Fundamental Parameters and Current (2004) Best Estimates of the Parameters of Common Relevance to Astronomy, Geodesy, and Geodynamics by Erwin Groten, IPGD, Darmstadt

At present, systems of fundamental constants are in a state of transition. Even though the uncertainties of many constants have substantially decreased, the numerical values themselves did not substantially change. On the other hand, relativistic reductions and corrections underwent a variety of revisions that, however, did not yet find final agreement within the scientific working groups of international committees in charge of evaluating relevant quantities and theories. Consequently, substantial changes and revisions still have to be expected in IAU, IERS, IUGG etc. within the next few years. Therefore SC 3 (i.e. the old structure), after lengthy discussions and considerations, decided not to propose, at this time, any change of existing geodetic reference systems such as WGS 84 (in its recent form updated by NIMA, 1997) and GRS 80. This would only make sense in view of relatively small numerical changes which would not justify, at this moment, complete changes of systems and would rather produce more confusion within user communities – as soon as working groups within IAU, IERS etc. have made up their minds concerning the background of new systems and will be prepared to discuss new numerical values. This should be around the year 2004. The present situation is also reflected by the fact that in view of substantial progress in evaluating temporal changes of fundamental „constants“ and related accuracies, we should better speak about „fundamental parameters“ instead of „fundamental constants“. Interrelations between IERS, IAU, IAG etc. make it, however, more difficult to implement necessary changes in fundamental systems. This was particularly realized in discussing adoption of new fundamental constants. This fact may be explained by the discussion of small changes inherent in the adoption of particular tidal corrections which became relevant in view of higher accuracies of ± 10 8 or ± 10. It turns out to be almost impossible to explain to other scientific bodies the modern relevance of the dependence of the numerical value of the semi-major axis „a“ of the Earth on specific tidal corrections. Other temporal variations imply similar difficulties. From the view point of users, i.e. in deriving fundamental parameters, it is, to some extent, confusing that a variety of global or/and regional systems exist; it would be best to use only one global terrestrial and one celestial system such as ITRF, referred to a specific epoch, and an associated celestial system, unless precise transition and transformation formulae are available such as those between ETRF, ITRF, EUREF, and perhaps WGS 84 (in updated form), IGS, GRS 80 etc. where IERS-systems, in general, could serve to maintain transformation accuracy and precision. However, the consequent replacement of „a“ by a quantity such as the geopotential at the geoid W0 (which is independent of tides) in a geodetic reference system (or a similar system) was not well understood and not supported by other working groups so that we finally gave up the idea of a reformation of systems of fundamental constants in this way even though quantities such as W0 are now precisely determined by satellite altimetry etc. Whether seasonal variations (Bursa et al. 1998a) of W0 are significant or not is still an open question, when expressed in R0 = GM/W0 they amount to a few centimeters in global radius.

[1]  F. Sansò,et al.  The multibody space‐time geodetic boundary value problem and the Honkasalo term , 1984 .

[2]  R. Rapp An estimate of equatorial gravity from terrestrial and satellite data , 1987 .

[3]  S. M. Kopejkin Relativistic manifestations of gravitational fields in gravimetry and geodesy. , 1991 .

[4]  M. Burṥa The four primary geodetic parameters , 1992 .

[5]  John C. Ries,et al.  Progress in the determination of the gravitational coefficient of the Earth , 1992 .

[6]  M. Cheng,et al.  Tidal deceleration of the Moon's mean motion , 1992 .

[7]  M. I. Yurkina Determination of Stokes' constants respecting zero -frequency tidal term due to the Moon and the Sun , 1993 .

[8]  N. K. Pavlis,et al.  Temporal variations of the Earth's gravitational field from satellite laser ranging to LAGEOS , 1993 .

[9]  David E. Smith,et al.  Contributions of Space Geodesy to Geodynamics : Earth Dynamics , 1993 .

[10]  Richard H. Rapp,et al.  Geoid undulation accuracy , 1993, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing.

[11]  D. Nesvorný,et al.  Refinement of the geopotential scale factorR0 on , 1994 .

[12]  Bob E. Schutz,et al.  Gravity model development for TOPEX/POSEIDON: Joint gravity models 1 and 2 , 1994 .

[13]  E. Groten Global tidal parameters , 1994 .

[14]  R. Nerem,et al.  Gravity model improvement using the DORIS tracking system on the SPOT 2 satellite , 1994 .

[15]  James G. Williams,et al.  Contributions to the Earth's Obliquity Rate, Precession, and Nutation , 1994 .

[16]  J. Williams,et al.  Lunar Laser Ranging: A Continuing Legacy of the Apollo Program , 1994, Science.

[17]  E. Groten,et al.  The celestial and terrestrial departure points and their various aspects in geodesy and astrometry , 1994 .

[18]  R. Rapp,et al.  Mean sea surface and geoid gradient comparisons with TOPEX altimeter data , 1994 .

[19]  E. Groten A comment on fundamental geodetic constants , 1995 .

[20]  L. V. Morrison,et al.  Long-term fluctuations in the Earth’s rotation: 700 BC to AD 1990 , 1995, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[21]  V. Dehant,et al.  Comparison between values of the dynamical flattening of the Earth derived from various kinds of observations (precession, J2, seismology). , 1996 .

[22]  V. Dehant,et al.  On the precession constant: Values and constraints on the dynamical ellipticity; link with Oppolzer terms and tilt-over-mode , 1996 .

[23]  E. Grafarend,et al.  W0: an estimate in the Finnish Height Datum N60, epoch 1993.4, from twenty-five GPS points of the Baltic Sea Level Project , 1997 .

[24]  David E. Smith,et al.  The Development of the NASA GSFC and NIMA Joint Geopotential Model , 1997 .

[25]  J. Kouba,et al.  Mean Earth'S Equipotential Surface From Topex/Poseidon Altimetry , 1998 .

[26]  J. Kouba,et al.  Monitoring Geoidal Potential on the Basis of Topex/Poseidon Altimeter Data and EGM96 , 1998 .

[27]  M. Burṥa,et al.  On The Determination Of The Earth's Model – The Mean Equipotential Surface , 1998 .

[28]  E. Grafarend,et al.  World Geodetic Datum 2000 , 1999 .

[29]  J. Kouba,et al.  Geoidal Geopotential and World Height System , 1999 .

[30]  Eliot A. Cohen,et al.  National Imagery and Mapping Agency , 2001 .

[31]  Determination of Geopotential Differences between Local Vertical Datums and Realization of a World Height System , 2001 .

[32]  E. Grafarend,et al.  Somigliana–Pizzetti gravity: the international gravity formula accurate to the sub-nanoGal level , 2001 .

[33]  A. N. Marchenko,et al.  Evolution of the Earth's principal axes and moments of inertia: the canonical form of solution , 2001 .

[34]  E. Pavlis Dynamical Determination of Origin and Scale in the Earth System from Satellite Laser Ranging , 2002 .

[35]  Toshio Fukushima,et al.  A New Precession Formula , 2003 .