The Sun's quadrupole moment and perihelion precession of Mercury

Campbell, Leroy A.; McDow, J. C.; Moffat, J. W.; Vincent, D.

doi:10.1038/305508a0

Cited by 32 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…J 2 is an un‐normalized coefficient, which has different values in different papers owing to the different measuring technologies and theoretical models used (e.g. Campbell et al 1983; Kuhn et al 1998; Rozelot et al 2004; Kuhn et al 2009; Rozelot et al 2011). J 2 values are, for example, 0 ∼ 1.08 × 10 −5 (Kislik 1983), 1.46 × 10 −7 (Fivian et al 2008), 2 × 10 −7 (Pireaux & Rozelot 2003; Pitjeva 2005) and 2.3 × 10 −7 (Shapiro 1999).…”

Section: Disturbing Function Of Solar Oblateness and Disturbed Equamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the problem of how much of the perihelion advance results from solar oblateness remains and has been studied by numerous scientists during the past century (e.g. Gilvarry & Sturrock 1967; Sturrock & Gilvarry 1967; Boehme 1970; Dicke 1970; Campbell & Moffat 1983; Campbell et al 1983; Dicke, Kuhn & Libbrecht 1987; Kuhn et al 1998; Godier & Rozelot 1999; Shapiro 1999; Godier & Rozelot 2000; Milani et al 2001; Rozelot, Godier & Lefebvre 2001; Pireaux & Rozelot 2003; Rozelot et al 2004; Pireaux, Barriot & Rosenblatt 2006; Fivian et al 2008, 2009; Kuhn, Emilio & Bush 2009; Wayte 2010). The theoretical value of Mercury's perihelion precession was estimated from the disturbed equation so far and restricted to secular effects, without the disturbing problem exactly solved.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Solar oblateness and Mercury's perihelion precession

Yang

Zhang

et al. 2011

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Keplerian laws of planetary motion are solutions of the two‐body gravitational problem. Solar oblateness resulting from the rotation of the Sun distorts the gravitational force acting on a planet and disturbs its Keplerian motion. An analytic solution of a planetary orbit disturbed by the solar gravitational oblateness is derived. In addition to short‐ and long‐periodic disturbances there are secular disturbances, which lead to a perihelion precession and a nodal regression as well as to a mean‐motion advance. The magnitude of the short‐periodic perihelion precession could disturb observations of the secular effect if the survey is shorter then one Julian year. Transformation of formulae from the solar equatorial plane to the ecliptic plane is discussed. Numerical estimates of the secular perihelion precessions of Mercury, Venus and Mars are in good agreement with published results, confirming our theory. Inversely, the solar oblateness could be determined through observation of the perihelion precession of a planet. The solution is also valid for satellite orbits in the solar gravitational field.

show abstract

Section: Disturbing Function Of Solar Oblateness and Disturbed Equamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Solar oblateness and Mercury's perihelion precession

Yang

Zhang

et al. 2011

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A conserved U(1) current is also introduced that couples to the metric without violating the equivalence principle; this current is interpreted to be a conserved number current (or fermion current) (28). In general, these constraints are quite weak (18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)31). For example, the static, spherically symmetric solution is (39,40) The parameter l2 in [15] is the "charge" related to the aforementioned conserved particle number current in the usual way.…”

Section: Interpretation and Phenomenologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…; however, the strong-field behaviour in general can be quite different because of the presence of torsion in N.G.T. (27,28).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gravity, ghosts, and strings

Mann¹

1986

Can. J. Phys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A recently introduced technique for extending general relativity is reviewed. This technique, called algebraic extension, yields five theories of gravitation (one of which is Einstein's) that might have interesting implications for strong-field gravitational physics. The particle spectra of these theories are presented. Only one of the four extensions is free of ghosts and tachyons. There exists a (hitherto unexplored) formulation of this theory that contains a gauge-invariant string Lagrangian in the linear approximation.On examine une technique introduite rkcemment pour l'extension de la relativitk gknkrale. Cette technique, appelke extension algkbrique, donne cinq theories de la gravitation (dont l'une est celle d'Einstein), qui pourraient avoir des implications intkressantes pour la physique gravitationnelle en champ fort. Le spectre de particules de ces theories est prCsentC: seulement une des quatre extensions est exempte de fant6mes et de tachyons. I1 existe une formulation (non encore explorke) de cette thkorie qui contient un lagrangien de corde invariant de jauge dans l'approximation linkaire.[Traduit par la revue]Can.

show abstract

“…an account of the perihelion advance of Mercury's orbit within the traditional Newtonian theory of gravity versus the modern account of Einstein's theory (Hall 1894;Campbell 1983); dark matter, dark energy and other proposals to account for the difference between what Einstein's theory of gravity predicts and some of the presently observed motions of galaxies and the rate of expansion of the universe itself (see van den Bergh 1999& Caldwell 2004 for a summary); and, finally, the many hidden variable theories which attempt to save the classical deterministic paradigm in the face of anomalous sub-atomic observations (see section 1.3.4 for references).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Inherent Incompleteness of Scientific Theories

Mathen

2011

Act Nerv Super

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

* __________________________________________________________________________________________We examine the question of whether scientific theories can ever be complete. For two closely related reasons, we will argue that they cannot. The first reason is the inability to determine what are "valid empirical observations", a result that is based on a self-reference Gödel/Tarski-like proof. The second reason is the existence of "meta-empirical" evidence of the inherent incompleteness of observations. These reasons, along with theoretical incompleteness, are intimately connected to the notion of belief and to theses within the philosophy of science: the Quine-Duhem (and underdetermination) thesis and the observational/theoretical distinction failure. Some puzzling aspects of the philosophical theses will become clearer in light of these connections. Other results that follow are: no absolute measure of the informational content of empirical data, no absolute measure of the entropy of physical systems, and no complete computer simulation of the natural world are possible. The connections with the mathematical theorems of Gödel and Tarski reveal the existence of other connections between scientific and mathematical incompleteness: computational irreducibility, complexity, infinity, arbitrariness and self-reference. Finally, suggestions will be offered of where a more rigorous (or formal) "proof" of scientific incompleteness can be found. __________________________________________________________________________________________Omnia olim mortua sunt itemur vivent.

show abstract

The Sun's quadrupole moment and perihelion precession of Mercury

Cited by 32 publications

References 15 publications

Solar oblateness and Mercury's perihelion precession

Solar oblateness and Mercury's perihelion precession

Gravity, ghosts, and strings

On the Inherent Incompleteness of Scientific Theories

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About