Slashdot Mirror


Mysterious Force Affects Pioneer 10 & 11 Probes

JabbaTheFart writes "The Guardian is writing that something strange is tugging at America's oldest spacecraft. As the Pioneer 10 and 11 probes head towards distant stars, scientists have discovered that the craft - launched more than 30 years ago - appear to be in the grip of a mysterious force that is holding them back as they sweep out of the solar system. Some researchers say unseen 'dark matter' may permeate the universe and that this is affecting the Pioneers' passage. Others say flaws in our understanding of the laws of gravity best explain the crafts' wayward behaviour."

79 of 829 comments (clear)

  1. It's the Klingons! by prgrmr · · Score: 5, Funny

    The question is can we develop the technology to detect tractor beams all the way out there from here?

    1. Re:It's the Klingons! by Lt+Cmdr+Tuvok · · Score: 5, Funny
      The logic on which you draw your assumption seems to be flawed.

      Contact with the Klingon empire was first made in 2151. Therefore, it is only logical to assume that they were nowhere near human space in 2004. It is most likely that the phenomenon in question was an anomaly caused by temporal vortex flux.

      --
      Without the darkness, how would we recognize the light?
    2. Re:It's the Klingons! by Punto · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe they can reverse the polarity of the probes' guidance system.

      --

      --
      Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!

    3. Re:It's the Klingons! by Kethinov · · Score: 5, Insightful

      According to the first episode of Enterprise, it takes 4 days to reach Kronos at approximately warp 4. That puts the Klingon homeworld only about 1ly away from Earth, which is 4x closer than the nearest star.

      Logically, we must assume 1. the episode is wrong (correct assumption) or 2. the Klingon Empire is a LOT closer than you thought, Mr. Vulcan.

      --
      You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
    4. Re:It's the Klingons! by CodeMonkey4Hire · · Score: 5, Interesting
      (Sorry to be so serious about this, but I was curious.) I'm going to have to agree with you that the episode must be wrong. From this website, the warp formula for TOS (apparently some of the later shows changed the scale to be asymptotic with 10 being infinite velocity) is given as v = (W^3)*c which seems consistant with some of the numbers I have been seeing.

      From the script of the first episode:
      TUCKER: I thought the whole point of this was to get away from the Vulcans.
      ARCHER: Four days there, four days back... then she's gone. In the meantime, we're to extend her every courtesy.
      ARCHER : God, she's beautiful
      TUCKER: And fast. Warp four point five next Thursday.
      ARCHER : Neptune and back in six minutes.
      ADMIRAL FORREST: The warp five engine wouldn't be a reality without men like Doctor Cochrane and Henry Archer, who worked so hard to develop it. So it's only fitting that Henry's son, Jonathan Archer, will command the first starship powered by that engine.
      From this it can be deduced that the maximum warp that the new engine was designed for was warp 5, but they were going to be testing out warp 4.5 for the first time.

      If you use warp 4.5 = 91.125*c for 4 days you get 0.998 light-years. This is so close to a light-year (possibly rounding issues) that the writer who came up with 4 days probably forgot to multiply by the number of light-years to Kronos.

      Even if you use warp 5, you get 1.37 light-years. Considering that Alpha Centauri is 4.4 light-years from Earth, the 4 days at warp 5 idea still sounds absurd.
      --

      Let's go Hurricanes!!! 2006 Stanley Cup Champions!!!
    5. Re:It's the Klingons! by the+last+username · · Score: 4, Funny
      I think you're treating "warp speeds" as speeds, when you should probably think of them as power ratings. For the same power, Enterprise will move much faster further away from a star's gravity well. You can't say that because it takes ~2000 times as long to go to Qo'nos (Kronos, whatever), it must be only ~2000 times further away.

      This has the very desirable property, that Enterprise will move faster through the boring bits of a journey, and slower than a drunked snail when anything of equal or greater mass is in the vicinity (e.g. another ship).

      You'll notice that when Enterprise does take a long time to cross empty space, it usually isn't empty - there's a nebula, a gravitational anomaly, a cloaked ship, or a heavy plotline. Any of these can distort spacetime, effectively gumming up the warp nacelles.

      This behaviour is a natural consequence of warp field theory, in which the fundamental constant is not the speed of light, but the Standard Programme Length, from which the whole of QED (Quantum Episode Dynamics) arises.

  2. Different directions by jolyonr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's interesting about this is the craft went in different directions out of the solar system, which rules out something like the mass of an unknown body in the outer solar system affecting their flight.

    --


    Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
    1. Re:Different directions by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It could be an example of gravitiontational rippling.

      a very large gravity well may have a ripple that exists some distance from the center of the gravity well. The sun's gravity well is big enough for us to notice this while the sun and other planets we did not notice it. we MIGHT be able to notice something if we look at the data as these probes appriached and passed juipter.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Different directions by JohnFluxx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      speaking of gravitational rippling, maybe you can answer a question for me...
      Special relativity says there isn't any particular speed that is at rest, right? Speeds are always relative, right?

      But gravitational rippling leaks energy until the object is at rest, right? So there must be a rest state of zero speed.. so there must be an absolute zero speed?

    3. Re:Different directions by Yartrebo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Gravitation rippling only happens to accelerating objects, so it does not violate relativity. It works the same way as brensstrahlung (ie., breaking radiation). It is believed that accelerating objects emit gravitons (gravity particles) in the same way accelerating charges emit photons (electromagnetic particles). The braking is relative to the object causing the acceleration.

  3. for the love of god, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    exactly what was AFFECTED?

    1. Re:for the love of god, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I can forgive the mods not knowing the difference between affect and effect, but can we please all donate a penny to buy the editors an English textbook?

    2. Re:for the love of god, by The+Old+Me · · Score: 4, Informative

      Repeat:
      'Affect' and 'Effect' do not mean the same thing.
      'Affect' and 'Effect' do not mean the same thing.
      'Affect' and 'Effect' do not mean the same thing.
      'Affect' and 'Effect' do not mean the same thing.
      'Affect' and 'Effect' do not mean the same thing.
      'Affect' and 'Effect' do not mean the same thing. ...

    3. Re:for the love of god, by bilenkey · · Score: 5, Informative

      It is called Pioneer Anomaly: there is a small but systematic departure from the expected motion of the spacecraft. Both of them move as if they were subject to a new, unknown force pointing towards the Sun. This force imparts the same constant acceleration, of about 10^-7 cm / s^-2. Read more: http://physicsweb.org/article/world/12/1/5 and http://physicsweb.org/article/world/17/9/3.

    4. Re:for the love of god, by blighter · · Score: 5, Informative
      So you're saying that some mysterious force beyond the solar system caused these probes?

      And here I thought that human engineering and curiousity had caused them and that the mystery force was merely changing their expected behavior!

      If the post had read "Mystery Force is effecting a slowdown of Probes" that would be correct.

      As written, however, the correct word is "affect".

  4. Or... by deadgoon42 · · Score: 5, Funny

    They could just be hitting up against that big crystal shell that all the stars are painted on.

    --

    Smeghead every day of the week.
    1. Re:Or... by M1FCJ · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I remember reading a quite striking short story about a crystal shell surrounding every solar system and it can only be broken from inside. It works like a semi-permeable interface, preventing aliens coming /communicating inside. A civilization will only manage to get outside of the shell by breaking the "egg". I can't remember the writer of the story nor the name but I think I read it on either Asimov or Analog in the last couple of years. Can anyone recall this story and remind me of its writer please?

    2. Re:Or... by Dave_M_26 · · Score: 5, Informative
      If I remember correctly it's by David Brin.

      Certainly in his anthology "The River of Time" there was a story called " The Crystal Spheres"

  5. Matrix by Sir+Homer · · Score: 5, Funny

    When you think about it, we know so little about deep space. Perhaps the Matrix doesn't go out that far? Clipping problems?

    1. Re:Matrix by Anthem.uxp · · Score: 5, Funny

      If they someday come back from the other side of space we can try and exploit an overflow.

    2. Re:Matrix by Mukaikubo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wouldn't the nearest Agent simply be able to manipulate the JPL computer consoles into giving out the right numbers?

      "What you must realize is that there is no probe."

  6. The force! by tuxter · · Score: 5, Informative

    It is also thought that dark matter is at the centre of galaxies Could explain a lot of things, e.g. the expansion/contraction of the universe. Judging by the amount of "tangible" matter in the universe, there is no way to halt the expansion, and it will go on forever. However, if there is dark matter, it could hold enough gravity to halt expansion and force the big crunch. Lots of info on this sort of stuff here

    1. Re:The force! by dasmegabyte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Dark Matter is a theoretical concept we as to yet have not seen or detected. Thus, it does seem similar to "ether" and serves the same purpose, albeit fitting much more nicely into explanations.

      I prefer the equally possible explanation -- that gravity is not linear, and performs differently at large distances than it does at small ones. This can explain the effect of dark matter without all the flubberyjubbery of matter that can't be seen and can't be detected.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
  7. Laws of Physics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is neat to see things like this which challenge our understanding of relatively basic things like gravity. Part of me is still hopeful that we will find some holes in the relativity theory. More than a few scientists have pointed out other inconsistencies between observations and relativity. It would be nice not to be constrained by this whole 186,000 miles per second thing :)

    1. Re:Laws of Physics by colmore · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As a sci fi reader, I of course hope that light speed is a breakable barrier.

      As someone who studied physics, I'm not too hopeful. The speed limit isn't the result of a few shaky theories, but rather a pretty deeply engrained part of our understanding. If it turns out not to be true, then most of the physics that has been done for the past 150 years is flat out wrong. It would be like discovering that DNA isn't where the genetic code is held, as disasterous, and at this point in our study, as unlikely.

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    2. Re:Laws of Physics by the+chao+goes+mu · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or 1.79999x10^12 furlongs per fortnight for those who prefer still other units.

      --
      Boys from the City. Not yet caught by the Whirlwind of Progress. Feed soda pop to the thirsty pigs.
    3. Re:Laws of Physics by rdmiller3 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      This is exactly what those probes were launched for. It's great that they're not behaving as predicted. When everything behaves as we expect we don't learn much, but verifiable errors in our predictions can open entire dimensions of study that we didn't see before.

      To paraphrase Carl Sagan, the real moments of discovery aren't when someone shouts, "Eureka!" but sometime before that when someone mumbles, "Hm, that's weird..."

    4. Re:Laws of Physics by thered · · Score: 5, Insightful
      If it turns out not to be true, then most of the physics that has been done for the past 150 years is flat out wrong

      Using the same logic, you could say that Newton's Laws have been "flat out wrong" for the past 90 years, but for many, many, applications, from automobiles to rocket boosters, they are "perfectly" accurate (from an engineer's point of view).

    5. Re:Laws of Physics by maxwell+demon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, the singularity has finite mass. It has infinite density, but that's because it has zero volume.

      Of course the black hole has not zero volume, because the term "size of the black hole" doesn't refer to the singularity (which might not actually exist; you can't just go into a black hole, look if there's a singularity inside, and come out again), but to the event horizon (which is the border of the region from where you cannot escape, nor can anything else, including light).

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    6. Re:Laws of Physics by The+Only+Druid · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, you're mistaken. It has infinite density not mass: theoretically a simple singularity has zero volume, thus its density is whatever its mass M is, divided by zero. That results in an infinity (and is why, actually, its called a singularity, a math term).

      Moreover, there are no simple singularities, even in theoretical GR. According to Kerr, it can be demonstrated that all black holes [if they exist] have a "ring singularity" at their core, not a point singularity. The reason is simple: black holes rotate. If you have a point singularity w/ zero volume, there is no means to differentiate a rotating body versus a non-rotating body. Mathematically and conceptually, Kerr demonstrated that this means that singularities actually distort into a zero-thickness torus called a ring singularity (with its plane lying on the plane of rotation of the black hole). Inside the ring, it seems, there would be a tear. This was even realized by Einstein, and is the birth of the concept of an Einstein-Rosen bridge (and the subsequent dialog about wormholes/white holes).

      --
      "Stumble before you crawl"
    7. Re:Laws of Physics by finkployd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      then most of the physics that has been done for the past 150 years is flat out wrong.

      Frankly I would be suprised if that turned out not to be the case. Are we so vain now as to think that for the first time in human history, we actually have a good grasp on how the universe works? We only know now what our power of reasoning and measuring equipment allows us to understand. It will likely turn out that we have been incorrect about most things physics related as we study further.

    8. Re:Laws of Physics by Sgt+York · · Score: 4, Informative
      I think you're looking for an Asimov quote:

      The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" but "That's funny..."'

      I have it on the wall over my bench. It helps when the data goes all weird on me.

      --

      There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.

    9. Re:Laws of Physics by BeeRockxs · · Score: 5, Funny

      Personally, even with mechanical help, I find about 100 kph, 27.8 m/s, to be the upper limit of my everyday velocity.

      Here in Germany, we have the Autobahn.

  8. *mumbles* by KennethSundby · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ah yes, the good old "If you don't know, blame it on Dark Matter" strikes again.

    --
    -Kenneth Sundby-
  9. A bit of editing would have helped by rooijan · · Score: 5, Informative

    Note to Hemos: The verb is spelled "affect". You know, with an "a". The noun is spelled "effect", but it's the verb needed in the title.

    Sorry, don't mean to sound curmudgeonly and grumpy and so forth, but so few people get this right that I can't stand by and let it slide.

    I'll put the cantankerous old grouch away now...

    --
    Daar is nie 'n lepel nie
    1. Re:A bit of editing would have helped by jesser · · Score: 4, Funny
      My favorite affect/effect error was on a flyer at my college:

      Try this exercise to explore your relationships and how they are effected by alcohol.


      ("Effect" as a verb means "to bring about or execute".)
      --
      The shareholder is always right.
    2. Re:A bit of editing would have helped by tiled_rainbows · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, effect is also a verb. But it's not the verb you're looking for.

  10. Wayward behavior? by sofakingon · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't know about you guys, but if "something strange" were tugging at my "probe" using "mysterious forces," It would probably be bigger news than the science page of /. !

  11. Other Slashdot Story (from 3 years ago) by Maddog+Batty · · Score: 5, Informative

    Bit of an old story this.

    --
    wot no sig
  12. Re:explanation??? by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 5, Funny
    One thing that is rare for {scientists] to admit is not knowing why something happens.

    Only if by "rare" you mean "all the time."

  13. Conspiracy Theory by isa-kuruption · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Bush Administration is altering the laws of gravity in order to distract us from the situation in Iraq. A bill in Congress right now will nullify the law of gravity as we know it, taking away the rights of individuals to remain firmly planted on the Earth.

    1. Re:Conspiracy Theory by pjt33 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't forget that US law still only applies to the US, so the rest of us will be perfectly safe as you float off into space. Of course, as long as Congress don't also take your guns away you'll at least be able to steer until you run out of ammo.

  14. sorry 'bout that by jjeffries · · Score: 4, Funny

    what can I say... the damn things snagged my sweater during take-off, and I didn't want to say anything...

  15. Better Article On The Subject by G+Samsonoff · · Score: 5, Informative

    Link to the Physics Web article: http://physicsweb.org/article/world/17/9/3

    1. Re:Better Article On The Subject by smithwd · · Score: 5, Informative

      There was also an article on the subject in The Economist a couple of weeks ago. The Economist story refers to a paper by Chris Duif that looks at other gravitational anomolies. Specifically there is something called the "Allais effect" which describes a measurable change in the force of gravity during solar eclipses. The effect has been experimentally confirmed by a number of observations with different measurement methods - and is also inconsistent with General Relativity. It will be interesting to see what - if anything - comes from the NASA Gravity Probe experiments.

      --
      truth unquestioned lies ignored
  16. Hmmm... What attracts Probes? by mod_parent_down · · Score: 4, Funny

    Uranus!

  17. Re:How do they track them? by applemasker · · Score: 5, Informative
    The last signals were recieved from Pioneer 10 in early 2003, but telmetry stopped almost a year before. From the Feb. 25, 2003 press release that "pronounced" Pioneer 10 dead:

    RELEASE: 03-082HQ PIONEER 10 SPACECRAFT SENDS LAST SIGNAL After more than 30 years, it appears the venerable Pioneer 10 spacecraft has sent its last signal to Earth. Pioneer's last, very weak signal was received on Jan. 22, 2003. NASA engineers report Pioneer 10's radioisotope power source has decayed, and it may not have enough power to send additional transmissions to Earth. NASA's Deep Space Network (DSN) did not detect a signal during the last contact attempt Feb. 7, 2003. The previous three contacts, including the Jan. 22 signal, were very faint with no telemetry received. The last time a Pioneer 10 contact returned telemetry data was April 27, 2002. NASA has no additional contact attempts planned for Pioneer 10.

    --
    Bush Lies On the Record.
  18. That's no Moon... by Pii · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's a SPACE STATION!!!

    --
    For those that would die defending it, Freedom
    has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
  19. Pushing gravity by RedLaggedTeut · · Score: 5, Interesting
    If there was Pushing gravity (also discussed before on /. ), or just a similar effect, all our calculations and measurements of gravity would be off a little.

    I have no idea whether the effect would be so big though.

    Some (Majorana?) even thought some kinds of matter were radiating "pushing gravity", but I'm really leaning dangerously far out of the window by guessing that this is the way that a black hole a the center of the galaxy causes the anomaly in galactic rotation curve that is observed (that anomaly suggests more (gravitational) pull, too.)

    Please note that the arguments derived from thinking about Pushing gravity might apply even if gravity is not considered pushing by the physics used.

    --
    I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
  20. Funny coincident by Dexter77 · · Score: 5, Funny

    After reading the article I had a flashback about old computer games, where "mysterious force" would tug you back when you reached the end of the area.

    How funny it would be if our world ended after Pluto and the stars would only be 'a painted backcloth'. I wonder what kinda effect it would have on our society. Scientist would propably spend years trying to explaing the phenomena, until one day a human could travel to the edge and verify the obvious.

    Or maybe the aliens that run our world on their supercomputer have not yet coded the rest of the universe. Let's wait for few more years and see if 'the mysterious force' has been removed :)

  21. Why no mention of Voyagers? by applemasker · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Unlike Pioneers 10 and 11, Voyagers 1 and 2 continue to transmit to Earth. In fact, Voyager 1 is further from the sun (93.1 AU) than the furthest Pioneer (86.3 AU).

    Has this effect been observed as to the Voyagers?

    Excellent illustration (updated daily!) of all these probes and their vitals (trajectories, distance, speed, etc.) at Heavens-Above .

    --
    Bush Lies On the Record.
    1. Re:Why no mention of Voyagers? by zardor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      IMHO, the pioneer probes are/were 'spin stabilised', i.e. are constantly rotating in order to keep them stable. This helps to cancel out most forces interfering with them during their journey (i.e. solar wind, light pressure, thermal radation, outgassing etc), and therefore makes it easier to extract the resudial unexplained force.
      However, he Voyager probes are '3-axis-stabilised', i.e. they maintain their orientation in space by means of gyros and thrusters. (This is a very good idea for steadly pointing cameras at planets as you fly past.)
      But, as a result, it is much harder, if not impossible, to compensate for the above mentioned forces.
      The voyagers are probably also affected by the same unexplained force, but this small force is overwhelemed by the uncertantinty of the magmitude of the other forces acting on those spacecraft. Therefore, there is not much point mentioning them!

      --
      -- We don't understand software, and sometimes we don't understand hardware, but we can *see* the blinking lights
    2. Re:Why no mention of Voyagers? by meringuoid · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I'm no physics expert, but I can't see why they wouldn't be able to use the doppler effect on the vgers just like they do with the pioneer probes.

      They can - but as the parent post described, there are large uncertainties in Voyager's trajectory. The Pioneers were spun for stability, and so we know to a very high precision where they should be - and so we detect the anomaly. The Voyagers have frequently fired rockets to realign themselves, and this introduces an uncertainty far greater than the size of the Pioneer anomaly.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  22. I agree (but slightly OT) by interactive_civilian · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Blockquoth the AC:
    It would be nice not to be constrained by this whole 186,000 miles per second thing :)
    Seriously! I agree. Recently I've been playing around with Celestia, and it really gives you a good idea of how freaking BIG the universe is. (download it and check it out).

    Setting your speed at "c" and it takes a while to get out of the Solar System. Set it at a few AUs per second and you can clear the solar system more quickly, but once you are out, it seems like you are not moving at all. Once you accelerate to a light year per second, things start moving a bit, especially the neighboring stars, but it is still pretty slow going on a galactic scale. If you want to get out beyond the galaxy, I recommend going perpendicular to the galactic plane and accelerating to a few thousand light years per second (ummm...that is rather fast, don't you think).

    Doing this gives you a pretty good perspective on things. Once you are in inter-galactic space, if you aren't moving about a thousand light years per second, it seems like you aren't moving at all. For an even better perspective of mixing size and speed, try manually flying back to Sol. It seems easy, and you even decelerate a bit, but it seems like you are going kind of slow until you suddenly zip past Sol doing about 100 light years per second. Go back and try again.

    Back to the original point, yeah the speed of light is fast, but on a galactic and/or universal scale, it isn't that fast. I too hope they either find some loopholes in relativity, or find some loopholes in the universe (such as Asimov's idea of Hyperspace), or we won't be going anywhere anytime soon.

    Yeah, I know this is deeply in the realm of Science Fiction, but I'm kind of hoping that it becomes Science Fact someday...

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
    1. Re:I agree (but slightly OT) by pclminion · · Score: 4, Informative
      Bear in mind that FTL also means time travel; the two are equivalent.

      No they aren't, and I don't know where people get this idea.

      In special relativity, there is a factor called "beta" which is used to calculate time dilation, spacial contraction, relativistic momentum, etc. It's defined like this:

      beta = 1 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

      Where v is your velocity as measured w.r.t. some chosen reference frame.

      Now, think about time travel. This would be equivalent to a negative time dilation factor (time moving "backwards"). In other words, a negative beta. People seem to just assume that, if v > c, then beta is negative. But it isn't.

      If v > c, then the term (1 - v^2/c^2) is negative. What's the square root of a negative number? It's imaginary. So, if you move faster than light, the beta factor becomes imaginary. You aren't moving backward in time -- you are moving in imaginary time.

      To sum up, traveling faster than light doesn't make you go backward in time. It's a meaningless concept. Unless, of course, you are willing to accept the existence of "imaginary time."

  23. Re:Radiation pressure by sploxx · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I heard other things.
    If you read TFA, you'll notice that they are talking about a force acting equally on *both* probes.
    Claims that this is a new effect are a bit too early, though.

    Occam's razor doesn't mean that scientists should stop investigating because there _may be_ a simple explanation. If there are interesting, unexplained things, one has to go down and calculate every traditional force(/space time curvature) which may act on the spacecraft; numerical simulations of the radiation pressure of the RTGs, taking the geometry of the space craft into account. Other external electromagnetic forces. Etc.pp.

    Then, there will probably be a traditional explanation of the effect. If not send some probes out too further investigate the effect. After all, experimental physics is not only about testing the theory's POV, it is also about exploring the world and finding new effects.
    You can have wrong calculations by theoreticians even in such fields where there is a fundamental theory capable of explaining everything. (This includes nearly every field of physics today - except nuclear/particle physics and astrophysics).

  24. Re:blask holes by Destoo · · Score: 4, Funny
    Black holes are where God divided by zero.
    -- Steven Wright
    --
    Nouvelles de jeux et technologies en français. TC
  25. Gravitational anomalies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As it happens, The Economist recently ran an article addressing some of these issues. The article also provides context and perspective that should be of interest to those participating in this discussion. For convenience, the full text is reproduced below; it is also accessible online (may require paid subscription).

    ----

    Gravitational anomalies

    An invisible hand?

    Aug 19th 2004
    From The Economist print edition

    [Image]

    An unexplained effect during solar eclipses casts doubt on General Relativity

    "ASSUME nothing" is a good motto in science. Even the humble pendulum may spring a surprise on you. In 1954 Maurice Allais, a French economist who would go on to win, in 1988, the Nobel prize in his subject, decided to observe and record the movements of a pendulum over a period of 30 days. Coincidentally, one of his observations took place during a solar eclipse. When the moon passed in front of the sun, the pendulum unexpectedly started moving a bit faster than it should have done.

    Since that first observation, the "Allais effect", as it is now called, has confounded physicists. If the effect is real, it could indicate a hitherto unperceived flaw in General Relativity--the current explanation of how gravity works.

    That would be a bombshell--and an ironic one, since it was observations taken during a solar eclipse (of the way that light is bent when it passes close to the sun) which established General Relativity in the first place. So attempts to duplicate Dr Allais's observation are important. However, they have had mixed success, leading sceptics to question whether there was anything to be explained. Now Chris Duif, a researcher at the Delft University of Technology, in the Netherlands, has reviewed the evidence. According to a paper he has just posted on arXiv.org, an online publication archive, the effect is real, unexplained, and could be linked to another anomaly involving a pair of American spacecraft.

    Three different types of instrument have been used to detect the Allais effect. The first are conventional pendulums, such as the one Dr Allais used originally. The second are torsion pendulums, which work by hanging a bar that has weights at each end from a wire. As the wire twists back and forth, the bar rotates in pendulum-like motion. The third are gravimeters, which are, in essence, very precise scales. All of these instruments measure the acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface, a quantity known as g. The Allais effect is a small additional acceleration, so tiny that it would take an apple about a day to fall from a tree branch if it were the only gravitational effect around.

    Allez, Allais

    Dr Duif has examined various conventional explanations for the Allais effect. He finds the most obvious suggestion--that it is a mere measuring error--unlikely, because similar results have been found by many different groups, operating independently and, in at least one case, without knowledge of Dr Allais's results.

    He also discounts several explanations that rely on conventional physical changes that might take place during an eclipse. One of these is that the anomaly is caused by the seismic disturbance induced as crowds of sightseers move into and out of a place where an eclipse is visible. That seems unlikely, given that one of the experiments with a positive result was conducted in a remote area of China while another that had a negative result took place in Belgium, one of the most crowded parts of the planet. Dr Duif also considered the possibility that, because the moon's shadow cools the air during an eclipse, this cooler, and thus denser, air might exert a different gravitational pull on the instruments. This change could, he reckon

  26. Re:Radiation pressure by Genady · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And why wasn't it seen until now? And why did it start effecting the two craft at the same time? Provide a few more details of the radiation pressure hypothesis, or better a few links and I'll be more apt to believe you. Until then I remain skeptical. The Pioneer Anomaly has been around for a little while, long enough to generate more than a few ( Google Search of Citebase)) papers written to try to explain the anomaly. Dismissing them all out of hand in two sentences is NOT good science, but then hey, this is Slashdot, what do I expect?

    --


    What if it is just turtles all the way down?
  27. Ah, another religious nut? by Moraelin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Guess what? Science is _based_ on not knowing everything.

    Scientists not admitting they don't know everything? Well, gee, I thought they even told you exactly what they don't know yet and/or are trying to find out, each time a new experiment is performed. Whenever a new particle accelerator is built, whenever a new probe is sent into space, whenever someone builds a bigger telescope, whenever they bury some sophisticated particle detector deep, they'll conveniently tell you exactly which part of the unknown they're trying to probe.

    If anyone believed we already have the absolute truth already, we wouldn't need those. In fact, we could just as well shut down the existing ones and send everyone home. Nothing left to discover, no?

    But that's not the case.

    The whole idea of science is that we don't know everything. If you want absolute truths, those are that-a-way, through the door marked "religion". Science is in the other direction.

    In science at most we might have a good enough approximation for stuff we're able to measure already. And for a given class of problems.

    E.g., Newton's mechanics are accurate enough for everyday stuff: things weighing between milligrams and thousands of tonnes, at relatively slow speeds. If you move away from that in any way, the approximation is no longer enough, and more detailed theories become necessary. That's why we have relativism, quantum mechanics, astrophysics, and so on.

    We do _not_ however have an explanation for stuff noone has measured before, or for problems which didn't even exist before.

    E.g., for what happens at sub-atomic particles under a certain size. That's why we keep building bigger accelerators. 'Cause we have no clue what happens there, why or how. We're trying to find out, 'cause so far noone measured anything in that range.

    E.g., for exactly the problem in this article. Noone before had measured what happens when you chuck a rock (or a spacecraft) far enough outside the solar system. It's a new problem, and, yes, the scientists are very open about it: noone has a clue what's happening there or why.

    But that's ok. That's how science work.

    What will happen is that we devise new experiments, measure some more, and then we'll have enough data to make a better theory. One which will allow us to chuck spacecrafts better.

    See, for all its "absolute truths" and the knee-jerk jumping to point fingers at scientists, that's one thing that religion can't do: eventually tell you _how_ to do something right.

    Everything you see about you, such as the electronics in the computer you typed that on, didn't happen because someone shrugged and said "uh... guess because God wanted it to be so". It came to be possible because some scientists openly admitted what they don't know yet, and proceeded to measure and devise theories.

    (And someone will point out that engineers were also needed to make an actual device based on those theories. Indeed. Personally I just think of engineers as a branch of science. The applied kind of science, as opposed to the theoretical kind. Still science either way.)

    Theories which don't just explain why something already happened, but how to make it happen again. And how to control it when you make it happen. How to make it happen slightly differently.

    But again, it invariably started with someone saying "well, we have no bloody clue why _that_ happens. We'll need to measure some more and do some serious thinking."

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Ah, another religious nut? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Personally I just think of engineers as a branch of science. The applied kind of science, as opposed to the theoretical kind. Still science either way.

      Personally? In German the field of engineering is called "Ingenieurwissenschaften", i.e. engineer sciences.
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  28. Re:Radiation pressure by DrRossi · · Score: 5, Informative

    It is most certainly not radiation pressure from the RTGs. If you would care to read the original 54 page article gr-qc/0104064 at http://arxiv.org/ you would have noticed that the original authors took serious effort to account for the radiation pressure from the RTGs and could make it in no way large enough to account for the anomaly.

  29. Obligatory MOND post by CausticPuppy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hmm, I've read about this on Slashdot before, and I'm pretty sure I've read about Modified Newtonian Dynamics before.

    The gist is this: MOND is an alternative to the "dark matter" explanation. It makes a modification to newton's laws of motion, whereby gravitational strength.
    The equation F = ma is well known, but with MOND the gravitational inverse square law changes to an inverse linear law when the acceleration due to gravity falls below a critical value, which is very small (i.e. you get pretty far away from the source of gravity).

    This explains most of the observed behavior that is currently explained by dark matter, including the rotation of galaxies which seem to defy newton's laws. Unfortunately, there's still no derived theoretical basis for MOND; as of now it's a rather arbitrary explanation with equations that just seem to work pretty well, and many physicists do not take MOND seriously. Then again, "dark matter" seems just as silly.

    A more in-depth explanation is available here.

    Interestingly, the MOND critical value for the acceleration (a0) turns out to be the speed of light divided by the age of the universe.

    --
    -CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know
  30. Mod parent up by ananiasanom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The key issue here is that the verb "to effect" is meaningful and useful, and we are rapidly losing it through ignorant misuse. One can advocate a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach to language, but that isn't the same as defending actual errors in widely-understood words. Saying "effect" when you mean "affect" isn't like saying "ain't" when you mean "isn't", it's like saying "Austria" when you mean "Australia".

    1. Re:Mod parent up by jcostantino · · Score: 5, Funny

      Austria is that island where the toilets flush backwards, no?

      --
      Reviews with a twist! http://www.sardonicbastard.com
  31. Dust from the kuiper belt is slowing down probes by madsatod · · Score: 5, Informative

    I like the following explanation of the anomalous acceleration. No dark matter/20 dimensions/new gravity theory needed here. A small amount of dust in the kuiper-belt that transfers momentum with the probe should be enough to explain the slowdown. Look at: http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/Anomalous/Accelerat ion.html

  32. Re:explanation??? by dasmegabyte · · Score: 5, Insightful

    True that. Admitting uncertainty is the first step of science..."we don't know for sure why this is, so we'll propose a hypothesis, test it, and if the results don't clarify anything, we'll propose another one."

    I don't know why people are shocked, or take it as a sign of supernatural causes every time a scientist "isn't sure." They're never sure. If they were sure, they wouldn't be scientists. Science takes a certain amount of confidence in a possibility, but being "sure" is the first step towards fudging data that's inexplicable. The universe is infinitely large and thus infinitely complex, and we'd only been empirically studying it for a few thousand years. Most of our in-depth insights have taken place in the past 200 years, and many clarifications and exceptions have taken place in the past 50, and even the past 20.

    Scientists have a notoriously matter-of-fact attitude that leads some people to believe that science believes itself to be infallible. It doesn't. But due to the need for strict controls, even on language, to avoid confusion between scientists, even false and preposterous assumptions need to be stated matter-of-factly. Scientists don't claim to have all the answers...they just claim to have some very realistic (and repeatable) ones.

    --
    Hey freaks: now you're ju
  33. deep breath.... by phyruxus · · Score: 4, Insightful
    >>>I am can't wait to see the scientist explanations of this. One thing that is rare for them to admit is not knowing why something happens.

    What are you smoking? You make it sound like the explanation is on page 95 of the bible.. "And lo, the angel gabriel spake unto the herdsmen, and said: Take thee every herb bearing fruit... and the mysterious force effecting Pioneer 10 & 11 is from God doing his Silver Surfer impression."

    Who modded this troll insightful? For shame. Parent post has zero redeeming value.

    If science thought it knew everything, scientists wouldn't do experiments.

    Galileo? Darwin? Helloooo? Earth to creationists... Stop picking fights with us. Science is not religion. If you think the world isn't big enough for both, go read St Thomas Aquinas (cliff notes: he philosphised that REASON and FAITH were BOTH part of the human mind and that each had it's sphere of relevance, eg, faith won't stop a bullet, but reason can help you design a flak jacket).

    For the religious apologists, I held back the flamage, so beat it. And in case parent REALLY thinks this is beyond the ken of science, dude, the friggin' story has two educated guesses as to why it happens. Seriously, do you think you're making converts by posting that ignorant crap?

    --
    "A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
    "d'Oh!" ~Homer
  34. Re:explanation??? by The+Only+Druid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The casimir effect cannot exist, as I understand it, on large scales like that. Its a force that results from the interesting effects of bringing two conductive surfaces so close to one another that only certain wavelengths of virtual parties can exist between the plates, whereas all wavelengths exist on the other sides of the plates. As a result, there is vacuum pressure pushing the plates together.

    Its worth mentioning that yes, this could be used to extract energy from the vacuum, although no one has figured out (a) how to do this on a large enough scale to be useful and (b) whether it would take more energy to position the plates than you could extract (see below).

    Logically, the energy to seperate the plates from one another should equal the energy gained by their collapse together due to vacuum pressure, so that should mean this is no net-gain.

    --
    "Stumble before you crawl"
  35. Sounds like a joke to me... by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Funny


    Q: Why are pioneer 10 & 11 moving off course?

    A: Because dark matter sucks.
    A2: Because intersteller space sucks.
    A3: Because SCO sucks less, the farther away you get from it.

    I'm going to be here all week people, and the 10:00am show is completely different once I get my coffee.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
  36. dust? by alexandre · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Couldn't it be continuously hitting against clouds of dust?

  37. Oort cloud by Nonillion · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How close are these probes relative to the Oort cloud? I would think that what we are witnessing is that the probes lack the velocity to escape and will eventually become part of the Oort cloud.

    --
    "I bow to no man" - Riddick
  38. No, Dude ... It's The COMET EMPIRE!! by saudadelinux · · Score: 5, Funny

    So, we have to raise the Yamato, outfit her with a Wave Motion Gun, and go out there and whup that ass!

    --
    I didn't think the house band in Hell would play this badly.
  39. Space Barnacles by nightsweat · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yep, Space Barnacles.

    --

    the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
  40. Fry was right all along! (ObFuturama Quote) by gotroot801 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Space, it seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you."

  41. What the difference is by ananiasanom · · Score: 5, Informative
    To quote from the journal article which I was modded "offtopic" for referring to:

    Affect and effect are two different verbs, with related but quite different meanings.

    Affect is the more common. To affect something is to alter it, usually but not always in a harmful way.

    Effect is less common. To effect something is to cause it to happen. I noticed people starting to use this more commonly about eight years ago. Soon afterwards, people started to use the verb "to effect" instead of the verb "to affect", unaware of the difference in meaning. The difference is so strong that these people often end up saying the opposite of what they mean.

    here is a good reference.

  42. They are past heliopause now, right? by salec · · Score: 5, Interesting

    http://www.spacedaily.com/news/voyager1-03c.html contains some interesting data that may be a clue:

    "The location of the heliopause, which marks the outermost edge of the solar system, is a subject of scientific speculation. In two papers recently published in the journal Nature, scientists debated whether Voyager 1 has already reached the termination shock, a sign that the heliopause may be near. The termination shock is caused by a reduction in the speed of the solar wind as it slams into cooler plasma at the edge of the solar system and is similar to the sonic boom that occurs on Earth when an airplane crosses the sound barrier."

    So my guess (IANAAP) is they have lost their (solar) wind in the back they had and hence the decceleration. It may not be so simple, though. Perhaps the space on the inside of the heliopause sphere is constantly "sweeped" by solar wind and therefore might have lower density then surroundings (picture: we are in a kind of a solar bubble! :-) ).
    There is a way to put my hypotesis to test: check the temperature readings for signs of friction, or perhaps even cooling.

  43. Re:Austria and Australia by Glen+Ponda · · Score: 5, Funny

    Er, no, actually. What's your point?

    My point was to use a stereotype to poke fun at a random stranger, thereby bolstering my own sense of self-worth by deflecting attention away from my own, numerous insecurities and enormous sense of inadequacy. This is quite common on slashdot; people usually get modded up for it. Hope you didn't take it personally...

  44. Decaying force by dbialac · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Everyone seems to be operating under the assumption that a force is acting to push the probes closer. What better describes what is going on is that the probes are no longer being influenced by an outward force (perhaps solar wind). So lets say theoretically that the sun's gravity as we observe it is Gsun. But with this additional force now detected, we're really seeing Gsun = Gactual - Fnew.

    The laws of physics don't just stop working. More likely, we just aren't observing the phenomenon correctly.