<p>Though Wikipedia writes: <em>&quot;The total observed precession of Mercury is 574.10″±0.65 per century[12] relative to the inertial ICRF&quot;</em>, its source is from <em>Clemence, G. M. (1947). &quot;The Relativity Effect in Planetary Motions&quot;. Reviews of Modern Physics.</em> Which is quite old article.</p>
<p>The figure of 575.31, on the other hand, is from much recent article (<em>Park, Ryan S.; et al. (2017). &quot;Precession of Mercury's Perihelion from Ranging to the MESSENGER Spacecraft&quot;. The Astronomical Journal. 153 (3): 121.</em>). This paper, to the extent I understand, basically shows a match between the prediction (with improved breakdown of the causes) and the observation (emph. mine):</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Conclusion</strong>: We have processed the MESSENGER ranging data as a part of JPL’s planetary ephemeris development process... . <strong>We also estimate the total precession rate of Mercury’s perihelion of (575.3100 ± .0015)″/century that corresponds to our solution and provide estimated contributions and uncertainties due to various perturbing effects.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Moreover, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tests_of_general_relativity&amp;oldid=808355479" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Older version of this Wikipedia article</a> shows this table instead:</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/V7Vc8.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/V7Vc8.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>In this table there is match between predication and observation, as - if I understand - appears in Clemence, G. M. (1947).</p>
<p>So with the recent 2017 data, an edit was made on Wikipedia page, but it only modified the causes and not the observed figure and thus causing this mismatch (though, as Allure points out in a comment, is only about 2 sigmas; and hence still works; but again the sentence from Wikipedia above is somewhat misleading because it gives the impression that 574.10″±0.65 is a much recent value - hence I was somewhat surprised by this ±0.65 to be high for modern value and did not fully understood what it means. Now it is clear.) . For what I was able to gather from other sources the observed figure of the precession is indeed 575 arcsec per century.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-03T10:12:43.197Z
2022-05-03T11:54:07.560Z
2022-05-03T11:54:07.560Z
d_e
<p>In <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wikipedia section about the Perihelion precession of Mercury</a>, we have the follwing table titled &quot;Sources of the precession of perihelion for Mercury&quot;:</p>
<div class="s-table-container">
<table class="s-table">
<thead>
<tr>
<th>Amount (arcsec/Julian century)</th>
<th>Cause</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>532.3035</td>
<td>Gravitational tugs of other solar bodies</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>0.0286</td>
<td>Oblateness of the Sun (quadrupole moment)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>42.9799</td>
<td>Gravitoelectric effects (Schwarzschild-like), a General Relativity effect</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>−0.0020</td>
<td>Lense–Thirring precession</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>575.31</strong></td>
<td><strong>Total predicted (*)</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>574.10±0.65</strong></td>
<td><strong>Observed</strong></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<p>Two things caught my eyes which I failed (maybe I was misunderstanding/reading the text) to find explanation for in the text:</p>
<ol>
<li>It seems that there is still gap between the prediction to the observed precession of at least 0.5 arcsec per century (575.31 - 574.75). Why is that? it it observation issue, if so:</li>
<li>What does the ± account for? is it different values between the centuries or rather observation resolution?</li>
</ol>
<p>As far as I understand, resolution of 0.5arcs can be easily distinguishable today (say even 0.05 arcsec in 10 years) - so there appear to be a gap between the prediction and observation - a theory gap? Or does it stems from the the uncertainty of accuracy of the Mercury-Sun distance which is to such an extent to cause 0.5arcs sec movement in aphelion in 100 years? or something else?</p>
<hr />
<p><strong>(*)</strong> A more detailed reference to the prediction (from which the figure was taken from Wikipedia) with uncertainties can be found at <em>Park, Ryan S.; et al. (2017). <a href="https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/109312" rel="nofollow noreferrer">&quot;Precession of Mercury's Perihelion from Ranging to the MESSENGER Spacecraft&quot;. The Astronomical Journal. 153 (3): 121.</a></em>   <a href="https://i.sstatic.net/xYTWt.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/xYTWt.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-03T09:09:19.697Z
Do your sources also give error estimates for the (absoute) contribution of each effect? I expect that these might add up to the observed difference (especially as it is in arcseconds / *century*)
planetmaker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-03T09:46:28.720Z
@planetmaker, I have added the source. it is 0.0015 per century. apparently not enough. Wikipedia also has reference to the observed figure, but unfortunately it seems I don't have access to this paper.
d_e
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-03T10:25:09.940Z
There doesn't actually look like a discrepancy to me, because the difference is less than 2 sigmas, well below the threshold (5 sigma) to claim a discrepancy.
Allure
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-03T12:03:03.573Z
The abstract of Park et al. says the precession of Mercury is measured to be 575.3100 +/- 0.0015 arcsec/cy. This is then used to estimate the uncertain theoretical parameters (quadrupole moment, post-Newtonian parameters).
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-09-19T13:18:34.537Z
Note that Dr Park is a leading expert in the orbital mechanics of the Solar System. He's been involved in several space missions and the computation of the JPL Development Ephemeris. From https://science.nasa.gov/people/ryan-park/ "I am a principal engineer and supervisor of the Solar System Dynamics group at JPL. My group is responsible for predicting the orbits of all natural planetary bodies, such as planets, planetary satellites [moons], asteroids, and comets. We also provide associated physical properties, such as gravity fields and rotational parameters".
PM 2Ring
<solar-system><mercury>
Does the observed Perihelion precession of Mercury still deviate from prediction?
d_e
# Does the observed Perihelion precession of Mercury still deviate from prediction?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-05-03)

In [Wikipedia section about the Perihelion precession of Mercury](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury), we have the follwing table titled "Sources of the precession of perihelion for Mercury":

| Amount (arcsec/Julian century) | Cause |
| --- | --- |
| 532.3035 | Gravitational tugs of other solar bodies |
| 0.0286 | Oblateness of the Sun (quadrupole moment) |
| 42.9799 | Gravitoelectric effects (Schwarzschild-like), a General Relativity effect |
| −0.0020 | Lense–Thirring precession |
| **575.31** | **Total predicted (\*)** |
| **574.10±0.65** | **Observed** |

Two things caught my eyes which I failed (maybe I was misunderstanding/reading the text) to find explanation for in the text:

1. It seems that there is still gap between the prediction to the observed precession of at least 0.5 arcsec per century (575.31 - 574.75). Why is that? it it observation issue, if so:
2. What does the ± account for? is it different values between the centuries or rather observation resolution?

As far as I understand, resolution of 0.5arcs can be easily distinguishable today (say even 0.05 arcsec in 10 years) - so there appear to be a gap between the prediction and observation - a theory gap? Or does it stems from the the uncertainty of accuracy of the Mercury-Sun distance which is to such an extent to cause 0.5arcs sec movement in aphelion in 100 years? or something else?

---

**(\*)** A more detailed reference to the prediction (from which the figure was taken from Wikipedia) with uncertainties can be found at *Park, Ryan S.; et al. (2017). ["Precession of Mercury's Perihelion from Ranging to the MESSENGER Spacecraft". The Astronomical Journal. 153 (3): 121.](https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/109312)* [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/xYTWt.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/xYTWt.png)

**Tags:** solar-system, mercury

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Do your sources also give error estimates for the (absoute) contribution of each effect? I expect that these might add up to the observed difference (especially as it is in arcseconds / *century*)  
> **username_0**: @username_1, I have added the source. it is 0.0015 per century. apparently not enough. Wikipedia also has reference to the observed figure, but unfortunately it seems I don't have access to this paper.  
> **username_2**: There doesn't actually look like a discrepancy to me, because the difference is less than 2 sigmas, well below the threshold (5 sigma) to claim a discrepancy.  
> **username_3**: The abstract of Park et al. says the precession of Mercury is measured to be 575.3100 +/- 0.0015 arcsec/cy. This is then used to estimate the uncertain theoretical parameters (quadrupole moment, post-Newtonian parameters).  
> **username_4**: Note that Dr Park is a leading expert in the orbital mechanics of the Solar System. He's been involved in several space missions and the computation of the JPL Development Ephemeris. From https://science.nasa.gov/people/ryan-park/ "I am a principal engineer and supervisor of the Solar System Dynamics group at JPL. My group is responsible for predicting the orbits of all natural planetary bodies, such as planets, planetary satellites [moons], asteroids, and comets. We also provide associated physical properties, such as gravity fields and rotational parameters".  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_0 on 2022-05-03. Score: 3

Though Wikipedia writes: *"The total observed precession of Mercury is 574.10″±0.65 per century[12] relative to the inertial ICRF"*, its source is from *Clemence, G. M. (1947). "The Relativity Effect in Planetary Motions". Reviews of Modern Physics.* Which is quite old article.

The figure of 575.31, on the other hand, is from much recent article (*Park, Ryan S.; et al. (2017). "Precession of Mercury's Perihelion from Ranging to the MESSENGER Spacecraft". The Astronomical Journal. 153 (3): 121.*). This paper, to the extent I understand, basically shows a match between the prediction (with improved breakdown of the causes) and the observation (emph. mine):

> **Conclusion**: We have processed the MESSENGER ranging data as a part of JPL’s planetary ephemeris development process... . **We also estimate the total precession rate of Mercury’s perihelion of (575.3100 ± .0015)″/century that corresponds to our solution and provide estimated contributions and uncertainties due to various perturbing effects.**

Moreover, [Older version of this Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tests_of_general_relativity&oldid=808355479) shows this table instead:

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/V7Vc8.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/V7Vc8.png)

In this table there is match between predication and observation, as - if I understand - appears in Clemence, G. M. (1947).

So with the recent 2017 data, an edit was made on Wikipedia page, but it only modified the causes and not the observed figure and thus causing this mismatch (though, as username_2 points out in a comment, is only about 2 sigmas; and hence still works; but again the sentence from Wikipedia above is somewhat misleading because it gives the impression that 574.10″±0.65 is a much recent value - hence I was somewhat surprised by this ±0.65 to be high for modern value and did not fully understood what it means. Now it is clear.) . For what I was able to gather from other sources the observed figure of the precession is indeed 575 arcsec per century.


---

