Advertisement

Space Science Reviews

, Volume 148, Issue 1–4, pp 53–69 | Cite as

Gravity Probe B Data Analysis

Status and Potential for Improved Accuracy of Scientific Results
  • C. W. F. Everitt
  • M. Adams
  • W. Bencze
  • S. Buchman
  • B. Clarke
  • J. W. Conklin
  • D. B. DeBra
  • M. Dolphin
  • M. Heifetz
  • D. Hipkins
  • T. Holmes
  • G. M. Keiser
  • J. Kolodziejczak
  • J. Li
  • J. Lipa
  • J. M. Lockhart
  • J. C. Mester
  • B. Muhlfelder
  • Y. Ohshima
  • B. W. Parkinson
  • M. Salomon
  • A. Silbergleit
  • V. Solomonik
  • K. Stahl
  • M. Taber
  • J. P. Turneaure
  • S. Wang
  • P. W. WordenJr.
Article

Abstract

This is the first of five connected papers detailing progress on the Gravity Probe B (GP-B) Relativity Mission. GP-B, launched 20 April 2004, is a landmark physics experiment in space to test two fundamental predictions of Einstein’s general relativity theory, the geodetic and frame-dragging effects, by means of cryogenic gyroscopes in Earth orbit. Data collection began 28 August 2004 and science operations were completed 29 September 2005. The data analysis has proven deeper than expected as a result of two mutually reinforcing complications in gyroscope performance: (1) a changing polhode path affecting the calibration of the gyroscope scale factor C g against the aberration of starlight and (2) two larger than expected manifestations of a Newtonian gyro torque due to patch potentials on the rotor and housing. In earlier papers, we reported two methods, ‘geometric’ and ‘algebraic’, for identifying and removing the first Newtonian effect (‘misalignment torque’), and also a preliminary method of treating the second (‘roll-polhode resonance torque’). Central to the progress in both torque modeling and C g determination has been an extended effort on “Trapped Flux Mapping” commenced in November 2006. A turning point came in August 2008 when it became possible to include a detailed history of the resonance torques into the computation. The East-West (frame-dragging) effect is now plainly visible in the processed data. The current statistical uncertainty from an analysis of 155 days of data is 5.4 marc-s/yr (∼14% of the predicted effect), though it must be emphasized that this is a preliminary result requiring rigorous investigation of systematics by methods discussed in the accompanying paper by Muhlfelder et al. A covariance analysis incorporating models of the patch effect torques indicates that a 3–5% determination of frame-dragging is possible with more complete, computationally intensive data analysis.

Keywords

General Relativity Frame-dragging Lense-Thirring 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. R.J. Adler, A.S. Silbergleit, General treatment of orbiting gyroscope precession. Int. J. Theor. Phys. 39(5), 1291–1316 (2000) MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. B.M. Barker, R.F. O’Connell, Phys. Rev. D 2, 1428 (1970) CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  3. J.V. Breakwell, The Stanford relativity gyroscope experiment (F): correction to the predicted geodetic precession of the gyroscope resulting from the Earth’s oblateness, in Near Zero: New Frontiers of Physics, ed. by J.D. Fairbank, B.S. Deaver, C.W.F. Everitt, P.F. Michelson (Freeman, New York, 1988), pp. 685–690 Google Scholar
  4. B. Cabrera, Near zero magnetic fields with superconducting shields, in Near Zero: New Frontiers in Physics (Freeman, New York, 1982) Google Scholar
  5. T.W. Darling, Electric Fields on Metal Surfaces at Low Temperatures. School of Physics, Parkville, Victoria 3051, Australia, University of Melbourne, p. 88 (1989) Google Scholar
  6. D. DeBra, The Stanford relativity gyroscope experiment (G): translation and orientation control, in Near Zero: New Frontiers of Physics, ed. by J.D. Fairbank, B.S. Deaver, C.W.F. Everitt, P.F. Michelson (Freeman, New York, 1988), pp. 691–699 Google Scholar
  7. M. Heifetz, W. Bencze et al., The gravity probe B data analysis approach. Space Sci. Rev. (2009) Google Scholar
  8. G.M. Keiser, J. Kolodziejczak, A.S. Silbergleit, Misalignment and resonance torques and their treatment in the GP-B data analysis. Space Sci. Rev. (2009) Google Scholar
  9. J. Lense, H. Thirring On the influence of the proper rotations of central bodies on the motions of planets and moons according to Einstein’s theory of gravitation. Z. Phys. 19, 156 (1918). English translation in B. Mashhoon, F.W. Hehl et al., On the gravitational effects of rotating masses: the Lense-Thirring papers. Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 16, 711–750 (1984) Google Scholar
  10. F. London, Superfluids, vol. II (Wiley, New York, 1954) MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. F. London, Superfluids, Macroscopic Theory of Superconductivity (Dover, New York, 1960) Google Scholar
  12. J.C. Mester, J.M. Lockhart et al., Ultralow magnetic fields and gravity probe B gyroscope readout. Adv. Space Res. 25(6), 1185–1188 (2000) CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  13. B. Muhlfelder, J.M. Lockhart et al., The gravity probe B gyroscope readout system. Adv. Space Res. 32(7), 1397–1400 (2003) CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  14. B. Muhlfelder et al., GP-B systematic error. Space Sci. Rev. (2009) Google Scholar
  15. R.T. Parmley, G.A. Bell et al., Performance of the relativity mission superfluid helium flight dewar. Adv. Space Res. 32(7), 1407–1416 (2003) CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  16. R.T. Parmley, J. Goodman et al., Gravity probe B dewar/probe concept. Proc. SPIE 619, 126–133 (1986) ADSGoogle Scholar
  17. G.E. Pugh, Proposal for a Satellite Test of the Coriolis Prediction of General Relativity. Washington, DC, Weapons Systems Evaluation Group, The Pentagon (1959) Google Scholar
  18. I.I. Shapiro et al., Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. (3) (2007) Google Scholar
  19. A.S. Silbergleit, J. Conklin et al., Polhode motion, trapped flux, and the GP-B science data analysis. Space Sci. Rev. (2009) Google Scholar
  20. L.I. Schiff, Possible new experimental test of General Relativity Theory. Phys. Rev. Lett. 4(5), 215–217 (1960) CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  21. C.C. Speake, Forces and force gradients due to patch fields and contact-potential differences. Class. Quantum Gravity 13, A291–A297 (1996) MATHCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  22. J.P. Turneaure, E.A. Cornell et al., The Stanford relativity gyroscope experiment (D); ultrahigh vacuum techniques for the experiment, in Near Zero: New Frontiers of Physics (Freeman, New York, 1982) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. W. F. Everitt
    • 1
  • M. Adams
    • 1
  • W. Bencze
    • 1
  • S. Buchman
    • 1
  • B. Clarke
    • 1
  • J. W. Conklin
    • 1
  • D. B. DeBra
    • 1
  • M. Dolphin
    • 1
  • M. Heifetz
    • 1
  • D. Hipkins
    • 1
  • T. Holmes
    • 1
  • G. M. Keiser
    • 1
  • J. Kolodziejczak
    • 1
    • 2
  • J. Li
    • 1
  • J. Lipa
    • 1
  • J. M. Lockhart
    • 1
  • J. C. Mester
    • 1
  • B. Muhlfelder
    • 1
  • Y. Ohshima
    • 1
  • B. W. Parkinson
    • 1
  • M. Salomon
    • 1
  • A. Silbergleit
    • 1
  • V. Solomonik
    • 1
  • K. Stahl
    • 1
  • M. Taber
    • 1
  • J. P. Turneaure
    • 1
  • S. Wang
    • 1
  • P. W. WordenJr.
    • 1
  1. 1.W.W. Hansen Experimental Physics LaboratoryStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.NASA Marshall Space Flight CenterHuntsvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations