How strong was the diurnal and seasonal variations of the Pionner Anomaly (?

[Bjarne]

How strong was the diurnal and seasonal variations of the Pionner anomaly (in Hz)

[swansont]

How strong was the diurnal and seasonal variations of the Pionner anomaly (in Hz)

 

 

I imagine one could get the data and analyze it. Have you tried that?

 

Why would the result be measured in Hz?

[Bjarne]

 

 

I imagine one could get the data and analyze it. Have you tried that?

 

Why would the result be measured in Hz?

 

The paper is full of strange expressions and abbreviations above my head, so I am lost before really getting started..

To keep it simple, - so fare I understand the annual anomaly is discovered based on an anomaly discovered in the radio signals, which mean the signal must have an annual sinusoid blueshift / redshift anomaly.

This is so fare I understand the only way an annual pioneer anomaly can be detected.

Edited June 10, 2017 by Bjarne

[Mordred]

If you can link the paper we probably help translate. Particularly as the papers I've read don't mention sidereal and diurnal variations. Usually they mention the acceleration anomoly value with blueshift anomology at 10-6 hrtz/sec.

 

So if you have a specific paper that mentions the requested values it would be most helpful in answering your question.

 

edit on above [latex]5.99*10^{-9}[/latex] hertz/s

Edited June 10, 2017 by Mordred

[Bjarne]

If you can link the paper we probably help translate. Particularly as the papers I've read don't mention sidereal and diurnal variations. Usually they mention the acceleration anomoly value with blueshift anomology at 10-6 hrtz/sec.

 

So if you have a specific paper that mentions the requested values it would be most helpful in answering your question.

 

edit on above [latex]5.99*10^{-9}[/latex] hertz/s

 

 

 

Quote:

C. Apparent annual/diurnal periodicities in the

solution

In Ref. [13] we reported, in addition to the constant

anomalous acceleration term, a possible annual sinusoid.

If approximated by a simple sine wave, the amplitude

of this oscillatory term is about 1.6 × 10−8 cm/s2. The

integral of a sine wave in the acceleration, aP , with angular

velocity ω and amplitude A0 yields the following

first-order Doppler amplitude in two-way fractional frequency

Source https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0104064.pdf Page 40

The annual anomaly is converted to an acceleration, - but the data is extracted from the radio signal.

Edited June 10, 2017 by Bjarne

[Mordred]

It is extracted from the value in that article using the doppler formula.

 

The value I gave above is the correct one.

https://www.google.ca/search?ei=rUU8WbC_CMG0jwSjw7noBQ&q=pioneer+anomaly+in+hertz+pdf&oq=pioneer+anomaly+in+hertz+pdf&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.3...5051.18678.0.19605.25.24.1.0.0.0.470.4611.2j10j10j0j1.23.0....0...1.1j4.64.mobile-gws-serp..5.13.2377...0j35i39k1j0i22i30k1j33i160k1j0i22i10i30k1j30i10k1.uyEURtyaxe0

 

see intro on this arxiv article.

Edited June 10, 2017 by Mordred

[Bjarne]

It is extracted from the value in that article using the doppler formula.

 

The value I gave above is the correct one.

https://www.google.ca/search?ei=rUU8WbC_CMG0jwSjw7noBQ&q=pioneer+anomaly+in+hertz+pdf&oq=pioneer+anomaly+in+hertz+pdf&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.3...5051.18678.0.19605.25.24.1.0.0.0.470.4611.2j10j10j0j1.23.0....0...1.1j4.64.mobile-gws-serp..5.13.2377...0j35i39k1j0i22i30k1j33i160k1j0i22i10i30k1j30i10k1.uyEURtyaxe0

 

see intro on this arxiv article.

Link was not working

[Mordred]

Oops linked the page on my phone

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.0537&ved=0ahUKEwjcsIWSkLTUAhUB1WMKHfaYCQQQFggdMAA&usg=AFQjCNFkl8o68zsRVkJ7hlj3ESe9wd52IA&sig2=h7KtWFEtU9MNY5Hw4D7AVA

 

That's better lol sorry about that working from a phone is a pain in ...

Edited June 10, 2017 by Mordred

[swansont]

 

 

The paper is full of strange expressions and abbreviations above my head, so I am lost before really getting started..

To keep it simple, - so fare I understand the annual anomaly is discovered based on an anomaly discovered in the radio signals, which mean the signal must have an annual sinusoid blueshift / redshift anomaly.

This is so fare I understand the only way an annual pioneer anomaly can be detected.

 

 

 

If there was an annual variation the frequency would be equivalent to a period of a year. By definition. ~32 nanoHz

[Bjarne]

 

 

If there was an annual variation the frequency would be equivalent to a period of a year. By definition. ~32 nanoHz

 

How did you came to that result ?

 

 

I have found this...................

 

Figure 1: Best fit residuals of the Doppler

tracking data of Pioneer 10 with an anomalous

acceleration aP .

O−C(Xopt

0 , ˙X opt

0 ,Mopt, 0) where the anomalous acceleration has been nullified;

this representation highlights the need of the constant acceleration to reduce

the residuals.

It can be emphasized that the level of the residuals on Fig. 1 is higher than

the measurement noise. It is also clear on the figure that the postfit residuals do

not correspond to a white gaussian noise.

Source https://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.2682.pdf

 

So the annual anomaly I asked about must be within the interval about +/- 20 hz

Does anyone disagree to that?

Edited June 11, 2017 by Bjarne

[imatfaal]

 

How did you came to that result ?

 

 

....

So the annual anomaly I asked about must be within the interval about +/- 20 hz

Does anyone disagree to that?

 

An annual anomaly means it varies once per year, that is once per (365*24*60*60) seconds, which in turn is once per 31536000 seconds, which is also 3.17e-8 times per second, also known as 32nanoHz

 

The interesting thing (or would be interesting if it weren't some stupid conspiracy theory which is trying to re-write modern physics with one badly observed data source) is how much it varies per second or - as Mordred wrote way above - Hz per Second; ie the change in frequency per second.

 

This is an anomaly in the acceleration of a distant object as observed via radio waves and the doppler shift of those radio waves. The anomaly is thus measured in (m/s^2) for acceleration or (Hz) for frequency. A periodic anomaly - one which varies in time and periodically is measured in these same units over time ie (m/s^2) s^-1 or Hz s^-1.

 

 

[rant]

The main question is why so many people - you included - spend so much time on this. There is something about "anomaly" or "paradox" that makes people get way out of their depth and forget that to understand an anomaly one must have a good working knowledge of the normality. As an example we get people asserting arguments (often under the guise of questions) about the twin paradox who know precious little maths or newtonian mechanics or kinematics - let alone the basics of relativity. There is a huge and fascinating world of physics and science out there - but actually learning stuff is difficult so they tend to take an easy option of guessing about pop-science paradoxes.

[/rant]

[Bjarne]

 

An annual anomaly means it varies once per year, that is once per (365*24*60*60) seconds, which in turn is once per 31536000 seconds, which is also 3.17e-8 times per second, also known as 32nanoHz

 

The interesting thing (or would be interesting if it weren't some stupid conspiracy theory which is trying to re-write modern physics with one badly observed data source) is how much it varies per second or - as Mordred wrote way above - Hz per Second; ie the change in frequency per second.

 

This is an anomaly in the acceleration of a distant object as observed via radio waves and the doppler shift of those radio waves. The anomaly is thus measured in (m/s^2) for acceleration or (Hz) for frequency. A periodic anomaly - one which varies in time and periodically is measured in these same units over time ie (m/s^2) s^-1 or Hz s^-1.

 

31536000seconds * 3.17e-8 Hz = 0,999 Hz ( or annual +/- 0,499 Hz) .

Have I done anything wrong?

I mean the graph shows that the annual anomaly rather is about +/- (peak) 10 to 20 Hz

Source https://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.2682.pdf

Edited June 11, 2017 by Bjarne

[Strange]

31536000seconds * 3.17e-8 Hz = 0,999 Hz ( or annual +/- 0,499 Hz) .

Have I done anything wrong?

 

 

 

It looks like you have tried to turn a rounding error into meaningful data ...

[Bjarne]

 

 

It looks like you have tried to turn a rounding error into meaningful data ...

Why do you think so?

[swansont]

 

How did you came to that result ?

 

 

 

I took the number of seconds in a year and inverted it on my calculator, since f = 1/T

31536000seconds * 3.17e-8 Hz = 0,999 Hz ( or annual +/- 0,499 Hz) .

Have I done anything wrong?

 

 

 

 

The units are wrong. sec*Hz leaves you unitless. frequency*period = 1

[Bjarne]

 

 

I took the number of seconds in a year and inverted it on my calculator, since f = 1/T

 

The units are wrong. sec*Hz leaves you unitless. frequency*period = 1

 

 

All I need to know is really is: - it right or wrong, - that the annual anomaly is (or can be) “hidden” in the graph (below), - as well as that the magnitude is (or can be) +/- (peak) 10 to 20 Hz

 

Source https://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.2682.pdf

 

 

I took the number of seconds in a year and inverted it on my calculator, since f = 1/T

 

The units are wrong. sec*Hz leaves you unitless. frequency*period = 1

I do not understand how or why that is relevant to how strong the annual anomaly aspect of the Pioneer is anomaly is, - let’s say when it is peaking, - compared to when it is zero (not peaking)..

Edited June 11, 2017 by Bjarne

[Mordred]

The main question is why so many people - you included - spend so much time on this. There is something about "anomaly" or "paradox" that makes people get way out of their depth and forget that to understand an anomaly one must have a good working knowledge of the normality. As an example we get people asserting arguments

 

Well at least this is one case where the anomoly has been solved already.

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.2507v1.pdf

 

Turns out the the electronic systems on board was the source of the problem ie RTG's.( radioisotope thermoelectric generators)

 

 

The team that solved the problem took years examining data that isn't available to the public. In particular the thermal sensor readings for the flight time duration.

Edited June 11, 2017 by Mordred

[Bjarne]

Well at least this is one case where the anomoly has been solved already.

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.2507v1.pdf

 

Turns out the the electronic systems on board was the source of the problem ie RTG's.( radioisotope thermoelectric generators)

 

 

The team that solved the problem took years examining data that isn't available to the public. In particular the thermal sensor readings for the flight time duration.

However still it is not certain what was causing the annual anomaly, - that aspect is never properly investigated, at least if you ask me..

[Mordred]

Then your going to need a very strong case to support that. Particularly since you had difficulties in applying the Doppler shift formula to the cm/s value above. The value in hertz/s is converted from the first value.

 

Are you confident you have the required skill set to take any dataset and extract the data your looking for? (assuming its contained somewhere not obvious in the dataset)

 

Not trying to be insulting but far too often posters try to solve complex problems without having the needed skills.

 

(Quite frankly I would wonder if even I would have the right skill mix in this case) let alone access to the right data.

 

Lets take the last paper for example. With better data they found that the anamoly is decreasing over time. Which means it must be from an internal source as the dynamics of our solar system would be relatively constant over the flight time. (with solar seasonal variations accounted for)

 

After all the scientists at NASA certainly have the datasets to account for solar seasonal variations. Far greater than what is readily available on the internet.

 

Lets look at the key difference between your article and the one I just posted.

 

The problem here is the first article shows the anomoly as constant over time where the later and recovered datasets shows decreasing over time.

 

Fundamentally the lack of availability of the correct datasets led to a huge mountain of incorrect interpretations. I won't go over all the alternative models far too many to list them all.

 

From your paper

 

"In its present status, the data analysis does not take into account the detailed

thermal models of the spacecraft, currently under study by different groups.

These models are expected to produce a slowly evoluting radiation force due to

heat dissipation from the Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTG); this

force should appear as a part of the anomalous secular acceleration to be found

below"

 

So they even admit the influence of the paper I posted but did not have that data to account for in your paper. As it was still being studied at the time.

Edited June 11, 2017 by Mordred

[Bjarne]

Then your going to need a very strong case to support that. Particularly since you had difficulties in applying the Doppler shift formula to the cm/s value above. The value in hertz/s is converted from the first value.

 

 

That’s the point yes, and that’s the question.

I wonder why it seems that nobody really replies to the question ?

Maybe nobody have the skills ?

Or maybe it is because its Sunday today

[Mordred]

We have replied perhaps your not understanding the replies. Have you ever worked with the Doppler formulas? I ask this because the manner of your posts indicate to me your not particularly familiar with them.

Edited June 11, 2017 by Mordred

[Bjarne]

Have you ever worked with the Doppler formulas?

no

[Mordred]

K that is where the problem lies. Unfortunately it is also a highly complex topic unto itself. (Far more complex than most laymen realize)

 

When you have two objects moving relative to one another, signals sent to one another experience a doppler shift relative to their motion to each other. There is three BASIC equations

 

Unfortunately none of these three will work directly as written below.

 

Doppler (non relativistic)

 

[latex]f=\frac{c+v_r}{c+v_s}f_o[/latex]

 

Gravitational redshift

 

[latex]\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{(1 - \frac{2GM}{r c^2})}}[/latex]

 

Cosmological (expansion contraction of space volume)

 

[latex]1+Z=\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o} or 1+Z=\frac{\lambda-\lambda_o}{\lambda_o}[/latex]

 

Now the one we need the most is the first equation as we do not have relativistic velocities involved it will be to good approximation (though not exact, all equations are to best approximation) for the system state they are describing.

 

Now all the above equations are along the x axis. In other words directly moving toward or away from the detector.

 

For the Pioneer we need a far more complex equation called the transerve Doppler formula.

 

[latex] f_o=\frac{f_s}{\gamma(1+\frac{v}{c}cos\theta_o)}[/latex] this equation includes relativistic effects via gamma

 

So when you get a velocity value relative to instruments on Earth (which is at a higher gravitational potential) we need two equations (transverse doppler and gravitational redshift) in order to get your redshift/blueshift frequency values.

 

Now asked for the frequency in your original post. You gave one value when requested from your first paper. (velocity)

 

which is great but what is the satellite trajectory relative to Earth to convert to frequency?

 

we don't know which is why were stuck doing precisely what your doing (looking for the appropriate datasets ) that has the sidereal and diurnal values in hertz specifically as we have no idea what the applicable trajectories will be to apply the correct formulas.

 

See the problem? Hence the only answer we can apply is datasets that might help.

 

However any frequency calculation will be at a Specific location and moment in time and not constant the most constant value will be the velocity not the frequency. Which is precisely why the value is given in cm/s.

Edited June 11, 2017 by Mordred

[Bjarne]

We have replied perhaps your not understanding the replies.

 

I see no relevant reply in this thread

 

Below is the context where you copied the data, - but as you see this is related to the deceleration, not specific to the annual anomaly

 

The Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft, launched in 1972 and 1973 respectively, represent an ideal system to perform precision celestial mechanics experiments [1].

The radiometric Doppler tracking data of these spacecraft (in the outer solar system and beyond) indicated the presence of a small, anomalous, frequency blue-shift (relative to expectations) of [latex]5.99*10^{-9}[/latex] hertz/s

This unmodelled Doppler „drift‟, which is applicable to both spacecraft, has been interpreted as an anomalous deceleration – as compared to a clock (or time) acceleration effect [2].

The average value of this anomalous (Pioneer) deceleration ( P a ) is 10 2 (8.74 1.33) 10 m/s - ± ´ .

Sourse.. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1307/1307.0537.pdf

 

 

I belive ithis is more relevant.............

 

In Ref. [13] we reported, in addition to the constant anomalous acceleration term, a possible annual sinusoid.

If approximated by a simple sine wave, the amplitudeof this oscillatory term is about 1.6 × 10−8 cm/s2.

The integral of a sine wave in the acceleration, aP , with angular velocity ω and amplitude A0 yields the following

first-order Doppler amplitude in two-way fractional frequency:_νν=2A0c ω. (50)

The resulting Doppler amplitude for the annual angularvelocity ∼ 2 × 10−7 rad/s is _ν/ν = 5.3 × 10−12.

At the Pioneer downlink S-band carrier frequency of ∼ 2.29 GHz, the corresponding Doppler amplitude is 0.012 Hz (i.e. 0.795 mm/s).

 

Source

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0104064.pdf

 

 

All I need to know is really, - is it right or wrong, - that the annual anomaly is (or can be) “hidden” in the graph (above), - as well , can the annual magnitude be +/- (peak) 10 to 20 Hz

Source https://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.2682.pdf

 

And why does this paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0104064.pdf mention the corresponding Doppler amplitude is 0.012 Hz (i.e. 0.795 mm/s).

Edited June 11, 2017 by Bjarne

[Mordred]

Read my last reply you literally asked a question in your OP that is impossible to answer on a forum.

 

On any forum as we simply do not know the location of the satelite when you wish to calculate the frequency from the cm/s value. It will not stay consistent but will literally be a wavefunction over time.

 

Do not pretend to know what you are talking about when you already admitted you have never worked with the Doppler formulas.

 

Take some time and practice some calcs you will see precisely what I mean.

 

Those values above are mean averages

Edited June 11, 2017 by Mordred