Plasma redshift, coronal heating, QSOs, CMB, DM halos etc.

I have a very long page at:

http://astroneu.com/plasma-redshift-1/

concerning two theories by which light is redshifted by a plasma
which is of such a low density that the inter-particle spacing
generally exceeds the coherence length of the light. This leads
the wavefront to travel in an inhomogenous medium: primarily
vacuum with occasional discrete interactions with particles
which slow down parts of the wavefront.

I point to Ari Brynjolfsson's highly mathematically developed
theory:

Redshift of photons penetrating a hot plasma
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401420

and discuss my own, which is far less developed, but probably
easier to understand.

These are tired light theories and I have written to Ned Wright
asking him to link to my page from his critique:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

If a theory such as plasma redshift turns out to be valid, then
the Big Bang theory would probably be shown to be largely or
wholly invalid. But the Big Bang theory creates many problems,
particularly for explaining quasars, because of the extreme
distances and luminosities the theory insists on for these
objects. These problems include the Compton catastrophe, the
rapid variations in flux and the commonplace so-called
"superluminal" motion of jet components - all of which will
probably be resolved if high redshift quasars are considered to
be at distances comparable to lower redshift galaxies.

Plasma redshift would explain most of the redshift of quasars as
occurring close to them in a locally concentrated zone of IGM.
The cosmological redshift of galaxies would probably be shown to
be plasma redshift, rather than Doppler shift due to their
recession from us, AKA "the expansion of the Universe".

There are a number of really important, well observed phenomena
which we do not currently understand at all. I think these
should be well understood before anyone is confident about a
theory such as the Big Bang. These problems include the
missing mass of galaxies (to explain their rotation and probably
their velocities in clusters), the heating of the solar corona
and the acceleration of the solar wind.

I think that the failure to find the transverse proximity effect
with a foreground quasar is a robust challenge to the
conventional view of redshift and the velocities and distances
of quasars and galaxies.

Disproving a theory and replacing it with nothing more than a
realisation that we don't have a good theory is perfectly good
scientific progress. Nonetheless it is customary and persuasive
to provide a new theory as a drop-in replacement and to use that
theory as the foundation of new and more elegant explanations of
observations which were previously explained with the old theory.

I show that once the Universe is considered to be *lot* older
than 15 billion years, it is not hard to think of
plausible-sounding mechanisms to explain observations such as
the foam-like large-scale structure and the CMB.

There's a lot of material on my page which will hopefully be
interesting, but it may lead to blood-pressure anisotropy in
those who are sick of critiques of the Big Bang theory.

This page is a work-in-progress so please let me know your
critiques, suggestions for improvement etc. via email or via
sci.astro.research.

Below I list some topics my page covers.

- Robin



Coronal heating and solar wind acceleration.

Spicules and prominences.

The energy of light encountered by each particle (electron,
proton, ion etc.) close to the Sun is about 64 microwatts - the
amount of sunlight on Earth which passes through a hole 0.24 mm
in diameter.

I estimate the redshift of light required to heat the solar
corona etc. is at least 3 parts per million - but this is not
observed in the redshift of photospheric absorption lines. I
give a potential explanation based on the long coherence
length of these lines request that critics cut this young
theory some slack for a while regarding this apparent
discrepancy. (This is for my theory - Ari Brynjolfsson has
other mechanisms besides plasma redshift for heating and
acceleration. It seems that the gravitational redshift is not
observed in photospheric lines either - he has a theory why.)

If plasma redshift can redshift light by one part in 13 billion
(a millimetre in the diameter of the Earth) for every year it
spends travelling in the Inter Galactic Medium, then there's no
reason to believe that the cosmological redshift is caused by
Doppler movement / expansion of the Universe.

Combining the catalogues of the 2dFGRS and 2QZ surveys.

The CMB may be caused by black dwarfs and their collision
fragments - a dark matter halo around galaxies. (Galaxies can
be plenty old enough to produce a vast graveyard of black dwarfs
once we accept that the Universe is far older than the Big Bang
theory suggests.)

Largescale structure of the Universe (Be sure to see the "3D"
rotating visualisation of the CfA galaxy redshifts:
http://www.allthesky.com/various/cfa.html )

X-ray background suggests Void IGM is at 440,000,000K - which
could be explained by plasma redshift. Such temperatures lead
to pressures which corral galaxies into clusters in the spaces
between the void "bubbles". I suggest the void does this by
constraining denser Intra-Cluster IGM, which is somehow
gravitationally and/or frictionally coupled to the visible
galaxies and their dark matter halos.

Some inconclusive thoughts on the Fingers of God galaxy redshift
scatter effect.

Failure to find the Transverse Proximity Effect (AKA Foreground
Proximity Effect) with a foreground quasar leads the researchers
to contemplate three implausible and probably provably wrong
explanations within conventional Big Bang cosmology. However
they do not seem to consider that this well-established failure
to find the predicted effect constitutes solid evidence that
quasars are not at the distances they believe them to be.
(I wrote to the researchers a few weeks ago.)

I propose that most of the redshift of high redshift quasars is
caused by a more concentrated IGM (gravitationally - the quasar
feeds on it) around the quasar, leading to more plasma redshift
per parsec than is usual in the Void IGM.

Some speculative thoughts on low-FIP fractionation of elements
in the solar upper chromosphere and on the variations in wind
speed according to the state of the atmosphere from which it
originates.

Possible indirect lab tests of plasma redshift and/or the role
of low-coherence light (sunlight) in chromospheric element
fractionation.

Robin Whittle wrote:

These are tired light theories and I have written to Ned Wright
asking him to link to my page from his critique:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

Tired light theories have very serious problems, as described
on Prof. Wright's pages. The identification of new putative mechanisms
for the light to tire does not get around the problems.

Paul

(Robin Whittle) writes:

I have a very long page at:

http://astroneu.com/plasma-redshift-1/

concerning two theories by which light is redshifted by a plasma
which is of such a low density that the inter-particle spacing
generally exceeds the coherence length of the light. This leads
the wavefront to travel in an inhomogenous medium: primarily
vacuum with occasional discrete interactions with particles
which slow down parts of the wavefront.

The obvious problem with all non-Doppler redshift theories is that
the Type Ia Supernova (SnIa) observations clearly show an observed
time dilation effect that is completely consistent with their observed
redshift. Any "tired light" or "dispersion" theory that does not invoke
a time-varying medium must necessarily fail miserably to explain the SnIa
observations, because two photons emitted at times separated by "\Delta T"
when they enter the medium must _still_ be separated by a time difference
"\Delta T" when they leave the medium. Therefore, such theories =CANNOT=
explain why an SnIa light curve is also stretched out in time by a factor
that is completely consistent with its observed redshift.


-- Gordon D. Pusch

perl -e '$_ = \n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'

Robin,

You may want to check out my discussion 'Redshift Mechanisms and
Supernova Lightcurves' (
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl...erv.aei.mpg.de
). My own suggestion for the 'cosmological' redshift is also a plasma
theory dependent on the interparticle distance but it uses solely the
wave theory of light and involves no scattering and collision
processes at all (which certainly would have observable consequences).


With regard to the 'Coronal Heating' problem you may want to check out
my webpage http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/sun.htm .
Basically, its point is that the coronal temperature is in fact the
'natural' temperature of the sun (as given by the gravitational
potential) and the photosphere is a region cooled by inelastic
collisions.

Best regards,
Thomas

P.S.: Please note that I have blocked the mailbox given above due to
spam. If you want to contact me directly, go to the website for
contact details.

Paul and Gordon, my page points to Ned Wright's tired light
critique and acknowledges that if distant supernovae light
curves are genuinely stretched in direct proportion to the
observed redshift then this constitutes an excellent disproof of
any tired light theory explaining that redshift. My initial
impression was that this approach could be subject to errors
regarding proper correction for extinction etc. I will try to
scrutinise the key papers listed at:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#TD


What do you think about the failure to find the Transverse
Proximity Effect with a foreground quasar?

If Big Bang cosmology is correct, then the redshift of light
from distant quasars occurs in easily predicted locations along
the sightline from the quasar to Earth. This would mean that
the failure to find the transverse proximity effect with a
foreground quasar must be explained by one or more of three
extremely unlikely (considering that the effect has not been
found in any of the cases examined in detail) or provably
non-existent (in a particular case) mechanisms.

The TPE effect is expected according to Big Bang cosmology - the
foreground quasar is believed to lie close to the sightline to a
background quasar and the foreground quasar is predicted to
ionize all neutral H in its vicinity, which should result in an
absence of Lyman alpha absorption in the spectrum of the
background quasar at a wavelength corresponding to the redshift
of the foreground quasar. The repeated failure to find this
effect leaves investigators to choose between three
alternatives, which can be identified, if not fully described as:

1 - The foreground quasar turns on and off - and was off
at the time it would have had to be on to ionize the
neutral H in the sightline to the background quasar.

2 - The foreground quasar's light (UV at least) is beamed
towards us and does not affect the sightline to the
background quasar.

3 - The foreground quasar is surrounded by a cloud which
prevents its light from ionizing the neutral H in the
sightline to the background quasar.

However, a simpler explanation is that the redshift of light
from these quasars happens primarily near them (due to plasma
redshift or some other such process) so firstly the quasars are
closer than usually assumed and secondly the redshift along the
sightline doesn't happen in a linear or easily predictable
fashion. In this explanation, we have no clear idea of the
distances to the quasars. Maybe the so-called "background"
quasar, the one with the higher redshift, is closer than the
lower redshift quasar, but has more of its total redshift
occurring in the region close to it.

The most recent papers on the failure to find the Transverse
Proximity Effect with a foreground quasar have not yet been
published, but the pre-prints, and a PhD thesis by Michael
Schirber are pointed to from:

http://astroneu.com/plasma-redshift-1/#TPE

and are listed below.

- Robin


Michael Schirber's thesis, section 8, page 160 (page 175 in
the PDF):
Sources, Sinks and Scatterers of the Ultra-Violet Background
http://www.ohiolink.edu/etd/view.cgi?osu1072842778
http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~astro/thesis.pdf

The Transverse Proximity Effect: A Probe to the Environment,
Anisotropy, and Megayear Variability of QSOs
Michael Schirber, Jordi Miralda-Escude, Patrick McDonald
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0307563

Ionizing radiation fluctuations and large-scale structure in
the Lyman-alpha forest
Rupert A.C. Croft http://astrophysics.phys.cmu.edu/~rcroft/
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310890

Hi Thomas,

My page http://astroneu.com/plasma-redshift-1/#Other-theories
links to the discussion you cite and to your site
http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/#A11 . I can't follow
your mathematics or understand your theory on a physical basis.
How close is your theory to Ari Brynjolfsson's or mine?


I haven't linked to or discussed your theory about the
temperature of the solar corona:

http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/sun.htm

because my cursory reading of it gave me the impression you are
explaining a static temperature which is simply cooled at the
photosphere. I believe that what really needs to be explained
is how cooler material from the chromosphere is dramatically
heated and blasted out into space on a continual basis, a
process which seems to involve an energy budget of at least 3
parts per million of the total solar flux. Estimates of the
total coronal heating energy requirement, including active
regions, are much higher than this.

Does your theory attempt to explain the heating and
accelleration of the corona and solar wind, from the
transition region out to way beyond 1AU?

- Robin

On Tue, 11 May 2004 08:12:45 GMT,
(Gordon D. Pusch) wrote:
The obvious problem with all non-Doppler redshift theories is that
the Type Ia Supernova (SnIa) observations clearly show an observed
time dilation effect that is completely consistent with their observed
redshift.

Whilst appreciating the importance of this point, has the SNIa time
dilation ever been formally analyzed or refereed? Back in 1998 when
Leibundgut's High-z Supernova search team and Perlmutter's Supernova
Cosmology group were starting operations, the standard modus operandi
was to apply the time dilation to the supernova curves as an assumed
fact. This method was not really questioned; I remember Leibundgut
had some qualms about this but he seems to have fallen into step with
the others. However, not all papers apply this technique;
specifically, astro-ph/0309368 shows 11 unadjusted light curves in a
range of z=.35 to z=.86, and I see no z-dependence on the light curve
widths. At least, I think those curves are unadjusted; I see no
mention of applying any z-correction.

A pointer to any formal analysis on this question in a published paper
would be much appreciated.

Eric

Robin Whittle wrote:
Paul and Gordon, my page points to Ned Wright's tired light
critique and acknowledges that if distant supernovae light
curves are genuinely stretched in direct proportion to the
observed redshift then this constitutes an excellent disproof of
any tired light theory explaining that redshift.

That is not the only argument against tired light. The argument
from the CMB radiation is also very strong (tired light does
not preserve 'black body'-ness of a radiation bath, but the CMB
is thermal to very high precision, requiring incredible coincidences
for TL to work.)

Paul

(Eric Flesch) writes:

On Tue, 11 May 2004 08:12:45 GMT,
(Gordon D. Pusch) wrote:
The obvious problem with all non-Doppler redshift theories is that
the Type Ia Supernova (SnIa) observations clearly show an observed
time dilation effect that is completely consistent with their observed
redshift.

Whilst appreciating the importance of this point, has the SNIa time
dilation ever been formally analyzed or refereed? ...

Yes. [ ref. 1 ]

Craig


References
1. Goldhaber et al 2001 , ApJ, 558, 359 (astro-ph/0104382)

(Eric Flesch) writes:

On Tue, 11 May 2004 08:12:45 GMT,
(Gordon D. Pusch) wrote:
The obvious problem with all non-Doppler redshift theories is that
the Type Ia Supernova (SnIa) observations clearly show an observed
time dilation effect that is completely consistent with their observed
redshift.

Whilst appreciating the importance of this point, has the SNIa time
dilation ever been formally analyzed or refereed? Back in 1998 when
Leibundgut's High-z Supernova search team and Perlmutter's Supernova
Cosmology group were starting operations, the standard modus operandi
was to apply the time dilation to the supernova curves as an assumed
fact. This method was not really questioned; I remember Leibundgut
had some qualms about this but he seems to have fallen into step with
the others. However, not all papers apply this technique;
specifically, astro-ph/0309368 shows 11 unadjusted light curves in a
range of z=.35 to z=.86, and I see no z-dependence on the light curve
widths. At least, I think those curves are unadjusted; I see no
mention of applying any z-correction.

Unfortunately, the human eye is not particularly good at picking out that
sort of thing from a set of dozens of independent "thumbnail" plots,
as presented in this paper. The differences become much more obvious
when they are all plotted on the same scale, as in the second figure
on http://www.nd.edu/~kkrisciu/supernovae.html.


A pointer to any formal analysis on this question in a published paper
would be much appreciated.

Go back to the paper you cited, and re-read the discussion of the
"light curve template fitting procedure" in the bottom paragraph of
the left column of p.8, where it states "The light curve model has
four parameters [...]: The time of rest-frame B-band maximum light,
[...] and timescale stretch `s'." (See also the definition of their
"corrected" observer-frame time t' in terms of the redshift and
fitted B-band "stretch" factors, halfway down the right column of p.8)


-- Gordon D. Pusch

perl -e '$_ = \n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'