Pioneer : Anomaly Still Anonymous

"GSS" writes:

May I request the learned readers to kindly explain (if possible) how
exactly did we come to the conclusion from the available Doppler data
that the Anomaly exists? More precisely, how do we compute the
Anomalous acceleration from the available Doppler data?


In short, there is a model of the forces on the spacecraft and the
physical effects on the radio waves in the solar system. After
solving for the trajectory of the spacecraft by adjusting the initial
conditions, there still remains a residual which cannot be accounted
for by known physics. Hence, the "anomaly."

Why not read more here?
http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0104064 Anderson et al.
http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0208046 Markwardt

Craig

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig B. Markwardt, Ph.D. EMAIL:
Astrophysics, IDL, Finance, Derivatives | Remove "net" for better response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

John C. Polasek writes:
[ ... ]
Now that you ask, the discovery has nothing to do with the Doppler
effect, which is the change in frequency corresponding to Pioneer's
velocity, during a round trip to the target satellite.

This is unsubstantiated.

It comes from integration of an accurate model for predicted frequency
over years of time, during which it was found that the station
frequency consistently and secularly exceeded the frequency predicted
by the model.

Incorrect. First, at no point was an "accurate model for predicted
frequency" integrated. In fact, a frequency model was computed based
on the best-fit trajectory. This was compared to the observations,
and the resulting residuals have a linear trend with time.

Second, and more importantly, it was *not* found that the station
frequency changed. [ This is your own erroneous assertion. ]

As I already noted on June 18th,
[ Markwardt, ]
: However, what you are not grasping is that *both* the "model" and
: "observed" frequencies also depend on the *transmitted* frequency at
: the time of the tracking session. Even if all frequencies drifted as
: you suppose, so would the transmitted uplink frequency. Any drift
: would appear in both "model" and "observed," and therefore subtract
: away to zero. Once again, there is no special frequency of 1987
: stored in the analysis program.
So even if you were "right" you would be wrong.

....

There is every indication the causeof this drift is the secular
increase of all atomic clocks at Hubble rate of 2.6e-18/sec, while the
model perforce used the established frequency of 2.292GHz m/l.

Actually, there is no indication of drifting clocks, as noted in
detail by Anderson et al (2002).

CM

"John C. Polasek" wrote in message
...

There is every indication the causeof this drift is the secular
increase of all atomic clocks at Hubble rate of 2.6e-18/sec,

This is completely incorrect. Anderson et al include a
detailed discussion of the possibility of clocks drifting
and note that it would require a quadratic drift to explain
the anomaly, i.e. a rate that depended on t^2.

Joe, in case John's reply leads you to think of
the cosmological ('Hubble') redshift, just note
that it has frequently been brought up and
dismissed, it produces an effect about 10,000
times too small.

while the
model perforce used the established frequency of 2.292GHz m/l.

As has been pointed out to you several times John,
each contact analysed used the appropriate recorded
transmitted frequency since it was necessary to
change it almost daily to compensate for the Doppler
caused by the Earth's orbital speed. Please don't
mislead people asking for simple factual answers
with this sort of mis-information.

George

On 25 Jun 2006 13:29:43 -0500, Craig Markwardt
wrote:


"GSS" writes:

May I request the learned readers to kindly explain (if possible) how
exactly did we come to the conclusion from the available Doppler data
that the Anomaly exists? More precisely, how do we compute the
Anomalous acceleration from the available Doppler data?


In short, there is a model of the forces on the spacecraft and the
physical effects on the radio waves in the solar system. After
solving for the trajectory of the spacecraft by adjusting the initial
conditions, there still remains a residual which cannot be accounted
for by known physics. Hence, the "anomaly."

Why not read more here?
http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0104064 Anderson et al.
http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0208046 Markwardt

Craig
Gentlemen, I have made a thorough effort to take account of all
factors in the Pioneer 10 affair. To that end I have posted on my
website an analysis including a signal flow graph that attempts to
diagram the whole procedure. I have made an effort to get it all
right, but will listen to any suggestions. After all I was not first
hand on the job.

The signal flowgraph is a handy substitute for a block diagram as you
will understand by a bit of study. At least it presents specifics
which can aid in any discussion.

I have evidence of secular advance of atomic clocks, and am quite sure
you will agree with me that there is no way to argue that the model
contained anything resembling such a rate, hence the anomaly.

See the first document mentioned on the website, a .pdf 4 page item.

John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net

Craig Markwardt wrote:
"GSS" writes:

May I request the learned readers to kindly explain (if possible) how
exactly did we come to the conclusion from the available Doppler data
that the Anomaly exists? More precisely, how do we compute the
Anomalous acceleration from the available Doppler data?


In short, there is a model of the forces on the spacecraft and the
physical effects on the radio waves in the solar system. After
solving for the trajectory of the spacecraft by adjusting the initial
conditions, there still remains a residual which cannot be accounted
for by known physics. Hence, the "anomaly."

Why not read more here?
http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0104064 Anderson et al.
http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0208046 Markwardt

Craig

Let me include a few relations from the above quoted reference for
subsequent discussion.

Let D represent delta, v_mod represent the outward velocity of the
spacecraft at the given instant t as used in the comprehensive
trajectory model and v_obs represent the corresponding velocity as
derived from the observed Doppler frequency Nu_obs.

Nu_mod = Nu_0 [1-(2.v_mod/c)] ..... (1)
DNu_mod = Nu_0 - Nu_mod ..... (2)
DNu_obs = Nu_0 - Nu_obs ..... (3)
From (1)
DNu_mod/Nu_0 = 2 v_mod/c ..... (4)
And
2 v_obs/c = DNu_obs/Nu_0 ..... (5)

It has been observed from the Pioneer-10 Doppler data that over a long
period of time the Doppler Residuals given by [DNu_obs-DNu_mod] or by
[v_obs-v_mod] showed a continuous decreasing trend. This has been found
to be an Anomalous effect. This anomalous effect has been modeled by an
anomalous acceleration term a_p directed towards sun/earth.

DNu_obs/Nu_0 - DNu_mod/Nu_0 = 2.a_p.t/c .... (6)

Tremendous efforts have been put in for finding some acceptable
satisfactory explanation for this anomaly and too many weird proposals
have been put forward for resolving it but without success. In the
process all aspects of the comprehensive trajectory model have been
thoroughly analyzed.

It has been mentioned in the above quoted reference that *all
relativistic corrections* have been incorporated in the model. In this
regard kindly give your opinion whether it is possible that the so
called relativistic corrections themselves could be the source of the
Anomalous effect??

And is it also possible that some theoretical error in the Doppler
relations (4) and (5) could lead to the observed Anomalous effect?

GSS

"GSS" writes:
....
DNu_mod/Nu_0 = 2 v_mod/c ..... (4)
And
2 v_obs/c = DNu_obs/Nu_0 ..... (5)
....

It has been mentioned in the above quoted reference that *all
relativistic corrections* have been incorporated in the model. In this
regard kindly give your opinion whether it is possible that the so
called relativistic corrections themselves could be the source of the
Anomalous effect??

No. Switching from relativistic to classical physics only worsens the
solution, not improves.

And is it also possible that some theoretical error in the Doppler
relations (4) and (5) could lead to the observed Anomalous effect?

Relations 4 and 5 are inexact representations of the Doppler shift.
The exact relativistic formulation improves the solution.

Craig

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig B. Markwardt, Ph.D. EMAIL:
Astrophysics, IDL, Finance, Derivatives | Remove "net" for better response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 26 Jun 2006 09:44:15 -0700, "GSS"
wrote:


Craig Markwardt wrote:
"GSS" writes:

May I request the learned readers to kindly explain (if possible) how
exactly did we come to the conclusion from the available Doppler data
that the Anomaly exists? More precisely, how do we compute the
Anomalous acceleration from the available Doppler data?


In short, there is a model of the forces on the spacecraft and the
physical effects on the radio waves in the solar system. After
solving for the trajectory of the spacecraft by adjusting the initial
conditions, there still remains a residual which cannot be accounted
for by known physics. Hence, the "anomaly."

Why not read more here?
http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0104064 Anderson et al.
http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0208046 Markwardt

Craig

Let me include a few relations from the above quoted reference for
subsequent discussion.

Let D represent delta, v_mod represent the outward velocity of the
spacecraft at the given instant t as used in the comprehensive
trajectory model and v_obs represent the corresponding velocity as
derived from the observed Doppler frequency Nu_obs.

Nu_mod = Nu_0 [1-(2.v_mod/c)] ..... (1)
DNu_mod = Nu_0 - Nu_mod ..... (2)
DNu_obs = Nu_0 - Nu_obs ..... (3)
From (1)
DNu_mod/Nu_0 = 2 v_mod/c ..... (4)
And
2 v_obs/c = DNu_obs/Nu_0 ..... (5)

It has been observed from the Pioneer-10 Doppler data that over a long
period of time the Doppler Residuals given by [DNu_obs-DNu_mod] or by
[v_obs-v_mod] showed a continuous decreasing trend. This has been found
to be an Anomalous effect. This anomalous effect has been modeled by an
anomalous acceleration term a_p directed towards sun/earth.

DNu_obs/Nu_0 - DNu_mod/Nu_0 = 2.a_p.t/c .... (6)

Tremendous efforts have been put in for finding some acceptable
satisfactory explanation for this anomaly and too many weird proposals
have been put forward for resolving it but without success. In the
process all aspects of the comprehensive trajectory model have been
thoroughly analyzed.

It has been mentioned in the above quoted reference that *all
relativistic corrections* have been incorporated in the model. In this
regard kindly give your opinion whether it is possible that the so
called relativistic corrections themselves could be the source of the
Anomalous effect??

And is it also possible that some theoretical error in the Doppler
relations (4) and (5) could lead to the observed Anomalous effect?

GSS

I tried to show you in my flowgraph paper on my website, that Doppler
isn't even in it. The round trip times are too small.

Even for a 20 hr. round trip the Doppler change in beat is a
fractional change df/f0 = 2e-13 or 4.8e-4Hz, and after 8 years (the
other end of the chart) you have the same values 2e-13 and 4.8e-4Hz.
There would be nothing to plot.

The chart shown would be the same if you used the station clock,
without the Doppler returned signal. The only thing that can
reasonably cause that is a continuously increasing station clock rate
or a mystery acceleration which we can rule out.

John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net

"John C. Polasek" wrote in message
...
On 25 Jun 2006 13:29:43 -0500, Craig Markwardt
wrote:


"GSS" writes:

May I request the learned readers to kindly explain (if possible) how
exactly did we come to the conclusion from the available Doppler data
that the Anomaly exists? More precisely, how do we compute the
Anomalous acceleration from the available Doppler data?


In short, there is a model of the forces on the spacecraft and the
physical effects on the radio waves in the solar system. After
solving for the trajectory of the spacecraft by adjusting the initial
conditions, there still remains a residual which cannot be accounted
for by known physics. Hence, the "anomaly."

Why not read more here?
http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0104064 Anderson et al.
http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0208046 Markwardt

Craig
Gentlemen, I have made a thorough effort to take account of all
factors in the Pioneer 10 affair. To that end I have posted on my
website an analysis including a signal flow graph that attempts to
diagram the whole procedure. I have made an effort to get it all
right, but will listen to any suggestions. After all I was not first
hand on the job.

In that case you should listen carefully to Craig since
his knowledge is first hand, he did a complete analysis
from the raw data and can tell you precisely how he did
that.

The signal flowgraph is a handy substitute for a block diagram as you
will understand by a bit of study. At least it presents specifics
which can aid in any discussion.

It needs a lot more explanation of what each of the items
represents, as it stands it is very difficult to follow.

It would be aprticularly useful if you could relate it
to the blobk diagram on page 8 of gr-qc/0104064 and the
discussion of the FTS. You are I believe suggesting that
the hydrogen maser in the FTS is drifting and it isn't
clear how that can produce an error of 3Hz over a period
of ~ 20 hours at the end of the period being analysed
when there was no error in 1987.

I have evidence of secular advance of atomic clocks, and am quite sure
you will agree with me that there is no way to argue that the model
contained anything resembling such a rate, hence the anomaly.

On the contrary, it has been pointed out that Anderson's
team described this in the section entitled "Phenomenological
time models". See page 46 of the above paper.

George

On 27 Jun 2006 01:11:49 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:

John C. Polasek wrote:

I tried to show you in my flowgraph paper on my website, that Doppler
isn't even in it. The round trip times are too small.

Even for a 20 hr. round trip the Doppler change in beat is a
fractional change df/f0 = 2e-13 or 4.8e-4Hz, and after 8 years (the
other end of the chart) you have the same values 2e-13 and 4.8e-4Hz.
There would be nothing to plot.

The chart shown would be the same if you used the station clock,
without the Doppler returned signal. The only thing that can
reasonably cause that is a continuously increasing station clock rate
or a mystery acceleration which we can rule out.

John, it isn't that simple. A linear increase in the
station maser clock rate would cause an increase in
the transmitted frequency in 1994 compared to 1987
and that would in turn cause an equal fractional
increase in the returned frequency. The measured
value is the difference between that and a reference
also generated from the maser (albeit at another
site[*]) but that difference is then measured using
a timebase derived from the same maser.

I think you are talking aboug deltaF on the graph, and we both agree
it's negligible. My argument is that the station or returned (either)
frequency vs the synthetic frequency in the model that makes the
anomaly.

What that means is that a simple change of rate
cancels out. I don't think your flowchart illustrates
that point and it is very important in any consideration
of clock rate variation.

George
[*] The secular rates will be matched via synchronisation
to the international standard.

How can I say it again without being repetitious? Of course the return
frequency is bootstrapped off the station clock and their difference
essentially nulls out. I just pointed that out above, to the effect
that the return differences are just so much noise, in the big
picture.

You must know that I am talking about all real, maser-verfiied clocks
that accelerate compared to the artificial clock in the model which
for several reasons must have a constant value. The result is the ramp
function on the chart.

I went on at some length about how the fictional clock can only have
one proper book value. Even today it would be assigned the same
value, just as Cs33 would still have 9,192,731,770 to define one
second. What is there to check against?

In other words, as shown on the graph, the model's frequency is f0 and
the station clock's is f0 plus f0*H*t, leaving f0*H*t as the input to
the graph. .

John P

John C. Polasek writes:


On 25 Jun 2006 13:29:43 -0500, Craig Markwardt
wrote:


"GSS" writes:

May I request the learned readers to kindly explain (if possible) how
exactly did we come to the conclusion from the available Doppler data
that the Anomaly exists? More precisely, how do we compute the
Anomalous acceleration from the available Doppler data?


In short, there is a model of the forces on the spacecraft and the
physical effects on the radio waves in the solar system. After
solving for the trajectory of the spacecraft by adjusting the initial
conditions, there still remains a residual which cannot be accounted
for by known physics. Hence, the "anomaly."

Why not read more here?
http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0104064 Anderson et al.
http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0208046 Markwardt

Craig
Gentlemen, I have made a thorough effort to take account of all
factors in the Pioneer 10 affair. To that end I have posted on my
website an analysis including a signal flow graph that attempts to
diagram the whole procedure. I have made an effort to get it all
right, but will listen to any suggestions. After all I was not first
hand on the job.

The signal flowgraph is a handy substitute for a block diagram as you
will understand by a bit of study. At least it presents specifics
which can aid in any discussion.

For the third time, as I already noted on June 18th,
[ Markwardt, ]
: However, what you are not grasping is that *both* the "model" and
: "observed" frequencies also depend on the *transmitted* frequency at
: the time of the tracking session. Even if all frequencies drifted as
: you suppose, so would the transmitted uplink frequency. Any drift
: would appear in both "model" and "observed," and therefore subtract
: away to zero. Once again, there is no special frequency of 1987
: stored in the analysis program.
So even if you were "right" you would be wrong.

I have evidence of secular advance of atomic clocks, and am quite sure
you will agree with me that there is no way to argue that the model
contained anything resembling such a rate, hence the anomaly.

And for the second time,
: Actually, there is no indication of drifting clocks, as noted in
: detail by Anderson et al (2002).


Why do you keep ignoring valid criticism, and instead continuously
repeating your erroneous and unsubstantiated claims?

CM