Alternative theories being tested by Gravity probe B

**hejin** · Jan3-08, 11:12 AM

Hi, Garth,
You made a second mistake!
Instead of removal, my paper stands there sound on Arxiv.

I studied the origin of your mistake. If not true, please forgive me.
You posted my paper directed to 5th version as
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/p.../0604084v5.pdf
Such kind of link fails if the original paper is updated. This is because Arxiv let you directly link to PDF ONLY IF the required PDF version is current version!!

My updated version is
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0604084
or
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0604084v8

If you want to post my fifth version, that is OK if you choose:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0604084v5
but you choice of PDF post failed as I explained above!!

**JonathanK** · Jan3-08, 08:03 PM

I have a correction to the equation in post #255, it's 'arctan' rather than '2 arctan', and the positions of the second r and the r' are reversed above the line. I'd only just found it at the time - there's also a slightly more accurate version of the equation, but both give the same numbers for GP-B, which are almost identical to those from GR.

And having thought about it, I would appreciate it if you'd put PSG back on the list Garth - which it seems you'll be posting again anyway. I'm sure you agree the theory hasn't been falsified, and there's a prediction for frame dragging in a peer reviewed journal, of - 39 mas/yr. Like NG, PSG gives the same as GR for both effects - as you pointed out (so acknowledging the basic mathematics), the experiment can't distinguish between the two interpretations for the geodetic. But unlike GR, PSG hasn't been fully worked through yet, and other smaller effects may later be taken into account. At present, PSG has recovered better than other theories, where changes and extra adjustments have been made - the geodetic equation arises simply from applying the main postulate of the original theory, exactly as it was.

Thank you, Jonathan

**henryco** · Jan4-08, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by Garth

Fred, we could all add in extra adjustments in an ad hoc way to make our predictions fit any set of results. On this thread I have limited the discussion to predictions made in published papers or at least to those in eprints on the physics ArXiv.

I find it highly contrived to require your idea of using a "the appearance or disappearance of a discontinuity of gravity in the neighbourhood of the Earth" to fit both the LLR results and the latest GP-B glimpse.

That notwithstanding, if you publish on the ArXiv with a definite falsifiable set of predictions for GP-B then I shall be happy to include them in the 'list'.

Garth

Hi Garth,

It appears that my preferred frame effect is actually not ruled out by LLR data (it is not Lorentz violating)! So i cannot exclude this possible prediction. The theory has a preferred fram effect and th predictions crucially depend on it: The prediction for DG that i gave here (0 frame dragging + same geodetic as in GR) is valid in case my preferred frame is attached to the earth.
If it is attached to the CMB or sun or the galaxy the prediction is the same for frame-dragging and geodetic effect but i have an additional preferred frame effect that you did
mention on this site sometime ago: This effect has no free parameter and gives a clear signature: it would appear as an extraoscillation with1 year period and 40 mArcsec amplitude giving a contribution in both direction (N-S and E-W).

Since you gave here the KK prediction which has a free parameter, it would not be chocking to add this extra preferred frame contribution multiplied by a parameter equal to
zero or one (corresponding to the two possible preferred frames) which makes my theory already much more predictive than KK!
I put this in my latest arXiv version. (gr-qc/0610079)

best regards

Fred

**henryco** · Jan4-08, 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by henryco

Since you gave here the KK prediction which has a free parameter, it would not be chocking to add this extra preferred frame contribution multiplied by a parameter equal to
zero or one (corresponding to the two possible preferred frames) which makes my theory already much more predictive than KK!

Fred

Hi Garth,

Rethincking about it, i realise that since you give the prediction for the integrated drift on one year on this forum, my one year oscillation integrated preferred frame effect will anyway not contribute.
So the better is to keep the predictions as they are and just mention that the drifts may not be steady ones and this may provide another discriminating info.

Is that possible?
regards

Fred

**Garth** · Jan6-08, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by henryco

Hi Garth,

Rethincking about it, i realise that since you give the prediction for the integrated drift on one year on this forum, my one year oscillation integrated preferred frame effect will anyway not contribute.
So the better is to keep the predictions as they are and just mention that the drifts may not be steady ones and this may provide another discriminating info.

Is that possible?
regards

Fred

Fred, you have already done so!

Theories are only considered here if they make a falsifiable prediction, or pair of predictions to be tested against the published results.

Predictions have to take into account all factors that influence the result and not just tailored to match results as they come in.

Garth

**henryco** · Jan7-08, 05:53 AM

Originally Posted by Garth

Fred, you have already done so!

Theories are only considered here if they make a falsifiable prediction, or pair of predictions to be tested against the published results.

Predictions have to take into account all factors that influence the result and not just tailored to match results as they come in.

Garth

I have already done what ?

Fred

**Garth** · Jan7-08, 06:48 AM

Originally Posted by henryco

I have already done what ?

henryco: "to keep the predictions as they are and just mention that the drifts may not be steady ones and this may provide another discriminating info."

Remember others will need convincing that your theory's predictions are being verified or falsified by the results of the experiment. So a clear set of predictions would be good.

Garth

**notknowing** · Jan8-08, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by hejin

Hi, Garth,
You made a second mistake!
Instead of removal, my paper stands there sound on Arxiv.

I studied the origin of your mistake. If not true, please forgive me.
You posted my paper directed to 5th version as
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/p.../0604084v5.pdf
Such kind of link fails if the original paper is updated. This is because Arxiv let you directly link to PDF ONLY IF the required PDF version is current version!!

My updated version is
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0604084
or
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0604084v8

If you want to post my fifth version, that is OK if you choose:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0604084v5
but you choice of PDF post failed as I explained above!!

It is interesting to observe that you can reference an arxiv paper which is not published in a refereed journal. Recently, I also referenced my arxiv paper :
http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.1110 (on the same subject) and I was banned for this because I "tried to distribute a personal theory". The paper mentioned above is in addition an extension of a previous paper which was published in a refereed journal. I'm curious whether I will be banned again. Furthermore, I have noticed many posts which contain references to un-refereed Arxiv papers without these persons being banned.

Rudi Van Nieuwenhove

**Garth** · Jan8-08, 09:19 AM

Hi Rudi!

On this thread I (not being a Moderator) have allowed to be included brief references to papers on the ArXiv that have not been published in refereed journals, yet that do make some sense, and which make a definite falsifiable prediction.

This seems to have been allowed by the Moderators as the predictions will soon be able to be falsified, or just possibly otherwise.

As you can read some rough edges have been left................

Roll on May (??)!

Garth

**Kris Krogh** · Jan14-08, 04:09 AM

Hi Garth,

I see today ArXiv has taken down the paper "A critical analysis of the GP-B mission. I: on the impossibility of a reliable measurement of the gravitomagnetic precession of the GP-B gyroscopes," by Gerhard Forst:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3934

The comment field says: "This submission has been withdrawn by the arXiv administrators because 'G.Forst' is a pseudonym of a physicist based in Italy who is unwilling to submit articles under his own name, in violation of arXiv policies"

It's gone now, but I didn't see anything of substance in the paper. The references it cited did not show what was attributed to them.

Best regards, Kris

**wolram** · Jan14-08, 09:27 AM

Problems getting to KK paper, known compatibility problem, it may be a fault this end.

**lucien86** · Jan31-08, 01:19 PM

Hi Gath you asked for theories that can be tested via Gravity probe B.

I have half of one that is not yet fully published or finished but I would like to mention it as it is an alternative or rather a modification to GR.
My work is based primarily on looking at what might exist beyond the light velocity barrier so it obviously involves particles with imaginary mass. My real problem is that I don't yet have the precision to make many exact predictions. What is clear though is that the model doesn't easily allow curved space times. At the moment I have gravity mapped as 'accelerating inertial frames' - the frame itself never sees the acceleration.
As far as I'm aware the model should give pretty much identical results to standard GR with one big exception - there should be tachyonic 'shadows'.
Another thing my model predicts is that gravity may be purely classical and have no lower quantum limit - in other words it can never exhibit interference patterns.

Obviously Gravity Probe B isn't going to answer many questions for my theory, but it wasn't designed to - my answers only really deviate from GR above the speed of light. (My theory forbids the folding of space)

I am working on designing a verifiable experiment that can detect tachyonic behavior but I am only an amateur with a tiny budget and other priorities so it is years away.

**Garth** · Jan31-08, 02:19 PM

lucien86 we have strict guidelines here about not discussing personal theories except on the Independent Research Forum, unless they have already been published in a peer reviewed journal.

In this thread I am including theories already published on the physics ArXiv as well if they make falsifiable predictions for the GP-B experiment.

I suggest you submit your theory to the IR Forum having first followed their guidelines for submission.

Garth

**lucien86** · Feb1-08, 02:30 AM

Sure - my whole point is that my theory is not ready to publish there. Half finished means exactly that. As for the IR forum the rules there are so strict that it is actually easier to get published in a big magazine like Nature. I am nowhere near getting published anywhere at the moment - sorry to bother you. - Lucien

**Garth** · Mar25-08, 04:14 AM

The GP-B website has had a revamp - although there are no new results to report.

GP-B Program Extended Through September 2008, and Possibly March 2010

On November 2, 2007, we convened the 17th meeting of our external Science Advisory Committee (SAC) to review our progress in the refinement of the GP-B experimental results. The subsequent SAC report noted "the truly extraordinary progress that had been made in data analysis since SAC-16 [March 23-24, 2007]" and unanimously concluded "that GP-B is on an accelerating path toward reaching good science results."

Following a peer-reviewed bridging proposal to NASA's Science Mission Directorate (SMD) and actions by Stanford and a private donor, the GP-B program has been extended at least through September 2008. Furthermore, SMD opened the opportunity for GP-B to submit a proposal this month to its Senior Review process. This is a bi-annual event in which ongoing NASA science programs undergo a peer-review to determine which of those programs NASA should continue and/or extend in order to achieve the greatest scientific gain. Assuming a successful Senior Review, GP-B will be extended one final time, from October 2008 through March 2010.

There are two unexpected experimental errors that are being reduced.

1. A time variation in the polhode motion of the gyroscopes, which creates complications in the gyro scale factor calibrations (conversion of electrical signals to angles).
2. Much larger than expected classical misalignment torques on the gyroscopes, attributable to “patch effect” (contact potential difference) interactions between the gyro rotors and their housings.

Although these anomalies reduced the best precision obtainable from the 1% goal they still hope to achieve about 2% for the frame-dragging effect and 0.02% for the geodetic effect.

During 2006-early 2007, we made good progress understanding the cause of these complications (and developing sound methodologies for working through them, culminating in an announcement of first results at the annual meeting of the American Physical Society in April 2007. Since that time, the team has continued to improve the results in a number of ways. As experimentalists, we make no assumptions about Einstein’s theory being right or wrong; rather, we collected data, and we are doing everything humanly possible to maximize the precision and accuracy of the final results—whether or not they agree with Einstein’s predictions.

For newbies to this thread a basic explanation of the experiment is given in a slide show on their website.

We note the Seeing General relativity Directly slide remains the replaced one, which does not give the game away. Remember the original slide gave some interesting results inconsistent with GR at the one $LaTeX Code: \\sigma$ (68%) confidence level!

Garth

**JonathanK** · Mar27-08, 10:05 PM

Hello Garth and everyone,

well, it seems GP-B may be a long road. My paper on the geodetic effect got through peer review, it's at

http://journalgp.awardspace.com/journal/0202/020203.pdf

PSG gives the same predictions as GR and NG, hope to see it on the list with them, presumably along with Jin He's absolute relativity. Does anyone have a guess as to when the 3 sigma results will be announced? J