I don't think space is expanding.

Status
Not open for further replies.
hecd2 said:
Thank you for making my point for me. People have different perspectives but it's simply not a settled question in the way you would like it to be.
Click to expand...

Ok. This particular topic was the result of my comment "I think it's obvious" the CMB measurements are wrong, mainly because I don't think the CMB is actually cosmological.

Hey.

So this thing about light reflecting off a mirror. If I were to say the photon gains wavelength and speed off the mirror, that's a a violation of the conservation of momentum any way you look at it.

Unless...........


..... unless you're considering the violation of the conservation of momentum earlier in the system when the photon redshifts.

Violation at the beginning (where did it go!?) and violation at the end (where did it come from!?)

Hmmmmmmmm.

Cm'on. Tell me that ain't kind of interesting.
 
Mike Helland said:
They represent any differences in the paths to their neighbors.

Sometimes the S points straight up.

Is the S and the resulting line between its endpoints not supposed to literally and visually show the angle in the underlying coordinate system?

In this image it doesn't seem to do that.

So if the clock hands show just the relative different between the paths, what's the final step to transform those differences into a line from 0,0 (top left) to an angle at the mirror?

It seems there has to be some kind reference point.
Click to expand...
OK, so we need to bear in mind that what we are doing here is a cartoon, and to fully understand what is going on there is no substitute for following the formal theory through the mathematics. What we are doing here illustrates the principle in a gross kind of way, but it's a benevolent fiction for those who don't understand quantum probability amplitudes, how to integrate complex functions or even how to add complex numbers.

So what Feynman did was to quantise the classical action principle (the same principle from which Fermat's least time principle can be derived, and from which, in turn, Snell's law can be derived) and to show that the quantum probability amplitude for a path from one space-like point to another is the integral of the contributions from all possible paths between the points.

The contribution of each path is a complex number, which in this case (photon propagation) can be shown to be ~e^ikL where k is the wavenumber and L is the path length. What our cartoon shows is that adding together the contribution from each path means adding a complex number which can be represented by a rotating vector where the length of the vector represents the modulus of the complex number (all are the same in this case) and the direction of the vector represents the argument of the complex number. To find the argument of the complex number, the rotating vector is made to rotate once per wavelength over the path. The probability amplitude summed over all paths (or in the cartoon case over a few paths) is the integral of all these complex numbers in path space - the resultant figure in the cartoon is the thing with scrolls at each end. The length of that is the modulus of the resultant probability amplitude - the direction of the arrow is the resultant argument and is physically unimportant (because to get something physically meaningful we square the modulus) so you can ignore it.

So, the question is which, of all the possible paths, contribute to the modulus of the resultant; and the answer is that it is the path where the argument of the complex number (the phase) is stationary and paths very nearby (stationary means the path where the change in the argument of the complex number - the phase - is zero as a result of small changes in the path). Once you get away from that path, the scrolls get tighter and tighter, not contributing to the modulus of the resultant. It turns out that the path where the phase is stationary is just the classical path which embodies Snell's law. But that's true not just for reflection but for all of optics - the sum over paths reduces to the classical law in the case of many photons.

So you want to know what will happen if the wavelength changes on reflection, which is your case of a slowed photon before reflection? I should imagine it wouldn't be that difficult for you to incorporate that into your github program, simply by increasing the distance for each rotation of the spinning vector after reflection.
 
Last edited:
hecd2 said:
So you want to know what will happen if the wavelength changes on reflection, which is your case of a slowed photon before reflection? I should imagine it wouldn't be that difficult for you to incorporate that into your github program, simply by increasing the distance for each rotation of the spinning vector after reflection.
Click to expand...

Yep. It reproduces Snell's law.

Thank you. I've known about "the clock thingies" for a long time, but never actually reproduced it.

And it works as promised. So that's cool.

What I did was use two clocks per photon, one for the first wavelength and one for the second.

This shows that in the first wave of photons, the ones nearest to the source aren't canceled out, and of the second wave of photons the ones closest to the observer aren't canceled out. I don't supposed you could average the two and the call the center the point the reflection point. ;-) (edit: actually, it's still lob sided compared to a single wavelength)

If a single clock is used, Snell's law comes out.
 
Last edited:
Mike Helland said:
Ok. This particular topic was the result of my comment "I think it's obvious" the CMB measurements are wrong, mainly because I don't think the CMB is actually cosmological.

Hey.

So this thing about light reflecting off a mirror. If I were to say the photon gains wavelength and speed off the mirror, that's a a violation of the conservation of momentum any way you look at it.

Unless...........


..... unless you're considering the violation of the conservation of momentum earlier in the system when the photon redshifts.

Violation at the beginning (where did it go!?) and violation at the end (where did it come from!?)

Hmmmmmmmm.

Cm'on. Tell me that ain't kind of interesting.
Click to expand...
Except that redshift is a change of frequency not wavelength. I thought you were proposing that speed and frequency fall with distance while wavelength remains constant (but see below).

And this is the one inconsistency that lies at the heart of your idea. You need frequency to change to get a redshift. But frequency cannot change in a static universe where the distance between source and observer is constant.
 
hecd2 said:
Except that redshift is a change of frequency not wavelength. I thought you were proposing that speed and frequency fall with distance while wavelength remains constant (but see below).

And this is the one inconsistency that lies at the heart of your idea. You need frequency to change to get a redshift. But frequency cannot change in a static universe where the distance between source and observer is constant.
Click to expand...

This is what I've been able to boil it down to:

The decelerating photon hypothesis is that cosmological redshifts indicate new physics for a photon:

1. A photon loses frequency as it travels cosmological distances, but with no change to wavelength, resulting in a loss of speed, according to v=c/(1+HD)2
2. The energy of a photon absorbed by matter is emitted as a new photon with D=0, and therefore v=c and an elongated wavelength.

Taken on their own, each phenomenon would constitute a violation of the conservation of momentum. First losing momentum when the photon redshifts. Second, gaining momentum when the photon is absorbed and re-emitted. Together, however, the momentum lost during redshifting is recovered when the photon is absorbed and re-emitted to begin a new journey.

In this interpretation of the redshifts, the frequency decreases while the photon is in flight, and the wavelength increases at the beginning of a new photon's journey. This is different than the expanding theory where frequency and wavelength change together without changing the photon's velocity.
 
Mike Helland said:
What I did was use two clocks per photon, one for the first wavelength and one for the second.
This shows that in the first wave of photons, the ones nearest to the source aren't canceled out, and of the second wave of photons the ones closest to the observer aren't canceled out. I don't supposed you could average the two and the call the center the point the reflection point. ;-) (edit: actually, it's still lob sided compared to a single wavelength)

If a single clock is used, Snell's law comes out.
Click to expand...
Re the highlight - no. You need one clock which changes rotation rate on reflection and preserves the vector argument on reflection. If you believe me now you don't have to do it - it'll produce the same result as our geometric construction of a couple of week's back - and a violation of Snell's law.

So, the fact is that straw you were grasping which was to to say that QM will come to your aid has disappeared. So now will you admit that if your idea is right then the HST won't work beyond some very close distance. And it does, so your idea is wrong? Without caveat or wriggle?
 
Mike Helland said:
This is what I've been able to boil it down to:

The decelerating photon hypothesis is that cosmological redshifts indicate new physics for a photon:

1. A photon loses frequency as it travels cosmological distances, but with no change to wavelength, resulting in a loss of speed, according to v=c/(1+HD)2
2. The energy of a photon absorbed by matter is emitted as a new photon with D=0, and therefore v=c and an elongated wavelength.

Taken on their own, each phenomenon would constitute a violation of the conservation of momentum. First losing momentum when the photon redshifts. Second, gaining momentum when the photon is absorbed and re-emitted. Together, however, the momentum lost during redshifting is recovered when the photon is absorbed and re-emitted to begin a new journey.

In this interpretation of the redshifts, the frequency decreases while the photon is in flight, and the wavelength increases at the beginning of a new photon's journey. This is different than the expanding theory where frequency and wavelength change together without changing the photon's velocity.
Click to expand...
Do you understand the definition of momentum for a photon. If wavelength doesn't change, does momentum?

ETA: and frequency CANNOT change in a static situation.
 
hecd2 said:
So, the fact is that straw you were grasping which was to to say that QM will come to your aid has disappeared. So now will you admit that if your idea is right then the HST won't work beyond some very close distance. And it does, so your idea is wrong? Without caveat or wriggle?
Click to expand...


Of course. There' no way out. There's no wiggle room. And no one would be stupid enough to think otherwise.

Except me.

One caveat:

I devise an even more "complete" model of light and matter that produces QED, Fermat's least time principle, Snell's law and also shows that a "reinvigorated" photon would reflect at the same angle as a photon that always traveled at c.
 
Mike Helland said:
Of course. There' no way out. There's no wiggle room. And no one would be stupid enough to think otherwise.

Except me.

One caveat:

I devise an even more "complete" model of light and matter that produces QED, Fermat's least time principle, Snell's law and also shows that a "reinvigorated" photon would reflect at the same angle as a photon that always traveled at c.
Click to expand...
Of course. When you do that we’ll take you seriously. Until then, not so much.
 
hecd2 said:
Do you understand the definition of momentum for a photon. If wavelength doesn't change, does momentum?
Click to expand...

E=pc

Also

E=hf

So:

pc=hf

And c=fw

So

pfw = hf

pw = h

p = h/w


When the photon redshifts, if it loses frequency and gains wavelength, everything is cool.

But if they lost frequency first, then gained wavelength later, there'd be a time when both:

E=hf

and

E=hc/w

can't both be true...
 
Mike Helland said:
The debate on how to interpret the redshifts.
Click to expand...
So this is not a debate, Mike Helland
Hubble never debunked the physics that the redshift was explained by an expanding averse. He had a personal belief that there was no expanding universe..

After the war, the debate about the redshift was there but not much. As you write, along came the Steady-state model which was never as supported as the Big Bang. That added a "creation field" to create hydrogen atoms and force the universe to be homogeneous and isotropic in both space and time. The problems with it actually started before the CMB was discovered. Finding quasars that did not occurred locally was the first nail in that coffin.

Then the CMB basically put the nail in the coffin of all static universe models. You know this :eek:.
  • The temperature of the CMB matches a universe expanding from a hot dense state.
  • The perfect black body spectrum says the CMB was emitted from a hot dense state.
  • The fluctuations in the CMB match quantum fluctuations in a hot, dense universe.
  • The temperature of the CMB is measured to vary with distance matching an expanding universe.
Going back to the original question will not happen soon because there is overwhelming physical evidence that the universe is expanding that would need explaining first. What is the evidence for the Big Bang?
The evidence for the Big Bang comes from many pieces of observational data that are consistent with the Big Bang. None of these prove the Big Bang, since scientific theories are not proven. Many of these facts are consistent with the Big Bang and some other cosmological models, but taken together these observations show that the Big Bang is the best current model for the Universe. These observations include:
  • The darkness of the night sky - Olbers' paradox.
  • The Hubble Law - the linear distance vs redshift law. The data are now very good.
  • Homogeneity - fair data showing that our location in the Universe is not special.
  • Isotropy - very strong data showing that the sky looks the same in all directions to 1 part in 100,000.
  • Time dilation in supernova light curves.
The observations listed above are consistent with the Big Bang or with the Steady State model, but many observations support the Big Bang over the Steady State:
  • Radio source and quasar counts vs. flux. These show that the Universe has evolved.
  • Existence of the blackbody CMB. This shows that the Universe has evolved from a dense, isothermal state.
  • Variation of TCMB with redshift. This is a direct observation of the evolution of the Universe.
  • Deuterium, 3He, 4He, and 7Li abundances. These light isotopes are all well fit by predicted reactions occurring in the First Three Minutes.
Finally, the angular power spectrum of the CMB anisotropy that does exist at the several parts per million level is consistent with a dark matter dominated Big Bang model that went through the inflationary scenario.
Click to expand...
 
Mike Helland said:
If I were to say the photon gains wavelength and speed off the mirror, that's a a violation of the conservation of momentum any way you look at it.
Click to expand...
If you said that, you would be very wrong, Mike Helland.
Photons do not gain speed by reflecting off a mirror. They always travel at c.
Photons do not change wavelength when reflecting off a perfect mirror. Real mirrors absorb some photons and emit them in different wavelengths.
Any momentum that light loses, the mirror gains. That is how light sails work.
 
Last edited:
Mike Helland said:
..according to v=c/(1+HD)2
Click to expand...
10 March 2021: Mike Helland makes a high school science error (Therefore "c - c/(1+HD)2" is a high school science error).
10 March 2021: The total idiocy that he can change the units of Hubble's constant!

v=HD means that Hubble's content has the units of inverse time. Change the units and it is not Hubble's contact :jaw-dropp! If you were to change c to have the units of kilograms, it is not longer a speed. If you were to change the units of G to be joules, it is no longer the gravitational content.
 
Mike Helland said:
Taken on their own, each phenomenon would constitute a violation of the conservation of momentum. First losing momentum when the photon redshifts. Second, gaining momentum when the photon is absorbed and re-emitted. Together, however, the momentum lost during redshifting is recovered when the photon is absorbed and re-emitted to begin a new journey.
Click to expand...
Some nonsense about momentum and cosmological redshift, Mike Helland
Cosmological redshift by definition is the loss of momentum :eye-poppi. This is a photon. The energy and momentum of a photon depend on its wavelength. Photons are emitted by a galaxy and arrive here red shifted. They have lost energy and momentum. You need to to explain where they went.

Scattering is not an explanation. When a photon is absorbed and reemitted, its momentum remains the same unless its wavelength changes. In that case, the momentum lost or gained is gained or lost by whatever absorbed and emitted the photon. We call this scattering (look up Compton or Thompson scattering). The photon can end up red or blue shifted.
 
Blindly adds his high school error/change of Hubble's constant units to his web page.

This is mostly a derail from the errors on his web page and in his ideas which as been revamped.
2 February 2021: The major problems with the section start with Mike Helland has emphasized that he has no idea how old the universe is ("indefinite" age) (updated)
2 February 2021:" Why the "The CMB indicates a hot past" section is still very wrong (the CMB has properties that say it is cosmic)
8 March 2021: An idiotic "Size of the universe" section on Mike Helland's web page. (no size of the universe!) - seems to have vanished?

8 March 2021: Ignorant "Tolman Surface Brightness Test" section on Mike Helland's web page.
The Tolman Surface Brightness Test result is that all static universe theories are wrong.

"New Physics for Photons" section.
15 March 2021: Blindly adds his high school error/change of Hubble's constant units to his web page.

"This is the Tired Light Theory, which is discredited". This is true. Any theory in which light just redshifts (loses energy ) without a cause is a tired light theory. Mike Helland has a tired light theory and tired light theories have been discredited.

"The CMB indicates a hot past"
Still the same fantasy about redshifted photons producing the CMB.

"The farthest galaxies are younger than nearby galaxies, indicating a beginning of time"
This is true and debunks his idea :eye-poppi.

15 March 2021: The "General Relativity" section is nonsensical.
Light cones are always cones.
"space expands the null geodesic for all photons" is almost gibberish. A null geodesic is the path photons always travel. GR says that mass and energy bend the null geodesic. Thus we see gravitational lensing. That is the only "expanding" happening.
A "begins on the null geodesic, but then diverges" fantasy. All massless particle follow a null geodesic. This is true in both SR and GR. It is having no mass that makes the geodesic null (its distance is zero, it has no proper time interval).
Cannot keep his ideas consistent - " v=c-HD"!
The "indefinitely old universe" nonsense.


15 March 2021: An ignorant "Quantum Mechanics" section.
He cannot even spell Feynman correctly! A Feynman diagram is not a made up cartoon. A Feynman diagram is a representation of the mathematics of quantum mechanics.This is QM where the speed of a photon is always c.

I wrote Indefinite might be unknown but who knows what it means to him?
He replied quoting Hubble six times comparing finite to indefinite (infinite) which lead to 8 March 2021: The fantasy of "indefinite" = infinite on Mike Helland's web page..
Then he ignored what he quoted with "If I meant something was infinite, I'd say that" and we are left with
8 March 2021: Whatever Mike Helland thinks "indefinite" means on Mike Helland's web page. :eye-poppi.l If it means unknown he cannot say anytrging about the age of the universe :eek:.
 
Last edited:
Mike Helland, where does the energy lost by red shifted photons in your idea go

Mike Helland said:
You seem to know a lot.

You tell me where they go.
Click to expand...
No. Basic scholarship. It is up to the person proposing an idea to support their idea.
Mike Helland, where does the energy lost by red shifted photons in your idea go?
 
Reality Check said:
10 March 2021: Mike Helland makes a high school science error (Therefore "c - c/(1+HD)2" is a high school science error).
10 March 2021: The total idiocy that he can change the units of Hubble's constant!

v=HD means that Hubble's content has the units of inverse time. Change the units and it is not Hubble's contact :jaw-dropp! If you were to change c to have the units of kilograms, it is not longer a speed. If you were to change the units of G to be joules, it is no longer the gravitational content.
Click to expand...

Good luck to you!

I also pointed out to 'Mike Helland' the units mistake in his stupid equation and simply responded with more of his usual ignorant nonsense.

As such, I do not expect him to issue any sort of correction since he has been consistently incorrect ever since he first started this thread which has only served to consistently demonstrate his immense ignorance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom