Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hacking Cassini To Detect Gravity Waves

Posted by timothy on from the ether-net dept.

lennon writes: "With some upgrades to the tracking equipment, NASA is going to try to detect gravitational waves by tracking the speed of the Cassini probe. They've tried this with other spacecraft, but the sensors have evolved since then. Complete press release is here. Looks like a neat hack."

91 comments

  1. Sounds familiar by Jeffv323 · · Score: 1

    Didn't they do this awhile back? I remember a map of the gravitational pull on different parts of the earth...

    --
    I'm a minister!
    1. Re:Sounds familiar by nenolod · · Score: 1

      Well, here's what happened there. They had a satelite and hacked it to do pretty much the same thing, but it was not the Cassini probe. I remember seeing that map as well. I really didnt understand what good it was for, but you know, NASA does some strange things.

    2. Re:Sounds familiar by pclminion · · Score: 3, Informative

      That isn't exactly what they are doing here. The gravitic maps of Earth show how the static G-field varies as a function of latitude/longitude. What they are attempting to measure here are dynamic variations in the background G-field due to the propogation of gravitational waves. These waves are generated by accelerating masses in the same way that accelerating charges radiate electromagnetic waves. For instance a black hole and a star orbiting each other will emit G-waves, and by doing so lose orbital energy.

    3. Re:Sounds familiar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you wish to insult me, please leave your insults in my journal.

  2. links by javaaddikt · · Score: 3, Informative

    There was already a story on this earlier this summer.

    and a great page on

    space clocks and frequency control technology

  3. related to string theory? by 2Bits · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Gravitational waves are ripples in the fabric of space and time that are set off by accelerations of massive bodies, such as black holes or supernovas.

    Sounds like string theory in applied science. Could anyone explain/comment how much of string theory affect research in space travel?

    1. Re:related to string theory? by alacqua · · Score: 1

      I'm not a scientist, just a magazine reader and curious person... err... person with a lot of curiousity.

      However, as I understand it, string theory affects little else besides theory - which is one of its problems. Although it may or may not correctly describe the universe, it is very difficult to devise a test or find ways in which it would predict something different which we can measure.

      Can someone more knowledgeable elaborate on that (or correct me)?

      --

      Move on. There's nothing to see here.
  4. Uncertainty? by Zen+Mastuh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I understand the methodology (well, as much as can be deduced from a press release...) of the measurement, but could other factors cause apparent--or real--shifts in relative velocity? For example: mini planets, large asteroids, or lopsided planets could cause variation in the gravitational force exerted on Cassini and said object, altering the relative velocity of the probe. Someone enlighten me!

    --
    "What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
    1. Re:Uncertainty? by markmoss · · Score: 5, Informative

      could other factors cause apparent--or real--shifts in relative velocity? For example: mini planets, large asteroids, or lopsided planets...

      If they see a doppler shift, it's a real velocity change. Electronics designed to transmit and measure frequency are remarkably accurate and stable, so unless NASA didn't bother to put a good oscillator into the transmitter, any measured shift will be real. The only other thing that could cause an apparent shift would be a warped gravity field between the probe and Earth; if there's anything undetected out there capable of that, it would be much bigger news than detecting gravity waves...

      A large asteroid near the flight path could change the velocity, but I would expect the experiment design to distinguish that effect from the gravity waves they are looking for. The larger asteroids, and anything else big enough to be gravitationally significant inside the orbit of Neptune, are easily visible in moderate-sized telescopes on Earth, so they are pretty sure they have all been identified and their gravitational contribution already calculated. (These long missions would always miss the target if NASA wasn't pretty good at those calculations.) But if there is something they missed, the effect on the probe speed would be a single cycle, like speeding up as the probe approached and slowing down as it went past. If there's a velocity change that lasts more than one cycle, a gravity wave is about the only explanation. Also, an asteroid would change the direction of the probe's orbit as well as the speed. This can't be measured to the same accuracy as a doppler shift, so it might take quite a while to detect the change, but eventually they would see that the probe is slightly off course.

      Finally, "lopsided planets": Earth is slightly irregular in shape and density, causing a measurable effect on satellites in low orbit. Presumably other planets are similar, and the irregularities have not been well mapped. But once you are out a bit from the planet, this effect is no longer measurable. All the nit-picking measurements astronomers took on the Moon over several centuries never showed that Earth was anything but spherical, nor did close observation of other planets' moons ever show irregularities, so it isn't going to affect something much farther away from any planet than the Moon is from Earth.

    2. Re:Uncertainty? by Zen+Mastuh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Now it makes more sense--thanks for the enlightenment. Also I finally grokked that the procedure will be performed a few more times over the next year, when the positions of planets and asteroids are significantly different from today's positions.

      I learned in physics that waves don't have mass, then learned later (on /. maybe???) that they can be affected by gravity (and other forces, ostensibly). I'll play devil's advocate here and suggest that the transmitters' waves can themselves be affected by other forces besides the elusive gravity waves. Agree/disagree.

      --
      "What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
    3. Re:Uncertainty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Pretty good analysis. One thing that people unfamiliar with the search for gravity waves tend to assume is that it'll be like a seismograph and you can watch the data scroll by and say "ooh, there's a gravity wave!". In reality (at least with current instruments), you have to do some simple or not so simple data analysis to see what really makes up your signal. The simplest form of this would be to perform a fourier transform on the data and look at what frequencies make up the signal. I work at LIGO (annother project searching for gravity waves, its mentioned in the article) and hardly anyone looks at signals without running an FFT on it. You look for spikes at certain frequencies to figure out what exactly is on the signal (i.e. "there's a spike at 60hz again, #*$! the power cabling" or "there's a broad hump around 450hz, we must have the gain up to high"). Then you can decide whether the signal has nothing of interest on it, some known noise source, or an unknown noise source that could be from gravity waves. The real-time values are really only used for certain tasks (i.e. aligning the mirrors, when you want to maximize the signal on that readout, minimize it on that one, etc.)

      Currently, if we see an unknown noise source, we start looking for what part of the electronics is screwing up our data. Even after we finnaly do see a gravity wave in our results, expect lots of discussion for a year or so until the scientific community will accept that it isn't just some unknown source of noise in our equipment. (And with just cause, some of the sources of noise in this thing can be very strange, and some of the current noise sources still aren't fully understood.) Of course, there are some better and more complex analysis methods in development for when we get the noise down to a state where we have a chance at seeing gravity waves, but for now a simple FFT meets most needs.

      -Too Lazy to Create Account

    4. Re:Uncertainty? by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      Easy ... gravity waves pass once, planets cause a recurring effect, and given a bit of statistics you can distinguis the two ( a fourier analysis should clear things up also )

    5. Re:Uncertainty? by markmoss · · Score: 2

      Thanks. Sounds like you know this stuff better than I do. (I bailed out of physics and into engineering 25 years ago...) I would guess that a major reason for doing this experiment in interplanetary space is to avoid much of the interference that ground-based equipment is subject to. But now that I started to think about just how tiny an effect they are looking for, I wonder -- wouldn't a truck driving by the receiving antenna cause it to bounce up and down a little, giving a periodic doppler effect? So you've got to record on several widely separated antennas and compare the results...

      Could you comment on one bit of arithmetic in the article? "Cassini's speed relative to Earth ... will typically be about what it would take to zip from New York to Chicago in five minutes. In contrast, this experiment could detect any change in speed so small it would lengthen or shorten that trip by a mere fraction of a second." One second in 5 * 60 = 300 is 0.33%, so I suspect this is off by several orders of magnitude (unless you think a fraction of a microsecond and a fraction of a second are equivalent).

    6. Re:Uncertainty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Although I haven't looked at the math involved in the cassini, it does indeed seem to be off by a few orders of magnitude. As for trucks driving by, that's just one of the noise sources you have to live with. Luckily, you can characterize the noise so that it doesn't contaminate all of your results. At LIGO, a lot of work has been done to isolate the mirrors from as many vibrational sources as possible, but it is impossible to get rid of all of them. What is more important is knowing just where the noise will couple into the system so you can tune it away from the frequencies you care about. For example, the seismic isolation stacks here tend to pass noise through around the 16hz region, but you can usually ignore seismic effects at higher frequencies. There are quite a few frequencies that we can't use for gravity waves since there are other noise sources interfering. Several studies have been done on noise sources, and I've seen a couple lists of environmental and internal noise sources that can get rather long. An example of some environmental noise sources would be power supply fans, computer monitors, car traffic, earthquakes (even ones clear across the globe), people walking around in the equipment area, people moving the overhead cranes in the equipment area, and there's even one listed as "Yakima Firing Center tank shot signal" (10-15hz). Also, of course, the 60hz (plus all the harmonics) noise that comes in from some of the standard wall voltage power supplies. Example internal sources would be the bounce, drum, vertical, horizontal, violin, pendilum and propeller frequencies (all different ways the suspended mirrors can vibrate) for at least 13 mirrors in each interferometer, noise from the coil drivers that move the mirrors, and all sorts of different problems if different gains are turned up too high. Fortunately, things can be designed in such a way as to leave the more interesting frequencies as quiet as possible. Also, since LIGO has two interferometers (one in Washington, one in Louisiana) you can do coincidence detection to see if the two instruments picked up the same signals around the same time (and based on the small time difference, you can do some parallax measurements, to find the direction the wave came from). This isn't quite as easy when you only have one space probe to work with...

      As for how quiet is quiet enough... well, IIRC we're looking for a vibration in the mirrors that is a couple orders of magnitude smaller than the size of a proton.

      -Too Lazy to Create Account

  5. Through the sun??! by Zapman · · Score: 2

    How on earth are they communicating with the probe if it is on the other side of the Sun?

    Though that might be the source of the gravitational waves they are measuring... hrm...

    --
    Zapman
    1. Re:Through the sun??! by Xzzy · · Score: 2

      You misread.

      If you drew a line from the satellite to the sun, earth would be somewhere on that line between the two.

  6. The really interesting thing here... by nikoftime · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What I find truly interesting about all this is not just that they are measuring the velocity changes (the acceleration) of the Cassini probe, but that after getting back the information of the forces at work, they will have to somehow determine exactly where the gravitational waves are coming from.

    Think of it this way: If two planets are on opposite sides of the probe, and both are emitting gravitational forces, then the probe will be subjected to the net forces of the two planets. The equation for relative force of gravity comes to mind here, and I assume they will be using it when calculating multiple sources of gravity.

    (GmM)/(R^2) gives the acceleration of the system for two masses in space, so any resultant force must take into account that it could come from several different masses.

    JPL engineers have carefully instrumented a large dish antenna at the Deep Space Network's Goldstone complex near Barstow, Calif., to send and receive the higher frequencies with unprecedented Doppler sensitivity. The upgrade includes refined pointing capability needed to exploit the higher frequencies, said Sami Asmar, supervisor of JPL's Radio Science Group. Other new equipment at Goldstone will allow researchers to correct for the atmosphere's distortion of radio transmissions and improve performance of the search.

    As I see it, the trickiest thing here will be taking the "exquisitely accurate measurements" and turning them into real, useable models of gravity given off by our neighboring planets.

    1. Re:The really interesting thing here... by who+what+why · · Score: 3, Informative

      (GmM)/(R^2) gives the acceleration of the system for two masses in space

      That is newtonian gravity. By definition, gravitational radiation is a general relativistic effect. The source of gravitational radiation is likely to be a fairly close supernova, or perhaps a binary black-hole system etc.

      The weak-field effect or nearby planets will be taken into account, I presume, but will not contribute to gravitational radiation.

    2. Re:The really interesting thing here... by devonbowen · · Score: 1
      What I find truly interesting about all this is not just that they are measuring the velocity changes (the acceleration) of the Cassini probe, but that after getting back the information of the forces at work, they will have to somehow determine exactly where the gravitational waves are coming from.

      It's not clear from your post that you understand the difference between gravity and gravity waves. They are not going to measure the effect of gravity on Cassini (well, they're doing that, too, but that wasn't the point). They are going to measure the expansion/contraction of space between us and Cassini caused by gravity waves. Gravity waves are ripples in the fabric of space itself that are caused by, for example, black holes orbiting around each or some other interesting event involving gravity. Gravity and gravity waves are as different as electrons and radio waves.

      Devon

  7. Nice experiment to prepare the way for LISA... by Tsar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It will be interesting to see whether this experiment gets the results everyone seems to be anticipating, or mirrors the 'success' of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

    The Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) (launching in 2009) should return significantly better data, but it'll be nice to get a sneak preview from Cassini.

    "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ...'" — Isaac Asimov

  8. This is all very interesting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but i wanna know what these "gravitational waves" LOOK like!

  9. How long before the FCC ... by OmegaDan · · Score: 5, Funny

    how long before the FCC declares itself the guardian of the gravtational frequency band and starts selling portions to the highest bidder? :)

    --
    Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
  10. Spce empty enough? by TACD · · Score: 3, Insightful
    As I understand it, the differences in speed will be "barely perceptible"... doesn't this potentially mean that the calculations could be wrecked by the tiny impacts of hydrogen atoms on the probe? It souds like something this fragile could be offset by anything. But tell me if I'm wrong. :-)

    Side info: If you held open a matchbox in space, it would contain about 6 hydrogen atoms.

    --
    Security through promiscuity is no better than security through obscurity.
    1. Re:Spce empty enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny
      If you held open a matchbox in space, it would contain about 6 hydrogen atoms

      It would contain even fewer matches. LOL! There goes my karma!

    2. Re:Spce empty enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on the velocity away from earth and the frequency of the clock. I thought the cassini used an ion engine which converts ion mass to energy for a steady accelerating platform? Guess the article is bring your own math.

  11. But how will they detect meta-black-holes?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, those things with density so high that not even gravity can escape them?

  12. NOTHING to do with string theory. by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People always want to talk about string theory at the drop of a hat. But there is so much fascinating stuff in physics that holds a possibility of actually being true. :)

    Maybe string theory enters into the picture on the Planck scale, or when you're going to talk about individual gravitons, but it's completely irrelevant as far as this experiment goes. Gravitational waves are a classical phenomenon, predicted by GR (which is a classical theory). They have not been detected as of yet because they are so weak. The coupling coefficient is c^4/(8*pi*G), which is really large. So space time is elastic, but it is extremely stiff. It takes a lot of force to warp it even a tiny bit. The earth emits something on the order of 1 watt of gravitational radiation as it orbits the sun. Jupiter emits something like 30 watts. (Don't ask me for a source on those numbers- I think I read them on the Internet somewhere.) But any laboratory source won't emit anything that can be measured. Gravitational waves are even more esoteric than neutrinos, since we know how to detect neutrinos that we have created. The only sources of gravitational waves that are even remotely detectable are binary star systems, where two neutron stars are in a close orbit. The orbital periods of some of these systems have been determined to be decreasing in a manner characteristic of energy loss from gravitational radiation.

    Personally I've always thought it's a bit premature to be speculating on the stringlike nature of gravitons when we can't even detect gross macroscopic things like gravity waves or even gravitomagnetism. It's as if we're blind snails wanting to talk about photons.

    1. Re:NOTHING to do with string theory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Sorry, but your posting isn't going to help much if you just toss around technical terms without explaining them.
      Planck scale - (roughly) a high energy regime that's by far inaccessible by particle accelerators but was the "hot" state of the universe very shortly after the big bang
      GR - theory of general relativity
      graviton - to gravity what the photon is to light: the mediator of gravitational force
      - putting in the numbers for the coupling coefficient you get 5x10^42 Newton from which one can really see that it is large

    2. Re:NOTHING to do with string theory. by spiro_killglance · · Score: 3, Interesting


      Quite true. At present String theory doesn't
      even seem to be sciences best bet for a
      quantum theory of gravity. A theory called
      Loop Quantum Gravity, that describes space-time
      as network of lines each labelled with a spin,
      is rapidly become a much more promising theory.
      String theory still requires a space-time for
      strings to move in, where as LQG, describes how space time is built. There are already some great results in LQG, including the formula for the Entropy of a black hole, a description of a big bang at zero time, no not a singularity, at that time the universe has a finite but huge curvature equal to 256/(81 G h-bar)

      Have a look at the review paper i mentioned above, its excitted
      work.

    3. Re:NOTHING to do with string theory. by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      Ah, you have (value)x(G/c) = (m/s^2)/(m/s) which = 1/s. Last time I check watts are an energy flow, meaning J/s or the like.

      I'll give you the benefit of the doubt with the watt measurements, since you got them off the 'net, which gives you an even chance of having wrong info, but I spotted the unit issue right off the bat.

      You equation is basically right, though (missed a constant http://www.lal.in2p3.fr/presentation/bibliotheque/ publications/2001/web/node3.html ).

      Ah well, no big deal.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    4. Re:NOTHING to do with string theory. by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 3, Funny

      Sorry, but your posting isn't going to help much if you just toss around technical terms without explaining them.

      So... you must be new here? Welcome to Slashdot.

    5. Re:NOTHING to do with string theory. by shawnseat · · Score: 1
      Thank you for the link to an interesting article. However, as the paper itself states, (super)string theory does not postulate a background metric a priori either -- it is derived explicitly from the form of the equations themselves.

      The astonishing thing to me was noticing that Loop Quantum Gravity describes the Big Bang event as being 16 physical dimensions -- the precise number that are "lost" in string theory by going from a bosonic theory with tachyons (!) to a supersymmetric theory. The exclamation point should be obvious; if these are in fact parts of the same theory (string theory is just bizarre enough that it might be so!), the "tachyons" could describe the connection between the 16-dimensional "initial" event and 10-dimensional superstrings at the present!

      --
      Religion is the opiate of the masses. The wealthy smoke the real stuff.
    6. Re:NOTHING to do with string theory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I've never read that Ashtekar paper, but I study loop quantum gravity at Penn State, and I think some of the things you're saying are not accurate. I'd appreciate it if you could quote the relevant passages for me.


      A fixed background metric is not really derived from string theory at all, it is postulated. However, the equations of string theory do dictate what kinds of spacetimes may serve as a background. The modern view of string theory is that the theory is actually background-independent, like loop quantum gravity, though nobody really understands how to formulate the theory in this manner. Matrix models of M-theory and string field theory are two notable attempts.


      As for loop quantum gravity's depiction of the Big Bang, I assume you are referring to Bojowald's work on loop quantum cosmology. His work is fully four-dimensional, as is almost all work in loop quantum gravity, so I don't know where this claim of "16 physical dimensions" comes from. This is where I would really appreciate a quote from the Ashtekar paper, because I think you're misunderstanding something.

    7. Re:NOTHING to do with string theory. by shawnseat · · Score: 1
      His work is fully four-dimensional, as is almost all work in loop quantum gravity, so I don't know where this claim of "16 physical dimensions" comes from. This is where I would really appreciate a quote from the Ashtekar paper, because I think you're misunderstanding something.

      I misread the quote at the middle of page 12 from the article:
      The 'evolution' equation [ref. 3] has other interesting features. To begin with, the [the part I misread] space of solutions is 16 dimensional.

      Sorry for the reading error -- when I saw '16 dimensional' 'space' being derived from this, I was hoping there was a convergence between the two theories (say a 26-dimensional boson becoming a fermion in each of 16-dimensions and 10). Thanks for the correction before I got even more excited. ;)
      --
      Religion is the opiate of the masses. The wealthy smoke the real stuff.
  13. Another approach by bryan1945 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Can't they just hook up Harry Knowles (www.aicn.com) with some sensors and look for the gravity waves he creates?

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  14. Where is Newton when you need him? by thogard · · Score: 1

    There are some stange thigns going on with gravity and no one seems to have a real grasp on it. For example every space probe is slowing down from the GPS constilation to Pioneers. The realitivty effects on the GPS system were predicted and designed into the system but most of them were off a few orders of magnitude.

    We still don't know why pendulums swing differently durring an eclipse.

    1. Re:Where is Newton when you need him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pendulums don't swing differently during an eclipse. It's an urban legend.

  15. If gravity is such a weak force.... by wagadog · · Score: 0, Redundant

    then why is it so hard to reverse the sign on it?

  16. Hrrmmmm... by gnovos · · Score: 1

    I've always wondered if gravity wasn't matter pulling on other matter, but space pushing on matter. After all, there is all the pent up zero-point energy, right? What if it is all pushing tightly against matter from all directions. When the space between two bits of matter is less than the space on the other side of teh two bits, then the net force would be to push those two bits together.

    --
    "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
    1. Re:Hrrmmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blah... vacumm pressure account for two bodies, in proximity in vacumm, being pushed together. This vacumm pressure is entirely different than gravity which attract the two masses together.

  17. Hmmm... by rde · · Score: 1

    It's been a while since we heard anything about Pioneer's anomalous acceleration. This sounds like the sort of thing that might be able to shed a little light.

  18. GRAIL by vinylat33 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Professor Frossati working at Kamerlingh Onnes Laboraty at the University of Leiden, leads the project 'Gravitation Radion Antennae In Leiden', alias GRAIL, which tries to measure gravitation waves.

    Website : www.minigrail.nl

  19. This explains a lot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This explains why the sun has been going wacko - no pun intended. OK maybe it was!


    Shake your fist and you shake the universe. Just by moving the
    mass of your hand back and forth, you are sending out ripples
    in space and time - pieces of traveling gravity that distort
    everything they meet. These subtle waves will race outwards,
    warping the substance of the sun after about eight minutes,
    and then heading out into the vastness of interstellar space.

    - New Scientist magazine.

  20. Gravity by ruiner13 · · Score: 1
    It's then just a matter of time after we learn how to measure something that we understand how to manipulate it. Look at radio waves. Look at radiation. Gravity may be next. Manipulate gravity and propulsion systems of all kinds will be gone forever. If you can have 0 mass, you can move very fast with almost no energy.

    I don't think we're ready for that, but hm.... cool.

    --

    today is spelling optional day.

  21. We might learn how to transmit gravity waves by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1
    The earth emits something on the order of 1 watt of gravitational radiation as it orbits the sun. Jupiter emits something like 30 watts. (Don't ask me for a source on those numbers- I think I read them on the Internet somewhere.) But any laboratory source won't emit anything that can be measured.

    A similar statement could have been made about radio waves before humans learned how to transmit them. But now, missile-warning radars are the brightest objects in the universe at certain radio frequencies.

    In the future, artificial transmitters might become the "brightest" objects in the universe at certain frequencies of gravity waves.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  22. LISA is a giant leap forward by ArcSecond · · Score: 1
    From what I've heard about LISA (and I've heard Kip Thorne talking about it, and it *is* his pet project), it is going to provide a mind-blowing view of the universe for cosmologists. The potential for gravity-based observatories seems unlimited... you can use all sorts of technologies to look at different parts of the spectrum, and you'll be able to see HELLA back in time in a way that EM scopes never could.

    Forget about UV, X-RAY, IR, and RADIO telescopes (let alone visual ones... ugh); these babies are going to be the new uberTools of astronomy. If you postulate a satellite observatory the size of the solar system (quite do-able, even today), we could be opening a whole new chapter in our understanding of the cosmos.

    The only thing that excites me more is the idea of sending probes to the moons of Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune to check out the geology (or xeology?). The fact that I'm going to be an old man by the time all this happens doesn't bother me a bit.

    --

    I've got a bad attitude and karma to burn. Go ahead. Mod me down.