Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

John D. Anderson

Publications and source records attributed to John D. Anderson.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
arXiv2016

Deep space experiment to measure $G$

Responding to calls from the National Science Foundation (NSF) for new proposals to measure the gravitational constant $G$, we offer an interesting experiment in deep space employing the classic gravity train mechanism. Our setup requires three bodies: a larger layered solid sphere with a cylindrical hole through its center, a much smaller retroreflector which will undergo harmonic motion within the hole and a host spacecraft with laser ranging capabilities to measure round trip light-times to the retroreflector but ultimately separated a significant distance away from the sphere-retroreflector apparatus. Measurements of the period of oscillation of the retroreflector in terms of host spacecraft clock time using existing technology could give determinations of $G$ nearly three orders of magnitude more accurate than current measurements here on Earth. However, significant engineering advances in the release mechanism of the apparatus from the host spacecraft will likely be necessary. Issues with regard to the stability of the system are briefly addressed.

gr-qc↗
arXiv2015

On the possible onset of the Pioneer anomaly

We explore the possibility that the observed onset of the Pioneer anomaly after Saturn encounter by Pioneer 11 is not necessarily due to mismodeling of solar radiation pressure but instead reflects a physically relevant characteristic of the anomaly itself. We employ the principles of a recently proposed cosmological model termed "the theory of inertial centers" along with an understanding of the fundamental assumptions taken by the Deep Space Network (DSN) to attempt to model this sudden onset. Due to an ambiguity that arises from the difference in the DSN definition of expected light-time with light-time according to the theory of inertial centers, we are forced to adopt a seemingly arbitrary convention to relate DSN-assumed clock-rates to physical clock-rates for this model. We offer a possible reason for adopting the convention employed in our analysis; however, we remain skeptical. Nevertheless, with this convention, one finds that this theory is able to replicate the previously reported Hubble-like behavior of the "clock acceleration" for the Pioneer anomaly as well as the sudden onset of the anomalous acceleration after Pioneer 11 Saturn encounter. While oscillatory behavior with a yearly period is also predicted for the anomalous clock accelerations of both Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11, the predicted amplitude is an order of magnitude too small when compared with that reported for Pioneer 10.

gr-qc↗
arXiv2015

Measurements of Newton's gravitational constant and the length of day

About a dozen measurements of Newton's gravitational constant, G, since 1962 have yielded values that differ by far more than their reported random plus systematic errors. We find that these values for G are oscillatory in nature, with a period of P = 5.899 +/- 0.062 yr, an amplitude of (1.619 +/- 0.103) x 10^{-14} m^3 kg^{-1} s^{-2}, and mean-value crossings in 1994 and 1997. However, we do not suggest that G is actually varying by this much, this quickly, but instead that something in the measurement process varies. Of other recently reported results, to the best of our knowledge, the only measurement with the same period and phase is the Length of Day (LOD - defined as a frequency measurement such that a positive increase in LOD values means slower Earth rotation rates and therefore longer days). The aforementioned period is also about half of a solar activity cycle, but the correlation is far less convincing. The 5.9 year periodic signal in LOD has previously been interpreted as due to fluid core motions and inner-core coupling. We report the G/LOD correlation, whose statistical significance is 0.99764 assuming no difference in phase, without claiming to have any satisfactory explanation for it. Least unlikely, perhaps, are currents in the Earth's fluid core that change both its moment of inertia (affecting LOD) and the circumstances in which the Earth-based experiments measure G. In this case, there might be correlations with terrestrial magnetic field measurements.

gr-qc↗
arXiv2012

OSS (Outer Solar System): A fundamental and planetary physics mission to Neptune, Triton and the Kuiper Belt

The present OSS mission continues a long and bright tradition by associating the communities of fundamental physics and planetary sciences in a single mission with ambitious goals in both domains. OSS is an M-class mission to explore the Neptune system almost half a century after flyby of the Voyager 2 spacecraft. Several discoveries were made by Voyager 2, including the Great Dark Spot (which has now disappeared) and Triton's geysers. Voyager 2 revealed the dynamics of Neptune's atmosphere and found four rings and evidence of ring arcs above Neptune. Benefiting from a greatly improved instrumentation, it will result in a striking advance in the study of the farthest planet of the Solar System. Furthermore, OSS will provide a unique opportunity to visit a selected Kuiper Belt object subsequent to the passage of the Neptunian system. It will consolidate the hypothesis of the origin of Triton as a KBO captured by Neptune, and improve our knowledge on the formation of the Solar system. The probe will embark instruments allowing precise tracking of the probe during cruise. It allows to perform the best controlled experiment for testing, in deep space, the General Relativity, on which is based all the models of Solar system formation. OSS is proposed as an international cooperation between ESA and NASA, giving the capability for ESA to launch an M-class mission towards the farthest planet of the Solar system, and to a Kuiper Belt object. The proposed mission profile would allow to deliver a 500 kg class spacecraft. The design of the probe is mainly constrained by the deep space gravity test in order to minimise the perturbation of the accelerometer measurement.

gr-qc↗
arXiv2012

Chameleon effect and the Pioneer anomaly

The possibility that the apparent anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft may be due, at least in part, to a chameleon field effect is examined. A small spacecraft, with no thin shell, can have a more pronounced anomalous acceleration than a large compact body, such as a planet, having a thin shell. The chameleon effect seems to present a natural way to explain the differences seen in deviations from pure Newtonian gravity for a spacecraft and for a planet, and appears to be compatible with the basic features of the Pioneer anomaly, including the appearance of a jerk term. However, estimates of the size of the chameleon effect indicate that its contribution to the anomalous acceleration is negligible. We conclude that any inverse-square component in the anomalous acceleration is more likely caused by an unmodelled reaction force from solar-radiation pressure, rather than a chameleon field effect.

gr-qc↗
arXiv2011

Jupiter's Moment of Inertia: A Possible Determination by JUNO

The moment of inertia of a giant planet reveals important information about the planet's internal density structure and this information is not identical to that contained in the gravitational moments. The forthcoming Juno mission to Jupiter might determine Jupiter's normalized moment of inertia NMoI=C/MR^2 by measuring Jupiter's pole precession and the Lense-Thirring acceleration of the spacecraft (C is the axial moment of inertia, and M and R are Jupiter's mass and mean radius, respectively). We investigate the possible range of NMoI values for Jupiter based on its measured gravitational field using a simple core/envelope model of the planet assuming that J_2 and J_4 are perfectly known and are equal to their measured values. The model suggests that for fixed values of J_2 and J_4 a range of NMOI values between 0.2629 and 0.2645 can be found. The Radau-Darwin relation gives a NMoI value that is larger than the model values by less than 1%. A low NMoI of ~ 0.236, inferred from a dynamical model (Ward & Canup, 2006, ApJ, 640, L91) is inconsistent with this range, but the range is model dependent. Although we conclude that the NMoI is tightly constrained by the gravity coefficients, a measurement of Jupiter's NMoI to a few tenths of percent by Juno could provide an important constraint on Jupiter's internal structure. We carry out a simplified assessment of the error involved in Juno's possible determination of Jupiter's NMoI.

astro-ph.EP↗
arXiv2011

Shapes and gravitational fields of rotating two-layer Maclaurin ellipsoids: Application to planets and satellites

The exact solution for the shape and gravitational field of a rotating two-layer Maclaurin ellipsoid of revolution is compared with predictions of the theory of figures up to third order in the small rotational parameter of the theory of figures. An explicit formula is derived for the external gravitational coefficient $J_2$ of the exact solution. A new approach to the evaluation of the theory of figures based on numerical integration of ordinary differential equations is presented. The classical Radau-Darwin formula is found not to be valid for the rotational parameter ε_2 = Ω^2/(2πGρ_2) >= 0.17 since the formula then predicts a surface eccentricity that is smaller than the eccentricity of the core-envelope boundary. Interface eccentricity must be smaller than surface eccentricity. In the formula for $ε_2$, $Ω$ is the angular velocity of the two-layer body, $ρ_2$ is the density of the outer layer, and G is the gravitational constant. For an envelope density of 3000 kg m^(-3) the failure of the Radau-Darwin formula corresponds to a rotation period of about 3 hr. Application of the exact solution and the theory of figures is made to models of Earth, Mars, Uranus, and Neptune. The two-layer model with constant densities in the layers can provide realistic approximations to terrestrial planets and icy outer planet satellites. The two-layer model needs to be generalized to allow for a continuous envelope (outer layer) radial density profile in order to realistically model a gas or ice giant planet.

astro-ph.EP↗
arXiv2010

Interior Models of Uranus and Neptune

'Empirical' models (pressure vs. density) of Uranus and Neptune interiors constrained by the gravitational coefficients J_2, J_4, the planetary radii and masses, and Voyager solid-body rotation periods are presented. The empirical pressure-density profiles are then interpreted in terms of physical equations of state of hydrogen, helium, ice (H_2O), and rock (SiO_2) to test the physical plausibility of the models. The compositions of Uranus and Neptune are found to be similar with somewhat different distributions of the high-Z material. The big difference between the two planets is that Neptune requires a non-solar envelope while Uranus is best matched with a solar composition envelope. Our analysis suggests that the heavier elements in both Uranus' and Neptune's interior might increase gradually towards the planetary centers. Indeed it is possible to fit the gravitational moments without sharp compositional transitions.

astro-ph.EP↗
arXiv2010

Uranus and Neptune: Shape and Rotation

Both Uranus and Neptune are thought to have strong zonal winds with velocities of several hundred meters per second. These wind velocities, however, assume solid-body rotation periods based on Voyager 2 measurements of periodic variations in the planets' radio signals and of fits to the planets' magnetic fields; 17.24h and 16.11h for Uranus and Neptune, respectively. The realization that the radio period of Saturn does not represent the planet's deep interior rotation and the complexity of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune raise the possibility that the Voyager 2 radio and magnetic periods might not represent the deep interior rotation periods of the ice giants. Moreover, if there is deep differential rotation within Uranus and Neptune no single solid-body rotation period could characterize the bulk rotation of the planets. We use wind and shape data to investigate the rotation of Uranus and Neptune. The shapes (flattening) of the ice giants are not measured, but only inferred from atmospheric wind speeds and radio occultation measurements at a single latitude. The inferred oblateness values of Uranus and Neptune do not correspond to bodies rotating with the Voyager rotation periods. Minimization of wind velocities or dynamic heights of the 1 bar isosurfaces, constrained by the single occultation radii and gravitational coefficients of the planets, leads to solid-body rotation periods of ~16.58h for Uranus and ~17.46h for Neptune. Uranus might be rotating faster and Neptune slower than Voyager rotation speeds. We derive shapes for the planets based on these rotation rates. Wind velocities with respect to these rotation periods are essentially identical on Uranus and Neptune and wind speeds are slower than previously thought. Alternatively, if we interpret wind measurements in terms of differential rotation on cylinders there are essentially no residual atmospheric winds.

astro-ph.EP↗
arXiv2009

Earth Flyby Anomalies

In a reference frame fixed to the solar system's center of mass, a satellite's energy will change as it is deflected by a planet. But a number of satellites flying by Earth have also experienced energy changes in the Earth-centered frame -- and that's a mystery.

gr-qc↗
arXiv2009

Astrometric Solar-System Anomalies

There are at least four unexplained anomalies connected with astrometric data. Perhaps the most disturbing is the fact that when a spacecraft on a flyby trajectory approaches the Earth within 2000 km or less, it often experiences a change in total orbital energy per unit mass. Next, a secular change in the astronomical unit AU is definitely a concern. It is increasing by about 15 cm yr$^{-1}$. The other two anomalies are perhaps less disturbing because of known sources of nongravitational acceleration. The first is an apparent slowing of the two Pioneer spacecraft as they exit the solar system in opposite directions. Some astronomers and physicists are convinced this effect is of concern, but many others are convinced it is produced by a nearly identical thermal emission from both spacecraft, in a direction away from the Sun, thereby producing acceleration toward the Sun. The fourth anomaly is a measured increase in the eccentricity of the Moon's orbit. Here again, an increase is expected from tidal friction in both the Earth and Moon. However, there is a reported unexplained increase that is significant at the three-sigma level. It is prudent to suspect that all four anomalies have mundane explanations, or that one or more anomalies are a result of systematic error. Yet they might eventually be explained by new physics. For example, a slightly modified theory of gravitation is not ruled out, perhaps analogous to Einstein's 1916 explanation for the excess precession of Mercury's perihelion.

gr-qc↗
arXiv2009

Jupiter and Saturn Rotation Periods

Anderson & Schubert (2007, Science,317,1384) proposed that Saturn's rotation period can be ascertained by minimizing the dynamic heights of the 100 mbar isosurface with respect to the geoid; they derived a rotation period of 10h 32m 35s. We investigate the same approach for Jupiter to see if the Jovian rotation period is predicted by minimizing the dynamical heights of its isobaric (1 bar pressure level) surface using zonal wind data. A rotation period of 9h 54m 29s is found. Further, we investigate the minimization method by fitting Pioneer and Voyager occultation radii for both Jupiter and Saturn. Rotation periods of 9h 55m 30s and 10h 32m 35s are found to minimize the dynamical heights for Jupiter and Saturn, respectively. Though there is no dynamical principle requiring the minimization of the dynamical heights of an isobaric surface, the successful application of the method to Jupiter lends support to its relevance for Saturn. We derive Jupiter and Saturn rotation periods using equilibrium theory in which the solid-body rotation period (no winds) that gives the observed equatorial and polar radii at the 100 mbar level is found. Rotation periods of 9h 55m 20s and 10h 31m 49s are found for Jupiter and Saturn, respectively. We show that both Jupiter's and Saturn's shapes can be derived using solid-body rotation, suggesting that zonal winds have a minor effect on the planetary shape for both planets. The agreement in the values of Saturn's rotation period predicted by the different approaches supports the conclusion that the planet's period of rotation is about 10h 32m.

astro-ph.EP↗
arXiv2008

Empirical Models of Pressure and Density in Saturn's Interior: Implications for the Helium Concentration, its Depth Dependence, and Saturn's Precession Rate

We present 'empirical' models (pressure vs. density) of Saturn's interior constrained by the gravitational coefficients J_2, J_4, and J_6 for different assumed rotation rates of the planet. The empirical pressure-density profile is interpreted in terms of a hydrogen and helium physical equation of state to deduce the hydrogen to helium ratio in Saturn and to constrain the depth dependence of helium and heavy element abundances. The planet's internal structure (pressure vs. density) and composition are found to be insensitive to the assumed rotation rate for periods between 10h:32m:35s and 10h:41m:35s. We find that helium is depleted in the upper envelope, while in the high pressure region (P >~ 1 Mbar) either the helium abundance or the concentration of heavier elements is significantly enhanced. Taking the ratio of hydrogen to helium in Saturn to be solar, we find that the maximum mass of heavy elements in Saturn's interior ranges from ~ 6 to 20 M_Earth. The empirical models of Saturn's interior yield a moment of inertia factor varying from 0.22271 to 0.22599 for rotation periods between 10h:32m:35s and 10h:41m:35s, respectively. A long-term precession rate of about 0.754" yr^{-1} is found to be consistent with the derived moment of inertia values and assumed rotation rates over the entire range of investigated rotation rates. This suggests that the long-term precession period of Saturn is somewhat shorter than the generally assumed value of 1.77 x 10^6 years inferred from modeling and observations.

astro-ph↗
arXiv2007

Search for a Solution of the Pioneer Anomaly

In 1972 and 1973 the Pioneer 10 and 11 missions were launched. They were the first to explore the outer solar system and achieved stunning breakthroughs in deep-space exploration. But beginning in about 1980 an unmodeled force of \sim 8 \times 10^{-8} cm/s^2, directed approximately towards the Sun, appeared in the tracking data. It later was unambiguously verified as being in the data and not an artifact. The cause remains unknown (although radiant heat remains a likely origin). With time more and more effort has gone into understanding this anomaly (and also possibly related effects). We review the situation and describe ongoing programs to resolve the issue.

gr-qc↗
arXiv2007

Seeking a solution of the Pioneer Anomaly

The 1972 and 1973 launched Pioneer 10 and 11 were the first missions to explore the outer solar system. They achieved stunning breakthroughs in deep-space exploration. But around 1980 an unmodeled force of \sim 8 \times 10^{-8} cm/s^2, directed approximately towards the Sun, appeared in the tracking data. It later was unambiguously verified as not being an artifact. The origin remains unknown (although radiant heat remains a likely cause). Increasing effort has gone into understanding this anomaly. We review the situation and describe programs to resolve the issue.

gr-qc↗
arXiv2006

The Energy Transfer Process in Planetary Flybys

We illustrate the energy transfer during planetary flybys as a function of time using a number of flight mission examples. The energy transfer process is rather more complicated than a monotonic increase (or decrease) of energy with time. It exhibits temporary maxima and minima with time which then partially moderate before the asymptotic condition is obtained. The energy transfer to angular momentum is exhibited by an approximate Jacobi constant for the system. We demonstrate this with flybys that have shown unexplained behaviors: i) the possible onset of the "Pioneer anomaly" with the gravity assist of Pioneer 11 by Saturn to hyperbolic orbit (as well as the Pioneer 10 hyperbolic gravity assist by Jupiter) and ii) the Earth flyby anomalies of small increases in energy {\it in the geocentric system} (Galileo-I, NEAR, and Rosetta, in additioon discussing the Cassini and Messenger flybys). Perhaps some small, as yet unrecognized effect in the energy-transfer process can shed light on these anomalies.

astro-ph↗
arXiv2005

The Pioneer Anomaly and Its Implications

The Pioneer 10/11 spacecraft yielded the most precise navigation in deep space to date. However, their radio-metric tracking data has consistently indicated the presence of a small, anomalous, Doppler frequency drift. The drift is a blue-shift, uniformly changing with a rate of ~6 x 10^{-9} Hz/s and can be interpreted as a constant sunward acceleration of each particular spacecraft of a_P =(8.74 +/- 1.33) x 10^{-10} m/s^2. The nature of this anomaly remains unexplained. Here we summarize our current knowledge of the discovered effect and review some of the mechanisms proposed for its explanation. Currently we are preparing for the analysis of the entire set of the available Pioneer 10/11 Doppler data which may shed a new light on the origin of the anomaly. We present a preliminary assessment of such an intriguing possibility.

gr-qc↗