Standard gravitational parameter

AI Thread Summary
The standard gravitational parameter (G*M) of celestial bodies is measured more accurately than the gravitational constant (G) due to extensive observations of orbits, particularly of planets around the Sun. For instance, the standard gravitational parameter for the Sun is known to 11 significant digits, while Earth's is known to 9 or 10. The challenge lies in isolating G from G*M, as G is only known to 4 or 5 significant digits, leading to uncertainties in the precise mass of Earth. Remote sensing projects, like GRACE, contribute to understanding Earth's composition but are limited to measuring G*Me, not G or M directly. This highlights the complexities in accurately determining gravitational constants and the mass of celestial bodies.
Sanjay87
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Hi,

Is it true that the standard gravitational parameter of an object (G*M) is more accurately known than the the gravitational constant (G)? If so, why? Any references would be much appreciated.

Thanks,
San
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, its true. We can measure the standard gravitational parameter of some object by observing other objects orbits about the object in question. With hundreds of years of observing planets in orbit about the Sun, we have the standard gravitational parameter for the Sun nailed down extremely well (11 significant digits). We know the standard gravitational parameter for the Earth to 9 or 10 significant digits. While we can measure G*M very precisely, untangling G (or M) from G*M is a much harder task. We only know G to 4 or 5 significant digits.
 
i think what this also means (and i don't know which is cause and effect) is that we don't know the mass of the Earth precisely. i know it's true that G*M is known to 10 digits and that G only to 5 (by measurement with a Cavendish-like experiment) but i find it unexpected that knowing the dimensions and composition of the Earth well, of the mutual orbit of these (unequal) twin planets around their common center of gravity, that with years of astronomical observation of the Moon, that we wouldn't have gotten that more precisely.
 
Why do you think we know the composition of the Earth well? (Better than 10 parts per million, which is what 5 digits of accuracy means) Most of it is underground. :)
 
rbj said:
i think what this also means (and i don't know which is cause and effect) is that we don't know the mass of the Earth precisely.
That is exactly right. The uncertainty in the Earth's mass is for, all practical purposes, entirely due to the uncertainty in G.
but i find it unexpected that knowing the dimensions and composition of the Earth well
Vanadium 50 already asked the key question here. Piling on, one of the key sources of insight into the dimensions and composition of the Earth comes from remote sensing projects such as http://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/" . The problem here is that these remote sensing experiments are sensitive only to the product G*Me.
... of the mutual orbit of these (unequal) twin planets around their common center of gravity, that with years of astronomical observation of the Moon, that we wouldn't have gotten that more precisely.
What these observations give us insight into is the Earth's standard gravitational parameter, the Earth/Moon mass ratio, and the Sun/(Earth+Moon) mass ratio. They do not give direct insight to the Earth's mass unencumbered with G.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread 'Is there a white hole inside every black hole?'
This is what I am thinking. How much feasible is it? There is a white hole inside every black hole The white hole spits mass/energy out continuously The mass/energy that is spit out of a white hole drops back into it eventually. This is because of extreme space time curvature around the white hole Ironically this extreme space time curvature of the space around a white hole is caused by the huge mass/energy packed in the white hole Because of continuously spitting mass/energy which keeps...

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
8K
Back
Top