Jump to content

User:Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog/sandbox anomalous precession

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anomalous perihelion precession of Mercury

[edit]

Movement along geodesics

[edit]
Figure 6–8. Calculus of variations

According to Newton's laws of motion, a planet orbiting the Sun would move in a straight line except for being pulled off course by the Sun's gravity. According to general relativity, there is no such thing as gravitational force. Rather, as discussed in section Basic propositions, a planet orbiting the Sun continuously follows the local "nearest thing to a straight line", which is to say, it follows a geodesic path.[1]: 255–265 

Finding the equation of a geodesic requires knowing something about the calculus of variations, which is outside the scope of the typical undergraduate math curriculum, so we will not go into details of the analysis.[note 1]

Determining the straightest path between two points resembles the task of finding the maximum or minimum of a function. In ordinary calculus, given the function an "extremum" or "stationary point" may be found wherever the derivative of the function is zero.

In the calculus of variations, we seek to minimize the value of the functional between the start and end points. In the example shown in Fig. 6–8, this is by finding the function for which

where is the variation and the integral of is the world-line.

Skipping the details of the derivation, the general formula for the equation of a geodesic is[4]: 103 

(R1)

valid for all dimensionalities and shapes of space(time). As a geometric expression, the derivative is with respect to the line element, whereas classical theory involves time derivatives.[4]: 103 

Let us consider a flat, three dimensional Euclidean space using Cartesian coordinates. For such a space,

and
for

The derivatives of the in the Christoffel symbol (K1) are all zero, so (R1) becomes

(R2)

After replacing by the proper time (the time along the timelike world line, i.e. the time experienced by the moving object) and expanding R2, we get

(R3)

which is to say, an object freely moving in Euclidean three-space travels with unaccelerated motion along a straight line.[1]: 255–265 

Orbital motion: Stability of the orbital plane

[edit]

Equation (R1) is a general expression for the geodesic. To apply it to the gravitational field around the Sun, the in the Christoffel symbols must be replaced with those specific to the Schwarzschild metric.[1]: 266–268 

Equations (Q4) present the values of in terms of while (Q7) allows simplification of the expression to terms of Since and (Q9) allows us to express in terms of , we can thus express in terms of and

Remember that (R1) is actually four equations. In particular, for corresponds to in Fig. 6-7. Suppose we launched an object into orbit around the Sun with and an initial velocity in the plane? How would the object subsequently behave? Equation (R1) for becomes

(R4)

From (Q7), we know that the non-zero Christoffel symbols for are

and

so that in summing (R4) over all values of and we get

(R5)

Since we stipulated an initial and an initial velocity in the plane, and so that (R5) becomes

(R6)

In other words, a planet launched into orbit around the Sun remains in orbit around the same plane in which it was launched, the same as in Newtonian physics.[1]: 266–268 

Orbital motion: Modified Keplerian ellipses

[edit]

Starting with (R1), we explore the behavior of the other variables of the geodesic equation applied to the Schwarzschild metric:[1]: 268–272 [3]: 147–150 

For (R1) becomes

or

Since we have stipulated that and the above equation therefore becomes

(R7)

Likewise, for and we get

(R8)
(R9)

(Q10), (R7), (R8), and (R9) may be combined to get:[1]: 335–336 [2]: 195–196 

(R10)

where and are constants of integration and

The equations above are those of an object in orbit around a central mass. The second of the two equations is essentially a statement of the conservation of angular momentum. The first of the two equations is expressed in this form so that it may be compared with the Binet equation, devised by Jacques Binet in the 1800s while exploring the shapes of orbits under alternative force laws.

For an inverse square law, the Binet equation predicts, in agreement with Newton, that orbits are conic sections.[1]: 336–338  Given a Newtonian inverse square law, the equations of motion are:

(R11)

where is the mass of the Sun, is the orbital radius, and is the angular velocity of the planet.

The relativistic equations for orbital motion (R10) are observed to be nearly identical to the Newtonian equations (R11) except for the presence of in the relativistic equations and the use of rather than

The Binet equation provides the physical meaning of which we had introduced as an arbitrary constant of integration in the derivation of the Schwarzschild metric in (Q9).[1]: 268–272 [3]: 147–150 

Orbital motion: Anomalous precession

[edit]
Fibure 6–9. Perihelion precession

The presence of the term in (R10) means that the orbit does not form a closed loop, but rather shifts slightly with each revolution, as illustrated (in much exaggerated form) in Fig. 6–9.[1]: 272–276 [2]: 195–198 

Now in fact, there are a number of effects in the Solar System that cause the perihelia of planets to deviate from closed Keplerian ellipses even in the absence of relativity. Newtonian theory predicts closed ellipses only for an isolated two-body system. The presence of other planets perturb each others' orbits, so that Mercury's orbit, for instance, would precess by slightly over 532 arcsec/century due to these Newtonian effects.[5]

In 1859, Urbain Le Verrier, after extensive extensive analysis of historical data on timed transits of Mercury over the Sun's disk from 1697 to 1848, concluded that there was a significant excess deviation of Mercury's orbit from the precession predicted by these Newtonian effects amounting to 38 arcseconds/century (This estimate was later refined to 43 arcseconds/century by Simon Newcomb in 1882). Over the next half-century, extensive observations definitively ruled out the hypothetical planet Vulcan proposed by Le Verrier as orbiting between Mercury and the Sun that might account for this discrepancy.

Starting from (R10), the excess angular advance of Mercury's perihelion per orbit may be calculated:[1]: 338–341 [2]: 195–198 

(R12)

The first equality is in relativistic units, while the second equality is in MKS units. In the second equality, we replace the geometric mass (units of length) with M, the mass in kilograms.

is the gravitational constant (6.672 × 10-11 m3/kg-s2)
is the mass of the Sun (1.99 × 1030 kg)
is the speed of light (2.998 × 108 m/s)
is Mercury's perihelion (5.791 × 1010 m)
is Mercury's orbital eccentricity (0.20563)

We find that

which works out to 43 arcsec/century.[1]: 338–341 [2]: 195–198 

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Cite error: The named reference Lieber_2008 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c d e Cite error: The named reference D'Inverno_1992 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference Lawden_2002 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Adler_2021 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Park, Ryan S.; et al. (2017). "Precession of Mercury's Perihelion from Ranging to the MESSENGER Spacecraft". The Astronomical Journal. 153 (3): 121. Bibcode:2017AJ....153..121P. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa5be2. hdl:1721.1/109312.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)


Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).