International Journal of Geosciences, 2012, 3, 930-951
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ijg.2012.325095 Published Online October 2012 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ijg)
Linearization of the Liouville Equation, Multiple Splits
of the Chandler Frequency, Markowitz Wobbles,
and Error Analysis
Cheh Pan
Pan Filter Technology, Saratoga, USA
Received June 27, 2012; revised July 27, 2012; accepted August 29, 2012
ABSTRACT
The rotation of the physical Earth is far more complex than the rotation of a biaxial or slightly triaxial rigid body can
represent. The linearization of the Liouville equation via the Munk and MacDonal perturbation scheme has oversimpli-
fied polar excitation physics. A more conventional linearization of the Liouville equation as the generalized equation of
motion for free rotation of the physical Earth reveals: 1) The reference frame is most essential, which needs to be
unique and physically located in the Earth; 2) Physical angular momentum perturbation arises from motion and mass
redistribution to appear as relative angular momentum in a rotating Earth, which excites polar motion and length of day
variations; 3) At polar excitation, the direction of the rotation axis in space does not change besides nutation and pre-
cession around the invariant angular momentum axis, while the principal axes shift responding only to mass redistribu-
tion; 4) Two inertia changes appear simultaneously at polar excitation; one is due to mass redistribution, and the other
arises from the axial near-symmetry of the perturbed Earth; 5) The Earth at polar excitation becomes slightly triaxial
and axially near-symmetrical even it was originally biaxial; 6) At polar excitation, the rotation of a non-rigid Earth be-
comes unstable; 7) The instantaneous figure axis or mean excitation axis around which the rotation axis physically
wobbles is not a principal axis; 8) In addition to amplitude excitation, the Chandler wobble possesses also multiple fre-
quency-splits and is slow damping; 9) Secular polar drift is after the products of inertia and always associated with the
Chandler wobble; both belong to polar motion; 10) The Earth will reach its stable rotation only after its rotation axis,
major principal axis, and instantaneous figure axis or mean excitation axis are all completely aligned with each other to
arrive at the minimum energy configuration of the system; 11) The observation of the multiple splits of the Chandler
frequency is further examined by means of exact-bandwidth filtering and spectral analysis, which confirms the theo-
retical prediction of the linearized Liouville equation. After the removal of the Gibbs phenomenon from the polar mo-
tion spectra, Markowitz wobbles are also observed; 12) Error analysis of the ILS data demonstrates that the incoherent
noises from the Wars in 1920-1945 are separable from polar motion and removable, so the ILS data are still reliable and
useful for the study of the continuation of polar motion.
Keywords: Liouville Equation; Polar Motion; Chandler Wobble; Markowitz Wobble; Error Analysis
1. Introduction
It has long been known from classical mechanics that the
Earth rotates like a biaxial [1,2] or slightly triaxial [3-5]
rigid body. However, such a rigid model is not able to
fully depict the complexity of the Earth’s rotation. The
Earth is multilayered, deformable, energy-generating and
dissipative. In addition to the fluidal layers of the atmos-
phere, oceans and outer core, geological deformation,
plate tectonics, seismicity, and volcanism observed on
the Earth’s surface indicate motion and mass redistribu-
tion are also to occur in the solid Earth. A renowned evi-
dence for the Earth’s non-rigidity is the Chandler wobble,
which is observed, as shown in Figure 1, to possess mul-
tiple split-periods around fourteen months instead of a
single ten-month period as predicted by the rigid model;
a severe disparity. In the Eulerian equation of motion for
a rigid Earth in free rotation [1,2], the Earth’s free wob-
ble is due to a slight misalignment between the rotation
and major principal axes; an assumed initial condition
that does not physically explain, how the major principal
axis of a biaxial or slightly triaxial rigid body in stable
constant rotation can become misaligned with the rotation
axis? The principal axis is not a vector like the rotation
axis, but determined solely by matter distribution. A rigid
Earth allows no motion and mass redistribution to alter
its inertia for a shift of its principal axes; whereas, exter-
nal torque only forces a precession of the rotation axes
C
opyright © 2012 SciRes. IJG

C. PAN 931
00.2 0.4 0.6 0.81
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 x 10 10
Frequenc y (c yc le/year)
P ower Dens ity Sp ectra (muas **2/cpy )
P ol a r Mot ion: January 2 0, 1900 - Jan uary 20 , 20 05
x-component
y-component
Figure 1. The power density spectrum of polar motion of
the POLE2004 series (Gross, 2005), span January 20, 1900
to January 20, 2005 at 30.4375-day intervals, where the
multiple split-periods of the Chandler wobble are respec-
tively, 424 days (0.861 cycle/year), 430 days (0.850 cycle/
year), 436 days (0.838 cycle/year), 442 days (0.826 cycle/
year), and 448 days (0.815 cycle/year), while the annual
wobble is 365 days (1 cycle/year). The 105-year observation
is not long enough to reach a full resonance cycle of the
Chandler wobble. Note the presence of secular polar drift
and long-period (Markowi tz) wobbles near zero-fr equency.
around the invariant angular momentum axis to trace out
a space cone, and not a body cone for free wobble of the
rotation axis around the major principal axis. The separa-
tion of the major principal axis from the rotation axis
must be due to motion and mass redistribution, but which
does not occur in a rigid Earth.
There had been a marathon of errors in the study of
polar instability [6]. Gold [7] is the first to present a con-
vincing qualitative discussion on the instability of the
rotation axis in an anelastic Earth. Utilizing the genera-
lized Eulerian equation of motion or the Liouville equa-
tion, Munk and MacDonald [8] are the first to explain the
separation of the major principal axis from the rotation
axis via polar excitation. Polar excitation means motion
and mass redistribution are to occur in the Earth to per-
turb the angular momentum, or a change in the Earth’s
inertia to force the rotation axis to revolve away from the
major principal axis according to the three-finger rule of
the right-handed system and the law of conservation of
angular momentum. This is indeed the case for a multi-
layered, deformable, energy-generating, dissipative, and
perpetually rotating Earth that allows motion and mass
redistribution. However, as the first-time transition from
a rigid rotation to a non-rigid rotation and in attempt to
make the two compatible, Munk and MacDonald’s
scheme [8] has oversimplified polar excitation physics,
and ends up, as will see below, practically still a rigid
Earth rotation but with polar excitation superimposed on
independent of rotation. It hence can not predict the multi-
ple splits of the Chandler frequency. The problems en-
countered in the Munk and MacDonald scheme have
been fragmentally investigated [9-14] and summarily
discussed [15]. Geophysical problems that involve rota-
tion, such as the angular momentum function of the at-
mosphere, secular polar drift owing to the postglacial
viscoplastic rebound, seismic excitation of the Chandler
wobble, true polar wandering, and impact of a giant aste-
roid or comet to the Earth, have also been re-investigated
[14]. In order for a more proper depiction of the polar
excitation physics, it needs a standard linearization of the
Liouville equation through which the Earth’s non-rigidity
is correctly represented. The present paper is a synthetic
review of the linearization of the Liouville equation, as
well as a systematic examination of the fundamental
physics of the rotation of a non-rigid Earth that are over-
simplified in the Munk and MacDonald scheme. So a
thorough familiarity of the Munk and MacDonald sche-
me is essential. However, non-rigidity here is still treated
as what the Liouville equation allows; physical properties
of the Earth are not yet added. It is an updating of fun-
damental polar motion modeling to keep up with obser-
vation, while the physical causes of polar excitation are
not explored. Gross [16] and Gross et al. [17] identify the
physical excitation of the Chandler amplitude, and Gross
[18] reviewed polar motion, theory and observation, in
detail. Observation of the multiple splits of the Chandler
frequency is further examined here, which is consistent
with the prediction of such a linearized Liouville equa-
tion. However, the linearization of the Liouville equation
is for free rotation of a non-rigid Earth in the absence of
external torques, modeling of nutation and precession
based on the Munk and MacDonald scheme [19-21] is
not discussed here; related topics can be found elsewhere
[13,22].
2. Review of Rigid-Body Rotation
The rotation of the Earth is conventionally cited in clas-
sic mechanics as a typical case governed by the Eulerian
equation of motion for a rigid body [1]; no other scien-
tific models have ever lasted as long. A review of the
linearization of the equation will help to see its limitation
to represent the rotation of the physical Earth.
For a rigid Earth, inertia tensor I is a constant and rota-
tion
 is the only variable. The law of conservation of
angular momentum requires that the rate of change of the
Earth’s angular momentum in a reference frame rigidly
fixed in the Earth rotating relative to an inertial frame
fixed in space be equal to the external torque L exerting
on the Earth; i.e.,
I
,IL

 
 (1)


C. PAN 932
where the over dot designates d/dt relative to the refer-
ence frame fixed in the Earth. This is the well-known
Eulerian equation of motion for a rigid body. Now cho-
osing the Earth’s principal axes (a, b, c) as the reference
frame and with constant principal inertia I = (A < B < C)
and variable rotation
 = ( 
a,

b,

c), then, for free rota-
tion of a rigid Earth at L = 0, Equation (1) expands to,



–0
–0
–0.
abc
ac
cab
CB
C
A






b
BA
CB
A




(2)
Equation (2) is not linear with respect to variable

so it needs to be linearized to make the equation easier to
solve. Fortunately, the Earth is only slightly triaxial; i.e.,
C – A >> B – A and C – B >> B – A. For simplicity, let A
= B; Equation (2) is then linearized as a special case for a
biaxial rigid Earth in free rotation; i.e.,


–0
–0
ab
ba
CA
AC





,
c
A
A





 (3)
where  is a constant. Now let CA A 

, or

CB  CAAB
0
0.
ab
ba






.
if the Earth’s slight triaxia-
lity is counted [3-5], the equation further reduces to,
(4)
This is the equation of motion for free “Eulerian” nu-
tation of a biaxial rigid Earth. Its solution gives a har-
monic motion of single frequency σ, which is where the
single frequency of the Chandler wobble came from.
However, in the solution it needs to assume an initial
condition, a slight misalignment between the rotation
axis and the c-axis, to give the Chandler wobble constant
amplitude. There is no physical explanation why the ro-
tation axis and the c-axis of a rigid Earth in stable con-
stant rotation can become separated from each other.
From above brief review we see that the Eulerian
equation of motion is linearized as a special case only for
free rotation of a biaxial or slightly triaxial rigid Earth. If
the equation is to fully represent the rotation of the phy-
sical Earth, it requires: 1) The Earth has to be perfectly
rigid. However, the physical Earth is a multilayered, de-
formable, energy-generating, and dissipative heavenly
body orbiting in space that allows motion and mass re-
distribution; the Earth’s non-rigidity is totally ignored by
the equation; 2) The location of the principal axes in the
Earth must be known in order for the reference frame to
rigidly fix to. Yet, the physical location of the Earth’s
principal axes is far from certain, fixing the reference
frame to them is, as Munk and MacDonald [8] have al-
ready pointed out, only for mathematical simplicity. Such
an idealized reference frame is inconsistent with that for
observation [23]. 3) The Earth’s rotation axis and major
principal axis have to be already misaligned to give con-
stant wobble amplitude. However, the direction of the
Earth’s rotation axis is nearly fixed in space besides nu-
tation and precession, while the principal axes shift re-
sponding to mass redistribution. The separation of the
major principal axis from the rotation axis thus cannot
occur in a rigid Earth in free rotation. 4) The Earth has to
be always in stable constant rotation. On the contrary,
observation shows the Earth’s rotation irregularities in-
clude not only the Chandler wobble and its damping, but
also secular polar drift, changes in the length of day, as
well as the annual and Markowitz wobbles. All of them
are not accounted for by the equation.
In conclusion, the Eulerian equation of motion for a
rigid body is not able to represent the complexity of the
rotation of the physical Earth. It needs a generalized
equation of motion, the Liouville equation, to account for
the Earth’s non-rigidity, and which is what the Munk and
MacDonald scheme is all after.
3. Generalized Equation of Motion: Liouville
Equation
Liouville equation is the generalized Eulerian equation of
motion that allows motion and mass redistribution in a
rotating system [8]; the physical Earth is such a rotating
system, and Munk and MacDonald [8] are the first to use
the Liouville equation to study the Earth’s rotation. In the
equation, after the variable rotation
 , the inertia tensor I
is also no longer a constant but subject to change, while
motion and mass redistribution will induce relative an-
gular momentum h. The three-finger rule of the right-
handed system [2] then becomes essential. The law of
conservation of angular momentum requires the rate of
change of the Earth’s total angular momentum I·
 + h in
a reference frame located in the Earth rotating relative to
an inertial frame fixed in space be equal to the external
torque L exerting on the Earth; i.e.,
I
Ih IhL  

    
  (5)
I
Equation (5) has three terms, h

  , , and  × h,
more than Equation (1) due to the Earth’s non-rigidity.
The equation is general and the fundamental physics it
represents are clear. The study of the rotation of the
physical Earth is a matter of correct interpretation of the
equation according to the law of conservation of angular
momentum and the three-finger rule of the right-handed
system.
The study of the Earth’s rotation via the Liouville equa-
tion needs to solve the equation. A complete solution of
the equation is extremely difficult; it requires to linearize
the equation for special solutions just like the Eulerian
equation of motion for a rigid body in Equations (1)-(4).

C. PAN 933
The perturbation scheme developed by Munk and Mac-
Donald [8] for such a linearization laid out the founda-
tion for modern Earth rotation studies [24,25]. With such
a scheme, the equation is linearized to three simple first-
order linear differential equations that separate the equa-
torial components of the rotation from its axial compo-
nent [8], just like that for the rigid Earth rotation in
Equations (3) and (4). The equatorial components of the
rotation can thus be mapped into a complex plan for the
study of the Chandler wobble [8], while the axial com-
ponent is no longer a constant as that in Equation (3) but
differentiated to represent changes in the length of day.
The equation explains the separation of the rotation axis
from the major principal axis via polar excitation, but the
axial and equatorial components of the excitation are
defined not in the same dimension [8]. Such a lineariza-
tion of the Liouville equation still gives the Chandler
wobble a single frequency and is non-damping, while
secular polar drift will not appear in the solution of the
equation [23]; these are no different from what are ob-
tained from Equation (4) for a rigid-body rotation, and
are thus not consistent with observation [15]. What fol-
lows is an exploration of these inconsistencies in the
Munk and MacDonald scheme.
4. Reference Frame
The reference frame is most essential, for all motions in
the Earth are relative to it. For a biaxial rigid Earth, the
choice is idealized: The major axis of the frame is the
major principal axis, while the two equatorial axes can be
aligned anywhere on the equatorial plane in the right-
handed system. However, for a non-rigid Earth, as Munk
and MacDonald [8] have already pointed out, it is
unlikely to find a truly body-fixed frame, and frames
such as Tisserand and principal axes are obvious choices
for mathematical simplicity. Chao [23] examines the
different theoretical frames, including Smith’s invariant
frame [3], and concludes that there is an inconsistency
between the frame used for observation and those for
theoretical calculation. Pan [14] observes that all the
conventional theoretical frames are idealized systems
that are not physically located in the Earth. The frame of
Mathews et al. [26] is no exception. This is because the
direction of the rotation axis is not truly space-fixed ow-
ing to nutation and precession; the true direction invari-
ant in space is the angular momentum axis. Also, a frame
cannot keep a constant rotation of its own if it is fixed to
the physical Earth. Munk and MacDonald [8] align the
major axis of their frame nearly parallel to the rotation axis.
However, as the rotation axis traces out a body cone in the
Earth, there can be an infinite number of frames with their
major axis nearly parallel to the rotation axis; the frame
is thus not unique. Once it is fixed to the Earth, its ap-
proximation will deteriorate on the order twice the Chan-
dler amplitude [12,14]. It will eventually disassociate
itself from polar motion as the rotation axis revolves
away to pursue after the instantaneous figure axis or
mean excitation axis for polar stability. Munk and Mac-
Donald [8] hence point out that their frame is not valid
for polar wandering. A reference frame in the Earth
should be chosen to avoid above problems; it needs to be
physically located in the Earth, unique, consistent with
observation, and always associated with polar motion.
However, a satisfactory choice of a both theoretically and
observationally practical reference frame in a rotating
Earth that allows motion and mass redistribution in its
different layers is most difficult. Frames may be mathe-
matically transformable, but not physically. Pan [10-14]
chooses a frame as that shown in Figure 2. The (a, b, c)
frame is the Earth’s original principal axes prior to polar
excitation, which is d iagonal; whereas, the (x, y, z) frame
is the axes of the Earth’s inertia tensor that appear simul-
taneously with polar excitation, which is not diagonal.
The angle pair


,

 is defined as the Earth’s axial
near-symmetry, which will be further discussed below,
where

is the deviation angle between the c- and
z-axes, and

is the azimuth angle between corre-
sponding equatorial axes. The frame is geocentric. Its


Figure 2. The (a, b, c) frame is prior to, and (x, y, z) frame is
at polar excitation. The angle pair (θ,
 ) is defined as the
axial near-symmetry of an Earth at polar excitation. The
c-axis is the original major principal axis, while z-axis is the
mean excitation axis or instantaneous figure axis around
which the rotation axis physically wobbles. The (x, y, z)
frame is the refe rence frame.

C. PAN 934
z-axis is the instantaneous figure axis or mean excitation
axis that is aligned with the axis of reference [8] or the
geographic axis [3] around which the rotation axis phy-
sically wobbles. Its y-axis is along the direction of secu-
lar polar drift, while x-axis is perpendicular to the y- and
z-axis in the right-handed system. The Liouville equation
is fully described in the frame, for it can be assumed
rotating relative to an instantaneously coinciding iner-
tial frame fixed in space without loss of generality [8,10,
14].
5. Matter Perturbation and Relative
Angular Momentum
Physical perturbation to angular momentum arises from
motion and mass redistribution in a rotating Earth. In the
Munk and MacDonald scheme [8], however, first-order
mathematical matter perturbation is linearly added to the
principal inertia of a biaxial rigid Earth independent of
rotation. Mathematically such a perturbation is legitimate
but physically is unjustifiable, because it allows, as Pan
[14,15] points out, the perturbed inertia to become
greater than the principal inertia. If it were true, then, the
Earth’s matter distribution would not be conserved, and
the Earth would no longer have rotation stability. This
pertains not only to internal perturbations within the
Earth, but also external perturbations such as the impact
of a giant meteorite or asteroid. A meteorite or asteroid
becomes a part of the Earth as soon as it reaches the
Earth; then, the Earth’s principal moments of inertia will
again become greater than the perturbed moments of iner-
tia, and the Earth’s matter distribution is still conserved.
Physically, perturbing inertia appears as motion and mass
redistribution about the terrestrial (x, y, z) frame rotating
relative to an instantaneously coinciding inertial frame
fixed in space [14]. So the differentiation operator d/dt +
 × applies to the whole rotating system, including h.
However, in the h defined in the Munk and MacDonald
scheme [8], the differentiation operator is only d/dt,
which means motion is only about an inertial frame not
rotating with the Earth. A single rotating system cannot
have two reference frames coexisting, and motion in the
system cannot bypass the rotation of the system to refer
to an inertial frame that is not fixed to the system. If so,
then motion in the Earth will induce no gyroscopic effect
or gyricity in the Earth as is observed; this violates the
three-finger rule of the right-handed system. So h has to
refer to the same terrestrial (x, y, z) frame in the Earth ro-
tating relative to an instantaneously coinciding inertial
frame fixed in space as the whole system does. This is
the fundamental physics of the rotation of a non-rigid
Earth that mathematical matter perturbation is not able to
represent. The motion that induces h is thus not u but u +
 × r, where u = (ux, uy, uz) is the motion of mass M
about the (x, y, z) frame, and r = (x, y, z) is the position
vector of mass M. Let  be the Earth’s average rotation
speed, h = (hx, hy, hz) thus becomes [10,14],
,
x
xxz
y
yyz
z
zz
hp I
hp I
hp I


(6)




where the first term p = (px, py, pz) arises from the motion
u of mass M about the (x, y, z) frame that does not in-
volve rotation; i.e.,




d
d
d,
y xz
yxz
zyx
puyuzM
puzuxM
puxuyM







22
d
d
d
z
xz
yz
(7)
which is identical to the relative angular momentum de-
fined in the Munk and MacDonald scheme [8]. On the
other hand, since the (x, y, z) frame is fixed in the Earth
rotating relative to an instantaneously coinciding inertial
frame fixed in space, the gyroscopic effect or gyricity
from rotation to motion  × r will then induce the second
term in Equation (6), in which,
I
xyM
IxzM
IyzM
 





(8)
are the inertia changes arising from redistribution of
mass M under the gyroscopic effect or gyricity from ro-
tation to motion [14,22,27]. They are named the residual
moment and products of inertia by Pan [13], while Munk
and MacDonald [8] define them as matter excitation.
However, the mathematical matter perturbation in the
Munk and MacDonald scheme [8] makes Equation (8)
redundant. This forces the scheme to define the motion
not to be u + ω × r but only u, bypassing the Earth’s ro-
tation and directly about an inertial frame fixed in space.
This is inconsistent with the whole rotating system; mo-
tion in an inertial Earth is not physically feasible. The
relative angular momentum in the Munk and MacDonald
scheme is hence only p or Equation (7) [8], while the
second term in Equation (6) or the residual inertia in
Equation (8) are ignored, overlooking mass redistribution
is always transported by a motion rotating with the Earth.
The relative angular momentum in the scheme is thus
detached from the Earth’s rotation, and is not the angular
momentum perturbation arising from motion and mass
redistribution in a rotating Earth as it should. This is a
fundamental oversight; no motion or relative angular
momentum in the physical Earth can be independent of
its rotation. Pan [14] has additional discussion of the
problem. The angular momentum function of the atmos-
phere [15,28,30] is practically a normalized form of the
relative angular momentum h in Equation (6). Fluidal

C. PAN 935
layers in the Earth, the atmosphere, oceans, and outer
core, can each be represented by an individual h of its
own mobility and density, while the rest of the Earth is
still represented by the overall angular momentum I·
 .
6. Axial Near-Symmetry and Major
Principal Axis
In a non-rigid Earth, after its inertia is altered by motion
and mass redistribution, the rotation axis will revolve, not
shift, away from its alignment with the original major
principal axis according to the three-finger rule of the
right-handed system, to trace out a body cone around an
instantaneous figure axis that has shifted to its new posi-
tion, the mean excitation axis, as illustrated in Figure 3.
Yet, the direction of the rotation axis is still nearly fixed
in space besides nutation and precession; it is the instan-
taneous figure axis that shifts its direction in space, while
the principal axes shift responding to mass redistribution.
As Figure 3 exhibits, if the original major principal axis
at c is a symmetrical axis, then, the instantaneous figure
axis or mean excitation axis at z, around which the rota-
tion axis wobbles, can not be also a symmetrical axis as
Figure 3. Geometric interpretation of polar excitation on a
plane projection about the North Pole. c is the pole of the
c-axis in Figure 2, and ca and cb are the projections of a-
and b-axes respectively. z is the pole of the z-axis in Figure 2,
and zx and zy are the projections of x- and y-axes respec-
tively. The circular curve is the trace of the rotation pole  ,
while c’ is the assumed major principal pole at polar excita-
tion. The figure is not in actual scale, and the multiple fre-
quency-splits of the Chandler wobble are not depicted. (Af-
ter Pan, 1999, Figure 3).
well, no matter how close is it to c. This is the axial near-
symmetry of the Earth at polar excitation, as defined by
the angle pair


,







22
2222
2222
22
cos sin
sincos cossin
sincos sincos
sincos cos
sincos sin
sin cossincos.
x
y
z
xy
xz
yz
IA B
IA BC
IA BC
IBA
IBA
ICA B

in Figure 2, which will induce ad-
ditional changes in the Earth’s inertia [10,14]. Let the
Earth’s original principal moments of inertia in the (a, b,
c) frame be A < B < C; then, for the conservation of the
Earth’s inertia, the moments and products of inertia in
the (x, y, z) frame will be [10,12,14],









 
 


 

(9)
The mathematical matter perturbation in the Munk and
MacDonald scheme [8] fails to differentiate the two phy-
sically distinct changes in the Earth’s inertia, respectively
shown in Equations (8) and (9), that will appear simulta-
neously at polar excitation. Note both inertia changes in
Equations (8) and (9) involve physically in polar excita-
tion in a rotating Earth, while the mathematical matter
perturbation in the Munk and MacDonald scheme [8] is
directly added to an inertial Earth regardless of rotation.
The above demonstration then raises a critical question:
Can the mean excitation axis be a principal axis or “a ge-
neralization of principal axis” as Munk and MacDonald
[8] suggest? There exist no products of inertia about the
principal axes, so the mean excitation axis can be a prin-
cipal axis only if the residual products of inertia in Equa-
tion (8) and the products of inertia arising from axial
near-symmetry in Equation (9) can totally cancel each
other. We can resolve the problem through the excitation
function in the Liouville equation [8], which provides
amplitude to the Chandler wobble. With Equations (8)
and (9) incorporated into the Liouville equation, the three
components of the excitation function become [10,12], in
the absence of external torques,
 



2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1.
x
zx
xz xzyz yzxy
y
zy
y
zyzxzxzy x
zzzz
z
II
IIII pp
II
I
IIIpp
II p
I
 





 



 



 


 
 
 
(10)
Equation (10) exhibits the residual products of inertia
and the products of inertia arising from axial near-sym-

C. PAN 936
metry do not cancel each other, but instead superimpose
each other to enhance polar excitation. This manifests
that the mean excitation axis around which the rotation
axis wobbles is not a principal axis at all; otherwise the
products of inertia about it should be zero. Munk and
MacDonald [8] have overlooked this slight deviation of
the mean excitation axis from the major principal axis.
The conventional belief that the axis around which the
rotation axis wobbles is the major principal axis is thus
not valid in a non-rigid Earth. Figure 3 and Equation (9)
also exhibit that at polar excitation, the Earth becomes
slightly triaxial and axially near-symmetrical even it was
originally biaxial [13,14]. On the other hand, because of
the appearance of h, the original principal axes (a, b, c)
prior to polar excitation are no longer the Earth’s prince-
pal axes; then, where are the principal axes at polar exci-
tation? The principal axes are singular lines that are, like
the rigid body, only mathematically defined; how to ex-
actly locate them in the physical Earth is yet a good geo-
detic question. As Figures 2 and 3 imply, the physical
appearance of polar excitation is practically a perturba-
tion to the Earth’s axial symmetry. If the principal axes
in the physical Earth are not determined, then, the mea-
surement of the Earth’s axial near-symmetry angle pair

,

 is also a good question.
Here is also another interesting question. If a motion,
such as seasonal fluctuations of the atmosphere or the
atmospheric and oceanic excitation of the Earth’s wob-
bles [16,17] that induces only negligible mass redistribu-
tion in the solid Earth; then, there will be little changes in
the positions of the principal axes in the Earth. However,
as shown in Figure 3, according to the three-finger rule
of the right-handed system, the relative angular momen-
tum induced by the motion will force the rotation axis to
revolve away from the major principal axis around an
instantaneous figure axis that has also been forced to
shift to a new position at the mean excitation axis [8,14],
about which the inertia tensor is no longer diagonal but
becomes Equation (9) due to its axial near-symmetry
[10,14]. Polar excitation by motion alone hence can also
induce products of inertia in the solid Earth. In such a
case, polar excitation is due to continuous motion as well
as the products of inertia arising from the near-symmetry
of the instantaneous figure axis at its new position. The
instantaneous figure axis thus will shift responding to
both motion and mass redistribution, while the principal
axes shift only responding to mass redistribution. Con-
tinuous motion maintains the wobble; whereas, the in-
stantaneous figure axis will gradually drift toward the
major principal axis via rheological deformation until
they are realigned with each other. If motion stops, the
wobble it excites will stop, but the rotation axis will still
revolve toward the instantaneous figure axis according to
the three-finger rule of the right-handed system, with the
major principal axis dragged along, until they are all re-
aligned with each other to reach at stable rotation of
minimum energy configuration of the system.
7. Linearization
Munk and MacDonald [8] assume the perturbation to the
Earth’s inertia and rotation as well as the motion-only
relative angular momentum p, after normalized, are small
dimensionless quantities whose products and squares can
be neglected. After such a linearization, the equatorial
components of the Liouville equation can be mapped into
a complex plan, while the axial component represents
changes in the length of day [8]. On the other hand, at
right-side of the equation is the excitation function
arising from the motion-only relative angular momentum
p and the products of inertia, which provides the Chan-
dler amplitude, while the coefficients of the terms at the
left-side contribute to the Chandler frequency. However,
the same motion-only relative angular momentum p and
the products of inertia that contribute to the Chandler
amplitude at the right-side are totally neglected from the
coefficients at the left-side. This leaves only the excitation
function at the right-side [8] to represent a non-rigid
Earth, while the left-side is no different from that for a
rigid Earth as that in Equation (4). The Chandler wobble
hence still possesses a single frequency like that of a
rigid Earth, in conflict with the observed multiple splits
of the Chandler frequency as that shown in Figure 1.
What such a linearized Liouville equation represents is,
therefore, practically equivalent to the rotation of a rigid
Earth with polar excitation superimposed on independent
of rotation, and not yet truly of a non-rigid Earth.
In the Liouville equation, only rotation  is an un-
known that needs a solution; motion and inertia changes
are the physical quantities that excite polar motion. So in
the linearization only the terms that involve squares of
the variable
 are needed to be neglected, just like that in
Equations (2)-(4) for a rigid Earth rotation. The other
terms that involve the product of
 and non-variable
physical quantities are linear by definition and shall not
be neglected before they are physically identified as
genuinely negligibly small. In the Liouville equation,
Equation (5), only the fourth term
 × I·  and partially
the fifth term  × h that contain  -squares.  × I·  is
primarily a reaction of the Earth to external torques, so
its neglect is physically justifiable for free rotation of the
Earth at L = 0; whereas, the
 -square terms in  × h are
due to the gyric motion
 × r in h, which are negligibly
small and are already ignored in the Munk and Mac
Donald scheme. It is true that the normalized values of
the products of inertia and the motion-only relative
angular momentum p are much smaller than that of the
moments of inertia, but products of inertia and relative

C. PAN 937
angular momentum are neither in the same physical
dimension nor on the same order of magnitude, and their
normalized values are not necessarily negligibly small or
physically insignificant in comparison to the normalized
differences of the axial and equatorial moments of inertia;
the latter comprises the fundamental Chandler frequency
constituents. On the other hand, if motion and mass
redistribution can excite the Chandler amplitude, there is
no reason to assume that they are too small to affect the
Chandler frequency. It is hence inappropriate to neglect
them before they are physically identified indeed too
small to contribute to the Chandler frequency. Take into
account of above considerations and let the only mathe-
matical perturbation be
 = (mx, my, 1 + mz), where (mx,
my, mz) are dimensionless small quantities [8], the lineari-
zation of the Liouville equation in the absence of external
torques becomes [10,12],
2
()
2
xyxxyxy z
x
xy
xx
yzxz y
xz
zz
xx
xyxy z
y y
x
yy
xy y
x
xx
yy
yzxzyz x
zz
yy
yzxz yyz
xz
xx
zz
xz yz
II I
mmm
II
IIh
Imm
II
IIh
mm
II
IIIh
mm
II
IIh I
Imm
II
II





 

 
 
 
 
 
 












y y
y
xx
y
z
Ih
m
I
II
mm
I
m
I













,
z

yz
yz z
zz
hI
mm m
II



(11)
where zx
y
x
I
I
I


 and zy
y
x
II
I




,,
are not inde-
pendent components but the constituents of the funda-
mental Chandler frequency arising from matter distribu-
tion in a slightly triaxial and axially near-symmetrical
Earth [12], and
x
yz
is the excitation function
in Equation (10). The coefficients of left-side terms in
Equation (11) provide frequencies to the Chandler wob-
ble, thus not only moments of inertia but also products of
inertia and motion will contribute to the Chandler fre-
quency [12]. Equation (11) is three dimensional, and its
x- and y-components can no longer be mapped into a
complex plan mathematically as that in the Munk and
MacDonald scheme [8]. The solution of Equation (11)
[10,12] gives a slow damping Chandler wobble of
multiple frequency-splits as well as secular polar drift,

consistent with the observation that the Chandler wobble
hardly changes except exhibiting a “beat” phenomenon
of resonant coupled oscillations [8,12,15,31,32]. This
confirms that single frequency is not the intrinsic
property of the Chandler wobble, but is only for the free
rotation of a biaxial or slightly triaxial rigid Earth under
an assumed initial condition of a slight misalignment be-
tween the rotation and major principal axes. The ob-
servation of apparent single Chandler frequency is be-
cause the length of data analyzed is shorter than the
resonance cycle and in a time span within the modulation
envelope of the oscillations [15].
The solution of Equation (11) [10,12] is very compli-
cated. In the solution [12], the wobble frequency consists
of a natural frequency plus or minus three small feedback
frequency series that are equivalent to adding of small
springs and dashpots in series with the main oscillator.
Yet, the natural frequency can further be separated into a
fundamental frequency attributing to the Earth’s slight
triaxiality just like that of a rigid Earth, and also three
small feedback frequency series that are equivalent to
adding of small springs and dashpots in parallel with the
main oscillator. Such a feedback mechanism causes the
multiple splits of the Chandler frequency. The small
feedback frequency series are due respectively to instan-
taneous inertia, relative angular momentum, and inertia
variation arising from the same motion and mass redis-
tribution that excite the Chandler amplitude [16-18].
However, physical details of the frequency excitation are
not yet identified; the Liouville equation and its solution
can be further simplified if the orders of magnitude of
some of the terms are physically identified to be negligi-
bly small.
8. Rotation Instability
The solution of Equation (11) [10,12] gives an exponen-
tially damping Chandler wobble together with an ex-
ponentially increasing secular polar drift, suggesting the
Earth’s rotation is unstable. Secular polar drift represents
the Earth’s attempt to eliminate its products of inertia, so
it is always associated with the Chandler wobble that is
also involved with the products of inertia [14,22]; they
together constitute polar motion for the Earth to seek
rotation stability. The damping relaxation time for a
Chandler wobble of multiple frequency-splits is on the
order of 104 to 106 years [12], and available observation
[15] indicates the Chandler wobble has yet to reach a
complete multiple-resonance cycle. In a multilayered,
deformable, energy-generating and dissipative Earth,
once the rotation, major principal, and instantaneous
figure axes are separated from each other, they will no
longer be able to revert back to their original position of
alignment in the Earth again, while rheological equatorial
bulge will migrate with secular polar drift accordingly
[8]; so it is an unstable rotation. In an Earth in unstable

C. PAN 938
rotation, secular internal torques [10,13,22], particularly
those due to the gyroscopic effect or gyricity from
rotation to motion [13,22,27], dominate secular global
geodynamics and also cause free nutation. The Earth will
reach a stable rotation via self-deformation and quadru-
polar adjustment according to the law of conservation of
angular momentum and the three-finger rule of the
right-handed system, until its rotation, major principal,
and instantaneous figure axes are all completely realig-
ned with each other to arrive at the minimum energy
configuration of the system [14]. Then, (mx, my, mz) = 0,
, and (x, y, z) = (a, b, c).

,0  
9. Chandler and Markowitz Wobbles,
Secular Polar Drift
Assuming the Chandler wobble to be a complex time
series, Okubo [33] tests the variability of the Chandler
amplitude, and concludes that it is an artifact depending
on the analysis methods. Here we further examine this
particular problem via direct analysis of observation, to
see whether the multiple splits of the Chandler frequency
are artifacts. The data used for this analysis is the 105-
year POLE2004 series [15,34], which is, as error-
analysis below will show, reliable and useful for the
study of the continuation of polar motion. Complex Liou-
ville equation [8] predicts only a non-damping single-
frequency Chandler wobble with no secular polar drift, as
if the Earth were rigid after an amplitude excitation. It is
therefore not appropriate to map real observations into a
complex plan for the analysis of the frequency excitation
it does not cover; our analysis reflects Equation (11). The
analysis tool is a simplest radix-2 FFT; no further
assumptions or parameters are added to generate artifacts.
All artifacts in an FFT are due to the finite truncation of
input, and among them only the Gibbs phenomenon
smears the whole spectrum; the others are uncom-
pensated spectral leakages at local frequencies that will
neither contaminate the signals nor transfer to the time
domain to induce amplitude modulation. So after the
Gibbs phenomenon is removed, no other artifacts will
smear the spectra or induce amplitude modulation, while
digital filtering is exact, not approximation like conven-
tional filters.
We start from Figure 1, the power density spectrum of
the POLE2004 series from 0.0 to 1.1 cycle/year, includ-
ing secular polar drift, Markowitz, Chandler, and annual
wobbles as well as background noises. There is no Gibbs
phenomenon in a power density spectrum, so the baseline
tilting method [15,35] that removes the Gibbs pheno-
menon but will introduce a near-DC component into the
spectrum, is not applied. What in Figure 1 are thus either
input signals/noises or uncompensated leakages due to
finite truncation of the input. For the study of the Chan-
dler wobble, we remove the annual wobble from polar
motion, it then gives a waveform as that in Figure 4 and
a power density spectrum in Figure 5.
Pan [15] observes that the bandwidth of the Chandler
wobble is a constant 0.79 - 0.875 cycle/year regardless of
data length, data quality, time span, and time sampling
rate; whereas, that of the annual wobble varies from 0.99 -
1.01 cycle/year for the 105-year (1900-2005) POLE-
2004 series at 30.4375-day intervals to a broader 0.975 -
1.025 cycle/year for the more modern 42-year (1962-
2005) COMB2004 series at daily intervals. A broad band-
width consists of more than a single discrete frequency
even it has only a single peak [15]. The Chandler spec-
trum splits within its bandwidth with the increase of time
span regardless of time sampling rate, but the annual
wobble only shifts its frequency content. This exhibits
that the annual wobble varies timely in response to
seasonal fluctuations of the atmosphere; whereas, splits
of Chandler frequency reflect the amplitude modulation
cycles within the time span [15]. The Gibbs phenomenon
is already removed, and spectral leakages will not
contaminate the wobble frequencies, so the splits within
the constant bandwidth all belong to the Chandler com-
ponents that will induce amplitude modulation in the
time span. To further look into it, we isolate the Chandler
bandwidth; its power density spectrum is shown in
Figure 6, and waveform in Figure 7 (also [15]). A com-
parison of Figures 4 and 7, we can see that their dif-
ference is only that Figure 4 still contains all the remain-
ders of polar motion, secular polar drift, the Markowitz
wobbles, and background noises except the annual
wobble, while Figure 7 consists of only what is within
the Chandler bandwidth. Figures 4 and 7 reflect each
other; both exhibit the resonant oscillations or amplitude
modulation cycles that a single-frequency wobble cannot
have. However, there is a general belief that if the Chan-
dler frequency is to split, it is a single split [31,32,36,37].
So one may still suspect the side-splits of the Chandler
frequency are artifacts. To test this, we remove the side-
splits from the Chandler frequency. This is equivalent to
spectral leakages are totally compensated as if the input
length were infinite, which hence will not affect the
signals. Figure 8 is the power density spectrum of the
main-split and Figure 9 is its waveform, which displays
a typical single coupled oscillation obviously different
from the multiple amplitude modulations as that in Fig-
ures 4 and 7. A comparison of Figures 7 and 9, we can
easily conclude that the side-splits cannot be artifacts but
belong to the Chandler components, for artifacts or
spectral leakages are not able to add to the main-split to
induce the multiple amplitude modulations beyond a
single coupled oscillationas that shown in Figure 7.
For further confirmation, it is also of interest to see
how the side-splits alone wil behave. Figure 10 is the l

C. PAN 939
1900 1910192019301940 195019601970 19801990 2000
-4
-2
0
2
4
6x 10
5
Time (year)
X-Com pon en t (mu as)
Polar motion with annual wobble removed: January 20, 1900 - J anuary 20, 2005
1900 1910192019301940 195019601970 19801990 2000
-4
-2
0
2
4
6x 10
5
Time (year)
Y-Com p one nt (mu as)
Figure 4. Polar motion of the POLE2004 series (Gross, 2005) with annual wobble removed, span January 20, 1900 to January
20, 2005 at 30.4375-day intervals.
00.20.4 0.6 0.8 1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 x 10
10
Frequency ( cycle/year)
Power Density Spe ctra (mua s**2/cpy)
Polar motion wi th annual wobble r emoved: January 20, 1900 - Januar y 20, 2005
x-component
y- component
Figure 5. The power density spectrum of polar motion of the POLE2004 series (Gross, 2005) with annual wobble removed,
span January 20, 1900 to January 20, 2005 at 30.4375-day intervals.

C. PAN 940
00.2 0.4 0.60.8 1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 x 10
10
Frequency ( c yc le/year)
Power Density Spectra (muas ** 2/cpy )
The C handler wobble only : January 20, 1900 - January 20, 200 5
x-com ponent
y-component
Figure 6. The power density spectrum of the Chandler wobble from the POLE2004 series (Gross, 2005), span January 20,
1900 to January 20, 2005 at 30.4375-day intervals.
1900 19101920 19301940195019601970 1980 1990 2000
-4
-2
0
2
4
6x 10
5
Time (year)
X-Component (mu as)
The C handler wobble only: J anuary 20, 1900 - January 20, 2005
1900 1910192019301940 1950 19601970 198019902000
-4
-2
0
2
4
6x 10
5
Time (year)
Y-Component (mu as)
Figure 7. The Chandler wobble from the POLE2004 series (Gross, 2005), span January 20, 1900 to January 20, 2005 at
30.4375-day intervals.

C. PAN 941
00.20.4 0.60.8 1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 x 10
10
Frequenc y ( cycle/yea r)
Power Density S pectra (muas**2/c py)
The C handler wobble mai n-split only: January 20, 1900 - J anuary 20 , 2005
x-component
y- component
Figure 8. The power density spectrum of the main-split of the Chandler wobble from the POLE2004 series (Gross, 2005),
span January 20, 1900 to January 20, 2005 at 30.4375-day intervals.
1900 1910 1920 19301940 1950 1960 19701980 19902000
-4
-2
0
2
4
6x 10
5
Time (y ear)
X-Com ponent (mu as)
The C handler wobble main-split only: Januar y 20, 1900 - January 20, 2005
1900 1910 1920 19301940 1950 1960 19701980 19902000
-4
-2
0
2
4
6x 10
5
Time (y ear)
Y-Compon ent (mu as)
Figure 9. The waveform of the main-split of the Chandler wobble from the POLE2004 series (Gross, 2005), span January 20,
1900 to January 20, 2005 at 30.4375-day intervals.

C. PAN 942
0.6 0.650.70.75 0.8 0.850.9 0.95 11.051.1
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4x 10
10
Frequency ( cyc le/year)
Power Density Spectra (muas**2/cpy)
The C handler side-splits: January 20, 1900 - J anuary 20, 2005
x-component
y- component
Figure 10. The power density spectrum of the side-splits of the Chandler wobble from the POLE2004 series (Gross, 2005),
span January 20, 1900 to January 20, 2005 at 30.4375-day intervals.
power density spectrum of the side-splits and Figure 11
is its waveform, which further exhibit that the side-splits
are not leakages but components of the resonant oscilla-
tions of the Chandler wobble that are missed in Figures 8
and 9. Note in Figure 10 there are two non-zero uncom-
pensated leakage peaks within the original bandwidth of
the main-split, but which will not contaminate the side-
splits or induce amplitude modulations in the time domain.
In Figure 11, the magnitude of the amplitude modulation
is slowly decreasing, which may reflect the imbalances
of the splits at each side of the removed main-split. We
now remove both the Chandler and annual wobbles
wholly to see how the remainders of polar motion will
behave; Figure 12 is the power density spectrum and
Figure 13 is the waveform. The remainders in Figure 12
are secular polar drift, the Markowitz wobbles, back-
ground noises, as well as uncompensated leakages. How-
ever, as what is shown in Figure 13, none of the re-
mainders will generate resonant oscillations or amplitude
modulations. This further exhibits that artifacts or
uncompensated spectral leakages have nothing to do with
the multiple splits of the Chandler frequency.
In Figure 1 or 4 we can also find that near the zero-
frequency of the power density spectrum, there exist
three conspicuous and one minor spectral peaks in the
x-component. The y-component is dominated by secular
polar drift, but there are yet two peaks that can be
identified corresponding to those in the x-component.
Figure 14 plots the enlarged part of the spectrum from 0.0
to 0.3 cycle/year, and Table 1 lists the measurements of
those low-frequency spectral peaks. Because of the do-
mination of secular polar drift in this near-DC frequency
range, only two peaks, respectively at 0.029 cycle/year
(34.48 years) and at 0.047 cycle/year (21.28 years), can
be commonly identified from both the x- and y- com-
ponents, which are close to the Markowitz wobble. Gross
[18] reports the Markowitz wobble has a period of 24
years and an amplitude of 30 mas. The wobbles in this
frequency range are within or close to the bandwidth of
secular polar drift; their measurements are therefore
corrupted by it and are also heavily dependent on spectral
resolution. The corruption of the wobbles by secular
polar drift is another reason that to map polar motion into
a complex plan may be misleading. However, what listed
in Table 1 are yet apparent and cannot be taken too
seriously. Longer observation is needed for more detailed
study of these long-period wobbles. It is not yet certain
whether Equation (11) will predict such long-period
wobbles. If it does not, then they are not free wobbles.
Finally, we can also make a glance at secular polar
drift. Based on Figure 14, we pick 0.000 - 0.012 cycle/
year as its bandwidth. Then, its power density spectrum
is shown in Figure 15, and waveform is plotted together
with the original polar motion observation in Figure 16.

C. PAN 943
1900 19101920 19301940 195019601970 1980 1990 2000
-4
-2
0
2
4
6x 10
5
Time (y ear)
X-Compon ent (mu as)
The Chandler side-splits: January 20, 1900 - January 20, 2005
1900 19101920 19301940 195019601970 1980 1990 2000
-4
-2
0
2
4
6x 10
5
Time (y ear)
Y-Compon ent (mu as)
Figure 11. The waveform of the side-splits of the Chandler wobble from the POLE2004 series (Gross, 2005), span January 20,
1900 to January 20, 2005 at 30.4375-day intervals.
00.20.4 0.6 0.8 1
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4x 10
10
Frequency ( cycle/year)
Power Density Spectra (muas**2/c py)
The Chandler and annual wobbles removed: J anuary 20, 1900 - J anuar y 20, 2005
x-com p onent
y- component
Figure 12. The power density spectrum of the remainders of polar motion from the POLE2004 series (Gross, 2005) with
Chandler and annual wobbles removed, span January 20, 1900 to January 20, 2005 at 30.4375-day intervals.

C. PAN 944
1900 191019201930 19401950 1960 1970 198019902000
-4
-2
0
2
4
6x 10
5
Time (ye a r)
X-Com pon en t (mu as)
The Chandler and annual wobbles removed: J anuar y 20, 1900 - J anuar y 20, 2005
1900 191019201930 19401950 1960 1970 198019902000
-4
-2
0
2
4
6x 10
5
Time (ye a r)
Y-Com ponent (mu as)
Figure 13. Remainders of polar motion from the POLE2004 series (Gross, 2005) with Chandler and annual wobbles removed,
span January 20, 1900 to January 20, 2005 at 30.4375-day intervals.
00.05 0.10.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8x 10
10
Frequency ( c yc le/year)
Power Density Spectra (muas**2/cpy)
Polar Motion: January 20, 1900 - J anuary 20, 2005
x-component
y- component
Figure 14. The power density spectrum of polar motion of lower frequencies from the POLE2004 series (Gross, 2005), span
January 20, 1900 to January 20, 2005 at 30.4375-day intervals.

C. PAN 945
Table 1. The long-period (markowitz) wobbles.
Frequency (cycle/year) 0.006 0.018 0.029 0.047
Period (year) 166.67 55.56 34.48 21.28
x-amplitude (μas) 4.1 × 105 2.5 × 105 2.0 × 105 0.7 × 105
y-amplitude (μas) 4.4 × 105 2.7 × 105
00.050.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9x 10
11
Frequency ( c ycle/year)
Power Density Spectra (muas**2/cpy)
Sec ular Polar Dri ft: J anuary 20, 1900 - J anuary 20, 2005
x-component
y -component
Figure 15. The power density spectrum of secular polar drift from the POLE2004 series (Gross, 2005), span January 20, 1900
to January 20, 2005 at 30.4375-day intervals.
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 19801990 2000
-4
-2
0
2
4
6x 10
5
Time (y ear)
X-Compon ent (muas)
Polar Motion and Secular Polar Dr ift: J anuar y 20, 1900 - J anuary 20, 2005
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 19801990 2000
-4
-2
0
2
4
6x 10
5
Time (y ear)
Y-Compon ent (muas)
Polar motion
Secular polar drift
Figure 16. Secular polar drift and polar motion from the POLE2004 series (Gross, 2005), span January 20, 1900 to January
0, 2005 at 30.4375-day intervals. 2

C. PAN 946
10. Error Analysis of the ILS Data
The observation examined above includes the less reli-
able ILS data [15,34]; the high noise level in the ILS data,
particularly those recorded during the 1920-1945 War
period, may introduce errors into the analysis and thus
lead to misinterpretation. However, Pan [15] observes
that the noises in the data are mostly random and inco-
herent between x- and y-components, and the incohe-
rency is higher in higher frequencies. As exhibited by the
observation analysis above, such incoherent random
noises will not affect the periodic signals in the Chandler
frequency range much, for they are incapable of periodi-
cally feeding enough energy back to split the Chandler
frequency [12,38], while noises with periods less than a
month are already eliminated by the monthly sampling of
the data. If the noises could ever affect the wobble fre-
quencies, they would separate the x- and y-components
of the wobbles incoherently rather than nearly identical
to each other as what is observed in Figure 1 (and Fig-
ure 18). On the other hand, since complex Liouville equa-
tion predicts only a non-damping single-frequency wob-
ble of constant amplitude and no secular polar drift,
mapping the x- and y-components of observation, par-
ticularly those contain incoherent background noises,
into a complex plan is misleading. In order to further
clarify the problem, we will do an error analysis of the
ILS data, particularly those of 1920-1945 War years, in
three directions:
1) Time domain: Figure 17 plots the original polar
motion data of the POLE2004 series, span 20 January
1900 to 20 January 2005, at 30.4375-day intervals, in-
cluding the ILS data [34]. As shown, with the presence
of the annual wobble, the amplitude modulation in 1920-
1945 is slightly lower but not exceptionally low. How-
ever, the incoherency between the x- and y-components
is conspicuous, as is also exhibited by the amplitude
spectra of the data in Figure 18, which indeed reflect the
War disturbances. Figure 18 shows the incoherency gets
worse at higher frequencies, but yet hardly gets into the
bandwidths of the Chandler and annual wobbles. Now
we remove the annual wobble from the data, as that in
Figure 4, then the much lower amplitude modulation and
the incoherency between the x- and y-components in
1920-1945 become more conspicuous, which lead to a
belief that the split of the Chandler frequency is caused
by the “phase ambiguity” associated with the exception-
ally low amplitude in 1920-1945. However, here we need
to note that, as is already mentioned above, the x- and
y-components of the data are not mapped to a complex
plan but each treated alone and then plotted together. The
amplitude spectra are all zero phase, so there is not
“phase ambiguity” but incoherent noises as that shown in
Figure 18. Yet, the multiple splits of the Chandler fre-
quency are still there intact, not disappeared with “phase
1900 1910 19201930 194019501960 1970 1980 1990
6x 10
5
2000
-4
-2
0
2
4
Time (ye a r)
X-Com pon ent (mu as)
Polar Motion Observation: January 20, 1900 - January 20, 2005
1900 1910 19201930 194019501960 1970 1980 1990
6x 10
5
2000
-4
-2
0
2
4
Time (ye a r)
Y-Com pon ent (mu as)
Figure 17. Polar motion observation from the POLE2004 series, span 20 January 1900 to 20 January 2005, at 30.4375-day
intervals (Gross, 2005).

C. PAN 947
Figure 18. Amplitude spectra of polar motion from the POLE2004 series; Gibbs phenomenon removed.
ambiguity”. There are also questions: Why the annual
wobble seems less affected by the Wars but the inco-
herency around it becomes worse? Why the amplitude
modulation during 1914-1918 WWI period was not as
low as the years afterward? These questions will become
clear below. Figure 7 is the waveform of the Chandler
wobble extracted from its exact bandwidth in Figure 18,
which exhibits clearly not a single frequency motion but
multiple resonant oscillations with lowest amplitude at
1927. The incoherency between the x- and y-components
that is conspicuous in Figures 4, 17 and 18 is disap-
peared in Figure 7. The incoherent noises are thus sepa-
rable and removable, as exhibited by a comparison of
Figure 18 to Figure 6, since the noises do not contami-
nate the wobble frequencies. On the other hand, Figure 9
is the waveform of the main-split of the Chandler spec-
trum, which exhibits a single coupled oscillation with its
lowest amplitude at 1932, no longer at 1927 as that in
Figure 7, but there were no major wars in 1927-1932. If
the low amplitude modulation in 1920-1945 was indeed
caused by the Wars, then there should be only one lowest
point in the period, more likely closer to 1939-1945 or
even 1914-1918. The envelope of amplitude modulation
as that shown in Figures 7 and 9 will then be interrupted
at the same lowest point, and there will also be no shift of
the amplitude modulation cycles corresponding to the
Chandler frequency splits as that shown in Figures 7, 9
and 11. The amplitude modulation in Figure 9 is a typi-
cal single coupled oscillation, no longer reflects the excep-
tionally low amplitude in 1920-1945 as that in Figure 4.
The shift of amplitude modulation from Figures 7 to 9 is
thus due to the removal of the three side-splits from the
Chandler spectra, not because of Wars. More importantly,
as is also exhibited in Figure 9, a resonant coupled os-
cillation cannot have an open end; it must be cyclic. Only
one low amplitude end is not able to physically split the
natural frequency of the Chandler wobble; it needs an
energy feedback mechanism to achieve it [38].
2) Frequency domain: As is already demonstrated
above, the bandwidth of the Chandler wobble is a con-
stant regardless of data length, data quality, time span,
and time sampling rate, while that of the annual wobble
shifts its frequency content. The incoherent noises intro-
duced during the 1920-1945 War period are separable
from the constant Chandler bandwidth and removable, so
the Wars have not affected the frequency content of the
Chandler spectrum. A broad bandwidth contains more
than a single discrete frequency; the splits of the Chan-
dler spectrum within its bandwidth are expected all to be
the Chandler components. Fourier theory says a periodic
waveform can always be decomposed into a series of
harmonics each having its individual amplitude and fre-
quency. So the multiple amplitude modulations of the
Chandler wobble, as demonstrated above, are due to the
multiple splits of its bandwidth, and not a single fre-
quency motion with time-varying amplitude¸ which is
only apparent.
3) Synthetic simulation: Following the synthetic simu-
lation of 5-component Chandler wobble and annual
wobble [15], the upper plot in Figure 19 is a simulation

C. PAN 948
of the 105-year polar motion, while the lower plot is the
same simulation but with the annual wobble removed. In
the plots magnitude and time span are not exact but rela-
tive. By comparing these two plots respectively with
Figures 4 and 17, we can find the Chandler amplitude
modulation in certain time span can become conspicu-
ously lower without War interruptions. On the other hand,
Figure 20 shows the same simulations but free of noises.
By comparing the lower plot of Figure 20 with Figures
7 and 9, we can see after the annual wobble is removed,
the Chandler amplitude modulation can become excep-
tionally low in certain time span, and the envelope of a
resonant coupled oscillation cannot have an open end but
cyclic.
From above error analysis, it can be concluded that
what the War disturbances during 1920-1945 introduced
5
010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-5
0
Time (yea r)
Original Synthetic
010 20 30 40 50 60 7080 90 100
-5
0
5
Time (yea r)
Annual W obble Removed
Figure 19. Synthetic simulation of the 105-year polar motion of the POLE2004 series. Upper plot is the original simulation;
lower plot is with the annual w obble removed. Magnitude and time span are not exactly simulated.
5
010 20 304050 6070 80 90 100
-5
0
Time (year)
Original Synthetic
010 203040 50 60 7080 90 100
-5
0
5
Time (year)
Annual W obble Removed
Figure 20. Synthetic simulation of the 105-year polar motion of the POLE2004 series free of noises. Upper plot is the original
imulation; lower plot is with the annual wobble re moved. Magnitude and time span are not exactly simulated. s

C. PAN 949
into the ILS data are mainly incoherent noises, which are
separable from polar motion and removable because they
are either random or in much higher frequencies. The
lower amplitude modulation around the time span 1920-
1945 is not due to the Wars but is barely a coincidence.
The ILS observations are hence still reliable and useful
data for the study of the continuation of polar motion,
and the multiple splits of the Chandler frequency so ob-
served are real.
11. Conclusion
The rotation of a biaxial or slightly triaxial rigid body is
not able to depict the complexity of the rotation of a
multilayered, deformable, energy-generating and dissipa-
tive Earth that allows motion and mass redistribution.
Munk and MacDonald’s linearization of the Liouville
equation to represent the rotation of a non-rigid Earth has
oversimplified polar excitation physics, which ends up
equivalent to a rigid Earth with polar excitation superim-
posed on independent of rotation. It hence still gives a
non-damping single-frequency Chandler wobble of con-
stant amplitude with no secular polar drift. The problems
encountered in the Munk and MacDonald scheme are
reviewed, analyzed, and improved according to funda-
mental physical laws. The terrestrial reference frame is
most crucial, and the selection of a both theoretically and
observationally practical reference frame for the study of
the rotation of the physical Earth is a most difficult
problem. It should be physically located in the Earth,
unique, consistent with observation, and always asso-
ciated with polar motion; i.e., the reference frame should
be able to express the Liouville equation as the gene-
ralized equation of motion for the rotation of the physical
Earth. Physical angular momentum perturbation appears
as a relative angular momentum arising from motion and
mass redistribution about the same terrestrial frame
rotating with the Earth relative to an inertial frame fixed
in space as the whole system does, and cannot bypass the
Earth’s rotation and directly about an inertial frame.
Motion and mass redistribution in a rotating Earth is not
the same as that in an inertial Earth or flat Earth. At polar
excitation, the direction of the Earth’s rotation axis in
space does not change besides nutation and precession
around the invariant angular momentum axis, while the
principal axes shift responding to mass redistribution.
The rotation of the Earth at polar excitation is unstable,
and the Earth becomes slightly triaxial and axially near-
symmetrical even it was originally biaxial. Two physi-
cally distinct inertia changes will appear simultaneously
to superimpose each other at polar excitation; one is due
to mass redistribution, and the other arises from the axial
near-symmetry of the perturbed Earth. During polar
motion, the instantaneous figure axis or mean excitation
axis around which the rotation axis physically wobbles is
not a principal axis. The Earth’s principal axes are to be
geodetically determined, also is the Earth’s axial near-
symmetry angle pair


,

 . The Chandler wobble
possesses not only a single frequency but multiple splits
and is slow-damping, which exhibits the “beat” pheno-
menon of resonant coupled oscillations. Secular polar
drift is after the products of inertia and is always asso-
ciated with the Chandler wobble; the two together con-
stitute polar motion for the Earth to seek polar stability.
The conventional belief that the axis around which the
rotation axis wobbles is the major principal axis is not
true in a non-rigid Earth.The Earth will return to its stable
rotation via self-deformation and quadrupolar adjustment
according to the law of conservation of angular momen-
tum and the three-finger rule of the right-handed system,
until its rotation, major principal, and instantaneous
figure axes are all completely realigned with each other
to arrive at the minimum energy configuration of the
system. Multiple splits of the Chandler frequency are
further confirmed by directan alysis of observation;
Markowitz wobbles are also observed. Error analysis of
the ILS data demonstrates that the incoherent noises from
War disturbances in 1920-1945 are separable from polar
motion and removable, so the ILS data are still reliable
and useful for the study of the continuation of polar
motion. The rotation of the physical Earth must follow
fundamental physical laws; legitimate mathematics may
not necessarily represent true physics.
12. Acknowledgements
Thanks are due to Richard Gross and Ben Chao for their
supply of the up-to-date polar motion observation and
help in the analysis, which further confirmed the multiple
splits of the Chandler frequency, the observation of the
Markowitz wobbles, and also enabled error analysis of
the ILS data. I am grateful to Steven Dickman’s reading
of the manuscript. High appreciation is due to the Edi-
tor-in-Chief and the four anonymous reviewers for their
detailed and in-depth comments and suggestions, which
greatly helped the rewriting of the manuscript. I am also
grateful to Lanbo Liu and one of the anonymous review-
ers of my past papers, who pointed out the need to syn-
thesize an overall review and systematic examination of
the linearization of the Liouville equation.
REFERENCES
[1] R. A. Becker, “Introduction to Theoretical Mechanics,”
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1954, 420 p.
[2] W. T. Thomson, “Introduction to Space Dynamics,”
Wiley, New York, 1986, 317 p.
[3] M. L. Smith, “Wobble and Nutation of the Earth,” Geo-
physical Journal Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 50, No.
1, 1977, pp. 103-140.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.1977.tb01326.x

C. PAN 950
[4] M. L. Smith and F. A. Dahlen, “The Period and Q of the
Chandler Wobble,” Geophysical Journal Royal Astrono-
mical Society, Vol. 64, No. 1, 1981, pp. 223-281.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.1981.tb02667.x
[5] S. R. Dickman, “The Rotation of the Ocean-Solid Earth
System,” Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 88, No.
B8, 1983, pp. 6373-6394. doi:10.1029/JB088iB08p06373
[6] W. H. Munk, “Polar Wandering: A Marathon of Errors,”
Nature, Vol. 177, No. 4508, 1956, pp. 551-554.
doi:10.1038/177551a0
[7] T. Gold, “Instability of the Earth’s Axis of Rotation,”
Nature, Vol. 175, 1955, pp. 526-529.
doi:10.1038/175526a0
[8] W. H. Munk and G. J. F. MacDonald, “The Rotation of
the Earth,” Cambridge University Press, London, 1960,
323 p.
[9] C. Pan, “Polar Wandering and the Earth’s Dynamical
Evolution Cycle,” In: P. Melchior and S. Yumi, Eds.,
Rotation of the Earth, IAU Symposium No. 48, Reidel,
1972, pp. 206-211.
[10] C. Pan, “Polar Motion of a Triaxial Earth and Dynamical
Plate Tectonics,” Tectonophysics, Vol. 25, 1975, pp. 1-40.
doi:10.1016/0040-1951(75)90009-8
[11] C. Pan, “The Earth’s Rotation Instability, Plate Motion,
and Geodynamics of the Mantle (Abstract),” AGU
Transactions, Vol. 59, 1978, pp. 1202-1203.
[12] C. Pan, “The Multiple-Frequency Chandler Wobble,”
Journal of Physics of the Earth, Vol. 30, No. 5, 1982, pp.
389-419. doi:10.4294/jpe1952.30.389
[13] C. Pan, “Polar Instability, Plate Motion, and Geodynam-
ics of the Mantle,” Journal of Physics of the Earth, Vol.
33, No. 5, 1985, pp. 411-434.
doi:10.4294/jpe1952.33.411
[14] C. Pan, “Angular Momentum Perturbation, Polar Excita-
tion, and Axial Near-Symmetry,” Geophysical Journal
International, Vol. 137, No. 1, 1999, pp. 139-148.
doi:10.1046/j.1365-246x.1999.00782.x
[15] C. Pan, “Observed Multiple Frequencies of the Chandler
Wobble,” Journal of Geodynamics, Vol. 44, No. 1-2,
2007, pp. 47-65.
[16] R. S. Gross, “The Excitation of the Chandler Wobble,”
Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 27, No. 15, 2000, pp.
2329-2332. doi:10.1029/2000GL011450
[17] R. S. Gross, I. Fukumori and D. Menemenlis, “Atmo-
spheric and Oceanic Excitation of the Earth’s Wobbles
during 1980-2000,” Journal of Geophysical Research,
Vol. 108, 2003, pp. 2370-2386.
doi:10.1029/2002JB002143
[18] R. S. Gross, “Earth Rotation: Long Period Variations,” In:
T. A. Herring, Ed., Treatise of Geophysics, Vol. 3, El-
sevier, Oxford, 2007, pp. 239-294.
[19] T. Sasao, S. Okubo and M. Saito, “A Simple Theory on
the Dynamical Effects of a stratified fluid core upon Nu-
tational Motion of the Earth,” In: E. P. Fedorov, M. L.
Smith and P. L. Bender, Eds., Nutation and the Earth’s
Rotation, IAU Symposium No. 78, Reidel, 1980, pp. 165-
184.
[20] T. Sasao and J. M. Wahr, “An Excitation Mechanism for
the Free ‘Core Nutation’,” Geophysical Journal Royal
Astronomical Society, Vol. 64, No. 3, 1981, pp. 729-746.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.1981.tb02692.x
[21] P. M. Mathews, T. A. Herring and B. A. Buffett, “Mod-
eling of Nutation and Precession: New Nutation Series
for Nonrigid Earth and Insights into the Earth’s Interior,”
Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 107, No. B4,
2002.
[22] C. Pan, “Non-Rigid Rotation, Secular Global Geodynamics
and Free Nutation,” Physics of the Earth and Planetary
Interiors, 2012, in Press.
[23] B. F. Chao, “On the Excitation of the Earth’s Free Wob-
ble and Reference Frames,” Geophysical Journal Royal
Astronomical Society, Vol. 79, No. 2, 1984, pp. 555-563.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.1984.tb02240.x
[24] K. Lambeck, “The Earth’s Variable Rotation: Geophysical
Causes and Consequences,” Cambridge University Press,
London, 1980, 449 p. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511569579
[25] H. Moritz and I. I. Mueller, “Earth Rotation: Theory and
Observation,” The Ungar Publishing Company, New
York, 1988, 617 p.
[26] P. M. Mathews, B. A. Buffett, T. A. Herring and I. I.
Shapiro, “Forced Nutations of the Earth: Influence of In-
ner Core Dynamics, 1. Theory,” Journal of Geophysical
Research, Vol. 96, No. B5, 1991, pp. 8219-8242.
doi:10.1029/90JB01955
[27] G. M. T. D’Eleuterio and P. C. Hughes, “Dynamics of
Gyro-Elastic Continua. AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS,” 24th
Structures, Structural Dynamics & Materials Conference,
Lake Tahoe, 2-4 May 1983, 9 p.
[28] R. T. H. Barnes, R. Hide, A. A. White and C. A. Wilson,
“Atmospheric Angular Momentum Fluctuation, Length-
of-Day Changes and Polar Motion,” Proceedings of the
Royal Society, Vol. 387, No. 1792, 1983, pp. 3l-73.
[29] M. J. Bell, R. Hide and G. Sakellarides, “Atmospheric
Angular Momentum Forecasts as Novel Tests of Global
Numerical Weather Prediction Models,” Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society A, Vol. 334, No. 1633,
1991, pp. 55-92. doi:10.1098/rsta.1991.0003
[30] R. Hide and J. O. Dickey, “Earth’s Variable Rotation,”
Science, Vol. 253, No. 5020, 1991, pp. 629-637.
[31] E. M. Gaposchkin, “Analysis of Pole Position from 1846
to 1970,” In: P. Melchior and S. Yumi, Eds., Rotation of
the Earth, IAU Symposium No. 48, Reidel, 1972, pp.
19-32.
[32] C. R. Wilson and R. O. Vicente, “An Analysis of the
Homogeneous ILS Polar Motion Series,” Geophysical
Journal. Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 62, No. 3, 1980,
pp. 605-616. doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.1980.tb02594.x
[33] S. Okubo, “Is the Chandler Period Variable?” Geophysical
Journal of Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 71, No. 3,
1982, pp. 629-646.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.1982.tb02789.x
[34] R. S. Gross, “Combinations of Earth Orientation Meas-
urements: SPACE2004, COMB2004, and POLE2004,”
JPL Publication 05-6, Pasadena, 2005, 20 p.
[35] C. Pan, “Gibbs Phenomenon Removal and Digital Filter-
ing Directly through the Fast Fourier Transform,” IEEE

C. PAN 951
Transactions on Signal Processing, Vol. 49, No. 2, 2001,
pp. 444-448. doi:10.1109/78.902128
[36] H. Jeffreys, “The Variation of Latitude,” Monthly Notices
of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 100, 1940, pp.
139-155.
[37] S. R. Dickman, “Investigation of Controversial Polar
Motion Features Using Homogeneous International Lati-
tude Service Data,” Journal of Geophysical Research,
Vol. 86, No. B6, 1981, pp. 4904-4912.
doi:10.1029/JB086iB06p04904
[38] P. M. Morse, “Vibration and Sound,” McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1948, 468 p.