I don't think space is expanding.

Status
Not open for further replies.
That is indeed my understanding.
We are either in the exact center or it is unknowable the size, but I read that it is likely to be at least 256 times bigger than our observable universe.

In volume or in radius?



BTW, as far as the light from distant galaxies goes, my understanding is that from the perspective of the light itself, a journey of billions of light years takes no time at all. From our perspective it takes billions of years, but for the light, since it moves at the speed of light, time does not exist for it. So it wouldn't really get "tired" since for the light, no time at all has passed.
 
The spectrum has to come from somewhere.

Right.

But I'm asking about a single photon, that's not making a straight line from its source (bounced off some dust or whatever).

What is the difference between that photon, and a black body spectrum?
 
Right.

But I'm asking about a single photon, that's not making a straight line from its source (bounced off some dust or whatever).

What is the difference between that photon, and a black body spectrum?

And I gave you an answer already.

Do you even know what a spectrum is? Because I’m starting to wonder.
 
The field of cosmology would have to change, which is a given anyways:
Oh yeah, it was always a given. Scientific explanations are always provisional, pending new observations and better models.

Anyway, I'm okay with that. Cosmology probably won't have to change very much, since all the current observations and accurate predictions will still be there. And even if cosmology does change a lot, it won't change much in our daily lives anyway. Computers will still work. Radios will still work. Medicines will still work. The sun will still shine. Gravity will still gravitate. Etc.

So, cool. The field of cosmology changes. Sounds good to me. So what's your next step? Are you planning to sit down with some cosmologists and tell them what you've figured out? Cosmology probably won't have to change until cosmologists know what you know.
 
Asking someone that proposes an ATM idea to support it is not bullying.

Clearly I see it differently. There's a continuum between polite disinterest, aggressive chew-toying, and the rather draconian "thirty days in the hole, one strike and you're out, this is your only chance, 'ware the banhammer" approach adopted by Cosmoquest.

And I get it. Cosmoquest has good reasons for this policy. It certainly helps that there's always a few people hanging around looking for a crackpot to bully, though.

Hell, the fact that the term "chew toy" even exists among debunkers, and conversations are had about how boring it is without them and how it's important to keep them around because of how amusing it is to poke them... You can call it whatever you like. I'm going to call it bullying.
 
In my paper, it is claimed the frequency and wavelength of a photon are not fundamental, and can be omitted from the model, since they can be recovered at any time given its distance and initial energy using my hypothesis, wave speed formula, and photon energy formula.

Photons

This model represents light at the individual photon level. It's not a quantum theory, nor is it a relativistic theory, but it's also not completely classical. To illustrate, the photon was defined as having a distance from its source.


Code:
photon = {
    distance: 0
}

Where is this photon? It doesn't have an (x,y,z) coordinate. Instead, it occupies every point around its source at the specified distance. It's not a classical particle or wave in this form.

Later, we added velocity, frequency, and wavelength to the photon.

Code:
photon = {
    distance: 0, 
    velocity: 1, 
    frequency: 6e5, 
    wavelength: 499.65
}

For the purposes of this model, the photon actually only needs distance and energy.

Code:
photon = {
    distance: 0, 
    energy: 2.48, 
}

We know from classical mechanics that the speed of a wave is its frequency × wavelength. In quantum mechanics the energy of a photon is frequency × Planck's constant (h). And hypothesis 1 says the speed of a photon is c - H × D. Given these formulas:

Code:
    speed of a photon     v = c - H × D
    speed of wave         v = f × w 
    energy of a photon    E = h × f
the photon's velocity, frequency, and wavelength can be determined at any time from its distance and initial energy.

However, those values don't need to be there at all times, and since the photon is a quantum particle, they probably shouldn't be there until we need them.

What we know about a photon we determine from its interaction with a measurement apparatus, not because we can observe it in-flight.

We know that a red-shifted photon will deliver less energy than it started out with. Assuming the ratio of energy observed to energy emitted is the same ratio as the photon's velocity to c, we can calculate the observed energy of a photon using just the photon's original energy and the distance from its source:



Code:
E_observed = E_emitted × v/c 
E_observed = E_emitted × (c - H × D)/c

And if we put that over Planck's constant (h) we get the new red-shifted frequency of the photon:

Code:
    frequency_observed = (E_emitted × (c - H × D)/c) / h
The photon's distance from where it was emitted is crucial to keep in mind at all times. Consider light that has traveled billions of years to reach your telescope. The light enters the lens, gets focused to the eyepiece, and then into your eyeball.

Seems pretty straightforward. But at some level, some type of interaction with the light and the lens must be focusing the light. At the quantum level, the photon will have been absorbed by atoms in the lens. Then it is re-emitted (or an entirely new photon is emitted), and focused to your telescope's eyepiece.

The photon may have traveled great distances from its source before it encountered your telescope, but the light inside the telescope will be very close to its source: the lens that focused it. The distance to the source of the photons in the telescope will be less than a meter, not millions of light years.

In that case the refreshed photon will be traveling at c, which now results in an elongated wavelength when calculated.
 
There are multiple obvious problems with your model. For one thing, it doesn't conserve energy, which is a problem in and of itself, but let's set that aside for a moment. The second obvious problem is that it cannot be stable in time, because photon frequencies can act as a clock. If the frequency you receive at is decreased compared to the frequency it was emitted at, then you will be observing their clock as slowed compared to your own. And that obviously cannot lead to static situations, which seems to be what you're trying to create. You cannot get around this frequency downshift problem if the frequencies are to remain coherent.

There is one way out of that problem, which is to allow decoherence. But the only way to do that is to scatter the photons into different directions, not simply to downshift their frequencies. But while such a solution might have internal consistency, it doesn't match observation, because that would lead to blurring of any distant objects. And we can see distant galaxies even billions of light years away without any blurring.

Lastly, of course, this cannot reproduce the CMB, because even as postulated, it only downshifts an existing spectrum. But the existing spectra of stars and galaxies and dust isn't aren't blackbody spectra, so downshifting them cannot produce a blackbody spectra.

In other words, this is a complete nonstarter. It's just plain wrong.
 
For one thing, it doesn't conserve energy, which is a problem in and of itself, but let's set that aside for a moment.

If the photon loses energy as it travels intergalactic distances, that energy can just be deposited in space.

In the expanding model, it's lost, period. Sean Carroll says:

>The thing about photons is that they redshift, losing energy as space expands. If we keep track of a certain fixed number of photons, the number stays constant while the energy per photon decreases, so the total energy decreases. A decrease in energy is just as much a “violation of energy conservation” as an increase in energy, but it doesn’t seem to bother people as much. At the end of the day it doesn’t matter how bothersome it is, of course — it’s a crystal-clear prediction of general relativity.

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/

If conservation of energy is a problem, then my hypothesis offers a solution while expanding models do not.

The second obvious problem is that it cannot be stable in time, because photon frequencies can act as a clock. If the frequency you receive at is decreased compared to the frequency it was emitted at, then you will be observing their clock as slowed compared to your own.

Well, that's true in expanding models too.

And that obviously cannot lead to static situations, which seems to be what you're trying to create. You cannot get around this frequency downshift problem if the frequencies are to remain coherent.

Frequency isn't fundamental to my model of photons. It doesn't exist in the model, though you can recover it based on what is in the model, energy and distance.

Lastly, of course, this cannot reproduce the CMB, because even as postulated, it only downshifts an existing spectrum. But the existing spectra of stars and galaxies and dust isn't aren't blackbody spectra, so downshifting them cannot produce a blackbody spectra.

The CMB is probably just the derelict energy discarded by the photons.

Their source appears to be a black body because their source is photon decay.
 
If the photon loses energy as it travels intergalactic distances, that energy can just be deposited in space.

In what form?

In the expanding model, it's lost, period.

No, it isn't. Space itself has energy under general relativity, and that energy changes with expansion. This is all included already.

If conservation of energy is a problem, then my hypothesis offers a solution while expanding models do not.

No, the expanding models do. Your description so far does not. You could add some mechanism for the dissipation of that energy, but you haven't described any yet.

Well, that's true in expanding models too.

Yes, that is true, but it's not a problem in the expansion model because the expansion model is obviously not static. You're trying to create static conditions, but that isn't possible if clocks are getting out of sync with each other.

Frequency isn't fundamental to my model of photons. It doesn't exist in the model, though you can recover it based on what is in the model, energy and distance.

Then your model is wrong, because frequency is fundamental to actual photons. Hell, you don't even have to go to the quantum level. Imagine a giant ball of charge, that you move from the north pole to the south pole of the earth and back. That movement will create electromagnetic waves. Those waves will propagate, and the frequency will match how fast you moved that ball of charge from the north pole to the south pole and back. With a big telescope, you can even watch that big ball of charge move. And what you see will be in sync with the waves it produces. That forms a clock, with each tick being a cycle.

If that tick is shifted to lower frequency, as you claim, then the clock is running slower. There is no way around that.

The CMB is probably just the derelict energy discarded by the photons.

It cannot be. As I already stated, if photons are discarding energy by creating other photons, well, not only does that violate conservation of momentum, but it creates blurring. And there is no blurring. We can see that.

Their source appears to be a black body because their source is photon decay.

Again, you clearly don't understand what a black body is. Photons are not black bodies. Photons do not absorb other photons.
 
ETA: Oops. Ninja'd
Mike Helland said:
If the photon loses energy as it travels intergalactic distances, that energy can just be deposited in space.
In what form? This should leave some evidence. Photons don't just discard energy. And you have to remember they have both energy and momentum which both need to be conserved.

Mike Helland said:
The CMB is probably just the derelict energy discarded by the photons.
But you keep glossing over the spectrum. Not only do you have no mechanism for photons discarding energy, you don't have mechanism that causes that discarded energy to become a perfect black body spectrum.

Mike Helland said:
In the expanding model, it's lost, period.
Maybe. Whether energy is conserved across all the time and space of the universe/cosmos goes beyond our current validation of our laws. However, energy is also a relative concept. Different observers will disagree about where energy is present in a system. Further, the universe contains gravitational potential energy that is changing across time. This point isn't as simple as you think.
 
No, it isn't. Space itself has energy under general relativity, and that energy changes with expansion. This is all included already.

Just to be totally clear, are you saying Sean Carroll is wrong when he says:

The thing about photons is that they redshift, losing energy as space expands. If we keep track of a certain fixed number of photons, the number stays constant while the energy per photon decreases, so the total energy decreases. A decrease in energy is just as much a “violation of energy conservation” as an increase in energy, but it doesn’t seem to bother people as much. At the end of the day it doesn’t matter how bothersome it is, of course — it’s a crystal-clear prediction of general relativity.

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com...not-conserved/

?
 
In what form? This should leave some evidence.

It leaves behind an energy signature we observe as the CMB.

Photons don't just discard energy.

It is an observed fact that they redshift, which is a decrease in energy.

We don't think they decay, but that doesn't mean they don't.


And you have to remember they have both energy and momentum which both need to be conserved.

Yeah, energy and speed is deducted from the photon and deposited in its path.


Not only do you have no mechanism for photons discarding energy, you don't have mechanism that causes that discarded energy to become a perfect black body spectrum.

If a photon's velocity is a fundamental principle of nature, then nature is its mechanism.

Tired light theories try to find a cause of the redshift.

My theory (suggested by Edwin Hubble) is that the redshifts we observe are not a an effect of some phenomenon, but a fundamental phenomenon itself.
 
It leaves behind an energy signature we observe as the CMB.

You have no model of how this happens, you're just waving your hands.

My theory (suggested by Edwin Hubble) is that the redshifts we observe are not a an effect of some phenomenon, but a fundamental phenomenon itself.

You aren't understanding the objection, which is that you can't even describe this phenomenon. Where is the energy going? You say it's creating the CMB, but that doesn't suffice. Why would this continuous energy loss create a thermal spectrum? It isn't a blackbody, so why would it create radiation like a blackbody? And why at that temperature? All you're doing is waving your hands.

And again, you haven't solved other fundamental problems with your theory, such as the fact that it would cause blurring. Thus it is already contradicted by observation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom