Alternative explanation of the doppler effect????

G

globali

Registered Senior Member
I want to share an idea i just had, while i was thinking about river's ideas. I am not an expert so don't blast me if its naive. Just want the opinion of people with more knowledge in the field.

Imagine you have a flask filled with a gas. You initially add some external energy (you heat it), and then you remove the energy source. All the molecules of the gas will have some initial kinetic energy. However, as time goes by and no external energy is added, then the entropy of the system will tend to increase, and the molecules will slowly approach an equillibrium state and the kinetic energy of the molecules will universally decrease over time. I think we all agree so far.
Now i will make a metaphor.
Lets say that this is the universe after the bing bang or after another massive event. Galaxies or cluster of galaxies are represented by the individual molecules. We ourselves reside in one of these molecules. Our galaxy, together with entire system of galaxies are losing energy over time, without realizing it from our perspective.

Can this universal decrease in kinetic energy explain the red shift of light (doppler effect)? I mean, light that comes from a distant galaxy will radiate lower energy light waves over time, manifested as a shift towards the red, because of the lowering energy it contains?. But also all the distance between those two molecules will contain other molecules with decreasing energy. So the farther away, the more the shift in wave length of the light theoretically.

can this be an alternative explanation for the doppler effect?
 
This essentially no different than the "tired light" hypothesis. It fails because it is not consistent with other observations other than just the reddening of light.
 
Further

The source of light energy , at any frequency , is matter based .

As long as the matter that has that frequency , as part of its energy out put , it will continue to push light energy outward . Light energy is relentless .

Inotherwords as long as the source of the origin of light continues to exist , in terms of energy frequency out put , then the light will never actually tire . Because the source hasn't .
 
It is the source of light that matters .

The source supports the light energy . Through consistent frequency electromagnetic out-put .

Only changes when the energy of the source diminishes , as a whole .
 
Last edited:
globali:

globali said:
I want to share an idea i just had, while i was thinking about river's ideas.
Click to expand...
Using river's ideas about anything scientific is almost guaranteed to be a bad place to start. Just a heads up.

Imagine you have a flask filled with a gas. You initially add some external energy (you heat it), and then you remove the energy source. All the molecules of the gas will have some initial kinetic energy. However, as time goes by and no external energy is added, then the entropy of the system will tend to increase, and the molecules will slowly approach an equillibrium state and the kinetic energy of the molecules will universally decrease over time. I think we all agree so far.
Click to expand...
It depends.

If your flask is isolated from the outside world (i.e. no energy can be lost to the outside) then the entropy of the gas in the flask will stay constant and it will remain at a constant temperature (after heating). On the other hand, if energy does leak to the outside, then the gas will gradually cool until the temperature inside the flask is the same as outside. In the process, the global entropy will increase.

Lets say that this is the universe after the bing bang or after another massive event. Galaxies or cluster of galaxies are represented by the individual molecules. We ourselves reside in one of these molecules. Our galaxy, together with entire system of galaxies are losing energy over time, without realizing it from our perspective
Click to expand...
Galaxies lose energy ultimately by losing stuff to the inter-galactic environment (stuff being light, particles of various types etc.)

Can this universal decrease in kinetic energy explain the red shift of light (doppler effect)? I mean, light that comes from a distant galaxy will radiate lower energy light waves over time, manifested as a shift towards the red, because of the lowering energy it contains?
Click to expand...
You have to ask what processes are actually generating the emitted light. At the atomic level, many processes produce light that has a characteristic energy. For example, the emission spectra of stars contain specific, identifiable spectral lines relating to light emission by different chemical elements in the stars. This is how we know what stars are made of.

As a star emits light, it converts matter to light energy, but the physical processes that produce the same kind of light don't change as the star burns its nuclear fuel. In other words, it continues to emit the same spectral lines for a very long time.

When we look at red shift of starlight, what we see is identifiable spectral patterns (e.g. from hydrogen emissions) in which the whole pattern is red-shifted. That cannot be explained by saying the emission process becomes "less energetic" as the star burns. But is can be explained by the Doppler effect. That is, it is an effect of the relative movement between the source star and the observers (us, here on Earth).

can this be an alternative explanation for the doppler effect?
Click to expand...
No. It doesn't work.
 
river said:
Why so James ?
Click to expand...
Because you continually demonstrate that you don't know much about scientific topics. The assertions you make about science also tend to be error-laden a lot of the time.

Bear in mind that all I have to go on is what you post on this forum, so I'm only basing this assessment on what you post here.
 
James R said:
Because you continually demonstrate that you don't know much about scientific topics. The assertions you make about science also tend to be error-laden a lot of the time.

Bear in mind that all I have to go on is what you post on this forum, so I'm only basing this assessment on what you post here.
Click to expand...

What is in error in my post here ?
 
We don't know all what stars are made of .

In the spectrum of light , absorstion . there are eleven spectral lines that can not be explained .

What is absorbing the energy ?
 
Last edited:
river said:
What is in error in my post here ?
Click to expand...
Which one?

river said:
We don't know all what stars are made of .

In the spectrum of light , absorstion . there are eleven spectral lines that can not be explained .
Click to expand...
Start a thread on that and present the evidence for your claim, with references.

It is utterly useless to make an assertion like that, unsupported by anything other than your say-so.
 
James R said:
Which one?


Start a thread on that and present the evidence for your claim, with references.

It is utterly useless to make an assertion like that, unsupported by anything other than your say-so.
Click to expand...

My posts here have addressed just that .
 
Go to extreme tech . October 2, 2013

It gives the spectrum of the Suns , absorbtion lines and emitting lines .
 
Last edited:
river said:
Go to extreme tech . October 2, 2013
Click to expand...
Do you know how to give a hyperlink?

I can't find whatever it is that you're trying to refer to, because your reference doesn't specify it accurately enough.

It gives the spectrum of the Suns , absorbtion lines and emitting lines .
Click to expand...
Which ones are the unidentified ones?
 
James R said:
globali:
Using river's ideas about anything scientific is almost guaranteed to be a bad place to start. Just a heads up.
Click to expand...
I was trying back in the day to understand (at least vaguely) what river was trying to describe, so i can discuss with him (and potentially help him with the scientific method if i could). The problem is that he doesn't know the difference between a scientific theory and a science fiction novel in which the author just imagines a scientific scenario. He is also not willing to learn (probably he is not young enough for that). Apart from some vague stuff, there are no actual descriptions at all (no mathematics, equations, etc) so it is impossible to prove any of his ideas right or wrong by using regular arguments or even measurements. So whatever we say, he can just blur the waters and move on. On the other hand, this vagueness dooms his ideas to be pure speculations forever. And whether they are right or wrong, even he doesn't know for sure. He relies on luck, but he is willing to take the risk and support them anyway. The problem is that he adds so many layers of speculative elements, that he needs to win the jackpot like 10 consecutive times to be correct. And even if we consider the crazy scenario that he is right, he wont even get credit for that without mathematical descriptions (eg. interactions, transformations from one state to the other, etc).
I would also suggest him to read more about the relevant literature, for example what are the data that make scientists believe that the electric universe is most likely false...

James R said:
When we look at red shift of starlight, what we see is identifiable spectral patterns (e.g. from hydrogen emissions) in which the whole pattern is red-shifted. That cannot be explained by saying the emission process becomes "less energetic" as the star burns. But is can be explained by the Doppler effect. That is, it is an effect of the relative movement between the source star and the observers (us, here on Earth).
Click to expand...
Thanks for the further explanation.
After Janus response i read a bit about the topic and i understood that this idea has been out for a while but evidence has pretty much rule it out.
Its fine. I am so proud of having the (at least some) cognitive flexibility to abandon ideas that are not working and move to the next good ones.
In my opinion, this quality is the key difference between the crackpots and the scientists that will one day contribute something meaningful to science.
 
Last edited:
globali said:
I was trying back in the day to understand (at least vaguely) what river was trying to describe, so i can discuss with him (and potentially help him with the scientific method if i could).
[QUOTE/]
:D You have your job cut out then.
Click to expand...
 
globali said:
Thanks for the further explanation.
After Janus response i read a bit about the topic and i understood that this idea has been out for a while but evidence has pretty much rule it out.
Its fine. I am so proud of having the (at least some) cognitive flexibility to abandon ideas that are not working and move to the next good ones.
In my opinion, this quality is the key difference between the crackpots and the scientists that will one day contribute something meaningful to science.
Click to expand...

There are a couple of further points. One is that the Doppler effect applies to how any wavetrain is perceived by the receiver, well-known sound wave examples being those of a passing ambulance or aircraft. Clearly this effect is nothing to do with energy loss.

The other is that you seem to have in mind the cosmological redshift. My understanding is that this is actually not a Doppler shift, but is due to the expansion of space itself over time as the universe expands, such that light emitted, say as blue becomes red by the time we detect it due to the stretching of all length measurements, including the wavelength of the light, while it is in transit.

(But I'll defer to any physicists and astronomers if I have not got this right.)
 
exchemist said:
The other is that you seem to have in mind the cosmological redshift. My understanding is that this is actually not a Doppler shift, but is due to the expansion of space itself over time as the universe expands, such that light emitted, say as blue becomes red by the time we detect it due to the stretching of all length measurements, including the wavelength of the light, while it is in transit.
Click to expand...
Bingo! and of course the third know as gravitational redshift pertaining to EMR climbing out of a gravitational well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top