Pioneer 10 anomaly: Galileo, Ulysses?

I've been reading with interest posts about the Pioneer 10 anomaly,
but noticed in looking back that previously Galileo and Ulysses probes
were also said to have shown the anomaly.

Is that still considered true? If so, to what accuracy?


James Harris

(James Harris) writes:
I've been reading with interest posts about the Pioneer 10 anomaly,
but noticed in looking back that previously Galileo and Ulysses probes
were also said to have shown the anomaly.

Is that still considered true? If so, to what accuracy?

I don't believe any revised analysis has been done since the large
Anderson paper. You can find the analysis details and uncertainty
estimates in that paper.

CM

References
Anderson, J. D. et al, gr-qc/0104064

Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
(James Harris) writes:
I've been reading with interest posts about the Pioneer 10 anomaly,
but noticed in looking back that previously Galileo and Ulysses probes
were also said to have shown the anomaly.

Is that still considered true? If so, to what accuracy?

I don't believe any revised analysis has been done since the large
Anderson paper. You can find the analysis details and uncertainty
estimates in that paper.

CM

References
Anderson, J. D. et al, gr-qc/0104064

Thanks! I'm looking the paper over now. I just want as much
information as possible to show that what's seen with the Pioneer
probes is real, and isn't just some weird wacky thing that just comes
from them before I start questioning the physics that I learned.

Basically before I get too excited by the implications.

Unfortunately though, from what I've read, there won't be probes sent
out to verify for maybe a decade, but still now for the first time in
a long time I envy those people who went the distance and obtained
doctorates.

When I received my B.S. in physics back in 1991, I looked around and
didn't see anything that excited me, but if the "anomaly" is real,
then physics is a whole new ballgame.

Maybe I can go back to school now.


James Harris

"James Harris" wrote in message
...

Thanks! I'm looking the paper over now. I just want as much
information as possible to show that what's seen with the Pioneer
probes is real, and isn't just some weird wacky thing that just comes
from them before I start questioning the physics that I learned.

Basically before I get too excited by the implications.
...
When I received my B.S. in physics back in 1991, I looked around and
didn't see anything that excited me, but if the "anomaly" is real,
then physics is a whole new ballgame.

Before you get too excited, bear in mind it is most likely
that the effect has a mundane explanation. For example the
RTGs give of about 2kW of hest and if that was radiated 970W
towards the sun and 1030W away, that would explain the anomaly
(see section VIII, B). Although they rule out that simple
analysis, there is still a significant possibility that some
unrecognised effect of the craft design is responsible.

George

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"James Harris" wrote in message
...

Thanks! I'm looking the paper over now. I just want as much
information as possible to show that what's seen with the Pioneer
probes is real, and isn't just some weird wacky thing that just comes
from them before I start questioning the physics that I learned.

Basically before I get too excited by the implications.
..
When I received my B.S. in physics back in 1991, I looked around and
didn't see anything that excited me, but if the "anomaly" is real,
then physics is a whole new ballgame.

Before you get too excited, bear in mind it is most likely
that the effect has a mundane explanation. For example the
RTGs give of about 2kW of hest and if that was radiated 970W
towards the sun and 1030W away, that would explain the anomaly
(see section VIII, B). Although they rule out that simple
analysis, there is still a significant possibility that some
unrecognised effect of the craft design is responsible.

George

Well that's why I asked about Galileo and Ulysses: different craft;
different designs. Consider the subject line of this thread.

I've glanced over the paper, and probably will need to look it over
again more thoroughly, but from what I read, craft design is not a
"significant possibility" at this point.

If only there were a probe moving into position soon to check this
phenomenom.

But it could be a few years, even up to a decade, right?


James Harris

"James Harris" wrote in message
m...

Well that's why I asked about Galileo and Ulysses: different craft;
different designs. Consider the subject line of this thread.

Point noted.

I've glanced over the paper, and probably will need to look it over
again more thoroughly, but from what I read, craft design is not a
"significant possibility" at this point.

Nobody knows what causes the anomaly but I think most people
expect it to be craft design from the limited number of
people who have commented.

If only there were a probe moving into position soon to check this
phenomenom.

But it could be a few years, even up to a decade, right?

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0308017

".. the mission could be flown as early as in 2010."

However, I think this paper is as far as plans have got. My own
opinion is that projects with a defined scientific output might
take precedence and this will only fly if it can be incorporated
into an existing program. The concern would be that a probe
would be launched, carefully designed to eliminate systematic
effects, and would return a null result, no anomaly. We would
then have confirmed the Pioneer effect was 'craft design' but
be no nearer identifying the cause. I'd love to see it fly, with
a few more instruments on-board, but I couldn't make a case to a
program manager so I am pessimistic.

George

(James Harris) wrote in message m...
Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
(James Harris) writes:
I've been reading with interest posts about the Pioneer 10 anomaly,
but noticed in looking back that previously Galileo and Ulysses probes
were also said to have shown the anomaly.

Is that still considered true? If so, to what accuracy?

I don't believe any revised analysis has been done since the large
Anderson paper. You can find the analysis details and uncertainty
estimates in that paper.

CM

References
Anderson, J. D. et al, gr-qc/0104064

Thanks! I'm looking the paper over now. I just want as much
information as possible to show that what's seen with the Pioneer
probes is real, and isn't just some weird wacky thing that just comes
from them before I start questioning the physics that I learned.

Basically before I get too excited by the implications.

Unfortunately though, from what I've read, there won't be probes sent
out to verify for maybe a decade, but still now for the first time in
a long time I envy those people who went the distance and obtained
doctorates.

When I received my B.S. in physics back in 1991, I looked around and
didn't see anything that excited me, but if the "anomaly" is real,
then physics is a whole new ballgame.

Maybe I can go back to school now.


James Harris

You can come to me...

Cheers!
Aladar
http://www.stolmarphysics.com

In message , George Dishman
writes

"James Harris" wrote in message
om...

Well that's why I asked about Galileo and Ulysses: different craft;
different designs. Consider the subject line of this thread.

Point noted.

I've glanced over the paper, and probably will need to look it over
again more thoroughly, but from what I read, craft design is not a
"significant possibility" at this point.

Nobody knows what causes the anomaly but I think most people
expect it to be craft design from the limited number of
people who have commented.

If only there were a probe moving into position soon to check this
phenomenom.

But it could be a few years, even up to a decade, right?

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0308017

".. the mission could be flown as early as in 2010."

However, I think this paper is as far as plans have got. My own
opinion is that projects with a defined scientific output might
take precedence and this will only fly if it can be incorporated
into an existing program. The concern would be that a probe
would be launched, carefully designed to eliminate systematic
effects, and would return a null result, no anomaly.

As I've said before, results from Cassini seem to have done that
already. In their paper http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0308010v1, John
Anderson and his colleagues say "the uncertainty in the thermal model
overwhelms any plausible application of the Pioneer anomaly to Cassini"
but I'm not convinced. I think it just isn't there.
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

Jonathan Silverlight wrote in message ...
In message , George Dishman
writes

"James Harris" wrote in message
om...

Well that's why I asked about Galileo and Ulysses: different craft;
different designs. Consider the subject line of this thread.

Point noted.

I've glanced over the paper, and probably will need to look it over
again more thoroughly, but from what I read, craft design is not a
"significant possibility" at this point.

Nobody knows what causes the anomaly but I think most people
expect it to be craft design from the limited number of
people who have commented.

If only there were a probe moving into position soon to check this
phenomenom.

But it could be a few years, even up to a decade, right?

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0308017

".. the mission could be flown as early as in 2010."

However, I think this paper is as far as plans have got. My own
opinion is that projects with a defined scientific output might
take precedence and this will only fly if it can be incorporated
into an existing program. The concern would be that a probe
would be launched, carefully designed to eliminate systematic
effects, and would return a null result, no anomaly.

As I've said before, results from Cassini seem to have done that
already. In their paper http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0308010v1, John
Anderson and his colleagues say "the uncertainty in the thermal model
overwhelms any plausible application of the Pioneer anomaly to Cassini"
but I'm not convinced. I think it just isn't there.

I checked. The Cassini GR test didn't show the anomaly, but couldn't
rule it out either. Your incomplete information marks you as an
unreliable source Jonathan Silverlight. I'll ignore any further posts
from you and recommend that other readers discount your posts.


James Harris

(James Harris) writes:

Jonathan Silverlight wrote in message ...
[ ... ]

As I've said before, results from Cassini seem to have done that
already. In their paper http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0308010v1, John
Anderson and his colleagues say "the uncertainty in the thermal model
overwhelms any plausible application of the Pioneer anomaly to Cassini"
but I'm not convinced. I think it just isn't there.

I checked. The Cassini GR test didn't show the anomaly, but couldn't
rule it out either. Your incomplete information marks you as an
unreliable source Jonathan Silverlight. I'll ignore any further posts
from you and recommend that other readers discount your posts.

Mr. Silverlight has been a reliable contributor to this newsgroup for
a long time. The information presented by Mr. Silverlight in his one
sentence summary of the Anderson paper was certainly more complete
than yours. You went from zero to annoying in this newsgroup in no
time flat.

CM