Quantized redshift anomaly

Specialists of all types tend to skip over the elementary explanations, or state it in their shorthand -- moving on to approach their own horizons. This leaves most of us behind, and does nothing to help those new to the field learn. And those who ought to be confronted with the evidence, need make no excuse for ignoring it.

Dr Paul Marmet writes as a physicist educator. His approach is pragmatic. His basis is ordinary physics. I have excerpted a portion of his paper which gives us an excellent overview and for the Phd a statement of assumptions made.

His point is that both the Doppler redshift and the CMB are produced by transparent matter. Molecular Hydrogen (H2)In one fell swoop Marmet knocks two of the three legs right out from under the
big bang theory.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><center>The Origin of 3 K Radiation.

Paul Marmet, Physics Department,

University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada K1N 6N5.

Updated extract from: Apeiron, Vol. 2, Nr. 1 January 1995

&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;

Abstract. </center>

It is recalled that one of the most fundamental laws of physics leads to the prediction that all matter emits electromagnetic radiation. That radiation, called Planck's radiation, covers an electromagnetic spectrum that is characterized by the absolute temperature of the emitting matter. From astronomical observations we observe that most matter in the universe is in the gas phase at 3 K. Stars of course are much hotter. The characteristic Planck's spectrum, corresponding to 3 K, is actually observed in the universe exactly as required.
However, in the standard model of the universe, the simple fundamental Planck's law has been ignored. It is claimed that the observed radiation comes from a combination of complicated hypotheses, involving an elaborate "creation mechanism" called the Big Bang. After this event, the radiation would have been emitted at a single instant when matter became decoupled from radiation. Finally, that radiation would have been shifted increasing its wavelength about 1000 times. We show that the 3 K radiation spectrum observed is simply the Planck's radiation emitted by gaseous matter at 3 K.
1 - Usual Interpretation of the 3 K Radiation.
One of the most frequently used arguments in favor of the Big Bang hypothesis is the observation of the 3 K radiation from space. In this hypothesis it is considered that the universe started as an expanding mass of matter at an extremely high temperature. The density of that very dense matter was originally so high that it was then opaque and light could not pass through it. During the expansion, the temperature and the density of the universe were gradually decreasing, so that the universe became more and more transparent. When the temperature of this young universe reached about 3000 K, about 15 billion years ago the universe became sufficiently transparent so that the radiation emitted could move across cosmological distances without being absorbed significantly. It is said that the radiation became then decoupled with matter. It is that radiation that is still traveling through space today and that we would observe under the "appearance" of 3 K radiation.

We must further notice that nothing in the description given above has ever been witnessed directly. It is like a tale. The Big Bang hypothesis must be submitted to tests. Many examples of failures of those tests have been shown. For example, if the universe started as a very high concentration of matter, it can be calculated that it was then a Black Hole. However, relativity shows that Black Holes cannot expand. The Big Bang is therefore incompatible with the early expansion of the universe when relativity is taken into account as shown previously. As mentioned previously, the Big Bang hypothesis is another "creationist theory" for which the only difference with the usual "creationist theory" claiming that universe started 4000 B.C. is by changing the number 4000 B.C. by 15 billion years.

2 - a) Structure of Atomic H and Molecular Hydrogen H2.

Before understanding the origin of the 3 K radiation observed in space, we need to know the properties of matter filling space. Astronomical observations show that there is a very large quantity of atomic hydrogen (H) in the universe. Atomic hydrogen is composed of an electron electrically bound to a proton forming neutral hydrogen. Protons, just as electrons have a fundamental property called "spin". In a hydrogen atom, those spins are coupled either parallel or anti parallel. The interesting point is that a transition from a parallel to an anti parallel coupling of spins in hydrogen (and vice versa) takes place when hydrogen is emitting (or absorbing) electromagnetic radiation at a wavelength of 21 cm. Consequently, one can determine the amount of atomic hydrogen H in the universe by measuring the amount of radiation absorbed (or emitted) at 21 cm. The actual observation of the 21 cm. line proves that there is a very abundant amount of atomic hydrogen in the universe.

It is well known in basic physics and chemistry that atomic hydrogen H is quite unstable. Spectroscopy reveals that when one has a given quantity of atomic hydrogen in a given volume, these atoms react between themselves to form molecular hydrogen (H2). This is unlike helium and other inert gases that remain mono-atomic. Atomic hydrogen reacts so readily, that it is impossible to buy or keep any quantity of stable atomic hydrogen, because atoms of atomic hydrogen combine in pairs, to produce very stable bound H2 molecules.

Molecular H2 is extremely stable at normal pressure down to the most extreme vacuum. One can expect that, after billions of years, an important fraction of atomic hydrogen H in the universe is already combined to form the extremely stable molecular hydrogen (H2). The recombination mechanisms will be discussed below. One might then ask why we do not report the detection of a large amount of molecular hydrogen H2 in space. We are told that it is simply because it does not exist. Such a naive answer requires further study.

Let us examine how molecular hydrogen H2 can be detected in space. In molecular hydrogen, there are two protons and two electrons bound together. The bounding of those particles is such that interaction with visible or infrared light cannot break or even excite that bounding. The transition is forbidden for a dipole transition. Molecular H2 is among the most transparent gases in the universe. Consequently, one cannot hope to detect free H2 in space by usual spectroscopic means.


<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

With all the talk about dark this and black that, in reality the Universe is filled with ordinary transparent matter, which, when taken into account, produces what we observe happening.

Does transparent matter redshift photons passing "through it"

JMB writes:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">


Quantized redshifts


People working on femtosecond laser pulses observe every day an annoying effect: the frequencies are redshifted! The explanation results from elementary spectroscopy: A parametric effect (parametric means space-coherent + no permanent excitation of the matter) transfers energy between electromagnetic beams refracted by a convenient medium, so that the hot beams (temperature from Planck's law) are redshifted, the cool (usually microwaves) are blueshifted.

Using the definition of "ultrashort electromagnetic pulses" given by G. L. Lamb in an old paper published in the "review of Modern physics", that is pulses "shorter than all relevant time constants", this effect applies to the pulses making the usual incoherent light, but Lamb's condition is hard with the nanosecond pulses: To observe in a lab with ordinary light, the effect named CREIL, a long multipath cell should be filled with neutral atomic hydrogen in states 2S or 2P, or other strange gases.

A CREIL frequency shift appears very similar to a Doppler shift: It is coherent (no blurring of the images), a spectral line is shifted without a change of its width, the principles of thermodynamics are fulfilled, a time-incoherence of the light is needed (else it would be a genuine Doppler effect). A single difference: the relative frequency shift is only approximately constant; this is remarkable because the observed redshifts are not strictly constant (standard interpretation: a change of the fine structure constant ! ).

Applying the CREIL effect to the propagation of a continuous ("white"),far UV rich spectrum, lines appear, with relative frequency shifts having the periodicity 0.062. This periodicity corresponds to the redshifts which put the Lyman beta or gamma to the alpha z=3*0.062 and z=4*0.062 respectively.

This quantitative coincidence with the astrophysical observations shows that the largest part of the observed redshifts is produced by a CREIL effect in excited H I.

The CREIL effect in excited H I explains all anomalous frequency shifts by a search of hydrogen in states 2S or (and) 2P:

- The whole spectrum of the quasars, supposing they are micro-quasars in a cloud of hydrogen.

- The "Very Red objects", close to the quasars (Arp, ...)

- The "anomalous acceleration" of Pioneer 10 and 11 probes beyond 5 UA, where the solar wind condensates into excited hydrogen, in particular into metastable 2S. A transfer of energy from the solar light to the microwaves explains their blueshift.

- The same transfer of energy explains that the anisotropy of the "CMB" is bound to the ecliptic (that is to the corona of the Sun)

JMB


<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Question: How much reshift is too be expected from molecular htdrogen H2?

Tommy,

One of the problems with posting large quantities of anti-Big-Bang cut-and-past *on this particular message board* is that readers here tend to either skim the material or read only the first paragraph or two. This tendency tends to rise among those of us with more technical savvy.

I suspect you would find this tendency is easy to understand among those who disagree with the idea that "BB is wrong". Note however that it exists also among those of us who do not disagree, but who already have a reason for thinking BB is wrong.

===

Summary: It is not that we disagree with you that red shift can be caused by non-doppler phenomena. It is that we already have a <b>better</b> reson for thinking so than you do.

===

To engage us in a meaningful discussion of your alternate ideas about why redshift is not primarily caused by velocity of recession you are going to have to:

1) learn why we think it is not caused by velocity of recession
2) present arguments why your explanation is better than <u>our</u> explanation.

One more time. We don't really care if your explanation is better than the BB explation. From our perspective claiming that your explanation is better than BB is like claiming that air is easier for people to breath than water.

Regards,
LB

Larry you are so right


Harry

Larry I am not writing to entertain you and Harry. If you find it difficult to read more than a paragraph or two then don't. If you think that by providing all this research material hurts readership, then why has this forum be accessed over 12,000 times, more than all the rest combined? Why do you think you have the right to tell other people what to say? Do you realize that 99% of the world doesn't care that you do not care about the big bang? Those are the people you should be talking to...

To Tommy

Smile,,,,,,,,thats telling us.


I for one am Happy with your notes and paste.

But! i prefer to see links that way i know what info is from you and from the links.

I do not want to slow you down. As a matter of fact how can I help you advance.

Keep up the good work.



Harry