Acceleration of a Satellite in General Relativity

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the acceleration of a satellite in the context of General Relativity (GR), specifically examining the complex expression provided by the International Earth Rotation Services (IERS). Participants explore the theoretical underpinnings, including the relevant metrics and parameters involved in modeling satellite motion in a geocentric or barycentric reference frame.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses difficulty in deriving the provided expression for satellite acceleration and seeks insights from others with experience in relativistic mechanics.
  • Another participant suggests starting with identifying the metric used by IERS for the Earth-sun-satellite system and proposes that the satellite follows a geodesic of that metric.
  • A participant notes that the IERS expression appears to use 3-vector notation instead of tensors, indicating a potential simplification for accounting for Earth's angular momentum effects.
  • Some participants propose that the IERS might be using a variant of the PPN metric, referencing its similarities to the version discussed in the textbook "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler (MTW).
  • One participant mentions the inclusion of both Lens-Thirring and DeSitter effects in the context of the Schwarzschild metric, highlighting confusion regarding the use of coordinate time versus proper time in the documentation.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the Schwarzschild metric alone cannot account for the effects of both the Earth and the Sun, suggesting that the PPN formalism can handle such complexities.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the exact nature of the metric or the parameters involved, with multiple competing views on the appropriate approach to understanding the satellite's motion in GR.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of missing assumptions regarding the specific metrics and parameters used, as well as unresolved questions about the treatment of time in the equations presented.

Matter_Matters
Messages
35
Reaction score
2
Hi there guys,

I'm struggling! I've been looking at the International Earth Rotation Services (IERS) "standards" for motion of a satellite in GR. the expression is far from trivial and I'm battling to determine where to even start with this bad boy.

The expression is given by

<br /> \Delta \ddot{\mathbf{r}} = \frac{GM_E}{c^2r^3} \left\{\left[2(\beta+\gamma)\frac{GM_E}{r} - \gamma \dot{\mathbf{r}} \cdot \dot{\mathbf{r}} \right] \mathbf{r} + 2(1+\gamma)(\mathbf{r}\cdot\dot{\mathbf{r}})\dot{\mathbf{r}} \right\} + (1+\gamma)\frac{GM_E}{c^2r^3} \left[ \frac{3}{r^2}(\mathbf{r}\times\dot{\mathbf{r}})(\mathbf{r}\cdot\mathbf{J})+(\dot{\mathbf{r}}\times \mathbf{J})\right] + \left\{ (1+2\gamma)\left[\dot{\mathbf{R}} \times \left( \frac{-GM_S \mathbf{R}}{c^2R^3} \right) \right] \times\dot{\mathbf{r}} \right\}.<br />

The terms in the expression correspond to the following:
c = speed of light.
\beta, \gamma = PPN (parameterized post-Newtonian) parameters, equal to 1 in General Relativity.
\mathbf{r} is the position of the satellite with respect to the Earth.
\mathbf{R} is the position of the Earth with respect to the Sun.
J is the Earth’s angular momentum per unit mass.
GM_E and GM_S are the gravitational coefficients of the Earth and Sun, respectively.

Now, obviously nobody in their right mind is going to know how to derive this monster off the top of their heads, unless of course you wrote the technical note, BUT, does anyone have experience with Relativistic mechanics of satellite is geocentric reference frame or barycentric for that matter?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't know if this will help, but the approach that comes to mind is to first find what metric the IERS is using for the Earth-sun-satellite system. The next step is to say that the satellite is following a geodesic of said metric, and write the geodesic equations.

To "simplify" things, it looks like they're using 3-vector notation rather than tensors, as evidenced by the use of cross products, which are only defined in 3 dimensions. These are presumably there to account for the effects of the Earths orbital and rotational angular momentum on the metric.

Presumably they're using some variant of the PPN metric, it rather looks like the same version MTW uses in Gravitation, due to the presence of beta's and gamma's. There are a couple of different versions of the PPN metric out there (at least according to Wikipedia.) It doesn't look (to me) like they're using the same symbolism as the IAU recommends for their solar system metric in the IAU 2000 resolutions, https://syrte.obspm.fr/IAU_resolutions/Resol-UAI.htm, or the 2006 ammendments of the resolutions (which I don't have a link to).

I got a link error when I tried to look at the technical note, I'll try again.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Matter_Matters
pervect said:
I don't know if this will help, but the approach that comes to mind is to first find what metric the IERS is using for the Earth-sun-satellite system. The next step is to say that the satellite is following a geodesic of said metric, and write the geodesic equations.

So my very limited knowledge is that they are following the Schwarzschild metric including both Lens-Thirring and DeSitter effects. It is quite confusing because the documentation is a derivative with respect to coordinate time also and not proper time, like one would expect in relativity.

pervect said:
To "simplify" things, it looks like they're using 3-vector notation rather than tensors, as evidenced by the use of cross products, which are only defined in 3 dimensions. These are presumably there to account for the effects of the Earths orbital and rotational angular momentum on the metric.

I think you are right as these terms correspond to frame dragging and precession.

pervect said:
Presumably they're using some variant of the PPN metric, it rather looks like the same version MTW uses in Gravitation, due to the presence of beta's and gamma's. There are a couple of different versions of the PPN metric out there (at least according to Wikipedia.) It doesn't look (to me) like they're using the same symbolism as the IAU recommends for their solar system metric in the IAU 2000 resolutions, https://syrte.obspm.fr/IAU_resolutions/Resol-UAI.htm, or the 2006 ammendments of the resolutions (which I don't have a link to).

I got a link error when I tried to look at the technical note, I'll try again.

My intuition is saying that it is some PPN approximation of the Schwarzschild metric. I've updated the link, hopefully it works now. Thanks for the reply.
 
There's more than just the Schwarzschild metric in there, as they have effects from the Earth and the Sun included. The Schwarzschild metric would include effects from only one dominant mass.

The PPN formalsim can handle that (approximately) though.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Matter_Matters
pervect said:
There's more than just the Schwarzschild metric in there, as they have effects from the Earth and the Sun included. The Schwarzschild metric would include effects from only one dominant mass.

The PPN formalsim can handle that (approximately) though.
I think it's time to start reading up and giving some proper attention to the PPN formalism! Cheers.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
8K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K