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.

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

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.

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 think what is happening is that the electron absorbs it's set quanta of energy but some of the photon's energy (momentum) is transfered to the atom as a whole -- it recoils. When this allows the photon's energy to "match" the electron's needed quantum jump energy. Now if that electron "drops" and a photon is emitted it will be at a lower energy.I think, though, that it must be scattered in this case. I also think that there will be specific differences in light passing through this and light that is red shifted by expansion. There have been a number of questions asked for which no answers have been forth coming.

Oh really? I'm still waiting for you to clarify just what you are talking about and answer the questions put to you.So far it seems you don't have your own story straight but I guess we'll see when you get time to clarify and answer.

That paper does not seem to be saying what you say it does."how time dilation results prove the Bb wrong?" Is not what I get out of reading the whole paper and it's conclusions.It does say:

quote:

---

Firstly, time dilation might not in fact be a property of the Univerrse, which would effectively mean that the Universe is not expanding.

---

Is thte the line that you think "proves" the BB wrong?If so I suggest you read more carefully.

Hawkins disagrees with you as best as I read his conclusions. He offers other possibilities. The question regarding quasar time dilation is left open it appears to me.Hawkins points out the existance of other evidence for the time dilation even he suggests that this paper does not trump the other evidence. WHy do you think it does?

Ruled out? By this paper? If you want to use Hawkins as a source you will have to take what he says at face value. If you think he is being dishonest in the paper then I suggest you find other sources.I'm not the one to offer other solutions. I'll wait for someone who is a cosmologist and I guess more work is needed.Meanwhile you can answer Eta's questions. It is already apparent that you aren't very much more knowledgeable in this area than I am. Which means you have a lot to get straightened out. It will be interesting to watch that get done.

This isn't really an answer. I think it is true that explaining the isotropy is a challenge.I don't see why that makes LA think it supports his ideas though.

Thanks for the explantion. It would probably best to ignore such childish comments. It is clear to most that you haven't "fallen for" anything.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-19-2005 05:34 PM

Great post! Thanks Sylas.I love that kind of stuff. (can you spell N e r d ? )

As Eta pointed out, the determination of the lines out of the noise is not done by visual inspection. There are, apparently, mathematical techniques for doing this.In that light, your "opinion" is not worth one heck of a lot. Please run the math against this and show that the determinations done are in error.