A beacon of new physics: the Pioneer anomaly modelled as a path based speed loss driven by the externalisation of aggregate non-inertial QM energy Paul G. ten Boom School of Physics, University of New South Wales, Sydney NSW 2052, Australia Email: [email protected], [email protected] Abstract: This treatise outlines how a non-systematic based Pioneer anomaly, with its implied violation (re: ‘low’ mass bodies only) of both general relativity’s weak equivalence principle and the Newtonian inverse-square law, can be successfully modelled. These theoretical hurdles and various awkward observational constraints, such as the low value of Pioneer 11’s anomaly pre-Saturn encounter, have (to date) not been convincingly modelled. Notwithstanding the recent trend to embrace a non-constant Sun/Earth-directed heat based explanation of this anomalous deceleration, the actual: nature, direction, and temporal and spatial variation of the Pioneer anomaly remain an open arena of research. Working backwards from the observational evidence, and rethinking: time, mass, quantum entanglement and non-locality, we hypothesise a mechanism involving a quantum mechanical energy source and a new type of ‘gravitational’ field; neither of which lie within general relativity’s domain of formulation/application. By way of a systemic conservation of energy principle, an internally inexpressible (aggregate) non-inertial energy discrepancy/uncertainty — involving a myriad of quantum (lunar/third-body residing) atomic and molecular systems moving in analog curved spacetime — is (non-locally) re-expressed externally as a (rotating) non-Euclidean spatial geometry perturbation. At a moving body each “rotating space-warp” induces sinusoidal proper acceleration and speed perturbations, as well as a path-based constant (per cycle) rate of speed shortfall relative to predictions that omit the additional effect. ‘Solutions’ of the new model may extend to: the Earth flyby anomaly, solar system related large-scale anomalies in the CMB radiation data, the nature of dark energy, and how a theory of everything unification agenda is inadvertently impeding a deeper understanding of physical reality and quantum entanglement. Keywords: Pioneer anomaly — gravitation — time — Earth flyby anomaly — dark energy Contents 1 Introduction 7 2 Background and discussion of the Pioneer anomaly 10 2.1 Stance taken in this paper: real anomalous spacecraft motion ..................... 11 2.2 On heat emission as the cause of the Pioneer anomaly . .................... 11 2.3 Why a temporally diminishing Pioneer anomaly is not assured .................... 12 2.4 Primary observational evidence . .................. 12 2.5 Veracity and impediments to new physics. ................... 13 2.6 Further concerns regarding the solar system . ..................... 14 2.7 Author’s comments on the anomaly’s status . ................... 14 3 First stage modelling of the Pioneer anomaly 14 3.1 Loosening the subtle shackles of General Relativity . ........................ 14 3.2 Pioneer Anomaly as a shortfall relative to predicted motion ...................... 15 arXiv:1205.3312v3 [physics.gen-ph] 4 Sep 2012 3.2.1 Introductoryremarks . ............ 15 3.2.2 Conceptual aspects of a shortfall in motion relative to predicted motion . 16 3.2.3 General preliminaries, idealisations, and undulationfeaturesofthemodel . 16 3.2.4 Briefly introducing celestial simple harmonic (proper)motion ................. 17 3.2.5 Agenda and (relative) undulation maximum amplitude relationships . 17 3.2.6 Relative undulation amplitude relationships: for two different cases . 18 3.2.7 Celestial (simple) harmonic motion and its influence upon average speed . 18 3.2.8 Rayleigh’s Power Theorem in curved space (at a point mass) ................. 18 3.2.9 Physical interpretation of the Power Theorem (over a single cycle) . 19 3.2.10 Two different ways in which celestial simple harmonic motionoccurs . 20 3.2.11 Amplitude to shortfall relationships and an equality of specific energies . 21 3.2.12 Acceleration field strength to spacecraft acceleration relationship . 22 3.2.13 The Pioneer anomaly & commenting upon the model’s use of‘mass’ ............. 23 1 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