L. Iorio - Recent Attempts To Measure The General Relativistic Lense-Thirring Effect With Natural and Artificial Bodies in The Solar System

The Lense-Thirring Effect The Systematic Error of Gravitational Origin Our Results Solar and Martian Frame-Dragging and
its Measurability Summary
Recent Attempts to Measure the General Relativistic Lense-Thirring Effect with Natural and Articial Bodies in the Solar System
L. Iorio
INFN-Sezione di Pisa
Fifth International School on Field Theory and Gravitation, 20-24 April 2009, Cuiab, Mato Grosso, MT, Brasil
L. Iorio
Attempts to Measure Frame-Dragging in the Solar System
The Lense-Thirring Effect The Systematic Error of Gravitational Origin Our Results Solar and Martian Frame-Dragging and its Measurability Summary
Outline
The Lense-Thirring Effect Gravitomagnetic Orbit Precessions Attempts with the Spinning Earth, Sun and Mars The Systematic Error of Gravitational Origin The Effect of the Oblateness of the Central Body The Corrupting Bias of the Terrestrial Even Zonals How to Assess the Impact of the Even Zonals? Our Results A More Conservative Approach Error Budgets Revisited Solar and Martian Frame-Dragging and its Measurability Summary
L. Iorio Attempts to Measure Frame-Dragging in the Solar System
Gravitomagnetic Orbit Precessions Attempts with the Spinning Earth, Sun and Mars
Outline
The Impact of Rotation of a Central Body on the Orbit of a Test Particle in General Relativity
In GR a rotating body with spin S generates a gravitomagnetic eld [Iorio 2007] whose effects on the orbit of a test particle are secular precessions of the node and the pericentre LT = c 2 a3 (1 2GS 2GS cos i , LT = 2 3 2 )3/2 e c a (1 e2 )3/2
a semi-major axis of the orbit (xes its size) e eccentricity of the orbit (xes its shape) i inclination of the orbit to the equatorial plane of the central body (i = 0 equatorial orbit; i = 90 polar orbit)
Figure: Keplerian ellipse. The orbital elements , , i can be viewed as the three (constant) Euler angles xing the conguration of a rigid body, i.e. the orbit which in the unperturbed Keplerian case does change neither its shape nor its size, in the inertial {X, Y, Z} space.
m S f y M W x
w
i
Outline
Measuring Terrestrial and Solar Frame-Dragging

First tests with the passive geodynamics satellites LAGEOS and LAGEOS II tracked with the Satellite Laser Ranging (SLR) technique in the gravitational eld of the spinning Earth. LARES should be launched by ASI at the end of 2009-beginning of 2010. Systematic uncertainties due to mismodelled competing forces are more important than measurement errors Tests with Venus [Iorio 2008a] and Mars Global Surveyor [Iorio 2006], in the gravitational elds of the spinning Sun and Mars. Measurement errors are, at present, perhaps more important than systematic uncertainties due to mismodelled competing forces
Measuring Terrestrial and Solar Frame-Dragging

First tests with the passive geodynamics satellites LAGEOS and LAGEOS II tracked with the Satellite Laser Ranging (SLR) technique in the gravitational eld of the spinning Earth. LARES should be launched by ASI at the end of 2009-beginning of 2010. Systematic uncertainties due to mismodelled competing forces are more important than measurement errors Tests with Venus [Iorio 2008a] and Mars Global Surveyor [Iorio 2006], in the gravitational elds of the spinning Sun and Mars. Measurement errors are, at present, perhaps more important than systematic uncertainties due to mismodelled competing forces
The Effect of the Oblateness of the Central Body The Impact of the Earths J on the Lense-Thirring Effect How to Assess the Impact of the Even Zonals?
Outline
The Impact of the Even Zonal Harmonics on the Orbit of a Test Particle
A rotating body is oblate. The even zonal harmonic coefcients J , = 2, 4, . . . of the multipolar expansion of the Newtonian gravitational potential of the central body induce secular precessions on and as well [Kaula 1966] much larger than the LT ones. For = 2 the node precession is 3 J2 = n 2 R a
2
cos i J2 (1 e2 )2
R equatorial radius of the central body of mass M n= GM/a3 mean motion of the test particle
Outline
Reducing the Impact of the Earths Even Zonals

The J are estimated as least-square t-for parameters of global solutions of the Earth gravity eld by processing huge multi-year data records of dedicated spacecraft like GRACE. Thus, their knowledge is imperfect. The node/pericentre precessions due to our bad knowledge J of the even zonals induce systematic uncertainty in the LT signal. To reduce such a bias, suitable linear combinations [Ciufolini 1996] of the nodes of existing (LAGEOS, LAGEOS II) [Ries et al. 2003, Iorio and Morea 2004] and future (LARES) [Iorio 2005a] satellites have been proposed and used; they cancel out some low-degree even zonals.


Outline
Assessment of the Systematic Bias due to J

LAGEOS and LAGEOS II orbit at about 6000 km; they are sensitive to just a few J of low degrees. LARES should y at about 1450 km only; it will be affected by more J of higher degrees. The LAGEOS-LAGEOS II node combination [Iorio and Morea 2004] used so far [Ciufolini and Pavlis 2004] cancels out J2 and is affected by J4 , J6 , J8 , . . .. The LAGEOS-LAGEOS II-LARES node combination [Iorio 2005a] to be used cancels out J2 , J4 and is affected by J6 , J8 , . . .. Many Earths gravity eld models are nowadays available. If one uses for J their covariance sigmas J one gets systematic errors 5 10% (LAGEOS-LAGEOS II).


A More Conservative Approach Error Budgets Revisited
Outline
What Is the Real Uncertainty in J , = 2, 4, . . . ?

A more conservative approach consists of taking the em differences [Lerch et al. 1994, Ciufolini 1996, Lucchesi 2007] J = J (X ) J (Y ) between the estimated values for different pairs of models X and Y and see if they are larger than the combined sigmas = J (X ) + J (Y ) of that models. It turns out that J > for many models just for those even zonals which are most relevant for us. The GRACE-based models considered here, by ve different institutions, are AIUB-GRACE01S (AIUB), EIGEN-GRACE02S (GFZ), GGM02S (CSR), GGM03S (CSR), ITG-Grace02s (IGG), ITG-Grace03s (IGG), JEM01-RL03B (JPL).
What Is the Real Uncertainty in J , = 2, 4, . . . ?

A more conservative approach consists of taking the em differences [Lerch et al. 1994, Ciufolini 1996, Lucchesi 2007] J = J (X ) J (Y ) between the estimated values for different pairs of models X and Y and see if they are larger than the combined sigmas = J (X ) + J (Y ) of that models. It turns out that J > for many models just for those even zonals which are most relevant for us. The GRACE-based models considered here, by ve different institutions, are AIUB-GRACE01S (AIUB), EIGEN-GRACE02S (GFZ), GGM02S (CSR), GGM03S (CSR), ITG-Grace02s (IGG), ITG-Grace03s (IGG), JEM01-RL03B (JPL).
Models compared (LAGEOS-LAGEOS II) AIUB-GRACE01SJEM01-RL03B AIUB-GRACE01SGGM02S AIUB-GRACE01SEIGEN-GRACE02S JEM01-RL03BGGM03S JEM01-RL03BITG-Grace02 JEM01-RL03BITG-Grace03s GGM02SGGM03S GGM02SITG-Grace02 GGM02SITG-Grace03s GGM03SEIGEN-GRACE02S ITG-Grace02EIGEN-GRACE02S ITG-Grace03sEIGEN-GRACE02S
L. Iorio
20% 27% 33% 17% 18% 20% 24% 25% 27% 30% 31% 33%
(Models compared = 60; L-LII-LR) AIUB-GRACE01SJEM01-RL03B AIUB-GRACE01SGGM03S AIUB-GRACE01SITG-Grace02 AIUB-GRACE01SITG-Grace03 AIUB-GRACE01SEIGEN-GRACE02S JEM01-RL03BGGM02S JEM01-RL03BEIGEN-GRACE02S GGM02SITG-Grace02 GGM03SEIGEN-GRACE02S ITG-Grace02EIGEN-GRACE02S ITG-Grace03sEIGEN-GRACE02S
(SAV) 23% 22% 24% 22% 14% 14% 26% 16% 24% 25% 24%
(RSS) 16% 13% 15% 14% 7% 9% 15% 8% 13% 14% 13%
L. Iorio
Outline
More Conservative Evaluations of the Systematic Gravitational Errors in the SLR Lense-Thirring Tests
With J for the uncertainty J the systematic error in the LAGEOS-LAGEOS II test is 25 37% [Iorio 2009]. The LAGEOS-LAGEOS II-LARES test is complicated by the higher degrees even zonals brought into play by LARES. A computation up to = 60 with the standard Kaula approach [Kaula 1966] and J yields 5 30% [Iorio 2009]. Another calculation up to = 70 with J yields even larger gures. The atmospheric (neutral and charged) drag on LARES makes its inclination secularly decreasing; this yields a node bias J2 of 3 9% yr1 [Iorio 2008b].
Suns Gravitomagnetic Length and Orbit Accuracy

The characteristic gravitomagnetic length for the Sun is S = 319 m Mc The (formal) uncertainty in the mean orbit radius of the inner planets is, according to E.V. Pitjeva who used the EPM ephemerides: Mercury 38 m Venus 3m Earth 1m Mars 2m
Thus, it seems possible to measure the Suns LT

The Perihelion Precession of Venus

E.V. Pitjeva has recently tted almost one century of planetary data of all kinds, including also ranging data from Magellan, with the EPM2008 ephemerides. She estimated a correction to the standard Newtonian/Einsteinian perihelion precession Venus = 0.0004 0.0001 arcsec cy1 where the error quoted is formal; the realistic one may be up to 5 times larger. accounts, by construction, for all unmodelled/mismodelled effects: LT was not modelled. The predicted LT perihelion precession of Venus is Venus = 0.0003 arcsec cy1
(LT)
Estimated Perihelion Extra-Precessions

Table: First line: corrections , in 104 arcsec cy1 , to the standard Newton/Einstein perihelion precessions of the inner planets estimated by E.V. Pitjeva with the EPM ephemerides. The result for Venus has been obtained by recently processing radiometric data from Magellan spacecraft. The errors in square brackets are the formal ones. Second line: LT predicted precessions LT , in 104 arcsec cy1 .
Mercury LT 36 50 [42] 20
Venus 4 5 [1] 3
L. Iorio
Earth 2 4 [1] 1
Mars 1 5 [1] O(105 )
Compatibility of the Solar LT Precessions with the Estimated Ones

Table 1 shows that the predicted LT perihelion precessions LT are compatible with the estimated corrections to the Newtonian/Einsteinian precessions for all the inner planets. Moreover, the ratios AB A / B are equal to the predicted LT ratios (LT) (LT) 2 2 LAB A / B = aB (1 eB )3/2 /aA (1 eA )3/2 , within the errors, for all the pairs of inner planets. Many long-range models of modied gravity do not pass such a test.
L. Iorio
Sources of Systematic Errors in the Solar LT tests
The main source of systematic uncertainty is represented, also in this case, by the mismodelling in the rst even zonal harmonic J2 of the Sun, which is presently known with an uncertainty of about 10% with respect to its nominal value J2 = 2 107 . The resulting mismodelled perihelion precession of Venus amounts to +0.0002 arcsec cy1 The impact of the mismodelling in the asteroid ring amounts to +0.0007 0.0001 arcsec cy1 for Venus
L. Iorio
Sources of Systematic Errors in the Solar LT tests
The main source of systematic uncertainty is represented, also in this case, by the mismodelling in the rst even zonal harmonic J2 of the Sun, which is presently known with an uncertainty of about 10% with respect to its nominal value J2 = 2 107 . The resulting mismodelled perihelion precession of Venus amounts to +0.0002 arcsec cy1 The impact of the mismodelling in the asteroid ring amounts to +0.0007 0.0001 arcsec cy1 for Venus
L. Iorio
Combining Planetary Perihelia and Nodes
The linear combination approach used for the LAGEOS satellites can be also applied to the various planets perihelia to cancel out selected sources of systematic errors [Iorio 2005b] In principle, also the corrections to the standard Newtonian node precessions can be used to measure the Suns LT, although, at present, they have not yet been estimated [Iorio 2005b]
L. Iorio
Combining Planetary Perihelia and Nodes
The linear combination approach used for the LAGEOS satellites can be also applied to the various planets perihelia to cancel out selected sources of systematic errors [Iorio 2005b] In principle, also the corrections to the standard Newtonian node precessions can be used to measure the Suns LT, although, at present, they have not yet been estimated [Iorio 2005b]
L. Iorio
Mars Global Surveyor and Frame Dragging
The time series of the Root Mean Square (RMS) orbit overlap differences [Konopliv et al. 2006] of the out-of-plane part of the orbit of the Martian polar spacecraft Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) over a time span P 5 yr, processed without modelling gravitomagnetism at all, has been successfully interpreted in terms of LT [Iorio 2006]. Criticisms have been raised in [Krogh 2007]; the reply is in [Iorio 2007]
L. Iorio
Two Independent Tests of Frame Dragging with MGS

The average of the time series of the out-of-plane RMS orbit overlap differences, normalized to the average LT shift LT over the same time span, is = 1.002 0.005 Linear ts of the time series for different time spans, i.e. including different sets of data points, yield results in agreement with the LT interpretation. For example, the t of the entire data set yields a slope of 1.03 0.42, in LT-normalized units; removing the data for the month January 2001, likely affected by major measurement errors, yields a normalized slope 0.98 0.42
Two Independent Tests of Frame Dragging with MGS

The average of the time series of the out-of-plane RMS orbit overlap differences, normalized to the average LT shift LT over the same time span, is = 1.002 0.005 Linear ts of the time series for different time spans, i.e. including different sets of data points, yield results in agreement with the LT interpretation. For example, the t of the entire data set yields a slope of 1.03 0.42, in LT-normalized units; removing the data for the month January 2001, likely affected by major measurement errors, yields a normalized slope 0.98 0.42
Reply to Some Criticisms

The exceedingly large gravitational bias due to the mismodelling in the areopotential which should plague the LT signal according to Krogh are, in fact, absent from the data, both if one refers to the average over the full, multi-year time span and if a single arc 6-days long is, instead, considered The non-gravitational perturbations like, e.g., the atmospheric drag, mainly affect the in-plane orbit components, i.e. the radial and transverse ones, not the out-of-plane one, affected by LT. Indeed, advances in modelling the non-gravitational forces improved just the in-plane components, leaving, instead, the out-of-plane one substantially unaffected
Reply to Some Criticisms

The exceedingly large gravitational bias due to the mismodelling in the areopotential which should plague the LT signal according to Krogh are, in fact, absent from the data, both if one refers to the average over the full, multi-year time span and if a single arc 6-days long is, instead, considered The non-gravitational perturbations like, e.g., the atmospheric drag, mainly affect the in-plane orbit components, i.e. the radial and transverse ones, not the out-of-plane one, affected by LT. Indeed, advances in modelling the non-gravitational forces improved just the in-plane components, leaving, instead, the out-of-plane one substantially unaffected
Summary
A conservative evaluation of in the LAGEOS-LAGEOS II test yields 25 37%. The low altitude of LARES makes more even zonals relevant; their uncertainty yields for the LAGEOS-LAGEOS II-LARES 5 30%, or even larger. The secular decrease of the LARES inclination due to the atmospheric drag yields a bias 3 9% yr1 . Measuring Suns LT using the motions of the inner planets seem to be feasible in the near future. A preliminary positive test of LT with the MGS spacecraft in the eld of Mars has been reported
Summary
Summary
Summary
Summary
Appendix
References
References I
L. Iorio (ed.) The Measurement of Gravitomagnetism: A Challenging Enterprise. NOVA, Hauppauge (NY), 2007. W.M. Kaula Theory of Satellite Geodesy. Blaisdell, Waltham, 1966. I. Ciufolini N. Cim. A 109(12), 1709-1720, 1996. I. Ciufolini, and E.C. Pavlis Nature 431, 958-960, 2004.
Appendix
References
References II
L. Iorio. New Astron. 10(8), 616-635, 2005a. L. Iorio. Astron. Astrophys. 431(1), 385-389, 2005b. L. Iorio. Class. Quantum Grav. 23(17), 5451-5454, 2006. L. Iorio. J. Gravit. Phys. , at press, gr-qc/0701146v5 L. Iorio. Schol. Res. Exch. 2008, ID 105235, 2008.
Appendix
References
References III
L. Iorio. arXiv:0809.3564v1 [gr-qc] L. Iorio. Space Sci. Rev. doi:10.1007/s11214-008-9478-1 2009. L. Iorio, and A. Morea. Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 36(6), 1321-1333, 2004. A. Konopliv et al. Icarus 182(1), 23-50, 2006. K. Krogh Class. Quantum Grav. 24(22), 5709-5715, 2007.
Appendix
References
References IV
F.J. Lerch, et al. J. Geophys. Res. 99(B2), 2815-2839, 1994. D.M. Lucchesi Adv. Sp. Res. 39(10), 1559-1575, 2007. J.C. Ries, et al. In: R.J. Rufni, C. Sigismondi (eds.) Nonlinear Gravitodynamics, pp. 201-211. World Scientic, Singapore, 2003.
L. Iorio
Acknowledgements
I gratefully thank the organizers of this wonderful School for their kind invitation and for their warm hospitality!
L. Iorio

L. Iorio - Recent Attempts To Measure The General Relativistic Lense-Thirring Effect With Natural and Artificial Bodies in The Solar System

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

L. Iorio - Recent Attempts To Measure The General Relativistic Lense-Thirring Effect With Natural and Artificial Bodies in The Solar System

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

The Lense-Thirring Effect The Systematic Error of Gravitational Origin Our Results Solar and Martian Frame-Dragging and

its Measurability Summary

Attempts to Measure Frame-Dragging in the Solar System

Measuring Terrestrial and Solar Frame-Dragging

Measuring Terrestrial and Solar Frame-Dragging

Reducing the Impact of the Earths Even Zonals

Reducing the Impact of the Earths Even Zonals

Reducing the Impact of the Earths Even Zonals

Assessment of the Systematic Bias due to J

Assessment of the Systematic Bias due to J

Assessment of the Systematic Bias due to J

A More Conservative Approach Error Budgets Revisited

A More Conservative Approach Error Budgets Revisited

What Is the Real Uncertainty in J , = 2, 4, . . . ?

A More Conservative Approach Error Budgets Revisited

What Is the Real Uncertainty in J , = 2, 4, . . . ?

A More Conservative Approach Error Budgets Revisited

Attempts to Measure Frame-Dragging in the Solar System

A More Conservative Approach Error Budgets Revisited

(RSS) 16% 13% 15% 14% 7% 9% 15% 8% 13% 14% 13%

Attempts to Measure Frame-Dragging in the Solar System

A More Conservative Approach Error Budgets Revisited

A More Conservative Approach Error Budgets Revisited

A More Conservative Approach Error Budgets Revisited

A More Conservative Approach Error Budgets Revisited

Suns Gravitomagnetic Length and Orbit Accuracy

Thus, it seems possible to measure the Suns LT

The Perihelion Precession of Venus

Estimated Perihelion Extra-Precessions

Mars 1 5 [1] O(105 )

Attempts to Measure Frame-Dragging in the Solar System

Compatibility of the Solar LT Precessions with the Estimated Ones

Attempts to Measure Frame-Dragging in the Solar System

Sources of Systematic Errors in the Solar LT tests

Attempts to Measure Frame-Dragging in the Solar System

Sources of Systematic Errors in the Solar LT tests

Attempts to Measure Frame-Dragging in the Solar System

Combining Planetary Perihelia and Nodes

Attempts to Measure Frame-Dragging in the Solar System

Combining Planetary Perihelia and Nodes

Attempts to Measure Frame-Dragging in the Solar System

Mars Global Surveyor and Frame Dragging

Attempts to Measure Frame-Dragging in the Solar System

Two Independent Tests of Frame Dragging with MGS

Two Independent Tests of Frame Dragging with MGS

Reply to Some Criticisms

Reply to Some Criticisms

Attempts to Measure Frame-Dragging in the Solar System

Attempts to Measure Frame-Dragging in the Solar System

S-ar putea să vă placă și