Search This Blog

Saturday, July 2, 2022

Satellite system (astronomy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Artist's concept of the Saturnian satellite system
A spherical yellow-brownish body (Saturn) can be seen on the left. It is viewed at an oblique angle with respect to its equatorial plane. Around Saturn there are rings and small ring moons. Further to the right large round moons are shown in order of their distance.
Saturn, its rings and major icy moons—from Mimas to Rhea.

A satellite system is a set of gravitationally bound objects in orbit around a planetary mass object (incl. sub-brown dwarfs and rogue planets) or minor planet, or its barycenter. Generally speaking, it is a set of natural satellites (moons), although such systems may also consist of bodies such as circumplanetary disks, ring systems, moonlets, minor-planet moons and artificial satellites any of which may themselves have satellite systems of their own (see Subsatellites). Some bodies also possess quasi-satellites that have orbits gravitationally influenced by their primary, but are generally not considered to be part of a satellite system. Satellite systems can have complex interactions including magnetic, tidal, atmospheric and orbital interactions such as orbital resonances and libration. Individually major satellite objects are designated in Roman numerals. Satellite systems are referred to either by the possessive adjectives of their primary (e.g. "Jovian system"), or less commonly by the name of their primary (e.g. "Jupiter system"). Where only one satellite is known, or it is a binary with a common centre of gravity, it may be referred to using the hyphenated names of the primary and major satellite (e.g. the "Earth-Moon system").

Many Solar System objects are known to possess satellite systems, though their origin is still unclear. Notable examples include the largest satellite system, the Jovian system, with 80 known moons (including the large Galilean moons) and the Saturnian System with 83 known moons (and the most visible ring system in the Solar System). Both satellite systems are large and diverse. In fact all of the giant planets of the Solar System possess large satellite systems as well as planetary rings, and it is inferred that this is a general pattern. Several objects farther from the Sun also have satellite systems consisting of multiple moons, including the complex Plutonian system where multiple objects orbit a common center of mass, as well as many asteroids and plutinos. Apart from the Earth-Moon system and Mars' system of two tiny natural satellites, the other terrestrial planets are generally not considered satellite systems, although some have been orbited by artificial satellites originating from Earth.

Little is known of satellite systems beyond the Solar System, although it is inferred that natural satellites are common. J1407b is an example of an extrasolar satellite system. It is also theorised that Rogue planets ejected from their planetary system could retain a system of satellites.

Natural formation and evolution

Satellite systems, like planetary systems, are the product of gravitational attraction, but are also sustained through fictitious forces. While the general consensus is that most planetary systems are formed from an accretionary disks, the formation of satellite systems is less clear. The origin of many moons are investigated on a case by case basis, and the larger systems are thought to have formed through a combination of one or more processes.

System stability

Gravitational accelerations at L4

The Hill sphere is the region in which an astronomical body dominates the attraction of satellites. Of the Solar System planets, Neptune and Uranus have the largest Hill spheres, due to the lessened gravitational influence of the Sun at their far orbits, however all of the giant planets have Hill spheres in the vicinity of 100 million kilometres in radius. By contrast, the Hill spheres of Mercury and Ceres, being closer to the Sun are quite small. Outside of the Hill sphere, the Sun dominates the gravitational influence, with the exception of the Lagrangian points.

Satellites are stable at the L4 and L5 Lagrangian points. These lie at the third corners of the two equilateral triangles in the plane of orbit whose common base is the line between the centers of the two masses, such that the point lies behind (L5) or ahead (L4) of the smaller mass with regard to its orbit around the larger mass. The triangular points (L4 and L5) are stable equilibria, provided that the ratio of M1/M2 is nearly 24.96. When a body at these points is perturbed, it moves away from the point, but the factor opposite of that which is increased or decreased by the perturbation (either gravity or angular momentum-induced speed) will also increase or decrease, bending the object's path into a stable, kidney-bean-shaped orbit around the point (as seen in the corotating frame of reference).

It is generally thought that natural satellites should orbit in the same direction as the planet is rotating (known as prograde orbit). As such, the terminology regular moon is used for these orbit. However a retrograde orbit (the opposite direction to the planet) is also possible, the terminology irregular moon is used to describe known exceptions to the rule, it is believed that irregular moons have been inserted into orbit through gravitational capture.

Accretion theories

Accretion disks around giant planets may occur in a similar way to the occurrence of disks around stars, out of which planets form (for example, this is one of the theories for the formations of the satellite systems of Uranus, Saturn, and Jupiter). This early cloud of gas is a type of circumplanetary disk known as a proto-satellite disk (in the case of the Earth-Moon system, the proto-lunar disk). Models of gas during the formation of planets coincide with a general rule for planet-to-satellite(s) mass ratio of 10,000:1 (a notable exception is Neptune). Accretion is also proposed by some as a theory for the origin of the Earth-Moon system, however the angular momentum of system and the Moon's smaller iron core can not easily be explained by this.

Debris disks

Another proposed mechanism for satellite system formation is accretion from debris. Scientists theorise that the Galilean moons are thought by some to be a more recent generation of moons formed from the disintegration of earlier generations of accreted moons. Ring systems are a type of circumplanetary disk that can be the result of satellites disintegrated near the Roche limit. Such disks could, over time, coalesce to form natural satellites.

Collision theories

Formation of Pluto's moons. 1: a Kuiper belt object nears Pluto; 2: the KBO impacts Pluto; 3: a dust ring forms around Pluto; 4: the debris aggregates to form Charon; 5: Pluto and Charon relax into spherical bodies.

Collision is one of the leading theories for the formation of satellite systems, particularly those of the Earth and Pluto. Objects in such a system may be part of a collisional family and this origin may be verified comparing their orbital elements and composition. Computer simulations have been used to demonstrate that giant impacts could have been the origin of the Moon. It is thought that early Earth had multiple moons resulting from the giant impact. Similar models have been used to explain the creation of the Plutonian system as well as those of other Kuiper belt objects and asteroids. This is also a prevailing theory for the origin of the moons of Mars. Both sets of findings support an origin of Phobos from material ejected by an impact on Mars that reaccreted in Martian orbit. Collision is also used to explain peculiarities in the Uranian system. Models developed in 2018 explain the planet's unusual spin support an oblique collision with an object twice the size of Earth which likely to have re-coalesced to form the system's icy moons.

Gravitational capture theories

Animation illustrating a controversial asteroid-belt theory for the origin of the Martian satellite system

Some theories suggest that gravitational capture is the origin of Neptune's major moon Triton, the moons of Mars, and Saturn's moon Phoebe. Some scientists have put forward extended atmospheres around young planets as a mechanism for slowing the movement of a passing objects to aid in capture. The hypothesis has been put forward to explain the irregular satellite orbits of Jupiter and Saturn, for example. A tell-tale sign of capture is a retrograde orbit, which can result from an object approaching the side of the planet which it is rotating towards. Capture has even been proposed as the origin of Earth's Moon. In the case of the latter, however, virtually identical isotope ratios found in samples of the Earth and Moon cannot be explained easily by this theory.

Temporary capture

Evidence for the natural process of satellite capture has been found in direct observation of objects captured by Jupiter. Five such captures have been observed, the longest being for approximately twelve years. Based on computer modelling, the future capture of comet 111P/Helin-Roman-Crockett for 18 years is predicted to begin in 2068. However temporary captured orbits have highly irregular and unstable, the theorised processes behind stable capture may be exceptionally rare.

Controversial theories

Some controversial early theories, for example Spaceship Moon Theory and Shklovsky's "Hollow Phobos" hypothesis have suggested that moons were not formed naturally at all. These theories tend to fail Occam's razor. While artificial satellites are now a common occurrence in the Solar System, the largest, the International Space Station is 108.5 metres at its widest, is tiny compared to the several kilometres of the smallest natural satellites.

Notable satellite systems

The Pluto-Charon system (with orbital paths illustrated): The binaries Pluto and Charon orbited by Nix, Hydra, Kerberos, and Styx, taken by the Hubble Space Telescope in July 2012
 
Animation of radar images of near-Earth asteroid (136617) 1994 CC and satellite system

Known satellite systems of the Solar System consisting of multiple objects or around planetary mass objects, in order of perihelion:

Planetary Mass

Object Class Perihelion (AU) Natural satellites Artificial satellites Ring/s groups Note
Earth Planet 0.9832687 1 2,465*
See List of Earth observation satellites, List of satellites in geosynchronous orbit, List of space stations
The Moon Natural satellite 1.0102
10*
See Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, Lunar Orbiter program
Mars Planet 1.3814 2 11*
*6 are derelict (see List of Mars orbiters)
1 Ceres Dwarf planet 2.5577
1*
*Dawn
Jupiter Planet 4.95029 80 1 4 With ring system and four large Galilean moons. Juno since 2017. See also Moons of Jupiter and Rings of Jupiter
Saturn Planet 9.024 83
7
Uranus Planet 20.11 27
13 With ring system. See also Moons of Uranus
134340 Pluto-Charon Dwarf planet (binary) 29.658 5

See also Moons of Pluto
Neptune Planet 29.81 14
5 With ring system. See also Moons of Neptune
136108 Haumea Dwarf planet 34.952 2
1 See also Moons of Haumea, ring system discovered 2017
136199 Eris Dwarf planet (binary) 37.911 1

Binary: Dysnomia
136472 Makemake Dwarf planet 38.590 1

S/2015 (136472) 1

Small Solar System body

Object Class Perihelion (AU) Natural satellites Artificial satellites Ring/s groups Note
66391 Moshup Mercury-crosser asteroid 0.20009 1

Binary system
(66063) 1998 RO1 Aten asteroid 0.27733 1

Binary system
(136617) 1994 CC near-Earth asteroid 0.95490 2

Trinary system
(153591) 2001 SN263 near-Earth asteroid 1.03628119 2

Trinary system
(285263) 1998 QE2 near-Earth asteroid 1.0376 1

Binary system
67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko Comet 1.2432
1*
*Rosetta, since August 2014
2577 Litva Mars-crosser 1.6423 2

Binary system
3749 Balam Main-belt Asteroid 1.9916 2

Binary system
41 Daphne Main-belt Asteroid 2.014 1

Binary system
216 Kleopatra Main-belt Asteroid 2.089 2


93 Minerva Main-belt Asteroid 2.3711 2


45 Eugenia Main-belt Asteroid 2.497 2


130 Elektra Main-belt Asteroid 2.47815 2


22 Kalliope Main-belt Asteroid 2.6139 1

Binary: Linus
90 Antiope Main-belt Asteroid 2.6606 1

Binary: S/2000 (90) 1
87 Sylvia Main-belt Asteroid 3.213 2


107 Camilla Cybele asteroid 3.25843 1

Binary: S/2001 (107) 1
617 Patroclus Jupiter Trojan 4.4947726 1

Binary: Menoetius
2060 Chiron Centaur 8.4181

2
10199 Chariklo Centaur 13.066

2 First minor planet known to possess a ring system. see Rings of Chariklo
47171 Lempo Trans-Neptunian object 30.555 2

Trinary/Binary with companion
90482 Orcus Kuiper belt object 30.866 1

Binary: Vanth
225088 Gonggong Trans-Neptunian object 33.050 1

BinaryL Xiangliu
120347 Salacia Kuiper belt object 37.296 1

Binary: Actaea
(48639) 1995 TL8 Kuiper belt object 40.085 1

Binary: S/2002 (48639) 1
1998 WW31 Kuiper belt object 40.847 1

Binary: S/2000 (1998 WW31) 1
50000 Quaoar Kuiper belt object 41.868 1

Binary: Weywot

Features and interactions

Natural satellite systems, particularly those involving multiple planetary mass objects can have complex interactions which can have effects on multiple bodies or across the wider system.

Ring systems

Model for formation of Jupiter's rings

Ring systems are collections of dust, moonlets, or other small objects. The most notable examples are those around Saturn, but the other three gas giants (Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune) also have ring systems. Studies of exoplanets indicate that they may be common around giant planets. The 90 million km (0.6 AU) circumplanetary ring system discovered around J1407b has been described as "Saturn on steroids" or “Super Saturn” Luminosity studies suggest that an even larger disk exists in the PDS 110 system.

Other objects have also been found to possess rings. Haumea was the first dwarf planet and Trans-Neptunian object found to possess a ring system. Centaur 10199 Chariklo, with a diameter of about 250 kilometres (160 mi), is the smallest object with rings ever discovered consisting of two narrow and dense bands, 6–7 km (4 mi) and 2–4 km (2 mi) wide, separated by a gap of 9 kilometres (6 mi). The Saturnian moon Rhea may have a tenuous ring system consisting of three narrow, relatively dense bands within a particulate disk, the first predicted around a moon.

Most rings were thought to be unstable and to dissipate over the course of tens or hundreds of millions of years. Studies of Saturn's rings however indicate that they may date to the early days of the Solar System. Current theories suggest that some ring systems may form in repeating cycles, accreting into natural satellites that break up as soon as they reach the Roche limit. This theory has been used to explain the longevity of Saturn's rings as well the moons of Mars.

Gravitational interactions

Orbital configurations

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.
 
Rotating-frame depiction of the horseshoe exchange orbits of Janus and Epimetheus

Cassini's laws describe the motion of satellites within a system with their precessions defined by the Laplace plane. Most satellite systems are found orbiting the ecliptic plane of the primary. An exception is Earth's moon, which orbits in to the planet's equatorial plane.

When orbiting bodies exert a regular, periodic gravitational influence on each other is known as orbital resonance. Orbital resonances are present in several satellite systems:

Other possible orbital interactions include libration and co-orbital configuration. The Saturnian moons Janus and Epimetheus share their orbits, the difference in semi-major axes being less than either's mean diameter. Libration is a perceived oscillating motion of orbiting bodies relative to each other. The Earth-moon satellite system is known to produce this effect.

Several systems are known to orbit a common centre of mass and are known as binary companions. The most notable system is the Plutonian system, which is also dwarf planet binary. Several minor planets also share this configuration, including "true binaries" with near equal mass, such as 90 Antiope and (66063) 1998 RO1. Some orbital interactions and binary configurations have been found to cause smaller moons to take non-spherical forms and "tumble" chaotically rather than rotate, as in the case of Nix, Hydra (moons of Pluto) and Hyperion (moon of Saturn).

Tidal interaction

Diagram of the Earth–Moon system showing how the tidal bulge is pushed ahead by Earth's rotation. This offset bulge exerts a net torque on the Moon, boosting it while slowing Earth's rotation.

Tidal energy including tidal acceleration can have effects on both the primary and satellites. The Moon's tidal forces deform the Earth and hydrosphere, similarly heat generated from tidal friction on the moons of other planets is found to be responsible for their geologically active features. Another extreme example of physical deformity is the massive equatorial ridge of the near-Earth asteroid 66391 Moshup created by the tidal forces of its moon, such deformities may be common among near-Earth asteroids.

Tidal interactions also cause stable orbits to change over time. For instance, Triton's orbit around Neptune is decaying and 3.6 billion years from now, it is predicted that this will cause Triton to pass within Neptune's Roche limit resulting in either a collision with Neptune's atmosphere or the breakup of Triton, forming a large ring similar to that found around Saturn. A similar process is drawing Phobos closer to Mars, and it is predicted that in 50 million years it will either collide with the planet or break up into a planetary ring. Tidal acceleration, on the other hand, gradually moves the Moon away from Earth, such that it may eventually be released from its gravitational bounding and exit the system.

Perturbation and instability

While tidal forces from the primary are common on satellites, most satellite systems remain stable. Perturbation between satellites can occur, particularly in the early formation, as the gravity of satellites affect each other, and can result in ejection from the system or collisions between satellites or with the primary. Simulations show that such interactions cause the orbits of the inner moons of the Uranus system to be chaotic and possibly unstable. Some of Io's active can be explained by perturbation from Europa's gravity as their orbits resonate. Perturbation has been suggested as a reason that Neptune does not follow the 10,000:1 ratio of mass between the parent planet and collective moons as seen in all other known giant planets. One theory of the Earth-Moon system suggest that a second companion which formed at the same time as the Moon, was perturbed by the Moon early in the system's history, causing it to impact with the Moon.

Atmospheric and magnetic interaction

Gas toruses in the Jovian system generated by Io (green) and Europa (blue)

Some satellite systems have been known to have gas interactions between objects. Notable examples include the Jupiter, Saturn and Pluto systems. The Io plasma torus is a transfer of oxygen and sulfur from the tenuous atmosphere of Jupiter's volcanic moon, Io and other objects including Jupiter and Europa. A torus of oxygen and hydrogen produced by Saturn's moon, Enceladus forms part of the E ring around Saturn. Nitrogen gas transfer between Pluto and Charon has also been modelled and is expected to be observable by the New Horizons space probe. Similar tori produced by Saturn's moon Titan (nitrogen) and Neptune's moon Triton (hydrogen) is predicted.

Image of Jupiter's northern aurorae, showing the main auroral oval, the polar emissions, and the spots generated by the interaction with Jupiter's natural satellites

Complex magnetic interactions have been observed in satellite systems. Most notably, the interaction of Jupiter's strong magnetic field with those of Ganymede and Io. Observations suggest that such interactions can cause the stripping of atmospheres from moons and the generation of spectacular auroras.

History

An illustration from al-Biruni's astronomical works, explains the different phases of the moon, with respect to the position of the sun.

The notion of satellite systems pre-dates history. The Moon was known by the earliest humans. The earliest models of astronomy were based around celestial bodies (or a "celestial sphere") orbiting the Earth. This idea was known as geocentrism (where the Earth is the centre of the universe). However the geocentric model did not generally accommodate the possibility of celestial objects orbiting other observed planets, such as Venus or Mars.

Seleucus of Seleucia (b. 190 BCE) made observations which may have included the phenomenon of tides, which he supposedly theorized to be caused by the attraction to the Moon and by the revolution of the Earth around an Earth-Moon 'center of mass'.

As heliocentrism (the doctrine that the Sun is the centre of the universe) began to gain in popularity in the 16th century, the focus shifted to planets and the idea of systems of planetary satellites fell out of general favour. Nevertheless, in some of these models, the Sun and Moon would have been satellites of the Earth.

Nicholas Copernicus published a model in which the Moon orbited around the Earth in the Dē revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres), in the year of his death, 1543.

It was not until the discovery of the Galilean moons in either 1609 or 1610 by Galileo, that the first definitive proof was found for celestial bodies orbiting planets.

The first suggestion of a ring system was in 1655, when Christiaan Huygens thought that Saturn was surrounded by rings.

The first probe to explore a satellite system other than Earth was Mariner 7 in 1969, which observed Phobos. The twin probes Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 were the first to explore the Jovian system in 1979.

Zones and habitability

Artist's impression of a moon with surface water oceans orbiting within the circumstellar habitable zone

Based on tidal heating models, scientists have defined zones in satellite systems similarly to those of planetary systems. One such zone is the circumplanetary habitable zone (or "habitable edge"). According to this theory, moons closer to their planet than the habitable edge cannot support liquid water at their surface. When effects of eclipses as well as constraints from a satellite's orbital stability are included into this concept, one finds that — depending on a moon's orbital eccentricity — there is a minimum mass of roughly 0.2 solar masses for stars to host habitable moons within the stellar HZ.

The magnetic environment of exomoons, which is critically triggered by the intrinsic magnetic field of the host planet, has been identified as another effect on exomoon habitability. Most notably, it was found that moons at distances between about 5 and 20 planetary radii from a giant planet can be habitable from an illumination and tidal heating point of view, but still the planetary magnetosphere would critically influence their habitability.

Atmospheric chemistry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_chemistry

Atmospheric chemistry is a branch of atmospheric science in which the chemistry of the Earth's atmosphere and that of other planets is studied. It is a multidisciplinary approach of research and draws on environmental chemistry, physics, meteorology, computer modeling, oceanography, geology and volcanology and other disciplines. Research is increasingly connected with other areas of study such as climatology.

The composition and chemistry of the Earth's atmosphere is of importance for several reasons, but primarily because of the interactions between the atmosphere and living organisms. The composition of the Earth's atmosphere changes as result of natural processes such as volcano emissions, lightning and bombardment by solar particles from the corona. It has also been changed by human activity and some of these changes are harmful to human health, crops and ecosystems. Examples of problems which have been addressed by atmospheric chemistry include acid rain, ozone depletion, photochemical smog, greenhouse gases and global warming. Atmospheric chemists seek to understand the causes of these problems, and by obtaining a theoretical understanding of them, allow possible solutions to be tested and the effects of changes in government policy evaluated.

Atmospheric composition

Visualisation of composition by volume of Earth's atmosphere. Water vapour is not included as it is highly variable. Each tiny cube (such as the one representing krypton) has one millionth of the volume of the entire block. Data is from NASA Langley.
 
The composition of common nitrogen oxides in dry air vs. temperature
 
Chemical composition of atmosphere according to altitude. Axis: Altitude (km), Content of volume (%).
 
Average composition of dry atmosphere (mole fractions)
Gas per NASA
Dry clean air near sea level
(standard ISO 2533 - 1975)
Nitrogen, N2 78.084% 78.084%
Oxygen, O2 20.946% 20.946%
Minor constituents (mole fractions in ppm)
Argon, Ar 9340 9340
Carbon dioxide*[a], CO2 400 314[b]
Neon, Ne 18.18 18.18
Helium, He 5.24 5.24
Methane, CH4 1.7 2.0
Krypton, Kr 1.14 1.14
Hydrogen, H2 0.55 0.5
Nitrous oxide, N2O 0.5 0.5
Xenon, Xe 0.09 0.087
Nitrogen dioxide, NO2 0.02 up to 0.02
Ozone*, O3, in summer
up to 0.07
Ozone*, O3, in winter
up to 0.02
Sulphur dioxide*, SO2
up to 1
Iodine*, I2
0.01
Water vapour* Highly variable (about 0–3%);
typically makes up about 1%
Notes
The mean molecular mass of dry air is 28.97 g/mol. *The content of the gas may undergo significant variations from time to time or from place to place. The concentration of CO2 and CH4 vary by season and location. CO2 here is from 1975, but has been increasing by about 2–3 ppm annually (see Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere).

Trace gas composition

Besides the more major components listed above, Earth's atmosphere also has many trace gas species that vary significantly depending on nearby sources and sinks. These trace gases can include compounds such as CFCs/HCFCs which are particularly damaging to the ozone layer, and H
2
S
which has a characteristic foul odor of rotten eggs and can be smelt in concentrations as low as 0.47 ppb. Some approximate amounts near the surface of some additional gases are listed below. In addition to gases, the atmosphere contains particulates as aerosol, which includes for example droplets, ice crystals, bacteria, and dust.

Composition (ppt by volume unless otherwise stated)
Gas Clean continental, Seinfeld & Pandis (2016) Simpson et al. (2010)[4]
Carbon monoxide, CO 40-200 ppb  97 ppb
Nitric oxide, NO
16
Ethane, C2H6
781
Propane, C3H8
200
Isoprene, C5H8
311
Benzene, C6H6
11
Methanol, CH3OH
1967
Ethanol, C2H5OH
75
Trichlorofluoromethane, CCl3F 237 252.7
Dichlorodifluoromethane, CCl2F2 530 532.3
Chloromethane, CH3Cl
503
Bromomethane, CH3Br 9–10 7.7
Iodomethane, CH3I
0.36
Carbonyl sulfide, OCS 510 413
Sulfur dioxide, SO2 70–200 102
Hydrogen sulfide, H2S 15–340 
Carbon disulfide, CS2 15–45 
Formaldehyde, H2CO 9.1 ppb 
Acetylene, C2H2 8.6 ppb 
Ethene, C2H4 11.2 ppb  20
Sulfur hexafluoride, SF6 7.3 
Carbon tetrafluoride, CF4 79 
Total gaseous mercury, Hg 0.209 

History

Schematic of chemical and transport processes related to atmospheric composition

The ancient Greeks regarded air as one of the four elements. The first scientific studies of atmospheric composition began in the 18th century, as chemists such as Joseph Priestley, Antoine Lavoisier and Henry Cavendish made the first measurements of the composition of the atmosphere.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries interest shifted towards trace constituents with very small concentrations. One particularly important discovery for atmospheric chemistry was the discovery of ozone by Christian Friedrich Schönbein in 1840.

In the 20th century atmospheric science moved on from studying the composition of air to a consideration of how the concentrations of trace gases in the atmosphere have changed over time and the chemical processes which create and destroy compounds in the air. Two particularly important examples of this were the explanation by Sydney Chapman and Gordon Dobson of how the ozone layer is created and maintained, and the explanation of photochemical smog by Arie Jan Haagen-Smit. Further studies on ozone issues led to the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry award shared between Paul Crutzen, Mario Molina and Frank Sherwood Rowland.

In the 21st century the focus is now shifting again. Atmospheric chemistry is increasingly studied as one part of the Earth system. Instead of concentrating on atmospheric chemistry in isolation the focus is now on seeing it as one part of a single system with the rest of the atmosphere, biosphere and geosphere. An especially important driver for this is the links between chemistry and climate such as the effects of changing climate on the recovery of the ozone hole and vice versa but also interaction of the composition of the atmosphere with the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems.

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere if half of anthropogenic CO2 emissions are not absorbed
(NASA simulation; 9 November 2015)
 
Nitrogen dioxide 2014 - global air quality levels

Methodology

Observations, lab measurements, and modeling are the three central elements in atmospheric chemistry. Progress in atmospheric chemistry is often driven by the interactions between these components and they form an integrated whole. For example, observations may tell us that more of a chemical compound exists than previously thought possible. This will stimulate new modelling and laboratory studies which will increase our scientific understanding to a point where the observations can be explained.

Observation

Observations of atmospheric chemistry are essential to our understanding. Routine observations of chemical composition tell us about changes in atmospheric composition over time. One important example of this is the Keeling Curve - a series of measurements from 1958 to today which show a steady rise in of the concentration of carbon dioxide (see also ongoing measurements of atmospheric CO2). Observations of atmospheric chemistry are made in observatories such as that on Mauna Loa and on mobile platforms such as aircraft (e.g. the UK's Facility for Airborne Atmospheric Measurements), ships and balloons. Observations of atmospheric composition are increasingly made by satellites with important instruments such as GOME and MOPITT giving a global picture of air pollution and chemistry. Surface observations have the advantage that they provide long term records at high time resolution but are limited in the vertical and horizontal space they provide observations from. Some surface based instruments e.g. LIDAR can provide concentration profiles of chemical compounds and aerosol but are still restricted in the horizontal region they can cover. Many observations are available on line in Atmospheric Chemistry Observational Databases.

Laboratory studies

Measurements made in the laboratory are essential to our understanding of the sources and sinks of pollutants and naturally occurring compounds. These experiments are performed in controlled environments that allow for the individual evaluation of specific chemical reactions or the assessment of properties of a particular atmospheric constituent. Types of analysis that are of interest includes both those on gas-phase reactions, as well as heterogeneous reactions that are relevant to the formation and growth of aerosols. Also of high importance is the study of atmospheric photochemistry which quantifies how the rate in which molecules are split apart by sunlight and what resulting products are. In addition, thermodynamic data such as Henry's law coefficients can also be obtained.

Modeling

In order to synthesise and test theoretical understanding of atmospheric chemistry, computer models (such as chemical transport models) are used. Numerical models solve the differential equations governing the concentrations of chemicals in the atmosphere. They can be very simple or very complicated. One common trade off in numerical models is between the number of chemical compounds and chemical reactions modeled versus the representation of transport and mixing in the atmosphere. For example, a box model might include hundreds or even thousands of chemical reactions but will only have a very crude representation of mixing in the atmosphere. In contrast, 3D models represent many of the physical processes of the atmosphere but due to constraints on computer resources will have far fewer chemical reactions and compounds. Models can be used to interpret observations, test understanding of chemical reactions and predict future concentrations of chemical compounds in the atmosphere. One important current trend is for atmospheric chemistry modules to become one part of earth system models in which the links between climate, atmospheric composition and the biosphere can be studied.

Some models are constructed by automatic code generators (e.g. Autochem or Kinetic PreProcessor). In this approach a set of constituents are chosen and the automatic code generator will then select the reactions involving those constituents from a set of reaction databases. Once the reactions have been chosen the ordinary differential equations that describe their time evolution can be automatically constructed.

Poisson distribution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Poisson Distribution
Probability mass function
Poisson pmf.svg
The horizontal axis is the index k, the number of occurrences. λ is the expected rate of occurrences. The vertical axis is the probability of k occurrences given λ. The function is defined only at integer values of k; the connecting lines are only guides for the eye.
 
Cumulative distribution function
Poisson cdf.svg
The horizontal axis is the index k, the number of occurrences. The CDF is discontinuous at the integers of k and flat everywhere else because a variable that is Poisson distributed takes on only integer values.
Notation
Parameters (rate)
Support (Natural numbers starting from 0)
PMF
CDF

, or , or

(for , where is the upper incomplete gamma function, is the floor function, and Q is the regularized gamma function)
Mean
Median
Mode
Variance
Skewness
Ex. kurtosis
Entropy

(for large )

MGF
CF
PGF
Fisher information

In probability theory and statistics, the Poisson distribution is a discrete probability distribution that expresses the probability of a given number of events occurring in a fixed interval of time or space if these events occur with a known constant mean rate and independently of the time since the last event. It is named after French mathematician Siméon Denis Poisson (/ˈpwɑːsɒn/; French pronunciation: ​[pwasɔ̃]). The Poisson distribution can also be used for the number of events in other specified interval types such as distance, area or volume.

For instance, a call center receives an average of 180 calls per hour, 24 hours a day. The calls are independent; receiving one does not change the probability of when the next one will arrive. The number of calls received during any minute has a Poisson probability distribution: the most likely numbers are 2 and 3 but 1 and 4 are also likely and there is a small probability of it being as low as zero and a very small probability it could be 10. Another example is the number of decay events that occur from a radioactive source during a defined observation period.

History

The distribution was first introduced by Siméon Denis Poisson (1781–1840) and published together with his probability theory in his work Recherches sur la probabilité des jugements en matière criminelle et en matière civile (1837). The work theorized about the number of wrongful convictions in a given country by focusing on certain random variables N that count, among other things, the number of discrete occurrences (sometimes called "events" or "arrivals") that take place during a time-interval of given length. The result had already been given in 1711 by Abraham de Moivre in De Mensura Sortis seu; de Probabilitate Eventuum in Ludis a Casu Fortuito Pendentibus. This makes it an example of Stigler's law and it has prompted some authors to argue that the Poisson distribution should bear the name of de Moivre.

In 1860, Simon Newcomb fitted the Poisson distribution to the number of stars found in a unit of space. A further practical application of this distribution was made by Ladislaus Bortkiewicz in 1898 when he was given the task of investigating the number of soldiers in the Prussian army killed accidentally by horse kicks; this experiment introduced the Poisson distribution to the field of reliability engineering.

Definitions

Probability mass function

A discrete random variable X is said to have a Poisson distribution, with parameter , if it has a probability mass function given by:

where

  • k is the number of occurrences ()
  • e is Euler's number ()
  • ! is the factorial function.

The positive real number λ is equal to the expected value of X and also to its variance.

The Poisson distribution can be applied to systems with a large number of possible events, each of which is rare. The number of such events that occur during a fixed time interval is, under the right circumstances, a random number with a Poisson distribution.

The equation can be adapted if, instead of the average number of events , we are given the average rate at which events occur. Then , and

Example

Chewing gum on a sidewalk in Reykjavík.
Chewing gum on a sidewalk. The number of chewing gums on a single tile is approximately Poisson distributed.

The Poisson distribution may be useful to model events such as:

  • the number of meteorites greater than 1 meter diameter that strike Earth in a year;
  • the number of patients arriving in an emergency room between 10 and 11 pm; and
  • the number of laser photons hitting a detector in a particular time interval.

Assumptions and validity

The Poisson distribution is an appropriate model if the following assumptions are true:

  • k is the number of times an event occurs in an interval and k can take values 0, 1, 2, ….
  • The occurrence of one event does not affect the probability that a second event will occur. That is, events occur independently.
  • The average rate at which events occur is independent of any occurrences. For simplicity, this is usually assumed to be constant, but may in practice vary with time.
  • Two events cannot occur at exactly the same instant; instead, at each very small sub-interval, either exactly one event occurs, or no event occurs.

If these conditions are true, then k is a Poisson random variable, and the distribution of k is a Poisson distribution.

The Poisson distribution is also the limit of a binomial distribution, for which the probability of success for each trial equals λ divided by the number of trials, as the number of trials approaches infinity (see Related distributions).

Examples of probability for Poisson distributions

Once in an interval events: The special case of λ = 1 and k = 0

Suppose that astronomers estimate that large meteorites (above a certain size) hit the earth on average once every 100 years (λ = 1 event per 100 years), and that the number of meteorite hits follows a Poisson distribution. What is the probability of k = 0 meteorite hits in the next 100 years?

Under these assumptions, the probability that no large meteorites hit the earth in the next 100 years is roughly 0.37. The remaining 1 − 0.37 = 0.63 is the probability of 1, 2, 3, or more large meteorite hits in the next 100 years. In an example above, an overflow flood occurred once every 100 years (λ = 1). The probability of no overflow floods in 100 years was roughly 0.37, by the same calculation.

In general, if an event occurs on average once per interval (λ = 1), and the events follow a Poisson distribution, then P(0 events in next interval) = 0.37. In addition, P(exactly one event in next interval) = 0.37, as shown in the table for overflow floods.

Examples that violate the Poisson assumptions

The number of students who arrive at the student union per minute will likely not follow a Poisson distribution, because the rate is not constant (low rate during class time, high rate between class times) and the arrivals of individual students are not independent (students tend to come in groups).

The number of magnitude 5 earthquakes per year in a country may not follow a Poisson distribution if one large earthquake increases the probability of aftershocks of similar magnitude.

Examples in which at least one event is guaranteed are not Poisson distributed; but may be modeled using a zero-truncated Poisson distribution.

Count distributions in which the number of intervals with zero events is higher than predicted by a Poisson model may be modeled using a zero-inflated model.

Properties

Descriptive statistics

  • The expected value and variance of a Poisson-distributed random variable are both equal to λ.
  • The coefficient of variation is , while the index of dispersion is 1.
  • The mean absolute deviation about the mean is
  • The mode of a Poisson-distributed random variable with non-integer λ is equal to , which is the largest integer less than or equal to λ. This is also written as floor(λ). When λ is a positive integer, the modes are λ and λ − 1.
  • All of the cumulants of the Poisson distribution are equal to the expected value λ. The nth factorial moment of the Poisson distribution is λn.
  • The expected value of a Poisson process is sometimes decomposed into the product of intensity and exposure (or more generally expressed as the integral of an "intensity function" over time or space, sometimes described as “exposure”).

Median

Bounds for the median () of the distribution are known and are sharp:

Higher moments

The higher non-centered moments, mk of the Poisson distribution, are Touchard polynomials in λ:

where the {braces} denote Stirling numbers of the second kind. The coefficients of the polynomials have a combinatorial meaning. In fact, when the expected value of the Poisson distribution is 1, then Dobinski's formula says that the nth moment equals the number of partitions of a set of size n.

A simple bound is

Sums of Poisson-distributed random variables

If for are independent, then A converse is Raikov's theorem, which says that if the sum of two independent random variables is Poisson-distributed, then so are each of those two independent random variables.

Other properties

  • The Poisson distributions are infinitely divisible probability distributions.
  • The directed Kullback–Leibler divergence of from is given by
  • Bounds for the tail probabilities of a Poisson random variable can be derived using a Chernoff bound argument.
  • The upper tail probability can be tightened (by a factor of at least two) as follows:
    where is the directed Kullback–Leibler divergence, as described above.
  • Inequalities that relate the distribution function of a Poisson random variable to the Standard normal distribution function are as follows:
    where is again the directed Kullback–Leibler divergence.

Poisson races

Let and be independent random variables, with , then we have that

The upper bound is proved using a standard Chernoff bound.

The lower bound can be proved by noting that is the probability that , where , which is bounded below by , where is relative entropy (See the entry on bounds on tails of binomial distributions for details). Further noting that , and computing a lower bound on the unconditional probability gives the result. More details can be found in the appendix of Kamath et al..

Related distributions

General

  • If and are independent, then the difference follows a Skellam distribution.
  • If and are independent, then the distribution of conditional on is a binomial distribution.
    Specifically, if , then .
    More generally, if X1, X2, …, Xn are independent Poisson random variables with parameters λ1, λ2, …, λn then
    given it follows that . In fact, .
  • If and the distribution of , conditional on X = k, is a binomial distribution, , then the distribution of Y follows a Poisson distribution . In fact, if , conditional on X = k, follows a multinomial distribution, , then each follows an independent Poisson distribution .
  • The Poisson distribution can be derived as a limiting case to the binomial distribution as the number of trials goes to infinity and the expected number of successes remains fixed — see law of rare events below. Therefore, it can be used as an approximation of the binomial distribution if n is sufficiently large and p is sufficiently small. There is a rule of thumb stating that the Poisson distribution is a good approximation of the binomial distribution if n is at least 20 and p is smaller than or equal to 0.05, and an excellent approximation if n ≥ 100 and np ≤ 10.
  • The Poisson distribution is a special case of the discrete compound Poisson distribution (or stuttering Poisson distribution) with only a parameter. The discrete compound Poisson distribution can be deduced from the limiting distribution of univariate multinomial distribution. It is also a special case of a compound Poisson distribution.
  • For sufficiently large values of λ, (say λ>1000), the normal distribution with mean λ and variance λ (standard deviation ) is an excellent approximation to the Poisson distribution. If λ is greater than about 10, then the normal distribution is a good approximation if an appropriate continuity correction is performed, i.e., if P(Xx), where x is a non-negative integer, is replaced by P(Xx + 0.5).
  • Variance-stabilizing transformation: If , then
    and
    Under this transformation, the convergence to normality (as increases) is far faster than the untransformed variable. Other, slightly more complicated, variance stabilizing transformations are available, one of which is Anscombe transform. See Data transformation (statistics) for more general uses of transformations.
  • If for every t > 0 the number of arrivals in the time interval [0, t] follows the Poisson distribution with mean λt, then the sequence of inter-arrival times are independent and identically distributed exponential random variables having mean 1/λ.
  • The cumulative distribution functions of the Poisson and chi-squared distributions are related in the following ways:
    and

Poisson approximation

Assume where , then is multinomially distributed conditioned on .

This means, among other things, that for any nonnegative function , if is multinomially distributed, then

where .

The factor of can be replaced by 2 if is further assumed to be monotonically increasing or decreasing.

Bivariate Poisson distribution

This distribution has been extended to the bivariate case. The generating function for this distribution is

with

The marginal distributions are Poisson(θ1) and Poisson(θ2) and the correlation coefficient is limited to the range

A simple way to generate a bivariate Poisson distribution is to take three independent Poisson distributions with means and then set . The probability function of the bivariate Poisson distribution is

Free Poisson distribution

The free Poisson distribution with jump size and rate arises in free probability theory as the limit of repeated free convolution

as N → ∞.

In other words, let be random variables so that has value with probability and value 0 with the remaining probability. Assume also that the family are freely independent. Then the limit as of the law of is given by the Free Poisson law with parameters .

This definition is analogous to one of the ways in which the classical Poisson distribution is obtained from a (classical) Poisson process.

The measure associated to the free Poisson law is given by

where
and has support .

This law also arises in random matrix theory as the Marchenko–Pastur law. Its free cumulants are equal to .

Some transforms of this law

We give values of some important transforms of the free Poisson law; the computation can be found in e.g. in the book Lectures on the Combinatorics of Free Probability by A. Nica and R. Speicher.

The R-transform of the free Poisson law is given by

The Cauchy transform (which is the negative of the Stieltjes transformation) is given by

The S-transform is given by

in the case that .

Weibull and Stable count

Poisson's probability mass function can be expressed in a form similar to the product distribution of a Weibull distribution and a variant form of the stable count distribution. The variable can be regarded as inverse of Lévy's stability parameter in the stable count distribution:

where is a standard stable count distribution of shape , and is a standard Weibull distribution of shape .

Statistical inference

Parameter estimation

Given a sample of n measured values , for i = 1, …, n, we wish to estimate the value of the parameter λ of the Poisson population from which the sample was drawn. The maximum likelihood estimate is 

Since each observation has expectation λ so does the sample mean. Therefore, the maximum likelihood estimate is an unbiased estimator of λ. It is also an efficient estimator since its variance achieves the Cramér–Rao lower bound (CRLB). Hence it is minimum-variance unbiased. Also it can be proven that the sum (and hence the sample mean as it is a one-to-one function of the sum) is a complete and sufficient statistic for λ.

To prove sufficiency we may use the factorization theorem. Consider partitioning the probability mass function of the joint Poisson distribution for the sample into two parts: one that depends solely on the sample (called ) and one that depends on the parameter and the sample only through the function . Then is a sufficient statistic for .

The first term, , depends only on . The second term, , depends on the sample only through . Thus, is sufficient.

To find the parameter λ that maximizes the probability function for the Poisson population, we can use the logarithm of the likelihood function:

We take the derivative of with respect to λ and compare it to zero:

Solving for λ gives a stationary point.

So λ is the average of the ki values. Obtaining the sign of the second derivative of L at the stationary point will determine what kind of extreme value λ is.

Evaluating the second derivative at the stationary point gives:

which is the negative of n times the reciprocal of the average of the ki. This expression is negative when the average is positive. If this is satisfied, then the stationary point maximizes the probability function.

For completeness, a family of distributions is said to be complete if and only if implies that for all . If the individual are iid , then . Knowing the distribution we want to investigate, it is easy to see that the statistic is complete.

For this equality to hold, must be 0. This follows from the fact that none of the other terms will be 0 for all in the sum and for all possible values of . Hence, for all implies that , and the statistic has been shown to be complete.

Confidence interval

The confidence interval for the mean of a Poisson distribution can be expressed using the relationship between the cumulative distribution functions of the Poisson and chi-squared distributions. The chi-squared distribution is itself closely related to the gamma distribution, and this leads to an alternative expression. Given an observation k from a Poisson distribution with mean μ, a confidence interval for μ with confidence level 1 – α is

or equivalently,

where is the quantile function (corresponding to a lower tail area p) of the chi-squared distribution with n degrees of freedom and is the quantile function of a gamma distribution with shape parameter n and scale parameter 1. This interval is 'exact' in the sense that its coverage probability is never less than the nominal 1 – α.

When quantiles of the gamma distribution are not available, an accurate approximation to this exact interval has been proposed (based on the Wilson–Hilferty transformation):

where denotes the standard normal deviate with upper tail area α / 2.

For application of these formulae in the same context as above (given a sample of n measured values ki each drawn from a Poisson distribution with mean λ), one would set

calculate an interval for μ = , and then derive the interval for λ.

Bayesian inference

In Bayesian inference, the conjugate prior for the rate parameter λ of the Poisson distribution is the gamma distribution. Let

denote that λ is distributed according to the gamma density g parameterized in terms of a shape parameter α and an inverse scale parameter β:

Then, given the same sample of n measured values ki as before, and a prior of Gamma(α, β), the posterior distribution is

Note that the posterior mean is linear and is given by

It can be show that gamma distribution is the only prior that induces linearity of the conditional mean. Moreover, a converse results exists which states that if the conditional mean is close to a linear function in the distance than the prior distribution of λ must be close to gamma distribution in Levy distance.

The posterior mean E[λ] approaches the maximum likelihood estimate in the limit as , which follows immediately from the general expression of the mean of the gamma distribution.

The posterior predictive distribution for a single additional observation is a negative binomial distribution, sometimes called a gamma–Poisson distribution.

Simultaneous estimation of multiple Poisson means

Suppose is a set of independent random variables from a set of Poisson distributions, each with a parameter , , and we would like to estimate these parameters. Then, Clevenson and Zidek show that under the normalized squared error loss , when , then, similar as in Stein's example for the Normal means, the MLE estimator is inadmissible

In this case, a family of minimax estimators is given for any and as

Occurrence and applications

Applications of the Poisson distribution can be found in many fields including:

The Poisson distribution arises in connection with Poisson processes. It applies to various phenomena of discrete properties (that is, those that may happen 0, 1, 2, 3, … times during a given period of time or in a given area) whenever the probability of the phenomenon happening is constant in time or space. Examples of events that may be modelled as a Poisson distribution include:

  • The number of soldiers killed by horse-kicks each year in each corps in the Prussian cavalry. This example was used in a book by Ladislaus Bortkiewicz (1868–1931).
  • The number of yeast cells used when brewing Guinness beer. This example was used by William Sealy Gosset (1876–1937).
  • The number of phone calls arriving at a call centre within a minute. This example was described by A.K. Erlang (1878–1929).
  • Internet traffic.
  • The number of goals in sports involving two competing teams.
  • The number of deaths per year in a given age group.
  • The number of jumps in a stock price in a given time interval.
  • Under an assumption of homogeneity, the number of times a web server is accessed per minute.
  • The number of mutations in a given stretch of DNA after a certain amount of radiation.
  • The proportion of cells that will be infected at a given multiplicity of infection.
  • The number of bacteria in a certain amount of liquid.
  • The arrival of photons on a pixel circuit at a given illumination and over a given time period.
  • The targeting of V-1 flying bombs on London during World War II investigated by R. D. Clarke in 1946.

Gallagher showed in 1976 that the counts of prime numbers in short intervals obey a Poisson distribution provided a certain version of the unproved prime r-tuple conjecture of Hardy-Littlewood is true.

Law of rare events

Comparison of the Poisson distribution (black lines) and the binomial distribution with n = 10 (red circles), n = 20 (blue circles), n = 1000 (green circles). All distributions have a mean of 5. The horizontal axis shows the number of events k. As n gets larger, the Poisson distribution becomes an increasingly better approximation for the binomial distribution with the same mean.

The rate of an event is related to the probability of an event occurring in some small subinterval (of time, space or otherwise). In the case of the Poisson distribution, one assumes that there exists a small enough subinterval for which the probability of an event occurring twice is "negligible". With this assumption one can derive the Poisson distribution from the Binomial one, given only the information of expected number of total events in the whole interval.

Let the total number of events in the whole interval be denoted by . Divide the whole interval into subintervals of equal size, such that (since we are interested in only very small portions of the interval this assumption is meaningful). This means that the expected number of events in each of the n subintervals is equal to .

Now we assume that the occurrence of an event in the whole interval can be seen as a sequence of n Bernoulli trials, where the -th Bernoulli trial corresponds to looking whether an event happens at the subinterval with probability . The expected number of total events in such trials would be , the expected number of total events in the whole interval. Hence for each subdivision of the interval we have approximated the occurrence of the event as a Bernoulli process of the form . As we have noted before we want to consider only very small subintervals. Therefore, we take the limit as goes to infinity.

In this case the binomial distribution converges to what is known as the Poisson distribution by the Poisson limit theorem.

In several of the above examples — such as, the number of mutations in a given sequence of DNA—the events being counted are actually the outcomes of discrete trials, and would more precisely be modelled using the binomial distribution, that is

In such cases n is very large and p is very small (and so the expectation np is of intermediate magnitude). Then the distribution may be approximated by the less cumbersome Poisson distribution

This approximation is sometimes known as the law of rare events, since each of the n individual Bernoulli events rarely occurs.

The name "law of rare events" may be misleading because the total count of success events in a Poisson process need not be rare if the parameter np is not small. For example, the number of telephone calls to a busy switchboard in one hour follows a Poisson distribution with the events appearing frequent to the operator, but they are rare from the point of view of the average member of the population who is very unlikely to make a call to that switchboard in that hour.

The variance of the binomial distribution is 1 − p times that of the Poisson distribution, so almost equal when p is very small.

The word law is sometimes used as a synonym of probability distribution, and convergence in law means convergence in distribution. Accordingly, the Poisson distribution is sometimes called the "law of small numbers" because it is the probability distribution of the number of occurrences of an event that happens rarely but has very many opportunities to happen. The Law of Small Numbers is a book by Ladislaus Bortkiewicz about the Poisson distribution, published in 1898.

Poisson point process

The Poisson distribution arises as the number of points of a Poisson point process located in some finite region. More specifically, if D is some region space, for example Euclidean space Rd, for which |D|, the area, volume or, more generally, the Lebesgue measure of the region is finite, and if N(D) denotes the number of points in D, then

Poisson regression and negative binomial regression

Poisson regression and negative binomial regression are useful for analyses where the dependent (response) variable is the count (0, 1, 2, …) of the number of events or occurrences in an interval.

Other applications in science

In a Poisson process, the number of observed occurrences fluctuates about its mean λ with a standard deviation . These fluctuations are denoted as Poisson noise or (particularly in electronics) as shot noise.

The correlation of the mean and standard deviation in counting independent discrete occurrences is useful scientifically. By monitoring how the fluctuations vary with the mean signal, one can estimate the contribution of a single occurrence, even if that contribution is too small to be detected directly. For example, the charge e on an electron can be estimated by correlating the magnitude of an electric current with its shot noise. If N electrons pass a point in a given time t on the average, the mean current is ; since the current fluctuations should be of the order (i.e., the standard deviation of the Poisson process), the charge can be estimated from the ratio .

An everyday example is the graininess that appears as photographs are enlarged; the graininess is due to Poisson fluctuations in the number of reduced silver grains, not to the individual grains themselves. By correlating the graininess with the degree of enlargement, one can estimate the contribution of an individual grain (which is otherwise too small to be seen unaided). Many other molecular applications of Poisson noise have been developed, e.g., estimating the number density of receptor molecules in a cell membrane.

In causal set theory the discrete elements of spacetime follow a Poisson distribution in the volume.

Computational methods

The Poisson distribution poses two different tasks for dedicated software libraries: Evaluating the distribution , and drawing random numbers according to that distribution.

Evaluating the Poisson distribution

Computing for given and is a trivial task that can be accomplished by using the standard definition of in terms of exponential, power, and factorial functions. However, the conventional definition of the Poisson distribution contains two terms that can easily overflow on computers: λk and k!. The fraction of λk to k! can also produce a rounding error that is very large compared to e−λ, and therefore give an erroneous result. For numerical stability the Poisson probability mass function should therefore be evaluated as

which is mathematically equivalent but numerically stable. The natural logarithm of the Gamma function can be obtained using the lgamma function in the C standard library (C99 version) or R, the gammaln function in MATLAB or SciPy, or the log_gamma function in Fortran 2008 and later.

Some computing languages provide built-in functions to evaluate the Poisson distribution, namely

  • R: function dpois(x, lambda);
  • Excel: function POISSON( x, mean, cumulative), with a flag to specify the cumulative distribution;
  • Mathematica: univariate Poisson distribution as PoissonDistribution[], bivariate Poisson distribution as MultivariatePoissonDistribution[,{ , }].

Random drawing from the Poisson distribution

The less trivial task is to draw random integers from the Poisson distribution with given .

Solutions are provided by:

Generating Poisson-distributed random variables

A simple algorithm to generate random Poisson-distributed numbers (pseudo-random number sampling) has been given by Knuth:

algorithm poisson random number (Knuth):
    init:
        Let L ← e−λ, k ← 0 and p ← 1.
    do:
        k ← k + 1.
        Generate uniform random number u in [0,1] and let p ← p × u.
    while p > L.
    return k − 1.

The complexity is linear in the returned value k, which is λ on average. There are many other algorithms to improve this. Some are given in Ahrens & Dieter.

For large values of λ, the value of L = e−λ may be so small that it is hard to represent. This can be solved by a change to the algorithm which uses an additional parameter STEP such that e−STEP does not underflow:

algorithm poisson random number (Junhao, based on Knuth):
    init:
        Let λLeft ← λ, k ← 0 and p ← 1.
    do:
        k ← k + 1.
        Generate uniform random number u in (0,1) and let p ← p × u.
        while p < 1 and λLeft > 0:
            if λLeft > STEP:
                p ← p × eSTEP
                λLeft ← λLeft − STEP
            else:
                p ← p × eλLeft
                λLeft ← 0
    while p > 1.
    return k − 1.

The choice of STEP depends on the threshold of overflow. For double precision floating point format the threshold is near e700, so 500 should be a safe STEP.

Other solutions for large values of λ include rejection sampling and using Gaussian approximation.

Inverse transform sampling is simple and efficient for small values of λ, and requires only one uniform random number u per sample. Cumulative probabilities are examined in turn until one exceeds u.

algorithm Poisson generator based upon the inversion by sequential search:
    init:
        Let x ← 0, p ← e−λ, s ← p.
        Generate uniform random number u in [0,1].
    while u > s do:
        x ← x + 1.
        p ← p × λ / x.
        s ← s + p.
    return x.

Black Wednesday

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ...