Greetings! New Tired Light provides an explanation of redshifts in a static universe in terms of a photon - electron interaction in the IGM. NTL first saw light of day in 1996 when it was first proposed on internet sites such as ‘bad Astronomy’ but since then has been published in around 15 papers in peer reviewed journals and conference papers. NTL uses known physics to predict numerical outcomes such as the Hubble constant and the CMBR which can be tested. In 2016, a paper was published predicting a relationship between the dispersion measure (DM) of a fast radio burst (FRB) and the redshift of the host galaxy and can be found here. The relationship is: DM(IGM)= (mc/2hr)ln(1+z) +DM(host) BUT… in papers the DM has been weighted for expansion and so we must remove this weighting to return to the original data ie for a static universe. m=rest mass of the electron c=speed of light h=plank constant r=classical radius of the electron. Inserting values for these constants gives: DM(IGM)=(7.318x10^25)ln(1+z) + DM(host) in SI units Notice that there are no ‘adjustable parameters’ as in the BB. A graph of DM(IGM) versus ln(1+z) will have a gradient of (mc/2hr). That was 2016. In 2023 we have 23 FRB’s localised to host galaxies and this gave us an opportunity to test this prediction of 7 years ago. In the summer of 2024 I published a paper testing this prediction and can be found here Since then a further ten FRB’s have been localised giving us 33 data points (which must be statistically viable??) I have updated the graph to include all data points. 33 data points.docx
You will notice that the Gradient = 7.33x10^25 m^-2 - a difference of 1.6% from the NTL prediction of 7.318x10^25m^-2 by NTL 7 year ago when none of this was known. So, questions please - but remember NTL got it right! Cheers Lyndon bringing cosmology back down to Earth
I am as desperate as anyone else for a static universe solution. How does the solution account for the electrons [not] scattering the photons? The first paper mentions:
But this is not a good thing. Electrons in space are not the radio transmitter’s friends. Very much not. Dispersion here means ‘scattering’.
Agreed that the CMB is not an ‘image’ of anything, but the images of distant galaxies are supposedly real. Then if their light is also ‘tired’ due to electron dispersion, we would not be able to resolve an image here at earth.
The papers are filled with good logical mathematics and sound reasoning, and the data appears to support the premise. I need some help with the fundamentals.
Hi Francois, Thanks for your interest in NTL. electrons are the best friends of electromagnetic radiation (radio or light) provided they remember their place and behave! For instance, in glass, the electrons are fixed in the atoms. Photon comes along and is absorbed by the electron and the system oscillates. There is a delay, before the electron emits a ‘new’ photon. in the same direction as the original one. This is why the speed of light in glass is less than in a vacuum. Between atoms the photons travel at 3x10^8m/s but due to the delays on absorption/re-emission the average speed is less. Note that there is no recoil here because the electron is fixed in the atom which is fixed in the pane of glass so the whole pane would have to recoil. The problem is that just about everyone (except me!) is using an old model of the IGM which was shown to be wrong over 50 years ago! A background of hard X-rays had been found indicating a plasma at 10^8K but this was later found to be untrue and due to AGN’s at high redshift. But this is the model people still use – a hot plasma of separate protons and electrons whizzing about disorderly. See Here A research probe launched in 2012 stated >“We do not find any direct evidence of the so-called ‘warm hot intergalactic medium’” Here That is, an IGM of hot ionised H atoms is wrong! But workers still use this model to discredit Tired Light and ignore the model when looking at FRB’s. To localise the FRB they look down the line of sight – these images are not blurred and neither are Tired light images blurred even though both processes DM and NTL involve the same photons and the same electrons So, what is in the IGM? Dust particles (silicon and graphite) are sputtered out of galaxies and these become charged by the photoelectric effect. They reach an equilibrium potential of about +20ev where the rate of release of electrons by the PE effect is equal to the rate of recombination Here The dust particles have at equilibrium between 10 – 1000 protons on them depending on particle size. The question these workers did not ask was what happened to the 10 – 1000 electrons that sped off into the IGM? Well when you have a group of electrons without the protons (which are on the dust particles) they form onto a Wigner – Seitz BCC crystal lattice held there by their mutual repulsion. They can and do perform SHM about their lattice positions and so they can and do absorb and re-emit photons. But unlike the electrons in glass, they recoil on absorption and re-emission. Some of the energy of the absorbed and emitted photon is transferred to the recoiling electron (emitted in the form of two low energy CMBR photons). But unlike Compton scatter, recoil takes place along the line of site so there is no blurring of the image with NTL. In Dispersion Measure (DM) longer wavelengths arrive later than shorter ones – well where have they been? The answer is it is the same process as NTL and differing frequencies suffer different time delays/Number of interactions along the way. Hope this helps. Cheers Lyndon Bringing cosmology back down to Earth
Hi Francois, Thanks for your interest in NTL. electrons are the best friends of electromagnetic radiation (radio or light) provided they remember their place and behave! For instance, in glass, the electrons are fixed in the atoms. Photon comes along and is absorbed by the electron and the system oscillates. There is a delay, before the electron emits a ‘new’ photon. in the same direction as the original one. This is why the speed of light in glass is less than in a vacuum. Between atoms the photons travel at 3x10^8m/s but due to the delays on absorption/re-emission the average speed is less. Note that there is no recoil here because the electron is fixed in the atom which is fixed in the pane of glass so the whole pane would have to recoil. The problem is that just about everyone (except me!) is using an old model of the IGM which was shown to be wrong over 50 years ago! A background of hard X-rays had been found indicating a plasma at 10^8K but this was later found to be untrue and due to AGN’s at high redshift. But this is the model people still use – a hot plasma of separate protons and electrons whizzing about disorderly. See here A research probe launched in 2012 stated
here That is, an IGM of hot ionised H atoms is wrong! But workers still use this model to discredit Tired Light and ignore the model when looking at FRB’s. To localise the FRB they look down the line of sight – these images are not blurred and neither are Tired light images blurred. So, what is in the IGM? Dust particles (silicon and graphite) are sputtered out of galaxies and these become charged by the photoelectric effect. They reach an equilibrium potential of about +20ev where the rate of release of electrons by the PE effect is equal to the rate of recombination Ref The dust particles have at equilibrium between 10 – 1000 protons on them depending on particle size. The question these workers did not ask was what happened to the 10 – 1000 electrons that sped off into the IGM? Well when you have a group of electrons without the protons (which are on the dust particles) they form onto a Wigner – Seitz BCC crystal lattice held there by their mutual repulsion. They can and do perform SHM about their lattice positions and so they can and do absorb and re-emit photons. But unlike the electrons in glass, they recoil on absorption and re-emission. Some of the energy of the absorbed and emitted photon is transferred to the recoiling electron (emitted in the form of two low energy CMBR photons). But unlike Compton scatter, recoil takes place along the line of site so there is no blurring of the image with NTL. In Dispersion Measure (DM) longer wavelengths arrive later than shorter ones – well where have they been? The answer is it is the same process as NTL and differing frequencies suffer different time delays/Number of interactions along the way. Hope this helps. Cheers Lyndon Bringing cosmology back down to Earth
Dear Lyndon
I am 99% with you on the TL effect, but 0.1% on electrons being the cause.
Visible light through glass does not have the required photon energy to excite the electrons. By excite, meaning getting absorbed and re-emitted. If they were absorbed and re-emitted, two things would happen: 1) All the light coming out would be one colour (of the particular electron band - e.g. infrared) and 2) the light would be scattered. Thus visible light goes through glass without passing through electrons. Since light is an EM wave, there is an overall E/B effect which slows down the wave, but the only way to keep the image coherent is to have no direct electron interaction. As soon as interaction happens, as it might for UV light, the photons are scattered and the image is diffused.
Another misnomer is ‘conservation of momentum’, which cannot be applied to an electron attached in an atom, since momentum is shared and the photon is still scattered.
Because the photons are not absorbed and re-emitted in glass, when the photon eventually exits the glass, it regains its entire momentum. No redshift occurs.
The Wigner – Seitz BCC crystal lattice may be proposed as a similar structure like glass, but the above would still hold true - direct interaction with electrons would diffuse the image, and if it doesn’t, if it is just slowed in transit, then momentum is regained upon exit.
@Francois-Zinserling
Correct. But absorption-emission is not the only type of interaction of light with electrons!
Incorrect! The index of refraction of glass is caused by a polarization interaction of light on the electrons. Your argument fails to account for the index of refraction (among other things).
“Passing through electrons” may have been a poor choice of words on my part. If you mean by ‘interaction of light with electrons’ that light is affected by the E/B fields of electrons, yes.
The photon does not lose energy though unless work was done and moving an electron back and forth does not qualify as ‘work’.
Dear Francois
We don’t want the photon to excite the electron in an atom as this leads to scatter and absorption lines. We want the energy of the photons to be well away from the excitation energy so that all he photons are absorbed and emitted as a new photons. As Feynman wrote in his book QED,
As for glass,
This is based on the book, ‘special relativity’ by French so I am happy with this
This entry is spotted in the list of References as contained in your first paper: [3] Kiernein, J and Marmet, L. (2016) Private Emails
It reminds me of an old thread: “Big Bang: Tweak it or throw it out? “. The following formula is found in that post by @RedshiftDrift .
$$ H_0 = \zeta\frac{\alpha h^2}{m_e^2 c}n_e \qquad \mbox{(:STz)} $$
Compare this with a formula in your paper, namely
$$ H = 2 n_e h r_e / m_e \qquad (2) $$
where it is known that
$$ r_e = \alpha \frac{\hbar}{m_e c} $$
and so
$$ H = 2 n_e h r_e / m_e = 2 n_e h \left(\alpha \frac{\hbar}{m_e c}\right)/ m_e = \zeta\frac{\alpha h^2}{m_e^2 c}n_e = H_0 $$
with equality for $\zeta=1/\pi$ . The two formulas are similar but not exactly the same.
Thanks for your interest HanDeBruijn, Thanks for your interest in NTL. I never comment on other theories - just NTL and the BB. To be honest I never read other ideas - just NTL and the BB so I can’t help you. That said a ‘good’ theory should make predictions that are later shown to be true.’ The NTL formula (2) you show above was used in 2016 to derive a relationship between DM and ln(1+z) namely
DM = (mc/2hr)ln(1+z) or DM = (7.318x10^25)ln(1+z) in SI units
In 2023/24 when sufficient FRB’s had been localised and the relationship plotted they agreed with the numerical prediction made (using the NTL formula (2) above) - Here Since then a further 10 FRB’s have been localised and when we use these as well the data confirms the prediction to within 1.6% - see attached word doc (not published yet). DATA 23 FRBS (2) SI.xlsx
So I will say that the NTL equation 92) above is not wrong. Cheers Lyndon Bringing cosmology back down to Earth
@tiredlyndon . >I never comment on other theories - just NTL and the BB.
That’s a pity, because what I wanted to point out is that your NTL is not new, in the sense that it is very similar - if not identical - to Tired Light theories that have been presented already at this forum. I gave you a link. Why not follow it, read content and find confirmation?
That link is for 2023!
NTL has been around since 1996 when I received my first rejection from ApJ (and MNRAS shortly after)! Published here in 2005 (3 years after submittance and acceptance! and Here in 2006 and in around 15 Journals and conference papers since then. NTL predates the link by 27 years! Sorry, I did not find confirmation from the link that NTL is ‘not new’
OOH look! Here is an old site copyright 2003 listing the formula H=(2nhr/m) - twenty years before other tired light theories were discussed on this forum. See here Could I politely ask what HanDeBruijn is implying here by stating that
Since New Tired Light had already been in the public domain for the previous 27 year? I think that the real question is ’ why was Ashmore’s New Tired Light theory of 1996 not discussed in the thread?’ Cheers Lyndon
@tiredlyndon . >copyright 2003
Excusez-moi !! I didn’t know that you are the CopyRight holder of Tired Light. I didn’t know that Laws of Nature can be CopyRighted anyway. Because I find there is only One CopyRight Holder of the latter, but okay.
Nasty remarks about CopyRights aside, problem (a personal one) is that there are at least two other proponents of Tired Light at this forum: @RedshiftDrift (Louis Marmet) and @sahil5d (Sahil Gupta). And I would like to have a second opinion about NTL by them. I’ve read in your first paper that you have had a email correspondence with Louis.
Most people here (meanwhile should) know that I am myself a proponent of the Variable Mass theory . Therefore I don’t know much about subtle details between the different TL theories. But I think I understand your frustration.
Upon reading Ashmore’s ‘New Tired Light’ Theory and some other parts of your website, I must say that I’m truly impressed !! Especially the derivation of the value for the Hubble parameter is much simpler than I have seen elsewhere.
Can we reconcile any version of TR with intrinsic redshift? New data on quantized redshift and redhift periodicity does seem to prove that Arp/Hoyle/Narlikar were correct. See here…
https://arxiv.org/html/2408.07101v1
In the above article, the authors conclude that redshift isn’t a distance indicator at all. If true, how can any TL theory be correct? Here’s what they say about this…
Redshift is not a distance indicator. In no case has an independent distance measurement been obtained for any object with z≥1, and this is also true for many extragalactic objects with z<1. As stated in Item [1], Fulton et al. (2018) have already determined that statistical samples (Schneider, D. P. et al. (2010); Shen, Y. et al. (2011)) of SDSS DR7 quasars do indeed have a large intrinsic redshift component, but at long last the literature from the wider community is publishing evidence that agrees with our contention that the long assumed redshift-distance relation has never been established. Based on the application of numerical methods to a joint X-ray and ultraviolet data set, Petrosian, V. et al. (2022) have shown that a correlation between luminosity measurements in different wavelength regimes must be used with greater care to definitively demonstrate such a relationship. They state unequivocally that all of the correlation methods used to date suffer from a circularity argument, and we agree with that assessment.
So can TL and VM theory both be correct? Can they be reconciled?
I was also very impressed with Lyndon’s derivation of the Hubble constant, btw. :)
Thanks for the kind remarks HanDeBrijn re the New Tired Light Theory Just a couple of points to sort out and then I am sure we can best friends.
You are quite correct in saying that ideas cannot be copyrighted. The word is ‘priority.’ I researched this when writing the BOOK. Scientists wanted to get their ideas and discoveries out to the world but wanted to keep the priority ie it was their discovery. So they would put their ideas out their in the form of riddles etc which often led to them being credited with the discovery of something they hadn’t even thought of. Come along the Royal society who, over 350 year ago published a scientific journal (I think there was a French one out before that) for scientists to publish in AND they copyrighted the journal. So if anyone wanted to repeat this idea they had to reference the journal as the journal was copyrighted. This gave that scientist priority of the idea. So when you said
I wanted to point out ‘priority’ by directing you to a copyrighted page where it appeared ie its not me copying anyone else!
I am well aware that
I met Louis and Eric and many others at the 2008 CCC2 conference in Port Angeles. I presented a paper on Lyman forest lines as a way of determining the dynamics of the universe and a poster for NTL was at the back of the room throughout with all the info from the website. It created a great deal of interest (plus a few others who wanted a book signing!)
Naughty, naughty! No you didn’t. You have edited the post What you wanted was
Knowing that Louis and Sahil are members of this forum, I am too old and experienced to get into a school yard argument of who is right and who is wrong - with the two other members listening in! Hence ‘I only comment on NTL..’ Btw. I don’t think anyone on this board will have heard of him, but there have been several tired light theories before these 3 and one was by a guy named Paul Marmet who had redshift as a recoil interaction between photons and electrons in an Hydrogen atom. I didn’t see the paper until long after I had formulated NTL (internet was rubbish then and the paper was not open access) but once I found it I referenced the copyrighted journal in which it was published ref 7 . This even though I had never seen it, and when I did see it, felt it had problems - but, priority and all that Always a problem who did what when look here and see Light - Electron Interaction and you may be forgiven that NTL was the last theory to be written 2015 and not 2005 - but the webmaster assures me that the papers are not in date order! I wonder if I can delete ref 7? Hopefully, all sorted no Cheers Lyndon
@tiredlyndon . I wrote: >Especially the derivation of the value for the Hubble parameter is much simpler than I have seen elsewhere.
But meanwhile it has become more troublesome than it appeared at first sight. According to your webpage Increase in wavelength at each interaction of a photon with an electron is
$$ \delta \lambda = \frac{h}{mc} $$
with $m=$ (rest) mass of the electron, $h=$ Planck constant, $c=$ speed of light, $\lambda=$ wavelength. As far as I can see, this is a special case of Compton scattering, according to Wikipedia:
$$ \lambda’ - \lambda = \frac{h}{m_e c}(1 - \cos\mbox{ }\theta) \quad \mbox{with} \quad \theta = 90^o $$
I think that angle of $90^o$ is highly improbable. But okay, when continuing I’m really stucked at the place where you write the following. >In the ‘New Tired Light’ Theory, the number of collisions made by each photon depends upon its collision cross section, $\sigma$. This represents the probability of a photon being absorbed by the electron. We know the photoabsorption collision cross section for a photon - electron interaction from experiments carried out by the interaction of low energy X rays with matter and it depends upon the radius of the electron and the wavelength of the photon.
I would be pleased to see a reference or reasoning confirming this result; can’t find anything like it (on the internet).
Hi, NTL cannot be a special case of Compton scatter as there is no ‘scatter’ in the forward direction in Compton scatter. It cannot be a special case of Compton scatter as Compton scatter is for a single free electron which cannot store energy - so the re-emitted photon has to be emitted simultaneously with the absorption.
With your formula, substitute θ= 0 degrees for the case of ‘forward scatter’ and you will see that there is no shift in wavelength so it cannot be a special case of Compton scatter. You do get the same number though. I don’t actually believe in Compton scatter - how can the re-emitted photon be emitted simultaneously with the absorption? Maybe, Compton scatter is a very special case of NTL? As for collision cross section, yes, no problem but it may be a day or so - out all day tomorrow and late here now. It is fully referenced in some of the papers but needs an explanation plus - some is on the internet but not all the papers are on the internet. Some are data - Page after page of numbers. I had to go to the British Library to call up paper hard copies in order to sort it (and I was living in Dubai at the time!). You need these to make sense of the whole thing. Its a long while since I was on a forum (late 1990’s) promoting NTL (and yes that formula for H was there too) and as yet I cannot remember how to insert equations - if you ever could in those days! It may help Francois too for a full explanation Cheers Lyndon
p.s. you may get a faster reply if you could direct me to where the equations are!
BTW As a taster - from the internet
do you see a σ=2rλ? σ=collision cross section
I just need to explain f(2)
@tiredlyndon . >p.s. you may get a faster reply if you could direct me to where the equations are!
Oh well, now I see that you have them almost everywhere, with better explanation than where I was looking first. I’m sorry.
not forgotten you - I have two NTL projects on the go at present. reply soon
Hi, So lets look at collision cross sections for the NTL. Firstly we need to look at all the waffling that goes on with light. There are bulk properties but it all boils down to an individual photon interacting with a single electron. That is it and all that matters. NTL uses standard physics when a photon travels through glass it is absorbed and re-emitted by the atoms (basically the electrons in those atoms) absorbing and re-emitting photons. There is a delay between absorption and re-emission hence the speed of light in glass is less than it is in a vacuum. Photons travel at the speed of light between interactions but on average their speed in glass is less because the total time is greater due to the delays suffered by absorption re-emission. Same in the plasma of the IGM. How else can dispersion measure happen? Photons of long wavelength arrive after photons of shorter wavelength - so where have they been? Is einstein wrong? why do photons of long wavelength arrive after photons of shorter wavelength ? It is to do with the photon interactions with individual electrons, they are held over ie delayed. But to be delayed the electron has to store the photon energy as potential energy ie oscillate. The problem is ‘scientists’ are repeating a model of the IGM that was shown to be wrong over 50 year ago! The electrons are separated from the protons by the PE effect - UV etc acting on dust particles remove electrons. The protons are held fast on the dust particles but the electrons whiz off to fill the voids of the IGM. Once there they form Wigner Seitz BCC crystals held there by their mutual repulsion. They perform SHM about their equilibrium positions and absorb and re-emit photons with a delay. Photon comes in, sets the electron into oscillation (hf transferred to vibrational energy), bit of recoil and this energy is ‘lost’ to the photon but emitted as a secondary photon which forms the CMBR. Oscillating electron emits a new photon (again a bit of recoil and hence another CMBR photon) and overall the photon has been redshifted. The transmission of light or any other phenomena is just a case of a single photon interacting with a single electron. Any other theory is wrong! So, lets talk about collision cross-sections for NTL (or the transmission of photons with matter). Collision cross-sections are usually worked out theoretically which means one cannot trust them! I submitted NTL to several journals and I think it was 1998? (certainly after APJ said “never ever submit a paper to us again” and long before certain sites give a birthday of 2015 !) that I submitted to A&A. I received a nice thank you and a statement saying they would not publish the paper unless it had official, referenced collision cross-sections. Fair enough So, to be honest, I knew that for NTL to work the collision cross-section had to be 2rλ Hope I am not boring you with the history of NTL, but one day you can tell your grandchildren, Lyndon Ashmore told me this…. Why, Because redshift is independent of wavelength! There are over 100 tired light theories we are told and this single requirement sorts them out. Do they predict the same redshift for all wavelengths from a particular galaxy? This is the acid test. NTL passes it since the collision cross-section is dependent on the wavelength. Hence, a photon with twice the wavelength from a particular galaxy has twice the collision cross section, makes twice as many collisions, undergoes twice the loss of energy, experiences twice the drop in frequency and hence twice the increase in wavelength , The redshift = increase in wavelength / original wavelength is constant ie twice the original wavelength, twice the increase in wavelength gives the same value for all wavelengths. If anyone tries to sell you a tired light theory ask this question. But A&A wanted published collision cross sections. Anyway (for your grandchildren) , mad about astronomy and cosmology, I had set up an astronomy evening at school, over 100 kids parents etc coming , planetarium set up to give them a preview for what they were going to see. Three telescopes 8/9 inch reflectors with anyone else bringing their own. All set up and I had 2 hours to kill. So, thinks me, what if I typed in to a search engine ’sigma = 2rλ? (it was yahoo - just for your grandkids) ie a reverse search. What would it give? and it led me here here So, this is an indirect route but gets us there. Here at the Lawrence Berkely national laboratory they had had experimentally measured not the cross-section for transmission but for absorption for low energy X rays interacting with matter!. So here was a way in here So we don’t have the collision cross-section for transmission ie NTL but we do have it for absorption. Collision cross-sections are basically probabilities and you will see that the collision cross section has two components f(2) and 2rλ 2rλ is fixed and is the probability of the photon being absorbed in the first place and f(2) is the probability of it being retained ie absorbed. If you look at the data for f(2), f(2) has a value of 1 if the energy of the photon is equal to the energy of an energy level in a hydrogen atom and ‘0’ if it is well away. ie If energy of photon = an energy level then that photon it always absorbed. BUT if the energy of the photon is well away from any internal energy levels it is always re-emitted with a new photon. There are only two outcomes, either the photon is absorbed or it is re-emitted (NTL) . so, if the probability of the photon is being absorbed is f(2) then the probability of it being re-emitted (NTL) must be (1-f(2)) Radio, light is well away from the resonant frequency of the IGM (15Hz?) so f(2) is always ‘0’ s the probability of it being re-emitted as a new photon is ‘1’ and hence the overall collision cross-section for NTL is 2rλ!!!Hope this helps/ Lyndon BTW what did A&A say when I presented published collision cross-sections? ‘we only accept papers from professional ….’
Hi Lyndon. I’ve got a question. How are electrons spaced out in the IGM and what are they doing out there? Just sitting around? You mention BCC lattices, but I have a difficult time imagining them. In my understanding, plasma containing both electrons and ions is constantly moving due to the attractive and repulsive forces. But if I read your theory correctly, moving electrons don’t contribute to redshift. To absorb and reemit photons with recoil in the same direction, the electrons have to be chilling out with just SHM going on. But how do electrons get so far away from ions? If there are electron clouds just floating around in the IGM, how did they get there? Is this just a fundamental fact of the IGM? Or is it an assumption? Do we have evidence for relatively stationary electron clouds (other than redshift, that is)? I’m trying to picture gigantic electron clouds locked in a repulsive lattice with a single electron every two cubic meters? But when I get to the edges, I see the cloud falling apart as the repulsive force goes on forever. - Emanuel
Hi Emanuel, Thanks for your interest in NTL,
This idea of the IGM was shown to be wrong over 50 year ago. Please see my reply to Francois as I wrote at length on this with references.
The recoil is in opposite directions – forwards on absorption, backwards on re-emission.
There are no ions as such, the protons are fixed on the dust particles and the electrons are released and given KE by the photo electric effect which enables them to get far enough away.
How about the electron clouds formed around a hot wire in thermionic emission? These are in dynamic equilibrium where the rate of release is equal to the rate of return. There is a lot of work going on re Wigner crystals
The IGM plasma is overall neutral. The charge of the IGM as a whole is neutral. The point is, they are separated. The protons on the dust particles are providing attractive forces on the large scale to hold it together but locally, in the spaces between the +ve dust particles, the electrons are repelling each other are so arrange themselves on a BCC space lattice Hope this helps Cheers Lyndon Bringing cosmology back to Earth
Ok so the electrons get shot out of the dust particles and form clouds of BBC electron lattices. Is the density of these clouds one electron for every two meters? Or is that just the average density in space and the majority of space has none of these electron clouds? I also don’t understand how these clouds of free electrons can be held together by their “mutual repulsion” unless there was another force pushing them all together.
In any case, I’m not critiquing your theory, which I think is the best tired light theory around. Just wanting to understand the IGM better.
Oh wait. I think I just understood. The electron lattices are in between the ions in one big neutral plasma cloud. They are not in a separate electron-only cloud. That makes much more sense. Is this correct?
yep- the IGM is a dirty plasma with clouds of electrons interspersed with positive dust particles
The dust particles have up to a 1000 protons fixed on them and that means there are 1000 electrons in the spaces inbetween
Zoing! Ok so what’s the density of electrons in these clouds?
0.5 per m^3 gives the Hubble constant and everything else.
No! Chat GPT looks at old data. It does not re imagine the future. Put the chairs in BCC format
Actually, this is a serious scientific site. Pls don’t post things like this again Cheers Lyndon
Ok no problem.
Hello Lyndon, You write “The IGM plasma is overall neutral. The charge of the IGM as a whole is neutral. “ What evidence do you have for that? Thank you David
Hi David, In a word, none! I was presenting a paper on NTL at a general conference in Prague (Vigier) 2018? and as soon as I started hands started to go up (ignored by me till the end) as folk, as always, want to say ’can’t be right as IGM … plasma of electrons protons … blur.. etc and switch off. Usual stuff to reject tired light out of hand. Afterwards, one guy, John, came to me and said ‘I want to talk to you,’ OK, said I, lets go for a pint and I will buy. Instantly I had half a dozen professors of solid state physics (John), particle physicists, Cern physicists coming along in a positive way and not the usual negative way (for free beer!) The end result was John said ‘get rid of the protons and everything you say will work.’ He’s referenced in the paper but would not let me use his job title!! I said ‘you can’t do that!’ Why not.’ says he, ‘all you are doing is changing the potential of the universe.’ 50 years of teaching static electricity and emphasising ‘you don’t create charge, you separate it’ meant I wanted to keep the universe neutral with the protons ‘fixed’ on dust particles or around galaxies and the electrons able to fill the spaces in between. To get the delay between absorption and re-emission and with no blurring you need the electrons to crystallise and this they will do if you take away the protons (or separate them as in NTL) An IGM of hot overall neutral plasma will not allow this and would blur. This idea of the IGM was rejected by the particle physicists as crazy since the the electrons and protons ‘would simply, recombine.’ On researching this point I found the actual idea of an IGM consisting of a hot neural plasma had been rejected in the 1970’s So, no evidence just me liking to separate charges and I think a universe with an overall charge would lead to problems. But NTL would still work as long as there is an excess of electrons Cheers Lyndon
off topic but @tiredlyndon since you have made a paper titled: >A Relationship between Dispersion Measure and Redshift Derived in Terms of New Tired Light https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Relationship-between-Dispersion-Measure-and-in-of-Ashmore/76df669b6c564a272804bb727e22397d92b1fa58
As it has recently been released “the most accurate” local dispersion measure https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.22098
I was wondering how they result impacts your calculations on NTL
Not really, the problem with local FRB’s is that the uncertainties in the contribution from the MW and halo, plus the host contribution are around as big as the actual measured FRB! For instance in the paper you quote it says the simulation for the DM MW and halo vary from 18 to 166 pc m^-3 and yet the total DM’s measured vary from 87 to 283. so this implies the range of DM (IGM) varies from -75 to 265! BUT… we then have the contribution from the host galaxy which they have varying from 17 to 200 and this has to be deducted too! Enough said ? You need FRB’s to be at a decent distance so the uncertainties due to MW and halo and host have less effect. There are two models of the MW+halo and these can differ by 200 pc m^-3 in the value for the same FRB (workers seem to take the average) It was also good to see they estimate the electron number density of the IGM as approx 1 per cubic metre which compares well with NTL prediction of 0.5 Interesting though and thanks. It was quite exciting to see one paper in the refs saying they had 43 FRB’s but on closer inspection only 31 in the list had redshifts for the hosts, Always happy to receive data!
Here is a new repeating FRB with associated redshift https://phys.org/news/2024-11-astronomers-fast-radio.html
Thanks NTL predicted = 11x10^24 actual (with weighting for expansion removed ) =4.2x10^24 m^-2 In the ball park of DM =(2hr/mc)ln(1+z)
see attached DM versus ln(1+z) and not too far out (red dot) But if you look at fig 4 localisation pic the FRB is nowhere near the suggested host galaxy! Doc14.docx They say
So I take it this is not the host galaxy as it is too far away? If I see other workers using this as a ’well localised FRB then I will use it, if not …. But thanks again Keep going Lyndon
@tiredlyndon here are 92 localized FRBs https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.09260
Thanks for this, There were 64 useable FRB’s published before December and I updated the paper accordingly and am in the process of publishing a corrigendum to update it. It has passed peer review and is presently with the journal being type set and proof read. I will post a link when it is published. You will not be disappointed In the meantime I will keep updating as more and more FRB’s are localised. Lyndon
From: LifeIsStrange @.> Sent: 17 January 2025 04:09 To: a-cosmology-group/acg @.> Cc: tiredlyndon @.>; Mention @.> Subject: Re: [a-cosmology-group/acg] New Tired Light (NTL) (Discussion #277)
@tiredlyndonhttps://github.com/tiredlyndon here are 90! localized FRBs https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.09260
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/orgs/a-cosmology-group/discussions/277#discussioncomment-11862246, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BBMKPM5HTZHMAQJMXBXTYFL2LB66XAVCNFSM6AAAAABQG5UEM2VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43URDJONRXK43TNFXW4Q3PNVWWK3TUHMYTCOBWGIZDINQ. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
@tiredlyndon I’m eager to read your paper :) as you can see the FRBs are listed in table3, moreover, their are available in a machine readable format on their github: https://github.com/wangyy19/Localized-FRB-dataset
Hi LifeIsStrange, Thanks for the Links and thanks to Alessandro for converting the ‘machine readable’ to an ‘idiot readable’ excel doc for me to read! I have three graphs - one for each model of the MW’s DM (NE2001 & YMW16 and mean of the two). All the gradients are within 20-23% of the mc/2hr predicted value (7.32x10^25) But they have a negative value for the DM of the host galaxy - which is impossibe! Workers in this field believe the DM host to be 50-100 pc cm^-3 and I get ‘+49’ for the 64 FRBs (the new data has a couple of high z FRB’s which bias the data) . We need more FRB’s between 0.6 to 1.0 to be localised and fill the gap in the data So, when I set the intercept at 50 pc m^-3 the gradient is 8.01x10^25 - less than 10% from that predicted by NTL. R squared better than the graph for 64 FRB’s. Regards Lyndon [cid:e5805a0a-2b5e-49f9-9bad-180fda8d0250] Looks good though Lyndon BTW, this data is not just for NTL. Anyone with a photon - electron model can use it to test their theory. Just take their formula for distance - z in terms of the electron , make d the subject then equate it with ‘d’ from the DM distance formula. Does their gradient match? Anyone out there like to try it?
From: LifeIsStrange @.> Sent: 17 January 2025 13:11 To: a-cosmology-group/acg @.> Cc: tiredlyndon @.>; Mention @.> Subject: Re: [a-cosmology-group/acg] New Tired Light (NTL) (Discussion #277)
@tiredlyndonhttps://github.com/tiredlyndon I’m eager to read your paper :) as you can see the FRBs are listed in table3, moreover, their are available in a machine readable format on their github: https://github.com/wangyy19/Localized-FRB-dataset
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/orgs/a-cosmology-group/discussions/277#discussioncomment-11866845, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BBMKPM5WGXBQPUYZJX3UIRL2LD6QVAVCNFSM6AAAAABQG5UEM2VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43URDJONRXK43TNFXW4Q3PNVWWK3TUHMYTCOBWGY4DINI. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
That seems promising! Could you share screenshots of your graphs? I have mostly forgotten how NTL works.
You really get the Hubble constant from just this equation?
This seems like a remarkably simple and physically fundamental insight, have you tried to epistemologically quantify what are the odds to get within 20% of the correct value via such a simple formula with no free parameter? How much of a coincidence would it be that this is not the true tired light mechanism?
Also you are assuming that the electron density in the IGM/ISM has been constant since the beginning of the universe? How can this be coherent with the known increase in number of galaxies post “reionization” (~z=18)? The electron density should have increased over time as the total amount of photons emitted grew (I suppose)
While you are probably among the only ones to have had the possibly genius insight to derive the Hubble constant exclusively from known (probably) universal constants + the observationally determined electron number density, it is interesting to note that there is an alternative way to determine the Hubble constant from only universal constants! I’d like to bring to your attention this absolutely groundbreaking result: H0 can be determined purely from universal constants, without the electron number density, via incorporating the CMB temperature, which while it is not a constant, has been measured empirically with considerably higher accuracy, both locally, and up to z=6 (CMB temperature evolve with redshift (btw the proven evolution of CMB temperature is a proven evolution in the electron density from the CMB right (?) what percentage of the mean electrons are from the CMB radiation?)
In my opinion, deriving H0 purely from the known CMB temperature is the biggest breakthrough in cosmology of the decade
@HanDeBruijn friendly ping since the maths equations are amazing you gotta look at this!
precision at 0.001 %!!
If the semantic interpretation makes sense, they only have two sources of uncertainty: The G constant and the CMB temperature, both being already very well measured. Even if the semantics had issues (which ones?) then we would have a considerable coincidence problem at explaining why their simple calculation without free parameters gives nearnly exactly the known H0
Both you and them are doing something that is remarkable and considerably underatted: the prospects of doing Quantum Cosmology, of linking constants such as the planck scale to cosmological constants
the references in https://hal.science/hal-04269991v1/document are all about this nascent revolutionnary topic https://ijqf.org/archives/6599
@tiredlyndon
Where do you see that they get negative DM values of the host galaxies?
$\ $
We both know that NTL and STz are the only viable photon-electron-redshift models 😄 🤣 I’m working on it!
@LifeIsStrange . We have been going through very much the same stuff in thread 296. They all keep repeating themselves and I see no improvement in their argumentation.
I agree the topic is very similar though there are some curious differences:
I wonder why the difference in result and why the equations differs. Also they have new equations here https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10773-024-05570-6 Innovation is that they can not only calculate h0 from CMBtemp and G, but they can also calculate both planck length and CMBtemp from h0 (the converse) They also can calculate Rh, Th, Mc and shows new relations about the compton wavelength and planck length, that hint at fundamental insights and relations linking quantum physics with cosmological constants.
@LifeIsStrange It all evolves around equation (10) in this paper, equation (1) in this paper, equation (17) in this paper and one of the equations (7) in my discussion 296 comment. All I can see is even more obscure motivation of a result that is certainly surprising: the CMB temperature is the geometric mean of two Hawking temperatures, one for the (observable) universe and one for the Planck mass. That’s a nice finding but nobody understands why and there is not any real progress to report.
Not writing out the equations! Who are you and what have you done with @HanDeBruijn ?
That seems promising! Could you share screenshots of your graphs? I have mostly forgotten how NTL works. http://tiredlight.org/about.htm You really get the Hubble constant from just this equation? H=(2nhr/m)
Yes and with standard physics. The tiredlight.org site hasn’t really been set up (been busy with writing papers, conferenecs ..) try the old archived site for now http://www.lyndonashmore.com/tired_light_front_page.htm (2003) I have calmed down since then! This seems like a remarkably simple and physically fundamental insight, have you tried to epistemologically quantify what are the odds to get within 20% of the correct value via such a simple formula with no free parameter? How much of a coincidence would it be that this is not the true tired light mechanism?
I have no idea how to do this.
Also you are assuming that the electron density in the IGM/ISM has been constant since the beginning of the universe? How can this be coherent with the known increase in number of galaxies post “reionization” (~z=18)? The electron density should have increased over time as the total amount of photons emitted grew (I suppose)
Your stuck in the Big Bang mindset with the Universe expanding. Tired light is an explanation of redshifts in a static universe. There was no Big Bang, no expansion. The Universe is infinite and probably been here for all time - and thus the electron number density will be the same everywhere. To get these results I took the weighting out for expansion (they divide DM by [1+z]) that had been put into the Dispersion measure to return to the raw data.
While you are probably among the only ones to have had the possibly genius insight to derive the Hubble constant exclusively from known (probably) universal constants + the observationally determined electron number density, it is interesting to note that there is an alternative way to determine the Hubble constant from only universal constants!
Thanks for that! As for the rest, I never comment on other peoples theories Cheers Lyndon
From: LifeIsStrange @.> Sent: 19 January 2025 17:30 To: a-cosmology-group/acg @.> Cc: tiredlyndon @.>; Mention @.> Subject: Re: [a-cosmology-group/acg] New Tired Light (NTL) (Discussion #277)
That seems promising! Could you share screenshots of your graphs? I have mostly forgotten how NTL works.
http://tiredlight.org/about.htm
You really get the Hubble constant from just this equation?
H=(2nhr/m)
This seems like a remarkably simple and physically fundamental insight, have you tried to epistemologically quantify what are the odds to get within 20% of the correct value via such a simple formula with no free parameter? How much of a coincidence would it be that this is not the true tired light mechanism?
Also you are assuming that the electron density in the IGM/ISM has been constant since the beginning of the universe? How can this be coherent with the known increase in number of galaxies post “reionization” (~z=18)? The electron density should have increased over time as the total amount of photons emitted grew (I suppose)
While you are probably among the only ones to have had the possibly genius insight to derive the Hubble constant exclusively from known (probably) universal constants + the observationally determined electron number density, it is interesting to note that there is an alternative way to determine the Hubble constant from only universal constants! I’d like to bring to your attention this absolutely groundbreaking result: H0 can be determined purely from universal constants, without the electron number density, via incorporating the CMB temperature, which while it is not a constant, has been measured empirically with considerably higher accuracy, both locally, and up to z=6 (CMB temperature evolve with redshift (btw the proven evolution of CMB temperature is a proven evolution in the electron density from the CMB right (?) what percentage of the mean electrons are from the CMB radiation?)
In my opinion, deriving H0 purely from the known CMB temperature is the biggest breakthrough in cosmology of the decade
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=136677
We have improved uncertainty in the Hubble constant all the way down to 66.8712 ± 0.0019 km/s/Mpc based on data from one of the most recent CMB studies. Previous studies based on other methods have rarely reported an uncertainty much less than approximately ±1 km/s/Mpc for the Hubble constant.
precision at 0.001 %!!
If the semantic interpretation makes sense, they only have two sources of uncertainty: The G constant and the CMB temperature, both being already very well measured. Even if the semantics had issues (which ones?) then we would have a considerable coincidence problem at explaining why their simple calculation without free parameters gives nearnly exactly the known H0
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/orgs/a-cosmology-group/discussions/277#discussioncomment-11882837, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BBMKPM76DZSHSFZNOQMUSWD2LPOLJAVCNFSM6AAAAABQG5UEM2VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43URDJONRXK43TNFXW4Q3PNVWWK3TUHMYTCOBYGI4DGNY. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
My bad English . By ‘they’ I meant the graphs. Email playing up at present but I will try. The graphs in the paper https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=134962 for 23 FRBs has a decent positive intercept interpreted as the contribution to the DM by the Host galaxy of around 50 pc cm^-3 fine and the gradient was 10% below mc/2hr. When I included the recently localized 24th FRB at z=1 the intercept went negative - so I fixed it at 50 (in SI of course)
The we got to 64 data points and that was beautiful! No need to fix anything just plot raw data for static universe and the gradient was 2.8% off mc/2hr and the intercept was 49 pc cm^-3. This is why I decided to publish a corrigendum to the original paper giving the graphs, results with the new data. [cid:582f112d-75db-4dc9-b643-6cbdf647e153] So then we got the 92 FRBs and I did the graphs with all the data. One of the problems with DM is there are two models of the DM of the MW galaxy NE2001 and YMW16 and they are different. Look at FRB 180916B. It has a measured DM of 349.349 NE2001 gives the MW contribution as 199.0 whilst YMW16 gives it as 329.4 - for the same FRB! So I did one graph using the NE2001 model [cid:c4285237-eb6d-4fc2-b8a9-b1e48fd2ffc5] Notice the gradient is 23% higher than mc/2hr BUT it has a negative gradient ie negative DM for the host galaxy. Not possibe! This data includes 3 high z FRBs which are biasing the result - we need more data between z=0.6 and 1. I repeated this using the YMW16 model for the MW [cid:8492a3b5-7cf2-4af2-ba30-fbf7ee8825da] This is closer (20% higher) but still has a negative intercept. within 20% isn’t bad really but for nearby (the original 23 FRBs) ort the 64 FRB’s the intercept is the SI equivalent of 50pc cm^-3 so when I set the intercept at this we get [cid:65517b7b-4de8-4be6-acc1-2d79d2bd56af] The gradient is 8.01x10^25 compared to 7.35x10^25 (mc/2hr) a difference of 9% Cheers lyndon
From: Louis Marmet @.> Sent: 19 January 2025 19:35 To: a-cosmology-group/acg @.> Cc: tiredlyndon @.>; Mention @.> Subject: Re: [a-cosmology-group/acg] New Tired Light (NTL) (Discussion #277)
@tiredlyndonhttps://github.com/tiredlyndon
But they have a negative value for the DM of the host galaxy - which is impossibe!
Where do you see that theyhttp://arxiv.org/abs/2501.09260 get negative DM values of the host galaxies?
$\ $
Anyone with a photon - electron model can use it to test their theory.
We both know that NTL and STz are the only viable photon-electron-redshift models 😄 🤣 I’m working on it!
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/orgs/a-cosmology-group/discussions/277#discussioncomment-11883538, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BBMKPM5ODH7PHN4SQTDSAE32LP47LAVCNFSM6AAAAABQG5UEM2VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43URDJONRXK43TNFXW4Q3PNVWWK3TUHMYTCOBYGM2TGOA. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
@tiredlyndon the images you sent with your email do not appear on the github website. That’s ok, your descriptions are clear enough and I have your SCIRP paper. (If you wish to do so, you can add the images manually to your post by editing the post online and dragging the images into the text.)
As you write, workers in this field believe the DM host to be $50-100 \mbox{ pc cm}^{-3}$. I believe this is a bit too high, but this may not be surprising since that value comes from an IllustrisTNG simulation built to fit rapid growth of galaxies (with high matter densities) after a hypothesized Big Bang!
$\ $ I finished my analysis of the 92 FRBs. You were right, I am not disappointed!
I used a fit to both sets of data, MW models NE2001 and YMW16. I get a smaller DM for halo+host, but not a negative value. The big difference compared to your analysis is that I do not use a least-square fit because high-redshift and high-DM FRBs pull the curve up at high $z$ and lower the offset to negative values at $z = 0$. Instead, I use the shape of the scattered data points to find the best fit. (This has the advantage to avoid most outliers, incorrect FRB-galaxy associations, and the low statistical significance of the few FRBs at high redshifts.)
My FRB analysis is here, with the result $n_e = 0.29 \pm 13$% $\mbox{ electron/m}^3$.
We both know that NTL and STz are the only viable photon-electron-redshift models Of course!
From: Louis Marmet @.> Sent: 19 January 2025 19:35 To: a-cosmology-group/acg @.> Cc: tiredlyndon @.>; Mention @.> Subject: Re: [a-cosmology-group/acg] New Tired Light (NTL) (Discussion #277)
@tiredlyndonhttps://github.com/tiredlyndon
But they have a negative value for the DM of the host galaxy - which is impossibe!
Where do you see that theyhttp://arxiv.org/abs/2501.09260 get negative DM values of the host galaxies?
$\ $
Anyone with a photon - electron model can use it to test their theory.
We both know that NTL and STz are the only viable photon-electron-redshift models 😄 🤣 I’m working on it!
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/orgs/a-cosmology-group/discussions/277#discussioncomment-11883538, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BBMKPM5ODH7PHN4SQTDSAE32LP47LAVCNFSM6AAAAABQG5UEM2VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43URDJONRXK43TNFXW4Q3PNVWWK3TUHMYTCOBYGM2TGOA. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
I understood this thread is [a-cosmology-group/acg] New Tired Light (NTL) (Discussion #277) Can we stop trying to hijack this thread with expansionist ideas which are wrong. cheers Lyndon
From: LifeIsStrange @.> Sent: 19 January 2025 21:53 To: a-cosmology-group/acg @.> Cc: tiredlyndon @.>; Mention @.> Subject: Re: [a-cosmology-group/acg] New Tired Light (NTL) (Discussion #277)
I agree the topic is very similar though there are some curious differences:
Note: For, 2.72548 K, obtained 66.8624 km/sec/Mpc.
I wonder why the difference in result and why the equations differs. Also they have new equations here https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10773-024-05570-6 Innovation is that they can not only calculate h0 from CMBtemp and G, but they can also calculate both planck length and CMBtemp from h0 (the converse) They also can calculate Rh, Th, Mc and shows new relations about the compton wavelength and planck length, that hint at fundamental insights and relations linking quantum physics with cosmological constants.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/orgs/a-cosmology-group/discussions/277#discussioncomment-11884294, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BBMKPM7J5MTPGVYRLJP2P532LQNFNAVCNFSM6AAAAABQG5UEM2VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43URDJONRXK43TNFXW4Q3PNVWWK3TUHMYTCOBYGQZDSNA. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
You were right,
Music to my ears Lyndon
From: Louis Marmet @.> Sent: 21 January 2025 23:02 To: a-cosmology-group/acg @.> Cc: tiredlyndon @.>; Mention @.> Subject: Re: [a-cosmology-group/acg] New Tired Light (NTL) (Discussion #277)
@tiredlyndonhttps://github.com/tiredlyndon the images you sent with your email do not appear on the github websitehttps://github.com/orgs/a-cosmology-group/discussions/277#discussioncomment-11884243. That’s ok, your descriptions are clear enough and I have your SCIRP paper. (If you wish to do so, you can add the images manually to your posthttps://github.com/orgs/a-cosmology-group/discussions/277#discussioncomment-11884243 by editing the post online and dragging the images into the text.)
As you write, workers in this field believe the DM host to be $50-100 \mbox{ pc cm}^{-3}$. I believe this is a bit too high, but this may not be surprising since that value comes from an IllustrisTNG simulationhttps://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abaa4a built to fit rapid growth of galaxies (with high matter densities) after a hypothesized Big Bang!
$\ $ I finished my analysis of the 92 FRBs. You were right, I am not disappointedhttps://github.com/orgs/a-cosmology-group/discussions/277#discussioncomment-11864369!
I used a fit to both sets of data, MW models NE2001 and YMW16. I get a smaller DM for halo+host, but not a negative value. The big difference compared to your analysis is that I do not use a least-square fit because high-redshift and high-DM FRBs pull the curve up at high $z$ and lower the offset to negative values at $z = 0$. Instead, I use the shape of the scattered data points to find the best fit. (This has the advantage to avoid most outliers, incorrect FRB-galaxy associations, and the low statistical significance of the few FRBs at high redshifts.)
My FRB analysis is herehttps://github.com/orgs/a-cosmology-group/discussions/281#discussioncomment-11908600, with the result $n_e = 0.29 \pm 13$% $\mbox{ electron/m}^3$.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/orgs/a-cosmology-group/discussions/277#discussioncomment-11908613, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BBMKPM5AZVXBVOP2JGFZ6TT2L3GW7AVCNFSM6AAAAABQG5UEM2VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43URDJONRXK43TNFXW4Q3PNVWWK3TUHMYTCOJQHA3DCMY. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>