full paper: A Novel Hypothesis for Hubble Redshift
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Bungling Idiots And Their Political Agendas Re: MYTH: 'Obama admin turned down foreign assistance' (and other Right-Wing Noory Distortions)
Next: Quantum Gravity 401.2: USA Relates Intersection to Basic Game Semantics Logic
From: Michael Helland on 12 Jul 2010 23:06 abstract: A model based on a novel interpretation of the observed Hubble redshift is compared and contrasted to a model based on the widely accepted expansion interpretation and also, for demonstration purposes, to a model based on the long refuted tired light interpretation. Let us begin with an observation, some empirical evidence. Exhibit A: Hubble redshift is detected in electromagnetic radiation that has traveled cosmological distances. To explain Exhibit A, I submit the following conjecture: Conjecture: The redshift is a decrease in energy and frequency which will eventually reach 0. This is caused by the internal dynamics of electromagnetic radiation. The established theories of electromagnetism have been so well tested in our laboratories as to be above suspicion as the source of the observed redshift at cosmological scales. And because the wide acceptance of the expansion interpretation, there seemed to be little reason to even consider changing the theories of light to accommodate Exhibit A. On the other hand, the expansion interpretation changed the apparent motion of every galaxy and the properties of space itself, limits the age of a Universe that contains vast superclusters, and introduces mysterious entities like dark energy. All of this increases the possibility of more elegant theories being discovered. Upon reflection, would changing the theories of EM radiation to accommodate a phenomenon detected in EM radiation, Exhibit A, be uncalled for? To explore that possibility, the conjecture needs to be developed into a hypothesis and worked into a model. In developing the hypothesis, the mindset demonstrated here is that the empirical reality of Exhibit A might indicate a new principle of physics at cosmological scales, and might demonstrate there are limits to the domain of applicability of many established theories, which are well tested but at much smaller scales. In other words, my hypothesis may contradict many other theories at cosmological scales, but only in the pursuit of best explaining what is actually observed at cosmological scales. According to the conjecture, the redshift is caused by the internal dynamics of EM radiation and not the motion of the galaxy that emitted the light; the apparent recessional velocity of a redshifted galaxy is not its actual recessional velocity. This leads me to ask, is there is a better way to state Hubble's Law (v = H * D) using some other physical magnitude in the place of the galaxy's apparent recessional velocity? I've developed what I think is the proper alternative to Hubble's Law, which generates some pretty interesting predictions and consequences. Hypothesis: v = c - Ht where v = the speed of light in a vacuum c = 299792.458 km/sec H = 21.77 km/sec/one million years t = duration of the photon's journey between emission and absorption in millions of years Given that the speed of a wave is its frequency * wavelength, and we observe a reduced frequency as empirical fact Exhibit A, it's not too difficult to see that reducing frequency would reduce the speed of the wave, just as the hypothesis predicts. To demonstrate the hypothesis I've built a model of light which is emitted along an x axis at a speed determined by the hypothesis, v = c - Ht. Once the timer starts, the light takes off until it reaches a target which is 6 billion light years away, at which point the timer is checked and the results are displayed. I've built two more models to compare and contrast the results with. In the second model, which is based on the dominant expansion hypothesis, the light does not obey my hypothesis, but instead always travels at c. On the other hand, the target that light is traveling toward is receding from the source of the light at a velocity v that increases proportionally with the distance D the light has traveled thus far, such that v = H * D. In the third model, which is based on the discredited tired light models, light may lose some energy based on an unexplained interaction, but it doesn't slow down nor does it encounter an increasing distance to its target. The models are written in the Visual FoxPro programming environment and provided in Appendix A of this paper. When they finish, in the first two models t=8.83 billion years, and in the third model t=6 billion years. A video of screen shots of the model running is available on the Internet at: Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0JTD3FkWjc Here is a graph that shows the final result of the models. Graph: (included at the end of the video) It can be seen from these results that while the distance covered by the v=c-Ht and tired light models is the same, the duration of the trip is larger than tired lights predictions by equal amounts in both v=c-Ht and the expansion models. v=c-Ht may not predict increasing distances, like the Big Bang, but it does predict increasing durations, identical to the Big Bang. It stands to reason that if a solar panel collecting energy X in 24 hours, were to start collecting the same energy X in 26 hours, that (assuming the change had occurred in the source and not the panel) the increasing duration would imply a decreased frequency of the incoming light. Because the increase in duration predicted by the expansion model and the v=c-Ht model are equal, it would stand to also reason that both models predict identical redshifts, the empirically observed Exhibit A. The increase in duration is a feature shared by the v=c-Ht and expansion models, creating a general class of models to which the tired light model does not belong, as it cannot predict Exhibit A and is again ruled out. Predictions That leaves the expansion model and v=c-Ht. Even though these models have been show to both predict an equally increasing duration, there are some differences in the cosmologies they predict, which will be examined so that tests may be devised to determine which of the models is the best fit for the whole cosmos. v=c-Ht predicts a finite range of light, whereas the established models have an indefinite range of light. Consequently, the distances of the established model must be increasing in an expansion that rewinds back to a Big Bang. Thus, the established models, with an indefinite range of light predict that the Universe has a finite age and size. On the other hand, v=c-Ht with its finite range of light, predicts an indefinite age and size of the Universe. If there were galaxies beyond the finite range of light, we would never see them. This would be confirmed by observing structure in the cosmos older than expansion model allows for. Further, as there is no increasing distances in the v=c-Ht model, it predicts shorter distances between galaxies, and thus a stronger force of gravity should be observed between galaxies than with expanded distances. Criticisms The first critical flaw that is often pointed out where this hypothesis's predictions and what is observed seem to be in conflict is that the measured wavelength of redshifted light is increased, whereas my theory predicts the frequency will reduce along with the speed, which means a static wavelength. On the contrary, the light's speed is dependent on the time between emission and absorption. That means once the light interacts with the measurement device, it will have been re-emitted. Since the time the light has been traveling since emission will now be small rather than cosmological, it will be re-emitted at c. The light won't magically regain its redshifted frequency or energy, Exhibit A, but since the hypothesis predicts the light will be traveling at c, its wavelength is predicted to be larger too. And that is what is observed of the light coming from the diffraction grating. This criticism actually works in favor of the hypothesis. A common reaction to this claim is that its an ad-hoc resolution to the criticism. But clearly this behavior is dictated by the hypothesis, even if it works differently than the established theories, which should be addressed here. I'll use Special Relativity as an example as it seems to be the theory most in disagreement with the decreasing speed of light. The response to this criticism is Exhibit A requires us to change our picture of Special Relativity, and it can be easily demonstrated how and why considering light cones in Special Relativity. No matter what scale you're talking about, somewhere the light cones will intersect. But even under the expansion model of redshift, this won't apply to the light at all scales. In the Big Bang, the distance between the light sources is expanding, and at distances beyond Hubble's Limit, the light cones won't intersect at all because of the expansion is too great. The novel finite range of light model, on the other hand suggests the light cones curve, making "goblet" or wineglass shapes, rather than cone-like martini glasses. Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Te4AJJTCMXk These light goblets and their deviations from their light cone counterparts, are suggested to be the source of a range of cosmological observations, from the fall off in surface brightness, the time dilation in supernovae light curves, and of course, Hubble redshift, Exhibit A. As more predictions and tests are worked out of the hypothesis, in the meantime go look out in the night sky sometime. Did all of that expand from a single point? Or is it possible light doesn't travel forever, and maybe there's even unfathomably more out there beyond what light is able to show us? You be the judge. Appendix A: clear lEscape = .f. lPictures = .f. on escape lEscape = .t. DECLARE Sleep IN Win32API INTEGER nMilliseconds if lPictures Declare Integer formtobmp IN "PCT_DLL.dll" integer hwnd,String bmpFileName lcFile = sys(2015) endif if type("_screen.target1") = "O" _screen.RemoveObject("target1") endif if type("_screen.target2") = "O" _screen.RemoveObject("target2") endif if type("_screen.target3") = "O" _screen.RemoveObject("target3") endif ntimescale = 10 graphscale = 14E+19 ygraphscale = 200/ntimescale c = 299792.458 millyearseconds = 60 * 60 * 24 * 365 * 1000000 xtarget = 6000 * c * millyearseconds xtarget2 = xtarget _screen.AddObject("target1", "target") _screen.target1.top = 10 _screen.target1.left = xtarget/graphscale _screen.target1.visible = .t. _screen.AddObject("target2", "target") _screen.target2.top = 40 _screen.target2.visible = .t. _screen.target2.left = xtarget/graphscale _screen.AddObject("target3", "target") _screen.target3.top = 70 _screen.target3.visible = .t. _screen.target3.left = xtarget/graphscale _screen.Cls() c = 299792.458 H = 21.77 c1 = c x = 0 x2 = 0 x3 = 0 t = 0 v2 = 0 t = 0 do while not lEscape and ; (empty(_screen.target1.caption) or ; empty(_screen.target2.caption) or ; empty(_screen.target3.caption)) * Take a picture * Take a screen shot before we go if lPictures and mod(t, 500) = 0 _screen.Caption = transform(t) + " million years" retVal = formtobmp(_vfp.HWnd ,fullpath(lcFile + transform(t) + ".bmp")) endif t = t + 1/ntimescale if xtarget > x x = x + (c1 * (millyearseconds/ntimescale)) c1 = c1 - (H/ntimescale) _screen.ForeColor = rgb(255, 0, 0) _screen.Circle(5, x/graphscale, 20) * _screen.Circle(5, _screen.Width/2 * (x/graphscale), _screen.Height - t/ygraphscale) endif if empty(_screen.target1.Caption) and xtarget <= x _screen.target1.Caption = transform(t) endif if xtarget2 > x2 x2 = x2 + (c * (millyearseconds/ntimescale)) * These work out the same, it's Hubble's Law *v2 = H * (x2 / (c * millyearseconds)) v2 = v2 + (H/ntimescale) xtarget2 = xtarget2 + v2 * (millyearseconds/ntimescale) _screen.target2.left = xtarget2/graphscale _screen.ForeColor = rgb(0, 0, 255) _screen.Circle(5, x2/graphscale, 50) * _screen.Circle(5, _screen.Width/2 * (x2/graphscale), _screen.Height - t/ygraphscale) endif if empty(_screen.target2.Caption) and xtarget2 <= x2 _screen.target2.Caption = transform(t) endif if xtarget > x3 x3 = x3 + (c * (millyearseconds/ntimescale)) _screen.ForeColor = rgb(0, 255, 0) _screen.Circle(5, x3/graphscale, 80) * _screen.Circle(5, _screen.Width/2 * (x3/graphscale), _screen.Height - t/ygraphscale) endif if empty(_screen.target3.Caption) and xtarget <= x3 _screen.target3.Caption = transform(t) endif enddo _screen.Caption = transform(t) + " million years" wait window if lPictures retVal = formtobmp(_vfp.HWnd ,fullpath(lcFile + transform(t) + ".bmp")) endif _screen.RemoveObject("target1") _screen.RemoveObject("target2") _screen.RemoveObject("target3") clear dlls define class target as label caption = "" BorderStyle = 1 Width = 50 Height = 20 enddefine
From: eric gisse on 12 Jul 2010 15:26 Michael Helland wrote: > abstract: A model based on a novel interpretation of the observed > Hubble redshift is compared and contrasted to a model based on the > widely accepted expansion interpretation and also, for demonstration > purposes, to a model based on the long refuted tired light > interpretation. > > Let us begin with an observation, some empirical evidence. > > Exhibit A: > Hubble redshift is detected in electromagnetic radiation that has > traveled cosmological distances. > > To explain Exhibit A, I submit the following conjecture: > > Conjecture: > The redshift is a decrease in energy and frequency which will > eventually reach 0. This is caused by the internal dynamics of > electromagnetic radiation. This is exactly 'tired light'. Your idea is neither novel or interesting. > > The established theories of electromagnetism have been so well tested Mike, you haven't even managed to work through freshman physics E&M problems. Where do you get the balls to talk about this stuff? [snip rest, unread]
From: Michael Helland on 13 Jul 2010 02:13 On Jul 12, 12:26 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Michael Helland wrote: > > abstract: A model based on a novel interpretation of the observed > > Hubble redshift is compared and contrasted to a model based on the > > widely accepted expansion interpretation and also, for demonstration > > purposes, to a model based on the long refuted tired light > > interpretation. > > > Let us begin with an observation, some empirical evidence. > > > Exhibit A: > > Hubble redshift is detected in electromagnetic radiation that has > > traveled cosmological distances. > > > To explain Exhibit A, I submit the following conjecture: > > > Conjecture: > > The redshift is a decrease in energy and frequency which will > > eventually reach 0. This is caused by the internal dynamics of > > electromagnetic radiation. > > This is exactly 'tired light'. No, tired light going back to Zwicky always invoked some strange interaction, either with dust or with space itself, things like that. Besides, the mathematics worked out differently between a model I built of tired light, which I showed is still wrong. > Your idea is neither novel or interesting. > > > The established theories of electromagnetism have been so well tested > > Mike, you haven't even managed to work through freshman physics E&M > problems. Where do you get the balls to talk about this stuff? > > [snip rest, unread] Humor me and read the rest of the paper. Or at least think about this. The expansion of the Universe has to change our picture of light cones in special relativity, because there are some cones that will never interact due to the expansion of space in between them. According to my hypothesis, we can change them another way to elegantly achieve the same effect. We make the light cones goblets. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0JTD3FkWjc
From: Sam Wormley on 13 Jul 2010 08:33 On 7/12/10 10:06 PM, Michael Helland wrote: > abstract: A model based on a novel interpretation of the observed > Hubble redshift is compared and contrasted to a model based on the > widely accepted expansion interpretation and also, for demonstration > purposes, to a model based on the long refuted tired light > interpretation. > Tired light hasn't make it in the empirical tests, Michael. Tired Light is Still Dead http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News 24 Apr 2008 - Blondin et al. (2008) studied distant supernovae using spectra to judge the age of the object during each observation. They found an aging rate that varied with redshift z like 1/(1+z)(0.97 +/- 0.10), compatible with the expected 1/(1+z) for expanding Universes, but 9.7 standard deviations away from the constant aging rate expected in the tired light model.
From: Michael Helland on 13 Jul 2010 12:46
On Jul 13, 5:33 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/12/10 10:06 PM, Michael Helland wrote: > > > abstract: A model based on a novel interpretation of the observed > > Hubble redshift is compared and contrasted to a model based on the > > widely accepted expansion interpretation and also, for demonstration > > purposes, to a model based on the long refuted tired light > > interpretation. > > Tired light hasn't make it in the empirical tests, Michael. > > Tired Light is Still Dead > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News Sure. That's why I'm suggesting something else. > 24 Apr 2008 - Blondin et al. (2008) studied distant supernovae using > spectra to judge the age of the object during each observation. They > found an aging rate that varied with redshift z like > > 1/(1+z)(0.97 +/- 0.10), > > compatible with the expected 1/(1+z) for expanding Universes, but 9.7 > standard deviations away from the constant aging rate expected in the > tired light model. |