New Tired Light

[crawler]

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..........

One would expect short wavelengths to be slowed moreso, based on refraction in glass etc.

[LYNDON]

This is what makes science exciting!
Yes in glass longer wavelengths travel the fastest but in the IGM the longer wavelengths travel the slowest.
This is an observational fact.
I have my own ideas but that will be another thread.
One cannot argue with experimental results.
Cheers
Lyndon

[JP Michael]

This is extremely convincing argument, Lyndon.

In the IGM we have low electron densities and low temperatures, thus the ideal situation for the formation of Wigner crystalline electron structures.

What happens when electron temperatures increase at galaxy edges? How do the Wigner crystals actually break down, and what effect would that have on light passing through it?

What I mean is to ask whether there are definable boundary conditions and what effects do they have on light passing through it?

[LYNDON]

Thanks for your comments Jp.
Firstly, and let me repeat this, mainstream now insists e-m radiation travels in straight lines as per FRB's. This is a game-changer.
Dispersion measure in FRB signals is an interaction, we are told, between photons and free electrons so now we don't have to worry about explaining it.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
The interaction betwen photons and 'free' electrons is agreed to happen in a straight line.
That said', I think it is more complicated than what you are thinking.
I don't see it as this is we have galaxies and the rest is a wigner crystyal - but I may be wrong.
In many ways, I am still trying to get my head around this and this is one of the reasons I am posting here.
I am looking for intelligent, non BB biased feedback.
As I see it, the whole of the IGM need not be a wigner crystyal. It could well be that these crystals form where the conditions are right. WE get redshift here as per New Tired Light. In the bits in-between it would be Compton but since the collision cross-section is so small we can ignore this effect
As per galaxies boiling off electrons due to the photo electric effect is one I am proud of! They must do it. Photons from inside a galaxy hit a hydrogen atom on the outside and remove an electron. When these electrons have sufficient speed to overcome the escape velocity of that galaxy these electrons will fill the IGM. Must happen. Mainstream physics and who was the first to publish???/
If this is what is happening then galaxies will be surrounded by the remaining protons which would also form a wigner crystal. light would pass this as it would be transparent. could this be dark matter?

[LYNDON]

Come on, Kudos where it is deserved. Who realised that galaxies would be boiling off electrons as per the photoelectric effect, Cept me!!!

[JP Michael]

I only want to point out what the Russians already knew: plasma forms crystalline lattices in space.

If I can re-cap, your hypothesis is that the IGM comprises of significant (but not necessarily exclusive) portions of equidistant, crystalline Wigner electron lattices, and galaxy 'edges' comprise of equidistant proton lattices, whose electrons were 'boiled off' by the photoelectric effect, especially from FRB sources in the galaxy itself. These plasmas, being crystalline in structure, permit the straight passage of photons with no or negligible Compton effect, although the Compton effect may still apply to other relevant regions of photon passage. Photons traversing an electron or proton lattice will lose energy with each relevant particle oscillation, being thus redshifted. The particle itself will remain in its place in the relevant plasma lattice.

Do the photons lose energy from this passage across a lattice in discreet quanta, similar to how energised electrons release photons at discreet quanta, or does that not apply because the electron plasma is not occupying a specific "shell" of a given element?

[nick c]

Lyndon,
Perhaps I have missed something, but, Arp in Seeing Red has shown that two galactic objects, a galaxy and a quasar (or BL lac object) are physically connected and therefore are at a similar distance from Earth. Yet each of these objects have very different red shifts.

If Arp is correct, and he provides numerous examples, the Big Bang and Expanding Universe theories are effectively falsified.

But in the context of Tired Light, what could be the explanation as to why the light from one object is not anywhere near as tired as the light from another at the same distance? or do you not accept the work and conclusions of Halton Arp?

[crawler]

Lyndon,
Perhaps I have missed something, but, Arp in Seeing Red has shown that two galactic objects, a galaxy and a quasar (or BL lac object) are physically connected and therefore are at a similar distance from Earth. Yet each of these objects have very different red shifts.

If Arp is correct, and he provides numerous examples, the Big Bang and Expanding Universe theories are effectively falsified.

But in the context of Tired Light, what could be the explanation as to why the light from one object is not anywhere near as tired as the light from another at the same distance? or do you not accept the work and conclusions of Halton Arp?

Arp should not have ignored that different objects have different Einsteinian (Gravitational) Shifts.

[LYNDON]

High Nick C and Crawler. Arp was a long time ago and science moves on. I read Arp's 'seeing red' and always remember (I think) that he says he included pictures for those who couldn't understand the words!!
Most likely explanation is that the two are not linked but just lie along the same line of sight. Things are so far away we see them squashed into 2-D and look connected. When I read his book, I couldn't understand why he assumed that they were both traveling at the same speed. After all, one can stretch a piece of chewing gum so the one piece comes towards you and the other away from you. They are still connected as the middle bit stretches and gets thinner and thinner.
If there was something 'odd' going on then there would be many more examples around us. There aren't.
I went to a great talk last year by an astrophysicist from Cambridge university who was modelling galaxies colliding. The moving computer images were superb. She showed different galaxies colliding from different angles and stated that they could now explain all the peculiar galaxies in terms of galaxy collisions.
So in answer to your question, Things have changed and with what we know now, Arp was wrong (but at the time...)
Cheers
Lyndon

[LYNDON]

I only want to point out what the Russians already knew: plasma forms crystalline lattices in space.

If I can re-cap, your hypothesis is that the IGM comprises of significant (but not necessarily exclusive) portions of equidistant, crystalline Wigner electron lattices, and galaxy 'edges' comprise of equidistant proton lattices, whose electrons were 'boiled off' by the photoelectric effect, especially from FRB sources in the galaxy itself. These plasmas, being crystalline in structure, permit the straight passage of photons with no or negligible Compton effect, although the Compton effect may still apply to other relevant regions of photon passage. Photons traversing an electron or proton lattice will lose energy with each relevant particle oscillation, being thus redshifted. The particle itself will remain in its place in the relevant plasma lattice.

Do the photons lose energy from this passage across a lattice in discreet quanta, similar to how energised electrons release photons at discreet quanta, or does that not apply because the electron plasma is not occupying a specific "shell" of a given element?

This is not the Compton effect. The Compton effect causes blurring of an image. The Compton effect is an interaction between a single photon and a single isolated electron and not a group of electrons arranged on a crystal lattice.
The photons energy in accordance to their wavelength. The energy is transferred in accordance to the frequency/ wavelength of the photon. However, the actual increase in wavelength is a discreet quanta.
I will take a look at the link you provided and get back to you Dos Svidanya

[nick c]

Most likely explanation is that the two are not linked but just lie along the same line of sight.

So, if Arp is correct then the Tired Light theory is falsified? I think that if there is one or two examples it could certainly be attributed to a chance alignment, but Arp shows numerous examples that, including at least one where the quasar is in front of a lower redshift galaxy. Some of the connections are visible streams of matter and many others are connections that show up on x ray images.

Arp was a long time ago and science moves on.

Seriously? The evidence presented stands today, since it has largely been ignored, that does not make it just go away.

[crawler]

Most likely explanation is that the two are not linked but just lie along the same line of sight.

So, if Arp is correct then the Tired Light theory is falsified? I think that if there is one or two examples it could certainly be attributed to a chance alignment, but Arp shows numerous examples that, including at least one where the quasar is in front of a lower redshift galaxy. Some of the connections are visible streams of matter and many others are connections that show up on x ray images.

Arp was a long time ago and science moves on.

Seriously? The evidence presented stands today, since it has largely been ignored, that does not make it just go away.

I reckon that both Arp & new tired light (& perhaps old tired light) can all be true.
Except that Arp talks of young atoms & new atoms being different, which smells fishy to me. Arp should have blamed Einstein Shift, which at a small super massive body (quasar) would be severe.
So, we have true Doppler redshift (ok), plus Einstein Shift redshift (ok), plus tired light redshifts (ok-ish, might have a weak effect)(but i favor an aetheric stretching redshift).

[nick c]

hi crawler,

Except that Arp talks of young atoms & new atoms being different, which smells fishy to me.

I am with you there. But Arp's theoretical explanations may or may not be correct. That he theorizes that galaxies produce "new" matter in their core and eject quasars, has no bearing on the case for physical connections of high red shift objects with low redshift objects. The evidence presented in Seeing Red is formidable, the explanations as to why this is the case...well Arp is entitled to theorize. The evidence speaks for itself.

[crawler]

hi crawler,

Except that Arp talks of young atoms & new atoms being different, which smells fishy to me.

I am with you there. But Arp's theoretical explanations may or may not be correct. That he theorizes that galaxies produce "new" matter in their core and eject quasars, has no bearing on the case for physical connections of high red shift objects with low redshift objects. The evidence presented in Seeing Red is formidable, the explanations as to why this is the case...well Arp is entitled to theorize. The evidence speaks for itself.

I am thinking that if the photons are emitted (created)(i mean re-created) near the surface of a quasar (a super massive star), then here the hi gravity (or whatever Einstein called it) slows atomic processes, & hencely the emitted photons are immediately redshifted compared to when emitted at an ordinary star. This must explain Arp's severe redshifts. And after that then we might have another dose of redshift due to tired light etc.

[LYNDON]

Hi there
Looks like this thread has been hijacked.
can we get back to the Op?
If not, I have better things to do.
Cheers
lyndon