Fast radio bursts: bright FRB 20190203 detected at 111 MHz

Mystery remains for GRB theorists as to why no gamma ray transients can be found for non repeating FRB’s. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.13561

This lack of a gamma transient for this FRB is easily accounted for in my proposed theoretical model Here which describes the physical mechanisms responsible for the observed GRB  and FRB transients. An FRB in my model, is proposed to be simply a very fast, very short timescale GRB. 

FRB’s are just very short Gammaraybursts. Their observed activity in all frequencies are compressed proportionally on the timescale compared to their larger relative, the GRB. As an FRB has at most a second long transient in radio, it will have a proportionally much smaller transient time length in gamma. The observed total luminosity in each frequency would also in turn be proportionally less the shorter the observed transient length.

My model predicts here and on other pages of this blog that instead of the usually observed; seconds for gamma, minutes to hours for optical and days for radio transients normally seen in GRB’s, single FRB’s should have all their frequency transients durations on  much shorter timescales length. Notice that the entire observed radio transient for FRB20190203 was only in fractions of seconds. One only has to see that if a fast radio burst is only seconds long in radio frequencies, not for days as observed in the GRB radio transient, then it is clear that under my model, outlined in the link above, an FRB optical transient is predicted to be only on the order of a thousands of a second long. And in turn this model predicts that the FRB Gamma transient must  last for even shorter timescales in many order smaller than a thousandth of a second timescale. 

No wonder they can’t find optical or gamma transients for FRB’s. They are far too short to be recorded with our current technology

Tiny bright objects discovered at dawn of universe baffle scientists

 Tiny bright objects discovered at dawn of universe baffle scientists

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ad55f7

It seems that supermassive very old mature galaxies, too old for the BBT to accommodate, have been confirmed to exist in the “very early” Big Bang universe in a new study just published in Astrophysical Journal letters. In this quote from an article on the paper in the online source Science daily, one researcher seems baffled:

“We have confirmed that these (galaxies) appear to be packed with ancient stars -- hundreds of millions of years old -- in a universe that is only 600-800 million years old. Remarkably, these objects hold the record for the earliest signatures of old starlight," said Bingjie Wang, a postdoctoral scholar at Penn State and lead author on the paper. "It was totally unexpected to find old stars in a very young universe. The standard models of cosmology and galaxy formation have been incredibly successful, yet, these luminous objects do not quite fit comfortably into those theories."

Incredibly successful? My understanding is that every time we look at the early universe it turns out to not match BBT predictions. Notice that the age of the imaginary Big Bang has changed over the years from 8 to 25 billion years. And finally only settled on its current age when the so called CMBR confined it to an exact 13 or so billion years old. 

Don’t forget that not only did Hubble himself never accept expansion as an explanation for the observed redshift/distance relationship called Hubble redshift, but that the BBT itself was invented by a devout Catholic priest LeMaitre! 

So once again the Big Bang theory has failed spectacularly. But the bigger question is...Why are they so confused? We Critics of the Big Bang have been saying for years that the universe is infinite in age and not expanding and that JWST would confirm that the BBT was a delusional fantasy. 

Fast Radio Burst mystery solved. They are short Gammaraybursts.

As usual the theorists haven’t the faintest idea about what mechanism produce Fast radio bursts and Gammaraybursts. In their ignorance they think imaginary massive explosions caused by imaginary black holes etc produce these flashes. Some fantasists have even imagined there is a time reversal structure, so desperate is their desire to try to explain why their “explosion” model always fails to model each successive new observation of either Gamma or Fast ray burst data. As these following links show:

https://phys.org/news/2024-04-fast-radio-approach-characterize-behavior.html

https://phys.org/news/2024-04-astrophysics-advances-gamma-ray.html

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aad335/pdf

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095927324000793?via%3Dihub

The actual mechanism of gamma and fast radio bursts is well described by a simple classical model where light is a wave only. GRB and FRB data is only consistent with a model where the universe is infinite and not expanding. And the speed of light is always and only c relative to its source. In other words ignore the all relativity based physics.

DO NOT make up a fantasy model that continually needs to be corrected as the actual data comes in as all established models currently do. Instead base your model on the data first and foremost. Not as an afterthought. If you do, as I do, it will always correctly predict any subsequent new observation. As the link below explains.

https://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2014/08/this-following-brief-description-of-grb.html

https://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2019/12/grb-190114c.html

To start with all current data on Fast radio bursts is consistent with them being just very short Gammaraybursts where the burst time line itself is so short that all data above radio frequencies occurs too fast to be measured by our instrumentation above the background noise. So for instance if a FRB is observed to last only seconds, then it’s optical counterpart will be a flash in less then a thousandth of a second and the gammaray part of the burst will last in even smaller timeframes of millionth of a second or less. Too small a time to be measured currently by our latest technology.

Proof of this model is that if one looks at any FRB lightcurve it will always show an exponential decay in peak fluence from hi to low frequencies. Proportional to wavelength. The fluence of the FRB lightcurve lasts for longer times at longer wavelengths. This same decay rate is also observed in all GRB data for all observed wavelengths. Confirming that an FRB is just a very short GRB. 

So that for instance if in a GRB, the gamma lightcurve peaks at t_0 seconds and lasts 20 seconds, then the xray peak will be delayed slightly and last longer. And this trend will continue. Optical peaks later than xray and lasts for even longer. And, the trend continues through IR, far Infrared through to radio. Where shorter radio wavelength parts of the electromagnetic spectrum of the burst will not peak for hours or even days after gamma peaks. And the radio lightcurve also lasts for days and weeks longer than gamma. This model is confirmed by ALL grb and FRB data since they were first observed in the 1990’s.

The delay and stretch of each part of the EM spectrum of any burst will always follow this rule. That is that it will peak and decay later and longer proportional to wavelength.

This model of mine first developed in 1990 when GRBs were not known even to be isotropic. And, not only did I successfully predict  in 1990 that they would be isotropic. I also succesfully predicted that similar rebrightenings in all other wavelengths and lightcurves would be observed to be delayed proportional to wavelength. When no such data had yet even been observed. Nor even considered possible by the fantasies of the ridiculous fact free Neil Gehrels explosion model.

And to date, 35 years later, my models predictions have always been confirmed with each successive year. Whilst the explosion progenitor model’s predictions have failed each year since 1990.

Links to my own theories articles and videos cited above describe in more detail how this “Doppler” effect of light in a classical model can explain all GRB and FRB data. 

But in a nutshell let me here offer a simple analogy: Imagine a gedanken of a flat surface of a large body of water. Create a series of waves of a particular wavelength on this surface. Now imagine you are on a motorboat travelling with and at the same speed as those waves as they propagate across the surface of the water. You don’t measure any up and down of the waves because your are moving at the same speed as those waves. Now speed up and slowly overtake these wavefronts. What do you see or measure? Your boat now bounces up and down slowly as it overtakes/passes each wave crest. Speed your boat up again and those waves will appear to you to be at an even higher frequency. Thus the faster your boat moves, the higher the observed frequency of those waves you overtake will appear to be. Do this same gedanken with lightwaves in a non BBT universe and you will get a GRB.

This is just a Doppler effect. That is what GRB and FRB’s are. No explosions involved

Adam Riess discovers universe isn’t expanding after all

 A new study by Riess et al seems to have confirmed that something, once again, is wrong with the BBT model. 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ad1ddd

Part of the problem lies with the earlier mistake made by him and others in their nobel prize winning paper of 1998. They realised back then that the lightcurves of distant SN1a were too “dim” to be explained by the BBT. So to get around this massive failure of their BBT model they added another pre-copernican fix to their preferred model of expansion. And called this fix ‘acceleration’. 

What they failed to take into account is the fact that a non expanding model of the universe predicts that these distant SN1a will not have *time dilated* afterglow lightcurves. And thus the SN1a afterglow is predicted to appear to be fainter post peak fluence in a non expanding model than is predicted in an expanding model.

And...this is exactly what is observed in Riess et al’s 1998 data. Far from confirming the BBT with an added fix of acceleration, what they actually did was confirm the non expanding models predictions and proved that the universe isn’t expanding at all.

And so now this failure to understand the data by Big Bang theorists in 1998 has come home to haunt them again. Riess has just confirmed once again that the BBT is a failed model. And that once again Riess’s data shows the universe isn’t expanding. Except this time he can’t think of an easy excuse. Although its apparent he still doesn’t blame the BBT model. And instead says that somehow there must be new physics. New fantasies to cover up old fantasies failures is what he really means.

It is worth pointing out here the oft repeated claim made by BBT supporters that SN1a lightcurves show time dilation and confirm the BBT model. When using chi^2 fitting methods to match observed SN1a data to theoretical time dilated templates . Knop et al 2003 being one example.

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0309368

This claim is dubious at best. Because analysis like this fails to do a control test on the SN1a data to see if a chi ^2 match to *non dilated* lightcurve templates can give as good, or even a better match to that of time dilated templates. 

And I have shown quite clearly in my blog page on supernova-light-curves-fit-non.html  that yes in fact the same hi-red shifted SN1a data gives at least as good a match to non dilated templates as it does to BBT inspired theoretical time dilated lightcurves. If not better. Considering that to make the SN1a data fit the dilated lightcurve templates, Knop had to arbitrarily fiddle the individual Hubble Space Telescope datapoints by as much as 15 % in luminosity to make a good fit to the expanding BBT models theoretical lightcurve templates.

 

Offset between absorption and emission spectra

 Offset between absorption and emission spectra

Although atoms are said to emit and absorb emr at only very specific frequencies (ie. Hydrogens Balmer series), observations contradict this. And show that there is an offset between the absorbed and re emitted light. Which seems counter-intuitive, given the assumption that the atoms resonant frequency should respond to and produce the same frequencies of light. Not two slightly different frequencies

To explain this one must realise that the each of atoms resonant frequencies is actually a range of resonant frequencies clustered around a single frequency. And described in graph form by a bell curve. And confirmed also in spectra by the observed width of the emission/absorption line. With the peak amplitude of resonant wavelength being at the Center of the spectral line. 

In other words at each resonant frequency of the atom, as illustrated by the width of the observed spectral line of the atom, the atom actually has a range of resonant frequencies clustered around that specific frequency. And described in graph form by a bell curve with the maximum frequency being at the peak of the curve at the Center of the observed spectral line.

Taking this into account one can then explain how the offset between emission and absorption occurs. Because although the frequency range of the atoms resonant frequency is a uniform bell curve above and below the center of that particular resonant frequency. The input and output energies are different on either side of the Center. 

The Higher frequency side of the bell curve will have more input energy than the lower frequency side seeing as higher frequencies have more energy. Thus the absorption spectral line appears to be stronger on the higher frequency side of the curve. And conversely when that same absorbed energy is emitted again by the atom, the lower frequencies appear brighter. Because although a larger part of the input energy to the atom was from the higher side of the frequency bell curve of the atom, the total emitted energy is split equally between both hi and low frequency sides of the resonant frequency bell curve. Resulting in a slightly lower frequency emission line

This assumption is based on the fact that the atoms resonant frequency is centered on a single hypothetical wavelength. When absorbing equal frequencies of energy on either side of the bell curve it becomes obvious the higher frequency side receives more energy and appears brighter in the observed spectra. But when this energy is emitted equally between lower and higher frequencies ...the lower frequency side of the bell curve appears brighter. Thus shifting the emitted spectral line slightly to a longer spectral wavelength. As observed.

A new model for a wave only atom

 A new model of a wave only atom

In this blog and it’s associated YouTube channel I have provided various descriptions of how a wave only model of light and atoms can explain phenomena like induction and radiation and particle paths in particle accelerators. Here I would like to focus on a way to describe how emr waves can be used to model the atom itself.

We know from centuries of observation that EM radiation emitted by atoms is wave like. And that atoms when measured always appear to be wave like as resonant systems. 

Starting off from the oft repeated assumption in this blog that the universe is non expanding and infinite in size and age it is possible to then say that light itself from very distant sources will not only be redshifted.  But also blueshifted as distant parts of a non expanding universe move towards or away from our relative position here on earth.

This means that in an infinite non expanding universe light from any direction can not only be blueshifted but also can be redshifted. So much so that the wavefront itself will appear stationary to us here on earth. Superimpose these standing waves of the same wavelength coming in from all directions so that they meet at one central point. This is the theoretical Center of the wave atom. This physical effect can be seen in 2 D examples like waves rippling in to the Center of a vibrating bowl of water. Vibrate the bowl and the waves radiate in to the Center and where they meet is a central node  where the converging waves overlap and there is a concentration of energy at that point. Ie the Center of energy of the system which is the analogy of the Center of a system of the wave atom. In this example the vibrating source( edge of bowl) doesn’t move relative to the Center so waves move in to and through the center. If this were the case with a wave only atom then the magnetic field would oscillate betwen north and south. It doesn’t.

But if the source for all these waves were moving away from the ‘Center’ at c, then the wavefronts converging at the Center of the atom would be stationary. Allowing the atom to display a stable north south magnetic field.

Imagine this wave only scenario  in 3 dimensions and we not only get a Center point corresponding to the atom , we also find that the closer together the converging waves are the more amplitude the spherical converging waves possess. This gives a shell like structure to the atom for that wavelength. And corresponds to what particle physicists incorrectly call electron energy levels of atoms. The closer the converging waves are to the Center, the greater the strength  of the magnetic attraction. And conversely it’s repulsion ( sometimes called the strong interaction)

Each element has its own set of converging wavelengths. Which are observed as the different lines in an emission or absorption spectra.

It’s no coincidence that the more lines the element has, the “heavier” and thus farther down the periodic table the atom sits.

Obviously these wavelength shells I describe are directly related to the mass of the atom. Seeing as each wavelength shell is essentially a n-s magnetic field, lined up with all the other n-s orientations of the different wavelength shells. It thus takes energy (in the form of a external magnetic field) to move or rotate each shell. The more shells,...the more energy needed to move or rotate all the shells of that atom. Hence the mass of the atom is accounted for. 

And as described elsewhere in this blog we can then relate this model and describe ALL other known forces and phenomena related to atoms. Including gravity as a LeSage push gravity, Van der Waals and the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces. Without having to resort to the veritable overpopulated and ridiculous zoo of particles and imaginary forces that the precopernican Standard model has become littered with.

Tired Light and cosmological redshift

Some “tired light” theorists have suggested that the reason light redshifts over distance is due, not to expansion, but to light slowing down as it travels from a distant source to an observer on earth. Although I have previously agreed in this blog with the non expanding model of the universe, unfortunately I have to find fault with the suggested cause of the observed Hubble redshift being due to light losing speed over distance.

The problem with a reducing speed of c over distance is that it would result in no observed redshifting of light! Contrary to the misconceptions made by authors in Various published papers. The reason for this is simple. If light waves reduced speed over distance then they would have to be be travelling at a slower speed then any light waves later emitted by the same source. The obvious conclusion of this model is that: Any wavefronts emitted by a source would always be slowly “catching up” with those wavefronts already emitted by the source at an earlier time. And the distance between successive wavefronts emitted would always have to decrease to accommodate the different speeds between each successive wavefront.

Taking this into account it becomes clear that even though if the speed of the wave slows, because the distance between wavefronts also diminishes...the observed frequency would still remain the same over any distance. In other words the observed frequency of light would not decay over great cosmological distances in any model where light speed is asssumed to decrease over distance. And as we know this conclusion is ruled out by the observed Hubble redshift 

So my conclusion is that although yes I agree with the non expanding model of a universe, I don’t believe a slowing of light speed over distance can explain the observed decay of frequency over distance as observed in cosmological redshift.

And here is another interesting piece from the historical record quoted below. Looks like in 1929 Hubble knew “expansion” was not real. He just couldn’t attribute it to a failure of Einsteins photon model. Because Albert was just too famous to challenge. Seeing as Albert had just won the Nobel prize for saying that light does *not* lose energy/frequency over distance!

“Hubble concluded that his observed log N(m) distribution showed a large departure from Euclidean geometry, provided that the effect of redshifts on the apparent magnitudes was calculated as if the redshifts were due to a real expansion. A different correction is required if no motion exists, the redshifts then being due to an unknown cause. Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature". This viewpoint is emphasized (a) in The Realm of the Nebulae, (b) in his reply (Hubble 1937a) to the criticisms of the 1936 papers by Eddington and by McVittie, and (c) in his 1937 Rhodes Lectures published as The Observational Approach to Cosmology (Hubble 1937b). It also persists in his last published scientific paper which is an account of his Darwin Lecture (Hubble 1953).”

https://apod.nasa.gov/diamond_jubilee/1996/sandage_hubble.html

Distorted galaxies in deep field images

 Hubble has already shown us images of distorted galaxy formation in deep field images. These incidentally were not initially predicted by the BBT. However theorists now pretend this apparent isotropic evolution in galaxy shapes from the “early universe” to now is all part of the success of the predictive powers of the BBT. Presumably JWST will reveal more of these distorted galaxy shapes in the distant universe.

But can these distortions be explained in a non expanding universe? I believe it can. Using two simple methods. Firstly one must take into account optical distortion. The more distance light travels through the gas and dust filled plasma of the vacuum, the more distorted the images will be. Just as light travelling through an imperfect glass or atmospheric medium distorts light images. And this distortion of course will be isotropic. The second method relies on the simple rule of light speed in a non relativistic model of EMR. Outlined in other pages of this blog on pages like my DeSitter page in this blog. As I have said elsewhere the MMX and Sagnac experiments show us light always travels at c relative to the source. This means that if the source moves relative to the observer or vice versa the speed of light of *all the light that has ever left* the source is always still at c relative to the source. A simple example can be explained as follows: Light propagates away from a source at c. The observer moves in a circle relative to the source. Notice as the observer moves away from the source the measured light speed is slower. And when they travel towards the source the light speed increases. 

Now apply this observation to the early universe. We see a galaxy rotate from our point of view. But from a star at the edge of the galaxies POV, they see earth rotate in the sky. Lightpaths from that star are always travelling at c in a straight line towards the earth relative to the star. Whereas the earth is moving back and forth across these light paths. From the earths POV the light appears to be dragged back and forth across the sky. And the light also appears to slow down and speed up as it arrives here on earth.Even though in fact in the stars frame it is always propagating in straight lines at a constant speed c.

So in the earths frame if one then tracked the path of light from various stars around the edge of the galaxy but always kept the light travelling at c in straight lines relative to each star, then over great cosmological time frames the image of the galaxy would *appear* to warp and bend from the earths point of view. Even though in fact the galaxy itself has not warped and bent.

Redshifting as ‘tired light’ does not lose energy over distance

There seems to be a flaw in the assumption that cosmological redshift of galaxies first observed by Hubble and others in the 1920s cannot be explained by tired light because there is no explanation as to how light ‘loses’ energy over distance. The argument being a “photon” of light at 100nm has more energy than one at 200nm. But this seems to overlook a fundamental point which is that a light beam with a wavelength range of 100-200nm when redshifted to 200-400nm still has the same total energy as the rest frame emitted range. But just spread out across a range double that of the original rest frame emission range.

My question is: A source emits a constant amount of energy as EMR with a range of 100-200 nm. Will the measured total energy of that emission by an observor be the same for the rest frame beam of 100-200nm as it would be for the same beam redshifted to 200-400nm beam during the same observation time frame?

My assumption is that where 100-200 nm gets redshifted to a longer wavelength the energy is *still conserved*. Just spread out across a larger wavelength range. Contrary to and negating the argument used by Big Bang theorists that a tired light non expanding universe would have to explain how light “loses” energy.

Redshift Distance relationship in a non expanding model of the universe

 Redshift/Distance relationship for a Non expanding model

In cosmology redshift is given by the letter z.  The z to wavelength relationship in an expanding model works as follows:

A restframe source emits a wavelength range of 500-1000 nm. At z= 1 it doubles to an observed range of 1000-2000. At z=2 the range is 1500 to 3000. At z=3 the range is redshifted to 2000 to 4000 etc. The distance to the source in an expanding model is explained and given as velocity in km/s. The higher the redshift the faster it is moving away from us and the farther away it is. 

In other words the distance to a source at z=2 in an expanding model is much farther than predicted for a non expanding model because in a non expanding universe the source is not moving away from the observer on earth. So that for instance in a non expanding model a star at z=2 is twice as far away from earth as a star at z=1 is from earth.

Unfortunately to date the best confirmed real actual distance of any star from earth is much less than z=1. Which is z=0.1 to the Virgo cluster. The table below assumes distance X at z=1 is a known actual real distance and not an assumed distance related to velocity, as is the case in a Big Bang universe. 

z=0 (500nm to 1000nm ) = restframe

z= 1 (1000 to 2000)=distance A

z=3  (2000 to 4000)=distance 2xA

z=7 (4000 to 8000)=distance 3xA

z=15 (8000 to 16000)

z=31 (16000 to 32000)

z=63 (32000 to 64000)

z=127

z=255

z=511

z=1023(ie Microwave)=distance 10xA

Therefore in a non expanding universe z=1023 is only twice as far away as z=31. Or 10 times as far away as an object at z=1 

So far the current available limits of detection in optical are via the JWST mid infrared camera. ( JWST MIR camera range is 5-28 microns. Equivelent to a redshift range of z=9 to z=49)

The big question is...how far away is z=1 in a non expanding model?

That will be hard to quantify as so far only the Virgo cluster at approx z=0.001 has a known real distance. Using various methods like parralax. 

Thus in a non expanding universe the CMBR is explained as redshifted light from galaxies at and around z=1023. That is galaxies at around 10 times the distance from earth as any source observed at a distance where the light is redshifted to z=1.

The average black body spectrum of all the billions of stars in that distance parameter around z=1023 combine to give the observed CMBR. And because at that distance there is still a small variation in distribution of galaxies this also accounts for the slight graininess observed in the COBE CMBR images.

Supernova Light curves fit a non expanding model

Supernova (Sn1a) lightcurves have been used to illustrate time dilation due to the Big Bang expansion. This is an argument that has failed to follow a rigorous scientific method. The authors of these papers should have also tried to see if the observed lightcurve data fits a non expanding, z=0 model.  Using data from Knop et al 2003 I have created graphs of lightcurves where there is no expansion (z=0).  The following graphs are Knops dilated lightcurve graphs on the left and  for comparison, graphs of undilated fits on the right. These show how the data can also fit a non expanding model.