How is relativity theory applied to gps?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the application of relativity theory, specifically special relativity (SR) and general relativity (GR), in the functioning of GPS technology. Participants explore how time dilation and gravitational effects influence the accuracy of satellite clocks compared to Earth-based clocks, as well as the implications for positioning accuracy.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that general relativity is necessary to correct satellite clock discrepancies compared to ground clocks.
  • Others mention that clock tick rates are adjusted for both SR and GR before launch, leading to synchronization once in orbit.
  • One participant calculates that time dilation results in satellites gaining approximately 38 microseconds per day, which is adjusted for during ground calibration.
  • Another participant discusses the potential time error of about 39 millionths of a second per day if gravitational time dilation is ignored, equating this to a positional error of approximately 11.6 kilometers.
  • Some contributions include detailed mathematical derivations using the Schwarzschild metric to compare clock rates on Earth and in orbit.
  • Participants highlight that the elliptical orbits of satellites and clock drift also necessitate regular resynchronization with Earth clocks.
  • One participant questions the relative significance of kinematic effects versus gravitational effects in the overall error, suggesting that the cumulative errors may be comparable.
  • A later reply expresses uncertainty about the explanation for the indicated position drift of about 11 kilometers per day, despite the calculations presented.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the importance of relativity in GPS technology, but there are competing views regarding the relative significance of different effects (kinematic vs. gravitational) and the specifics of clock drift and resynchronization frequency. The discussion remains unresolved on some of these points.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying assumptions about the effects of clock drift, elliptical orbits, and the mathematical models used to analyze these phenomena. Some calculations and approximations are noted to be less detailed than others, indicating potential limitations in the analysis.

francisco
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
how is relativity theory applied to gps?

thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The clocks in the satellites have to be very precise. General relativity is needed to correct the clocks compared to what they would do if they were sitting on the ground.
 
The clock tick rates are actually adjusted for SR and GR prior to launch, meaning while sitting on the ground, they don't stay synchronized with earth-based clocks, but once in orbit, they do.
 
Yes, time dilation causes the satellites' clocks to lose about 7us per day, and gravitational redshift causes them to gain about 45us. The net effect is a gain of 38us per day which, as Russ said, is accounted for by adjusting the frequency of the clocks when they are on the ground.

Check out http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1 (especially section 5) for information on the subject from Neil Ashby, one of the leading experts on the physics of GPS.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As mikeu has said, if gravitational time dilation is not taken into account, a time error between the ground and the satellites accumulates at the rate of about 39 millionths of a second per day. Distance is determined by timing signals that pass between the ground and the satellites. A rough estimate on the error in position that this causes can be obtained by calculating the distance that a signal moving at the speed of light travels in 39 millionths of a second. This gives 11.6 kilometres.

To show this, I'm going to play fast and lose with differentials, but I am not going to split things up into different effects. The analysis that I give below isn't as accurate or as detailed as Ashby's, but it's still pretty good.

The Schwarzschild metric reveals (almost) all!. Let m be the mass of the satellite and M be the mass of the Earth. For \theta=\pi/2, the Schwarzschild metric is

<br /> d\tau^{2}=\left( 1-\frac{2M}{r}\right) dt^{2}-\left( 1-\frac{2M}{r}\right) <br /> ^{-1}dr^{2}-r^{2}d\phi^{2}. <br />

Consider 2 clocks, 1 rotating along with the Earth on the Earth's surface and one in an orbiting satellite. Boths clocks have constant r values, so dr=0 for both clocks, and, after factoring out a dt^{2} the above equation becomes

<br /> \left( \frac{dt}{d\tau}\right) ^{2}=1-\frac{2M}{r}-v^{2}, <br />

where v=rd\phi/dt is, approximately, the speed of something moving along a circular path. Use this equation twice - once for the clock on the Earth and once for the clock on the satellite.

How is v found? By using Newtonian gravity in flat space(time)! I will proceed without justifying this approximation. A clock at the equator on the Earth moves 1 Earth circumference in 1 day, so

v_{Earth}=\left( 2\pi r_{Earth}\right) / \left( 1 day\right) = 1.544\times10^{-6} <br />

in relativistic units. For the satellite, setting centripetal force equal to Newtonian gravitational force results in


<br /> m\frac{v_{sat}^{2}}{r_{sat}}=\frac{GmM}{r_{sat}^{2}}. <br />

Using this with v_{sat}=\left( 2\pi r_{sat}\right) /T, where T=12 hours is the period of the satellite's orbit, gives r_{sat}=2.611\times10^{7} and v_{sat}=1.2910\times10^{-5}.

Now,

<br /> \frac{d\tau_{sat}}{d\tau_{Earth}}=\left( \frac{d\tau_{sat}}{dt}\right) \left( \frac{d\tau_{Earth}}{dt}\right) ^{-1}=\sqrt{\frac{1-\frac{2M}{r_{sat}}-v_{sat}^{2}}{1-\frac{2M}{r_{Earth}}-v_{Earth}^{2}}}. <br />

Plugging values into some calculators won't work because the result is

<br /> \frac{d\tau_{sat}}{d\tau_{Earth}}=1.0000000004479=1+4.479\times10^{-10} <br />.

The error accumulated over the course of one day is 4.479\times10^{-10}\times 1 day=38.7\times10^{-6} seconds.

Regards,
George
 
One other note of interest is that while the large GR effects are very pronounced and GPS would nearly immediately be off by a mile (no pun intended) if those considerations were not in the timing, the fact that the satellites are in elliptical orbits, combined with the random drift of the clocks themselves (3 us/day I think it was?)along and other small effects (sagnac and perhaps lense-thirring) requires that they be re-synchronized with Earth clocks on a regular basis.

So while it is a beautiful GR test, I believe the level of error actually exceeds the kinematic effects over time and so it is not the best SR lab from what I hear.

Does anyone know how frequently they are reset? I thought I heard daily.
 
TheAntiRelative said:
One other note of interest is that while the large GR effects are very pronounced and GPS would nearly immediately be off by a mile (no pun intended) if those considerations were not in the timing, the fact that the satellites are in elliptical orbits, combined with the random drift of the clocks themselves (3 us/day I think it was?)along and other small effects (sagnac and perhaps lense-thirring) requires that they be re-synchronized with Earth clocks on a regular basis.

So while it is a beautiful GR test, I believe the level of error actually exceeds the kinematic effects over time and so it is not the best SR lab from what I hear.

Does anyone know how frequently they are reset? I thought I heard daily.
They are reset every time they pass over a ground station. But the drift rate due to SR and GR is substantially higher than the error in the clocks themselves, so they do make an excellent test-bed for Relativity.
 
You sure?

I know the GR effects are significantly higher but I'm pretty sure the kinematic (SR) effects are not higher than all the errors. When you add clock drift, eliptical orbit and all the other effects, I think the total cumulative errors are roughly the same size as the kinematic shift.

I'll have to see if I can't find a few good links to see if I'm wrong about that.

I like to be precise...
 
George's workthrough (#5) to 38.7us/day is impressive. It is sometimes said that if that figure were not taken into account, the position indicated by a GPS user device would drift by about 11km/day but I've never seen an accompanying explanation. Multiplying 38us/day by the speed of light yields 11.6km/day but I don't see that explaining an about 11km/day indicated position drift. Anyone got any ideas?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 103 ·
4
Replies
103
Views
7K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
7K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
10K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K