|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Pioneer 10 looks like red shift, not blue
John,
I think the problem is merely one of unfortunate and misleading notation rather than a genuine error: if you look at footnote #38 in Anderson et al. 2002 (http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064 ) it is clear that the basic frequency difference is actually defined as f0-f rather than f-f0 (where f0 is the transmitted frequency and f the received frequency). Note that this frequency difference is positive for a redshift (ff0). Now the (two-way) difference between the observed frequency difference f0-f and the theoretical frequency difference f0-f' is then related to the excess accelaration 'a' by (1) (f0-f)-(f0-f') = -2*f0*t/c*a or (2) f'-f = -2*f0*t/c*a The acceleration 'a' is defined such that it is positive if directed towards the sun, so in this case the right hand side is negative and hence it is required that ff' on the left hand side, which corresponds to an excess blue-shift (which is consistent with the assumption that the acceleration is towards the sun). In Eq.(15) in the above mentioned paper they write f-f' rather than f'-f, so this may be a typo or (probably more likely) just an unfortunate notation as they actually were referring to (1) rather than (2) (i.e. to df-df' rather than f'-f). It is rather annoying that at this level they can't even manage to produce a consistent notation throughout the paper, but I think the problem here is just this and has nothing to do with a sign switch in the data analyis itself. There are in my opinion actually more important inconsistencies in statements made in these papers, which suggest that the theoretical modelling of the data is actually anything but clear-cut. At the beginning of chapter 2.1 of the Turyshev paper (http://xxx.sf.nchc.gov.tw/abs/gr-qc/9903024 ) they give the acceleration due to radiation pressure at 20 AU as 5*10^-8 cm/sec^2 ( a value which is also mentioned in the Anderson paper), but towards the bottom of the same chapter it suddenly says that 'at distances 10-15 AU it (the radiation pressure) produces an acceleration that is much less then 8*10^-8 cm/sec^2'. Now, 5 is certainly not much less then 8, and taking also into account that the statistical error of the data is about 2*10^-8 cm/sec^2 (as mentioned in the Anderson paper), this means that errors in the modelling of the radiation pressure force could completely alter the data. Additionally, as I have pointed out on my webpage http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/pioneer.htm , signal propagation effects (due to an incorrect application of the principle of the invariance of the speed of light) would also lead to a contribution of the same order of magnitude. A combination of all these factors could well explain the data. Thomas |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pioneer Anomoly | Tom Kirke | Astronomy Misc | 77 | September 30th 05 08:43 PM |
Blue Streak | Henry Spencer | History | 209 | March 8th 05 06:49 PM |
New Book on Pioneer | Mark Wolverton | History | 91 | July 4th 04 04:43 PM |
pioneer 10 acceleration | Jonathan Silverlight | Research | 0 | June 2nd 04 07:03 PM |
The mysterious Blue Sensitive Eye Cones | optidud | Amateur Astronomy | 30 | July 24th 03 04:55 AM |