Can apsidal precession measurements in tight binaries definitively rule out AQUAL's implicit orbital timescale assumptions?

Question

Antigravity · Accepted Answer

This is a sophisticated question about whether apsidal precession measurements in close binaries can rule out AQUAL's (a specific relativistic formulation of Modified Newtonian Dynamics) assumptions about orbital timescales. Let me work through what the archive shows.

What AQUAL predicts for close binaries

AQUAL and related MOND formulations predict apsidal precession—a rotation of the orbital ellipse's major axis—in systems where accelerations drop below the MOND transition scale ($a_0 \sim 10^{-10}$ m/s²) [AG-2024.01-118]. This precession arises because MOND's acceleration law deviates from the Newtonian $1/r^2$ force law in the low-acceleration regime, and that deviation directly affects orbital geometry [AG-2024.10-033].

Can precession measurements definitively rule it out?

Not unambiguously, given current data, for a subtle reason: the archive reveals a fundamental tension *within* AQUAL itself, not from precession measurements alone.

The tightest constraint comes from the Solar System's quadrupole moment (the shape of Earth's gravitational field). AQUAL must simultaneously:

Fit galaxy rotation curves via the Radial Acceleration Relation (RAR)
Match the Solar System's measured quadrupole
Explain wide binary dynamics

These three constraints are mutually inconsistent at 8.7σ under standard assumptions [AG-2024.01-118]. The Solar System quadrupole demands a much *sharper* transition between MOND and Newtonian regimes than the RAR permits. This mismatch means AQUAL's assumed *functional form* for how gravity interpolates between regimes is wrong—which directly constrains the timescale assumptions embedded in its equations of motion.

Why precession alone is less decisive

While eccentric transit timing of binaries could in principle detect MOND-like precession [AG-2024.10-033], the problem is that precession rates are *degenerate* with other orbital parameters. Recent 3D binary analyses using Gaia and radial velocities find either null results [AG-2025.08-318] or marginal deviations [AG-2026.01-1001], with the signal critically dependent on correcting for sample composition [AG-2024.10-426]. Measuring precession unambiguously requires either:

Decades of timing data (as with pulsar binaries [AG-2024.04-274])
Or invoking systems with extreme separations where perspective effects become important [AG-2025.07-353]

Bottom line

AQUAL's internal inconsistency—the RAR/quadrupole tension [AG-2024.01-118]—is more decisive than precession alone. That tension already implies the theory's orbital timescale assumptions are incompatible with precise Solar System tests, even before you measure precession. Precession measurements would be a clean independent test, but they're harder to extract cleanly from the data than the quadrupole comparison.