I don't think space is expanding.

[Mike Helland]

Tired light

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/index.htm#tired-light

There have been hundreds of theories that don't involve expanding space trying to explain how light gets "tired" during long intergalactic journeys, starting all the way back in 1929 when the redshift-distance relation was first published.

Tired light theories fail because they don't account for enough redshift, they can't explain the distance factor, or the redshifts are caused in a way that would include other observable results, which ultimately are not observed.

In general, tired light theories have the following in common:

• Some other phenomenon causes the redshifts
• Light always travels at c, even though it is "tired"
• They are represented by the blue line on the graph, matching a simple static model

The hypothesis that light's speed is inversely proportional to the distance from its source is different:

• Nothing causes the redshifts, they are as fundamental to nature as inertia
• Light travels at less than c after millions of years
• The time it takes light to reach a target is similar to the expanding model

In this hypothesis, one could say light does get "tired", but it does so in a way that is conceptually and mathematically unique to the established Tired Light theories.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

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.

In *any* model, photons also have momentum. And that momentum is conserved in an inertial frame. This is confirmed by observation. So yes, your model needs momentum to work, if by "work" you mean "be consistent with observation."

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.

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.

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

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

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).

Also, in quantum mechanics, the momentum of a photon is equal to Planck's constant/wavelength. And that momentum is conserved. Which is also consistent with observation.

And hypothesis 1 says the speed of a photon is c - H × D.

Measured in which frame? Ziggurat already pointed out a challenge to this: suppose I have light travelling from a distant galaxy to an observer along trajectory x. Suppose the speed of a photon from that galaxy travels at .5c relative to that observer. Now suppose another observer is travelling at .1c in the same direction as the light along x. How fast does he see that light moving, relative not only to himself but also to light coming from closer sources? And what is D, in his frame?

Let's get back to the light reflected off the mirror in the HST. How does one conserve both energy and momentum if both the speed and the wavelength of the light has changed? Momentum of a photon is equal to h/lamda, so if the wavelength increases as you proposed eartlier, the momentum decreases. Where does the missing momentum go?

 

[theprestige]

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

You're falling back on seventy year-old physics.* We've done a lot of refinement, a lot of scientific predictions, and a lot of experimental verification since then. Where Hubble naively attributed the redshift to the distance itself, we now understand that the better explanation is that it is correlated with the increase in distance over time.

---
*Is that a bingo yet?

 

[Myriad]

The hypothesis that light's speed is inversely proportional to the distance from its source is different:

• Nothing causes the redshifts, they are as fundamental to nature as inertia
• Light travels at less than c after millions of years
• The time it takes light to reach a target is similar to the expanding model

In this hypothesis, one could say light does get "tired", but it does so in a way that is conceptually and mathematically unique to the established Tired Light theories.

...but is completely contradicted by the Hubble Telescope's ability to produce sharp long-exposure images of deep field objects at a variety of cosmic distances within the same frame, at angular resolutions better than 0.1 arcseconds, without most of the imaged objects being blurred by orbital aberration.

 

[Mike Helland]

Measured in which frame? Ziggurat already pointed out a challenge to this: suppose I have light travelling from a distant galaxy to an observer along trajectory x. Suppose the speed of a photon from that galaxy travels at .5c relative to that observer. Now suppose another observer is travelling at .1c in the same direction as the light. How fast does he see that light moving, relative not only to himself but also to light coming from closer sources? And what is D, in his frame?

Good question.

I'm not sure how an observer sees light moving. Can you explain the steps the observer takes to produce a measurement?

How does one conserve both energy and momentum if both the speed and the wavelength of the light has changed? Momentum of a photon is equal to h/lamda, so if the wavelength increases as you proposed eartlier, the momentum decreases. Where does the missing momentum go?

Deposited as energy along the photons path through space.

 

[Mike Helland]

...but is completely contradicted by the Hubble Telescope's ability to produce sharp long-exposure images of deep field objects at a variety of cosmic distances within the same frame, at angular resolutions better than 0.1 arcseconds, without most of the imaged objects being blurred by orbital aberration.

Only if you give an n > 1 refractive index to empty space.

I wouldn't recommend that.

 

[Mike Helland]

You're falling back on seventy year-old physics.* We've done a lot of refinement, a lot of scientific predictions, and a lot of experimental verification since then. Where Hubble naively attributed the redshift to the distance itself, we now understand that the better explanation is that it is correlated with the increase in distance over time.

How much is distance increasing over time? 74 km/s/Mpc? Or 64.7 km/s/Mpc?

A lot of refinement hasn't come up with a good answer.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Good question.

I'm not sure how an observer sees light moving. Can you explain the steps the observer takes to produce a measurement?

It's your model; you tell me. What value should the travelling observer assign to the light speed from the distant galaxy?

Deposited as energy along the photons path through space.

No, I 'm talking about the momentum that disappears when it gets reflected off the HST mirror. It has that momentum right up until it hits the mirror's surface; then the light reflected back has less momentum. Where does the momentum go?

 

[Myriad]

Only if you give an n > 1 refractive index to empty space.

I wouldn't recommend that.

The contradiction has nothing to do with the refractive index of empty space. It's a consequence of simple relative velocities. Two photons from the same direction but different distances, arriving at the same place at the same time (e.g. the telescope aperture), will arrive at different angles relative to the instrument if (1) they're traveling at different speeds as your theory claims would occur, and (2) the target is moving laterally to the direction of travel of the photons, as the Hubble usually is.

The instrument can be tilted to compensate for this effect, but that only works consistently if all the incident light has the same velocity.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

How much is distance increasing over time? 74 km/s/Mpc? Or 64.7 km/s/Mpc?

A lot of refinement hasn't come up with a good answer.

At some point, c-H*D would equal zero. What happens at that point in your model. Do we still see galaxies?

 

[theprestige]

How much is distance increasing over time? 74 km/s/Mpc? Or 64.7 km/s/Mpc?

A lot of refinement hasn't come up with a good answer.

Somewhere between 64 and 74 km/s/Mpc is a qualitatively different answer from "distance isn't increasing at all", which is the answer you're trying to give.

And it's a lot more precise than whatever value for light slowing down your model predicts.

 

[theprestige]

dup

 

[Ziggurat]

At some point physics models make postulates.

Mine is v = c - H * D.

But this postulate isn't even internally consistent. You keep ignoring this, but it's a fatal flaw: both v and D are reference-frame dependent, and as you change reference frames, they change in incompatible ways. If your equation holds in one reference frame, it will not hold in any other reference frame. You have no way to reconcile that.

 

[Mike Helland]

At some point, c-H*D would equal zero. What happens at that point in your model. Do we still see galaxies?

Nope, that's called Hubble Limit.

In the standard model, with Hubble's Law being v = H * D, at when H * D = c that's Hubble's Limit, aka Hubble Length, aka Hubble Radius, and it defines the Hubble Sphere aka Hubble Volume.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_volume

"The proper radius of a Hubble sphere (known as the Hubble radius or the Hubble length) is c / H 0 {\displaystyle c/H_{0}} c/H_0, where c {\displaystyle c} c is the speed of light and H 0 {\displaystyle H_{0}} H_{0} is the Hubble constant. The surface of a Hubble sphere is called the microphysical horizon,[2] the Hubble surface, or the Hubble limit. "

In the standard model, those photons are forever trapped in space expanding faster than c.

You are at the Hubble Limit of an infinite number of Hubble Volumes centered on the edge of your Hubble Volume.

Either photons are trapped in space that expands faster than c... or the photons simply deposit energy throughout space until they have no energy and disappear.

I'm sure my idea of photons decaying is startling, but alternatively the universe is engineered to trap photons for eternity on a treadmill they'll never escape.

 

[Mike Helland]

Somewhere between 64 and 74 km/s/Mpc is a qualitatively different answer from "distance isn't increasing at all", which is the answer you're trying to give.

And it's a lot more precise than whatever value for light slowing down your model predicts.

Here's what model (green) predicts for a single value of H, compared to the the standard model (white dots, H=74 left, H=67.4 right)

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Nope, that's called Hubble Limit.

In the standard model, with Hubble's Law being v = H * D, at when H * D = c that's Hubble's Limit, aka Hubble Length, aka Hubble Radius, and it defines the Hubble Sphere aka Hubble Volume.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_volume

"The proper radius of a Hubble sphere (known as the Hubble radius or the Hubble length) is c / H 0 {\displaystyle c/H_{0}} c/H_0, where c {\displaystyle c} c is the speed of light and H 0 {\displaystyle H_{0}} H_{0} is the Hubble constant. The surface of a Hubble sphere is called the microphysical horizon,[2] the Hubble surface, or the Hubble limit. "

In the standard model, those photons are forever trapped in space expanding faster than c.

You are at the Hubble Limit of an infinite number of Hubble Volumes centered on the edge of your Hubble Volume.

Either photons are trapped in space that expands faster than c... or the photons simply deposit energy throughout space until they have no energy and disappear.

I'm sure my idea of photons decaying is startling, but alternatively the universe is engineered to trap photons for eternity on a treadmill they'll never escape.

So it does. You're right.

 

[Mike Helland]

But this postulate isn't even internally consistent. You keep ignoring this, but it's a fatal flaw: both v and D are reference-frame dependent, and as you change reference frames, they change in incompatible ways. If your equation holds in one reference frame, it will not hold in any other reference frame. You have no way to reconcile that.

There's a pretty easy way to reconcile that... though I'm sure you'll hate it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. Emission theories obey the principle of relativity by having no preferred frame for light transmission, but say that light is emitted at speed "c" relative to its source instead of applying the invariance postulate. Thus, emitter theory combines electrodynamics and mechanics with a simple Newtonian theory."

 

[Ziggurat]

There's a pretty easy way to reconcile that... though I'm sure you'll hate it.

It doesn't matter if I hate it. Your own source shows it's already been refuted. It's wrong. Multiple lines of experimental evidence prove that. So it can't rescue your theory.

 

[Mike Helland]

It doesn't matter if I hate it. Your own source shows it's already been refuted. It's wrong. Multiple lines of experimental evidence prove that. So it can't rescue your theory.

Yeah, good point.

"both v and D are reference-frame dependent, and as you change reference frames, they change in incompatible ways. If your equation holds in one reference frame, it will not hold in any other reference frame."

Can you give an example of that?

 

[Mike Helland]

So it does. You're right.

On just an engineering level, you sorta gotta wonder why whoever made the universe would put infinite light and inertia into a universe that expands into a heat death after a trillion years.

Like, like can travel 10^1000000000 light years but only gets to utilize 10^10 light years before being trapped?

It's like putting the star trek enterprise's warp engine in a canoe.