Talk:Pioneer anomaly

Anomaly equal to difference of relativistic and galilean doppler shift

It has been claimed that the anomaly is equal to difference of relativistic and galilean doppler shifts, and might be an error in the JPL code. Even if they are numerically approximately equal, this is not the explanation for the anomaly. Since the effect is subtle, many have doubted the original calculation (which the double checked with independent navigation code in the very first paper), making a software error exceedingly unlikely. Some of the many replications are:

• The Aerospace Corp confirmation in the original paper

• "Independent Confirmation of the Pioneer 10 Anomalous Acceleration." Craig B. Markwardt. eprint arXiv:gr-qc/0208046. The first of several truly independent confirmations that the anomaly is indeed present in the Pioneer Doppler data.

• "The constancy of the Pioneer anomalous acceleration." Ø. Olsen. A&A 463, 393-397 (2007). Another independent confirmation of the Pioneer acceleration, with emphasis on studying its constancy.

• "Independent analysis of the orbits of Pioneer 10 and 11." Viktor. T. Toth. IJMPD Vol 18, No 5, 717-741 (2009). Independently developed orbit determination code confirming the Pioneer anomaly and showing the presence of a possible jerk term in the data.

And according to The Pioneer Anomaly Project, there are at least 3 others.

So this hypothesis should not go into the article until it gets at least some independent backing from a reliable source (cites, peer review, etc.) LouScheffer (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Problems with Celestial ephemerides in an expanding universe

This section is written as if the anomaly is not well-explained, e.g. stating without citation that the accepted explanation only accounts foe 10% of the anomaly, in contradiction to the rest of the article. It also provides no citations to papers or other research supporting the claim that the anomaly can be explained by Celestial ephemerides. It reads like original research (or to put it less politely, somebody's pet theory.)

I propose that this subsection be removed entirely. Czetie (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Looking back, this section was added by the paper's author on 20 March 2014. This is an obvious conflict of interest. Also, as pointed out, it's written in a non-neutral tone, and does not discuss the contradictions with other explanations. I'll remove it. LouScheffer (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm having second thoughts on this. It may be wrong, but the section title is "Previously proposed explanations", which indeed this is. Many of the other proposed explanations (especially the theoretical ones) don't have much support either. Either we should take them all out, or leave them in as history. I'll add this back in but change the wording. LouScheffer (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Your revised wording seems like the fairest treatment to me. I might be tempted to add that the underlying theory is not well-supported in the physics community, but on the whole this probably isn't the place for such commentary. Czetie (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Removed "disputed" tag on MOND.

I removed the "factual accuracy disputed" tag from 2014 on the sub-section "MOND". Since all the sub-sections here in the fall under the section "previously proposed explanations", all that is required is to show they were indeed proposed, not that they are now believed to be correct. LouScheffer (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Coulomb Attraction

An anonymous editor has been trying to add "Coulomb Attraction" to the article, as a possible explanation. Even though this explanation is suggested in a peer-reviewed article, it has several real and potential limitations that (in my opinion) make it non-encyclopedic. First, it does not fit in this section, which is "Previously proposed explanations". These are explanations put forward before the scientific consensus on the "thermal recoil model" was established in about 2012. The Coulomb model was not mentioned until 2016 (according to google scholar) and published in 2020. Therefore this model needs to show both why the consensus model is wrong, and the new explanation is correct. Since the consensus model has the support of at least 3 other research groups, and is consistent with other missions, the Coulomb explanation has a high burden of proof. But it has not yet received the support (or indeed any cites) from anyone else. It's behind a paywall so the editors here cannot easily form an opinion themselves. And even the person (or persons) who added this reference did not support it publicly - it's all done by anonymous editor(s).

Of course it is theoretically possible that an idea that goes against the existing scientific consensus is nevertheless correct. However, before being added to an overview of the topic (such as a Wikipedia summary) it needs to meet a reasonable burden of proof, which this idea has not yet met.

Other opinions are of course welcome. LouScheffer (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)