamics of the autonomous oscillator to a simple one-dimensional dynamics with a stable fixed point.

The dynamic equilibrium of the grandfather clock is known as a limit cycle, and they are the central feature of autonomous oscillators.  Autonomous oscillators are one of the building blocks of complex systems, providing the fundamental elements for biological oscillators, neural networks, business cycles, population dynamics, viral epidemics, and even the rings of Saturn.  The most famous autonomous oscillator (after the pendulum clock) is named for a Dutch physicist, Balthasar van der Pol (1889 – 1959), who discovered the laws that govern how electrons oscillate in vacuum tubes.  But this highly specialized physics problem has expanded to become the new guiding paradigm for the fundamental oscillating element of modern dynamics—the van der Pol oscillator.

The van der Pol Oscillator

The van der Pol (vdP) oscillator begins as a simple harmonic oscillator (SHO) in which the dissipation (loss of energy) is flipped to become gain of energy.  This is as simple as flipping the sign of the damping term in the SHO

where β is positive.  This 2nd-order ODE is re-written into a dynamical flow as

where γ = β/m is the system gain.  Clearly, the dynamics of this SHO with gain would lead to run-away as the oscillator grows without bound.             

But no real-world system can grow indefinitely.  It has to eventually be limited by things such as inelasticity.  One of the simplest ways to include such a limiting process in the mathematical model is to make the gain get smaller at larger amplitudes.  This can be accomplished by making the gain a function of the amplitude x as

When the amplitude x gets large, the gain decreases, becoming zero and changing sign when x = 1.  Putting this amplitude-dependent gain into the SHO equation yields

This is the van der Pol equation.  It is the quintessential example of a nonlinear autonomous oscillator.            

When the parameter ε is large, the vdP oscillator has can behave in strongly nonlinear ways, with strongly nonlinear and nonharmonic oscillations.  An example is shown in Fig. 2 for a = 5 and b = 2.5.  The oscillation is clearly non-harmonic.

Fig. 1 Time trace of the position and velocity of the vdP oscillator with w0 = 5 and ε = 2.5.
Fig. 2 State-space portrait of the vdP flow lines for w0 = 5 and ε = 2.5.
#!/usr/bin/env python3
# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
"""
Created on Mon Apr 16 07:38:57 2018

@author: David Nolte
"""
import numpy as np
from scipy import integrate
from matplotlib import pyplot as plt

plt.close('all')

def solve_flow(param,lim = [-3,3,-3,3],max_time=10.0):
# van der pol 2D flow 
    def flow_deriv(x_y, t0, alpha,beta):
        x, y = x_y
        return [y,-alpha*x+beta*(1-x**2)*y]
    
    plt.figure()
    xmin = lim[0]
    xmax = lim[1]
    ymin = lim[2]
    ymax = lim[3]
    plt.axis([xmin, xmax, ymin, ymax])

    N=144
    colors = plt.cm.prism(np.linspace(0, 1, N))
    
    x0 = np.zeros(shape=(N,2))
    ind = -1
    for i in range(0,12):
        for j in range(0,12):
            ind = ind + 1;
            x0[ind,0] = ymin-1 + (ymax-ymin+2)*i/11
            x0[ind,1] = xmin-1 + (xmax-xmin+2)*j/11
             
    # Solve for the trajectories
    t = np.linspace(0, max_time, int(250*max_time))
    x_t = np.asarray([integrate.odeint(flow_deriv, x0i, t, param)
                      for x0i in x0])

    for i in range(N):
        x, y = x_t[i,:,:].T
        lines = plt.plot(x, y, '-', c=colors[i])
        plt.setp(lines, linewidth=1)

    plt.show()
    plt.title(model_title)
    plt.savefig('Flow2D')
    
    return t, x_t

def solve_flow2(param,max_time=20.0):
# van der pol 2D flow 
    def flow_deriv(x_y, t0, alpha,beta):
        #"""Compute the time-derivative of a Medio system."""
        x, y = x_y
        return [y,-alpha*x+beta*(1-x**2)*y]
    model_title = 'van der Pol Oscillator'
    x0 = np.zeros(shape=(2,))
    x0[0] = 0
    x0[1] = 4.5
    
    # Solve for the trajectories
    t = np.linspace(0, max_time, int(250*max_time))
    x_t = integrate.odeint(flow_deriv, x0, t, param)
 
    return t, x_t

param = (5, 2.5)             # van der Pol
lim = (-7,7,-10,10)

t, x_t = solve_flow(param,lim)

t, x_t = solve_flow2(param)
plt.figure(2)
lines = plt.plot(t,x_t[:,0],t,x_t[:,1],'-')

Separation of Time Scales

Nonlinear systems can have very complicated behavior that may be difficult to address analytically.  This is why the numerical ODE solver is a central tool of modern dynamics.  But there is a very neat analytical trick that can be applied to tame the nonlinearities (if they are not too large) and simplify the autonomous oscillator.  This trick is called separation of time scales (also known as secular perturbation theory)—it looks for simultaneous fast and slow behavior within the dynamics.  An example of fast and slow time scales in a well-known dynamical system is found in the simple spinning top in which nutation (fast oscillations) are superposed on precession (slow oscillations).             

For the autonomous van der Pol oscillator the fast time scale is the natural oscillation frequency, while the slow time scale is the approach to the limit cycle.  Let’s assign t0 = t and t1 = εt, where ε is a small parameter.  t0 is the slow period (approach to the limit cycle) and t1 is the fast period (natural oscillation frequency).  The solution in terms of these time scales is

where x0 is a slow response and acts as an envelope function for x1 that is the fast response. The total differential is

Similarly, to obtain a second derivative

Therefore, the vdP equation in terms of x0 and x1 is

to lowest order. Now separate the orders to zeroth and first orders in ε, respectively,

Solve the first equation (a simple harmonic oscillator)

and plug the solution it into the right-hand side of the second equation to give

The key to secular perturbation theory is to confine dynamics to their own time scales.  In other words, the slow dynamics provide the envelope that modulates the fast carrier frequency.  The envelope dynamics are contained in the time dependence of the coefficients A and B.  Furthermore, the dynamics of x1 should be a homogeneous function of time, which requires each term in the last equation to be zero.  Therefore, the dynamical equations for the envelope functions are

These can be transformed into polar coordinates. Because the envelope functions do not depend on the slow time scale, the time derivatives are

With these expressions, the slow dynamics become

where the angular velocity in the fast variable is equal to zero, leaving only the angular velocity of the unperturbed oscillator. (This is analogous to the rotating wave approximation (RWA) in optics, and also equivalent to studying the dynamics in the rotating frame of the unperturbed oscillator.)

Making a final substitution ρ = R/2 gives a very simple set of dynamical equations

These final equations capture the essential properties of the relaxation of the dynamics to the limit cycle. To lowest order (when the gain is weak) the angular frequency is unaffected, and the system oscillates at the natural frequency. The amplitude of the limit cycle equals 1. A deviation in the amplitude from 1 decays slowly back to the limit cycle making it a stable fixed point in the radial dynamics. This analysis has converted the two-dimensional dynamics of the autonomous oscillator to a simple one-dimensional dynamics with a stable fixed point on the radius variable. The phase-space portrait of this simplified autonomous oscillator is shown in Fig. 3. What could be simpler? This simplified autonomous oscillator can be found as a fundamental element of many complex systems.

Fig. 3 The state-space diagram of the simplified autonomous oscillator. Initial conditions relax onto the limit cycle. (Reprinted from Introduction to Modern Dynamics (Oxford, 2019) on pg. 8)

Further Reading

D. D. Nolte, Introduction to Modern Dynamics: Chaos, Networks, Space and Time, 2nd edition (Oxford University Press, 2019)

Pikovsky, A. S., M. G. Rosenblum and J. Kurths (2003). Synchronization: A Universal concept in nonlinear science. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Orbiting Photons around a Black Hole

The physics of a path of light passing a gravitating body is one of the hardest concepts to understand in General Relativity, but it is also one of the easiest.  It is hard because there can be no force of gravity on light even though the path of a photon bends as it passes a gravitating body.  It is easy, because the photon is following the simplest possible path—a geodesic equation for force-free motion.

         This blog picks up where my last blog left off, having there defined the geodesic equation and presenting the Schwarzschild metric.  With those two equations in hand, we could simply solve for the null geodesics (a null geodesic is the path of a light beam through a manifold).  But there turns out to be a simpler approach that Einstein came up with himself (he never did like doing things the hard way).  He just had to sacrifice the fundamental postulate that he used to explain everything about Special Relativity.

Throwing Special Relativity Under the Bus

The fundamental postulate of Special Relativity states that the speed of light is the same for all observers.  Einstein posed this postulate, then used it to derive some of the most astonishing consequences of Special Relativity—like E = mc2.  This postulate is at the rock core of his theory of relativity and can be viewed as one of the simplest “truths” of our reality—or at least of our spacetime. 

            Yet as soon as Einstein began thinking how to extend SR to a more general situation, he realized almost immediately that he would have to throw this postulate out.   While the speed of light measured locally is always equal to c, the apparent speed of light observed by a distant observer (far from the gravitating body) is modified by gravitational time dilation and length contraction.  This means that the apparent speed of light, as observed at a distance, varies as a function of position.  From this simple conclusion Einstein derived a first estimate of the deflection of light by the Sun, though he initially was off by a factor of 2.  (The full story of Einstein’s derivation of the deflection of light by the Sun and the confirmation by Eddington is in Chapter 7 of Galileo Unbound (Oxford University Press, 2018).)

The “Optics” of Gravity

The invariant element for a light path moving radially in the Schwarzschild geometry is

The apparent speed of light is then

where c(r) is  always less than c, when observing it from flat space.  The “refractive index” of space is defined, as for any optical material, as the ratio of the constant speed divided by the observed speed

Because the Schwarzschild metric has the property

the effective refractive index of warped space-time is

with a divergence at the Schwarzschild radius.

            The refractive index of warped space-time in the limit of weak gravity can be used in the ray equation (also known as the Eikonal equation described in an earlier blog)

where the gradient of the refractive index of space is

The ray equation is then a four-variable flow

These equations represent a 4-dimensional flow for a light ray confined to a plane.  The trajectory of any light path is found by using an ODE solver subject to the initial conditions for the direction of the light ray.  This is simple for us to do today with Python or Matlab, but it was also that could be done long before the advent of computers by early theorists of relativity like Max von Laue  (1879 – 1960).

The Relativity of Max von Laue

In the Fall of 1905 in Berlin, a young German physicist by the name of Max Laue was sitting in the physics colloquium at the University listening to another Max, his doctoral supervisor Max Planck, deliver a seminar on Einstein’s new theory of relativity.  Laue was struck by the simplicity of the theory, in this sense “simplistic” and hence hard to believe, but the beauty of the theory stuck with him, and he began to think through the consequences for experiments like the Fizeau experiment on partial ether drag.

         Armand Hippolyte Louis Fizeau (1819 – 1896) in 1851 built one of the world’s first optical interferometers and used it to measure the speed of light inside moving fluids.  At that time the speed of light was believed to be a property of the luminiferous ether, and there were several opposing theories on how light would travel inside moving matter.  One theory would have the ether fully stationary, unaffected by moving matter, and hence the speed of light would be unaffected by motion.  An opposite theory would have the ether fully entrained by matter and hence the speed of light in moving matter would be a simple sum of speeds.  A middle theory considered that only part of the ether was dragged along with the moving matter.  This was Fresnel’s partial ether drag hypothesis that he had arrived at to explain why his friend Francois Arago had not observed any contribution to stellar aberration from the motion of the Earth through the ether.  When Fizeau performed his experiment, the results agreed closely with Fresnel’s drag coefficient, which seemed to settle the matter.  Yet when Michelson and Morley performed their experiments of 1887, there was no evidence for partial drag.

         Even after the exposition by Einstein on relativity in 1905, the disagreement of the Michelson-Morley results with Fizeau’s results was not fully reconciled until Laue showed in 1907 that the velocity addition theorem of relativity gave complete agreement with the Fizeau experiment.  The velocity observed in the lab frame is found using the velocity addition theorem of special relativity. For the Fizeau experiment, water with a refractive index of n is moving with a speed v and hence the speed in the lab frame is

The difference in the speed of light between the stationary and the moving water is the difference

where the last term is precisely the Fresnel drag coefficient.  This was one of the first definitive “proofs” of the validity of Einstein’s theory of relativity, and it made Laue one of relativity’s staunchest proponents.  Spurred on by his success with the Fresnel drag coefficient explanation, Laue wrote the first monograph on relativity theory, publishing it in 1910. 

Fig. 1 Front page of von Laue’s textbook, first published in 1910, on Special Relativity (this is a 4-th edition published in 1921).

A Nobel Prize for Crystal X-ray Diffraction

In 1909 Laue became a Privatdozent under Arnold Sommerfeld (1868 – 1951) at the university in Munich.  In the Spring of 1912 he was walking in the Englischer Garten on the northern edge of the city talking with Paul Ewald (1888 – 1985) who was finishing his doctorate with Sommerfed studying the structure of crystals.  Ewald was considering the interaction of optical wavelength with the periodic lattice when it struck Laue that x-rays would have the kind of short wavelengths that would allow the crystal to act as a diffraction grating to produce multiple diffraction orders.  Within a few weeks of that discussion, two of Sommerfeld’s students (Friedrich and Knipping) used an x-ray source and photographic film to look for the predicted diffraction spots from a copper sulfate crystal.  When the film was developed, it showed a constellation of dark spots for each of the diffraction orders of the x-rays scattered from the multiple periodicities of the crystal lattice.  Two years later, in 1914, Laue was awarded the Nobel prize in physics for the discovery.  That same year his father was elevated to the hereditary nobility in the Prussian empire and Max Laue became Max von Laue.

            Von Laue was not one to take risks, and he remained conservative in many of his interests.  He was immensely respected and played important roles in the administration of German science, but his scientific contributions after receiving the Nobel Prize were only modest.  Yet as the Nazis came to power in the early 1930’s, he was one of the few physicists to stand up and resist the Nazi take-over of German physics.  He was especially disturbed by the plight of the Jewish physicists.  In 1933 he was invited to give the keynote address at the conference of the German Physical Society in Wurzburg where he spoke out against the Nazi rejection of relativity as they branded it “Jewish science”.  In his speech he likened Einstein, the target of much of the propaganda, to Galileo.  He said, “No matter how great the repression, the representative of science can stand erect in the triumphant certainty that is expressed in the simple phrase: And yet it moves.”  Von Laue believed that truth would hold out in the face of the proscription against relativity theory by the Nazi regime.  The quote “And yet it moves” is supposed to have been muttered by Galileo just after his abjuration before the Inquisition, referring to the Earth moving around the Sun.  Although the quote is famous, it is believed to be a myth.

            In an odd side-note of history, von Laue sent his gold Nobel prize medal to Denmark for its safe keeping with Niels Bohr so that it would not be paraded about by the Nazi regime.  Yet when the Nazis invaded Denmark, to avoid having the medals fall into the hands of the Nazis, the medal was dissolved in aqua regia by a member of Bohr’s team, George de Hevesy.  The gold completely dissolved into an orange liquid that was stored in a beaker high on a shelf through the war.  When Denmark was finally freed, the dissolved gold was precipitated out and a new medal was struck by the Nobel committee and re-presented to von Laue in a ceremony in 1951. 

The Orbits of Light Rays

Von Laue’s interests always stayed close to the properties of light and electromagnetic radiation ever since he was introduced to the field when he studied with Woldemor Voigt at Göttingen in 1899.  This interest included the theory of relativity, and only a few years after Einstein published his theory of General Relativity and Gravitation, von Laue added to his earlier textbook on relativity by writing a second volume on the general theory.  The new volume was published in 1920 and included the theory of the deflection of light by gravity. 

         One of the very few illustrations in his second volume is of light coming into interaction with a super massive gravitational field characterized by a Schwarzschild radius.  (No one at the time called it a “black hole”, nor even mentioned Schwarzschild.  That terminology came much later.)  He shows in the drawing, how light, if incident at just the right impact parameter, would actually loop around the object.  This is the first time such a diagram appeared in print, showing the trajectory of light so strongly affected by gravity.

Fig. 2 A page from von Laue’s second volume on relativity (first published in 1920) showing the orbit of a photon around a compact mass with “gravitational cutoff” (later known as a “black hole:”). The figure is drawn semi-quantitatively, but the phenomenon was clearly understood by von Laue.

Python Code

#!/usr/bin/env python3
# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
"""
Created on Tue May 28 11:50:24 2019

@author: nolte
"""

import numpy as np
import matplotlib as mpl
from mpl_toolkits.mplot3d import Axes3D
from scipy import integrate
from matplotlib import pyplot as plt
from matplotlib import cm
import time
import os

plt.close('all')

def create_circle():
	circle = plt.Circle((0,0), radius= 10, color = 'black')
	return circle

def show_shape(patch):
	ax=plt.gca()
	ax.add_patch(patch)
	plt.axis('scaled')
	plt.show()
    
def refindex(x,y):
    
    A = 10
    eps = 1e-6
    
    rp0 = np.sqrt(x**2 + y**2);
        
    n = 1/(1 - A/(rp0+eps))
    fac = np.abs((1-9*(A/rp0)**2/8))   # approx correction to Eikonal
    nx = -fac*n**2*A*x/(rp0+eps)**3
    ny = -fac*n**2*A*y/(rp0+eps)**3
     
    return [n,nx,ny]

def flow_deriv(x_y_z,tspan):
    x, y, z, w = x_y_z
    
    [n,nx,ny] = refindex(x,y)
        
    yp = np.zeros(shape=(4,))
    yp[0] = z/n
    yp[1] = w/n
    yp[2] = nx
    yp[3] = ny
    
    return yp
                
for loop in range(-5,30):
    
    xstart = -100
    ystart = -2.245 + 4*loop
    print(ystart)
    
    [n,nx,ny] = refindex(xstart,ystart)


    y0 = [xstart, ystart, n, 0]

    tspan = np.linspace(1,400,2000)

    y = integrate.odeint(flow_deriv, y0, tspan)

    xx = y[1:2000,0]
    yy = y[1:2000,1]


    plt.figure(1)
    lines = plt.plot(xx,yy)
    plt.setp(lines, linewidth=1)
    plt.show()
    plt.title('Photon Orbits')
    
c = create_circle()
show_shape(c)
axes = plt.gca()
axes.set_xlim([-100,100])
axes.set_ylim([-100,100])

# Now set up a circular photon orbit
xstart = 0
ystart = 15

[n,nx,ny] = refindex(xstart,ystart)

y0 = [xstart, ystart, n, 0]

tspan = np.linspace(1,94,1000)

y = integrate.odeint(flow_deriv, y0, tspan)

xx = y[1:1000,0]
yy = y[1:1000,1]

plt.figure(1)
lines = plt.plot(xx,yy)
plt.setp(lines, linewidth=2, color = 'black')
plt.show()

One of the most striking effects of gravity on photon trajectories is the possibility for a photon to orbit a black hole in a circular orbit. This is shown in Fig. 3 as the black circular ring for a photon at a radius equal to 1.5 times the Schwarzschild radius. This radius defines what is known as the photon sphere. However, the orbit is not stable. Slight deviations will send the photon spiraling outward or inward.

The Eikonal approximation does not strictly hold under strong gravity, but the Eikonal equations with the effective refractive index of space still yield semi-quantitative behavior. In the Python code, a correction factor is used to match the theory to the circular photon orbits, while still agreeing with trajectories far from the black hole. The results of the calculation are shown in Fig. 3. For large impact parameters, the rays are deflected through a finite angle. At a critical impact parameter, near 3 times the Schwarzschild radius, the ray loops around the black hole. For smaller impact parameters, the rays are captured by the black hole.

Fig. 3 Photon orbits near a black hole calculated using the Eikonal equation and the effective refractive index of warped space. One ray, near the critical impact parameter, loops around the black hole as predicted by von Laue. The central black circle is the black hole with a Schwarzschild radius of 10 units. The black ring is the circular photon orbit at a radius 1.5 times the Schwarzschild radius.

Photons pile up around the black hole at the photon sphere. The first image ever of the photon sphere of a black hole was made earlier this year (announced April 10, 2019). The image shows the shadow of the supermassive black hole in the center of Messier 87 (M87), an elliptical galaxy 55 million light-years from Earth. This black hole is 6.5 billion times the mass of the Sun. Imaging the photosphere required eight ground-based radio telescopes placed around the globe, operating together to form a single telescope with an optical aperture the size of our planet.  The resolution of such a large telescope would allow one to image a half-dollar coin on the surface of the Moon, although this telescope operates in the radio frequency range rather than the optical.

Fig. 4 Scientists have obtained the first image of a black hole, using Event Horizon Telescope observations of the center of the galaxy M87. The image shows a bright ring formed as light bends in the intense gravity around a black hole that is 6.5 billion times more massive than the Sun.

Further Reading

Introduction to Modern Dynamics: Chaos, Networks, Space and Time, 2nd Ed. (Oxford University Press, 2019)

B. Lavenda, The Optical Properties of Gravity, J. Mod. Phys, 8 8-3-838 (2017)