Red shift

[ma...@geoffgrayer.force9.co.uk]

Postulate 1: There is no proof that the large-scale red shift observed for galaxies is due to Doppler shift. This has just been assumed, as we do see red (and blue) shifts from observable or calculable motion due to galactic rotation, double stars, etc., and so have extended this to the galactic red shifts.

 

Postulate 2: The linear behaviour of this red shift with deduced distance, I.e. the value of the Hubble Constant as equal to 1.0, was a puzzle for many years, implying that the mass of the Universe was exactly that to prevent either acceleration or deceleration. It is claimed that recent observations find a deviation for the most distant objects, but due to the difficulty of observing such objects, correcting for inter-galactic absorption etc., I would claim that we cannot be certain of these latest observations.

 

Postulate 3: If we saw an effect which was linear with distance, our first reaction would be to say 'it is some interaction which takes place in space, so the more space traversed, the larger the effect'. So could there be an effect which reduces the energy of light in intergalactic space, without noticeably effecting the images we see?

 

3.1 Imagine an interaction between the light (photons) and some very, very light objects found in intergalactic space, i.e imagine a football hitting a golf ball. The heavier object will be diverted very slightly, loosing a small but finite energy to the lighter. Now imagine many of these interactions. If the average energy loss is dE, and the deflection angle da, then after N scatters:

    the Total Energy Loss will be N.dE;

    but the Total Deflection Angle will be only SQRT(N).da, due to the random nature of the scatter in the two dimensions perpendicular to the direction of the light. In other words, there is a 'random walk' in the X and Y deflections.

Thus the larger the number of scatters, the less relative importance of the scatter angle compared with the energy loss.

3.2  [I have a problem here; will there be a dependence on the mass of the photon, i.e. a dependence of this interactional red shift on the light wavelength. Do we know objects have the same red shift in the optical and radio frequencies? The span over the light spectrum (about an octave) is relatively small compared with the range of e/m wavelengths.]

3.3 So are there any candidate objects filling space which could give rise to these scatters? The interaction only needs to take place with a large mean free path between, because of the huge distances involved.

3.3.1 Neutrinos - space must be filled with low energy neutrinos, given off in their myriads by every shining star. Both the mu and electron neutrinos have a vanishingly small but (it is thought) finite mass, of which one has now been measured. There can be a second-order interaction between a photon and a neutrino. Each photon spends some of its time as an electron-positron pair (for a time given by the Heisenberg Principle of Uncertainty, and the Plank Constant). In fact this is the lightest particle-antiparticle pair available, and therefore will be the dominant alternative state. The electron neutrino can scatter off either one of these electrons through the Weak Force (a Fermi 4-point interaction).

Question Can this interaction take place in space without some other object to maintain energy and momentum conservation?

I can postulate other second or higher order interactions between photons and neutrinos, but they are even more unlikely (I think). However, the number of neutrinos must be huge (there is no neutrino sink), and the distances huge.

3.3.2 3 degree background radiation. We know that space is filled with these very low energy photons. Now, I know photon-photon scattering can take place in free space (it has been demonstrated in intersecting laser beams). Again it is presumably a second order QM effect, requiring one of the photons to be an electron-positron pair.

 

As you see, this is hardly yet a theory - my mathematics is just not up to doing the necessary calculations. I have pointed out a couple of my uncertainties, and one need to calculate the cross-sections of these interactions and estimate the probability of them taking place. But what if I am correct?

......No 'missing mass' problem

......No inflation

......No expanding universe?

......No 'Big Bang'?

 

We don't need to go back to the Hoyle-Gold-Bondi steady state theory, because if the Universe is not expanding, one does not have to postulate spontaneous creation.

 

So (you ask), where does the 3 deg background radiation come from...............

Well, maybe these photons are produced in a light-particle interaction to balance the energy/momentum.

 

Half-baked - Yes. Just nonsense? Perhaps, but where?

 

I live not far from Oxford, and go there quite often. So if you don't dismiss this completely, I would be happy to go into further details with you.

 

Happy Xmas and New Year!

 

Geoff

 

PS Do you think I would benefit from the Cosmology Course starting in January (assuming there are still places?)