Ari Brynjolfsson
I thank Wolram, Ohwilleke, Garth, Nereid, Chronos for discussing my papers on plasma redshift. I will respond to their main concerns.
GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT
Let me first recap what gravitational redshift is. Einstein made two independent assumptions when deducing the gravitational redshift.
1) Einstein assumed that the gravitational time dilation applies. This follows from his expansion of the Special Theory of Relativity (STR) to the General Theory of Relativity (GTR).
2) Einstein made a second assumption. He assumed that the frequencies of the photons stay constant as the photons travel from the Sun to the Earth. Therefore, when the solar photons arrive on Earth, the photons would be observed as redshifted relative to the corresponding atomic transitions on Earth.
I agree with the first assumption, and I consider it as well proven fact. For example, the experiments by Pound et al. indicate that this assumption is correct. But I disagree with the second assumption. It may or it may not be true. It does not follow from his expansion of the STR to GTR. Many explain this incorrectly. They believe: “that photons’ frequencies decrease as the gravitational potential increases”. However, Einstein assumed that the photons’ frequencies are constant when the photons move up in the gravitational potential. Einstein argued that equally many waves must arrive on Earth as were emitted in the Sun. In his original article (see Annalen der Physik, 35 (1911) 898-908) Einstein makes this point clear. The rate of the clocks increases with gravitational potential, but the photon’s frequency is constant. We will use Einstein’s description, because we should use only one coordinate system and only one set of clocks when describing the physical phenomena. My mentor C. Møller, (in “The Theory of Relativity”, Oxford University Press) calls these clocks “coordinate clocks”.
I question if the photon’s frequency is constant when the photon moves through gravitational fields. I do not question the time dilation, the bending of light, or the Shapiro’s time delay, which are independent of the frequency and are not affected by my modification of GTR. I describe the theoretical details in “Weightlessness of Photons: A Quantum Effect”, arXiv:astro-ph/0408312, v2, 26 Aug 2004. Garth most likely did not see this article. The modification of GTR applies only to photons’ frequencies. Apparently, he also did not see: “Hubble constant from lensing in plasma-redshift cosmology and intrinsic redshift of quasars” arXiv:astro-ph/0411666 v3 2 Dec 2004. My modification of GTR does not apply to electromagnetic fields of particles or to virtual photons. Photons are the only “particles” that do not have a rest mass, and that is possibly the reason for their weightlessness, as seen by a local observer. As seen by a distant observer, however, the gravitational field repels the photons and the photons gain energy (reverse their redshift), as they are pushed outwards from the gravitating body. This results in energy conservation and eliminates the need for black holes. The matter transforms to photons at the brink to the black body limit and the photons are repelled by the gravitational field. Photons are the only particles (as far as I know) that do not follow the “equivalence principle”. The fact that the modified GTR leads to energy is conservation at all times is important. The universe could therefore through ordinary physical processes renew itself forever; see section 6. In contrast, the Big Bang hypothesis disregards the energy conservation, and introduces mystical quantities like variable Dark Energy and Dark Matter for regulating the world.
The frequencies of a particles (such as hydrogen atoms and nuclei) change frequency with the gravitational potential. For example, the nuclei of iron-57 in the experiments by Pound et al. change from the redshifted energy levels (because of time dilation) in the basement of Jefferson Laboratory to the higher (blue shifted) energy levels on the top floor. The emitter and absorber had plenty of time for adjusting to their respective gravitational potentials. Based on the solar redshift experiments, I contend that the photons would behave the same way provided they have a time to do so. In the experiments by Pound et al., the uncertainty relation, which requires a minimum of 19,000 ns (ns = nanoseconds) for changing the frequency, prevented the frequency change, because it takes the photons only 75 ns to travel from the height difference of 22.5 m from the emitter to the absorber. Also, the length of the photons in these experiments is about 270 m, which is much greater than 22.5 m. In the experiments by Pound et al. the photons did not have adequate time for changing their frequency. With respect to gravitational redshift, the experiments by Pound et al. are therefore inconclusive. Many other experiments, which have been assumed to prove Einstein’s gravitational theory, are like the experiments by Pound et al. in the domain of classical physics, and are therefore inconclusive.
In the solar redshift experiments, on the other hand, the photons had plenty of time, 8.3 minutes, to change from their redshifted energy in the Sun to their natural frequency on Earth. The relevant photons have a photon length of 1.5 to 30 m. The solar redshift experiments confirm that the photons are not gravitationally redshifted when they arrive on the Earth.
GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT AND COLLAPSARS
The photons from collapsars (such as the white dwarf Sirius B) will then not be gravitationally redshifted when they arrive on Earth. This is a very bold statement, because the many good researchers who have measured the gravitational redshift of Sirius B have done a very good job and are well experienced. However, like every one else, they believed very strongly in the gravitational redshift. They believed that if it does not fit something else is wrong. First, they estimated the gravitational redshift in Sirius B to be about 21 km/s. One scientist thought the value should be 19 km/s, which was in better agreement with Edington’s estimate. For about 40 years we were led to believe that this was the ultimate proof of gravitational redshift (before the experiment by Pound et al.). Some questioned it. Then it was found to be 89 km/s. The different lines gave different results, but the 89 km/s was an average. It was higher than expected. Last time I looked, they measured only one line H-alpha, and found it to be about 80.4 plus or minus 4.8 km/s. We can use this value to determine the mass. Solar physicists would be proud of this accuracy in our nearby Sun.
However, I believe that this redshift is caused by plasma redshift. There is no gravitational redshift, because it is reversed as the photons travel from the star to the Earth. I believe the variations from line to line are caused by the variations of the photon pressure broadenings, which affects the plasma redshift. Good averages for each line of the gravitational redshift should not vary much from line to line; but plasma redshift, which is about proportional to the photon broadening (for example Stark broadening), varies from line to line.
Chronos questions this, which is reasonable. He thinks that between the collapsar and the observer the electron density integral is not large enough to produce a plasma redshift. I explained in section 5.6.4 that in collapsars the plasma redshift given by Eq. (20) is caused mainly by the second term, which depends on the photon width. This is due to the very large pressure in the emitting layers of collapsars. In contrast, the cosmological redshift depends only on the first term, while the solar redshift is caused by both terms, which are roughly equal.
The second term of Eq. (20) requires an electron column density of only about 10^{18} cm^{-2} to take full effect. The column density of about 10^{18} cm^{-2} follows from integration of Eq. (19). In the collapsar (H1504+65), which Chronos mentioned, the electron column density is about 5 times 10^{19} cm^{-2}, which is 50 times larger than that needed to produce the plasma redshift. I may not have made this clear enough in the previous version, but I have made it clearer in arXiv:astro-ph/0401420 v3 7 Oct 2005. In interstellar space there is always enough electron density. The collapsar will therefore always have a large gravitational redshift even if they are cold and without a corona. But the plasma redshift is about proportional to the pressure broadening of the photons and varies from line to line, which distinguishes it from the gravitational redshift.
THERE IS NO TIME DILATION
The supernovae researchers have shown clearly that the SNe Ia are not standard candles. The brightness (absolute magnitude) depends on the width of the light curve. Therefore, the SN Ia should show Malmquist bias. But because they believe in the Big Bang and the time dilation, the supernovae researchers reduce the observed width and thereby the brightness of the distant supernovae by a time dilation factor 1/(1+z). This reduction in the light intensity reduces the brightness and about eliminates the expected Malmquist bias. This lack of Malmquist bias is unreasonable and indicates that there is no cosmic time dilation. If there is no time dilation, the Big Bang hypothesis is false. In contrast, the magnitude-redshift relation predicted by the plasma redshift theory predicts no cosmic time dilation and is consistent with observation as shown in Figure 1 of arXiv:astro-ph/0406437 v2 20 Jul 2004, or Fig. 6 of arXiv:astro-ph/0401420 v3 7 Oct 2005. No need for dark matter or dark energy. Many other independent observations such as those analyzed by Eric Lerner (arXiv:astro-ph/0509611) show that cosmic time dilation and Big Bang are false.
PLASMA REDSHIFT EXPLAINS CMB
In section 9 of version 1 and 2, I described the deduction of CMB. But a colleague wanted to know more details about how CMB follows from the plasma redshift. I have therefore expanded on the explanation of CMB in section 10 and Appendices C and D of arXiv:astro-ph/0401420 v3 7 Oct 2005.
These additions should make it clear that conventional physics, which includes plasma redshift, explains well the CMB. We don’t need Big Bang to explain the CMB. By the way, the conventional Big-Bang explanations that I have seen assume incorrectly that at the time of emission of the CMB (the time of decoupling of CMB from matter), the particles kinetic temperature, Te, (which is proportional to the kinetic energy per particle) in the plasma is identical to the temperature of the electromagnetic radiation density (which is proportional to the energy per volume unit). This assumption by at least some of the leading Big-Bang cosmologists is false.
The energy density of the emitted electromagnetic radiation from a plasma is proportional to the pressure, p, in the plasma. This pressure, p, is proportional to the product of particle density, N, and particle temperature, Te. The CMB radiation energy density, a(Tcmb)^ 4 (where a is Stefan-Boltzmann constant and (Tcmb) is the CMB temperature), is therefore proportional to 3NkTe, see Eq.(61) of arXiv:astro-ph/0401420, v3, and Eq.(C20) in the Appendix C of that source. The isotropic microwave intensity follows directly from the temperature and density of the plasma in intergalactic space and the plasma redshift. Although the particle temperature, Te, and particle density, N, in intergalactic space vary greatly, the average pressure, p, and the average CMB temperature, (Tcmb), are well defined averages over 5000 Mparsec radius of the blackbody cavity defining the CMB in intergalactic space.
In the frequency range of the CMB, the plasma redshift dominates all other absorptions processes by several orders of magnitude (see sections C1.2 to C1.5 in Appendix C of arXiv:astro-ph/0401420 v3 7 Oct 2005.). This fact explains why CMB has such a beautiful blackbody spectrum. See also the explanations why it is so uniform and isotropic.
COSMIC X RAYS BACKGROUND
Another colleague thought that with the high plasma densities in intergalactic space the X-ray background intensity would be much too large. He did not take into account that Big-Bang theorists use mainly the free-free absorption coefficients, which are too small by many orders of magnitude. We must take into account the plasma redshift absorption and also the absorption by trace elements. In the plasma redshift cosmology, the concentration of trace elements is significant in intergalactic space, because the plasma moves both in and out of the galaxies and out and into the intergalactic space. When we use the correct absorptions coefficients, we get a good agreement when comparing the predictions of the plasma redshift theory with the observations. See section 5.11 and Appendix C of arXiv:astro-ph/0401420 v3 7 Oct 2005.
Ari
