Alternative theories being tested by Gravity probe B

  • Thread starter Garth
  • Start date

Garth

Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,565
105
The Gravity Probe B satellite has placed four (over redundant) gyroscopes in low polar Earth orbit to primarily test two predictions of General Relativity.

The first effect being tested is (for the GP-B polar orbit) a N-S geodetic precession, caused by the amount a gyro 'leans' over into the slope of curved space.

The second effect being tested is the E-W frame-dragging, Lense-Thirring, or gravitomagnetic effect, caused by the spinning Earth dragging space-time around with it.

Some researchers, such as Kenneth Nordtvedt, have said that the experiment was worth doing when it was first proposed but that now GR has been verified beyond resonable doubt the result of GP-B is a foregone conclusion.

I have now discovered several theories competing with General Relativity(GR) that are being tested and falsified by this experiment:
my Self Creation Cosmology).(SCC),
Moffat's Nonsymmetric Gravitational Theory (NGT),
Hai-Long Zhao's mass variance SR theory (MVSR),
Stanley Robertson's Newtonian Gravity theory (NG), and
Junhao & Xiang's Flat space-time theory (FST).

As the results will be published in the not too distant future they could be interesting!!

(Note if anybody knows of any other theories with alternative predictions for GP-B please post them as well for comparison.)

1. GPB Geodetic precession
GR = 6.6144 arcsec/yr
SCC = 4.4096 arcsec/yr
NGT = 6.6144 - a small [itex]\sigma[/itex] correction arcsec/yr
MVSR = 6.6144 arcsec/yr
NG = 1.6536 arcsec/yr
FST = 4.4096 arcsec/yr


2. GPB gravitomagnetic frame dragging precession
GR = 0.0409 arcsec/yr
SCC = 0.0409 arcsec/yr
NGT = 0.0409 arcsec/yr
MVSR = 0.0102 arcsec/yr
NG = 0.0102 arcsec/yr
FST = 0.0000 arcsec/yr


I cannot vouch for these other theories, they may well be considered 'crackpot' by some, however all these theories have the advantage, together with GR, that they are able to be falsified by the GP-B results.

We continue to wait and see! :smile:

Garth
 
Last edited:

Garth

Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,565
105
The wait for the results continues into this and next new year! GP-B MISSION NEWS—NASA REPORT & DATA ANALYSIS PROCEEDING AS PLANNED
It is important to emphasize that at this point in the mission, we are only performing maintenance operations on the spacecraft. Our main focus is analyzing the science data we have collected and finishing our final report to NASA. In this regard, our final report to NASA, which is over 450 pages long, is now in the final stages of completion. Our science data analysis is proceeding according to plan. We are in the process of analyzing approximately 1 terabyte (1,000 gigabytes) of data collected from the spacecraft. Two independent analysis teams here at GP-B are working on the data, frequently comparing their results for both quality control and to ensure the validity of the data analysis algorithms.

The main part of the data analysis is expected to be completed late this summer (July-August 2006). At this point, the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) will provide our science team with their ultra-precise measurements of the proper motion of the guide star, IM Pegasi. In the final step of the analysis, our science team will combine the gyroscope results with the CfA proper motion measurements of IM Pegasi to arrive at the final experimental results. These results will then be carefully and critically reviewed by international experts in general relativity and data analysis to ensure that our statement of the effects observed are as accurate as possible. Only after this review is complete--early in 2007--will we make a formal and public announcement about the results of this unprecedented test of General Relativity.
Whatever those results might be!

Garth
 

Nereid

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,309
1
To what extent will the parameter space that GPB and observations of the double pulsar (will) probe overlap, in terms of testing GR and alternatives?
 

Chronos

Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,391
731
The recent pulsar measurements are probably better predictors than GPB could ever hope to be. My prediction: GR will prevail again.
 

Garth

Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,565
105
Chronos said:
The recent pulsar measurements are probably better predictors than GPB could ever hope to be. My prediction: GR will prevail again.
This is in line with the thinking of Kenneth Nordtvedt in which case the $700 million spent on GP-B has been wasted! However, I beg to differ.

GP-B is a controlled experiment, all the parameters that may affect the result are well determined. This cannot be said for a remote observation of a distant pulsar system.

As far as experimental/observational comparisons between SCC and GR, especially concerning the binary pulsar PSR B1913+16 (and now the double pulsar PSR J0737-3039B), there are two degeneracies and a third near degeneracy to realise.

1. SCC is conformally equivalent to canonical GR in vacuo, in a vacuum - the Schwarzschild solution - particles and photons follow the geodesics/null geodesics of GR. As all the standard tests of GR, light deflection, precession of the perihelia, time delay, test the behaviour of particles and photons through a vacuum there is no difference between these two theories in predicting the results of these tests.

(The details of the conformal transformation can be found here: The Principles of Self Creation Cosmology and its Comparison with General Relativity Section 2, especially Equation 20.)

and the details of the degeneracy of tests can be found here: Resolving the Degeneracy: Experimental tests of the New Self Creation Cosmology and a heterodox prediction for Gravity Probe B)

2. As matter becomes degenerate
p -> [itex]\frac 13 \rho c^2[/itex]
the scalar field becomes minimally connected and again the behaviour, even when not in vacuo reduces to canonical GR; although now the full gravitational 'constant' is felt.
[itex]G_m = \frac 43 G_{Newton}[/itex]


Because of these two degeneracies the behaviour of a binary or double pulsar system in SCC is exactly the same as in GR.

3. The third near degeneracy is in tests of the equivalence principle in Eotvos type experiments the violation of the EEP would be about one part in 10−17 or about three orders of magnitude smaller than the present day sensitivity of the experiment. (See Self Creation Cosmology - An Alternative Gravitational Theory section 7.

These degeneracies will be resolved by GP-B, which is the first experiment/observation that is able to distinguish between these two theories.

Note that degeneracy 1 does not apply to the cosmological solution, except in the empty universe, [itex]\rho[/itex] = 0 case. (When SCC converges on the GR Milne model) That is why the SCC cosmological solution is different to that of GR, it is concordant with cosmological observations but without inflation, exotic DM or unknown DE!

Garth
 
Last edited:
1,546
0
Garth
Can you help me understand the Gravity B tests here? I’m having trouble understanding the expected direction of change in angles expected.

First as I read the polar orbit of GPB it is moving north to south as it is viewing IM-Pegasi the guide star being used. (In close alignment with it the guide star would always be blocked by earth during the south to north trip)

First:
GPB gravitomagnetic frame dragging precession.
The most significant measurement to be made (at least some say and IMO). It is the annual change in the orbital alignment with the guide star.
Do I read the term “E-W precession” correctly as relating the alignment moving in the direction of the rotation of earth (as there is no orbital E-W component to precess)? Thus all the theories named here are predicting the orbit to move its alignment to the east of the guide star. Is this correct?

Actually, I would expect the alignment to move west, so I was looking for a theory that agrees with a westward change. I take it then you are not aware of any theory that does.

Second:
GPB Geodetic precession
Looking at the Satellite on the IM-Pegis side of the orbit at the equator. The angle of deflection relates to the alignment of the gyro axis moving. Given three idea gyros at this point in the orbit and axis aligned; 1) E-W, 2) N-S, 3) Earth Radius, which of the three would have their alignment move and which way?
I assume one will not move at all.
Would direction of gyro rotation have any effect on direction?
And do you know a web site that does a good job of explaining why GR expects this beyond just saying “because of GR space-time curvature”.

Thanks
RB
 

wolram

Gold Member
4,122
550
Congratulations Garth, i think.
 

Garth

Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,565
105
RandallB The orbit was chosen to be a polar orbit precisely to searate out the two effects: geodetic and frame-dragging.

The frame-dragging, or Lense-Thirring, or gravitomagnetic, effect is as the name suggests caused by space-time, and corresponding frames of reference, being dragged round by the revolving Earth in a West to East direction.

The geodetic effect, caused by the curvature of space-time, represents the angle missing from 3600 in the circle drawn on a curved surface, or the amount the gyro axis precesses after being parallel transported one complete orbital revolution - summed up over a year's worth of orbits. Alternatively you can think of it as the angle the gyro 'leans over into the slope' of curvature and is in the direction of motion. Therefore it is a precession in the N-S direction and clearly distinguished from the much smaller frame-dragging precession.

Note: the orbit was accurate to within 10 to secure this distinction, and that gave the launch vehicle a one second window on each day of possible launch(!)

I hope this helps.

wolfram thank you, but a little premature I think? :wink:

Garth
 
Last edited:
1,546
0
Garth said:
The frame-dragging, - - frames of reference, being dragged round by the revolving Earth in a West to East direction.
OK that as I expected, the alignment of the entire orbit towards IM-Pegasi is predicted to move to the East. (Or looking at the orbital axis from the guide star view, the left side would lean towards the star)

The geodetic effect, - - Therefore it is a precession in the N-S direction and clearly distinguished from the much smaller frame-dragging precession.
Now this is the one I have the most trouble understanding alignment and direction on. What is “precession in the N-S direction” of a gyro axis?

In terms of the angle the gyro axis “leans over” - which of the three idea gyros I described would actually show a change.
At equator the position I described, (Pegasi side GPB moving north to south) two are perpendicular to a radius from earth thus axis ends are pointing E-W & N-S. Which if any of these ends would lean towards earth?

The third axis would be inline with a radius from earth. So for the end pointed toward earth (only on this side) which way would it move N, S, E, or W if at all?

Thanks
RB
 

Garth

Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,565
105
RB - my 'leaning' over explanation is only a 'hand waving' description to try and convey some understanding to what is going on, a full understanding requires the maths.

The precession of a spin S is given by

[tex]\frac{dS}{d\tau} = \Omega \times S[/tex]

where

[tex]\Omega = -\frac 12 v \times a -\frac 12 \nabla \times g + (\gamma + \frac 12)v \times \nabla U[/tex]
(see MHW equation 40.33 page 1118)

In the RHS of the last expression the first term is the SR Thomas precession caused by accelerating a vector - it 'leans over' in 4D space-time. It is zero in GR but not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_creation_cosmology [Broken].

The second term is the Lense-Thirring effect [tex]g = g_{0j}e_j[/tex] is the perturbation of the metric caused by the spinning of the Earth.

The third term is the geodetic effect. v is the along spin axis of the satellite's orbit, normal to its plane.

When you work it out for a polar orbit the geodetic precession is in a
N-S direction.

Garth
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1,546
0
Garth said:
When you work it out for a polar orbit the geodetic precession is in a N-S direction.
This is the part that isn’t clear in anything I’ve been able to find. At the end of the day the GPB will be making a measurement on the gyros that have been running for however long and expect them to have have moved from their normal alignments. What will those physical changes in the direct measurements be?

As in my example of three gyros with their spins around x, y, and z coordinates after running a long time, classical Newtonian expectations would say that there would be absolutely no change at all (as if the earth was not rotating). The axis end pointed toward the earth center (while over the equator, the opposite end of the axis would always point at the guide star) would not tip N, S, E, or W at all. The 4 ends of the other axis point N, S, E, & W and no end should tip towards the earth (thus away from the guide star).

None of the six theories predict such a null result. But all predict various amounts of change in the same direction. What is not clear is what direction of tilt will be physically observed by the measurements to be made on GPB. Someone on the team must have defined in clear measurable terms exactly what direction that is to match a “geodetic precession is in a N-S direction”.
 

Garth

Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,565
105
RandallB said:
This is the part that isn’t clear in anything I’ve been able to find. At the end of the day the GPB will be making a measurement on the gyros that have been running for however long and expect them to have have moved from their normal alignments. What will those physical changes in the direct measurements be?
Read the information on the GP-B website. The gyros are aligned on a star, the IM Pegasi (radio) star has a proper motion that is being tracked by VLBI, the movement of the gryos relative to the star has been tracked using SQUIDs (see the website for details) by the summer this year the one data set will be compared to the other to see how the gyros have moved, various theories predict different N-S and E-W precessions and of course almost everybody expects the experiment will verify the GR prediction, but the team have kept a very open mind on this, which is what makes the experiment so exciting.
As in my example of three gyros with their spins around x, y, and z coordinates after running a long time, classical Newtonian expectations would say that there would be absolutely no change at all (as if the earth was not rotating). The axis end pointed toward the earth center (while over the equator, the opposite end of the axis would always point at the guide star) would not tip N, S, E, or W at all. The 4 ends of the other axis point N, S, E, & W and no end should tip towards the earth (thus away from the guide star).

None of the six theories predict such a null result. But all predict various amounts of change in the same direction. What is not clear is what direction of tilt will be physically observed by the measurements to be made on GPB. Someone on the team must have defined in clear measurable terms exactly what direction that is to match a “geodetic precession is in a N-S direction”.
I'm not sure what your problem is. The gyros may not move at all, or they may move in a direction that can be resolved into a N-S and a E-W component, and then we shall see whether these observed precessions match any of the sets of predictions.

Garth
 
Last edited:
1,546
0
Garth said:
I'm not sure what your problem is.
In space how do you define up down left right forward and back with no references.
Same thing here, I don’t see a defined reference.

For the gyro that is pointed at the guide star.
Option 1:
The axis end pointed at the star tips up to the North the back end will of course tip down to the south.
Option 2:
The opposite happens, the end axis pointed at the star tips down to the South the back end will of course tip up to the North.

Which option is the N-S move Option 1 or 2?
We can assume N-S means “from North towards the South” movement.
But without defining which end of the gyro is being measured how does any one know what the other is talking about.

Same kind of problem understanding the other gyro measements in 3D.
 

Garth

Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,565
105
RandallB said:
In space how do you define up down left right forward and back with no references.
Same thing here, I don’t see a defined reference.
From the plane of the satellite's orbit (N-S) and the orientation of the Earth(E-W).
For the gyro that is pointed at the guide star.
Option 1:
The axis end pointed at the star tips up to the North the back end will of course tip down to the south.
Option 2:
The opposite happens, the end axis pointed at the star tips down to the South the back end will of course tip up to the North.

Which option is the N-S move Option 1 or 2?
We can assume N-S means “from North towards the South” movement.
But without defining which end of the gyro is being measured how does any one know what the other is talking about.

Same kind of problem understanding the other gyro measements in 3D.
The Spin vector of the gyro is defined by the Right Hand Screw convention, so long as that convention (or the opposite one) is applied consistently in the analysis there is no ambiguity.

Garth
 
1,546
0
Garth said:
The Spin vector of the gyro is defined by the Right Hand Screw
So the direction of gyro rotation makes a differance.
With that Right hand vector pointed at the guide star does that mean option 2 is matchs with a positive N-S move.
And option 1 if the if the vector is away from the guide star?
 

Garth

Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,565
105
As I said it depends on the convention used.

You have to examine the GP-B papers to find the answers to your questions, or simply ask the question on their website.

Garth
 

Garth

Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,565
105
Latest news of the GP-B data analysis: Phase I complete!
We are now entering Phase II of the data analysis, which will last 4-5 months. During this phase, the team will analyze the data on a month-to-month basis, in order to identify, model, and remove systematic errors that span many days or months, including effects resulting from spacecraft anomalies. Phase II will culminate in another meeting of the SAC committee in mid to late August. At that point, the team will begin Phase III of the analysis, during which additional systematic effects will be removed and the results from all four gyros will be combined. This final phase of the data analysis is expected to be completed towards the end of this year.

A preliminary plan was laid out for a much more extended SAC review process in the Dec 2006-Jan 2007 time frame, which would include a careful and critical review of the complete analysis and results. It is expected that other international experts will participate in the review process. There was some discussion in SAC #14 about the optimum and most objective method of incorporating a blind or double-blind test of the final results, including incorporation of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics/York University measurements of guide star proper motion. Decisions on these and other end-around tests will be developed with NASA and the SAC as the process moves forward.

Throughout phases II and III, members of our team will also be preparing a number of scientific and engineering papers for publication, and we will also be working with NASA in planning a formal public announcement of the results of this unprecedented test of General Relativity. We currently anticipate announcing the results at a special session during the American Physical Society (APS) meeting in April 2007.
Another 13 months! :rolleyes:

Garth
 
Last edited:

Chronos

Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,391
731
Indeed, Garth. Let the data speak for itself. I do not lean either way, and I am certain you feel the same way. It will be difficult to sieve through the data . . . I hope you will be critical of that process.
 
Last edited:
Has anyone done a parameterized post-Newtonian analysis? Can one express the expected results in terms of the usual Eddington alpha, beta gamma and higher order parameters? Any refs?
Best,
Jim
 
I should have googled first. Apparently it tests gamma and alpha-one ( a non-conservative parameter), according to Will.
No doubt that is why Nordstrom thinks the money has been wasted, as gamma has already been strongly constrained and most people believe in the conservation laws.
Best,
Jim
 

Want to reply to this thread?

"Alternative theories being tested by Gravity probe B" You must log in or register to reply here.

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top