Re: Ned Wright's Page on Tired Light

From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 01/05/05 

Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 10:12:53 +0100

greywolf42 wrote:
> George Dishman <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:crev06$48n$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
>

[snip]

>>>>Tired light effectively compresses the power
>>>>emitted into a narrower band.
>>>
>>>Umm, no. Tired light does not compress power bands. This may simply be
>>>a sloppy usage on your part. The relative energy-frequency curve merely
>>>shifts. It does not compress the band, unless you arbitrarily have set
>>>a minimum intensity as defining the edges of the "band."
>>
>>Think of the graph as a histogram with bins 1Hz wide,
>>that's what sets the edges.
>
>
> I understand what you are driving at. This was simply a quibble about usage
> of the terminology "power band".

Err, it was you who came up with the term "power band", not
George. The band which George talked about was obviously
a *frequency* band.

>>The photons that go into a
>>bin from f to f+1 on the red curve come from frequencies
>>in the range 1.1*f to 1.1*(f+1) on the blue curve. That's
>>10% more photons than are in the corresponding bin on the
>>blue curve which is from (1.1*f) to (1.1*f)+1. Of course
>>each photon carries 10% less energy so the two factors
>>cancel and the intensity is the same.
>
>
> The intensity (watts/m^2) *is* reduced. The intensity per hz is unchanged.
> Perhaps we have simply been arguing units again.

I notice that you did not bother to address George's actual argument
above.

[snip]

>>Take a more extree example, consider a source received
>>with z=2. Suppose you measure the intensity at 1MHz. That
>>is a measure of the power in the band from 1,000,000Hz to
>>1,000,001Hz. However when the photons were emitted they
>>had frequencies from 2,000,000Hz to 2,000,002Hz When put
>>into the histogram though, that range would be split into
>>two bins, the first from 2,000,000Hz to 2,000,001Hz and
>>the other from 2,000,001Hz to 2,000,002Hz. There are
>>therefore twice as many photons in the bin for the received
>>intensity as in each of the bins for the emitted intensity,
>>but since each received photon has half the energy when it
>>was transmitted, the total power in each 1Hz band is the
>>same. Do you follow yet, it's not my best explanation.

I notice that you did not bother to address George's actual argument
above.

[snip]

>>>Not one CMBR device -- to my knowledge -- has ever attempted an
>>>isolation test. That is, a test to determine whether the signal was
>>>actually produced "within" the antenna -- or whether it had an
>>>external source. For example, I know for a fact that Penzias and
>>>Wilson did not do this test. They *did* cut out the antenna
>>>connection. But they did not put their antenna in an isolation chamber.
>>>
>>>I'd be happy to be corrected, if you know of anyone who has done this.
>>>(And this has been discussed on the newsgroups for at least a decade.)
>>
>>Well I can't imagine they would launch any craft without
>>testing the equipment and you can't do that except in
>>a screened room. However, you would have to contact the
>>team that built the equipment to get confirmation, it's
>>the sort of thing everyone does without comment, just
>>normal engineering, so it is unlikely you will find
>>anything published about it.
>
>
> Then why did P&W discuss the tests they ran on their systems? If it's just
> something that one normally does?

1) This was several decades ago. Tests which are considered
today to be totally standard obviously weren't considered
all to be standard back then.
2) They made a quite surprising observation, so it's natural
to do extensive testing and report it.

>>Perhaps it is simpler just
>>to point out that since COBE and WMAP produce the same
>>map of the sky, the data cannot be an artefact of the
>>detector.
>
>
> No one ever said it would be an "artifact of the detector".

You suggested that it arises within the antenna. Then why
do you object to calling this an artifact of the detector?
That's what one normally means with "artifact of the detector":
an effect which is produced by/within the detector instead
of having an external source.

> It would be
> what matter always sees. Regardless of it's shape.

Why do the detectors see different temperatures when looking
into different directions? If you claim that these are simply
fluctuations, "noise", then please explain why COBE and WMAP
see the same temperature if they look into the same direction
(provided one takes the different resolutions into account).

[snip]

>>>Including the antenna of the Penzias and Wilson
>>>device, and all other such devices. No experimental system that I am
>>>aware of, has ever tested to eliminate this possibility. P&W never
>>>made this test. After P&W, everyone simply assumed it was
>>>"cosmic" in origin (i.e. outside the mechanism) -- and never made
>>>this test.
>>
>>How do you think they would calibrate an instrument
>>that was picking up every microwave oven and mobile
>>phone for miles around? All such testing and
>>calibration has to be done in an electrically quiet
>>environment and that means a screened room.
>
>
> P&W managed it. Perhaps you should read their paper.

Reference?

>>However,
>>what would be the point? If this noise is generated
>>by hydrogen in matter anyway, it would still fill any
>>EMC chanber as well.
>
>
> Precisely!!!!!!
>
> If it is of cosmic origin, then you will be able to screen it out. If it is
> of antenna matter origin, you won't.

If it is of antenna matter origin, you have a problem explaining
that if one and the same instrument looks nto different directions,
different temperatures are seen, whereas when two different instruments
look into the same direction, the same temperature is seen.

Or is there an easy explanation for that which I somehow missed?

> That's why one would do the test. To
> show that the "cosmic" MBR really is external to the detector. The test
> appears to have been ignored, because popular theory did not predict any
> such thing.

As George suggested: such a test was very probably done. Why
don't you write to the people who have designed and built
COBE and WMAP and simply ask, instead of simply claiming that
such a test appears to have been ignored?

[snip]

>>Note that in this pair, there is _no_ expansion of the
>>balloon, that's the whole point. Only by keeping the size
>>the same can he illustrate that the volume doesn't change
>>hence the photon density doesn't change, only the individual
>>energies.
>
>
> But Ned's model has nothing to do with any real tired light theory. It is
> purely a BB strawman variant.

Ned's model is in no way simply a "BB variant".

Bye,
Bjoern

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ned Wrights Page on Tired Light
    ... no. Tired light does not compress power bands. ... Think of the graph as a histogram with bins 1Hz wide, ... 10% more photons than are in the corresponding bin on the ... Suppose you measure the intensity at 1MHz. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Why are some transparent oxides electrically conductive?
    ... I understand that some materials appear transparent because their band ... high-energy UV photons tend ... I would have thought that such wide band gap materials would behave as ... energy levels within the wide band gap, and if so why don't they absorb ...
    (sci.physics)
  • High data rate in narrow band - Why doesnt it work?
    ... qualitative explanation. ... you turn it on and off (for example with a mechanical shutter) at at ... What happens to photons? ... 1Hz band pass optical filters corresponding to ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: awesome
    ... The shape of the bandgap: in general bandgap is characterized by a ... i.e. the conduction band minimum is at different momentum than ... recombination photons, we need a material where a conduction band ... minimum and valence band maximum are at the wavevector. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how?
    ... If there is a wide band of frequencies which represent the exchange ... photons, ...
    (sci.physics)