Home

Archive

English

Persian

contact us

 

 

 

 

Links 

Articles

Cern Experiment and Violatin of Newton's Second Law

 

LEIBNIZ'S MONADS AND JAVADI'S CPH

World Science Database

General Science Journal

Hadronic Journal

National Research Council Canada

 

 

November 2, 2011: CERN Experiment and Violation of Newton’s Second Law Englishview
 

October 13, 2011: CERN Experiment and Violation of the Newton’s Second Law Persianview
 

November 24, 2008: A New Definition of Gravitonview
 

July 10, 2007: Zero Point Energy and the Dirac Equationview
 

July 10, 2007: Zero Point Energy and the Dirac Equationview
 

June 28, 2007: Unification and CPH Theoryview
 

June 14, 2007: Summary of Physics Conceptsview
 

June 14, 2007: Strong Interaction and CPH Theory Rview
 

June 4, 2007: Quantum Electrodynamics and CPH Theoryview
 

November 30, 2006: Vocabulary of CPH Theoryview
 

November 17, 2006: Thermodynamic Laws Entropy and CPH Theoryview
 

November 17, 2006: Time Function and Absolute Black Holeview
 

October 14, 2006: CPH and Timeview
 

October 13, 2006: CPH Theory and Newton's Second Lawview
 

October 13, 2006: Time Function and Work Energy Theoremview
 

October 13, 2006: CPH Theory and Special Relativityview
 

October 13, 2006: Properties of CPHview
 

July 31, 2006: A New Mechanism of Higgs Bosons in Producing Charge Particlesview
 

July 31, 2006: A New Mechanism of Higgs Bosons in Producing Charge Particlesview
 

May 14, 2006: Speed of Light and CPH Theoryview
 

May 14, 2006: Speed of Light and CPH Theoryview
 

April 28, 2006: Color Charges Curve Spaceview
 

April 28, 2006: Color Charges Curve Spaceview
 

April 17, 2006: Effective Nuclear Chargeview
 

April 17, 2006: Effective Nuclear Chargeview
 

April 12, 2006: Maxwell's Equations in a Gravitational Fieldview
 

April 12, 2006: Maxwell's Equations in a Gravitational Fieldview
 

April 11, 2006: Realization Hawking - End of Physics by CPHview
 

April 7, 2006: Questions and Answers on CPH Theoryview
 

April 7, 2006: Opinions on CPH Theoryview
 

April 7, 2006: Opinions on CPH Theoryview
 

April 7, 2006: Questions and Answers on CPH Theoryview
 

March 23, 2006: Analysis of CPH Theoryview
 

March 23, 2006: Analysis of CPH Theoryview
 

March 21, 2006: Logical Foundation of CPH Theoryview
 

March 21, 2006: Definition Principle and Explanation of CPH Theoryview
 

March 21, 2006: Logical Foundation of CPH Theoryview
 

March 21, 2006: Definition Principle and Explanation of CPH Theoryview
 

March 21, 2006: Experimental Foundation of CPH Theoryview
 

March 21, 2006: Experimental Foundation of CPH Theoryview
 

March 19, 2006: Color Charge/Color Magnet and CPHview
 

March 19, 2006: Sub-Quantum Chromodynamicsview
 

 

 

 

 

Perseverence Is Paying Off for a Test of Relativity in Space

 

 

 
 



 


 

Perseverence Is Paying Off for a Test of Relativity in Space

 

 

By GUY GUGLIOTTA

STANFORD, Calif. For 46 years, Francis Everitt, a Stanford University physicist, has promoted the often perilous fortunes of Gravity Probe B, perhaps the most exotic, Star Trek-ish experiment ever undertaken in space. Finally, with emergency financial help from a pair of unusual sources, success is at hand.

 

Conceived in the late 1950s, financed by $750 million from NASA and launched into orbit in 2004, the Gravity Probe B spacecraft has sought to prove two tenets of Einsteins theory of general relativity. The first, called the geodetic effect, holds that a large celestial body like Earth will warp time the way a rubber sheet stretches when a bowling ball is placed on it. The second, known as frame-dragging, occurs when the rotation of a large body twists nearby space and time; turn the resting bowling ball, and the rubber sheet twists.

To measure these phenomena, Dr. Everitt and his Stanford team equipped Gravity Probe B with a special telescope attached to several gyroscopes. They pointed the telescope at a guide star, IM Pegasi, and then spun up the gyros with their axes also fixed on the guide star. If Einstein was right, the gyros would drift slightly over time to follow the space-time distortion.

The Stanford team collected 11 months worth of transmissions from Gravity Probe B, but tiny unforeseen drift in the gyros fouled the results. Dr. Everitt had to ask NASA for extra time and money so his 11-member team could figure out how to scrub the data.

Four painstaking years later, the team has confirmed the geodetic effect and put a credible frame-dragging result within reach. Nevertheless, NASA was forced to stop financing the project last May. This 11th-hour catastrophe might have been terminal, but Dr. Everitt, long known for his tenacity as well as his charm, had nursed Gravity Probe B through several near-death experiences over the years.

To persevere into 2008, he had already won a $500,000 contribution from Richard Fairbank, the founder and chief executive of Capital One Financial and the youngest son of his old mentor, the Stanford physicist William Fairbank. Richard Fairbank stipulated that Stanford and NASA each match his contribution, and they did.

But by mid-2008, that $1.5 million was running out. That is when Dr. Everitt turned to Turki al-Saud, vice president for research institutes at the King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology in Saudi Arabia and a member of the Saudi royal family. Dr. Saud, who has a doctorate in aeronautics and astronautics from Stanford, arranged a $2.7 million grant. The work goes on.

I didnt imagine I would ever visit Riyadh, Dr. Everitt said. We will need more money, but $2.7 million by itself is really helpful. We now have a clear end in sight.

The Gravity Probe B experiment was conceived at the dawn of the Space Age by the Stanford physicist Leonard Schiff and George E. Pugh of the Defense Department. Dr. Schiff brought William Fairbank into the project in 1959, and in 1962 Dr. Fairbank induced the British-born Dr. Everitt to come for a visit. Now 74, Dr. Everitt has directed Gravity Probe B ever since.

While the experiment itself was relatively straightforward, the engineering demands were unprecedented. The theoretical distortion in space-time for the geodetic effect was 6,614.4 milliarcseconds per year; for frame-dragging it was only 14 milliarcseconds per year. A milliarcsecond is about one four-millionth of a degree of arc.

To make measurements that fine using an object as large as Earth, the spacecrafts gyros had to be virtually friction-free and unaffected by heat, magnetic fields or unpredictable movements. The pristine environment of space made the attempt possible.

But success was not guaranteed. Arcane, often unprecedented technologies were needed. The four fused-quartz, Ping-Pong-ball-size gyroscopes, coated with the metal niobium, were the most perfectly spherical objects ever created by humans. A coffin-size lead bag shielded the gyros from Earths magnetic field.

A large thermos-like container called a dewar contained 645 gallons of liquid helium to be cooled to within two degrees of absolute zero. The helium held the niobium coating at superconducting temperatures, so the metal could track the deviations in the gyros spin axis.

By the time the 21-foot-long, 3-ton spacecraft was launched on April 20, 2004, Gravity Probe B had become a very expensive tool designed to prove something that many scientists over the years had come to accept as already proved by theoretical physics and some previous experiments.

That argument has no heft with Dr. Everitt. We are doing a measurement with a massive object, and this is valid, Dr. Everitt said. This is what the general theory of relativity says, and this is the experiment.

The mission, however, did not go according to plan. The niobium coating on the gyros and their housings was slightly uneven, causing tiny unpredictable electrical torques that made the gyros drift. The mission ended in 2005, but since then the Stanford team has been mapping niobium anomalies on each gyro, finding the patterns of distortion and subtracting the noise from the data.

NASA had budgeted money for a years worth of post-flight data analysis, but Dr. Everitt needed a lot more time, and NASA financed the project through 2007. That, it seemed, would be the end.

Richard Fairbank, whom Dr. Everitt had known since he was a child, thought differently. Nearly 50 years ago, my father had talked with me about the integrity of a bold quest and never giving up, Mr. Fairbank said. I just felt that the project was on the 1-yard line.

The financing brought about by his contribution took the project into 2008, but in May, Gravity Probe B went before NASAs senior review, where an independent committee of scientists rates continuing agency projects to determine financing priorities. We ended up dead last, Dr. Everitt said.

That month, however, Dr. Saud visited Stanford and spoke briefly with Dr. Everitt. Saudi Arabia, which has built 12 small satellites, was interested in forming partnerships for future space missions, Dr. Saud said in a telephone interview, and has since done so with Stanford and NASA. Dr. Everitt met with Dr. Saud in London in July, and Gravity Probe B received $2.7 million.

The team has forged ahead. In August, graduate students made a breakthrough in data analysis to bring the frame-dragging deviation within 15 percent of the predicted result. Dr. Everitt hopes to get it within 3 percent by mid-2010. The geodetic effect is currently within 1 percent of the predicted result and is expected to go even lower.

They fly the mission and have what seems like an insurmountable problem, said Michael Salamon, program scientist for the Physics of the Cosmos Program at NASA and a staunch supporter of the project despite the senior review decision. Then they do this. Its spectacular, frankly, and when its done we are going to have a press announcement.

 

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/science/17gravity.html?_r=1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 


 

 

 

 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  Newest articles

 


 

Interesting articles

Faster Than Light 

Light that travels… faster than light!

Before the Big Bang

Structure of Charge Particles

Move Structure of Photon

Structure of Charge Particles

Faster Than Light 

Light that travels… faster than light!

Before the Big Bang

Structure of Charge Particles

Move Structure of Photon

Structure of Charge Particles

Zero Point Energy and the Dirac Equation [PDF] Persian Text


 
Unification and CPH Theory [PDF] 


Strong Interaction and CPH Theory [PDF]


Summary of Physics Concepts [PDF]


Quantum Electrodynamics and CPH Theory [PDF] 


Vocabulary of CPH Theory [PDF] 


Thermodynamic Laws, Entropy and CPH Theory [PDF]


Time Function and Absolute Black Hole [PDF] 


CPH and Time [PDF]Persian Text Only


Time Function and Work Energy Theorem [PDF] Persian Text Only 


Properties of CPH [PDF]Persian Text Only 


CPH Theory and Special Relativity [PDF] Persian Text Only


CPH Theory and Newton's Second Law [PDF] Persian Text Only 

 

A New Mechanism of Higgs Bosons in Producing Charge Particles [PDF] Persian Text 


Logical Foundation of CPH Theory [PDF] Persian Text 


Experimental Foundation of CPH Theory [PDF] Persian Text 


Definition, Principle and Explanation of CPH Theory [PDF] Persian Text


 
Analysis of CPH Theory Persian Text


Opinions on CPH Theory [PDF] Persian Text


 
Questions and Answers on CPH Theory [PDF] Persian Text


 
Realization Hawking - End of Physics by CPH [PDF]Persian Text Only


 
Maxwell's Equations in a Gravitational Field [PDF] Persian Text


 
Effective Nuclear Charge [PDF] Persian Text


 
Color Charges Curve Space [PDF] Persian Text 


Sub-Quantum Chromodynamics [PDF]


 
Color Charge/Color Magnet and CPH [PDF]


 
Speed of Light and CPH Theory [PDF] Persian Text

 

 

 
 
 
 

 

 

free hit counters

 


 

@2003-2012 The CPH theory, All right reserved