I Double Pulsar: 16 Year Study Validates Relativity

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter fresh_42
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Data Pulsar Set
fresh_42
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
2024 Award
Messages
20,671
Reaction score
27,928
I'm not sure if this belongs to astronomy or GR. But as it - once again - proves Einstein right, I posted it here for all who need another paper to conquer all who doubt. And I think it is an interesting paper (53 pages), at least from my layman's point of view.

Strong-Field Gravity Tests with the Double Pulsar said:
Continued timing observations of the double pulsar ##\text{PSR J0737–3039A/B},## which consists of two active radio pulsars (##A## and ##B##) that orbit each other with a period of ##2.45 \,h## in a mildly eccentric (##e=0.088##) binary system, have led to large improvements in the measurement of relativistic effects in this system. With a ##16##-yr data span, the results enable precision tests of theories of gravity for strongly self-gravitating bodies and also reveal new relativistic effects that have been expected but are now observed for the first time. These include effects of light propagation in strong gravitational fields which are currently not testable by any other method. In particular, we observe the effects of retardation and aberrational light bending that allow determination of the spin direction of the pulsar. In total, we detect seven post-Keplerian parameters in this system, more than for any other known binary pulsar. For some of these effects, the measurement precision is now so high that for the first time we have to take higher-order contributions into account. These include the contribution of the A pulsar’s effective mass loss (due to spin-down) to the observed orbital period decay, a relativistic deformation of the orbit, and the effects of the equation of state of superdense matter on the observed post-Keplerian parameters via relativistic spin-orbit coupling. We discuss the implications of our findings, including those for the moment of inertia of neutron stars, and present the currently most precise test of general relativity’s quadrupolar description of gravitational waves, validating the prediction of general relativity at a level of ##1.3 \cdot 10^{-4}## with ##95\%## confidence. We demonstrate the utility of the double pulsar for tests of alternative theories of gravity by focusing on two specific examples and also discuss some implications of the observations for studies of the interstellar medium and models for the formation of the double pulsar system. Finally, we provide context to other types of related experiments and prospects for the future.
https://journals.aps.org/prx/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevX.11.041050
https://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.11.041050

And here is a pop-science summary:
https://www.sciencealert.com/16-year-study-of-extreme-stars-has-once-again-validated-relativity
 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Love
Likes vanhees71, Drakkith, Ibix and 2 others
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top