A Mysterious Force is Pulling Pioneer 10 Back Towards the Sun

SG-17

Deity
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Messages
2,632
Researchers say Pioneer 10, which took the first close-up pictures of Jupiter before leaving our solar system in 1983, is being pulled back to the sun by an unknown force. The effect shows no sign of getting weaker as the spacecraft travels deeper into space, and scientists are considering the possibility that the probe has revealed a new force of nature.

Dr Philip Laing, a member of the research team tracking the craft, said: "We have examined every mechanism and theory we can think of and so far nothing works.

"If the effect is real, it will have a big impact on cosmology and spacecraft navigation," said Dr Laing, of the Aerospace Corporation of California.
Pioneer 10 was launched by Nasa on March 2 1972, and with Pioneer 11, its twin, revolutionised astronomy with detailed images of Jupiter and Saturn. In June 1983, Pioneer 10 passed Pluto, the most distant planet in our solar system.
Both probes are now travelling at 27,000mph towards stars that they will encounter several million years from now. Scientists are continuing to monitor signals from Pioneer 10, which is more than seven billion miles from Earth.
Research to be published shortly in The Physical Review, a leading physics journal, will show that the speed of the two probes is being changed by about 6 mph per century - a barely-perceptible effect about 10 billion times weaker than gravity.
Scientists initially suspected that gas escaping from tiny rocket motors aboard the probes, or heat leaking from their nuclear power plants might be responsible. Both have now been ruled out. The team says no current theories explain why the force stays constant: all the most plausible forces, from gravity to the effect of solar radiation, decrease rapidly with distance.
The bizarre behaviour has also eliminated the possibility that the two probes are being affected by the gravitational pull of unknown planets beyond the solar system.
Assertions by some scientists that the force is due to a quirk in the Pioneer probes have also been discounted by the discovery that the effect seems to be affecting Galileo and Ulysses, two other space probes still in the solar system. Data from these two probes suggests the force is of the same strength as that found for the Pioneers.
Dr Duncan Steel, a space scientist at Salford University, says even such a weak force could have huge effects on a cosmic scale. "It might alter the number of comets that come towards us over millions of years, which would have consequences for life on Earth. It also raises the question of whether we know enough about the law of gravity."
Until 1988, Pioneer 10 was the most remote object made by man - a distinction now held by Voyager 1. Should Pioneer 10 make contact with alien life, it carries a gold-plated aluminum plaque on which the figures of a man and woman are shown to scale, along with a map showing its origin that NASA calls "the cosmic equivalent of a message in a bottle".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...orce-holds-back-Nasa-probe-in-deep-space.html


Well this is certainly important. Pioneer 10 is being affected by a completely new and unknown force (perhaps an effect of dark matter in the interstellar void).
 
Scientists initially suspected that gas escaping from tiny rocket motors aboard the probes, or heat leaking from their nuclear power plants might be responsible.


Nuclear power plants!?!?
 
The Physical Review, a leading physics journal

What's wrong with science journalists, that they can't even get the name of the journal right? The last issue of Physical Review is from 1969.
 
Huh, any news on this then?

And cool spaceships, I'd completely forgotten about radioactive decay power. I guess that far from the sun, solar panels probably aren't worth it.
 
The alien overlords running the Earth Experiment don't want those things to ever get to another star. But they want them to slow down so gradually that they don't give away the game.
 
http://creation.com/creationist-cosmologies-explain-the-anomalous-acceleration-of-pioneer-spacecraft
A broad class of creationist cosmologies offer an explanation for the ‘Pioneer effect’, an apparent small Sunward anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft. If a large volume of empty space surrounds the matter of the cosmos, so that the cosmos can have a centre of mass, then the matter is in a deep gravitational potential ‘well’. If space is expanding and spreading the matter outward, then the depth of the well is decreasing. According to general relativity, especially a new solution of Einstein’s equations derived in the Appendix (which also deals with Birkhoff’s theorem), the decreasing depth continuously shortens ‘radar’ distances within the well, causing the observed apparent acceleration. The magnitude of the anomalous acceleration implies the bottom of the potential well has not yet risen very far above the critical depth for gravitational time dilation. Thus the Pioneer effect supports the essentials of several creationist cosmologies: a centre of mass, expansion of space and recent time dilation. Big bang theorists, whose cosmology does not have a centre of mass, cannot use this explanation. As yet, they have no alternative theory upon which they agree.
The ‘Pioneer effect’ and its connection with cosmology

In 1998, a team associated with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Anderson et al., reported data from the Pioneer 10/11, Galileo and Ulysses spacecraft indicating an ‘apparent anomalous, constant, acceleration acting on the spacecraft with a magnitude ~8.5×10−8 cm/s2 , directed towards the Sun.’ The Pioneer spacecraft are very distant, far beyond the orbit of Pluto. The report prompted a flurry of activity among theorists, who tried to explain the anomaly by using (I) prosaic effects such as gas leaks from the spacecraft, (II) exotic new physics, or (III) known phenomena previously not applied to the problem. This article is in class III. Anderson et al. answered class I comments, making a good case that the cause of the effect is not trivial. Then in 2002 they thoroughly documented the effect for Pioneer 10 and 11, the two spacecraft showing the anomaly most clearly. They also surveyed all the theoretical offerings, finding none clearly workable. In late 2005, two of the team’s authors surveyed additional evidence and concluded that it supports their original conclusion: the effect is real. ‘But’, they say, ‘neither we nor others with spacecraft or navigational expertise have been able to find a convincing explanation for the anomaly.’

The Pioneer anomaly manifests itself in two ways: (A) as a shortening of the radar (transponded) range relative to the expected one, and (B) as a steady increase of the received (transponded) radio frequency relative to the expected one, i.e. a ‘blue shift’. After evaluating systematic and random errors, they list in their eq. (53) their best estimate of the anomalous acceleration: ap = −(8.74±1.33) × 10−8 cm/s2 , where the minus sign represents Sunward acceleration.
Discussion and conclusions

[In my paper which is available as a PDF I show that] an expanding cosmos having a centre of mass provides a simple explanation of the Pioneer effect. If this explanation is correct, the anomalous apparent acceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft would be the first local manifestation we have observed of the expansion of the cosmos, and the first evidence an expansion is occurring in the present, not just the past.

In the absence of an alternative explanation of the Pioneer effect that would be compatible with conventional cosmology, the creationist explanation weighs against the big bang theory.

In contrast, the big bang theory cannot use this simple explanation, because it does not have a center of mass or a large portion of empty space around its matter. Big bang matter would not exist within a gravitational ‘well’, and so there would be no change of gravitational potential as expansion proceeds. Without such a change, there would be no change in ‘radar’ distances and thus no apparent anomalous acceleration of spacecraft. In the absence of an alternative explanation of the Pioneer effect that would be compatible with conventional cosmology, the creationist explanation weighs against the big bang theory.

The magnitude of the Pioneer effect, interpreted according to this paper, would mean the depth of the cosmic potential well is not far above the critical potential at which there are large time dilation effects. Because the potential well has been moving upward through the critical level, large time dilations must have occurred in the relatively recent history of the cosmos. If the earth is located near the centre of mass, it would have emerged from the critical level nearly last of all the matter in the cosmos. According to Scripture and geoscience data, only 6,000 years as measured by Earth’s clocks have elapsed since then. Combining that information with the present value of H implies that today the earth would still not be far above the critical level, agreeing in general with the value in eq. (25), [of my paper].

In conclusion, the observed anomalous acceleration of distant spacecraft supports the essentials of several creationist cosmologies—a cosmic centre of mass, expansion of space, and recent gravitational time dilation.

Here is the technical paper if you want to read it.
http://aufiles.creation.com/images/journal_of_creation/vol21/5181creationist.pdf
 
God is that mysterious force. He is stopping us arrogant humans.
 
How does not having no centre of mass follow from the Big Bang Theory? Surely it depends upon the topology of space.

It's quite possible to have an expanding universe with no point of reference that it is expanding from. Imagine the surface of an expanding balloon - all points are becoming further apart relative to every other point on the surface, but the fixed point of the expansion (centre of the balloon) does not lie on the surface of the balloon. Space could be a 3 (or more) dimensional analogue of that (and the surface of a balloon is also bounded).
 
How does not having no centre of mass follow from the Big Bang Theory? Surely it depends upon the topology of space.

It's quite possible to have an expanding universe with no point of reference that it is expanding from. Imagine the surface of an expanding balloon - all points are becoming further apart relative to every other point on the surface, but the fixed point of the expansion (centre of the balloon) does not lie on the surface of the balloon. Space could be a 3 (or more) dimensional analogue of that (and the surface of a balloon is also bounded).
But it's still true that there is no centre of mass on the surface - within the Universe. And although the balloon is often used as an analogy, note there is no need to invoke higher dimensions for the Universe to be placed within - the curvature of the Universe is intrinsic to the Universe.
 
Yes, that's what I was getting at.

EDIT: The reason the balloon analogy is good is that the surface of the balloon is a 2-dimensional manifold which we can visualise in 3D space. We can't envisage the expansion of the universe in 3D space because it is spatially (at least) a 3-dimensional manifold.
 
Guys, guys

This article is from 2002

Published: 12:01AM GMT 10 Feb 2002

There is no mysterious force - this has been since discredited. Let me see if I can locate supporting documentation..

here

Abstract
A previous analysis of radio Doppler and ranging data from distant Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft, indicated an apparent anomalous acceleration. Several hypotheses involving new physical phenomena have been proposed to explain that apparent anomaly. This paper shows that the anomalous acceleration of the spacecraft Pioneer 10 and 11 in the direction of the Sun is due to the presence of dust in the Kuiper belt, which has been ignored in the calculation. These data provide the first direct measurement of dust density in the Kuiper belt, which is 1.38 x 10-19 gr/cc.

classical_hero said:
In conclusion, the observed anomalous acceleration of distant spacecraft supports the essentials of several creationist cosmologies—a cosmic centre of mass, expansion of space, and recent gravitational time dilation.

Creationist cosmologists? Is that a joke? How can you be a "cosmologist" if you believe the earth to be 6,000 years old? (or maybe they don't?)
 
How does not having no centre of mass follow from the Big Bang Theory? Surely it depends upon the topology of space.
Not to mention that the previously preferred model (steady state) has even less of chances to ever have a centre-of-mass... from a creationists point of view, BB should be a blessing, because it actually allows for the idea of an initial creation...

Cheers, LT.
 
Didn't realize this was so old but warpus' explanation was the first thing I thought of when reading it. I.e. there is something out there running into it slowing it down, such as space dust.
 
A broad class of creationist cosmologies offer an explanation for the ‘Pioneer effect’, an apparent small Sunward anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft. If a large volume of empty space surrounds the matter of the cosmos, so that the cosmos can have a centre of mass, then the matter is in a deep gravitational potential ‘well’. If space is expanding and spreading the matter outward, then the depth of the well is decreasing. According to general relativity, especially a new solution of Einstein’s equations derived in the Appendix (which also deals with Birkhoff’s theorem), the decreasing depth continuously shortens ‘radar’ distances within the well, causing the observed apparent acceleration. The magnitude of the anomalous acceleration implies the bottom of the potential well has not yet risen very far above the critical depth for gravitational time dilation. Thus the Pioneer effect supports the essentials of several creationist cosmologies: a centre of mass, expansion of space and recent time dilation. Big bang theorists, whose cosmology does not have a centre of mass, cannot use this explanation. As yet, they have no alternative theory upon which they agree.
If that is the case, all other sources of light will be similarly Doppler shifted. That is not the case.

Furthermore, if the potential well is decreasing (losing potential energy), this will cause everything to redshift, as the gravitational well is decreasing in depth, providing less energy for incoming photons that are falling in. The creationist literature is arguing the opposite.
 
Top Bottom