Talk:Pioneer anomaly/Archive for 2011

In the section "Initial indications"
Question, why is the doppler effect linked to a blueshift, Not a red shift? The Pioneer probes after all are moving away from us (earth and sol) (a redshift) and not toward us (a blueshift)?


 * The "colourshift" does not depend on the direction of the velocity, but on that of the acceleration, AFAIK. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent introduction additions
I have refrained from reverting or changing the recent introduction additions to the article by Michoball as per requested. However, I see the addition as rather leading and quite biased, especially for the inclusion of the information within the introduction. It simply casts a shadow on all other possibilities before the reader is even able to make an assessment on their own. My recommendation is for this information to be moved to a new section, possibly at the bottom of the article, titled, "Recent discussions". Under the heading, it would allow other recent expanded explanations to be equally visible in a singular location. --Xession (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

But the Portugese phong-shading results are big news, so people will be looking for it -- so doesn't it need to be near the top, not the bottom? --Jonathan Stray (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * We aren't in the business of news, but of encyclopedic knowledge. The Phong shading research is not reviewed or confirmed, so it is no more notable a claim than the rest of the proposed solutions. Simply being recent does not make it notable, consider if this solution would be notable enough to be in the header in 2 years if it turns out to be false. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This issue is also discussed in the following section (below), and in the recent edit history of the article. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible explanations / Proposed explanations
We don't need both these sections, or at least the headings William M. Connolley (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Electromagnetism
I removed:


 * A real deceleration not accounted for in the current model could be from electromagnetic forces due to an electric charge on the spacecraft.

because its uncited, and has been for quite a while William M. Connolley (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Pioneer anomaly solved??
See http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26589/?ref=rss.

Also, make changes to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics

75.4.205.0 (talk) 08:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I added this before I saw this request. While this is a proposed solution, it has not been peer reviewed. Until then, it can't be considered solved. Once it has been reviewed, verified, and others have come to the same conclusion, then we can make a case for it being 'solved'. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's just an arXiv preprint so far :-) I've added a note to the intro that solutions have been proposed. I've also made the "Solved?" section part of the "Proposed solutions" section with "Phong shading" in the title so that everyone flocking to this article can see it's already here - David Gerard (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you sure this result hasn't been peer-reviewed yet? It is reported about on Centauri Dreams as well, a site which claims to discuss only peer-reviewed results (see "Charter" on the right there). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I restored my edit of a few days ago, mentioning the Phong shading solution in the intro, because it also included other cleanups and clarifications. I take the point that this analysis has not yet been peer reviewed, so I added a note to that effect in the intro. But I really think we need to note this promising development up high in the article. --Jonathan Stray (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I am not against having a blurb about this in the introduction, it appears to be too much content for the introduction. In other words, there is a question of undue weight by giving this an entire paragraph in the introduction. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, though I'm now guilty of adding back a little of the description. I wouldn't object to this moving out of the intro to a para lower down. It is indeed NEWS. OTOH I haven't seen anyone saying "this is twaddle" so it doesn't seem to be too controversial William M. Connolley (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. This probably does not belong in the introduction in the first place. The introduction is meant to provide general coverage of what is in the body of the encyclopedia article. Furthermore, this solution is already covered in the section entitled "Proposed explanations" (see: Phong shading calculation).
 * I might try to rewrite the introduction as a very general overview.  Steve Quinn (talk) 03:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I moved this down to a more appropriate section. I provided an explanation in the edit history. I am satisified that the lede already provides an overview of the article after moving this description. I don't see any need to tinker with the lede. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

A new article (also only still just an arXiv preprint) from two german researchers seems to lend credence to the previous claim of a thermal origin for the anomaly (arxiv.org/abs/1104.3985)... Anyone more wiki-experienced wants to have a look and try to insert the info in the relevant section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.18.221 (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

This particular solution seems to be gaining the support of the JPL review. Within a few months there will likely be a publication on this theory. siafu (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Happy ending
Personally, I like happy endings. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Then you should listen less to the VanishedUser behind IPs as 140.252.83.232 and 140.252.83.241 ! 77.219.176.32 (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Hello pot? This is kettle." siafu (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

New findings in Nature
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7362/full/477009d.html "The authors boosted the number of tracking points for the spacecraft from 30,671 to 122,591 and found that the acceleration, instead of being constant, was actually slowly decreasing with time. This would be consistent with the emission of heat from a degrading radioisotope power source on board each probe, which would apply a tiny amount of force to the spacecraft."

Somebody should incorporate that into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.19.14.55 (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

New cosmology and new physics
I don't see any reason to remove content from these sections. The content is backed up by sources. The russian magazine article exists and all that is needed is google translation to get a clear understanding of the article in English. Astrophysics and Space Science is a peer reviewed journal published by Springer (a reliable publisher). The article in question does exist and supports the reference. Here is the citation and link for the article on the Springer website. This appears to be a version of the the article in PDF format, although it may be a self-published version. Someone may want to read the article to see if it matches the summation in this article. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources are awful. The Russian magazine article is not a reliable source for science news reporting (it is essentially a gossip rag). It's like using Weekly World News as a reliable source. Astrophysics and Space Science is not a particularly good journal in the field of astronomy. It is known for publishing questionable papers, and so we should look for including papers published there that have received citations. The paper being referenced has received no citations. I read the article, and it is extremely poorly written and argued. I believe that A&SS may have not used a normal peer-review editor for this work. Since we have no citations to this work, it is fair to excise it. 140.252.83.232 (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The argument just presented is faulty. The article in the Russian news papers gives a balanced presentation of the facts. Do you have sources that say it is a rag? Astrophysics and Space Science is a peer reviewed journal. It is listed by Thomson Reuters databases. It also listed by Chemaical Abstracts Service. That means it is one of the top journals. Do you have any sources that says Astrophysics and Space Science is not a particularly good journal? The paper itself does have a couple of citations, not zero citations. Also, this Wikipedia article includes a presentation of alternative theories as possible explanations. This material is consistent with the rest of the article.


 * I don't support this theory or any fringe science. But I am not the final authority of what stays in the article. Especially if a particular article is in a peer reviewed journal. Steve Quinn (talk) 11:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Ap&SS is a journal that generally publishes about astronomical observations and modeling rather than new theories. However, it ran into some trouble being criticized at the American Astronomical Society for allowing a number of physics monographs to go through without careful review. Dopita, a competent scientist, did a review and decided that the journal should accept no more papers relating to foundational mathematical physics because of the criticism, the very kind of paper the promoters are trying to insert into this article. (See = "Papers in mathematical physics or in general relativity which do not establish clear astrophysical applications will no longer be considered.") Certain members of the journal's editorial board have a high tolerance for itinerant ideas still, but the very fact that they have recognized their flaws is a giant red flag. When my students research the Pioneer Anomaly, there are a number of excellent papers on the subject which are referenced in this article. The Ap&SS paper is a glaring counterexample to that. There are some really good papers in PhysRevD which tell the story of how the Pioneer Anomaly might have greater GR-implications, but this paper is utter trash in comparison. I don't think those speculative papers deserve much mention here, either, incidentally, but if you were going to write a 30-page-long review, that is the journal of record that should be used, not this out-of-the-way low-impact essentially citationless one (note that the few citations you are looking at are essentially all to collaborators of the author. Self-citaitons do not count as notice). The Russian News source is far from a "balanced presentation of facts". The major players in the field aren't even mentioned (such as JPL). 140.252.83.232 (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your intelligent and rational reply. I am at this time convinced that your view on this matter is the correct one. Also, I appreciate your willingness to raise the bar for what is acceptable regarding this topic and and this article. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

140.252.83.232 (talk) made you change your correct view by dissing a reputable journal and without details call the cited paper "utter trash" and "out-of-the-way low-impact essentially citationless". As for the article in Russian C-News, it is about NASA's attitude in 2005, and do mention what he claims it does not: "Сразу после обнаружения аномалии в Лаборатории реактивного движения NASA (Jet Propulsion Laboratory, JPL) была создана группа экспертов под руководством Джона Андерсона (John Anderson)…". So perhaps you had better trust the hints at your talk page here, and reinstate said part on cosmological effects. 89.160.124.74 (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite being blocked, you are continuing to push your fringe cosmology theory, and continuing to edit war over this. Numerous editors have attempted to explain why the addition of this theory is inappropriate here on wikipedia in general, so I won't waste too much time repeating these arguments again, but I'll add that trying to slip it in to rather unrelated articles like this one is especially not going to be well accepted.  If there is a case to be made for inclusion, it would not be here at all. siafu (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems siafu is quite wrong about this section that was settled here by well informed user Crum375. And the comment was made here long before IP 89.160.124.74 was blocked. And it is highly unlikely Masreliez himself, who is behind this. Since it is new physics, it is also the only best place to slip it in where it adds at least better argued theory than i.a. ad hoc MOND. 90.129.20.142 (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Most recent developments point towards the mundane cause of thermal radiation pressure forces inherent in the spacecraft...
I think it is time to start giving this more prominence; probably give it a sentence in the lede. If it survives much longer, this thing is solved William M. Connolley (talk) 08:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think giving it a sentence in the lede is both appropriate and a good idea. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but is there a source for it? I mean, a source that says "most recent developments" or equivalent? It appears to violate WP:OR to do our own assessment of "most". McKay (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Too much worrying about OR isn't useful. Whether the information is correct is more useful William M. Connolley (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, "Whether the information is correct" is a strong assertion. This is why there is a WP:OR rule, isn't it? Personaly, I think such rule is pretty useful given the colaborative and open-source nature of WP. --Seneika (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, "Whether the information is correct" isn't an assertion William M. Connolley (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course not. Only the part "the information is correct" is. As a reader, can I choose not to simply belive in things and ask for references? -Seneika (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't know what you're trying to say. As a reader, you are entirely free to chose, obviously. But you can't ask things, as a reader, because that is a non-reading activity William M. Connolley (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * First things first: I'm not willing to be lectured by you (even because you wouldn't give me any references for your prophecies because they would be simply "correct"). Second, a reader is someone who, among other things, reads and is not necessarily constrained to the act or reading. I don't know why are you so defensively hiding behind semantics. I just noticed you telling someone (and please, for the love of god, don't tell me you didn't "tell" anything but you "wrote" something instead) that observing WP:OR rule "too much" isn't useful and that giving "correct information" is preferable. I'm just trying to express my opinion as a reader/writer/asker/breather (and, perhaps, a dick) that there's no such thing as simply "giving the correct information". Providing references from verifiable/reliable sources is a must. I'm sure you know that writing articles that obey WP rules (if not all at least most of them) is much easier when one's personal beliefs don't take any part. --Seneika (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the sense of the statement is correct, in some sense "most recent developments" points to the thermal explanation. But this could depend on how you define "most".  If it said "most of the recent papers" it would be debatable - even just counting recent papers, there are many many theory explanations, and though thermal is by far the most common explanation, it's not more than half.   But "most" research (as measured in hours) almost surely is correct.  The thermal papers have lots of co-authors and considerable detailed modelling.  Some of these people have spend years on this issue.  "Most" number of researchers supporting the hypothesis is also surely true - the thermal explanation is supported by many papers with many co-authors.  To my knowledge, the only other explanation with more than one proponent is MOND, and that's a distant second.  Overall, since the statement says "most recent developments", it seems OK.   LouScheffer (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello User:William M. Connolley. This is regarding your revert. There are a few issues with your sentence "Most recent developments point towards the mundane cause of thermal radiation pressure forces inherent in the spacecraft.": I am reverting back to my change. Please discuss here and address my points before reverting. Also, in the edit summary, please try to be more descriptive than "you're wrong". Thanks! - Subh83 (talk &#124; contribs) 18:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It has incorrect construction. What you are trying to say I guess is "Most recent developments point towards thermal radiation pressure forces inherent in the spacecraft as the mundane cause behind the anomaly."
 * 2) The word "mundane" is in violation of WP:NPOV. None of the references use that word. Researches and findings are never mundane from a scientific perspective.
 * 3) The use of the plural form "developments" is incorrect since it is a single research that you have cited. If you want to use a plural word please refer to multiple independent researches.


 * There were no problem with WMC's version, so I'm reverting back to that one. That a thermal explanation is "mundane" is not POV. It is fact. This is in contrast with the non-mundane explanations, i.e. those requiring rewriting all of physics. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The use of mundane is very common in scholarly references. A google scholar search for mundane "Pioneer anomaly" returns 51 different papers, at least when I tried it, including several with mundane in the title, such as Mundane explanation for bizarre Pioneer anomaly.  So use in this context is entirely standard.    LouScheffer (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Self-creation cosmology
In the Self-creation cosmology (SCC) Wikipedia article, the Pioneer anomaly (PA) seems to be referred to as a potential prediction of SCC. Should there be some mention of SCC in the article's list of possible explanations of PA, even if there might be uncertainty over whether it's a prediction or retrodiction (SCC ~1982; PA ~1980)? My apologies if this has been raised previously and rejected. Annoyamouse (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)