|
November 2, 2011: CERN Experiment and Violation of Newton’s Second
Law Englishview
October 13, 2011: CERN Experiment and Violation of the Newton’s
Second Law Persianview
November 24, 2008: A New Definition of Gravitonview
July 10, 2007: Zero Point Energy and the Dirac Equationview
July 10, 2007: Zero Point Energy and the Dirac Equationview
June 28, 2007: Unification and CPH Theoryview
June 14, 2007: Summary of Physics Conceptsview
June 14, 2007: Strong Interaction and CPH Theory Rview
June 4, 2007: Quantum Electrodynamics and CPH Theoryview
November 30, 2006: Vocabulary of CPH Theoryview
November 17, 2006: Thermodynamic Laws Entropy and CPH Theoryview
November 17, 2006: Time Function and Absolute Black Holeview
October 14, 2006: CPH and Timeview
October 13, 2006: CPH Theory and Newton's Second Lawview
October 13, 2006: Time Function and Work Energy Theoremview
October 13, 2006: CPH Theory and Special Relativityview
October 13, 2006: Properties of CPHview
July 31, 2006: A New Mechanism of Higgs Bosons in Producing Charge
Particlesview
July 31, 2006: A New Mechanism of Higgs Bosons in Producing Charge
Particlesview
May 14, 2006: Speed of Light and CPH Theoryview
May 14, 2006: Speed of Light and CPH Theoryview
April 28, 2006: Color Charges Curve Spaceview
April 28, 2006: Color Charges Curve Spaceview
April 17, 2006: Effective Nuclear Chargeview
April 17, 2006: Effective Nuclear Chargeview
April 12, 2006: Maxwell's Equations in a Gravitational Fieldview
April 12, 2006: Maxwell's Equations in a Gravitational Fieldview
April 11, 2006: Realization Hawking - End of Physics by CPHview
April 7, 2006: Questions and Answers on CPH Theoryview
April 7, 2006: Opinions on CPH Theoryview
April 7, 2006: Opinions on CPH Theoryview
April 7, 2006: Questions and Answers on CPH Theoryview
March 23, 2006: Analysis of CPH Theoryview
March 23, 2006: Analysis of CPH Theoryview
March 21, 2006: Logical Foundation of CPH Theoryview
March 21, 2006: Definition Principle and Explanation of CPH Theoryview
March 21, 2006: Logical Foundation of CPH Theoryview
March 21, 2006: Definition Principle and Explanation of CPH Theoryview
March 21, 2006: Experimental Foundation of CPH Theoryview
March 21, 2006: Experimental Foundation of CPH Theoryview
March 19, 2006: Color Charge/Color Magnet and CPHview
March 19, 2006: Sub-Quantum Chromodynamicsview
|
|
|
|
|
|
Newton, Einstein Lost in Space? |
|
| |
|
Newton, Einstein Lost in Space?
Beyond the edge of the solar system, something has
gradually dragged two of America's oldest space probes -- Pioneer 10
and Pioneer 11 -- a quarter-million miles off course.
Astrophysicists have struggled 15 years in vain to identify the
infinitesimal force at play. The Pioneer anomaly, as it is called,
throws a monkey wrench into celestial mechanics.
Slava Turyshev may have found the answer in NASA's
trash. Reconstructing decades of discarded spacecraft data, the
Russian-born astrophysicist and the private space enthusiasts
helping him say they believe they are on the verge of solving a
mystery of time and gravity that has perplexed a generation of
physicists and might have confounded Newton and Einstein.
The anomaly officially materialized in 1988, 16 years
after NASA launched Pioneer 10 toward the outer planets. The
568-pound spacecraft had been designed to stay in radio contact with
Earth just 21 months, time enough for it to become the first
spacecraft to pass through the asteroid belt, the first to fly past
Jupiter and the first to visit the outer solar system. The
plutonium-powered probe, however, transmitted data 31 years until
2003.
As it sped through space, a specialist in radio-wave
physics named John Anderson at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory
noticed an odd thing. The spacecraft was drifting off course. The
discrepancy was less than a few hundred-millionths of an inch per
second for every second of spaceflight, accumulating year after year
across billions of miles. Then Pioneer 11, an identical probe
escaping the solar system in the opposite direction, also started to
veer off course at the same rate.
Ordinarily, such small deviations might be
overlooked, but not by Dr. Anderson. He monitored the trajectories
six years before calling attention to the matter. "I'm a little like
an accountant," Dr. Anderson said. "We have Newton's theory and
Einstein's theory, and when you apply them to something like this --
and it doesn't add up -- it bothers me."
Not everything in the solar system adds up, of
course. The moon's actual orbit is off its calculated course by
about six millimeters a year. No one knows why. The standard
yardstick for length on an interplanetary scale, the Astronomical
Unit, grows by about seven centimeters a year. Scientists have yet
to agree on an explanation. At least four recent planetary probes
experienced such unaccountable changes in velocity as they passed
Earth, Dr. Anderson and his colleagues reported this past March in
Physical Review Letters.
None prompted the scrutiny given the Pioneer anomaly.
In hundreds of technical papers, Dr. Turyshev and scores of other
space scientists considered and eliminated most mundane
explanations, including fuel leaks, software bugs, mechanical flaws,
navigation errors, fading plutonium power, planetary influences, the
solar wind, even the effect of ocean tides and local plate tectonics
on the placement of ground antennas. Others proposed more
far-fetched scenarios: the tug of dark matter, the accelerating
expansion of the universe or a breakdown of gravity's most
fundamental laws.
Indeed, Dr. Turyshev at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
and his colleagues around the world regard the Pioneer probes as the
largest test of Newton's law of gravity ever conducted. By that
axiom, refined by Einstein, any two objects in the universe exert
gravitational attraction on each other proportional to their mass
and affected predictably by the distance between them.
"We would expect the two spacecraft to follow
Newton's law of gravity," Dr. Turyshev said, "but they in fact fail
to confirm Newton's law. If Newton is wrong, Einstein is wrong too."
For 14 years, Dr. Turyshev sought a simpler answer.
He finally wondered whether heat radiating unevenly from the probe
might be the cause but lacked enough information.
Then, at JPL in 2002, he discovered 400 computer
tapes of Pioneer data gathering dust under a stairwell. In 2005, he
intercepted 70 filing cabinets of Pioneer engineering data on their
way to the junk heap at the NASA Ames Research Center, at Moffett
Field, Calif. The computer files held all of the Pioneer mission
data, but they were unreadable.
With no formal NASA funding, almost 6,000 members of
The Planetary Society, a space-exploration advocacy group based in
Pasadena, Calif., donated $220,000 to translate the antiquated data
into a digital format that a modern computer can read. "This is not
something that should be brushed away just because it is old data,"
said society Executive Director Louis Friedman. Victor Toth, a noted
Canadian computer expert, donated his time.
After six years of work, the researchers expect to
finish restoring the last data files next month. Based on a partial
analysis, Dr. Turyshev reported in April at a meeting of the
American Physical Society in St. Louis that at least 30% of the
force can be attributed to heat radiating from the probe. "The rest
is unknown," he said.
In the year ahead, Dr. Turyshev and his colleagues
plan to use the vintage data to create a computer flight simulation
of the two Pioneer missions with a precision never before possible.
That may finally lay it to rest.
"There is some hope that this would show a new
physics," Dr. Turyshev said. "With the Pioneers, we are exploring
uncharted territory."
Source
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121087447348895873-blL1JdoWUovYcLr68FBS8gDdNCQ_20080614.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

|
|
@2003-2012 The CPH theory, All right reserved
|