Slashdot Mirror


NASA Gravity Probe Launched

ping pong writes "Forty-five years in the making and 24 hours late, NASA launched the $700 million satellite into orbit today to test Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity. The satellite, which was inserted into a polar orbit, will spend two months getting ready, then 16 months making measurements." NASA's mission news has more.

22 of 223 comments (clear)

  1. That's a lot of money to spend by mindless4210 · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's a pretty fascinating experiment, although it seems like a lot of money to spend just for testing his theory. I think that recent missions to mars were a bit more interesting.

    Stanford has a great overview of the mission. It's in pdf format.

    --
    Wireless News www.DailyWireless
    1. Re:That's a lot of money to spend by timeOday · · Score: 2, Informative
      I'm unclear about what exactly is being tested here. I was under the impression that satellites with atomic clocks had already confirmed relativistic effects on time:
      At the time of launch of the first NTS-2 satellite (June 1977), which contained the first Cesium clock to be placed in orbit, there were some who doubted that relativistic effects were real. A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit was that predicted by GR, then the synthesizer could be turned on bringing the clock to the coordinate rate necessary for operation. The atomic clock was first operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on the synthesizer. The frequency measured during that interval was parts in faster than clocks on the ground; if left uncorrected this would have resulted in timing errors of about 38,000 nanoseconds per day. The difference between predicted and measured values of the frequency shift was only parts in , well, within the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then gave about a validation of the combined motional and gravitational shifts for a clock at earth radii.
      And then I read that even if this new probe does not measure the effect, most people will simply conclude that the experimental results are invalid. So are we proving a new result conclusively, and if so what is it?
  2. Why has it been in the making for so long? by Pi_0's+don't+shower · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is an experiment designed to test the correction due to General Relativity of the thomas precession of a tiny spinning sphere.

    The correction to the precession will be on the order of arcseconds (1/3600 of a degree) per year.

    There are some very good general relativists who have very severe reservations about this project. If they do detect a signal, I suspect it will be more of a testament to the power of experimental precision rather than a test of GR, which practically every serious physicist believes to be correct.

    It's also worth noting that if nothing is seen, it's more likely than not due to the difficulty of detecting such a small signal.

    1. Re:Why has it been in the making for so long? by Stuntmonkey · · Score: 4, Informative

      The correction to the precession will be on the order of arcseconds (1/3600 of a degree) per year.

      It's significantly smaller than that -- the precession due to frame dragging is predicted to be only 0.04 arcseconds over one year.

      And I agree that the physics community is 99% confident that the Lense-Thirring effect is real. However, I also think this is more because of the aesthetic beauty of the theory, rather than actual measurements. If it were a less fundamental theory being tested I would call it a waste of money, but for something as fundamental as GR I think a confirming direct experiement is justified.

      The real question is how many viable alternatives to GR are ruled out by this test, assuming it is successful. For example nearly all viable GR alternatives proposed have weak gravitational wave properties identical to GR, so detecting these waves provides little support for GR. I wonder if the Lense-Thirring frame-dragging effect is more discriminating.

      Of course, by far the more interesting case is if the effect is not observed. They seem to have many sigma of signal to noise here, so a null result would be pretty compelling.

  3. Re:Scientists crossing fingers, pacing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Wrong theory...E=MC^2 is a proven theory

  4. An experiment in inertia? by David+Hume · · Score: 4, Informative


    That is, inertia in big science funding?

    In 1995, the GP-B was described as the "only experiment ever devised to test [the existence of frame-dragging]."

    However, in 1997 NASA announced that it had successfully tested frame dragging. See also here.

    1. Re:An experiment in inertia? by Unnngh! · · Score: 2, Informative
      They had evidence supporting this effect from a black hole. GP-B is designed to provide much more conclusive measurements from earth herself.

      A black hole is a pretty extreme example of this, too, and such behavior around the singularity is more likely to have alternative explanations than said behavior around earth.

  5. Not always hard by Pi_0's+don't+shower · · Score: 5, Informative

    The James Webb Space telescope, when launched, will be temperature controlled by simply putting a shield around it on the sun-side, keeping the telescope side cool and out of sunlight.

    A pretty simple idea; as once it cools down to equilibrium temperature, there'll be nothing to heat it up.

  6. Public Service Announcement by spellraiser · · Score: 1, Informative
    --
    I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
  7. Re:hazaah by adam+mcmaster · · Score: 3, Informative

    I believe that was to test the theory that changes in velocity affect time, whereas the current experiment is to test the theory that a rotating object affects time and space.

  8. Re:Absolute Zero? by nrlightfoot · · Score: 4, Informative

    They put all the gyroscopes in a dewar with 1500 liters of liquid helium to keep it cold. Plus they get to use the helium that evaporates for the stabiliztion thrusters.

    --
    what sig?
  9. Re:Scientists crossing fingers, pacing by FatHogByTheAss · · Score: 3, Informative

    That's special relativity. General relativity relates to gravity.

    --

    --
    You sure got a purty mouth...

  10. -1, Troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative
    I'm no physicist, but I know Einstein's made assumptions that haven't been proven wrong or right, for example the speed of light in a vaccum is the fastest attainable speed in the universe.
    Actually, that isn't one of his assumptions. Try again.
  11. Re:Einstein... by BlueUnderwear · · Score: 3, Informative
    I think that Einstein would turn over in his grave

    Nope, he was cremated. However, his brain could be spinning in its jar

    Remember, this was the man that came up with some of the most complicated theories in modern physics,

    ... except that he plagiarized Dirac's works...

    He used 'geddonken' experiments,

    Gedankenexperimente, i.e. though experiments.

    --
    Say no to software patents.
  12. We already have a better understanding of gravity. by I'm+a+racist. · · Score: 3, Informative

    In all honesty, this probe won't tell us anything we don't already know. At the time the idea was proposed, it was useful. Since then, we've made more precise measurements of gravity and observed relativistic effects.

    The only way this probe will really teach us anything (outside of the engineering that went into its construction) is if it fails, spectacularly. Sadly, those "eureka" moments don't happen very often, and I wouldn't hold out much hope for one here. Then again, the Hipparcos data has caused some debate, while its mission was somewhat routine (although highly precise).

    We already know that relativity is wrong (in the same sense that classical mechanics is wrong). This experiment is not designed to figure out exactly how relativity is wrong, rather it is designed to tell us if relativity is wrong at all. Since we already know the answer to that question, it isn't very helpful.

    I'm not blaming the guys that worked on this project. There were political/financial/logistical issues that made this launch 20+ years too late to be useful. The PhDs awarded during this project are good, they did some nice work, most notably in materials science and fabrication, but other areas as well. It's just not very meaningful in the areas of physics/cosomology.

    Oh well, that's what happens when science is a slave to beauracracy.

    --


    Down with Saudi Arabia!!!
  13. Quick attempt at an answer by Pi_0's+don't+shower · · Score: 3, Informative

    Alright, disclaimer first:
    Just a grad student, still learning stuff, apologies ahead of time if it's wrong.

    Attempt at an answer:
    "Frame-dragging", as I understand it, goes all the way back to an old theory of the aether, that the aether is all around us, but is dragged by masses so that some oddball features of special relativity is explained. I'm not sure how this applies to the problem here, so maybe people use frame-dragging to refer to something else.

    This part, though, how gravity works, is easier. Einstein's theory relies upon the stress-energy tensor. All forms of energy, including energy due to angular momentum and relative motions, are included in this. Binary pulsars precess and their orbits evolve in time, as do their rotation rates, as energy is radiated away gravitationally. There is definitely a contribution to gravity due to what you call "velocity components". Gravitational signals only propagate at c, so don't worry.

    You can look at my first 2 posts on this topic if you like, but basically GR predicts that there will be a precession of this little spinning sphere that's very small and hopefully detectable. If we don't detect it, it's probably due to the difficulty of the experiment, not to the failure of GR.

  14. Re:Isn't frame dragging a forgone conclusion? by SmackCrackandPot · · Score: 2, Informative

    The video's from PBS's Nova - The Elegant Universe - Newton's Embarassing Secret explains this.

  15. Re:So did Marx ... by the+gnat · · Score: 2, Informative

    Marx advocated revolutionary overthrow of the existing social order, and abolition of private property and religion. The goal was mandatory egalitarianism, where nobody can ever improve their economic status. Do you really think this can be accomplished without violence and dictatorship? Communism is not some wishy-washy philosophy that says we should all work for the common good and not be greedy; it demands that this system be imposed from above.

  16. Re:about time travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    Not at all a dumb question, and I don't have a good mathematical answer for your out-and-back question, other than to say the relativistic time dilation/contraction is fundamentally a different physical mechanism than Doppler shift (which applies to the frequency of both EM and sound waves).

    I do know, though, that time dilation is measurable and has in fact been measured. I don't remember the exact numbers, only that they were very small, since the Lorenz correction to a (non-relativistic) interval of time is a factor of sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), where v is the velocity of the object in question relative to the observer and c is the speed of light (roughly 3e8 meters/sec). What this means in practical terms is that the wristwatch of, say, an astronaut ends up being a tiny bit slow upon return to earth (that's in addition to, and separate from, timekeeping imperfections in the watch itself). Of course this effect is on the order of nanoseconds, so those guys don't get to file for overtime :)

    On the other hand, the atomic clocks aboard GPS satellites most definitely do take this effect into account, and are detuned from their nominal frequency by some small tiny amount to compensate for this.

    -H

  17. Re:about time travel by drik00 · · Score: 2, Informative

    You seem to misunderstand...time DOES slow down the faster that you're traveling. Einstein's famous twins paradox, for example. Imagine twins born at the same time, one is put on the on a spacecraft travelling through space at near-light speed (since C is unachieveable), and the other child grows up on earth normally. When the earth-twin is 30 years old, his space-twin returns, and is only 3 days old.

    -J

    --
    Beer, now there's a temporary solution -- Homer Jay S.
  18. Lense-Thirring effect exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Of course, by far the more interesting case is if the effect is not observed. They seem to have many sigma of signal to noise here, so a null result would be pretty compelling.

    The Lense-Thirring effect has been observed: http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0264-9381/17/12/309

    There is no null result. However Gravity Probe B will increase the accuracy of the measurements DRAMATICALLY. Progress in physics has always been made by:
    1. new ideas
    2. high accuracy measurements allowing to discriminate between those ideas

  19. Re:Einstein... by www+www+www · · Score: 2, Informative
    ... except that he plagiarized Dirac's works...

    That statement is plain stupid. Dirac finished school in 1918. Einstein published the Special Relativity in 1905 and the General Relativity in 1915. Can you back up your statement?! Beside, it is well known that Dirac was a great admirer of General Relativity, considering the Einstein equations the most beautiful in physics. That is the reason Dirac chose GR as a research topic in 1923 as a young student in Cambridge ...

    The Dirac generation might have had more success in Einstein's project in his old age to unify the fundamental forces in nature. Since Einstein grew up with only gravity and electromagnetism as the fundamental forces, Einstein naturally focused on these two. In modern physics, electromagnetism has been unified with the weak interaction and strong nuclear force, but the problem still remains how to make a theory to include gravity with these three other forces. So, one can hardly blame Einstein for failing where modern physic is still searching for answers.

    --

    bring it on! --- JFK