Interstellar Medium and Redshift

[Siggy_G]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium

"the interstellar medium (or ISM) is the gas and dust that pervade interstellar space: the matter that exists between the star systems within a galaxy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstell ... extinction

"The ISM is also responsible for extinction and reddening, the decreasing light intensity and shift in the dominant observable wavelengths of light from a star. These effects are caused by scattering and absorption of photons (...)"

If these are known mechanics, why are they not taken into account in terms of measured redshifts? If ISM causes redshift, and since intergalactic medium is a thinner version of the same thing, it seems fairly obvious that redshift will increase with distance due to that. The Doppler effect is just a contributional factor and not a primary one. When there also are other mechanisms for redshift, the whole distance calculation becomes rather complex, and by far, not just a simple linear function. It will depend on what the photons have travelled through along the line of sight. And when time and galactic movement is taken into account, how would one know where and what photons have travelled through?

In other words, redshift can't be viewed upon as simply as it currently is, and it seems (yet again) even more obvious that linking it to a universal expansion is jumping to conclusions.

( Here's an example of that: http://www.exploratorium.edu/brain_expl ... mping.html )

[Harry Costas]

G'day Siggy

You are 100% correct.

Not only that read up wiki on the Mechanism of redshift, the following are only a few.

Tied Light
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

Intrinsic redshift
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_redshift

Emil Wolf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Wolf

Static universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe

A static universe or "Einstein universe" is one in which space is neither expanding nor contracting. Albert Einstein proposed such a model as his preferred cosmology in 1917[citation needed]. He added a positive cosmological constant to his equations of general relativity to counteract the attractive effects of gravity on ordinary matter, which would otherwise cause the universe to either collapse or expand forever. This motivation evaporated after the discovery by Edwin Hubble that the universe is in fact not static, but expanding; in particular, Hubble discovered a relationship between redshift and distance, which forms the basis for the modern expansion paradigm. According to Gamow this led Einstein to declare this cosmological model, and especially the introduction of the cosmological constant, his "biggest blunder".[1]

Even after Hubble's observations, Fritz Zwicky proposed that a static universe could still be viable if there was an alternative explanation of redshift due to a mechanism that would cause light to lose energy as it traveled through space, a concept that would come to be known as "tired light". However, subsequent cosmological observations have shown that this model is not a viable alternative either, leading most astrophysicists to conclude that the static universe is not the correct model of our universe.

This is interesting reading


Bursting and quenching in massive galaxies without major mergers or AGNs
Sep-07
NASA ADS
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.380..339B
arXiv
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-d ... db_key=AST

We simulate the build-up of galaxies by spherical gas accretion through dark matter haloes, subject to the development of virial shocks. We find that a uniform cosmological accretion rate turns into a rapidly varying disc build-up rate. The generic sequence of events (Shocked-Accretion Massive Burst and Shutdown, SAMBA) consists of four distinct phases: (i) continuous cold accretion while the halo is below a threshold mass Msh ~ 1012Msolar, (ii) tentative quenching of gas supply for ~2Gyr, starting abruptly once the halo is ~Msh and growing a rapidly expanding shock, (iii) a massive burst due to the collapse of ~1011Msolar gas in ~0.5Gyr, when the accumulated heated gas cools and joins new infalling gas and (iv) a long-term shutdown, enhanced by a temporary shock instability in late SAMBAs, those that quench at z ~ 2, burst at z ~ 1 and end up quenched in 1012-13Msolar haloes today. [b]The quenching and bursting occur at all redshifts in galaxies of baryonic mass ~1011Msolar and involve a substantial fraction of this mass. [/b]They arise from rather smooth accretion, or minor mergers, which, unlike major mergers, may leave the disc intact while being built in a rapid pace. The early bursts match observed maximum starbursting discs at z >~ 2, predicted to reside in <~1013Msolar haloes. The late bursts resemble discy luminous infrared galaxies (LIRGs) at z <~ 1. On the other hand, the tentative quenching gives rise to a substantial population of ~1011Msolar galaxies with a strongly suppressed star formation rate at z ~ 1-3. The predicted long-term shutdown leads to red and dead galaxies in groups. A complete shutdown in more massive clusters requires an additional quenching mechanism, as may be provided by clumpy accretion. Alternatively, the SAMBA bursts may trigger the active galactic nucleus (AGN) activity that couples to the hot gas above Msh and helps the required quenching. The SAMBA phenomenon is predicted based on a spherical model that does not simulate star formation and feedback - it is yet to be investigated using detailed cosmological simulations.

The process effects redshift data and if it occurs at all redshift, what does that mean?

[Siggy_G]

Hi! Interesting - I'll read up on those mechanisms.

A static universe or "Einstein universe" is one in which space is neither expanding nor contracting. Albert Einstein proposed such a model as his preferred cosmology in 1917[citation needed]. He added a positive cosmological constant to his equations of general relativity to counteract the attractive effects of gravity on ordinary matter, which would otherwise cause the universe to either collapse or expand forever. This motivation evaporated after the discovery by Edwin Hubble that the universe is in fact not static, but expanding; in particular, Hubble discovered a relationship between redshift and distance, which forms the basis for the modern expansion paradigm. According to Gamow this led Einstein to declare this cosmological model, and especially the introduction of the cosmological constant, his "biggest blunder".

The conclusion that Edwin Hubble "discovered that the universe is expanding" is such a common and wrong citation. Edwin Hubble dicovered that all stars had redshift, compared to laboratory spectra, apparently proportional with distance (those distances that could be comparatively measured that is, with the parallax method). He warned about the Doppler effect (and hence expansion) being the only possible mechanism.

In 1935, he [Edwin Hubble] and Richard Tolman warned us, “the possibility that red-shift may be due to some other cause, connected with the long time or distance involved in the passage of the light from the nebula to observer, should not be prematurely neglected.” In a paper for the Astronomical Society of the Pacific in 1947 (some 20 years after his discovery), Hubble stated, “…it seems likely that red-shifts may not be due to an expanding Universe, and much of the speculation on the structure of the universe may require re-examination.”

( http://hiltonratcliffe.com/blog/2009/03 ... at-we-did/ )
( http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//ful ... 5.000.html )

[Harry Costas]

Hello Siggy

Yep yep yep,,,,,I agree


So how on Earth did the expanding theory about time and space get off the ground. Where were the scientists?

[hgodlewski]

An additional factor is that the interstellar medium is to large extent plasma in the “dark” mode. EU indicates that the planets in our solar system, particularly those with magnetic fields, and the sun are linked with dark mode plasma filaments. In addition these “plasma rivers” or “drift currents” link all stars in our own Milky Way galaxy and link all galaxies in the universe. Charge streams interact with electromagnetic energy as well as the uncharged dust and gas.

As a foot note, the interstellar and intergalactic plasma flows and the electromagnetic forces it generates are very likely the “dark matter” and “dark energy” so espoused by mainstream astronomy.

[Harry Costas]

G'day
If the terms need a further explanation please ask.

Dark matter and dark energy are missused by many

The classical black hole is very theoretical.

The following logic is mainstream science as extensions to the standard model:

Ultra condensed matter, being densities greater than nuclear matter can create vector fields as trapping horizons preventing light from escaping, but because condensed matter has a spin property it allows for the formation of jets that eject matter out. The black hole so to speak in this case is condensed matter that mimics the properties of a black hole and in this case the term black hole is contextual.

Try to follow the logic of these links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primakoff_effect
Primakoff effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
Dark matter

QUOTE
At present, the most common view is that dark matter is primarily non-baryonic, made of one or more elementary particles other than the usual electrons, protons, neutrons, and known neutrinos. The most commonly proposed particles are axions, sterile neutrinos, and WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles, including neutralinos). None of these are part of the standard model of particle physics, but they can arise in extensions to the standard model. Many supersymmetric models naturally give rise to stable dark matter candidates in the form of the Lightest Supersymmetric Particle (LSP). Heavy, sterile neutrinos exist in extensions to the standard model that explain the small neutrino mass through the seesaw mechanism.



and this leads to this paper, that I have posted earlier.

Dark matter axions
http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.0949
Authors: P. Sikivie
(Submitted on 4 Sep 2009)

QUOTE
Abstract: The hypothesis of an `invisible' axion was made by Misha Shifman and others, approximately thirty years ago. It has turned out to be an unusually fruitful idea, crossing boundaries between particle physics, astrophysics and cosmology. An axion with mass of order $10^{-5}$ eV (with large uncertainties) is one of the leading candidates for the dark matter of the universe. It was found recently that dark matter axions thermalize and form a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC). Because they form a BEC, axions differ from ordinary cold dark matter (CDM) in the non-linear regime of structure formation and upon entering the horizon. Axion BEC provides a mechanism for the production of net overall rotation in dark matter halos, and for the alignment of cosmic microwave anisotropy multipoles. Because there is evidence for these phenomena, unexplained with ordinary CDM, an argument can be made that the dark matter is axions.



followed by

http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.0686
Tunneling across dilaton-axion black holes

Authors: Tanwi Ghosh, Soumitra SenGupta
(Submitted on 3 Jun 2009)

QUOTE
Abstract: In this work we study both charged and uncharged particles tunneling across the horizon of spherically symmetric dilaton-axion black holes using Parikh-Wilczek tunneling formalism. Such black hole solutions have much significance in string theory based models. For different choices of the dilaton and axion couplings with the electromagnetic field, we show that the tunneling probability depends on the difference between initial and final entropies of the black hole. Our results, which agrees with similar results obtained for other classes of black holes, further confirm the usefulness of Parikh-Wilczek formalism to understand Hawking radiation. The emission spectrum is shown to agree with a purely thermal spectrum only in the leading order. The modification of the proportionality factor in the area-entropy relation in the Bekenstien-Hawking formula has been determined.

[saul]

One interesting mechanism for producing a red-shift without scattering the light was proposed by Paul Marmet:

"A new non-doppler redshift" Physics Essays, Vol. 1, No: 1, p. 24-32, 1988


Thanks for your post, it helped me find an excellent new review article about redshift mechanisms:

http://www.marmet.org/cosmology/redshift/mechanisms.pdf

Cheers -

[Siggy_G]

...and what an excellent conclusion in that paper!

This paper was written to collect as many redshift mechanisms as possible in a single, coherent presentation. Many questions arise: “Which one of these best describes the observations?” “Which one, if any, is right?” There are so many proposed mechanisms with even more adjustable parameters, it is possible that a few might fit experimental results within measurement errors. However, this doesn’t mean that the model is right. Another method might be required in the future to decide which, if any, of these provides a good explanation for the redshift.

During the great depression of the 1930’s, it was observed that men wearing gold watches were in better health than other people. The correlation between gold and the weight of these men was explained with some assumed property of gold. Although the theory explained the observations very well, it was certainly incorrect - richer men who could afford to buy gold had enough money to feed themselves. This anecdote is to be remembered when considering the above models and how well they fit experimental data.

[Harry Costas]

G'day

Thank you for the link:
Louis Marmet
http://www.marmet.org/cosmology/redshift/mechanisms.pdf
It covers alot of the Mechanisms.


One Mechanism that interest me is the intrisic properties of condensed matter, the in/out vector fields.

[Drethon]

...and what an excellent conclusion in that paper!

This paper was written to collect as many redshift mechanisms as possible in a single, coherent presentation. Many questions arise: “Which one of these best describes the observations?” “Which one, if any, is right?” There are so many proposed mechanisms with even more adjustable parameters, it is possible that a few might fit experimental results within measurement errors. However, this doesn’t mean that the model is right. Another method might be required in the future to decide which, if any, of these provides a good explanation for the redshift.

During the great depression of the 1930’s, it was observed that men wearing gold watches were in better health than other people. The correlation between gold and the weight of these men was explained with some assumed property of gold. Although the theory explained the observations very well, it was certainly incorrect - richer men who could afford to buy gold had enough money to feed themselves. This anecdote is to be remembered when considering the above models and how well they fit experimental data.

Cause and effect. We've taken millions of pictures of various "time slices" of the universe but the only way we can order these pictures is with a theory (redshift) that can only be directly tested over an Infinitesimal portion of the universe and we think we know what we are talking about?