Pioneer 10/11 Anomaly

The astrophysics community has been baffled by the apparent anomalous behavior of Pioneer 10/11, as they have been observed to be attracted toward the sun slightly more than predicted by the force given by Newtonian gravity.

The anomalous Pioneer 10/11 acceleration (8.74 +/- 1.33) * 10^-8 cm/s^2 has been reported. For more info, visit http://www.planetary.org/programs/projects/pioneer_anomaly/ .

The acceleration of the Earth in its orbit is 0.593 cm/s^2 on average (1 AU)*(2*pi/yr)^2 making this anomalous acceleration 1.5*10^-7 of that.

However, Pioneer 10 was 67 AU from the Sun in 1997, when its mission was downgraded to a sort of background status, and Pioneer 11 was 40 AU from the Sun when contact with it was lost in 1995. This means that the anomalous acceleration is ~10^-4 of the Sun's acceleration of them at that distance.

Finally, it is noted that calculated nongravitational effects, such as radiation reaction from the spacecraft's radio transmissions and the glow of the RTG's, are not much smaller than the anomalous acceleration itself, suggesting that one may have to model such effects more carefully.

Also, there are no similar effects reported for the Voyager spacecraft, so these may be due to some quirk of the Pioneers.

The following is a quote from the report from NASA at JPL and LANL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dispassionately, the most likely cause of the anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft is on-board systematics, but the smoking gun has not yet been found. The only other possibility is the existence of new physics. This dichotomy represents a healthy win-win situation because either one of these two explanations for the Pioneer anomaly would constitute an extremely important discovery. (Author Slava Turyshev and John Anderson are at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena and Michael Martin Nieto at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, US)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One possible explanation of this anomaly may be found within the theory of dipole gravity. Since the rotating parabolic antenna of Pioneer represents a dipole gravity rotor, the observed additional acceleration toward the sun can be explained if the antenna is focused toward the sun which means the wider (open) side of the parabola faces the sun. And Pioneer is reported to be spinning at 14.1 sec per revolution which makes it spinning at 4.25 rpm. However, since the effect was not observed from Voyager as prominently(if at all) as it was observed from Pioneer, this may still be an open question.

If Voyager has different mechanical parameter (it also has parabolic antenna) compared to that of Pioneer in such a way that the dipole gravity effect is minimal (for example, the spinning rate is lower and it has more longitudinal axially symmetric configuration), then the mystery could be resolved. For this purpose, the detailed mechanical configuration including the rate of the spin rotation for both Pioneer and Voyager may be needed. This data may be found in the detailed original engineering design in terms of the mass distributions inside the craft.

In the mean time, the following information has been available which can be very significant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is the same effect seen with the Voyager spacecraft?
The Pioneers are spin-stabilized spacecraft. The Voyagers are three-axis stabilized craft that fire thrusters to maintain their orientation in space or to slew around and point their instruments. Those thruster firings would introduce uncertainties in the tracking data that would overwhelm any effect as small as that occurring with Pioneer.

This difference in the way the spacecraft are stabilized actually is one of the reasons the Pioneer data are so important and unique. Most current spacecraft are three-axis stabilized, not spin stabilized.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the above information is true, in the three-axis stabilized spacecraft case, the anomalous effect would have been automatically canceled or diluted, because of the continuous adjustment of the orientation of the craft. However, in the case of the spin-stabilized craft, the dipole gravity effect will not be corrected which will make the effect prominently visible.

The following information is exactly what can be expected from a dipole gravity rotor placed in the empty space.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What really puzzles scientists, Turyshev said, is that the anomaly is constant with respect to time and distance from about 1 1/2 billion miles away from the sun to about 6 1/2 billion miles out. The anomalous behavior has been observed in other deep space vehicles such as Voyager and Ullyses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The magnitude of anomaly seems larger than one would expect from a spin rotation of 4.25 rpm regardless of the size of the rotor. But the exact mechanical configuration of the craft is not yet available at the moment. And there is an uncertainty on the average distance and the amount of the mass of the universe which are not well defined relative to the location of the dipole gravity rotor. So, in case a terrestrial experiment is planned for the second confirmation, the Pioneer data will make a good starting point.

In a sense, the alternative experiment that has been proposed for the test of dipole gravity in the page http://dipoleantigravity.blogspot.com/2007/04/alternative-method-of-detecting-dipole.html may have already been done in the space without our knowledge.

Dipole Gravity and The Big Bang Cosmology

Some people in the field may engage into immediate expansive thoughts on what will be the consequence of this result on the current understanding of the big bang cosmology. Since the inflationary theory of cosmology depends largely on the ideas of the elementary particle physics, one has to assume that the current understanding of the theoretical elementary particle physics is complete and infallible to put 100 percent faith on it.

However, as I mentioned in the digression page, it must be emphasized that the exact physical nature of the neutrinos, which are the most mysterious particles in elementary particle physics today, is still controversial, although there is a great chance that they are tachyons. And such assumption doesn't seem to contradict the nature of dipole gravity, instead it helps understanding the cause of the gravity in general. Furthermore, the number of such supporting empirical evidences seems to be growing.

If neutrinos are tachyons, the homogeneity and the isotropy of the universe will be guaranteed at any time in the past and in the future. One doesn't have to worry about if some globular clusters may be older than the age of the universe predicted by the big bang theory.

The reason for the continuous expansion of the universe may be answered if neutrinos are magnetic monopoles themselves as well. It also explains the missing dark energy problem. Will there be final crunch after all these expansions? No one will be able to tell for sure at the moment. We are not certainly in the stage of science being able to contemplate any possibility after the complete expansion of the universe, if there is such a thing as complete expansion.

One thing that can be stated for sure is that there are stages of development of science where certain conjectures can be made on certain questions of the nature. Since no one survived to tell what happened at the time of big bang, most of the features of the theory must be categorized as speculations.

Our visible part of the universe may be expanding but no one knows what is happening to the other invisible part of the universe. So, our ability to foretell the mechanism of the universe is severely limited by our own limitations. As our science progresses to the higher level to be able to physically reach far out side of our own galaxy, our ability to predict the future of the universe will grow as well and become more reliable.

Response to Email Letter from Prof. McGaugh

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stacy McGaugh" (ssm@astro.umd.edu)
To: "ejeong" (ejeong1@sbcglobal.net)
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: Dark Matter is Real

> Yes, it is well known that in MOND there must be more mass than meets the
> eye (about a factor of two, presumably in some mundane baryonic form).
> The recent cluster press releases merely confirm this; they don't shed any
> light on the nature of the unseen mass (baryonic or non-baryonic) which
> makes all the difference.

> Professor Stacy McGaugh
> Department of Astronomy ssm@astro.umd.edu


I think the whole matter will eventually boil down to the priority issue. We haven't exhausted the known theory of gravitation, ie, general relativity. It looks like there are plenty of rooms for the dark matter problem to be taken care of within general relativity without the fundamental destruction of the existing Newtonian mechanics.

That's a humongous assumption. Occam's razor makes it a little bit hard for us to take it in.

Dipole gravity also demands the overhaul of Newtonian mechanics but not in such an arbitrary way. There is a clear cut path to the revision dictated by general relativity.

There is no ad hoc assumption in dipole gravity. It is general relativity itself.

Does MOND predict jets and provide the elaborate jet engine mechanism also? I don't think so. Does it provide any remote clues to the mechanism of creating the macroscopic wormhole, the ultimate method of space travel? No.

I don't know why anyone would want to stick to MOND after the revelation of dipole gravity other than based purely on the sentimental values, which scientists must avoid.

EJJ

Occam's Razor

It may be refreshing to review at this point the medieval philosopher William of Occam's insight.

"One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything"

Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the medieval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies.
Though the principle may seem rather trivial, it is essential for model building because of what is known as the "under determination of theories by data". For a given set of observations or data, there is always an infinite number of possible models explaining those same data. This is because a model normally represents an infinite number of possible cases, of which the observed cases are only a finite subset. The non-observed cases are inferred by postulating general rules covering both actual and potential observations.
For example, through two data points in a diagram you can always draw a straight line, and induce that all further observations will lie on that line. However, you could also draw an infinite variety of the most complicated curves passing through those same two points, and these curves would fit the empirical data just as well. Only Occam's razor would in this case guide you in choosing the "straight" (i.e. linear) relation as best candidate model. A similar reasoning can be made for n data points lying in any kind of distribution.
Occam's razor is especially important for universal models such as the ones developed in General Systems Theory, mathematics or philosophy, because there the subject domain is of an unlimited complexity. If one starts with too complicated foundations for a theory that potentially encompasses the universe, the chances of getting any manageable model are very slim indeed. Moreover, the principle is sometimes the only remaining guideline when entering domains of such a high level of abstraction that no concrete tests or observations can decide between rival models. In mathematical modelling of systems, the principle can be made more concrete in the form of the principle of uncertainty maximization: from your data, induce that model which minimizes the number of additional assumptions.
This principle is part of epistemology, and can be motivated by the requirement of maximal simplicity of cognitive models. However, its significance might be extended to metaphysics if it is interpreted as saying that simpler models are more likely to be correct than complex ones, in other words, that "nature" prefers simplicity.

It will be awfully redundant at this point to reiterate that the theory of dipole gravity doesn't have any assumptions other than the ones general relativity is based on itself. With such a minimal number of assumptions, the number of areas of cosmological problems it touches and provides answers are truly remarkable. The only way it can be wrong is if and only if general relativity is wrong. This perspective gives us the compelling reason to test the predictions of dipole gravity in the terrestrial experiment as soon as possible.
http://dipoleantigravity.blogspot.com/2007/04/alternative-method-of-detecting-dipole.html

Further Digression on the Mechanical Universe

The following discussion is not totally relevant to the gravity so it is debatable if it should be in the same blog which is devoted to dipole gravity or gravity in general, but it was decided that there is enough relevancy there that justifies its inclusion here than put it in a separate category.

The topic here is still about the tachyonic neutrinos. For the case of the gravitational phenomena, we strictly confined our focus on the kinematic elastic interaction of the tachyonic neutrinos with the baryonic matter particles. However, in this article we will be focusing on the non-kinematic interaction with tachyonic neutrinos. This interaction would not be totally kinematic in the sense that there is a weak interaction effect between the neutrinos and the electrons, muons and tauons(leptons). This is not a high energy interaction either because there are no new particles generated from it as in the case of the deep inelastic scattering interactions. It is not exactly like the billiard ball style collision since there is still finite distance that the interaction can be effective even though there maybe no direct contact between the particles involved. And also, there can be a vector effect like in the case of the electrons traveling in the magnetic field environment. So the effective cross section can be much larger than the case of the kinematic elastic collision. For example, there are speculations that neutrinos may be magnetic monopoles themselves, although not confirmed, if that is the case, the fast moving magnetic monopole will create circular electric field along their path exactly like moving electron creates the magnetic field around it. So the electrons can be affected by the fast moving neutrinos relatively long distance from their path which will make the interaction cross section very large. When there are so many of the fast moving tachyonic neutrinos, the space will be like a bubble bath of electric field popping in and out of them barely managed to cancel each other in the space to avoid the creation of the net electric field in the local space time by virtue of their homogeneous presence and the total isotropicity of their motion.

The situation we are going to imagine in this picture is a single hydrogen atom bombarded by the etheric tachyonic neutrinos. The proton will largely be able to maintain its position because of its larger mass compared to the electron although still its precise position will not be absolutely determined depending on the strength of the cross sections involved. However, the position of the electron will be very uncertain. If the tachyonic neutrinos have enough energy, number density and the strong enough cross section, they will collectively be able to manage to disturb the electron's position frequently and strongly enough to it make it separated from the proton to maintain the Bohr radius. Despite the extremely small physical size of the electrons, the stronger weak interaction coefficient compared to that of the kinematic interaction will be enough to make the electron afloat from the proton by the amount of Bohr radius in the ground state. So, if this is the case, the Planck constant h becomes the function of the number density, the mean velocity and the weak interaction cross section between the tachyonic neutrinos and the elementary particles.

The uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics is caused by this statistical nature of the background tachyonic neutrinos interacting with the elementary particles. For example, quantum mechanics predicts that a particle placed in the space with the initial velocity V=0 at the origin of the coordinate x=0 has less and less chance to be found at the same place as time goes by. This is a clear violation of Newtonian mechanics. It only means that there must be some particles causing this uncertainty to the elementary particles without disturbing the statistical overall average momentum and the position of the particle. This shows the key properties of the background particles, ie, their flux must be isotropic and homogeneous. So, even if the statistical effect is fully applied, the overall averaged initial location and the momentum should be the same. The question where the electron is after a while at the time t=to has no meaning in quantum mechanics. We simply don't know. The most probable location where the electron will be found is still at x=0 but the probability to find it there will be spread out so thinly throughout the space that it would become meaningless to ask where the electron is exactly located at. In the space where tachyonic neutrinos are prevalent, this is exactly what will happen to the elementary particles like electrons.

Now we see how the two phenomena, gravitation and quantum mechanics, seemingly unrelated to each other have the same origin. All the predictions of quantum mechanics will be valid, only difference is that we know now it's an excellent phenomenology because while it worked and predicted the nature so well, still it didn't provide the clear answer to the mechanically inquisitive human mind. As Einstein put it "God doesn't play dice game". We humans want to know in mechanical terms why it is working if something really works and what is behind it. "Trust me it worked million times in the past and it should work in the future, so no more questions to the validity of it" would not be enough.

So, there is a possibility that inside the stars where the tachyonic neutrinos can not penetrate with enough numbers, the Bohr radius of the hydrogen atoms could be much smaller than it would be in the open space (assuming that they(hydrogen atoms) could manage to stay as individual atoms inside the stars) because there will be much less frequency of the tachyonic neutrinos disturbing the electron's position to make it stay far enough distance from the proton to maintain the same Bohr radius as they were in the open space. Since light cannot penetrate the bulk object, it will be hard to tell if the light that we detect belongs to the quanta that generated from the core of the stars. Most of the visible light we observe will be coming from the surface of the stars. So the observation of those lights will not provide the clear answer to this question.

Another interesting question would be what would happen if all the tachyonic neutrinos simply disappear. All the matters and stars will collapse to become like tiny pieces of dots in the universe and the energy generated from it will be so large that the big bang would be an insignificant event compared to it. On the other hand, there will be no gravity so the universe will become like a soup of murky cloud, dark, dull and lifeless and meaningless presence of emptiness all over the space if there is such a thing that can be called "space" left anymore.

In fact, the meaning of the space itself would become vague and uncertain because the pressure of the tachyonic gas seems to define the space itself as we observe it, as much as the pressurized air molecules inside the balloon defines the space of the balloon itself. In fact, it can be seen that the tachyonic neutrinos are the main building blocks of the universe instead of the material particles we observe and live in them. In a sense, the material particles(stars, galaxies, etc etc) are like the sea sponges floating under the deep sea water of the tachyonic neutrino gases spread through out the universe.

Digression on the Cause of Gravity

It may be interesting to speculate at this point what may be causing this phenomenon of gravity. We are certainly in a better position than before when we had only one Newtonian gravity to find out the cause of it behind all these cosmological phenomena because the two examples will tell something about the nature of it much clearer like a detective trying to figure out a case with the same finger printings on two different incidents for the case under investigation would have much better chance to solve it.

The nature of the dipole gravity force is peculiar in the sense that it critically depends on the bulk geometrical shape of the object. This aspect was not clear from the example of Newtonian gravity since the monopole gravity is not sensitive to the geometrical shape of the object at all. Also all the elementary particles are assumed to have the same geometrical shape like a sphere.
This peculiar aspect of dipole gravity makes one wonder if quantisation of gravity is the right way to understand gravity because gravity looks like more of a bulk phenomenon than the quantum phenomenon.

So, the findings that the rotational motion creates the longitudinally asymmetric gravitational field around the rotating object like a hemisphere, cone etc may provide some additional clues.

In effect, the asymmetrical rotor must be acting like a propeller, but in what way?

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the universe is filled with tachyonic neutrinos. I published the paper titled "Neutrinos must be Tachyons" in the llnl archive which has a very good empirical evidence that it must be the case (http://www.tachyonics.com/neutrino.pdf). One should read it to see how strong the case is for it. It must be realized that there are as many neutrinos as the number of electrons and protons in the universe because the weak decay produces one in each and every cases of its interactions.

What people have not been asking is "where have those astronomical number of the neutrinos gone?" There are too many of them and the elementary particles don't simply disappear, yet, no one seems to be bothered by their apparent absence from our daily perspective of the universe.

If they are not tachyonic, they must be hanging around some part of the universe gravitating to form some kind of observable macroscopic object, which has never been found. If neutrinos are tachyonic, the case for which is very strong at the moment, they must be traveling inside of our universe incessantly. So, it is quite probable that the universe is filled with tachyonic gas like the atomic molecular gas filled up inside a balloon which may be composed of many different kinds of neutrinos if not one. After all, these tachyonic gas may form the aether itself that the light uses it as a medium to propagate like the sound wave propagates through the pressurized air filled earth surface. When Michelson and Morley performed their experiments, their major assumption was to find the solid or materialistic form of the aether not like the superluminal kind we are talking about. The aether drag effect Michelson and Morley expected to find will not exist if the aether was formed by superluminal object like tachyonic neutrinos. Furthermore, to reinforce this proposition, neutrinos are not totally immune from the light particles since they are related to each other by the electro-weak interactions. Photons and neutrinos are family members within the framework of electro-weak theory. So like in the case of the sound wave propagating through the air molecules, the compression and the relaxation of the local density of the tachyonic neutrinos generates the ripple effect to carry the light through the long distances.

The neutrinos rarely if ever interact with matters. At least that's what has been understood regarding neutrinos. However, this statement may not be entirely correct. Most of the metals and rocks are free to pass for neutrinos. However, there can be substantial kinematic non zero cross sections with baryonic matters when they are densely populated inside to form a star. The purely kinematic interaction like elastic head on collision will not produce the high energy producing strong interaction effect. So, there is really no way of knowing how the low energy neutrinos are interacting with ordinary matters. But such an elastic interaction can be expected to exist and it could be much more frequent and common than one would expect. It's basically like two billiard balls of different size collide and then bounce off from each other. The total energy and the momentum is conserved in this process, ie, the sum of the initial momentum and the energy must be the same as the final sum of the momentum and energy. Besides most of the neutrinos do not have high energy to begin with. The energy equation dictates that the lesser energy the tachyonic particle has, the faster they travel while still satisfying the Lorentz invariance. They behave in a totally different manner compared to the usual matter particles. They are not observable beside the fact that they interact kinematically with baryonic matter inside the dense stars or by the high energy neutrinos generated from the super nova interacting with the baryonic matter in the laboratory experiment.

Therefore, in a way, the core of the dense star forms a "aether vacuum" meaning that there is less and less chance for the tachyonic neutrinos can penetrate into the core of the dense stars. The strength of the aether vacuum depends on the elastic collision cross section and the number density of the tachyonic neutrinos and the average speed of them which will determine the mean relaxation time and also the characteristics of the dense object itself which will be the measure of its own density and also its volume.

So, the gravitational constant G becomes a function of those three physical quantities, ie, the number density, the average speed and the elastic collision cross section of the tachyonic aether particles with the matter.

So, here is the fundamental proposition,

The gravity is caused by the "Tachyonic Neutrino's Aether Vacuum".

Now let's see if this proposition can be consistent with dipole gravity. The rotation of the longitudinally asymmetric object creates asymmetric ether vacuum along the rotation axis, because the larger diameter side has more chance to knock off the tachyonic neutrinos due to its faster tangential velocity thereby creating the higher ether vacuum state compared to the other side where the tip of the dome or the pointed edge of the cone is located while in rotation. So there is a gradient of tachyonic vacuum pressure formed along the longitudinal direction of the asymmetric rotating object.

The lower pressure side is where matters tend to move toward and it becomes the center of gravitation. It is basically the same concept like the air plane propeller except that the tachyonic aether can not be pushed or moved by the blade of the propeller but only by the fast rotating motion of the dense object (until one can find the alternatives which will become the core of the engineering the tachyonic aether in the future).

This is also consistent with the fact that the rotating cylinder does not create dipole gravity.

The inertial effect is caused by the tachyonic neutrino's balancing act to position the object in place from all directions while trying to give it a net momentum. Of course the centrifugal force is a natural consequence of this inertial tendency of the matter in the universe. It doesn't have to require the existence of all the matters in the universe at least in a direct way. However in the process of the creation of all the matters in the universe, there must have been the same number of neutrinos generated as the number of protons in the universe which have become the part of the aether. So, there is certainly a remote relation but not in such a direct way as Mach described.

It also indicates that the empty space is pretty well balanced which means the universe is homogeneous and isotropic in terms of tachyonic neutrino's population and its density. And their fast balancing act is not hard to understand considering their immense speed of travel in the universe.

The Gaussian flux concept of the gravity force line is also consistent with this concept of the tachyonic aether vacuum because of the isotropic presence of the tachyonic neutrinos and their motions. The fundamental law of kinetic theory of gas is that the nature abhors vacuum. It must be filled up and equalize the pressure all over the space and that is also the fundamental reason for all kinds of weather phenomenon on earth.

So, in a sense, cosmology is a weather phenomenon caused by the movement of the tachyonic neutrino gas in the universe. The fast rotating black hole pushes and pulls the tachyonic gas and it produces the jets because of the imbalance and the peculiar formation of the tachyonic gas pressure in the surrounding area of the rotating galactic centers.

It's like each particles are the actors in the theater of the immense universe. They act in such a way their characters are assigned like in the Shakespearean play. Tachyonic particles have to play their role as much as baryonic matter particles play their roles.

The reason for the unusual weakness of the gravitational interaction compared to other interactions may be attributed to the fact that the kinematic elastic collision cross section of the tachyonic neutrinos with the matter particles is extremely small compared to other interactions.

The Cause of the Flat Rotational Velocity Curves

The fundamental mystery in the dark matter problem is in the flat rotation curve as the distance becomes large from the galactic center.



{courtesy from Dr. Greg Bothun}

Within the framework of the usual dark matter halo hypothesis, if the density of the halo is assumed to be constant, it will not generate the logarithmic potential which is necessary to address the flat rotation curve. If one wants to make up an arbitrary density function to make it fit the rotation curve, one has to explain how the distribution has come about that way. However, if the dark matter halo is made of the continuous cycling flux of the matter ejected by the jets, as predicted by the theory of dipole gravity, the volume density of the dark matter halo will not be constant, instead the flux density will be a constant, because it has the definite source located at the center of the rotating galaxy. The effective gravity potential produced by the dark matter halo can be expressed by



in general form, where ρ(r) represents the density function of the dark matter halo. Since the source of the dark matter halo is coming directly from the jets from the rotating galactic center, the total mass of the matter particles populated within the volume defined by 4 π r^2 times the unit length of r will be the same until the density of the halo diminishes to zero. So, the effective gravity potential within the applicable regime becomes



where M is the sum of the total mass within the volume element 4 π r^2 times the unit length of r. The logarithmic gravitational potential is the typical signature for the flat rotation curve.

The gravitational force within the relatively short distance from the center of the rotating galaxy is dominated by the strong dipole gravity force



as derived previously, which explains the sharply increasing slope in the rotation curve near the galactic center.

In his prophetic statement, Dr. Greg Bothun writes, quote

"However, it's important to realize that the "dark matter" problem exists only in the context of one known long range force (gravity). Suppose there is another long range force that we are ignorant of. If this is discovered by future physicists then they will look back at this "dark matter" cosmology much the same way we now view the early "geocentric" cosmologies."

How Lense-Thirring force is derived from dipole gravity?