cmacq, a few questions and comments.
Not quite, since light still does certainly behave as a wave in the right circumstances. The major consequence of Compton's discovery was the idea of wave-particle duality, an idea which is anathema to classical theories but no problem in quantum mechanics.Compton's experiment convinced physicists that light behaves as a stream of particles
Here's where my main problem lies; if the photon is being repeatedly Compton scattered by electrons throughout its journey, and each scattering event introduces a random change in its direction, how come the light from such sources all arrives at the Earth coming from the same direction? At present the only significant limit on the clarity with which astronomical objects can be resolved is the optics of the telescope itself; if the light from such sources is being repeatedly scattered off the intervening medium enough to induce a significant redshift, at best they would appear as a fuzzy blob, at worst we would not be able to see them at all because it would be similar to trying to do astronomy through thick fog.Herein, the physical mechanics of the CE represent an interaction between electrons and high energy photons that result in the transference of energy, realized as the retraction of the electrons and a directional change of the photons that remain charged, so that the overall momentum is conserved.
Not strictly true according to General Relativity. According to this theory, the red shift is caused by the sun's gravitational well; since photons from the sun must climb out of the well to reach us, their energy is reduced by an amount equal to the depth of the potential well. Since a fundamental principle of GR is the equivalence of gravitational and inertial acceleration, this redshift really is the same as if the sun were moving away from us.Our sun’s red shift is obviously not due to the Doppler Effect, as it’s not moving away from us.
So since you are suggesting that this redshift is in fact caused by the Compton effect, are you also rejecting General Relativity in addition to the BBT? That's a big assertion and probably one worthy of a thread of its very own. While the BBT certainly does rely on General Relativity (or in some cases proposed extensions of it) the reverse is not true.
I suspect we may have to agree to differ on that. I'm afraid it just doesn't seem likely to me that the Compton effect could be causing a significant shift in energy without also introducing a significant random deflection in direction which is simply not observed.Thus, because of the variables the CE convincingly removes the DE as an explanation of the observed red shift phenomenon, as a proof of the BBT.
I await your reply with interest.
Bookmarks