From: Doppler-like effects

Posted - 14 Dec 2005 : 03:22:57

Looking for a light-matter interaction which may be confused with a Doppler effect, but which is not a Doppler effect.

The following conditions must be fulfilled:

1) The effect must be SPACE-COHERENT to avoid a blurring of the images. In a space-coherent effect, the wave surfaces are preserved because it is an interaction between a light beam and a large set of particles. Example of space-coherence: the refraction.

2) The effect must be PARAMETRIC to avoid a blurring of the spectra. A parametric effect is a space-coherent effect in which the exchanges of energy with the matter are infinitesimal. This is possible if, during an interaction, the state of the matter is not stationary. As the matter must return to its initial stationary state after an interaction, at least two light beams must interact. Thus, the matter plays the role of a catalyst to allow an exchange of energy between simultaneously refracted light beams.

3) The exchanges of energy between the electromagnetic beams must obey the two laws of thermodynamics. Second law: the flood of energy must be from hot to cold. The electromagnetic beams have a temperature deduced from Planck's law. Usually, the light is hot, the microwaves are cold. A heating (resp. cooling) produces a blueshift (resp. redshift).

4) To exclude a genuine Doppler effect:

Suppose that a source S is a continuous wave laser, from which a cell R receives a lower frequency, the condition of space-coherence being fulfilled, so that the path of the ray is well defined between S and R.

While S emits m cycles, R receives n, so that the number of cycles between S and R is increased of m-n. The number of wavelength between S and R is increased of m-n, that is the distance is increased, the effect is Doppler.

To avoid this conclusion, the demonstration must fail, that is the effect must work with incoherent light only: In the theory, a parameter representing the time-coherence of the light must appear, so that the Doppler-like effect fails using coherent light.

Posted - 15 Dec 2005 : 02:04:31

quote:Originally posted by Jim

The thing about EMF is it doesn't obay the laws of thermodynamics.

Reject EMF.

Posted - 17 Dec 2005 : 10:07:03

quote:Originally posted by Jim

JMB, What does it mean when you say reject EMF? EMF is the force behind the total electromagnetic spectrum including all the light beams you want to fool around with so how do you then suggest this?

I consider only a part of the electromagnetic spectrum, excluding the gamma region where Maxwell's equations in the vacuum fail. With this hypothesis, thermodynamics is good.

It is not necessary to consider the gamma region to explain the "anomalous" red- and blue-shifts. It is possible that studying the gamma region, thermodynamics fails, allowing the creation of matter, for instance, but this is too complicated for me.

A principle of science is "reductionism", that is explaining more with less hypothesis. Effects obeying the conditions I wrote (CREIL, light-plasma interactions) allow to explain a lot of anomalous red- and blue-shifts with ordinary, usual physics and trivial astrophysical hypothesis.

Posted - 17 Dec 2005 : 10:38:45

quote:Originally posted by Thomas

If you are looking for an alternative explanation for the redshift, check out my page regarding the Redshift of Galaxies.

There are several problems in the model of tired light:

- I do not see its foundation while the CREIl and plasma models are founded on ordinary spectroscopy.

- The time-incoherence of the light is not required, while it is a fundamental condition.

On the CREIL, you may read my papers on, the last being in physics 0503070 and 0507141.

Out of astrophysics now:

I agree with a lot of remarks you do in your web site. My arguments against quantum electrodynamics (QED) are different from yours:

- The theory is not precise, the modes which are used are not defined in a general way (although it may be: look at books on acoustics of the 19th century).

- What is a photon ? No wave function, and is it a type of photon for each of the various spectral lines ?

- All experiments are explained without any error by semi-classical electrodynamics (provided that the zero point field, discovered before QED, and necessary using a correct definition of the modes, is not neglected) while quantum electrodynamics must introduce a strange, ad hoc, "radiation reaction" to correct an error in the problem of spontaneous emission.

Einstein is a genius. Unhappily, he did a big error and received his first Nobel prize for it. Follow Planck : it is the matter which quantifies the exchanges of energy with EM waves !

Posted - 18 Dec 2005 : 10:23:55

To Thomas.

I agree that your redshift mechanism may work, but I am afraid that its power is low, comparing the plasma resonances with the atomic resonances for short wavelengths.

The effect you consider is really very similar to the CREIL effect, the difference being the origin of the interaction which decreases the energy of the redshifted beam. In plasma interactions with the light, the interaction is non-resonant, while in the CREIL effect, it is resonant. The proof of the CREIL resonance in neutral atomic hydrogen in 2S and 2P states is given by the interpretation of the Lyman forest of the quasars in which was observed a periodicity z=0,062 which is 3 or 4 times the relative fequency shift which puts the Lyman beta and gamma of H (respectively) to the Lyman alpha.

However, there is probably no atomic hydrogen in the intergalactic space, and the observed periodicity in the redshifts of the galaxies seems shorter than 0.062. The resonance is probably produced by H2+ resulting from an ionisation of H2 by UV radiation.

An other problem with the plasma interaction is the dissipation of the lost energy. The CREIL effect is a parametric effect in which the medium is only a catalyst which recovers its stationary state after an interaction with several electromagnetic beams, such that their entropy increases. In the practice, the light is redshifted and the thermal background is blueshifted (that is amplified). Beyond 5 UA from us, the solar wind cools, producing excited atomic hydrogen by which energy is transferred from the sunlight to the microwaves, producing the anisotropy of the background and the blueshift of the radio signals of the Pioneer 10 and 11 probes.

Posted - 18 Dec 2005 : 12:50:06

quote:Originally posted by Thomas

Just to avoid any misunderstanding: the effect that I suggested under is neither a scattering process nor identical to the usual refraction of electromagnetic waves in plasmas (although it is formally more similar to the latter). As this is essentially a new mechanism and in absence of a causal quantitative theory (as yet), one can't therefore say that it would not be strong enough.

Why do you want to introduce new physics while old physics works well ?


The circumstance that speaks against a scattering effect of any kind in this context is that one needs volume densities of n>10^12 cm^-3 if one wants to avoid the usual 'blurring' effects associated with the angular redistribution of the scattered light. Only under this condition is the wavelength larger than the spatial distance between scatterers i.e. one has a 'continuous' medium. In this case one has a situation similar to the 'specular reflection' from a surface and the scattering would only be in the forward direction. In an inhomogeneous medium this would then resemble a refraction effect. In fact, I believe that most 'refraction' phenomena (e.g. refraction of light in the earths atmosphere) are actually of this type (i.e. in fact a scattering process). I am suggesting however that there is a true refraction not associated with the scattering by atoms but by 'bending' as well as redshifting in electric fields.

The theory of the refraction and of the coherent scattering does not require the condition you wrote.


Another point I want to make is that the energy question is irrelevant here. Energy conservation is a concept from Classical Mechanics that should not be applied to other phenomena like light

Same remark: science is reductionist therefore does not need useless hypothesis.