Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Plasma redshift

  1. Dec 30, 2004 #1

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 30, 2004 #2

    ohwilleke

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Here is the foundational paper by the same author, also this year, the paper quoted above is a seven page corollary to the original:

    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401420

    Ari Brynjolfsson, Redshift of photons penetrating a hot plasma

    The abstract from the paper above is as follows:


    Ari Brynjolfsson, Plasma Redshift, Time Dilation, and Supernovas Ia

    Emphasis mine.
     
  4. Dec 30, 2004 #3

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    This is interesting, but is this the only evidence? I am sure few will
    abandon well tested theories on the strength of one paper.
     
  5. Dec 30, 2004 #4

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    We note that this theory has not been published in a peer reviewed journal. ( See comments in thread "Do you like the new "crackpot" policy?" https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=415088#post415088)

    Taken from:"Redshift of photons penetrating a hot plasma" Ari Brynjolfsson arXiv:astro-ph/0401420
    Although I can understand the drift of what he is saying, as it is close to my analysis of gravitational red shift in the Jordan frame of SCC**, the way he expresses it suggests to me that he doesn't really know what he is talking about, it is all too "hand waving".

    If cosmological red shift were due to a 'plasma redshift' the IGM would have to have to consist of a remarkably uniform hot plasma. - Or am I missing something?

    Garth

    **That the time dilation that lies at the root of gravitational red shift affects atoms as well as the photons and therefore is undetectable. In the understanding of SCC, in its Jordan frame, red shift is caused by the raised atoms gaining mass because of their gain of potential energy
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2004
  6. Dec 30, 2004 #5

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  7. Dec 30, 2004 #6

    ohwilleke

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    FWIW, I am not endorsing or criticising the paper, just remedying the "post a link without discussion" which forces a reader to click before really knowing what the paper is about, by digging up and posting the abstract.
     
  8. Dec 30, 2004 #7

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yep, this is the 68-page paper I remember (we discussed it earlier, here in PF). Does anyone know if it was, in fact, published? If it was, all I can say is that its publication should be hailed by all those with left-field ideas as a great source of encouragement!

    But let's not be hasty; why don't you all read it?

    In particular, let me know what you think of the following:
    1) Figure 4 ("The diamonds show the average redshift measured by Adam [31] and Higgs [32] (see Table 3), while the curve shows the redshift predicted by the plasma-redshift theory when using the coronal electron densities listed in Table 2 and shown in Fig. 2. The horizontal line at 2.12 · 10−6 shows the redshift predicted by Einstein’s classical gravitational theory."). Note that there are no error bars ... implying that an analysis of the errors would yield 95% CL smaller than the diamonds. However, the text referring to this says (in part): "As can be seen from Table 3, the results of Adam and Higgs differ slightly. Such differences are understandable when we think of the variation in the electron densities with the flares and the sunspot cycle." and "The center-to limb variations may vary slightly from one time to another. The size and frequency of coronal holes vary with the sunspot cycle. Coronal holes are more frequently over the polar region than over the equatorial region. In coronal holes, the electron densities are usually low. The limb
    effect in the north-south direction will therefore sometimes be smaller than that along the equator. This is consistent with the measurement of the center-to-limb variation of the Fe line 557.6 nm by Brandt and Schröter [33], who found significant difference between center-to-limb redshifts in south-north and east-west directions"
    2) (In 5.6.2 "Gravitational redshift"): "The greatest surprise is that the plasma redshift appears to explain the solar redshift without Einstein’s gravitational redshift, as Table 3 and Fig. 4 show. Einstein’s gravitational redshift has been proven beyond reasonable doubt in a great many experiments. It follows from reasonable extension of the special TR to TGR. The fact that the plasma-redshift theory explains the observed solar redshift of Fraunhofer lines contradicts the generally accepted view that the solar lines are gravitationally redshifted.
    However, this apparent contradiction has a simple explanation. The experiments (on the Earth and in space) that appeared to prove the gravitational redshift are not able to detect the actual blue shift of photons, which would reverse the gravitational redshift. The length of the wave packet defining the photons in these experiments is much larger than the height difference between emitter and absorber." (my emphasis). Recall that the landmark Earthly GR-redshift experiment is the Pound & Rebka experiment, which used gamma rays (remind me again what the '[t]he length of the wave packet defining the photons in these experiments' is?)
    3) "The photons are gravitationally redshifted when emitted in the Sun; but during their travel from the Sun to the Earth, they lose their gravitational redshift, and are not gravitationally redshifted when they arrive on the Earth" I've not seen such a description before; is any reader aware of any experimental work that supports this (incredible?) claim?
    4) wrt the classic observations of gravitational redshift in white dwarfs (please refer to turbo-1's posts for details), Ari says: "The observed redshifts of dwarf stars, such as the white dwarf Sirius B, can be explained as
    plasma redshifts without the conventionally assumed gravitational redshifts, which will have been cancelled by corresponding blue shifts, as the photons move out of the intense gravitational fields. Although the radius of a white dwarf star is small, the large gravitational field results in a dense usually very hot corona. The Stark broadening is exceptionally large in white dwarf stars. The lines are therefore broadened very much by Stark effect and the second term in Eq. (20) is often larger than the first term. The plasma-redshift heating and the magnetic field heating are often large in the transition zone. The heating by the plasma-redshift and the magnetic field can explain the very hot corona of white dwarf stars and their associated intense x-ray emission" (my emphasis). Whew! Is any PF member or guest 'expert' in white dwarfs? I'm certainly not, but my impression is that Ari is talking through his hat ... he deperately wants the WD observations (thanks turbo-1) to mesh with his new paradigm, but is so afraid of what these observations actually are that he resorts to a mechanism that has no theoretical or observational basis (hoping that no reader will spot his 'elision')
    5) Figure 5: OK, at this point I've drunk too much excellent New Zealand sauvignon blanc, and am not confident I can write coherently, so I'll stop here and leave it to others to continue poking holes.
     
  9. Dec 31, 2004 #8

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    I think plasma redshift needs to be returned to the recycle bin. Plasma redshift due to stellar atmospheres is not consistent with observation. Surface gravity of dense specimens [white dwarfs and neutron stars] is routinely measured based on gravitational red shift of their spectral lines. When such stars are in binary systems, as is frequently the case, the apparent mass can be cross checked based on orbital distance and periodicity. This would lead to some bizarre findings if redshift of the dense body was strictly an atmospheric effect. It would also be difficult to explain this example"

    Naked White Dwarf Shows its Dead Stellar Engine [HS-1504+65]
    http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040705.html
    From the article:
    -and this, from another source:

    The EUV spectrum of the unique bare stellar core H1504+65
    http://aa.springer.de/papers/9347001/23000l9/sc1.htm
    From the paper:
    Hard to see how plasma redshift explains why a WD with no atmosphere would have the highest apparent surface gravity of any star in its class.
     
  10. Dec 31, 2004 #9

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Happy New Year everyone!
    I'm perhaps the only reader of PF (he said modestly!) who understands what Brynjolfsson is getting at! However as I said in my post #3 above I think his explanation is too 'hand waving' to make sense.

    The problem with interpreting the observed gravitational red shift is the question, “What are you comparing with what?”

    In gravitational red shift one atom emits a photon and another absorbs it, or another atom is used to calibrate the spectroscope in which the photon’s wavelength is measured. If red shift is observed the question is, “What has changed, the photon or the atom?” This question can only be answered by the adoption of a convention of measurement.

    In GR such a convention is provided by the principle of the conservation of energy-momentum in which the rest masses of atoms are invariant in a gravitational field under translation of position or boost. Hence it must be, by definition, the photon that has lost energy. This poses a problem for why should the photon lose energy? It has travelled along a null-geodesic with no forces acting on it (according to GR). No work has been done, or or by, the photon, so why should it lose energy? Emmy Noether’s answer was to point out that GR is an example of an improper energy theory and one shouldn’t expect energy to be conserved, energy-momentum is conserved instead, which is something different.

    However if by convention we adopt the conservation of energy, as in classical physics (but thereby violating the conservation of energy-momentum), then it is easy to show as in my eprint here, page20 ff, that the time dilation effect, which is at the heart of gravitational red shift, applies not only to the photon but also to the apparatus measuring it, and hence is undetectable. The observed red shift in this convention is due to atoms gaining potential energy (and hence 'rest' mass) and not the photon losing it.

    This gain of atomic rest mass would give the photon the compensating ‘blue shift’ that I believe Ari Brynjolfsson is referring to in his papers.

    I hope this helps.

    Garth
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2004
  11. Dec 31, 2004 #10

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You've piqued my curiosity Garth (and HNY to you too!); I think I'll copy the relevant GR parts of this thread into a new thread I'll create in SR&GR, and see what the regulars there have to say.

    Since we don't have Ari here to explain this 'photons lose gravitational redshift during their travel to the Earth', can you help please? Leave aside for the moment the plasma redshift idea; is Ari claiming that we cannot detect a gravitational redshift, from here on Earth, by analysing the EM we receive from distant, massive, dense objects - even in principle? What about the other 'classical' distant tests of GR (e.g. Shapiro time delay, bending/lensing, loss of energy in binary pulsars)?
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2004
  12. Dec 31, 2004 #11

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Although I hate to admit it Brynjolfsson follows a similar argument to mine.

    First he has another explanation for red shift - the plasma-redshift theory in which photons passing through a diffuse hot plasma lose energy to it by:
    ( from “Red shift of photons penetrating a hot plasma” )
    [In the case of the Jordan frame of SCC the increase of a particle's 'rest' mass with gravitational potential energy is the cause of gravitational red shift]

    Then he (and I) argue that there is no other gravitational red shift. I argue formally that the time dilation effect applies to atoms as well as particles and therefore the time dilation, that is there because of the g00 component of the metric, is undetectable, while Brynjolfsson argues that the photons are “blue shifted” – it really depends on what you are measuring it by. The only observables are the frequency of emission and absorption, which is a comparison of the energy of the photon with the mass of the atom it is interacting with.

    I have no idea what his theory says about the other effects, “Shapiro time delay, bending/lensing, loss of energy in binary pulsars”, probably nothing, although please note that SCC predicts the same as GR for all of these.

    Garth
     
  13. Jan 1, 2005 #12

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Thanks Garth. I must have missed the 'no gravitational redshift' in SCC when I first read you paper (and focussed on the 'SCC predicts the same as GR ...' - not paying enough attention to the caveats - other than no DM, and GPB will show something different!).

    So, if in SCC there's no gravitational redshift
    a) what did Pound & Rebka find?
    b) what about Sirius B (thanks turbo-1) and all the material Chronos posted (thanks Chronos), oh, and the X-ray line profiles from near SMBH (I posted that ... but the link is in a quite old post)?
     
  14. Jan 1, 2005 #13

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There is observed gravitational red shift in SCC equal to that predicted by GR; this is what Pound & Rebka found, and as is observed in Sirius B and the X-ray line profiles from near SMBH etc.

    The question is how is such red shift explained and interpreted? In the 'curved' space-time diagram representing the Schwarzschild solution 'adjacent' outward null-geodesics diverge resulting in an observed red shift given by the time-time component of the metric, g00, which in GR is 'coincidentally' equal to the difference in Newtonian potential.

    In GR and in the Einstein Frame of SCC (which is canonical GR), energy-momentum is conserved, and so 'rest' masses of particles are constant. This red shift is therefore interpreted as an energy loss by the photon. (But as no forces have acted on the photon, just space-time curvature, why should it lose energy?)

    However, in the Jordan conformal frame of the theory, energy is locally conserved, and consequently 'rest' masses of particles subsume gravitational potential energy. In the reference I gave above in post #9 I show that if energy is conserved then the time dilation factor, g00, applies to the 'rest' mass of the particle as well as to the frequency, and hence energy, of the photon.

    Hence, as the observation of gravitational red shift is a comparison of the energy of the photon with the mass, or total energy, of the atom it interacts with, the effect of g00 cannot be detected.

    What is detected is the extra increase of particle 'rest' mass over and above g00 as a consequence of the particle's gravitational potential energy.

    In the Jordan frame of SCC gravitational red shift is explained not by the photon losing potential energy but rather by the apparatus gaining it.

    Garth
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2005
  15. Oct 21, 2005 #14
    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 in to 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
     
  16. Oct 21, 2005 #15

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Welcome to these Forums Ari!

    I found your post rather long to read at one sitting and may not have absorbed it all. It some respects it is similar to SCC but in other respects the opposite.

    One question I have is: "Are there any tests or predictions that the theory makes? In other words is it falsifiable in controlled experiments?" I say controlled because often cosmological observations are recruited to affirm or falsify a particular theory but unfortunately, because of their 'remote' (to say the least!) nature they are not clean tests and their interpretation is theory dependent.

    Garth
     
  17. Oct 21, 2005 #16
    Observe stars through the solar corona.

    Thank you Garth,
    I am happy that you are continuing to peruse my theory.

    In direct response to your question, I discuss: “Possible future experiments”, in section 7 of astro-ph/0401420 v3 7Oct 2005. I draw you attention especially to section 7.1. “Tests for confirming the plasma redshift. I give there in Table 5: “Redshift z of light from stars grazing the Sun”. This table gives the exact plasma redshift of lines from stars grazing the Sun as a function of the distance of the line of sight from the Sun. This has so far never been observed. But if anyone would like to peak, he or she will confirm the plasma redshift. There would be no other way to explain it.
    Ari
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2005
  18. Oct 28, 2005 #17

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Welcome to Physics Forums.
    In accordance with forum policy, such theories are to be posted in the Independent Research forum. Thanks.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Plasma redshift
  1. Hubble's Redshifts (Replies: 7)

  2. Experiments in redshift (Replies: 14)

  3. The redshifted photon (Replies: 14)

  4. Finding the redshift (Replies: 17)

  5. Redshift (Replies: 1)

Loading...