CREIL Forum 2004

From: Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board

The CREIL Effect explaining Doppler Red Shift and Quasars.

Jerry W. Jensen Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2004 9:44 pm

Greeting,

By way of introduction, I have co-authored papers on CREIL with Jacques Moret-Bailly. We will both be presenting orally at the APS meeting in Denver, May 1-4, 2004.

CREIL - "Coherent Raman Effects on Incoherant Light" has allowed us to explain both the complex spectrum of the Lyman Forest and the Periodic varience in quasar counts in multiples of 0.062, as observed by Bell and Others. Coupled with the apparent proper motion of quasars, the visual observations of ARP, and the lack of a Doppler effect in the Power spectrum, this mechanism creates a powerful arguement that Quasar-like sources are displaced in the Cosmos.

CREIL offers the only explanation I am aware of for the Blueshifting of the Pioneer probes and the apparent peak in blue or 'early' galaxies at a Z-shift of about 0.3. - This is a very difficult nut for the Big Bang and impossible task for historical tired light models.

Jerry W. Jensen Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2004 5:56 pm Post subject: CREIL and the Lyman Forest

The conventional interpretation of the Lyman forest requires three very curious features:

1) Since the forest absorptions always start at redshifted distances from the face of the quasar, a ‘zone of ionization’ or total gas vacuum of hundreds of megaparcecs must exist, otherwise, the absorption trough should begin shortly after the emission lines are written.

2) "Wormy commoving clouds of neutral hydrogen gas" are needed to explain the separation of the Lyman absorption ‘trees’;

3) Since the lines of the Lyman forest are quite focused, these wormy clouds must have fairly definite borders, and since nearly adjacent quasars have different bands, the distance between these clouds must vary drastically throughout intergalactic space. These are highly unphysical, even absurd constraints.

see http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept01/Rauch/Rauch_contents.html for an excellent paper on the Lyman forest.

The CREIL (Coherent Raman Effects on Incoherent Light) process creates the Lyman forest in very close proximity to the quasar:

1) Bright Lyman (and other metal) emission lines are written into a broad, hot spectrum.

2) As the gases cool, there is a transition region of intrinsic (CREIL) redshifting before Lyman absorptions begin to occur. During this phase, the CREIL process redshifts the emission lines as much as z=0.5 over a distance that is probably much less than 1au.

3) As the extended helosphere of the quasar continues to cool, Lyman absorptions start to occur; however, whenever a bright emission line passes through the gas, the gas is reheated and the absorption stops – this ‘bistability’ writes a series of absorption lines into the spectrum that is a function of both the width and intensity of the original emission lines and the absorbing gas density.

4) With increasing CREIL redshifting, the beta and gamma absorption and emission lines also come into play. As a coincidence of the overlap of these bands, quasars at certain ‘resonant’ distances are selectively attenuated. This creates the apparent periodic effect in the distribution of quasars observed by Bell and others. CREIL correctly predicts these coincidences as multiples of the Alpha, Beta and Gamma absorbencies.

Jerry W. Jensen Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2004 1:59 am

1. The mechanism of CREIL - how does CREIL lead to redshift, Ly-Alpha forest, and discrete states.

Reply:

CREIL is a radiation transfer function, but to preserve discrete spectral lines, a stimulated emission is require - yes, the same type of emission found in lasers - this should not be too surprising to anyone who has worked with superhetrodyning vacuum tubes: ionized electrons preserve the spectrum of radiowaves while a dramatic frequency shift is obtained via superhetrodyning with another frequency.

CREIL applies this same process to photons travelling through ionized or otherwise activated low pressure gaseous atoms/molecules. In this case, the hetrodyning frequency can be either the thermal microwave background or the quasar radio continuum. This also helps explain why quasar spectra can be either 'tight' or blurred, radio loud quasars have better defined spectral lines. Jacque formally derived CREIL from the tensors of Polarization. (Astro-ph/0305180)

Like lasers, CREIL relies upon a meta-stable state to facilitate coherent light transfer. We have identified both a high temperature and low temperature mechanisms.

2. What characteristics a quasar must have in order for the CREIL explanation to work.

A "Hot Phase" CREIL process occurs when the temperature is high enough that the gas is ionized, but low enough that the collisional scattering rate is lower than the stimulated scattering rate. Most elementary modern physics texts discuss this topic. (Weidner) Stimulated emissions preserve spectral information, but at a price: A small amount of thermal energy is transferred to the atom or molecule providing the meta-stable state. This is the same thermal energy lost in a prism or any transparent solid during a refractory transition – Again, CREIL is derived from the tensors of polarization, it was only after a decade of studying the phenomenon that Jacques realized it may have astronomical implications.

Jerry W. Jensen Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2004 8:55 pm

It is interesting that this CREIL board morphed into a discussion on Supernovae. An investigation into Supernova Ia is what whet my interest in CREIL in the first place:

Perlmutter’s Stretch Methodology

Perlmutter, Goldhaber, Nugent and others have used the ‘stretch method”, not only to prove the universe is indeed expanding, but also to conclude the rate of expansion is increasing. To make this determination, Permutter normalized supernova at a redshift of ~0.4, then used the stretch parameter to align the supernova Ia width and magnitude parameters with the relativistic distance modulus: 1/(1+z^4), where z=redshift distance. When the residues showed no bias, he declared victory. But the stretch method made NO allowance for distance selection effects (Malmquist type II bias), and in fact, if the magnitudes that popped out of this analysis are correct, supernovae Ia on average GET SMALLER with increasing distance. THIS MAKES NO SENSE –we can see right inside supernova, there is no justification for them to evolve, or for our telescopes to spot smaller supernova with increasing distance. However if a reasonable Malmquist bias (4%) is assigned, there is NO BUDGET left in the redshifted supernova light curve widths to allow for time dilation!

The brightest supernovae in the local universe are the type IC “Hypernovae”. These are ~1-2 magnitudes greater than Supernova Ia and lose one magnitude(B) from peak in ~20 to 28 days. The most distance ‘Supernova Ia’ observed also lose one magnitude(B) in ~20-28 days. If these are really hypernova, the Wilson hypothesis fails: Supernova or hypernova light curves show no evidence of time dilation.

Tonry et al, were stunned to find so few supernova in a recent highest redshift survey. They were expecting 100, they observed only four. This makes sense if the attenuation of space is greater than the predicted relativistic distance modulus AND the most distant observed supernova Ia are really hypernova. If not, then WHERE ARE THE HIGH REDSHIFT HYPERNOVA? Until hypernova, which appear to lose one magnitude(B) in greater than forty days at z-shifts greater than 1 are observed, this analysis stands: There is NO evidence of time dilation in supernovae light curves.

Another clue is found in the Tolman surface brightness test: At a z-shift of 0.1~0.9, the galactic surface brightness indicates the distance modulus is less than ~1/(1+z^3). But the supernova Ia indicate that above a redshift distance greater than ~0.7, the distance modulus for supernova is > 1/(1+z^4). (If time dilation is taken out of this calculation, the attenuation factor is even greater.)

Why would the Distance Modulus be less than relativistic theory for galaxies, and greater than theory for supernova? When I pondered this conundrum, I realized if there must be intrinsic redshifting in the bluest of galaxies, just like quasars, they appear to be at greater distances than they are, but as soon as you assign some intrinsic redshifting to quasars and galaxies, much of the body of cosmic evidence changes dramatically.

Since the attenuation in neither the supernova nor galaxies provide good fits to the relativistic distance modulus, what could explain the observed distance modulus? Steady State – tired light models predict an attenuation of only 1/d^2, or at best, 1(1+z)^2. This is why tired light models have been totally discounted. I was looking for a series of equations which would solve all of these conundrums when I ran across Jacques' early papers on CREIL

Why CREIL predicts a distance modulus that is greater than relativistic predictions at high redshift:

The CREIL radiation transfer functions require a meta-stable mechanism to preserve spectral lines during stimulated emissions. A meta-stable state allows interference in the stimulation process by a light source from the opposite (actually from any) direction. Assuming No true Doppler expansion, (and no intrinsic redshift) the CREIL equation for cosmic attenuation of light between two identical galactic sources is:

~1/(r^2+[e^(ar2)]) where r2 is the distance from the destination galaxy.

A plot of this equation reveals a curve which can fit both the Tolman surface brightness test results (if intrinsic redshifting is also allowed), and a much greater attenuation factor (as r2 increases) at very high redshifts. The apparent dearth of galaxies and supernova at high redshifts is caused by this exponential attenuation factor.

To summarize: The attenuation factors we see in supernova, galaxies and quasars do not agree with predicted relativist expansion rate (1/(1+z^4)). Intrinsic HOT CREIL redshifting in very high energy quasars and galaxies displaces where these entities appear to be in redshifted space and time. (This is one of the reasons very blue galaxies are rarely found in or near the center of galaxy clusters, and never close to our own galaxy cluster -quasars and very hot galaxies are intrinsicily redshifted)

A stimulated emission radiation transfer function such as CREIL is required to preserve spectral lines during redshift transfers. Since the stimulating photon can be absorbed from any direction, the attenuation factor is a function of both distance and flux from our own sun and galaxy. Jwj

Jerry W. Jensen Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2004 5:34 am

Cougar wrote: My brief review of type II Malmquist bias seems to indicate that it is simply not relevant to supernovae Ia. Why do you make this conclusion?

Response:

There is a valid interpretation of the supernova IA data that indicates time dilation effects are overstated, and the simplest way to explain it is with light curve rise-times.

First: Although the magnitude of supernova Ia are locally constrained to a limited range of magnitudes(B):{-14 to -21, mean -19.5}. There is a variance in the light curve width, with the highest magnitude supernova Ia having the slowest light curve rise times and attenuations. (SNP website: http://www-supernova.lbl.gov/))

Second, supernova Ia absolute magnitudes do increase with distance or more exactly, the lowest magnitude Ia (>-17) fall off the radar at cosmic distances. (Richardson et al, Astro Ph 011205)

Third: The normalized fiducial rise time for local supernova Ia is 19.98 days+/-0.15 this contrasts with a significantly faster rise for high reshift supernova Ia of 17.5+/-1.2 days IF TIME DILATION CORRECTIONS ARE MADE. (Li & Filippenko, Astro-Ph 0310529. )

Why should more distant supernova have smaller light curve rise times when they should, on average, be slightly larger supernova? Is it not more reasonable to conclude the time dilation correction is too great, and the more distant supernova actually have on-average rise times of > 20 days?

This same trend can be observe in the Delta(15)B values used by supernova researchers. Smaller Delta(15)B values correlate with longer light curves and bigger supernovae. BUT after correction for time dilation Delta(15)B values are greater, on-average, for redshifted supernova Ia than local Delta(15)B values. (Wang et al, astro-ph/0302341)

With time dilation factored in, supernova Ia light curves appear to get smaller – while they should, with increasing distance be on-average slightly larger due to the loss of detection of the smallest faction of supernova and selection effects: Malmquist biasing.

Cougar wrote: Supernovae Ia are greatly different and easily differentiated from supernovae Ib, and Ic. Your hypothesis that they might be mistaken for one another is unrealistic and therefore ineffectual in discrediting the observed effect of time dilation on Sn Ia light curves.

Response:

Although it is fairly easy to distinguish spectrographically between Ia and Ic in the local supernova population (Ic are also much dimmer), distinguishing between Ic Hypernova and Ia supernova is more problematic, especially at high redshift. See the spectral signatures in Tonry et al Astro Ph 0305008, Mazzali et al. Astro Ph 0309555, and Coil et al. Astro Ph 0009102. Can you tell which is which?

John Middleditch has concluded virtually all supernova Ia explosions are binary star events, with a gaseous star feeding a white dwarf with matter. (Middleditch, Astro Ph 0311484)

If Middleditch is correct, a scenario for a dual explosions is proposed: A “near white dwarf” binary dwarf pair in which one of them hits critical mass and the second is pushed beyond critical mass in a shock induced nuclear detonation. This would produce a two hump light curve (typical of the longest light curves), a beamed gamma ray (also typical ) and viewed from the right direction have a very bright light curve almost double a singular supernova detonation in duration.

Since local hypernova Ic are known to lose less than one magnitude in 28 days and THESE ARE THE BRIGHTEST supernova-like events (Nomato et al. Astro Ph 0003077), they should also be observe at high redshift distances, and due to time dilation, the light curves of these explosions should take 30-46 days to lose one magnitude. Until high redshift hypernova light curves are found which appear to decline at less than half local rate, there is no compelling proof of time dilation in supernova light curves REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY ARE IA OR IC SPECTRAL SIGNATURES. WHERE ARE THE TIME DILATED HYPERNOVA?

Jerry W. Jensen Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2004 8:31 pm

Ned Wright wrote: There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed. The Compton shift in particular does not work. [ref]

Response:

The Tensors of Polarization 'clearly' transfer energy, bending the path of light in transparent crystals and gas tubes without blurring (refraction), this is also true of IRIS, which is essentially the superhetrodyning of two pulsed lasars to produce additive/subtractive frequencies. CREIL simply argues that stimulated emissions can and do occur preferentially when gas pressures are very low relative to flux energies. The lose of kinetic energy to the transferring molecule in extremely small increments statistically leads to wide band discrete spectral redshifts.

Jerry W. Jensen Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2004 7:47 am

Is there enough amount of H2 in intergalactic space being succeptible to be affected by the ultraviolet radiations who can ionise H2 into H2+, a very stable molecule?

The general astrophysical consensus is that there is not. HOWEVER, In close proximity to quasars, there is certainly enough flux and gas to create the CREIL effects observed in both the Lyman forest and the “apparent” distribution of quasars (http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401529); and if quasars are displaced, the ISM gas volume, calculated by Prochaska (http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0209193); is grossly underestimated due to the overstated distance to quasars.

Jerry W. Jensen Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2004 6:55 am

The Bad Astronomer wrote: Well, I have serious doubts about this theory. It doesn't explain time dilation, for example. Most non-expanding Universe theories don't explain this, and it's the big nail in the coffin. Distant supernovae are time dilated, by exactly what their redshift corresponds to in recession velocity. So the red shift must mean expansion.

Reply: This is not quite true. Many more distant supernova have been found since N. Wright posted the page you are referring to, and their light curves are scattered all over the place. I will be posting a detailed paper on this topic on Astro-Ph archives asap.

The Bad Astronomer wrote: Also, neutron stars embedded in hydrogen isn't a good model for quasars. For one, some quasars are seen to be in otherwise normal galaxies. There appears to be a continuum between active galaxies to quasars as well, implying strongly that quasars are galaxies.

Reply: Very true. In this paper Jacques was referring only to very small, isolated QSO which do not seem to fit anywhere – he maintains these may be intrinsically redshifted neutron stars. Incidentally, in Jacques early papers he was not trying to explain all Doppler shifts, only the apparent displacement of quasars, as observed and argued by Arp. It is possible CREIL is a good explanation for intrinsic redshifting and displacement of quasars, and it is not responsible for the general Hubble effect.

Jerry W. Jensen Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2004 12:47 am

d 2022 wrote: So the CREIL effect is more a challenge or -alternative- against Arp`s theory than for the Big Bang theory.

No, While Arp makes observational claims that there is intrinstic redshifting in Quasars, Moret-Bailly defines a mechanism for this redshifting in the extended photosphere of very bright objects - I am not aware of any mechanism currently proposed by Arp

Jerry W. Jensen Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2004 7:48 pm Post subject: Arp & Narlikar Cosmology

Ned Wright's critique of the Arp & Narlikar solution is solid - essentially if the universe oscillates, look-backs in time should show periods of red and blue shifting. The depth to which we can see the cosmos in the Hubble deep space surveys appears to rule this out.

To reiterate Jacques Moret-Bailly’s CREIL thesis: Jacques & I are convinced there is non-Doppler redshifting in the thin gaseous regions near quasars and other AGN, causing these and other brilliant objects to be displaced in space and time: they are smaller and much closer.

CREIL or CREIL – like mechanisms MAY be responsible for most of the cosmic redshifting, but if and only if the analysis of the supernova data found in Astro-ph/0404060 withstands scientific scrutiny. Hopefully this will be publicly available Apr 6, 2004.

Jerry W. Jensen Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2004 8:15 pm

Cougar wrote: Jerry, there are a lot of questions about your CREIL claims, and while I certainly have a feeling for what those questions are, I am not really qualified ... I would certainly like to hear what a few experts in this field (or one close to it) would have to say about your propositions. A conference presentation may generate a few comments from the audience... or maybe not since the audience may consider your explanatory language to sound much like new-age hocus pocus...That's why a careful study by a peer reviewer or three is rather crucial in determining the value of such a (far out) proposal.

Valid criticism, good suggestion: The presentation of CREIL has been hobbled by a severe language barrier; and I need to do a better job of translation. Jacques and I are both have long careers and are well known in our respective fields, but our peers are in no position to evaluate an idea with cosmological implications. The most appropriate place for publishing is in Astronomical Journals, but we are not optimistic about the editorial and referee process: Read Magueijo's account of trying to get a new theory published in "Faster than the Speed of Light", it took years, and he and Albrecht are both Oxford astrophysicists.

I can appreciate why no one will consider steady state models, but the evidence Arp, Russell, Bell and others concerning the displacement of quasars in space and time is very compelling. Every time I have gone head to head with an astrophysicist on this issue they insist there is no known mechanism for intrinsic redshifting. I think the observational data speaks for itself. And certainly laser heterodyning and the tensors of polarization involve coherent radiation transfer processes.

When I first completed my analysis of Supernova Ia, I went rushing all over the western US looking for an astrophysicist who would pick up the ball and run with it. When a couple of prominent astrophysicists reluctantly admitted I had a point they said in effect "Big Bang theory is not completely right, but it is the best we have, and unless you can suggest a better one that is in harmony with current observations the is no reason to challenge it." Now we do have our own theories, some of which may be more right than wrong. But we will both be long dead before any of this is published in an astrophysical journal, UNLESS we can first convince a significant portion of the at-large scientific community our position has merit.

In spite of my ongoing debate with Bill Gates over subject/verb tense, my paper will appear on astro-ph Monday (Apr 12/04) morning. Jacque and I are also submitting a joint paper to one of the a-phys journals, but we are not holding our breath.

Jerry W. Jensen Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2004 9:39 pm

ExpErdMann wrote: I have a few general thoughts/queries about the CREIL mechanism:

1. As I understand it it seems to be effective only for low frequency radiation, such as radio waves. But the cosmic redshift works for all frequencies and so how can it be due to CREIL?

Basic CREIL in a nutshell: Refraction is a parameteric effect, "bending" the path of all waves when a change in density occurs in a truly transparent medium, then "bending it back again" where the transferring medium returns to the original density. Even though the energy is not absorbed and retransmitted, a radiation transfer must occur both to and from the 'bending' molecule in order to conserve energy. We simply maintain that whenever this parametic effects occur, their is also an entropic energy budget, extremely small, but real. Ok, it is not quite that simple, but you get the general idea.

ExpErdMann wrote: 2. I like some aspects of CREIL. The basic notion that incoherent light is being converted to spatially coherent light rings true. It reminds me of the work of de la Pena and Cetto, wherein coherent matter waves are produced by random ZPF waves striking matter. The idea that matter acts as a 'smoother' for radiation, converting higher frequences and lower frequencies to CMBR could be true. This would explain the extreme smoothness of the CMBR, since it would be being generated by atoms everywhere in interstellar space.

Both Marmet and de la Pena are very very close in concept to what Jacques has described as CRIEL, and what I marry to a concept I describe as friability. In my paper I describe two convergence zones, one in the far infrared, and one in the CMB, reflecting the CREIL effects in both the local and the cosmic distance.

ExpErdMann wrote: [3. It is too bad that CREIL seems to act only in diffuse gases. If it acted within dense bodies it could also perhaps account for gravity in a Le Sage-type ('pushing gravity') mechanism. Since the product waves are spatially coherent I assume they could form interference patterns with other bodies moving similarly in space (like the stars in a galaxy for instance). So there could effectively be 'shadows' in the background radiation which in your model are just the CREIL radiation. Maybe CREIL could be extended somehow?

Amazing! Again, I have approached this same subject; also included in my abstract:

"Without relativistic expansion, new explanations are required for background radiation and light element synthesis. An electro-gravimetric energy transfer function activated at extremely low temperatures in molecular hydrogen by a Bose-Einstein condensation is proposed as a candidate mechanism. This proposed solution to Obler’s paradox hints of a tantalizing link between the large numbers theories of Mach and Dirac and a non-Friedman field limited gravimetric tensor. This is a highly speculative reintroduction of Hoyle’s steady-state cosmology."

Ok, it is just a guess, but an educated one: I am looking for a solution to Obler's paradox and MOND and trying to avoid a cosmological constant.

ExpErdMann wrote: [4. I think the conjectures about SNe light curves in this thread are offtrack. The time dilation in distant SNe is orders of magnitude greater than the time dilation due to intrinsic luminosity effects. There are better ways around this. Bear in mind that the time dilation is considered to be fundamentally an effect of GR not SR, and so a mechanism that accounts for how gravity works could also explain SN time dilation. And something like your CREIL could be involved.

Not if the intrinsic redshift of supernovae is somewhat proportional to magnitude! Check out Frail's paper on gamma rays astro-ph/0102282 we are now certain supernova Ia's produce gamma rays, and in Frails plots, the greater the redshift, the more highly beamed the gamma ray! This smells awfully intrinsic to me, especially if the ZKG limits are real, and they should be. There is another subtle alarm going off: In Riess 2004 Astro-Ph/0402512, they mention 2003aj is at first identified as a SN Ia, but latter rejected, because once the corrections are made for redshift, the light curve is too small! Incidently, I did not think supernova were intrinsically redshifted because they usually nail down the redshift of the host galaxy. HOWEVER, morphology studies of local SN Ia show them occuring virtually anywhere in any type of galaxy, while the most distant supernova are only found near the edges...or are they just stuffing them in the nearest galaxy with the same redshift? - Jury is still out on this baby!

ExpErdMann wrote: [5. It was mentioned that Arp does not have a quasar redshift mechanism. Actually, he does. Arp ties redshift in quasars to his 'aging of matter' hypothesis. The matter in quasars is newly formed. Consequently, the electrons in these atoms have less mass than older atoms and their emission frequencies are consequently redshifted. I like Arp's idea generally, but I'll have a closer look at your quasar arguments.

I don't like aging matter simply because we don't have local observables. Yes it could be happening, there could be dark matter, wormy clouds of gas, and the dark energy the mainstream cosmo dudes have conjured up - it will be interesting to see how they reconciliate the latest jog towards expansion slowing again, based on the supernova (Riess again, Also Tonry, 2003). Did someone turn off the tractor beam?

The cosmological principle mandates that we do not invent alternative dimensions and matter behaving differently in the past or distance than it does now. Otherwise, we are just forming another religion.

From: Universe Today Forum: CREIL

Creil, One non-velocity cosmic redshift theory

Jerry W. Jensen Joined: 7-May 04

[QUOTE=antoniseb,Apr 22 2004, 12:15 PM]...[\quote]

Your assessment is excellent, and the explanations of JMB&Vanderl accurate.

[QUOTE=antoniseb] 1. Even though JJ has a paper claiming that super-nova light-curves don't show time-dilation, I've seen other papers that claim they do. Time-dilation in supernova curves would be a killer for him.[\quote]

True - Supernova investigatures have assured me they are considering my paper. This is a very complex subject, and analysis will take time.

It was after completing an analysis of the SN Ia data that I concluded cosmic redshifting is not Doppler, And I went looking for a mechanism that would produce the necessary redshift and attenuation factor - CREIL. JMB describes both hot and cold CREIL enviroments, the hot CREIL is found in areas of extreme flux and ionized hydrogen - near quasars and other bright objects, greatly displacing their redshifts.

[QUOTE=antoniseb] 2. Using CREIL, redshift should depend on column density more than distance, but there is no apparent hightened red-shift vs. apparant brightness as we look through denser inter-stellar and inter-galactic media [for example through the milkyway or through the local cluster][\quote]

The displacement of quasars relative - actually placing many of these sources in our own galaxy, completely rewrites estimates of column densities. The density of gas in our own galaxy may be very close to the mean cosmic density. Also, denser environments, especially dusty enviroments lead to attenuation factors that could dwarf CREIL.

[QUOTE=antoniseb] 3. Using CREIL one would expect that even if you believe that there is some way to make the photon exchange coherent, that the loss of energy in the transaction should result in some tiny change of direction for the photon, resulting in blurring, but we don't see this.[\quote]

Not if the medium is uniform and homogenious, as in refraction - Huygens wavelet theorem allows this. There is a slight rebuilting of the spectrum from virtual stimulated emissions inherent in this elastic parametric effect.

[QUOTE=antoniseb] 4. CREIL assumes some process never detected and undetectable in the lab. [\quote]

ISRS, which is essentially superhetrodyning of light - is in principle the same process and is observed. Also a space - based experiment could verify CREIL concepts - we contend that in the blue shifting of the Pioneer 10 & 11 radio frequencies it already has. (In solar environments, CREIL blueshifts very low frequencies.)

[QUOTE=antoniseb] 5. CREIL's unknown process red-shifts all wavelengths of photons by exactly the same energy percentages, including very long wavelength photons such as the 21cm hydrogen line and the 511keV electron anihilation gamma-ray line and everything in between. It would be hard for one physical process to be able to affect such a broad range of energies in such a uniform way.[\quote]

In the thermaldynamic models I have built, the higher frequencies are more redshifted. John Keirien, in his Compton effect redshift theory, (a very similar idea, perhaps identical in hot enviroments], points out the the probability of a parametric encounter between a gas molecule and light of any wavelength is inversely proprotional to the wavelength and the redshift is directly proportional to the same: the two effects exactly cancelling each other out. Could it be that simple?

Jerry W. Jensen Posted: May 8 2004, 06:37 AM

[QUOTE=VanderL,May 7 2004, 10:27 PM] Thanks for the additional explanations to Antoniseb's questions, I have read about Kierein's redshift mechanism and I thought his Compton effect was based on observations of redshifting in the solar spectrum measured at the "limbs"... I also know that his ideas have been debunked by a number of people. I haven't heard about this mechanism for a while, what is the general attitude towards his work? [/QUOTE]

Like all non-Doppler claims, Kierein is mostly ignored, but he shouldn't be. His Compton explanation for the redshifting of quasars may be spot on, the the difference between what he describes and CREIL may be purely a matter of sematics. John also has an argument that their is a lot of energy in very very long wavelengths, which would go a long ways towards answering Olber's paradox.

[QUOTE=VanderL] Is CREIL one of a number of other mechanisms that each works towards redshift under different conditions? "[/QUOTE]

Yes, but the theory is always the same: Two frequencies of Electromagnetic radiation exchanging energy through a molecular "catalyst".

[QUOTE=VanderL] If redhifts caused by CREIL would place quasars inside our galaxies wouldn't there be a number of quasars showing high proper motions?[/QUOTE] They do! MacMillan, D.S, "Quasar Apparent Proper Motion Observed by Geodetic VLBI Networks", Astro-Ph 0309825[/QUOTE]

Also a space - based experiment could verify CREIL concepts - we contend that in the blue shifting of the Pioneer 10 & 11 radio frequencies it already has. (In solar environments, CREIL blueshifts very low frequencies.)[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=VanderL] Does this mean that all space probes can be used to show that CREIL is real?[/QUOTE]

The pioneer craft were very unique in that their antenna were stabilized by a rapid rotation, and all frequencis controlled from the earth. This allowed very exact estimates of position, not possible with rocket stabilized positioning, making precise measurements very difficult.

[QUOTE=VanderL] What factors will influence the amount of redshift/blueshift in the frequencies and where do you expect the effects will be most clearly seen? It depends on the Planck temperature of the rays: The higher temperature rays are always redshifted, and visa versa, normal radiation transfer functions.[/QUOTE]

The ratio between the flux temperature and gas pressure is always the most critical parameter. If the gas pressure is too high, the light is scattered and there is no coherance.

Jerry W. Jensen Posted: May 9 2004, 03:38 AM

QUOTE (VanderL @ May 8 2004, 04:11 PM) So if I read the MacMillan paper correctly we do see proper motion of quasars, and in one of the graphs where Z is plotted against the amount of proper motion, there is no clear drop in proper motion at higher redshift. Where does this leave cosmology, have we been fooled into believing that quasars are at billion of lightyears distance, while in truth they are probably relatively close?

Would this observation alone (more data are needed to make statistically significant I think) be enough to change cosmology?

Yes. All the cosmic H2 density scales are built around quasar redshift distances. It would be naive to think only quasars are intrinsicly red shifted, and if other bright objects are similarly displaced, a lot of real matter plugs the "dark matter" holes in both galaxies and galaxy clusters. This is a whole new ballgame.

QUOTE (VanderL) I don't understand what you are saying here (Planck temperature of the rays, sorry I'm not familiar with that). Suppose we take a look at the interplanetary medium, are there specific places (e.g. around Jupiter, where the medium is different because of chatged particles) where the frequeny shifts occur, or is it necessary to have a certain amount of the medium in between observer and object, regardless of where the object is?

"Planck temperature" is just a way of stating the thermal modes of light are the same as heat: If energy is exchanged, it is passed from the higher frequency to the lower one.

Whenever you have gas pressure as high as the extended atmosphere of Jupiter, the scattering effects are much greater than the cosmic CREIL function - it would be like trying to hear a mosquite on the opposite side of a moving train.

Greg Posted: May 9 2004, 06:11 AM

I am following along with the arguments both for and against the Creil effect. It seems to me that the Creil effect is based more on actual laboratory evidence and its advocates are trying to apply this to astronomic evidence. Those arguing against it and for the big bang view of the universe are applying theoretical mathematical models (which its proponents itself admit have inherent inconsistiencies) to the same astronomic data. The final nail in the coffin, so to speak, for like theories of steady-state models has been time-dilation for supernovas. But even that argument has come under attack as a mathematical construct (self-fulfilling prophecy so to speak) and is beginning to look flimsy to me. The blue shifting of the pioneer wavelengths is another big problem that I have not seen anyone adequately address as of yet aside from the Creil proponents. Any time I see a strange phenomenon explained nicely and fitting into an existing model (as opposed to another model having to strain at the blackboard for a while to construe an explanation) is a kudos for that model, I say.

From what I have seen so far, the Creil proponents arguments have been compelling, possibly more compelling than the standard big bang model proponents. However, I see mountains in their way to move for them. The big bang model is hugely entrenched in the minds (and hearts) of an overwhelming majority of astrophysicists in the western world. Following the logic of the Creil effect on doppler redshift, we would be asked to discard the expanding universe, dark energy, most if not all of dark matter, possbily the cosmological constant, and even the big bang itself with no simple immediate alternative to replace it. Even the Pope accepted the big bang theory, so that is like turning the clock back 40 or more years in cosmology. No small task. I dont expect much progress to be made any time soon.

I was wondering what implications the Creil effect might have on the interpretation of Cobe and wMAP data. BB theorists have tried to argue that inflation explains the apparent inconsistencies with their model, something I have alot of reservations about.

JMB Posted: May 9 2004, 06:25 AM

To Antoniseb and VanderI

Jerry J has given answers that I will not duplicate

Specific papers about CREIL ? Only my and Jerry's papers; all their content is in papers available on arxiv.org, astro-ph.

The general ideas may be found in books of spectroscopy, mainly on laser spectroscopy.

Quadrupolar resonance: The geometry of the interaction of light and a molecule may be represented supposing that the molecule has various electrical configurations which may be:

-an electric oscillating dipole, a system of two opposite electrical charges whose distance oscillate. More precisely, the limit of this system when the average distance tends to 0, the product of a charge by the distance remaining a constant. Interacts with a single beam (absorbed or emitted)

- a quadrupole: a set of two dipoles (2 beams), an octupole, set of two quadrupole (3 beams)...

- The electric charges may be replaced by magnetic charges

The Raman effect uses electric quadrupoles. The word resonance is used because in the parametric effects, such as refraction and CREIL, there is no transition and the molecule works as a classical oscillator.

CREIL works at any frequency, in particular at 1420 MHz (21cm). The important, to know wether it redshifts or blueshift, is knowing the temperature of the light which increases with the intensity and the frequency, following Planck's law. At high frequencies, the temperature is very generally high.

Performing a CREIL experiment in a lab could be done, but would be very expansive:

- As the pressure is low, the light-matter interactions are low for a given path.

- As the CREIL is proportional to the frequencies of resonance which are in the radio range, it is intrinsically lower than ISRS which uses infrared resonances.

Therefore, a light path measured in kilometers is necessary.

Trying a CREIL experiment with hydrogen would be particularily difficult: the molecules must be broken into atoms, and the atoms excited by a Lyman absorption. This is easily done in a small pipe, not in a large one.

JMB Posted: May 9 2004, 06:28 AM

To GREG

Unhappily I agree. (I have the experience since 10 years).

antoniseb Posted: May 9 2004, 12:45 PM

QUOTE At least a part of the redshift which gives Hubble's law is produced by the CREIL Is an other part produced by an expansion ? I do not know

This quote is from JMB in the Astronomy->Why Does the Early Universe Look... thread.

OK, if CREIL allows for there to be a cosmic expansion component accounting for 0 to just under 100% of the observed redshift seen in distant galaxies, I guess a lot of my objections based on observations related to time-dilation in supernovae, and galaxy evolution, and an apparant age for the oldest stars goes away. On the other hand, so does CREIL's status as a savior for people trying to show there is no real cosmic expansion.

JMB Posted: May 10 2004, 05:56 AM

There is a single way to distinguish the CREIL effect from a Doppler effect: it is the observation of a dispersion, that is of a variation of the relative frequency shift Delta nu/ nu, as nu changes. This variation is observed in the spectra of the quasars and interpreted in the regular theory as produced by a variation of the "fine structure constant". The probability of such an observation is very low because it requires well resolved spectra of metals.

CREIL allows to change the interpretation of several observations, and this change of the sight of the Universe may lead to a rejection of the big bang.

antoniseb Posted: May 10 2004, 12:29 PM

QUOTE (JMB @ May 10 2004, 05:56 AM)

interpreted in the regular theory as produced by a variation of the "fine structure constant"

Thanks JMB,

Can you explain a little bit more about observing delta-nu/nu? Is this just a polarization change?

Also, do recent more detailed observations refuting the earlier claimed change in the fine structure constant cause any trouble for CREIL?

VanderL Posted: May 10 2004, 02:56 PM

QUOTE Performing a CREIL experiment in a lab could be done, but would be very expansive:

- As the pressure is low, the light-matter interactions are low for a given path.

- As the CREIL is proportional to the frequencies of resonance which are in the radio range, it is intrinsically lower than ISRS which uses infrared resonances.

Therefore, a light path measured in kilometers is necessary.

Ok, so you would need a kilometer of near-vacuum gas, for something that is potentially as important as this, a few million dollars is worth the investment I think?

And what about specific experiments in space? Is it possible to perform a controlled measurement using satellites, the same way as the Pioneer 10 mysterious acceleration data were gathered, to prove (or disprove) the existence of CREIL? Or maybe reflectors on the Moon (there are some already in place, I think)? Are there plans to experimentally verify CREIL and other redshifting mechanisms?

If we assume CREIL or another mechanism can cause redshifting, what are the consequences?

Some obvious thoughts spring to mind:

We can throw Big Bang cosmology out the window, what is the best candidate to replace it? Some alternative cosmologies also have a cosmological redshift component, do they have to be replaced, or rewritten as well?

We use redshift as a measure of velocity in galaxy rotation, is CREIL expected to change these measurements, or can we still use the rotation curves (important for dark matter estimates)?Cosmological redshifts could be completely attributed to CREIL-like mechanisms, how big is the observable Universe then?

Cheers.

Greg Posted: May 11 2004, 03:32 AM

One note on the question about measurinig galactic rotation velocities. Not too long ago it was determined that galaxies are rotating so fast that they should indeed fly apart. The answer to this conundrum was to invoke dark matter. There must be a large cloud of dark matter encircling galaxies with such rotational velocities that were observed in order to provide the mass that would allow for such orbital velocities. I didn't really like that explanation, especially since we have yet to confirm that dark matter exists. The thought did cross my mind that maybe, just perhaps, there was an error in how they made their measurements. Since doppler red/blue shift was used in their calcualtions, perhaps therein lies the problem.

JMB Posted: May 11 2004, 05:51 AM

QUOTE (antoniseb @ May 10 2004, 12:29 PM) Can you explain a little bit more about observing delta-nu/nu? Is this just a polarization change?

Also, do recent more detailed observations refuting the earlier claimed change in the fine structure constant cause any trouble for CREIL?

The observation of delta nu/nu is done studying spectra. To be sure that the lines are emitted in the same region of space, one uses lines produced by the same atom (multiplet).

CREIL is an optical effect which, as refraction is subject to a dispersion. The computations of CREIL require the knowledge of the nature of the molecules which produce it, and they are difficult. In the case of the quasars for which a variation of Delta nu/nu was claimed, the matter is atomic hydrogen, for which a computation may be done, but was not done yet. Therefore, is a variation of Delta nu/nu visible ? I do not know.

JMB Posted: May 11 2004, 06:06 AM

QUOTE (VanderL @ May 10 2004, 02:56 PM) Ok, so you would need a kilometer of near-vacuum gas, for something that is potentially as important as this, a few million dollars is worth the investment I think?

If we assume CREIL or another mechanism can cause redshifting, what are the consequences?

Some obvious thoughts spring to mind:

We use redshift as a measure of velocity in galaxy rotation, is CREIL expected to change these measurements, or can we still use the rotation curves (important for dark matter estimates)?

Cosmological redshifts could be completely attributed to CREIL-like mechanisms, how big is the observable Universe then?

Cheers.

It is not sufficient to have a kilometre long multipath cell, it is necessary to fill it with excited atomic hydrogen too. A computation would be less expansive, but I am a specialist of the spectroscopy of polyatomic molecules, not of ab initio computation of atomic properties. I think that the spectra of the quasars is so complicated that finding them using CREIL may be a sufficient demonstration.

Unhappily the Pioneer probes are dead. Else an experiment would have been easy, changing the modulation of the signals. The earth-moon distance is too short, only Pioneer experiments showed blueshifts (small, but sure).

I am not an astrophysicist, but I think that a lot of results and theories must be checked taking CREIL into account.

JMB Posted: May 11 2004, 06:13 AM

QUOTE (Greg @ May 11 2004, 03:32 AM) One note on the question about measurinig galactic rotation velocities. Not too long ago it was determined that galaxies are rotating so fast that they should indeed fly apart. The answer to this conundrum was to invoke dark matter. There must be a large cloud of dark matter encircling galaxies with such rotational velocities that were observed in order to provide the mass that would allow for such orbital velocities. I didn't really like that explanation, especially since we have yet to confirm that dark matter exists. The thought did cross my mind that maybe, just perhaps, there was an error in how they made their measurements. Since doppler red/blue shift was used in their calcualtions, perhaps therein lies the problem.

Is it possible to replace dark matter by hydrogen?

CREIL changes so completely our sight of the Universe that answering your question requires a big work of specialists (that I am not).

antoniseb Posted: May 11 2004, 04:34 PM

QUOTE (Jerry J. @ May 8 2004, 06:37 AM) If redhifts caused by CREIL would place quasars inside our galaxies wouldn't there be a number of quasars showing high proper motions?

They do! MacMillan, D.S, "Quasar Apparent Proper Motion Observed by Geodetic VLBI Networks", Astro-Ph 0309825

This paper: Quasar Proper Motion seems to indicate that it is not clear if the proper motions observed are real, or if they represent a structural defect in the VLBI network. The observed proper motions are in the range of 25-100 microarcseconds per year, which is near the observational limit for these sources. There are a few other papers indicating that there are objects identified as quasars that have large proper motions. These seem mostly to be written by people supporting non-velocity cosmological readshifts.

Another question comes to mind, and that is "what are they moving with respect to?" They don't seem to be moving in a way that makes them likely to be members of our galaxy, and none had what you'd call a huge proper motion.

That being said it is certainly possible that several objects previously identified as quasars are actually something else. If so, they would be an interesting topic of new discovery.

VanderL Posted: May 11 2004, 07:36 PM

QUOTE The observed proper motions are in the range of 25-100 microarcseconds per year, which is near the observational limit for these sources

These quasars are just a very small sample of all the known Quasi Stellar Objects, they were selected as fixed reference points for the VLBI network. They should be at cosmological distances, so not measurably moving at all. I don't know what speeds those proper motions would translate into, but if Kierein (I think you referred to him?) claims that some have superluminal velocities I would like to see that explained. Also the last graph where the motions are plotted into the sky (with directions) gives the impression of objects connected to each other (part of our galaxy?).

Cheers.

JMB Posted: May 13 2004, 05:39 AM

QUOTE (VanderL @ May 11 2004, 07:36 PM) These quasars are just a very small sample of all the known Quasi Stellar Objects, they were selected as fixed reference points for the VLBI network. They should be at cosmological distances, so not measurably moving at all.

There is at least two other arguments for the proximity of the quasars:

-Halton Arp observed alignments of quasars and a galaxy, the quasars having a high redshift and the galaxy a low one. Supposing that the redshift corresponds to a distance, these objects define a plane in which the Earth is. As there are several alignments, either the Earth is the centre of the universe, or, as Arp thinks, they have an "intrinsic redshift" and are as close as the galaxy.

- The CREIL , not only gives an explanation of the "intrinsic redshift" : The theory of the stars introduces "accretors" that is neutron stars which accrete a cloud of gas which surrounds it. Why are they never observed, the reliable theory of the stars saying that, although they ere very small (diameter ~ 100 km ?), their temperature being over 1 000 000K, they should be very visible ? Making the spectrum of these stars (taking for this the CREIL into account) one obtains a very complicated spectrum which is ... exactly a spectrum of quasar.

Thus, the quasars are simply old heavy stars, they are not extremely far, they do not radiate an incredibly high energy.

antoniseb Posted: May 13 2004, 10:57 AM

QUOTE (JMB @ May 13 2004, 05:39 AM) Halton Arp observed alignments of quasars and a galaxy, the quasars having a high redshift and the galaxy a low one.

Actually, I think it would be interesting to revisit any of these mis-aligned redshifts that Halton Arp may have observed back in the sixties. Arp's catalog of peculiar galaxies is very fun to look at, but he went a little too far out on a limb with some of his conclusions and lost the support of mainstream astronomers. At this time, the vast majority of quasars with spectroscopically observed host galaxies have very nearly the same red shift as each other.

If you read Arp's website and recent works, he's still promoting his increasingly outside-the-box ideas, but they don't stand up.

Show me an example of a Quasar that has a much higher redshift than the host galaxy, and can be shown not to be a gravitational lensing event. I bet you can find a few, but for every one you find, there are five hundred where the redshifts match.

Take a look at 3C273. That is the nearest quasar [luminosity and red-shift]. It is well studied, and has a well observed host galaxy. If Arp is right, they should have wildly different red shifts, but they don't. How does CREIL explain that? How could an old heavy star release that much energy?

madman Posted: May 13 2004, 11:29 AM

it looks like a star..have you seen images of it's host galaxy?

there's also some intrinsic redshifting of it's jet

VanderL Posted: May 14 2004, 03:55 PM

Hi Madman,

Yes, I've seen images of the host galaxy of 3C 273, but maybe it should be named "ghost" galaxy, I have trouble identifying the elliptical galaxy.

http://www.sns.ias.edu/~jnb/HST/Quasars/jnb1.jpg

Btw, the jet that can be seen is a double helix structure, exactly what one would expect from interacting Birkeland currents.

Cheers.

madman Posted: May 14 2004, 05:14 PM

yes, here's an article on the double helix

http://www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/staff/alobano.../3C273-Science/

i'm not sold on the idea of a host galaxy for 3c273 either...that glow could be perhaps? the heliosphere of the star?

it would possibly explain the non-centred source?

this was the first quasar discovered, was the "redshifted" spectra taken from the "redshifted xray to optical" light of the jet (or from "redshifted optical to radio" light)...or from the point source itself?

VanderL Posted: May 14 2004, 05:37 PM

QUOTE JMB The theory of the stars introduces "accretors" that is neutron stars which accrete a cloud of gas which surrounds it. Why are they never observed, the reliable theory of the stars saying that, although they ere very small (diameter ~ 100 km ?), their temperature being over 1 000 000K, they should be very visible ?

Maybe because neutron stars are mathematical constructs? They are thought to exist when a supernova explosion compresses matter to "neutron matter density". This explosion is unexplainable by current models (Liebendörfer and his 59 reasons why SN do not explode), and maybe also the neutron state of matter.

About 3C273, what is the size of the galaxy and the size of the jet at 2Bly distance? Suppose it is a star, they are known to create jets; how close could this star be when redshift is disregarded?

Cheers.

Spiral Path Posted: May 14 2004, 10:57 PM

I can't help but being fascinated with this particular topic, especially because there are so many different phenomena discussed that I wasn't familiar with before. I was especially impressed with the double helix structure of quasar jets - which really seems to show that the evolution of life through the double-helix of our chromosomes was just another "experiment of Mother Nature", following identical physical laws.

Many thanks, by the way, to all the people who so kindly answered my previous questions - and I am sorry that some problems (computer and otherwise) prevented me from replying sooner. If you can forgive me, I would now have more questions:

Alright, you make a spectrum of a radiating celestial object or you get one done by somebody else and you note the shift of certain emission lines either into the blue or the red part of the spectrum. My books explain the general idea and give the formulas to be used for calculating z and from it the radial velocity either towards us oder away from us. But that's the general theory - what do astronomers really do in practice with the obtained data? What emission lines do they usually use? What's the range of these lines? Do they record exactly the date and time as well as the location of the observatory where the spectra were taken? Also, what corrections do they make? I am thinking mainly of corrections due to our own motion in space with regard to the observed object - such as the rotation of the Earth, the revolution of the Earth around the Sun, the path of the solar system around the Milky Way Galaxy and, for extra-galactic objects, the drift of our entire galaxy around a cluster of galaxies. Similarly, what velocities in km/s and what directions are being used if such corrections are done? And do the astronomers all make the same corrections or just use their own preference? In other words, can one trust the published figures for z to have been done using the same criteria?

I haven't found any literature yet that would answer these my questions and so I really do hope that somebody with practical experience could help me out. How else can one check whether Creil makes any sense? Thank you.

VanderL Posted: May 14 2004, 11:08 PM

Hi Spiral Path,

Indeed many questions I mostly can't answer, let's add some more: is redshift constant or does it change with time? Is change/variation expected with CREIL (when the medium surrounding the source changes) and is it expected in BB cosmology?

Cheers.

Spiral Path Posted: May 15 2004, 04:04 AM

Thank you for replying, VanderI. Yes, the more one gets into the subject, the more questions come up. I would think changes/variations, in other words oscillations, will definitely occur when one makes corrections for the various motions in space of the location of the observatory where the spectra are taken.

But are these oscillations really big enough to even show up? I would love to try a few of the calculations myself, but first I guess I have to know whether the various published data on z are reliable and based on the same criteria. Only then could I bring them all to a common denominator and try some calibration with the peculiar blueshift exhibited by the Pioneer and Voyager spacecraft which are definitely receding from us and therefore should really show a redshift. Is this perhaps a Creil effect (i.e. change of medium beyond the solar system), do I understand it wrongly or is there something not quite right with the formulas given for the calculation of z and its relationship to the recession velocity?

Well, I'll try to dig deeper into the problem.

Greg Posted: May 15 2004, 05:08 AM

I beleive that part of the answer to the above questions I can help with. I read about this recently but cannot recall the exact source at the moment. In order make proper "redshift" measurements one has to make measurements at the right times of our orbit around the sun. Two measurements of the same source from 180 degrees apart around our orbit (around the sun i.e. 6 months apart) is a way to cancel out alot of the relative motion/position problems that might affect a single reading. I'm sure there is alot more to it than that, but I beleive that is part of the process.

Spiral Path Posted: May 15 2004, 05:03 PM

Thanks, Greg. Yes, your answer about the two measurements 180 degrees apart sure makes sense. But I wonder if this is always being done? With observing time at the bigger telescopes being at a premium and the unpredictability of the weather, many astronomers are probably being forced to use only one spectrum in order to meet any publication deadlines. Also, I have never seen any quasar spectra, or any other spectra for that matter, published in these 180-degree pairs so that one could compare the differences and from those differences deduce the approximate percentage of the role that distance plays in redshift/z/recession velocity calculations versus the percentage resulting from the Doppler shift alone, or even including the Creil effect. That's where my idea about calibrating all these shifts with the unexpected but observed blueshift of the receding Pioneer/Voyager spacecraft comes in, which objects should theoretically really be redshifted as they are leaving the solar system.

Somehow it seems to me that there is still a lot of theoretical work to be done in sorting out the varying shifts of the spectral lines and their relationship to distance and radial velocitiy, as well as perhaps also mass. Only once this is done and a somewhat modified shift formula is being found, can we really judge whether or not there is clear-cut evidence for an "expanding" Universe, let alone any evidence for an even "accelerating" expansion velocity. So the hypothesis of a "Big Bang" is, by a long shot, NOT YET CONFIRMED through incontrovertible scientific evidence - at least in my opinion.

antoniseb Posted: May 15 2004, 08:53 PM

QUOTE (Spiral Path @ May 15 2004, 05:03 PM) But I wonder if this is always being done?

Of course it's not always done. It is very easy to compute the redshift component from the Earth's movement around the Sun if necessary. Also, the Earth's movement around the Sun provides a maximum difference of 37 miles/sec velocity. This is something like z=0.00002. If you're doing some precision measurement [like looking for extrasolar planets by the doppler effect and wobble on the host star] that might matter, but it's easily computed. For looking at Quasars and distant galaxies, this difference is often not in the significant digits.

Spiral Path Posted: May 15 2004, 09:57 PM

Thank you, antoniseb, for clearing up this question about the 180-degree pairs of spectra for me. I better start doing some calculations now and see whether I can also do some calibrations with whatever published material is available. This has really been a very interesting topic that you started.

antoniseb Posted: May 15 2004, 11:04 PM

QUOTE (Spiral Path @ May 15 2004, 09:57 PM) This has really been a very interesting topic that you started.

Thanks. I wouldn't have started it without the prompting of VanderL, and it would be a lot less interesting without the contributions of JMB and Jerry, who are the main proponents of CREIL.

VanderL Posted: May 17 2004, 05:31 PM

QUOTE it would be a lot less interesting without the contributions of JMB and Jerry, who are the main proponents of CREIL

It could be even more interesting, if some spectroscopist or supernova lightcurve expert would try to dissect the propositions. I find it difficult to gauge the reality of CREIL and similar mechanisms to explain quasar redshifts and possibly all cosmological redshifts. As this mechanism would totally invalidate almost everything we "know" in cosmology, I can't wait to hear what experiments need to be performed and what models need to be verified before we can start rewriting current models.

Cheers.

antoniseb Posted: May 17 2004, 05:52 PM

QUOTE (VanderL @ May 17 2004, 05:31 PM) It could be even more interesting, if some spectroscopist or supernova lightcurve expert would try to dissect the propositions.

JMB said that some folks are looking at his paper. I expect it will be a few months before anyone has written something professional in response. There are very few professional astronomy specialists who read this forum, so we'll have to wait.

Concerning reworking all of the models, I think it will take a direct parallax measurement of 3C273 to really get alternative theorists to stop claiming quasars are a nearby phenomenon [or prove they are right].

Concerning the idea that red shifts aren't based on Cosmic Expansion velocities, even that measurement won't make a difference. The claim will be that the distances are provably real, but the expansion part of the redshift is not real.

We have raised some fairly serious concerns about the mismatch between what is observed and what CREIL says should be observed, but JMB and Jerry certainly should be afforded some time to give better than hand-waving answers.

antoniseb Posted: May 18 2004, 03:20 PM

I don't know how dependent JMB and Jerry are on Quasars being nearby, as opposed to the red-shift implied distance, but here is an article about measurements of a fairly nearby quasar and its host galaxy, both appearing at z=0.144.

HE 1434-1600 arxiv.com 0405309.pdf

This article discusses a few unexpected observations which are explained by the galaxy having had a relatively recent collision [30 million years ago] with one of the four or five nearby galaxies which also are at z=0.144.

In this case, the supposed Arp intrinsic redshift for the quasar is z=0.000.

If they NEED quasars to be more local, this kills their argument. They state it as evidence for their case, but I don't think they need it. Note, this paper is just an example, it is not the tone of this paper that it is surprising to find that the Quasar and its host galaxy have the same redshift. This is the common phenomenon, and requires no special mention.

Greg Posted: May 18 2004, 04:33 AM

It is nice to see some of these ideas escape from the Alternative Theory forum. I agree with the big bang theory in general based on what we know about stellar evolution alone. It appears that there was a beginning after all. I am not so confident about some aspects of big bang theory, however. The concept of dark matter to explain such things as why galaxies are rotating faster than expected was hard enough for me to swallow. After all, we still have yet to detect it and prove it exists! Hopefully the detector (2 miles under) being calibrated now will detects wimps if they exist. If it doesn't then cosmologists will have alot of explaining to do. But just when I was warming up to dark matter, now we have invoked an early inflationary period and dark energy to explain inconsistencies that have arisen. Neither of these ideas are proven nor at this point have I heard any way to test for them. So when a field takes to the chalkboard and conjures up myth-like concepts to explain away data not consistent with its model, it raises red flags for me. It makes more sense to me that our understanding of something (measurements) is fundamentally flawed in a small way rather than our understanding of cosmology is flawed in a huge way to necessitate such radical notions to support the status quo.

This is why I am paying serious heed to the CREIL effect discussions. Right now its in the Alternative Theories section with links to such papers and other discussions such as in the "bad astronomy." forum. The authors of the CREIL effect are trying to apply laboratory evidence about how light behaves in a medium and apply it to astronomical data. Big Bang theorists are trying to apply their theoretical model to astronomical data without explaining the evidence from these laboratory experiments. If the CREIL effect authors are correct then redshift would be a function of distance only rather than an indication of acceleration away from us. As yet I have not seen anyone effectively refute this concept despite some half-serious efforts. I would be the first one to celebrate if by understanding the CREIL effect cosmologists might reconsider increasingly hard to explain or prove notions about dark matter and dark energy and inflation.

VanderL Posted: May 19 2004, 01:46 PM

Hi Antoniseb,

In Arp's model QSO's evolve into galaxies, so QSO's having a "host" galaxy are to be expected. In this model I guess there should be a tendency to see the host-galaxy around the lower redshift QSO's. But that could also be explained as a distance effect, the closer the QSO, the better resolved the host galaxy.

Cheers.

antoniseb Posted: May 19 2004, 02:53 PM

QUOTE (VanderL @ May 19 2004, 01:46 PM) In Arp's model QSO's evolve into galaxies, so QSO's having a "host" galaxy are to be expected. In this model I guess there should be a tendency to see the host-galaxy around the lower redshift QSO's. But that could also be explained as a distance effect, the closer the QSO, the better resolved the host galaxy.

The CREIL guys were saying that Quasars may be local to our galaxy. Such objects can't have their own galaxies around them. None-the-less, Arp's been quoted a bunch recently, and I'll need to spend some time looking at what he's actually saying. I haven't actually read anything by him in thirty years.

VanderL Posted: May 19 2004, 03:14 PM

Try his website, www.haltonarp.com.

He favors a model where high-z quasars are ejected from spiral galaxies, after which these quasars evolve into mature galaxies while at the same time their redshift decreases.

CREIL is not yet a model, it is an observation that might fit the quasar spectrum. It explains the high redshift without cosmological expansion. This means that quasars can be both close and far away, although with distance they will become dimmer. Also I think that lensing (which is statistically improbable in my opinion) cannot be used to explain for example the Einstain Cross. It could be what Arp suggests, ejection of multiple quasars.

Cheers.

antoniseb Posted: May 19 2004, 03:45 PM

QUOTE (VanderL @ May 19 2004, 03:14 PM) Also I think that lensing (which is statistically improbable in my opinion) cannot be used to explain for example the Einstain Cross. It could be what Arp suggests, ejection of multiple quasars.

Quasars have variable light output [nearly random pattern, not cyclical], but the individual multiples in lensed quasars have the same brightness variations, offset by some period of a few days to a few years. That plus identical spectra are a pretty clear indicator that they are lensed, and not multiple bodies.

Jerry J. Posted: May 20 2004, 05:17 AM

QUOTE (antoniseb @ May 18 2004, 03:20 PM) I don't know how dependent JMB and Jerry are on Quasars being nearby, as opposed to the red-shift implied distance, but here is an article about measurements of a fairly nearby quasar and its host galaxy, both appearing at z=0.144.

HE 1434-1600

In this case, the supposed Arp intrinsic redshift for the quasar is z=0.000.

This is an interesting galaxy. A couple of notes about CREIL, Jacques has proposed that certain, not all, quasars are really accreting neutron stars, quasars that are identified with AGN are clearly not of this class. It should also not unreasonable to find this small cluster of galaxies at the same redshift, especially if they all have AGN - The bright Quasar near the center, if CREIL behaves the way we think it does, should in fact strongly effect the observed redshift of both the host galaxy and very close objects. It is worth noting they have been able to isolate emitting "gas" with very high velocity that does not seem to effect the ISM -is this gas, or evidence of a differential CREIL redshift within the same host region?

One of the best evidences I have encountered of a CREIL effect is in the spectra Seyfert galaxies. These lines, contrary to all known thermal & emission laws appear to narrow with increasing luminesity and distance. The only reasonable explanation I can find for this behavior is that a significant component of the redshift is non-doppler, and the GR K-corrections artificially narrow these lines with increasing distance.

antoniseb Posted: May 20 2004, 11:00 AM

QUOTE (Jerry J. @ May 20 2004, 05:17 AM) One of the best evidences I have encountered of a CREIL effect is in the spectra Seyfert galaxies. These lines, contrary to all known thermal & emission laws appear to narrow with increasing luminesity and distance. The only reasonable explanation I can find for this behavior is that a significant component of the redshift is non-doppler, and the GR K-corrections artificially narrow these lines with increasing distance.

Thanks for coming back! I was afraid we'd lost you. This discussion will go nowhere without you and/or JMB helping to clear up confusions.

If two spectra are taken, and the second one has narrower lines, that normally implies that the either the temperature of the first source is higher [because there is more thermal motion of the atoms] or that the first has sources over a broader range of motions. Can you explain in layman's terms how GR K-corrections can artificially narrow these lines with increasing distance?

QUOTE Jacques has proposed that certain, not all, quasars are really accreting neutron stars, quasars that are identified with AGN are clearly not of this class.

I can certainly buy into the idea that some small number of the known QSO's are actually another phenomenon close by. However this idea doesn't help or hurt CREIL. If the majority of QSO's are AGNs, and we find that the host galaxies have similar redshifts, and can be distance-estimated by other means then the correlation between redshift and distance holds up pretty well, and CREIL's argument is not that distance is an illusion, but only the velocity of cosmic expansion is an illusion.

JwJ Posted: May 20 2004, 06:19 PM

QUOTE (antoniseb @ May 20 2004, 11:00 AM) If two spectra are taken, and the second one has narrower lines, that normally implies that the either the temperature of the first source is higher [because there is more thermal motion of the atoms] or that the first has sources over a broader range of motions. Can you explain in layman's terms how GR K-corrections can artificially narrow these lines with increasing distance?

Sure. The K corrections not only move the spectral lines to correct for redshifting, they also correct for line broadening, a normal consequence of relativistic expansion there is a term buried in the spectral line integration to do this: (1/(1+z)). CREIL may also broaden lines, but depending upon the radio loudness and other factors, the spreading is not necessarily redshift dependent.

QUOTE Jacques has proposed that certain, not all, quasars are really accreting neutron stars, quasars that are identified with AGN are clearly not of this class.

QUOTE (antoniseb @ May 20 2004, 11:00 AM) I can certainly buy into the idea that some small number of the known QSO's are actually another phenomenon close by. However this idea doesn't help or hurt CREIL. If the majority of QSO's are AGNs, and we find that the host galaxies have similar redshifts, and can be distance-estimated by other means then the correlation between redshift and distance holds up pretty well, and CREIL's argument is not that distance is an illusion, but only the velocity of cosmic expansion is an illusion. .

Very good assessment. However, there is considerable evidence that just like quasars, galaxies with AGN undergo intrinsic redshifting which is independant of the cosmic red shift - This may actually be a Compton effect, but in principle, it is CREIL - a coherent light transfer function.

What Evidence? Check out the blue/red galaxy distributions observed in galaxy clusters: Locally, there are no blue galaxies - in or out of clusters, moving back in time, the blue galaxies first appear only in the field and then gradually at first on the back edges and then eventually with increasing look-back in time the blue galaxies are found in the centers of clusters.

If some of the redshifting of blue galaxies is intrinsic, this behavior is simple to explain: the blue galaxies are always found in clusters, even in the centers, but since they are intrinsically redshifted we consider them background galaxies and fill the holes with dark matter. As the intrinsic redsift becomes insignificant compared to the cosmic factor, they then appear to increasingly populate the centers of galaxy clusters.

The latests studies offer further confirmational evidence: Blue galaxies in clusters have, on average, more kinetic motion than red. Again, this motion is just intrinsic redshifting.

Now look at NASA's latest announcement that Chandra X-ray data indicates the "expansion rate of the universe is increasing": NASA is assuming dark matter dominates clusters in the past just as it is used to patch the holes in clusters left by redshifted blue galaxies today. Since the blue galaxies are also there, the clusters appear to have been much denser in the past, and now they are flying apart...so what happened to the gravity that pulled everything together in the first place, and why is it letting go?

antoniseb Posted: May 22 2004, 11:55 AM

QUOTE (JwJ @ May 20 2004, 06:19 PM) Sure. The K corrections not only move the spectral lines to correct for redshifting, they also correct for line broadening, a normal consequence of relativistic expansion there is a term buried in the spectral line integration to do this: (1/(1+z)). CREIL may also broaden lines, but depending upon the radio loudness and other factors, the spreading is not necessarily redshift dependent.

I looked at this paper K-Correction to make sure I understood what you are talking about here. There is nothing in this paper that mentions anything that could cause line-narrowing. According to the math in this paper, the line width will stay proportional to the measured frequency.

Can you point me to some other source that backs up your claim here?

QUOTE just like quasars, galaxies with AGN undergo intrinsic redshifting which is independant of the cosmic red shift - This may actually be a Compton effect, but in principle, it is CRIEL - a coherent light transfer function

I don't believe that a quasar can have a significant 'intrinsic redshift', but I understand the arguement. It is a nearly point source, and may have some very strange relativistic properties. I cannot see how having an AGN could make the light from an entire galaxy have some property that uniformly supplies an 'intrinsic redshift' across ten of thousands of light years of the source. Can you explain how this could happen?

QUOTE Locally, there are no blue galaxies - in or out of clusters, moving back in time, the blue galaxies first appear only in the field and then gradually at first on the back edges and then eventually with increasing look-back in time the blue galaxies are found in the centers of clusters.

Blue galaxies are star forming galaxies. A local Blue Galaxy is M82, but yes, currently they are rare. You have to look back to about z=0.8 to start seeing lots of blue galaxies, but by 'blue' we mean lots of Lyman series photons are present and have been red-shifted into the visible spectrum. You know this, but just for the record, the spectra of blue galaxies are NOT blue-shifted! But the are emitted from hotter stars, causing broader lines.

Jerry J. Posted: May 23 2004, 07:17 PM

QUOTE (antoniseb @ May 22 2004, 11:55 AM) QUOTE (JwJ @ May 20 2004, 06:19 PM)

Can you point me to some other source that backs up your claim here?

I am extremely impressed with the quality of your research, and your questions!

In K-Correction (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0210/0210394.pdf), check out the term in equation 8, which is in the frequency domain: Fv(Ve/(1+z)) in this form of the equation, Fv is the discrete frequency, and z is the redshift, so the function Ve/(1+z) narrows the discrete frequency bandwidth proportional to the redshift.

QUOTE (antoniseb @ May 22 2004, 11:55 AM) I don't believe that a quasar can have a significant 'intrinsic redshift', but I understand the arguement. It is a nearly point source, and may have some very strange relativistic properties. I cannot see how having an AGN could make the light from an entire galaxy have some property that uniformly supplies an 'intrinsic redshift' across ten of thousands of light years of the source. Can you explain how this could happen?

Excellent question! Except for the nearest AGN, we are essentially looking at point sources and an integrated strongest emission peak -there is no differentiation across the whole galaxy.

For the closest of these objects, When we look at them with Hubble or Chandra, all hell breaks loose, we see "jets" in parts of the galaxy that appear to be moving at relativistic speeds: or are we looking at variation in the intrinsic redshift rate across the galactic plane and interpreting it incorrectly?

Even with the abiguity cited in the paragraph above, you are right, CREIL effects must be integrated across most if not all of the galactic plane. Remembering again, these objects are much smaller than the redshift distanct indicates, so they are very small galaxies. Now think about the MOND, and the Tully-Fisher effects: the rotational velocity at the edges of galaxies is directly proportional to the luminosity over an extremely broad band of magnitudes. There is no explanation for Tully-Fisher, and MOND is usually interpreted as a 'dark matter' effect.

I have tentitively concluded both Tully-Fisher and MOND are in fact confirmation of the CREIL process - Remember, CREIL does homogenize as well as redshift frequencies, and since the emissitivity of the nucleus is much much greater than the balance of the galaxy, this blending should wash out the weaker emission peaks. If this is true, the Tully-Fisher relationship should degenerate with increasing redshift distance, and as distances increase, a higher percentage of galaxes should appear to have no detectable Doppler differential and therefore appear to be viewed face on...both of these predictions of CREIL are true!

QUOTE (antoniseb @ May 22 2004, 11:55 AM) Blue galaxies are star forming galaxies. A local Blue Galaxy is M82, but yes, currently they are rare. You have to look back to about z=0.8 to start seeing lots of blue galaxies, but by 'blue' we mean lots of Lyman series photons are present and have been red-shifted into the visible spectrum. You know this, but just for the record, the spectra of blue galaxies are NOT blue-shifted! But the are emitted from hotter stars, causing broader lines.

Oh no! My thesis is crushed! That was my first thought when I looked at M82, but then I thought no, if M82 has a very high proper motion towards us, this would offset the intrinsic redshift, so the theory survives! Notice how, if local blue galaxies were not rare, the intrinsic redshift theory fails.

Three great questions! Three good answers!

Let me share something with you here: When I decided to study cosmology, I did so because I was certain something was wrong, but I did not know what. I realized that if I took the same conventional approach, enrolling in grad school, I would most likely make the same mistakes every other cosmologist was making, (whatever that mistake was). So I did it backward, I literally started on the last chapter of Peebles Cosmology and worked backwards.

If I would have known about M82 and galaxy distributions in general before I studied the supernova papers in great depth, I do not think I could have stumbled upon a viable alternative.

antoniseb Posted: May 24 2004, 01:03 PM

QUOTE (Jerry J. @ May 23 2004, 07:17 PM) I am extremely impressed with the quality of your research, and your questions!

Thanks, mostly I do my research by scanning the top few entries in a Google search. I suspect that the quality of my questions comes from caring about what you are trying to say.

From your last post, I see you are working from the idea that all of the serious alternatives can coexist [MOND, CREIL, etc]. Do you assume MOND as necessary to CREIL, or would successful attacks against MOND not impact your results?

JwJ Posted: May 24 2004, 03:59 PM

Joined: 20-May 04

QUOTE (antoniseb @ May 24 2004, 01:03 PM) From your last post, I see you are working from the idea that all of the serious alternatives can coexist [MOND, CREIL, etc]. Do you assume MOND as necessary to CREIL, or would successful attacks against MOND not impact your results?

MOND is a phrenology, CREIL is a mechanism. Some have tried to develop an alternative form of gravity based on MOND, but the papers I have read slip in fudge factors, just like dark energy and dark matter, with no locally observable physical roots.

It is convenient to use MOND to explain behavior at the edges of galaxies without an explanation for the cause. I reject dark matter, because it is a not a local observable - Since the authors of MOND do not assign causality, I am happy with their approach and terminology.

CREIL is based on local observables and does not require new physics, only a dense enough ISM to create a parametric effect. If Quasars are intrinsically redshifted by a CREIL - like mechanism, The ISM density is much greater than has been calculated by using quasar distances as the backdrop, therefore this parametric redshift SHOULD happen.

Since the intrinsic redshifting found in quasars should also be found in AGN and all very blue objects, these blue galaxies should fill the dark matter voids in the centers of galacitic clusters where MOND predictions fail.

As I said, I think both the Tully-Fisher relationship and MOND may be artifacts of CREIL - Think of a bunch of motor boats circling a round Island, with the boats on the inside moving the fastest. The waves dispersed by these boats would radiate outward, and if you tried to judge the speed of the boats in the outer orbits on the bases of the wave functions of the water, you would over estimate the speed of the boats in the outer orbits. CREIL predicts this sloshing effect in the wave spectrum of light. This would explain why the rotational velocity of an entire galaxy is a function of the luminicity (Tully-Fisher), and also why the apparent rotation in the fringes is too fast (MOND). And the dark doesn't matter.

antoniseb Posted: May 27 2004, 01:18 PM

Here's an interesting Paper that I'd be interested in hearing the CREIL interperetation of: Mysterious Absence of Neutral Hydrogen ...

http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0405/0405506.pdf

It is a paper about a single quasar's peculiar property of not having any neutral hydrogen within the first megaparsec of the space between us and it.

JwJ Posted: May 28 2004, 10:27 PM

The conventional interpretation of Quasars, compared with the CREIL is so different, it is difficult to devine any meaning from them. For example, in the introduction of this paper, they cite studies which have attempted to constrain the wormy hydrogen clouds by looking for predicted voids in nearby quasars. The results have always been ambiguous.

CREIL of course, places virtually ALL of the lyman forest in close proximity to the quesar and denies the existance of wormy clouds. Notice that they selected a very big, bright quasar: In the CREIL interpretation, prior to the first lyman absorption line, there is an extended zone where all of the gas is ionized and no lyman lines - emission or absorption are written into the spectrum, or just a correctly, they lines are redshifted as fast as they are written, completely blurring all but the brightest emission lines, and all of the absorption lines. This is all in very close proximity to the quasar, and a much better explanation than a complete vacuum in near a hydrogen fueled star.

antoniseb Posted: May 28 2004, 10:54 PM

QUOTE (JwJ @ May 28 2004, 10:27 PM) ... and a much better explanation than a complete vacuum in near a hydrogen fueled star.

Is this a reference to the Iron Sun discussion? If so, I'm glad you're reading it. For various reasons that thread has had some adversarial tones which I'd like to mostly avoid here. I am a serious doubter about CREIL, but I want to understand your view of the universe.

Thanks for the follow up. I am still trying to fully get a picture of the CREIL universe, and with your permission will ask for input about papers such as this every now and again when I see something that I don't understand the CREIL explanation.

Jerry J. Posted: May 30 2004, 08:54 PM

No, well maybe, I have looked at the thread but not closely. I think the iron sun theory violates cosmological principle, just like dark energy. This principle requires us to assume local events are similar to other events throughout the universe, unless we can find very specific reasons they are exceptional - such as the appearence of intellegent life, this seems to be very exceptional.

I appreciate all of your questions about CREIL; it is still more of a working hypothesis than a complete theory, and the best way to test it is to find situations where it does not seem to make the right predictions, and then figure out why.

So far, so good.

antoniseb Posted: May 31 2004, 08:55 PM

Here's another paper that seems to fit one of my concerns about CREIL. Specifically, it is tha the redshift for an object, in this case three quasars, matches the redshift of the host galaxy, and also is the same redshift for optical, radio, and xray wavelengths. I imagine that CREIL will have a difficult time explaining this in a physical model.

I understand from previous discussion on this that you think there may be an explanation that Compton scattering may fill in for the CREIL effect at xray wavelengths, but I'd be interested in seeing how they could balance linearly across the whole spectrum.

High Resolution X-Ray Spectra of Quasars

JMB Posted: Jun 1 2004, 06:14 AM

I will try to explain the CREIL using more figures in a new paper which I willl probably put on arxiv.org at the end of June.

The big problem is that, except in books on laser and microwave spectroscopy, the "parametric light-matter interactions" are unknown, probably because in these interactions the photon does not appear as a particle. However these effects are very important : photon echoes, frequency doubling and other multiplications, frequency splittings....

The simplest parametric process is the refraction. A single photon is refracted by all atoms of a prism, and these atoms are polarised, which means that the state of each atom is changed by a transitory absorption of (less than h(nu))/(number of atoms), that is there is no quantification of the electromagnetic energy.

In quantum mechanics, we say that one must consider all atoms of the prism as a bound set, and the state of this set is slightly mixed with upper states. If you want to quantize the electromagnetic wave, the system must be extended to the photon. This is very complicated and gives exactly the result of the (semi-)classical theory.

JMB Posted: Jun 1 2004, 06:47 AM

Unhappy to disturb the fantastic theory of the quasars.

The theory of the evolution of the stars, which is reliable, using physics which is generally observed on the Earth, shows that heavy stars become "neutron stars" which are much smaller than the Earth and made of neutrons resulting from a fusion by the pressure of the protons with the electrons.

During their evolution, the neutron stars may accrete a surrounding cloud of hydrogen which produces a high energy and a surface temperature over 1 000 000 K. But these "accreting neutron stars" seem never observed.

Being a spectroscopist, I studied the spectrum of a very hot object surrounded by a cloud of dirty hydrogen. It is necessary to take into account a parametric light-matter interaction named CREIL which transfers energy from light beams having a high Planck's temperature to beams having a lower temperature. (The parametric interactions make a class of interactions which makes coherent changes of the light beams without changing the matter; examples are refraction, frequency doubling, photon echoes, ...).

I just found the spectrum of a quasar, with all its strange properties : periodicities in the Lyman forest, anti correlation of the radio-loudness and the presence of BEL and BAL lines, gap of lines for redshifts close to the redshift of the sharp emission lines,...

The most important atom which produces the redshifts is atomic hydrogen previously excited by a Lyman absorption. This explains that the objects close to the quasars have a too large redshift .

Unhappily, the quasars are not very far, not extremely powerfull, not anymore magic !

antoniseb Posted: Jun 2 2004, 11:25 AM

Joined: 26-February 04

Can you tell me how CREIL explains the recent careful observations of type 1A supernovae and redshift. Certainly, in these cases we are seeing carefully measured redshifts and a fairly reliable cosmological distance indicator. By the CREIL theory are there some galaxies [including all observed so far with type 1A supernovae] which appear at the full Hubble Expansion distance from us?

How does this reconcile with the claim that ALL quasars are local phenomena?

JMB Posted: Jun 3 2004, 05:38 AM

I am not an astrophysicist, so that I do not understand well the problems about the galaxies. This problem was studied recently by Jerry Jensen using CREIL and published on arxiv.org (He thinks that there are two types of 1a galaxies, but he uses statistical arguments too, and I do not have enough knowledge to follow).

What I know is:

- the quasars are simple systems whose complicated spectrum is easily understood. The accreting neutron stars are quasars; are they other similar objects ? probably not : if it is true, all quasars are local.

- a strong CREIL redshift (and the corresponding heating of the thermal radiation) is produced by atomic hydrogen in excited states. Therefore there are two conditions to have a much redshifted galaxy :i) hydrogen; ii) an extremely hot source such as a quasar to heat (-> atoms) and excite (n=2 by Ly alpha absorption) the hydrogen.

- In the intergalactic space, a redshift may be produced by other gases too.

antoniseb Posted: Jun 3 2004, 12:45 PM

QUOTE (JMB @ Jun 3 2004, 05:38 AM) - the quasars are simple systems whose complicated spectrum is easily understood. The accreting neutron stars are quasars; are they other similar objects ? probably not : if it is true, all quasars are local.

So, you do not believe that giant elliptical galaxies have supermassive black holes in their centers with masses in the billions of solar mass range.

On another track what do you think of gamma-ray bursts? Are these at cosmological distances?

Jerry J. Posted: Jun 8 2004, 03:10 AM

Joined: 7-May 04

QUOTE (JMB @ Jun 3 2004, 05:38 AM)

QUOTE (antoniseb @ Jun 2 2004, 11:25 AM)

Of course all quasars are not local events, they should exist in most, if not all galaxies, but where the distance to a galaxy is determined by a supernova explosion, quasars we think are associated with that galaxy will usually be well in front of it, and quasars within that galaxy appear to be positioned well behind it. Of course true proper motions also come into play, so the whole situation is very confused: This is even more complicated by the intrinsic shifts in blue galaxies: For example, locally observable blue galaxies (M-81, M-83) have tails of redstars apparently moving toward us at high velocities: This is all consistent with intrinsic redshifts that are to some degree proportional to temperature, and creates one hell of an optical illusion.