Pioneer acceleration in quantum coordinates

In article ,
Oh No writes:
It is not easy to think in terms of the underlying principle of the
model that geometrical relations do not exist unless physical
processes exist to establish them.

I'm happy to accept the principle, and I fully endorse your
description of the two-slit interference experiment.

In the instance of your example, I am not sure that a camera would be
sufficient, but certainly Pioneer might be equipped to carry out
triangulation with the inner planets and find a distance that way.

All it needs is a camera with sufficient angular resolution,
sensitivity, and dynamic range. Think parallax. The Pioneer camera
had the last two but not the first.

If it were so equipped then the model has it that the geometrical
relationship between Pioneer and ourselves is fundamentally
different from the situation when no such measurement is possible.

So changing the magnification on the camera in the payload
fundamentally changes the situation? Sorry, I find that very hard to
accept on any physical basis. The same photons impinge on the camera
in either case; the only difference (in principle) is how finely-
gridded the detector is. And if photon momentum is an issue, we can
in principle make the mass of the spacecraft arbitrarily large by
adding ballast.

I still think you have some work to do here.

--
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
(Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a
valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement. Commercial
email may be sent to your ISP.)

Thus spake Steve Willner
In article ,
Oh No writes:
It is not easy to think in terms of the underlying principle of the
model that geometrical relations do not exist unless physical
processes exist to establish them.

I'm happy to accept the principle, and I fully endorse your
description of the two-slit interference experiment.

In the instance of your example, I am not sure that a camera would be
sufficient, but certainly Pioneer might be equipped to carry out
triangulation with the inner planets and find a distance that way.

All it needs is a camera with sufficient angular resolution,
sensitivity, and dynamic range. Think parallax. The Pioneer camera
had the last two but not the first.

If it were so equipped then the model has it that the geometrical
relationship between Pioneer and ourselves is fundamentally
different from the situation when no such measurement is possible.

So changing the magnification on the camera in the payload
fundamentally changes the situation? Sorry, I find that very hard to
accept on any physical basis.

The problem, as it seems to me, is an absence of physical basis. Not
helped, I think by a shortage of empirical evidence.

The same photons impinge on the camera
in either case; the only difference (in principle) is how finely-
gridded the detector is. And if photon momentum is an issue, we can
in principle make the mass of the spacecraft arbitrarily large by
adding ballast.

I don't think the mass of the spacecraft is a factor. What I do think is
important is that there actually is no direct measurement of position,
so that a classical position is not meaningful and a quantum theory
kicks in.

I still think you have some work to do here.

I confess I would have been more comfortable if I thought that a shift
was always present when the position of an object in space is determined
only by e.m. radiation across empty space. But if that were the case
then a MONDian shift would also be present in Doppler measurements on
the inner planets. The predicted shift for Mars would be less than
0.4m/s (a speed, reflecting acceleration in orbital motion, not a drift,
though varying depending on the relative orbit of Mars and Earth).
Originally I thought this might be detectable, but in fact it does
appear to be eliminated by satellite navigation systems. One possibility
might be that the many corrections and recalibrations required for such
systems also have the effect of removing the shift as erroneous data.
But although I don't fully understand the workings of DNS I did pursue
this long enough to convince myself that it is highly unlikely. DNS
should have detected such a shift if it were there. I still think the
shift may be observable at optical wavelengths, but it is currently
below the resolution of the best echelle spectrometers.

Another resolution I have considered is that the fundamental difference
is between bound and unbound motions. But again, that does not appear to
work because we do detect a MONDian shift evidenced in the rotation of
the Milky way.

The observation of a shift for Pioneer and no shift for the planets is
also a problem for any other model. At least I have a proposed solution,
albeit one which I would like to see subjected to rigorous empirical
testing. Nonetheless it is certainly something to keep thinking about.


Regards

--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email