New Tired Light

[LYNDON]

Hi all,
I just wondered if any of you (one of you?) would like to discuss New Tired Light?
It was missed off the list of alternatives on another thread to which I contributed.

Looking at the rules of the board I see you would prefer to discuss published ideas and not repeat them here so let me give you some links.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1 ... 1/1/012007

https://file.scirp.org/Html/8-2180134_70089.htm

https://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInfo ... erID=89615

There are many more but these will do for now.
You see, there was a great game changer a couple of years ago when the first FRB was found along with its host galaxy. This gave us a closed set of data - distance, DM to give the electron number density, and redshift all measured independently. Several of us realised that they enabled us to test alternative theories based on photon electron interactions producing redshifts in the plasma of the intergalactic medium.

That is we had the dispersion measure (DM) along with the distance measured independently. So we could determine the electron number density along the line of sight by conventional means.

Having the distance (both angular and luminosity) with the electron number density (found from the DM) along the very same line of sight we could then use our alternative theories to predict the redshift.

This predicted redshift could then be compared to the actual measured redshift done spectroscopically.

If this sounds like real science in cosmology then it is.

So if anyone is interested and I don't get banned by tomorrow than shall we continue?

PS I started this in 1995 but I wouldn't say I have spent all this time working on Tired light theories. There was a couple of hours on the day I got married......
Cheers
Lyndon

[Cargo]

Keane et al. [2] in February 2016 regarding FRB 150418 reported that “the Distance Measure of a FRB and host galaxy redshift have both been measured for the first time.”

That alone should wreck the walls of many theories. I've read the intros and you've got some really strong material that should provoke many.

[Michael Mozina]

Hi all,
I just wondered if any of you (one of you?) would like to discuss New Tired Light?
It was missed off the list of alternatives on another thread to which I contributed.

Looking at the rules of the board I see you would prefer to discuss published ideas and not repeat them here so let me give you some links.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1 ... 1/1/012007

https://file.scirp.org/Html/8-2180134_70089.htm

https://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInfo ... erID=89615

There are many more but these will do for now.
You see, there was a great game changer a couple of years ago when the first FRB was found along with its host galaxy. This gave us a closed set of data - distance, DM to give the electron number density, and redshift all measured independently. Several of us realised that they enabled us to test alternative theories based on photon electron interactions producing redshifts in the plasma of the intergalactic medium.

That is we had the dispersion measure (DM) along with the distance measured independently. So we could determine the electron number density along the line of sight by conventional means.

Having the distance (both angular and luminosity) with the electron number density (found from the DM) along the very same line of sight we could then use our alternative theories to predict the redshift.

This predicted redshift could then be compared to the actual measured redshift done spectroscopically.

If this sounds like real science in cosmology then it is.

So if anyone is interested and I don't get banned by tomorrow than shall we continue?

PS I started this in 1995 but I wouldn't say I have spent all this time working on Tired light theories. There was a couple of hours on the day I got married......
Cheers
Lyndon

I personally like your tired light model, in fact I had mentioned it to Higgsy along with Brynjolfsson's plasma redshift model before Higgsy disappeared. I'd certainly love to hear the two of you two discuss your theory here. I hope HIggsy is doing well and he returns here to discuss it with you. I think that would be an interesting discussion.

[jacmac]

I have a basic question about light from a distance.
Given a SINGLE PULSE of light from some distance away, a receiver would register or "SEE" a certain amount of light
based on the size(area) and nature of the receiving method.
If the distance to the source were now doubled, would the receiver not SEE 1/4 the previous amount of light ?
If the distance were doubled again would the receiver not SEE only 1/16 the original amount of light ? Etc.

If this continues there must be some distance where the density of the light(if it is individual photons),becomes so low that it does not register to the receiver . To the receiver the light no longer exists.
The same would be true if the light were a wave; the energy of the light wave becomes so low that it does not register to the receiver.

So, does this not place a finite limit to the distance light can travel, and continue to be "SEEN".
Is this a component of "tired light" ?

[Michael Mozina]

I have a basic question about light from a distance.
Given a SINGLE PULSE of light from some distance away, a receiver would register or "SEE" a certain amount of light
based on the size(area) and nature of the receiving method.
If the distance to the source were now doubled, would the receiver not SEE 1/4 the previous amount of light ?
If the distance were doubled again would the receiver not SEE only 1/16 the original amount of light ? Etc.

If this continues there must be some distance where the density of the light(if it is individual photons),becomes so low that it does not register to the receiver . To the receiver the light no longer exists.
The same would be true if the light were a wave; the energy of the light wave becomes so low that it does not register to the receiver.

So, does this not place a finite limit to the distance light can travel, and continue to be "SEEN".
Is this a component of "tired light" ?

Light itself follows an inverse square law, so a light source seen a distance of one is four times brighter than the same light source seen a distance of 2, and nine times brighter than the same light source seen at a distance of 3. That isn't a "tired light" feature, it's a feature of light propagation. It's related to the same amount of light being spread out over a greater volume.

Ultimately that inverse square law does set a "distance limit" on various detectors. For instance our eyes can only see about 8400 of the hundreds of billions of suns in our own galaxy. That is due to their distance from Earth, and the limits our our eyes as a detector. A typical CCD detector can "add up" the number of photons striking the same pixel over time, and thus we are able to take "long duration" images of very distant objects by looking at the same patch of sky for days and weeks at a time. Maybe only a few photons per day might reach the CCD, but by adding them up over time, we can "see" further into space with a CCD image than we can see with our eyes directly.

A typical tired light mechanism allows some of the photon's *momentum* to be transferred to another particle, causing the photon to lose some of it's momentum, and causing the plasma or dust particle to gain a little momentum. A tired light mechanism typically doesn't affect the brightness of the source, just the energy state of the photon.

[LYNDON]

Thanks for the interest.
As it would have it, I've been working all day but at least let's get started.
Basic problems with Tired light theories that need to be overcome are:
1) how does the photon lose energy?
2) How does the photon continue in a straight line?
I will deal with these later but to differentiate between different theories it all boils down to collision cross-sections and mean electron number density (n) in the Inter Galactic Medium (IGM)
Louis Marmet published this comparison of Tired Light models where he listed what values of 'n' was needed to produce the required redshifts by each model (page 3).
http://www.marmet.org/cosmology/FRBs_an ... ations.pdf
You will see that Aris' needed n=205 per m^3 to predict the required redshift.
I actually met Ari at a conference in Washington state in 2009. Nice guy. At this conference, we were all asked this very question. 'What value of 'n' do you need for your theory to work? To which I stupidly said half an electron per cubic metre!' and was quickly reminded that this was not possible (should have said 'on average').
New Tired Light is second on the list( with no comment ) at 0.54 per m^-3. I had actually published a value of 0.5 per m^-3 much earlier submitted 2003 published 2006).
So with the advent of Fast Radio Bursts and particularly FRB 121102 a few of us realised that here, we had a way of determining 'n' using mainstream Science.
References are:
[3] Tendulkar S P Bassa C G Cordes J M Bower G C Law C J ApJL 834 2
(https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/834/2/L7)
[4] Chaterjee S Law C J Wharton R S Burke-Spolaor S Hessels JWT 2017 Nature Jan
(https://doi.org/10.1038/nature20797)
[5] Marcote B Paragi Z Hessels JWT Keimpema A H van Langevelde J ApJL 834 2

FRB 121102 has an angular distance measure of 683Mpc and a dispersion measure (DM) of 340 for the intergalactic medium (IGM) between it and us (once contributions from the milky way etc had been removed.) No-one knows how these occur but it doesn't matter here. We have the data of the DM due to the IGM and distance to the host galaxy.
DM (IGM) =340 pc.cm^-3; 683Mpc= 683x10^6 pc

In mainstream science the DM(IGM) = nd (using funny units Cosmologists use)
so let's insert the data
340=nx683x10^6
n= 0.498 x10^-6 per cm^-3
or 0.498 m^-3.

So now we can start eliminating some theories.
Modesty prevents me from commenting here!

This also has implications on any theory based on plasma in the IGM. No more hand waving, we know there are on average 0.5 electrons per cubic metre of the IGM
Cheers
Lyndon

[Michael Mozina]

Thanks for the interest.
As it would have it, I've been working all day but at least let's get started.

By the way, thanks for taking the time to discuss your model with us here. I think that's fantastic, and I really appreciate it.

I have a "beginners" question for you with respect to the estimated average density of the IGM. If the density were half what you expected, wouldn't that just mean that your distance assumption was likely to be off by about a factor of two, but otherwise your method and mechanism was unaffected? I realize this might eventually cause a model to fail a a Tolman surface brightness test. Is that what you're basing your average density estimate on, or something like signal broadening, or something else entirely?

[LYNDON]

No problem my predicted value was 0.5 and FRB's give it as 0.498. a difference of 0f 0.4%
17 years before it was measured (actually 24 years before if you look at when I first started submitting papers).
Maybe I need to be less modest!
Lyndon

[LYNDON]

BTW why are we worried about Tolman?
Tolman shows a static universe
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/ ... 85/4951333
Cheers
Lyndon

[LYNDON]

Yes that is the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, a respected peer-reviewed journal stating that the Tolman test shows the universe is static.
Anyone want to argue with that?
Cheers
Lyndon

[Michael Mozina]

BTW why are we worried about Tolman?
Tolman shows a static universe
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/ ... 85/4951333
Cheers
Lyndon

Thank you for the links. I've read Lerner's papers on that topic and I tend to agree that the universe is essentially static, albeit in constant motion which is dictated by the current flow patterns of spacetime. You can also find Lerner's papers on Arxiv by the way.

I'm still curious about the density predictions however. Wouldn't a deviation in IGM density from any tired light model simply result in an error in estimating the distance to objects in space rather than create an actual problem for the model? I can imagine that enough deviation from the predicted density would eventually result in a massive error in distance, and ultimately could result in a conflict with the Tolman test, but I wouldn't think that a relatively "minor" variation would be a "deal breaker" in terms of mechanisms being suggested.

Kudos however for correctly estimating the IGM density in your model, but frankly I'm a bit skeptical of mainstream calculations of distance, so I'll have to read the paper, and understand it's basis for determining the density of the IGM before I'd assume it's correct. I'll try to take a look at it tomorrow. It's getting late here so I doubt I'll get to it tonight.

It's been awhile since I've read your paper, so I'll probably want to reread it to refresh my memory. Could you briefly explain to us how and why photons stay on course in your model rather than being scattered off at some obscure angle?

[LYNDON]

Hi Michael,

Could you briefly explain to us how and why photons stay on course in your model rather than being scattered off at some obscure angle?

not really, not briefly.
As Sherlock Holmes would say, this is a three post problem.'
So firstly let me give you observational evidence that photons interact with electrons and continue in a straight line.
The hypocrisy of mainstream is that whenever one mentions tired light instantly they say that can't happen, photons will not continue in a straight line.
But then let's look at FRB's.
Can we step aside for a moment (go get a coffee Michael) and just make sure all those following this post are up to speed on FRB's and dispersion measure- DM?
Originally called Lorimer bursts we have these intense blasts of radio bursts which are extragalactic ie come from other galaxies and are presently THE most exciting phenomena in cosmology. Some say it is aliens trying to contact us (Harvard no less) in Southend on sea, we say no.
Whatever causes them they travel across the IGM.
Now remember at school, dispersion is when you send white light through a prism and it splits up into a rainbow? This is dispersion.
Red travels the fastest in glass and so is refracted the least. Violet travels the slowest in glass and so is refracted the most.
It is the same in the IGM. But here it is reversed, longer wavelengths travel the slowest and shorter the fastest (New Tired Light can explain this but not now).
From an instantaneous burst, all wavelengths were emitted at the same time. The signals travel at differing speeds across the IGM and arrive at earth in order of their frequency/wavelength -short lamda first long later (dispersion measure, DM) and by measuring the time delay we can calculate the number density of 'free' electrons encountered by these photons on the way.
You can return here Michael, hopefully we are all up to speed.
So mainstream what is dispersion measure?

Technically the DM is the “integrated column density of free electrons between an observer and a pulsar

http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/P/P ... on+Measure
So if Dispersion measure is caused by a photon interacting with free electrons how is it that we can say - 'WOW, this FRB came from that galaxy over there because it is in direct line of sight!
Hypocrisy!
How is it that mainstream can say that radio waves from an FRB travel in straight line even though they accept DM is caused by an interaction of photons with 'free' electrons' but say when it comes to tired light, the photons must go off at an angle?
better still, we have evidence of photons skimming the plasma surrounding galaxies and not only traveling in a straight line but emerging in a pristine condition.

When FRB 181112's pulses traversed this galaxy's halo, they were surprisingly unaffected.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... c39a835e13
Surprising? only if you believe in the BB.
Cheers
Lyndon
POS 2 posts to come But not brief!

[crawler]

If we have one electron per cubic metre then electrons are 1 m apart. A density of a half of that would have the electrons 1.26 m apart.
How can electrons in space form a lattice of that size?

How can electrons in space form a lattice of any size? I suppose that they push each other away chargewise. But would that give a lattice?
If photons travel at c km/s, & electric forces in the lattice travel at c, then its difficult to swallow that electrons spaced at 1.26 m can react like a lattice.
Actually i don't see how an ocean of electrons can form a lattice at any spacing, ie even 0.000126 mm spacings.

[LYNDON]

To be honest I am not overly impressed by the Tolman test anyway.
I posted many times that one wasn't comparing like with like. If a galaxy is farther away then it is older than the nearer one so is at a different stage in its evolution - so how can we compare them?
There is also a lot more dust in the way of the one further away which could be the reason for the difference in brightness.
Sandage actually went back to look at the test in 2009 and decided that a 'luminosity evolution' was indeed taking place and instead of earlier papers where he said the test ruled out 'tired light models' in 2009 he was less sure and said expansion 'seems to be real.'
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.3199.pdf page 19
So I just stick with the Lerner paper, If the Tolman test is real then it shows a static universe.
Interestingly Tolman says the brightness should vary as 1/(1+z)^4 one of this power of 4 is due to the loss in energy of the photon! So in an expanding universe where did the energy go? You don't need to answer that one!

[LYNDON]

As to why photons travel in a straight line? They do. FRB's show us that.
As said earlier, these signals undergo dispersion where they interacted with 'free' electrons. Between interactions, they travel at the speed of light but stop when they are absorbed and re-emitted by the electrons.
Electrons in a plasma can and do undergo SHM - there are plenty of references to this in the literature.
Because there is a delay each time it is absorbed and re-emitted the average speed is reduced.
This is why we get dispersion in the FRB signals. long wavelengths arrive later than shorter wavelengths. By looking at the delay between signals of different frequencies/wavelengths arrive, scientists can calculate the average number density of free electrons on the way. As shown earlier, signals from an FRB actually skimmed through the plasma surrounding a galaxy but not only travelled in a straight but passed through it without any distortion of the signal.
People who normally say tired light must blur the light are thinking of the Compton effect . This is for a photon interacting with a single isolated electron. The electron cannot oscillate as there an no forces acting on it. It has no way to store the photon energy and so it must re-emit the new photon instantly. The only way it can transfer energy in Compton is if the electron goes one way and the photon the other. Blurring the image.

In New Tired Light the electron is not on its own but interacts with others. Photon comes in, absorbed by the electron that oscillates then re-emits the photon in the forward direction. This is the same as light is normally transmitted.
Standard Physics tells us that under certain conditions electrons in plasma can form a body centered cubic crystal lattice structure held in place by their mutual repulsion. This is called a Wigner crystal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner_crystal
The electrons oscillate about their fixed positions since as they move to one side forces of repulsion acting on it by the electron in front of it send it back. They perform SHM. But because the electrons are on a crystal lattice the photon would be re-emitted in the same direction it arrived in by conservation of momentum.
With an electron density of 0.5 per m^3 the inter galactic medium would have to be at just about 0K for them to crystalise. But why not? The CMBR at 2.7K is a big bang idea. The IGM could well be at 0K.
This is not science fiction but mainstream.
However, I looked at the photoelectric effect occurring at the edges of galaxies. Photons of light from inside the galaxy can release an electron from an atom on the edge by the photo electric effect. These electrons 'boiled off' and if they had enough energy to escape the gravitational pull of the galaxy and would escape into the IGM. Wigner crystals could then form at higher temperatures. The whole of the IGM needn't be a crystal. The electron number density is an average one - the Hubble constant and redshift would be an average. The photon is redshifted every time it passes through a Wigner crystal and because the density is higher the temperature at which the electrons crystallise can be above 0K.
This is all based on mainstream physics and so answers Crawler's post as well.
That said, FRB's show us that photons interact with electrons in the IGM and travel in a straight line. Experimental fact.
Consequently, the best way to move forward is to assume the theory is correct, try it to predict the redshift of the host galaxy, and check the answer against the measured one. And it works!