On the anomalous secular increase of the eccentricity of the orbit

of the Moon
Lorenzo Iorio1
Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca (M.I.U.R.). Permanent address for
correspondence: Viale Unità di Italia 68, 70125, Bari (BA), Italy.
arXiv:1102.0212v3 [gr-qc] 21 Feb 2011

lorenzo.iorio@libero.it

Received ; accepted
 –2–

ABSTRACT

A recent analysis of a Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR) data record spanning

38.7 yr revealed an anomalous increase of the eccentricity e of the lunar orbit
amounting to ėmeas = (9 ± 3) × 10−12 yr−1 . The present-day models of the
dissipative phenomena occurring in the interiors of both the Earth and the Moon
are not able to explain it. In this paper, we examine several dynamical effects, not
modeled in the data analysis, in the framework of long-range modified models of
gravity and of the standard Newtonian/Einsteinian paradigm. It turns out that
none of them can accommodate ėmeas . Many of them do not even induce long-
term changes in e; other models do, instead, yield such an effect, but the resulting
magnitudes are in disagreement with ėmeas . In particular, the general relativistic
gravitomagnetic acceleration of the Moon due to the Earth’s angular momentum
has the right order of magnitude, but the resulting Lense-Thirring secular effect
for the eccentricity vanishes. A potentially viable Newtonian candidate would be
a trans-Plutonian massive object (Planet X/Nemesis/Tyche) since it, actually,
would affect e with a non-vanishing long-term variation. On the other hand,
the values for the physical and orbital parameters of such a hypothetical body
required to obtain the right order of magnitude for ė are completely unrealistic.
Moreover, they are in neat disagreement with both the most recent theoretical
scenarios envisaging the existence of a distant, planetary-sized body and with
the model-independent constraints on them dynamically inferred from planetary
motions. Thus, the issue of finding a satisfactorily explanation for the anomalous
behavior of the Moon’s eccentricity remains open.

Subject headings: gravitation-Celestial mechanics-ephemerides-Moon-planets and

satellites: general
 –3–

1. Introduction

Anderson & Nieto (2010) recently reported an anomalous secular increase of the
eccentricity1 e of the orbit of the Moon

ėmeas = (9 ± 3) × 10−12 yr−1 (1)

based on an analysis of a long LLR data record spanning 38.7 yr (16 March 1970-22
November 2008) performed by Williams & Boggs (2009) with the suite of accurate
dynamical force models of the DE421 ephemerides (Folkner et al. 2008; Williams et al.
2008) including all relevant Newtonian and Einsteinian effects. Notice that eq. (1) is
statistically significant at a 3σ−level. Anderson & Nieto (2010) found that eq. (1) is not
compatible with present, standard knowledge of dissipative processes in the interiors of
both the Earth and Moon, which were, actually, modeled by Williams & Boggs (2009). The
relevant physical and orbital parameters of the Earth and the Moon are reported in Table
1.

Table 1: Relevant physical and orbital parameters of the Earth-Moon system. a is the
semimajor axis. e is the eccentricity. The inclination I refers to the mean ecliptic at J2000.0.
Ω is the longitude of the ascending node and is referred to the mean equinox and ecliptic at
J2000.0. ω is the argument of pericenter. G is the Newtonian gravitational constant. The
masses of the Earth and the Moon are M and m, respectively. The orbital parameters of
the Moon were retrieved from the WEB interface HORIZONS, by JPL, NASA, at the epoch
J2000.0.

a (m) e I (deg) Ω (deg) ω (deg) GM (m s−2 ) m/M

3.81219 × 108 0.0647 5.24 123.98 −51.86 3.98600 × 1014 0.012

In this paper we look for a possible candidate for explaining such an anomaly in terms
of both Newtonian and non-Newtonian gravitational dynamical effects, general relativistic
or not.
To this aim, let us make the following, preliminary remarks. Naive, dimensional
evaluations of the effect caused on e by an additional anomalous acceleration A can be
made by noticing that
A
ė ≈ , (2)
na

1
It is a dimensionless numerical parameter for which 0 ≤ e < 1 holds. It determines the
shape of the Keplerian ellipse: e = 0 corresponds to a circle, while values close to unity yield
highly elongated orbits.
 –4–

with
na = 1.0 × 103 m s−1 = 3.2 × 1010 m yr−1 (3)
. p
for the geocentric orbit of the Moon. In it, a is the orbital semimajor axis, while n = µ/a3
.
is the Keplerian mean motion in which µ = GM(1 + m/M) is the gravitational parameter
of the Earth-Moon system: G is the Newtonian constant of gravitation. It turns out that
an extra-acceleration as large as

A ≈ 3 × 10−16 m s−2 = 0.3 m yr−2 (4)

would satisfy eq. (1). In fact, a mere order-of-magnitude analysis based on eq. (2) would be
insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions: finding simply that this or that dynamical effect
induces an extra-acceleration of the right order of magnitude may be highly misleading.
Indeed, exact calculations of the secular variation of e caused by such putative promising
candidate extra-accelerations A must be performed with standard perturbative techniques
in order to check if they, actually, cause an averaged non-zero change of the eccentricity.
Moreover, also in such potentially favorable cases caution is still in order. Indeed, it
may well happen, in principle, that the resulting analytical expression for hėi retains
multiplicative factors2 1/ek , k = 1, 2, 3, ... or ek , k = 1, 2, 3... which would notably alter the
size of the found non-zero secular change of the eccentricity with respect to the expected
values according to eq. (2).
The plan of the paper is as follows. In Section 2 we deal with several long-range models
of modified gravity. Section 3 analyzes some dynamical effects in terms of the standard
Newtonian/Einsteinian laws of gravitation. The conclusions are in Section 4.

2. Exotic models of modified gravity

2.1. A Rindler-type acceleration

As a practical example of the aforementioned caveat, let us consider the effective model
for gravity of a central object of mass M at large scales recently constructed by Grumiller
(2010). Among other things, it predicts the existence of a constant and uniform acceleration

A = ARin r̂ (5)

radially directed towards M. As shown in Iorio (2010a), the Earth-Moon range residuals δρ
over ∆t = 20 yr yield the following constrain for a terrestrial Rindler-type extra-acceleration

ARin . 5 × 10−16 m s−2 = 0.5 m yr−2 , (6)

2
Here e denotes the eccentricity: it is not the Napier number.
 –5–

which is in good agreement with eq. (4).

The problem is that, actually, a radial and constant acceleration like that of eq. (5)
does not induce any secular variation of the eccentricity. Indeed, from the standard Gauss3
perturbation equation for e (Bertotti et al. 2003)
√
1 − e2
  
de 1 r
= AR sin f + AT cos f + 1− , (7)
dt na e a
in which f is the true anomaly4 , and AR , AT are the radial and transverse components of
the perturbing acceleration A, it turns out (Iorio 2010a)
ARin (1 − e2 ) (cos E − cos E0 )
∆e = − , (8)
n2
where E is the eccentric anomaly5 , so that
∆e|2π
0 = 0. (9)

2.2. A Pioneer-type acceleration

By mean of Pioneer-type acceleration we mean a constant and uniform extra-

acceleration directed towards the Sun having a magnitude (Anderson et al. 1998, 2002;
Anderson & Nieto 2010)
APio = (8.74 ± 1.33) × 10−10 m s−2 = (8.70 ± 1.32) × 105 m yr−2 . (10)
In the present case, since we are in a geocentric ecliptic frame, such an acceleration becomes
A = APio n̂⊙ . (11)
In it n̂⊙ = {cos λ⊙ , sin λ⊙ , 0} is a unit vector pointing towards the Sun, where λ⊙ is its
ecliptic longitude. It turns out that, actually, a non vanishing long-term variation of e
occurs: it is
√
3APio 1 − e2
 
de
=− [sin ω cos(Ω − λ⊙ ) + cos I cos ω sin(Ω − λ⊙ )] . (12)
dt 2na

3
It is just the case to remind that the Gauss perturbative equations are valid for any kind
of perturbing acceleration A, whatever its physical origin may be.
4
It is an angle counted from the pericenter, i.e. the point of closest approach to the central
body, which instantaneously reckons the position of the test particle along its Keplerian
ellipse.
5
Basically, E can be regarded as a parametrization of the polar angle in the orbital plane.
 –6–

Notice that eq. (12) contains the lunar longitude of the ascending node6 Ω, the argument of
perigee7 ω and the inclination to the ecliptic I. It is well known (Roncoli 2005) that Ω and
ω vary with periods of 18.6 yr and, 6.0 yr, respectively, with respect to the ecliptic, while I
remains substantially constant. Thus, a slow modulation in hėi would occur; in principle,
it should have been detectable since the time span of the LLR data analysis amounts to
∆t = 38.7 yr, but it is absent in eq. (1). Moreover, also the solar ecliptic longitude λ⊙
is present in eq. (12): it introduces a further, annual modulation which is absent in the
empirical result of eq. (1). Actually, eq. (12) does not contain secular components.
It is just the case to remind that the existence of a Pioneer-type anomalous acceleration
as large as in eq. (10) in the inner regions of the solar system is totally incompatible even
with rather old planetary observations (Anderson et al. 2002). In the specific case of eq.
(12), its amplitude would be of the order of hėi ≈ 10−5 yr−1 , in complete disagreement with
eq. (1).

2.3. A Yukawa-type long-range modification of gravity

It is well known that a variety of theoretical paradigms (Adelberger et al. 2003;

Bertolami & Páramos 2005) allow for Yukawa-like deviations from the usual Newtonian
inverse-square law of gravitation (Burgess & Cloutier 1988). The Yukawa-type correction
.
to the Newtonian gravitational potential UN = −µ/r, where µ = GM is the gravitational
parameter of the central body which acts as source of the supposedly modified gravitational
field, is
αµ∞  r
UY = − exp − , (13)
r λ
where µ∞ is the gravitational parameter evaluated at distances r much larger than the scale
length λ.
In order to compute the long-term effects of eq. (13) on the eccentricity of a test
particle it is convenient to adopt the Lagrange perturbative scheme (Bertotti et al. 2003).
In such a framework, the equation for the long-term variation of e is (Bertotti et al. 2003)

1 − e2
    
de 1 1 ∂R ∂R
= 2 √ − , (14)
dt na e 1 − e2 ∂ω ∂M

6
It is an angle in the reference {x, y} plane determining the position of the line of the
nodes, i.e. the intersection of the orbital plane with the reference {x, y} plane, with respect
to the reference x direction.
7
It is an angle in the orbital plane reckoning the position of the point of closest approach
with respect to the line of the nodes.
 –7–

where ω is the argument of pericenter,

.
M = n(t − tp ) = E − e sin E (15)

is the mean anomaly of the test particle8 , and R denotes the average of the perturbing
potential over one orbital revolution. In the case of a Yukawa-type perturbation, eq. (13)
yields
αµ∞ exp − aλ

 
ae
hUY i = − I0 , (16)
a λ
where I0 (x) is the modified Bessel function of the first kind9 Ik (x) for k = 0. An inspection
of eq. (14) and eq. (16) immediately tells us that there is no secular variation of e caused
by an anomalous Yukawa-type perturbation which, thus, cannot explain eq. (1).

2.4. Other long-range exotic models of gravity

The previous analysis has the merit of elucidating certain general features pertaining
a vast category of long-range modified models of gravity. Indeed, eq. (14) tells us
that a long-term change of e occurs only if the averaged extra-potential considered
explicitly depends on ω and on time through M or, equivalently, E. Actually, the
anomalous potentials arising in the majority of long-range modified models of gravity
are time-independent and spherically symmetric (Dvali et al. 2000; Capozziello et al.
2001; Capozziello & Lambiase 2003; Dvali et al. 2003; Kerr et al. 2003; Allemandi et al.
2005; Gruzinov 2005; Jaekel & Reynaud 2005a,b; Navarro & van Acoleyen 2005;
Reynaud & Jaekel 2005; Apostolopoulos & Tetradis 2006; Brownstein & Moffat 2006;
Capozziello et al. 2006; Jaekel & Reynaud 2006a,b; Moffat 2006; Navarro & van Acoleyen
2006a,b; Sanders 2006; Adkins & McDonnell 2007; Adkins et al. 2007; Bertolami et al.
2007; Capozziello 2007; ?; Capozziello & Francaviglia 2008; Nojiri & Odintsov 2007; ?;
Bertolami & Santos 2009; Hořava 2009a,b; Kehagias & Sfetsos 2009; de Felice & Tsujikawa
2010; Ruggiero 2010; Sotiriou & Faraoni 2010; Fabrina et al. 2011). Anomalous accelerations
A exhibiting a dependence on the test particle’s velocity v were also proposed in different
frameworks (Jaekel & Reynaud 2005a,b; Kehagias & Sfetsos 2009). Since they have to be
evaluated onto the unperturbed Keplerian ellipse, for which the following relations hold

8
tp is the time of passage at pericenter.
9
See on the WEB http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ModifiedBesselFunctionoftheFirstKind.html
and references therein.
 –8–

(Murray & Correia 2010)

r = a (1 − e cos E) ,






1−e cos E


 dt = dE,


 n
(17)
nae sin E



 vR = 1−e cos E
,



 √
na 1−e2
vT = ,

1−e cos E
where vR and vT are the unperturbed, Keplerian radial and transverse components of v, it
was straightforward to infer from eq. (7) that no long-term variations of the eccentricity
arose at all (Iorio 2007; Iorio & Ruggiero 2010).
An example of time-dependent anomalous potentials occurs if either a secular change
of the Newtonian gravitational constant10 (Milne 1935; Dirac 1937) or of the mass of
the central body is postulated, so that a percent time variation µ̇/µ of the gravitational
parameter can be considered. In such a case, it was recently shown with the Gauss
perturbative scheme that the eccentricity experiences a secular change given by (Iorio
2010b)  
µ̇
hėi = (1 + e) . (18)
µ
As remarked in Iorio (2010b), eq. (1) and eq. (18) would imply an increase
µ̇
= +8.5 × 10−12 yr−1 . (19)
µ
If attributed to a change in G, eq. (19) would be one order of magnitude larger than the
present-day bounds on Ġ/G obtained from LLR (Müller & Biskupek 2007; Williams et al.
2007). Moreover, Pitjeva (2010) recently obtained a secular decrease of G as large as
Ġ
= (−5.9 ± 4.4) × 10−14 yr−1 (20)
G
from planetary data analyses: if applied to eq. (18), it is clearly insufficient to explain the
empirical result of eq. (1). Putting aside a variation of G, the gravitational parameter
of the Earth may experience a time variation because of a steady mass accretion of
non-annihilating Dark Matter (Blinnikov & Khlopov 1983; Khlopov et al. 1991; Khlopov
1999; Foot 2004; Adler 2008). Khriplovich & Shepelyansky (2009) and Xu & Siegel (2008)
assume for the Earth
Ṁ
≈ +10−17 yr−1 , (21)
M
which is far smaller than eq. (19), as noticed by Iorio (2010c). Adler (2008) yields an even
smaller figure for Ṁ/M.

10
According to Dirac (1937), G should decrease with the age of the Universe.
 –9–

3. Standard Newtonian and Einsteinian dynamical effects

In this Section we look at possible dynamical causes for eq. (1) in terms of standard
Newtonian and general relativistic gravitational effects which were not modeled in processing
the LLR data.

3.1. The general relativistic Lense-Thirring field and other stationary

spin-dependent effects

It is interesting to notice that the magnitude of the general relativistic Lense & Thirring
(1918) acceleration experienced by the Moon because of the Earth’s angular momentum
S = 5.86 × 1033 kg m2 s−1 (McCarthy & Petit 2004) is just

2vGS
ALT ≈ = 1.6 × 10−16 m s−2 = 0.16 m yr−2 , (22)
c2 a3
i.e. close to eq. (4). On the other hand, it is well known that the Lense-Thirring effect does
not cause long-term variations of the eccentricity. Indeed, (Soffel 1989)

2GS cos I (cos f − cos f0 )

∆e = − √ . (23)
c2 na3 1 − e2
In fact, eq. (23) holds only for a specific orientation of S, which is assumed to be directed
along the reference z axis. Actually, in Iorio (2010d) it was shown that e does not secularly
change also for a generic orientation of S since
2Gn
RLT = [Sz cos I + sin I (Sx sin Ω − Sy cos Ω)] . (24)
c2 a(1
− e2 )

Thus, standard general relativistic gravitomagnetism cannot be the cause of eq. (1).
Iorio & Ruggiero (2009) explicitly worked out the gravitomagnetic orbital effects
induced on the trajectory of a test particle by the the weak-field approximation of the
Kerr-de Sitter metric. No long-term variations for e occur. Also the general relativistic
spin-spin effects à la Stern-Gerlach do not affect the eccentricity with long-term variations
(Iorio 2010d).

3.2. General relativistic gravitomagnetic time-varying effects

By using the Gauss perturbative equations, Ruggiero & Iorio (2010) analytically
worked out the long-term variations of all the Keplerian orbital elements caused by general
 – 10 –

relativistic gravitomagnetic time-varying effects. For the eccentricity, Ruggiero & Iorio
(2010) found a non-vanishing secular change given by

GS1 (2 + e) cos I
hėi = − , (25)
c2 a3 n
in which S1 denotes a linear change of the magnitude of the angular momentum of the
central rotating body.
In the case of the Earth, Ruggiero & Iorio (2010) quote

S1 = −5.6 × 1016 kg m2 s−2 (26)

due to the secular decrease of the Earth’s diurnal rotation period (Brosche & Schuh 1998)
Ṗ /P = −3 × 10−10 yr−1 . Thus, eq. (25) and eq. (26) yield for the Moon’s eccentricity

hėi = −2 × 10−23 yr−1 , (27)

which is totally negligible with respect to eq. (1).

3.3. The first and second post-Newtonian static components of the

gravitational field

Also the first post-Newtonian, Schwarzschild-type, spherically symmetric static

component of the gravitational field, which was, in fact, fully modeled by Williams & Boggs
(2009), does not induce long-term variations of e (Soffel 1989). The same holds also for the
spherically symmetric second post-Newtonian terms of order O(c−4 ) (Damour & Schäfer
1988; Schäfer & Wex 1993; Wex 1995), which were not modeled by Williams & Boggs
(2009). Indeed, let us recall that the components of the spacetime metric tensor
gµν , µ, ν = 0, 1, 2, 3, are, up to the second post-Newtonian order, (Nordtvedt 1996)

∼ M 2 3 M 3

M



 g00 = 1 − 2 r + 2 r − 2 r + . . . ,

h i (28)
 gij ∼ M 3 M 2


= −δij 1 + 2 r + 2 r + . . . , i, j = 1, 2, 3,


.
where M = µ/c2 . Notice that eq. (28) are written in the standard isotropic gauge, suitable
for a direct comparison with the observations. Incidentally, let us remark that the second
post-Newtonian acceleration for the Moon is just

µ2 n2
A2PN ≈ = 4 × 10−25 m s−2 = 4 × 10−10 m yr−2 . (29)
c4 r
 – 11 –

3.4. The general relativistic effects for an oblate body

Soffel et al. (1988), by using the Gauss perturbative scheme and the usual Keplerian
orbital elements, analytically worked out the first-order post-Newtonian orbital effects in
the field of an oblate body with adimensional quadrupole mass moment J2 and equatorial
radius R.
It turns out that the eccentricity undergoes a non-vanishing long-term variation which,
in general relativity, is (Soffel et al. 1988)
 2 
21nJ2 e sin2 I e2
 
R µ 
hėi = 1+ sin 2ω. (30)
8 (1 − e2 )3 a c2 a 2

In view of the fact that, for the Earth, it is J2 = 1.08263 × 10−3 (McCarthy & Petit
2004) and R = 6.378 × 103 m (McCarthy & Petit 2004), it turns out that the first-order
general relativistic J2 c−2 effect is not capable to explain eq. (1) since eq. (30) yields

hėi ≤ 4 × 10−19 yr−1 . (31)

Soffel et al. (1988) pointed out that the second-order mixed perturbations due to the
Newtonian quadrupole field and the general relativistic Schwarzschild acceleration are of the
same order of magnitude of the first-order ones: their orbital effects were analytically worked
out by Heimberger et al. (1990) with the technique of the canonical Lie transformations
applied to the Delaunay variables. Given their negligible magnitude, we do not further deal
with them.

3.5. A massive ring of minor bodies

A Newtonian effect which was not modeled is the action of the Trans-Neptunian
Objects of the Edgeworth-Kuiper belt (Edgeworth 1943; Kuiper 1951). It can be taken into
account by means of a massive circular ring having mass mring ≤ 5.26 × 10−8 M⊙ (Pitjeva
2010) and radius Rring = 43 au (Pitjeva 2010). Following Fienga et al. (2008), it causes a
perturbing radial acceleration
Gmring h (1) (0)
i
. r
Aring = 2
b 3 (α) − αb 3 (α) r, α = . (32)
2rRring 2 2 Rring

The Laplace coefficients are defined as (Murray & Dermott 1999)

2π
. 1 cos(jψ)
Z
b(j) = dψ, (33)
s
π 0 (1 − 2α cos ψ + α2 )s
 – 12 –

where s is a half-integer. Since for the Moon α ≈ 3 × 10−10 , eq. (32) becomes
Gmring
Aring ≈ 2
αr, (34)
2rRring
with
Aring ≈ 10−23 m s−2 ≈ 10−8 m yr−1 , (35)
which is far smaller than eq. (4). Anyway, it can be shown by using the Gauss perturbative
equation of eq. (7) that the long-term variation of e caused by eq. (32) vanishes.
The dynamical action of the belt of the minor asteroids (Krasinsky et al. 2002) was,
actually, modeled, so that we do not consider it here.

3.6. A distant massive object: Planet X/Nemesis/Tyche

A promising candidate for explaining the anomalous increase of the lunar eccentricity
may be, at least in principle, a trans-Plutonian massive body of planetary size located in
the remote peripheries of the solar system: Planet X/Nemesis/Tyche (Lykawka & Mukai
2008; Melott & Bambach 2010; Fernández 2011; Matese & Whitmire 2011). Indeed, as we
will see, the perturbation induced by it would actually cause a non-vanishing long-term
variation of e. Moreover, since it depends on the spatial position of X in the sky and on its
tidal parameter
. GmX
KX = 3 , (36)
dX
where mX and dX are the mass and the distance of X, respectively, it may happen that a
suitable combination of them is able to reproduce the empirical result of eq. (1).
Let us recall that the perturbing potential due to a very distant, pointlike mass can be
cast into the following quadrupolar form (Hogg et al. 1991)
 2 
KX 2 
UX = r −3 r·ˆ l , (37)
2
where l̂ = {lx , ly , lz } is a unit vector directed towards X determining its position in the sky;
its components are not independent since the constraint
lx2 + ly2 + lz2 = 1 (38)
holds. By introducing the ecliptic latitude βX and longitude λX , it is possible to write


 lx = cos βX cos λX ,



ly = cos βX sin λX , (39)




lz = sin βX .

 – 13 –

In eq. (37) r = {x, y, z} refers to the perturbed test particle. Iorio (2011) has recently
shown that the average of eq. (37) over one orbital revolution is
KX a2  
hUX i = U I, Ω, ω; l̂ , (40)
32
with
.
U = − (2 + 3e2 ) −8 + 9lx2 + 9ly2 + 6lz2 − 120e2 sin 2ω (lx cos Ω + ly sin Ω) [lz sin I+

+ cos I (ly cos Ω − lx sin Ω)] − 15e2 cos 2ω 3 lx2 − ly2 cos 2Ω + 2 lx2 + ly2 − 2lz2 sin2 I−


− 4lz sin 2I (ly cos Ω − lx sin Ω) + 6lx ly sin 2Ω] − 6 (2 + 3e2 ) lx2 − ly2 cos 2Ω sin2 I+


+ 2lz sin 2I (ly cos Ω − lx sin Ω) + 2lx ly sin2 I sin 2Ω − 3 cos 2I (2 + 3e2 ) lx2 + ly2 − 2lz2 +
 

+ 5e2 cos 2ω lx2 − ly2 cos 2Ω + 2lx ly sin 2Ω .




(41)
Note that eq. (40) and eq. (41) are exact: no approximations in e were used. In the
integration l̂ was kept fixed over one orbital revolution of the perturbed test particle, as it
is reasonable given the assumed large distance of X with respect to it.
The Lagrange planetary equation of eq. (14) straightforwardly yields (Iorio 2011)
√
15KX e 1 − e2  
hėi = E I, Ω, ω; l̂ , (42)
16n
with
.
E = −8lz cos 2ω sin I (lx cos Ω + ly sin Ω) + 4 cos I cos 2ω [−2lx ly cos 2Ω+

lx2 − ly2 sin 2Ω + sin 2ω lx2 − ly2 (3 + cos 2I) cos 2Ω + 2 lx2 + ly2 − 2lz2 sin2 I−

 


+

− 4lz sin 2I (ly cos Ω − lx sin Ω) + 2lx ly (3 + cos 2I) sin 2Ω] .
(43)
Actually, the expectations concerning X are doomed to fade away. Indeed, apart from
the modulation introduced by the presence of the time-varying ω and Ω in eq. (43), the
values for the tidal parameter which would allow to obtain eq. (1) are too large for all the
conceivable positions {βX , λX } of X in the sky. This can easily be checked by keeping ω and
Ω fixed at their J2000.0 values as a first approximation.
Figure 1 depicts the X-induced variation of the lunar eccentricity, normalized to eq.
(1), as a function of βX and λX for the scenarios by Lykawka & Mukai (2008) (mmax X =
min max
0.7 m⊕ , dX = 101.3 au), and by Matese & Whitmire (2011) (mX = 4 mJup , dX = 30 kau).
It can be noticed that the physical and orbital features of X postulated by such two recent
 – 14 –

Moon: e  X e  meas HmX = 0.7 mEarth, dX = 101.3 auL

Moon: e  X e  meas HmX = 4 mJup , dX = 30 kauL

0.02
1 ´ 10-6
0 80 0 80
-1 ´ 10-6
-0.02 60 60

0 0 ΒX HdegL
40 ΒX HdegL 40
100 100
20 200 20
200 ΛX HdegL
ΛX HdegL
300
300 0
0

Fig. 1.— Long-term variation of the lunar eccentricity, normalized to eq. (1), induced by
a trans-Plutonian, pointlike object X as a function of its ecliptic latitude βX and longitude
λX . The node Ω and the perigee ω of the Moon were kept fixed to the J2000.0 values quoted
in Table 1. The scenarios for the perturbing body X are those by Lykawka & Mukai (2008)
(left panel), and by Matese & Whitmire (2011) (right panel).

theoretical models would induce long-term variations of the lunar eccentricity much smaller
than eq. (1). Conversely, it turns out that a tidal parameter as large as

KX = 4.46 × 10−24 s−2 (44)

would yield the result of eq. (1). Actually, eq. (44) is totally unacceptable since it
corresponds to distances of X as absurdly small as dX = 30 au for a terrestrial body, and
dX = 200 au for a Jovian mass (Iorio 2011).
We must conclude that not even the hypothesis of Planet X is a viable one to explain
the anomalous increase of the lunar eccentricity of eq. (1).

4. Summary and conclusions

In this paper we dealt with the anomalous increase of the eccentricity e of the orbit of
the Moon recently reported from an analysis of a multidecadal record of LLR data points.
We looked for possible explanations in terms of unmodeled dynamical features of
motion within either the standard Newtonian/Einsteinian paradigm or several long-range
models of modified gravity. As a general rule, we, first, noticed that it would be misleading
to simply find the right order of magnitude for the extra-acceleration due to this or that
candidate effect. Indeed, it is mandatory to explicitly check if a potentially viable candidate
 – 15 –

does actually induce a non-vanishing averaged variation of the eccentricity. This holds, in
principle, for the search of an explanation of any other possible anomalous effect. Quite
generally, it turned out that any time-independent and spherically symmetric perturbation
does not affect the eccentricity with long-term changes.
Thus, most of the long-range modified models of gravity proposed in more or less recent
times for other scopes are automatically ruled out. A Pioneer-like anomalous acceleration
directed towards the Sun induces a long-term variation of e, but its magnitude is too large
by several orders of magnitude. Conversely, the present-day limits on the magnitude of a
terrestrial Rindler-type perturbing acceleration are of the right order of magnitude, but it
does not secularly affect e. As time-dependent candidates capable to cause secular shifts
of e, we considered the possible variation of the Earth’s gravitational parameter µ both
because of a temporal variation of the Newtonian constant of gravitation G and of its mass
itself due to a steady mass accretion of non-annihilating Dark Matter. In both cases, the
resulting time variations of e are too small by several orders of magnitude.
Moving to standard general relativity, we found that the gravitomagnetic Lense-
Thirring lunar acceleration due to the Earth’s angular momentum, not modeled in the data
analysis, has the right order of magnitude, but it, actually, does not induce secular variations
of e. The same holds also for other general relativistic spin-dependent effects. Conversely, e
undergoes long-term changes caused by the general relativistic first-order effects due to the
Earth’s oblateness, but they are far too small. The second-order post-Newtonian part of
the gravitational field does not affect the eccentricity.
Within the Newtonian framework, we considered the action of a circular massive ring
modeling the Edgeworth-Kuiper belt of Trans-Neptunian Objects, but it does not induce
secular variations of e. In principle, a viable candidate would be a putative trans-Plutonian
massive object (PlanetX/Nemesis/Tyche), recently revamped to accommodate certain
features of the architecture of the Kuiper belt and of the distribution of the comets in the
Oort cloud, since it would cause a non-vanishing long-term variation of the eccentricity.
Actually, the values for its mass and distance needed to explain the empirically determined
increase of the lunar eccentricity would be highly unrealistic and in contrast with the
most recent viable theoretical scenarios for the existence of such a body. For example, a
terrestrial-sized body should be located at just 30 au, while an object with the mass of
Jupiter should be at 200 au.
Thus, in conclusion, the issue of finding a satisfactorily explanation of the observed
orbital anomaly of the Moon still remains open. Our analysis should have effectively
restricted the field of possible explanations, indirectly pointing towards either non-
gravitational, mundane effects or some artifacts in the data processing. Further data
analyses, hopefully performed by independent teams, should help in shedding further light
on such an astrometric anomaly.
 – 16 –

REFERENCES

Adelberger E.G., Heckel B.R., Nelson A.E., 2003, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 53, 77

Adkins G. S., McDonnell J., 2007, Phys. Rev. D., 75, 082001

Adkins G. S., McDonnell J., Fell R. N., 2007, Phys. Rev. D., 75, 064011

Adler S. L., 2008, J. of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 41, 412002

Allemandi G., Francaviglia M., Ruggiero M. L., Tartaglia A., 2005, Gen. Relativ. Gravit.,
37, 1891

Anderson J. D., Laing P. A., Lau E. L., Liu A. S., Nieto M. M., Turyshev S. G., 1998, Phys.
Rev. Lett., 81, 2858

Anderson J. D., Laing P. A., Lau E. L., Liu A. S., Nieto M. M., Turyshev S. G., 2002, Phys.
Rev. D, 65, 082004

Anderson J. D., Nieto M. M., 2010, Astrometric solar-system anomalies. In: Klioner
S.A., Seidelmann P.K., Soffel M.H., (eds.) Relativity in Fundamental Astronomy:
Dynamics, Reference Frames, and Data Analysis, Proceedings IAU Symposium No.
261, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010, pp. 189-197

Apostolopoulos P. S., Tetradis N., 2006, Phys. Rev. D, 74, 064021

Bertolami O., Páramos J., 2005, Phys. Rev. D, 71, 023521

Bertolami O., Böhmer C. G., Harko T., Lobo F. S. N., 2007, Phys. Rev. D, 75, 104016

Bertolami O., Santos N. M. C., 2009, Phys. Rev. D, 79, 127702

Bertotti B., Farinella P., Vokrouhlický D., 2003, Physics of the Solar System, Kluwer
Academic Press, Dordrecht

Blinnikov S. I., Khlopov M. Yu., 1983, Sov. Astron., 27, 371.

Brosche P., Schuh H., 1998, Surv. Geophys., 19, 417

Brownstein J. R., Moffat J. W., 2006, Class. Quantum Grav., 23, 3427

Burgess C.P., Cloutier J., 1988, Phys. Rev. D, 38, 2944

Capozziello S., 2007, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys., 4, 53

Capozziello S., De Martino S., De Siena S., Illuminati F., 2001, Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 16, 693

Capozziello S., Lambiase G., 2003, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 12, 843
 – 17 –

Capozziello S., Cardone V. F., Francaviglia M., 2006, Gen. Relativ. Gravit., 38, 711

Capozziello S., Francaviglia M., 2008, Gen. Relativ. Gravit., 40, 357

Damour T., Schäfer G., 1988, Nuovo Cimento B, 101, 127

de Felice A., Tsujikawa S., 2010, Living Rev. Rel., 13, 3

Dirac P. A. M., 1937, Nature, 139, 323

Dvali G., Gabadadze G., Porrati M., 2000, Phys. Lett. B, 485, 208

Dvali G., Gruzinov A., Zaldarriaga M., 2003, Phys. Rev. D, 68, 024012

Edgeworth K. E., 1943, J. Brit. Astron. Assoc., 53, 181

Farina C., Kort-Kamp W. J. M., Mauro Filho S., Shapiro I. L., 2011, arXiv:1101.5611

Fernández J.A., 2011, ApJ, 726, 33

Fienga A., Manche H., Laskar J., Gastineau M., 2008, Astron. Astrophys., 477, 315

Folkner W. M., Williams J. G., Boggs D. H., 2008, The Planetary and Lunar Ephemeris
DE 421, JPL IOM 343R-08-003

Foot R., 2004, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 13, 2161

Grumiller D., 2010, Phys. Rev. Lett., 105, 211303

Gruzinov A., 2005, New Astron., 10, 311

Heimberger J., Soffel M., Ruder H., 1990, Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron., 47, 205

Hogg D., Quinlan G., Tremaine S., 1991, AJ, 101, 2274

Hořava P., 2009a, Phys. Rev. D, 79, 84008

Hořava P., 2009b, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 161301

Iorio L., 2007, Found. Phys., 73, 897

Iorio L., 2010a, arXiv:1012.0226

Iorio L., 2010b, Schol. Res. Exch., 2010, 261249

Iorio L., 2010c, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 05, 018

Iorio L., 2010d, arXiv:1012.5622

Iorio L., 2011, arXiv:1101.2634

 – 18 –

Iorio L., Ruggiero M. L., 2009, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 03, 024

Iorio L., Ruggiero M. L., 2010, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A., 25, 5399

Jaekel M.-T., Reynaud S., 2005a, Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 20, 1047

Jaekel M.-T., Reynaud S., 2005b, Class. Quantum Grav., 22, 2135

Jaekel M.-T., Reynaud S., 2006a, Class. Quantum Grav., 23, 777

Jaekel M.-T., Reynaud S., 2006b, Class. Quantum Grav., 23, 7561

Kehagias A., Sfetsos K., 2009, Phys. Lett. B, 678, 123

Kerr A. W., Hauck J. C., Mashhoon B., 2003, Class. Quantum Grav., 20, 2727

Khlopov M. Yu., Beslin G. M., Bochkarev N. G., Pustil’nik L. A., Pustil’nik S. A., 1991,
Sov. Astron., 35, 21

Khlopov M. Yu., 1999, Cosmoparticle physics, World Scientific, Singapore

Krasinky G. A., Pitjeva E. V., Vasilyev M. V., Yagudina E. I., 2002, Icarus, 158, 98

Khriplovich I. B., Shepelyansky D. L., 2009, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 18, 1903

Kuiper G. P., 1951, in Hynek J. A., ed., Proc. Topical Symp. Commemorating the
50th Anniversary of the Yerkes Observatory and Half a Century of Progress in
Astrophysics. McGraw-Hill, New York, p. 357

Lense J., Thirring H., 1918, Phys. Z., 19, 156

Lykawka P.S., Mukai T., 2008, AJ, 135, 1161

Matese J.J., Whitmire D.P., 2011, Icarus, at press, doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2010.11.009

McCarthy D.D., Petit G., 2004, IERS Technical Note No. 32. IERS Conventions (2003). 12.
Frankfurt am Main: Verlag des Bundesamtes für Kartographie und Geodäsie

Melott A.L., Bambach R.K., 2010, MNRAS, 407, L99

Milne E. A., 1935, Relativity, Gravity and World Structure. Oxford University Press

Moffat J. W., 2006, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 0603, 004

Müller J., Biskupek L., 2007, Class. Quantum Gravit., 24, 4533

Murray C. D., Dermott S. F., 1999, Solar System Dynamics, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge
 – 19 –

Murray C.D., Correia A.C.M., 2010, Keplerian Orbits and Dynamics. In: Seager S. (ed.),
Exoplanets, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 2011. At press. arXiv:1009.1738
Navarro I., van Acoleyen K., 2005, Phys. Lett. B, 622, 1
Navarro I., van Acoleyen K., 2006a, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 008, 003
Navarro I., van Acoleyen K., 2006b, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 006, 009
Nojiri S., Odintsov S. D., 2007, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys., 4, 115
Nordtvedt K., 1996, Class. Quantum Gravit., 13, A11
Pitjeva E.V, 2010, EPM ephemerides and relativity. In: Klioner S.A., Seidelmann P.K.,
Soffel M.H., (eds.) Relativity in Fundamental Astronomy: Dynamics, Reference
Frames, and Data Analysis, Proceedings IAU Symposium No. 261, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 2010, pp. 170-178.
Reynaud S., Jaekel M.-Th., 2005, I. J. Mod. Phys. A, 20, 2294
Roncoli R. B., 2005, Lunar Constants and Models Document, JPL D-32296, Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, California Institute of Technology
Ruggiero M. L., 2010, arXiv:1010.2114v1
Ruggiero M. L., Iorio L., 2010, Gen. Relativ. Gravit., 42, 2393
Sanders R. H., 2006, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 370, 1519
Schäfer G., Wex N., 1993, Phys. Lett. A, 174, 196
Soffel M., Wirrer R., Schastok J., Ruder H., Schneider M., 1988, Celest. Mech. Dyn.
Astron., 42, 81
Soffel M.H., 1989, Relativity in Astrometry, Celestial Mechanics and Geodesy, Springer
Verlag, Berlin
Sotiriou T., Faraoni V., 2010, Rev. Mod. Phys., 82, 451
Wex N., 1995, Class. Quantum Gravit., 12, 983
Williams J. G., Turyshev S. G., Boggs D. H., 2007, Phys. Rev. Lett., 98, 059002
Williams, J. G., Boggs D. H., Folkner W. M., 2008, DE421 Lunar Orbit, Physical Librations,
and Surface Coordinates, JPL IOM 335-JW,DB,WF-20080314-001
Williams J. G., Boggs D. H., 2009, Lunar Core and Mantle. What Does LLR See? In:
Schilliak S. (eds.) Proceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Laser Ranging.
http://cddis.gsfc.nasa.gov/lw16/docs/papers/sci 1 Williams p.pdf
 – 20 –

Xu X., Siegel E. R., 2008, arXiv:0806.3767

This manuscript was prepared with the AAS LATEX macros v5.2.