RedShift Reprise - Expansion, Pro & Con

[Graybeard]

PS: I tend to view EM wave as moving through the same quantity of substance /space for any given increment of time; it helps to alleviate the confusion.

Dave ... It would have taken me two pages to inexpertly say this ...

Imagine starting a sound wave of about 1000 Hz in a cold gas that progressively gets warmer and thus less dense over a distance; this is the same effect caused by expansion on electromagnetic waves.

Doppler shift is associated only with velocity of the emitter, collector or both. Let's not confuse the two!

Are you saying that the first para is the action, and the second, our measured reaction ?

Thanks for the link.

cool bananas ... greg

[N0B0DY]

Lloyd,

I accept your explanation of the second part, but I don't believe in the existence of black holes outside of the imaginary spin-0 particles that exist everywhere. The galactic black holes can be based on the cumulative effects of quantum processes, though I don't believe in the existence of particulate forms either. Yet, in these terms I would equate the photons and gravitons as both spin-1 particles, same particles, and all other particles would be forms of these.

Essentially, if we are neglecting the nature of the vacuum, light/gravity has no velocity and its interactions form the velocities of the spin 1/2 particles(again, forms of photons/gravitons), but applied to a black hole the fermions would be tachyonic and their velocities would always exceed the speed of light. When we first did the high-energy photonic experiments, there was never an inkling as to what would result - primarily, like you have inferred, we need not look any further to explain everything in nature. We could say that if black holes do exist, they would emulate the high-energy process where the singularity is the point of annihilation/creation. In this respect, there is no gravitational attraction, only repulsion, but the radiation emitted is undetectable because it always exceeds the speed of light.

Just a quick note to say that the velocity of the fermions on either side of the planck horizon is infinite, but the observable velocity has the c limit. The velocity of the horizon, the singularity, is always zero.

Greg,

Alot of Quantum Theorists off the record would have ideas that would possibly make you welcome your worst hangover. I've heard that Einstein's hair was flat until he sat down with Bohr.

I would still be interested in what you have to offer, if other than exactly orthodox.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Nobody, I do not see where tachyonic velocities are necessary, if we consider the infinitesimal substance motions, existing far below the Planck level, such as 10^-69^3cm, as David has suggested, elsewhere, as a possible measure, for the absolute FS. Although the number be theoretical, it allows us to see the picture, we're all looking for. I'd sooner accept sub-h, than tachyonic, as the super-luminal allows far too many sulutions, and all of them being unprovable, yet the sub-h, at the least, can be mathematically modeled, in finite space. If we first stick with a c delimited, finite time/distances model, we may have success at understanding the actions, at the most fundamental levels...

Imaginary spin-0 doesn't allow for a concrete model, and I'm always working from the concrete possibilities, up. Allow sub-h infinitesimal wave FS, and infinitesimalization of, into micro bh's, and we have a model to work with. Spin 0 offers no posssible model. An infinitesimal amount of spin, yes, but not 0 spin. Much of the theorizing has already been done by the string theorists and mathematicians, yet by substituting imaginary strings, with real and possible infinitesimal photons, solves much of the confusion. The black-hole side of the wave-dynamics equation, allows for the infinitesimal masses, needed to form the universe, from infinitesimal mass waves into infinitesimal, yet slightly larger masses, as they'd collect some FS from the other FS waves and infinitesimalizing bh's. The physics has also been somewhat completed, for just such micro-bh's, and the math shows they must explode, or entropize into the initial infinitesimal masses, creating new wave-fronts.

Now, some may still say photons do not exist as fundamental particle/waves, but no-one yet knows the true size of a single fundamental photon, and if they weren't fundamental, then why do they survive to exchange between other particles___And what is it that truly burns...? It sure ain't protons, neutrons and electrons___That leaves photons, in differing states of motion existence. Now, of course, many say photons are energy, but energy is required to be matter in motion, so they're required to be real fundamental particle/waves. They must be real fundamental particles, by the very laws of the universe's eventual total decay mechanics, into whatever fundamental, will become the most basic FS, at the point of final decay, to its most infinitesimal state of FS motion. Photons are the only particle that entirely fills the total number of conservation laws, throughout the entire number of possible universal cycles, no matter what the future cycle of models does or will show___Inflation, Cyclic, Big-Rip, or whatever...

Photonic bh energy/mass would be the ratio of entropy increase of spin, according to the law of conservation of momentum, i.e., low energy as a wave, and high energy at the highest entropy state, of bh spin and explosion. BTW, the math, so far, states that large blace holes are the only stable bh's, like the ones at the center of galaxies, and micro-bh's are the unstable-exploding ones. I think you've probably seen the physics and math___No...?

Anyway, when joined with the THD factors, it solves the problems of FS motion for me... Here's a link to follow some of the thinking: http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/...m%20Fields.pdf

Lloyd

Lloyd,

I accept your explanation of the second part, but I don't believe in the existence of black holes outside of the imaginary spin-0 particles that exist everywhere. The galactic black holes can be based on the cumulative effects of quantum processes, though I don't believe in the existence of particulate forms either. Yet, in these terms I would equate the photons and gravitons as both spin-1 particles, same particles, and all other particles would be forms of these.

Essentially, if we are neglecting the nature of the vacuum, light/gravity has no velocity and its interactions form the velocities of the spin 1/2 particles(again, forms of photons/gravitons), but applied to a black hole the fermions would be tachyonic and their velocities would always exceed the speed of light. When we first did the high-energy photonic experiments, there was never an inkling as to what would result - primarily, like you have inferred, we need not look any further to explain everything in nature. We could say that if black holes do exist, they would emulate the high-energy process where the singularity is the point of annihilation/creation. In this respect, there is no gravitational attraction, only repulsion, but the radiation emitted is undetectable because it always exceeds the speed of light.

Just a quick note to say that the velocity of the fermions on either side of the planck horizon is infinite, but the observable velocity has the c limit. The velocity of the horizon, the singularity, is always zero.

Greg,

Alot of Quantum Theorists off the record would have ideas that would possibly make you welcome your worst hangover. I've heard that Einstein's hair was flat until he sat down with Bohr.

I would still be interested in what you have to offer, if other than exactly orthodox.

[N0B0DY]

Lloyd,

I'm very surprised that Dave would suggest such a quantity, but if we invoke infinitesimal motion, the motion and hence level would be just that - infinitesimal - without any further complication necessary.

You, Dave, and those in the link you provided continue to either equate mass and matter, or to suggest that matter is the result of a type of universal mass when just the opposite is possible when applied to black holes and their requisite singularities. The spin -1/2 electron and +1/2 positron give us spin 0, repulsive with infinite velocity below planck; the spin +1 photon and spin -1 graviton collide to give us spin 0, repulsive with a finite velocity above planck.

The infinitesimal rest mass you infer is non-existent, but the concept is based on the relativistic mass of the photon which is equal to the mass of the electron times c squared because the electron/positron has an intrinsic velocity equal to light and the annihilation of their rest masses squares the energy. So the photon doesn't have infinitesimal mass, but more mass than its source particle. The differential, in the form of the energy spectrum, redshifts through the scalar field.

[quanta07]

I am pro expansion.
The measurements confirm expansion by Doppler shift.
Why question Doppler shift?
It has long been accepted as legal speed measurement by law enforcement, just try to get out of that ticket...
An introduction to the function of expansion at http://www.toequest.com/forum/mathem...pace-time.html

Happy Holidays...Q7

[RascalPuff]

I am pro expansion.
The measurements confirm expansion by Doppler shift.
Why question Doppler shift?
It has long been accepted as legal speed measurement by law enforcement, just try to get out of that ticket...
An introduction to the function of expansion at http://www.toequest.com/forum/mathem...pace-time.html

Happy Holidays...Q7

Hello Q7:

The controversy seems to be in what may be differences in the behavior of sonic (sound) Doppler effects and the behavior of electromagnetic (light) Doppler effects; especially over great distances and as conducted by different mediums.
Incidentally, I am in agreement with you on the cause of the 'red shift', and the apparent, spatially expanding universe, in accordance with Hubble.

Happy Holidays likewise,
- RP

[dleviwing]

Are you saying that the first para is the action, and the second, our measured reaction ?

Yes; I guess you could put it that way! If we see a blue shift, that is Doppler effect; or the the universe is starting to collapse. Wavelengths become longer with greater distance with expansion type red-shift; we would not expect to see any relationship to distance if it were caused only by Doppler shift. We estimate distance with the brightness of specific types of stars and thus know the difference between expansion red-shift and Doppler red-shift.

The main idea is that the EM waves are part of the space that is expanding and thus the wavelengths get longer over distance as space expands.

[Graybeard]

Yes ... I get it


cool bananas ... greg

[N0B0DY]

Here's a link that might lend support to your non-doppler redshift, Dave.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hubble/index.html

I remember you prescribing unchanging laws throughout the cosmos, and pondered if galactic redshifts can be correlated with a lesser energy as is the case with electrons at lower orbits without the arbitrary change of space.

Also, I don't understand the difference between the wavelengths changing from expansion and changing from traversing denser media.

[Graybeard]

I remember you prescribing unchanging laws throughout the cosmos, and pondered if galactic redshifts can be correlated with a lesser energy as is the case with electrons at lower orbits without the arbitrary change of space.

Nob ... I read the paper, I freely admit that when it got to the maths I was lost.

I read the paper as 'for' the current explanations of redshift and expansion, not 'against' or an 'alternative'. Is that how you read it ?

cool bananas ... greg