Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

[Loudmouth]

double post

 

[Elendur]

Lena Hau's laser experiments - YouTube

FYI, LM, you may want to take a look at this video in terms of the speed of light through extremely cold materials.

I've gotta ask, what's up with that wave in the frame before you've started? It looks like the top is wider than the bottom, which to me looks weird.

 

[Michael]

I've gotta ask, what's up with that wave in the frame before you've started? It looks like the top is wider than the bottom, which to me looks weird.

I hear you, but the whole phenomenon seems weird to me, including her claim to have literally 'stopped' light "between" the clouds. Light has many strange behaviors we're just learning about. It will be interesting when they do figure out exactly which effect is the true "cause" of Chen's observations of redshift. I think once we figure it all out, apply that knowledge to the redshift we see from space, it will clear things up immensely.

 

[Michael]

I need to do more research into this.

Me too. I'm really curious about her claim related to 'stopping' the light between the two clouds. Does she mean there is a "film of gas" that she's stopping at some location that 'holds' those photons until they are released again, or is she claiming to have actually stopped the photons themselves in some way? I assume the former is the case, but I do want to check it out.

From what I have read, the wave propogation does change but photon speed does not. Also, you get the same wavelength once the light moves out of the medium. This would mean that spectrophotometers that use a vacuum would not see a redshift if PC is true, if I am understanding your claims correctly.

Is the "wave propogation" a wave of gas, or a wave of photons when they "stop" between the clouds?

In terms of the medium, I think it's safe to say that photon information can be stored and released from gas for fairly "long" periods of time, and still be relatively intact once they exit the medium. Your insistence that light will necessarily scatter or end up "blurry" due to collisions isn't necessarily the case.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your insistence that light will necessarily scatter or end up "blurry" due to collisions isn't necessarily the case.

If we throw out a Compton shift then what known and verified mechanisms are we left with that can cause a redshift? Refraction can't do it either, from my understanding. Refraction also has the problem of bending light differently at different wavelengths which would show up in the astronomical data, and I don't think anyone has observed this.

The only other known and verified mechanism that I am aware of is a Doppler shift due to a difference in velocity between light source and observer.

 

[Michael]

If we throw out a Compton shift then what known and verified mechanisms are we left with that can cause a redshift?

The fact that free electron density changes the results would suggest to me at least that the mechanism might be related to Thompson scattering rather than Compton Scattering. Why would the electron density make any difference if it was related to Compton scattering?

Refraction can't do it either, from my understanding. Refraction also has the problem of bending light differently at different wavelengths which would show up in the astronomical data, and I don't think anyone has observed this.

I don't think there's enough data yet to know if we've observed it or not. That MAGIC data tended to suggest that there could be a several minute delay in higher energy wavelengths, and the rebuttal paper was 'terrible' IMO because it looks like they all 'guessed' at when the one observed high energy photon was actually released.

 

[Loudmouth]

The fact that free electron density changes the results would suggest to me at least that the mechanism might be related to Thompson scattering rather than Compton Scattering. Why would the electron density make any difference if it was related to Compton scattering?

If I am understanding Compton scattering and elastic particle interactions correctly, each particle interaction will reduce the wavelength and impart momentum to the electron. The more interactions you have the lower the wavelength. I would expect to see wavelength to be dependent on electron density for Compton scattering.

I don't think there's enough data yet to know if we've observed it or not. That MAGIC data tended to suggest that there could be a several minute delay in higher energy wavelengths, and the rebuttal paper was 'terrible' IMO because it looks like they all 'guessed' at when the one observed high energy photon was actually released.

Data gathered since then does not support minutes of delay between wavelengths, so I would classify the MAGIC data as interesting but far from conclusive. As you have noted in previous posts, the best you can claim is a 0.9 second delay, and that is based on the assumption that the two photons left the source at the same time.

 

[Michael]

If I am understanding Compton scattering and elastic particle interactions correctly, each particle interaction will reduce the wavelength and impart momentum to the electron. The more interactions you have the lower the wavelength. I would expect to see wavelength to be dependent on electron density for Compton scattering.

Perhaps, but then I don't believe we have enough information to sort all that out yet.

FYI, I am finding a number of papers on plasma redshift and blueshift on Google Scholar. You might want to check it out. Here are a few of the more interesting one's I've found so far:

A theoretical approach to N-electron ionic structure under dense plasma conditions: I. Blue and red shift - Abstract - Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics - IOPscience
L853-L855
Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 165 (1960): Measurement of the Red Shift in an Accelerated System Using the Mössbauer Effect in Fe^{57}
Phys. Rev. A 48, R1749 (1993): Blue shift of the Mie plasma frequency in Ag clusters and particles

From what I can gather, the materials themselves may make a difference and the temperatures can matter as well. Beyond that I can't say a lot because I'm still learning a lot about lab results. It's not clear there is necessarily even *one* potential mechanism yet, but I would say that Compton scattering doesn't seem to have anything to do with the lab results.

Data gathered since then does not support minutes of delay between wavelengths,

How much data have we gathered at the highest energy wavelengths?

so I would classify the MAGIC data as interesting but far from conclusive. As you have noted in previous posts, the best you can claim is a 0.9 second delay, and that is based on the assumption that the two photons left the source at the same time.

There is still no 'perfect' fit to your model no matter which of the 7 events they picked (assuming the one photon even came from one of the peak events), and there is no particular association between the photon in question and the peak in question other than the fact it was 'close'. Honestly, that was a truly 'bad' rebuttal paper IMO.

I'd have to say that the jury is still out on the delay times, and it's a very useful "predictive' difference between the two models.

 

[Loudmouth]

From what I can gather, the materials themselves may make a difference and the temperatures can matter as well. Beyond that I can't say a lot because I'm still learning a lot about lab results. It's not clear there is necessarily even *one* potential mechanism yet, but I would say that Compton scattering doesn't seem to have anything to do with the lab results.

I think we would both be helped if an expert were to comment on how plasmas produce redshifts.

How much data have we gathered at the highest energy wavelengths?

This secondary article discusses the Fermi telescope results:

A Gamma Ray Race Through the Fabric of Space-Time Proves Einstein Right | 80beats | Discover Magazine

They conclude:

"But the study of the Fermi Telescope’s results, published in Nature, declares that since all the gamma rays arrived within nine-tenths of a second apart, they must have all traveled at almost exactly the same speed. That suggests either that space-time is smooth and continuous, as general relativity proposed, or that the grains of space-time are smaller than we ever thought possible, and are having only the most minuscule effect on light waves. Researchers say the grains could theoretically be smaller than one-hundred-thousandth of a trillionth of the size of a proton "

They didn't see a replication of the MAGIC data which would suggest to me that the MAGIC data is best explained by photons that did not leave the source at the same time.

I'd have to say that the jury is still out on the delay times, and it's a very useful "predictive' difference between the two models.

I would be happy to agree to that. More data is always good.

 

[Michael]

I think we would both be helped if an expert were to comment on how plasmas produce redshifts.

That's my whole point in reading through the Google Scholar articles.

This secondary article discusses the Fermi telescope results:

The fact the Fermi team failed to explain why they selected the very *last* of seven total events as a source of that *single* high energy photon makes their "conclusions" meaningless.

I would be happy to agree to that. More data is always good.

Ya, I certainly wouldn't hang my entire professional reputation on one single high energy photon and a "wild guess" about when it was actually released. More data is necessary IMO.