Maybe Light Has A Preference For Red Shift

[Pincho Paxton]

I was thinking about the Quantum pathways of light. And red light with a longer stride may block other colours at such a tiny fraction that it doesn't become apparent until you look over long distances. It would be like a giraffe travelling at the same speed as a cat, but the giraffe legs getting in the way of the cats advances, so that even though they end up the same speed the giraffe has the lead. If you now look at a rainbow, you can see the stride of red having the lead. So red shift may just be a quantum advantage of red light.

[Lancewen]

I was thinking about the Quantum pathways of light. And red light with a longer stride may block other colours at such a tiny fraction that it doesn't become apparent until you look over long distances. It would be like a giraffe traveling at the same speed as a cat, but the giraffe legs getting in the way of the cats advances, so that even though they end up the same speed the giraffe has the lead. If you now look at a rainbow, you can see the stride of red having the lead. So red shift may just be a quantum advantage of red light.

 

Hi Pincho, Interesting idea. Would you by chance be able to suggest a way to test that idea. I don't think the rainbow qualifies.

[Pincho Paxton]

I suppose that you could fire a red beam, and a green beam to hit a target at the same time, keep moving the distance further apart, and see if the resulting colour had a red shift in it.

Edited May 2, 2012 by Pincho Paxton

[CraigD]

Would you by chance be able to suggest a way to test that idea.

I suppose that you could fire a red beam, and a green beam to hit a target at the same time, keep moving the distance further apart, and see if the resulting colour had a red shift in it.

Sounds good so far. :thumbs_up

 

How would you do that? Can you sketch your experimental apparatus?

 

Hint: a beam splitter is also a beam combiner.

[Lancewen]

I suppose that you could fire a red beam, and a green beam to hit a target at the same time, keep moving the distance further apart, and see if the resulting colour had a red shift in it.

 

The following article is interesting but the reason I posted the link here is because of a couple of comments by D13 and his take on the redshift. Please give it a read and a comment of your own about it. I like what he had to say.

 

FYI: Where Is The Center of the Universe?

 

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-04/fyi-where-center-universe

[Pincho Paxton]

The following article is interesting but the reason I posted the link here is because of a couple of comments by D13 and his take on the redshift. Please give it a read and a comment of your own about it. I like what he had to say.

 

 

Yeah I partly agree, but I can't see how atoms stay bonded if they move apart, so not all points should be moving, mostly space points with no bonding. My take on it is that between planets, and Galaxies there is a valley of pressure. Then there is a complex Cosmological Constant that is due to shrinkage. I feel that a third effect of red shift preference adds to the complexity. So red shift may have all sorts of mixed physics, and to get the acceleration with shrinkage, I just think that there is a preference for red travel. My computer model uses what I call knots, and photons have their own knots between matter knots. It is like a weave. And if red waves travelled in front of blue/green waves the knot would be closed, and hold back blue/green waves.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Pincho Paxton

[CraigD]

Before things in this thread get unhealthily weird (yes, I think weirdness can be divided into healthy and unhealthy, even if the precise boundary is difficult to impossible to discern), let’s introduce some conventional, textbook, basic physics concepts.

 

Visible light is a small part, a narrow range, of the whole of electromagnetic radiation. All EM radiation is carried by particles called photons. Photons are real – that is, individual ones can be measured with precision and certainty with present day instruments. From these instruments to the biological organs you’re using now to read this – your eyes – practically all measuring of photons involves them interacting with electrons, usually ones associated with the atomic nuclei in the stuff of the instrument or organ measuring them. By the mid 1960s, this was superbly understood and documented by a theory called quantum electrodynamics (QED for short) an achievement that was so impressive and important it won three now famous (and also now dead) physicists the 1965 Nobel prize.

 

QED states precisely, and simply, how electrons (and their antiparticles, positrons, which for simplicity, we can consider to be simple time-reversed electrons) and photons interact: electrons absorb and emit photons.

 

The important thing that QED has to say about this thread’s main idea – that photons may “block” one another – is that they don’t, and can’t, even in principle. Photons interact with electrons (and other femions, but that’s not in QED, but other quantum theories) but not (even in these other theories, until gravity is included, which hasn’t been done successfully in a quantum theory yet, but, being a very weak force, can be usually be ignored) with one another.

 

Of course, there’s more to science than theory alone – there’s experiment. I think that you, Pincho, and of course anyone else reading this, should at least think deeply and in detail about a direct experiment to test the hypothesis of photons blocking one another in a way that results in redshift (meaning the frequency of the photons being made smaller, as photons of visible red light have smaller frequencies than photons of visible blue). I think actually doing this experiment is a good learning experience, expecially since it can be done using inexpensive, easy to find stuff: all you really need is a couple of LED lights, some glass, some paper, and a bit of cleverness at putting it all together.

 

Not only is it a good learning experience, playing with spectrometers is fun, potentially addictively so. Once you’ve got even a simple, homemade spectrometer in hand, you’re just look at things using light, you’re looking at the composition of light itself. Legend (much of my personal store taken from Stephenson’s wonderful, if rather long, baroque trilogy of novels) has it that, when Newton put together arguably the first one circa 1670, he holed by himself with it for months, nearly blinding himself looking into the light of the Sun.

 

What you’ll learn, however, is exactly what QED predicts, anyone who’s done many optics experiments, either at home with improvised materials, or in a lab with lab-quality equipment, knows: you can combine light sources, and their spectra – the diagram of how many of photons of each frequency are in them – precisely add together. They never shift each photon’s frequency by a factor less than 1 (redshift) or more than 1 (blueshift).

 

The following article is interesting but the reason I posted the link here is because of a couple of comments by D13 and his take on the redshift. Please give it a read and a comment of your own about it. I like what he had to say.

FYI: Where Is The Center of the Universe?

 

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-04/fyi-where-center-universe

D13 raises a point that, in my experience, any thoughtful student does when introduced to the idea of measuring the velocities of stars (and other objects) by comparing their spectra to those of the same kind of body nearby and stationary to find their Doppler shift: that some interaction of the light with matter between the body and the observer, not their relative velocity, is causing the shift.

 

However, this hypothesis, and similar ones known as “tired light”, where photon’s frequencies reduce on their own, without the need for a velocity differences or interaction with matter, have been thought of and tested for nearly a century, and been discarded in favor of those in the scientific mainstream: that redshift is due primarily to 3 factors: recessional velocity; gravity; and the metric expansion of space.

 

The best way I know for a properly skeptical thinker to come to agree with this mainstream consensus, or disagree with it in an informed way, is to read a lot of science literature. Reading and understanding science literature is easiest after studying a lot of science, which is easiest in a helpful academic setting.

 

Hypography can be helpful, too. :)

[Pincho Paxton]

Before things in this thread get unhealthily weird (yes, I think weirdness can be divided into healthy and unhealthy, even if the precise boundary is difficult to impossible to discern), let’s introduce some conventional, textbook, basic physics concepts.

 

Visible light is a small part, a narrow range, of the whole of electromagnetic radiation. All EM radiation is carried by particles called photons. Photons are real – that is, individual ones can be measured with precision and certainty with present day instruments. From these instruments to the biological organs you’re using now to read this – your eyes – practically all measuring of photons involves them interacting with electrons, usually ones associated with the atomic nuclei in the stuff of the instrument or organ measuring them. By the mid 1960s, this was superbly understood and documented by a theory called quantum electrodynamics (QED for short) an achievement that was so impressive and important it won three now famous (and also now dead) physicists the 1965 Nobel prize.

 

QED states precisely, and simply, how electrons (and their antiparticles, positrons, which for simplicity, we can consider to be simple time-reversed electrons) and photons interact: electrons absorb and emit photons.

 

The important thing that QED has to say about this thread’s main idea – that photons may “block” one another – is that they don’t, and can’t, even in principle. Photons interact with electrons (and other femions, but that’s not in QED, but other quantum theories) but not (even in these other theories, until gravity is included, which hasn’t been done successfully in a quantum theory yet, but, being a very weak force, can be usually be ignored) with one another.

 

Of course, there’s more to science than theory alone – there’s experiment. I think that you, Pincho, and of course anyone else reading this, should at least think deeply and in detail about a direct experiment to test the hypothesis of photons blocking one another in a way that results in redshift (meaning the frequency of the photons being made smaller, as photons of visible red light have smaller frequencies than photons of visible blue). I think actually doing this experiment is a good learning experience, expecially since it can be done using inexpensive, easy to find stuff: all you really need is a couple of LED lights, some glass, some paper, and a bit of cleverness at putting it all together.

 

Not only is it a good learning experience, playing with spectrometers is fun, potentially addictively so. Once you’ve got even a simple, homemade spectrometer in hand, you’re just look at things using light, you’re looking at the composition of light itself. Legend (much of my personal store taken from Stephenson’s wonderful, if rather long, baroque trilogy of novels) has it that, when Newton put together arguably the first one circa 1670, he holed by himself with it for months, nearly blinding himself looking into the light of the Sun.

 

What you’ll learn, however, is exactly what QED predicts, anyone who’s done many optics experiments, either at home with improvised materials, or in a lab with lab-quality equipment, knows: you can combine light sources, and their spectra – the diagram of how many of photons of each frequency are in them – precisely add together. They never shift each photon’s frequency by a factor less than 1 (redshift) or more than 1 (blueshift).

 

 

D13 raises a point that, in my experience, any thoughtful student does when introduced to the idea of measuring the velocities of stars (and other objects) by comparing their spectra to those of the same kind of body nearby and stationary to find their Doppler shift: that some interaction of the light with matter between the body and the observer, not their relative velocity, is causing the shift.

 

However, this hypothesis, and similar ones known as “tired light”, where photon’s frequencies reduce on their own, without the need for a velocity differences or interaction with matter, have been thought of and tested for nearly a century, and been discarded in favor of those in the scientific mainstream: that redshift is due primarily to 3 factors: recessional velocity; gravity; and the metric expansion of space.

 

The best way I know for a properly skeptical thinker to come to agree with this mainstream consensus, or disagree with it in an informed way, is to read a lot of science literature. Reading and understanding science literature is easiest after studying a lot of science, which is easiest in a helpful academic setting.

 

Hypography can be helpful, too. :)

 

If a bunch of the ideas that you posted are wrong it is easy to manufacture science to fit what you want. For example the interaction with electrons in my theory is an interaction with scalar vortex, and time, and electrons don't really exist. But there is a point at their location of negative mass. QED is a square peg in a round hole, and the peg works with its jagged edges sticking out. Nobody notices the square edges until they get a look at them, and then all of a sudden everyone is confused that Quantum Physics isn't doing what it is supposed to do. I ignore such flippant use of QED.. electrons don't exist, QED doesn't exist.

[Lancewen]

The best way I know for a properly skeptical thinker to come to agree with this mainstream consensus, or disagree with it in an informed way, is to read a lot of science literature. Reading and understanding science literature is easiest after studying a lot of science, which is easiest in a helpful academic setting.

 

Hypography can be helpful, too. :)

 

Agreed, however the only academic setting that's reasonably available to me is what I can access on my computer via the Internet, and in my opinion that's way more than I could have expected just a few years ago. Counting this forum, I have participated as a member in 3 science forums and am currently active in two of them now. Each forum has it's own personality based on the leadership and current active regular members. In any event these forums provide a way for all interested parties to participate in active discussions which I have found very educational. The one problem I have with the current BB theory is there is a great deal of mainstream speculation that many seem to treat as if it were fact. The only fact I see is that theory is very much a work in progress, badly in need of a lot more data. Nothing wrong with speculation as long as the attitude about it can lead to more useful information.