Could collisions with Dark Matter explain the spacecraft fly-by anomalies?

Yousuf Khan wrote:

Sounds like he's talking about the Aether Theory without actually
mentioning the Aether here.

Technology Review: Blogs: arXiv blog: The Clue That Could Explain The
Fly-By Anomalies
"Last year, we looked at an idea from Stephen Adler at Princeton
University, that suggested the change in velocity could caused by
collisions between the spacecraft and particles of dark matter. Adler
even calculated the kind of distribution of dark matter particles that
would explain the observed changes in velocity--a kind of halo of them
around Earth. "
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24232/?a=f

Yousuf Khan

By hypothesis and definition dark matter does not interact except by
gravitation. Do neutrinos slow spacecraft?

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

In sci.astro Uncle Al wrote:

By hypothesis and definition dark matter does not interact except by
gravitation.

Not true. By hypothesis, dark matter interacts weakly, but there is
certainly no requirement of no nongravitational interaction. In fact,
popular candidates (lightest supersymmetric particle, axions) certainly
do have nongravitational interactions. In fact, a major experimental
effort is going into searches for dark matter through such interactions.

Steve Carlip

On Oct 14, 8:27*am, wrote:
In sci.astro Uncle Al wrote:

By hypothesis and definition dark matter does not
interact except by gravitation. *

Not true. *By hypothesis, dark matter interacts weakly,
but there is certainly no requirement of no
nongravitational interaction.

For Dark Matter as WIMPs, this is true. But the Bullet Cluster
obviates such weakly interacting Dark Matter, doesn't it? The visible
matter is pretty hot, so maybe we cannot evaluate how much normal
matter is there...

*In fact, popular candidates (lightest supersymmetric
particle, axions) certainly do have nongravitational
interactions. *In fact, a major experimental effort is
going into searches for dark matter through such
interactions.

Isn't that a bit like searching for a lost item under a streetlight,
even if we did not lose the item there, because we can at least see?

David A. Smith

carlip-nospam wrote on Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:27:19 +0000:

In sci.astro Uncle Al wrote:

By hypothesis and definition dark matter does not interact except by
gravitation.

Not true. By hypothesis, dark matter interacts weakly, but there is
certainly no requirement of no nongravitational interaction. In fact,
popular candidates (lightest supersymmetric particle, axions) certainly
do have nongravitational interactions. In fact, a major experimental
effort is going into searches for dark matter through such interactions.

What a waste of time and money!

Steve Carlip





--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/

BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/p...encetoday.html

wrote:

In sci.astro Uncle Al wrote:

By hypothesis and definition dark matter does not interact except by
gravitation.

Not true. By hypothesis, dark matter interacts weakly, but there is
certainly no requirement of no nongravitational interaction. In fact,
popular candidates (lightest supersymmetric particle, axions) certainly
do have nongravitational interactions. In fact, a major experimental
effort is going into searches for dark matter through such interactions.

Steve Carlip

CERN's axion telescope has proven to be cold manure. Collar's dark
matter detector Halon and perfluorocarbon bubble chambers are
brilliant but not implemented at scale. (If he wants to make a grant
funding splash he'll need a totally ridiculous, er, advanced working
fluid boiling around 0 C, like heptakis(trifluoromethyl)iodine. No
static molecular structure!) Ultracryogenic dark matter collision
phonon detectors are in place and working.

NO DETECTIONS. Gravity Probe B (such as it was) showed no anomaly.
Lunar laser ranging shows ZERO Nordtvedt effect.

Uncle Al calls "bull****" on undetected matter in space in sufficient
quantities to detectably alter local orbits, by collision
cross-section or by naked gravitation. If somebody comes up with a
reproducible lab signal (not the Italian stuff), Uncle Al will
apologize.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Uncle Al wrote:
[...]

Uncle Al calls "bull****" on undetected matter in space in sufficient
quantities to detectably alter local orbits, by collision
cross-section or by naked gravitation. If somebody comes up with a
reproducible lab signal (not the Italian stuff), Uncle Al will
apologize.


Correct.

Any dark matter sufficiently dense to alter spacecraft orbits (and that bar
is pretty high to begin with) will do...what to planetary and lunar orbits?
The answer is an exercise for the reader.

Dear eric gisse:

On Oct 14, 9:01*pm, eric gisse wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:

[...]

Uncle Al calls "bull****" on undetected matter
in space in sufficient quantities to detectably
alter local orbits, by collision cross-section or
by naked gravitation. *If somebody comes up
with a reproducible lab signal (not the Italian
stuff), Uncle Al will apologize.

Correct.

Any dark matter sufficiently dense to alter
spacecraft orbits (and that bar is pretty high to
begin with) will do...what to planetary and lunar
orbits? The answer is an exercise for the reader.

The effect is a function of distance from the boost body, and if it
resolved to similar "viscosity" models, would be on the order of v^2.
Since inside the Roche limit is out for rocky bodies, we are left with
~1 km/sec for our Moon, vs. ~7.5 km/sec for a satellite. The problem
is, an orbit encounters the "two kinds" of Dark Matter, the stuff "in
front" and the stuff "behind", so it should average to (perhaps) zero
net effect.

But this too should be detectable. Were it not horse manure.

David A. Smith

In sci.astro eric gisse wrote:

Any dark matter sufficiently dense to alter spacecraft orbits (and
that bar is pretty high to begin with) will do...what to planetary
and lunar orbits?

Not necessarily very much. The interactions aren't gravitational
-- there's no principle of equivalence at work here -- and the
acceleration due to drag can be much greater for a small object
than a large one.

Adler's proposal is probably not what's really happening -- he himself
says only that "the dark matter scenario is not currently ruled out,
but requires dark matter to be non-self-annihilating, with the dark
matter scattering cross section on nucleons much larger, and the dark
matter mass much lighter, than usually assumed." But he's not an
idiot, and he has looked at whether the model would have any other
observable effects on Solar System measurements.

(He is, in particular, looking at a model in which dark matter is
gravitationally bound to the Earth and other planets. This would
make the density near the Earth much higher than the average
Solar System density.)

I'm not arguing that Adler is right. But this is nontrivial stuff, and
can't be dismissed by hand-waving; you have to really do the math.

Steve Carlip

Uncle Al wrote:
NO DETECTIONS. Gravity Probe B (such as it was) showed no anomaly.

in response:

The Gravity Probe B continued data analysis with KACST?
appears to further confirm Einstein's General Relativity Frame-dragging
theory.

http://einstein.stanford.edu/RESOURC...ons-index.html

I would suggest another perspective
which would make the study of Gravity Probe B very important
in the context of analyzing the anomalous "polhode?" effect
in terms of the universal 'dark energy'
a concept which was not known at the Gravity Probe B conception.

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9905007

In this paper (Table 2.4.1), there is a correlation which indicates
that substantially all (~70%) of the universe
(as currently depicted by 'dark energy' at 8.11E-16 K)
has an oscillating period of 2.96E4 sec or 8.22 hours (frequency of
3.38E-5 hz).

The data presented in the seminar,
http://einstein.stanford.edu/RESOURC...ons-index.html
indicates this universal dark energy frequency of 3.38E-5 hz
is be harmonically related to seminar presented Asymtotic Polhode
frequencies.

http://einstein.stanford.edu/RESOURC...ons-index.html
July 8, 2009 • Stanford University HEPL Seminar
Polhode Motion, Trapped Flux, and the GP-B Science Data Analysis
Alex Silbergleit, John Conklin and the Polhode/Trapped Flux Mapping Task
Team

2.4 Dissipation Modeling: Products
1. Asymptotic Polhode Period and Dissipation Time

| Asymptotic Asymptotic Asymptotic Asymptotic
| Polhode Polhode Polhode Polhode
| Period frequency harmonic harmonic
| (hours) (Hertz) deviation
gyro 1 0.867 3.20E-04 9 1.05
gyro 3 1.529 1.82E-04 5 1.08
gyro 2 2.581 1.08E-04 3 1.06
gyro 4 4.137 6.71E-05 2 0.99
universe 8.22 3.38E-05 1 1.00

The hypothesis would be that this residual asymptotic frequency
is not totally a polhode frequency
but partially an induced gyro frequency,
representing an harmonic of the external universe dark energy

Further, the hypothesis would be that the Gravity Probe B gyroscope
niobium superconductor Cooper mass (5.79E-10 g)
is subject to gravitational tidal oscillation (induced gyro frequency)
by the substantial universe mass (dark energy/c^2)
with density 6.38E-30 g/cc.

The Gravity Probe B gyroscope niobium superconductor Cooper mass
is calculated to be 5.79E-10 g as follows:

niobium critical temperature (Tc) = 8 K niobium
niobium thickness 1270 nm
gyroscope diameter 3.81 cm (1.5 inch)
niobium volume pi*3.81*3.81*1.27E-6 = 5.79E-5 cm3
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9905007
Table 2.9.1
Cooper Pair density is 1E-5 g/cc
Therefore Cooper Pair Mass = 5.79E-10 g
This Cooper Pair Mass may be characterized
in a somewhat fluid form subject to dimensional distortion.

The continued hypothesis would be that the
Cooper Pair mass of 5.79E-10 g
contained in Gravity Probe B gyroscope niobium superconductor
gravitationally tidally oscillates with
the universe mass at a frequency
of 3.38E-05 hertz and harmonics as animated in:
http://einstein.stanford.edu/Media/P...animation.html
approaching an asymptotic value
in step with oscillating universe 'dark energy'.

Similar frequencies have been noted throughout the universe
and in particular the power spectra if Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN)
(Seyferts and Blazars)
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0101542
which perhaps have equivalent low densities
(as niobium Cooper pair densities)
subject to such gravitational interaction
with the oscillating universe 'dark energy'.

Also, such frequencies have been noted in the earth's upper atmosphere
under the name 'Temporal variability of the telluric sodium layer'.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609307

Calculations indicate that such an atmospheric tidal effect
by oscillating universe 'dark energy'
would affect flyby spacecraft such as observed.
Such an effect would not be observed in flybys
of non atmospheric celestial bodies.

In conclusion, the Gravity Probe B
may be a measure of Einstein's General Relativity
but perhaps as importantly,
a measure of the universe oscillating 'dark energy'
providing a more fundamental understanding of its nature.

Richard D. Saam