Talk:Pioneer anomaly/Archive 2012

Mystery Force May Be Due To Mirrors
One more source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delog (talk • contribs) 16:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Solved?
Check this article out bro.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Heat_is_Source_of_Pioneer_Anomaly_999.html 216.246.130.20 (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolution of anomoly/ proposal to delete most of this article
It appears that the Pioneer Anomaly can now be explained entirely by a careful modeling of heat radiation from the spacecraft. I propose that there be a mild edit to the lede section of this article and then a deletion of the overwhelming majority of the article. While this was an unresolved open problem in physics, it was highly noteworthy; now that the anomoly has been explained without the need for new physics, it is much less so.

A lot of work was done in collecting and organizing the citations in this article, so I think a brief sentence or two for each existing citation might reasonably remain. The wide-range of suggested explanations should remain to demonstrate that the anomoly was actively studied for many years.

Citations for the resolution of this problem should include (if they are not already listed in the article)

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/424750/nasa-releases-new-pioneer-anomaly-analysis/ http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7362/full/477009d.html http://www.technologyreview.com/view/423504/pioneer-anomaly-solved-by-1970s-computer-graphics/ http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Heat_is_Source_of_Pioneer_Anomaly_999.html

plus the publication data for http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.5222 http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.3985 http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2507

I don't want to step on anyone's toes, so I'll wait until 26 August 2012 before massively revising this article. 86.182.157.114 (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd support a revision of the article. I'm not sure whether to call it solved, or just that most regard it as solved. I'm not sure about deleting the rest: the history of the explanations people proposed may well still be of interest. But making it clear they are obsolete, and trimming the other stuff, makes sense William M. Connolley (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with a major deletion of the overwhelming majority of the article. Discussion of all the issues before this had been solved seems noteworthy to me. There is certainly alot of interesting science. I really don't see "resolution" as a rationale for deleting most of this article. Also, as before I really don't see any need to tinker with the lead. It appears that the three paragraphs in the lead cannot be pared down any further, and provide good coverage of the article. Steve Quinn (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Supportive - A remarkably similar thing happened at the Opera faster-than-light neutrino debacle article. Before the cause was finally found and documented, an entire body of —sometimes interesting and notable, but with hindsight de-facto faulty— explanations was allowed a place in the article. The major part has been removed now. Rightfully or not? I guess that, in time, the answer to that question will gradually but irrevocably shift from not rightfully to rightfully due to simple loss of notability. It looks like the same thing will happen with this article. The difference is of course that in this case it took much longer to come up with an entirely accepted/acceptable explanation for the "anomaly". So, I guess there's no other option than —at least in the medium-long run— to support a more or less drastic pruning of this article. - DVdm (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

First, a disclaimer - I've written articles on the anomaly, so I have a dog in this hunt. I'd suggest a different re-write, emphasizing the "history of science" type aspects. It would resemble a more formal and documented version of THE PIONEER ANOMALY: A WILD GOOSE CHASE?. This would include: It would be great to end with a 'scientific retrospective" paper, describing why this took so long to straighten out. One of the main factors is that new physics get you a Nobel prize, whereas overlooked engineering trivia get you a cite or two.  However, no one to my knowledge has written this paper yet, so we probably can't include this.   LouScheffer (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Discovery of the anomaly, by Anderson et. al
 * Independent confirmation by Marquardt Independent Confirmation of the Pioneer 10 Anomalous Acceleration.
 * A discussion of the many proposed solutions, both mundane and new physics. There are hundreds, so maybe a one-line description of the 10-20 most popular (as determined by non-author cites), and a count of the rest. In fairness to the theorists, it should include at least some theoretical arguments against a "physics" solution for the anomaly, such as Can the Pioneer anomaly be of gravitational origin? A phenomenological answer.
 * The quest to retrieve the old data. This is interesting in the sense of scientific archaeology.
 * The discovery, using this data, that the effect is in fact decreasing. Support for Temporally Varying Behavior of the Pioneer Anomaly from the Extended Pioneer 10 and 11 Doppler Data Sets
 * The nail in the coffin paper, using the detailed telemetry and a detailed thermal model. Support for the Thermal Origin of the Pioneer Anomaly
 * I agree with LouScheffer's proposal, and I like the idea of a formal variation of the linked article. If feasable I wouldn't mind including some of the more outlandish ideas as mentioned in the article after the real science has been covered from a historical perspective. That is, if its possible, if we have room, and if any of them fit in the article. Obviously these would not be scientific explanations, but they may be somehow interesting. Also, I saw that movie where the "evil" Klingons used the pioneer spacecraft for target practice -- very humorous. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a good proposal. The article should be rewritten to indicate that the cause of the anomaly is understood now. In terms of outlandish ideas, I think that a brief discussion of cosmology and some of the numerology that went into the discussions (the MOND argument was especially interesting) might be useful, but I think that specific citations to specific works might be overkill. Junjunone (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Pioneer Anomaly and the General Relativistic Rotational Exact Solution
The Pioneers anomalies are indeed two: the first, is the linear deceleration sufferred by the space probes.The secondary one, is the spindown of the spin when spacecrafts were non-perturbed by, say, engines turned on.According to the Planetary Society, as it can be easily found by any reader, they found no expalanation that is by now, acceptable.Of course, they have i mind the so-called thermal emission guys.I published a whole book, and several papers, counting in some of them with co-author Fernando Gomide,where I show that Universal Rotation, gives the numerically correct observed results,through well-known General Relativity Theory.Universal rotation, has been observed experimentally, and also was calculated through indirect experimental extrapolation of rotational states of increasing astronomical to astrophysical and, ultimately, to cosmological scales.Just look my books published recently (2012), "General Relativity and the Pioneers Anomaly", and "Realization of Einstein´s Machian Program", by Nova Science Publishers, New York, and some papers you may find, in the journal Astrophysics and Space Science (late 2011, and early 2012), I am the author, and in Cornell University Library, some more, which shall be published in this month by Journal of Modern Physics, with F.M.Gomide.(Special issue on Gravitation, Astrophysics and Cosmology). Msberman (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This sounds very much like your own pet idea. Which you're welcome to, but not to push into wikipedia. Beware of WP:COI which you inevitably suffer from in this regard. You're welcome to discuss it on the talk page, though William M. Connolley (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)It will not be Marcelo Samuel Berman the one to correct the main page, be sure of that!!!!!189.73.40.80 (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The 'conventional forces' people (of whom I'm one) have considered the spin as well, though certainly not as much as acceleration. See, for example, Conventional forces can explain the the Anomalous Acceleration of Pioneer 10, where it is argued the same radiation forces can explain both the acceleration and the spin.  LouScheffer (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The case for Universal Rotation and General Relativity, as explanation alternative to thermal emission
It is just a question of looking the amount of papers, and even two books, written by a Brazilian group of physicists, on the General Relativistic origin of the Pioneer Anomaly, bymeans of the already observed Universal Rotation, to get convinced that thermal emission, is just as well as this---an explanation of the deceleration, but with the physicists explanation, to the contrary of the engineers one, the other two NASA anomalies(spindown, and FlyBy), are also explained. I do not agree with the deletion of one side´s theory, in favour of the other, as has been systematically done in the main page of the Pioneer Anomaly, by the "engineers".I shall wait about 48 hours, in order to get other opinions, and then, I shall post in the main page, again, the material on the general relativistic rotational explanation.I repute immoral, and unethical, the deletion of such material, and it does not serve the cause of Science, to make such restrictions.Indeed, the unsuspect New York Academy of Sciences Magazine, in its Spring 2008 issue, has informed that the main scientist within the Brazilian group of general relativists, has indeed "solved the NASA problem". Deletion of general relativitic EXACT solution of the Pioneer deceleration, in favour of the engineers thermal emission numerical calculation, is tantamount to replace Albert Einstein, by someone else in the engineering business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.73.40.80 (talk) 04:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC) I happen to have changed my mind, and went ahead, replacing again what had been deleted about the General relativistic explanation, in the main page. Please do not delete such replacement, before the scientific communitty gets the feeling for it, and reaches a consensus.189.73.40.80 (talk) 05:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Unfortunately, obscurantism has surpassed the frontier of logic and reasonability, and the General Relativistic explanation was again deleted by the engineers.They forget that an EXACT solution, in General Relativity, is louder than engineering numerical stuff.189.73.40.80 (talk) 13:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a very important point missing from this discussion. The thermal recoil force exists (for a crude model, just stick a 60 watt bulb next to a pie tin - clearly it radiates more to one side then the other).  This has been verified by at least 5 different analyses.   So if you propose an exact solution, you need either to show the the thermal force analyses are wrong, and the force is 0, or you need to subtract the known thermal forces before applying the remaining theory.  Is there an exact solution paper that corrects for the known thermal forces?   LouScheffer (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Very well---the vice-versa, is already placed by you, namely, it is up to the engineers to construct a model, tha tkeeps General Relativistic solution of the problem as well, for Physics comes before engineering.First, goes General Relativity.One more thing--in the General Relativistic equations, you may include a radiational energy density---that of course represents thermal radiation, but it would make no big difference,it makes for a small correction.189.73.40.80 (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This has already been done; I suggest you read the relevant papers on the subject. The statement "physics comes before engineering" is completely nonsensical, as both general relativity and thermal recoil force are physical effects. siafu (talk) 03:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)