Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday December 02 2017, @04:09PM   Printer-friendly
from the Which-weighs-more?-A-pound-of-feathers-or-a-pound-of-lead? dept.

Galileo's 400-year-old theory of free-falling objects passes space test

A key tenet of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity has passed yet another test with flying colors—and for the first time in space. A French satellite experiment has shown that objects with different masses fall at exactly the same rate under gravity, just as relativity dictates. The result is the most precise confirmation yet of the equivalence principle, first tested more than 400 years ago by Galileo Galilei. "The mission appears to have performed fantastically," says Clifford Will, a theoretical physicist at the University of Florida in Gainesville.

Physicists scrutinize the equivalence principle because any violation could point to new forces of nature that might resolve a long-standing impasse between general relativity and quantum theory. The satellite, called MICROSCOPE, found no discrepancy in the acceleration of two small test masses to about one part in 100 trillion (1014).That's more than 10 times better than the most sensitive ground-based experiments, which look for disparities in the response of weights to Earth's spin.

[...] A proposed Italian satellite, aptly named Galileo Galilei, would test equivalence to a precision of one part in 10^17, partly by spinning rapidly and isolating any signal from more slowly varying systematic effects. Researchers at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, have proposed a satellite that aims to reach one part in 10^18 using noise-reducing cryogenics. Still other researchers hope to use Bose-Einstein condensates—clouds of cold atoms that behave as a single quantum wave [DOI: 10.1126/science.357.6355.986] [DX]—to reach tight limits.

Equivalence principle.

Determination of the Equivalence Principle violation signal for the MICROSCOPE space mission: optimization of the signal processing

Relevance of the weak equivalence principle and experiments to test it: lessons from the past and improvements expected in space


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:37PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:37PM (#604409)

    Galileo's 400-year-old theory of free-falling objects passes space test
    [...]
    Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity has passed yet another test with flying colors—and for the first time in space.

    How could this be a test of relativity when it was clearly known before that theory was developed?

    Also, there have been many tests of GR "in space":

    Although the Global Positioning System (GPS) is not designed as a test of fundamental physics, it must account for the gravitational redshift in its timing system, and physicists have analyzed timing data from the GPS to confirm other tests.
    [...]
    the Gravity Probe A satellite, launched in 1976, which showed gravity and velocity affect the ability to synchronize the rates of clocks orbiting a central mass
    [...]
    Tests of the Lense–Thirring precession, consisting of small secular precessions of the orbit of a test particle in motion around a central rotating mass, for example, a planet or a star, have been performed with the LAGEOS satellites
    [...]
    The Gravity Probe B satellite, launched in 2004 and operated until 2005, detected frame-dragging and the geodetic effect.
    [...]
    In January 2012, LARES satellite was launched on a Vega rocket[66] to measure Lense–Thirring effect with an accuracy of about 1%, according to its proponents

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity [wikipedia.org]

    The equivalence principle has also been tested "in space" (on the moon):
    https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap111101.html [nasa.gov]

    I am actually surprised to see this was published by "Science".

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:46PM (1 child)

      by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Saturday December 02 2017, @09:46PM (#604411) Journal

      The equivalence principle has also been tested "in space" (on the moon)

      Pretty imprecise compared to this test. He held them approximately level, and the only data is from the frames of video.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @10:20PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @10:20PM (#604430)

        Sure, the point is the test was done. The original test of relatively was just a few exposed photographic plates. Plus they ended up throwing out half the data, etc.

        The early accuracy, however, was poor. The results were argued by some[23] to have been plagued by systematic error and possibly confirmation bias,

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Deflection_of_light_by_the_Sun [wikipedia.org]

    • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday December 03 2017, @08:17AM (1 child)

      by maxwell demon (1608) on Sunday December 03 2017, @08:17AM (#604597) Journal

      How could this be a test of relativity when it was clearly known before that theory was developed?

      It is one of the fundamental principles on which General Relativity was built.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @05:45PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @05:45PM (#604729)

        Sure, but its like having a theory that predicts "a dropped apple falls towards the earth". Passing that test is not impressive anymore. I'm not saying putting tighter constraints on deviations from the equivalence principle is a waste of time or anything, I just don't think this adds any support to general relativity. You need to check how well it predicts things, not just the assumptions.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @10:18PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @10:18PM (#604429)

    so, a pound of feathers weighs more or less a pound of gold?

    • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday December 03 2017, @08:25AM

      by maxwell demon (1608) on Sunday December 03 2017, @08:25AM (#604599) Journal

      More exactly, one pound mass of feathers generated the same weight force as one pound mass of gold. Which is a non-trivial statement, which doesn't work for other forces.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @11:08PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 02 2017, @11:08PM (#604451)

    In 1890 [wikipedia.org] the gravitational and inertial masses were shown to be proportional, with a difference of no more than 1 part in 20 million.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by stormwyrm on Sunday December 03 2017, @06:24AM

      by stormwyrm (717) on Sunday December 03 2017, @06:24AM (#604585) Journal
      And now this new experiment has established the same thing to a precision of one part in 1017. Not that there ever was much doubt that the equivalence principle would hold, but if even a very small deviation in the principle were detected that might have been a sign of some new physics. This new experiment also sets some pretty tight limits on any theories that do predict possible violations of the principle.
      --
      Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
(1)