Originally Posted By: Bill 6
The quote from Wikipedia re the Pound-Rebka article posits an energy loss by the photon that has nothing to do with its original frequency nor that of the absorbing/emitting atom -

Normally, when an atom emits or absorbs a photon, it also moves (recoils) a little, which takes away some energy from the photon due to the principle of conservation of momentum.

Your response intimated that I had taken that quote out of context however the lines that you supplied made no changes to the context of that sentence.


No you are doing it by ommission instead ... because they go on to say and you choose to ignore in that same article and page.

Quote:

When the same atom in its base state encounters a photon with that same frequency and energy, it will absorb that photon and transit to the excited state. If the photon's frequency and energy is different by even a little, the atom cannot absorb it (this is the basis of quantum theory).



Quote:

According to the Wiki quote the atom moves when it emits its own photon and I am of the opinion that because it moves it incurs an increase in temperature.


We totally agree and I am saying the same thing a different way.

Quote:

There are no ‘furtherest points’ in the universe. All locations are equivalent.


Lets say a point along way between the nearest sun or galaxy then ... exact position is not important here.


Quote:

I have already cited an example with the Wiki quote - above. The retransmitted photon loses energy in accordance with the conservation of momentum concept as the atom progresses from its excitation state.


Sorry that same article explicitely told you the frequency would be unchanged ... you choose not to read or accept it.


Quote:
There have been several claims in this thread that a reduction in the number of photons arriving here due to scattering explains redshift and although I have pointed out that this is a nonsense you continue to make that claim. As far as I am concerned this is an example of disinformation.


I am absolutely stumped understanding how a process you described on a physics website leads to a redshift and and simplying asking from clarification but that is somehow disinformation.

I am making absolutely no claims of anything I am asking questions???

Quote:
We have seen the phenomenon - light from distant galaxies is redshifted. As to why this is so... we have the above explanation from Wiki.


As I have said but you choose to leave out part of the explaination.


Quote:

I had hoped that perhaps an experiment (such as the one that I suggested where a beam of light is projected horizontally through a lake) had been carried out


It will have been done through very many media over vast distances ... I can even tell you I can give you a result better than that, there is a laser project that bounces a beam off a mirror surface left on the moon.

What is it in particular you want to see the original spectrum and the resultant return?


Quote:

but presumably this has never been done and, due to the fact that it could introduce another challenge to the big bang theory, authorities will ensure that it remains untested.


It will have been done and many times. Sorry I like many scientists don't just accept big bang or inflation I am by nature extremely skeptical.

Is your opposition to big bang religious or scientific and I ask only because you seem to be somewhat hard on science in general.

Last edited by Orac; 07/29/11 03:11 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.