I don't think space is expanding.

Status
Not open for further replies.
If light enters a medium that is a billion light years long, it will travel for a billion light years at the speed of light in that medium. It's velocity over time will be a flat line.

If light travels at c - H * D in a vacuum (the hypothesis being tested) then it starts at c, and dips over millions of years. The velocity over time would be a curve.

The curve of the light in a vacuum would intersect the flat line of the light in a medium once.

Mike, what, in your scenario, determines the frequency of light?

Hans
 
However, a photon is emitted with a specifik frequency determined by properties of its source. What do you suggest could change its frequency?

Here's what Hubble had to say:


If red-shifts are not velocity-shifts, light loses energy strictly in proportion to the distance it travels through space. As light streams in from the remote nebulae in all directions, each million years of the light-paths subtracts the same fraction of energy from the quanta. We may not know how the reduction is accomplished, but we do know that the action is everywhere uniform.

...

The observer seems to face a dilemma. The familiar interpretation of red-shifts leads to rather startling conclusions. These conclusions can be avoided by an assumption which sounds plausible but which finds no place in our present body of knowledge. The situation can be described as follows. Red-shifts are produced either in the nebulae, where the light originates, or in the intervening space through which the light travels. If the source is in the nebulae, then red-shifts are probably velocity-shifts and the nebulae are receding. If the source lies in the intervening space, the explanation of red-shifts is unknown but the nebulae are sensibly stationary.


I don't know how or why distance causes redshift anymore than I know how or why mass can curve spacetime.

But it's an observed fact that it does.

What causes the red-shifts? Nature.

What causes dark energy? Same answer.

At some point physics models make postulates.

Mine is v = c - H * D.
 
Right.

So when photons are moving at less than c in a medium, does that give them less momentum?

A question more easily asked than answered. As the discussions you linked note, defining what a "photon's momentum through a medium" even means is tricky, which is why the Abraham-Minkovski controversy is a thing. But that doesn't concern photons moving through free space. p only equals E/c for a photon that's actually moving at c, much as nu only equals c/lamda for a photon that's actually moving at c. c is only relevant if it refers to a property the photon actually has.

ETA: the momentum of a photon is also equal to h/lamda. Since Planck's constant is a constant, and since the wavelength being reflected in our HST mirror thought experiment is proposed by you to be longer than that of the incoming photon, the momentum of the reflected photon would again be less.
 
Last edited:
A question more easily asked than answered. As the discussions you linked note, defining what a "photon's momentum through a medium" even means is tricky, which is why the Abraham-Minkovski controversy is a thing. But that doesn't concern photons moving through free space. p only equals E/c for a photon that's actually moving at c, much as nu only equals c/lamda for a photon that's actually moving at c. c is only relevant if it refers to a property the photon actually has.

If a photon's momentum is not E/c, and is actually E/v, then as the velocity decreases, the momentum increases.

As v approaches 0, p approaches infinity.

So... are you sure about that?
 
If a photon's momentum is not E/c, and is actually E/v, then as the velocity decreases, the momentum increases.

As v approaches 0, p approaches infinity.

So... are you sure about that?

In general, E~pv, and not just for photons. In order for a slow-moving particle to have the same energy as a much faster-moving particle, it would need to have a lot more momentum.

If you're going to somehow keep the energy of a photon constant as its velocity approaches 0, then, yes, that photon's momentum is going to approach infinity.

Now you just need to explain how a photon with 0 velocity still has energy. And momentum.
 
Last edited:
If you're going to somehow keep the energy of a photon constant as its velocity approaches 0, then, yes, that photon's momentum is going to approach infinity.

Huh? The energy decreases. That's an observed fact. That's the red-shift.

That's the observational basis on expansion cosmology.
 
Huh? The energy decreases. That's an observed fact. That's the red-shift.
Could you actually explain how you think this observation was made?

That's the observational basis on expansion cosmology.
Think about this specifically. Where do you think we actually observe a red-shift? And, then, what is the actual observation?

Concentrate on the word "shift".
 
Here's what Hubble had to say:





I don't know how or why distance causes redshift anymore than I know how or why mass can curve spacetime.

Distance doesn't cause redshift, though. Not that we've observed.

The ongoing expansion of distance at large scales is so far the best explanation we have for the redshift we've observed. It's not a complete explanation, but it's waaay closer to being complete than your explanation. Among other things, your explanation has been falsified by experiment many times over already. Not only does it not explain exotic things like dark energy, it also fails at explaining basic physics that are well explained by the theory you're trying to replace.

Your theory can't even produce Snell's law, a basic behavior of light that we have exhaustively observed and tested and put to practical use. What hubris to think it could possibly produce an explanation to redshift at very large scales!

---

A tangential problem you're having is you're trying to get rid of "dark energy". But this is just a placeholder term for whatever process is causing the large-scale redshift. Even in your theory, we still observe the redshift, so your theory also needs to include the process that causes it, even if the mechanism is different. So your theory needs "dark energy" just as much as the mainstream theory does.
 
Could you actually explain how you think this observation was made?

Think about this specifically. Where do you think we actually observe a red-shift? And, then, what is the actual observation?

Concentrate on the word "shift".


I've written out my understanding of red-shifts here, you can use that as a punching bag if you like:

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/redshift.htm

Basically, the absorption lines in a light sources spectrum should be arranged similarly to the lines on our sun's spectrum, shifted red or blue depending on the source's relative motion away or toward us.

320px-Redshift.svg.png
 
Distance doesn't cause redshift, though. Not that we've observed.

Not causes, but is correlated with:

"the law of red-shifts - the observed fact that light from a distant nebula loses energy in proportion to the distance it travels from the nebula to the observer."

-- Edwin Hubble
 
Huh? The energy decreases.

The energy of what? First we were talking about a photon being reflected off a mirror on the HST, then we were talking about a photon that's being slowed down for some reason. Don't blame me for your confusion if you keep changing the subject.

If the *energy* of a photon is also decreasing as its speed nears 0, then there's no need for its momentum to increase.

But let's go back to the reflected photon. You stated that this photon's energy does not decrease as it is reflected. You also stated that both its speed and its wavelength increases. If you keep energy constant, but increase velocity, you must also decrease momentum. It makes no sense to say that two particles of the same mass (in this case zero) but different speeds can nonetheless have the same momentum.

And you can't ditch the invariance of c and still keep E/c as the momentum of a photon.. Either they're both right or both wrong. The momentum/energy relationship from which that formula is derived entails (not just assumes as I might have suggested earlier) that not only photons, but any and all massless particles that might exist in an inertial frame, always move at c in that frame.
 
Last edited:
The energy of what? First we were talking about a photon being reflected off a mirror on the HST, then we were talking about a photon that's being slowed down for some reason. Don't blame me for your confusion if you keep changing the subject.

If the *energy* of a photon is also decreasing as its speed nears 0, then there's no need for its momentum to increase.

But let's go back to the reflected photon. You stated that this photon's energy does not decrease as it is reflected. You also stated that both its speed and its wavelength increases. If you keep energy constant, but increase velocity, you must also decrease momentum. It makes no sense to say that two particles of the same mass (in this case zero) but different speeds can nonetheless have the same momentum.

And you can't ditch the invariance of c and still keep E/c as the momentum of a photon.. Either they're both right or both wrong. The momentum/energy relationship from which that formula is derived entails (not just assumes as I might have suggested earlier) that not only photons, but any and all massless particles that might exist in an inertial frame, always move at c in that frame.

In my model, photons have energy and distance. All other properties can be calculated from them when required, but the model doesn't need them to work.

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/index.htm#photon-treatment

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_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.
 
Not causes, but is correlated with:

"the law of red-shifts - the observed fact that light from a distant nebula loses energy in proportion to the distance it travels from the nebula to the observer."

-- Edwin Hubble
Tired light
...is a class of hypothetical redshift mechanisms that was proposed as an alternative explanation for the redshift-distance relationship. These models have been proposed as alternatives to the models that require metric expansion of space...

Zwicky himself acknowledged that any sort of scattering of light would blur the images of distant objects more than what is seen. Additionally, the surface brightness of galaxies evolving with time, time dilation of cosmological sources, and a thermal spectrum of the cosmic microwave background have been observed—these effects should not be present if the cosmological redshift was due to any tired light scattering mechanism. Despite periodic re-examination of the concept, tired light has not been supported by observational tests and remains a fringe topic in astrophysics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom