Could redshift be wrong?

BoJangles · Jul 18, 2008

<p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">We all understand the Doppler Effect (to a certain degree). But could red shift be inaccurate; we know red shift has changed a lot since it was first accepted, i.e. the value has been refined and in early cases moved considerably. </font></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Without sounding like Halton Arp himself:</font></p><ul><li><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Is there any room for improvement here? </font></div></li><li><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Could an improved red shift help explain such things as dark energy and matter.</font></div></li><li><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm"><font face="Calibri" size="3">And why are things red shifted anyway, why does a photon lose energy (or whatever the reason it’s shifted)?</font></div></li></ul><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"> </p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Please note: I'm not trying to start an instant “bash the newbie” experiment. I'm sure a lot of people have the same questions and would like to ask our peers in the physics and cosmological community for their views.</font></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#808080">-------------- </font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog. With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... </em></font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>*** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research ***</em></font></p> </div>

aphh · Jul 18, 2008

<p>I'm not into physics much, but I think a photon does not lose energy, when it travels. Instead it gets absorbed in the matter that it collides with. Or gets reflected by the matter and bounced in another direction.</p><p>So the longer the distance the more photons get absorbed on the way, or reflected and scattered. The observer receives less photons and thus the amount of received energy is less.</p><p>If you could concentrate the photons on a very narrow beam (i.e. something like laser), in theory you would not loose photons because of different trajectories and scattering. But there might still be matter in the way of the beam, that absorbed or reflected the photons and energy loss at the receiving end would be measured.  </p>

DrRocket · Jul 18, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We all understand the Doppler Effect (to a certain degree). But could red shift be inaccurate; we know red shift has changed a lot since it was first accepted, i.e. the value has been refined and in early cases moved considerably. Without sounding like Halton Arp himself:Is there any room for improvement here? Could an improved red shift help explain such things as dark energy and matter.And why are things red shifted anyway, why does a photon lose energy (or whatever the reason it’s shifted)? Please note: I'm not trying to start an instant “bash the newbie” experiment. I'm sure a lot of people have the same questions and would like to ask our peers in the physics and cosmological community for their views.  <br />Posted by Manwh0re</DIV></p><p>The idea that the universe is expanding and that the rate of expansion is accelerating is based on red shift data.  Dark energy is a hypothesis that has been advanced to try to explain the accelerating expansion.  So if the red shift data were to be revised it might have an effect on the dark energy hypothesis, and if it were revised so as to eliminate the notion that the expansion rate is increasing would probably eliminate the notion of dark energy altogether (that was the situation prior to the late 1990s when the acceleration of expansion was found).</p><p>Red shift can occur due to motion of the emitter, due to expansion of space, or due to gravitational effects.  The basic idea is that which is explained by Doppler shift -- the wavelength associated with the photon is increased, hence the frequency is decreased (since the speed of light in a vacuum is constant) and energy is proportional to frequency.  It is perhaps worth noting that the notion of energy is dependent on the reference frame.  A baseball has kinetic energy because of its motion.  But to an observer moving along with the baseball, the baseball is stationary and has no kinetic energy.  That fact is used by catchers, who sometimes move their mitt backwards when fielding the ball, reducing the sting by reducing th kinetic energy of the ball relative to their hand at the moment of impact.</p><p>The difficulty is not is determining red shift per se, but in the measurements that relate red shift to distance.  Hubble first noted that red shift seems to be directly proportinal to distance, and made that determination by relating red shift to the apparent luminosity of stars (called standard candles) for which we think we know the intrinsic luminosity.  Now luminosity is a function of distance, simply because the emitted photons spread out to cover the surface of a sphere at a given distance, so that the density of photons decreases like the square of the distance.  So, if you know the density of photons emitted, then by knowing the density of photons received you can determine distance.  Correlating that with red shift give the Hubble constant.  But as you can see there are assumptions about intrinsic luminosity that can greatly affect that correlation, not to mention ordinary experimental error sources.  So, yes there is room for improvement and refinement, but the techniques are the best that we have at this time and we think that they are pretty good.</p><p>The dark matter hypothesis is related to an apparent lack of matter within galaxies needed to hold rotating spiral galaxies together agains the centrifugal force that ought to accompany the rotation.  This problem is not closely related to red shift. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

derekmcd · Jul 18, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm not into physics much, but I think a photon does not lose energy, when it travels. Instead it gets absorbed in the matter that it collides with. Or gets reflected by the matter and bounced in another direction.So the longer the distance the more photons get absorbed on the way, or reflected and scattered. The observer receives less photons and thus the amount of received energy is less.If you could concentrate the photons on a very narrow beam (i.e. something like laser), in theory you would not loose photons because of different trajectories and scattering. But there might still be matter in the way of the beam, that absorbed or reflected the photons and energy loss at the receiving end would be measured.   <br /> Posted by aphh</DIV></p><p>As far as I know, there is no known mechanism for an individual photon to lose energy OTHER THAN through interaction with another medium.  When a photon interacts with other particles, it can transfer its momentum to said particles.  This is the only way for a photon to decrease its energy.</p><p>When a photon is redshifted, technically, it does not lose energy.  The value of the energy is a perception based on whatever it is that is recieving the photon.  Consider two receptors travelling in opposite directions, but recieve the photons from a distance source at the same distance from the source.  One will detect the photon at a lower frequency, the other will detect a higher frequency... The photon, by itself, never changed. </p><p>What you are describing with beams of light is correct, but has nothing to do with redshift.  You are describing the many scattering effects of electromagnetic radiation.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

aphh · Jul 18, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As far as I know, there is no known mechanism for an individual photon to lose energy OTHER THAN through interaction with another medium.  When a photon interacts with other particles, it can transfer its momentum to said particles.  This is the only way for a photon to decrease its energy.When a photon is redshifted, technically, it does not lose energy.  The value of the energy is a perception based on whatever it is that is recieving the photon.  Consider two receptors travelling in opposite directions, but recieve the photons from a distance source at the same distance from the source.  One will detect the photon at a lower frequency, the other will detect a higher frequency... The photon, by itself, never changed. What you are describing with beams of light is correct, but has nothing to do with redshift.  You are describing the many scattering effects of electromagnetic radiation. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Thanks for the clarification. <br /><br />I indeed meant the beam example being an example of why the distance makes the level of energy of the photon source decrease, the photons get scattered even with no matter to interact with in between the source and the receiver. <br /><br />I'm sure there is a law for the decrease in energy, maybe it is the inverse-square of the distance (twice the distance, 1/4th of photons received)?    </p>

derekmcd · Jul 18, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanks for the clarification. I indeed meant the beam example being an example of why the distance makes the level of energy of the photon source decrease, the photons get scattered even with no matter to interact with in between the source and the receiver. I'm sure there is a law for the decrease in energy, maybe it is the inverse-square of the distance (twice the distance, 1/4th of photons received)?     <br /> Posted by aphh</DIV></p><p>Correct.  That's the inverse square law that reduces intensity.  This is not associated with scattering. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

DrRocket · Jul 18, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanks for the clarification. I indeed meant the beam example being an example of why the distance makes the level of energy of the photon source decrease, the photons get scattered even with no matter to interact with in between the source and the receiver. I'm sure there is a law for the decrease in energy, maybe it is the inverse-square of the distance (twice the distance, 1/4th of photons received)?     <br />Posted by aphh</DIV></p><p>And you can see how that inverse square law arises from nothing more than the idea that light is composed of particles, called photons.  Here is the derivation.</p><p>Think of light as spreading out uniformly from a point source.  At a distance r from the point, the particles are uniformly distributed over a sphere of radius r, and hence surface area 4*pi*r^2 so if the number of photons released initially from the point was N, the numbere of photons per unit area on that sphere is N/(4*pi*r^2).  Since the energy is proportional, for a given frequency, to the number of photons, energy also drops off like the square of the distance.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

aphh · Jul 18, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And you can see how that inverse square law arises from nothing more than the idea that light is composed of particles, called photons.  Here is the derivation.Think of light as spreading out uniformly from a point source.  At a distance r from the point, the particles are uniformly distributed over a sphere of radius r, and hence surface area 4*pi*r^2 so if the number of photons released initially from the point was N, the numbere of photons per unit area on that sphere is N/(4*pi*r^2).  Since the energy is proportional, for a given frequency, to the number of photons, energy also drops off like the square of the distance. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Thanks very much. That's what I meant (but didn't have the math readily available). <br /><br />What about a laser beam. Because not all photon emitters are uniform point sources, does laser beam follow the law of the inverse-square of the distance aswell? On a laser the photon flux is concentrated using a mechanism, unlike a star or a light-bulb. </p>

aphh · Jul 18, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Correct.  That's the inverse square law that reduces intensity.  This is not associated with scattering.  <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Scattering probably was not the right word, but the level of signal received drops because less photons collide with the sensor when the distance grows. When the distance grows, more photons go right past the sensor using the formula given by Doctor.</p><p>So we need a larger mirror or a sensor to collect the photons. </p>

derekmcd · Jul 18, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Scattering probably was not the right word, but the level of signal received drops because less photons collide with the sensor when the distance grows. When the distance grows, more photons go right past the sensor using the formula given by Doctor.So we need a larger mirror or a sensor to collect the photons. <br /> Posted by aphh</DIV></p><p>A larger mirror, or better yet... longer exposure times.</p><p>As for laser beams... I'm not quite sure, but I don't believe the inverse square law applies to focused or collimated beams.  I could be wrong.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

alkalin · Jul 19, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A larger mirror, or better yet... longer exposure times.As for laser beams... I'm not quite sure, but I don't believe the inverse square law applies to focused or collimated beams.  I could be wrong. <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV><br /><br /><span style="font-size:12pt"><font face="Times New Roman">My two cents worth.<span>  </span>Lasers and point sources are different. Most lasers are not truly collimated but close. If they were, there would still be diffraction that will pull the beam apart at great distances.<span>  </span></font></span><span style="font-size:12pt"><font face="Times New Roman"> </font></span><span style="font-size:12pt"><font face="Times New Roman">Stars can be treated as point sources and relations to distance can be calculated based on what is known about the intrinsic or absolute brightness of the star and what we measure as relative brightness—the number of photons we get from them.<span>  </span></font></span><span style="font-size:12pt"><font face="Times New Roman"> </font></span><span style="font-size:12pt"><font face="Times New Roman">On the question of red shift astronomers do not want ideas that red shift can come about without the notions of Doppler theory that has been worked on for many years. But I think it is likely all this work could actually be wrong. </font></span><span style="font-size:12pt"><font face="Times New Roman"> </font></span><span style="font-size:12pt"><font face="Times New Roman">Here is why.<span>  </span>Big bang theory has made predictions to test the theory and in almost every case it has been very wrong.<span>  </span>But always an idea was presented to put into some equation to make the big bang notion correct even though it failed, but it had to invent such things as dark matter and energy.<span>  </span>Normally one bad prediction of theory is enough to seriously cause doubt on the validity of the theory but apparently not so on this topic.</font></span><span style="font-size:12pt"><font face="Times New Roman"> </font></span><span style="font-size:12pt"><font face="Times New Roman">Red shift is verifiable in lab work on correlation effects on light, meaning that matter can and does change light’s wavelength in free space.<span>  </span>Called The Wolf Effect, which is not Compton scattering, but both should be considered.</font></span><span style="font-size:12pt"><font face="Times New Roman"> </font></span><span style="font-size:12pt"><font face="Times New Roman">So what are we to think as to what is in space in the so called IGM (InterGalactic Medium)?<span>  </span>Astronomers mostly ignore it because it cannot be measured, and tell us that there is so little it does not matter. What if this matter really is the cause of red shift?<span>  </span>I think we would see a red shift due to it (not Doppler) that increases with distance. It does suggest that certain objects exhibit more red shift than others and indicate more intense light correlation for those objects.<span>  </span>Quasars are an example.<span>  </span></font></span><span style="font-size:12pt"><font face="Times New Roman"> </font></span><span style="font-size:12pt"><font face="Times New Roman">This clearly is not as simple as Doppler theory and would need considerable work on detail to work out distance.<span>  </span>But there is little work in the mainstream yet, but kooks like me still like to look at alternate ideas.</font></span><span style="font-size:12pt"><font face="Times New Roman"> </font></span><span style="font-size:12pt"><font face="Times New Roman">Have fun, Alkalin</font></span><span style="font-size:12pt"><font face="Times New Roman"> </font></span>

DrRocket · Jul 19, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>My two cents worth.  Lasers and point sources are different. Most lasers are not truly collimated but close. If they were, there would still be diffraction that will pull the beam apart at great distances. ..Posted by alkalin</DIV></p><p>Lasers and point sources are not really so different.  You can do a very similar thing with lasers, based on a dispersion angle, so long as you are far enough away that the finite diameter of the laser can be considered a point.  The power still drops off like the square of the distance inside the solid angle covered by the laser.  The principle is still that the surface grows like the square of the distance and the light is distributed over a portion of that sphere, at least at distances that are large with respect to the spot size at the origin.  Even with hot spots this applies as long as you simply view things locally.  If the laser were perfectly collimated then you would get no decrease in power with distance, but that would require a zero dispersion angle, and there really is no such thing.</p><p>Also the inverse square law does not apply close to the laser, where the beam is more accurately approximated as a plane wave.  But for reasonably large distances and normal-sized lasers a point model works fine within the dispersion cone.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

emperor_of_localgroup · Jul 19, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>  On the question of red shift astronomers do not want ideas that red shift can come about without the notions of Doppler theory that has been worked on for many years. ....... Red shift is verifiable in lab work on correlation effects on light, meaning that matter can and does change light’s wavelength in free space.  Called The Wolf Effect, which is not Compton scattering, but both should be considered. So what are we to think as to what is in space in the so called IGM (InterGalactic Medium)?  Astronomers mostly ignore it because it cannot be measured, and tell us that there is so little it does not matter. What if this matter really is the cause of red shift?  I think we would see a red shift due to it (not Doppler) that increases with distance. It does suggest that certain objects exhibit more red shift than others and indicate more intense light correlation for those objects.  Quasars are an example.   This clearly is not as simple as Doppler theory and would need considerable work on detail to work out distance.  But there is little work in the mainstream yet, but kooks like me still like to look at alternate ideas. Have fun, Alkalin  <br /> Posted by alkalin</DIV></p><p><font size="2">All alrams should have gone off  the moment scientists  found red shift tells us certian galaxies  had been  moving away from us near the speed of light. This high speed should have been the tell tale signs that one probably can not use red shift in all cases to determine speed. (Similar thing can also be said about pulsars. If you find a pulsar, remember it's a  kind of star, is rotating at speed of 1000 spins/sec, for heavens sake it's 1 second, then you must look for a new theory for pulsar).</font></p><p><font size="2"> There are so many unknowns between distant galaxies and us,  giving red shift the full credit, IMO, is kind of oversimplification. Even gravity can change wavelengths of light by general relativity.  Are they saying deep space is void of gravitational fields? And who knows what else can change wavelength of light.</font></p><p><font size="2">Have scientists done any experiment that </font><font size="2" color="#ff0000">directly</font><font size="2"> shows light wavelengths do change because of motion of the source, I mean by direct measurement of wavelength, not by measuring time. Because light speed is supposed to be independent of reference frame.</font></p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

DrRocket · Jul 20, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...And who knows what else can change wavelength of light.Have scientists done any experiment that directly shows light wavelengths do change because of motion of the source, I mean by direct measurement of wavelength, not by measuring time. Because light speed is supposed to be independent of reference frame.  <br />Posted by emperor_of_localgroup</DIV></p><p>How about Doppler radar ?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

derekmcd · Jul 20, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I mean by direct measurement of wavelength, not by measuring time. Because light speed is supposed to be independent of reference frame.  <br /> Posted by emperor_of_localgroup</DIV></p><p>Redshift experiment:</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-Rebka_experiment</p><p> </p><p>Redshift is pretty straight forward.  All elements emit photons at certain wavelength.  Stars/galaxies/clusters all have specific spectral lines that should be standard... but they're not.  They are blue/redshifted depending on their speed and distance. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

derekmcd · Jul 20, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>On the question of red shift astronomers do not want ideas that red shift can come about without the notions of Doppler theory that has been worked on for many years.</DIV></p><p>What gives you this idea? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But I think it is likely all this work could actually be wrong.  Here is why.  Big bang theory has made predictions to test the theory and in almost every case it has been very wrong.</DIV></p><p>What predictions have failed? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But always an idea was presented to put into some equation to make the big bang notion correct even though it failed, but it had to invent such things as dark matter and energy.  Normally one bad prediction of theory is enough to seriously cause doubt on the validity of the theory but apparently not so on this topic.</DIV></p><p>Again... What part of the Big Bang Theory failed? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Red shift is verifiable in lab work on correlation effects on light, meaning that matter can and does change light’s wavelength in free space.  Called The Wolf Effect, which is not Compton scattering, but both should be considered.</DIV></p><p>The Sachs-Wolfe effect is a gravitation redshift phenomena found in the CMB.  Compton scattering is not redshift.  Compton Scattering is an effect where the photon gives part of its energy/momentum to an electron and scatters off at an angle.  There's no way this could be confused with redshift from distant galactic clusters. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So what are we to think as to what is in space in the so called IGM (InterGalactic Medium)?  Astronomers mostly ignore it because it cannot be measured, and tell us that there is so little it does not matter. What if this matter really is the cause of red shift?  I think we would see a red shift due to it (not Doppler) that increases with distance.</DIV></p><p>If photons were interacting with the intergalactic medium, we would see it... literally.  But we don't because the IGM is so incredible sparce. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It does suggest that certain objects exhibit more red shift than others and indicate more intense light correlation for those objects.  Quasars are an example.   This clearly is not as simple as Doppler theory and would need considerable work on detail to work out distance.  But there is little work in the mainstream yet, but kooks like me still like to look at alternate ideas. Have fun, Alkalin</p><p>Posted by alkalin</DIV><br /></p><p>Are you referring to Arp and his quasar hypothesis? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

alkalin · Jul 21, 2008

<span style="font-size:12pt"><font face="Times New Roman">If I were a better writer I would have stated some potential causes of red shift at the start and elaborated on each.<span>  </span>Sorry if my previous remark caused confusion.</font></span><span style="font-size:12pt"><font face="Times New Roman"> </font></span><span style="font-size:12pt"><font face="Times New Roman">The well accepted model is that red shift seen in the distant universe is caused by objects moving apart; hence Doppler theory players come into the playground and dominate over the other little kids.<span>  </span></font></span><span style="font-size:12pt"><font face="Times New Roman"> </font></span><span style="font-size:12pt"><font face="Times New Roman">One BB prediction, the latest that failed, is that we should see only small blue galaxies in the early universe. What studies have shown is that there are large OLD galaxies out there at 11 billion LYS.<span>  </span>There are a couple of sources I could cite on the studies. Astronomers would like us to believe that maybe the small blue ones somehow immediately merged and formed large OLD galaxies in a very small amount of time. The problem with this idea is that small galaxies if they could merge are still composed of young stars.<span>  </span>Where did all the OLD stars come from? Another problem with the idea is that we would need to see them merging by the millions.<span>  </span>Show me.</font></span><span style="font-size:12pt"><font face="Times New Roman"> </font></span><span style="font-size:12pt"><font face="Times New Roman">This is reminiscent of the notions proposed that supernova needed to be very prevalent to create all the heavy metals that are found.<span>  </span>Another failed prediction because we see very few supernova.<span>  </span>At the rate we see supernova the universe must be far older than 13.7 billion years for all the heavy metals we see that exist.</font></span><span style="font-size:12pt"><font face="Times New Roman"> </font></span><span style="font-size:12pt"><font face="Times New Roman">The Wolf Effect is not the same as Sachs-Wolfe.<span>  </span>But both are important to consider in certain regions of phenomena.<span>  </span>Compton is scatter as you say, but will also influence light in the universe.</font></span><span style="font-size:12pt"><font face="Times New Roman"> </font></span><span style="font-size:12pt"><font face="Times New Roman">I think that brings us to the IGM content again.<span>  </span>I remember a study a few years ago that an indirect method was used to try to establish what IGM might exist in those regions of space. <span> </span>It was based on detection of polarization on light in the IGM and the investigators were surprised by the levels they found.</font></span><span style="font-size:12pt"><font face="Times New Roman"> </font></span><span style="font-size:12pt"><font face="Times New Roman">Arp is one of the kids in the playground.<span>  </span>Has he been bullied?</font></span><span style="font-size:12pt"><font face="Times New Roman"> </font></span><span style="font-size:12pt"><font face="Times New Roman">Alkalin</font></span><span style="font-size:12pt"><font face="Times New Roman"> </font></span>

DrRocket · Jul 21, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If I were a better writer I would have stated some potential causes of red shift at the start and elaborated on each.  Sorry if my previous remark caused confusion. The well accepted model is that red shift seen in the distant universe is caused by objects moving apart; hence Doppler theory players come into the playground and dominate over the other little kids.   One BB prediction, the latest that failed, is that we should see only small blue galaxies in the early universe. What studies have shown is that there are large OLD galaxies out there at 11 billion LYS.  There are a couple of sources I could cite on the studies. Astronomers would like us to believe that maybe the small blue ones somehow immediately merged and formed large OLD galaxies in a very small amount of time. The problem with this idea is that small galaxies if they could merge are still composed of young stars.  Where did all the OLD stars come from? Another problem with the idea is that we would need to see them merging by the millions.  Show me. This is reminiscent of the notions proposed that supernova needed to be very prevalent to create all the heavy metals that are found.  Another failed prediction because we see very few supernova.  At the rate we see supernova the universe must be far older than 13.7 billion years for all the heavy metals we see that exist. The Wolf Effect is not the same as Sachs-Wolfe.  But both are important to consider in certain regions of phenomena.  Compton is scatter as you say, but will also influence light in the universe. I think that brings us to the IGM content again.  I remember a study a few years ago that an indirect method was used to try to establish what IGM might exist in those regions of space.  It was based on detection of polarization on light in the IGM and the investigators were surprised by the levels they found. Arp is one of the kids in the playground.  Has he been bullied? Alkalin  <br />Posted by alkalin</DIV></p><p>If you are going to state that a theory has failed you ought to provide specific, quantified, examples of that failure with the evidence to back it up.  When you deny the validity of a theory that is generally accepted in the scientific community the onus of proof lies with you.  So rather than "show me" the issue is for you to "show us".  </p><p>The Wolf effect would appear to be rather specialized and not of great cosmological importance, unless you have data to the contrary to present.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_effect</p><p>Why do you ask if Arp has been bullied ?  Who would bully him and why ?  I think he is quite old enough to fail to qualify as a kid.  <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

derekmcd · Jul 21, 2008

<p><strong>One BB prediction, the latest that failed, is that we should see only small blue galaxies in the early universe. What studies have shown is that there are large OLD galaxies out there at 11 billion LYS.</strong></p><p>I think the term "mature" might be better terminology than "old" when discussing these galaxies.  That they have matured faster does, indeed, call into question the Hierarchical Model of galaxy formation, but this does not necessarily mean that they are "older" which would require a rework of the Big Bang Theory.   We might have better answer when the JWST is sending back data.   Until then, no reason to jump to conclusions that any predictions of the big bang have been shown to be incorrect. </p><p><strong>Another problem with the idea is that we would need to see them merging by the millions.  Show me.</strong> </p><p>Show me where "merging by the millions" would be needed? </p><p><strong>This is reminiscent of the notions proposed that supernova needed to be very prevalent to create all the heavy metals that are found.  Another failed prediction because we see very few supernova.  At the rate we see supernova the universe must be far older than 13.7 billion years for all the heavy metals we see that exist.</strong> </p><p>http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/why_hyper.html </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"While there is, on average, only one supernova per galaxy per century, there is something on the order of 100 billion galaxies in the observable Universe (which refers to the part of the Universe light has had time to reach us). Taking 10 billion years for the age of the Universe (it's actually 13.7 billion, but stars didn't form for the first few hundred million and it's just an estimate anyway), Dr. Richard Mushotzky of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, derived a figure of 1 billion supernovae per year. That comes to about 30 supernovae per second in the observable Universe!"</em></font></p><p>Big difference between what we can "see" and what is actually going on. </p><p><strong>The Wolf Effect is not the same as Sachs-Wolfe.  But both are important to consider in certain regions of phenomena.  Compton is scatter as you say, but will also influence light in the universe. I think that brings us to the IGM content again.  I remember a study a few years ago that an indirect method was used to try to establish what IGM might exist in those regions of space.  It was based on detection of polarization on light in the IGM and the investigators were surprised by the levels they found. Arp is one of the kids in the playground.  Has he been bullied?</strong></p><p>My fault... I assumed you meant Sachs-Wolfe effect of which I am somewhat familiar with.  The Wolf Effect, however, is new to me.  I don't see the correlation between quasars and the Wolf effect.  Actually, I would believe Arp would jump all over the Wolf effect and incorporate into his ideas regarding quasars, but I don't see it.</p><p>I couldn't find any sources linking the two, but i didn't look very hard either.  Might you have some sources you could link that show the relation between the Wolf effect and cosmological redshifts? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

michaelmozina · Jul 21, 2008

<p>http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Brynjolfsson_A/0/1/0/all/0/1</p><p> </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

DrRocket · Jul 21, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Brynjolfsson_A/0/1/0/all/0/1 <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /> I have looked at Brynjolfson's papers as have some others.  This is the opinion of those who have reviewed the papers.</p><p>1.  His fundamental premise in quantum physics is wrong.</p><p>2.  At least some of his mathematics is completely wrong.</p><p>3.  These papers in some form or other have been around for quite a while.  He has been trying, without success, to have them published.  The journal review system appears to be working admirably in this case.</p><p>4.  They are difficult to read, not because they are deep, but because Ari is confused and that confusion shows up in his writing.  And because the foundations are wrong.  Nonsense is difficult to read.</p><p>5.  There is no such red shift phenomena.</p><p>6.  This stuff is basically junk.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

derekmcd · Jul 21, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Brynjolfsson_A/0/1/0/all/0/1 <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Hasn't Brynjolfsson's papers been rejected by peer review (i.e. never published)?</p><p> </p><p>[edit:  never saw your post DrRocket... else I wouldn't have bothered] </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

michaelmozina · Jul 21, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I have looked at Brynjolfson's papers as have some others.  This is the opinion of those who have reviewed the papers.1.  His fundamental premise in quantum physics is wrong.</DIV></p><p>How so?  How does inflation and dark enregy somehow pass the same scrutiny?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>2.  At least some of his mathematics is completely wrong.</DIV></p><p>Such as?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>3.  These papers in some form or other have been around for quite a while.  He has been trying, without success, to have them published.  The journal review system appears to be working admirably in this case.</DIV></p><p>Because you say so, or because you can actually isolate specific errors?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>4.  They are difficult to read, not because they are deep, but because Ari is confused and that confusion shows up in his writing.  And because the foundations are wrong. </DIV></p><p>Yet the foundations of inflation are somehow "right"?  Compare and contrast these two ideas for me.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nonsense is difficult to read.</DIV></p><p>I find that inflation falls into the same category from my perspective.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>5.  There is no such red shift phenomena.</DIV></p><p>Yet there is somehow a demonstrated inflation phenomenon?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>6.  This stuff is basically junk. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Ad hominem. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

DrRocket · Jul 21, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></DIV><br /><br />Replying to:<br /><div class="Discussion_PostQuote"> I have looked at Brynjolfson's papers as have some others.  This is the opinion of those who have reviewed the papers.</div><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">1.  His fundamental premise in quantum physics is wrong.</div><p>How so?  How does inflation and dark enregy somehow pass the same scrutiny?</p><p><font color="#0000ff">He applies a wave concept to a single photon.  In fact his whole argument himges on this incorrect construct.  Electromagnetic waves are a model applicable only to a large number of photons.  He also shows applies Fourier integral transforms in a situation in which the integrals do no converge. There are probably other examples as well.</font></p><p><font color="#0000ff">Of what possible relevance are inflation and dark energy ?  In any case both inflation and dark energy are hypotheses that do not directly contradict known physics.  Their truth remains to be verified, but at least one cannot immediately dismiss them on the grounds of inconsistency with established physics.</font>  </p><p>Replying to:<br />2.  At least some of his mathematics is completely wrong.</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">Such as?</div><div class="Discussion_PostQuote"><font color="#0000ff">The non-convergent Fourier integrals for a start.</font></div><p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">3.  These papers in some form or other have been around for quite a while.  He has been trying, without success, to have them published.  The journal review system appears to be working admirably in this case.</div><p>Because you say so, or because you can actually isolate specific errors?</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Items 1 and 2 above, particularly item 1 is more than enough for a referee to reject the papers.</font></p><p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">4.  They are difficult to read, not because they are deep, but because Ari is confused and that confusion shows up in his writing.  And because the foundations are wrong. </div><p>Yet the foundations of inflation are somehow "right"?  Compare and contrast these two ideas for me.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">There is no relationship between the two ideas.  Your question is itself silly. Why should we be comparing and contrasting ideas that have nothing to do wiht one another?  But, if you insist -- inflation is at least not in direct contradiction with known physical principles, specifically quantum elelctrodynamics, whereas Ari's "newly discovered" redshift principle depends on constructs that are known to be false (see item 1).</font></p><p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">Nonsense is difficult to read.</div><p> </p><p>I find that inflation falls into the same category from my perspective.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">I am not surprised that inflation theory is difficult for you to read.  It is not particularly easy material, and requires quite a bit of background in mainstream physics and mathematics.  It is, however, not intrinsically nonsensical. </font></p><p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">5.  There is no such red shift phenomena.</div><p>Yet there is somehow a demonstrated inflation phenomenon?</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Actually, yes.  Observations of the cosmic background radiation are remarkably close to the predictions of inflation both with regard to large-scale uniformity and smaller scale anisotropies, particularly the spatial wavelength of observed anisotropies.  There is no evidence whatever for Ari's red shift phenomena, a fact that ought to offend your sensibilities with regard to empirical science.</font></p><p><font color="#0000ff">Why you attempt to support Ari's non-existent red shift mechanism by attacking inflation eludes me.  Do you see some reason that Ari's idea would be correct if inflation were found to be incorrect ?  Inflation may or may not eventually be proven correct, but Ari's nonsense will forever be nonsense.</font></p><p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">6.  This stuff is basically junk. <br />Posted by DrRocket</div><p>Ad hominem. </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Not at all. A simple summary of the items earlier discussed.  It would be an ad hominem argument if I were to argue, for instance, that the red shift notion were falacious simply because Ari seems fixated on a delusional view of physical reality and is not competent nor apparently educated in basic physics and mathematics, thereby calling attention to the author rather than to the ideas.  But no such assessmente of Ari was made.  The criticisms were directed at the content of the papers themselves and not at the person of the author.  </font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · Jul 22, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>1.  His fundamental premise in quantum physics is wrong.<p>How so?  How does inflation and dark enregy somehow pass the same scrutiny?</p><p><font color="#0000ff">He applies a wave concept to a single photon.</font></p><p></DIV></p><p>Whereas inflation is being applied to *every* physical thing in the universe, as is "dark energy".  A single photon does in fact act as both a particle and a wave, and it could in fact be considered a "wave".  I fail to understand this objection.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p><font color="#0000ff">In fact his whole argument himges on this incorrect construct.  Electromagnetic waves are a model applicable only to a large number of photons.  </font></p><p></DIV></p><p>Says who?  I was always taught that a single photon was both a particle and wave.  Weren't you?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p><font color="#0000ff">He also shows applies Fourier integral transforms in a situation in which the integrals do no converge. There are probably other examples as well.</font></p><p></DIV></p><p>I think I need you to elaborate here a bit for me on the Fourier intregral issue.  You may in fact have a point, but I don't quite grasp the point you are trying to make here. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p><font color="#0000ff">Of what possible relevance are inflation and dark energy ?  In any case both inflation and dark energy are hypotheses that do not directly contradict known physics.  Their truth remains to be verified, but at least one cannot immediately dismiss them on the grounds of inconsistency with established physics.</font>  </p><p></DIV></p><p>So you can of course name a known vector or scalar field that is found in nature that undergoes multiple exponential increases in volume and retains near constant density?</p><p>What "established physics" can we compare inflation to?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Replying to:<br />2.  At least some of his mathematics is completely wrong.</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">Such as?</div><div class="Discussion_PostQuote"><font color="#0000ff">The non-convergent Fourier integrals for a start.</font></div><div class="Discussion_PostQuote"></DIV></div><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">Again, you may have a valid point here but you'll have to explain this point to me a bit, and cite a page number and a line number for me so I can see what you mean.<br /></div><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is no relationship between the two ideas.  Your question is itself silly. Why should we be comparing and contrasting ideas that have nothing to do wiht one another?</font></p><p></DIV></p><p>Both ideas are attempting to "explain" exactly the same observed phenomenon.  If you expect me to believe that one method is superior to another, you'll have to explain why that might be true.  I've never seen inflation do anything to anything in a controlled test.   Likewise I've never seen Ari's idea physically demonstreated in a lab.  I therfore see little if any difference between the two ideas in terms of emprical support.  One idea *could* be more mathematically sound perhaps, but from an emprical testing perspective, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#0000ff"> But, if you insist -- inflation is at least not in direct contradiction with known physical principles, specifically quantum elelctrodynamics,</font></p><p></DIV></p><p>What?  Quantum electrodynamics does not support faster than light speed travel.  How do you figure that inflation is not a gross violation of QM?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p><font color="#0000ff">I am not surprised that inflation theory is difficult for you to read.  It is not particularly easy material, and requires quite a bit of background in mainstream physics and mathematics.  It is, however, not intrinsically nonsensical. </font></p><p></DIV></p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">5.  There is no such red shift phenomena.</div><p>Yet there is somehow a demonstrated inflation phenomenon?</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Actually, yes.  Observations of the cosmic background radiation are remarkably close to the predictions of inflation both with regard to large-scale uniformity and smaller scale anisotropies, particularly the spatial wavelength of observed anisotropies.</font></p><p></DIV></p><p>You just used the observation of redshift to "support" inflation, just as Ari used redshift to 'support" his position.  This is a circular feedback loop and a circular line of reasoning.  If you could "control" inflation in a controlled experiment and show that it causes redshift, then you could rightly claim "yes".  Since you can't do that, your "yes" is no better than Ari answering "yes" and pointing to the same observation to support his position.  </p><p>I will grant you that neither idea has been emprically demonstrated in a controlled experiment, but inflation has *not* been shown to have any effect on photons, electrons, positron, proton, atoms or molecules.  It has never done anything to anything in any controlled test.   </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#0000ff">  There is no evidence whatever for Ari's red shift phenomena, a fact that ought to offend your sensibilities with regard to empirical science.</font></p><p></DIV></p><p>Actually, it does.  I would like to see his idea demonstrated in a controlled experiment of some kind, but at least it may actually be able to be verified, since it requires no other known forces of nature to make it work.  Either it can be demonstrate or it will fail to be demonstrated, but there is no "wait and see' approach required in order to build a physical experiment.  I can't physically think of how we might do that just yet, but it is supposedly based on physical laws that have been verified, and ther is only one physical phemenon that must be verified.   He also makes testable predictions about some aspects of GR that might also be used to falsify his idea.</p><p>Inflation however offends those same sensibilies, but it is utterly unfasifiable and completely untested.  Even it's grandiose "prediction" of a homogenous layout of matter has been falsified, but the theory lives on.  It also violates every known density law on the books.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p><font color="#0000ff">Why you attempt to support Ari's non-existent red shift mechanism by attacking inflation eludes me. </font></p><p></DIV></p><p>I'm simply compraring and contrasting different approaches to 'explaining" the same observation of redshift.  I'm not emotionally attached to Ari's theory, I just see it as a viable "tired light' type of theory and such theories have been around for a long time. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#0000ff">Do you see some reason that Ari's idea would be correct if inflation were found to be incorrect ?  Inflation may or may not eventually be proven correct, but Ari's nonsense will forever be nonsense.</font></p><p></DIV></p><p>I think that inflation is just as much "nonsense" as any theory I've ever heard of.  It was not impressive to me when Guth first proposed it, and after 25 years, it still remains unverifed and unimpressive.  It's one way of trying to "explain" redshift, but it is not the only way.  I was simply interjecting the idea into the thread because that was the topic of the thread.</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>6.  This stuff is basically junk. <br />Posted by DrRocket</div><p>Ad hominem. </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Not at all. A simple summary of the items earlier discussed.  It would be an ad hominem argument if I were to argue, for instance, that the red shift notion were falacious simply because Ari seems fixated on a delusional view of physical reality and is not competent nor apparently educated in basic physics and mathematics, thereby calling attention to the author rather than to the ideas.  But no such assessmente of Ari was made.  The criticisms were directed at the content of the papers themselves and not at the person of the author. </font></p><p></DIV></p><p>Your 'wave' argument is utterly invalid IMO, but I'll reserve judgement on the fourier transformation issue until I've heard your response.   As I said, I'm not attached to this idea and if there is a valid criticism to be made, I'm willing to hear it, and accept it.</p><p>As it relates to "emprical evidence" however, there is absolutely no difference between this theory and the inflation theory.  Both ideas lack emprical support.  Ari's idea may be superior only in the sense that it might be able to be falsified in some physical test, whereas there is no known physical test even possible to either A) verify that inflation exists in nature, or B) falsify the theory.</p><p>I litterally see no difference between these two ideas in terms of actual physics.  As I said, there may be a mathematical problem with Ari's presentation that I must look at, but thus far there is no emrpical support for either idea. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

Could redshift be wrong?

BoJangles

Guest

aphh

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

aphh

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

aphh

Guest

aphh

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

alkalin

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

alkalin

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page