560 lines
11 KiB
Plaintext
560 lines
11 KiB
Plaintext
|
Page
|
|||
|
/
|
|||
|
4
|
|||
|
{"id": "1EIQ9DS85nqo9HAeViHxwMvzs7LeZ_wRl", "title": "Testing relativity of simultaneity using GPS satellites.pdf", "mimeType": "application\/pdf"}
|
|||
|
Page 1 of 4
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Testing relativity of simultaneity using GPS satellites
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Kuan Peng 彭宽 titang78@gmail.com
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
25 October 2019
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Abstract: Relativity of simultaneity can be measured with clocks of GPS satellites.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1. Time-slide in GPS system
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
In Special Relativity relativity of simultaneity is the fact that 2 simultaneous events occurring in a
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
stationary frame does not appear simultaneous in a moving frame. For example, in Einstein's train
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
thought experiment 2 simultaneous flashes of light on the platform do not appear simultaneous for the
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
observer in the train. But relativity of simultaneity has never been tested with real simultaneous events.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
For testing relativity of simultaneity we need 2 synchronized clocks moving at high speed and we will
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
read them in a stationary frame. Fortunately, we have at hand many GPS satellites which carry
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
precision clocks and broadcast their time, with which we can check relativity of simultaneity.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Figure 1 shows an example of 8 GPS satellites in a circular orbit. F1 is the
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
frame moving with the satellite 1, its x axis passes through the satellites 1
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
and 2. In a frame that coincides with F1 at time 0 and stationary with respect
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
to the Earth, the positions of the satellites 1 and 2 are x1 and x2. Suppose
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
that 2 simultaneous events occur at x1 and x2 in the stationary frame. In the
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moving frame F1 these same events will occur at the times t'1 and t'2 on the
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
satellites 1 and 2 respectively. t'1 and t'2 are determined by the time equation
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
of the Lorentz transformations which is equation (1) with v being the
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
velocity of the satellite 1. We call t'2 - t'1 the time-slide of the event at x2
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
with respect to that at x1. The time-slide of the satellite 2 with respect to the
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
satellites 1 is approximately expressed by equation (2) because the
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
velocities of the satellites 1 and 2 are not parallel.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
In order to get a precise expression of the time-slide of the satellite 2, let
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
us imagine that there are n satellites between the satellites 1 and 2. In
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
the frame of the i
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
th satellite the time-slide between the satellites i and
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
i+1 is 'i which is expressed by equation (3), where i is the distance
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
between these 2 satellites. Equation (3) is sufficiently precise if the
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
satellites i and i+1 are so close that their velocities can be taken as
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
parallel. By summing all i from i=1 to n, we obtain t'2 - t'1 the time- slides of the satellite 2 which is expressed in equation (4).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
When n is very big, the sum of all the distance i equals p2, the length
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
of the arc between the satellites 1 and 2, see Figure 2. So, the time-slide
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
of the satellite 2 is precisely expressed with p2 in equation (5).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
For all the satellites in Figure 1, the time-slide of the j
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
th satellite with
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
respect to the satellites 1 is t'j- t'1 and is expressed by equation (6) with
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
pj being the arc from the first satellite to the jth satellite and j being any
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
number from 1 to 9. The 9th satellite is in fact the first satellite because
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
the orbit is a circle.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The time-slide of the 9th satellite is t'9 - t'1 and is non-zero. So, due to
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
relativity of simultaneity the time of the 9th satellite is different from
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
that of the first satellite. But this is impossible in real world because the
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
9th satellite is the first satellite.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
On the other hand, the synchronization of the satellites is not obvious.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Figure 1
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
′ =
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
−
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1 −
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(1)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
′
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
−
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
′
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
≈ −
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
−
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1 −
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(2)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
∆
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
′
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
= −
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
∆
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1 −
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(3)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
−
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
′
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
=
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
∆
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
= −
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1 −
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
∆
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(4)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Figure 2
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
′
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
−
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
′
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
= −
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1 −
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(5)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
′
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
−
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
′
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
= −
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1 −
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(6)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
=
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
∆
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Earth
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
GPS satellites
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
F1
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
x2, t'2
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
x1, t'1
|
|||
|
Page 1 of 4
|
|||
|
Page 2 of 4
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
2
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
According to the Wikipedia page Basic concept of GPS: "The satellites carry very stable atomic
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
clocks that are synchronized with one another and with the ground clocks." So, the satellites 1 and 2
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
for example must be synchronized with one clock on Earth, that is, the event "time of the satellite 1 is
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
t0" and the event "time of the satellite 2 is t0" occur simultaneously on Earth. But, as the satellite 2 has
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
a non-zero time-slide with respect to the satellite 1, the satellite 2 cannot be synchronized with the
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
satellite 1 in orbit. Conversely, if the satellite 2 is synchronized with the satellite 1 in orbit, the reading
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
of their time on Earth would be different. So, due to relativity of simultaneity the satellites 1 and 2
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
cannot be synchronized with the clock on Earth and with one another at the same time.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Nevertheless, let us compute the value of t'9 - t'1. The radius of the GPS orbit is 26 600 km (see the
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Wikipedia page Structure of the orbit of GPS satellites), the circumference of this orbit is 167 133 km,
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
that is, p9 = 167 133 km. The velocity of the satellites is 3.87 km/s, the speed of light is 299792 km/s.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Then, the time-slide of the 9th satellite is t'9 - t'1 = - 7204 ns. If this time-slide really exists but is not
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
correctly dealt with, the GPS system would give wrong coordinates on Earth.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The coordinates computed by GPS devices on Earth using the time of satellites are actually correct,
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
which proves that the clocks of the satellites are really synchronized with the clock on Earth and also
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
with one another. This is impossible if relativity of simultaneity affects GPS satellites.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
2. Time-slide and length contraction
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
What is the consequence if relativity of simultaneity were not true? Relativity
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
of simultaneity is given by the time equations of the Lorentz transformations
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
which are derived from the space equations that are the equations (7) and (8). By
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
substituting equation (7) for x' in equation (8), we obtain equation (9) which we
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
transform into equation (10). By substituting equation (8) for x in equation (7),
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
we obtain equation (11) which we transform into equation (12). Equations (10)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
and (12) are the 2 time equations.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
So, the system of the 2 time equations is a linear
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
rearrangement of the system of the 2 space
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
equations and these 2 systems are equivalent.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This is why the length-contraction-caused Ladder
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
paradox can be explained using relativity of
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
simultaneity. But also, a contradiction with
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
relativity of simultaneity leads to a contradiction
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
with length contraction.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
3. Orbital length contraction
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Does the said contradiction with length contraction exist? Let us show it with geostationary satellites
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
which are particularly appropriate for this purpose because they are stationary with respect to
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
observers on Earth, they all move at the same velocity and their orbit is circular.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
A satellite is located with respect to the center of the Earth by a vector called position vector which we
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
can precisely determine with radars on Earth. Once the position vectors of 2
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
satellites are determined, we can derive the distance between them and check if
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
this distance verifies length contraction.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
In the example shown in Figure 3, the 8 geostationary satellites are immobile in
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
the sky for an observer on Earth, that is, they are immobile in the frame of the
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
observer which we denote by A. In a frame in space which does not rotate with
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
the Earth, these satellites move around the Earth. This frame is denoted by B.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The position vectors of the satellites 1 and 2 are R1 and R2 in the frame A at
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
′ =
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
−
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1 −
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(7)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
=
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
′ +
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
′
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1 −
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(8)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1 −
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
=
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
−
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1 −
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
+
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(9)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
′ =
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
−
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1 −
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(10)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
′
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1 −
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
=
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
+
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
′
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1 −
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
−
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(11)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
=
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
+
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
′
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1 −
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(12)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Figure 3
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Geostationary
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
satellites
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
R1
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Earth's
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
center
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
R2
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
l
|
|||
|
Page 2 of 4
|
|||
|
Page 3 of 4
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
3
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
time 0. The angle made by the vectors R1 and R2 is , which is the angular position of the satellite 2
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
with respect to the satellite 1. For n satellites that are equally spaced in orbit, the angle from one
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
satellite to the next is always and the angular position of the i
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
th satellite is the angle (i-1) in the
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
frame A.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The frame B is such that the position vectors of the satellite 1 in the frame A and B coincides at time 0
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
and equal R1. In the frame B the position vector of the satellite 2 is R'2 and the angle made by R1 and
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
R'2 is . Since the angle from one satellite to the next is always , the angular position of the i
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
th
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
satellite is the angle (i-1).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Let l be the distance between the satellites 1 and 2 in the frame A. In the frame B
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
the satellites being moving, the length l undergoes length contraction and the
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
distance between these 2 satellites is l'. The ratio of length contraction is l'/l,
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
which is given by equation (13). Because l' < l , R'2 is slightly closer to R1 than R2
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
and we have <.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The angular position of the n+1th satellite is n=2 in the frame A and n in the frame B. n is
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
smaller than 2 because <. But, the geostationary orbit being a circle, the n+1th satellite is the first
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
satellite and it is impossible that the n+1th satellite is not at the angular position 2 while being the first
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
satellite.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
So, length contraction in orbit creates a gap between the n+1th satellite and the first satellite in the
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
frame B, which is the same type of contradiction than the contradiction with relativity of simultaneity.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The value of this gap is computed by equation (14) using the parameters of the geostationary orbit: the
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
orbital speed is 3.0746 km/s, the radius of the orbit is 42 164 km and the circumference of the orbit is
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
nl = 264 924 km. The value of the gap is then 14 mm, which is too small to be
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
measured. But for particles traveling in a circular accelerator at a fraction of the
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
speed of light, this gap is significantly big.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
4. Circular accelerator
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
In « How to test length contraction by experiment? », I have proposed to
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
test length contraction using n fast moving electrons in a circular
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
accelerator. The electrons are equally spaced in the accelerator tube as
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Figure 4 shows. For an observer situated at the center of the accelerator
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
and rotating with the electrons, the electrons are immobile and the length
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
of the chain of electrons from number 1 to number n+1 equals the
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
circumference of the accelerator tube, the n+1th electron being the first
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
electron.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
At the velocity of 0.865 c, the ratio of length contraction equals 0.5,
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
which implies that, for an observer who measures the moving electrons
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
using the detectors in the laboratory, the length of the chain of electrons
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
equals half the circumference of the accelerator tube and he would see all
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
the n electrons squeezed into one half of the accelerator tube and the other
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
half is empty, as shown in Figure 5. It is impossible that the n+1th electron
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
is not at the place of the first electron because they are the same electron.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
5. Comments
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
In section 1, I have shown that GPS satellites cannot be synchronized in
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
accordance with relativity of simultaneity. In « Astrophysical jet and
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
length contraction » I have shown that relativistic jets ejected by black
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
=
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1 −
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
≈ 1 − 1
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
2
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(13)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
−
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
′) ≈
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
2
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(14)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Figure 4
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Figure 5
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
n+1th
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
electron
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Accelerator's tube
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Lab observer
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
First
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
electron
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Electrons
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Detectors
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Accelerator tube
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Rotating
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
observer
|
|||
|
Page 3 of 4
|
|||
|
Testing relativity of simultaneity using GPS satellites.pdf
|
|||
|
Testing relativity of simultaneity using GPS satellites.pdf
|
|||
|
Open with Google Docs
|
|||
|
Open with Google Docs
|
|||
|
Open with
|
|||
|
Share
|
|||
|
Page 1 of 4
|