Same Stars, Two Gravities: The Wide-Binary Test and the Estimators That Divide It

At separations beyond a few thousand AU, a binary's internal acceleration falls below the galactic scale a₀ ≈ 1.2×10⁻¹⁰ m/s². Lagrangian modified-dynamics theories (AQUAL/QUMOND), with the Galactic external-field effect charged, predict an effective gravitational boost γ ≡ G_eff/G ≈ 1.35–1.40 there — relative velocities ~18% above Newtonian. Newtonian gravity (with or without dark matter, which is dynamically irrelevant at these densities) predicts γ = 1. On the same Gaia DR3 parent catalogue (El-Badry et al. 2021), Chae (2023–2026) and Hernandez et al. (2023–2024) measure γ ≈ 1.4–1.5 at low acceleration, claiming the anomaly at up to ~5σ and, in a 36-system three-dimensionally vetted sample, γ = 1.60 (+0.17/−0.14); Banik et al. (2024) and Pittordis, Sutherland and collaborators (2023–2025) measure consistency with Newton, claiming its verdict at up to 19σ. Both cannot be measurements. An estimator-forensics analysis (Boufourou 2026, an unrefereed 2026 preprint, not yet independently replicated) localizes the disagreement experimentally: in synthetic catalogues of known Newtonian truth with 20–30% residual hierarchical triples, a standard median-based estimator (even with a perfect eccentricity correction) recovers γ = 1.08–1.13, manufacturing an excess of 0.08–0.13 — up to a third of the claimed 0.4–0.5 excess — from pure Newton; tail-truncated and mixture-likelihood estimators recover γ ≤ 1.04 on the same synthetic data; and on the real 81,088-pair sample the calibrated estimators read γ = 1.045 [1.025, 1.068] and γ = 1.05 [1.04, 1.07] (mixture fit, triple fraction 0.15), rejecting 1.4 within that analysis at Δln L = 129. A second reanalysis shows the small-sample anomaly is equally structural: freeing the semimajor axis moves the 36-system result from γ ≈ 1.56–1.60 to γ = 1.12 (+0.27/−0.22) (Saad & Ting 2026, preprint). The counterweight is also printed: rigorously vetted individual systems (3 of 12 ESPRESSO-observed pairs admitting no bound Newtonian orbit, Pasquini et al. 2026) are not dissolved by ensemble forensics. Verdict: undecided — and now decidable. The defect in the wide-binary test is not in the stars; it is in the estimators, localized to three named levers (residual triple fraction, eccentricity prior, separation deprojection), and the deciding instruments are named: Gaia DR4, for which a frozen protocol already exists, and per-system radial-velocity orbits. Neither gravity is confirmed. Anyone quoting either camp's sigma as a fact about nature is quoting an estimator's opinion of itself.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Published
2026-11-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23865533
Primary Topic
Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Type
preprint
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
preprint

Same Stars, Two Gravities: The Wide-Binary Test and the Estimators That Divide It

William Alexander Aldred
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
preprint

Same Stars, Two Gravities: The Wide-Binary Test and the Estimators That Divide It

William Alexander Aldred
preprint en

Abstract

At separations beyond a few thousand AU, a binary's internal acceleration falls below the galactic scale a₀ ≈ 1.2×10⁻¹⁰ m/s². Lagrangian modified-dynamics theories (AQUAL/QUMOND), with the Galactic external-field effect charged, predict an effective gravitational boost γ ≡ G_eff/G ≈ 1.35–1.40 there — relative velocities ~18% above Newtonian. Newtonian gravity (with or without dark matter, which is dynamically irrelevant at these densities) predicts γ = 1. On the same Gaia DR3 parent catalogue (El-Badry et al. 2021), Chae (2023–2026) and Hernandez et al. (2023–2024) measure γ ≈ 1.4–1.5 at low acceleration, claiming the anomaly at up to ~5σ and, in a 36-system three-dimensionally vetted sample, γ = 1.60 (+0.17/−0.14); Banik et al. (2024) and Pittordis, Sutherland and collaborators (2023–2025) measure consistency with Newton, claiming its verdict at up to 19σ. Both cannot be measurements. An estimator-forensics analysis (Boufourou 2026, an unrefereed 2026 preprint, not yet independently replicated) localizes the disagreement experimentally: in synthetic catalogues of known Newtonian truth with 20–30% residual hierarchical triples, a standard median-based estimator (even with a perfect eccentricity correction) recovers γ = 1.08–1.13, manufacturing an excess of 0.08–0.13 — up to a third of the claimed 0.4–0.5 excess — from pure Newton; tail-truncated and mixture-likelihood estimators recover γ ≤ 1.04 on the same synthetic data; and on the real 81,088-pair sample the calibrated estimators read γ = 1.045 [1.025, 1.068] and γ = 1.05 [1.04, 1.07] (mixture fit, triple fraction 0.15), rejecting 1.4 within that analysis at Δln L = 129. A second reanalysis shows the small-sample anomaly is equally structural: freeing the semimajor axis moves the 36-system result from γ ≈ 1.56–1.60 to γ = 1.12 (+0.27/−0.22) (Saad & Ting 2026, preprint). The counterweight is also printed: rigorously vetted individual systems (3 of 12 ESPRESSO-observed pairs admitting no bound Newtonian orbit, Pasquini et al. 2026) are not dissolved by ensemble forensics. Verdict: undecided — and now decidable. The defect in the wide-binary test is not in the stars; it is in the estimators, localized to three named levers (residual triple fraction, eccentricity prior, separation deprojection), and the deciding instruments are named: Gaia DR4, for which a frozen protocol already exists, and per-system radial-velocity orbits. Neither gravity is confirmed. Anyone quoting either camp's sigma as a fact about nature is quoting an estimator's opinion of itself.

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon