Paper detail

Stepsize errors in the $N$-body problem: discerning Mercury's true possible long-term orbits

Numerical integrations of the Solar System have been carried out for decades. Their results have been used, for example, to determine whether the Solar System is chaotic, whether Mercury's orbit is stable, or to help discern Earth's climate history. We argue that all of the past studies we consider in this work are affected by numerical chaos to different degrees, affecting the possible orbits and instability probability of Mercury, sometimes significantly. We show how to eliminate the effects of numerical chaos by resolving Mercury's pericentre passage. We also show that several higher order symplectic maps do not exhibit significant differences in resolving pericentre passage of Mercury (at fixed time step), making their advantages suspect for calculating long-term orbits. Resolving pericentre passage affects a wide array of orbital numerical studies, like exoplanet studies, studies of the galactic centre, and other $N$-body problems.

preprint2021arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.