Search

Abstract Space-based research can provide a major leap forward in the study of key open questions in the fundamental physics domain. They include the validity of Einstein’s Equivalence principle, the origin and the nature of dark matter and dark energy, decoherence and collapse models in quantum mechanics, and the physics of quantum many-body systems. Cold-atom sensors and quantum technologies have drastically changed the approach to precision measurements. Atomic clocks and atom interferometers as well as classical and quantum links can be used to measure tiny variations of the space-time metric, elusive accelerations, and faint forces to test our knowledge of the physical laws ruling the Universe. In space, such instruments can benefit from unique conditions that allow improving both their precision and the signal to be measured. In this paper, we discuss the scientific priorities of a space-based research program in fundamental physics.

The Juno spacecraft has been orbiting Jupiter since 2016 July to deepen our comprehension of the solar system by studying the gas giant. The radio science experiment enables the determination of Jupiter’s gravitational field, thus shedding light on its interior structure. The experiment relies on determining the orbit of the spacecraft during its pericenter passages. Previous gravity data analyses assumed the correctness of the general theory of relativity, which was used for trajectory integration and radio signal propagation modeling. In this work, we aim to test general relativity within the unique context of a spacecraft orbiting Jupiter, by employing the parameterized post-Newtonian (PPN) formalism, an established framework for comparing various gravitational theories. Within this framework, we focus our attention toward the PPN parameters γ and β , which offer insights into the curvature of spacetime and the nonlinearity of gravitational effects, respectively. Additionally, we extend our investigation to the Lense–Thirring effect, which models the dragging of spacetime induced by a rotating mass. By measuring the relativistic frequency shift on Doppler observables caused by Jupiter during Juno’s perijove passes, we estimate γ = 1 + (1.5 ± 4.9) × 10 ^−3 , consistent with the general theory of relativity. Our estimated γ is primarily influenced by its effect on light-time computation, with a negligible contribution from spacecraft dynamics. Furthermore, we also present a modest level of accuracy for the β parameter, reflecting the minimal dynamical perturbation on Juno from general relativity. This also applies to the Lense–Thirring effect, whose signal is too small to be confidently resolved.

Abstract The Juno spacecraft reached the mid‐point of its nominal mission in December 2018, after completing 17 perijove passes. Ten of these were dedicated to the determination of the gravity field of the planet, with the aim of constraining its interior structure. We provide an update on Jupiter's gravity field, its tidal response and spin axis motion over time. The analysis of the Doppler data collected during the perijove passes hints to a non‐static and/or non‐axially symmetric field, possibly related to several different physical mechanisms, such as normal modes or localized atmospheric or deeply‐rooted dynamics.

In 2002, a measurement of the effect of solar gravity upon the phase of coherent microwave beams passing near the Sun was carried out by the Cassini mission, allowing a very accurate measurement of the PPN parameter g. The data have been analysed with NASA's Orbit Determination Program (ODP) in the Barycentric Celestial Reference System, in which the Sun moves around the centre of mass of the solar system with a velocity v[?] of about 15 m s[?]1; the question arises: what correction does this imply for the predicted phase shift? After a review of the way the ODP works, we set the problem in the framework of Lorentz (and Galilean) transformations and evaluate the correction; it is several orders of the magnitude below our experimental accuracy. We also discuss a recent paper (Kopeikin et al 2007 Phys. Lett. A 367 276), which claims wrong and much larger corrections, and clarify the reasons for the discrepancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]