NewScientist is turning into a headline monger. This whole article is just one giant headline, an interesting one, but no real content. I would have liked to see more of an explanation of the velocity measurement techniques being used, what factors have already been considered to explain the effect, and a glimpse of Mr. Anderson's equation.
Johann
Yes, they have taken account of the moon etc. And yes theres one predictive french theory to be tested, but it didnt seem to match other flyby issues. I believe Cian is closest, with the dark energy (Chris mentioned earlier) and Ether comment, not accounted for. This would also solve the Doppler shift anomolies;
Our bow shock has very high particle densities, and the field within it is in rapid motion, with the planet, round the sun through the heliopause.
Voyager has just been slowed by the same thing as it exits the heliopause into the galactic space through which the solar system is doing 45,000mph. So the model has two combined effects; acceleration by dark energy mass, and by the effective change of velocity between fields. The prediction varys subject to vector and range but can be estimated
there is a view that we live in a simulation:
excess velocity during flyby's could be an artifact of a simulation?
if the time step is not quite infinitesimally small, then probes will accelerate too much
Does the gravitation constant come into this?
It is only known to 1 part in 10,000. The electrostatic explanation also looks good.
There is a computed (observed?)anomaly in the predicted( actually measured?) changes is speed of space probes as they swing around the Earth. As I see it there are 3 possible explanations.
1. Its the cumulative errors in measurements. Whate are the error limits in estimating/measuring these speeds? ( which all good scientists should really be quoted)
2. Its a real phenomenon and we just have not yet identified all the factors that can affect the speed of an object in space
3. Its a mistake. And anyway why should "exotic physics" (whatever that is?!) be the reason?. Einstein's relativity theories have been tested over and over again and been repeatedly validated. Logically there is a reason for the speed change anomalies, but it will most likely be a simple explanation, rather than a total upheaval and rewriting of Einstein's work all all its implications. As for reconciling gravity with quantum mechanics here we go again. Gravity is a distortion of space-time which tends towards 0 at atomic levels, that is why we cannot reconcile it!....
So Basically. . . . . . .
Fri Nov 13 13:05:59 GMT 2009 by Zephir
http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/
It's an application of SUSY, which I explained in discussion therein.
In AWT supersymmetry is based on idea, inside gradient driven reality every gradient has its mass. When we pile a huge amount of lightweight particles, such pile would have a larger mass, then the simple sum of original particles, because it creates more pronounced gradient of mass density/space-time curvature along surface of resulting pile. The difference can be assigned to virtual particles, called neutralinos. If we broke resulting cluster, we wouldn't find them in their individual state, as they evaporate into gravitational waves, i.e. tachyons.
The same result follows from relativity theory as well, if you will think a bit about it. From GR follows, every curvature of space has it's own energy density - this is basically, what the Einstein's field equations are about. But as we know from E=mc^2 formula, every energy density can be assigned to its corresponding mass energy density, which should exhibit it's own additional gravitational field and resulting additional curvature of space.
This idea can be applied ad infinitum onto resulting solution, which would make relativity recursively nested, implicit theory of geometrodynamics.
Of course, we can explain strangelets by one theory and dark matter in another one - but why, if we could use the same principle for boths?
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.
If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.
