Critique of Mainstream Cosmology

[Garth]

It's not clear to me why. If LCDM is not claiming to explain the origin of fluctuations, why would a problem concerning the initial distribution of those fluctuations bring it into question?

In GR, a decelerating universe raises a series of questions: the horizon problem (why are opposite sides of the sky similar when they are casually unconnected?), the smoothness problem (Why are the fluctuations ~ 10^-5 just right to produce a universe with large scale structure and galaxies etc. yet not too great so all matter clumps together in a few hyper-massive BHs?), the density problem (Why is \Omega_{total} ~ 1?), which can only be answered by special pleading - i.e. by setting specific initial conditions that can perhaps only be explained by Anthropic reasoning.

Another answer is of course that the universe may not have been decelerating over most of its history. [Apart from the Inflation era: 10^-35 sec to 10^-33 sec, according to the mainstream model the universe has been decelerating from the Planck era t = 10^-43 sec to t > 10⁺¹⁷ sec, when DE acceleration kicked in. The present age t ~ 4 x10⁺¹⁷ sec.]

The monopole problem is different in that it arises from the GUT, which predicts magnetic monopoles should be plentiful and detectable. A lack of their detection therefore requires an explanation, such as Inflation, which would have diluted their density to undetectable levels.

Another explanation is of course that the GUT is wrong and they never existed in the first place.

Inflation resolves these problems by injecting massive expansion at that early yet post-Planck era stage, which more than counteracts the effects of the subsequent deceleration. Without it the standard model has some explaining to do.

One resolution would be to have an unorthodox equation of state for DE in order to have an extended era of acceleration, i.e. a kind of 'smeared out' inflation, or indeed a strictly linear expansion , but that is definitely 'non-standard'!

Garth

 

[jonmtkisco]

Garth,

Your concerns are valid if you take Steinhardt & Turok's critique of inflation alone. But of course the authors go beyond that and propose a replacement theory. They are very confident that their replacement theory has an answer for the issues that inflation was supposed to solve. Their concept is that the universe is cyclical -- it repeats a cycle every few trillion years where it expands, contracts, and then expands again. During the lengthy expansion phase, they say that flatness and homogeneity are achieved to a high degree, and are preserved through the subsequent collapse phase. They don't need to solve the magnetic monopole problem because their contraction phase never gets hot enough to go through the GUT phase transition. They don't have a horizon problem because the universe is already at thermal equilibrium when it starts expanding. They also claim to almost exactly match the perturbations in the CMB.

But I don't see why their critique of inflation can't be considered separately from their replacement theory. They clearly do not believe that inflation is a solid theory. So even if their replacement theory is disproved, that doesn't necessarily mean that they would put inflation back on its former pedestal.

 

[Garth]

One advantage of the inflation theory is that is has been derived within a GR 'environment, and GR has definitely been tested locally (but note the caveats I have raised earlier in this thread).

When extrapolated to cosmological regimes problems may arise with GR but the standard model seems to fit so far. It has of course the disadvantage of relying on physics undiscovered so far in the laboratory: Inflation, DM and DE.

Replacement theories also tend to be speculative, so, for example, how do we test that the Steinhardt & Turok theory actually does preserve homogeneity and flatness through the recycling process?

If there are problems with Inflation then maybe we should we not look for a testable theory that does not suffer from the horizon, smoothness and flatness/density problems in the first place? i.e. One that does not decelerate.

That has been my approach. The task in this thread is to look for observations that may indicate which way to go!

Garth

 

[SpaceTiger]

Inflation resolves these problems by injecting massive expansion at that early yet post-Planck era stage, which more than counteracts the effects of the subsequent deceleration. Without it the standard model has some explaining to do.

But you're just repeating what I already said. Your reasoning would suggest that you should question that the Earth revolves around the sun just because we don't fully understand how the solar system formed.

We have a large body of solid observational evidence (e.g. element abundances, CMB, large-scale structure) to support the late-period deceleration of the universe and it appears to be well-fit by the LCDM model in the regimes we can measure. You haven't really demonstrated to me why these observations should be brought into question by an overturning of our early universe model. Certainly Paul Steinhardt (from whom I took a cosmology class) doesn't take issue with our post-inflation model of the universe, despite his misgivings about inflation. Why should you?

 

[Garth]

Well, first of all my view is that the mainstream model does include Inflation. I understand that you can divorce it from the post-inflation model if you want to and treat each regime separately, but that leaves the 'Inflation-resolved problems' out on a limb.

Hundreds of years ago there were questions about whether the Earth revolves around the Sun or otherwise. I would say that issue was cleared up, not by the understanding of how the Solar System formed, but by Kepler's development of the Copernican theory, supported by Galileo's observations and explained by Newtonian physics.

The 'Inflation-resolved problems' arise in GR from the deceleration of cosmic expansion. They demand some explanation. If Inflation is problematic then we should either look for another solution for them, such as any that brane theory might give, or a modification of GR in which they do not arise in the first place, or preferably both.

The reason in this thread I have treated both cosmological problematic observations, such as apparently old objects in an apparently young universe, and local problematic observations, such as the Pioneer Anomaly, is a feeling that their resolution may actually lie in a modification of GR, which would affect both regimes.

Garth

 

[turbo]

Indeed, unambiguous observations of high red-shift SMBH's could bring into question the expansion history of the standard model.

One of Michael Strauss (Princeton) conclusions from the SDSS survey: Active Galaxies at Low and High Redshift: Type II Quasars, Reionization, and Other Insights from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey These are around z > 6 when the universe was less than 1Gyr old.

Theorists of the standard model have their work cut out to explain the formation of the large BHs required to power such quasars at those early times. For example: SDSS J1148+5251: a hyperluminous high metallicity galaxy, in the early universe


Garth

Here is another massive (both in gas and in dust) host galaxy associated with a high-redshift quasar.

http://www.citebase.org/abstract?id=oai%3AarXiv.org%3A0707.2339

One outstanding issue the Li et al. models do not address is the early formation of dust. Such early dust formation remains a puzzle, since the standard ISM dust formation mechanism, ie. in the cool winds from evolved low mass (AGB) stars, may require timescales longer than the age of the universe at z ∼ 6. One possible solution is dust formation associated with massive star formation (Stratta et al. 2007; Maiolino et al. 2004; Venkatesan, Nath, & Shull 2006; Dwek et al. 2007).

 

[Garth]

Here is another massive (both in gas and in dust) host galaxy associated with a high-redshift quasar.

http://www.citebase.org/abstract?id=oai%3AarXiv.org%3A0707.2339

Thank you turbo-1,

J0927+2001 is the second example of a huge molecular gas reservoir within the host galaxy of a quasar within 1 Gyr of the big bang.

Two huge gas/dust clouds which in this case M_gas ~ 10¹⁰M_solar, a period of massive starburst and a SMBH at a time close to the end of cosmic reionization, within 1 Gyr of the BB.

The question is, "Was there enough time to achieve all this?" That DM must have certainly been working overtime!

Although the era of Pop III stars would have produced a lot of metallicity the material ejected into the IGM still had to re-condense into the SMBH's and galaxies and also produce the iron (up to 3 x solar abundance - APM 8279+5255) seen at that epoch.

Garth

 

[turbo]

Yes the timescale for dust formation is a constraint, as is the timescale for iron enrichment. Because iron and magnesium are produced in supernovae with progenitor stars of very different masses (SNIa and SNII) there should be a redshift-dependent evolution in the relative concentrations of these metals. Such an evolution is not seen, all the way out to z~6.5. Xiaohui Fan, Michael Strauss et al make this point in every paper they produce about quasar metallicities, including this one.

http://www.citebase.org/abstract?id=oai%3AarXiv.org%3A0707.1662

The Fe to Mg abundance ratio, and its observational proxy, the Fe II/Mg II line ratio, can be considered a cosmological clock. Both elements are produced in supernova explosions, but while Fe is produced by Type Ia supernovae (SNe), which have relatively low mass progenitors (white dwarfs in binary systems), Mg is produced by Type II SNe, which have high mass progenitors. Mg therefore appears almost instanteneously after initial star formation while the Fe production starts only later. The ratio of Fe to Mg is predicted to build up quickly in the first 1 to 3 Gyr and then level off to the value presently observed in the solar neighbourhood (e.g., Yoshii et al. 1998).

 

[Chronos]

But the universe was younger, rapidly expanding, and denser in those days, Garth. Have you accommodated all the necessary adjustments?

 

[Garth]

Hi Chronos!

As well as large over dense regions Detection of 1.6× 10¹⁰ M_⊙ of molecular gas in the host galaxy of the z=5.77 SDSS quasar J0927+2001, we also have large voids Extragalactic Radio Sources and the WMAP Cold Spot, which are of course the inverse of large scale structure; where a large mass has collapsed out of the background medium it is only to be expected that a large void will be left.

Now the questions/statements:

These results lead to the question: how are such massive galaxies and SMBH formed within 1 Gyr of the Big Bang?

To create the magnitude and angular size of the WMAP cold spot requires a ~140 Mpc radius completely empty void at z<=1 along this line of sight. This is far outside the current expectations of the concordance cosmology, and adds to the anomalies seen in the CMB.

are not mine, I am simply reporting what others have said in published papers/eprints.

They may indeed be answerable within the mainstream concordance model, for example as for the first paper on the 10¹⁰ M_⊙ gas cloud:

Li et al. (2007a, b) have addressed this question through multi-scale cosmological simulations, including prescriptions for the complex processes of star formation and AGN feed-back. They find that early galaxy and SMBH formation is possible in rare (comoving density ∼ 1 Gpc⁻³), high density peaks (halo mass ∼ 8 × 10¹²M_⊙ at z ∼ 6), in the cosmic density field, through a series of gas-rich, massive mergers starting at z ∼ 14.

However my question remains, especially of the large void: "In the standard expansion time scale of the mainstream model was there actually enough time for the large scale structure observed at high z to form?"

It all depends of course on how large the 'structure' and how high the red-shift, we shall see how it pans out in future...

Garth

 

[Chronos]

Similar logic was applied in Eric Lerner's 'The Big Bang Never Happened'. It was a diatribe rife with shaky 'facts' and exponentially ludicrous conclusions. My intent is not to impugn your logic or motivation, merely encourage you to remain objective.

 

[Garth]

Similar logic was applied in Eric Lerner's 'The Big Bang Never Happened'. It was a diatribe rife with shaky 'facts' and exponentially ludicrous conclusions. My intent is not to impugn your logic or motivation, merely encourage you to remain objective.

If there are possible observed problems with the mainstream model then it would not be surprising that 'mavericks' or indeed 'crackpots' should latch onto them.

Nevertheless my statement still stands: "The question remains, especially of the large void: "In the standard expansion time scale of the mainstream model was there actually enough time for the large scale structure observed at high z to form?""

Garth

 

[Garth]

Furthermore, there may be questions that can be asked about the bland assumption that SNe Ia are standard candles over cosmological time (see: Are SNe Ia Standard Candles?), if so then we can also ask, as in an eprint by Subir Sarkar published today, Is the evidence for dark energy secure?.

Several kinds of astronomical observations, interpreted in the framework of the standard Friedmann-Robertson-Walker cosmology, have indicated that our universe is dominated by a Cosmological Constant. The dimming of distant Type Ia supernovae suggests that the expansion rate is accelerating, as if driven by vacuum energy, and this has been indirectly substantiated through studies of angular anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and of spatial correlations in the large-scale structure (LSS) of galaxies. However there is no compelling direct evidence yet for (the dynamical effects of) dark energy. The precision CMB data can be equally well fitted without dark energy if the spectrum of primordial density fluctuations is not quite scale-free and if the Hubble constant is lower globally than its locally measured value. The LSS data can also be satisfactorily fitted if there is a small component of hot dark matter, as would be provided by neutrinos of mass 0.5 eV. Although such an Einstein-de Sitter model cannot explain the SNe Ia Hubble diagram or the position of the `baryon acoustic oscillation' peak in the autocorrelation function of galaxies, it may be possible to do so e.g. in an inhomogeneous Lemaitre-Tolman-Bondi cosmology where we are located in a void which is expanding faster than the average. Such alternatives may seem contrived but this must be weighed against our lack of any fundamental understanding of the inferred tiny energy scale of the dark energy. It may well be an artifact of an oversimplified cosmological model, rather than having physical reality.

(Subir Sarkar is a Professor of Theoretical Physics at Oxford University.)

Garth

 

[Garth]

Furthermore, there may be questions that can be asked about the bland assumption that SNe Ia are standard candles over cosmological time (see: Are SNe Ia Standard Candles?), if so then we can also ask, as in an eprint by Subir Sarkar published today, Is the evidence for dark energy secure?.

(Subir Sarkar is a Professor of Theoretical Physics at Oxford University.)

Garth

Nature has done an article on this work Bursting dark energy's bubble.

Subir Sarkar, a theoretical physicist at Oxford University, UK, has written a treatise that suggests that dark energy, a mysterious force that seems to be pushing the Universe apart, might actually be the result of an enormous bubble of empty space around our galaxy. The paper is available on the physics preprint server ArXiv.

Sarkar says he has floated the idea to encourage astronomers to make more careful measurements of the rate of expansion of our Universe using tools already available, before being so certain of the existence of dark energy. "I'm simply concerned that people are not doing mundane checks they ought to be doing before making these claims," he says. "People seem to be more concerned about planning mega-projects for the future," he says.

"Mundane checks" anyone?

Garth

 

[turbo]

One VERY mundane check, Garth. The redshifts of the galaxies most distant from us are most representative of their true cosmological distance (Hubble/distance relation) and the least contaminated by peculiar motions. If SNe Ia are indeed standard candles, their brightness in distant galaxies should be the calibration reference, and the question then becomes "why are calculated absolute luminosities of SNe Ia in nearer galaxies brighter on average than more distant ones?" Is it possible that through some systematic error, we have over-stated the distances to the nearer galaxies? Until very recently, there was a pretty wide range of "allowable Hubble constants", judging from the work of Freedman et al and Sandage et al.

 

[yogi]

Nevertheless my statement still stands: "The question remains, especially of the large void: "In the standard expansion time scale of the mainstream model was there actually enough time for the large scale structure observed at high z to form?""

Garth

Garth


Noting from equation (3) of SCC, the variation of G is roughly consistent with Dirac's LNH which predicted G varies approx as 1/R where R is the Hubble radial scale factor.

A couple of questions - if G varies accordingly, then doesn't this resolve the issue of sufficient time for the large scale features to form?

Secondly, most attempts to measure G turn out to support the idea that G is constant. These tests, however, are normally based upon radar ranging experiments which involve a planatary or moon mass M such that the result actually measures the MG product. Does the analysis cited in SCC reference 8 involve a determination of G alone independent of M. If so, and if it is validated, then based upon the experiments that test the MG product, it would appear that one could successfully argue that the inertial mass of a given quantity of matter varies (increases) in proportion to R which is the way I read your abstract

Yogi

 

[Garth]

Hi Yogi,

Firstly, the present 2002 SCC theory, in which the constant coupling the scalar field to matter, \lambda, was fixed at unity, is dead in the water. It was robustly falsified by the first results of the GP-B satellite as I posted here.

Secondly, I am developing a general theory of SCC in which \lambda is left undetermined. This would keep some of the attractive features of the 2002 theory such as a linear expansion rate that would allow about twice the time for structures to evolve in the early universe. (z = 6 would correspond to an age of t ~ 2 Gyr. instead of t < 1 Gyr. as in the mainstream model.) Beyond that I do not want to comment until it is published.

Thirdly, in SCC both G and M vary, however in the 2002 theory the product GM was constant, whereas it appears not to be in the GSCC theory.

Fourthly any determination of G is always convoluted with M, the Cavendish type experiments are able to determine G only because M is known independently.

Garth

 

[yogi]

One VERY mundane check, Garth. The redshifts of the galaxies most distant from us are most representative of their true cosmological distance (Hubble/distance relation) and the least contaminated by peculiar motions. If SNe Ia are indeed standard candles, their brightness in distant galaxies should be the calibration reference, and the question then becomes "why are calculated absolute luminosities of SNe Ia in nearer galaxies brighter on average than more distant ones?" Is it possible that through some systematic error, we have over-stated the distances to the nearer galaxies? Until very recently, there was a pretty wide range of "allowable Hubble constants", judging from the work of Freedman et al and Sandage et al.

If G is not constant, and the MG product is, then 1a supernova cannot be standard candles in any sense - some of the data I have seen suggests that the width of luminosity curve for distant events is less than the luminosity profile for the more recent bursts - this would indicate less total energy - a result consistent with a higher G and less mass

 

[Garth]

It would be good to get an estimate of distance of these distant SNe 1a independent of red shift.

What methods would work at z ~ 1?

Garth

 

[Jorrie]

It would be good to get an estimate of distance of these distant SNe 1a independent of red shift.

What methods would work at z ~ 1?

Garth

My guess is that above the present Cepheid limit of about z ~ 0.1, there is no other known method than the SNe 1a, or is there?

 

[turbo]

My guess is that above the present Cepheid limit of about z ~ 0.1, there is no other known method than the SNe 1a, or is there?

The Tully-Fisher relation can be used as an estimate of distance to spiral galaxies. By observing the velocity dispersion in such a spiral, the mass of the galaxy can be estimated, and using this mass figure, one can compare the observed luminosity of the galaxy with the luminosity expectation value (from the estimated mass) and obtain a distance measure that is independent of redshift. There is a paper on this subject (written by a collaborator on another paper that we submitted recently) that is currently under review, and I will link to a preprint as soon as it is accepted.

 

[Wallace]

Baryon acoustic oscillations can give accurate distance measures to z~1 and beyond. The marginal detection of these already seen in the SDSS galaxy survey agree with the SN distances, though everyone agrees that bigger and deeper surveys are needed to confirm these. Several such surveys are underway (such as WIGGLEZ) and bigger ones are planned (such as PAN-STARRS).

 

[Garth]

Thank you, I shall keep looking out for their results.

Garth

 

[Chronos]

Good luck on your paper, Turbo-1. I too look forward to seeing it.

 

[yogi]

Hi Yogi,

Firstly, the present 2002 SCC theory, in which the constant coupling the scalar field to matter, \lambda, was fixed at unity, is dead in the water. It was robustly falsified by the first results of the GP-B satellite as I posted here.

Secondly, I am developing a general theory of SCC in which \lambda is left undetermined. This would keep some of the attractive features of the 2002 theory such as a linear expansion rate that would allow about twice the time for structures to evolve in the early universe. (z = 6 would correspond to an age of t ~ 2 Gyr. instead of t < 1 Gyr. as in the mainstream model.) Beyond that I do not want to comment until it is published.

Thirdly, in SCC both G and M vary, however in the 2002 theory the product GM was constant, whereas it appears not to be in the GSCC theory.

Fourthly any determination of G is always convoluted with M, the Cavendish type experiments are able to determine G only because M is known independently.

Garth

H Garth

Somehow the above link to the gravity Probe info doesn't work for me. Is it correct.

Another question - When you say the MG product appears not to be constant, what factors are being balanced. As I have probably let it be known in our correspondence, there is much appeal to me in the idea of a holistic universe where the peculiar coincidences are not coincidences ...but in fact these apparent coincidences are actually telling us something profound. For example, the magnitude of the present MG product approximately 10^42 ... the same number comes up again and again in cosmology - the ratio of the size of the universe to the electron and the ratio of the electrical force of two electons to their gravitational attraction.

I guess my question is, can the experimental data that is altering the trajectory of SCC be taken as the last word? Maybe SCC is a good example of what Thomas Huxley once said: "The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."

 

[Garth]

H Garth

Somehow the above link to the gravity Probe info doesn't work for me. Is it correct.

Another question - When you say the MG product appears not to be constant, what factors are being balanced. As I have probably let it be known in our correspondence, there is much appeal to me in the idea of a holistic universe where the peculiar coincidences are not coincidences ...but in fact these apparent coincidences are actually telling us something profound. For example, the magnitude of the present MG product approximately 10^42 ... the same number comes up again and again in cosmology - the ratio of the size of the universe to the electron and the ratio of the electrical force of two electons to their gravitational attraction.

I guess my question is, can the experimental data that is altering the trajectory of SCC be taken as the last word? Maybe SCC is a good example of what Thomas Huxley once said: "The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."

Hi yogi.

That link, even as quoted in your post, works for me. It takes you to the specific post in the Alternative theories being tested by Gravity probe B thread.

I naturally considered all the possibilities that might allow the original SCC to pass the first reported GP-B results without success, and I am confident that it has been robustly falsified. That conclusion alone gives it the right to think of itself as a good scientific theory!

But, like you, I am still intrigued by the number of different virtues it has in explaining reported anomalies and coincidences. That is why I am developing a general theory with an undetermined value of \lambda, which might yet produce an as yet viable but still falsifiable pair of predictions for GP-B. This general theory appears to retain many of the good features but at the expense of losing GM = constant.

However, this isn't the place to discuss speculative theories!

Garth

 

[Garth]

One question about GR is whether it, and Newtonian gravitational theory, actually do predict accurately orbital motion in the solar system. As well as the Pioneer Anomaly there is the "Flyby Anomaly" to consider and resolve.

In today's Physics ArXiv we have this paper: Simulation of the flyby anomaly by means of an empirical asymmetric gravitational potential with definite spatial orientation

During several Earth flybys carried out since 1990, some spacecraft s have experienced an unexpected and until now unexplained anomalous velocity increase. This phenomenon is called the flyby anomaly and looks like the effect of an instantaneous acceleration of the spacecraft at the time of closest approach to Earth. The measured velocity differences could be approximately reproduced by estimation of a sudden change of the velocity vector at perigee [2]. Another approximate simulation was possible by means of estimation of the spherical harmonic coefficients J2, C21, S21, C22 and S22 of the Earth’s gravity field. However, the estimated values for these coefficients were by far unreasonable, and moreover different for the Galileo1 and the NEAR flyby [2]. Many efforts have been made to find a reason for this acceleration, but none of them were able to give an explanation based on known physics.

Hans-Juergen Busack is a German physical engineer who seems to be involved with astronomical optics as a profession. The paper seems well presented and self critical so, is there any mileage in his argument?

Hence it is yet unclear, whether an unconsidered interaction based on known physics is responsible for this mysterious effect, or if the known physical laws, especially General Relativity, have to be modified. After more than 15 years of careful analyses it seems unlikely to find an explanation based on the standard physical laws. Therefore, in this investigation another attempt was made to find an addendum to Newton’s law of gravitation, which could simulate all observed anomalies, at first without any regards to a consistent theory.

i.e. An empirical approach.
He tried to simulate the anomaly with an asymmetric gravitational potential perturbed by the planet's (Earth's) motion relative to the CMB reference frame, without success, but he claims to have simulated the effect by the planet's motion against another gravitational rest frame.

The observed flyby anomaly values of the spacecraft s Galileo, NEAR, Rosetta, Cassini and Messenger could be simulated by assumption of a gravitational potential after equations (1) and (2). According to the simulation, this potential has an asymmetry, determined by the motion of Earth against a reference frame, not coinciding with the CMB reference frame. The orientation of this reference frame to the motion of the Sun and the values of the arbitrary parameters A, B and C of equation (1) could be determined in such a way, that for the flybys Galileo1, NEAR, Rosetta1 and Cassini the nominal values of the measured anomaly were calculated, while for Galileo2 and Messenger plausible results were obtained, compliant with the uncertain measuring data.

Given that the anomaly does exist, and an explanation has not been found, my Machian leanings warm to this idea and I wonder whether the frame of reference that he claims does resolve the anomaly corresponds to a combination of all the local masses in the rest of the universe? i.e. a gravitational frame 'at rest' relative to a combination of the CMB, the Local group, the Milky Way with its halo and the Sun? (i.e. the centroid of the rest of the universe as measured from the Earth)

Or is this work just crackpot?

Garth

 

[turbo]

Here is a 2006 paper on flyby anomalies by researchers at JPL and Los Alamos.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0608/0608087v2.pdf

Interestingly, the spacecraft appear to get an anomalous acceleration at closest approach to Earth, even when the flyby orbit is designed to slow the spacecraft .

On 23 January 1998 the NEAR spacecraft flew by Earth (NEGA) at a velocity
of vF = 12.7 km/s and at an altitude in the geocentric system A = 532 km. An
analysis of the tracking data revealed that an orbital energy increase occurred
in the vicinity of closest approach. This was true even though this flyby gave
a negative gravity assist, to reach Eros after the farther-out orbital encounter
with Mathilde.

Here the encounter came from outside the Earth’s orbit, and the peak energy
transfer occurred just before periapsis. Further, the peak was a positive
transfer even though the final transfer was negative. This emphasizes the importance
of the vector orientation of the two orbits.

 

[Chronos]

I have a different interpretation of that paper, turbo. The authors do not assert anomalous acceleration. Such an error would have been quickly noticed in outer planet satellite trajectories.

 

[Wallace]

I have a different interpretation of that paper, turbo. The authors do not assert anomalous acceleration. Such an error would have been quickly noticed in outer planet satellite trajectories.

Such as the Pioneer probes?

 

[Chronos]

Are you suggesting this paper explains the 'Pioneer Anomaly', Wallace? I disagree.

 

[Garth]

Are you suggesting this paper explains the 'Pioneer Anomaly', Wallace? I disagree.

I read Wallace's question "Such as the Pioneer probes?" to be rhetorical, i.e. that the PA might indeed be the same effect as the Fly-by Anomaly (FA) revealing itself in the outer solar system.

However, I don't think it is. Even if these anomalies cannot be explained by normal physics there seems to be no natural connection between them, no single modification of the Newtonian potential that could explain both.

The FA is a short lived effect that is different for each fly-by, whereas the PA is a long term effect that is consistently the same for both Pioneers over a large range of distances from the Sun.

Garth

 

[Wallace]

I'm not suggesting the Pioneer and Fly-By anomalies are related, nor am I suggesting the paper in question explains either of them. The paper merely reports the data as accurately and as free from systematics as possible. They do make the point strongly though that there is a component of the measured acceleration that is not explained by the theory of Newtonian N-body gravitational interactions.

My point was that there are other anomalies that haven't been sufficiently explained that relate to 'in outer planet satellite trajectories', which you suggested were okay in your post.

We may be simply mis communicating with each other as it appears you are well aware of the pioneer anomaly.

 

[LeBourdais]

The residual Pioneer Anomaly, after allowing for 'normal physics' from on-board systematics, and the residual spinning up of the Earth, after allowing for tidal braking, both can be explained by a clock drift between ephemeris and atomic clocks equal to the Hubble parameter.

But we may ask, "Is the PA to be seen in the orbits of the outer planets?"

Generally the answer given is no, but as I have pointed out we cannot explain Uranus' orbit, after allowing for Neptune, by the perturbations of Pluto and other 'http://www.iau.org/iau0601.424.0.html ', the masses of the trans-Neptunian planets are 2 OOM too small. So, what about Neptune itself?

It appears there is an unexplained residual in its orbit as well, consider Rawlins' 1970 paper: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1970AJ...75..856R&amp;data_type=PDF_HIGH&amp;whole_paper=YES&amp;type=PRINTER&amp;filetype=.pdf .

Now that Lalande prediscovery observation of Neptune (he recorded it but did not recognise he had discovered a new planet! ) was made in 1795 and the -7" arc corresponds to a 7/15 seconds of time discrepancy which equals 0.467 secs. over 1968 - 1795 = 173 years.

This corresponds to a time discrepancy, or annual clock drift in which the atomic clock is speeding up relative to the ephemeris clock, of 0.467/(365.25x24x3600) per 173 years, which equals 8.55 x 10^-11 yr^-1 and this is equal to Hubble's parameter if H = 84 km.sec⁻¹Mpc⁻¹!

So within the bounds of error of the observation it seems that the Hubble parameter turns up again!

These 'Hubble Parameter' clock drifts are getting to be a bit of a habit, perhaps the universe is trying to tell us something!

Just more food for thought.

Garth

Hi Garth.

There is another thing that could be related to Hubble parameter. It is not as clear as it is in the examples you provide, but it could be worth examining it. You will find the thing there : http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608202

The drift rates in today's Cryogenic Sapphire Oscillators (CSO) is reported to be linear over many years and in the same direction. The magnitude of the drift ranges from one part in 10^14 per day to a few parts in 10^13 per day. Hubble parameter is 2 parts in 10^13 per day. But this one could of course be accidental.

PS : I mean that the probability that this one is accidental is much higher than for the other ones.

Paul

 

[LeBourdais]

PS : there is an exceptionally simple quantitative hypothesis that seems able to account for all of those phenomena apparently related to the Hubble parameter.

 

[Garth]

PS : there is an exceptionally simple quantitative hypothesis that seems able to account for all of those phenomena apparently related to the Hubble parameter.

Which is?BTW I agree that the drift rates in the Cryogenic Sapphire Oscillators are more likely to be 'accidental' and not cosmological in nature because they do vary so much between CSOs around that value of the Hubble rate.

Garth

 

[Chronos]

An improbable explanation, Le, instrument error is unlikely based on current data.

 

[LeBourdais]

Which is?

Hi Garth.

I will put it on the arXiv one of these days. At least I guess I will.

Concerning the "exceptionally simple", I was joking of course

Paul