SNe Ia DATA ARE COMPATIBLE WITH A STABLE UNIVERSE

greywolf42 wrote in message news:...
Joseph Lazio wrote in message
...

MTW claims that "Ya. B. Zel'dovich (1963) gives a penetrating analysis of
the difficulties with any such ideas." Both Bjoern and Joseph have claimed
that MTW is only a "summary" of Zel'dovich. Of course, neither of them have
read Zel'dovich.

For the record, the title of Zel'dovich's paper (which is not given in MTW)
is: "The Theory of the Expanding Universe as Originated by A.A. Fridman" I
should also note a small typo in MTW. This paper begins on page 475, not
474.

{snip higher levels}

g If there is no calculation, then there is no valid argument. May I
g suggest you first try identifying an objective criterion (...) for
g 'blurrier than expected' -- in the age of active corrective optics.

For the record Misner, Thorne, & Wheeler summarize an argument that
they attribute to Zel'dovich (1963, English translation in Soviet
Physics, vol. 6, p. 474, 1964).

MTW's index includes 'redshift - tired light does not explain' on page
775. This explanation is all of 2/3 of a page -- and includes not a
single calculation. Just a string of proofs-by-assertion, combined
with snide deprecation of the entire concept. (I guess this is what
Carlip calls 'motivating' the students.):

"No one has ever put forward a satisfactory explanation for the
cosmological redshift other than the expansion of the universe
(see below). The idea has been proposed at various times by various
authors that some new process is at work ('tired light') in which
photons interact with atoms or electrons on their way from source to
receptor, and thereby lose bits and pieces of their energy.
Ya. B. Zel'dovich (1963) gives a penetrating analysis of the
difficulties with any such ideas:

I will now add the missing words from Zel'dovich's 'tired light' section to
the quote included in MTW. This is section 11, entitled "Red Shift, or
Aging of Quanta?". Due to the preexisting quote-within-a-quote of MTW, I
will indicate the additional wording from Zel'dovich with dashed lines"

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From time to time more or less vague ideas are put forward about the "aging"
of photons, about some sort of mechanism of energy loss from the photons, in
which the fraction of the energy lost increases with the distance travelled
by the photon. There are at least three very weighty objections to such
ideas:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"(1) 'If the energy loss is caused by an interaction with the
intergalactic matter, it is accompanied by a transfer of momentum: that
is, there is a change of the direction of motion of the photon. There
would then be a smearing out of images; a distant star would be seen
as a disc, not a point, and that is not what is observed.'

{There is no 'summarization' of Zel'dovich 1) in MTW. That's the 'full'
argument. And, of course, the argument under discussion is the 'smearing'
argument. Which has no support whatsoever in Zel'dovich.}

(2) 'Let us suppose that the photon
decays, gamma -- gamma' + k, giving up a small part of its energy to some
particle, k. It follows from the conservation laws that k must move in
the direction of the photon (this, by the way, avoids a smearing out), and
must have zero rest mass. Because of the statistical nature of the
process, however, some photons would lose more energy than others,
and there would be a spectral broadening of the lines, which is not
observed.'

{There is no 'summarization' of Zel'dovich 2) in MTW. That's the 'full'
argument.}

"(3) If there does not exist any such decay process, then simple arguments
of special relativity that Zel'dovich attributes to M.P. Bronshtein, and
spells out in detail, demand the relationship

(probability per second of 'photon decay') = (a universal constant with
the dimensions sec-2) / (frequency of photon in sec-1)

{MTW's #3, above is the following in Zel'dovich:}
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3) Finally, the most important theoretical argument is due to the Leningrad
physicist M.P. Bronshtein, who was lost to us by an untimely death.

We ask the question: if there were such a process, how could the decay
probability w for a photon depend on its frequency?

At first glance we would have from the dimensions w = A omega, since w and
omega have the same dimensions (sec^-1); a definite probability of decay per
vibration.

Actually, as Bronshtein showed, the only possible answer is w = B / omega,
with a dimensional constant B (sec^-2). The point is that the individual
vibrations in a light wave are perceived only by an observer past whom the
wave travels. The frequency is different for a moving observer.
Bronshtein's result follows from the special theory of relativity. It is
most simply derived by thinking of the well known relation between the
lifetime and the energy of a particle, as verivfied experimentally for
mesons (mu and pi).

It is well known that T = T_0 (1 - beta^2)^-1/2, where T is the lifetime of
a moving meson as measured by a stationary observer, T_0 is the lifetime of
a stationary meson, and beta = v/c, where v is the speed of motion and c is
the speed of light. On the other hand the energy of the moving meson is

E = m_0 c^2 / sqrt(1 - beta^2)

where m_0 is its rest mass. Consequently, we can relate the decay
probability w to the energy of the moving meson:

W = 1 / T = sqrt(1 - beta^2) / T = m_0 c^2 / T_0 E = A / E

This relation is a universal one which follows from the Lorentz
transformation. For the photno we must assume that m_0 -- 0, but
simultaneously T_0 -- 0, so that the ratio m_0 c^2 / T_0 has a definite
value. In a paticular coordinate system we express the energy of the photon
in terms of its frequency

E = h_bar omega,

and we get

W = A / h_bar omega = B / omega.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

'Thus,' Zel'dovich concludes, 'if the decay of photons is possible at all,
those in radio waves must decay especially rapidly! This would mean that
the Maxwell equation for a static electric field would have to be
changed..."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(since this is the limit of radio waves as the frequency goes to zero), and
this is very unpleasant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"There is no experimental indication of such effects: the radio-frequency
radiation from distant sources is transmitted to us not a bit more poorly
than visible light, and the red shift measured in different parts of teh
spectrum is exactly the same. ... "

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-- delta w / w is constant and corresponds to a single velocity.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"Thus, suggestions that there is an
explanation of the red shift other than Friedmann's fail completely.'"

That is the end of Zel'dovich's section 11.

We can see that MTW's printing of of only a vague reference to Bronshtein
and special relativity serves the purpose of avoiding a truly horrendously
bad misapplication of SR and handwaving. The essence of the 'argument' is
that because mesons decay more slowly with speed, that photon 'decay' must
be energy dependent. The foundation of this argument is simply the claim
that the units of particle decay (per second) are the same as the units of
photon frequency (per second).

No wonder MTW wouldn't print it in detail!

So my prior analyses were exact for MTW / Zel'dovich 1) and 2). And they
were overly generous for Zel'dovich 3).

The point is -- that so far, no one has shown such a calculation.
(Possibly, one exists in Zel'dovich. But that's now the fourth generation
of asserted reference.) Hence, the claim in MTW (and by Ned Wright, and
by Bjoern and yourself) is a false statement. There is no 'for the
record'.

Zel'dovich's claim #1 is not a calculation, and demonstrates a fundamental
ignorance about images received in telescopes. *ALL* stellar images are
at best gaussian disks -- NEVER points. (Unless, like the hubble, the
mirror was aberrated and all images must be corrected by computer.)
Gaussian disks are exactly what one would expect from a scattering
process described by Zel'dovich. The key is -- how wide will the disk
be to fwhm?

Zel'dovich's claim #2 is false on many levels. There is not need for a
particle if it is a quantum or aether effect, there is nothing wrong with
particles (initially) moving in the direction of the photon, there would
be no spectral broadening.

Zel'dovich's claim #3 is a pure strawman (and a misapplication of SR). It
is apparently this fraudulent claim that is the source of the claim of the
need for 'new physics' one sees parroted by DHRs.

Also, by mentioning only 'tired light' for redshift, MTW avoid mentioning
other possible sources of non-cosmogenic redshifts (i.e. Arp).


DHRs always assert that somebody, somewhere, at some unknown time must have
done the calculation that disproves things. I ran a contest for awhile
digging back to the origin of such claims. So far, every one began with a
silly 'sounds reasonable' statement, sans calculation. Then the grapevine
gets ahold of it and repeats it without ever checking.

The Zel'dovich fiasco is just the latest in the string of relativist
self-deceit.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

greywolf42 wrote:

greywolf42 wrote in message news:...
Joseph Lazio wrote in message
...

MTW claims that "Ya. B. Zel'dovich (1963) gives a penetrating analysis of
the difficulties with any such ideas." Both Bjoern and Joseph have claimed
that MTW is only a "summary" of Zel'dovich.

IIRC, I didn't claim this, I only said that what is written in MTW
*looks* like a summary to me - and I pointed out to you that *Joseph*
said it is a summary.


Of course, neither of them have read Zel'dovich.

Right, I admit this. It isn't available here directly in my library, and
I haven't gone through the trouble to get it via interlending yet.


For the record, the title of Zel'dovich's paper (which is not given in MTW)

According to my experience, it's quite common in the physical literature
to give only the author, journal, year and page number, but not the
title in the references.


is: "The Theory of the Expanding Universe as Originated by A.A. Fridman"

Is there a typo here? Shouldn't this be "Friedman"? (just a question for
clarification, no flame intended)


I should also note a small typo in MTW. This paper begins on page 475, not
474.

Thanks for pointing this out.


{snip higher levels}

g If there is no calculation, then there is no valid argument. May I
g suggest you first try identifying an objective criterion (...) for
g 'blurrier than expected' -- in the age of active corrective optics.

For the record Misner, Thorne, & Wheeler summarize an argument that
they attribute to Zel'dovich (1963, English translation in Soviet
Physics, vol. 6, p. 474, 1964).

MTW's index includes 'redshift - tired light does not explain' on page
775. This explanation is all of 2/3 of a page -- and includes not a
single calculation. Just a string of proofs-by-assertion, combined
with snide deprecation of the entire concept. (I guess this is what
Carlip calls 'motivating' the students.):

"No one has ever put forward a satisfactory explanation for the
cosmological redshift other than the expansion of the universe
(see below). The idea has been proposed at various times by various
authors that some new process is at work ('tired light') in which
photons interact with atoms or electrons on their way from source to
receptor, and thereby lose bits and pieces of their energy.
Ya. B. Zel'dovich (1963) gives a penetrating analysis of the
difficulties with any such ideas:

I will now add the missing words from Zel'dovich's 'tired light' section to
the quote included in MTW.

Thanks.


This is section 11, entitled "Red Shift, or
Aging of Quanta?". Due to the preexisting quote-within-a-quote of MTW, I
will indicate the additional wording from Zel'dovich with dashed lines"

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From time to time more or less vague ideas are put forward about the "aging"
of photons, about some sort of mechanism of energy loss from the photons, in
which the fraction of the energy lost increases with the distance travelled
by the photon. There are at least three very weighty objections to such
ideas:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"(1) 'If the energy loss is caused by an interaction with the
intergalactic matter, it is accompanied by a transfer of momentum: that
is, there is a change of the direction of motion of the photon. There
would then be a smearing out of images; a distant star would be seen
as a disc, not a point, and that is not what is observed.'

{There is no 'summarization' of Zel'dovich 1) in MTW. That's the 'full'
argument.

O.k., I admit I had been wrong on this.


And, of course, the argument under discussion is the 'smearing'
argument. Which has no support whatsoever in Zel'dovich.}

My guess would be that he did an on-the-back-of-an-envelope estimate for
this, but didn't bother to publish this explicitly. Your guess,
apparently, is that he didn't bother to do an actual calculation, but
simply thought "Hey, that looks like a good argument, let's publish it!
I hope no one will notice that I didn't present any numbers on this!".


(2) 'Let us suppose that the photon
decays, gamma -- gamma' + k, giving up a small part of its energy to some
particle, k. It follows from the conservation laws that k must move in
the direction of the photon (this, by the way, avoids a smearing out), and
must have zero rest mass. Because of the statistical nature of the
process, however, some photons would lose more energy than others,
and there would be a spectral broadening of the lines, which is not
observed.'

{There is no 'summarization' of Zel'dovich 2) in MTW. That's the 'full'
argument.}

See above. Same argument.

In contrast to you, I *work* in science. I *know* that people only
publish sweeping statements like the one above when they have a *reason*
to do so - they don't simply make up arguments out of thin air and hope
that nobody will notice this.


"(3) If there does not exist any such decay process, then simple arguments
of special relativity that Zel'dovich attributes to M.P. Bronshtein, and
spells out in detail, demand the relationship

(probability per second of 'photon decay') = (a universal constant with
the dimensions sec-2) / (frequency of photon in sec-1)

{MTW's #3, above is the following in Zel'dovich:}
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3) Finally, the most important theoretical argument is due to the Leningrad
physicist M.P. Bronshtein, who was lost to us by an untimely death.

We ask the question: if there were such a process, how could the decay
probability w for a photon depend on its frequency?

At first glance we would have from the dimensions w = A omega, since w and
omega have the same dimensions (sec^-1); a definite probability of decay per
vibration.

Actually, as Bronshtein showed, the only possible answer is w = B / omega,
with a dimensional constant B (sec^-2). The point is that the individual
vibrations in a light wave are perceived only by an observer past whom the
wave travels. The frequency is different for a moving observer.
Bronshtein's result follows from the special theory of relativity. It is
most simply derived by thinking of the well known relation between the
lifetime and the energy of a particle, as verivfied experimentally for
mesons (mu and pi).

It is well known that T = T_0 (1 - beta^2)^-1/2, where T is the lifetime of
a moving meson as measured by a stationary observer, T_0 is the lifetime of
a stationary meson, and beta = v/c, where v is the speed of motion and c is
the speed of light. On the other hand the energy of the moving meson is

E = m_0 c^2 / sqrt(1 - beta^2)

where m_0 is its rest mass. Consequently, we can relate the decay
probability w to the energy of the moving meson:

W = 1 / T = sqrt(1 - beta^2) / T = m_0 c^2 / T_0 E = A / E

This relation is a universal one which follows from the Lorentz
transformation. For the photno we must assume that m_0 -- 0, but
simultaneously T_0 -- 0, so that the ratio m_0 c^2 / T_0 has a definite
value. In a paticular coordinate system we express the energy of the photon
in terms of its frequency

E = h_bar omega,

and we get

W = A / h_bar omega = B / omega.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Looks like a sensible argument to me.


'Thus,' Zel'dovich concludes, 'if the decay of photons is possible at all,
those in radio waves must decay especially rapidly! This would mean that
the Maxwell equation for a static electric field would have to be
changed..."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(since this is the limit of radio waves as the frequency goes to zero), and
this is very unpleasant.

Again, looks like a sensible argument.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"There is no experimental indication of such effects: the radio-frequency
radiation from distant sources is transmitted to us not a bit more poorly
than visible light, and the red shift measured in different parts of teh
spectrum is exactly the same. ... "

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-- delta w / w is constant and corresponds to a single velocity.

Again.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"Thus, suggestions that there is an
explanation of the red shift other than Friedmann's fail completely.'"

That is the end of Zel'dovich's section 11.

I agree with you that he didn't present a quantitative argument for his
claim about smearing. I don't know if no one has ever done a
quantitative calculation, if someone has done it, but didn't bother to
publish it, or if someone *did* publish it, but so far we merely haven't
found the relevant reference. My guess would be the second or third
possibility; your guess seems to be the first one.


We can see that MTW's printing of of only a vague reference to Bronshtein
and special relativity serves the purpose of avoiding a truly horrendously
bad misapplication of SR and handwaving.

Huh? What in the above is a "truly horrendously bad misapplication of
SR", in your opinion?

And I didn't see much handwaving, too.


The essence of the 'argument' is
that because mesons decay more slowly with speed, that photon 'decay' must
be energy dependent.

That's only a *very* crude simplification of the actual argument. Are
you sure you understood it?


The foundation of this argument is simply the claim
that the units of particle decay (per second) are the same as the units of
photon frequency (per second).

This is not the "foundation", this is one of several arguments which go
into the whole line of argumentation.

Do you have a problem with this? This line of argumentation is *very*
often used in physics (hey, I already had to use it in an exam in my
fourth semester!), and usually works quite well.


No wonder MTW wouldn't print it in detail!

You *really* seem to think that there is a problem with the argument!?!
That's simply amazing.


So my prior analyses were exact for MTW / Zel'dovich 1) and 2). And they
were overly generous for Zel'dovich 3).

No, your previous analysis at least of (3) was bad, and has become even
worse now.


The point is -- that so far, no one has shown such a calculation.
(Possibly, one exists in Zel'dovich. But that's now the fourth generation
of asserted reference.) Hence, the claim in MTW (and by Ned Wright, and
by Bjoern and yourself) is a false statement. There is no 'for the
record'.

Zel'dovich's claim #1 is not a calculation, and demonstrates a fundamental
ignorance about images received in telescopes. *ALL* stellar images are
at best gaussian disks -- NEVER points. (Unless, like the hubble, the
mirror was aberrated and all images must be corrected by computer.)
Gaussian disks are exactly what one would expect from a scattering
process described by Zel'dovich. The key is -- how wide will the disk
be to fwhm?

Zel'dovich's claim #2 is false on many levels. There is not need for a
particle if it is a quantum or aether effect, there is nothing wrong with
particles (initially) moving in the direction of the photon, there would
be no spectral broadening.

Zel'dovich's claim #3 is a pure strawman (and a misapplication of SR). It
is apparently this fraudulent claim that is the source of the claim of the
need for 'new physics' one sees parroted by DHRs.

There is no strawmen, no misapplication of SR and nothing fraudulent
about claim #3.


Also, by mentioning only 'tired light' for redshift, MTW avoid mentioning
other possible sources of non-cosmogenic redshifts (i.e. Arp).

DHRs always assert that somebody, somewhere, at some unknown time must have
done the calculation that disproves things.

I don't assert that someone *must* have done that calculation. I only
say that I think it's very likely that this happened.


I ran a contest for awhile
digging back to the origin of such claims. So far, every one began with a
silly 'sounds reasonable' statement, sans calculation.

Could you please point out what's "silly" about Zel'dovich claims?



Then the grapevine
gets ahold of it and repeats it without ever checking.

You seem to think that scientists are all parrots who don't ever think
for themselves.


The Zel'dovich fiasco is just the latest in the string of relativist
self-deceit.

I see neither a fiasco nor a self-deceit above. I see only that you keep
pointing out small errors and then boast that you have found big
problems for the Big Bang Theory, and imply that all people who think
that the BBT is right and makes sense are either parrots or deceivers.


Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...
greywolf42 wrote:

greywolf42 wrote in message news:...
Joseph Lazio wrote in message
...

MTW claims that "Ya. B. Zel'dovich (1963) gives a penetrating analysis
of
the difficulties with any such ideas." Both Bjoern and Joseph have
claimed
that MTW is only a "summary" of Zel'dovich.

IIRC, I didn't claim this, I only said that what is written in MTW
*looks* like a summary to me - and I pointed out to you that *Joseph*
said it is a summary.

Full engine reverse, Scotty!

A few sample Bjoern quotes (Bjoern's words with single ''):
=====================
Yes, this suffices to show that you aren't really interested in looking
this up - you seem to think just because MTW's summary of Zel'dovich
doesn't look convincing to you, you don't have to investigate this
further (for example, trying to find Zel'dovichs paper and look what we
wrote there).
=====================

=====================
It's quite obvious that you didn't bother to
look up what Zel'dovich originally wrote - you simply read the summary
in MTW's book and dismissed it as "a string of assertions".
=====================

=====================
Your reference of MTW *quoted* Zel'dovich's work.

It looks to me as if MTW quoted Zel'dovich's *conclusions*, not his
whole work. Have you tried to look this up?

It was not merely a summary.

Well, it looked like a summary to me. After all, scientific papers are
usually longer than about 2/3 of a page - what do you think was written
in the rest of the paper, if not some calculations which led to these
conclusions?
=====================

=====================
if you'd actually read the references that you claim support your
position.

Well, why didn't *you* do this?

I'm really sick of your continued habits of misrepresentation of what
other people say, arguing about semantical points, ignoring references
and so on...

I think I won't answer to this thread anymore, until you
1) apologize to Joseph for your false accusations
2) go read Zel'dovich's paper.
=====================


Of course, neither of them have read Zel'dovich.

Right, I admit this.

Finally! But you explicitly accused me of deliberate distortion for not
having read Zel'dovich, and demanded that I apologize.

It isn't available here directly in my library, and
I haven't gone through the trouble to get it via interlending yet.

Yet you attempted smear me, when I was in the same situation. Although I
was referring to explicit quotations.

For the record, the title of Zel'dovich's paper (which is not given in
MTW)

According to my experience, it's quite common in the physical literature
to give only the author, journal, year and page number, but not the
title in the references.

I have no problem with that. However, the title itself makes it clear that
Zel'dovich was in the process of doing some historical 'revising.'

is: "The Theory of the Expanding Universe as Originated by A.A. Fridman"

Is there a typo here? Shouldn't this be "Friedman"? (just a question for
clarification, no flame intended)

If it's a typo, it's in the original. I believe that the spelling of names
in Zel'dovich from the Russian text are somewhat different than the european
versions.

I should also note a small typo in MTW. This paper begins on page 475,
not 474.

Thanks for pointing this out.

{snip higher levels}

g If there is no calculation, then there is no valid argument. May
I
g suggest you first try identifying an objective criterion (...)
for
g 'blurrier than expected' -- in the age of active corrective
optics.

For the record Misner, Thorne, & Wheeler summarize an argument that
they attribute to Zel'dovich (1963, English translation in Soviet
Physics, vol. 6, p. 474, 1964).

MTW's index includes 'redshift - tired light does not explain' on page
775. This explanation is all of 2/3 of a page -- and includes not a
single calculation. Just a string of proofs-by-assertion, combined
with snide deprecation of the entire concept. (I guess this is what
Carlip calls 'motivating' the students.):

"No one has ever put forward a satisfactory explanation for the
cosmological redshift other than the expansion of the universe
(see below). The idea has been proposed at various times by various
authors that some new process is at work ('tired light') in which
photons interact with atoms or electrons on their way from source to
receptor, and thereby lose bits and pieces of their energy.
Ya. B. Zel'dovich (1963) gives a penetrating analysis of the
difficulties with any such ideas:

I will now add the missing words from Zel'dovich's 'tired light' section
to
the quote included in MTW.

Thanks.


This is section 11, entitled "Red Shift, or
Aging of Quanta?". Due to the preexisting quote-within-a-quote of MTW,
I
will indicate the additional wording from Zel'dovich with dashed lines"

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From time to time more or less vague ideas are put forward about the
"aging"
of photons, about some sort of mechanism of energy loss from the
photons, in
which the fraction of the energy lost increases with the distance
travelled
by the photon. There are at least three very weighty objections to such
ideas:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"(1) 'If the energy loss is caused by an interaction with the
intergalactic matter, it is accompanied by a transfer of momentum:
that
is, there is a change of the direction of motion of the photon. There
would then be a smearing out of images; a distant star would be seen
as a disc, not a point, and that is not what is observed.'

{There is no 'summarization' of Zel'dovich 1) in MTW. That's the 'full'
argument.

O.k., I admit I had been wrong on this.


And, of course, the argument under discussion is the 'smearing'
argument. Which has no support whatsoever in Zel'dovich.}

My guess would be that he did an on-the-back-of-an-envelope estimate for
this, but didn't bother to publish this explicitly. Your guess,
apparently, is that he didn't bother to do an actual calculation, but
simply thought "Hey, that looks like a good argument, let's publish it!
I hope no one will notice that I didn't present any numbers on this!".

I have no need to guess what Zel'dovich's intentions were, and did not
speculate. I simply address the argument presented in MTW -- which was
quoted from Zel'dovich. My whole point was that there was no actual
calculation to back up MTW or Zel'dovich.

Both Joseph and you -- on the other hand -- simply assumed that there was a
calculation in MTW. When that failed to materialize, you backed up to
Zel'dovich. Since Zel'dovich didn't provide any explicit references, I
presume we are at the end of the chain.

It is this constant assertion of proof -- followed by backing up farther and
farther into arcane literature to which I object. Not because of the
backing up, but because of the constant assertion of righteousness and
certainty at each step.

(2) 'Let us suppose that the photon
decays, gamma -- gamma' + k, giving up a small part of its energy to
some
particle, k. It follows from the conservation laws that k must move
in
the direction of the photon (this, by the way, avoids a smearing out),
and
must have zero rest mass. Because of the statistical nature of the
process, however, some photons would lose more energy than others,
and there would be a spectral broadening of the lines, which is not
observed.'

{There is no 'summarization' of Zel'dovich 2) in MTW. That's the 'full'
argument.}

See above. Same argument.

In contrast to you, I *work* in science.

The classic special plead. That you obtain money from academia says nothing
about whether you actually work with the scientific method.

I *know* that people only
publish sweeping statements like the one above when they have a *reason*
to do so - they don't simply make up arguments out of thin air and hope
that nobody will notice this.

Please provide documentation of your proof-by-assertion.

Even if true, this is not science. If mere publication of a conclusion is
done, it is not science. For there is no way to check the result.

"(3) If there does not exist any such decay process, then simple
arguments
of special relativity that Zel'dovich attributes to M.P. Bronshtein,
and
spells out in detail, demand the relationship

(probability per second of 'photon decay') = (a universal constant
with
the dimensions sec-2) / (frequency of photon in sec-1)

{MTW's #3, above is the following in Zel'dovich:}
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3) Finally, the most important theoretical argument is due to the
Leningrad
physicist M.P. Bronshtein, who was lost to us by an untimely death.

We ask the question: if there were such a process, how could the decay
probability w for a photon depend on its frequency?

At first glance we would have from the dimensions w = A omega, since w
and
omega have the same dimensions (sec^-1); a definite probability of decay
per
vibration.

Actually, as Bronshtein showed, the only possible answer is w = B /
omega,
with a dimensional constant B (sec^-2). The point is that the
individual
vibrations in a light wave are perceived only by an observer past whom
the
wave travels. The frequency is different for a moving observer.
Bronshtein's result follows from the special theory of relativity. It
is
most simply derived by thinking of the well known relation between the
lifetime and the energy of a particle, as verivfied experimentally for
mesons (mu and pi).

It is well known that T = T_0 (1 - beta^2)^-1/2, where T is the lifetime
of
a moving meson as measured by a stationary observer, T_0 is the lifetime
of
a stationary meson, and beta = v/c, where v is the speed of motion and c
is
the speed of light. On the other hand the energy of the moving meson is

E = m_0 c^2 / sqrt(1 - beta^2)

where m_0 is its rest mass. Consequently, we can relate the decay
probability w to the energy of the moving meson:

W = 1 / T = sqrt(1 - beta^2) / T = m_0 c^2 / T_0 E = A / E

This relation is a universal one which follows from the Lorentz
transformation. For the photno we must assume that m_0 -- 0, but
simultaneously T_0 -- 0, so that the ratio m_0 c^2 / T_0 has a definite
value. In a paticular coordinate system we express the energy of the
photon
in terms of its frequency

E = h_bar omega,

and we get

W = A / h_bar omega = B / omega.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Looks like a sensible argument to me.

Why? I thought you were against dimensional analyis as a method of proof.
And what exactly is the connection between the slowing of weak decay and the
energy-dependent interaction of photons with an unknown medium, via an
unknown process?

'Thus,' Zel'dovich concludes, 'if the decay of photons is possible at
all,
those in radio waves must decay especially rapidly! This would mean
that
the Maxwell equation for a static electric field would have to be
changed..."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(since this is the limit of radio waves as the frequency goes to zero),
and
this is very unpleasant.

Again, looks like a sensible argument.

Again, why?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"There is no experimental indication of such effects: the
radio-frequency
radiation from distant sources is transmitted to us not a bit more
poorly
than visible light, and the red shift measured in different parts of
teh
spectrum is exactly the same. ... "

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-- delta w / w is constant and corresponds to a single velocity.

Again.

Again.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"Thus, suggestions that there is an
explanation of the red shift other than Friedmann's fail completely.'"

That is the end of Zel'dovich's section 11.

I agree with you that he didn't present a quantitative argument for his
claim about smearing.

No apology for demanding that I apologize for pointing out the lack of
quantitative argument?

I don't know if no one has ever done a
quantitative calculation, if someone has done it, but didn't bother to
publish it, or if someone *did* publish it, but so far we merely haven't
found the relevant reference. My guess would be the second or third
possibility; your guess seems to be the first one.

There is no need to guess. My point is that you don't know of one. Joseph
doesn't know of one. MTW doesn't know of one. But you all faithfully
believe that 'tired light' is disproven by smearing. You actively attack
anyone who believes differently -- even though you know of no actual basis
for this belief. Just because Zel'dovich once stated this conclusion.

This is religion -- not science.

We can see that MTW's printing of of only a vague reference to
Bronshtein
and special relativity serves the purpose of avoiding a truly
horrendously
bad misapplication of SR and handwaving.

Huh? What in the above is a "truly horrendously bad misapplication of
SR", in your opinion?

And I didn't see much handwaving, too.

I await your proof that because SR predicts muons decay more slowly, that
all possible EM interactions with matter, aether, or anything else must be
energy-dependent.

The essence of the 'argument' is
that because mesons decay more slowly with speed, that photon 'decay'
must
be energy dependent.

That's only a *very* crude simplification of the actual argument. Are
you sure you understood it?

Yes. Sorry if I 'summarized.' But my summary was at leaset more detailed
than the one given in MTW.

The foundation of this argument is simply the claim
that the units of particle decay (per second) are the same as the units
of
photon frequency (per second).

This is not the "foundation", this is one of several arguments which go
into the whole line of argumentation.

It is one of the foundational assumptions. While there are additional
assumptions, I didn't think it necessary to savage every step for two
reasons:

1) Once a single step in the logic is disproved -- the entire argument
falls.
2) The discussion in the thread was about smearing (Zel'dovich #1), not
Zel'dovich #3.

Do you have a problem with this? This line of argumentation is *very*
often used in physics (hey, I already had to use it in an exam in my
fourth semester!), and usually works quite well.

It is perfect for support of religious dogma. It is invalid is science.

No wonder MTW wouldn't print it in detail!

You *really* seem to think that there is a problem with the argument!?!
That's simply amazing.

What's amazing is the lengths you go to to support your belief system.

So my prior analyses were exact for MTW / Zel'dovich 1) and 2). And
they
were overly generous for Zel'dovich 3).

No, your previous analysis at least of (3) was bad, and has become even
worse now.

Do you have some reason to believe this? Or is this simply a publication of
a conclusion?

The point is -- that so far, no one has shown such a calculation.
(Possibly, one exists in Zel'dovich. But that's now the fourth
generation
of asserted reference.) Hence, the claim in MTW (and by Ned Wright,
and
by Bjoern and yourself) is a false statement. There is no 'for the
record'.

Zel'dovich's claim #1 is not a calculation, and demonstrates a
fundamental
ignorance about images received in telescopes. *ALL* stellar images
are
at best gaussian disks -- NEVER points. (Unless, like the hubble, the
mirror was aberrated and all images must be corrected by computer.)
Gaussian disks are exactly what one would expect from a scattering
process described by Zel'dovich. The key is -- how wide will the disk
be to fwhm?

Zel'dovich's claim #2 is false on many levels. There is not need for
a
particle if it is a quantum or aether effect, there is nothing wrong
with
particles (initially) moving in the direction of the photon, there
would
be no spectral broadening.

Zel'dovich's claim #3 is a pure strawman (and a misapplication of SR).
It
is apparently this fraudulent claim that is the source of the claim of
the
need for 'new physics' one sees parroted by DHRs.

There is no strawmen, no misapplication of SR and nothing fraudulent
about claim #3.

Do you have anything besides simple contradiction to offer in support of
your conclusion?

Also, by mentioning only 'tired light' for redshift, MTW avoid
mentioning
other possible sources of non-cosmogenic redshifts (i.e. Arp).

DHRs always assert that somebody, somewhere, at some unknown time must
have
done the calculation that disproves things.

I don't assert that someone *must* have done that calculation. I only
say that I think it's very likely that this happened.

But you believe it anyway. Even though you haven't a clue as to where such
a calculation may live. Even though reference after reference where you
thought it 'was' has been shown to be empty of such a calculation.

Science is about evidence and data -- as well as theory and logic.


I ran a contest for awhile
digging back to the origin of such claims. So far, every one began with
a
silly 'sounds reasonable' statement, sans calculation.

Could you please point out what's "silly" about Zel'dovich claims?

Already done. See my specific observations about each one of Zel'dovich

Then the grapevine
gets ahold of it and repeats it without ever checking.

You seem to think that scientists are all parrots who don't ever think
for themselves.

Nope. Only the parrots who repeat such trash without ever checking. Like
yourself, Joseph and Ned Wright.

The Zel'dovich fiasco is just the latest in the string of relativist
self-deceit.

I see neither a fiasco nor a self-deceit above. I see only that you keep
pointing out small errors and then boast that you have found big
problems for the Big Bang Theory, and imply that all people who think
that the BBT is right and makes sense are either parrots or deceivers.

A pathetic attempt at diversion. I didn't point out any 'errors' (of any
size) with the big bang. I simply pointed out that the claim repeated by
the big-bangers that 'tired light' is disproved -- is a pathetic,
undocumented myth. I never made or implied that everyone that believes in
the BBT are parrots or deceivers. Even though Joseph and yourself have
shown yourselves to be such.

As individuals, you can learn from your mistakes. At least you can stop
parroting the claim that 'tired light' is disproved by smearing -- since you
have no evidence or calculations for that claim. Even if you personally
think that it is likely that this might be the case, you now admit that you
know of no source where this is shown.

And you can stop demanding apologies from people who simply point out the
real situation to you.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

greywolf42 wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...
greywolf42 wrote:

greywolf42 wrote in message news:...
Joseph Lazio wrote in message
...

MTW claims that "Ya. B. Zel'dovich (1963) gives a penetrating analysis
of
the difficulties with any such ideas." Both Bjoern and Joseph have
claimed that MTW is only a "summary" of Zel'dovich.

IIRC, I didn't claim this, I only said that what is written in MTW
*looks* like a summary to me - and I pointed out to you that *Joseph*
said it is a summary.

Full engine reverse, Scotty!

A few sample Bjoern quotes (Bjoern's words with single ''):

In one of the quotes you show below, you find the following words from
me:
"Well, it looked like a summary to me." IIRC, I only referred to the
text in MTW as a "summary" *after* I said this - hence it should have
been clear from the context that this was based on how it *looked* to
me. Hence what I said above is completely true - I only said that it
*looked* like a summary to me, nothing more.

I see that you are, as usual, only arguing for argument's sake, and
don't bother that the very same quotes you give *disprove* your
arguments.

Oh, BTW, you still haven't apologized to Franz Heymann in sci.physics
for claiming that he deleted the "real" quote. He didn't do this, as I
pointed out. Will you retract your claim and apologize to him?


I see no need to respond to someone like you, who delights in insulting
other people, accusing things they didn't do, and who is apparently
unable to see that the quotes he himself provides refute his own
arguments.

Bye.
Bjoern


=====================
Yes, this suffices to show that you aren't really interested in looking
this up - you seem to think just because MTW's summary of Zel'dovich
doesn't look convincing to you, you don't have to investigate this
further (for example, trying to find Zel'dovichs paper and look what we
wrote there).
=====================

=====================
It's quite obvious that you didn't bother to
look up what Zel'dovich originally wrote - you simply read the summary
in MTW's book and dismissed it as "a string of assertions".
=====================

=====================
Your reference of MTW *quoted* Zel'dovich's work.

It looks to me as if MTW quoted Zel'dovich's *conclusions*, not his
whole work. Have you tried to look this up?

It was not merely a summary.

Well, it looked like a summary to me. After all, scientific papers are
usually longer than about 2/3 of a page - what do you think was written
in the rest of the paper, if not some calculations which led to these
conclusions?
=====================

=====================
if you'd actually read the references that you claim support your
position.

Well, why didn't *you* do this?

I'm really sick of your continued habits of misrepresentation of what
other people say, arguing about semantical points, ignoring references
and so on...

I think I won't answer to this thread anymore, until you
1) apologize to Joseph for your false accusations
2) go read Zel'dovich's paper.
=====================

Of course, neither of them have read Zel'dovich.

Right, I admit this.

Finally! But you explicitly accused me of deliberate distortion for not
having read Zel'dovich, and demanded that I apologize.

It isn't available here directly in my library, and
I haven't gone through the trouble to get it via interlending yet.

Yet you attempted smear me, when I was in the same situation. Although I
was referring to explicit quotations.

For the record, the title of Zel'dovich's paper (which is not given in
MTW)

According to my experience, it's quite common in the physical literature
to give only the author, journal, year and page number, but not the
title in the references.

I have no problem with that. However, the title itself makes it clear that
Zel'dovich was in the process of doing some historical 'revising.'

is: "The Theory of the Expanding Universe as Originated by A.A. Fridman"

Is there a typo here? Shouldn't this be "Friedman"? (just a question for
clarification, no flame intended)

If it's a typo, it's in the original. I believe that the spelling of names
in Zel'dovich from the Russian text are somewhat different than the european
versions.

I should also note a small typo in MTW. This paper begins on page 475,
not 474.

Thanks for pointing this out.

{snip higher levels}

g If there is no calculation, then there is no valid argument. May
I
g suggest you first try identifying an objective criterion (...)
for
g 'blurrier than expected' -- in the age of active corrective
optics.

For the record Misner, Thorne, & Wheeler summarize an argument that
they attribute to Zel'dovich (1963, English translation in Soviet
Physics, vol. 6, p. 474, 1964).

MTW's index includes 'redshift - tired light does not explain' on page
775. This explanation is all of 2/3 of a page -- and includes not a
single calculation. Just a string of proofs-by-assertion, combined
with snide deprecation of the entire concept. (I guess this is what
Carlip calls 'motivating' the students.):

"No one has ever put forward a satisfactory explanation for the
cosmological redshift other than the expansion of the universe
(see below). The idea has been proposed at various times by various
authors that some new process is at work ('tired light') in which
photons interact with atoms or electrons on their way from source to
receptor, and thereby lose bits and pieces of their energy.
Ya. B. Zel'dovich (1963) gives a penetrating analysis of the
difficulties with any such ideas:

I will now add the missing words from Zel'dovich's 'tired light' section
to
the quote included in MTW.

Thanks.


This is section 11, entitled "Red Shift, or
Aging of Quanta?". Due to the preexisting quote-within-a-quote of MTW,
I
will indicate the additional wording from Zel'dovich with dashed lines"

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From time to time more or less vague ideas are put forward about the
"aging"
of photons, about some sort of mechanism of energy loss from the
photons, in
which the fraction of the energy lost increases with the distance
travelled
by the photon. There are at least three very weighty objections to such
ideas:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"(1) 'If the energy loss is caused by an interaction with the
intergalactic matter, it is accompanied by a transfer of momentum:
that
is, there is a change of the direction of motion of the photon. There
would then be a smearing out of images; a distant star would be seen
as a disc, not a point, and that is not what is observed.'

{There is no 'summarization' of Zel'dovich 1) in MTW. That's the 'full'
argument.

O.k., I admit I had been wrong on this.


And, of course, the argument under discussion is the 'smearing'
argument. Which has no support whatsoever in Zel'dovich.}

My guess would be that he did an on-the-back-of-an-envelope estimate for
this, but didn't bother to publish this explicitly. Your guess,
apparently, is that he didn't bother to do an actual calculation, but
simply thought "Hey, that looks like a good argument, let's publish it!
I hope no one will notice that I didn't present any numbers on this!".

I have no need to guess what Zel'dovich's intentions were, and did not
speculate. I simply address the argument presented in MTW -- which was
quoted from Zel'dovich. My whole point was that there was no actual
calculation to back up MTW or Zel'dovich.

Both Joseph and you -- on the other hand -- simply assumed that there was a
calculation in MTW. When that failed to materialize, you backed up to
Zel'dovich. Since Zel'dovich didn't provide any explicit references, I
presume we are at the end of the chain.

It is this constant assertion of proof -- followed by backing up farther and
farther into arcane literature to which I object. Not because of the
backing up, but because of the constant assertion of righteousness and
certainty at each step.

(2) 'Let us suppose that the photon
decays, gamma -- gamma' + k, giving up a small part of its energy to
some
particle, k. It follows from the conservation laws that k must move
in
the direction of the photon (this, by the way, avoids a smearing out),
and
must have zero rest mass. Because of the statistical nature of the
process, however, some photons would lose more energy than others,
and there would be a spectral broadening of the lines, which is not
observed.'

{There is no 'summarization' of Zel'dovich 2) in MTW. That's the 'full'
argument.}

See above. Same argument.

In contrast to you, I *work* in science.

The classic special plead. That you obtain money from academia says nothing
about whether you actually work with the scientific method.

I *know* that people only
publish sweeping statements like the one above when they have a *reason*
to do so - they don't simply make up arguments out of thin air and hope
that nobody will notice this.

Please provide documentation of your proof-by-assertion.

Even if true, this is not science. If mere publication of a conclusion is
done, it is not science. For there is no way to check the result.

"(3) If there does not exist any such decay process, then simple
arguments
of special relativity that Zel'dovich attributes to M.P. Bronshtein,
and
spells out in detail, demand the relationship

(probability per second of 'photon decay') = (a universal constant
with
the dimensions sec-2) / (frequency of photon in sec-1)

{MTW's #3, above is the following in Zel'dovich:}
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3) Finally, the most important theoretical argument is due to the
Leningrad
physicist M.P. Bronshtein, who was lost to us by an untimely death.

We ask the question: if there were such a process, how could the decay
probability w for a photon depend on its frequency?

At first glance we would have from the dimensions w = A omega, since w
and
omega have the same dimensions (sec^-1); a definite probability of decay
per
vibration.

Actually, as Bronshtein showed, the only possible answer is w = B /
omega,
with a dimensional constant B (sec^-2). The point is that the
individual
vibrations in a light wave are perceived only by an observer past whom
the
wave travels. The frequency is different for a moving observer.
Bronshtein's result follows from the special theory of relativity. It
is
most simply derived by thinking of the well known relation between the
lifetime and the energy of a particle, as verivfied experimentally for
mesons (mu and pi).

It is well known that T = T_0 (1 - beta^2)^-1/2, where T is the lifetime
of
a moving meson as measured by a stationary observer, T_0 is the lifetime
of
a stationary meson, and beta = v/c, where v is the speed of motion and c
is
the speed of light. On the other hand the energy of the moving meson is

E = m_0 c^2 / sqrt(1 - beta^2)

where m_0 is its rest mass. Consequently, we can relate the decay
probability w to the energy of the moving meson:

W = 1 / T = sqrt(1 - beta^2) / T = m_0 c^2 / T_0 E = A / E

This relation is a universal one which follows from the Lorentz
transformation. For the photno we must assume that m_0 -- 0, but
simultaneously T_0 -- 0, so that the ratio m_0 c^2 / T_0 has a definite
value. In a paticular coordinate system we express the energy of the
photon
in terms of its frequency

E = h_bar omega,

and we get

W = A / h_bar omega = B / omega.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Looks like a sensible argument to me.

Why? I thought you were against dimensional analyis as a method of proof.
And what exactly is the connection between the slowing of weak decay and the
energy-dependent interaction of photons with an unknown medium, via an
unknown process?

'Thus,' Zel'dovich concludes, 'if the decay of photons is possible at
all,
those in radio waves must decay especially rapidly! This would mean
that
the Maxwell equation for a static electric field would have to be
changed..."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(since this is the limit of radio waves as the frequency goes to zero),
and
this is very unpleasant.

Again, looks like a sensible argument.

Again, why?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"There is no experimental indication of such effects: the
radio-frequency
radiation from distant sources is transmitted to us not a bit more
poorly
than visible light, and the red shift measured in different parts of
teh
spectrum is exactly the same. ... "

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-- delta w / w is constant and corresponds to a single velocity.

Again.

Again.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"Thus, suggestions that there is an
explanation of the red shift other than Friedmann's fail completely.'"

That is the end of Zel'dovich's section 11.

I agree with you that he didn't present a quantitative argument for his
claim about smearing.

No apology for demanding that I apologize for pointing out the lack of
quantitative argument?

I don't know if no one has ever done a
quantitative calculation, if someone has done it, but didn't bother to
publish it, or if someone *did* publish it, but so far we merely haven't
found the relevant reference. My guess would be the second or third
possibility; your guess seems to be the first one.

There is no need to guess. My point is that you don't know of one. Joseph
doesn't know of one. MTW doesn't know of one. But you all faithfully
believe that 'tired light' is disproven by smearing. You actively attack
anyone who believes differently -- even though you know of no actual basis
for this belief. Just because Zel'dovich once stated this conclusion.

This is religion -- not science.

We can see that MTW's printing of of only a vague reference to
Bronshtein
and special relativity serves the purpose of avoiding a truly
horrendously
bad misapplication of SR and handwaving.

Huh? What in the above is a "truly horrendously bad misapplication of
SR", in your opinion?

And I didn't see much handwaving, too.

I await your proof that because SR predicts muons decay more slowly, that
all possible EM interactions with matter, aether, or anything else must be
energy-dependent.

The essence of the 'argument' is
that because mesons decay more slowly with speed, that photon 'decay'
must
be energy dependent.

That's only a *very* crude simplification of the actual argument. Are
you sure you understood it?

Yes. Sorry if I 'summarized.' But my summary was at leaset more detailed
than the one given in MTW.

The foundation of this argument is simply the claim
that the units of particle decay (per second) are the same as the units
of
photon frequency (per second).

This is not the "foundation", this is one of several arguments which go
into the whole line of argumentation.

It is one of the foundational assumptions. While there are additional
assumptions, I didn't think it necessary to savage every step for two
reasons:

1) Once a single step in the logic is disproved -- the entire argument
falls.
2) The discussion in the thread was about smearing (Zel'dovich #1), not
Zel'dovich #3.

Do you have a problem with this? This line of argumentation is *very*
often used in physics (hey, I already had to use it in an exam in my
fourth semester!), and usually works quite well.

It is perfect for support of religious dogma. It is invalid is science.

No wonder MTW wouldn't print it in detail!

You *really* seem to think that there is a problem with the argument!?!
That's simply amazing.

What's amazing is the lengths you go to to support your belief system.

So my prior analyses were exact for MTW / Zel'dovich 1) and 2). And
they
were overly generous for Zel'dovich 3).

No, your previous analysis at least of (3) was bad, and has become even
worse now.

Do you have some reason to believe this? Or is this simply a publication of
a conclusion?

The point is -- that so far, no one has shown such a calculation.
(Possibly, one exists in Zel'dovich. But that's now the fourth
generation
of asserted reference.) Hence, the claim in MTW (and by Ned Wright,
and
by Bjoern and yourself) is a false statement. There is no 'for the
record'.

Zel'dovich's claim #1 is not a calculation, and demonstrates a
fundamental
ignorance about images received in telescopes. *ALL* stellar images
are
at best gaussian disks -- NEVER points. (Unless, like the hubble, the
mirror was aberrated and all images must be corrected by computer.)
Gaussian disks are exactly what one would expect from a scattering
process described by Zel'dovich. The key is -- how wide will the disk
be to fwhm?

Zel'dovich's claim #2 is false on many levels. There is not need for
a
particle if it is a quantum or aether effect, there is nothing wrong
with
particles (initially) moving in the direction of the photon, there
would
be no spectral broadening.

Zel'dovich's claim #3 is a pure strawman (and a misapplication of SR).
It
is apparently this fraudulent claim that is the source of the claim of
the
need for 'new physics' one sees parroted by DHRs.

There is no strawmen, no misapplication of SR and nothing fraudulent
about claim #3.

Do you have anything besides simple contradiction to offer in support of
your conclusion?

Also, by mentioning only 'tired light' for redshift, MTW avoid
mentioning
other possible sources of non-cosmogenic redshifts (i.e. Arp).

DHRs always assert that somebody, somewhere, at some unknown time must
have
done the calculation that disproves things.

I don't assert that someone *must* have done that calculation. I only
say that I think it's very likely that this happened.

But you believe it anyway. Even though you haven't a clue as to where such
a calculation may live. Even though reference after reference where you
thought it 'was' has been shown to be empty of such a calculation.

Science is about evidence and data -- as well as theory and logic.

I ran a contest for awhile
digging back to the origin of such claims. So far, every one began with
a
silly 'sounds reasonable' statement, sans calculation.

Could you please point out what's "silly" about Zel'dovich claims?

Already done. See my specific observations about each one of Zel'dovich

Then the grapevine
gets ahold of it and repeats it without ever checking.

You seem to think that scientists are all parrots who don't ever think
for themselves.

Nope. Only the parrots who repeat such trash without ever checking. Like
yourself, Joseph and Ned Wright.

The Zel'dovich fiasco is just the latest in the string of relativist
self-deceit.

I see neither a fiasco nor a self-deceit above. I see only that you keep
pointing out small errors and then boast that you have found big
problems for the Big Bang Theory, and imply that all people who think
that the BBT is right and makes sense are either parrots or deceivers.

A pathetic attempt at diversion. I didn't point out any 'errors' (of any
size) with the big bang. I simply pointed out that the claim repeated by
the big-bangers that 'tired light' is disproved -- is a pathetic,
undocumented myth. I never made or implied that everyone that believes in
the BBT are parrots or deceivers. Even though Joseph and yourself have
shown yourselves to be such.

As individuals, you can learn from your mistakes. At least you can stop
parroting the claim that 'tired light' is disproved by smearing -- since you
have no evidence or calculations for that claim. Even if you personally
think that it is likely that this might be the case, you now admit that you
know of no source where this is shown.

And you can stop demanding apologies from people who simply point out the
real situation to you.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

[Although I swore that I was going to ignore this thread... sigh ]

On 2004-02-08, greywolf42 posted the following, in response to one of
my posts:

g Joseph Lazio wrote in message
g ...

Doing a semi-quantitative estimate [of the magnitude of tired light]
should be fairly easy. Assume that photons travelling through the
intergalactic medium undergo some interaction that results in an rms
scattering angle per unit length. Call this is eps. Then the
apparent size of a source is given by the integral of eps over some
distance D.

Take your favorite limit how much "blurriness" is observed for
distant sources. My guess would be that 1 arcsecond would be a
fairly stringent upper limit; some observations of the scintillation
of gamma-ray burst afterglows suggest that a value of 10
microarcseconds might be more appropriate. Suppose that a source is
1000 Mpc distant, which is something like z ~ 1 and typical for a
gamma-ray bursts. Then photon scattering cannot be much more than 10
nanoarcseconds/Mpc or about 1 femtoradian/Mpc.

[I should point out that a similar limit is obtained by using a class
of quasars known as intra-day variables.]

Determining what this means in terms of energy loss per unit path
length is left as an exercise for the reader, but I'd be willing to
bet that this is a fairly stringent limit on any scattering process.

[With reference to my claim that MTW summarizes an argument by
Zel'dovich about "tired light"]
g The point is -- that so far, no one has shown such a calculation.
g (...) Hence, the claim in MTW (and by Ned Wright, and by Bjoern
g and yourself) is a false statement. There is no 'for the record'.

The casual reader might observe that, in my post, I made exactly the
kind of calculation that greywolf demands, namely what is the limit on
the amount of "blurriness" that can be tolerated in "tired light"
models and what this implies for the amount of scattering.

For those who missed it, I'll repeat it. The amount of scattering
that any (basic) tired light model can tolerate is no more than about
1 femtoradian per Megaparsec.


g Zel'dovich's claim #1 is not a calculation, and demonstrates a
g fundamental ignorance about images received in telescopes. *ALL*
g stellar images are at best gaussian disks -- NEVER points.
g (...) Gaussian disks are exactly what one would expect from a
g scattering process described by Zel'dovich. The key is -- how wide
g will the disk be to fwhm?

Yes, and I suspect that a moment's thought by the casual reader will
yield the following simple conclusion: The resolution of a telescope
is given approximately by \lambda/D, where \lambda is the wavelength
of observation and D is the diameter of the telescope. Thus, if the
observed diameters of objects are \lambda/D, then any "tired light"
scattering diameter must be less than this amount.

I suspect that Zel'dovich would have considered this point so
fundamental and so simple that he would not have considered it
necessary to use the ink to point it out.

--
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

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...
greywolf42 wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...

{snip higher levels}

IIRC, I didn't claim this, I only said that what is written in MTW
*looks* like a summary to me - and I pointed out to you that *Joseph*
said it is a summary.

Full engine reverse, Scotty!

A few sample Bjoern quotes (Bjoern's words with single ''):

In one of the quotes you show below, you find the following words from
me:
"Well, it looked like a summary to me." IIRC, I only referred to the
text in MTW as a "summary" *after* I said this - hence it should have
been clear from the context that this was based on how it *looked* to
me. Hence what I said above is completely true - I only said that it
*looked* like a summary to me, nothing more.

I see that you are, as usual, only arguing for argument's sake, and
don't bother that the very same quotes you give *disprove* your
arguments.

*One* of your arguments, in only one post, had the qualifier 'looked like'.
The others were all absolute certainty (I provided three of those). And
your demand that I apologize was explicitly in error on precisely this
point. I was being up front to show that you *did* use the words "looked
like" once. But you also insisted otherwise many other places.

Oh, BTW, you still haven't apologized to Franz Heymann in sci.physics
for claiming that he deleted the "real" quote. He didn't do this, as I
pointed out. Will you retract your claim and apologize to him?

I already did. You apparently missed it.

I see no need to respond to someone like you, who delights in insulting
other people, accusing things they didn't do, and who is apparently
unable to see that the quotes he himself provides refute his own
arguments.

Bye.
Bjoern

{snip most of the uncommented stuff}

I see neither a fiasco nor a self-deceit above. I see only that you
keep
pointing out small errors and then boast that you have found big
problems for the Big Bang Theory, and imply that all people who think
that the BBT is right and makes sense are either parrots or deceivers.

A pathetic attempt at diversion. I didn't point out any 'errors' (of
any
size) with the big bang. I simply pointed out that the claim repeated
by
the big-bangers that 'tired light' is disproved -- is a pathetic,
undocumented myth. I never made or implied that everyone that believes
in
the BBT are parrots or deceivers. Even though Joseph and yourself have
shown yourselves to be such.

As individuals, you can learn from your mistakes. At least you can stop
parroting the claim that 'tired light' is disproved by smearing -- since
you
have no evidence or calculations for that claim. Even if you personally
think that it is likely that this might be the case, you now admit that
you
know of no source where this is shown.

And you can stop demanding apologies from people who simply point out
the
real situation to you.

When confronted with repeated diversion on his part, Bjoern responds with
another diversion; and simply ignores the potential learning experience.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

Joseph Lazio wrote in message
...
[Although I swore that I was going to ignore this thread... sigh ]

On 2004-02-08, greywolf42 posted the following, in response to one of
my posts:

Odd, that you've had to edit most of *my* statements out of the post, and
pieced together portions of separate posts.


g Joseph Lazio wrote in message
g ...

Doing a semi-quantitative estimate [of the magnitude of tired light]
should be fairly easy. Assume that photons travelling through the
intergalactic medium undergo some interaction that results in an rms
scattering angle per unit length. Call this is eps. Then the
apparent size of a source is given by the integral of eps over some
distance D.

Take your favorite limit how much "blurriness" is observed for
distant sources. My guess would be that 1 arcsecond would be a
fairly stringent upper limit; some observations of the scintillation
of gamma-ray burst afterglows suggest that a value of 10
microarcseconds might be more appropriate. Suppose that a source is
1000 Mpc distant, which is something like z ~ 1 and typical for a
gamma-ray bursts. Then photon scattering cannot be much more than 10
nanoarcseconds/Mpc or about 1 femtoradian/Mpc.

[I should point out that a similar limit is obtained by using a class
of quasars known as intra-day variables.]

Determining what this means in terms of energy loss per unit path
length is left as an exercise for the reader, but I'd be willing to
bet that this is a fairly stringent limit on any scattering process.

{Joseph now switches to different posts}

[With reference to my claim that MTW summarizes an argument by
Zel'dovich about "tired light"]


g The point is -- that so far, no one has shown such a calculation.
g (Possibly, one exists in Zel'dovich. But that's now the fourth
generation
of asserted reference.) Hence, the claim in MTW (and by Ned Wright, and
by Bjoern
g and yourself) is a false statement. There is no 'for the record'.

The casual reader might observe that, in my post, I made exactly the
kind of calculation that greywolf demands, namely what is the limit on
the amount of "blurriness" that can be tolerated in "tired light"
models and what this implies for the amount of scattering.

Except that you didn't finish it. You gave a decent summary of how to
set up such a calculation for the 'intergalactic medium' (which you haven't
defined), and identified what kind of a limit you wanted (1 arc second).
But you didn't do the calculation. You simply jumped to what you assumed
the result would be.

This is exactly what I pointed out (on 2/9) the last time you made this
silly assertion:
============================
Joseph:
He fails even to mention my semi-quantative
analysis suggesting that the energy loss cannot lead to more than 1
femtoradian/Mpc of scattering.

LOL! Your 'analysis' was incomplete:

"Determining what this means in terms of energy loss per unit path length is
left as an exercise for the reader...."

And I *DID* comment on it. The remains of my comments reside above.
Amongst the ellipses you so liberally apply to the arguments you want to
avoid.
============================

For those who missed it, I'll repeat it. The amount of scattering
that any (basic) tired light model can tolerate is no more than about
1 femtoradian per Megaparsec.

Now all you need to do is to provide the calculation to back up that
conclusion.

But your conclusion is only valid for whatever you defined the
'intergalactic medium' to be. This has no effect whatsoever on 'any basic
tired light model.'


g Zel'dovich's claim #1 is not a calculation, and demonstrates a
g fundamental ignorance about images received in telescopes. *ALL*
g stellar images are at best gaussian disks -- NEVER points.
g (...) Gaussian disks are exactly what one would expect from a
g scattering process described by Zel'dovich. The key is -- how wide
g will the disk be to fwhm?

Yes, and I suspect that a moment's thought by the casual reader will
yield the following simple conclusion: The resolution of a telescope
is given approximately by \lambda/D, where \lambda is the wavelength
of observation and D is the diameter of the telescope. Thus, if the
observed diameters of objects are \lambda/D, then any "tired light"
scattering diameter must be less than this amount.

Which is irrelevant to Zel'dovich's false claim about the difference between
'points' and 'gaussian disks'.

I suspect that Zel'dovich would have considered this point so
fundamental and so simple that he would not have considered it
necessary to use the ink to point it out.

That is true of most pure theoreticians. But there is no need to speculate
on what Zel'dovich might have thought. You pushed Zel'dovich as the
location of 'detailed' calculations -- without ever reading Zel'dovich. Now
that Zel'dovich has been shown to be worthless, you want to divert into pure
speculation. But the calculation still doesn't exist.


{and just to finish off Joseph's prior rants}
=======================
He
dismisses Zel'dovich's work without having read it and merely on the
basis of a summary.

Your reference of MTW *quoted* Zel'dovich's work. It was not merely a
summary. And I was addressing Zel'dovich's quote. (I had assumed that
MTW
are capable of quoting Zel'dovich when they put the statements in quotes
and
indented.)

Look, if you think Zel'dovich has something real, that is not covered by
MTW, by all means post it. Don't refer me to MTW -- then complain that
it's
somehow my fault that MTW doesn't really explain anything.
========================

DHRs always assert that somebody, somewhere, at some unknown time must have
done the calculation that disproves things. I ran a contest for awhile
digging back to the origin of such claims. So far, every one began with a
silly 'sounds reasonable' statement, sans calculation. Then the grapevine
gets ahold of it and repeats it without ever checking.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

g Joseph Lazio wrote in message
g ...

Doing a semi-quantitative estimate [of the magnitude of tired light]
should be fairly easy.

"Fairly easy" is clearly a relative measure!

Assume that photons travelling through the
intergalactic medium undergo some interaction that results in an rms
scattering angle per unit length. Call this is eps. Then the
apparent size of a source is given by the integral of eps over some
distance D.

Considering the speculated mechanism is discrete scattering
events, I approached it by assuming these can be characterised
by a mean number of events per MPc. If the direction of
scattering is random per event (i.e. ignoring possible effects
of polarisation) then the transverse velocity compared to the
original path would be related to the root of the number of
events rather than the simple integral, i.e. using a 'random
walk' approach. The first question then is to determine what
might be a reasonable number of events per unit distance.

A larger number of smaller deflections would result in a smaller
total hence less blurring but leads to other problems. Another
advantage of a high number of events is that the statistical
spread is reduced hence minimising the broadening of spectral
features. We can use this to find a lower limit.

Since by observation z is independent of wavelength, so is the
fractional energy loss per event. That is 'Tired Light' must
degrade the photon energy exponentially. The mean effect can be
described by a parameter z' such that E/E' = 1+z' where E is the
incident photon energy and E' the energy after the deflection.
If there are a mean of N events on the path then (1+z)=(1+z')^N
and, if I remember my stats, the spread would be about
+/- (1+z')^sqrt(N)

From Peebles, Wolfe et al (1985) studied PKS 0458-02 and found
two redshifted versions of the 21cm line with z of 2.03937 and
2.03953 respectively, or 2.03945 +/- 0.00008.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...pJ...294L..67W

Figure 2 shows the two peaks and suggests it is reasonable to
take the individual widths as comparable to the separation.
This gives a minimum N of 1.8*10^9. This is a conservative
lower limit since it assumes the source is monochromatic and
that the energy loss per event is fixed, i.e. z' has a single
value for all events. In this case z'=6.2*10^-10.

Assuming z~2 at about 2GPc (see below), this implies ~900 events
per parsec. I only used this observation as I was talking about
it recently and it is suitable for the purpose so it is likely
other tests could place a higher value of lower limit on this.

Take your favorite limit how much "blurriness" is observed for
distant sources. My guess would be that 1 arcsecond would be a
fairly stringent upper limit; some observations of the scintillation
of gamma-ray burst afterglows suggest that a value of 10
microarcseconds might be more appropriate. Suppose that a source is
1000 Mpc distant, which is something like z ~ 1 and typical for a
gamma-ray bursts. Then photon scattering cannot be much more than 10
nanoarcseconds/Mpc or about 1 femtoradian/Mpc.

[repositioned:]
.. I suspect that a moment's thought by the casual reader will
yield the following simple conclusion: The resolution of a telescope
is given approximately by \lambda/D, where \lambda is the wavelength
of observation and D is the diameter of the telescope. Thus, if the
observed diameters of objects are \lambda/D, then any "tired light"
scattering diameter must be less than this amount.

A 24" (600mm) mirror at 600nm implies a width of ~10^-6 radians.
Although my estimate above was at 21cm, the z for the Lyman alpha
line at 121.6nm showed the same value of z so it is reasonable to
use the same value for the visible band. Considering the random
walk argument at the top, sqrt(N)= 4.2*10^4 so the mean deflection
per event, a', needs to be less than 3*10^-11 rad even for a
commercially available amateur telescope.

Determining what this means in terms of energy loss per unit path
length is left as an exercise for the reader, but I'd be willing to
bet that this is a fairly stringent limit on any scattering process.

"an exercise for the reader" indeed. That's the easy bit I thought -
something to do with 1-cos(theta) IIRC. Hmmmmm.

For the above example, z'=6.2*10^-10, a'=2.4*10^-11 rad

Let the energy ratio be R = hv/mc^2, then for each event

z' = R * (1 - cos(a'))

a' = acos(1-z'/R)

Assuming the scatterers are free electrons with mc^2=511 keV

a' = 0.018 rad

Clearly that is untenable, but what about alternative particles.
A smaller mass would give the greater energy loss for a given
deflection so would require less deflection for a given z'. This
can place an upper limit on the mass of the scattering particle:

mc^2 = (hv/z') * (1 - cos(a'))

which in our example gives mc^2 9*10^-13 eV

Interestingly this is independent of N.

So far, so good, but this is not the whole story. The above holds
_if_ the particle is scattered by angle a' at each event, but there
are a large number of uncorrelated collisions involved so what
really matters is the average scattering angle and for that we need
the Klein-Nishina equation:

http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Depts/M...Labs/R-cs.html

The cross section for scattering through an angle theta into a
differential solid angle about theta is given as

http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Depts/M...ics/rcseq3.jpg

ds(t)/do = (r_e/2) * (P - P^2 * sin^2(t) + P^3)

where t (\theta) is the deflection angle, P i the fractional loss
of energy by the photon and r_e is the classical radius of the
electron or in general the scattering particle. To get the total
cross section S for the particle, integrate the above equation over
4 pi steradians. The fraction of photons scattered into the belt of
angular width dt about t is then

f(t) = 2 * pi * s(t) * sin(t) * dt / S

hence the mean scattering angle is

a' = integral[t*f(t)*dt] / S

and the mean fractional energy of the scattered photon is

P' = 2 * pi * P * t * sin(t) * dt / S

Now my idea was to note that P' = 1 / (1+z') and hence place some
limits on something, but ... here is a plot of the energy loss
and fraction of photons by deflection angle for R = hv/mc^2 = 10^5
(Excel can't handle a bigger value).

http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/Cosm...-Nishina_1.gif

Either I have got something wrong somewhere or clearly the
majority of photons lose too much energy. In fact because of
the long tail on the distribution (the graph only goes to
0.1 rad) the mean angle is about 0.34 rad and the mean energy
about 10% of the incident photon at R=10^5. The real problem
is that the mean energy of the reflected photon continues to
_fall_ as the mass of the scattering particle is reduced
further.

Of course the actual cross section is also very small for these
values but it seems that it is impossible to achieve either low
loss or low deflection angles at any credible particle mass. My
maths isn't good enough to turn this into an upper limit but it
seems from all this that Compton scattering could never work
regardless of the blurring argument.

On the other hand, the significant loss but small cross section
suggests that a high enough density of ultra-low mass particles
could scatter a small fraction of the total light from a distant
target which would have the effect of reducing the apparent
brightness. The high mean scattering angle actually means there
would be almost no blurring, just a slight reduction in brightness
at high red shifts. Curiously, isn't that just the effect that
has led to the conclusion that expansion is accelerating? I wonder
what particle mass/density would be needed to account for that.

George
p.s. Thanks for the exercise Joseph, I learnt more
than I expected, even if I have screwed up somewhere!

It's too late for this stuff, it should have been:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

.... The fraction of photons scattered into the belt of
angular width dt about t is then

f(t) = 2 * pi * s(t) * sin(t) * dt / S

hence the mean scattering angle is

a' = integral[t*f(t)*dt]

and the mean fractional energy of the scattered photon is

P' = integral[P(t)*f(t)*dt]

where P(t) = 1 / (1 + R * (1-cos(t)))

George

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

Since by observation z is independent of wavelength, so is the
fractional energy loss per event. That is 'Tired Light' must
degrade the photon energy exponentially. The mean effect can be
described by a parameter z' such that E/E' = 1+z' where E is the
incident photon energy and E' the energy after the deflection.
If there are a mean of N events on the path then (1+z)=(1+z')^N
and, if I remember my stats, the spread would be about
+/- (1+z')^sqrt(N)

From Peebles, Wolfe et al (1985) studied PKS 0458-02 and found
two redshifted versions of the 21cm line with z of 2.03937 and
2.03953 respectively, or 2.03945 +/- 0.00008.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...pJ...294L..67W

Figure 2 shows the two peaks and suggests it is reasonable to
take the individual widths as comparable to the separation.
This gives a minimum N of 1.8*10^9. This is a conservative
lower limit since it assumes the source is monochromatic and
that the energy loss per event is fixed, i.e. z' has a single
value for all events. In this case z'=6.2*10^-10.

Determining what this means in terms of energy loss per unit path
length is left as an exercise for the reader, but I'd be willing to
bet that this is a fairly stringent limit on any scattering process.

Let the energy ratio be R = hv/mc^2, then for each event

z' = R * (1 - cos(a'))

For the energy loss to be low, R 1. As can be seen from this
graph for R = 6.23*10^-10, the scattering probability becomes
symmetrical about pi/2 (this is always true for R 1):

http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/Cosm...-Nishina_2.gif

hence

cos(a') ~ 0

z' = R

mc^2 = hv/z'

For a 600nm photon (2.1eV) the particle mass must be 3.3GeV

This has two problems, first the photon is deflected by
nn average of 90 degrees more than 900 times per parsec and
secondly the redshift at each collision is frequency dependent:

z' = hv/mc^2

Given this, I find it hard to understand how Compton scattering
could be considered as a possible cause of cosmological red
shift to the point that I am still suspicious that I have made
an embarrassing mistake somewhere. Any pointers would be
gratefully received.

George