Specifics
Continued from the previous post
{Source:http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0310214}
p02-03... There are other mechanisms to produce redshift beside space expansion or Doppler effect. There are many theories, for example: gravitational redshift, chronometric cosmology, variable mass hypothesis, inertial induction, time acceleration, imperfect photon propagation (A. Stolmar, priv. comm.), or the “tired light” scenarios.
Agreed. And they all have one thing in common - they don't agree with observation or operate according to any known and accepted physical theories.
p03... A tired light scenario assumes that the photon loses energy due to some unknown process of photon-matter or photon-photon interaction...
Agreed. It violates the principle of energy conservancy, which is a fairly well known process that enjoys a great deal of experimental support.
p02... There are several hypothetical theories which can produce this “tired light” effect. The idea of loss of energy of the photon in the intergalactic medium was first suggested in 1929 by Zwicky and was defended by him for a long time... As late as the mid-twentieth century, Zwicky maintained that the hypothesis of tired light was viable.
Interestingly enough, and not the only instance in which, Corredoira follows by driving a stake through the heart of his source:
p02... But there are two problems 1) the bath smears out the coherence of the radiation from the source, and so all images of distant objects look blurred if the intergalactic space produces scattering; 2) the scattering effect and the consequent loss of energy is frequency dependent.
Plodding ahead:
p03... Vigier proposed a mechanism in which the vacuum behaves like a stochastic covariant super fluid aether whose excitations can interfere with the propagation of particles or light waves through it in a dissipative way. This avoids the two former difficulties: the blurring and the frequency dependence.
Aether aside, the candidates proposed to avoid the 'two former difficulties' are:
p03... The “Incoherent Light Coherent Raman Scattering” also explains shifts which emulate Doppler effect with light-matter interaction which does not blur the images.
CREIL is already being kicked around in another thread.
p03... The justification of the shift of photon frequency in a low density plasma could also come from quantum effects derived from standard quantum electrodynamics[40]... According to Paul Marmet and Grote Reber (a co-initiator of radio astronomy), quantum mechanics indicates that a photon gives up a tiny amount of energy as it collides with an electron, but its trajectory does not change [41](appendix). This mechanism also avoids blurring and scattering. Potentially, this effect could explain the high redshifts of apparently nearby QSOs, since light traveling through the outer atmosphere of the QSO could be redshifted before leaving it.
From reference 40, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9703086: "In the paper we calculate the frequency shift induced on a photon by the interaction with a low density electronic plasma... taking into account the many body character of the plasma. The shift in non relativistic approximation is shown to be blue."
Huh? How is this supportive of the case apparently being made? Reference 41 is a popsci book by Eric Lerner, a plasma cosmology adherent, entitled. "The Big Bang never happened: a startling refutation of the dominant theory of the origin of the universe." I also found this interesting remark by Lerner in a 2003 IEEE paper promoting plasma cosmology: "The Big Bang... has effectively become a state-supported theory..." His non-scattering collision theory does not appear to enjoy much support. It may seem unfair to associate validity with credibility, but when you cite them as an authority in a paper, the burden, IMO, falls upon the author. There are numerous other dubious sources cited in this paper. I only zeroed in on this particular one because it relates to the other reference [40] wherein the author cited a paper which contraindicates the implied plasma redshift effect.
p03... In order to explain galactic redshifts with long travel distances in the scattering, the density in the intergalactic medium should be 10^4 atoms/m^3, which is much higher than the density which is normally believed for it.
Or is even remotely possible. Once again, the author drives a stake through the heart of his source.
p03... The dynamic multiple scattering theory is also very interesting for the present question, as a possible tired light mechanism... Several experiments have been succesfully conducted in terrestrial laboratories leading to redshifts exceeding 300 Km/s. The blurring which produces this theory may be a problem when we take the whole intergalactic medium as the substance which produces the shift but not if we consider some loss of energy in the same coronae of the object.
The blurring effect is more than 'may be a problem'. It also fails to account for the apparent relationship between increased loss of energy in coronae as a function of distance.
p03... All these proposed mechanisms show us that it is quite possible to construct a scenario with non-cosmological redshifts. Nonetheless, all these theories are at present just speculations without direct experimental or observational support.
Agreed. It appears possible to construct just about any scenario without direct experimental or observational support.
p11... But in a tired light model in a static universe the [CMBR] photons suffer a redshift that is proportional to the distance traveled, and... we would not see a blackbody background.
Looks like a stake through the heart of that model too.
p11...The universe cannot have an optical depth large enough to preserve a thermal background spectrum in a tired light model[149] because we could not observe radio galaxies at z ~ 3 with the necessary optical depth.
Another stake through the heart.
p12... However, the presence of a huge dust density to make the Universe opaque is forbidden by the observed transparency up to z ~ 4 or 5.
Can't argue that point either.
p12...the final choice between Einstein and Lorentz theories cannot yet be regarded as settled according to Clube[154].
It does, however, appear the Einstein model enjoys a comfortable lead.
p13... At present there is not a satisfactory alternative scenario which has no problem to explain the Microwave Background Radiation, so the standard scenario seems the best solution.
Agreed.
p14... Therefore, there are alternatives to the Big Bang to [explain elemental abundance in the universe], although, of course, the standard model is the most complete in details proposal up to now.
Agreed.
p15... Then, they take [measured elemental] abundances and adjust the model to match more closely so that circularity is completely guaranteed.
So how does tweaking the model to fit the measured elemental abundance fly in the face of other observations? Short answer, it doesn't. It looks more like adjusting the model to fit observation. How/why is that an 'epicycle' if it is not ruled out by other observational evidence?
p15...By this way, the baryon density derived is too low to account for the subsequent large scale structure of the universe and an ad hoc addition of cold, dark non-baryonic matter, cosmological constant must be introduced.
Does this directly lead to the conclusion baryon density is too low to account for large scale structure? I would say not. The 'ad hoc' addition of dark matter appears to be motivated by more urgent concerns. - such as galactic rotational curves.
p15... we cannot say that everything is well undestood in the standard [BBT]. Caveats or open questions are still present. Of course, problems are expected since the total understanding of the phenomenon is difficult...
Agreed.
p16... Most cosmologists appeal to the highly isotropic character of the microwave background as one of the principal justifications for assuming that the Universe is homogeneous on large scales.
Most cosmologists held this opinion before the CMB was discovered.
p17... Some important caveats are still present in the standard scenario, and even if many of the observations reviewed here are not correct, there remain still many others which are.
So why cite observations that may be dubious? Makes it sound like all your data is shaky, but, the sheer quantity statistically favors your chances of tossing out one that defies explanation.
p17... Of course, criticizing is easier than building a theory, and the achievements of the standard theory must not be underestimated, but I think it is too early to close the doors behind us.
Agreed.
