WIMPS?

[Richard D. Saam]

There are no (within 95% CL)
WIMP annihilation cross sections and decay lifetimes
as measured by FERMI LAT
that could contribute to dark matter.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.5597

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <mt2.0-6349...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Richard D. Saam"

Note that this says nothing about the viability of WIMPs as dark matter.
It could be that they neither annihilate nor decay.

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

----------------------------------------------------

In light of Helbig's reaction, I am left wondering if "WIMPs" are completely unfalsifiable since it appears that any failed prediction can be rationalized away in the Helbig manner. Note that Helbig is hardly the sole practitioner of this type of reasoning which typifies the theoretical branches of particle physics and cosmology these days.

Can the "WIMP" conjecture make a definitive prediction and stand by it, or is it pure pseudo-science?

Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity/Fractal Cosmology

[jacob navia]

Le 31/05/13 14:39, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply a écrit :

OK, they do not travel at high speeds, wimps go leisurely around,
and the interaction between them and this universe is highly difficult,
possible only in some specialized environment: living beings.

Since this invisible matter is heavier than our matter, it can
gravitationally influence a solution, guiding slowly dissolved
components into more concentrated areas.

If that kind of matter can control its density, it can acquire any
gravitational field it wants, what allows it in principle, to guide
atoms to specific places, where prepared reactions take place.

A black hole the size of an atom, made of that kind of matter can guide
accurately an atom to any place it wants.

Using just CO2, some solution containing enough raw materials, it can
start a self-sustaining living thing in a new planet.

Those kind of interactions of dark matter with normal matter are
maybe more interesting than just looking for a simple cross-section
annihilation reaction.

In any case it is a good sci-fi start isn't it?

Because we are just like a group of blind people extending their arms
and trying to figure out an elephant.

That matter must be HERE.

But where?

:-)

jacob at jacob punkt remcomp punkt fr

[Jos Bergervoet]

On 6/3/2013 7:10 AM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
> On Friday, May 31, 2013 2:03:51 AM UTC-4, Richard D. Saam wrote:
>>
>> There are no (within 95% CL)
>> WIMP annihilation cross sections and decay lifetimes
>> as measured by FERMI LAT that could contribute to dark matter.
>>
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.5597
>

> In light of Helbig's reaction,

NB: Philip commented: (why doesn't Robert quote this?)

"Note that this says nothing about the viability of WIMPs as dark
matter. It could be that they neither annihilate nor decay."

> I am left wondering if "WIMPs" are completely unfalsifiable
> since it appears that any failed prediction can be rationalized

> away ...

You have to discern between (1) the *existence* of WIMPS,
which can of course not be falsified by not observing
them and (2) WIMPS being the main components of dark
matter, which *can* be falsified simply by finding what
it is made of instead. Pure logic answers your question!

> ... in the Helbig manner. Note that Helbig is hardly the sole

> practitioner of this type of reasoning

Not surprising. As I said, it's pure logic.

--
Jos

[David Staup]

On 6/3/2013 3:11 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> You have to discern between (1) the *existence* of WIMPS,
> which can of course not be falsified by not observing
> them and (2) WIMPS being the main components of dark
> matter, which *can* be falsified simply by finding what
> it is made of instead. Pure logic answers your question!

simply by finding what it's made of?????

would you care to break down your "pure logic" a bit further?

[Mod. note: quoted text trimmed. Logically, it's quite simple:
practically, it may be a little harder -- mjh]

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <mt2.0-23220...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Robert L.

Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:

> In light of Helbig's reaction, I am left wondering if "WIMPs" are
> completely unfalsifiable since it appears that any failed prediction can
> be rationalized away in the Helbig manner. Note that Helbig is hardly
> the sole practitioner of this type of reason
>

> Can the "WIMP" conjecture make a definitive prediction and stand by
> it, or is it pure pseudo-science?

Lest anyone think I am dead, I have decided to stop replying to RLO's
comments, especially since his own DSR is the prime example of a theory
for which---as has been pointed out here and elsewhere many times---a
definitive prediction has been falsified, hence ruling out the theory.
RLO then claims that the theory has a backup prediction which hasn't
been falsified, which of course is what he criticises elsewhere, even
when---as here---it is not the case (there has never been a definitive
prediction such as "if dark matter consists of WIMPs, then they must
annihilate or decay at a rate detectable with current technology").

So, RLO has not convinced me, but rather---especially when name-calling
is brought into it---I see no point in investing any more time in this;
even for bystanders but not participants, enough has been said for all
to make up their minds.

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <mt2.0-11813...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, Jos Bergervoet

<jos.ber...@xs4all.nl> writes:

> > In light of Helbig's reaction,
>
> NB: Philip commented: (why doesn't Robert quote this?)

Surely a rhetorical question.

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Monday, June 3, 2013 4:11:54 AM UTC-4, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>
> You have to discern between (1) the *existence* of WIMPS,
>
> which can of course not be falsified by not observing
>
> them and (2) WIMPS being the main components of dark
>
> matter, which *can* be falsified simply by finding what
>
> it is made of instead. Pure logic answers your question!
>

------------------------------------------------

Unless it is pretzel logic!

(1) We have been searching fruitlessly for "WIMPs" for 40 years! If this can go on forever, with a "maybe the next experiment, maybe the next experiment, maybe..." mentality, then the ad hoc hypothesis is not falsifiable.

Do you get it? If your dogma is "search until you find, and not finding is not considered a possibility" then you do not have falsifiable science. You have effectively unfalsifiable pseudo-science.

(2) If there is strong observational evidence for another dark matter candidate, then it is possible that "WIMP" adherents might give up, but I strongly doubt it. Rather they would peck the competing empirical evidence to death, modify the "WIMP" properties, and claim it was still the "leading candidate".

No my friend. If you want real dark matter science you must say exactly what the dark matter is! Saying it is some weakly interacting particle does not cut it because the parameter space is effectively infinite. If you cannot say what the exact masses of the individual DM objects are, then you know nothing about the DM and have no scientific prediction.

Beware glib answers. Science requires much more thought and skepticism.

[Richard D. Saam]

It must also be noted that reported FERMI LAT energy detection range
is 5 - 300 GeV.
It is conceivable that WIMP annihilation and decay energies
could be outside that range.
What energies are the underground (old mine shafts etc)
large volumetric fluid detection systems tuned to?

[David Staup]

On 6/4/2013 1:20 AM, David Staup wrote:

>
> [Mod. note: quoted text trimmed. Logically, it's quite simple:
> practically, it may be a little harder -- mjh]
>

Your logic, it seems to me, is based on an assumption that as yet
remains unproven: dark matter exists

[Jos Bergervoet]

It could be just a naming convention. We use the
name "dark matter" for the cause of the observed
extra gravitational pull on the outer parts of
galaxies.

1) The extra pull exists, the rotation curves would
be different without it.
2) Some "cause" for this extra pull is supposed to
exist, or else we should no longer maintain that
physics can describe how our universe behaves.
3) Since in general we know that matter is responsible
for gravity, we assume the cause must be some form
of matter.
4) We do not see it, hence the adjective "dark".

Where do you disagree? Personally I think step 3)
might be a weak point..

--
Jos

[Nicolaas Vroom]

Op dinsdag 4 juni 2013 20:15:44 UTC+2 schreef Jos Bergervoet het volgende:

> On 6/4/2013 6:35 PM, David Staup wrote:
> > On 6/4/2013 1:20 AM, David Staup wrote:
> >
>
> It could be just a naming convention. We use the
> name "dark matter" for the cause of the observed
> extra gravitational pull on the outer parts of
> galaxies.
>
> 1) The extra pull exists, the rotation curves would
> be different without it.
> 2) Some "cause" for this extra pull is supposed to
> exist, or else we should no longer maintain that
> physics can describe how our universe behaves.
> 3) Since in general we know that matter is responsible
> for gravity, we assume the cause must be some form
> of matter.

I agree with all your points 1-4:
A certain amount of mass is missing in the galaxy rotation
curve. How to explain.
The first Q to answer is:
is this missing mass is baryonic or non-baryonic?
IMO you can only go in the direcetion of non-baryonic
if you are sure that it is not baryonic.
The missing mass could be: large and small planets
meteorites, asteroides, dust etc.
A second point is that you have to be carefull to explain
astronomical/physical phenomena based on human qualities.
The fact that an objects emits visible light means that
we can see it with our eyes.
The fact that certain objects do not emit visible
does not mean that they do not exist.

A differnt point to consider that IMO darkmatter is
also used in relation to all the matter in the Universe.
That means there are two parameter used in relation
to the friedmann equation: denstity of baryonic matter
and density of nonbaryonic matter.
IMO the second paramater can only(?) be considered if
you know the first parameter.

I would be interested to know how much nonbaryonic matter
is there, in our solar system?
Is this more or less than 1% ?

Nicolaas Vroom
http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/

[Eric Flesch]

On Tue, 04 Jun 13, Jos Bergervoet <jos.ber...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>3) Since in general we know that matter is responsible
>for gravity, we assume the cause must be some form
>of matter

>Personally I think step 3) might be a weak point..

Precisely, if A causes B, and we have B, it does not therefore follow
that we have A. After all, something else may also cause B.

Also, we have no idea how matter generates the gravity. Does matter
create the gravity, or is it a conduit? If a conduit, then there can
be other conduits.

If gravity is a new kind of dimension, then matter is a mere
convenience, and "dark matter" nothing more than brane tension of the
gravity dimension.

The concept of "dark matter" should be an aid, not an encumbrance.
Too many astronomers chasing figments, IMO.

Eric

[Richard D. Saam]

On 6/3/13 2:54 AM, jacob navia wrote:
>
> That matter must be HERE.
>
> But where?
>

Maybe chemistry an help.
There are continuing studies regarding new phases of hydrogen.
http://www.spacemart.com/reports/Dense_hydrogen_in_a_new_light_999.html

"the team found the new form to be stable from about 2.2 million times
normal atmospheric pressure and about 80 degrees Fahrenheit to at least
3.4 million times atmospheric pressure and about -100 degrees Fahrenheit."

While outside the suggested early universe nucleosynthetic condition,
this work indicates the possibility
of varied hydrogen phases at that time
one of which may presently exist as dark matter.

Richard D. Saam

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <mt2.0-19884...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Richard D. Saam"

<rds...@att.net> writes:

> Maybe chemistry an help.
> There are continuing studies regarding new phases of hydrogen.
> http://www.spacemart.com/reports/Dense_hydrogen_in_a_new_light_999.html
>
> "the team found the new form to be stable from about 2.2 million times
> normal atmospheric pressure and about 80 degrees Fahrenheit to at least
> 3.4 million times atmospheric pressure and about -100 degrees Fahrenheit."
>
> While outside the suggested early universe nucleosynthetic condition,
> this work indicates the possibility
> of varied hydrogen phases at that time
> one of which may presently exist as dark matter.

Hydrogen is baryonic, no matter what state it is in.

[Richard D. Saam]

On 6/7/13 7:38 AM, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
> Hydrogen is baryonic, no matter what state it is in.
>

Yes, all hydrogen phases are baryonic
But let there be three phases A, B & C
with A and B in equilibrium with C
with incremental increase in A and B
with that incremental increase reflecting
in incremental increase in C.
A and B along with their ratio remain constant.

It is like pouring calcium hydroxide and sodium carbonate solutions
together in a beaker.
A = calcium soluble ion
B = carbonate soluble ion
C = calcium carbonate solid phase

Addition of A and B will not increase their concentration or ratio A/B
but only increase C.

In a nucleosynthetic hydrogen context,
A, B & C are all baryonic but,
is C missing in Big Bang nucleosynthetic analysis
and extant as dark matter?

Richard D Saam

[David Staup]

It is the word "assume" that I have learned has NO PLACE in science...period

Lavoisier recognized this and wrote about it more than 200 years ago:

"Hence it is by no means to be wondered, that, in the science of physics
in general, men have often made suppositions, instead of forming
conclusions. These suppositions, handed down from one age to another,
acquire additional weight from the authorities by which they are
supported, till at last they are received, even by men of genius, as
fundamental truths."


I am not saying that some form of matter is NOT involved, only that the
acceptance of the assumption as fact is not good for science...

This type of acceptance is exactly why "earth, wind, fire, and water"
was the "accepted" atomic theory for 2,000 years...

Accepting an assumption as fact puts the science in a box that may or
may not contain the truth.

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <mt2.0-28746...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Richard D. Saam"

<rds...@att.net> writes:

> is C missing in Big Bang nucleosynthetic analysis
> and extant as dark matter?

No. The new phases involve MOLECULAR hydrogen.

[Richard D. Saam]

On 6/9/13 5:55 AM, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
> No. The new phases involve MOLECULAR hydrogen.

Yes, MOLECULAR hydrogen but possibly in a phase
not presently electromagnetically observable a la 'dark matter'
a portion of which continues to sublimate
into presently electromagnetically observable
gaseous MOLECULAR hydrogen.

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <mt2.0-32660...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Richard D. Saam"
<rds...@att.net> writes:

> On 6/9/13 5:55 AM, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
> > No. The new phases involve MOLECULAR hydrogen.

> Yes, MOLECULAR hydrogen but possibly in a phase
> not presently electromagnetically observable a la 'dark matter'
> a portion of which continues to sublimate
> into presently electromagnetically observable
> gaseous MOLECULAR hydrogen.

Work through big-bang nucleosynthesis, include this new phase, and let
me know what you get.

[David Staup]

On 6/4/2013 1:24 AM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
> Beware glib answers. Science requires much more thought and skepticism.
>

What does the math say, if anything, about black hole mass?

or perhaps a better way to put this is "what is responsible for black
hole mass"?

[Mod. note: quoted text trimmed -- mjh]

[Nicolaas Vroom]

Op zaterdag 15 juni 2013 08:09:00 UTC+2 schreef David Staup het volgende:

>
> What does the math say, if anything, about black hole mass?
>
> or perhaps a better way to put this is "what is responsible for black
> hole mass"?
>

I think to answer the question "What is responsible for mass"
is impossible.
On the other hand to answer the question: "how do we calculate
the mass of the blackhole" please read this
http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso0846/
Specific follow the first link "More Information"

An other good document is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*

Nicolaas Vroom

[David Staup]

On 6/17/2013 2:21 AM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> Op zaterdag 15 juni 2013 08:09:00 UTC+2 schreef David Staup het
> volgende:
>>
>> What does the math say, if anything, about black hole mass?
>>
>> or perhaps a better way to put this is "what is responsible for
>> black hole mass"?
>>
>
> I think to answer the question "What is responsible for mass" is
> impossible.

My question was specific to black hole mass and I meant the question to
point out that "we" cannot describe the source of a black hole's
gravity. Is it matter, dark or otherwise? Is it energy? Or is it
something else?

[Mod. note: not sure what you're getting at here. 'The math' (i.e.
relativity theory) says that black holes are a form of matter, and
therefore of energy. Whether they are 'dark' or not in the
astronomers' sense depends on their environment -- mjh]

[Steve Willner]

In article <mt2.0-23675...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,
David Staup <dst...@charter.net> writes:
> Whether [black holes] are 'dark' or not in the

> astronomers' sense depends on their environment -- mjh]

Whether they are radiating or not depends on the environment.

The OP's language was confusing, but I think his "dark or not" might
have been meant as "baryonic or not." That depends on the formation
process. All processes we know of for making black holes involve
baryonic matter, but in principle non-baryonic matter could form
black holes if there were some way to concentrate it enough.
Existing black holes must accrete tiny amounts of non-baryonic matter
regardless of how they formed.

Black holes are, so far as we know, a trivial part of even the
baryonic mass of the Universe, so the data don't support worrying
about a non-baryonic component. Theory could deal with the
consequences of non-baryonic black holes if that turned out to be
important.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@cfa.harvard.edu
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

[jacob navia]

Le 17/06/13 21:04, David Staup a �crit :

> My question was specific to black hole mass and I meant the question to
> point out that "we" cannot describe the source of a black hole's
> gravity. Is it matter, dark or otherwise? Is it energy? Or is it
> something else?
>
> [Mod. note: not sure what you're getting at here. 'The math' (i.e.
> relativity theory) says that black holes are a form of matter, and
> therefore of energy. Whether they are 'dark' or not in the
> astronomers' sense depends on their environment -- mjh]
>

Is the ratio dark/visible matter in the galaxy known?

If yes, then we should expect that same ratio in the central black hole
of the galaxy isn't it?

If that mass is "X" kg, a certain percentage of it (the same as the
galaxy as a whole) should be dark matter.

Since nothing gets out of that hole (it is completely invisible), in
principle knowing if that ratio holds is impossible.

Or is 100% of the mass of a black hole "dark" matter?

Black holes are... black!!, the color of darkness :-)

Black hole mass has some characteristics of dark matter. It
only interacts with the rest of matter through gravity.

A "black hole" particle would fit our WIMPY thoughts or not?

Black holes much smaller than the size of an atom *could* exist and
even in big numbers.

Problem is (for my new theory of the universe) that holes tend
to slowly fill with surrounding matter that falls into them.

If atomic black holes interact with atoms by swallowing them, they
should be visible after a certain time has passed since they would get
bigger and bigger. And when swallowing an atom it is difficult to
believe that not a single photon (gamma ray, whatever) would not
be emitted.

What is not detected.

And there it goes, my new theory of the Universe...

[Steve Willner]

In article <mt2.0-14834...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,

jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> writes:
> Is the ratio dark/visible matter in the galaxy known?

Not as well as we might like. It's hard to measure either one from
our location within the Galaxy. Values for external galaxies thought
to be similar to the Milky are better known.

> If yes, then we should expect that same ratio in the central black hole
> of the galaxy isn't it?

Why would you expect the average ratio for the whole galaxy to apply
to any specific region? An average is even less likely to apply to a
region that has special conditions.

> If that mass is "X" kg, a certain percentage of it (the same as the
> galaxy as a whole) should be dark matter.

Are you using "dark matter" as a synonym for "non-baryonic matter?"
They aren't the same. For obvious physical reasons, a black hole is
far more likely to accrete baryonic matter than non-baryonic matter.

> Or is 100% of the mass of a black hole "dark" matter?

This is a question of terminology. Isolated black holes are "dark
matter" (but within the baryonic mass budget), but accreting black
holes are not dark. However, they contribute a trivial fraction of
the overall mass budget of a galaxy. Nevertheless, a black hole's
mass can dominate its immediate surroundings.

> Black hole mass has some characteristics of dark matter. It
> only interacts with the rest of matter through gravity.

Black holes can be charged, though there's no evidence that real ones
are.

> A "black hole" particle would fit our WIMPY thoughts or not?

Absence of lensing rules out stellar-mass and larger black holes as
significant components of dark matter. And anyway black holes would
be baryonic and would not contribute to the non-baryonic dark matter.

> Black holes much smaller than the size of an atom *could* exist and
> even in big numbers.

You might want to calculate the lifetime of such a black hole.
That's aside from the lack of any obvious creation mechanism.

[jacob navia]

Le 20/06/13 08:36, Steve Willner a écrit :

> Why would you expect the average ratio for the whole galaxy to apply
> to any specific region? An average is even less likely to apply to a
> region that has special conditions.

I suppose that this "dark" matter interacts with matter through gravity.
A black hole is quite a beast in gravity terms. It is a very strong
gravity field isn't it?

Then it should attract as much "dark" matter as normal matter and should
feed with BOTH kinds of matter.

Interestingly, does that "dark" matter emit any kind of radiation when
leaving this world into the black hole?

Observing the black hole at the center of our galaxy if we detect some
radiation with no obvious normal matter to explain it, it could give
us (yet another) test for that "dark" matter, unless it emits "dark"
photons :-)

jacob

[Robert L. Oldershaw]

On Thursday, June 20, 2013 2:36:31 AM UTC-4, Steve Willner wrote:
> In article <mt2.0-14834...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,

> This is a question of terminology. Isolated black holes are "dark
> matter" (but within the baryonic mass budget), but accreting black
> holes are not dark. However, they contribute a trivial fraction of

--------------------------------------------------------

An important correction here is that primordial black holes, i.e.,
black holes that are not formed in supernovae, are non-baryonic and do
not come "within the baryonic mass budget".

[jacob navia]

Le 31/05/13 08:03, Richard D. Saam a écrit :

> There are no (within 95% CL)
> WIMP annihilation cross sections and decay lifetimes
> as measured by FERMI LAT
> that could contribute to dark matter.
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.5597
>

Frustrated by dark matter?
Can't figure it out?

Do not worry. YOU ARE NOT ALONE.

Read this article written by the famous scientist "Lord Kelvin"
(Sir William Thomson ) in

Macmillan's Magazine, vol. 5 (March 5, 1862), pp. 388-393.

In this article Lord Kelvin tries to figure out how old the
sun is.

His only conceptual framework to explain the heat of the
sun was that this heat was "generated by the falling in of meteors"

But that provokes OTHER problems since in their way to the sun
those meteors should pass through the earth orbit...

The url for that document is:

http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_the_age_of_the_suns_heat.html

It makes for a fascinating reading, hopefully the same kind of
fascination that astronomers in year 2163 will have when reading the
discussions here or the papers about that mysterious dark matter.

[Richard D. Saam]

On 6/22/13 1:02 AM, jacob navia wrote:
>
> http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_the_age_of_the_suns_heat.html
>
> It makes for a fascinating reading, hopefully the same kind of
> fascination that astronomers in year 2163 will have when reading the
> discussions here or the papers about that mysterious dark matter.

Redoing some of Kelvin's calculations for

Part III
ON THE ORIGIN AND TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE SUN'S HEAT

(1.) No other natural explanation, except by chemical action, can be
conceived.

2.) The chemical theory is quite insufficient, because the most
energetic chemical action we know, taking place between substances
amounting to the whole sun's mass, would only generate about 3,000
years' heat.[9]

Kelvin et al. were assuming a chemical reaction such as
hydrocarbon combustion:

A 12.9 kwhr/kg (hydrocarbon heat of combustion)
B 1 kw/m^2 (sun radiation power at earth)
C 2.0E+30 kg (solar mass - assumed to be hydrocarbon)
D 1.5E+11 m (earth radial distance to the sun)
4piD^2 2.8E+23 m^2 (surface at earth radius from sun)
B4piD^2 2.8E+23 kw (total sun power output)
AC/(B4piD^2) 9.2E+07 hr (solar life time -10,500 yr)

If only they could project a Cc^2 in their concept.

Dark matter/energy will probably be something rather simple.

Richard D Saam

[Mod. note: in fact, Kelvin was explicitly showing that a chemical
explanation was impossible; his preferred explanation was
gravitational contraction, which is astrophysically relevant in the
absence of nuclear burning, e.g. in protostars or failed stars like
brown dwarfs -- mjh]

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <mt2.0-19565...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Richard D. Saam"

<rds...@att.net> writes:

> > http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_the_age_of_the_suns_heat.html
> >
> > It makes for a fascinating reading, hopefully the same kind of
> > fascination that astronomers in year 2163 will have when reading the
> > discussions here or the papers about that mysterious dark matter.
> Redoing some of Kelvin's calculations for

> Kelvin et al. were assuming a chemical reaction such as
> hydrocarbon combustion:

> [Mod. note: in fact, Kelvin was explicitly showing that a chemical
> explanation was impossible; his preferred explanation was
> gravitational contraction, which is astrophysically relevant in the
> absence of nuclear burning, e.g. in protostars or failed stars like
> brown dwarfs -- mjh]

Indeed. And he also added the caveat that his conclusion (i.e. the
young age of the Sun---relative to geological and paleontological
timescales, which were already known to be billions of years) holds
unless a new source of energy is discovered. A new source of energy was
discovered.

[Nicolaas Vroom]

Op donderdag 20 juni 2013 08:36:31 UTC+2 schreef Steve Willner het volgende:

> In article <mt2.0-14834...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,
> jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> writes:
> > Is the ratio dark/visible matter in the galaxy known?
>
> Not as well as we might like. It's hard to measure either one from
> our location within the Galaxy. Values for external galaxies thought
> to be similar to the Milky are better known.

I agree with you.
When you study http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
5% is ordinary matter, 27% is dark matter and 68% is dark energy.
The numbers 5 and 27 come from the CMB radiation. IMO those values are
difficult to calculate.
In Wikipedia context the #5 stands for baryonic and the #27 stands for non
baryonic.
If that is true and if "everyone" agrees why use concepts like visible matter?
When I light a match does this invisible matter all of a sudden become
visible matter? I doubt that.

To explain a galaxy rotation curve based on a concept of dark matter
seems to me not very plausible. The most obvious candidate, I have
expressed before, is dust i.e. baryonic matter.

> > Or is 100% of the mass of a black hole "dark" matter?
>
> This is a question of terminology. Isolated black holes are "dark
> matter" (but within the baryonic mass budget), but accreting black
> holes are not dark. However, they contribute a trivial fraction of
> the overall mass budget of a galaxy. Nevertheless, a black hole's
> mass can dominate its immediate surroundings.

IMO the only thing you can do, based on rotating stars, is to calculate
the total mass of a black hole.
The question which percentage of a blackhole is baryonic versus
nonbaryonic can not be answered based on these observations.

> > Black holes much smaller than the size of an atom *could* exist and
> > even in big numbers.

I think that is speculation.

Nicolaas Vroom
http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/

[Richard D. Saam]

On 6/23/13 9:12 AM, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
>
> Indeed. And he also added the caveat that his conclusion (i.e. the
> young age of the Sun---relative to geological and paleontological
> timescales, which were already known to be billions of years) holds
> unless a new source of energy is discovered. A new source of energy was
> discovered.
>

Was there a correspondence between Kelvin and Maxwell circa 1862?
Maxwell was conceptually deriving the speed of light 'c' at that time.
Kelvin could have playfully calculated mc^2
and wondered about the long term energy consequences.
But of course it was not until Einstein 1905
for a definitive theory
and Lise Meitner 1938
for experimental verification
that such a concept could be fully accepted in cosmology.
I wonder if 1938 - 1862 or ~75 years
sets a time frame in which Dark energy/matter
will be experimentally deciphered?
We are about 20 years into it.

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <mt2.0-16410...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, Nicolaas Vroom

<nicolaa...@pandora.be> writes:

> When you study http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
> 5% is ordinary matter, 27% is dark matter and 68% is dark energy.
> The numbers 5 and 27 come from the CMB radiation. IMO those values are
> difficult to calculate.
> In Wikipedia context the #5 stands for baryonic and the #27 stands for non
> baryonic.
> If that is true and if "everyone" agrees why use concepts like visible matter?
> When I light a match does this invisible matter all of a sudden become
> visible matter? I doubt that.

One can obviously observe only matter which is visible. This is all
baryonic. There is some invisible baryonic matter. And there is
non-baryonic matter, which is all invisible.

> To explain a galaxy rotation curve based on a concept of dark matter
> seems to me not very plausible. The most obvious candidate, I have
> expressed before, is dust i.e. baryonic matter.

But such dust would be detected by other means. It is "visible" in the
sense that it aborbs and/or scatters light.

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <mt2.0-16410...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Richard D. Saam"

<rds...@att.net> writes:

> On 6/23/13 9:12 AM, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
> >
> > Indeed. And he also added the caveat that his conclusion (i.e. the
> > young age of the Sun---relative to geological and paleontological
> > timescales, which were already known to be billions of years) holds
> > unless a new source of energy is discovered. A new source of energy was
> > discovered.
> >
> Was there a correspondence between Kelvin and Maxwell circa 1862?
> Maxwell was conceptually deriving the speed of light 'c' at that time.
> Kelvin could have playfully calculated mc^2
> and wondered about the long term energy consequences.

There is no evidence at all for such an assumption, and much against it.

[Steve Willner]

In article <mt2.0-6022...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,

jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> writes:
> I suppose that this "dark" matter interacts with matter through gravity.
> A black hole is quite a beast in gravity terms. It is a very strong
> gravity field isn't it?

First of all, "dark matter" has no precise definition. I'm going to
assume you mean "non-baryonic matter" here.

Depends on what you mean by "strong gravity field." At the event
horizon, the escape speed is the speed of light. Far from the event
horizon, the gravity field is (almost) the same as for any other
object of the same mass. The size of the event horizon is pretty
small in cosmic terms, so over most of space, the gravity field of a
black hole isn't particularly strong.

> Then it should attract as much "dark" matter as normal matter and should
> feed with BOTH kinds of matter.

This is a misconception. To fall into _any_ object (the Sun, say, or
a black hole), an object has to have near-zero angular momentum with
respect to that object. If baryonic and non-baryonic matter have the
same average motions -- and they probably don't -- then you might
think either would be equally likely to fall in. However, baryonic
matter can lose angular momentum in an accretion disk and fall in
that way. There's no analogous process for non-baryonic matter.

Given some distribution and motion of non-baryonic matter, its
accretion rate onto black holes can be calculated. The rate is
negligible (though of course slightly above zero) for any plausible
distribution. In contrast, black holes can form from collapsing
stars and grow via accretion disks, all with baryonic matter.

> Interestingly, does that "dark" matter emit any kind of radiation when
> leaving this world into the black hole?

Not if it doesn't interact electromagnetically; at least not in any
obvious way. (Maybe there's some indirect way I'm missing.)

Even an isolated charged particle falling into a black hole emits
rather little radiation. The reason we see accretion disks around
black holes is because the baryonic particles interact with each
other, and the material gets hot.

> Observing the black hole at the center of our galaxy if we detect some
> radiation with no obvious normal matter to explain it,

The Milky Way black hole is accreting very little matter at present.
However, there's a gas cloud that looks about to fall in; it will be
interesting to see what happens. As noted above, accretion of non-
baryonic matter is negligible unless the distribution or motion of
the dark matter particles is _far_ different than what we think.

[Steve Willner]

In article <mt2.0-29351...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,

jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> writes:
> Read this article written by the famous scientist "Lord Kelvin"
> (Sir William Thomson ) in
> Macmillan's Magazine, vol. 5 (March 5, 1862), pp. 388-393.

> http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_the_age_of_the_suns_heat.html

> His only conceptual framework to explain the heat of the
> sun was that this heat was "generated by the falling in of meteors"

If you read a bit more carefully, you see he is really talking about
gravitational contraction.

> It makes for a fascinating reading

Yes, it's an impressive article. He doesn't have the virial theorem
(which comes along a decade or more later) and certainly doesn't have
a theory of stellar structure (50 or so years in the future), but he
gets a lot of things right.

[jacob navia]

Le 23/06/13 16:12, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply a écrit :

> Indeed. And he also added the caveat that his conclusion (i.e. the
> young age of the Sun---relative to geological and paleontological
> timescales, which were already known to be billions of years) holds
> unless a new source of energy is discovered. A new source of energy was
> discovered.

Yes, he said in the conclusion:

<quote>
It seems, therefore, on the whole most probable that the sun has not
illuminated the earth for 100,000,000 years, and almost certain that he
has not done so for 500,000,000 years. As for the future, we may say,
with equal certainty, that inhabitants of the earth can not continue to
enjoy the light and heat essential to their life for many million years
longer unless sources now unknown to us are prepared in the great
storehouse of creation.
<end quote>

unless sources unknown to us...

I think such an attitude would be better in astronomy than trying to
build theories "at all costs"...

We do not know what galaxies are made of, how could we?

We have established scopes beyond the atmosphere only around 30-40 years
ago, most of the Universe is invisible to us.

All our theories are preliminary, they will be replaced soon.

[jacob navia]

Le 25/06/13 08:35, Steve Willner a écrit :
> This is a misconception. To fall into_any_ object (the Sun, say, or

> a black hole), an object has to have near-zero angular momentum with
> respect to that object. If baryonic and non-baryonic matter have the
> same average motions -- and they probably don't -- then you might
> think either would be equally likely to fall in. However, baryonic
> matter can lose angular momentum in an accretion disk and fall in
> that way. There's no analogous process for non-baryonic matter.

Thanks for your explanations Mr Willner.

Just a small remark regarding your answer above.

It could be possible that "dark-matter with dark matter" interactions
slow down the infalling "dark" matter so that it can be captured,
in a similar way as baryonic matter gets prepared for the final plunge.

It could be that a "dark matter accretion disk" is created (invisible to
us) that feeds the hole in the same way as the visible accretion
disk feeds it.

Anyway since we know nothing about that supposed matter it is all
pure speculation of course.

[David Staup]

On 6/25/2013 1:35 AM, Steve Willner wrote:
> This is a misconception. To fall into _any_ object (the Sun, say, or
> a black hole), an object has to have near-zero angular momentum with
> respect to that object. If baryonic and non-baryonic matter have the
> same average motions -- and they probably don't -- then you might
> think either would be equally likely to fall in. However, baryonic
> matter can lose angular momentum in an accretion disk and fall in
> that way. There's no analogous process for non-baryonic matter.

no friction and no collisions....I find that hard to believe

surely dark matter occupies space and cannot occupy the same space at
the same time as any other matter....no?

[Mod. note: quoted text trimmed. Please do not quote the entire
article you're responding to -- mjh]

[Steve Willner]

In article <mt2.0-16410...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,
Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaa...@pandora.be> writes:

> 5% is ordinary matter, 27% is dark matter and 68% is dark energy.

That should be "baryonic matter" and "non-baryonic matter" to be
accurate in terminology. The "Planck + other data" results are at:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5076
I'm slightly suspicious of the Planck data because of the low value
of the Hubble parameter, but the composition percentages didn't
change much from the pre-Planck values.

> The numbers 5 and 27 come from the CMB radiation.

Not exactly; the numbers include a variety of data, all of which are
consistent. In particular, the supernova distances and baryon
acoustic oscillation data are important, as is the local measurement
of the Hubble parameter.

> IMO those values are difficult to calculate.

It's true that quite a lot of physics goes into the calculations. On
the other hand, there are several different lines of evidence that
all agree.

> If that is true and if "everyone" agrees why use concepts like
> visible matter?

If you are suggesting that "visible matter" is an imprecise concept,
you're right. As instruments and measurements improve, more matter
becomes visible. Anybody using the term needs to define what it
means in context. The same is true of "dark matter." Often that's
taken to mean anything other than mass extrapolated from starlight,
but even in this thread people have used the term in other ways.

> To explain a galaxy rotation curve based on a concept of dark matter
> seems to me not very plausible.

Whatever is causing the flat rotation curves isn't visible in any
form we can detect.

> The most obvious candidate, I have
> expressed before, is dust i.e. baryonic matter.

Dust won't get you anywhere; it would have a visible effect on star
colors. You might try cannon balls, though. In fact, any baryonic
particles from submillimeter to megameter size wouldn't be easily
detectable. Last time I checked -- and data have no doubt improved
since then -- if you took the full 5% allowance of baryons and packed
them into spiral disks, you could just about explain the rotation
curves. There are, however, several problems: if 70% or so of the
baryon mass is hydrogen, why don't we detect it? (It's hard to make
cannon balls out of hydrogen and even harder with helium.) And what
about the gas that fills galaxy clusters, which seems to contain a
good fraction of the baryon budget (maybe half or more) and is not
confined to galaxy disks?

Even if you can explain those problems, you still have to account for
galaxy cluster velocity dispersions and gravitational lensing. The
entire baryon budget is inadequate to do that.

> The question which percentage of a blackhole is baryonic versus
> nonbaryonic can not be answered based on these observations.

Right; that's a consequence of the "no hair theorem." All you can
do is understand the formation mechanism.

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <mt2.0-9625...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, Steve Willner

<wil...@cfa.harvard.edu> writes:

> I'm slightly suspicious of the Planck data because of the low value
> of the Hubble parameter, but the composition percentages didn't
> change much from the pre-Planck values.

Back when we didn't know if the Hubble parameter was 80 or 40, the de
Vaucouleurs-Sandage debate was mirrored by the one involving
gravitational lensing in Q0957+561, with the Hamburg group and Jaan Pelt
favouring a short value for the time delay (and hence higher Hubble
parameter) and Bill Press favouring a longer time delay (and hence lower
Hubble parameter). Observations soon after decided firmly in favour of
the shorter value, but before that, at a conference in Li�ge, Paul
Schechter cried out from the audience during a debate on the topic
"What's the problem? They agree at 3 sigma!" In other words,
cosmological data have become so much better in the last decade or so
that there is much discussion of SMALL discrepancies. Presumably the
Planck value isn't low enough to cause serious concern.

There are other differences between WMAP and PLANCK as well. There is a
recent paper (I can dig out the reference if necessary) which claims
that the problem is with WMAP (hence lending credence to the idea that
Planck is closer to the truth). Of course, if the only result of doing
a better observation were smaller error bars, but the same best-fit
values, then one wouldn't need to do the better observation.

Faster-than-light neutrinos and the Pioneer anomaly have both been
explained by rather simple mechanisms. While we should be open-minded,
we shouldn't be too quick to conclude that "the textbooks need to be
rewritten", especially if there is a discrepancy between only a couple
of measurements.

[Steve Willner]

In article <mt2.0-31903...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,

jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> writes:
> It could be possible that "dark-matter with dark matter" interactions
> slow down the infalling "dark" matter so that it can be captured,

Again you seem to be using "dark" as a synonym for "non-baryonic."
The two words don't mean the same thing. Without context or
definition, "dark" doesn't have a clear meaning at all.

> Anyway since we know nothing about that supposed matter it is all
> pure speculation of course.

"We don't know everything" is not the same as "We know nothing."

The CMB observations put an upper limit on the interaction cross
section of non-baryonic matter. I'm pretty sure that limit is far
too small to allow an accretion disk to form. There have, however,
been suggestions that a non-zero cross section could be important for
other reasons. I don't know where that stands; this is not my field.

[Steve Willner]

In article <mt2.0-14188...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,

Phillip Helbig---undress to reply <hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> writes:
> Presumably the Planck value isn't low enough to cause serious
> concern.

If I understand the paper, Planck alone gets 67.4\pm1.4. A local
measurement from 2009 gives 74.8\pm3.6, including systematic errors.
I'm not sure whether that's the most appropriate comparison value or
whether there's a better one I didn't find in my quick search. Where
"serious concern" begins is a matter of opinion, I guess. The
discrepancy is far from a disaster, at any rate.

> While we should be open-minded, we shouldn't be too quick to
> conclude that "the textbooks need to be rewritten", especially if
> there is a discrepancy between only a couple of measurements.

No argument there. My view is that the Planck data are too new for
all the problems to have been understood yet, and we have to be aware
of that where they disagree with other results. Of course all the
other results have their own uncertainties. What's amazing to me is
how small the uncertainties have become, and we shouldn't lose our
perspective on that.

[Steve Willner]

It occurs to me that the best comparison for the Planck Hubble
constant is the "WMAP7+all other" value, which is 70.4\pm1.4. The
Planck-alone value of 67.4\pm1.4 differs by 1.5 times the combined
error bars, but that's slightly optimistic because some of the
systematic errors will be in common. Nevertheless, this is hardly a
major conflict.

[Steve Willner]

In article <mt2.0-26045...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,

David Staup <dst...@charter.net> writes:
> surely dark matter occupies space and cannot occupy the same space at
> the same time as any other matter....no?

The point is that the interaction cross section is extremely low. It
doesn't have to be identically zero. Space is big, and the density
of non-baryonic matter is not expected to be large anywhere.

In fact, the searches for WIMPs (which I understand have achieved
some 3-sigma results but will need to do better to be convincing)
require a non-zero cross section for at least some interaction with
normal matter.

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <mt2.0-20415...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, Steve Willner

<wil...@cfa.harvard.edu> writes:

> > Presumably the Planck value isn't low enough to cause serious
> > concern.
>

> If I understand the paper, Planck alone gets 67.4\pm1.4. A local
> measurement from 2009 gives 74.8\pm3.6, including systematic errors.

How many sigma are the error bars? Even if they are one sigma, that
means 68.4 vs. 71.2.

> The
> discrepancy is far from a disaster, at any rate.

Indeed.

> No argument there. My view is that the Planck data are too new for
> all the problems to have been understood yet, and we have to be aware
> of that where they disagree with other results.

Right.

> Of course all the
> other results have their own uncertainties.

And as i mentioned, maybe Planck is right and WMAP is wrong. (OK, for
the Hubble parameter there are still the non-CMB measurements, which
tend to give a higher value.)

> What's amazing to me is
> how small the uncertainties have become, and we shouldn't lose our
> perspective on that.

Indeed.

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <mt2.0-20415...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, Steve Willner
<wil...@cfa.harvard.edu> writes:

> In fact, the searches for WIMPs (which I understand have achieved
> some 3-sigma results but will need to do better to be convincing)
> require a non-zero cross section for at least some interaction with
> normal matter.

Right. WIMPs are not NIMPs, i.e. they are weakly interacting, not
non-interacting.

[Richard D. Saam]

On 6/24/13 10:54 AM, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
>
> One can obviously observe only matter which is visible. This is all
> baryonic. There is some invisible baryonic matter. And there is
> non-baryonic matter, which is all invisible.
>

It is interesting to see what is going on in other fields:

Bose-Einstein condensation of photons in an optical microcavity
http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.4088

Bose-Einstein Condensation of Photons
in a Microscopic Optical Resonator:
Towards Photonic Lattices and Coupled Cavities
http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5772

This group has experimentally formed
Bose Einstein Condensate (BEC) from photons
in a particular reflective apparatus.
Particles with mass are a result.

Surely this 'mass from photons' procedure
has application in astrophysics
where scaled conditions exist.
The BEC mass may be visible or invisible with present instrumentation.

Richard D Saam

[Nicolaas Vroom]

Op donderdag 27 juni 2013 22:10:10 UTC+2 schreef Steve Willner:

> In article <mt2.0-16410...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,
>
> Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaa...@pandora.be> writes:
> > 5% is ordinary matter, 27% is dark matter and 68% is dark energy.
>
> That should be "baryonic matter" and "non-baryonic matter" to be
> accurate in terminology.

I fully agree.
Is it not time to modify the text in Wikipedia?

> > The numbers 5 and 27 come from the CMB radiation.
>
> Not exactly; the numbers include a variety of data, all of which are
> consistent. In particular, the supernova distances and baryon
> acoustic oscillation data are important, as is the local measurement
> of the Hubble parameter.

My impression is that an accurate measurement of the Hubble parameter
based on local data is the most difficult.

> > To explain a galaxy rotation curve based on a concept of dark matter
> > seems to me not very plausible.
> Whatever is causing the flat rotation curves isn't visible in any
> form we can detect.

I agree.

> > The most obvious candidate, I have
> > expressed before, is dust i.e. baryonic matter.
>
> Dust won't get you anywhere; it would have a visible effect on star
> colors. You might try cannon balls, though. In fact, any baryonic
> particles from submillimeter to megameter size wouldn't be easily
> detectable.

That is really what I meant.

> Last time I checked -- and data have no doubt improved
> since then -- if you took the full 5% allowance of baryons and packed
> them into spiral disks, you could just about explain the rotation
> curves.

My simulations more or less give identical results. You do not need
hugh amounts to simulate flat galaxy rotation curves. At least much
less mass than is directly visible.
If you consider certain galaxy examples the bulge does not require
anything.

> There are, however, several problems: if 70% or so of the

> baryon mass is hydrogen, why don't we detect it? etc
What about planet sized objects ?

> Even if you can explain those problems, you still have to account for
> galaxy cluster velocity dispersions and gravitational lensing.

What do you mean with velocity dispersions?

Nicolaas Vroom

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <mt2.0-10166...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, Nicolaas Vroom

<nicolaa...@pandora.be> writes:

> > Even if you can explain those problems, you still have to account for
> > galaxy cluster velocity dispersions and gravitational lensing.

> What do you mean with velocity dispersions?

Look it up. Historically, this was the first hint of dark matter.
Fritz Zwicky noticed that the velocities of galaxies within clusters are
too large for them to be gravitationally bound to the cluster if only
the mass in stars is taken into account. Since there are other reasons
to believe they are bound, the obvious answer is that there is more
matter than we can see.

[Mod. note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_dispersion -- mjh]

[Steve Willner]

In article <mt2.0-10166...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,

Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaa...@pandora.be> writes:
> Is it not time to modify the text in Wikipedia?

I haven't looked at it, but by all means modify if you think it needs
it. Isn't that the Wikipedia idea? There's probably more than one
topic that needs modifying.

> My impression is that an accurate measurement of the Hubble parameter
> based on local data is the most difficult.

It's gotten a lot better in the past several years. A 2012 paper
(Freedman et al. ApJ 758, 24) gives 74.3 with a systematic
uncertainty of 2.1. The main improvement is using infrared
magnitudes for Cepheids. I haven't looked at exactly what they've
done, for example whether they include the trigonometric parallax
distance to NGC 4258 or not. If not, the local value can be improved
further even with existing data. Even as it is, the uncertainty is
comparable to that from the CMB.

> My simulations more or less give identical results. You do not need
> hugh amounts to simulate flat galaxy rotation curves. At least much
> less mass than is directly visible.

I'm surprised by that result. Where are these simulations published?

SW> There are, however, several problems: if 70% or so of the
SW> baryon mass is hydrogen, why don't we detect it?

> What about planet sized objects ?

If you can make them out of (mostly) hydrogen, no problem, but the
individual planet masses have to be small enough to make the planets
unobserved in the lensing observations. It may be hard to make
hydrogen planets that small. Hydrogen objects as small as cannon
balls seem impossible.

On another topic in this thread, someone asked about non-baryonic
matter having a non-zero interaction cross section. By coincidence,
I just received the following invitation:

We are writing to invite you to a workshop on self-interacting
dark matter and challenges to LambdaCDM cosmology. Our goal is to
bring together a mix of astrophysicists and particle theorists to
discuss the possibility that dark matter has interesting
self-interactions, as well as possible observational problems
(like the core/cusp problem or the recent "Too Big To Fail"
problem) with the standard picture of cold, collisionless dark
matter.

We intend this to be a workshop, not a conference, with ample
opportunity for free discussion and collaboration.

I don't plan to attend; this isn't my field. Nevertheless, we can
see that the theorists are having fun with this question.

[Richard D. Saam]

On 6/28/13 12:19 AM, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
> Faster-than-light neutrinos and the Pioneer anomaly have both been
> explained by rather simple mechanisms. While we should be open-minded,
> we shouldn't be too quick to conclude that "the textbooks need to be
> rewritten", especially if there is a discrepancy between only a couple
> of measurements.
>

The Pioneer acceleration data used to test the thermal recoil hypothesis
retains an acceleration residual with time
that is not explained within the thermal recoil hypothesis.

[Mod. note: reference, please -- mjh]

[Richard D. Saam]

the Pioneer deceleration anomaly
as thermally hypothetically induced
is based on classical exponential decay to zero (dx/dt = -kx)
as an expression of changing on board thermal energy source(RTG).

Ref: 1 http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.2886v1
2. http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2507v1

Visually and mathematically in Ref2 Figure 3,
the thermal force has less contribution
to Pioneer 10 deceleration with time
with the Pioneer 10 approaching a constant deceleration (not zero)
This constant deceleration was originally suggested by John Anderson.
The Pioneer thermal reactive force may indeed
approach zero, tracking RTG output with time (dx/dt = -kx)
with decreasing affect on constant Pioneer deceleration.

Based on ref1&2 data extrapolated to infinity,
the Pioneer 10 constant deceleration is 6.9E-10 m/sec^2

Based on ref1 data extrapolated to infinity,
the Pioneer 11 constant deceleration is 8.2E-10 m/sec^2.

These numbers are generally in line
with Anderson's constant deceleration numbers.

The question remains:
What causes the constant deceleration?

Richard D Saam

[Nicolaas Vroom]

Op donderdag 4 juli 2013 09:29:23 UTC+2 schreef Steve Willner het volgende:

> In article <mt2.0-10166...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,
>
> Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaa...@pandora.be> writes:
>
> > My simulations more or less give identical results. You do not need
> > hugh amounts to simulate flat galaxy rotation curves. At least much
> > less mass than is directly visible.
>
> I'm surprised by that result. Where are these simulations published?
>

The results of my simulations are not published. They are only available at my homepage.
For me astronomy is "only" a hobby, but it keeps me very busy.
To see the results go here:
http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/circ11.xls.htm#Circ16
The simulations are performed using an excel program.
Test 4 shows a simulation of a flat galaxy rotation curve with a flat speed of 250 km/sec.
Test 5 shows a simulation of a galaxy rotation curve which starts at 250 and slowly decreases to 200 km/sec. The amount of matter used is roughly 30% less.
For Test6 the final speed is 150 km/sec and for Test7 100 km/sec
For a more general discussion go here:
http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/dark_mat.htm

Nicolaas Vroom

[Dan Riley]

"Richard D. Saam" <rds...@att.net> writes:

> Ref: 1. http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.2886v1

> 2. http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2507v1
>
> Visually and mathematically in Ref2 Figure 3, the thermal force has
> less contribution to Pioneer 10 deceleration with time with the
> Pioneer 10 approaching a constant deceleration (not zero)

The authors of ref 2 don't agree with your math:

"To determine if the remaining 20% represents a statistically
significant acceleration anomaly not accounted for by conventional
forces, we analyzed the various error sources that contribute to the
uncertainties in the acceleration estimates using radio-metric
Doppler and thermal models.
[...]
We therefore conclude that at the present level of our knowledge of
the Pioneer 10 spacecraft and its trajectory, no statistically
significant acceleration anomaly exists."

The primary source of uncertainty is "the unknown change in the
properties of the RTG coating", a systematic effect. Unlike
statistical uncertainties, systematic effects usually shift all the
data in the same direction; shift all the thermal acceleration data up
by around .8 sigma or so, and the visual impression of an unaccounted
constant acceleration disappears. This is easier to see in fig 4, the
plot of the error ellipses, which shows an unaccounted effect of less
than 1 sigma significance.

> Based on ref1&2 data extrapolated to infinity,
> the Pioneer 10 constant deceleration is 6.9E-10 m/sec^2
>
> Based on ref1 data extrapolated to infinity,
> the Pioneer 11 constant deceleration is 8.2E-10 m/sec^2.

Confidence intervals?

-dan

[Richard D. Saam]

On 7/8/13 2:16 PM, Dan Riley wrote:
> "Richard D. Saam" <rds...@att.net> writes:
>> Ref: 1. http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.2886v1
>> 2. http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2507v1
>>
>> Visually and mathematically in Ref2 Figure 3, the thermal force has
>> less contribution to Pioneer 10 deceleration with time with the
>> Pioneer 10 approaching a constant deceleration (not zero)
>
> The authors of ref 2 don't agree with your math:

The authors tested the decay hypothesis
but not the decay to constant hypothesis.

>
> "To determine if the remaining 20% represents a statistically
> significant acceleration anomaly not accounted for by conventional
> forces, we analyzed the various error sources that contribute to the
> uncertainties in the acceleration estimates using radio-metric
> Doppler and thermal models.
> [...]
> We therefore conclude that at the present level of our knowledge of
> the Pioneer 10 spacecraft and its trajectory, no statistically
> significant acceleration anomaly exists."
>
> The primary source of uncertainty is "the unknown change in the
> properties of the RTG coating", a systematic effect. Unlike
> statistical uncertainties, systematic effects usually shift all the
> data in the same direction; shift all the thermal acceleration data up
> by around .8 sigma or so, and the visual impression of an unaccounted
> constant acceleration disappears. This is easier to see in fig 4, the
> plot of the error ellipses, which shows an unaccounted effect of less
> than 1 sigma significance.

How can an "the unknown change in the properties of the RTG coating"
be used in any conclusion.
Ref 1 & 2 thermal analysis was based on thousands of finite elements
each with unknown radiation absorptivity and emmisivity factors.
It comes down to choosing the factors to 'curve fit'.
Compare this to the minimal observed doppler uncertainty.

>
>> Based on ref1&2 data extrapolated to infinity,
>> the Pioneer 10 constant deceleration is 6.9E-10 m/sec^2
>>
>> Based on ref1 data extrapolated to infinity,
>> the Pioneer 11 constant deceleration is 8.2E-10 m/sec^2.
>
> Confidence intervals?
>
> -dan
>

I have done a more explicit analysis below
with digitized deceleration(aP) data(ref 1 & 2)
as a function of time(t) (years after launch)
and modeled according to

aP = aPo * exp(t*ln(2)/half_life) + aPinfinity

where decaying thermal (or other) decelerating effects
reduce with time
with Pioneers approaching a constant deceleration(aPinfinity).

*********************
For Pioneer 10 Model,
given initial deceleration aPo 9.82 x 10^-10 m/sec^2
at time 8.79 years from Table 1,
then multivariable regression minimizing
stochastic model Root Mean Square(RMS) data
from Table 1 columns 1 and 2
yields the following modeled constants:

half_life = 5.00 years

aPinfinity = 7.00 x 10^-10 m/sec^2

Root Mean Square (RMS) = .224 x 10^-10 m/sec^2

with modeled aP in column 3.

Table 1 (digitized stochastic data from ref 1 and 2)
Pioneer 10
Time(t) Stochastic aP Modeled aP
(years) x 10^-10 m/s^2 x 10^-10 m/s^2
to 8.79 aPo 9.82 9.91
10.78 9.33 9.20
12.79 8.78 8.65
14.82 8.21 8.24
16.81 8.21 7.94
18.80 7.39 7.71
20.81 7.34 7.53
22.82 7.23 7.40
24.85 7.72 7.30

*********************
For Pioneer 11 Model,
given initial deceleration aPo 9.274 x 10^-10
at time 10.632 years from Table 2,
then multivariable regression minimizing
stochastic – model Root Mean Square(RMS) data
from Table 2 columns 1 and 2
yields the following modeled constants:

half_life = 3.30 years

aPinfinity = 8.20 x 10^-10 m/sec^2

Root Mean Square (RMS) = .160 x 10^-10 m/sec^2

with modeled aP in column 3.

Table 2 (digitized stochastic data from ref 1 and 2)
Pioneer 11
Time(t) Stochastic aP Modeled aP
(years) x 10^-10 m/s^2 x 10^-10 m/s^2
to 10.632 aPo 9.274 9.187
12.623 8.840 8.832
14.631 8.358 8.604
16.602 8.635 8.460

*********************
Assuming aPinfinity = 0 (exponential decay to 0)
then
for Pioneer 10
half_life = 61 years and RMS = .478 x 10^-10 m/sec^2
and
for Pioneer 11
half_life = 160 years and RMS = .273 x 10^-10 m/sec^2

Conclusion:

A model such as:

aP = aPo * exp(t*ln(2)/half_life) + aPinfinity

is more representative of the physical phenomenon
than straight decay. dx/dt = -kx

[Steve Willner]

In article <mt2.0-9510...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,

Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaa...@pandora.be> writes:
> For a more general discussion go here:
> http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/dark_mat.htm

There are several misconceptions on that page, but I am not sure we
disagree on the overall result: increasing the mass of a galaxy disk
but keeping the same mass distribution cannot produce a flat rotation
curve. Do we agree on that?

If we do, there are two ways out: modified gravity law ("MOND") or
extra matter that is not distributed the same way as the visible
stars. We call the latter "dark matter" (DM). Whether it's baryonic
or not is a separate question. People are working on MOND but so far
without much success. That is to say, one can always "tune" a
gravity law to explain one or a few galaxies, but no single
alternative model explains all the relevant cases.

Leaving MOND aside, I think there is a small amount of parameter
space that would let the DM needed to explain galaxy rotation curves
be baryonic. Presumably the DM is mostly made out of hydrogen (else
where is the hydrogen that should go with it?), and that requires
fairly large objects (say Saturn-size or larger). Lensing
observations put upper limits on the number of such objects, and I'm
not sure whether they are yet sensitive enough to rule out such
objects as major contributors to galaxy mass. Larger objects such as
white dwarfs and super-Jupiters are, I think, ruled out.

Another limit is the overall baryon budget. We know the average
density of baryons in the Universe (from CMB observations and from
Big Bang nucleosynthesis), and we know where a lot of the baryons
reside. One example is at
http://inspirehep.net/record/1081235/plots
(Look all the way at the bottom.) Are there enough left over to be
associated with galaxies at all? The "missing 29%" on the plot might
be enough, but lately I've heard something about more than expected
very hot gas detected in X-rays. That would leave less than 29%,
maybe zero, to be associated with galaxies and explain their rotation
curves.

As I say, I'm not sure baryonic dark matter is entirely ruled out
here, but the available parameter space for it is shrinking. And
even if you can manage the galaxy rotation curves, there is no way to
have enough baryonic matter to explain the galaxy cluster velocity
dispersions.

People interested in playing with galaxy rotation curves may like
http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/JavaLab/RotcurveWeb/

[Dan Riley]

"Richard D. Saam" <rds...@att.net> writes:
> The authors tested the decay hypothesis
> but not the decay to constant hypothesis.

They tested whether any additional parameters were needed to model
the observations, and found no compelling evidence that anything
more was necessary.

> How can an "the unknown change in the properties of the RTG coating"
> be used in any conclusion.
> Ref 1 & 2 thermal analysis was based on thousands of finite elements
> each with unknown radiation absorptivity and emmisivity factors.
> It comes down to choosing the factors to 'curve fit'.

The thermal model isn't a fit to the doppler data. It was developed
independent of the doppler data using measured material properties fit
to boundary conditions supplied by the thermal telemetry.

Changes in the RTG coating play a big role because they don't have
good measurements of space environment effects on the coating, they
don't have a way to measure it from the thermal telemetry, and they
aren't fitting to the doppler data.

> Compare this to the minimal observed doppler uncertainty.

The top graph of figure 3 doesn't plot the doppler uncertainty at all,
but you can see what it is from the residuals in the lower part of
figure 3, or from the error ellipse in figure 4, or from figure 4 of
gr-qc/0507052. The doppler uncertainty isn't minimal--it's about the
same size as the thermal model uncertainty.

> I have done a more explicit analysis below

Still no confidence intervals (the dominant errors are not stochastic,
so minimizing stochastic model RMS isn't appropriate).

-dan

[Richard D. Saam]

On 7/14/13 3:46 AM, Dan Riley wrote:
>
> Still no confidence intervals (the dominant errors are not stochastic,
> so minimizing stochastic model RMS isn't appropriate).

Figure 4 of gr-qc/0507052 indicates errors
are not so great as not to consider stochastic model RMS
particularly as time increases
a consideration that is not evident in the snapshot overview
http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2507v1 Figure 4

A stochastic RMS model minimization
was done for doppler mechanism
and compared to thermal degradation model:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2507v1 Page 4

"Lastly, we mention that both the thermal recoil force
and the Doppler data can be well modeled using
an exponential decay model in the form
aP = aPo * exp(-(t-to)*ln(2)/half_life).
Using t0 = January 1, 1980, the best fit parameters
for the Doppler data are [8]
half_life= (28.8+or-2.0) yr,
a0 = (10.1+or-1.0)×10−10 m/s^2.
In contrast,
the calculated thermal recoil force can be modeled,
with an RMS error of 0.1×10−10 m/s^2,
using the parameters = 36.9+or-6.7 yr,
a0 = (7.4+or-2.5) × 10−10 m/s^2."

The above half_lives (~25 to ~40 years) are too long
in the context of radiation pressure formula

pressure = F*stefan_constant*T^4*(4/(3*c))

with a multiplier factor F as a measure
of material emissivity or absorptivity.

The explaining logic is as follows:
Pioneer recoil deceleration may be calculated as
pressure*pioneer area/pioneer mass or aP
This aP is then proportional to a net system temperature(T)^4.
This system temperature(T) scales
with the RTG radioactive source half_life 87 years.
Deceleration(aP) half_life
then varies with RTG half_life as (1/2)^4 = 1/16.
The pioneer deceleration(aP) half_life
should then be on the order of 87/16 or 5.4 years
(not ~25 to ~40 years as indicated in http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2507v1)
This relatively short aP half_life (~5 years) is correctly modeled
for both Pioneers
with a combination exponential decay and constant deceleration
with the constant (aPconstant) on the order of 8 x 10^(-10) m/s^2.

The half_lives associated with power consumption (heat, T)
http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2507v1 Table I
are shorter than 87 years making the above argument more compelling.

It is difficult to escape the conclusion
that the independently developed Pioneer thermal recoil model
(based solely on the decay hypothesis dx/dt = -k*x)
is deficient in modeling the Pioneer anomaly.

Richard D. Saam

[Nicolaas Vroom]

Op zaterdag 13 juli 2013 10:38:11 UTC+2 schreef Steve Willner the next:

> In article <mt2.0-9510...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,
> Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaa...@pandora.be> writes:
> > For a more general discussion go here:
> > http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/dark_mat.htm
>
> There are several misconceptions on that page, but I am not sure we
> disagree on the overall result: increasing the mass of a galaxy disk
> but keeping the same mass distribution cannot produce a flat rotation
> curve. Do we agree on that?

IMO any given mass distribution will generate its own rotation curve RC.
Increasing the average density will only increase the values but not
the shape of the curve.
But that is not the issue.
The excel program Circ6.xls calculates the mass distribution as
a function of the RC.
Picture http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/Circ16%20T4%20350%20250.jpg
shows a flat RC. The cyan line shows the mass distribution.
Two parameters are important: The size of the bulge (5 units) and the
size of the disc (200 units) The relation 40 to 1 I think is extreme.
Picture http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/Circ16%20T3%20350%20250.jpg
shows the relation 20 to 1.
What is also important is the height of the disc.
The height of the disc above the equator is 1 unit.
1 unit = 1000 Lightyear.
The density of the bulge is 1E-10
When you increase the size of the disc to 2 units the density
of the disc decreases with a factor two.
The smallest density in the case of disc height 1 unit is roughly 2E-12
that means 2% of the density of the bulge.
The question is: Is it possible to observe this mass?
(The highest density is 2E-10)

When you consider the 4 nearest stars to us the total mass is 3,17
sun masses the density is 2,15E-11
For the 84 nearest stars (62 star systems) the total mass is 30,2
and the density 3,44E-12
When you remove all the stars above 0.4 mass the total mass left is
9,46 and the density is 1E-12. This are Red Dwarfs and Brown Dwarfs
and can be considered invisble baryonic matter.
What I mean is that a lot of matter in our neighbourhood can be considered
invisible from our point of view compared to the Andromeda Galaxy.
You have to remove that mass in order to calculate the observed
galaxy rotation curve based on visible baryonic matter.

In the simulation the whole halo above the disc is considered empty.
In reality this space is filled with stars clusters. I do not know
the average density. Also that amount of visible baryonic
matter has to be subtracted to calculate the observed galaxy
rotation curve, which than becomes not flat.

> If we do, there are two ways out: modified gravity law ("MOND") or
> extra matter that is not distributed the same way as the visible
> stars. We call the latter "dark matter" (DM). Whether it's baryonic
> or not is a separate question.

But that is the topic of this discussion. Do we need WIMP's
to explain missing matter.

> People are working on MOND but so far
> without much success. That is to say, one can always "tune" a
> gravity law to explain one or a few galaxies, but no single
> alternative model explains all the relevant cases.

I fully agree with you. Modifying Newton's Law to match IMO
lack of visibility is not the prefered way to go.

> Leaving MOND aside, I think there is a small amount of parameter
> space that would let the DM needed to explain galaxy rotation curves
> be baryonic. Presumably the DM is mostly made out of hydrogen (else
> where is the hydrogen that should go with it?), and that requires
> fairly large objects (say Saturn-size or larger). Lensing
> observations put upper limits on the number of such objects, and I'm
> not sure whether they are yet sensitive enough to rule out such
> objects as major contributors to galaxy mass. Larger objects such as
> white dwarfs and super-Jupiters are, I think, ruled out.

Red Dwarfs and Brown Dwarfs are not ruled out?

> Another limit is the overall baryon budget. We know the average
> density of baryons in the Universe (from CMB observations and from
> Big Bang nucleosynthesis), and we know where a lot of the baryons
> reside. One example is at
> http://inspirehep.net/record/1081235/plots
> (Look all the way at the bottom.)

I am studying this document. The issue is to which extend this can
be used to explain the missing mass in individual galaxie?

> And
> even if you can manage the galaxy rotation curves, there is no way to
> have enough baryonic matter to explain the galaxy cluster velocity
> dispersions.

The same as above.

> People interested in playing with galaxy rotation curves may like
> http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/JavaLab/RotcurveWeb/

In this document they simulate the galaxy rotation based on visible
baryonic matter and with an halo of darkmatter.
I have done the same in the paragraph's called Question 4 (NFW)
and Question 5 (Hernquist)

Nicolaas Vroom
http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/

[Nicolaas Vroom]

Op zaterdag 13 juli 2013 10:38:11 UTC+2 schreef Steve Willner het volgende:

>
> People interested in playing with galaxy rotation curves may like
> http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/JavaLab/RotcurveWeb/
>

In that document we can read:
" If we assume the galaxy is spherical, we can then say that
V=(GM/r) ? , or solve for mass as M=rV ? /G."
That is correct and true for our solar system. Next:

" The fact that disk galaxies are not spherical means there is a
small correction factor we need to apply, but the basic idea
stays the same."
What you need is a 3D simulation using Newton's Law. To call
the difference between a spherical and spiral galaxy small
is a misconception. Next:
" But when astronomers first tried to do that, they ran into
an astonishing problem: rotation curves of spiral galaxies are flat."
Astronomers knew already that spiral galaxies are flat.
The issue is what exactly is this "small" correction.
If you make this correction too small the calculated and observed
galaxy rotation curve do not match. Next:

"The flatness of spiral galaxy rotation curves is a extremely common;
in fact, no spiral galaxy shows a r -? falling rotation curve.
This result led astronomers to the conclusion that there must be more
mass than meets the eye in spiral galaxies -- in addition to being
filled with stars, galaxies must have other unseen mass associated
with them which provides enough mass to keep the rotation curves
from falling."
The issue is what is this unseen mass. The fact that the rotation
curve does not drop off is no issue because every solution
has the same problem. We also have to be very carefull
here because unseen is a typical human characteristic.
This unseen mass can be easy: small dwarf objects.
When you study http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_stars
you can calculate that the star mass in our neighbourhood is roughly
30 solar mass. 9 solar mass is of stars smaller than 0.4 solar mass.
All that baryonic mass can be considered invisible observed
from large distance.

To solve the problem the most obvious solution is to assume that
there is more mass in the disc than what is directly visible.
To solve the solution in a halo outside the disc IMO
is first of all a theoretical (mathematical) solution. In that
direction there are two solutions: NFW and Hernquist profile
which each has its own free paramaters.
Each allows you to simulate flat rotation curves. However
the same can be done assuming that all mass is in the disc.
For example program 14 tries to do that.
See: http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/progrm14.htm

It should be mentioned that the simulations in the document
describe a ratio bulge to disc as 1 to 2. The simulations
I do are at least 1 to 10 or much more.

Nicolaas Vroom

[Mod. note: non-ASCII characters replaced with ? -- readers familiar
with Newton's laws may be able to figure out what these should have
been. Please, please, please, do not cut and paste non-ASCII
characters from papers or the web and assume that they will work here
-- mjh]

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <mt2.0-4375...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, Nicolaas Vroom

<nicolaa...@pandora.be> writes:

> " The fact that disk galaxies are not spherical means there is a
> small correction factor we need to apply, but the basic idea
> stays the same."
> What you need is a 3D simulation using Newton's Law. To call
> the difference between a spherical and spiral galaxy small
> is a misconception.

It depends on what one means. If the difference leads to small effects,
then it is, by this definition, a small difference. The appearance
doesn't matter here, since we are concerned with the distribution of
mass, not light.

> " But when astronomers first tried to do that, they ran into
> an astonishing problem: rotation curves of spiral galaxies are flat."
> Astronomers knew already that spiral galaxies are flat.
> The issue is what exactly is this "small" correction.
> If you make this correction too small the calculated and observed
> galaxy rotation curve do not match.

You seem to be implying that this issue is due to a simple mistake.
That's not the case.

> This unseen mass can be easy: small dwarf objects.
> When you study http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_stars
> you can calculate that the star mass in our neighbourhood is roughly
> 30 solar mass. 9 solar mass is of stars smaller than 0.4 solar mass.
> All that baryonic mass can be considered invisible observed
> from large distance.

Microlensing observations show that the dark matter in our galaxy cannot
be in compact objects over quite a range of masses. I'll have to check
if all dark matter inferred from galaxy rotation curves could be
baryonic, but I suspect this is a tight squeeze, given the constraints
from big-bang nucleosynthesis. However, we know from other observations
that most of the mass in the universe is not baryonic, so whether all
galaxy dark matter could be baryonic is not really an interesting
question; one would have to somehow separate the other dark matter from
baryonic matter in galaxies etc.

[Nicolaas Vroom]

Op maandag 22 juli 2013 22:42:23 UTC+2 Phillip Helbig writes:
> In article <mt2.0-4375...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, Nicolaas Vroom
> <nicolaa...@pandora.be> writes:
>
> > What you need is a 3D simulation using Newton's Law. To call
> > the difference between a spherical and spiral galaxy small
> > is a misconception.
>
> It depends on what one means. If the difference leads to small effects,
> then it is, by this definition, a small difference.

That is true. The problem is that the difference between an spherical
and spiral galaxy is large.

> > " But when astronomers first tried to do that, they ran into
> > an astonishing problem: rotation curves of spiral galaxies are flat."
> > Astronomers knew already that spiral galaxies are flat.
> > The issue is what exactly is this "small" correction.
> > If you make this correction too small the calculated and observed
> > galaxy rotation curve do not match.
>
> You seem to be implying that this issue is due to a simple mistake.
> That's not the case.

Two mistakes are:
1. You should "not use" the mathematics which describe eliptical galaxies
to describe eliptical galaxies because eliptical galaxies are more
complex. The reverse is true.
2. You should not assume, when at a certain distance you cannot
measure the galaxy rotation curve, that the disc stops.
This is identical that assuming that outside Pluto the solar system
stops. (We know now that this is not true and we call that region
the Kuiper Belt). Something equivalent exists for the disc of a Galaxy.

> Microlensing observations show that the dark matter in our galaxy cannot
> be in compact objects over quite a range of masses.

In this sentence do you mean non-baryonic matter?

> I'll have to check
> if all dark matter inferred from galaxy rotation curves could be
> baryonic, but I suspect this is a tight squeeze, given the constraints
> from big-bang nucleosynthesis.

In this discussion the following documents are interesting:
http://astrobites.org/2013/04/04/do-elliptical-galaxies-have-dark-matter-halos/
http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.6896
The articles indicate that elliptical galaxies contain no darkmatter in
the halo. The second article claims: (Search with baryonic):
" This suggests that the total mass distribution in early-type galaxies
closely follows the light distribution and sheds doubts on the existence of
extended galactic halos made of exotic, non-baryonic particles"

> However, we know from other observations
> that most of the mass in the universe is not baryonic, so whether all
> galaxy dark matter could be baryonic is not really an interesting
> question

It is an interesting question because many articles claim that (almost)
all inivisble matter (darkmatter) to explain the actual (flat) galaxy
rotation curves is non-baryonic (exotic ?) which is the topic
of this post.
I'am not claiming that all this matter has to be baryonic.

Nicolaas Vroom

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <mt2.0-830-...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, Nicolaas Vroom

<nicolaa...@pandora.be> writes:

> > Microlensing observations show that the dark matter in our galaxy cannot
> > be in compact objects over quite a range of masses.

> In this sentence do you mean non-baryonic matter?

Microlensing doesn't care if the matter is baryonic or not. All mass
affects light, so gravitational lensing can detect mass, be it dark or
shining, be it baryonic or not.

[Nicolaas Vroom]

Op woensdag 24 juli 2013 07:39:36 UTC+2 schreef Phillip Helbig:

This makes the discussion simpler. However I do not fully understand
the sentence. Do you mean something like:
" Microlensing observations show that the size of (invisible) baryonic
objects in our Galaxy have certain limitations."
IMO the size of the objects in our Galaxy can be in an almost
continuous range of values. From 100 Solar Masses to dust, excluding
the Black Hole in the center.

The only thing that I can imagine is that using Microlensing there
is a lower limit on the size of an object that can be detected.
For more detail read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_microlensing
The message that emerges is that it is obvious that to explain the
missing mass problem in Galaxy Rotation curves solely based on
exotic particles is shortsighted.

Nicolaas Vroom

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <mt2.0-3100...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, Nicolaas Vroom

> This makes the discussion simpler. However I do not fully understand
> the sentence. Do you mean something like:
> " Microlensing observations show that the size of (invisible) baryonic
> objects in our Galaxy have certain limitations."

Yes.

> IMO the size of the objects in our Galaxy can be in an almost
> continuous range of values. From 100 Solar Masses to dust, excluding
> the Black Hole in the center.

No; certain mass ranges are quite strictly ruled out.

> The only thing that I can imagine is that using Microlensing there
> is a lower limit on the size of an object that can be detected.

Of course there is a lower limit. However, things of planet mass, or
larger, would be detected if they make up a substantial fraction of dark
matter in the galaxy.

[Richard D. Saam]

On 7/16/13 1:35 AM, Richard D. Saam wrote:
>
> The explaining logic is as follows:

Some corrections and additions from previous post

Ref: 1. http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.2886v1
2. http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2507v1

3. The Pioneer Anomaly:Known and Unknown Unknowns
by Donald Rumsfeld, Viktor T. Toth
Pioneer Anomaly seminar
Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, May 26, 2011
http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca/Flash/a2cc528b-1d36-4a2e-af73-5f81b8b17477/viewer.html
Distance and geometric velocity Pioneer 10
(about 3/4 through)

> Pioneer recoil deceleration may be calculated as
> pressure*pioneer area/pioneer mass or aP
> This aP is then proportional to a net system temperature(T)^4.

pressure = F*stefan_constant*T^4*(4/(3*c))

with a multiplier factor F as a measure
of material emissivity or absorptivity.

Pioneer recoil deceleration(aP) may be calculated as
aP = pressure*pioneer area/pioneer mass
or
aP = F*stefan_constant*T^4*(4/(3*c))*pioneer area/pioneer mass

in refs 1&2, a theoretically consistent model was used:

aP = n*Q/(pioneer mass *c)

where Q is directed radiation power (watt)
and n represents empirically determined F and pioneer projecting areas.

> This system temperature(T) scales
> with the RTG radioactive source half_life 87 years.
> Deceleration(aP) half_life
> then varies with RTG half_life as (1/2)^4 = 1/16.

Deceleration (aP) as well as radiation power half_life
vary as 1/4 of RTG half_life.

> The pioneer deceleration(aP) half_life
> should then be on the order of 87/16 or 5.4 years

Deceleration (aP) as well as radiation power half_life
should then be on the order of 87.7/4 or 21.9 years

These half_lives should be considered very accurate
and this accuracy is far greater than earth monitors
can observe through thermal telemetry
and on-board radiation pressure
should follow the well established decay law dx/dt = -kx

model one

daP/dt = -k*aP = -(ln(2)/21.9)*aP

The stochastic data half life more accurately follows
a modified version (not addressed in ref 1 and 2).

model two

aP/dt = -k*aP = -k*(aP - aPinfinity)

indicating aP approaches a constant value (aPinfinity)
5.00E-10 m/sec^2 with time.

The thermal data ref 2 table 1
conforms to model one as follows:

speed of light c = 3.00E8 m/sec
pioneer mass = 241 kg

nRTG = 0.0104
nelectric = 0.406
asymmetric radiated power(P) = nRTG*QRTG + nelectrical*Qelectrical
ref 2

aP = P/(pioneer mass * c)

AU is converted to time by ref 3.

Table 1.
AU time(yrs)) P(watt) aP(m/s^2) model one
0.00 7.98E-10
3 1.80 141.6 7.54E-10
10 5.19 121.8 6.77E-10
25 10.32 103.1 5.76E-10
40 15.75 90.8 4.85E-10
70 27.14 65.5 3.38E-10

Stochastic data for Pioneer 10 Table 2 conforms to model two
with aP approaching aPinifinity (5E-10 m/sec^2) with time.
(aP is result of averaging out residuals dfrequency/dt
over a time interval)

Table 2. (digitized for ref 1 and 2)
time(yr) aP(m/sec^2)
0 12.58E-10
8.79 9.82E-10
10.78 9.33E-10
12.80 8.78E-10
14.82 8.21E-10
16.81 8.21E-10
18.80 7.39E-10
20.81 7.34E-10
22.82 7.23E-10
24.85 7.72E-10

Logic indicates the difference in table 1 and 2 aP values with time
is an indication of the omnipresent aP(infinity).

More limited Pioneer 11 data yields the same results as above.

The presence of an aP(infinity) may be an indication
of a universal object Stokes' law drag force response
to the space vacuum viscosity
as suggested in: arXiv:0806.3165v3 [hep-th] 14 Nov 2008
Hydrodynamics of spacetime and vacuum viscosity

This overall logic could be confirmed or denied
by parallel analysis of pioneer spin deceleration
as discussed in ref 3.

It would be helpful if pioneer raw data were available
to the general scientific community for analysis.

[Richard D. Saam]

On 7/31/13 11:08 AM, Richard D. Saam wrote:
>Further clarification:

Ref: 1. http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.2886v1
2. http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2507v1

In summary the references
model the Pioneer aP as the theoretically correct

aP = n*Q/(pioneer mass * c)

with two components

aP = (nRTG*QRTG + nelectrical*Qelectrical)/(pioneer mass * c)

The data for component:
aP = (nelectrical*Qelectrical)/(pioneer mass * c)
follows the relationship linked to 1/4 of RTG half life (87.7 years)

daP/dt = -(ln(2)/(87.7/4))*aP

Ref 2 suggests that RTG component:
aP = (nRTG*QRTG)/(pioneer mass * c)
is directly linked to RTG 87.7 year half life.

daP/dt = -(ln(2)/87.7)*aP

But this is theoretically not possible since
radiation pressure and related aP
aP = radiation pressure*pioneer area/pioneer mass
is related to RTG temperature(T)^4

aP = F*stefan_constant*T^4*(4/(3*c))*pioneer area/pioneer mass

(F = empirical emissivity absorptivity factor)

Further, the RTG geometric design symmetry does not in principle
allow for asymmetric radiation pressure contributing to aP.

Further, the theoretical aP identities

aP = F*stefan_constant*T^4*(4/(3*c))*pioneer area/pioneer mass

and

aP = n*Q/(pioneer mass *c)

indicates n represents

empirically determined F and pioneer projecting areas

Any anticipated extremely small RTG manufacturing area asymmetries
would contribute in a congruent extremely small manner.

Further, the RTG component decay is only about 20 percent over 25 years.

It is suggested the RTG component is incorrectly identified in refs
as contributing to aP.
The actual contribution to model stochastic data is from
aP = (nelectrical*Qelectrical)/(pioneer mass * c)
plus an anomalous constant factor (aPinfinity)
such that

aP/dt =-k*(aP - aPinfinity)

and aPinfinity is testing the space vacuum:

arXiv:0806.3165v3 [hep-th] 14 Nov 2008
Hydrodynamics of spacetime and vacuum viscosity

Such a conclusion has at least the standing
as the 1/1,000,000 particle statistical analysis
conducted for Higgs at LHC.

Richard D. Saam

[Steve Willner]

In article <mt2.0-31976...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,

Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaa...@pandora.be> writes:
> When you remove all the stars above 0.4 mass the total mass left is
> 9,46 and the density is 1E-12. This are Red Dwarfs and Brown Dwarfs
> and can be considered invisble baryonic matter.

Fair enough, except that at least the higher end of that mass range
would be detectable via lensing. One fly in the lensing ointment is
that measurements have been made only towards the LMC and the
Galactic center (unless I've missed other observations, which is
quite possible). If you can arrange for red dwarfs to occupy regions
other than these lines of sight and still explain the rotation
curves, you might get somewhere.

Regardless of lensing, if you want to explain rotation curves with
red dwarfs or similar objects, you have to postulate that they have a
different distribution than that of the visible stars. In
particular, you need more low-mass stars at large radii than expected
from the light distribution. That's possible, of course, but there's
no evidence for it. Galaxy colors don't change much with radius, for
example. Actually they become a little bluer at large radii because
of lower metallicity.

As I wrote earlier, I'm not sure all the parameter space is ruled
out, but it is shrinking.

Some comments on subsequent posts:

1) aside from rotation curves, there's a problem with spiral disk
instability. Putting mass in a halo rather than a disk stabilizes
the disk as well as solving the rotation curve problem. That doesn't
prove the halo explanation, but it makes it more attractive.

2) gravitational lensing can easily detect objects of half a solar
mass or larger. Smaller objects are more difficult, but observations
have improved. I'm not sure just where things stand now, but objects
more massive than some tenths of a solar mass cannot easily explain
the dark matter inferred for the Milky Way. (But see above about
"fly in the lensing ointment.")

[Steve Willner]

In article <mt2.0-15999...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,

"Richard D. Saam" <rds...@att.net> writes:

> Deceleration (aP) as well as radiation power half_life
> should then be on the order of 87.7/4 or 21.9 years

You've lost me there. Radiative deceleration should be proportional
to power (according to the equation you quoted earlier), which
decreases exponentially according to the half-life. I think you've
confused yourself by thinking about temperature.

> These half_lives should be considered very accurate

Yes, half life is an intrinsic property of the Pu-238.

The point of the recent analysis was that the radiative model is
consistent with all known data, and there is no need for "new
physics" to explain the so-called Pioneer Anomaly. That doesn't
prove that no new physics exists, but it removes one piece of
evidence.

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <mt2.0-30197...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, Steve Willner

<wil...@cfa.harvard.edu> writes:

> One fly in the lensing ointment is
> that measurements have been made only towards the LMC and the
> Galactic center (unless I've missed other observations, which is
> quite possible). If you can arrange for red dwarfs to occupy regions
> other than these lines of sight and still explain the rotation
> curves, you might get somewhere.

I'm pretty sure that there were observations of M31 looking for
microlensing effects.

For larger masses, one can rule them out because they would be visible
in QSO light curves. (Hawkins claims such a detection of dark matter,
but it doesn't stand up to a quantitative analysis.)

[Richard D. Saam]

On 8/13/13 4:20 AM, Steve Willner wrote:
> In article <mt2.0-15999...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,
> "Richard D. Saam" <rds...@att.net> writes:
>> Deceleration (aP) as well as radiation power half_life
>> should then be on the order of 87.7/4 or 21.9 years
>
> You've lost me there. Radiative deceleration should be proportional
> to power (according to the equation you quoted earlier), which
> decreases exponentially according to the half-life.

but which half life are you indicating:
the RTG plutonium half life of 87.7 years
reflected in power equation
http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2507v1 page 2
Qrtg(t) = 2^(-(t-t0)/87.74)*Qrtg(t0)
or the electrical half life of 87.7/4 or 21.9 years
http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2507v1 table 1 data
Qelect(t) = 2^(-(t-t0)/21.9)*Qelect(t0)

The authors choose a subset

aP = n*Q/(pioneer mass *c)

of this more general equation

aP = F*stefan_constant*T^4*(4/(3*c))*pioneer area/pioneer mass

where n*Q = F*stefan_constant*T^4*(4/3)*pioneer asymmetric area

with two components
aP = nrtg*Qrtg/(pioneer mass *c) + nelect*Qelect/(pioneer mass *c)
with a well established finite element basis for
nelect*Qelect/(pioneer mass *c)
and
Qelect(t)=2^(-(t-t0)/21.9)*Qelect(t0)=Qelect(t0)*exp(-ln(2)(t-t0)/21.9)
but with no physical basis for
Qrtg(t) = 2^(-(t-t0)/87.74)*Qrtg(t0)= Qrtg(t0)*exp(-ln(2)(t-t0)/87.74)

The RTG component contribution to Pioneer deceleration (aPrtg) is
nrtg*Qrtg = F*stefan_constant*T^4*(4/3)*RTG_asymmetric_area

The RTG symmetrical design defines
RTG_asymmetric_area = 0 and therefore aPrtg = 0
Any RTG_asymmetric_area would be outside manufacturing tolerances
that perhaps or on the order of mm^2

>
>> These half_lives should be considered very accurate
>
> Yes, half life is an intrinsic property of the Pu-238.
>
> The point of the recent analysis was that the radiative model is
> consistent with all known data, and there is no need for "new
> physics" to explain the so-called Pioneer Anomaly. That doesn't
> prove that no new physics exists, but it removes one piece of
> evidence.

In
http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2507v1
a detailed finite element radiative model
was applied to electrical power
with half life of 87.7/4 or 21.9 years
assuming the model daP/dt = -ln(2)(t-t0)/21.9.
The remaining aP 'constant with time' component
was modeled as daP/dt = -ln(2)(t-t0)/87.7
a modeling that can not be physically justified due to Pioneer design.
(A 87.7 year half life changes aP on the order of 20% over Pioneer life
for all intensive purposes represents a constant)
This 'constant with time' component on the order of 7E-8 cm/sec^2
cannot be linked to the internal physical nature of Pioneer
and can truly be considered the Pioneer anomaly
indicating a property of space through which the Pioneers travel.
This recent analysis
http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2507v1
does not 'remove one piece of evidence'.
but unnecessarily stops investigation in this astrophysical area
at this important time
when 95 percent of the unknown universe is under investigation
as to identity
and all research avenues are needed as tools.

Richard D Saam

[Steve Willner]

SW> Radiative deceleration should be proportional to power

I was wrong about that. See below.

In article <mt2.0-11424...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,

"Richard D. Saam" <rds...@att.net> writes:
> but which half life are you indicating:
> the RTG plutonium half life of 87.7 years
> reflected in power equation
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2507v1 page 2
> Qrtg(t) = 2^(-(t-t0)/87.74)*Qrtg(t0)
> or the electrical half life of 87.7/4 or 21.9 years
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2507v1 table 1 data
> Qelect(t) = 2^(-(t-t0)/21.9)*Qelect(t0)

> In http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2507v1
> a detailed finite element radiative model
> was applied to electrical power
> with half life of 87.7/4 or 21.9 years

I don't see where you got that half life for electrical power, but it
may be right. The electrical efficiency decreases as the plutonium
decays and the RTGs cool off, so the electrical power generated drops
off faster than the total power of the plutonium.

As the OP wrote, the authors have a detaled thermal model, but in
essence there are two components: electrical power used in the
spacecraft itself and waste heat in the RTGs. The point -- that I
completely missed earlier -- is that these have entirely different
efficiencies (eta) for being turned into acceleration. The RTG waste
heat is emitted nearly uniformly in all directions, and its
efficiency for accelerating the spacecraft is only 1%. When powered
components inside the spacecraft generate waste heat, that heat is
directed predominantly away from the Sun (because of the geometry of
the spacecraft) and has a 41% efficiency for conversion into
electrical power. The net acceleration is the sum of these two.

The bottom line is that the calculated thermal acceleration is 80% of
the acceleration derived from the Doppler tracking data. However,
the error bars are larger than the 20% difference, so there is
currently no evidence of "new physics." (The RTG asymmetry is
uncertain because of unknown changes in the coating properties.
Making it just a bit bigger than 1% would give excellent agreement.)

[Richard D. Saam]

On 8/30/13 1:34 AM, Steve Willner wrote:

> The bottom line is that the calculated thermal acceleration is 80% of
> the acceleration derived from the Doppler tracking data. However,
> the error bars are larger than the 20% difference, so there is
> currently no evidence of "new physics." (The RTG asymmetry is
> uncertain because of unknown changes in the coating properties.
> Making it just a bit bigger than 1% would give excellent agreement.)
>

This presented logic is in a constant time frame.
'calculated thermal acceleration is 80%'
The RTG contribution is 1%
A more complete model would analyze
these deceleration contributions with time for a constant residual.
The much detailed finite element electrical contribution
fades faster with time (21.9 year half life)
(based on regression of http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2507v1 table 1 data)
leaving the RTG contribution (87 year half life)
that can be considered constant in the measured Pioneer time frame.
No detailed finite element thermal RTG deceleration analysis was done in
http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2507v1.
A prior RTG analysis in
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064 page 32-33
reads in part:
"So, even though a complete thermal/physical model of
the spacecraft might be able to ascertain if there are any
other unsuspected heat systematics, we conclude that
this particular 'RTG' mechanism does not provide enough power
to explain the Pioneer anomaly"
That leaves a constant deceleration residual with time
with no on board mechanistic origin.

I won't say 'new physics' is required
but verification of known universal physics
(external to Pioneers)
is warranted to explain this constant deceleration residual.

Richard D Saam

[Dan Riley]

"Richard D. Saam" <rds...@att.net> writes:

> No detailed finite element thermal RTG deceleration analysis was done in
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2507v1.
> A prior RTG analysis in
> http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064 page 32-33
> reads in part:
> "So, even though a complete thermal/physical model of
> the spacecraft might be able to ascertain if there are any
> other unsuspected heat systematics, we conclude that
> this particular 'RTG' mechanism does not provide enough power
> to explain the Pioneer anomaly"

The "particular mechanism" of section VIII B is "anisotropic heat
reflection off of the back of the spacecraft high-gain antennae", a
mechanism that doesn't play any significant role in the 1204.2507
model--so that quote does not appear to be relevant.

1204.2507 accounts for the deceleration via approximately equal
contributions from differential emissivity of the RTGs and
non-isotropic radiative cooling from the electronics in the main body
of the spacecraft, which are covered in VIII C and VIII D
respectively. (I'll also note that, while the RTG portion of the
1204.2507 model isn't as detailed as it is for the main body of the
spacecraft, it is still considerably more developed than the arguments
in 0104064).

> That leaves a constant deceleration residual with time
> with no on board mechanistic origin.

It leaves a residual consistent with the mechanisms of 1204.2507 at
the one-sigma level. That doesn't exclude the possibility of an
unaccounted-for residual, but it also doesn't require one. To show
that something more is needed would require somehow reducing the
statistical and systematic uncertainties in 1204.2507.

-dan

[Eric Flesch]

On Sat, 31 Aug 13, "Richard D. Saam" <rds...@att.net> wrote:
>I won't say 'new physics' is required

Recently I posted an analysis of the Pioneer anomaly showing that its
scale is consistent with universal size, thusly:

At 20AU Pioneer was travelling 12500m/s. The anomalous sunward
acceleration was 9 x 10^-10 m/s^2. Therefore, per each second, the
distance travelled was 12500m, and the anomolous distance shortfall
was d=.5a = 4.5 x 10^-10m.

Thus the ratio of the shortfall to distance travelled is 3.6 x 10^-14.

Let's hypothesize that this anomaly is simply a function of distance.
Thus, 20AU / ratio = 3 x 10^9 km / 3.6 x 10^-14 = 8.33 x 10^22 km =
8.8 x 10^9 LY, which approximates the Einstein radius usually written
as 10^10 LY.

If this hypothesis is right, then the Pioneer anomaly would be
seen to be twice at 40AU as it was at 20AU.


Eric Flesch

[Richard D. Saam]

On 8/31/13 2:31 PM, Dan Riley wrote:
>
> 1204.2507 accounts for the deceleration via approximately equal
> contributions from differential emissivity of the RTGs and
> non-isotropic radiative cooling from the electronics in the main body
> of the spacecraft, which are covered in VIII C and VIII D
> respectively. (I'll also note that, while the RTG portion of the
> 1204.2507 model isn't as detailed as it is for the main body of the
> spacecraft, it is still considerably more developed than the arguments
> in 0104064).

I finally numerically duplicated the methodology in 1204.2507

Aa. time (years after launch)(after AU to time conversion)
Bb. electric contribution to aPelecx10^-10 m/s^2
n = .406 half life 24.5 years regressing Table 1, 1204.2507
aPelec = 7.75E-10*EXP(-LN(2)*time/24.5)
Cc. RTG contribution to aPrtgx10^-10 m/s^2
n = 0.0104 half life 87.72 years (Plutonium)
aPrtg = 3.71E-10*EXP(-LN(2)*time/87.72)
Dd. or Bb + Cc Total contribution to aPx10^-10 m/s^2
Ee. Doppler measured aPx10^-10 m/s^2

Scenario one
Aa Bb Cc Dd Ee
8.79 6.05 3.46 9.51 9.82
10.78 5.71 3.41 9.12 9.33
12.79 5.40 3.35 8.75 8.78
14.82 5.10 3.30 8.40 8.21
16.81 4.82 3.25 8.07 8.21
18.80 4.56 3.20 7.75 7.39
20.81 4.30 3.15 7.45 7.34
22.82 4.07 3.10 7.17 7.23
24.85 3.84 3.05 6.89 7.72
Dd-Ee has RMS = .34

***************************************
Statistical analysis of fin root temperatures
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0512121 Figure 20
indicate temperature(T) half life of 130 years
This translates into power half life ~emissivity*T^4
or 130/4 or 32.5 years. This is not reflected
in reported RTG power performance.
Radiation flux during Pioneer 18 Jupiter flyby
(10,000 times that of Earth)
did not cause differential RTG emissivity.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064 C
does not provide any further mechanistic origin of Cc
and none presented in 1204.2507
Assuming RTG contribution(Cc) is replaced by
a constant(Ff) the electric(Bb) + constant(Ff) or Gg
yields RMS = .33 (equal to scenario one .34)
when compared to doppler(Ee)

Scenario two
Aa Bb Ff Gg Ee
8.79 6.05 3.33 9.38 9.82
10.78 5.71 3.33 9.04 9.33
12.79 5.40 3.33 8.73 8.78
14.82 5.10 3.33 8.43 8.21
16.81 4.82 3.33 8.15 8.21
18.80 4.56 3.33 7.89 7.39
20.81 4.30 3.33 7.63 7.34
22.82 4.07 3.33 7.40 7.23
24.85 3.84 3.33 7.17 7.72
Gg-Ee has RMS = .33

***************************************
A more detailed model Hh
minimizing RMS at .27
(the best available fit)
assumes aP approaching a constant 5.9
aP = (12.587-5.9)*EXP(-.068*time)+5.9

Scenario three
Aa Hh Ee
8.79 9.60 9.82
10.78 9.14 9.33
12.79 8.74 8.78
14.82 8.39 8.21
16.81 8.09 8.21
18.80 7.83 7.39
20.81 7.60 7.34
22.82 7.40 7.23
24.85 7.23 7.72
Hh-Ee has RMS = .27

There is statistical logic
within the context of 1204.2507 and historical Pioneer reports
for a constant aP contribution.
The astrophysical importance of this constant aP contribution
demands attention. 1204.2507 conclusions should be executed:

First,
Pioneer 11 data should be analyzed
Second,
the anomalous spin-down of both spacecraft
should be addressed considering the asymmetrically electrical (door) aP
would have very little influence on the Pioneer moment arm (M*R^2)
primarily represented by the 30 foot magnetometer boom.
The spin deceleration may be another indication of constant aP
linking Pioneer rotational angular momentum to translational momentum.
Third,
Analysis early trajectory data for indication of aP onset
comparable to a constant 5.9x10^-10 m/s^2
Fourth,
Address the possibility of outgassing
from surface materials, with potential observable contribution
to the anomalous acceleration.
Fifth,
Our understanding of systematics in the
Doppler tracking data can be improved
by a detailed auto correlation analysis.
Sixth,
Measure RTG paint emissivity by a thermal vacuum
chamber test of a hot RTG analogue.
(Resolve scenarios one and two)
Seventh,
Analyze other redundant data
in the form of Deep Space Network signal strength measurements,
which could be used to improve our understanding
of the spacecraft's precise orientation.

There is a lot of work to do.
The particle physicists at LHC would love this problem
considering the statistical ambiguity of their work
and the potential scientific importance of its outcome.
(something requiring no new physics)
I would love to analyze more detailed abundant available data.
No spacecraft of this type will be launched
within the foreseeable future.

I have had to digitize the reported data.
Surely the data is available in textual format
for the scientific community.

Richard D Saam

[Richard D. Saam]

On 9/4/13 1:28 AM, Richard D. Saam wrote:
[Mod. note: entire quoted article snipped -- mjh]

> I have had to digitize the reported data.
> Surely the data is available in textual format
> for the scientific community.

As a follow-up
I have forwarded this Pioneer anomaly investigation logic to the authors
and director of JPL
No response.
The reported JPL Pioneer anomaly investigation
is a case of science by bureaucracy.
The Pioneer anomaly is not supposed to exist therefore it does not.

Richard D. Saam