Quantized redshift anomaly

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</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 JMB</i>

If a continuous wave source S emits an electromagnetic field received by R at a different frequency, while S emits s cycles, R receives r, so that the number of wavelengths along the path SR is increased of s-r, it is a genuine Doppler effect.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Not so. If lightwaves lose energy (E), they must change frequency (f) through the relation E = hf, where h is Planck's constant.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
No. <b>In parametric effects, the exchanges of energy are not quantified</b>. Look at the simplest parametric effect, the refraction: refraction works with extremely low intensities (said photon after photon); however, a large amount of matter (a big prism for instance) is polarised... But it is a temporary polarisation, the matter which is in a non-stationary state during the interaction returns to its stationary state after (and, in this case, the light recovers its energy) If you consider a frequency mixing, which works without threshold too, the matter is only temporarily excited while the energies of the interacting beams is changed without any quantisation.

There are lots of examples of parametric effects in books of laser spectroscopy.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
If the speed of light (c) does not change, then a change in f necessarily involves a change in wavelength (l) through the relation c

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yes it is a change of wavelength, but the number of cycles on SR accumulates with the time, so that, if the distance SR is constant, the wavelength decreases (or increases) indefinitely with the time. Strange medium on SR !

<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 />In parametric effects, the exchanges of energy are not quantified.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I used E = hf only in the sense that energy and frequency change together continuously, not in the sense that energy at one frequency occurs in quanta. By attempting to introduce quantization into an argument where it is not needed, you appear to be deflecting and ignoring the argument itself, or perhaps did not understand it. My main point was that nature does not require the number of cycles in lightwaves to remain constant.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: If the speed of light (c) does not change, then a change in f necessarily involves a change in wavelength (l) through the relation c = fl.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes it is a change of wavelength, but the number of cycles on SR accumulates with the time, so that, if the distance SR is constant, the wavelength decreases (or increases) indefinitely with the time. Strange medium on SR!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If the source emits a certain number of lightwaves in a unit of time, and friction along a fixed path length removes a certain amount of energy from those lightwaves, the receiver will receive a lesser number of lightwaves per unit time than were emitted. But that s-r difference will be a constant over time, not "decreasing indefinitely". The energy loss from friction makes some cycles from the lightwaves gradually disappear from the universe. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</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 JMB</i>
<br />In parametric effects, the exchanges of energy are not quantified.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I used E = hf only in the sense that energy and frequency change together continuously, not in the sense that energy at one frequency occurs in quanta. By attempting to introduce quantization into an argument where it is not needed, you appear to be deflecting and ignoring the argument itself, or perhaps did not understand it. My main point was that nature does not require the number of cycles in lightwaves to remain constant.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
An atom which changes of stationary state exchanges an energy hf. But, depending on the origin of the excitation of the atom (spontaneous, that is from the zero point field, or stimulated at various intensities), it emits a line whose width is variable. Therefore, the length of the wave is variable (Fourier transform) while its energy is hf, the energy in a cycle is not constant.

But this is not very important.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: If the speed of light (c) does not change, then a change in f necessarily involves a change in wavelength (l) through the relation c = fl.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes it is a change of wavelength, but the number of cycles on SR accumulates with the time, so that, if the distance SR is constant, the wavelength decreases (or increases) indefinitely with the time. Strange medium on SR!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If the source emits a certain number of lightwaves in a unit of time, and friction along a fixed path length removes a certain amount of energy from those lightwaves, the receiver will receive a lesser number of lightwaves per unit time than were emitted. But that s-r difference will be a constant over time, not "decreasing indefinitely". The energy loss from friction makes some cycles from the lightwaves gradually disappear from the universe. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Look at my hypothesis: I suppose that the source is<b> strictly </b>time coherent (A CW laser is a good approximation of this hypothesis). If the received frequency is lower than the emitted, each second there is an increase of the number of cycles between S and R, without any limit, and this is absurd because if the distance SR is constant, the wavelength along SR decreases while the frequency, by hypothesis, is decreased !
This theoretical "experiment" shows that a non-Doppler, Doppler-like (in particular space-coherent) redshift can occur only if the light is time-incoherent, that is may be represented by pulses.

<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">[tvf]: I used E = hf only in the sense that energy and frequency change together continuously, not in the sense that energy at one frequency occurs in quanta. By attempting to introduce quantization into an argument where it is not needed, you appear to be deflecting and ignoring the argument itself, or perhaps did not understand it. My main point was that nature does not require the number of cycles in lightwaves to remain constant.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">An atom which changes of stationary state exchanges an energy hf. But, depending on the origin of the excitation of the atom (spontaneous, that is from the zero point field, or stimulated at various intensities), it emits a line whose width is variable. Therefore, the length of the wave is variable (Fourier transform) while its energy is hf, the energy in a cycle is not constant.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We were speaking of propagating lightwaves, not of matter. The behavior of atoms is not relevant. And variable line widths require multiple atoms. The wavelength of the wave is not variable until it redshifts (or blueshifts).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: If the source emits a certain number of lightwaves in a unit of time, and friction along a fixed path length removes a certain amount of energy from those lightwaves, the receiver will receive a lesser number of lightwaves per unit time than were emitted. But that s-r difference will be a constant over time, not "decreasing indefinitely". The energy loss from friction makes some cycles from the lightwaves gradually disappear from the universe.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If the received frequency is lower than the emitted, each second there is an increase of the number of cycles between S and R, without any limit, and this is absurd because if the distance SR is constant, the wavelength along SR decreases while the frequency, by hypothesis, is decreased!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It is absurb alright. It is just not clear why you think there is ever any change in the number of cycles between S and R. Suppose the energy-removal mechanism is friction, and that friction between S and R removes x% of the cycles. Why would x% ever change?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This theoretical "experiment" shows that a non-Doppler, Doppler-like (in particular space-coherent) redshift can occur only if the light is time-incoherent, that is may be represented by pulses.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We assume normal, coherent light at all times. But that appears to have nothing to do with the issue. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote:

---

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: If the speed of light (c) does not change, then a change in f necessarily involves a change in wavelength (l) through the relation c = fl.

---

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[JMB]Yes it is a change of wavelength, but the number of cycles on SR accumulates with the time, so that, if the distance SR is constant, the wavelength decreases (or increases) indefinitely with the time. Strange medium on SR!

---

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[TVF]If the source emits a certain number of lightwaves in a unit of time, and friction along a fixed path length removes a certain amount of energy from those lightwaves, the receiver will receive a lesser number of lightwaves per unit time than were emitted. But that s-r difference will be a constant over time, not "decreasing indefinitely". The energy loss from friction makes some cycles from the lightwaves gradually disappear from the universe. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This may be trivial, but anyway

I often wonder what light is. They talk of photons, and then waves...must be a special kind of wave that doesn't wave outwards...and what kind of particle goes on forever...

What, in terms of the redshift anomaly, is the relationship between the color of light (frequency) and spectral lines? As I understand it, the BB redshift due to doppler changes all (white) colors toward the red, so that we still see a white star. But the spectral lines are at a fixed frequency and when compared to a standard reveal the true shift in frequency.

Question, isn't our problem about spectral line shifting? And if it is about absorbtion changes, then isn't it the change of absorbtion (frequency) that matters, and not light itself? So that instead of talking about the energy of a photon, we should be talking about the energy (effects)of an electron field?

In other words, it isn't "tired light" but tired matter that is skewing the observations? And it only looks like tired matter to us, actually it could be "new matter that hasn't settled down yet" which would create a shift in the absorbtion lines.

Or what BB is saying is that light doesnt change, so the only explanation for redshift is the mechanical doppler effect. But what if it is the matter at that time that is different? Isn't that what we are actually observing? The effect of matter on light, not light itself. (Actually light is invisible, what we see is the effect of light on matter.)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Twinkle twinkle little star oh I wonder what you are<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

JMB talked about a investigitory shift from data to conceptual basis in another forum. The Big Bang argument is about the data. They are on the brink, so they say, of "fine tuning the theory better and better." Their mathematical model that is.

I found an excellent primer on light which I am trying to find again, and on the way I found this article. Well worth reading...

redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V10NO1PDF/V10N1ANT.pdf

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
A Bang into Nowhere

Comments on the
Universe Expansion Theory

Constantin Antonopoulos

Division of Humanities
National Technical University of Athens

Athens, Greece

The notion of a first ever moment of Time is selfcontradictory:
In lacking a moment before it, it lacks a lower
barrier, so there is no stopping it from—inconsistently—
receding further and further into an infinitely remote past.
Hence, there cannot be a beginning of Time. Only a beginning
in Time. The notion of the expansion or growth of Space is
incoherent. Objects growing in Space grow by taking up more
of space. But for Space to do that, Space must take up more of
space, and in order to do that Space must be larger than it is.
Hence, there can be no expansion of Space. (Only one in
space.)



If this is so, then the ‘Universe’, i.e., the totality, is so unlike any of its inhabitants (if the word be excused) that it may share none, and I mean none, of their properties. They may all have a cause, but the ‘Universe’ none. They may all have an age, but the ‘Universe’ none. They may all be somewhere, but the ‘Universe’ nowhere. Finally, they may all exist, but the ‘Universe’ not exist.

redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V10NO1PDF/V10N1ANT.pdf

---