Pioneer anomaly not gravitational

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the Pioneer anomaly, specifically the unexpected sunward acceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft that exceeds predictions based on Newtonian gravity. Participants explore potential explanations for this anomaly, considering both gravitational and non-gravitational factors, including onboard energy sources and thermal radiation effects.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that the Pioneer anomaly is a constant acceleration measured at (8.74 ± 1.33) × 10−10 m/s², questioning its gravitational nature due to its constancy over large distances.
  • Another participant suggests that the anomaly can be explained by non-uniform radiation from the spacecraft's onboard radioisotope energy source, which produces a force due to momentum carried by electromagnetic radiation.
  • A later reply expresses agreement with the non-gravitational explanation, citing that the constant nature of the anomaly is more likely attributed to onboard sources rather than gravitational effects, while also acknowledging that the proposed model leaves a small possibility for alternative interpretations.
  • Additional data from a new paper indicates that the anomalous acceleration may be decaying exponentially over time, aligning with predictions from the thermal radiation model.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a mix of agreement and disagreement. While some lean towards the non-gravitational explanation involving onboard energy sources, others acknowledge that there remains a slight opening for alternative interpretations. The discussion does not reach a consensus on the definitive cause of the Pioneer anomaly.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions regarding the nature of the spacecraft's radiation and its effects on the observed acceleration are not fully resolved. The discussion also highlights the dependence on specific models and interpretations of the data presented in the referenced papers.

Zman
Messages
96
Reaction score
0
The Pioneer anomaly
I read that the Pioneer anomaly is a sunward acceleration that is larger than Newtonian gravity predicts.
This extra acceleration has been measured at;
(8.74 ± 1.33) × 10−10 m/s2 between 10AU and 90AU from the Sun.

But because the ‘extra acceleration’ is constant across about 80 AU of space, how can it be gravitational in nature?
If it was gravitational surely the value of the ‘extra acceleration’ would fall, the further away the Pioneer was.

At some point this ‘extra acceleration’ would swamp the Newtonian component.
 
Space news on Phys.org
The Pioneer anomaly is essentially solved (IMHO). See this paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.5222v1

The spacecraft contains an onboard radioistope energy source, so it is radiating energy to the environment. Because it is not a symmetrical object, it does not radiate uniformly in all directions. Since EM radiation carries momentum, the non-uniform radiation results in a force on the spacecraft . This force has been calculated quantitatively in the attached paper, and explains the observed acceleration of the spacecraft rather well.
 
Thanks phyzguy

That has put that question to rest for me.

The constant value of the anomaly across vast distances was more likely going to be due to an onboard source than gravity.

Although I think the paper still leaves a very small opening for alternative interpretations as they still undershot the value slightly.
 
For those interested, a new paper with additional data has improved the fit of the thermal radiation model, and shows that the anomalous acceleration appears to be decaying exponentially in time, as would be expected.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.2886v1
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
17K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 72 ·
3
Replies
72
Views
11K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
5K