by Ted Frimet
momma’s red shoe
Wow!
It wasn’t too long ago when I joined an astronomy forum, at Google+. And yes, the name of the forum is “Astronomy”. Therein lay over 24,000 members; of which there are a dozen contributors during any given week. Most recently, Astronomy forum member Andleeb Atal posted his brief on the “Wow” signal, acknowledged by an Ohio States University telescope program, of August 15, 1977. Astronomer Antonio Paris at Florida’s St. Petersburg College attributed the signal to comet 266P Christensen. He included a second comet possibility, named P/2008 Y Gibbs. Neither long-haired beasty was known to be in existence, in 1977. You will get no argument from me, here, on the time-line.
What I found interesting, is the baseline signal of 1420 Mhz. That is the spectral center line for elemental Hydrogen. Atal notes that were some small discrepancies, noted between the signal residing at 1420.36 (JD Kraus) and 1420.46 (JR Ehman). However, there it hovers at the midline. I would like to lay claim that this side-note became the foundation of new thought, for me; however I would by dying, if not lying about it. Hydrogen, as the most abundant element in the universe, is significantly interesting, all by its lonely self.
What is truly an engaging fact is that not all hydrogen resonates the same way. (doppler shifts -Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_line accessed May 7, 2018 8:57 AM) There is truly a very small amount of our universal norm that beats to the tune of 1420 Mhz (mean lifetime of the excited state of around 10 million years; Wikipedia, ibid). Sufficiently so, we are able to listen to it, among the static of the cosmic background radiation. Its hum competes with all sorts of interesting aural phenomenon. Listening to that key chord keeps us sane while existing on our lonely intelligent rock. It is the pervasive thought that life, extraterrestrial intelligent life, will use the universal baseline to pulse encode a message. Comets be damned, we are still searching for a intergalactic dance partner. Shall we dance?
Within the confines of the forum’s articulation, I found myself being perceived as challenging the speed of light. Albert, we will have none of that now. You let over 30 years transpire, while searching to combine electromagnetism with gravity; and appeared to look the other way while Cosmology and Astrophysics unknowingly raced by you. Out of deep respect for a person who simply did not let a thought go by for decades, I will continue to honor the time long tradition of accepting that c is a constant, no matter and where ever you are.
However, some have confused the immutable speed of light with invariant frequency and wavelength. Perhaps this stems from a misunderstanding that pulse encoded messages will not be the same in everyone’s space-time. Forgive me the math mistakes; however you will get to the crux of the idea, right now. If you would, here is what I had to inquire onto my forum participants. Unlike questions, they were more akin to answers.
If the initiator of a signal was in a region of dilated space-time, then their clocks would run at a different rate than ours. For arguments sake, how about twice as slow?
Their counts, per unit time, would be the same as ours. That is, both would be 1420 (Mhz). However, when you stack both transmissions up against each other, one is dilated, one is contracted.
When we receive their baseline broadcast, compared to our local clock, we would have to look for a mid-line of twice Hydrogen (2840 Mhz).
Galaxies, and the stars constrained within, are in motion. And yes, they would need to be moving at speeds close to the light speed, in order for relativity to matter.
However, I am not so sure that space-time is so neat, as to not be [held] accountable for a many clocks theory.
Time passes, and question and answers come and go. Without ado, I am repelled by commentary on Occam’s razor, combined with a coup de grace on not accepting a non-uniformity in space tension. Yes, space-time is tough as an ox. It has the strength several hundred times that of a bar of steel. After receiving the first observation of gravity waves, on September 14, 2015 – we conclude that it took 63 solar masses of two black holes to coalesce and release 3 solar masses of energy to cataclysmically distort space. Yet, I deny neither my fellow commentator invoking Occam, or uniformity in space tension. c prevails, here, untouched. Yet, there is the last question, reserved for the reader who does not know how to ask. In cosmological musing, I offered it below:
I agree. c probably stays the same. Of course, if the medium slows down light; other matter not similarly affected will outpace light in that medium. [cherenkoff radiation].
Here are some notes, I just finished taking a few minutes ago. It manages to mess up the idea that time clocks are not universal; as it related to Einstein over 100 years ago – and still stands correct, today.
Here ya go – I was having an email conversation with our MathFromtheGut, guy:
I was reading and commenting, this morning, on the Hydrogen spectrum line, 1420 Mhz, and how we anticipate intelligent beings to use it as a carrier wave.
My additional comment was relativity related; spatial dilation affects clocks; so 1420 ticks per unit second, there, isn’t my 1420 ticks per unit second, here.
If the clock were twice as slow, I’d imagine my carrier wave to be at 2840 Mhz.
Anyway, stars and galaxies (red-shift aside) are moving at high velocity. Of course I beg the question that they are not moving at light speed.
However, any velocity difference, away or towards us, does compromise a clock, even if slightly.
Then, if we were to look at our common 1420 Mhz (1420.0000) if would be more relativistic to look at 1420.0314; depending on the velocity difference.
Electromagnetic pressure (solar pressure) will increase if the source galaxy velocity is greater.
EM(pressure inc) = Galaxy(v inc) = Gravity(G inc)
Ok. Time for a night cap coffee.
Let me know where this falls apart.
It didn’t fall too far. It held together like the very fabric of space-time. Thor’s hammer couldn’t budge it. It would take collisions of vastly superior astronomical beings to undo Einstein and his building blocks of Faraday, Henry and the treatise of James Clerk Maxwell. And then we return to the opening thrust; the tip of the spear. The Wow signal of 1977, whose base frequency was reported, as two numbers. Now that we have separated the chaff from the wheat, we can now know Wow! for what it is.
A space time dilation effect of 0.00704022% difference
It is a fair supposition that the Wow! signal was initiated from Sagittarius. That much seems to be written in stone. In an effort to avoid an observer paradox in resolving the two observed frequency signatures, I am agreeing that both observed signals came from the same sky region. Aka the same source.
I am adding my hallmark that the signal was split, by the likes of gravitational lensing. This is less mysterious, and it is very compelling. Having the same signal take two paths, and arriving on two different frequencies provides the test bed for a Lorentz transform for time [or distance]. That is, according to either observer, the same signal was received; however on two different frequencies.
I have a radio signal, that passes thru a region in space that splits the signal. One path goes thru “normal” space-time. The other goes thru “time-dilation” – let’s say its clock slows down. However, due to “c” being a constant, both signals arrive at the radio receiver, at the same “time”. The frequencies have shifted by 0.1 Mhz. Show the dilation effect, using Lorentz Transforms. Yup, there’s an app for that. It’s YouTube’s Fermi Lab Presents: “Relativity: how people get time dilation wrong”. Substituting frequency for time in a Lorentz Transform:
V2 = 1/lambda * V1 for our second, time dilated frequency
V2 = lambda * V1 for our first, non-time dilated frequency
Normally viewed, the Lorentz Transforms would be for two different observers. One moving relative to the other. In my special, frequency shifting world, my signals are observing the radios. Yeah, Neo, that will really bake your noodle. Here, have a cookie, and you will be right as rain! Time dilation and length contraction are both side effects of moving thru a regions of space that have different gravity for either of our two signals. (YouTube video: “Travel into the Future with Time Dilation! The Universe Effect Published on Oct 26, 2015, last accessed Sunday, May 6th, 2018 17:54 PM)
A comet, in a presumed elliptical orbit generated the signal captured by two radios. Wow! was not split by lensing. Here, we have two radios, capturing the signal from a comet moving at X kilometers per second. The frequency shift could be chalked up to nothing more than the Doppler effect. We could plot our radios location, and see if at that time, one radio was moving away from the comet, while the other, due to Earths rotation was moving towards it. Of course, it is the comet sending out the waves, and not Earth. So our recipients would be measuring two different wave patterns. Now, instead of me being gleeful of space-time dilation; the proffered frequency difference is related to wave velocities ratios.
I just stubbed my toe. Someone cancel my dance card, please.
A few observations from the “MathFromTheGut guy”. :
First, the frequency differences you’re talking about are tiny. The relativity portion of those frequency shifts will be miniscule compared to the regular, non relativistic doppler shifts. They really can be ignored.
It really goes back to my MathFromTheGut proof of the Pythagorean theorem. The actual H frequency is about 1420.4, not the rounded 1420 MHz as you mention. This means that these two measurements are off by about .05 MHz out of 1420 MHz or about 1 part in 30,000 in different directions.
So, consider a right triangle whose hypotenuse has a length of 30,000. And its SHORT leg has a length of 1. The length of that other leg (VERY close to 30,000) compared to the hypotenuse tells us how much time is slowing down in the hydrogen’s frame of reference compared to the observer. The difference between those leg lengths can be approximated very well as the contribution of the short leg to the hypotenuse’s length. (Review my video if you don’t follow what I’m talking about.)
The contribution of the short leg to the hypotenuse’s length is proportional to its length (1), and to the ratio of that leg’s length divided by the hypotenuse’s length, or 1/30,000. So, this leg contributes 1/30,000th of a unit to a hypotenuse that is 30,000 units long. In other words it affects the hypotenuse’s length by a multiplicative FACTOR of (1/30,000)^2
Conversely, the regular non-relativsitic Doppler effect changes the frequency by a factor of 1 part in 30,000 or 30,000 times more than the relativistic effect! So we really should completely ignore the relativistic effect here.
Doing this the less intuitive way, non MathFromTheGut way…
Setting B (beta) equal to V/C or 1/30,000 our relativistic doppler shift factor becomes
sqrt( (1-B) / (1+B)) = 1 – B = 1 x 3.3333e-05
Conversely, the conventional Doppler shift factor would be…
1 – B = 1 x 3.3333e-05
In other words, the exact same answer to that many decimal places.
Note a B of 1/30,000 –> a velocity of 1/30,000th the speed of light or only 10 kilometers/sec.
MathFromTheGut wants us to know that all values are approximate!
Yes. Actually that helped a lot!
Learn more about MathFromTheGut:
Where you get to learn Proof of the Pythagorean Theorem in Two Blinks!!
Firstly, it makes the doppler answer the “correct” (if not more obvious) answer.
Secondly, if I clung to relativity – the very small number elucidated speaks volumes of just how stiff space-time is.
I was counting on that either number was correct, despite 1420.4 being the “actual” H frequency. I didn’t think that both signals could have been time shifted. And now I do.
It is now obvious since neither reported signal were mid-point H frequency.
Thank you, MathFromTheGut guy, for the correction on the actual H frequency!
I looked up the reference to a few more decimal points, instead of leaning on Atal.
Here it is, below, and citing a few references herein:
The wiki version shows;
1420405751.7667±0.0009 Hz,[2]
Wikipedias citation is: Dupays, Arnaud; Beswick, Alberto; Lepetit, Bruno; Rizzo, Carlo (August 2003). “Proton Zemach radius from measurements of the hyperfine splitting of hydrogen and muonic hydrogen” (PDF). Physical Review A. 68 (5). arXiv:quant-ph/0308136 . Bibcode:2003PhRvA..68e2503D. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.68.052503.
citation is also found here:
https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.68.052503
An open source publication can be found, here:
I’ve put my dancing shoes back on. Don’t worry. “Can you please tell her that mama found her red shoe? She was so worried about that shoe…” -Gravity, scientist Ryan Stone to Astronaut Matt Kowalski (Cuarón, Alfonso, et al. Gravity. Warner Bros. Pictures, 2013.)
I bet you that the Vt was 10 km/s
Accessing the WOW paper, Hydrogen Clouds from Comets 266/P Christensen and P/2008 Y2 (Gibbs) are Candidates for the Source of the 1977 “WOW” Signal, http://planetary-science.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Paris_Davies-H-I-Line-Signal.pdf – accessed on May 6, 2018, 19:48) we can cite:
266P/Christensen was 3.8055 AU from Earth and moving at a radial velocity of +13.379 km/s; and P/2008 Y2 (Gibbs) was 4.406 AU from Earth and moving at a radial velocity of +19.641 km/s.
The authors data came from: The International Astronomical Union Minor Planet Center, Database: MPEC 2009- A03 P/2008 Y2 (Gibbs); MPEC 2008-U27 266P/Christensen. http://www.minorplanetcenter.net/ accessed on 21 Nov. 2015
10 km/s does co-relate with 13.379 km/s
Calculating the percentage difference we get a 28.9 percent difference.
I may have mistakenly ascribed the doppler shift calculation to a comet velocity, without adjustment.
Perhaps I should note a simpler non-geometry math calculation of:
Earth Velocity (30 km/s) – 10 km/s (doppler shift calculated) = 20 km/s
Which is a number that is eerily close to the radial velocity reported of Gibbs, at 19.641 km/s
tap tap tap. tappidy tapp tapp. Now thats’ tap-dancing!
Editor’s Note: The expansion of the universe, presumably caused by dark energy, can happen at the speeds approaching that of the light and can even exceed the speed of light. This does not violate Albert’s Einstein’s speed limit. Because expansion of the universe is not caused by moving away of galaxies. Instead, new space gets created in between. Like it happened with inflation during he early part of universe’s life when space expanded by orders of magnitude within a short span of time. Sorry Mr. Einstein, you cannot issue a speeding ticket !
Amateur Astronomers Association of Princeton 