Celestial mechanics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Celestial mechanics is the branch of astronomy that deals with the motions of objects in outer space. Historically, celestial mechanics applies principles of physics (classical mechanics) to astronomical objects, such as stars and planets, to produce ephemeris data.

As an astronomical field of study, celestial mechanics includes the sub-fields of orbital mechanics, which deals with the launching and orbits artificial satellites, and lunar theory, a specialty which deals with the complications of the orbit of the Moon. Modern celestial mechanics tends to divide between five broad fields of study:

• trajectories of artificial satellites (astrodynamics)
• motions of major planets, minor planets, and natural satellites in the Solar system and other stellar systems and widely spaced multiple-star systems (planetary dynamics)
• the motion of component stars and their planetary systems in closely spaced multiple-star systems and globular clusters (astrodynamics and stellar dynamics)
• flow of stars within and among the bodies of large galaxies, dwarf galaxies, and globular clusters (stellar dynamics and galactic dynamics)
• motions of galaxies and intergalactic dust and gas within galaxy clusters (computational astrophysics)

All of the above fields overlap, but are sometimes treated as separate, especially the study of the motion of stars within galaxies and interactions between whole galaxies, which both tend to rely heavily on fluid mechanics (whole stars being particles of the “fluid”).

History

For early theories of the causes of planetary motion, see Dynamics of the celestial spheres.

Modern analytic celestial mechanics started with Isaac Newton's Principia of 1687. The name "celestial mechanics" is more recent than that. Newton wrote that the field should be called "rational mechanics." The term "dynamics" came in a little later with Gottfried Leibniz, and over a century after Newton, Pierre-Simon Laplace introduced the term "celestial mechanics." Prior to Kepler there was little connection between exact, quantitative prediction of planetary positions, using geometrical or arithmetical techniques, and contemporary discussions of the physical causes of the planets' motion.

Johannes Kepler

Johannes Kepler (1571–1630) was the first to closely integrate the predictive geometrical astronomy, which had been dominant from Ptolemy in the 2nd century to Copernicus, with physical concepts to produce a New Astronomy, Based upon Causes, or Celestial Physics in 1609. His work led to the modern laws of planetary orbits, which he developed using his physical principles and the planetary observations made by Tycho Brahe. Kepler's model greatly improved the accuracy of predictions of planetary motion, years before Isaac Newton developed his law of gravitation in 1686.

Isaac Newton

Isaac Newton (25 December 1642–31 March 1727) is credited with introducing the idea that the motion of objects in the heavens, such as planets, the Sun, and the Moon, and the motion of objects on the ground, like cannon balls and falling apples, could be described by the same set of physical laws. In this sense he unified celestial and terrestrial dynamics. Using Newton's law of universal gravitation, proving Kepler's Laws for the case of a circular orbit is simple. Elliptical orbits involve more complex calculations, which Newton included in his Principia.

Joseph-Louis Lagrange

After Newton, Lagrange (25 January 1736–10 April 1813) attempted to solve the three-body problem, analyzed the stability of planetary orbits, and discovered the existence of the Lagrangian points. Lagrange also reformulated the principles of classical mechanics, emphasizing energy more than force and developing a method to use a single polar coordinate equation to describe any orbit, even those that are parabolic and hyperbolic. This is useful for calculating the behaviour of planets and comets and such. More recently, it has also become useful to calculate spacecraft trajectories.

Simon Newcomb

Simon Newcomb (12 March 1835–11 July 1909) was a Canadian-American astronomer who revised Peter Andreas Hansen's table of lunar positions. In 1877, assisted by George William Hill, he recalculated all the major astronomical constants. After 1884, he conceived with A. M. W. Downing a plan to resolve much international confusion on the subject. By the time he attended a standardisation conference in Paris, France in May 1886, the international consensus was that all ephemerides should be based on Newcomb's calculations. A further conference as late as 1950 confirmed Newcomb's constants as the international standard.

Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein (14 March 1879–18 April 1955) explained the anomalous precession of Mercury's perihelion in his 1916 paper The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity. This led astronomers to recognize that Newtonian mechanics did not provide the highest accuracy. Binary pulsars have been observed, the first in 1974, whose orbits not only require the use of General Relativity for their explanation, but whose evolution proves the existence of gravitational radiation, a discovery that led to the 1993 Nobel Physics Prize.

Examples of problems

Celestial motion without additional forces such as thrust of a rocket, is governed by gravitational acceleration of masses due to other masses. A simplification is the n-body problem, where the problem assumes some number n of spherically symmetric masses. In that case, the integration of the accelerations can be well approximated by relatively simple summations.

Examples:

• 4-body problem: spaceflight to Mars (for parts of the flight the influence of one or two bodies is very small, so that there we have a 2- or 3-body problem; see also the patched conic approximation)
• 3-body problem:
  • Quasi-satellite
  • Spaceflight to, and stay at a Lagrangian point

In the case that n=2 (two-body problem), the situation is much simpler than for larger n. Various explicit formulas apply, where in the more general case typically only numerical solutions are possible. It is a useful simplification that is often approximately valid.

Examples:

• A binary star, e.g., Alpha Centauri (approx. the same mass)
• A binary asteroid, e.g., 90 Antiope (approx. the same mass)

A further simplification is based on the "standard assumptions in astrodynamics", which include that one body, the orbiting body, is much smaller than the other, the central body. This is also often approximately valid.

Examples:

• Solar system orbiting the center of the Milky Way
• A planet orbiting the Sun
• A moon orbiting a planet
• A spacecraft orbiting Earth, a moon, or a planet (in the latter cases the approximation only applies after arrival at that orbit)

Perturbation theory

Perturbation theory comprises mathematical methods that are used to find an approximate solution to a problem which cannot be solved exactly. (It is closely related to methods used in numerical analysis, which are ancient.) The earliest use of modern perturbation theory was to deal with the otherwise unsolveable mathematical problems of celestial mechanics: Newton's solution for the orbit of the Moon, which moves noticeably differently from a simple Keplerian ellipse because of the competing gravitation of the Earth and the Sun.

Perturbation methods start with a simplified form of the original problem, which is carefully chosen to be exactly solvable. In celestial mechanics, this is usually a Keplerian ellipse, which is correct when there are only two gravitating bodies (say, the Earth and the Moon), or a circular orbit, which is only correct in special cases of two-body motion, but is often close enough for practical use.

The solved, but simplified problem is then "perturbed" to make its time-rate-of-change equations for the object's position closer to the values from the real problem, such as including the gravitational attraction of a third, more distant body (the Sun). The slight changes that result from the terms in the equations – which themselves may have been simplified yet again – are used as corrections to the original solution. Because simplifications are made at every step, the corrections are never perfect, but even one cycle of corrections often provides a remarkably better approximate solution to the real problem.

There is no requirement to stop at only one cycle of corrections. A partially corrected solution can be re-used as the new starting point for yet another cycle of perturbations and corrections. In principle, for most problems the recycling and refining of prior solutions to obtain a new generation of better solutions could continue indefinitely, to any desired finite degree of accuracy.

The common difficulty with the method is that the corrections usually progressively make the new solutions very much more complicated, so each cycle is much more difficult to manage than the previous cycle of corrections. Newton is reported to have said, regarding the problem of the Moon's orbit "It causeth my head to ache."

This general procedure – starting with a simplified problem and gradually adding corrections that make the starting point of the corrected problem closer to the real situation – is a widely used mathematical tool in advanced sciences and engineering. It is the natural extension of the "guess, check, and fix" method used anciently with numbers.

Orbital resonance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An unusual case of a three-body resonance among Jupiter's Galilean moons

In celestial mechanics, an orbital resonance occurs when orbiting bodies exert a regular, periodic gravitational influence on each other, usually because their orbital periods are related by a ratio of small integers. Most commonly this relationship is found for a pair of objects. The physics principle behind orbital resonance is similar in concept to pushing a child on a swing, where the orbit and the swing both have a natural frequency, and the other body doing the "pushing" will act in periodic repetition to have a cumulative effect on the motion. Orbital resonances greatly enhance the mutual gravitational influence of the bodies, i.e. their ability to alter or constrain each other's orbits. In most cases, this results in an unstable interaction, in which the bodies exchange momentum and shift orbits until the resonance no longer exists. Under some circumstances, a resonant system can be stable and self-correcting, so that the bodies remain in resonance. Examples are the 1:2:4 resonance of Jupiter's moons Ganymede, Europa and Io, and the 2:3 resonance between Pluto and Neptune. Unstable resonances with Saturn's inner moons give rise to gaps in the rings of Saturn. The special case of 1:1 resonance between bodies with similar orbital radii causes large Solar System bodies to eject most other bodies sharing their orbits; this is part of the much more extensive process of clearing the neighbourhood, an effect that is used in the current definition of a planet.

A binary resonance ratio in this article should be interpreted as the ratio of number of orbits completed in the same time interval, rather than as the ratio of orbital periods, which would be the inverse ratio. Thus the 2:3 ratio above means Pluto completes two orbits in the time it takes Neptune to complete three. In the case of resonance relationships among three or more bodies, either type of ratio may be used (in such cases the smallest whole-integer ratio sequences are not necessarily reversals of each other) and the type of ratio will be specified.

History

Since the discovery of Newton's law of universal gravitation in the 17th century, the stability of the Solar System has preoccupied many mathematicians, starting with Laplace. The stable orbits that arise in a two-body approximation ignore the influence of other bodies. The effect of these added interactions on the stability of the Solar System is very small, but at first it was not known whether they might add up over longer periods to significantly change the orbital parameters and lead to a completely different configuration, or whether some other stabilising effects might maintain the configuration of the orbits of the planets.

It was Laplace who found the first answers explaining the linked orbits of the Galilean moons (see below). Before Newton, there was also consideration of ratios and proportions in orbital motions, in what was called "the music of the spheres", or Musica universalis.

Types of resonance

The semimajor axes of resonant trans-Neptunian objects (red) are clumped at locations of low-integer resonances with Neptune (vertical red bars near top), in contrast to those of cubewanos (blue) and nonresonant (or not known to be resonant) scattered objects (grey).

 

A chart of the distribution of asteroid semimajor axes, showing the Kirkwood gaps where orbits are destabilized by resonances with Jupiter

 

Spiral density waves in Saturn's A Ring excited by resonances with inner moons. Such waves propagate away from the planet (towards upper left). The large set of waves just below center is due to the 6:5 resonance with Janus.

 

The eccentric Titan Ringlet in the Columbo Gap of Saturn's C Ring (center) and the inclined orbits of resonant particles in the bending wave just inside it have apsidal and nodal precessions, respectively, commensurate with Titan's mean motion.

 

In general, an orbital resonance may

• involve one or any combination of the orbit parameters (e.g. eccentricity versus semimajor axis, or eccentricity versus orbital inclination).
• act on any time scale from short term, commensurable with the orbit periods, to secular, measured in 10⁴ to 10⁶ years.
• lead to either long-term stabilization of the orbits or be the cause of their destabilization.

A mean-motion orbital resonance occurs when two bodies have periods of revolution that are a simple integer ratio of each other. Depending on the details, this can either stabilize or destabilize the orbit. Stabilization may occur when the two bodies move in such a synchronised fashion that they never closely approach. For instance:

• The orbits of Pluto and the plutinos are stable, despite crossing that of the much larger Neptune, because they are in a 2:3 resonance with it. The resonance ensures that, when they approach perihelion and Neptune's orbit, Neptune is consistently distant (averaging a quarter of its orbit away). Other (much more numerous) Neptune-crossing bodies that were not in resonance were ejected from that region by strong perturbations due to Neptune. There are also smaller but significant groups of resonant trans-Neptunian objects occupying the 1:1 (Neptune trojans), 3:5, 4:7, 1:2 (twotinos) and 2:5 resonances, among others, with respect to Neptune.
• In the asteroid belt beyond 3.5 AU from the Sun, the 3:2, 4:3 and 1:1 resonances with Jupiter are populated by clumps of asteroids (the Hilda family, the few Thule asteroids, and the numerous Trojan asteroids, respectively).

Orbital resonances can also destabilize one of the orbits. For small bodies, destabilization is actually far more likely. For instance:

• In the asteroid belt within 3.5 AU from the Sun, the major mean-motion resonances with Jupiter are locations of gaps in the asteroid distribution, the Kirkwood gaps (most notably at the 4:1, 3:1, 5:2, 7:3 and 2:1 resonances). Asteroids have been ejected from these almost empty lanes by repeated perturbations. However, there are still populations of asteroids temporarily present in or near these resonances. For example, asteroids of the Alinda family are in or close to the 3:1 resonance, with their orbital eccentricity steadily increased by interactions with Jupiter until they eventually have a close encounter with an inner planet that ejects them from the resonance.
• In the rings of Saturn, the Cassini Division is a gap between the inner B Ring and the outer A Ring that has been cleared by a 2:1 resonance with the moon Mimas. (More specifically, the site of the resonance is the Huygens Gap, which bounds the outer edge of the B Ring.)
• In the rings of Saturn, the Encke and Keeler gaps within the A Ring are cleared by 1:1 resonances with the embedded moonlets Pan and Daphnis, respectively. The A Ring's outer edge is maintained by a destabilizing 7:6 resonance with the moon Janus.

Most bodies that are in resonance orbit in the same direction; however, the retrograde asteroid 2015 BZ509 appears to be in a stable (for a period of at least a million years) 1:−1 resonance with Jupiter. In addition, a few retrograde damocloids have been found that are temporarily captured in mean-motion resonance with Jupiter or Saturn. Such orbital interactions are weaker than the corresponding interactions between bodies orbiting in the same direction.

A Laplace resonance is a three-body resonance with a 1:2:4 orbital period ratio (equivalent to a 4:2:1 ratio of orbits). The term arose because Pierre-Simon Laplace discovered that such a resonance governed the motions of Jupiter's moons Io, Europa, and Ganymede. It is now also often applied to other 3-body resonances with the same ratios, such as that between the extrasolar planets Gliese 876 c, b, and e. Three-body resonances involving other simple integer ratios have been termed "Laplace-like"^[9] or "Laplace-type".

A Lindblad resonance drives spiral density waves both in galaxies (where stars are subject to forcing by the spiral arms themselves) and in Saturn's rings (where ring particles are subject to forcing by Saturn's moons).

A secular resonance occurs when the precession of two orbits is synchronised (usually a precession of the perihelion or ascending node). A small body in secular resonance with a much larger one (e.g. a planet) will precess at the same rate as the large body. Over long times (a million years, or so) a secular resonance will change the eccentricity and inclination of the small body.

Several prominent examples of secular resonance involve Saturn. A resonance between the precession of Saturn's rotational axis and that of Neptune's orbital axis (both of which have periods of about 1.87 million years) has been identified as the likely source of Saturn's large axial tilt (26.7°). Initially, Saturn probably had a tilt closer to that of Jupiter (3.1°). The gradual depletion of the Kuiper belt would have decreased the precession rate of Neptune's orbit; eventually, the frequencies matched, and Saturn's axial precession was captured into the spin-orbit resonance, leading to an increase in Saturn's obliquity. (The angular momentum of Neptune's orbit is 10⁴ times that of Saturn's spin, and thus dominates the interaction.)

The perihelion secular resonance between asteroids and Saturn (ν₆ = g − g₆) helps shape the asteroid belt (the subscript "6" identifies Saturn as the sixth planet from the Sun). Asteroids which approach it have their eccentricity slowly increased until they become Mars-crossers, at which point they are usually ejected from the asteroid belt by a close pass to Mars. This resonance forms the inner and "side" boundaries of the asteroid belt around 2 AU, and at inclinations of about 20°.

Numerical simulations have suggested that the eventual formation of a perihelion secular resonance between Mercury and Jupiter (g₁ = g₅) has the potential to greatly increase Mercury's eccentricity and possibly destabilize the inner Solar System several billion years from now.

The Titan Ringlet within Saturn's C Ring represents another type of resonance in which the rate of apsidal precession of one orbit exactly matches the speed of revolution of another. The outer end of this eccentric ringlet always points towards Saturn's major moon Titan.

A Kozai resonance occurs when the inclination and eccentricity of a perturbed orbit oscillate synchronously (increasing eccentricity while decreasing inclination and vice versa). This resonance applies only to bodies on highly inclined orbits; as a consequence, such orbits tend to be unstable, since the growing eccentricity would result in small pericenters, typically leading to a collision or (for large moons) destruction by tidal forces.

In an example of another type of resonance involving orbital eccentricity, the eccentricities of Ganymede and Callisto vary with a common period of 181 years, although with opposite phases.

Mean-motion resonances in the Solar System

Depiction of Haumea's presumed 7:12 resonance with Neptune in a rotating frame, with Neptune (blue dot at lower right) held stationary. Haumea's shifting orbital alignment relative to Neptune periodically reverses (librates), preserving the resonance.

 

The Laplace resonance exhibited by three of the Galilean moons. The ratios in the figure are of orbital periods. Conjunctions are highlighted by brief color changes. There are two Io-Europa conjunctions (green) and three Io-Ganymede conjunctions (grey) for each Europa-Ganymede conjunction (magenta).

 

There are only a few known mean-motion resonances in the Solar System involving planets, dwarf planets or larger satellites (a much greater number involve asteroids, planetary rings, moonlets and smaller Kuiper belt objects, including many possible dwarf planets).

• 2:3 Pluto–Neptune (also Orcus and other plutinos)
• 2:4 Tethys–Mimas (Saturn's moons). Not simplified, because the libration of the nodes must be taken into account.
• 1:2 Dione–Enceladus (Saturn’s moons)
• 3:4 Hyperion–Titan (Saturn's moons)
• 1:2:4 Ganymede–Europa–Io (Jupiter's moons, ratio of orbits).

Additionally, Haumea is believed to be in a 7:12 resonance with Neptune, and (225088) 2007 OR10 is believed to be in a 3:10 resonance with Neptune.

The simple integer ratios between periods hide more complex relations:

• the point of conjunction can oscillate (librate) around an equilibrium point defined by the resonance.
• given non-zero eccentricities, the nodes or periapsides can drift (a resonance related, short period, not secular precession).

As illustration of the latter, consider the well-known 2:1 resonance of Io-Europa. If the orbiting periods were in this relation, the mean motions ${\displaystyle n\,\!}$ (inverse of periods, often expressed in degrees per day) would satisfy the following

${\displaystyle n_{\rm {Io}}-2\cdot n_{\rm {Eu}}=0}$

Substituting the data (from Wikipedia) one will get −0.7395° day⁻¹, a value substantially different from zero.

Actually, the resonance is perfect, but it involves also the precession of perijove (the point closest to Jupiter), ${\displaystyle {\dot {\omega }}}$. The correct equation (part of the Laplace equations) is:

${\displaystyle n_{\rm {Io}}-2\cdot n_{\rm {Eu}}+{\dot {\omega }}_{\rm {Io}}=0}$

In other words, the mean motion of Io is indeed double of that of Europa taking into account the precession of the perijove. An observer sitting on the (drifting) perijove will see the moons coming into conjunction in the same place (elongation). The other pairs listed above satisfy the same type of equation with the exception of Mimas-Tethys resonance. In this case, the resonance satisfies the equation

${\displaystyle 4\cdot n_{\rm {Te}}-2\cdot n_{\rm {Mi}}-{\dot {\Omega }}_{\rm {Te}}-{\dot {\Omega }}_{\rm {Mi}}=0}$

The point of conjunctions librates around the midpoint between the nodes of the two moons.

Laplace resonance

Illustration of Io–Europa–Ganymede resonance. From the centre outwards: Io (yellow), Europa (gray) and Ganymede (dark)

The Laplace resonance involving Io–Europa–Ganymede includes the following relation locking the orbital phase of the moons:

${\displaystyle \Phi _{L}=\lambda _{\rm {Io}}-3\cdot \lambda _{\rm {Eu}}+2\cdot \lambda _{\rm {Ga}}=180^{\circ }}$

where ${\displaystyle \lambda }$ are mean longitudes of the moons (the second equals sign ignores libration). This relation makes a triple conjunction impossible. (A Laplace resonance in the Gliese 876 system, in contrast, is associated with one triple conjunction per orbit of the outermost planet, ignoring libration.) The graph illustrates the positions of the moons after 1, 2 and 3 Io periods. ${\displaystyle \Phi _{L}}$ librates about 180° with an amplitude of 0.03°.

Another "Laplace-like" resonance involves the moons Styx, Nix and Hydra of Pluto:

${\displaystyle \Phi =3\cdot \lambda _{\rm {S}}-5\cdot \lambda _{\rm {N}}+2\cdot \lambda _{\rm {H}}=180^{\circ }}$

This reflects orbital periods for Styx, Nix and Hydra, respectively, that are close to a ratio of 18:22:33 (or, in terms of the near resonances with Charon's period, 3+3/11:4:6; see below); the respective ratio of orbits is 11:9:6. Based on the ratios of synodic periods, there are 5 conjunctions of Styx and Hydra and 3 conjunctions of Nix and Hydra for every 2 conjunctions of Styx and Nix. As with the Galilean satellite resonance, triple conjunctions are forbidden. ${\displaystyle \Phi }$ librates about 180° with an amplitude of at least 10°.

Sequence of conjunctions of Hydra (blue),

Nix (red) and Styx (black) over one third of their

resonance cycle. Movements are counterclockwise

and orbits completed are tallied at upper right of

diagrams (click on image to see the whole cycle).

Plutino resonances

The dwarf planet Pluto is following an orbit trapped in a web of resonances with Neptune. The resonances include:

• A mean-motion resonance of 2:3
• The resonance of the perihelion (libration around 90°), keeping the perihelion above the ecliptic
• The resonance of the longitude of the perihelion in relation to that of Neptune

One consequence of these resonances is that a separation of at least 30 AU is maintained when Pluto crosses Neptune's orbit. The minimum separation between the two bodies overall is 17 AU, while the minimum separation between Pluto and Uranus is just 11 AU.
The next largest body in a similar 2:3 resonance with Neptune, called a plutino, is the probable dwarf planet Orcus. Orcus has an orbit similar in inclination and eccentricity to Pluto's. However, the two are constrained by their mutual resonance with Neptune to always be in opposite phases of their orbits; Orcus is thus sometimes described as the "anti-Pluto".

Mean-motion resonances among extrasolar planets

While most extrasolar planetary systems discovered have not been found to have planets in mean-motion resonances, chains of up to five resonant planets and up to seven at least near resonant planets have been uncovered. Simulations have shown that during planetary system formation, the appearance of resonant chains of planetary embryos is favored by the presence of the primordial gas disc. Once that gas dissipates, 90-95% of those chains must then become unstable to match the low frequency of resonant chains observed.

• As mentioned above, Gliese 876 e, b and c are in a Laplace resonance, with a 4:2:1 ratio of periods (124.3, 61.1 and 30.0 days). In this case, ${\displaystyle \Phi _{L}}$ librates with an amplitude of 40° ± 13° and the resonance follows the time-averaged relation:

${\displaystyle \Phi _{L}=\lambda _{\rm {c}}-3\cdot \lambda _{\rm {d}}+2\cdot \lambda _{\rm {e}}=0^{\circ }}$

• Kepler-223 has four planets in a resonance with an 8:6:4:3 orbit ratio, and a 3:4:6:8 ratio of periods (7.3845, 9.8456, 14.7887 and 19.7257 days). This represents the first confirmed 4-body orbital resonance. The librations within this system are such that close encounters between two planets occur only when the other planets are in distant parts of their orbits. Simulations indicate that this system of resonances must have formed via planetary migration.
• Kepler-80 d, e, b, c and g have periods in a ~ 1.000: 1.512: 2.296: 3.100: 4.767 ratio (3.0722, 4.6449, 7.0525, 9.5236 and 14.6456 days). However, in a frame of reference that rotates with the conjunctions, this reduces to a period ratio of 4:6:9:12:18 (an orbit ratio of 9:6:4:3:2). Conjunctions of d and e, e and b, b and c, and c and g occur at relative intervals of 2:3:6:6 (9.07, 13.61 and 27.21 days) in a pattern that repeats about every 190.5 days (seven full cycles in the rotating frame) in the inertial or nonrotating frame (equivalent to a 62:41:27:20:13 orbit ratio resonance in the nonrotating frame, because the conjunctions circulate in the direction opposite orbital motion). Librations of possible three-body resonances have amplitudes of only about 3 degrees, and modeling indicates the resonant system is stable to perturbations. Triple conjunctions do not occur.
• Kepler-29 has a pair of planets in a 7:9 resonance (ratio of 1/1.28587).
• Kepler-36 has a pair of planets close to a 6:7 resonance.
• Kepler-37 d, c and b are within one percent of a resonance with an 8:15:24 orbit ratio and a 15:8:5 ratio of periods (39.792187, 21.301886 and 13.367308 days).
• Of Kepler-90's eight known planets, the period ratios b:c, c:i and i:d are close to 4:5, 3:5 and 1:4, respectively (4:4.977, 3:4.97 and 1:4.13) and d, e, f, g and h are close to a 2:3:4:7:11 period ratio (2:3.078:4.182:7.051:11.102; also 7:11.021). f, g and h are also close to a 3:5:8 period ratio (3:5.058:7.964). Relevant to systems like this and that of Kepler-36, calculations suggest that the presence of an outer gas giant planet facilitates the formation of closely packed resonances among inner super-Earths.
• HD 41248 has a pair of super-Earths within 0.3% of a 5:7 resonance (ratio of 1/1.39718).^[40]
• TRAPPIST-1's seven approximately Earth-sized planets are in a chain of near resonances (the longest such chain known), having an orbit ratio of approximately 24, 15, 9, 6, 4, 3 and 2, or nearest-neighbor period ratios (proceeding outward) of about 8/5, 5/3, 3/2, 3/2, 4/3 and 3/2 (1.603, 1.672, 1.506, 1.509, 1.342 and 1.519). They are also configured such that each triple of adjacent planets is in a Laplace resonance (i.e., b, c and d in one such Laplace configuration; c, d and e in another, etc.). The resonant configuration is expected to be stable on a time scale of billions of years, assuming it arose during planetary migration. A musical interpretation of the resonance has been provided.

Cases of extrasolar planets close to a 1:2 mean-motion resonance are fairly common. Sixteen percent of systems found by the transit method are reported to have an example of this (with period ratios in the range 1.83-2.18), as well as one sixth of planetary systems characterized by Doppler spectroscopy (with in this case a narrower period ratio range). Due to incomplete knowledge of the systems, the actual proportions are likely to be higher. Overall, about a third of radial velocity characterized systems appear to have a pair of planets close to a commensurability. It is much more common for pairs of planets to have orbital period ratios a few percent larger than a mean-motion resonance ratio than a few percent smaller (particularly in the case of first order resonances, in which the integers in the ratio differ by one). This was predicted to be true in cases where tidal interactions with the star are significant.

Coincidental 'near' ratios of mean motion

Depiction of asteroid Pallas' 18:7 near resonance with Jupiter in a rotating frame (click for animation). Jupiter (pink loop at upper left) is held nearly stationary. The shift in Pallas' orbital alignment relative to Jupiter increases steadily over time; it never reverses course (i.e., there is no libration).

 

Depiction of the Earth:Venus 8:13 near resonance. With Earth held stationary at the center of a nonrotating frame, the successive inferior conjunctions of Venus over eight Earth years trace a pentagrammic pattern (reflecting the difference between the numbers in the ratio).

 

Diagram of the orbits of Pluto's small outer four moons, which follow a 3:4:5:6 sequence of near resonances relative to the period of its large inner satellite Charon. The moons Styx, Nix and Hydra are also involved in a true 3-body resonance.

 

A number of near-integer-ratio relationships between the orbital frequencies of the planets or major moons are sometimes pointed out (see list below). However, these have no dynamical significance because there is no appropriate precession of perihelion or other libration to make the resonance perfect (see the detailed discussion in the section above). Such near resonances are dynamically insignificant even if the mismatch is quite small because (unlike a true resonance), after each cycle the relative position of the bodies shifts. When averaged over astronomically short timescales, their relative position is random, just like bodies that are nowhere near resonance. For example, consider the orbits of Earth and Venus, which arrive at almost the same configuration after 8 Earth orbits and 13 Venus orbits. The actual ratio is 0.61518624, which is only 0.032% away from exactly 8:13. The mismatch after 8 years is only 1.5° of Venus' orbital movement. Still, this is enough that Venus and Earth find themselves in the opposite relative orientation to the original every 120 such cycles, which is 960 years. Therefore, on timescales of thousands of years or more (still tiny by astronomical standards), their relative position is effectively random.

The presence of a near resonance may reflect that a perfect resonance existed in the past, or that the system is evolving towards one in the future.

Some orbital frequency coincidences include:

(Ratio) and Bodies	Mismatch after one cycle	Randomization time	Probability
Planets
(9:23) Venus-Mercury	4.0°	200 y	0.19
(8:13) Earth-Venus	1.5°	1000 y	0.065
(243:395) Earth-Venus	0.8°	50,000 y	0.68
(1:3) Mars-Venus	20.6°	20 y	0.11
(1:2) Mars-Earth	42.9°	8 y	0.24
(1:12) Jupiter-Earth	49.1°	40 y	0.28
(2:5) Saturn–Jupiter	12.8°	800 y	0.13
(1:7) Uranus-Jupiter	31.1°	500 y	0.18
(7:20) Uranus-Saturn	5.7°	20,000 y	0.20
(5:28) Neptune-Saturn	1.9°	80,000 y	0.052
(1:2) Neptune-Uranus	14.0°	2000 y	0.078
Mars system
(1:4) Deimos-Phobos	14.9°	0.04 y	0.083
Major asteroids
(1:1) Pallas - Ceres	0.7°	1000 y	0.0039
(7:18) Jupiter - Pallas	0.10°	100,000 y	0.0040
87 Sylvia system
(17:45) Romulus-Remus	0.7°	40 y	0.067
Jupiter system
(1:6) Io-Metis	0.6°	2 y	0.0031
(3:5) Amalthea-Adrastea	3.9°	0.2 y	0.064
(3:7) Callisto-Ganymede	0.7°	30 y	0.012
Saturn system
(2:3) Enceladus-Mimas	33.2°	0.04 y	0.33
(2:3) Dione-Tethys	36.2°	0.07 y	0.36
(3:5) Rhea-Dione	17.1°	0.4 y	0.26
(2:7) Titan-Rhea	21.0°	0.7 y	0.22
(1:5) Iapetus-Titan	9.2°	4 y	0.051
Major centaurs
(3:4) Uranus-Chariklo	4.5°	10,000 y	0.073
Uranus system
(3:5) Rosalind-Cordelia	0.22°	4 y	0.0037
(1:3) Umbriel-Miranda	24.5°	0.08 y	0.14
(3:5) Umbriel-Ariel	24.2°	0.3 y	0.35
(1:2) Titania-Umbriel	36.3°	0.1 y	0.20
(2:3) Oberon-Titania	33.4°	0.4 y	0.34
Neptune system
(1:20) Triton-Naiad	13.5°	0.2 y	0.075
(1:2) Proteus-Larissa	8.4°	0.07 y	0.047
(5:6) Proteus-S/2004 N 1	2.1°	1 y	0.057
Pluto system
(1:3) Styx-Charon	58.5°	0.2 y	0.33
(1:4) Nix-Charon	39.1°	0.3 y	0.22
(1:5) Kerberos-Charon	9.2°	2 y	0.05
(1:6) Hydra-Charon	6.6°	3 y	0.037
Haumea system
(3:8) Hiʻiaka-Namaka	42.5°	2 y	0.55

Mismatch in orbital longitude of the inner body, as compared to its position at the beginning of the cycle. Circular orbits are assumed (i.e., precession is ignored).

The time needed for the mismatch from the initial relative longitudinal orbital positions of the bodies to grow to 180°, rounded to the nearest first significant digit.

The probability of obtaining an orbital coincidence of equal or smaller mismatch by chance at least once in n attempts, where n is the integer number of orbits of the outer body per cycle, and the mismatch is assumed to vary between 0° and 180° at random. The value is calculated as 1- (1- mismatch/180°)^n. This is a crude calculation that only attempts to give a rough idea of relative probabilities.

The two near commensurabilities listed for Earth and Venus are reflected in the timing of transits of Venus, which occur in pairs 8 years apart, in a cycle that repeats every 243 years.

The near 1:12 resonance between Jupiter and Earth causes the Alinda asteroids, which occupy (or are close to) the 3:1 resonance with Jupiter, to be close to a 1:4 resonance with Earth.

This near resonance has been termed the Great Inequality. It was first described by Laplace in a series of papers published 1784–1789.

Resonances with a now-vanished inner moon are likely to have been involved in the formation of Phobos and Deimos.

Based on the proper orbital periods, 1684.869 and 1681.601 days, for Pallas and Ceres, respectively.

Based on the proper orbital period of Pallas, 1684.869 days, and 4332.59 days for Jupiter.

87 Sylvia is the first asteroid discovered to have more than one moon.

This resonance may have been occupied in the past.

Some definitions of centaurs stipulate that they are nonresonant bodies.

This resonance may have been occupied in the past.

This resonance may have been occupied in the past.

The results for the Haumea system aren't very meaningful because, contrary to the assumptions implicit in the calculations, Namaka has an eccentric, non-Keplerian orbit that precesses rapidly (see below). Hiʻiaka and Namaka are much closer to a 3:8 resonance than indicated, and may actually be in it.  

The least probable orbital correlation in the list is that between Io and Metis, followed by those between Rosalind and Cordelia, Pallas and Ceres, Jupiter and Pallas, Callisto and Ganymede, and Hydra and Charon, respectively.

Possible past mean-motion resonances

A past resonance between Jupiter and Saturn may have played a dramatic role in early Solar System history. A 2004 computer model by Alessandro Morbidelli of the Observatoire de la Côte d'Azur in Nice suggested that the formation of a 1:2 resonance between Jupiter and Saturn (due to interactions with planetesimals that caused them to migrate inward and outward, respectively) created a gravitational push that propelled both Uranus and Neptune into higher orbits, and in some scenarios caused them to switch places, which would have doubled Neptune's distance from the Sun. The resultant expulsion of objects from the proto-Kuiper belt as Neptune moved outwards could explain the Late Heavy Bombardment 600 million years after the Solar System's formation and the origin of Jupiter's Trojan asteroids. An outward migration of Neptune could also explain the current occupancy of some of its resonances (particularly the 2:5 resonance) within the Kuiper belt.

While Saturn's mid-sized moons Dione and Tethys are not close to an exact resonance now, they may have been in a 2:3 resonance early in the Solar System's history. This would have led to orbital eccentricity and tidal heating that may have warmed Tethys' interior enough to form a subsurface ocean. Subsequent freezing of the ocean after the moons escaped from the resonance may have generated the extensional stresses that created the enormous graben system of Ithaca Chasma on Tethys.

The satellite system of Uranus is notably different from those of Jupiter and Saturn in that it lacks precise resonances among the larger moons, while the majority of the larger moons of Jupiter (3 of the 4 largest) and of Saturn (6 of the 8 largest) are in mean-motion resonances. In all three satellite systems, moons were likely captured into mean-motion resonances in the past as their orbits shifted due to tidal dissipation (a process by which satellites gain orbital energy at the expense of the primary's rotational energy, affecting inner moons disproportionately). In the Uranian system, however, due to the planet's lesser degree of oblateness, and the larger relative size of its satellites, escape from a mean-motion resonance is much easier. Lower oblateness of the primary alters its gravitational field in such a way that different possible resonances are spaced more closely together. A larger relative satellite size increases the strength of their interactions. Both factors lead to more chaotic orbital behavior at or near mean-motion resonances. Escape from a resonance may be associated with capture into a secondary resonance, and/or tidal evolution-driven increases in orbital eccentricity or inclination.

Mean-motion resonances that probably once existed in the Uranus System include (3:5) Ariel-Miranda, (1:3) Umbriel-Miranda, (3:5) Umbriel-Ariel, and (1:4) Titania-Ariel. Evidence for such past resonances includes the relatively high eccentricities of the orbits of Uranus' inner satellites, and the anomalously high orbital inclination of Miranda. High past orbital eccentricities associated with the (1:3) Umbriel-Miranda and (1:4) Titania-Ariel resonances may have led to tidal heating of the interiors of Miranda and Ariel, respectively. Miranda probably escaped from its resonance with Umbriel via a secondary resonance, and the mechanism of this escape is believed to explain why its orbital inclination is more than 10 times those of the other regular Uranian moons (see Uranus' natural satellites).

Similar to the case of Miranda, the present inclinations of Jupiter's moonlets Amalthea and Thebe are thought to be indications of past passage through the 3:1 and 4:2 resonances with Io, respectively.
Neptune's regular moons Proteus and Larissa are thought to have passed through a 1:2 resonance a few hundred million years ago; the moons have drifted away from each other since then because Proteus is outside a synchronous orbit and Larissa is within one. Passage through the resonance is thought to have excited both moons' eccentricities to a degree that has not since been entirely damped out.

In the case of Pluto's satellites, it has been proposed that the present near resonances are relics of a previous precise resonance that was disrupted by tidal damping of the eccentricity of Charon's orbit (see Pluto's natural satellites for details). The near resonances may be maintained by a 15% local fluctuation in the Pluto-Charon gravitational field. Thus, these near resonances may not be coincidental.

The smaller inner moon of the dwarf planet Haumea, Namaka, is one tenth the mass of the larger outer moon, Hiʻiaka. Namaka revolves around Haumea in 18 days in an eccentric, non-Keplerian orbit, and as of 2008 is inclined 13° from Hiʻiaka. Over the timescale of the system, it should have been tidally damped into a more circular orbit. It appears that it has been disturbed by resonances with the more massive Hiʻiaka, due to converging orbits as it moved outward from Haumea because of tidal dissipation. The moons may have been caught in and then escaped from orbital resonance several times. They probably passed through the 3:1 resonance relatively recently, and currently are in or at least close to an 8:3 resonance. Namaka's orbit is strongly perturbed, with a current precession of about −6.5° per year.