New method 'confirms dark energy'

[ElNono]

Sorry, I've wanted to check in a bit more but I'm attending an International Nuclear Medicine meeting at the convention center. The open bar > than ST.......

You're not missing much here. Have fun!

It's distinctly different. We don't use a relativistic version of the Doppler equation to explain cosmological redshift, rather we use an extension of special relativity formalism. When considering Doppler relativism, you have to consider that "v" cannot exceed "c".

Your comments on spectra are correct (mostly), they just lacked the proper context.

Right, instead of using Minkowski space metrics (which apply to local effects) you would use FRW (aka FLRW) metrics (which apply to cosmological effects). where velocity can exceed the speed of light.

[Wild Cobra]

WC you either have some of the worst command of the English language I have seen or you simply don't know what you're talking about. Its probably a combination of both.

What is causing the cosmological redshift? Um, whats the OP about?

My explanations could be dumbed down I guess. You mean stuff like this:

The photons wavelength is determined by the elements and molecules that are excited.

So I jumped over your head. I simply did not say the excited elements give off the photons. This is a given for anyone understanding spectral theory. I guess you don't.

Various things can cause redshift. Moving through a varying time, velocity changes, gravity, changes in media density, etc. In space, we don't expect density changes and rarely gravity or time changes. Two moving objects will have a vector relationship where you have to apply a variation of vector mathematics, though the observer will still move as the light does.

The bottom line is there are several causes for red shifting, but the Doppler effect is still part of it when there is relative moment.

[Wild Cobra]

So why can't gravity cause redshift/blueshift without a medium required?

I never said it couldn't, in fact I referred to gravity in response to an earlier item regarding quasars.

What changing terminology?

You got me there. I must not have finished a thought. Disregard that one as I forgot where I was going with it.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, then your knowledge is wrong. There's no elements or molecules that make up a photon. A photon is a massless elementary particle, as such it has no subcomponents. You need to wrap your head around that concept first.

No . I know that. Why do you people latch on anything I say that you can intentionally misconstrue? The photons are emitted by excited elements. When I said "To my knowledge, these red shifts are being determined by the spectral frequencies (photons) of elements and molecules," my intent was to the spectral lines came from known sources. This light is emitted by these elements, and have known patterns. How many sentences must I type over something so easily understood. The jumping of the electrons between orbits generate photons then the elements are excited. If we didn't use known elemental sources of emitted photons like hydrogen, we would have no baseline to determine red or blue shifting. Now if science is using some other method to determine this red shift outside of how these patterns of spectral lines shift, then that's a new one on me.

Photons have certain wave-like properties, like frequency (and thus wavelength), angular frequency, momentum, etc, but they derive such values from the quantum model (Planck constant, Dirac constant) and not the classical molecular model.

No .

Are you one of those people who like to hear yourself talk?

In the case of molecular structures, you do. In the case of non-molecular measurement, you build the baseline measurement scale by comparing against known measures obtained by other means.

No .

My god you are amazingly prejudiced in believing I don't know such things. Just because I don't speak down at this lower level like you do, doesn't mean I don't know it. I'm one that will skip a half dozen steps when figuring something out, so I don't think to write all "step by step" things down, or waste my time explaining in 15 paragraphs what someone understanding the material gets with two.

You got your questions answered, multiple times. You're just being obtuse.
How many more times people have to tell you to stop associating classical wave models with photons?

Maybe I am being obtuse. Again, I am not discounting the theory and new methods of the OP. I really think it's funny you all think you understand it better than I do when you cannot give a simplified explanation.

What you're doing is akin to trying to understand Einstein's Theory of General Relativity by using fundamental concepts from Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.

No, I was asking leading questions like WH pointed out to show others didn't understand what they were saying. They were just repeating what the experts said, and unable to answer questions about it.

Typical lemmings.

[Wild Cobra]

Ditto. Another reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler

Duh....

Basic science.

I am aware of this.

[Wild Cobra]

It's distinctly different. We don't use a relativistic version of the Doppler equation to explain cosmological redshift, rather we use an extension of special relativity formalism. When considering Doppler relativism, you have to consider that "v" cannot exceed "c".

Now you are the first to make any sense. I brought up relativity in the possible aspect of time distortion for a quasar that DMX7 brought up starting in post #31. My answer in post #33. Though I could have explained that better as with a quasar, it could have two or more components. I explained one a little.

Your comments on spectra are correct (mostly), they just lacked the proper context.

I have forgotten a great deals in the 30+ years since I was in school, and haven't cracked open a quantum physic book for about six years. Science is mind candy to me. With some of these recent developments, time to read again. Thanx for this topic. Some of this is new to me, but my terminology definitely can use some polish, as I seldom discus these topics with others.

I think I have forgot the most when it comes to chemistry. Physics is pretty much simply math compared to chemistry.

[MannyIsGod]

My explanations could be dumbed down I guess. You mean stuff like this:

So I jumped over your head. I simply did not say the excited elements give off the photons. This is a given for anyone understanding spectral theory. I guess you don't.

Various things can cause redshift. Moving through a varying time, velocity changes, gravity, changes in media density, etc. In space, we don't expect density changes and rarely gravity or time changes. Two moving objects will have a vector relationship where you have to apply a variation of vector mathematics, though the observer will still move as the light does.

The bottom line is there are several causes for red shifting, but the Doppler effect is still part of it when there is relative moment.

Yes, *I* needed it dumbed down. I didn't mean that anyone here but you needs dumbed down, WC. I meant that you're absolutely terrible at making a relevant point and when you couple that with your ignorance this thread is the result.

Amazing. I tell you that you can't make a point and you even manage to turn that around to make it seem as though you are smarter than anyone else here. Amazing.

[MannyIsGod]

Duh....

Basic science.

I am aware of this.

Ether.

[Wild Cobra]

Ether.

You know, by what people were saying in the beginning, I had the wrong concept of what was being said. What I was saying is definitely off the intent of the OP, but it was real fun you guys not understanding what I was referring to. If you notice, some time back, I got off that tangent that expanding space would affect everything equally, therefore not observable.

This topic relies on us agreeing that matter and energy are moving in space, and that space is constant. I was throwing in the angle that space might not be constant. Over your head though.

I would say much of this is a communications problem, that we were not on the same sheet of music. That is, if you even showed a hint that you understood the tangent I went off on.

[MannyIsGod]

Ether

[ElNono]

No . I know that.
No .
No .
My god you are amazingly prejudiced in believing I don't know such things.

So if you know it all, why are you trying to compare the Doppler effect on a Hydrogen molecule to cosmological Doppler?

Also, the metric model used to calculate the cosmological Doppler has existed since 1920-1930... why are you suggesting that somebody is "renaming the Doppler effect"?

Maybe I am being obtuse.

You think?

No, I was asking leading questions like WH pointed out to show others didn't understand what they were saying.

Sure you were. I thought this theory was new to you?

I see you conveniently miss some of my statements so you can perceive me as stupid, rather than ignorant to this theory that is new to me.

[MannyIsGod]

ing ether man. I mean seriously.

[ElNono]

ing ether man. I mean seriously.

[LnGrrrR]

Maybe I am being obtuse. Again, I am not discounting the theory and new methods of the OP. I really think it's funny you all think you understand it better than I do when you cannot give a simplified explanation.

You want a simple explanation, and then when we explain it in simple terms, you give us a hard time for "dumbing it down".

Not to mention you act high and mighty, like knowing about quantum physics, vibrational frequencies, and Doppler shifts are common knowledge. So you might want to slow your roll there, cowboy. We're trying to be nice and answer questions, to the best of our ability. No, we're not all scientists working in labs, and to expect that level of knowledge from us is pretty re ed. If you want to know that level of answers (lol simple explanation), then you should probably ask a board that discusses quantum physics.

And yes, I tend to side with the experts on these things because they make sense. Of course, that's not your MO. If ElNoNo and I designed a network for you, would you tell us where we went wrong if you didn't have a working knowledge of networking standards and practices?

We have no proof that you know of these things; the only way to prove it is through demonstrating an advanced understanding of these things.

[Agloco]

Now you are the first to make any sense. I brought up relativity in the possible aspect of time distortion for a quasar that DMX7 brought up starting in post #31. My answer in post #33. Though I could have explained that better as with a quasar, it could have two or more components. I explained one a little.

If you or anyone is interested, Mike Hawkins of the Royal Observatory is quite published in this area. I can access some of the less esoteric articles and E-Mail them as PDFs. Simply send me a PM.

I have forgotten a great deals in the 30+ years since I was in school, and haven't cracked open a quantum physic book for about six years. Science is mind candy to me. With some of these recent developments, time to read again. Thanx for this topic. Some of this is new to me, but my terminology definitely can use some polish, as I seldom discus these topics with others.

I think I have forgot the most when it comes to chemistry. Physics is pretty much simply math compared to chemistry.

The thing about quantum is that reading about it only gives you so much (IMO). Until I learned the mathematical formalism, it was quite confusing. I don't think the descriptors we use in everyday language do a great job of elucidating the finer points. It's one of those things that needs to be lived and breathed for a while.

[LnGrrrR]

This topic relies on us agreeing that matter and energy are moving in space, and that space is constant. I was throwing in the angle that space might not be constant. Over your head though.

Who said space is constant? The fact that the (consensus belief that the) universe is expanding would imply that the idea that space is constant is not currently accepted.

The closest thing to that mentioned in this thread was your philosophical "What if" regarding all of us shrinking.

[Wild Cobra]

Who said space is constant? The fact that the (consensus belief that the) universe is expanding would imply that the idea that space is constant is not currently accepted.

The closest thing to that mentioned in this thread was your philosophical "What if" regarding all of us shrinking.

That monkey wrench is why I went off on that tangent.

Distances are increasing, but for the propose of this topic, everyone is speaking in terms that space itself is nothing. For space itself to expand, it has to comprise of something.

[MannyIsGod]

Like ether?

x 3048309480483094803483490830

[Wild Cobra]

If you or anyone is interested, Mike Hawkins of the Royal Observatory is quite published in this area. I can access some of the less esoteric articles and E-Mail them as PDFs. Simply send me a PM.

I might take you up on that. I have so far only given my e-mail to one other person here. I am so hated by some, I want to be cautious. get enough spam and junk mail already.

The thing about quantum is that reading about it only gives you so much (IMO). Until I learned the mathematical formalism, it was quite confusing. I don't think the descriptors we use in everyday language do a great job of elucidating the finer points. It's one of those things that needs to be lived and breathed for a while.

I won't dispute that. I only have a very basic understanding of quantum mechanic/physics, and most eludes me. I don't have enough desire to follow it more than I do. It pushes my limits of understanding more than I like.

[Wild Cobra]

Like ether?

x 3048309480483094803483490830

One of the first lessens of science is that we need to know that we don't know everything. I keep an open mind to the concept. Do you? You know, it's not the same as believing in it.

[LnGrrrR]

Distances are increasing, but for the propose of this topic, everyone is speaking in terms that space itself is nothing. For space itself to expand, it has to comprise of something.

That's more of a philosophical question than a physics one though. Picture a vacuum inside a jar. The space inside the jar signifies our universe. If we are on the bottom of the inside of the jar, then there is technically "nothing" between us and the inside of the top of the jar. That "nothing" though, is different from the "nothing" outside of the jar. It doesn't mean that there is "something" inside the jar between the bottom and top, apart from something esoteric like reality.

[Wild Cobra]

That's more of a philosophical question than a physics one though. Picture a vacuum inside a jar. The space inside the jar signifies our universe. If we are on the bottom of the inside of the jar, then there is technically "nothing" between us and the inside of the top of the jar. That "nothing" though, is different from the "nothing" outside of the jar. It doesn't mean that there is "something" inside the jar between the bottom and top, apart from something esoteric like reality.

But the only difference is what we are defining as matter and energy. All you are doing is distinguishing where our known universe ends at.

I used 'known" purposely.

Let me get this strait. Outside of matter, dark matter, energy, and dark energy, and anything else we have identified... you are saying the space inside and outside the jar are the same nothingness. Right?

If so, we are on the same page with my statement.

[Agloco]

I might take you up on that. I have so far only given my e-mail to one other person here. I am so hated by some, I want to be cautious. get enough spam and junk mail already.

I can appreciate that, I'm no stranger to confidentiality.

I won't dispute that. I only have a very basic understanding of quantum mechanic/physics, and most eludes me. I don't have enough desire to follow it more than I do. It pushes my limits of understanding more than I like.

Quantum is a neat subject to kick around with my non-science friends once we've had a few beers while burning some meat in the backyard. You'd be surprised how many times we've proven Einstein wrong.

It's quite hard to have a serious debate about it though, especially through a keyboard.

[Agloco]

That's more of a philosophical question than a physics one though. Picture a vacuum inside a jar. The space inside the jar signifies our universe. If we are on the bottom of the inside of the jar, then there is technically "nothing" between us and the inside of the top of the jar. That "nothing" though, is different from the "nothing" outside of the jar. It doesn't mean that there is "something" inside the jar between the bottom and top, apart from something esoteric like reality.

We have no proof that you know of these things; the only way to prove it is through demonstrating an advanced understanding of these things.

[ElNono]

I'm personally more interested in the quantum entanglement and the derivatives for computations, as it's the field that's my preference. Ultimately, after looking at much of the math and theory behind it, I've concluded that I'll most likely have to work with a higher abstraction level than the actual guts. Which kinda sucks since with electronics and general physics it was much much easier.