Doppler-like effects

Please note that I reorganized my sites somewhat and put my theoretical explanation for the redshift (as far as I have developed it) now under www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/redshift.htm (I restricted my page www.physicsmyths.org.uk/redshift.htm now merely to explaining the delay of supernova lightcurves on the basis of this theory).

---

www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk

To Thomas.
I agree that your redshift mechanism may work, but I am afraid that its power is low, comparing the plasma resonances with the atomic resonances for short wavelengths.
The effect you consider is really very similar to the CREIL effect, the difference being the origin of the interaction which decreases the energy of the redshifted beam. In plasma interactions with the light, the interaction is non-resonant, while in the CREIL effect, it is resonant. The proof of the CREIL resonance in neutral atomic hydrogen in 2S and 2P states is given by the interpretation of the Lyman forest of the quasars in which was observed a periodicity z=0,062 which is 3 or 4 times the relative fequency shift which puts the Lyman beta and gamma of H (respectively) to the Lyman alpha.
However, there is probably no atomic hydrogen in the intergalactic space, and the observed periodicity in the redshifts of the galaxies seems shorter than 0.062. The resonance is probably produced by H2+ resulting from an ionisation of H2 by UV radiation.

An other problem with the plasma interaction is the dissipation of the lost energy. The CREIL effect is a parametric effect in which the medium is only a catalyst which recovers its stationary state after an interaction with several electromagnetic beams, such that their entropy increases. In the practice, the light is redshifted and the thermal background is blueshifted (that is amplified). Beyond 5 UA from us, the solar wind cools, producing excited atomic hydrogen by which energy is transferred from the sunlight to the microwaves, producing the anisotropy of the background and the blueshift of the radio signals of the Pioneer 10 and 11 probes.

Just to avoid any misunderstanding: the effect that I suggested under www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/redshift.htm is neither a scattering process nor identical to the usual refraction of electromagnetic waves in plasmas (although it is formally more similar to the latter). As this is essentially a new mechanism and in absence of a causal quantitative theory (as yet), one can't therefore say that it would not be strong enough.

The circumstance that speaks against a scattering effect of any kind in this context is that one needs volume densities of n>10^12 cm^-3 (for light in the visible region) if one wants to avoid the usual 'blurring' effects associated with the angular redistribution of the scattered light. Only under this condition is the wavelength larger than the spatial distance between scatterers i.e. one has a 'continuous' medium. In this case one has a situation similar to the 'specular reflection' from a surface and the scattering would only be in the forward direction. In an inhomogeneous medium this would then resemble a refraction effect. In fact, I believe that most 'refraction' phenomena (e.g. refraction of light in the earths atmosphere) are actually of this type (i.e. in fact a scattering process). I am suggesting however that there is a true refraction not associated with the scattering by atoms but by 'bending' as well as redshifting in electric fields.

Another point I want to make is that the energy question is irrelevant here. Energy conservation is a concept from Classical Mechanics that should not be applied to other phenomena like light (see my webpage regarding the Energy and Momentum Conservation Laws ). So whatever happens as a consequence of the redshift to the plasma is only of secondary interest and does not need to be considered here.

---

www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Thomas</i>
<br />Just to avoid any misunderstanding: the effect that I suggested under www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/redshift.htm is neither a scattering process nor identical to the usual refraction of electromagnetic waves in plasmas (although it is formally more similar to the latter). As this is essentially a new mechanism and in absence of a causal quantitative theory (as yet), one can't therefore say that it would not be strong enough.

---

Why do you want to introduce new physics while old physics works well ?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

The circumstance that speaks against a scattering effect of any kind in this context is that one needs volume densities of n&gt;10^12 cm^-3 if one wants to avoid the usual 'blurring' effects associated with the angular redistribution of the scattered light. Only under this condition is the wavelength larger than the spatial distance between scatterers i.e. one has a 'continuous' medium. In this case one has a situation similar to the 'specular reflection' from a surface and the scattering would only be in the forward direction. In an inhomogeneous medium this would then resemble a refraction effect. In fact, I believe that most 'refraction' phenomena (e.g. refraction of light in the earths atmosphere) are actually of this type (i.e. in fact a scattering process). I am suggesting however that there is a true refraction not associated with the scattering by atoms but by 'bending' as well as redshifting in electric fields.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The theory of the refraction and of the coherent scattering does not require the condition you wrote.<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

Another point I want to make is that the energy question is irrelevant here. Energy conservation is a concept from Classical Mechanics that should not be applied to other phenomena like light <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Same remark: science is reductionist therefore does not need useless hypothesis.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by JMB</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Thomas</i>
<br />Just to avoid any misunderstanding: the effect that I suggested under www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/redshift.htm is neither a scattering process nor identical to the usual refraction of electromagnetic waves in plasmas (although it is formally more similar to the latter). As this is essentially a new mechanism and in absence of a causal quantitative theory (as yet), one can't therefore say that it would not be strong enough.

---

Why do you want to introduce new physics while old physics works well ?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

If old physics works well in this respect, then the true cause of the redshift would have been discovered already a long time ago. It is just the way science goes that every now and then new things are being discovered. Even Hubble actually was never convinced about the interpretation of the redshift as an actual recessional velocity and speculated about the existence of a new physical mechanism (see home.pacbell.net/skeptica/edwinhubble.html ).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by JMB</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Thomas</i>
The circumstance that speaks against a scattering effect of any kind in this context is that one needs volume densities of n&gt;10^12 cm^-3 (for visible light) if one wants to avoid the usual 'blurring' effects associated with the angular redistribution of the scattered light. Only under this condition is the wavelength larger than the spatial distance between scatterers i.e. one has a 'continuous' medium. In this case one has a situation similar to the 'specular reflection' from a surface and the scattering would only be in the forward direction. In an inhomogeneous medium this would then resemble a refraction effect. In fact, I believe that most 'refraction' phenomena (e.g. refraction of light in the earths atmosphere) are actually of this type (i.e. in fact a scattering process). I am suggesting however that there is a true refraction not associated with the scattering by atoms but by 'bending' as well as redshifting in electric fields.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The theory of the refraction and of the coherent scattering does not require the condition you wrote.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Do you then have any laboratory data in this respect for atom densities less than 10^12 cm^-3 (for visible light)?

---

www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk

JMB, The laws of thermodynamics work only on matter not on energy at any frequency. There needs to be a gas, liquid or solid mass that can be measured in volume, mass and pressure uints in order to apply the laws. Working with only energy there is nothing to be heated. The laws of energy are different because energy is not heat.