No subject

Something seems wrong with the laws of physics. Spacecraft are not behaving
in the way that they should

Illustration by Claudio Munoz

MIGHTY oaks from little acorns grow. In the 1840s an astronomer called Urbain
Le Verrier noticed there was something wrong with the orbit of Mercury. The
main axis of the planet's orbital ellipse shifts each time it goes round the
sun. That was well known, and is caused by the gravitational pull of Venus.
Le Verrier, however, realised that the orbit was shifting too fast. The
excess was a tiny fraction of a degree. But it was a disturbing departure
from the purity of Newton's majestic clockwork—a departure that was explained
only 70 years later, when Einstein's general theory of relativity swept
Newton away by showing that gravity operates by distorting space itself.

Even Einstein, however, may not have got it right. Modern instruments have
shown a departure from his predictions, too. In 1990 mission controllers at
the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, which operates
America's unmanned interplanetary space probes, noticed something odd happen
to a Jupiter-bound craft, called Galileo. As it was flung around the Earth in
what is known as a slingshot manoeuvre (designed to speed it on its way to
the outer solar system), Galileo picked up more velocity than expected. Not
much. Four millimetres a second, to be precise. But well within the range
that can reliably be detected.

Once might be happenstance. But this strange extra acceleration was seen
subsequently with two other craft. That, as Goldfinger would have put it,
looks like enemy action. So a team from JPL has got together to analyse all
of the slingshot manoeuvres that have been carried out over the years, to see
if they really do involve a small but systematic extra boost. The answer is
that they do.

Altogether, John Anderson and his colleagues analysed six slingshots
involving five different spacecraft. Their paper on the matter is about to be
published in Physical Review Letters. Crucially for the idea that there
really is a systematic flaw in the laws of physics as they are understood
today, their data can be described by a simple formula. It is therefore
possible to predict what should happen on future occasions.  Gravity's
rainbow

That is what Dr Anderson and his team have now done. They have worked out the
exact amount of extra speed that should be observed when they analyse the
data from a slingshot last November, which involved a craft called Rosetta.
If their prediction is correct, it will confirm that the phenomenon is real
and that their formula is capturing its essence. Although the cause would
remain unknown, a likely explanation is that something in the laws of gravity
needs radical revision.

Dr Anderson and his team have, of course, gone through painstaking efforts to
rule out conventional physical explanations and systematic errors. Their
model takes into account both general relativity and all known gravitational
effects of the sun, the moon, the planets and large asteroids. Effects
stemming from the Earth's atmosphere, from ocean tides and from the solar
wind of charged particles were all found to be too small to explain the
spacecrafts' extra velocity. And to rule out computer bugs, independent
groups verified the calculations using several different versions of the
modelling software.

Furthermore, because the effect is present in data from five
vehicles—Galileo, the Cassini mission to Saturn, the MESSENGER craft sent to
Mercury, and the NEAR and Rosetta missions to study asteroids and comets—the
team thinks it is unlikely to be caused by the spacecraft themselves. Each
has a unique design, so a systematic machine-related error is unlikely.

Dr Anderson is no stranger to anomalous behaviour by spacecraft. In the early
1970s Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 were sent to fly past Jupiter and Saturn.
Once their missions were accomplished, they carried on into the outer reaches
of the solar system. He and his colleagues noticed soon afterwards that the
sibling crafts' trajectories were deviating from those predicted by Einstein.
Both Pioneers act as though an extra force beyond mere gravity is tugging at
them from the direction of the sun.

Thirty years later, no explanation for this has been found. Each year the
Pioneers fall a further 5,000km behind their projected paths. Hundreds of
scientific papers have been written on the Pioneer anomalies, many of them
trying to find explanations beyond the current laws of gravity.

Dr Anderson himself points out that several features of the Pioneer anomalies
and the slingshot anomalies suggest they may have a common explanation. Both,
for example, involve small objects. By contrast, the data on which Newton and
Einstein built their theories were from stars, planets and moons. In
addition, the spacecraft in question are all travelling in types of orbit not
usually seen in natural systems. Not for them the closed ellipses of Mercury
and the other planets; at the whim of their masters in Pasadena they are
following much more unusual hyperbolic curves.

What it all means is not yet clear. Perhaps there is some overlooked
explanation within the laws of physics. But Le Verrier thought that must be
so for his discovery, too. He and later astronomers spent decades looking for
the missing planet within the orbit of Mercury which, they were convinced,
explained what was going on. They even gave it a name: Vulcan. But it wasn't
there.

There is a good chance that modern physics is in a similar situation. It
would be nice, therefore, to believe that somewhere, the contemporary
equivalent of a bored patent clerk is thinking about the problem, and that
when he has thought hard enough, a new reality will emerge.