arxiv:astro-ph/ v2 10 Jun 2003 Theory Group, MS 50A-5101 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory One Cyclotron Road Berkeley, CA USA

Transcription

1 LBNL Marh 2003 On the Speed of Gravity and the v/ Corretions to the Shapiro Time Delay Stuart Samuel 1 arxiv:astro-ph/ v2 10 Jun 2003 Theory Group, MS 50A-5101 Lawrene Berkeley National Laboratory One Cylotron Road Berkeley, CA USA Abstrat Using a relatively simple method, I ompute the v/ orretion to the gravitational time delay for light passing by a massive objet moving with speed v. It turns out that the v/ effets are too small to have been measured in the reent experiment involving Jupiter and quasar J that was used to measure the speed of gravity. PACS indies: Cv, C, Nx, Aj, Kf 1) address: samuel@thsrv.lbl.gov

2 I. Introdution On September 8, 2002, a onjuntion of quasar J and Jupiter took plae. This event was used to measure the Shapiro time delay of the quasar signal due to the gravity of Jupiter.[1, 2] Many years ago, I. I. Shapiro proposed one of the lassi tests of general relativity in whih radio signals are bouned off an inner planet during a superior onjuntion with the Sun.[3] The effet of the Sun s gravity is to reate a delay in the time required for the radio waves to return to Earth. In subsequent years, measurements performed using Merury onfirmed Einstein s theory, and the PPN parameter γ was measured to be its expeted value of 1 to within 10%.[4, 5] Beause Jupiter s gravity is weaker than the Sun s, the QSO J measurement required remarkable auray: seonds. This was ahieved using very long baseline interferometry. Motivation for undertaking this experiment stems from a proposal[6] that it an be used to measure the speed of gravity g. The idea of testing whether g equals the speed of light, as should be the ase in general relativity, has attrated onsiderable attention both in the astrophysis ommunity[7, 8, 9, 10, 11] and in the media[12]. The measurement yielded g / = 1.06 ± 0.21[1, 2] and was hailed as a onfirmation of Einstein s general theory of relativity. The purpose of this Letter is to point out an error in the theoretial formula used to analyze the Jupiter/quasar experiment and to provide the orret result. In referene[6, 8], a v/ g orretion to the Shapiro time delay in the Jupiter/quasar experiment is found to be proportional to 1/θ 2, where θ is the angle between the quasar and Jupiter. Sine θ is small, an enhanement ours thereby making the measurement feasible. However, using a simple method, this Letter omputes the v/ orretions and finds no suh term. The disrepany between the formula of the urrent work and the one used in the experiment is understood: The angle θ in the latter was atually not the observable one but an artifiially defined angle. Our notation onforms to that of referenes [6] and [8], whih are heneforth indiated as A and B: Quasar J is loated in the diretion of the unit vetor K. See Figure 1. Radiation for the quasar arrives at two observational points 1

3 1 and 2 on Earth, whih are separated from one another by the distane B. The impat parameters for eah of these two points is respetively denoted by ξ 1 = ξ 1 n and ξ 2 = ξ 2 n. Here, n is a unit vetor perpendiular to K going from Jupiter to the losest approah of the eletromagneti radiation of the quasar. Sine the differene of the impat parameters is small ompared to either impat parameter, we use ξ to denote the value of either when a distintion is not important. The veloity of Jupiter is indiated as v J, and the Earth-Jupiter distane is denoted by R EJ. We are interested in the most signifiant orretions to the Shapiro time delay for the Jupiter/quasar experiment. Therefore, we neglet terms proportional to the produt of two of, or the square of, any of the following small, dimensionless quantities: G N M J , v ξ 2 J , B and θ ξ obs = ξ R EJ (whih is the angle that an astronomer observes between Jupiter and the quasar). Here, G N is Newton s onstant and M J is the mass of Jupiter. II. The v J / Corretions If t 1 and t 2 denote the Shapiro time delays at the points 1 and 2, then the quantity of interest is the differene (t 1, t 2 ) = t 2 t 1 : t 2 t 1 = x 2 (t 2 ) x 0 / x 1 (t 1 ) x 0 / + (t 1, t 2 ). (1) Here, t 1 and t 2 are respetively the times at whih the signals are measured at the two points x 1 (t 1 ) and x 2 (t 2 ) on Earth, x 0 is the position of the quasar, and x 2 (t 2 ) x 0 / x 1 (t 1 ) x 0 / is the time differene that ours when gravitational effets are absent. If B = x 2 (t 2 ) x 1 (t 1 ) and n are oppositely oriented, or more preisely B n < 0, then ξ 1 > ξ 2 and (t 1, t 2 ) is positive beause the eletromagneti radiation that arrives at 2 undergoes more time delay beause it passes loser to Jupiter. This is the ase illustrated in Figure 1. If Jupiter were not moving, whih is the stati situation, then the Shapiro time delay for a single wave is[13] t = 2G NM J 3 ( 1 + ln ( )) 4RJQ R EJ ξ 2, (2) 2

4 where R JQ is the distane from Jupiter to the quasar. The leading ontribution to (t 1, t 2 ) is therefore (t 1, t 2 ) = t 2 t 1 = 4G NM J 3 ln ( ) ξ1 ξ 2 = 4G NM J ξ ξ 3. (3) Let us determine ξ = ξ 1 ξ 2 in terms of B. The eletromagneti rays that originate from the quasar are bent slightly as they pass by Jupiter by an amount ϕ given by[13] Eventually, one finds beause n B = ξ ( 4G N M J R EJ ξ 2 2 ϕ = 4G NM J ξ G NM J R EJ ξ 2 2 ) 4G NM J R EJ R 2 J , ξ = ξ 1 ξ 2, (4) where R J is the radius of Jupiter. In other words, within the solar system the angular defletion reated by Jupiter an be negleted, and the separation between the rays remains essentially onstant. By substituting Eq.(4) into (3), one obtains the result for a stati Jupiter (t 1, t 2 ) = 4G NM J n B ξ 3. (5) When ξ = θ obs R EJ is used in Eq.(5), it reprodues the leading term in the notation of referenes A and B. Let us now ompute the v J / orretions. This is simple to do by seleting an appropriate referene frame. During the time in whih the rays propagate from Jupiter to the Earth, Jupiter moves almost in a straight line with onstant speed. In other words, the orbital motion of Jupiter around the Sun is not important. The same is true for the Earth. Therefore, observers on both planets an be onsidered as being inertial. Let us selet an observational frame for whih Jupiter is motionless. In this frame, the Earth appears to be moving with a veloity v E equal to v J. Sine Jupiter is not moving, 3

5 Eq.(5) applies. However, the distane B sf between points 1 and 2 as measured in the stati frame is not equal to B as measured on Earth. Plae a stati observer at the point 1 at time t 1 and another stati observer at the point 2 at time t 2. Have these observers make the time measurements. Then the situation is ompletely stati and the formulas for the stati ase may be used. During the time t 2 t 1, the Earth moves a distane v E (t 2 t 1 ). Next, note that the leading ontributions to t 2 t 1 are t 2 t 1 K B of whih the first is the largest. Therefore, + n Bθ obs + (t 1, t 2 ),, (6) B sf = B K B v E + n Bθ obs v E + (t 1, t 2 ) v E. (7) The motion of Earth leads to two orretions to the stati time delay differene in Eq.(5). Using n B sf in Eq.(5) leads to an additional term 4G NM J n v E K B. The other ξ 4 orretion arises if the Earth moves toward (or away from) Jupiter. In this ase, the time delay is redued (or inreased) by the time δ (t 1, t 2 ) it takes light to travel the distane determined by the differene between B sf and B. The orresponding orretion due to the seond and third terms of Eq.(7) is independent of G N and is a ontribution to the first part of Eq.(1) that involves the differene in distanes between the positions of the quasar and the observation points 1 and 2. The fourth term in Eq.(7) leads to K δ (t 1, t 2 ) = v E (t 1, t 2 ) One swithes to the Earth frame using v E = v J. The final result is (t 1, t 2 ) = 4G NM J ξ 3 n B 1 + K v J + K B n v J. (8) K v The orretion fator J is present in referenes A and B. However, we find no 1/θ 2 terms. In its plae is the K B n v J / term of Eq.(8). Although the Shapiro time delay has effets reated by the long-ranged gravitational fore (e.g. see Eq.(2)), these effets anel in the time differene of Eq.(1). In 4

6 the stati ase, this is illustrated by Eq.(5), in whih (t 1, t 2 ) is expressed in terms of the impat parameters of the eletromagneti waves, that is, quantities measurable in the viinity of Jupiter. One therefore expets that long-ranged effets should not be present in (t 1, t 2 ) even in the non-stati ase. The 1/θobs 2 terms of referene A and B, however, grow with the Earth-Jupiter distane. On physial grounds, it seems unlikely that suh terms are present, and our omputation onfirms this. The leading term in (t 1, t 2 ) is of the order of 100 nanoseonds for the Jupiter/quasar experiment. The v J / orretions in Eq.(8) are at least 10,000 times smaller making them less than 0.01 nanoseonds. It is therefore impossible that referenes [1] and [2] measured the speed of gravity. The v J / orretions are also masked by larger orretions suh as terms down by B/ξ and θ obs, whih are present but not shown in this Letter. III. Comparison to Referenes A and B It is easy to find the soure of the 1/θ 2 effets in referenes A and B. In those works, the times s 1 = t 1 x 1 (t 1 ) x J (s 1 ) / and s 2 = t 2 x 2 (t 2 ) x J (s 2 ) / at whih rays 1 and 2 pass by Jupiter are expanded in terms of the times t 1 and t 2 when the rays are observed at the points x 1 and x 2 on Earth. The differenes between the s i and t i are sizeable, of order of R EJ /, and during this time, Jupiter moves a signifiant distane. See the dotted irle in Figure 1. Referenes A and B define the angle θ in terms of the position of Jupiter at t 1. This is not the physially observed angle θ obs. For larity, denote the angle of referenes A and B by θ AB. When the eletromagneti waves from the quasar pass by Jupiter, sunlight that has been refleted off of Jupiter also heads toward Earth. Eventually, the various waves arrive on Earth. See Figure 1. It is evident that the angle θ obs between the quasar and Jupiter observed by an astronomer on Earth is determined by Jupiter s position at time s 1 and not t 1. The reason for the 1/θ 2 term in referenes A and B is due to the use of the artifiial angle θ AB. The relation between θ obs and θ AB is θ obs θ AB + n v J. (9) 5

7 When this result is substituted into the leading term of Eq.(5), (t 1, t 2 ) = 4G NM J n B R EJ θ obs 3 = 4G NM J n B R EJ 3 ( 1 n v ) J θ AB θab 2, (10) and the 1/θ 2 effet emerges. Referenes A and B express (t 1, t 2 ) as (t 1, t 2 ) = 4G NM J ln r 1J (s 1 ) + K r 1J (s 1 ) 3 r 2J (s 2 ) + K r 2J (s 2 ), (11) and then expands unwisely about t 1. The expansion is somewhat subtle sine fators suh as r 1J (s 1 ) + K r 1J (s 1 ) are proportional to the small quantity θ 2 1. A areful analysis reveals that Eqs.(8) and (29) of referenes A and B should have used ln r 1J (s 1 ) + K r 1J (s 1 ) r 2J (s 2 ) + K = r 1J (t 1 ) + K r 1J (t 1 ) r 2J (s 2 ) r 2J (t 1 ) + K + 2 n v J n B. (12) r 2J (t 1 ) r 1J θab 2 When Eq.(12) is substituted into Eq.(11), the 1/θ 2 AB term of Eq.(10) due to the expansion in Eq.(9) is reprodued. This shows that our equations are onsistent with the method used in referenes A and B. Summarizing, (1) an analysis using a stati frame allows one to easily ompute the v J / orretions from the stati result and one finds no 1/θobs 2 terms, (2) physial onsiderations suggest that suh terms are absent, (3) an ill-advised expansion about the arrival time t 1 in referenes A and B produes the artifiial 1/θ 2 AB effets, and finally, (4) onsisteny with referenes A and B is ahieved after the expansion in Eq.(12) is used. There is nothing wrong with using Eq.(10) as long as the instantaneous angle θ AB of Figure 1 is used. However, in the analysis of data, referene [2] begins with Eq.(10) and replaes with g. This is a mistake sine the differene between the angles θ obs and θ AB is due to the motion of Jupiter during the period in whih light travels from Jupiter to the Earth and has nothing to do with gravity. It is not surprising therefore that when a fit to Eq.(10) is performed with g replaing that the experimentally dedued value of g is approximately. Referene [2] is only measuring the leading ontribution to the Shapiro time delay in rearranged form as must be the ase sine the v J / effets were beyond detetion with urrent radio telesopes. 6

8 IV. On the Notion of the Speed of Gravity It is lear from the derivation using the stati frame in Setion II that the leading v J / orretions involve the speed of light and not the speed of gravity, and there is a reent analysis[9] that supports this laim. See also referenes [7] and [11]. However, referenes A and B argue that v J / g should appear. The issue here is how does one extend Einstein s general theory of relativity to allow the possibility that the speed of gravity g is not equal to. A reasonable approah is to assume that the effet of gravity propagates at g instead of. For example, in the retarded times and positions of Jupiter in formulas, one replaes v J / by v J / g. Hene, in the frame in whih Jupiter is moving and the Earth is at rest, the v J / effets are generated in the viinity of Jupiter, and v J / g should appear in lieu of v J / in Eq.(8) of (t 1, t 2 ). But onsistany demands that the omputation of (t 1, t 2 ) be frame independent. Thus, there does not seem to be a onsistant way to define the speed of gravity onept for the Jupiter/quasar experiment. In the stati frame, the orretions are due to the speed of light, while in the Jupiter-moving frame they are due to the speed of gravity. How then might one try to test g in Einstein s theory of relativity? The stati and Jupiter-moving frames are both inertial. If Jupiter happened to be aelerating toward (or away from) the quasar s eletromagneti waves as they passed by the planet, then one would not be able to go bak and forth between the two frames. Therefore, there is a reasonable hane that the speed of gravity onept ould be defined for suh a situation. The parameter g would not be attahed to veloity-dependent terms but to aeleration effets. Although it is worth exploring this possibility theoretially, it is unlikely that a system within or beyond our Solar System exists that generates an effet suffiiently large to be measurable with urrent instruments. Aknowledgments This work was supported in part by the Diretor, Offie of Siene, Offie of High Energy and Nulear Physis, of the Department of Energy under ontrat number DE-AC03-76SF

9 Referenes [1] E. Fomalont, and S. M. Kopeikin, (2002) ApJ. submitted. [2] E. Fomalont, and S. M. Kopeikin, The Measurement of the Light Defletion from Jupiter: Experimental astro-ph/ [3] I. I. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. Lett., 13, 789 (1964). [4] I. I. Shapiro et al. Phys. Rev. Lett., 20, 1265 (1968). [5] I. I. Shapiro et al. Phys. Rev. Lett., 26, 1132 (1971). [6] S.M.Kopeikin, ApJ 556, L1 (2001). [7] H.Asada, ApJ 574, L69 (2002) [8] S. M. Kopeikin, Post-Newtonian Treatment of the VLBI Experiment on September 8, 2002, gr-q/ [9] C. M. Will, Propagation of Speed of Gravity and Relativisti Time Delay, astroph/ , to appear in ApJ. [10] S. M. Kopeikin, The Measurement of the Light Defletion from Jupiter: Theoretial Interpretation, astro-ph/ [11] Joshua A. Faber, The Speed of Gravity Has Not Been Measured from Time Delays, astro-ph/ [12] See for example, Einstein Was Right on Gravity s Veloity, New York Times, January 8, 2003, Setion A, Page 13. [13] S. Weinberg, 1972, Gravitation and Cosmology, (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1972), pp Figure Captions Figure 1. The Motion of Eletromagneti Waves Relevant for the Jupiter/Quasar Experiment. For larity, the diagram is not drawn to sale. 8

10 This figure "sog_figure.jpg" is available in "jpg" format from: