The purpose of this thread is to discuss BAUT member lyndonashmore's ATM idea concerning H (the Hubble constant).

This idea, and related ones, were the topic of several threads* in BAUT's predecessor, the Bad Astronomy forum; readers of this post may wish to read some of those threads. There are also two threads in BAUT which may be of some interest, here and here.

Given the long history of this ATM idea, in BAUT and its predecessor, the rules for this thread will be a little tighter than those covering BAUT in general and this ATM section specifically.

First, unless lyndonashmore expands the scope, explicitly or implicitly, in what he posts, this thread will stay focussed on lyndonashmore's ATM idea concerning H. Other BAUT members are welcome to ask questions about, and challenge, this idea, as presented by lyndonashmore, in this thread.

Second, if lyndonashmore does expand the scope of this thread, discussion will remain focussed within that expanded scope, and will not revert to the status quo ante.

Third, discussion will begin after lyndonashmore has made an initial post to this thread. He may choose to present a case for his idea, or introduce material on another website (or both).

*list of threads: one, two, three.

Thanks Nereid,

poster 'nutant gene 71' brought the following link to our attention:

Big bang pushed back two billion years

In this link, the latest estimate of the age of the universe is 15.8 billion years – which is 4.98x10^17 seconds.

Now, pick up your calculator, and call up three constants. The mass, m and classical radius, r of the electron as well as the Planck constant, h. Calculate m/hr and one gets 4.88x10^17 – the same magnitude as the age of the universe! (We will sort the units out later). Ashmore's paradox

Now if any schoolchild can pick up their calculator, call up three constants and find the age of the universe – a feat that has taken teams of scientists tens of years to perfect, then I propose that there is something drastically wrong with the expanding universe idea. Especially as the electron and the Planck constant are closely related to the way light interacts with matter.

In my theory, redshift is caused by light interacting with electons as they travel along. That is photons of light, as they travel along, are absorbed and reemitted by the electrons in space.

On absorpton and reemission the electrons recoil.

Some of the energy of the photon is transferred to the recoiling electron.

If the energy of the photon is less its frequency is less.

If the frequency is less, the wavelength is longer.

The photon has been redshifted.

I show that this leads to a relationship for the Hubble constant of H = 2nhr/m where ‘n’ is the number of electrons per cubic metre of space.

This paper is one of many that give values of ‘n’ for intergalactic space as approxmately 1 electron per cubic metre (They firstly say 1 to 10 but then go on to use n = 1 in all their calculations).

When n = 1, my predicted value of H is 4x10^-18 s^-1 or 120 km/s per Mpc. This compares well with observed values of around 70 km/s per Mpc.

Furthermore, in the BB, the age of the universe is 1/H. Using my expression for H gives the age of the universe as (1/2n)x(m/hr) and so one can see very clearly why we have the coincidence of the age of the universe and our schoolchild calculation of (m/hr) illustrated above - it just means that n has a value of 0.5.

Who needs expansion?

Any questions?

Cheers,
Lyndon

What's there to discuss?

Lyndon simply rehashed the same old arguments that have been long debunked.
There is absolutely nothing new. Just follow the links given by Nereid.

__________________
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)

lyndonashmore,

I've been meaning to discuss this idea with you, but I wanted to read up on your posts first. It seems you have quite a few. I agree with most all of the ideas you present, but I am having a problem with your determination of H.

It seems that you feel that since a close approximation to the value of H can be found using values related to the electron, that electrons are the culprits for tired light. I disagree. Many values are related to electrons in one way or another. The value of h, for instance, which is used as the constant to relate the frequency of light to its energy can be found as h=2pim_ev_er_H, where we are using the mass of the electron and average velocity in a hydrogen atom of ca, where a is the alpha constant. r_H is the radius of a hydrogen atom. It can also be found as 2pim_ecr_e/a, where r_e is the classical electron radius. Since the electric constant (k_eq²) is also related to the electron (k_eq²=m_ev_e²r_H=m_ec²r_e), h can also be expressed as h=2pi(k_eq²)/ac.

It seems to me that electrons would be too large to simply absorb the frequencies of light little by little. I believe they would instead absorb entire photons, which may reduce the overall intensity, but not the individual frequencies over a distance. This would require something much smaller than the wavelengths of the light. On my website, I consider it to be neutrinos, and come up with a value for H of (3/5a)G(m_ec)³/(k_eq²)²=2.099354*10^-18 sec^-1 accordingly. It is not near as graceful or simple as yours, I know, but it follows from the initial determinations of the paper.

I actually thought I might be the first to come up with the realization that light loses energy according to its total energy at any given time, so it would decrease as 1-1/[e^(Hd/c)]. Apparently, you found this too. It was the first thing that caught my attention about your posts. But you seem to be missing a very important part of the meaning behind that formula (according to what I have read of your posts so far). The redshift to distance relationship for very distant galaxies has been found to be greater than it should be for an expanding universe. In other words, the expansion is accelerating. So far, no good reason has been found why this should be occurring, although I'm sure in time many theories will arise such as with reconsidering the cosmological constant. But don't you see? This is precisely what the tired light theory predicts, which gives it an edge over Big Bang cosmology. Since the redshift to distance formula is not linear after all, but is instead z=1-1/[e^(Hd/c)], it would cause the apparent redshift of very far away galaxies to seem to be moving away faster than they should be, hence the appearance of an accelerating expansion.

__________________
Let's put together the pieces of The Grand Puzzle . (website)

"Let's define another operator, Sz, which we won't pay any attention to."
"This transformation will automatically make zero equal zero."
"It may be true that zero equals zero -- and that is certainly an equality -- but I don't want to go into the details at this time."

Hi grav,
Coincidences in science are always interesting and should always be looked at seriously to ensure that they really are concidences and that there really is no relatonship between them.
Remember, Weber and Kirchoff? They both independently measured the speed of electrical signals down a wire and got the speed of light. They both thought it was a coincidence and left it to Maxwell to make the connection!


The reason I believe it is electrons is that this is how photons of light travel through transparent materials - by being constantly absorbed and reemitted by the electrons in the material. I simply applied the Physics of transparent materials to space and the whole thing dropped out (it was only then that I noticed the coincidence between H and hr/m for the electron). In any case, the electrons do absorb the whole photon and then they reemit a new photon similar to the first but, in space, with a little less energy due to the recoiling electron.

Sounds interesting. Why not post it as a separate thread for us all to discuss it in depth?
Thanks for the compliment. When a theory is "smple and graceful it is usually correct!"


Sorry to be the one to disappoint you but the whole idea of light losing energy as it travels along was first proposed by Fritz Zwicky in 1929! He also got the exponential form of the formula too. In Hubble's Biography, it is said the he first proposed the idea at a weekly meeting in Hubble's front room - and from that point on Hubble refused to call redshifts velocities anymore. "Redshift is what we measure and redshifts is what I will call them!"
Sorry, I never have missed this point. It is very important that my theory matches experimental results better than the BB.
Cheers,
Lyndon

There's nothing to sort out. This little parlor-trick of yours with the calculator ONLY WORKS WHEN YOU USE SI UNITS!
Any schoolchild should also be able to pick up a calculator, convert the values of the three constants to some other system of units, say pounds, furlongs and fortnights, and show that the resulting numbers ARE NOT THE SAME.

Only the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster knows why you continue to trumpet this so-called "Ashmore's Paradox" as some sort of great discovery despite the fact that it is based on a bit of carelessness with units that would make a first-year physics student fail a test.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Hi Celestial Mechanic,
Which part of:
age of Universe = (1/2n)(m/hr) is careless in units?

That is not how you wrote it in your earlier quote. Let me refresh your memory.
There is no mention of (1/2n) anywhere. Nor was there in your original statements of your "paradox" when you first started posting here. Only after we pounded you repeatedly for your sloppy treatment of units did you finally bring in 2n. Your work is sloppy and amateurish.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Hi Celestial Mechanic,
Here is an exerpt from my earlier post
The (1/2n) is there plain for all to see.

Not true, is it?

What CM said.

You haven't bothered to discuss units yet, which is a big no-no, IMO. You need units of volume to get the age seconds. Does electron density work for this? Maybe. Only if one value out of a big range is correct. And why the magical factor of 2? What physical evidence gives you that value for that constant? None that I've seen (it fits isn't physical evidence, it's shoehorning).

No, it doesn't. In the last paragraph of Sect. 3.1, they quote n_e = 10^-6cm^-3 - 10^-5cm^-3 = 1m^-3 - 0.1m^-3 in intergalactic space. However, in intragalactic space, densities can get up to 10^-3cm^-3 - 1cm^-3. That's 1000m^-3 as a lower limit to the maximum. The fact that they use n_e = 10^-6cm^-3 as their value for intergalactic space is likely because it is the lower limit.

However, the real point I want to make here is that your "theory" gets killed by the interstellar densities, which are orders of magnitudes above unity in SI. That ruins your m/hr "paradox." There is also the fact that there should be significant anisotropies in our measured redshifts if depending on where we look at them through the galaxy. I'm strongly under the impression that we do not see this happen. What is your rebuttal to these statements?

Let's not dismiss this out of hand. Lyndon, what electron density is required to validate your model?

What you believe is wrong.

Let me repeat for the benefit of the people that have not read the other threads.

In (transparent) materials the electrons are bound to positive charges (the nuclei of the atoms), which means that an electron has some potential energy in the field produced by the positive charge. When an EM wave comes along, it is possible that the electron gets energy from it to go to a higher potential. This is what it really means when we say that an electron has absorbed a photon (a quantum of energy of the EM wave). The energy of the absorbed photon is "stored" in the increased potential energy of the electron in the EM filed of the positive charge.

If an electron is alone, with no positive charges nearby - as in interstellar/-galactic plasma -, and an EM wave comes along, there is no potential energy where the energy of an absorbed photon can be stored. The only energy an electron can change is its kinetic energy. This is known as Compton scattering, and if you work out the formulas, you can see that it does not yield the red-shift needed in Lyndon's "theory" (for example, if the scattered photon moves in the same direction of the original photon, it has the same energy).

__________________
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)

Please read the threads linked in Nereid's OP. You will see that there have been plenty of discussions about Lyndon's ideas.

__________________
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)

Yes, H = 2nhr/m is correct in units and is true in any system of units you care to use. they both have dimensions of 1/(time).
However, the theory is consistent with published values of 'n'.
Again this comes from published results of the phtoabsorpton cross section for an electron absorbing a photon (f = 1 for a reemitted photon)


how do you know this? (Bolding is mine)

When the densities of the plasma gets too high, the electrons don't recoil (as they don't in dense solids such as glass) so there is little to no redshift here.
Lastly, plasma densities may vary from place to place but we only get galaxes in the Hubble flow when they are a long way off. Any variations in densities are random and cancel out to give even redshfts (remember, n is an average density).
So, sorry, the theory still lives.
cheers,
lyndon

P.S. I think you are using plasma between galaxies in a cluster (ICM?) rather rather than that in the vast voids between them(IGM?) - the ones we want. Some of the high values you quote look like those in the Virgo cluster.
cheers,
Lyndon

Thanks Thanatos
It's not a case of what density is 'required', I am just saying that using published values, the result H = 2nhr/m is consistent with observation.
Cheers,
Lyndon