Arxiv:1205.3312V3 [Physics.Gen-Ph] 4 Sep 2012

Home , Bridgman (crater), Brouwer (crater)

arXiv:1205.3312v3 [physics.gen-ph] 4 Sep 2012 ecno e hsc:tePoeraoaymdle sapat non-i a aggregate as of modelled externalisation anomaly the Pioneer by the driven physics: loss new speed of beacon A is tg oeln ftePoeranomaly Pioneer the of modelling stage First 3 anomaly Pioneer the of discussion and Background 2 Introduction 1 Contents . uhrscmet nteaoayssau ...... to . . . relative shortfall . . . . . a Relativity . . . as General . Anomaly . . of . . Pioneer shackles . . . subtle . . . the . . 3.2 Loosening ...... 3.1 ...... status . anomaly’s . . the . . . on system comments . . solar Author’s . . the . . regarding . physics. concerns . 2.7 new Further . to . . impediments assu . and 2.6 . not Veracity is anomaly evidence anomaly Pioneer observational Pioneer 2.5 the Primary diminishing of temporally cause mo a the spacecraft 2.4 Why as anomalous emission real heat paper: 2.3 On this in taken 2.2 Stance 2.1 meigadee nesadn fpyia elt n qua everythin and of reality theory Keywords: physical a of how understanding and deeper energy, larg a dark related impeding of system nature solar additional anomaly, path-bas the flyby the data, Earth a omit the as spac that to: well predictions “rotating extend as to each relative perturbations, body shortfall moving speed a and external At acceleration m re-expressed and (non-locally) perturbation. is atomic geometry — residing) spacetime (lunar/third-body curved ene quantum non-inertial of (aggregate) myriad inexpressible fi ‘gravitational’ of internally way of By an type formulation/application. new of a domain hypothesi relativity’s and we source observat non-locality, energy the and mechanical from entanglement backwards var quantum Working spatial mass, research. and of temporal N arena and direction, open modelled. expl nature, based convincingly actual: heat been the Sun/Earth-directed not non-constant a date) mode embrace relat (to successfully low have general the be as encounter, both such can constraints, of observational law, awkward only) various inverse-square bodies Newtonian mass the ‘low’ (re: violation Abstract: alG e Boom ten G. Paul colo hsc,Uiest fNwSuhWls ynyNSW Sydney Wales, paul.tenboom@unswalumni. South [email protected], New Email: of University Physics, of School ..3TePoeraoay&cmetn pntemdlsuse model’s the upon commenting & . anomaly accelerat . Pioneer spacecraft The . to equalit strength . an 3.2.13 field and . Acceleration harmonic relationships . simple s shortfall 3.2.12 celestial a to . which (over Amplitude ma . in Theorem point Power ways 3.2.11 . a different the (at Two of . space interpretation curved . u 3.2.10 Physical in influence . Theorem its Power . and 3.2.9 Rayleigh’s motion . harmonic tw . (simple) for 3.2.8 Celestial . relationships: r amplitude . amplitude undulation maximum . 3.2.7 Relative undulation . (relative) (prope and harmonic . 3.2.6 Agenda simple . celestial t . introducing undulati relative Briefly 3.2.5 and . motion idealisations, in . preliminaries, shortfall . 3.2.4 General a of . aspects . 3.2.3 Conceptual remarks 3.2.2 Introductory 3.2.1 hstets ulnshwannsseai ae ine a Pioneer based non-systematic a how outlines treatise This ine nml rvtto ie—Erhflb nml da — anomaly flyby Earth — time — gravitation — anomaly Pioneer predicted 1 oin...... 15 ...... motion g iceac/netit novn a involving — discrepancy/uncertainty rgy ytmccnevto feeg principle, energy of conservation systemic a ffc.‘ouin’o h e oe may model new the of ‘Solutions’ effect. au fPoer1’ nml pre-Saturn anomaly 11’s Pioneer of value aino h ine nml eanan remain anomaly Pioneer the of iation ya rttn)nnEcienspatial non-Euclidean (rotating) a as ly nfaue ftemdl...... 16 ...... model the of features on o eainhp...... 22 ...... relationship ion com nto fti nmlu deceleration, anomalous this of anation -cl nmle nteCBradiation CMB the in anomalies e-scale in...... 11 ...... tion 14 ...... tmentanglement. ntum vt’ ekeuvlnepicpeand principle equivalence weak ivity’s l;nihro hc i ihngeneral within lie which of neither eld; fseiceege 21 ...... energies specific of y dcntn prcce aeo speed of rate cycle) (per constant ed eamcaimivligaquantum a involving mechanism a se ieetcss...... 18 ...... cases different o )mto 17 ...... motion r) e 12 ...... red oa vdne n ehnig time, rethinking: and evidence, ional ld hs hoeia ude and hurdles theoretical These lled. nfiainaed sinadvertently is agenda unification g rdce oin...... 16 ...... motion predicted o tihtnigtercn rn to trend recent the otwithstanding lclrssesmvn nanalog in moving systems olecular o vrg pe 18 ...... speed average pon -ap nue iuodlproper sinusoidal induces e-warp” oinocr 20 ...... occurs motion nl yl)...... 19 ...... cycle) ingle 02 Australia 2052, 14 ...... ltosis...... 17 ...... elationships 11 ...... s 18 ...... ss) 14 . . 13 ...... f‘as 23 ...... ‘mass’ of 12 ...... oay ihisimplied its with nomaly, eta Menergy QM nertial 15 ...... kenergy rk based h 14 10 7 2 Paul G. ten Boom

3.2.14 Summary of: celestial simple harmonic motion, and the Pioneer anomaly as a motion short- fallrate ...... 23 3.2.15 Interlude: what’s still to come ...... 24 3.3 Variation in the aP observations ...... 24 3.3.1 Introduction ...... 25 3.3.2 Spatial variation of aP ...... 25 3.3.3 A comment on observational errors ...... 25 3.3.4 Temporal variation of aP ...... 25 3.3.5 Non-specific variation in aP ...... 25 3.3.6 Thediurnalresidual ...... 25 3.4 The annualresidual ...... 26 3.4.1∼ Periodmismatch ...... 26 3.4.2 Amplitudenon-compliance ...... 27 3.4.3 Average amplitude consensus, and discussion of amplitudeambiguity...... 28 3.4.4 Concluding remarks on the annualresidual ...... 28 3.5 MoldingtheModel...... ∼ ...... 28 3.5.1 Aspectsofthemechanism ...... 28 3.5.2 Field undulations as planar rotating space-warps, andlunarcomment ...... 29 3.5.3 Anomalous CMB results and lunar spin plane rotating space-warps...... 30 3.5.4 Steep increase of Pioneer 11 anomaly ‘around’ Saturn encounter discussed ...... 31 3.5.5 Spin rate changes may support a real Pioneer anomaly ...... 32 3.6 The model’s relationship to the Pioneer observational evidence ...... 33 3.6.1 A two component Doppler residual & the main objective ofthissection ...... 33 3.6.2 Superposition of (sinusoidal) proper acceleration and proper velocity ...... 33 3.6.3 Background information concerning the (discrete) Pioneer observations ...... 33 3.6.4 The difficulty associated with assessing the temporal variation in aP (t) ...... 34 3.6.5 The model’s (∆ap)max value and the attenuation of maximum amplitude ...... 35 3.6.6 Comparing the model’s velocity range to the Doppler observations ...... 36 3.6.7 The Callisto-Titan ‘beat’ amplitude dominates the Doppler variation ...... 37 3.6.8 On the variation of aP data around its long-term constant mean value ...... 37 3.6.9 Concluding remarks on the model’s consistency with observational data ...... 37 3.7 Summary of the model’s first steps and what’s still to be done ...... 38

4 Theoretical concerns and philosophical aspects of the proposed mechanism 39 4.1 Preliminaryremarks ...... 40 4.1.1 Societal consensus in physics ...... 40 4.1.2 Philosophy of science comment ...... 40 4.1.3 Physics as possibly one step ontologically removed from “deep-reality” ...... 40 4.1.4 A wider sense to use of the word “gravitation” ...... 40 4.1.5 Beyond the scope of GR’s formalism ...... 41 4.1.6 The equivalence principle and the uncertainty principle ...... 41 4.1.7 Interpretative and ontological stance for quantum mechanics ...... 41 4.1.8 Transition from quantum to ‘classical’ behaviour — via decoherence ...... 41 4.1.9 Onquantumcondensatebehaviour ...... 42 4.1.10 On the addition of (rate of change of) angular momentum...... 42 4.2 Tensions of the model regarding reduction, unification, andGR...... 42 4.2.1 Celestial “gravitational” motion as a dissipative process ...... 42 4.2.2 Linking a very large number and a very small (energy) number...... 43 4.2.3 The basis for (quantum) condensate behaviour, and QM spin...... 43 4.2.4 The basis for the energy uncertainty ...... 43 4.2.5 Questioning physicists’ objective — regarding reduction and unification ...... 44 4.2.6 The differences that divide microscopic and macroscopicphysics ...... 44 4.2.7 The role of energy and power in the Vortex Theory of Propellers ...... 44 4.2.8 Energy to frequency proportionality ...... 45 4.2.9 Is macroscopic gravitation mediated by the graviton particle?...... 46 4.2.10 Hypothesising a non-local mechanism ...... 46 4.2.11 Interim conclusion and subtleties of the model ...... 47 4.3 Tackling fortress General Relativity and its non-simultaneity ...... 47 4.3.1 Physicists and philosophical thought ...... 47 4.3.2 Looking for cracks in the General Relativity fortress ...... 48 4.3.3 The ‘principle’ of general covariance: the logic behind it and its generality ...... 48 4.3.4 Non-relativistic aspects of gravitation in the model ...... 49 4.4 Evaluating SR’s and GR’s ontological commitment ...... 49 A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 3

4.4.1 Concerns regarding an ontological commitment to spacetime ...... 50 4.4.2 The failure of alternative approaches to special relativity...... 50 4.4.3 Other indicators that GR may be incomplete and/or restricted ...... 50 4.4.4 Three levels or scales of mass by way of the amount of bindingenergy ...... 51 4.4.5 Reintroducing the notion of relativistic mass ...... 51 4.4.6 Extending the scope of invariance, and ‘time’ ...... 51 4.4.7 Idealised invariant cosmological time — the universe’s fastest ticking clock ...... 52 4.4.8 Non-locality and an idealised invariant cosmologicaltime(rate)...... 52 4.4.9 Benefits of appreciating a broader scope to the concept of invariance ...... 53 4.4.10 Substantivalism without a cosmologically global reference frame ...... 53 4.4.11 On idealised invariant cosmological empty space ...... 54 4.4.12 Supplementary invariant ontology & the model’s invariant attributes ...... 54 4.4.13 Another kind of ‘uniform’ acceleration that can be visualised ...... 54 4.4.14 The model’s separate gravitational relationship cf. general relativity ...... 54 4.4.15 Invariant light speed and the limits of observationalphysics...... 55 4.4.16 Section overview and summary ...... 55 4.5 Local relativistic effects within a globally invariant universe ...... 56 4.5.1 Preliminaries ...... 56 4.5.2 Inertial frames and: nothing, something, and everything...... 56 4.5.3 A Copernican-like reversal regarding inertia and specific energy invariance ...... 57 4.5.4 Ramifications of this reversal regarding specific energy...... 57 4.5.5 An alternative magnitude for the invariant specific energy source/‘hill’ ...... 58 4.5.6 Relative motion and background invariant specific energy ...... 58 4.5.7 A different interpretation of SR’s time dilation and length contraction ...... 58 4.5.8 Further discussion upon relativistically altered timeandlength ...... 59 4.5.9 Briefly on the “clock paradox” ...... 59 4.5.10 Mass dilation and clarifying the intended meaning of the word “real” ...... 59 4.5.11 A brief interim summary; & replies to: “Can everything be relative?” ...... 60 4.5.12 Justifying a constant specific energy value throughouttheuniverse ...... 60 4.5.13 A new reason for general covariance in General Relativity’s formalism ...... 61 4.5.14 Three gravitational ‘draw-downs’ upon invariant specificenergy...... 61 4.5.15 Summary and concluding remarks ...... 62 4.6 Symmetry, Noether’s Theorem, and energy conservation ...... 62 4.6.1 Preliminary Remarks: macroscopic-microscopic ‘separation’ ...... 63 4.6.2 Preliminary Remarks: invariance, energy and acceleration...... 63 4.6.3 Background to Noether’s Theorem ...... 63 4.6.4 What remains in need of clarification ...... 63 4.6.5 On the failure of local conservation of energy in general relativity ...... 63 4.6.6 Homogeneity, isotropy, and the model being pursued ...... 64 4.6.7 Briefly on dual-level, and non-local physical behaviour...... 64 4.6.8 Asymmetry in the model and two asymmetries in physical reality ...... 64 4.6.9 The model’s unique circumstances ...... 65 4.6.10 Concludingremarks ...... 65 4.7 Summary and concluding remarks regarding SR and GR ...... 65 4.7.1 Incompleteness cf. incorrectness ...... 65 4.7.2 Aspects of our new approach to Special Relativity and Gravitation ...... 65 4.7.3 Benefits of a new supplementary conception of space and time ...... 66 4.7.4 Summary remarks and distinguishing the new approach to ‘gravitation’ ...... 66 4.7.5 Previewing the mechanism that indirectly explains the Pioneer anomaly ...... 67

5 Outlining quantum & general aspects of the model 67 5.1 Revising and extending the relationships between the microscopic and macroscopic ‘realms’ . . . . 67 5.1.1 Main aim, and non-locality and locality at non-extremetemperatures ...... 68 5.1.2 Altering the perceived relationship between gravitationandEM ...... 68 5.1.3 The size of ‘microscopic systems’, and mass & energy by number ...... 68 5.1.4 A mass emphasis as compared to an electric and magnetic emphasis ...... 69 5.1.5 A point of order re: QMs, classical physics and macroscopicsystems ...... 69 5.1.6 Quantum probability density and acceleration/ gravitational ﬁeld undulations — single par- ticlecase ...... 69 5.1.7 De Broglie matter waves, decoherence, and reduction ...... 70 5.1.8 A system comprising four levels of matter and the systemasawhole...... 70 5.1.9 The transition between the microscopic and macroscopicrealms ...... 70 5.1.10 Summary remarks for section 5.1 ...... 71 4 Paul G. ten Boom

5.2 Berry’s geometric phase in celestial systems ...... 71 5.2.1 Curved space, time and geometric phase ...... 71 5.2.2 Background to Berry’s geometric phase and anholonomy ...... 72 5.2.3 Finer detail upon the use of Berry’s geometric phase in themodel ...... 72 5.2.4 A different role for geometric phase in a ‘mechanistic’ system ...... 73 5.2.5 Geometric phase & celestial motion ...... 73 5.2.6 Themodelencapsulated ...... 74 5.2.7 Commenting upon two assumptions associated with Berry’sphase ...... 74 5.2.8 Towards coherence and condensate behaviour, in the graviton’s absence ...... 74 5.2.9 Summary remarks for section 5.2 ...... 75 5.3 Spin, spinors, decoherence and Hannay angle ...... 75 5.3.1 The model’s use of QM spin and spinors ...... 75 5.3.2 Fermions, spin, spinors, Hannay angle, and decoherence ...... 75 5.3.3 Physicalising the spinor sign change arising from a 2π relative rotation ...... 76 5.3.4 Closing and summary remarks for section 5.3 ...... 77 5.4 A new type of precession — a QM relative spin phase shift ...... 78 5.4.1 Relating the model to other geometric phase based phenomena ...... 78 5.4.2 On the omission of global topological aspects from the model ...... 78 5.4.3 Comparison to the Aharonov-Bohm effect ...... 78 5.4.4 Anewtypeof‘precession’...... 79 5.4.5 The three faces of one and the same (magnitude) geometricphaseoffset ...... 79 5.4.6 The need for two types of spin-orbit ‘coupling’: macro- and microscopic ...... 79 5.4.7 Global reference frames and lunar geodetic precessionrate...... 80 5.4.8 Summary remarks for section 5.4 ...... 80 5.5 Spin phase, orientation, and spin-turning ...... 80 5.5.1 Spin phase and probability changes ...... 80 5.5.2 ‘Turning’ as compared to ‘rotation’ ...... 81 5.5.3 Spin orientation and virtual spin phase offset orientation...... 81 5.5.4 Standard approaches to the interaction of spin with inertia and gravity ...... 81 5.5.5 Further reasons for denying a local approach to the phase shift/offset ...... 81 5.5.6 Ramifications of denying a local and reductive approach(re: phaseshift) ...... 82 5.5.7 Aspects of a (third-body) non-local virtual geometricphaseoffset...... 82 5.5.8 What lies ahead: the spin offset via a non-inertial path cf. an inertial path ...... 83 5.5.9 Summary remarks for section 5.5 ...... 83 5.6 Further discussion upon the non-local geometrical (and topological) spin phase offset ...... 83 5.6.1 The inertia of intrinsic spin ...... 83 5.6.2 Ramification of no graviton particle: a virtual fermioncondensate ...... 84 5.6.3 Discussing relationships between spin and orbital angularmomentum ...... 84 5.6.4 Uncertainty, angular momentum and energy in quantum mechanics...... 85 5.6.5 A distinction between macroscopic spin and orbital angular momentum facilitates the existence of a microscopic/QM non-inertial situation ...... 85 5.6.6 Can dynamic curved spacetime considerations determine the model’s virtual spin phase offset? 86 5.6.7 Quantifying the geometric phase offset in the third-body of a three-body gravitational system 86 5.6.8 Concluding and summary remarks for section 5.6 ...... 87 5.7 Energy, coherence and condensate behaviour in the model ...... 88 5.7.1 Constructive superposition of virtual phase ...... 88 5.7.2 A space-warp so as to disallow a global/non-local phasechange...... 88 5.7.3 The benefit of a rotating space-warp ...... 88 5.7.4 Inertial energy cf. fictitious force ...... 89 5.7.5 Decoherence, and the statistically additive nature oftotalenergy ...... 89 5.7.6 Quantum coherence, environmental energy, and quantum entanglement ...... 90 5.7.7 Concluding and summary remarks for section 5.7 ...... 91

6 General features and the quantification of the model 91 6.1 Discussion of errors and major features of the model ...... 91 6.1.1 Looking ahead: steps to explaining the Pioneer anomaly...... 91 6.1.2 Interim summary: Core issues of the model encapsulated ...... 92 6.1.3 Error discussion and aspects of the model’s idealisation ...... 93 6.1.4 The relationship between: QMs, GR, intrinsic ‘spin’ and conservation ...... 93 6.2 Extensions to, and peripheral issues influenced by, the model ...... 94 6.2.1 Extending the model into three spatial dimensions ...... 94 6.2.2 Extending the planar rotating space-warp into three dimensions ...... 94 6.2.3 Briefly on different observations to improve our understanding of ap ...... 95 A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 5

6.2.4 A conceivable extension of the model to explain the Earthflybyanomaly ...... 96 6.2.5 A brief outline of solar system-based predictions arisingfromthemodel ...... 96 6.2.6 A brief list of other (possible) ramifications arising fromthemodel ...... 97 6.2.7 Spacetime curvature energy & the model’s denial of a graviton particle ...... 98 6.2.8 A brief speculation concerning the origin of inertial effects...... 98 6.2.9 Virtual phase and energy, imaginary numbers and spatialdimensions...... 98 6.2.10 Some similarities in/of the model to magnetism ...... 98 6.3 The physical model quantified: internal (virtual) energy ...... 99 6.3.1 A crucial difference between moons and atoms as compositesystems ...... 99 6.3.2 The total virtual non-inertial ‘spin’ energy (for a moonasawhole)...... 99 6.3.3 The relationship between: phase, angular momentum, andefficiency ...... 100 6.3.4 A non-metric approach, but very much a geometric approach ...... 101 1 6.3.5 Celestial geometry and 2 ¯h efficiency ...... 101 6.3.6 On the effect of lunar and planetary orbital motion eccentricity ...... 101 6.3.7 Total (idealised) internal energy ...... 102 6.4 Thephysicalmodelqualified ...... 102 6.4.1 Twotypesofequivalence ...... 102 6.4.2 Introducingnon-localmass ...... 102 6.4.3 A second and different type of non-Euclidean geometry ...... 103 6.4.4 The Biot-Savart law, and extending continuum mechanics field theory ...... 103 6.4.5 Extending the model’s kinetic energy shortfall into three dimensions ...... 103 6.4.6 General remarks concerning the rotating space-warps (GQ-RSWs) ...... 104 6.5 The physical model quantified: external (real) energy ...... 105 6.5.1 Geometry’s other role in the (semi-empirical) model ...... 105 6.5.2 The use of a weighted acceleration ...... 105 6.5.3 The geometric determination of weighted acceleration (∆aw) ...... 105 6.5.4 The model’s acceleration as compared to MOND’s acceleration ...... 106 6.5.5 Overall effective acceleration value arising from multiple space-warps ...... 107 1 6.5.6 On the hypothesised relationship between 2 ¯h and ∆ao ...... 107 6.5.7 A comment upon dimensional variation and ‘reference’ quantities...... 108 6.5.8 Extending the modelling of the Pioneer spacecraft to three dimensions ...... 109 6.5.9 Lesser importance ascribed to the Pioneer 11 navigation experiment ...... 109 6.5.10 Corrected acceleration ...... 110 6.5.11 A possible minor correction for the partial non-solidityoflunarbodies ...... 110 6.6 Non-localmassdistribution ...... 111 6.6.1 Backgroundtonon-localmass...... 111 6.6.2 Comments regarding the governing energy expression ...... 112 6.6.3 Total energy constancy, and the conceivable dispersion of non-local mass ...... 112 6.6.4 Global or universal aspects of the wave-like non-local mass distribution ...... 112 6.6.5 Quantifying the variation of non-local mass with the enclosed volume ...... 113 6.6.6 Distribution equation ramifications and values for thedifferentmoons ...... 113 6.6.7 Relating non-local mass to local ‘bulk’ physical mass (atapoint)...... 114 6.6.8 How non-local mass influences physical objects with (passive) mass ...... 115 6.6.9 Commenting upon local and global spatial quantities inthenewmodel ...... 115 6.6.10 1862 Apollo: an asteroid exhibiting intermittent anomalous behaviour? ...... 116 6.7 The Pioneer anomaly, GR, and the three Equivalence Principles...... 117 6.7.1 Introduction ...... 117 6.7.2 General remarks regarding a violation of the Equivalence Principle ...... 117 6.7.3 Pioneer anomaly as regards the weak and strong Equivalence Principles ...... 118 6.7.4 The Einstein Equivalence Principle and exclusivity ofthemetricinGR ...... 119 6.7.5 Discussing the new model’s need to supplement General Relativity ...... 120 6.7.6 Post-production chinks in the general principle of relativity’s armour ...... 121 6.7.7 Summarising aspects of GR’s principle approach and further discussion ...... 122 6.7.8 Brief summary and closing remarks regarding section 6.7 ...... 123

7 Rotating space-warps, non-local mass distributions and type 1a supernovae results 124 7.1 Preliminaries ...... 124 7.2 Proposing a fourth type of ‘redshift’ (of cosmological extent) ...... 124 7.3 Dark Energy transition redshift & the time from RSW initiation ...... 125 7.4 A new energy, and questioning a pivotal cosmological assumption...... 125 7.5 De-prioritising Dark Energy ...... 126 7.6 Volumetric ‘dispersion’ of the ‘non-local mass & RSW’ energy...... 126 7.7 Circumventing the ambiguity of ‘light’ propagation distance...... 127 6 Paul G. ten Boom

7.8 An alternative interpretation of the type 1a supernovae data ...... 128 7.9 Ramiﬁcations of the NMD-based supplementary blueshift ...... 129 7.10 How the RSWs’ non-local mass distributions act to mimic eﬀects attributed to dark energy . . . . 129 7.11 Summaryandclosingremarks...... 130

8 Summary, Discussion and Conclusions 130 8.1 The model’s major results, predictions, applications & features ...... 131 8.2 Physical and conceptual supplements inherent to the model ...... 133 8.3 Major mathematical equalities and relationships of the model...... 136 8.4 A crucial distinction and the model’s broader implications...... 138 8.5 Big picture ‘meditations’ arising from the model proposedherein ...... 139 8.6 A closing conditional comment ...... 141

List of Figures

1 The vector schematic diagram (very top) shows the relative magnitude and direction of a body’s motion and the speed loss (δv) (per cycle). The (lower) two diagrams illustrate the fact that oscillatory acceleration/gravitational field perturbation amplitude (∆a) and the coexisting speed perturbation amplitude (∆v) of a moving body are 180 degrees out of phase...... 20 2 Schematic view down from the north ecliptic pole illustrating where a tangent from the Pioneer 10’s path (at latter times) is in relation to the orbits of Jupiter andSaturn...... 25 3 Schematic diagram and table showing the direction (in the ecliptic plane, relative to the barycentre) of the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft for the mid-time of the Anderson et. al. data set (1987-1998). . 29 4 Schematic representation of a non-warped thin disk ‘of’ space, that can conceivably be curved or warped; further, this warp (or perturbation) can conceivably rotate. By way of contrast, Figures 5, 6 and 7 illustrate the (curved space) ‘shape’ of the (gravito-quantum) rotating space-warps proposed in this paper. Note that space itself does not rotate...... 30 5 The first of three (‘snapshot’) views of a rotating space-warp shown in a three-dimensional grid-like representation. The Z axis represents acceleration perturbation (away) from ‘standard’ conditions. Note that (beyond the first grid line) points at a constant radius from the central point have a Z (i.e. acceleration/curvature) value that varies sinusoidally around the ‘circumference’...... 30 6 Side elevation view of a (gravito-quantum) rotating space-warp...... 31 7 Front elevation view of a (gravito-quantum) rotating space-warp...... 31 8 Schematic diagram illustrating the cosmological extent of the rotating space-warps in three spatial dimensions. Each and every horizontal sectional disk extends to ‘infinity’, with an orthogonal depth (upwards and downwards) that also extends to ‘infinity’ — i.e. the end of the universe...... 95 9 Diagrammatic representation of the variation in the proportion of (or efficiency with which) the 1 smallest possible quantum intrinsic angular momentum ( 2 ¯h)offset(occurs)...... 100 10 Celestial (curved space) geometric constraints of the model are indicated by this diagrammatic representation of planetary progression angle (θ), i.e. the angular progression of a planet around the Sun — over the duration of one lunar spin-orbital cycle...... 100 11 Schematic diagram showing the model’s (new) angular based reference point which is used to determine rotating space-warp (RSW) acceleration amplitudes...... 106 12 Tabular schematic representation of the dimensional contributions of mass, length and time with regard to the quantities: linear momentum, angular momentum, force and energy...... 108 13 The top schematic diagram represents the dispersion of both: a single non-local mass distribution ∗ ∗ (mr), and total/collective non-local energy (Er ), with increasing distance (r) away from the ‘source’ of the rotating space-warps (RSWs) and their conjoint non-local mass distributions (NMDs). This inverse cube-like relationship also represents a distance dependent blueshift frequency offset (δνr). The lower schematic diagram illustrates the presently observable difference in this blueshift offset ∆(δνr), as experienced by EM radiation ‘during’ its propagation towards the solar system...... 128

List of Tables 1 Lunar orbital periods & frequencies, and component proper acceleration and speed amplitudes. . 36 2 Angular progression of planet, around the Sun, for one lunarorbit...... 101 3 Geometric effectiveness/efficiency of various Sun-planet-moonmotions...... 101 4 Weighted QM ‘non-inertial’ energy per orbit (equaling space-warp energy) and associated values. 102 5 Weighted lunar space-warp acceleration amplitude and associated values...... 106 6 Approximate corrections to the idealised Pioneer acceleration (ap) for spacecraft path inclination (i.e. angular offset) relative to Doppler line-of-sight observations...... 110 7 Mass cut-offs at various distances for large (effective) solarsystemmoons...... 114 A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 7

1 Introduction as the inner solar system anomalous precession of Mer- cury’s perihelion once was. Herein, it is not the case The Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft, launched in 1972 that general relativity (GR) is (in any way) quantita- and 1973 respectively, represent an ideal system to per- tively wrong or in need of modification; rather, GR’s form precision celestial mechanics experiments (An- domain of application is seen as incomplete in that derson, Laing, Lau, Liu, Nieto, & Turyshev 2002). In a unique supplementary source-type of non-Euclidean the quiescent outer solar system (and beyond), where geometry or gravitation (in its widest sense) — that the effects of solar radiation pressure are minimal, it is not describable by way of GR’s formalism (and con- was strikingly counter to expectations that the radio- ceptual basis) — is hypothesised. Importantly, the un- metric Doppler tracking data of these spacecraft unusual observational constraint of long-term constancy ambiguously indicated the presence of a small, anoma- in the Pioneer anomaly contributes to this new sup- lous, blue-shifted frequency drift — ‘uniformly’ chang- plementary acceleration/gravitational field being com- − ing with a rate of 6 10 9 Hz/s. This drift (applica- patible with the invariance requirements of relativity. ble to both spacecraft)≈ × has generally been interpreted This additional/secondary ‘gravitational’ field type is as a ‘constant’ (mean) ‘inward’ deceleration of magni- seen to (perturb and) “piggyback” upon the stan- −10 2 tude aP = (8.74 1.33) 10 m/s . This deviation dard gravitational field. The Pioneer anomaly arises away from expected/predicted± × spacecraft navigational from a ‘low’ mass moving body encountering several of behaviour has become known as the Pioneer anomaly. these supplementary (effectively oscillatory) accelera- Although the anomaly had been apparent in the tion/gravitational fields — that coexist in superposi- data from as early as 1980, the first publication of tion. Above a maximum “cut-off mass” value — noting this well deliberated “Pioneer anomaly” was Ander- that there are several different, distance dependent, son, Laing, Lau, Liu, Nieto, & Turyshev (1998). and coexistent “cut-off mass” values — ‘high’ mass Subsequently, there has been ongoing debate as to bodies such as: large asteroids and comets, moons, and whether this anomaly is a harbinger of ‘new’ physics planets are not additionally/anomalously affected. or merely an overlooked or unappreciated systematic In broad terms, a Heisenberg uncertainty princi- effect. Throughout this debate, the latter and more ple (“wiggle room”) based extremely low energy sit- conservative position has understandably (and right- uation is hypothesised as a root cause. This hypoth- fully) been favoured; with recent publications from: esis pertains to the role of the intrinsic angular mo- Francisco, Bertolami, Gil, & Páramos (2012), Riev- mentum of every elementary fermion particle within ers & Lämmerzahl (2011), Turyshev, Toth, Ellis, & (the prodigious number of) atoms/molecules consti- Markwardt (2011), and Turyshev, Toth, Kinsella, Lee, tuting/comprising a lunar (third) celestial body — that Lok, & Ellis (2012) increasingly confident that the itself is part of a celestial global system. Further- ‘solution’ lies in rectifying the modelling of onboard more, we take issue (at a ‘fractional’ quantum me- (anisotropic) heat emissions, particularly radiative mo- chanical level) with general relativity’s stance that: mentum transfer. Over the years, this confidence has celestial geodesic motion is (without exception) al- been bolstered by the failure of all conceivable alterna- ways inertial motion. The paper builds, Section by tive hypotheses to convincingly explain the anomaly. Section, a conceptually intricate physical model that In Section 2, as well as presenting a fuller overview mathematically is fairly straightforward. Five distinct of the Pioneer anomaly and its primary observational ‘sizes’/levels of physical ‘particles’ and/or systems are features, concerns with this conventional anisotropic important to the model; these are: (1) elementary heat based explanation are presented, not the least fermion particles; (2) atoms and molecules; (3) (bulk of which is the minor qualitative inconsistencies of matter) moons; (4) Sun-planet-moon systems; and (5) the various models with each other. John D. Ander- the universe. A hybrid mechanism, arising from both son, first author of the initial comprehensive study (a many-particle and spin based) quantum mechanical of the anomaly, remains sceptical of this approach energy and curved spacetime together, is implied by (Kerr 2011). Supporting his stance is the dispar- the observational data/evidence. Thus, the conceptu- ity of these thermal-radiation/heat based hypotheses alisation and mathematical formalisms of general rel- with both the general pre-2010 consensus of a long- ativity and/or quantum mechanics in isolation are in- term constant anomaly, and the minor role ascribed sufficient to apprehend and appreciate the mechanism to anisotropic/non-isotropic heat effects in the initial proposed herein. Mathematically, the use of a single comprehensive investigation (Anderson et al. 2002). system Lagrangian or Hamiltonian is not viable in this The main purpose of this paper is to construct a ‘lunar’ geodesic motion based situation, that encom- model that is able to fully describe a non-systematic passes and ‘spans’ both the microscopic and macro- based Pioneer anomaly. This is achieved by way of util- scopic realms; nor is a metric (tensor) based approach ising: a process of elimination, a process of abductive appropriate/viable. A (∆t >> 0) process based ex- reasoning (i.e. guessing/hypothesising), and inference ternalisation of (fractional and ‘internally’ inexpress- to the best conceivable/possible explanation — that ible) non-inertial quantum mechanical spin/intrinsic is free of preconceptions and primarily based upon all angular momentum rate (i.e. energy) is involved, with facets of the (awkward) observational evidence. As this (externalisation process) dependent upon a new such, and in light of the fact that motion in the solar type of (non-local) ‘quantum’ entanglement between: system has historically provided fertile ‘ground’ for sci- the ‘overall’ non-inertial (and virtual) quantum me- entific advancement, the (outer solar system) Pioneer chanical spin angular momentum (per process cycle), anomaly is conceivably a bellwether of new physics — and the (acceleration/gravitational) amplitude of the 8 Paul G. ten Boom new/secondary macroscopic non-Euclidean geometry tive mean values, as well as how these temporal vari- (i.e. space-time curvature) field perturbation effect. ations relate to measurement noise and overall observational variation in the data; and (3) a lower value of The model’s development is best described as the Pioneer 11 based anomaly’s magnitude pre-Saturn a three-stage process. Primary model development encounter (cf. Pioneer 10’s value at >20 AU), and its specifics and the violation of GR’s equivalence prin- ‘rapid’ increase post-Saturn encounter. ciples are addressed in the second and third stages respectively. In Section 3 (the first/inceptive stage), Sections 4 and 5 (the model’s second, formative the awkward observational constraints of: a constant and innovative stage) addresses: (1) the apparent in- long-term mean value for the (outer solar system and compatibility and coexistence of these rotating field beyond) anomalous acceleration, as well as the tem- deformations (or RSWs) with (special and general) rel- poral variation about this constant value, drive the ativity theory; as well as (2) how this secondary (type model’s origination. By way of a process of elimi- of) gravitational field (or non-Euclidean geometry) is nation, first order constant amplitude sinusoidal ac- ‘generated’; and (3) how each rotating space-warp necessarily coexists with an appropriate initial “non-local celeration/gravitational field perturbations (in one di- ∗ mension) upon the pre-existing gravitational field, that mass” value [m (r1)], and a non-local mass distribu- each induce a type of (perturbation based) “celestial tion (NMD) of cosmological extent that determines the ‘simple’ harmonic motion” in the spacecraft’s ‘transla- (distance/spherical-radius dependent) “cut-off mass” tional’ motion, are implied. Interestingly, the phases (particular to its associated RSW). “Non-local mass”, associated with the (four) sinusoidal perturbations a new concept and new physical quantity demanded by (around their non-stationary ‘equilibrium’ values) — the model’s use of quantum (spin) entanglement and i.e. the gravitational field and a body’s: (proper) dis- quantum non-locality, is enacted in order to provide a tance, speed, and acceleration (responses) — are all “best/only fit” to the observational evidence. The Pi- different and offset from each other by either 90 or oneer anomaly is mainly accounted for by way of five 180 degrees (see subsections 3.2.4 and 3.2.6). Further- main RSWs, emanating ‘from’ (or rather, by way of) more, additional observational evidence implies the ac- Jupiter’s four Galilean moons and Saturn’s large moon celeration/gravitational fields are actually (in two and Titan. Note that the amplitude/strength of a rotating three dimensions) rotating curvature/deformations of space-warp is dependent upon (both) a moon’s mass, spacetime, i.e. rotating “space-warps” (RSWs) of cos- and the orbital progression angle (around the Sun) of mological extent, and that their rotation and energy the moon’s (host) planet per lunar orbital cycle. source is related to Sun-planet-moon (three-body) ce- In the spirit of the historian and philosopher lestial motion. The axis of rotation of the (‘thick’ pla- of science Thomas Kuhn (Kuhn 1970), the require- nar or cylindrical-like) space-warp is coexistent with ment of some kind of “new physics” (in response the spin axis of the moon with/to which it is associ- to a genuine anomaly) necessitates Section 4’s ‘non- ated/affiliated. Both this axis, and each plane of space- destructive’ conceptual (both physical and philosophi- warping orthogonal to it, extend to ‘infinity’. Note cal based) re-think of certain foundational features of that one side of the rotating space-warp is above, and physics, particularly: mass, space and time, energy, the opposite side is below, the equilibrium curvature of and a theory of everything unification agenda. Con- spacetime produced by general relativistic gravitation, cerns of philosophers of science (and physics) regard- and as such the (overall) “net spacetime curvature” ing the physical status of general covariance in general remains unchanged. Close examination of the Pio- relativity, and the non-relativistic aspects of rotation neer spacecrafts’ diurnal and annual (post-fit) resid- and acceleration, are explored. Combining these con- uals facilitates and enlightens this modelling process. cerns with the issue of time’s treatment in quantum The units/dimensions (of the physical ‘quantities’) in- mechanics as compared to time’s treatment in special volved necessitates that these RSWs have a conjoint (and general) relativity (Albert & Galchen 2009), we mass aspect (discussed in Sections 6 and 7, the third promote a Vladimir Fock-like stance/attitude towards and ‘formulated’ stage) that accounts for: the disper- relativity (Fock 1959); in the sense that special rela- sion of energy at increasing distances from a RSW’s tivity is more appropriately viewed as a theory of in- source ‘region’, and the restriction of the oscillatory variance, and general relativity as a relativistic theory perturbation motion effect to “low mass” bodies — i.e. of gravitation. Responding to the absence of a (clas- bodies whose mass is below at least one of the individ- sical) global/systemic perspective in relativistic theo- ual “cut-off mass” values associated with the numer- risation, and the existence (and global/systemic im- ous rotating space-warps. The unsteady/oscillatory plications) of non-local entanglement in quantum me- speed (and acceleration) components induced by the chanics, leads to the proposal of a (“noumenal” cf. coexistence of several of these (superpositioned) os- ‘phenomenal’/observational) supplementary and back- cillatory/perturbation fields account for: (1) the (Pi- ground/hidden ontological1 stance (or perspective) re- oneer) anomalous deceleration as a constant rate of garding space and time. By virtue of the “noumenal– speed shortfall, relative to predicted/expected spacecraft motion, i.e. relative to ‘steady’ motion in the ab- 1 sence of these superpositioned supplementary (or sec- “Ontology” (a philosophical term and branch of philosophy) is concerned with the nature of: being, existence, and ondary) fields; (2) the quasi-stochastic temporal vari- reality. Herein its usage is largely synonymous with “physi- ation of (both) the model’s (supplementary) ‘gravi- cal reality”, but its usage additionally implies a depth of en- tational’ field strength, and (Pioneer 10) spacecraft quiry — into physical existence and reality — that reaches speed (and deceleration) about/around their respec- beyond (current and standard) ‘scientific’ means/methods. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 9 phenomenal2” ‘bifurcation’ arising from this ontologi- In order to ensure and maintain global/universal and cal/physical supplementation it is shown that: this pa- systemic conservation of energy, the (additive) total per’s proposed (unique) second/new ‘type’ of gravita- amount of this (non-decohered) internally inexpress- tion (i.e. a second means to non-Euclidean geometry) ible ‘fractional’ and ‘fictitious’ quantum energy — can coexist with general relativity’s (standard) ‘cover- which (along with its underlying geometric phase off- age’ of gravitation. Further, in order to appease quan- set) can not be ‘carried over’ into the following closed tum non-locality and entanglement, this ‘complemen- loop cycle — is necessarily expressed externally as tary’ (and background/hidden) ontological stance fea- both: a rotating acceleration/gravitational field space- tures a (universe-encompassing) background/hidden perturbation/deformation or ‘rotating space-warp’, systemic and digital (cf. analog) process-based ap- and a (conjointly existing) non-local mass distribu- proach to the “passing of time” — in the sense of a tion. Facilitating this (cyclic) externalisation pro- sequential arrangement of events. This allows the con- cess there is — for each individual Sun-planet-moon servation of energy principle to be applicable on a cos- (or barycentre-planet-moon) system — a (newly pro- mological scale, but only in the context of the model’s posed) non-local entanglement relationship between entanglement and non-local based circumstances. (the en masse total value of shared/common) unre- In Section 5 (and early in Section 6) the specifics of solved and non-inertial spin/intrinsic angular momen- this (‘boutique’) model/mechanism are further devel- tum and the perturbation amplitude of the (‘gravito- oped and the emphasis is decidedly quantum mechan- quantum’) rotating space-warp (RSW). ical, specifically involving (lunar-based) discrete quan- Scientific knowledge and concepts related to this tum systems (i.e. individual spin-orbit coupled atoms aforementioned physical mechanism/effect are: (1) a and molecules dominated by electromagnetic forces) — non-locality associated with fermion quantum waves moving (along a geodesic) in continuous/analog curved (as is similarly the case with the Aharonov-Bohm ef- spacetime — acquiring a non-inertial frame status rel- fect); (2) “a [closed loop/orbit based relative] geomet- ative to a systemic/global background inertial frame ric phase [also known as Berry’s phase] associated with (and other unaffected solar system bodies). It is pro- the motion [i.e. kinematics] of the state of the quantum posed that under appropriate circumstances (compos- system and not with the motion of the Hamiltonian [as ite/whole) atoms and molecules in the (spin-orbit res- was the case with the approach of Sir Michael Berry] onant) lunar/third body of a macroscopic three-body (Anandan & Aharonov 1988, p.1864)”; (3) the iner- Sun-planet-moon celestial system — by way of their tial circumstances associated with the ‘intrinsic spin’ constituent fermion elementary particles and a (closed of elementary fermion particles (and atomic/molecular loop and path based) relative (spin-based) geometric systems) within a lunar/third-body, specifically a ge- phase offset — attain (or acquire) an extraordinarily ometric phase based exception to: “. . . the tendency −34 −6 1 −1 small ( 10 10 via 2 ¯h∆t ) virtual rate of of intrinsic spin to keep its aspect with respect to a intrinsic∼ (spin)× angular momentum≤ offset relative to − global background inertial frame (Mashhoon & Kaiser inertial (spin) frame conditions; i.e. 10 40 J of en- ∼ 2006)”; (4) a new (‘reversed’) instantiation of the ergy per atom or molecule, which is an extraordinarily energy-time version of Heisenberg’s uncertainty prin- small amount of atomic/molecular based energy. ciple (HUP), noting that ∆t in this version of HUP is Importantly, for conceptual explanatory/heuristic not/never an operator belonging to a particle — and reasons, this virtual/‘fictitious’ (quantum mechani- in the model’s case it is the closed (lunar spin-orbital) cal) geometric spin phase offset — that entails a loop/cycle duration ( 106 s); and (5) because (intrin- virtual/fractional intrinsic angular momentum offset sic angular momentum)∼ entanglements are generated — is hypothetically conceptualised (i.e. conceived between the many-atomed/moleculed (lunar) ‘quan- of) as a relative spin phase precession ‘induced’ by tum system’ and its environment (i.e. the surrounding the closed-orbital path of a moon’s geodesic motion; universe), quantum mechanical energy (cf. informa- with this motion being ‘governed’ by its host planet’s tion) is effectively transferred to (or re-expressed in) curved spacetime, that (in turn) is nested ‘within’ the surroundings/environment. Finally, (6) the pro- the solar system’s dominant central Sun based space- posed mechanism — which also involves fermion wave time curvature. Furthermore, (lunar based) intra- self-interference — requires quantum decoherence to be atomic/molecular orbital (phase and) angular momen- averted; this requires/involves (model based) spin ge- tum are not affected, and electromagnetic spin-orbit ometric phase offsets that are below a tiny (2π radian) coupling thwarts/denies any possible actual/real spin- half fermion wavelength decoherence onset (and spinor based response; thus ensuring a non-inertial spin con- sign change) threshold. This final concept/feature is figuration is acquired/attained. This virtual spin off- (indirectly) associated with a denial of the existence of set’s magnitude and (externally ‘imposed’) projection the graviton particle — as a (quantum) decoherence plane is common to all the elementary fermion parti- ‘agent’ at least. To ensure (whole/entire moon) deco- 49 cles within (effectively) all 10 atoms/molecules in herence is not ‘triggered’, a number of rather stringent ∼ a large non-rigid ‘solid’ moon — with this being an pre-conditions must be met, including: that moons extraordinarily large number of atoms and molecules. be predominantly (non-rigid) solid bodies, and celestial moon-planet 1:1 (or synchronous) spin-orbit res- 2 Use of the adjective ‘phenomenal’ as a noun is inten- onance — with the latter also referred to as: (lunar) tional, so as to indicate its juxtaposition alongside ‘noume- synchronous rotation, tidal locking, and ‘phase’ lock. nal’ (as defined/modified herein, see subsection 4.1.3), which has traditionally been used (in philosophy) as either Section 6 returns to a largely (conventional) an adjective or a noun. physics based approach; it begins with an overview 10 Paul G. ten Boom of the model’s major features3 and a brief discus- peasement of the apparent violation of general relativ- sion of errors. A variety of implications of the hy- ity’s equivalence principles (especially the weak equiv- pothesised (mathematical and conceptual) model are alence principle) and the general principle of relativity then outlined, primarily within the solar system but are examined and discussed in considerable detail. also further afield, e.g. an ecliptic plane based signa- Section 7 utilises and applies aspects of the pre- ture in the cosmic microwave background radiation. ceding model/mechanism to argue that the currently A surprisingly simple (qualitative) resolution of the favoured interpretation of observations pertaining to Earth flyby anomaly is proposed, involving (geocen- (distant) type 1a supernovae and baryon acoustic os- tric inbound and outbound) trajectory based geomet- cillations, which implies accelerated cosmological ex- ric angles in cooperation with observational ramifica- pansion and (hence) dark energy, is quite conceivably tions arising from the influence of the model’s RSWs misguided. It is proposed that the model’s (cosmo- upon spacecraft motion — with each RSW’s plane of logical scale) non-local mass scalar field distributions, rotation (‘near to’ Earth) having been ‘refracted’ by that have been active for approximately four and a the Earth’s ( 10 billion times stronger) gravitational half billion years — i.e. from when the large moons field so as to∼ be parallel with the Earth’s equatorial (of Jupiter and Saturn) attained spin-orbit resonance plane. This proposal is consistent with the (quanti- ‘with’ their (respective) host planet — subjects (in- tative) findings/model proposed by Anderson, Camp- coming) propagating electromagnetic (EM) radiation bell, Ekelund, Ellis, & Jordan (2008). Subsequent to to an increasing energy field over the duration of its this, the (Pioneer anomaly based) model is fully quan- journey. Upon recognising/correcting for this addi- tified. Particularly relevant is an energy equality — tional (distance/radius dependent and spherical vol- specific to each participating Sun-planet-moon (three- ume based) foreground ‘effect’ — that slightly in- body) system — involving an exact value of total (vir- creases (i.e. blueshifts) the frequency of all (‘incom- tual) non-inertial quantum mechanical (spin) energy ing’ and) received EM radiation — the resultant re- and the ‘re-expression’ of this energy magnitude in lationship between the ‘observed’ redshifts and (cos- the external environment as two scalar fields: (1) a mological) comoving spatial coordinates now includes constant (across all space) ‘gravitational’ amplitude a signature that matches/mimics the (additional) ef- (gravito-quantum) rotating (non-Euclidean geometry) fect/effects attributable to dark energy’s (‘distance’ space-warp, and a conjointly existing (2) ‘non-local dependent) presence. Subsequently, an accelerating mass’ distribution. The geometrical/orbital configura- expansion of the universe (interpretation) is no longer tion and kinematics of each Sun-planet-moon system implied by the data/evidence. This conclusion is sup- determines (in a quasi-empirical manner) the relative ported by the (presumed) onset of accelerated expan- geometric phase offset (per closed loop/cycle), which sion (at zt 0.44) being remarkably consistent with then quantifies the efficiency with which the mini- the initial attainment≈ of (gas giant) planet-moon spin- mum real (i.e. maximum virtual) quantum mechan- orbit resonance approximately 4.56 billion (‘lookback’) 1 ical intrinsic spin ( 2 ¯h) — of all elementary (fermion) years ago. The new model’s implications for the (cos- particles within a composite (lunar-based) atom or mological) “flatness problem” and other features of the molecule — is affected per loop/cycle. Note that ‘concordance model’ are (necessarily) also discussed. (for geometric reasons) the Earth’s moon is not a Section 8 summarises and discusses the paper’s RSW ‘generator’4. Also determined are: the various major findings, both qualitative and quantitative. Ma- (individual) constant space-warp/space-deformation jor quantitative results, predictions, applications, and ‘gravitational-acceleration’ amplitudes ∆a [which are equations of the proposed model and mechanism are collectively/non-singularly represented as (∆a)i] and presented; as well as its pertinent (primary) concep- their (attendant/conjoint) variable non-local mass dis- tual features, and circumstantial simplifications that tributions; the latter by way of a constant/invariance greatly benefited the model’s formulation. Broader im- relationship involving the product of non-local mass plications of the model/mechanism are also reviewed and enclosed volume. We show/argue that each RSW’s and discussed. As is the case with this introduc- 1 2 specific energy is proportional to 2 (∆a) , and that tory Section, Section 8 is quite extensive. This has a root sum of squares (RSS) approach determines been deemed necessary because an investigation into the model’s overall (Pioneer) anomalous rate of speed an anomalous physical phenomenon (and physical re- shortfall (ap). This value provides a fit well within the ality in general) that seeks to be progressive — thereby error range of the experimental/observational based questioning the existing and generally accepted state value (aP ). Finally (in section 6.7), the model’s ap- of affairs (within physics) — is easily misconstrued.

3As such, and due to the length of this paper, the first time reader may wish to jump from the end of Section 3 to 2 Background and discussion the beginning of Section 6. 4The ‘excessive’ (i.e. > 2π rad) geometric spin phase off- of the Pioneer anomaly set associated with the Sun-Earth-Moon system’s (collision- originated) orbital configuration triggers a (lunar) decoher- In this section a brief background of the Pioneer ence effect/event. This event, that encompasses every one anomaly, and how it is to be addressed in this paper, of its atoms/molecules, renders the (whole) Moon a non- quantum/classical body. We note that the decoherence of is outlined. Additionally, the primary observational large-scale macroscopic (celestial) bodies is qualitative, and evidence and what constitutes a “new physics” is dis- not (purely) size/quantitatively based — as is mistakenly cussed. Other solar system motion concerns are men- assumed/envisaged by some physicists (subsection 5.1.5). tioned, followed by comments on the anomaly’s status. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 11

2.1 Stance taken in this paper: real behaviour of solar system bodies. Note that the Pi- anomalous spacecraft motion oneers’ predicted motion (and measurement thereof) incorporates general relativity and very sophisticated The Pioneer anomaly is the difference between the pre- modelling of the spacecrafts’ behaviour, with the dicted behaviour of the Pioneer spacecraft and their anomaly itself being in excess of five orders of magni- observed or measured behaviour. Radiometric track- tude greater than the corrections to Newtonian grav- ing and navigation of the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft itation associated with General Relativity at 50AU was performed using (electromagnetic wave based) (Rathke & Izzo 2006, p.808). Doppler observations. By way of a raw measurement At 20AU the Pioneer anomaly is approximately 5 involving a phase count divided by the count time du- 0.006% of the Sun’s Newtonian gravitational value; at ration, the anomaly is indicated by a steady anoma- 40 AU it is 0.024%, and at 80AU it is 0.094%. By 6 lous Doppler frequency (blue-shift) drift (of magni- way of comparison, Mercury’s (inner solar system) ob- −9 −1 tude 6.0 10 Hz s ), which implies that the served precession of the perihelion is 5600 seconds of ≈ × spacecraft speed is less than the speed theoretically arc per century, with 43 seconds of arc≈ per century at- predicted (i.e. expected). This speed offset/anomaly tributed to general relativity, representing 0.774% of occurs at a constant/steady rate, which may be inter- the (5557 seconds of arc) non-relativistic≈ value. Con- preted as a constant anomalous acceleration. Thus, as sidering Mercury’s anomalous precession was first re- the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft travel away from the ported by Urbain Le Verrier in 1859, and that obser- inner solar system and into deep space, their speed re- vational accuracy and precision has come a long way tardation is greater than that theoretically predicted; since then, we begin to appreciate the ‘significance’ of or in other words, the speed of the spacecraft (and the Pioneer anomalous measurement8. distance covered) is less than the predicted values. In the Introduction the direction of the Pioneer anomaly was (somewhat) ambiguously referred to as 2.2 On heat emission as the cause of ‘inward’. The word “inward” was used to highlight the Pioneer anomaly that analyses of the observational data do not conclu- 9 sively favour a Sun-directed anomalous deceleration, The remaining alternative hypothesis to a real Pio- to the extent of precluding either (or both) an Earth- neer anomaly is a thermal (radiation) recoil force hy- directed or/and a (spacecraft) path-directed anomaly pothesis, arising from an anisotropic emission of waste (i.e. directed along the spacecraft’s “velocity vector”). heat generated on board the spacecraft. This waste The stance taken in this paper is that this anoma- heat is dominated by the radioisotopic thermoelectric lous measurement is not an observational or system- generators (RTGs), but other internal heat sources are atic artifact; rather, the anomaly is considered to be also relevant — particularly the electrical equipment an indication of real anomalous spacecraft (S/C) mo- located inside the spacecraft compartments. tion and, on the whole, the observational measure- The RTGs of non-Pioneer spacecraft are mounted ments are considered to be reliable7. This stance is much closer to their spacecraft’s mainframe, e.g. based upon an appraisal of the observational evidence Cassini, and also the New Horizons space probe (en that yields an “open verdict”, and the underdevelop- route to Pluto). For all spacecraft with radioisotopic ment of models acknowledging and addressing a non- thermoelectric generators the heat generated by the systematic based (‘real’) Pioneer anomaly. RTGs overwhelms the tiny (Pioneer) anomalous accel- The anomaly is well described in the literature, eration. Although the magnitude of the thermal radi- with the comprehensive Turyshev & Toth (2010) re- ation (or heat) from the Pioneer S/C RTGs is much larger than the anomaly itself [approximately 2200W view paper and the brief Nieto (2007) review paper 10 recommended. The Pioneer spacecraft yield a unique vs. 63W (List & Mullin 2008) ], the symmetric and test/measurement, of a very small effect, spanning a perpendicular to the spin axis nature of the released long period of time (i.e. years) cf. tests of (general heat (Toth & Turyshev 2009, p.7), is herein considered relativistic) time delays involving electromagnetic ra- to negate this factor as the primary cause — although diation propagation. this continues to be a subject of ongoing debate. Herein it is accepted that the Pioneer anomaly A web post by Symmetry Magazine — a joint Fer- represents a strange and significant non-conformity milab/SLAC publication, concerning a presentation with the usual Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitational at the American Physical Society’s April 2008 conference — reported that no more than one third of the 5The Doppler phase difference between transmitted and anomaly (21W) could conceivably be heat related. In received (S-band frequency) phases is counted (Turyshev & Toth 2010, p.58). 8As the story goes: in 1994 physicist Michael Martin 6The Doppler data (in and of itself) is not a frequency Nieto, who had a good knowledge of the observational ac- measurement, but this data does share the same unit as curacy of gravitational theory, almost fell off his chair when frequency which is cycles per second or Hertz [Hz]. JPL’s John Anderson quantified the discrepancy in the Pi- 7Certainly, the anomaly’s: error, variance, and tempo- oneer spacecrafts’ position and speed. ral evolution remain somewhat ambiguous. This is not sur- 9Over time all other conceivable hypotheses have been prising considering the navigational accuracy of the in situ gradually eliminated. observations of the Pioneers is unsurpassed. The Voyager 10In so much as a 63 Watt collimated beam of photons spacecraft with three-axis stabilization are much less precise will produce an acceleration upon the S/C equivalent to the navigators than the spin stabilised Pioneer 10 and 11. For Pioneer anomaly. Turyshev & Toth (2010, p.75) determine a discussion of a heat basis to the anomaly see section 2.2. the value to be 65W. 12 Paul G. ten Boom contrast, Bertolami, Francisco, Gil, & Páramos (2008) been decisively attained; nor has the previous stance argued that up to two thirds (67%) of the anomaly’s been found wanting. Indeed, “[the] batched stochastic magnitude may be heat related; even though the [method or] model [as used by Anderson et al. (2002)], general consensus (in 2008) of a long-term constant . . . as the model with the most estimated parameters, anomaly was in conflict with their stance, because it is [most] likely to produce the best possible fit (p.2).” over time there is RTG radioactive decay and a (pro- Bearing in mind that: “the [post-fit] residuals show nounced) reduction in available electrical power. Prior significant [temporal] structure (p.2)” — which is a to 2011, the standard response to this (constancy) con- well credentialed feature of the Pioneer anomaly — cern was to cite Markwardt (2002), who found that a and that: the “gradually decreasing linear and expo- temporal variation of the Pioneer anomaly could not nential decay models [and the stochastic model] yield (at that stage) be ruled out. As of 2011, one may now [only] marginally [italics added] improved fits when also cite Toth (2009) and the long-awaited paper of Tu- compared to the [steadily] constant acceleration model ryshev et al. (2011): “Support for temporally varying (pp.3-4)”; this finding is only significant in that the ex- behaviour of the Pioneer anomaly from the extended tended data set challenges the acceptance level of the Pioneer 10 and 11 Doppler data sets”. anomaly’s long-term mean constancy. Noise and errors By way of their numerical analysis and discussion, inherent in the data ensure that neither case prevails. Levy, Christophe, Bério, Métris, Courty, & Reynaud Subsequent to Anderson et al. (2002), it was com- (2009, Section 3) provide a strong counter argument mon sense to expect that an extended Doppler data to accepting a non-constant (decaying/diminishing) set would improve our understanding of the Pioneer anomaly; thus supporting the stance of Anderson et al. anomaly. However, “the addition of earlier data arcs (2002, Section VIII D) — reaffirmed in a recent in- [see footnote 1, p.2], with greater occurrences of [spin terview (Kerr 2011) — and our stance herein, that axis orientation] maneuvers [and greater solar radia- anisotropic heat effects upon the Pioneer spacecraft tion pressure], did not help as much as desired (p.4).” are not considered to be of great significance. Additionally, the standardisation of the heroically Counter to these sentiments, (most recently) the saved/retrieved older Doppler data into a common for- three independent and mutually supportive models of: mat was laden with challenges and complexity (e.g. see Francisco et al. (2012), Rievers & Lämmerzahl (2011), http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11304 ). and Turyshev et al. (2012) have claimed or strongly Significantly, by way of the extended Pioneer 11 suggested that (thermal) radiative momentum trans- deep space (P11 DS) data, Turyshev et al. (2011) defer effects can fully account for the Pioneer anomaly. clare that: “We can [now] exclude an anomaly directed Regarding the first of these three models/papers, the along the spacecraft [path or] velocity vector (p.4)”, comments of Rob Cook11 in a Physics arXiv blog12 even though the quality of the additional data is (some- highlight some (potentially grave) concerns regarding what) inferior to the latter/original data. Further, “for the authors’ modelling of diffusive and specular reflec- Pioneer 11, the rms residuals [in 3D cf. 1D] improve tion effects. The other two models/papers — simply when considering an unknown [italics added] constant by assuming the veracity of a “known physics” ap- force, perpendicular to the spacecraft-Earth direction proach — may well have fallen victim to the “lib- (p.3)”; and with regard to the possible onset (or ramp- erties of parametrisation” afforded to the ‘maker’ of ing up) of the anomaly post-Saturn encounter, results such a many-faceted model, with this complexity evi- for Pioneer 11’s “Saturn approach” were disappoint- −10 2 dent in the abstract of Rievers & Lämmerzahl (2011). ing: aP 11 = (4.58 11.80) 10 m/s . Consequently, ± × Subsequently, and regardless of the fact that one or the possibility of a path-directed anomaly is retained. more of these models may be ‘correct’, we shall pursue our hypothesis that the Pioneer anomaly indicates a 2.4 Primary observational evidence ‘real’ (and non-systematic based) phenomenon associated with some kind of ‘new’ (or overlooked) physics. Any viable model, that assumes the Pioneer anomaly is real, must satisfy the following three primary observational constraints. 2.3 Why a temporally diminishing 1. Only low mass bodies are affected. Planets, Pioneer anomaly is not assured moons, larger comets13 and larger asteroids (whose mass is known) appear to not display One would assume that the major shift in stance from the anomaly14 — see Iorio (2007); Whitmire & a long accepted/established (time ‘variable’ but) tem- Matese (2003); Anderson et al. (2002, p.41); and porally long-term-mean constant anomaly to a tem- Wallin, Dixon, & Page (2007, p.11). porally diminishing (or decaying) anomaly — implied by Turyshev et al. (2011) — would be based upon 13Assuming a real anomaly, Whitmire & Matese (2003) a clear and decisive scientific case for embracing the assert that cometary bodies of mass ≥ 1014kg (≈ 7km di- 3 −3 new stance over the former stance. This aim of this ameter, assuming a comet density of 0.5 × 10 kg m ) are not affected — at least between 20 and 70 AU. section is to argue — by citing specific remarks in Tu- 14The 21st century NASA ephemerides, overseen by E. ryshev et al. (2011) — that this latter stance has not Myles Standish, includes effects from over 300 ‘larger’ asteroids. Successful modelling of the motion of larger ce- 11http://www.iop.org/careers/workinglife/ lestial bodies does not require the inclusion of the Pioneer profiles/page_50796.html anomaly correction. At present, the masses of ‘smaller’ as- 12http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/ teroids and comets have yet to be determined with good 26589/ accuracy. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 13

2. General constancy (of the mean anomalous ‘de- This option may indeed be misguided, but it is the celeration’) and isotropy of the anomaly, at essence of science to attempt such things, especially larger heliocentric distances, i.e. r > 15AU. The when “the jury is out” on an anomalous phenomenon. 15 magnitude of the anomaly is usually expressed The alternative (approach) of seeking a missing −8 −2 as: aP = (8.74 1.33) 10 cm s which systematic merely seeks to maintain the “status quo”. ± × −10 −2 equals aP = (8.74 1.33) 10 m s . It is a conservative approach, albeit reasonable, but ± × 3. The pre-Saturn flyby values of the anomaly not at present supported by a convincing and progres- 21 (aP ), associated with the Pioneer 11 spacecraft, sive explanation. are much less than the “headline” constant value Was it too soon (circa 2005-10) to attempt — see Figure 7 in Anderson, Laing, Lau, Liu, to model the anomaly using new physics? Cer- Nieto, & Turyshev (2002). tainly the detailed re-analysis of the full Pioneer 10 While a variety of solutions have been proposed, no and 11 data sets (then underway) was to be insightful, model has to date successfully addressed all three of especially regarding the Saturn flyby; but the formula- these constraints together. Modified general relativity, tion and presentation of a hypothesis/model need not e.g. Brownstein & Moffat (2006) omits constraint 1, wait for the final results of this analysis to be pub- whereas an electromagnetic wave/photon propagation lished. The analysis covering 1987-1998 was rigorous, effect (Mbelek, Mosquera Cuesta, Novello, & Salim and it utilised the highest quality Doppler data set. 2007) omits constraint 3. Other approaches are simi- Does existing gravitational experimental ev- larly restricted; e.g. cosmological stretching of space- idence deny a “real” Pioneer anomaly? Author- time, clock acceleration, dark matter, and MOND16, ities such as Clifford M. Will and NASA’s E. Myles 22 to name a few. Standish are inclined to be sceptical. This is under- A surprising number of proposals restrict them- standable because General Relativity (GR) has passed 23 selves simply to constraint 2. Such disregard for the all tests to date . Further, the failure of modified subtleties of the observational evidence, by way of only GR, with its flexibility of parametrization, to appease addressing the headline result, is quite alarming — in the anomaly has led many to take refuge in a scepti- that the observational evidence is paramount to any cal or non-committal stance. Nevertheless, the onus explanation17. lies upon the sceptic to find a (quantifiable) chink in Assuming the observations were reliably obtained, the observational evidence, once a purportedly reliable and also not a result of systematics18, the appease- scientific analysis is completed/presented. ment of these three inconvenient constraints (together) Additionally, very accurate assessment of low mass necessitates the introduction of some form of “new bodies such as spacecraft travelling at speed24 in deep physics”. space, over substantial periods of time, is a situation not previously (or subsequently) encompassed by other 2.5 Veracity and impediments to gravitational experiments. Two impediments to new physics. (1) Inade- new physics. quate appreciation of the observational evidence, and What is new physics? In this paper it is consid- (2) conceptual rigidity regarding the theoretical inter- ered to be the application of known physical principles pretation of physical observations. Regarding the lat- and concepts to a particular system and/or set of cir- ter, Rathke & Izzo (2006, p.808) correctly cite that an cumstances in a previously unforseen manner. additional gravitational force is in contradiction with 25 Why new physics? The Pioneer 10 and 11 space- the planetary ephemerides and the weak equivalence craft are relatively simple19, and the quiescent20 outer principle; but to then exclude an unforseen contrib- solar system is an ideal place to test the ‘truth’ of grav- utor to spacetime curvature assumes a complete and itational theory. With the permutations of the more final understanding of gravitation, and its interaction likely explanations conceivably exhausted, by process with quantum mechanical energy. Although appar- of elimination new physics becomes a distinct option. ently unlikely, something may still be missing from our understanding that intervenes in an unexpected man- 15It has been common practice to express the Pioneer ner. This paper seeks the reader’s open-mindedness to anomaly (motion shortfall rate) in terms of a positive ac- illustrate how such an oversight may (and can) exist. celeration magnitude, and to use centimetres in the units. 16Modified Newtonian dynamics (Milgrom 2009). 17When the observational evidence is unprecedented, as 21Progressive in the sense of fruitful, in that other is- in constraint 1, and awkward as in constraint 3, dis- sues/anomalies are positively affected; i.e. benefits and belief is somewhat understandable, but not strictly an advancement arise — e.g. insight into the Earth flyby objective/scientific approach — notwithstanding the suc- anomaly — as compared to just “putting the fire out”. cess of general relativity. 22Private communication. 18Whose causal basis is either onboard or external to the 23Including impressively accurate tests within the solar spacecraft. system. For example: Shapiro electromagnetic wave prop- 19They were based somewhat upon the amazingly suc- agation delay (Cassini spacecraft), and lunar laser ranging cessful and reliable Pioneer 6, 7, 8 and 9 space probes, experiments that test the strong equivalence principle. although Pioneer 10 and 11 are more complicated. 24The Pioneers exceed 10 km s−1. 20As far as radiative forces acting upon the spacecraft are 25Further, and more recently, supported clearly at concerned, e.g. direct solar radiation pressure. Other non- Jupiter and most likely beyond in an article by E. M. gravitational influences such as the: Poynting-Robertson, Standish (2008) titled: “Planetary and Lunar Ephemerides: Yarkovsky, and YORP effects do not affect the Pioneer S/C. testing alternate gravitational theories”. 14 Paul G. ten Boom

2.6 Further concerns regarding the consistent with all the observational evidence, predic- solar system tive, progressive, and not in conflict with physical principles, theory, and other astrophysical observations. A brief list of concerns is presented. These may or may An alternative to the anomaly’s ‘preferred’ explana- not be relevant to a non-systematic (Pioneer) anomaly. tion as a conjectured hidden (or “dark”) systematic Nevertheless, they should be of at least peripheral in- is sought. Explaining the apparent violation of the terest to anyone investigating the Pioneer anomaly. (weak) Equivalence Principle (in the case of low mass 1. The Earth flyby anomaly (Anderson, Campbell, bodies) is crucial. & Nieto 2007; Anderson, Campbell, Ekelund, Ellis, & Jordan 2008), involving an anomalous increase (and decrease) in kinetic energy (from 3 First stage modelling of the a geocentric perspective.). 2. The timescale problem, involving the too rapid Pioneer anomaly formation of the ice giants Uranus and Neptune This Section begins the piecemeal task of modelling a — assuming the core accretion hypothesis. See real Pioneer anomaly (a ). A lowercase ‘p’ subscript Boss (2002) amongst numerous sources. Plane- p is used when dealing with the model’s acceleration de- tary migration is considered to appease this con- termination(s), as distinct from the observation based cern. Pioneer anomaly’s standard nomenclature (aP ). 3. A less than expected number of small comets — The aim of this Section is restricted to establish- i.e. less than 1 km in diameter. See Kuzmitcheva ing a basic (S/C path-based, i.e. velocity vector based) & Ivanov (2002, Figures 1 & 2), Francis (2005) model that has the ability to match the full suite of ob- and Zahnle, Schenk, Dones, & Levison (2004). servational evidence, with a number of lesser observa- 4. The fading problem, involving a major short- tional aspects of the Pioneer analysis being introduced. fall in the number of returning comets predicted A new domain of application of known mathematical by dynamical models of the solar system. See physics (Rayleigh’s energy theorem27) is introduced. Levison, Morbidelli, Dones, Jedicke, Wiegert, & Partial theoretical appeasement of the observation- Bottke (2002) and Rickman (2005). ally implied model is the basis of the Section following 5. The (counter to expectations) drastic drop-off this one (i.e. Section 4), which then paves the way for in the number of large objects beyond 50 AU further development of the model in Section 5. Full (Malhotra, Allen, & Bernstein 2001; Luu & Je- quantification, and some further conceptualisation, of witt 2002, p.76) — known as the “Kuiper cliff”. the model is given in Section 6. This Section, and the three Sections to follow, alter in stages what is in need Finally, note that the extrapolation of Newtonian gravitation to galaxies assumes that the solar system’s me- of explanation. The complexity of the model (to be chanics is well understood. A real and non-systematic presented) demands such a piecemeal approach. This Section begins with an (assumed) real a devoid of any based Pioneer anomaly, i.e. anomalous motion for low P suitable explanation, and incompatible with present mass bodies, denies this assumption and complicates 28 the appeasing ‘invocation’ of dark matter — which has theoretical constraints . not yet been directly detected. 3.1 Loosening the subtle shackles of 2.7 Author’s comments on the General Relativity anomaly’s status In this section (i.e. 3.1) the initial conceptual land- A model that is inconsistent with any aspect of the scape of the model is outlined in a rough prelimi- observational evidence is a model that is falsified by nary/outline form. The detail of the model/picture the observations themselves. Assuming a real Pioneer shall then be added slowly, step by step. Subsequently, anomaly and the invalidity of a thermal-radiation/heat the reader should not expect full clarity of the final based explanation, the anomaly (conceivably) remains product at this early/formative stage; this is because unexplained and in need of a suitable model. As such, the model covers vast ground, extending into a number the solar system effectively becomes (in a sense) a new of different academic territories. “terra incognita” (Turyshev, Nieto, & Anderson 2007). At this stage we simply need to appreciate that Sceptics of a non-systematic based and unresolved the relationship between General Relativity (GR) and Pioneer anomaly are asked to consider the (new) model Quantum Mechanics (QMs) has not been finalised. presented herein (simply) as a contingency plan. Herein, General Relativity is accepted as the correct The extraordinary observational evidence necessi- theory of gravitation — at least for planets, moons, 26 tates an extraordinary model , that will need to be: and larger asteroids and comets. The existence of a 26Certainly, as the saying goes: “extraordinary claims ‘real’ Pioneer anomaly implies that GR may be in- require extraordinary evidence”. Unfortunately, there is complete as a theory describing celestial motion; i.e. a a short to medium-term inability to improve S/C navigational accuracy and precision in the outer solar system. 27Also known as Parseval’s theorem. Nevertheless, the current observational evidence is not in- 28Thermal recoil force may play a minor role, but (herein) sufficient for attempts at an original model to be pursued. its influence is considered to comprise no more than 20% of Acceptance of such a model is another thing entirely. the anomalous acceleration (aP ). A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 15 minor supplementation of spacetime curvature29, be- 3.2 Pioneer Anomaly as a shortfall yond the scope of GR (alone), may exist — for exam- relative to predicted motion ple involving (celestial) three-body systems and (celestial) spin-orbit resonance. To proceed, such a limi- 3.2.1 Introductory remarks tation needs to be provisionally accepted. Section 4 shall more fully investigate this assertion of limita- Observational evidence rules out any additional direct tion, and how the GR ‘fortress’ is structured to deny force, but the conceptual notion of (intrinsic) curved any such limitation and/or supplementation. By pro- spacetime remains viable. Awkwardly, the three obser- cess of elimination, only a system involving some sub- vational constraints presented in section 2.4 effectively tle aspect of quantum mechanical [internal (spin-orbit shrink any ‘conceptual modelling space’ to zero, i.e. no coupled) motion/momentum-based] energy, in curved conceivable model. To proceed with a (non-systematic spacetime, can conceivably overcome this restriction. based) “real anomaly” hypothesis, at least one uncon- The invariance and general covariance30 associ- ventional extra or missing ingredient is required. ated with Special and General Relativity (respectively) One, and possibly the only, viable way forward is to must not be violated — at least not beyond a mini- conceive of the anomaly as a (constant rate of) short- mum amount associated with Heisenberg’s uncertainty fall in predicted motion, associated with an additional principle, nor above a physically relevant quantum me- and unforseen perturbation of spacetime curvature — chanical first energy level. If such a (‘fractional’ quan- whose influence is restricted to lesser masses. How can tum mechanical) effect is shared by a vast number of this be achieved in our solar system? 31 atoms/molecules the sub-quantum or virtual energy Initially, we shall employ the idealisation of space- involved is not insignificant. Later, we shall see that craft (S/C) motion as a radially (i.e. outwardly) di- a significant amount of quantum mechanical (QM) ex- rected point mass, in conjunction with a systemic refer- cess (virtual) internal energy is necessarily expressed ence frame centered at the solar system barycentre37. externally (and singularly) as a large-scale rotating Subsequently, and in conjunction with the fact that warp-like curvature of space. One side of this “space- supplementary curvature is to be determined by way of 32 33 warp ” (or space-fold ) is above, and the opposite an energy magnitude38, we restrict the visual concep- side is below, the equilibrium curvature of spacetime, tualisation of the analysis to curved space cf. curved so that on average (and ‘overall’) there is no deviation spacetime. from the background gravitational field’s strength. We examine the difference between a ‘steadily’ It is well known that in GR gravitational energy moving mass and one additionally subjected to a sup- cannot be localised. We shall exploit the logical loop- plementary (and global) undulatory “gravitational” hole that when QMs is involved, there is no imped- field39. It shall be seen that a difference in transla- iment to a (supplementary) energy associated with tion motion arises between the two cases — as “ob- spacetime curvature being non-localised in some man- served” from/at (or near) the solar system barycentre. 34 ner . In what follows, we need to clearly distinguish Actually, the Pioneer anomaly is modelled as a simple (and ‘divide out’) mass from gravitational acceleration linear superposition of a (multiple) number of these and (then) mass from specific energy. By way of quan- effects (subsection 3.2.13), but the bulk of this section tum mechanics (QMs), the notion of non-local (or dis- is concerned with examining a single instantiation of 35 36 tributed ) ‘mass’ demands consideration . (such) an undulatory acceleration/gravitational field. In these unusual and highly restrictive supplemen- It shall become evident that the covariant formal- tary circumstances, we may: (1) (fortunately) neglect ism of GR is unsuited to describing this situation, and high-speed special relativistic effects; and shall (2) give cannot attain the ensuing (systemic and) barycentic credence to the notion of “the total energy of space result. The alternative, and simpler, point-based for- curvature” — but only as regards the supplementary malism of Eulerian (or Continuum) Mechanics, as used space curvature being pursued. in fluid mechanics for example, is required. We shall now examine the kinetic energy of, and the specific gravitational energy affecting, a moving point mass (at 29 In GR “spacetime curvature” is loosely used to describe the point mass) over a single oscillatory cycle. non-Euclidean geometry. 30Also known as diffeomorphism covariance or general invariance. 37Note that the rate of time (for the system as a whole) 31Of the order of 1050, in the case of large solar system can be either as per the Earth’s surface (Terrestrial time), moons — indeed a “large number”. or as per the barycentre (Barycentric Coordinate Time). 32In the sense of aeroplane wing warping, which involves 38Note that atomic/molecular mass and (a minimum) an- twisting in opposite directions, but involving space ‘defor- gular momentum (over a cyclic process time) are involved mation’. in this energy magnitude. The reduced Planck constant 33In the geological sense of the word ‘fold’, which implic- (¯h), i.e. Dirac’s constant, shall also play a key role. itly assumes an initial surface that is essentially level. 39The term “gravitational” is being used in its broad- 34As Paul Davies says: “. . . QMs is ‘non-local’ because est sense; thus it includes hypothesised and unforseen ad- the state of a quantum system is spread throughout a region ditional space curvature — which may not necessarily be of space (Davies 2004, p.20).” representable by GR’s ‘manifestation’ of non-Euclidean ge- 35As is the case with force fields, energy fields, and wave ometry. Later, to avoid confusion, the expression “acceler- phenomena. ation/gravitational field” is usually preferred. The expres- 36As such, this non-local mass (occupying space) is not sions “supplementary gravitational field” and “acceleration considered ‘matter’ per se. field” are occasionally used. 16 Paul G. ten Boom

3.2.2 Conceptual aspects of a shortfall in The global or systemic distribution of the addi- motion relative to predicted motion tional space curvature/undulation, and the nature of the driving mechanism that generates the undulation, For a moving body, an unsteady (i.e. undulating are established later in the paper. The reader is asked around a mean value) acceleration/gravitational field, to consider that both of these are physically viable at on top of the standard gravitational field, necessar- this stage (see subsection 3.2.15 for further comment). ily induces a component of unsteady motion. These newly postulated field undulations are seen to lie or 3.2.3 General preliminaries, idealisations, “piggy-back” upon the pre-existing gravitational field, much in the manner of ocean waves upon an otherwise and undulation features of the model calm sea. Clearly, these undulations are completely The following idealisation suits the Pioneer 10 and 11 unrelated to GR’s gravitational waves, and their in- spacecraft’s motion quite well. Initially, a simple lin- fluence relates especially to the long-term behaviour ear (one-dimensional) situation is considered. The ap- of (low mass) moving bodies. In what (immediately) proach is decidedly classical, even though it utilises the follows, it is (a single idealised instantiation of) this notion of a (deformable) space continuum. Note that new/supplementary field perturbation that shall only the (deeper) nature of the field strength’s sinusoidal concern us — not the underlying pre-existing gravita- variation is elucidated in subsection 3.5.2. tional field. The following shall show that from a barycen- 1. The Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft are considered to be in purely linear-radial (outward, one di- tric/systemic perspective a supplementary (oscilla- 41 tory) acceleration/gravitational field leads to a redis- mensional) motion from the Sun/Barycentre . tribution of some steady translational energy, into a 2. Barycentric: radius (x), speed (v), and Sun- longitudinal oscillatory motion (about a mean speed); dominated gravitational acceleration (g) are which then detracts from the (maximum possible) very much greater (>>) than undulation-based translational speed of the moving body. Such a sce- perturbation magnitudes (∆x, ∆v, ∆g) around nario results in a shortfall (per oscillation cycle), when the mean x, v, and g — over cycle time (∆t). compared to predictions that omit or overlook the un- 3. Undulation time (∆t) is considered to be (celes- steady ‘acceleration’ field aspect. Consideration is initially) small/short. It is of the order of a week tially restricted to a moving point mass subject to a (7 days). (single and pure) sinusoidal field influence. The shortfall directly opposes the (linear outward) path and/or 4. Change in g over ∆t is considered negligible — velocity vector of the motion. indicative of a very low gradient gravitational We shall see that consistency with GR’s invariance field/well (in the S/C’s immediate vicinity). requirements necessitates the field (acceleration) un- 5. Thus, barycentric speed (v) is considered effec- dulations have constant amplitude throughout space. tively constant over ∆t — in the absence of a − Subsequently, energy dispersion, with increasing ra- (∆g) undulation. It is of the order of 10 km s 1, dius from the undulation source, necessarily arises and as such v <

Of primary interest is whether the spacecraft’s or ocean wave for example. Nevertheless, the space- barycentric mean speed (v) remains unchanged over craft’s (position, speed, and acceleration) undulations ∆t, in the presence of a (∆a) field undulation/sinusoid are considered to be driven, by way of the supplemen- — that induces a ‘measurable’ speed sinusoid (magni- tary gravitational field undulation — which also pos- tude ∆v) at the spacecraft. In other words, by way sesses an associated total energy. The (immediate) ba- of a cyclic field perturbation, has a barycentric speed sis, rather than the (ultimate) source or nature, of this shortfall (δv) occurred (after and) during ∆t? acceleration/gravitational field undulation is the “rotating space-warps” (superficially) introduced in section 3.1. 3.2.4 Briefly introducing celestial simple harmonic (proper) motion 3.2.5 Agenda and (relative) undulation We now briefly consider the qualitative effect of maximum amplitude relationships the introduction of a single (sinusoidal) field undulation upon the motion of a mass moving in The mathematical relationships between: the hypoth- otherwise uniform motion. In general, the sign esised acceleration/gravitational field undulation am- of the field acceleration undulation/perturbation plitude (∆a), speed undulation amplitude (∆v), trans- (relative to a mean value) opposes the sign of lational speed shortfall per cycle (δv), and the rate of the spacecraft’s speed perturbation43. The ac- translational speed shortfall (δa) are to be established celeration/gravitational field perturbation/sinusoid in a systemic reference frame. It will be eventually afield = afield(t)=∆a sin(ωt ϕ) induces a (proper) shown (noting that δaspacecraft = δas/c) that: − speed perturbation vproper = ∆v sin(ωt ϕ); which − − 2 2 2 2 in turn can be associated with a (proper) position ∆afield = δaproper (and in idealised 1D ∆afield = δas/c) perturbation xproper =∆x cos(ωt ϕ) and an acceler- − ation undulation aproper = ∆a cos(ωt ϕ). We note and thus — assuming we are dealing with a linear − − o that the phase of aproper lags afield by 90 or π/2 ra- system — superposition of the newly proposed field’s o 45 dians, and that the phase of vproper lags afield by 180 wave-like nature and effect upon spacecraft motion 46 or π radians. is conceptually non-problematic . The phase of each of the four sinusoids (at a given To proceed we shall need to make use of the follow- time) is offset by 90o relative to their ‘neighbouring’ ing two (magnitude only) amplitude relationships, that o sinusoids — which (with 360 in a full cycle) is ar- are based upon vproper = vproper(t)= ∆v sin(ωt ϕ) − − guably an elegant ‘set’ of circumstances. Upon cor- and (celestial) simple harmonic (proper) motion: recting for non-sinusoidal motions also influencing the spacecraft44 , the spacecraft moves ‘to and fro’ about ∆a = ω∆v (1) a mean position (and mean speed and acceleration). From the perspective of a barycentric coordinate sys- ∆v = ω∆x (2) tem, this mean position is in (translational) motion i.e. non-stationary. Similarly, Earth-based (inertial A constant ∆a amplitude and constant ω ensure that frame-based) simple harmonic motion neglects extra- the ∆v and ∆x amplitudes are also constant, and (as neous motions associated with its location, e.g. motion such) they are not functions of time. associated with the spin of the Earth on its axis. Equation 1 has been discussed in Anderson et al. Note that there is no restoring force (directed to- (2002, p.37 Section IX, Part C). Its form relates to wards the mean position) associated with the (space- Equations 1, 13 and 50 in Anderson et al. (2002). craft’s speed or position) undulation itself as is the case Note that Anderson et al. (2002, Equation 50) uses with the position undulation of a spring, pendulum A0 (cf. ∆a) to denote (apparent angular) acceleration amplitude, and ∆v represents the (amplitude of) 43The variation of space curvature, i.e. (supplemen- change/variation in the line-of-sight Doppler velocity tary) acceleration/gravitational field strength, may also be data. Constant angular frequency (ω) was indicative thought of as a sinusoidal variation in a ‘tilt’ angle (i.e. of either an Earth day based (ω ) or an Earth year small inclination) — around its mean or flat equilibrium d.t. condition — encountered by the moving spacecraft. Max- based (ωa.t.) angular velocity. For Anderson et al. imum tilt angle (representing maximum field strength) is (2002, p.38) Equation 1 was representative of “errors associated with minimum spacecraft speed and vice versa. in any of the parameters of the spacecraft orientation Alternatively, imagine a fast moving ice skater on a friction- with respect to the chosen reference frame”, e.g. Earth less (ice) surface comprising a series of sinusoidal (small equator orientation; and as such, these Earth-based er- height) undulations. As they reach the top of each hill rors ‘generate’ undulatory (idealised to sinusoidal) di- (representing maximum field strength and tilt angle) their speed is minimised, whereas at the bottom (representing urnal and annual residuals in the Doppler data. In sec- minimum field strength and extreme negative tilt angle) tion 3.4 we re-access this account of the annual resid- their speed is maximised. Stripping out the overall mean ual, and discuss a major concern with the magnitude speed leaves a sinusoidal speed perturbation/undulation, in ascribed to it. the same manner that we have removed the mean speed (v) of the moving spacecraft to only consider the speed undu- 45Note that wave ‘height’ is somewhat analogous lations/sinusoids (amplitude ∆v) of the spacecraft. to the field’s (spatially-constant) ‘acceleration’ ampli- 44Primarily the spacecraft’s motion along its trajectory, tude/magnitude. and (later) also the ‘real’ monotonic (Pioneer) anomalous 46The physical validity of this superposition is further acceleration (i.e. anomalous rate of speed change). discussed in subsection 3.2.12 and elsewhere. 18 Paul G. ten Boom

3.2.6 Relative undulation amplitude rela- addition to the (previous) removal of the mean speed of tionships: for two different cases the spacecraft (over suitably short time scales). Later, we shall refer to this (speed shortfall) case as “case 2”. A crucial aspect of our hypothesis of a real Pioneer We note that δv << v. anomaly is that these relationships (Equations 1 and By way of the adjustments associated with case 1 2) are seen to also apply to: real Pioneer spacecraft and case 2 (alternatively situation-1 and situation- (i.e. physical or proper) motion fluctuations (∆v) — 2), we’ve ensured that we are simply dealing with at the spacecraft. The (constant) angular frequency (ω) ∆a and three (celestial) simple harmonic motion is the magnitude of a (vector) angular velocity associ- field amplitudes. With this restriction in place, we have: ated with an (as yet to be clearly discussed) rotational ∆vproper = ∆v and ∆xproper = ∆x , as well as: (space-warp) mechanism (see subsection 3.5.2). This s/c s/c ∆a = ∆a = ∆aproper = ∆a . Subsequently, the mechanism produces a sinusoidal variation in the ac- field s/c various subscripts may be dropped and we may sim- celeration/gravitational field strength (amplitude ∆a); ply use the nomenclature of: ∆a,∆v,∆x, and δv from and subsequently a sinusoidal undulation in proper here on — unless we seek to highlight a particular fea- motion speed (∆v), position/‘range’ (∆x) and proper ture of the model. acceleration (also ∆a). Recall that these are undulatory/oscillatory amplitude-only expressions. Indeed, the kinematics of the moving body’s sinu- 3.2.7 Celestial (simple) harmonic motion soidal variation/perturbation in position, speed, and and its influence upon average speed acceleration — relative to a ‘comoving’ (equilibrium) reference frame/point47 — is essentially that of (one We (once again) enquire: does the average transla- dimensional) simple harmonic motion48; but the kinet- tional speed (v) of a body change when subjected to ics and dynamics involved in the situation presented this undulatory acceleration field effect? In (symmet- are quite different. At this stage, not even the ∆v value ric) GR the default answer is ‘no’. The Eulerian-like can be unambiguously related to barycentre-based, or analysis of subsection 3.2.8, which examines conditions (with appropriate corrections) Earth-based, observa- at a moving point mass, implies the purely relative tions. We shall examine two different cases. (barycentre-to-S/C) relationship of Equation 1, as em- Firstly, for the no speed shortfall case (δv =0) — ployed in Anderson et al. (2002) and case 1, has ne- designated “case 1” — we accept that in addition to: glected a (system-based) shortfall in motion (δv) — as mentioned in case 2. Note that this shortfall is quan- ∆g =∆afield =∆a =∆aproper (3) tified by way of a comparison to circumstances in the we also have — with the provision/caveat that mean absence of an acceleration/gravitational field undula- speed v is removed and ∆t is relatively short — that: tion; i.e. it is quantified relative to predicted/expected (non-anomalous) spacecraft motion. ∆aproper =∆aspacecraft (= ∆as/c) (4) We shall assume that it is the spacecraft — by way of a new supplementary field — and not an Earth- Thus, we have declared that observed spacecraft accel- based error [as assumed by Anderson et al. (2002)], eration (perturbation) amplitude ∆as/c, after correct- that is responsible for both the ∆v oscillation signal ing for actual spacecraft (S/C) motion, is also equal in and the (rate of) speed shortfall (δa = δv/∆t). Thus, magnitude to proper acceleration amplitude ∆aproper . we (need to) appreciate that Equation 1 only describes The sinusoids associated with ∆afield and ∆vs/c are the oscillation/undulatory aspect of what is actually a 180 degrees out of phase, with this being the primary two pronged (overall) speed variation — as measured physical relationship; whereas the lesser physical re- by an Earth-based observer or (in our idealised case) lationships involving sinusoidal variations/amplitudes a barycentric-based observer. of ∆x and ∆a , relative to ∆v , are both 90 de- s/c s/c s/c In the next subsection (3.2.8) a second (and grees out of phase (with respect to the latter) — as is new) relationship, between field undulation ampli- the case with standard simple harmonic motion. tude (∆a) and spacecraft speed variation is proposed; In terms of ‘causation’ of events/effects we have: with the latter involving the monotonic δv shortfall ∆a ∆v ∆a and ∆x ; and in terms of field s/c s/c s/c as compared to the sinusoidal/undulatory ∆v varia- 90o (π/⇒2) phase offset⇒ jumps, the sequence (reference tion. This (monotonic aspect) requires the S/C be to lagging) is ‘signified’ by: a , a , v , then x field s/c s/c s/c considered as moving relative to the barycentre, which (noting/recalling the four interrelated time dependent is the fixed central point of a solar-systemic reference sinusoidal expressions given in subsection 3.2.4). frame. Importantly, recalling subsection 3.2.3, our Secondly, in the case of (our hypothesised) mono- point of analysis ‘attached’ to the moving body, ef- tonic spacecraft speed shortfall (δv = 0), these sinu- fectively experiences the same undulation of accelera- soidal amplitude/magnitude equalities6 still apply, but tion/gravitational field as a fixed point in the vicinity only if the δv monotonic effect has also been removed; — over the (short duration) cyclic undulation time ∆t. i.e. compensated for in observed ∆vs/c and ∆as/c — in

47Alternatively, a frame not influenced by the undulatory gravitational/accelerational field effect. 3.2.8 Rayleigh’s Power Theorem in curved 48Particularly the fact that the undulatory proper accel- space (at a point mass) eration of the spacecraft is proportional to, and oppositely directed to, its displacement from a (non-stationary) “mean Rayleigh’s Energy Theorem is sometimes known as position”. Parseval’s theorem, and vice versa. This theorem is A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 19

1 2 1 2 an energy conservation theorem and (for a continuous Physically, we consider 2 δv (i.e. 2 δvs/c) to be function) may be written as: indicative of the specific (kinetic) energy associated ∞ ∞ with the body/spacecraft’s unsteady motion energy 2 2 1 2 x (t) dt = X(f) df component; and 2 δv is also seen to be indicative Z−∞ Z−∞ | | of a (barycentric referenced) kinetic energy ‘shortfall’ (per ∆t cycle) relative to a fully-steady motion 49 It says that a signal contains the same amount of case. Thus, δv is seen to represent a speed short- energy regardless of whether that energy is computed fall (per ∆t cycle), relative to (predicted) fully-steady 50 in the time domain or in the frequency domain . motion — which assumes the absence of an undu- Bracewell (2000, p.120) points out that: “. . . the latory/sinusoidal gravitational/accelerational field ef- theorem is true if [only] one of the integrals exists.” fect. Note that the body/spacecraft’s total kinetic en- and he reassures us that Fourier transforms of physi- ergy is predominantly in “steady” (i.e. non-oscillatory) cally real, yet finite sinusoidal waves, do mathemati- motion. Rearranging Equation 5 gives: cally exist. 1 1 Rayleigh’s theorem, by way of “the power theo- ∆e = ∆a2∆t2 = δv2 (6) rem”, is also applicable to the rate of energy transfer, 2 2 or power, of a ‘signal’ (Bracewell 2000, p.121). where this common specific energy aspect (∆e) of the Applying this mathematical equality to a space point mass motion (is seen to) also physically quantify curved into sinusoidal undulations51, and the re- the specific (‘potential’) energy of the supplementary sultant motion of a moving point mass52 (with a oscillatory acceleration/gravitational field (per cycle), systemic/global reference frame implicit), implies: 53 i.e. the ‘rotating space-warp’ mentioned previously . ∞ ∞ The compound motion54 involved and the ensu- 2 2 a (t) dt = v(f) df ing asymmetric resultant motion effect (δv) is beyond | | Z−∞ Z−∞ both: GR’s conceptual and representational scope, One can distinguish two physical aspects: the moving and Newtonian gravitation’s perceived content. point mass and the (sinusoidal) field acting upon it. Ignoring the steady (average/mean) power of the “sig- 3.2.9 Physical interpretation of the Power nal” and restricting ourselves to the ‘power’ in the un- Theorem (over a single cycle) dulations, this mathematical coexistence relationship Physically, introducing the field undulation redirects appears to also describe a physically relevant (coexis- 55 tence) relationship — which we can alternatively think some “given” steady kinetic energy to unsteady en- of as a (one-way) ‘transfer’/causal effect. Note that ergy, and thus the initial steady motion is incremen- the (disregarded) mean acceleration field and mean tally decreased each cycle (by δv). The field has effec- speed terms are indicative of conditions arising from tively transformed, by way of a redistribution, a small standard gravitational theory, i.e. general relativity. proportion of the body’s (pre-cycle) energy of motion. It is hypothesised that: when a body, moving with Another way of saying this is: since the equilibrium a constant/steady translational speed, is subjected ‘point’ of the longitudinal motion oscillation is sta- to (i.e. affected by) a single (constant amplitude) tionary (relative to the steady motion), the unsteady sinusoidal acceleration/gravitational field undulation energy cannot contribute to directed translational energy. Note that within each (undulatory/oscillatory) (∆a = ∆afield), over a solitary cycle (time ∆t), the power theorem implies: cycle a partial analogy to pendulum motion is apparent, in that increasing gravitational potential energy 1 2 1 2 detracts from kinetic energy and vice versa — with ∆a ∆t = δv f (5) 2 2 the (constant) speed oscillation amplitude (∆v) being −1 −1 quite distinct from the asymmetric (and monotonic) where f = ∆t = ω (2π) (a single exact value), retardation effect (δv) attributed to the existence of and the unit in (the per cycle relationship that is) 2 3 the full cycle (see Figure 1). Note that, the same loss Equation 5 is [m /s ] i.e. specific power. Recall that: of (steady) translation speed occurs for each and every the point of analysis is in motion within a much larger 1 2 cycle. In brief, constant amplitude ∆a gives a constant system. Note that: 2 δv is a fixed magnitude quantity, δv shortfall per (∆t) cycle (i.e. a constant δa). and because negative frequency ( f) is non-physical − It is also worth noting that for a frictionless it has been neglected — effectively halving the (math- pendulum or spring the system’s total energy re- ematical) value of the frequency-based ‘integral’. 53Note the similar expressions for specific (field energy) 49 The terminology describing Fourier transforms is bi- ∆e = 1 ∆t2∆a2 and the (specific) total mechanical en- ased towards electrical engineering interests. 2 ergy of (spring-based) simple harmonic motion: e = E = 50An alternative interpretation is that: the total energy m 1 k 2 1 2 2 contained in a waveform x(t) summed across all of time t is 2 m A = 2 ω A — where A is the amplitude (i.e. maxi- equal to the total energy of the waveform’s Fourier trans- mum displacement from the equilibrium position). form |X(f)| summed across all its frequency components f. 54Steady and unsteady motion, arising from standard GR 51By way of (for example) the (constant angular velocity) based celestial motion and the new supplementary field un- “rotating space-warps” briefly introduced in section 3.1. dulations respectively. 52We shall need to examine the role of mass more closely 55Arising from rocket propulsion and a gravitational as- at a latter stage; but for now, only specific energy, acceler- sist manoeuvre at Jupiter — in the case of Pioneer 10 cf. ation and speed are considered. Jupiter and Saturn in the case of Pioneer 11. 20 Paul G. ten Boom

1 2 2 ﬁeld energy’ ( 2 ∆a ∆t ) and speciﬁc kinetic energy loss 1 2 per cycle ( 2 δv ) have equal magnitudes.

3.2.10 Two diﬀerent ways in which celestial simple harmonic motion occurs Before we establish a link between systemic (transla- δ tional) speed reduction per cycle (i.e. δv) and (con-

∆ stant) speed undulation amplitude (∆v) in subsection 3.2.11, we shall need to distinguish two quite distinct physical situations associated with this unsteady mo- ∆

∆ tion; which is essentially a (perturbation-based) “ce- ( lestial simple harmonic motion”56 (CSHM). Firstly, we can have a pseudo effect arising from the (one-dimensional) projection of (errors associated with) uniform (Earth-based) ‘circular’ motion57 onto the observed/apparent position (and motion) of a spacecraft. This results in a (pseudo) sinusoidal position variation, that upon differentiation gives the associated speed and acceleration ‘sinusoidal’ oscillations. The Pioneer’s diurnal and annual variations are generally seen to be based upon such a scenario. ∆ Secondly, we have a real effect arising from the influence of the (constant amplitude) sinusoidally varying acceleration/gravitational field associated with one ∆ of a number of (constant angular frequency) rotating ∆ space-warps (RSWs). Both situations, but more so the first situation, are largely analogous to the relationships that describe spring-based simple harmonic motion; notwithstanding the fact that Newton’s second law and Hooke’s law play no direct role. In Ein- stein’s gravity there is no force of gravity (per se), only spacetime curvature. In both situations we retain the ‘truth’ that: the (perturbation) acceleration of an object is proportional to its (perturbation) displacement and is oppositely directed — which is a defining characteristic of simple harmonic motion (SHM). Figure 1: The vector schematic diagram (very top) In the first (pseudo) situation the trigonometric shows the relative magnitude and direction of a body’s differentiation process (to speed and then acceleration motion and the speed loss (δv) (per cycle), with the ‘sinusoids’) has its basis in a position/displacement- (approximate) direction of the Sun’s gravitational ac- based sinusoid, whereas in the (second) situa- celeration also shown — assuming the body is mov- tion/scenario a differentiation from a (proper) speed ing outwards from the barycentre. The (lower) two sinusoid to (proper) acceleration sinusoid is paramount diagrams illustrate the fact that oscillatory accelera- — with this (further) relying on the equivalence of tion/gravitational field perturbation amplitude (∆a) ∆afield and ∆aproper magnitudes. In the second situa- and the coexisting speed perturbation amplitude (∆v) tion, which is pivotal to our explanation/modelling of of a moving body are 180 degrees out of phase. Thus, the Pioneer anomaly, the integration from a speed si- a stronger acceleration/gravitational field (relative to nusoid to a displacement ‘sinusoid’ (around a ‘moving’ its average value) results in a reduced speed for the mean position) is of lesser importance in the model. moving body — and vice versa. With particular emphasis upon the second (RSW- based) situation, a subtlety involving (specific) energy arises — regarding its analogy to (spring-based) SHM;

56Note that the orbital motion of planets around the Sun, and moons around a planet can be considered as a means mains constant, whereas for a spacecraft in undula- of inducing a sinusoidal motion perturbation upon a freely tory curved space, a (simple) constant total energy moving body in deep space. This distance dependent am- notion (K.E.+P.E.) is no longer physically meaningful. plitude scenario is negligible cf. the (similar) constant am- From a barycentric perspective, the system (i.e. fric- plitude celestial simple harmonic motion being proposed. 57 tionless S/C motion) is (effectively) dissipative, with For example: “The transformation from a Earth fixed coordinate system to the International Earth Rotation Ser- ‘given’ (predominantly steady) K.E. being incremen- vice (IERS) Celestial System is a complex series of rotations tally eroded (per cycle) by the unsteady (energy) com- that includes precession, nutation, variations in the Earth’s ponent of the motion. Further, Equation 6 indicates rotation (UT1-UTC) and polar motion (Turyshev & Toth that (the perturbation based) ‘specific gravitational 2010, p.57).” A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 21 particularly concerning the role of terms/quantities in- the longer time involves a numerically larger quantity, volving rotation. Firstly, for springs, we note that: and similarly a larger angular measure (cycles cf. radi- ‘A’ designates the amplitude (i.e. the maximum dis- ans) requires a larger numerical value for the quantity. placement from the equilibrium position), Etot = Thus, ∆v = (2π)∆a/ωrad = ∆a/ωcyc = ∆vcyc. 1 2 1 2 2 k constant = P.E. +K.E. = 2 kx + 2 mv , ω = m , Situation-2 (or case 2) also requires a similar correc- x(t) = Acos(ωt ϕ), and v(t) = Aω sin(ωt ϕ); tion to the simple harmonic motion and situation-1 with the total− mechanical energy− of (spring-based)− relationship: ∆x = ∆v/ω. This change in numerical SHM (per unit mass) represented by: e = Etot/m = magnitude by way of a conversion of units, yields ‘per 1 k 2 1 2 2 2 m A = 2 ω A . Secondly, from Equation 6 we have cycle’, rather than ‘per radian’, values of ∆v and ∆x the expression for the specific (field energy) of a RSW: (as regards a moving spacecraft for example). Sub- 1 2 2 ∆e = 2 ∆t ∆a . These two energy expressions, repre- sequently, these ‘adjusted’ units make the situation-2 senting different types of SHM, are somewhat similar. values of ∆v and ∆x consistent with: the Rayleigh In the first specific energy expression, ω actually has power theorem based determination of the physically rad the unit of [ s ] and thus the energy per unit mass of real RSW specific energy (∆e), and particularly the 2 2 m rad associated velocity shortfall per cycle (δv) induced by SHM has a non-standard (energy) unit of s2 — h i the rotating space-warp field strength variation at a where m is metres, s is seconds, and rad is radians. ‘point’. By way of comparison, (from Equation 5) specific Note that with ∆v being necessarily a sinusoid- power per cycle has ‘units’ (alternatively meaning “the based ‘wave’ amplitude, and actual spacecraft motion 2 m unit of”) 3 ; and thus the (specific) energy of (cf. a theoretical description) being described by speed s cycle [m/s], the use of units [m/s] for ∆v, when dealing with a rotatingh space-warpi (itself) has (model/theoretical) 2 the relationship ∆x =∆v/ω, is considered appropriate m units of s2 cycle2 , with duration ∆t having the (non- (and indeed necessary); whereas in the case of (non- h i m 1 standard) unit of [s/cycle] which is the inverse of ‘unit’ sinusoidal/monotonic) δv, with units of [ s cycle ], such frequency [cycle/s]58. Further, we need to appreciate a an alteration would be inappropriate (and inaccurate 1 2 2 distinction between: the (constant/fixed) total specific at best). Similarly, sinusoidal-based ∆e = 2 ∆a ∆t , when describing a rotating space-warp (itself), can be energy of the physical phenomenon that is an entire ro- 2 m tating space-warp, and the temporal sinusoidal influ- thought of (simply) as a specific energy [ s2 ]. ence of this RSW upon a moving mass/body. The for- With ∆a effectively equal to f∆v (and ∆v effec- mer retains the same specific energy throughout time, tively equal to f∆x) it is (somewhat) tempting to re- whereas in the latter case the cyclic nature of the in- write the sinusoids as a (t) = ∆a cos(ft ϕ) and s/c − − fluence results in a (δv) speed shortfall per full (2π vs/c(t) = ∆v sin(ft ϕ) (for example); but radians radian) cycle, i.e. per revolution of the rotating space- play a unique− role in trigonometric− differentiation and m 1 in the form taken by a solution of the spring-based warp — with δv having units of s cycle . simple harmonic motion (second-order linear) differ- This subtlety, regarding the not specifically stated 2 d x radian unit in angular frequency — occurring in SHM, ential equation: m dt2 = ma = kx. In short, simple and our (projection of Earth-based measurement er- trigonometric derivatives and integrals− only ‘work’ if ror) situation-1, by way of the trigonometric differen- the argument of sine and cosine functions are expressed tiation process — necessitates that when Equations 1 in radians. Consequently, with regard to quantities and 2 are applied in situation-2 — which concerns the that vary sinusoidally, this frequency-based notation, (real/non-pseudo) celestial simple harmonic motion (of and possible consequences thereof, is neither promoted a body/spacecraft) — a unit-based modification of nor pursued. Equations 1 and 2 is required. In a manner of speak- Finally, we recall and note that the analogy to ing, we do this so as to reconcile the (radian-based) SHM involving the (pseudo cf. real) first situation mathematics with the (cyclic-based) physics that both — which involves Earth-based diurnal-spinning59 and describe aspects of the phenomenon. annual-orbiting ‘projected’ motion (errors) — does not In effect, when dealing with spacecraft (or proper) require this (radians to cycles) unit correction. speed amplitude (i.e. ∆v = ∆a/ω), the angular fre- To proceed we summarise the above by noting that: quency needs to have a cyclic basis rather than a ra- in (pseudo) situation-1: ω = ωrad, whereas in (real) −1 dian basis. Thus, we need to convert the units of speed situation-2: ω = ωcyc = f = ∆t . Also note that: m s m m cyc amplitude, i.e. [ s2 rad ] = [ s.rad ] to [ s.cycle ]. This is ωrad = 2πω = 2πf, and that ω (with no subscript) is achieved by multiplying the magnitude of ∆v (per ra- ambiguous. The relationship of acceleration amplitude dian) by 2π. Think of converting from a number in to velocity amplitude is best encapsulated by: metres per second to a number in metres per minute; ∆afield =∆aproper = ω∆v = ωrad∆vrad = ωcyc∆vcyc 58The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) recognises the radian [rad] as a derived unit, but not 3.2.11 Amplitude to shortfall relationships the (unit of) cycle [cycle]. Herein, the model’s introduction and an equality of specific energies and discussion of celestial simple harmonic motion, in conjunction with a cycle-based (rotating space-warp) specific We are now in a position to establish a link between energy, necessitates the introduction of this (new) derived systemic translational speed reduction per cycle (δv) unit; which is also (loosely) indicative of, and similar to: a (full) ‘turn’, full circle, (single) revolution, (completed) 59With the observer on the Earth’s surface at a fixed rotation, or (a single and completed) cycle. radius from its centre. 22 Paul G. ten Boom and speed undulation amplitude (∆v), when it is a By way of Equation 7 it follows that per cycle: rotating space-warp that is causing the celestial sim- 1 1 ple harmonic motion (i.e. situation-2 as discussed in ∆v2 = δv2 subsection 3.2.10). 2 2 As a preliminary we need to appreciate that by way This result is significant in that: the unsteady specific of ∆afield =∆aproper = ∆as/c (recall Equations 3 and 4 in subsection 3.2.6) Equation 1, i.e. ∆a = ω∆v, can energy associated with the celestial harmonic motion also be used to describe a relationship between (rela- of an otherwise steadily moving body is equal in mag- tive) speed amplitude (per cycle) and acceleration per- nitude to the (monotonic) shortfall (cf. predictions) turbation/wave amplitude. Furthermore, Equations 5 in the specific energy of its motion. In other words, and 6 describe a relationship at the moving point mass. the energy of the body’s oscillatory variation in mo- This appreciation, allows us to substitute (Equation 1) tion is equal to the (per cycle) loss in kinetic energy into either Equation 5 or 6, and vice versa. of the body; with this loss being relative to the kinetic energy the body would otherwise have had — in the Using the situation-2 result obtained in subsection absence of the sinusoidal field’s influence. In short, 3.2.10, i.e. ∆a = ωcyc∆v = f∆v = ∆v/∆t, which is and in agreement with conservation of energy, a mov- an altered form of Equation 1, and upon substituting ing body’s loss of steady (translational) kinetic energy ∆a = ∆v/∆t into Equation 6, i.e. ∆e = 1 ∆a2∆t2 = 2 equals its gain in unsteady (oscillatory) kinetic energy. 1 δv2, we obtain: 2 Furthermore, the two (kinetic) energy magnitudes also equal the (specific) ‘potential’ energy of the rotating ∆v = δv (per cycle) (7) | | space-warp phenomenon (itself); that is: Note that if we had simply substituted Equation 1 1 1 1 (situation-1) into Equation 5 or 6 the result would ∆e = ∆a2∆t2 = ∆v2 = δv2 have been: 2π∆v = δv ; with the units of ∆v (or 2 2 2 m| 1| m 1 rather ∆vrad) being s rad rather than s cyc as re- Thus, the model requires that there be three different quired by the model — which necessarily employs a (and equal) specific energy effects ‘in play’ at the same (per cycle) situation-2 based definition of ∆v. An al- time (and over the same cyclic duration), as compared ternative way of expressing this is: 2π∆vrad = ∆vcyc to spring-based simple harmonic motion with its soli- with ∆vcyc = δv (per cycle). tary total energy equation. Finally, it is worth noting: | | Also note that we have not assumed δv is positive, firstly, the constancy of the specific energies, and the and from subsection 3.2.6 we recall that (with some spring-based total mechanical energy per unit mass, in- caveats — particularly one dimensional radial motion): volved in the preceding discussion; and secondly, that ∆v =∆vproper =∆vs/c. Further, by way of defining: two very different transfer of energy mechanisms are ‘active’ in (this) celestial simple harmonic motion (sce- δv nario). δa = (8) ∆t Beyond this section’s largely accurate idealisation, in reality, a non-constant equilibrium speed (v) value it follows that: exists because both: the Sun-based gravitational field (g), and kinetic energy redistribution (δv per cycle) ∆a = δa (9) | | act to alter the S/C’s steady translational speed (v). m 1 Note that the (model’s) unit for ∆v and δv is [ s cycle ], m whereas the unit for ∆a and δa is [ s2 ]. Next, by way 3.2.12 Acceleration field strength to of Equations 7, 8 and 9 we confirm (re: situation-2): spacecraft acceleration relationship

∆v ωrad∆v In subsection 3.2.11 it was established (Equation 9) ∆a = = f∆v = ωcyc ∆v = (10) that: ∆a = δa . ∆t 2π | | This result can also be established from situation- A discussion of this acceleration result is presented in 1 conditions: i.e. the (angular frequency) undulatory subsection 3.2.12. The terminology of Equations 7 and relationship ∆a = ω∆v (i.e. Equation 1), and 2π∆v = 9 is a bit confronting, i.e. two ‘deltas’ (upper and lower δv — as discussed in subsection 3.2.11. Subsequently: case) in each of the two equalities, but they are indica- | | tive/representative of two different types of change: a δv δv ∆a = ω | | = f δv = | | = δa sinusoidal perturbation (maximum) amplitude and a 2π | | ∆t | | scalar (monotonic) difference. Equation 7 indicates that: the total loss of (solar- With the preceding Rayleigh (Energy and Power) systemic) steady speed in a single cycle (δv), relative Theorem based relationships being physically illuci- to a case where only non-undulatory steady speed (v) dated/explained in terms of energy-based equalities, persisted throughout the cycle time, equals the am- and because the total energy in simple harmonic mo- plitude of the sinusoidal speed variation (∆v). Im- tion is proportional to amplitude squared, it is (physi- portantly, the speed shortfall always opposes the di- cally) more appropriate to state this equality in terms rection of motion. The idealised actual situation of the square of each quantity, such that: is: vfinal vinitial = δv with δv < 0; and additionally − 2 2 2 δv << v such that: vfinal vinitial. ∆a = δa (= δa if idealised 1D radial) (11) | | ≈ field proper s/c A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 23

2 1 2 L Note that the cycle time (∆t) is common to both quan- 2 ∆a , with units [ T 4 ], as being representative of the tities, and by using Equation 11 the specific energy rate of specific energy transferred per cycle duration equality (Equation 6) is upheld. (∆t) for a given single rotating space-warp62. Correct modelling would mean this instantiation 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 ∆e = ∆a ∆t = δa ∆t = δv of the model’s ap value is our best match to observa- 2 2 2 tional aP . This is largely the case, although further This final equality cross-check gives us confidence in modelling of this (idealised) ‘theoretical’ ap value is the approach we have pursued, although it should be required. For example, a reduction arising from an off- noted that the physical origin and nature of the si- set angle between Pioneer 10’s path direction, and the nusoidal ∆a field undulations, that causes the space- (observational) line-of-sight, is required (see 6.5.10). craft’s ∆v (sinusoidal) oscillations, has yet to be ad- Later, in subsection 6.5.5, we obtain a ‘raw’ value for −8 −2 equately discussed. Finally, we note (via Equation 7) the Pioneer anomaly of ap = 8.65 10 cm s , which that: ∆e ∆v2, in addition to ∆e ∆a2. upon correction (for line-of-sight× offset angle) gives a ∝ ∝ −8 −2 final/‘best’ value of: ap = 8.52 0.66 10 cm s . ± × 3.2.13 The Pioneer anomaly & comment- Obviously, not all bodies experience this supple- ing upon the model’s use of ‘mass’ mentary effect, because ‘high mass’/larger bodies, such as planets and moons, are immune to it. Note that, The model postulates that when multiple sources for at this stage, only an equality (Equation 6) concerning this type of supplementary (acceleration) field effect specific (gravitational/accelerational) field energy and occur and coexist, the fields act together simultane- a specific kinetic energy redistribution has been consid- ously and continuously upon a moving mass. Assum- ered. The mass aspect of the body’s kinetic energy is ing an (additive) linear system, the superposition prin- obvious, but the field’s (distributed or non-condensed) 60 ciple applies to both the (∆a)i and (δa)i effects . mass distribution and hence energy interaction with For the model to fit the (Pioneer anomaly) obser- the ‘condensed’ mass63 body/spacecraft is yet to be vational evidence, a (linear) superposition of squared fully outlined. (shortfall) accelerations, that are representative of a Clearly, the nature of mass in the model — particu- 61 superposition of energies, is (necessarily) proposed . larly its association with the acceleration field — needs This leads to a total “shortfall” in expected motion to be further considered. Later we shall see that a over a given period of time; which is conceivably the physical link between a quantum mechanical based en- Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft’s (long-term average) ergy and this new type of acceleration/‘gravitational’ anomalous acceleration (aP ). Thus, drawing upon field (expressed as an) energy is achievable. This link Equations 6 and 11, the model proposes that: shall require the introduction of a new type/class of mass at the macroscopic level: “non-local mass” — see 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 (∆afield)i = (δaproper)i = ap(t) = ap subsection 6.4.2 for a proper introduction. Note that 2 2 2 2 X X the equivalence of inertial mass with (active and pas- which is re-expressed as: sive) gravitational mass (mi = mg) shall remain valid; but we further note that this equality, at the macro- 2 2 ap = ap(t)= (δaproper)i = (∆afield)i (12) scopic/celestial level, has implicitly involved (i.e. been qX qX restricted to) local bulk matter. Note that due to the clarity of context we’ve omitted the index of summation (i) and the finite upper bound of summation (n) from the sigma (summation) 3.2.14 Summary of: celestial simple har- n 2 monic motion, and the Pioneer notation, such that i=1 xi (for example) is simply 2 anomaly as a motion shortfall rate expressed as xi . NoteP : use of the ‘i’ subscript outside of a summationP emphasises a variable’s plurality. In summary, this subsection (3.2) has examined the re- Equation 12 is the crucial result/output of the tardation effect of a hypothesised supplementary (ac- model; it asserts that (theoretically) the magnitude celeration/gravitational) undulatory/sinusoidal field of the Pioneer anomaly may be conceived as a simple phenomenon upon a radially (outward) directed point square root of the summation of the individual field mass — at the point mass, within a systemic (barycen- undulation amplitudes (∆a) squared. Fortuitously, the tric) reference frame. The retardation direction op- different period times, of each summed field element, poses the motion, mimicking a (flight) path-based are included in the individual (spacecraft) acceleration drag. Note that this undulatory acceleration field has terms (δa = δv/∆t). This is further discussed in sub- nothing to do with general relativity’s gravitational 1 2 section 6.5.5. We interpret the quantity 2 (∆a) or waves, whose source are large macroscopic masses in

60 accelerated motion, e.g. binary star systems. Such that the net response (at a given time and place) By way of a (single case) ‘constant’ amplitude field caused by multiple ‘stimuli’ is the sum of the ‘responses’ which would have been caused by each stimulus individu- (acceleration/gravitational) sinusoid, expressions for ally. The ‘i’ subscript indicates that multiple instantiations 62 1 2 of the (particular) variable exist/coexist in superposition Alternatively, 2 ∆a may be thought of as a specific 61Certainly an unorthodox quantity, but in order to re- power per cycle. It (also) equals the magnitude of the ‘rate’ 1 2 late to both the sinusoidal gravitational/accelerational field of specific (steady) kinetic energy loss per cycle [ 2 (δv/∆t) ] energy affecting a body, and the (unsteady) kinetic energy — from a barycentric perspective and concerning a given of that moving body — over the same ‘time’ period (∆t) (single) rotating space-warp. — a squared quantity is appropriate (recall Equation 6). 63In the sense of ‘compact’ mass, i.e. solids and liquids. 24 Paul G. ten Boom spacecraft: position, speed and acceleration sinusoids direction of a mass’s motion, has no affect upon the were determined, as well as relationships between their (path or velocity vector based) shortfall result estab- (time and position independent) fixed/constant ampli- lished previously; although the same cannot be said tudes. By way of Rayleigh’s power theorem, an equal- for line-of-sight measurements (thereof). The author ity involving the (gravitational/accelerational) sinu- previously envisaged spherical divergent undulations, soid’s energy (∆e) and an unsteady specific kinetic en- but this has been superseded in order to be consistent ergy is established, with the latter expression contain- with the observational evidence (see subsection 3.5.2). ing a motion shortfall term (δv). This motion short- Getting a fair bit ahead of ourselves, note that: the fall (per sinusoidal cycle) is defined relative to pre- energy of each field is seen to not exceed some ‘wig- dictions that overlook an unsteady component within gle’ room associated with an atomic/molecular-based the spacecraft’s kinetic energy — where steady (non- quantum mechanical energy uncertainty that is shared anomalous) motion is (exclusively) assumed. A con- concurrently by numerous ( 1050) atoms/molecules cern with the units of angular frequency in celestial in a celestial “third-body” —∼ this being a (‘geomet- simple harmonic motion, as compared to ‘standard’ rically’ suitable) spin-orbit ‘coupled’ moon. Physi- simple harmonic motion, was also discussed; this af- cal concepts such as: entanglement, geometric phase, fects the magnitude of the speed/velocity amplitude self-interference, and decoherence (or lack thereof, re- (∆v). This result is especially relevant to section 3.6. garding a fractional/virtual geometric phase offset) are This section culminated (subsection 3.2.13) in a also involved65. The total virtual excess internal en- hypothesis/declaration that: the Pioneer anomalous ergy (below a minimum change in discrete energy lev- acceleration is determined from a simple linear super- els), is expressed non-locally (and externally) in the position of motion shortfall rates arising from (and via) form of the hypothesised real supplementary acceler- multiple field sinusoids, (but) with the summed ampli- ation/gravitational field. This quantum mechanical tudes having an energy-basis, rather than merely being (virtual) energy discrepancy is indirectly induced by a simple summation of the sinusoidal/undulation ac- curved spacetime effects in a global/systemic reference celeration amplitudes (δa = δv/∆t). The contents of frame, and it is this (yet to be fully explained) energy this section are pivotal to the explanation and model source that ‘drives’ each of the (real) “rotating space- of the Pioneer anomaly pursued herein. warps” — that coexist (together) in superposition.

3.2.15 Interlude: what’s still to come 3.3 Variation in the aP observations The previous subsection (3.2.14) gave a brief (overall) In this section (and section 3.4) the periodic tempo- summary of this section. In this final subsection, as ral variation of the Pioneer 10 anomalous accelera- something of an interlude, we briefly describe aspects tion values (aP ) is our central focus. We shall step of the model that, although not thoroughly discussed back from the forward reaching aspects of subsection as yet, are of relevance — in so much as they pro- 3.2.15, to simply examine what the temporal variation vide some degree of wider context to the rather spe- of the observation data of the Pioneer anomaly (aP ) cific (or narrow) aspects of the model ‘presently’ being is indicating/telling us. As such, we seek to approach discussed and formulated. this aspect of the observational data with a fairly un- The (quantum mechanical) energy source of a committed mind, (thus) essentially putting to one side single (acceleration/gravitational) field undulation re- aspects of the model introduced and argued for in sec- mains inadequately explained, and the nature and tions 3.1 and 3.2, and ‘previewed’ in subsection 3.2.15. global distribution of this new field (type) are yet to From this (largely) unbiased perspective (and some- be established. The field’s three-dimensional (3-D) what of a ‘new beginning’) we seek to support features distribution might alter the conditions at the exam- of the model that have already been ‘introduced’. ined point mass from the preceding discussion’s ‘linear’ Upon completion of this (initial) investigation of scenario — especially if the steady motion involved temporal variation in the aP data, section 3.5 furthers is not linear-radial, i.e. elliptical, circular, parabolic the model’s development — or rather this Section’s or hyperbolic motion. Fortunately, the speed retar- preliminary version of the model. This (then) paves dation phenomenon is ubiquitous (i.e. path/direction the way for section 3.6, in which the model’s relation- and speed independent in the outer solar system and ship to various aspects of the Pioneer observational beyond); as compared to its line-of-sight observation evidence — i.e. the anomaly itself, its temporal vari- which will vary with the (object’s) velocity vector to ation, and the magnitude of the (post-fit) residuals in (observer’s) line-of-sight angle. Thus, in three dimen- the data — are more fully appreciated. sions: aproper =(as/c)observed . We shall6 see that further observational evidence 65The reader who would balk at, or straight out deny, implies that a (2-D planar/3-D cylindrical) rotating the ability of quantum mechanical entanglement to persist space-warp, centered ‘toward’ the far distant barycen- in (special circumstance) macroscopic physical systems is 64 in need of “updating their world-view” — by way of con- tre , describes the supplementary global field distri- sulting the (Scientific American) summary paper of Vedral bution; thus causing a sinusoidal/undulatory field at (2011). A proposal for entanglement (to be) acting on a the moving point mass. Subsequently, the type and/or scale of 1020 atoms has gained general acceptance, as has recognition of “macroscopic entanglement in materials such 64In the case of the Pioneer 10 spacecraft beyond 40AU as copper carboxylate at room temperature and higher (Ve- (approximately Pluto’s orbital radius); i.e. far beyond the dral 2011, pp.41-42)” — “even though molecular jiggling orbital radii of Jupiter and Saturn. might be expected to disrupt entanglement (p.39).” A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 25

3.3.1 Introduction 3. Effectively stochastic (or random). Turyshev, Toth, Kellogg, Lau, & Lee (2006, Section 4. Effectively discontinuous — e.g. at manoeuvres, 2.1) state that there is a spatial and temporal varia- and for Pioneer 11’s Saturn flyby (Turyshev, tion of the order of 10% for each spacecraft. Turyshev Toth, Kellogg, Lau, & Lee 2006). et al. (2006), Olsen (2007), and Levy et al. (2009, Sec- 5. Periodic. This includes solar plasma effects, and tion 3) all stress the constancy of the anomaly; (with the diurnal and annual66 residuals. ∼ the first two of these latter citations) implicitly assum- The annual residual’s source has been deemed “un- ing that without the noise of observation, which in- determined” by Markwardt (2002, p.11), and “[some- cludes Earth-based diurnal and annual residuals, the what] unmodeled” by Olsen (2007, p.397)67. Regard- data would be free of spatial and (short-term) tem- ing (temporal) variation of the anomaly, and attempts poral variance. This is a reasonable assumption, but at modelling the anomaly, a good understanding of the nevertheless it is an interpretation of the observational ‘annual’ residual is (in all likelihood) crucial. data. In this, and the following subsection (3.4), the validity of this “latent constancy” (or “latent steadi- 3.3.5 Non-specific variation in aP ness”) interpretation is scrutinised and found wanting — a view somewhat supported by Levy et al. (2009) In the following case both spatial and temporal vari- and now endorsed by Turyshev & Toth (2010). ation may exist. In early 1998 a fairly steeply peaked − − maximum acceleration value of over 10 10 8 cm s 2 for Pioneer 10 (Anderson et al. 2002,× Figure 14) oc- 3.3.2 Spatial variation of aP curred. Coincidentally, at this time the (negative) path The different average values for Pioneer 10 and vector of the S/C is aligned with Saturn, and Jupiter 11 may or may not indicate spatial variation of makes its closest approach to the path vector — see aP . At the end of Section VI in Anderson et al. Figure 2. Thus, the solar system’s planets (and/or (2002, p.25 and reiterated p.34) the experimen- moons) are possibly implicated in a physical model. tal (excluding total bias) magnitudes are given as (7.84 and 8.55) 10−8 cm s−2 respectively. Recalling − − 0 the total error for× the anomaly is 1.33 10 8 cm s 2, 0 Ecliptic longitude ± × the spatial variation of aP is (inherently) ambiguous. 55AU Reverse p 70AU ath vector Pio 3.3.3 A comment on observational errors neer 1 0 path The unprecedented navigational accuracy delivered by the Pioneer spacecraft Doppler data, and the lack of other similarly precise S/C, makes interpretation in- KEY volving all, or part, of the error data a “non-exact Sign Date science”. Anderson et al. (2002, Section X) under- 1998.3 Jupiter’s orbit standably lump all the experimental and systematic 1992.5 errors together in a least squares uncorrelated manner Saturn’s orbit to obtain the total error. Markwardt (2002, Table II) finds the RMS residuals of all the non-extreme measurements is approx- Figure 2: Schematic view down from the north eclip- imately 8 mHz ( 0.5 mm s−1), and states that An- tic pole illustrating where a tangent from the Pioneer derson et al. (2002)∼ assigned a standard error of 10’s path (at latter times) is in relation to the orbits of 15 mHz to their Doppler data processing. Note Jupiter and Saturn. Saturn’s orbit crosses this line in that for the Pioneer spacecraft’s S-band Doppler, 1992 and 1998. Jupiter’s orbit lies nearest this (nega- 1 cycle = 0.0652m (Null, Lau, Biller, & Anderson tive) path vector in 1998, but in 1992 this is not the − 1981), so 10 mHz 0.652 mm s 1; and Markwardt’s case. Coincidentally, early 1998 produced an all-time analysis spans 1987-1994⇒ whereas the Anderson et al. maximum in the Pioneer anomaly’s (measured) mag- (2002) rigorous analysis spans 1987-1998. nitude. Some distinction between error sources and types is useful, especially considering the magnitude of any real temporal variation in aP , and the total error, are of similar magnitudes. 3.3.6 The diurnal residual 3.3.4 Temporal variation of aP The diurnal residual is a good example of a peri- Five types of temporal variation may be distinguished. odic residual arising from inaccurate parameter constants, rather than observation error or a modelling 1. Pure bias (i.e. no temporal variation) — e.g. radio beam reaction force. Note that RTG heat 66Markwardt’s terminology for a residual of not quite one reflected off the craft is a non-pure bias. year’s duration (Markwardt 2002). 67To be fair, we note that Olsen does not believe there 2. Monotonic. The Markwardt (2002) and Olsen is anything troublesome or irregular in the existence of the (2007) analyses are inconclusive. Monotonic ∼annual residual, attributing it primarily to “an artifact of variation is not considered from here on. the maneuver estimation algorithm”. 26 Paul G. ten Boom inadequacy68. It is an Earth-based effect. Note that clock precision a best-case Doppler S/C accuracy of − the Doppler data only measures the relative Earth to 0.0001 mm s 1 is now potentially achievable (Asmar, spacecraft speed, and that numerous effects — includ- Armstrong, Iess, & Tortora 2005) — although this is ing the Earth’s movement relative to the solar system’s not achievable in practice. barycentre — are incorporated in the analysis. Thus, in raw data format a significant annual variation nec- ∼ essarily exists. 3.4 The annual residual It appears the periodic nature of the diurnal resid- As with the diurnal residual it is the Earth, and not the ual arises primarily from both Earth Orientation Pa- spacecraft, that is generally accepted as the source of rameter (EOP) error and Earth Ephemeris error act- the “annual” residual. This assertion is now challenged ing together in the Orbital Determination Program69 . by way of the period and amplitude observational data. Anderson et al. (2002, p.38) comment that the period This subsection shares the sentiments of footnote 125 is: “approximately equal to the Earth’s sidereal [spin] in Anderson et al. (2002). rotation period”, which is unfortunately vague. We thank E. Myles Standish of JPL, who The diurnal residual’s magnitude is crucial to un- encouraged us to address in greater de- derstanding the annual residual. The noise of the tail the nature of the annual-diurnal terms diurnal residual is∼ greatest around solar conjunction, seen in the Pioneer Doppler residuals. . . . but at solar opposition, near a minimum in the solar 70 cycle , exceptionally good data is available: see An- The fact that the Pioneer anomaly (aP ) itself is incon- derson et al. (2002, Figure 18, p.38 ). Non-periodic sistent with Standish’s non-problematic ephemerides 73 noise is evident, arising primarily from interplanetary generation results in an inevitable and understand- plasma and the Earth’s ionosphere. able tension between the Ephemeris and the (real) Pi- 74 Markwardt (2002) gives a figure of 10 mHz (i.e. oneer anomaly camps — necessitating the restriction − 0.65 mm s 1) for the amplitude (on average) of the of a hypothesised “real” anomaly to low mass bodies. Pioneers’ diurnal residuals. Anderson et al. (2002, Fig- ure 18, p.38 ) indicates a Nov–Dec 1996 solar opposi- − 3.4.1 Period mismatch tion amplitude of 0.1373 mm s 1 that may be obtained from: the amplitude relationship ∆a = ω∆v (Equa- The period as stated is not 365.25 days. Ander- −5 −1 son et al. (2002, Section IX, Part C) gives the angu- tion 1), the diurnal period ωd.t. = 7.292 10 rad s , −10 −×1 lar velocity (over interval III — 1992.5 to 1998.5) as and ∆ad.t. = (100.1 7.9) 10 m s given by An- derson et al. (2002,± p.38).× This gives, via ∆v = ω∆x ωa.t. = (0.0177 0.0001) rad/day; this value equates to a cyclic period± of 355 2 days. (i.e. Equation 2, subsection 3.2.5), a best-case cyclic ± diurnal position offset amplitude of approximately This stance is supported by Figure 2 in Scherer, 1.9 metres (i.e. ∆x 1.9 m), and about 9 metres Fichtner, Anderson, & Lau (1997) showing the real ±on average. This is consistent≈ with the NEAR71 space- part of the autocorrelation function of the later Pioneer craft’s range accuracy of 1 metre, and average position 10 data (1987–1995). By averaging (from the graph) error of 25 metres (Elliott, Hellings, & Miller 1997). the clear maximum and minimum range of values, at the half and full year, a period of 355 d (i.e days) is Such a small periodic position error promotes con- ∼ fidence in our belief that the Pioneer spacecraft ex- confirmed. The shape of the real part of the autocor- hibit exceptional navigational accuracy and precision. relation function indicates a solitary sinusoidal-like os- The individual “beads on a string” (or catena) place- cillation dominates the spectral aspect of a time series ment of most observational points in Figure 18 (An- representing the (long-term) Pioneer Doppler data. derson et al. 2002)72 involves an accuracy of approxi- The difference in period is too large to be at- − mately 0.01 mm s 1, which is ultimately related to the tributed to spacecraft position drift in the celestial precise and stable frequency produced by a ground- sphere over a year. based hydrogen maser atomic clock. With improved The only coincidental period to match this is an obscure 356 day lunar orbital-based beat duration75 (and 68 76 These are the three possible causes of residuals, aris- associated ∆ap amplitude modulation ) from the per- ing from a method of least squares analysis (Brouwer & spective of the Pioneer 10 S/C — see Doppler residu- Clemence 1961, Ch. 8). 69 als (in Hz units) Anderson et al. (2002, Figures 9, 13), This interpretation is based on correspondence (circa rather than the more processed 1-day and 5-day batch- 2003) with E. Myles Standish of JPL, and is analogous to how celestial pole offsets arise. Celestial pole offsets are re- sequential (acceleration) data of Figures 17 and 14 required because the model (of the Earth’s orientation), that spectively. The heliocentric-based orbital periods of combines precession and nutation, relies on fixed parame- Jupiter’s moon Callisto and Saturn’s Titan are respec- ters for the Earth’s shape (geodesy) and internal structure; tively: 16.689018 and 15.945421 days. Gravitational but since these are not fixed the offsets inevitably arise. Other (lesser) effects exist beyond this somewhat idealised 73For the larger (‘high mass’) mass bodies of the solar account. system at least. 70There was a broad minimum in the solar cycle around 74E.g. Standish (2005, p.178). May 1996. The Pioneer 10 S/C was beyond 60 AU. 75A beat, in this case, is the interference between two 71Near Earth asteroid rendezvous mission. Note that this (lunar-based) rotating space-warps of slightly different fre- spacecraft uses (the later generation) X-band carrier frequencies, ‘registered’ as a periodic variation in the super- quencies whereas the Pioneer 10/11 used S-band. position amplitude of the two [∆a sin(ωt − ϕ)]i inputs. Its 72Note that only one of NASA’s three Deep Space Net- rate is the difference between the two input frequencies. 76 work tracking stations is used throughout. See subsection 3.6.2 for more information on ∆ap . A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 27 tidal effects ensure that both these moons are in spin- DE40579 was known to < 20 metres80 (Standish 2005). orbit resonance ‘around’ their respective host planets. We note that Earth orbit orientation uncertainties of Together, these moons also exhibit a joint spin (or rota- about 1 km81, implying extremely small angular un- tional) resonance, in so much that their rotational (and certainty± ( nrad) in the Pioneer line-of-sight Doppler orbital) phases — and their associated rotating space- observations,∼ are of negligible significance. warp phases — will coincide/resonate every 357.9 d Millisecond Pulsar timing experiments rely on, (m = n + 1 where n 21.445). As observed from and conceivably feedback to ensure, an accurate ≈ onboard (and thus at) the Pioneer 10 spacecraft, this Earth ephemerides. Their annual residuals act as period (for years spanning 1992.5 and 1998.5) goes to a check upon the Earth’s orbit orientation accuracy. approximately 356.1 d — by way of making a (synodic- With long-term millisecond Pulsar timing measure- like) correction for the motions of the host planets of ments known to better than 300 nanoseconds (0.3 µs) these moons77. Easy access to spacecraft positions (Splaver, Nice, Stairs, Lommen, & Backer 2005, Sec- may be found at: http://cohoweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/ tion 5.6), the Earth’s ephemeris (DE405) is known to helios/heli.html. Alternatively, the more accurate better than 90 metres — a view predated by Chan- “JPL’s Horizons” system may be consulted online. dler (1996). ± Thus, if a real Pioneer anomaly exists it may possi- If the aforementioned amplitude residual ( 530 m) bly be related to the (larger) moons of the solar system. is Earth-based, then it is inconsistent with a± lack of concern, regarding the magnitude of annual residu- 3.4.2 Amplitude non-compliance als, in Pulsar timing experiments. Actually, long- term Doppler data and millisecond Pulsar timing are The existence of an Earth-based (exactly) annual not accurate enough to feedback data to improve residual is undeniable. Note that this amplitude is in- ephemerides accuracy. It is CCD astrometric obser- dependent of the Earth’s diurnal residual amplitude. vations, spacecraft ranging data, and ∆VLBI data of In Anderson et al. (2002, p.38) the amplitude orbiting spacecraft that dominate ephemeris establish- of the periodic Doppler frequency/speed variation −1 ment today (Standish 2004). (0.1053 mm s — in interval III) is at a relative A comparison of DE405 with the earlier DE200 fur- minimum compared with its average value between ther supports this stance. Firstly, Pulsar timing data 1987 and 1998 (Turyshev et al. 1999, Figure 1). employing DE200 (Kaspi, Taylor, & Ryba 1994, Figure This amplitude is very similar to the diurnal resid- − 5 and Section 6.1) had accuracy to 2 µs (i.e. 600m), ual’s (minimum) amplitude (0.1373 mm s 1), but the 78 which is nearly an order of magnitude less accurate position ‘error’ of approximately 530 metres is than the use of DE405 gives. This order of magnitude quite different due to the different angular± velocities, −7 −1 improvement is confirmed by Standish’s comparison with (ωa.t.)Earth = 1.991 10 rad s correspond- × of DE200 with the later DE405 (Standish 2004). Fur- ing a 365.256 day sidereal orbit period. ther, Anderson et al. (2002, Section IX, p.36) discounts An easily scalable set of annual oscillation ampli- −1 both Earth orientation parameters and the planetary tude values is: ∆x = 1 km, ∆v = 0.2 mms and ephemeris as possible causes of error or significant ∆a = 0.4 10−8 cm s−2 — via Equations 1 and 2 in × residuals. Regarding the ephemeris they say: “post- subsection 3.2.5, and the (observed) angular velocity fit residuals to DE405 were virtually unchanged from value ωa.t. = 0.0177 rad/day given in subsection 3.4.1. −7 those using DE200.” Note that: ωa.t. = ω∼annual 2.0 10 rad/sec. ≈ × We may conclude: firstly, that the existence of In the literature on the Pioneer anomaly, the a true-annual residual, arising from parameter inac- annual residual is usually vaguely linked to Earth ori- ∼ curacies similar to those causing the diurnal residual entation and position error, and/or spacecraft point- does exist, but its amplitude is below the level of the ing error. To estimate the magnitude of the annual ∼ Doppler data’s accuracy. This view is supported by the residual directly is an uncertain exercise; (and) we are spectral analyses of Levy et al. (2009, Section 4) and basically restricted to a comparative analysis involv- Toth (2009, Section 4.4). Secondly, (we conclude) that ing pulsar timing measurements and ephemerides ac- the annual residual’s unaccountably large amplitude, curacy. by process∼ of elimination, appears to be spacecraft- If the annual residual’s amplitude, arising from based and real. Just what this ambiguous amplitude Earth and/or spacecraft position error, is below 100 actually represents is becoming a pressing concern. metres (corresponding to 0.02 mm s−1), then it is effec- This second conclusion need not necessarily be tively invisible to the analysis; and the observed larger ruled out by the aforementioned two references involv- amplitude annual residual may additionally exist, ing spectral analysis, because the sampling intervals and be spacecraft∼ based. This is distinctly likely be- are not uniform (Toth 2009, p.20), and the temporal cause the Earth’s heliocentric distance, at the time of duration of the ( annual) signature is quite long cf. ∼ 77In the 6 years of interval III (1992.5 to 1998.5) Jupiter total sample time. Further, Levy, Christophe, Métris, tracks, with respect to Pioneer 10’s location and trajectory, approximately +11o prograde, whereas Saturn’s po- 79Developmental Ephemeris 405 is used for the Pioneer sition remains essentially unchanged. Callisto’s prograde analysis 1987-1998. progression is thus ≈ 1.8o (relative to Titan) per 357.9 d 80Private communication with E. Myles Standish. The resonant cycle. This yields a shortening of the (360o) reso- reference cited then adds support to this number. Helio- nance cycle of ≈ 1.8 d. Note: ‘d’ indicates days. centric accuracy is ‘now’ i.e. circa 2006 (via DE410 and 78Determined by way of the “scalable set of annual oscil- EPM2004) approximately 2 m (Pitjeva 2005, p.183). lation amplitude values” given in the following paragraph. 81Standish: further email correspondence in 2004. 28 Paul G. ten Boom

Bério, Courty, & Reynaud (2010, Section 5) declare ring during interval III (1992-1998), exposes an am- that: “[their] fit82 indicates the presence of a signifi- biguity with the significantly smaller average value of − cant annual term though this periodicity was not de- interval III, i.e. 0.1053 mm s 1. No single reason can tected by the spectral analysis.” Interestingly, Levy be given with confidence83. A further mission to in- et al. (2010, Section 4) indicate that: “[the] multi- vestigate and clarify such ambiguities is sorely needed. ple period searching method from Van Dongen et al. Nevertheless, an average value of about − as well as the SparSpec method indicate the presence 0.7 mms 1, corresponding to undulatory/oscillatory − − of a semi-annual period which was not detected by amplitudes of 1.4 10 8 cm s 2 and 3.5 km, seems to the first three methods considered; . . . ” They declare be the common ground× between the various analyses “a periodicity at (177 3.7) days”, which indicates an and the figures referred to above. Note that these last annual period (roughly)± within the range of 350 to two specific values only apply in situation-1 circum- 358∼ days. stances (recall subsection 3.2.10); i.e. an oscillatory Without our (real) model taking its first small Earth-based Doppler residual — or (alternatively) the steps, the ambiguity surrounding an explanation of the mismodelling of solar plasma effects upon the space- ‘annual’ signature would be inevitably sustained. craft’s ‘radio’ signal (Turyshev & Toth 2010, p.125). The (situation-1) derived annual acceleration and position variations (around their equilibrium values) 3.4.3 Average amplitude consensus, and are not quantitatively representative of (situation-2) discussion of amplitude ambiguity real Pioneer 10 spacecraft motion — i.e. after the anomalous shortfall effect (aP ) has been taken out. Removing the constant aP value from the Pioneer 10 analysis data leaves an annual signature, which un- This real scenario is examined in subsection 3.6.7. fortunately is of the same∼ order of magnitude as the noise/error of the data; ambiguity abounds. Figures 3.4.4 Concluding remarks on the ∼annual 13 and 17 of Anderson et al. (2002) appear to favour residual a “stationary” amplitude, within the stochastic noise; whereas Turyshev et al. (1999, Figure 1B) imply a Taken on their own, the period and amplitude analyses non-stationary (dampened) value. One recent anal- are not galvanising in their discrediting of an Earth- ysis, Olsen (2007, Figures 1,4,5), favours neither and based residual — so as to be in favour of a spacecraft- based annual residual. But taken together, and in further complicates the situation by also finding ap- ∼ parent stochastic behaviour in the signature. Further, conjunction with the accuracy of the diurnal residuals Olsen highlights the amplitude’s sensitivity to the (200 ( 1.9 metres), they demand a rethink of the (reasonably± well supported) annual residual and the nature day) correlation time. The stochastic-like appearance ∼ of the Olsen residuals loosely supports a hypothesis of of temporal aP variation. A superposition of various (linear) superposition of periodic effects — the dom- undulation effects is conceivably implicated. Further inant one being the annual residual ( 355 days, discussion regarding the quantification, and the phys- ∼ ≈ ical basis, of the annual residual is presented in sub- recalling subsection 3.4.1). ∼ Significantly, Olsen (2007, p.396) says there is no section 3.6.7. clear annual variation for Pioneer 11, which is at odds with Nieto & Anderson (2005, Section 5) and An- 3.5 Molding the Model derson et al. (2002). Surely, an Earth-based residual should not exhibit such vagaries between analyses? In contrast to Turyshev et al. (2006), who (among oth- This reinforces our leaning towards multiple periodic ers) promoted a constant/static (magnitude) aP be- contributors, of different amplitudes, in the temporal hind the noise of observations, the stance of this arti- data. Certainly, other non-periodic factors influence cle is to accept variance of the Pioneer anomaly data the data, thus “clouding” the veracity of this stance. around its long-term constant mean as real and indica- Fortunately, a consensus upon the average ampli- tive of the mechanism underlying the anomaly. It is tude of the annual residual, in the Pioneer 10 data, reassuring that this feature is now supported by Tu- can be established.∼ ryshev & Toth (2010, p.121). Additionally, (herein) In the month of data given by Anderson et al. long-term (anomalous acceleration) constancy — as a (2002, Figure 18, p.38) for the diurnal residual, cov- best fit term/result for the data — is seen to make ering about 30o of the annual anomaly’s cyclic pe- heat merely a secondary/non-major aspect of an ex- riod, a smooth amplitude increase of about 0.1mm s−1 planation (recall section 2.2). (to a maximum) over the 30 days is evident. If this − − implies [via (1 cos 30o) 1 = (0.134) 1 7.5] a speed − 3.5.1 Aspects of the mechanism sinusoid amplitude− of 0.75 mm s 1 then≈ this roughly agrees with the Markwardt∼ (2002) annual value of So far in this paper a number of features of a mecha- − 10mHz or 0.65 mm s 1. Olsen (2007,∼ Equation 13) nism have been implied; in point form these are: − − concurs with a stated value of 1.5 10 8 cm s 2 (cor- − 83 responding to 0.75 mm s 1). × Possibly, this amplitude mitigation arises from alter- ations to the Kalman filter estimation of the data, in con- Of some concern is that the aforementioned data, junction with occasional upgrades to the Deep Space Net- especially the 1996 diurnal-data based value occur- work System that monitors spacecraft. Why? In order to appease the awkwardly large amplitude of a (wrongly) per- 82Albeit involving a true-annual periodicity. ceived Earth-based residual. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 29

1. Compound (i.e. steady and unsteady) motion in a systemic reference frame, and an Eulerian Solar Ecliptic Longitude – first, middle & last data points (point-based84) analysis, was instigated. 2. Sinusoidal field undulations (amplitude ∆a) lead Date Pioneer 10 Pioneer 11 to (sinusoidal) speed undulations (∆v) in the 4 Jan 87 70.8 254.8 motion of the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft. 15 Nov 88 261.0 3. The individual field undulations are (each) required to have constant amplitude. To appease 1 Oct 90 265.6 GR’s need for no preferred location (i.e. posi- 15 Sept 92 74.4 tional invariance), this amplitude constancy extends out to “infinity”85. 22 July 98 76.4 4. For each undulation a shortfall in predicted speed occurs (δv), in conjunction with an oscil- Average of 73.6 260.2 latory motion effect (∆v) around a mean value. 1st & last 5. The moons of the solar system are implicated; by 0 way of subsections: 3.3.5 (position), 3.4.1 (pe- 0 Ecliptic plane as viewed down riod ‘resonance’), and also 3.5.2 ( annual phase from north ecliptic pole difference between Pioneer 10 and∼ 11). 4.74 P10 4.74 0 6. Physically, the Pioneer anomaly is considered to 4.173 0 be associated with the summation of (specific) 1 2 0 0 kinetic energy (‘loss’ or) shortfalls [ 2 (δv) or 90 270 1 2 ( 2 δv ) ] over their various cycle durations (∆t). 2 2 0 7. ap = ap(t) = (δaproper)i = (∆afield)i P11 0.261 where δa = δv/p∆Pt, and ap (as comparedpP to aP ) refers to the model’s (theoretical) estimation of the (observed) Pioneer anomaly (aP ). 8. Multiple amplitudes and periods of the field undulations — by virtue of different moons pro- 1800 ducing different field undulations — gives the impression of both periodic and stochastic be- 86 haviour in the aP (t) data . Figure 3: Schematic diagram and table showing the direction (in the ecliptic plane, relative to the Further aspects and ramifications, of the mecha- barycentre) of the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft for nism being formulated, are developed and discussed in the mid-time of the Anderson et. al. data set (1987- the following subsections. 1998). Note that the Pioneer 11 data spans only 3.75 years. The diagram’s vectors only indicate di- 3.5.2 Field undulations as planar rotating rection (i.e. solar ecliptic longitude), and not po- space-warps, and lunar comment sition. The angle of 173.4 degrees is maintained

2 2 when the average of the first and last data values ap = ap(t) = (δaproper)i = (∆afield)i (i.e. are used. Ecliptic longitude data was acquired from Equation 12) isp applicableP for durationspP much longer http://cohoweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/helios/heli.html than the various (∆t) oscillation periods [or (i.e.) the (∆t)i values]. This equation indicates that acceleration/gravitational field undulations coexist with their respective rates of (spacecraft proper) motion shortfall. The nature of the field undulations, and resonances This evidence confines the (constant acceleration thereof, are constrained by observational evidence. amplitude) field undulations to rotating space-warps; The difference in phase between the Pio- rotating at the rate, and in the directional sense, of o neer 10 and 11 [ annual] waves is 173.2o, their associated moon. The angle of 173.2 is pro- 87 similar to the angular∼ separation of the grade , stretching from Pioneer 11 to Pioneer 10 (see two spacecraft in ecliptic longitude (Nieto Figure 3). We hypothesise that this implies the (lunar & Anderson 2005, Section 5). ‘centered’) individual rotating space-warps are disk- like and aligned with (or near to) the plane of the 84Recalling that the solar system’s scale is so vast that moon’s orbit around its host planet88 (see Figure 4 to from a systemic (barycentric) perspective the spacecrafts’ change in speed and position, over time ∆t, is effectively 87So as to be compatible with Callisto and Titan’s negligible. prograde spin motion/direction. These spin directions 85Infinity in the sense of mathematical infinity; physi- are/were established by way of: i) the planets’ prograde (di- cally, this means an extension to the ‘end of the universe’ rection of) orbit, and ii) the formation process that (gravi- — which itself is a somewhat ambiguous concept. tationally) ‘bound’ these large moons to their host planets. 86Albeit, with a fairly small mean deviation from the 88The rotating space-warp is similar to a warped rigid (constant) mean (rate of speed shortfall) value. (vinyl) record, in that it retains its ‘shape’ and orientation 30 Paul G. ten Boom

Figure 7). Further, spacecraft motion inclined to the space-warp’s plane-of-orientation is seen to also receive the full motion shortfall (per moon, per cycle). For spacecraft motion, geometrically oﬀset/inclined to the Doppler line-of-sight observations, a cosine angle correction is required. For Pioneer 10 and 11 (1987-1998) this correction is very minor (see subsection 6.5.8).

f f

f Figure 5: The first of three (‘snapshot’) views of a rotating space-warp shown in a three-dimensional grid- Figure 4: Schematic representation of a non-warped like representation. The Z axis represents acceleration thin disk ‘of’ space, that can conceivably be curved perturbation (away) from ‘standard’ conditions, i.e. or warped; further, this warp (or perturbation) can additionally curved space. Front and side elevation conceivably rotate. This planar disk extends to the views (Figures 6 and 7) are preceded by this elevated ‘end’ of the universe, with this feature represented by view lying roughly midway between the front elevation the ‘infinity’ symbol. By way of contrast, Figures 5, and side elevation views. Note that (beyond the first 6 and 7 shall illustrate the (curved space) ‘shape’ of grid line) points at a constant radius from the central the (gravito-quantum) rotating space-warps proposed point have a Z (i.e. acceleration/curvature) value that in this paper, for which the acceleration/gravitational varies sinusoidally around the ‘circumference’; further- perturbations (∆a) deviate from zero — i.e. deviate more, the rate of (space-warp) rotation coincides with from the flat space scenario illustrated above. Note the rate of rotation and duration (∆t) of a (suitable) that space itself does not rotate; rather our concern lies moon in spin-orbit ‘resonance’ around its host planet. with the rotation of a curvature of space — similar (in part) to both: the rotation of a warped vinyl record, and wave propagation upon an ocean.

space landscape90, with Earth’s moon not being a contributor/‘generator’. The point based nature of the Eulerian analy- Importantly, with Io, Europa, and Ganymede be- sis, and our conceptualisation of gravitation as curved ing in a 4:2:1 orbital resonance (with one another), space, favours a purely two-dimensional circumstance their contribution to the ‘variation’ of ap(t) about its — which then needs to be modified to suit three- mean value ap(t) [designated/signified as: ∆ap(t)], is dimensional space (see subsection 6.2.1). Previously, a conceivably one of (additional) attenuation. Hence the (non-rotating) spherical undulation was envisaged by (356 day) Callisto-Titan cyclic/‘beat’ repetition, evi- the author (ten Boom 2005), but a perturbed (inher- denced by the annual residual and ‘sensitive’ to the ently) planar or disk-like (rotating) phenomenon is de- use of a 200-day∼ correlation time (see subsections 3.6.7 manded by the observational evidence and simple har- and 3.6.8), is the significant characteristic of the tem- monic motion’s (ω-based) mathematical relationships. poral variation of aP (i.e. the Pioneer anomaly). In three dimensions the phenomenon/mechanism is cylinder-like — although open and of ‘infinite’ extent. 3.5.3 Anomalous CMB results and lunar Not all moon-planet-sun systems are suitably con- spin plane rotating space-warps figured to “generate” a rotating space-warp89. In Sec- tion 6 we shall see that Jupiter’s four Galilean moons Interestingly, anomalous cosmic microwave back- and Saturn’s Titan dominate the undulated curved ground (CMB) results — by way of the Wilkin- son Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) — im- throughout a rotation. plicate a solar system ecliptic plane effect as possi- 89Suitability involves: i) lunar 1:1 spin-orbit resonance ‘around’ its host planet, and ii) a certain relationship be- 90The smallest of these, Europa, is “. . . more massive tween: lunar angular progression around the planet, and than all known moons in the Solar System smaller than the (host) planet’s progression angle around the Sun. itself combined [Wikipedia: Europa (moon), 2011-12 ].” A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 31

see Copi, Huterer, Schwarz, & Starkman (2010). At present, there is no good reason why maps of temperature anisotropies in the CMB should be correlated with any geometric features belonging to our local (solar) system. In the anisotropic power spectrum the low multi- pole vectors, quadrupole (l = 2) and octopole (l = 3), have an unexplained alignment to: each other, and the geometry and direction of motion of the solar system91. Note that the simple dipole (l = 1) is interpreted as resulting from the Doppler shift caused by the solar system’s motion relative to the nearly isotropic (cosmic microwave) background field. The physical nature of the (cosmological size) rotating space-warps (RSWs) proposed herein influence all low mass bodies92, and conceivably all photons, equally. These (gravito-quantum) RSWs are axisymmetric (and rotationally symmetric), ‘bound’ to, and based in the solar system. Jupiter’s Galilean moons dominate the new mechanism, and their inclination angles are offset less than 2o from the ecliptic plane. Interestingly, for each rotating space-warp, the Figure 6: Side elevation view of a (gravito-quantum) wave-like (specific) energy (∆e) involved in the new rotating space-warp. Note that the colour scale merely mechanism may be expressed (recalling end of subsec- illustrates changes in the contour colours on the diation 3.2.12) as the square of either: a speed undula- gram, with maximum and minimum amplitudes occur- tion (∆v), or an oscillatory acceleration/gravitational ring at 1.00 and 1.00 respectively. − field (∆a). A common signature in the octopole and quadrupole, that supplements the dipole (l = 1), is conceivable93. With CMB photons arriving (at Earth) from all different directions, it may well be that the presence of the (foreground) influence of a superposition of RSWs affects the measurement of CMB photons in a non-isotropic manner94. Section 7 discusses a very different type of foreground influence that (also) may arise from the model.

3.5.4 Steep increase of Pioneer 11 anomaly ‘around’ Saturn encounter discussed Observations, concerning Pioneer 11 in particular rather than Pioneer 10, indicate that the (aforementioned) root sum of squares (RSS) approach to aP (t) appears to not apply for Pioneer 11 ‘between’ Jupiter and Saturn. Subsequently, the RSS approach appears to be restricted to the case of all acceleration ﬁeld undulations, in the form of rotating space-warps, having the same direction of rotation with respect to the spacecraft’s direction of motion. This is certainly the case for the Pioneer 10 analysis spanning 1987 to 1998 (40 to 70.5 AU), where Pioneer 10 is beyond the orbital radius of all planets in the solar system. Figure 7: Front elevation view of a (gravito-quantum) In the case of the Pioneer 11 S/C between Jupiter rotating space-warp (RSW). Unfortunately, the actual and Saturn, the space-warp rotations associated with (planar) rotational motion around the central point Saturn and Jupiter’s (prograde) moons are opposed cannot be shown in this ﬁxed/still image. at the S/C — see Nieto (2007, p.10 Figure 2) and Anderson et al. (2002, Figure 3) for S/C trajectories.

91Additionally, the quadrupole’s magnitude is significantly less than expected, and the third octopole alignment correlation involves the supergalactic plane (SGP). bly influencing the otherwise isotropic CMB radia- 92Below a mass cut-off threshold. tion data (Copi, Huterer, Schwarz, & Starkman 2007; 93Possibly some vector cross product effect is involved. de Oliveira-Costa, Tegmark, Zaldarriaga, & Hamil- 94Three of the four planes determined by the quadrupole ton 2004; Huterer 2006). For a recent review article and octopole are orthogonal to the ecliptic plane. 32 Paul G. ten Boom

At this stage, we shall assume the spacecrafts’s path- tion of travel is at a large angle away from the line-of- based response (to the different individual rotating sight. Thirdly, the data point is for the not so rigorous space-warps) is one of simple superposition — as is earlier analysis. the case with the rigorous Pioneer 10 analysis (beyond Alternatively, and somewhat necessarily, it may be the outer solar system). the case that (in late 1977) the opposing (rotational) We treat the individual and different (simple har- direction of Titan’s rotating space-warp (later97 found − − monic) speed variations/oscillations acting on the to have amplitude/magnitude 3.35 10 8 cm s 2), spacecraft [v = v(t)= ∆v sin(ωt ϕ)] , in response which opposes the ‘spin’ direction× of Jupiter’s four − − to individual acceleration/gravitational field varia- ‘Galilean’ rotating space-warps (RSWs), introduces a 98 tions/undulations [afield = (∆afield) sin(ωt ϕ)], in the further type of destructive interference (not previ- − manner of interfering ocean waves — with the different ously appreciated). This (other) interference affects ∆afield amplitudes replacing wave height amplitudes. the acceleration/gravitation field (amplitude ∆afield) The unequal period times (or angular frequencies) of superposition prior to its affect upon spacecraft proper the (sinusoidal) field undulations results in periods of motion and acceleration. This subsection’s previous constructive and destructive interference at the space- discussion of superposition assumed all the individ- craft. Thus, the superposition of spacecraft speed un- ual acceleration/gravitation fields fully participate (i.e. dulations/oscillations, and consequently (also) the real standard linear system addition/superposition by way time (effective/overall rate of) monotonic speed short- of their coexistence) when they influence the path- fall [ap(t)], can be quite variable — with this occurring based variation of spacecraft speed around the S/C’s over extended periods of time (of the order of days, mean value (v) — with this implicitly being the case weeks and months). Later (in Section 6) we shall see in the outer solar system (and thus/also throughout that moon size is (indirectly and roughly) indicative of the rest of this paper). Consequently, an anomalous undulation amplitude, and thus the effects of Saturn’s acceleration aP (t) (near 6 AU in late 1977) of around − − Titan and Jupiter’s four Galilean moons dominate the 0.7 10 8 cm s 2 is conceivable — especially with model. Jupiter× and Saturn on opposing sides of the Pioneer With Pioneer 11 redirected from Jupiter across the 11 spacecraft at this ‘position’ in space and time, see solar system to Saturn [see diagram (Nieto 2007, Fig- Nieto (2007, Figure 2). ure 2)], the line-of-sight correction to aP is significant If this alternative/‘richer’ second scenario is indeed — persisting (even) after Saturn encounter (but to a the valid case, the model then conceivably predicts that much lesser extent). Subsequently, as Pioneer 11 ap- the noise/variation of the ap(t) data ‘between’ Jupiter proaches Saturn, an (assumed) Sun-directed Pioneer and Saturn [i.e. (∆ap)mean] should be at least some- anomaly would ‘appear’ smaller; and after the space- what muted when compared to the mean variation of craft has encountered Saturn the anomaly steadily ap(t) in the outer solar system — all other things being rises to its standard value (Turyshev et al. 2006). Also equal (ceteris paribus). see Anderson et al. (2002, Figure 7), noting the exceedingly large error bar “around” Saturn encounter. The shape of the best fit line is consistent with the 3.5.5 Spin rate changes may support a real notion of a path to line-of-sight (cosine angle based) Pioneer anomaly correction. Awkwardly, the Doppler-based late 1977 (10-day sample interval) data point (at 6AU) (An- There were opposing variations of spin rate changes − − derson et al. 2002, Figure 7) of < 2 ∼10 8 cm s 2 for the two Pioneers between manoeuvres, Pioneer 10 implies a near removal of respective× shortfall rates, down and Pioneer 11 up (Anderson et al. 2002, Figures which is a concern for the model and our (initial ap- 11,12). A real basis to these quite precise variations is proach) to explaining this Pioneer 11 ‘discrepancy’. almost unavoidable. Even with a near 40% ( 52o) line-of-sight to path 95 ∼ angle reduction in aP , and a large variation in effec- For the Pioneers there were anomalous tive/overall aP around its mean value at the time of spin-rate changes that could be correlated 96 measurement — i.e. a reduction in aP equal to the with changes of the exact values of the − − amplitude of the annual residual (1.4 10 8 cm s 2) short-term aP . The correlations between ∼ × the spin-rate changes and aP were good — the model predicts measured ap of barely less than − − −8 −2 to 0.2 10 8 cm s 2 and better (Nieto & 4.0 1.33 10 cm s . × ±The mitigating× circumstance of this concern is that Turyshev 2004, p.4019). the data point’s magnitude is contentious (in this au- The Pioneer spacecrafts’ solar system motion is hy- thor’s opinion) for a number of reasons. Firstly, solar perbolic orbits in roughly opposing directions. The radiation pressure is significantly greater than a [see P not solely linear-radial (outward) motion of the S/C, Anderson et al. (2002, Figure 6)]. Secondly, Doppler in conjunction with the proposed (prograde) rotating tracking data and the orbit determination program’s space-warp mechanism, may have some bearing upon accuracy are somewhat compromised when the direc- an explanation of this unusually precise correlation. 95 −8 −2 By way of using aP = 8.74 ± 1.33 × 10 cm s as a reference value. 97See Table 5 in section 6.5. 96The short 10-day sample interval for the data point 98In addition to the scalar constructive and destructive (Anderson et al. 2002, pp.17-18) needs to be at a low point (amplitude) interference that arises from the superposition in the (superposition-based) temporal variation of aP (t). of multiple sinusoidal ‘signals’. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 33

3.6 The model’s relationship to the This superposition results in the maximum (possible) Pioneer observational evidence amplitude of (residual) proper acceleration being:

In section 3.2 we investigated single/solitary acceler- (∆ap)max = (∆aproper)i (13) ation field undulations and their associated: (proper) X speed, proper acceleration, and position undulations Although involving space curvature/deformation, this — about their respective mean values. We then es- superposition is (assumed to be) conceptually and tablished/deciphered the overall motion shortfall rate mathematically analogous to a superposition involv- arising from the coexistence of multiple field undula- ing ocean wave heights (for example). In subsection tions, with this being the model’s value for the Pio- 3.6.4, we discuss why this (superposition-based) ac- neer anomalous acceleration (ap). In this section we celeration summation, from a reconciliation with the turn our attention to further effects arising from multi- observational evidence perspective, is considered sec- ple acceleration/gravitational field undulations affect- ondary to a (superposition-based) summation of speed ing the motion of a (‘low mass’) body or spacecraft. amplitudes:

(∆vp)max = (∆vproper)i (14) 3.6.1 A two component Doppler residual X & the main objective of this section where each v = v(t) = ∆vproper sin(ωt ϕ), with each of the speed and acceleration− undulatory− ampli- In addition to residuals arising from measurement tudes related by (a number of alternative expressions): noise, the (sinusoidal) motion/speed and acceleration variations arising from the model’s (multiple) rotat- ∆a =(ωrad/2π)∆v = ωcyc∆v = f∆v =∆v/∆t ing space-warps shall also be classed as residuals. In the absence of this further effect, measurement This amplitude relationship is indicative of situation-2 102 noise is (simply) the difference between the calcu- circumstances applying — i.e. real/non-pseudo ce- lated/expected99 and observed/measured Doppler val- lestial simple harmonic motion (arising from rotating 100 m 1 ues ; but herein this difference shall include the space-warps). Subsequently, ∆vcyc with units [ s cycle ] m 1 model’s additional (residual/variation) component. — as compared to ∆vrad with units [ s rad ] — is im- Unlike the monotonic anomalous acceleration plied by the use of ∆v [or (∆v)i ‘component’] values. (speed shortfall rate) previously discussed, the mean Previously (Equation 12 in subsection 3.2.13), the speed and mean acceleration arising from the model’s model quantified (and defined) the Pioneer anomaly’s undulatory/sinusoidal effects — once the monotonic magnitude103 as: anomalous acceleration is removed (or corrected for) — 2 2 is zero. Thus, the proper motion and proper accelera- ap = ap(t)= (δaproper)i = (∆afield)i tion (amplitude) variations around their ‘equilibrium’ qX qX condition shall be referred to as “residual proper mo- This root sum squared approach, based upon the var- tion” and “residual proper acceleration” respectively. ious rate of speed shortfalls (per cycle) (δa = δv/∆t), In this section we firstly examine the nature of the is quite different to the maximum amplitude expres- model’s temporal amplitude ‘variation’101 of residual sions of superposed acceleration and speed presented proper acceleration, taking note of its relation to the above (Equations 13 and 14 respectively) — even variation of aP through time [i.e. aP (t)]; and sec- though each δa = ∆a. This distinction is due to 2 | 2| ondly, variation in the residual proper motion/speed (δa) =(δv/∆t) being proportional to the rate of (un- — (in both cases) after adjustments/corrections for: steady) energy (per cycle), whereas the superposition the spacecraft’s predicted trajectory, systematics, and of individual motion/speed (perturbation) sinusoids the constant (per unit time) Pioneer anomalous speed and the proper acceleration sinusoids (derived from shortfall, have been made. Initially, we are interested them) are based upon sinusoidal motion. In this sec- in short-term temporal variations, of the order of days tion (3.6), it is the undulatory/sinusoidal (residual) and weeks; whereas later in this section, medium and proper motion (or speed) arising from a superposi- long-term variations are considered, particularly the tion of multiple (rotating space-warp based) acceler- annual residual. ation/gravitational fields that is being examined. ∼ 3.6.2 Superposition of (sinusoidal) proper 3.6.3 Background information concerning acceleration and proper velocity the (discrete) Pioneer observations Multiple acceleration/gravitational field ‘undulations’ Both Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and The Aerospace Corporation (Aerospace) assign a standard (afield)i = [∆afield sin(ωt ϕ)]i , and/or the space- − craft proper acceleration undulations (represented by) 102Recalling Equation 10 and the distinction between (aproper)i = [ ∆aproper cos(ωt ϕ)]i , are assumed to situation-1 and situation-2 established in subsection 3.2.10. − − 103 coexist in, and be described by, a simple superposition. Fortuitously, because ap(t) has a long-term constant mean — primarily by way of constant rotating space-warp 99 As ‘determined’ by (a particular) orbit determination (∆afield)i amplitude values and constant (ω)i values — program. long-term (mean) ap(t) may be written (simply) as ap . We 100Utilising the NASA Deep Space Network. note that each (Sun-planet-moon system based) set of: δa, 101 As compared to ‘variance’, as used in probability theory ∆aproper, ∆v, and δv values also have fixed/constant mag- and statistics. nitudes — both temporally and spatially. 34 Paul G. ten Boom

(1-σ) uncertainty of 1 mm/s over a 60 second count corresponds to the quasi-periodic (or alternatively time for the S-band Doppler data (Anderson et al. quasi-stochastic) variation of speed implicated by the 108 2002, p.10) — after calibration for transmission media model , especially (∆vp)max (as defined by Equation effects104. It takes nearly 2 weeks for the anomalous 14 in subsection 3.6.2). This ‘correspondence’ is quan- − − acceleration (8.74 10 10 m s 2) to achieve a 1 mm/s titatively addressed in subsection 3.6.6. motion anomaly/shortfall.× This is some 20,000 times In subsection 3.6.5 we shall give a brief overview of 1 longer than the 60 second count time, and some 13 2 the model’s ∆ap variation/range, noting that there is a times greater than the total anomalous change in speed disconnect between this variation and the variation ap- over a 1-day time scale. Over the substantially longer parent in the aP data points, that are determined over 1 time scale of 3 months, the uncertainty circum- the course of the 11 2 year long-term (Pioneer 10) rig- stance (for the∼ Doppler data) is similar in that: the orous data analysis period (3 Jan 1987 to 22 July 1998) Doppler residuals (from both JPL’s and Aerospace’s — see Anderson et al. (2002, Figures 13, 14 and 17). analyses) — with the anomalous acceleration taken out This is because the model’s derived proper accelera- — are distributed about zero Doppler velocity with a tion sinusoid amplitudes: ∆a =∆v/∆t , do not have a systematic variation of 3.0 mm/s (Anderson et al. common temporal basis, in that the cycle/period du- 2002, p.19 & p.37). ∼ ration (∆t) is different for each ∆a. For a summation The noise of the raw data, especially (thermal (rather than a superposition) of the monotonic mo- or) plasma noise105, together with the use of just 5 tion shortfall rates (δa = δv/∆t), this “timing issue” data points per day on average106, effectively masks is not a concern. Note that these two preceding (and any clear, continuous and unambiguous signature in similar) equalities involve the following relationship of m m 1 cycle the aP (t) observational data — other than the con- units: [ s2 ] = [ s cycle ][ s ]. Neither is this timing stant ‘frequency’/velocity drift (cf. predictions) that issue a concern for the model’s ∆v values (recall sub- is the “Pioneer anomaly” and (to a lesser extent) the section 3.2.10), because these are actual values acces- annual residual. Upon removing the anomaly, the sible to ‘real time’ observations — irrespective of their ∼ ‘noise’ in the data and the manner of its determination, (pedantic) ‘per cycle’ unit basis in the model. makes an accurate ‘real time’ continuous assessment of Somewhat restating the above: with discrete (line- the very short-term (i.e. minutes or hours) temporal of-sight) Doppler velocity data as the primary “means behaviour of vp(t)= [v(t)]i and ap(t)= [a(t)]i an of observational contact”, there is a tension/disconnect 107 impractical/unrealisticP task . P between the model’s approach to sinusoidal acceleration terms, and observational acceleration, with the 3.6.4 The difficulty associated with assess- latter derived via a rate of change of discrete velocity ing the temporal variation in aP (t) measurements (with respect to time) — i.e. observation time, which is based upon the standard unit of sec- The major difficulty associated with relating the onds. In short, the conversion from observational dis- temporal variation in observational anomalous ac- crete speed/velocity ‘data points’ to acceleration val- celeration aP (t) to the model’s temporal variation ues overlooks the ‘time span’ adjustments required to in ap(t) is that observational aP (t) is derived from correctly ascertain the (sinusoid-based) proper accel- non-continuous Doppler velocity data ‘points’. Even eration component values, and hence the actual (su- though the raw Doppler data is received continuously, perposed) physical variation of (anomalous/residual) this data is (then) integrated over a time interval to proper acceleration [i.e. ap(t)] proposed and formu- give an average for the interval. lated by the model. Recall that the spacecraft’s over- With the raw observations directly addressing all ‘proper acceleration’ is the acceleration that would spacecraft speed, rather then acceleration, and in light be displayed by a (sufficiently sensitive) onboard ac- of observational and data processing circumstances celerometer, and thus in principle the ‘residual’ proper that impinge upon the Doppler data, our main fo- acceleration is measurable/determinable — after cor- cus shall be upon a comparison involving how well recting for the effects of standard (Newtonian and) the variation/range in observed Doppler velocity data general relativistic gravitation. Subsequently, with the actual observational varia- 104The dominant systematic error that can affect S-band tracking data is ionospheric transmission delays (Turyshev tion in aP not being indicative/representative of the & Toth 2010, p.60). model’s ap(t) variation (around a mean value), the 105Notwithstanding the implementation of a batch- model’s relationship to the (Doppler speed/velocity) sequential filtering and smoothing algorithm used in con- observational data evidence is restricted to a purely junction with JPL’s Orbit Determination Program (Ander- velocity basis. As such, the model’s value of (∆vp)max, son et al. 2002, p.16). i.e. the maximum range of (the superposed resul- 106Based on 20055 data points for Pioneer 10 over an 11 1 2 tant) v (t), is of vital importance; it supplements the year period, cf. Pioneer 11 with 10616 data points over its p 3 measurement noise/residuals inherent to Doppler data 3 4 year analysis period (Anderson et al. 2002, p.20); i.e. approximately 5 and 8 data points per day, respectively. based spacecraft navigation. The model’s (∆vp)max 107These comments are in no way meant to disparage the value is quantified in subsection 3.6.6. data analysis performed by: JPL, the Aerospace Corpo- ration, or other investigators. The intricacy and compre- 108With its superposition of multiple (constant and very hensiveness of the orbit determination programs are espe- small amplitude) sinusoidal gravitational/accelerational cially awe inspiring. Indeed, the model presented herein, field effects, all of which have different frequencies, and the by way of merely dealing with the anomalous acceleration associated superposition of (multiple) sinusoidal speed vari- and residuals, is decidedly less intricate (in this regard). ations/perturbations. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 35

3.6.5 The model’s (∆ap)max value and the sociated with the four Galilean moons) are dependent attenuation of maximum amplitude upon their orbital location, but (it shall become apparent later that) there is no basis for this assumption. By way of Table 5 in subsection 6.5.3 and Equation Notwithstanding this qualifying remark, Galilean lu- −10 −2 13, (∆ap)max 18.3 10 m s , which is approx- ≈ × nar orbital resonance will influence periodicity in the imately twice aP , as compared to the observational vp(t) data, but it does not follow that their resonant evidence (Anderson et al. 2002, Figures 13, 14 and motion involves significant/major attenuation in the 17) which implies (∆ap)max < aP . For convenience range/variation of the Doppler data110. We argue (be- the individual acceleration amplitudes — that are ac- low) that the attenuation is no greater than 12 percent, tually derived much later in the paper — have been by way of one (i.e. the least) of the five major moons included/previewed in Table 1. As previously men- being unable to contribute to a maximum superpositioned (see discussion in subsections 3.6.3 and 3.6.4), tion magnitude/amplitude. the variation/range of aP (t) is not symptomatic of the In determining the Doppler data, a ‘batch- model’s range/variation in ap(t). Furthermore, subsec- sequential’ method111 was implemented by JPL (utilis- tion 3.6.2 illustrated the quite different summation for- ing a 1-day, 5-day, or 200-day batch duration), and the mulations for the motion shortfall rates (δa), as com- data is filtered, weighted and smoothed. Although this pared to the sinusoidal motion amplitudes (∆v) and (data processing) would appear to possibly result in at- their rate of change ∆a (= ∆v/∆t). Consequently, tenuation of the vp(t) [and ap(t)] data, it is a technique we shall (from here on) largely restrict our (temporal associated with orbit determination; and as such, it re- variation based) discussion to the validity of the reduces measurement noise. Thus, the range/variation lationship between: the model’s (∆vp)max value, and of the model’s vp(t) [and ap(t)] (residual) values do not the range/variation of the observational Doppler ve- incur attenuation as a result of its use. locity/speed data residuals. We also need to take into Consequently, neither of these two possible (model- consideration the typical level/magnitude of noise in based) attenuation factors, nor the implementation of the Doppler measurement ‘process’. batch-sequential processing, are seen to cause any ma- Attenuation of the maximum possible amplitude jor attenuation (i.e. > 15%) of the model’s proposed variation of the model’s vp(t) values [i.e. (∆vp)max] variation/range in the vp(t) data and (specifically) the conceivably arises in two main ways. Firstly, with five magnitude of (∆vp)max. By way of Table 1 we see that major moons involved (six including the much lesser the contributions from different moons are not equal. role played by Neptune’s Triton) and their fairly short Of the five moons that dominate the model, Europa period durations ranging from Io’s 1.77 days to Cal- is the smallest contributor to maximum speed ampli- listo’s 16.69 days, any maximum/minimum value is 112 tude [(∆vp)max] . With regard to Galilean moon or- short lived — being of the order of hours (and minutes) bital resonance, the removal of Europa’s contribution rather then days. With a longest data integration time leads to an attenuation effect upon (∆vp)max of about of 1980 seconds (33 min) and count times (and data in- 1 5 2 % of the ‘overall’ total; and 11% if (directly) op- tegration times) of 10 and 60 seconds quite typical (Tu- posed/negative (which is unlikely). Indeed, it is more ryshev & Toth 2010, p.58) — although ‘Aerospace’ had likely that the attenuation in maximum speed/velocity a preference for the longer count times of 600 and 1980 amplitude (from Galilean moon orbital resonance) is seconds (Anderson et al. 2002, p.10) — the attenua- 1 closer to 5 2 %. tion in (∆vp)max (arising from this short-term feature Importantly, the model will be rendered invalid if of the model) is almost negligible109 , and we shall as- the ‘standard’ long-term maximum amplitude varia- sume it to be < 3 %. In other words, the observational tion of the observed Doppler velocity data — indepen- data’s sampling rate is considered sufficiently dense so as to ‘appreciate’ (i.e. largely not miss) the shortest- 110Later, we shall see that these initial phases — although term temporal variation(s) in vp(t) propounded by the ‘knowable’ in principle (but not currently determinable in model. practice) — have (herein) not been ascertained. Secondly, attenuation conceivably arises by way of 111“Though the name may imply otherwise, batch- the orbital resonance of Jupiter’s Galilean moons: Io, sequential processing does not involve processing the data Europa and Ganymede, in that they are in a 4:2:1 in batches. Instead, in this approach any small anomalous resonance; and additionally by way of Ganymede and forces may be treated as stochastic parameters affecting the spacecraft trajectory. As such, these parameters are also re- Callisto which effectively display a (very near to, and sponsible for the stochastic noise in the observational data. subtle) 7:3 resonance. As such, all four (spin-orbit To characterize these noise sources, we split the data in- coupled/resonant) moons are never ‘aligned’ (on the terval into a number of constant or variable size batches same side of Jupiter), and thus their ‘related’ rotating with respect to the stochastic parameters, and make as- space-warps (RSWs) possibly never attain maximum sumptions on the possible statistical properties of the noise (constructive) or minimum (destructive) interference. factors. We then estimate the mean values of the unknown This preceding line of thought assumes that the (four) parameters within the batch and their second statistical moments (Turyshev & Toth 2010, p.81).” ‘initial’ phases [(ϕ)i] of the rotating space-warps (as- 112Whereas Callisto is the smallest (and Europa the second smallest) contributor to the (theoretical) monotonic 109By way of contrast, the ∼annual (356 day) beat dura- anomalous acceleration (i.e. speed shortfall rate) — re- tion of the Titan-Callisto superposition is a relatively much membering that ap is based upon a root sum squared longer-term variation. Indeed, it is the model’s longest- (RSS) derivation — and Callisto (necessarily also) makes term variation, primarily evidenced by its (long-term) am- the smallest contribution to proper acceleration amplitude plitude modulation. variation. 36 Paul G. ten Boom

Table 1: Lunar orbital periods & frequencies, and component proper acceleration and speed amplitudes.

MOONa Units Lunab Io Europa G’medec Callisto Titan Tritond Moon’s orbital period (days) 27.32 1.769 3.552 7.155 16.69 15.95 5.877 − − Moon orbit frequency (f) (10 6 s 1) 0.424 6.542 3.259 1.618 0.694 0.726 1.969 − Accel. amplitudee (∆a) (10 8 cm/s2) 0.00 5.139 2.190 5.354 1.884 3.348 0.416 Speed amplitudef (∆v) (10−2 mm/s) 0.00 7.855 6.719 33.10 27.17 46.12 2.112 Speed amplitudeg (∆v) (mHz) 0.00 1.205 1.031 5.076 4.167 7.074 0.324 aThe lunar data is taken from Table 2 in Section 6; with lunar orbital period and frequency rounded off to 3 or 4 significant figures. bEarth’s moon. cGanymede is abbreviated to G’mede. dRetrograde motion. eAcceleration amplitude data is taken from Table 5 (subsection 6.5.3), where it is called “weighted acceleration” (∆aw). Note that the square root of the summation of squared (weighted) acceleration is 8.64 10−8 cm s−2 without Triton, − − and 8.65 10 8 cm s 2 with Triton’s contribution; as compared to the Pioneer anom× aly’s quoted magnitude of × −8 −2 f −1 aP = 8.74 1.33 10 cm s . Based on ∆v =∆a/ωcyc =∆a/f. Note that ∆vmax = (∆v)i 1.23 mm s . g ± × −1 ≈ Via conversion factor of 10 mHz = 0.652 mm s (recalling subsection 3.3.3), with ∆vmax = (∆v)i 18.9 mHz. P ≈ P dent of large variations (and spikes) associated with 20 mHz and 25 mHz, respectively. Levy et al. manoeuvres and other spurious effects — fails to be (2010,± Section 5)± also found that the standard devi- consistent (i.e. a good ‘match’) with: expected mea- ation of their residuals was 9.8 mHz — i.e. about half surement noise, and more importantly, the model’s the model’s maximum variation. estimated value of (∆vp)max = (∆v)i (see subsec- We necessarily conjecture/hypothesise that the tion 3.6.6). Finally, we note thatP in addition to (mean measured (speed) residuals are the additive ‘resultant’ longer-term) aP being constant, the model’s (∆vp)max of both measurement noise, and the variation inherent and (∆ap)max values are also constant — at least as in the model’s instantiation of multiple and superposed regards the 3 Jan 1987 to 22 July 1998 data period sinusoidal speed variations — around a mean value. of Pioneer 10 when/where the spacecraft is far beyond This 20 to 25 mHz residual range (derived from the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn. the literature)± represents a median value (in the literature) in that: Anderson et al. (2002, Figure 13) has 3.6.6 Comparing the model’s velocity slightly smaller residuals114 (in general), whereas the range to the Doppler observations (later data Pioneer 10) residuals in Olsen (2007, Figure 2) are bigger (about 30 mHz). Olsen (2007, Figure 2) As previously mentioned, Table 1 previews results (rel- also displays an annual± (or annual) amplitude mod- evant to this section, i.e. 3.6), that are delivered much ulation, which is supportive∼ of the Callisto-Titan beat later in the paper. From the acceleration/gravitational behaviour discussed in subsection 3.5.2 and elaborated field amplitude values, and lunar (spin and) orbital upon in subsection 3.6.7. Interestingly, the (shorter ‘frequencies’, we establish the individual (contribut- sample duration) Pioneer 11 residuals in Olsen (2007, 113 ing) speed amplitudes (∆v). By way of: Equation Figure 6) have a (maximum) range of about 20 mHz, 14 (in subsection 3.6.2), noting that: 0.652 mm/s = which is also (roughly) the maximum amplitude of the 10 mHz (recall subsection 3.3.3), and neglecting the (non-spurious) CHASMP-based115 residuals displayed (minor) influence of attenuation effects, we have: in Anderson et al. (2002, Figure 9). Importantly, Levy et al. (2010, Section 4) note that: (∆vp)max = (∆v)i = 1.23 mm/s = 18.9 mHz “It should be emphasised that the level of the residuals X in [their] Fig. 7 is higher than the measurement noise. With 10% attenuation, this maximum value (or upper It is also clear from the figure that the postfit residuals bound) reduces to about 17 mHz, and with (an esti- do not correspond to white gaussian noise.” Further, mated maximum) 15% attenuation, this upper bound Turyshev & Toth (2010, Section 4.6, p.80) declare that: reduces to about 16 mHz. “Several, independent efforts to analyze the trajecto- It is reassuring that the (constant) amplitude ries of the two [Pioneer] spacecraft have demonstrated range/variation bound, established by the model, is that this [i.e. providing a model of as large a segment consistent (and somewhat less than) the residuals ‘gen- of the spacecrafts trajectory as possible, using a con- erated’ by: Levy et al. (2010, Figure 7), and Toth sistent set of parameters and minimizing the model (2009, Figure 2 top right diagram) — with effectively all of their (non-spurious) residuals spread between 114Possibly because it is based upon a weighted least- squares (WLS) approach cf. a batch-sequential filter (BSF) 113Note that we have adjusted the model’s (pedantic) cycle algorithmic approach (Anderson et al. 2002, p.23). m 1 115 speed amplitude and frequency units of [ s cycle ] and [ s ] Compact High Accuracy Satellite Motion Program. (respectively), to their observational (and more standard) Note that CHASMP employs a weighted least squares esti- format. As such, the [cycle] ‘unit’ has been left out. mation approach. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 37 residual] can be accomplished using multi-year spans ment with the 5-day ODP/SIGMA results116 — with of data with a root-mean-square model residual of no the latter using batch-sequential filtering with a 200- more than a few mHz [italics added].” day correlation time. Further, we note that the am- This quantitative circumstantial evidence, al- plitude range of the 200-day CHASMP data is closely though not directly supporting the model, is strongly related to (about three-quarters) the range/variation indirectly supportive of the proposed/hypothesised of the much shorter 5-day sample averages. model. Indeed, Levy et al. (2010, Section 5) found Assuming the information described by these: two that they could almost halve the standard deviation figures, three batch-sequential durations, and two orbit of their model’s residuals (down to 5.5 mHz from 9.8 determination programs (ODPs) are comparable117 , mHz) simply by introducing (into their model) peri- the implication is that most of the measurement (or odic terms — relating to the Earth’s diurnal and an- observational) ‘noise’ influencing the ODPs is short- nual periods. term (i.e. less than five days). Of interest, is the amplitude variation (around the long-term constant 3.6.7 The Callisto-Titan ‘beat’ amplitude mean value) that remains evident in the aP data [e.g. Anderson et al. (2002, Figure 14)], or equally, dominates the Doppler variation the variation of residual acceleration upon removal of From Table 1’s previewed results, we see that the am- aP . This situation is consistent with the model (be- plitude of the 356 day ( annual) Callisto-Titan beat ing proposed), in that in addition to the long-term period (recall subsection∼ 3.4.1) is 0.733 mm/s or 11.24 annual residual and short-term amplitude variations, −2 ∼ mHz, via (∆v)Callisto +(∆v)Titan = 73.3 10 mm/s. there will be two medium-term amplitude variations With this value being sizeable, at about× 60% of the (cf. modulations) that are associated with the pair- maximum speed amplitude predicted by the model ings of: Ganymede with Callisto, and Ganymede with [∆vmax = (∆vp)max = 1.231 mm/s ], and because this Titan. We note that these medium-term (spacecraft- ‘amplitude modulation’ has (by far) the longest period based) amplitude variations are ‘induced’ by (super- of any of the periodic amplitude variations within the posed pairs of) acceleration/gravitational fields, with model, it is necessarily the dominant long-term ampli- these fields (in turn) having ‘emanated’ from two lu- tude effect in the observed/measured Doppler residuals nar-based rotating space-warps. Finally, from Table 1 (predicted by the model). This ( annual/356-day pe- we see that these two medium-term variations have riod) amplitude modulation is clearly∼ evident in Olsen (superposed) amplitudes comparable to that of the (Titan with Callisto) annual residual, because Ti- (2007, Figure 2). ∼ From the model’s perspective, this ‘beat’ dura- tan, Ganymede, and Callisto (in that order) are the tion/frequency and associated amplitude modulation dominant proper motion/speed residuals. has been (in the literature) mistakenly understood as Interestingly, Iorio (2007, Section 3.1) notes that an Earth-based annual residual. Markwardt (2002) (with particular regard to the annual residual): was sufficiently concerned with its period that he re- “. . . changes in the [200-day] correlation time lead to ferred to it as the “ annual” residual. This subsec- quite different results with the Kalman filter.” The tion’s (model-based)∼ quantitative result — i.e. the model is able to propose an explanation for this cir- 0.73 mm/s (∆v) magnitude of the ‘annual’ residual — cumstance in that: with Ganymede and Callisto in is fully supportive of (and compatible with): the ob- a 7:3 orbital resonance relationship, that spans 50.1 servational evidence for the amplitude of the annual days — and Io, Europa and Ganymede in a 4:2:1 or- residual; as well as the line of argument, and∼ conclud- bital resonance — the use of a 200-day correlation time ing remarks presented in section 3.4’s fairly extensive is in remarkable synchronisation with four full 50-day discussion of this residual. We recall that in subsection cycles of this Ganymede-Callisto orbital duration rela- 3.4.3 the observational evidence implied the annual tionship. Subsequently, any deviation from a 200-day residual had an amplitude of roughly 0.7 mm/s.∼ correlation time will lessen the distinctiveness of the annual residual, by way of introducing phase offsets ∼ a and hence additional amplitude effects, that are oth- 3.6.8 On the variation of P data around erwise (fortuitously) suppressed. its long-term constant mean value In this subsection we present a (further) brief discus- 3.6.9 Concluding remarks on the model’s sion relating to the observed acceleration (cf. speed) consistency with observational data residuals, and amplitude variation/modulation in the long-term aP data. The model (at this preliminary stage) is qualitatively From Anderson et al. (2002, p.37 and p.24), we can and quantitatively consistent with the Pioneer 10 (and compare the 1-day batch-sequential acceleration resid- Pioneer 11) observational evidence; which in addition uals (Figure 17) to the 5-day batch-sequential accelera- to the Pioneer anomalous acceleration (aP ), implies tion (Figure 14) data — after subtracting the aP value (a number of) short and medium-term periodic ampli- 2 from Figure 14, and upon adjusting for the [km/s ] 116 units of Figure 17. The 5-day residuals appear to “The latest results from JPL are based on an upgrade, SIGMA, to JPLs ODP software (Anderson et al. 2002, be roughly one third the level/amplitude of the 1-day p.22).” residuals. Further, the much longer 200-day accelera- 117Noting that: “The CHASMP 200-day averages sup- tion residuals (obtained using Aerospace’s CHASMP press the solar conjunction bias inherent in the ODP 5-day software and included in Figure 14) are in good agree- averages . . . (Anderson et al. 2002, p.24).” 38 Paul G. ten Boom tude variations, and a (long-term) annual amplitude their effects coexist in a wave-like (linear) superposi- modulation118 of the (post-fit Doppler)∼ speed and action, although the effect of this RSW superposition celeration residuals. As such, in the aP data there upon spacecraft proper motion and proper accelera- is a noticeable temporal variation (i.e. ‘wandering’) tion, as compared to the (monotonic) rate of motion around the (very) long-term constant mean (Pioneer shortfall (ap), are quite distinct (see subsection 3.6.2). anomaly) value — see Anderson et al. (2002, Figure Later we shall see that five major rotating space- 14). The model’s approach allows this (apparently) warps account (almost completely) for the Pioneer stochastic temporal variation in aP around its mean anomaly, specifically involving Jupiter’s four Galilean value, and the (overall and non-spurious data based) moons and Saturn’s large moon Titan — i.e. large amplitude of the Doppler residuals, to ‘exist’ at a moons that are part of a spin-orbit coupled three- level/magnitude that exceeds the (respective) ampli- body (Sun-planet-moon) celestial system. For geomet- tude variations that can simply (and solely) be at- ric suitability reasons (explained in subsection 5.6.7), tributed to measurement noise. the Earth’s moon is not a RSW ‘generator’. It should In response to the favourable relationship the be noted that direct variations in gravitational field model has towards the Pioneer observational evidence, strength arising simply from lunar motion is not (at we shall further pursue and build upon this Section’s all) what is being proposed! Furthermore, subsection “first stage modelling of the Pioneer anomaly” — so as 3.5.3 briefly discussed how these RSWs could be non- to eventually establish (amongst other things) the re- isotropically affecting the measurement of CMB (ra- sults that have been partially previewed in this section diation) photons, e.g. ‘producing’ a ‘foreground’ solar (3.6) — in particular Table 1. ecliptic plane signature upon the CMB data. Significantly outstanding at this stage, is an understanding of the restriction of the new mechanism’s 3.7 Summary of the model’s first effects to low mass bodies; (in so much that) the af- steps and what’s still to be done fected (spacecraft) mass is below the ‘non-local’ cut- The hypothesis/stipulation of a rotating warp (or ro- off masses associated with each (individual) rotating tating ‘fold’) of space curvature (or space deformation) space-warp. This was the first of subsection 2.4’s three — first mentioned in subsection 3.1 and implied by primary observational constraints. Only by going be- observational results discussed in section 3.5.2 — is yond the scope of General Relativity’s explanatory do- a promising, multi-faceted and provocative first step main and standard contemporary physics (a process towards a model of the Pioneer anomalous observa- begun in Section 4) can this crucial constraint be cir- cumvented. tions [aP (t)]. Later we shall see that this new mechanism is related to a clash involving a (common) ex- We have adhered to sound scientific methodology, ceedingly small geometric phase offset within (a great in that the establishment of the model’s ‘form’ is be- many, i.e. 1050) discrete/quantum mechanical sys- ing dictated by the Pioneer anomaly’s observational tems (i.e.∼ atoms/molecules) by way of their (“bulk evidence — especially its more subtle (and awkward) solid” body) motion in analog curved spacetime. aspects. Section 3.5.1 outlined the proposed mech- Utilising a barycentric systemic reference frame, anism’s essential characteristics. Compatibility with and applying (a power version of) Rayleigh’s Energy the fine detail of the observations is both a primary mo- Theorem (also known as Parseval’s theorem) to com- tivator, and the distinguishing feature, of the model; pound motion (i.e. steady and unsteady motion) in e.g. the low aP reading of Pioneer 11 en route to and deep space (and curved spacetime), allows the Pioneer ‘around’ Saturn encounter (subsection 3.5.4). Addi- anomaly to be conceived as a (path-based, i.e. veloc- tionally, the temporal variation of the aP data (around ity vector based) shortfall in predicted spacecraft mo- its constant long-term mean) — which is quite distinct tion — irrespective of the spacecraft’s direction of mo- from the (anomalous) monotonic shortfall aspect — tion (and speed). Standard general relativistic grav- and the (rotating space-warp ‘driven’) temporal vari- itation determines the (temporally) ‘steady’ motion ation of the model’s (proper) speed/motion and ac- component, whereas the unsteady component embod- celeration ‘residuals’ were investigated (section 3.6). ies the new/supplementary physical mechanism pre- Prior to this, the diurnal and annual residuals were sented (and espoused) herein. closely examined (subsection 3.3.6 and section 3.4 re- Each ‘constant’ (i.e. the same everywhere) ampli- spectively), and the (sinusoidal) ‘annual’ residual has been recast as an annual (356 day) non-Earth-based tude “rotating space-warp” (RSW) leads to a low mass ∼ body (such as a spacecraft) experiencing an (unsteady) amplitude modulation — that arises from a long-term sinusoidal variation in acceleration/gravitational field ‘beat’ duration involving two RSW’s of similar (spin strength, which in turn causes a sinusoidal variation in and) orbital frequencies/periods (i.e. Jupiter’s Callisto speed around an ‘equilibrium’ speed — all other things and Saturn’s Titan). Further, the model’s amplitude being equal. From a barycentric (or Earth-based) per- (of 0.73 mm/s) for this Titan-Callisto beat frequency spective, this oscillatory variation in speed (and kinetic is a good match to the observed ( 0.7 mm/s) amplitude of the annual residual — see∼ subsection 3.6.7. energy) results in a constant rate of motion shortfall ∼ (per cycle), cf. the (predicted) motion in the absence The intractability of comparing the amplitude vari- of the unsteady motion. The individual RSWs and ation of the model’s ap(t) proper acceleration value with the observational aP data (through time) is dis- 118Noting that this (beat-based) amplitude modulation cussed (subsection 3.6.5). Subsequently, the Doppler ‘contains’ numerous short-term amplitude variations. speed/velocity residuals become a primary indicator A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 39 of the model’s veracity. These observable residuals and (macroscopic) motion tell space how to curve, are comprised of (i.e. indicative of) both measurement which then tells mass how to move — and let us herein noise and the model’s proposed sinusoidal/undulatory consider the ensuing motion to be steady. In contrast, proper motion effects (around an equilibrium speed). and supplementary to this, is the (as yet uncorrobo- Additionally, we discuss the quite minor attenuation rated) proposal that: in special circumstances yet to effect (upon the model’s proper motion/speed resid- be fully outlined, (an angular momentum-based energy uals) arising from the (1:2:4) orbital resonance of associated with) microscopic mass ‘motion’ (‘within’ a Ganymede, Europa and Io, and the (3:7) orbital reso- great many atomic and molecular ‘systems’) can also nance of Callisto and Ganymede (subsection 3.6.5). tell space how to curve (i.e. sinusoidal-like undulations By way of previewing results determined later in upon the gravitational field at a point mass, or RSWs the paper (Table 1), it was shown (firstly) that the more generally), which then tells (a moving) mass how model’s long-term (constant and monotonic) mean to vary its movement. The latter — with regard to rate of motion shortfall value ap is consistent with a single rotating space-warp — involves an oscilla- the observation-based Pioneer anomalous accelera- tory variation of speed about a mean motion/speed tion value aP (subsection 3.2.13). Secondly, the i.e. unsteady motion, that leads to (or rather coex- combined magnitude/amplitude of a (superposition- ists with) a very small (incremental) loss/decay of a based) maximum amplitude summation of the model’s body’s ‘given’ kinetic energy (per cycle). In this sup- proper motion/speed residuals, on top of typical (non- plementary ‘gravitational’ case a global/systemic basis spurious) measurement noise-based residuals inherent to energy (quantification and ‘transfer’) is necessary, in the Doppler method, is consistent with the ob- incorporating both the macroscopic and microscopic served/measured spacecraft Doppler residuals deter- ‘domains’ (or realms) together. Once again we note mined by various investigators (subsection 3.6.6). that only the motion of ‘low mass’ bodies are affected. Certainly, there is still much more that a robust explanation needs to cover and examine, including: 1. Ascertaining how the model can theoretically co- 4 Theoretical concerns and exist with General Relativity. philosophical aspects of the 2. Establishing the amplitude and energy of the (individual) acceleration/gravitational field un- proposed mechanism dulations (∆a), which equal and correspond to a rate of spacecraft speed shortfall (δa). These δa The awkward observational constraints discussed in (components) together (in superposition) then subsection 2.4 have been addressed and largely sat- largely quantify the model’s Pioneer anomaly es- isfied (recall section 3.7) by the model preliminaries introduced in Section 3. Unfortunately, giving the re- timation (ap) — recall subsection 3.2.13. liable observational evidence full priority, so as to make 3. Understanding how a virtual spin phase offset the Pioneer anomaly real, has lead to a quite bizarre — relative to the spin phase (of all elementary preliminary model. The challenge of this Section is to fermion/matter particles) within numerous in- show that this model, although restricted and supple- dividual lunar atoms and molecules (exhibiting mentary to current theory, is not incompatible with spin-orbit coupling) — that is below a minimum accepted theory — once certain assumptions (meta- (quantum) energy level, yields a non-inertial physical in some cases) influencing physicists’ current (excess) spin energy. This virtual energy, is understanding are appreciated, and certain ontologi- recognised globally (i.e. systemically) but it is cal119 ramifications of quantum non-locality are ap- locally (i.e. at the QM ‘level’) inexpressible. preciated. Thus, this (total QM) energy — pertaining to This Section effectively forms a conceptual bridge a great number of atoms/molecules — is neces- between the awkward implications of the observational sarily released externally as a: ‘single’, real, sup- evidence and the model’s mathematical quantification plementary acceleration/gravitational field — so (given partly in Section 5 and mainly in Section 6). as to preserve conservation of energy globally. After a series of preliminary remarks, the model’s ten- 4. Appreciating the non-local nature of the mass sions in relation to assumptions underlying contempo- aspect of the (total) virtual quantum mechanical rary physics are addressed; e.g. theoretical reduction- 120 121 energy — with this energy necessarily having the ism . Further conceptual features of the model same magnitude as the externally expressed sup- are presented in Section 5, and prior to that where it plementary (‘acceleration undulation/warp’ and is considered appropriate. ‘mass’ based) ‘gravitational energy’. This (lat- This Section is necessary because the conceptual, ter) real energy is comprised of both a macroscopic “rotating space-warp” (RSW) and its (as- 119Philosophy may be divided into three main branches: sociated) non-local mass ‘distribution’. ethics/morality, the theory of knowledge (epistemology), and ontology; the latter being concerned with the nature of 5. Establishing the qualitative and quantitative being, existence, and reality. distribution of non-local mass (cf. standard in- 120Theoretical reduction is the reduction of one explana- ertial or gravitational mass) in the field. tion or theory to another — that is, it is the absorption of one of our ideas about a particular thing into another idea; A useful, yet overly simplified, encapsulation of the for example Newtonian gravitation into general relativity. new model is that: in standard general relativity, mass 121Especially quantum mechanical aspects. 40 Paul G. ten Boom ontological, and mathematical foundations of: QMs, are the primary accepted beliefs to be confronted ‘gravitation’, mass, space, time, and energy are being herein — at least in the low energy, mass era of the touched upon. Subsequently, the explanation to fol- universe. low needs to address ‘philosophical’ issues beyond the usual scope of today’s “physics”. 4.1.3 Physics as possibly one step ontologically removed from “deep-reality” 4.1 Preliminary remarks Physics relies ultimately on observations to understand In order to enrich the model being developed, a num- the world. It is worth mentioning at the outset that ber of preliminary remarks need to be presented. The mass, spacetime124 , and the meaning of intrinsic cur- remarks are wide ranging involving: philosophy, phi- vature remain somewhat mysterious beyond their role losophy of science, limitations of GR, a (decoherence) in physical law. These are philosophical (rather then interpretation of QMs; and issues such as: Ehren- scientific) concerns, that may be a waste of time to fest’s theorem, quantum-to-classical transition, quan- some physicists; but while anomalous phenomena ex- tum condensate behaviour, and angular momentum ist, philosophy of physics issues should not lie beyond addition. Together, they can be thought of as build- consideration. ing blocks for the new model, and the write-up that The observations of physicists, regarding gravita- follows. tion beyond Earth, utilise electromagnetic (EM) radiation. It is not clear whether “measurements exhaust 4.1.1 Societal consensus in physics reality” or whether a physical Kantian-like125 distinction between phenomena (measurement) and noumena Unlike philosophy which (to the best of its ability) pur- (a reality beyond direct measurements) is valid. Note sues and holds alternative interpretations with rigour that we have stated “a Kantian-like distinction” as and relish, the mathematical nature of physics, with its compared to explicitly employing Kant’s version of the singular solutions, appears (in practice) to also extend distinction. Nevertheless, the terminology shall be re- to explanations of anomalous physical phenomena — tained herein with the new (or rather modified) mean- e.g. dark matter, dark energy. Generally, a dominant ings of ‘phenomena’ and ‘noumena’ gradually outlined. conceptual “party line” is favoured; and subsequently, If this distinction is valid, then local measurements alternatives face a daunting task, compounded by the might be one step removed from a further reality, i.e. a interrelated nature of conventional physical modelling reality with non-local (i.e. global or systemic) hidden (e.g. cosmology’s ‘concordance model’). Due to the in- variables. What is certain is that physicists generally terrelated nature of this (Pioneer anomaly motivated) reject such a Kantian distinction126, and that local hid- unconventional model, the reader is asked to refrain den variables cannot exist. Yet, physics concerns what from drawing firm conclusions until the end of this we can say about the world or nature, not what nature Section (i.e. Section 4) is reached. is127; and the distinction cannot be easily resolved, nor easily removed. 4.1.2 Philosophy of science comment Borrowing terminology from the philosopher of science 4.1.4 A wider sense to use of the word Imre Lakatos (1922-1974), it may be said that an alter- “gravitation” native “research programme” (RP) is to be presented; and thus alternatives to beliefs in the “hard core” of Herein the expression/word “gravitation” is used in the current research programme shall be considered122. a wider sense than normal, since we are entertaining The combined alternative views to be presented, as- the fact that (predominantly macroscopic) mass, mo- semble to form, in the author’s opinion, a ‘progressive’ mentum, and energy (comprising GR’s stress-energy- research program. momentum tensor) may not be the only contributors to non-Euclidean geometry. Microscopic-based energy, Interestingly, some of the alternatives to be pur- 128 sued are external to the curriculum of today’s physi- by way of a virtual intrinsic angular momentum off- cists; and yet well-known to philosophers of science set per specified cycle time (i.e. a virtual spin energy), and physics. One need only remember the surprise is seen to also contribute to non-Euclidean geometry with which an expanding universe [post Vesto Slipher — in the very special circumstances to be described in (1917) and Hubble’s observations] was greeted to ap- 124 preciate that: a lack of doubt may be a physicist’s Of which we shall restrict ourselves to just three dimen- 123 sions of space, and one of time, interlinked observationally worst enemy . The assurance with which both: by the demands of Special Relativity (SR), in conjunction GR fully/correctly describes the solar system’s (curved with electromagnetism, to form “spacetime”. spacetime based) mechanics, and that theoretical “re- 125Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), a highly influential Ger- ductionism” (e.g. GR to QMs) is currently favoured; man philosopher. 126Were it not for the Pioneer and other anomalies, Ock- 122An increase in the number of ‘anomalies’ is a feature ham’s razor would strongly support their view. of a “degenerative” research program. For example, see: 127These sentiments are often accredited to Niels Bohr and “Do we really understand the solar system? (Lämmerzahl, Werner Heisenberg. Preuss, & Dittus 2006)” 128‘Virtual’ as in below the first energy level or a minimum 123Before Hubble’s Law (1929), the assumption of a change in energy levels, and necessarily implying non-local ‘static’ universe was the generally accepted view. systemic (i.e. global) hidden variables. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 41

Section 5. Later, it shall become clear why this vir- . . . , whenever the correspondence princi- tual/hidden energy contribution may not be included ple holds, the centre of mass of a quantum in the stress-energy tensor129. Rather, we need to treat wave packet (for a single particle or for it as an independent and supplementary contribution an entire quantum object) moves accord- to non-Euclidean geometry; necessarily expressed as ing to Ehrenfest’s theorem along a classi- a rotating space-warp, and arising from the ‘experi- cal trajectory, and then it is possible to ence’ of quantum mechanical (QM) ‘systems’, specif- reconcile the two principles (Chiao 2004, ically atoms and molecules, moving in curved space- p.267). time. Importantly, this virtual effect/experience, aris- The tracks of subatomic particles in a bubble chamber ing via analog curved spacetime, causes no measurable illustrate this circumstance. change in the (digital/quantum) atomic and molecu- In Section 5 we shall examine the subtle ramifica- lar (systems) themselves — by way of EM forces being tions of: three-body macroscopic/celestial orbital mo- dominant within an atom/molecule. tion in curved spacetime affecting the geometric/Berry The term “gravitation” continues to be coextensive phase of atomic/molecular intrinsic spin — especially with “non-Euclidean geometry”; and the path of any the relationship between orbital phase and spin phase mass in ‘unforced’ motion (in a non-Euclidean geome- in curved spacetime. try) continues to be a ‘geodesic’, in the sense that it is governed by something akin to a “principle of least action”. Although, it can no longer be said that: “matter 4.1.7 Interpretative and ontological stance responds to the geometry of spacetime, as based upon for quantum mechanics a stress-energy tensor, and nothing else.” Thus, the The idealisation to a classical (and thus simple) ap- statement: “only a metric theory can describe gravi- proach utilised in this write-up, favours the acceptance tation,” is necessarily being cast into doubt. of both: quantum non-locality and a realist stance on QM atomic and/or molecular ‘particle’ position — but 4.1.5 Beyond the scope of GR’s formalism only as regards their centre of mass (recall subsection 4.1.6). The closest interpretation of QMs to this is The model being developed requires the existence of the de Broglie-Bohm (pilot wave) theory, which incor- moon-planet macroscopic spin-orbit resonance, also porates non-local hidden variables. This philosophical known as: synchronous rotation, tidal locking, and stance is not being explicitly promoted; rather its on- phase-lock. This arises from tidal effects acting upon tological preferences overlap somewhat with the model a (non-rigid-body) planet-moon system. Later, we see that is to be presented. Unlike Bohmian Mechanics the that a moon-planet-sun (three body) system is impor- model denies (QM) particles having definite positions tant in the new model. It is worth noting that GR is at all times. Additionally, we embrace Decoherence ‘set-up’ to see neither of these circumstances as in any Theory — albeit applied with somewhat non-standard way significant — and certainly not related to (a sup- background philosophical assumptions. plementary) non-Euclidean geometry. Note that the expression “non-Euclidean geometry” is not meant to 4.1.8 Transition from quantum to ‘classi- (in any way) imply the existence of absolute space. cal’ behaviour — via decoherence General Relativity itself has issues. It is problematic at small distances and very high ener- “Quantum decoherence” is the mechanism whereby gies/temperatures; additionally, the reality of space- quantum systems interact (irreversibly) with their en- time singularities is an ongoing issue. GR’s foundation vironment, to give the appearance of wave function stone, the principle of equivalence (Pr. of Eq.), is re- collapse, and hence classical behaviour. Herein we de- stricted to local effects, i.e. very small volumes and/or viate from a strict (reductive) decoherence agenda that small bodies. For example, in large bodies, tidal effects seeks to: lead to non-uniformity in field strength, which means . . . eliminate primary classical concepts, the Pr. of Eq. cannot be applied throughout. The thus neither relying on an axiomatic con- point being made is that, solutions to the equations cept of observables nor on a probabil- of GR are restricted to quite simple circumstances; ity interpretation of the wave function but the model herein is based upon a (quite different) in terms of classical concepts (Joos, Zeh, complicated set of circumstances, particularly involv- Kiefer, Giulini, Kupsch, & Stamatescu ing three-body celestial motion. 2003, Preface to 2nd ed.) We shall retain the classical conception of the phys- 4.1.6 The equivalence principle and the ical world as a ‘complementary adjunct’ to post- uncertainty principle decoherence behaviour. A classical formalism, although a secondary approach, is seen as an indispens- Concerning the relationship between GR and QMs, able aspect of physical description130. Thus, ‘decoher- Raymond Chiao dispels any concern regarding the con- ence’ herein is primarily associated with a disappear- ceptual tension between Heisenberg’s uncertainty prin- ance of observable quantum (superposition and entan- ciple and the locality of the equivalence principle. 130Can the concept of a non-Euclidean geometry exist 129This is due to the non-local role (quantum mechanics without the existence, conceptually at least, of a Euclidean based) mass plays in the energy concerned. geometry? 42 Paul G. ten Boom glement) effects, and (importantly) a suppression of with (say) electric charge; but this additive restraint interference effects. need not be extended to duplicate or multiple quan- In this [decoherence] process, the quantum systems (i.e. atoms and molecules) exhibiting a tum superposition is turned into a statisti- common (i.e. equal and shared) effect. For the model, cal mixture, for which all the information the effect in question is a common rate of (virtual) an- on the system can be described in classi- gular momentum offset (effectively) extending over an cal terms, so our usual perception of the entire macroscopic body — in our case a moon. world is recovered (Davidovich, Brune, Raimond, & Haroche 1996, p.1295). For everyday macroscopic objects the “decoher- 4.2 Tensions of the model regarding ence time” is extremely short. Thus, bulk matter is reduction, unification, and GR considered to be (always) free of (directly measurable at least) quantum superposition (and entanglement) As was the case in section 4.1, this section constructs effects. Herein, we shall explore an exception to this further building blocks for the new model, but more rule arising from analog curved spacetime effects upon importantly it begins the process of ‘deconstructing’ a QM system — with the effect being below a lowest certain presumptions that stand in the way of the new energy level and/or increment. model. In the spirit of the decoherence (many-worlds) interpretation of QMs, the QM aspects of macroscopic bodies upon measurement are considered to not be 4.2.1 Celestial “gravitational” motion as a obliterated out of existence — as compared to the case dissipative process with the wave function collapse of the Copenhagen in- terpretation131. General Relativity is based upon a perceived conservative or non-dissipative process; and thus the use- 4.1.9 On quantum condensate behaviour able (kinetic) energy of a body in motion cannot be ‘lost’ in the manner argued herein for the Pioneer Herein, we need to entertain the idea that there is a spacecraft. Loosely speaking, this paper has argued second way to attain quantum condensate behaviour. that cyclic variation in acceleration/gravitational field In standard QMs, ‘macroscopic’ quantum condensate strength (at a point), arising from (new) accelera- behaviour is restricted to very low temperature cir- tion undulations, detract from ‘useable’ kinetic en- cumstances132. Alternatively, very low energy circum- ergy (recall subsection 3.2.9). Thus, by way of this stances (below a minimum or first energy level), al- supplementary space-warping/curvature, the motion though hidden from any direct observation, will starve (of low mass bodies) is seen (from an Earth-based or off decoherence; and may well exhibit coherence over a barycentric perspective) to be depreciated or ‘dissi- large number of such atomic/molecular (QM) systems pated’, and hence the motion is time-asymmetric. Our — i.e. a bulk mass. Subsequently, this situation could common sense notion of time-irreversibility for macro- facilitate a (new) non-standard macroscopic conden- scopic phenomena is reinforced; but not the standard sate behaviour. Quantum entanglement is an impor- belief that all gravitational theorisation is inherently tant auxiliary condition for attaining this behaviour. time-symmetric. The origin of such a common (virtual) QM energy, Section 2 and 3’s hypothesising of a non-systematic and its relation to the rotating gravitational field per- based (real) Pioneer anomaly implies that: the astro- turbations (of Section 3) is the major concern of Sec- physical/celestial motion of low mass bodies in the so- tions 5 and 6. Later we see that this energy is indica- lar system joins the ranks of other macroscopic phe- tive of a relative (and virtual) angular momentum off- nomena always acted upon by some type of dissipative set achieved (through self-interference) over a certain effect, such as: air resistance, friction, and increas- (finite) ‘process’ time interval (∆t). ing entropy for example133. It should be noted that there is a distinction between microscopic/quantum 4.1.10 On the addition of (rate of change and macroscopic phenomena regarding the basis for of) angular momentum dissipation. The uncertainty principle ensures time- asymmetry at quantum scales134 , whereas a variety of Feynman (1965, p.80) ruminates upon the fact that, processes, including the second law of thermodynam- even though (classically) angular momentum depends ics, are responsible at ‘classical’ scales. We shall see upon a ‘projection’ angle, quantum mechanical an- that the uncertainty principle (applied to energy, ex- gular momentum always involves integer multiples of pressed as a rate of angular momentum) is the ‘facili- some quantity — regardless of the axis about which tator’ of the new supplementary space curvature being we measure. Certainly, within a quantum system we proposed. have an inability to ‘count up’ angular momentum, as

131Obviously, experiments do disrupt a system’s wave 133Note that this comment/declaration ignores the well function but ‘reality’, the ‘subject’ of the measure- known effects of (various) celestial radiative forces, and is ments, necessarily persists — albeit quite differently post- thus restricted to our newly proposed non-Euclidean space- measurement or post-decoherence. time effect. 132There is also decoherence by thermal emission of radi- 134For example, quantum vacuum fluctuations provide ation. disturbances that may result in radioactive decay. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 43

4.2.2 Linking a very large number and a 4.2.3 The basis for (quantum) condensate very small (energy) number behaviour, and QM spin Landau and Lifshitz use the example of a dielectric, Herein (loosely speaking), the quantum mechanical where a non conductor gets a displacement charge, to energy-time uncertainty principle (∆E∆t ¯h/2) is argue that: given a new interpretative twist. We exploit≥ the fact that (unlike ∆x, ∆p, and ∆E) ∆t is not an opera- the separation of the first energy levels of tor belonging to a particle (see subsection 6.3.2 for a macroscopic body may even be indepen- further discussion). Energy-time uncertainty can also dent of the size of a body, as for example be seen to give an upper bound to the “no change” in the electronic spectrum of a dielectric condition of an external effect imposing itself upon (Landau & Lifshitz 1958, p.14 fn.). a QM system’s internal (spin) energy over a given This independence from the size of the body is an im- (cyclic/process) time (i.e. its intrinsic angular momen- portant concept in this paper. tum). If ∆E∆t< ¯h/2, then no quantum mechanical Moving away from electromagnetic phenomena, we influence upon the system can be expressed within the seek to show that condensate behaviour may arise in (microscopic) system itself — with such effects consid- relation to the same (i.e. a common) effect, below the ered to be “below the first (or minimum) energy level”, first (or a minimum) energy level, acting upon every and hence below a conceivable decoherence threshold. atom/molecule’s (elementary fermion/matter particle- Thus, the state of the (microscopic) quantum system based) intrinsic angular momentum (over a given pro- is not changed. Note that regarding this new exter- cess time), i.e. the spin energy. This common effect is nally driven effect — dependent upon motion in curved simply additive, yielding a total virtual energy. spacetime — an exact QM energy (albeit virtual) is as- Note that in QMs, total energy is (also) a function sumed to exist in this interpretation of the energy-time of QM spin. uncertainty relation. Historically, the application of an external mag- A (virtual) energy ‘difference’ (∆E) conceivably netic field to electrically neutral particles (or atoms), exists. For the moment let us simply say that this en- led to the ‘discovery’ of the quantised nature of intrin- ergy is only meaningful at a ‘universal systemic’ level. sic/spin angular momentum138. Herein, we seek to We assume that by way of curved spacetime, the global show that the presence of curved spacetime acts upon inertial conditions for a QM system can differ from the QM (spin) angular momentum, resulting in something local QM equilibrium conditions — when a QM system new — albeit (only) if (and when) non-decoherence be- is taken around a closed loop (see Section 5). Later, haviour of a many atomed/moleculed body is ‘active’. we argue that this (virtual) energy difference quantifies the QM system’s non-inertial status — from a 4.2.4 The basis for the energy uncertainty universal systemic perspective. With specific regard to the model, the (maximum) Assuming a systemic reference frame datum and incor- non-inertial energy “not internally incorporated”135 , porating moon-planet orbital resonance, looped mo- that can be associated with Dirac’s constant136 (min- tion in curved spacetime is seen to slightly affect (i.e. 1/2 a wavelength139) the wave phase of spin angu- imum angular momentum) per (typical) lunar spin- ≤ 1 −1 lar momentum (per cycle time) but not orbital angular orbital period: ∆E 2 ¯h ∆t , is of the order of − ∼ 10 40 Joules. With typically 1050 atoms/molecules in momentum ‘within’ an atom or molecule. To maintain a large (solar system) moon137, an energy effect com- a multitude of electromagnetic internal/QM angular monly shared by all atoms/molecules could (conceiv- momentum coupling relationships as well as conserva- ably) involve (up to) approximately 10 gigajoules of tion of energy, as they would be in a flat spacetime, the energy. QM system(s) involved simply export any imbalance arising from motion in curved spacetime (S/T). This Later we shall see that this commonality, i.e. scenario is restricted to a virtual imbalance, i.e. below space curvature affecting neighbouring lunar QM a first or minimum change in energy level. (atomic/molecular) systems in effectively the same Importantly, this virtuality permits a common way, is possible (in part) because of the small diame- spin “precession” direction and magnitude, relative ter of a (celestial) moon, relative to the distance from to inertial frame conditions, to (conceivably) apply a planet to its moon. In the model, it is the total to all elementary fermion/matter particles within all (virtual) energy that gets re-expressed externally to atoms/molecules regardless of their ‘internal’ spin ori- appease a universal (systemic) conservation of energy entation. With a great many atoms/molecules sim- constraint — arguably as (one of) the rotating space- ilarly involved, the (real) rotating space-warps previ- warps discussed in Section 3. The manner of the ex- ously hypothesised are (conceivably) the singular (con- ternal curved spacetime (input) effect that influences densate) expression of this energy exportation/deferral QM internal energy is discussed very briefly in the fol- process. Thus, internally/microscopically it is as if this lowing two subsections 4.2.3 and 4.2.4. 138In retrospect, the first direct experimental evidence of particle spin (e.g. the electron spin) was the Stern-Gerlach 135Note that we drop the term “energy uncertainty”. experiment of 1922, named after Otto Stern and Walther 136More commonly referred to as the “reduced Planck con- Gerlach. stant”. 139Circumstances where the effect is >1/2 a wavelength 137See Table 4 at the end of section 6.3. exist but they are not relevant to this discussion. 44 Paul G. ten Boom

(new) curved spacetime based eﬀect is not there; but related agendas. Subsequently, a systematic explana- from a ‘universal’ systemic perspective things are quite tion (involving heat) is experiencing favour within the diﬀerent. The process illustrates nature ensuring sta- Pioneer anomaly community; essentially to make the bility in a simple, elegant and economic manner. anomaly “go away”.

4.2.5 Questioning physicists’ objective — 4.2.6 The differences that divide micro- regarding reduction and unification scopic and macroscopic physics Upon removal of dissipative effects the laws of me- The existence of a divide between the microscopic (i.e. chanics are considered to be time reversal invariant. up to atoms/molecules) and macroscopic/classical ‘Conservative’ systems are described by a Lagrangian realms, and the laws describing them, is undeniable. and/or Hamiltonian formulation, e.g. Hilbert’s varia- Aspects of this circumstance include: tional approach to GR’s field equations. Time symme- 1. The inherent incompatibility of GR and QMs. try (in this sense) supports the reductive inclinations of contemporary physicists — and draws confirmation 2. The absence of electron radiation within atoms. from the previously successful reduction of thermody- 3. The nature of dissipation (recall 4.2.1). namics to statistical mechanics. The generalisation of reduction to all macroscopic phenomena needs to be 4. The ‘exact’ symmetries (and hence quantised recognised as a goal or agenda and not ‘a given’. gauge theories) displayed by microscopic sys- The current unification agenda/goal of physicists; tems cf. the approximate symmetries displayed i.e. weak, strong, electromagnetic, and gravitational by macroscopic systems. ‘forces’, is ostensibly ‘force’ based and involves the ex- 5. The role of special relativity is primary in QMs, change of particles. Other macroscopic phenomena whereas in a variety of celestial circumstances, such as: elasticity/deformation of materials, springs e.g. the solar system and galaxies, SR plays a (Hooke’s Law), and rotor/propeller behaviour in fluid minor role. mechanics140 are assumed to ‘fall in line’. Is this (to date unsuccessful141) metaphysical142 reductive On the other hand, an aspect of commonality between agenda too simplistic? Anecdotal evidence suggests the micro and the macro realms is waves and wave that both Niels Bohr and Erwin Schrödinger doubted superposition; simply because wave behaviour is ubiq- a grand unified theory was possible. uitous. In this paper the emphasis is upon an interaction To proceed with a real explanation of the Pio- between the microscopic and macroscopic realms — in neer anomaly, the divide between micro- and macro- the form of an energy re-expression. The word ‘re- scopic physics needs to be emphasised. In the following expression’ is preferred to transfer, because the lat- subsection (4.2.7) we examine if a force and particle ter has particle connotations. The nature of their co- platform, as used in microscopic physics, is sufficient existence, from a global/systemic perspective, is con- for the description of a significant (non-gravitational) sidered to lead a new (“emergent”) phenomenon, i.e. macroscopic physical phenomena. (gravito-quantum) rotating space-warps143 — this being the external energy expression of unaccounted- 4.2.7 The role of energy and power in the for (virtual) (and non-inertial) QM energy. Possibly Vortex Theory of Propellers “non-reductive” is a better word than ‘emergent’. We cite quantum mechanical non-local entanglement as In general physics, energy is considered to be the ca- the mechanism/‘vehicle’ by which this re-expression pacity (of a system) to do work; with work defined as is achieved. force applied over a distance. This implicitly assumes Alternatively, if we assume the correctness of GR that force (usually in conjunction with energy) is nec- and QMs, and that the current reduction and unifica- essarily a primary quantity in the analysis of major tion agendas/objectives are correct; then a ‘real’ Pio- physical interactions. neer anomaly is at odds with accepted theory and these Theodore Theodersen’s Theory of (Aircraft) Pro- pellers (Theodorsen 1948) primarily examines the 140Which are described “exactly” by (an idealised) contin- physics of a ‘frictionless’ propeller/airscrew, i.e. drag uum mechanics approach, or (alternatively) approximately effects are ignored. Minor corrections may then be by finite element methods. 144 141 made for drag effects. A vortex/circulation ap- The failure of string theory and quantum loop grav- proach is employed, with this approach being uniquely ity to deliver a successful unification, or a falsification cri- 145 teria, makes them currently non-rigidly scientific. This applicable to (low solidity ) airscrews and (horizon- may change, but the recent advent of a perceived accel- tal axis) wind turbines cf. other types of (high so- erating universe expansion was not even upon the radar of these “cutting-edge” approaches. Both of these approaches 144“Circulation” is a fluid mechanical term. It is essen- are particle based, and hence assume reduction is viable. tially a macroscopic continuum mechanics equivalent to an- For more information see Cartwright & Frigg (2007), and gular momentum, and closely related to the (velocity) po- George Ellis’ review (Ellis 2006) of Lee Smolin’s “The Trou- tential in a “potential flow” analysis. In fluid dynamics, ble with Physics” (Smolin 2006b). potential flow describes the velocity field as the gradient of 142In the sense of: based on speculative or abstract rea- a (scalar) velocity potential — if the flow is irrotational. soning. 145Solidity refers to the amount of (swept) disc area occu- 143Together with a “non-local mass” distribution. pied by the (solid) material blades themselves. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 45 lidity) open turbomachinery146 such as ship propellers where: m (‘air’ mass) is the fluid density (ρ) multiplied and (household) fans. It is worth noting that: by cylindrical volume (blade swept area ‘times’ the axial length/distance — associated with one revolu- It was not until 1929 that [Sydney] Gold- −1 stein solved the potential flow problem tion), n = f =(ω)(2π) is the number of (complete) completely for a lightly loaded single- revolutions per second, and Γe is (newly) defined as the effective circulation around the blades. Γe (with rotation [aircraft] propeller of small ad- 2 L vance ratio. This was unquestionably the ‘dimensions’ [ T ] ) is essentially the number of blades greatest single step in the evolution of the times the average circulation (across each blade) mul- propeller theory (Theodorsen 1948, p.1). tiplied by the (Theodorsen) efficiency factor of an optimum propeller — i.e. one where the trailing flow, in Equally significant, Theodorsen extended the theory, a frictionless fluid, is shed into the wake as a “rigid” with its ability to determine optimum (i.e. minimised vortex sheet, i.e. a (three-dimensional) ‘solid’ helix or energy loss) circulation distributions, to incorporate helicoid150 — which together with a (two-dimensional) non-light/heavy propeller blade loadings and prag- plane is the only other surface of revolution that is also matic advance ratios. a ruled minimal surface151. Utilising a control volume, dimensionless expres- Of interest here is firstly, the fact that this new sions for: shaft power (P ), blade thrust (T ), and en- (fluid mechanical circulation based) energy expression ergy lost to the wake (E) are derived (pp.28-29), which is proportional to the rate of (cyclic) rotation (n or may then be converted back to their dimensional quan- 147 f), so there is (also) a unit energy corresponding to a tities . The point being made is that a force basis single rotation of the blades; and secondly, that a solely fails to accurately represent (i.e. model) the less than force and/or kinetic energy basis fails to be sufficient to 100% efficiency of converting (mechanical) rotational (theoretically) best represent this linear and rotational energy/power into linear (aerodynamic) thrust work. system — which can only be realistically modelled in A power based expression P = TV + dE/dt is the three spatial ‘dimensions’152 . equality describing the system’s behaviour, where V Thus, we have a further difference between macro- is (freestream) airspeed. In physics, rather than aero- and microscopic systems; in terms of the most dimen- 2 nautical (or aerospace) engineering, a force basis to the ML sionally “rich” physical quantity (i.e. power [ T 3 ] cf. power expressions is preferred, in conjunction with an 2 148 1 3 ML efficiency (η) factor ; usually written as 2 ρAV η — energy [ T 2 ]) needed to ‘best’ model the essence of the emphasis being the kinetic energy of the airflow a system’s physical behaviour — albeit that the case relative to an aircraft’s propellers. This is an inferior of ‘vortex’ propeller theory is somewhat idealised and explanatory approach because the efficiency factor is “old school” in its approach. not theoretically determinable as is the case with the 149 vortex method . 4.2.8 Energy to frequency proportionality In the theory (Theodorsen 1948, Ch.4) the dimen- ǫ sionless power coefficient cp = 2χw¯(1+w ¯)(1 + χ w¯) An alternative physical expression of energy, other [Equation 37, p.29 ] can be (with some algebraic ef- than work (a force applied over a distance), is wave fort) re-expressed as a dimensional power equation energy; where the wave’s energy is proportional to P = ρAV nΓe which then may be reduced to a new wave amplitude squared. A further alternative route type of (potential) energy equation/expression: to energy is the representation of electromagnetic wave/radiation energy as proportional to a frequency; ǫ 153 Ep = ρALΓen = mΓen where Γe = BΓ(1¯ + w¯) i.e. Planck’s formula E = hf. In general, frequency χ can be conceived as either (and sometimes both) indi- or alternatively (and more appropriately herein) cating: a rotational process that occurs over a finite time154, or simply the number of (wave) oscillations

Ep = mΓef (15) 150At optimisation the (dimensional) displacement veloc- 146Examples of closed turbomachinery are numerous, in- ity (w =wV ¯ ) of the airflow, for all radial locations along the cluding: centrifugal pumps, water turbines (e.g. Pelton blade span, are equal; it is positive for propellers, and nega- wheel and Kaplan turbine, steam turbines and (jet aircraft) tive for wind turbines. In the nomenclature of Theodorsen ǫ ¯ ¯ gas turbines.) Γe = wHχ(1 + χ w¯) where wHχ = ΓB with Γ being the 147Theodorsen’s theory remains (in a sense) the pinnacle average circulation ‘over’ each blade, B is number of blades, of classical propeller theory. Its development during the late ǫ is the axial energy loss factor, and χ is the (all important) 1930s/early 1940s coincided with the dawn of the jet age. “mass coefficient” — see Theodorsen (1948) for further de- The theory is just as effectively applied to propeller-style tails. H is the pitch of the rigid helix, with Hn = V +w. A wind turbines. Some iteration is required for optimisation, further (minor) correction for propeller wake contraction, and it is necessary to optimise for a single ‘design’ airspeed. or wind turbine wake expansion, has not been included. 148Similarly, for an airfoil’s lift, a simple action-reaction 151Such that: for any point on the surface there is a line force basis is given preference by physicists. The circulatory on the surface passing through it; and with a zero mean, airflow, where the ‘work’ is done, is given either secondary the surface area is minimised. Note that a ‘catenoid’ only emphasis or no emphasis. exhibits the latter characteristic. 149Finite elements methods are preferred today because 152The far wake (also) plays a pivotal role in the model. the effects of: engine nacelles, aircraft fuselage, etc., may be 153Also called the Planck relation or the Planck-Einstein incorporated. Vortex theory treats the rigid vortex sheet, equation, and alternatively written as: E = hν. with its surface of discontinuity, in isolation from all inter- 154Philosophically, time in-itself, can be conceived as pro- ference effects — including drag arising from fluid viscosity. cess based; this being an unorthodox (although well estab- 46 Paul G. ten Boom over a given time — with the role of a time standard, On the contrary, GR is primarily a geometric theory i.e. the second, essential. Note that precision clocks that is considered to be mediated by the (to date un- are frequency based. detected) graviton particle. Our proposed supplemen- The vortex theory energy (Equation 15) discussed tary space curvature, on the other hand, cannot be in subsection 4.2.7, with mass as fluid density mul- a standard particle based phenomenon, because it is tiplied by a cylindrical volume (and thus non-solid), (partly) QM-based and exhibits a non-local ‘influence’ is a macroscopic instantiation of an energy to ‘fre- aspect — although changes to the strength/amplitude quency’ proportionality. When energy is proportional of undulations conceivably propagate at the speed of to frequency (i.e. revolutions per second or cycles light. Awkwardly and inevitably, some form of very- per second), the importance of angular momentum is fast hidden variable theory appears to be required in paramount; whether (expressed) as a macroscopic fluid the conjectured model — to convey the impression of circulation or by way of Planck’s constant (re: electro- either a non-local ‘correlation’ or ‘action’. The later is magnetic radiation/waves). inconsistent with the particle based (reductive) theory Later, we see that the energy of interest herein is a agenda of modern physicists that employs the speed geometric phase based intrinsic/spin angular momen- of light (c) upper limit (to information exchange); tum (offset155) per cycle time, or angular momentum whereas a correlation-based understanding is not in- multiplied by frequency; i.e. spin energy — with this consistent with experiments illustrating the presence energy being below the first and/or minimum energy of quantum non-locality. In this sense, non-local QM level, or below a minimum energy uncertainty ‘level’, (spin) effects only appear to involve an instantaneous in/of an atomic/molecular ‘quantum’ system. This en- causal ‘action’. Contemporary physics cites entangle- ergy, and the energy of vortex propeller theory, may be ment as a precedent (condition) for non-locality. contrasted with the standard position-based potential The explanatory waters are muddied (so to speak) energy (P.E.) at a given time (of Classical Mechanics). by the fact that the existence of the graviton particle Conventional P.E. has no role to play here, although remains an open issue. The non-detection of a gravi- for our purposes we may still speak of the supplemen- ton particle means that: possibly GR’s spacetime ge- tary field energy over a given unit cycle time ∆t, at a ometry is ‘enforced’ by a non-particle (non-graviton) given distance from the (rotating space-warp’s) energy mechanism — albeit with changes propagating at the source156 — and similarly, when a moving body’s posi- speed of light. tional change over ∆t is considered insignificant (when compared to the scale of the system). The aim of this subsection has been to show that 4.2.10 Hypothesising a non-local mecha- requiring potential energy to be exclusively position nism (i.e. location) based is somewhat misguided; because classical vortex theory (of a three-dimensional The following proposal of a ‘hidden’ supplemental propeller157 ) and to a lesser extent Planck’s formula mechanism for ‘explaining’ non-local correlations is in electromagnetism provide counter examples. Non- non-rigorous. Time (and mass) even today retain kinetic energy, i.e. ‘potential’ energy158, is conceivably a certain mystery, and particle based interactions in also frequency-based, and/or alternatively cyclic pro- (macroscopic) ‘spacetime’ may not exhaust reality. cess time-based. Recall ∆e = 1 ∆a2∆t2 = 1 δv2 from Conceivably, the universe’s evolution might only ap- 2 2 161 subsection 3.2.8; proposing that the specific ‘poten- pear analog; such that from a wider (temporal ) per- tial’ energy of the proposed supplementary oscillatory spective it may well evolve in a staccato manner, that gravitational field (per cycle159) equals the unsteady is inherently imperceptible to physical observations — specific kinetic energy component of a body in other- (conceivably) by way of the limits imposed by Heisen- wise steady (i.e. non-oscillatory) motion (per cycle). berg’s uncertainty principle (HUP). Thus, physical reality would effectively ‘occur’ in a digital (go-pause- go-pause-...) manner, with a new type of “process” 4.2.9 Is macroscopic gravitation mediated occurring between the instants/moments (or states) of by the graviton particle? measurable time, i.e. in the ‘pause’; thus complement- Returning to a discussion of four force unification, we ing reality as is currently understood. accept that the three micro forces are particle based160. Since this process lies outside of (or beyond) observational time, and within limits imposed by HUP, it is lished) stance. effectively invisible to (i.e. hidden from) measured re- 155The description of what is involved in this offset, and ality. Some type of (unknown) cosmological size/scale what this offset is relative to, is far from trivial — see sub- wave effect(s) is one conceivable, yet vague, option for section 5.4.5. 162 156 what this process involves . This cyclic wave process Noting we are (at present) restricting ourselves to posi- facilitates a form of subliminal whole-universe commu- tion in a plane when discussing (gravito-quantum) rotating space-warps (GQ-RSWs). nication and interaction, that is quite conceivably ge- 157The trailing flow far downstream of the blades is fundamental to the theory. 161Immediately, upon their use in (general) discussion, the 158With ‘potential’ now used in a wider sense, in that it meaning of the words “time” or “temporal” becomes inex- is not exclusively a function of position. act and somewhat ambiguous. 159Per cycle, or alternatively, over the course of a full cycle. 162If rotational, the direction of (possibly two orthogonal) 160As evidenced by the success of the Standard Model of rotation(s) could leave a signature that results in the laws of particle physics. physics being slightly different for matter and anti-matter. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 47 ometric and topological163 . Subsequently, non-locality sical) time simultaneity, appears feasible. Further, if can regain a (new type of) ‘cause and effect’ explana- we regard the accelerations (equating to gravitational tory narrative. Additionally, invariance and conserva- field strength) proposed in Section 3 as ‘true’ accel- tion demands may be appeased; particularly regarding erations, in the sense of reference frame independent (non-local) QM intrinsic angular momentum. This hy- ‘proper’ accelerations; then (qualitatively) any ensu- pothesis is consistent with the phenomena–noumena ing speed perturbations (of low mass bodies) also need distinction introduced/discussed in subsection 4.1.3. not be frame dependent. Note that even though the Finally, this cosmological process allows rotating space-warps (RSWs) rotate about a central the universe to evolve in a temporally harmo- point/region, and the associated acceleration is consid- nious/coordinated (and stable) manner. Due to the ered a ‘true’ (cyclically) varying acceleration, the mo- imperceptible brevity between (digital) ‘moments’, tion of any body ‘receiving’ this influence is inevitably we effectively have a hidden mechanism that ensures described using a reference frame — e.g. the Pioneer a universal background time simultaneity — even spacecraft relative to the solar system’s barycentre. though clocks may run at different rates within the observable universe. Section 4.4 shall elaborate upon this (admittedly sketchy) hypothesis. 4.3 Tackling fortress General Rela- tivity and its non-simultaneity 4.2.11 Interim conclusion and subtleties of The aim of this and the next section (4.4) is to cast the model doubt upon the ontological commitments of GR. By assuming a ‘real’ (i.e. non-systematic based) Pioneer Neither the non-particle, nor the non-reductive as- anomaly we necessarily take issue with GR’s confident pects, of our proposed supplementation to non- assertion that: there are no (indeed never) global ref- Euclidean geometry, is sufficient (as yet) to scuttle erence frames, by way of an underlying acceptance of the model being pursued. Further, the differences be- relativism. This leads into subsection 4.4, where an al- tween the micro- and macroscopic domains (and their ternative interpretation of: time and length dilation is theoretical descriptions) has been emphasised. The examined, so as to illustrate that space and time’s co- non-simultaneity of special and general relativity (SR existence or ‘union’ may be something other than only and GR) presents a far more challenging denial of the SR’s and GR’s ‘spacetime’. It would be so much eas- model, and this shall begin to be addressed in subsec- ier to simply declare the model non-special-relativistic, tion 4.3. and indeed the sceptical reader should keep this in The model’s need to externalise a (coherent) vir- mind; but the model appears to demand simultane- tual quantum spin energy offset as a large scale (rotat- ity of time (throughout the field), by way of quantum ing) acceleration/gravitational field perturbation im- non-locality being involved. This is compatible with plies a global nature to the model, and hence global co- a solar system (systemic) time standard; one of whose ordination between the microscopic (QM) and macro- roles is to quantify (a RSW’s) rotation duration (∆t). scopic (curved spacetime) domains. This in turn seems to require a coordination that effectively exhibits tem- 4.3.1 Physicists and philosophical thought poral simultaneity, reminiscent of (historical) classical mechanics; and thus the model would benefit from Science involves both concepts and mathematics, and interpreting non-locality as implying some form of usually physics has a mathematical emphasis because apparent instantaneous ‘causation’ (recall subsection the concepts involved are stable. Here the emphasis 4.2.10). Non-locality regarding QM spin is undeni- is strongly conceptual, because we are attempting to able, and remains open to interpretation. Appropri- establish new physics, in the sense of a supplement in- ately, QM (intrinsic) angular momentum is central to volving an alternative conceptual structure, or “disci- the ‘global’ model being hypothesised. It is insufficient plinary matrix” as philosophers of science would call it. to simply cite GR’s v < c information speed limit and We do this not in order to unnecessarily attack physics, then reject the model, because the model involves both but merely to resolve at least one (Pioneer) anomaly, curved spacetime and QMs acting in concert. and possibly further our understanding of how curved From an (idealised) classical conception, we can S/T and QMs coexist in a celestial material system. (with some imagination) visualise a constant ampli- The huge success of physics from about 1930, when tude rotating space-warp, with the acceleration am- Paul Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics was 164 plitude representable in a field based manner (re- published, has led to today’s theoretical physicists call Figures 5 to 7). As a first stage idealised ap- under-valuing conceptual discussion. About 1975 the proach, the use of classical mechanics involving: (a standard model was ensconced, and 1975 is when Vera QM process based) energy, a continuum of space, ro- Rubin and Kent Ford’s observations of spiral galaxy tating acceleration perturbations, and utilising (clas- flat rotation curves appeared, marking the beginning of significant “unfinished physics business”; e.g. dark 163 Note that there is no observational difference between matter and dark energy. From a (Thomas) Kuhnian the digital ‘reality’ moments occurring “all at once”, or se- perspective (Kuhn 1970), the years 1930 to 1975 typ- quentially ‘around’ the universe — by way of an observationally subliminal ‘scanning’ process. The latter scenario ifies a period of normal science, and 1975 (possibly) seems more appropriate and viable. heralds the beginning of a rise in conspicuous scientific 164Varying cyclically (and sinusoidally) at a ‘fixed’ point issues and anomalies — which may require rethinking in a barycentric reference frame. our conceptualisation of the physical world. 48 Paul G. ten Boom

[Indeed at] ...the beginning of the 20th metric theory, could possibly be supplemented to GR’s century — Einstein, Bohr, Mach, Boltz- formalism as a pure energy supplementation — but the mann, Poincare, Schrödinger, Heisenberg need for an apparent simultaneity/non-locality feature — thought of theoretical physics as a in the new model remains in direct conflict with the philosophical endeavor. They were moti- pairing of: SR’s non-simultaneity and GR’s general vated by philosophical problems, and they principle of relativity166. These two aspects of rela- often discussed their scientific problems in tivity ensure that GR does not permit/contain any in- the light of a philosophical tradition in variant geometric background structures. A solution of which they were all at home. For them, the Einstein equations consists of a semi-Riemannian calculations were secondary to a deepen- manifold (usually defined by giving the metric in spe- ing of their conceptual understanding of cific coordinates) on which are defined matter fields. nature (Smolin 2006a). Each solution of Einstein’s equations describes a Assuming a real Pioneer anomaly implies something whole history of a universe; i.e. we have a “blocktime” of a (minor) crisis in physics, and necessitates a return basis to the physical explanation. A prominent and to this early 20th century conceptual approach. If the persistent philosophical concern of “blocktime” is that model went straight to the mathematics, we would be it effectively denies an individual’s freewill. This in- implicitly assuming that any associated conceptuali- consistency with our own perceptions is a central issue sation was non-problematic — i.e. normal science or in philosophy, and is reason enough to examine the “business as usual”. bedrock upon which GR is constructed. Additionally, GR’s non-linear partial differential equations are very difficult to solve, and only a few exact solutions have 4.3.2 Looking for cracks in the General direct physical application167. Relativity fortress It is worth mentioning that herein we accept without 4.3.3 The ‘principle’ of general covariance: question the standard model’s unification of the three the logic behind it and its generality (microscopic) forces/interactions (weak, strong, elec- tromagnetic165 ) that incorporates SR. It is the exten- Special relativity eliminated absolute space and abso- sion of this to (large-scale macroscopic) gravitational lute motion. The theory of general relativity is an effects that is our concern. extraordinary theory of gravitation, and has been an Loosely speaking, GR describes the space between unmitigated success. With GR, Einstein sought to ex- points. Aspects of GR include: tend SR’s relativity of motion to acceleration, so as to generalise relativity; and with the possible exception [The Relativity Principle:] The laws of na- of the Pioneer anomaly, this conclusion appears quite ture are merely statements about space- reasonable. If we accept that acceleration is (also) rel- time coincidences; they therefore find ative, then a number of implications follow: their only natural expression in generally covariant equations (Barbour & Pfister 1. Most importantly, an acceptance of a principle 1995); [and] the distance between adja- of general covariance. cent points is expressed by a metric equa- 2. Matter, momentum and energy distribution are tion . . . The metric coefficients in the met- the sole determiners of spacetime curvature. ric equation depend on the arbitrarily coordinates chosen and geometric properties 3. Gravitational theorisation must utilise a metric, of the space are expressed in the form because the structure of spacetime is encoded in of differential equations showing how the the metric field tensor, with the curvature en- metric coefficients vary from place to place coding ‘gravity’ at the same time. (Harrison 2000, p.198). 4. The principle of equivalence applies to all forms Since GR is a generalisation of SR, the theory neces- of accelerated motion. sarily builds upon the mathematical structure of SR, 5. There can be no privileged reference frames. more so than SR’s conceptual structure. Central to Accepting the strict relativism of Einstein’s GR then GR are Einstein’s equations, which link the geometry strongly supports a reductive stance to physics, espe- of a four-dimensional semi-Riemannian manifold rep- cially four force unification. resenting spacetime with the energy-momentum con- The first of these listed points is the most impor- tained in that spacetime. tant, with the other points logically dependent upon Further, since GR is a generalisation of SR, it has an inherently localised (theoretical) starting-‘point’, it. Our concern is not with GR as concerns celestial providing no conceivable avenue with which one could matter, rather it is with a quantum mechanical (QM) system moving in curved spacetime168. express the (as yet to be derived) excess QM energy arising from the closed loop (finite time) mo- 166Not forgetting GR’s use of the (Einstein) Equivalence tion of (bulk) QM matter in curved spacetime upon Principle as effectively a ‘foundation stone’ for generalizing a geodesic. The supplementary space curvature (pro- special relativistic physics to include gravitational effects. posed herein), although not explicitly expressed as a 167Parts of this subsection paraphrase Wikipedia: General Relativity; as modified on 16 May 08, at 02.24. 165Note that electromagnetism has both microscopic and 168Support is possibly lent to this by way of the black hole macroscopic aspects. information paradox (BHIP). Stephen Hawking concludes A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 49

In the spirit of (Sir) Arthur Stanley Eddington physically dominated by electromagnetic concerns cf. we see (he saw) (QMs and) GR “. . . as fundamentally the inertial (and mass-based) concerns of the model. ‘epistemological’ in character, meaning that they provided insight into how we see the world, rather than 4.3.4 Non-relativistic aspects of gravita- what the world is (Stanley 2005, p.37).” In this subsection in the model tion we shall argue, in line with certain philosophers of physics, that general covariance (GCoV) should be Gravitational theorisation involves a clear distinction regarded as simply a new mathematical technique, and between accelerating and non-accelerating motion (i.e. not necessarily an expression of physical content (i.e. non-inertial and inertial motion). The model utilises an ontological aspect) — especially since the physical both: the concept of a rotating space-warp, and a implications of SR’s invariance of the interval (under (constant amplitude) acceleration (perturbation) that Lorentz transformations) remain far from obvious (or is related to (and induces) the anomalous motion of fully settled). the Pioneer spacecraft; but the (rotating) accelera- Only if GCoV looses its (general) ‘principle’ sta- tion/gravitational field is only indirectly related to (the tus, i.e. beyond GR’s formalism, can our model driving energy of) ‘motion/movement’ within (a great be viable; because it has features such as: accelera- many) atoms and molecules. The specific potential en- tion/gravitation encoding curvature (cf. vice versa); ergy of the proposed supplementary oscillatory gravi- 1 2 2 no need for a metric nor an equation of (‘point’ mass) tational field (per cycle) ∆e = 2 ∆a ∆t (recall subsec- geodesic motion; and (crucially) a situation that effec- tion 3.2.8) is a surprisingly simple law-like expression, tively violates GR’s (weak) principle of equivalence — with ∆t representing the duration time for a full rota- with this last feature not fully addressed until subsection. The need for a systemic time standard is clear. tion 6.4.1. Regarding gravitation, philosophers of science have In the philosophy of physics, and for some physi- argued that it is (only) acceleration and rotation that cists, the following is accepted. (in at least one sense) effectively resist a completely 170 Einstein offered the principle of general relativistic interpretation ; e.g. (hypothetical) whole covariance as the fundamental physical universe rotation. Hence they retain, not an absolute principle of his general theory of relativ- aspect, but rather in the case of acceleration a ‘true’ ity and as responsible for extending the aspect (independent of relative motion); and in the principle of relativity to accelerated mo- case of rotation a sense of being global (or systemic). tion. This view was disputed almost im- Fortuitously, only these two concepts are involved in mediately with the counterclaim that the the model’s quantification of ∆e, and the proposed principle was no relativity principle and existence of RSWs (of cosmological extent). Further, was physically vacuous. The disagreement with the model’s cyclic acceleration amplitude (neces- persists today (Norton 1993, Abstract). sarily) constant ‘everywhere’, the simplification of the model’s quantification could not be greater171 ; pro- Certainly, GR is a generalisation of SR and subse- viding a compelling reason to (further) advance the quently, this greatly restricts any supplementary al- model. In section 4.4 we do this by way of a contin- ternative (rather than modified) gravitational theo- ued re-evaluation of SR’s and GR’s ontological com- risation; but the mathematical technique of general mitments. covariance is not necessarily ‘active’ beyond GR (i.e. gaining “principle” status). Thus, the various restrictions to gravitational theorisation (listed above) that 4.4 Evaluating SR’s and GR’s onto- (logically) follow from a principle of GCoV are not logical commitment validly deduced. Admittedly, it is one thing to say the principle of GCoV is logically restricted, and another In this section we seek to further expose the not so rigid (far more difficult) thing to explain why. Section 6.7 ontological underbelly upon which GR is founded. In- addresses this issue in some depth. directly we are examining the scope of GR and ques- Recalling the exclusions and idealised circum- tioning ontological assumptions behind SR, that are stances associated with general relativity outlined in subsumed into GR. We also outline a variety of ‘in- subsection 4.1.5, GR’s ‘completeness’ credentials are variance’ aspects required for the supplementary on- clearly non-‘water-tight’169. To simply use GR’s rel- tological perspective to be presented in section 4.5, ativism (in particular) to deny the supplementation which (amongst other things) are consistent with the of non-Euclidean geometry proposed herein is totally model’s use of a single time variable to describe the inappropriate (although understandable) — especially whole system. Eventually, it shall be seen that this since both curved spacetime and (non-inertial aspects secondary perspective is not in defiance of special and of) QM atomic/molecular systems are involved in our general relativity (SR and GR), rather it is supplemen- model. Note that QM atomic/molecular systems are tary; suiting the very different ingredients associated the paradox implies the usual rules of QMs cannot apply 170The issues involved herein are very deep and are nec- in all situations. Note, this situation (also, like the BHIP) essarily muted in their presentation. This and other parts involves QMs and gravitation. of section 4.3 have drawn somewhat upon an article called 169For example, concerning GR’s restricted coverage to “Absolute and Relational Theories of Space and Motion” non-complicated physical phenomena; in that exact solu- in the (online) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. tions to N-body systems elude (NMs and) GR. Admittedly, 171No metric, no equation of motion, no stress-energy ten- numerical methods are promising in this regard. sor, etc. 50 Paul G. ten Boom with the model — e.g. virtual QM energy, QM non- its widest sense173. Finally, quoting from a philosoph- locality, and a three-body celestial system. Specifics ical article: of GR (on its own), such as the relativistic energy- . . . the conventional view of space-time as momentum tensor are incompatible with the model’s the ground of physics is [for some peo- ‘ingredients’. This and the next section are philosoph- ple] increasingly being called into question ical/conceptual rather then mathematically physical, (Clarke 1993, p.53). and concentrate upon re-examining space, time, their coexistence; as well as mass, motion and energy. Our By way of an assumed unification of reality, ‘space- motivation is to eventually explain how a new con- time’ is standardly seen to be common to the micro- tribution to gravitation (in its widest sense) can co- and the macroscopic realms. The new approach pur- exist with the standard approach of general relativity sued herein pursues the coexistence of a secondary — with the latter (by far) the dominant approach to global “neo-classical” notion of time (and space), that gravitation. cannot be directly ‘grasped’ by local observations. This supplementation, by way of two different ideal- 4.4.1 Concerns regarding an ontological isations, is necessary; so as to physically link (in the model) an energy (magnitude) between both realms commitment to spacetime seamlessly (and simply). From this perspective, we Special Relativity demands that space and time be begin to conjecture that GR’s need for general covari- fused together into spacetime. This arises in part ance is a direct consequence of (further) adding grav- from the ‘operational’ approach employed in Einstein’s itational effects to the (already additional) conformal SR172; this being almost always associated with an structure demanded by SR’s Lorentz symmetry. additional ontological commitment to the idea that: measurements dictate reality (without any remainder); 4.4.2 The failure of alternative approaches indeed this is the essence of the scientific approach. to special relativity Spacetime is seen by physicists as the correct understanding of (now obsolete) classical space and time; S. J. Prokhovnik’s “The Logic of Special Relativity” successfully rebutting all alternative (in the sense of (Prokhovnik 1978) sought to highlight (p.84) that at different) interpretations of the Lorentz transforma- different levels of description, and/or describing differ- tions that have been proposed. The existence of the ent sets of phenomena, SR’s Lorentz transformations latter is indicative of a suspicion that SR’s spacetime can be associated with a secondary (rather then al- and GR’s (physical) ontology may be somewhat re- ternative) interpretation, and hence further ontologi- stricted, i.e. not quite the whole ‘story’. cal aspects. We shall not pursue a detailed discussion Supporting this broad concern are a number of here. The reader is simply asked to recognise a histori- specific issues or concerns. Firstly, locality was as- cal pursuit of (unsuccessful) alternative interpretations sumed ‘universal’ in the days prior to QMs’ full es- of SR’s Lorentz transformations, pursued by scientists tablishment in the 1920s and beyond. Historically, SR and philosophers who perceive logical contradictions in resolved the tension between electromagnetism (EM) SR and ‘spacetime’, as (possibly indicative of) an in- and classical mechanics, that had became apparent at complete ‘grasp’ of physical reality — in particular the the end of the nineteenth century. Quantum mechan- twins paradox174. Indeed, Prokhovnik and others have ics’ incorporation of special-relativistic effects has been struggled to justify their alternative interpretations; amazingly successful, but non-locality remains a vex- and we shall not champion any of these approaches. ing issue. Secondly, in the formalism used to describe physics’ two realms, the macro- and microscopic, the relationship between space and time is quite different. 4.4.3 Other indicators that GR may be in- A locally classical/flat space background is (almost al- complete and/or restricted ways) implicit in (micro) QMs, whereas curved space- A real Pioneer anomaly demands something additional time is the essence of (macro) GR; and further: to GR rather than a simple modification. The elegance . . . in quantum mechanics, time retains its of GR tends to imply that it completes gravitational Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage theorisation. There is no assurance of GR’s complete- against which matter dances but never be- ness, and subsequently we cannot assume that unifica- ing affected by its presence. These two tion of GR and QMs is the next (and possibly final) conceptions of time don’t gel (Merali 2009, major step in theoretical physics. Alternatively, the p.18). elegance of GR may be associated with restrictiveness in some sense. Thirdly, time still remains mysterious outside of physics’ (possibly incomplete) accounts of ‘reality’ in 173See Martin Heidegger’s “Being and Time” for example. 174For example: consider a two observer, figure eight sym- 172Operationalization is the process of defining a concept metric version of the twins paradox, involving geodesic mo- as the operations that will measure the concept (variables) tion in a suitably configured asteroid belt. Who’s clock runs through specific observations. That even the most basic (relatively) slow when the two S/C, moving in opposing ro- concepts in science, like “length,” are defined solely through tational directions, periodically observe each other’s clocks the operations by which we measure them, is the discovery at the nexus of the ‘eight’? Note that asymmetrical ac- of Percy Williams Bridgman, whose methodological posi- celeration is not present in this curved spacetime (geodesic tion is called operationalism (source: Wikipedia, 2011). motion, i.e. non-force) scenario. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 51

The extrapolation of GR’s local gravitational cur- 4.4.5 Reintroducing the notion of rela- vature to the global/cosmological case is neither sup- tivistic mass ported, nor denied, by observations indicating that (cosmologically) space is flat/uncurved (k = 0). Thus, Observations indicate contraction or dilation effects for we may question whether whole universe/global cur- length, time and relativistic/apparent mass, but not vature (k = 1), implied by GR’s perceived exclusive electric charge. “The concept of relativistic mass has role in describing± gravitation, is capable of being physi- gradually fallen into disuse in physics since 1950, when particle physics showed the relevance of invariant [or cally ‘realised’. In other words, global (whole universe) 176 curvature remains an unproven conjecture, supported rest] mass” . Unsaid in this quote is the fact that: in- by an assumed ‘totality’ of GR’s scope. It is quite variance in physical laws, a principle based approach to conceivable that GR’s domain of application might al- physics, and gauge theories have been on the rise since ways be restricted to a subset of the whole universe, about then; with this emphasis harbouring a particle- applying to the largest of galactic clusters but not nec- based unification agenda, along with a sense that onto- essarily to the universe as a ‘whole’. The model needs logical interpretation of SR’s Lorentz transformation is to enforce this (sub-global to global) distinction. complete, or even unnecessary. In line with our distinction between the micro- and macroscopic realms (subsections 4.2.6 and 4.4.4) we shall distinguish and utilise 4.4.4 Three levels or scales of mass by way two approaches to mass in SR: microscopically we em- of the amount of binding energy brace the emphasis given to (particle) energy and mo- To establish the model it is necessary to elaborate upon mentum, but at the macroscopic/cosmological level, our previous distinction between micro- and macro- and for the discussion of ontological concerns, we shall scopic matter/mass (subsection 4.2.6), and distinguish revert back to the simplicity of relativistic/apparent three ‘levels’ (or scales) of matter/mass. mass (Sandin 1991). 1. Sub-atomic particles in which binding energy, as a proportion of total mass/energy, can play a 4.4.6 Extending the scope of invariance, major role. and ‘time’ 2. Atomic and molecular matter in which binding The distinction between relativistic mass and invari- energy, as a proportion of total mass/energy, ant (or rest) mass outlined in subsection 4.4.5 shall be plays a minor role. supplemented in the following two subsections by ar- 3. Macroscopic matter in which binding energy, as guments for an existence of invariant aspects of time a proportion of total mass/energy, plays a neg- and length/space in idealised, yet ultimately practical, ligible role. global circumstances. The motive for doing this is to Note that the expression “microscopic matter” (or eventually get around the restraint that SR’s invari- mass) shall imply either or both levels one and two. ance of the interval has upon the conceptualisation of Also note that vast quantities of gas or plasma, e.g. gravitation; (and we do this) by way of seeking out new vast celestial gas clouds, are considered under this cri- and further conceivable instances of invariance. In sec- teria to be matter on a ‘macroscopic’ scale. tion 4.5 we shall see that (in idealised circumstances) The value of this distinction is that standard grav- the distinction between relativistic mass and invariant itation (and the use of GR) pertains (in practice) mass can be extended to length and time; but prior to to macroscopic matter as defined above; whereas the this extension certain idealised physical circumstances model involves (non-stationary) mass at (and ‘below’) need to be established by way of conjecture. the level of atoms and molecules — notwithstanding Often in physics the expression “invariance” the fact that these atoms and molecules are encased means: unaffected by a transformation of coordinates. in a very large macroscopic (lunar) body. In particu- In this section invariance shall also be used (somewhat lar, the model involves a virtual energy discrepancy175 trivially) in the sense of: a homogeneity or uniformity arising from (macroscopic) celestial (geodesic) motion throughout the global distribution, or occurrence, of a of (second level) atomic/molecular matter; with the particular quantity. energy, or rather a rate of angular momentum, nec- The consideration of a less simple approach to the essarily expressed externally as a rotating accelera- ‘time’ of physical observations appears to be required tion/gravitational field perturbation. Thus, the sec- by way of the ability of QM systems to ‘act’ non- ond type of non-Euclidean geometry proposed herein locally i.e. effectively instantaneously, in terms of ob- clearly has its basis (in part) at a different (non- servational time (recall subsection 4.2.10) — at least macroscopic) level of matter (in motion). as regards correlations between properties of distant The new model’s acceleration/gravitational field is systems, and (we shall conjecture) how these correla- a global (whole universe) scenario, and it also exhibits tions are maintained. This alone is reason enough to global homogeneity (re: its sinusoidal amplitude). If elaborate upon time’s ontology/reality177 ; otherwise GR is seen as restricted to sub-universe macroscopic we are somewhat in denial of a startling physical obser- scenarios, then these two types of gravitational influence are clearly distinct and non-overlapping. 176Wikipedia: Mass in special relativity, August 2007. 177Paul Davies, from personal observation, strongly ob- 175Later we see that this atomic/molecular virtual energy, jects to more than one time being propounded; but this from a global/systemic (whole universe) perspective, is ac- (completely appropriate) scientific stance unavoidably in- tually a real inertial energy discrepancy. volves a philosophical stance upon what time isn’t. 52 Paul G. ten Boom vation — albeit with non-locality (probably) restricted to the ‘duration’ of an accompanying hidden non- to the QM spin of particles/atoms/molecules, and col- measurable (background ‘scanning’) process — (would lections thereof. Albert & Galchen (2009) provide a most likely) have an extremely short/‘infinitesimal’ du- good overview of this recently rejuvenated concern. ration; i.e. the hidden process is a comparatively much ‘longer process’. This (moment-to-moment) situation would (in all likelihood) also involve incremental lo- 4.4.7 Idealised invariant cosmological time 179 — the universe’s fastest ticking clock cal changes throughout the universe. We may conceive that this cyclic (go-pause-go- Atomic clock based Terrestrial time (TT) differs from pause-... or pivot-pause-pivot-pause-...) universal oc- (atomic clock based) Geocentric Coordinate Time 178 currence can be broken up into fractional parts. By (TCG) by a constant rate . The unit of time in- definition: any measurement of time is ultimately terval in TT is defined as the SI second at mean sea based on counting the cycles of some regularly recur- level. The reference frame for TCG is not rotating with ring phenomenon and accurately measuring fractions the surface of the Earth and not in the gravitational of that cycle. Although this hidden (i.e. noumenal) potential of the Earth; and thus TCG ticks slightly and cyclic process is beyond ‘measurement’, hypothe- faster than TT. Barycentric Coordinate Time (TCB) sising it allows observational (i.e. relativistic) time to is the equivalent of TCG for calculations relating to the latently possess a supplementary hidden aspect that solar system beyond Earth orbit. TCB ticks slightly is effectively (temporally) digital and cosmologically quicker than TCG. The difference between TCB and uniform in ‘nature’ — in addition to the usual (solely) TCG involves a four-dimensional spacetime transfor- analog perspective of observational (and relativistic) mation. We note that all these times: TT, TCG and time. Note that the scientific merit of this hypothe- TCB are theoretical ideals; but their ‘constancy’ al- sised scenario is based upon the observation of QM lows them to have practical applications. non-locality, as well as discontent with simply cit- We may conceivably extend this idealisation of ing entanglement when ‘explaining’ the ‘occurrence’ time rates to a galactic centre coordinate time, then of non-locality in experiments. the centre of the local galactic group, and then the lo- In subsection 4.4.7 we hypothesised an idealised cal supercluster centre; with the rate of clock ticking cosmological (coordinate) time (TCC). Such a ‘global’ being slightly faster for each four-dimensional space- approach to time is fully consistent with a universe time transformation. Assuming that we could ob- that evolves in a (digital and hence) globally ‘coor- serve the whole universe, and know the positions, mo- dinated’ manner. Note that an idealised cosmologi- tions, and gravitational potentials of other superclus- cal time rate is not a reprise of classical or absolute ters; there is a conceivable and final conceptual ex- time in an absolute space reference frame, although it trapolation that results in an (idealised) ‘Local’ Cos- is well suited to a systemic approach. Clearly there mological Coordinate Time (TCC) located at the local is a distinction between idealised “cosmological time” supercluster centre. This would be a clock for practi- and “observational time”, with the latter incorporat- cal applications involving the whole universe; and it ing the relativity and temporal variances (i.e. non- is a quicker/faster (ticking) clock than all conceivable simultaneity) associated with observations of a real, others. dynamic and non-homogeneous universe. It is worth noting that historically, before international atomic 4.4.8 Non-locality and an idealised invari- time was given preference, the observational time of ant cosmological time (rate) an ‘Earth day’ or ‘Earth year’ was a sufficiently exact (reference) of cyclic duration. Time can be understood as either the interval between two events or as a sequential arrangement of The important feature of this discussion is the in- events. To account for QM non-locality, subsection variance of the TCG, TCB, and (the new) TCC (ide- 4.2.10 raised the possibility of the universe’s evolu- alised) ‘time rates’; and their applicability through- tion having a step-like aspect, which is ‘separated’ out a given system — something that clearly eludes and coordinated/harmonised by a hidden cosmologi- GR. Satellite and spacecraft navigation illustrate the cal/global (cyclical) process of non-measurable dura- necessity of establishing an idealised systemic time tion. Observational reality, which is the basis of the rate in practical and scientific astro-dynamical exper- scientific method, is necessarily oblivious to this sup- iments. There will be a vast finite (indefinite) num- plementary ontological process. This cyclic process ber of ‘noumenal’ cycles/increments occurring within ensures that a background coordination of sequential any SI second. The existence of the model proposed (cosmological) “moments” is conceivable, which intro- (herein), to explain a real Pioneer anomaly, appears duces a major shift in our conceptualisation of what to demand this global coordination of events. In- observational time may involve (and be coexistent deed, from a universal/global perspective, a coordi- with). Briefly entertaining this broader temporal atti- nating/harmonising (noumenal or hidden background) tude/perspective, it is conceivable that these (available process appears to be a very good way to ensure that to observation) ‘reality moments’ — when compared all parts (of a vast system) can be maintained in stable ‘coordination’. 178See, for example, IERS (International Earth rotation and Reference systems Service) Technical Note No. 32, Section 10: General Relativistic Models for Space-time Co- 179Where “local” also implies extremely small ‘regions’ of ordinates and Equations of Motion. the universe. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 53

4.4.9 Benefits of appreciating a broader background (or stage) to physical interactions, events, scope to the concept of invariance and processes. Not conflicting with this notion is: The concept of time dilation depends upon one’s 1. space’s (vacuum) impedance of 377 ohms, stance upon what time is. Ontologically speaking, time 2. the astronomical aberration of light, for obser- and time dilation are considered to be analog (cf. dig- vations from an Earth that orbits the Sun, and ital), such that time, relative to a stationary observer, simply runs slow at relativistic speeds. Alternatively 3. a dipole effect associated with Earth’s motion (and hypothetically), if we accept the introduction of a through the microwave background radiation. second/further fixed (yet hidden) aspect of cosmological time, then some measured time could simply be lost The idea of a cosmological substratum is certainly at the level of observations, as a result of motion — in not a consensus (nor popular) view. Indeed, all expla- the manner that relativistic/apparent mass is gained. nations of SR and GR incorporating absolute motion This notion is the major outcome to be established and/or absolute space should be rejected. Opposition in section 4.5; it is a subtle concept and requires the to such proposals have been strongly stated, e.g. Clif- preliminaries discussed throughout this section (4.4). ford Will; and quite rightly, since nearly all experi- Regarding mass, we inevitably examine the same mental evidence, excluding a real Pioneer anomaly and rest/intrinsic mass, but as (relative) speed increases non-locality, supports an implementation of Ockham’s from zero the magnitude of mass (in physical formu- razor — thus, excluding any ‘hidden’ (metaphysical) lae) is modified. Could the same be true with time aspects beyond direct observational evidence. (and length)? Does motion alter the measurement of A question that remains is: must all discussion of ‘time’, thus giving the impression, via time lost, of time a global perspective to space and/or time always be dilation; but not altering a deeper (non-observable) strongly rejected? Certainly, regarding observational true intrinsic invariant aspect of time (recall subsec- physics employing light rays, the answer is yes; but a tion 4.4.8)? Or should we refuse to seek progress by cosmological substratum need not be always localised way of new hypotheses; trusting in general principles (nor ‘real’ cf. virtual), so as to necessitate an accom- and invariance, and accepting that mass is (always and panying absolute reference frame. only reducible to) just energy. Thus, (effectively) dis- The (or an) exception to this rule would be a glob- pensing with questions that seek a (potentially) richer ally homogeneous cosmological substratum, with all explanation of: (observed) time dilation, energy’s in- points/places the same; thus, it would exhibit spatial crease with momentum, the origin of mass, and so invariance by way of global homogeneity. This sub- forth. Accepting a real Pioneer anomaly demands we stratum could only exist in the absence of any mass, must strive towards something different. motion, momentum or physical field energy; and thus Our alternative view results in a distinction it does not ‘exist’ per se; rather it is necessarily a con- between: the standard relativistic appreciation of ceptual idealisation. This includes ‘taking out’ the mo- time180; and a (new) scenario that has both a glob- tion of the solar system barycentre with respect to cos- ally fixed (and hidden) time rate181, and a non-fixed mic microwave background (CMB) radiation (i.e. the time rate for relative motion, various physical systems, CMB dipole); and then ‘taking out’ the energy field etc. — with only the latter being “measurable”. In associated with the CMB’s (very nearly) homogeneous section 4.5 we see that this new scenario allows an temperature. Effectively establishing an ‘absolute rest 182 appreciation of observed time (and length) similar to frame ’ at a temperature of absolute zero. One inter- (old-fashioned) relativistic mass; in that there is both a pretation would be to see this (idealised) globally ho- rest/intrinsic value (albeit in idealised circumstances) mogeneous substratum as effectively the empty mold and a relativistic/apparent (measured) value. (form, or die) upon which physical reality (all that exists) is ‘cast’. If so, it has a latent physical relevance. In philosophical terms we are skirting around the 4.4.10 Substantivalism without a cosmo- debate between relativism and substantivalism. The logically global reference frame substantial ‘something’ being proposed is not SR’s We now turn our attention to the notion of universal spacetime per se; rather it is an idealised (beyond background space. Physicists such as: E. A. Milne, physical reality) background continuum of uncurved H. W. McCrea, V. Fock, and S. J. Prokhovnik, have (i.e. flat) space involving three dimensions. Only conceptually can this empty universe coexist with a non- all entertained the idea of a cosmological substratum; 183 i.e. a fundamental/global reference frame acting as a empty universe ; yielding a relativistic substantivalism. Additionally, this idealised background also has 180Figuratively, time (or rather the rate of time) is elastic, stretching and shrinking with the clock that measures it. 182The dipole is a frame-dependent quantity, and one can 181In the sense of a globally coordinated/harmonious re- thus determine the ‘absolute rest frame’ as that in which ality, i.e. state of the universe, that (unbeknownst to ob- the CMB dipole would be zero (Scott & Smoot 2010, section servational physics) pauses before re-expressing the next 23.2.2). cosmological state of the universe; one of a long sequence 183Note that dark (or vacuum) energy is not being ad- of observable (cosmological scale) ‘reality’ states (or steps). dressed in this dichotomy. Actually, the RSWs (rotating Both perceptually and observationally, (our and scientific) space-warps) proposed by the model, conceivably affect red- reality appears ‘to be’ continuous; with the additional shift measurements of EM radiation (cf. alter its speed); (noumenal) aspect always hidden from experienced and ob- and thus, dark energy may not exist, once the existence of servational (i.e. ‘phenomenal’) reality. RSWs is recognised — see subsection 6.2.6 and Section 7. 54 Paul G. ten Boom an ability to coexist with the (idealised) form of (stac- 4.4.13 Another kind of ‘uniform’ accelera- cato) time ‘simultaneity’ discussed in subsection 4.4.8 tion that can be visualised (also recall subsection 4.2.10). Clearly, an ontological open frame of mind is re- Other than the product of non-local mass and volume quired to entertain this ontological ‘supplementation’; enclosed, the model has only one (type of) field value involving a combination (or coexistence) of measured (sinusoidal ∆a) (which is) of fixed value/amplitude reality exhibiting relativity, together with the addi- throughout the universal system. If we allow the accel- tional conceptual ‘existence’ of an (idealised and hid- eration/gravitation to be represented by space curva- den) background/platform of space (and time). ture (cf. spacetime curvature), it becomes possible to visualise each (gravito-quantum) rotating space-warp (in two dimensions) as a rotating ‘rigid’ warped disk 4.4.11 On idealised invariant cosmological (recall Figures 4 to 7). This ability to visualise is empty space more in keeping with a (neo-classical) fluid mechan- What is the purpose of proposing an (idealised) ‘sub- ical treatment incorporating a vast space continuum stantial nothing’ background in addition to the mea- and time simultaneity; rather than anything remotely sured/observed world? How can the existence of an resembling general relativity’s formalism. Expressing (ongoing) homogeneous nothingness (throughout and) the model’s features as a supplementation of GR, in the language of GR, is not feasible; nor is a modified of space, in the absence of gravitational (and all other) 188 effects, possibly be related to the relativism of special Newtonian mechanics (MOND) viable . and general relativity? Although special and general It is important to note that with: the ∆a ampli- relativity do not explicitly involve/require this supple- tude (at any given point) being non-uniform, in the mentary (physical) ontology — notwithstanding Ock- sense of sinusoidally or cyclically variable; and uni- ham’s razor — they cannot deny it. form or homogeneous, in the sense of being the same The use of a (flat) space background, together magnitude/amplitude everywhere; compatibility with with the (noumenal/background) time simultaneity GR (by way of the latter sense) is trivially assured. discussed in subsections 4.4.8 and 4.4.9, indirectly sup- Supporting this new type of field is the fact that GR’s ports the additional (perturbative) non-Euclidean ge- conceptual foundations are restricted to uniform (i.e. ometry of the model to be mathematically formalised locally homogeneous) gravitational fields. In GR non- by way of (simple) ‘neo-classical’ mechanics184. The uniformity is both expressed as, and restricted to, conceptual arguments permitting such a simple ap- curved spacetime cf. curved space in time. Pragmat- proach, in defiance of special and general relativity’s ically, each instantiation of the model’s (very small) usual implications, are far from trivial and require fur- supplementary acceleration/gravitational field is seen to sit (evenly) on top of any existing curved spacetime ther discussion, as well as the subtle conceptual move 189 outlined in section 4.5. field ; but conceptually and mathematically this coexistence is an uneasy alliance (see subsection 4.4.14). 4.4.12 Supplementary invariant ontology & the model’s invariant attributes 4.4.14 The model’s separate gravitational relationship cf. general relativity The hypothesising of: a hidden cosmological evolution process, a latent universal time coordination, and a la- The implicit contention herein is that general relativ- tent homogeneous space background, are all anathema ity is “not all of (gravitational) reality”; and that a to GR with its metric based approach. With quantifi- (solely) relativistic approach is restrictive in some neg- cation in the new model only requiring (several in- ative sense. Indirectly supporting a notion of incom- stantiations of): a systemic (i.e. barycentric) cyclic pletion and restrictiveness is GR’s inability to incor- time185 (∆t), a (field based) cyclic variation of a ‘true’ porate/ascertain total energy (and total mass). Pri- acceleration/gravitation (∆a) that is of fixed magni- marily, SR and GR are restrictive in a positive sense, tude everywhere186, and a constant (non-local) mass in that the laws of physics are invariant with respect ∗ (m ) to (celestial space) enclosed volume (V ) relation- to coordinate transformations. ship187; a simple neo-classical formalism is sufficient to Whereas SR utilises local frame-to-frame relative account for the Pioneer anomaly. Note the global in- relationships in conjunction with ‘spacetime inter- variance (i.e. homogeneity) associated with the latter val’ invariance, our global approach has highlighted a ∗ two quantities: ∆a and (m V ). system-upon-idealised background relationship in conjunction with the amplitude invariance of sinusoidal 184The attendant conceptualisation, that allows this sim- ∆a. These relationships are distinctly different. This ple “neo-classical” formalism, is anything but ‘classical’ and further confirms that the systemic/global nature of the far from simple. model is completely foreign to what a relativistic the- 185Note that this (sidereal) rotation period/time takes into consideration all (minor) general relativistic effects such as ory can encompass. geodetic precession. Fortunately, the three levels/scales of mass sys- 186Later we see that an (inner) central ‘hole’ is required tems, outlined in subsection 4.4.4, provides some clar- because the rotating space-warp is the externalisation of an inexpressible QM energy arising from atomic/molecular 188MOND tends to alter the mathematics of gravitation mass in a non-inertial configuration. without any supportive conceptual justification. 187Non-local mass is a new concept unique to the model. It 189Over extended periods of time, i.e. a fair bit longer is more elaborately ‘defined’/introduced in subsection 6.4.2. than the longest ∆t. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 55 ity in distinguishing the basis of GR’s predominantly 4.4.16 Section overview and summary (macroscopic) gravitation from the model’s (ultimate) Although a real Pioneer anomaly is a very minor grav- basis in atomic/molecular ‘mass’. More specifically, 191 this basis is an atomic/molecular (process-based) rate itational/accelerational effect , its existence (and as- of angular momentum; relating to an asymmetrical re- sociated constancy) requires significant modification of lationship between the QM spin and orbital values aris- our accepted understanding of reality. Its existence is ing from closed loop celestial (geodesic) motion of the in defiance of GR’s (assumed) ‘completion’ of gravita- atoms/molecules in curved spacetime, and also involv- tional theorisation. ing the self -interference190 and QM fermion ‘wave’ as- In reply to the strong dependence of SR upon in- pects of these atoms/molecules over the course of each variance (of the interval) this section (4.4) has sought complete orbit (of their macroscopic ‘host’ body). to establish further invariances — in the widest (less technical) sense of the term, i.e. including homogene- Furthermore, scalar magnitudes such as: total and 192 specific energy, (constant amplitude) acceleration, and ity, constancy and uniformity . We may divide these (non-local) mass (albeit referenced to an enclosed vol- into three types. ume), are all well suited to the model’s global per- 1. Special relativity has the invariance of the in- spective. Later (section 6.3) we see that the energy terval under Lorentz transformations (Lorentz of each rotating space-warp — together with its initial ∗ ∗ invariance) and the constancy of the velocity of non-local mass (m )—is∆E = 1 m ∆a2 ∆t2. 1 w 2 1 w light (in a vacuum). 2. In the model to be presented there are two major 4.4.15 Invariant light speed and the limits types of (observational) invariants: the ampli- of observational physics tude of the cyclic acceleration in the field (∆a), and the product of non-local mass and volume ∗ Electromagnetic radiation’s constancy of propagation enclosed (m V ). speed is pivotal to relativity’s mathematical formalism; and subsequently how space and time are seen to go 3. Two new idealised ‘invariances’ have been intro- together (at least observationally). Further: duced. By way of non-locality we conjectured a hidden (background) cosmological coordination It is a striking fact that all the estab- of time, i.e. a (type of) frequency invariance. lished departures from the Newtonian pic- Also, by way of space being (observed as) cos- ture have been, in some way, associated mologically ‘flat’ (k = 0), we inferred that empty with the behaviour of light (Penrose 1990, space — i.e. in the absence of matter and en- p.285, Note 1 Chapter 5). ergy — is homogeneous; and thus this (idealised background) empty space displays spatial invari- Responding to this quote of Roger Penrose regard- ance. ing light, a sceptic of pure-relativism can hypothesise upon additional ontological aspects excluded by SR What is the point of this proliferation of invari- and GR. Particulary, whether one’s observational (onance, both overt and covert? Firstly, hidden back- tological) framework in some way guarantees the (mea- ground aspects ‘support’ the classical-like formalism sured) constancy of light (EM radiation) speed in a in the model’s account of the Pioneer anomaly193; es- vacuum (c) in all relative motion circumstances. This pecially since the field perturbation/curvature arises implies that the outcome of an act or process of obser- from a virtual asymmetrical energy offset, that al- vation utilising electromagnetic radiation, and reality though inexpressible at/within the atomic/molecular itself, may be deeply entwined — but not in a way that level of matter194, it is witnessed/registered at the conflicts with the SR view that c (the speed of light) is global background ‘level’. Secondly, we note that the a fundamental feature of the way space and time are four new invariances introduced, all have a global or unified as spacetime. Once again the finality of (direct) systemic application. observational evidence (alone) is being questioned and More importantly, we may distinguish two dis- deeper ontological circumstances entertained. tinct types of ‘relative’ effects (especially involving Associated with this EM radiation speed invariance is whether (and if so, why) the specific energy 191Note that the proposed mechanism to explain the Pio- (E/m) of all phenomena is limited by a c2 upper limit? neer anomaly is of cosmological scale; and its influence may This is further examined in section 4.5. (conceivably) become more and more significant as the periods of time involved are extended. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and the Planck 192In physics, invariance of angular momentum and energy (or reduced Planck) constant support both: the notion are directly related to conservation laws. that observational precision is limited in a quantifiable 193Note that the model requires standard gravitation to manner, and that hidden features (cf. variables) of the be conceptualised as curved spacetime, rather than as a physical universe may exist, especially where (QM) un- gravitational force. certainty prevails — e.g. below a minimum (quantum) 194‘Virtual’ energy; because the dominant electromagnetic energy level, or change in energy levels, in an atomic forces, at this level of matter, overwhelm any non-inertial energy effects that could arise from atomic/molecular (i.e. or molecular system. mass) motion in (celestial scale) curved spacetime. Actu- ally, it is the intrinsic spin of all elementary fermion/matter 190By way of a difference between pre- and post-orbital- particles ‘within’ each (composite/whole) atom/molecule cycle wave phase conditions. that is ‘influenced’ in a virtual manner. 56 Paul G. ten Boom motion): the standard object-to-object (‘phenome- 4.5.1 Preliminaries nal’) relativity, and a new relationship between the Loosely speaking, we are countenancing two aspects of observable world and the empty space and coordinated/harmonious time of a (hidden background) reality: one measured; and one beyond measurement, ‘noumenal’ idealised ‘world’. This latter, local- yet also (in a certain sense) the platform ‘behind’ mea- surement195. For observations/measurements we re- phenomenal to global background/noumenal physi- tain standard or ‘proper’ physics; e.g. the relativistic cal relationship, argues for the coexistence of relativ- energy-momentum equation E2 (pc)2 =(mc2)2 with ity’s invariance of spacetime with both homogeneity of − (empty) space, and uniformity of time in this empty its relativistic (observer dependent) values of energy (E) and momentum (p). In what follows, it is neces- space. Thus, mass (for example) can be seen to curve sary to move away from a purely observational basis an otherwise flat space, and cause a deviation from ‘the’ (empty space) rate of time. Whereas, in SR’s that gives light rays and coordinate systems (i.e. op- formalising of space and time, it is the invariance of erationalism) exclusive priority. the spacetime interval that is paramount. Moving from the standard “phenomenal-to- phenomenal” [sic196] approach of relativity, to a The reader should be aware that we are not seek- phenomenal-to-background (i.e. a phenomenal-to- ing to downplay the importance and exclusivity of the noumenal) approach, we recognise a (flat) background Minkowski metric, nor are we promoting a “disguised” space continuum with a (latent) global time simultane- Euclidean metric. Although similar, but with a sub- ity; but not a universal time coordinate, nor a back- tle difference, we shall promote the notion of global ground reference frame that could be used with ob- reality as a “distortion” of an idealised Euclidean met- servations. Only this latter approach can facilitate ric — that would exist in a universe bereft of (mass, the additional global gravitational/accelerational ef- momentum and) energy. fect proposed herein. Additionally, GR’s domain of By way of highlighting: certain shortcomings of application is perceived as always a subset of the whole special and general relativity; the limits of observa- universe, applying up to the largest of galactic clus- tional physics; and conceivable restrictions upon the ters. Relativity’s curved spacetime is systemic, but capacities of the process of observation; this subsec- herein we need to deny its (seamless) extrapolation to tion has sought to undermine confidence in the com- universally (i.e. globally) systemic conditions. pleteness of (GR’s) existing gravitational theorisation. The digital global sequenced temporality discussed Note that within GR’s scope of application, i.e. ef- in section 4.4, allows us to appreciate one (idealised) fectively everything except the model’s specific/unique global ‘now’ existing with (or in amongst) many dif- case, GR’s correctness and/or accuracy is not doubted. ferent local time rates. The temporal symmetry of A primary aim of this section has been to “set the most laws of physics tends to support this picture of scene” for the decisive conceptual and theoretical move reality (i.e. hidden simultaneity); but note that the to follow (section 4.5); whereby SR’s Lorentz trans- model/mechanism to be presented is unlike this and formation is given a new/further and physically sup- relies upon an irreversible asymmetry (and/or offset) plementary/different interpretation — involving con- of QM energy ‘achieved’ (and externally re-expressed) ditions in a real/measured universe relative to inertial over a (system-based) cyclic time period. circumstances, with the latter being associated with a new (cosmological scale) specific energy based invari- 4.5.2 Inertial frames and: nothing, some- ance. This new conceptual landscape results from our thing, and everything assumption/hypothesis that the Pioneer anomaly is a real and new physical effect. In Newtonian Mechanics inertial frame circumstances apply to bodies in uniform motion or at rest (in an attendant inertial frame). The concept of an idealised global/universal empty space is (herein) considered to 4.5 Local relativistic effects within be a deeper (i.e. more fundamental) inertial circum- a globally invariant universe stance than uniform motion conditions — albeit not ‘realistically’ (i.e. measurably or phenomenally) vi- Section 4.4 supplemented the local and (and as mea- able. sured) invariances of SR, i.e. light speed and the laws If ‘the phenomenal’ is seen to always involve ‘some- of physics in constant relative motion, with the estab- thing’, then the idealised (noumenal) stance pursued lishment of idealised global invariances — i.e. homo- herein involves both: ‘nothing’ as in truly empty space; geneous space and time on the largest scale possible. but somewhat by way of invariance, the idealised Regarding the latter, note that globally (and beyond (noumenal) stance also involves ‘everything’ (spatial) observations) space and time are treated separately. — albeit in another sense. Pursuing this idea, a re- This, together with the weaknesses in the exclusivity sponse to the philosophical question: “Why is there of special and general relativity previously outlined, 195 forms the platform for this section. This section (4.5) Note that this stance is based upon anomalous obser- discusses the specifics of how the new model, with its vational evidence in need of an explanation. 196We shall intentionally use the adjective ‘phenome- noumenal-time simultaneity and (further) incorpora- nal’ also as a noun, in order to highlight its new/specific tion of (measurable) global (invariant) quantities, can meaning herein; as well as to indicate its juxtaposition coexist with special and general relativity’s account of with/alongside ‘noumenal’, which has usage as either an gravitation. adjective or a noun. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 57 something rather than nothing?” should necessarily perspective, is seen to be the deeper (or more funda- also include/involve the notion of ‘everything’. mental) of the two perspectives. Some discussion of When dealing with finite quantitative circum- mass is required before we examine the ramifications stances, we are necessarily dealing with ‘something’. A of this reversed (and supplementary/complementary) (coexistent) nothing-everything dichotomy lies (either perspective (in subsection 4.5.4 and beyond). at, or) beyond the bounds of (the something within) In reality, mass cannot be said to ever truly ex- a minimum-maximum dichotomy. Quantitatively, any ist at a point, because this implies an infinite density. minimum ‘amount’ would appear to also require a con- Further, stable macroscopic mass, and QM mass es- ceivable maximum as the other ‘book-end’. For exam- pecially, always occupy a volume of space, and thus ple, regarding velocity we have rest and light speed. their (self) energy is distributed over a finite region In subsection 4.5.3 the something of physical real- — with the electron being the most ‘point-like’ of all ity is considered to lie within the coexistent (quan- masses. Observationally, it is considered that: “atoms titative) limiting ‘book-ends’ of the empty and the are largely comprised of ‘empty’ space”. Herein, we full — corresponding to the (aforementioned) nothing- also need to recognise the volume of space that an ob- everything dichotomy. This coexistent dichotomy has ject’s mass encompasses, with various mass-to-volume an attendant global invariance; i.e. one existing every- relationships existing for different types of mass — i.e. where (and) at all ‘times’. Our objective is to look particles, atoms, molecules, and bulk matter. at (hitherto non-phenomenal or noumenal) ‘empty Consider the tremendous expansion the uni- space’, i.e. energy-less space, in a second coexistent verse has undergone subsequent to the highly way; as energy-full — with this different/reversed (i.e. ‘dense’/energetic conditions existing just after the “big noumenal) perspective being then understood as the bang”. Thus, when mass is in atomic and molecular more appropriate noumenal perspective. form, the mass to volume ratio is negligible compared Initially, we restrict ourselves to a discussion of with what was (and is) capable of being achieved. In SR’s uniform relative motion circumstances. Later in other words, the existence of an actual atom/molecule this section (4.5) gravitational circumstances are ex- in space is seen to involve only a very minor propor- amined. tion of the maximum (noumenal) ‘specific’ energy possible/available, cf. the case where all of an atom’s space (i.e. every point in its volume) has the max- 4.5.3 A Copernican-like reversal regarding imum specific energy possible (i.e. c2) — notwith- inertia and specific energy invariance standing the huge energies associated with nuclear fis- By way of: envisaging restriction in one’s own observa- sion or fusion effects. Thus, the existence of a single tional capacity (subsection 4.4.15); homogeneous back- atom/molecule is seen to only involve a very minor ground length/space and time, light speed invariance “drawing-down” from the maximum possible specific 2 energy available/possible throughout space. in SR; and Erest = m0c ; it is feasible that a ‘richer’ invariant (background/noumenal) global quantity may exist. All that we can be sure of is that the background 4.5.4 Ramifications of this reversal regard- must be invariant, at all places and times in some ing specific energy sense; and if a magnitude is involved, it most prob- 2 There are a number of ramifications of utilising the ‘re- ably involves c or c — with the latter having the di- 2 2 verse’ stance conjectured in subsection 4.5.3. Firstly, mensions/units of specific energy (E/m) i.e. [L /T ]. 2 we hypothesise that (observations made from a frame Thus, c conceivably quantifies an invariant physical in uniform) relative motion involves a ‘drawing-down’ (or phenomenal) maximum in some way. from this (reversed/noumenal) ‘potential hill’ (as com- To appease this situation, it appears that we need pared to a ‘potential well’). In subsection 4.5.6 we to also conjecture a Copernican-like reversal regarding shall argue that this (also) gives rise to the same type inertial motion (in SR) and (specific) energy; where of Lorentz transformations that occur in SR. Signifi- zero energy (and hence zero force, zero angular mo- cantly, gravitational effects also draw down, in a dif- mentum, etc.) at a ‘point’ is actually, from a reversed ferent way, from the same ‘hill’. It is the double-draw, perspective, maximum possible specific energy (c2). (for example) of a body’s mass and its motion in a field, From this reversed perspective, i.e. a noumenal sup- that is seen to necessitate the use of general covariance plementation (or ‘complementation’) to the phenome- (GCoV) in the mathematical formalism of GR; thus nal/observational, an inertial frame or inertial motion giving GR its uniqueness amongst physical theories. is ‘full’ of latent ‘potential’ (specific) energy. Subse- Secondly, and on a lesser note, regarding high quently and additionally, what appears (observation- speed relativistic motion; no rocket-ship (of non-zero ally) to be an increase in specific energy (from zero) is, mass) could ever get to the speed of light (c) because from this reversed perspective, actually a drawing down the (noumenal) latent specific energy is just ‘not avail- from an (everywhere and always) constant universal- able’ for this (combination of mass and motion at light wide latent-potential specific-energy source. Left com- speed) to be achievable — the noumenal potential hill pletely alone this (background) potential would be spa- is “only so high”. By way of contrast, the ‘compulsion’ tially homogeneous at c2, at all times — but the phe- of massless photons to always be observed as moving nomenal universe is anything but fully empty. at light speed makes them unique amongst particles197 . As was the case in subsection 4.5.2 regarding inertial circumstances, this reversed (noumenal) perspec- 197Assuming neutrinos have some mass, they (then) travel tive, that coexists with an observational/phenomenal at very close to the speed of light. 58 Paul G. ten Boom

Finally, in order to proceed with this discussion, of: a clock’s local ‘time dilation’ relative to an iner- it is proposed that the maximum specific (latent) ‘po- tial frame, and (especially) relative to other clocks in tential’ energy (in a non-point-like region of spatial motion. volume) c2 is ‘complex’, literally in the sense of being If we consider the maximum latent specific energy able to possess real and imaginary components. available to relative motion as a complex ‘quantity’ 1 2 (i.e. magnitude and unit), then 2 c is the invariant 4.5.5 An alternative magnitude for the in- square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle, and this allows a break down of total (invariant) specific en- variant specific energy source/‘hill’ ergy into real and imaginary components. Further, if 1 2 we consider relative motion at v as contributing (or Regarding relative motion it appears that 2 c is a bet- 2 1 2 ter choice (cf. c ) for maximum latent specific energy involving) a 2 v imaginary (number based) component of specific energy, then the real component of available, i.e. the amount that physical reality can be 1 2 1 2 ‘drawn upon’. Four reasons are given to account for specific energy remaining is 2 c 2 v with ‘dimen- 2 2 − this preferred magnitude (or ‘potential hilltop’ value); sions’ [L /T ]. As a proportion of maximum available 2 2 2 2 2 none entirely compelling (individually or collectively). specific energy this is (c v )/c or 1 v /c . Note that the same result is obtained− if c2 and−v2 are (alter- 1. Neo-classically this is maximum conceivable spe- natively) taken as the maximum specific energy, and cific kinetic energy, in that 1 v2 1 c2 at the 2 → 2 total kinetic energy respectively. Thus, for motion, limit. which has dimensions [L/T ]; a (non-dimensional) pro- 2. With relative motion involving two bodies, the portionality factor 1 v2/c2 is required to represent − specific energy of an ‘examined’ body can only the proportion of timep and length availability lost; cf. (in some sense) be half of the total maximum time dilation and length contraction. value. Alternatively, 1 v2/c2 is simply a/c, if a is − 3. By way of time symmetry in electromagnetic the third side of ap (complex) right triangle with sides: theory, we might embrace Huw Prices’s philo- imaginary v, real a and complex hypotenuse c. The sophical argument that a (secondary) non- same would be true for a similar triangle with sides: observational (–ve) time may exist, permitting v/√2, a/√2 and c/√2. Subsequently, an inertial (rest) subliminal ‘backwards’ causation198; thus halv- frame has an idealised background specific energy ‘po- ing any latent-potential for real (+ve) time mo- tential’ (i.e. availability) that is ‘actually’ a fully tion (Price 1996). non-imaginary quantity. Importantly, we note that, from an observer’s perspective, cf. a universe-based 4. The virial theorem, for rotating gravitational 1 (noumenal) perspective on things, motion (at v) is systems, yields 2 P.E. = K.E. and a cosmolog- considered ‘real’ — whereas from the universe’s per- ical instantiation of it may exist for maximum spective motion (at v) is considered ‘imaginary’. specific latent-potential energy and maximum From observational evidence, and an observational specific kinetic energy. perspective, we make the (new) interpretation that 1 2 2 In what follows, the choice of 2 c or c as an in- real physical phenomena, and hence measurements variant maximum specific energy has no major impact thereof, may only obtain the real component of specific upon the discussion. Indeed, depending on the circum- energy. By way of the reversal we have considered, we stances both of these maximums may have a different may say that: relative motion ‘draws’ down from a la- role to play. tent and invariant specific energy ‘potential hill’, with relative motion giving rise to an imaginary component that can no longer contribute to ‘reality’, in the sense 4.5.6 Relative motion and background of “be made available” to reality. Further, to satisfy invariant specific energy dimensional constraints, both the ‘units’ of length and This subsection begins the process of showing how time (together) must be equally reduced from their ‘in- SR’s Lorentz transformations can also be related to ertial’ (fully real) magnitudes. In SR, this speed based the phenomenal-to-background/noumenal distinction influence is quantified as the time dilation, and length −1 previously discussed (subsections 4.5.1 and 4.5.2). Ac- contraction, involving γ = ( 1 v2/c2 ) . Mass di- − cepting the reversed perspective on ‘reality’ argued for lation is discussed in subsectionp 4.5.10. in subsection 4.5.3, the Lorentz transformations appear to (also) quantify the proportion of globally in- 4.5.7 A different interpretation of SR’s variant specific energy that is no longer available to (observable) physical reality — when two bodies in time dilation and length contraction uniform relative motion observe each other. Compared In special relativity, relative to an observer in an ′ to inertial circumstances, there is an equal loss in the inertial or stationary system, a clock (t ) moving (square of) “available to measurement” time rate and with velocity v appears to run slow according to length (in the direction of motion). We shall see how ′ ′ 2 2 the relation: (t2 t1)=(t2 t1) 1 v /c . In ad- this alters our standard ‘phenomenal’ understanding − − − dition to this, the length contractionp of a rod, in a rest frame, as observed from a moving frame is: 198The negative frequency (–f) of subsection 3.2.8, that ′ ′ 2 2 (x x )=(x2 x1) 1 v /c . was deemed non-physical, could be indicative of a (–ve) 2 − 1 − − time (direction). The relationshipsp of SR’s description of time dila- A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 59 tion and length contraction are not the same; they are relative motion leads to an alteration in the magni- conceptual opposites, i.e. a dilation vs. a contraction. tude of the standard unit or scale of measurement of In contrast, from our ‘universal’ perspective, they are length and/or time. This unit contraction results in a seen to describe the loss in time (rate) and loss in (mea- change to the magnitude of measured length or time surable) length separation respectively. The difference — time actually slows and length appears contracted. lies in one’s observational ‘perspective’, with SR’s re- By way of background ontological aspects of the uni- sults using light ray propagation and coordinate differ- verse, our standards of measurement are adjusted or ences. SR also has a different (and simpler) ontological compromised, rather than time (itself) dilating and an stance upon what time ‘is’ and how time ‘passes’, with object’s length (itself) contracting. this grounded in an ‘operationalism’ approach. In SR Finally, we note that at a deeper ontological level, time itself slows, whereas from the new perspective, we uniform relative motion is (conceptually) seen as a less say that: in a non-inertial frame temporal processes than optimal idealised-‘inertial’ system. For a fully simply take ‘longer’ than in the local inertial frame. idealised-‘inertial’ system we need to have an empty Note that the ticking of a clock is a ‘process’. universe devoid of all relative motion. When consider- To maintain the spirit of (uniform relative motion) ing gravitational effects (see subsection 4.5.14) this no- special relativity, the time loss/dilation scenario dis- tion is conceptually useful, although in practice/reality cussed above must only apply (relatively) between two (due to the relativity of observational reality) it is not observers. Thus, all relative inertial frames are seen to required in special relativity (SR). involve maximum invariant specific energy199. 4.5.9 Briefly on the “clock paradox” 4.5.8 Further discussion upon relativisti- In SR, the twins clock paradox is resolved by using cally altered time and length a Minkowski spacetime diagram and appreciating the asymmetry of the situation201. By way of the ontolog- If we accept that (from a beyond just a measurement- ical supplementation pursed herein, Minkowski space- based perspective) a digital universal pivot-pause- time is not the only ontological perspective of space pivot-pause... temporal evolution exists200, and subse- and time. In the model’s new/complementary (back- quently that the universe retains a form of global co- ground and global) perspective two clocks in the same ordination as it ‘evolves’; then the non-inertial frame motion (relative to an inertial frame) will ‘slow’ by an is seen to miss a bit/proportion of each (inertial) equal amount/proportion. time increment. Total time loss/dilation is therefore This is made particularly evident in a figure eight an accumulation of very small time losses. Length symmetric version of the twins paradox, involving loss/contraction is ‘slaved’ to this time loss so that: in geodesic motion, discussed in a footnote within subsec- the new ontology a (material) rod appears contacted tion 4.4.2. The paradoxical aspect of SR’s (dual) time because the full length of space containing it cannot dilation dissolves, once and for all; and the dreaded be fully perceived by a viewer in relative motion. A third observer (at rest), so easily conceptualised, need given process in a stationary frame requires fewer ‘se- not be derided — as it must be in SR. The reason for quential moments’, i.e. digital instances of (phenome- this conceptual ‘enrichment’ is that the model seeks nal/measured) reality, than the same process in a mov- to incorporate a global perspective in addition to the ing frame. (dominant) relative perspective of observations. When A second (non-standard) interpretation of the ‘going global’ the model must be very careful to not same measurements is possible. Consider: clocks “step on SR’s toes”, and this is why global invariance upon an aircraft, moving relative to the Earth’s (ef- is so important — both for physical quantities in the fectively/essentially) inertial frame — noting that the model, and the (hidden) background ontological ‘lim- Earth’s motion relative to other bodies is irrelevant. itation’ of specific energy introduced in this section Interestingly, the time lost off the clock on the aircraft (4.5). during its flight remains after the experiment, whereas the length lost (off a rod) is reversed once relative motion ceases. This arises because the rate of time was 4.5.10 Mass dilation and clarifying the in- only slower during the flight. This highlights a pri- tended meaning of the word “real” macy of time loss over ‘ensuing’ length loss. Length The apparent increase or dilation of mass in the mea- contraction is ‘real’ only in the sense of being an ap- surements of high-speed elementary particles is seen to parent observational artifact. arise by way of a mass ‘experiencing’ less real space, As a final step in this new (and complementary) as compared to inertial conditions. By way of relative interpretation let us declare that: uniform (inertial) motion the ‘weighting’ of mass in the ‘real world’ (left available to it) is proportionally increased. Note that 199There are issues that need to be pursued, especially regarding the relationship between a global background and from the model’s new perspective, it is the time loss nested reference frames moving relative to each other — e.g. that is ultimately responsible for the dilation of mass; Earth in solar system, in galaxy, in galactic cluster, etc. SR because the space lost is in equal proportion to, and demands that this hierarchy is irrelevant to local relative ensues from, the amount of time lost. observations, which further mystifies just what reality is ‘in itself’ when it is not being observed. 201Once and for all, in the minds of most physicists. This 200Without an associated universal (absolute) time coor- ‘party line’ is championed by Paul Davies in: “About Time: dinate (recall subsection 4.4.8). Einstein’s unfinished revolution” (Davies 1995). 60 Paul G. ten Boom

Two aspects of mass dilation, by way of space answer this question — which is a borderline oxymoron loss/contraction, need to be distinguished. Firstly, a — in the negative. mass exists in a space that is predominantly external to it; and its high-speed motion ‘encounters’ less of this 4.5.12 Justifying a constant specific en- space. Similarly, yet more importantly, the ‘internal’ ergy value throughout the universe space of a mass is also reduced — effectively increasing its density. It is this latter case that pertains to the The aim of this subsection is to argue that reasonable mass dilation of SR, or mass gain from our new per- justification for a homogeneous background specific en- spective. It has been confirmed experimentally202. As ergy throughout all of space, at all ‘times’ — upon with length and time, the dilation/gain effect (exists which reality ‘draws-down’ — can be found within and) is quantified in a purely relative way. mechanical classical mechanics (i.e. excluding elec- Note that from a noumenal perspective, magni- tromagnetic effects). To achieve this we examine the tudes at the phenomenal level vary with respect to laws describing a range of classical or everyday (macro- the noumenal’s invariant ‘nature’; but equal adjust- scopic) mechanisms or phenomena. ments in the units of the Length and Time dimensions Subsections 4.2.6 and 4.2.7 argued for a qualitative ensure that (the observational/phenomenal value of) distinction between the physical laws of the macro- and the speed of light is invariable — both spatially and microscopic realms. Subsequently, four ‘force’ unifi- temporally. cation is not endorsed. This subsection pursues the The word “real” in this section (4.5) retains its (non-reductive) ramifications of this distinction; par- common usage, as in: (1) having objective existence, ticularly the unsuitability of ‘force’ in describing grav- (2) not imaginary, and (for our purposes) (3) being itational effects. Note that gravitation is the only me- ‘phenomenally’ existent in the sense of being measur- chanical phenomenon that (inevitably) exists on a uni- able. Note that relative motion is real, but it also has versal (or cosmological) scale. Also note that at the a further unmeasurable effect in that it generates an microscopic level, i.e. up to the ‘level’ of atoms and ‘imaginary’ component of latent specific energy [say molecules, the standard account of reality in terms of Im(e)], thereby reducing the maximum potential spe- three (unified) forces is fully embraced. cific energy available that can become ‘real’. In non-chemical, non-thermal and non- electromagnetic circumstances, macroscopic energy equations commonly have the form E m; e.g. 4.5.11 A brief interim summary; & replies 1 2 2 ∝ 1 2 E = mgz, E = 2 mω x (linked to E = 2 Kx ), to: “Can everything be relative?” 1 2 E = 2 mv , and E = mΓef (recall subsection 4.2.7) In subsections 4.5.6 through 4.5.10, we have argued concerning (respectively): positional change in a that: special relativistic time dilation, length contrac- constant gravitational field, springs, kinetic energy, tion effects, and mass dilation effects can be traced and wind turbines/‘airscrews’. In these ‘mechanical’ back to (or grounded in) a hidden supplementary systems, or aspects thereof, the establishment of spe- (deeper) ontology. Subsequently, the Lorentz trans- cific energy (E/m = e), from the kinetic or potential formations can be seen to describe both: how space- energy expression, is easily obtained. Clearly, force time intervals remain invariant, so as to be compatible plays a vital role in the first two energy expressions, with electromagnetism; as well as how uniform rela- but not the latter two. tive motion coexists with (and ‘bites’ into) a maximum Regarding electromagnetism, the Planck relation ‘available’ specific energy — that remains invariant ev- — between the energy of a photon and its electromag- erywhere throughout the universe, for all sequential netic wave, E = hf — retains the prominence of en- ‘moments of observable time’. From the observer’s ergy; and regarding thermal physics, the ideal gas law perspective, the time describing physical phenomena pV = nRT retains the dimensionality of energy, i.e. 2 is analog. ML [ T 2 ]. Neither of these expressions/laws is simply an The Lorentz transformations effectively build a integral of force over distance. Energy (cf. force), or at bridge between a global (i.e. universal) specific en- least “dimensions to that effect”, appears to be more ergy invariance, and SR’s (and EM’s) local invariance general and useful at the macroscopic level of physical of two spacetime intervals. Physics is arguably stymied formalism (i.e. representation). by way of lacking an appreciation of this ‘new’ coexis- No expressions from the mechanics of solids have tence; preferring to pursue a deeper understanding of been presented, but the concepts of deformation and both special and general relativity through the study curvature have some ‘overlap’ with the formalism of of the Minkowski metric. general relativity. Accepting universal ‘coordinated Relativity implicitly answers the ontological ques- time’ (see subsection 4.4.8), the notions of a cosmolog- tion: “Can everything be relative?” in the affirmative, ical space continuum and space curvature has validity in line with its stance on the formalistic representa- — albeit at an idealised level of conceptualisation. tion of physical reality, whereas the contents and sen- In fluid mechanics, we utilise the concept of a mass timents of the preceding discussion requires that we continuum, and (necessarily) examine force per unit volume rather then force. By way of utilising conser- 202Walter Kaufmann was the first to confirm (1901-03) the velocity dependence of electromagnetic mass by analyzing vation of mass (i.e. continuity) and conservation of the ratio e/m (where m is the mass and e is the [constant] momentum, we may obtain equations describing the charge) of cathode rays. Paraphrased from Wikipedia: His- motion throughout a flow field. In the case of an invis- tory of Special Relativity, 2011. cid flow we obtain Euler’s equation. If density (ρ) is A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 61 constant (i.e. incompressible flow), then integration of Recall from subsection 4.5.12, that the physical Euler’s equation throughout an irrotational (i.e. zero representation of energy in macroscopic (mechanical) vorticity) flow, yields mechanisms easily yields a specific energy. Further, mass itself and its motion, are considered to also ‘draw- ∂φ v2 p down’ upon a “background availability”; and at a + + gz = f(t) ∂t 2 ρ − macroscopic level this circumstance is (now) conjectured to be associated with conventional gravitational where φ is velocity potential and p is pressure (Kuethe effects. From such a perspective, the (standard) rep- & Chow 1976, p.69). This is the same as (a special resentation of various effects within general relativity 1 2 form of) Bernoulli’s equation ρv + p ρg∆z = p0 is complicated by the numerous ways in which such 2 − (Kuethe & Chow 1976, p.62), except for the inclusion draw-downs can occur; e.g. mass, momentum, and en- of the unsteady (flow) term and adjustment for the ergy; as well as temporal rate changes that accompany integration constant. Importantly, the dimensions are 2 these effects. Subsequently, it can be argued that only L those of specific energy [ T 2 ]; and in steady inviscid in- a theoretical approach that employs general covariance compressible flow, the stagnation pressure (p0) is con- is capable of coping with this ‘multiplicity’ of (draw- stant throughout an irrotational flow. down) effects. It is now argued that the magnitude of our proposed (maximum) latent/noumenal potential (spe- 4.5.14 Three gravitational ‘draw-downs’ 2 cific) energy ‘source’, at c , is similar to the constant upon invariant specific energy stagnation pressure (divided by constant density) in (an idealised) fluid mechanics; in that it is constant SR’s relative motion, GR’s gravitation, and the throughout (the ‘whole’ of) space. Background space model’s rotating space-warps (RSWs) can all be un- itself can be seen as a continuum; but in regard to derstood as various ways of “drawing-down” from a physical reality with different local rates of time, it (hidden) uniform specific energy background. Subse- cannot be a systemic frame of reference for observa- quently, the two types of non-Euclidean geometry asso- tions. Nevertheless, this conceptualisation permits the ciated with GR and the new model’s RSWs, although existence of a second (and quite different) type of grav- quite different, can coexist — without any conflict. itational ‘draw-down’, that serves to indirectly facili- Firstly, we have the simple draw down of high- tate an explanation/model for the Pioneer anomaly — speed (relativistic) relative motion, as discussed in sub- the crucial step in permitting a real Pioneer anomaly. section 4.5.6 through 4.5.10, giving rise to the idiosyn- In section 6.5 we shall see that the model’s value of crasies of special relativity — and expressed by way (rotating space-warp) specific energy, ∆e = 1 ∆a2∆t2, 2 fundamental units/dimensions of (kg, m, sec, C) and (M, is (also) constant throughout space. L, T, and Q) respectively, it can be seen that the ratio M/Q appears in the dimensions of most electromagnetic 4.5.13 A new reason for general covariance quantities. Note that C is coulombs and Q is (electrical) charge. For example, the inverse of capacitance has the in General Relativity’s formalism unit [Farad]−1 which can be expressed (with some effort) 2 kg.m Subsection 4.5.12 illustrated that in fluid mechanics in fundamental units as [ C2.sec2 ]; which in fundamental di- 2 there is (often) a representational necessity to work mension notation is [ ML ]. The extra [M/Q] ratio arises Q2T 2 with specific energies. GR’s principle of equivalence from physics giving primacy to mechanical energy, which 2 means that a (test) body will ‘experience’ the same ML has dimensions [ T 2 ]. Note that there is no Q dimen- acceleration independent (or regardless) of its mass. sion in work/energy, even if the system doing the work is Historically, general relativity moved us away from an electrical and/or magnetic. Since the charge to (rest) mass analysis based upon force; although, in somewhat clas- ratio of an electron (q/m)e is a fixed quantity and has di- sical terms, we might (nowadays) think of acceleration mensions [Q/M], we can use this to alter the dimensions 2 as a specific force (F/m). of (inverse) Farads to [ L ], which is now expressed in a QT 2 Conventionally total energy is an addition of en- Q,L,T system of units (without M). The Q dimension is in ergies (from zero up). From our reversed ontological the denominator rather than the numerator (as M is with perspective we now (also) think of conventional macro- mechanical energy). Hence, it appears that the specific en- 2 scopic (specific) energy increases as actually a reduc- L ergy, i.e. [ T 2 ], associated with this electromagnetic quan- tion in, or drawing-down upon, a (very large magni- tity (capacitance−1 ), in the new ‘units’, involves inverse tude) invariant specific energy ‘noumenal-source’203 . capacitance multiplied by the (stored) electrical charge, which is actually electrical potential. In other words, in this 203The reader may be wondering whether the ‘mechan- new non-mechanical (Q,L,T ) unit/dimension system espe- 2 ical’ specific energy (E/m) discussed herein also applies L cially suited to electrical quantities, specific energy [ T 2 ] in the case of decidedly electromagnetic quantities and is simply (electrical) potential. In the traditional system processes, where “the mass” in question is not at all ob- of units/dimensions, potential energy per unit charge has 2 vious. Since our concern herein only involves the iner- ML tial/mass aspects of QM atomic/molecular systems, elec- the unit of ‘Volts’ and dimensions: [ QT 2 ]. The primacy tromagnetism shall not directly concern us; but it may be of electrical potential in electromagnetism makes it well that electromagnetic quantities (cf. their effects) need to suited to playing an important role at a deeper ontologi- be treated quite differently at a deeper ontological level — cal level, if : specific energy is important, and the use of especially if specific energy is a very important quantity. the M,Q,L,T unit/dimension system for describing elec- The following may possibly be of relevance. Reducing tromagnetic quantities is replaced at a deeper level with the the units/dimensions of electromagnetic quantities to the simpler (and conceivably more natural) Q,L,T system. 62 Paul G. ten Boom of Lorentz transformations. Herein, this has been ad- a non-local mass, equals the total virtual and unex- ditionally understood as relative motion’s (specific en- pressed non-inertial energy (at the atomic/molecular ergy) introducing an imaginary component of specific level) of a (suitable) moon-planet system. Outstand- energy, i.e. a drawing-down from the maximum back- ing at this stage, is a discussion concerning the model’s ground/noumenal specific energy field/potential-hill; reliance upon the principle of energy conservation (see thus leaving less specific energy available to ‘reality’. section 4.6). Secondly, as mentioned in subsection 4.5.13, a plethora of effects result in (GR’s) gravitational effects. 4.5.15 Summary and concluding remarks Further, by embracing the alternative ontology outlined in this section, especially that universal (noume- The primary goal in this section has been to out- nal/global) sequential evolution involves a hidden (be- line how a second type of non-Euclidean geometry yond observation) simultaneity; spacetime effects may (i.e. gravitational field) can arise, in addition to the then be re-interpreted as a spatial separation change macroscopic-based gravitational effects of general rel- accompanied by a rate of time change. Note that this ativity. This has involved the introduction of a sup- alternative (and ‘neo-classical’) conceptualisation has plementary ontology involving a reversed perspective no (direct) observational relevance. This interpreta- upon (observational) reality. These two different (and tion allows GR’s gravitation to be visualised (solely) complementary) ontological perspectives are seen to as space curvature, in conjunction with both: a local be required for a full description of reality — if the time rate and a (hidden/background) global time rate. Pioneer anomaly is a real gravitationally based phe- This intrinsic curvature of space204, as compared with nomenon. Respectively, one is sub-global and physi- extrinsic curvature, is seen to occur with the assis- cal, while the other is global and ‘metaphysical’; i.e. tance of imaginary numbers in the three space dimen- they are phenomenal and noumenal respectively. sions. Conceivably, and neo-classically, these imagi- This “dual-ontology” allows us to simply posit nary (number based) spatial components are then re- that measurements in spacetime do not exhaust ‘real- lated to a (specific) deformation energy, which in turn ity’. Measurements can only ‘apprehend’ the ‘real’, i.e. equates to the (specific energy) ‘draw-down’ associated non-imaginary, components of a physical phenomena with (GR’s) gravitation. The mathematical quantifi- that in their (formalistic) entirety conceivably also in- cation of the specific energy associated with deforma- volve complex numbers. Aspects of the supplementary tion into (imaginary number based) space shall not ontology include: recognition of a special type of hid- 205 concern us . den background/global time simultaneity, and a back- Thirdly, the model represents the specific energy of ground Euclidean ‘flat’ space continuum (in idealised 1 2 2 each rotating space-warp (RSW) as ∆e = 2 ∆a ∆t . circumstances). The latter exists (conceptually) in the This value is constant throughout (the whole of) space. absence of all mass, momentum and energy (fields). Additionally, it is process based, occurring over a time Thus, we may (also) ascribe gravitational effects to (∆t). This duration is additionally a cyclic loop time both a loss in measured time rate cf. a ‘universal’ time primarily determined by (lunar) motion206; and sub- rate, and a change in measured spatial separation cf. sequently, relativistic effects upon this motion are ac- an (idealised) flat space separation. commodated. It is quantified by way of a systemic A crucial aspect of the model (to come) is that clock rate; most conveniently a (solar system) barycen- a virtual QM energy is re-expressed as a (non-virtual) tric time rate. In the case of RSWs, the specific en- physically real rotating curved/warped space (together 1 2 2 ergy ‘draw-down’ is simply 2 ∆a ∆t , which is quite with a non-local mass distribution). In section 4.6 we distinct from ‘draw-downs’ associated with GR’s grav- shall see, somewhat by way of our new supplemen- itation — although an acceleration amplitude (∆a), tary/complementary (and reversed) perspective on ‘re- i.e. gravitational space-warp magnitude, can also be ality’, that conservation of energy: envisaged in terms of curvature. 1. has applicability to the ‘gravitational’ (i.e. the Importantly, the constancy of the model’s specific space perturbation) aspect of the model; energy appears to be necessary, so as to allow GR’s ‘gravitation’ and the model’s new aspect (or supple- 2. is grandly systemic in that it is not necessarily ment) of gravitation to be compatible and coexist. restricted to one ‘level’ of ‘material’ reality; and These two ‘gravitational’ effects are quite different; e.g. 3. can involve a virtual energy magnitude, and thus having their ‘basis’ in different ‘levels’ of matter — it is not merely restricted to directly measured i.e. macroscopic mass in motion vs. atomic/molecular (i.e. ‘phenomenal’ and real) quantities. mass in motion. Sections 5 and 6 shall explain how the total energy associated with RSWs, incorporating 4.6 Symmetry, Noether’s Theorem, 204Relative to what would be a naturally existing and energy conservation flat/Euclidean space background, in the (idealised circumstances of an) absence of: matter, momentum, and energy. 205 Our model, requires we allow a qualitative divide to It is assumed that an analogy to circumstances involv- exist between the micro- and macroscopic realms (also ing the bending of a beam in “mechanics of solids” can achieve this, with an adjustment for the local time rate cf. see section 5.1), and permit a non-reductive (i.e. not to the fastest clock in the universe (recall subsection 4.4.7). a graviton particle) gravitational phenomenon at the 206Later we shall more fully discuss how the mechanism macroscopic level. It may or may not be that GR is involves the self-interference of atoms/molecules. reducible to a graviton particle, but with our proposed A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 63 supplementary space curvature/perturbation, gravita- particle physics. The symmetries of Noether’s theo- tion (overall) cannot be (solely) a “gauge” theory, as rem relate to the invariance of the laws of physics. the three microscopic forces are. The ramifications The homogeneity and isotropy of space, and the ho- of this non-particle reduction (and non-solely-particle mogeneity of time, then imply conservation of mo- unification) approach are now explored in relation to mentum (linear and angular) and energy, respectively. Noether’s theorem. Gravitation is preferably seen as a Indeed: “. . . any symmetry of the Lagrangian corre- “geometric” theory. sponds to a conserved quantity (and vice versa).”207 Noether’s theorem is not seen to apply to the model 4.6.1 Preliminary Remarks: macroscopic- being proposed herein, because the dual-level ‘system’ being considered cannot be described by a single La- microscopic ‘separation’ grangian and/or Hamiltonian; but aspects associated A total macro-micro separation is not being espoused. with Noether’s theorem are conceptually valuable to Rather, we are examining how the very different char- the new model’s formulation and discussion. acteristics exhibited by the quantum mechanical (QM) and non-QM realms, may coexist. Particularly, when a 4.6.4 What remains in need of clarification physical phenomena spans both domains to comprise an integrated system. We shall argue that energy is Let us recall our hypothesised (supplementary) onto- common to both realms, and its conservation there- logical stance regarding noumenal/background space fore spans both domains; much in the manner that the and (hidden background) sequential temporal evolu- emission and absorbtion of EM radiation/photons in- tion — mainly developed in section 4.4. In the ide- volves both a quantum system and the external world. alised circumstances of an absence of mass, momen- This electromagnetic micro-macro situation is some- tum and (mass- and radiation-based) energy, (the) what of a precedent for our inertial mass-based model. background space is inherently homogeneous and Restricting ourselves solely to the macroscopic isotropic. Further, the phenomenal–noumenal (pivot- level, the instantiation of (gravito-quantum) rotat- pause-pivot-pause-...) sequential arrangement of all- inclusive (i.e. cosmologically-‘wide’) ‘moments of re- ing space-warps to explain the Pioneer anomaly ap- 208 pears to violate energy conservation; but (we shall see ality’ — occurring all together — allows us to say that: (non-observational) universal ‘time’ is homoge- that) for the combined micro- and macroscopic sys- 209 tem proposed herein, energy’s conservation is main- neous (i.e. simultaneous) . Thus, conservation of tained. In fact, energy conservation (and geometric energy, and conservation of linear and angular mo- constraints) are necessary in order to quantify the ac- mentum apply; and they are possibly valid assump- celeration/gravitational amplitude and mass “carrying tions/principles for the model’s real world application. capacity” of a rotating space-warp — which in turn is We now investigate the veracity of this possibility. indicative of a (virtual) non-inertial (mass in ‘motion’) Two subtleties shall need to be addressed. Firstly, circumstance at the QM level of matter (see subsection in the unique circumstances of the model and a sup- 4.7.5 for a fuller account of the model). plemented ontology, does the presence of: mass, momentum, energy, and (hence) a non-uniform (observational) time (rate), deny all of these conservation 4.6.2 Preliminary Remarks: invariance, laws/principles? Secondly, (the ‘quantity’) energy, by energy and acceleration way of its ‘dimensional’ make-up, also involves a mass ‘dimension’, in addition to the (spatial) length and Concerning the benefits of homogeneity and/or invari- time dimensions. Thus, if a rotating space-warp has ance, two remarks need to be made. Firstly, the model a total energy, how (then) is the mass aspect of this is able to cope with the fact that energy is a frame energy to be understood? dependent concept, whereas GR’s energy-momentum tensor is not; because (cycle-based) specific energy (∆e) is homogeneous throughout (the whole of) space. 4.6.5 On the failure of local conservation Note that the (global) frame is the whole universe. of energy in general relativity Secondly, (amplitude) homogeneity makes coordinate Gravitational energy in GR cannot be conserved locally variations non-existent. Thus, by default we can- as it is in classical theories; although, in the presence not deny that: coordinate acceleration and (systemic) of asymptotically flat spacetime (S/T), global energy physical acceleration are the same (cf. GR); with these conservation applies. also equivalent to, and indicative of, a ‘gravitational’ Somewhat in response to section 4.2, it appears phenomenon (in its broadest sense/usage). that it is the assumed existence of a local nature of gravitational potential that necessarily thwarts local 4.6.3 Background to Noether’s Theorem 207http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath564/ Noether’s theorem is considered to precisely illustrate kmath564.htm 208 a deep connection between conservation laws and sym- With a beyond observation process-interval be- metries in nature. Noether’s theorem is restricted tween these coordinated and cosmologically all inclusive (staccato-like) ‘moments’ (recall subsections 4.2.10 and to systems which obey the principle of least action 4.4.8). and have a Lagrangian and a Hamiltonian, which 209Notwithstanding the fact that observationally clocks then determine the field equations. It is an impor- throughout the universe run at different rates — depending tant result, especially for symmetries in elementary on their local circumstances. 64 Paul G. ten Boom gravitational energy conservation. This is because a rem (only) applies to single level ‘conservative’ sys- gravitational ‘potential’ is largely based upon (the an- tems. Thus, Noether’s theorem is not applicable tiquated notion of) gravitational ‘force’ applied over a in a dual-realm (i.e. microscopic plus macroscopic) distance, leading to an energy in the sense of physical physical system, that also employs a phenomena-to- work. Logically, a local failure of (this type of) energy noumena-like ontological distinction. Only the conser- conservation in GR is not a sufficient reason (as yet) vation of (a non-vector, scalar) energy, can ‘survive’ to deny the applicability of energy conservation to/in this complexity. Indeed, conservation of energy210 is a global/cosmological (curved space) physical system. the linchpin of the model, with energy’s ‘universality’ In GR, the non-homogeneity (or non-simultaneity) and applicability to a field theory (see Section 6) proof time gives sufficient reason for the denial of conser- viding strong support. vation of energy. The inappropriateness of this denial, in the case of our model, shall (now) be discussed in 4.6.7 Briefly on dual-level, and non-local subsection 4.6.6. physical behaviour In the preface to “Science and Ultimate Reality” (Bar- 4.6.6 Homogeneity, isotropy, and the row, Davies, & Harper 2004, xvii-xviii), Freeman J. model being pursued Dyson discusses an example of (macroscopic) classi- Accepting the dual-ontology outlined in section 4.4, cal mechanics and quantum mechanics being both re- relied upon a distinction between formalism and on- quired in an explanation. A description of Uranium tology. The former concerns: “what we can say about 235 fission by a slow neutron sits at the border of reality”, and the latter concerns: “what reality is” — microscopic and macroscopic physics, with a classi- which possibly also includes aspects behind the scenes, cal liquid drop conceptualisation being very useful. i.e. beyond (direct) observations. In the idealised sit- Thus, (once again) the model’s approach is not un- uation of an absence of matter, momentum and en- precedented. How is the mass dimension of energy, which has ergy, and by way of embracing a dual-ontology, we 2 ML may embrace the (classical-like) symmetries of hid- dimensions [ T 2 ], pertinent to the model? We shall den/background space — (meaning/implying) that it see that: at the QM (virtual energy) level, it arises is the same at every location (homogeneous) and in (partly) by way of Planck’s constant, i.e. a minimum angular momentum quantity; and at the macroscopic every direction (isotropic). ∗ By way of reality’s underlying homogeneity of level, a (new) ‘non-local mass’ (m ) quantity is (neces- ‘time’ (i.e. a simultaneous digital cosmological tem- sarily) introduced in addition to the ‘invariant’ specific poral evolution), energy conservation is implied — in energy (∆e) of rotating space-warps. This new type both real and idealised conditions. By way of (noume- of (non-local) mass relates to the fact that: “. . . QMs nal) time’s (priority and) homogeneity, energy (cf. mo- is ‘non-local’ because the state of a quantum system mentum) conservation may be discussed — both micro- is spread throughout a region of space (Davies 2004, and macroscopically. For the purposes of the model, p.20).” Similarly, by way of the virtual nature of the energy needs to span (and interweave) a physical phe- QM energy involved, this non-local mass is always nomenon involving both the microscopic and macro- spread throughout a volume (V ) of space. In other scopic realms together. In other words, energy con- words, it is never localised; but it can/does act upon a localised mass, e.g. the Pioneer spacecraft. Indeed, we servation is seen to ‘operate’ across both/all systems ∗ through (a common systemic) time. In the model, we shall see that: m V = constant (in subsection 6.6.5). shall see that energy and its linkage between the two realms, is the major (guiding) principle embraced; with 4.6.8 Asymmetry in the model and two the magnitude of this energy (per atom/molecule) ul- asymmetries in physical reality timately lying within limits imposed by (∆t and ¯h in) Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle (HUP). Unlike Noether’s theorem (recall the beginning of subsection 4.6.3), the model herein is considered to illus- Time isotropy does not exist at the level of the trate a deep connection between a conservation law new model’s formalism, because a total virtual micro- (i.e. energy) and an asymmetry in nature. scopic (QM) energy is asymmetrically/irreversibly re- In Section 5 we shall see that the virtual quan- expressed externally as the (real) energy of a rotating tum mechanical (QM) energy arises from the iner- space-warp. Further, to allow the space-warp’s (real) tial mass (and spin) within an atom or molecule. By existence at the macroscopic level, i.e. the level of way of relative angular momentum, a (virtual) non- curved space, the model forgoes the isotropy and ho- inertial configuration is attained within (a great many) mogeneity of idealised (background) space. The cor- atoms/molecules. This arises by way of: their macro- rect implication (from this) is not that the model vi- scopic (celestial) motion (orbital path) in curved space- olates conservation of linear and angular momentum; time; a small change/offset in geometric phase; and the but rather that a traditional reductive particle-based dominant strength of electromagnetic forces within an approach to conservation of momentum is inappropri- atom/molecule. This virtual QM energy is ultimately ate (and inapplicable) to the model’s multi-realm (sys- an expression of a (different or newly recognised type tem) — and its HUP-based circumstances. of) asymmetry in nature. The model cannot be based upon an action principle in one big/general system, as a reductive (and rel- 210Specifically (and additionally) involving a cyclic rate of ativistic) approach envisages, because Noether’s theo- angular momentum (offset), which is yet to be elucidated. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 65

What comprises the broad basis for the existence of minimum energy level of any atomic/molecular QM in- this (virtual) QM (angular momentum rate) asymme- teraction; and that the not insignificant magnitude of try? Gravitation (in practice) involves only positive this virtual energy arises from it being (very nearly the mass (i.e. an absence of antimatter), and hence lo- same magnitude and) shared by every atom/molecule cally there is only positive curvature. Further, the throughout a (suitable) spin-orbit coupled moon. model exploits the unidirectionality (i.e. arrow) of time. These two physical asymmetries pertain to two 4.6.10 Concluding remarks primary aspects of reality. Indeed, physical dimensionality (standardly) employs mass and time as two The previous discussion has shown that: Noether’s of its fundamental dimensions. Thus, asymmetry is theorem, which is a part of the theoretical physicist’s deeply imbedded in reality, and it is conceivable that “principle” based approach to reality, has effectively in (positively) curved spacetime, an irreversible iner- over-reached regarding that which cannot exist in re- tial mass-based process — that is asymmetrical in time ality. To model a real Pioneer anomaly, asymmetry — is indirectly behind the Pioneer anomaly. and energy conservation (shall) play a crucial role in linking together the microscopic (i.e. QM) and macroscopic (i.e. gravitational) realms/domains. Without 4.6.9 The model’s unique circumstances this approach, it is hard to conceive how any meaning- Regarding the model’s rotating space-warps211, homo- ful physical linkage would otherwise be attained. In geneity of space and the isotropy of space and time the language of philosophers of science, (herein) we are are clearly absent. We shall now discuss the very re- pursuing a (mainly) constructive theory (and model), stricted, and minor, sense in which this occurs. rather than a principle theory approach. In the model, the energy of the asymmetry associated with the inertial to non-inertial frame off- 4.7 Summary and concluding re- set — and a virtual to actual physical (circumstance) offset — equals the energy of a supplementary (ex- marks regarding SR and GR ternal) real gravitational/accelerational field effect (a This section provides an overview of conclusions 212 non-isotropic rotating space-warp ). Note that over reached regarding our new stance concerning special the time of a single rotation (this external field ef- and general relativity, as well as an encapsulation of fect) is equally distributed around an equilibrium field the model to be presented (and further developed). strength — in that it imparts (on average) no ‘overall’ additional/extra curvature to that already provided 4.7.1 Incompleteness cf. incorrectness by general relativity. The constant amplitude of the space-warp means that, over extended time spans and Let it be said that in no way is either SR and/or GR’s on the whole, an idealised ‘background space’ in one approach to ‘spacetime’ and physical phenomena seen sense retains its inherent homogeneity and isotropy. to be incorrect, as regards relevant observational evi- The existence of this rotating space-warp is ulti- dence. Our concern is whether they provide a concep- mately based upon the uncertainty principle of QMs, tually complete theory of “gravitation”, in the widest and quantum discreteness encountering the effects of sense of the word. By way of issues surrounding QM (non-discrete or) continuous curved spacetime. Thus, non-locality, and the assumed existence of a real Pi- the warp merely represents an uncertainty principle oneer anomaly214, there is sufficient justification for based “wiggle room” (perturbation) around an equilib- hypothesising an ontological extension to our (singu- rium set of circumstances established by GR (i.e. stan- lar) understanding of what space and time ‘are’; and dard gravitation). Importantly, such a mechanism en- how they relate to, and coexist with, each other. sures the ongoing stable existence of the mass aspects of QM systems in curved spacetime circumstances, es- 4.7.2 Aspects of our new approach to pecially angular momentum (see Section 5 for a more Special Relativity and Gravitation detailed discussion). Energy is the (common) ‘currency’ of the model’s In the spirit of (Sir) Arthur Stanley Eddington we micro- to macroscopic mediation (or re-expression). saw (he saw) (QMs and) GR “. . . as fundamentally The physical energy being discussed is a virtual QM in- ‘epistemological’ in character, meaning that they pro- trinsic angular momentum per cycle time (i.e. a virtual vided insight into how we see the world, rather than spin energy). We shall see that because the underlying what the world is (Stanley 2005, p.37).” Thus, in line quantum mechanical asymmetry is cyclic, and process with certain philosophers of physics, general covari- based, it reasserts itself after every completed spin- ance (GCoV) is regarded as simply a new mathemati- orbital cycle; thus maintaining the continuous rotation cal technique, not an expression of physical content. of the (effectively rigid213 ) space-warp. Note, that for In the spirit of Vladimir A. Fock, who sought to the QM energy to be virtual, it needs to be below the develop a new, non-local, point of view of Einstein’s theory (Fock 1959, Preface), we recognise the need 211Later we see that these are actually (in three spatial dimensions) rotating axisymmetric warped space-‘cylinders’, 214Not to mention that: “no one understands why empty of global size/scale or ‘proportions’ — rather than a thin space should have [dark] energy (Krauss 2004, p.83).” Note (two-dimensional) disk (also) of global/universal extent. that theory based upon vacuum energy (seeking to explain ∗ 212With its associated non-local mass magnitude (m ). dark energy) differs from measurements by about 120 orders 213In the sense of not deforming from its initial ‘shape’. of magnitude, and thus this cannot be a valid hypothesis. 66 Paul G. ten Boom

(in some cases) for a global perspective upon gravi- which space ‘curves’ or deforms. Although this new tation. Further, herein we share Fock’s preference for conceptualisation assists our understanding, where ob- viewing SR as a “Theory of Invariance” and GR as servations are concerned, we must almost always nec- a “Relativistic Theory of Gravitation” — in order to essarily defer to standard GR. The Pioneer anomaly guide our supplementation of gravitation — but his and its explanation is the exception to this rule. wish to have privileged systems of coordinates (and The consequence of this supplementary (noume- ‘recast’ Einstein’s theory) is not embraced. nal cf. phenomenal) conceptualisation is that a different type of ‘gravitational’ field, as compared to 4.7.3 Benefits of a new supplementary any describable within GR, can exist. Subsection conception of space and time 4.7.5 briefly outlines how this field arises from a different ‘level’ of matter; i.e. mass ‘within’ (a great To appease a (real) Pioneer anomaly, we are required many) atoms/molecules — subjected to celestial closed to accept the “dual-ontology” outlined in this Section. loop/path orbital (and spin) motion — cf. macro- This dual-ontology involves appreciating the ‘coexis- scopic mass/matter (itself), its motion, and energy. tence’ of both a relative (observational), and a global (hidden background), conception of space and time. 4.7.4 Summary remarks and distinguish- The former is constrained to ‘working with’ spacetime, ing the new approach to ‘gravitation’ whereas the latter allows space and time to be treated as physically separate notions. The latter conception, A reduction and unification agenda, Noether’s theo- by way of a new appreciation of universal sequential rem, GR’s principle of GCoV, SR’s non-simultaneity, evolution (that cannot be directly appreciated by way and the lack of local energy conservation in GR, are of observations), is consistent with QM non-locality. seen to not stand in the way of the model being pre- This ‘other’ global (hidden background) ap- sented; if the reader is prepared to relax their stan- proach/perspective, posits a type of hidden cosmolog- dard “concept package” of reality — (so as) to embrace ical substratum; i.e. a space continuum that is some- a conceivable alternative. If one’s standard “concept what analogous to a fluid mechanical molecular mass package” is not relaxed, then one can only have a high continuum. The nature of global (sequential) evo- degree of scepticism regarding the real (‘gravitational’) lution is such that an effective (hidden background) existence of the Pioneer anomaly. The model requires time simultaneity exists; but observationally, clocks the ‘universality’ of energy conservation to be applica- will run at different rates depending on their local cir- ble/restored (in its specific circumstances), and the im- cumstances215. portance of an exclusively ‘principle’-based approach Further, we need to allow the standard notions of in macroscopic physics to be strongly downplayed. emptiness and zero specific energy to coexist with their The new approach being pursued, via the awkward ‘opposites’, i.e. fullness and maximum specific energy Pioneer observational evidence, involves/includes: 2 (set at c ). The latter is an (everywhere) uniform and 1. a macroscopic constructive theory, that arises in (‘everywhen’) unchanging background potential (spe- response to a microscopic asymmetry, cific) energy field. We then need to hypothesise that 2. an energy basis, and a circulatory field effect, the magnitude of this ‘field’ is ‘complex’, in it has both real and imaginary components. A ramification of this 3. continuum mechanics (involving space & non- supplementary conception, is that SR’s Lorentz trans- local quantum mechanical mass — separately), formations can be seen as arising from relative motion 4. a richer ontology, and acceptance of hidden vari- introducing an imaginary component of specific en- ables — albeit at the level of the full system, and ergy, so as to reduce the availability of space and time 5. recognition of two quite distinct, yet coexistent, to observations. Observationally, this (loss of avail- physical realms; i.e. the micro- and macroscopic. ability) appears as time dilation, length contraction, and mass dilation. We may then think of this as in- This stands in stark contrast to the general thrust volving a “drawing-down” upon the uniform (hidden (standard approach) of contemporary physics which background) specific energy field (or potential hill). utilises/employs (respectively): The ‘subtlety’ of GR, is seen to arise from multiple 1. a principle based approach to theory (including draw-downs coexisting (e.g. via mass and the motion an emphasis upon symmetry), of mass); hence the (somewhat restrictive) requirement 2. particle exchange as being responsible for force, of general covariance in its formalism. We conjec- 3. Lagrangian and Hamiltonian based formalisms, tured (subsection 4.4.1) that: GR’s need for general covariance (GCoV) is a direct consequence of (further) 4. an “operationalist” approach to the world, and adding gravitational effects to the (already additional) 5. a four force unification agenda (3 micro+GR). conformal structure demanded by SR’s Lorentz sym- This write-up doesn’t seek to discredit Special or Gen- metry. From our new (or complementary) perspective eral Relativity, nor disparage the three force “standard we may alternatively recognise an intrinsic (cf. extrin- model”; rather, it seeks to supplement and comple- sic) imaginary (number based) space ‘dimension’ into ment this approach — which has failed, for more than 215Note that a hidden variable background time (itself) is 25 years, to make substantial ‘scientific’ (cf. mathe- not being proposed; only a hidden cosmological (sequen- matical) progress towards its objective of unifying the tial existence) go-pause-go-pause-... simultaneity is being three force quantum mechanical microscopic world and proposed (recall subsection 4.2.10). General Relativity. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 67

4.7.5 Previewing the mechanism that indi- away from the RSW’s source; and as such ∆E is ‘dis- rectly explains the Pioneer anomaly sipated’ away from its source (atoms and molecules). The representation and conceptualisation of this The ramifications of our (noumenal plus phenom- effect relies on the dual-ontology previously mentioned. 216 enal ) dual-ontological stance upon energy con- The existence of a hidden background temporal coor- servation was examined in section 4.6. We dination (or simultaneity), and a global background saw that the global approach, of the supplemen- space continuum, together with energy as drawing- tary/complementary ontology, also allows conserva- down from a maximum (reservoir) value, permits the tion of energy to regain its ascendency — at least with representation of the mechanism to be expressed in regard to the unique circumstances of the (new) mech- a ‘neo-classical’ mathematical formalism (that is sep- anism/model. arate from GR’s formalism). Subsequently, use of a The model involves geodesic motion in curved metric shall not be required. spacetime influencing the (spin-based) geometric phase The model is comprehensively quantified in of (all elementary fermion/matter particles within) Section 6. Several of these RSWs (coexist and) com- an atomic/molecular quantum mechanical system (see bine/superposition to produce the Pioneer anomaly. Section 5). This geometric phase influence is (effec- Preempting this, (for each RSW) the (virtual) QM en- − tively) common to (a great many) QM systems i.e. ergy (∆E) is proportional to a rotational rate [∆t 1], atoms and molecules within a ‘suitable’ celestial body. multiplied by the reduced Planck constant (¯h) and This suitability requires the celestial body to be a the number of atoms/molecules (Nm). The rotating (predominantly solid-body) moon in spin-orbit cou- space-warp’s energy (also ∆E) is proportional to (half) pled motion around is host planet, which in turn orbits the warp/wave amplitude squared, i.e. acceleration 1 ∗ 2 2 the Sun — i.e. three celestial bodies are involved in the squared. Later we shall see that ∆E = m1∆a ∆t 2 ∗ model. Also involved are inertial effects pertaining to where ∆t is the duration of a single rotation, and m1 QM intrinsic spin. The relative (spin) geometric phase is a non-local mass encompassing a given (initial) vol- change ‘results’ in a not insignificant (non-inertial) QM ume. intrinsic angular momentum (rate), or (spin) energy. In Section 5 it shall become clear that only a min- It is ‘non-inertial’ because atoms/molecules are domi- imal geometric phase shift can lead to the virtual QM nated by the electromagnetic force, and because of the energy associated with the mechanism, and this is de- ‘internal’ spin-orbit coupling of atoms/molecules the pendent upon a number of things; one of which is the geometric phase change/offset is overridden/denied. A existence of the weak gravitational fields typical of our ‘rate of angular momentum’ is involved, because self- solar system — and almost certainly other similar so- interference of the atoms/molecules per completed or- lar systems. Subsequently, the neo-classical approach bital/cyclic loop is a feature of the mechanism to be employed herein is not compromised by circumstances proposed. pertaining to very strong gravitational fields. Only when this (‘internal’, relative, and non- inertial) energy offset is virtual, i.e. existing below a decoherence ‘trigger’ at the first or a minimum QM energy level, does the situation result in a non-local ex- 5 Outlining quantum & gen- ternal re-expression of the (same) energy magnitude. eral aspects of the model The re-expression of the total virtual internal energy (∆E) as a real external energy is a one-way process. In this Section the quantum mechanical (QM) aspects It relies on energy being a scalar quantity, and having of the model are primarily outlined. Each section a multi-faceted ‘nature’. Scalar energy is the common steps up the level of detail in which the model is pre- ‘currency’ in the ‘mediation’ of this rather complicated sented. Due to the length of this Section, the econom- physical phenomenon; with ‘universal’ energy conser- ical reader may prefer to merely read the summary at vation the ‘governing’ principle. the end of each section — 5.1 to 5.7. The main aim of The external re-expression of (virtual QM) en- this Section is discussed in section 5.1.1. ergy expresses itself as a neo-classical-like rotating and asymmetric perturbation of space, that ‘piggy-backs’ upon and distorts the pre-existing gravitational field 5.1 Revising and extending the re- (as determined by GR). This perturbation takes the lationships between the micro- from of a universal (or cosmological) size/scale rotat- scopic and macroscopic ‘realms’ ing space-warp (RSW) (introduced/discussed in Sec- tion 3), whose energy — upon completion of one full Drawing upon the alternative ontology presented in rotation of the RSW — is also ∆E. Associated with Section 4, this section (5.1) seeks to elaborate upon this (now non-virtual) energy is both: a non-local mass the differences between the microscopic and macro- distribution, and a specific energy distribution (∆e). scopic realms previously discussed in subsection 4.2.6. The latter, and an associated acceleration amplitude It then highlights various ramifications ensuing from (∆a), is the same everywhere (i.e. cosmologically) this. The discussion is at times general and at other throughout the field. It is the (distributed) non-local times model specific. This is an important step in our mass, at a point in the field, that reduces as we move attempt to establish a second ‘means’ (or manner) by which non-Euclidean geometry is achieved. Preceding 216In a scientific observational sense. this we declare a major aim of this paper/treatise. 68 Paul G. ten Boom

5.1.1 Main aim, and non-locality and lo- ing a (physical) reduction to the graviton (particle), cality at non-extreme temperatures in turn denies both: that mass is always secondary to energy, and (the validity of) a gauge theory approach In very general terms, the main aim of this Section to gravitation. In place of a particle emphasis, grav- and the paper is to (indirectly) relate curved space- itation — in the sense of a gravitational acceleration time (rather than GR per se) to a quantum mechanical (that can act upon a body) — is given a geometric em- system’s ‘state’ at non-extreme temperatures/energies. phasis; and subsequently, it is quite different to, and Of great influence in this regard has been Raymond distinct from, the other (three microscopic) ‘forces’. Chiao (Chiao 2004). His, and our, primary concern is the apparent tension between QMs’ non-locality and 5.1.3 The size of ‘microscopic systems’, GR’s locality. He addresses this issue in conjunction with Berry’s geometric phase (see section 5.2). Note and mass & energy by number that ‘locality’ implies both: a particle basis, and com- Our criteria for a macro-micro (theoretical) dividing munication being mitigated at (or below) the speed of line is taken to be: whether the size of a micro/QM light. The ramifications of questioning a particle basis object is determined by its QM wavelike nature — a are investigated in this section, i.e. section 5.1. ‘boundary’ condition for the ‘microscopic’ QM realm When examining an internal-QM to external-GR one might say. For electrons and atoms, i.e. an elemen- physical relationship, Raymond Chiao and others ex- tary particle and a QM bound system (respectively), amine either sub-atomic particles or electromagnetic this is the case217. Subsequently, the largest micro- radiation’s photons. In contrast, our interest shall in- scopic systems are necessarily atoms and molecules218 . volve (wave-like) angular momentum aspects of the internal ‘motion’ within atoms and molecules. Thus, the If in some cataclysm, all of scientific Dirac equation in ‘flat’ or curved spacetime shall not knowledge were to be destroyed, and concern us. Of interest shall be: maximum QM energy only one sentence passed on to the next uncertainty, a minimum difference in QM energy lev- generation of creatures, what statement els; and (quantitatively) Dirac’s constant (i.e. Planck’s would contain the most information in the constant 2π = h/2π =h ¯) shall be important. fewest words? I believe it is . . . that all ÷ [macroscopic] things are made of atoms . . . Richard P. Feynman (Rohlf 1994, p.1) 5.1.2 Altering the perceived relationship We emphasise the somewhat neglected idea that bulk between gravitation and EM mass (or large mass) is effectively a sum of its con- Some close parallels are assumed to exist between grav- stituent atoms/molecules. Loosely speaking, we have itation and electromagnetism (EM), e.g. the inverse “mass by number”. Microscopically, mass is secondary square law. The dual (wave and particle) nature of to energy. These two points together exhibit the pos- electromagnetic radiation/photons spans the micro- sibility that an excess “virtual energy by number” and macroscopic realms. Note that mechanistically, may arise. This notion was introduced in subsection EM exhibits quite distinct behaviour in the two realms: 4.2.2, and herein it shall be applied with regard to for example, the role of EM in an electric motor is very an energy uncertainty upper limit associated with the distinct from its role in an atom. To compliment the atoms/molecules ‘constituting’ a celestial three-body massless photon, the existence of a (massless) graviton spin and orbital system. particle has been confidently postulated, but there is Additionally, when discussing the macroscopic in a subtle difference between EM and gravitation. terms of the microscopic, we shall confine ourselves to In EM the force between two charges doesn’t de- the largest microscopic systems: i.e. atoms/molecules. pend upon a third charge, whereas with gravitational They represent the total angular momentum of all influences this is not the case. If we deny the exis- smaller constituent particles (or lesser elementary tence of a graviton particle and hence a gauge theory fermion wave aspects) — as discussed in the follow- approach to gravitation, then a purely particle based ing quote. (gravitational) momentum to energy link flounders, Formally [i.e. the equations involved], because graviton momentum can no longer be defined. however, there is no difference between Unconventionally, we shall allow energy’s manner of the spin of a single particle and the to- existence to not be solely restricted to a local particle tal angular momentum of any system re- (and force) basis. As such, the energy of a rotating garded as a whole, neglecting its internal space-warp can be associated with both: the specific structure. It is therefore evident that the energy of a rotating space-warp/space-deformation, transformation properties of spinors apply together with a (new) non-local distribution of mass equally to the behaviour, with respect to — with the latter elaborated upon in section 6.6. rotations in space, of the wave functions This is consistent with our previous denial of “mass ψjm of any particle or system of particles in SR” always being secondary to energy, at the macro- 217 scopic level; which ensured the subsequent revival of The wavelength of an electron ‘inside’ an atom is equal to the size of an atom. The wavelength of the neutron the notion of relativistic mass (see subsections 4.4.5 gives the nucleus its size. The wavelength of a quark inside and 4.4.9). In contrast, microscopically the relation- a proton is the same order of magnitude as the size of a ship between the energy and the momentum of a pho- proton (Rohlf 1994, p.138). ton is simply mitigated by the speed of light. Deny- 218The molecules may indeed be very very large. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 69

with total angular momentum j, indepen- away with regarding quantum mechanics dent of whether orbital or spin angular as a theory of the microworld. But in momentum is concerned (Landau & Lif- many cases, the information leakage can shitz 1965, p.200). be slowed or stopped, . . . [In summary, the] division between the quantum and 5.1.4 A mass emphasis as compared to an classical worlds appears not to be fun- electric and magnetic emphasis damental . . . [and as such] quantum mechanics applies on all scales (Vedral 2011, It is the mass, inertial, and mechanical aspects p.41,43). of an atom/molecule’s angular momentum that Two comments ensue: firstly, information leakage in shall be our primary concern herein, even though the model is ‘thwarted’ by way of the influence (we atomic/molecular angular momentum is dominated by have proposed) being so small that it cannot regis- electromagnetic fields and the electrical charge of its ter its presence within the digital/quantum system it- constituent particles. self; effectively, it is a (proper) fraction of any minimal Importantly (re: the model being pursued), it shall quantum change. Secondly, there is a clear division be- be the (indirect) effect of an external field, gravita- tween solely quantum-based and solely classical-based tional cf. electric or magnetic, that shall concern us; in descriptions/models of the world; the challenge herein particular, its (non-negligible) affect upon spin-orbital is incorporating features of both descriptions (and angular momentum coupling within an atom/molecule worlds/domains) into a single model. — in certain ‘third’ (celestial) body circumstances. Finally, experiments now leave very little room for Note that the (internal) position of the centre of the following proposals to operate: (1) [Roger Pen- mass of atoms/molecules is effectively fixed cf. the dis- rose in the 1980s suggested] “that gravity might cause tribution of electrical charge; and (recalling subsection QMs to give way to classical physics for objects more 4.1.6) if the correspondence principle holds, then this massive than 20 micrograms, . . . [or (2)] . . . that large centre of mass moves (according to Ehrenfest’s theo- numbers of particles spontaneously behave classically rem) along a classical trajectory. Further, as a prop- (Vedral 2011, p.43).” erty of atoms/molecules, the mass interaction of neighbouring atoms/molecules is negligible cf. the electrical interactions of (outer) electrons in atoms/molecules 5.1.6 Quantum probability density and with their neighbours. acceleration/ gravitational field un- Regarding QMs and the behaviour of dulations — single particle case atoms/molecules in macroscopic bodies (e.g. metals, Celestial bodies in stable orbits move along geodesics, and chemistry), it is just the outer electron effects that and are not acted upon by gravitational forces (per se). are predominantly significant; whereas, the inertial It is worth mentioning that (via the time independent effects related to curved spacetime (proposed herein) Schrödinger equation) for a (solitary) free ‘particle’ involve all the mass of each atom/molecule — in an travelling at a constant speed219, as atoms/molecules ‘appropriate’ macroscopic (celestial ‘third’) body. ‘slaved’ to a moon roughly/effectively do; (then) re- Unlike the case with electromagnetic aspects of garding the wavefunction, the probability density has atoms/molecules, each atom’s/molecule’s mass, and a constant amplitude (for all x and t)220. In our case (as we shall see) virtual spin, is treated as distinct the “free particle(s)” we consider are the constituent from its neighbouring atoms/molecules. Thus, if the atoms/molecules of a bulk mass in celestial motion. (energy) influence upon a collection of neighbouring This subsection’s (hypothetical and idealised) ex- atom/molecules is the same — e.g. via motion in a amination of a single free particle essentially dis- gravitational field — the total energy may then be regards all but one atom/molecule in a celestial described by way of a simple addition of the individ- body; and thus it is inappropriate when/where real ual atomic/molecular contributions. Loosely speaking, quantum mechanical interactions upon or between this is an “energy by number” situation; i.e. energy atoms/molecules occur. For a virtual effect, common is proportional to the number of atoms/molecules in- to all atoms/molecules in a celestial body, the follow- volved. ing discussion could (conceivably) be valid. Using a large number of wavefunctions to generate 5.1.5 A point of order re: QMs, classical a group of travelling waves, the wave ‘packet’ spreads physics and macroscopic systems out from its (original) localised position. Similarly, and in addition to the rotating space-warp’s acceler- Elaborating upon comments made in a footnote of sub- ation amplitude remaining constant out to ‘infinity’, section 3.2.15, we note — by way of paraphrasing Ve- the space-warp’s (non-local) mass at a point in space dral (2011, p.40) — that the criteria for treating a reduces with the spherical volume enclosed around a macroscopic system as purely classical depends upon the way quantum systems interact with one another, 219Note that we are dealing with the zero potential; and rather than merely depending upon the size of the sys- ‘particle’ also refers to atoms and molecules. tem itself. Furthermore: 220The unobserved (single) particle is equally likely to be found anywhere on the geodesic (i.e. a straight line in Larger things tend to be more susceptible curved spacetime) that forms a closed orbit. If this were the to decoherence than smaller ones, which case, the momentum (and energy) are known with complete justifies why physicists can usually get precision. 70 Paul G. ten Boom moon — going to zero at (mathematical) ‘infinity’ simply by way of the sum/superposition of its parts — (see section 6.6). Thus, the nature of the hypothe- which may in turn involve further (and unknown) pro- sised rotating space-warp’s associated (non-local) mass cesses at the level of the whole object (i.e. emergent distribution is not totally dissimilar to the quantum processes). mechanical (probability) wave function of a single free Finally, regarding decoherence, we shall not need particle. We also note that interference effects are pos- to employ concepts such as the density matrix, or sible, as are self-interference effects — with the latter mixed states; nor shall Schrödinger’s equation con- being especially relevant to our model. cern us — the latter because we are not concerned with finding the allowed energy levels of QM systems 5.1.7 De Broglie matter waves, decoher- (especially atoms/molecules), nor determining the po- ence, and reduction sitional probabilities of particles. Our emphasis lies solely with the intrinsic angular momentum (spin vs. By advocating a standard two realm non-reductive ap- orbital) aspects of microscopic (i.e. QM) matter, sub- proach, we also necessarily question the nature of the jected to a common external effect; that then (under assumed existence of de Broglie matter waves for whole very special circumstances) expresses itself (also) ex- macroscopic objects, e.g. a pitched baseball. We cite ternally to the QM system (or systems) concerned. a Paul Davies thought experiment, concerning a perceived quantum violation of the equivalence principle, involving two perfectly elastic balls; one made of rub- 5.1.8 A system comprising four levels of ber and one made of steel, dropped from the same matter and the system as a whole height. Due to the different physical: phenomena, laws, and . . . quantum mechanically, there will be principles involved, a ‘complete’ system relevant to our the phenomenon of tunneling, in which model involves five different levels of matter and size. the two balls can penetrate into the classi- Note that the word “macroscopic” is reserved for cally forbidden region above their turning use in the sense of “not microscopic” — thus applying points. The extra time spent by the balls at levels three, four and five. These matter/size levels in the classically forbidden region due to are: tunneling will depend on their mass (and 1. Elementary fermion particles — the smallest thus on their composition) (Chiao 2004, microscopic level; p.268). 2. atoms/molecules — conceived as a composite of A reductive assumption underlies the discussion of (all) their constituent elementary fermion (spin- this concern. Essentially by way of decoherence, we 1/2) particles — the largest microscopic level; might alternatively conclude that a discussion of quan- 3. the (composite) sum of all atoms/molecules, i.e. tum tunneling effects regarding macroscopic objects 222 (at room temperature) is invalid. This alternative bulk (lunar) mass — the ‘mesoscopic’ level ; stance, and Paul Davies’ perceived concern, supports 4. three-body celestial motion involving a moon in the contention that the microscopic and the macro- spin-orbit tidal lock orbiting a planet, with this scopic are quite distinct realms/‘worlds’, with distinct moon-planet pair orbiting a central star/sun — 221 behaviour . This is not to say they cannot both be the celestial (and bulk mass in motion) level. involved in a phenomenon; rather, they may (herein) coexist together but not in a “unified” and reductive 5. Finally, there is the full system to consider which incorporates all four (lower) levels as well as the manner — at least as regards the ‘mass era’ of the 223 universe (cf. the hot ‘radiation era’). background space-time ‘stage’ — (effectively) Decoherence, as an approach to reality is generally the universal (and cosmological) level. loyal to a perceived reductive agenda; in that “behind the scenes” a macroscopic body is considered to still 5.1.9 The transition between the micro- possess a matter wave field associated with the whole scopic and macroscopic realms object cf. a macroscopic body being essentially representative of the sum of its (QM) parts. This unverified The transition between the microscopic and macro- (whole body) conjecture is denied by our non-reductive scopic realms remains a contentious (and open) is- micro-macro phenomenal stance. sue (recall subsection 4.1.8). By altering the conven- The alternative is that, there is a (dual) coexis- tional/standard relationship of the microscopic to the tence, with the domain of independent matter waves 222 only extending to the largest QM systems, with these Although not the conventional use of the word, we are being atoms/molecules. Thus, in a macroscopic body, avoiding the use of the word “macroscopic” (here). Addi- tionally, mesoscopic is used to indicate that certain statis- and by way of decoherence we may still retain latent tical properties have meaning at this level. QM features; but there is now a huge multitude of 223Generally, we shall use the word “spacetime” when ‘individual’ matter waves superpositioned “behind the referring to ‘everyday’ or general relativistic usage, but scenes”. Thus, the whole object’s matter waves exist we shall use “space-time” when the model’s non-local basis and (supplementary) noumenal/hidden background on- 221N. Bohr, W. Heisenberg, and J. von Neumann all ar- tology needs to be recognized/appreciated. Note that gued for a strong distinction between the quantum realm some quotations (presented in this paper) use “space-time” and the classical world. rather than “spacetime”. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 71 macroscopic world we attain a different understand- lies with atomic/molecular inertial spin effects — via ing of the demarkation and transition between the two atomic/molecular geodesic motion in curved spacetime realms. — rather than the usually dominant electromagnetic Bohr’s correspondence principle (CP) is seen to based effects. Thus, standard QM approaches cannot apply to atoms/molecules, but its application is re- be applied, e.g. involving Schrödinger’s equation. stricted to QMs that obeys Schrödinger’s equation — By way of (further) questioning both the phys- i.e. quantum (orbital) mechanics, with the QM spin ical/ontological and theoretical aspects of a scien- exempt/excluded. Regarding ‘orbital’ angular mo- tific reduction agenda, and emphasising the differ- mentum, as in the case of the Rydberg atom where ences in the micro- and macroscopic realms/domains, (the orbital angular momentum’s quantum number) it was argued that these realms coexist primarily in l ; the behaviour of the quantum mechanical sys- an independent manner — at least as far as our tem→∞ ‘reduces’ to classical physics in the limit of large formal/representative understanding of them is con- quantum numbers. In contrast, the spin of a quantum cerned. This standpoint influences issues such as: the system never ‘goes to’ infinity. Subsequently, for QM transition between the two realms; the superposition of spin the correspondence principle does not apply. This atomic/molecular effects; and highlights a subtle dif- is one reason we are told to never conceptualise QM ference between the classical limits of QM spin (i.e. spin in a classical manner. While this is true for QM intrinsic angular momentum) vs./cf. orbital angular systems on their own, it may not always be heuristi- momentum — in that QM spin has no classical limit cally useful — especially for a QM system existing in (nor a classical analogue). Thus, (in exceptional cir- curved spacetime; (because) we shall argue that (in a cumstances) QM spin may be (additively) relevant to rare type of third-body system) externally imposed ef- a macroscopic body compromising a great many atoms fects of spacetime curvature can attempt to offset QM and molecules; the model herein shall exploit this case. spin phase relative to the phase demanded by EM spin- orbit coupling. This occurs in a non-discrete (i.e. continuous/analog) manner — albeit only in the form of 5.2 Berry’s geometric phase in a tiny (sub-quanta) virtual effect. celestial systems A conceptual visualisation in the form of a relative over-spin, is beneficial for our explanation — albeit not 5.2.1 Curved space, time and geometric physically realistic. Also note that a “virtual” effect is phase an effect that is not actually occurring nor is it directly In Section 4 we examined what may be termed an observable, but may still be physically relevant — (in “observational ontological oversight”, arrived at by our case) at the (external) universal physical level. Our way of our questioning that “observations are real- virtual effect is below the first energy level — and/or ity” (without remainder). Subsections 4.5.14 and a minimum change in the (practical) energy levels — 4.5.15 utilised a ‘dual-ontology’ to reach an alterna- of a quantum atomic/molecular system, and thus it is tive/supplementary interpretation of curved ‘space- associated with (proper) fractions of Planck’s constant time’. By placing all the adjustment for the presence (h), where h = 2π¯h. of: mass, momentum, and energy, relative to an (ide- The use of ¯h 0 to indicate the macroscopic limit, alised) empty universe Euclidean space and time, into so thathl ¯ is finite→ as l , is not embraced un- → ∞ an imaginary (number based) space dimension(s) we equivocally. Its use assumes that reduction is always may effectively speak of curved space, whilst employ- justified. It appeals to the relative smallness ofh ¯. In- ing time simultaneity — so as to (more generally) ap- deed if a (fermion spin) offset effect is common to a pease QM non-locality. Note that time rates are vari- great number of atoms/molecules, the use of theh ¯ 0 → able (in the presence of mass, momentum, and energy). macroscopic limit is inappropriate. Thus, this use of This ‘meta’-physical approach, involving “hidden ¯h 0 (i.e. very very small) is only appropriate for → physicality” (and hence hidden variables), facilitates a single atom/molecule. A hypothetical intrinsic an- this section’s (i.e. 5.2’s) conceptualisation and quanti- gular momentum discrepancy/offset does not always tisation of a relative and virtual (spin) geometric phase have a classical/macroscopic limit analogous to (‘inte- (offset) — for the motion of atoms/molecules along a rior’) orbital angular momentum. Thus, any blanket geodesic in curved spacetime, cf. motion in ‘flat’ space denial of spin affecting a macroscopic system, in the circumstances. Indeed the use of the standard mathe- form of a (virtual) angular momentum offset at the matical formalisms of both GR and QMs implies that universal/systemic level, appears to be unjustified — no geometric phase offset, real or virtual, should ex- albeit only in the special (vast number) additive and ist for motion upon a geodesic — whatever the cir- externally ‘driven’ circumstances of the model. cumstances. The phase offset described herein necessarily applies only within the third-body of a three- 5.1.10 Summary remarks for section 5.1 body celestial system — relative to spin phases in the rest of the system. Later we shall see that QM self- This section has outlined how the model is able to re- interference is involved (see subsection 5.4.3). strict itself to the study of (only) atoms and molecules: Note that observationally, QMs, SR, and GR all as a composite of all their sub-system fermion elemen- hold as before; but regarding the (virtual) geometric tary particle/wave constituents, and independent of phase (GP) offset, the additive/supplementary use of interactions with neighbouring atoms/molecules. The a curved space and ‘staccato’ noumenal/background model’s emphasis (with regard to quantum mechanics) time simultaneity idealisation is our only option — if 72 Paul G. ten Boom we are to provide an explanation for a ‘real’ Pioneer to the moon’s orbital plane226, i.e. the obliquities are anomaly incorporating non-local considerations. very small — and effectively zero in some cases.

5.2.2 Background to Berry’s geometric 5.2.3 Finer detail upon the use of Berry’s phase and anholonomy geometric phase in the model A quantum system’s wavefunction may not return to We now turn to the use of (Berry’s) geometric phase its original phase after its parameters cycle ‘slowly’ in the model being hypothesised/formulated. around a circuit — a circumstance referred to as ‘an- Firstly, we recognise the global and cyclic nature holonomy’, or preferably ‘holonomy’ by some authors. of (relative) geometric phase change (or offset); which If a stationary state for a QM system is maintained, as implies the curvature (i.e. non-Euclidean geometry), it travels around a circuit, it may acquire a phase shift and possibly topology, of background space and time that is of a geometric or topological origin — which is is important — especially its relationship to the ‘spin’ quite different to the usual dynamical phase changes of QM systems. associated with Schrödinger’s equation224. The QM . . . only for a cyclic evolution the change system is said to: in geometric phase β can be defined in- “. . . record its (path) history in a deeply variantly. This makes it appear that β is geometrical way, whose natural formula- global in the sense that it can be unam- tion . . . involves phase functions hidden in biguously defined only for cyclic evolution parameter-space regions which the system (Anandan & Aharonov 1988, p.1868). has not visited (Berry 1984).” Three comments ensue: Note that geometric phase is always relative. This a) The global (rather than local) origin of β implies is elaborated upon in subsections 5.4.5 and 5.4.6. a global phase ‘datum’, relative to which β can be There are two types of anholonomies: topological referenced227. phases (e.g. the Möbius strip) and geometric phases — “geometric” because phase shift depends only on the b) A cyclic process conceivably establishes a (virtual) geometry of the circuit in the parameter space [which spin energy — in the sense of a rate of angu- is sometimes real physical space] (Berry 1988, p.28). lar momentum. With regard to the new mecha- In Cai, Papini, & Wood (1990) the classical na- nism (under development), the external expression ture of Berry’s phase for photons, specifically the ro- of energy associated with an internal energy (of tation of a linearly polarised beam travelling along a equal/common magnitude) indicates the effect is single helically wound optical fibre (or, in AmE, fiber), non-cumulative; i.e. the phase offset and virtual is shown to arise from the intrinsic topological struc- energy are not carried over to the next cycle. ture of Maxwell’s theory — if the Minkowski (flat) c) In a two-body gravitational system the “reduced spacetime is considered as a background. The phase is mass” greatly simplifies the orbital description, so (theoretically) developed in the context of fibre-bundle that the two-body problem can be solved as if it theory. were a one-body problem. In any solely two-body By way of contrast, we are examining the geo- situation the (new) geometric phase change is seen metric phase of QM intrinsic angular momentum (i.e. to be absent. spin) in the context of: motion in (observational or phenomenal) curved spacetime — or equivalently and Only with a three-body (gravitationally bound) celes- 228 alternatively, motion in (noumenal time and) curved tial system , with its multiple types/sources of space- space. Note that orbital angular momentum phase is time curvature, can (a virtual) relative phase offset not affected. Of particular interest shall be: occur; with this offset being for a moon’s constituent atoms/molecules — and (equally for) all their con- the path of atoms/molecules when ‘attached’ to • stituent elementary fermion/matter particles/waves — (i.e. are a part of) celestial bodies, relative to the rest of the system. Note that the the inertial ‘commitment’ of the QM system, model also requires celestial spin-orbit resonance (i.e. • and the projection of QM spin by way of a par- phase-lock or synchronous motion) for a moon in re- • ticular direction in space; with this direction be- lation to its host planet. The importance of this is ing externally established by way of the lunar discussed in subsection 5.4.5. The host planet (and spin axis or the plane of lunar orbital motion. Sun) remain unaffected, thus effectively forming a ‘datum’ of no atomic/molecular geometric (spin) phase For large moons this orbital plane usually has very low change. Later we see (subsection 6.3.5) that the inclination relative to the planet’s equatorial plane225, and the lunar spin axis is very nearly perpendicular 226One way in which discrepancies can exist is via a (spin) rotation “axial precession” effect e.g. Earth’s moon. 224Note that dynamical phase shift is proportional to time, 227Certainly, for EM effects in a laboratory curved space- whereas geometric phase is path-based and never (directly) time is usually neglected. dependent upon time. 228Asteroids occasionally have satellites, e.g. Ida and its 225A planet’s equatorial plane and a large moon’s orbital moon Dactyl; but a naturally occurring stable four-body plane are usually very nearly parallel — with Neptune’s (gravitationally) bound system remains unobserved. An captured moon Triton being an exception to this (low rel- artificial satellite in the form of a spacecraft, orbiting our ative inclination) rule. moon, effectively creates a four-body bound system. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 73

(particular case of the) Sun-Earth-Moon system fails which then establishes the (spin) phase offset of lunar to be geometrically suitable, and thus does not pro- atoms/molecules at the end of a closed (orbital) cir- duce/‘coexist’ with a rotating space-warp. cuit relative to the spin phase at the beginning of the Secondly, the external ‘impetus’ to an internal (moon’s) closed loop/circuit. One again we note that (virtual) change in geometric phase (i.e. β) requires orbital angular momentum phase is unaffected. That a relationship between celestial kinematics and QM a geometric/topological quantum mechanical fermion geometric phase be pursued. wave phase effect should have a purely geometric celes- The essential difference between our tial basis is initially surprising but not unreasonable — [Anandan & Aharonov] approach and especially since this (classical/Euclidean) path-based geometry is ‘coexistent’ with celestial (‘phenomenal’) Berry’s approach is that we regard β as a 231 geometric phase associated with the mo- curved spacetime . tion [i.e. kinematics] of the state of the Outstanding, at this stage is that: it appears we quantum system and not with the motion may need to accredit the background curved space con- of the Hamiltonian as Berry did (Anandan tinuum with some additional (topological) fine detail & Aharonov 1988, p.1864). (see subsection 5.3.3). In our case the motion of atoms/molecules within (and ‘slaved’ to) a celestial moon is examined. With 5.2.4 A different role for geometric phase the model requiring celestial spin-orbit resonance, the in a ‘mechanistic’ system lunar-constituent atoms/molecules undergo both (classical) spin rotational motion and ‘linear’/geodesic mo- Within atoms/molecules, i.e. (microscopic) QM sys- tion (in curved spacetime) — at the same ‘time’. tems, the electromagnetic force dominates any gravi- It shall be seen that (pure/Euclidean) geometry tational ‘forces’ by a very large amount; the ratio of the electrical to the gravitational forces between a proton also plays an important role in determining geometric 40 phase in the model229; in conjunction with the ‘ge- and an electron is about 10 . Subsequently, any phys- ometry’ associated with spacetime curvature. Finally, ical effects, that are solely based upon mass cf. mass we note that the celestial motion of atoms/molecules and electric charge, are always considered negligible. (within a large/bulk mass) is both: adiabatic, and We are considering an exception to this ‘rule’. Regard- “force-free” by way of being motion ‘upon’ a geodesic. ing geometric phase, the presence of curved spacetime Thus, within the model, dynamical phase concerns is (currently) seen to merely alter relationships that may be (and are) neglected. are dominated by electromagnetic (EM) concerns. Thirdly, in certain EM two-body circumstances: Herein, we examine a curved spacetime effect upon a non-electromagnetic aspect of an atom or molecule . . . geometric phase depends only on C — hence this is referred to as a “mechanistic” ap- [the closed curve] and is independent of proach. We shall take geometric phase into a domain how the evolution around C takes place where its effects are considered to be non-existent, or (Anandan & Aharonov 1988, p.1866). at best negligible; with this being: the non-inertial In our three-body moon-planet-sun system, two dis- status of the intrinsic angular momentum of an au- tinct “closed curves” can be recognised: i.e. a planet tonomous (moon-based) bound QM system translat- around its sun, and a moon around its host planet230. ing/propagating along a geodesic in curved spacetime. In both cases the orbital paths are dictated by gravity (and kinematics). In the model we consider one full (sidereal) orbital cycle of a moon as the primary 5.2.5 Geometric phase & celestial motion closed curve. Later (section 5.6.7) we propose that β The effects of spacetime curvature upon the geomet- (the closed curve geometric phase change) is dependent ric phase of different, although neighbouring, quantum upon both the moon’s closed path and the planet’s an- mechanical (QM) systems are generally considered to gular rotation/progression around the Sun in this time be all the same; but on larger scales, i.e. involving — which is substantially less than a (2π rad) planetary different celestial bodies, this local idealisation is com- year. pletely inappropriate. For example, a moon orbits its Note that the value of β is only indirectly based host planet at a distance, and hence its path in curved upon the mass and speed of the bodies concerned. spacetime is profoundly different to the (curved space- Thus, once the (celestial) orbital features are in place, time) path of the planet. it is only the paths that are important; and the ba- At laboratory scales curvature effects differing be- sis for our empirical determination of (quantum me- tween QM systems are imperceptible, and up to moon chanical) geometric phase change/offset can be con- or planet size are very nearly identical — because sidered solely “geometric” — i.e. closed curves, arcs, the paths of neighbouring atoms/molecules are almost lengths and angles. Loosely speaking, celestial kine- parallel in spacetime. In other words, throughout matics and dynamics establish a ‘path’ geometry, a given celestial body (particularly moons), the geo- 229We shall use the expression “geometric phase”, rather metric (spin) phase offset (at the ‘level’ of individual than “Berry’s phase”, to distinguish it from the latter which atoms/molecules) is effectively the same — essentially is often associated with the motion of the Hamiltonian (in parameter space). 231Or “coexistent with curved space”, from our alternative 230Since Jupiter and Saturn’s moons dominate the model, noumenal/background perspective, i.e. the second of our the larger body’s core is essentially the centre of rotation. ‘dual’ perspectives. 74 Paul G. ten Boom because any given moon’s radius is much smaller than and GR maintain their distinct ‘character’ — rebuffing the moon-planet semi-major axis. most physicists’ expectation that the next step in their relationship is to be one of unification and reduction. 5.2.6 The model encapsulated 5.2.7 Commenting upon two assumptions The following brief overview of the new mechanism associated with Berry’s phase encapsulates much of what shall be discussed in the rest of Section 5. Berry (1988, p.31) discusses two assumptions implicit For an atom/molecule (within an appropriately in his derivation of the geometric phase. configured third celestial body) moving in curved 1. The environmental parameters governing a sys- spacetime, a (relative) virtual geometric phase off- tem can be determined (at least in principle) to set (per loop duration/time) effectively ‘equates’ to a arbitrarily high precision, and that (virtual) over-spin of intrinsic angular momentum per unit loop duration/time; with this being a spin en- 2. the environment remains unaffected by any ergy. Further, this internal energy offset — by way phase changes it induces in the system. 232 of being below the first/lowest energy level — is Regarding the first assumption, the environmen- (effectively) shared by every atom/molecule in an ap- tal parameters herein involve the geometric and kine- propriate moon; and thus, upon summation (through- matic characteristics of lunar and planetary motion; out a moon) the virtual energy offset ‘produced’ is and these are known to high precision. significant — by way of an extremely small number 1 −1 Regarding the second assumption, in contrast to (< 2 ¯h∆t ) being multiplied by an extremely large EM instantiations of Berry’s phase, the environment number of atoms/molecules. — in a different sense of the word — is necessarily The multifarious orientations of the elementary affected in the model’s case; by an amount equal to the fermion particles within atoms/molecules all ‘receive’ virtual energy offset it induces ‘within’ a bound QM the same externally orientated phase change effect. system (or systems). It is the QM atomic/molecular Thus, the virtual phase effect is effectively coherent. In system that is unaffected — as far as a physically real other words, the magnitude of the phase offset and the change is concerned. Interestingly, if a physically real (common/shared) spin axes’ orientations are extrinsi- 233 change is induced in the QM system, then decoherence cally based — with the latter only ‘being’ possible in ensures the environment remains unaffected — this is the case of a virtual effect/offset. Note that only minor further discussed in section 5.3. differences/variations in phase change occur over the extended body, because the body’s radius is very small compared to the scale of the spacetime motion and cur- 5.2.8 Towards coherence and condensate vature/geometry concerned. We shall assume that all behaviour, in the graviton’s absence (third-body) geometric phase changes are equal. Only Internal (virtual) QM coherent behaviour and a (con- at and above the decoherence threshold, i.e. greater densate) external acceleration/gravitational field re- than a (fermion) half-wavelength (2π) geometric phase sultant effect is being pursued herein; (but) with the offset, could the actual (i.e. real) multifarious spin ori- photon particle mediating the EM force, and the gravi- entations be exposed. Below this threshold, the virtual ton particle denied, things are necessarily quite differ- effect’s common application (i.e. same direction and ent. magnitude for all atoms/molecules) facilitates the ex- The term “condensate” is used here in the sense of istence of a new type of (externalised/environmental) ‘singular’ behaviour, but also in the sense of an effect ‘condensate’ behaviour — (that is) not necessarily related and common to (i.e. shared by) a great many physically associated with a constructive superposition atoms/molecules (Nm). Thus, an additive approach of (virtual) geometric phase offsets in the QM wave- to the quantification of virtual spin energy is possible. functions (see subsection 5.2.8). Note that our phenomenon of interest lies below the The appeasement of this virtual energy imbalance, lowest (i.e. first) energy level of a bound QM system, by way of a systemic (i.e. global) conservation of en- whereas a Bose-Einstein condensate occurs at the first ergy, necessitates a (real) physical expression of energy 234 energy level; and as such the singular behaviour dis- external to the many QM systems. This external cussed is not that of a real physical (state of matter) energy expression imposes itself as a field upon the pre- condensate. Nevertheless, in the model, quantum ef- existing gravitational field. This unrecognised ability fects become apparent on a macroscopic scale. of nature acts to always maintain the (internal) stabil- In QMs, geometric phase (and gauge theory) are ity of atoms/molecules in the presence of curved space- usually discussed in terms of such things as fibre bun- time. Importantly, QMs and GR’s curved spacetime dles. Importantly, relative electromagnetic based ge- are both involved in the generation of this new ‘gravi- ometric phase effects are seen to extend “all the way tational’ field effect (i.e. rotating space-warps with an up” to Maxwell’s equations. Thus, geometric phase associated non-local mass distribution), and yet QMs effects appear to be related to the long-range effects of classical electromagnetic fields, and hence they are also 232Or below a minimum change in discrete energy levels. 233Extrinsic (definition): not part of the essential nature conceivably steeped in curved spacetime’s large-scale of something, and coming or operating from outside. (geometric) fields/influences. Subsequently, a back- 234Of the order of ∼ 1050 atoms/molecules in a large solar reaction involving a long-range field response, external system moon. to the QM systems concerned, is not unreasonable. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 75

This new long-range geometric phase-based effect 5.3.2 Fermions, spin, spinors, Hannay requires us to not disregard subtle properties of back- angle, and decoherence ground space and time in themselves. Coherence and condensate-like behaviour are further discussed in sec- By utilising both microscopic and macroscopic phe- tion 5.7. nomena (i.e. quantum mechanical and non-QM gravitational/accelerational field phenomena) in the model, a solely QM approach is clearly not possible. In QMs, 5.2.9 Summary remarks for section 5.2 physical quantities are quadratic in their wave func- Building upon the supplementary ontology discussed tions. A 2π change in the wave phase (of fermion par- in Section 4, this subsection introduced the manner in ticles) was historically (pre-1967) seen to be merely which (Berry’s) geometric phase is used in the model. associated with a sign change of the wave func- After a brief introduction, the very restricted condition — with no associated experimental consequences; tions of its instantiation were outlined, representing a whereas nowadays experimental consequences are well- departure from standard applications of Berry’s phase appreciated. Generally, only interference experiments — which typically involve neutrons and electromag- are considered an appropriate vehicle for the investiga- netic phenomena. tion of geometric phase effects. Our investigation goes These restrictions involve: (1) application to the beyond this restriction. inertial mass aspects of atoms and molecules within If we restrict discussion of the phase change to 2π the (lunar) third-body of a three-body celestial sys- ‘jumps’, this suits the reductive/dicrete particle ap- tem, moving ‘along’ a geodesic in curved spacetime; proach of EM, but not the continuous (i.e. analog) (2) a relative phase shift that is restricted to intrin- geometric phase changes proposed herein — that lie 236 sic angular momentum (i.e. spin) phases, with orbital below a minimum energy level , and are seen to arise angular momentum-based geometric phase remaining from an external analog curved spacetime effect. Sub- unaffected; and (3) a dependence upon closed orbital tleties of spinor sign change, related to the case of a loop motion (and self-interference). 2π rotation of one system relative to another system For relative geometric phase shifts less than half a are briefly discussed in subsection 5.3.3. fermion wavelength (i.e. < 2π rad), the phase ‘shift’ In (non-relativistic) QMs, spin states may be sim- represents a virtual effect within an atom/molecule. ply represented by a two-component spinor (spin up Lunar motion, relative to its host planet, determines and down); where “spinors” are wave functions of the the orientation of this (virtual) phase shift for all (lu- intrinsic angular momentum of (usually) elementary nar) atoms/molecules; and since a moon’s diameter is particles. Note that spinors are also associated with small relative to its semi-major axis, the magnitude of a dilation effect, in addition to the rotational aspect. the phase shift is (also) effectively the same through- Additionally, we note that a phase, for the purposes of out an appropriate moon. This permits an additive QMs, is not a state of matter but a complex number approach to spin ‘energy’ — i.e. change of intrinsic an- of unit modulus, an element of group U(1). Herein, we gular momentum per closed loop duration/time (∆t). cannot restrict ourselves to a solely QM basis — with 237 The general acceptance of a linkage between (stan- its mathematical group theory emphasis — but we dard) geometric phase effects and long-range classical can restrict the quantification (and conceptualisation) EM effects is seen to support our hypothesis235 that: of the model to a solely classical basis — e.g. energy, curved spacetime based geometric phase effects can ex- momentum, mass, and (something akin to) classical ternally ‘express’ (a virtual QM energy) into a (new spin. How this is achieved is outlined in the following type of) long-range acceleration/gravitational field — paragraph. albeit only for circumstances where a minimum (inter- The external basis/origin of the QM (geomet- nal) QM energy ‘level’ is not attained and (such that) ric) phase change/offset proposed herein acts similarly geometric phase-based decoherence is not ‘triggered’. upon both the up and down spin components — of all elementary fermion particles, and (in equal measure) an atom/molecule as a whole. This simplicity, regard- 5.3 Spin, spinors, decoherence and ing how the external effect acts, allows the spin (geo- Hannay angle metric) phase offset to be (loosely) described and con- 5.3.1 The model’s use of QM spin and ceptualised as a (classical) Hannay angle — with this being the mechanical/classical analogue of Berry’s ge- spinors ometric phase. Indeed the intrinsic spin of ‘quantum’ Note that herein the QM mathematical device of a particles should not be considered classically, but the “spinor” plays no quantitative role in the model, but external origin of the internal effect lends itself to this spinors are necessarily a part of the discussion. With simple and useful visualisation. An example of a Han- the physical energy involved in QM systems of pri- nay angle is the angular rotation associated with Fou- mary importance, the concept of “spin” (i.e. intrinsic 236 angular momentum) is crucial to the discussion — par- That is, below a level where the QM atomic/molecular system’s state is altered, so as to exhibit (local) particle- ticularly in terms of the physicality of a phase change. based consequences — that can be observed by experi- Note that a 4π spin phase change of a fermion particle ments. Below such a level, mathematical consequences, and results in a return to its initial state — all other things wave-based interference consequences cannot be ruled out; being equal (ceteris paribus). nor can our proposed externalisation of ‘unresolved’ (fractional quantum) energy be ruled out. 235By way of similarity, and hence analogy. 237Not to mention: Clifford algebra, Lie geometry, etc. 76 Paul G. ten Boom cault’s pendulum. We can imagine the model’s virtual Previously, we have indicated the model is based (phase offset) effect as behaving like a simple classi- upon a situation below a maximum energy uncertainty cal “over-spin” (per loop/cycle). Note that the attrac- or below a minimum (discrete) change in energy lev- tive (only) nature of mass-to-mass gravitational inter- els (which quantitatively are a function of the reduced actions results in a phase asymmetry that is restricted Planck constant). We now make this physically spe- to an over-spin circumstance; whereas an under-spin cific by using the relative 2π phase advance as the circumstance (its repulsive opposite) cannot exist in a threshold/dividing line between decoherence and non- three-body (bound) gravitational system. This over- decoherence of the system. Only for 0 <β< 2π can spin is clarified in subsection 5.5.8. a rotating space-warp coexist; (and) it is this scenario With our approach using ‘classical’ energy as that we are specifically examining239. For any single a bridging quantity between the two realms, our intra-atomic/molecular β 2π occurrence the ‘bulk’ ≥ classical rotation conceptualisation/visualisation is a moon is considered to loose (entirely) its ability to ‘be- doubly useful explanatory device. Thus, from an have’ in an (additive) QM condensate-like manner. external perspective we are effectively treating the atoms/molecules “mechanistically” — not that this is 5.3.3 Physicalising the spinor sign change how they are described mathematically within a (mi- π croscopic) QM system, e.g. an atom or molecule. arising from a 2 relative rotation Fermion wave functions have a 4π [radian] period- In flat spacetime, a 2π (6π, 10π, etc.) [radian] rota- icity with respect to either: a physical rotation (about tion of either a physical fermion particle/system about an axis, and within a coordinate system), or a rota- any axis (within a coordinate system), or a rotation of tion of the coordinate system about the fermionic ‘sys- the coordinate system (or an observer) itself around a tem’; and unlike bosons it takes two full rotations to stationary (spin-1/2) fermion particle or fermionic sys- return them to their original ‘orientation’. Fermions tem, leads to the sign change of a spinor wave function, that have undergone a 2π [radian] rotation around an but not a change in state — with a 4π (8π, 12π, etc.) axis experience a sign change in their wave function. rotation returning the spinor to its initial sign. Be- Note that this is a forced rotation whereas celestial yond the quite abstract mathematics associated with orbital motion is an unforced rotation. Thus, the re- spinors and operators, the physical interpretation of lationship between forced rotation and phase does not spinor sign change, arising from a physical rotation, simply ‘transpose’ into the model (see subsection 5.6.7 deserves examination. for the actual three-body relationship). In fact, (‘un- Silverman (1980) points out that for the spinor sign forced’) planetary and lunar orbital motion is generally change to be physically relevant we need to discuss a considered to be free of any interior QM phase changes; relative situation240. but for (third-body) lunar motion an unforseen spin phase change/offset is seen to be indirectly implied by Only a part of the [whole] system can be the (inconclusively explained) Pioneer observations. rotated; part must remain fixed to provide This paper proposes that (relative) geometric a reference against which the rotation is phase changes can arise within three-body ‘unforced’ measured. [Additionally] . . . experiments rotational systems. Planetary and lunar orbits involve revealing the 2π phase change of a spinor (straight line) geodesic motion in curved spacetime; wave function resemble closely well-known thus, this situation is quite unlike a rotation in ‘flat’ classical optical phenomena (Silverman space. Nevertheless, it is proposed that the intrinsic 1980, p.116). angular momentum of atoms/molecules constituting To develop the model we need to make a dis- (i.e. comprising) a moon are imposed upon by some- tinction (and linkage) between a classical (2π) rota- thing analogous to a classical rotation in flat space — tion/revolution and a quantum mechanical (2π) phase in that a geometric phase change/offset can arise. Note change. Our model involves: an inertial mass-based that the orientation of the spin axis associated with the emphasis, curved spacetime, a three-body celestial sys- virtual geometric phase offset is actually extrinsically tem and a (fermionic system) atomic/molecular geo- determined. We further note that the quantitative be- metric phase change; whereas, as a rule, QM fermion haviour of the phase shift is not necessarily analogous particle/system ‘rotation’ is dominated by external to that of a simple fermion rotation in flat spacetime. electromagnetic effects241. A 2π ‘rotation’ in an elec- Decoherence is seen to occur when β 2π, i.e. when ≥ 238 tromagnetic force-dominated QM system is seen to be a sign change in any fermion wave function occurs . physically generated; thus, it is effectively a ‘forced’ ro- Note that this decoherence is not temperature related; tation — whereas celestial (geodesic) motion in curved it is (geometric) phase based. In short, an externally spacetime is actually an ‘unforced’ (orbital) ‘rotation’, ‘driven’ phase effect is only “found out” by the QM system when it ‘alters’ the QM system — even if no 239Possibly, for a single atom or molecule things may be ‘observables’ have changed. different, especially if EM radiation absorbtion or emission is involved. See the discussion on change in the fine struc- 238Note that with atoms/molecules in a moon having var- ture constant in subsection 6.2.6. ied spin orientations, the first atoms/molecules to ‘trigger’ 240If the whole (i.e. entire) system is rotated there can be the macroscopic decoherence will be those with their spin no experimental consequences. axis most susceptible to the external effect — with this 241With a (rotating) external magnetic field being the (conceivably) being (either) a spin axis perpendicular to a most common means to induce a change, often involving moon’s orbital plane or parallel to the moon’s spin axis. neutron particles in a beam, e.g. a Larmor precession. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 77 if we embrace a purely geometric (i.e. curved space- we can observe directly the sign reversal of a spinor time) approach to gravitation. wave function subjected to a 2π rotation. In both cases the change in a QM sub-system’s To simply, but not exhaustively, understand the spinor is considered: physical242, externally induced, experiment (that Silverman discusses) we may al- and relative. To simply examine a mathematical low both: an externally generated physical relative- (2π) particle or coordinate rotation upon a (mathe- rotation to act upon QM spin/spinors, and an matical) spinor overlooks all this. Indeed, Maxwell’s QM/internal phase change, to coexist (at least concep- equations of electromagnetism and GR’s gravitation tually and prior to measurement); in order to explain cover the two classes of external macroscopic physi- the interference effects when the two beams are recom- cal effects that can conceivably influence the geometric bined. Clearly, the classical conceptualisation of QM phase of a QM particle, atom or molecule — with an spin as a rotation remains forbidden, and it is prefer- atom/molecule having both electrical (plus magnetic) able to avoid implementing the ‘hidden’ background aspects and (inertial) mass aspects (in its own right). associated with the quantum number “tumble”. It should not be readily thought that a spinor sign Although the notion of tumble has its origin in change (arising from a 2π relative rotation) requires Dirac’s equation (and hence electrical charge) (Ed- background spacetime to have an additional and mys- monds 1973), the conceptualisation of a phase change terious structure that interacts with (i.e. topologically (by way of relative motion) is quite similar to the couples to) QM spin/spinors243. Background space is model’s proposed geometric phase offset; with both seen to merely support (or act as) a (physically) rel- necessarily recognising (in different ways) the existence ative ‘stationary’ phase or ‘rotation’ reference datum, of a ‘global’ (or systemic) reference frame — e.g. a but it doesn’t need to have a spin structure intrinsi- barycentric solar system reference frame. Hence, the cally within itself. additional notion of tumble retains some appeal, espe- Thus, we have reason to reject (principally by way cially in light of the fact that the hypothesised non- of Ockham’s razor) the assertion of Gough (1992), who local existence of the rotating space-warps proposed cites Edmonds (1973, 1976), that a direct linkage be- herein lacks a truly ‘deep’ physical explanation246. tween a 2π rotation of coordinates, in flat spacetime, In summary, it can generally be said that quite and a QM 2π phase advance is possible — by way of a elaborate mathematics is needed to represent the new ‘hidden variable’/quantum number called “tum- ‘weirdness’ of QM physical ‘behaviour’, and yet the ble”244. Although it should be noted that: “. . . , con- simple notion of an externally induced fermion 2π ventional quantum mechanics requires lengthy argu- phase advance, leading to spinor sign change, is eas- ments to justify the sign change, involving the obscure ily appreciated. Externally induced (or forced) rota- [yet, highly regarded] notion of fibre bundles (Gough tion and internal phase change are well suited (if not 1992, p.169).” ‘natural’) partners. The model’s quite different con- We may downplay, by way of an internal to ex- ditions, i.e. exclusively examining mass-based aspects ternal distinction, the concern that Silverman (1980, of atoms/molecules undergoing unforced (closed loop) p.122) raises, by way of Byrne, regarding how to in- orbital motion, retains and exploits the simplicity of terpret the interference of spatially separated and ro- this conceptual linkage; now (i.e. in the model) be- 245 1 tated spin- 2 particles in a beam; because recently tween lunar celestial (orbital) ‘rotation’ — within a proposed interference free measurements may indeed systemic/barycentric reference frame — and relative be possible. geometric phase. Finally, we recall that in the mech- . . . for fermions, simultaneous observa- anism/model macroscopic lunar spin-orbit resonance, tions of the relative rotations of the spins also known as ‘phase-lock’, is additionally required. in the two beams and of the phase shift are incompatible [since observation of the rel- 5.3.4 Closing and summary remarks for ative rotation of neutrons destroys the in- section 5.3 terference pattern]. [Thus, argues Byrne:] . . . the notion of relative rotation ceases to The two major issues addressed in this section were: have meaning as it corresponds to nothing the ‘physicality’ of a particular type of (fermion) phase that is measurable (Byrne 1978). change, and the understanding of what that phase change might also involve/implicate. Further, Silverman (1980, p.122) notes that with regard to the interference pattern: we cannot say that In the model, a classical quantity — in the form of energy — shall be used to link a QM energy within 242Note that the model makes real, by way of an (external) atoms and molecules to a new type of macroscopic rotating space-warp, the ‘condensate’ QM virtual energy (gravitational) field effect. This QM (spin) energy is asymmetry. linked to intrinsic angular momentum, which in turn is 243Even though in Section 4 of this paper, in order to linked to a relative spin-based geometric phase offset appease non-locality, a noumenal/background/hidden ‘uni- (β). Since this phase offset arises by way of geodesic versal substratum’ and a different interpretation of SR have motion and curved spacetime conditions external to been propounded. 244The idea of a new quantum number “tumble”, with the atoms/molecules (in question), a major simplifica- its apparent similarity to spin, arose out of expressing the tion in the treatment of β is possible. Dirac equation in (complex) quaternion form (Edmonds 1973). Edmonds explores ways to lift its degeneracy. 246The author confesses to limitations regarding his under- 245By way of some electromagnetic process. standing of the subtleties of quantum mechanical ‘reality’. 78 Paul G. ten Boom

Our model is greatly simplified if we conceptualise It is useful at this point to distinguish locally ap- β as an externally ‘driven’ classical (Hannay) angu- plicable geometrical properties of the universe, e.g. lar rotation — of both the spin up and spin down curved spacetime, from (exclusively) global character- components. This is a completely inappropriate rep- istics of the universe, e.g. topological characteristics resentation of what is physically happening at the (such as shape). QM level, and a rigorous mathematical representation It should also be noted that a gravitational ana- would preferably employ spinors, but the virtual na- logue to the EM Aharonov-Bohm effect is discussed in ture of β permits this simplification. the literature. This analogue to the EM situation is not Instead of a rotation in an Earth-based laboratory what is being pursed herein. The situation being pro- leading to a relative (QM) fermion phase change, our posed is quite unique and different (recall subsection concern involves a celestial (orbital) ‘rotation’ — act- 5.1.2). The EM Aharonov-Bohm and the Aharonov- ing in unison with a celestial spin rotation. By estab- Casher effects have gravitational analogues that are lishing a (non-flat spacetime) barycentric-based ref- associated with a classical time delay or lag (Reznik erence frame, it can be said that we are examining 1995). The model’s new situation does not have an the lunar (and planetary) rotations (i.e. orbits) of an EM analogue; it is thoroughly independent of electro- atom/molecule — i.e. the quantum mechanical sub- magnetism. In other words, it is unique to “geometric” systems of bulk celestial matter. Only the lunar (third curved spacetime. body) motion is of significance, in that its atoms and molecules experience a fermion phase change/offset (β) 5.4.2 On the omission of global topological relative to the rest of the system — i.e. Sun (first aspects from the model body) and the moon’s host planet (second body). A sign change in any affected wavefunction is seen Although the model accredits the geometric phase off- to trigger full systemic decoherence, and thus a system set (β) solely to geodesic motion in curved spacetime characterised by a spinor would seem necessary. Nev- (recall subsection 5.2.2 on two types of anholonomies), ertheless, because our concern is merely the magnitude and we shall (later) quantify β merely by way of celes- of phase change, relative to a decoherence onset value tial kinematics and (Euclidean plane) geometry; (but) of β = 2π, and because β shall be determined (later) a topological aspect associated with quantum spin (ex- solely by external (celestial) geometric and kinematic isting throughout the universe) cannot be ruled out. conditions, a rigorous internal representation of the Indeed, this topological aspect may (and probably atomic/molecular circumstances is not required — nor will) form part of a richer explanation/model than the could it (alone) represent the more elaborate internal- one given herein — especially considering the rotating external (and micro-macro) situation being studied. space-warps (to be further discussed) are cosmologi- Our approach is quite distinct from (standard) in- cal in their size/extent, and universal conservation of terference based experiments (used) as a means of in- energy and conservation of angular momentum princi- vestigating a relative geometric phase effect/offset; es- ples/laws are required by the model. pecially because the third body in a celestial gravitational system is involved, and a virtual phase offset 5.4.3 Comparison to the Aharonov-Bohm (β < 2π) (as well as self-interference) are central to effect the model. Finally, we note that the virtual nature of the spin phase offset permits it to be associated with The EM based Aharonov-Bohm (A-B) effect is con- a quantum mechanical spin axis orientation that is ex- sidered to be the only type of non-locality associated ternally (i.e. extrinsically) determined — with this with fermion waves. Herein, a second non-locality as- orientation being perpendicular to the plane of lunar sociated with fermion waves is being proposed, involv- orbital motion, or parallel to the moon’s spin axis. ing the mass/inertial aspect of atoms/molecules. The comparison is given in point form. 5.4 A new type of precession — a 1. Importantly, we are (also) assuming the self- QM relative spin phase shift interference of fermions, i.e. the constructive interference of each elementary fermion 5.4.1 Relating the model to other geomet- wave/particle (within an atomic/molecular ric phase based phenomena fermion system) with itself after a full loop/cycle247 . Clearly, non-locality is impli- The non-Euclidean ‘geometry’ associated with space- cated/involved; additionally so, because no field time (S/T) curvature is a vital qualitative ingredi- lines are crossed — via the geodesic motion of ent behind the geometric phase offset. By way of lunar atoms/molecules. a comparison, geometric phase effects in EM situations (e.g. the Aharonov-Bohm and the Aharonov- 2. Our interest lies with the (spin) inertia of Casher effects) are associated with “. . . a ‘vector- fermions (which have mass). Although Planck’s potential’ coupling [that] gives rise to a topological (or rather the reduced Planck) constant is vital phase (Aharonov & Reznik 2000).” We have effectively to the (maximum) magnitude of the new effect cut out the ‘go-between’ coupling, and allow the path 247This is somewhat analogous to the physical inter- of an atom/molecule in curved spacetime to establish pretation of self-interference given by Chiao (2006), who the geometric phase offset — albeit in quite special refers to the closed path Feynman-Onsager quantitisation circumstances. rule/condition (Donnelly 1967). A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 79

1 −1 ( 2 ¯h∆t ), this energy magnitude acts indepen- Loosely speaking, we may also visualise (i.e. imag- dently of any electromagnetic field effects. ine) the (virtual) spin phase precession/offset as a QM 3. Whereas the Aharonov-Bohm effect is observed “over-spin”, although it is the relative virtual spin for neutrons and electrons (i.e. particles), we phase offset that is our primary focus. examine atoms/molecules. In particular, ramifications of their (‘internal’) spin-orbit coupling. 5.4.5 The three faces of one and the same 4. As for the A-B effect, the parameter space re- (magnitude) geometric phase offset mains the ordinary space of the atom’s motion, It helps to recognise three different (conceptual) types cf. the motion of the Hamiltonian; but this space of relative phase change (per loop/cycle), that are is now curved space cf. Minkowski space. physically equivalent if moon-planet spin-orbit reso- 5. The phase shift of interest in the model is vir- nance/coupling is ‘active’, and a cosmological substra- tual, cf. (in the A-B effect) the real phase shift tum is recognised (recall section 4.4). Firstly, internal of particles acted upon by topological macro- to an atom/molecule we have: the QM phase asso- scopic EM effects. The virtual phase shift arises ciated with intrinsic angular momentum (i.e. spin) from the motion of a celestial spin-orbit ‘cou- relative to (the unchanging, non-topological) orbital pled’ third-body in curved space — cf. an EM angular momentum phase. Secondly, we have an in- vector coupling (topological) effect in Minkowski ternal (lunar-based) spin phase offset relative to a space — but (herein) it is not determined by way background global reference ‘datum’; with this datum of the parallel transport of a vector. including the sun and host planet’s atoms/molecules — i.e. everything other than the spin aspect of 6. EM-based phase changes associated with par- atomic/molecular constituents within the third body ticle or radiation emission/absorption are of suitably configured celestial systems. Thirdly, we quantum-like (and gauge-based), whereas this have the spin phase offset, after the closed loop mo- motion and curvature based phase change allows tion, relative to its (own) pre-loop/initial ‘value’ — by arbitrary analog (i.e. non-digital) phase changes way of self-interference. — both virtual and ‘real’, i.e. (respectively) below and above (or rather ‘up to’) a decoherence threshold. 5.4.6 The need for two types of spin-orbit ‘coupling’: macro- and microscopic 5.4.4 A new type of ‘precession’ Lunar orbital resonance (i.e. macroscopic moon-planet The (electromagnetic) Aharonov-Bohm effect is con- spin-orbit resonance/phase-lock) ensures an exact ex- sidered to be analogous to the general relativistic ternally orientated (1:1) spin-orbit relationship for all frame-dragging effect248 of a body orbiting a rotating lunar atoms/molecules per “closed path loop” (i.e. one mass. Loosely speaking, we can say frame-dragging orbit). This externally imposed exact phase-matching leads to a precession in the plane of (orbital) rotation. establishes a (resonance) ‘datum’, against which any General relativity also involves an (orbital) geode- unforseen externally driven atomic/molecular geomet- tic effect upon spinning celestial bodies. A spinning ric phase drift may be referenced. Subsequently, body’s axis, when parallel transported around a mas- two different broad types of relative phase offset are sive object’s curved spacetime, (in one complete revo- conceivable. The first is exclusively internal/micro: lution for argument’s sake) does not end up pointing i.e. spin vs. orbital, in conjunction with spin (vir- in exactly the same direction as before. There is a tual) vs. spin (actual); and the second is lunar ‘precession’ of the polar axis. Loosely speaking, one (atoms/molecules) vs. an external reference ‘datum’ can say: “. . . the gyroscope ‘leans over’ into the slope — which includes the unaffected spin and orbital geo- of the space-time curvature (Wikipedia: Gravity Probe metric phases of planetary and solar atoms/molecules. B, 2011).” In both cases the same conceivable offset — occurring The new “precession” being proposed herein is a upon the completion of a closed path loop — is being function of curved spacetime but it is quite different: described; i.e. a lunar (atomic) spin phase offset relative to either: an internal unchanging QM spin-orbital Involving, a (relative) phase of intrinsic angular • phase configuration; and/or an external background momentum — and requiring atoms/molecules space phase ‘datum’. ‘slaved’ to a celestial body. In the model, any QM system (particularly atoms It is a virtual effect, that is self-interference and molecules) whose spin phase is offset by less than • based and thus determined only after a com- half a wavelength, must ‘maintain’ (and not lose) its plete orbital loop/cycle; in a suitably configured (discrete) quantum spin-orbit ‘configuration’; (and) three-body spin-orbit coupled celestial system. thus, the energy associated with the virtual geometric phase offset must be externalized into the space-time This QM “spin phase precession”, relative to ini- ‘environment’ — if a systemic (i.e. universal) conser- • tial spin phase and an unchanged orbital phase, vation of energy principle applies. Actually, this is does not arise from a (local) change in a celestial body’s orientation. See section 5.5 for further a conservation of angular momentum over the lunar spin-orbital duration/time ∆t. Thus, the virtual spin discussion. phase offset ‘exists’ relative to its own unchanging (ac- 248Also known as the Lense-Thirring effect. tual) lunar atomic/molecular spin phase datum (see 80 Paul G. ten Boom subsection 5.5.8); with this being a local datum cf. a that is figuratively likened to a classical Hannay angle background space phase datum. offset. The special circumstances required for this new ef- 5.4.7 Global reference frames and lunar fect have been discussed. Firstly, by way of applying to geodetic precession rate all (third-body) elementary fermion particles, this GP offset is also seen as applying — in equal measure as In relation to the Sun’s tidal acceleration Kenneth that applied to each (and every) ‘constituent’ fermion Nordtvedt recognises that: particle — to whole quantum mechanical systems (i.e. atoms or molecules). We note that atoms/molecules . . . de Sitter’s ‘geodetically’ rotating in- have ‘internal’ spin-orbit coupling. Secondly, we re- ertial frames accompanying the Earth quire the parent body of the atoms/molecules (i.e. a in its motion around the Sun induce a moon) to be in celestial spin-orbit resonance relative to precession of the lunar orbit which is its host planet. These conditions ensure that a mini- slightly greater than the geodetic preces- 249 mal phase offset can occur, i.e. less than half a fermion sion rate , . . . [because] the Moon is wavelength (2π), with this circumstance being physi- not a locally isolated dynamical system, cally and quantitatively not insignificant. . . . [Thus, the] Moon’s dynamics in the Finally, the relative nature of the geometric phase geodetically rotating inertial frame is in- offset (β) was further discussed. It is seen as both: trinsically different from its dynamics in an internal spin vs. orbital effect involving angu- a globally fixed frame,250 ...(Nordtvedt lar momentum phase; and secondly, as a local vs. 1996, abstract). global/systemic effect involving spin phase cf. a back- Somewhat similarly, in our model there is a tiny ground (spin phase) datum. Additionally, we intro- (virtual) discrepancy in the form of a QM spin phase duced the idea that β is also a virtual spin phase offset ‘precession’251 ; arising from the planet-moon system’s vs. the actual spin phase as fixed by the EM dominated orbital motion in the ‘barycentered’ solar system frame ‘internal’ spin-orbit coupling — which acts to suppress — that would (always) be absent if only the local (two- (and make virtual) the ‘would be’ phase advance. body orbital) dynamics was considered. It is prudent to (once again) note that a GR-based understanding of the motion of larger bodies in the 5.5 Spin phase, orientation, and solar system, especially the Earth-Moon system, is spin-turning not (at all) being questioned. Indeed the “closed cycle/loop” referred to, regarding QM geometric phase, This section brings us to a core aspect of Section 5. is an orbital loop that includes (non-Newtonian mechanical) general relativistic-based effects. 5.5.1 Spin phase and probability changes 5.4.8 Summary remarks for section 5.4 Measurements yield only two discrete values of The section’s main objective has been a discussion of (fermion) spin, i.e. ¯h/2 or +¯h/2. In our case, the the proposed geometric phase (GP) offset, and how it projection plane of a− QM system’s spin is fixed by the is different to GP shifts in (primarily) electromagnetic- plane of lunar motion. Relative phase changes252 [i.e. based situations. Specifically, we make a comparison relative to a systemic (phase) reference frame] are seen with the Aharonov-Bohm (A-B) effect, because the to alter the probability of finding a lunar-based (and A-B effect (until now) has been considered to be the atomic/molecular-based) elementary fermion particle only phenomenon that involves a non-locality associ- in an spin-up or spin-down state. Loosely speaking, ated with fermion waves. a 2π fermion phase shift, for example, would alter a We distinguish this (unique) GP offset from grav- 100% spin-up probability to a 100% spin-down prob- itational analogues of the (EM) Aharonov-Bohm and ability — with this alteration also associated with Aharonov-Casher effects, where the A-B effect is con- the sign change of a spinor. A π (radian) phase sidered to be analogous to general relativity’s frame- shift/offset, i.e. effectively 1/4 of a fermion wave- dragging. The new GP offset has been portrayed as length, alters a 100% spin-up probability to a 50% (or likened to) a new type of (spin) precession, in that spin-up and 50% spin-down probability253. Note that it is (also) a function of motion in curved spacetime. this discussion, and that of subsection 5.5.2, draws Obviously, it is quite distinct from geodetic precession upon the discussion in a Bernstein & Phillips (1981, in that it involves a relative and virtual phase offset pp.97-99) Scientific American article; but we shall not employ the notions of: base space, total space and fibre 249The Lense-Thirring effect is neglected in the article [see bundles (preferring the model-specific stance adopted p.1318]. in subsection 5.4.4). 250That is, a frame fixed with respect to distant inertial frames. This is the barycentric frame (comprising the Sun, planets, Earth, Moon, asteroids, etc.) employed in the gen- 252Either a lunar (atomic/molecular) vs. planet/global eration of ephemerides for the Moon and other solar system spin phase offset, or equivalently, a lunar atom/molecule’s bodies. initial spin phase vs. its (virtual) final phase. 251In the from of an intrinsic angular momentum phase 253Where probabilities are calculated from the mathemat- shift/offset per (closed loop) cycle time. ical description of each state of a particle as a wave function. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 81

5.5.2 ‘Turning’ as compared to ‘rotation’ In broad terms, the interest for Papini, Mashhoon, and others lies in the fact that: “External gravita- Usually (although not in our case), any change in spin tional fields induce phase factors [and only phase fac- probability, that is conceived (in an idealised manner) tors] in the wave functions of particles (Papini 2008, as arising from an externally driven (physical) rota- abstract).” It was Cai & Papini (1989) who obtained a tion/precession of a QM system’s spin ‘vector’, also covariant generalization of Berry’s phase. That general implies a change in the spin orientation. Some au- covariance of GR can be incorporated in the theory is thors prefer to speak of a ‘turning’ rather than a ro- a significant feat. tation to reinforce the non-classicality of QM spin. In our case, this turning is not an axis orientation turn- We can finally conclude that the validity ing; rather, it is a phase turning associated with a of covariant wave equations in an inertial- fixed/given spin vector’s orientation — (classically vi- gravitational context finds support in ex- sualised) much in the manner of the Earth’s (daily) perimental verifications of some of the turning on its axis. In the case of our model, we shall effects they predict [concerning neutrons see that maximum virtual energy occurs at a relative and either: the Earth’s rotation, or the phase offset occurs of π radians, with the 0 and 2π Earth’s gravitational field], in tests of radian offsets being quantitatively equivalent. Note the general relativistic deflection of light that coherent (virtual) phase offsets greater than 2π rays and also in the phase wrap-up in radians are not considered because they are physically global position system measurements (Pa- impossible; by way of (actual) decoherence at 2π radi- pini 2008, p.15). ans, which will ‘reveal’, and would also be incompatible with, the real/actual multifarious orientations of Our main concern is to comment upon their proposed 254 spin in the numerous atoms/molecules of a bulk moon. spin-rotation coupling and its extension to spin- rotation-gravity coupling (Mashhoon 2000, section 3). In light of the fact that the model’s non-local effect 5.5.3 Spin orientation and virtual spin is restricted to (‘overall’ atomic/molecular) intrinsic phase offset orientation angular momentum (spin), while leaving orbital angular momentum unaffected, it is crucial to note that The external planar (orbital) rotation of a moon about locally: its host planet fixes both the projection angle of (internal) atomic/molecular spin, and also the spin axis In derivations based on the covariant orientation (the z axis) for the virtual phase ‘turning’ Dirac equation, the coupling of inertia and associated with motion in curved spacetime. This cir- gravitation to spin is identical to that for cumstance applies to every atom/molecule ‘in’ a moon orbital angular momentum (Papini 2008, so long as it remains below the decoherence limit. p.16). In the solar system, planets and their moons orbit Thus, a local approach to establishing the model’s new close to the ecliptic plane; (and) the orbital orienta- (virtual) spin geometric phase offset, involving GR and tions of large moons, with the exception of Neptune’s QMs, is denied. Consequently, the offset is (necessar- Triton, are closely aligned with a planet’s equatorial ily) systemic and non-local (as per subsection 5.4.3). plane. Fortunately, we shall see later (subsections 6.2.2 Clearly, the new mechanism must be different, and and 6.5.8) that the model’s motion retardation effect not included in the broad scope of situations exam- for (the Pioneer) spacecraft is the same irrespective of ined by this field. Were it not for the Pioneer anomaly, the S/C’s inclination to lunar orbital planes; although the conceivable presence of this new (non-local) curved for Earth-based measurements a correction for the an- spacetime/gravitational field effect upon certain quan- gle between spacecraft path and line-of-sight observa- tum systems, which is completely ‘back-reacted’ into a tion direction is required (see Table 6 of Section 6). gravitational field (in a different/new format), would have remained far from consideration. 5.5.4 Standard approaches to the interaction of spin with inertia and gravity 5.5.5 Further reasons for denying a local approach to the phase shift/offset Two names that loom large in the field of gravity’s interaction with quantum mechanical systems There are only two theoretical options regarding the are Bahram Mashhoon and Giorgio Papini. Their basis of the new phase offset. Either it is solely related emphasis is upon applications to particles (cf. to an atom/molecule’s local physical motion, or an ad- atoms/molecules) and: ditional systemic and non-local effect upon fermion spin phase is also present — as is the case with the utilises a localised approach to the formalism (cf. Aharonov-Bohm effect. The former (i.e. local) sce- • a non-local, closed loop, Aharonov-Bohm like ef- nario is preferable, but for motion along a geodesic this fect); subsection shall present further reasons why it can- involves the (local) interaction of spin with: in- not be justified. Thus, by default we need to embrace • ertia, rotation, and gravity; and 254For fermions, there exists at present only indirect evi- concentrates upon motion that crosses gravita- dence for the existence of spin-rotation coupling (Mashhoon • tional field lines, i.e. non-geodesic motion. & Kaiser 2006). 82 Paul G. ten Boom the latter scenario i.e. a non-local/global effect arising 5.5.6 Ramifications of denying a local and from (closed loop) motion in curved spacetime. reductive approach (re: phase shift)

From a purely local perspective the (shared by ev- Subsection 5.5.5 showed how a solely reductive and ery atom/molecule) QM virtual spin phase offset may local account of the model has fatal flaws. Thus, re- be conceived as a (virtual) angular offset/excess (or garding the model’s physical associations, we are re- “over-turning”); with this being a measure of the cur- stricted to only discussing a relative phase-shift (al- vature enclosed by the path of the moon in curved beit virtual). Any reference to spin rotation angles spacetime. Note that in this (offset) case, parallel lacks physical validity, concerning both: a moon (as transport of a vector is (in some sense) necessarily a whole), and at the quantum mechanical level of its implied. We may then equate the common angular ex- constituent atoms/molecules — as well as the latter’s cess of all the atoms/molecules in a moon to a (virtual) constituent elementary (fermion) particles. lunar bulk-mass “over-spin” — relative to a scenario The representation of a virtual relative geometric involving uncurved (flat) space. It was tempting (for phase offset by way of either: a Hannay angular offset, the author) to then assume this virtual “over-spin” is an over-turning angle, or over-spin angle, nevertheless actually an unrealised/thwarted (macro) spin geode- remains a useful heuristic/visual tool in the model. tic precession effect — thwarted by way of tidal forces For atoms/molecules we are restricted to speaking that lead to celestial spin-orbit resonance. Thus, the only of spinor or spin phase changes256, but system- angular offset could then be derived from a moon’s ically/globally we allow ourselves to envisage, by way path in relativistic curved spacetime, so as to make of the conceptual tool of visualisation, a spin-rotation unnecessary any non-local basis (ultimately involving or spin-turning based offset (as per subsection 5.5.4). self-interference) ‘behind’ the phase offset. But, there are problems with such an expectation/approach.

If we idealise the moon-planet-sun three-body mo- 5.5.7 Aspects of a (third-body) non-local tion as: (all bodies) lying in the same (ecliptic) plane virtual geometric phase offset (with the lunar and planet spin axes orthogonal to this It remains true that the virtual angular offset, or rather plane), then it is clear that the over-spin does/could virtual geometric phase offset, is (still) derivable from not arise from a precession of the orientation of a a moon’s path in relativistic curved spacetime; but moon’s spin-axis. Thus, the notion of a geodetic spin- herein it shall simply be the (configurational) geome- axis precession is not relevant to the model. Fur- try of the lunar and planetary closed paths that shall thermore, the macroscopic (Hannay angle) “over-spin” quantify the relative phase shift (see subsection 6.3.5). concept fails to be analogous to the geodetic precession of a spinning gyroscope — as is examined in the Non-locality in the explanation cannot be avoided. Gravity Probe B experiment255. In other words, util- Our (global/non-local) fermion self-interference sce- ising GR’s representation of spacetime curvature and nario involves an unappreciated and subtle three-body the concept of parallel transport of a vector, there is no curved spacetime effect upon the phase of a (given) way to link curved spacetime with a spin over-rotation spinor’s wavefunction. We embrace a phase-offset ap- angle. It is just not in the ‘machinery’ of general rela- proach, rather than an orientation based approach. tivity, (even) incorporating the parallel transport of a For explanatory simplicity we have chosen to (some- vector, to do this. Furthermore, the heuristic and con- what inappropriately) visualise this (externally ‘im- ceptual use of a classical Hannay angle, regarding (an posed’ effect) as a (relative) over-spin. extrinsic/external imposition upon) QM spin, would This spin phase offset exists in conjunction with be inappropriately physicalised. what Michael Berry termed: “. . . phase functions hidden in parameter-space regions which the system has The failure of a solely local approach is further not visited (Berry 1984).” Regarding the model, this supported by the inability of the QM spin (at a sub- quoted phrase is best altered to: “phase effects hid- system level) to be physically understood as a classical den in background space-time that the system cannot rotation — of any kind. Only a virtual effect thwarted recognise within itself, but systemically (i.e. globally) by the dominant electromagnetic intra-atomic ‘forces’ are physically relevant.” is conceivable, and thus the thwarting of a physically The non-local basis of the spin phase offset is seen real rotation (on any level) is inappropriate and not to extend the geometric (two-body) ‘curious problem possible. General relativity demands that the local of spinor sign change’ (and 4π fermion wavelength) to frame can always be configured as an inertial frame; in a new scenario; this being an appropriate third-body section 5.6 we see why this, in special celestial ‘third- of a three-body celestial system. Note that in both body’ circumstances, is not (always) the case — at (the two- and three-body) cases the simple/pure geo- least virtually — at the QM (atomic/molecular) sys- metric relationship of (macroscopic physical) celestial temic level. (planetary and lunar) orbital rotation angles to (microscopic) phase shift is determined within a plane, i.e. it is a relationship describable in two dimensions.

255An alternative name for the Pioneer anomaly could 256Mathematically we would need to deal with ‘spinors’, be (the) Gravity Probe C experiment — even though two whereas for physical understanding the term ‘spin’ is pre- spacecraft were involved. ferred. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 83

5.5.8 What lies ahead: the spin offset via a cycle discussed throughout (this) Section 5. Initially, non-inertial path cf. an inertial path the mechanism is treated as a planar phenomena, but the space-warp’s extension into three (physical) dimen- In section 5.6 the physical significance (and ramifica- sional space is required (see subsection 6.2.2). tions) of the spin phase offset’s existence is examined. Up to this point we have simply examined the basis and motivation for a phase offset. It shall be argued 5.5.9 Summary remarks for section 5.5 that a virtual (intrinsic angular momentum) phase off- This subsection has discussed further aspects of the set represents a phase offset between a background model’s virtual and non-discrete geometric phase offset global inertial frame and a local frame that has re- (β), and finishes with a preview of what this offset is mained inertial (and unforced) in all ways except for physically representative of; i.e. a distinction between the unique spin circumstances outlined herein. (or difference involving) an inertial and a non-inertial Since the phase offset — upon the completion of a situation. geodesic closed loop (orbital) motion and one complete Whilst the standard relationship of a change in lunar-celestial spin cycle/loop — is virtual, there is an phase to a change in the probability of measuring a absence of any actual (i.e. real) (fermion) wave inter- ‘system’ as spin-up or spin-down is retained, the ex- ference. Thus, at all times we retain (cf. the implica- ternal means by which the spin phase shift is ‘gen- tions of Berry’s phase), a circumstance where (local) erated’ is quite different; in that it does not arise quantum eigenstates are not made ‘multi-valued’ — (solely) from an externally induced rotation of a spinor i.e. they (themselves) remain unaffected by the (ex- (or particle’s) spin vector orientation. This differ- ternally induced) virtual phase offset. ence is best understood as arising from the non- In other words, we shall argue that the system’s standard ‘influence’ of a gravitational (i.e. curved spin phase lags behind that which curved space (even- spacetime) field upon the (wavefunction-based, and tually) requires after the lunar closed loop (and spin) intrinsic angular momentum-based) phase of (certain motion(s). Thus, the atomic/molecular system itself third-body) quantum mechanical sub-systems — i.e. ‘under-turns’ relative to a spin inertial frame — with the atoms and molecules of a moon. This interac- this being the phase excess or over-turning we have tion differs from standard approaches in three ways: been discussing. It is the internal/QM spin-orbit cou- (1) atoms/molecules as composite elementary fermion pling of an atom/molecule that both: leads to a non- particle systems are examined cf. merely particles; inertial circumstance; and thwarts any internal (sub- (2) our concern lies with geodesic motion cf. effects 2π) spin phase change, because orbital phase is un- arising from the crossing of gravitational field lines; affected. Thus, a virtual spin phase offset has real and (3) most importantly, the basis for the geomet- physical implications — presuming that it is recog- ric phase change/offset is (necessarily) global/systemic nised/appreciated by the global system it is a part of. and non-local cf. a localised approach that involves the In QMs this situation can lead to an equal and op- parallel transport of a spin vector’s orientation. The posite compensating phase shift in the environment unavoidability of this final distinction has been dis- (Berry 1988, p.31). In our model the ‘reaction’ in the cussed in some detail and reinforces the fact that: the environment is based upon energy rather than phase. geometric phase change cannot be solely attributed to Importantly, in our case — i.e. the model’s hy- a local motion and/or rotation, nor some form of local pothesised case — the virtual phase shift of intrin- spin-rotation-gravity coupling. sic angular momentum also allows an energy value to We also noted that: for this virtual geometric be determined. The spin energy deficiency needs to phase shift, the projection plane of each (and every) lu- be “made up” somewhere else in the larger system nar (intra-atomic/molecular) elementary fermion par- (i.e. the universe). With no available means of in- ticle’s spin axis is fixed (externally) by either: the bulk ternal expression this energy, totalled up for all the mass moon’s spin axis, or the plane of lunar orbital atoms/molecules in a (suitable) moon (N ), gets ex- m motion around its host planet. Finally, it was men- pressed externally as a (single) rotating space-warp of tioned that a β = π phase offset (i.e. one quarter of a amplitude ∆a — rotating in the same direction and fermion wavelength) is associated with the maximum at the same angular velocity as a moon’s 1:1 spin- (internally unresolved) virtual spin energy — of ev- rotational (i.e. spin-orbit resonant) motion257. Note ery atom/molecule in a (solid) bulk lunar ‘mass’. This that decoherence negates (or invalidates) any external total internally unresolved energy is expressed (exter- influence arising from a greater than 2π rad geometric nally) by way of a ‘real’ rotating space-warp, and a phase offset/change (i.e. β 2π rad). ≥ spherical non-local mass distribution — for the latter, Finally, we note that this space-warp ‘rotation’ see/await subsection 6.4.2 for an introduction, and sec- — introduced and discussed in Section 3 — is quite tion 6.6 for a comprehensive discussion. different to the internal/interior virtual/non-inertial phase shift or phase-‘turning’ per lunar spin-orbital 5.6 Further discussion upon the 257By way of energy conservation demands, the ‘universal’ system effectively ‘preempts’ the offset dilemma and ‘exter- non-local geometrical (and nalises’ the energy involved — over the course of the cycle topological) spin phase offset time ∆t. Additional background/hidden temporal effects are implied — see Price (1996) for an account of how con- 5.6.1 The inertia of intrinsic spin cerns arising from this situation may/might be appeased. 84 Paul G. ten Boom

Mashhoon & Kaiser (2006, introduction) note that: 5.6.2 Ramification of no graviton particle: “. . . , in quantum theory the inertial properties of a a virtual fermion condensate particle are determined by its inertial mass as well as spin.” We extend (the use of) ‘particle’ (in this quote) Firstly, with a presumption of the non-existence of to the bound systems of atoms and molecules. Our graviton particles — recall subsections 4.2.9, 5.1.2 and interest involves both spin and indirectly inertial mass 5.2.8 — there is no gravitational momentum transfer — the latter by way of the number of atoms/molecules (of information) by particles; thus, only a sign change being ‘equivalently’ influenced at the same time, and of a spinor ‘activates’ decoherence. In contrast to a (more importantly) the role of mass in intrinsic angular charged particle-to-photon coupling, the absence of a momentum (i.e. spin). mass to graviton coupling means an unlimited quantum coherence cannot be ruled out — i.e. a large The interpretation of our model/mechanism is that number of quantum ‘particles’ cooperating in a sin- the spin phase offset indicates the local spin phase’s lag gle quantum ‘state’. This ‘state’ is actually the energy (at the end of a loop in curved space-time) relative to associated with the shared virtual phase difference — the spin phase required to maintain an inertial spin with a common (externally determined) projection an- frame — with respect to a global or systemic (iner- gle of atomic/molecular spin and a common/shared tial) spin frame. This systemic (spin) reference frame spin-axis orientation facilitating this “large number” implies there is a topological aspect to the geometric effect (recall subsection 5.5.3). phase (recall subsection 5.4.2). As regards geometric phase changes, the atoms/molecules effectively remain The physical absence of charge interference, be- in a stationary state throughout the cycle/loop — with cause charges are decohered by their own electrical only phase and probabilities experiencing a (virtual) field, leads to a charge superselection rule. Similarly, alteration. although by default, there is no graviton interference. Thus, below the level of decoherence, something akin The orbital characteristics of atoms/molecules are to a (virtual) fermion ‘condensate’ is possible. With- not (additionally) affected by third-body cyclic mo- out a graviton particle a QM system, influenced by tion in curved spacetime, i.e. there is no latent or curved spacetime effects, can remain isolated from its hidden virtual effect upon the phase of (lunar-based) 258 environment — but only so far as ‘real’ (i.e. particle- atomic/molecular orbital angular momentum. based) physical communication is concerned. Local atomic/molecular spin-orbit coupling dic- To simply believe a large mass is necessarily clas- tates that the spin’s phase is necessarily ‘slaved’ to the sical fails to fully appreciate the qualitative man- orbital characteristics of an atom/molecule — which ner by which decoherence is achieved (recall sub- is dominated by: electromagnetic forces, Schrödinger’s section 5.1.5), and overlooks the exceptional circum- equation, Planck’s constant, discreteness, etc.; as com- stances, based upon a quantifiable phase offset, dis- pared to minuscule (internal) gravitational (attrac- − cussed herein. tive) ‘forces’ which are 10 40 times weaker in the ∼ The EM gauge and phase transformations that atom. Subsequently, (within atoms/molecules) any satisfy Schrödinger’s equation and gauge invariance inertial ‘forces/effects’ acting upon the elementary are only relevant in so far as stipulating a minimum fermion/matter particle’s spin (alone), ‘driven’ by (ex- quanta of intrinsic angular momentum (i.e. spin) (for ternal) gravitational curvature effects, have hitherto 1 fermions) of 2 ¯h. By way of quantum discreteness and been assumed negligible, or (alternatively) have sim- uncertainty the minimum (actual/real) energy asso- ply not been appreciated/anticipated. ciated with: a particle’s, atom’s, or molecule’s QM Locally, the (relative) spin phase offset — common 1 −1 spin is 2 ¯h∆t (recall subsection 4.2.2); which is ac- to every elementary fermion wave/particle and hence tually a maximum possible virtual energy level (per (equally) to an atom/molecule ‘overall’ — is a back- atom/molecule) in the new mechanism’s spin-based in- ground/hidden effect. Only a system ‘greater’ than ertial offset situation (see subsection 6.3.2). A prereq- just the atom/molecule can ‘register’ its presence — uisite of this energy (in the model/mechanism) is the and only then if it is below the (2π phase shift) de- coexistence of atomic spin and orbital behaviour, and coherence limit. The under-turning of an atom’s spin their (interaction or) coupling. (i.e. its non-inertial spin behaviour) fixes a (per loop) rate of angular momentum offset — i.e. a non-inertial spin energy difference (per atom/molecule). 5.6.3 Discussing relationships between Implicit in this discussion is the need to assume the spin and orbital angular momentum existence of a global (but not absolute) reference frame The additional QM/microscopic spin phase advance where both gravitational and quantum mechanical sys- needed to achieve inertial status, is thwarted by the tems (and effects) harmoniously coexist in nature. A much stronger local EM effects. Note that internal QM systemic conservation of (spin) energy is also embraced orbital angular momentum is only a function of EM (recall section 4.6). Also implicit is the model’s use effects, and it is (not surprisingly) completely distinct of noumenal/background/hidden time simultaneity in from macroscopic celestial orbital angular momentum conjunction with quantum mechanical ‘non-locality’ — including GR’s additional geodetic (orbital) preces- (as discussed in Section 4). sion, and any “frame-dragging” effects. With regard to macroscopic spin angular momentum and QM spin 258The word “orbital” has a somewhat loose applicability this distinction is even more pronounced. to QM circumstances. Recalling subsection 5.5.5, it is wrong to consider A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 85 the shared (sub-half-wavelength) microscopic spin- between how (external) curved space (cf. flat space) phase offset, as representing a virtual macroscopic influences an atom/molecule’s intrinsic spin and or- “over-spin” that is thwarted by tidal effects. We also bital momentum is not unduly surprising — with our noted that even if a macroscopic geodetic precession- (moon-based) case’s specific ‘closed curve’ (recall sub- like effect did exist, it could not be ‘thwarted’ — so as section 5.2.3) involving (orbital) celestial motion along to ‘establish’ an unresolved non-inertial energy. Ad- a geodesic, as well as celestial spin. ditionally, with microscopic over-spins always below a As a final encapsulating remark, it may be minimum (actual change) energy level, and decohered said that the environment’s ‘awareness’ of each (i.e. lost) at or above it, tidal effects can never be atom/molecule’s non-inertial (microscopic) spin sta- said to physically impede (quantised) lunar over-spin. tus, throughout a (generally) solid moon, does not en- All that remains physically relevant is that, at a mi- tail non-geodesic (macroscopic) motion, but it does en- croscopic level, the many (virtual) ‘over-turnings’ re- tail a new (macroscopic) gravitational/accelerational main active in the ‘awareness’ of the global system as phenomenon in the form of a rotating space-warp262. a whole — i.e. in the ‘environment’/surroundings of the quantum mechanical (atomic/molecular) systems. 5.6.4 Uncertainty, angular momentum It is the unique ability of a global/systemic refer- and energy in quantum mechanics ence frame to access how the spin probabilities of QM atoms/molecules are counterfactually259 influenced, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle tells us we may not and the inability of any microscopic state change or know simultaneously the exact values of two compo- macroscopic motion to appease this change, that ne- nents of the angular momentum; in our case orbital cessitates the existence of the external rotating space- and spin angular momentum. Even though the posi- warp. The total QM over-turning energy (imbalance) tion of electrons in an atom (for example) may only be cannot be denied — if it is below the (2π phase offset) known by way of probability, the value of its angular decoherence limit. A crucial feature of the model is momentum is an exact (or sharp) value. the fact that the counterfactual/virtual offset scenario [In an atom] the angular momentum op- is the inertial frame circumstance. At, or above, the erator commutes with the Hamiltonian of decoherence limit this subtle situation, involving both the system. By Heisenberg’s uncertainty macroscopic GR’s curved spacetime and microscopic relation this means that the angular mo- QMs, is absent; and effectively only macroscopic tidal 260 mentum can assume a sharp value simul- effects act upon the celestial third-body’s spin — as taneously with the energy (eigenvalue of is currently envisaged by theorists. the Hamiltonian)263. Importantly, without sufficiently strong tidal effects, the absence of planet-moon spin-orbit resonance This is supportive of the existence of an exact value would mean that the finely tuned self-interference aris- of virtual (intrinsic) angular momentum in the model, ing from: and its change over cycle loop time ∆t (i.e. virtual energy). celestial (moon to planet) spin-orbit resonance, • motion of celestial mass ‘upon’ a geodesic, • 5.6.5 A distinction between macroscopic the vast majority of atoms/molecules in a moon spin and orbital angular momentum • being in a fixed location relative to the moon’s 261 facilitates the existence of a micro- geocentre , and scopic/QM non-inertial situation QM atomic/molecular spin-orbit coupling, • Although macroscopic geodetic precession and the is not applicable, and thus the decoherence limit is model’s proposed microscopic spin phase offset (or (considered) easily breached. Decoherence ensures spin-turning) arise from the same motion in curved that GR plus tidal effects are sufficient to successfully spacetime, these effects are otherwise totally dis- account for most three-body gravitational phenomena. tinct. With external curved spacetime acting upon We are examining the exception to the rule, with ce- the QM nature of atoms/molecules, any distinction lestial and QM spin-orbit resonance/coupling (respec- between (and independence of) spin and orbital an- tively) crucial to the new mechanism’s existence. gular momentum at the classical level is easily carried With regard to the QMs of atoms/molecules, spin through/‘down’ to the microscopic level. Thus, there is and orbital angular momentum are linked in an inter- no compulsion to have something (local and reductive) dependent manner. Classically, spin and orbital an- like a geodetic spin-orbit coupling effect, with an un- gular momentum are (usually) quite independent — known extra celestial/macroscopic spin precession (cf. with the spin-orbit synchronisation of a moon-planet NMs and GR) accompanying the extra macroscopic or- system being an exceptional case. Thus, a distinction bital precession (of GR cf. NMs) for example. Macro- 259‘Counterfactual’ (adjective) is defined as: relating to or scopically/celestially, spin and orbital angular momen- expressing what (is conceivable but) has not happened or is tum are quite distinct, and subsequently, the effects not the case; or running contrary to the facts (i.e. reality). of geodesic celestial motion/momentum upon the (ge- 260Tidal effects arise from celestial bodies being non-rigid; ometric) phase associated with QM spin and orbital notwithstanding the fact that moons are (primarily) solid bodies. 262With an associated non-local mass distribution. 261In other words, large moons are essentially (i.e. domi- 263Sourced from Wikipedia (modified 3 January 2012 at nantly) “solid” bodies. 21:31): Angular momentum coupling. 86 Paul G. ten Boom momentum in atoms/molecules can conceivably retain shall employ an quasi-empirical purely-geometric (and this independence, i.e. the effect can be ‘uncoupled’. kinematical) basis to quantify the (third-body) relative What remains true is that together: the virtual QM spin phase offsets; as compared to a dynamic ap- microscopic spin phase offset(s), which may be figura- proach involving either: a metric tensor, gravitational tively and collectively conceived as a (virtual) lunar- potential, or a Lagrangian and/or Hamiltonian. This spin angular excess, and general relativistic subtleties approach may or may not be the ‘best’ quantitative ap- such as the geodetic effect(s) etc.; act to physically proach, but its use (and further development) in this establish what is inertial motion — in the sense of paper achieves consistency with (i.e. matches) all the “least/no action” applying. Subsequently, for “mass various observational evidence pertaining to the Pio- in motion”, at the QM level, there is no good rea- neer anomaly. In agreement with the third quotation son to deny an inertial–to–non-inertial ‘frame’ offset in subsection 5.2.3 we assume that: each geometric — albeit virtual — concerning the spin phase and phase (offset) depends on a closed (orbital) curve (C) (thus) the mass ‘within’ atoms/molecules. This off- and (its quantitative determination) is independent of set (over the course of a cycle/loop) is effectively how the evolution around C takes place. a non-inertial intrinsic angular momentum (rate); it Notwithstanding our quasi-empirical approach, we arises from atomic/molecular spin-orbit coupling being nevertheless achieve a relative superiority and compre- quantised and dominated by electromagnetic concerns hensiveness of explanation (cf. other models arguing (including electrical charge), rather than the (inertial) for a real non-systematic based Pioneer anomaly), that mass of its constituent sub-atomic (fermion) particles quantitatively is quite conceivably only of provisional — such that the actual/real spin phase is necessarily (or stepping-stone) status. On the other hand, quali- coupled/slaved to (the unaffected) orbital phase. tatively/conceptually there is little room for the model The confidence of Papini (subsection 5.5.4) in as- to manoeuvre, and the approach is either: fundamen- signing all orbital and spin angular momentum the tally misguided, or has merit and can lead to further same coupling to inertia and gravitation is (thus) cast progress. The latter is elucidated later in this paper into doubt, at least below the level of any change in (particularly subsections 6.2.4 to 6.2.6). QM state and/or a sign change of a spinor. This What does stand (somewhat) in the way of a concern is not with regard to the (local) crossing of dynamic approach, to the geometric phase offset, gravitational field lines, but rather with regard to the is the model’s embrace of non-local physical con- geometric phase offset effect proposed herein — aris- cerns/considerations, with this (embrace) exhibited by ing from the closed loop geodesic motion/trajectory of both: the manner with which we argued that a sup- atoms/molecules within a ‘third’ celestial body. plementary (to GR) type of acceleration/gravitational field can exist, and the need to introduce the concept of “non-local mass” (at the macroscopic level). Fur- 5.6.6 Can dynamic curved spacetime con- ther, it remains unclear as to whether dynamic curved siderations determine the model’s spacetime considerations could (ever) determine the virtual spin phase offset? model’s virtual spin phase offset (per orbital/cycle- In response to subsection 5.6.5 it could be argued loop). For our purposes a solely geometric-kinematical that: because general relativity itself is seen to encom- approach (involving three celestial bodies) is utilised, pass “all that is inertial”, it follows (somewhat triv- thus removing all possible conflict with non-locality ially) that (even) a quantitative fibre bundle analysis (particularly with regard to QM spin entanglement). of (lunar atomic/molecular elementary fermion particle) QM spin in curved spacetime, with its basis in 5.6.7 Quantifying the geometric phase off- GR’s local curvature, cannot lead to an inertial vs. set in the third-body of a three-body non-inertial offset at the QM level. Clearly, this is not gravitational system a ‘watertight’ argument. The model’s ‘third-body’ (virtual and mechanistic) spin In subsection 5.2.2 it was mentioned that a rela- 264 tive geometric/Berry phase shift for photons has been phase offset can be conceptually appreciated as a shown to arise from the intrinsic topological struc- virtual (Hannay angle) over-spin; and physically as ture of Maxwell’s theory. Conceivably, the means a distinction between an inertial and a non-inertial by which the model’s geometric phase offsets could frame. This unorthodox phase offset requires the pres- be established is by way of the (dynamic) geometry ence of curved spacetime, but it goes beyond purely (and topology) of curved spacetime, involving a met- local and ‘force’-based considerations. ric tensor — albeit in a three body system. One We seek to precisely determine the geometric phase offset for specific three-body celestial motion circum- stumbling block for such an approach is its complex- 265 ity. Another possibility would be to use the (ap- stances (e.g. Sun–Jupiter–Ganymede ). In the proximate) classical/Newtonian gravitational poten- model, the phase change’s magnitude is a continuous tials. Such top-down reductive approaches cannot be (i.e. non-discrete) quantity, cf. subsection 5.3.3 where ruled out, even though the closed loop (local) path the QMs based discussion was (implicitly) restricted followed is a geodesic, and regardless of the fact that to discrete 2π (and 4π, 6π, 8π,...) phase changes. curvature is an inherently ‘non-local’ phenomenon — 264For atoms/molecules upon the completion of a lunar in the sense of being distributed over a region of space. orbit (closed circuit). For the sake of simplicity, and essentially by de- 265Or more precisely: the (solar system’s) Barycentre– fault, in Section 6 and initially in subsection 5.6.7, we Jupiter–Ganymede. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 87

For phenomena solely involving quantum mechan- This ‘yardstick’ (three-part) relationship allows us ics ‘plus’ electromagnetism (QMs+EM) (with spe- to quantify the ‘gravitational’ geometric phase offset β cial relativistic effects included), the conventional ap- of a third-body’s atomic/molecular constituents. For proach to spin phase change (and spinor sign change) cases where θ = tan−1(8π)−1 over one lunar orbit then cannot be applied to the virtual spin phase/Hannay β = 2π. This6 is an important step in the eventual de- angle (offset) conceptualised within our (QM+curved termination6 of the total energy of each rotating space- S/T) model. With the Pioneer spacecraft observations warp, and subsequently the Pioneer anomaly. In sec- dictating the model’s structure, a purely geometric ap- tion 6.1.1 we outline the steps involved. proach is the simplest and most elegant option266; especially in the presumed absence of a graviton particle. Fortunately, this (semi-empirical) closed-curve based 5.6.8 Concluding and summary remarks approach ‘bares fruit’267 . for section 5.6 In the model, the relative phase advance (of the Of vital importance to the model is the fact that: in inertial spin frame) is restricted to atoms/molecules quantum theory the inertial properties of a particle, ‘experiencing’ (lunar) ‘third-body’ spin-orbit resonant atom, or molecule are determined by its inertial mass (or phase-locked) motion; with the atoms/molecules as well as spin. making up the rest of the system (i.e. planets and A core issue of this subsection is the physical rel- the sun) unaffected. Distinctively, the (2π rad mag- evance of the virtual spin (geometric) phase offset nitude) ‘decoherence’ spin phase advance — of lu- upon the completion of a closed loop/orbit; which nar atoms/molecules over one spin-orbit cycle (∆t) then quantifies a rate of intrinsic angular momentum, — needs to play a further crucial role, as regards its i.e. a virtual (spin) energy offset — within (and only relationship to the geometry (and kinematics) of the within) an appropriate ‘third’ (lunar) celestial body. (second-body) host planet’s orbital motion (over ∆t). Fortuitously, the (lunar-based) atoms/molecules (ef- By way of fitting the model to the observations: fectively) all experience the same virtual geometric for one lunar spin-orbit cycle; and a planetary orbital phase offset relative to the (pre-loop) initial phase or progression angle (around the Sun), designated θ, of − − an unchanging/unaffected phase. In the “special cir- tan 1(8π) 1 2.2785o; the lunar phase advance (ap- ≈ cumstances” of our model, a frame offset is present be- plicable to intrinsic angular momentum) is seen to be cause each atom/molecule’s actual (local) spin phase 2π radians. This specific and unique geometric config- configuration (at the completion of a closed orbit) ‘has uration, although highly unlikely in real moon-planet- become’ non-inertial; with the virtual offset being in- sun circumstances, becomes our reference scenario. It dicative of the departure from the inertial (spin) cir- is used to determine (i.e. quantify) the (virtual) lunar cumstance. This inertial vs. non-inertial offset circum- atomic/molecular (spin) geometric phase offsets (over stance is dependent upon the local existence of a spin one spin-orbit cycle) — of physically real three-body status that itself is influenced (non-locally) by: the celestial systems (e.g. Sun–Jupiter–Ganymede). This curved-spacetime-geodesic closed-path/orbital motion is more fully examined in section 6.3. of (lunar-based) atoms and molecules, and all their The geometry of actual lunar and planetary orbits, constituent elementary fermion particles. arcs, angles, etc., ‘supported’ by the presence of space- This physical phenomenon has both local and time’s curvature/geometry, is all that is needed to es- systemic/non-local aspects. There is a systemic (or tablish any active third-body phase offset β (as long as global) awareness of the (relative) local asymmetry it is < 2π radians). The Earth’s moon (Luna), whose that is (then) collectively appeased externally (in the origin is collision based, is not a space-warp ‘genera- environment) by way of both: a rotating space-warp, tor’ because its geometric phase advance far exceeds and an accompanying non-local mass distribution. In- the decoherence limit of 2π radians — where a spinor dividually, neither quantum mechanics nor general rel- sign change occurs. Effectively, the spinor sign change ativity suggest that this offset could exist, with the (associated with a 2π phase offset) in flat space has proposed phenomenon (necessarily) involving features been extended to a curved space scenario — involving relevant to both of these distinctly different theories — three bodies — and hence the extra (planetary progres- in particular QM spin, QM spin-orbit coupling, non- sion) angle is required. Thus, our three-part reference local geometric phase effects, and curved spacetime. scenario is: The (aforementioned) ‘special circumstances’ re- a 2π (geometric) phase offset (βref = 2π rad), quired include: (1) a topological and geometric spin • phase ‘precession’ — albeit virtual — that does not for one (closed loop) lunar orbit and one lunar affect orbital (angular momentum) phase in any way; • spin cycle [i.e. (in both cases) a 2π rad rotation], and (2) a lack of decoherence triggered by the pres- where the moon’s host planet advances 2.28o ence of gravitons, which is distinct from the case with • −1 −1 ≈ [i.e. tan (8π) ] around the sun in this time. electromagnetism — where electrical charges are decohered by their own electrical field. This is because 266 These words may give the sceptical reader some solace. a solely geometric approach to gravitation is seen to “. . . for geometry, you know, is the gate of science, and the deny the (very) existence of the graviton particle (re- gate is so low and small that one can only enter it as a little child (William K. Clifford).” call Section 4). Thus, a significant quantum coherence 267Recall that two conceivable (but unlikely) alternative of the non-inertial offset effect and virtual fermion (and methods for establishing the geometric phase offsets were atomic/molecular) condensate behaviour — so vital to discussed in subsection 5.6.6. the model — cannot be ruled out (see section 5.7). 88 Paul G. ten Boom

Further, the ‘fineness’ of the spin phase offset of a proportion of the (finite) minimum intrinsic angu- (i.e. < 2π rad), requires near exact self-interference lar momentum of each and every elementary fermion of atoms/molecules after closed loop motion. This particle within each and every atom/molecule273 ; that is attained by way of: third-body celestial (macro- in themselves are now appreciated to be not immune scopic) spin-orbit resonance268, and QM (EM domi- from an unforeseen (global/systemic) inertial commit- nated) spin-orbit coupling; lunar geodesic motion; and ment/frame — and from which they ‘stand apart’. an absence of atomic/molecular motion relative to a lu- Now, with the virtual phase shift representing a nar geocentre (i.e. the solid body content of a moon). virtual (spin) energy, constructive superposition allows The preliminary (empirical) quantification of the a simple additive summation of these individual ener- geometric phase offset was also outlined. The deter- gies to give the total energy — and this energy is then mination of relative geometric phase needs to go be- expressed externally, i.e. in the environment, as a ro- yond a standard electromagnetic and QMs based ap- tating space-warp. Note that the rotation of the space- proach. Celestial orbital geometry 269 (alone) is suf- warp is in the same sense/direction as the moon, so as ficient to allow the quantification of the spin phase to make up for the system’s ‘under-spin’ relative to in- offset in all actual (three-body) moon-planet-sun con- ertial (spin) conditions. This scenario is seen to obey figurations. This is achieved by way of recognising, a global (i.e. universal or systemic) conservation of en- and adjusting from, an idealised (three-pronged) ref- ergy principle, that encompasses both the micro- and erence scenario that gives: a 2π phase offset, over the macroscopic realms (at the same ‘time’ and in ‘unison’) course of one lunar spin-orbit cycle, for a specific plan- — i.e. QM and gravitational energies (respectively). etary progression angle (θ) around its (host) Sun270. Later (subsection 6.3), we see that the Earth’s moon 5.7.2 A space-warp so as to disallow a exceeds the 2π decoherence limit, and thus it doesn’t have/generate an associated rotating space-warp. global/non-local phase change An external rotating space-warp, with both an as- 5.7 Energy, coherence and conden- sociated constant acceleration/gravitational undulation amplitude (∆a) and non-local ‘mass’ distribu- sate behaviour in the model tion, effectively quantifies the energy it takes to main- 5.7.1 Constructive superposition of vir- tain/regain an ‘all-round’ conserved energy scenario. Additionally, the non-local mass is seen to exhibit tual phase (something analogous to) a spreading of a quantum The geometric phase effects upon neighbouring wave packet over time (recall subsection 5.1.5). See atoms/molecules in a celestial body, arising indirectly section 6.6 for how this (new concept of) non-local from spacetime curvature, may be considered equiva- mass, acting upon a given condensed/compact phys- lent because of their (effectively) parallel celestial (or- ical mass in space, changes with radius away from a bital) motion. Certainly, the motion/path of lunar moon — i.e. the mass involved is a field based quan- atoms is very different to those of its ‘host’ planet — tity, as is ∆a. within a systemic (barycentric) reference frame. For any QM system exhibiting ‘interior/internal’ That the spin phase offset is common to all lu- spin-orbit coupling, ‘slaved’ to a macroscopic third- nar atoms/molecules means that effectively there is no body moving along a geodesic, the departure of geometric phase shift difference between different lu- atomic/molecular-based spin from inertial condi- nar atoms/molecules271 . Thus, their respective phase tions (upon completion of a closed loop), due shifts act in concert, i.e. coherently yielding a type to external gravitational and configuration condi- of constructive superposition — albeit virtual. Addi- tions/circumstances, must remain an external gravitationally, by denying the existence of gravitons, the cou- tional condition. Rephrasing this, a systemic or global pling between mass and gravitons is non-existent, and curved space and motion input effect produces a sys- hence there exists no limitation upon the coherence temic rotating curved space output — albeit a totally and superposition of (qualities and quantities involv- different phenomenon. Remember, that with the ‘in- ing) spin and ‘mass’272 . In our case, this is indicative ternal’/QM effects of the celestial orbital motion essentially uniform throughout the bulk matter of the lunar 268That is, lunar synchronisation or ‘phase-lock’ around body, quantum mechanical coherence behaviour exists. its host planet (the second-body). Thus, a new type of external ‘coordinated’ behaviour 269 This is in its traditional (non-general relativistic) sense, is conceivable — in what is termed the “environment” involving: closed curves, arcs, angles, etc.; i.e. plane Eu- of the (collective) QM sub-systems. clidean geometry as compared to non-Euclidean geometry. 270Or more precisely, the solar system’s barycentre or cen- Non-locality is necessary (so as) to allow the inter- tre of mass, which is (effectively) the three-body system’s nal and external behaviours to coexist at (and over) ‘first-body’ or (alternatively its) ‘central-body’. the same (duration of) time (∆t). 271In other words, the variation throughout a moon is negligible. A “solid” body is also implied, i.e. effectively negligible contributions from molten material and water — see 5.7.3 The benefit of a rotating space-warp subsection 6.5.11 for further discussion. 272In analogy to: “If the electromagnetic coupling between It can be argued that the external physical ef- charge and photons is turned off, then there exists no limita- fect/behaviour ensuing from the lunar ‘constituent’ tion on the coherence of superpositions of charge (Aharonov & Susskind 1967, p.1430).” 273This is quantified in subsection 6.3.2. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 89 atoms/molecules, allows these internal QM sub- an atom/molecule278 . Nevertheless, total virtual QM systems to be effectively (and continuously) in a stable spin energy is made (externally) physically real, and configuration — that coexists with ‘unforced’ move- this new term “inertial energy” nicely encapsulates a ment along a geodesic. The rotating space-warp acts core conceptual feature of the new mechanism. to screen the state of each QM sub-system (i.e. an One could possibly say the new mechanism ex- atom or molecule) from the model’s new non-local hibits “spinertia”; defined as the ability of a QM sys- (virtual) spin phase offset. Thus, in the presence of tem, or a collection of QM sub-systems, to export analog curved space-time, ‘nature’ always ensures the its/their non-inertial (rate of intrinsic angular moon-going internal stability of these QM systems — par- mentum) energy. This phenomenon requires: QM ticularly in the rare circumstance of when a coherent self-interference, 3-body orbital (celestial) motion in effect exists below both: a minimum change in energy curved spacetime, a non-local (relative) geometric levels, and a phase-based decoherence threshold. phase change, as well as other special requirements Although not physically measurable, the total outlined in subsections 5.6.3, 5.6.7 and elsewhere. (background/hidden) virtual QM energy quantifies the energy of the real (macroscopic) rotating space-warp — by way of a global principle of energy conservation. 5.7.5 Decoherence, and the statistically additive nature of total energy

5.7.4 Inertial energy cf. fictitious force The internal to external, and virtual to real, bifurca- tions of the spin (inertial) energy previously discussed The following discussion draws upon the notion of iner- is supported by and/or related to one central aspect tial (or fictitious) forces274 , e.g. centrifugal force. We of decoherence theory. shall (somewhat loosely) extend this notion to the en- Standard QM decoherence theory speaks of the ergy discussed herein, by way of there being a rate of separation of a quantum system into a subsystem (the ‘change’ of (QM) momentum involved (albeit a non- relevant/distinguished part) and its environment (the instantaneous change/process). In what follows, we irrelevant/ignored part) (Joos et al. 2003, p.227). The shall restrict the discussion of an inertial frame to the (external space-time) environment plays a special role spin status of quantum mechanical systems. in our new mechanism. Further, we note that: The term “virtual energy” (as used previously) is Decoherence follows from the irreversible now seen to be indicative of the inability of a quan- coupling of the observed system to the tum mechanical system to either: express or ‘match’ outside world reservoir. In this process, the (global) inertial requirements of spin energy. From the quantum superposition is turned into a global/systemic perspective the energy is real: rep- a statistical mixture, for which all the in- resenting an inertial energy 275 ; i.e. an ‘apparent’ en- formation on the system can be described ergy resulting from the intrinsic angular momentum of in classical terms, so our usual perception atoms/molecules in a non-inertial frame of reference — of the world is recovered (Davidovich et al. albeit only upon the completion of a closed circuit or 1996, introduction). cycle (spanning a duration ∆t). In the model, by way of a QM (cyclic) rate of intrinsic angular momentum The classical concept of energy — so central to QMs change, we establish a relative (inertial to non-inertial — is fundamental to the model. To this we add that frame) spin energy offset (i.e. discrepancy); with this within “statistical physics” energy plays a primary and energy magnitude now being alternatively understood, unique role, and total energy is attained additively. and referred to, as an ‘inertial’ energy. Post-decoherence, QM effects are considered to Unlike the case with “inertial force” we are not be ‘delocalised’ rather then destroyed. Our proposed primarily dealing with macroscopic/classical “mass in mechanism takes delocalisation (of mass especially) to motion”276 , nor ‘felt’277 fictitious/inertial forces, even a conceptual limit, by allowing both the constant ac- though the energy is based upon an inertial to non- celeration/gravitational amplitude of the space-warp inertial frame distinction. At the microscopic/QM and the (de-localised or) non-local mass component to level, the non-inertial spin energy is not locally ‘reg- extend to the ‘end’ of the universe — albeit with the istered’; (firstly) because it is a non-local systemic ef- (non-local) mass279 at a ‘point’ in the field decreasing fect (below a ‘discrete’ minimum energy level differ- with the volume of space enclosed around a (third- − ence), and (secondly) because there is no such thing body) moon (i.e. as r 3). as QM spin (rotational) motion in our understanding Our denial of the graviton particle’s existence re- of: an elementary particle, a subatomic particle, and moves the standard particle-exchange means by which

274Fictitious forces arise from the acceleration of a non- 278Quoting Werner Heisenberg: “The atom of modern inertial reference frame itself. They are proportional to physics can be symbolized only through a partial diﬀeren- mass, and do not arise from a (local) physical interaction. tial equation in an abstract space of many dimensions. All 275In the sense of inertial (or ﬁctitious) force. its properties are inferential; no material properties can be 276Although we note that macroscopically, the motion of directly attributed to it. That is to say, any picture of the the atoms and molecules (slaved to a moon) is ‘along’ a atom that our imagination is able to invent is for that very (force-free) geodesic. reason defective. An understanding of the atomic world in 277Unless we entertain the notion that when this energy is that primary sensuous fashion . . . is impossible”. expressed externally in an atom/molecule’s environment, it 279As compared to gravitational mass (active or passive) is ‘felt’ there — i.e. ‘experienced’ in the environment itself. or inertial mass. 90 Paul G. ten Boom

QM decoherence could be ‘activated’. We shall con- Consequently, we may think of the energy of a ro- sider the (neo-classical) space-warp as representative tating space-warp, with its associated non-local mass of QM decoherence only in the sense that it involves an distribution, (loosely speaking) as a single classical en- internal to external (physical) ‘information’ exchange, ergy ‘state’ in the (QM systems’) environment — al- and/or an internal to external (physical) “exchange” beit a process that is expressed over a finite cycle time of energy ‘information’ — albeit an exchange that oc- (∆t). Further, this (effectively) exact coherence en- curs ‘instantaneously’/non-locally280 , is ongoing, and sures that the total energy of the rotating space-warp is irreversible (i.e. one-way only). is equal to the simple additive sum of the individual (atomic/molecular) QM energies — with these being [Post-decoherence] (almost) all informa- (effectively) all equal. tion about quantum phases has migrated One can go on to say there is a type of quantum en- into correlations with the environment tanglement between the (perfectly coherent) pure (off- and is thus no longer accessible in obser- set) ‘state’ of the (atomic/molecular) QM sub-systems vations of the subsystem alone (Joos et al. together, and the (singular) energy process external 2003, p.227). to (i.e. in the environment of) this conglomerate (lu- Indeed, for the model’s mechanism, its virtual phase nar) QM “super-system”. It is the internal and ex- information is never directly (i.e. locally) accessible281 . ternal domains/realms282 of the full/whole (conglom- This is further examined in subsection 5.7.6 and it is erate) quantum system (i.e. a moon) that have to be not so much phase that ‘migrates’ into the environ- described (non-locally) with reference to one another, ment, rather it is (some proportion of the minimum in the sense that these domains are spatially sepa- ‘internally expressible’) atomic/molecular spin energy rated283, and ‘instantaneously’ coordinated in time — 1 ( 2 ¯h/∆t) that is exported (en masse) into the environ- as far as observational physics is concerned. ment (or surroundings). Significantly, although the two domains/realms are Note that all elementary fermion particles within physically entwined, their formalisms remain distinct. an atom/molecule share the same geometric phase off- Thus, we require both quantum mechanical quantities set; and it is this shared/common phase offset that (especially ¯h) and classical quantities to express their applies to the (composite) atom/molecule (i.e. as a (equal) energy magnitudes (see section 6.3). Indeed, whole). This atomic/molecular spin phase offset, over the total internal/virtual energy is our only means for a cyclic loop duration ∆t, is indicative of a non-inertial establishing the environment’s real energy magnitude rate of intrinsic angular momentum (i.e. spin energy). — involving both the space-warp’s acceleration magnitude, and the amount of non-local mass (at a given 5.7.6 Quantum coherence, environmental radius) enclosed by a given volume. energy, and quantum entanglement Finally, for the new mechanism, let us additionally designate a (new) quantum “phase transition”, in We shall now further consider a rotating space-warp the sense of a major qualitative change in system be- as representative of quantum coherence in some way; haviour. Transition is dependent upon the amount thus implying that the effects of the internal (virtual) of spin phase offset; with a solitary > 2π phase off- superposition are somehow ‘retained’. In subsection set (‘interior’ to any atom/molecule284 ) being enough 5.7.5 we spoke of QM effects being delocalised rather to induce a comprehensive (full lunar body) decoher- then destroyed. ence ‘event’. The different actual spin axis orienta- The effective equivalence of the (virtual spin) tions within different atoms/molecules (comprising a phase offset for all elementary fermion particles within bulk lunar body) become apparent to the global sys- an atom/molecule, and for all atoms/molecules in a tem, and the (externally orientated geometric) phase moon, means that the phase offset (relative to that of offsets are exposed as mixed or non-pure. Thus, ‘post’- an inertial frame) may be termed a ‘pure’ phase offset decoherence, i.e. β > 2π over (a spin and) an orbital rather then a ‘mixed’ phase offset. Further, the to- duration ∆t, a common virtual phase offset becomes tal energy associated with this phase offset — which meaningless and the lunar-based rotating space-warps is proportional to the number of atoms/molecules in cannot occur. This is because the wiggle room allowed 1 a moon — may be thought of as somewhat like a by (the minimum quantum angular momentum) 2 ¯h in pure quantum ‘state’, albeit incapable of expression Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle has been breached, internally (i.e. within a bound atomic/molecular QM and subsequently a moon reverts back to non-QM (i.e. system). Such a pure coherent quantum state is well exclusively classical/macroscopic) behaviour — as is suited to a ‘singular’ form of expression, e.g. as an currently envisaged. At the celestial/macroscopic level external QM ‘condensate’. 282Quantum entanglement is usually discussed in relation 280“Non-local” as in a process that acts at the noume- to two ‘objects’ as compared to a distinction between micro- nal/hidden background ‘level’, rather than at the phenom- and macroscopic realms/domains. enal particle-exchange level (recall subsection 4.2.10); and 283Thus, a dividing radius may exist to demarcate where involving an unforeseen and new/‘foreign’ (non-local) pro- the external far-field begins. This is seen to be loosely anal- cess that is yet to be fully understood — see section 6.6 for ogous to the EM wave situation where, at a particular dis- further discussion. tance (from an aperture or slit), Fresnel diffraction (also 281Further, virtual phase is not there (at the QM level) known as near-field diffraction) changes to Fraunhofer (far- to be measured, because (via non-local instantaneous ‘cau- field) diffraction. sation’) the external compensating rotating space-warp is 284Recalling that these are the largest bound quantum present. mechanical systems. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 91 this is typical behaviour, as compared to the “excep- ‘currency’ by which we can) globally/systemically re- tion to the rule” situation modelled herein. late the internal atomic/molecular QMs to an external neo-classical (new kind of gravitational/accelerational 5.7.7 Concluding and summary remarks field) effect. for section 5.7 The mechanism/effect being proposed involves both: a constant acceleration/gravitational field am- This subsection has built upon earlier work that plitude (∆a), albeit sinusoidally varying at a given involved: (1) recognising a hidden (or noumenal) ‘fixed’ location in the field in response to the space- global/system background process that observation- warp’s rotation around its source region/‘point’; and ally implies a form of time simultaneity, thus facili- a variable non-local mass quantity [m∗(r)], that ac- tating non-locality (subsection 4.2.10); (2) accepting counts for dispersion of the energy at increasing dis- global conservation of angular momentum and global tances from its (lunar) source region — see Section 6 conservation of energy (in particular), (with the latter) for further discussion and quantification. involving spin energy in particular; and (3) appreciat- We note that an external curved spacetime de- ing that a fractional analog geometric offset can not pendent effect upon (internal) atoms/molecules in 1 be expressed by a ‘digital’/quantum ( 2 ¯h) spin effect. (third-body) geodesic celestial motion has resulted in For explanatory depth we have sought to extend a (curved space-time) effect also external to these QM certain QM concepts such as: coherence, condensate, sub-systems of a lunar bulk-mass. The benefit of the decoherence, and entanglement into the model. With presence of this “insourcing–outsourcing” scenario is the geometric phase offset being (effectively) equal that analog geometric phase changes and digital QM throughout a (suitable) non-decohered moon, as is energy levels are never locally in conflict. In short, the (subsequently) the intrinsic angular momentum off- environment ‘deals with’ (‘fall-out’ from) the non-flat set rate (per loop), the total virtual/proper-fractional spacetime based effect/circumstance, and thus ‘nature’ (quantum) energy involved can (simply) be deter- (in toto) is inherently stable in the presence of this po- mined additively — by way of multiplying the sin- tentially conflicting (analog vs. digital) situation. gle atomic/molecular energy value by the number of atoms/molecules in a moon (Nm). This (total) energy is effectively a non-inertial en- 6 General features and the ergy, somewhat analogous to inertial/fictitious force effects. With a single atomic/molecular 2π phase offset quantification of the model triggering decoherence throughout a moon, this (2π) Having qualitatively justified the model, in Sections level of phase offset can be associated with a new type 2 to 5, we now turn to the model’s quantification. of (quantum mechanical) ‘phase’ transition. Further, Firstly, we briefly discuss errors and encapsulate the the same rate of spin phase (and rate of intrinsic an- model’s features; then (beginning at section 6.3) the gular momentum) offset can be considered a coherent ‘flesh’ of quantification is applied to this framework. effect throughout the lunar system — albeit a virtual effect ‘internal’ to the moon, involving every single elementary fermion particle nested within every single 6.1 Discussion of errors and major (composite) atom and molecule285 . features of the model The (singular) resolution of this additive energy offset can be understood by way of an analogy to 6.1.1 Looking ahead: steps to explaining quantum decoherence, in that we make the universe the Pioneer anomaly a two-part system with the ‘relevant’ part being the lunar atoms/molecules, and the environment being all We have worked ‘backwards’ from the Pioneer observa- the (cosmological) space that is external to these ‘sub- tional evidence/constraints, and assumed a ‘real’ (non- systems’. The model suggests that: observations of heat based) anomaly. The model is able to empirically these (atomic/molecular) sub-systems alone will yield match, with the assistance of pure/classical geometry: no sign of their individual latent/virtual energies. the physical characteristics of moon-planet-Sun The external expression of the total lunar virtual • motions [e.g. lunar orbital period (∆t), lunar energy as a real energy, in the form of a rotating space- mass (or rather number of atoms/molecules), warp (RSW) and non-local mass distribution, can be semi-major axis (length), planetary angular pro- associated with a number of things. Firstly, it ap- gression angle (per lunar orbit), etc.]; peases conservation of (universal spin) energy; sec- to the geometric phase offsets (β) experienced ondly, it illuminates the presence of non-local (and in- • collectively (in a given moon) by all of its atoms stantaneous) spin entanglement; thirdly, we may argue 286 and molecules (Nm), relative to the optimum that the local (fermion-based) quantum coherence be- (π rad) phase offset. This offset is expressed as haviour entails a (wave-like) condensate behaviour (i.e. an energy efficiency factor η (where 0 η 1). the RSW); and fourthly, internal ‘information’ is trans- ≤ ≤ This efficiency factor then ‘quantifies’ the total ferred into the environment in an irreversible manner. • This latter characteristic is further supported by the (virtual) asymmetric/non-inertial internal en- need for a (classical) energy basis as a means to (or ergy (∆Ew), which is related to a time/process- based (maximum) energy uncertainty within 285That is, assuming the (non-rigid) moon is completely comprised of ‘solid’ material (cf. ‘fluid’ material). 286As in having the maximum possible physical effect. 92 Paul G. ten Boom

atoms/molecules; (and) via conservation of en- an external (gravito-quantum) rotating space-warp, ergy, ∆Ew (the exact externalised energy) is ex- quantified by a specific energy; and an external mass pressed as an external rotating space-warp and dilatory effect (which is volume dependent). Together, ∗ an (initial/inception) non-local mass (m1). these external effects ‘match’ (and substitute for) the The external energy of each suitable moon is total internal “under-spin” energy (per loop/cycle) — • dependent upon: a (squared value of) acceler- with the latter being a virtual energy. Note that the ation/gravitational undulation amplitude (∆a), phase offset is associated with an angular momentum a process time (∆t), and a non-local287 mass offset, and that the under-spin is relative to an in- ‘continuity’/distribution quantification — again ertial circumstance/configuration. Alternatively, we by way of employing (classical) plane geometry. may say that an inertial frame over-spins relative to the actual QM spin phase — which is held in spin-orbit Together, by way of superposition, several of • coupling by (the dominating) electromagnetic forces. these rotating space-warps, of different period Ignoring special relativistic effects, the virtual in- (∆t) and amplitude (∆a), result in moving ternal and real external effects coexist in ‘universal290 ‘low mass’ (celestial) bodies experiencing oscil- real time’291 (alternatively, a ‘systemic simultaneous latory/unsteady speed perturbations — around pseudotime’292); with the space-warp rotating at the an equilibrium speed value governed by general same rate, and in the same rotational direction/sense, relativistic gravitation (recall section 3.2). as a moon’s spin. Note that additionally a (‘hidden This superposition of individual unsteady mo- background’) global/systemic frame is required to ex- • tion (perturbation) effects, by way of the coexist, and that the measured effects of special and gen- istence of multiple rotating space-warps, ‘causes’ eral relativity must be upheld293. All in all, conser- the overall shortfall (cf. predictions) in motion vation of the full system’s energy is maintained by (over time) of the Pioneer spacecraft — i.e. the the field-based ‘reaction’ — to each (moon-planet-Sun) 288 Pioneer (acceleration) anomaly (ap) . system’s (total) virtual energy offset/shorfall. Although the approach used is semi-classical, concep- The presence of both: shallow gravitational wells tually ‘vivid’ and empirical, it fits all the (awkward) (pertaining to moons and planets), and a spin-orbit observational evidence (see section 2.4). Additionally, coupled moon-planet system (orbiting around a sun) it has predictive capability (see section 6.2), and a sig- are required — with the moon being the third celestial nificant further (dark energy related) ramification (de- body. Energy is seen as the linchpin that relates a me- veloped in Section 7). Curved space-time, independent chanical aspect of the micro/QM world to the macro of special relativity, plays a vital role. While such a (‘gravitational’) world. The need to accept a (spe- method is possibly anathema to mathematical physi- cific) “energy of a rotating space-warp” is unorthodox; cists, this approach is in all likelihood merely an inter- further, the additional acceleration/gravitational field mediate step along a path to fully understanding how associated with this energy is supplementary to, and the microscopic and macroscopic domains, described independent of, GR’s spacetime curvature. Thus, we by QMs and GR, interrelate in the physical world — are transcending the implicit restrictions of GR’s gen- to yield something new, unexpected, and progressive. eral principle of relativity, and the sole use of a metric theory to explain ‘gravitational’ influences — in their widest sense. This is further discussed in section 6.7. 6.1.2 Interim summary: Core issues of the It is important to note that locally the asymmetry- model encapsulated based or offset-based virtual QM energy, although con- Arguably, the core issue is that: in the presence of ceivable, does not physically/actually “exist”. What curved spacetime, a macroscopic object comprising does exist (in its place) is the external rotating space- innumerable quantum mechanical (atomic/molecular) warp phenomenon. Importantly, the internal virtual sub-systems can engage with its external surroundings (and non-inertial) energy acts to quantify the external to maintain its on-going (‘internal’) stability. Thus, energy magnitude. The importance of a ‘universal’ each sub-system is able to “carry on” (locally) as if 290 the non-local effects of curved spacetime upon its geo- The systemic (or global) perspective for rotating space- warps ‘takes in’ the whole universe. metric phase, acting in concert with background global 291Recalling section 4.4, this is a (hidden) background space-time topological aspects, were absent. time utilised by the Universe ‘in itself’, especially for QM The external expression of the (shared/common) non-local effects. It is not, and cannot be, indicated by internal (virtual) spin phase offset289 involves both: direct observational measurements involving EM radiation. 292By way of the American physicist John Cramer, we 287Non-local also in the sense of a wave’s energy distribu- may alternatively refer to this ‘other’ time as a pseudotime. tion being distributed over a region of space. In words appearing upon John Gribbin’s homepage (click 288Larger objects, such as moons and planets, are not af- on “Quantum mysteries”, then “Solving the mysteries”): fected because their mass is above the cut-off masses of the “Cramer’s pseudotime is a semantic device allowing us to dominant (RSW ‘generating’) moon-planet systems — i.e. stand outside of (observational) time.” As far as clocks in Jupiter’s: Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto; Saturn’s the everyday world are concerned, any (pseudo-temporal) Titan; and to a much lesser extent Neptune’s Triton (see ‘gaps’ between digital sequential moments/frames (of ob- subsection 6.6.6 and Table 7). servational/physical reality) are instantaneous — by way 289The (virtual) spin phase offset is ‘relative’ (in a broad of them lying beyond observation-based ‘apprehension’. sense of the word) to three things: i) actual spin-orbit (cou- 293They are upheld; (in part) because, on average pled) phases; ii) a background datum; and iii) itself, regard- and ‘overall’, the general relativistic gravitational field’s ing: initial and (after ∆t) ‘final’ cyclic-loop motion status. strength is ‘unchanged’ by the space-warp’s presence. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 93 conservation of energy principle, to cope with this sit- v) Orbits are considered to be circular. The influ- uation, is paramount. Thus, at all times and in all ence of (small) planetary and (very small) lunar circumstances, the mass based aspect (cf. electrical orbital eccentricities is negligible (and conceivably charge based aspect) of QM systems moving in curved nonexistent) — see subsections 5.2.3 and 6.3.6. spacetime is stable. ‘All up’, (discrete) QM systems vi) In the global/systemic reference frame, over a sin- obey SR, and can always cope with the additional gle lunar cycle (which is always < 17 days), any effects pertaining to: (analog) GR and Heisenberg’s change of the Pioneer spacecraft’s (barycentric) (energy and time based) uncertainty principle ‘demon- position, trajectory, and hence observational incli- strated’ herein — at least in the universe’s ‘mass era’. nation angle, has a negligible influence upon the The restriction of the energy magnitude to that: anomalous acceleration (i.e. rate of speed short- spanning/within a finite time loop/cycle (∆t), and in- fall). volving an angular momentum less than (half) Dirac’s 1 constant ( 2 ¯h), assists (systemic) stability — in that Assuming the idealised model is valid and (later) things can only be minimally perturbed from an equi- adjustments/corrections to it (see Table 6) are also librium circumstance. By virtue of these (and other) valid, the computational/numerical errors are very − − circumstances, the Pioneer anomaly has an extremely small (< 0.1 10 8 cm s 2). It is the veracity of the × small magnitude — notwithstanding the vast number model that is primarily at stake here, and further dis- of atoms/molecules in each (contributing) moon. cussion of the model’s numerical errors is not pursued. A possible modelling error also lies in correc- 6.1.3 Error discussion and aspects of the tions to the idealised model. Later (in Table 6) we see that the adjustments/corrections to the idealised model’s idealisation − − model for Pioneer 10 are up to 0.56 10 8 cm s 2. This subsection highlights how the Pioneer anomaly’s Thus, we get a (conservative) total error× magnitude of − − error far exceeds the numerical error, and comfortably 0.66 10 8 cm s 2, which is about half the observa- − − exceeds the total error, of the/our idealised model. tional× and experimental error of 1.33 10 8 cm s 2. If Note that the Pioneer anomaly’s magnitude-to-error the idealised model’s corrections are valid,× then a more − − ratio is 8.74 : 1.33 (with both values 10 8 cm s 2). refined (i.e. less idealised) model may well be accurate − − Known to many more significant figures× are the phys- to better than 0.10 10 8 cm s 2. ical quantities in the model’s quantification: Planck’s × (and Dirac’s) constant, lunar masses, celestial body 6.1.4 The relationship between: QMs, orbital periods and distances. Further, the model’s geometric approach uses an exact (celestial) angle: GR, intrinsic ‘spin’ and conservation −1 −1 tan (8π) , and is free of adjustable parameters, i.e. For our model, the concept of intrinsic spin has allowed 294 free of parametrization . Subsequently, the uncer- an inter-linking between: (micro) QMs, (macro) celes- tainty or ‘error’ in the model’s (eventual) quantifica- tial motion, and ‘gravitation’ (in its broadest sense); tion of total anomalous acceleration (ap) is well below whereas gauge field theoretical approaches have (to the ‘observational’ error attributable to the Pioneer date) not achieved this type of (quantum mechanical to spacecraft’s (measured) anomalous acceleration (aP ). gravitational) link, together with falsifiable predictions Obviously, if the model is flawed, then this small involving observable physical phenomena. This linkage error is unjustified. Loosely speaking, the conceptual is achieved by way of a deeply conceptual model involv- modelling ‘error’ (or rather inaccuracy) is (potentially) ing: micro- and macroscopic spin-orbit coupling295, a very much greater than the model’s numerical error. relative (virtual) phase effect, (together with) a non- The model, at this stage, is idealised and restricted; inertial vs. inertial frame offset, conservation of (sys- in point form these (‘simplifications’) are: temic) spin energy, and a denial of the graviton parti- i) Solar mass >> planetary mass >> lunar mass; cle’s existence — amongst other things. noting that the Earth’s moon shall fail to be a A non-special relativistic formal representation of (rotating) space-warp ‘generator’. quantum mechanical spin, in an atomic/molecular system, is independent of (and additional to) ii) The relationship between lunar mass and its num- Schrödinger’s equation296. Similarly, a virtual (lu- ber of constituent atoms/molecules is based upon nar or) third-body-based (intrinsic) over-spin — Carbon 12 (and any alteration in this relationship which itself is dependent upon: a common (to all due to binding energy is considered negligible). atoms/molecules) fermion spin phase offset, quantum iii) Large moons dominate the anomaly: Jupiter’s entanglement, and self-interference — is independent four Galilean moons and Saturn’s Titan almost of (and beyond) general relativity’s formalism, but not completely quantify the anomaly. necessarily curved spacetime per se. iv) Moons are considered to be (non-rigid) solid bod- Note that the (tiny) Lense-Thirring effect arises ies, so as to not compromise the pure effect of a from a central body’s spin, and similarly, the spin- common geometric phase offset. The minor ram- down of a binary pulsar (or dual-star) by way of grav- ification of a (possible) variation from this ideali- 295 sation is discussed in subsection 6.5.11. The latter involving the second and third bodies of a (sun-planet-moon) three-body celestial system. 294Should the observational value of the Pioneer anomaly 296Note that Dirac’s equation incorporates special rela- be revised significantly, the model — with its ap value — tivistic effects, but not general relativistic effects, and it 1 could not be adjusted to fit this altered aP value. provides a description of elementary spin- 2 particles. 94 Paul G. ten Boom itational wave ‘output’ is also a two-body general rela- 6.2.1 Extending the model into three tivistic effect. The new mechanism features both: tidal spatial dimensions effects of non-point-like (moon/planet) masses, and requires a three-body celestial system; both of these fea- We need to distinguish three different aspects of the tures lie outside the ‘umbrella’ of GR’s applicability. model’s extension into three spatial dimensions: It is as if (QM) intrinsic spin’s failure to be a part i) an internal quantum mechanical spin aspect; of either Schrödinger’s equation or GR’s formalism (re: a third-body) has paved the way for a micro-macro ii) an orthogonal extension to the (external) planar spin (conservation) relationship to mitigate any ef- rotating space-warp (discussed in Section 3); fects arising from a (digital) QM system existing in iii) and motion of a spacecraft at an angle to the plane (analog) curved spacetime — all the while allowing of space-warp rotation. Schrödinger’s (and Dirac’s) equation and GR’s formalism to dominate their essentially separate domains. The orbital basis for a moon-planet offset in (over- In short, the general relationship between QMs and all298 ) atomic/molecular geometric phase (β), and sub- gravitation appears to be one of (almost completely) sequently virtual intrinsic angular momentum (Sz), detached coexistence, rather then fully entwined (re- only considers a (planar) projection of spin. The ensu- ductive) unification; and in order to establish our (ad- ing/associated rotating space-warp is initially idealised mittedly minor) physical link between gravitation and as a two dimensional planar phenomenon. Due to the QMs, a common ontological ground is required. The virtual nature of the QM energy, corrections for the dual-ontology pursued in this paper achieves this (see (internal) three dimensionality of atoms/molecules, section 4.5). Also required is a reassertion of the and their total spin magnitude, are not required. need for a global barycentric reference frame297 , and The extension of the two-dimensional space-warp, the resurrection of conservation of angular momentum we have been considering (up to this point), into three and energy principles (section 4.6) that span both the spatial dimensions is addressed in subsection 6.2.2. micro- and macroscopic realms (at the same time). Fortuitously, for (spacecraft) motion at an angle Interestingly, a global (classical-like) conservation to the lunar (and space-warp) plane of rotation, the of angular momentum holds impressively in a (macro- motion shortfall along the spacecraft’s path is unaf- scopic only) moon-planet system. The Earth’s slowing fected299; but a minor correction for the geometric in- spin rate leads to the Moon’s orbital radius (and pe- clination angle of the spacecraft path to the observa- riod) increasing — by way of celestial spin-orbit cou- tional line-of-sight is required (see subsection 6.5.8 and pling in conjunction with tidal effects and tidal locking. Table 6). This correction employs the cosine of the an- . . . empirical observations, many of which gle(s) between spacecraft path and line-of-sight mea- actually come from analysis of the LLR surement. Two orthogonal angles are required: the [Lunar laser ranging] data itself, suggest first (longitudinal) within the ecliptic plane, and the that these conservation laws [energy, mo- second (latitudinal) involving inclination above or be- mentum, and angular momentum] hold to low the ecliptic plane. high precision (Nordtvedt 1999, A104-5). Note that this comment is made in spite of the fact 6.2.2 Extending the planar rotating space- that for GR there is not a general law of energy con- warp into three dimensions servation, just a restricted version involving an r requirement (recall subsection 4.6.5). →∞ If we assume some form of analogy with irrotational, non-viscous fluid flow (i.e. potential flow), then by way of Kelvin’s circulation theorem and Helmholtz’s 6.2 Extensions to, and peripheral theorems two things follow. Firstly, the strength of issues influenced by, the model the rotating space-warp, as indicated by the acceleration amplitude, is constant along its length — i.e. In this section a number of the model’s pragmatic fea- orthogonal to the two-dimensional warp-plane. Sec- tures are briefly addressed, including: its extension ondly, because the space-warp does not start or end into three spatial dimensions, predictions, future ob- on a boundary, it either extends to infinity or forms a servations of interest, and ramifications of the model universal sized closed loop. Thus, the (infinitesimally upon the current understanding of various issues. thin) planar rotating space-warp, implied by obser- Note that any change in a Sun-planet-moon’s ge- vations and hypothesised in Section 3, is necessarily ometrical (configuration) circumstances, that impacts a thickly rotating space-warp that effectively extends upon the offset/imbalance energy magnitude (∆Ew) to ‘infinity’ — in the warp plane and also orthogo- and hence its associated rotating space-warp, is propa- gated at the speed of light. Over human and spacecraft 298By way of the same geometric phase offset apply- lifetimes, the effect of changes in planetary and lunar ing to all elementary fermion/matter particles within each orbital characteristics upon the model/mechanism (as atomic/molecular quantum mechanical system. presented herein) are negligible. 299The Pioneer spacecraft (S/C), whether moving parallel to the lunar orbital plane, or at an angle to it, will ‘experi- 297In conjunction with a systemic Barycentric Dynamical ence’ the full strength of the space-warp’s cyclical accelera- Time (TDB), with this being how NASA treats the observation amplitude. In subsection 6.2.2 we see that regardless of tions of spacecraft in the outer solar system — cf. a (theory the spacecraft’s distance above or below the ecliptic plane, of) general relativity based approach to S/C motion. the retardation effect (upon the S/C) is also the full effect. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 95 nal to this plane300 (see Figure 8). Energy dissipa- was introduced so as to ‘deal with’ and more fully un- tion/dispersion, involving the dispersion of (non-local) derstand the notions of QM (spin) entanglement and mass rather than (constant/uniform) specific energy, non-locality, both in general and in the model. is discussed in section 6.6. 6.2.3 Briefly on different observations to f improve our understanding of ap There are a number of future space missions whose data may be beneficial to an analysis of the Pioneer anomaly. i) A dedicated mission to examine the Pioneer anomaly, e.g. Dittus, Turyshev, Lämmerzahl, & et al. (2005). ii) The New Horizons mission301 , especially an investigation of the “Saturn jump” discussed in subsection 3.5.4 and Nieto (2008). Is the change in anomalous ‘acceleration’ related to the Saturn encounter itself, or is it simply a distance from the f f Sun effect? Assuming the former, does the Pio- neer anomaly begin at Saturn encounter or do we have a sudden large increase from a much lower (non-zero) value? Herein, the latter scenario is consistent with the model. iii) Further detailed analysis of past and future Earth flybys302 by spacecraft303 , e.g. the “Deep Impact” spacecraft in January 2008 and 2009. A clear confirmation of a real anomalous Earth flyby effect, in preferably only some flyby cases, would possibly lend support to a real (non-heat based) Pio- neer anomaly. This view, and also the existence f of anomalous decreases in K.E., is supported by the papers of Anderson et al. (2008) and Nieto & Figure 8: Schematic diagram illustrating the cosmo- Anderson (2009, Section 3) — although Turyshev logical extent of the rotating space-warps in three spa- & Toth (2009, p.174) are sceptical. See subsection tial dimensions. Each and every horizontal sectional 6.2.4 for further discussion. disk extends to ‘infinity’, with an orthogonal depth iv) Performance of the LISA Pathfinder mission [a (upwards and downwards) that also extends to ‘infin- precursor to the Laser Interferometer Space An- ity’ — i.e. the end of the universe. tenna (LISA) mission]. The accurate positioning of the spacecraft (at the Lagrange 1 point), to a few millionths of a millimetre in space304, should be affected by the anomalous acceleration (ap). The extension to a volume from a plane is not prob- Finally, for a comprehensive overview of space lematic because we are dealing with a constant spe- missions (past, present, and future) the Lämmerzahl cific energy (at all points throughout a plane) when 1 2 2 (2005) article is recommended. Space-based (cf. quantifying the space-warp, i.e. ∆e = 2 ∆a ∆t (re- Earth-based) missions investigating various features of call subsections 3.2.6 and 3.2.11). That the effect ex- general relativity and issues fundamental to physics tends to ‘infinity’ above and below the lunar orbital are outlined and categorised. Interestingly, he men- plane was somewhat unexpected, but it appears nec- tions305 in the summary: “. . . [observational] searches essary if a (space) continuum mechanics approach is for anomalous couplings of spin-particles with gravity.” employed. Compatibility with GR, via ∆e’s (univer- This type of ‘interaction’ is closely related to, although sal) invariance, is maintained. subtly different from, the mechanism modelled herein. Interestingly, pursuing this conceptual analogy implies that compressibility effects in fluid mechanics 301This spacecraft lacks the navigational accuracy and might be analogous to special relativity’s effects in precision of Pioneer 10 and 11 due to thermal radiation space continuum mechanics, which is compatible with effects, arising from the proximity of the power supply to the spacecraft, but nevertheless its motion allows certain our previous contention that ‘measured time’ is not hypotheses for the Pioneer anomaly to be ruled out. necessarily all there is to ‘time’. The orthogonal ex- 302Occasionally referred to as an Earth ‘swingby’. tension of the space-warp to ‘infinity’ (or the end of 303The gravitational field of the Earth is much more accu- the universe) is consistent with our stance upon back- rately known, as compared to other planets such as Mars. ground time simultaneity (recall section 4.4) — which 304Based upon an article by Will Gater in Astronomy Now, August 07, p.12. 300This extension to infinity, or the end of the universe, 305In relation to experiments examining possible viola- might be mitigated by unforeseen/unknown effects. tions of Local Lorentz Invariance. 96 Paul G. ten Boom

6.2.4 A conceivable extension of the model reduced — in proportion to the cosine of the (geomet- to explain the Earth flyby anomaly ric) inclination angle. Thus, for a flyby encounter, a reduction in geocentric equatorial latitude inclination There are two points of view regarding the “Earth (post- vs. pre-encounter) leads to a greater (measured) flyby anomaly”. Firstly, a sceptical stance as favoured shortfall and thus an apparent anomalous reduction 306 by P.G. Andreasian and S.G Turyshev , involv- in osculating velocity at encounter is observed308. ing an error in the computer code used to shift be- This change takes the pre- and post-encounter change tween Earth-bound and space-based coordinate sys- of (measured) far-field geodesic motion circumstances tems. This is done quickly in the flyby and they believe into ‘account’. In the literature anomalous velocity in- flawed modelling results in a velocity-dependent and creases are highlighted, indicating a reduction in the (geocentric) latitude-dependent error. Alternatively, measurable (Pioneer-like) anomalous speed shortfall at Anderson et al. (2008) report that: “. . . the Earth higher (post- vs. pre-encounter) inclination angles. flyby anomaly is a real effect inherent to the tracking Note that in the far-field — sufficiently far away from of spacecraft”. The difference of opinion is stark. the Earth’s gravitational field — a RSW’s orientation The empirical relationship proposed by Anderson refracts/reverts back to its lunar-based plane. et al. (2008) describing six Earth flyby events (for five In planetary flybys the ability of the rotating space- spacecraft) is simple and engaging. The remainder of warp hypothesis to provisionally accommodate: the this subsection outlines how the rotating space-warps sudden speed variation ‘around’ encounter; the exis- (RSWs), proposed herein to explain the existence of a tence of both anomalous increases and decreases in os- real Pioneer anomaly, are compatible with a real Earth culating velocity; and the simple geometric (directed) flyby anomaly. What is required is that the far-field motion relationship presented in Anderson et al. (2008) (roughly) ecliptic plane orientation of the RSWs be lo- is a promising, but by no means (exhaustive or) con- cally (i.e. near field) distorted so as to be aligned with clusive, account of the situation. A systematic effect the Earth’s equatorial plane. Considering the gravita- may still easily explain away the flyby anomaly, but −2 tional acceleration at the Earth’s surface (9.81 m s ) the preceding explanation, based upon a quirk relat- is over ten billion times stronger than the accelera- ing to line-of-sight observations rather than a (kinetic) tion (amplitude) associated with RSWs, local deforma- energy conservation defying change in speed, could sat- tion/refraction of the plane of the RSWs in the vicinity isfy both sceptics and believers/accepters alike. of a high mass body is conceivable. Also, by aligning This application of our Pioneer anomaly based with the Earth’s equatorial plane, the RSW is not in- model appears to fill the explanatory vacuum that cur- clined to the orientation of the Earth’s Lense-Thirring rently exists with regard to the Earth flyby anomaly. effect, and a “least action” circumstance prevails. A distinctly local distortion of the RSW’s orien- 6.2.5 A brief outline of solar system-based tation in the vicinity of the Earth might also explain the apparent distance/altitude dependence of the flyby predictions arising from the model anomaly, and (thus) why an anomalistic effect might i) A sharp increase in ap (for Pioneer 11) post- be acting over perhaps 10 hours of perigee — as dis- Saturn encounter, cf. an (initial) onset of the ± cussed in Section 1 of Anderson & Nieto (2010). anomaly beyond Saturn — recall subsection 3.5.4. Appreciating that the Pioneer anomaly (as mod- ii) In reply to oscillatory perturbations in accelera- elled herein) is associated with both a speed and dis- tion/gravitational field strength arising from ro- tance shortfall per cycle time of a RSW, and thus a tating space-warps, the LISA Pathfinder space- distance travelled by a spacecraft (S/C) approaching craft should experience both: a tiny (anomalous) (and exiting an) Earth flyby encounter, we can estab- reduction in speed, together with some (tiny) lish a length ratio (∆L/L∞). This dimensionless ra- 307 quasi-stochastic changes in location around the tio equates to the speed ratio (∆V/V∞) at a stan- Lagrange point equilibrium value — due to the dard time rate, as utilised in Equation 2 of Anderson underlying (superpositioned effects of) variations et al. (2008). The ratio (∆V/V∞) is proportional to in field strength and hence LISA spacecraft speed. an (Earth-based) proportionality constant and a difference in (the cosine) of geocentric inbound and out- iii) A comparison of paths involving two asteroids of bound inclination angles. different mass, where one is experiencing the Pi- This difference may be related to a spacecraft’s in- oneer anomaly and the other (larger asteroid) is clination to (both the RSWs and) the equatorial plane of too great a mass to be affected. This relative of the Earth (at sufficiently low altitudes). For in- comparison would suffice to indicate if a “cut-off” 309 plane S/C motion the observed (Pioneer-like) short- mass exists in support of the model . See sub- fall is maximised. With increasing angles to the plane 308With ∆t → small (for this process), this gives the im- of the RSWs (and Earth equatorial plane) the speed pression that the temporal duration is instantaneous. shortfall, as measured by a line-of-sight observation, is 309Without the benefit of an Earth-pointed antenna, it is not possible for the navigational tracking of single asteroids 306As reported by Richard A. Lovett in Issue 21 of the to match the precision and accuracy of ‘in situ’ spacecraft Australian popular science magazine “Cosmos” (pp.78-81); navigational tracking. Onboard the spacecraft the (second) (titled) “Magical mystery tour: The Pioneer anomaly”. ‘in situ’ antenna (by way of a transponder) is in ‘phase lock’ 307Note the difference in the order of magnitude of these with an Earth-based (transmitting and receiving) antenna, quantities: ∆V is measured to the order of [mm s−1], which is referenced to a very accurate Hydrogen maser fre- − whereas V∞ is in the order of [km s 1]. quency standard. This makes a world of difference to nav- A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 97

section 6.6.10 for further discussion. together with the existence of the model’s (largest possible scale) 360o-rotation symmetric rotating 6.2.6 A brief list of other (possible) rami- space-warps (RSWs). Note that the latter, by way fications arising from the model of Jupiter’s Galilean moons, are primarily aligned with the ecliptic plane of the solar system. Fur- The proposal of something in our solar system as note- thermore, the wavelike nature of the RSWs (with worthy as a (gravito-quantum) rotating space-warp — amplitude ∆a and energy ∆a2) could account that extends to infinity or the end of the universe310 for the unexplained alignment∝ of the quadrupole — (unavoidably) has significant effects upon numerous (l = 2) and octopole (l = 3) modes with each things, including the galactic and cosmological motion other and the ecliptic plane. of low mass bodies (and photons). The space-warp’s vii) Dark energy and cosmological accelerating influence upon a variety of issues is now listed and expansion. In Section 7 a further ramification some brief comments are made. A fuller exposéshall is discussed, pertaining to electromagnetic radia- not be given herein. These implications remain under- tion/photons, rather than the retarding effect of developed and largely unsubstantiated at this stage. oscillatory acceleration perturbations (∆a) upon i) Solar system formation. Recall section 2.6. a mass in motion. Unlike the anisotropic mo- ii) Asteroid crater size distribution. tion based influence upon CMB radiation previously discussed, this further effect is energy based iii) Near-Earth object (NEO) risk assessment. and isotropic — and pertains to EM radiation iv) Spiral galaxy density waves. An appreciation received from type 1a supernovae (standard can- that there may be more than simply Newtonian dles). The (spherically symmetric) non-local mass Mechanics (and dark matter) ‘at work’ (gravita- (and hence energy) distribution ‘surrounding’ a tionally) in the galaxy, opens the way for other GQ-RSW alters the energy (and hence frequency) energy expressions of/upon gravitational fields. of approaching photons — with the acceleration There is a distinct similarity between a spiral den- perturbations playing no role whatsoever. The sity wave and a rotating space-warp311 — in terms implication is that dark energy may be a misin- of (both of them) being a rotating perturbation terpretation of the (redshift-based) observational upon a stable gravitational field. evidence, thus resurrecting the possibility that the expansion of the universe is actually decelerating v) Dark matter (DM). Once again going beyond — a far from outrageous suggestion, albeit at odds Newtonian Mechanics (NMs), it may be that (af- with some aspects of the prevailing “concordance ter stripping out DM effects) the gravitational po- model”. Section 7 expands upon this brief synop- tential well of a galaxy is not as per NMs. A sis; it is exclusively devoted to this issue. galaxy comprises approximately 100 billion stars fairly evenly distributed throughout. The extrap- viii) Change in the fine structure constant (∆α). olation of 2-body NMs from the solar system [with On a lesser note, an admittedly speculative and a dominant central Sun (comprising 99.86% of the brief conjecture regarding this open cosmological total mass of the solar system)] to galaxies, may issue follows. Of relevance may be the finding not be valid. Hitherto unforeseen field interaction herein that spin geometric phase, but not orbital effects may exist312, and thus dark matter might phase, can be affected by the geodesic motion simply indicate a misconceiving of galactic gravi- (of atoms/molecules) in an external gravitational tational field strength. This is speculative, but the field — specifically, where the atoms/molecules lack of direct detection to date of (diffuse) DM, in are (a part of) the third body of a rotating either Earth-based laboratories or the outer space three-body (celestial) mass system. Under the of the solar system, implies that DM may not nec- appropriate geometric conditions, this circum- essarily ‘be’ a missing non-baryonic ‘particle’. stance might disrupt the (standard and cosmologically invariant) energy differences pertain- vi) Cosmic microwave background radiation ing to QM spin-orbital transitions ‘within’ an (CMB radiation). Recall subsection 3.5.3. In atom/molecule; thus affecting emission and ab- particular, that a foreground effect may arise from sorption events. The ‘fractional’ quantum energy the anisotropic dipole motion of the solar system change involved would (then) give the (observa- igational precision and accuracy. tional) impression that the fine structure constant 310Both in the plane of rotation and orthogonal to this (alpha) has changed from its standard labora- 313 plane. tory condition . A good background reference 311Jerry Sellwood (Scientific American 21st Oct 1999, is Murphy, Webb, & Flambaum (2003)314. Ask the Experts) says that: “Fortunately, nearly everyone agrees that spiral density patterns extract gravitational en- 313This mechanistic approach to ∆α regarding atoms and ergy from the field of a galaxy.” This view is not inconsistent molecules is indirectly supported by a fairly recent null re- with the contention of Prokhovnik (1978) that: “The grav- sult (King, Webb, Murphy, & Carswell 2008) concerning the itational property of matter is associated with an energy cosmological evolution of another major dimensionless con- field imbedded in a cosmological substratum.” stant, the proton-to-electron mass ratio (µ). Admittedly, 312Supported by a belief that NMs and GR are not the the status of changes in dimensionless constants is made ‘last word’ in gravitation — if (gravito-quantum) rotat- uncertain by way of the complexities involved in processing ing space-warps and non-local mass distributions are valid the data. physical phenomena. 314Their paper, (and other) “change in alpha” numerical 98 Paul G. ten Boom

As can be seen from this list of implications, the rather, it is the number of atoms/molecules (and their influence of (cosmological size) rotating space-warps — superposition) that is of major concern. The differ- each with an attendant (or conjoint) non-local mass ence is subtle, but it is conceptually important. The distribution — is conceivably quite far reaching and aim here is to try and ‘reduce’ the macroscopic concept significant. of inertia to non-macroscopic (i.e. QM) circumstances. Note that our concern is not with the “origin of mass”. 6.2.7 Spacetime curvature energy & the The content and discussion of Section 5 implies model’s denial of a graviton particle that ‘inertia’, i.e. a resistance to a deviation away from either rest or uniform motion, might have something to In analogy with electromagnetic radiation ‘waves’: in do with a many ‘microscopic’ body system (i.e. par- GR, a time-varying mass-energy distribution leads to ticles, atoms, molecules) ‘settling’ into some type of a time-varying gravitational field, i.e. GR’s gravita- (minimum energy) global phase coherence — much in tion waves. Associated with this is a loss of angular the manner that ocean waves, in the absence of wind momentum in binary pulsars. The latter can occur and other disturbances, settle into a (single frequency with no mass actually lost from the celestial bodies and amplitude) “ground swell”315 . Consequently, lo- themselves, and thus we are dealing with a loss of spe- cal macroscopic inertial effects might be an indication cific orbital momentum and energy by way of specific of the global system’s resistance to any deviation away energy ‘radiated’ into the gravitational field. from a (long-term) ‘settled’ systemic phase-coherence There is a clear distinction between saying that: (or phase-harmony). This situation is not immediately obvious, because the phase status of QM (fermion) The curvature of spacetime is itself a form ‘particles’ are hidden from observational physics. of energy, which produces its own gravita- If this is the case, then only an indirect appreci- tional field (Harrison 2000, p.229). ation of inertia has hitherto been recognised, hence and the model’s stance that: the re-expression (or re- its enduring mystery. This (very raw) hypothesis redistribution) of non-inertial (QM) energy, in a univer- lies upon the continual (and non-local/instantaneous) sal system as a (macroscopic) curvature of space-time, outward ‘reach’ of (non-observed QM) particle mass does not then also produce its own gravitational field. effects in an ‘entangled’ global system. It is consis- Herein the first of these two stances is discouraged. tent with our stance on cosmological temporal evolu- The assumption of a graviton particle with an en- tion/progression outlined in Section 4. ergy flux and momentum flux, in analogy with quantum field theory and the photon in EM, remains to 6.2.9 Virtual phase and energy, imaginary be verified. In the absence of a graviton particle, the numbers and spatial dimensions transport of ‘momentum’ within the field is (techni- cally) not possible. In subsections: 4.2.9, 5.1.2, 5.2.8, Our use of the ‘virtual’ ties in with our (complemen- 5.6.2, 5.7.1 and 5.7.5 we have argued that the model tary and noumenal) stance upon curved space involv- actually depends upon the non-existence of the hypo- ing ‘imaginary’ numbers in three spatial dimensions thetical graviton (elementary particle) — at least as (discussed in subsections 4.4.16 and 4.5.14). There far as it being a decoherence ‘agent’ in the model. are strong mathematical ties (or links) between com- We are restricting the model’s ‘physicality’ to en- plex numbers and geometry; see for example work by ergy — free of any related ‘force’. In subsection 6.6 Emeritus Professor David Hestenes on this issue. Ad- the nature of the mass unit or ‘dimension’, within the ditionally, note that the standard notion of SR’s and physical quantities of energy and force, is more thor- GR’s (‘phenomenal’) spacetime is unable to incorpo- oughly investigated. It shall become evident (later) rate non-local quantities. that although a rotating space-warp and its associated non-local mass distribution has an energy representa- 6.2.10 Some similarities in/of the model to tion, the model’s mechanism does not have (nor need) magnetism an associated local (particle) momentum aspect. That an external (lunar orbital or spin axis) orienta- 6.2.8 A brief speculation concerning the tion, and the number of atoms/molecules, should dictate the orientation and strength of the new effect (re- origin of inertial effects spectively) has a number of similarities to magnetism. The discussion in this subsection is decidedly specula- 1. Macroscopic magnetic properties arise by way of tive, but worthy of brief mention, due to the ongoing many component/constituent atoms/molecules debate that surrounds the basis of/for inertial effects. having the same magnetic moments. That inertial effects require and relate to a global reference frame is herein considered unavoidable. Ad- 2. As with paramagnetism, an external field en- ditionally, macroscopic mass is considered to be (in one sures the direction of the macroscopic field. sense) simply a summation of atoms and molecules. 3. With ferromagnetism, the magnetic field of a Thus, with regard to inertia, the quantity of mass in physical “magnet” selects a dominate/special di- QM bound systems shall not specifically concern us; rection in space. Analogous to this is the planar nature of the space-warp’s (initial) formal rep- results, are not inconsistent with a mechanistic approach resentation. that conjectures the (fractional quantum) “wiggle room” is bounded by: |∆α|≤ (α/π)2 where (α/π)2 ≈ 5.4 × 10−6. 315At least upon the ocean surface. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 99

4. Magnetism involves angular momentum, both 6.3.2 The total virtual non-inertial ‘spin’ directly and indirectly (i.e. only in the field). energy (for a moon as a whole) Quantum mechanical (intrinsic) angular momentum is (arguably) the foundation stone of We have argued that in suitable curved spacetime con- the model. ditions, the projection of atomic/molecular (spin) angular momentum in a plane can become slightly non- Finally, note that we are told to not accept either inertial by way of a geometric phase offset — but only orbital, nor spin, rotation in an atom; and yet mag- in a minimal/virtual manner, and only from a systemic netic effects necessarily pertain to the ‘rotational’ mo- (or global) perspective. With orbital angular momen- 1 tion of charged particles, and hence magnetic dipole tum unaffected we have: ∆Jmax = (∆Sz)max = 2 ¯h. moments (in some sense at least). A somewhat similar Electron’s, and also some other funda- conceptual leeway is apparent (and necessary) in our mental particles (protons, neutrons) have model (recall subsection 5.4.4). 1 a spin whose magnitude is 2 ¯h. This is found from experimental evidence, and 6.3 The physical model quantified: there are theoretical reasons showing that this spin is more elementary than any internal (virtual) energy other, even spin zero. The study of this The model has been labouriously conceptualised, and particular spin is therefore of special im- its (potential) fecundity displayed (section 6.2). The portance (Dirac 1958). emphasis now shifts from a conceptual emphasis to In keeping with subsections 4.2.2 and 5.6.7, and Sec- the model’s quantification, with further conceptualisation 5 in general, (∆Sz)max corresponds to a (spin- tion included if/as necessary. We shall derive ∆Ew — based inertial vs. non-inertial/actual ‘frame’) geo- the total energy offset magnitude, or/and total non- metric phase offset of β = π, indicating an offset inertial QM energy — by way of quantum mechani- of one quarter of one fermion wavelength (4π). For cal (QM) considerations; then this (weighted) energy β = 0 or 2π, ∆Sz = 0. Indeed, for β 2π we have ≥ is expressed both physically, and formally, as a rotat- ∆Sz 0 by way of decoherence, thus denying any → ing space-warp (together/conjointly with an associated (global presence of) virtual QM energy. non-local mass distribution). In equation form, we will With the angular momentum offset determined see that (for each individual rotating space-warp): over a finite cyclic process time (∆t) the maximum virtual spin energy offset, for a single atom/molecule, 1 − 1 ∗ is simply: ∆E = ¯h(∆t) 1N η = m ∆a2 ∆t2 (16) w 2 m 2 1 w ∆Jmax 1 −1 ∆Emax = = ¯h(∆t) This (and following) sections shall explain the various ∆t 2 quantities in this dual-equality. Only loop/cycle time 1 −1 so that ∆Evirtual 2 ¯h(∆t) . Compare this expres- (∆t) is common to the very different internal (LHS) sion to one form of≤ Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle: and external (RHS) forms of the (equivalent) energy 1 ∆Ereal∆t 2 ¯h. The latter (HUP) expression con- magnitude. cerns the non-definite≥ energy of a quantum mechani- The nomenclature of ∆E is preferred over E, so cal state, whereas the former concerns a virtual energy as to retain the form of energy uncertainty in Heisen- (i.e. a hidden systemic variable) — of a definite/exact berg’s Uncertainty Principle, and to signify both: an magnitude. 1 energy offset over the cyclic duration time ∆t; and sec- Unlike the case with ∆p∆x 2 ¯h, ∆t is not an ondly, an energy ‘transfer’ (by way of re-expressing the operator belonging to a particle; it≥ is an evolution pa- internal virtual energy externally316). rameter. Thus, in addition to (non-reversible) measurement, the mechanism proposed herein is effectively a second (and new type of) non-reversible time evolu- 6.3.1 A crucial difference between moons tion of a quantum mechanical “system”. and atoms as composite systems Note that the ‘mass’ dimensional aspect of the non- An atom/molecule as a whole is described by QMs, inertial energy offset has its basis in Planck’s constant, whereas a moon as a whole is not, even though it is which in turn is indicative of the (‘internal’) ‘mechan- comprised of atoms/molecules (i.e. QM sub-systems) ics’ of atoms/molecules — which herein (recall sub- — recall subsection 5.1.3. An atom/molecule is a section 5.1.3) are considered to be the largest (bound) composite QM system, (mainly) comprised of QM el- quantum mechanical system, and the only types of QM ementary fermion/matter particles (parts). Regarding system directly affected by the new mechanism. For a non-optimal effect an efficiency factor η is the model’s virtual spin phase offset we hypothesise 1 introduced, where 0 η 1, such that ∆J = 2 ¯hη = that: unlike the case with a moon — which is (herein 1 ≤ 1≤ treated as) an additive sum of its (matter) parts — an 2 ¯hw. We shall refer to 2 ¯hw as the weighted intrinsic atom/molecule as a whole ‘receives’ the same virtual angular momentum offset (see Figure 9). spin phase offset as does each (and every one) of its Further, with the offset applying (concurrently) to component elementary fermion/matter particle parts. every (single) atom/molecule in a moon (Nm), this gives an (additive based) total ‘weighted’ energy of: 316 As a rotating space-warp, together with a non-local 1 −1 mass distribution. ∆Ew = ¯h(∆t) Nmη (17) 2 100 Paul G. ten Boom

K Helical lunar orbit around planet-moon centre maxm J of = @ O ' 24

E 0 S 2S

0 T Topt 2Topt O 0 1 O 1 4 2 O Orbital path of planet-moon Barycentre system centre and/or Sun Figure 9: Diagrammatic representation of the variation in the proportion of (or efficiency with which) the Figure 10: Celestial (curved space) geometric con- smallest possible quantum intrinsic angular momen- straints of the model are indicated by this diagram- 1 matic representation of planetary progression angle tum ( 2 ¯h) offset (occurs). Angular momentum magnitude is functionally related to a QM geometric phase (θ), i.e. the angular progression of a planet around offset (β), which coexists with a planetary progres- the Sun — over the duration of one lunar spin-orbital sion angle (θ) (also see Figure 10). Full efficiency (i.e. cycle. Note that the view is (downwards) from the 1 north ecliptic pole. Theta i.e. θ (cf. θopt) both: estab- η = 1 and an angular momentum offset of 2 ¯h) occurs 1 −1 −1 lishes (and coexists with) the geometric phase offset at: β = π radians, and θ = θopt = 2 tan (8π) ; with this value also representing a 1 of a (fermion) wave- (β), and the proportion (or efficiency) of a minimum 4 angular momentum ( 1 ¯h) that is (virtually) affected — length offset. For values where: θ > 2θopt, β > 2π 2 1 previously illustrated in Figure 9. — representing more than a 2 quantum wavelength offset — quantum decoherence occurs and thus η = 0 (effectively).

Uranus’ large moons, particularly Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5. This represents the total virtual energy imbalance; it is locally hidden, but resident within the (wider) system. The maximum (or optimum) available energy for a given moon is ∆Eo so that ∆Ew =∆Eoη. 6.3.3 The relationship between: phase, Note that with ∆Ew Nm the largest moons of angular momentum, and efficiency the solar system (in general)∝ have the largest energy (excess), and their acceleration amplitudes dominate the response of the Pioneer spacecraft. This response A simple triangle function is used to relate the (con- is due to undulations in the strength of the accelera- tinuous/analog) phase offset (β) to its (discrete minimum and/or maximum virtual) angular momentum tion/gravitational field, arising from a number of ro- 1 tating space-warps, that are themselves centered upon ‘counterpart’ 2 ¯h (see Figure 9). When β = π we have a moon-planet system317. Rotating space-warp accel- η = 1; thus, when β = π/2 or 3π/2 we have η = 1/2, and when β = 0 or β 2π then η = 0. This trian- eration amplitudes associated with the large moons of ≥ Uranus are too small to make any significant contri- gle function is seen to indicate a wave-to-wave effect bution to the Pioneer anomaly; see subsection 6.5.3 representing QM (fermion) wave mechanics involving for further comment. Consequently, the remainder of an inertial to non-inertial intrinsic angular momentum this Section’s quantification excludes data based upon (offset). Recall that for motion along a geodesic, (QM ‘systemic’) intrinsic angular momentum exists in rela- 317It is unclear as to whether the mechanism’s ‘centre’ is: tion to an orbital angular momentum — which itself the moon’s centre, or host planet’s centre, or at the pair’s remains unchanged and thus also acts as a stable (i.e. centre of mass. Most likely, it is at the moon’s centre. unchanged) reference frame or datum. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 101

Table 2: Angular progression of planet, around the Sun, for one lunar orbit.

MOONa Units Lunab Ioc Europac G’medec Callistoc Titand Tritone − − Moon orbit frequency (10 6s 1) 0.42362 6.5422 3.2592 1.6177 0.69351 0.72586 1.9694f Moon’s orbital period (days) 27.3217 1.76914 3.55118 7.15455 16.68902 15.94542 5.87685 Host’s orbital period (days) 365.256 4332 4332 4332 4332 10759 60190 Orbital time ratio (%) 7.480 0.0408 0.0820 0.1652 0.3852 0.1482 0.0098 Angular progression (deg) 26.93 0.1470 0.2951 0.5946 1.3869 0.5335 0.0351

aLunar data is taken from NSSDC (National Space Science Data Center web site), with lunar orbital time/period rounded off to 6 or 7 significant figures. bEarth’s moon. cLarge moon of Jupiter. Note that ‘Ganymede’ is abbreviated to G’mede. dLarge moon of Saturn. eLarge moon of Neptune. f Retrograde motion.

Table 3: Geometric eﬀectiveness/eﬃciency of various Sun-planet-moon motions.

MOON Symbol Units Luna Io Europa Ganymede Callisto Titan Triton Angular progression θ (deg) 26.93 0.1470 0.2951 0.5946 1.3869 0.5335 0.0351 Eﬃciencyg η (–) 0.00 0.1290 0.2590 0.5219 0.7826 0.4683 0.0309

g 1 −1 −1 Efficiency by way of optimum (planet) progression angle of θopt 1.13926 deg [i.e. 2 tan (8π) ]. A triangular relationship is utilised to determine efficiency — indicative≈ of a (quantum) wave-to-wave offset.

6.3.4 A non-metric approach, but very solar system moon-planet systems appear in Table 2. much a geometric approach By way of comparing this angle to the optimum planetary progression angle (θopt) of The model’s external re-expression of the energy 1 −1 −1 o 2 tan (8π) 1.14 — which also represents ‘asymmetry’ (∆Ew) is not expressible by way of the a QM relative≈ spin phase offset of π radians — we exactitude of a (dynamic) metric theory, and geome- may establish the efficiency of this planetary progres- try (necessarily) becomes the model’s guiding aspect 1 sion angle, i.e. the proportion of ∆Jmax = 2 ¯h ‘in or ‘principle’. A ‘frictionless’ equation of motion is play’ systemically. The efficiency values for different fundamental to Newtonian and relativistic gravitation moons are presented in Table 3. Figures 9 and 10 theory; (but) herein the equation of motion merely de- provide visual assistance, (respectively) clarifying the fines the (geodesic) path of celestial bodies, and hence efficiency value (η) and planetary angular progression the path of their constituent atoms and molecules. per lunar orbit (θ). The supplementary (i.e. perturbation) curvature, relative to the pre-existing gravitational field (i.e. the field already established by way of GR), causes a ‘dis- 6.3.6 On the effect of lunar and planetary sipation’ of a moving body’s kinetic energy; (or) in orbital motion eccentricity other words, the rotating space-warp leads to a short- Note that in this paper both lunar and planetary ec- fall vs. predicted motion — recall section 3.2. The centricities are idealised as zero, i.e. e 0 and orbits field’s cyclic nature can still be represented by a field are thus treated as circular. If e = 0→ then the rela- energy, but (recalling Section 4) it is a field that in tionship between angular progression6 and time is vari- its idealised representation utilises a background (Eu- able. It is not the case that variable angular progres- lerian) space continuum (and formalism) rather than sion leads to variable efficiency (η), and hence variable a spacetime continuum and GR’s formalism. Hence space-warp amplitude (∆aw) and energy (∆Ew); be- a secondary non-Euclidean geometry is (also) conceiv- cause a variable rate of lunar and planetary angular able, but it cannot be quantified by way of a met- progression simply leads to a non-constant rate of an- ric theory. Our (supplementary) continuum mechanics gular frequency/velocity for the rotating space-warp. approach is further discussed in subsection 6.4.3. Examination into the possible existence of this second-order temporal variation in ap(t) is complicated 1 by the coexistence of multiple RSW ‘signatures’ in the 6.3.5 Celestial geometry and 2 ¯h efficiency ap(t) data, and subsequently this minor issue shall not The geometry of three-body celestial motion deter- be pursued in this paper. Importantly, the acceler- mines θ, the planetary angular progression angle ation/gravitational field amplitudes and the rate of (around the Sun, per lunar orbit). This was discussed speed shortfall (per cycle) are unaffected by orbital ec- previously in subsection 5.6.7 and the results for major centricities. Similarly, a very minor second-order tem- 102 Paul G. ten Boom

Table 4: Weighted QM ‘non-inertial’ energy per orbit (equaling space-warp energy) and associated values.

MOON Symbol Units Io Europa G’mede Callisto Titan Triton −1 −6 Moon orbit frequency (∆t ) fm (10 s) 6.5422 3.2592 1.6177 0.6935 0.7259 1.9694 Mass M (1021 kg) 89.32 48.00 148.19 107.59 134.55 21.4 h 49 Number of atoms/molecules Nm (10 ) 5.379 2.891 8.924 6.479 8.103 1.289 i 9 Optimum Energy ∆Eo (10 J) 18.555 4.968 7.612 2.369 3.101 1.338 Eﬃciency η (–) 0.1290 0.2590 0.5219 0.7826 0.4683 0.0309 9 Weighted Energy ∆Ew (10 J) 2.395 1.287 3.973 1.854 1.452 0.041

− h Based on carbon 12 molar mass and Avogadro’s number per gram mole (6.0221415 1023 mole 1). i A full 1 −1 −1× −34 unit (η = 1) of excess (virtual) spin energy ( ¯h∆t Nm) applies — whereh ¯ = (2π) (6.6260693 10 ) J s. 2 ×

poral variation of ap over Jupiter’s orbital time (11.86 that (model-based) acceleration (herein) refers to ei- years), due to the orbital eccentricity of Jupiter (and ther: a (monotonic) rate of change in (or rate of loss of) its four large attendant Galilean moons) alone, could translational velocity (δa), and/or a sinusoidal/cyclic also be present in the Pioneer data; but with just under field curvature perturbation (with amplitude ∆a) ‘at’ 12 years of data in the most accurate Pioneer analysis the spacecraft (over time ∆t). In the model, mass and (Anderson et al. 2002, Figure 14), the ‘noise’ of the Pi- acceleration have/play distinct and separate roles, and oneer data318 means that this (conceivable but) very force (per se) plays no (physical) role whatsoever. minor effect is (also) beyond observational recognition. Standard gravitation (GR) employs two types of equivalence together: primarily, (inertial and gravitational) acceleration; and secondly, (inertial and passive 6.3.7 Total (idealised) internal energy 320 gravitational) mass equivalence. The former, and Having determined the efficiency of the internal (spin) historically more recent equivalence, represents some- energy offset, the total virtual offset energy or weighted thing of a “dematerialisation of gravitation”, in the 1 −1 sense that the free-fall motion of a (point) mass in energy ∆Ew = 2 ¯h(∆t) Nmη (over time ∆t) pertaining to each moon may be found — see Table 4. a gravitational field is independent of the amount of Note that the number of atoms/molecules (Nm) in (passive gravitational) mass; i.e. we deal solely with each moon is idealised so as to be based on carbon spacetime curvature, which can be conceptualised as a 12 molar mass, with Avogadro’s number (per gram gravitational acceleration acting upon a body. Section mole) (also) playing a vital role. Significantly, this 6.7 further examines these equivalence principles. idealisation has no effect upon the all-important acceleration perturbation amplitudes determined in section 6.4.2 Introducing non-local mass 6.5 and presented in Table 5; whereas the accuracy of non-local mass (and mass cut-off) values, established The non-local probabilistic nature of a QM mass (pre- in section 6.6 and presented in Table 7, are affected ceding its observation) — for example, Schrödinger’s by the inaccuracy arising from this all-inclusive ideal- equation applied to an unobserved free particle — 319 isation . Fortunately, the low mass of the Pioneer is clearly distinct from both: condensed/compact spacecraft — much lower than any “cut-off” mass — (macroscopic) matter, e.g. a planet, a spacecraft, a makes this inaccuracy “of no consequence”. comet, or a piece of chalk; and from gaseous and plasma matter. The model requires a new type of mass that is similar and yet different to the case of an (unob- 6.4 The physical model qualified served) free particle. We hypothesise that if the virtual 6.4.1 Two types of equivalence nature of the model’s total QM energy offset (∆Ew) — via its basis in energy uncertainty — is externalised GR’s curved spacetime makes Newton’s gravitational as an energy field, then the mass aspect of this energy “force” an inferior and approximate approach to grav- field is always “non-localised”; in the sense that the itation. Herein, we ‘decompose’ the classical quan- probability of finding a particle with mass anywhere tity “force” into its separate mass and acceleration in the field goes to zero. This field ‘mass’ is (thus) parts/components. From subsection 3.2.12 we recall effectively non-local. The model requires this external (to atoms/molecules) distributed mass effect321, with- 318Arising from both measurement noise, and the inherent out any associated external particle; i.e. a non-local variation/wandering of ap(t) around the long-term mean 320 value (ap(t) = ap), proposed/hypothesised by the model With this equivalence dating all the way back (at least) (recall subsection 3.6.6). to Isaac Newton and experiments by Galileo Galilei. 319Not so much Ganymede, Callisto and Titan, but more 321Possibly, “non-observable non-particle effect” is a so the relatively denser moons of Io and Europa. preferable term. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 103 mass effect — that will always be at a ‘subliminal’ tional fields; whereas, to allow for energy dispersion, level as far as direct physical observation is concerned. the non-local mass at a point in the field varies (with Furthermore (re: the preceding paragraph’s discus- enclosed spherical volume) throughout space. Addi- sion), there is insufficient energy for a point mass to tionally, we are discussing an energy-based inherently ‘materialise’ anywhere in this external field, i.e. any- non-instantaneous physical process cf. singular or mul- where in the (spherical) volume associated with this tiple ‘events’. ∗ non-particle-like (non-local) mass (m ). Later (in sec- With the introduction of non-local or distributed tion 6.6) we shall see that an invariant spherical vol- mass (elaborated upon in section 6.6), there is no ume to non-local mass relationship is important. The violation of an equivalence principle involving point- model proposes that: the mass aspect of the (virtual like ‘condensed’ inertial mass and (passive) gravita- offset) energy is spread out evenly over a volume, thus tional mass (see subsection 6.6.8). Neither is standard making this mass aspect ‘quintessentially’ non-local. (i.e. general relativistic) inertial acceleration to gravi- The basis for this new type of mass is the new rela- tational acceleration equivalence violated325. We sim- 1 tionship: (∆Evirtual ∆t) ¯h (recall subsection 6.3.2). ply have an additional (and non-standard) contribu- ≤ 2 The extension of the non-local to local mass dis- tion to the overall ‘gravitational’ field, in conjunction tinction (outlined above) to ‘gravitational’ field theo- with the spatial distribution of (a new) non-local mass ∗ risation322 requires we accept that: (in certain unique ‘quantity’ (denoted as) m (see subsection 6.6.5). circumstances) microscopic/QM matter in ‘motion’ can induce an (external) field curvature/deformation, 6.4.4 The Biot-Savart law, and extending and that (virtual QM) energy plays a vital role in the continuum mechanics field theory model. To appease the dimensions of energy, and to respect the requirements of a physical quantity323 ex- The rotating space-warp proposed is considered to isting throughout a field, we unavoidably require this have similarities to the magnetic (induction) vector non-local mass to have a magnitude, at all points in field B induced by a (steady) electrical current in the field. a wire, and the velocity field ‘induced by’ a vortex In a way, the non-local nature of this new type of line/filament326. Both of these physical phenomena QM-based mass introduces a further stage in the de- are described mathematically by the Biot-Savart law. materialisation of gravitation; in the sense that matter A (three-dimensional) circulatory aspect, which may is involved, but in a non-compact insubstantial form. be restricted to a planar effect, is common in all cases. Non-local mass is not a ‘substance’ per se, although in The rotating space-warp is seen to be an external effect subsection 6.6.8 we explain the circumstances whereby induced by an ‘internally’ inexpressible QM energy — it does or does not influence the motion of (ordinary with this energy based upon a new form/application celestial) matter — be it: solid, liquid, gas or plasma. of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle (and the quantum or discrete nature of atomic/molecular angular momentum) — as discussed in subsection 6.3.2. 6.4.3 A second and different type of non- Recall that we are now discussing space curva- Euclidean geometry ture independently of Special Relativity, in conjunc- The model’s explanation requires a distinction between tion with a model that prefers a space continuum, cf. two different types of curvature involving space and a spacetime continuum. Note that both Mechanics of Solids and Fluid Mechanics utilise a mass contin- time. Firstly, there is standard GR, where (active) 327 mass, momentum and energy lead to spacetime curva- uum . This is clearly an unorthodox approach to ture, and the acceleration of a (passive gravitational) ‘gravitation’, or rather the supplementation of grav- mass is independent of its mass magnitude/amount. itation, but it is actually (merely) a simple extension of classical continuum mechanics into the celestial In spacetime we describe physical events, with these 328 often occurring at a specific time or between specific realm — albeit now incorporating delocalised mass times, rather than over a period or duration of time. (i.e. non-local mass). The (new) supplementary (i.e. cyclic perturbation) curvature, arising from the coexistence of quan- 6.4.5 Extending the model’s kinetic en- tum mechanical systems and celestial (geodesic) mo- ergy shortfall into three dimensions tion obeying GR, introduced by the model is markedly different. There is no metric, nor is a new equation The derivation of the kinetic energy ‘shortfall’ of space- of motion meaningful. To appease GR’s invariance craft motion (cf. currently predicted motion) by way of the (gravitational) acceleration amplitude, associated geometric) characteristics, and/or the number of (lunar) with a rotating space-warp, is constant throughout atoms/molecules involved. 324 space , which is in stark contrast to GR’s gravita- 325In GR this equivalence is between uniformly accelerated reference systems and homogeneous gravitational 322So as to be a supplementary or further feature of grav- fields. A sinusoidal variation in acceleration around a mean itational field energy. value is a very different circumstance. 323That is, having a magnitude and a unit/dimension(s). 326Possibly, the phrase “induced by” could be replaced by 324Note that very slow changes in amplitude over time “coexisting with”. may occur and these are seen to propagate at the speed of 327From a microscopic/QM perspective, macroscopic mat- light, but the amplitude (in the absence of change) is con- ter is also largely comprised of ‘empty’ space. stant throughout space. Such a change only arises from 328Recall that Newton unified terrestrial and celestial changes in either lunar or planetary orbital (and hence (condensed matter) gravitation over 300 years ago. 104 Paul G. ten Boom the undulatory acceleration/gravitational field(s) (out- ation are physically distinct variables, with the con- lined in section 3.2), was restricted to a planar (space- cept of gravitational force of no significance. Energy warp) phenomenon — albeit a distortion of a Eu- is the model’s primary physical quantity and conser- clidean plane329, with intrinsic curvature assumed330. vation of energy its linchpin. Further, we shall see The planar nature of the model lends itself to a more that the (initial) external field energy (∆Ew) for an visual (and geometric) understanding of curved space. individual RSW cannot be completely localised (i.e. The specific energy of the undulation, over cy- spatially and temporally) in the formalism; this is be- 1 2 2 cle time ∆t, is ∆e = 2 ∆a ∆t . The extension of cause, even though the specific energy of each RSW this space curvature into three dimensions is quite is constant throughout space331, the distribution (and simple, resulting in a universe long axis about which nature) of non-local mass is incompatible with a ‘point’ an ‘infinitely’ wide space-warp rotates (recall subsec- mass based determination of energy values. tion 6.2.2). Thus, the specific energy (∆e) relation- In spite of the fact that the energy’s microscopic ship is upheld. This three dimensionality of the ro- QM basis requires a closed (circumferential) loop (and tating space-warp is satisfying, because the Rayleigh hence a finite process time) for its quantification, a sys- Theorem based quantification (beginning at subsec- temic representation of non-local mass (m∗) and accel- tion 3.2.8) was initially restricted to simple one- eration undulation amplitude332 at every point in the dimensional (in-line) motion, and then extended by field (through time) is feasible in principle333. Herein, way of an (observationally demanded) hypothetical the model deals primarily with an average Pioneer 334 conceptualization to a two-dimensional rotating space- anomaly value (ap) arising from several coexisting warp (see subsection 3.5.2). RSWs. A (classical) continuum mechanics approach Recall that a rotating space-warp leads to the same to the formalism of the (global) system is also re- (path-based) loss of kinetic energy (per cycle) regard- quired to achieve the formalism’s (in principle) locali- less of the (in-plane) direction of motion of a celestial sation, that (separately) involves constant acceleration body or spacecraft. Radial and circumferential motion (amplitude) and non-local mass at points throughout in the solar system are equally affected. For three- the field. Note that the new/supplemenatry gravita- dimensional motion, i.e. motion inclined to the plane tional energy, like the gravitational energy in GR, can of the space-warp’s rotation, the same variation in ∆a never be spatially or temporally localised, because the over duration ∆t is (or will be) ‘experienced’. Thus, quantification of ∆Ew is process based, i.e. requiring speed shortfall (δv over duration ∆t) along the path of ∆t >> 0. motion — i.e. along the velocity vector — is the same It shall become apparent (in subsection 6.6.8) that as for (two-dimensional) in-plane motion. the non-locality of what was originally inertial mass Even though the kinetic energy ‘shortfall’ of mov- in two different atomic/molecular QM angular mo- ing (low mass) bodies is path-independent, there re- mentums (i.e. spin and orbital), and the coexistence mains a need to make corrections for line-of-sight of rotating space-warps and (non-local) mass in the Doppler observations (geometrically) inclined to the field, has lead to the observational interpretation of an Pioneer 10 path vector. This correction is quantified apparent violation of GR’s (mass) equivalence princi- in subsection 6.5.8. ple — in that ‘high mass’ bodies such as: Halley’s comet, Vesta (asteroid), Europa (moon), Pluto (dwarf planet), and the planet Saturn (for example) do not re- 6.4.6 General remarks concerning the spond to the rotating space-warps, whereas the (‘low rotating space-warps (GQ-RSWs) mass’) Pioneer spacecraft do respond. The simplicity of these moon-planet based (gravito- Actually, in the case of comet Halley this total ab- quantum) rotating space-warps is suitable for (i.e. not sence of any anomalous effect is not necessarily always incompatible with) a field based systemic representa- the case, because in the unlikely event of comet Hal- ley (with its current mass of 2.2 1014 kg) coming tion, that itself is (inevitably) centered at the solar ≈ × system barycentre. A systemic representation is use- within approximately: 2 AU of Jupiter, or 0.8 AU of ful for determining speed shortfall cf. predicted speed Saturn, or 0.55 AU of Neptune, there will be ‘some’ (in the absence of rotating space-warps). influence — only one Sun-planet-moon system in the We shall see that non-local mass, in the field, varies case of Saturn and Neptune — because the distance with distance from each individual source (section 6.6), dependent mass cut-offs of the host planet’s moons whereas acceleration amplitude is fixed throughout the are no longer less than the comet’s total (‘condensed’)

field — although this (perturbation) acceleration does 331 vary cyclically/sinusoidally (over time at a point or Except for a (relatively very small) central near-field ‘hole’. point mass) as the space-warp rotates. 332Either side of an equilibrium acceleration value (that In this “constructive theory” (cf. principle theory) is) based upon general relativistic gravitation. approach, (non-local) mass and (RSW-based) acceler- 333Knowing the timing of each phase of the rotating space- warps’ amplitude is required. Unfortunately, these are not 329If we neglect the presence of GR’s gravitational field. currently known, because only their superposition is easily 330The ontological understanding of intrinsic curvature accessible to observations. deserves further discussion. For our purposes we have en- 334This average anomalous acceleration or speed short- visaged an imaginary (number based) space dimension, into fall rate, acting upon all (celestially) bodies of sufficiently which space effectively deforms. This conceptualisation is low mass, physically coexists with the (on-going) resultant not inconsistent with GR, and it is related to the discussion ‘summation’ of the acceleration/gravitational field (pertur- in section 4.5. bation) amplitudes of the various rotating space-warps. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 105 mass. Note that these aforementioned distance val- the total supplementary field energy over the course of ues were determined by way of interpolating the data a single lunar loop/cycle. Note that use of ∆a previ- (presented later) in Table 7 of subsection 6.6.6. ously (especially in Section 3) is replaced by ∆aw from here on — see subsection 6.5.2 for justification. 6.5 The physical model quantified: It can also be said that a (‘defining’ radius or) reference radius 8πro effectively represents a ‘dividing- external (real) energy radius’ between the near-field and far-field regions of In this section the acceleration/gravitational ampli- the model, with our interest dominated by the far- 336 tudes of the rotating space-warps (RSWs) are deter- field . Speaking of a rotating space-warp in terms mined, and the nature and coexistence of these accel- analogous to a fluid mechanical vortex: we have a erations are discussed. Issues concerning (non-local) space-warp external to an (inner) tube rather than ex- mass shall be discussed in section 6.6. Unless other- ternal to a linear (one dimensional) filament. wise specified a single RSW is the basis of any (rotat- The geometry-based assumptions presented in this ing space-warp based) discussion in this section. section are necessary if we are to make the model match the awkward observational evidence. Once −1 −1 6.5.1 Geometry’s other role in the (semi- again the small angle tan (8π) is important; this time in conjunction with two sides of a right triangle: empirical) model i.e. lunar semi-major axis length ro, and the (geomet- In addition to determining internal geometric phase rically unique) reference length 8πro. 1 offset (β) and virtual angular momentum ( 2 ¯hw), geometry plays a further important role in the model. 6.5.2 The use of a weighted acceleration This is unavoidable for two main reasons. Firstly, the rotating space-warp needs to exhibit dispersion Previously (section 3.2) we used δa to denote the with increasing distance away from the warp’s lunar- spacecraft’s speed change over time (in response to a planetary source. Secondly, the energy of a rotating single space-warp) and ∆a to denote the warp ampli- space-warp comprises both: a non-spherical (planar- tude. The latter is now expressed as ∆aw, because it based) rotating space-warp of (constant) amplitude is a weighted acceleration: ∆aw =∆aoη where ∆ao is ∆a, and a presumably spherical (non-local) mass dis- the optimum acceleration amplitude, i.e. the acceler- tribution. We shall need to appease, or at least un- ation amplitude corresponding to β = π where η = 1. derstand, this (spherical vs. non-spherical) situation Importantly, we recall (Equation 9, subsection 3.2.11) which ostensibly involves a geometric conflict. that ∆a = δa , which is now written as: ∆aw = δa . |1 | | | The external expression of total internal virtual Just as 2 ¯h represents the (maximum) internal un- QM energy (∆Ew), as a (real) rotating space-warp certainty or ‘wiggle’ room (of a single atom/molecule’s and non-local mass distribution, is a ‘hybrid’ energy, intrinsic angular momentum), (so) the amplitude ∆ao 1 2 2 involving mass and specific energy (∆e = 2 ∆a ∆t ) is seen to represent the corresponding (maximum) ex- separately — although not independently. ternal (acceleration/gravitational field) ‘wiggle’ room We shall now argue that both: the magnitude of of a single rotating space-warp. Further, the same ∆a, and the non-local (initial) mass (associated with internal efficiency factor (η) is reproduced externally ∗ a given initial volume) m1, are dependent upon a ref- upon ∆ao, rather than with regard to the total energy erence (or ‘yardstick’) radius from a moon-planet sys- ∆Ew. The empirical model demands this ‘physical’ 1 1 tem, and hence the volume enclosed within this radius connection between 2 ¯h and ∆ao or 2 ¯hw and ∆aw — — with this reference radius determined by geomet- i.e. (internal) intrinsic angular momentum and (ex- ric circumstances. Additionally, cycle (or closed loop) ternal) acceleration field amplitude. This is further time ∆t acts as a reference (or ‘yardstick’) time. The discussed in subsection 6.5.6. determination of this (new) reference radius follows. Geometry and differentiation give us the fact that: 6.5.3 The geometric determination of the derivative of spherical surface area (S) with respect weighted acceleration (∆a ) to radius is: dS/dr = 8πr. If we set r equal to lunar w 335 orbital semi-major axis radius (ro), the radius 8πro We now turn our attention to the (geometric) deter- describes a unique radius. In the model this (geomet- mination of ∆ao, and hence ∆aw where ∆aw = η∆ao. rically unique) radius sets the ‘initial’ (non-local) mass A right triangle comprising sides: ro and 8πro, and −1 −1 value (for an initial volume and surface area). In sub- angle: φ = 2θopt = tan (8π) is used to establish section 6.5.2 we see that this radius also establishes ∆ao. We utilise a reference point that is 8πro dis- 337 the constant ∆aw value associated with each moon. tant from a moon-planet’s orbital centre . Thus, the The (overall) energy of a rotating space-warp, and the moon’s centre, during its orbital motion, subtends a (initial) non-local mass associated with it, is: (maximum) angle φ relative to this external (geometrically established) reference point — see Figure 11. 1 ∗ 2 2 ∆Ew = m1∆aw∆t (18) 2 336 How to treat the near-field (i.e. r < 8πro) remains far ∗ where m1 represents non-local mass at 8πro (= r1 say), from clear, and is not considered herein. One possibility is ∆aw is a weighted acceleration amplitude, and ∆Ew is as a hole in an infinite field. 337Dominating the model are the large moons of the gas 335 We use the variable ro in preference to a or ra to denote and ice giant planets, whose planet centres are very nearly the length of the lunar semi-major axis. the moon-planet (reduced mass) orbital centres. 106 Paul G. ten Boom

Table 5: Weighted lunar space-warp acceleration amplitude and associated values.

MOON Symbol Units Io Europa G’mede Callisto Titan Triton Mass M (1021 kg) 89.32 48.00 148.19 107.59 134.55 21.4 j 9 Semi-major axis ro (10 m) 0.4218 0.6711 1.0704 1.8827 1.2219 0.3548 −8 −2 Optimum acceleration ∆ao (10 cm s ) 39.821 8.4537 10.2590 2.4076 7.1485 13.487 Efficiency η (–) 0.1290 0.2590 0.5219 0.7826 0.4683 0.0309 l −8 −2 k Weighted acceleration ∆aw (10 cm s ) 5.139 2.190 5.354 1.884 3.348 0.416 j Semi-major axis data, usually denoted as a, is taken from the “Planetary Satellites Mean Orbital Parameters” page of the JPL Solar System Dynamics web site (http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov). Data for Titan (1221865 km) and Triton (354759 km) exceed the significant figures in the table. k Although Triton’s retrograde motion ‘opposes’ l the other major moons’ rotations, its contribution to ∆aw is considered ‘positive’. Note that square root of the − − − − summation of squared (weighted) acceleration is 8.64 10 8 cm s 2 without Triton, and 8.65 10 8 cm s 2 with × × −8 −2 Triton’s contribution; as compared to the Pioneer anomaly’s quoted magnitude of ap = 8.74 1.33 10 cm s . ± ×

Reference point Planet’s centre We deﬁne the maximum variation in gravitational acceleration (∆ao), around a mean value, as occurring between r1 = 8πro and r = 8πro ro. Remembering ± Lunar orbit that ro (cf. standard notation ra or a) is the lunar semi-major axis, and letting r2 = 8πro + ro the varia- I tan1 8S 1 tion, or wiggle room, in acceleration is: 1 1 2 ro ∆ao = GM 2 2 GM 3 r1 − r2 ≈ r1 or alternatively:

−4 GM 2G M 8S rroo ∆ao = 1.18843 10 2 3 2 (19) × ro ≈ (8π) ro Our constructive empirical model asserts that this ac- rr1 8S o ro celeration magnitude has a correspondence to both: the maximum intrinsic virtual angular momentum off- 1 set, i.e. 2 ¯h; and also a one quarter QM (fermion) wavelength offset (i.e. π rad). Table 5 presents the various r2 8S rroo ∆ao and ∆aw values of the moons dominating the Pi- oneer anomaly. Note that the efficiency values are as −11 3 −1 −2 Figure 11: Schematic diagram showing the model’s per Table 3, and G 6.67428 10 m kg s . ≈ × (new) angular based reference point which is used Regarding the moons of Uranus, the largest −8 −2 to determine rotating space-warp (RSW) acceleration weighted acceleration value is 0.132 10 cm s for × amplitudes. This reference point is 8πro distant from Titania, the eighth largest moon of the solar system. a planet’s centre, where ro is the lunar semi-major axis All the other moons of Uranus have values less than −8 −2 (length). Note that the eccentricity of (large moon) lu- 0.10 10 cm s . Thus, their quantitative contribu- × nar orbits is very small. The variation in gravitational tion to the root sum squared based determination of acceleration over a 2ro range is used to determine the the Pioneer anomaly (ap) is negligible. rotating space-warp acceleration amplitudes (∆a). 6.5.4 The model’s acceleration as compared to MOND’s acceleration The ‘fixed’ value of the space-warp’s optimum ampli- From the Newtonian gravitation approximation: tude (∆ao) should not be confused with the additional −8 −2 fixed acceleration (a0 1.2 10 cm s ) associ- ≈ × F GM ated with a modified Newtonian dynamics (or MOND) = a = m r2 based approach to spiral galaxy equilibrium — which presumes the non-existence of dark matter (Milgrom − where m is a test mass (e.g. a spacecraft) and M 2006). Acceleration drops off as r 2 in NMs, and as is lunar mass, we may determine (to good accuracy), r−1 in the MOND low acceleration regime of spiral at the reference distance, half the total variation (i.e. galaxies; whereas in our model the supplementary ac- 1 2∆a) in acceleration due to the moon’s orbit. celeration is constant (i.e. it ‘drops off’ as r0). 2 × A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 107

Unlike MOND’s force based approach to grav- The use of a (square) root (of) sum of squares itation, or rather gravitational modification338 , the (RSS) approach implies the (constant amplitude) new model’s spatially constant (sinusoidal) accelera- space-warps are uncorrelated — which is non- tion (amplitude) allows it to achieve a universality problematic. Somewhat problematically, there is also that is beyond GR’s scope. This is because the com- the implication that the speed changes induced by the prehensiveness of GR’s approach to gravitation is un- various space-warps upon a moving body, are in some avoidably local, whereas the model’s local uniformity other sense orthogonal to each other — as is the case is compatible with non-locality — including quantum with motion in three dimensions340, or a (quantum me- mechanical (spin entanglement based) non-locality. chanical) Hilbert space. The issue of concern is that the various speed changes all act along the same ve- 6.5.5 Overall effective acceleration value locity vector (or path vector) of a given spacecraft. arising from multiple space-warps We shall hypothesize that this (elegant) RSS approach is how the superposition of the rotating space- Subsections 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 discussed how spacecraft warps is made physical for a moving body (of suffi- motion at a geometric angle to the plane of the rotating ciently low mass). This assertion is supported by: space-warps (RSWs), as determined by their lunar or- 1. the QM (energy) origins of the rotating space- bital planes, is quantitatively equivalent to a spacecraft warps and their associated non-local mass, or body moving in the plane of the (various) lunar or- bits339. Thus, the weighted acceleration amplitudes of 2. the agreement of the model with the observational evidence (see section 2.4 especially)341 . the model’s (major) space-warps (∆aw) applies without alteration, although a correction to the idealised model for the geometric inclination of the line-of-sight 6.5.6 On the hypothesised relationship 1 observations to the spacecraft path vector is required. between 2 ¯h and ∆ao This issue is further discussed in subsection 6.5.8. The manner in which these space-warps act to- The model’s proposed relationship between a maximum/optimum virtual intrinsic angular momentum gether upon a moving body’s kinetic energy requires 1 an explanation — which now follows. offset ( 2 ¯h) and the magnitude of an optimum rotating space-warp’s amplitude (∆ao), or between (non- We recall from subsection 3.2.12 that 1 2 2 2 1 1 optimal/actual) 2 ¯hw and ∆aw is now examined. This 2 ∆a ∆t = 2 δv , where δv is the loss of a moving body’s (spacecraft) translational speed in one subsection shall argue that it is a unique (and new type cycle (i.e. rotation of the warp) — albeit for a single of) physical relationship. rotating space-warp. This new relationship is the (non-local) backbone In subsections 3.2.13, 3.5.2 and 3.6.2, for multiple of the ‘new’ physics presented herein. It relates rotating space-warps, a root sum of squares (RSS) ap- to the fact that in the model: collective (virtual) proach was signalled. Recalling Equation 12: QM spin is (effectively) entangled with the (macroscopic) RSW’s acceleration/gravitational field ampli-

2 2 tude. This (one-way) non-local physical interrelation- ap = ap(t)= (δaproper)i = (∆afield)i q q ship is qualitatively distinct/separate from the model’s X X quantitative overarching microscopic-to-macroscopic and substituting the various ∆a values of Table 5, w energy equality (Equation 16), with the latter pertain- which equal the ∆a values — whilst noting that field ing to a (one-way) energy re-expression and (also) uni- the δaproper values are alternatively written (simply) versal/systemic energy conservation. as δa — we establish (for the idealised model) that: The following discussion examines four primary physical ‘quantities’ and their units or (more specifi- 2 −8 −2 ap = (∆aw) = 8.65 10 cm s i × cally their) dimensionality, with the latter expressed qX in terms of the ‘fundamental’ (mechanistic) dimen- which is within the error bars of the quoted value of the sions342 of: mass, length, and time343. −8 −2 Pioneer anomaly, i.e. ap = 8.74 1.33 10 cm s . ML −8 −2 −10 −2 1. Linear momentum (p), Bear in mind that: 1 10 cm s± = 1× 10 m s . T × × 2 Note that in the absence of the rotating space- ML 2. Angular momentum (L), T warps from the five other (primary) moons, Triton’s h i RSW would necessarily (also) retard the motion of 340For example, an overall (or ‘resultant’) velocity mag- (sufficiently low mass) bodies. Thus, although Tri- nitude is the square root of the squared values of speed in ton’s retrograde motion (around Neptune) and asso- 2 2 2 the x, y, and z directions — so that v = vx + vy + vz . ciated retrograde RSW oppose the direction of lunar 341 Noting that temporal variation in app, around its very prograde RSWs, the root sum of squares approach (to long-term constant value, are ‘integral’ to the model (recall quantifying ap) is seen to remain valid. See subsection subsection 3.6.8); and that the resonance of Jupiter’s moons 3.5.4 for why Triton’s largely negligible contribution leads to only a minor smoothing effect (recall subsection may actually be one of destructive interference. 3.6.5). 342Units tend to be specific like speed in metres per sec- 338This includes modification of a particle’s inertia (under ond, whereas the word ‘dimensions’ is better suited to non- the action of a force) — whatever that physically entails. specific and generalised ‘units’ such as: mass, length, and 339This is fortuitous because Jupiter and Saturn’s equa- time. torial planes are not parallel; additionally, Jupiter and Sat- 343Distinguishing between vector and scalar quantities is urn’s orbital inclination (to the ecliptic plane) are unequal. not of importance in this discussion. 108 Paul G. ten Boom

ML 344 3. Force (F ), T2 tween angular momentum (L) and force (F ) . In the model we have needed to relate angular momentum, 2 ML in the form of (a proportion of) 1 ¯h to an accelera- 4. Energy (E) and Torque (τ), 2 2 T L h i tion ∆aw, with the latter’s dimensionality, i.e. [ T 2 ], In physics, especially electromagnetism and par- equivalent to a specific force (F/m). Thus, this is a ticle physics, (instantaneous linear) particle momen- new and unique relationship; a systemic (i.e. global) tum (p) is related to particle energy (E) by way of relationship unique to the model, that is implied (indi- (multiplying/dividing) the particle’s speed — which rectly) by way of “best-fitting” the observational evi- L dence. This relationship coexists with, facilitates, and has units/dimensions [ T ]. Relationships between the quantities: p and F , and L and E involve a differ- supports the use of conservation of (systemic/global) entiation/intergration with respect to time, whereas a energy as the main guiding principle of the model. Note that in the model, initial or starting non-local relationship between: F and E involves an integra- ∗ tion/differentiation with respect to distance (i.e. a mass (m1) is a fixed quantity, and thus the relationship length). Further, the relationship between p and L between angular momentum and a constant acceleration (amplitude) allows the establishment of a pseudo- (and F and Torque) utilises a cross product involving a ∗ radius arm vector. Thus far we have discussed five per- force term (F = m1∆aw) for each moon — not that it mutations involving pairs of the above four ‘primary’ is a physically relevant quantity. The primary quantities in the model’s mechanism are: ‘initial’ non-local physical quantities (p, L, F , and E) — see Figure 12. ∗ mass (m1), constant acceleration amplitude (∆aw), to- The use of ‘L’ and ‘L’ in conventional nomenclature to 1 denote angular momentum (as a vector) and the length tal (virtual) angular momentum ( 2 ¯hwNm), and total dimension (respectively) is somewhat unfortunate and (re-expressed) energy (∆Ew). Throw in the predom- should be noted. inantly linear momentum (p) of the (point mass-like) Pioneer spacecraft, at least over relatively short time spans (∆t), and the broad scope of the physical quantities comprising the model is evident. 2 dimensions [ML ] [ML ] 6.5.7 A comment upon dimensional variation and ‘reference’ quantities 1 p We note that to change a quantity from a linear mo- [ ] L mentum (p) to an energy expression (E) involves mul- T L tiplying by a quantity with dimensions [ T ] (i.e. speed, e.g. speed of light). By way of contrast, the phys- 1 ical link from a (microscopic) angular momentum to [ 2] a (macroscopic) pseudo force (mass times an accel- T F E ∗ eration, m ∆aw) involves altering the dimensions by 1 [ LT ]. The former change is well suited to the physics of particle motion, whereas the latter ‘re-expression’ — Where: p is linear momentum, also involving (only) one length and one time dimension — is unique to the new (non-graviton-particle, is angular momentum, L non-local, systemic) model proposed herein. F is force, and E is energy/torque. Once again, we note that the model involves an unusual re-expression of (systemic) atomic/molecular Figure 12: Tabular schematic representation of the di- angular momentum based energy, and has no place mensional contributions of mass, length and time with for a particle momentum based ‘force’ — as embraced regard to the quantities: linear momentum, angular and prioritised by the standard model and standard momentum, force and energy. For example, energy physics. 2 ML The coexistence of the physical re-expression of has dimensions of: [ 2 ]. This facilitates an under- T (virtual) intrinsic angular momentum as a (constant standing of the dimensional relationships existing be- amplitude) rotating space-warp with a non-local mass tween these quantities. A new relationship between (a component, in conjunction with the three particle- QM offset of) angular momentum (L) and Force (F ) based forces of the standard model does not deny — or rather acceleration (F/m) — is central to the the model’s implementation of an additional (hidden) model proposed in this paper. Unfortunately, stan- background Euclidean frame (as discussed in section dard nomenclature dictates that ‘L’ and ‘L’ represent 4.4). This (‘idealised’) frame represents the flat space the (vector) physical ‘quantity’ of angular momentum, circumstances that exist in the absence of all matter and the length dimension (respectively); this subtle and measurable energy effects. Although not physi- difference should be noted. 344Admittedly, this discussion is fast and loose, with (more specific) quantities such as impulse, tension, and heat (for example) not mentioned; but our interest lies in the sixth (and final) permutation — involving any two of these four The only one of six permutations omitted from a primary physical quantities — rather than further instan- conceivable relationship, is a (direct) relationship be- tiations of the permutations already recognised. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 109 cally ‘realised’, it is conceivable as well as formally and that is orthogonal to the space-warp’s axis of rotation. conceptually useful. In a nutshell, we employ a global In short, the model is extended to the motion of (pas- ‘pseudo-frame’ with an associated (global) pseudo- sive ‘gravitational’) mass in three spatial dimensions. time, in order to allow us to quantify the (equal) energy Earlier (subsection 6.2.2) we were able to extend of both: a (coherent and collective) QM fermion ‘wave’ the space-warp’s (presence and) influence to having a (phase) offset (achieved over a given cycle time), and more than minimal thickness — i.e. we went beyond a macroscopic rotating space-warp. its idealised planar instantiation. Regardless of how It can be argued that for the dimensional ‘multi- far the (moving) Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft (S/C) L 1 pliers’ of [ T ] and [ LT ] to coexist non-problematically lie from the ecliptic plane, and regardless of their veloc- in nature, a systemic reference frame and a systemic ity vector’s inclination to the ecliptic plane, the model time unit must exist, and upon this stage (hidden from suggests they will ‘receive’ the rotating space-warps observations) particle motion (also) occurs. It is ulti- full influence346 (recall subsection 6.2.1). Similarly, mately the observation of quantum non-locality, and within a given plane, e.g. the ecliptic plane, there is the role of non-locality in the model, that demands no variation of anomalous speed shortfall arising from a (‘noumenal’) simultaneous background/hidden time the direction of motion; radial and circumferential mo- be instantiated — both theoretically and ontologically. tion are equally affected. Our geometry based model has required the intro- The ubiquitous nature of the Pioneer anomaly duction of a (geometrically significant) reference length (motion shortfall rate347) means there is no correction (8πro) and a (physically significant) reference cycle required for S/C motion inclined to each specific lunar time (∆t), as compared to the standard model’s use orbital plane. But, this shortfall is attenuated if the of (what may be called) a “reference speed” — i.e. the spacecraft’s path/velocity vector is inclined (i.e. not speed of light (c) which, along with Planck’s constant, aligned) with the line-of-sight Doppler observations. is a universal (i.e. global) constant. The model also This is inevitably the case with Pioneer 10 and 11 and − − requires a reference angle tan 1(8π) 1, which can also thus the observed Pioneer anomaly will be different to be thought of as a ‘dimensionless’ ratio of two lengths: the full path only based effect (see Table 6). 8πro and (lunar semi-major axis length) ro — the non- Since Jupiter’s Galilean moons dominate the hypotenuse sides of a right triangle. Interestingly, the anomaly, and Jupiter’s equatorial plane is inclined at standard model has no ‘universal’ angle, i.e. an angle only 1.3o to the ecliptic plane, we shall (when loosely of particular importance; and it is geometry, with the speaking) refer to the ecliptic plane when using a single assistance of energy conservation, that has primarily plane to ‘represent’ a plane to which the majority of allowed us to relate a (supplementary) gravitational various lunar orbits, and hence rotating space-warps, phenomenon to a quantum mechanical circumstance. are closely parallel. Recalling section 4.3, hopefully the reader now accepts that to simply assume “measurements are real- 6.5.9 Lesser importance ascribed to the ity (without remainder)”, and hence to embrace GR’s general covariance as indicative of a characteristic Pioneer 11 navigation experiment 345 of reality-in-itself , is conceivably a non-progressive There are two (interconnected) reasons for assigning stance — at least in the specific case of the Pioneer the Pioneer 11 results a considerably lesser degree of anomaly. To only accept GR’s stance on time nec- confidence (and significance) than the Pioneer 10 data; essarily leads to a complete denial of the new model the Pioneer 10 data is discussed in subsection 6.5.10. hypothesised. In the case of a real Pioneer anomaly, Firstly, by way of quoting Anderson et al. (2002, p.23) it appears that only by way of enriching Nature’s on- “. . . the [Pioneer 11] data was relatively noisy, was from tology, and appreciating the limitations of locality and much closer to the Sun, and was taken during a period observational evidence, can a viable and progressive of high solar activity. We also do not have the same scientific explanation be achieved. handle on spin-rate change effects as we did for Pioneer 10.” Secondly and significantly, the final value given 6.5.8 Extending the modelling of the Pio- by Anderson et al. (2002, pp.39-40) for the Pioneer neer spacecraft to three dimensions anomaly (aP ) omits the Pioneer 11 data completely, and only uses the Pioneer 10 data. In this paper (and generally) the word ‘dimension’ is Anderson et al. (2002, p.37) mention that: “. . . the used both as a (non-specific/generalised) unit, and as [annual variation] is particularly large in the out-of- an ontological (and conceptual) aspect of reality. We ecliptic voyage of Pioneer 11 . . . ”; whereas one can now return to its (latter and) more common meaning, (just as easily) retort, by way of Olsen (2007, p.396), especially regarding space. that: “. . . the results for Pioneer 11 show no clear an- When visualising a (macroscopic) rotating space- nual variation of the anomalous acceleration.” These warp, it has been useful to think in terms of an (ide- two opposing viewpoints, regarding Pioneer 11’s ‘an- alised two [then actually three] dimensional) perturba- nual’ variation in anomalous acceleration (aP ), high- tion upon either: an (idealised) uncurved flat space, light a lack of consensus amongst different data anal- or the pre-existing general relativistic gravitational field. We now quantitatively extend the model’s pla- 346For example, the Ulysses spacecraft. nar gravitational/accelerational (perturbation) influ- 347For ‘low mass’ bodies, whose mass is below a “mass ence to spacecraft (S/C) motion inclined to a plane cut-off threshold”, and recalling that the ‘shortfall rate’ is relative to a predicted motion (that assumes no anoma- 345Or alternatively, “all there is” to reality. lous/additional physical effect). 110 Paul G. ten Boom

Table 6: Approximate corrections to the idealised Pioneer acceleration (ap) for spacecraft path inclination (i.e. angular offset) relative to Doppler line-of-sight observations. The corrections are approximate because the angles for the line-of-sight observations are idealised, in that they are considered to be taken from the barycentre/heliocentre cf. the Earth’s surface (at 1 AU). We seek to correct the (one-dimensional) total (gravito-quantum rotating space- 1 2 2 −8 −2 warp) acceleration amplitude (∆aw) = 8.649 10 cm s , which [via (∆aw)i =(δa)i] is also idealised ap, i × for both solar ecliptic latitudeP and longitude. Only the longitude is significant, arising from the hyperbolic nature of the spacecraft’s path out of the solar system (recall Figure 2). With the Pioneer 10 and 11 path inclination to solar ecliptic latitude (as measured from the heliocentre) being of the order of: less than 1 degree and about 1.5 degrees respectively, the cosines of these angular differences are effectively negligible; subsequently, they are of no significant consequence in the post-correction “observable ap” results given in the last column of the table.

m n n n o Spacecraft Date Radius SE Latitude SE Longitude Angle [ϕ] cos ϕ Observable ap Units [D–M–Y] AU degrees degrees degrees — 10−8 cm s−2 × Pioneer 10 01 Jan 80 20.54 3.141 59.67 23 0.9205 7.96p Pioneer 10 01 Jan 87 40.01 3.105 70.99 12 0.9781 8.46 Pioneer 10 22 Jul 98 70.51 3.044 76.45 7 0.9925 8.58

Pioneer 11 01 Jan 87 22.39 16.58 254.93 33 0.8387 7.25q Pioneer 11 01 Oct 90 31.70 16.07 265.66 23 0.9205 7.96q

m Time of day is 00:00 UT (i.e. Universal Time). n Information is derived from JPL’s HORIZONS system, and o is consistent with lo and bo given in Table III of Anderson et al. (2002, p.45, Appendix). Further approximation arises because the (in plane) ‘inclination’ angles were determined (by the author, simply) by drawing the S/C path and the Sun-to-spacecraft line and then measuring the angle of inclination. This (approximate) approach gives angles that are only accurate to the nearest whole degree. p This slightly lower value is well within the noise of the observations — as evidenced by the variation in aP results for the three intervals I, II and III comprising the 1987 to 1998 data set (Anderson et al. 2002, Table 1, p.22). q The model’s low Pioneer 11 values are of concern but there are strong mitigating circumstances (see discussion within subsection 6.5.9).

yses of temporal variation in Pioneer 11’s aP value. Note that the model’s average value for the ob- Such a difference of opinion supports this subsection’s served anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 11 between main contention that: considerably lesser importance 1987 and late 1990 is349: should be (and indeed has been) ascribed to the Pi- −8 −2 (ap11)model = 7.61 0.66 10 cm s oneer 11 navigation experiment (cf. the Pioneer 10 ± × navigation experiment). The recent paper by Turyshev et al. (2011) relies This average (additional/‘anomalous’) roughly heavily upon results from Pioneer 11. Subsequently, sunward and line-of-sight based ‘acceleration’ value their findings that the Pioneer anomaly is: non path- (for Pioneer 10) is most appropriately understood as based, and exhibits a reduction/decay in its magni- a measured (cf. actual path-based) total loss of speed tude over time — so as to be supportive of a heat- over a duration of time, rather than as a (constant) based explanation — is not seen as a definitive rebut- force based acceleration. Actually, the full acceleration (8.65 10−8 cm s−2) is directed against the path of the tal/refutation of the hypothesis (and model) of a real × Pioneer anomaly pursued throughout this paper. Pioneer 10 (and 11) spacecraft — which happens to be a hyperbola whose direction is predominantly radial, i.e. away from the solar system’s barycentre. 6.5.10 Corrected acceleration For non-radial spacecraft motion it is conceivable By way of Table 6 the model’s average value for the ob- that the spacecraft’s rate of spin rotation might change served anomalous acceleration, of Pioneer 10 between with ap(t), as implied by the observational evidence — 1987 and 1998, is: recall subsection 3.5.5. −8 −2 (ap)model =(ap10)model = 8.52 0.66 10 cm s ± × 6.5.11 A possible minor correction for the which displays the modelling error348 argued for in partial non-solidity of lunar bodies subsection 6.1.3. This magnitude is a sound quantitative match to the “headline” Pioneer anomaly accel- The analysis (thus far) has assumed/idealised moons eration: to be 100% solid bodies, although not necessarily rigid bodies — (the latter) so as to allow tidal effects to −8 −2 (aP )observation = 8.74 1.33 10 cm s ± × 349The orbit determination program of Toth (2009, p.18) 348Possibly “uncertainty of the model” is a better expres- generates a similar difference between the Pioneer 10 and sion. 11 values: 9.03 vs. 8.21 (× 10−10 m/s2) respectively. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 111

achieve tidal locking (i.e. moon-planet orbital reso- ‘component’ ∆aw (= δa) values are determined (in the ∗ nance). The non-solid aspects of a lunar body, e.g. model) with better accuracy than either ∆Ew, m1, or ∗ molten core and/or mantle, vulcanism, and the pres- the various m (r) distribution values discussed in sec- ence of water, have not been fully appreciated. For ex- tion 6.6 and given in Table 7. ample, Io and Ganymede are considered to have (partial) molten and liquid cores respectively, whereas Eu- ropa, Callisto and Titan are considered to have (or pos- 6.6 Non-local mass distribution sibly have) an internal (relatively thin) layer of liquid water350 deep beneath their ice crusts. Nevertheless, This section continues the quantification of the macro- the vast majority of matter in these five large moons scopic physical model, involving a number of rotating central to the model is solid (surely > 95%), gen- space-warps (RSWs) in superposition, and the non- erally comprising rocky material (especially silicates) local mass distribution associated with each particular and water ice. RSW. The following discussion of non-local mass needs Internal and/or surface motions of material (com- to clearly distinguish mass from (ordinary/non-exotic) prising atoms/molecules) within or upon a moon, i.e. matter, in the sense of matter being a tangible or ob- non-gravitational lunar-based motions, will (conceiv- servable physical ‘substance’ that: occupies space, has ably) fail to keep the (atomic/molecular) geometric rest mass, and is comprised of “building blocks” (or is phase shifts (per spin/orbital cycle) to the minimal vir- itself a building block) — e.g. a moon, a lake, a grain tual level so crucial to the model — recall the numer- of sand, an atom, an electron, or a quark. ous and tight constraints outlined in subsection 5.6.3. Thus, the number of molecules/atoms (Nm) in a bulk lunar body contributing to the energy of the (gravito- 6.6.1 Background to non-local mass quantum) rotating space-warps will (in all likelihood) be reduced from the model’s ideal values given in Ta- To distinguish non-local mass from standard (bary- ∗ ble 4 — which assumed a completely (100%) solid (and onic) mass we indicate it as: m . The non-particle-like 353 considerably rigid) bulk lunar body351. nature of the model’s non-local mass effect , means Fortunately, because the amplitude of the vari- that it is associated with both: conditions at a point in a (space) field; and also a distribution effect through- ous rotating space-warps (∆aw) is dependent upon to- ∗ ∗ tal lunar mass (M) rather than the total number of out space [m (r)]. We shall see that m (r) exists at atoms/molecules comprising a ‘solid’ body (recall sub- every point upon a spherical surface that encloses a section 6.5.3), any correction arising from lunar non- volume (of specified radius r). As is the case with ∗ ∗ solidity is restricted to only altering values of m1 and time, the ‘essence’ of m shall not be of major concern herein; rather, our major concern is with the model’s ∆Ew. Corrections to the (Pioneer anomalous) acceler- ∗ ation value ap — based upon a path to observational quantification of m , particularly its spatial variation. ∗ line-of-sight angle (see Table 6 and subsection 6.5.10) Note that m has its basis in the mass ‘dimension’ — are also independent of Nm. The model’s pre- of Dirac’s constant ¯h, which appears in the (total) vir- correction ‘acceleration’ value (or rather speed short- tual QM energy expression (Equation 16, section 6.3). 1 2 2 −8 −2 The geometric basis of the model ensures that non- fall rate) ap = (∆aw) = 8.65 10 cm s × local mass is best understood in association with the — as quoted in subsectionP 6.5.5 and determined from weighted acceleration values in Table 5 — is effectively total volume enclosed by the ‘establishment’ (or reference) distance from the source (r1 = 8πro). With its a fixed (or immutable) quantity. ∗ volume dependence, m is somewhat like the density Unlike many other scientific models applied to M of standard matter — which has dimensions: [ 3 ]. In anomalous observations in need of an explanation, the ∗ L model has no ‘flexible’ parameters that can be easily the spirit of QMs, the introduction of m means that adjusted or ‘tweaked’. In other words, the model’s ‘mass’ is exhibiting a (local–nonlocal) duality — rather than (i.e. as distinct from) a wave–particle duality354. primary quantity (ap), i.e. the full anomalous acceleration magnitude acting along the path vector of a mov- The distribution of non-local mass (at any point) ing body (not corrected for the observational line-of- in the field is assumed to be continuous, and change sight)352, is essentially closed to (theoretical or) model- very gradually between neighbouring regions. Of spe- based parameter adjustments. Further, we note that cial importance is the change in the magnitude of non- Nm is the (celestial physical) quantity whose magni- local mass as one moves away from its ‘source’ (or ini- tude is known with (by far) the least accuracy. With tial/establisment) surface and volume, and thus, there ap not directly dependent upon ‘participating’ Nm, its is a need for a (non-local) mass distribution function. This is addressed from subsection 6.6.5 onwards. 350Assisted by the presence of antifreezes, e.g. ammonia. 351Although, if the external/extrinsic imposition upon ‘in- 353I am reluctant to say non-local mass has a (classical) ternal’ geometric phase, by way of its virtual ‘nature’, is ‘wave-like’ nature because ‘wave’ implies a transport of en- completely independent of quantum mechanical dynamical ergy, whereas we only require the wave characteristic of be- phase, then the macroscopic entanglement effect (associ- ing a de-localised phenomena, i.e. one spread out in space. ated with it) may well remain at 100%, and as such there 354Possibly, a (non-reductionist) local–nonlocal duality is would be no correction required for (partial) non-solidity. more general than the wave–particle duality. Such a du- 352 That is, ap as given is subsection 6.5.5, as compared ality or complementarity has been discussed in relation to to the (Pioneer 10 based) ‘observational’ (ap)model value the Aharonov–Bohm effect by Aharonov & Reznik (2000, given in subsection 6.5.10. Abstract) — albeit with a different emphasis ‘in mind’. 112 Paul G. ten Boom

6.6.2 Comments regarding the governing For a given space-warp the magnitude of the total energy expression field energy ∆Ew is independent of position (r) in the field, even though (in the formalism) a specific radius In the expression for the total supplementary field en- ∗ (r = r1) is implicitly associated with m1. This is be- ergy of a rotating space-warp (and its conjoint mass): cause non-local mass — which is unlike standard (iner- 1 ∗ tial, passive and active gravitational) mass — requires ∆E = m ∆a2 ∆t2 w 2 1 w an initial reference radius (recall section 6.5). Never- theless, rather than a total field energy, we can still (i.e. Equation 18, section 6.5) the mass and accelera- conceive of a (non-local) field energy at points in the ∗ ∗ ∗ tion components are separate (recall subsection 6.4.1). field: (say) Efield(r)= mr∆ew, which varies with mr . The total scalar energy ∆Ew can be understood as We also recollect that this energy — which pertains simply a ‘mass’ multiplied by specific energy. That is: to a single rotating space-warp and non-local mass ∗ distribution — is process based, i.e. occurring over ∆Ew = m1∆ew ∗ ∆t. Thus, equating this energy Efield(r) [or rather ∗ The specific energy (∆ew) is comprised of (a sinu- (Er )component, using the nomenclature of Section 7] soidal) acceleration amplitude and cyclic duration (∆t) to the notion of gravitational energy (at a point in and it is essentially always fixed, because of the dynam- the field) is nonsensical; as is (the case with) grav- ically ‘stable’ moon-planet-Sun celestial systems in our itational energy at a point in the field (at a given ∗ solar system355. Note that m is actually non-local time) in general relativity. In stark contrast to this, 1 o mass at the (initial) ‘establishment’ radius, i.e. the we have the well defined specific energy of a (360 ) reference radius, r1 = 8πro; further, we signify V1 as rotating space-warp — in two and three dimensions 1 2 2 the spherical volume enclosed within this radius. Thus, — i.e. ∆e = 2 ∆aw∆t , which is invariant through- upon establishment of the space-warp, all quantities: out ‘space’ and effectively fixed/constant throughout ∗ 1 2 2 (cosmologically recent) ‘time’. ∆Ew, m1, and ∆ew = 2 ∆aw∆t may be considered fixed, i.e. (long-term) constant values. 6.6.4 Global or universal aspects of the 6.6.3 Total energy constancy, and the con- wave-like non-local mass distribution ceivable dispersion of non-local mass Just as ∆ew fills the whole of space (i.e. the universe), The external counterpart of the mass aspect of the to- ∗ the mechanism’s non-local mass (mr ) also fills the uni- tal excess (non-inertial) QM (intrinsic angular momen- ∗ verse. For points r>r1 (i.e. in the far-field) the as- tum based) energy (∆Ew) is m1. The (total energy) ∗ sociated (spherical) enclosed volume and surface area equality: ∆Ew = m1∆ew is assumed to (only) apply increase in magnitude relative to the initial reference at every ‘point’ on the initial (spherical) surface and conditions (where r = r1). In analogy with classical not throughout the (spatial) field exterior to the initial 356 ∗ mechanics, we hypothesise the notion of energy dissipa- radius , i.e. r>r1. Further, the magnitude of m1 is tion, and hence (non-local) mass dispersion, as we ex- associated with an initial (enclosed) volume (V1). amine conditions at points progressively further away Note that if we (were to) propose an equality, in- from the source, or rather ‘core’, of the non-local mass volving a surface energy, such that (at r = r1): distribution. This core is the (initial and) minimum ∗ volume (and surface area) of the mass component of ∆E =(E ) = γ S1 w w surface 1 the virtual QM energy’s externalisation. ∗ M then γ has dimensions [ 2 ]. Interestingly, both spring With ∆ew constant, a far field (pseudo)-energy at 1 T ∗ stiffness (K) and fluid mechanical surface tension (γ) a point in the field [(Er )component] is seen to vary in ∗ M proportion to m . The different physical ‘natures’ of also have dimensions [ T 2 ]. This notion is not pursued. r Physical circumstances pertaining to the space- non-local mass and acceleration/gravitational (field) warp’s energy description when r>r1 are quite dis- warp amplitude in the model means that this far-field tinct from the (r = r1) establishment conditions. Due energy cannot be localised. What can be asserted with to the very slow evolution of moon-planet-Sun celestial confidence is that total (QM-based) scalar energy ∆Ew systems, and the constancy of the various ∆aw values, is fixed/unchanged/constant (i.e. invariant) regardless the various (lunar) specific energies ∆ew can fortu- of the radius r, surface area S, or enclosed volume V nately be treated as a fixed quantity at every point considered. This scale independence of total (non-local throughout their respective rotating space-warp fields. mass and space-warp) energy arises from its (closed ∗ Thus, for r>r1 our concern lies with how m varies loop) QM virtual energy basis, and its real exterior with r, or rather (enclosed) spherical volume. We de- expression of universal extent or size — in that the ∗ ∗ note variable (and distributed) m as m (r) which is space-warp extends to infinity in the plane, and its ∗ ∗ ∗ abbreviated to mr ; with m (r1) written as m1. rotation axis also extends to infinity. It is (only) non- local mass that varies with (the) scale (considered) — 355 At least over human time scales, with these being of the thus incorporating all scales from an minimum/‘initial’ order of tens, hundreds, or thousands of years. The propor- reference (sub-universal) system, all the way up to the tion of non-solid matter in a moon also remains essentially ∗ full (universal) system (where r3 and m 0). fixed (recall subsection 6.5.11). → ∞ r → 356 The conditions interior to r = r1 shall not concern us This variation in non-local mass magnitude is neces- in this subsection, nor have they been of any significant sarily subject to another geometric constraint of the importance (to the model) elsewhere in this paper. model — see discussion in subsections 6.6.5 and 6.6.6. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 113

Note that these (spatially based) changes (in non- gates’ (and spreads) into the field/universe instanta- local mass) can only be apprehended by way of the neously. In other words, non-local mass is coexistent existence of a systemic (i.e. global and/or universal) throughout the field at any given (‘noumenal’) ‘sys- space continuum or space substratum357. Variation temic time’359. In accord with section 4.4 we may say ∗ ∗ in mr [or alternatively m (r)] by way of a variation that systemic time is a theoretical second time, for in the enclosed (spherical) volume (and indirectly sur- global (hidden) processes occurring between the mo- ∗ face area) is our prime concern; we note/recall that mr ments grasped by measurements — such that some (itself) describes conditions on the surface of the (en- processes (especially entanglement) appear, from an ∗ closed) volume. The magnitude and distribution of mr observational/‘phenomenal’ perspective, to involve in- has been constrained (and indirectly implied) by ob- stantaneous ‘interactions’ (and “action at a distance”). servation evidence (recall section 2.6) concerning small We have seen that the dissipation of total (non- comets of approximately 1 km diameter (with mass of local mass and gravitational/accelerational) field en- 2.6 1011 kg) apparently being (of the order of) the ergy lies solely in the (spatial) dispersion of the non- ∼ × ∗ largest size/mass of bodies ‘anomalously’ influenced. local mass term (mr ). Subsection 6.6.6 shall argue that at greater distances/volumes from a source there is a similar reduction in the (passive) mass of bod- 6.6.5 Quantifying the variation of non- ∗ ies (mp) that the space-warp’s conjoint/associated mr local mass with the enclosed volume 360 ∗ can affect . We shall see that non-local mass mr The inception, i.e. establishment, of a (single/specific) is markedly distinct/different from inertial mass mi rotating space-warp and non-local mass distribution and gravitational mass (both active and passive) mg, involves both: a reference (or minimal) enclosed vol- in that the equality mi = mg is not extended so as ∗ ∗ ume V1, and m1 — which is non-local mass at a dis- to include mr . In general, the non-local mass field value does not equal a body’s (local) mass value, i.e. tance r = r1 = 8πro from the space-warp’s central ∗ ∗ 358 m = mi and m = mg. point , where ro = ra i.e. lunar semi-major axis. r 6 r 6 Note that a rotating space-warp (slice in two di- The model proposes a (non-local mass) distribution 3 mensions) has a point-like centre of rotation (i.e. an function, with dimensions [ML ], of the form: origin), but there is no ‘point’ source (per se) for the ∗ ∗ m (r) V (r) = constant = m (8πr ) V (8πr ) space-warp’s (associated) non-local mass. The term o o ‘source’, rather than ‘origin’, shall designate the finite: or more succinctly: radius (r1), volume (V1), and surface area associated ∗ ∗ with the initialising/establishment of non-local mass. mr Vr = constant = m1 V1 (20) The relevance of this distinction is lessened when large ∗ ∗ radii from the centre of rotation are considered. where: m (r) or mr is the non-local mass value at The model has proposed/argued that: although (spherical) radius r, and V (r) or Vr is the volume en- ∗ closed within r. Once again we note that this distri- the non-local mass m1 in the expression for ∆Ew is a fixed quantity, the value of the non-local mass at bution function is restricted to r 8πro, i.e. r r1. ∗ −3 ≥ ≥ a point in the far-field (mr) diminishes as r (i.e. ∗ mr reduces with increased volume enclosed) for radii 6.6.6 Distribution equation ramifications r 8πro (i.e. r r1) away from the source of a ro- and values for the different moons tating≥ space-warp.≥ This is based upon observational evidence and theoretical compatibility with GR, the We can compare and contrast this non-local-mass distribution function/equation in space to one form of latter because the specific energy (∆ew) of the rotat- the continuity equation in fluid mechanics for a steady ing space-warp is the same throughout the field — at 361 least for stable lunar orbital conditions, and also be- flow: ρnAnun = Constant . This is a conservation of mass equation associated with (mass) motion in time, cause (cosmologically very short) time scales (∆t), of M the order of weeks, are involved. Recall that the quan- and has dimensions [ T ]. It follows that in one sense 3 tity ∆Ew — i.e. the virtual QM energy requiring ex- Equation 20 — with its dimensions/units of [ML ] — ternal ‘re-expression’ — only applies to non-local mass can conceivably be described as a spatial non-local- (and rotating space-warp) establishment — in that it mass continuity equation. ∗ contains the ‘initialising’ non-local mass value (m1). In Table 7 the variation of non-local mass with distance from its source is detailed. Each of these Herein we have been able to treat specific energy ∗ ∆ew as a constant. Slow changes in specific energy non-local masses (mr) are referred to as a “cut-off ∆ew, i.e. changes in either orbital time and/or acceler- mass”, because if the mass of a moving body (mp ation amplitude, propagate (and spread) into the field 359Except for a small central area (or tube in three dimen- at the speed of light. In contrast, the apparent simul- sions) of radius 8πro. taneity associated with quantum non-locality means 360“Passive mass” or “passive ‘gravitational’ mass” is now that, in ‘measurable time’, non-local mass ‘propa- being used in the sense of a mass (that also) responds to the new acceleration/gravitational fields proposed herein — in 357In the sense discussed in subsection 4.4.10. addition to standard gravitation. 358The central point of the space-warp generator/emitter 361Where: n = 1, 2, 3,... , ρ is fluid density, A is flow area, is probably the moon’s centre, but possibly it is the centre and u is speed. Usually, continuity equations are expressed of the moon-planet system. This conceptual inexactitude as a differential equation, and thus are a (stronger) local has a negligible quantitative effect upon the model (as pre- form of conservation laws — paraphrased from Wikipedia: sented herein). Continuity equation, 2010-12. 114 Paul G. ten Boom

Table 7: Mass cut-oﬀs at various distances for large (eﬀective) solar system moons.

MOON Units Io Europa Ganymede Callisto Titan Triton 9 Weighted Energy (∆Ew) (10 J) 2.395 1.287 3.973 1.854 1.452 0.041 −6 −1 Moon orbit frequency (fm) (10 s ) 6.5422 3.2592 1.6177 0.69351 0.72586 1.9694 r −10 −2 Weighted acceleration (∆aw) (10 m s ) 5.139 2.190 5.354 1.884 3.348 0.416 ∗ 15 Mass cut-off at 8πro (m1) (10 kg) 692 507 64.6 44.7 12.2 165 9 Semi-major axis (ro) (10 m) 0.4218 0.6711 1.0704 1.8827 1.2219 0.3548 s Transition radius (8πro = r1) (AU) 0.0709 0.1127 0.1798 0.3163 0.2053 0.0596 No. of transition radii in 1 AU (–) 14.11 8.87 5.56 3.16 4.87 16.78 Mass cut-off at 1 AU (1012 kg) 276 817 422 1590 118 39.2 Mass cut-off at 2.5 AUt (1012 kg) 17.7 52.3 27.0 101.7 7.56 2.51 Mass cut-off at 10 AUt (109 kg) 276 817 422 1590 118 39.2 Mass cut-off at 100 AU (109 kg) 0.276 0.817 0.422 1.590 0.118 0.039 Mass cut-off at 100 000 AUu (kg) 0.276 0.817 0.422 1.590 0.118 0.039 r Non-corrected values. s Astronomical Unit (149.598 109 m). t Compare to comets of various diameters (comet − density assumed equal to 0.5 103 kgm 3): 1km ×0.26 1012 kg, 3km 7.1 1012 kg, 5km 33 1012 kg. u 100 000 AU is× a distance equal to→ 1.58 light× years or approxima→ tely× half a parsec.→ ×

∗ say) is above this (lunar specific) mass, i.e. mp >mr , body acts as if it is (totally) located at a central then the body cannot respond to the model’s (rotat- point. This idealisation relies on two things: firstly, ing space-warp based) additional perturbation of ac- the spherical nature of (macroscopic) gravitational in- celeration/gravitational field strength — see subsec- fluence, and the fact that the field values of interest lie tions 6.6.7 and 6.6.8 for further discussion. Clearly, the well beyond the surface of the ‘extended’ (gravitational Pioneer S/C with a mass of approximately362 259 kg source) mass itself; and secondly, that a passive (grav- lies well below the various cut-off masses of the vari- itational) mass in a gravitational field is treated as a ous (‘active’) moon-planet-Sun systems — regardless point mass. In the model, quite different reasons shall of the relative distance between the moon and space- result in a similar (point-mass) circumstance. Clearly, craft. By contrast, the large mass of the planet Uranus we need to go beyond classical physics (alone) to elu- for example, at 8.68 1025 kg, is always immune from cidate the nature of an interaction/relationship con- × ∗ any influence. Thus, the apparent presence of a viola- cerning mr and the motion of an (isolated in space) tion of the weak principle of equivalence with regard to macroscopic physical body (mp). (local inertial and/or gravitational) mass in a gravita- In physics, the correspondence principle states tional field, as associated with the Pioneer spacecraft that: the behavior of systems described by the the- anomaly, is (i.e. has become) non-problematic. ory of quantum mechanics reproduces classical physics in the limit of large quantum numbers. In subsection 6.6.7 Relating non-local mass to local 4.1.6 we mentioned that: “whenever the correspon- ‘bulk’ physical mass (at a point) dence principle holds, the centre of mass of a quantum wave packet (for either a single particle or for an en- Obviously, matter-comprised bodies are not point tire quantum object) moves according to Ehrenfest’s masses; they have (three-dimensional) extension in theorem along a classical trajectory.” (three dimensional) space. In this subsection we en- Obviously, any collection of neighbouring quire: how do the model’s distributed “at-a-point” ∗ ∗ atoms/molecules in a bulk-matter body has a non-local mass field values [m (r) or mr ] — that ex- centre of mass. A bulk/macroscopic body may alter- tend throughout space — relate to a finite size macro- natively be conceived (of) from a quantum mechanical scopic physical body (mp)? We seek to address this is- (wave-like) ‘perspective’; as such, each and every sue fully aware of the ambiguity surrounding just what ∗ ∗ atom/molecule (only) has a quantum wave packet non-local mass (m , or mr at a distance r from its associated with it. Importantly, these numerous wave source) actually is. packets are distributed (over the “whole of space”). In (classical) Newtonian gravitation we can usu- This (corresponding and complementary) conception ally assume that the extended mass of a macroscopic of a macroscopic body is analogous to the inherently 362The Pioneer spacecraft launch mass comprised a total distributed (throughout the universe) ‘nature’ of module “dry weight” of 223 kg and an additional 36 kg of non-local mass. Subsequently, we note that, just hydrazine propellant for the three thruster pairs (Anderson as non-local mass (in the model) can have both a et al. 2002, pp.2-3). point-like value in a field, as well as a distribution of A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 115

∗ values throughout the field; so the mass of a macro- In the analogy: mr (and a space-warp undula- scopic body (e.g. a spacecraft) may be conceived of tion/sinusoid of amplitude ∆aw) are the input signals; in both a (distributed/non-local) wave-like manner the system impulse response is determined by a body’s as well as in a corresponding (local) particle-like mp; and the system output is the additionally per- manner — with both conceptions ‘appreciating’ the turbed (or non-perturbed) motion of the spacecraft364 . usefulness/relevance of a (point-like) centre of mass. Although usually associated with the frequency re- Taking this (dual) correspondence one step fur- sponse of a physical observing instrument (that pos- ther, we hypothesise that: as far as the interaction sesses inertia), Bracewell (2000, p.24) notes that: between m∗ and m and the model’s quantification is r p Later we show that the appearance of concerned, the point-like ‘existence’ of non-local mass convolution is coterminous365 with linear- in a field has a ‘correspondence’ to bulk/macroscopic ity plus time or space invariance, and matter existing effectively at a point in the field, and ∗ also with sinusoidal response to sinusoidal thus we assume that m interacts with the macroscopic r stimulus. matter mp “as if” the mp existed solely/totaly at its centre of mass. Importantly, we (further) conjecture ∗ With the (multiple) sinusoidal stimuli/inputs being that mr is concurrently interacting with (the QM ‘face’ the multiple/various oscillatory RSWs (of amplitude of) macroscopic/bulk matter mp in a (corresponding) ∆aw) over their respective cycle times ∆t, and the re- quantum mechanical wave-like manner, and as such ∗ sponse being the spacecraft’s various speed (∆v) vari- the ‘at-a-point’ (in space) relationship between mr and ations/sinusoids and speed losses (δv) per cycle. In the (total) mp is not an idealisation — as is the case in model (only) five moon-planet systems dominate the classical gravitational physics — but a true represen- Pioneer acceleration anomaly; Io, Europa, Ganymede, tation of their (field point-to-‘particle’) interrelation- Callisto with Jupiter; and Saturn’s Titan. The Earth- ship. Note that conceptually ‘we’ — meaning people Moon system, with its collision based heritage, is (for and scientists — have a strong tendancy/bias towards geometric reasons) not a space-warp ‘generator’ — as a particle-like (cf. a wave-like) perspective on things. indicated in Tables 2 and 3. ∗ Planets, moons, comets, asteroids, and spacecraft The physical nature of this (proposed) mr to mp are all (considered) sufficiently compact/condensed (so ∗ interaction appears to implicate some kind of inher- as) to obey this (mr to mp) interactive feature, but not ently quantum mechanical wave-like aspect of mp in so a (whole) galaxy (for example). In subsection 6.6.8 the interaction (recall subsection 6.6.7), that can only we build upon this hypothesis/conjecture and further ∗ (at this stage) be figuratively appreciated and formally describe how the mr upon mp ‘interaction’ is perceived represented in a rudimentary manner. The conceptual and treated in the model. intractability (or ‘weirdness’) of QMs provides little assistance in elaborating upon this coarse description. How the model’s non-local mass might ‘interact’ 6.6.8 How non-local mass influences phys- with the Higgs field (and mechanism) is not discussed. ical objects with (passive) mass

If the passive (condensed) mass (mp) of (for example) 6.6.9 Commenting upon local and global a spacecraft (ms/c) or celestial body (mbody), is less ∗ spatial quantities in the new model than the non-local mass (mr ) — at a given distance from a particular rotating space-warp ‘generator’ — The constancy of the (non-local) mass-volume product then that mass is considered to be influenced by the and distribution relationship of Equation 20 in subsec- new cyclical acceleration field variation, otherwise it tion 6.6.5, with dimensions [ML3], ensures this new is not. Thus, the Pioneer anomalous acceleration af- ∗ mass-spatial product/relationship describes a global fects spacecraft (because ms/c << mr), but not plan- quantity. In contrast to this, the non-local mass at ∗ ∗ ets, moons, and ‘large’ asteroids, where mbody > mr a point in the field (mr) is a local quantity, albeit of 363 — at all times and distances . See Table 7 for the a distributed non-local ‘pedigree’. By its very nature, different ‘cut-off’ masses (associated with each particu- the density of standard mass, which has dimensions lar moon-planet-Sun system) and typical comet size to [M/L3], is also a (spatially) distributed quantity366. comet mass relationships; (and) for comparative pur- Density is usually treated as a non-global (i.e. body- poses see/recall Table 5 for “large moon” masses. specific) quantity — although it (along with total bary- The physics behind this ‘interactive’ relationship onic mass) also has one extremely global application, ∗ between (each specific) mr value and a body’s mp is i.e. its application to the universe as a whole. ∗ indeed hypothetical. The physical nature of this re- The constant quantity mrVr, where Vr is an en- lationship is considered to be somewhat analogous to closed spherical volume (of radius r), is: new, un- the mathematical (and physical) concept of convolu- named, and without a representing symbol. Tenta- tion, in the sense of: “the mathematical technique for tively, we could call this quantity a “volumetric non- determining a system output given an input signal and local mass distribution constant”, in that it establishes the system impulse response”. 364Like the photoelectric effect, this is an “all or nothing” 363Thus, one can create a demarcation between large and system output. small asteroids (and comets) based upon this criteria. In- 365Meaning: being the same in extent; coextensive in terestingly, small comets (< 1 km diameter) are unusually range or scope. rare (recall section 2.6). 366Indeed, density is (arguably) ‘undefined’ at a point. 116 Paul G. ten Boom the volumetric distribution of the non-local mass com- With Jupiter having an aphelion of 5.458AU and a ponent — of the externally re-expressed (QM spin off- perihelion of 4.950AU, it turns out that the values of ∗ set) energy ∆Ew. Dimensionally, this new quantity m (r) = m1862 for Io, Europa, Ganymede and Cal- is peripherally ‘related’ to both: first moment of area listo all lie at distances between their closest possible [L3], and (mass) moment of inertia [ML2] — both of approach of 2.656AU, and a maximum possible sepa- which involve rotation in some sense, with the latter ration distance of 7.752AU. also involving a distribution of matter. By way of using the mass cut-off values at 2.5AU Interestingly, the hypothesised existence of (each) (or/and 10AU) as presented in Table 7, we may ex- space-warp involves a rotation; further, each (gravito- trapolate (or interpolate) to determine the distance ∗ quantum) rotating space-warp is most readily idealised (r) where m (r) = m1862, i.e. where the (non- as an (acceleration/gravitation based) phenomenon, local) mass cut-off value equals the asteroid’s mass. with a tubular core367, which exists in conjunction These values, in ascending order of distance, are: with a spherical non-local mass distribution that has Io 3.78AU, Ganymede 4.36AU, Europa 5.43AU, and 368 371 a spherical (r = r1) core region . Thus, this new Callisto 6.78AU . Thus, none, one, two, three, or all quantity’s constancy, and its (unique) dimensional- four RSWs associated with Jupiter’s Galilean moons ity of [ML3], might be related to the geometric con- can be actively ‘causing’ the (type of) motion retarda- flict between (a pure) spherical volume and a rotating tion (cf. predicted motion) that also affects the Pio- tubular-centered volume discussed in subsection 6.5.1. neer 10 and 11 spacecraft372 . Finally, it appears that any further rotation of a Assuming that the true mass and density values of moon-planet-sun system, e.g. within a galaxy (and asteroid 1862 Apollo are near their currently estimated so forth), is not problematic to the model — in that values, the distance dependent activation and deacti- ∗ mr Vr = constant (Equation 20) applies regardless of vation of the RSW-based motion retardation mecha- this motion. On a more speculative note, there is a nism (upon the asteroid) then becomes an ‘in principle’ possibility that the constancy of a distributed mass key prediction of the model. In practice, the observa- times volume product/relationship could have application of this (four ‘geared’) engaging and disengaging tion to the (formation and) evolution of spiral galaxies, behaviour will be extremely difficult to measure, due and/or the very early formation of the solar system. to the ‘smallness’ of the effect and the asteroid’s position in the inner solar system where radiation pressure effects are not insignificant373. 6.6.10 1862 Apollo: an asteroid exhibiting Our ability to directly observe asteroid 1862 Apollo intermittent anomalous behaviour? from Earth over an extended period of time (albeit in- termittently) is a positive; but the tiny motion varia- The mass and orbital characteristics of the asteroid tion effects374 and the cumulative (per cycle) motion “1862 Apollo” makes it an ideal ‘exhibiting body’ of, retardation effect involved appear to be beyond the and ‘test body’ for examining, the model’s proposed ∗ combination of our best models and best observational (distance dependent) non-local mass cut-offs [m (r), ∗ techniques — both now and in the near/foreseeable fu- or alternatively m ] associated with the four Galilean r ture. Methods involving: an accurate radiation pres- moons of Jupiter. Saturn’s greater distance ensures sure model, Doppler effects, and angular triangulation that the rotating space-warp, associated with its large can be envisaged, but they are ‘futuristic’. Conceiv- moon Titan, fails ‘at all times’ to influence this as- ∗ ably, this would involve (for example) either: (1) a teroid’s motion, i.e. m (r) < m1862 for all possible transmitter/transponder (of some kind) upon the as- distances (r) between 1862 Apollo and Saturn-Titan. teroid itself, in conjunction with observing equipment By way of various sources/websites369 1862 Apollo 12 upon: Earth, Mars and a ‘large’ (unaffected) aster- has a mass of 5.1 10 kg (denoted m1862), a mean oid; or (2) an observing device upon the (unfortu- diameter of approximately≈ × 1.7 km370, an aphelion of nately rotating375 ) asteroid itself, utilising the accu- 2.294AU, a perihelion of 0.647AU, an orbital inclina- rately known locations of three or more planets376. tion of 6.354o, and an orbital period of 651.4 days. It is a Near Earth Asteroid (NEA) that crosses the or- 371Note that the value for Saturn’s large moon Titan is a bits of Mars, Earth and Venus. These physical and mere 2.85AU. orbital characteristics ensure that ‘Apollo’ can receive 372Albeit without the contributions arising from ‘distant’ either: most, some, or none of the retardation effect Titan and Triton. 373 stemming from the individual (lunar-‘driven’) rotating Note that if the model’s non-local mass cut-off values space-warps (RSWs) — depending on the location of were out by a factor of two (for example), due to some minor mathematical oversight, the choice of the asteroid Jupiter (with its four Galilean moons) and the aster- 1862 Apollo would still be of some use (but no longer ideal). oid itself, and the separation distance between them. 374As the strength of each supplementary gravitational field, associated with each individual RSW, undulates the 367Planar in two dimensions, tubular in three dimensions. asteroid’s speed responds sinusoidally around an equilib- 368 ∗ This tubular core (around the space-warp’s axis of rota- rium speed — assuming m (r) > m1862. Note that in tion) vs. spherical core distinction further discourages the practice only a superposition of these individual effects ac- ∗ possible implementation of a local energy (Efield) through- tually exists. out space (as mentioned in subsections 6.6.3 and 6.6.4). 375We also note that the YORP (Yarkovsky-OKeefe- 369Including: IAU Minor Planet Center, JPL Small-Body Radzievskii-Paddack) effect upon this asteroid has been Database Browser, Johnston’s Archive, and Wikipedia. successfully modelled. 370Associated with a mean density of ≈ 2.0 g/cm3, i.e. 376If this motion variation effect were measurable with a ≈ 2.0 × 103 kg/m3. high degree of accuracy, and the proposed model is valid, A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 117

A more qualitative approach involving compar- Pioneer anomaly. Consequently, our discussion of ing the errors accumulated over time in the predicted equivalence principle violation, within the solar sys- paths of asteroids (of various masses), e.g. (re: Apollo tem379, can be solely restricted to the (idiosyncratic) asteroids) the more massive 1620 Geographos and/or ‘Pioneer anomaly’ case. the less massive 1566 Icarus, appears to be the best option currently available. Furthermore, a somewhat step-like discrepancy in predictive accuracy involv- 6.7.2 General remarks regarding a viola- ing the orbit determination of asteroids whose mass tion of the Equivalence Principle is either side of an ‘intermittent zone’ — spanning This subsection provides a preliminary guide as to how 1.0 1012 kg to 2.7 1013 kg (roughly correspond- ≈ × ≈ × a violation of the equivalence principle (EP) is handled ing to a mean diameter range of 1.0 km to 3.0 km) — by respected authors. We briefly explore this issue in would indirectly support the existence and quantifi- terms of the Pioneer anomaly specifically, and also the cation of the non-local mass cut-offs proposed by the general conceivability of an EP violation. model. Subsequently, such a result would (also) pro- Firstly, the type of violation is unexpected. vide good support for the model “as a whole”. Note that ‘large’ asteroids (i.e. > 3 km in diameter) will not Neither case [Pioneer anomaly, nor Earth display the additional/anomalous ‘deceleration’ and flyby anomaly] matches expectations for thus they should have a lesser discrepancy in their or- an EP violation; for example, the direc- bit determination — all other things being equal. tions of the anomalous accelerations do not match [the authors] Equation (1) (An- 6.7 The Pioneer anomaly, GR, and derson & Williams 2001, p.2449). the three Equivalence Principles Secondly, the violation itself is based upon an extremely minor additional acceleration/gravitational This section investigates the new model argued for field occurring in the solar system’s weak gravitational herein in relation to two principles associated with field. Such a minor violation380 , especially one associ- the establishment of general relativity: the principle ated with quantum mechanical energy in ‘partnership’ of equivalence and the general principle of relativity. with a curved spacetime field, is not a cause for alarm Such an analysis serves to clarify the veracity of the — and indeed something like it has been ‘heralded’ by gravitational supplementation that has been proposed. Clifford Will. . . . there is mounting theoretical evidence 6.7.1 Introduction to suggest that EEP [Einstein equiva- Currently, general relativity (GR) is generally re- lence principle] is likely to be violated garded as the only theory (and “final word”) on grav- at some level, whether by quantum gravitation. If we assume that all systematic causes of the ity effects, by effects arising from string Pioneer anomaly are ruled out, and embrace the ro- theory, or by hitherto undetected interac- tating space-warps (RSWs) — or more formally the tions. Roughly speaking, in addition to ‘gravito-quantum’ rotating space-warps (GQ-RSWs) the pure Einsteinian gravitational inter- — implied by the Pioneer anomalous observations, action, which respects EEP, theories such then a standard appreciation/conceptualization of as string theory predict other interactions gravitation is necessarily incomplete. which do not (Will 2006, p.23). In this section (i.e. 6.7) we more fully examine the Thirdly, our approach of considering the GQ- relationship of the Pioneer anomaly to different forms RSWs as additional/supplementary to general rela- of the equivalence principle (EP)377. Of particular in- tivity’s (approach to) gravitation is not without some terest is the apparent violation of the weak EP, also loose ‘ideological’ support. known as the principle of universality of free fall, with regard to the motion of low mass bodies378 (e.g. the . . . the only theories of gravity that have Pioneer spacecraft). The ramifications of a ‘real’ Pi- a hope of being viable are metric theo- oneer anomaly upon our understanding of gravitation ries, or possibly theories that are metric in its widest sense is also investigated, with an empha- apart from very weak short range non- sis given towards understanding how our new model metric couplings (as in string theory). is not ruled out by GR’s general principle of relativity . . . In principle, however, there could exist (GPrR). other gravitational fields besides the met- Previously, it was argued that: the Earth flyby ric, such as scalar fields, vector fields, and anomaly is (merely) an observational artifact (sub- so on (Will 2006, p.26). section 6.2.4) that arises indirectly from the (gravito- quantum) RSWs associated with (and instigating) the 379Subsection 6.2.6 raised the issue of a measured/apparent ‘change’ in the fine structure constant. then the mass and average density of ‘small’ asteroids could This implies a violation of the Lorentz Position Invariance conceivably be determined with significantly greater accu- aspect of Einstein’s equivalence principle (EEP). Due to racy than is currently the case. the provisional nature of this observation, and the great 377Weak, strong, and the Einstein equivalence principle. distances involved, this issue has not been pursued. 378Below the cut-off mass at a given position [i.e. m∗(r) 380At least over fairly short (celestial) time intervals, i.e. ∗ or alternatively mr ]. of the order of days, weeks, or months — and even years. 118 Paul G. ten Boom

In our case/model the situation is somewhat differ- Interestingly, within the Pioneer spacecraft (itself) ent, with the proposed very weak (non-metric-based) a ‘felt’ (temporal sinusoidal) acceleration variation382 ‘coupling’ being (non-local and) long range, and tak- [aproper = a = a(t)= ∆a cos(ωt)], whether delivered ing the form of two scalar fields: a constant ampli- by way of a RSW [∆g sin(− ωt)=∆a sin(ωt)] or conceiv- tude (∆a) sinusoidal/oscillatory field (also represent- ably by a mimicking variation in thrust [ ∆at cos(ωt)], ing non-Euclidean geometry), and a variable non-local causes a purely oscillatory/sinusoidal variation− in mo- ∗ mass [m (r)] scalar field. tion [vproper = ∆v sin(ωt)=∆v sin(ωt π)] around − − Thus, to simply dismiss the Pioneer anomaly on a steady mean speed that is pendulum-like or swing- the grounds of it indicating a violation of the EP is like in nature383. Locally, i.e. within the (windowless) too quick and inappropriate; although there appear spacecraft, there would be no physiological sense of to be (prima facie) sound reasons for this dismissal, an unmodelled monotonic motion ‘shortfall’ over ex- not the least of which is how (multiple instantiations tended intervals of time, i.e. (no sense of) an ad- of) these scalar fields (particularly ∆a) coexist with ditional/supplementary ‘constant’ (Pioneer anomaly- standard general relativistic spacetime curvature. To like) deceleration384 . A number of provisos (concern- fully appreciate how a real (i.e. non-systematic based) ing this statement) need to be appreciated. Pioneer anomaly may be contravening GR’s equiva- We recall (from section 3.2) that the motion short- lence principle (in an acceptable manner), we need fall is relative to predicted motion. We also note that to reconsider (more deeply) what our supplement to the Pioneer anomalous acceleration arises from (the (GR’s) gravitation really entails and its relationship superposition of) a number of these (coexistent) ro- to the various guises of the EP. The latter is pur- tating space-warp based sinusoids. sued in subsections 6.7.3 and 6.7.4, the former from Further, it is only in the global/barycentric subsection 6.7.5 onwards. frame, and by way of having/using a theoretical model to predict a spacecraft’s trajectory and motion, that a small redistribution of S/C transla- 6.7.3 Pioneer anomaly as regards the weak tional/propagational kinetic energy (down from 100%) and strong Equivalence Principles into undulatory/oscillatory kinetic energy has physical validity. Predictions of S/C motion that omit this fea- For the weak EP (WEP), Jammer (2000) distinguishes ture, inevitably notice a motion shortfall (over time) between a kinematic version, the principle of univer- that is ‘declared’ the Pioneer anomaly. Importantly, sality of free fall, where at a given location all bodies ‘locally’ we could (still) in principle transform away fall with the same acceleration; and a dynamic ver- gravitation by choosing a particular reference frame, sion where the gravitational acceleration of (or acting with the additional terms being ‘understood’ as iner- upon) a body is independent of its structure (i.e. com- tial force terms. Thus, (in this sense) the strong equiv- position and the amount of mass). alence principle, associated with Einstein’s (window- The long temporal and (long) distance propaga- less) lift thought experiment (or a windowless moving tional requirements, as well as the very accurate mea- spacecraft), is retained when extended to a pure undu- surements necessary to recognise the very tiny (low latory/oscillatory gravitational field — i.e. a first order mass only) Pioneer anomaly, are exceptional. Com- cyclic perturbation (of constant amplitude) superim- paratively short temporal/duration torsion balance 385 posed upon a (locally ) steady gravitational field. and terrestrial ‘free fall’ experiments involve masses We note that a global/barycentric perspective is (mbody) on the same side of all of the (lunar specific) ∗ necessary, in addition to a local ‘felt force’ perspec- cut-off mass values [m (r)]; and gravitational redshift tive, to appreciate the (counter to predicted motion) experiments by way of the Mössbauer effect are un- 386 Pioneer anomaly . By comparison, GR is/was con- suited to recognising this (Pioneer) EP violation. Sim- structed/established upon a local principle of equiv- ilarly, we note that the Earth-Moon (strong EP) on- alence (and ‘felt-force’, or lack thereof) perspective. going ‘experiment’ has (for both the Earth and Moon) ∗ This need for the coexistence of two (or dual) per- mbody >> [m (r)]max. The strong EP (SEP) assumes the complete phys- 382Using nomenclature consistent with subsection 3.2.4. ical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corre- 383We note that ω is the rotating space-warp’s angular sponding acceleration of the reference system, which frequency, and that the (proper) velocity variations are 180 then implies that there is no physical difference be- degrees out of phase with acceleration/gravitational field tween inertial motion without a gravitational field, and variations (recall Figure 1). For a spacecraft radially exiting the solar system at negligibly relativistic speeds, we can fig- free fall in a gravitational field. Regarding the ‘felt’ as- 381 uratively conceive (i.e. imagine) the forward looking space pect of the SEP , we extend Einstein’s lift/elevator- curvature ‘encountered’ as acting like an inclined ramp. based thought/gedanken experiment, where a g, The undulatory variation in acceleration/gravitational field ≡ to a sinusoidal/undulatory scenario with amplitude strength can be imagined as a smoothly varying cyclic change in the angular slope of such a (curved space) ‘ramp’. ∆a ∆g; recalling that the latter is associated with 384 a speed/motion≡ undulation of amplitude ∆v (recall Regardless of the spacecraft’s direction of motion: circumferential, radially inward, or radially outward, etc. section 3.2) — in the case of low mass bodies i.e. 385 ∗ Both spatially and temporally — in relation to one’s mbody < [m (r)]minimum. location ‘onboard’ the spacecraft. 386Adding windows to the spacecraft (or elevator) would 381As compared to the acceleration of a reference system in principle (i.e. conceivably) ‘allow’ anomalous (i.e. un- in GR, which then allows the scientifically rigorous (quan- predicted/unmodelled) barycentric position and/or speed titative) theory of general relativity to be formulated. variations to be indirectly ascertained. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 119 spectives, i.e. local and systemic as regards this new 3. The gravitational field is entirely describable by (supplementary) gravitational effect, is symptomatic a universal coupling of the (macroscopic) mass- of the new model’s approach. energy contents of the ‘world’ to the metric ten- It is not unreasonable to surmise/conclude that: sor. both the kinematic and dynamic versions of the weak 4. Test bodies follow geodesics of the metric. EP ‘can’ be violated (in some sense), although in practice this violation is observationally both: exceptional As mentioned previously, there is nothing wrong (or even unique), and exceedingly small in magnitude. with GR; rather our concern is necessarily with the A comparison of planetary motion and Pioneer space- scope or domain of application inherent in GR’s con- craft motion confirms a violation (of some kind) — al- ceptualisation and formalism, and hence the idea that beit requiring a global/barycentric perspective, as well GR is the ‘final word’ on gravitation — such that as a local Earth-based observer. It becomes a question GR ‘completes’ gravitational theorisation. Support- of (semantics and) one’s own conceptual perspective as ing this concern we recognise the exclusions and ide- to whether one considers the acceleration (equivalence alised circumstances associated with GR outlined in to gravitation) aspect of the strong equivalence princi- subsection 4.1.5, and the various restrictions to gravi- ple (SEP) to have been violated by the Pioneer S/C. If tational theorisation discussed in subsection 4.3.3. We we restrict ourselves to a local physiological perspec- reiterate a few pertinent examples. Firstly, tidal ef- tive, as Einstein did with his windowless lift/elevator fects, which arise from non-uniformity in gravitational experiment, then the SEP is not violated — even in fields, illustrate why there is a need to restrict the ac- our undulatory/cyclic gravitational field circumstance celeration/gravitational/curvature aspect of the SEP (i.e. subject to the effects of RSWs). The SEP is vio- to a local effect; this is in stark contrast to the cos- lated when it subsumes the existence of a mass-based mological scale amplitude uniformity (∆a) associated violation of the WEP. Further, the proposed existence ∗ with the unsteady/undulatory field of the model’s GQ- of a non-local mass field [m (r)] (or fields) — related RSWs. Secondly, effectively only macroscopic bodies to the non-local implications of (lunar-based) quantum are considered, with all (‘isolated’ cases of) micro- mechanical systems — is supplementary to the scope scopic/quantum mechanical contributions to gravity of the assumed ‘equivalence’ of inertial mass and pas- (including energy effects) effectively assumed negligi- sive gravitational mass: mi mp (= mg). ble; note that this negligibility includes the additive ≡ ‘Large-mass’ solar system bodies such as: planets, sum of a QM angular momentum rate (i.e. energy), ex- moons, large comets, and large asteroids do not re- ternalised as GQ-RSWs, in our model. Thirdly, in sub- spond to the additional acceleration/gravitational field section 4.4.6 we briefly discussed how the non-locality associated with GQ-RSWs, whereas the Pioneer 10 of QM entanglement387, and a finite communication and 11 spacecraft (and other ‘low mass’ bodies) do rate (i.e. light speed) in SR and GR, sit together un- respond; for the latter we can ‘figuratively’ write that: easily (Albert & Galchen 2009)388 . a g . Consequently, by way of not indicat- body ≡ total Furthering our concern, Einstein, in creating and ing the existence of the supplementary additional ac- developing GR, (as late as 1916) sought to generalise celeration/gravitational field, it is (surprisingly) these the relativity of motion in special relativity (SR) to large-mass celestial bodies that are all in violation of accelerated motion389 . The resultant General Theory the ‘SEP’, when the SEP is extended to first order field of Relativity is astounding, but this (aforementioned) perturbations — albeit a very minor violation (hith- ‘elegant’ objective was not entirely fulfilled; neverthe- erto unappreciated). In other words, the motion of less its ‘footprint’ remains in GR’s (approach to its) larger/more-massive bodies does not ‘completely’ ex- formalism. hibit/indicate the (entire) non-Euclidean geometry of Furthermore, recalling subsection 4.3.4, accelera- the solar system, such that (for them): a = g . body 6 total tion and rotation (in at least one sense) resist a purely relativistic understanding, even though observations of 6.7.4 The Einstein Equivalence Principle accelerated motion are relative. We note that (co- and exclusivity of the metric in GR incidentally and fortuitously) rotation and acceleration/gravitational field undulations together, in the Extending the SEP, Einstein made the Einstein equiva- form of (gravito-quantum) rotating space-warps (GQ- lence principle (EEP) part of the bedrock of his general theory of relativity (GR). It acts (somewhat) as a cor- 387Also known as “the quantum non-local connection”; respondence principle between SR and GR, by ensur- (and) which herein involves a ‘transmutation’ of QM spin ing that locally SR’s Lorentz invariance and position energy into ‘gravitational’ energy cf. (simply involving) an invariance are enforced. Clearly, the model’s supple- equal spin to spin (i.e. angular momentum) relationship. mentary acceleration/gravitational field — associated 388Contemporary physics ‘accepts’ a situation whereby: with non-Euclidean geometry — needs to be in de- non-local correlations do occur, but because they cannot be used to transmit information, they do not violate causality. nial of the ‘exclusivity’ of the metric tensor(s) arising Our ‘uneasiness’ stems from a lack of explanatory depth, in from GR’s field equations, in the sense that we need that an (additional) process/mechanism to account for the to question the following ‘exclusive’ statements: ongoing ‘sustenance’ of these correlations is not considered 1. If SEP is strictly valid, the (components of the) absolutely necessary when explaining entanglement. 389 metric alone determines the effect of gravity. Additionally, he also sought, and eventually abandoned (as late as mid 1918), a ‘Machian’ relativity of inertia, thus 2. Matter and non-gravitational fields respond only resigning himself to a physics in which spacetime has inde- to the spacetime metric. pendent existence and physical qualities (Hoefer 1994). 120 Paul G. ten Boom

RSWs), are central to the model390. itation — requiring special relativity and Minkowski Finally, but on a lesser note, it can be argued spacetime as a ‘foundation’. Aspects of GR, such as that the ‘extension’ of SR to GR has a ‘downside’, localisation (regarding the Einstein equivalence princi- in that if a weakness and/or alternative interpreta- ple), and the inherent difficulty in solving the Einstein tion exists in our physical understanding of (all that field equations are loosely supportive of these concerns; is within) the Theory of Special Relativity, then this as is the failed agenda/goal to ‘relativise’ accelerated flaw will somehow ‘express’ (or even compound) it- motion and/or inertia (in the final form of the theory). self in GR. Our concern lies with the ‘extension’ of Citing these ‘imperfections’, within and peripheral to SR’s (very successful use of) Minkowski/flat spacetime GR, indirectly acts to support our new model; this into GR’s (equally successful use of) curved space- modus operandi (i.e. method of operating) is furthered time. Specifically, the latent presumption that only in subsections 6.7.5 and 6.7.6. four-dimensional spacetime is associated with gravitation (in its broadest sense); this (ontological feature) is 6.7.5 Discussing the new model’s need to contrary to what our model requires, i.e. a perspective supplement General Relativity where space and time (need to) retain some degree of independent existence. Three features, associated with A real Pioneer anomaly cuts to the core of gravita- ‘diminishing returns’ or restrictions as we move from tional conceptualisation, although it does not imply SR to GR, loosely support this concern. Firstly, global that general relativity is in error. Instead, GR is seen Lorentz covariance goes to local Lorentz covariance. as an incomplete account of ‘gravitation’ — in the Secondly, GR requires (more complicated) covariant broadest sense of the word — in need of a quantum me- derivatives and metric tensors cf. the partial differen- chanical (and Heisenberg uncertainty principle-based) tials of non-relativistic macroscopic physics. Thirdly, supplementation; with quantum mechanical entangle- GR’s formalism, particularly the (non-linear) Einstein ment and non-locality, in conjunction with geometric field equations, have very few simple/elegant solutions. phase, also playing a vital role. It remains the case These features of localisation and complication, can be that (i.e. the new model respects that): interpreted as merely signifying restrictions necessary for the establishment of a ‘general’ theory of relativity, 1. The only theories of gravity that can fully em- but additionally/alternatively these restrictions may body the EEP (by default) are those that satisfy be interpreted as providing indirect support for our the postulates of metric theories of gravity. model’s supplementation of gravitation, with its ‘sup- 2. In local Lorentz frames, the non-gravitational plementary’ use of (independent) space and time cf. laws of physics (describing observations of phys- spacetime — as argued for in Section 4. ical phenomena) are those of special relativity. This subsection has sought to illustrate how gen- 3. The strong equivalence principle (SEP) implies eral relativity, by way of its ‘make-up’, is actually in- that gravitational acceleration is (in one sense) capable of describing the very minor additional grav- an entirely geometrical (natural) phenomenon. itational phenomenon associated with the Pioneer anomaly. We have needed to cast doubt upon the ne- The model’s sinusoidal gravitation/acceleration field cessity and exclusively of a (spacetime) metric-based supplement (of amplitude ∆a), in conjunction with ∗ approach, partly by way of an exceptional circum- non-local mass [m (r)], is inconsistent with both stance in our new model; i.e. a constant amplitude the EEP and the exclusivity of GR’s metric, even (rotating) ‘warped’ acceleration/gravitational field — though removing gravitational effects locally regains albeit undulatory/sinusoidal at a ‘point’ in space, or SR391. Our aim here is not to pursue a drawn- rather upon a fixed direction radius ‘arm’ (centered at out scholarly review of GR; rather, we have sought a lunar GQ-RSW ‘generator’). Further signs of a re- to highlight how GR’s non-Euclidean (spacetime- strictiveness within GR’s approach, especially regard- based) curvature/geometry needs to coexist with ing its domain of application, include: a non-relative the RSW-based supplementary non-Euclidean curva- aspect pertaining to (the motion-based concepts of) ro- ture/geometry. Recalling section 4.4, this supplement tation and acceleration; the existence of QM non-local needs to (additionally cf. alternatively) treat space relationships/behaviour; and the fact that GR is neces- and time as distinct ‘features’ of reality — albeit re- sarily a relativistic theory of (and approach to) grav- quiring an additional conceptual level of ‘reality’, separate from (and ‘prior’ to) observational/phenomenal 390Recall that (each): lunar, atomic/molecular, self- time and reality. This ontological feature is introduced interference, and geometric phase based, supplementary so as to be able to ‘deal with’: QM non-locality and rotating space-warp [of undulatory acceleration amplitude ∗ entanglement, (an externalisation of) non-inertial QM (∆a)], coexists with a non-local mass distribution [m (r)]. energy, and the new gravitational effect, concurrently. Together, they express the total non-local externalised (‘fractional’ and inexpressible) quantum mechanical energy The primary difference, between GR’s standard — associated with the many atoms/molecules within each: gravitation and our supplementary gravitational ef- geometrically suitable, spin-orbit coupled, (large) moon of fect, lies in there being two distinct source ‘classes’ the solar system. The contribution of the various RSWs 391 (with perturbation amplitude ∆aw) to non-Euclidean ge- Such that the theoretical/formal requirements of local ometry is necessarily a superposition of secondary ‘gravita- Lorentz invariance and local position invariance are obser- tional’ effects, in that they ‘piggy-back’ upon, and require vationally upheld, and such that SR remains a limiting case the pre-existence of, standard general relativistic (space- of both GR and ‘gravitation’ in its widest sense — with the time) non-Euclidean geometry throughout the solar system. latter additionally involving the RSW supplementation. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 121 and two distinct theoretical representations of non- makes use of: QM non-locality, QM self-interference, Euclidean geometry. In GR the sources are formally (hidden/background) ‘noumenal’ systemic/global as- represented by the stress-energy tensor, whose compo- pects, and three-body orbital motion — with the latter nents involve: (macroscopic) energy density and flux, being described by ‘phenomenal’/observational based momentum density and flux (as well as shear stress ‘relativity’. Furthermore, non-locality appears to ne- and pressure). In our model a physically inexpress- cessitate the use of a non-observationally percepti- ible sub-quantum mechanical-based energy392, in the ble global space substratum (or continuum) coexist- form of a (quantifiable) process-based per cycle rate ing with an ‘idealised’ background (hidden) time si- of (intrinsic) angular momentum (shared by a great multaneity (recall Section 4); this suits the ‘weirder’ many atoms/molecules), is necessarily ‘re-expressed’ aspects of QMs, but it is incompatible with the foun- as (macroscopic) non-Euclidean geometry (i.e. as a dation “principles” and ontological assumptions upon GQ-RSW)393 with an accompanying non-local mass which general relativity was constructed and is built. distribution — so as to ensure that global conservation For the devotee of general relativity’s perfection of energy is maintained ‘through’ time. This conserva- and exclusivity, who is incapable of appreciating the tion of energy involves both: microscopic and macro- possibility of a ‘holistic’ supplementation397 that co- scopic aspects of reality (with seamless functional coor- exists with a ‘relativistic’ approach to gravitation, dination); as well as a form of functional separation of the model’s new approach and ontological stance energies between these two domains/realms394 , so as will necessarily remain ‘anathema’ to them; as will to ensure a (micro-to-macro) re-expression/‘transfer’ the idea that the Pioneer anomaly is physically real of (a given/equal quantity of) energy395. Note that and indicative of a new physical phenomenon — as the ‘macroscopic’ in our model unavoidably requires compared to an undetected/unappreciated mundane a systematic/global (i.e. non-purely-relativistic) per- systematic effect. Note that in achieving our new spective. model, we have employed an eliminative methodol- In a manner of speaking, the inertial force terms of ogy guided by the highly constraining observational GR (cf. SR), need to be supplemented by, and coexist evidence (outlined in section 2.4) — subsequent to as- with, a (systemically/globally relevant) inertial energy suming the (non-systematic based) ‘reality’ of the Pio- offset (established) at the microscopic level (recall sub- neer anomaly. This eliminative methodology involved section 5.7.4). This supports our assertion of two quite proceeding much in the manner/spirit of Sir Arthur distinct types/sources of curvature/non-Euclidean ge- Conan Doyle’s fictional detective Sherlock Holmes, ometry, with two quite distinct types/methods of (the- in that we have sought to adhere to his creed that: oretical) representation. Differences between GR and “. . . when you have eliminated the impossible, what- our new approach involve: the field types, the role of ever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” energy conservation, and the nature of space and time In our case, Doyle’s ‘truth’ is replaced by the model’s in theory formulation396 . Unlike GR, the new model proposed/hypothesised ‘new physics’.

392Arising (in part) from a conflict involving the discrete energy levels associated with atoms and molecules, and 6.7.6 Post-production chinks in the gen- analog geometric phase offsets arising from the closed loop motion of these QM systems in analog curved spacetime. eral principle of relativity’s armour 393 A loosely analogous situation would be the ‘expression’ The general principle of relativity (GPrR) is the re- of ripples on a pond when some additional energy is im- parted to the water/medium. quirement that the equations describing the laws of 394Note that electromagnetism is unique amongst physics’ nature/physics have an equivalent form in all systems ‘four forces’, in that it can be bifurcated in at least two spe- of reference (and observation) — i.e. inertial and ac- cial ways: macroscopic/classical level phenomena vs. mi- celerated frames. croscopic/QM phenomena, and wave vs. particle aspects. 395Note that an agenda that seeks to ‘unify’ gravita- The great power possessed by the general tion/general relativity and quantum mechanics — regard- principle of relativity lies in the compre- less of their generally disparate phenomena and disparate hensive limitation which is imposed upon mathematical descriptions — into a “theory of everything” the laws of nature398 . . . (Einstein 1920) or “unified field theory” does not need to ‘subscribe’ to the ‘dual-conception’ stance alluded to herein. 396 On the proviso that: the 2∆a range of sinusoidal Einstein’s SR drew upon Poincaré’s light signal based acceleration/gravitational field strength lies within the operationalist methodology, so as to ensure that the speed of light between different inertial frames, and Maxwell’s ‘wiggle room’ allowed by Heisenberg’s uncertainty equations of Electromagnetism, remain invariant. This required the implementation of Minkowski spacetime in the QM non-locality and entanglement are involved. formalism. Our concern herein is with the further presump- 397Holistic, in the sense of needing to appreciate the uni- tion, as based upon (fully valid) scientific observational versal/cosmological system as a whole at different given methodology, that spacetime is ontologically real, and com- ‘moments’ (i.e. from a non-relativistic noumenal perspec- pletely replaces the prior/earlier conceptualisation of space tive), rather than only from a ‘sum’ of the parts perspective and time. As we have discussed previously (particularly — involving for example: the metric at different points, dif- in sections 4.4 and 4.5), our model requires a noumenal ferent spacetime intervals between two events, and clocks supplementation to this purely observational/phenomenal ‘running’ at different rates. (spacetime) approach; in that outside of observations (and 398A view endorsed by philosopher of science Karl Popper, relativistic theoretical formulations), space and time as dis- who believed (The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1972, Ad- tinct ‘entities’ needs to maintain theoretical validity — es- dendum to Section 40): the more laws of nature prohibit, pecially/crucially when quantum mechanical energy and the more they say. 122 Paul G. ten Boom principle, the compatibility of our new and supple- space-time properties that general relativ- mentary model with GR’s GPrR is (trivially) as- ity produced. Newton’s [rotating] bucket sured because the undulatory field strength/amplitude [argument] is — on the face of it — a strik- (∆a) of the RSWs is constant throughout the uni- ing counterexample to this claim (Lehner verse. We note that the variable non-local mass 2005, p.105).” ∗ [m (r)] accommodates energy dissipation with increas- Subsequently, Lehner regards the mature formulation ing distance from the source of a given GQ-RSW. ∗ of Einstein’s principle of general relativity (circa 1921) Thus, [excluding the source-centered m (r) distribu- that: “all states of motion are equivalent in principle, tion] all systems of (far-field) reference are (neces- before a specific distribution of mass in the universe sarily) equivalent with respect to the formulation of is specified (Lehner 2005, p.106)”, as having its (real laws concerning (the model’s supplementary) gravita- world) basis upon/within the principle of equivalence tion/acceleration/curvature — in the form of a number (cf. Mach’s principle or general covariance) — which of gravito-quantum rotating space-warps (GQ-RSWs). requires that there is no physical difference between in- Our model accepts that there is no (justifiable) pre- ertial motion without a gravitational field and free fall ferred reference frame for describing: SR, GR’s grav- 399 in a gravitational field. Additionally, Einstein believed itation , and the laws of physics; and that the no- that: tion of an (observationally ‘active’) aether/medium is If this equivalence is to be a fundamen- “without merit”. Nevertheless, the cosmic microwave tal principle rather than a coincidence background radiation400 (CMB radiation) appears to in physical phenomena, there can be no “fit the bill” of a privileged universal frame (of sorts) structure like Newtonian absolute space in our expanding universe, in that it permits a local that distinguishes a priori which motions determination of global/absolute speed and/or direc- are inertial and which are not (Lehner tion of travel in space — i.e. with respect to the 2005, p.106).” rest frame of the CMB radiation — e.g. Earth dipole motion/velocity. A thought/gedanken experiment in- A statement we endorse, as far as regards Newtonian volving two spacecraft (in inertial motion) fitted with absolute space, but shall reject in response to our ad- equipment that can ascertain the spacecraft’s speed ditional and idealised noumenal (beyond/prior to ob- and direction relative to this CMB ‘rest’ frame, is in- servation) perspective — hypothesised, discussed, and directly also ascertaining a common third ‘frame’ (cf. argued for in Section 4. observer) which is both: at ‘rest’ and of cosmological extent. Such a circumstance, while not denying 6.7.7 Summarising aspects of GR’s princi- the special principle of relativity, is not (at all) in ple approach and further discussion the spirit of special relativity as originally formulated. Similarly, quantum mechanical non-local behaviour401 A major objective of this section (6.7) has been to show ‘goes against the grain’ of special relativity as origi- how and why our model can supplement and coexist nally conceived. with GR. Interestingly, the new model is not in con- Drawing upon Lehner (2005), the general principle flict with much of GR’s underlying conceptual struc- of relativity (GPrR) is meant to be a principle about ture and (formative) principles. For example: the real world. As such, general covariance, which 1. We endorse special relativity’s stance that there seems to be (only) a formal property of a theory, can- can be no structure like a (physically indepen- not alone imply GPrR. Possibly it can if: “Nature’s dent/‘inert’) Newtonian absolute space and no laws are merely statements about temporal-spatial co- (same rate for all observers) absolute time. incidences; . . . ”; but as John Norton has pointed out, 2. Special relativity maintains its role as a limiting this claim is far from trivial. Furthermore: case, in the absence of gravitational effects. [Such a claim] is not even plausible with- 3. The acceleration aspect of the strong equiv- out the fundamental reinterpretation of alence principle is maintained, so as to not 399“Just as one could formulate Newtonian mechanics or preclude its extension to first order (undula- special relativity in generally covariant coordinates, so it is tory/sinusoidal) variations upon a (pre-existing possible to formulate general relativity in a preferred coor- ‘steady’) gravitational field. dinate system. Einstein does not argue that it is not possi- 4. Furthermore, gravitational acceleration remains ble to do so, but merely that such a formulation imposes a conceptually ‘reducible’ to, and concomitant formal structure without physical relevance (Lehner 2005, p.106).” with, a curvature-based (and non-Euclidean 400First detected in 1964 by American radio astronomers geometry-based) ‘situation’. Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson. A clear omission of our new model is that the 401 Observationally well supported by Alain Aspect and discussion of curvature (i.e. non-Euclidean geome- his colleagues (including P. Grangier, G. Roger, and J. try) is only conceptual; no formal representation of Dalibard) at Orsay, Paris in 1981-1982 with their ‘Bell test experiments’ (post-dating an ‘initial’ Bell-test of S. J. the (supplementary) curvature itself is given. The Freedman and J. F. Clauser in 1972). These experiments model’s major distinction (cf. GR) — as demanded by confirmed (John S.) Bell’s theorem (or Bell’s inequality), the awkward observational constraints and a macro- first published in 1964 and later refined [e.g. to the CSHS scopic re-expression of (an externally imposed402) (Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt) inequality in 1969]. John Bell drew his inspiration from the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen 402By way of three-body celestial motion in smoothly (cf. (EPR) paradox, originally published in 1935. discontinuous) curved spacetime. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 123 many atoms/molecules-based ‘fractional’ QM energy tic theory of gravitation405 . Such a change in at- ‘offset’ — lies in the introduction of a new (variable, titude/focus, although theoretically/epistemologically ∗ and source-based) non-local mass scalar field [m (r)]. neutral406, nevertheless involves two major implicit as- This field, in conjunction with the RSW constant (∆a) sumptions that have needed to be disassembled. amplitude undulations, has the ability to influence Firstly, our new/supplementary model’s very ex- masses in celestial motion in a manner that lies be- istence has demanded that we find fault with the as- yond GR’s theoretical ‘coverage’ — both formally and sumed ‘exclusivity’ of GR’s metric, as well as the fi- (in some regards) conceptually. nality/completeness associated with the Einstein field The model’s nonconformity with the (empirical equations (see subsections 6.7.4 to 6.7.6). This exclu- rule of) inertial mass to (passive) gravitational mass sivity is based upon both: the need for a generally equivalence403, suggests that we (need to) further (con- covariant approach, and the physical validity of the ceptually) ‘detach’ gravitational acceleration from pas- general principle of relativity. We argued that the lat- sive (gravitational) mass. This move (further) un- ter requirement has not been achieved, and note that dermines the notion of gravitational ‘force’ [with di- general covariance — a formal (rather then a physi- ML mensions ( T 2 )] as a primary ‘gravitational’ concept cal) requirement/constraint for a relativistic theory of — a feature initiated by GR’s curvature-based under- gravitational phenomena — is insufficient on its own ∗ standing of gravitation. Inevitably, this [m (r) based] to warrant this exclusivity. exception/violation to a general/all mass-type equiv- A second implicit set of assumptions that needed to alence — that is generally considered to be restricted ∗ be disassembled concerns certain ontological assump- to mi mg, but now (newly) incorporates m = mg tions/beliefs, related to the (long past and completed) ≡ 6 — means that the principle of equivalence no longer theoretical formative process that led to GR, which attains universal physical principle status. Recalling have become ‘built into’ GR’s relativistic approach to the discussion in subsection 6.7.6, this violation sub- gravitation. In Section 4 we discussed how a model for sequently denies the (without exception) generalisa- a ‘real’ Pioneer anomaly has no choice but to revisit tion of SR’s relativity principle; although the general the ‘standard’ ontological commitments/assumptions principle of relativity (GPrR) still applies when we of special relativity (that are extended ‘into’ GR); es- restrict applications to solely macroscopic physics — pecially the veracity/reality of the independent exis- but only regarding the type of theoretical formalisms tence of Minkowski spacetime and its associated phys- that may be established, cf. the GPrR having wa- ical qualities. This specific concern was dependent tertight ‘real world’ physical validity. Actually, the upon our taking issue with the ‘standard’ (and soli- Theory of General Relativity can be applied almost tary/exclusive) interpretation given to space and time universally, except in the rare/exceptional and prob- in special relativity. In Section 4 we proposed a alter- ably unique (macro- and microscopic/QM combined) native/complementary (less simple, more subtle) in- circumstances exhibited by our modelling and expla- terpretation that is consistent with both: the observa- nation of the Pioneer anomaly by way of a QM energy tional evidence relevant to the Special Theory of Rel- source — which is an “exception to the rule” of general ativity, and non-local behaviour in Quantum Mechan- relativity’s gravitational ‘law’. ics. Only this secondary/supplementary interpretation Importantly, our stance regarding the principles of: could have facilitated the construction of the model equivalence, general relativity, and general covariance presented in this paper, so that this model can now mimics (and is compatible with) that of Einstein (circa stand alongside Relativity Theory — upon which we 404 1920 and beyond ), in that these principles are seen have performed a partial conceptual ‘reconstruction’. to have played a historical and heuristic role. They are no longer seen to be an essential part of the ‘basis’ of the theory, although (in this author’s opinion) 6.7.8 Brief summary and closing remarks their formative ‘footprint’ remains. This legacy allows regarding section 6.7 doubt to be cast upon the completeness of a general Our investigation of the Pioneer spacecraft’s ‘appar- relativistic approach to gravitation, and allows con- ent’ violation of (at least one form of) the Equivalence cern to be raised regarding GR’s (scope or) domain Principle has required a fairly extensive investigation of application. There is nothing like a gravitational “completeness theorem” for general relativity’s theo- 405In a manner of speaking, the ‘metric’ in GR does the retical method and scope, merely a firm belief in its ‘heavy lifting’ of the theory. Aspects/features of the metric comprehensiveness. include: that the curved spacetime geometry around a star Circa 1920 “ . . . Einstein [now] postulates the met- (for example) is described by a metric tensor at every point; ric field as the fundamental entity of his theory (Lehner it generates the connections which are used to construct the 2005, p.105).” This is understandable, in that hav- geodesic equation of motion and the Riemann curvature ing completed the theory’s formulation, and appreci- tensor; the Ricci tensor and scalar curvature depend on the metric in a complicated non-linear manner; it is used ating its observational confirmation, it is the metric to raise and lower indices; (and finally) in the weak field tensor (at each point) — i.e. the solution(s) of the approximation (applicable in our solar system) the metric Einstein field equations — that inevitably becomes tensor is closely related to ‘gravitational potential’. the new and more appropriate focus of a relativis- 406In that subsequent to GR’s formalism having been successfully established in 1915 (the Einstein field equa- 403Based upon (macroscopic) experiments dating back to tions etc.), the nature of the formalism has remained the 17th century. fixed/unmodified — notwithstanding the contentious issue 404As discussed by Lehner (2005, p.105). of whether or not to include a cosmological constant term. 124 Paul G. ten Boom of general relativity’s conceptual foundations. Com- conjoint non-local mass distributions (NMDs), achiev- bining this investigation with an appreciation of the ing recognition. Although a not insubstantial level of new model’s content, allows us to reach an understand- idealisation is used in this informal investigation, the ing of how the motion of the Pioneer spacecraft is not main aspects of the discussion are not compromised. in defiance of general relativity (i.e. a relativistic the- Recently, the “standard candle” supernovae ory of gravitation). method has been supplemented and corroborated by This section (6.7) has argued that the ‘footprint’ a “standard ruler” method, involving baryon acoustic left upon the Theory of General Relativity by both: oscillations (BAOs)407 and (statistical features of) the Special Relativity’s use of Minkowski spacetime, and large scale clustering of galaxies (Blake, Davis, Poole, the somewhat antiquated notions of: the equiva- Parkinson, Brough, Colless, Contreras, Couch, Croom, lence principle (in its various forms) and the gen- Drinkwater, Forster, Gilbank, Gladders, Glazebrook, eral principle of relativity — by way of their use in Jelliffe, Jurek, Li, Madore, Martin, Pimbblet, Pracy, the formative/development stage of general relativ- Sharp, Wisnioski, Woods, Wyder, & Yee 2011). ity (GR) — have acted to restrict (in a good way) GR’s theoretical formalism. Unfortunately, if the conceptual argument used to establish a complete and 7.1 Preliminaries proper physical generalisation of (special) relativity Previously (subsections 6.6.9 and 6.4.5), we have aris open to doubt, or indeed invalid, then the for- gued that below a certain mass cut-off threshold, GQ- mative ‘footprint’ left by these conceptual ‘building RSWs (or more succinctly, RSWs) influence the mo- blocks’ can also limit/restrict (in a negative manner) tion of low mass moving bodies equally regardless of the scope/‘domain’ of General Relativity’s application. the body’s direction of motion; i.e. the influence (from We have argued that this is the case. This less than the body’s standpoint) is isotropic — although the perfect situation is indirectly supportive of our model, line-of-sight measurement of motion shortfalls, relative with its stated aim of establishing a viable ‘best’ expla- to predictions ignoring this influence, is not isotropic. nation/hypothesis for the case of the Pioneer anomaly We cannot simply extend this influence to photons be- being ‘real’ cf. a systematic effect. cause the speed of photons/light (in vacuum) is ‘phys- It has become apparent that the formal content of ically’ invariable (or constant). Nevertheless, by way our (new and provisional) model is mutually exclusive of the change in the non-local mass value with ra- from/to GR; the model provides a supplementation of dial distance from a RSW source, a new and interest- gravitational theory that in no way disparages GR, nor ing (isotropic) effect upon the redshifted spectroscopic finds fault with any of its formal/mathematical con- lines of distant type 1a supernovae (SNe 1a) may be tent. Whereas GR is applicable to all forms of macro- hypothesised. Interestingly, this further effect408, in- scopic mass and energy, our new model is something of volving photon propagation (and/or EM radiation en- a ‘boutique’ model with only a few applications. The ergy propagation), is obscured by way of its isotropic model’s underlying mechanism is unique, and involves nature; in that the observer moves with the solar sys- a very specific set of microscopic and macroscopic cir- tem and the RSWs and non-local mass distributions cumstances coexisting in Nature. The model’s in- (NMDs) it harbours. corporation of QM non-local behaviour/phenomena, and an alternative ontological stance regarding space and time ‘underlies’ this segregation of Gravitational 7.2 Proposing a fourth type of ‘red- (approaches and) descriptions. Thus, our (boutique) shift’ (of cosmological extent) model’s complementary approach and quantification of ‘gravitation’ (in its widest/new sense) is neither denied We hypothesise that a fourth (and new) type of gen- 409 nor in direct conflict with GR’s ‘unique’ (and broad- eral photon frequency shift exists in addition to: ranging or ‘general’) approach to gravitation. (1) a Doppler motion based redshift, (2) a scale fac- 410 In Section 8 an overview summary and final discus- tor (cosmological) redshift , and (3) a gravitational sion is given, drawing upon all Sections of the paper, 407 but prior to that (in Section 7) a further and somewhat Baryon acoustic oscillations (BAOs) correspond to a surprising ramification/application of the new model is preferred length scale imprinted in the distribution of photons and baryons by the propagation of sound waves in the presented. relativistic plasma of the early Universe (Blake et al. 2011, Introduction). 408Previously (subsections 3.5.3 and 6.2.6), we discussed 7 Rotating space-warps, non- how RSWs moving with the solar system might anisotrop- ically affect CMB radiation measurement. local mass distributions and 409Pertaining to the equal shifting of spectroscopic lines regardless of their frequency or wavelength. type 1a supernovae results 410Some cosmologists prefer to interpret cosmological redshift as a (kinematic) Doppler shift (Bunn & Hogg 2009; This Section brings together a number of aspects of Davis 2010). We shall refrain from this interpretation, the preceding model to argue that the current in- citing concern with the downplaying of a wavelike aspect of electromagnetic radiation’s propagation, as evidenced in terpretation of type 1a supernovae observations, im- Young’s double slit experiment. This wavelike aspect is plying accelerated cosmological expansion, may be considered to be (unavoidably) affected by space (distance misguided — subsequent to gravito-quantum rotat- between two points) expansion — in an expanding universe. ing space-warps (GQ-RSWs), and (particularly) their If we restrict Planck’s relation (E = hf) to emission and ab- A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 125 redshift411. Whereas the three standard redshifts can tal (RSW and) NMD based energy gain to a frequency be understood by way of laws involving a transforma- blueshift. It is unlikely that a quantum mechanical tion between reference frames, the manner of frame ‘universal’ constant (especially relevant to atoms and transformation for this proposed (fourth type of) red- molecules in emission and absorption events) would shift/blueshift is subtly different. be applicable at the macroscopic/cosmological level, Conceivably, (4) an isotropic blueshift arises for i.e. external to (microscopic) QM systems. Possibly, ∗ photons as they travel towards the source of RSWs h is somewhat like a least action constant that ap- and NMDs in our solar system, which is also the lo- plies to photon/‘light’ propagation in the presence of cation of an Earth based observer. We hypothesise a variable/dispersive non-local energy field. that this occurs by way of the greater (local) value The effects of the dispersion (with increasing ra- of non-local mass (and non-local energy), associated dius from a RSW’s core) of the non-local mass field, with the NMDs, closer to their source. This frequency and hence energy field, is more fully discussed and al- blueshift is similar to, but quite distinct from, the gebraically formulated from section 7.6 onwards, but gravitational blueshift experienced by photons as they prior to this a case for the validity of this hypothesis move (‘downhill’) into a stronger gravitational field. is built. The new blueshift, as measured upon Earth, pertains to far distant objects, and thus it is a blueshift of cosmological extent. As such, its contribution to the 7.3 Dark Energy transition redshift electromagnetic-based frequency shifts of the Pioneer & the time from RSW initiation spacecraft’s observational Doppler data is negligible. Support for this hypothesis comes from consistency be- Note that (‘now’, i.e. present time 100 years) 413 the stability of Sun-planet-moon motion± in the so- tween the transition redshift of dark energy (zt), lar system ensures that the specific energy of each and the light travel time (also known as lookback time) ‘back’ to the establishment of lunar spin-orbit reso- RSW (∆ew) is (effectively) constant throughout the universe. Subsequently, our primary concern in this nance in the early solar system’s history. Section is the effect of NMDs upon the propagation of Good quality recent values of zt are: 0.43 0.07 (Riess et al. 2007, Section 3.1, p.32) and 0.46 ± 0.13 electromagnetic waves/radiation (and photons). ± Quantitatively, we assume (essentially by default) (Riess et al. 2004, Abstract). Note that the underlying that this perturbation is observationally indicated by physics of zt is generally considered unknown (Rapetti, way of a relation similar to the energy to frequency pro- Allen, Amin, & Blandford 2007); and that alternatives portionality in the Planck relation412 (or the Planck- to dark energy, such as grey dust and/or the evolution Einstein equation): E = hν. As such, there will be a of supernovae properties, appear to be without merit (hitherto unappreciated) distance dependent blueshift (Wood-Vasey et al. 2007). Taking the age of the solar system as 4.567 bil- offset (δν) in the frequency of observed photons (cf. 414 expectations) — regardless of the magnitude of their lion years , and that the time to lunar spin-orbit wavelength — due to the presence of (all) the solar resonance (i.e. synchronous rotation) of the Galilean system’s (RSWs and) NMDs. Additionally, we shall moons is 2.5 million years (Peale 1999, p.560); RSW define a path dependent change in this blueshift (off- initiation or establishment is of the order of 4.56 billion ‘lookback’ years. By way of Edward (Ned) Wright’s or set): (δν)final (δν)initial = ∆(δν). − An order of magnitude (‘ball-park’) investigation Siobhan Morgan’s (internet based) “Cosmic Calcula- shows that Planck’s constant (h) cannot be the pro- tor” one can generate a ‘best’ estimate of the redshift of portionality constant in this new ‘negative redshift’ this lookback time. Taking: H0 = 71.5 (km/s)/Mpc, (i.e. blueshift) phenomenon. The introduction of ΩM = 0.265, and assuming a flat universe, a zt value a new (mechanism-specific) proportionality constant, of 0.44 is associated with a universe age of 13.64 billion ∗ denoted h , is proposed; it has dimensions [ML2/T ] or years and a lookback time of 4.55 billion years. Thus, units [kgm2 s−1], as is the case with Planck’s constant, it is not beyond conception that RSW (and non-local angular momentum, and the action (of a path or tra- mass distribution) establishment might be the ‘cause’ jectory). This proportionality constant relates the to- of (or reason behind) a perceived universal expansion inflexion point (in time) — dividing a decelerating universal expansion from a more recently (perceived) ac- sorption events, then concern with regard to photon energy loss during its propagation is not an issue. The Doppler in- celerating one. terpretation of ‘cosmological’ redshift is not being denied; rather it is considered a secondary interpretation that may (possibly) be of benefit to our understanding of general rel- 7.4 A new energy, and questioning a ativity. pivotal cosmological assumption 411The latter involves photons changing position in the gravitational field of an uncharged, non-rotating, spheri- As discussed previously (subsections 6.1.2 and 5.6.8), cally symmetric mass — as confirmed by the Pound-Rebka the energy ‘driving’ the GQ-RSWs (or just RSWs) experiment. and NMDs arises from an external (collective) expres- 412There is no other simple way to link the energy of electromagnetic radiation to both: a frequency change/offset, sion of non-inertial (frame-based) atomic/molecular and a QM mass-energy system. In the case of the latter, we are referring to both: the atomic/molecular basis of 413That is, when a deceleration in the expansion of the (conjoint) RSW and NMD energy, and the necessary exter- universe ‘gives way’ to an accelerating expansion. nalisation of this (non-inertial) energy. 414Wikipedia: Age of the Earth, 2010-12. 126 Paul G. ten Boom energy415, common to a great many atoms/molecules, stance removes the logical implication that a ‘flat’ uni- that occurs below a minimum (internally) expressible verse and sub-critical density necessarily implies dark energy value. Generally, regarding the expansion of energy. the universe, and in the absence of (Doppler) peculiar Subsequently, the pivotal experimental evidence motion and gravitational redshift effects, it is assumed behind the presumed existence of dark energy is the that: type 1a supernovae (and BAOs) data, and any po- . . . there is a direct one to one relation- tential reinterpretation of the SNe 1a data is worth considering and potentially significant. ship between observed redshift and co- Furthermore, tests of the gravitational inverse- moving coordinate (Davis & Lineweaver 2004, p.107). square law below the dark-energy length scale (Kap- ner, Cook, Adelberger, Gundlach, Heckel, Hoyle, & It is this assumption, underlying the case for dark en- Swanson 2007) yield a “result [that] is a setback in ergy, that we seek to question. In other words, we are the search for the gravitational effects of dark en- questioning the validity of the currently conceived re- ergy, which cosmologists believe should begin to ap- lationship between redshift (z) and (time-dependent) pear at this length scale419 .” Finally, Frieman, Turner, cosmic scale factor(s) at observation and emission, i.e: & Huterer (2008) in their review paper — Dark En- ergy and the Accelerating Universe — highlight two a(t ) anow ν λ 1+ z = o = = e = o other problems: (1) “the coincidence problem”, where a(te) athen νo λe ΩDE ΩM [pp.404-405]; and (2) the smallness of the energy∼ density of the quantum vacuum [p.386]. Note that comoving distance is (cosmological) proper distance (D) multiplied by this ratio of scale factors, and that in a ‘flat’ universe, line-or-sight co- 7.6 Volumetric ‘dispersion’ of the moving distance (DC ) equals transverse comoving dis- ‘non-local mass & RSW’ energy tance (DM ). Further, comoving distance factors out the expansion of the universe whereas proper distance Subsections 6.5.1 and 6.6.2 gave the total energy of a does not; it equals proper distance at the present time. single rotating space-warp (RSW) that coexists with non-local mass as: 1 ∗ ∗ ∆E = m ∆a2 ∆t2 = m ∆e 7.5 De-prioritising Dark Energy w 2 1 w 1 w ∗ The accelerating expansion of the universe, as implied where: m1 represents non-local mass at (the incep- by the type 1a supernovae (and baryon acoustic oscillation radius) 8πro = r1, ∆aw is the (weighted, i.e. tions) results, is but one of three pillars upon which the actual) acceleration’s sinusoidal amplitude, ∆t is lu- theoretical concept of dark energy rests. The second nar spin-orbit duration, and ∆Ew is the total supple- pillar arises by way of a need to reconcile the cosmic mentary field energy over the course of a single lunar microwave background (CMB) anisotropies, that indi- loop/cycle. With our solar system quite stable (over cate a flat/uncurved geometry of (cosmological) space, the long-term), ∆ew (i.e. the weighted specific energy) with the total amount of matter (baryonic and dark) is (essentially) a constant and thus: 416 in the universe — implied by measurements of: the ∗ ∆Ew m CMB, large-scale structure, and gravitational lensing. ∝ 1 Lastly, we have the late-time integrated Sachs-Wolfe Secondly, we recall the non-local mass distribution (ISW) effect, closely related to the Rees-Sciama effect function of subsection 6.6.5 (Equation 20), which was (Granett, Neyrinck, & Szapudi 2008). With tempera- 417 alternatively conceived of as a spatial non-local mass ture variations of “about a millionth of a Kelvin ”, continuity equation (in subsection 6.6.6): the meticulous research associated with validating the ∗ ∗ ISW effect as a “direct signal of dark energy” is cutting mr Vr = constant = m1V1 edge but it is not beyond reasonable doubt. ∗ where: m and V1 are (respectively) the fixed non-local The ontological alternative discussed in Section 4, 1 mass, and enclosed volume, at inception. Note that regarding space and time, took issue with the assumed ∗ m is both: the maximum (inertial or passive gravita- extension of General Relativity to the universe “as a r 418 tional) ‘compact’ mass value at radius r (that can be whole”, in the sense that k = 0 is denied — al- affected by a NMD), and the non-local mass value at though this in no way denies6 the validity of (observa- radius r in the field’s distribution, with V the (total) tions based upon) the Friedmann-Lemaˆıtre-Robertson- r volume enclosed within this radius420. This non-local Walker (FLRW) metric with k = 0. Accepting this mass distribution relationship describes a type of (non- 415Effectively analogous to an ‘inertial’ force (or more local) mass dispersion as we move away from the (sin- appropriately to avoid confusion, a ‘fictitious’ or pseudo gle case) RWS and NMD inception radius, such that: ∗ force), but concerning energy. Herein, the expression “vir- mr 1/Vr and tual energy” is preferred, in a bid to (fully) avoid confusion. ∝ ∗ 3 mr (1/r) 416Between 25 and 30 percent of the critical density. ∝ 417http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/35368 419http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/26826 (Jon Cartwright, Aug 8, 2008). (Hamish Johnston, Jan 17, 2007). 418By way of ontological “boundary conditions”, i.e. addi- 420The ‘r’ subscript simplifies the algebraic notation; its tional features of the universe (as a whole) that go beyond use mimics an elementary form of mass continuity equation. ∗ ∗ a purely reductive (to general relativity) approach. Recall (subsection 6.6.5) that: mr ≡ m (r) and Vr ≡ V (r). A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 127

∗ Although the energy of a (conjoint) RSW and amplitude ∆aw) RSWs with their (conjoint) mr dis- NMD is ‘defined’ at inception (i.e. at r = r1), the distributions may influence, i.e. do work on or alter persion of non-local mass magnitude (for r1 r1 and Vr >V1. centrated upon the influence of the RSWs’ accelera- Let us propose and define a total energy (at cosmo- tion undulations upon the motion of low mass bodies, logical distance/radius421 r from an Earth-based ob- whereas the wave-like propagation of photons as EM server) applicable to all ‘conjoint’ RSWs and NMDs: radiation (at c), and their zero (rest) mass, means that the propagation speed of photons cannot be influenced ∗ ∗ Er = (mr ∆ew)i (21) by RSWs in the manner that compact (low mass) bodies are — although in subsection 3.5.3 we argued for ∗ X ∗ E (r), or alternatively Er in our abbreviated nota- the possibility that RSWs may have left a ‘signature’ tion/nomenclature, is the total energy (or work) ‘ca- upon CMB radiation data (as measured by the Wilkin- pacity’ of the RSWs and NMDs (collectively) at cos- son Microwave Anisotropy Probe i.e. WMAP). mological (‘comoving’) distance r. It comprises a summation of non-local mass carrying capacity terms mul- 1 2 2 7.7 Circumventing the ambiguity of tiplied by their respective wave-like 2 ∆aw∆t (specific energy) space-warp terms — both of which can ‘light’ propagation distance act upon a (localised) ‘compact’ mass. Note that the Section 7.6 discussed collective/total RSW and NMD ‘i’ subscript in Equation 21 refers to the index of sum- based energy changes for increasing distance from their mation applicable to the different RSW and NMD sys- source ‘region’ (i.e. the solar system); whereas, the ar- tems (involving for example: Sun–Jupiter–Ganymede, rival of photons at the Earth’s surface involves prop- Sun–Saturn–Titan, etc.). At the inception (i.e. es- agation towards the solar system — i.e. decreasing tablishment) radius (r = r1) of each RSW and NMD ∗ ∗ distance. The arriving photons have had to climb into we have: ∆Ew = E1 = m1∆ew. Thus, the disper- ∗ the dispersed total non-local mass [(mr )total] and to- sion of the field energy (and/or the ‘work’ capacity of ∗ tal energy Er field of the RSWs and NMDs so as a particular RSW and NMD), as r increases from r1, ∗ to reach the observer. In other words: a propa- is reduced such that each: (Er )component 1/Vr or ∗ 3 ∝ gating photon/electromagnetic radiation en route to (E )component (1/r ). r the solar system (inadvertently) ‘experiences’ a ra- To proceed∝ without undue complication, it is ap- dius/distance dependent increasing scalar field. Note propriate to this Section’s goal that we idealise circum- ∗ that a photon’s overall/total mr (‘starting’) value is stances by way of three reasonable approximations. ∗ set at emission/absorption, with m1 (at r1) being the Firstly, we assume solar system Sun-planet-moon or- ∗ maximum achievable value of any m component. The bital stability over most of the solar system’s history. r 1 2 2 greater the distance travelled, the greater the differ- The (∆e ) =( ∆a ∆t ) (component) terms are ef- ∗ ∗ w i 2 w i ence/increase (is) between the m and m values, see fectively constant at the present time ( thousands of r 1 Figure 13. Beyond the dark energy transition (and years). We extend this treatment of e ±values as con- w RSW and NMD initiation) redshift distance z (defined stants to billions of years. Secondly, with the e values t w and discussed in section 7.3), the difference between being of similar magnitude (see Table 5 in section 6.5) ∗ ∗ these two values flattens out, i.e. no longer changes. we assume all ew values are equal. Thus, Er mr , ∗ ∗ ∝ ∗ Note firstly, that the discontinuity mentioned in Figure where mr (mr )total. Note that we are using Er ∗ P∗ 13 (top diagram, maximum distance) refers to the ex- rather then writing≡ (E ) . Thirdly, with the m val- P r total r tent of the RSWs’ and NMDs’ influence upon electro- ues being of similar magnitude (see Table 7 in section ∗ magnetic radiation (as observed ‘now’); and secondly, 6.6) we assume all mr values are (also) equal. Thus, ∗ ∗ ∗ that the current (i.e. ‘now’) field of the (non-local, we have Er mr , where mr is a mean NMD of the ∗ ∝ global/systemic) RSWs and NMDs actually fills the various mr distributions; and (similarly to an individ- ∗ entire universe, regardless of its ‘size’, with even lower ual/component mr ) we obtain: ∗ ∗ (individual) mr and (collective) Er values achievable ∗ 3 Er (1/r ) (in the future) in a further expanded universe. ∝ A major issue (until now unmentioned) is that ∗ A subtlety worth recalling/noting is that Er is a total the distance (r) from the various rotating space-warp energy (that is) based upon the entire enclosed (cosmo- (RSW) source radii has been treated as independent of logical scale) volume at a distance r; but by way of the the universe’s expansion — i.e. it has been effectively ∗ non-locality (or global nature) of non-local mass (m ), treated as a comoving distance — whereas the distance this energy magnitude applies to all locations on/at travelled by a photon is dependent upon the (metric) the spherical surface of the NMD’s enclosed/spanned expansion of space. Thus, our discussion of distance volume Vr. travelled is inherently ambiguous. Fortunately, the in- ∗ ∗ In section 7.8 we begin to more fully examine how verse cubic dispersion of each (mr )i and (mr)total with the presence of (constant acceleration/gravitational increasing r means that: for small cosmological distances, cosmological expansion can be neglected. Ad- 421Small differences in distance (r) between the different Sun-planet-moon (RSW and NMD ‘generating’) systems, ditionally, for larger r, i.e. between (say) 2.0 and 4.56 billion light (travel time) years, the relative error in the by way of their ‘sources’ lying in different parts of the solar ∗ ∗ system (i.e. near Jupiter, Saturn or Neptune), are negligible mr values, and hence Er , is very small — even though when cosmological distances are being considered. a non-expanding distance scale is oversimplified. 128 Paul G. ten Boom

‘Non-local mass’ dispersion (inverse cube) Finally, the non-locality of RSWs and their conjoint NMDs (implying ‘instantaneous’ field entangle- * m1 ment) makes comoving distance — i.e. the distance between two points measured along a path defined at the * present cosmological time — equivalent to the RSW mr also and NMD distance measure discussed throughout this Incoming light subjected or paper (i.e. DC = r), but only ‘now’/at the present cos- to increased field energy GQ r * mological time — a feature that suits the non-locality Er inherent to the model. As regards this/our idealised investigation, the distinction between comoving distance and proper distance (the distance scale that expands 0 r distance (fixed scale) with the universe) is not a pressing concern. End of RSWs influence; r1 effectively a discontinuity 7.8 An alternative interpretation of Effective blueshift (at Earth) vs. distance to source the type 1a supernovae data The top schematic diagram of Figure 13 represents the spatial distribution of field strength for both: a single flat line ∗ non-local mass distribution (mr), and total/collective ∗ non-local (scalar) energy (Er ) — arising from (one or ' GQ multiple, respectively) rotating space-warp(s) and (re- r spectively) its/their conjoint non-local mass distribution(s) — that have influenced photons ‘received’ (in the present epoch422). In section 7.6, Equation 21 defined the total energy (or work) ‘capacity’ of multiple ∗ ∗ 0 d (coexisting) RSWs and NMDs as Er = (mr ∆ew)i. distance (expanding universe) Subsequently, let us propose and define P Equivalent to zt ∗ ∗ Er = h (δνr) Figure 13: The top schematic diagram represents the or (alternatively) written more conventionally dispersion of both: a single non-local mass distribu- ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ E (r)= h [δν(r)] tion (mr ), and total/collective non-local energy (Er ), with increasing distance (r) away from the ‘source’ of as being indicative of the (radius/distance dependent) the rotating space-warps (RSWs) and their conjoint frequency shift associated with the existence of the non-local mass distributions (NMDs). We hypothe- new (total) scalar energy field. Note that each δνr sise that this inverse cube-like relationship also rep- [i.e. δν at r] value represents the offset in cosmological resents a distance dependent blueshift frequency off- ‘redshift’ due to the presence of RSWs and NMDs cf. set (δνr), relative to a case without RSWs and NMDs the case without the presence of this scalar field effect. present. The lower schematic diagram illustrates the We also note that the use of ‘δ’ does not represent a presently observable difference in this blueshift offset (mathematical) infinitesimal change in the value of a [∆(δνr)], as experienced by light/electromagnetic radi- variable (as is the case) in infinitesimal calculus. ation ‘during’ its propagation (towards the solar sys- ∗ We use this (unconventional) ‘δ’ nomencla- tem) through the (non-local mass based) Er energy ture/notation for two reasons. Firstly, to indicate ∗ field (arising from multiple RSWs and NMDs). Be- an offset from idealised (no E field) conditions; in yond the time of RSW and NMD initiation, i.e. > 4.56 this sense it is similar to δ as used in Engineering billion years ago — which is effectively the (dark en- Mechanics to represent a deflection (e.g. of a beam ergy) transition redshift (zt 0.44) — there can be no ≈ from equilibrium conditions). Secondly, it represents further increase in this value. an anomalous/second type of change in addition to a standard change/decrease (of frequency with distance, ∆ν = νe νo), in the same manner that two different speed changes− were required earlier (e.g. in subsection 3.2.9) — one for the speed oscillation amplitude (∆v) For our approximate (i.e. idealised) purposes the induced by a rotating space-warp, and the other for the expansion of the universe, although obviously signif- associated monotonic speed loss (δv) of a moving body icant for cosmological redshift ∆ν (or ∆λ), is fairly (cf. predicted speed without the RSWs’ presence). ∗ insignificant for the (RSW and NMD based) δν (or Actually, neither Er nor δνr can be directly mea- δλ) offset values proposed in this Section. We shall sured; only a change/increase in their values is obser- ∗ proceed without correcting Er , δν, or (the various in- vationally relevant. Thus (via final and initial values): ∗ dividual) mr (values) for the expansion of the universe. ∗ ∗ ∗ y ∗ ∗ E E = h (δν1 δνr) or alt ∆E = h [∆(δνr)] Additionally, it should be noted that we have not con- 1 − r − r sidered solar system (peculiar) motion, with respect to 422With “present epoch” being used in a cosmological the type 1a supernovae (‘standard candles’), over the sense, such that any given time in the past 50 years or past (approximately) 4.56 billion years. so can be effectively considered ‘now’. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 129 represents the difference/increase that exists between be attributed to a recent acceleration of the universe’s initial photon emission/absorption and (final) recep- expansion, and the hypothetical existence of dark en- tion/observation. This blueshift effect is supplemen- ergy. Correcting for the new blueshift effect, means tary to the standard cosmological expansion effect that objects such as SNe 1a are actually more distant (i.e. a ‘cosmic’ scale factor based redshift effect, cf. distance (expectations) based upon (recalling sec- ∆ν = (νo νe). The spatial distribution of this dif- tion 7.4) an assumed “. . . direct one to one relationship − − ference [∆(δνr)], stripped of the proportionality con- between observed redshift and comoving coordinate.” stant (h∗), is shown in the bottom schematic diagram Furthermore, the (possible existence of) foreground of Figure 13. This quantity is physically ‘real’ in that ‘contamination’ in the CMB radiation data — which it represents a quantifiable blueshift of EM radiation possibly arises indirectly from the existence of RSWs arising during its propagation toward our solar system, (see subsection 3.5.3) — is supportive of the idea that as realised by measurements at the present ‘time’. a re-interpretation of the universe’s expansion history The variation of (i.e. change in) the proposed (fre- may be required. quency) blueshift offset [∆(δνr)] with distance, and This re-interpretation potentially allows a return (recalling section 7.3) the zt = 0.44 transition (for to (the more logically simpler status of) a decelerating H0 = 71.5 (km/s)/Mpc, ΩM = 0.265, and assuming expansion. Certainly, issues such as the “age problem” a flat universe), concur with the graphical supernovae of the universe will resurface; but the ramifications of representation of Davis, Mörtsell, Sollerman, Becker, the existence of rotating space-warps, with their asso- Blondin, Challis, Clocchiatti, Filippenko, Foley, Gar- ciated non-local mass (and energy) distributions, de- navich, Jha, Krisciunas, Kirshner, Leibundgut, Li, serve investigation. As such, the scenario proposed Matheson, Miknaitis, Pignata, Rest, Riess, Schmidt, in this Section, albeit involving a not insubstantial de- Smith, Spyromilio, Stubbs, Suntzeff, Tonry, Wood- gree of idealisation, conceivably explains why there has Vasey, & Zenteno (2007, Figure 7), which plots red- been a remarkable lack of progress in characterising the shift vs. ‘distance’ modulus423 (µ). ‘essence’ of dark energy, and the physics underlying the Physically, this (non-local mass based) frequency transition redshift of dark energy (zt). Supporting ev- blueshift effect appears to be restricted to (i.e. only idence for this conjecture is presented in section 7.10. active upon) the wave-like nature of EM radiation. In other words, as light propagates toward the observer 7.10 How the RSWs’ non-local mass this hitherto unforseen blueshift (energy increase) occurs. Note that nothing discontinuous is seen to occur distributions act to mimic ef- suddenly upon measurement. Emission and absorp- fects attributed to dark energy tion events and their associated spectra, as well as the Detailed investigation has revealed that dark energy generation of continuous spectra, and also measure- density (i.e. energy volume) remains constant with ment events, are all governed by standard quantum time (Wang & Tegmark÷ 2004). Indeed, Max Tegmark electrodynamics. told PhysicsWeb426: “I’m struck by the fact that the dark energy seems so ‘vanilla’.” Furthermore, the cos- 7.9 Ramifications of the NMD- mological constant term in gravitational theory is con- based supplementary blueshift sidered to act like a constant (positive) vacuum energy density. The implication here is that: ∆Edark ∆Vu ∝ Standard cosmological redshifts arise by way of com- where Vu is the volume of the universe; with temporal paring distant spectroscopic lines with the wave- changes in Vu (i.e. ∆Vu) dependent upon changes in lengths of reference spectroscopic lines — as deter- cosmic scale factor [a(t)= a = ascale (say), in order to mined/calibrated in Earth-based laboratories. The avoid confusion with acceleration amplitude]. Thus: measured brightness of a type 1a supernova (SNe 1a) ∆E indicates the distance (now) of the object, whereas dark 3 constant the redshift illustrates the intervening expansion his- (∆ascale) ≈ 424 tory of the universe . Including this supplementary For a photon approaching the solar system, sec- ∗ −3 blueshifting ‘process’ makes for greater cosmic scale tion 7.6 argued that: Er r , which then im- ∗ −3 ∝ factor redshifts than is currently appreciated; i.e. the plies: ∆Er (∆r) . Alternatively, if we replace currently perceived relationship between measured red- the model’s∝ solar system (origin) based distance (r) shift and cosmic scale factor is ‘significantly’ altered, with a distance (R) that increases with photon prop- as is the redshift-magnitude relation of type 1a super- agation duration, and whose ‘origin’ lies well beyond novae, with the most significant effects at low redshifts. any photon emission points, then we have (roughly) ∗ Upon accepting the presence of NMDs, the (once ∆E (∆R)3. Subsequently, noting that R is a (to- 425 R surprising ) dimness of type 1a supernovae need not wards∝ Earth) distance and not cosmic scale factor: ∗ 423 ∆E Distance modulus is the apparent magnitude (of an R constant astronomical object) minus the absolute magnitude, i.e. (∆R)3 ∼ µ = m − M. 424Distances need to be determined in conjunction with ery’. Today, physicists (in general) are very accepting of some particular model of spacetime; usually this is a (stan- this observation, although decidedly ‘less so’ the interpre- dard) Lambda-Cold Dark Matter (ΛCDM) cosmology. tation given to it. 425The type 1a supernovae observations/results were a 426http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/19736 major surprise to physicists at the time of their ‘discov- (Belle Dumé, Jun 24, 2004). 130 Paul G. ten Boom

Over the past two billion years — the period of time the expansion of the universe; as compared to the (cos- where the change in dark energy is most noticeable — mological) cosmic scale factor redshift, which is solely both ascale and R evolve (approximately) linearly with determined by the expansion of the universe. In other time (i.e. the same time). Thus, ∆ascale ∆R is fea- words, this (lesser and) hitherto unrecognised cos- sible for recent (cosmological) times and∝ low redshifts mological blueshift is almost totally dependent upon (z < 0.16). With a common cubic distance relation- an Earth approaching photon (and/or EM radiation) ship, or volume-like relationship, present in the denom- gaining energy as it climbs into the (distance, or rather ∗ inator of both the two (change in) energy based ratios volume dependent) scalar energy field (Er ) of the solar ∗ (with numerators ∆Edark and ∆ER), the similarity of system ‘centered/based’ RSWs and NMDs. their (through time) variation is greatly enhanced. In- Support for this conjecture/hypothesis lies in the deed it is their definitive shared attribute. remarkable ‘coincidence’ that the dark energy tran- 3 For this reason, at low redshifts with R propor- sition redshift (zt 0.44) — i.e. from decelerating ∼ tional to a volume VR we have: universal expansion to an accelerated expansion — ∗ matches the establishment ‘time’ of lunar spin-orbit ∆E R constant resonance in the solar system’s very early history (i.e. ∆VR ∼ 4.55 billion ‘lookback’ years ago), see section 7.3. ≈ which mimics the near constancy of dark energy den- This synchronisation feature is arguably the major pre- sity through time as the universe undergoes expansion requisite required for ‘generating’ the model’s RSW (devoid of the model’s NMDs), such that: and NMD scalar fields. Other features supportive of dark energy were critically evaluated in section 7.5. ∆E dark constant An important finding of this Section was that the ∆Vu ≈ (through time) manner of the EM radiation’s (frequency based) energy change is very similar to, and These two constant (energy density) ratios, describe effectively mimics, the presence of an apparent con- very different and unrelated physical scenarios. The stant ‘dark’ energy density and accelerated expansion very similar proportionality displayed by both (dimen- of the universe. This second (and currently accepted) sionless) ∆a and (‘dimensional’) ∆R, as well as scale interpretation is implied by the redshift-magnitude ∆V and ∆V , makes these two (temporal change u R relation of type 1a supernovae (and observations of based) ratios approximately equal. We reiterate that baryon acoustic oscillations) — in the assumed ab- V is a (photon-point) motion based volume, whereas R sence of RSWs and their ‘conjointly existing’ NMDs. V is an expanding scale (line segment) based volume. u Further, by way of the overall/total energy distribu- If we accept the model’s alternative energy ‘den- tion (exhibiting dispersion) that surrounds (multiple) sity’ relationship, then the ‘plain vanilla’ dark energy, RSWs and NMDs in our solar system, we need to ad- that Max Tegmark refers to, may be regarded as symp- just/correct the measured (and assumed) value of the tomatic of a (i.e. our) completely different mechanism; universe’s expansion-based cosmological redshift in or- a mechanism that is largely independent of (i.e. only der to compensate for this new cosmological blueshift marginally influenced by) the universe’s expansion. effect. Upon implementing this adjustment (it turns This mechanism (similarly) requires the existence of ∗ ∗ out that) the universe is quite conceivably (completely) an unforseen energy (E ), or more appropriately E R r free of dark energy and undergoing a gravitation-based (as defined in section 7.6). Subsequently, dark energy deceleration in its expansion. (E ) may no longer be in need of ‘dispensation’. dark Concerns raised by this (suggested) return to what was once conventional gravitational cosmology have 7.11 Summary and closing remarks been briefly addressed, but not with any rigour; e.g. “the age problem”, and the status of the late-time in- In this Section we conjectured that the model’s var- tegrated Sachs-Wolfe effect. The objective of this Sec- ious non-local mass distributions (NMDs), i.e. the ∗ tion has been to broadly outline, with the assistance of various mr distributions, and the overall/total energy ∗ a not insubstantial degree of idealisation, a conceivable distribution (E ) — associated with the superposi- r alternative to dark energy. This was achieved by way tion of (multiple) rotating space-warps — can influ- of drawing upon content within the model and expla- ence the energy (and frequency) of electromagnetic nation of a ‘real’ Pioneer anomaly presented through- radiation. We hypothesised — in relation to the ob- out this paper — with this model being molded and servation (in our solar system) of photons arriving governed by the awkward observational evidence asso- from (standard candle) type 1a supernovae — that: ciated with the Pioneer anomaly (and other peripheral Earth bound EM radiation (during its journey) has issues such as the Earth flyby anomaly). been blueshifted, by way of encountering the (non- local) energy distribution/dispersion of the (multiple) GQ-RSWs and NMDs scalar fields — such that: ∗ ∗ ∗ 8 Summary, Discussion and ∆Er = h [∆(δνr)] where h is a (new) proportionality constant with dimensions [ML2/T ]. Further, sec- Conclusions tion 7.7 established that the quantification of this ‘supplementary’ blueshift effect/offset (δν), as measured Due to the length and broad/multidisciplinary scope by its change between (distant) emission/absorption of this paper, rather than merely present a conclusion, and reception/measurement at Earth locations in the this (final) Section contains both: a summary of the present epoch [∆(δν)], is only slightly dependent upon major features and findings of the model/mechanism, A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 131 as well as a fairly protracted discussion of its ramifica- needing be in a 1:1 or synchronous spin-orbit reso- tions. As such, this concluding Section is interspersed nance ‘around’ its host planet. For an Earth-based with a diverse range of constitutive conclusions. Sec- observer the mean measured anomaly, although essen- tions 8.1 to 8.3 are largely model-specific; they out- tially constant in the far outer solar system — by way line the model’s: primary conceptual features, major of the line-of-sight observations approaching a max- quantitative results and equations, as well as a number imum constant value (asymptote) at large distances of predictions and applications. A somewhat different from the barycentre — and always present to some approach is evident in sections 8.4 and 8.5, in that degree, is not position independent; especially when they are largely devoted to discussing and encapsulat- a spacecraft lies between Jupiter and Saturn, as was ing the wider and widest ramifications (respectively) of the case for Pioneer 11 on its approach to Saturn en- the new model/mechanism. In section 8.6 a brief final counter. For each Sun-planet-moon system the model retrospective commentary is delivered. In the interests establishes a “cut-off mass”, i.e. the maximum (pas- of being productive and progressive, some new infor- sive gravitational429 ) mass of a body that can be influ- mation has been introduced throughout this Section in enced. These (numerous and different) cut-off masses order to achieve this treatise’s ultimate aims. An un- (all) reduce with increasing distance away from their derlying theme of this Section (particularly prominent ‘source’ region, by way of an inverse r cubed relation- in section 8.2) is the philosophy of science and phi- ship430 — i.e. an inverse spherical volume relation- losophy of physics based apologetics427 given to ap- ship. A rough (“rule of thumb”) guide is that solar pease the sceptical reader’s hostility towards both a system bodies (of average density) with a diameter of real and non-systematic based Pioneer anomaly and approximately 1 to 2 kilometres lie around these cut-off the unorthodox explanation (of it) ‘reasonably’ pur- masses; Table 7 in section 6.6 gives the actual (moon sued herein. specific and) distance dependent cut-off mass values. The model, whose basis and major features were 8.1 The model’s major results, pre- encapsulated in the Introduction/Section 1, proposes two new physical field mechanisms associated with dictions, applications & features each (participating) “gravito-quantum” Sun-planet- This paper has developed a model for what many sci- moon system — of which (quantitatively) there are entists believe is the impossible or highly unlikely case five dominant contributors involving Jupiter’s four of a ‘real’ (non-systematic based) Pioneer anomaly, i.e. Galilean moons and Saturn’s Titan. Apart from a very one where thermal-radiation/heat based effects and minor contribution from Neptune’s Triton, effects at- other (external, on-board, and computational) system- tributable to all other Sun-planet-moon systems are either non-existent (e.g. Earth’s moon) or negligible atics are present but play only a minor role. The new 431 model explains the four principal observational fea- (e.g. Uranus’ largest moon Titania ). These five tures/constraints of the Pioneer anomaly; these be- major superpositioned (‘circumferentially’ sinusoidal- ing: (1) an mean anomalous (inward) deceleration like) three dimensional rotating space-deformations or −10 −2 rotating space-warps (RSWs) — existing (in a ‘pla- (aP ) of 8.74 1.33 10 m s (in the outer solar system and beyond);± × (2) the (quasi-stochastic) tem- nar’ disk slice) as opposing perturbations ‘above and below’ (and ‘upon’) the (equilibrium) spacetime curva- poral variation of the anomaly around this long-term 432 mean/average value; (3) an apparent violation of gen- ture produced by general relativistic gravitation — eral relativity’s weak equivalence principle (WEP) — account for the path-based Pioneer anomaly. Quanti- in that the anomaly affects the motion of spacecraft tatively, a root sum squared (RSS) value is required, and ‘low’ mass celestial bodies but not the motion of with this (RSS) proper deceleration (superposition) ‘high’ (or large) mass celestial bodies such as planets value (ap) — cf. the (Pioneer S/C) observation based and moons; and (4) the lower value of the (Pioneer 11 value (aP ) — ‘formalised’ in section 8.3. This RSS based) anomaly — on approach to Saturn encounter. (anomalous ‘acceleration magnitude’) value is related A major qualitative feature of the model is that to (both) the (sinusoidally varying) constant acceler- the anomalous ‘deceleration’ — which is generally re- ation/curvature field amplitudes [(∆g)i] and the en- ferred to (simply) as an acceleration magnitude — acts suing (effectively equal) proper acceleration ampli- in the (opposite) direction of the translational path of tude (components) of a moving body [(∆a)i] — by a (low mass) body, as compared to being Sun-directed way of these field effects/sinusoids producing (com- or Earth-directed. Furthermore, the anomalous ac- ponent) sinusoidal/oscillatory speed variations around celeration itself — although not its line-of-sight mea- the moving body’s equilibrium (speed) value. Note surement — is independent of a body’s speed428 and that the ‘i’ subscript (as used) here indicates both: direction of motion, i.e. it is velocity independent. 429Where the word “gravitational” is used here in a wider The energy source ‘driving’ the anomalous (Pioneer) sense than normal, referring to both: standard (general acceleration is solar system based, involving (amongst relativistic) gravitational fields, and the supplementary ac- many other things) three-body Sun-planet-moon ce- celeration/gravitational field type proposed herein. lestial systems (see Introduction) — with each moon 430Where ‘r’ is the separation distance of a body from a given (lunar-based) source region. 427Reasoned arguments or writings in justification (or the 431The eighth largest moon in the solar system. defense) of something. 432There is no change in the overall/net spacetime cur- 428Noting that no celestial body in the solar system exists vature arising from the inclusion of rotating space-warps at rest (i.e. in the absence of some kind of motion) relative (recall section 3.1). For a diagrammatic representation see to the solar system’s barycentre. Figures 4 to 7 in Section 3 and Figure 8 in Section 6. 132 Paul G. ten Boom the index of summation of the RSS components, and from the perspective of the Pioneer 10 spacecraft that multiple instantiations of the particular vari- — matches the amplitude ( 0.7 mm/s) and dura- able are being referred to. Importantly, each un- tion of the annual oscillatory≈ term (i.e. 355 2 steady/oscillatory motion/speed component also pro- days, or 0.0177∼ 0.0001 rad/day angular velocity).± ± duces a component (rate of) speed shortfall [(δa)i] — d) Noting that Io-Europa-Ganymede obey a 4:2:1 and a (component) translational kinetic energy loss (spin and) orbital resonance, the (unusual) 200-day (rate) — relative to (speed) predictions/expectations correlation time sensitivity of the annual residual that omit the presence of the supplementary gravita- can be attributed to this duration∼ being almost ex- tional/accelerational mechanism, i.e. where the pre- actly four times the 50.1 day (lesser known) 7-to-3 dicted kinetic energy (K.E.) is assumed (effectively) Ganymede-Callisto orbital resonance duration. steady/translational433 . Additionally, the model (nec- Thirdly, the initial/establishment values of non-local essarily) proposes/introduces a separate (i.e. second) ∗ ∗ field mechanism feature — involving the magnitude mass [m (r1) or more simply/succinctly m1], specific 434 to each Sun-planet-moon (or barycentre-planet-moon) and distribution of a new scalar physical quantity ∗ ∗ system, and their spatial distribution [m (r) or rather called “non-local mass” (m ) — that pertains to both ∗ the appeasement of the apparent violation of the weak mr ] around their (lunar) source region are discussed equivalence principle, and the dispersion of energy in section 6.6 and quantitatively displayed in Table 7. away from each supplementary field’s source region435 . Note that this subscript based nomenclature is tailored The model’s quantitative results are divided to equalities involving the continuity of non-local mass. into three categories. Firstly, the (outer solar sys- Primary predictions specific to the model’s con- tem and beyond) long-term average constant (idealised ceptualisation and quantification are: maximum/asymptotic) ‘Pioneer’ anomaly value (ap) − − a) That the accuracy of celestial body and spacecraft is: 8.65 0.66 10 10 m s 2. This is a path-based re- ± × “orbit determination”, e.g. future interplanetary sult, and (subsequently) the model’s proposed average missions and near-Earth objects (NEOs) — as well line-of-sight-measurement value of the anomaly asso- as the proposed Laser Interferometer Space An- ciated with the Pioneer 10 spacecraft (01 Jan 1987 to − − tenna (LISA) mission — will benefit from adjusting 22 July 1998) is 8.52 0.66 10 10 m s 2. An average − − for the (model’s) Pioneer anomaly-like influence. line-of-sight value of± 7.61 ×0.66 10 10 m s 2 is associated with the Pioneer 11± spacecraft× (01 Jan 1987 to b) For Pioneer 11 ‘between’ Jupiter and Saturn the 01 Oct 1990). Note that for a number of reasons in- amplitude of temporal variation in the anomalous cluding: data arc duration/length, general spacecraft acceleration should be muted, in proportion to the performance (e.g. gas leaks), magnitude of solar ra- lessening of the anomalous acceleration magnitude. diation pressure, and level of solar activity (Anderson c) Asteroid 1862 Apollo (1.7 km in diameter with a et al. 2002, p.34), the Pioneer 10 data is/has been con- mass 5.1 1012 kg) is an ideal asteroid for ex- sidered (significantly) superior to the Pioneer 11 data. amining≈ the× model’s distance dependent non-local Secondly, in Section 3 the model is able to account mass cut-off values — i.e. the maximum (passive for aspects of the temporal variation in the Pioneer 10 gravitational) mass that can be influenced (subsec- data. Noting that 10 mHz 0.652 mm/s: tion 6.6.10). This is because its orbital path spans ≡ a) The model-based variation in speed, around an the transition zone of four of the five dominant Sun- equilibrium speed, of 16 to 19 mHz due to the planet-moon contributors — with Saturn-Titan be- RSWs, combined with the (root mean square) raw ing out of ‘range’ (for an asteroid of this mass). measurement noise/residual of “a few mHz”, sum It should be noted that due to the very small magni- (i.e. add up) to match the overall observation- tude of the (Pioneer) anomaly, verification or falsifi- based (post-fit) residual/noise of 20 to 25 mHz. cation of these predictions is not easily (nor inexpen- b) The Earth-based diurnal residual confirms the Pi- sively) achieved; it will take time, effort, and resources. oneers’ exceptional navigational precision and ac- Major applications of the multiple (and superpo- curacy. Section 3.4 argued that although a “true- sitioned) instantiations of the two proposed (supple- annual” residual exists, its amplitude is not sig- mentary) field mechanisms include: nificant, and the (more appropriately labelled) a) Section 7’s proposal that a foreground effect re- annual residual (C. Markwardt’s nomenclature) lated to the non-local mass distributions (NMDs) has∼ been incorrectly interpreted as Earth-based. leads to a supplementary cosmological blueshift of c) The Callisto-Titan beat frequency amplitude of incoming electromagnetic radiation (and massless 0.733 mm/s (i.e. 11.24 mHz) and temporal du- photons); for example, the ‘light’ from “standard ration of 357.9 days — corrected to 356.1 days candle” type 1a supernovae, and “standard ruler” baryon acoustic oscillations (re: galaxy clustering). 433The kinetic energy associated with a spacecraft’s spin/rotational motion may be safely ignored. This effect arguably dispenses with the need to en- 434A physical quantity is expressed as the product of a act the existence of (mysterious) dark energy. numerical value (i.e. a number) and a physical unit. b) Subsection 6.2.4 gives a qualitative account of how 435Note that this source ‘region’ is centered upon a point on the moon’s spin axis in the case of the (cylindrical-like the Earth flyby anomaly can be attributed to the or parallel planar-like) rotating space-warps, whereas it is existence of rotating space-warps (RSWs), if the centered upon a moon’s core (or central point) in the case RSWs are ‘locally’ refracted by the Earth’s ( 10 of the (spherical-like) non-local mass distributions. billion times stronger) gravitational field so that∼ A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 133

their planes of rotation are (all) parallel with the ‘boutique’, unique and very specific new physics model Earth’s equatorial plane. This qualitative account proposed herein, although completely independent of complements (and validates) the quantitative mod- general relativistic gravitational sources, needs to (and elling and empirical prediction formula of the Earth does) coexist (harmoniously) with general relativity. flyby anomaly proposed by (Anderson et al. 2008). General relativity (GR) is neither considered wrong (in any way) nor in need of modification; and on the c) Due to the large moons of the solar system achiev- whole (i.e. “all in all”), general relativity ‘rules’ (i.e. ing spin-orbit resonance very early in the solar sys- dominates) Gravitation. An “exception to the rule” tem’s history, explanatory accounts of solar sys- solitary new source of gravitation is proposed — i.e. tem formation — at least as regards asteroids and a new source of non-Euclidean space-time geometry comets of less than approximately 1 or 2 km diame- 436 is proposed. This supplementary source type is based ter (respectively) — will be similarly affected by upon (a many atomed/moleculed) internally inexpress- the overlooked/supplementary (anomalous) speed- ible fractional quantum mechanical (spin-based) en- retardation effect, as the Pioneer spacecraft have ergy being expressed externally, so as to appease sys- been in the present era. Over one million years the temic (i.e. universal) energy conservation — see the extremely small speed retardation rate can produce 437 Introduction for a more elaborate account/overview. a significant 27.3 km/s reduction in speed . ≤ Basically, this additional source-type of non- Other possible applications include: (d) that an Euclidean (spatial) geometry, in addition to GR’s explanation of the anomalous alignment of the cosmic (mass, momentum, and energy based) non-Euclidean microwave background radiation (anisotropy) with the geometry/spacetime curvature, affects a (low-mass) ecliptic plane may have its basis in the new model; body’s motion in a manner that ‘parallels’ both: so- noting that the planes of space-warp rotation, asso- lar radiation pressure, and the Poynting-Robertson ciated with Jupiter’s equatorial plane and its four and Yarkovsky effects. This (remark) is true in o Galilean moons, are closely aligned with (< 2 in- the sense that the Pioneer anomaly is a supplemen- clination to) the solar system’s (Earth based) eclip- tary/additional effect upon celestial motion, not nec- tic plane (see subsection 3.5.3). Further, by way of essarily equally applicable to all sizes/scales of matter, having (indirectly) argued that other (non-general rel- and it acts so as to merely alter or perturb a body’s mo- ativistic) gravitational ‘sources’ can exist, it may be tion in a comparatively minor manner — at least over the case that: (e) galaxies, i.e. systems of billions of (celestially/cosmologically) brief time scales. The bou- roughly equally massive stars — (at least) when com- tique/unique nature of the model relates (in part) to pared to circumstances in our solar system — that are the unique fact that (with regard to quantum mechan- fairly evenly (and non-centrally) distributed through- ics) intrinsic angular momentum (i.e. spin) has neither out, exhibit more than simply Newtonian gravitation; a classical limit nor a classical analogue. We also note i.e. galaxies might exhibit an additional non-Euclidean that the development of GR preceded/predated quan- geometry contribution. A myriad of field interaction tum mechanics (QMs) and that (to date) a unification effects (for example) could possibly be involved. of GR and QMs has not been convincingly validated; as such, the ‘new’ physical model hypothesised is not 8.2 Physical and conceptual supple- inconsistent with the physics of today. ments inherent to the model The primary conceptual move supporting the new model/mechanism is the implementation of an energy In this paper the Pioneer anomaly is treated as a (‘transfer’/re-expression) based mechanism that spans real (i.e. non-systematic based) “gateway observation” (microscopic) systems described by quantum mechan- that suggests a need for new physics, with the Earth ics and (macroscopic) systems ‘described’ by space- flyby anomaly being supportive of this stance. The time curvature, so as to resolve a unique/solitary conflict scenario pertaining to discrete quantum me- 436Although larger/higher mass bodies can be affected ‘on chanical atomic/molecular systems moving (along a 14 occasion’ — for example Halley’s comet at ≈ 2.2 × 10 kg geodesic) in analog curved spacetime. The implemen- (as discussed in subsection 6.4.6) — this range of size val- tation of a (model-specific) energy conservation prin- ues applies to a more ‘continual’ anomalous influence. For a comet of (say) 1 km diameter with a (typical comet) den- ciple is dependent upon (and consequential to) a pro- sity of 0.5×103 kg m−3 and (thus a) mass of 0.26×1012 kg, posed supplementation of our understanding of time the rotating space-warp based anomalous speed/motion re- — specifically a background/hidden stance (or ‘take’) tardation effects are largely ‘continuous’ — applying at dis- on the sequencing of events on a universal scale — tances of less than approximately: 18 AU from Jupiter, 7.5 that takes issue with the conventional (ubiquitous non- AU from Saturn, and 5 AU from Neptune (via Table 7). simultaneity) interpretation of light signal-based mea- For a 0.5 km diameter comet (cf. 1 km), or a (typical density) 0.3 km diameter asteroid — noting that asteroids have surements; notwithstanding the fact that ‘different’ an average density of about 2.5 × 103 kg m−3 or 2.5 g/cm3 clocks run at different rates. This (temporal) inter- — these distances increase eight-fold, and thus the speed pretive supplementation is implied by quantum en- retardation/loss effect is made effectively (or at least in- tanglement and quantum non-locality. Support for creasingly) distance-independent. this (energy and time based) conceptual supplementa- 437 This speed reduction arguably cleanses the solar system tion is buttressed by an appreciation of the following of a great deal of (relatively) low mass material, by way of four (largely philosophy of science and philosophy of this matter losing kinetic energy and spiralling into the Sun. By way of comparison the mean orbital velocities of Venus, physics based) issues/discussions. Jupiter, and Neptune are: 35.0, 13.1, and 5.4 km/s. Firstly, one’s attitude to the Pioneer anomaly is 134 Paul G. ten Boom crucial. Are we in a period of (what Thomas Kuhn general covariance; the reliance of GR’s formulation calls) “normal science”, or not (by way of the exis- upon SR, and the scaffolding role played by the gen- tence of a number of disconcerting anomalies)? The eral principle of relativity in establishing the Einstein former (of these two stances) will tend to: dwell on the field equations; and (lastly) lingering doubts regarding strengths of a ‘research programme’ cf. concentrate SR’s clock problem/twin paradox. These issues allow upon and investigate its weaknesses; dismiss or seek us to (at least) question the totality of GR’s phys- to explain away the (creditably established) Pioneer ical (and conceptual) scope. To this we might add and Earth flyby anomalies; and bypass or downplay two questions: (1) Can everything be relative? and the need to question/re-access core concepts/notions in response to the question: “Why is there something such as mass, time, and energy — much less en- rather than nothing?” (2) Can something and nothing ter into an interconnected re-conceptualization of as- exist independently of the concept of (a physical) ev- pects of these fundamental physical ‘quantities’438. In erything? These two questions, and relativity’s imper- broad terms, ‘normal science’ undergoes incremental fections, strongly suggest the need (on some level, in advances, and a big risk factor is an associated sense of some manner) for a ‘universal’ (i.e. global or systemic) confidence that (on the whole) “all is well”, such that perspective. By way of quantum entanglement our ‘opportunities’ may not be fully examined/explored. new model uncovers and then exploits/utilises (such) Recently, Hawking & Mlodinow (2010, p.13) confi- a universal/global physical perspective. dently proclaimed/concluded that: “. . . philosophy is Thirdly, armed with an open mind to physi- dead [italics added].” Sympathising with the latter of cal reconceptualisation and an appreciation of SR’s the two schools of thought given at the beginning of and GR’s imperfections442 , the model’s (necessary) this paragraph, one hears a faint echo of the confi- next step was to question an agenda of reduction- dent proclamation attributed to Lord Kelvin (William ism to a unified theory of everything, such that a Thomson) and his contemporaries — at the turn of fairly clear divide between microscopic and macro- the (19th to 20th) century439. Indeed, philosophi- scopic realms/domains is maintained cf. overcome — cal thinking can (easily) appreciate two hidden as- which additionally casts into doubt the existence of the sumptions in this ‘morbid’ stance/quote: (1) that graviton particle. Assisting this ‘divided’ stance was: we are in a period of “normal science”, and (2) the QMs and GR having so little in common, both phys- primacy given to the role of mathematics (over con- ically (re: scale and ‘nature’) and in terms of their ceptual ‘wrestling’/evaluation); as well as appreciat- laws/mathematics; and (also) the fact that the (lin- ing a type of subtle elitism peculiar to physicists — ear and rotational based) classical vortex theory of who (by their behaviour) display no pressing need propellers and wind turbines (see subsection 4.2.7) re- to draw upon philosophical expertise. The down- quires a power (or at least energy) based governing side risk here is one of physicists tending to become expression (recall Equation 15: Ep = mΓef) — cf. mi- an island unto themselves, albeit with ‘selected’ visi- croscopic physics where a force and/or energy basis is tors welcome, confident that the mathematical nature sufficient. Subsequently, a “pairism” of ‘dual’ concepts of (current) physical models/theories (largely) con- is embraced443, and this structural tool is then used to tains the seeds of its future development440. Philoso- delineate different facets of physical-reality/ontology. phers can clearly highlight the “straw-man” na- ‘Pairs’ particularly relevant to the model are: ture of the argument given to arrive at Stephen macroscopic vs. microscopic (domains and laws); Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow’s (moribund) procla- analog vs. digital (i.e. continuous vs. discrete); mation/conclusion (see http://www.philosophynow. Euclidean vs. non-Euclidean (re: geometry); org/issue82/Hawking_contra_Philosophy441 ); and local vs. non-local (re: physical ‘interactions’); as a ‘society’ they (and philosophers of science and internal vs. external (re: a physical system); physics) give a decidedly greater weighting/emphasis relative vs. systemic/global (physical perspective); to seeking a deeper understanding of what (the ‘weird- local vs. global (re: physical representation); ness’ of) quantum entanglement and non-locality dynamical phase cf. geometric phase (re: QMs); might entail — as compared to (arguably) a latent force (at a given time) cf. a process based energy; bias within physics to downplay this awkward/non- real cf. virtual (re: physical energy); conformist aspect of scientifically verified reality. spacetime cf. (distinct) space and time444; Secondly, minor imperfections regarding special mathematical cf. conceptual (re: theory advance); and (particularly) general relativity (SR and GR) have symmetry cf. asymmetry (re: theoretical physics); been presented, involving: the intractability of (total) linear vs. rotational (re: physical circumstances); systemic energy (and mass); the global/systemic (cf. 442 relative) nature of rotation and acceleration; the phys- This in no way should detract from the reverence ical implications of GR’s (mathematical technique of) deservedly bestowed upon the scientist/physicist (and philosopher) Albert Einstein. 443With “pairism” obeying “dualism” only in the sense of: 438Even though physicists admit that there are deficiencies the division of something conceptually into two opposed or concerning/around the understanding of these concepts. contrasted aspects, or the state of being so divided. The 439“There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. new term ‘pairism’ is preferred because ‘dualism’ has a lot All that remains is more and more precise measurement.” of additional conceptual baggage associated with it — more 440For example, 11 dimensional M-theory with its dearth so in philosophy than in physics. Furthermore, the expres- of clear-cut experimentally falsifiable predictions. sion “duality” has quite different meanings in these two dis- 441The article’s author Christopher Norris (at the time of tinct academic fields, and markedly different applications. writing) was Professor of Philosophy at Cardiff University. 444Written as “space-time” herein. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 135

reductionist cf. non-reductionist (physics agenda); rates of measured time duration between events — unification cf. complementarity (re: guiding aim); implies a (deformable/curvable) space substratum, the phenomenal/observational vs. the ‘noumenal’; that in the (idealised) absence of all: mass, motion, with this last ‘pair’ having been discussed in some energy, etc. would be Euclidean (i.e. a ‘flat’ space). detail in the Introduction. Excluding the first three b) The ‘latent’ all-encompassing (‘beyond’ direct mea- pairs, the second/latter of these paired concepts are surement) reality/event simultaneity allows energy given at least equal priority in the model/mechanism conservation to be applicable in certain ‘universal’ presented herein. In standard physics, with regard to situations, and it supports/strengthens the case for its: overall perspective, self reflectivity, and ultimate a well coordinated background inertial frame, par- objectives — i.e. “the big picture” — these (second) ticularly when non-local QM spin entanglement is notions are generally considered of equal or lesser im- involved — as is the case in our model/mechanism. portance. Herein, our (non-reductive) dualist/‘pairist’ leanings (necessarily) equally recognises both sides of c) From a noumenal/global perspective special rel- such ‘divides’. ativistic time dilation, and subsequently length Fourthly (and finally), rather than downplay the contraction and mass dilation, are alterna- 449 ‘weirdness’ of quantum entanglement and non-locality, tively/complementarily attributed to a loss in we recognise that relativity’s light speed limit (conceiv- available-to-measurement specific energy — by way ably) places physics at risk of being in something like a of the specific energy associated with relative mo- 1 2 (scientific) “double bind” or a “Catch-22” (in its com- tion ( 2 v ). Residual unease pertaining to the mon idiomatic “no-win situation” usage)445. Combin- clock/twin paradox is vanquished, and maximum 2 ing this dilemma with the different (and ‘occasionally’ relative specific K.E. is bounded by a c limit. incompatible) treatment of time in quantum mechan- d) Perceiving a standard/phenomenal specific energy ics cf. special and general relativity (Albert & Galchen (e = E/m) increase (from zero up) as alterna- 2009), Section 4 argued for the introduction of a tively a “drawing-down” from a maximum ‘poten- supplementary/additional ontological scenario involv- tial reservoir’ value of e = c2, that (in idealized ing a (hidden) universal/systemic ‘noumenal’ back- conditions) would exist homogeneously throughout ground ‘scanning process’ that occurs ‘between’ in- the universe if it were ‘completely’ empty. This re- crementally different staccato phenomenal (or able to 446 versed/‘opposed’ perspective (further) builds upon be observed) temporal moments (see section 4.4). the use of ‘paired’ or complementary perspectives. From a scientific observer’s (restricted) local and relative phenomenal/measurement-based perspective, e) GR’s need for a tensor based generally covari- time (only) appears continuous/analog, whereas at a ant mathematical formulation is seen to be a con- deeper level of understanding it involves a digital ‘phe- sequence of (further) adding gravitational effects nomenal’ aspect. Importantly, by proposing a (non- to the (already existing) effects of (special rela- relative) relationship between: a body’s motion/speed, tivistic) high-speed relative motion, and as such light/EM radiation as an observing ‘agent’, and the (from a noumenal and reversed perspective) a dou- background universe itself — with the latter two not ble “draw-down” (from the spatially homogeneous 2 being independent of each other (cf. the case im- e = c “maximum potential reservoir”) is involved. 447 plicit in SR and GR ) — a (noumenal/universal per- f) Finally, noumenal–phenomenal ontological comple- spective) supplementary interpretation of the Lorentz mentarity will have an impact upon: (1) how quan- transformations and SR’s need for spacetime interval tum mechanics can/should be interpreted; and (2) invariance was proposed. Six ramifications ensuing the belief that randomness, and hence indetermin- from: the aforementioned considerations (albeit a brief ism/uncertainty, are deeply inherent to Nature450. discussion448 ), and the noumenal–phenomenal (physical) complementarity arising from these (temporal and Note that the model does not establish these ramifica- interpretive) supplementations, are now presented. tions for the reason of discrediting special and general relativity. As previously mentioned, the theoretical a) A universe-encompassing (background/hidden) structures of special and general relativity are neither: event/‘time’ simultaneity, albeit with different wrong, nor in need of modification; rather, by way of the phenomenon of quantum entanglement, some of 445“Gregory Bateson and Lawrence S. Bale describe dou- their ontological assumptions (and foundations) have ble binds that have arisen in science that have caused 451 decades-long delays of progress in science because science been questioned and GR’s scope/domain of ap- had defined something as outside of its scope (or ‘not sci- plication is (merely) considered to be in need of a ence’) . . . ” — extracted from Wikipedia: Double Bind, Dec-Jan 2011-12. 449This loss is achieved by way of an accumulation of nu- 446That is, separate (digital) instantiations of a universal- merous incremental time losses (relative to maximum avail- wide reality, with each ‘phenomenal’ discrete (incrementally ability) — see subsection 4.5.6. Further, this situation is different) moment separated by a (noumenal process-based) dependent upon ‘time passing’ as systemic/universal (ex- ‘pause’ — that is beyond direct observational/phenomenal tremely small/short finite duration) discrete ‘moments’. appreciation. 450To what extent (“behind the scenes”) noumenal based 447Particularly SR’s Principle of the (observed) invariance non-local hidden variables and processes will impact upon of the speed of light (in a vacuum), regardless of an inertial these issues is (itself) an open and debatable issue. observer’s or light source’s state of (relative) motion/speed. 451With this questioning, and the ensuing ontological sup- 448Encapsulating Section 4 for the purposes of this brief plementation, having (minimally consequential) “time of an summary unfortunately results in some degree of ambiguity. event” based numerical implications/ramifications. 136 Paul G. ten Boom

(solitary) additional/supplementary physical circum- tions acting upon, a moving spacecraft (∆a) effectively stance (that is itself beyond GR’s ken). Finally, equal the ∆gfield values (see subsection 3.2.3). we also note that although GR’s non-Euclidean ge- The compatibility of each (RSW based) ∆a with ometry is expressed in terms of a metric tensor of special and general relativity is ensured by way (phenomenal) spacetime, the new model’s supplemen- of: (1) each supplementary acceleration/gravitational tary accleration/gravitational field is necessarily ex- field’s rotating sinusoidal perturbation having a (uni- pressed in terms of (distinct) curved space and (a sys- versally) position invariant constant ‘amplitude’ — i.e. temic/universal) ‘time’ — by way of (i.e. in response (at any given ‘universal moment’) the maximum possi- to) utilising/adopting a noumenal perspective. ble amplitude (∆a) is the same everywhere — although changes to ∆a will propagate ‘outwards’ at the speed of light; and (2) by way of the secondary/supplementary 8.3 Major mathematical equalities ∆a field amplitude being envisaged as a different (and and relationships of the model independent) type of energy ‘draw-down’453 — such that a second class/type of non-Euclidean geometry The model/mechanism (developed throughout this (involving space-time cf. spacetime) can coexist with paper) benefits from circumstantial simplifications GR’s gravitation (‘in its own right’)454. such as: its field perturbation basis; the geodesic (i.e. The three major equalities of this paper are firstly, unforced) motion of (the lunar based) atoms/molecules Equation 12 (noting that ∆gfield ∆afield at a body): involved in the mechanism; the prevalence of geome- ≈ 452 try (in a number of guises ); and the use of a simple 2 2 a = a (t)= (δaproper) = (∆a ) scalar (total/aggregate) energy — that is proportional p p i field i qX qX to the total number of atoms/molecules (Nm) within a representing the average superposition-based over- lunar non-rigid (predominantly solid) body (i.e. within all/resultant effect of all the fixed and constant am- a moon). Indeed, (quantifiable) energy is the physi- plitude (i.e. time invariant and position invariant am- cal linking (or bridging) means whereby the aggregate plitude) gravitational/accelerational space-warp fields of (each and every) atom’s or molecule’s virtual (and upon spacecraft (and low mass body) acceleration; i.e. ‘localised’) quantum mechanical based (spin) energy is the (model’s) path-based constant anomalous Pioneer re-expressed collectively/singularly and externally as a ‘deceleration’ value — relative to predictions that do real (distributed) macroscopic (non-Euclidean geome- not include the supplementary (RSW) field type. Each try based) rotating acceleration/gravitational field. At individual (field-based) ∆a ‘equals’ and corresponds a ‘fixed’ point in space this field induces a sinusoidally to its respective (and consequent) spacecraft based δa varying field amplitude/strength. Each of these “ro- (speed shortfall rate) value (see section 3.2). Further, tating space-warps” exists conjointly with a non-local we note that each δa is equal to (and ‘derived’ from) mass field. In tandem with this energy conservation a (single cycle) anomalous speed loss (δv) ‘divided by’ ‘bridging’ effect, and recalling the model’s five distinct its (respective) sinusoidal period/duration (∆t). sizes of particles and systems (outlined in the Introduc- Secondly, we have Equation 16 — rewritten here tion), we note that the model’s ‘physicality’ stretches with some minor nomenclature modifications — which from the (common and virtual) spin phase offsets of is applicable to a single (barycentre/Sun-planet-moon) (lunar atomic/molecular residing) elementary fermion ‘gravito-quantum’ rotating space-warp system: particles through to space-time curvature(s) (and non- local mass distributions) that span/encompass the uni- Vi 1 −1 Re 1 2 2 ∗ ∆E qm = ¯h (∆t) η Nm =∆E gr = ∆a ∆t m1 verse as a whole (i.e. in its entirety). h 2 i 2 This (aforementioned) macroscopic re-expression It describes the (irreversible) external re-expression of: of total fictitious/non-inertial QM spin-based (virtual) a non-inertial additive-based ( Nm atoms/molecules) energy: (1) addresses a unique discrepancy that can × Vi virtual fractional QM spin (exact) energy (i.e. ∆E qm), arise when a digital system is moving in analog curved (conjointly) as the product of: (1) a real/actual ac- spacetime; (2) maintains universal/systemic energy celeration/gravitational field perturbation-based spe- conservation; and (3) is time-irreversible; so as to en- cific energy — with this specific energy proportional to sure (ongoing) universal/systemic stability (without perturbation/‘wave’ amplitude (∆a = ∆aw = ∆ao η) fail). The irreversibility of this energy re-expression squared — and (2) an initial (spherical surface-based) allows the model/mechanism to be (effectively) re- distributed non-local mass value [m∗, i.e. m∗(r) at garded as a second type of non-reversible/irreversible 1 r = r1]. We note three things: (a) the (quantum- time evolution of a QM ‘system’ — in addition to the based) efficiency factor: 0 η 1; (b) that with a irreversible process of a (quantum mechanical) mea- process based ∆t term on≤ both≤ sides of the equal- surement. Note that the large scale nature of the ity, some form of simultaneity is required — implicat- (superpositioned) rotating space-warp (RSW) based ing the presence of quantum entanglement and non- ‘gravitational’ field undulations (of amplitude ∆g) — locality; and finally, (c) that with constant ¯h, and ∆t, whose ultimate basis is spatial curvature (cf. space- Nm and η effectively fixed (over human time scales i.e. time curvature in GR) — ensures that the sinusoidal decades), the ∆a values are also ‘effectively’ fixed. field strength (amplitudes) at, and proper accelera- 453As compared to GR’s ‘draw-down’ situation — men- 452These include: non-Euclidean geometry; (quantum me- tioned near the end of section 8.2 [bullet points d) and e) ]. chanical) geometric phase; and classical geometry — (the 454This ensures that the aforementioned virtual energy to latter) in connection with celestial orbits and kinematics. real energy ‘re-expression’ does not create new energy. A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 137

∗ ∗ Thirdly, Equation 20: mr Vr = constant = m1 V1 set — relative to initial spin phase (i.e. at lunar or- ∗ describes m “continuity”, via the product of (QM bital loop commencement) — is indicative of an (‘over- entanglement based) non-local mass and (enclosed) spin’ or) ‘precession’ of the background inertial (spin) spherical volume, relative to establishment/inception frame — relative to the actual unchanged (electromag- conditions (at the “reference radius” r1). This rela- netic force constrained/dominated) atomic/molecular tionship455 ensures that the (non-local) field energy spin-orbit configuration. Ultimately, this relative Re [∆E gr (r)], at any given point/radius in the ‘far’-field (and virtual/latent) spin frame precession arises from (where r >r1), diminishes (i.e. undergoes disper- (lunar/third-body) geodesic motion in curved space- sion) away from the (lunar) source region. Note that time (over closed loop/orbital duration ∆t). For a pi ∗ the initial non-local mass value (m1) exhibits the id- radian (i.e. one quarter fermion wavelength) phase iosyncrasy of (concurrently) being both: a contribu- offset η = 1, whereas η = 0 for both a zero/null ra- Re tor to systemic total ‘gravitational’ energy (in ∆E gr ), dian (β = 0) and β 2π radian (relative) geometric and a local value (i.e. a point-like instantiation value) spin phase offsets. A≥ triangle function (interpolation) that is homogeneously distributed over/upon a (lunar- is seen to apply between these three (phase offset vs. centered) spherical surface (of radius r1). efficiency factor ‘coordinate’) values (recall Figure 9). The model has at least four similarities or paral- A central physical relationship of the model — ap- lels to magnetism (see subsection 6.2.10). In particu- plying to each individual/single Sun-planet-moon sys- lar, we note that a (further) simplifying aspect of the tem — is the inter-relationship existing between (vir- model is the common (spin-based) geometric phase tual/fractional) quantum mechanical intrinsic angular offset and (common) spin axis orientation applica- 1 1 momentum (i.e. spin): 2 ¯hη = 2 ¯hw and (ensuing, real) ble to every constituent fermion ‘particle’ within (the RSW-based perturbation amplitude ∆aoη = ∆aw. atoms and molecules constituting) a particular moon. Subsection 6.5.6 argued that this angular momentum This situation is dependent upon externally imposed to (gravitational) acceleration relationship is a new (barycentre/Sun-planet-moon) orbital and lunar spin and unique physical relationship. Facilitating our un- characteristics, and is ‘bookended’ by the appeasement derstanding of the physical ‘connection’ existing be- of any ensuing virtual rate of intrinsic angular mo- tween these two physical ‘quantities’, we employ the mentum (i.e. spin energy) imbalance as a single (real) conceptual notion of (a relative) twist, in the sense external rotating space-warp (RSW) and conjoint (ex- of both a (spin) turning and a (space) warping re- ternal) non-local mass distribution. Importantly, this spectively, as a conceptual bridging device — noting re-expression process is demanded/facilitated by (the that at a physical level the first of these (two) con- ‘rigidity’ or inflexibility of) quantised electromagnetic ceptualisations is particularly inappropriate. Thus, spin-orbit coupling within atomic and molecular sys- a virtual (QM spin phase based) turning (or preces- tems — when confronted by a (relative) geometric sion) relative to an actual electromagnetic force dic- phase offset that is < 2π radians (i.e. less than half a tated/constrained QM spin (and orbital) configuration fermion wavelength). — and achieved over a (lunar celestial spin and) orbit- Furthermore, with geometry — both pure/classical based process time ∆t — is physically linked/related geometry (via barycentre/Sun-planet-moon celestial to a space warping (acceleration/gravitational) per- orbits) and a (quantum mechanical) geometric phase turbation that rotates (also) with period ∆t, and in offset angle — playing a vital role in the model, the the same sense/direction as lunar spin. Note that the introduction of a fixed “universal constant” (reference) − − ‘gravitational’ equilibrium (i.e. unperturbed) condi- angle: φ = tan 1(8π) 1 2.28o was necessary — in ≈ tion or state, and a moving body’s unperturbed kine- order to ‘best-fit’ the (Pioneer spacecraft based) ex- matic condition/state, are determined by standard perimental/observational data to a model. With re- gravitational theorisation and the (conventional) grav- gard to each (and every) particular Sun-planet-moon itational sources it encompasses. This physical ‘twist’ (gravito-quantum) system, this angle is essential in de- relationship may be (additionally) considered as a sec- termining both: the efficiency factor (subsection 6.3.5) ond type/face of spin entanglement — albeit involv- and the reference radius r1 = 8πro (subsection 6.5.3) ing a (spin) energy transmutation into (a new type 456 mentioned in relation to Equation 20 (above) , as of) ‘gravitational’ field energy — with both ‘sides’ of well as the optimum and weighted acceleration am- this relationship dependent upon their own (distinct) plitudes, i.e. ∆ao and ∆aw respectively (see subsec- macroscopic ‘rotational’ process (of equivalent durations 6.5.2 and 6.5.3). This (fixed/universal-constant) tion/period ∆t). reference angle is also used to determine the differ- ∗ Non-local mass (m ) is considered to be a second ent Sun-planet-moon (atomic/molecular, and fermion type/class of mass, primarily because its associated based) (relative) geometric (spin) phase offsets [(β) ] i acceleration/gravitational field (i.e. a rotating space- — common to all atoms/molecules, and their con- warp) does not affect all masses in an equivalent man- stituent elementary fermion particles, within a specific ner (cf. GR). Non-local mass varies with distance (r) (and ‘geometrically’ appropriate) moon. Each (lunar from its source region, diminishing in an inverse-cubed based) spin phase offset (β) determines (and corre- manner (i.e. inverse of the volume enclosed); and sub- sponds to) its particular efficiency factor (η). This sequently its effect upon a passive (gravitational) mass (‘final’ or post-orbit) virtual/fractional spin-phase off- (mp) is not distance independent. More precisely, this 455 mass ‘interaction’ is an “all or nothing effect”; “all” Note the contrast with density (ρ) where ρ = m/V . ∗ ∗ 456Where r is lunar (elliptical) semi-major axis (length), if m (r) mp and “nothing” if m (r) < mp (at the o ≥ usually denoted (in standard nomenclature) as a or ra. body, i.e. at the mp), as is similarly (and generally) 138 Paul G. ten Boom the case with the energy based (and EM radiation in- Further implications and ramifications of these teracting with matter based) photoelectric effect. This related (philosophical) epistemological–ontological weak equivalence principle defying feature of the new and (pragmatical/physical) phenomenal–noumenal model/mechanism also utilises a point-mass idealisa- dichotomies fills out the remainder of this section and ∗ tion as regards the ‘interaction’ of m (at r) with a parts of section 8.5. compact/condensed mp (see subsection 6.6.7), albeit The unavoidability of “observer dependence” — re- for quite different reasons to those applicable in tradi- garding measurements made at extremely low energies tional gravitation theory. By its very nature, non-local or momentums, or over extremely short distances or mass is devoid of both (tangible) matter/‘material’ and durations — exhibited in microscopic QMs is (herein 457 hence local active gravitational mass . considered) similarly present in macroscopic physics, but it is exhibited in an altogether different way; i.e. 8.4 A crucial distinction and the involving an observer’s (relativistic) high speed motion (and substantial specific kinetic energy). This macro- model’s broader implications scopic observer dependence is downplayed and masked In this section, further implications and ramifications by SR’s phenomenal (spacetime) perspective, whereas peripheral to the model (itself) are presented. The it has been unmasked by our new/complementary discussion takes the form of a series of brief remarks. noumenal (distinct space and time, i.e. space-time) Assuming a real and non-systematic based Pioneer and global/systemic perspective (see section 4.5). anomaly has given us no choice other than: (1) to Within a many-body barycentric solar system (for considerably re-examine the (physically) foundational example), the tactile/sensory basis and historically concepts of time, mass, and energy; and (2) estab- problematic hypothesis of a gravitational force — lish a model that is independent of general relativity acting upon a moving object — was superseded by (GR) but nevertheless (is) physically compatible (and general relativity’s curved spacetime based gravita- coexistent) with GR. We addressed the misconception tion. Note that in a many-bodied barycentric sys- that GR’s success, and/or its principle-based approach tem, the use of ‘gravitational accelerations’ (at differ- to a theory of gravitation — i.e. principles/principle ent points in space) — that apply to all bodies irre- of: equivalence, general relativity, and general covari- spective of their (passive gravitational) mass — has ance — denies all other sources (and forms) of non- retained its pragmatic validity, e.g. regarding an in- Euclidean geometry (see section 6.7 in particular). terplanetary spacecraft’s “orbit determination”. The Crucial to this new understanding has been the model’s (unique/specific) implementation of: (1) non- ∗ fundamental distinction drawn by Sir Arthur S. Ed- local mass (m ), which effectively involves a demate- dington (and reprised by Matthew Stanley, see sub- rialisation of the concept of ‘mass’ (cf. matter); and section 4.7.2) — that quantum mechanics (QMs) and (2) a (general) scepticism regarding (both) the gravi- GR provide insight into how we see the world (i.e. ton particle’s existence and the physical reduction of its epistemological characterisation), rather than what gravitation to a (boson) particle “exchange force” ba- the world [entirely] is (i.e. its ontological characteri- sis; is arguably the second-stage of a two-stage pro- sation). Thus, physical observations and their math- cess of “gravitational dematerialisation”, if we con- ematical/theoretical modelling and understanding do sider/designate GR’s (pro-curvature) “de-forcing” in- not necessarily provide an unambiguous picture of novation/advancement as the first-stage of this dema- ‘what’ the world is, free of subtlety and/or oversights. terialisation of “gravitation” — in the broadest imag- Eddington’s fundamental conceptual (cf. em- inable sense of the word. pirical) distinction facilitated the introduction of In response to: (1) the question “Can everything the (non-reductive) paired/complementary phenome- be relative?” which distinguishes a (systemic) whole nal and noumenal perspectives proposed herein; par- from (relationships involving) its constituent parts; ticularly its implementation in achieving a supplemen- and (2) the observation that spacetime on a cosmologi- tary/complementary interpretation of SR’s Lorentz cal scale is uncurved (i.e. ‘flat’ such that in GR k = 0); transformations by way of appreciating that: the as well as (3) Section 7’s querying of dark energy; ‘world’/universe, an observer’s motion/speed, EM ra- it was proposed (subsection 4.4.3) that whole uni- diation/light itself, and observations utilising EM radi- verse/global curvature (k = 1 in GR) may not (actu- ation are interwoven — when considered/‘viewed’ from ally) be physically realisable.± As such, the assumption a noumenal perspective. As such, SR’s and GR’s use that (relativistic) gravitation has a ‘whole universe’ (or of “spacetime” and general covariance need not nec- cosmological) physical application — as compared to essarily be understood as simply “how and what the a theoretical implication — is quite conceivably unjus- world is.” Although there is a reduction in explana- tified. Pursuant to this stance, the model proposed tory simplicity, this new approach is not in defiance of (subsection 4.4.10) that in the idealised scenario of a Occam’s razor because there is a (more than) compen- complete absence of any mass, momentum and physi- satory increase in explanatory capability. cal field energy in the universe, a homogeneous space ‘substratum’/continuum exhibiting Euclidean geome- 457 Whether or not non-local mass (itself) is an active grav- try would ‘exist’; i.e. an uncurved empty Euclidean itational mass has not been pursued. Being a secondary effect arising from Sun-planet-moon motion it is (most) likely space ‘container’. In (actual) reality, this idealised that any (active gravitational) contribution will be very mi- background uniformity/homogeneity is locally (but not nor, if not entirely negligible; the latter either by way of its globally) curved/deformed by its contents (up to the cosmological extent or simply via its very different ‘nature’. scale of its largest substructures). The (root) moti- A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 139 vation and basis for this change in stance has been dash (i.e. —), as well as scare quotes (i.e. ‘...’), are lib- an embracing of quantum entanglement and quantum erally employed in order to minimise ambiguity. Note non-locality, together with an openness to (and ‘de- that scare quotes (herein) are used to alert the reader marginalisation’ of) their ontological implications. to the non-standard or special use of a word or phrase. Philosophers of science warn about being overly demanding or prematurely dismissive of a recently 8.5 Big picture ‘meditations’ arising formulated theory/model that matches the evidence, from the model proposed herein especially one that is conceptually ‘different’. In other words, the exactitude demanded of well estab- In this subsection, discussion of the implications of the lished theoretical models in physics, as exhibited by new model is extended to ‘big picture’ topics458. mathematical/computational reasoning, should not be The Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman, an Israeli- equally (or blindly) applied to a recently formulated American psychologist noted for his work on judgment 461 theory/model . Deficiencies will surely exist, but and decision-making, states (in an interview459) — re- these do not logically entail that the young model is garding forming an impression on the basis of the in- entirely ‘wrong’ or unworthy of ongoing consideration. formation you have — that: To simply proclaim that general relativity, because . . . we can’t live in a state of perpetual of its success, denies the Pioneer anomaly is unjusti- doubt — so we make up the best story fied and hence unscientific (although understandable); possible and live as if the story were true. whereas a conceptual enriching and supplementation . . . we like the stories to be good stories. of physical concepts, driven by a creditably established and striking observation, (although possibly flawed) is When dealing with a complicated problem, correctness scientific — especially if the model/mechanism pro- differs depending upon the task and its perceived solu- posed can be falsified, and encompasses all the Pi- tion. Scientific instrumentation and machinery either oneer anomaly’s awkward observational constraints. work (as planned) or they don’t; similarly, an elabo- Herein, the latter were not easily ‘fitted’, e.g. by rate computer program either ‘runs’ or it doesn’t, and way of (mere) theory modification; and a valid (and a mathematical proof or a logical deduction is either progressive) model’s fit to the evidence is necessar- valid or invalid. The investigation of a complex scien- ily complicated/difficult, in so much that physical tific circumstance or problem is (predominantly) not reality/ontology and fundamental physical concepts as straightforward as in these cases, e.g. star forma- have required (innovative) modification. The physical tion. Scientific ‘correctness’ (or truth) in the presence model/mechanism established herein supports the say- of conceptual complexity or intricacy, especially if it ing/proverb that: “truth is stranger than fiction462”, is combined with limited/restricted knowledge and/or in the sense that (regarding the explanation for the ambiguous information, is often provisional with its Pioneer and Earth flyby anomalies proposed herein): maturity requiring: time, effort, insight, and new or (at least) refined information. It appears that the lack ‘a posteriori scientific knowledge’ driven 463 of a ‘timely’ (and generally favoured) explanation for by a striking new scientific result is the well credentialed Pioneer anomaly has led to a stranger than and beyond any ‘a priori’ dispelling of lingering doubt by virtue of embracing a reality or theory conceivable by means of 464 thermal-radiation/heat based explanation, which is a human reason and imagination alone . viable (and ‘good’) story; although this scenario leaves This point of view is supported by the model’s use the well credentialed Earth flyby anomaly (isolated of virtual (relative) geometric phase and the model’s and) in need of a similarly ‘good’ explanation. Herein, introduction of: non-local mass; (real) constant am- we have looked beyond the (psychological) weight of plitude sinusoidal perturbations upon the pre-existing ongoing doubt to both: query the correctness of this relativistic gravitational field; and a latent ontolog- favoured explanation, and construct/formulate an al- ical ‘phenomenal–noumenal’ complementarity; with ternative model that is unavoidably/necessarily con- the latter somewhat debasing the centrality of the ‘ob- 460 ceptually (cf. mathematically) intricate . server’ (and physicists) as regards achieving progress This emphasis upon conceptualisation has neces- towards a further/deeper understanding of physical re- sitated the copious use of both bracketed words and ality — e.g. quantum entanglement (and causation). the (forward) slash (or virgule) punctuation charac- The reversal of (an observer’s) locational perspec- ter throughout this document, primarily to add detail tive arising from Nicolaus Copernicus’ seminal (16th and/or clarify the meaning of a word, phrase, or sen- century) celestial motion proposal has recently been tence — cf. the slash’s (other) “choice between two revisited with the embrace of the ‘multiverse’. A num- words” application. Additionally, various punctation ber of cosmologists (and theoretical physicists) now be- marks, especially the: comma, semi colon, and em 461The (“intricate defensive”) strategy of continually 458In the sense of crucial features, facts and issues that “raising the bar” of acceptance for a new theory/approach, contribute to mankind’s understanding and explanation of is (ultimately) symptomatic of preferring the status quo. the physical world/universe (that we ‘find’ ourselves in). 462The genesis of this saying is (commonly) attributed to: 459Liz Else, New Scientist, Vol. 212, No. 2839, pp. 34-35, Lord Byron’s poem Don Juan, Canto XIV (1823). “Nobel psychologist reveals the error of our ways”. 463That is, a new physical explanation deduced/derived 460This approach appears to be anathema to some theo- from a new and anomalous scientific experimental finding. retical physicists, particularly when the complex conceptual 464Inclusive of mathematical deduction and hypotheses, discussion is in a language other than their first language. and drawing upon all (pre-discovery) scientific knowledge. 140 Paul G. ten Boom lieve that we only observe (figuratively speaking) “the spin offset of the atom/molecule in its (systemic) en- tip of the (cosmological) iceberg”, with the rest (i.e. tirety, whereas the total QM intrinsic angular momen- other universes) hidden — in the sense of never be- tum (offset) associated with an entire moon is deter- ing directly amenable/available to observations. It has mined by way of an additive summation of the (equal) been proposed herein that something similar is occur- spin (offset) values of its multitudinous ‘constituent’ ring with respect to ‘time’ (recall subsection 4.4.8)465 . atoms and molecules. Interrelated to this temporal aspect — but occurring A second ‘story’ that physicists currently seek in the classical Copernican “reversal of perspective” to (and do freely) tell — in addition to a pre- sense — is an energetics/energy aspect, that pertains ferred thermal-radiation/heat (or thermal reaction to a body’s specific energy (see subsection 4.5.3). Re- force) based explanatory story/account of the Pio- calling section 8.2, this reversed (specific energy) per- neer anomaly — relates to the future direction of spective is dependent upon a description of quantum physics and its ultimate goals. This (‘big picture’) entanglement based situations/phenomena requiring challenge involves dealing with what is colloquially re- the prioritisation of a (complementary) noumenal per- ferred to as “a final theory”. A projected solution, and spective over the standard (amenable to scientific mea- generally considered ‘good story’, is the often men- surements/observations) ‘phenomenal’ perspective. tioned/discussed: string theory, and the more (recent The uniqueness of the model/mechanism hypothe- and) elaborate M-theory — requiring 11 cf. 10 spatial sised herein (implies and) is illuminated by a (heuris- dimensions and incorporating supersymmetry — es- tic) two-by-two categorisation/bifurcation of the laws poused by a majority of theoretical physicists. If this of nature into four main categories/classes. The first paper’s explanatory story and findings (both ‘physical’ bifurcation involves a distinction pertaining to laws and conceptual) are correct, it follows that this (al- describing (quantum mechanical) microscopic ‘real- most unassailable) unification (and reductive) agenda ity’ as compared to macroscopic reality, with the will (continue to) suffer stagnation as regards its ex- largest molecules demarcating the extent of the mi- perimental confirmation and (to a lesser extent) its croscopic realm/domain (recall subsections 4.2.6 and predictive ability. In hindsight, the pursuit of a reduc- 4.2.7). Note that electromagnetism has distinct laws tive four-force unification goal, although understand- in each domain, and that a total physical micro-macro able by way of historical unification successes, is seen separation is not being espoused. The second bifur- (in its current form) as somewhat blinkered and too cation involves a distinction between local (i.e. speed prescriptive. Additionally, dark matter and dark en- of light limited) and non-local based processes/laws. ergy are not integrally (corralled and) woven into this Clearly, all (known) physical laws, and almost all agenda, and the “make up” of both these entities has (known) physical phenomena — except for quantum (to date) not been assuredly determined. In light of entanglement and quantum non-locality — have a lo- this current “dark daze” and dubious “theory of every- cal basis cf. a non-local basis; with often neglected (en- thing” progress, to suggest a more generalist approach gineering based) fluid mechanics and the mechanics of to physical reality (in its widest sense) — particularly solids lying in the local macroscopic class of physical involving/incorporating the stronger elements/aspects laws. The (unique and boutique) model/mechanism of philosophical practice — is not unreasonable. proposed herein involves a (repeating) cyclic process Bearing in mind that “certainty is [sometimes] the that spans the non-local microscopic-macroscopic ‘di- enemy of progress”, the phenomenal–noumenal dis- vide’ or bifurcation (previously articulated). By way tinction (and its complementarity) proposed herein is of the exemplar of aircraft propellers and horizontal- at risk of encountering resistance and delay (within axis wind turbines, subsection 4.2.7 sought to show physics); arguably/possibly similar to that which befell that a force (and/or energy) basis to local macroscopic an appreciation of the usefulness of the number “zero” physics, as is the case with local microscopic physics, (and the subtle concept of nothing) in some cultures in is not a fail-safe (core and/or working) assumption. the past (Kaplan 2000; Seife 2000). Zero, in the sense When a vortex/circulation based theoretical (potential of “the absence of a number”, somewhat parallels the flow) approach is used to describe this linear and ro- conceivable existence of a ‘noumenal physicality’ that tational mechanism (in its three-dimensional entirety), is not susceptible to direct physical observation. By the ‘physical quantity’ of power (in addition to momen- way of quantum probability and entanglement, and tum, pressure, force and energy) is crucial/necessary. (indirectly via) Bell’s inequality, the existence of non- Consequently, and notwithstanding the unquestion- local (hidden) variables (and processes) has been en- able validity of the (three force) unification of: the tertained for many years. Furthermore, nothingnes466, strong force, the weak force, and electromagnetism, a abstract objects, (Kant’s version and other ‘takes’ on) four force unification (i.e. theory of everything) uni- the phenomenal–noumenal distinction, and continen- fication agenda is quite conceivably misguided (recall tal philosophy in general (cf. analytic philosophy) are sections 4.2 and 4.3). This claim was borne out in the examples of ongoing active areas of philosophical in- model by the virtual offset of (geometric phase and) investigation; and it is not unreasonable to presume that trinsic angular momentum (i.e. QM spin), applicable the elaborate explanation of the Pioneer anomaly pro- to each and every elementary fermion particle ‘com- posed herein has partially tilled the ground of this po- prising’ an atom or molecule, being equivalent to the tentially rich field of indirect (analytical) ‘scientific’ investigation. 465As was the case in Section 8.2, “time” — for want of a better word — is (occasionally) being used in an extended 466See (for example) the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philos- and ‘beyond’ (direct) measurement manner. ophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/ A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 141

8.6 A closing conditional comment References

Lastly, in this “summary, discussion and conclusions” Aharonov, Y. & Reznik, B. 2000, Physical Review Let- Section (i.e. Section 8), some retrospective remarks are ters, 84, 4790 made and then a conditional scenario is put forward. It was totally unexpected at the outset of this re- Aharonov, Y. & Susskind, L. 1967, Physical Review, search project that a new scientific model designed 155, 1428 specifically to account for the Pioneer anomaly’s (solar system based) awkward observational constraints Albert, D. Z. & Galchen, R. 2009, Scientific American, — by way of introducing two separate cosmological 300, 32, “A Quantum Threat to Special Relativity” scale/size mechanisms467, i.e. (gravito-quantum) ro- Anandan, J. & Aharonov, Y. 1988, Phys. Rev. D, 38, tating space-warps (RSWs) and non-local mass distri- 1863 butions (NMDs) — could conceivably also resolve or at least enlighten (via two distinct cosmological fore- Anderson, J. D., Campbell, J. K., Ekelund, J. E., Ellis, ground effects) both the cosmic microwave background J., & Jordan, J. F. 2008, Physical Review Letters, (CMB) anomalies and the dark energy issue (by way of 100, 091102 the RSWs and NMDs respectively). The model, within which energy and geometry feature prominently (cf. Anderson, J. D., Campbell, J. K., & Nieto, M. M. force and position coordinates) also produces a viable 2007, New Astronomy, 12, 383, (Preprint astro- explanation of the (unresolved) Earth flyby anomaly, ph/0608087) whilst imposing (only) very minor changes to the solar system’s historical behaviour (i.e. its early history and Anderson, J. D., Laing, P. A., Lau, E. L., et al. 1998, subsequent evolution) — because only ‘low’ mass bod- Physical Review Letters, 81, 2858, (Preprint gr- ies are anomalously/additionally affected. Further- qc/9808081) more, the model’s conceptual structure casts doubt Anderson, J. D., Laing, P. A., Lau, E. L., et al. 2002, upon (both) a theory of everything unification agenda Phys. Rev. D, 65, 082004, (Preprint gr-qc/0104064) and the veracity of the dark matter hypothesis; the latter (hypothesis) in the sense that it assumes grav- Anderson, J. D. & Nieto, M. M. 2010, in Proceedings of itational theorisation is ‘complete’, and thus any ob- the International Astronomical Union, Symposium served transgression cannot be gravitationally-real — S261, Vol. 5, Relativity in Fundamental Astronomy: e.g. “flat galactic rotation curves”. Dynamics, Reference Frames, and Data Analysis, The broad scope of the model proposed in this trea- ed. S. A. Klioner, P. K. Seidelmann, & M. H. Soffel, tise — which involves reconsideration (to some extent) 189–197, “Astrometric solar-system anomalies” of: time, mass, quantum entanglement, QM (relative) geometric phase, and physical ‘reality’ (in general) — Anderson, J. D. & Williams, J. G. 2001, Classical and means that the model’s very existence raises a (big Quantum Gravity, 18, 2447 picture) concern. The nature of this concern is that: if the new model is viable/correct (i.e. “on the right Asmar, S. W., Armstrong, J. W., Iess, L., & Tortora, track”) then to ignore its progressive implications and P. 2005, Radio Science, 40, 2001 ramifications — e.g. by way of antipathy towards deep Barbour, J. B. & Pfister, H., eds. 1995, Mach’s Prin- (philosophically inclined) reasoning, or by way of pre- ciple: From Newton’s Bucket to Quantum Gravity ferring a systematic based explanation of the Pioneer (Boston: Birkhäuser) anomaly — does more than simply maintain the status quo. The downside risk of overlooking the model’s abil- Barrow, J. D., Davies, P. C. W., & Harper, Jr., C. L. ity to be a catalyst for change/action, is that an (ulte- 2004, Science and Ultimate Reality (Cambridge, rior) form of (scientific) conceptual stagnation might UK: Cambridge University Press) be unnecessarily perpetuated, in so much that ongoing and future deliberations (specifically) aimed at estab- Bernstein, H. J. & Phillips, A. V. 1981, Scientific lishing the conceptual and physical crux of (some or American, 245, 94, “Fibre bundles and quantum all of) these (six) aforementioned issues/anomalies — theory” particularly the (seemingly unrelated) CMB anomalies and the (what is) dark energy issue — would effec- Berry, M. 1988, Scientific American, 259, 46, “The tively be misappropriating time, effort, and resources; geometric phase” notwithstanding: the new information to be (surely) Berry, M. V. 1984, Royal Society of London Proceed- gleaned by these efforts, the erudition and skill of the ings Series A, 392, 45 participating scientists, and the complexity involved in performing the research. Bertolami, O., Francisco, F., Gil, P. J. S., & Páramos, Putting to one side this possible counterfactual and J. 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 78, 103001 meta-scientific discussion, this research has been primarily a comprehensive investigation of direct and pe- Blake, C., Davis, T., Poole, G. B., et al. 2011, MNRAS, ripheral evidence pertaining to the Pioneer anomaly. 415, 2892

467With the two (three dimensional) scalar ﬁelds associ- Boss, A. P. 2002, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, ated with these mechanisms both extending to ‘inﬁnity’. 202, 513 142 Paul G. ten Boom

Bracewell, R. N. 2000, The Fourier transform and its de Oliveira-Costa, A., Tegmark, M., Zaldarriaga, M., applications. (Boston: McGraw Hill) & Hamilton, A. 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 69, 063516

Brouwer, D. & Clemence, G. M. 1961, Methods of ce- Dirac, P. A. M. 1958, The Principles of Quantum Me- lestial mechanics (New York: Academic Press) chanics, 4th edition (Oxford: Clarendon Press)

Brownstein, J. R. & Moffat, J. W. 2006, Classical and Dittus, H., Turyshev, S. G., Lämmerzahl, C., & et Quantum Gravity, 23, 3427 al. 2005, in ESA Special Publication, ed. F. Favata, J. Sanz-Forcada, A. Giménez, & B. Battrick, Vol. Bunn, E. F. & Hogg, D. W. 2009, American Jour- 588, 3, (Preprint gr-qc/0506139) nal of Physics, 77, 688, (Preprint arXiv:0808.1081v2 [physics.pop-ph] ) Donnelly, R. J. 1967, Experimental Superfluidity: Notes compiled by W.I. Glaberson & P.E. Parks Byrne, J. 1978, Nature, 275, 188 (Chicago: University of Chicago)

Cai, Y. Q. & Papini, G. 1989, Modern Physics Letters Edmonds, J. D. 1973, Found. Phys., 3, 313 A, 4, 1143 Edmonds, J. D. 1976, Found. Phys., 6, 33 Cai, Y. Q., Papini, G., & Wood, W. R. 1990, Journal of Mathematical Physics, 31, 1942 Einstein, A. 1920, Relativity: The special and general theory, by Albert Einstein. Translated by Robert W. Cartwright, N. & Frigg, R. 2007, Physics World, Sept, Lawson (New York: Henry Holt and Company) 20, 14, “String theory under scrutiny” Elliott, A. A., Hellings, R. W., & Miller, J. K. 1997, Chandler, J. F. 1996, in Dynamics, Ephemerides, and in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Astrometry of the Solar System, 172, 105, “Pulsars 29, 1289, “PPN Gamma Results from the NEAR and Solar System Ephemerides” Conjunction”

Chiao, R. Y. 2004, in Science and Ultimate Reality, ed. Ellis, G. 2006, Nat, 443, 507 J. D. Barrow, P. C. W. Davies, & C. L. Harper, Jr., 254–279, “Conceptual tensions between quantum Feynman, R. P. 1965, The Character of Physical Law mechanics and general relativity: are there exper- (Cambridge: M.I.T. Press) imental consequences?” (Preprint gr-qc/0303100) Fock, V. 1959, The Theory of Space, Time, and Grav- Chiao, R. Y. 2006, Journal of Modern Optics, 53, 2349 itation (London: Pergamon Press)

Clarke, C. J. S. 1993, in Time and Process: Interdisci- Francis, P. J. 2005, ApJ, 635, 1348 plinary Issues, ed. J. T. Fraser & L. Rowell (Madi- Francisco, F., Bertolami, O., Gil, P. J. S., & P´aramos, son, Connecticut: International Universities Press), J. 2012, Physics Letters B, 711, 337, (Preprint 53–69, Ch. 3 Process as a Primitive Category arXiv:1103.5222 [physics.space-ph] ) Copi, C. J., Huterer, D., Schwarz, D. J., & Starkman, Frieman, J. A., Turner, M. S., & Huterer, D. 2008, G. D. 2007, Phys. Rev. D, 75, 023507 ARA&A, 46, 385, (Preprint arXiv:0803.0982 [astro- Copi, C. J., Huterer, D., Schwarz, D. J., & Stark- ph]) man, G. D. 2010, Advances in Astronomy, 847541, Gough, W. 1992, European Journal of Physics, 13, 167 (Preprint arXiv:1004.5602 [astro-ph.CO] ) Granett, B. R., Neyrinck, M. C., & Szapudi, I. 2008, Davidovich, L., Brune, M., Raimond, J. M., & ApJ, 683, L99 Haroche, S. 1996, Phys. Rev. A, 53, 1295 Harrison, E. R. 2000, Cosmology: The Science of the Davies, P. 1995, About Time: Einstein’s unﬁnished Universe, 2nd edition (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- revolution (New York, NY: Simon and Schuster) versity Press)

Davies, P. C. W. 2004, in Science and Ultimate Reality, Hawking, S. & Mlodinow, L. 2010, The Grand Design ed. J. D. Barrow, P. C. W. Davies, & C. L. Harper, (London: Bantam Press) Jr., 3–26, “John Archibald Wheeler and the clash of ideas.” Hoefer, C. 1994, Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci, 25, 287, “Ein- stein’s Struggle for a Machian Gravitation Theory” Davis, T. M. 2010, Scientiﬁc American, 303, 20, “Is the Universe Leaking Energy?” Huterer, D. 2006, New Astronomy Review, 50, 868

Davis, T. M. & Lineweaver, C. H. 2004, Publications Iorio, L. 2007, Foundations of Physics, 37, 897, of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 21, 97, (Preprint gr-qc/0610050) (Preprint astro-ph/0310808) Jammer, M. 2000, Concepts of Mass in Contempo- Davis, T. M., M¨ortsell, E., Sollerman, J., et al. 2007, rary Physics and Philosophy (Princeton, New Jer- ApJ, 666, 716, (Preprint arXiv:0701510 [astro-ph] ) sey: Princeton University Press) A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly 143

Joos, E., Zeh, H. D., Kiefer, C., et al. 2003, Deco- List, M. & Mullin, L. 2008, in American Institute of herence and the Appearance of a Classical World Physics Conference Series, Vol. 977, Recent Devel- in Quantum Theory, 2nd edition (Berlin: Springer- opments in Gravitation and Cosmology, 284–290, Verlag) “Analysis of an extended Pioneer 10 and 11 data set” Kaplan, R. 2000, The Nothing that Is: A Natural His- tory of Zero (New York: Oxford University Press) Luu, J. X. & Jewitt, D. C. 2002, ARA&A, 40, 63

Kapner, D. J., Cook, T. S., Adelberger, E. G., et al. Malhotra, R., Allen, R. L., & Bernstein, G. M. 2001, 2007, Physical Review Letters, 98, 021101 in Lunar and Planetary Institute Conference Ab- stracts, 1204, “The Edge of the Solar System” Kaspi, V. M., Taylor, J. H., & Ryba, M. F. 1994, ApJ, 428, 713 Markwardt, C. B. 2002, arXiv:gr-qc/0208046

Kerr, R. A. 2011, Science, 333, 1208, “Mystery Pioneer Mashhoon, B. 2000, Classical and Quantum Gravity, Anomaly is Real But Still a Mystery” 17, 2399, (Preprint gr-qc/0003022)

King, J. A., Webb, J. K., Murphy, M. T., & Carswell, Mashhoon, B. & Kaiser, H. 2006, Physica B R. F. 2008, Physical Review Letters, 101, 251304, Condensed Matter, 385, 1381, (Preprint quant- (Preprint arXiv:0807.4366 [astro-ph] ) ph/0508182)

Krauss, L. M. 2004, Scientiﬁc American, 291, 82, Mbelek, J. P., Mosquera Cuesta, H. J., Novello, M., & “Questions that Plague Physics” Salim, J. M. 2007, Europhysics Letters, 77, 19001

Kuethe, A. M. & Chow, C. 1976, Foundations of Merali, Z. 2009, Scientific American, 301, 18, “Split- Aerodynamics: Bases of Aerodynamic Design (New ting Time from Space” York: John Wiley & Sons) Milgrom, M. 2006, in EAS Publications Series, ed. Kuhn, T. S. 1970, The Structure of Scientific Revolu- G. A. Mamon, F. Combes, C. Deffayet, & B. Fort, tions, 2nd edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Vol. 20, 217–224, (Preprint astro-ph/0510117) Press) Milgrom, M. 2009, arXiv:0908.3842 [astro-ph] Kuzmitcheva, M. Y. & Ivanov, B. A. 2002, in Lunar and Planetary Institute Conference Abstracts, 1005, Murphy, M. T., Webb, J. K., & Flambaum, V. V. “Inventory of Minor Bodies in Solar System” 2003, MNRAS, 345, 609

Lämmerzahl, C. 2005, in The Tenth Marcel Gross- Nieto, M. M. 2007, arXiv:gr-qc/0702017 mann Meeting. On recent developments in theoretical and experimental general relativity, gravita- Nieto, M. M. 2008, Physics Letters B, 659, 483, tion and relativistic field theories, ed. M. Novello, (Preprint arXiv:0710.5135v2 [gr-qc] ) S. Perez Bergliaffa, & R. Ruffini, 337, (Preprint gr- Nieto, M. M. & Anderson, J. D. 2005, Classical qc/0402122) and Quantum Gravity, 22, 5343, (Preprint gr- Lämmerzahl, C., Preuss, O., & Dittus, H. 2006, qc/0507052) arXiv:gr-qc/0604052 Nieto, M. M. & Anderson, J. D. 2009, arXiv:0910.1321 Landau, L. D. & Lifshitz, E. M. 1958, Statistical [gr-qc] Physics (London: Pergamon Press) Nieto, M. M. & Turyshev, S. G. 2004, Classical Landau, L. D. & Lifshitz, E. M. 1965, Quantum Me- and Quantum Gravity, 21, 4005, (Preprint gr- chanics: non-relativistic theory (Oxford: Pergamon qc/0308017) Press) Nordtvedt, K. 1996, Classical and Quantum Gravity, Lehner, C. 2005, in The Universe of General Relativity 13, 1317 (Einstein Studies, Vol. 11), ed. A. J. Kox and Jean Nordtvedt, K. 1999, Classical and Quantum Gravity, Eisenstaedt (Boston: Birkhäuser), 103–108, “Ein- 16, A101 stein and the Principle of General Relativity, 1916- 1921” Norton, J. D. 1993, Rep. Prog. Phys., 56, 791

Levison, H. F., Morbidelli, A., Dones, L., et al. 2002, Null, G. W., Lau, E. L., Biller, E. D., & Anderson, Science, 296, 2212 J. D. 1981, AJ, 86, 456

Levy, A., Christophe, B., B´erio, P., et al. 2009, Olsen, Ø. 2007, A&A, 463, 393 Advances in Space Research, 43, 1538, (Preprint arXiv:0809.2682 [gr-qc] ) Papini, G. 2008, General Relativity and Gravitation, 40, 1117, (Preprint arXiv:0709.0819 [gr-qc] ) Levy, A., Christophe, B., M´etris, G., et al. 2010, Space Science Reviews, 151, 105 Peale, S. J. 1999, ARA&A, 37, 533 144 Paul G. ten Boom

Penrose, R. 1990, The Emporer’s New Mind: Con- Standish, E. M. 2008, in American Institute of Physics cerning Computers, Minds and the Laws of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 977, Recent Developments in (London: Vintage) Gravitation and Cosmology, 254–263 Pitjeva, E. V. 2005, Solar System Research, 39, 176 Stanley, M. 2005, Physics World, Sept, 18, 33, “Ex- plorer of stars and souls: Arthur Stanley Edding- Price, H. 1996, Time’s Arrow and Archimedes’ Point ton” — New Directions for the Physics of Time (New York: Oxford University Press) ten Boom, P. G. 2005, arXiv:gr-qc/0505077 Prokhovnik, S. J. 1978, The Logic of Special Relativity Theodorsen, T. 1948, The Theory of Propellers (New (Kensington: New South Wales University Press) York: McGraw Hill) Rapetti, D., Allen, S. W., Amin, M. A., & Blandford, Toth, V. T. 2009, International Journal of Mod- R. D. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 1510 ern Physics D, 18, 717, (Preprint arXiv:0901.3466 [physics.space-ph] ) Rathke, A. & Izzo, D. 2006, Journal of Spacecraft and Toth, V. T. & Turyshev, S. G. 2009, Phys. Rev. D, 79, Rockets, 43, 806, (Preprint astro-ph/0504634) 043011, (arXiv:0901.4597 [physics.space-ph] ) Reznik, B. 1995, Phys. Rev. D, 51, 3108 Turyshev, S. G., Anderson, J. D., Laing, P. A., et al. Rickman, H. 2005, in IAU Colloq. 197: Dynamics of 1999, arXiv:gr-qc/9903024 Populations of Planetary Systems, ed. Z. Knezevic Turyshev, S. G., Nieto, M. M., & Anderson, J. D. 2007, & A. Milani, 277–288 Advances in Space Research, 39, 291, (Preprint gr- Riess, A. G., Strolger, L., Casertano, S., et al. 2007, qc/0409117) ApJ, 659, 98 Turyshev, S. G. & Toth, V. T. 2009, Space Sci. Rev., 148, 169, (Preprint arXiv:0907.4184 [gr-qc] ) Riess, A. G., Strolger, L., Tonry, J., et al. 2004, ApJ, 607, 665 Turyshev, S. G. & Toth, V. T. 2010, Liv- ing Reviews in Relativity, 13, (2010), 4., Rievers, B. & Lämmerzahl, C. 2011, Annalen der “The Pioneer Anomaly”, [Online Article, pdf Physik, 523, 439, (Preprint arXiv:1104.3985v2 [gr- version] http://relativity.livingreviews.org/ qc]) lrr-2010-4, (Preprint arXiv:1001.3686 [gr-qc] ) Rohlf, J. W. 1994, Modern Physics from [alpha] to Z Turyshev, S. G., Toth, V. T., Ellis, J., & Markwardt, (New York: Wiley) C. B. 2011, Physical Review Letters, 107, 081103, Sandin, T. R. 1991, American Journal of Physics, 59, (Preprint arXiv:1107.2886 [gr-qc] ) 1032 Turyshev, S. G., Toth, V. T., Kellogg, L. R., Lau, Scherer, K., Fichtner, H., Anderson, J. D., & Lau, E. L., & Lee, K. J. 2006, International Journal of E. L. 1997, Science, 278, 1919 Modern Physics D, 15, 1, (Preprint gr-qc/0512121) Turyshev, S. G., Toth, V. T., Kinsella, G., et al. 2012, Scott, D. & Smoot, G. F. 2010, arXiv:1005.0555v1 Physical Review Letters, 108, 241101, (Preprint [astro-ph.CO] arXiv:1204.2507 [gr-qc] ) Seife, C. 2000, Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Vedral, V. 2011, Scientific American, 304, 38, “Living Idea (New York: Viking) in a Quantum World” Silverman, M. P. 1980, European Journal of Physics, Wallin, J. F., Dixon, D. S., & Page, G. L. 2007, ApJ, 1, 116 666, 1296, (Preprint arXiv:0705.3408 [gr-qc] ) Smolin, L. 2006a, Update: New York Academy of Sci- Wang, Y. & Tegmark, M. 2004, Physical Review Let- ences Magazine, January/February, 10-14, “A Cri- ters, 92, 241302 sis in Fundamental Physics” Whitmire, D. P. & Matese, J. J. 2003, Icarus, 165, 219 Smolin, L. 2006b, The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Will, C. M. 2006, Living Rev. Relativity, 9, (2006), 3., Comes Next (Boston: Houghton Mifflin) “The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment”, [Online Article, pdf version] http:// Splaver, E. M., Nice, D. J., Stairs, I. H., Lommen, relativity.livingreviews.org/lrr-2006-3 A. N., & Backer, D. C. 2005, ApJ, 620, 405 Wood-Vasey, W. M., Miknaitis, G., Stubbs, C. W., Standish, E. M. 2004, A&A, 417, 1165 et al. 2007, ApJ, 666, 694 Standish, E. M. 2005, in IAU Colloq. 196: Transits of Zahnle, K., Schenk, P., Dones, L., & Levison, H. 2004, Venus: New Views of the Solar System and Galaxy, in Workshop on Europa’s Icy Shell: Past, Present, ed. D. W. Kurtz, 163–179, “The Astronomical Unit and Future, ed. P. Schenk, F. Nimmo, & L. Prock- now” ter, 7052, “Cratering Rates in the Jovian System”