At a press conference yesterday at NASA's central headquarters, researchers from Stanford announced results that verify two important effects from Einstein's theory of general relativity; Long-awaited results from the Gravity Probe B (GP-B) spacecraft: the geodesic effect and the Lance-Teering effect from general relativity
At a press conference yesterday at NASA's central headquarters, researchers from Stanford announced results that verify two important effects from Einstein's theory of general relativity; Long-awaited results from the Gravity Probe B (GP-B) spacecraft: the geodesic effect and the Lance-Teering effect from general relativity
The relative effects verified
The Gravity B spacecraft was launched on April 20, 2004 and was developed and designed to test two predictions from Einstein's theory of general relativity:
1) The "geodetic effect": This is a technical term to describe the phenomenon of space-time curvature around the Earth, caused by the mass of the Earth. Actually the curvature of space-time around some gravitational body.
2) Space-drag effect (lens-tiring): the rotating earth drags space-time along with it.
In 1960, the theoretical physicist Leonard Schiff, head of the physics department at Stanford University, proposed the following scenario: an ideal gyroscope in orbit around the Earth, or around another massive body, suffers two types of relative precession with respect to a distant frame of reference that does not suffer from disturbance :
1) Geodetic precession in the orbital plane (for example of the Earth and the Moon around the Sun) due to local curvature of space-time.
2) Precession Dragging space due to the rotation of the Earth.
The last Schiff effect is related - but not quite the same - to the Lance-Teering effect, the drag effect of the plane of the orbit of a satellite around a rotating planet, as calculated in 1918 by Lance andTeering. Schiff gave an equation for the precession of the gyroscope in Einstein's theory of relativity. NASA in 1963 was interested in Schiff's project (how many years before the launch to the moon?...) to verify Einstein's theory of relativity.
Schiff's equation contains two contributions, the first is the geodesic effect and the second is the space drag effect. For the geodetic effect it is necessary to take into account the curvature of the earth, which changes both the trajectory and the term that represents the effect in the equation.
In the 642 km orbit of the GP-B, the geodetic precession predicted from the Schiff equation is 6,606 milliarc-seconds per year. And the drag of space is 0.39 milliarcseconds per year. GP-B was designed to measure both effects to an accuracy of less than 0.5 milliarc-seconds per year. It's like measuring the thickness of a piece of paper a hundred million kilometers away.
Technology
The spacecraft tested these predictions using ultra-precise gyroscopes in orbit around the Earth. Data collection began on August 28, 2004 and the science missions ended on September 29, 2005. Examining the data proved to be more complicated than thought. The researchers discovered two functional anomalies in the gyroscope's motor and its device, which led to complications and changes in the measured physical parameters.
The experiments in the Gravity B spacecraft actually require three seemingly simple components: a guide star, a telescope and a gyroscope, which is a rotating spherical body. It turned out that there was a great difficulty in building the system, which required the invention of new technologies. We need a number of accurate gyroscopes, which are much more accurate than the ones we use for navigation. You also need a telescope, which should also be more accurate than the one that followed the stars. The researchers also used a star to act as a guide star, whose motion they know relative to the distant inertial system. They chose a binary system called IM Pegasi. The researchers also needed precise information about the trajectory of the spacecraft to calibrate the signals and calculate the two predicted effects.
The Gravitational Device B is long and it was all put into a vacuum chamber, a dewar filled with super liquid helium, manufactured by Lockheed Martin.
Its central part is the quartz structure that is integrated into it. Inside it is a folded Cassegrain telescope with a lens diameter of 0.14 m and a focal length of 3.81 m, which is connected to a quartz block, which contains four gyroscopes hanging in a row - Gyro 1, Gyro 2, Gyro 3, Gyro 4 - at a range of 0.1 mm from the telescope's mouth.
Each gyroscope is the size of a ping-pong ball, with a diameter of 3.81 cm, and is an ideal ball mechanically, but it turned out not electrically, as we will see later; And so the gyroscopes didn't oscillate perfectly. Each gyroscope was electrically suspended about its geometric center within a spherical quartz device.
The quartz ball of the gyroscope has an almost perfect niobium coating fused. To measure with an accuracy of milliarc seconds per year, at the temperatures of liquid helium, the niobium coating has become superconducting and therefore allows electric currents to flow without resistance. Once an electric current is created it does not fade away. The rotating currents cause an electric field that points in a certain direction, in the direction of the guiding star, IM Pegasi. The prediction according to the theory of general relativity is that slight changes in the direction of this electric field should appear.
The detection is done by a very sensitive SQUID magnetometer coupled to a coil on a conductor. The results are displayed graphically: the intensity of the tension depends on the angle and several other parameters. The telescope is aimed at the guide star IM Pegasi, and the results are emitted as the output of the gyroscopes and a calibration signal: results regarding the guide star (the changes in the position of the guide star in relation to the movement of the Earth relative to the Sun and in relation to the movement of the Gravity B spacecraft around the Earth). For nearly half of Gravitational B's orbit around Earth, the host star is hidden from the telescope by the Earth.
Two gyroscopes rotate clockwise while the other years rotate counterclockwise with their axes initially aligned with the guide star. Each gyroscope measures both relativistic effects. The spacecraft oscillates slowly (77.5 second cycle) around the line to the host star.
To rotate a gyroscope you need to apply a force torque. How can this be done in a facility cooled by liquid helium? The small device that housed the spherical gyroscope consists of two halves. Therefore for the GP-B the only technique was to make the helium gas move at sonic speed and in a variable manner to the right side of the gyroscope's device. Then the rotating gas is turned off and the power torque is created.
Performing the experiments
Clifford Will of Washington University in St. Louis chaired the panel of NASA's National Research Council that decided to test the results of general relativity using the Gravity B spacecraft.
The Gravitational B was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California on April 20, 2004. The gyroscopes entered rotation and final alignment on August 29, 2004. The lander remained cold in orbit for 17 months and nine days. The rotation of the gyroscopes was completed on July 14, 2004. Data collection began on August 28, 2004. Then a science calibration phase began from August 14, 2005 until the mail launch on September 29, 2005. However, reading the data became complicated and took more than five years because the disturbances began to appear .
The disturbances between 2005 and 2011
The telescope and dewar performed well, the Gravitational B was launched by the launch vehicle as close as possible to an ideal orbit. The gyroscopes were almost ten to the power of six better than the best gyroscopes used for navigation! The noise from the SQUID magnetometer in the gyroscope readings was actually less than expected before launch. And other indicators in the experiment were beyond expectations. So what actually happened in the experiment that delayed him for over five years? Two complications that date back to Euler and Lagrange in the 18th century:
1) Change in the polehode cycle of the gyroscope: a strange concept that originated in the 18th century, when the Swiss mathematician Leonard Euler derived a set of equations that described the dynamics of rigid bodies in motion without torque. Especially Euler and his contemporaries Jean Delambre, Louis Lagrange and others, noticed slight changes in latitude due to the Earth's oscillation around its polar axis. Part of this oscillation - which was later called the polhode motion - of the Earth - was discovered to be caused by the natural behavior of the rotating Earth, which is free from force torque. But these great scientists thought that the Earth was completely a rigid body and therefore they calculated its polhode oscillation cycle as about 9-10 months. During the 19th century, Louis Ponceau, a French geometrician, a contemporary of Leon Foucault (who invented the gyroscope) developed a geometric interpretation of the physics of rotating bodies. Ponceau coined the phrase polhode and also herpolhode to describe this oscillation in the motion of rotating rigid bodies. Ponceau coined these terms from the Greek words POLE, which is a pole, and ODE, which means an orbit. Therefore the meaning of the word is the polar track. Continue the explanation and animation on the websites of Stanford וNASA Here:
The full-hood movement was predictable, but not the change of the full-hood cycle. The change is caused by trapped flux: a property of the superconducting niobium coating of the gyroscope. The flux is created by quanta of magnetic flux called plexons.
A change in the polehood trajectory of the gyroscopes caused difficulties in measuring the relative effect. It also affected the calibration of the gyroscope data against the aberration of the stars. The magnetic measurement using the very sensitive magnetometer of the axis of rotation of the gyroscope and the telescope measurement of the position of the telescope relative to the guide star are two separate systems. Therefore, the instruments must be calibrated to ensure that both systems measure the same directions. Changing the Fullhood route made this action difficult. Also the magnetic flux that was trapped in the gyroscope motor when they were cooled to superconducting temperatures was another factor that made this operation difficult.
2) Two additional Newtonian effects caused a disturbance in the alignment of the gyroscopes with each other on the axis of rotation: greater than expected torques of Newtonian force were detected in the gyroscopes due to contamination on the metal surface of the gyroscopes' motor. A total dipole moment was generated that interacted with the voltages when the gyroscope was suspended within the fixture. As a result, a force torque is created. In addition, during the examination of the data, the researchers found a resonance effect: significant changes in the direction of the axis of rotation of the gyroscope also appeared as a result of impurities on the surface of the device. The changes appeared when the polehood frequency of the gyroscope was almost equal to the rotation frequency of the satellite around the axis to the star.
Reading the data
There are two sources of data output: the telescope and the magnetometer. In addition, there are calculations that are performed ahead of time of the aberration and data on the satellite and gyroscopes, the noise and interference data. A model is built and software is built according to all the complex data. Taking into account the mathematical models and solutions for the factors above, calculate everything for the combination of the four gyroscopes and take into account the calibration factors. The results obtained from this analysis are the consistency of the four gyroscopes with each other with the values of general relativity.
Yesterday, Stanford University physicist Francis Eberitt, the lead researcher of the Gravity B mission, said that the researchers measured from the gyroscopes an electric current directed at the guide star (geodetic precession) of 6,600 plus or minus 0.17 milliarcseconds and a space drag effect of 0.39 plus or minus 0.7 milliarcseconds. An incredibly accurate match to the theoretical predictions.
Implications for black holes
The results of the Gravity B mission have implications for neutron stars, black holes, and active galactic nuclei. Clifford Will says that if you try to rotate a gyroscope in a highly distorted space-time environment, such as around a black hole, it will not perform a gentle precession, but will oscillate wildly and probably even flip over. Now we will move to a binary system of black holes, where one black hole rotates around the other. That is, that the black hole in this system behaves like a gyroscope. Imagine a system of spinning, oscillating and flying black holes. This is what general relativity predicts and the Gravity B spacecraft has verified can happen.
50 תגובות
Does this mean that when a gravitating body rotates, space warps once more *due to its rotation*?
Very interesting article, as usual. Sorry for the ignorance, but a technical question - wouldn't using an optical gyro make the experiment significantly easier (at least in terms of neglecting mechanical effects)?
just stupid:
Why do you find it appropriate to repeat what I said (and I always say) and that is that there is no evidence in science and why do you try to create a false representation as if this fact is important to our case.
The authors of the article complained (as I said - and don't come back and tell me what I said) about only two things (re-read response 44 and if necessary - read it now 7 times):
One is the use of the term "proof" - a concept that is not true
The second is attributing the entire theory of relativity to Einstein while underestimating the contributions of scientists after him.
They did not (I repeat: no!) talk about other explanations for the phenomena, and if you think there are other explanations, you are welcome - as I already suggested to you in response 46 (but it seems that in the conversation with you I was condemned to repeat everything many times) - to present us with one more explanation.
Michael Rothschild:
Don't get me wrong, I support general relativity, but the satellite did not prove those theories unequivocally (like the fact that the earth is round and not flat). The satellite may have "confirmed" but did not turn the theories into unequivocal fact.
And there are other explanations for the same phenomena, although most of the scientific community rejects most of them (and I agree with that rejection).
just stupid:
At the beginning of your words you say what I said myself (that it bothered them that they used Einstein's name).
It does not belong to the correctness of the theory.
At the end of your words you are just rambling.
Give us one more explanation for the two phenomena.
To be clear - even if you provide such an explanation - there is no such explanation in the link you provided and there is no claim against the correctness of the theory of relativity.
In general - if you didn't know until now - then you should know: all science is "just theories".
In general - everything that people know and think are just theories.
Science is just aware of it but it turns out that people like you are not.
Michael Rothschild:
Both effects were proposed by Lance and Thiering (so to say "Einstein was right" is to dismiss the importance of the work of other physicists).
Second, general relativity is still a theory (and so are the results for the effects in the article), and there are other explanations for the above results.
just stupid:
Did you read the article?
He completely agrees with the fact that this is a significant confirmation (=validation) for the theory of relativity!
He only objects to two things:
One is the use of the word proof.
The second is the use of Einstein's name instead of the name of the theory of relativity.
Did the satellite verify some of Einstein's theories? Well, not everyone agrees:
http://coraifeartaigh.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/gravity-probe-b-experiment-does-not-prove-einstein-right/
Interesting findings. Confirming the opinion that Einstein was good at seeing in his mind's eye the physics and dynamics of space-time. It is fascinating how these theories will be connected to quantum theory, the effect of antimatter on the equations, etc. so that they will be included in one comprehensive theory.
deer
I agree with what you said.
I really don't understand what the big excitement about a marginal criticism comment is about.
In the Jerusalem building we will rest.
A. Ben Ner,
No one is saying that you are wrong - it is clear to everyone that a scientific theory will never be proven, but at most it will be recovered.
The point is that stretching it as criticism of a good article is petty...
To: From Point: In response to your last comment (37)
In my opinion, even when speaking - it is desirable to be precise, but when writing - all the more so.
Where did Yehuda Svardamish go???? where??????
A. Ben Nar
In science it is not possible to prove things (there are no mathematical logical sentences that need to be proved). They can only be refuted.
Therefore, when they say proven in a scientific experiment, it should automatically be understood as meaning that the findings match and nothing more.
Anyone who thinks otherwise does not understand science at all. Therefore, in my opinion, it is possible to write proved and it should not interfere. And as for the public, for their sake it is better to write proven, because so much nonsense the public thinks they are proven when they are not, so it is better for them to think that theories are proven.
What is this pettiness? The only reason for all this bullying is that Dr. Weinstein is answering you.
So what, is it better to be like Dr. Nachmani? His articles are unreadable due to poor translation and mistakes, but wonder and wonder - most of his articles lack comments, because he never answers or corrects anything.
This is a well-invested, clear article, with a reporter who is willing to invest extra effort and explain what is not understood.
Spare her this nonsense.
Avi Blizovsky, there is still a mistake in the article, see responses 6 (mine) and 15 (Machal's).
Binyamin Ze'ev Herzl, what kind of contract?
He has a long beard and he is right, from such a man
Lou knew Mrs. Weinstein Gali
He would say, the state is not a realistic solution
I take all the Jews
puts them on a ship at sea
And with the evil Bibi Netanyahu
I will send them to the UN.
To Dr. Gali Weinstein and a ghost - the dear ones
A]. As a matter of fact, my comment is correct. The root corresponding to the term "proven" does not appear in the English source either
Such as: PROVE or PROOF.
B]. Your claim that you did not give the title to the article is a pretext. Accepted...barely.
It is quite respectable to take cover behind the broad back of the site editor. however…
If you didn't give the title to the article then you don't have to justify it as you do.
third]. I cannot come to the editor of the website with any kind of claim, due to the great respect and esteem I have for him
for his precious enterprise. Claiming against the editor of the site about any deficiencies in this or that article is similar to me
Like coming to Herzl with claims about such and such deficiencies....in the Jewish state.
Ben Ner
The correct translation of the sentence "Einstein was right again" is: Einstein was right again.
Dr. Weinstein
Too bad you didn't add for A. Ben Ner also a recommendation for the Oxford dictionary (English-Hebrew)
Ben Ner,
Did you read what I wrote??
It was not me who gave the title to the article and therefore I did not translate this phrase!
So look for something else to go down on me.
Here is something that can help you search:
http://www.easy2read.co.il/shop/product-info.asp?ProductID=12
To Dr. Gali Weinstein
The question is how to translate the English phrase "right again" into Hebrew in the scientific context.
The translation is "confirmed a second time" or maybe also "demonstrated a second time". You chose the term "proved".
In the scientific context this is a fundamental error.
Ben Ner
I missed your little ones!
The title was given by the editor of the scientist following the NASA news here:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/
The first sentence of the news is:
Einstein was right again. There is a space-time vortex around Earth, and its shape precisely matches the predictions of Einstein's theory of gravity.
The titles of the news articles and knowledge are not the titles of an article in a scientific journal.
"Einstein was right" is a classic headline for a news item.
After all, this is not true in terms of physical accuracy, because it is not an effect that Einstein proposed. The effect was suggested by Lance Wethering. General relativity is Einstein's. And in fact the geodesic precession and the spatial drag precession were both proposed in 1959-1960 by Leonard Schiff and this is what was verified experimentally. Did not verify anything of Einstein! But is it possible to put a title like: "Two effects proposed by Leonard Schiff in general relativity were verified"? No. This is good for a technical article. With a title like that, no one will read the news. That's why they put a title for a news item "Einstein was right".
I'm sorry your pill didn't work this time. Oooooh………. Oyyy…………. Oyyy………….
In really difficult cases I understand each word separately.
Well
This is not the case…
(:
To Dr. Gali Weinstein
The full handful of compliments, however, the title. Yes, the title of the article is horrible.
"The Gravity Probe B satellite proved after six years of work: Einstein was right"
There is no experiment that can prove a theory. To confirm, can also can but prove ???
Is there not a better title such as Uriel Brizon's article from 2003, to say:
"The soon-to-be-launched Gravity Probe B satellite may confirm the theory of general relativity"
Shalom
Great site and great article. Thank you Dr. Weinstein
I live in Chicago and huge fan of Science Friday program on NPR (National Public Radio)
They recently interviewed the Gravity-B principal investigator.
go to: http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/201105064
Listen on the site or download the podcast from iTunes
have fun,
Aviel
jelly
Not easy, but why make assumptions in advance.
Maybe download the software and try it.
Excellent answer, thank you very much.
Here's a little physics experiment. go to the bathroom Put the stopper in the sink and fill the sink with water all the way. After you have filled the sink all the way with water, release the stopper. what do you see? You will see the water spiraling around the hole in the sink until it goes down.
This is how the Earth sweeps the space-time around it along with it in a kind of vortex in an effect called space drag.
But let's talk about forces, gravitomagnetic forces.
Now a short theoretical explanation. It all actually starts with gravitomagnetism and rotating masses. Think spinning stars and spinning black holes. In fact, the space drag effect is also related to Mach's principle. But that's for another time.
Let's say we have a stream of particles and a particle moving directly above the stream. So its path will curve with the direction of the current movement. In English they say "drag of the frame of reference" (frame), because the current changes the local frame of reference of the particle. The particle was at rest far away and then it was dragged towards the current, as if the current was a kind of jet of water that pushed water that was still at rest into its surroundings.
We will observe the rotating Earth and its gravitational field. Think of the Earth's rotation as a sort of stream of matter moving around a loop of mass centered at the equator. You are on one side of the loop. Gravitomagnetic forces pull you from the point where you are standing while from the far side they pull there. But there is some kind of balance if you are located far from Israel.
Now we will place a rotating gyroscope exactly in the center of the rotating mass loop, which represents a model for the Earth. The gyroscope is a rotating disc, which rotates around an axis from west to east (counter-clockwise), around a horizontal axis that always faces longitude 0 - that is, the equatorial plane.
Above the gyroscope, the mass loop moves toward a longitude 90 degrees west. The part of the earth in westerly longitudes, moving from west to east exerts a drag force on the upper part of the gyroscope and pulls it towards the direction of 0 degree longitude.
Whereas the part of the Earth on the other side of the gyroscope, in eastern longitudes, moves in the opposite direction. But the gyroscope is moving away from it so it exerts a counter pull on the gyroscope. And again he pulls his upper part towards 0 degrees. And what about the bottom of the gyroscope? It moves in the opposite direction and must therefore feel a force towards the 180 degree longitude in the South Pacific Ocean.
The result is that the balance of forces obtained as a result of the action of these two forces is a rotational force torque that tries to topple the gyroscope facing the direction of longitude 0 towards the opposite direction.
What happens when you try to drop a gyroscope? The gravitomagnetic forces will change the direction of the axis of the gyroscope and gradually cause it to rotate in the same direction as the Earth's rotation. This action is precession, or in Hebrew nikpa: precession dragging the space. And in an experiment they used this gyroscope to measure (!) the space drag effect.
Now think of a cold type black hole. Kerr geometry revived the gravitomagnetic forces.
The rotating black hole has an event horizon and is surrounded by particles and photons and they rotate around the hole with the direction of rotation of the hole. The drag of space near the event horizon of the rotating black hole is inevitable. Hence the importance of the space drag effect.
It is still not clear if the drag of space is constant or if it moves in the direction of rotation as the DA?
Thank you. It was difficult to write this article. Those who study general relativity know that there is a Lens-Teering effect and all. But then I read the news from NASA and saw between the lines that it actually took some six or five years to interpret the findings. NASA's website said it took six years because there were interferences. To understand exactly what the disturbances were, I had to read technical articles and interpret them. And it was a headache.
here: http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/sci_papers/index.html
And in fact this is the essence of scientific innovation. The basis is what is in the textbook. But as it is written in the original NASA news: they are inventing a new technology and along the way there are unexpected disturbances that you do not know about at all, so in order to understand what happened you just have to read articles written about those disturbances and difficulties in the specific experiment.
Legally - my argument is that as the commenter in 5. (Prof. Podlovsky APR) made a mistake in spelling "his name", he also made a mistake in APR (which I spelled as he wrote). At the same time, his response seems correct to me and I agree with the compliments he gave to your article.
Dear, the Podolski in question is from EPR.
That is, Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen. But if you insist then let it be:
Albert–Podolsky–Rosen.
And to David David. In order for the software to extract the correct section from the article and build an article, it has to compare the section with data it has in the database that was entered into the computer in advance. The program has to be very sophisticated so that the computer can distinguish subtleties and subtle differences in wording. There can be one word in a sentence that will change the entire meaning of the sentence and the software will not notice it.
To Prof. Podolovsky - I think your name should be Podolsky (the middle of APR).
to wave
Interesting how the article would have come out when used in Narrative Science
below
Narrative Science transforms data into high-quality editorial content. Our technology application generates news stories, industry reports, headlines and more — at scale and without human authoring or editing. Narratives can be created from almost any data set, be it numbers or text, structured or unstructured.
Whether you maintain your own proprietary database, or cover subjects supported by broadly available data including public data sources, our technology cost-effectively turns facts and figures into compelling stories in real time.
Interesting article
Indeed, indeed... when the gravitic B performed the experiment, they thought of competing theories that gave a different explanation for gravity. While they agreed with relativity regarding the standard experiments - the bending of light in the Sun's gravitational field, gravitational redshift, Mercury's perihelion and all - there were those who provided a dynamic explanation for "dark matter". But regarding the drag effect of space, general relativity and the other theories offered completely different predictions.
For example, they proposed a theory that explains the drag of space in terms of eddies in a sort of flowing something. That is, the drag of space is explained as a vortex, instead of a gravitomagnetic field. Therefore the size and appearance of the precession of the gyroscope predicted by this theory is quite different from those predicted by general relativity.
And so in fact the experiment of Gravity B became a "decisive experiment". It was hoped that he would decide between general relativity and the competing theories. And in fact it enters the field of explanations of "dark matter", an issue that has troubled scientists for a long time.
In any case, the name of the satellite is Gravity B: the letter B in physics marks the magnetic field, so it is a gravito-magnetic field! That is, the goal was to measure a gravito-magnetic effect, the drag of space.
jewel:
Wikipedia
Write:
In an article published in the journal Physical Review Letters in 2011, the authors reported analysis of the data from all four gyroscopes results in a geodetic drift rate of −6,601.8±18.3 mas/yr and a frame-dragging drift rate of −37.2±7.2 mas/yr, to be compared with the GR predictions of −6,606.1 mas/yr and −39.2 mas/yr, respectively.[7]
A. Ben Ner:
No.
Gravitational cooling is one prediction of the theory and the geodesic effect is another prediction.
Theoretically, one could argue that the theory is incorrect and the gravitational cooling predicted by it is due to other causes.
As the confirmations for the theory's predictions increase, the confidence in its correctness increases.
Of course, there will be those who claim that everything is turbulence.
The geodesic effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodetic_effect
Gravity recycling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens
Please correct me, I'm wrong but, is the gravitational cooling that has been discovered and studied for a long time,
Didn't he prove the geodetic effects and space drag a long time ago?
Interesting article - thank you, Gali
Explanation to the commenter above: The Gravity B satellite revolved around the Earth with the gyroscopes. Gravity B demonstrated the two effects described while facing the chosen guide star Pegasi (a known and distant reference system, which is actually what is called undisturbed). Let's say we were living in a Newtonian universe where the two relativistic effects in question do not exist. So what would happen? The gyroscopes would spin and point in the same direction as Pegasi forever while in orbit, right? It makes sense of course. But General Relativity was found to be correct! And so the gyroscopes experienced slight changes, they underwent precession (geodetic precession and spatial drag precession), in the direction of rotation as a result of the Earth's pull.
And why all the noise? In 2015, the world will celebrate 100 years of general relativity.
So tomorrow Isaac Albert Neustein (as the famous relativity researcher and Einstein's legacy John Stachel called him) could come. And let's say he invents a new theory. (Newstein is not a relative of mine, that's fine...). What is important is the following. Since the general theory of relativity has already received so many experimental verifications: the perihelion of Mercury, the gravitational redshift, the curvature of the light path in the gravitational field, etc.' General Relativity and get all these effects that NASA's spacecraft and satellites have verified. And this is actually the real importance of these experiments that are carried out in space. In this sense, science is eternal…
My heart goes out to the bereaved families on Memorial Day, may there be no more wars.
Sorry to say that this information is really incomprehensible to those who are not in the field and want to understand a little more. The phrasing is also sometimes cumbersome, for example the terrible sentence "suffers from two types of relative precession in relation to a distant reference system".
Stunning.
In fact, a more amazing star was born.. or not :\
I wonder how all this sensitive equipment survived the launch?
You do not need to register, although it is desirable. You probably wrote a reserved word and therefore were automatically blocked.
"And a space drag effect of 0.39 plus or minus 0.7 milliarcseconds"
This figure has no meaning when the error is greater than the value itself. Are you sure these are the numbers?
Excellent and interesting technical article.
This is not found in Scientific Yediot ;~)
You can easily run through the article and ignore what is too complicated or not worth dwelling on.
Thank you very much 🙂
Interesting, thanks for the update (:
The editor of the website, Avi Blizovsky:
Do you need to register or something to comment?
It's interesting that with so many variables it works
And now in Hebrew...