|
Post by carnyx on Feb 5, 2011 20:03:50 GMT 1
For me, cosmology and physics, etc, is a constant source of amusement in the real sense of the word.
For example, here are my musings about Red Shift and whether there might be an alternative and more satisfactory explanation.
As we know, Maxwell's model of EM wave propagation does not require a medium as it deals with rates-of-change, but that does not mean that static fields are not physically present, and is the medium through wich they propagate.
Now zones can exist in electric, magnetic and gravity fields where there is no gradient, and so no detectable fields, yet they exist!
So, out in interstellar space, we could say that static (and so undetectable) EM fields actually do exist, and they support the traversing EM waves, such as light.
But the frequency of waves are affected by the density ( or 'strength') of the medium. If a given wave encounters an area of lower density, the frequency will drop.
Now EM wave sources are characterised by regions with very strong fields. As they travel outwards, into interstellar space, the EM fields will become less dense, and so the EM wave frequencies will fall.
'So what'? you say. But, the apparent 'red-shift' will be proportional to the inverse square of the distance, rather than linearly as the current theory has it. The consequences are;
- The age of the universe is overstated
- Stellar distances are overstated
- There is no need for a 'Big-Bang' and Inflation' to account for Red Shift
- As the initial frequencies of the EM waves are a function of the starting density of the fields, so with stars at very high field densities, only very high EM frequencies will be emitted. At extremely high fields, EM waves higher that the frequencies of visible light be emitted, such as Xrays and Gamma rays, so these sources will appear as 'black holes'
.... and so on.
So I reckon that there really could be a credible alternative explanation of Red Shift, which would call into question the cosmological explanations of Big Bang, Inflation & co.,
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 5, 2011 22:59:41 GMT 1
You do need to provide 'hard' evidence of course to support your case. It's not a bad thing to be a skeptic but in the end it's evidence that wins through.
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Feb 6, 2011 2:58:49 GMT 1
As I said, Abacus, I am merely finding it amusing. I have since googled around, and found out that the idea though original to me, was thought by John Bell (of 'inequality' fame) as perfectly tenable, and could actually answer certain problems in quantum theory.
But as you have show interest, the nub question is 'how do you detect the presence of a field when it has no 'gradient'? For example, how can you detect the Earth's graviational field in a space-station orbit? Another example woud be in the small zone of neutrality at the midpoint between the north poles of two bar magnets facing each other.
What may be really interesting is that there could be no definintive proof yet it could still answer more questions than the current orthodoxy ( which also has no definintive proof)
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 6, 2011 10:21:12 GMT 1
We have talked previously of how we often get a null em field if there are two anti-phase fields adding together. Note that his happens only if the two waves are perfect sine waves - if there are tiny imperfections in the sine waves then 'unaccountable' em ripples will be detected (are these quantum fluctiations?) Is there such a thing as a perfect sinewave outside mathematics? I would not have thought so!
Here's another question? When two anti-phase em waves add the sum is zero What has happened to th energy each had before adding?
|
|
|
Post by helen on Feb 6, 2011 12:31:16 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 6, 2011 13:45:36 GMT 1
Well, this is all covered by the 'curved space' model, is it not?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 6, 2011 13:50:16 GMT 1
No, I don't think so because what we have to remember is that our minds only make 'models' of reality so that we can only ever experience reality via our ideas. A perfect sine wave is an idealization and only has value to the extent that it can be used to make predictions about nature, but of itself is an illusion. Nature and perfection do not seem co-exist anyway so we are always forced to make approximations about it. In fact, what is the definition of perfection anyway? Has it any meaning? This slightly reminds me of the definition of 'infinity' in that there is no satisfactory one.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 6, 2011 14:32:04 GMT 1
No, I don't think so because what we have to remember is that our minds only make 'models' of reality so that we can only ever experience reality via our ideas. A perfect sine wave is an idealization and only has value to the extent that it can be used to make predictions about nature, but of itself is an illusion. Nature and perfection do not seem co-exist anyway so we are always forced to make approximations about it. In fact, what is the definition of perfection anyway? Has it any meaning? This slightly reminds me of the definition of 'infinity' in that there is no satisfactory one. I think that the interesting point tha is implicit inCarnyx's ideas is that if equal amplitude anti phase em waves exist in space then we will be unaware of them - there will be no potential 'gradient' that we can measure, no energy, and if the em waves are light frequency, no photons -just darkness. But if there are tiny imperfections in either of the two cancelling waves, then we will experience 'spontaneous generation' of photons. Apparently 'creation of something from nothing'!
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 6, 2011 15:26:02 GMT 1
Well, we are always told that energy cannot be destroyed so the energy must still be there after opposing EM waves have cancelled each other out.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 6, 2011 18:09:55 GMT 1
Well, we are always told that energy cannot be destroyed so the energy must still be there after opposing EM waves have cancelled each other out. Yes, but where?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 6, 2011 19:54:29 GMT 1
I'm guessing here but it might be an average of the positive and negative peak values of the EM waves.
I know that in an AC electrical wave you can work out the equivalent DC value in terms of power by calculating the 'root mean square' of the AC wave, who's formula I do not remember at the moment. Presumably, it's an analogous thing in regard to other kinds of EM waves but don't hold me to it as I could be barking up the wrong tree. Where's a good physicist when you need one??
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 6, 2011 21:22:15 GMT 1
Where's a good physicist when you need one?? Ah Yes! There's the rub!
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 6, 2011 21:36:03 GMT 1
Well, I'm not saying that STA does not know the answer, in fact she should if she is a physicist, but it is a question of conveying it to us, which often seems problematical with STA, although I have to note that recently she does seem to have made an effort to be less obtuse.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 7, 2011 17:09:11 GMT 1
More confusion I'm afraid! Static (ie not changing in time) electric fields CAN be represented as the gradient of a potential. But the situation becomes more complicated when magnetic fields are added, and things can change with time.
The gravitational field can also be represented as the gradient of a potential, but saying that if there is no gradient (ie potential constant in some region) is NOT the same as saying there is no field, just that the field has zero value here (and non-zero elsewhere).
Detecting gravitational field in orbit is easy-peasy -- if it weren't there, you wouldn't be orbiting! BAD example, since in orbit is NOT free of gravitational field, you just don't feel it because you are continually falling.
This is WRONG. Differing denisty effects the speed that the waves propagate, but (unless you have some freaky non-linear optical medium), it DOESN'T effect the frequency!
And this is denisty of the material, NOT 'density' of the em waves themselves, hence your conclusion that frequencies fall as waves have lower AMPLITUDE (whcich is what spreading out does) is just nonsense.
Except you're stuffed, because the static fields that may be in some region DON'T interact with travelling waves! Ditto one set of travelling waves don't interact with another set, which is why I can see the blue light from the sky, despite all the other colours of light criss-crossing in all directions that the blue light had to traverse to get to me.
The argument also falls down because if static fields were the 'medium' for travelling fields, what is the 'medium' that supports the static fields in the first place?
Except the way red-shift varies with distance has been MEASURED, how else do you think we measure the Hubble constant? It is MEASURED to vary linearly with distance for the objects Hubble used, which is why he hypothesized the Hubble law to start with -- its an observational fact, NOT a theoretical prediction with no grounding in actual measurement.
This is utter rubbish as well -- the frequency of em waves depend on the atomic, nuclear and molecular nature of the objects emitting them, NOT on whatever em fields may be around at the time.
Well, it's a bugger then that the sun emits X-rays and gamma rays, as well as plenty of visible light. We KNOW what determines the spectrum of a star -- the temperature is the thing, NOT some wibbles about field density.
Only because you've misunderstood practically everything about the generation and transmission of em waves.
Why don't you bother learning the utter basics before musing? Because any idiot can muse from a posiiton of total ignorance and find it amusing -- a bit like masturbation, do it if you must, but you really shouldn't display it in front of other people..........................
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 7, 2011 17:16:59 GMT 1
Except two travelling waves can't cancel each other out everywhere at all times. So, suppose I have two wave generators in synch, and I can find a place in between them where the arrival of a trough from one is always coincides with the arrival of a peak from the other. But move just a little way from this point, and now I don't have the nice ccncellation, and at the right point, I will find that a peak from one always coincides with a peak from the other.
Hence I get a pattern of average amplitude, that in some places is twice the amplitude from either, in others zero. Hence we don't get total cancellation, just the bright and dark bands familiar from interference patterns in things like the double-slit experiment. You loose it in some places, and get more than you expected in others.
|
|