Talk:Pioneer anomaly/Archive 2015
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Out of date and overly credulous
As of 2015, this article reads to me as out of date and overly credulous. Two different teams have independently shown that thermal effects can explain the anomaly. Some relevant info is here: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9727/the-pioneer-anomaly-finally-explained --76.169.116.244 (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think the article already makes it clear that themal recoil is the reason for the anomaly. But I agree that it could be more clear by covering in the lead paragraph. You're welcome to do that. -- intgr [talk] 12:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- The lead is fine. But the body, IMO, gives undue weight to lots of discredited explanations.--76.169.116.244 (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Is the pressure from heat loss the latest hypothesis or is it the general consensus that it is the actual explanation? Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
A science article or a history of science article?
From a science point of view, the acceleration is no longer anomalous, and all the other hypotheses could be removed. However, I think the anomaly is interesting precisely because the cause was initially unknown, lots of theories were proposed, and then eventually converged on a concensus conclusion. Looked at this way, the wide variety of alternate explanations is useful, to show how people were thinking about an unexpected result. I'm in the second camp, so I'd leave the (now discredited) explanations in, but I'd be interested in other's opinions. LouScheffer (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's fine to include previous attempts to explain the anomaly in the text, but we need to be clear that the paradox has been resolved to basically everyone's satisfaction. jps (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- How about re-titling the disputed section? It is unnecessarily provocative I think William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully uncontroversially (but experimentally, so revert me if you don't like it) I've moved the "Previously proposed causes" into the "Proposed causes" (and given the latter the former's title), to reflect what I think is correct, the acceptance of the thermal explanation, and the demotion of everything else. I then removed the "Thermal radiation pressure" from the "Previously proposed causes" since it no longer belongs there William M. Connolley (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- The section 'Further research avenues' also needs a makeover. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)