Redshift by Cosmic Dust trumps Hubble and Tired Light Theories

Hubble and Tired Light Theories
In 1929, Hubble formulated a law that the velocity of a receding galaxy is proportional to its distance to the Earth. The Hubble relation held in all directions suggesting to de Sitter that the Universe was consistent with the expansive metric of Einsteins theory of general relativity. However, others thought the Hubble redshift was caused by mechanisms without Universe expansion. Zwicky proposed that galaxy photons redshift because they lose energy as they scatter upon collision with cosmic dust particles (DPs) before entering the Earth, a redshift theory called Tired Light. See www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light. Recently, Ashmore extended Tired Light to loss of energy in galaxy photons upon collisions with electrons. See www.lyndonashmore.com/.

Objections to Tired Light theories are generally based on the argument that scattered light should blur the galaxy image, and therefore are dismissed because the images are clear and not blurred. See www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm. However, claims that Tired Light theories do not explain all the predictions of Big Bang cosmology should be set aside because there is no mandate in science that any theory must totally stand alone, e.g., the anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) in the current epoch may be simply explained by the static Universe in the current epoch having nearly uniform temperature everywhere of about 2.726K.

Alternative QED Induced Light Theory
An alternative to the Hubble and Tired Light theories is the theory of QED induced redshift caused by the absorption of galaxy light in DPs. QED stands for quantum electrodynamics. See http://www.nanoqed.org/ at “Dark Energy and Cosmic Dust” and “Reddening and Redshift”, 2009. QED theory asserts the redshift Z is spontaneous upon the absorption of light. Here Z = (Lo – L)/L, where L is the wavelength of galaxy light and Lo is the wavelength of the light emitted from the DP.

QED induced redshift may be understood by treating the absorbed galaxy photon as electromagnetic (EM) energy confined within the DP geometry. Recall from quantum mechanics (QM) that photons of wavelength Lo are created by supplying EM energy to a QM box with walls separated by Lo/2. For a spherical DP of diameter D, the QED photons are produced at a wavelength Lo = 2Dn, where n is the index of refraction which for the typical DP of amorphous silicate has n = 1.45. Hence, DPs having D = 0.25 microns redshift the Lyman-alpha line at 0.121 microns to a red line at 0.725 microns with Z ~ 5. If the QED induced redshift in DPs at Z = 5 is erroneously interpreted by the Hubble law, the galaxy recession velocity is 95 % of the speed of light when in fact the Universe is not expandingl.

Tolman Test and Supernovae Spectra Aging
Shortly after the Hubble discovery, Tolman devised a test to distinguish between a static and expanding Universe. See www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolman_surface_brightness_test. In a static Universe, the light intensity of an object drops inversely with the square of its distance from the observer, but the apparent area of the object also drops inversely with the square of the distance, so the brightness given as the intensity per unit area of the object is independent of the distance. However, if the Universe is expanding, astronomers claim the brightness is reduced by the fourth power of (1+Z). In 2001, Lubin and Sandage showed the redshift gave a reduction in brightness by the cube of (1+Z). Although the brightness is not reduced by the fourth power of (1+Z), the conclusion was the brightness test is consistent with the reality of Universe expansion.

However, there is a problem with the Tolman test because the brightness B of an object in the static Universe is not assumed reduced by absorption in DPs. By QED theory, a single interaction with a DP emits light at wavelength Lo = (1+Z)L. Therefore the brightness Bo at the observer is Bo = hc/Lo = hc/L(1+Z) = B/(1+Z), or the object brightness is reduced by (1+Z), but not by the cube of (1+Z) as measured. Closer agreement is found for multiple interactions, e.g., for N interactions, B drops inversely with the product (1+Z1)(1+Z2)…(1+ZN), where ZK is the redshift for interaction K.

The Tolman test aside, the aging of Supernovae spectra is found to drop inversely with (1+Z) at the observer. See Blondin et al. at www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm. For spectra defined by brightness/unit area, Bo = B divided by the respective wavelength. Equivalence is found by Bo/Lo = B/L(1+Z). Hence, QED theory for the spectra at the Supernovae is consistent with the measured spectra showing an inverse drop by (1+Z).

Time Dilation of Supernova Light Curves
Tired Light theories are claimed unable to explain the observed time dilation of Supernova light curves at high Z redshift, i.e., nearby supernovae that take 20 days to decay will take 40 days to decay when observed at redshift Z =1 See e.g., www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm. However, redshift in the QED theory differs from Tired Light in that it is proportional to the number of DPs in the light path that in turn is proportional to the total dust mass emitted in the Supernova explosion. Time dilation in observing Supernova explosions is nothing more thermal cooling of the dust mass, i.e, at high Z the Supernovae having larger dust mass takes a longer time to cool than at low Z. Hence, QED redshift theory based on DPs is consistent with Supernova light curves.

ISM Lights
A more compelling argument that DPs are the source of redshift of galaxy light is found on a far larger scale everywhere by the visible (VIS) light observed throughout the Universe. Ultraviolet (UV) radiation is known to permeate the Universe including the interstellar medium (ISM). Indeed, astronomers explain the infrared (IR) spectra measured in the ISM by the thermal emission following the increase in temperature in DPs upon the absorption of single UV photons. But this is unlikely, because an increase in DP temperature is negated by the QM restriction that the specific heat of DPs vanishes. Also unlikely is VIS light produced in DPs by photoluminescence (PL) because a single UV photon is more likely to be absorbed anywhere in the DP than at the PL color center.

Without thermal emission and PL, the IR and VIS spectra can only be produced by QED induced redshift upon the absorption of single UV photons in DPs. VIS colors in the ISM require DPs having D < 0.5 microns while IR spectra depend on larger DPs found in molecular clouds. Similar to the Hubble redshift of galaxy light, the vivid ISM colors observed are produced without Universe expansion, e.g., single UV photons at 0.15 microns absorbed in a D = 0.125 to 0.25 micron silicate DPs, blue to red light corresponding to wavelengths from 0.362 to 0.725 microns is produced at redshift Z from 1.41 to 3.83. ISM light does not depend Universe expansion.

Conclusions

1. The measured Hubble redshift Z is caused by DPs and has nothing to do with an expanding Universe. DPs make moot the existence of dark energy because it is no longer necessary in a static Universe.

2. Tired Light theories based on scattering are likely to produce blurring of the object image. QED theory based on absorption and not scattering do not produce blurring.

3. QED theory does not agree with brightness reduction to the cube of (1+Z) in the Tolman test, but is found in agreement with the (1+Z) reduction in aged Supernovae spectra.

4. QED theory based on redshift of DPs is consistent with the observed time dilation of Supernova light curves.

5. The vivid VIS color variations in the ISM are caused by variations in DP diameter D and far less likely by PL from the chemical composition of the DPs. Larger DPs necessary to produce the IR spectra are found in molecular clouds.

pf button Redshift by Cosmic Dust trumps Hubble and Tired Light Theories

3 thoughts on “Redshift by Cosmic Dust trumps Hubble and Tired Light Theories

  1. In reading your conclusions, I beg to differ on some. 1. The Universe is anything far from static; it is dynamic. As for “dark energy,” it should be shown to be very negligible once “dark matter” is deciphered. 2. LIGHT per se contantly being absorbed is a given. 3 and 4. Supernovae light curves can best be left to mathematicians. 5. Yes, the composition of dust particles would be variable, depending on their chemical composition. My comment is: While studying the subject of LIGHT for many years, a process came into being which would produce the elusive substance that holds everything in place. I may have “inadvertently stumbled” onto the CAUSE of Dark Matter/Pressure Ether (my terminology). March 2010. Meaningful discussion can be had: dwyersuncreation@aol.com. R.L. Dwyer

    • Dwyer:

      1. Yes, of course. What I mean is the Universe is not expanding because of QED induced redshift in cosmic dust. Hubble’s argument based on Doppler shift leading to an expanding Universe has set back cosmology for almost a century. Rather, the Universe is most likely infinite and static in the sense it is in dynamic equilibrium with itself.

      Since QED induced redshift means the Universe is not expanding, you do not need dark energy to explain the expansion. Dark matter is another erroneous interpretation of astronomers who assume gravitational lensing and galaxy rotation measurements are not affected by cosmic dust. See http://qedradiation.scienceblog.com/27333/redshift-in-cosmic-dust-resolves-the-galaxy-rotation-problem-without-dark-matter-and-mond/

      2. Astronomers dismiss QED induced redshift by absorption by arguing that reddening is produced by scattering. But there is no way one can distinguish a reddened photon from one produced by QED induced redshift of a UV photon upon absorption in cosmic dust. Indeed, all the colors in the ISM are most likely produced by QED induced redshift of UV photons. Remember, only single photon absorption occurs in the ISM. Photoluminescence of chemicals in the DPs cannot be the explanation for the ISM colors because many UV photons are required to produce the color. Hence, only QED induced redshift of single UV photons is the source of ISM colors.

      3 and 4. QED redshift in DPs is a physical argument that negates current interpretations of Supernovae light curves. The mathematicans who asssume the Universe is expanding perform meaningless calculations because they have been confused by the fact that Supernovae curves can be totally explained by cosmic dust in a static Universe.

      5. QED induced redshift does not depend on chemical composition. It is a QED effect that occurs upon the absorption of UV photons in DPs and has nothing to do with chemical composition. The color depends on the size of DPs and their refractive index. See 1 and 2 above.

      The elusive substance that holds everthing in place is unlikely to be dark matter. Dark matter like dark energy are the consequence of the false premise that Hubble’s redshift means the Universe is expanding. QED induced redshift in cosmic dust suggests that a static infinite Universe is more likely, the substance holding things in place being simply gravity

      Hope this more explains QED induced radiation. If not, get back to me.

      nanoqed

  2. To: qedradiation: My skill does not permit me to comment on whether or not Hubble observation with redshift is valid. However, your statement “Since QED induced redshift means the Universe is not expanding, you do not need dark energy to explain expansion.” — this is quite overstating, in my opinion. Dust particles exist in space, so too does Gravity. But for Gravity to “work” there must be two “core” objects for mutual attraction. Therefore, Gravity has no function in totally Empty Space.

    Having said that, the subject of what elusive mist/steam/quantum foam (my words) is it that is holding the Universe together. I call it Pressure Ether. My Dark Matter theory of 2010 is available for viewing and deals with the CAUSE of this substance. Once this can be evaluated in earnest, its logic can be shown. This is the way for hypotheticals. For more information pls contact: dwyersuncreation@aol.com

    Please know that your Supernovae curves statement has much merit. Best regards, r.l. dwyer

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>