|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Pioneer anomalous acceleration" and Cassini
There's an article in the current issue of Nature that seems relevant to
the Pioneer anomalous acceleration question ("A test of general relativity using radio links with the Cassini spacecraft" B Bertotti, L Iess and P Tortora, Nature vol 425. No. 6956 p. 374, doi:10.1038/nature01997) AFAICS they have accurately modelled emission from the RTGs and they don't see any unexplained acceleration. Does that mean the question is settled, or isn't their measurement sufficiently sensitive? -- "Forty millions of miles it was from us, more than forty millions of miles of void" Remove spam and invalid from address to reply. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Pioneer anomalous acceleration" and Cassini
"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote in message ... There's an article in the current issue of Nature that seems relevant to the Pioneer anomalous acceleration question ("A test of general relativity using radio links with the Cassini spacecraft" B Bertotti, L Iess and P Tortora, Nature vol 425. No. 6956 p. 374, doi:10.1038/nature01997) AFAICS they have accurately modelled emission from the RTGs and they don't see any unexplained acceleration. Does that mean the question is settled, or isn't their measurement sufficiently sensitive? The question of whether all spacecraft will experience an anomalous acceleration between Jupiter and Saturn has been answered (the answer is NO). Their measurements and models for acceleration mechanisms are much more sensitive than the pioneer data, in part because the quality of the transmitter is much better. Also the spacecraft is much more massive, so small local forces will not shift it by much. The explanation of the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer remains unknown but as you know, many workers in this field believe it is due to some small radiative effect not correctly accounted for or an extremely small leak of propellant. Others still hope there is some now physics to be discovered. -- Mike Dworetsky (Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail) -- "Forty millions of miles it was from us, more than forty millions of miles of void" Remove spam and invalid from address to reply. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Pioneer anomalous acceleration" and Cassini
Jonathan Silverlight wrote
in message ... There's an article in the current issue of Nature that seems relevant to the Pioneer anomalous acceleration question ("A test of general relativity using radio links with the Cassini spacecraft" B Bertotti, L Iess and P Tortora, Nature vol 425. No. 6956 p. 374, doi:10.1038/nature01997) AFAICS they have accurately modelled emission from the RTGs and they don't see any unexplained acceleration. They haven't looked for anomalous acceleration with this experiment. The referenced experiment measures the time-delay of the signal in a gravitational field. Nothing more. Does that mean the question is settled, or isn't their measurement sufficiently sensitive? The question was settled years ago. There *is* definitive anomalous acceleration in pioneer and the voyagers. No theoretical explanation has yet been settled on. greywolf42 ubi dubium ibi libertas |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Pioneer anomalous acceleration" and Cassini
"greywolf42" writes: Jonathan Silverlight wrote in message ... There's an article in the current issue of Nature that seems relevant to the Pioneer anomalous acceleration question ("A test of general relativity using radio links with the Cassini spacecraft" B Bertotti, L Iess and P Tortora, Nature vol 425. No. 6956 p. 374, doi:10.1038/nature01997) AFAICS they have accurately modelled emission from the RTGs and they don't see any unexplained acceleration. They haven't looked for anomalous acceleration with this experiment. The referenced experiment measures the time-delay of the signal in a gravitational field. Nothing more. Incorrect. The referenced Cassini experiment, as with all radiometric Doppler tracking experiments, measures the Doppler shifts of the carrier due to the motion and other intervening effects. The time delay is not measured (i.e., it is not a ranging experiment). The Shapiro effect enters into the observable as the *time rate of change* in the signal travel time (including relatistic effects). It is also incorrect to say that the Cassini experiment does not measure an "anomalous" acceleration. By construction, the experiment requires a modeling of all forces on the spacecraft, "anomalous" or not. My reading of the article is that no anomalous forces were required. CM |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Pioneer anomalous acceleration" and Cassini
Craig Markwardt wrote in message
news "greywolf42" writes: Jonathan Silverlight wrote in message ... There's an article in the current issue of Nature that seems relevant to the Pioneer anomalous acceleration question ("A test of general relativity using radio links with the Cassini spacecraft" B Bertotti, L Iess and P Tortora, Nature vol 425. No. 6956 p. 374, doi:10.1038/nature01997) AFAICS they have accurately modelled emission from the RTGs and they don't see any unexplained acceleration. They haven't looked for anomalous acceleration with this experiment. The referenced experiment measures the time-delay of the signal in a gravitational field. Nothing more. Incorrect. The referenced Cassini experiment, as with all radiometric Doppler tracking experiments, measures the Doppler shifts of the carrier due to the motion and other intervening effects. The time delay is not measured (i.e., it is not a ranging experiment). The Shapiro effect enters into the observable as the *time rate of change* in the signal travel time (including relatistic effects). It is also incorrect to say that the Cassini experiment does not measure an "anomalous" acceleration. By construction, the experiment requires a modeling of all forces on the spacecraft, "anomalous" or not. My reading of the article is that no anomalous forces were required. And my reading of your above statement is that there is no such conclusion contained within the paper. The paper is nothing more or less than a calculation of the PPN parameter, gamma during a single Solar conjunction. There are no modelling of forces on the spacecraft in the paper -- construct or otherwise. greywolf42 ubi dubium ibi libertas |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Pioneer anomalous acceleration" and Cassini
Craig Markwardt wrote:
"greywolf42" writes: Jonathan Silverlight wrote in message ... There's an article in the current issue of Nature that seems relevant to the Pioneer anomalous acceleration question ("A test of general relativity using radio links with the Cassini spacecraft" B Bertotti, L Iess and P Tortora, Nature vol 425. No. 6956 p. 374, doi:10.1038/nature01997) AFAICS they have accurately modelled emission from the RTGs and they don't see any unexplained acceleration. They haven't looked for anomalous acceleration with this experiment. The referenced experiment measures the time-delay of the signal in a gravitational field. Nothing more. Incorrect. The referenced Cassini experiment, as with all radiometric Doppler tracking experiments, measures the Doppler shifts of the carrier due to the motion and other intervening effects. The time delay is not measured (i.e., it is not a ranging experiment). The Shapiro effect enters into the observable as the *time rate of change* in the signal travel time (including relatistic effects). It is also incorrect to say that the Cassini experiment does not measure an "anomalous" acceleration. By construction, the experiment requires a modeling of all forces on the spacecraft, "anomalous" or not. My reading of the article is that no anomalous forces were required. More precisely; due to the uncertainity in the modelling of the thermal output of the RTGs one cannot say if an anomalous acceleration is present in the Cassini data. The given residual acceleration of about a_r=-27*10^-8 cm/s^2 is _consistent_ with the presence of the Pioneer anomaly though. See gr-qc/0308010 for more details. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Pioneer anomalous acceleration" and Cassini
In message , greywolf42
writes Craig Markwardt wrote in message news "greywolf42" writes: Jonathan Silverlight wrote in message ... There's an article in the current issue of Nature that seems relevant to the Pioneer anomalous acceleration question ("A test of general relativity using radio links with the Cassini spacecraft" B Bertotti, L Iess and P Tortora, Nature vol 425. No. 6956 p. 374, doi:10.1038/nature01997) AFAICS they have accurately modelled emission from the RTGs and they don't see any unexplained acceleration. They haven't looked for anomalous acceleration with this experiment. The referenced experiment measures the time-delay of the signal in a gravitational field. Nothing more. Incorrect. The referenced Cassini experiment, as with all radiometric Doppler tracking experiments, measures the Doppler shifts of the carrier due to the motion and other intervening effects. The time delay is not measured (i.e., it is not a ranging experiment). The Shapiro effect enters into the observable as the *time rate of change* in the signal travel time (including relatistic effects). It is also incorrect to say that the Cassini experiment does not measure an "anomalous" acceleration. By construction, the experiment requires a modeling of all forces on the spacecraft, "anomalous" or not. My reading of the article is that no anomalous forces were required. And my reading of your above statement is that there is no such conclusion contained within the paper. The paper is nothing more or less than a calculation of the PPN parameter, gamma during a single Solar conjunction. There are no modelling of forces on the spacecraft in the paper -- construct or otherwise. Have you actually looked at the paper?? They wouldn't be able to see anything without accurate modelling of the gravitational and non-gravitational forces on the spacecraft. It's the latter which are much more interesting here - solar radiation and the anisotropic thermal emission from the spacecraft, which is the prime suspect in the Pioneer acceleration. Quoting "Deriving this acceleration from a model of the spacecraft is a difficult task; but its estimation from Doppler measurements, combined with attitude data, is routinely carried out for spacecraft navigation with good and consistent accuracies. The largest component (along the Earth-spacecraft axis, _pushing towards the Earth_ [my emphasis] ) is about 3 x 10^-9 m s^2..... This component has been determined with a formal error of ~3%". Bertotti et al. figure 3 shows Doppler residuals of about +- 4 x 10^-4 Hz over the 30 day period of solar conjunction, and their RMS value is 1.2 x 10^-4. This works out to about 5 x 10^-11 Hz/s, much less than the figure Anderson et al. found (6 x 10^-9 Hz/s) -- "It is written in mathematical language" Remove spam and invalid from address to reply. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Pioneer anomalous acceleration" and Cassini
Jonathan Silverlight wrote in message ...
In message , greywolf42 writes Craig Markwardt wrote in message news "greywolf42" writes: Jonathan Silverlight wrote in message ... There's an article in the current issue of Nature that seems relevant to the Pioneer anomalous acceleration question ("A test of general relativity using radio links with the Cassini spacecraft" B Bertotti, L Iess and P Tortora, Nature vol 425. No. 6956 p. 374, doi:10.1038/nature01997) AFAICS they have accurately modelled emission from the RTGs and they don't see any unexplained acceleration. They haven't looked for anomalous acceleration with this experiment. The referenced experiment measures the time-delay of the signal in a gravitational field. Nothing more. Incorrect. The referenced Cassini experiment, as with all radiometric Doppler tracking experiments, measures the Doppler shifts of the carrier due to the motion and other intervening effects. The time delay is not measured (i.e., it is not a ranging experiment). The Shapiro effect enters into the observable as the *time rate of change* in the signal travel time (including relatistic effects). It is also incorrect to say that the Cassini experiment does not measure an "anomalous" acceleration. By construction, the experiment requires a modeling of all forces on the spacecraft, "anomalous" or not. My reading of the article is that no anomalous forces were required. And my reading of your above statement is that there is no such conclusion contained within the paper. The paper is nothing more or less than a calculation of the PPN parameter, gamma during a single Solar conjunction. There are no modelling of forces on the spacecraft in the paper -- construct or otherwise. Have you actually looked at the paper?? Yes. They wouldn't be able to see anything without accurate modelling of the gravitational and non-gravitational forces on the spacecraft. You are incorrect. The paper does not deal with forces on the spacecraft at all. Please read it. It's the latter which are much more interesting here - solar radiation and the anisotropic thermal emission from the spacecraft, which is the prime suspect in the Pioneer acceleration. But irrelevant to this paper. Quoting "Deriving this acceleration from a model of the spacecraft is a difficult task; but its estimation from Doppler measurements, combined with attitude data, is routinely carried out for spacecraft navigation with good and consistent accuracies. The largest component (along the Earth-spacecraft axis, _pushing towards the Earth_ [my emphasis] ) is about 3 x 10^-9 m s^2..... This component has been determined with a formal error of ~3%". Bertotti et al. figure 3 shows Doppler residuals of about +- 4 x 10^-4 Hz over the 30 day period of solar conjunction, and their RMS value is 1.2 x 10^-4. This works out to about 5 x 10^-11 Hz/s, much less than the figure Anderson et al. found (6 x 10^-9 Hz/s) The above is not related to the conclusion of the paper. greywolf42 ubi dubium ibi libertas |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Pioneer anomalous acceleration" and Cassini
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Pioneer anomalous acceleration" and Cassini
In message , greywolf42
writes Jonathan Silverlight wrote in message conjunction. There are no modelling of forces on the spacecraft in the paper -- construct or otherwise. Have you actually looked at the paper?? Yes. They wouldn't be able to see anything without accurate modelling of the gravitational and non-gravitational forces on the spacecraft. You are incorrect. The paper does not deal with forces on the spacecraft at all. Please read it. Which part of "An important contribution to the frequency shift is due to non-gravitational forces acting on the spacecraft" do you have a problem reading? It's the latter which are much more interesting here - solar radiation and the anisotropic thermal emission from the spacecraft, which is the prime suspect in the Pioneer acceleration. But irrelevant to this paper. "The anisotropic thermal emission of the spacecraft" (same paragraph). They had to take it into account, even though it's much smaller than the relativistic acceleration. Quoting "Deriving this acceleration from a model of the spacecraft is a difficult task; but its estimation from Doppler measurements, combined with attitude data, is routinely carried out for spacecraft navigation with good and consistent accuracies. The largest component (along the Earth-spacecraft axis, _pushing towards the Earth_ [my emphasis] ) is about 3 x 10^-9 m s^2..... This component has been determined with a formal error of ~3%". Bertotti et al. figure 3 shows Doppler residuals of about +- 4 x 10^-4 Hz over the 30 day period of solar conjunction, and their RMS value is 1.2 x 10^-4. This works out to about 5 x 10^-11 Hz/s, much less than the figure Anderson et al. found (6 x 10^-9 Hz/s) The above is not related to the conclusion of the paper. I'm not saying it is. I'm saying that Anderson et al. modelled Pioneer and found a residual frequency drift. Bertotti et al. modelled Cassini and found no drift (or possibly a very tiny one). So something is different. -- Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10 Remove spam and invalid from address to reply. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|