A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Research
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Ranging and Pioneer



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 19th 06, 08:54 AM posted to sci.physics.research,sci.astro.research
Oh No
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 433
Default Ranging and Pioneer

Thus spake Gordon D. Pusch
Oh No writes:
Thus spake "John (Liberty) Bell"
Oh No wrote:
Thus spake "John (Liberty) Bell"

2) I have yet to see an adequately satisfactory explanation of how that
proposed effect can produce a red shift on one side of a galaxy, and a
blue shift on the opposite side, whilst still giving the observed
Pioneer blue shift, on both sides of the Solar System.

What is measured is a shift in the wavefunction corresponding to an
eigenstate of acceleration.


The obvious problem with your above claim is that, even if one assumes that
one _can_ construct a self-adjoint "acceleration operator," an "eigenstate
of acceleration" would almost certainly be unphysical and non-normalizable,
for the same reasons that eigenstates of position or momentum are unphysical
and non-normalizable.

In particular, one may expect that an "eigenstate of acceleration" would be
_completely delocalized_, much as an eigenstate of momentum is completely
delocalized --- leaving one with absolutely no information about position.

By contrast, in "Real World" measurements, one would only be able to observe
position, velocity, and acceleration to _finite precision_, and hence, even if
one believes that "wave function collapse" is a "physical process" rather
than an artifact of the observer's revised knowledge about the state of the
quantum system, the result of a finite precision "acceleration measurement"
will =NOT= in fact be an "eigenstate of acceleration," but rather an
incoherent _MIXTURE_ of eigenstates of acceleration, with an uncertainty
determined by the precision of the "acceleration measurement"...

Of course what you say is correct. I have been guilty once again of
expressing myself in a sloppy manner. What one actually measures is a
shift in the momentum space wave function for each detected photon. At
the time of each measurement we have an eigenstate of momentum (to "real
world" accuracy), not an eigenstate of acceleration.

I am suggesting that, notwithstanding this shift, the classical value of
momentum is unchanged for Pioneer and for an orbiting star, so I refer
to the shift as an "illusory momentum". In the case of Pioneer the
illusory momentum varies, which I interpret as an illusory acceleration.
In the case of an orbiting star the illusory momentum corresponds to an
illusory increase in orbital velocity, which again is interpreted as
illusory acceleration toward the galactic centre.




Regards

--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email
  #2  
Old August 20th 06, 03:43 PM posted to sci.physics.research,sci.astro.research
John (Liberty) Bell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 242
Default Ranging and Pioneer


Oh No wrote:
Thus spake Gordon D. Pusch
Oh No writes:
Thus spake "John (Liberty) Bell"
Oh No wrote:
Thus spake "John (Liberty) Bell"

2) I have yet to see an adequately satisfactory explanation of how that
proposed effect can produce a red shift on one side of a galaxy, and a
blue shift on the opposite side, whilst still giving the observed
Pioneer blue shift, on both sides of the Solar System.

What is measured is a shift in the wavefunction corresponding to an
eigenstate of acceleration.


The obvious problem with your above claim is that, even if one assumes that
one _can_ construct a self-adjoint "acceleration operator," an "eigenstate
of acceleration" would almost certainly be unphysical and non-normalizable,
for the same reasons that eigenstates of position or momentum are unphysical
and non-normalizable.

In particular, one may expect that an "eigenstate of acceleration" would be
_completely delocalized_, much as an eigenstate of momentum is completely
delocalized --- leaving one with absolutely no information about position.

By contrast, in "Real World" measurements, one would only be able to observe
position, velocity, and acceleration to _finite precision_, and hence, even if
one believes that "wave function collapse" is a "physical process" rather
than an artifact of the observer's revised knowledge about the state of the
quantum system, the result of a finite precision "acceleration measurement"
will =NOT= in fact be an "eigenstate of acceleration," but rather an
incoherent _MIXTURE_ of eigenstates of acceleration, with an uncertainty
determined by the precision of the "acceleration measurement"...

Of course what you say is correct. I have been guilty once again of
expressing myself in a sloppy manner. What one actually measures is a
shift in the momentum space wave function for each detected photon. At
the time of each measurement we have an eigenstate of momentum (to "real
world" accuracy), not an eigenstate of acceleration.

I am suggesting that, notwithstanding this shift, the classical value of
momentum is unchanged for Pioneer and for an orbiting star, so I refer
to the shift as an "illusory momentum". In the case of Pioneer the
illusory momentum varies, which I interpret as an illusory acceleration.
In the case of an orbiting star the illusory momentum corresponds to an
illusory increase in orbital velocity, which again is interpreted as
illusory acceleration toward the galactic centre.


But you have already claimed, in prior discussions, that observers
placed on opposite sides of Pioneer 10 or 11 would both see an illusory
acceleration (now illusory momentum) directed towards them. You are now
simultaneously claiming that extragalactic observers on opposite sides
of any star within the galaxy will, in contrast, see illusory momenta
in the same physical direction (ie towards one and away from the
other).

These two momentum illusion claims also appear mutually incompatible.

John Bell
http://global.accelerators.co.uk
(Change John to Liberty to respond by email)

  #3  
Old August 22nd 06, 03:43 AM posted to sci.physics.research,sci.astro.research
Oh No
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 433
Default Ranging and Pioneer

Thus spake "John (Liberty) Bell"


But you have already claimed, in prior discussions, that observers
placed on opposite sides of Pioneer 10 or 11 would both see an illusory
acceleration (now illusory momentum) directed towards them.


acceleration is measured as a drift in momentum. Essentially this is not
much different from the standard idea in an expanding universe that
every point is moving away from every other, and appears in the model as
a correction to that idea.

You are now
simultaneously claiming that extragalactic observers on opposite sides
of any star within the galaxy will, in contrast, see illusory momenta
in the same physical direction (ie towards one and away from the
other).

These two momentum illusion claims also appear mutually incompatible.

This is a different instance, where what is measured is an effect only
apparent due to the distortion of space-time due to galactic mass.



Regards

--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ranging and Pioneer [email protected] Research 0 August 13th 06 07:22 PM
Ranging and Pioneer Oh No Research 0 August 13th 06 08:53 AM
Ranging and Pioneer [email protected] Research 0 August 12th 06 01:25 PM
30 Years of Pioneer Spacecraft Data Rescued: The Planetary Society Enables Study of the Mysterious Pioneer Anomaly [email protected] News 0 June 6th 06 05:35 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.