Redshift in cosmic dust resolves the galaxy rotation problem without dark matter and MOND

Background  The Tully-Fisher relation based on Newtonian mechanics requires the rotation velocity of spiral galaxies to vary inversely with the square root of the distance from the galactic center. See http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Tully-Fisher_relation  However, observations of galaxy rotation velocities obtained with the Doppler shift show the velocity is nearly constant with distance suggesting the presence of a substantial amount of dark matter in a halo surrounding the galactic center. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve

Dark matter halos are an important feature of the Lambda Cold Dark Matter (LCDM) model of the Universe, but dark matter lacks experimental verification, and remains an unsolved problem in physics. The question may be asked:

Is dark matter responsible for the difference between galaxy rotation velocities given by Newtonian mechanics and those observed, or is there another explanation?  

MOND
MOND asserts the galaxy rotation problem may be resolved by assuming the physics of gravity changes at the large scale allowing rotation velocities in galaxies to remain constant with distance from the galactic center instead of decreasing as required by Newtonian mechanics. But like dark matter, MOND lacks experimental verification. Moreover, MOND requires motions of galaxies around a galactic center, and therefore fails to explain the collapse of cluster galaxies having motion emanating from  other points. See Clowe, et al. ApJ Letters, 648, L109, 2006 in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics. However, the failure of MOND to explain collapsing galaxies is not proof dark matter exists, as other explanations are possible.

Redshift in Cosmic Dust
Redshift in cosmic dust claims the galaxy rotation problem is caused by Doppler shift and is resolved by replacing the latter with a theory called QED induced radiation. See “Dark Energy and Cosmic Dust” at http://www.nanoqed.org  By this theory, the validity of the Doppler shift as the measure of velocities in the Universe is held in question by the redshift that accompanies the absorption of light in submicron dust particles (DPs). It is important to note that the redshift upon the absorption of light in DPs differs from scattering in that the latter does not redshift light. The impact of DPs on velocity measurements in cosmology is significant in that the very first redshift measurements by Hubble giving recession velocities of galaxies are refuted leaving the notion of an expanding Universe without experimental verification. Astronomers are therefore required to find other ways of proving Universe expansion or abandon the cosmology of the expanding Universe including the Big Bang. No matter how unpleasant these options may be, the fact remains the Universe is only observed by light, and therefore the significance of absorption of galactic light by cosmic dust may by default require astronomers to return to the cosmolog of a static Universe once proposed by Einstein.

Indeed, the redshift measurements by Hubble and interpreted by the Doppler shift were most likely caused by QED induced redshift and have nothing to do with the recession velocities of galaxies. In fact, cosmological events that produce large amounts of debris have large redshifts because of the proportionality of submciron DPs that form to the debris produced. In this regard, QED induced redshift of galaxy light in DPs observed by Hubble may be almost insignificant compared to the large quantities of  DPs produced in Supernovae Type 1a explosions. See http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/blog/8209-redshift-cosmic-dust-trumps-hubble-and-tired-light-theories-26678.html The interpretation of Supernova light curves and respective time dilation therefore cannot proceed without considering the absorption of light in DPs.

Cosmic Dust and Galaxy Rotation Curves
Similar to light from receding galaxies and Supernovae explosions, astronomers use the Doppler shift of light from different parts of a spiral galaxy to determine its rotation velocities. In the plane of rotation, the galaxy is described by spiral arms of stars emanating from the galactic center while the edge view shows a bulge at the center of a thin disk.  In edge view, galaxy rotation consists of half of the disk moving away from us leaving a trailing cloud of DPs in the light path to us. However, there are far less DPs present in the half moving toward us. Our edge view of a rotating galaxy is therefore altered by an asymmetric cloud of DPs.

Light from the galaxy passing through the asymmetric cloud of DPs undergoes more QED induced redshift on the half moving away than that moving toward us. Away from the galaxy, the DPs in the light path to us induce the same QED redshift for both halves of the disk, but compared to the cloud of trailing DPs may be neglected. The asymmetry in QED induced redshift if interpreted as a Doppler shift suggests the galaxy is rotating faster than it actually is. Since the trailing cloud of DPs is always present at any distance from the galactic center, the galaxy rotation appears to be flat with distance. By QED induced redshift, the galaxy rotation problem is resolved by treating the Doppler shift as anomaly of cosmic dust having nothing to do with rotation velocities, thereby allowing the dynamics of spiral galaxies to be governed solely by Newtonian mechanics.

Conclusions
1.  Cosmic dust refutes velocities determined by Doppler shift leaving Newtonian mechanics alone to govern the Tully-Fisher relation for spiral galaxy rotation curves. Rotation velocities inferred from Doppler shifts should be not used in explaining galaxy dynamics, and instead treated as anomolies of cosmic dust . There is no need for dark matter and MOND to explain the galaxy rotation problem.
2. The failure of the LCDM model to explain galaxy rotation curves began with Hubble who proposed the observed redshift of galaxies be interpreted as recession velocities given by the Doppler shift instead of by absorption in cosmic dust.
3. Astronomers may want to consider abandoning the LCDM model in favor of a static Universe once proposed Einstein.

Olbers paradox is explained by cosmic dust instead of the Big Bang

Background

The German astronomer Heinrich Olbers in 1823 is credited with the paradoxical observation that the night sky is dark, but in a static infinite universe the night sky should be bright. Indeed, Olbers paradox is often cited as evidence for the Big Bang theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers’_paradox

In a static infinite Universe, the observer would see a nearby galaxy in one region of the sky and another galaxy in a more distant region. Although the nearer galaxy would appear brighter, there would be more galaxies in the more distant region of the sky. Therefore, the total light from the nearer region of the sky would be the same as that from the more distant region. No matter where the observer looks in the sky, the total light coming from every line-of-sight would be the same. Olbers paradox concludes the night sky should be bright and not dark if the Universe is infinite.    http://www.astro.psu.edu/users/caryl/a10/lec15_2d.html

Astronomers explain Olbers paradox as an artifact of a finite and expanding Universe In the Big Bang. By Hubble’s law, distant galaxies in an expanding Universe are moving away from us faster than nearby galaxies, i.e., a galaxy at distance d from us moving away at velocity V = Hd, where H is Hubble’s constant. Hence, light from distant galaxies is redshift so much that visible light is moved to the infrared and microwave regions that are invisible to the observer.

An alternative to the Big Bang explanation of Olbers paradox is that the static and infinite Universe is not transparent, and the light from distant galaxies is absorbed by cosmic dust, so that there is a bound on the distance from which light can reach the observer. However, astronomers dismiss this explanation based on the second law of thermodynamics that states there can be no material hotter than its surroundings that does not give off radiation. Hence, there is no material which can be uniformly distributed through space and yet able to absorb galaxy light without increasing in temperature. Therefore, the cosmic dust would heat up and soon reradiate the energy that again results in intense uniform radiation as bright as the collective of the galaxies themselves, once again giving a bright night sky which is not observed.  http://www.crystalinks.com/olber’s_paradox.html

Problem

The problem with Big Bang explanation of Olbers paradox is that the Universe is unequivocally not transparent because of ubiquitous submicron cosmic dust, and therefore the distance from which galaxy light can reach the observer is indeed bounded. The second law is not violated, however. In fact, QED induced redshift based on QM allows submicron cosmic dust to redshift visible light to infrared and microwaves regions of the EM spectrum without increasing in temperature. QM stands for quantum mechanics, QED for quantum electrodynamics, and EM for electromagnetic. Therefore, a static infinite Universe without the Big Bang explains Olbers paradox.

QED redshift in Cosmic Dust instead of Hubble’s Doppler shift

QED induced redshift is a consequence of QM constraints placed on the conservation of energy in submicron dust particles. QM precludes cosmic dust from having the specific heat capacity necessary to conserve absorbed galaxy photons by an increase in temperature. Photons are created from the EM confinement of the absorbed galaxy photon within the dust particle. See http://www.nanoqed.org at “Dark Energy and Cosmic Dust” and “Reddening and Redshift,” 2009.

QED induced redshift may be understood from QM by the creation of photons of wavelength Lo upon supplying EM energy to a QM box with walls separated by Lo/2. For a galaxy photon absorbed in a spherical particle of diameter D, the QED photons are created at a wavelength Lo = 2nD, where n is the index of refraction of the particle. Cosmic dust is generally amorphous silicate having n = 1.45 and diameters D < 0.5 microns. For example, at D = 0.25 microns, the QED created photons has Lo = 0.745 microns, and therefore an absorbed Lyman-alpha photon having L = 0.1216 microns in galaxy light is redshift to Z = (Lo – L)/L. ~ 5. If the QED redshift is interpreted by Doppler shift, the galaxy recession velocity is 95 % of the speed of light when in fact the Universe is not expanding at all, thereby negating any and all need for the Big Bang to explain our Universe.

Moreover, QED redshift in cosmic dust has been suggested to explain brightness in the Tolman test and time dilation in Supernova explosions. In this regard, a critique of Doppler redshift from Hubble theory in relation to QED induced redshift is given in http://www.nanoqed.org/resources/Press_Release/Redshift%20by%20Cosmic%20Dust%20trumps%20Hubble%20and%20Tired%20Light%20Theories.htm  Moreover, QED redshift in cosmic dust resolves the galaxy rotation problem and negates the need for MOND. See http://www.nanoqed.org/resources/Press_Release/Redshift%20in%20cosmic%20dust%20resolves%20the%20galaxy%20rotation%20problem%20without%20dark%20matter%20and%20MOND.htm

Conclusions

1. Olbers paradox need not rely on the Doppler redshift in light from distant galaxies in a finite and expanding Universe.
2. QED redshift of galaxy light by submicron cosmic dust explains Olbers paradox in an infinite and non-expanding static Universe.
3. Given the fact the Universe is permeated by cosmic dust, it is highly likely that the redshift measured by Hubble was QED induced redshift having nothing to do with the Big Bang and an expanding Universe.
4. In a static infinite Universe, there is no gravitational collapse and no need for the cosmological constant or the Big Bang.

Mystery of Lightning in the Iceland volcano solved by Nanoparticles?

Charge produced at the instant nanoparticles form upon rubbing of ash particle surfaces may solve the long-standing mystery of how lightning in volcanoes is electrified.

Background

The lightning observed in the plume of the Iceland volcano has renewed interest not only in how the volcano is electrified, but also how ice in the updraft of a thunderstorm produces lightning.

The electrification of volcanoes is generally thought caused by the rubbing of solid ash particles while that in thunderstorms is by the rubbing of ice particles. But the mechanism by which rubbing of particles produces the electrification has remained a mystery. See http://www.livescience.com/environment/volcano-lightning-Eyjafjallajokull-100420.html

Common belief is that rubbing removes electrons from particle surfaces, but this is unlikely because the electron is more tightly bound to the atom than the atoms are bound to each other, and therefore rubbing tends to only produce tiny clusters of neutral atoms called nanoparticles (NPs). Indeed, electrons are unlikely to be removed from a material by any form of mechanical energy. By the photoelectric effect, Einstein over a century ago showed only electromagnetic (EM) radiation may remove electrons from a material.

Hypothesis

Observation based on the foregoing allow the hypothesis that NPs comprising clusters of otherwise neutral atoms upon forming by rubbing solid surfaces somehow produce the EM radiation that by the photoelectric effect charges the NP by removing electrons.

Lightning by NPs in Thunderstorms

In the updraft of the thunderstorm, moisture is carried upward at high velocity and freezes at about 10,000 m. Submicron NPs may be formed directly from the moisture, but generally millimeter sized ice particles are produced. With the ice particles moving upward, other ice particles already having reached maximal height are falling downward to the earth under gravity. NPs generally form by the rubbing of particle surfaces in the collisions between upward and downward moving ice particles.

Of importance is the size differences between macroscopic particles and NPs. QM allows atoms in the macroscopic ice particles to have the thermal kT energy necessary absorb EM energy. Here QM stands for quantum mechanics, k for Boltzmann’s constant, and T for absolute. Classically, the atom in NPs is allowed to store the same amount of thermal energy as in macroscopic particles. But QM limits the amount of thermal energy stored by the atom depending on the particle size and temperature. At ambient and freezing temperatures, most of the thermal energy of the atom is stored at wavelengths greater than about 50 microns, but rapidly vanishes for NPs having wavelengths of a few microns. Therefore, at the instant the NPs form, the atoms have thermal energy in excess of that allowed by QM. If the NPs could increase in temperature, the excess thermal energy would be conserved. But QM also requires the specific heat of the atoms in NPs to vanish, and therefore the excess thermal energy cannot be conserved by an increase in temperature.

Conservation may only proceed by the QED induced up-conversion of the excess thermal energy in the FIR to the EM confinement frequency of the NP. Since the submicron size of the NP confines the FIR energy to EM frequencies in the UV and beyond, the NP spontaneously charge positive and emit electrons by the photoelectric effect. With the earth surface charged positive prior to the thunderstorm, the electrons attach to the downward falling ice particles and tend to charge the earth negative. Accumulation of charge from NPs during the storm therefore produces a large potential difference between the thundercloud and the earth that upon electrical breakdown creates cloud-to-ground lightning. However, the potential difference may occur within the thundercloud itself as commonly observed in cloud-to-cloud lightning.

However, only submicron NPs produce the ionizing radiation at UV or higher levels necessary to produce charge that electrifies the thunderstorm. Micron or larger sized ice articles that form on rubbing lack the EM confinement of thermal energy and only produce non-ionizing IR or FIR radiation.

Volcano Lightning by NPs

The charging process in volcanic lightning is similar to that in thunderstorms except that the NPs are produced by the rubbing of macroscopic particles of ash instead of ice. The ash particles are ejected from the volcano at high velocity only to collide and rub with those particles falling back to the volcano. Again, charge separation occurs as the positive charged NPs tend to move upward leaving the free electrons to attach to the downward falling particles.

Unlike thunderstorms, the ash need not move to high altitude to form solid particles, and therefore volcanic lightning is more efficient than that in thunderstorms, and therefore potential differences can reach breakdown over shorter separation distances. As shown in the thumbnail, volcano lightning is observed by electrical breakdown within the ash plume itself as in cloud-to-cloud lightning of thunderstorms.

Conclusions

The mysterious source of charge in thundercloud and volcano lightning finds commonality in the hypothesis that electrification in all natural processes is unified by rubbing NPs off solid surfaces. Other natural world mysteries possibly solved by NPs include Gecko walking on ceilings, X-rays from pulling Scotch tape from the roll, flow electrification in gasoline fires, ball lightning and St. Elmo’s fire, enhanced chemical reactions in tribochemistry. See “Unified Theory of Electrification in Natural Processes,” and other papers in http://www.nanoqed.org/ , 2009-10

Materials at the nanoscale have zero specific heat

Specific heat theories of Debye’s phonons and Einstein’s atomic vibrations including modification thereof by Raman are modified by quantum mechanics to include zero specific heat at the nanoscale.

Background

Specific heat is thought to be an intensive thermophysical property independent of the amount of the substance. Given the amount of the substance in a body is proportional to its volume, specific heat should therefore be independent of whether the body dimensions are macroscopic or nanoscopic. In contrast, specific heat that depends on the amount of the substance is an extensive property dependent on the dimensions of the body. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_heat_capacity

Classical Specific Heat at the Nanoscale

Currently, specific heat at the nanoscale is considered an intensive property having the same value as for macroscopic bodies. The Debye and Einstein macroscopic theories of specific heat including modifications thereof by Raman are generally assumed in simulating heat transfer in nanostructures. See Thumbnail of “Macroscopic Specific Heat at the Nanoscale?”in http://www.prlog.org/10609553-materials-at-the-nanoscale-have-zero-specific-heat.html. What this means is the classical oscillators of statistical mechanics all having the same kT energy are used to model specific heat at the nanoscale.

Specific Heat by Quantum Mechanics

Contrarily, quantum mechanics (QM) embodied in the Einstein-Hopf relation for the harmonic oscillator shows the QM states do not have the same kT energy. At ambient temperature, the average Planck energy of QM states is kT only at thermal wavelengths greater than about 50 microns while at shorter wavelengths is less than kT and vanishes for nanostructures at submicron wavelengths. See Paper and Presentation at http://www.nanoqed.org at “Zero Specific Heat”, 2010.

Since the Planck energy at a given wavelength is the amount of thermal energy that can be stored in the QM oscillator, and since the only thermal wavelengths that can fit into nanostructures are submicron, QM requires zero specific heat capacity at the nanoscale, the consequence of which is absorbed heat cannot be conserved in nanostructures by an increase in temperature. Conservation may only proceed by the QED induced frequency up-conversion of absorbed heat to non-thermal EM radiation at the fundamental EM confinement frequency of the nanostructure, typically in the UV and beyond. The EM confinement is quasi-bound allowing leakage of QED induced radiation from the nanostructure to be absorbed in the macroscopic surroundings. See Ibid.

But QED emission in the UV and beyond from nanostructures is not readily observed – even by standard photomultipliers because of the UV cut-off, and therefore heat balances of nanostructures do not include QED emissions as heat losses. Hence, thermal conductivity is inferred to be reduced from that of the bulk to be consistent with the measured temperature difference across the body, e.g., as in thin films. If QED emissions are included in heat losses, the bulk conductivity need not be reduced for consistency with temperature differences thereby precluding any modification of Fourier’s theory of heat conduction by the Boltzmann transport equation (BTE). See Ibid.

Molecular Dynamics and Periodic Boundaries

Molecular Dynamics (MD) describes the classical solution of atomic motion based on Newton’s equations. To determine bulk transport properties, there are no QM restrictions on kT energy of atoms, i.e., atoms are assumed to have kT energy because the MD solution for the bulk is obtained by imposing periodic boundary conditions on the computational box. Historically, Monte Carlo (MC) preceded MD simulations, however. MC simulations of spherical particles in a submicron computational square with periodic boundaries were used to determine the 2D virial coefficients for the PVT equation of state. See Metropolis et al. Ibid. For a discrete nanostructure, periodic boundaries do not apply, and therefore the atoms in the nanostructure are subject to QM restrictions of zero kT energy.

Heat transfer of discrete nanostructures which are unambiguously not periodic is generally simulated by MD on the invalid assumption the atoms have kT energy. For nanocars, see e.g., http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/ct7002594 Extending specific heat from macroscopic samples to the nanoscale is just as invalid as extending the Dulong-Petit law for specific heat at ambient temperature to low temperatures about 200 years ago. Nevertheless, MD simulations of nanostructures today are proudly displayed in the belief they provide precise atomistic explanations of conduction heat transfer when in fact they are not valid because the simulations are performed on the assumption the atoms have finite kT energy. See http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/blog/8209-quantum-mechanics-questions-molecular-dynamics-submicron-structures-25639.html

Conclusions

1. QM requires zero specific heat capacity at the nanoscale be specified as a new thermophysical property of all materials.

2. The classification of specific heat as an intensive thermophysical property of a body should be changed to an extensive property depending on the dimensions of the body.

3. Nanoscale heat transfer based on the assumption of macroscopic specific heat is likely to produce unphysical results, e.g., reduced thermal conductivity in thin films.

4. There is no need for the BTE to determine the thermal conductivity in thin films as bulk conductivity may be assumed without any loss in accuracy.

5. Macroscopic Debye and Einstein theories should be revised to include zero specific heat at the nanoscale.

6. Lacking specific heat at the nanoscale, absorbed EM energy is not conserved by an increase in temperature, but rather by the emission of non-thermal QED induced EM radiation.

7. MD and MC simulations of bulk thermal conductivity based on full kT energy of atoms in submicron computational boxes under periodic boundary conditions are consistent with QM.

8. Zero specific heat is required for atoms in MD and MC simulations of discrete nanostructures without periodic constraints.

9. Absorbed EM energy in discrete nanostructures may be a priori assumed to be emitted as high frequency EM radiation that and absorbed in the macroscopic surroundings, thereby obviating any need to perform MD and MC simulations of the nanostructure itself.

Redshift by cosmic dust supports the death of the Big Bang Theory

The death of the Big Bang Theory predicted by Zwicky in 1929 and proclaimed by Marmet 20 years ago is supported today by QED induced redshift of galaxy light in cosmic dust that negates Hubble’s expanding Universe based on the Doppler shift

Background
The Big Bang theory is supported by (1) an expanding Universe based on the interpretation of redshifts of galaxy light as Doppler shifts, (2) the abundance of light elements like helium-4 and deuterium, and (3) the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation at a temperature of about 3K as the relic of the Big Bang.

In 1990, Paul Marmet published an article in 21st Century, Science and Technology entitled “Big Bang Cosmology meets an astronomical death.” See http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/bigbang/index.html Marmet argued that the abundance of light elements are produced during galaxy formation by nuclear reactions in the stars; the CMB radiation is simply Planck’s blackbody radiation emitted by an unlimited Universe at a temperature of about 3 K; and galaxy photons undergo a non-Doppler redshift and lose energy based on the Photon-Atom Theory.

Photon-Atom Theory is a variant of the Tired Light Theory proposed by Zwicky immediately after Hubble reported his redshift measurements in 1929. Zwicky contended that the redshift measured was caused by galaxy photons losing energy in colliding with cosmic dust particles (DPs) in the intergalactic medium (IGM). Zwicky’s contention that the interpretation of Hubble’s redshift as a Doppler shift was fatally flawed marked the beginning of cosmological death of the Big Bang.

Criticism of Tired Light Theories
The absorption of galaxy photons in Marmet’s atoms and molecules is similar to that in Zwicky’s DPs in that both are Tired Light theories. See http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light Critics dismiss Tired Light Theories by confusing the reddening of light by scattering with redshift caused by absorption. See http://www.viswiki.com/en/Tired_light. The argument that scattered light is reddened and blurs images is valid, but critics need to understand that absorbed photons redshift galaxy light. Unlike scattered light, the light absorbed and re-emitted by gas molecules and DPs does not blur images.

Objects on Earth do not appear blurred even though light undergoes an uncountable number of absorptions with air molecules. Hence, Marmet claimed that most of galaxy light is absorbed and not scattered, and therefore photons lose energy by repeatedly being absorbed and re-emitted by atoms or molecules in the IGM. Marmet therefore concluded the non-Doppler redshift by IGM molecules was the likely explanation of the redshift observed by Hubble and not that by a Doppler shift leading to an expanding Universe in the Big Bang Theory.

QED Induced Redshift in Cosmic Dust
QED induced redshift supports the death of the Big Bang Theory predicted by Zwicky and proclaimed by Marmet. QED stands for quantum electrodynamics. QED induced redshift is a consequence of constraints on the conservation of energy imposed by quantum mechanics (QM). QM precludes submicron DPs from having the specific heat capacity necessary to conserve absorbed galaxy photons by an increase in temperature. Photons are created from the electromagnetic (EM) confinement of the absorbed galaxy photon within the solid DP. See thumbnail. This may be understood from QM by the QED induced creation of photons of wavelength Lo by supplying EM energy to a QM box with walls separated by Lo/2. For a galaxy photon absorbed in a spherical DP of diameter D, the QED photons are created at a wavelength Lo = 2nD, where n is the index of refraction of the DP. In the IGM, the DPs are generally amorphous silicate having n = 1.45 and diameters D < 0.5 microns. For D = 0.25 microns, the QED created photon has Lo = 0.745 microns, and therefore an absorbed Ly-alpha photon having L = 0.1216 microns is redshift to Z = (Lo – L)/L ~ 5. If the QED redshift in DPs is interpreted by Doppler shift, the galaxy recession velocity is 95 % of the speed of light when in fact the Universe is not expanding at all. See http://www.nanoqed.org at “Dark Energy and Cosmic Dust” and “Reddening and Redshift,” 2009.

Comparison of QED Redshift with Tired Light Theory
Marmet and Zwicky contended that the redshift of galaxies generally increases with distance based on galaxy light continuosly losing energy by successive collisions with IGM molelcules. But QED redshift is prompt upon absorption of the galaxy photon in a single DP. QED redshift is therefore a more likely occurrence than the enormous number of collisions necessary to produce the same redshift by Photon-Atom Theory. Marmet estimated the energy loss in a single photon collision to be about 10 ^ -13 of the absorbed photon energy. For the Ly-alpha photon having a Planck energy of 10.2 eV, the energy loss per collision is about 10 ^ -12 eV. By QED redshift at Z = 5, the 0.25 micron diameter silicate DP redshifts the Ly-alpha photon to a red photon having Planck energy of 1.7 eV. By QED theory, the net redshift of 8.5 eV takes place in a single absorption. However, the Photon-Atom Theory requires about 8.5×10 ^12 collisions which is far more unlikely than a single collision by QED induced redshift.

QED redshift in DPs explain brightness in the Tolman test and time dilation in Supernova tests. In this regard, a critique of Doppler redshift from Hubble theory including Tired Light theories in relation to QED induced redshift is given in http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/blog/8209-redshift-cosmic-dust-trumps-hubble-and-tired-light-theories-26678.html Moreover, QED redshift in DPs resolves the galaxy rotation problem and negates the need for MOND. See http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/blog/8209-redshift-cosmic-dust-resolves-galaxy-rotation-problem-without-dark-matter-and-mond-27333.html

Difference of QED Redshift and Tired Light Theory
The wavelength Lo emitted by a DP depends on the diameter and refractive index, and therefore the relative change in the wavelength L of the galaxy photon (Lo – L)/L is not constant: However, Tired Light theories claim a constant relative change in wavelength for all galaxy photon wavelengths consistent with Hubble’s Doppler shift. But there is no reason that non-Doppler and Doppler redshifts need to be the same. Nevertheless, QED redshift is still a Tired Light Theory. For galaxy photons of wavelength L redshift to Lo in a DP, the number of QED redshift photons created is the ratio of Lo/L and although greater than one is not likely an integer, and therefore QED redshift is similar to Tired Light Theories in that some galaxy photon energy is lost in DP absorptions as depicted in the thumbnail of Press Release in http://www.prlog.org/10568265-redshift-by-cosmic-dust-supports-the-death-of-the-big-bang-theory.html

QED Redshift of the Sun
Since 1907, spectroscopic measurements made of light from the Sun show the light from the limb to be redshift relative to that from center of the Sun’s disk beyond that which can be explained by the Doppler shift of the Sun’s rotation. Marmet claimed the redshift arises from the greater number of photon-atom collisions in the greater distance the light has to pass near the limb. Similarly, QED redshift also predicts the light form the limb to be redshift more than at its center because the greater distance contains a proportionally greater number of DPs.

Conclusions
1. The cosmological death of the Big Bang Theory proclaimed by Marmet about 20 years ago from the predictions by Zwicky some 60 years earlier is supported today by QED induced redshift in DPs.

2. Hubble’s redshift measurements have nothing to do with an expanding Universe.

3. QED redshift in a single DP interaction is far more likely than the enormous number of collisions required for the same redshift in the Photon-Atom Theory.

4. Tired Light Theories based on scattering produce blurring of the object image. Both Marmet’s Photon-Atom Theory and Zwicky’s DPs avoid this problem by the re-emission of absorbed galaxy photons. Similarly, QED redshift based on photon absorption in DPs does not produce blurring

Nanotrumpets Produce Sound from Joule Heat Without Temperature Fluctuations

Recent claims based on classical heat transfer that nanotrumpets produce sound from temperature fluctuations caused by Joule heating in passing electrical current through thin films are refuted by quantum mechanics.

Background
Recently, the journal Nature published an article entitled Nanotherm Trumpets that claimed sound was produced from temperature fluctuations in passing electrical current through an array of nanometer thick aluminum films. The claim is based on classical heat transfer theory that assumes films under Joule heating increase in temperature to heat the surrounding air and produce the pressure in propagating the sound. High thermal conductivity of the films is thought to allow the Joule heat to be lost to the substrate, and therefore not contribute to the large temperature fluctuations necessary to produce sound. To avoid loss of Joule heat, reductions in bulk thermal conductivity are viewed as an important feature of the Nanotrumpets. Required reductions in thin film thermal conductivity are supported by scattering of electrons in the Boltzmann transport equation (BTE). See “Nature Article” under http://www.nanoqed.org, “Thermophone” at “Nanotrumpet Update”, 2010.

Classical Heat and QM Transfer
Quantum mechanics (QM) trumps the classical heat transfer theory claims that sound is produced from temperature fluctuations in nanometer thick films. QM precludes any fluctuations in the film temperatures because the specific heat given by the heat capacity of the atom vanishes in submicron films, and therefore there can be no heat flow through the thin film. Without heat flow, bulk conductivity may be retained in temperature solutions by Fourier’s heat conduction theory yielding isothermal temperatures without gradients. Hence, there are no temperature fluctuations in the film to heat the surrounding air and produce sound. Conversely, sound by QM is produced without temperature fluctuations by conserving the Joule heat by the emission of non-thermal electromagnetic (EM) radiation from the surfaces of the thin film. Pressure fluctuations producing the sound are caused by the absorption of the EM radiation in the surrounding air. The validity of classical heat transfer theory in thin films having submicron thicknesses was the subject of an earlier critique of the BTE. See http://www.prlog.org/10321896-thermophones-produce-sound…

QED induced EM Radiation
In general, QM precludes nanostructures of any form from conserving absorbed EM energy by an increase in temperature. See http://www.nanoqed.org, 2009 and 2010. Instead, the absorbed EM energy is conserved by creating photons inside the nanostructure at its fundamental EM confinement frequency, the process called QED induced EM radiation. QED stands for quantum electrodynamics. The QED process is consistent with QM that asserts photons of wavelength L are spontaneously created upon supplying EM energy U to a QM box with walls separated by L/2. It is important to emphasize the QED photons are created inside the solid nanostructure where the velocity c of light is reduced by the refractive index n of the solid. For a thin film, the QED photons created in the thickness direction are under EM confinement at wavelength L = 2nT, where T is its thickness. The number N of QED photons created having Planck energy E is N = U/E, where E = hc/2nT and h is Planck’s constant. See Ibid.

With regard to the verification of QED radiations, the EM emission may be difficult to detect. Submicron thin films create QED photons having Planck energies in the ultraviolet (UV) and beyond, and therefore are beyond the typical cut-off of most photomultipliers. But verification is possible with thicker films, e.g., QED radiation in the near infrared (NIR) is emitted from films having supramicron thicknesses. Since Joule heat is typically low frequency EM radiation in the far infrared (FIR), thin films may be considered frequency up-conversion devices converting FIR to EM radiation from the NIR to the UV or beyond.

Comments on Nanotrumpet Claims

Reduced Conductivity Requirement The Nature article cites a recent paper by Niskanen et al. showing an array of 3 micron wide x 30 nm thick x 200 micron long aluminum wires (sic films) suspended above a silicon substrate by an air gap g of 1-2 microns. The claim that reducing the bulk conductivity Kal of aluminum is required to reduce heat loss to the substrate is unlikely because the air film insulates the film from the substrate. In fact, the thermal resistance R between the outer film surface and the substrate is the sum of R1 and R2, where R1 = T / Kal is the resistance of the thin aluminum film and R2 = g / Kair that of the air gap. For bulk aluminum and air, Kal = 240 W/mK wile air has Kair = 0.026 W/mK. The R1 and R2 resistances are then 1.25e-10 and 5e-5 sq-m K/W. Hence, the air gap and not the aluminum film limit the heat loss to the substrate. Even if the bulk conductivity of aluminum is reduced to 70W/mK as claimed by BTE theory, the resistance of the air film still controls the heat loss to the substrate. The conductivity of the thin film is therefore inconsequential to the sound produced by the Nanotrumpet.

BTE and Reduced Conductivity In support of the claim that the BTE reduces the bulk conductivity of aluminum, thereby reducing the heat loss to the substrate and enhancing the sound, the Nature article cites the BTE paper by Jin et al. that claims reductions in bulk conductivity of aluminum to 70 W/mK for a 30 nm thick film is close to that found in experiments. But this claim is unlikely because the reduced conductivities were computed based on an assumed 10K temperature difference across the thin film which is precluded by QM. Isothermally there is no temperature difference across the film, and therefore the BTE is consistent with QM by predicting no reduction in bulk conductivity. The BTE is therefore also inconsequential in producing sound from the Nanotrumpet.

Conclusions

1. Classical heat transfer that includes finite specific heat in thin films is not applicable to Nanotrumpets. Sound cannot be produced by temperature fluctuations that are precluded by QM.

2. Instead of producing temperature fluctuations, QM allows the Nanotrumpets to conserve the Joule heat by the emission of EM radiation that upon absorption in the surrounding air produces the sound.

Nanocars are powered by electrostatic forces from QED induced charges

Nanocars comprising fullerene spherical wheels on hydrocarbon axles are shown to move on substrates by electrostatic forces from charges produced by quantum electrodynamics (QED)

Background
Nanocars evolved from research that began over a decade ago. At the IBM Zurich Research Laboratory, synthetic molecules (S-molecules) on a metal substrate were moved in a controlled and repeatable manner by pushing them with the tip of a scanning tunneling microscope (STM). See http://domino.watson.ibm.com/comm/wwwr_thinkresearch.nsf … .

The S-molecules included an organic molecule called porphyrin comprising a ring of atoms about 1.5 nanometers in diameter with a metal atom at its center. Groups of hydrocarbons were added to the porphyrin to provide four leg supports. The function of the legs was thought to allow the S-molecule to grip the surface to stabilize random thermal motion. Friction between the legs and the substrate could not have been significant because upon nudging with the STM tip the S-molecules appeared as though they were on rollers.

Quantum Mechanics Explanation
The S-molecule motion may be explained by quantum mechanics (QM). The Einstein-Hopf relationship for the QM harmonic oscillator shows the thermal kT energy of an atom at ambient temperature resides in the far infrared (FIR) beyond 50 microns. Here, k is Boltzmann’s constant and T is absolute temperature. But the S-molecule by its size excludes all thermal radiation beyond a few nanometers, and therefore lacks the heat capacity to conserve the FIR heat absorbed from the contact of the legs with the substrate by an increase in temperature. Upon contact of the legs with the substrate, the S-molecule becomes a part of a macroscopic body that by QM is allowed to have kT energy. But in moving, the S-molecule breaks contact to be momentarily isolated from the substrate, and therefore has excess kT energy above the vanishing small amount allowed by QM.

Lacking heat capacity, the S-molecule cannot conserve the excess kT energy by an increase in temperature. Conservation therefore may only proceed by the QED induced frequency up-conversion of the excess kT energy in the FIR to the electromagnetic (EM) confinement frequency of the S-molecule, which at ultraviolet (UV) levels and beyond has the Planck energy to charge the S-molecule by the photoelectric effect.

The QED induced charge only produces momentary electrostatic interactions. Nevertheless, the S-molecule is held to the substrate by momentary electrostatic attraction instead of by gripping as initially thought. Lateral motion depends on the momentary electrostatic interaction with its neighbors. In a random arrangement of S-molecules, the electrostatic interactions are not symmetric and on that basis alone may initiate motion. Moreover, lateral motion over the substrate occurs by intermittent stick-slip, but small friction at contacts makes it appear as though the S-molecule is on rollers. Regardless, contact neutralizes the charge on the S-molecule and allows the kT energy to be reacquired from the substrate to allow subsequent breaking of contact to produce QED charge. During stick-slip motion, the intermittent QED induced charge occurs very rapidly and may be difficult to detect.

Nanocars
Today, nanocars moving on substrates are more complex than the S-molecules, but the QED charging is the same. Currently, many research groups are engaged in nanocar research typified by Rice University. See http://news.cnet.com/Here-come-the-nanocars/2100-11395_3 ….

In QED charging, nanocars like S-molecules are powered by converting EM energy into mechanical motion. The EM energy may take various forms of heating including light, thermal, Joule, and electron beams. Indeed, nanocars have been shown to move by simply heating the substrate, the form of heat being the same thermal kT energy driving the earlier S-molecules. In effect, nanocars act as FIR to higher frequency up-conversion devices that charge the nanocars by producing momentary electrostatic repulsive forces that produce the observed nanocar motions. Similar arguments allow QED charges to explain the motions of molecular motors under Joule and electron beam heating. See http://www.nanoqed.org at “Nanocars by Quantum Mechanics”, 2010.

Molecular Dynamics
Unfortunately, the QED charging by which thermal kT energy is converted into powering the nanocar is not included in a conventional MD solution that implicitly assumes atoms have kT energy at the nanoscale. Valid MD simulations in heat transfer need to specify vanishing kT energy in the MD computational algorithms, and if so included would give isothermal temperature solutions. The invalidity of MD in heat transfer at the nanoscale is widespread, e.g., in tribology, see http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/blog/8209-quantum-mechanics-questions-molecular-dynamics-submicron-structures-25639.html ; whereas, in nanocars, see http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/ct7002594

MD is not needed for heat transfer at the nanoscale because temperature solutions are, a priori known to be isothermal. However, QED induced charging in nanostructures can and should be included in MD simulations of dynamic response, at least within the restrictions of Newton’s equations.

Conclusions

1. Nanostructures including S-molecules, nanocars, CNT motors and the like act as frequency up-conversion devices that are charged from QED radiation by the photoelectric effect, thereby allowing pair-wise interactions by momentary electrostatic repulsion.

2. MD simulations of heat transfer in nanocars are precluded by QM. At ambient temperature, the thermal heat capacity resides in the FIR beyond 50 microns, and therefore nanocars by their size exclude the heat capacity necessary for heat transfer. MD simulations of heat transfer in nanostructures are simply meaningless.

3. Unlike heat transfer, MD simulations are valid if directed to deriving the dynamic response of nanostructures on substrates under momentary QED induced charges.