1 / 13

The galaxy rotation problem. Newton: Increase M (Dark Matter, Zwicky, 1933, popular solution)

From the Pioneer-flyby anomalies to an alternative cosmology. Mike McCulloch. Honorary Fellow, University of Exeter, UK. Talk for Cosmo-08, 26 th August 2008. The galaxy rotation problem. Newton: Increase M (Dark Matter, Zwicky, 1933, popular solution)

dolf
Télécharger la présentation

The galaxy rotation problem. Newton: Increase M (Dark Matter, Zwicky, 1933, popular solution)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. From the Pioneer-flyby anomalies to an alternative cosmology. Mike McCulloch. Honorary Fellow, University of Exeter, UK. Talk for Cosmo-08, 26th August 2008 • The galaxy rotation problem. Newton: • Increase M (Dark Matter, Zwicky, 1933, popular solution) • Increase G at low acceleration (Milgrom/MOND, 1983) • Reduce mi for low accelerations (Milgrom/MOND, 1983). • So: 1, 2 or 3?

  2. The Pioneer anomaly more easily explained using modified inertia Pioneer 10 & 11 after gravity-assist flybys show an unexplained extra acceleration of 8.7x10-10 m/s2 towards the Sun (Anderson et al., 1998) No explanation so far (Anderson et al., 2002) Earth, 1973 Jupiter Pioneer Saturn The Pioneer have anomalous accelerations, but not the planets. This is easier to explain with modified inertia.

  3. How to reduce inertia for tiny accelerations: Milgrom’s break Hawking (1974) Unruh (1976) Haisch, Ruelle, Puthoff (1994) Milgrom (1999) Magnetic Lorentz force Looks like inertia Can’t explain the Pioneer anomaly: λ is only 0.03% of the Hubble distance!

  4. A Hubble-scale Casimir effect (McCulloch, 2007) The wavelength λof the Unruh radiation varies as The observable universe with two rockets: a For low accelerations, fewer long waves fit in to the Hubble diameter. Hubble-scale Casimir effect

  5. Consequences of modified inertia by a Hubble-scale Casimir effect. Eq. Prin F=ma MOND Has MOND-ish behaviour: 1 MiHsC Mi / mg Putting this into Newton’s laws we get an equation of motion: Acceleration a0 g Even when M=0, acceleration ~ cH ~ c2/Θ (cosmic acceleration, dark energy)

  6. MIHSC agrees with the Pioneer anomaly Observed values are shown as error bars. Predicted a=8.7x10-10 ms-2. Outside 12 AU, the Pioneer Anomaly is predicted without adjustable parameters (although some dependence on choice of Θ) Inside 10 AU it doesn’t agree. Here the Pioneer were bound? Published in: McCulloch, 2007. MNRAS, 376, 338-342

  7. The flyby anomalies, Anderson et al. (2008) Unexpected speed-up of Earth flyby craft by a few mm/s seen by, eg: Antreasian & Guinn (1998) Anderson et al. (2008). Not: relativistic frame dragging computer error, engine firing, tides, Solar wind, geoid error. Lammerzahl et al. (2006).. dv dv Anderson et al. (2008) derived an empirical formula: Said it may be ‘something to do with rotation’…

  8. What if I consider rotational acceleration in MiHsC? Equatorial approach Slightly larger mutual acceleration So inertial mass is larger Polar exit Smaller mutual acc So inertia reduces By cons mtum, speed increases Mach?

  9. So does it give the right answer? Conservation of momentum for craft & Earth before (1) and after (2) flyby Assumed infinite x Derived Observed

  10. The Observed and predicted (MiHsC) flyby anomalies (mm/s) MiHsC theory agrees in 3 out of 6 cases. Not quite as good as the empirical formula (Anderson et al., 2008) but MiHsC has not adjustable parameters. Test: flybys of different planets See McCulloch (2008) MNRAS-letters, 389 (1), L57-60 (arxiv/0806.4159)

  11. The maximum mass for a black hole in MiHsC (McCulloch, 2007) A black hole’s Hawking temperature is: T Using Wien’s law λ=βhc/kT gives M Assume Hawking waves larger than the observable universe can’t exist (λ=Θ): The mass of the observable universe is observed to be ~ 3x1052±1 kg.

  12. Steady state theory + CMB The universe’s mass from MiHsC: Hoyle (1948), steady state: Steady state theory was rejected because it didn’t predict a hot early universe (CMB), but MiHsC does predict hot early universe: When T=3000K, Θ=2mm. McCulloch 2009?, submitted to MNRAS-Letters…

  13. Conclusions • The model: MiHsC, without adjustable parameters, agrees with the following: • Cosmic acceleration: c2/R • The Pioneer anomaly (when the craft were unbound) • The flyby anomalies (assuming Machian acceleration) • The mass of the observable universe • A kind of steady State theory, plus a hot early universe. • MiHsC does not agree with: • Planetary orbits, Earth-bound equivalence principle tests (boundedness?) • To do: • Why does boundedness matter? Or does it? • Model galaxies/clusters with MiHsC • Set up a more direct test in the lab! • Many thanks to the Royal Astronomical Society • & the Institute of Physics’s C.R.Barber trust fund for travel grants.

More Related