MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076289524 · doi:10.1063/1.3190103

Chaotic behavior in a charged three-body self-gravitating system

2009· article· en· W2076289524 on OpenAlexaff
Michael J. Koop, Robert B. Mann, M. Rohanizadegan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mathematical Physics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsQuasiperiodicityClassical mechanicsPhase spaceChaoticGravitationHamiltonian (control theory)Quasiperiodic functionQuantum mechanicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate the equal-mass three-body charged system in general relativistic lineal gravity. The electric properties of the charged particles along with the gravitational self-attraction of the bodies introduce features that do not have a nonrelativistic counterpart. We derive a canonical expression for the Hamiltonian of the system and discuss the numerical solution of the resulting equations of motion. We consider various combinations of charges and find that the structure of the phase space yields a rich variety of interesting dynamics that can be divided into three distinct regions: annulus, pretzel, and chaotic; the first two are regions of quasiperiodicity while the latter is a region of chaos. When the charge configuration is repulsive the amount of chaos is enhanced relative to that of the neutral case (leading to Kolmogorov–Arnold–Moser breakdown), whereas the chaos is only enhanced throughout a band between the annulus and pretzel regions with a significant development of pretzel areas for attractive configurations when two charges have opposite signs. We find a new class of chaotic orbits that are of hourglass shape in the hexagonal representation of the three-body motion.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.437

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mathematical PhysicsSame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207