Re: physics for ex-farmers

Thus spake Oz <Oz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Oh No <notI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
Well the papers are with the institute of physics. It's got past the
editor and the web tracking page tells me that two referees have felt
unable to report,

Isn't that remarkable?
OK, I know they aren't paid, but a quick rejection doesn't take long.

Not entirely. Those interested in foundations of quantum theory rarely
seem to know much about general relativity, and vice versa.

but it has been with a third for about 10 days now,
so
presumably he is having a shot.

Or is on holiday, marking papers, or hasn't yet got round to looking at
it.

true

I expect it to take at least a couple
of
months before he reports.

Yes.

Meanwhile I come more and more to the feeling that I am still missing a
vital piece of the jigsaw concerning the Pioneer acceleration and MOND.
I am reasonably happy that the analysis given is basically right, and I
am pretty convinced that I now know how to extend it to the Milky Way.
The teleconnection removes the undetermined interpolation function from
MOND, and gives a better fit with data in the intermediate regime than
MOND, but I am still having trouble with the solar system.

I don't think there is anything that conclusively shows this, but the
indications seem to be that if the doppler anomaly is present in the
inner solar system it would have been picked up in other measurements
than Pioneer.

I don't know how many times I have to tell you that this is unlikely.
Firstly the adjustment must surely be cyclical so that a body arriving
in the same relative position/velocity will always show the same
classical position. After all you have shown the classical
correspondence.

Certainly I am expected classical positions. It's a matter of whether
Doppler shows anything non-classical. Cassini, for example, did not
pick
up anything in measurements of bending of light around the sun. The
measurements were so precise that an anomalous Doppler shift should
have
shown. But if the inner solar system defines classical reference frame,

there should be no anomalous Doppler, so that actually makes sense too.


The problem is writing down precisely the conditions for a classical
reference frame. It is obvious for a local frame on earth defined by
solid matter and classical clock. For such a local frame there is no
meaningful definition of expansion. But for an object in space it
becomes the case that we can only look at it from measurements of light

between us and the object, and we start having to use quantum coords,
which do allow expansion. The suggestion is that this started to apply
to Pioneer at about the time it passed Saturn and went into an unbound
orbit. But I really need to state the precise conditions under which
this happened.

So the only sensible detector (emitter) would be an artificial satellite
orbiting one of the planets and from that spot the minute drift
depending on its distance from earth. Trouble is you have a myriad
corrections to make. Planetary gravity will slow clocks, there will be
(true) doppler every rotation, the satellite will probably change
temperature and make regular rocket bursts to point the
satellite/equipment at interesting objects. There will be solar wind
effects and (probably) planetary magnetic fields all trying to move the
satellite.

Yes. In bound orbits inward acceleration doesn't imply a drift, but an
apparent increase in orbital velocities. But it is of the order of
1-2m/s, so its not so small.


But I think the fundamental problem is that I still can't state clearly
the condition under which the anomalous shift is observed. I have gone
back to thinking that it has to do with continuous measurement in a
reference frames. As it seems to me everything in the inner solar
system
contained in well defined reference frame, defined by classical
motions.

On average it is, as I pointed out before, bodies return to the same
relative position rather frequently and you show that in this situation
mond (which is a correction to redshift) SUPPORTS THE CLASSICAL
NEWTONIAN ORBITS. That is, your correction isn't a correction but a
refinement. It pretty well only applies to bodies travelling close to
lightspeed.

No, it is a substantial correction. The sun's apparent orbital velocity

about the Milky way is 220km/s, of which about 60km/s is non-Newtonian.

Hmmm...
Have you considered looking at any anomalies associated with
superluminal jets from the black holes in galactic nuclei and/or
supernovae? I have a memory that these don;t quite add up properly
either.

Sounds much too complicated, and too many unknowns.

Under such circumstances quantum wave functions are constantly
collapsing to yield classical motions, and with that we should expect
also classical Doppler measurements.

This idea of collapse is a crutch you should have put in its rightful
place by now.

Collapse is definitely a quite vital part of the derivation. This is a
key idea. In an expanding universe collapse causes renormalisation of
momentum, without which I would not be able to derive geodesic motion.

We see classical doppler because the f*cking bodies are
actually where newton said they would be.

We see classical doppler in a rigid reference frame which cannot
expand,
as defined by classical planetary motions. We have classical planetary
motions because we can do continuous classical measurements. Remember
quantum motions go from one measurement (initial state) to the next
(final state). A classical motion is modeled as a sequence of quantum
motions, all very close together. When the teleconnection (remote
connection) is used for close together states it reduces to an affine
(meaning close) connection. That is why it gives the classical
correspondence.

For a distant galaxy, there is no way it can be considered as part of
the same classical reference frame as the solar system, and under such
circumstances I expect an anomalous shift, yielding the MONDian law.

The shift is NOT anomalous, only the conventional way of interpreting
it. Its like someone with no knowledge of GR putting an anomalous shift
in a gravitational field. Its only anomalous if you misinterpret it.

That is perhaps strictly true.

My original thought was that Pioneer was not bound to the solar system,
ergo the anomalous shift, and I have gone back to thinking this is
probably the answer.

Bollocks....
Everything will obey the same laws....

Certainly, WHEN the laws can be properly defined for empirical
processes.

But if that is the case I should be able to write
down a clear criterion as to why Pioneer cannot be treated as a
classical motion in the solar system. As you remember, I thought it was

Aaargh! Its path IS CLASSICAL.
Only the doppler shift isn't 'classical'.

That is what I have been saying.

Just like stars in the mondian range of a galaxy, they are in fact
orbiting newtonianally with the galaxy mass and distribution being as
seen and NOT requiring dark matter (which ain't there).

That too. But I wonder. Perhaps I got it wrong. What if "space" is
shifting under pioneer, owing to the fact that there is no way of doing

classical 3 d measurements. If the impossibility of measurement makes
defining a path impossible, how could you say the classical path is
followed? I need to make myself certain I have not misunderstood the
implication.

because it was in a non-bound orbit, a solution much scorned by Oz. But
I don't think it is as simple as that, because it raises the issue of
why bound orbits in the Milky way exhibit a shift, whereas those in the
solar system don't.

See (well) above.

Meanwhile I have found indication within the Galaxy which may yield a
clear result. The distance to the Pleiades has been measured by
parallax
using the Hipparcos satellite. This is not consistent with other
determinations which use Doppler as part of the method. It is about 10%

lower. They now think the Hipparcos measurement was in error (will be
repeated with greater accuracy by Gaia, due for launch in 2011). But if

true orbital velocities are less than currently thought, the other
method would also give a lower result. Haven't calculated yet,

Unfortunately not a prediction then ...

Not even a retrodiction, as yet.

If the Hipparcos meausurement turns out to be right, it will
alter
the Cepheid scale and increase Hubble's constant by 10%, much closer
the
value of Hc given by Pioneer, and I will get a better fit with big bang

nucleosynthesis too.

There, you see. You worry too much ...

It could be first direct proof that apparent Doppler is not true
motion.



Regards

--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ive proved Einstein Wrong. What Happens Now?
    ... When you make up a thought experiment, the only measurements that you ... allow are measurements made at a distance. ... This has nothing whatever to do with clocks, observers, movement ... they are simultaneous in only one reference frame. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905
    ... I throw a long javelin at the moon. ... >> prefer) work well as short versions of inertial reference frame, ... > observers that can make measurements simultaneously. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905
    ... I throw a long javelin at the moon. ... >> prefer) work well as short versions of inertial reference frame, ... > observers that can make measurements simultaneously. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Two Studies (Andromeda Rotation)
    ... "Geometry is claimed from 'direct measurement of orbital motions in a disk ... "Measurements of proper motions in spiral nebulae by A. van Maanen indicated ... Maanen's proper motion measurements. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Two Studies (Andromeda Rotation)
    ... "Geometry is claimed from 'direct measurement of orbital motions in a disk ... "Measurements of proper motions in spiral nebulae by A. van Maanen indicated ... Maanen's proper motion measurements. ...
    (sci.physics)