Some considerations on the present-day results for the detection of frame-dragging after the final outcome of GP-B

Abstract

-The cancelation of the first even zonal harmonic coefficient J2 from the linear combination f (2L) of the nodes Ω of LAGEOS and LAGEOS II used in the latest tests of the Lense-Thirring effect cannot be perfect, contrary to what assumed so far. It is so also because of the uncertainties in the spatial orientation of the terrestrial spin axisk. As a consequence of above, the coefficient c1 entering f (2L) , which is not a solve-for parameter being, instead, theoretically computed from the analytical expressions of the classical node precessionsΩJ 2 due to J2, is, on average, uncertain at a 10 −8 level over multi-decadal time spans ∆T comparable to those used in the data analyses performed so far. A further ≃ 20% systematic uncertainty, thus, occurs. The shift ∆ρLT due to the gravitomagnetic frame-dragging on the station-spacecraft range ρ is numerically computed over ∆T = 15 d and ∆T = 1 yr. The need to look at such a directly observable quantity is highlighted, along with some critical remarks concerning the methodology used so far to measure the Lense-Thirring effect with the LAGEOS satellites. Suggestions for a different, more trustable and reliable approach are offered.

History of the attempts to measure orbital frame-dragging with artificial satellites

“…Lately, Iorio [161] remarked that a further 20% bias might occur over multi-decadal time spans comparable to those used in the data analyses performed so far with Eq. (4) because of the the uncertainties in the spatial orientation of the terrestrial spin axis.…”

“…(4) would not be perfect. Moreover, Iorio [161] noticed that a partial/total cancelation of the relativistic signal itself may occur in the estimation of, say, the satellites' state vectors at the beginning of each arc used in actual data reduction. The need of explicitly modeling and estimating a frame-dragging parameter is, thus, stressed.…”

“…The need of explicitly modeling and estimating a frame-dragging parameter is, thus, stressed. Finally, another form of a-priori "imprinting" of relativity itself may actually lurk in the Lageos tests since the data are analyzed within the framework of a coordinate system whose materialization is largely based just on Lageos/Lageos-2 SLR observations [161].…”

Ether and Relativity

“…Second, how absolute space can act on every particle and distinguishes free particles from other ones, but cannot be acted upon. In general, from the Einstein point of view, the existence of a matter 3 Also, the Lense-Thirring precession effect (see, e.g., Refs.[18]- [20]), or actually the frame-dragging effect [21,22], must be neglected.4 Such a contraction was accounted in terms of the Lorentz electron theory [31]; however, it is believed that some other results predicted from his theory could not be found experimentally [24] and the theory has some philosophical deficit such that its basic assumptions are unverifiable [14].3 which is completely transparent, its nature is unspecified and obscure, and there is no way to prove its existence, 5 was not required. Eventually, in 1905, Einstein by proposing the STR [48], attracted most of the attentions towards this theory.…”

“…21 Meanwhile and almost around the same time, non-static closed solutions of the GTR (corresponding to an expanding distribution of matter) were discovered, and also it was specified that the universe is not static, but rather is expanding in the large-scale (that was officially published a few years later [108]). 22 Incidentally, according to quantum theory, the vacuum has vacuum fluctuations and an energy tensor (zero-point energy) that the only form of it (being the same in all inertial frames) is a constant multiple of the metric, i.e. the same as the cosmological constant term.…”