I don't think space is expanding.

[Reality Check]

Snell's law predicts a change in reflection angle based on speed.

Slightly wrong, Mike Helland.
Snell's law is based on a difference in speed and other principles. Light travels at c in a vacuum. Light in a medium travels at c/n where n is the refractive index. Media with 2 different refractive index give 2 different speeds. That difference says nothing about refraction. Fermat's derivation adds Fermat's principle, etc.

QED doesn't, for a decelerated photon in a vacuum, ...

QED does not use your "decelerated photon in a vacuum". Read what you have cited. Read what you have been cited. QED gives reflection from a mirror based on Feynman paths where light travels at the speed of light c. QED is a relativistic theory! It includes the 2 postulates of special relativity. One is that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant for inertial observers.

But more importantly, we are not discussing QED and Snell's law ! Snell's law is refraction when moving from one medium to another. You cited an article on the QED treatment of light reflecting from a mirror and I gave a couple more.
Feynman Paths
Optics: The Principle of Least Time.
The second of Richard Feynman - Science Videos.

 

[Reality Check]

You say that like I haven't posted the relationship like a hundred times.

v=f*w

Then you have been wrong a hundred times, Mike Helland.
4 March 2021: Mike Helland still cannot understand Wavespeed = frequency * wavelength is for waves in a medium.

 

[Mike Helland]

Then you have been wrong a hundred times, Mike Helland.
4 March 2021: Mike Helland still cannot understand Wavespeed = frequency * wavelength is for waves in a medium.

Ok.

If I have a photon with a wavelength of 490 nm, I would calculate it's frequency by c/490 nm.

That's based on c=f*w.

If that's not valid, how would you calculate it?

 

[Mike Helland]

! Snell's law is refraction when moving from one medium to another.

What about a photon in a vacuum?

 

[hecd2]

What about a photon in a vacuum?

The relationship between wavelength, frequency and light speed holds in all media including a vacuum. So Snell's law holds for light reflecting at a mirror in a vacuum and for light going to/from a vacuum from/to a denser medium.

Having said that, if lightspeed changes at an interface, then that results in a corresponding change of wavelength. The frequency cannot change for reasons we have repeated ad nauseam.

 

[Mike Helland]

The frequency cannot change for reasons we have repeated ad nauseam.

I don't ever remember saying it did (at an interface).

Check this out, I got the Feynman clock thingies to make that "S" curve.

It points in a different direction though. Something I need to fix there.

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/other/reflection2.htm

 

[hecd2]

I don't ever remember saying it did (at an interface).

For the same reason it can't at an interface, it can't in a static universe. You can't throw cycles away.

 

[hecd2]

Check this out, I got the Feynman clock thingies to make that "S" curve.

It points in a different direction though. Something I need to fix there.

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/other/reflection2.htm

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_76218604b368f54cf8.png

So you got the cartoon to work. The direction is representative of the phase and should point in the same direction as the bulk of the phases for the paths near the centre. The reason yours doesn't is that it's not sensitive enough to different paths (the scrolls at the ends are not tight enough). That's because your wavelength (the distance travelled for one complete cycle) is large compared to the path lengths and the lateral extent of the mirror. For visible light the wavelength is ~0.5 microns and the paths and mirror are much larger. It's still a cartoon, but you should be able to demonstrate the principle if you fix that problem.

 

[Mike Helland]

For the same reason it can't at an interface, it can't in a static universe. You can't throw cycles away.

Yet we observe the redshifts.

Maybe that's all the redshift is.

It's like, the photon pours out a drop for its homies.

The energy associated with that clock cycle gets discarded into space.

AFAIK, there is no Feynman diagram for a redshifting photon..

*edit* FWIW, if this happened at, like 50 million light years, that would explain why galaxies don't seem to be stretched apart. No "gravitationally bound" excuse needed.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yet we observe the redshifts.

Maybe that's all the redshift is.

It's like, the photon pours out a drop for its homies.

The energy associated with that clock cycle gets discarded into space.

No. Whatever happens to the energy, the wave fronts must remain. They cannot disappear.

AFAIK, there is no Feynman diagram for a redshifting photon..

Why would there be? That's not what Feynman diagrams are for. You really don't understand them.

 

[Mike Helland]

No. Whatever happens to the energy, the wave fronts must remain. They cannot disappear.

Ok.

While I attempt to learn about that, any hints beyond "wave form vanishing" to look for?

Why would there be? That's not what Feynman diagrams are for. You really don't understand them.

Because redshifting is an observed phenomenon in light, and Feynman diagrams show what photons do.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ok.

While I attempt to learn about that, any hints beyond "wave form vanishing" to look for?

Your entire approach is destined for failure. You think that you can just google terms and that will find you the answers, but it won't. You need to learn the basics first, or you won't even understand what you find.

What is light? How is it created? How does it move? These fundamental questions are all you need in order to understand why wave fronts cannot disappear, and right now you clearly don't understand them at all. You won't find what you're looking for on Google, because nobody writes about wave fronts vanishing, because it's not only impossible, it's obviously impossible.

Because redshifting is an observed phenomenon in light, and Feynman diagrams show what photons do.

No. Feynman diagrams do not show what photons do.

Feynman diagrams are graphical representations of each order of perturbation to be included in a calculation of an interaction. A single Feynman diagram is NOT a representation of what actually happens. Nor do the diagrams depict properties of light such as the wavelength or energy of a photon. That is not their purpose.

 

[Mike Helland]

What is light? How is it created? How does it move?

Why does it redshift?

Why can't we measure an expansion rate of the universe?

Why do we need more physics and new types of dark energy (ontop of the dark energy that already dominates the universe)?

Here's the idea.

1929: Hey, these galaxy things we just discovered redshift. New physics? No expanding universe!

2021: Hey, we our models don't predict our measurements. New physics? Yes.

Except all of the new physics proposed is for an expanding universe.

If we're going to need new physics, we should consider the new phenomenon that inspired all of this.

 

[hecd2]

Why can't we measure an expansion rate of the universe?

We can.

Different completely independent methods give slightly different answers. It's not as though they are orders of magnitude different. They are in the same ball park even though the methods used are completely different. Why are they slightly different and not the same? We don't know at the moment, but finding out is what physics is about. Nothing in this demands a radical re-think from scratch, and it certainly doesn't require postulating things which we know can't be true from observations here and now.

Why do we need more physics and new types of dark energy (ontop of the dark energy that already dominates the universe)?

Why do you think the Universe is bound to be simple and give up all its secrets in 2021?

Here's the idea.

1929: Hey, these galaxy things we just discovered redshift. New physics? No expanding universe!

2021: Hey, we our models don't predict our measurements. New physics? Yes.

I can't parse this. I think you were over-excited when you wrote it.

Except all of the new physics proposed is for an expanding universe.

Because that is the ONLY viable explanation for redshift. We know that redshift is caused by expansion with a huge degree of confidence.

If we're going to need new physics, we should consider the new phenomenon that inspired all of this.

What new phenomenon?

 

[Mike Helland]

We can.

Different completely independent methods give slightly different answers. It's not as though they are orders of magnitude different. They are in the same ball park even though the methods used are completely different. Why are they slightly different and not the same? We don't know at the moment, but finding out is what physics is about. Nothing in this demands a radical re-think from scratch, and it certainly doesn't require postulating things which we know can't be true from observations here and now.

67 and 74 aren't slightly different.

It's wrong.

By 10%.

Why do you think the Universe is bound to be simple and give up all its secrets in 2021?

I don't.

The last decades though show the opposite of us honing in on a value.

What new phenomenon?

I'm referring to the redshift distance relation.

In the grand scheme of things, we discovered the universe about 100 years ago. It's about as old as commerical flight.

Before that, we had just been looking around the Milky Way (as far as we knew).

My feeling is that the new redshifts discovered in the greater universe are a new phenomenon.

The debate on this was interrupted by WWII. After the war, the debate was never really picked up.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why does it redshift?

For the same reason that you can't remove wave fronts from light as it travels, you can't create wave fronts as it travels either. Conservation of wave fronts requires red shifts in some circumstances. The rest is pretty obvious, if you actually understand these fundamentals.

Why can't we measure an expansion rate of the universe?

Who says we can't?

Here's the idea.

1929: Hey, these galaxy things we just discovered redshift. New physics? No expanding universe!

2021: Hey, we our models don't predict our measurements. New physics? Yes.

Except all of the new physics proposed is for an expanding universe.

There's a reason for that, one which you still don't understand because, again, you don't have a grasp of the fundamentals even after all this time.

 

[Mike Helland]

For the same reason that you can't remove wave fronts from light as it travels, you can't create wave fronts as it travels either.

How does the deceleration of a quantum particle remove or create a wavefront?

If the wavefronts are vt, and v is a bit slower, doesn't that just mean the wavefront moves slower?

Second question, an optical wave always has a wavefront and never a back wave.

Is that accurate?

 

[theprestige]

Why can't we measure an expansion rate of the universe?

Q. Why can't we measure the expansion rate of the distance between us and a car?

A. We can.

A cop with a radar gun gets one value from measuring the timing of the radar return.

A driver in another car making an estimate based on their own speedometer reading gets another value.

A bystander counting the seconds as the car passes each streetlight gets yet another value.

But they all agree that the car is definitely moving. Nobody thinks that because the bystander's streetlight estimate is way off (due to him miscalculating how far apart the streetlights are) from the other two, the car might not be moving and perhaps something else is going on.

 

[Mike Helland]

Q. Why can't we measure the expansion rate of the distance between us and a car?

A. We can.

A cop with a radar gun gets one value from measuring the timing of the radar return.

A driver in another car making an estimate based on their own speedometer reading gets another value.

A bystander counting the seconds as the car passes each streetlight gets yet another value.

But they all agree that the car is definitely moving. Nobody thinks that because the bystander's streetlight estimate is way off (due to him miscalculating how far apart the streetlights are) from the other two, the car might not be moving and perhaps something else is going on.

They also can see the car from different angles.

In our case, we only ever see the tail lights.

Light drops off with an inverse square.

And I'm suggesting, that's nested in an even larger inverse square using Hubble's constant (with units inverse distance).

 

[theprestige]

They also can see the car from different angles.

In our case, we only ever see the tail lights.

Light drops off with an inverse square.

And I'm suggesting, that's nested in an even larger inverse square using Hubble's constant (with units inverse distance).

And we know that your suggestion is wrong, from multiple lines of evidence.