Recurrent Collision Orbits and their Contribution

  • Figure 8 shows the distribution of close-encounter orbits in the second encounter.
  • To find collision orbits, the phase space was subdivided and orbits were pursued.
  • The contribution of recurrent collision orbits is 5%, and the contribution of 3- and more-recurrent orbits is negligible.
  • ベストアンサー


Figure 8 shows r_min in the second encounter for b=2.8. In this case, there are four zones of close-encounter orbit in the τ-ω diagram. Comparing Fig.8 with Fig. 7b, the total area occupied by the recurrent close-encounter orbits (the dotted regions in Fig. 8) is smaller than that in the first encounter but not small enough to be neglected. Collision orbits belong necessarily to close-encounter orbits. Consequently, to find collision orbits, we subdivided the τ-ω phase space of close-encounter orbits (i.e., the finely dotted regions in Fig.7) more densely (mesh width being as small as 0.002π in τ) and pursued orbits for each set of τ and ω. Furthermore, as the phase volume of τ and ω occupied by collision orbits, we evaluated a “differential” collisional rate <p(e, i, b)> given by <p(e, i, b)>=(1/(2π)^2)∫p_col (e, i, b, τ, ω)dτdω.      (24) Here, we calculated <p(e, i, b)> separately for 1-, 2-, and more recurrent orbits. The results are shown in Fig. 9, from which we can see that 2-recurrent collision orbits exist for relatively large b, and n-current (n≧3) ones exist only for b≒b_max. That is, the recurrent collision orbits appear only in cases of relatively low energy. From Eq. (10), we have <P(e, i)>=∫【-∞→∞】(3/2)|b|<p(e, i, b)>db.         (25) Using evaluated values of <p(e, i, b)> for various b, we finally obtain <P(e, i)>=0.114 for (e, i)=(1.0, 0.5); the contribution of 2-recurrent orbits is 5%, and that of 3- and more-recurrent orbits is less than 1%. For this case (e=1.0 and i=0.5), we observed 874 collision orbits. The statistical error in evaluating <P(e, i)> is therefore presumed to be of the order of 4%. Since the contribution of 3- and more-recurrent orbits is within the statistical fluctuation, it can be neglected. よろしくお願いします。

  • 英語
  • 回答数1
  • ありがとう数1


  • ベストアンサー
  • ddeana
  • ベストアンサー率74% (2976/4019)

図8はbが2.8の時の二度目の遭遇におけるrの最小値を示している。この場合、τ-ω 図上には4つの接近遭遇軌道がある。図8を図7bと比較すると、回帰性接近遭遇軌道により占められる総面積(図8のドット模様で描いた領域)は最初の遭遇と比較すると小さいものであるが、無視できるほどではない。衝突軌道は必ず接近遭遇軌道に付随するものだ。よって衝突軌道を見つける為に、接近遭遇軌道のxy位相空間(図7で細かなドット模様で描いた領域)をもっと密( τでは網目の幅を0.002πと同じぐらい小さく)に細分化し、それぞれのτとωの組み合わせにおける軌道をたどった。さらに衝突軌道により占められるτとωの位相体積として、次の法的式より与えられた「特異な」衝突速度、<p(e, i, b)> 、を評価してみた。 <p(e, i, b)>=(1/(2π)^2)∫p_col (e, i, b, τ, ω)dτdω.      (24) ここでは1回, 2回、そしてもっと多くの回帰性軌道について、分けて <p(e, i, b)>を評価した。その結果は図9に示したとおりである。そこから、比較的大きなbの場合に存在する2つの回帰性衝突軌道と、bがbの最大値にほぼ等しい場合のみ存在するn回の回帰性(nは3と同等かそれよりも大きい)軌道をみつけることが出来る。つまり回帰性衝突軌道は比較的低いエネルギーの場合にのみ表れるのである。方程式(10)から次のようになる。 <P(e, i)>=∫【-∞→∞】(3/2)|b|<p(e, i, b)>db.         (25) 様々なb値における<p(e, i, b)>の評価値を用い、最終的に(e, i)が(1.0, 0.5)の時、<P(e, i)>は0.114 であるという結論を得る。すなわち2回の回帰性軌道の影響度は5%であり、3回かそれより多い回帰性軌道の影響度は1%以下である。このケース((eが1.0 でiが0.5)について874の衝突軌道を観察した。従って<P(e, i)>の評価における統計誤差(※1)は4%程度と推測される。3回とそれ以上の回帰性軌道の影響度は統計的変動の範囲以内なので無視することが可能である。 ※1:標準誤差とも言います。同じ論文の中に標準偏差(Standard Deviation)についての言及がある場合は「標準誤差」と言った方が良いですが、ここでは一応このように訳しておきます。



いつも大変ありがとうございます。 感謝の気持ちでいっぱいです。


  • この文章の和訳を教えてください。

    3.1. Case of e=0 and i=0 We have first calculated 6000 orbits in the parameter range of b from b_min=1.9 to b_max=2.5 at intervals of 0.0001. It is already known from previous studies (Nishida, and Petit and Hénon) that no collision orbits exist outside this region.    The orbits vary in a complicated way with the value of parameter b (see Petit and Hénon, 1986). In spite of the complex behavior of the orbits, we can classify them in terms of the number of encounters with the two-body sphere, from the standpoint of finding collision orbits. The classes are: (a) non-encounter orbit, (b) n-recurrent non-collision orbit, and (c) n-recurrent collision orbit, where the term “n-recurrent orbit” means the particle encounters n-times with the two-body sphere. That is, n-recurrent non-collision (or collision) orbits are those which fly off to infinity (or collide with the protoplanet ) after n-times encounters with the two-body sphere, while non-recurrent orbits are those which fly off without penetrating the two-body sphere. Examples of orbits in the classes (a), (b), and (c) are illustrated in Figs. 2,3, and 4, respectively. The above classification of orbits will be utilized for developing numerical procedures for obtaining <P(e, i)>, as described in the next section. よろしくお願いします。

  • この文章の和訳をよろしくお願いします。

    Fig. 3a and b. An example of recurrent non-collision orbits. The orbit with b=2.4784, e=0, and i=0 is illustrated. To see the orbital behavior near the protoplanet, the central region is enlarged in b; the circle shows the sphere of the two-body approximation and the small one the protoplanet. Fig. 4a and b. Same as Fig. 3 but b=2.341, e=0, and i=0. This is an example of recurrent collision orbits. Fig.5. Minimum separation distance r_min between the protoplanet and a planetesimal in the case of (e, i)=(0, 0). By solid curves, r_min in the first encounter is illustrated as a function of b. The level of protoplanetary radius is shown by a thin dashed line. The collision band in the second encounter orbits around b=2.34 is also shown by dashed curves. Fig. 6. Minimum distance r_min in the chaotic zone near b=1.93 for the case of (e, i)=(0, 0); it changes violently with b. Fig. 7a-c. Contours of minimum separation distance r_min in the first encounter for the case of (e, i)=(1.0, 0.5); b=2.3(a), 2.8(b), and 3.1 (c). Contours are drawn in terms of log_10 (r_min) and the contour interval is 0.5. Regions where r_min>1 are marked by coarse dots. Particles in these regions cannot enter the Hill sphere of the protoplanet. Fine dots denotes regions where r_min is smaller than the radius r_cr of the sphere of the two-body approximation (r_cr=0.03; log_10(r_cr)=-1.52). Fig. 3a and b. および Fig. 4a and b. ↓ Fig.5. および Fig. 7a-c.  ↓ Fig. 6. ↓ お手数ですが、よろしくお願いします。

  • この文章の和訳をお願いします。

       In the chaotic zone, there are, of course, a great number of discrete collision orbits. Minimum separation distance in the chaotic zone near b=1.93 is enlarged in Fig.6, which is obtained from the calculation of 3000 orbits with b between 1.926 and 1.932. Even in this enlarged figure, r_min varies violently with b. Although the chaotic zones are not sufficiently resolved in our present study, the phase space occupied by collision orbits in the chaotic zones is much smaller than that in the regular collision bands. Even if all orbits in the chaotic zone are collisional, their contribution to the collision rate is less than 4% of the total: the width in b=2.30 and 2.48, we also found that the total width is much smaller than 0.001. This implies that in the evaluation of <P(e, i)>, we can neglect the contribution of collision orbits in the chaotic zones.    These are n-recurrent collision orbits in the regular zones. Of these, 2-recurrent collision orbits are most important. The collisional band composed of them is found near b=2.34. Its width ⊿b is about 0.011, and the contribution to the collision is as large as 15%. No.3- and more –recurrent collision orbits were observed in regular zones. They were found only in the chaotic zones and, hence, can be neglected. 長いですが、よろしくお願いします。

  • この文章の和訳をお願いします。

    3.2. Case of e=1.0 and i=0.5 In the three-dimensional case, the orbit is characterized by three parameters b, τ_s, and ω_s (in this section, we will omit the subscript “s” describing a starting point of orbital calculations). Recalling that b_max<3.7 from Eq. (16) and b_min>1.3 from Eq. (18) in the present case, we first examine orbits with b in the range between 1.3 and 3.7: Phase space (b, τ, ω) is divided into about 22000 meshes, i.e., 24 in b (1.3~3.7), 60 in τ (-π~π), and 15 ω (0~π). These orbital calculations show that there is no collision orbit where b<1.5 and b>3.2: b_max and b_min are set at 3.2 and 1.5, respectively, rather than 3.7 and 1.3. In parallel with the argument in the previous subsection, we consider the minimum separation r_min between the protoplanet and the planetesimal. In Fig.7, contours of r_min in the first encounter are illustrated in the τ-ω diagram for the three cases of b=2.3 (Fig. 7a), 2.8 (b), and 3.1 (c). Each figure is compiled from the orbital calculations of 5000 orbits, i.e., the τ-ω plane is divided into 100 (in τ)×50 (in ω). We concentrate first on Fig. 7a. In the coarsely dotted region where r_min>1, particles cannot enter the Hill sphere of the protoplanet. Such regions are beyond our interest. In the other regions where particles can enter the Hill sphere, r_min varies with τ and ω in a complicated manner. In particular, near the points (τ, ω)=(-0.24π,0.42π) and (-0.26π, 0.06π), r_min varies drastically in a small area in the τ-ω diagram. These may be chaotic zones. But in almost all regions, r_min varies continuously with τ and ω, and in this sense the orbits are regular. The finely dotted regions show those in which r_min becomes smaller than 0.03 (the radius of the two-body).Such orbits will be called close-encounter orbits in the chaotic zones is very small compared with that in the regular zones. This is the same conclusion as reached earlier. 長文ですが、どうかよろしくお願いします。

  • この文章の和訳をお願いします。

    In Figs. 7b and 7c (b=2.8 and 3.1) we find that the τ values of close-encounter orbits are confined in a region near τ=0 and, further, its width decreases with an increase in b. In particular, when b=3.1 (i.e., b very close to b_max), the τ values of the close-encounter orbits localize in a narrow region around τ=0. This comes from the choice of φ=0 in the initial conditions: When b is relatively large and the mutual gravity is weak, then a particle continues approximately its original Keplerian motion. When the guiding center of the particle comes across the x-axis (i.e., when t=0), its position is given by (see Eq. (7) with φ=0) x=b-cosτ, y=-2esinτ, (23) z=-isinω. The distance from the origin becomes minimum when τ<<π. Thus only particles with τ<<π can be disturbed drastically by the gravity of the protoplanet and have the possibility of encountering the two-body sphere. The fact that the width of τ in the finely dotted region (i.e., the τ of close-encounter orbits) decreases with an increase in b is also observed in other e and i, as long as b>e. This behavior is very useful to systematically find collision orbits. If we can once find an appropriate restricted region of close-encounter orbit, e.g., τ_1≦τ≦τ_2, for some b_1 (b_1>e), then for b>b_1 it is sufficient to search close-encounter orbits in the limited region between τ_1 and τ_2. よろしくお願いします。

  • この文章の和訳をお願いします。

    Table 3. Numbers of two-dimensional collision orbits (i=0) found by our orbital calculations. Only four cases of e are tabulated as examples. The numbers of collision orbits decrease with the decrease in the planetary radius r_p. Fig.11. The two-dimensional enhancement factor R(e,0) as a function of e for r_p=0.005, 0.001, and 0.0002. The enhancement factor depends rather weakly on r_p. Fig.12. The collisional flux F(e,E) defined by Eq. (32) as a function of the Jacobi energy E for e=0, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0. ↓Table 3. ↓Fig.11. ↓Fig.12. よろしくお願いします。

  • この文章の和訳をお願いします。

    Fig.4. Magnified figures of one of the discontinuous bands in 1.915<b_i~<1.925 in Figs. 3(a) and (b). There are many fine discontinuous bands in itself. Fig.5. Examples of particle orbits which belong to the discontinuous bands in Fig.4.  (a) and (b) are of particles which escape from the Hill sphere through the gate of L_1 and through that of L_2, respectively. The values of b_i~ are 1.91894 (a) and 1.91898 (b). Fig.6. Examples of purely Keplerian orbits with e_i~=4 for b_i~=2 and b_i~=10. The former curls (|b_i~|<4(e_i~/3) and the latter waves (|b_i~|>4(e_i~/3)). The values of δ* of both orbits are zero. ↓Fig.4. ↓Fig.5. ↓Fig.6. どうかよろしくお願いします。

  • この文章の和訳を教えてください。

    4. Numerical procedures for obtaining <P(e, i)> Based on the results in Sect. 3, we develop numerical procedures for efficiently obtaining <P(e, i)>. By using the framework of Hill’s equations, one can reduce the degrees of freedom of particle motion, as described in Paper I. Nevertheless, they are still too numerous to compute orbits densely and uniformly over the five-dimensional phase space (e, i, b, τ_s, ω_s) of initial conditions. Furthermore, we frequently find orbits which comes very close to the protoplanet or which revolve complicatedly many times around the protoplanet. In these cases, an enormously long computation time is needed to calculate them. To avoid these difficulties, we introduce the following three simplifications: (i) We neglect n-recurrent orbits in evaluating <P(e, i)> when n≧3; that is, we stop an orbital calculation if the particle does not collide with the protoplanet even after two close encounters. (ii) When the planetesimal crosses the sphere surface of the two-body approximation, the two-body formula determines whether or not a collision occurs. (iii)We omit orbital computations in some regions of τ_s, which depend on a given set of e, i, and b; it is found empirically that there are no collision orbits in these regions. よろしくお願いします。

  • この文章の和訳を教えてください。

    In order to see qualitatively the collision frequency, we will define the collision probability, P_c(b_i~) as follows. For a fixed value of b_i~, orbital calculations are made with N's different value of δ*_i, which are chosen so as to devide 2π(from –π to π) by equal intervals. Let n_c be the number of collision orbits, then P(b_i~, N)=n_c/N gives the probability of collision in the limit N→∞. In practice, however, we can evaluate the value of P_c(b_i~) approximately, but in sufficient accuracy in use, by the following procedures; i.e., at first for N=N_1(e.g., N_1=1000), P(b_i~,N_1) is found and, next, for N=2N_1, P(b_i~,N) is reevaluated. お手数ですが、どうかよろしくお願いします。

  • この文章の和訳をお願いします。

    Fig. 8. Contours of minimum separation distance r_min in the second encounter for the case of (e, i, b)=(1.0, 0.5, 2.8). Dots have the same meanings as those in Fig. 7. Fig. 9. The “Differential” collisional rate <p(e, i, b)> (defined by Eq. (24)) is plotted as a function of b in the case of (e, i)=(1.0, 0.5). Fig. 8.↓ Fig. 9.↓ よろしくお願いします。