The Doppler redshift theory seems the main reason people hold on to the idea of the expansion and a big-bang. I wonder what alternative theories there are, about how what causes the redshift. What are the hypothesis in the Electric Universe?
I have found 6 theories already:
1) photons tend to lose energy along the way a) They interact with the particles and fields in space b) They have a spontaneous interaction and create particles. Just like the zero-point energy spontaneous creates particles. c) tired light - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light A description of what may be wrong with it is shown here: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm
2) Space compensation a) Space expands according to the big-bang theory, but it may expand in compensation with the contraction that gravity creates. The expansion is more a compensation for the contraction. This one is closest to the big-bang version, but assumes that gravity is the counteraction of expansion. They are one and the same. b) there is energy loss in gravity, if the force of gravity is transmitted at non-infinite speed. To compensate the loss of energy there is a compensation for it. It works just like magnetism that can compensate the energy loss of electric force. This new "force" may cause clustering and the illusion of expansion.
3) Spectrum shift a) The spectrum of the light from a star is dependent on the elements involved. This spectrum is exactly the bands of the elements. The material of some stars can be in such a state that these elements have different bands. Very hot stars may have that effect. b) Material that is close to the speed of light appear to have different bands.
4) Variable physical constants a) Variable speed of light
5) Quantum physical processes over very long distances
6) Filtering of higher frequency bands over long distances Not really a shift, but it looks like a shift.
Quantum physical processes over very long distances
Causing disorientation and confusion: Flummoxed Light.
Spektralscavenger
Re: How does the non-doppler redshift work?
I am much more concerned about the cosmic blueshifts. What do they mean? Any tired-light theory has to answer this. Mainstream wisdom tells the Andromeda galaxy is coming closer in collision course 3,000 m y in the future. Could it be an electric circuit Andromeda-Milky Way? Could the blueshifted galaxies be electrically connected to the Milky Way? Intrinsic blueshift (and caused by what)? Or the motion towards us is really (over)compensating tired-light effects? In the latter motions affect frequencies ie Doppler effect.
scowie
Re: How does the non-doppler redshift work?
Spektralscavenger wrote: I am much more concerned about the cosmic blueshifts. What do they mean? Any tired-light theory has to answer this.
I don't beleive any alternative theory claims that there are no doppler redshifts/blueshifts out there. I imagine the blueshift of the Andromeda galaxy would be concidered to be doppler by tired-light proponents too.
It basically says there is a loss of energy involved in the transmission of light through hydrogen. The high redshifts of hot blue binary star components certainly suggests this: http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/doppler/
CharlesChandler
Re: How does the non-doppler redshift work?
I'm maintaining a list of redshift theories here, as part of my Cosmological Models page. I don't have time right now to integrate the contents of this thread into that work, but lest I forget, I wanted to cross-reference that and this thread.
Zyxzevn
Currently I am trying to understand the consequence of particles in a super-position-state over very long distances. The measurement of a photon has everything to do with quantum mechanics. While all energy is transmitted in electro-magnetic waves that go to everywhere, we perceive quanta of energy that we call photons. These photons do not really exist as such, they are a quantum of the energy that is transmitted to every possible position. This energy transmission can be measured as waves. What we perceive as the color of the photon is the size of the quantum of energy. Usually the size stays the same when light is transmitted over a long distance.
The wave-function of the photons is immediate and connects the transmitting body and the observing body through time and space. But at the same time, many particles might have interfered with the path of particles and that might have an effect on the wave-function. For instance another star might be between the path that the particle is taking, and the original transmitting body might not even exist anymore.
The whole idea of red-shift is that the quantum has less energy when the transmitting body is moving away from the observing body. This is different from the energy that is lost in the overall transmission. The size of the quantum stays the same and thus its frequency, whatever medium is in the way. So there seems the size of a quantum does only change because of speed or gravity (acceleration). At least that is in theory. But: 1) there might be non-linear optics involved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nonlinear_optics This opens a large field of research, but its usefulness on cosmological red-shift might be limited. 2) the quantum might lose energy with other objects that are in some form of super-position state or other quantum mechanical state. a) This might be tested by transmitting a laser through super-cooled helium or hydrogen. Usually this stuff is already cooled with lasers, so the test might already have been performed. b) the effect of hot plasma on light might be related to this c) what about zero-point energy over very large distances? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_experiment This energy has to come from somewhere.. d) speed of light. The speed of light might be slower over large distances. And be affected by something we are not yet aware of. This might give an effect similar to the idea of expansion.
But besides all these effects, I think that also something else is going on. Something that is just out of the scope of current physics, and might have something to do with how nuclear fusion works. Nuclear fusion seems to be the energy source of much of the light in the universe. I think that the size of the quantum might be related to nuclear forces and nuclear reactions. While we know quantum mechanics works for electromagnetic fields, there might be some other laws and mechanisms behind nuclear forces. Why do quarks come in three? It does not have a simple answer. Why do hydrogen fusion bombs work, but hot nuclear fusion devices don't? Electric charges seem simpler with only positive or negative charges. But the addition of the magnetic component gives rise to complicated mathematics. The real physical workings of nuclear reactions might be a lot different from the theoretic models scientists use today. And this may again have effect on the frequency of emitted light.
neilwilkes
Re: How does the non-doppler redshift work?
Zyxzevn wrote: The Doppler redshift theory seems the main reason people hold on to the idea of the expansion and a big-bang. I wonder what alternative theories there are, about how what causes the redshift. What are the hypothesis in the Electric Universe?
I have found 6 theories already:
1) photons tend to lose energy along the way a) They interact with the particles and fields in space b) They have a spontaneous interaction and create particles. Just like the zero-point energy spontaneous creates particles. c) tired light - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light A description of what may be wrong with it is shown here: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm
2) Space compensation a) Space expands according to the big-bang theory, but it may expand in compensation with the contraction that gravity creates. The expansion is more a compensation for the contraction. This one is closest to the big-bang version, but assumes that gravity is the counteraction of expansion. They are one and the same. b) there is energy loss in gravity, if the force of gravity is transmitted at non-infinite speed. To compensate the loss of energy there is a compensation for it. It works just like magnetism that can compensate the energy loss of electric force. This new "force" may cause clustering and the illusion of expansion.
3) Spectrum shift a) The spectrum of the light from a star is dependent on the elements involved. This spectrum is exactly the bands of the elements. The material of some stars can be in such a state that these elements have different bands. Very hot stars may have that effect. b) Material that is close to the speed of light appear to have different bands.
4) Variable physical constants a) Variable speed of light
5) Quantum physical processes over very long distances
6) Filtering of higher frequency bands over long distances Not really a shift, but it looks like a shift.
The best alternative I have ever read is Arp's book "Quasars, Redshifts & Controversies" where he makes an extremely compelling case for at least some Red Shifts (I have not finished the book yet) being intrinsic rather than relativistic. He presents case after case where there is photographic & radio evidence showing low red-shifted galaxies that are physically connected to High red-shifted quasars as well as evidence these quasars are actually connected to the galaxies as opposed to it being the usually trotted out guff of "chance alignments". Not only are these connections visible in some cases as optical wavelengths but also radio connections are shown (Radio Galaxy 3C 303) that are basically proving Quasars - far from being all at the same vast distances are in fact ejected from the nuclei of active galaxies and even more telling some of these active galaxies have multiple associated quasars.
The response seems to be along the lines of the consensus sticking their heads in a dark & smelly place. Cosmology is no longer a science sadly, but a dogma instead - the claim that "this violates the laws of physics" is the most unscientific thing anyone can ever say as it translates to "in this golden epoch we now know everything there is to know" and the upshot is that far from the proper scientific method being applied, no matter how good the observations are they simply will never, ever re-examine - or even test - the core assumption that red shift = recessional velocity (which is often erroneously claimed to have enabled Hubble to "discover" the universe is expanding). This is vitally important, as if red shift is not recessional but instead related to the age of the object in question** then it also implies no expanding universe & no Big Bang. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, it cost Arp his research time at Palomar and any chance of publication was denied him.
** - not all redshifts are intrinsic, and some indeed might well be related to velocity although perhaps not in the traditional manner. Let's look at this option instead - just maybe, given we have been observing redshifts in objects for a whole 85 years now which is barely a drop in the ocean, the red/blue shifts we observe in some galaxies is simply their rotational velocity & not a recessional one.
Anyway - Arp's book should be compulsory reading, and I am very very pleased I finally tracked a copy down. £85 very well spent indeed.
orrery
Re: How does the non-doppler redshift work?
The Plasma Redshift model is the best.
However, do not be fooled by the common depiction of Redshift as some horizontal wave extension. Redshift is a spectroscopic phenomenon inherent in the "expanding wavefront" of the light. The spectrum that you are looking at is a "wavefront"
The only way to get your standard doppler effect is to completely twist it around 90 degrees.
When you are looking at a spectrum, you're looking at a "wavefront" here.
Here again:
Redshift is an observation in the spectral lines:
And light is emitted in quantized events. This image of the spectrum is a wavefront, redshift then is a wavefront property. It can not possibly be due to doppler.
Zyxzevn
Re: How does the non-doppler redshift work?
I know what the red-shift is, but I am curious how that works on the different explanations that we have found, and what the actual observed red-shifts are.
What is red-shift: The different elements give different emission spectra. The white lines tell where the elements send the light. These lines are the exact representation of the different energy states of the electrons in an atom. At these wavelengths the atoms can also the absorb the light that is passing through. So if a cold medium is between the sender and the observer, we can see black lines at these wavelengths where the atoms absorb the light. A hot medium may simultaneously absorb and emit light at certain wavelengths. That effect is used in a LASER.
(read this with a high-pitched voice) Let's look at the emission of helium. If the helium atoms are very hot we get more high energy electron-emissions, which will strengthen the lines in the purple and blue. This gives a change in color, but is officially not a shift. If the spectral lines of the atoms shift towards the red, we officially have a red-shift.
The spectral lines may not be measurable at all. In that case many scientists assume a redshift even when these lines can not be distinguished, when the light is more red then blue/purple. The average emission of a similar enough stellar phenomenon is then used as a reference to measure the redshift. Or a theoretic model.
Effects of the different explanations on the spectrum
0. Movement / Doppler effect The effect of the Doppler effect would be that the wavelength will shift. The atoms themselves may move because of the movement of the gas or plasma. Because plasma can move atoms pretty quickly there may be quite some changes in the spectrum. Any rotational movement will also give a shift in the spectra. The spectrum will likely show shifts in both directions. The movement of a star away or towards the observer will show a spectrum that shifts to red or to blue/purple respectively. In the theory of the Big Bang and its expansion, we would see that stars move away from earth. The further a star is away, the more it moves away, and the more we see a red-shift in the wavelengths of the emitted light. The expansion may be non-linear, which may mean there never was a big-bang. The expansion may be non-uniform and be different in different directions. Expected Observation: Not only the bands change in wavelength, but also the timing changes. Things should rotate slower the further they are away. Also more distant things should be younger in age. There is a possible edge of the universe and it may have a centre (ME! )
Chaos The differences in the speed of the atoms will widen the spectral lines. The lines may be widened beyond recognition in high energetic events. These events are usually the only ones we can spot in the far distance, and can make it impossible to see real red-shifts.
1. Filtering and loss of energy (named 1.a /1.b /1.c in my top post) Everything between the sender and the observer will have influence in the spectrum that is received. This will usually not change the spectral lines. It can however change the spectrum a lot. Assuming that the light
2. Space compensation It may look like expansion, but there is nothing expanding at all. possible observation: Non uniform expansion, depending on nearby gravity fields.
3. Spectrum shift a)&b) The bands that would show up, show very different patterns.
4. Variable physical constants a) variable speed of light. When objects with low speed of light send off light, it will show red-shifted wavelengths when it reaches our observation. It may explain differences in some cases, but one would expect more blue-shifts as well.
5. Quantum physical processes over very long distances. a) photon splitting When photons become very wide spread it may compensate to split up and spread its energy over more photons. observation: It will show discrete steps in the red-shifts. This is what Arp observed as well. b) super-state energy loss The energy of the quanta in the light might be absorbed by some other quantum phenomenon. observation: It will show a red-shift depending on what medium or space is in between. c) zero point energy loss A photon will transfer its energy to maintain the zero-point energy of space possible observation: In low energy space photons will lose more of their energy. d) Red-shift by hot Plasma I don't understand this exactly. Theory: The atoms are moving so fast that it influences the spectrum and the spectral-lines of the emitted light.
6. Filtering Higher frequencies are filtered over longer distances, because of possible intermediate substances. This should give no shift in the spectral lines. I think this is observed in: http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/doppler/
7. Non linear optics Over long distances non linear optics influences the photons. observation: On far distances we should have some non-linear effects on the spectra of the stars.
8. Nuclear reactions Nuclear reactions and photons may be interconnected in a much deeper way then expected. Observation: Light from nuclear reactions will show different spectral lines that are not part of the emission from the atomic electrons.
9. Missing dimension We are only seeing the 3 dimensions of a larger phenomenon. There are other dimensions that influence physics. They may change the energy of light and much more. Observation: Extra-terrestrials can visit us without us knowing or understanding. (This means we don't know shit...)
orrery
Re: How does the non-doppler redshift work?
I'm a staunch advocate of Brynjolfsson's work. I don't even consider the Doppler Theory of Redshift to be viable in the least. Doppler accounts for 0% of cosmological Redshift, imo.
Motion or Δ, in my view can only be derived from multiple observations. Motion then, can only be inferred from Δz and not from z alone.
Brynjolfsson has placed the Seal of Completion on the Redshift matter.
orrery
Re: How does the non-doppler redshift work?
If you need a summary of Brynjolfsson's work it can be summed up very simply:
The dielectric constant varies with the frequency of the Fourier Harmonic of the photon field.
You must add the Complex Dielectric Constant when dealing with the motion of the electron.
That's all it is. Its that easy.
I've consider other ways of explaining this, but if you take a look at Ionic Spectroscopy you can see that you are observing, lets say, an Ion of Helium. There is a Quantum component to this. If you are viewing that Helium ion from 3ft away then one might say that you have a virtual Electron Cloud of 3ft. Not much to it there. Now on a very basic level, you're looking at a quantized emission of a helium ion from a million light years away and you have an Electron Cloud of varying density of 1million light years between Source & Observer.
Zyxzevn
Re: How does the non-doppler redshift work?
I will try to put in my own words: It seems that the Compton scattering is related to the Compton wavelength of the entire atom, not that of individual electrons. Individual electrons are in superposition state. The atom is not. In a hot plasma, the electrons might not be in a superposition state. They are no longer bound to the atom. This causes them to behave like the atoms in the Compton scattering. In the Compton scattering the photons lose energy when they pass through a atom or lose electron. This will cause photons to change their wavelength towards red, causing a red-shift on many wavelengths.
Possible observation: the redshift of galaxies with a lot of hot plasma, is much larger than that of other galaxies?
Zwicky describes that there might be a Compton scattering caused by gravity. This should affect things that are deep inside a galaxy more then things that are on the edge of a galaxy. But I don't see how this is related to the whole universe.
The wikipedia article mentions inverse Compton scattering to explain big-bang stuff. Should not be too hard to bust that myth?
Should not be too hard to measure the hot plasma redshift in a laboratory
orrery
Re: How does the non-doppler redshift work?
Lab test is that CS Chen paper. Those plasma temperatures are extremely hard to achieve on earth. Ari relies on a lot of solar data.
JeffreyW
Re: How does the non-doppler redshift work?
CharlesChandler wrote: I'm maintaining a list of redshift theories here, as part of my Cosmological Models page. I don't have time right now to integrate the contents of this thread into that work, but lest I forget, I wanted to cross-reference that and this thread.
Charles strikes again! Creating a database to sort out as many alternative/mainstream interpretations as we can is gold and exists nowhere but on Mr. Chandler's site. I know, I've been at this for 3 years now and it doesn't exist anywhere, not wikipedia, not the NPA, not electric universe. Keep up the great work Charles!
)
