Re: Ranging and Pioneer

Oh No wrote:
Thus spake Igor Khavkine <igor.kh@xxxxxxxxx>

The quantum corrections to the classical behavior of these
objects are suppressed by the number of atoms or the number of photons
involved (very large in both cases), as well as hbar.

So, I return to my original question. Can you estimate the C*hbar/N
term and show that it can be sufficiently large to account for the
spectral shift anomaly?

I am not sure that we aren't at cross purposes here. According to the
theory the path of macroscopic objects is simply the classical Newtonian
path. Only the wavelength of the detected light/signal is shifted.

Then why doesn't light just obey Maxwell's equations? If you model
everything classically (including radiation) and still get a shift,
then why use quantum mechanics in the first place? If you get no shift
classically, or rather not enough to account for the anomaly, then your
model seems to be predicting the shift as a quantum correction, in
other words an O(hbar/N) effect. While few-photon light intensities can
be produced in modern optics labs, I sincerely doubt it that the signal
from the Pioneer spacecraft is that weak. In other words, I'm skeptical
about any model that predicts quantum radiation effects significant
enough to account for the anomaly. That is, unless I'm proven wrong by
an explicit estimate of the size of such an effect.

The coordinate choice is fixed because I require plane wave motions in
the time-radial plane, or more properly that momentum in the final state
is teleparallel to momentum in the initial state.

Wow... "plane waves"? I thought there weren't going to be any wave
functions here.

The whole point is to retain this aspect of quantum mechanics.

I don't see why. The reason I asked about the abstract state
formulation of QM is that it removes most explicit references to
coordinates and makes one less susceptible to confusing a wave function
with something like a fluid density. In principle any quantum system
can be described both using wave functions and the more abstract
approach, they are equivalent. However, sometimes, one approach or the
other makes things clearer.

So, does your formulation of quantum mechanics allow you to express
everything in terms of abstract states and operators, without reference
to wave functions?

Then I don't like your proposal. I'm not happy (nor would a very large
number of working physicists be) when someone hands me a coordinate
system to use without giving me a choice in the matter.

I don't think there is a choice in the matter. It is a mathematical
deduction from assumptions, hence it gives you no choice once the
assumptions are accepted. Apart from minor tweaks in the quantum theory,
the assumptions are basically just the assumptions of quantum mechanics
together with the assumptions of general relativity less the affine
connection. In fact the affine connection seems to me the only really
questionable assumption in the standard theory, either gtr or qm. By
replacing it I have a formulation of quantum theory which is consistent
with gtr. As qm and gtr are known not to be consistent together, to give
a mathematically exact formulation of qm in an FRW cosmology seems
worthwhile - reservation: I only have a fully rigorous formulation in a
homogeneous isotropic cosmology. Applying it to rotation curves means I
have to use a heuristic argument, nonetheless I think it works.

First, a technical point. GR presumes a metric tensor. For each metric
tensor, there is a unique torsion-free affine connection compatible
with it. You are free not to use it, but it is there, hence not
eliminated. It also pops back up in the definition of the geodesic
equation, if you need to use that one. And if you've lost geodesics as
well, then you've also lost GR.

Second, if your assumptions lead you to the conclusion that there is
one coordinate system that is better than all others, then the
assumptions must be seriously reconsidered. Any observer is free to use
her own coordinate system. Forcing everyone to use the same one is like
trying to make every person on Earth speak the same language. That's
just not going to happen. Therefore, you should be able to formulate
your theory independent of a choice of coordinates, especially if you
claim to be compatible with GR (and background independence, which
comes with the package). If you can't, then it's another point against
your proposal.

You misunderstood what I was trying to say. There are basically two
situations: a shift detected equivalent to MONDian motion or Pioneer
acceleration, or no shift detected, Newtonian motion (noisy signal near
the crossover). In fact it is always Newtonian motion, but if the
wavelength is small compared to the accuracy of measurement of position,
one gets to see a shift which is essentially the effect of the expansion
of the universe on the wave function.

Again, why does the *accuracy of measurement of position* play a role
in *whether* there is a shift. Never mind the detection part. There
either is a shift or not, independent of whether someone measures it or
not. It still sounds to me like you're saying that the existence of the
spectrum shift depends on someone measuring it and the accuracy of his
apparatus. Am I still misunderstanding?

In principle, it should be possible to use very loud signals and drown
the noise. Then the cycle slip could be observed. Actually it is
possible that it has been observed already. VLBI measurements of IM
Pegasi have detected a sudden (over one hour) jump in its motion by
2/3rds its diameter. The researchers are looking at other explanations,
but if I am right this sort of observation will become more and more
common as astrometry improves. For example Hipparcos has made some odd
parallax measurements of the Pleiades and some other open clusters. When
Gaia goes up in five years time it will produce stacks of anomalies at
the accuracy with which it can measure.

If this is indeed a prediction of your model. You should make it
falsifiable. If these cycle slips are *not* see, under what conditions
can your model be ruled out?

Igor

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ranging and Pioneer
    ... everything classically and still get a shift, ... then why use quantum mechanics in the first place? ... coordinates and makes one less susceptible to confusing a wave function ... Note that the bra <x| refers to a measurement result which can actually ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Why field theories are deterministic, but QM isnt?
    ... look at mathematical formulation of these *quantum* ... Instead of wave function there is operator - a functional ... it's there in QFT as much as it is in QM. ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Ranging and Pioneer
    ... propose to explain these erratic motions using a quantum mechanical ... principle estimates the quantum corrections to the rock's motion to be ... For Mars we have measurement accurate to about 10m, so the shift should ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Ranging and Pioneer
    ... in particular quantum mechanics"). ... shift relation is concerned, I am only looking at individual photons. ... For Mars we have measurement accurate to about 10m, ...
    (sci.physics.research)