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

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

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

(Robin Whittle) wrote in message ...

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.

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.

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

I haven't studied this in detail, although I did look at the thesis
cited above. I'll just offer a couple of comments.

a) It doesn't take very much dust to absorb all the ionizing photons.

b) In the usual QSO model, the active nucleus is surrounded by a dusty
torus.

c) Optical searches will preferentially select QSO's where the torus
is pole-on to our line of sight and thus edge-on where the line of
sight to a background QSO passes nearest the foreground QSO.

I suspect the issue could be settled by a combination of infrared
observations to detect the dusty toruses and using hard X-ray
selection to pick unbiased samples. Maybe that has already been done
-- as I say, I didn't look very hard -- but I didn't see any treatment
of these issues at first glance.

Paul F. Deitz wrote:

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.)

I don't assume that the CMB arises from the distant past. Even
if it did, I think plasma redshift would probably preserve its
Planckian spectrum if the inter-particle spacing of the plasma
was greater than the coherence length of the CMB. I imagine
that this would be the case for the Void IGM.

I don't properly understand Ari Brynjolfsson's theory and my own
theory is poorly developed. I can't tell you as a fact that
either mechanism exists, or that they would definitely redshift
light in a way which closely approximates Doppler. My aim is to
suggest that maybe such a mechanism exists, and that it would
have a great deal of explanatory power.


I don't think that the origin of the Cosmic Microwave Background
radiation has anything directly to do with plasma redshift,
though I would expect it to be subject to redshift itself when
travelling in a sufficiently low-density plasma. Search for
Sunyaev-Zeldovich in my page http://astroneu.com/plasma-redshift-1/
for an example of how this might be observed. (I have not yet
read the papers cited by Steve Carlip - I hope to read them soon.)


Just because Big Bang cosmology can be used to explain the CMB
and the abundance of elements does not mean that these phenomena
are evidence for, or proof of, the Big Bang.

For that to be the case it would have to be shown that there was
no other possible explanation for each phenomena. Since there
are any number of ways the Universe could have come into
existence apart from the Big Bang, I can't see how it could be
shown that no other mechanism than the Big Bang could produce
the elemental abundances we observe. The Big Bang involves a
complete suspension of the physics we have experimentally
investigated and at least partially understood today on Earth -
as does any attempt to explain the origins of the matter,
energy, dimensions and forces which constitute that aspect of
the Universe we directly interact with. Since there are
virtually no restrictions on what physics can be invoked to
explain the origin of the Universe, I don't see how it could be
shown that the elemental abundances or CMB could only have been
produced by the Big Bang.

However, if the precise details of the CMB could be shown to fit
the Big Bang theory in ways which seem impossible to match in a
relatively static Universe, then this would be very persuasive.
For instance if there are observations which seem only
explicable as the CMB arising from further away, in space and
time, than any observable object, with those objects altering
its nature in ways which we can't explain in any other way, then
this would be good evidence that the CMB did arise from such a
distance. That would be strongly supportive of the Big Bang theory.

I think we can never know, scientifically, how the three
dimensions, time and the forces (electromagnetism, gravity if
you consider it a force and the strong and weak nuclear forces
if you accept current particle physics theories) came into
being, since the answer must be entirely in terms which are
beyond the three dimensions and time within which our scientific
observations and experiments take place.

We must admit to the limits of our knowledge, just as most Big
Bang theorists disclaim knowledge of what may have given rise to
the Big Bang. By the same principle I think it is perfectly
valid to develop a theory of the Universe in its currently
observed state, whilst admitting that we don't currently
understand how it got to be this way.

Big Bang theorists reckon they know with considerable precision
what happened after a very short time after the Big Bang. If
the evidence for time dilation of distant supernovae light
curves can be successfully challenged (I am yet to read the
various papers cited in this discussion and at Ned Wright's
site) and if some mechanism other than Doppler can be shown to
explain the redshift of light from distant galaxies and quasars,
then we are faced with explaining a Universe which is not
expanding at all, or so fast as to be able to easily trace its
origin to a special event only 15 billion years ago.


Conventional physics and the Big Bang theory do not provide
satisfactory explanations for quasars, galactic structure, dark
matter in the galactic halo, the heating of the solar and
stellar coronae, or the apparently extreme temperature of the
Void IGM.

The large-scale structure of the Universe is evidently one of
galaxy clusters being forced into the gaps between bubble-like
voids. See the "enhanced structures" animation at:

http://www.allthesky.com/various/cfa.html

As far as I know, the Big Bang has no attractive explanation
for this.

I think plasma redshift could explain the apparently very high
temperature (~440 megakelvin) of the Void IGM,

Constraints on a dense hot intergalactic medium.
Field, G. B.; Perrenod, S. C. ApJ 215, 717-722.
1977ApJ...215..717F

and therefore perhaps its high enough pressure to corral
galaxies into the clusters we clearly observe in redshift
surveys. Exactly how stars or galaxies can be confined,
especially by such a low density plasma, is a difficult
question, but I make a few suggestions.

It seems wrong to accept the Big Bang theory as an established
fact when we can't even explain the heating of the solar
transition region and corona or the acceleration and continued
heating of the solar wind. See a review paper on this by Steven
Cranmer and my quotes from this paper at my site.

Coronal Holes and the High Speed Wind
Stephen Cranmer
Space Science Reviews 101: 229–294, 2002:

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~scranmer...er_rev2002.pdf

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

Plasma redshift seems to have a lot of explanatory power -
without invoking new particles, forces or dimensions. It is a
consideration of what happens when short coherence length
wavefronts travel in a vacuum and encounter the particles of a
low-density plasma one-by-one, rather than as part of an
homogenous medium as with higher density plasmas.


If the Universe is not changing rapidly, and is far older than
15 billion years, it is probably not hard to explain
observations such as the abundance of elements and the CMB, at
least to a first approximation.

I can't say for sure where the CMB comes from, but I point out
on my page how easy it is to think of reasonably plausible
explanations without the Big Bang. It is easy to imagine that
galaxies are old enough to accumulate a halo of spent,
collapsed, stars (black dwarfs) which would cool to the
CMB temperature and radiate the CMB, warmed only by distant
starlight and of course the CMB itself. That could explain the
dark matter problem as well - again without recourse to new
physics. I propose some ideas as to why these black dwarfs
would be ejected from the star-filled disc of a spiral galaxy
and acqure elliptical orbits in the greater halo. Perhaps, over
time, they would collide and fracture into smaller chunks with
greater surface area - and less chance of being detected by
gravitational lensing. These are just thoughts - to show its
not hard to think of explanations for important observations
without the Big Bang.

I will follow up the critiques on supernovae time dilation and
the CMB. I would *really* like to know what Big Bang supporters
think of the failure to find the Transverse Proximity Effect
with foreground quasars:

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


- Robin

[This is perhaps as much philosophy of science as it is astronomy, but
with the moderators' forbearance...]
"RW" == Robin Whittle writes:

RW Just because Big Bang cosmology can be used to explain the CMB and
RW the abundance of elements does not mean that these phenomena are
RW evidence for, or proof of, the Big Bang.

RW For that to be the case it would have to be shown that there was
RW no other possible explanation for each phenomena.

This is an impossible criterion, one that could be met by no model.
There are probably an infinite number of explanations for these
phenomena. Astronomers and physicists are interested in the most
simple explanation that explains all of the data.

RW [...] The Big Bang involves a complete suspension of the physics
RW we have experimentally investigated and at least partially
RW understood today on Earth - as does any attempt to explain the
RW origins of the matter, energy, dimensions and forces which
RW constitute that aspect of the Universe we directly interact with.
[...]

This represents a common misconception about the Big Bang model, based
largely on how the Big Bang model is presented in popular science
presentations.

The Big Bang model is a model for the *evolution* of the Universe that
follows from a straightforward application of general relativity under
certain simple assumptions. GR has been well-tested in the solar
system and found to be accurate to high precisions. There are also
tests of GR utilizing pulsar systems that, again, GR passes with high
precision.

The Big Bang model is silent on the issue of the *origin* of the
Universe. That is, if one takes the Universe to have begun at a time
t = t_0 = 0, the Big Bang model describes the conditions in the
Universe at times after t_0, t t_0. Depending upon how well one
believes we understand physics determines how close to t_0 one
believes we can understand.

RW However, if the precise details of the CMB could be shown to fit
RW the Big Bang theory in ways which seem impossible to match in a
RW relatively static Universe, then this would be very persuasive.
RW For instance if there are observations which seem only explicable
RW as the CMB arising from further away, in space and time, than any
RW observable object, with those objects altering its nature in ways
RW which we can't explain in any other way, then this would be good
RW evidence that the CMB did arise from such a distance. That would
RW be strongly supportive of the Big Bang theory.

See the observations of the various fine structure lines in distant
objects which indicate that the CMB was hotter in the past.


--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

Robin Whittle wrote:
Paul F. Deitz wrote:


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.)


I don't assume that the CMB arises from the distant past.

This idea also has insurmountable problems. A thermal
radiation bath must come from an emitter that is optically
thick at the relevant wavelengths (and in thermal equilibrium
with the radiation). The near universe is not optically thick
-- we can see galaxies in millimeter waves out to cosmological
distances.

Paul

"Robin Whittle" wrote in message
...

If the evidence for time dilation of distant supernovae light
curves can be successfully challenged (I am yet to read the
various papers cited in this discussion and at Ned Wright's
site) and if some mechanism other than Doppler can be
shown to explain the redshift of light from distant galaxies
and quasars, [...]

The evidence for time dilation of distant supernovae light
curves actually supports the idea that the universe is not
expanding. It is because this effect is consistent with a
variation of Einsteinian theory of gravity, in which (unlike
in the big bang cosmology) it is assumed that the principle
of conservation of energy is valid absolutely. This
assumption implies so called "general time dilation" (the
time at distance from observer running slower) through
which the predicted Hubble's constant in a stationary
space is so close to the observed 70 km/s/Mpc, that
what is left for the expansion is so small that it might
sugest no expansion at all. So if energy is conserved
we already have an explanation of Hubble type
redshift as it is described in:

http://www.geocities.com/wlodekj/sci/3263.htm

I also asked Ned Write to falsify these results so we
would have a clean situation but he didn't respond so
apparently this variation of Einstein's theory is not
easy to falsify.(actually it is an original version, with
energy conserved automatically through the vanishing
divergence of stress-energy tensor, just the big bang
cosmology modified it a little bit by dropping
conservation of energy to allow for the expanding
universe).

BTW, this variation of Einstein's theory also predicts
that the universe has to look as if its apparent
expansion were accelerating, which might be handy
sometimes in the future when the attempts on "dark
energy" fail.

A downside though is that to adopt this variation
of Einstein's theory on has to drop symmetry of the
spacetime metric (which Einstein proposed in 1950,
in his "On the Generalized Theory of Gravitation")
and, as I suspect, also to drop the Riemannian
geometry as the geometry of the spacetime and
replace it with a bit more complicated non
Riemannian one. More trouble for mathematicians
but astronomers should benefit from those changes.

-- Jim

In article , "Jim Jastrzebski"
writes:

The evidence for time dilation of distant supernovae light
curves actually supports the idea that the universe is not
expanding. It is because this effect is consistent with a
variation of Einsteinian theory of gravity, in which (unlike
in the big bang cosmology) it is assumed that the principle
of conservation of energy is valid absolutely.

http://www.geocities.com/wlodekj/sci/3263.htm

Can you give a brief list of testable predictions this theory makes?