|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Need recent data for red shift vs. distance for stars
Ok. My theory basically is that there should be another explanation to the
red shift than doppler shift. My theory suggest that light, like any other particle, is radio-active. So a phton of light has its energy given: E = h v Where v (nu) is the frequency, and it's momentum given as: p = h/lambda Where lambda is wave length. Now if a light be radio active and instead of H atom or nutron emits another photon we would have: E = h v1 = h v2 + h v3 The reason that I put is that the average frequency and not a sharp frequency, because of uncertainty principle. Now, let's assume that v3 is balck body radiation associated with 4 Deg K that is coming from all corners of universe. Now if we crunch the numbers and try to find out what is the half life of the light. That is light coming from closer objects may have gone through a few radio active reaction and the light that is coming from far. So in general we have: E=hv1-n.v3 + n h v3 This could mean that the reason that the far objects have larger red shift than closer objects is because the light coming from them has gone through many radio active like reaction. Also this could explain why there is a background 4 Deg K radioation. Further more, it suggests that 4 Deg K radiation pattern may be a fundamental particle (photon) in our universe. The problem with doppler shift is that it asumes light will not change indefinately. This of course is the case in earth, solar system or our galactical neighbourhood. But we should not assume this is the case for over 1000s of light years distance (or time) frame. Looking at it from classical point of view: Using Maxwell's euation we can drive the speed of light to be constant and a function of u and e of free space. It is widely assumed that u and e are constant all over universe. We know u and e could become tanser in say ferride materials, so it is possible that some where far from our galaxy u and e are not constats and have tenser like property. Or u and e have very small non axial component that are many order of magnitude smaller than the axial componant. This means the light over large distances could go through rotation and/or frequency despersion. Further more we have not proven that u and e of free space are not time dependent. So there are these and many other questions that make me want to examine "the red-shift caused by doppler shift effect" religion scientifically. Regards, Babak Sehari Ps. Please feel free to point me to a prove why u and e are not a function of time or 100,000s light year from earth space have the same property as around here, or photon's half life is indefinate. Then I accept your "the red-shift caused by doppler shift effect" religion. "eyelessgame" wrote in message om... "Babak Sehari" wrote in message ... I would like to thank all the people who posted their answer to my question. I trying another theory to explain the red shift. Therefore, I needed the data. Upon completion of my calculations I post the results for your review. Thansks, Babak You're just a /tad/ premature in coming up with "another theory to explain the red shift" if you are so uninformed as not even to have the redshift data available to you. Exactly how much of this have you studied? With your alternative theory, be sure to explain the CMBR, the cosmological constant problem, the recent speedup of the universe, the curvature of the universe, the match of redshift to cepheids, the younger population stars in higher-redshift galaxies, and about a dozen other lines of evidence for the current consensus view. You've got a bit more to explain than just redshift. Trying to change one law of physics is like trying to eat one peanut. Best of luck, thouhg. eyelessgame |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Need recent data for red shift vs. distance for stars
"Babak Sehari" wrote in message ...
Ok. My theory basically is that there should be another explanation to the red shift than doppler shift. OK. My theory suggest that light, like any other particle, is radio-active. Where's your data suggesting that this is the case? Show the published papers -- or present for publication any papers -- that have demonstrated the radioactivity of photons, and we'll have a good place to start. [snip rest till we hear from him here] eyelessgame |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Need recent data for red shift vs. distance for stars
"Babak Sehari" wrote in message ...
Ok. My theory basically is that there should be another explanation to the red shift than doppler shift. OK. My theory suggest that light, like any other particle, is radio-active. Where's your data suggesting that this is the case? Show the published papers -- or present for publication any papers -- that have demonstrated the radioactivity of photons, and we'll have a good place to start. [snip rest till we hear from him here] eyelessgame |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pioneer 10 rx error and tx frequencies? | ralph sansbury | Astronomy Misc | 132 | February 8th 04 09:45 PM |
Red shift and homogeneity | George Dishman | Astronomy Misc | 162 | January 4th 04 09:57 AM |
Unreliable Pioneer Data in Anderson Paper | ralph sansbury | Astronomy Misc | 9 | November 9th 03 11:43 PM |
Newbie Seeks Red Shift data | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 7 | September 4th 03 01:57 PM |
Little Red Riding Hood asks Grey Wolf | greywolf42 | Astronomy Misc | 13 | August 30th 03 10:23 PM |