1

Draft version February 3, 2025

Typeset using LATEX default style in AASTeX631

And if Vulcan was a primordial black hole of planetary-mass?

Souren P. Pogossian1
1 Univ.
Brest, CNRS, IRD, Ifremer, IUEM, Laboratoire d’Océanographie Physique et Spatiale (LOPS),
Technopôle Brest-Iroise, Rue Dumont d’Urville, 29280 Plouzané, Université de Bretagne Occidentale
Brest, France
arXiv:2501.18610v1 [astro-ph.EP] 23 Jan 2025

ABSTRACT
In this work, I re-examine the question of a possible explanation for the anomalous advance of
Mercury’s perihelion by the existence of a hypothetical planet, Vulcan, which I consider to be a kind
of primordial black hole of planetary-mass. The detection of this kind of celestial body has become
possible with modern experimental techniques, inter alia, such as the Optical Gravitational Lensing
Experiment. Recently, an excess of ultra-short microlensing events with crossing times of 0.1 to 0.3
days has been reported, suggesting the possible existence of sub-Earth-mass primordial black holes
in our solar system. The primordial black hole Vulcan planetary mass hypothesis could then explain
the anomalous advance of Mercury’s perihelion under the influence of its gravitational attraction, still
remaining hidden from astronomers’ telescopes. But in this case, it will also influence the perihelion
advance of the other planets. To this end, I first calculate the mutual partial contributions to the
perihelion motion of all the planets by two different methods without Vulcan in a model of simplified
solar system consisting of the Sun and eight planets. Next, I include Vulcan in this model within
the framework of the Newtonian theory of classical gravitation and analyze Vulcan’s influence on
the perihelion advance of the inner planets, using Vulcan parameters from my previous work. These
results are compared with the perihelion advances of the inner planets predicted by the theory of
general relativity, and with the data obtained by modern observations.

Keywords: Asteroid belt — General Relativity— Planets and satellites: individual (Mercury) —
(Stars): planetary systems

1. INTRODUCTION
The orbit of Mercury is of constant interest because it is currently accepted that the anomalous advance of Mercury’s
perihelion can only be explained on the basis of general relativity (Clemence (1947), Rana (1987), Stump (1988),
Morrison & Ward (1975), and Smulsky (2011)). Especially since the advance of Mercury’s perihelion is considered one
of the keystones proving Einstein’s theory of General Relativity (GR).
The anomalous advance of Mercury’s perihelion is small of the order of 43′′ /cy while the biannual fluctuations of
Mercury’s perihelion advance can be as large as 27′′ (Narlikar & Rana (1985), Pogossian (2022)). Given the somewhat
ambiguous calculations of this last quantity, I made a detailed study with three different definitions of the perihelion
advance (PA), but my calculations only confirmed the value of the PA of about 532′′ /cy based on the Newtonian
classical theory of gravitation, instead of the 575′′ /cy observed by very recent and refined measurements of Park et al.
(2021). For a more detailed description and some references see Pogossian (2022).
Nineteenth-century scientists were aware of this discrepancy. In order to account for this inconsistency of the
Newtonian classical theory of gravitation, Le Verrier (1859) proposed in 1859 the existence of another hypothetical
planet inside the orbit of Mercury, which he named Vulcan and whose gravitational influence on Mercury would
explain the observed anomalous PA. Le Verrier had already succeeded in predicting the existence of Neptune on a
purely theoretical basis which successfully explained the perturbations of the orbital motion of Uranus. The Vulcan

1 pogossia@univ-brest.fr
2 Pogossian

hypothesis proposed by Le Verrier poses a fundamental challenge: either the observations confirm the existence of
Vulcan, or one must admit the failure of Newton’s classical theory of gravitation.
A real hunt for the observation of this planet began with the first record of Lescarbault (Baum & Sheehan (1997)),
who in 1859 observed the passage of a black disk on the background of the Sun with sharp contours. After a few years
of inconclusive research by probing the intra-mercurian space by telescopes, astronomers began to be puzzled because
Lescarbault’s observations were not confirmed.
Le Verrier’s initial hypothesis was the existence of a single massive planet between Mercury and the Sun that he
hoped to observe during the transit of Vulcan. But the long absence of observations of a Vulcan transit led him to
look for another possible form of the Vulcan hypothesis, that of an intra-mercurian asteroid belt of fairly large total
mass. This is probably the reason why many astronomers have long looked for a belt of vulcanoids rather than a single
massive planet.
Let compare the orders of magnitude of the population linear density of the main asteroid belt between Jupiter and
Mars to the hypothetical vulcanoid belt. The main asteroid belt is only about 1/137.5 of the mass of the Mercury
(Pitjeva & Pitjev (2018)) with a mean distance from sun of about ∼ 2.66 AU. If one admits that the total mass of
Vulcan is distributed over numerous asteroids, the following considerations can be made on the basis of my previous
work concerning this hypothetical planet (Pogossian (2023)). According to the latter reference, the smallest optimized
mass for Vulcan giving an experimentally sound value of APM was calculated to be 1.6 masses of Mercury and therefore
220 times larger the total masse of main asteroid belt. Moreover, taking into account the average circumference of
the main asteroid belt (∼2.66 AU) and that of the hypothetical vulcanoid belt (∼0.2 AU), it can be concluded that
the mass-to-circumference ratio of the vulcanoid belt region should be at least 2926 times greater than that of the
main asteroid belt. The presence of bodies of such high linear density would certainly not have escaped observations
for so long. Thus, the existence of a large number of intra-mercurian asteroids is made virtually impossible by all
observations made so far (Durda et al. (2000), Stern & Durda (2000), Steffl et al. (2013), and Zhao et al. (2009)).
In an earlier work, based on numerous observations in the vulcanoid region and on the impossibility of observing
Vulcan either as a single planet or as a vulcanoid belt, I showed the invalidity of the Vulcan hypothesis to explain the
anomalous advance of Mercury’s perihelion (Pogossian (2023)).
Yet the Vulcan hypothesis may still have a chance. Recent theoretical developments point to another possibility for
the existence of planetary mass in intra-mercurial space in the form of very dense matter, which could be a Primordial
Black Hole (PBH).
What if the hypothetical planet Vulcan were not a typical planet or a vulcanoid belt, but a PBH instead? With a
mass 1.6 times that of Mercury, Vulcan’s Schwarzschild radius would be about 0.7 mm; at 3.4 times Mercury’s mass,
it would be around 1.7 mm.
As shown in the following references [Carr et al. (2021), Krasnov & Nikulin (2023), Miller et al. (2021), and Montero-
Camachov et al. (2019)] hypothetical PBHs are thought to have been born at the time of the Big Bang, and their
populations are scattered throughout the cosmos. We could also have a number of PBHs in our solar systems in the
form of small planets that are virtually invisible to astronomers [Barco (2021)].
Assessing the probability of a PBH being captured by our solar system is challenging, as it relies on various cosmo-
logical models and the mechanisms through which PBHs can form (Carr et al. (2021)). Eroshenko (2023), based on
the work of Napier et al. (2021), estimated the probability of a PBH being captured by an already formed solar system
to be approximately ∼ 4 × 10−8 f, f is the fraction of the PBHs and dark matter. Additionally, based on the work of
Lingam & Loeb (2018), Eroshenko suggest a higher probability, around ∼ 10−4 − 10−3 , for capturing a planetary-mass
PBH. Scholtz & Unwin (2020) advanced idea that the 9-th hypothetical planet of solar system may be a PBH. Thus,
these recent studies suggest that, while the probability of capture is low, it remains a viable scenario within our solar
system, warranting further investigation.
For the detection of such objects different observational methods were proposed very recently. Miller et al. (2021)
suggested detecting planetary-mass PBHs by gravitational waves while Herman et al. (2021) with resonant electro-
magnetic cavities based on TE, TM waveguides under strong magnetic fields. Niikura et al. (2019) claim microlensing
events that give hint of PBHs existence. Domènech & Pi (2022) have shown that stochastic background of gravi-
tational waves detected by American Nanohertz Observatory for Gravitational Waves, naturally predicts substantial
existence of planet-mass PBHs. Arbey & Auffinger (2020) suggest that a fly-by spacecraft might even measure the
Hawking radiation of the PBH in the radio band. Looking further to the future, gravitational-wave observatories in
 And if Vulcan was a primordial black hole of planetary-mass ? 3

space might detect the dynamical effects of PBHs. With such an impressive variety of modern experimental methods
at our disposal, we can remain optimistic that Vulcan could be detected if it were a PBH.
Throughout this article, I’ll consider Vulcan to be a kind of planetary mass PBH whose very small size makes it
invisible to observations with optical instruments. Note that in this hypothesis, the density considerations play only
a minor role since it is enough to admit the density of Vulcan is so high that it’s geometrical small size makes Vulcan
unobservable by conventional observation methods.
Thus this planetary mass PBH Vulcan hypothesis may explain the anomalous advance of Mercuries perihelion,
remaining hidden from the telescopes of astronomers. But if such a Vulcan exists, its influence on other planets,
especially on closest to it (Venus, Earth and Mars), would be detectable.
In this work, I calculate the orbital perturbations of Venus, Earth and Mars in the presence of a Vulcan of sufficiently
large mass to induce a PA of 43′′ /cy on Mercury’s orbit. In particular, I calculate the PA of Venus, Earth and Mars
with-and-without Vulcan, in the frame of classical Newtonian gravitational theory. Two sets of parameters for Vulcan
will be considered, the first having the orbital parameters reported by Le Verrier but with appropriate mass (∼ 3.37612
Mercury mass) to assure an anomalous advance for Mercury of about 43′′ /cy and the second set including optimized
parameters calculated in my previous work on Vulcan (with a Vulcan of about 1.6 Mercury mass) (Pogossian (2023)).
Like models based on general relativity (GR), the Vulcan hypothesis offers a possible explanation for the anomalous
perihelion advances of planets that cannot be fully explained by classical Newtonian gravitation without including Vul-
can. The independent prediction of anomalous perihelion advance by the Vulcan approach and GR-based calculations
underlines the importance of the Vulcan model.
This study therefore examines the relevance of the Vulcan hypothesis. It also analyzes the influence of each planet
on the perihelion motion of the inner planets, uncovering key features that deepen our understanding of planetary
dynamics.

2. CALCULATIONS
The calculation method has been described in detail in my previous publications (Pogossian (2022), Pogossian
(2023)). In these calculations, I used initial conditions in the framework of classical Newtonian gravitation (Le Guyader
(1993), Arminjon (2004), Standish (1990)), without taking into account perturbations predicted by GR. This model
takes into account only 8 planets (and 9 planets when Vulcan is included) in translation around the sun. The Newtonian
gravitational equations for a 9-body problem (10-body problem when Vulcan is included) were integrated over a time
interval of 333473 days (∼913 years), with a time step of around 60 minutes. Jupiter and Saturn are the most massive
planets and the closest to the inner planets, and are therefore the main source of perturbations to their quasi-elliptical
orbits. The orbits of these massive planets are locked by a mean motion resonance of 2:5, and about every 900 years the
direction of alignment of these giant planets returns at almost exactly its original direction (Wilson (1985), Pogossian
(2023)). I have therefore chosen a time interval close to the period of ”great inequality” to take into account all the
possible relative positions of these giant planets with respect to the orbit of each of the inner planets. As described in
detail in my previous works, the 9-body solar system (10-body problem when the Sun and Vulcan are included) has
been integrated on the basis of purely Newtonian initial conditions taken from DE200/LE200 ephemerides, subtracting
corrections based on GR (Le Guyader (1993), Arminjon (2004)).
The calculation performed by the MATLAB ODE113 solver has been described in detail in my previous works
(Pogossian (2022), Pogossian (2023)). For simplicity I will use only the Laplace Runge Lentz (LRL) vecteur rotation
as a measure of the PA of inner planets. In a previous work (Pogossian (2022)) I have shown that among three
possible definitions of the PA, the description of Mercury’s PA by the rotation of the LRL vector with respect to a
fixed reference direction has the smallest fluctuations. In order to increase the precision of calculations I have taken
for the reference direction of each planet a direction close to the initial direction of the LRL vector. This is why
the calculated average PA per century of each planet is slightly different from that obtained by in precedent works
(Pogossian (2022), Pogossian (2023)). In order to increase the time interval where the average of PA is calculated I
have used the entire time interval of 913 years.
To better understand Vulcan’s influence on the orbits of inner planets, it is first necessary to analyze the partial
perturbation induced by each planet in the solar system on the PA of each inner planet, since the PA of a single
planet is sometimes subject to opposing contributions from other planets. So, before analyzing the influence of the
hypothetical planet Vulcan on the inner planets, it’s very useful and instructive to establish a table of the individual
influence of each planet of our solar system on the inner planets.
4 Pogossian

So, in the preliminary calculations, I use a non-relativistic model of the solar system with eight planets and the Sun
(9-body problem) and calculate a table of the individual contributions of the solar system planets to the PA of the
inner planets.
Then I will add Vulcan to the used non-relativistic model of the solar system, and focus on Vulcan’s influence on
the PA of the inner planets. I will use two sets of parameters for orbital elements of Vulcan reported in a previous
work (Pogossian (2023)).
In the first set of parameters, that I call Le Verrier’s set, I used the values of orbital elements for Vulcan reported
by Le Verrier : a = 0.1427 AU, e = 0, i = 12◦ 10′ and Ω = 12◦ 59′ . For circular orbits argument of periapsis ω is not
needed, and the true anomaly ν of the Vulcan has been chosen arbitrarily equal to 45◦ . Here a is the semi-major axis,
e is the eccentricity, i is the angle of inclination of the planet’s orbital plane to the ecliptic and Ω is the longitude of
the ascending node. As for Vulcan’s mass, I have assigned it a mass equal to around 3.4 times that of Mercury, in
order to induce an additional PA of Mercury about 43′′ /cy in accordance with observation-based data.
The second set of parameters, which I call the optimized set, was calculated taking into account the limitations
imposed by observational data and based on the principle of the most important influence of Vulcan on Mercury’s
orbit as described in Pogossian (2023) : a =0.18 AU, e=0.001, i = 7.0138675◦ , Ω = 48.1238724◦ , ω = 25.8162010◦ and
ν = 45◦ . Using this optimized set of parameters, the mass of Vulcan was set to about 1.6 times the mass of Mercury
in order to induce an additional PA of Mercury about 43′′ /cy as described in Pogossian (2023).

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The PA of inner planets of solar system including Mercury are on average linear in time over a time interval of several
tens of thousands of years. The PA of Mercury has a highly oscillatory character of variable amplitude, and it is only
it’s average over a large time interval relative to it’s period of revolution that evolves linearly, as shown by (Narlikar
& Rana (1985), Pogossian (2022)). Random oscillations can reach amplitudes of magnitude even greater than the
mean evolution. It is precisely this large-amplitude oscillatory character of the PA of inner planets which explains why
their average value over 100 years is considered representative of their linear evolution. As for Mercury, this 100-year
interval is long enough to allow Mercury to make 415 revolutions around the Sun, enabling us to calculate this average
linear trend with acceptable precision, and small enough for this linear trend to emerge distinctly. As I demonstrated
in a previous work (Pogossian (2022)) the PA of Mercury can be defined in three different and distinct methods: as
the rotation of the line joining the sun and the orbital position closest to the sun (extended PA), the rotation of the
apsis line of the mean elliptical trajectory (geometric PA) and finally the rotation of the Laplace-Rungé-Lentz vector
(PA defined by LRL). As shown in the latter work the PA defined by LRL vector translates this time evolution with
smallest oscillations amplitude around the mean evolution.
In the present work, the average PA of four inner planets over a time interval of around 913 years, measured by
the rotation of the LRL vector, has been studied, taking into account the partial contribution of each planet of solar
system. Nevertheless, it should be emphasized that in order to ensure an acceptable standard deviation for the mean
linear PA of Mercury, time intervals of several hundred years will have to be considered (Pogossian (2022)).
An average linear trend is observed for inner planets but not for outer planets. As an example, the behavior of
Jupiter’s perihelion is highly non-linear due to the mean motion orbital resonance 2:5 of Jupiter and Saturn, the
”great inequality”, and therefore the description of the perihelion advance of Jupiter by a linear trend is not relevant
(Montenbruck (1989)).
Fig. 1 shows the highly non-linear behavior of the LRL vectors of Jupiter and Saturn, which are locked in an mean
motion orbital resonance 2:5, and demonstrates that the average PA per century is inappropriate for describing the
non-linear PA behavior of these two giant gaseous planets. The PAs of Uranus and Neptune under the influence of
Saturn and Jupiter don’t lend themselves to a linear function description either.
First, I’ll calculate the distinct contribution of each planet in the solar system to the PA of Mercury, Venus, Earth
and Mars, within the framework of Newton’s classical theory of gravitation, calculated with Le Guyader’s initial state
vectors (Le Guyader (1993)) and without taking into account the hypothetical planet Vulcan.
Unlike the non-linear behavior of the PA of Jupiter and Saturn illustrated in On Fig. 1, the mean PA of Venus,
Earth and Mars can be described by a linear function over a time interval of the order of 900 years, which is the time
interval chosen for our work, as shown on Figs. 2a, 2b and 2c, respectively.
 And if Vulcan was a primordial black hole of planetary-mass ? 5

Figure 1. In Fig. 1a, the evolution of Jupiter’s PA over a time interval of 900 years is shown in angular seconds. The y-axis is
off-set. A strong non-linear behavior is observed. Fig. 1b shows the evolution of Saturn’s PA under the same conditions

The evolution of the PA of Earth and Mars is less fluctuating over time than that of Venus, whose PA can undergo
variations of up to 2500′′ in 10 years, whereas its average PA per century is only of the order of 34′′ , as Figs. 2a, 2b
and 2c clearly show.

Figure 2. In Fig. 2a, the mean linear trend of evolution of Venus’s PA over a time interval of 900 years is shown in angular
seconds. The y-axis is off-set. Figs. 2b and 2c show respectively the evolution of PA of Earth and Mars under the same
conditions.

Thus, the lowest accuracy in determining the PA of four inner planets is that of Venus. The large-amplitude
oscillations in the PA of Venus are mainly due to the opposing contributions of the Earth and Jupiter. To better
6 Pogossian

understand this particular behavior of the PA of Venus, the partial contributions of Earth and Jupiter to the PA of
Venus will be studied separately.
The partial contribution of each solar system planet to the PA of Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars has not been
dealt with in depth in the past, and there are currently only a few works that address it (Clemence (1947), Amelkin
(2019), Biswas & Mani (2008)). Although the method for evaluating these partial contributions is not presented in
detail in the Clemence’s paper (Clemence (1947)), it is still the only comprehensive paper to provide numerical values
for Mercury’s and Earth’s PAs under the perturbing influences of other planets of solar system. In this respect, it’s
particularly important to understand the partial influence of each planet on the PA of the other planets in the solar
system, as the PA of one planet can sometimes be subject to opposing contributions from other planets. In order to
quantitatively account for the role and influence of each planet on the PA of the other planets, I analyze the orbital
perturbation experienced by each planet of the solar system due to gravitational interaction with the other planets,
by means of the rotation of the LRL vector, and by using two different methods.
The first method is straightforward. In the two-body problem, the perihelion of each planet remains fixed in space
relative to the distant stars. A third body causes an orbital perturbation that result, inter alia, in the advance of the
perihelion. First, I consider the motion of a single planet around the Sun, and then a second perturbing planet is
introduced with Le Guyader’s orbital parameters. This method is therefore a study of the three-body problem within
the framework of the Newtonian theory of classical gravitation, focusing on the evolution of the PA of each inner
planet subjected to the gravitational perturbation of one of the other planets in the solar system.
To understand the unusual behavior of the Venus’s PA, I performed the following calculations using the first method.
I calculated the average PA of Venus separately in the presence of Earth alone, Jupiter alone, then jointly with Earth
and Jupiter respectively in Figs. 3a, 3b and 3c.

Figure 3. In Fig. 3a, the linear trend of Venus’ PA under the influence of the Earth over a 900-year time interval is shown in
angular seconds. The y-axis is off-set. Fig. 3b shows the evolution of the PA of Venus in the presence of Jupiter alone under
the same conditions. Fig. 3c shows the behavior of the PA of Venus under the joint influence of the Earth and Jupiter.

The average PA per century of Venus under the influence of Jupiter alone is about 661′′ , showing regular oscillations
of 350′′ per 10 years around this linear trend. The average PA per century of Venus under the influence of Earth
alone is around 611′′ , but in the opposite direction, with fairly regular oscillations of 750′′ per 4 years. The average
PA per century of Venus under the joint influence of Earth and Jupiter is only 42′′ per century, with more irregular
oscillations of 1200′′ per 4 years.
 And if Vulcan was a primordial black hole of planetary-mass ? 7

In the second method, I remove the disturbing planet from the list of planets in the N=9 body problem (or N=10
with Vulcan) and then study the influence of its absence on the PA of one of the inner planets. In this case, the original
N=9-body problem (N=10 with Vulcan) is reduced to the N-1 body problem. In these calculations, the removal of one
of the planets from the model is carried out by reducing its mass to 1 kg (negligible) while keeping the same initial
orbital elements of all bodies. The difference between the PA of Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, calculated in the
absence and presence of one of the planets in the solar system, can only be attributed, to a first approximation, to the
perturbation of the removed planet.
Nevertheless, it is important to be aware of additional factors in this second method that contribute to the observed
differences. For example, the presence or absence of Jupiter can significantly alter the orbits of neighboring planets,
which in turn affects their individual gravitational contributions to the PA of any of the inner planets.
Using the second method, I have calculated in Fig. 4a the influence of the Earth on the PA of Venus, comparing the
PA of Venus in the 9-body problem (all planets included) with the PA of Venus calculated without the Earth (8-body
problem). In Fig. 4b, the influence of Jupiter on the PA of Venus is calculated in the same way.

Figure 4. The particularity of calculating the PA of Venus using the second method lies in the fact that, in the presence of all
the other planets, we first make the Earth disappear in Fig. 4a, then reintegrate the Earth by making Jupiter disappear in Fig.
4b. In both cases, the PA of Venus is characterized by a pronounced linear trend, but in two different directions.

These results show that the behavior of Venus’ PA over time under the influence of Earth alone and Jupiter alone
is similar to the behavior calculated by the first method, with a slight difference in value (659′′ /cy for Jupiter and
−634′′ /cy for Earth). The small difference in the Earth’s behavior, calculated by the first and second methods may be
explained by the fact that, in the second method, Jupiter modifies the Earth’s orbit, so that the two calculations are
not exactly identical, although they do reproduce the time dependence of the PA of Venus with satisfactory accuracy.
In Table 1 and Table 2, the partial contributions of each planet in the solar system to the PA of the inner planets,
calculated using the first and second methods, are presented.
The partial contribution of each planet to the PA of Mercury and the Earth are in very good agreement with the
values presented by Clemence (1947). The small discrepancies between the Clemence’ reported values and my work
may be attributed to differences in the initial values of orbital parameters and the non-relativistic model used by me.

As shown in Table 1, Mercury’s PA is equal to 531.96′′ cy in the N=9 body problem without Vulcan. The main
contributions to the PA of Mercury are due to gravitational interactions with Venus (277.23′′ /cy) , Jupiter (153.78′′ /cy)
8 Pogossian

Table 1. In this table the PA (in angular seconds per century: ′′ /cy) of inner planets, forming each two body system with the
sun, caused by a third perturbing planet added to a classical two body is given calculated by the first method. All PAs in this
table are given in ′′ /cy. I used Le Guyader’s orbital parameters (Le Guyader (1993))

Planet Summary Mercury Venus Earth Mars Jupiter Saturn Uranus Neptune
influ-
ence
Mercury 531.96 X 277.23 90.83 2.48 153.78 7.22 0.14 0.04
Venus -35.60 -152.98 X -610.96 75.29 660.64 8.22 0.27 0.11
Earth 1157.05 -13.75 349.08 X 97.47 695.21 18.69 0.56 0.18
Mars 1591.69 0.77 49.41 228.06 X 1248.16 65.57 1.19 0.34

and Earth (90.83′′ /cy), in agreement with the values presented by Clemence (1947). In the case of the PA of Venus,
the most significant contributions come from the perturbations caused by Venus’ gravitational interaction with Jupiter
(661′′ /cy), with Earth (−611′′ /cy), with Mercury (−153′′ /cy) and with Mars (75′′ /cy). Clearly, the greatest influence
comes from the interaction of Venus with Earth and Jupiter, which contribute in opposite directions, considerably
reducing the average PA per century. Also noteworthy are the contributions of Mercury and Mars in opposite directions.
The PA of Venus amounts to 41.81′′ /cy under the simultaneous influence of Earth and Jupiter (4-body problem), which
is at least fifteen times less than the influence of each planet separately. This is also the reason why Venus’ PA is
subject to very strong oscillations, which considerably reduce the accuracy of the PA determination for this planet.
The largest contributions to the Earth’s PA come from the gravitational interaction with Jupiter (695′′ /cy), Venus
(349′′ /cy) and Mars (98′′ /cy). These interactions contribute to the evolution in the same direction, which accounts
for the high overall value (1157′′ /cy) of the Earth’s PA, in agreement with the data reported by Clemence (1947).
In Table 2, the PA of Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars calculated by the second method are in agreement with those
calculated by the first method (Table 1). To evaluate the PA induced by a planet, Saturn for example, on the inner
planets, using the second method, the value of Saturn’s mass is first reduced to 1 kg, while maintaining the same initial
conditions in the simulator. The difference obtained in the PA of the inner planets, by comparing this calculation with
another using Saturn’s real mass, gives the partial contribution of Saturn.
With the first method the influence of Saturn on the PA of Mercury, of Venus, of Earth or of Mars are respectively
7.2′′ /cy, 8.2′′ /cy, 18.7′′ /cy and 65.6′′ /cy. Whereas with the second method, this influence amounts to 7.4′′ /cy, 12.7′′ /cy,
23.0′′ /cy and 64.8′′ /cy.
As mentioned, the differences in the PA of the inner planets calculated by these two methods are due to the presence
of Jupiter (and all other planets) in the second method, which strongly perturbs the orbits of all the planets as a
function of their distance from Jupiter.
For various applications, the PA of inner planets with very low orbital inclinations is measured within the orbital
plane relative to the direction of the equinox ϖ̇ = ω̇ + cos (i) Ω̇ (Will (2018)). The dot on the physical quantities
signifies the derivative with respect to time. The initial values of these quantities can be estimated from the DE200
ephemeris (Standish (1990)). Unfortunately, I can’t compare the perihelion advance rate measured via ϖ̇ with my
own calculations, as PA has been defined differently in my work.
Our calculations of the partial contribution of each planet in solar system to the PA of each inner planet, using
proposed two different methods, are in good agreement with those provided by Clemence (1947). It is noteworthy
also that the PA of the Earth and Mars show an average linear trend over the 900-year calculation time interval. It
is also worth mentioning other results on the partial contributions of solar system planets on the PA of inner planets
(in Loskutov (2011) one can find the PA of Mercury and Earth, in Amelkin (2019) one can find the PA of Mercury),
which give values consistent with those reported by Clemence (1947) for the PA of Mercury and Earth.
From now on, I extend the solar system model to include the hypothetical planet Vulcan, thus solving the problem
of N=10 bodies. The calculations in the presence of Vulcan are carried out for the two sets of orbital parameter values
for the latter planet, the Le Verrier set and the optimized set of Pogossian (2023) computed by the second method
only , i.e., calculating the PA of one of the inner planets in the presence and absence of Vulcan, and then evaluating
 And if Vulcan was a primordial black hole of planetary-mass ? 9

Table 2. In this table, the PA (in angular seconds per century: ′′ /cy) of inner planets is calculated in the absence of one of
the solar system’s perturbing planets (the absence is obtained by reducing the perturbing planet’s size to 1 kg). The partial
contribution of the perturbing planet is calculated (in brackets in the table) as the difference between the PA of one of the inner
planets in the presence of all the planets and the PA of the same planet in the absence of one of the perturbing planets. All PAs
in this table are given in ′′ /cy. In the calculations I used the initial orbital elements of planets proposed by Le Guyader (1993).

Planet Summary Without Without Without Without Without Without Without Without
influ- Mercury Venus Earth Mars Jupiter Saturn Uranus Nep-
ence tune
Mercury 531.96 X 254.69 441.12 529.47 378.01 524.86 531.86 531.92
(277.27) (90.84) (2.49) (153.95) (7.44) (0.10) (0.04)
Venus -35.60 133.40 X 598.78 -114.53 -694.87 -48.34 -35.78 -35.70
(-169.00) (-634.38) (78.93) (659.27) (12.74) (0.18) (0.10)
Earth 1157.05 1170.50 803.17 X 1058.39 452.90 1134.06 1156.61 1156.89
(-13.45) (353.88) (98.66) (704.15) (22.99) (0.44) (0.16)
Mars 1591.69 1590.97 1542.44 1364.50 X 345.34 1526.85 1590.50 1591.35
(0.72) (49.25) (227.19) (1246.35) (64.86) (1.19) (0.34)

Table 3. In this table, the partial contribution of Vulcan on the PA (in angular seconds per century) of inner planets is
calculated by the second method, i.e., by calculating the difference of PA of inner planets in in the presence and in the absence
of Vulcan. For the calculations, I used the initial orbital elements of the planets proposed by Le Guyader (1993) and as for the
orbital elements of Vulcan, Le Verrier’s set was used. In columns 5, 6, and 7 are reported the calculated GR values for PA of
the inner planets reported by Pitjeva (2009), by Clemence (1947) and by Duncombe (1956) respectively. All PAs in this table
are given in ′′ /cy.
Influence of Influence of Influence Pitjeva Clemence Duncombe
Planet all planets all planets of Vulcan (2009) (1947) (1956)
and Vulcan
Mercury 531.96 575.31 43.35 42.98 43.50 43.03
Venus -35.60 -32.03 3.57 8.62 8.62 8.6
Earth 1157.05 1158.22 1.17 3.84 3.87 3.8
Mars 1591.69 1591.97 0.27 1.35 1.36 X

Vulcan’s partial contribution by the difference between these two PA. This is relevant, all the more so as the values
obtained for the PA of inner planets by the two methods show no significant differences.
The results of Vulcan’s partial contribution to the PA for these planets is compared with the relativistic corrections
provided by Pitjeva (2009). According to Pitjeva (2009) the GR suggests the following PA values for inner planets:
42.98′′ /cy for Mercury, 8.62′′ /cy for Venus, 3.84′′ /cy for Earth, and 1.35′′ /cy for Mars. Other authors reported
PA values of inner planets due to relativistic effects (Biswas & Mani (2008), Capistrano & Gutiérrez-Piñeres (2016),
Wilhelm & Dwivedi (2014), Clemence (1947), Duncombe (1956)) that are not significantly different from those reported
by Pitjeva (2009).
Let’s first consider the case of Venus. Note that Venus’ trajectory is very close to a circular orbit. For exactly
circular orbits, the LRL vector and the perihelion are not defined. Furthermore, as underlined earlier in this work,
the PA of Venus is the weakest compared to those of Mercury, Earth and Mars, with large oscillations of varying
amplitude mainly due to the opposing contributions of Earth and Jupiter. More generally, the ambiguity of the notion
of perihelion for the open trajectories of the planets of the solar system has been analyzed in one of my previous works
[Pogossian (2022)]. Therefore, the any comparison between the results for the PA of Venus obtained by theoretical
calculations based on the GR, the Vulcan hypothesis and observational results are irrelevant.
As can be seen in Table 3, I obtain a PA due to the influence of Vulcan of 43.35′′ /cy on Mercury, 3.57′′ /cy on Venus,
1.17′′ /cy on Earth and 0.27′′ /cy on Mars for Le Verrier’ set of parameters for Vulcain. These results differ by at least
a factor of 2 from those for Venus, Earth and Mars obtained by GR (Pitjeva (2009)).
10 Pogossian

Table 4. In this table, the partial contribution of Vulcan on the PA (in angular seconds per century) of inner planets is
calculated by the second method, i.e. , by calculating the difference of PA of inner planets in in the presence and in the absence
of Vulcan. All PAs in this table are given in ′′ /cy. In the calculations I used the initial orbital elements of planets proposed by
Le Guyader (1993). In this table for orbital elements of Vulcan the optimized set was used.

Influence Influence of Influence of

Planet of all plan- all planets Vulcan
ets and Vulcan
Mercury 531.96 575.31 43.35
Venus -35.60 -32.86 2.75
Earth 1157.05 1157.95 0.88
Mars 1591.69 1591.89 0.20

The PA induced by Vulcan calculated using the optimized set of Vulcan’s orbital elements is even more divergent
from the corresponding values obtained by GR, presented in Table 4. These results differ by more than factor of 2
from those for Venus, Earth and Mars obtained by GR (Pitjeva (2009)).
Thus the comparison of reported observation values, the values obtained from GR correction to PA of inner planets,
estimated by different authors, points to a difference of at least a factor of 2 with the correction provided by the Vulcan
hypothesis for 2 sets of orbital elements capable of ensuring a value of 43′′ /cy for Mercury’s PA.
To understand these results in more detail, let’s take a careful examination of how the anomalous PA of the inner
planets are determined from observations.
In the most recent ephemerides (Park et al. (2017), Park et al. (2021), Newhall et al. (1983), Standish (1990)) a large
number of astrometric position measurements of various types, including optical data, high-precision radar ranging,
spacecraft ranging and lunar laser ranging, are used to determine over several hundred parameters of planets, asteroids,
the Sun’s standard gravitational parameter, astronomical unit, etc., from a least-squares fit using a parametrized post
Newtonian N body metric for the solar system. The uncertainties of the determination of these parameters decrease
with increasing the time interval of observations.
These data are then used to extract anomalous PA using models based mainly on GR. Published data provide little
information on the definition of perihelion, and even less on the time interval used to determine the mean linear trend
required in the PA calculations. As shown in one of my previous works (Pogossian (2022)), the linear trend, which
gives the average value of PA of the inner planets, can only be obtained with acceptable accuracy over a long time
interval of at least several hundred years due to large-amplitude oscillations of the average PA value for three different
definitions of Mercury’s perihelion. One of the three PA definitions based on the use of the Laplace-Runge-Lentz
rotation gives the lowest sensitivity with respect to the averaging time interval, which however requires at least several
hundred years to ensure acceptable accuracy.
Thus, the value of PA considered as observational, based on a database of only a few decades without giving the
exact definition of perihelion, the model used to extract its value, and the averaging time interval to determine the
linear trend cannot serve as a reference for comparison my calculated values.
As for the comparison of theoretical quantities between different models, they must have identical definitions, oth-
erwise their comparison remains either very vague or impossible.
With the interrogations I’ve expressed about what is considered the observational value of PA, my results allow me
to conclude that Vulcan’s PBH hypothesis as a possible explanation for Mercury’s AP anomaly does not give the same
PA values for Venus, Earth and Mars, as those attributed to GR. The difference between the values I have reported
and those attributed to GR may be due to the fact that the Vulcan hypothesis is not relevant.
This difference may also be due to the fact that the PA calculated in GR and by rotation of the LRL vector used in
this work are not defined in the same way.
Finally, it should be noted that the inclusion of Vulcan also affects other orbital characteristics. To illustrate this,
let’s examine how the aphelion distances of the inner planets from the Sun are influenced by Vulcan during their 101st
revolution, using two different solar system models. One 10-body solar system model includes Vulcan, while the other,
with 9 bodies, omits it. The difference between these distances is scaled down to Mercury’s radius, to better reflect
the extent to which this difference can be detected in astronomical measurements.
 And if Vulcan was a primordial black hole of planetary-mass ? 11

Table 5. This table shows the differences in distance to aphelion for each planet during the 101-th revolution, with and without
Vulcan. These values are given at Mercury’s radius scale and are specified for two sets of parameters : the optimized set and
Le Verrier’s parameters.

Differences are Difference for Difference for Difference for Difference for
scaled with Mercury Venus Earth Mars
1.6325 × 10−5 AU
Optimized set 0.1615 0.6039 -1.1073 1.4515
Le Verrier’s set 0.2149 0.5910 -1.0135 1.6209

Hundred orbital revolutions of Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars correspond to time intervals of about 24, 61.5, 100
and 188 years, respectively. In particular, the 188-year interval for the 100 revolutions of Mars is particularly well
suited to observing cumulative deviations over longer time scales. This may partly explain the increased differences
observed between models with and without Vulcan for planets with higher periods of revolution. It is important to
observe that Table 5 reveals significant differences, including a negative value specifically for Earth, that are readily
detectable using current observational methods.
In conclusion, my work does not definitively rule out the Vulcan hypothesis as a possible explanation for the
anomalous displacement of Mercury’s perihelion, but it would require to be confirmed or invalidated by long-term
observations.

4. CONCLUSION
The PBH Vulcan hypothesis could explain the anomalous advance of Mercury’s perihelion caused by its gravitational
attraction, which has remained hidden from astronomers. In this case, its gravitational interaction with the other inner
planets (Venus, Earth and Mars) will lead to an additional advance in the perihelion of the latter.
I carry out a careful analysis of the partial PA of each inner planet under the influence of gravitation pull of other
planets of solar system, including Vulcan, within the framework of the Newtonian theory of classical gravitation. To
this goal, two different methods are proposed, the first based on the three-body problem and the second by cancelling
out the mass of the influencing planet in N (N=9,10) body calculations.
One of the noteworthy results of this analysis is that it revealed the low accuracy of the determination of Venus’
perihelion advance. The large-amplitude chaotic oscillations in Venus’ perihelion advance are mainly due to the
opposing contributions of the Earth and Jupiter. So, the comparison between the calculations based on GR, the
results obtained using the Vulcan hypothesis and the observational data is irrelevant for Venus.
Due to the highly non-linear PA behavior of the outer planets over a 900-year period, my study has been limited
to the inner planets. When including Vulcan into calculations two different set of values were used for its orbital
parameters defined in a previous work on Vulcan (Pogossian (2023)).
The reliability of my calculations using two different methods was confirmed by comparing the partial contribution
of each planet to the PA of Mercury and the Earth with the values presented by Clemence (1947). My obtained
values for PA of Venus, Earth and Mars due to their interaction with Vulcan for the Le Verrier’s set of Vulcan orbital
parameters differ by at least a factor of 2 from those obtained by GR according to Pitjeva (2009). Those obtained for
the optimized set of Vulcan orbital parameters show an even greater difference with GR data.
For comparisons between different models and with observational data, it’s important to clearly define the perihelion
for the real orbits of the inner planets.
Can we conclude from this that the Vulcan hypothesis can now be dismissed as a reliable explanation for the
anomalous PA of Mercury ?
The present work does not definitively rule out the Vulcan hypothesis as a possible explanation for the anomalous
advance of Mercury’s perihelion, but it would need to be confirmed or invalidated by long-term observations. To do
this, the data used to determine the mean PA of inner planets from observations must be collected over at least several
hundred years, due to the large-amplitude oscillations in the mean PA value of the inner planets. In addition, the
theoretical model used for the observational data reduction should be carefully selected.
12 Pogossian

The author wishes to express his sincere gratitude to X. Carton, A. Colin de Verdière, G. Roullet and A. Pogosyan
for their valuable discussions. Their contributions and expertise have helped refine some of the ideas presented in this
article.
 And if Vulcan was a primordial black hole of planetary-mass ? 13

REFERENCES
Amelkin, N. I. 2019, Mechanics of Solids, 54, 1131 Napier, K. J., Adams, F. C., & Batygin, K. 2021, The
Arbey, A., & Auffinger, J. 2020, arXiv preprint Planetary Science Journal, 2:53, 12
arXiv:2006.02944 Narlikar, J. V., & Rana, N. C. 1985, Monthly Notices of the
Arminjon, M. 2004, Meccanica, 39, 17 Royal Astronomical Society, 213, 657
Barco, O. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Newhall, X. X., Standish, E. M., & Williams, J. G. 1983,
Society, 506, 806 Astronomy and Astrophysics, 125, 150
Baum, R., & Sheehan, W. 1997, In search of planet Vulcan:
Niikura, H., Takada, M., Yokoyama, S., Sumi, T., &
the ghost in Newton’s clockwork universe (New York:
Masaki, S. 2019, Physical Review D, 99, 083503
Plenum Press)
Park, R. S., Folkner, W. M., Konopliv, A. S., et al. 2017,
Biswas, A., & Mani, K. 2008, Open Physics, 6
The Astronomical Journal, 153, 121
Capistrano, A. J. S., & Gutiérrez-Piñeres, A. C. 2016,
Advances in Astronomy, 2016, 1 Park, R. S., Folkner, W. M., Williams, J. G., & Boggs,
Carr, B., Kohri, K., Sendouda, Y., & Yokoyama, J. 2021, D. H. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 161, 105
Reports on Progress in Physics, 84, 116902 Pitjeva, E. V. 2009, in IAU Symposium #261, American
Clemence, G. M. 1947, Reviews of Modern Physics, 19, 361 Astronomical Society, Vol. 41, 881
Domènech, G., & Pi, S. 2022, Science China Physics, Pitjeva, E. V., & Pitjev, N. P. 2018, Astronomy Letters, 44,
Mechanics and Astronomy, 65, 230411 554
Duncombe, R. L. 1956, The Astronomical Journal, 61, 174 Pogossian, S. P. 2022, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical
Durda, D. D., Stern, S. A., Colwell, W. B., et al. 2000, Astronomy, 134, 33
Icarus, 148, 312 —. 2023, Astrophysics and Space Science, 368, 52
Eroshenko, Y. N. 2023, New Astronomy, 103, 10257 Rana, N. C. 1987, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 181, 195
Herman, N., Fűzfa, A., Lehoucq, L., & Clesse, S. 2021, Scholtz, J., & Unwin, J. 2020, Physical Review Letters, 125,
Physical Review D, 104, 023524
051103
Krasnov, M. A., & Nikulin, V. V. 2023, Particles, 6, 580
Smulsky, J. J. 2011, Natural Science, 3, 268
Le Guyader, C. 1993, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 272,
Standish, E. M. 1990, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 233,
687
252
Le Verrier, U. J. 1859, Annales de l’Observatoire de Paris,
5, 1 Steffl, A. J., Cunningham, N. J., Shinn, A. B., Durda,
Lingam, M., & Loeb, A. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, D. D., & Stern, S. A. 2013, Icarus, 223, 48
156:193, 8 Stern, S. A., & Durda, D. D. 2000, Icarus, 143, 360
Loskutov, Y. M. 2011, Moscow University Physics Bulletin, Stump, D. R. 1988, American Journal of Physics, 56, 1097
66, 129 Wilhelm, K., & Dwivedi, B. N. 2014, New Astronomy, 31,
Miller, A. L., Clesse, S., De Lillo, F., et al. 2021, Physics of 51
the Dark Universe, 32, 100836 Will, C. M. 2018, Theory and experiment in gravitational
Montenbruck, O. 1989, Practical ephemeris calculations physics, 2nd edn. (Cambridge University Press)
(Springer) Wilson, C. 1985, Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 33,
Montero-Camachov, P., Fang, X., Vasquez, G., Silva, M., & 15
Hirata, C. 2019, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Zhao, H., Lu, H., Zhaori, G., Yao, J., & Ma, Y. 2009,
Physics, 2019, 031
Science in China Series G: Physics, Mechanics and
Morrison, L. V., & Ward, C. G. 1975, Monthly Notices of
Astronomy, 52, 1790
the Royal Astronomical Society, 173, 183