PDA

View Full Version : Pioneer 10 off course: an electric universe?



Dunash
2002-Feb-11, 08:01 AM
http://www.rense.com/general20/probe.htm

Mebbe the "Electric Universe" crew were right after all!

http://www.electric-cosmos.org

DoctorDick
2002-Feb-11, 09:54 AM
Great post! I love it! Do the authorities really know what they are talking about? Now, I am not going to suport ** but your reference seems to contain a lot of reasonable questions which should certainly be checked out!

Have fun guys -- Dick

Mnemonia
2002-Feb-11, 03:59 PM
That article was good for all but one terribly BA sentence:



In June 1983, Pioneer 10 passed Pluto, the most distant planet in our solar system.


1) It may have gone farther from the Sun than Pluto, but it sure as hell did not go past the planet itself.

2) At the time, Neptune was the most distant planet, not Pluto.

Chip
2002-Feb-11, 04:37 PM
This topic was also discussed on this bulletin board in this thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=469&forum=1). Some interesting ideas expressed there. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Bob
2002-Feb-11, 04:43 PM
Checked into the website. Quick random scan. Saw that "our galaxy is a hundred thousand miles in diameter and the nearest galaxy is that much farther away." Logged off. Didn't bookmark.

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Feb-11, 04:52 PM
I'll note first that the reason for the anamolous acceleration is not known, but there are several possible reasons for it that do not include throwing away a hundred years of well-understood physics. This comes up often enough that I suppose it's time for me to research it more thoroughly and put up a web page about it.

I'll also note that the Rense site is filled with all sorts of nonsense, as has been noted. UFOs, crop circles, even the ridiculous chemtrails stuff. I wouldn't be going there for hard, factual answers.

Valiant Dancer
2002-Feb-11, 06:54 PM
On 2002-02-11 03:01, Dunash wrote:
http://www.rense.com/general20/probe.htm

Mebbe the "Electric Universe" crew were right after all!

http://www.electric-cosmos.org


One small question. Since this unknown force is indeed acting on Pioneer 10 and 11, why isn't it acting on Voyager 1 and 2? Some speculation (by scientists) has to do with the differences in the propulsion packages of both projects. Nothing is firm at this point, but it is something that scientists are working on. As for an electric universe, that's a little overreactive to an inconsistent difference. If it was an issue of an electric universe, both projects would be affected.

Donnie B.
2002-Feb-11, 07:19 PM
On 2002-02-11 13:54, Valiant Dancer wrote:

One small question. Since this unknown force is indeed acting on Pioneer 10 and 11, why isn't it acting on Voyager 1 and 2?


It's not that the unknown force is or is not acting on the Voyagers. It's that Voyager positional data is not accurate enough to see the force (which is extremely small).

The difference is in the kind of stabilization (not propulsion) used by the two probe types. The Pioneers are spin-stabilized, so they've been in pure "coast mode" for a long time. The Voyagers are thruster-stabilized, and the data on the thruster burns is not accurate enough to "null out" of the positional data; thus, it hides the mystery force.

Chip
2002-Feb-11, 08:26 PM
On 2002-02-11 14:19, Donnie B. wrote:
It's not that the unknown force is or is not acting on the Voyagers. It's that Voyager positional data is not accurate enough to see the force (which is extremely small).


Yes. And also this "extremely small force" is being directed toward the sun, not exactly all toward Voyager. In other words, as I understand it, the Voyagers are still heading out of the solar system into interstellar space. The Rense article is written to make it sound as if the probes are being pushed back in.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chip on 2002-02-11 15:27 ]</font>

Donnie B.
2002-Feb-11, 11:49 PM
On 2002-02-11 15:26, Chip wrote:


On 2002-02-11 14:19, Donnie B. wrote:
It's not that the unknown force is or is not acting on the Voyagers. It's that Voyager positional data is not accurate enough to see the force (which is extremely small).


Yes. And also this "extremely small force" is being directed toward the sun, not exactly all toward Voyager. In other words, as I understand it, the Voyagers are still heading out of the solar system into interstellar space. The Rense article is written to make it sound as if the probes are being pushed back in.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chip on 2002-02-11 15:27 ]</font>


They are being pulled or pushed inward, or sunward, by a very small amount, from where they're expected to be when all known forces are accounted for.

2002-Feb-13, 10:47 AM
<a name="20020213.4:06"> page 20020213.4:06 aka TZunomi
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=590&forum=2&2
2:ok i've surfed in from the Generl A
3:now for my view. I `poise its a Gravity Wave
4:aproaching earth from whatever direction
5: {no I dont know WHERE, I would like to}
6: the crafts are. My guess tho would be
7: in the GENERAL direction of ORION where
8: a GRAVITY WAVE would be most probably comming from.
9: as far as the other crafts NOT experiencing
8:this ? THEY may well be off in another
7: direction , maybe going away from Orion
6: I watched a TV segment last night about
5: Solar Flares..the only string i'll repeat
4: was the one about the speed being about
3: " a million miles per hour " 2&1/2 days
2: Sun to Venus.. Go figure 4:16 A.M.

Michael
2002-Feb-13, 11:37 AM
9: as far as the other crafts NOT experiencing
8:this ? THEY may well be off in another
7: direction , maybe going away from Orion

The other crafts are experiencing the acceleration. Here is a quote from NASA, "A team of planetary scientists and physicists led by John Anderson (Pioneer 10 Principal Investigator for Celestial Mechanics) has identified a tiny unexplained acceleration towards the sun in the motion of the Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11, and Ulysses spacecraft."

http://spaceprojects.arc.nasa.gov/Space_Projects/pioneer/PNStat.html

Simon
2002-Feb-13, 12:34 PM
Forgive me, because I know next to nothing about these things, but if it were a gravity wave, wouldn't it affect larger objects as well, and affect them more than smaller objects? For instance, such a wave might be detected and measured through laser-measuring the distance to the Moon.

Donnie B.
2002-Feb-13, 02:30 PM
Another problem with the gravity wave idea is that it doesn't act in the right direction.

All the spacecraft for which this effect has been measured are experiencing a small sunward acceleration. But they're all heading off in different directions, so all the anomalous force vectors point different directions (i.e., toward the sun from three different places).

If the anomaly was caused by something external to the solar system, we'd expect it to act on the spacecraft in more-or-less the same direction. At most, only one of the three could have a sunward-directed force, and it would be a strange coincidence if even one did.

What's more, a gravity wave would most likely show up as a one-time "jolt", that is, a step in the data, rather than as an ongoing effect.

However, an extra-solar-syetem origin can't be ruled out entirly yet. Only one of the three probes has really solid data. Pioneer 11 (I think) is still alive and we're still accumulating positional data. The other Pioneer is not; the data we have up to the point we lost contact shows the effect, but it's at the limit of detectability. Ulysses is far behind the other two, so its data isn't as complete.

We shall see! It's things like this that make astronomy and space exploration interesting.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Donnie B. on 2002-02-13 09:34 ]</font>

jkmccrann
2005-Nov-14, 06:45 PM
Could it be the inter-stellar wind buffeting the craft?

TravisM
2005-Nov-14, 06:55 PM
Could it be the inter-stellar wind buffeting the craft?

Again, the acceleration is toward the sun. With relation to the sun, these probes are "slowing down." Acceleration can be a misleading term if the correct frame of reference is not used.

novaderrik
2005-Nov-14, 10:29 PM
what's up with post #11? i see no name or post count, and it makes no sense...

Tensor
2005-Nov-14, 10:31 PM
That would be HUb'. Look up some of his other posts.

Karl
2005-Nov-14, 11:39 PM
The other crafts are experiencing the acceleration. Here is a quote from NASA, "A team of planetary scientists and physicists led by John Anderson (Pioneer 10 Principal Investigator for Celestial Mechanics) has identified a tiny unexplained acceleration towards the sun in the motion of the Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11, and Ulysses spacecraft."

http://spaceprojects.arc.nasa.gov/Space_Projects/pioneer/PNStat.html

The Pioneers and Ulysses are spin stabilized, the Voyagers are 3-axis stabilized using thrusters. The thrusters put too much "noise" in the acceleration data to pull out the effect, if it is there.

Blob
2005-Nov-15, 12:46 AM
Hum,
i once had a horrible idea that the magnetic field (/photon field) could affect mass.

As the probes leave the influence of the Sun they seem to lose mass, and they would slow down slightly due to gravity.

A test for this would be to weigh something near to a powerful magnetic field to see if were lighter.

The value of G would seem to vary.

&#60;Added&#62;
Just as electrons can interfere with photons in a magnetic field to give rise to super conduction; A higgs scalar field may be interfered/diminished by say a magnetic field to lower the mass of the probes (or , moon etc)
&#60;/Added&#62;

Jens
2005-Nov-15, 02:32 AM
Yes. And also this "extremely small force" is being directed toward the sun...

This may be a small point, but I don't think the direction of the acceleration is precisely known. There are three possibilities.

First, that it's an acceleration toward the sun, pointing to a gravitational cause.

Second, that it's an acceleration along the path of the probes, which would point to it being some technical issue or perhaps dark matter.

The third is that it's actually acceleration toward the earth, i.e. toward our frame of reference. I'm not sure what this would mean.

I read recently of some researcher who is trying to do calculations to try to sort out which one it is.

Blob
2005-Nov-15, 12:39 PM
I'm not sure what this would mean.


Hum,
Something that obeys an inverse square law (but in an opposite direction to gravity)

I assume that the gravity constant does not vary (ie the geometry of space-time is not somehow different for the Sun, rather than a planet or a mountain - that it has a constant gradient).

iantresman
2005-Nov-15, 05:43 PM
First, that it's an acceleration toward the sun, pointing to a gravitational cause.

And yet the Sun is a ball of plasma in an interplanetary medium of plasma, and electromagnetic forces in plasma are 1039 stronger than gravity.

Not only that, electrons in plasma will charge objects negatively (cf spacecraft charging).

My bet is on electromagnetic forces. Gravity is already accounted for.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

Tim Thompson
2005-Nov-17, 05:11 PM
This is the most recent example of a review of the Pioneer Anomaly, and how various proposed causes have been eliminated. In this case, the American Journal of Physics (http://scitation.aip.org/ajp/) is the flagship journal of the American Association of Physics Teachers (http://www.aapt.org/). The paper presents the state of current research, and an instructional problem set for classroom application, that illustrates the physics of the anomaly.


Study of the Pioneer Anomaly: A Problem Set (http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0502123), Turyshev, Nieto & Anderson, American Journal of Physics 73(11): 1033-1044
Abstract: Analysis of the radio-metric tracking data from the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft at distances between 20 and 70 astronomical units from the Sun has consistently indicated the presence of an anomalous, small, and constant Doppler frequency drift. The drift is a blueshift, uniformly changing at the rate of (5.990.01)109 Hz/s. The signal also can be interpreted as a constant acceleration of each spacecraft of (8.741.33)108 cm/s2 directed toward the Sun. This interpretation has become known as the Pioneer anomaly. We provide a problem set based on the detailed investigation of this anomaly, the nature of which remains unexplained.

While no definitive explanation has been agreed upon, there is no lack of effort in trying to find one. A few examples:


Analytic gravitational-force calculations for models of the Kuiper Belt, with application to the Pioneer anomaly (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005PhRvD..72h3004N&amp;db_key=AST&amp;d ata_type=HTML&amp;format=&amp;high=4366fa465121060), M.M. Nieto, Physical Review D 72(8): 083004, October 2005. Rules out the gravity of the kuiper belt as the source of the anomaly.
Pioneer's Anomaly and the Solar Quadrupole Moment (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005AIPC..758..129Q&amp;db_key=AST&amp;d ata_type=HTML&amp;format=&amp;high=4366fa465121060), H. Quevado, AIP Conference Proceedings 758: 129-136, April 2005. Rules out the solar quadropole moment as a source of the anomaly.
Gravity Tests in the Solar System and the Pioneer Anomaly (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005MPLA...20.1047J&amp;db_key=PHY&amp;d ata_type=HTML&amp;format=&amp;high=4366fa465121060), Jaekel & Reynaud, Modern Physics Letters A 20(14): 1047-1055, 2005. Claims that a slightly reformulated general relativity will explain the anomaly.
Present Status of the Study of the Anomalous Acceleration of the Pioneer 10/11 Spacecraft (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005IJMPA..20.2304M&amp;db_key=PHY&amp;d ata_type=HTML&amp;format=&amp;high=4366fa465121060), J.P. Mbelek, International Journal of Modern Physics A 20(11): 2304-2308, 2005. Claims the general relativity can explain the anomaly, without being reformulated.
Finding the origin of the Pioneer anomaly (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2004CQGra..21.4005N&amp;db_key=PHY&amp;d ata_type=HTML&amp;format=&amp;high=4366fa465121060), Nieto & Turyshev, Classical and Quantum Gravity 21(17): 4005-4023, September 2004. They propose a new mission designed to explore & explain the anomaly.

And ...

Indication, from Pioneer 10/11, Galileo, and Ulysses Data, of an Apparent Anomalous, Weak, Long-Range Acceleration (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1998PhRvL..81.2858A&amp;db_key=AST&amp;d ata_type=HTML&amp;format=&amp;high=4366fa465121060), J.D. Anderson, et al., Physical Review Letters 81(14); 2858-2861, October 5, 1998. The paper that started it all, the first published report of the anomaly. I'm not sure what became of Ulysses & Galileo, as far as the anomaly is concerned, but feel free to investigste the 66 papers that ciate this one and find out for yourself.


So there, the anomaly remains anomalous, as far as I know. I like the Nieto & Turyshev idea of sending up a special mission, but I think it unlikely in the current NASA budgetary environment.


And yet the Sun is a ball of plasma in an interplanetary medium of plasma, and electromagnetic forces in plasma are 1039 stronger than gravity.

Not really. That 1039 is a reference to the fact that the coupling constant between the electromagnetic field and a charged particle is 1039 times stronger, in theory, than is the coupling constant between a gravitational field and a particle mass. But how the forces actually relate to each other in any real environment depends a great deal on the details of the environment. For instance, in a charge neutral plasma, the opposite charges go a long way towards "canceling" each other, which makes gravity in fact a competitive force in such circumstances.


Not only that, electrons in plasma will charge objects negatively (cf spacecraft charging)

And keep in mind that spacecraft charging has been long known & measured. It was one fo the first things to be investigated & ruled out as a source of the anomaly (see problem 3.5 in the Nieto & Turyshev problem set).

Comment:
Pioneer Mission Homepage (http://spaceprojects.arc.nasa.gov/Space_Projects/pioneer/PNhome.html). The last signal received from Pioneer 10 was on Janury 23, 2003, and marked the end of the Pioneer mission, after 30 years in space. The Voyager spaceraft (http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/) are now in their 28th year of operation, and should surpass the 30 year mark set by Pioneer. I think it will be a long time before we are able to put up the money required to build another generation of 30-year space explorers!

turbo-1
2005-Nov-17, 07:23 PM
Let's consider that the Pioneer probes are travelling at exactly the velocity they should be. They are not slowing down, but EM is returning from them a bit faster and faster than we expect the farther they get from the Sun. The reason for this is that the speed of light in a vacuum is an approximation only. If we believe that the space is a pure vacuum and we believe that light propagates through it a fixed speed, the logical conclusion is that the probes are slowing down. If we consider that space is comprised of something, we must consider that it can be densified, and that light does not traverse all space at the same speed.

Coming at this from the viewpoint of an optician: The speed of light depends on the refractive index of the media through which it propagates. "Empty" space is not empty, but is filled with a seething sea of virtual particles (quantum vacuum). If this field is polarized (densified) by the presence of massive objects like the sun, we should expect that it will be denser near the sun and less dense farther away. EM will traverse denser space more slowly than rarified space.

This is similar to the Scharnhorst effect in which EM is expected to cross the gap between the plates in a Casimir device more quickly than that of a similar vacuum that is not constrained by the plates. The Scharnhorst effect is expected to be undetectable with present laboratory equipment, but we have (for different reasons and quite a bit prior to Klaus Scharnhorst's work) set up an EM lab with probes and a detector (telemetry station) separated by a baseline equivalent to the radius of the Solar system. Two separate probes, sent in different directions, showing us the same anomalous sunward acceleration? Occam's Razor settles this one neatly. The Pioneer probes are quantifying for us the refractive index of the space in our solar system, and by extension, they are mapping the density of the vacuum fields in that space.

Blob
2005-Nov-17, 09:26 PM
"Empty" space is not empty, but is filled with a seething sea of virtual particles (quantum vacuum). If this field is polarized (densified) by the presence of massive objects like the sun, we should expect that it will be denser near the sun and less dense farther away.
EM will traverse denser space more slowly than rarified space.


Hum,
how is it polarised?

And are you treating virtual particles lke real particles?

Anyway,
i may have picked that up wrong, but would that not show that the probes were accelerating away ?

turbo-1
2005-Nov-18, 01:04 AM
Hum,
how is it polarised?One crucial experiment of CERN's Athena project will be a test of the equivalence principle, comparing the gravitational infall rate of neutral antihydrogen to that of hydrogen. I expect that antihydrogen will exhibit a higher gravitational infall rate.

If this is true, the virtual particle pairs of the quantum vacuum will arise preferentially oriented with the antiparticle closest to the nearest dominant lump of matter and with the particle oriented farther away. I do not envision this as innate attraction of antimatter to matter, rather, it arises from the behavior of the fermions comprising the field. Virtual particles will obey the Pauli exclusion principle, just like real ones do, and will preferentially arise in the orientation that requires them to borrow the least amount of energy.


And are you treating virtual particles lke real particles?They must obey the Pauli exclusion principle, just like real particles do, and quantum theory tells us that if they can arise in an alignment that will borrow less energy, and persist longer before having to self-annihilate in accordance with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, they will do so preferentially.


Anyway, i may have picked that up wrong, but would that not show that the probes were accelerating away ?Nope. Shorter EM return times makes it look like the probes are closer than we expect, which was interpreted as if the probes were slowing down. Assuming the most likely scenario (that the probes are performing as designed), we should consider that we are serendipitously discovering something very important about the density of local space.

Blob
2005-Nov-18, 02:56 AM
Hum,

>>Athena project

ahh ok.

(i of course think that anti matter will be behave exactly the same as matter)

(And i would think that until it’s wave function collapses a virtual particle is in both states)


>>Shorter EM return times

So the presence of dust, v particles etc will increase the velocity of c in a vacuum...

turbo-1
2005-Nov-18, 03:39 AM
Hum,

>>Athena project

ahh ok.

(i of course think that anti matter will be behave exactly the same as matter)

(And i would think that until it’s wave function collapses a virtual particle is in both states)Why do you think that in a matter-dominated universe that antimatter and matter will intreract with matter in exactly the same ways?


>Shorter EM return times

So the presence of dust, v particles etc will increase the velocity of c in a vacuum...Forget dust, particles, for now: Local space has a density. Space in interstellar domains will be less-densified and light will travel more speedily through these environs than they do in our Solar system..

publiusr
2005-Nov-18, 09:07 PM
I wonder if it could be good old fashioned drag. Whatever blows an ice giant on its side is going to leave a lot of debris and gas in its wake. If the probes are collecting any type of debris (unlikely, I know) would that slow them down? Perhaps a ring of particles like a second asteroid belt but much finer and in a halo and not a plain.

The Solar Systems 'ground clutter' if you will.

turbo-1
2005-Nov-18, 11:34 PM
I wonder if it could be good old fashioned drag. Whatever blows an ice giant on its side is going to leave a lot of debris and gas in its wake. If the probes are collecting any type of debris (unlikely, I know) would that slow them down? Perhaps a ring of particles like a second asteroid belt but much finer and in a halo and not a plain.

The Solar Systems 'ground clutter' if you will.This model would have to explain how both probes experienced exactly the same steady smooth deceleration as they got further and further from the Sun. If there is clutter in the outer Solar system, we should expect that it would be arranged in bands or shells, since the massive outer planets would have swept it up or herded it into patterns that would have shown up as discontinuities in the deceleration. This was not seen. Variable light speed (dependent on vacuum density) can provide the smoothly-shortened EM return times that are observed.

Nereid
2005-Nov-18, 11:41 PM
Let's consider that the Pioneer probes are travelling at exactly the velocity they should be. They are not slowing down, but EM is returning from them a bit faster and faster than we expect the farther they get from the Sun. The reason for this is that the speed of light in a vacuum is an approximation only. If we believe that the space is a pure vacuum and we believe that light propagates through it a fixed speed, the logical conclusion is that the probes are slowing down. If we consider that space is comprised of something, we must consider that it can be densified, and that light does not traverse all space at the same speed.

Coming at this from the viewpoint of an optician: The speed of light depends on the refractive index of the media through which it propagates. "Empty" space is not empty, but is filled with a seething sea of virtual particles (quantum vacuum). If this field is polarized (densified) by the presence of massive objects like the sun, we should expect that it will be denser near the sun and less dense farther away. EM will traverse denser space more slowly than rarified space.

This is similar to the Scharnhorst effect in which EM is expected to cross the gap between the plates in a Casimir device more quickly than that of a similar vacuum that is not constrained by the plates. The Scharnhorst effect is expected to be undetectable with present laboratory equipment, but we have (for different reasons and quite a bit prior to Klaus Scharnhorst's work) set up an EM lab with probes and a detector (telemetry station) separated by a baseline equivalent to the radius of the Solar system. Two separate probes, sent in different directions, showing us the same anomalous sunward acceleration? Occam's Razor settles this one neatly. The Pioneer probes are quantifying for us the refractive index of the space in our solar system, and by extension, they are mapping the density of the vacuum fields in that space.First, welcome to BAUT, turbo-1!

Second, do you know if anyone has attempted to quantify any of these speculations, to the point where the Pioneer anomaly data can be used as inputs to models, from which come predictions (for phenomena other than the Pioneer anomaly)?

turbo-1
2005-Nov-19, 03:37 PM
First, welcome to BAUT, turbo-1!

Second, do you know if anyone has attempted to quantify any of these speculations, to the point where the Pioneer anomaly data can be used as inputs to models, from which come predictions (for phenomena other than the Pioneer anomaly)?Thank you for the gracious welcome, helpful sea-lady.

I am not aware of any other person studying quantum vacuum fields who has considered the Pioneer effect in this manner. At least they haven't published their findings in a format that I can find using Google, etc. Please understand that I am working alone on this model, part-time, so it is still in an early stage of development. I would welcome an energetic collaborator with good math skills.

OOM Quantification: The Pioneer effect is an observed ~40ppm reduction in the expected EM return time from each probe by a radius of about 70 AU from the Sun. The trick is to find out at what rate the reduction occured over the life of the probes, so we can map the density of the vacuum in the Solar system. I anticipate that the density will fall off in good accordance with the inverse square law, since that approximation works very well on Solar system scales.

On galactic and cluster scales, I expect that things will get very messy, and that we will have to infer vacuum field densities from the combination of their refractive effects and their apparent gravitational effects (galactic rotation curves, excess cluster binding, etc). This presupposes that we can calmly shift gears and consider that the quantum vacuum is real, and that it has observable effects on cosmological scales. I do not expect this to happen overnight - the concepts of dark matter and dark energy have a lot of money (and careers!) invested in them and they will die hard.

As for mapping the vacuum density of the Solar system: the early Pioneer telemetry data is stored on old magnetic tapes that may or may not be still readable. The Planetary Society is sponsoring the effort to preserve these records and get the data transferred to media that are more amenable to high-speed data reduction, so we should have our map of the density of local space sometime soon. Please note that I have no association with the Planetary Society - I just want to steal the Pioneer data for my own evil purposes when they have recovered it. :evil:

http://www.planetary.org/programs/projects/pioneer_anomaly/