« Searching for Extraterrestrial Intelligence - looking in the wrong direction? | Main | How to convert a Lead Acid Battery into an Alkaline Battery »

PrintPrinter-friendly version

LaViolette prediction of Pioneer anomaly challenges energy conservation law


Pioneer's encounter with Jupiter - Artist's rendition. Source: NASA

In 1978, while still a doctoral student at Portland State University in Portland, Oregon, Paul LaViolette made a prediction, which like Einstein's prediction of the bending of starlight may one day be destined to shake the world. At that time, he was developing a unified field theory called subquantum kinetics. Unlike string theory, which has never made any testable predictions, LaViolette's subquantum kinetics theory makes several, ten of which have thus far been confirmed. One in particular challenges the most fundamental of physical laws, the law of energy conservation. Subquantum kinetics predicts that a photon's energy should not remain constant but rather should change with time, that photons traveling through interstellar space or trapped within stars or planets should continually increase in energy, although at a very slow rate. For example, his theory predicts that a photon traveling through our solar system should increase its energy at a rate of somewhat greater than one part in 1018 per second.

While this rate of energy change is far too small to measure in the laboratory, if present it would be extremely significant for astrophysics. Essentially, it would require that astrophysicists scrap all their existing theories on stellar evolution and stellar energy production. Subquantum kinetics predicts that all celestial bodies, whether they be a planet or star should produce energy in their interior. Although the energy excess produced by any given photon each second would be incredibly small, when the cumulative effect of trillions upon trillions of photons inside a planet or star are added up, the amount of energy becomes quite sizable. LaViolette coined the term "genic energy" to refer to this spontaneously created energy.

Thanks to Andrew Michrowski of PACE for sharing this release (PDF) by the Starburst Foundation in Athens, Greece. Read more...

- - -

The Pioneer Effect Discovery and the Amazing Theory that Predicted it
Journal article announces early prediction of the Pioneer Effect
Paul A. LaViolette, "The Pioneer maser signal anomaly: Possible confirmation of
spontaneous photon blueshifting." Physics Essays 18(2) (2005/2007): 150-163. In print as of January 2007.

The article is available on line at arxiv.org:

The Pioneer maser signal anomaly: Possible confirmation of spontaneous photon blueshifting

The implications of LaViolette's genic energy prediction may extend far outside the battle with the white tower physics establishment to embrace society as a whole. Routinely the U.S. Patent Office rejects patents on so called free-energy devices that claim to generate energy without burning any kind of fuel. To do this they cite violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics. Even though the inventor in many cases provides signed affidavits of witnesses claiming to have tested the device and affirming that it works just as claimed, usually the patent is rejected in deference to the sacred law of energy conservation. As a result, many inventions that attempt to provide us with an alternative to burning fossil fuels end up in society's trash bin. By casting doubt on the absolute validity of this law, the genic energy prediction could help to thaw patent examiners' prejudiced stance on these technologies. With global warming well upon us, it is time the physics community takes a fresh look at LaViolette's prediction and does some deep soul searching.

In this context, see also another article by LaViolette:

Moving Beyond the First Law and Advanced Field Propulsion Technologies

and an article on self-organizing criticality:

Y-Bias and Angularity: The Dynamics of Self-Organizing Criticality

See also:

Subquantum Kinetics: A Systems Approach to Physics and Cosmology

Genesis of the Cosmos: The Ancient Science of Continuous Creation
by Paul A. LaViolette

Newfound Data Could Solve NASA's Great Gravity Mystery
"I would like to see this story reach its finality," said Slava Turyshev, an astrophysicist with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) who has spent the last 14 years--some of it on his own time--studying the Pioneer Anomaly. "So if it's conventional physics, that's fine and we can all go about our daily business. But if it's something else, there may be another page."

Pioneer 10 Mystery
Something strange is happening in the outer reaches of our solar system. The Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft are not where they are supposed to be. These missions, launched in 1972 and 1973, have covered hundreds of millions of kilometers, heading toward the edge of our solar system. But something is holding them back. Each year, they fall behind in their projected travel by about 5,000 kilometers (3,000 miles).

Jet Propulsion Laboratory scientist John Anderson and his colleagues have been searching for an explanation since 1980. But as of yet, they have found nothing conclusive; no spacecraft behavior or previously unknown property of the outer solar system can explain the deceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft. Scientists are being forced to consider the unthinkable: something may be wrong with our understanding of the laws of physics.

NASA baffled by unexplained force acting on space probes
Mysteriously, five spacecraft that flew past the Earth have each displayed unexpected anomalies in their motions. These newfound enigmas join the so-called "Pioneer anomaly" as hints that unexplained forces may appear to act on spacecraft.

"I am feeling both humble and perplexed by this," said Anderson, who is now working as a retiree. "There is something very strange going on with spacecraft motions. We have no convincing explanation for either the Pioneer anomaly or the flyby anomaly."

Resolving Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Anomalies with Measured Light Speed Anisotropy (PDF)

Doppler shift observations of spacecraft, such as Galileo, NEAR, Cassini, Rosetta and MESSENGER in earth flybys, have all revealed unexplained speed 'anomalies' - that the doppler shift determined speeds are inconsistent with expected speeds. Here it is shown that these speed anomalies are not real and are actually the result of using an incorrect relationship between the observed doppler shift and the speed of the spacecraft - a relationship based on the assumption that the speed of light is isotropic in all frames, viz invariant. Taking account of the repeatedly measured light speed anisotropy the anomalies are resolved ab initio. The Pioneer 10/11 anomalies are discussed, but not resolved. The spacecraft observations demonstrate again that the speed of light is not invariant, and is isotropic only with respect to a dynamical 3-space.
The existing doppler shift data also offers a resource to characterise a new form of gravitational waves, the dynamical 3-space turbulence, that has also been detected by other techniques.

PrintPrintable Version


Prolog about METOZ:
All Metoz machine about you can find:
GOOgleee, index of metozor too.

John Kierein says by email:

This somewhat like my theory, except I predict photons lose energy to intervening mass via the Compton effect and energy is conserved.

Michael comments (by email):

This is interesting because this implies that color shifts (ie the infamous "red shift" that's under debate now) are not as related to celestial body movement as believed. Color is directly dependent on the energy level of a photon - red photons have less energy than say, blue, which is why a blue photon can be split into two entangled reds, but not vice versa. According to what is implied here, a red could over time become a different color, and even eventually become a blue photon over a long enough time.

Sorry his theory does not match known results.

When a nova occurs, the neutrinos arive first, visible light second, and gamma rays third. Quite a lag time delay there.

Therefore, the wavelength must stretch out, i.e., the radiation SLOWS DOWN and the photons lose energy, not gain energy.

That is only for starters.

Dear Sepp,

Einstein has persuaded, that the true physicist in a condition to explain sense of the theory even to the seven-year child. I not the theorist, and the modest experimenter, and therefore, probably, more naive and confused in understanding of "grandiose" theories, than the seven-year child.
Our Sun continuously (!) radiates billions tons of the particles bearing enormous energy, which on orders surpasses an increment of energy of photons, about which there is a speech (as thus photons "grow rich" increase in energy only "... one part in 10^18 per second... "). These "emitting" the Sun radiation and corpuscles are subjects on whom occurs as dissipation mentioned (any) photons, and their sensitization - by means of multistage transitions to quantum levels of the excited conditions, with the subsequent one-stage transition to the bottom quantum level. These processes in space plasma are much more intensive and more clear, than what here are discussed. Therefore for check of the described theory as it is represented to me, it is necessary " to catch for a tail " separately taken photon, that proceedingly it is rather problematic. It is interesting, how great theorists could describe more cleverly this situation? I am interested in all it with procedure, even mental, experiments.

On January 21, 2007, David G. Yurth wrote:

I have just received a copy of the paper written by Dr. Paul La Violette. As you review it, you will see that it fundamentally validates one of the key concepts included in the Y-Bias model. This is extremely exciting because it means that we have suddenly been handed independent validation in a way that we had never anticipated, from a
truly impeccable source. I still can't get unwound enough to get to sleep.

- - - -

Y-Bias and Angularity: The Dynamics of Self-Organizing Criticality


For the simple and ultimate explanation, do visit http://www.sittampalam.net/PioneerAnomaly.htm
And, to make it all worthwhile, why not also challenge this final concept to the satisfaction of a university physics department head, alone, and collect US$25,000? No joke; no scam; details in www.sittampalam.net.

Can't access your 'subquantum kinetics' theory. Could you e-mail me an informative document therupon? Thanks, CV

The theory is actually written up in a book, which is linked from the article.

For a quick overview comparing subquantum kinetics to the conventional view, see this page:


The Pioneer anomaly could simply be explained in terms of the earth's rotation. See my web page Explanation of the Pioneer 10 and 11 Acceleration Anomaly for more.


Kiril Chukanov writes (email):

I just read the article in your web-site about Pioneer anomaly. Did you see my explanation and formula for this "mysterious" acceleration? This is posted in my web-site: www.chukanovenergy.com - GQM-4, Chapter I and on the front page of the site (animation).

All picture with english text were destroyed./prolog for metoz.html /
Pictures with polish text you can find on:GOOglee;metozor;index of metozor.

The cause of the Pioneer anomaly Solved


Kind regards

Bjarne Lorenzen

Leave a comment


Receive updates

Email updates for new articles

Enter your Email