Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
October, 2012 PROGRESS IN PHYSICS Volume 4
Pluto Moons exhibit Orbital Angular Momentum Quantization per Mass
Franklin Potter
Sciencegems.com, 8642 Marvale Drive, Huntington Beach, CA, 92646, USA. E-mail: frank11hb@yahoo.com
The Pluto satellite system of the planet plus five moons is shown to obey the quan-
tum celestial mechanics (QCM) angular momentum per mass quantization condition
predicted for any gravitationally bound system.
The Pluto satellite system has at least five moons, Charon,
P5, Nix, P4, and Hydra, and they are nearly in a 1:3:4:5:6 res-
onance condition! Before the recent detection of P5, Youdin
et al. [1] (2012) analyzed the orbital behavior of the other
four moons via standard Newtonian gravitation and found
regions of orbital stability using distances from the Pluto-
Charon barycenter.
I report here that these five moons each exhibit angular
momentum quantization per mass in amazing agreement with
the prediction of the quantum celestial mechanics (QCM)
proposed by H. G. Preston and F. Potter [2,3] in 2003. QCM
predicts that bodies orbiting a central massive object in grav-
itationally bound systems obey the angular momentum Lper
mass µquantization condition
L
µ=mcH,(1)
with man integer and cthe speed of light. For most systems
studied, mis an integer less than 20. The Preston gravitational
distance H defined by the system total angular momentum
divided by its total mass
H=LT
MTc(2)
provides a characteristic QCM distance scale for the system.
At the QCM equilibrium orbital radius, the Lof the or-
biting body agrees with its Newtonian value µ√G MTr. One
assumes that after tens of millions of years that the orbiting
body is at or near its QCM equilibrium orbital radius rand
that the orbital eccentricity is low so that our nearly circu-
lar orbit approximation leading to these particular equations
holds true. For the Pluto system, Hydra has the largest eccen-
tricity of 0.0051 and an mvalue of 12.
Details about the derivation of QCM from the general rel-
ativistic Hamilton-Jacobi equation and its applications to or-
biting bodies in the Schwarzschild metric approximation and
to the Universe in the the interior metric can be found in our
original 2003 paper [2] titled “Exploring Large-scale Gravi-
tational Quantization without ℏin Planetary Systems, Galax-
ies, and the Universe”. Further applications to gravitational
lensing [4], clusters of galaxies [5], the cosmological redshift
as a gravitational redshift [6], exoplanetary systems and the
Kepler-16 circumbinary system [7] all support this QCM ap-
proach.
Fig. 1: The Pluto System fit to QCM
Table 1: Pluto system orbital parameters
r×106m period (d) ϵm P2/P1
Pluto 2.035 6.387230 0.0022 2
Charon 17.536 6.387230 0.0022 6 1
P5 42. 20.2 ∼0 9 2.915
Nix 48.708 24.856 0.0030 10 3.880
P4 59. 32.1 ∼0 11 5.038
Hydra 64.749 38.206 0.0051 12 6.405
The important physical parameters of the Pluto system
satellites from NASA, ESA, and M. Showalter (SETI Insti-
tute) et al. [8] as listed at Wikipedia are given in the table. The
system total mass is essentially the combined mass of Pluto
(13.05 ×1021 kg) and Charon (1.52 ×1021 kg). The QCM
values of min the next to last column were determined by
the best linear regression fit (R2=0.998) to the angular mo-
mentum quantization per mass equation and are shown in the
figure as L′=L/µcplotted against mwith slope H=2.258
meters. Using distances from the center of Pluto instead of
from the barycenter produces the same mvalues (R2=0.995)
but a slightly different slope.
In QCM the orbital resonance condition is given by the
period ratio given in the last column calculated from
P2
P1
=(m2+1)3
(m1+1)3.(3)
With Charon as the reference, this system of moons has nearly
a 1:3:4:5:6 commensuration, with the last moon Hydra having
Franklin Potter. Pluto Moons exhibit Orbital Angular Momentum Quantization per Mass 3
Volume 4 PROGRESS IN PHYSICS October, 2012
the largest discrepancy of almost 7%. If Hydra moves further
out from the barycenter toward its QCM equilibrium orbital
radius for m=12 in the next few million years, then its posi-
tion on the plot will improve but its mvalue will remain the
same. Note also that P5 at m=9 may move slightly closer
to the barycenter. Dynamic analysis via the appropriate QCM
equations will be reported later. Note that additional moons
of Pluto may be found at non-occupied mvalues.
The QCM plot reveals that not all possible mvalues are
occupied by moons of Pluto and at the same time predicts or-
bital radii where additional moons are expected to be. The
present system configuration depends upon its history of for-
mation and its subsequent evolution, both processes being de-
pendent upon the dictates of QCM. Recall [2] that the satellite
systems of the Jovian planets were shown to obey QCM, with
some QCM orbital states occupied by more than one moon.
Fig. 2: The Solar System fit to QCM
I show in Fig. 2 the linear regression plot (r2=0.999) for
the Solar System, this time with 8 planets plus the largest 5
additional minor planets Ceres, Pluto, Haumea, Makemake,
and Eris. From the fit, the slope gives us a Solar System total
angular momentum of about 1.78 ×1045 kg m2/s, far exceed-
ing the angular momentum contributions of the planets by a
factor of at least 50! Less than a hundred Earth masses at
the 50,000–100,000 A.U. distance of the Oort Cloud there-
fore determines the angular momentum of the Solar System.
Similar analyses have been done for numerous exoplanet sys-
tems [7] with multiple planets with the result that additional
angular momentum is required, meaning that more planets
and/or the equivalent of an Oort Cloud are to be expected.
The existence of angular momentum per mass quantiza-
tion dictates also that the energy per mass quantization for a
QCM state obeys
E
µ=−
r2
gc2
8n2H2=−
G2M4
T
2n2LT2(4)
with n=m+1 for circular orbits and Schwarzschild radius
rg. One expects H≫rgfor the Schwarzschild approxima-
tion to be acceptable, a condition upheld by the Pluto system,
the Solar System, and all exoplanet systems. The correspond-
ing QCM state wave functions are confluent hypergeometric
functions that reduce to hydrogen-like wave functions for cir-
cular orbits. Therefore, a QCM energy state exists for each
n⩾2. A body in a QCM state but not yet at the equilibrium
radius for its mvalue will slowly drift toward this radius over
significant time periods because the QCM accelerations are
small.
In retrospect, the Pluto system is probably more like a
binary system than a system with a single central mass, with
the moons beyond Charon in circumbinary orbits around the
barycenter. As such, I was surprised to find such a good fit to
the QCM angular momentum restriction which was derived
for the single dominant mass system. Additional moons of
Pluto, should they exist, can provide some more insight into
the application of QCM to this gravitationally bound system.
Meanwhile, the identification of additional exoplanets in
nearby systems, particularly circumbinary planets, promises
to create an interesting challenge for establishing QCM as a
viable approach toward a better understanding of gravitation
theory at all size scales.
Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges Sciencegems.com for its generous
support.
Submitted on August 02, 2012 /Accepted on August 07, 2012
References
1. Youdin A. N., Kratter K. M., Kenyon S. J. Circumbinary Chaos: Using
Pluto’s Newest Moon to Constrain the Masses of Nix & Hydra. arXiv:
1205.5273v1.
2. Preston H. P., Potter F. Exploring Large-scale Gravitational Quantiza-
tion without h-bar in Planetary Systems, Galaxies, and the Universe.
arXiv: gr-qc/030311v1.
3. Potter F., Preston H. G. Quantum Celestial Mechanics: large-scale
gravitational quantization states in galaxies and the Universe. 1st Crisis
in Cosmology Conference: CCC-I, Lerner E. J. and Almeida J. B., eds.,
AIP CP822, 2006, 239–252.
4. Potter F., Preston H. G. Gravitational Lensing by Galaxy Quantization
States. arXiv: gr-qc/0405025v1.
5. Potter F., Preston H. G. Quantization State of Baryonic Mass in Clusters
of Galaxies. Progress in Physics, 2007, v. 1, 61–63.
6. Potter F., Preston H. G. Cosmological Redshift Interpreted as Gravita-
tional Redshift. Progress in Physics, 2007, v. 2, 31–33.
7. Potter F., Preston H. G. Kepler–16 Circumbinary System Validates
Quantum Celestial Mechanics. Progress in Physics, 2012, v. 1, 52–53.
8. Showalter M., Weaver H. A., Stern S. A., SteffiA. J., Buie M. W.
Hubble Discovers New Pluto Moon, 11 July 2012.
www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic1212
4 Franklin Potter. Pluto Moons exhibit Angular Momentum Quantization per Mass
