arXiv blog

Is Pluto Being Pulled by the Pioneer Effect?

If the Pioneer effect is real, then the outer planets ought to be tugged by it too.

kfc 05/07/2009

  • 8 Comments

Here's an interesting take on the Pioneer effect--the mysterious deceleration that seems to be afflicting Pioneer 10 and 11 as they head out of the Solar System.

If the effect is real, it ought to influence the orbits of the outer planets. Pluto, in particular, ought top feel this force if it's out there. In the last few years, a few astronomers have calculated what sort of influence the Pioneer effect should have on Pluto, concluding that it should produce significant periodic effects. The fact that we don't see these effects means we can rule out the Pioneer effect as a phenomenon affecting the outer planets, they say. And that means it probably isn't a fundamental effect but some kind of artifact.

But now it sees that it's too early to be making these kinds of assertions. Gary Page from George Mason University in Virginia and a couple of pals say the calculations are less than convincing. They point out that our knowledge of Pluto's orbit is based entirely on optical observations and so are far less well characterised than the nearer planets.

In fact, so poor is our knowledge of Pluto's orbit that it is impossible to say whether it is being pulled by a Pioneer-like force or not.

Page and pals say:

"Of course, this does not mean that the Pioneer effect exists. It does mean that we cannot deny the existence of the Pioneer
effect on the basis of motions of the Pluto as currently known."

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0905.0030: How Well Do We Know The Orbits Of The Outer Planets?

TRSF: Read the Best New Science Fiction inspired by today’s emerging technologies.

Print

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

ZephirAWT

299 Comments

  • 1014 Days Ago
  • 05/07/2009

Pioneer effect

is basically a dark matter phenomena - as it manifests by weak decelleration, which is a product of Hubble constant and speed of light.

By general relativity the Lense-Thirring effect (a "frame dragging") is a consequence of composition of motion of objects and limited speed of light, which leads to shear-like motion of curved space-time during rotation of massive bodies. If we consider an omnidirectional universe expansion defined by Hubble constant, the intensity of shear-like motion would become dependent to distance from object: it would decrease with distance, as the light effectivelly freezes in expanding space-time - which would result into dark matter phenomena.

This doesn't say, at the case of large gallaxies, the dark matter cannot contain a material particles trapped inside of expanding space-time, the antimatter particles in particular. But the primary reason of dark matter is of relativistic nature in my opinion.

Reply

Danieleveld

28 Comments

  • 1014 Days Ago
  • 05/07/2009

Re: Pioneer effect

I'm not exactly following where dark matter has anything to do with what you are saying. Maybe I'm totally misunderstanding you, which is likely.
    Even in an omni-directional universe, our solar system is nearly aligned on a single plane. Any body of mass, great or small, moving or not, still compresses space to some degree. Since our solar system is so well aligned, and there are plenty of big, moving objects in it, it stands to reason that those forces would compress space closer to the sun and dilate it out radially from the sun all along that plane. Pluto should be moving through space much faster than anything closer to the sun, just like in redshift dilation (well, BECAUSE of RSD).
   The only non-artifact reason for the pioneers slowing down is that they are moving into denser space- which is the only logical tie I can think of to dark matter; perhaps space is compressed because of the pressence of DM at quantity? So even if DM is not directly interacting with standard matter, it can still influence it by dilating/compressing space.

Reply

sanman

31 Comments

  • 1013 Days Ago
  • 05/08/2009

Re: Pioneer effect

Hi,
I thought Dark Matter was associated with the galaxies not whirling apart due to their spin. So maybe he is saying that there is some MACHO or WIMP effect that is similarly taking place around our solar system's periphery. ie. something pulling/pushing everything inward.

Reply

flared0ne

395 Comments

  • 1013 Days Ago
  • 05/08/2009

I've said it before, I'll say it again....

Our entire experience and practical knowledge has been shaped by the potential well we live in. Variations in the metric experienced as platforms approach the edges of this well have barely begun to be categorized and analyzed. Until we come up with, say, some effective way to "track" Oort objects traveling in a wide variety of paths, we won't be able to rule out what could be mapped as an "impedance change" or maybe a "variation in reluctance" (lets not get into tensor fields here) affecting orbital motion differently at different points in "the well". And if we currently can't even track Pluto, the private paths of Oort objects are fairly safe for awhile...

Reply

flared0ne

395 Comments

  • 1013 Days Ago
  • 05/08/2009

On the other hand...

I'm trying to recall some of the math used and insights gained while attempting to analyze gravitational field strengths at different points inside of a relatively spherical bounded-surface volume (a planet, for example), based on integrating the total mass out in every direction from that internal point to the surface of said volume...

Whether or not "dark matter" exists, if it turns out to be an effective metaphor for whatever IS going on, then extrapolations from a nebulous volume centered on the Sun and integrating from any given point "within the well" out to the supposed boundaries of said volume might give similar variations in "field" effects (without the inconvenience of digging to move from one field point to another, re inside a planet).

One potential yield might be an implied "volume" constraint (for this nebulous "dark matter" cloud we supposedly are orbiting through) and perhaps predictions for "impedance" gradients relative to radial distance out from the Sun...

Reply

neilrieck

67 Comments

  • 1013 Days Ago
  • 05/08/2009

Need a different theory?

Last year I read interesting alternative theory in a book titled "Reinventing Gravity" by physicist John Moffat. In his 2008 book, professor Moffat reminds us about the creation of planet Vulcan as a solution for Mercury's orbital procession problems. Vulcan was never found and the true solution for Mercury's orbit involves Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (remember that GTR is a modification to the theory of gravity). Likewise, Moffat explains that the invention of Dark Energy may have been unnecessary and that a better solution involves modifying the theory of gravity again. Please read Moffat's book for more details.

p.s. John Moffat is currently a visiting professor at the Perimeter Institute for Advanced Physics in Waterloo, Ontario.

Reply

ZephirAWT

299 Comments

  • 1013 Days Ago
  • 05/08/2009

Re: Need a different theory?

The physicists needn't another theory - they just need to combine existing theory and well proven fact: I mean general relativity and the concept of omnidirectional universe expansion.

Currently the space-time expansion is generally accepted for explanation of red shift and Big Bang cosmology. But it's not handled as a omnidirectional in formal models - only the models, based on our local observer perspective are considered. This is particularly because it makes relativity a local gauge theory: the relativists affraid to make relativity more relative, then Einstein did before one hundred years. The want to connect gravity with quantum mechanics, while keeping deterministic character of relativity - which is virtually impossible.

I can understand, when physics becomes conservative and negativistic toward Aether theory. But contemporary physics becomes conservative even with respect to its own ideas: the consensus freezes, when facing fastly growing pile of varius theories, based on local reference frames. The consecutive logics of formally thinking theorists isn't prepared to fuzzy way of many temporal dimensions, in which reality manifests at very small and very large distance scales. In this way, the formal math based approach of physics of 20th century was catched in its own trap.

We can say, mainstream physics changes into dark matter cloud with respect to its own informational revolution.

Reply

Advertisement

martwill38

9 Comments

  • 1013 Days Ago
  • 05/08/2009

Re: Need a different theory?

My father won a school prize in 1897: "The Story of the Heavens: by then Astronomer Royal Sir Robert Stawell Ball, LL.D., D.Sc. - new 1897 edition.  The short Chapter VI: The Planet of Romsnce, pp.122-126, discusses the Vulcan hypothesis in considerable detail - "the unknown planet, which has received the name of Vulcan even before its very existence has been at all satisfactorily established."  The possibility of observing a transit is examined, and  that of observing it during a total solar eclipse, with reference to the 1878 observations by American astronomer Professor Watson and another Mr. Swift.  Watson and Swift both claimed to have seen intra-Mercuial objects on that occasion, but none were seen in subsequent eclipses (up to 1897). Unfortunately, Robert Ball did not cite references to these observations, but the index distinguishes Mr. Watson from Sir William Watson.

Reply

Bio

The Physics arXiv Blog produces daily coverage of the best new ideas from an online forum called the Physics arXiv on which scientists post early versions of their latest ideas. Contact me at KentuckyFC @ arxivblog.com

Follow The Physics arXiv Blog on Twitter

Subscribe to the arXiv blog RSS Feed

Advertisement
Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement