Mirror mirror tell me who is the best! NGST

jacques
Topic Author
Offline
Senior Member

21 years 11 months ago #4240 by jacques

Replied by jacques on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Photons lose the directional info <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
Is it the same thing as scattering?
Light from distant supernova should be more scattered than close one.
Is this relation observed?
If their is a relation between redshift and scatering, does it reinforce this theory or it has no effect because other explaination for scatering are plausible.
An other question: Does the 'magnetic ribbon' on the simulation have been observed? Is polarisation of the light used to make these observation?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

AgoraBasta
Offline
Elite Member

21 years 11 months ago #4616 by AgoraBasta

Replied by AgoraBasta on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Is it the same thing as scattering?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
It can be considered as deeply elastic scattering by very small angle per interaction or as gravitational deflection of individual photons in weak fields.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Light from distant supernova should be more scattered than close one.
Is this relation observed?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
Ideally, we should see a smooth transition from isotropic "CMB" to more and more distinct images of individual sources. The problem is that now we don't have the necessary data from the deep field sources. The NGST thing should reveal quite a lot in the infrared band.
On the CMB end of spectrum we also get distortions due to the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect. There are quite a few ongoing projects to investigate that effect; along with their data we may get some new data on global anisotropy in the bands above the CMB.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If their is a relation between redshift and scatering, does it reinforce this theory or it has no effect because other explaination for scatering are plausible.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
The Big Bangers won't give up without a fight, they'll try every possible alternative "explanation".
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>An other question: Does the 'magnetic ribbon' on the simulation have been observed? Is polarisation of the light used to make these observation?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
Those magnetic fields seem inferred from numerical simulation within their model.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

jacques
Topic Author
Offline
Senior Member

21 years 11 months ago #4748 by jacques

Replied by jacques on topic Reply from

The atmosphere create scattering and adaptive optic must be used. This adaptive optic also correct scattering from all others origins. So we should observe from space.
Scattering is caused by dust.
What is the source of scattering ? Dust or atom ?
We must find a way to estimate those factor.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>There are quite a few ongoing projects to investigate that effect<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
Do you have any link?

A way to detect magnetism in distant object is by measuring the polarisation of photons. Need a lot of photons. I didn't saw polarisation mesurement in the instrument list of the NGST. Hope it's included!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>- the mass/energy of the source is ... <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
Do you mean that you count the photon in your equation for acceleration? I learn that the mass of the photon is zero. You can get an equivalent mass with E/c^2. But still the photon have no mass. Isn't it just an equivalence? For the phenomena to take place, the gravity phenomena must go at least at the same speed of the photon. Is it possible for G go faster than C and the phenomena to occur when the photon arrive? In think that's why potential was invented...

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

AgoraBasta
Offline
Elite Member

21 years 11 months ago #4426 by AgoraBasta

Replied by AgoraBasta on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>What is the source of scattering ? Dust or atom ?
We must find a way to estimate those factor.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>The thing I talk about is not like scattering on particles, but small deflections from variations in gravitational field's intesity and direction along the photon path. It happens when the photon flux from a source is so rarefied, that directions of subsequent registered photons from that source start to differ in direction.<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Do you have any link?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>Here's a link on the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect - ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Birkinshaw/Birk_contents.html ; here's one of the projects - hea.iki.rssi.ru/SXG/sxg_00.html .
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>A way to detect magnetism in distant object is by measuring the polarisation of photons. Need a lot of photons. I didn't saw polarisation mesurement in the instrument list of the NGST. Hope it's included!<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>I believe that kind of basic equipment is always there even if not specifically mentioned in the list. Hope I've guessed right.<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I learn that the mass of the photon is zero. You can get an equivalent mass with E/c^2. But still the photon have no mass. Isn't it just an equivalence?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>Correct, but a system of photons may have "rest mass" - it's the so-called invariant mass that can't be transformed away by a ref frame choice. For a spherically symmetric shell of photons such invariant mass is exactly equal to mass spent to emit those photons. But never mind, the energy gravitates just as successfully as rest mass. Thus the case of a spherical shell is almost exactly equivalent to an expanding shell of matter.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

jacques
Topic Author
Offline
Senior Member

21 years 11 months ago #4757 by jacques

Replied by jacques on topic Reply from

AB<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>then a cold corpse of a former star would tend to escape into intergalactic space <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
Is that because thecold corpse is no more in the plasma state ?

AB<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> that dead matter must get accelerated by magnetic field coupling to its magnetic moment <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
But it has no more magnetic moment. How can it be accelerated?

Jim <BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The density of the universe has to be more than 1 proton/m3 <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I think the plasma model doesn't need dark matter.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

AgoraBasta
Offline
Elite Member

21 years 11 months ago #4408 by AgoraBasta

Replied by AgoraBasta on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Is that because thecold corpse is no more in the plasma state ?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>Absolutely yes.<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>But it has no more magnetic moment. How can it be accelerated?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>Hardly any matter is truly magnetically neutral. I mean, some residual magnetic moment is always there. Then the voids are so great that there's always time enough for magnetic acceleration.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.685 seconds