text:
# On the NN-final-state-interaction in the ¹⁶"O"(𝑒,𝑒'𝑝𝑝) reaction

## I Introduction

The independent particle shell model, describing a nucleus as a system of nucleons moving in a mean field, reproduces many basic features of nuclear structure. It is however well-known that the repulsive components of the NN-interaction induce additional short-range correlations (SRC) which are beyond a mean field description and whose investigation can provide additional insight into the nuclear structure. A powerful tool for the investigation of SRC are electromagnetic two-nucleon knockout reactions like $`(\gamma ,NN)`$ or $`(e,e^{}NN)`$, since the probability that a real or a virtual photon is absorbed by a pair of nucleons should be a direct measure for the correlations between these nucleons (for an overview, see ). However, this simple picture has to be modified because additional complications have to be taken into account. In particular, competing mechanisms like contributions of two-body currents as well as final state interactions (FSI) between the two outgoing nucleons and the residual nucleus have to be considered. However, it turned out in previous studies  that it is –at least in principle– possible to determine specific kinematical situations where the reaction cross section is particularly sensitive to SRC.

Due to the complexity of the subject, several approximations have been performed in the past, which restrict the reliability of the existing models (consider  and the references therein) with respect to the interpretation of the existing experimental data. In this context, one crucial assumption is the fact that the mutual interaction between the two outgoing nucleons, denoted as NN-FSI, can be neglected. At the moment no reliable estimate of this approximation exists for two-nucleon knockout on finite nuclei. Indeed, recent calculations on nuclear matter  clearly indicate that NN-FSI are non-negligible even if the two detected nucleons are ejected back to back in the so-called superparallel kinematics, where NN-FSI are expected to be minimal. However, a study in nuclear matter does not provide results for cross sections which can directly be compared with experimental data produced for a specific target nucleus.

A consistent treatment of FSI would require in general a genuine three-body approach for the mutual interaction of the two protons and the residual nucleus (see fig. 1). Presumably due to the enormous computational challenges, this has never been tackled in the past. Before starting such an ambitious project, it may be recommendable to estimate first within an approximative, but more feasible treatment the qualitative role of NN-FSI. This has been done in the present work using as underlying framework the unfactorized approach for two-nucleon knockout on complex, but finite nuclei presented in . If NN-FSI in these studies turned out to be small, a complete three-body calculation would not be necessary and the previous treatment of neglecting NN-FSI completely could be justified.

The paper is organized as follows. The theoretical framework and the adopted approximations are outlined in sect. II. Numerical results for some selected kinematical situations are presented in sect. III, where also some perspectives of possible improvements and future developments are given.

## II The model

The cross section for electromagnetic two-proton-knockout is given in general by the square of the scalar product of the relativistic electron current $`j^\mu `$ and of the nuclear current $`J^\mu `$, where the latter is given by the Fourier transform of the transition matrix element of the charge-current density operator between initial and final nuclear states

$$J^\mu (\stackrel{}{q})=\mathrm{\Psi }_f|\widehat{J}^\mu (r)|\mathrm{\Psi }_ie^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{r}}.$$
(1)
Concerning the nuclear current $`\widehat{J}^\mu (r)`$ and the initial state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ of the two emitted protons, the general framework described in  has been adopted without any modification. Thus, the nuclear current operator $`\widehat{J}^\mu (r)`$ is the sum of a one- and a two-body part. The one-body part consists of the usual charge operator and the convection and spin current. In the two-body part the nonrelativistic pionic seagull and flight meson-exchange current do not contribute in two-proton emission, so that only intermediate $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ isobar excitation has to be considered .

For the $`{}_{}{}^{16}\text{O}(e,e^{}pp)`$ reaction, the initial state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ is taken from the calculation of the two-proton spectral function of $`{}_{}{}^{16}\text{O}`$ in , where long-range and short-range correlations are consistently taken into account. The latter are included in the radial wave functions of relative motion through defect functions, which were obtained by solving the Bethe-Goldstone equation for $`{}_{}{}^{16}\text{O}`$ in momentum space.

As has already been outlined in the introduction, several approximations have been used in the past concerning the final state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_f`$. In the simplest approach any interaction between the two protons and the residual nucleus is neglected and a plane-wave approximation (PW) is assumed for the two outgoing protons (see fig. 1). In the more sophisticated approach of , the interaction between each of the outgoing protons and the residual nucleus is considered by using a complex phenomenological optical potential $`V^{OP}`$ for nucleon-nucleus scattering which contains a central, a Coulomb and a spin-orbit term  (see diagram (a) in fig. 1). Under the simplifying assumption of an infinite heavy residual nucleus, the corresponding final state can be expressed as the product of two uncoupled single-particle distorted wave functions $`\stackrel{}{r}_i|\varphi ^{OP}(\stackrel{}{p}_i^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}})`$ ($`i=1,2`$). The latter are given by the solution of the corresponding Schrödinger equation

$$\left(H_0(i)+V^{OP}(i)\right)|\varphi ^{OP}(\stackrel{}{p}_i^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}})=E_i|\varphi ^{OP}(\stackrel{}{p}_i^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}}),$$
(2)
with $`H_0(i)`$ denoting the kinetic energy operator and $`\stackrel{}{p}_i^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}}`$ the asymptotic free momentum of the outgoing proton $`i`$, with kinetic energy $`E_i`$ in the used laboratory frame. In practice, the finite mass $`m_{{}_{}{}^{14}\text{C}}`$ of the residual nucleus $`{}_{}{}^{14}\text{C}`$ is taken into account by performing in (2) the transformation  ($`ij1,2`$)

$$\stackrel{}{p}_i^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}}\stackrel{}{q}_i^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}}=\frac{1}{m_{{}_{}{}^{16}\text{O}}}[(m_p+m_{{}_{}{}^{14}\text{C}})\stackrel{}{p}_i^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}}m_p(\stackrel{}{p}_j^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}}+\stackrel{}{p}_B),]$$
(3)
where $`m_p(m_{{}_{}{}^{16}\text{O}})`$ denotes the mass of the outgoing proton ($`{}_{}{}^{16}\text{O}`$) and $`\stackrel{}{p}_B`$ the recoil momentum of the residual nucleus $`{}_{}{}^{14}\text{C}`$. Moreover, a semirelativistic generalization of (2) has been used as discussed in .

In all previous work, the mutual NN-interaction $`V^{NN}`$ between the two outgoing protons (NN-FSI) was neglected. In the present study, this approximation is dropped by incorporating for the first time the corresponding complete NN-scattering amplitude $`T^{NN}`$ ($`z=\frac{(\stackrel{}{p}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}})^2}{2m_p}+\frac{(\stackrel{}{p}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}})^2}{2m_p}+iϵ`$)

$$T^{NN}(z)=V^{NN}+V^{NN}G_0(z)T^{NN}(z),$$
(4)
with

$$G_0(z)=\frac{1}{zH_0(1)H_0(2)},$$
(5)
up to the first order in the final state, as it has been depicted in diagram (b) of fig. 1. For the sake of simplicity, multiscattering processes like those described by diagrams (c) and (d) of fig. 1 are still neglected. The final state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_f`$ in (1) is therefore given in our approach by

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_f=|\varphi ^{OP}(\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}})|\varphi ^{OP}(\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}})+G_0(z)T^{NN}(z)|\stackrel{}{p}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}}|\stackrel{}{p}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}},$$
(6)
where $`|\stackrel{}{p}_i^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}}`$ denotes a plane wave state of the proton $`i`$ with momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}_i^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}}`$. Within this treatment of FSI, we are still far away from having solved the complete three-body problem of the final state. Nevertheless, we are able to obtain a first reliable estimate of the relevance of NN-FSI in various kinematical situations of two-proton knockout.

In our explicit evaluation, we have used in (4) as NN-potential $`V^{NN}`$ the Bonn OBEPQ-A potential  which has also been used for the calculation of the defect functions in the initial state. Due to the nonlocality of this potential, the term $`G_0(z)T^{NN}(z)|\stackrel{}{p}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}}|\stackrel{}{p}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}}`$ in (6) is explicitly evaluated in momentum space. The initial state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ and the nuclear current $`\widehat{J}^\mu (r)`$ in (1) are however calculated in configuration space, so that finally an appropriate Fourier transformation of the NN-FSI from momentum to configuration space had to be performed. Moreover, we would like to mention that a usual partial wave decomposition  of the NN-interaction $`V^{NN}`$ has been adopted taking into account all isospin 1 partial NN-waves up to an orbital angular momentum of 3, i.e. the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{},^3P_0,^3P_1,^3P_2,^1D_2,^3F_2`$, $`{}_{}{}^{3}F_{3}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}F_{4}^{}`$ contributions. It has been checked numerically that the contribution of $`G`$ and $`H`$ NN-waves is negligible, at least for the kinematics considered here.

## III Results

In this section, we discuss the influence of NN-FSI for two different types of kinematics which have already been under experimental investigation . We call $`E_0`$ the incident electron energy and $`\theta _e`$ the electron scattering angle in the laboratory frame. The energy and momentum transfer is denoted, as usual, as $`\omega `$ and $`q`$, respectively. The angles between the momentum transfer $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ and the momenta $`\stackrel{}{p}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}}`$ of the outgoing protons are called $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$.

Concerning the different approximations for the final state, we denote as PW the plane-wave approximation, where FSI are completely neglected, and as DW the treatment of , where only the optical potential $`V^{OP}`$ is taken into account. In the approach PW-NN we consider the alternative case where only $`V^{NN}`$, but not $`V^{OP}`$, is included. The corresponding final states in these different approximations are given by

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_f^{PW}`$ $`=`$ $`|\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}}|\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}},`$ (7)
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_f^{DW}`$ $`=`$ $`|\varphi ^{OP}(\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}})|\varphi ^{OP}(\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}}),`$ (8)
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_f^{PWNN}`$ $`=`$ $`|\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}}|\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}}+G_0(z)T^{NN}(z)|\stackrel{}{p}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}}|\stackrel{}{p}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}}.`$ (9)
Our full approach in (6) is denoted as DW-NN.

The results of these different approaches on the cross section of the $`{}_{}{}^{16}\text{O}(e,e^{}pp)`$ reaction for the transition to the $`0^+`$ ground state of $`{}_{}{}^{14}\text{C}`$ are shown in fig. 2. In the left panel the superparallel kinematics of a Mainz experiment  is considered, with $`E_0=855`$ MeV, $`\theta _e=18^{}`$, $`\omega =215`$ MeV, $`q=316`$ MeV/$`c`$, $`\gamma _1=0^{}`$, and $`\gamma _2=180^{}`$. In the right panel an alternative kinematical setup, which has been included in a NIKHEF experiment , is investigated, with $`E_0=584`$ MeV, $`\theta _e=26.5^{}`$, $`\omega =210`$ MeV and $`q=300`$ MeV/$`c`$. The angle $`\gamma _1`$ is $`30^{}`$, on the opposite side of the outgoing electron with respect to $`\stackrel{}{q}`$. The kinetic energy of proton 1 is fixed to $`T_1=137`$ MeV.

By changing the kinetic energy of the outgoing protons in the superparallel kinematics and the angle $`\gamma _2`$ in the NIKHEF setup, we are able to explore different values of the recoil momentum of the residual nucleus $`p_B|\stackrel{}{p}_B|`$. Positive (negative) values of $`p_B`$ in the left panel refer to situations where $`\stackrel{}{p}_B`$ is parallel (antiparallel) to the momentum transfer. It is well known and can be clearly seen in fig. 2 that the inclusion of the optical potential leads to an overall and substantial reduction of the cross section in both kinematical setups (consider the difference between the PW and DW results). On the other hand, our calculations give a considerable enhancement for medium and large recoil momenta in the superparallel kinematics if NN-FSI are taken into account (see the difference between PW and PW-NN, and between DW and DW-NN). The effect of NN-FSI amounts to about one order of magnitude enhancement at $`p_B=300`$ MeV/$`c`$. Thus even at back-to-back kinematics the mutual interaction of the two outgoing protons cannot be neglected. In the NIKHEF kinematics, the effect of NN-FSI is also sizeable, although not as strong as in the superparallel kinematics. Moreover, whereas in the superparallel kinematics the relative effect of NN-FSI increases for decreasing cross section, in the NIKHEF kinematics NN-FSI is maximal when also the cross section is maximal, i.e. for $`\gamma _2120^{}`$, which corresponds to $`\stackrel{}{p}_B0`$ MeV/$`c`$. This result clearly shows that the role of NN-FSI is strongly dependent on the kinematics and no general statement can be drawn with respect to its relevance.

As is known from previous work , in the $`{}_{}{}^{16}\text{O}(e,e^{}pp)`$ reaction the transition to the $`0^+`$ ground state of $`{}_{}{}^{14}\text{C}`$ is governed dominantly by the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ partial wave in the initial relative state of the two protons. A sizeable contribution arises moreover from the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{1}^{}`$ state. The relative importance of NN-FSI on these two partial waves is presented in fig. 3 for the kinematical setups already considered in fig. 2. In both kinematics the effect of NN-FSI is more important on the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ initial state. The effect on this single state gives in practice almost the full contribution of NN-FSI. For the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{1}^{}`$ initial state only a negligible effect is given in the NIKHEF kinematics. The effect is somewhat larger in the superparallel kinematics, but also here it is completely overwhelmed in the final result by the dominant contribution of the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ state.

The role of NN-FSI on the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P`$ initial relative states is of specifical relevance for the transition to the $`1^+`$ excited state of $`{}_{}{}^{14}\text{C}`$, where only $`{}_{}{}^{3}P`$ components are present and the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ relative partial wave cannot contribute. The results for this transition in the superparallel kinematics are depicted in fig. 4. A negligible effect is due to NN-FSI in the PW-NN approach. A significant enhancement is obtained in the DW-NN calculation, especially for negative values of $`p_B`$, where the cross section has a minimum.

Summarizing, we have studied the importance of the mutual final state interaction of the two emitted protons in the $`{}_{}{}^{16}\text{O}(e,e^{}pp)`$ reaction within a perturbative treatment. Our results indicate that NN-FSI can be important in particular situations and in general cannot be neglected. It has been clearly shown that the role of NN-FSI depends on kinematics and on the final state in the excitation spectrum of $`{}_{}{}^{14}\text{C}`$. Therefore, one may hope that it is possible to find specific kinematical situations where the effects of FSI are as small as possible, in order to achieve the most direct access to SRC in complex nuclei. This requires a systematic study of the role of FSI for different kinematics which is presently under consideration. Moreover, due to our numerical results, the full three-body problem of the final state has to be tackled in forthcoming studies. In that context, special emphasis has to be devoted to a more consistent treatment of the initial and the final state in our approach.

Acknowledgements

This work has been supported by the the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare and by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB 443). M. Schwamb would like to thank the Dipartimento di Fisica Nucleare e Teorica of the University of Pavia for the warm hospitality during his stays in Pavia. Fruitful discussions with H. Arenhövel are gratefully acknowledged.


format: text

text:
# A LOCAL MATHEMATICAL MODEL FOR EPR-EXPERIMENTS

## 1 Introduction

In , and  we presented a local mathematical model for EPR-type experiments. Our model is in agreement with the results predicted by Quantum Mechanics which in turn were confirmed by large scale experiments, first by Aspect, Roger and Dalibard  and later by several other teams. Due to space limitations the presentation of our model was rather terse in places. The purpose of this paper is to present our model in much greater detail and at the same time mathematically simplified because concerns and questions have been raised about non-locality and parameter dependence in a few recent publications . Although we have answered these concerns at various occasions , a comprehensive detailed exposition might be a better way to address these concerns.

At first we give a brief summary of our model. In EPR type experiments two particles having their spin in a singlet state are emitted from a source and are sent to spin analyzers at two spatially separated stations $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$. We assume with Bell that the particles emitted from the source are permitted to carry information in form of arbitrary hidden parameter random variables $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ that can assume values in some abstract space.

In the original experiment by Aspect , pairs of photons were emitted from the source once every few microseconds over a hour period governed by a random process. We model this process mathematically in the following way. Imagine the time axis wrapped around a circle of circumference that corresponds to a time interval related to a simple measurement and normalized to 1. We suppose that for a fixed $`N`$ each interval $`[(m1)/N,m/N]`$, $`m=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$ of arc length $`1/N`$ on the circle gets about its proper share of time measurement points over the measurement period. This assumption, in turn, induces a random variable $`R`$, that we call the labelling variable, which assumes the values $`m=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$ with equal probability, i.e.,

$`P(R=m)=1/N`$ $`m=1,2,\mathrm{},N.`$ (1)
In Section 4 below, we present better motivation for the generation of the labels $`m`$ and the random variable $`R`$ by means of the Poisson process, commonly used to model spontaneous emissions.

In our papers , using notation standard in Bell type proofs, the source parameter now denoted by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ was not assigned a separate letter. The letter $`\lambda `$, which in the standard notation generically symbolizes randomness, was used instead. As a consequence the label $`m`$ being a function of the random emission times was misinterpreted by various authors as a function of $`\lambda `$. In the present paper we have therefore decided to use the standard probability notation instead: Random variables are given separate names, they will be denoted by capital letters, they are measurable functions of $`\omega `$ or $`\lambda `$, attached to some experiments, and there will be a clear distinction between the random variables, the values they can assume, and the set of measured data.

After a pair of particles has been emitted from the source, the time of emission and thus of measurement are known, and so is the interval $`[(m1)/N,m/N]`$ on the unit circle into which the time of measurement falls. This determines the label $`m`$. While the pair of particles travels to their designated analyzer stations the experimenters (or a random number generator) can exercise their free will and choose in their respective stations the directional settings, say a in $`S_1`$ and b in $`S_2`$. Our model calls for hidden parameter random variables  $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐚t}^{}`$ in $`S_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐛t}^{}`$ in $`S_2`$ which depend on the respective settings and on the time of measurement. The time of measurement is known (either the same or connected by a linear relation) in both stations. Consequently, the label $`m`$ is known at both stations. This provides for the time correlation we elaborated in papers  and .

Thus we have four random variables in operation, $`R`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐚t}^{}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐛t}^{}`$. The joint density of all these variables $`\rho _{\mathrm{𝐚𝐛}}`$, is permitted  to depend on the settings a and b, and is given in Eq. (53). As a consequence of our construction we obtain certain properties of stochastic dependence relations which we state as a preview. In the general case where the distribution of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ may depend on time we have the following stochastic dependence relations between these four random variables signifying their time correlations.

(i) The random variables $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐚t}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐛t}^{}`$ are stochastically independent.

(ii) Given the random variable $`R`$ the pair $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐚t}^{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐛t}^{})`$ is conditionally independent of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_t`$.

As to the probability distributions our construction yields the following properties.

(iii) The probability distribution of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t`$ can be chosen arbitrary.

(iv) The probability distributions of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐚t}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐛t}^{}`$ do not depend on $`𝐚`$, $`𝐛`$, nor $`t`$.

In the special case where the distribution of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ does not depend on time we have in addition to the above properties

(ii) The random variables $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐚t}^{}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐛t}^{}`$ are stochastically independent.

(vi) The random variables $`R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are stochastically independent.

The random variables $`A_𝐚=\pm 1`$ and $`B_𝐛=\pm 1`$ symbolize the possible spin values and are functions only of $`𝐚`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`R`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐚t}^{}`$, and of $`𝐛`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`R`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐛t}^{}`$, respectively, thus obeying Einstein locality; that is

$`A_𝐚`$ $`=`$ $`A_𝐚(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐚t}^{},\mathrm{\Lambda };R)`$
and

$`B_𝐛`$ $`=`$ $`B_𝐛(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐛t}^{},\mathrm{\Lambda };R).`$
Moreover, we have

$`E\{A_𝐚B_𝐛\}`$ $`=`$ $`𝐚𝐛=\mathrm{cos}<)(𝐚,𝐛)`$ (2)
and thus we have with probability 1

$`B_𝐚`$ $`=`$ $`A_𝐚.`$ (3)
In addition, we have with probability 1

$`E\{A_𝐚\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐚t}^{}\}`$ $`=`$ $`E\{B_𝐛\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐛t}^{}\}=0.`$ (4)
Note that the integration is, in essence, only performed with respect to $`R`$. If, in addition we integrate Eq. (4) with respect to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐚t}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐛t}^{}`$ we obtain with probability 1

$`E\{A_𝐚\mathrm{\Lambda }\}`$ $`=`$ $`E\{B_𝐛\mathrm{\Lambda }\}=0.`$ (5)
Since $`A_𝐚=\pm 1`$ and $`B_𝐛=\pm 1`$, Eq. (5) implies parameter independence. However, our variables $`A_𝐚`$ and $`B_𝐛`$ depend on time through their functional dependence on $`R`$, a feature that is not considered in the original Bell definition of $`A_𝐚`$ and $`B_𝐛`$.

Thus our model is distinguished from standard Bell-type models by the introduction of the time related labelling variable $`R`$. If in Eq. (5) we also condition on $`R`$, besides conditioning on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, these equations no longer will hold. Moreover, we note that in the general case we have:

(v) Given the random variable $`R`$ the random variables $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐚t}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐛t}^{}`$ are stochastically dependent.

(vi) The random variables $`R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t`$ are stochastically dependent.

(vii) The conditional probability distributions of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐚t}^{}`$ given $`R`$ and of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐛t}^{}`$ given $`R`$ depend on both settings $`𝐚`$ and $`𝐛`$.

On a more basic level probabilities, conditional probabilities or even conditional expectations, such as the one in Eq. (5), can be interpreted as long term averages of outcomes of certain experiments. These long term averages can be thought of being taken over certain points on the time axis. We separate this averaging process into two parts by introducing the random variable $`R`$. We first average over the concatenated time intervals associated with a fixed label $`m=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$. Subsequently, we average the first averages over the values $`m`$ that $`R`$ can assume to obtain the overall averages.

As a consequence we do not view the conditional stochastic dependence in (v), nor the dependence on the settings of the conditional probability distributions in (vii) as a violation of Einstein locality. These dependencies only signify the time correlations between the events in stations $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$. To express this in physical terms we point the reader to the following facts. The label $`m`$ represents a concatenation of short time segments and not a given time. $`m`$ therefore does not relate to or permit any instantaneous signalling. It can not be influenced by the experimenter in any significant way since it depends on the random spontaneous emission times and the largely arbitrary way of concatenating these short time intervals in a specific interval $`[(m1)/N,m/N]`$. Therefore $`m`$ is not an element of reality as opposed to, for example, the source parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

Any argument for instantaneous action at a distance involving probabilities conditional on $`\{R=m\}`$ must therefore be counterfactual. As an important example, one could argue that instead of a setting pair $`𝐚,𝐛`$ the experimenters might have chosen $`𝐚,𝐜`$. Then, since the joint probability conditional on $`\{R=m\}`$ depends on both settings, the marginal distribution of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐚t}^{}`$ for setting $`𝐚`$ conditional on $`\{R=m\}`$ may be different. How can this be without instantaneous action at a distance? The answer is that if $`𝐜`$ would have been chosen, then over a whole sequence of measuring times all the settings would be different. In order to have setting $`𝐛`$ with equal probability to setting $`𝐜`$, the experimenters would have had to decide to choose $`𝐜`$ instead of $`𝐛`$ at other occasions. In other words, the whole history of settings would have to be different. Because all the involved parameters, as well as the possible outcomes for the spin pair values may depend on the history, the probability distribution of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐚t}^{}`$ conditional on $`\{R=m\}`$ may depend on the history and can therefore be different for the setting pairs $`𝐚,𝐛`$ and $`𝐚,𝐜`$. The EPR argument postulates a physical reality of the source parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$; in our papers we postulate also physical reality for the station parameters $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐚t}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐛t}^{}`$. However, we do not attach a physical reality in the same sense to the labelling random variable $`R`$. Fulfillment and violation of Einstein locality with respect to random variables such as the labelling variable $`R`$ becomes a highly complex problem . Let us note, in passing, that the exclusion of setting dependence conditional to any concatenation of time segments such as represented by $`m`$ will automatically also exclude the result of the actual experiments which can be regarded as performed by concatenating the results obtained in certain time segments.

We would like to emphasize that the joint probability measure given by Eq. (53) below is not canonical, i.e., not unique. This makes the model highly flexible to accommodate other possible set-ups of experiments. In fact, we hope to show with our work that the choice of the particular form of variables is mathematically highly flexible and can go far beyond simple ideas of elements of physical reality. We do not claim that the particular model actually exists in nature. All we want to show is that Bell type proofs actually can not do justice to the complexities involved in EPR experiments and therefore can not be used to draw conclusions about nonlocal effects as epitomized by instantaneous action at a distance.

For clarity of presentation we develop our construction in several steps. The first one, almost identical with the presentation in , will be given in Section 2. In Section 3 we define the probability distribution of the time and setting dependent station parameters $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐚t}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐛t}^{}`$. The measure we construct in these sections is not quite a probability measure (see Eq. (16), below). However, it is a routine exercise to derive from it a probability measure by applying some basic facts from the theory of weak convergence of probability measures. We may present the details in a paper to be submitted to a mathematics journal.

We hope that this introduction provides enough of a guiding line through the mathematical intricacies that will follow.

## 2 The First Step in Establishing the Model

Before we start with the mathematics, let us recall that a pair of particles has been emitted from the source. The emission time and thus the measuring time is known. As a consequence the value $`m`$ of the labelling variable $`R`$ is determined. The experimenters have subsequently chosen their vectors a in $`S_1`$ and b in $`S_2`$, respectively. In effect, we assume that the measuring time, considered as a random variable and the labelling variable $`R`$ are independent of the choice of vectors a and b.

Let $`\text{a}=(a_1,a_2,a_3)`$ and $`\text{b}=(b_1,b_2,b_3)`$ be unit vectors. Our goal is to show that under our generalized conditions, it is possible to obtain the quantum result, the scalar product $`\text{a}\text{b}`$ for the spin pair expectation value $`E\{A_𝐚B_𝐛\}`$. Here we formulate a theorem which provides the first stepping stone for this procedure.

We define functions $`A_𝐚`$ and $`B_𝐛`$ and choose the underlying measure space $`(R^2,^2)`$, i.e., the Euclidean plane $`\{(u,v),\mathrm{}<u,v<\mathrm{}\}`$ with Borel measurability, symbolized by $`^2`$. We set

$`A_𝐚(u)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{ccc}\text{sign}(a_k)\hfill & \text{ if }ku<k+1\hfill & k=1,2,3\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{ if }ju<j+\frac{1}{2}\hfill & j=0,1,\mathrm{}\hfill \\ +1\hfill & \text{ if }j+\frac{1}{2}u<j+1\hfill & j=0,1,\mathrm{}\hfill \\ +1\hfill & \text{ elsewhere}.\hfill & \end{array}`$ (10)
Thus $`A`$ depends here on a and $`u`$ only. We will return below to the complete list of dependencies which only here would complicate the notation and not add to the present purpose. Here and throughout, we set $`\text{sign}(0)=1`$. Similarly, we define

$`B_𝐛(v)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{ccc}\text{sign}(b_k)\hfill & \text{ if }kv<k+1\hfill & k=1,2,3\hfill \\ +1\hfill & \text{ if }jv<j+\frac{1}{2}\hfill & j=0,1,\mathrm{}\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{ if }j+\frac{1}{2}v<j+1\hfill & j=0,1,\mathrm{}\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{ elsewhere}.\hfill & \end{array}`$ (15)
As in the case for $`A`$ above $`B`$ depends for the moment on $`𝐛`$ and $`v`$ only. We now formulate the first step as a theorem.

###### Theorem 2.1

Let $`n4`$ be an integer. Then there exists a finite measure $`\mu =\mu _{\mathrm{𝐚𝐛}}^{(n)}`$ with the following properties: $`\mu `$ depends only on $`n`$, $`𝐚`$ and $`𝐛`$, has compact support $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, satisfies

$`1`$ $``$ $`\mu (R^2)<1+1/n^2`$ (16)
and has a density $`\rho =\rho _{\mathrm{𝐚𝐛}}^{(n)}`$ with respect to Lebesgue measure. Further

$`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}A_𝐚(u)B_𝐛(v)\rho _{\mathrm{𝐚𝐛}}^{(n)}(u,v)𝑑u𝑑v`$ $`=`$ $`𝐚𝐛`$ (17)
and for each vector $`𝐚`$ the following equation holds for all $`x`$:

$`B_𝐚(x)`$ $`=`$ $`A_𝐚(x).`$ (18)
The proof of the theorem requires the following fact which follows from a basic theorem on $`B`$-splines . We state the fact here in form of a lemma.

###### Lemma 2.2

Let $`n4`$ be an integer. Then there exist real-valued functions $`N_i(x)`$, $`\psi _i(y)`$ with $`1in`$ depending only on real variables $`x`$ and $`y`$, respectively, such that

$`0N_i(x)1,`$ $`0\psi _i(y)2\text{ for }0x,y1`$ (19)
and

$`0`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\psi _i(y)N_i(x)(yx)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}n^2\text{ for }0x,y1.`$ (20)
The proof of this lemma is given in Appendix 1. We now proceed to prove Theorem 2.1.

### Proof of Theorem 2.1:

We first observe that Eq. (18) follows from the above definitions of $`A_𝐚`$ and $`B_𝐛`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }=[3,3n)^2`$ and let $`\kappa `$ be the indicator function of the union of the unit squares $`_{i=2}^{3n}[i1,i)^2`$, lined up along the main diagonal of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, in symbols

$`\kappa (u,v)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=2,1,\mathrm{},3n}{}}\delta _{ij}1\{i1u<i\}1\{j1v<j\}.`$ (21)
Here $`1\{\}`$ denotes the indicator function of the set in curly brackets and

$`\delta _{jk}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{ if }j=k\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ if }jk\hfill \end{array}`$ (24)
denotes the Kronecker symbol. On each of these $`3n+3`$ unit squares we place uniform mass, that comes from a product measure on each of the squares, where the first factor only depends on the setting a and the second factor only depends on the setting b. Although this will make the mathematics quite a bit more complicated, we can envision further experiments where this feature of our construction may be of importance. The details are as follows. We define

$`\sigma _𝐚(u)`$ $`=`$ $`\begin{array}{cc}|a_k|1\{ku<k+1\}\hfill & kI_1\hfill \\ N_k(|a_1|)1\{k1u<k\}\hfill & kI_2\hfill \\ N_{kn}(|a_2|)1\{k1u<k\}\hfill & kI_3\hfill \\ N_{k2n}(|a_3|)1\{k1u<k\}\hfill & kI_4\hfill \\ 0\text{ elsewhere}\hfill & \end{array}`$ (30)
$`\tau _𝐛(v)`$ $`=`$ $`\begin{array}{cc}|b_k|1\{kv<k+1\}\hfill & kI_1\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2}\psi _k(|b_1|)1\{k1v<k\}\hfill & kI_2\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2}\psi _{kn}(|b_2|)1\{k1v<k\}\hfill & kI_3\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2}\psi _{k2n}(|b_3|)1\{k1u<k\}\hfill & kI_4\hfill \\ 0\text{ elsewhere}.\hfill & \end{array}`$ (36)
The symbols $`I_1,\mathrm{},I_4`$ stand for $`I_1=+3,+2,+1`$; $`I_2=1,\mathrm{},n`$; $`I_3=n+1,\mathrm{},2n`$; $`I_4=2n+1,\mathrm{},3n`$. We finally define the density $`\rho _{\mathrm{𝐚𝐛}}^{(n)}`$ by

$`\rho _{\mathrm{𝐚𝐛}}^{(n)}(u,v)`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _𝐚(u)\tau _𝐛(v)\kappa (u,v)`$ (37)
and the measure $`\mu `$ by having density $`\rho _{\mathrm{𝐚𝐛}}^{(n)}`$ with respect to Lebesgue measure.

Hence we obtain from the above definitions the following integrals needed for the calculation of the spin pair correlation function:

$`{\displaystyle _{[3,0)^2}}A_𝐚(u)B_𝐛(v)\rho _{\mathrm{𝐚𝐛}}(u,v)𝑑u𝑑v=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}}|a_kb_k|\text{sign}(a_k)\text{sign}(b_k)=𝐚𝐛.`$ (38)
Furthermore, the integral over the complement of the square $`[3,0)^2`$ vanishes, i.e.,

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }\backslash [3,0)^2}}A_𝐚(u)B_𝐛(v)\rho _{\mathrm{𝐚𝐛}}(u,v)𝑑u𝑑v`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (39)
which proves Eq. (17).

It remains to be shown that $`\rho _{\mathrm{𝐚𝐛}}`$ defines a measure $`\mu `$ that is close to a probability measure, i.e., fulfills Eq. (16). For this, we consider the mass distribution between the square $`[3,0)^2`$ and its complement. The amount of mass $`M_1`$ distributed over $`[3,0)^2`$ is

$`M_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}}|a_kb_k|.`$ (40)
The mass $`M_2`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }\backslash [3,0)^2`$ equals

$`M_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}N_i(|a_k|)\psi _i(|b_k|).`$ (41)
Thus the total mass distributed equals in view of Eq. (20)

$`M_1+M_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}}|a_kb_k|+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}N_i(|a_k|)\psi _i(|b_k|)`$
$`M_1+M_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}}|a_kb_k|+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}}(|a_k||b_k|)^2+\theta n^2`$ (42)
$`M_1+M_2=1+\theta n^2`$
where $`0\theta <1/4`$.

This completes the proof of the theorem which is the first stepping stone of our construction of a suitable probability measure.

Obviously, if instead of Eq. (41), we would define

$`M_2`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{K=1}{\overset{3}{}}}(|a_k||b_k|)^2,`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }=[3,3]^2`$ and would place the mass represented by these three summands on any of the nine unit squares of $`[0,3)^2`$, we would produce a genuine probability measure, satisfying all conclusions of Theorem 2.1.

Finally, let $`L1`$, and $`p_{\mathrm{}}0`$ with $`_{\mathrm{}=1}^Lp_{\mathrm{}}=1`$. For $`0w<1`$, we define

$`s(w)=(1)^{\mathrm{}},`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}1}{L}}w<{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{L}},`$ $`\mathrm{}=1,\mathrm{},L`$
$`q(w)=p_{\mathrm{}},`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}1}{L}}w<{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{L}},`$ $`\mathrm{}=1,\mathrm{},L.`$ (43)
For $`3u`$, $`v<3n`$ and $`0w<1`$ we define $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\mathrm{\Omega }\times [0,1)`$,

$`\stackrel{~}{A}_𝐚(u,w)`$ $`=`$ $`A_𝐚(u)s(w)`$
$`\stackrel{~}{B}_𝐛(v,w)`$ $`=`$ $`B_𝐛(v)s(w)`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{\mathrm{𝐚𝐛}}(u,v,w)`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _{\mathrm{𝐚𝐛}}(u,v)q(w).`$
Then $`\stackrel{~}{A}_𝐚`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}_𝐛`$ only depend on $`𝐚`$, $`u`$, $`w`$, and $`𝐛`$, $`v`$, $`w`$, respectively. Moreover, they satisfy the properly modified conclusion of Theorem 2.1. This procedure extends $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ by adding as a factor the unit interval $`0w<1`$ with a given mass distribution.

## 3 Definition of the Layers

We call the construction including the unit interval as factor, given in Section 2 the first layer. To simplify the notation we shall omit the $``$ sign from the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`A`$, $`B`$, and $`\rho `$. As we noted in  and  the first layer does not yet provide a model that guarantees absence of action at a distance. To achieve this goal we will now define a system of layers. These layers will be obtained by permuting all the unit squares contained in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, including the mass distribution and the corresponding strips on which $`A`$ and $`B`$ are defined. In addition we shall duplicate the mass distribution of each layer labeled $`m`$, labelling the duplicate layer $`m^{}`$. On the layer labeled $`m`$ the functions $`A_𝐚^{(m)}`$ and $`B_𝐛^{(m)}`$ will remain unchanged. However, on the companion layer labeled $`m^{}`$ we shall switch the signs of $`A_𝐚`$ and $`B_𝐛`$, by setting $`A_𝐚^{(m^{})}=A_𝐚^{(m)}`$ and $`B_𝐛^{(m^{})}=B_𝐛^{(m)}`$. As we observed in a recent paper , this simple modification of our original construction encompasses all the desired features to achieve so called parameter independence. We now present this program in detail.

Think of each of the unit cubes $`[i1,i)\times [j1)\times [0,1)`$, $`i,j=2,1,\mathrm{},3n`$ together with their respective mass distribution and the values of $`A_𝐚`$ and $`B_𝐛`$ defined on them as a unit ensemble. We permute these unit ensembles in the following way. Choose three vertical strips $`[i1,i)\times [3,3n)\times [0,1)`$, $`i=2,1,\mathrm{},3n`$ and three horizontal strips $`[3,3n)\times [j1,j)\times [0,1)`$, $`j=2,1,\mathrm{},3n`$. These intersect in nine unit cubes. Place the three unit ensembles $`[i1,i)\times [i1,i)\times [0,1)`$, $`i=2,1,0`$ of the first layer onto three of these nine unit cubes, such that each vertical and each horizontal strip contains exactly one of these three unit ensembles of the first layer, and move with them the vertical and horizontal strips of the first layer. This can be done in $`36\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{3n+3}{3}\right)^2`$ different ways. There are still $`9n^2`$ unit cubes left to be assigned their unit ensembles. Choose $`3n`$ of them and place on them these unit ensembles of the first layer where the density was defined by $`\frac{1}{2}N_i(|a_k|)\psi _i(|b_k|)`$, $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$; $`k=1,2,3`$. This can be done in $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{9n^2}{3n}\right)(3n)`$! different ways. Place the remaining $`9n^23n`$ unit ensembles to fill up the empty spaces. They have total mass 0. This yields a grand total of

$`36\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{3n+3}{3}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{9n^2}{3n}}\right)(3n)!`$ (44)
arrangements, which we call “layers”. We call this number $`\frac{1}{2}N`$.

At this point we exercise our option to let $`p_{\mathrm{}}=p_m\mathrm{}`$ in Eq. (43), $`m=1,2,\mathrm{},\frac{1}{2}N`$ depend on the label of the layer.

In summary, on each layer the functions $`A_𝐚(u,w;m)`$ and $`B_𝐛(v,w;m)`$ only depend on $`(u,w)`$ and $`(v,w)`$, respectively. Each layer supports a measure $`\mu _m=\mu _{\mathrm{𝐚𝐛}m}^{(n)}`$ satisfying

$`1\mu _m(\text{ IR}^3)<1+1/n^2.`$
Each measure $`\mu _m`$ has a density $`\rho (u,v,w;m)`$ with respect to Lebesgue measure that can be written in the form

$`\rho (u,v,w;m)`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _𝐚(u;m)\tau _𝐛(v;m)\kappa (u,v;m)q(w;m)`$
for $`3u`$, $`v<3n`$, $`0w<1`$, with the obvious interpretation of $`\sigma _𝐚`$, $`\tau _𝐛`$, $`\kappa `$ and $`q`$. Moreover, by Eq. (17), we have for each $`m=1,\mathrm{},\frac{1}{2}N`$,

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }^{(m)}}}A_𝐚(u,w;m)B_𝐛(v,w;m)\rho (u,v,w;m)𝑑u𝑑v𝑑w`$ $`=`$ $`𝐚𝐛.`$ (45)
As indicated at the beginning of this section, we shall duplicate each layer so that at the end we will have a total of $`N`$ layers. We renumber the original layers $`m`$ by the odd positive integers, $`2m1`$, say, $`m=1,2,\mathrm{},\frac{1}{2}N`$. The companion layer to the layer $`2m1`$ will be assigned label $`2m`$, $`m=1,2,\mathrm{},\frac{1}{2}N`$. Each layer $`2m1`$ and companion layer $`2m`$ will be assigned density previously denoted $`\rho (u,v,w;m)`$. Each layer $`2m1`$ will carry the functions, originally denoted $`A_𝐚(u,w;m)`$ and $`B_𝐛(v,w;m)`$, whereas the companion layer $`2m`$ will carry $`A_𝐚(u,w;m)`$ and $`B_𝐛(v,w;m)`$, instead. Thus after renumbering the functions $`A_𝐚`$ and $`B_𝐛`$ and the densities $`\rho `$ accordingly we have for all $`u`$, $`v`$, $`w`$, and all $`m=1,2,\mathrm{},\frac{1}{2}N`$

$`A_𝐚(u,w;2m1)+A_𝐚(u,w;2m)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`B_𝐛(\upsilon ,w;2m1)+B_𝐛(v,w;2m)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (46)
and

$`\rho (u,v,w;2m1)`$ $`=`$ $`\rho (u,v,w;2m).`$ (47)
Moreover, Eq. (45) continues to hold for all $`m=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$. Of course, the equivalent effect had been achieved by adding a fourth dimension $`t`$ and multiplying the original functions $`A_𝐚`$ and $`B_𝐛`$ by a Rademacher function $`r(t)`$. This was done in Section 5.3 of our paper .

With all the mathematical objects properly in place we now finalize the second step of the construction of our model. The emission time of the $`i`$-th particle determines the measurement time and thus the label $`m`$ where $`m=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$. Recall that the labelling variable $`R`$ has uniform distribution over the integers $`m=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$, given by Eq. (1).

Apart from the random variable $`R`$ the construction so far is plain calculus in $`\text{ IR}^3`$. Only now we do define a realization of the random variables $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐚t}^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐛t}^{}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t`$ by defining the conditional density of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐚t}^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐛t}^{}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t`$ given the random variable $`R`$ by

$`\begin{array}{c}\hfill \text{Prob}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐚t}^{}[u,u+\mathrm{\Delta }u),\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐛t}^{}[v,v+\mathrm{\Delta }v),\mathrm{\Lambda }_t[w,w+\mathrm{\Delta }w)R=m)\\ \hfill =\rho (u,v,w;m)\mathrm{\Delta }u\mathrm{\Delta }v\mathrm{\Delta }w\\ \hfill =\sigma _𝐚(u;m)\tau _𝐛(v;m)\kappa (u,v,m)q(w;m)\mathrm{\Delta }u\mathrm{\Delta }v\mathrm{\Delta }w\\ \hfill \mathrm{}<u,v<\mathrm{},0w<1;m=1,2,\mathrm{},N.\end{array}\}`$ (52)
This is the same as saying that the joint density of the four random variables $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐚t}^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐛t}^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t`$, and $`R`$ is given by

$`\rho (u,v,w;m){\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}},`$ $`\mathrm{}<u,v<\mathrm{},0w<1,m=1,\mathrm{},N.`$ (53)
A few remarks are in order. First, in previous write-ups we have included mappings $`f`$ and $`g`$, to accommodate more general random variables $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐚t}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐛t}^{}`$. Obviously, this can be done here, too. Second, we changed the model by defining $`\rho _{\mathrm{𝐚𝐛}}`$ to be the joint conditional density of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐚t}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐛t}^{}`$ given $`R`$, rather than by defining $`\rho _{\mathrm{𝐚𝐛}}`$ given by Eq. (37) to be the joint conditional density of the mixed parameters $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐚t}^1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐛t}^2`$, given $`R`$, as was done in . This makes for a more streamlined presentation when the source parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t`$ is taken into account since obviously $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐚t}^1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐛t}^2`$, are functions of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t`$ and the station parameters $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐚t}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐛t}^{}`$, respectively, and thus cannot be independent of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t`$ (compare to condition (ii) in Section 1). Hence, the expression for the joint density corresponding to Eq. (53) would be more complicated.

We now discuss the stochastic dependence relations between the four random variables $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐚t}^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐛t}^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t`$, and $`R`$ that are direct consequences of Eq. (53). First, the joint density of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐚t}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐛t}^{}`$ is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\sigma _𝐚(u;m)\tau _𝐛(v;m)\kappa (u,v;m){\displaystyle _0^1}q(w;m)𝑑w.`$
Since the last integral equals 1, this reduces to, in view of Eq. (42),

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(3n+3)^2}}({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}}|a_kb_k|+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}N_i(|a_k|)\psi _i(|b_k|))=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{M_1+M_2}{(3n+3)^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1+\theta n^2}{(3n+3)^2}}`$
with $`0\theta <\frac{1}{4}`$. We conclude that the joint density of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐚t}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐛t}^{}`$ is approximately uniform over the square $`[3,3n)`$ and, as a consequence, equals the product of its two marginal densities which are themselves approximately uniform over the interval $`[3,3n)`$.

We conclude that approximately:

(i) $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐚t}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐛t}^{}`$ are independent random variables, and

(iv) the distributions of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐚t}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐛t}^{}`$ do not depend on $`𝐚`$, $`𝐛`$, and $`t`$.

Moreover, summation over $`\mathrm{}=1,2,\mathrm{},L`$ yields

$`\begin{array}{c}\hfill \text{Prob}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐚t}^{}[u,u+\mathrm{\Delta }u),(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐛t}^{}[v,v+\mathrm{\Delta }v)|R=m)\\ \hfill =\sigma _a(u;m)\tau _b(v;m)\kappa (u,v;m)\mathrm{\Delta }u\mathrm{\Delta }v,m=1,\mathrm{},N,\mathrm{}<u,v<\mathrm{}\end{array}`$
and integration over $`\mathrm{}<u`$, $`v<\mathrm{}`$ yields

$`\text{Prob}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_t[w,w+\mathrm{\Delta }w)R=m)q(w;m)\mathrm{\Delta }w0w<1,m=1,\mathrm{},N.`$
Thus by Eq. (52), we have approximately

(ii) Given $`R`$ the pair $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐚t}^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐛t}^{})`$ is conditionally independent of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t`$.

Also, approximately,

$`\begin{array}{c}\hfill \text{Prob}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐚t}^{}[u,u+\mathrm{\Delta }u),(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐛t}^{}[v,v+\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma )\mathrm{\Lambda }_t[w,w+\mathrm{\Delta }w),R=m)\\ \hfill ={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _𝐚(u;m)\tau _𝐛(\sigma ;m)\kappa (u,v;m)\frac{1}{N}q(w;m)\mathrm{\Delta }u\mathrm{\Delta }v\mathrm{\Delta }w}{\text{Prob}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_t[w,w+\mathrm{\Delta }w)R=m)P(R=m)}}\\ \hfill =\sigma _𝐚(u;m)\tau _𝐛(v;m)\kappa (u,v;m)\mathrm{\Delta }u\mathrm{\Delta }v\\ \hfill =\text{Prob}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐚t}^{}[u,u+\mathrm{\Delta }u),(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐛t}^{}[v,v+\mathrm{\Delta }v)R=m).\end{array}`$
(ii) Further if $`p_m\mathrm{}=p_{\mathrm{}}`$ independent of $`m`$, i.e., if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t`$ and $`R`$ are independent, then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐚t}^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐛t}^{}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t`$ are independent random variables.

Moreover, we obtain for the pair correlation integral

$`E\{A_𝐚B_𝐛\}`$ $`:=`$ $`E\{A_𝐚(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐚t}^{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_t,R)B_𝐛(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐛t}^{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_t,R)\}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{N}{}}}E\{A_𝐚^{(m)}B_𝐛^{(m)}\}=𝐚𝐛`$
by Eq. (45) and Eq. (53). Since by construction (see Eq. (52))

$`A_𝐚^{(2m1)}+A_𝐚^{(2m)}=0,B_𝐛^{(2m1)}+B_𝐛^{(2m)}=0,m=1,2,\mathrm{},{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}},`$
we obtain parameter independence first summing over $`m`$ to obtain Eq. (4) and then by keeping the desired variables fixed and by integrating over the remaining ones.

## 4 A Model Based on the Poisson Process

The original experiment of Aspect et al.  took hours to complete. Currently, improvements of the technique have been accomplished by various teams of experimenters  and the length of time it takes to perform these experiments has been reduced substantially. The time between subsequent measurements is still limited by the recovery (essentially a random process) of the detectors between two measurements.

From the logistical angle the present section is designed to replace the third paragraph of Section 1 and the parts of Sections 2 and 3 corresponding to it. Thus, overall, the present section is a variant of that part of the model dealing with generating the labels $`m`$. This will be done by considering the waiting times between consecutive “jumps” of a Poisson process. Since we are entering more advanced mathematical territory we present some of the relevant definitions and theorems in a basic form rather than to send the reader searching through the literature.

We first recall a few definitions from the theory of uniform distribution $`\text{mod}1`$. For more details see  and . For a real number $`x`$, denote by $`[x]`$ the integer part and by $`\{x\}=x[x]`$ the fractional part of $`x`$. Let $`((x_i))_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a sequence of real numbers. For $`k1`$ and $`0\alpha <\beta 1`$ denote by

$`A_k(\alpha ,\beta )`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ik}{}}1(\alpha \{x_i\}<\beta )`$
the number of elements $`x_i`$, $`ik`$ such that their fractional part $`\{x_i\}`$ is contained in a given interval $`[\alpha ,\beta )[0,1)`$. The sequence $`((x_i))`$ is called uniformly distributed $`\text{mod}1`$ if its discrepancy

$`D_k`$ $`:=`$ $`\underset{\alpha ,\beta }{sup}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}A_k(\alpha ,\beta )(\beta \alpha )\right|0,`$
as $`k\mathrm{}`$, that is, if in the long run, each interval $`[\alpha ,\beta )`$ uniformly contains its proper share of points $`\{x_i\}`$. Equivalently, we could define $`A_k`$ by wrapping the real axis around a circle of circumference 1 and count the number of hits a given interval $`[\alpha ,\beta )`$, now located on the circle, receives from the sequence $`((x_i))`$, $`ik`$, itself.

The standard mathematical model for spontaneous emissions of particles, such as photons or electrons, is a Poisson process with intensity $`1/\mathrm{\Theta }`$, say. The waiting times $`T_i`$ between successive emissions are independent identically distributed random variables having exponential distribution with parameter $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. The following theorem is a special case of Theorem 2 of H. Robbins .

###### Theorem 4.1

Let $`((T_i))`$ be the sequence of waiting times between consecutive jumps of a Poisson process. Then with probability 1 the sequence $`((T_1+\mathrm{}+T_i))_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is uniformly distributed $`\text{mod}1`$.

### Remark

In fact, it follows easily from Robbins’ proof and the Erdös-Turán inequality that with probability 1 the discrepancy $`D_k`$ tends to zero at least with speed $`k^{\frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{log}k)^3`$. There are more than a dozen other papers extending Robbins’ theorem.

In terms of weak convergence of probability measures Theorem 4.1 can be reformulated in the following way. (See e.g., Billingsley , pp. 15–25.) Let $`\omega `$ be an element of the set $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ of probability 1 as in Theorem 4.1. Set $`x_i=T_1(\omega )+\mathrm{}+T_i(\omega )`$. Let $`P_k`$ be the probability measure that assigns point mass $`\frac{1}{k}`$ to each $`\{x_i\}`$, $`1ik`$. If several $`\{x_i\}`$ coincide, let the mass add. Then $`P_kP`$ in the sense of weak convergence. Here $`P`$ denotes Lebesgue measure on $`[0,1)`$. For ease of presentation let us reformulate Theorem 4.1 in terms of random variables. Let $`Y_k`$ be a random variable defined on some probability space such that

$`\text{Prob}(Y_k=\{x_i\})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}`$ $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},k`$
and let $`U`$ be a random variable having uniform distribution on $`[0,1)`$, i.e., $`\text{Prob}(Ux)=x`$, $`0x1`$. Then Theorem 4.1 can be restated as follows. For each $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$, we have as $`k\mathrm{}`$

$`Y_k`$ $``$ $`U`$
in the sense of weak convergence. Let $`N`$ be defined in Eq. (44). For $`m=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$ define intervals $`I_m`$, of length $`1/N`$ by

$`I_m`$ $`:=`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{m1}{N}},{\displaystyle \frac{m}{N}}).`$
Define a new random variable $`R`$ by setting

$`R=m`$ if $`UI_m,m=1,2,\mathrm{},N.`$
Then uniformly over all intervals $`I_m`$, $`m=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$, we have

$`\text{Prob}(R=m)`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Prob}(UI_m)=\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}\text{Prob}(Y_kI_m)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}.`$ (56)
As in Section 3, suppose that the $`i`$-th pair of particles has been emitted. Fix $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$. The time of emission of the $`i`$-th pair equals $`x_i=T_1(w)+\mathrm{}+T_i(\omega )`$. When reduced $`\text{mod}1`$ the fractional part $`\{x_i\}`$ determines a label $`m`$ with $`1mN`$. The labelling variable $`R`$ has uniform distribution over the integers $`m=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$ given by Eq. (56) or Eq (1). However, at the time the pair of particles arrive at their respective measuring stations, the devices may not yet be ready to provide a measurement, because of recovery problems, etc. For $`r=1,2`$ we define the random variable $`D_r`$ by setting

$`\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill D_r& =& \hfill +1& \text{ if device is ready at station }S_r\hfill \\ & =& \hfill 0& \text{ if not}.\hfill \end{array}`$
Obviously, by stochastic independence,

$`P(R=m|D_1,D_2)`$ $`=`$ $`P(R=m)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}m=1,2,\mathrm{},N.`$
Hence, given that the devices at both stations are ready for measurement, the labelling random variable $`R`$ still has uniform distribution.

## Acknowledgements

We thank Salvador Barraza-Lopez for helpful discussions. The work was supported by the Office of Naval Research N00014-98-1-0604.

## Appendix 1

The lemma is an immediate consequence of Theorem 4.1 of Schumaker  for the special values of $`m=3`$, $`\mathrm{}=0`$, $`r=n`$, and the knots chosen to be $`y_\nu =\frac{\nu }{n}`$ with $`\nu =0`$, $`\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$ Then by Schumaker’s equation (4.33) we have (dropping the fixed superscript 3 of $`N_i^3`$):

$`(yx)^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{n}{}}}\varphi _{i,3}(y)N_i(x)\text{ for all }0x1\text{ and }yR.`$
Here

$`\varphi _{i,3}(y)`$ $`=(yy_{i+1})(yy_{i+2})`$
and

$`0N_i(x)`$ $``$ $`1\text{ for all }x.`$
We now restrict $`y`$ to $`0y1`$. Then for $`2in`$, we have $`0\varphi _{i,3}(y)<2`$ unless $`y[y_{i+1},y_{i+2}]`$. Since we must avoid negative $`\varphi `$, we set $`\varphi =0`$ in this interval by defining new functions $`\psi `$:

$`\psi _i(y)`$ $`=`$ $`0\text{ if }y[y_{i+1},y_{i+2}]`$
$`\psi _i(y)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _{i,3}(y)\text{ otherwise}.`$
Since for $`y[y_{i+1},y_{i+2}]`$ we have

$`|(yy_{i+1})(yy_{i+2})|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4n^2}}`$
we have

$`0`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{n}{}}}(\psi _i(y)N_i(x)\varphi _{i,3}(y)N_i(x)){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4n^2}}`$
because for any given $`y`$ and for all $`x`$, only one term in the sum can be off by at most $`\frac{1}{4n^2}`$. This proves the lemma.

## References


text:
# Covariant Calculation of General Relativistic Effects in an Orbiting Gyroscope Experiment

## I Introduction

Gravity Probe B – the “gyroscope experiment” – is a NASA space experiment designed to measure the general relativistic effect known as the dragging of inertial frames. The experiment will place into Earth orbit a spacecraft containing four gyroscopes and a telescope (for details of the experiment see nearzero ; gpbweb ). The gyroscopes are 4 cm diameter fused quartz or single crystal silicon balls, machined to be as spherical as possible (to tolerances better than one ppm), and coated with a thin film of niobium. At the low temperatures provided by a dewar of superfluid Helium surrounding the gyroscope assembly, the niobium is superconducting, and each spinning gyroscope has a London magnetic moment parallel to its spin axis (stray magnetic fields, such as those due to the Earth, will have been suppressed by many orders of magnitude before the niobium goes superconducting). The orientations of the gyros’ magnetic moments are measured via changes in the magnetic flux through superconducting current loops that encircle each gyro, and that are attached to the gyroscope housing. The four gyros will initially have their spins aligned parallel to the symmetry axis of the spacecraft, which coincides with the optical axis of the telescope mounted on the end of the spacecraft. In order to average out numerous unwanted torques on the gyros, the spacecraft will rotate about its symmetry axis at a rate of between one and 10 times per minute.

According to general relativity, a perfect gyroscope in orbit about the Earth will precess relative to distant inertial frames because of two effects. The first, and most important, is the dragging of inertial frames, caused by the rotation of the Earth, also called the Lense-Thirring effect. Over a time of one year, for a polar orbit of about 640 km altitude, this causes the gyroscopes to precess in an East-West direction by around 42 milliarcseconds (mas). The second is the geodetic precession, caused by the curved spacetime around the Earth. This effect results in an annual precession in the North-South direction of about 6600 milliarcseconds.

The reference direction to the “distant stars” is provided by the on-board telescope, which is to be trained on a star IM Pegasus (HR 8703) in our galaxy. One important feature of this star is that it is also a strong radio source, so that its direction and proper motion relative to the larger system of astronomical reference frames can be measured accurately using Very Long Baseline Radio Interferometry (VLBI). In order to reduce telescope errors and biases, the spacecraft will be “steered” by attitude control forces to keep the centroid of the stellar image centered on the telescope axis.

However, because the spacecraft orbits the Earth and the Earth orbits the Sun, the apparent direction to the star will vary in a periodic manner because of stellar aberration, which amounts to five arcseconds from the orbital motion, and to 20 arcseconds from the annual motion of the Earth. These are both substantially larger than the frame-dragging effect being measured. But, far from being an annoying ancillary effect getting in the way of testing relativity, the aberration of starlight is in fact central to the success of the experiment efs71 . The reason is that the SQUID magnetometers that are connected to the current loops surrounding the gyros do not measure angle, they measure voltage, induced by the varying magnetic flux threading the loops. They must therefore be calibrated to provide a scale factor that converts voltage to angle. Because the orbit of the spacecraft, the location of the star and the speed of light can all be established to high precision, the aberration of starlight can be predicted accurately. It can also be separated from the relativistic precessions because of its unique temporal variability over the 12+ months of the science phase of the mission. Through this means, the experiment can be calibrated with an accuracy sufficient to achieve the desired overall accuracy.

In such a complex and delicate experiment, there are numerous sources of error, including anomalous, non-relativistic torques on the gyros, variations in electronics responses, errors in guide star position and proper motion, effects of accumulated charges on the rotors from cosmic rays and other charged particles, and so on. Nevertheless, the team that is mounting this experiment – Stanford University, Lockheed-Martin Space Systems, and NASA – has proposed that a measurement of the relativistic precessions at the level of 0.4 mas/yr is feasible; this would provide a test of relativistic frame dragging at the one percent level and of the geodetic effect at the level of 6 parts in $`10^5`$.

The precession of gyroscopes according to general relativity was first calculated independently by Pugh and by Schiff pugh ; schiff1 ; schiff2 , who calculated the precession relative to a given inertial coordinate system. Wilkins wilkins  analysed the precession in more detail, attempting in particular to ascertain how much of the geodetic effect could be regarded as Thomas precession and how much was due to the curvature of space. He was also the first to attempt a more-or-less coordinate-free calculation by comparing the spin directions with the directions of incoming light rays from distant sources.

Recent discussions of gyroscope precession generally fall into three groups. One group provides formal calculations of the precession of a gyroscope relative to a local tetrad or congruence of geodesics, sometimes with applications to specific spacetimes such as Schwarzschild, Kerr, or de Sitter rindler ; tsoubelis ; iyer ; jantzen ; pastora , but seldom refers to specific aspects of Gravity Probe-B. Another group makes coordinate-dependent calculations of specific precession terms (generally in the post-Newtonian approximation), and discusses details of the various terms, frequently with reference to Gravity Probe-B teyssandier ; barkeroconnell ; breakwell ; adler . This group also includes unpublished calculations by the GP-B team in the course of developing the data analysis procedures for the experiment. A third group mixes calculations of precessions referred to a formal tetrad (sometimes including comparisons with the direction to a distant star) with applications to Gravity Probe-B; these include the standard textbook presentations weinberg ; mtw ; tegp ; soffel ; brumberg , as well as papers designed in part to sort out the meaning of the various precession terms – geodetic, frame-dragging and Thomas precession wilkins ; ashby .

To date, we know of no calculation that, on the one hand, takes a fully covariant approach, and that on the other hand, incorporates critical operational aspects of the GP-B experiment, and performs an end-to-end calculation in terms of observable quantities. Such a covariant calculation is of interest for several reasons. It would verify that this specific spacecraft experiment is actually measuring the observable general relativistic effects it claims to be measuring. In addition, the effects of aberration are of order $`v/c`$ and are not relativistic (they depend only on the finite propagation velocity of light), however they are subject to relativistic corrections which are of order $`(v/c)^2`$, comparable to the two general relativistic effects being measured. They should therefore be accounted for in a manner that does not depend on coordinates.

We have carried out such a calculation. In Section II, we set up an orthonormal basis of vectors tied to the rolling spacecraft and use them to characterize the measurable components of the gyroscope spins as read by current loops and SQUIDs on board. Section III deals with the incoming light from the guide star and incorporates the effects of spacecraft pointing on the spacecraft basis vectors. In Section IV we calculate the aberration and relativistic effects on the observed spin components using the parametrized post-Newtonian framework in an Earth-fixed reference frame. Section IV discusses the various effects and estimates their magnitudes, and Section V gives concluding remarks. We use the conventions of tegp  and units in which $`G=c=1`$.

## II Spacecraft Basis Vectors and Gyroscope Spins

We consider a spacecraft with four-velocity $`𝘂`$, whose orientation is described by three spacelike basis vectors orthogonal to $`𝘂`$ that are rigidly tied to the spacecraft note1 . The vector $`𝝃`$ points along the spacecraft symmetry axis, while $`𝝆`$ and $`𝜼`$ are orthogonal to $`𝝃`$ and to each other. These four vectors $`𝗲_\alpha `$ form an orthonormal basis, with $`𝗲_\alpha 𝗲_\beta =\eta _{\alpha \beta }`$, where $`\eta _{\alpha \beta }`$ is the Minkowski metric, valid in the local inertial frame of the orbiting spacecraft. The spacecraft moves on a geodesic (we ignore atmospheric drag and translational attitude control forces), with $`\mathbf{}_𝘂𝘂=0`$. Because the spacecraft is rotating about its symmetry axis, it acts as a gyroscope, so that its spin axis $`𝝃`$ is parallel transported, except for attitude-control forces that keep the telescope pointed toward the guide star, so that $`\mathbf{}_𝘂𝝃=𝘁`$, where $`𝘁`$ denotes the effect of those forces on $`𝝃`$ note2 . This, together with the orthonormality of the basis and the geodesic equation, are sufficient to establish that

$`\mathbf{}_𝘂𝜼`$ $`=`$ $`\omega 𝝆(𝜼𝘁)𝝃,`$
$`\mathbf{}_𝘂𝝆`$ $`=`$ $`\omega 𝜼(𝝆𝘁)𝝃,`$ (1)
where

$$\omega 𝝆\mathbf{}_𝘂𝜼=𝜼\mathbf{}_𝘂𝝆$$
(2)
is the locally measured roll angular frequency of the spacecraft. Defining the spacecraft roll phase $`\theta \omega 𝑑\tau `$, where $`\tau `$ is spacecraft proper time, we define “fixed” roll reference axes which do not rotate with the spacecraft:

$`𝜼_0𝜼\mathrm{cos}\theta 𝝆\mathrm{sin}\theta ,`$
$`𝝆_0𝜼\mathrm{sin}\theta +𝝆\mathrm{cos}\theta .`$ (3)
The initial phase is chosen so that one of the vectors ($`𝜼_0`$) points orthogonal to the plane of the polar orbit, or in the East-West (EW) direction, while the other ($`𝝆_0`$) lies in the orbital plane, or the North-South (NS) direction (see Fig. 1). The orbital plane is chosen so that the guide star, and hence the vector $`𝝃`$, lie in the plane. (The guide star HR 8703 is at declination $`16.84^\mathrm{o}`$ and right ascension $`343.26^\mathrm{o}`$.) Then one can show that these roll-fixed vectors evolve according to

$`\mathbf{}_𝘂𝜼_0`$ $`=`$ $`(𝜼_0𝘁)𝝃,`$
$`\mathbf{}_𝘂𝝆_0`$ $`=`$ $`(𝝆_0𝘁)𝝃,`$
$`\mathbf{}_𝘂𝝃`$ $`=`$ $`𝘁,`$ (4)
where we have used the fact that $`𝘁𝘂=0`$.

Each gyroscope is characterized by a spin four-vector $`𝗦`$ that is purely spatial in the spacecraft frame ($`𝗦𝘂=0`$); this amounts to a specific choice of its center of mass. We assume that gyro torques are sufficiently small that we can treat the gyros as perfect, so that $`𝗦`$ is parallel transported ($`\mathbf{}_𝘂𝗦=0`$). Then the rate of change of each component of $`𝗦`$ on the roll-fixed basis is given by $`d(𝗦𝗲_\alpha )/d\tau =𝗦\mathbf{}_𝘂𝗲_\alpha `$; combining with Eqs. (4) we obtain the equation of motion for the spin components,

$`\dot{S}_{\eta _0}`$ $`=`$ $`t_{\eta _0}S_\xi ,`$
$`\dot{S}_{\rho _0}`$ $`=`$ $`t_{\rho _0}S_\xi ,`$
$`\dot{S}_\xi `$ $`=`$ $`t_{\eta _0}S_{\eta _0}+t_{\rho _0}S_{\rho _0},`$ (5)
where $`S_{\eta _0}=𝗦𝜼_0`$ $`S_{\rho _0}=𝗦𝝆_0`$, and $`S_\xi =𝗦𝝃`$, with parallel definitions for $`t_{\eta _0}`$, etc., and where overdot denotes $`d/d\tau `$. In the absence of torques on the spacecraft ($`𝘁=0`$), $`\dot{S}_{\eta _0}=\dot{S}_{\rho _0}=\dot{S}_\xi =0`$, as expected, since the gyro spins and spacecraft basis vectors will undergo identical transports through spacetime.

## III Telescope pointing

The spacecraft is oriented so that the optical axis of the telescope is aligned parallel to the direction of an incoming photon from the guide star. Let $`𝝀`$ be the null tangent vector to the incoming photon satisfying the geodesic equation $`\mathbf{}_𝝀𝝀=0`$ with $`𝝀𝝀=0`$. In the spacecraft frame, the direction of the incoming photon is given by a unit normalized spatial vector which is the projection of $`𝝀`$ onto the spacecraft basis, namely

$$\widehat{𝝀}=\frac{𝝀}{(𝘂𝝀)}𝘂.$$
(6)
Then, using Eqs. (4) the equations of motion for the roll-fixed components of $`\widehat{𝝀}`$ are given by

$`(d/d\tau )\widehat{\lambda }_{\eta _0}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^{1/2}(\mathbf{}_𝘂\widehat{𝝀})𝜼_0t_{\eta _0}\widehat{\lambda }_\xi ,`$
$`(d/d\tau )\widehat{\lambda }_{\rho _0}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^{1/2}(\mathbf{}_𝘂\widehat{𝝀})𝝆_0t_{\rho _0}\widehat{\lambda }_\xi ,`$
$`(d/d\tau )\widehat{\lambda }_\xi `$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^{1/2}(\mathbf{}_𝘂\widehat{𝝀})𝝃+t_{\eta _0}\widehat{\lambda }_{\eta _0}+t_{\rho _0}\widehat{\lambda }_{\rho _0},`$ (7)
where we have introduced the small parameter $`ϵ^{1/2}(v/c)`$ to characterize the leading effects on $`\mathbf{}_𝘂\widehat{𝝀}`$, namely aberration.

In the operation of the experiment, attitude control forces orient the spacecraft so that the telescope always points toward the apparent location of the guide star, i.e. so that $`\widehat{𝝀}=𝝃`$, or so that $`\widehat{𝝀}𝝆_0=\widehat{𝝀}𝜼_0=0`$. This will be only approximately true because of pointing errors and occasional deliberate “dithering” of the spacecraft for operational and other reasons; these errors are expected to be on the level of a few to tens of mas. We introduce the small parameter $`\delta 10^7`$ to characterize these pointing errors. Then to drive $`\widehat{\lambda }_{\rho _0}`$ and $`\widehat{\lambda }_{\eta _0}`$ and their time derivatives to zero, we require attitude control torques given, from Eqs. (7), by

$`t_{\eta _0}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^{1/2}\widehat{\lambda }_\xi ^1(\mathbf{}_𝘂\widehat{𝝀})𝜼_0+\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\eta _0}),`$
$`t_{\rho _0}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^{1/2}\widehat{\lambda }_\xi ^1(\mathbf{}_𝘂\widehat{𝝀})𝝆_0+\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\rho _0}),`$ (8)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\eta _0}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\rho _0}`$ are the roll-fixed components of the order-$`\delta `$ residual “pointing error” and dithering torques. Substituting Eqs. (8) back into Eqs. (7), and using the fact that $`\widehat{𝝀}`$ is a normalized vector, we find that $`(d/d\tau )\widehat{\lambda }_{\eta _0}=\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\eta _0})\widehat{\lambda }_\xi `$, $`(d/d\tau )\widehat{\lambda }_{\rho _0}=\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\rho _0})\widehat{\lambda }_\xi `$, and $`(d/d\tau )\widehat{\lambda }_\xi =\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\eta _0}\widehat{\lambda }_{\eta _0}+\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\rho _0}\widehat{\lambda }_{\rho _0})`$. From these equations we obtain

$$\widehat{\lambda }_{\eta _0}(\tau )=O(\delta ),\widehat{\lambda }_{\rho _0}(\tau )=O(\delta ),\widehat{\lambda }_\xi (\tau )=1+O(\delta ^2).$$
(9)
Then substituting Eqs. (8) into (5), we obtain

$`\dot{S}_{\eta _0}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^{1/2}(S_\xi /\widehat{\lambda }_\xi )(\mathbf{}_𝘂\widehat{𝝀})𝜼_0\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\eta _0})S_\xi ,`$
$`\dot{S}_{\rho _0}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^{1/2}(S_\xi /\widehat{\lambda }_\xi )(\mathbf{}_𝘂\widehat{𝝀})𝝆_0\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\rho _0})S_\xi ,`$
$`\dot{S}_\xi `$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^{1/2}[S_{\eta _0}(\mathbf{}_𝘂\widehat{𝝀})𝜼_0+S_{\rho _0}(\mathbf{}_𝘂\widehat{𝝀})𝝆_0]\widehat{\lambda }_\xi ^1`$ (10)
$`+\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\eta _0}S_{\eta _0}+\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\rho _0}S_{\rho _0}).`$
But since $`S_{\eta _0}S_{\rho _0}ϵ^{1/2}+\delta `$, we have $`\dot{S}_\xi ϵ+ϵ^{1/2}\delta +\delta ^2+\mathrm{}`$, and so, choosing the vector $`𝗦`$ to be normalized to unity (under parallel transport it has constant norm), we can write $`S_\xi =1+O(ϵ,ϵ^{1/2}\delta ,\delta ^2)`$. Substituting into Eq. (10), we obtain our final equation for the evolution of the gyro spin components relative to the roll-fixed spacecraft axes,

$`\dot{S}_{\eta _0}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^{1/2}(\mathbf{}_𝘂\widehat{𝝀})𝜼_0\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\eta _0})`$
$`+O(ϵ^{3/2},ϵ\delta ,ϵ^{1/2}\delta ^2),`$
$`\dot{S}_{\rho _0}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^{1/2}(\mathbf{}_𝘂\widehat{𝝀})𝝆_0\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\rho _0})`$ (11)
$`+O(ϵ^{3/2},ϵ\delta ,ϵ^{1/2}\delta ^2).`$
These physically measurable components $`S_{\eta _0}`$ and $`S_{\rho _0}`$ translate directly into outputs of the SQUID magnetometers. The expressions are generally covariant, and thus may be evaluated in any chosen coordinate system.

Interestingly, in this picture all the relativistic effects arise mathematically from the covariant derivative of the incoming photon world line along the spacecraft four-velocity, and not in the precessions of the gyroscope spins. This is because we have chosen the rolling spacecraft itself to define our basis; this was a natural choice because all the measuring instruments (current loops, SQUIDs) are rigidly fixed to the spacecraft. But since a rolling spacecraft is itself a gyroscope, it and the superconducting gyros precess together in the spacetime around the Earth. Hence, in this basis, the relativistic effects appear to originate elsewhere. The superconducting gyros are still crucial, of course, because, by design, they are closer to being perfect gyros, and thus are less affected by anomalous torques. Here the spacecraft plays a role similar to that of an oscillator clock that is slaved to an ultraprecise atomic standard (such as a hydrogen maser, or atom fountain clock); the oscillator may drift or be deliberately steered from time to time, but its phase can always be linked precisely back to the underlying standard. Similarly, while the spacecraft “gyro” is steered to follow the guide star as the star’s apparent location varies because of aberration and relativistic effects, the spacecraft axis direction is precisely linked to the superconducting gyros via the output of the SQUIDS.

We now turn to the relativistic and aberration effects that are being measured.

## IV Post-Newtonian calculation of measurable relativistic effects

We evaluate the quantity $`\mathbf{}_𝘂\widehat{𝝀}`$ in the post-Newtonian approximation using the parametrized post-Newtonian (PPN) framework tegp . The metric of spacetime in the solar-system rest-frame is taken to have the form

$`g_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`1+2U+O(ϵ^2),`$
$`g_{0i}`$ $`=`$ $`(2+2\gamma +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha _1)V_i+O(ϵ^{5/2}),`$
$`g_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`(1+2\gamma U)\delta _{ij}+O(ϵ^2),`$ (12)
where $`\gamma `$ and $`\alpha _1`$ are PPN parameters whose values depend on the theory of gravity, and where we have restricted attention to theories of gravity with suitable global conservation laws, and have ignored “preferred-frame” terms in the metric (see tegp , §9.1 for discussion of these effects). We have used a gauge analogous to harmonic gauge, instead of the conventional PPN gauge (see tegp  §4.2 for discussion). For an orbiting, rotating, nearly spherical Earth, and a static, spherically symmetric Sun, the potentials $`U`$ and $`𝐕`$ have the form

$`U`$ $`=`$ $`M_{}/r+M_{}/R,`$
$`𝐕`$ $`=`$ $`M_{}𝐯_{}/R{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝐗\times 𝐉_{}/R^3,`$ (13)
where $`M_{}`$ is the mass of the Sun, $`M_{}`$, $`𝐯_{}`$ and $`𝐉_{}`$ are the mass, velocity and angular momentum of the Earth; $`𝐗=𝐱𝐱_{}`$ and $`R=|𝐗|`$ denote the satellite-Earth vector and distance, while $`𝐱`$ and $`r=|𝐱|`$ denote the satellite-Sun vector and distance. In fact, the quadrupole moment of the Earth has a measurable effect on the geodetic precession and must be included; as this has been treated thoroughly elsewhere wilkins ; barker70 ; breakwell ; adler  we will ignore it here.

From the geodesic equation for photons, $`d\lambda ^i/dt+(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^0\lambda ^i)\lambda ^\mu \lambda ^\nu =0`$, where $`\lambda ^\mu =dx^\mu /dt`$, we obtain the solution (see tegp  §7.1 for details):

$`\lambda ^0`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$
$`\lambda ^i`$ $`=`$ $`n^i[1(1+\gamma )U]+𝒟^i+O(ϵ^{3/2}),`$ (14)
where $`n^i`$ is a Cartesian unit vector describing the initial direction of the photon far from the Earth in the global PPN coordinate system, and $`𝒟^i`$ represents the deflection of the ray, obtained by solving the equation

$$\left(\frac{d𝒟^i}{dt}\right)_{\mathrm{along}n^i}=(1+\gamma )[^iUn^i(𝐧U)].$$
(15)
The unit vector $`𝐧`$ points from the source toward the spacecraft, and hence may be written $`𝐧=𝐧_0+𝐱𝐧_0+\mathrm{}`$, where $`𝐧_0`$ is a constant unit vector toward the solar-system barycenter and where $`^in_0^j=(\delta ^{ij}n_0^in_0^j)/D`$, where $`D`$ is the distance from the solar-system barycenter to the guide star. The correction term accounts for the parallax of the guide star; for HR 8703 it amounts to about 10 mas $`3\times 10^7`$. Because it is so small, we will treat it as effectively a pointing error term, of order $`\delta `$.

Letting the spacecraft have ordinary velocity $`v^i=u^i/u^0`$, where $`u^0=1+v^2/2+U+O(ϵ^2)`$, we find that the components of $`\widehat{𝝀}`$ are given by

$`\widehat{\lambda }^0`$ $`=`$ $`𝐧𝐯[v^2(𝐧𝐯)^2]+O(ϵ^{3/2}),`$
$`\widehat{\lambda }^i`$ $`=`$ $`n^i[v^in^i(𝐧𝐯)]+n^i[(𝐧𝐯)^2v^2/2\gamma U]`$ (16)
$`+𝒟^i+O(ϵ^{3/2}).`$
To calculate the covariant quantities $`(\mathbf{}_𝘂\widehat{𝝀})𝜼_0`$ and $`(\mathbf{}_𝘂\widehat{𝝀})𝝆_0`$ in Eqs. (11), it suffices to evaluate them in the PPN coordinate system. We first evaluate $`(\mathbf{}_𝘂\widehat{𝝀})^\alpha =u^\beta \widehat{\lambda }_{}^{\alpha }{}_{;\beta }{}^{}`$. Calculating the Christoffel symbols from the metric (12) to the needed order, and using the fact that $`dU/dt=U/t+𝐯U`$, and, by virtue of the equation of motion $`d𝐯/dt=U`$, that $`(𝐯𝐧)U=1/2\{d[𝐯(𝐯𝐧)]/dt+𝐧\times (U\times 𝐯)\}`$, we find

$`(\mathbf{}_𝘂\widehat{𝝀})^0`$ $`=`$ $`O(vU),`$
$`(\mathbf{}_𝘂\widehat{𝝀})^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}[(𝐱)n_0^iv^i+n^i(𝐧𝐯)`$ (17)
$`+n^i\{(𝐧𝐯)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v^2\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v^i(𝐧𝐯)+𝒟^i]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(2\gamma +1)[𝐧\times (𝐯\times U)]^i`$
$`+(1+\gamma +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\alpha _1)[𝐧\times (\times 𝐕)]^i`$
$`+O(UU),`$
where, to the order needed, we can convert from spacecraft proper time $`\tau `$ to PPN coordinate time $`t`$.

We also need to determine the time dependence of $`𝜼_0`$ and $`𝝆_0`$; even though they are roll-fixed vectors, they will vary slightly because of pointing of the spacecraft to maintain alignment with the guide star. However, because $`\mathbf{}_𝘂\widehat{𝝀}`$ is already of $`O(ϵ^{1/2})`$, we only need to evaluate $`𝜼_0`$ and $`𝝆_0`$ to $`O(ϵ^{1/2})`$, which means accounting only for the effects of aberration-induced torques. Substituting Eqs. (8) into (4), and using the fact that $`𝝃`$, $`𝝆_0`$, $`𝜼_0`$, and $`𝘂`$ form an orthonormal tetrad, we obtain

$`\mathbf{}_𝘂𝜼_0`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^{1/2}\mathbf{}_𝘂\widehat{𝝀}𝜼_0𝝃+O(\delta ),`$
$`\mathbf{}_𝘂𝝆_0`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^{1/2}\mathbf{}_𝘂\widehat{𝝀}𝝆_0𝝃+O(\delta ),`$
$`\mathbf{}_𝘂𝝃`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^{1/2}(\mathbf{}_𝘂\widehat{𝝀}+\mathbf{}_𝘂\widehat{𝝀}𝘂𝘂+\mathbf{}_𝘂\widehat{𝝀}𝝃𝝃)`$ (18)
$`+O(\delta ).`$
We use the fact that, for each of these three vectors, $`(\mathbf{}_𝘂𝗲_{(\alpha )})^\beta =de_{(\alpha )}^\beta /d\tau +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \delta }^\beta e_{(\alpha )}^\gamma u^\delta `$, substitute the Christoffel symbols and Eqs. (17), and integrate, to obtain

$`(\eta _0)^0(t)`$ $`=`$ $`𝐯\overline{\eta }_0+O(ϵ,\delta ),`$
$`(\eta _0)^i(t)`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{\eta }_0)^i𝐯\overline{\eta }_0\overline{\xi }^i+O(ϵ,\delta ),`$
$`(\rho _0)^0(t)`$ $`=`$ $`𝐯\overline{\rho }_0+O(ϵ,\delta ),`$
$`(\rho _0)^i(t)`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{\rho }_0)^i𝐯\overline{\rho }_0\overline{\xi }^i+O(ϵ,\delta ),`$
$`\xi ^0(t)`$ $`=`$ $`𝐯\overline{\xi }+O(ϵ,\delta ),`$
$`\xi ^i(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\xi }^i+v^i\overline{\xi }^i𝐯\overline{\xi }+O(ϵ,\delta ),`$ (19)
where $`\overline{\eta }_0`$, $`\overline{\rho }_0`$ and $`\overline{\xi }`$ are spatial 3-vectors in the PPN frame that describe the orientation of the spacecraft at a chosen initial moment of time. They are orthonormal in the Cartesian sense to $`O(ϵ)`$. We have used the fact, obtainable from Eq. (9), that $`𝐧=\overline{\xi }+O(ϵ,\delta )`$, $`𝐧\overline{\eta }_0=O(ϵ,\delta )`$ and $`𝐧\overline{\rho }_0=O(ϵ,\delta )`$.

Substituting Eqs. (17) and (19) into (11), converting from $`d/d\tau `$ to $`d/dt`$ using the property that $`\tau =t[1+O(ϵ)]`$, and integrating with respect to $`t`$, we obtain, finally

$`S_{\eta _0}`$ $`=`$ $`S_{\eta _0}(0)ϵ^{1/2}𝐯\overline{\eta }_0`$
$`+ϵ\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝐯\overline{\eta }_0𝐯\overline{\xi }+\overline{\eta }_0+𝒟\overline{\eta }_0\right)`$
$`+\delta (D^1𝐱\overline{\eta }_0𝒯_{\eta _0})`$
$`+O(ϵ^{3/2},ϵ\delta ,ϵ^{1/2}\delta ^2),`$
$`S_{\rho _0}`$ $`=`$ $`S_{\rho _0}(0)ϵ^{1/2}𝐯\overline{\rho }_0`$ (20)
$`+ϵ\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝐯\overline{\rho }_0𝐯\overline{\xi }+\overline{\rho }_0+𝒟\overline{\rho }_0\right)`$
$`+\delta (D^1𝐱\overline{\rho }_0𝒯_{\rho _0})`$
$`+O(ϵ^{3/2},ϵ\delta ,ϵ^{1/2}\delta ^2).`$
The first term in Eqs. (20) is the initial misalignment of the spin with the spacecraft axis, which is expected to be smaller than one arcsecond. The next term, of order $`ϵ^{1/2}`$, and the first of the $`O(ϵ)`$ terms, are the aberration term and its relativistic correction. The term involving $``$ is the integrated relativistic precession projected onto $`\overline{\eta }_0`$ and $`\overline{\rho }_0`$, given by $`=^t(d/dt)𝑑t`$, where $`d/dt`$ is the precession rate given by

$$\frac{d}{dt}=\frac{1}{2}(2\gamma +1)\overline{\xi }\times (𝐯\times U)(1+\gamma +\frac{1}{4}\alpha _1)\overline{\xi }\times (\times 𝐕).$$
(21)
The terms $`𝒟\overline{\eta }_0`$ and $`𝒟\overline{\rho }_0`$ in Eqs. (20) denote the contribution of the deflection of light. The $`O(\delta )`$ terms $`𝒯_{\eta _0}`$ and $`𝒯_{\rho _0}`$ denote the integrated angular offset caused by pointing errors, while the terms $`D^1𝐱\overline{\eta }_0`$ and $`D^1𝐱\overline{\rho }_0`$ denote the effects of parallax. The spatial vectors defined in Eqs. (20) are referred to the solar-system-fixed PPN coordinate system. However, to the order needed, we can write $`𝐯=𝐯_{}+𝐯_s+O(ϵ^{3/2})`$, where $`𝐯_{}`$ is the Earth’s orbital velocity relative to the Sun, and $`𝐯_s`$ is the spacecraft’s velocity relative to the Earth. Furthermore, the components of the various 3-vectors in the solar-system basis are equal to the respective components in a non-rotating Earth-comoving basis, apart from corrections of order $`ϵ`$; hence to the order needed in Eqs. (20) we can treat all spatial vectors as defined in the geocentric basis.

## V Discussion of Relativistic Effects

The first non-constant term in Eqs. (20) is the aberration of starlight, consisting of both an annual aberration with amplitude of $`𝐯_{}20`$ arcseconds, and an orbital aberration with amplitude $`𝐯_s5`$ arcseconds. But because the position of the guide star can be determined from VLBI and the orbit of the earth and spacecraft can be determined from the ephemeris and GPS to high accuracy, these terms may be predicted to an accuracy better than that needed to measure the relativistic effects. Furthermore, their variation with time over a year can be separated from the variation of the relativistic terms, hence the aberration can be used to determine the “scale factor” that relates the output of the SQUIDs (the actual data) to the desired angles $`S_{\eta _0}`$ and $`S_{\rho _0}`$. The second term in Eqs. (20) is the relativistic correction to aberration, whose orbital part dominates, with amplitude $`\frac{1}{2}v_{}^2\mathrm{sin}\beta 0.4`$ mas ($`\beta `$ is the ecliptic latitude of the guide star), which is comparable to the accuracy goal of the experiment; this term must be included in the data analysis stumpff . Terms of order $`v_{}v_s`$ and $`v_s^2`$ and terms cubic in $`v`$ can be ignored.

For the relativistic precession terms, $`d/dt`$ can be separated into various contributions using Eqs. (13):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(2+\alpha _1){\displaystyle \frac{M_{}}{R^3}}𝐯_{}\times 𝐗{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(2\gamma +1){\displaystyle \frac{M_{}}{r^3}}𝐯_s\times 𝐱`$ (22)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(2\gamma +1){\displaystyle \frac{M_{}}{r^3}}𝐯_{}\times 𝐱{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(2\gamma +1){\displaystyle \frac{M_{}}{R^3}}𝐯_s\times 𝐗`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\gamma +1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\alpha _1)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{𝐉_{}3\mathrm{𝐍𝐉}_{}𝐍}{R^3}}\right]\}\times \overline{\xi },`$
where $`𝐍=𝐗/R`$. Since $``$ and $`\overline{\xi }`$ both refer to the direction of the spins, this equation has the general form $`d𝐒/dt=𝛀\times 𝐒`$, so that the quantity in braces in Eq. (22) can be regarded as the precession rate vector.

The first two terms produce periodic contributions to the signal at the frequencies $`\omega _s\pm \omega _{}`$, where $`\omega _s`$ and $`\omega _{}\omega _s`$ are the orbital angular frequencies of the spacecraft and Earth, respectively. Integrated over time, these contribute periodic terms at approximately the orbital frequency with amplitudes of $`v_{}M_{}/2R^2\omega _sv_{}v_s/20.3`$ mas and $`v_sM_{}/r^2\omega _sv_{}^2(R/r)10^4`$ mas, respectively. Averaged over time, these are negligible.

The third term may be evaluated to sufficient accuracy at the center of the Earth rather than at the satellite; treating the Earth’s orbit as circular yields a signal that grows at the constant rate of $`(3/2)v_{}^2\omega _{}(𝐡\times \overline{\xi })19`$ mas/yr in a direction perpendicular to $`𝐡`$, the normal to the ecliptic plane wilkins ; barkeroconnell2 . This term is the solar geodetic effect (sometimes called the de Sitter precession); it is responsible for an analogous precession in the lunar orbit that has been measured to around 0.7 % using Lunar laser ranging williams .

The fourth term is the main geodetic effect, at the constant rate of $`(3/2)v_s^2\omega _s(𝐡^{}\times \overline{\xi })6600`$ mas/yr, in a direction perpendicular to $`𝐡^{}`$, the normal to the orbital plane. Note that if $`\overline{\eta }_0`$ is chosen to be the EW basis vector, which is perpendicular to the polar orbit, then the main geodetic effect does not appear in the output $`S_{\eta _0}`$, in other words it produces a purely $`S_{\rho _0}`$, or NS signal. There is an additional contribution to this precession arising from the Earth’s oblateness at about 7 mas/yr, which must be taken into account wilkins ; barker70 ; oconnell ; barkeroconnell3 ; breakwell ; adler

The final term in Eq. (22) is the Lense-Thirring or frame-dragging effect. It has both a constant term and a periodic term at twice the orbital frequency, but for a circular polar orbit, it produces an orbit-averaged constant rate of $`𝐉_{}\times \overline{\xi }/2R^3=J_{}\mathrm{cos}\delta /2R^341\mathrm{cos}\delta `$ mas/yr, where $`\delta `$ is the declination of the guide star. If the plane of the polar orbit is oriented so that the guide star location is in the orbital plane, then the signal is purely $`S_{\eta _0}`$, or EW.

The next term in Eqs. (20) is the deflection of light. For the ecliptic latitude of the guide star, this gives a maximum deflection caused by the Sun of around 20 mas, once in the one-year mission. This effect can be included as a term to be estimated in the data analysis – studies by the GP-B team indicate that it could be measured to about one percent – or it can calculated a priori using general relativity and the known parameters of the Earth’s orbit and the guide star location. Because the guide star will be occulted by the Earth, the Earth will also contribute a once-per-orbit deflection of around 0.5 mas (which will compete with deflection caused by propagation of the signal through the Earth’s atmosphere). Because it averages to zero, this effect can be ignored.

These relativistic terms, geodetic precession, frame dragging and deflection of light, have been calculated using the specific assumptions and constraints inherent in the PPN framework. An alternative, more phenomenological viewpoint, would be to regard each as an independent effect with a separate phenomenological parameter to be measured in the data analysis.

The remaining terms in Eqs. (20) are of order $`\delta `$. The parallax term caused by the Earth’s motion (around 10 mas) must be taken into account, while that due to the satellite’s orbit is negligible. Finally the pointing error terms will be controlled to better than 20 mas (rms), and in any event will be measured directly by the telescope; all that is needed then is a sufficiently accurate calibration (via deliberate dithering of the spacecraft axis by known amounts) to convert telescope readout signals to the appropriate contributions $`𝒯_{\eta _0}`$ and $`𝒯_{\rho _0}`$ to $`S_{\eta _0}`$ and $`S_{\rho _0}`$.

## VI Conclusions

We have carried out a covariant calculation of the measurable output of an orbiting gyroscope experiment, and shown that the result may be expressed in terms of contributions that can be calculated consistently using an Earth-based coordinate frame. The dominant contributions that are detectable within the stated 0.4 mas/yr accuracy of the GB-P mission are: the aberration of starlight and its special relativistic correction, the general relativistic geodetic precession (due both to the Earth and to the Sun) and the general relativistic frame-dragging. The results are in agreement with other, non-covariant calculations, including numerous unpublished calculations and simulations carried out by the GP-B team in the course of developing the data analysis sytem for the mission. Because all measurements are referred to instruments fixed on a rolling spacecraft, the measurable relativistic effects enter mathematically via their effect on the apparent direction of the light from the guide star.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to Mac Keiser, Francis Everitt and Alex Silbergleit for useful discussions, and for important insights into the nature of the GP-B experiment, and to Charles Pellerin for suggesting the calculation. This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under grant No. PHY 00-96522.

*

## Appendix A Effect of aberration on measurement of roll phase

The actual signals measured on the GP-B spacecraft are $`S_\eta `$ and $`S_\rho `$; these are then converted to roll-fixed signals in the data analysis by forming the combination

$`S_{\eta _0}`$ $`=`$ $`S_\eta \mathrm{cos}\theta S_\rho \mathrm{sin}\theta ,`$
$`S_{\rho _0}`$ $`=`$ $`S_\eta \mathrm{sin}\theta +S_\rho \mathrm{cos}\theta ,`$ (23)
where $`\theta `$ is the spacecraft roll phase. In practice this is determined using a pair of star-trackers fixed to the spacecraft platform directed roughly perpendicular to the roll axis, that continually compare the spacecraft orientation to a library of known stellar positions, and provide a phase accurate to a few arcseconds. The angle $`\theta `$ is the accumulated phase in the onboard rotating frame since the initial state, so that any error in measuring $`\theta `$ relative to its “true” value will generate corrections to the roll-fixed outputs given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }S_{\eta _0}S_{\rho _0}\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }S_{\rho _0}S_{\eta _0}\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$.

Consider a star-tracker whose optical axis is parallel to the $`𝜼`$ vector. It will record a star when the incoming projected world line of the photon is anti-parallel to $`𝜼`$. i.e. when $`𝜼^{}=\widehat{𝝀}=𝐧+𝐯\mathrm{𝐧𝐧}𝐯`$. In the absence of spacecraft motion, we would have $`𝜼=𝐧`$. If $`\theta ^{}`$ is the measured roll phase and $`\theta `$ is the “true” roll-phase (without aberration), then

$`\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`𝜼^{}𝜼_0`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta +𝐯\rho \mathrm{sin}\theta ,`$
hence $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta =𝐯\rho =𝐯\rho _0\mathrm{cos}\theta 𝐯\eta _0\mathrm{sin}\theta `$. But since $`S_{\eta _0}=S_{\eta _0}(0)ϵ^{1/2}𝐯\overline{\eta }_0+O(ϵ,\delta )`$, with a parallel expression for $`S_{\rho _0}`$, the product $`S_{\eta _0}\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ is of magnitude at most $`10^82`$ mas, but most importantly is periodic at the roll frequency, and averages to zero. Aberration will be taken into account in determination of roll phase from the star trackers.