Is the Pioneer Anomaly Evidence of Slower Movement Than Physics Predicts?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The Pioneer anomaly refers to the unexpected deceleration of the Pioneer probes, which lose approximately 5,000 meters per year, indicating they are moving slower than predicted by physics. This phenomenon does not violate established physical laws but may be influenced by relativistic effects, particularly time dilation. The discussion references the Hafele-Keating experiment, which demonstrated the complexities of time measurement in varying gravitational and velocity conditions. The conversation emphasizes the need for a deeper understanding of these relativistic effects rather than attributing the anomaly to friction in space.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Pioneer anomaly and its implications in physics
  • Familiarity with relativistic effects, particularly time dilation
  • Knowledge of the Hafele-Keating experiment and its significance
  • Basic concepts of gravitational potential and its impact on time measurement
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of time dilation in high-velocity space travel
  • Study the Hafele-Keating experiment in detail and its findings
  • Explore the mathematical framework of general relativity and its predictions
  • Investigate other anomalies in space exploration and their potential explanations
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, aerospace engineers, and anyone interested in the complexities of relativistic physics and space exploration anomalies.

PhantomOeo
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
If you look up the pioneer anomaly you will find out that over vast distances they are slightly off in there mesurements on where the probes should be, in that they lose 5,000 meters a year. This means they are going slower than physics says they should.

While I am not a physicist (I would like to be) I think this anomaly is not breaking the laws of physics as they claim or having to change laws about gravity. Now they say they are moving slower than expected now this can make sense if they are not accounting for the relativity of time. The faster you go the slower you seem to age... or possibly even move. Now while this is unnoticable on earth, when you are dealing with something that is going in one path for years at a time at high velocities it could impact the speed of which the object (pioneer probes) are moving. The same as a watch

A quote from wikipedia on this affect, although in reverse where the gravitational change was greater than the velocital change.
Hafele and Keating, in 1971, flew caesium atomic clocks east and west around the Earth in commercial airliners, to compare the elapsed time against that of a clock that remained at the US Naval Observatory. Two opposite effects came into play. The clocks were expected to age more quickly (show a larger elapsed time) than the reference clock, since they were in a higher (weaker) gravitational potential for most of the trip (c.f. Pound, Rebka). But also, contrastingly, the moving clocks were expected to age more slowly because of the speed of their travel. The gravitational effect was the larger, and the clocks suffered a net gain in elapsed time. To within experimental error, the net gain was consistent with the difference between the predicted gravitational gain and the predicted velocity time loss. In 2005, the National Physical Laboratory in the United Kingdom reported their limited replication of this experiment.[1] The NPL experiment differed from the original in that the caesium clocks were sent on a shorter trip (London–Washington D.C. return), but the clocks were more accurate. The reported results are within 4% of the predictions of relativity.

Now with this in mind you have to realize that even if this doesn't seem to affect it enough think about this. What happens if you launch a plane from a faster plane the plane that is launched will start slowing down due to friction (which there is little of in space) could that be part of it.

If I am wrong I understand but please try to explain in simple terms why i am wrong.
 
Last edited:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Hi PhantomOeo welcome to these Forums but why start a new thread when there is another one currently running?

You will find a discussion about your questions there and in the links from that thread. I can assure you that "friction" is not the cause!

Garth
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
7K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K