arXiv blog

Gravity Ruled Out as the Cause of the Pioneer Anomaly

If the strange deceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft is caused by gravity, then it should also act on other bodies in the outer solar system. That doesn't seem to be the case.

kfc 12/17/2009

  • 20 Comments

The Pioneer anomaly is an unexplained deceleration of the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft that seems to be acting on them as they head out of the Solar System. This deceleration is tiny: just (8.74±1.33)×10^−10 ms^−2. The big question is where does it come from.

One possibility is that the deceleration is the result of some long range gravitational force that is not observed on Earth. But if that's the case, then this force should act on all of the many objects in the outer Solar System.

Earlier this year, we looked at one study of the orbit of Pluto which was unable to rule out the possibility that a Pioneer-like force acts on it because Pluto's orbit is so poorly known.

Today we look at a similar study in which the objects of attention are the major Neptunian satellites: Triton, Nereid and Proteus. Earlier this year, astronomers published the result of a new analysis of the motion of these bodies taken over several orbits.

Now Lorenzo Iorio, at the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare in Pisa, Italy, has analysed these orbits and concludes that a Pioneer-like force cannot be acting on Triton, Nereid and Proteus because the resulting anomalous perturbations would be too large to have escaped detection.

"The possibility that the Pioneer anomaly may be an exotic gravitational phenomenon seems to be challenged," says Iorio.

This work is part of a growing body of evidence that the Pioneer anomaly is not a gravitational effect.

That's a puzzle. If not gravitational in origin, what kind of force is acting on the Pioneer spacecraft?

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0912.2947: Does the Neptunian System of Satellites Challenge a Gravitational Origin For The Pioneer Anomaly?


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

profquatermass

57 Comments

  • 787 Days Ago
  • 12/17/2009

Not something obvious?

Perhaps there is a higher than anticipated density of particles ahead of the satellite which is producing drag?

Reply

D8A

4 Comments

  • 784 Days Ago
  • 12/20/2009

Re: Not something obvious?

I've replied to the other suggestions, so I should probably clarrify that this one get's my vote!
;)

Reply

taelus

1 Comment

  • 786 Days Ago
  • 12/18/2009

Drag

Since the distance between the satellites and the sun is increasing maybe a Bose-Einstein condensate effect is causing some particles to create this drag

Reply

BjornPalmen

2 Comments

  • 539 Days Ago
  • 08/22/2010

Re: Drag

I think that there cannot be enough microscopic particles in Pioneer's way to slow it down at all.
Pioneer moves with enormous speed, some specks of dust on its way should not really matter.

Reply

sunil.thakur

23 Comments

  • 786 Days Ago
  • 12/18/2009

Gravitational force?

Our understanding of the gravitational force is fundamentally wrong. First, gravitational force always act on systems and not constituents of a system. As long as interacting system remains same, the intensity of the gravitational force does not reduce with distance e.g. the farthest and closest points of Andromeda galaxy and Milky-way galaxy experience same force. The interaction between Andromeda galaxy and Milky-way galaxy also shows that individual stars of the two galaxies do not exert any gravitational force on the stars of the other galaxy; the two galaxies act as a unit, a system and exert gravitational force on each other as a system irrespective of the distribution of mass within these galaxies.

Obviously, no system outside the solar system can act on any entity within the solar system.

Sooner rather than later, Pioneer is bound to settle into an orbital path.

For a detailed explanation, please visit the website http://www.norlabs.org

Reply

ZephirAWT

299 Comments

  • 786 Days Ago
  • 12/18/2009

Re: the two galaxies act as a unit

...In the same way, like the Sun act to Moon-Earth system as a unit. Why do you expect different result, if you know, gravity ceases with square power of distance?

Reply

sunil.thakur

23 Comments

  • 786 Days Ago
  • 12/18/2009

Re: the two galaxies act as a unit

This is precisely the point; it doesn't if interacting systems do not change but when interacting system change then it does reduce with the square power of distance. It means that if there are ten dwarf galaxies spread across the length of the Andromeda galaxy then gravitational force exerted by Milky-way on each of these dwarf galaxies will be different (will reduce with the square power of distance) but in case of Andromeda galaxy the gravitational force does not reduce with the square power of the distance.

Apparently, Gravitational force acts only within the system i.e. no system outside the solar system can have any direct effect on the systems within the solar system.

Moreover, gravitational force is not exerted by objects but by systems.

This is possible only if it is communicated instantly, which in turn rules out the existence of any mediating agency like graviton or gravitational waves.

The assumption (we have no evidence of it) that gravitational force extends to infinite distance is fundamentally wrong.

I guess, these are enough reasons to have different results.....

http://www.norlabs.org

Reply

Advertisement

ZephirAWT

299 Comments

  • 786 Days Ago
  • 12/18/2009

Re: the two galaxies act as a unit

If gravity spreads in superluminal speed, it would rather imply larger scope of gravity action. But main problem with your reasoning still is, the effects you're describing could be explained by inverse square law without introduction of any anomaly.

Reply

sunil.thakur

23 Comments

  • 785 Days Ago
  • 12/19/2009

Re: the two galaxies act as a unit

Well, one cannot discuss such a huge issue in one post, too many, and too complex issues are involved therefore, it will be better if we discuss two fundamental issues -

does the intensity of the force reduce with the distance?

and, since we know that answer is that it does not necessarily reduce with the distance then the next question is that whether the general relativity or Newton's explanation explain the entire mechanism without developing internal contradictions?

Of course, I am assuming that we need not discuss the difference between the objects and systems (e.g. the sun and the solar system).

Reply

sunil.thakur

23 Comments

  • 785 Days Ago
  • 12/19/2009

Re: the two galaxies act as a unit

There are two basic issues that as long as interacting systems do not change, distance does not affect either the intensity of the force or the time taken for communication of force.

Does the mechanism that each of our major theories suggest for communication of force allow us to take 'Center of the mass' as the base for calculating the distance?

Reply

D8A

4 Comments

  • 784 Days Ago
  • 12/20/2009

Systems or atoms?

I'm pretty sure the assertion that gravity works on systems not stars, planets, or atoms is a nonsense.

A system is a human concept and can vary from perspective. Individual stars in galaxies do indeed experience differing gravitational pulls from other galaxies depending on where they are within the galaxy. As a result galaxies get distorted when they get near enough to other galaxies; the dwarf galaxy Sagitaerious is currently being ripped apart by the Milky way and there is evidence of this happening many times in the past.

There are also recent studies showing that the outer parts of the solar system are effected by galactic tidal forces from outside the solar system as the Sun moves above and below the galactic bulge.

And of course Hawking radiation is based on one half of a matter-anti-matter pair being subjected to enough gravity to not escape a black hole and the other half not being able to escape.

The inverse square law is pretty well proven too, although the Pioneer issue has raised the possibility of a subtle refinement being needed, but not the certainty; there is always the possibility of drag or accidental thrust, or anyone or more of a number of other factors etc.

Reply

sunil.thakur

23 Comments

  • 784 Days Ago
  • 12/20/2009

Re: Systems or atoms?

I understand your strong feelings and will try to explain why my observations make sense...

You had missed a key phrase in my observation, 'not necessarily' which is different from the statement, 'does not'. My observation was, 'the intensity of the force does not necessarily reduce with the distance'

I had mentioned in my last post that we cannot discuss all the issues in one post or one discussion because I knew I have deliberately skipped some important observations.

You are absolutely right that dwarf galaxies do get distorted when they are gravitationally attracted by a large galaxy; this point is part of the analysis in my book, 'Nature of Reality'.

Yes, both the large and the dwarf galaxies do get distorted in the collisions between these galaxies but we also must not forget that there are several dwarf galaxies that are orbiting the Milky way galaxy and Andromeda galaxy without getting distorted. This means these dwarf galaxies are gravitationally affected by the larger galaxy without getting distorted.

You probably may be aware that the larger galaxy experiences greater distortion than the dwarf galaxy but nucleus of dwarf galaxy experiences greater distortion than the nucleus of the larger galaxy. Do I make some sense now?

I am sure that you can see the point. Obviously, I cannot explain every point in one post or in one discussion.

Apparently, the distortion starts only after the two galaxies reach a 'critical point'.

Your observations about the sun too are correct but you are wrong in assuming that my observation suggests that gravitational force is equitably distributed across the system (as is apparent from the analysis of colliding dwarf and large galaxies) nor does it mean that any factor affects the system as a whole and not its parts in isolation.

Hawking radiation is only an assumption and does not make much sense but I will not explain why...

The inverse-square law has limited applicability and is fundamentally wrong.

When position of two or more entities is interdependent then we cannot know the position of any entity except by direct observation. Let me explain, if position of Jupiter is affected by the position of all other systems in the solar system and position of all other systems is affected by the position of Jupiter then we cannot know the position of any entity except by direct observation.

This is plain and simple logic. Yes, precise observations over an extended period of time may allow us to derive the mathematics that explains these interdependent relationships but such mathematics may or may not work when the observed system changes.

My observation is supported by following facts,

The communication of force is instantaneous across the system and intensity of the force does not necessarily reduce with the distance.

This is based on the analysis of actual observations of interactions between various systems.

Sunil Thakur
http://www.norlabs.org

Reply

sunil.thakur

23 Comments

  • 784 Days Ago
  • 12/20/2009

Re: Systems or atoms?

In any case, if you still feel that my arguments do not make sense then why not give yourself a chance to win USD500/- I am offering to anyone who invalidates even one of 69 major proposals in my book, 'Nature of Reality.

You can even win USD10000/-.

For details please visit my website http://www.norlabs.org, which is the fastest moving website (in Alexa rankings) in science category.

Sunil Thakur
http://www.norlabs.org

Reply

D8A

4 Comments

  • 784 Days Ago
  • 12/20/2009

Re: Systems or atoms?

Hi Sunil,

Thanks for your reply.

I'm still comprehending the reasoning behind General Relativity so I don't feel qualified to cite specific examples which support the inverse square law. However, I thought your point regarding the higher vulnerability of the outer parts of larger galaxies to distortion during gravitational interactions with other larger galaxies, and the lower vulnerability of their cores and the whole of dwarf galaxies was very intersting. I take it as read as I have not researched this yet.

Would this not be consistant with lower gravitational binding (to the center of gravity of their home galaxy) of the outer parts of the larger galaxy, and the higher binding of the inner parts of a large galaxy, or the whole of a dwarf galaxy, due to the gravitational attraction decreasing with distance from the center of the home system?

With regard to the undistorted dwarfs, could this simply be that they have not passed near enough to the larger galaxy to overcome their own gravitational cohesion?

I hope you are wrong regarding Hawking radiation, as otherwise we could be trouble as the LHC ramps up and possibly create micro black holes! But I guess at least we get to test his theory.

I think your money is safe though, as, if I understand correctly, you theory is based on gravitational force traveling faster than light which suggests a fundamental dispute with Special Relativity and all that flows with it. I doubt I could cover all the bases on that. Useful experiments have proved pretty expensive. I'm intrigued by the implications of anything travelling through space faster than light speed, because it challenges my recent realisation of why light is limited to light speed and my understanding of time dilation, but it would probably take me many years to digest it.

Science is built out of new theories though, so keep going. It's the testable experiments which flow from them which ultimately support or disprove them.

Best regards,

Matt Langley.

Reply

Advertisement

sunil.thakur

23 Comments

  • 783 Days Ago
  • 12/21/2009

Re: Systems or atoms?

Hi Matt,

Take your time; I can assure you that it is very interesting journey. Just do not accept anything blindly. Ask questions and you will get the answers.

As far as your observations on interactions between dwarf galaxy and large galaxy is concerned, check if the observed results are consistent with the mechanism suggested by our theories.

As far as instantaneous communication of force is concerned, it is easiest point to prove through our observations in the solar systems itself. A change in the position of the Jupiter does not take time to cause a change in the earth's position; cause and effect are instantaneous. None of our theories GTR included, allows for any time delay for communication of force.

I have just said that Hawking radiation is merely an assumption. As of now, we have no confirmation of it and Mr. Hawking probably is ready with the speech that he would like to give on receiving the noble prize.

Once again, you are making wrong assumption about my theory. I have not stated that something can travel faster than light. I have only suggested that speed of light in vacuum (c) cannot be constant because vacuum itself is not an absolute phenomenon. I have also suggested that mediating particle or wave or any other agency is required for communication of gravitational force and hence there is no question of 'speed' of the mediating agency.

I have also suggested that light is not the carrier of the information; light is information.

This analysis partially explains my observations on the issues involved with gravitational force.

Sunil Thakur
http://www.norlabs.org

Reply

BjornPalmen

2 Comments

  • 539 Days Ago
  • 08/22/2010

Re: Gravitational force?

It is an amazing idea that gravitational forces always act on systems and not on constituents of a system.

But this is not so: we can observe as parts of galaxies are snatched up by passing galaxies taking with them some constituents of the systems.

Reply

ZephirAWT

299 Comments

  • 786 Days Ago
  • 12/18/2009

just (8.74±1.33)×10^-10 ms^-2

This value itself could serve as a clue, because its equal with some ten percent error to product of Hubble constant and speed of light - so it could be result of omnidirectional space-time expansion, which spreading of light cannot follow. After all, it's somewhat surprising, physicists know about omnidirectional space-time expansion for seventy years, but they didn't change existing paradigm of relativity theory at least a bit and they consider speed of light perfectly constant despite of expanding space.

This anomalous deceleration is dual to Casimir force at large distances, because it's a result of Duillier-LeSage shielding effect of gravitational waves, which manifests like cosmic microwave background by extradimensions, supersymmetry, Higgs field, Lorentz symmetry breaking, nonzero rest mass and dipole of photons and many other phenomena, which physicists tirelessly, but somewhat blindly are looking for, being payed for it from our taxes carelessly.

The shielding effect is proportional to area of objects rather then their volume and mass, so it violates strong equivalence principle of general relativity as well. Therefore it manifests preferably for smaller objects (like the Pioneer spaceprobes), where surface/volume ratio remains higher, then at the case of large planets.

Reply

D8A

4 Comments

  • 784 Days Ago
  • 12/20/2009

Re: just (8.74±1.33)×10^-10 ms^-2

I didn't understand the last 2 paragraphs, but the first one seems to make a lot of sense.

Could this be the first time we have been able to measure the local expansion of space in real time, rather than implying it via the stretching of light waves over millions of years?

Kool, very exciting.

Reply

John Duffield

1 Comment

  • 783 Days Ago
  • 12/21/2009

Energy causes gravity

Note that we've known for some time that the elliptical orbits of the outer planets do not demonstrate "the Pioneer anomaly". This paper is further confirmation of that. But IMHO it's perhaps tangential to say gravity is ruled out as the cause.

When thinking of gravity, we know that it's caused by a concentration of matter/energy such as a star, which "conditions" the surrounding space to impose a non-constant guv, the effect of which diminishes with distance. The result is non-homogeneous space, wherein we see curvilinear motion, more usually termed curved spacetime. In our solar system, the sun "causes" this, along with the planets. Gravity is the effect, not the cause. This is important, and there may be other reasons why space is non-homogeneous. One example is the non-uniform expansion of the universe as per the raisins-in-the-cake analogy.

So, the Pioneer anomaly might not be caused by the sun's gravity. It might indeed turn out to be something mundane, related to the spacecraft design. But for me, the jury is still out.

Reply

sunil.thakur

23 Comments

  • 783 Days Ago
  • 12/21/2009

Re: Energy causes gravity

Exactly, and this is why GTR makes a lot of sense but it does not mean it is a perfect theory. It must resolve the duality of space and matter and it must explain how motion is possible in the model that it proposes.

Sunil Thakur
http://www.norlabs.org

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

Recent Posts From
arXiv blog

Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement