From: Meta Research. Cosmology. Big Bang and Alternatives. Quantized redshift anomaly.

22 Mar 2005 12:38:45

Before setting a new model, it should be good to take into account all effects deduced from simple laws of physics.
The BB is founded on two hypothesis:
- Neglecting the gravitational shifts, the frequency shifts are Doppler (or expansion)
- The CMB results from a cooling of electromagnetic energy.

It is easy, using lasers to shift the frequencies of light beams propagating in matter obeying to laws written by G. L. Lamb in the Review of Modern physics a long time ago. These shifts, which do not blur the images, may be confused with Doppler shifts, but must not be if precise experiments are done, because the relative frequency shift df/f is not strictly constant while it is in a Doppler effect. Webb and other authors found that the relative redshifts of the multiplets observed in a quasar spectrum are not strictly constant and deduced that the "fine structure constant", a fundamental constant of physics is not constant !

The theory of the shifting effect is precisely verified using lasers : energy is transferred from beams having a high temperature (deduced from Planck's law) to beams having a lower temperature. These transfers produce frequency shifts.

This effect is a "parametric effect", that is an effect in which the differences of phase of the used beams of light do not depend on the molecules making the active medium; it is difficult to fulfill this condition with ordinary light In the practice, the waves must propagate in excited atomic hydrogen (named here H*).

Taking this effect, named CREIL into account, the very complex spectrum of the quasars is completely interpreted with the simple hypothesis that a quasar is a neutron star which accretes a cloud of hydrogen.(see and search the paper Physics/0503070). A chemist needs much less to say: this spectrum is the spectrum of molecule X.
Therefore, the redshift of the quasars is mainly produced by the CREIL in the atomic hydrogen which surrounds this star.
There are objects named micro-quasars because their methods of detection is the same that for the quasars, but they are in our galaxy, not much redshifted. It is a probability that these fast moving objects cross clouds of hydrogen when they leave the galaxy, becoming full quasars...

The energy lost by the redshifts blueshifts low frequencies, mainly the CMB which, thus, is amplified. A small observed exception: the solar wind cools at the limits of the solar system, producing H* which redshifts the solar light. The transferred energy blueshifts the radio signals emitted by the Pioneer 10 and 11 probes, and amplifies the CMB which becomes anisotropic, this anisotropy coming from the anisotropy of the corona which emits the wind. Else, how could the anisotropy of the CMB be produced far and be bound to the ecliptic ?

The VROs (very red objects) anomalously red objects are always observed close to very hot objects (quasars) whose far UV radiation produces H* by Lyman absorptions.
And the bright, hot, much redshifted objects seem surrounded by hot dust radiating a thermal spectrum... But the stability of this dust is a problem, it is simpler to think that this thermal radiation is the counter part of the redshift !

No new physics ! No strange matter !

Posted - 23 Mar 2005 : 02:24:35

quote:Originally posted by Tommy

Besides, where is the alternative theory?

before setting a new theory of the evolution of the Universe, it is necessary to understand the observations taking into account all what standard physics allows to explain.


Is it the steady state? The quasi steady state? Why haven't I run into it? In every book I read the Big Bang is the only theory.

The big bang is founded on the hypothesis that the redshifts are Doppler or expansion, and that the CMB results from the expansion of a hot universe. It neglects what is called in optics the "parametric" (or "coherent") effects. These effects make a class of spectroscopy which, except for refraction, requires particular systems, but is very rich : lasers, phase conjugation mirrors, photon echoes, frequency doubling, photon splitting, ISRS, CREIL,...

The CREIL which applies to ordinary light transfers energy from hot beams to cold beams (temperatures given by Planck's law), redshifting the hot, blueshifting the cold (it is thermodynamics !). In astrophysics, the beams interact when they cross through atomic hydrogen in 2S or 2P states (notation : H*).

Answering the simple question : Where is it some H* ? solves a lot of problems, in particular it computes the periodicities from standard spectroscopy, without any introduction of parameter (see - section physics, 0503070)


It is not likely that the alternative to the Big Bang will be this or that particular theory. It is more likely that an alternative theory will require input from all of the various data producers.

It is very easy to use the CREIL, and it seems to solve all problems of redshift or thermal radiation: Where there is H* (very hot hydrogen (100 000 K) or 10 000 K + Lyman alpha pumping, or...) the beams of light are redshifted, and the thermal radiations are heated (CMB, "hot dust") or blueshifted ( radio signals from the Pioneers)


Thus a serious effort to be ready when the Big Bang blows up on them will require the efforts and cooperation of many cosmologists. As it is, the Big Bangers stick together, right or wrong, while the opposing team is divided into bits and pieces here and there arguing amonst themselves.

I agree with this, but, after, you introduce strange hypothesis....

Posted - 23 Mar 2005 : 02:33:30

quote:Originally posted by Tommy

It has been shown by Riess et al. and Perlmutter et al. that the observed redshift-magnitude relation for supernovae of type Ia, which suggests that the deceleration parameter q0 is negative, can be explained in a Friedmann model...

I think that an explantation by the CREIL is easy : The brightest galaxies produce more UV light, more Lyman alpha absorption, therefore, more excited atomic hydrogen H* allowing CREIL transfers of energy, with two consequences : large redshift and amplification of the thermal radiation usually interpreted as produced by dust.

Posted - 23 Mar 2005 : 12:48:24

quote:Originally posted by Tommy

If you watch a Black Hole form,...

It is good to observe the origin of the black hole story:

Assuming that the local speed of the light is isotropic (Michelson and Morley), the equations of the light are invariant by the conformal group which has a strange topology, with singularities such as black holes.

It does not mean that all transformations of this group are physically allowed.

Posted - 24 Mar 2005 : 02:25:47

quote:Originally posted by Tommy

I already know that the Black Hole is not really a hole, it is a quicksand made of neutrons. Or so they say. I don't know if they have actually found one. I hear that Cahill did the M&M experiment and found an anomaly. The Big Bangers deny it. The topology of space with black holes... I wonder if they really mean singularities?

We are tempted to introduce astonishing concepts, liking marvelous. Observing what appears for somebody big quasars, and knowing the existence of astonishing mathematical results, the math concept was identified with the observation. But there is no serious proof, no sufficient physical study of the consequences of the mathematical hypothesis.

Big bang, black holes are loquacities.

Posted - 25 Mar 2005 : 02:29:38

quote:Originally posted by Tommy

For example, the mathematics behind the Big Bang. Can it be that it is based on gravity only? That only gravity matters? I don't know, but that's all I hear about from the standard theory. So what's the matter with gravity? And what is gravity? And, for that matter, does a single isolated atom have gravity?


"Hypothesis non fingo" (Newton).

We are, at a time, unable to understand a lot of observations and to give a more physical explanation to mathematical concepts. The first need for a scientist is being able to say: I do not know.

We have mathematical laws well established by the observation of their consequences, that we may use to explain observations, and imagine new systems, provided that we remain in the field where they are verified with a required precision. An example: Maxwell's equations in the vacuum work very well, and in conjonction with a theory of the matter such as the semi-classical theory, they give spectroscopic rules, the CREIL for instance which shows that it is useless (and dangerous) to introduce new hypothesis such as the Bigbang to explain the observation of the stars. But, we need not ignore the limits of Maxwell's equations at high energy, where electron pairs may appear.

Posted - 25 Mar 2005 : 03:05:38

quote:Originally posted by Tommy

Still, you made me think about "strange" but what is strange?

"strange" is, for me a mixture of "marvelous", "useless", maybe "absurd".

The BB requires a lot of hypothesis which I say "strange" because the BB is founded on ignoring elementary spectroscopy which says that the redshifts for which the relative frequency shift df/f is not strictly constant is the result of an elementary light-matter interaction rather than the result of a Doppler (or expansion) effect which requires a new hypothesis (variation of the fine structure constant).


The energy output produced by the Casimir effect during the creation of a neutron star turns out to be sufficient to explain nova and supernova explosions.

Usual nuclear fusion seems sufficient.


It is shown that the Casimir effect might be a possible source of the huge energy output of quasars.

The quasars are more probably an evolution of the micro-quasars, objects (neutron stars) of our galaxy which become brighter by accretion of clouds when they leave our galaxy. Therefore they are not huge.


We propose that the dynamic Casimir effect is a mechanism that converts the energy of neutron starquakes into -rays.

Again, use old physics in place of ignoring old physics: Hertz experiments show that all energy emitted by an oscillator is not absorbed by the receivers, so that it remains "lost waves" (I do not how to translate the French "ondes vagabondes") These lost waves were the source of a lot of absurdities (Dowsing ? in French radiesthésie), but the source of some good physics after the evaluation of their mean energy by Nernst. Many people think that they are quantum objects while Nernst evaluation (1916) was done 10 years before QM! The Casimir effect is an elementary use of these lost waves. They must be used in the semi-classical theory, to obtain a paradox-less physics.

But one must remind that their concept uses Maxwell's equations in the vacuum which fails at high frequencies...

Trying to use these waves at high energies allows to make hypothesis without garantee of serious : interpretation of the gravitation as a high energy Casimir effect, continuous generation of matter... Strange!

Posted - 26 Mar 2005 : 03:04:16

quote:Originally posted by Tommy

For example, the mathematics behind the Big Bang. Can it be that it is based on gravity only?

The origin of the relativity is the study of the changes of coordinates which leave Maxwell's equations invariant, or, if you prefer, Michelson and Morley experiment which show that the local speed of the light is isotropic.

This is translated into mathematics with the concepts of "Lie algebra" and "Lie groups", in this case the "conformal group" in four dimensions (space+time).

The theory of Lie algebra and groups is an important field of mathematics, lots of books...

You can observe, on a very simple subgroup the complexity of the conformal group:

In the plane (2 dimensions), consider a transformation from any point of the plane A to a point a defined, using a fixed point O and a real number k, by Oa*OA=k (algebric measures) It is a conformal transformation (it is easy to show that the local angles remain invariant). It transform a small surface close to O into a very large surface. Does such a transformation seem be physical ? And the problem is more complicated in 4D, with the particular behaviour of the time !

Pay attention : the mathematical representation of physics is always approximate, the strangest mathematical results of generally good theories must be tested seriously.

Posted - 02 Apr 2005 : 01:31:32

quote:Originally posted by Tommy


[Hal Puthoff]

Among a certain group of physicists (those interested in the physics of vacuum fluctuations) it is touted. I have provided over 500 reprints. A nice "tout" was presented in the 9 Jul 1987 issue of New Scientist, p. 26, in an article titled "Why atoms don't collapse."

The origin of "the classical electron falls to the kernel" is an error in the understanding of the electromagnetism (more generally of the concept of field). An accelerated electric charge emits a field, but this does not mean that it emits energy. The change of energy is the result of the interference of the emitted field with the external fields.

There is no insulated system in electromagnetism, so that the usual computations of the emitted energies (by an oscillating dipole, for instance) are mathematical plays which are physically meaningless because the external fields are not taken into account.

The interference of the field emitted by an electron on a Bohr's orbit (corrected by Lamb) and the zero point field leads to a zero emitted energy.

I do not understand your discussion about plasma balls. Some are probably created by the lightnings. Assuming a convenient non-linearity of the plasma, stable, static 3-dimensional solitons may be stable, until the plasma decays. No mystery !

Posted - 03 Apr 2005 : 00:54:30

quote:Originally posted by Tommy

quote:I do not understand your discussion about plasma balls. Some are probably created by the lightnings. Assuming a convenient non-linearity of the plasma, stable, static 3-dimensional solitons may be stable, until the plasma decays. No mystery !

Perhaps you are right that a plasma ball harbors no mystery, yet a mystery does pop up when we consider how many of them are floating around. And how long does the decay take?

If we refer to the macroscopic balls which appear during a lightning, their lifetime is seconds, by a decay of the excited molecules which make the plasma. If we try to apply the theory not to plasma, but to represent the elementary particlesby microscopic balls, we assume that the properties of the medium (high frequency electromagnetic field ?) do not decay : we know that, at high frequencies, in the vacuum, Maxwell's equations supposed linear fail (creation of electron pairs), so that it is not absurd to suppose that it appears a nonlinearity able to allow the production of 3-D, static solitons.


A plasma ball was seen regularily in a submarine emerging from electrical contacts and then seen to float down the passageway. They have also been seen emerging from earthquake fissures so they do exist.

But strange "balls of Light" have been seen in unusual places, and not just a few. Hundreds of sightings have been made around crop circles. In one case a video camera caught a ball of light hovering above a crop circle, and when a farmer approached on his tractor, the ball of light is seen moving off twad the machine, and as it flies overhead, the farmer clearly twists his head to follow it. (Incidently, the scientific analysis of crop circles indicate anolmalies caused by extreme heat.)

So now we have a mystery of what are these balls of light and what is controlling them? I have no proof, but it is nonetheless obvious to me that these balls of light do not carry around a battery pack.

The macroscopic balls of light are observed where high voltages allow the creation of plasma. It is necessary to distinguish between sure observations and flying saucers.

Posted - 04 Apr 2005 : 08:32:41

quote:Originally posted by Tommy

Some pictures are worth a thousand words. Here is one of those.

Physics is not poetry: it requires serious starting points and serious deductions.

There is absolutely no mystery about the zero point field, except, maybe at very high frequencies: The absorption of a wave is its complete cancellation by an exactly opposite wave (every where, at every time opposite electric and magnetic fields). As the fields emitted by the small (atomic...) usual sources are very high close to these sources, their absorptions requires a lot of similar sources, a lot of time. Thus, it remains a field which is named stochastic, zero point...

Posted - 05 Apr 2005 : 02:05:21

quote:Originally posted by Tommy


Some pictures are worth a thousand words. Here is one of those.



Physics is not poetry: it requires serious starting points and serious deductions.

There is absolutely no mystery about the zero point field,

Well, I certainly am glad to hear that there is no mystery. I certainly am very glad to realize that the mathematics can be manipulated in such a way at to eliminate infinities and at the same time provide for the existence of matter which exists because it cannot not exist. Very brilliant! That's almost as brilliant as the evolutionists who say there is no mystery about life, life just happened and we exist because we survived to exist. Very brilliant guys!

There is an infinite energy if it is suposed that Maxwell equations (ME) in the vacuum remain linear at very high frequencies. But we know that electron pairs may be produced in the vacuum at high frequencies, so that the theory of the zero point field which is founded on the linearity of electromagnetism fails.

What to do at high frequencies ? Study non linear Maxwell's equations. They lead to solitons which may be matter (A big work to do !).

All (most ?) laws of physics work in a limited domain. The zero point field is a consequence of the linearity of ME, and that there exist no insulated system in electromagnetism, it is not an hypothesis, a simple mathematical consequence of ME.

Pay attention: To compute the energy of a field, it is necessary to take into account the interference of all fields. In particular, the interference of the field emitted by the electron on a Bohr's trajectory as corrected by Lamb, with the zero point field, leads to a zero emitted energy: the orbit is stable (while a lot of people say that the electron should spiral to the kernel). It is simple, elementary electromagnetism.

Posted - 05 Apr 2005 : 02:28:53

quote:Originally posted by Tommy

But the key question is: Does the zero-point energy REALLY exist?

It exists, but it is not available. The gravitational energy exists, it allows ride without effort a bicycle from the top af a hill to the valley, but, after, it is hard to climb...


The real issue centers on how random fluctuations could become coherent. Any spontaneous coherence seems to violate the second law of thermodynamics, which is generally understood to mean systems should evolve toward random behavior, not toward coherence.

This point is thoroughly discussed in the theories of system self- organization (11,12). Prigogine (13) won the 1977 Nobel prize in chemistry for defining the conditions under which a system could evolve from randomness toward coherence. The conditions are that the system must be far from equilibrium, nonlinear in its dynamics and have an energy flux through it.

OK, but there is a source of energy... Maxwell's demon unhappily does not exist.

It may be possible that the entropy decreases using neutrinos, or other very new physics, not strange things founded on the conformal group.

Posted - 10 Apr 2005 : 01:43:20

quote:Originally posted by Jim

The real issue is defining ZPE as something real or not real. It can be done both ways and that seems to be the case on this thread. The not real stuff is found in the math models. The models are very old and work well within accepted limits but most of this thread is way beyond those limits so the models are of no use. The electronic mysteries of the charge we call the electron are real and there is little doubt that is not well understood. All the effects being kicked around are caused by electronic events.

The existence of the ZPE is an immediate consequence of classical electromagnetism: the small sources (atoms, Hertz oscillators at an other scale) emit a field large close to the source, weak at a large distance. The absorption of a classical source is its cancellation by addition of an opposite field; the generation of a field opposite to the field emitted by an Hertz oscillator (historical discussion) requires so many other oscillators that it appears impossible to absorb the field emitted by a source...

Consequently, there is a residual field which plays the role of a thermodynamical bath in equilibrium with the sources, in particular with the electron on a Bohr trajectory. Its mean value was found by Nernst in 1916.

Why do this field is often named "quantum" while Nernst's work is older of 10 years than quantum mechanics ? the pleasure of mystery probably.

Posted - 11 Apr 2005 : 02:17:54

quote:Originally posted by Tommy




But the key question is: Does the zero-point energy REALLY exist?

I have to admit that I had a great misunderstanding of the ZPE up till now which was cleared up for me in correspondance with Hal Puthoff. The ZPE is a physical field pertaining to electromagnetics. I was thinking of the ZPE, and trying to explain it, in terms of the INSIDE. The ZPE is not the INSIDE, it is the outside of the INSIDE.

INSIDE and OUTSIDE seem dark to me, unless they mean linear and nonlinear.

I hope to be more clear about the ZPE, to show that there is nothing mysterious with it.

First, let me remind the theory of the electromagnetic modes:

I consider Maxwell's equations in the vacuum, supposing that they are linear, that is that there are no very high frequencies able to generate electron pairs. With, eventually linear conditions at limits, any linear combination of solutions is a solution, so that the solutions build an infinite dimentional vector space. A mode is a ray of this space, that is a set of all solutions which differ only by a real factor, the amplitude.

It is implicitely assumed that we consider a set of orthogonal modes, that is a set of modes whose energies are independant.

The following computation, founded on thermodynamics, shows that the amplitude deduced from Planck's law is never zero:

Planck's law shows that inside a blackbody at temperature T, the energy in a monochromatic mode is h(nu)/(exp(h(nu)/kT)-1) within an additive constant. Supposing that the temperature is large, the exponent may be developped up to the second order, giving kT-h(nu)/2. Thermodynamics says that it must be kT, so that the additive constant is h(nu)/2. Thus at 0 K, the energy is h(nu)/2. It is Nernst's result (1916).

The interpretation of this zero point energy is simple: As it is impossible to cancel exactly the field emitted by the sources by opposite fields, it remains a residual field which is in equilibrium with the matter, making a thermodynamical bath.


Therefore, the ZPF is the value of the field in equilibrium with matter at 0 K, subtracting it from the field at an other temperature to get an "ordinary" amplitude is meaningless. If you do not use the real, exact field to compute interferences at low levels of energy, you will make errors.

At high frequencies (gamma rays), the linearity disappears, the theory fails so that it is an other, complicated problem.

Posted - 18 Apr 2005 : 16:40:39

quote:Originally posted by Tommy


To be honest with you,I need more than reminding, it is better if you teach me the theory of electromagnetic modes.

The theory is very simple:

Consider linear Maxwell's equations (not field dependant permittivity and permeability, linear conditions at the limits). Any linear combination of solutions is a solution; this is the structure of a vector space: any solution is represented by a vector of this infinite dimensional space. A ray of this space (i.e. a set of all proportional vectors) is a mode. Remark that all vectors of the mode are deduced from a particular one by a multiplication by a constant named "amplitude" (it is useful to define an unit vector).

Supposing that there is a single solution in the space, a solution has an energy obtained by integrating in the space, at a given time, half the sum of the square of the electric field multiplied by the permittivity , and a similar magnetic term. If there are two solutions in the space, the energy of the sum of the solutions may be the sum of the energies of both, or not. In the first case, the solutions are said "orthogonal", represented by orthogonal vectors.

We often consider a base of the space of modes, infinite set of orthogonal modes such as any solution is a linear combination of vectors of these modes.

Remark that the definition of the orthogonality is mathematical, but has no physical meaning because in all modes, at 0K, the amplitude has the ZPF value, corresponding, in a monochromatic mode to an h(nu)/2 energy (average). As, for a given mode, the fields are given by the amplitude, a real number, the ZPF exists only at 0K, at an other temperature, there is an other, larger amplitude.

Posted - 23 Apr 2005 : 04:12:10

quote:Originally posted by Tommy

quote:Remark that the definition of the orthogonality is mathematical, but has no physical meaning because in all modes, at 0K, the amplitude has the ZPF value, corresponding, in a monochromatic mode to an h(nu)/2 energy (average). As, for a given mode, the fields are given by the amplitude, a real number, the ZPF exists only at 0K, at an other temperature, there is an other, larger amplitude.

Could be that it is time to define physical. Probably a good place to start is physics. That which is defined by physics might be considered physical.

In mathematics, we may make hypothesis which are absurd in physics.

Here, the hypothesis is that it exists isolated systems in electromagnetism. Physically, the matter amplifies or attenuates the fields, with a minimum remaining field (ZPF), so that there is no perfect screen in electromagnetism, no insulated system.

Posted - 25 Apr 2005 : 02:55:11

quote:Originally posted by Tommy

quote:In mathematics, we may make hypothesis which are absurd in physics.

Here, the hypothesis is that it exists isolated systems in electromagnetism. Physically, the matter amplifies or attenuates the fields, with a minimum remaining field (ZPF), so that there is no perfect screen in electromagnetism, no insulated system.

It is seeming to me that mathematics can be made to do anything one wishes. I once read that mathematics was a tautology, what we get out can only be what we put in. This leaves out emergence except in retrospect.

Yes. We may define point objects, and so on in mathematics, but a lot of mathematical tools do not have a physical meaning. In electromagnetism, we may use, to make demonstrations, systems which cannot exist physically, in particular isolated systems in which the EM field results only from known sources.

For instance, to define the orthogonality of two solutions (or two modes) of Maxwell's equations, we suppose that the considered solutions are alone in the Universe; this is mathematics, physically absurd, but useful for physics.

Posted - 24 Dec 2005 : 04:42:14

quote:Originally posted by Jim

I never heard about quantized red shift observations so I'm the dummy here. But, I have just read some stuff that indicates obeservation of this type is not reproduced by anyone and the topic is bogus.

There are two quantizations of the redshifts: In the quasars the period of the redshifts in the Lyman forest is 0.062, for the galaxies it is shorter.

In the case of the quasars the theory is very simple: the period results from the nature of the redshifting gas which is atomic hydrogen in its 2S or 2P states (H*). The hydrogen being atomic in the 1S state at 10 000 K, if there is enough energy at the Lyman alpha frequency, hydrogen is pumped to the 2P states which allow a redshift sufficient to renew the energy at the Lyman frequency, there is a continuous redshift, and, generally a weak absorption. This continuous redshift stops if there is not large enough an intensity at the Lyman alpha frequency. As there is no redshift all lines are strongly absorbed, in particular the Lyman beta and gamma. In fact, some H* is produced by various pumpings, and decays, so that the redshift restarts until the low intensity resulting from the Ly beta and gamma absorption arrives to the alpha, and so on.

Remark that the period 0.062 was observed independently from the theory; the redshifts which put the beta and gamma lines to the alpha are 3*0.062 and 4*0.062 respectively. It is a quantitative proof of the validity of the theory.

The redshift of the galaxies is, at least partly produced by a similar effect involving not atomic hydrogen, but H2+.

Posted - 10 Jan 2006 : 02:03:55

quote:Originally posted by Jim

I never heard about quantized red shift observations so I'm the dummy here. But, I have just read some stuff that indicates obeservation of this type is not reproduced by anyone and the topic is bogus.

The quantization of redshift was found by Tifft, from observations. A lot of other authors studied it from the observations too (look, for instance a paper from Bell & Comeau, on, other papers of these authors, cited papers).

Using the CREIL, it is easily showed that the propagation of a continuous spectrum rich in far UV generates a line spectrum in which the relative frequency shifts are combinations of the shifts which bring the Lyman beta and gamma to the Lyman alpha, these shifts being 3*0.062 and 4*0.062 respectively. 0.062 is the shift periodicity observed in the quasars and galaxies. This 1% coincidence and the fact that anomalous redshifts appear where the path of the light crosses regions containing H I in states 2S, 2P is a proof that the largest part of the redshifts is produced by a CREIL effect in excited atomic hydrogen.

Posted - 23 Jan 2006 : 13:03:40

quote:Originally posted by tvanflandern

... one particular redshift mechanism is implied as a necessity, rather than guessing which of the two dozen current redshift mechanisms is the right one. -|Tom|-

Ok, but looking for the interpretation of an observation, the first step is using ordinary, well known physics.

The origin of the Big Bang is the hypothesis that there are only two mechanism for a redshift of the spectral lines: Doppler effect (or expansion) and gravitational redshifts. To be Doppler-like , a frequency shift during a propagation of the light through the matter must obey the following conditions:

- 1 Space coherence to avoid a blurring of the images.

- 2 An incident wave must be transformed into a single emerging wave to avoid a blurring of the spectra; if the infinitesimal process is a scattering, the incident and scattered waves must interfere into a single wave having the same line width.

- 3 The relative frequency shift must be, at least approximately, constant. The lack of constance of the observed relative frequency shifts is usually considered as due to a variation of the fine structure constant; avoiding this last hypothesis by “approximately” seems good.

- 4 Only well known physics should be used in this first step; in particular the laws of spectroscopy and thermodynamics must be verified.

- 5 The effect must be non-Doppler. If a continuous wave source S emits an electromagnetic field received by R at a different frequency, while S emits s cycles, R receives r, so that the number of wavelengths along the path SR is increased of s-r, it is a genuine Doppler effect. Therefore, the theory must fail if it is applied to a continuous wave; consequently, the theory must contain a parameter measuring the time-incoherence of the light.

It is very easy to test a theory proposed as Doppler-like using condition 5 (supposing that condition 1 is fulfilled). Only the CREIL effect passes the test of all conditions.

Remember : The CREIL is a thermodynamically allowed transfer of energy between electromagnetic beams refracted simultaneously by a convenient medium; usually, this transfer of energy redshifts the light and blueshifts the radio waves.

The effect (without the acronym) was found simultaneously by two experimenters in 1968, it is commonly observed on the laser pulses which carry the information in optical fibres. The experiments and the theory show that the observation of the effect becomes harder and harder when the length of the pulses increases: an experiment with ordinary incoherent light would be very expansive.

Happily the experiment was done in a big laboratory : the solar system. Between the Earth and the Pioneer 10 and 11 probes, there is only the solar wind (accidentally, the corona produces an enormous, perturbating effect). The solar wind is made of protons and electrons, but, beyond 5 UA, its cooling produces excited atomic hydrogen which is a convenient medium in which the sunlight is redshifted, blueshifting the radiowaves. This blueshift is observed, generally interpreted as produced by an “anomalous acceleration”. The same blueshift explains that the anisotropy of the CMB is bound to the ecliptic.

We are sure that the main “anomalous” frequency shifts are due to a CREIL effect in excited atomic hydrogen because the whole spectrum of the quasars (including the periodicities) is generated supposing only that the quasars are microquasars (well known, small galactic objects) surrounded by a cloud of hydrogen.

There are anomalous frequency shifts where there is atomic hydrogen in states 2S or 2P. It may be produced thermally, by a Lyman alpha pumping (close to the quasars), ...

The main default of this explanation is that it destroys marvellous concepts. Is it not science ?

Posted - 24 Jan 2006 : 12:24:19

quote:Originally posted by tvanflandern

quote:Originally posted by JMB

If a continuous wave source S emits an electromagnetic field received by R at a different frequency, while S emits s cycles, R receives r, so that the number of wavelengths along the path SR is increased of s-r, it is a genuine Doppler effect.

Not so. If lightwaves lose energy (E), they must change frequency (f) through the relation E = hf, where h is Planck's constant.

No. In parametric effects, the exchanges of energy are not quantified. Look at the simplest parametric effect, the refraction: refraction works with extremely low intensities (said photon after photon); however, a large amount of matter (a big prism for instance) is polarised... But it is a temporary polarisation, the matter which is in a non-stationary state during the interaction returns to its stationary state after (and, in this case, the light recovers its energy) If you consider a frequency mixing, which works without threshold too, the matter is only temporarily excited while the energies of the interacting beams is changed without any quantisation.

There are lots of examples of parametric effects in books of laser spectroscopy.


If the speed of light (c) does not change, then a change in f necessarily involves a change in wavelength (l) through the relation c

Yes it is a change of wavelength, but the number of cycles on SR accumulates with the time, so that, if the distance SR is constant, the wavelength decreases (or increases) indefinitely with the time. Strange medium on SR !

Posted - 25 Jan 2006 : 03:15:29

quote:Originally posted by tvanflandern

quote:Originally posted by JMB

In parametric effects, the exchanges of energy are not quantified.

I used E = hf only in the sense that energy and frequency change together continuously, not in the sense that energy at one frequency occurs in quanta. By attempting to introduce quantization into an argument where it is not needed, you appear to be deflecting and ignoring the argument itself, or perhaps did not understand it. My main point was that nature does not require the number of cycles in lightwaves to remain constant.

An atom which changes of stationary state exchanges an energy hf. But, depending on the origin of the excitation of the atom (spontaneous, that is from the zero point field, or stimulated at various intensities), it emits a line whose width is variable. Therefore, the length of the wave is variable (Fourier transform) while its energy is hf, the energy in a cycle is not constant.

But this is not very important.



quote:[tvf]: If the speed of light (c) does not change, then a change in f necessarily involves a change in wavelength (l) through the relation c = fl.

Yes it is a change of wavelength, but the number of cycles on SR accumulates with the time, so that, if the distance SR is constant, the wavelength decreases (or increases) indefinitely with the time. Strange medium on SR!

If the source emits a certain number of lightwaves in a unit of time, and friction along a fixed path length removes a certain amount of energy from those lightwaves, the receiver will receive a lesser number of lightwaves per unit time than were emitted. But that s-r difference will be a constant over time, not "decreasing indefinitely". The energy loss from friction makes some cycles from the lightwaves gradually disappear from the universe. -|Tom|-

Look at my hypothesis: I suppose that the source is strictly time coherent (A CW laser is a good approximation of this hypothesis). If the received frequency is lower than the emitted, each second there is an increase of the number of cycles between S and R, without any limit, and this is absurd because if the distance SR is constant, the wavelength along SR decreases while the frequency, by hypothesis, is decreased !

This theoretical "experiment" shows that a non-Doppler, Doppler-like (in particular space-coherent) redshift can occur only if the light is time-incoherent, that is may be represented by pulses.

Posted - 26 Jan 2006 : 03:21:47

quote:Originally posted by tvanflandern

Light has all known wave properties and no essential particle properties.

I completely agree. Unhappily, winning his fight against Planck through his first Nobel prize, Einstein maide his worst (almost unique in Physics) error. For Planck, the quantization is a property of matter.

The main arguments against Einstein's quantization of light are:

- In its usual form E=hf (f: frequency), Planck's law is absurd because a pure frequency which requires an infinite sin function has no physical meaning. It is necessary to introduce a bandwidth, or, worse a shape of line to make Planck's formula meaningful.

Consequently, a photon would result, at least on two parameters (mean frequency, linewidth), better on many parameters. Too many photons !

- A lot of people made experiments to show that quantum electrodynamics is better than classical electrodynamics. The experiments are good, but their classical explanations are bad. The errors come from a lack of knowledge of the theory of the modes (developped in the 19th century, in acoustics); Maxwell's equations in the vacuum (and with sources replaced by their advanced fields, and linear conditions at the limits) are linear, that is any linear combination of solutions, with constant, real coefficients, is a solution; in modern language, the solutions build a real, generally infinite space. The modes are "rays" of this space, that is sets of proportional solutions. Any of these solutions depends, therefore on a single real number, the amplitude of the solution (do not confuse this amplitude with the amplitudes of the field in each point). The absorption of a field requires the addition of a field having an opposite amplitude, in the same mode. Generating this opposite field is tried in acoustics (active absorption of a noise), but, evidently it does not work well. It is not a big problem in acoustics because there are attenuations( which are not present in Maxwell's equations). Thus, in electrodynamics, the amplitudes in the modes have a minimal value corresponding to the zéro point field.

An emission by a source is an amplification of the field in the mode characteristic of the source (spontaneous emission if it reduces to the ZPF), an absorption is a decrease of the absolute walue of the amplitude, at the best down to the ZPF. The ZPF is a thermodynamical bath: If the energy in a mode is increased by the emission of hf by an atom, the amplitudes in non-orthogonal modes corresponding to possible emissions of other atoms increase (in the average), so that these atoms may absorb hf. Consequently, the emission of hf is followed by an absorption of 0, hf, 2hf , 3hf... by 0, 1 ,2 ,3 ... atoms; in the average only of hf.

If a photoelectric cell receiving an amplitude E absorbs it "completely", it leaves a ZPF F, so that it receives an energy proportional to W=EE-FF=(E-F)(E+F). If E>>F, as usual, w~EE, but, in "photon counting", where F>>E, W~F(E-F), proportional to the field, not to its square. The promoters of QED do not want to use the good formula in their classical computations !

- The emission of a quantum is stimulated by the field in its mode. If we use a plane wave to excitate a dipole, this field must be split into a "spherical" field and diffracted fields. Thus, only a fraction of the electric field at the dipole excitates it. On the contrary, the spontaneous emission is produced by the ZPF in the spherical mode: no need to reduce the effective field. The experiments verifies this.

In QED, the incident field is not split; to get the experimental result, it is necessary to introduce a strange, ad hoc "radiation reaction"

It is important to note that there are two types of light-matter interactions. Usually, one considers interactions in which the state of the matter changes, so that the change of the energy of the wave(s) is quantified. In "parametric interactions", matter excited by the electromagnetic field returns to its stationary state after the interaction, so that there is no quantization.

The simplest parametric interaction is refraction in which a very low light energy may excite a big prism (temporarily)! Other interactions allow exchanges of energy between light beams simultaneously refracted by a convenient medium: one obtains frequency combinations, doubling, splitting in laser technology. In astrophysics, we are particularily interested by the transfers of energy which allow a redshift of light, and a simultaneous blueshift of the radio waves (CREIL effect); but the convenient matter is uncommon using ordinary light: excited atomic hydrogen.

Posted - 27 Jan 2006 : 02:54:49

For me, "photon" means "amount of energy corresponding to a transition between two stationary states of a system".

I cannot understand the photon as a particle:

- It has no known wave function (a lot of discussions : is the EM field its wave function while it has not the required properties, or is its wave function something else ?).

- It depends on many parameters.

- It is bound to an optical mode which is never defined.

- It is a source of many paradoxes and patches (EPR, radiation reaction...).

The purely classical theory, including Planck-Nernst zero point field, is always good, without any problem.

Kill the photon !

Posted - 27 Jan 2006 : 03:05:22

quote:Originally posted by tvanflandern

Replying to JMB:

I mostly could not understand what you said. However, it seems relevant (not to mention simpler) to point out that "quantization" for light simply means that light consists of discrete waves instead of some sort of continuum. And each wave at a given frequency has a specific energy, so the total energy transferred by light to matter must come in integer multiples of the energy transferred from a single wave. -|Tom|-

It is the problem of writing Planck's relation with various conditions at the limits which lead to a space of the modes having continuous or not dimensions: you propose a discrete sum h= (Sigma)[e(f)/f], but in many cases it is an integral.

Interesting in maths, not in physics !

Posted - 01 Feb 2006 : 04:30:46

quote:Originally posted by Michiel

In the double slit experiment we see a wave which is clearly spread out (hence the interference), but when it hits the screen the energy is transferred to a small dot, with always the same intensity.

I can't think of a way to explain that in terms of oceanic waves.

Sometimes, the oceanic waves break the boats...

In electromagnetism, the energy in a mode has a minimal value, in the average equal to hf/2 (f: frequency). Following Einstein (1917), the energy in the mode may be increased (of decreased, if possible) of hf.

A good, cold photocell is excited (an atom performs a transition) by the fluctuations of the zero point energy (noise).

If an atom emits hf, the ZPF is increased over hf/2, the probability of exciting an atom of the cell in increased.

It is fundamental to understand that the energy used to excite an atom comes only partly from the source. The ZPF is a thermodynamical bath.

The problem is different for the particles, because the existence of a definite particle (centre...) requires a nonlinear wave equation, so that the particle is a soliton.

Where the field is large, the nonlinearity is large, this large field is stable and is the particle; in this region, the field is de Broglie's "u" field. Far from this region, the field is, with a good approximation linear, it is the "psi" field. The separation of the field into u and psi is somewhat artificial, but may be modelled by an attraction of the u by the psi (showed by the equations, with exceptions at short distance). The psi is split by slits, while u is transmitted by one of the slits. Beyond the slits, psi interferes, and the maximals of psi attract u, that is the particle.

Posted - 01 Feb 2006 : 04:44:52

quote:Originally posted by Michiel

Don't all photons of a certain wavelength have the same energy/intensity?

You point one of the absurdities of the photon concept: Planck's law E=hf is physically absurd because in physics, it cannot be a pure frequency f, all experiments having a beginning and an end. Therefore, Planck's law must be rewritten h= somme(e(f)/f), where "somme" is finite or integral, depending on whether the modes vary continuously or not.

An atom may emit its energy with variable linewidths, depending on perturbations and external field in the mode of emission. Therefore the photon depends not only on hf, but on the linewidth too. Worse, the lines are often not symmetrical, they may have a strange shape... The photon depends on so many parameters than the concept is absurd.

Other problem with the photon: While the defenders of QED show that the classical theory is wrong because they make wrong classical computations (neglecting the ZPF), the comparison of the spontaneous and stimulated emission shows that the classical theory works well, while in QED, a strange, ad hoc "radiation reaction" field must be introduced to get the right result.

Posted - 01 Feb 2006 : 04:51:19

quote:Originally posted by Michiel

Tommy states that a photon could be a wave closing in around itself.

The propagation of light in the vacuum obeys Maxwell's equations (which are linear) with an extreme precision; to get remarkable points in a field, points able to represent a particle, a nonlinearity is necessary.

Posted - 02 Feb 2006 : 02:06:41

quote:Originally posted by Tommy

I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that little or nothing in science is true.

Seems that Maxwell's equations describe accurately only what has been observed, and tell us nothing about how it came to be.

Remember "hypothesis non fingo" (Newton). We look for a description of the properties of nature. The theories are useful, but we must choose the best theories: they explain more with less hypothesis.

The problem is that marvellous theories are more interesting that old theories: the BB theories must introduce a lot of marvellous hypothesis (dark matter and energy, variation of the physical constants, ...); it will need other marvellous hypothesis to explain the periodicities... The CREIL explains much more with only simple hypothesis: for instance the whole spectrum of the quasars (including the periodicities) is obtained supposing only that the quasars are micro-quasars surrounded by a cloud of hydrogen; it explains the proximity effect, the "anomalous accelerations" of the Pioneer probes, and so on.

Similarily, the absurdity of useless "principles" of quantum theory, and QED will appear to everybody:

Finally, science will overcome present chimera.

An old theory as Maxwell's equations is able to set the CREIL which itself appears powerful. How can you write they explain "only what has been observed"?

Posted - 02 Feb 2006 : 02:17:49

quote:Originally posted by tvanflandern

The trouble is that, while new experimental results are arriving often, we no longer compare various models to determine which works best, but instead try to patch the standard model to keep it viable.... But eventually, one of the simpler explanations will catch on because it is easier to learn, understand, and/or use. -|Tom|-

I agree.

The problem is that science exploded in the 19th century so much that since 100 years people do not know old science. Thus, in despite of a lot of valuable criticism, people who have learnt a part of the old theories and recent but wrong theories are unable to understand the incoherence of the whole.

Wait !

Posted - 02 Feb 2006 : 02:42:42

quote:Originally posted by Tommy

JMB says that the ZPE is just noise. I don't believe him either.

I do not believe. My point is that, having chosen a mode, the electromagnetic field depends only on a real coefficient. It is elementary mathematics.

In the classical theory, the absorption of an EM field is the addition of an opposite field. It is impossible to absorb EM fields radiated by small sources using small sources : it remains a stochastic field.

Planck showed that the spectrum of the blackbody is explained supposing that the energy in a monochromatic electromagnetic mode is hf/(exp(hf/kT)-1)+K. Thermodynamics says that the energy in a mode must tend to kT for T-> infinity: K=hf/2. It gives an average value of the stochastic field.

I worked 30 years in quantum mechanics (theoretical and spectroscopic) and concluded that its postulates are absurd and happily useless. These postulates are dangerous: with the concept of photon, all specialists of QM consulted by Townes said : it will not work. The same wrong concept prevented the astrophysicists to study the parametric light matter interactions, thus to introduce the CREIL effect.

Posted - 02 Feb 2006 : 02:51:36

quote:Originally posted by Michiel

Hmm, I was about to ask Tom his view upon the linearity of the light carrying medium in general.

Maxwell's equations are linear in the vacuum. They remain linear with polarisabilities and permittivities which do not depend on the fields.

But Maxwell's equations do not apply (even in the vacuum) at very high energies: gamma rays may produce electron pairs.

Posted - 03 Feb 2006 : 11:52:54

quote:Originally posted by Michiel


"But Maxwell's equations do not apply (even in the vacuum) at very high energies: gamma rays may produce electron pairs."

Thank you JMB.

If 'two-photon pair productions' really exist in the absence of matter this would indeed count as a nonlinearity.

It is what I mean writing that Maxwell's equations do not apply with gamma rays.

But, at lower frequencies, in the vacuum, no linearity is detectable.

Posted - 05 Feb 2006 : 04:22:34

quote:Originally posted by Tommy


(1) William Tifft writes about data that shows the red shift of light coming from galaxies does not increase smoothly, instead it has been shown to change in jumps, it has periodicity or is quantized.

This implies that the redshift is due to atomic (intrinsic)processes rather than Doppler effects. Tifft's work has been independantly confirmed by others

The periodicity z=0.062 is easily explained by a CREIL redshift in neutral atomic hydrogen: an UV continuous spectrum pumps hydrogen to the 2P states. The spin recoupling in these states corresponds to a Raman type resonance which allows a CREIL effect. Thus Lyman alpha absorption and redshift are coupled, and the result is the periodicity. (see Physics/0503070).

Other periodicities may result from a similar effect in H2+, but the spectroscopy of this molecule is complicated...


If redshift is not a measure of velocity, then a higher redshift does not mean a higher velocity.

How does this (redshift anomaly) change the standard interpretation of the expansion of the Universe?


If the redshifts are not produced by an interaction of the light with matter, the redshift periodicities generate a centre of symmetry which is the Earth... The Earth is the centre of the Universe !!!!


All of this would not hold true if we were at that physical center.

I agree.

quote:Only then would we observe equal velocities and distances as it is being reported. What is the probability of the Earth being at the center of the Universe?

If you have a religion it may be large...

Posted - 06 Feb 2006 : 12:48:53

quote:Originally posted by Tommy

Religion is a belief system.

It was a joke.

Criticizing the origins of our thoughts, the religions reduce to an humanization of the objects that I cannot accept.

Finished on this topic.

Posted - 08 Feb 2006 : 03:03:32

quote:Originally posted by Tommy

What the astronomers see happening is usually described as matter/energy flowing outward.

Only usually: see, for instance

Using the CREIL effect, the spectrum of a micro-quasar becomes a spectrum of quasar if the microquasar is surrounded by a cloud of hydrogen.

There are quasars observed in or close to galaxies, and isolated quasars whose repartition is isotropic. The micro-quasars move fast, and, therefore seem become isolated quasars when they leave the plane of the galaxy: this transformation is a test of the existence of much hydrogen out of the galaxy. It is possible that a galaxy is a condensation of matter which does not change the mean density of matter.

Posted - 15 Feb 2006 : 02:42:39

quote:Originally posted by Tommy



Originally posted by Tommy

I always wondered how an atom can do its thing forever without a battery pack. Enter ZPE.


More specifically, enter the energy sources for ZPE, elysium and gravitons.

Einstein theory of the emission and absorption of EM waves introduces three mechanisms:

1- induced emission

2- (induced) absorption

3- spontaneous emission

The third mechanism is now identified with the first, provided that the ZPF is taken into account. This hypothesis is well verified using the classical theory of EM fields. Using quantum electrodynamics, the ZPF appears two times stronger than other fields, this is the strongest argument against QED.

As Maxwell's equations are linear and homogenous in the vacuum (and with sources replaced by their advanced fields), the theory of modes work (a mode is a ray of the space of the solutions of Maxwell's equations). All fields in a mode depend only on a single, real parameter; the ZPF corresponds to the minimal absolute value of this parameter.

A source amplifies the fields, in particular the ZPF field; an absorber decreases the fields, possibly down to the ZPF, but not more (remember, however that the ZPF energy is not well defined : it is a mean value, so that the minimal field in a mode is not well defined).

A big, common error is thinking that the emission of a field corresponds to a loss of energy by the source: depending on the interference of the emitted field with external fields in the same mode, the source may lose, get, or not change energy.


... the Maxwell/heaviside equatins work without a source, so what? Does that mean light needs no source either? You said no magic. Light without a battery pack is magic. You should know that Maxwell originally accounted for these inner energy sources, I think they are the displacement currents.

The emission of an EM field requires a source. The propagation in the vacuum does not need any source of energy.

Application: the orbiting electron in the hydrogen atom does not lose any energy although it radiates a field (provided that the Bohr's orbits are corrected by the Lamb effect).




I also can clearly see that the infinite energy could exist in a different dimension, let's call it the hyperdimension.


If anything ever observed could not be explained with five and only five dimensions....

This sounds like a big bang ganger wrote it.

Pay attention to magic words such as "dimension", "quantum",...

They are often meaningless.


Having already decided that the quantum physicists who need renormalizations are talking physical nonsense,...

I agree.


This made me laugh. Very good! All I am saying is that could be that their infinities are for real. The electron, regarded as a point,

"point" is a mathematical object, not physical.


Can you tell me what the difference is between Elysium and Aether?

I think that both are mathematical concepts useful to develop a theory. But we are unable to deduce from physics any properties (differing of support of propagation) of these concepts. There are lots of "dark" things in the BB theory too...

Posted - 19 Feb 2006 : 02:38:24

quote:Originally posted by Tommy


... the possibility of extracting useful energy from vacuum fluctuations, the "Holy Grail" of energy research.

Unhappily, the existence of the zero point field is a consequence of thermodynamics. A lot of people tried to get usable energy against its second principle ...

Planck (1900) showed that the energy in an electromagnetic, monochromatic mode of frequency f, is hf/(exp(hf/kT)-1)+K; His error on the evaluation of K (hf) was corrected by Nernst(1916). K=hf/2 is easily found knowing that the energy in a mode tends to kT for T-> infinity.

Einstein (1917) and laser experiments show that light is absorbed down to the ZPF, and that the emission is an amplification of a previously existing field (which is the ZPF in spontaneous emission).

Posted - 19 Feb 2006 : 03:08:03

quote:Originally posted by Tommy


quote:Something from Nothing Revisited - 04/04/01

written for KeelyNet by Jerry W. Decker - free to copy/reprint

You are visitor # since April 6th, 2001.

Most mainstreamers have the erroneous conception that alternative science fans, experimenters and researchers are looking to 'create' something from nothing in order to provide power necessary to run their perpetual motion machines or free energy devices.




the 'Lost Aether' now called ZPE (zero point energy)

Absurd. The aether was introduced to get an analogy between the propagation of sound in matter and the propagation of the EM fields in ... aether.

The zero point field results from the impossiblity to absorb a classical field (by adding an opposite field) if the fields are produced by sources small in comparison with their distances. Thus, it remains a field everywhere. In the 19th century, it was impossible to evaluate this remaining field.

The corresponding energy, ZPE, was introduced by Planck (1900) in his formula giving the energy in an EM mode of frequency f : E=hf/(exp(hf/kT)-1)+K. The value of K=ZPE was wrongly evaluated by Planck (hf), and corrected by Nernst (1916) : hf/2.

Einstein (1917) and laser experiments show that the EM fields may be absorbed down to the ZPE, and that the emission is an amplification of a previously existing field (the ZPF for the spontaneous emission).

Remark that this is a classical result. Quantum electrodynamics gives a wrong result unless an ad hoc correction divides the ZPE by two.

Posted - 19 Feb 2006 : 03:27:29

quote:Originally posted by tvanflandern

This will remain mysterious to you until you jettison the photon concept and start thinking in terms of light being pure waves.

I agree, classical electrodynamics works perfectly if the classical concept of absorption (by addition of an opposite field) is used (consequently, the ZPF exists).

Einstein made a single big error in physics, and he received his first Nobel prize for this error.

Remain at Planck's point of view, and remain classical : it is the matter which quantifies the exchanges of energy between the waves and the matter. Else you get QED which needs an ad hoc factor 2 comparing the spontaneous and induced light emission, and introduces a lot of paradoxes.

Particles require non-linearities and soliton waves (de Broglie's double solution).

Posted - 21 Feb 2006 : 12:52:14

quote:Originally posted by Tommy

How can the ZPE be a consequence of thermodynamics when by definition it is found when the thermodynamics is at sero?

Use Planck's law: in a mode of EM waves of frequency f, the energy is hf/(exp(hf/kT)-1)+K. Thermodynamics says that this energy tends to kT for T large: K=hf/2. For T=0, the energy is K=hf/2. It is not available because the light may be absorbed down to hf/2 (in the average).

Posted - 21 Feb 2006 : 12:59:18

quote:Originally posted by Tommy

To me, it is absurd to believe that matter/waves/fields can exist without a sorresponding source of energy.

It is not a belief; your point supposes that all waves are linear. The soliton, a nonlinear wave, may not loose energy if it is free.

De Broglie did not know the solitons, so that he was unable to bind his "two solutions" into a single wave.

Posted - 21 Feb 2006 : 13:23:43

quote:Originally posted by Tommy

JMB, I think I read you in the stardrive forum, so you are well aware of what the mathemeticians are doing with the ZPE. I'd like to read you say that everything is only classical over there and see how long your letter would last.

Quantum mechanics was my job. It was very difficult to teach it, because the students asked good questions...

My point it that the principles of QM are absurd, while the remainder (the formalism) is evidently powerful.

No problem to introduce Planck's law (therefore the ZPF), and de Broglie's "double solution", thus the interferences with particles, supposing that the particles are solitons. The formalism of QM may be considered as a set of classical recipes.

So good to avoid the absurdities and the paradoxes resulting from the principles of QM!


What is a mystery to me is what is your take on redshift? You say that the CREIL effect can produce redshift that mimics doppler redshift, but I don't think I ever heard you say that this falsifies cosmological Doppler redshift. So, what are you really saying?

The CREIL transfers energy from the hot (trmperature from planck's law) beams to the cold beams while they are refracted in particular gases.These transfers of energy produce frequency shifts. Usually, light is hot, therefore redshifted, the radio is cold, blueshifted.

I am not an astrophysicist, but I know that CREIL may work in neutral atomic hydrogen in states 2S and 2P. Searching where thermodynamics says that this hydrogen exists, one finds that it is just where very high redshifts appear... (other effects are explained too: the blueshift of the radio from Pioneer 10 and 11 ...) Therefore, the foundation of the BB disappears...


If you are saying that there are observed redshifts that are not Doppler, then aren't saying also that the theory that redshift is only Doppler is false?

Yes, there are, at least gravitational and CREIL redshifts. (and various frequency transformations in laser labs !)

Posted - 21 Feb 2006 : 13:28:26

quote:Originally posted by Jim

Tommy, There is little to debate here other than the 2nd law and I am using the process plants use which is called photosysthesis to point out that thermal laws don't apply to energy systems. The same goes for the LED example.

The second law works always: in photosynthesis, there is a big increase of entropy, and in the emission of light by any source too. The CREIL effect obeys this law too.

Posted - 21 Feb 2006 : 13:33:47

quote:Originally posted by Tommy

I believe that all matter is actually a field, and a field is something that forms from a relationship.

The relationships are the ways we are able to understand more easily physics by the use of mathematics.

For me, a particle is a soliton, a nonlinear field. As Maxwel's equations are linear, the photon does not exist.

Posted - 21 Feb 2006 : 13:52:14

quote:Originally posted by Jim

The 2nd law you refering to here is only valid in limited perameters because it is about heat. Heat is not energy as is light, EMF, microwave, radio, x-ray, infrared, or whatever other range radiation is observed at. This is a very important detail that needs to be understood if you want to advance the cause of science. Look at the photosynthesis process as an example; the energy wave plants use in what they do is ~500nm and if you apply thermal rules to this energy you get an operating temperature of ~5,000 kelvin. You can see my point here I hope-plants cook at 350 kelvin and water boils at 373.

The second principle of thermodynamics says that the entropy cannot decrease. Its application supposes that all types of energy have a temperature. Planck's law gives the temperature of light; the temperature of an electric current is very high.

But the principle does not say that the entropy cannot be constant. When light is refracted by a prism, (at least in first approximation, if there is no absorption), the entropy is constant. A led does not heat much, the increase of entropy is lower than in a bulb. In photosynthesis, there is a big increase of entropy, because while the energy got in the synthetised (organic+oxygen) chemical products is very available (hot temperature if they burn !), it represents only about 10% of the input energy.

It is the same problem than in a motor. The increase of entropy is only low in batteries.

Posted - 22 Feb 2006 : 04:20:26

quote:Originally posted by Jim

QM and Planck's law are moot on the detail of temperature and it would be a good thing to remember temperature is a quality of matter and not quality of energy.

In a blackbody, there is no transfer of energy, therefore no increase of the entropy because the amplitudes of the electromagnetic fields obey Planck's law. Thus, Planck's law shows how there is no transfer of energy between waves and matter, exactly as there is no transfer of energy between two solids which have the same temperature.

Thus the light has a temperature (the electrons in a metal too).

Posted - 22 Feb 2006 : 04:34:13

quote:Originally posted by Tommy... there are a hundred different names for what is essentially the same thing.

I generally agree with you. However, remark:

People try the same "new" topic, and it is easy to find details and publish them.

But, only the important discoveries remain.

For instance, there is a lot of publications about the Big Bang, teleportation ... and they will go to the bin.

Posted - 22 Feb 2006 : 05:06:10

quote:Originally posted by Jim

QM and Planck's law are moot on the detail of temperature and it would be a good thing to remember temperature is a quality of matter and not quality of energy.

For EM waves, there are two parameters: the mode and the amplitude in the mode. For a monochromatic mode, Planck's law relates the mode (its frequency) and the amplitude, to define the temperature of a body which cannot exchange energy with the mode. In thermodynamics, by definition, two things which cannot exchange energy have the same temperature.

From the point of view of thermodynamics, (the geometrical characteristics of the mode being not interesting), the density of energy corresponds to energy (Joules), the temperature to...temperature.

Posted - 24 Feb 2006 : 10:30:36

quote:Originally posted by Tommy

If we can't explain a ball of plasma, how can a photon be explained?

It is extremely difficult to study the nonlinear fields. Recently, they were studied enough to explain the properties of the light filaments (if a laser beam propagates in a medium whose index of refraction increases with the electric field for instance by Kerr effect or if the medium is photorefractif), as the field is larger at the centre of the beam, the index of refraction is larger, so that the beam concentrates until it gets the shape of a filament). A light filament has a core in which the field is very nonlinear, and a surrounding evanescent wave. Through their evanescent wave, two beams interact, may be bent. This is observed and computed.

Supposing that a medium has permeability and permittivity increasing with the field, the linear shape of the filament becomes unstable, so that the filament becomes a torus: it is a three dimensional soliton which is stable if there is no loss of energy and no interaction (therefore, it is theory). This torus has a well defined centre, a well defined energy: it is a particle. If this particle crosses one of two Young holes, its evanescent field crosses both producing interferences whose maxima attract the torus.

This shows an example of solution of non-linearised Maxwell's equations, this solution depends on parameters, and there are very probably other types of solutions. It is possible that the plasma balls are such solutions.

In the vacuum, Maxwell equations do not work at high energy, because it may appear electron pairs. Therefore it is not absurd that some particles result from a building of solitons of EM vaves...

At usual frequencies, Maxwell's equations are linear and homogenous, so that it cannot be solitons, it cannot be particles, the photon does not exist.

More: A photon is defined from a "mode" of the EM field. But there are infinite ways to define the modes (in physics, they are not monochromatic), so that there are an infinity of types of photons. Completely absurd.

Posted - 27 Feb 2006 : 04:28:11

quote:Originally posted by Tommy

I think light is made of BOLs. Balls of light. I think that what the balls of light we observe on a almost daily basis, particularily those plasma balls observed floating in air, is a basketball sized (what some would call) photon. Maybe we could call the new photon a nanoson. (nano-sun).

I think it would be confusing. The balls of light use the ionisation of the air to produce the required non-linearity during some seconds. The light may propagate in the vacuum, where the Maxwell's equations are linear, therefore do not allow the formation of solitons.

Posted - 01 Mar 2006 : 04:57:11

quote:Originally posted by Tommy

These "balls of Light" stick around more than a few seconds. You may be right about the ionization, but where is the battery pack?

Usually, the "balls of light" are produced by the lightnings, or by strong electric discharge. I am afraid that your balls of light are not the common ones.

Posted - 02 Mar 2006 : 02:54:46

quote:Originally posted by Tommy

[If there is a non-Doppler effect in the redshift, how much "is" Doppler? Can it be as little as none? And if it is none, whither thou goest expansion?

So...what does cause redshift? I hear two answers, atomic hydrogen and the second is molecular hydrogen. Over...

The largest redshifts are observed in quasars. The very complex spectrum of the quasars is fully understood using a CREIL effect in atomic hydrogen. Thus, a possible Doppler frequency shift is very small.

The CREIL in atomic hydrogen explains the largest part of the frequency shifts of the "Very Red Objects" (VROs), the frequency shift of the radio signals from Pioneer 10 and 11...

Maybe H2+ produces (or contributes) the redshift corresponding to Hubble law. It would be necessary to search Raman resonances close to 100 MHz in its spectrum (which is complicated !).

There is no proof of expansion.

Posted - 10 Mar 2006 : 02:28:24

quote:Originally posted by Tommy

JMB, can you write up a summary?

The CREIL is a coherent light-matter interaction, that is an interaction in which all interacting molecules play the same role with the beams, particularily concerning the phase relations. Consequently the wave surfaces are clean, there is no blur of the images.

The simplest example of coherent process is the refraction, which is a very strong interaction. Other examples are the multiplication of laser frequencies in crystals, more generally frequency combinations and frequency shifts.

The problem is that it is difficult to obtain the coherence, (except for refraction) because for different frequencies the wavelengths are generally different: Tricks are needed; for instance, for frequency doubling, one uses two indices of refraction of a crystal to obtain the same wavelengths at two frequencies.

The CREIL uses "ultrashort light pulses", a bad name, because it is not a characteristic of light, the ultrashort light pulses being "shorter than all relevant time constants". Femtosecond pulses are ultrashort in any matter, but ordinary light made of nanosecond pulses requires long collisional times, therefore low pressure gases, and a quadrupolar resonance (Raman allowed transition) having long enough a period, in the practice a frequency of the order of 100 MHz. In astrophysics, atomic hydrogen works if it is in states of principal quantum number equal to 2.

The CREIL is a transfer of energy which increases the entropy of a set of beams refracted by a convenient medium, by frequency shifts, Usually the high frequencies are redshifted, the radio frequencies are blueshifted.

quote: I want to understand it. Do you have a published paper?

You can find papers including references in, section "physics" numbers 0503070 and 0507141. An more recent paper is in AIP conference proceedings #822 (in press).


I would like to see an explanation of CREIL again. What is Raman resonance" I know what resonance is, what is it about Raman resonance that makes it different?

In coherent effects, there is generally no excitation of the matter (else doubling crystals would break !), therefore no transition, no quantization. Usually "Raman effect" is relative to an incoherent effect, with transitions. In CREIL, Raman resonance means that it COULD be a Raman (quadrupolar electric, dipolar magnetic...) effect.

Posted - 31 Mar 2006 : 02:04:02

quote:Originally posted by Tommy

B.You state that: "the assumption of the Doppler effect being responsible for the shift is only reached due to the absence of other known physical explanations." Can you confirm this also? Is Doppler redshift an assmption?

Yes, but there are not only physical explanations (The CREIL effect), but lab observations, using lasers too. The CREIL effect is an increase of the entropy of a set of EM beams simultaneously refracted in a medium containing neutral atomic hydrogen in states 2S or 2P. Thus, generally, the light is redshifted while the radio waves are blueshifted. This last blueshift explains the "anomalous acceleration" of Pioneer 10 and 11 probes.


... my idea here was that this might be due to the different coherency of the lines (broad lines are less coherent than sharp lines).

You point a fundamental property of all frequency shifts by light-matter interactions.

Posted - 03 Apr 2006 : 02:16:16

quote:Originally posted by Joe Keller

If the "Pioneer deceleration" force, 8*10^(-8)dyne/gram, acts like friction to cause the heat output, then Jupiter's heat output is about 100x (137x?) too low.

Do not loose your time with the "anomalous accelerations" of the Pioneer probes. The blueshift of their radio emissions is produced by a CREIL transfer of energy from the sunlight to the radio (increase of entropy of the set of EM waves). This transfer of energy is allowed by the cooling of the solar wind beyond 5 UA, which generates metastable 2S neutral atomic hydrogen; this hydrogen works as a catalyst to allow the increase of entropy.

Posted - 04 Apr 2006 : 03:31:14

quote:Originally posted by Tommy

And I can ask the same questions in our own solar system, the Sun. THe Cronosphere amomaly, hot from cold, in terms of plasma, keeping in mind Thomas's explanation of photosphere being the cold one, to me looks exactly like the ignition system of old cars.

The problem is very complicated. A partial explanation may be the absorption of far UV light emitted deep by very excited atoms. This light is not much absorbed by the protons, the electrons and neutral atoms, so that it reaches easily the photosphere in which H- atoms absorb much, and reemit light.

Remaining far UV light may be Rayleigh diffracted in the chromosphere, and absorbed by it, heating it.

Posted - 01 May 2006 : 12:43:10

It seems to me simpler to explain the frequency shifts by the same effect: the thermodynamically allowed transfers of energy between light beams refracted by a gas containing excited atomic hydrogen, these transfers of energy producing frequency shifts without any change in the geometry of the beams.

Two blueshifts are observed by a transfer of energy from the solar light to the radiowaves in the excited atomic hydrogen provided by the cooling of the solar wind beyond 5-10 AU: the "acceleration" of the Pioneer 10 and 11 probes and the observation that a part of the anisotropy of the "CMB" is bound to the ecliptic (evidently the wind is bound to the sun through the corona).

The anomalous redshifts of the light are observed each time the light crosses a gas containing excited atomic hydrogen obtained generally by a Lyman alpha absorption in atomic hydrogen. They are so many examples that it is impossible to be precise. Two examples :

- In the observation of Arp's alignements of a galaxy and quasars, the redshift is lower for the galaxy because the hydrogen is more excited (by the quasar far UV radiation) close to the quasar, therefore on the path from the quasar.

- The periodicities observed by a lot of authors are a simple result of the propagation of light in atomic hydrogen; it is trivial physics!

The CREIL is a magic stick : look for neutral atomic hydrogen in states 2S or 2P, you will find anomalous frequency shifts (or, vice-versas).