3 ms·
Completely practically: clocks in orbit keep consistently different time from clocks on the surface. The discrepancy requires accounting for relative frames of
by dsr_ 6y ago
Completely practically: clocks in orbit keep consistently different time from clocks on the surface. The discrepancy requires accounting for relative frames of reference.
" Because an observer on the ground sees the satellites in motion relative to them, Special Relativity predicts that we should see their clocks ticking more slowly (see the Special Relativity lecture). Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion [2].
Further, the satellites are in orbits high above the Earth, where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth's mass is less than it is at the Earth's surface. A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away (see the Black Holes lecture). As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites appear to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground. A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day.
The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! The whole system would be utterly worthless for navigation in a very short time. "
-- from http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps....
- frankish 6y agoI'm curious to know if this GPS example has any significant dependencies on prior technologies/physics that was only possible after Einstein discovered general relativity. I don't know enough physics or history to know how much would be different, but can anyone weigh in on if GPS satellites would still be possible?
- detaro 6y agoYou don't need relativity to design something like GPS for a universe where it doesn't exist, so the idea of GPS still makes sense. Presumably we'd have noticed that this clock discrepancy happens at some point when trying to sync clocks in orbit, probably chased a bunch of odd paths trying to figure out why it happens, but in the end found some model to correct the error.
- thecabinet 6y agoThe story I’ve heard was that GPS was invented due to Sputnik. The Doppler shift in its beeps proved its speed and thus its orbit. Somebody (in the Navy?) wondered if the “reverse” could be done: could you listen to various shifting beeps and figure out your location?