Anderson et al. Reply (to the Comment by Murphy on Pioneer 10/11)
John D. Anderson, Philip A. Laing, Eunice L. Lau, Anthony S. Liu,, Michael Martin Nieto, and Slava G. Turyshev
TL;DR
This paper refutes Murphy's hypothesis that radiation from the main electrical systems explains the Pioneer spacecraft's anomalous acceleration, concluding it is not a viable explanation.
Contribution
It provides a critical analysis dismissing Murphy's proposal as an explanation for the Pioneer anomaly.
Findings
Murphy's radiation hypothesis is inconsistent with observed data.
Main electrical system radiation cannot account for the Pioneer acceleration.
The paper clarifies the limitations of radiation-based explanations.
Abstract
We conclude that Murphy's proposal (radiation of the power of the main-bus electrical systems from the rear of the craft) can not explain the anomalous Pioneer acceleration.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.