Big Bang "blown away" by "shadow test"?

tvanflandern
Offline
Platinum Member

18 years 2 months ago #17357 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by JMB
 the CREIL predicted, a long time ago a redshift of light propagating in convenient media (excited atomic hydrogen, some molecules,...).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Please elaborate. If the medium of light was atomic hydrogen, then light could only be transmitted whenever hydrogen atoms collided, which in space is infrequent.

In fact, the general argument against all "tired light" theories seems to apply here. If anything as large as quantum particles or larger were to affect light propagation, the resultant scattering would be enough over comsological distances to make distant galaxy images fuzzy. But no such fuzziness is seen.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">When I knew that the Pioneer probes have an "anomalous acceleration", I simply applied the CREIL to this problem.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I'm trying to pin this point down. Does CREIL require an anomalous Pioneer acceleration, or does it merely provide an optional explanation that can be used or ignored as one wishes? In the latter case, the point lacks any persuasive power. In the former case, the Pioneer anomaly becomes a crucial test of CREIL theory -- something it badly needs. However, I do not like your odds that the test will turn out to be successful. The fact that the same anomaly is seen in Ulysses should give any exogenous-source anomaly-explainers pause.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The authors of papers show that the hypothesis of disgassing, leaks of valves, waste heat do not work, in particular because it would not give the same "accelerations" for both probes.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">The reactor waste heat explanation most definitely would give the same acceleration for both Pioneers, and a slightly different acceleration for Ulysses, just as observed. Even in the strongest case that can be built by the anomaly-mongers, at least 1/3 of the effect must still be attributed to waste heat dumping. But other experts are sure that it can all be attributed to that cause.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I found the spectrum of the quasars looking for the spectrum of a hot object in hydrogen; it happened that this purely physical building gives the spectrum<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">This is unclear. What aspect of a quasar spectrum is explained in this way? Quasars come with a variety of spectra, with both broad line and narrow line types, some radio-loud and others radio-quiet.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">We must imagine the Sun, the planets... without observation.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I don't know what this means.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The elementary theory of the accreting neutron stars shows that their temperature is larger than 1000000 K. I explain that "they are never seen" because they are named quasars!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I suspect that we might have some common ground in this direction. The Meta Model predicts "supermassive stars" of high redshift, which are identified with one of the two main classes of quasars.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Each region "s" crossed divides , with the previous convention on the redshifts, the speed of the light by two.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Again, doesn't that rule out a CREIL effect? The speed of light is essentially unchanged on arrival, as measured by its energy and its aberration. Moreover, brightness variations in different parts of "lensed quasars" are coordinated in ways that would not happen if the speed of light was different along different paths. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

JMB
Offline
Elite Member

18 years 2 months ago #10827 by JMB

Replied by JMB on topic Reply from Jacques Moret-Bailly

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by tvanflandern
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by JMB
 the CREIL predicted, a long time ago a redshift of light propagating in convenient media (excited atomic hydrogen, some molecules,...).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Please elaborate. If the medium of light was atomic hydrogen, then light could only be transmitted whenever hydrogen atoms collided, which in space is infrequent.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No, light may propagate through vacuum and atomic gases.<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

In fact, the general argument against all "tired light" theories seems to apply here. If anything as large as quantum particles or larger were to affect light propagation, the resultant scattering would be enough over comsological distances to make distant galaxy images fuzzy. But no such fuzziness is seen.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No: tired light is no a coherent process while the CREIl is space-coherent.
Atmosphere refracts the light by a space-coherent scattering process which does not destroy the wave surfaces. The CREIL is a perturbation of the refraction produced by a Raman type resonance, it is space-coherent. The main argument against "tired light" and Wolf's shifts is that they apply to time-coherent light, so that these theory are necessarily space-incoherent. The CREIL contains the parameter "time coherence" which must be "smaller than all relevant time constants", the collisional time of the gas and a Raman resonance (quadrupolar) period.
Experiments made with lasers (named "Impulsive stimulated Raman scattering") have exactly the same theory than CREIL, they differ from it only by the order of magnitude of the time constants.<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">When I knew that the Pioneer probes have an "anomalous acceleration", I simply applied the CREIL to this problem.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I'm trying to pin this point down. Does CREIL require an anomalous Pioneer acceleration, or does it merely provide an optional explanation that can be used or ignored as one wishes?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">It requires it because the radio waves from the probes cross a region in which there is excited atomic hydrogen and light from the Sun<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> In the latter case, the point lacks any persuasive power. In the former case, the Pioneer anomaly becomes a crucial test of CREIL theory -- something it badly needs. However, I do not like your odds that the test will turn out to be successful. The fact that the same anomaly is seen in Ulysses should give any exogenous-source anomaly-explainers pause.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
The anomalous "acceleration" is deduced from the frequency of the received radio signals which appears too high. The CREIL explanation is very simple: beyond 10 UA, the protons of the solar wind combine with electrons, making excited hydrogen atoms. In this medium, energy is transferred from electromagnetic waves which have a high temperature (deduced from Planck's law), usually redshifted light (here from the Sun)to cold (usually low frequency: radio, thermal) waves which are blueshifted.<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The authors of papers show that the hypothesis of disgassing, leaks of valves, waste heat do not work, in particular because it would not give the same "accelerations" for both probes.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">The reactor waste heat explanation most definitely would give the same acceleration for both Pioneers, and a slightly different acceleration for Ulysses, just as observed.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
The waste explanation would not change with the distance, except from a decrease of the radioactivity of the plutonium. If it is disgassing or leaks of gas, it would not be the same for all probes. If it is heat leak (from the radioactive sources) its variation in the time would not appear relatively quickly between 5 and 10 UA.<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Even in the strongest case that can be built by the anomaly-mongers, at least 1/3 of the effect must still be attributed to waste heat dumping. But other experts are sure that it can all be attributed to that cause.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">OK, there is a discussion; but the CREIL explanation is so simple!<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I found the spectrum of the quasars looking for the spectrum of a hot object in hydrogen; it happened that this purely physical building gives the spectrum<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">This is unclear. What aspect of a quasar spectrum is explained in this way? Quasars come with a variety of spectra, with both broad line and narrow line types, some radio-loud and others radio-quiet.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">All varieties I found: sharp emission lines, with generally the largest redshift, broad emission and absorption lines, saturated which are mixed (for a given transition) if the quasar is radio-loud, the Lyman forest with an increase of the mean intensity where the redshift decreases, a small dispersion of the relative frequency shift of the multiplets (without a change of the fine structure constant), the periodicities...<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">We must imagine the Sun, the planets... without observation.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I don't know what this means.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">They were observed before their observations allowed to make science about.<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The elementary theory of the accreting neutron stars shows that their temperature is larger than 1000000 K. I explain that "they are never seen" because they are named quasars!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I suspect that we might have some common ground in this direction. The Meta Model predicts "supermassive stars" of high redshift, which are identified with one of the two main classes of quasars.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Each region "s" crossed divides , with the previous convention on the redshifts, the speed of the light by two.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Again, doesn't that rule out a CREIL effect? The speed of light is essentially unchanged on arrival, as measured by its energy and its aberration. Moreover, brightness variations in different parts of "lensed quasars" are coordinated in ways that would not happen if the speed of light was different along different paths. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I wrote an error: it is a division by a factor much closer to 1. The CREIL is a theory of usual electromagnetism, it does not postulate anything about the speed of the light.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Offline
Platinum Member

18 years 2 months ago #16117 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by JMB
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by tvanflandern
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by JMB
 the CREIL predicted, a long time ago a redshift of light propagating in convenient media (excited atomic hydrogen, some molecules,...).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Please elaborate. If the medium of light was atomic hydrogen, then light could only be transmitted whenever hydrogen atoms collided, which in space is infrequent.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No, light may propagate through vacuum and atomic gases.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I assume these atomic gases are mainly the excited atomic hydrogen. This seems logically fuzzy to me. In CREIL, is the medium of light the vacuum, with the sparse hydrogen acting simply as a source of occasional friction? Or is the medium of light, at least at times, the hydrogen itself? Please clarify the role of excited hydrogen in CREIL.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In fact, the general argument against all "tired light" theories seems to apply here. If anything as large as quantum particles or larger were to affect light propagation, the resultant scattering would be enough over comsological distances to make distant galaxy images fuzzy. But no such fuzziness is seen.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No: tired light is not a coherent process while the CREIl is space-coherent.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I understand "coherent", but "space-coherent" and "time-coherent" are undefined and certainly not obvious. When variable winds act on ocean waves, large-scale coherence is disrupted, but small-scale coherence remains as good as ever. What would your terms mean for that case?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The main argument against "tired light" and Wolf's shifts is that they apply to time-coherent light, so that these theory are necessarily space-incoherent.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">The main argument against tired light is the fuzziness argument. I've never heard of a coherence argument, and still don't know what that means. This seems a critical point, so please explain in simple mechanical terms.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The anomalous "acceleration" is deduced from the frequency of the received radio signals which appears too high.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">No, it is deduced primarily from diminished round-trip travel time for the signals. A frequency shift would not require any acceleration, and might be explained as simply a change in the oscillator sending the signal.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The CREIL explanation is very simple: beyond 10 UA, the protons of the solar wind combine with electrons, making excited hydrogen atoms. In this medium, energy is transferred from electromagnetic waves which have a high temperature (deduced from Planck's law), usually redshifted light (here from the Sun) to cold (usually low frequency: radio, thermal) waves which are blueshifted.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Many people have examined the interplanetary and interstellar mediums as possible explanations for the anomaly, and ruled them out as far too sparse. Have you looked at this quantitatively? How do you bridge the orders of magnitude difference between the size of this effect that others get, and your own?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The waste heat explanation would not change with the distance...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Just as is observed.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">its variation in the time would not appear relatively quickly between 5 and 10 UA.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">The behavior before about 10 au (Saturn's distance) is not absent, it is just unknown because the data is incomplete and there were too many spacecraft thrusts that hid the anomaly. A new study is underway to attempt to learn if the anomaly was still present earlier than that. But we already know that it is fully present for Ulysses at 5 au and less.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">the CREIL explanation is so simple!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Most of the proposed explanations are seductively simple, such as the rate being nearly the same as the Hubble expansion rate. But that is how good scientists end up fooling themselves. The only explanation we have that does not alter physics or contradict some other observation (such as the density of the local interstellar medium) is the waste heat explanation. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Jim
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

18 years 2 months ago #17368 by Jim

Replied by Jim on topic Reply from

TVF, Its the Hubble Constant and not the rate of expansion that this anomaly is close to. The Hubble Constant is measured in the real world and expansion rate is from a model. Two very different things.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

JMB
Offline
Elite Member

18 years 2 months ago #17369 by JMB

Replied by JMB on topic Reply from Jacques Moret-Bailly

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by tvanflandern
I assume these atomic gases are mainly the excited atomic hydrogen. This seems logically fuzzy to me. In CREIL, is the medium of light the vacuum, with the sparse hydrogen acting simply as a source of occasional friction? Or is the medium of light, at least at times, the hydrogen itself? Please clarify the role of excited hydrogen in CREIL.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Here is, briefly, the theory of the refraction:
The electromagnetic waves (in particular light) propagate in the vacuum. If we put atoms in this vacuum, they are excited, and if they do not absorb, they reemit the absorbed energy by a field delayed of (pi)/2 (Rayleigh coherent field). If the number of atoms is large enough, Huygens construction works, so that the delayed fields add to make wave surfaces identical to the wave surfaces of the exciting light. The interference of exciting and scattered light produces a field slightly late, named refracted field.
In the CREIL effect, in a first approximation, the Rayleigh coherent field is replaced by a Raman coherent field; but, as the Raman frequency is not equal to the exciting frequency, a phaseshift appears. Avoiding too large a phaseshift is at the origin of Lamb's condition.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I understand "coherent", but "space-coherent" and "time-coherent" are undefined and certainly not obvious. When variable winds act on ocean waves, large-scale coherence is disrupted, but small-scale coherence remains as good as ever. What would your terms mean for that case?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Space-coherence means that the wave surfaces are not perturbed locally, so that it is possible to make images.
In the refraction, the Huygens construction is not perfect, so that the wave surfaces get small local perturbations.The mean wave surfaces produce the images, the perturbations produce the incoherent Rayleigh scattering.

Time-coherence means that a source does not emit a perfect sin wave (really it is strictly, physically impossible). It is possible, with a good approximation to suppose that usual (not laser) sources emit pulses, the length of which is of the order of a nanosecond.
The "Impulsive stimulated Raman scattering" (ISRS) has exactly the same theory than the CREIL, but it uses femtosecond laser pulses. Applying Lamb's condition, the relevant time constantsmust be about 100000 times shorter in CREIL than in ISRS. This decreases enormously the effect: decreasing the collisional time of the gas decreases proportionally the CREIL, the CREIL is proportional to the square of the period of a Raman resonance obeying Lamb's condition, thus the shift is decreased by a factor 10 power-15: astronomical paths are needed for a good observation.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The main argument against tired light is the fuzziness argument. I've never heard of a coherence argument, and still don't know what that means. This seems a critical point, so please explain in simple mechanical terms.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
The fuzziness is a consequence of the lack of space-coherence: if the wave surfaces are destroyed, it does not remain images.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The anomalous "acceleration" is deduced primarily from diminished round-trip travel time for the signals. A frequency shift would not require any acceleration, and might be explained as simply a change in the oscillator sending the signal.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No. A maser piloted frequency is sent from the Earth, multiplied on the Pioneer by a fraction of integers, and sent back, compared with the maser frequency. A lot of corrections are done, for instance the acceleration from the Kuiper belt, the pressure of radiation of the sunlight...
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Many people have examined the interplanetary and interstellar mediums as possible explanations for the anomaly, and ruled them out as far too sparse. Have you looked at this quantitatively? How do you bridge the orders of magnitude difference between the size of this effect that others get, and your own?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
The coherent effects are much stronger than incoherent: in a pool, through 100 metres of water, you see images with acceptable fuzziness and weakness. The refraction in water delays the waves of (pi)/2 after a path of the order of 10-6 metres (compute it exactly !), that is light was absorbed then reemitted each micrometer. The coherent absorption is about 10+8 stronger than the incoherent.
The anomalous frequency shift of the Pioneer probes is at the limit of detection. I am unable to give a precise result because I do not know the tensor of polarisability of excited atomic hydrogen, and I do not know the density of the solar wind.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The behavior before about 10 au (Saturn's distance) is not absent, it is just unknown because the data is incomplete and there were too many spacecraft thrusts that hid the anomaly. A new study is underway to attempt to learn if the anomaly was still present earlier than that. But we already know that it is fully present for Ulysses at 5 au and less.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Probably. The curves deduced from the Pioneer probes show that the increase of shift becomes large between 5 and 10 UA. It seems that it is the distance at which the ionization of H decreases.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Most of the proposed explanations are seductively simple, such as the rate being nearly the same as the Hubble expansion rate. But that is how good scientists end up fooling themselves. The only explanation we have that does not alter physics or contradict some other observation (such as the density of the local interstellar medium) is the waste heat explanation.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> and the CREIL effect.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Astrodelugeologist
Offline
Senior Member

18 years 2 months ago #16125 by Astrodelugeologist

Replied by Astrodelugeologist on topic Reply from

Tom, I'm wondering about another possible measure of the distance of the cosmic microwave "background":

Assuming that the "variations" in the CMB are actual structure and not statistical noise, how nearby would the CMB have to be in order to observe parallax in these variations?

--Astro

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.353 seconds