Carlos Castro's Cosmological Model of Pioneer 10/11 Anomaly
From: Jack Sarfatti (sarfatti_at_pacbell.net)
Date: 10/16/04
- Next message: K Saff: "Re: X/0 DEFINED"
- Previous message: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: More on my work with primes"
- Next in thread: Porky Pig Jr: "Re: Carlos Castro's Cosmological Model of Pioneer 10/11 Anomaly"
- Reply: Porky Pig Jr: "Re: Carlos Castro's Cosmological Model of Pioneer 10/11 Anomaly"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 17:59:42 GMT
bcc
On Oct 16, 2004, at 2:49 AM, Carlos Castro wrote:
"Dear Friends :
Thank you very much for your last mails.
There is a lot, a lot, a lot of confusion that I
need to clarify so that errors and misunderstandings
will not propagate in the internet :
1- I sent Brian 3 files, however, the one on the
"Dual Phase Space Relativity, Mach principle and
Modified Newtonian Dynamics"
has nothing to do with Clifford Geometric Algebras.
It is only based on Max Born's Dual Relativity
Principle in Phase Spaces and Ernst Mach.
This is the paper that can be understood by
everybody, by an undergraduate because there is no
fancy Math at all. This is waht I meant.
2- An important ( in my opinion) finding is based
on the maximal proper force in Nature = related to
Born's Dual Principle of Relativity combined with
Mach's ideas about the interplay among all of the
masses in the Universe : the micro-world with the
macro-world."
I agree that this is an interesting conjecture. The conjecture formally is
mpc^2/Lp ~ MucH ~ c^4/G = superstring tension.
This is "Goldstone phase rigidity" or "space-time stiffness" in my
macro-quantum coherent Higgs Ocean theory.
How do you connect it to the math of Born's Dual Conjecture? I will see
if I can understand what you say about that in your paper.
You make the interesting prediction that ~ 10^-7 cm/sec^2 is the
smallest possible acceleration that can be measured. I bet it is not
true, but if it is, very important.
I do not see why Pioneer 10/11 at only 20-70 AU from us should show that
effect, and why in your model it points back to Sun. I do explain all
that in my model in a falsifiable way that connects to inflationary
cosmology.
"I just equated the maximal proper force =
F = Planck mass x ( c^2 / Planck scale )
with an upper value of a Mass ( " universe " ) times
a minimal a = ( c^2 / R ) ,
if we identify R = upper scale = asymptotic value of
Hubble radius."
Yes, but WHY should that apply to Pioneer 10/11? This is a logical gap I
am not able to cross.
"and from here ... I end up with the Dirac-Eddignton
number 10^{ 80 } and 10^{ 80 } protons = M , etc ...
etc...."
Yes, but that is outmoded
"3- I took a look at Jack's pdf file of 6 pages.
Unfortunately he says a lot of things which are
incorrect. He needs to correct them as soon as
posible so errors do not propagate in the internet."
I see no errors other than a very minor 4pi typo that I fixed last night
before I even read Tony's message on it. If you see any errors spell
them out. It is not enough to say there are errors without being
specific. If you point out any that really are physical conceptual
errors I will correct them. I am publishing this soon, so any errors you
see will be corrected.
"The paper I mentioned above in items 1, 2 has nothing
to do with a fractal spacetime, nor q-deformations,
nor Clifford Geometric algebras etc... nothing to do
with that at all .
What I was saying is that the Pioneer anomaly COULD
be just a result of Ernst Mach's ideas and Born's
Dual Principle of Relativity. This is ALL."
That is not good enough. That does not qualify as a properly posed
explanation to my mind. All you can say here is that there is an
interesting coincidence between the Pioneer 10/11 anomaly and the number
cH. You have not explained anything there. You need to show a model WHY
Pioneer is showing cH and why the anomaly points back towards the Sun.
You have not done that at all to my mind. I have. My model may be wrong,
I don't think it is, but it does make sense in terms of Newton's
potential theory, i.e. weak curvature, low test particle speed limit of
Einstein's GR. It is obvious in my model why the direction. It is
completely obscure in your model.
"It does not require any fancy Math, nor Clifford
algebras, fractals, q-deformatiosn, strings .... as
Jack implies. It is NOT true and needs to be
corrected."
Oh, is that what you mean by "errors"? That was a general comment. I
think now we agree that your Pioneer remark has little to do with the
powerful math in your papers that you said I must understand before I
could understand your Pioneer remark. Now you seem to be back-tracking
on that.
"4- Nottale's expanation of the Pioneer anomaly has
nothing to do with fractals."
Perhaps, but it should.
"It is all based on
Mach's principle."
How? Spell it out thanks.
"Nottale just reconciles a local
coordinate system with a global one by simply matching
two metrics at the orbital distances of the Pioneer
spacecraft. This is all he does. His number has a
square root of 3 floating around so it is not exactly
equal to c^2 / R ."
This makes no sense to me at all. I would need to see it spelled out in
detail. I don't care about 3^1/2 or 4pi factors at this stage. I need to
see what the idea here is. All I need in my model is Newton's gravity
theory - Physics 101 and the idea of the exotic vacuum halo centered on
the Sun with a plausible functional dependence that fits the data easily.
"5- I discussed the Pioneer anomaly because I wanted
also to refer to the work of Nottale on this subject
that was based on Ernst Mach ideas."
These, so far, are loose associations that need conceptual tightening to
be understood. I am not saying these connections are not there, but they
need much more explaining. Mach's ideas are outmoded BTW. I would not
bet on Mach's ideas based on a primitive notion of "matter" - not since
1999 at least. Before then, maybe.
"My " interpretation " of the Pioneer anomalous
acceleration was that if the universe was created out
of the vacuum, as a Planck-size bubble vacuum
fluctuation (or an statistical ensemble of bubbles)
that was initially accelerating (expanding)with
a maximal acceleration
a = c^2 / Planck , etc...
where the Planck scale is the minimal scale,
then as matter/radiation is being created via the
Unruh-Rindler-Hawking effect ( due to the acceleration
w.r.t vacuum ) then the acceleration of the our
bubble-universe begins to slow down and down and
eventually it will reach the minimal acceleration
a = c^2 / R
due to the postulate of a MAXIMAL scale in Nature."
Oh! OK. If you had said that in the first place, that would have avoided
a lot of confusion. All you need to have said was that. Instead, you
told me to go read all the math in your papers instead of clearly
stating you intuitive idea that is easy to understand. OK I will quote
you on that. So you are then predicting something like the Hubble
expansion where every point of observation is the "center". You are
saying that ALL objects, no matter where or when should show this
effect. This is not peculiar to to Pioneer 10/11.
Also, we need not to confuse this with Tony's cH, which is different.
Your "R" is my LpR(t).
We are now both saying
a ~ c^2/LpR(t) =/= cH although the numbers happen to be similar.
Therefore, t will be different for different objects in the sky. So your
intuitive idea here makes sense to me now, and seems to be a falsifiable
plausible cosmological alternative to my more local exotic vacuum halo
model. Both models make different predictions and can be tested. OK,
that's progress.
Had you simply said initially, that the observation of the Pioneer
anomaly is the red-shifted stretched out maximal acceleration from the
Big Bang and that the Pioneer Anomaly is pointing to a UNIVERSAL effect
that should be seen in all distant objects, then I would have understood
you. The direction of the effect comes from the isotropic homogeneous
stretching of the dimensionless FRW R(t) scale factor, the same in every
direction. I am not saying that your explanation is the right one, but
now at least I understand what your idea is and we do not need any of
the fancy math.
"Hence, if the bubble-universe as a whole is
accelerating today with respect to a preferred frame
of reference = the vacuum, there is a non-inertial
" pseudo-force " acting today on the Galileo-Pioneer
spacecraft of the order of
a = c^2 / R , directed towards the sun, that agrees
with observation."
This part I do not understand. This c^2/LpR(t) should already be part of
the Hubble flow.
That is, for example in
v = Hr
or
R(t)/R(0) = 1/[1 + z(t)]
where the convention is t = 0 is NOW.
So infinite z is the big bang, and now is z = 0 with z > 0 RED SHIFT
from the past and z < 0 = BLUE SHIFT from the future. Note that R(0) =
10^61 in units of Lp.
The idea is that the source and the receiver are both at "rest" in the
local Hubble flows. Any additional z comes from Doppler motion relative
to Hubble flow.
You are positing something similar for rate of change of z. That is,
something like
dz(t)/dt = mpc^2/hR(t)
Where R(0) = 10^61, t = 0 is NOW in this convention.
This is a different convention from my use of t' = h/kTcbr
t = t' - h/kTcbr(now)
"Concluding, it is my opinion, that there is no
simple explanation of the Pioneer anomaly unless we
invoke Ernst Mach ideas and Max Born's Dual Principle
of Relativity."
I strongly disagree. I see no logical necessary connection of the basic
idea to either Mach's or Born's conjectures neither of which have proved
useful in modern physics - so far.
"This is a new paradigm in physics and there is nothing
simple about this as Jack pretends it to be in his
file and e-mails."
I agree that your paradigm is not simple. In contrast, mine is. So it is
a matter of parsimony in the philosophy of physics. The simpler model
that covers the empirical domain is always to be preferred assuming both
are correctly done of course. I also say that your basic testable idea
has no necessary connection with your Mach/Born Paradigm. It may be
compatible with it, but it stands on its own two feet and has several
different plausible interpretations.
"The new book by Stephen Adler on Quantum Theory as an
emergent Phenomenon is what Garnet Ord in Canada and
Laurent Nottale have been saying for years : A
fractal spacetime interpretation of QM."
Let's stay on one problem at a time. This is a tangent - interesting but
best to stay focused on the issue at hand.
On Oct 16, 2004, at 9:15 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
While I think Carlos's paper is full of interesting mathematics that may
have importance to real observational physics, I am not at all able to
understand how he explains the direction of the Pioneer anomaly
observation. Even his explanation of the magnitude of the effect has a
logical gap in it that my mind so far is not able to cross. In contrast
I have a simple mainstream falsifiable model for the observations. So my
interest is to compare my model with Carlo's model ONLY for that
observation at this time. I will of course cite Carlo in a paper with a
top NASA scientist I am writing that will be rushed into print because
the Pioneer observation is so important.
Carlos makes one interesting prediction that can be tested that I will
mention in my paper on Pioneer 10/11. He says that the observed Doppler
shift drift rate ~ cH from current Pioneer 10/11 only 20-70 AU from us
is the SMALLEST POSSIBLE IN PRINCIPLE! This is an interesting
prediction. I don't believe it is true, but if it is, it is major and I
will call this the "Castro Conjecture" in the paper to be written with
the NASA scientist.
If someone else understands Carlos's explanation of the Pioneer Anomaly
please write up what it is you understand.
Note that my formula for the Pioneer Anomaly is not same as Carlos's and
I have a natural explanation for it's direction back to the Sun.
My formula is ~ c^2/LpR(t)
Where R(t) is the dimensionless FRW scale factor.
At present epoch R(t) ~ 10^61
t ~ 13.7 billion years
Note that H(t) = R(t)^-1R(t),t
On Oct 16, 2004, at 6:23 AM, Brian Josephson wrote:
--On Saturday, October 16, 2004 2:49 am -0700 Carlos Castro
<czarlosromanov@yahoo.com> wrote:
1- I sent Brian 3 files, however, the one on the
"Dual Phase Space Relativity, Mach principle and
Modified Newtonian Dynamics"
has nothing to do with Clifford Geometric Algebras.
It is only based on Max Born's Dual Relativity
Principle in Phase Spaces and Ernst Mach.
This is the paper that can be understood by
everybody, by an undergraduate because there is no
fancy Math at all. This is waht I meant.
Hmmm! I still feel it optimistic to feel that an undergraduate would be
happy with the quote below, taken from page 2 of what appears to be the
paper you cite. Perhaps the trick is to skip over §1, and begin the
paper with §2 instead. That would be an interesting tactic!
Yes, Carlos over-estimates the ability of undergrads. I know it would
take me at least weeks to understand the math in Carlos's papers
sufficiently well. Saul-Paul Sirag can understand the math quicker. My
primary interest now is in understanding the observations of precision
cosmology and I am not yet convinced that Carlo's math is needed for
that. I am not saying that it is not needed. However, I understand that
the evidence so far is against one of the key predictions of theories
like Carlos's and others that deep space gamma rays will show the kind
of dispersion that his model predicts - no evidence really for quantum
foam. My theory has no quantum foam!
=b=
A Clifford-space dynamical derivation of the stringy-minimal length
uncertainty relations was furnished in [38]. The dynamical consequences
of the minimal-length in Newtonian dynamics have been recently reviewed
by [37]. The idea of minimal length ( the Planck scale LP ) can be
incorporated within the context of the maximal acceleration Relativity
principle [18] amax = c2/LP in Finsler Geometries [10]. A different
approach than the one based on Finsler Geometries is the pseudo-complex
Lorentz group description by Schuller [11] related to the effects of
maximal acceleration in Born-Infeld models that also maintains Lorentz
invariance, in contrast to the approaches of Double Special Relativity
(DSR) [20] where the Lorentz symmetry is deformed . Quantum group
deformations of the Poincare symmetry and of Gravity have been analyzed
by [19] where the deformation parameter q could be interpreted in terms
of an upper and lower scale as q = eLP /R such that the undeformed limit
q = 1 can be attained when LP ! 0 and/or when R ! 1 [18].
Brian
* * * * * * * Prof. Brian D. Josephson :::::::: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
* Mind-Matter * Cavendish Lab., Madingley Rd, Cambridge CB3 0HE, U.K.
* Unification * voice: +44(0)1223 337260 fax: +44(0)1223 337356
* Project * WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
* * * * * * *
- Next message: K Saff: "Re: X/0 DEFINED"
- Previous message: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: More on my work with primes"
- Next in thread: Porky Pig Jr: "Re: Carlos Castro's Cosmological Model of Pioneer 10/11 Anomaly"
- Reply: Porky Pig Jr: "Re: Carlos Castro's Cosmological Model of Pioneer 10/11 Anomaly"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
