Why isn't the GPS location calculated from the Schwarzschild metric?











up vote
20
down vote

favorite
2












The GPS uses the flat space light propagation formula to calculate the distance from the source (the satellite) to the receiver (observer on Earth):
$$ d=c cdot Delta t$$
where $c$ is the speed of light in Minkowski vacuum, $Delta t$ is the difference between the times of emission and absorption of the signal (corrected for relativistic time dilations) and $d$ is the Euclidean distance. This formula is fed with the data beamed from 4 satellites to solve for the location of the receiver.



My questions are: what is the rationale for using this formula? Shouldn't the distance be calculated in the curved geometry setting, e.g. using the Schwarzschild metric? What are the errors in using the Euclidean version $ d=c cdot Delta t$?



N.B.: The time difference $Delta t$ contains relativistic corrections to times. However, it is not clear to me why it is correct to use the flat space (Minkowski) formula for light propagation with just the value of $Delta t$ amended to account for gravity.



Please, try to be as clear as possible and support your statements with calculations/derivations.



ADDENDUM: I found really good papers discussing in depth all the relativistic details and effects to GPS(-like) navigation in spacetime.
They are Thomas B. Bahder's Navigation in Curved Space-Time, Clock Synchronization and Navigation in the Vicinity of the Earth and Relativity of GPS Measurement.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 8




    Earth's local spacetime isn't even schwarzchild if you want to talk precision, due to Earth's oblate nature there are higher multipole moments to take into account for the gravitational field. You might be interested in this article ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5253894
    – Triatticus
    22 hours ago






  • 5




    This is not only a physics question but an electronics one (and I do mean electronics, not programming). The early receivers were designed to work using the technology of the 1980s or earlier. They needed to be portable, which might mean vehicle mounted rather than handheld, which would limit the size and power supply that coule be used. That all impacts the recommended calculations. Modern recievers are welcome to calculate position however they please, and survey ones may include some of what you suggest to get their millimetre precisions.
    – TafT
    15 hours ago















up vote
20
down vote

favorite
2












The GPS uses the flat space light propagation formula to calculate the distance from the source (the satellite) to the receiver (observer on Earth):
$$ d=c cdot Delta t$$
where $c$ is the speed of light in Minkowski vacuum, $Delta t$ is the difference between the times of emission and absorption of the signal (corrected for relativistic time dilations) and $d$ is the Euclidean distance. This formula is fed with the data beamed from 4 satellites to solve for the location of the receiver.



My questions are: what is the rationale for using this formula? Shouldn't the distance be calculated in the curved geometry setting, e.g. using the Schwarzschild metric? What are the errors in using the Euclidean version $ d=c cdot Delta t$?



N.B.: The time difference $Delta t$ contains relativistic corrections to times. However, it is not clear to me why it is correct to use the flat space (Minkowski) formula for light propagation with just the value of $Delta t$ amended to account for gravity.



Please, try to be as clear as possible and support your statements with calculations/derivations.



ADDENDUM: I found really good papers discussing in depth all the relativistic details and effects to GPS(-like) navigation in spacetime.
They are Thomas B. Bahder's Navigation in Curved Space-Time, Clock Synchronization and Navigation in the Vicinity of the Earth and Relativity of GPS Measurement.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 8




    Earth's local spacetime isn't even schwarzchild if you want to talk precision, due to Earth's oblate nature there are higher multipole moments to take into account for the gravitational field. You might be interested in this article ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5253894
    – Triatticus
    22 hours ago






  • 5




    This is not only a physics question but an electronics one (and I do mean electronics, not programming). The early receivers were designed to work using the technology of the 1980s or earlier. They needed to be portable, which might mean vehicle mounted rather than handheld, which would limit the size and power supply that coule be used. That all impacts the recommended calculations. Modern recievers are welcome to calculate position however they please, and survey ones may include some of what you suggest to get their millimetre precisions.
    – TafT
    15 hours ago













up vote
20
down vote

favorite
2









up vote
20
down vote

favorite
2






2





The GPS uses the flat space light propagation formula to calculate the distance from the source (the satellite) to the receiver (observer on Earth):
$$ d=c cdot Delta t$$
where $c$ is the speed of light in Minkowski vacuum, $Delta t$ is the difference between the times of emission and absorption of the signal (corrected for relativistic time dilations) and $d$ is the Euclidean distance. This formula is fed with the data beamed from 4 satellites to solve for the location of the receiver.



My questions are: what is the rationale for using this formula? Shouldn't the distance be calculated in the curved geometry setting, e.g. using the Schwarzschild metric? What are the errors in using the Euclidean version $ d=c cdot Delta t$?



N.B.: The time difference $Delta t$ contains relativistic corrections to times. However, it is not clear to me why it is correct to use the flat space (Minkowski) formula for light propagation with just the value of $Delta t$ amended to account for gravity.



Please, try to be as clear as possible and support your statements with calculations/derivations.



ADDENDUM: I found really good papers discussing in depth all the relativistic details and effects to GPS(-like) navigation in spacetime.
They are Thomas B. Bahder's Navigation in Curved Space-Time, Clock Synchronization and Navigation in the Vicinity of the Earth and Relativity of GPS Measurement.










share|cite|improve this question















The GPS uses the flat space light propagation formula to calculate the distance from the source (the satellite) to the receiver (observer on Earth):
$$ d=c cdot Delta t$$
where $c$ is the speed of light in Minkowski vacuum, $Delta t$ is the difference between the times of emission and absorption of the signal (corrected for relativistic time dilations) and $d$ is the Euclidean distance. This formula is fed with the data beamed from 4 satellites to solve for the location of the receiver.



My questions are: what is the rationale for using this formula? Shouldn't the distance be calculated in the curved geometry setting, e.g. using the Schwarzschild metric? What are the errors in using the Euclidean version $ d=c cdot Delta t$?



N.B.: The time difference $Delta t$ contains relativistic corrections to times. However, it is not clear to me why it is correct to use the flat space (Minkowski) formula for light propagation with just the value of $Delta t$ amended to account for gravity.



Please, try to be as clear as possible and support your statements with calculations/derivations.



ADDENDUM: I found really good papers discussing in depth all the relativistic details and effects to GPS(-like) navigation in spacetime.
They are Thomas B. Bahder's Navigation in Curved Space-Time, Clock Synchronization and Navigation in the Vicinity of the Earth and Relativity of GPS Measurement.







general-relativity special-relativity metric-tensor distance gps






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 6 hours ago

























asked 22 hours ago









label

1288




1288








  • 8




    Earth's local spacetime isn't even schwarzchild if you want to talk precision, due to Earth's oblate nature there are higher multipole moments to take into account for the gravitational field. You might be interested in this article ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5253894
    – Triatticus
    22 hours ago






  • 5




    This is not only a physics question but an electronics one (and I do mean electronics, not programming). The early receivers were designed to work using the technology of the 1980s or earlier. They needed to be portable, which might mean vehicle mounted rather than handheld, which would limit the size and power supply that coule be used. That all impacts the recommended calculations. Modern recievers are welcome to calculate position however they please, and survey ones may include some of what you suggest to get their millimetre precisions.
    – TafT
    15 hours ago














  • 8




    Earth's local spacetime isn't even schwarzchild if you want to talk precision, due to Earth's oblate nature there are higher multipole moments to take into account for the gravitational field. You might be interested in this article ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5253894
    – Triatticus
    22 hours ago






  • 5




    This is not only a physics question but an electronics one (and I do mean electronics, not programming). The early receivers were designed to work using the technology of the 1980s or earlier. They needed to be portable, which might mean vehicle mounted rather than handheld, which would limit the size and power supply that coule be used. That all impacts the recommended calculations. Modern recievers are welcome to calculate position however they please, and survey ones may include some of what you suggest to get their millimetre precisions.
    – TafT
    15 hours ago








8




8




Earth's local spacetime isn't even schwarzchild if you want to talk precision, due to Earth's oblate nature there are higher multipole moments to take into account for the gravitational field. You might be interested in this article ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5253894
– Triatticus
22 hours ago




Earth's local spacetime isn't even schwarzchild if you want to talk precision, due to Earth's oblate nature there are higher multipole moments to take into account for the gravitational field. You might be interested in this article ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5253894
– Triatticus
22 hours ago




5




5




This is not only a physics question but an electronics one (and I do mean electronics, not programming). The early receivers were designed to work using the technology of the 1980s or earlier. They needed to be portable, which might mean vehicle mounted rather than handheld, which would limit the size and power supply that coule be used. That all impacts the recommended calculations. Modern recievers are welcome to calculate position however they please, and survey ones may include some of what you suggest to get their millimetre precisions.
– TafT
15 hours ago




This is not only a physics question but an electronics one (and I do mean electronics, not programming). The early receivers were designed to work using the technology of the 1980s or earlier. They needed to be portable, which might mean vehicle mounted rather than handheld, which would limit the size and power supply that coule be used. That all impacts the recommended calculations. Modern recievers are welcome to calculate position however they please, and survey ones may include some of what you suggest to get their millimetre precisions.
– TafT
15 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
36
down vote



accepted










The general-relativistic corrections are too small to matter.



The Schwarzchild metric has dimensionless corrections of order $GM/rc^2$. Here $G$ is the Newton's gravitational constant, $M$ the mass of the Earth, $r$ the distance from the center of the Earth, and $c$ the speed of light.



At the surface of the Earth, these metric corrections are about one part in a billion; higher up, near the satellites, they are even smaller. The Christoffel symbols determining the signal's geodesic path will have corrections of the same magnitude.



The signal takes about 0.1 s to travel to Earth from the satellite, so the GR correction in $Delta t$ would be of order $10^{-10} s$ and the GR correction in $d$ would be approximately 3 cm. This is below the accuracy of the GPS system.



The case where the GPS satellite is directly overhead is easy to solve analytically. Start with the Schwartzschild metric



$$ds^2=-(1-2M/r)dt^2+(1-2M/r)^{-1}dr^2 +r^2 dtheta^2+r^2 sin^2{theta};dphi^2$$



in geometrical units where $G$ and $c$ are 1.



The signal follows a null geodesic where $ds=0$. A radial null geodesic satisfies



$$(1-2M/r);dt^2=(1-2M/r)^{-1};dr^2$$



which is a differential equation from which we can obtain $t(r)$ as



$$t=r_0-r+2Mlogfrac{r_0-2M}{r-2M}.$$



The initial conditions are that at $t=0$ the signal starts at $r=r_0$, the orbital radius of the overhead GPS satellite. We have taken the incoming solution; as $t$ increases, $r$ decreases and at some time $t=t_E$ it hits the GPS receiver on the surface of the Earth at $r=R_E$.



For calculating $t_E$ in seconds, restore $G$ and $c$ to get



$$ct_E=r_0-r_E+R_slogfrac{r_0-R_s}{r_E-R_s}$$



where $R_s=2GM/c^2$ is the Schwarzschild radius of the Earth, which is 9.0 mm.



Putting in the radius at which the GPS satellites orbit, $r_0=20,000$ km, and the Earth's radius $r_E=6400$ km, we find $t_E=0.045333333368$ s. When we ignore the GR corrections by taking $R_s$ to be 0 rather than 9 mm, we get $t_E=0.045333333333$ s. Thus the GR corrections slow the signal by 34 picoseconds, and cause the calculation of the distance to the satellite to be off by 1.0 cm. A good analytic approximation is



$$Delta d=R_s logfrac{r_0}{r_E}.$$



Correction: The OP pointed out that 20,000 km is the altitude of the GPS satellites, not their orbital radius. Their orbital radius is thus about 26,400 km. Redoing the numbers, I get a $Delta t$ of 43 picoseconds and a $Delta d$ of 1.3 cm.






share|cite|improve this answer



















  • 3




    For comparison, the errors on any individual pseudorange due to signal resolution, ionospheric effects, thermal noise, imperfect clocks on the satellites, imperfect ephemerides, etc. under good conditions are around 10 nanoseconds, ~30 times larger.
    – hobbs
    11 hours ago






  • 4




    What's surprising to me is not that the effect is insignificant, but how close it is to being significant. A decent commercial GPS receiver can be accurate to less than one meter under good conditions, so an error of 1 cm due to GR is only two orders of magnitude below that. I can easily imagine a future GPS-like system being accurate enough for those corrections to be needed.
    – Ilmari Karonen
    8 hours ago






  • 1




    To be clear, this specific general relativistic correction is too small to matter. The clock drift that would occur without general relativistic corrections is much more significant.
    – Chris
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    The general-relativistic correction to the satellites' clock rates is not a matter of "imperfect clocks" -- gravitational time dilation is straight from GR. But it's not something GPS receivers need to care about, because the signal is already corrected for it when it is generated on the satellite.
    – Henning Makholm
    1 hour ago








  • 1




    @IlmariKaronen cm-scale GPS receiver systems do exist, but fundamentally they operate based on measuring the signal at reference locations and then sending out a correction, either with a time error (pseudorange) or position error. This is known as dGPS and many systems exist (WAAS/SBAS, LAAS/GLS, Starfire, SAIF, etc). Therefore, there is no need to make a special correction for every single possible error source, instead measuring error on a per-satellite or per-location basis.
    – user71659
    1 hour ago













Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f442271%2fwhy-isnt-the-gps-location-calculated-from-the-schwarzschild-metric%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
36
down vote



accepted










The general-relativistic corrections are too small to matter.



The Schwarzchild metric has dimensionless corrections of order $GM/rc^2$. Here $G$ is the Newton's gravitational constant, $M$ the mass of the Earth, $r$ the distance from the center of the Earth, and $c$ the speed of light.



At the surface of the Earth, these metric corrections are about one part in a billion; higher up, near the satellites, they are even smaller. The Christoffel symbols determining the signal's geodesic path will have corrections of the same magnitude.



The signal takes about 0.1 s to travel to Earth from the satellite, so the GR correction in $Delta t$ would be of order $10^{-10} s$ and the GR correction in $d$ would be approximately 3 cm. This is below the accuracy of the GPS system.



The case where the GPS satellite is directly overhead is easy to solve analytically. Start with the Schwartzschild metric



$$ds^2=-(1-2M/r)dt^2+(1-2M/r)^{-1}dr^2 +r^2 dtheta^2+r^2 sin^2{theta};dphi^2$$



in geometrical units where $G$ and $c$ are 1.



The signal follows a null geodesic where $ds=0$. A radial null geodesic satisfies



$$(1-2M/r);dt^2=(1-2M/r)^{-1};dr^2$$



which is a differential equation from which we can obtain $t(r)$ as



$$t=r_0-r+2Mlogfrac{r_0-2M}{r-2M}.$$



The initial conditions are that at $t=0$ the signal starts at $r=r_0$, the orbital radius of the overhead GPS satellite. We have taken the incoming solution; as $t$ increases, $r$ decreases and at some time $t=t_E$ it hits the GPS receiver on the surface of the Earth at $r=R_E$.



For calculating $t_E$ in seconds, restore $G$ and $c$ to get



$$ct_E=r_0-r_E+R_slogfrac{r_0-R_s}{r_E-R_s}$$



where $R_s=2GM/c^2$ is the Schwarzschild radius of the Earth, which is 9.0 mm.



Putting in the radius at which the GPS satellites orbit, $r_0=20,000$ km, and the Earth's radius $r_E=6400$ km, we find $t_E=0.045333333368$ s. When we ignore the GR corrections by taking $R_s$ to be 0 rather than 9 mm, we get $t_E=0.045333333333$ s. Thus the GR corrections slow the signal by 34 picoseconds, and cause the calculation of the distance to the satellite to be off by 1.0 cm. A good analytic approximation is



$$Delta d=R_s logfrac{r_0}{r_E}.$$



Correction: The OP pointed out that 20,000 km is the altitude of the GPS satellites, not their orbital radius. Their orbital radius is thus about 26,400 km. Redoing the numbers, I get a $Delta t$ of 43 picoseconds and a $Delta d$ of 1.3 cm.






share|cite|improve this answer



















  • 3




    For comparison, the errors on any individual pseudorange due to signal resolution, ionospheric effects, thermal noise, imperfect clocks on the satellites, imperfect ephemerides, etc. under good conditions are around 10 nanoseconds, ~30 times larger.
    – hobbs
    11 hours ago






  • 4




    What's surprising to me is not that the effect is insignificant, but how close it is to being significant. A decent commercial GPS receiver can be accurate to less than one meter under good conditions, so an error of 1 cm due to GR is only two orders of magnitude below that. I can easily imagine a future GPS-like system being accurate enough for those corrections to be needed.
    – Ilmari Karonen
    8 hours ago






  • 1




    To be clear, this specific general relativistic correction is too small to matter. The clock drift that would occur without general relativistic corrections is much more significant.
    – Chris
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    The general-relativistic correction to the satellites' clock rates is not a matter of "imperfect clocks" -- gravitational time dilation is straight from GR. But it's not something GPS receivers need to care about, because the signal is already corrected for it when it is generated on the satellite.
    – Henning Makholm
    1 hour ago








  • 1




    @IlmariKaronen cm-scale GPS receiver systems do exist, but fundamentally they operate based on measuring the signal at reference locations and then sending out a correction, either with a time error (pseudorange) or position error. This is known as dGPS and many systems exist (WAAS/SBAS, LAAS/GLS, Starfire, SAIF, etc). Therefore, there is no need to make a special correction for every single possible error source, instead measuring error on a per-satellite or per-location basis.
    – user71659
    1 hour ago

















up vote
36
down vote



accepted










The general-relativistic corrections are too small to matter.



The Schwarzchild metric has dimensionless corrections of order $GM/rc^2$. Here $G$ is the Newton's gravitational constant, $M$ the mass of the Earth, $r$ the distance from the center of the Earth, and $c$ the speed of light.



At the surface of the Earth, these metric corrections are about one part in a billion; higher up, near the satellites, they are even smaller. The Christoffel symbols determining the signal's geodesic path will have corrections of the same magnitude.



The signal takes about 0.1 s to travel to Earth from the satellite, so the GR correction in $Delta t$ would be of order $10^{-10} s$ and the GR correction in $d$ would be approximately 3 cm. This is below the accuracy of the GPS system.



The case where the GPS satellite is directly overhead is easy to solve analytically. Start with the Schwartzschild metric



$$ds^2=-(1-2M/r)dt^2+(1-2M/r)^{-1}dr^2 +r^2 dtheta^2+r^2 sin^2{theta};dphi^2$$



in geometrical units where $G$ and $c$ are 1.



The signal follows a null geodesic where $ds=0$. A radial null geodesic satisfies



$$(1-2M/r);dt^2=(1-2M/r)^{-1};dr^2$$



which is a differential equation from which we can obtain $t(r)$ as



$$t=r_0-r+2Mlogfrac{r_0-2M}{r-2M}.$$



The initial conditions are that at $t=0$ the signal starts at $r=r_0$, the orbital radius of the overhead GPS satellite. We have taken the incoming solution; as $t$ increases, $r$ decreases and at some time $t=t_E$ it hits the GPS receiver on the surface of the Earth at $r=R_E$.



For calculating $t_E$ in seconds, restore $G$ and $c$ to get



$$ct_E=r_0-r_E+R_slogfrac{r_0-R_s}{r_E-R_s}$$



where $R_s=2GM/c^2$ is the Schwarzschild radius of the Earth, which is 9.0 mm.



Putting in the radius at which the GPS satellites orbit, $r_0=20,000$ km, and the Earth's radius $r_E=6400$ km, we find $t_E=0.045333333368$ s. When we ignore the GR corrections by taking $R_s$ to be 0 rather than 9 mm, we get $t_E=0.045333333333$ s. Thus the GR corrections slow the signal by 34 picoseconds, and cause the calculation of the distance to the satellite to be off by 1.0 cm. A good analytic approximation is



$$Delta d=R_s logfrac{r_0}{r_E}.$$



Correction: The OP pointed out that 20,000 km is the altitude of the GPS satellites, not their orbital radius. Their orbital radius is thus about 26,400 km. Redoing the numbers, I get a $Delta t$ of 43 picoseconds and a $Delta d$ of 1.3 cm.






share|cite|improve this answer



















  • 3




    For comparison, the errors on any individual pseudorange due to signal resolution, ionospheric effects, thermal noise, imperfect clocks on the satellites, imperfect ephemerides, etc. under good conditions are around 10 nanoseconds, ~30 times larger.
    – hobbs
    11 hours ago






  • 4




    What's surprising to me is not that the effect is insignificant, but how close it is to being significant. A decent commercial GPS receiver can be accurate to less than one meter under good conditions, so an error of 1 cm due to GR is only two orders of magnitude below that. I can easily imagine a future GPS-like system being accurate enough for those corrections to be needed.
    – Ilmari Karonen
    8 hours ago






  • 1




    To be clear, this specific general relativistic correction is too small to matter. The clock drift that would occur without general relativistic corrections is much more significant.
    – Chris
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    The general-relativistic correction to the satellites' clock rates is not a matter of "imperfect clocks" -- gravitational time dilation is straight from GR. But it's not something GPS receivers need to care about, because the signal is already corrected for it when it is generated on the satellite.
    – Henning Makholm
    1 hour ago








  • 1




    @IlmariKaronen cm-scale GPS receiver systems do exist, but fundamentally they operate based on measuring the signal at reference locations and then sending out a correction, either with a time error (pseudorange) or position error. This is known as dGPS and many systems exist (WAAS/SBAS, LAAS/GLS, Starfire, SAIF, etc). Therefore, there is no need to make a special correction for every single possible error source, instead measuring error on a per-satellite or per-location basis.
    – user71659
    1 hour ago















up vote
36
down vote



accepted







up vote
36
down vote



accepted






The general-relativistic corrections are too small to matter.



The Schwarzchild metric has dimensionless corrections of order $GM/rc^2$. Here $G$ is the Newton's gravitational constant, $M$ the mass of the Earth, $r$ the distance from the center of the Earth, and $c$ the speed of light.



At the surface of the Earth, these metric corrections are about one part in a billion; higher up, near the satellites, they are even smaller. The Christoffel symbols determining the signal's geodesic path will have corrections of the same magnitude.



The signal takes about 0.1 s to travel to Earth from the satellite, so the GR correction in $Delta t$ would be of order $10^{-10} s$ and the GR correction in $d$ would be approximately 3 cm. This is below the accuracy of the GPS system.



The case where the GPS satellite is directly overhead is easy to solve analytically. Start with the Schwartzschild metric



$$ds^2=-(1-2M/r)dt^2+(1-2M/r)^{-1}dr^2 +r^2 dtheta^2+r^2 sin^2{theta};dphi^2$$



in geometrical units where $G$ and $c$ are 1.



The signal follows a null geodesic where $ds=0$. A radial null geodesic satisfies



$$(1-2M/r);dt^2=(1-2M/r)^{-1};dr^2$$



which is a differential equation from which we can obtain $t(r)$ as



$$t=r_0-r+2Mlogfrac{r_0-2M}{r-2M}.$$



The initial conditions are that at $t=0$ the signal starts at $r=r_0$, the orbital radius of the overhead GPS satellite. We have taken the incoming solution; as $t$ increases, $r$ decreases and at some time $t=t_E$ it hits the GPS receiver on the surface of the Earth at $r=R_E$.



For calculating $t_E$ in seconds, restore $G$ and $c$ to get



$$ct_E=r_0-r_E+R_slogfrac{r_0-R_s}{r_E-R_s}$$



where $R_s=2GM/c^2$ is the Schwarzschild radius of the Earth, which is 9.0 mm.



Putting in the radius at which the GPS satellites orbit, $r_0=20,000$ km, and the Earth's radius $r_E=6400$ km, we find $t_E=0.045333333368$ s. When we ignore the GR corrections by taking $R_s$ to be 0 rather than 9 mm, we get $t_E=0.045333333333$ s. Thus the GR corrections slow the signal by 34 picoseconds, and cause the calculation of the distance to the satellite to be off by 1.0 cm. A good analytic approximation is



$$Delta d=R_s logfrac{r_0}{r_E}.$$



Correction: The OP pointed out that 20,000 km is the altitude of the GPS satellites, not their orbital radius. Their orbital radius is thus about 26,400 km. Redoing the numbers, I get a $Delta t$ of 43 picoseconds and a $Delta d$ of 1.3 cm.






share|cite|improve this answer














The general-relativistic corrections are too small to matter.



The Schwarzchild metric has dimensionless corrections of order $GM/rc^2$. Here $G$ is the Newton's gravitational constant, $M$ the mass of the Earth, $r$ the distance from the center of the Earth, and $c$ the speed of light.



At the surface of the Earth, these metric corrections are about one part in a billion; higher up, near the satellites, they are even smaller. The Christoffel symbols determining the signal's geodesic path will have corrections of the same magnitude.



The signal takes about 0.1 s to travel to Earth from the satellite, so the GR correction in $Delta t$ would be of order $10^{-10} s$ and the GR correction in $d$ would be approximately 3 cm. This is below the accuracy of the GPS system.



The case where the GPS satellite is directly overhead is easy to solve analytically. Start with the Schwartzschild metric



$$ds^2=-(1-2M/r)dt^2+(1-2M/r)^{-1}dr^2 +r^2 dtheta^2+r^2 sin^2{theta};dphi^2$$



in geometrical units where $G$ and $c$ are 1.



The signal follows a null geodesic where $ds=0$. A radial null geodesic satisfies



$$(1-2M/r);dt^2=(1-2M/r)^{-1};dr^2$$



which is a differential equation from which we can obtain $t(r)$ as



$$t=r_0-r+2Mlogfrac{r_0-2M}{r-2M}.$$



The initial conditions are that at $t=0$ the signal starts at $r=r_0$, the orbital radius of the overhead GPS satellite. We have taken the incoming solution; as $t$ increases, $r$ decreases and at some time $t=t_E$ it hits the GPS receiver on the surface of the Earth at $r=R_E$.



For calculating $t_E$ in seconds, restore $G$ and $c$ to get



$$ct_E=r_0-r_E+R_slogfrac{r_0-R_s}{r_E-R_s}$$



where $R_s=2GM/c^2$ is the Schwarzschild radius of the Earth, which is 9.0 mm.



Putting in the radius at which the GPS satellites orbit, $r_0=20,000$ km, and the Earth's radius $r_E=6400$ km, we find $t_E=0.045333333368$ s. When we ignore the GR corrections by taking $R_s$ to be 0 rather than 9 mm, we get $t_E=0.045333333333$ s. Thus the GR corrections slow the signal by 34 picoseconds, and cause the calculation of the distance to the satellite to be off by 1.0 cm. A good analytic approximation is



$$Delta d=R_s logfrac{r_0}{r_E}.$$



Correction: The OP pointed out that 20,000 km is the altitude of the GPS satellites, not their orbital radius. Their orbital radius is thus about 26,400 km. Redoing the numbers, I get a $Delta t$ of 43 picoseconds and a $Delta d$ of 1.3 cm.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 3 hours ago









user2357112

1053




1053










answered 22 hours ago









G. Smith

2,641512




2,641512








  • 3




    For comparison, the errors on any individual pseudorange due to signal resolution, ionospheric effects, thermal noise, imperfect clocks on the satellites, imperfect ephemerides, etc. under good conditions are around 10 nanoseconds, ~30 times larger.
    – hobbs
    11 hours ago






  • 4




    What's surprising to me is not that the effect is insignificant, but how close it is to being significant. A decent commercial GPS receiver can be accurate to less than one meter under good conditions, so an error of 1 cm due to GR is only two orders of magnitude below that. I can easily imagine a future GPS-like system being accurate enough for those corrections to be needed.
    – Ilmari Karonen
    8 hours ago






  • 1




    To be clear, this specific general relativistic correction is too small to matter. The clock drift that would occur without general relativistic corrections is much more significant.
    – Chris
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    The general-relativistic correction to the satellites' clock rates is not a matter of "imperfect clocks" -- gravitational time dilation is straight from GR. But it's not something GPS receivers need to care about, because the signal is already corrected for it when it is generated on the satellite.
    – Henning Makholm
    1 hour ago








  • 1




    @IlmariKaronen cm-scale GPS receiver systems do exist, but fundamentally they operate based on measuring the signal at reference locations and then sending out a correction, either with a time error (pseudorange) or position error. This is known as dGPS and many systems exist (WAAS/SBAS, LAAS/GLS, Starfire, SAIF, etc). Therefore, there is no need to make a special correction for every single possible error source, instead measuring error on a per-satellite or per-location basis.
    – user71659
    1 hour ago
















  • 3




    For comparison, the errors on any individual pseudorange due to signal resolution, ionospheric effects, thermal noise, imperfect clocks on the satellites, imperfect ephemerides, etc. under good conditions are around 10 nanoseconds, ~30 times larger.
    – hobbs
    11 hours ago






  • 4




    What's surprising to me is not that the effect is insignificant, but how close it is to being significant. A decent commercial GPS receiver can be accurate to less than one meter under good conditions, so an error of 1 cm due to GR is only two orders of magnitude below that. I can easily imagine a future GPS-like system being accurate enough for those corrections to be needed.
    – Ilmari Karonen
    8 hours ago






  • 1




    To be clear, this specific general relativistic correction is too small to matter. The clock drift that would occur without general relativistic corrections is much more significant.
    – Chris
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    The general-relativistic correction to the satellites' clock rates is not a matter of "imperfect clocks" -- gravitational time dilation is straight from GR. But it's not something GPS receivers need to care about, because the signal is already corrected for it when it is generated on the satellite.
    – Henning Makholm
    1 hour ago








  • 1




    @IlmariKaronen cm-scale GPS receiver systems do exist, but fundamentally they operate based on measuring the signal at reference locations and then sending out a correction, either with a time error (pseudorange) or position error. This is known as dGPS and many systems exist (WAAS/SBAS, LAAS/GLS, Starfire, SAIF, etc). Therefore, there is no need to make a special correction for every single possible error source, instead measuring error on a per-satellite or per-location basis.
    – user71659
    1 hour ago










3




3




For comparison, the errors on any individual pseudorange due to signal resolution, ionospheric effects, thermal noise, imperfect clocks on the satellites, imperfect ephemerides, etc. under good conditions are around 10 nanoseconds, ~30 times larger.
– hobbs
11 hours ago




For comparison, the errors on any individual pseudorange due to signal resolution, ionospheric effects, thermal noise, imperfect clocks on the satellites, imperfect ephemerides, etc. under good conditions are around 10 nanoseconds, ~30 times larger.
– hobbs
11 hours ago




4




4




What's surprising to me is not that the effect is insignificant, but how close it is to being significant. A decent commercial GPS receiver can be accurate to less than one meter under good conditions, so an error of 1 cm due to GR is only two orders of magnitude below that. I can easily imagine a future GPS-like system being accurate enough for those corrections to be needed.
– Ilmari Karonen
8 hours ago




What's surprising to me is not that the effect is insignificant, but how close it is to being significant. A decent commercial GPS receiver can be accurate to less than one meter under good conditions, so an error of 1 cm due to GR is only two orders of magnitude below that. I can easily imagine a future GPS-like system being accurate enough for those corrections to be needed.
– Ilmari Karonen
8 hours ago




1




1




To be clear, this specific general relativistic correction is too small to matter. The clock drift that would occur without general relativistic corrections is much more significant.
– Chris
4 hours ago




To be clear, this specific general relativistic correction is too small to matter. The clock drift that would occur without general relativistic corrections is much more significant.
– Chris
4 hours ago




1




1




The general-relativistic correction to the satellites' clock rates is not a matter of "imperfect clocks" -- gravitational time dilation is straight from GR. But it's not something GPS receivers need to care about, because the signal is already corrected for it when it is generated on the satellite.
– Henning Makholm
1 hour ago






The general-relativistic correction to the satellites' clock rates is not a matter of "imperfect clocks" -- gravitational time dilation is straight from GR. But it's not something GPS receivers need to care about, because the signal is already corrected for it when it is generated on the satellite.
– Henning Makholm
1 hour ago






1




1




@IlmariKaronen cm-scale GPS receiver systems do exist, but fundamentally they operate based on measuring the signal at reference locations and then sending out a correction, either with a time error (pseudorange) or position error. This is known as dGPS and many systems exist (WAAS/SBAS, LAAS/GLS, Starfire, SAIF, etc). Therefore, there is no need to make a special correction for every single possible error source, instead measuring error on a per-satellite or per-location basis.
– user71659
1 hour ago






@IlmariKaronen cm-scale GPS receiver systems do exist, but fundamentally they operate based on measuring the signal at reference locations and then sending out a correction, either with a time error (pseudorange) or position error. This is known as dGPS and many systems exist (WAAS/SBAS, LAAS/GLS, Starfire, SAIF, etc). Therefore, there is no need to make a special correction for every single possible error source, instead measuring error on a per-satellite or per-location basis.
– user71659
1 hour ago




















 

draft saved


draft discarded



















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f442271%2fwhy-isnt-the-gps-location-calculated-from-the-schwarzschild-metric%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

What visual should I use to simply compare current year value vs last year in Power BI desktop

How to ignore python UserWarning in pytest?

Alexandru Averescu