Discussion of lyndonashmore's ATM idea re H (the Hubble constant)

[Tobin Dax]

Thanks Tobin Dax,
You are correct. I hadn't changed it. We did it for another thread and seem to remeber it took 4 or 5 attempts to get it right. Why don't they use proper units in astophysics!
I will take the page off line and redo it - you will have one tenth the wavelength, one tenth the collisions one tenth the spread which was overestimated by one tenth so it works out the same in the end. But, we will have it correct!
Thanks again for pointing out the mistake,
Cheers,
Lyndon

I don't think that was my conclusion. Could you leave the page up (with a disclaimer or something if you want) so I can look again when I have time?

[tusenfem]

Ah, Gentlemen. I see it is a case of heads in the sand.
The guy who wrote:

Is said to be:

Seems reliable enough to me.
Cheers,
Lyndon
P.S. I have to go away for a day or so on business. I may be able to answer one or two shorties but service will be back to normal on Friday. Apologies in advance

Dear Lydon

Please, for once read what is truely written:

A plasma can be defined in terms of these parameters as a partially or fully ionized gas that satisfies the following criteria: (1) a constituent electron may complete many plasma oscillations before it collides with either an ion or one of the other heavy constituents,

there is the collective plasma oscillation at the plasma frequency, this is a group phenomenon.
on top of that the particles have temperature, so they move around etc. etc.
so the whole plasma can have several oscillations befor it collides with another particle.
By the way, this is a very strange definition for a plasma, I do not have the EB, so maybe someone should copy the whole definition of a plasma from it in a message.

[papageno]

Ah, Gentlemen. I see it is a case of heads in the sand.

Let me spell it out clearly: you misrepresented the article by taking a quote out of context.

This is the context:

Plasma oscillations and parameters
Just as a lightweight cork in water will bob up and down about its rest position, any general displacement of light electrons as a group with respect to the positive ions in a plasma leads to the oscillation of the electrons as a whole about an equilibrium state. In the case of the cork, the restoring force is provided by gravity; in plasma oscillations, it is provided by the electric force.

(my emphasis)
You keep confusing the motion of individual particles with the collective behavior in plasma.

The guy who wrote:

Is said to be:

Seems reliable enough to me.

And as I pointed out above, you have shown once more that you are not reliable when quoting references.
Appealing to the qualifications of the author of the article is pointless, since you misrepresented the article.

If you read the first part of the article (which I quoted again in this post), it is obvious that it agrees essentially with what we have been saying about plasma oscillations.

[Jim]

By the way, this is a very strange definition for a plasma, I do not have the EB, so maybe someone should copy the whole definition of a plasma from it in a message.

Full article:
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-51956?hook=507064

Continuing from Papageno's quote:
These movements are the plasma oscillations that were studied by Langmuir and Tonks. Analogously, just as buoyancy effects guide water waves, plasma oscillations are related to waves in the electron component of the plasma called Langmuir waves. Wavelike phenomena play a critical role in the behaviour of plasmas.

The time t required for an oscillation of this type is the most important temporal parameter in a plasma. The main spatial parameter is the Debye length, h, which is the distance traveled by the average thermal electron in time t/2p. A plasma can be defined in terms of these parameters as a partially or fully ionized gas that satisfies the following criteria: (1) a constituent electron may complete many plasma oscillations before it collides with either an ion or one of the other heavy constituents, (2) inside each sphere with a radius equal to the Debye length, there are many particles, and (3) the plasma itself is much larger than the Debye length in every dimension.

(emphasis added)

The article continues from there.

[Tobin Dax]

A plasma can be defined in terms of these parameters as a partially or fully ionized gas that satisfies the following criteria: (1) a constituent electron may complete many plasma oscillations before it collides with either an ion or one of the other heavy constituents, ....

I think that Jim's emphasis of the phrase "plasma oscillations" should take the wind right out of lyndon's sails.

[Fortis]

Secondly, would you please answer Fortis's question: "[D]o you really believe that all of the electrons that were to the right of it will suddenly stop doing what they were doing in order to remain to the right of it?" I've been wondering the same thing myself.

I would really love to know this one.

Lyndon?

[lyndonashmore]

Hi tusenfem & others,
I'm back (though it will take a day or so to catch up) so let me first address this pont.

Dear Lydon

Please, for once read what is truely written:


there is the collective plasma oscillation at the plasma frequency, this is a group phenomenon.
on top of that the particles have temperature, so they move around etc. etc.
so the whole plasma can have several oscillations befor it collides with another particle.
By the way, this is a very strange definition for a plasma, I do not have the EB, so maybe someone should copy the whole definition of a plasma from it in a message.

Now I am wrongly accused of misrepresentation and yet the article clearly says:

a constituent electron may complete many plasma oscillations

Now how can this possibly be construed as meaning the whole plasma.
Electron here is singular, for the whole plasma it would be electrons!
It is I who is reading what is clearly written.
Cheers,
Lyndon

[papageno]

Now I am wrongly accused of misrepresentation and yet the article clearly says:

a constituent electron may complete many plasma oscillations

Which is a a quote taken out of context.
And your interpretation of the quote, which ignores the context, is misrepresenting the meaning of the article.

Now how can this possibly be construed as meaning the whole plasma.

Because the context says:

Just as a lightweight cork in water will bob up and down about its rest position, any general displacement of light electrons as a group with respect to the positive ions in a plasma leads to the oscillation of the electrons as a whole about an equilibrium state. In the case of the cork, the restoring force is provided by gravity; in plasma oscillations, it is provided by the electric force.

Electron here is singular, for the whole plasma it would be electrons!

Semantic nit-picking.
The context is clear enough, and it is talking about collective behavior.

It is I who is reading what is clearly written.

No, you take a quote of its context and twist its meaning to suit your ends.

Considering your insistence in confusing the motion of individual particles with collective behavior, I don't believe for second that you have ever studied anything resembling statistical mechanics.

[lyndonashmore]

No Papageno,

a constituent electron may complete many plasma oscillations

means a single electron. To read it as anything else is wrong!
Cheers,
Lyndon

[lyndonashmore]

Hi Tobin Dax,

I don't think that was my conclusion. Could you leave the page up (with a disclaimer or something if you want) so I can look again when I have time?

Sorry, already changed it - hope it is correct now!
You asked about the sources being a student project.
When i first did this it was in reply to another poster who raised the same point. It was not meant to be a scientific paper and I wanted to show the print out on line.
It gives the right idea. In an earlier post by Nereid, she talks about a 'doppler footprint' and cites an encyclopeadia reference giving the width. My ref tallies with this too, so it is difficult to separate the two effects. A spread due to thermal motion of the atoms in the gases around a star and the small spread due to random fluctuations in photon collisions.
Thanks again,
Lyndon

[papageno]

No Papageno,

means a single electron. To read it as anything else is wrong!

Ignoring the context is wrong.

[Nereid]

Hi tusenfem & others,
I'm back (though it will take a day or so to catch up) so let me first address this pont.

Now I am wrongly accused of misrepresentation and yet the article clearly says:

Now how can this possibly be construed as meaning the whole plasma.
Electron here is singular, for the whole plasma it would be electrons!
It is I who is reading what is clearly written.
Cheers,
Lyndon

So why not refer to a physics textbook or three (instead of EB)? Or, perhaps, some of the original papers, where the work that was done, in plasma physics, is reported?

IOW, physics, not exegesis.

[lyndonashmore]

So why not refer to a physics textbook or three (instead of EB)? Or, perhaps, some of the original papers, where the work that was done, in plasma physics, is reported?

IOW, physics, not exegesis.

Already have done, several times - and will continue to do so!
Cheers,
Lyndon

[papageno]

Already have done, several times - and will continue to do so!

What you have done so far is quote-mining.
The fact that you have to rely on out-of-context quotes, instead of simply posting your calculations showing that in the bulk of the IG plasma individual electrons oscillate about an equilibrium point, is a clear indcation that you cannot support your claims.

[lyndonashmore]

Lets stay on track here papageno,
I 'claim' that electrons that can oscillate can absorb and reemit photons of light.
When the photon comes in, its frequency is much higher than the plasma frequency and so the electrons 'quiver' at the photon frequency.
Cheers,
lyndon
P.S. only politicians talk about quotes being 'out of context' when they want to backtrack on something they have said! A quote is a quote and means what it says.

[lyndonashmore]

Hi Papageno,
HERE are some more 'out of context quotes - or are they??????

Basic equations
It is well known that the description of laser propagation in
underdense plasma can be simplified5) by exploiting the
disparity between the ‘fast’ timescale of the optical frequency
ω0 and the ‘slow’ timescale of the plasma response with
characteristic plasma frequency ωp « ω0. Here, ωp
2 = 4πe2np/m
and np denotes the background plasma density. On the optical
timescale, the plasma response is given by the electron quiver
motion, a rapid transverse oscillation in the laser electric field.

Cheers,
Lyndon

[lyndonashmore]

Hi Tobin Dax,

I think that Jim's emphasis of the phrase "plasma oscillations" should take the wind right out of lyndon's sails.

I think that my last post should take the wind right out of Papageno's sails - don't you think?
cheers,
Lyndon

[tusenfem]

Now how can this possibly be construed as meaning the whole plasma.
Electron here is singular, for the whole plasma it would be electrons!
It is I who is reading what is clearly written.
Cheers,
Lyndon

Then I guess in our mainstream theory only the whole electron gas can collide as one with another particle, now that will give interesting reverberations.

[lyndonashmore]

Hi tusenfem,

Then I guess in our mainstream theory only the whole electron gas can collide as one with another particle, now that will give interesting reverberations.

"our mainstream theory"? Its mine as well. it all depends upon density and time. In a dense plasma the charges can nip in and take the place of other identical electrons so that the 'charge density' oscillates. For sparsely populated plasma, the other electrons are too far away to help out with the electron oscillating at optical frequencies - so the electron oscillates. See the reference above I gave about electron quiver.
Cheers,
Lyndon

[papageno]

Lets stay on track here papageno,

And the track is that you are supposed to support your claims with valid experimental evidence and sound theoretical reasoning.
Unfortunately, so far you have done neither.

I 'claim' that electrons that can oscillate can absorb and reemit photons of light.

Unfortunately the electrons that are relevant to your effect do not oscillate as you claim.
And you never provided evidence or at least calculations to prove otherwise.

When the photon comes in, its frequency is much higher than the plasma frequency and so the electrons 'quiver' at the photon frequency.

That does not work with a single photon.
What you describe happens only with a macroscopic EM wave, when the electron is scattering many photons.
But that is not the case of your effect.

P.S. only politicians talk about quotes being 'out of context' when they want to backtrack on something they have said! A quote is a quote and means what it says.

There is no need to backtrack. The article you quoted from, basically says what we have been saying about plasma oscillations.

But why would you quote from a reference about plasma oscillations, if these are not relevant to your effect?

HERE are some more 'out of context quotes - or are they??????

Basic equations
It is well known that the description of laser propagation in
underdense plasma can be simplified5) by exploiting the
disparity between the ‘fast’ timescale of the optical frequency
ω0 and the ‘slow’ timescale of the plasma response with
characteristic plasma frequency ωp « ω0. Here, ωp
2 = 4πe2np/m
and np denotes the background plasma density. On the optical
timescale, the plasma response is given by the electron quiver
motion, a rapid transverse oscillation in the laser electric field.

But since your effect has nothing to do with lasers, the quote is irrelevant.

Instead of arguing about your bad habit of quote-mining irrelevant references, wouldn't it be easier to provide the experimental evidence or the theoretical calculations supporting your claims?

Show us your calculation of the electric potential in which an electron moves in the bulk of IG plasma.
Show us your calculation of the motion of this electron after scattering a single photon of visible light.
No quotes, no references: just your calculations.

[lyndonashmore]

Hi Papageno,
Sorry, I thought you knew,

But since your effect has nothing to do with lasers, the quote is irrelevant.

Lasers emit light - photons indeed
Cheers,
Lyndon

[papageno]

I don't see any calculations supporting your claims.

Hi Papageno,
Sorry, I thought you knew,

But since your effect has nothing to do with lasers, the quote is irrelevant.

Lasers emit light - photons indeed

I wasn't aware that stars emit laser light.
Why don't you show exactly how laser-plasma interaction is relevant to your effect?
Remember that an EM wave, such as the laser from you latest link, interacts with a charged particle through many photons.

[Fortis]

Lyndon, I know that you've just returned (welcome back), but I just wanted to ensure that this post didn't fall between the cracks.

[edited to fix a type, though I'm curious to know what the verb "retrune" may be ]

[Tobin Dax]

Hi Tobin Dax,



I think that my last post should take the wind right out of Papageno's sails - don't you think?
cheers,
Lyndon

You mean the one about the effects of a coherent group of photons, which is completely different than a single photon, which is what you are talking about with your effect? No.

Edit: I'll just ask this here. Do you have a copy of the old K-line page for comparison? If so, could I see it, please? Thanks.

[Jim]

Edit: I'll just ask this here. Do you have a copy of the old K-line page for comparison? If so, could I see it, please? Thanks.

There is a Google cache copy made May 23. (If it's the one you mean.)

[lyndonashmore]

I would really love to know this one.

Originally Posted by Tobin Dax
Secondly, would you please answer Fortis's question: "[D]o you really believe that all of the electrons that were to the right of it will suddenly stop doing what they were doing in order to remain to the right of it?" I've been wondering the same thing myself.

Lyndon?

Hi Fortis,
do you mean do I believe something like this?

The solar system and the bulk of the universe comprises matter which is mostly in the form of a plasma. Plasma is a very hot gas in which the electrons have been stripped from atoms to form a gas of negatively charged electrons and positively charged ions. In a fully thermalized, equilibrium state, these electrons and ions would oscillate about their equilibrium positions. However, any perturbation to this equilibrium would displace the charged particles in such a way as to set up electric and magnetic fields which act as restoring forces to the displaced particles. In the simplest example of such a perturbation, the electrons might be offset from the less mobile (because of their mass) ions. The electrons, then, would execute simple harmonic motion about their equilibrium positions.

WILLIAM KURTH

Department of Physics & Astronomy
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA 52242-1479

Cheers,
Lyndon

[lyndonashmore]

Hi Papageno,

I don't see any calculations supporting your claims.


I wasn't aware that stars emit laser light.
Why don't you show exactly how laser-plasma interaction is relevant to your effect?
Remember that an EM wave, such as the laser from you latest link, interacts with a charged particle through many photons.

A simple "Papageno was wrong, Lyndon was right" would have sufficed.
Here we have electrons 'quivering" under the influence of photons - as i stated time and time again along with the comparisons of optical frequency with plasma frequency.
Cheers,
Lyndon
P.S. "Quiver" shake or vibrate with a slight rapid movement. OED

[lyndonashmore]

Hi Tobn Dax,

You mean the one about the effects of a coherent group of photons, which is completely different than a single photon, which is what you are talking about with your effect? No.

Edit: I'll just ask this here. Do you have a copy of the old K-line page for comparison? If so, could I see it, please? Thanks.

How many photons does it take to make an electron vibrate or "Quiver?"
I say one.
How many do you think?
I mean quver just a little bit,
Cheers,
Lyndon
I see Jim has come to the rescue over the old page. Thanks Jim

[papageno]

Hi Fortis,
do you mean do I believe something like this?

The solar system and the bulk of the universe comprises matter which is mostly in the form of a plasma. Plasma is a very hot gas in which the electrons have been stripped from atoms to form a gas of negatively charged electrons and positively charged ions. In a fully thermalized, equilibrium state, these electrons and ions would oscillate about their equilibrium positions. However, any perturbation to this equilibrium would displace the charged particles in such a way as to set up electric and magnetic fields which act as restoring forces to the displaced particles. In the simplest example of such a perturbation, the electrons might be offset from the less mobile (because of their mass) ions. The electrons, then, would execute simple harmonic motion about their equilibrium positions.

WILLIAM KURTH

You did not you finish the paragraph:

A measure of electric fields in this perturbed plasma would show a strong line or resonance at a particular frequency, called the electron plasma frequency, which is proportional to the square root of the electron number density of the plasma. By measuring this frequency, the electron density of the plasma can be determined. The electron plasma frequency is one of a number of characteristic frequencies of a plasma.

(my emphasis)
Didn't you say that plasma oscillations have nothing to do with your effect?
Why are you quote-mining yet another reference about plasma oscillations?

It is obvious why you are searching for quotes instead of posting your calculations: you have no calculations showing that an electron in a plasma is oscillating.
Yet you want the electron to perform a simple harmonic motion, so you search for references about plasma containing the words "simple harmonic motion". Unfortunately, all you can find are plasma oscillations or macroscopic EM waves forcing particles on oscillations, none of which fit your effect.

A simple "Papageno was wrong, Lyndon was right" would have sufficed.

Where have you shown that stars and galaxies emit laser light?

Here we have electrons 'quivering" under the influence of photons - as i stated time and time again along with the comparisons of optical frequency with plasma frequency.

The reference in question is dealing with a macroscopic EM wave (laser) forcing electrons on oscillations. That means many photons are scattering of a single electron, unlike your effect (a single photon scattering on a single electron).

By the way, since you consider it relevant, why don't you post your calculations showing that it gives the observed redshift?

How many photons does it take to make an electron vibrate or "Quiver?"
I say one.
How many do you think?
I mean quver just a little bit,

Prove it: post your calculations supporting your claim.
And once you have done so, post the calculations proving that you get the observed redshifts.

[lyndonashmore]

Hi Nereid,

Let's follow the bouncing ball.

- - - - - - - - -
Nereid: It seems that I didn't ask the question clearly enough; let me try again.

Per the lyndonashmore idea, when a photon interacts with an electron, in IG space, it continues on its original path, but has its wavelength increased by the lyndonashmore increment (h/mc, or 2.43 x 10-12 m).

Since the photon travels at c, for all observers, everywhere, this redshift increment is independent of the motion of the electron wrt the photon - right? So how can "the electron [...] see a blue shift since it is travelling towards the photon"? (my bold).

Or is there a universal, absolute frame of reference, in the lyndonashmore idea?

lyndonashmore: The lyndonashmore theory uses standard everyday physical principles including the doppler effect! (the same one as is used in astronomy too).
Consider our electron moving in a direction from Earth towards the distant galaxy.
On absorption, the electron as observer, is moving towards the distant galaxy were the photon was coming from, and hence the photon is squashed and a blueshift is recorded.
On reemission the electron, now acting as source, is moving away from Earth and away from the newly emitted photon. Hence the photon is stretched or redshifted.
Blue shift on absorption, redshift on reemission, they cancel out to leave us with just the h/mc bit from recoil.

Nereid: If this is so, then, contrary to what you wrote, the motion of the electrons which give rise to the redshift that we eventually measure as H (in the lyndonashmore idea) will leave a footprint in the redshift - per the standard Doppler profile.

lyndonashmore: But spectral lines are broadened and not sharp. They do have a 'footprint' but is it Doppler or statistical fluctuations in the number of collisons suffered by different photons comng from the same galaxy?
See HERE

Nereid: But it seems that other BAUT members have much deeper challenges to the "recoil" idea which is at the heart of your claim, so I'll simply note that there seems to be an inconsistency here too.

lyndonashmore: Not true. It is just that they are reluctant to give up their life long beliefs when faced with reality.
- - - - - - - - -

First, would you please point out a) what "the accusation" is, and b) where it was made?

I am not aware of any 'accusation' by anyone. Please be more precise

Second, I've read this thread (again), but can't find answers to the following questions, concerning the lyndonashmore idea re the photon-electron interaction:

1) In the rest frame of the electron, prior to a "lyndonashmore photon-electron interaction", is momentum conserved in that interaction

Specifically, momentum ("before" photon) + momentum ("before" electron, = 0?) = momentum ("after" photon) + momentum ("after" electron)?

The princple of momentum holds. In the directon of the photon, h/ λ = mv. In a direction perpendicular to this, when the electron 'quivers' it depends upon your view point. Is the electric field an external force?

2) In the rest frame of the electron, prior to a "lyndonashmore photon-electron interaction", is energy conserved in that interaction?

Specifically, energy ("before" photon) + energy ("before" electron, = rest mass of the electron?) = energy ("after" photon) + energy ("after" electron)?

Yes. Energy of photon = translational energy of electron plus vibrational energy of electron.
Cheers,
Lyndon.