A series of mysterious observations of objects within the solar system could indicate the existence of exotic new physics.
At the end of the 19th century, astronomers discovered that the perihelion
of Mercury (its closest point to the sun during its orbit) was slowly advancing
in a way that could not be explained by Newtonian physics. The anomaly was
small, so tiny that most believed that a simple explanation would soon be found.
It turned out, of course, that Mercury's orbit was a clue to the existence of an
entirely new physics concept, called general relativity, which fundamentally
changed our understanding of the universe.
If there's a lesson there, it is to pay attention to small anomalies.
Which is why a list prepared by John Anderson at the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory in California and Michael Nieto at
Los Alamos National Laboratory in New
Mexico makes for interesting reading. The two
scientists have compiled details on four unexplained anomalies that astronomers
are currently scratching their heads over (I've added a fifth). Let's take a
look.
1. First up is the flyby anomaly, which we've discussed on the arxivblog here, here, and here. This is the
discovery that spacecraft flying past Earth experience a small but significant change
in acceleration, an effect that has been studied in detail by Anderson and shown to be real rather than an
artifact of some kind.
2. Next is the slow but sure increase in the length of the astronomical unit
(AU), a unit of measure roughly equal to the mean distance from Earth to the sun.
This has been calculated as 149,597,870,700 meters, plus or minus three meters,
and it is by far the most accurately determined constant in astronomy, the data
coming from distance measurements between Earth and various Mars orbiters and
landers dating from 1976 to the present. However, these data indicate that the
AU is increasing by about 15 centimeters per year.
One explanation is that the mass of the sun is increasing (there is a
mathematical relationship linking the AU to the mass of the sun). In fact, the
mass of the sun ought to be decreasing because of mass loss to solar radiation
and the solar wind. To explain the increase in the AU, the sun would have to be
increasing its mass by 10^18 kilograms per year. That's equivalent to
swallowing a good-sized planetary moon or about 40,000 comets per year. Surely
we'd have noticed that.
3. Then there is the Pioneer anomaly, the small but steady slowing of the
Pioneer spacecraft as they move out of the solar system. Nobody has been able
to satisfactorily explain what's pulling them back, although there has been no shortage of
attempts.
4. Finally, Anderson and Nieto point to the increase in eccentricity of the moon's
orbit, as measured by laser-ranging measurements between 1970 and 2008. These
data show that the moon's apogee and perigee have increased in distance by
about 3.5 millimeters per year.
5. Anderson and Nieto could add a fifth puzzle to their list: the recent anomalies measured in
Saturn's orbit.
Does that add up to evidence for new physics, or just a poor application of
the physics we do know? Whatever the answer, these are problems worth watching.
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0907.2469: Astrometric Solar-System Anomalies
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Comments
http://tinyurl.com/lykp7b
Indeed, you can still consider it as a manifestation of new physics like AWT, supersymmetry or quantum gravity, if you want (and if you need a more money for grant support). But it's better to consider both perspectives at the same time to remain fully unbiased.
ZephirAWT
07/29/2009
Posts:158
So yes, we do need new physics but this time around, we need fundamental causal explanations and not just some adjustments to some coefficients or some constants used in an existing equation.
Real physics is about particles, their properties and their interactions. Equations that describe the paths of moving bodies in the solar system are just engineering.
Mapou
07/29/2009
Posts:86
In this point the motivations of scientific community and the rest of society are different. At the moment, when such difference becomes pronounced, it will create a new ideas reconciling and balancing both approaches and to attract people like me, who are living from density gradient at phase interface, thus manifesting dark matter effect in society.
ZephirAWT
07/29/2009
Posts:158
http://cosmicdarkmatter.com/
ktperera
08/02/2009
Posts:1
INOVE51
07/29/2009
Posts:5
http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/04/awt-and-mechanical-models-of.html
ZephirAWT
07/29/2009
Posts:158
But deeper analysis reveals, the same results can be achieved simply by more consequential application of general relativity into field equations, thus making relativity implict, nonlocal and recursive theory.
I'd seriously reccomend you to become familiar with AWT, as it enables to understand, why the same progress in understanding can be achieved both by more consequent application of relativity into existing models or by application of dual, i.e. quantum mechanical approach.
Both approaches are equivalent in fact: the extensive application of some paradigm has the same result like the application of dual, i.e. reciprocal approach. For example, if you'll express your love too much, it would have exactly the same negative effect, like manifestation of hate.
ZephirAWT
07/29/2009
Posts:158
jcordaro
07/29/2009
Posts:2
Of course, the causual connection of all these phenomena wasn't proved with certainty yet - but for sake of Occam's razor principle I'd prefer to consider it in the first place.
ZephirAWT
07/29/2009
Posts:158
Roliel
07/29/2009
Posts:4
ah well, smart guys are pretty smart (but opinions now count as much as empiricism).
anyway... there are ways to get higher accuracy out of lower data. the easiest example for you to look up is to see how commercial GPS gets around the errors injected into the system to make military more accurate and civilian less accurate.
averaging many many samples can start to tease out the valid measure.
and in other cases injecting random noise can raise ordered signals above noise...
in the exact case i cant tell you... since i didnt do the work and dont know what kind of data they have.
artfldgr
07/29/2009
Posts:5
In regards to whomever gave me a one star rating for my comment, I think its rather odd that scientists and people interested in science would frown upon asking questions regarding clarification and statistical measurements; it was my understanding that the physical community values looking at a problem or phenomena and asking "Why." But then again, a five-star rating system isn't exactly a statistically accurate survey.
Roliel
07/30/2009
Posts:4
2 the AU is increasing... so what effects could cause that to happen?
well i will work off what they say there which is an increase in the suns mass will cause the earth to move away from the sun (au increasing).
one first has to drop our discreet view and look at the solar system as suppositions of conditions on top of conditions.
and gravitationally there are TWO ways to add mass to our sun, one overt and the other covert.
the overt way is waht they deal with, and say we would notice it. true.
but is there another way?
well, the sun as a stand alone entity has its gravity. but in a system, this entity shares this gravitational position with the solar systems gravitation. they are not one and the same.
our solar system does not sit in isolation... and our solar system is alive and dynamic, even now. our view is more of it was created, sorted out, and then stabilized.
but thats probably not how it happened once the majority mass stabilized. that is after the age where the origins choas settles, its still evolving.
look at the oort cloud and things. we think its material left over from the origin... is it? current theory says that from the smash ups and such these clouds of matter formed.
i say they were seeded. and our solar system moves through space. and ahead of our solar system is matter. if one could light it up, it would be like a fog. this fog is made up of matter that has been evaporated from the sun, but more importantly its made of matter that our solar system is meeting to greet.
if we were sitting still, we would use up the matter in our local area, and like massive black holes have this huge area with little matter in it.
but we are orbiting in a galazy, and so we are moving through clouds of matter of different densities... and our solar system is spining as it goes...
so what you have is matter in the amounts and sizes of planets being added to the asteroid belt as it sweeps up the matter as it comes into the system. like cotton candy it gets wrapped around us and it slowly unbalances the system there. which is what causes new comets and things to form and fall in.
but ultimately the gravitational center of our solarsystem can take in planets worth of material, and the sun wouldnt even see it and we wouldnt either.
figuring out how much we get would not be easy, but then again there are harder things in physics.
one would have to figure out absorption to the whole gravitational area that is salient...
it also may show that the solar system didnt quite evolve the way that we think it did. that long after it was stable, it has been taking on lots of matter as it moved through the galazy...
in this way, the matter ejected thorugh hawking radiation and such gets moved to the outside of the mature systems (hawking and near hawking radiation may explain dark matter).
so if we construct a new mental model that says we are not moving through empty space, and that our system is sweeping up matter in lines depending on its pull and what crosses its path.
your talking a 10^-4 light year width... and its sweeping up matter... its rotating so that matter is being added more symetrically than if it wasnt... how high above the plane would be considered part of this i dont know.
but if you figure that teh gravitational width of effectiveness is smaller.. you could figure out that the bow of this system is huge.. and like a funnel everything in side the effective gravitational zone is being drawn in.
how would one detect and show this though?
behind the system there should be turbulence..
ahead of the system there should be pressure..
which is why i said that these effects are related. pioneer and such satellites are actually maping the bowshock waves where whats less dense inside because its been swept up faster, slowly starts colliding with stuff that is compressed as it falls in. since the system is rotating, its either hitting turbulence, or its hitting the bow of the movement.
so you take this, and take the fact taht matter evaporates... not just black holes, but suns and planets. etc.
these are not discreet final sized objects that move through space... these are fuming balls that are evaporating and absorbing material all the time.
slowly they are sorting what tehy are made of.
this may explain why the planets are the way they are... they may have an evolutionary process they go through as they fall in... so rather than gas giants being on the outside because they formed that way.
it may be that matter falls in to the cloud... eventually it gets disrupted and starts to fall in toards the sun.. a commet.. the comet keeps moving in, shedding the gas, then moving back out picking up new material. so like a truck its transportig matter from the outside to the inside once it has taken enough.
eventuyally, if they get enough they become a planetessimal on the outside. over time, that keeps gathering gasses... and stones from matter that has fallen out of balance as it aggregates teh matter we fly through.
this is a VERY long process... and so by the time it moves in more, it becomes a gas giant.. inside there is a core..
as that giant moves the core is molten as the gas is an insulator, and the gasses get boiled off and are recycled through the outer system as the lighter elements weigh down solid elements, move them in, and then are stripped to happen again.
as that moves in, it sheds more of its atmosphere... and eventally it only has a small amount around its rock core that has now cooled down enough so that it is an inner rocky planet.. and this continues.. till the planets themselves start to evaporate...
such slow changes and the process makes solar systems more stable than they would be.
the moon situation is related, but is WAY too hard for me to describe. and given that i just cant tell if i am in the ball park with it... so if someone can expand better than i could then do so.
ultimately, most of our theories about the solar system that i have read, tend to ignore that we are moving through space with matter in it...
its not that we dont know, its tht its not important in most of what we think about.
problem 5 could also be related.
basically i am pointing out that we have not worked out with any certainty what the matter pressure is that we fly through, and how that density shifts.
whats nice is that these same cycles and processes can be seen fractally in the galaxy itself. in many ways what evaporates creates fingers that then pull otehr material in.
kind of like throwing a ball with a magnet near a baloon with iron filings in it. if the ball gets close enough they attract and their combined status causes the other to tip and fall in.
in this way these things efficiently sweep up material adn they do it faster than if it was just gravity alone. it also creaates pressures that would be small but unaccounted for.
if interested i will come up with ways to detect this.
and remember that the bow sucks things in not pushes them out otehr then solar wind when it gets closer... that the solar wind is kind of like a landing break.. it slows thing down and deflects them to the orbit (so one wuold also have to figure how they slow orbit which also affects the distances).
so much... and solittle space.
artfldgr
07/29/2009
Posts:5
ms
07/29/2009
Posts:141
if you look at a binary star, depending on the differences in size is where the gravitational center is. if there is one massive thing and a tinier less massive object, then the gravitational center AND the solar center may be the same or so close that the sun only wobbles (as seen from another reference point).
this is what i meant by looking at it as a systemic whole..
if you have a stable system, and the sun is losing matter, unless that matter leaves the area enough, its still refernced back to a gravitaiontal center.
the sun and collapse that created the solar system centered both... so like putting salt under an egg to make it stand and blowing it away, even if the sun is not there, the gravitational center can still be.
in the case of what they are saying... they are aware that this is so..
so adding the weight of a planet to the area, would increase the gravitational center which is also the same as the suns center (in this case)
if our system was different this would be easier to understand... but then again. we wouldnt be here to have thsi conversation then.
artfldgr
07/31/2009
Posts:5
hinoon42
07/29/2009
Posts:1
Levity Field Physics
Relativity Theory
Relevancy Theory
The gravity of relationships, which cannot be forgot.
The Relevance of levity, which is all about timing.
There is no PM (phucking magic) what we fail to notice/observe does not change a fact or reality.
IOW: What we fail to notice/observe is a human problem. What fysics problem is not better with cosmic levity, because we are humans and reality is never FM.
JDBailey
08/09/2009
Posts:13