Testing Gravity from the Dark Energy Scale to

the Moon and Beyond

C.D. Hoyle

C.D. Hoyle
for the Et-Wash Group at the University of Washington
?
 Overview
Brief review of gravity and the Inverse-Square Law (ISL)
Motivation for precision gravitational tests
What we dont know about gravity
What gravity may tell us about the nature of the universe
Testing the ISL at the Dark Energy Scale
Using the Earth-Moon system to precisely test Einsteins
General Relativity
Future prospects for precision gravitational tests
 What We Know: Gravity in the 21st Century
Gravity is one of the 4 known fundamental interactions
Others: Electromagnetism, Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces
Gravity holds us to the earth (and makes things fall!)
It also holds things like the moon and satellites in orbits
Newton expressed this unification mathematically in the 1660s:

M 1M 2
+ F G 2
r
r is distance between two
Newton
bodies of mass M1 and M2
 More That We Know
Newtons Inverse-Square Law worked well for about 250 years,
but troubled Einstein
Action at a distance not consistent with Special Relativity
Einstein incorporated gravity and relativity with another great
unification in 1915:
General Relativity
Gravitational attraction is just a consequence
of curved spacetime
All objects follow this curvature (fall) in the
same way, independent of composition:
The Equivalence Principle
1/r2 form of Newtons Law has a deeper significance:
it reflects Gauss Law in 3-dimensional space
Very successful so far:
Planetary precession
Deflection of light around massive objects
.
 What we Dont Know
General Relativity works well, but is fundamentally inconsistent
with the Standard Model based on quantum mechanics
Will String Theory provide us a further unification?
Why is gravity so weak compared to the other forces?
Hierarchy or Naturalness Problem
Why is M Planck M EW ?
E & M force ~1040 times greater than gravitational force in an H atom!
Is gravitys strength diluted throughout the extra dimensions required by
string theory?
Does an unknown property of gravity explain the mysterious
Dark Energy which seems to cause our universes expansion to
accelerate?

S. Carroll
 A Golden Age for Gravitational Physics
Can gravitational effects explain the Dark Energy?
What can gravity tell us about the nature of spacetime?
Are there observable effects of String Theory?
Are there new particles and forces associated with gravitys
(unknown) quantum-mechanical nature?
Experimental prospects
Laboratory-scale tests of the 1/r2 law and Equivalence Principle
Astronomical tests of General Relativity
Gravitational wave searches (LIGO, LISA, etc.)
Signatures of quantum gravity in high-energy collider experiments
 Short-Range 1/r2 Tests
Are there observable consequences of String Theory?
Extra dimensions maybe M Planck M EW , but gravity is diluted throughout more
dimensions than the rest of the Standard Model forces. Extra dimensions could
be large (mm scale!)
e.g. N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, G.R. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B 436, 257 (1998)

What is the mechanism behind the cosmic acceleration?

Fat graviton - gravity may observe a cut-off length scale in the sub-mm
regime and thus does not see small-scale physics.
R. Sundrum, hep-th/0306106 (2003)
Does the observed dark energy density suggest a new, fundamental
Dark Energy Scale in physics?
c
4 0.1 mm
Vac S. Beane, hep-ph/9702419 (1997)

Are there new forces mediated by exotic particles?

e.g. S. Dimopoulos and A. Geraci, hep-phys/0306168 (2003), I. Antoniadis et al.,
hep-ph/0211409 (2003), D. Kaplan and M. Wise, hep-ph/0008116 (2000), etc.
 Example: Extra Dimensions
Test masses and ED:

R* From G. Landsberg
Moriond 01 Talk

Near test mass (r R*), we must satisfy Gauss Law in

3+1+n dimensions:
G3 n m1m2
V r
r n1
Far away (r >> R*) we must recover the usual 3-D form:
G3 n m1m2 G3 n
V r G n
R*n r R*
 Parameterization and Background
General deviation from Newtonian gravity:
1 er /
Gm1m2
V r
r

From Adelberger, et al., Ann. Rev.

Nuc. Part. Phys. (2003)

Until recently (last few years), gravitation not even shown to

exist between test masses separated by less than about 1 mm!
 Previous Short Range Limits

95% C.L., as of 1999 (when we started our work)

All previous limits from torsion pendulum experiments
For references see CDH et al., Phys Rev. D. 70 (2001) 042004
 Experimental Challenges
Extreme weakness of gravity
Electrostatic interactions
Need extremely high charge balance (10-40) to attain gravitational
sensitivity!
Casimir force, patch charges become strong at close distances
Fortunately, effective shielding is possible, but at a cost of distance!
Magnetic impurities
Strong distance dependence
Requires high purity materials and clean fabrication techniques
Need to get large mass at small separations
Alignment and characterization of masses
Seismic noise
Temperature fluctuations and thermal noise
Etc., etc.
 Torsion Pendulums
Torsion Pendulum still the best instrument for measuring the ISL:
thin fiber

M1 M2

up
r

Vary separation, r, between masses M1 and M2

Force on M1 causes the pendulum to twist
Measure twist angle
Compare with inverse-square prediction
 Et-Wash Torsion Pendulum (best to date)

Fiber, 18m diameter, 80cm length, tungsten

Leveling mechanism
3 aluminum calibration spheres

4 mirrors for measuring angular deflection

21-fold axial symmetry, molybdenum disc,

1mm thick
s
Not pictured: 10m thick Au-coated BeCu
membrane - electrostatic shield
Attractor : rotating pair of discs, shifted out of
phase with each other to reduce Newtonian
2.75 torque
 Technique
Attractor disks rotate below pendulum
Missing mass of the holes causes pendulum to twist
Measure the torque on pendulum at harmonics (21, 42, 63) of the
attractor rotation frequency, , as a function of S
Compare observed torque to ISL prediction
s Twist angle measured to a nanoradian (imagine a pea in Seattle)
Force measured equals 1/100 trillionth the weight of a single
postage stamp
 Noise

Predicted thermal
noise for Q = 3500
(internal dissipation)
Data
4kBT
2 ( )
2
Readout Q[( I )
2 2
]
Q2
Noise
Recent Results (Thesis of D. Kapner)

ISL
95% C.L. Bounds on ||

1 er /
Gm1m2
V r
r

 More Distant Future: Even Shorter Distances
Why Look to Shorter Distances?
Short range 1/r2 tests place model-independent constraints on:
Single largest possible extra dimension
New interactions (properties of exchange particles)
Other, more specific scenarios (dilaton, moduli, etc.)
Unexplored parameter space
 New Promising Techniques
Vertical plate Step Pendulum:
Analytical expression for (very small) Newtonian
background torque
Yukawa torque now falls as 2 instead of 3 for
small :
R NY G p a RA 2e s /
Drawbacks:
Minimum separation may not be so small
Possible Systematics at 1

Modulate attractor
plate/pendulum separation
 Future High-sensitivity 1/r2 Test
Top view:
Attractor:
Infinite plane
2mm thick Mo
Homogenous No change in torque
gravity field on pendulum if 1/r
holds.
Torsion pendulum Moves back and
forth by 1mm

Be, = 1.84 g/cm

Advantages over hole pendulum:
Pt, = 21.4 g/cm
True null test
Slower fall-off with
Stretched metal membrane ( for holes vs. for plates)
Much larger signal
Simpler machining
Current and Future Limits
1 er /
Gm1m2
V r
r

Current
Step pendulum
 Shooting the Moon

Testing General Relativity with Lunar

Laser Ranging
 A Modern, Post-Newtonian View

The Post-Newtonian
Parameterization (PPN) looks at
deviations from General Relativity
The main parameters are and
tells us how much spacetime
curvature is produced per unit mass
tells us how nonlinear gravity is
(self-interaction)
and are identically 1.00 in GR
Current limits have:
(1) < 2.510-5 (Cassini)
(1) < 1.110-4 (LLR)
Relativistic Observables in the Lunar Range
Equivalence Principle (EP) Violation
Earth and Moon fall at different rates toward the sun
Appears as a polarization of the lunar orbit
Range signal has form of cos(D) (D is lunar phase angle)
Weak EP
Composition difference: e.g., iron in earth vs. silicates in moon
Probes all interactions but gravity itself
Strong EP
Applies to gravitational energy itself
Earth self-energy has equivalent mass (E = mc2)
Amounts to 4.610-10 of earths total mass-energy
Does this mass have MG/MI = 1.00000?
Another way to look at it: gravity pulls on gravity
This gets at the nonlinear aspect of gravity (PPN )
 Equivalence Principle Signal

If, for example, Earth has

Sluggish orbit greater inertial mass than
gravitational mass (while
the moon does not):
Earth is sluggish to move
Nominal orbit: Alternatively, pulled weakly
Moon follows this, on average by gravity
Takes orbit of larger radius
(than does Moon)
Appears that Moons orbit is
shifted toward sun: cos(D)
signal
Sun
 The Strong Equivalence Principle
Earths energy of assembly amounts to 4.610-10 of its total
mass-energy

The ratio of gravitational to inertial mass for this self energy is

The resulting range signal is then

Currently is limited by LLR to be 4.510-4

LLR is the best way to test the strong EP
 Other Relativistic Observables
Most sensitive test of 1/r2 force law at any length scale
Time-rate-of-change of Newtons gravitational constant
Could be signature of Dark Energy (quintessence)
Currently limited to less than 1% change over age of Universe
Geodetic precession tested to 0.35%
Precession of inertial frame in curved spacetime of sun
Gravitomagnetism (frame-dragging) is also seen to be
true to 0.1% precision via LLR
 LLR through the Decades
Previously
100 meters

APOLLO
APOLLO: the New Big Thing in LLR

APOLLO offers order-of-magnitude

improvements to LLR by:
Using a 3.5 meter telescope
Gathering multiple photons/shot
Operating at 20 pulses/sec
Using advanced detector technology
Achieving millimeter range precision
Having the best acronym
 The APOLLO Collaboration

UCSD: U Washington: Humboldt State: Harvard:

Tom Murphy (PI) Eric Adelberger C.D. Hoyle Christopher Stubbs
Eric Michelsen Erik Swanson Liam Furniss James Battat
Evan Million *Russell Owen
*Larry Carey

JPL: Northwest Analysis: Lincoln Labs:

Jim Williams Ken Nordtvedt Brian Aull
Slava Turyshev Bob Reich
Dale Boggs
Jean Dickey
 Measuring the Lunar Distance
It takes light 1.25 seconds to get to the moon thanks to foresight we
can reflect light off the surface!

Retroreflector arrays always send light straight back at you (like hitting a
racquetball into a corner):
retroreflector
 Lunar Retroreflector Arrays

Corner cubes Apollo 11 retroreflector array

Apollo 14 retroreflector array Apollo 15 retroreflector array

APOLLOs Secret Weapon: Aperture

The Apache Point Observatorys

3.5 meter telescope
Southern NM (Sunspot)
9,200 ft (2800 m) elevation
Great seeing: 1 arcsec
Flexibly scheduled, high-class
research telescope
6-university consortium (UW, U
Chicago, Princeton, Johns
Hopkins, Colorado, NMSU)
 APOLLO Basics

2.5 second round-trip time, 20 Hz laser pulse rate

(50 pulses in the air at any one time)
Outbound pulses have 3 x 1017 green photons (532 nm), 3.5 meter
diameter
We get about 1 (!) back per pulse (beam spreads to 15 km diameter)
Arrival time must be measured to less than a nanosecond
 The Link Equation

= one-way optical throughput (encountered twice)

f = receiver narrow-band filter throughput
Q = detector quantum efficiency
nrefl = number of corner cubes in array (100 or 300)
d = diameter of corner cubes (3.8 cm)
= outgoing beam divergence (atmospheric seeing)
r = distance to moon
= return beam divergence (diffraction from cubes)
D = telescope aperture (diameter)

APOLLO should land safely in the multi-photon regime

Current LLR gets < 1 photon per 100 pulses
Even at 1% of expected rate, 1 photon/sec good enough for feedback
Differential Measurement Scheme

Corner Cube at telescope exit returns

time-zero pulse
Same optical path, attenuated by 1010
Same detector, electronics
Diffused to present identical
illumination on detector elements
Result is differential over 2.5 seconds
Must correct for distance between
telescope axis intersection and corner
cube
 Needle in a Haystack
Signal is dim (19th magnitude), while full moon is bright (
13th magnitude)
1013 contrast ratio
We must filter in every available domain
Spectral: 1 nm bandpass gets factor of 200
Spatial: 2 square arcsec gets factor of 106
Temporal: detector is on for 100 ns every 50 ms
This itself is factor of 5105
But can discriminate laser return from background at the 1 ns
level5107 background suppression
In all, get about 1016 background suppression
Yields signal-to-noise of 103
 Systematic Error Sources
We can cut the 50 mm random uncertainty (due mostly to moon
orientation) down to 1 mm with 2500 photons
2 minutes at 20 Hz and 1 photon per pulse
Systematic uncertainties are more worrisome
Atmospheric delay (2 meter effective path delay)
Deflection of earths crust by:
Ocean: even in NM, tidal buildup on CA coast few mm deflection
Atmosphere: 0.35 mm per millibar pressure differential
ground water: ????
Accurate modeling still needs to be done
Thermal expansion of telescope and retroreflector arrays
Radiation pressure (3.85 mm differential signal)
Implementation systematics
Detector illumination
Strong signal bias
Temperature-dependent electronic timing
Observation schedule/sampling: danger of aliasing
 Periodicity: Our Saving Grace
If we dont get all this supplemental metrology right, were still okay:
Our science signals are at discrete, well-defined frequencies
Equivalence Principle signal at 29.53 days
Other science via 27.55 day signal (eccentricity)
Meteorological influences are broadband
Atmospheric, ground-water loading are random
Even tides, ocean loading dont have power at EP period
Thermal effects are seasonal
Laser Mounted on Telescope
First Light: 7/24/05
 First Results: 10/19/05!

100 ns

Two night total: 4000 photons

As many as the best previous station got in the last 3 years!
Calculated distance agrees well with JPL model
However, rate is slightly lower than expected and intermittent
 Future Work
Optimization of signal, stabilize laser
Software refinement/development
Gravimeter/Precision GPS installation
Precision geophysical modeling of site motion
Sufficient data for order-of-magnitude improvement in
EP test in ~1 year
Continued data collection/analysis for years to come
 Summary
Many reasons to test gravity, much we still do not understand
Is there a Grand Unified Theory that describes all fundamental interactions?
Is gravity causing the mysterious acceleration of our universes expansion?
Are there possibly more than 3 dimensions of space?
We are entering a Golden Age of experimental gravity research
Laboratory torsion pendulum tests:
Inverse-square law
Equivalence principle
more
?
Astronomical tests of General Relativity
APOLLO lunar laser ranging experiment
Gravity wave experiments
LISA
LIGO
Research is exciting for students of all levels
So far Einstein is still correct but for how long?