Standard gravitational parameter

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the accuracy of the standard gravitational parameter (G*M) compared to the gravitational constant (G), exploring the implications of these measurements for understanding the mass of celestial bodies, particularly the Earth. The conversation touches on observational methods, the precision of measurements, and the challenges in determining the mass of the Earth.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the standard gravitational parameter is known with greater accuracy than the gravitational constant, citing precise measurements from orbital observations.
  • One participant notes that the standard gravitational parameter for the Sun is known to 11 significant digits, while the Earth's parameter is known to 9 or 10 significant digits.
  • There is a suggestion that the uncertainty in the Earth's mass is largely due to the uncertainty in G, despite extensive knowledge of the Earth's dimensions and composition.
  • Another participant questions the assumption that the composition of the Earth is well understood, highlighting the challenges of measuring underground materials.
  • It is mentioned that remote sensing projects provide insights into the Earth's gravitational parameter but do not directly reveal the Earth's mass without considering G.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the precision of the Earth's mass and the implications of the measurements of G and G*M. There is no consensus on the extent to which the Earth's mass is known or the reliability of the assumptions about its composition.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reveals limitations in the understanding of the Earth's mass due to the dependence on the gravitational constant, which is less accurately measured compared to the standard gravitational parameter. The complexities of remote sensing and observational data are also noted.

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
 
Astronomy 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:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K