Relativistic Perihelion Precession of Orbits of Venus and the Earth

Abhijit Biswas and Krishnan R. S. Mani *

Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science, 2A, Raja S. C. Mullick Road, Calcutta 700 032, India
_______________________________________________________________________________

Abstract
Among all the theories proposed to explain the ‘anomalous’ perihelion precession of Mercury’s orbit announced in
1859 by Le Verrier, the general theory of relativity proposed by Einstein in November 1915, alone could calculate
Mercury’s ‘anomalous’ precession with a precision demanded by observational accuracy. Since Mercury’s precession
was a directly derived result of the full general theory, it was viewed by Einstein as the most critical test of general
relativity, amongst the three tests proposed by him. With the advent of the space age, the observational accuracy level
has improved further and it became possible to detect this precession for other planetary orbits of the solar system ---
viz., Venus and the Earth. This conclusively proved that the phenomenon of ‘anomalous’ perihelion precession of
planetary orbits is really a relativistic effect. The previous papers by the authors presented the mathematical model and
the computed value of the relativistic perihelion precession of Mercury’s orbit using an alternate relativistic
gravitational model, which is a remodeled form of Einstein’s relativity theories, and which retained only
experimentally proven principles and has been enriched by the benefits of almost a century-long relativity
experimentation including the space age experiments. Using this model, we present in this paper the computed values
of the relativistic precession of Venus and the Earth, which compare well with the predictions of general relativity and
also are in agreement with the observed values within the range of uncertainty.

PACS (2000): 04.25.Dm; 04.90.+e; 95.10.Ce

Key words: perihelion precession, relativistic precession, Venus, Earth, numerical relativity, relativity theory

* E-mail: godopy@vsnl.com . , godopy@gmail.com

1 Introduction

In the solar system, the potential manifestations of relativistic effect are so tiny that, in 1916, Einstein could think
of only three tests in which his General relativity theory (GRT) differs from Newton's gravitational theory: starlight
deflection, perihelion precession of Mercury, and gravitational redshift. With the advent of the space age in the 1960s,
the observational accuracy level and computational capability improved further making possible the following
additional tests: Shapiro time delay, and relativistic perihelion precession of Venus and the Earth.

2 Historical Background

Relativity experimentation began with renewed vigor in the sixties, and with the utilization of new space-age
technologies, the accuracy of observational data, the values of planetary masses and of other astronomical constants
improved considerably. As a result it became evident that the phenomena of relativistic precession exist for perihelion
of the orbits of planets like Venus and the Earth, even though these are further away from the Sun and their orbits are
not as highly elliptical as the orbit of Mercury. However, the centennial rate of relativistic precession for Venus and the
Earth as compared to Mercury, is lower by almost an order of magnitude, and had large uncertainties in the centennial
rate as derived in the seventies and the mid-eighties. However, GRT estimates for the relativistic precession for both
Venus and the Earth compared well with the respective observational values within the respective high levels of
uncertainty. This proved conclusively that the phenomena of ‘anomalous’ perihelion precession of planetary orbits is
really a relativistic effect and hence cannot be explained by any of the ‘ad-hoc’ hypotheses [1] that were offered before
Einstein presented his GRT.

3 Gravitational model

It may be mentioned here that the results of numerical simulations presented in this paper, are based on an alternate
relativistic gravitational model titled the Remodeled Relativity Theory (RRT) as given in the earlier papers [2, 3, 4] by
the authors.
It may be noteworthy to mention here that RRT as explained in detail in the earlier paper [4], retained only the
experimentally proven principles from Einstein’s relativity theories, and that RRT has been enriched by the benefits of
almost a century-long relativity experimentation including the space age experiments.

A_Biswas_Relativistic_Precession_of_Venus_and_the_Earth 1 of 5
RRT adopted and expressed the conservation law of momentum vector direction as its generalized law for spinning and
rotational motions, from which vectorially all the expressions for inertial forces and torques (viz., centrifugal and
Coriolis forces, as well as gyroscopic precessional torques for spinning tops and gyroscopes) could be derived. In fact,
as mentioned below this law involving the inertial forces and torques, has been successfully used for the precision
computation of planetary and lunar orbits [3, 4].
The conservation laws of energy and momentum are the most fundamental principles of the RRT. Based on almost a
century-long results of relativity experiments, two fundamental principles were adopted for RRT [4]: one, that energy
level is the underlying cause for relativistic effects and two, that mass is expressed by the relativistic energy equation as
enunciated by Einstein.
Utilizing the space age ephemeris generation experience and following the methodology of nature to conserve energy
and momentum, we found the reason to replace the concept of “relativity of all frames” with that of “nature’s preferred
frame”, as explained in the earlier paper [4] by the authors. This is strongly supported by the fact that the least-squares-
adjusted (LSA) astronomical constants (e.g., the planetary masses, etc.) of nature, which are an outcome of global fits
done during the generation of a particular ephemeris, are consequences of not only the gravitational model, but also of
the coordinate frame. In other words, the constants of nature are linked to the coordinate frame. This conclusively tells
that today one has to accept the existence of only one set of the constants of nature as a concomitant of only one
appropriate ‘preferred frame’ and the relevant orbit or orbits, linked to them. This ‘preferred frame’ according to the
RRT has been termed as the “nature’s preferred frame” [4].
Based on the few well-proven basic principles cited above, a comprehensive remodeling effort led to the RRT that has
been used to consistently and successfully simulate numerically the results of all the “well-established” tests of the
GRT at their current accuracy levels [2, 3], and for the precise calculation of relativistic effects observed in case of the
Global Positioning System (GPS) applications, the accurate macroscopic clock experiments and other tests of the
special relativity theory [4].
The mathematical model used for computation of results presented here is exactly the same as that utilized for
computing the centennial rate of the relativistic perihelion precession of Mercury’s orbit [3]. However, for the
convenience of the readers a few basic equations are being presented here with self-consistent notations.
Equation (1) given below is the most precise form of relativistic mass equation according to the ‘matter model’ of RRT
[3, 4] that is being applied here for the case of a typical heliocentric planetary orbit. This equation is the expression for
the rest mass m 0 of a planet (inclusive of the mass of its satellites and atmosphere, if any) at an infinite distance
(where the gravitational influence of any other body also is insignificant), in terms of its relativistic mass m r , as it is
pulled and moved to its new location at a radial coordinate r, under the gravitational potential of the sun.
m0 = m r . 1 − β r ,
2
(1)
where
m r = relativistic mass of the moving or orbiting planet at a radial coordinate r in its natural c.s., i.e., the SCSF (sun
centered space fixed) frame for a planetary orbit,
β r = velocity ratio of the orbiting planet at a radial coordinate r, given by

βr = v c
r
, (2)

where
v = velocity of the orbiting planet at a radial coordinate r, in the SCSF frame, and
c r = magnitude of light velocity at a distance r from the center of the SCSF frame.

Simulation of a photon’s orbit in the same SCSF frame, using an almost similar ‘photon model’ mentioned in the
previous papers [2, 4], reveals that the following relationship exists for the velocities of light, at the current accuracy
level:

c = cr . 1 − F ,  (3)
where
c = magnitude of light velocity at infinite distance (where the gravitational influence of any other body is also
insignificant) from the center of the same SCSF frame, and
F = gravitational red-shift factor (strictly speaking, it should be called a ‘blue-shift’ when the photon is moving closer to
the gravitating mass) at a radial coordinate r, in the SCSF frame, given by

 G. M 
F =  s , (4)
 c 2 
 r .r 
where

A_Biswas_Relativistic_Precession_of_Venus_and_the_Earth 2 of 5
M = mass of the sun, and
s
G = Gravitational constant.

As mentioned in the previous papers, the principle of equality of the relativistic transformation factors for energy level
and time (and length), was first adopted and later proven as a fundamental principle of RRT. Accordingly, the
relativistic transformation factor for time for a planet moving under the gravitational influence of the sun, in the SCSF
frame, may be written as:
d t = d 1 − F ,   (5)
where
dt = coordinate time, that is, the proper time at a point situated at an infinite distance from the center of sun, where
the gravitational influence of any other body is also insignificant,
d = proper time at a radial coordinate r, in the SCSF frame, and
Equation of the gravitational acceleration of the orbiting planet due to all bodies in the solar system, other than the
central body, is given by

••

 mJ (r − r ) m r 

r =  G.  . J
− J
. J
 . (6)
J Jc  r −r 2
r −r r 2 r 
J
 J J J 
where
m = mass of the J-th body in the solar system,
J
rJ = Position vector of the J-th body in the SCSF frame, and
r = Position vector of the orbiting planet.
The resultant gravitational acceleration vector due to all bodies including the central body, is given by
•• •• G .( M + m ) r
r = rJ − s . . (7)
r 2 r
where
••
r = Resultant gravitational acceleration of the orbiting planet caused by all celestial bodies in the solar system
including the sun,
r = Position vector of the center-of-mass of the orbiting planet, and
m = mass of the orbiting planet.

As usual, the double dots above a symbol signify the double differential with respect to time, while the single dot above
a symbol signifies the single differential, throughout this paper.
The resultant gravitational acceleration is numerically integrated to obtain the epochwise velocity and position vectors
of the orbiting planet.
The radial component of the planet’s epochwise magnitudes of velocity, designated by v r , is obtained from vector
dot-product as follows:
 •
vr = r . r , (8)
where

r = the unit vector corresponding to the position vector of the orbiting planet.

The tangential component of the planet’s epochwise magnitudes of velocity, designated by v , is obtained as follows:

v = v2 − vr 2 , (9)

The epochwise magnitudes of the angle between the vector directions of v and v, designated by λ , is derived from
v
the magnitude of two velocity vectors, as follows:

A_Biswas_Relativistic_Precession_of_Venus_and_the_Earth 3 of 5
 v 
λ = Arctan  r  , (10)
v  v 
 

The term ‘relativistic perihelion precession’ can be computed as explained in more detail in our earlier paper [3], using
its equation (8).

In this paper, we present the result of numerical simulation of the ‘relativistic perihelion precession’ of two more
planetary orbits of the solar system --- namely, for Venus and the Earth.
It may be mentioned here that no work using a similar approach could be found in the relevant literature, for the
calculation of the relativistic precession of Venus and the Earth.

4 Numerical Simulation

Computations were done on the heliocentric equatorial-of-date co-ordinate system. JPL's (Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, Caltech) ephemeris DE405 provided the data for the heliocentric positions of all planets other than the
orbiting planet. Ordinary differential equations (ODE) were generated for the equations of motion based on the relevant
mathematical model of RRT [3]. All the ODE's were solved simultaneously using the variable step differential equation
solver, namely, the Gear's method [5]. This method is comparable to the best available in the field for astro-dynamical
calculations in controlling the integration error within the specified value and has been tested against various JPL
integration algorithms. The appropriate codes provided by JPL were used for extraction and interpolation of data from
DE405. All the Fortran codes, have been developed by us using the above-mentioned mathematical model as presented
in our earlier paper [3], other than that provided by JPL for using ephemeris data, while making use of a few of the
algorithms for rotation matrices given in JPL's Technical Report [6] and in Newhall et al [7]. The results of the
computation are presented and discussed in the following section.
In fact, our program can generate the ephemeris data --- that is, the epochwise position and velocity vector data of
any orbiting planet of solar system while reading the corresponding position and velocity vector data of other planets
and only the orbital starting epoch’s position and velocity vector data of the orbiting planet, from JPL's DE405. This is
done by numerically integrating the ODE’s corresponding to the resultant gravitational acceleration vector. This part is
similar to the JPL’s ephemeris generation process in the sense that the acceleration vector is calculated from the so-
called ‘real forces’. But, it differs from JPL in the sense that JPL uses the general relativistic equation of motion,
whereas we use the equations of motion that are based on the RRT model, and achieve comparable levels of accuracy.
An additional feature of our program is the existence of a counter-checking method that numerically integrates the
ODE’s corresponding to the acceleration vector calculated from the so-called ‘inertial forces’, which are exactly equal
and opposite to the corresponding ‘real forces’. This enables the counter-checking of the velocity and position vectors
obtained from the integration of ‘real forces’. This also enables us to ensure that the conservation laws of energy, linear
and angular momentum are obeyed during all stages of epochwise calculations.

5 Discussion of results

Using the model developed by us, the following results (Table 1) have been computed for the centennial rate of the
‘relativistic perihelion precession’ for the orbits of Venus and the Earth. Computations for a time frame of over two
centuries were carried out. Observational results for the ‘relativistic perihelion precession’ have been presented from
other sources for which the references have been cited.

Table 1 Computed Values of the Relativistic Perihelion Precession in arcseconds per century
compared with GRT value and Observational results

Relativistic perihelion
Orbiting GRT
Observational precession,
Celestial Uncertainty Reference value
results computed using the
body
RRT model

Venus 8.6247 0.0005 Pitjeva (2007), [8] 8.6247 8.62473

Earth 3.8387 0.0004 [9, 10] 3.8387 3.83868

A_Biswas_Relativistic_Precession_of_Venus_and_the_Earth 4 of 5
 For Venus, we have presented very recent observational results (that are yet to be published) derived from recent
Magelan doppler data near Venus [8].
A close scrutiny of Table 1, will show that our computed values for Venus and the Earth not only agree with the
respective values predicted by GRT but also agree with the recent observational results within their respective range of
uncertainty.

5 Conclusion

It can thus be seen from the presentation of data above and discussion thereon, that RRT leads to computed values
that compare well with the prediction of GRT and the recent observational results, for the relativistic perihelion
precession of Venus and the Earth. Thus, the results presented in this paper can be said to confirm again the
consistency of the RRT.

6 Acknowledgements
We thank Dr. E. V. Pitjeva, the head of Laboratory of Ephemeris Astronomy of the Institute of Applied
Astronomy, Russian Academy of Sciences, for helpful clarifications, and for help in obtaining data on observational
results and their uncertainties. We thank also Dr. Lorenzo Iorio for giving us encouraging help.

7 References

[1] C.M. Will: “The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment: A 1998 update", In: Gravity - from the
Hubble length to the Planck length, Proceedings of the XXVI SLAC Summer Institute on Particle
Physics, SLAC, Stanford, California, 1998, pp. 15-54.
[2] A. Biswas and K.R.S. Mani, Simulation model for Shapiro time delay and light deflection experiments, Open Phys.
2, 687 (2004). https://doi.org/10.2478/BF02475569
[3] A. Biswas and K.R.S. Mani, Simulation model for anomalous precession of the perihelion of mercury's orbit, Open
Phys. 3, 69 (2005). https://doi.org/10.2478/BF02476507
[4] A. Biswas, and K.R.S. Mani, “Remodeled Relativity Theory”, Phys. Essays, 20, 218, (2007). 2007).
http://dx.doi.org/10.4006/1.3119396
[5] C. W. Gear: “The Automatic Integration of Ordinary Differential Equations”, Comm. of the ACM, Vol. 14, (1971),
pp. 176-179
[6] T.D. Moyer: “Mathematical Formulation of the Double-Precision Orbit Determination Program” , In: Jet
Propulsion Laboratory Tech. Rept., 32-1527, Pasadena, 1971.
[7] X. X. Newhall, E.M. Standish, and J.G. Williams: “DE102: a numerically integrated ephemeris of the Moon and
planets spanning forty­four centuries”, Astron. Astrophys., Vol. 125, (1983), pp. 150-167.
[8] E. V. Pitjeva: private communication (2007).
[9] L. Iorio “Solar System motions and the cosmological constant: a new approach”, arXiv:0710.2610v1 [gr-qc],
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0710/0710.2610v1.pdf , Table 1.
[10] E. V. Pitjeva: private communication (2005).

A_Biswas_Relativistic_Precession_of_Venus_and_the_Earth 5 of 5