To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: What is causing the red shift?
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Physics > Physics General

jeffocal
There is overwhelming evidence, in the form of its gravitational influence, that points to the existence of dark matter. (Please see http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/...60821133930.htm ). Additionally there overwhelming experimental evidence, in the form of gravitational leasing, that gravitational fields can effect the direction and therefore “directional” energy of a photon. Please see http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/lenses.html

Since there is experimental evidence that dark matter or the gravitational fields associated with dark matter can interact with a photon to generate a change in its energy content is it possible that a portion of the energy loss associated with the red shift observed in photons is due to an interaction with dark matter?

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffocal/shadows.htm

Jeff
Nick
Directions or curvature don't change the energy of light. There is no tired light. Light is being emitted red shifted because of time slowdown. This is the Einstein shift.

Dark matter can't emit therefore it can't redshift. EM energy is conserved in General Relativity.
jeffocal
QUOTE (Nick+Sep 17 2006, 04:12 AM)
Dark matter can't emit therefore it can't redshift.

However dark matter can interact with EM energy as indicated by the fact that a gravitational field associated with dark matter causes gravitational leasing.

There are two possible causes for a red shift. The first is that it is caused by the velocity of the object emitting the EM radiation. But it can also be caused by dissipation in the energy of EM radiation as it moves through space.

Is it possible that as EM radiation moves through dark matter a portion of its energy is dissipated by dark matter or the gravational field associated with dark matter causing its frequency to shift towards the red end of the spectrum?

Jeff
fivedoughnut
Jeff'l,

"The universe’s most powerful enabling tool
is not knowledge or understanding
but imagination."
......Try selling that to Pupamancur laugh.gif
jeffocal
QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Sep 17 2006, 10:42 AM)
Jeff'l,

"The universe’s most powerful enabling tool
is not knowledge or understanding
but imagination."
......Try selling that to Pupamancur  laugh.gif

Hey one short of half a dozen. smile.gif

I’m sure that I can. :LTM:

Could you please inform Pupamancur that I would be interested in discussing the advantages of my proposals with him

Thank you

Jeff’l sad.gif
Turanyanin
***About G-red shift please see my post from same thread in another section***

What is also a sort of my long-standing estimations is a question: does c really is changed in G-field and how?

Namely GR claimed it is, and in the week field (Schwartzschield) limit we have known

c = c_0(1 - 2r_g/r); r_g = GM/c^2

There are authors (e.g. Marmet and Strelcov) who claim that even light bending is under a question.

Part of my gravitodynamic insight and calculations (similar to Nordstrom /1913/, recently Richterek and Majernik, Vankov, Kisslinger, Hatch etc.) is

m = m_0exp(-r_g/r)

for each "mass" in a given G-field of M, photon including! Once again, Pound-Rebka is fundamental even from this perspective. Namely, if

p = mc = const (in 3-vector meaning)

and if mass (photon's) is strictly G-dependent then should be

c = c_0exp(r_g/r) ~= c_0(1 + r_g/r + ...)

which is fundamentally different from the above GR's, but certainly from both Marmet's, both Strelcov's claiming (not to mention Newton’s mechanics m = const) .

What is with light bending now? Well, it is strongly dynamic effect, and seeing photon as a "massive particle" in "linear vector field domain" it should follow sort of Lorentz-like equation of motion as any "regular" particle as well.

Right now I try to solve such a problem. I see it as a part of more general two-body problem with one complex scaling exp-factor. If someone already has good direct mathematical apparatus/solution, he/she is welcome to participate or better say to develop further this idea in which I've no "copyrights" at all.

Best whishes (to all)
jeffocal
QUOTE (Turanyanin+Sep 18 2006, 10:32 PM)
What is also a sort of my long-standing estimations is a question: does c really is changed in G-field and how?


The intended purpose of this discussion was to attempt to understand how dark matter, if it exists, can affect EM radiation as it move thought and not necessarily if c changes in a G-field. That should be the topic of another discussion.

Experimental observations strongly suggest the existence of dark matter in terms of its gravitational influence on stars and galaxies. We would like to focus the subject matter of this thread on examining how or if dark matter affects EM radiation as it move though.

“The composition of dark matter” was discussed in an in the theoretical physic forum http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...l=jeffocal&st=0

However, whatever form dark matter takes weather it be a continuous non-quantized field as suggested in our paper at http://home.comcast.net/~jeffocal/shadows.htm or composed of weak interacting particles called “WIMPS” as suggested in the New Scientists article “Dark Matter burners” - a new type of star” at http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/m...pe-of-star.html it is still composed of mass which by definition posses the property of inertia.

Therefore, any particle or wave moving thought it, including a photon of EM radiation would experience a damping due to the inertial properties associated with the mass of dark matter. This would result in a red shifting of that particle or wave.

We would like to subject of discussion to focus on answering the following question.

Is it possible the casualty of a portion of the red shift in the emission spectra of stars is due to the physical existence of dark matter?

Jeff
pakoppan
I guess all the information above(below,whatever place it is) is correct but it is put in a more complex way .

Redshift is a phenomenon in which the visible light from an object is shifted towards the red end of the spectrum.

If you look at a celetial object you will notice what we call Doppler effect. It is related to the sound of a train approaching you and the sound of the train moving away from you.(frequency of the sounds)

In astronomy, simply put, it tells us if the celestial object is heading toward us or away from us.

When we see a redshift, then we know that the object is moving away from you and you have a blue shift when approaching you. (objects here may be galaxies, black holes ..)
Using redshift measurements and the Hubble constant (that varies- weird? yes) it is possible to tell how far a celestial object is and also gives us a fairly accurate measure of the size of the visible Universe. Currently the estimate ranges from 12 to 14 billion light years.

Recently Astronomers determined the size of the universe and it is estimated to be some 156 billion light years.

It is very simplistic approach, perhaps you know all this but then...I have not a crystal ball.
jeffocal
QUOTE (pakoppan+Oct 6 2006, 07:15 PM)
It is very simplistic approach,

However subject of this thread was intended to examining the possibility that approach physicists have used to estimate the age of the universe is overly simplistic. “Simplistic” in the sense that they have not considered any other possible reasons for a red shift to occur other than a Doppler effect.

The existence of the gravitational effect of dark matter has been observational confirmed and the fact that a gravitational field does have a effect on a directional component of light.

Does any feel it would be prudent for physicists examine the possibility that at a portion of a red shift may be a result of an interaction of light with the gravitational field associated with dark matter and not 100 percent due to a Doppler shift.


Jeff
Zephir
QUOTE (jeffocal+Oct 7 2006, 07:01 PM)
.. they have not considered any other possible reasons for a red shift to occur other than a Doppler effect. ....

By the Aether Wave theory (AWT) and gravastar theory the Universe if formed by the interior of sort black hole, which collapses by its gravity, thus increasing its density. From the point of view the internal observer, which is formed by the standing waves of such interior, such collapse is perceived as the space expansion (you can click to the animation below to see the AVI video at better resolution)

user posted image user posted image User posted image

How the dark matter has appeared? By the AWT , the vacuum is foamy massive environment, which is the result of phase transform. The very similar process appears during condensation of so called supercritical vapor, during this the intimate mixture less and more dense phase appears, similar to foam. Such foam is heavy, so it induces a further phase transition in spherically growing zones like crystalline aggregates fast growing from over-saturated solution.

User posted image user posted image user posted image

Whenever such spherical zones met together, an immense collapse occurs, which will lead into formation of globules of heavily compressed hot matter, so called quasars. After leveling of pressure and establishing of equilibrium, the most of quasars matter is radiated back again into vacuum, where it forms an interstellar gas, the source of galaxy material. The more massive vacuum, the energy of which isn't able to form a particles of observable matter is forming an invisible dark matter streaks. The dark matter is composed from cool part and hot part, the later one it can contain some very heavy particles or highly ionized atom nuclei. The cool part can contain gravitophotons. neutrinos or some primordial ultra-lightweight particles, like axions and neutralinos. The quasars after cooling and radiating of excessive matter are forming a black holes residues at the centers of most of newly created galaxies.
pakoppan
Hello people,

I'm browsing the answers based on the mails I receive warning about the new post made.

At this time,when I click in,say, Zephir's answer or posting, aqpparently I'm not taken directly what zephir's or anyone else's entry.
Then I got another mail with farsight posting a reply or a contuinuation of something being discussed but again the link doesn't send me to what farsight posted.


I'm middle of my confusion I'd like to add some more confusion regarding the Doppler effect and redshift.

This redshift path has been studied since 1970 or earlier with right or wrong conclusions. That's not the point for what comes below.

I would like to ask the following question:

Doppler effect. Let's make a small break here and imagine a car stoppped somewhere in a clear day but close enough to be seen clearly.

The amount of air between me and the car doesn't affect what I see of the car.
Now place the car inside a very foggy day at the same distance as the in the clear day. The details I observe may not be as clear as it should so I might be missing, say, the front part of the car or one of the tiires since it is obscured by the dense fog. The air between me and the car does make a big difference on what I observe.

Now, going back to the main issue. Formulas or no formulas, we accepted the Doppler as it is (we had no option). Then the dark matter/energy came into focus.
This means that the dark matter was always there but nobody realized it until "recently".

Could we transport the car in the fog or on the clear day to the redshift /dark matter discussion ? Wouldn't dark matter already be an intrinsic factor in the redshift observation. So we never observed the redshift effect WITHOT the dark matter having something to say.

Something like : What I percieve is nothing more than Redshift + dark matter?
What redshift diferentical would we see if we take dark matter out of the picture?
Would there be any difference? Has dark energy(whatever that is, play a role?)

All this might be gibberish but then has any astronomer/physicist thought of that?
I believe they did but I can't find anything (or I was looking at wrong place or correct place and not seeing it) about this. If they did, what are the conclusions?

Notice that I say nothing about the mathematical side of this coin that could change all I said..

see ya

pakoppan ( ++++****++++ this is for my own use-kind of eyecatcher).





PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.