As brought to our attention by Paracelsus and Antoniseb in other threads, new observational evidence has now been found to support the “tired Light” theory recently discussed on this board.
Here we see that high energy gamma ray photons travel more slowly through the intergalactic medium than lower energy ones.
Forget the ‘expanding universe patch’ What it says is that photons of longer wavelengths travel faster through the intergalactic medium than photons of shorter wavelength do.
Or to put it in schoolboy terms, red light travels faster through a medium than blue light does.
Told you so!
Cheers,
Lyndon

It's funny that what you wrote there is so obviously wrong, given what was written on that blog post.

Is there any reason to take this result generally across the entire spectrum?

The Blog says:
so whats obviously wrong with that?
It clearly states that photons of longer wavelength travel faster than those of shorter ones.
just like light in glass - tired light.
Why do you think the experimental result says otherwise?
cheers,
Lyndon

Perhaps Kwalish Kid's question ("Is there any reason to take this result generally across the entire spectrum?") isn't as clear as it could be.

In any case, I will ask several related questions, ones that are, I hope, more precise.

In terms of the ATM idea that you are presenting in this new ATM thread, how does the SciAm article support your claim that "red light travels faster through a medium than blue light does"?

What is the peer-reviewed paper reporting the MAGIC results?

Where, in that paper, is the "red light travels faster through a medium than blue light does" claim presented? supported?

More generally, what is the range of EM frequencies (wavelengths) over which this reported MAGIC result is directly applicable?

What is the basis for your (apparent) claim that it has applicability over a larger range?

The blog does say that. However, the paper that the blog links too does not. The moral of this story is: Go Beyond the Blog (GBB).

See Probing Quantum Gravity using Photons from a Mkn 501 Flare Observed by MAGIC; J. Albert, et al., for the MAGIC collaboration, which has been submitted to Physical Review Letters.

Abstract: We use the timing of photons observed by the MAGIC gamma-ray telescope during a flare of the active galaxy Markarian 501 to probe a vacuum refractive index ~ 1-(E/M_QGn)ⁿ, n = 1,2, that might be induced by quantum gravity. The peaking of the flare is found to maximize for quantum-gravity mass scales M_QG1 ~ 0.4x10¹⁸ GeV or M_QG2 ~ 0.6x10¹¹ GeV, and we establish lower limits M_QG1 > 0.26x10¹⁸ GeV or M_QG2 > 0.39x10¹¹ GeV at the 95% C.L. Monte Carlo studies confirm the MAGIC sensitivity to propagation effects at these levels. Thermal plasma effects in the source are negligible, but we cannot exclude the importance of some other source effect.

So, we see from the abstract that they "use the timing of photons", but we don't see how. Specfically, we see no reference here to the speed of light, or variations thereof. We do see quantum gravity mass scales. So what does it all mean? To GBB let us add GBA: Go Beyond the Abstract, and suffer the terrible indignity of actually reading the original paper.

On page 2 (upper right) we find this: "The arrival time of each event is obtaind with high precision by signal extraction from a 300 MHz FADC, using a sliding window of fixed length (details can be found in [12]), and the absolute times are given by a rubidium clock and cross-checked with GPS." Here, [12] refers to Signal Reconstruction for the MAGIC Telescope; J. Albert, et al., 2006, and "FADC" is a flash analog-to-digital converter. So we know how the timing is done, but we don't yet know how it is used.

We find the answer to our question in the transition from page 2 to page 3. The individual event timing (that is, photon detections) are used to construct a time-energy distribution, or in other words a pulse shape or flare shape. If the photons are travelling through a dispersive medium, then the flare shape will be smeared. So if we know the difference between the true flare shape and the real flare shape, we can derive the index of refraction of the medium, which in this case leads to constraints on quantum fluctuations that interfere with photon propagation, and smear the flare. But of course, there is a catch: What is the true flare shape? See page 3:

The true shape of the time profile at the source is not known, so we choose the following analysis strategy. In general, the fine time structure of any flare would be blurred by an energy-dependent effect on photon propagation. Conversely, one may correct for the effects of any given parametric model of photon dispersion, e.g., the linear or quadratic vacuum refractive index, by applying to each photon of energy E the appropriate time shift [7] corresponding to its propagation in a spatially flat universe: ... If the correct energy dependent QG shift is applied, the fine time structure of the emission profile is restored.

In the above I have omitted ( "...") the equations, go read the paper if you want to see the details. Now, continuing on from there ...

We implement this analysis strategy in two ways that yield similar results. In one analysis, the OG shift is varied so as to maximize the total energy in the most active part of the flare, and in the other analysis we use the shape of the flare as extracted from the original (untransformed) data. As we show below, these independent data analyses yield similar sensitivities to the possible QG scale.

So, for starters, we see that there is no attempt to derive a wavelength dependent speed of light through space. Therefore, it is just plain wrong to say that the paper demonstrates, in any direct fashion, that the speed of light depends on the wavelength.

In fact, what the paper really does is to derive the mass scale of quantum gravity fluctuations in the space-time foam, if the observed flare profile has been smeared by a dispersive medium. They do not know, and cannot know, if the observed profile was actually smeared, since the true source profile is always unknown.

One more point needs to be made. According to special relativity, the speed of light in a vacuum is constant for all inertial observers. It is well known that the speed of light through anything that is not a vacuum is not constant. Chromatic abberations in refractor lenses, or rainbows from a prism, are both examples of the dispersive effects of glass. The speed of light through glass, or any other dispersive medium, depends on wavelength. The presence of quantum fluctuations means that the "vacuum" of space is not what Einstein envisioned, but is rather a dispersive medium with an index of refraction. Therefore, a wavelength dependent speed of light therein does not violate special relativity.

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

Lyndon - do you know the proper parameters for c, and what the MAGIC team is measuring? In specific, do you know why the two are, in fact, unrelated?

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

I am not clear what you mean here Nereid, in asking:
Are you saying that these people and institutuions are all wrong?
If so where is the error in their paper?
Cheers,
lyndon

Thank you Tim Thompson for STPO (stating the patently obvious) what is needed here is a bit of TOTB (Tinking outside the box).
In any paper there are basically two parts, 1) scientific results and observations and 2) an attempt to explain those results in terms of some model.
The results here show high energy photons (photons of shorter wavelength at the 'blue end' of the spectrum) travel slower through the intergalactic medium than those at the 'red end'. Fine no problem there - any high school kid knows that.
It then tries to explain this in terms of quantum foam mumbo jumbo. Forget this.
We all know that the results are as expected from the Tired light model as proposed by myself and others. Treat the IG as a transparent medium and this result, redshift, H all follow on logically.
BTW, the scientific term you are searching for is 'dispersion.'
Cheers,
lyndon

Serenitude, they are:
and that is how one measures the speed.
When photons are 'slowed down' in a medium it means that they have been absorbed and reemitted by that medium and that leads to Tired light.
Cheers,
Lyndon

Could you please provide the calculations that predict this particular observation?

Or are you abandoning the idea of trying to explain the results in terms of your model?

That one of my question is now moot, as Tim Thompson provided a link to the arXiv preprint.

For the record, I was asking you to do that, to support your ATM claim. The link in the OP is to a blog, not a pre-print or paper.

Now, please answer the other questions.

My understanding of the tired light models was that light lost energy, not velocity, as it went through the medium. This would allow the pulses we see to arrive at the same time regardless of observed energy, and for spectral lines to be preserved, though shifted. Simply slowing higher energy light makes little difference on those fronts.

In the paper Tim mentioned, the suggestion was that the amount of slow-down was related to the ratio of the energy of the photon to the Planck-mass, and they were exploring two likely models for what that factor might be, but in neither case was there any significant delay of signal for any photon below 250 GeV. This is about 10¹² times as energetic as what you'd be calling red and blue light.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Antoniseb beat met to it, Lyndon. You may consider this my response, unless you require further clarification.

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

Hi Antoniseb and Serenitude,
To explain this fully we need to go back to several l-o-n-g threads on Tired light and ‘Ashmore’s paradox.’ However we won’t do that - but here is a summary.
Basically the Tired Light model I proposed was one were the IG medium was treated as a transparent medium. When Photons travel through a transparent medium they are constantly absorbed and reemitted by the particles in the medium. For me it was and still is the electrons in IG space that are responsible. Between interactions the photons travel at the speed of light ‘c’ but since there is a delay between absorption and reemission by the particles the overall ‘average’ speed through the medium is reduced. This is standard Physics and can be found here
In the model I proposed the particles recoiled on absorption and reemission and so some of the energy of the photon is lost to the recoiling particle. If the energy of the photon is less, the frequency is less and the wavelength longer – it has been redshifted. Sums were done, the Hubble constant correctly derived and a peer reviewed paper was published (I wont mention the book)
The objections raised by members of this and other boards were basically:
1) If the photons were absorbed and reemitted they wouldn’t travel in straight lines (even though this is what happens in glass!)
2) Photons in IG medium just wouldn’t bump into anything because it was a vacuum.

So, this is why this is an important result. Here there is experimental evidence that gamma ray photons are travelling at different speeds in the Intergalactic Medium. They use one theory to explain these results, I use another. But the experimental result is there for all – and I predicted it here some years ago!
If the speeds are different the gamma ray photons are being absorbed and reemitted.
These are gamma rays and are thus individual photons - so we are not talking ‘bulk’ properties here.
They are travelling in straight lines.
Hence this paper provides evidence in support of tired light.
Cheers,
Lyndon

The paper gives a result that supports Tired light - I think my previous post explains most of your question.
However, here I use the term 'red' and 'blue' for long and short wavelenghts - the paper itself uses the term 'light' for the gamma rays.
Basically here we have dispersion for gamma rays in the IG medium. I claim that this shows that geometrical optics applies to the IG medium. I have previously shown that this leads to redshift.
Cheers,
lyndon

Thanks, Tim, for the very good explanation of the paper beyond the abstract beyond the blog. This leads me to two questions for the mods tho.

First, is there any restriction on what can be used as evidence to reopen a timed out discussion? It seems to me that a blog post is a bit weak.

Second, is this thread going to be allowed to revert back to already discussed claims of tired light now that the 'new evidence' has been shot down?

1. Because the blog is backed up by a paper AND offers new observational evidence, the blog could reasonably trigger opening a new thread on a seemingly old topic.

2. Unless there is a compelling reason to close early, this thread will be open for thirty days. If the discussion slows to a crawl for 29 days, that is not enough reason by itself to force a closure. It can also be closed for friendly reasons, if the original poster asks for it to close.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Am I the OP for this thread too, as I began the original thread in the 'Q&A' section RE the blog post?

For the record, I did not start that thread with intentions of promoting the 'tired light' theory, or any other ATM idea. I was just asking questions for my own edification to clarify what I read in the blog entry. Tim Thompson has done an excellent job of answering those questions in his post on this thread, for which I think him.

__________________
The dose makes the poison--Paracelsus (1493-1541) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus

I don't know. That's why I'm asking--Noclevername

Intelligence may not be clearly defined, but you know stupid when you see it--Noclevername

Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge--Carl Sagan (1934-1996)

Thanks

Please derive the results shown in the paper and post the derivation here.

It is time to fish or cut bait. You are making a claim that the paper shows that you are right, so prove it. Take your theory and show how the results in the paper mentioned above come out. Show the math, no hand waving please. I am not looking for results that exactly match, just that your theory shows the same effects. Using the math in your theory.

No, you did start the general topic, but your questions had to do with mainstream science. lyndonashmore started this thread in which he claimed it was evidence for tired light. You are not tied to this thread in any kind of way that involves responsibility for answering direct questions about the claims made here. That is (so far) lyndonahmore alone's obligation.

As a side note, he has never answered questions about tired light from the closed thread, and we are not asking him to do so here, because the scope of this thread is limited to this piece of evidence.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Don't worry, I don't think anyone thought you did. When I first joined, I got into debating ATM threads here. I don't much anymore. You might just do the same -- don't worry or bother with ATM. The moderators will keep ATM where it belongs, and don't give it any more thought unless you would like to get in the fray. That's usually sort of frustrating, which is why I don't bother much.

-Richard

Just like upriver in the other thread, even lyndonashmore proves to be impermeable to explanations.
It looks like the ATM forum has fallen through the time-tunnel, because both these ATM proponents are repeating exactly the same claims they could not support years ago.

Maybe there's a stasis leak?


You still don't understand the difference between glass and intergalactic plasma, do you?
And neither have you understood the relevant length-scales in the interaction between eletromagnetic radiation and matter.

I second korjik's request: shows us your theoretical calculations.

__________________
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)

Your derivation asserts that each photon undergoes a redshift each time it encounters an electron. The formula you give is ...

d(lambda) = h/m_ec

where lambda is the wavelength, h is Planck's constant and m_e is the electron mass. This redshift is independent of the wavelength (or frequency) of the photon. Cosmological redshifts are indeed independent of wavelength. However, the study under discussion here reports a wavelength dependent result. Therefore, the study in question here is not related to your previous assertions in any way that I can see, since they are not consistent with each other as regards frequency dependence of the redshift.

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

If you consider the progress of waves in space then I think that phenomena is expected. Looking at Huygens type wave fronts as light travels through space that is occupied by atoms, particles and dust, it is clear that higher frequency waves will be affected by more of the tiny ripples of texture around matter than lower frequency waves and will therefore effectively travel a greater distance.

That seems - on its face - to be a pretty remarkable statement!

But perhaps I am simply misunderstanding ... by "that phenomena", what - exactly - are you referring to?

I'll add my specific request, re 'show me the math', to those of several other BAUT members.

Per the link provided by lyndonashmore, the mean free path (mfp) of a photon through the IGM is frequency dependent. Here is a nice table, produced by lyndonashmore, showing that mfp-frequency dependence of his ATM idea*.

Mkn 501 has a redshift of z = 0.034, according to the preprint. The photons observed have an energy in the TeV range (again, according to the preprint).

Plug in, say, 640 GeV as λ, and the table gives a mfp of 5900 Gpc (gigaparsecs), 590 Gpc, and 59 Tpc (teraparsecs), respectively, for the three values of n.

In other words, according to the lyndonashmore ATM idea, Mkn 501 is far too close to us for any of the photons detected by MAGIC to have been redshifted.

So, here's my specific question: lyndonashmore, please show, in detail, what the number of IGM collisions the photons, from Mkn 501, observed by MAGIC, are expected to have had, in your ATM idea.

*There may be some small discrepancies between the two.

I found a stasis leak on floor sixteen. I'm dead now, and you're not, but if I save you, you won't die, so I won't die, and you won't be dead either, and neither will I.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

As per this new paper, the gamma ray photons of differing wavelengths are produced at the same time but arrive at differing times. Clearly there is no difference between glass and IG plasma - this is the whole point of the result. It is pointless regurgitating your old arguments when this paper shows you were wrong all those posts.
If, as you say, I am wrong then please explain the result in your terms.
Cheers,
Lyndon

Sorry but you are not making sense here. The new paper does not discuss redshifts but uses direct timing and shows that there is some sort of dispersion happening . This is an effect of the medium through which the radiation travels and thus supports the Tired Light Theory - as I originally posted.
I proposed that redshifts were due to an interaction between photons and the IG medium, this result supports that statement and is therefore important.
Cheers,
Lyndon