INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS PUBLISHING CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM GRAVITY

Class. Quantum Grav. 20 (2003) 25272540 PII: S0264-9381(03)58025-X

On the detectability of the LenseThirring eld from
rotating laboratory masses using ring laser gyroscope
interferometers
G E Stedman
1
, K U Schreiber
2
and H R Bilger
3
1
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800,
Christchurch, New Zealand
2
Forschungseinrichtung Satelliten-Geod asie der Technischen Universit at M unchen,
Fundamentalstation Wettzell, D-93444 K otzting, Bavaria, Germany
3
5917 Williamsburg Way, Madison, WI 53719, USA
E-mail: g.stedman@phys.canterbury.ac.nz
Received 9 January 2003
Published 23 May 2003
Online at stacks.iop.org/CQG/20/2527
Abstract
The possibility of detecting the LenseThirring eld generated by the rotating
earth (also rotating laboratory masses) is reassessed in view of recent dramatic
advances in the technology of ring laser gyroscopes. This possibility is
very much less remote than it was a decade ago. The effect may contribute
signicantly to the Sagnac frequencyof planned instruments. Its discrimination
and detection will require an improved metrology, linking the ring to the
celestial reference frame, and a fuller study of dispersion- and backscatter-
induced frequency pulling. Both these requirements have been the subject of
recent major progress, and our goal looks feasible.
PACS numbers: 04.20.q, 04.80.Cc, 20.60.Da
1. Introduction to the LenseThirring effect
The coupling of the electromagnetic eld to gravity is an age-old problem in which there is
currently a resurgence of interest (see, for example, [20]). We show that the terrestrial optical
detectability of one standard, but still elusive, relativistic effect, namely the LenseThirring
effect, looks much closer now than say a few decades ago, and we specify the improvements
that need to be made in current ring laser technology.
First, we set the LenseThirring effect in a historical context. About a hundred years ago,
vigorous experimental searches were performed for a possible rotation in the ether, induced
by rotation of neighbouring masses [1, 12, 13]. Like other searches of that time, these were
partly stimulated by Faradays discovery of magneto-optic rotation. This discovery was a
revolutionary discovery in more ways than one; it was widely perceived as a proof of the
0264-9381/03/132527+14$30.00 2003 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK 2527
2528 G E Stedman et al
susceptibility of the ether to magnetic elds, and helped to stimulate classical modelling of the
ether in terms of intermeshed rotating gear wheels. However, it was eventually realized that
classical physics failed to predict any such effect. Only in 1918 was a credible theory advanced
for such a phenomenon, when Lense and Thirring [30] showed from general relativity that the
local inertial frames of empty space near a rotating mass rotated relative to those at innity.
An English translation of their papers is given in [31]. They predict a rotation

of the
local inertial frame at R relative to that at innity, arising from the rotational velocity of a
homogeneous sphere centre at the origin with moment of inertia I, where

=
GI
c
2
R
3
_
3R
R
2
( R)
_
. (1)
Here G is Newtons gravitational constant and c the vacuum velocity of light.
The theoretical interpretations of this expression, and hence its nicknames, have been
motivated by several analogies. In our opinion each of these can be helpful, but it is
characteristic of the subtleties of general relativity that such analogies with nonrelativistic
physics have ambiguities and limitations, and care is needed to delineate and reconcile them
(see, for example, [9]).
Avery popular termfor the LenseThirring effect has been inertial frame dragging . The
dragging connotation is trivially valid in the sense that

is by denition the rotation rate of

the local inertial frame, relative to that at innity, caused by the rotation of the central object.
This has suggested an analogy with the effect of a rotating ball on a viscous uid: the eddies
stirred up nearby induce sympathetic rotations of short sticks in the uid, and in a sense which
depends on the polar angle, at least qualitatively, in accord with equation (1). Rindler [43],
ascribing this terminology and analogy to Schiff, calls it a bad idea; he has shown impressively
that the tangential direction of the sympathetic motion of a radially moving particle reverses
with the sense of the radial motion, and notes that this reversal stands in contrast to the
Coriolis force in classical mechanics, and so to ones classical sense of dragging. We might
however argue, contra [43], that his emphasis of a sign reversal of the sense of a particles
dragging with its radial velocity reversal is qualitatively exactly what one would expect in
classical mechanics from a non-concentric rotary perturbation, given that the origin of the
LenseThirring-rotated frame is taken as external to the rotating mass. An earlier argument
by Rindler [44], that the LenseThirring effect is anti-Machian, was combated somewhat
similarly by Bondi and Samuel [9], who had several views that might be termed Machian,
some of which were illustrated and some of which were contradicted by the LenseThirring
effect. In all cases the reason for the debates is that it is possible to argue analogies between
the relativistic results and more classical interpretations which are not always consistent.
The LenseThirring effect is also popularly touted as a particularly characteristic and
direct manifestation of the gravitomagnetic effects associated uniquely with general relativity.
The term gravitomagnetic also reects a classical analogy, here with the coupling between
a rotating magnet and a neighbouring magnet, as formalized by the 3 + 1 reduction of some
general relativistic formulae making them analogous to those for the Maxwell elds. The
idea easily predates general relativity. Mashhoon calls it a gravitational analogue of Larmors
theorem[35]. As such, it includes notably those effects arising froma line integral I =
_
h dl
of the mixed spacetime components h
i
= g
0i
of the metric tensor (the vector h playing the
role of the vector potential A in electromagnetism), and so characteristic of an interferometer
observable, conventionally the phase [39]
=
1
h
_
(p dr E dt ) (2)
Detectability of LenseThirring eld from rotating laboratory masses 2529
for the ring interferogram formed by a particle of momentum and energy p, E in quantum
mechanics. Classical tests of general relativity, including the gravitational red shift, post-
Newtonian orbital effects on planets, light deection by massive objects and radar delay times
are all attributable to the effects of spacetime warping through the main diagonal coefcients
g

.
In fact, it is possible for geodetic precession, usually placed in contrast to frame dragging,
to be rewritten as a LenseThirring (and so gravitomagnetic) effect by a suitable change of
coordinatesto a frame with xed axes but a rotating centre [3].
The integral of equation (2) suggests yet another analogy, the description of the Lense
Thirring effect as the gravitational analogue of the AharonovBohm effect [23], because of
the formal analogy between the proportionality of I and the phase shift induced in an optical
or particle interferometer and that between the AharonovBohm phase shift of a charged
particle fromthe line integral
_
A dl estimating the enclosed magnetic ux. It has no stronger
justication than analogy in the sense that quantum mechanics plays no particular role at this
level. It is true that the manifestation of the LenseThirring effect by Sagnac interferometry
requires a wave nature of whatever particle is studied (photon, neutron, electron, ion or atom);
in this sense the exhibition of the LenseThirring effect by Sagnac interferometry necessitates
quantum mechanics. The argument is often made that massive particle interference including
atom interference effects, as opposed to photon interferometry, has fundamental importance
since they give special manifestation of quantum mechanical effects in gravity. Such effects
indeed mark major achievements and, are clear demonstrations of de Broglie waves and they
hold great promise for gyroscope; but this particular argument needs extraordinary care to be
sustained. It is arguably something of a historical accident that experiments on physical optical
experiments predated those on photoelectric detection. Certainly, in a modern perspective the
wave nature of matter is as much a quantumproperty of the photon as it is for any other particle.
It is common to avoid this by arguing for a special role in interferometry for particles with
nite rest mass. Such arguments for a higher status for particle interferometry over photon
interferometry are strictly incompatible with a standard claim for the ubiquity of general
relativity, making the equivalence principle generally applicable for nite rest mass particles
as for photons [47]. And it is somewhat strange to have to argue that the properties of the
neutrino (for example) are somehow to be interpreted as less quantum mechanical, now its
rest mass is known to be less than 3 eV, than it was a decade ago when evidence was advanced
for a rest mass of order 17 eV.
The term gravitational AB effect is used in the literature for a wide and incompatible
range of interpretations by authors who write mostly in isolation. The earliest use of this
phrase that we know of is that of Doglow [17]. He concentrates on getting a situation with
only a localized curvature, and quotes several perhaps pathological but reasonable illustrations
by Marder [33]. Unlike the LenseThirring situation, Dowkers phase-shifted particles always
travel in a region with zero curvature, and as a result his phase shift is closely analogous
to the AharonovBohm effect. Doglov et al and Lawerence et al [18, 28] quoting Papini,
consider a gravitationally induced rotation of the plane of polarization of light, as does Dehen
and Mashhoon [14, 36] for example. The effects of this on ring laser interferometry in the
gravitational application remain to be explored. Such rotation changes the interferometric
phase in a manner additional to that of equation (2), namely as the Berry phase to be added to
the dynamic phase (for neutrons this was discussed by Wagh and Rakhecha [62]). Ashtekar
and Magnon [4] conclude that the Sagnac effect represents a gravitational AB effect. Semon
[45] gives a fairly extensive literature. Bezerra [10] is one author discussing cosmic strings.
Anandan [8] discusses the duality (equivalence) of the AB and AharonovCasher phases
for a charge taken round a magnet and a magnetic dipole taken round a charge, and its
2530 G E Stedman et al
gravitational analogue, a spinning object taken round a mass, or a mass taken round a spinning
object (as in LenseThirring), relating all to the Sagnac phase. Harris [23] gives a very
thorough discussion of the gravitational AB effect with photons and the possibility of its
laboratory detection, in much the manner we adopt below. We note also Silverman [52]
whose interest blends with EM elds on virtual photon pairs. We shall rework this estimate
in the context of much more powerful machines than it was reasonable for Harris to consider
in 1997. In summary, the gravitational AB effect (which exists when the particle travels in
at spacetime) has not been properly distinguished from the LenseThirring effect in such
applications as the present. Several much more exotic possibilities have been proposed; for
example, Anandan [7, 8] discusses various dual situations in gravitomagnetic interferometry,
and Doglov [18] proposes considering the photonic chiral current anomaly in the gravitational
eld, amongst the discussions of this effect and its observation optically, e.g. the rotation of the
universe [2, 55].
2. Some experimental proposals for its observation
As with any general relativistic effect associated with the earth (for example, the ratio of
the mass of the earth to that of a black hole with the same radius) the fractional frequency
correction is of order GM/R
3
E
c
2
10
10
, placing it very many orders of magnitude below
the detectability of the old ether-motivated experiments. However, it is within the range
of satellite experiments. Schleich [55] quoting a review by Ginzburg, recounts how, on an
evening in 1918 when Thirring was telling Einstein about his work with Lense, Einstein
complained that the effect was so small for the Moon: it is a pity that we dont have an earth-
moon just moving outside of the Earths atmosphere. In todays satellite era, we have many
such moons, and accordingly much effort has been put into testing this prediction of general
relativity.
Nordtvedt has claimed that this prediction of general relativity has already been veried, its
contributionbeing vital to explain observed lunar dynamics. It is notable, especially in viewof
Einsteins prescient comment above, that Ciufolini et al [12] have reported the detection of the
LenseThirringtermin articial satellite dynamics. The present consensus of the satellite laser
ranging community is that these claims are largely justied. Lunar laser ranging has detected
the geodetic effect, if slightly indirectly [33]. A more direct measurement of such effects
would have considerable interest. The Foucault effect on a pendulumat the South Pole [6] has
been proposed to measure earth-generated LenseThirring precession but is not yet practical
[40]. Proposals have been made for measuring the gravitomagnetic effect on the output
of orbiting 3-axis superconducting gravity gradiometers, and also for measuring the Lense
Thirring effect along with the geodetic effect. In the early 1960s, L Schiff and colleagues
proposed the placing and self-monitoring of precise mechanical gyroscopes in earths orbit
in order to detect the frame-dragging effect. This was later developed as the Stanford Gyro
Project, and more recently (following the many delays including the Challenger Space Shuttle
disaster) [25] as the Gravity Probe B experiment, in which the predicted precessional effect
is 42 mas/yr. This probe is due for launch on June 26, 2003. We may expect an observation
of the LenseThirring effect within a few years, cleanly isolated from other effects. A recent
analysis of the LenseThirring effect is discussed in a number of articles in [27].
The extreme difculties of sensing such a small effect in space, even when generated by
whole-earth rotation, might seem to preclude experiments on earth, let alone experiments with
the rotation of laboratory masses. Concurrent with the rst proposal for a ring laser [41] and
its rst implementation by Macek [34], ring lasers sense an angular velocity through the
Detectability of LenseThirring eld from rotating laboratory masses 2531
Sagnac effect, which produces a beat frequency f between two contra-circulating beams [5]
of magnitude
f =
4A
P
, (3)
where is the vacuumwavelength employed, P is the perimeter and A is the area vector of the
ring. Increased size obviously leads to a higher signal frequency. Larger sizes, better mirrors
and greater beam powers lead to lower noise and improved rotation sensitivity [46] . We give
the key equations for this. For standard pumping, and as with all systems with stochastic
white Gaussian noise as its input, the signal/noise ratio increases with the square-root of the
observation time T, and the threshold rotation rate for detection has the form
N
= S

T
where
S

=
cP
4AQ
_
hf
0
P
o
. (4)
This equation for the quantumnoise effect upon threshold detection rate shows that we should
aim to increase the physical dimensions (and so A/P), the cavity nesse F = cQ/f
0
P, and
the beam power (the latter two through the dependence of these equations on the quality factor
Q and the power loss P
o
) in order to decrease the quantum noise in the beat frequency. Since
a given mirror quality determines the cavity nesse in a windowless beam path, the quality
factor will increase with an increase in both perimeter and mirror quality.
The rst person to contemplate the measurement of gravitomagnetic phenomena using a
ring laser appears to be Dehnen [14]; see also [32, 63]. He showed that optical consequences
of the LenseThirring term were visible in principle, but that the very small values involved
made a ring laser the best tool for its measurement. He obtained the minuscule fractional
beat frequency shift of 7.2 10
23
at a latitude of 45

for a square ring with area

0.01 m
2
. A considerably greater area (50 m
2
) was considered by Scully et al [51] for a
similar experiment in which, the laser could be constructed [19] and the signal could be
more easily detected. Although such a laser would more easily limit the preferred-frame
parameter of the PPN formalism it has promoted Sagnac devices for measuring geodetic
and LenseThirring precession. Schleich [54] has considered reducing quantum noise limits
for Sagnac-interferometric tests for preferred-frame effects.
Recently, ring laser gyroscopes have been developed to give a very much higher level of
performance than previously achieved, and the 50 m
2
concept of Scully et al [51] proposed for
measurements in the general relativity regime has been now built with a machine of area and
perimeter A = 829 m
2
and perimeter P = 211 m at Christchurch, New Zealand. Lunar tides
in the solid Earth and tele seismic rotations have recently been clearly detected [60], as have
lunar tides in the solid earth [48]. Atomic gyros are also in a state of comparable and rapid
advancement, and might be expected to show capability for geophysical measurements of this
sort, since their reported noise levels for rotation sensing have reached S = 600 prad/s/

Hz
[26]. However, ring lasers have so far proved more stable and (as just noted) more effective
for detection of geophysical phenomena such as tele seismic and earth tides. Their present
veried gyroscopic performance has exceeded all others to our knowledge, and substantial
further improvements are planned. A few examples may conrm this statement.
The earliest large ring lasers C-I (rectangular, with sides a, b a little under 1 m, see table 1)
and C-II (a = b = 1 m) were more limited in beam power as a result of the perceived need
to secure single mode operation by starvation. Following the example [19], in March 2002,
the C-II ring laser at Cashmere, New Zealand was overpressured to 4.445 torr, of which 0.2
torr is
20
Ne and
22
Ne in equal proportions. This reduces competition from other cavity modes
within the pressure-broadened homogeneous line width, and allows a substantial increase of
2
5
3
2
G
E
S
t
e
d
m
a
n
e
t
a
l
Table 1. Parameters for different rectangular ring lasers with sides a, b.
a b P A F Q p T S X C P
o
S

f
E
RAD
1000
Units (m) (m) (m) (m
2
) (s) (nW) (ppm) (ppm) (mW) nJ (W) (prad/s/

Hz) (kHz) (ppb)

C-I 0.899 0.839 3.477 0.7547 14 000 8 10
10
26 1 1 110 1 0.9 0.9 2700 0.069 1200
C-II 1.000 1.000 4.000 1.000 95 000 6 10
11
200 3 0.24 17 12.5 0.33 1.65 220 0.079 100
G0 3.500 3.500 14.000 12.250 4 000 9 10
10
30 1.8 1 390 1.8 3.5 5.7 230 0.288 100
UG1a 21.000 17.500 77.0 367.5 260 3 10
10
10 800 100 6000 8 4.1 390 14 1.513 6
G0v 3.500 3.500 14.000 12.250 10 000 2 10
11
74 10 0.24 160 42 3.9 52 30 0.288 13
G 4.000 4.000 16.000 16.000 150 000 3.8 10
12
1 300 10 0.24 10 42 4.4 3.6 5.9 0.317 2.6
UG1v 21.000 17.500 77.0 367.5 10 000 1.2 10
12
409 10 0.24 160 42 21 52 1.0 1.513 0.44
UG2v 21.000 39.700 121.4 833.7 10 000 1.9 10
12
640 10 0.24 160 42 34 52 0.44 2.177 0.20
UG2vv 21.000 39.700 121.4 833.7 100 000 1.9 10
13
6 400 10 0.24 16 42 34 5.3 0.14 2.177 0.062
UG100 100.00 100.00 400 10 000 10 000 6.3 10
12
2 100 10 0.24 160 42 111 52 0.037 7.93 0.016
MCR 612.6 339.2 1904 207 800 10 000 3.0 10
13
10 000 10 0.24 160 42 527 52 0.0018 34.6 0.0008
Note: Bold-faced ring laser names denote existing ring lasers and bold-faced numerical values denote experimental data from these. Several lasers are dened and referenced in the
text; UG1v and G are completed in (2002) [19] and G completed in the Geogesic Research station at Wettzell, Bavaria in (2001). G0 is its vertical anticipation in New Zealand; UG2v
represents a planned later extension of UG1 planned for 20032004 to encompass the whole Cashmere cavern. The entry UG1vv speculates on the possibility that the nesse (mirror
cleanliness) of UG2v could be made commensurate with that already achieved in C-II. Such speculation could be applied to all the larger lasers, with an improvement in performance
commensurate with the difference between UG2vv and UG2vv; we have however taken the more conservative gures for beam powers and nesses of all other proposed cavities.
The other symbols are: P, A are the perimeter and area; F, Q, the cavity nesse, quality factor and ringdown time and S, T the mirror scattering and transmission power loss. For
T S these are related by F = /2S = cQ/f
0
P, Q = 2f
0
where f
0
is the HeNe laser frequency (474 THz). X, p, C and W are respectively the incident power (from inside)
on each mirror, the emergent beam power per port, the circulating beam energy and the total power loss; they are related by X = cC/2P = p/T, P
o
= 8(S + T ). f
E
is the Sagnac
frequency induced by earths rotation of the ring which except for G0, which is vertical, all rings are horizontally mounted. S

is the angular sensitivity dened as in equation (4), and

RAD
1000
=
_
hf
3
0
/(2000P
o
)/f
E
Q, the Allan deviation relative to f
E
expected from quantum noise at 1000 s. Lasers C-I, C-II, g0, UG1a G and UG1v have been constructed in the
Cashmere cavern with UG1v and eventually UG2v replacing UG1a there.
Detectability of LenseThirring eld from rotating laboratory masses 2533
emergent beampower to 3 nW, reducing quantumnoise while retaining single mode operation.
With the quality factor previously reported [49, 53] (Q = 610
11
), corresponding to a nesse
of 95 000, this gives a sensitivity to rotation in the quantum-noise-limited regime (i.e. where
sampling times are less than the order of 3000 s) of S = 220 prad/s/

Hz.
Secondly, in August 2000 the rst Ultra-G ring laser (UG1a) was successfully operated,
the a denoting air, in that the beamis amplied in a sealed tube, but otherwise passes through
the cavern atmosphere [19]. This device has a perimeter of 77 m, an area of 367 m
2
, an
emergent beam power of 800 nW and a quality factor Q 310
10
corresponding to a nesse
of the order of 260 (far lower in UG1a on account of the use of ordinary laser mirrors and
of Brewster windows to conne the plasma gas on the gain tube). This quality factor is an
order of magnitude estimate from the observed quantum noise and from an estimate of the
power loss based on doubling the exit beam power to allow for the (unmeasured) losses at
the Brewster windows. This gives a threshold rotational sensitivity of S 14 prad/s/

Hz
to the limit of the quantum-noise regime (at present up to 1000 s), a value superior to the
corresponding statistics reported for all other gyros to our knowledge.
This is certainly not the ultimate value for ring lasers. An upgrade of UG1, dubbed
UG1v (v for vacuum) is presently being performed in which the Brewster windows will be
unnecessary and the standard mirrors will be replaced with super-mirrors. The German armof
this collaboration has completed a well-engineeredhigh-precisionand high-stability Grossring
G (perimeter P = 16 m) at Wettzell, Bavaria. Also a funding application has been submitted
to build UG100, whose dimensions a, b will be a b = 100 m 100 m. With mirrors
whose radius of curvature was say 100 m, a stable cavity is possible with beam widths (where
the intensity prole is I = I
0
exp(2r
2
/w
2
) of typically w = 4.4 mm at the mirrors. If the
beam power and nesse of such an instrument were at least 10 nW and 10 000, respectively
(gures which we believe to be realistic on the basis of our experience with large rings such as
UG1a and G0 [42]), a threshold sensitivity to rotation of the order of 37 frad/s/

Hz would
be achieved; see table 1. All these estimates are based on equation (4).
Through his programme large rings of geodetic importance have been considered
[42, 49, 50, 56, 61]. We may speculate of even larger instruments, as Michelson did [38]
when proposing an equatorial interferometer. Michelson [37] had already demonstrated that
a ring of area A
M
= 0.21 km
2
(essentially our working rectangular Ultra-G1 cavity scaled
up by a factor of 1750) operates as an interferometer gyroscope [19], and an extension to a
factor of 3819.4 is planned for 2003 at Cashmere. There appears to be no fundamental reason
why such a cavity cannot be made to lase and Michelson showed that it could function as
an interferometer and so function as a gyroscope in this greatly improved way. No doubt
it will require beam expanders at opposite points to guide the beam in the gain tube and on
to mirrors. Previously, the requirement for single mode operation seemed to preclude such
extrapolation. However, the full potential of different methods of mode suppression, even
via overpressuring as an obvious example, has not been explored, and our experience is that
UG1a performs happily as a gyroscope when in multimode excitation this is discussed more
in. We propose a Michelson Centenary Ring Laser (MCR) as a worthy and attainable goal for
2025, the 100th anniversary of Michelsons gargantuan interferometer. With mirrors whose
radius of curvature is 2 km, the beam widths would be of the order of w = 13 mm at the
mirrors, and somewhat less at the waists. Another big ring built by Michelson had dimensions
(table 1) a b = 200

60

(in ft) =100 m20 m (in m) yielding an area of A

M
= 2000 m
2
and perimeter of P = 2040 m [1].
One possibility, in principle, for detecting the LenseThirring effect is that of using
articial rotating masses rather than the earth. We are severely limited to whatever moment
of inertia is practically achievable with a ywheel [21, 29]. Against that we have the great
2534 G E Stedman et al
advantages of controllability and discrimination. The LenseThirring pre-factor has the form
GI/c
2
R
3
= (8/15)(G/c
2
)R
2
for a homogeneous sphere of density and radius R, so that
the LenseThirring signal at the surface of a rotating massive sphere depends quadratically
upon its radius R. Consider a gure-8 or double-looped ring laser with two articial counter-
rotating masses, one at the centre of each loop. The double loop will largely cancel the effects
of earths rotation (and with it will attenuate attendant unwanted signals such as seismic noise).
Some residual disparity in the size of the loops will ensure adequate bias to unlock the ring. The
use of two masses enables a range of experimental conditions to be considered. Anandan and
Chaio already favoured a gure-8 ring for a gravitational wave antenna [11], a conguration
also considered by others [58, 64]. In the equatorial plane we obtain a LenseThirring
rotation:

= 4
GI
c
2
R
3
=
_
32
15

G
c
2
R
2

E
_

E
=
E
. (5)
If we assume a frequency of rotation f = 10 Hz, a radius of 10 m and a density of
= 7900 kg m
3
(steel), we obtain = 3.40 10
15
. There are formidable engineering
problems posed in this example; the extrapolation from presently proposed ywheels (which
are typically in the few-MWh regime [21, 29]), the wrapping of the ring this close to such a
ywheel, and particularly the stored energy of 720 MWh, one quarter of the annual electricity
consumption of New Zealand. Even so, the resulting LenseThirring effect would require a
ring laser relative Allan deviation approximately a factor 200 smaller than the capabilities of
a quantum-noise-limited Michelson Centenary Ring (with the conservative beam power and
nesse estimated in table 1).We therefore discount this possibility.
However, the LenseThirring effect from earths rotation will give a contribution to the
Sagnac effect in proposed and planned larger ring lasers whose magnitude is in principle,
detectable. Table 1 lists the key parameters of the various instruments demonstrated under
construction, planned as commented above and the feasibility of the interferometer reduction
of gravitational drag from the rotating earth. It is of special interest to note that the projected
sensitivities of much large rings are in the region where LenseThirring signals would be
detectable, in principle.
3. Ring laser measurements of LenseThirring eld of the earth
The rotating earth has a moment of inertia I
E
= 8.0 10
37
kg m
2
, radius R
E
= 6.37 10
6
m,
and rotational speed
E
= 7.29212 10
5
rad s
1
corresponding to the sidereal day of 23 h
56 m 4.09 s. The magnitude of the LenseThirring rotation

at latitude is

=
E
_
GI
E
c
2
R
3
E
_

1 + 3 sin
2
. (6)
The small size of the pre-factor = GI
E
__
c
2
R
3
E
_
= R
s
/(5R
E
) (where R
s
is the
Schwarzschild radius), is the rst major deterrent against any plan to detect equation (6)
which gives 2.3 10
10

4.6 10
10

E
.
The threshold rotational sensitivity of UG1 estimated in the last section (S

10
11
rad/s/

Hz) implies for a 1 h observation time a precision of 2 10

9

E
, where
E
is the angular speed of the earth on its axis, a factor 10 from the LenseThirring magnitude.
The estimate given for UG100, a factor 100 smaller at 210
11

E
, nally brings us well into
the ball-park of the LenseThirring effect. Such a major increase in sensitivity, if conrmed,
Detectability of LenseThirring eld from rotating laboratory masses 2535
gives the question of the detectability of the LenseThirringeffect in a ground-basedlaboratory
a new urgency and fascination.
We now consider the latitude and orientation dependence of the LenseThirring effect.
A rotation-sensitive device would pick up a component of

, depending upon the orientation

of its sensing axis. The locally vertical part (measured by a horizontal ring laser) has
magnitude 2 sin ; the locally horizontal part is in the direction of the local south and
has magnitude cos . Hence, the direction of the LenseThirring rotation eld is at an angle
= arctan
_
1
2
cot
_
to the local vertical towards the local south. This is directed out from
the earth in the Northern Hemisphere (, > 0) and into the earth for the Southern
Hemisphere ( < 0, obtuse). || monotonically falls from 90

to 0 as || increases
from 0 to 90

. The LenseThirring signal from a horizontal ring maximizes at the poles. At

the latitude 43

of Christchurch, New Zealand, = 28.2

and a horizontal ring measures a

factor cos or 88% of the full magnitude 1.55
E
of the eld at that latitude, and so 68 of
the polar value.
In view of the geometrical problem of discriminating the LenseThirring term from the
much larger earth rotation termfor an earth-bound ring laser, Dehnen [14] suggested mounting
the ring at an angle that cancelled earths rotation. This is clearly feasible only at mid-latitudes;
the LenseThirring eld would then be reduced by a projection factor cos( ), which is
zero at the poles and the equator, but has magnitude 1 at || = 35.3

. If we note the latitudinal

variation of the LenseThirring term, we nd that the signal is 3
E
sin cos , maximizing
at 1.5
E
at the latitude || = 45

.
This estimate conrms that it is now feasible to detect earths angular speed changes
as small as the LenseThirring speed generated by earths rotation. The problem is the
geometrical one of discriminating this contribution from the fundamental Sagnac signal of
earths rotation.
At rst sight the quest would seem to hit immediately insuperable obstacles. The
requirement that the absolute value of the Sagnac effect be predictable to a precision of
(say) 1 part in 10
10
immediately implies that we require the following ingredients to this
accuracy. First, we require metrology of this precision on the physical dimensions of the
beam. Second, we need similar metrology on its absolute attitude of the earth. Third, we
require frequency pulling and pushing from dispersion, backscatter, stray elds etc to be
understood and analysed also to this precision.
One alternative then is to move away from earth-bound rings. The proposal by Scully
et al [51] to lock a ring to the stars, making its sidereal rotation rate negligibly small, would
be one practical solution. Another is to search for a different parameter. Other relativistic
gravitational effects such as Fokker precession [14] and the PPN parameter
1
the parameter
indicating the existence of a preferred reference frame [51] lead to a diurnal modulation of the
ring laser beat frequency with the period of a sidereal day, thus solving the problem of signal
separation.
Nevertheless the history of precision measurement already carries some notable success
stories in which such obstacles were eventually overcome, perhaps after decades of very
signicant if apparently unspectacular advancement. A notable case is the use of GPS and
satellite laser ranging (SLR) to determine separations on earth from measurements based on
a celestial reference frame. This is in effect the conjugate problem: the earth rotation, not
present in the celestial frame, has rst to be determined to sufcient accuracy so that small
deviations can be determined. Continental drift measurements may be typically few mm
per annum; such motions have to be estimated in SLR after correcting for the basic motion
of the earth rotation, itself involving a surface speed of 470 m s
1
. If one is to extract a
secular variation of 1 m per year from this gure, the precision therefore has to be better than
2536 G E Stedman et al
Table 2. Resolution.
Separation Angular resolution
(m) seconds of arc
0.003 42
0.1 1.3
1.0 0.13
10.0 0.013
20.0 0.006 3
50.0 0.002 5
100.0 0.001 26
200.0 0.000 63
6 10
11
. Yet this has been achieved, and continental drift measurements are now being
made, from what is in effect the wrong frame. This reects the globally spectacular increase
in the precision of SLR.
We therefore consider these problems in turn. First, given a ring of the size of say UG100
(100 m 100 m), the required metrological accuracies translate into a required absolute
precision of 10 nm. This pertains to measurement of beam positions relative to the earth
and to its attitude relative to a celestial reference frame. With these larger rings it may be
necessary to stabilize them, e.g. by such tricks as the Ezekiel Bal szmo technique [22] or
other such dynamic procedures involving a reference ring. For example, we have already tried
stabilizing the perimeter of UG1v by injecting its output into C-I as a reference cavity, feeding
the interferometric output back to control elements on the UG1v mirror mounts. C-I is 1 m
2
square Canterbury ring, with its Zerodur plate making a stable reference, and the differential
signal is used to adjust mirror mounts for UG1v so as to adjust and stabilize its perimeter.
As regards the former, this sounds feasible to the extent that the effective centre of a laser
beam can be so dened. The major problem here could be the ambiguity of the beam widths,
which as noted above are of the order of 4 mmin UG100. Some time ago Prade and Vinet [59]
argued that the geometrical centre of the Gaussian prole of such a beam denes the Sagnac
frequency, and this problem then reduces to determining that centre to this precision, i.e. to
a few parts in 10
6
. Clearly this is a major challenge, but it is not therefore to be ruled out as
impossible.
4. Some considerations of metrology at (GR) 1:10
10
level
This raises again questions on the feasibility of performing metrology at the level required
to test general relativity effects in ring interferometry; see [15, 16, 51] where we consider
optical interferometry that follows the same principle of operation as the radio interferometry
technique (VLBI). However, it has two distinct and favourable properties. Due to the much
higher electromagnetic frequency one obtains mass-resolution angular resolution at a local
site. The signal recombination (correlation) is done during the measurement in real time.
For the purpose of illustration table 2 shows the diffraction angular resolution for different
instrumental spacings.
In order to tie a local rotation sensor, such as a very large ring laser into the reference frame
of the stars, the baseline between the telescopes of an optical interferometer must be established
to the level of a few nanometres. At the same time the independently working ring laser has to
be tied to the telescopes of the interferometer with similar precision. This task can be achieved
by using the interferometer for the observation of a set of stars from the Hipparcos/Tycho-
catalogue. A local high precision metrology system is constantly monitoring any changes in
Detectability of LenseThirring eld from rotating laboratory masses 2537
the physical baseline between the interferometric telescopes. As a result of the interferometric
measurements, this actively controlled baseline is represented in the celestial reference frame.
Consequently, the orientation of a tied-in ring laser would also be available in the celestial
reference frame. The procedure of the measurements requires a three step approach until
nally the ring laser area normal vector is obtained.
1. Stellar optical interferometric measurements using stars with highly accurate positions
are taken. This requires that the catalogue positions are transformed to the epoch of the
observation, so that the apparent position is known, which differs from the directions
during the stellar interferometry by the refraction of the atmosphere. Considering this,
one can reconstruct an orientation baseline for the two or more receiving telescopes and
thus provide a reference direction to which the beam plane of the ring laser needs to be
tied to. The transformation of the stellar position will have to be carried out according to
the IERS (international earth rotation service [24]) conventions, such as VLBI (very long
base line interferometry) too. Performing the inverse transformation yields an orientated
baseline connected to the celestial reference frame.
2. After establishing the orientation of the optical interferometer as an intermediate reference
plane, the transformation between the optical interferometer and the independent operating
ring laser can be carried out. It is important to note that variations of the orientation of the
observing station during the measurements have to be monitored by a local interferometric
metrology system at the nanometre level. Since all the variations are measured as a
function of time, this allows to constantly keep track of any local orientational changes.
3. The last step can be considered as a re-calibration. Very similar to step 1, the orientation
of the monitored baseline is compared to a new set of interferometric observations of
catalogue stars. This is done in order to eliminate large-scale local effects that do not
show up in the metrology systems and for cross-checking purposes. The procedure is
similar to that known from photographic direction measurements to satellites.
Since it is important to have a reliable set of observations, it is very evident from the
observational requirements that this kind of technology can only be considered for a few
very good sites in the world.
Secondly, the attitude of the ring must be established to this kind of accuracy relative
to the celestial reference frame. We propose that an optical stellar interferometer be sited
close to the ring laser to facilitate this. This reference frame is itself presently known to a
precision of 100 arcs, 0.5 nrad, which in 100 m delivers an uncertainty of 50 nm. This is
therefore one order of magnitudebut only onemore stringent than is possible in principle
with current technology. We emphasize again that this suggests that the time is nowopportune
to re-evaluate the feasibility of the interferometric detection of gravitational drag from the
rotating earth. It is of special interest to note that the projected sensitivities of much larger
rings are in the region where LenseThirring signals would be detectable in principle.
5. Conclusion
The above account is deliberately less than a full design specication for a ring laser to measure
the LenseThirring effect. This would be premature, given that UGand G have only just come
on line.
We have eliminated from consideration any design based on mechanical rotations of
masses, and we have pointed out how current technology in ring laser development is now
sufciently sophisticated that the possibility must be taken seriously despite the remaining
technical difculties which we describe.
2538 G E Stedman et al
Thirdly, we have to understand the deviations of the observed Sagnac frequencies of ring
lasers from that implied in equation (3). At rst sight this may seem the most intractable
obstacle of all, in view of the signicant drifts in C-I and even C-II. However in recent
work, these deviations have been interpreted and understood in C-II to an absolute accuracy of
1 mHz, or 13 ppm. This is done by modelling the effects of backscatter (which is already
known to be an important player in C-II; see [61]) and dispersion (which is revealed by this
modelling to be also signicant, more than was previously thought), using as data the mono-
beam intensities and Sagnac modulation and also their relative Sagnac modulation phase.
This gives good hope that active servo control of the optical frequency and the mono-beam
intensities will stabilize the Sagnac frequency of C-II to a few parts per million. Residual
variations can then be modelled to give greater precision again for time-dependent effects,
and we may speculate about an accuracy of 100 parts per billion in C-II commensurate
with its present quantum-noise-limited precision (table 1), but this particular advantage is not
applicable to the effectively dc bias contribution from the LenseThirring effect. It is known
that the somewhat larger laser G0 and G is not so signicantly affected by backscatter so
that there is no pressure signature in their Sagnac time series, and that even the relatively
crude versions of UG1a with the ultra-large UG1a ring laser version reported in [19] with
Brewster windows close to the plasma is also not signicantly affected by backscatter. Given
the present strategy of avoiding Brewster windows and using super-mirrors bathed in laser gas,
plus our experience in building a range of ring lasers, we are condent that even UG100 can
operate on similar powers and plasma excitations. It should therefore benet froman attendant
dramatic decrease in the relative importance of dispersion as well as backscatter given the great
perimeter increase, making a part-per-10-billion goal a reasonable one, and indeed has already
been attained for limited times in both UG2v and G [19]. A full study of mode structure in
UG1 will be submitted for publication shortly which demonstrates incidentally that the laser
dynamics denes a characteristic time for equilibration of the laser operation after any ll, the
time increasing with the size of the laser.
A scheme for investigating the LenseThirring effect from earths rotation in an earth-
bound laboratory has been considered. The effect is within the reach of proposed ring lasers.
Its successful achievement requires a small improvement on todays state-of-the-art metrology,
and fuller development on lines has already commenced for understanding the residual drifts in
ring laser Sagnac frequencies, if it is to be discriminated fromthe standard Sagnac background.
The recent history of development in ring lasers for geodetic purposes gives promise that these
obstacles can be overcome. Table 1 gives parameters for different existing large rectangular
ring lasers.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to B Dunn and B G Wybourne for comments. This work was supported in
part by Marsden fund grant M1025GES and the support of C-II, UG by Bundesampt f ur
Kartograph und Geodesy, Technical University of Munich in the C-II, G0 and G projects, and
grants UG100, E3310, 6334, 672 E334 from University of Canterbury for the C-II, G0, UG1
and UG1a, UG1v and UG1 projects.
References
[1] Anderson R, Bilger H R and Stedman G E 1994 Am. J. Phys. 62 97585
[2] Delgado A, Schleich W P and S ussmann G 2002 New J. Phys. 4 37.137.8
[3] Ashby N and Shahid-Saless B 1990 Phys. Rev. D 42 111822
[4] Ashtekar A and Magnon A J 1975 J. Math. Phys. 16 3414
Detectability of LenseThirring eld from rotating laboratory masses 2539
[5] Aronowitz F and Ross M (ed) 1971 The Laser Gyro vol 1 (New York: Academic) pp 133200
[6] Braginsky V B, Polnarev A G and Thorne K S 1984 Phys. Rev. Lett. 53 86366
[7] Anandan J S 1992 Quantum coherence and reality Proc. Conf. on Fundamental Aspects of Quantum Theory
(Columbia SC, Dec. 1992)
Anandan J S 1994 Topological phases and their duality in em and grav elds Proc. Conf. on Fundamental
Aspects of Quantum Theory (Y Aharonovs 60th birthday) ed J S Anandan and J L Safko (Singapore: World
Scientic)
[8] Anandan J 1994 Proc. Int. Conf. on non Accelerator Particle Physics (Bangalore, Jan 29) ed R Cowik
(Singapore: World Scientic)
[9] Bondi H and Samuel J 1997 Phys. Rev. Lett. 228 1216
[10] Bezerra V B 1987 Phys. Rev. D 35 20313
[11] Chaio R Y and Anandan J S 1982 Gen. Rel. Grav. 14 51521
[12] Ciufolini D, Lucchesi D, Vespe F and Mandiello A 1996 Nuovo. Cimento A 109 57589
[13] Ciufolini D, Lucchesi D, Vespe F and Mandiello A 2002 Class. Quantum Grav. 19 387582
[14] Dehnen H 1967 Z. Nat. forsch. 22 81621
[15] Denisov V I 1999 Phys. Rev. D 60 0473014
[16] Denisov V I 1999 Gavitation and Cosmology 3 2158
[17] Doglow J S 1976 Nuovo Cimento B 52 12935
[18] Doglov A D, Khipovick L B, Vainstein A L and Zakhrovn V I 1989 Physics B 315 13852
[19] Dunn R W, Shabalin D E, Thirkettle R J, MacDonald G J, Stedman G E and Schreiber U 2002 Appl. Opt. 41
16858
[20] Hehl F W and Obukhov B 2000 Phys. Lett. A 271 915
[21] Higasa H, Ishikawa F, Shibayama M, Ono T, Yokoyama S, Nakamura S, Yamada T and Toshida Y 1994 Electr.
Eng. Japan 114 2031
[22] Ezekiel S and Bal samo S R 1977 Appl. Phys. Lett. 30 47880
[23] Harris E G 1996 Am. J. Phys. 64 37884
[24] http://www.iers.org/
[25] edu/http://einstein.stanford.edu/
[26] Gustavson T L, Landragin A and Kasevich M A 2000 Class. Quantum Grav. 17 238598
[27] L ammerzahl C, Everitt F and Hehl E (ed) 2000 Gryro, Clocks, Interferometers Testing Relativistic Gravity in
Space (Berlin: Springer)
[28] Lawerence J K, Leiter D and Szamosi G 1973 Nuovo Cimento B 17 11321
[29] Luhman T S, Strasik M, Day A C, Garrigus D F, Martin T D, McCrary K E and Ahlstrom H 1995 Applied
Superconductivity (Institute of Physics Conference Series vols 1 and 2) vol 148 pp 359
[30] Lense J and Thirring H 1918 Phys. Zeitschr. 19 15663
[31] Mashhoon B, Lense J and Thirring H 1997 Class. Quantum Grav. 14 22736
[32] Kuriyagawa A, Ihara M and Mori S 1975 Phys. Rev. D 12 29558
[33] Marder L 1959 Proc. Roy. Soc. A 252 4550
[34] Macek W M and Davies D T M 1963 Appl. Phys. Lett. 2 6788
[35] Mashhoon B 1993 Phys. Lett. A 173 34754
[36] Mashhoon B 1995 Phys. Lett. A 198 912
[37] Michelson A A, Gale H G and Pearson F 1925 Astrophys. J. 61 13745
[38] Michelson A A 1904 Phil. Mag. 9 71619
[39] Opat G I 1995 Advances in Quantum Phenomena (Nato ASI Series B Physics vol 347) ed E G Beltrametti and
J-M Levy-Leblond (New York: Plenum)
[40] Pippard A B 1988 Proc. R. Soc. A 420 8191
[41] Rosenthal A H J 1962 Opt. Soc. Am. 52 114348
[42] Rowe C H, Schreiber U, Cooper S J, King B T, Poulton M and Stedman G E 1999 Appl. Opt. 38 251623
[43] Rindler W 1994 Phys. Lett. A 183 2529
[44] Rindler W 1994 Phys. Lett. A 187 2368
[45] Semon M D 1982 Found. Phys. 12 4957
[46] Stedman G E 1997 Rep. Progr. Phys. 60 61588
[47] G E Stedman 1986 Quantum Optics IV Proc. 4th Int. Symp. (Hamilton, New Zealand) ed J D Harvey and
D F Walls (Berlin: Springer) pp 25926
[48] Schreiber K U, Kl ugel T and Stedman G E 2003 J. Geophys. Res. 108 28
[49] Schreiber U, Schneider M, Rowe C H, Stedman G E, Cooper S J, King B T, Wright D N, Schlueter W and
Seeger H 1999 Proc. Symp. Gyro Technology 1998 (Universit at Stuttgart, Institut A f ur Mechanik, Stuttgart,
Sept.) ed H Sorg pp 14.014.10
2540 G E Stedman et al
[50] Schreiber U, Schneider M, Stedman GE, Rowe CH, Schl uter W and Der P 1999 Der C-II Ringlaser als Prototyp
eines Rotationssensors f ur geowissenschaftliche Anwendungen vol 5 (Frankfurt: Verlag des Bundesampt f ur
Kartographie und Geodesie) pp 1758
[51] Scully M O, Zubairy M S and Haugan M P 1981 Phys. Rev. A 24 200916
[52] Silverman M P 1991 Phys. Lett. A 156 1313
[53] Schreiber U, Schneider M, Rowe C H, Stedman G E, Cooper S J, King B T, Wright D N, Schlueter W and
Seeger H 1998 Proc. Symp. Gyro Technology 1998 (Universit at Stuttgart, Institut A f ur Mechanik,
Stuttgart) ed H Sorg pp 16.016.5
[54] Schleich W 1991 Phys. Bl. 47 595601
[55] Schleich W and Scully M O 1964 New Trends in Atomic Physics (Le Houches Session XXXVIII) ed G Grynberg
and R Stora (Elsevier: Amsterdam)
[56] Rowe C H, Schreiber U, Cooper S J, King B T, Poulton M and Stedman G E 1999 Appl. Opt. 38 251623
[57] Schreiber U, Schneider M, Rowe C H, Stedman G E and Schl uter W 1999 Stabilising the operation of a large
ring laser Proc. Symp. Gyro Technology 1999 (Universit at Stuttgart, Institut A f ur Mechanik, Stuttgart,
Sept. 1999) ed H Sorg pp 14.014.7
[58] Theimer J and Haus J W 1977 Opt. Commun. 134 154
[59] Prade B and Vinet J-Y 1998 Nuovo. Cimento B 101 32331
[60] Pancha A, Webb T H, Stedman G E, McLeod D P and Schreiber U 2000 Geophys. Res. Lett. 27 35536
[61] Schreiber U, Rowe C H, Wright D N, Cooper S J and Stedman G E 1998 Appl. Opt. 37 837181
[62] Wagh A and Rakhecha V C 1997 Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 1399403
[63] Volkov A M, Izmestev A A, Skortskii G V, Kolkov A M and Kislev V A 1970 Sov. Phys.JETP 31 9968
Volkov A M, Izmestev A A, Skortskii G V, Kolkov A M and Kislev V A 1971 Opt. Spectrosc. 30 4113
[64] Zuang J-L and Lit W T 1993 Can. J. Phys. 71 204