Re: physics for ex-farmers

Thus spake Oz <Oz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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.

Indeed. They have also found a diurnal acceleration which as I recall
was of a similar magnitude. Given the hosts of corrections and the
finite accuracy of computer simulations I thought Anderson's
explanation
reasonable.

Now an acceleration of 1.8m/s

this is a velocity

per quarter year

per quarter year makes it into acceleration

(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.

Yes. But if the effect is present in the inner solar system then the
effect on the earth must form part of when we see of pioneer. e.g. in
the galaxy the effect must cancel when we look at local stars, or we
would appear to be going at 60km/s faster than them.

With the explanation I have, I am happy that the effect can be non-
symmetrical. I.e. Pioneer would see a mondian increase in orbital
velocity of earth, while we see a uniform acceleration for 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.

Of course. That is one of the corrections which they take into account.


Note: The method of measuring position of Pioneer by Doppler is not
simply a calculation using velocity and the last known position. It is
based on a calculation using parallax over 24 hrs. The amount of
fluctuation in Doppler over 24 hours tells them the parallax, and hence

they calculate distance.

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.

I know. That is why I am not prepared to eliminate this entirely, but
it
does seem to me I am looking for shifts a few orders of magnitude
larger
than the expected errors.

Incidentally Anderson put the pioneer anomaly on the back burner for
over two years before telling anyone about it. Only after he told
Nieto,
(iirc) did they actually start to do any work on it.


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,

I don't feel too ashamed about a certain amount of confusion thinking
about something no one has ever thought about before, especially if it
a
quantum effect.

but its best not to
wriggle to massage your theory to experiment but to clearly understand
the physics of both.

Indeed. My method attempts to work like this

1. Ask what assumptions are correct, based on a study of how we do
measurement.
2. Deduce consequences
3. Confirm results
4. challenge assumptions and deductions and revise if required.

In practice it is not so clear cut. However, I am happy that I have
come
back to my original thoughts about what is logical based on ideas in
foundations of quantum theory, and that I think I have clarified them
(see requested new thread). All the various challenges I have raised
seem to have removed possible alternatives.

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....

All of that adds to the complications.

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...

Earth does not measure much angular motion of pioneer. Pioneer should
see angular motion of earth quite clearly, and hence Pioneer should see

a Mondian component, 1.8 m/s in orbital velocity greater than the true
velocity. This implies that the shift is not symmetrical in
observations
by earth and by pioneer - itself an oddity compared to all other
physical situations I can think of.

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.

No, I think that is what you are saying (strange thing, communication).

I am saying:
one reference frame=> gr; two reference frames=>teleconnection.

(The number of books of gtr which scarcely mention reference frames is
an absolute disgrace, no one thinks about them properly. Wald, the
bible
of good relativists it seems, does not mention reference frames at
all!)

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.

The issue is whether it is continuously measureable.

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.

Ok. I have finally got a new draft of what I want to say in the paper.

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..

And after all the effort I have gone to show you that the wave arises
only in a non-physical configuration space as a result of mathemagickal

dullskuggery too. Would you also say that a complex number is a real
physical object?

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.

Yes. But a geodesic path can only be defined with respect to a
reference
frame. In the bit between reference frames, one is knackered.

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

new thread coming





Regards

--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email

.