Can the Pioneer anomaly be of gravitational origin? A phenomenological answer

In order to satisfy the equivalence principle, any non-conventional mechanism proposed to gravitationally explain the Pioneer anomaly, in the form in which it is presently known from the so-far analyzed Pioneer 10/11 data, cannot leave out of consideration its impact on the motion of the planets of the Solar System as well, especially those orbiting in the regions in which the anomalous behavior of the Pioneer probes manifested itself. In this paper we, first, discuss the residuals of the right ascension \alpha and declination \delta of Uranus, Neptune and Pluto obtained by processing various data sets with different, well established dynamical theories (JPL DE, IAA EPM, VSOP). Second, we use the latest determinations of the perihelion secular advances of some planets in order to put on the test two gravitational mechanisms recently proposed to accommodate the Pioneer anomaly based on two models of modified gravity. Finally, we adopt the ranging data to Voyager 2 when it encountered Uranus and Neptune to perform a further, independent test of the hypothesis that a Pioneer-like acceleration can also affect the motion of the outer planets of the Solar System. The obtained answers are negative.Comment: Latex2e, 26 pages, 6 tables, 2 figure, 47 references. It is the merging of gr-qc/0608127, gr-qc/0608068, gr-qc/0608101 and gr-qc/0611081. Final version to appear in Foundations of Physic

Effect of Sun and Planet-Bound Dark Matter on Planet and Satellite Dynamics in the Solar System

We apply our recent results on orbital dynamics around a mass-varying central body to the phenomenon of accretion of Dark Matter-assumed not self-annihilating-on the Sun and the major bodies of the solar system due to its motion throughout the Milky Way halo. We inspect its consequences on the orbits of the planets and their satellites over timescales of the order of the age of the solar system. It turns out that a solar Dark Matter accretion rate of \approx 10^-12 yr^-1, inferred from the upper limit \Delta M/M= 0.02-0.05 on the Sun's Dark Matter content, assumed somehow accumulated during last 4.5 Gyr, would have displaced the planets faraway by about 10^-2-10^1 au 4.5 Gyr ago. Another consequence is that the semimajor axis of the Earth's orbit, approximately equal to the Astronomical Unit, would undergo a secular increase of 0.02-0.05 m yr^-1, in agreement with the latest observational determinations of the Astronomical Unit secular increase of 0.07 +/- 0.02 m yr^-1 and 0.05 m yr^-1. By assuming that the Sun will continue to accrete Dark Matter in the next billions year at the same rate as in the past, the orbits of its planets will shrink by about 10^-1-10^1 au (\approx 0.2-0.5 au for the Earth), with consequences for their fate, especially of the inner planets. On the other hand, lunar and planetary ephemerides set upper bounds on the secular variation of the Sun's gravitational parameter GM which are one one order of magnitude smaller than 10^-12 yr^-1. Dark Matter accretion on planets has, instead, less relevant consequences for their satellites. Indeed, 4.5 Gyr ago their orbits would have been just 10^-2-10^1 km wider than now. (Abridged)Comment: LaTex2e, 17 pages, no figures, 7 tables, 61 references. Small problem with a reference fixed. To appear in Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics (JCAP

Secular dynamics of a planar model of the Sun-Jupiter-Saturn-Uranus system; effective stability into the light of Kolmogorov and Nekhoroshev theories

We investigate the long-time stability of the Sun-Jupiter-Saturn-Uranus system by considering a planar secular model, that can be regarded as a major refinement of the approach first introduced by Lagrange. Indeed, concerning the planetary orbital revolutions, we improve the classical circular approximation by replacing it with a solution that is invariant up to order two in the masses; therefore, we investigate the stability of the secular system for rather small values of the eccentricities. First, we explicitly construct a Kolmogorov normal form, so as to find an invariant KAM torus which approximates very well the secular orbits. Finally, we adapt the approach that is at basis of the analytic part of the Nekhoroshev's theorem, so as to show that there is a neighborhood of that torus for which the estimated stability time is larger than the lifetime of the Solar System. The size of such a neighborhood, compared with the uncertainties of the astronomical observations, is about ten times smaller.Comment: 31 pages, 2 figures. arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1010.260

Recent glitches detected in the Crab pulsar

From 2000 to 2010, monitoring of radio emission from the Crab pulsar at Xinjiang Observatory detected a total of nine glitches. The occurrence of glitches appears to be a random process as described by previous researches. A persistent change in pulse frequency and pulse frequency derivative after each glitch was found. There is no obvious correlation between glitch sizes and the time since last glitch. For these glitches $\Delta\nu_{p}$ and $\Delta\dot{\nu}_{p}$ span two orders of magnitude. The pulsar suffered the largest frequency jump ever seen on MJD 53067.1. The size of the glitch is $\sim$ 6.8 $\times 10^{-6}$ Hz, $\sim$ 3.5 times that of the glitch occured in 1989 glitch, with a very large permanent changes in frequency and pulse frequency derivative and followed by a decay with time constant $\sim$ 21 days. The braking index presents significant changes. We attribute this variation to a varying particle wind strength which may be caused by glitch activities. We discuss the properties of detected glitches in Crab pulsar and compare them with glitches in the Vela pulsar.Comment: Accepted for publication in Astrophysics & Space Scienc

Anomalous accelerations in spacecraft flybys of the Earth

[EN] The flyby anomaly is a persistent riddle in astrodynamics. Orbital analysis in several flybys of the Earth since the Galileo spacecraft flyby of the Earth in 1990 have shown that the asymptotic post-encounter velocity exhibits a difference with the initial velocity that cannot be attributed to conventional effects. To elucidate its origin, we have developed an orbital program for analyzing the trajectory of the spacecraft in the vicinity of the perigee, including both the Sun and the Moon¿s tidal perturbations and the geopotential zonal, tesseral and sectorial harmonics provided by the EGM96 model. The magnitude and direction of the anomalous acceleration acting upon the spacecraft can be estimated from the orbital determination program by comparing with the trajectories fitted to telemetry data as provided by the mission teams. This acceleration amounts to a fraction of a mm/s2 and decays very fast with altitude. The possibility of some new physics of gravity in the altitude range for spacecraft flybys is discussed.Acedo Rodríguez, L. (2017). Anomalous accelerations in spacecraft flybys of the Earth. Astrophysics and Space Science. 362(12):1-15. doi:10.1007/s10509-017-3205-xS11536212Acedo, L.: Galaxies 3, 113 (2015)Acedo, L.: Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 463(2), 2119 (2016)Acedo, L.: Adv. Space Res. 59(7), 1715 (2017). 1701.06939Acedo, L., Bel, L.: Astron. Nachr. 338(1), 117 (2017). 1602.03669Adler, S.L.: Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 25, 4577 (2010). 0908.2414 . doi: 10.1142/S0217751X10050706Adler, S.L.: In: Proceedings of the Conference in Honour of Murray Gellimann’s 80th Birthday, p. 352 (2011). doi: 10.1142/9789814335614_0032Anderson, J.D., Nieto, M.M.: In: Klioner, S.A., Seidelmann, P.K., Soffel, M.H. (eds.) Relativity in Fundamental Astronomy: Dynamics, Reference Frames, and Data Analysis. IAU Symposium, vol. 261, p. 189 (2010). doi: 10.1017/S1743921309990378Anderson, J.D., Laing, P.A., Lau, E.L., Liu, A.S., Nieto, M.M., Turyshev, S.G.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 81(14), 2858 (1998). gr-qc/0104064 . doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.2858Anderson, J.D., Laing, P.A., Lau, E.L., Liu, A.S., Nieto, M.M., Turyshev, S.G.: Phys. Rev. D 65(8), 082004 (2002). gr-qc/0104064 . doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.65.082004Anderson, J.D., Campbell, J.K., Ekelund, J.E., Ellis, J., Jordan, J.F.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 100(9), 091102 (2008). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.091102Atchison, J.A., Peck, M.A.: J. Guid. Control Dyn. 33, 1115 (2010). doi: 10.2514/1.47413Bertolami, O., Francisco, F., Gil, P.J.S.: Class. Quantum Gravity 33(12), 125021 (2016). 1507.08457 . doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/33/12/125021Bolton, S.J., Adriani, A., Adumitroaie, V., Allison, M., Anderson, J., Atreya, S., Bloxham, J., Brown, S., Connerney, J.E.P., DeJong, E., Folkner, W., Gautier, D., Grassi, D., Gulkis, S., Guillot, T., Hansen, C., Hubbard, W.B., Iess, L., Ingersoll, A., Janssen, M., Jorgensen, J., Kaspi, Y., Levin, S.M., Li, C., Lunine, J., Miguel, Y., Mura, A., Orton, G., Owen, T., Ravine, M., Smith, E., Steffes, P., Stone, E., Stevenson, D., Thorne, R., Waite, J., Durante, D., Ebert, R.W., Greathouse, T.K., Hue, V., Parisi, M., Szalay, J.R., Wilson, R.: Science 356, 821 (2017). doi: 10.1126/science.aal2108Cahill, R.T.: ArXiv e-prints (2008). 0804.0039Chamberlin, A., Yeomans, D., Giorgini, J., Chodas, P.: Horizons Ephemeris System (2016). http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi . Accessed: 2016-10-27Chao, B.F.: C. R. Géosci. 338, 1123 (2006). doi: 10.1016/j.crte.2006.09.014Coddington, E., Levinson, N.: McGraw-Hill, New York (1955)Debono, I., Smoot, G.F.: Universe 2(4), 23 (2016). doi: 10.3390/universe2040023Desai, S.D.: J. Geophys. Res., Oceans 107(C11), 7 (2002). 3186. doi: 10.1029/2001JC001224Dickey, J.O., Bender, P.L., Faller, J.E., Newhall, X.X., Ricklefs, R.L., Ries, J.G., Shelus, P.J., Veillet, C., Whipple, A.L., Wiant, J.R., Williams, J.G., Yoder, C.F.: Science 265, 482 (1994). doi: 10.1126/science.265.5171.482Dyson, F.W., Eddington, A.S., Davidson, C.: Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., Ser. A 220, 291 (1920). doi: 10.1098/rsta.1920.0009Everitt, C.W.F., et al.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 221101(106) (2011)Feng, J.L., Fornal, B., Galon, I., Gardner, S., Smolinsky, J., Tait, T.M.P., Tanedo, P.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 071803 (2016). 1604.07411 . doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.071803Folkner, W.M., Williams, J.G., Boggs, D.H., Park, R.S., Kuchynka, P.: IPN Prog. Rep. 42(196) (2014)Fornberg, B.: Math. Comput. 51(184), 699 (1988). doi: 10.1090/S0025-5718-1988-0935077-0Franklin, A., Fischback, E.: The Rise and Fall of the Fifth Force. Discovery, Pursuit, and Justification in Modern Physics, second edition. Springer, New York (2016)Giorgini, J.D.: Personal communication (2015)Hackmann, E., Laemmerzahl, C.: In: 38th COSPAR Scientific Assembly. COSPAR Meeting, vol. 38, p. 3 (2010)Hafele, J.C.: ArXiv e-prints (2009). 0904.0383ICGEM: International Center for Global Gravity Field Models. http://icgem.gfz-potsdam.de/tom_longtimeIERS: In: Petit, G., Luzum, B. (eds.) IERS Conventions (2010), p. 1. Verlag des Bundesamts für Kartographie und Geodäsie, Frankfurt am Main (2010)Iess, L., Asmar, S.: Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 16, 2117 (2007). doi: 10.1142/S0218271807011449Iess, L., Asmar, S., Tortora, P.: Acta Astronaut. 65, 666 (2009). doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2009.01.049Iess, L., Di Benedetto, M., James, M., Mercolino, M., Simone, L., Tortora, P.: Acta Astronaut. 94, 699 (2014). doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2013.06.011Iorio, L.: Sch. Res. Exch. (2009). 0811.3924 . doi: 10.3814/2009/807695Iorio, L.: Astron. J. 142, 68 (2011a). 1102.4572 . doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/3/68Iorio, L.: Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 415, 1266 (2011b). 1102.0212Iorio, L.: Europhys. Lett. (2011c). 1105.4145 . doi: 10.1209/0295-5075/96/30001Iorio, L.: Adv. Space Res. 54(11), 2441 (2014a). 1311.4218 . doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2014.06.035Iorio, L.: Galaxies 2, 259 (2014b). 1404.6537 . doi: 10.3390/galaxies2020259Iorio, L.: Universe 1(1), 38 (2015a). doi: 10.3390/universe1010038Iorio, L.: Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 24, 1530015 (2015b). 1412.7673Iorio, L., Giudice, G.: New Astron. 11, 600 (2006). gr-qc/0601055Iorio, L., Lichtenegger, H.I.M., Ruggiero, M.L., Corda, C.: Astrophys. Space Sci. 331, 351 (2011). 1009.3225 . doi: 10.1007/s10509-010-0489-5Jouannic, B., Noomen, R., van den IJSel, J.A.A.: In: Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium on Space Flight Dynamics ISSFD, Munich, Germany (2015)Kennefick, D.: Phys. Today 62, 37 (2009). doi: 10.1063/1.3099578King-Hele, D.: Satellite Orbits in an Atmosphere. Theory and Applications. Blackie and Son Ltd., Glasgow (1987)Lämmerzahl, C., Preuss, O., Dittus, H.: In: Dittus, H., Lammerzahl, C., Turyshev, S.G. (eds.) Lasers, Clocks and Drag-Free Control: Exploration of Relativistic Gravity in Space. Astrophysics and Space Science Library, vol. 349, p. 75 (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-34377-6_3Le Verrier, U.: C. R. Hebd. Acad. Sci. 49, 379 (1859)Lemoine, F.G.E.A.: NASA/TP-1998-206861 (1998)Lewis, R.A.: In: Robertson, G.A. (ed.) American Institute of Physics Conference Series. American Institute of Physics Conference Series, vol. 1103, p. 226 (2009). doi: 10.1063/1.3115499Longair, M.: Philos. Trans. R. Soc., Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. (2015). doi: 10.1098/rsta.2014.0287McCulloch, M.E.: Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 389, 57 (2008). 0806.4159 . doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00523.xMoe, M.M., Wallace, S.D., Moe, K.: In: Washington DC American Geophysical Union Geophysical Monograph Series, vol. 87, p. 349 (1995). doi: 10.1029/GM087p0349Murphy, E.M.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1890 (1998). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.1890Naval Observatory: Dept. of the Navy, USA (2009)Newcomb, S.: Tables of the Four Inner Planets. Government Printing Office, Washington (1895)Nyambuya, G.G.: ArXiv e-prints (2008). 0803.1370Nyambuya, G.G.: New Astron. 57, 22 (2017). doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2017.06.001Páramos, J., Hechenblaikner, G.: Adv. Space Res. 79–80(7), 76 (2013). 1210.7333v1Peskin, M.E., Schroeder, D.V.: An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory. Westview Press, Perseus Books Group, London (1995)Pinheiro, M.J.: Phys. Lett. A 378, 3007 (2014). 1404.1101Pinheiro, M.J.: Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 461(4), 3948 (2016)Renzetti, G.: Cent. Eur. J. Phys. 11, 531 (2013). doi: 10.2478/s11534-013-0189-1Rievers, B., Lämmerzahl, C.: Ann. Phys. 523, 439 (2011). 1104.3985 . doi: 10.1002/andp.201100081Roseveare, N.T.: Mercury’s Perihelion, from Le Verrier to Einstein. Clarendon Press, Wotton-under-Edge (1982)Rubincam, D.P.: Icarus 148, 2 (2000). doi: 10.1006/icar.2000.6485Standish, E.M.: In: Macias, A., Lämmerzahl, C., Camacho, A. (eds.) Recent Developments in Gravitation and Cosmology. American Institute of Physics Conference Series, vol. 977, p. 254 (2008). doi: 10.1063/1.2902789Standish, E.M.: In: Klioner, S.A., Seidelmann, P.K., Soffel, M.H. (eds.) Relativity in Fundamental Astronomy: Dynamics, Reference Frames, and Data Analysis. IAU Symposium, vol. 261, p. 179 (2010). doi: 10.1017/S1743921309990354Thompson, P.F., Abrahamson, M., Ardalan, S., Bordi, J.: In: 24th AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics Meeting, Santa Fe, New Mexico, January 26–30, 2014 (2014). http://hdl.handle.net/2014/45519Turyshev, S.G., Toth, V.T.: Living Rev. Relativ. (2010). 1001.3686 . doi: 10.12942/lrr-2010-4Turyshev, S.G., Toth, V.T., Kinsella, G., Lee, S.-C., Lok, S.M., Ellis, J.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 108(24), 241101 (2012). 1204.2507 . doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.241101Varieschi, G.U.: Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 46, 1741 (2014). 1401.6503 . doi: 10.1007/s10714-014-1741-zWilhelm, K., Dwivedi, B.N.: Astrophys. Space Sci. 358, 18 (2015). doi: 10.1007/s10509-015-2413-5Will, C.M.: Living Rev. Relativ. 3(9) (2006)Will, C.M.: Class. Quantum Gravity (2015). doi: 10.1098/rsta.2014.0287Will, C.M.: In: Peron, R., Colpi, M., Gorini, V., Moschella, U. (eds.) Gravity: Where Do We Stand? Astrophysics and Space Science Library, vol. 349, p. 9 (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-20224-2_2Williams, J.G., Boggs, D.H.: Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 126, 89 (2016). doi: 10.1007/s10569-016-9702-3Williams, J.G., Dickey, J.O.: In: Noomen, R., Klosko, S., Noll, C., Pearlman, M. (eds.) Proceedings of 13th International Workshop on Laser Ranging, p. 75 (2003). http://cddisa.gsfc.nasa.gov/lw13/lw_proceedings.htmlWilliams, J.G., Newhall, X.X., Dickey, J.O.: Phys. Rev. D 53, 6730 (1996). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.53.6730Williams, J.G., Turyshev, S.G., Boggs, D.H.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 93(26), 261101 (2004). gr-qc/0411113 . doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.261101Williams, J.G., Turyshev, S.G., Boggs, D.H.: Planet. Sci. 3, 2 (2014). doi: 10.1186/s13535-014-0002-5Williams, J.G., Boggs, D.H., Yoder, C.F., Ratcliff, J.T., Dickey, J.O.: J. Geophys. Res. 106, 27933 (2001). doi: 10.1029/2000JE001396Wolfram, S.: The Mathematica Book, fifth edition. Wolfram Media, Champaign (2003

A High Statistics Search for Ultra-High Energy Gamma-Ray Emission from Cygnus X-3 and Hercules X-1

We have carried out a high statistics (2 Billion events) search for ultra-high energy gamma-ray emission from the X-ray binary sources Cygnus X-3 and Hercules X-1. Using data taken with the CASA-MIA detector over a five year period (1990-1995), we find no evidence for steady emission from either source at energies above 115 TeV. The derived upper limits on such emission are more than two orders of magnitude lower than earlier claimed detections. We also find no evidence for neutral particle or gamma-ray emission from either source on time scales of one day and 0.5 hr. For Cygnus X-3, there is no evidence for emission correlated with the 4.8 hr X-ray periodicity or with the occurrence of large radio flares. Unless one postulates that these sources were very active earlier and are now dormant, the limits presented here put into question the earlier results, and highlight the difficulties that possible future experiments will have in detecting gamma-ray signals at ultra-high energies.Comment: 26 LaTeX pages, 16 PostScript figures, uses psfig.sty to be published in Physical Review

Resilience trinity: Safeguarding ecosystem functioning and services across three different time horizons and decision contexts

Ensuring ecosystem resilience is an intuitive approach to safeguard the functioning of ecosystems and hence the future provisioning of ecosystem services (ES). However, resilience is a multi‐faceted concept that is difficult to operationalize. Focusing on resilience mechanisms, such as diversity, network architectures or adaptive capacity, has recently been suggested as means to operationalize resilience. Still, the focus on mechanisms is not specific enough. We suggest a conceptual framework, resilience trinity, to facilitate management based on resilience mechanisms in three distinctive decision contexts and time‐horizons: 1) reactive, when there is an imminent threat to ES resilience and a high pressure to act, 2) adjustive, when the threat is known in general but there is still time to adapt management and 3) provident, when time horizons are very long and the nature of the threats is uncertain, leading to a low willingness to act. Resilience has different interpretations and implications at these different time horizons, which also prevail in different disciplines. Social ecology, ecology and engineering are often implicitly focussing on provident, adjustive or reactive resilience, respectively, but these different notions of resilience and their corresponding social, ecological and economic tradeoffs need to be reconciled. Otherwise, we keep risking unintended consequences of reactive actions, or shying away from provident action because of uncertainties that cannot be reduced. The suggested trinity of time horizons and their decision contexts could help ensuring that longer‐term management actions are not missed while urgent threats to ES are given priority