Re: physics for ex-farmers

Oh No <notI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes

Oz wrote:

Eh? Far too big, surely? Knocking on for 10% for only 1AU in radius vs
the lots and lots (light-hours) of expanding space between pioneer and
ourselves.

It's always possible that I have miscalculated, since I am prone to
that. However, the little spread*** I have done, which gives the
correct part, ~60km/s for the MONDian motion of the sun, also gives
about 1.8 m/s for the MONDian motion of the Earth and 2.2 m/s for the
MONDian motion of mars. This compares to 29784 for the gravitational
motion of the Earth and 24158 for gravitational motion of Mars.

Um....
Anderson is talking about an *acceleration* of +-1.6E-8 cm/s^2 to go
along with the sunward one. Now this is as seen from earth but remember
that there are a host of corrections that have been made, not least
doppler due earth's motion.

Now an acceleration of 1.8m/s

this is a velocity

per quarter year (which is what Pioneer
would see, to first approx is 2E-7m/s/s or 2E-5 cm/s/s, three orders of
magnitude larger than the observed 2e-8 cm/s/s.

Its not what pioneer sees, its how earth sees pioneer.

If I am right this MONDian motion should be observed from Pioneer, but
can't be observed from Earth.

I'm sure there is some parallax involved in viewing pioneer over a year.
It will, of course, be very much less than your figure above.

If the MONDian motion of mars is visible from Earth, it corresponds to
shifts of up to 0.7 m/s in Doppler between earth and mars. For
satellites the figure is smaller, but one is still talking in terms of
mm/s I think. Now, while (apart from Cassini) I have no citable
instance, I have been looking at the use of ranging in satellite
navigation. Passive lasar ranging (bounce a laser of a satellite) is
extremely accurate, but not expected to yield a shift, because the
signal starts on Earth. Active ranging means that the satellite
recieves a signal and has to send back a signal in response. It breaks
down for pioneer because it takes pioneer several minutes to decode a
signal, given noise levels. Nonetheless it is used quite extstensively
in different measurements between satellites, where response times are
rapid, and as I recall it gives much more accurate results than cm/s.
No anomaly has been spotted and I think it would have been.

Hmm, maybe. Typically stuff like this that gets in the way of what
people actually want to measure is assigned off to an unknown error
system and they get on with their proper work. Life is too short.

Of course I
could be wrong, but on balance, and together with the Cassini result
and the calculation from Pioneer, I have pushed this option to the
bottom of the pile for now.

You have to face up to choosing one thing or the other.
What this does mean is that you must admit to being fairly confused
about your own theory. I think this is normal, but its best not to
wriggle to massage your theory to experiment but to clearly understand
the physics of both. You should also bear in mind that experimental
results that go against theory tend to be repressed and thus not
published, and experimentalists take appropriate steps....

Oh, but hang on. Different effects may be involved. Mond is an angular
separation effect but IIRC this is only 1/32th hubble, so even smaller.
NB Later they give it as 1.6E-8 but it could be less.

Yes, but it is converted into an angular motion, which comes out larger
than the corresponding acceleration toward the centre of coords.

Not a lot of angular motion between pioneer as seen from earth...

Thing is though, I do have two different motions for light. When the
path of a light ray can be plotted in a single reference frame,
geodesic motion as in general relativity.

Eh? Is this reference frame flat? I think not in general.

No, its not.

When the initial and final
states in quantum theory cannot be described in a single reference
frame and a different one must be used for each ahd the only
communication from one to the other is the light itself, and no path
can be plotted in a reference frame, the teleconnection law applies.

This doesn't make sense.

I agree, it is bizarre.

Its picky-choosey and thus BAD.
Furthermore I don't think it should be necessary.
What you are actually saying is, I think, that its a teleconnection on
the light cone, but GR inside it.

Of course we don't like this. For example does a neutrino from the big
bang follow GR or is it close to being a teleconnection? After all it
may have interacted with nothing between then and now.

OTOH a massive body (say a hydrogen atom, or even nucleus) is
continually mutually interacting.

We should discuss the philosophy of this a bit, reply using another
thread. I don't think you are very clear.

But I don't think it is actually any more
bizarre than a Young's slits experiment. The apparent wave passes
through one or both slits depending on whether it is possible to
measure which slit it passes through.

Of course I would say its a wave, pure, and goes through both slits..

What is important here is whether
it is possible in principle. Thus,

a) pass an electron through the slits in perfect darkness - it goes
through both slits
b) pass an electron through the slits with a laser light shining on the
back of the slits and a detector which can identify which slit- it goes
through one slit.
c) pass an electron through the slits which diffuse light on the back
of the slits, but no detector actually in place - it still goes through
one slit

Unless you interact with it, whereupon its must have only gone through
one slit.

The limits must surely be:

1) Lightbeam: entirely Franciscan.

No, a beam, which can be detected in principle at any point on its
path, is geodesic, relativistic.

Then you are buggered because a radio beam, as sent by pioneer, is in
effect a very perfect laser beam of low frequency. Its coherence time is
measured in days.

2) Massive body path in limit as v->0 = relativistic = newtonian.

In practice you always have a mixture of a) and c), depending on how
much light shines on the back of the slits and what the chance of
hitting the electron with a photon is. Also, I doubt the experiment is
doable in this simple form, but there are equivalent, and doable
experiments.

I'm not talking about slits here. Yes the slit experiment can be done
easily and it is correlated with the chance of scattering a photon by an
electron.

The internal effective frame of the solar system is type (2) since we
have had centuries to generate the structure of the physical frame and
franciscan corrections are very small *for traversals of light*. Even
pioneer only shows hints of franciscan light effects despite hugely
accurate equipment.

Note that Anderson seem to suspect that pioneer is actually NOT at the
position suggested by the doppler route, but is following an inertial
path.

Apparently Anderson is quite excited at the prospect that this is new
physics. Turyshev much more cautious.

Quite, which is why he is a unique sort of person.

I think this is what is going on in the Pioneer motion, and that the
effect really is "switched on" when the path leaves the inner solar
system just as it was observed.

By a three horned deity carrying a basket of magnolias, I expect... PAH!

No. There really is a fundamental difference in the situation when
initial and final states are describable in the same reference frame,
as compared to when they are not.

Give me a pair of examples in the new thread....

The issue is in describing exactly
when each of these situations applies.

Quite ....

The orbits are actually newtonian, only the redshift has this previously
unmodelled extra term. Its very very small within the solar system and
easily swamped by other effects until you are in the wild empty spaces
far from the sun, the gas giants and the solar wind is attenuated. Even
then the major correction term is for the radiation pressure produced by
the occasional use of the ship's transmitter (10% in the wrong
direction!).

I confess I felt well satisfied with this solution while I thought it
worked, and had it been experimentally determinable it would have been
something of a coup. But I am now pushed back to my original thoughts,
which were all to do with quantum measurement. Perhaps you could try
googling for "satellite ranging" and see what you make of it. One
cannot argue with measurement results, only with measurement methods.

Don;t be too trustful of all experimentalist, they are about as reliable
as the average theoretician and have as many kooks.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.



.