Quantized redshift anomaly

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Coherent effects are not reserved for laser technology<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hi JMB. I know you explained this already but I can't find it. Would you please explain the CREIL effect in layman's terms, I need to be able to explain it to someone else.
Thanks

Models may be unavoidable; the way to misuse them is avoidable. There is no model without some use as in a model of a 747 made of plastic. The model looks good and resembles a real plane but its no such thing. Using tools to snip&fit data to make it fit is common practice that should be eliminated in science. The practice of making data fit a model polutes the scientific process leading to silly ideas that do indeed effect all other human activity.

Back to that model of electromagnetic mass, condensed round half a particle's mass, that is spinning at the speed of gravity. [] This suggests that there's a particle where its Bohr magneton value is the reciprocal of the speed of gravity. I get a particle which is 108 times the mass of the electron. So let's pair them up to get something a little heavier than a muon, which would be the building block of the vacuum. I did note that there seems to be a bit of a flurry at the moment about the g factor of the muon, suggesting that it is a component particle. The only guy I can think of who has suggested an aether made of paired muons is harold Aspden. I think I'll have a look at what he has to say on the subject, as I think he has the radii of of virtual muon pairs varying during their "lifetime."

(Edited) What I'm after here is a particle with a g factor of exactly two. It's mass will be slightly greater than that of a muon. Think of it as a tiny ftl gyro inside of a much larger light speed gyro. This muon is on the cusp, a slight change in radius and its electromagnetic half is cancelled out. So it looks like a virtual particle but isn't.

I don't know what the g factor of a muon is but it has to be 2.00002 or something about that. My value for this muon's mass comes out at 1.0447366689E 00 of the mass of the muon. Not good enough! It would be tempting to alter the speed of gravity to fit but I'll avoid the temptation and just forget about the whole thing. Maybe go sea fishing instead. [8D][)]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Coherent effects are not reserved for laser technology<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hi JMB. I know you explained this already but I can't find it. Would you please explain the CREIL effect in layman's terms, I need to be able to explain it to someone else.
Thanks
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I try to be simple, showing simple steps, and supposing that the electromagnetic fields are sinusoidal in the first steps:

1- Dressing molecules.
If a transparent medium is put in a magnetic or a static field, Zeeman or Stark effects are observed.
The molecules are dressed. In quantum theory, dressing is mixing the initial stationary state with traces of other states; in classical theory, it is a distortion of the molecule.
An electromagnetic field induces a dynamical Stark effect (it could be named a dynamical Zeeman effect!).
To be dressed, a molecule must absorb some energy; this energy is not quantified, usually much lower than h(nu). (Einstein made a single big error, the quantisation of the EM field).
In classical theory (the explanations are simpler, than with quantum theory, and equivalent), the molecule, excited by the field, becomes a forced oscillator. It radiates a field mainly at the frequency of the field: it is the Rayleigh scattering.

2- Coherent and incoherent scatterings.
If the molecules are not perturbed by collisions, the excitation of all similar molecules by an EM field is exactly the same, so that, for all molecules, the difference of phases between the exciting field and the radiated field is the same.
To avoid a mathematical study of the global radiation of all molecules, look at the following experiment:
If a vibrating pin touches the surface of water, it produces circular waves. Each tooth of a vibrating comb generates this circular wave, but the set of teeth of the comb generates a linear wave. Similarly, in the space, the vibrating molecules which are on an equiphase surface (a wave surface) generate wave surfaces identical to the wave surfaces of the exciting wave: the scattering is coherent.
Collisions may perturb molecules during a light pulse, changing the phase of the emission; the generated wave surface looses its smoothness, light goes into all directions, it is the incoherent scattering.
It is important to note that the collisions help the incoherent scattering, tending to destroy the coherent scattering. At low pressure, the number of binary collisions in a given volume is proportional to the square of the density, so that incoherent scatterings are proportional to the square of the pressure therefore very low at low pressure. Without this property, no far observation, no astrophysics!

3- The incoherent Rayleigh scattering produces the blue of the sky. The coherent Rayleigh scattering produces a wave which has the same wave surfaces that the incident light, so that we may add the incident and scattered field which has a lower amplitude and whose phase is, in a transparent medium, delayed of (pi)/2. The sum of both waves is the refracted wave.
Remark that the coherent scattering, even in a dense medium is generally much larger than the incoherent one: the computation of the index of refraction shows that in water, the refraction requires a complete coherent absorption and re-emission each micrometre. We see, in a pool 50 metres away without much trouble from incoherent scattering; Thus, the ratio of intensities coherent/incoherent is of the order of 10^8.

4- Coherent Raman scattering.
If two collinear thin laser beams cross a cell containing a medium having a Raman resonance at the difference of frequency of the beams, Raman light is emitted on a cone, and, on a far screen, we see the ... pearl necklace of supernova 1987A! Why do light is emitted on a cone ? The reason is that the indices of refraction depend on the wavelength.
The propagation of a light beam may be represented by A sin ((w)t-<b>k.r</b>) where <b>r</b> is a vector from the origin to the observed point , and <b>k</b> the wave vector whose length is 2(pi)n/(lambda)), where (w) is the pulsation, n the index of refraction and (lambda) the wavelength in vacuum. The coherence is obtained if the sum of the wave vectors at input is equal to the sum of these wave vectors at output.

5- The CREIL (Coherent Raman Effect on Incoherent Light): condition of coherence.
The usual coherent Raman effect cannot work in space because the beams are wide. If we add the amplitude of an excited light to a small Raman amplitude radiated close to a wave surface, we obtain beats between the frequencies, with a maximum at the start of the light pulse, when input and scattered light have the same phase. If the light pulse is shorter than a fraction of the Raman period, we do not see the beats, an elementary computation shows that the exciting frequency is slightly shifted. Having obtained a single frequency, the coherence is preserved with the initial wave surfaces. The effect adds along the path of the light beams. We have obtained the conditions of coherence written by G. L. Lamb Jr. : the length of the pulses must be shorter than all relevant time constants. Here these time constants are the collisional time and the Raman period.

6- The CREIL : conditions of intensity.
Why did we describe the Raman experiment using two laser beams? With a single laser, the experiment works, but the molecules are excited by the Raman transfer of energy and become unable to work. The second laser induces an opposite transfer of energy, so that the molecules are not excited, they remain enable to work.

The CREIL would not work by a single Raman effect, because in a coherent interaction, the molecules are not excited, only dressed, so that they must return to their initial state after the interaction. It is necessary to combine at least two coherent Raman effects to verify both principles of thermodynamics:
The energy lost by a beam to decrease its frequency is absorbed by the other(s) to increase its (their) frequency.
The beam(s) which loses energy must be the hottest. The temperature of a beam is deduced from its luminance using Planck-Nernst law.
This type of interaction is named parametric; matter plays the role of a catalyst.

7- The CREIL effect: choosing the active medium in astrophysics.
As the length of light pulses which make ordinary light is of the order of a nanosecond, the pressure must be low, and the Raman period must be longer than 1 nanosecond, that is the frequency must be lower than 1 GHz.
In astrophysics, the main gas is hydrogen. In the ground state, it has the well known Raman type frequency 1 420 MHz which is too large, but, in 2S or 2P, the frequencies are convenient.
It is remarkable that the high redshifts, the anomalous redshifts, the high background intensities are observed for light having crossed much excited atomic hydrogen, in particular close to very hot sources (quasars, supernova, T&gt;1000000K) whose extreme UV radiation dissociates molecular hydrogen, making a lot of excited atomic hydrogen.

A simple computation shows that, supposing that the optical parameters have the optimal values, the frequency shift is proportional to the inverse of the cube of the length of the pulses: In a lab, the CREIL can be observed with femtosecond laser pulses only.

8- The ISRS (Impulsive stimulated Raman Scattering).
Just as the index of refraction increases for high luminances, the CREIL increases for high luminances, becoming nearly proportional to the square of the luminances. Thus, the experiments using the powerful pulses of femtosecond lasers may use small probes. ISRS allowed to verify the theory precisely.

9- Conclusion
The CREIL is a thermodynamically allowed transfer of energy between beams refracted by a convenient medium, generally low pressure, excited atomic hydrogen in astrophysics. It shifts the frequencies, generally decreasing the light frequencies, increasing the radio frequencies (heating the thermal background). It does not blur the spectra and the images.

Alternative Cosmology Group Newsletter - April 2008

Posted April 8, 2008

Editor's Note: this newsletter covers papers posted from Jan. 1 to date.

Are old galaxies smaller, bigger or neither?

Three new papers on galaxy size deepen the contradiction between expanding-universe predictions and measurements. Van Dokkum et al look at very massive galaxies at a redshift of about 2.3 and find that on average they are 5- 6 times smaller in radius and hundreds of times denser than massive galaxies in todays universe. The densest of these high-z galaxies have densities five times that of any galaxies that now exist. The authors speculate that perhaps mergers may result in less dense galaxies, but mergers would also result in more massive galaxies, and some of the high-z galaxies are as massive already as the most massive galaxies observed today. So, if they merged, they would create galaxies larger than any we see. Since massive galaxies are easy to find, getting rid of either extremely massive or extremely dense galaxies is difficult, akin to hiding an elephant under a rug.

Sirocco et al confirm these results, reporting that at z=1.5 the surface brightness of galaxies, as determined with the conventional cosmology assumptions, is 2.5 magnitudes brighter than for nearby galaxies, which implies that, for a given luminosity, the galaxies have radii that are 3.2 times smaller.

On the surface, these results, taken in the context of conventional cosmology imply that smaller galaxies form first and then merge into larger ones. But more and more observations are showing that the oldest galaxies are the largest ones. Rakos et al find that in cluster galaxies that the most massive galaxies are the oldest ones, exactly the opposite of what would be expected if they are formed by merger of smaller galaxies. In addition, they find that galaxies in more massive clusters are also older, implying the clusters formed before the galaxies, again contradicting the conventional ideas of mass accumulating bottom-up.

To add to the puzzles presented by these papers, the average ages of the stellar populations measured by Rakos extend all the way up to the standard age of the universe of almost 14 Gy. This is a problem, since even in elliptical galaxies, there is some star formation going on. Since some stars in these populations are a lot younger than 14 Gy, there must be some older than 14Gy for the average to be that age. This creates the conundrum of having stars older than the universe.

These puzzle all find easy resolution if the universe is not in fact expanding. In a non-expanding universe, a galaxies physical size is proportional to its angular size times the redshift. If this formula is used for the samples studies by van Dokkum and Sirroco, rather than the formula based on the expanding universe, the galaxy sizes are almost exactly the same at high redshift as at the present time. As well, if the universe is not expanding, and there was no Big Bang, stars can be older than 14 Gy.

Confirmation of the remarkable compactness of massive quiescent galaxies at z~2.3: early-type galaxies did not form in a simple monolithic collapse
Authors: Pieter van Dokkum, Marin Franx, Mariska Kriek, Bradford Holden, Garth Illingworth, Daniel Magee, Rychard Bouwens, Danilo Marchesini, Ryan Quadri, Greg Rudnick, Edward Taylor, Sune Toft
arxiv.org/abs/0802.4094v1

The evolution of the morphological scale of early-type galaxies since z=2
Authors: P. Saracco, M. Longhetti, S. Andreon, A. Mignano (INAF - Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera)
arxiv.org/abs/0801.2269v1

The Age of Cluster Galaxies from Continuum Colors
Authors: K. Rakos (UVienna), J. Schombert (UOregon), A. Odell (NAU)
arxiv.org/abs/0801.3665v1


Dark matter gets dimmer

Yet another well-funded search for dark matter (non-baryonic) particles has come up with a negative result. The very large Cryogenic Dark Matter Search collaboration reported zero events from a nine-month run, attempting to detect WIMPs (weakly interacting particles) in germanium. This latest in a 30-year string of negative results has not, however, led to the collaborators to conclude that WIMPs do not exist, but merely that there are further limits on WIMP masses and interaction cross-sections.

Conventional cosmology contends that there is far more gravitating mass in the universe than can be accounted for by ordinary matter and that the difference must consist of dark matter. However, Makarov and Karachentsev measure the amount of gravitating matter in groups of galaxies, including clusters, within the local Supercluster. They find that the total density of gravitating matter is only one quarter the amount predicted by the concordance cosmology. In terms of the omega, the ratio of density to the critical density of the universe, the observed omega =0.07 compared with the predicted omega=0.27. Put another way, the mass-to-light ratio for the supercluster is 26 times the mass-to-light ratio of the sun. Since the stars in spiral galaxies have mass-to=light ratios of about 5 and in many clusters there is five times as much free plasma as there is mass in the galaxies, the measured amount of matter may well be accounted for by ordinary matter, obviating any need for dark matter.

A Search for WIMPs with the First Five-Tower Data from CDMS
Authors: CDMS Collaboration
arxiv.org/abs/0802.3530v2

Dark Matter Problem in the Local Supercluster
Authors: D. Makarov, I. Karachentsev
To appear in the proceedings of the IAU Symposium 244 "Dark Galaxies and Lost Baryons", Cardiff 25-29 June 2007, eds. J.I. Davies & M.J. Disney
arxiv.org/abs/0801.0043v1


Large-scale structurecan it fit in the conventional framework?

Conventional cosmology assumes that the distribution of matter in the universe is homogenous on the largest scales. However, some evidence shows that it is in fact fractal and in any case that giant voids 100 Mpc across or bigger are too big to have formed since the big bang. Two papers address these questions. Thieberger and Clrier use data from the SDSS catalog to determine that the distribution of galaxies in the distance range from 20-70 Mpc does seem to be fractal, the distribution converges on homogeneitya fractal dimension of 3at distance above 70 Mpc. However, the sample used only extends to 125 Mpc, so shows homogeneity for a relatively narrow range of distances. Bigger surveys would be needed to see if homogeneity continues to larger scales or is just a plateau in a larger-scale fractal distortion.

It is well known that structure does exist on larger scales-- voids have been observed that are as large as 140 Mpc across. It is hard to see how such large voids could form, but Schild and Gibson argue that a modification of Big Bang theory to take into account plasma interactions in the period 30-300,000 years after the Big Bang could form such voids as well as vortices that explain the alignments observed in the CBR. Their hydro-gravitational theory hover, must also explain how the existence of large-scale vortices in the Big Bang model would not have created very large anisotropies in the CBR, which are not observed.

Scaling Regimes as obtained from the DR5 Sloan Digital Sky Survey
Authors: Reuben Thieberger, Marie-Nolle Clrier
arxiv.org/abs/0802.0464v1

Goodness in the Axis of Evil
Authors: Rudolph E. Schild, Carl H. Gibson
arxiv.org/abs/0802.3229v1


Cluster shadowing debate continues

If the CBR was generated by the Big Bang, the plasma in clusters of galaxies should cast shadowsdim spotsin the CBR by a process know as the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect or SZ effect. Some studies, as reported in earlier newsletters, have indicated that the predicted shadows do not exist. Hover, Atrio-Barandela et al claim that they have detected the SZ effect in a sample of 700 clusters. So far, no papers have attempted to explain the differing results.

Measurement of the electron-pressure profile of galaxy clusters in Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) 3-year data
Authors: F. Atrio-Barandela, A. Kashlinsky, D. Kocevski, H. Ebeling
arxiv.org/abs/0802.3716v1


More on CBR non-Guassianity

In a somewhat similar conflict on the CBR, more papers continue to report non-Guassianity (non-randomness) in the distribution of CBR anisotropies, even though large collaborations continue that the CBR is Gaussian. Inflation theory, a key component of conventional cosmology predicts Gaussianity. McEwen et al find non-Guassianity in the Five-Year WMAP results, but contend that the non-randomness is limited to a few spots on the sky. Genova-Santos et al study one such spot, a cold spot in Corona Borealis and conclude that there is only a 0.19% chance of such a spot in a Gaussian CMB. However, (such is the force of ideology), they conclude from this that the cold spot cannot be caused by the primordial CMB, which has to be Gaussian. Instead they conclude that it must be caused by an unobserved body of gas through the SZ effect.

Editors comment: The refusal of Genova-Santos et al to take the observation of non-Guassianity in the CBR as a test of the prediction of inflationary theory that the CMB must be Gaussian and instead to take the Gaussianity of the CMB as a given because it is predicted by theory is symptomatic of the abandonment of basic scientific method that increasingly afflicts cosmology.

A high-significance detection of non-Gaussianity in the WMAP 5-year data using directional spherical wavelets
Authors: J. D., M. P. Hobson, A. N. Lasenby, D. J. Mortlock
arxiv.org/abs/0803.2157v1

Observations of the Corona Borealis supercluster with the superextended Very Small Array: further constraints on the nature of the non-Gaussian CMB cold spot
Authors: Ricardo Genova-Santos, Jose Alberto Rubino-Martin, Rafael Rebolo, Richard A. Battye, Francisco Blanco, Rod D. Davies, Richard J. Davis, Thomas Franzen, Keith Grainge, Michael P. Hobson, Anthony Lasenby, Carmen P. Padilla-Torres, Guy G. Pooley, Richard D.E. Saunders, Anna Scaife, Paul F. Scott, David Titterington, Marco Tucci, Robert A. Watson
arxiv.org/abs/0804.0199v1


MOND reviews

Finally, two papers provide useful reviews of the attempts of researchers to use MOND, Modified Newtonian Dynamics, as an alternative explanation to dark matter and other aspects of conventional cosmology

The MOND paradigm
Authors: Mordehai Milgrom (Weizmann Institute)
arxiv.org/abs/0801.3133v2

An Uneven Vacuum Energy Fluid as $\Lambda$, Dark Matter, MOND and Lens
Authors: HongSheng Zhao
arxiv.org/abs/0802.1775v3

Hi Tommy, Your latest post is very interesting. All the links will take a while to explore but I wonder if there is a map of the large voids being observed? Wouldn't a lot of the sky hide voids maybe most of the sky would hide them so how are they found?