Tired Light

Just a little nit but isn't this exactly not what the Mossbauer effect is about? You said that your idea was: IIRC the Mossbauer effect is exactly "recoilless" absorption and emission because the atoms are held in place in a lattice of some sort. If that is true then maybe you idea is compton scattering but I'm not so sure of that. Perhaps you could explain your Mossbaurer comment.

Thanks Percy,
I posted a general reply first because there are a few posts here relating to the theory so that post is to everyone.
We cannot answer questions such as Sylas asks until we know what the theory is - then I will explain CMb, time dilation etc.

quote:

---

Because the direction of the outgoing photon is not governed by the direction of the original photon, there should be scattering of light. Is this observed?

---

My process is the same as that in glass. The photons go in straight lines there so they will in mine. Two physical reasons are i) principal of least time ii) conservation of linear momentum. Remember that the electrons in the plasma are not totally free, there are electrostatic forces acting between them.

quote:

---

Statistically, some photons will encounter more of the matter in the intergalactic medium than others, so some arriving photons will be more "tired" than others. Is this observed?

---

Yes it is observed. spectral lines are broadened on arrival. I am re doing my website with new software so the calculation is not there but the 'spread' has been calculated and agrees with experiment - I will let yoknow when I have put that on.

quote:

---

Also, the degree to which light becomes tired in your theory must be a function of how much of the intergalactic medium it interacts with. Do we observe differences in red shift according to density of intergalactic medium?

---

Yes that is what I am disagrreing with Sylas with at the moment. There is a spread in the values of the Hubble constant. Sylas blames the experimenters I say it is variations in the electron density.

quote:

---

Since in your theory the decrease in energy of photons is due to interaction with electrons, and since electrons can only change energy by quantum amounts, light can only become tired by quantum amounts. Is this observed?

---

One only gets electrons changing energy by quantum amounts with monotomic gases at low pressure. In IG space this is not the case because the electrons are not confined to a single atom.
Hope this helps
Cheers
Lyndon

---

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

Hi NosyNed
I did say 'Mossbauer type of thing'.
When a nucleus emits a photon (gamma) it recoils so the emitted photon does not get all the energy - it is redshifted. A second nucleus can no longer absorb the photon - this is analagous to the sort of thing that happens in IG space. If you cool the stuff then the nucleus cannot recoil so all the energy is given to the photon. A second identical nucleus can absorb it. The photon is not redshifted - analogous to electrons and glass.
Thats all!
Right its weekend I am off to the pub.
Cheers
lyndon

---

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

quote:

---

The Mossbauer effect states that when some atoms are held tightly in crystalline atomic structures, the gamma radiation emitted by their nuclei are very close to being recoil-free. This implies that the emitted photon has the exact frequency that corresponds to the transition energy between the nuclear ground state and the excited state.

---

from: The Mossbauer Effect TheorySo your absorption and readmission is precisely NOT a "Mossbaurer type thing"? Now that that nit is taken care of perhaps you can suggest what it is called in "regular" physics? I did ask if it was Compton or not.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-16-2005 10:41 AM

I believe it's called the Ashmore Effect.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Atomic nucleus? What happened to photons interacting with electrons? Am I confusing two different arguments? Sorry, unable to figure this part out.--Percy

Atoms in a rigid matrix behave much differently in this regard from atoms in a gas. You'll have to explain how i and ii support your position. While the electrons in a plasma are not totally free, they definitely will not behave like electrons in rigid material like glass. You don't have to put it on your website before presenting the evidence. The red shift was discovered 70 years ago. Where can I find evidence of this blurring (not broadening) of spectral lines? I'm actually focusing on something simpler than the debate between two groups of scientists about the value of the Hubble constant. Do we observe different amounts of red shift as a function of the total amount of intervening intergalactic matter? While I suppose you could argue that one could only detect quantum energy changes in simple gases, all energy changes are in units of quanta. It seems your red shift should be by quantized amounts and that it should be detectable through statistical analysis of many measurements.--Percy

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you cool the stuff then the nucleus cannot recoil so all the energy is given to the photon. A second identical nucleus can absorb it. The photon is not redshifted - analogous to electrons and glass.

---

​

Sorry, unable to figure this part out.

---

He's saying that if you cool an atom to low enough temperatures, it can not be moved. And if it can't be moved, it can't recieve kinetic energy. And if it can't recieve kinetic energy, it can not take away any from photons.I have no idea why he thinks that cooling atoms makes them behave this way, though. It is clear enough why they behave like this in a crystal lattice (they can't move because they are held into place) but I can't see any way to make this apply to free atoms. Please clarify what you mean by this, lyndonashmore.Also, if an atom first absorbs and then emitts a photon, why would it have to recoil in the first place?This message has been edited by Melchior, 03-16-2005 06:11 PM

Keep this a bit quiet so they don't come and take my BSc, ok? I am wiinging this.Percy asked about the absorbtion and readmision. I am very sure that is exactly what goes on. I think there was a short throw away line in one of the Feynman lectures we were just introduced to that mentions that the reflection of light at a surface is exactly that. The phton doesn't "bounce".A photon carries momentum. If it is absorbed by an atom the atom must conserve the momentum. This is the recoil.BTW I am pretty sure that the nucleus bit mentioned earlier was wrong. A nucleus can, of course, absorb and emit photons but that is at energy levels of gamma radiation. The electrons are what I think we are talking about here.When a photon is emitted it carries momentum too.

have you seen the second lecture yet? some spooky behavior that demonstrates that light does not, in fact, travel in straight lines ...

Yes, but the momentum the atom gains when it absorbs the photon would be exactly as great but opposite in direction as the momentum it loses when it reemitts an identical photon, wouldn't it?This is under the assumption that there is no shattering going on.

Percy Gamma rays do indeed originate in the nucleus as a result of nulear decay and the resulting imbalance between the strong force and the electromagnetic force.This message has been edited by sidelined, Wed, 2005-03-16 06:55 PM

Now we get further out of what I think I know.No, the emited photon will not be necessarily in a direction that is in line with the absorbed. I am guessing that there is no "memory" and it is a new quantum mechanical event. There is then, if I am right, necessarily scattering going on.

I see we all like Feynmann (my hero) so this should make it easier.
As he says in the Book QED "transmission of light is nothing more than an electron picking up a photon, scratching its head and emitting a new photon."
Now I say that in IG space, the electron recoils whilst it is scratching its head. This means it loses some energy to the electron, experiences a reduction in energy and hence an increase in wavelength - it is redshifted.
Also in His lectures is the 'theory of least time' which explains why the light still goes in straight lines - it does so because it is the most probable.
Feynmann just calls it 'scatter'.
Cheers,
Lyndon

---

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!

Hi Percy,
Try Here and see it for yourself.
Sorry about that,I thought you wanted to see the sums which are now Here.
as to

quote:

---

Atoms in a rigid matrix behave much differently in this regard from atoms in a gas.

---

We know plasma absorb and re emit photons and still go in a straight line because of radar ranging in satellites. They have to correct the data to allow for the radio waves travelling slower in the plasma and this means that the photons must have been absorbed and re-emitted on the way.cheers,
Lyndon

---

Lyndon Ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to Earth!