Did you read the article? We knew that those stars were there. Furthermore, there are other methods that can be used to find the distance to the Andromeda Galaxy than angular size. It's quite likely that Cepheids, for instance, give a distance that matches other methods for Andromeda, and the physical size was based on the angular measurement.

Thanks Sylas, I will have to look at Fritz Zwicky's work some more. Though disproven, there may exist some element in his thinking of interest to me. If cosmic light redshift were a 'gravitational' phenomenon, it would dovetail into something else I had worked on (only speculative for now) that the gravitational 'proportional' between how masses attract may be inversely related to the energy flux in which it is measured. This would mean very great gravity in the IG reaches of deep space, where energy is low, which could account for the so-called 'dark matter', but only a spec for now. Hypotethically, if this dark matter effect exists right down to gaseous single molecules floating in deep space, they may be gravitationally redshifting light all the way down to our observations here. Somehow this makes more sense to me, though overcoming all the evidence for an expanding universe, including the redshifted observations of out-spinning galaxies (as opposed to blueshift of in-spinning, from our perspective) would appear to be ironclad evidence for expansion, among others. But the universe is a tricky place, especially in trying to project our understanding from our Earth's observations onto the rest of the cosmos, where we may be unwittingly guilty of a kind of 'neo-geocentrism'.

... just lookin', wondering how much extra G would it need to account for redshift as we know it, and would that higher gravitational proportionality for deep space account for 'dark matter?.. and how would that affect our current notions of redshifted expansion, or BB? Of course, that would put in question the notion of a universal constant for gravity, I suppose. :-?

Any way to work this neo-Zwicky idea on gravity into your hypothesis, Lyndon?

Cheers.

__________________
Caveat Lector. Experimentum summus judex...

Always had two CMB photons one when the initial photon is absorbed and the second when it is re-emitted. Momentum of incoming photon = h/λ
By cons. Of momentum h/λ = mv tells us v = h/mλ
KE transferred to recoiling electron id mv^2/2 = h^2/(2mλ^2)
C = f λ so KE lost to recoiling electron = h^2f^2/2mc^2
This energy is radiated as a CMB photon. Light has a frequency of 6x10^14 Hz
So energy lost to recoiling electron when a photon of light is absorbed is 9.7x10^-25J.
A photon of this energy has a wavelength of 21 cm. ie microwave.
Photons at the peak of the CMB curve are produced by incident photon originally in the UV. All this is in my paper and is not ‘new.’.
Cheers,
Lyndon

Not really Lunatik, I am getting there with my theory. I am a great believer in John Wheelers ideas about scientific method - "you pick a theory and Stick up for it!"
What is strange (or maybe not) is that if something goes against the BB then it is said to be "a little problem" - the horizon problem, the flatness problem, the relic particle problem , the where did inflation come from problem.....
But when it comes to ATM theories any "little problem" becomes, well this rules out this theory.
Just a thought!
Cheers,
Lyndon

No contradiction Atomium, the energy only gets diffused throughout the whole system if the frequency of the incoming photon is equal to the plasma frequency. In IG space this is about 6Hz so it doesn't happen with light as the frequency is far too high.
But there are two things going on here. One is the normal transmission of light in a transparent medium. Photon comes along and the oscillating electric field drives the electron into vibration. This sets the nearby ones vibrating also. When the driving force stops the oscillations of the system of electrons continue untill all the energy has been re-radiated (due to damping).
In glass etc, the electrons are 'fixed' and so they do not recoil. All the incoming energy is re-radiated as a new photon with the same frequency as before - it is not redshifted.
In IG space, The electrons are able to recoil and do so. Some energy of the incoming photon is transferred to the electron on both absorption and re-emission so the energy of the new photon emitted is less than before - it is redshifted. Now the recoiling electron also sets up oscillations along the original direction of the photon and these also cause a secondary photon to be emitted - the CMB photon. We get one of these on absorption and a second one on re-emission ie two CMB photons.
Cheers.
Lyndon

No where has it been established that the restoring forces are not large enough to account for the effect. The plasma in IG space oscillates because the individual electrons are able to perform SHM. The frequency is a published result
The only reason some doubt the conservation of energy and momentum laws is that they have neglected to include these oscillations.
Cheers,
Lyndon

Bad analogy Atomium, gravitational forces are extremely weak. Electric forces are very strong and the electrons very light. In fact two electrons 1m apart would accelerate away from each other at an acceleration of 2530m/s^2 - 250 times the acceleration due to gravity.
As I said before in alternating currents the electrons have a rapid random thermal motion and yet they perform SHM.
Cheers,
Lyndon

Where in your CMB page do you talk about two photons? In all your explanations, only one CMB photon per collision is mentioned, not two.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

The CMB page on my website is down at present - I was in the process of gradually going through it page by page when Papageno kindly started this thread and there hasn't been time since. I am also having a few problems with the diagrams that seem to want to be in the 'negative' (changing over to 'better' software' and not used to it). However, it is in the theory chapter 6 page 8 "the recoiling electron is brought to rest".
and then in the maths which I also post above and re quoted by yourself.
Cheers,
Lyndon

This would fail if submitted as a balanced energy momentum conservation budget at high school level. The published paper is no better; it does not give a fully balanced energy momentum budget either.

The initial state is an incoming photon, properly quantified here and in the paper.
Initial photon: Energy hc/λ Momentum h/λ

But what about the final state? This is not well defined. Is it the state after an alleged photo-absorption? Is it the state after "re-emission"? Is it the state after the CMB photon(s) have gone? We get energy balanced in some states, and momentum balanced in other states, but never a quantified balanced energy and momentum budget at a well defined point in the process.

Let's press on with the figures given above.
Absorbing electron: Energy h^2/(2mλ^2) Momentum h/λ

If we try to quantify the energy at this point, we end up with 99.99976% of the energy still unaccounted for. If the particle was an atom, this would be taken up as a jump in energy level, but electrons don't have energy levels unless bound to an atom, so this first bit fails in the energy balance. We can't make it up with CMB photons either, they are not energetic enough.

Lyndon has in some posts (but not in his paper!) accepted that the electron cannot "hold on" to the photon, and re-emits it straight away. See, for example, this post and the novel interpretation of the f2 form factor as probability of "retaining" an absorbed photon.

So could Lyndon give a balanced energy momentum budget by incorporating emission of the redshifted photon into his analysis? Perhaps. He's never tried. If he does, then there is almost no momentum left over for the electron, and the electron figures above are useless. It has way too much momentum. A truly balanced analysis will need to include the CMB photons as well, because the electron can't make up the energy difference on its own unless the redshifted photon is scatted as in the usual Compton interaction. Try it and see.

The direction of the CMB photons is not specified. The maximum energy transfer to the electron occurs if they are both backscattered, and in this case the electron can get a maximum energy of boost from the interaction of around 1e-34 J, which corresponds to an electron with a velocity of just under 1.5 cm/sec.

Don't believe me? Then give the numbers, for a fully balanced energy/momentum budget, clearly stating all contributions to energy and momentum, at any well defined point you like in the interaction. Lyndon has never done this, either in the thread or in his paper.

Cheers -- Sylas

PS. A string of the usual errors appear in the thread since the the post I am responding to, but there is one point on which Lyndon is quite correct.

His paper does have two CMB photons. But there is no possibility of a properly balanced energy momentum budget until they are emitted; which means that they can't be called bremsstrahlung. Bremsstrahlung would mean that there was a consistent state in which the electron has a non-trivial velocity, and the radiation arises from deceleration interactions. In real Bremsstrahlung there are usually a number of photons as an electron decelerates in a series of quantum jumps; but for Lyndon's proposed interaction there is no valid state with balanced energy momentum budgets in which the electron has been accelerated to any velocity above 1.5 cm/sec. The CMB photons have to be emitted right in the initial collision in order to balance the books.

My reply to the removed post was:A proper, and honest, scientist would have quoted the original post and admitted where he was wrong.
lyndonashmore, instead, prefers to rewrite history.


EDIT to add: I don't think that such kind of revision is good for the board. So I sent a PM to the BA.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Emphasis in your first quote mine: so you mean that the energy is radiated as two CMB photons?
And your page is not down, it's one of the five or six links on your main page, and it has been last revised in october 2004, i.e. after your reprint paper was made. And it has nothing to do with diagrams either.
But allright, you somehow seem to admit that that page (the CMB page) is wrong. Let's move on to the other mistakes!

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Actually it is quite a good analogy. Consider billiard balls, with a mass of around 150 grams. Billiard balls on a table get quite close to each other; certainly less than a meter. I'll use 5 cm. The force between two such balls is around 6e-10 N, and the gravitational potential energy is around 3e-11 J. The escape velocity is around 2e-5 m/s

Since billiard balls tend to move around a table at about 10 m/s or so, this is something like 500,000 times faster that the gravitational escape velocity.

Now consider electrons in the IGM, a meter apart. The force is about 2.3e-28 N, and the potential energy is 2.3e-28 J. The corresponding velocity for an electron is 22 m/s. Electrons in the IGM are at temperatures of around million degrees or even more, and hence have velocities of something like 6e6 m/s; about 300,000 times faster than the escape velocity.

That's not a bad comparison at all. It's plenty good enough for a rough comparison of the significance of the forces for the particle. You can't just compare the magnitude of accelerations, without also looking at differences in mass and velocity. An acceleration of 253 m/s^2 (you got a power of ten wrong there somewhere Lyndon) is negligible for an electron, given the speeds at which they normally move. In fact, TheAtomium has given a rough comparison that gets quite close to the same ratio for natural velocities to escape velocities.

Yes, you did; and it was wrong. The rapid thermal motion overwhelms oscillations by many orders of magnitude, and if you look at the motions of an individual electron, there will be no detectable difference whether the current is on or off. The SHM is only apparent when you amalgamate over many many billions of electrons.

TheAtomium is correct about restoring forces in the IGM being inadequate to give SHM to an individual electron. Just like AC currents, plasma oscillations only show up as density waves from the combined effect of huge numbers of particles.

Cheers -- Sylas

[quote]This energy is stored in the oscillating system of electrons in the plasma - as Sylas well knows. This is why the shift in wavelength is small at each interaction.

This is totally untrue. There is always a delay between absorption and re-emission. This is why the electron recoils in the first place.

Not true. In Sylas' "sums' he forgot the vector nature of momentum. The electron recoils one way on absorption and the other way on re-emission. Sylas ignored these directions and did a scalar addition.

Sylas rejects half of the theory, discounts it from his 'sums' and then says "OOh! it doesn't work!" Hardly surprising. Sylas knows that if he incorporates the oscillating system of electrons in his 'sums' everything wil come out fine.
Cheers,
Lyndon

Sylas wrote

Just a small point here Sylas, electrons are repulsive little things. Two electrons don't have an escape velocity!

Only show up, only show up, only show up?
Show up where?
How do these density waves come about then if the elctrons don't move?
Cheers,
Lyndon


Cheers -- Sylas[/quote]

You see? Yet again you misrepresent other people's positions.
Nobody said the electrons in a plasma do not move (Sylas says "have velocities of something like 6e6 m/s", in the part you quoted): the point is that they move so fast that their Coulomb interaction is negligible compared to their kinetic energy, which is why they are considered free.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

A quick look at the times show that myoriginal post was removed within 5 minutes of posting. Your post was posted 3 minutes after mine was posted. This is not time enough for you to have read anything in that post and put your own reply up. I reposted an edited version stating what had hapened. The whole thing was nothing more than an edit.
I see that you edited your post. If what you say is true then you too should have quoted the original post and then put the edited version on too. What you suggest is hardly practical is it.
Cheers,
Lyndon
PS 3 minutes to reply is fairly rapid, is it a record? I wonder what the record is?

So how can electrons moving freely combine to give these density waves you and Sylas keep talking about?
Cheers,
Lyndon
Who is now going to do some work.

It was a loose but valid analogy (that actually turned out to be a lot closer than I thought!) and you have deliberately misunderstood it. The point is that acceleration imparted by repulsive (in your case) or attractive (in mine) forces is negligable compared to the object's common velocities. Hence, no SHM in your case, and no orbiting billiard balls in mine.


Sylas never said the electrons didn't move. He said that the 'oscillations' you are so dependant on are non-existant at the particle level, and instead exist on much greater scales when averaging over billions of particles.

You attributed oscillating electric fields to a single photon, which is wrong. The electric field is oscillating in macroscopic EM waves.
The mistake was obvious (and not new for you), and it took me just the time to finish reading the first few sentences to realize that.

Let me turn your accusation around: you had two minutes to read my very short reply. That's plenty of time to realize your mistake.


"Hang on a minute let me have another look at this!": where do you explain what happened?
You did not explain that you confused macroscopic EM waves with single photons, and retracted the post because it was wrong.

What part of "EDIT to add:" is confusing?
My edit consist in adding a few lines: I did not alter the original content.

But don't worry, in future I will quote your posts, so you won't be tempted to rewrite history.

I am fairly well trained physicist: it becomes easy to spot obvious mistakes.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

What are you rambling about, Lyndon? Not time enough? His post is there, so obviously he had time enough.
What you did was much more than an edit, it was a delete of the original post. What Papageno did was add to the bottom of his post an afterthought, which he clearly indicated as an edit, even though it wasn't even visible in the post history that he had edited it. Nothing of the original post was lost. In your case, we have a reply to a post, and then you edit it out, making it impossible to judge what you did or what Papageno responded to. The two are not comparable at all, and you are just trying to divert the attention.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Do you know how sound propogates through air? Or do you disagree with the current model for that as well?

Still trying to do some work here, but are you saying that air molecules are all charged?
Electrons interact by long range coulomb forces and perform SHM since the magnitude of the forces are distant dependent. Air molecules as I understood it are neutral so there are no forces until they 'bump' into each other. One cannot cpmpare density waves in a plasma of charged particles to sound waves in a gas consisting of neutral atoms.

Cheers,
Lyndon

Fram,
There were no posts there when I did My 'five minute edit'. The other '3 minute reply' appeared during the processing time. I put an explanation of the changes at the bottom in case such an event happened.
Cheers,
lyndon

Papageno wrote
Good the changes I made were at the end so you never read them! I had already had the consideration to account for Rapid Responses in my 'PS'.
Cheers,
Lyndon

You can just delete a post. When you notice that that doesn't work (because someone has responded already), you can just reply 'You're right, I was wrong, stupid mistake' or so. Altering a post to effectively delete it is the worst of both solutions combined, and certainly when you had anticipated it.

And that still doesn't make it correct to accuse Papageno of replying without reading it, as you did in your post. If you would have made the explanation you make now instead of (as I said) trying to divert the attention), we wouldn't have this discussion.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

If you read the FAQ, you will see that a text like "Last edited by lyndonashmore on Tue May 31, 2005 5:11 pm; edited 1 time in total", appears at the bottom of a post, when there has been a reply.
And your "explanation of the changes" is "post removed", which does not explain why you removed it.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

The changes you made were at the end? What's that supposed to mean? There is nothing left of the original post, so the end in your view starts at the first line

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

I think we have covered everything on this point now, so how do free electrons with random thermal motion generate 'density waves?"
I say it is because the individual electrons perform SHM and there is a phase lag between them so we get the 'density waves'.
What do you say?
Cheers,
Lyndon With profound appologies to Papageno.

Obfuscation.
You deleted all of the original content of your post.
I pointed out the main mistake of the original post, and no amount of changes could have corrected it.
You decided to revise history instead of admitting that you were wrong (which is not surprising, actually).

You behaved dishonestly.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)