Which way does NASA Pioneer 10 Anomaly really point?
From: Jack Sarfatti (sarfatti_at_pacbell.net)
Date: 03/20/05
- Next message: reany_at_asu.edu: "Re: One crazy thought..Gravity"
- Previous message: Tom Capizzi: "Re: The Farce that is Called Henri Wilson"
- Next in thread: Larry Hammick: "Re: Which way does NASA Pioneer 10 Anomaly really point?"
- Reply: Larry Hammick: "Re: Which way does NASA Pioneer 10 Anomaly really point?"
- Reply: Jonathan Silverlight: "Re: Which way does NASA Pioneer 10 Anomaly really point?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 02:41:18 GMT
Nature 30 Sept 2004 p. 494 and New Scientist 19 March 2005 p. 35
disagree. Nature says the force points back to the Sun, New Scientists
says it points away from the Sun. One paper cites an anomalous blue
shift, which seems consistent with Nature's account and not New Scientist's.
On Mar 19, 2005, at 6:10 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Hi I have been in LA at Paul Harris's Time & Wonder Seminar at Loyola
and need to catch up with e-mails. I literally just rolled in - been
driving all day.
1. Reg where can I see a detailed derivation of your key n(n^2 - 1)
equation from special relativity upon which your key claim rests?
2. Which way does the Pioneer Anomaly point, radially in or out? New
Scientist in 13 things that don't make sense, March 19 - 25 says it's a
repulsion of one nanometer per second per second. So I may have had it
pointing wrong way in my earlier remarks. I need to check the original
papers. Does anyone know for sure? Neither, Carlos nor Tony, nor Creon
caught me on that error, if it is one? In any case I can model it as a
hedgehog defect either way.
If it points out then /\zpf < 0 i.e. positive pressure. If it points in
then /\zpf > 0 negative pressure.
In either case
|/\zpf| = H(t)/cr for r > 20 AU
r = radial distance to Sun
The Poisson eq. Green's function is 1/r, the volume element is r^2dr
Therefore, the integral for the gravity potential energy per unit test
particle of the exotic vacuum is approximately
V(zpf) ~ c^2/\zpfr^2 ~ cHr = cv
v = Hubble velocity of recession from the expansion of space R(t) in
FLRW even at 20AU!
a_g = - dV(zpf)/dr ~ cH ~ 1 nanometer per second per second pointing
either way depending on sign of /\zpf.
Think of dropping a ball through hole drilled through center of the Earth.
3. Note for the Galactic dark matter halo, also an exotic vacuum effect
/\zpf = (v/c)1/r^2
V(zpf) ~ cv
a_g = 0
here v is the constant circulating speed of a star in flat part of the
stellar rotation curve.
4. What about ultra-energetic cosmic rays above the GZK limit = 5x10^19
ev? Some kind of anti-gravity dark energy acceleration?
5. The little black holes - a triumph for string theory at last and for
Hawking radiation?
On Mar 18, 2005, at 1:46 PM, Reg Cahill wrote:
Jack,
Ben Varcoe in the UK is setting up just such a Bose-Einstein experiment.
However the problem is that no one knows how the refractive indices in
the two orthogonal directions changes under rotation in such a system.
In a gas we know they are uncorrelated. But in a transparent solid they
are related, as one would expect. As well the problem with the
Michelson interferometer is that it is a 2nd order device..the fringe
shifts vary as (v/c)^2. Then various effects all compete: geometrical
effects, length contractions, Fresnel drag, correlated refractive index
effects,.. This is why we are setting up a coaxial cable experiment.
The time variations are first order in v/c, and so relativistic effects
are not important, there are no moving parts, and the effect is easily
computer recorded. As well we can record in three orthogonal directions,
which means a component of the absolute motion velocity in the vertical
direction. No one has ever operated a Michelson interferometer in a
vertical plane. The need for this vertical measurement is that we need
to determine the in-flow component associated with the earth's gravity.
This has a speed of 11km/s at the earth's surface. The inflow towards
the sun has already been extracted from the Miller data..that speed is
some 42 km/s.
Reg
Well clearly the logical foundations of special relativity need to be
reexamined in case these data prove plausible & compelling. Suppose
Lorentz was really right that length contractions and time dilations
need to be referred directly to the Eve frame of absolute rest. Is there
a way of seeing that directly in the rest frame of a uniformly moving
nano-structure (uniformly moving relative to Eve frame)? After all, your
alleged effect is a rest frame effect for the interferometer. The only
frame in which your alleged shift would not be seen would be the Eve
frame. Also, is the Eve frame, if it were to exist a spontaneous broken
vacuum symmetry in the rapidity boost piece of O(1,3) just as a finite
domain of a ferromagnet picks a preferred space direction for O(3) in
the ground state even though the O(3) symmetry is still intact in the
dynamical action and the local laws of nature?
On 19/03/2005, at 3:42 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
What about doing experiments with really large indices of refraction n
to see the alleged n(n^2 - 1) effect? Perhaps a gas atomic Bose-Einstein
condensate with n >> 1 in some kind of laser pulse experiment?
On Mar 17, 2005, at 3:25 PM, Reg Cahill wrote:
Tom,
It is not possible to determined the size of the effect that one would
expect in this experiment because the two experimentalists didn't
understand how the apparatus worked. To determine the size of the
effect we now understand that one needs to know the refractive index of
the He-Ne gas mixture. This is not given. However from the work of
Jaseja et al Phys. Rev. A133(1964)1221 I could determine in that case
that their He-Ne gas mixture had a refractive index of approx
n=1.0000028, and so is very close to being a vacuum. So it appears that
this experiment was essentially a vacuum experiment. Hils and Hall also
used the wrong theory to analyse any signal, namely the Robertson,
Mansouri and Sexl formalism.
This formalism is predicated on a spacetime ontology, and also makes no
allowance for the effect of any gas present. The key point to appreciate
is that until 2002 no one understood how one could and should measure
absolute motion. So some techniques were lucky, ie they had the
necessary technique, while others were unlucky. Miller, DeWitte and
some 5 others were lucky experiments. This Hils and Hall experiment was
an unlucky experiment..it simply was blind to the incredibly small
effects of absolute motion. However being essentially a vacuum
experiment one aspect of the physics that it did check was Lorentz
symmetry. Remember that we also now understand that Lorentz symmetry
and absolute motion are compatible properties of space, indeed absolute
motion is the dynamical cause of the Lorentz symmetry effects. The
detection of absolute motion is not a return to Newtonian physics, but
it does invalidate Einstein's postulate about the invariance of the
speed of light. We now understand, as of 2002, that this postulate was
always in disagreement with experiment. What is emerging as the correct
theory is essentially a neo-Lorentzian relativity, which predated
Einstein's 1905 work. Then it is possible, for example, to write
Maxwell's equations in a form that clearly separates the various physics
involved. The original and usual covariant form of Maxwell's equations
actually melds two different phenomena in such a way that neither is now
clearly revealed. The major development is that the whole spacetime
ontology, both flat and curved, was a house of cards, held up mainly by
misunderstandings. It has now crumbled.
Reg
Reg:
I just realized that Hils and Hall's experiment is a direct test of your
theory.
They used a laser mode-locked to a vacuum Fabry-Perot cavity interfering
with a single-mode He-Ne laser locked to an I_2 line, both fixed in the
lab. They looked for sidereal variations in the beat frequency. As one
laser's frequency is determined in vacuum, and one in gas, this seems to
me to be a direct test of your theory.
Hils and Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 (1990), p 1697.
They found no variations at the level of 2*10^-13. I think your theory
is in deep trouble here....
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
-- A/Prof. Reginald T. Cahill (Phone: (+618) or (08) 8201 2417 Physicist & School Deputy Head (MobPhone: (+61) or (0) 41 882 5 882 School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences (Fax: (+618) or (08) 8201 2905 Faculty of Science and Engineering (email: Reg.Cahill@flinders.edu.au Flinders University, GPO Box 2100 Adelaide 5001 Australia http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/ http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics.html A/Prof Reginald T. Cahill (Phone: (+618) or (08) 8201 2417 Physicist & School Deputy Head (MobPhone: (+61)or(0) 41 882 5 882 School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences (Fax: (+618)or(08) 8201 2905 Faculty of Science and Engineering (email: Reg.Cahill@flinders.edu.au Flinders University, GPO Box 2100 Adelaide 5001 Australia http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/ http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics.html
- Next message: reany_at_asu.edu: "Re: One crazy thought..Gravity"
- Previous message: Tom Capizzi: "Re: The Farce that is Called Henri Wilson"
- Next in thread: Larry Hammick: "Re: Which way does NASA Pioneer 10 Anomaly really point?"
- Reply: Larry Hammick: "Re: Which way does NASA Pioneer 10 Anomaly really point?"
- Reply: Jonathan Silverlight: "Re: Which way does NASA Pioneer 10 Anomaly really point?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
