Titius–Bode law

The law relates the semi-major axis ${\displaystyle ~a_{n}~}$ of each planet outward from the Sun in units such that the Earth's semi-major axis is equal to 10:

${\displaystyle ~a=4+x~}$

where ${\displaystyle ~x=0,3,6,12,24,48,96,192,384,768\ldots ~}$ such that, with the exception of the first step, each value is twice the previous value. There is another representation of the formula:

${\displaystyle ~a=4+3\times 2^{n}~}$

where ${\displaystyle ~n=-\infty ,0,1,2,\ldots ~.}$ The resulting values can be divided by 10 to convert them into astronomical units (AU), resulting in the expression:

${\displaystyle a=0.4+0.3\times 2^{n}~.}$

For the far outer planets, beyond Saturn, each planet is predicted to be roughly twice as far from the Sun as the previous object. Whereas the Titius–Bode law predicts Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto at about 10, 20, 39, and 77 AU, the actual values are closer to 10, 19, 30, 40 AU.[lower-alpha 1]

This form of the law offered a good first guess; the re-formulations by Blagg and Richardson should be considered accurate.

Johann Daniel Titius (1729–1796)

Johann Elert Bode (1747–1826)

The first mention of a series approximating Bode's law is found in a textbook by D. Gregory (1715):[2]

"... supposing the distance of the Earth from the Sun to be divided into ten equal Parts, of these the distance of Mercury will be about four, of Venus seven, of Mars fifteen, of Jupiter fifty two, and that of Saturn ninety five."[3]

A similar sentence, likely paraphrased from Gregory (1715),[2][3] appears in a work published by C. Wolff in 1724.

In 1764, C. Bonnet wrote:[4]

"We know seventeen planets [that is, major planets and their satellites] that enter into the composition of our solar system; but we are not sure that there are no more."[4][3]

In his 1766 translation of Bonnet's work, J.D. Titius added two of his own paragraphs to the statement above. The insertions were placed at the bottom of page 7 and at the top of page 8. The new paragraph is not in Bonnet's original French text, nor in translations of the work into Italian and English.

There are two parts to Titius's inserted text. The first part explains the succession of planetary distances from the Sun:

Take notice of the distances of the planets from one another, and recognize that almost all are separated from one another in a proportion which matches their bodily magnitudes. Divide the distance from the Sun to Saturn into 100 parts; then Mercury is separated by four such parts from the Sun, Venus by 4+3=7 such parts, the Earth by 4+6=10, Mars by 4+12=16. But notice that from Mars to Jupiter there comes a deviation from this so exact progression. From Mars there follows a space of 4+24=28 such parts, but so far no planet was sighted there. But should the Lord Architect have left that space empty? Not at all. Let us therefore assume that this space without doubt belongs to the still undiscovered satellites of Mars, let us also add that perhaps Jupiter still has around itself some smaller ones which have not been sighted yet by any telescope. Next to this for us still unexplored space there rises Jupiter's sphere of influence at 4+48=52 parts; and that of Saturn at 4+96=100 parts.

In 1772, J.E. Bode, then aged twenty-five, published an astronomical compendium,[5] in which he included the following footnote, citing Titius (in later editions):[lower-alpha 2][6]

This latter point seems in particular to follow from the astonishing relation which the known six planets observe in their distances from the Sun. Let the distance from the Sun to Saturn be taken as 100, then Mercury is separated by 4 such parts from the Sun. Venus is 4+3=7. The Earth 4+6=10. Mars 4+12=16. Now comes a gap in this so orderly progression. After Mars there follows a space of 4+24=28 parts, in which no planet has yet been seen. Can one believe that the Founder of the universe had left this space empty? Certainly not. From here we come to the distance of Jupiter by 4+48=52 parts, and finally to that of Saturn by 4+96=100 parts.[6]

These two statements, for all their peculiar expression, and from the radii used for the orbits, seem to stem from an antique algorithm by a cossist.[lower-alpha 3]

Many precedents were found that predate the seventeenth century. Titius was a disciple of the German philosopher C.F. von Wolf (1679–1754), and the second part of the text that Titius inserted into Bonnet's work is in a book by von Wolf (1723),[7] suggesting that Titius learned the relation from him. Twentieth-century literature about Titius–Bode law attributes authorship to von Wolf. A prior version was written by D. Gregory (1702),[8] in which the succession of planetary distances 4, 7, 10, 16, 52, and 100 became a geometric progression with ratio 2. This is the nearest Newtonian formula, which was also cited by Benjamin Martin (1747)[9] and Tomàs Cerdà (c. 1760)[10] years before Titius's expanded translation of Bonnet's book into German (1766). Over the next two centuries, subsequent authors continued to present their own modified versions, apparently unaware of prior work.[1]

Titius and Bode hoped that the law would lead to the discovery of new planets, and indeed the discovery of Uranus and Ceres – both of whose distances fit well with the law – contributed to the law's fame. Neptune's distance was very discrepant, however, and indeed Pluto – no longer considered a planet – is at a mean distance that roughly corresponds to that the Titius–Bode law predicted for the next planet out from Uranus.

When originally published, the law was approximately satisfied by all the planets then known – i.e., Mercury through Saturn – with a gap between the fourth and fifth planets. Vikarius (Johann Friedrich) Wurm (1787) proposed a modified version of the Titius–Bode Law that accounted for the then-known satellites of Jupiter and Saturn, and better predicted the distance for Mercury.[11]

The Titius–Bode law was regarded as interesting, but of no great importance until the discovery of Uranus in 1781, which happens to fit into the series nearly exactly. Based on this discovery, Bode urged his contemporaries to search for a fifth planet. Ceres, the largest object in the asteroid belt, was found at Bode's predicted position in 1801.

Bode's law was widely accepted at that point, until in 1846 Neptune was discovered in a location that does not conform to the law. Simultaneously, due to the large number of asteroids discovered in the belt, Ceres was no longer a major planet. In 1898 the astronomer and logician C.S. Peirce used Bode's law as an example of fallacious reasoning.[12]

The discovery of Pluto in 1930 confounded the issue still further: Although nowhere near its predicted position according to Bode's law, it was very nearly at the position the law had designated for Neptune. The subsequent discovery of the Kuiper belt – and in particular the object Eris, which is more massive than Pluto, yet does not fit Bode's law – further discredited the formula.[13]

The Titius–Bode law predicts planets will be present at specific distances in astronomical units, which can be compared to the observed data for the planets and two dwarf planets in the solar system:

Graphical plot of the eight planets, Pluto, and Ceres versus the first ten predicted distances.

m	k	T–B rule distance (AU)	Planet	Semimajor axis (AU)	Deviation from prediction1
${\displaystyle -\infty }$	0	0.4	Mercury	0.39	−3.23%
0	1	0.7	Venus	0.72	+3.33%
1	2	1.0	Earth	1.00	0.00%
2	4	1.6	Mars	1.52	−4.77%
3	8	2.8	Ceres2	2.77	−1.16%
4	16	5.2	Jupiter	5.20	+0.05%
5	32	10.0	Saturn	9.58	−4.42%
6	64	19.6	Uranus	19.22	−1.95%
–	–	–	Neptune	30.07	–
7	128	38.8	Pluto2	39.48	+1.02%

In 1913, Mary Blagg, an Oxford astronomer, re-visited the law.[14] She analyzed the orbits of the planetary system and those of the satellite systems of the outer gas giants, Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus. She examined the log of the distances, trying to find the best 'average' difference.

Function f of Blagg formulation of Titius–Bode Law of Planetary Distances

Her analysis resulted in a different formula:

${\displaystyle \mathrm {Distance} =A(1.7275)^{n}\left\{B+f(\alpha +n\beta )\right\}}$

Note that in her formulation, the Law for the solar system was best represented by a progression in 1.7275, not 2.

Blagg examined the satellite systems of Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus, and discovered the same progression ratio (1.7275) in each.

However, the exact formulation of the function f was not finalized in Blagg's 1913 paper, with Blagg noting that the figures given are only illustrative. An empirical form of the curve was provided in the form of a graph (the reason that points on the curve are such a close match for empirical data, for objects discovered prior to 1913, is that they are empirical data).

Finding a formula closely fitting the curve turned out to be difficult. Harmonic analysis of the curve resulted in the following 7-term approximation:[14]

${\displaystyle f(\theta )=0.4594+0.396\cos(\theta -27.4^{\circ })+0.168\cos 2(\theta -60.4^{\circ })+0.062\cos 3(\theta -28.1^{\circ })+0.053\cos 4(\theta -77.2^{\circ })+0.009\cos 5(\theta -22^{\circ })+0.012\cos 7(\theta -40.4^{\circ })}$

Further analysis by Blagg resulted in the following simplified formula which yields less accurate results (provided in the paper in a non-normalized form, but given here in normalized form, i.e. with values from 0 to 1):[15]

${\displaystyle f(\theta )=0.249+0.86\left({\frac {\cos \,\Psi }{3-\cos \,2\Psi }}+{\frac {1}{6-4\,\cos \,2(\Psi -30^{\circ })}}\right)}$

where ${\displaystyle \Psi =\theta -27.5^{\circ }}$

Neither of these formulas for function f are used in the calculations below. These calculations are based on a graph of function f which was drawn based on observed data.

Constants of the Blagg formulation of the Titius–Bode Law (redefined by Nieto, 1970)

System	A	B	${\displaystyle \alpha }$	${\displaystyle \beta }$
Planets	0.4162	2.025	112.4°	56.6°
Jupiter	0.4523	1.852	113.0°	36.0°
Saturn	3.074	0.0071	118.0°	10.0°
Uranus	2.98	0.0805	125.7°	12.5°

Her paper appeared in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society for 1913, and was forgotten until 1953, when A. E. Roy at Glasgow University Observatory came across it while researching another problem.[16] He noted that Blagg herself had suggested that her formula could give approximate mean distances of other bodies still undiscovered in 1913. Since then, six bodies in three systems examined by Blagg had been discovered: Pluto, Jupiter IX Sinope, X Lysithea, XI Carme, XII Ananke, and Uranus V Miranda.

Roy found that all six fitted very closely. This might have been an exaggeration: out of these six bodies, four were sharing positions with objects that were already known in 1913; concerning the two others, there was a ~6% overestimate for Pluto; and later, a 6% underestimate for Miranda became apparent.[15]

Another of Blagg's predictions was confirmed: that some bodies were clustered at particular distances.

Her formula also predicted that if a transplutonian planet existed, it would be at ~68 AU from the Sun. This prediction turned out to be extremely close to the measured semi-major axis of the dwarf planet, Eris.

In 1945 D. E. Richardson[17] independently arrived at the same conclusion as Blagg, that the progression ratio was not 2, but 1.728:

${\displaystyle R_{n}=(1.728)^{n}\varrho _{n}(\theta _{n})}$

where ${\displaystyle \varrho _{n}}$ is an oscillatory function of ${\displaystyle 2\pi }$, represented by distances ${\displaystyle \varrho _{n}}$ from an off-centered origin to angularly varying points on a "distribution ellipse".

Nieto, who conducted the first modern comprehensive review of the Titius–Bode Law,[18] noted that "The psychological hold of the Law on astronomy has been such that people have always tended to regard its original form as the one on which to base theories." He was emphatic that "future theories must rid themselves of the bias of trying to explain a progression ratio of 2":

One thing which needs to be emphasized is that the historical bias towards a progression ratio of 2 must be abandoned. It ought to be clear that the first formulation of Titius (with its asymmetric first term) should be viewed as a good first guess. Certainly, it should not necessarily be viewed as the best guess to refer theories to. But in astronomy the weight of history is heavy ... Despite the fact that the number 1.73 is much better, astronomers cling to the original number 2.[1]

No solid theoretical explanation underlies the Titius–Bode law – but it is possible that, given a combination of orbital resonance and shortage of degrees of freedom, any stable planetary system has a high probability of satisfying a Titius–Bode-type relationship. Since it may be a mathematical coincidence rather than a "law of nature", it is sometimes referred to as a rule instead of "law".[19] Astrophysicist Alan Boss states that it is just a coincidence, and the planetary science journal Icarus no longer accepts papers attempting to provide improved versions of the "law".[13]

Orbital resonance from major orbiting bodies creates regions around the Sun that are free of long-term stable orbits. Results from simulations of planetary formation support the idea that a randomly chosen, stable planetary system will likely satisfy a Titius–Bode law.[20]

Dubrulle and Graner[21][22] showed that power-law distance rules can be a consequence of collapsing-cloud models of planetary systems possessing two symmetries: rotational invariance (i.e., the cloud and its contents are axially symmetric) and scale invariance (i.e., the cloud and its contents look the same on all scales). The latter is a feature of many phenomena considered to play a role in planetary formation, such as turbulence.

• Dermott's law
• Phaeton (hypothetical planet)
• Logarithmic spiral
• Lennard-Jones potential
• Mysterium Cosmographicum

• The ghostly hand that spaced the planets New Scientist 9 April 1994, p13
• Plants and Planets: The Law of Titius–Bode explained by H.J.R. Perdijk
• Distancias planetarias y ley de Titius-Bode (Spanish) by Dr. Ramon Parés