#58 Rejecting the blurriness criticism
Hi @marmetl, returning to a conversation from a few months ago,
Can we dive into Part 1 again? You said “Photon losing energy on its own” doesn’t work because conservation of energy means f = f’. But is that really the case? There can be tiny residual dissipated photons right?
The “Inherent” mechanisms, as you had linked, https://cosmology.info/essays/tired-light-models_marmet.html#:~:text=Inherent…
1
Sahil, could you repost that with the quoted material at normal size. Can’t readi it!
Matt
@ExpEarth That is an image, click on it to view it its own tab, and use your browser’s zoom to increase the size of the image.
Thanks, got it!
You can cut-and-paste text directly into the box, it has the advantage that it is searchable, the links are clickable, it is easier to read and uses less memory. Make sure your personal
Settings–>Accessibility–>Editor settings, URL paste behaviorare set to Formatted link, Pasting a URL while having text selected will format to a Markdown link.According to Stoyan Sargs BSM-SG perspective (this is only a abstract skimming on the theory, it is huge):
You get surface in which galaxies touch. This surface builds a volume of 2 x Compton wavelength in thickness. In this volume the photon wave-train is disturbed and energy is lost in the dynamic zero-point of this volume. You can see this as increased background radiation. As system as a whole, energy is conserved of course, but the photon loses energy into the vacuum volume. The photon is not a simple particles, they are a complex formed double wave with a electric center wave and a circular magnetic wave. This is why it behaves particle like. They span quite a volume that correlates with the electron orbit parameters in most cases.
There are 2 types of zero point energies in BSM that are the primary drivers for many effects. The background radiation is one of the effects of the dynamic zero point.
The assumption that space is homogeneous is wrong. You observe this at the next globular cluster or by destruction of matter from such a clusters or other galaxies.
It has to do with the way everything is coupled that photon spectra look the same in most cases. But then, Cepheid Type II stars do not. For me, red-shift periodicity is the best and indisputable proof that not only the expansion is wrong, but also the results of the Michelson Morley Experiment.
In fact, larger bodies build a local CL space that greatly reduce the CL drag. This mass adds to the energy of the body and results in E_ifm . No dark matter required for a stable orbit. Also gravity propagation is much faster the c, LIGO does not measure gravity waves in the BSM-SG perspective, but CL-Space pressure waves. Slight but important differences. CL-Space has 4x 108.5° axis, not 3x90 but is embedded in the euclidean space. All relativistic effects are in the CL-Space axis, so is gravity propagation. BSM-SG does not use gravitons, but derives gravity from the fundamental force and the geometry of CL space.
The above link does not work for me. And would you please explain abbreviations once in a post ? BSM = Bouw en Structuur van de Materie ? SG = Sociaal Gebeuren ? CL = Centrale Ligging ?
Of course, I will try to remember :) This link works for me http://www.helical-structures.org/bsm_abs_paper.pdf
BSM = BSM-SG = Basic-Structures of Matter - Supergravitation Unified Theory (name of the model) SG = Supergravity - thats the real fundamental force. Similar to gravity but r³. That is the force the fundamental particles (FP) implement. Through the complex geometry of the particles and the fact there are 2 types, it results in 4 forces (more or less). They are destinct from the standard model forces. CL = Cosmic Lattice - This is the structure that fills our vaccum and implements most of the complex behaviour. It is self stabilizing and a product of neutrino decay. Each node is made out of 4 prisms with 108.5° angle and build a phase locked loop oscilator. The angle and structure of the CL-Node is the result of the form of the prism and the supergravity force. The distance between the prisms changes the resonance frequency and therefore the energy propagation timeframe - aka - speed of light (very roughly spoken). c is not the primary time etalon, but the 3 level.
Upon skimming through it, Stoyan Sargs BSM-SG perspective reminds me of another weird one: Stefan Denaerde - Cosmic Unified Field Theory .
This comment and associated replies are not related to the initial discussion and do not belong here. @ftessier what is the standard response when a discussion is bombed by an unrelated topic?
I would block users from the repo in that case.
Or you can delete any specific comment, ellipsis icon, top right of comment or reply.
For now I’ll just ask to have this discussion posted on its own.
@poelzi your Comment has no relevance and interfering with the discussion on “Rejecting the blurriness criticism”. Please start a new discussion, copy your text there.
Yes, “dissipated tiny photons” is addressed in case 2c).
I’m editing the old message and will post a better version…
I don’t think it’s fair to equate the candidates [Photon losing energy on its own] and [Photon interacting with many massless particles].
I also think the criticism that [any f’ is possible] therefore [a photon can’t exponentially lose energy on its own] is not valid. The first part isn’t proven imo, and even if it is true then it seems a non sequitur to shut down the idea that continuous exponential decay happens.
I think there could be a problem with the spontaneous decay idea. The Hubble redshift supposedly acts on the whole electromagnetic wave rather than on the individual photons making up the wave. It’s not clear the Hubble redshift would even act on an individual photon. In the Hubble redshift the photons must therefore lose energy in a highly synchronized manner. This seems to run against any kind of spontaneous decay process.
Indeed, it is not fair to equate [Photon losing energy on its own] and [Photon interacting with many massless particles].
That’s why there are two separate parts to deal with the different cases: 1 ) [Photon losing energy on its own], and 2c) [Photon interacting with many massless particles].
I now see that all of the tired light mechanisms Louis discusses carry the implicit assumption that the cosmological redshift acts at the level of individual photons rather than multi-photonic electromagnetic waves. This is actually not how the Hubble redshift is conventionally viewed (by the mainstream). They apparently see it as an expansion of space time which stretches out all the photons constituting the wave.
This could be a key misconception in tired light models. Why? Because if energy is being lost by the em wave, rather than individual photons, then the photon wavelengths need not redshift in the simple manner expected in TL mechanisms. Energy could instead be reorganized in the bulk em wave and photon frequencies adjusted as an internally organized process.
This is what seems to happen in the CMB redshift. The mainstream criticizes TL models, since the CMB cannot retain its blackbody signature over time if photons lose energy individually. However, if it is em waves that are losing energy in the redshift, then energy can be redistributed amongst the component photons such that the blackbody signature is retained. This is the key fact that could permit a TL mechanisms to potentially explain the CMB and thus be a viable physical explanation.
It is not at all clear what the relationship is between waves and particles in that Quantum Mechanics duality. What is a Photon: Particle or Wave? Since Richard Feynman formulated his views on QM it seems almost forbidden to look upon light as a wave. It’s Particle Fever all over the place. I once could understand reflection, refraction and other phenomena with EM waves. But not with particles.
@ExpEarth good observation. The “Hubble redshift” is a change of wavelength produced by a change of coordinates as a function of time between the emitter (E) and the observer (O). Just like the Doppler redshift, space expansion produces a change of distance between E and O. There is no loss of energy, light is just seen in a different reference frame.
In tired-light models, the redshift is an actual loss of energy of light to “something else” (“something else” varies from model to model). However, not all tired-light models imply a quantum effect that you call individual photons (e.g. some of these).
However the last part of your comment is incorrect. “EM waves” and “photons” are two different ways to describe the same thing. “Energy lost by the em wave” means exactly the same as “energy lost by photons” @HanDeBruijn there exist a clear relationship between the two: the Fourier transform written as real-valued (physically measurable) amplitude and phase. The amplitude of each frequency component is observed to be multiples of $\hbar \omega$. It’s that simple! This doesn’t change anything about reflection, refrection and other EM wave phenomena.
@marmetl It seems I didn’t make my point clearly enough. Let’s consider the example of radiation emanating from a star. It is in the form of EM radiation having characteristics of blackbody radiation. These waves can also be viewed as composite structures made of photons. As blackbody radiation the waves have specific values for peak frequency, photon number, etc that are related to the surface temperature of the star. There is thus a lot of structure to this radiation. So when we talk about the tired light redshift, we should be talking about redshift of these multiphotonic wave structures. If we apply any of the redshifts you listed only to the individual photons comprising these waves, then the waves will no longer be blackbody radiation. This is because the photon number would not be affected.
For tired light to work we need to apply the redshift to the whole wave, in such a way that the photon number and peak frequency realign to the reduced wave energy. There would have to be a redistribution of energy from the large wave to the individual component photons, with photons being removed in the process. The BBT accomplishes the same thing with a neat trick. They say that space expansion stretches out the wavelengths of individual photons (in stellar or CMB radiation), but because of this expansion the photon number in the waves also reduces in just the right manner to preserve the blackbody spectrum.
I’m not sure if a point of confusion is that individual photons can seemingly act as waves also, as in the double slit experiment where photons pass through slits one at a time.
I’m wondering if any of those TL papers you link to attempts to derive the Hubble redshift using the larger multiphotonic waves, not just waves-as-photons. (By the way I think it’s okay to use ‘Hubble redshift’ when talking about TL models: Hubble himself had no commitment to the BBT interpretation.)
That is correct, the ‘tired-light’ redshift does not preserve the blackbody spectrum. See comment on my cosmology calculator (right-hand side column, fourth paragraph). Redshifted radiation by tired-light appears brighter by a factor $(1+z)^3$.
That is why high redshifted galaxies appear to be exceptionally bright, not because they are young (as LCDM explains) but because the redshift mechanism preserves the number of photons.
What do you mean by “work”? Observations of galaxies and quasars all show them to be too bright, and fantastic explanations have been made up to explain their luminosity. With a tired-light mechanism that conserves the number of photons, these extreme luminosities are easily understood. So tired-light “works” since it explains observations!
Most of these papers are written by physicists/engineers who don’t have a good understanding of optics, so it’s never clear what is in their model. (My STz model satisfies both multiphotonic waves and waves-as-photons.)
I am aware of that, I like to quote from “the Observational approach to cosmology” p. 21 On the other hand, if red-shifts are evidence of some unknown principle of nature, which does not involve actual motion, then … the observable region is an insignificant fraction of the universe as a whole.
Sadly, cosmologists have taken Hubble’s idea and intrepreted it only in the framework of an expanding universe.
Thanks, Louis, I had gone astray on some points and this helps!
@ExpEarth in earlier discussions I tried to describe the CMB in terms of photons reaching an equilibrium between redshift and the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich (SZ) effect. However, it might be easier to describe the process with waves, more specifically with the kind of waves that don’t have a specific direction of propagation and come from everywhere (like the waves on a lake!)
So thanks to you as well, Matt. The description we use doesn’t change the physical process, but the multi-photon-wave picture could be a better way to explain some properties of the CMB:
Louis,
Expanding spherical wavefronts are standard physics. They provide a clear and consistent picture of the behavior of electromagnetic radiation as observed on the cosmological scale. You can derive a redshift and CMB from ESW considerations. Regards,
Bud
That’s a great photo of waves, Louis. You must have taken that one before all the forest fires!
As I understand your model, the energy that is lost by the CMB through the Hubble redshift is exactly compensated by energy the CMB regains through the SZ effect. What is causing the redshift itself?
We will still end up disagreeing anyway because you are assuming that the CMB spectrum is the same everywhere, like in that lake, whereas I now accept the evidence that the CMB energy density and temperature decrease as the photons move towards us. In my model I also require an energy input to the CMB to keep it at equilibrium. It’s a surprise mechanism and already rejected at one journal, but I have sent it off to another one now. It’s hard to give a simple picture of it in a few words.
Since the reviewers were really quite negative, I might eventually post this model in the repositories here to get feedback. That is, if I can eventually figure out how it all works in GitHub. It seems no one else has posted their models here yet. Is that correct? I’m only seeing that the discussions tab is active.
Hi Matt,
In the standard model, the CMB is a kind of “afterglow” of the big bang event. What is the source of the CMB in your model?
I should probably start a new thread to discuss it properly, but in a nutshell the CMB arises from radiation that is released and trapped during gravitational collapse of matter to form a black hole universe, which is what we are living in. It’s not blackbody right at the start but eventually becomes that way with continual recycling of this energy. The trick is in the recycling.
@ExpEarth
That fine but you’re overlooking the fact that the radiation is in the form of expanding spherical wavefronts. That’s standard physics - expanding spherical wavefronts are real physical entities emitted by omnidirectional emitters like stars and galaxies. If you take account of that it might help your model. Typical light cone drawings are 2D projections of a 3D projection of an expanding spherical wavefront. See here.
Thanks, Bud, yes I realized that I was assuming that the radiation in those expanding wavefronts was somehow retaining the blackbody-type spectrum that it had near the stellar surface. I’m not sure this can be achieved in those expanding wavefronts in the one-way energy loss in the Hubble redshift.
@marmetl
So if light is emittiting light during propagation then this mechanism also should preserve the number of photons?
More precisely, light does not emit light. Instead, light interacts with matter (electrons, atoms) and is then re-emitted. Since there is very little absorption by bulk materials (dust, rocks), the number of photons is conserved. However, scattering may change the direction of light.
On the subject of the differences between photons and electromagnetic waves (i.e., multi-photon waves), I saw this interesting video talking about the speeds of each: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZD4MR0KgqA . He says that the speeds of individual photons are always the same, whether in a vacuum or in a medium, but that the speeds of em waves slow down in media. He says this is the result of overlapping of the original waves with secondary waves originating in the medium due to disturbances of charges by the original waves. Does this sound right? I find it amazing that the secondary waves, which you would imagine to be of random phases and orientations, can interact so perfectly with the original waves as to create brand new waves. Is there a general text somewhere on how light is able to organize itself?
@RedshiftDrift would you happen to know of any research that relates tired light (light fatigue, photon hubbling) to the phenomenon associated with Lenz’s law (https://youtu.be/QwUq8xM_8bY?t=128)?
It seems plausible that a lone photon traveling in intergalactic space, in picotesla magnetic fields, could experience some force opposing its motion, hence the energy loss.?
Is there unusually high redshift near magnetars or quasars?
@sahil5d I don’t know of any work that relates tired-light to Lenz’s induction law (part of Maxwell’s equations).
The effect you describes is unlikely to exist because the magnetic field of a photon can generate a force against the direction of propagation of the photon only in the case of absorption: an energy loss will result in the absorption of the entire photon, not a redshift.
Most magnetars are in our galaxy and have no redshift. However, quasars do show intrinsic redshifts (possibly with some quantization) that are not explained by standard cosmology.
Thank you for the analysis. But why does it have to be an all-or-nothing situation of absorption of the entire photon?
Also, does this paper resonate in your opinion? https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.07390
How do we know that magnetars have no redshift? Do we know (for example) that their spectra as seen are perfect blackbody spectra of a certain temperature with no redward shift?
One reason I wanted to dig into this is that something as simple as a lone neutron moving in intergalactic space would experience some opposing force slowing it down, bc even a neutron is a tiny magnet. Meanwhile the tiniest eddy currents would spin up somewhere in the volume surrounding the neutron, right?
Nobody knows. This is observed in every experiment, like the photoelectric effect which led Einstein to postulate a quantized light particle which was eventually called the photon. Matter and light seem to interact like indivisible units - that’s why we have this theory called “quantum mechanics” to describe the “all-or-nothing” situations observed empirically.
Gravitational energy produces a redshift, so does electrostatic energy and magnetostatic energy. However if you plug-in numerical values describing typical stars in the equations of that paper, the redshift will be too small to be detectable. The paper is a purely theoretical exercise applicable only to extreme situations. This won’t explain the redshift of galaxies made of regular stars.
Magnetars are located in our galaxy, they would not have a cosmological redshift. As for an ‘intrinsic redshift’ I don’t know if we can tell since the ‘star’ is not seen directly. All that is seen is a powerful radio signal that is produced by a hypothetical beam of energy from a hypothetical neutron star.
Yes, the neutron has a dipole moment that can create (extremely small) eddy currents in the electron-plasma surrounding it, slow it down and increase its de Broglie wavelength. (If you happen to calculate that effect I’d be interested to know how much a neutron would be slowed down by the IGM electron plasma of density of about 1 electron/ $m^3$ .) But the photon does not have a dipole moment, and even if it did its speed is not related to its wavelength outside a plasma.
Sure, for atom-photon interactions, because, informally, the photon has got to be resonant with the atom for an orbital to exist. And resonance, informally, requires all-or-nothing or discrete quantities. But when it comes to the possibility of some opposing force on a photon in intergalactic space, I don’t think it has to be an atom-photon interaction or indivisible unit kind of situation.
Ok, that is an issue. Well, anyway, let me write out the potential force opposing a photon if the cosmic redshift could be understood in terms of an opposing force.
The cosmic redshift is modeled by E_t / E_0 = e^(-Ht) E = pc p_t / p_0 = e^(-Ht) dp/dt = -H * p F = dp/dt F = -H*p The opposing force on a photon, in this hypothesis, is the photon’s momentum/13.8Gy.
Oh
Noted
Ok, then I shouldn’t emphasize the neutron’s speed. Both the neutron’s momentum and photon’s momentum would decrease, is the idea.
Found two papers which may be relevant
Modified surface redshift of pulsars and magnetars by magnetized plasmas and vacuum polarization https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.0069
Redshift of light emitted by particles orbiting a black hole immersed in a strong magnetic field https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.00840
Has a “Lenz’s law for light” ever been tested? Sending photons through a strong magnetic field, stronger than an MRI machine’s, and then measuring their frequency.
This is relevant to the intrinsic redshift of objects such as black holes and magnetars. However there is no relationship between distance and the size of that redshift since these objects are found at any distance. So even if these objects produce a redshift, that redshift will not be related to the Hubble constant. When JWST finds a galaxy with redshift z=13.2, it is the spectrum of every star of this galaxy that is redshifted by the same amount. The cosmological redshift is therefore an effect happening between the source and us, not near the surface of a particular type of object.
EM theory does not predict a frequency change of light in a magnetic field, and there is a lot of work done with spectroscopy in magnetic fields reaching several Teslas (including the measurements of resonances in an MRI machine…) If someone had detected a signal that deviates from standard theory, we would have heard about it. Of course, the scale of experiments rarely exceeds few meters in size, not much length to produce a detectable frequency shift.
The two papers are to establish that maybe any magnetic field anywhere can produce a redshift. Perhaps the cosmological redshift is caused by cosmological (intergalactic) magnetic fields.
Estimates of the intergalactic magnetic field strength are in the picotesla range, and that field strength could be related to H. “From simulations, the field strength of the intergalactic magnetic field (IGMF) is expected to be in the range of 1–100 nG.” https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2019/02/aa33832-18/aa33832-18.html#:~:text=From%20simulations%2C%20the%20field%20strength
Oh.
Hmm how much length would be required… Attempting an estimate…
If a ~ 1 picotesla intergalactic magnetic field is responsible for freq_t/freq_0 = e^(-d/13.8Gly), then for a .9999 freq ratio that would be travel of about ~ 1.4 Mly https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=ln%28.9999%29+*+-13.8+billion+light+years. If we achieve 100 T in the lab, that’s 10^14 more powerful than a picotesla, so to detect a .9999 freq ratio would need (not sure if it’s proportional like this… guessing from maintaining the proportion E=Fd) 1.4 Mly / 10^14 ~= 130,000 km https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=1.4+Mly+%2F+10%5E14.
So to detect a .9999 factor redshift, in a 100 T magnetic field, have light bounce between mirrors for a total of ~ 130,000 km.?
@RedshiftDrift . >This is relevant to the intrinsic redshift of objects such as black holes and magnetars. However there is no relationship between distance and the size of that redshift since these objects are found at any distance. So even if these objects produce a redshift, that redshift will not be related to the Hubble constant.
Not exactly. The intrinsic redshift of objects is related to their age. It is clear that far away objects are younger on the average than nearby objects - we are looking further into the past - and thus become more redshifted.
@sahil5d for very small redshifts the proportionality to distance is a good enough approximation… Frequency ratios of $1-10^{-12}$ can be measured easily in the lab, and maintaining 100T over 1 meter may be feasible.
However, the redshift depends on the energy content of the magnetic field which is proportional to $B^2$, so you are fighting a factor of $(10^{14})^2$, that is, the ‘Hubble force’ in space is $10^{28}$ times smaller than what would be measured (with difficulty) in the lab.
Also, this redshift process does not have the correct wavelength dependence (see Fig. 4 in paper arxiv:1303.0069 where the frequency shift $\delta$ is almost constant for optical frequencies), and therefore cannot produce the $z = \Delta\lambda/\lambda$ Hubble-redshift.
Doesn’t that actually work the other way, and make detection easier? Starting from the hypothesis that a 1 picotesla field causes a .9999 freq ratio over ~ 1.4 Mly, then perhaps a 100 T magnetic field would need 1.4 Mly / 10^28 ~= 1 micrometer! That does seem impossibly strong a redshift though…
(One reason I thought it might be linear and not squared is that Lenz’s law has voltage proportional to change in magnetic flux. Energy = F * d = V * q, and d and q are constant, so I thought F and V would be proportional.)
But in the other paper, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.07390.pdf, equation 40, it’s wavelength independent (and frequency independent).
(The equation also has a mass density term, whose necessity I don’t yet understand. It also has the magnetic field squared, contradicting my guess about the linear proportion.)
Stepping back, I am not opposed to Spectral-Transfer redshift and not wedded to a “Lenz’s law for light”, but we do know that a neutron would lose momentum in intergalactic space, an electron would lose momentum in intergalactic space, so a photon is a candidate to experience the same.
Yes, if that effect existed in space, we would see redshift just looking around a fridge magnet 🧲 😄 We have no such luck, so the effect is not involved in the Hubble redshift.
As you noted, Eq. (40) is quadratic in the magnetic field strength $H^2$ so the effect is too weak in space (or else we would see redshift around 🧲!)
Yes, the Lenz force is proportional to the $B$-field (the effects discussed in the papers are not the same as Lenz’s law).
I am not opposed to the “Lenz-type idea” of redshift, there are optical effects with a strength that is linear on the external field in the way you describe (Raman shift, Thomson scattering). But they all produce a force-component that is prependicular to the velocity of the photon (this is required by momentum and energy conservation). This means the photon is “pushed sideways” causing blurring, and we are back to the “blurriness criticism”!
This ‘blurring’ is somewhat demonstrated by the difficulty in having the magnet not hit the walls in the YouTube video. Even if the magnet had a “better shape” there is an inherent lateral instability that sends the magnet sideways. Despite what the experimenter’s hopes, even a perfect magnet and tube would eventually push the magnet sideways, one quantum at a time.
This same instability applies to the “neutron losing momentum in intergalactic space”: the neutron has less momentum, but it also changes direction. The same instability also sends the photon sideways as well, therefore blurring the image.
Stepping back, this is all covered by cases 2b and 4 at the top of this post, there is just no way to produce redshift and avoid scattering/blurring, unless one rejects momentum or energy conservation. “Nonlinear Effects” that are quadratic on the field do not produce blurring, but they are too small to produce the Hubble-redshift in intergalactic space (otherwise we would observe them all the time in everyday life.)
Yes that is an issue for this hypothesis. Well, maybe the mass density term becomes significant, or maybe the B^2 effect in the paper is not quite what’s happening and what is happening is a Lenz-force proportional to B. In any case, it’d be great if a lab explicitly tests for redshift in a super strong magnetic field.
Does this necessarily have to happen? The photon is partly an oscillating magnetic field.. it’s an oscillating north south? or oscillating up down?.. unlike a neutron or electron which has a fixed north south. Maybe that’s why the photon doesn’t veer.
(A side story.. The idea of magnetic fields and redshift didn’t occur to me until I searched Google’s Bard for the Big Circus Model, and in the description of ‘photon hubbling’ was something about magnetic fields. But I hadn’t ever written that! The LLM hallucinated! Then I remembered the phenomenon associated with Lenz’s law and hence this thread.)
(Google Bard is not yet available in Canada, but I’ve seen ChatGPT hallucinate in interesting ways too!)
Yes, see equations in 2b at the top of this discussion. They are valid for anything that has energy and momentum.
This old model by Maxwell is fine for everyday phenomena. The $B$-field is transverse, that is, perpendicular to the direction of propagation of light. Unfortunately, the model is incomplete and does not provide a description of many light-field-matter interactions.
Most importantly, Maxwell’s equations do not describe stimulated emission - the laser is impossible! Yet, stimulated emision is the key to understanding how redshift can happen without blurring!
Independent of what Maxwell’s theories are lacking, the photon is an electromagnetic pulse. That’s why I hypothesize a magnetic field could reduce a photon’s energy (like it would a neutron’s or electron’s kinetic energy). And with the photon partly being a magnetic field oscillating (think circular polarization), maybe it gets an “even treatment” and so its direction doesn’t change.
I’d like to propose a name for the specific hypothesis of a Lenz-type mechanism: photon lenzing.
If the Lenz-type mechanism can be verified experimentally, then ‘photon hubbling’ = ‘photon lenzing’. If it’s refuted experimentally, then I’d still like to preserve ‘photon hubbling’ to mean the general idea of [exponential decrease in light energy with distance traveled], because it conveys the idea better than ‘tired light’, which is not as compelling a name and which suffers from a lot of misanalysis by big bang cosmologists (the misanalyses have a big effect on newcomers learning about the galactic redshift).
Alessandro Spallicci has been working on magnetic-field induced redshift similar to your ‘photon lenzing’ (e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.02487). In Spallicci’s theory, the magnetic field gives an equivalent photon mass and energy is lost to the field. See http://wwwperso.lpc2e.cnrs.fr/~spallicci/, Spallicci calls his theory the ‘massive photon’.
An experimental verification of this was discussed in February at the brainstorming session “Extended Theories of Electromagnetism”, with A. Spallicci, G. Mana, C.P. Sasso, C. Lämmerzahl, A. Dib, M. Barsuglia, J.A. Helayël-Neto, and many other theorists and experimentalists, all interested in the possibility of redshift due to an electromagnetic effect. The conclusion was that we currently do not have the instrumental sensisivity to measure such a small effect. Even large instruments such as LIGO or LISA with the large magnetic fields of the LHC, if adapted to measure a redshift, would still be too small by a factor of ~100.
There is therefore no hope for an experimental refutation/confirmation for several decades to come (even if we convince Arnault, Bezos, Musk and Zuckerberg to risk all their money on a very expensive experiment). Until then “Extended Theories of Electromagnetism” such as the ‘massive photon’ and ‘photon Lenzing’ hypotheses will remain pure speculation (just like dark matter, dark energy, inflation, etc.)
Spallicci’s magnetic-field induced redshift is similar, and there’s a similar interest in magnetars’ redshift, but he is trying to “explain” “dark energy”, which has already been falsified (Sarkar). He also isn’t explaining the cosmic redshift, because he accounts for that by galactic-recession-superluminal-expanding-space.
If the hypothetical Lenz-force is proportional to B, maybe MagLab or ALPS II could test it.
It is pure speculation, but I wouldn’t lump it with the bloated speculations which are to cover-up the failures of GR and the Big Bang Theory.
@sahil5d, written in a more standard notation your Hubble-Force equation F = -H*p would be
where $\vec{k} = \vec{p}/\hbar$ is the standard notation for the “wavevector” in the direction of propagation of the photon. It is rather unusual to think of a “force” on a photon, but then light can exert a force on matter and so matter exerts the opposite force on photons. Your model makes physical sense, hold-on to this equation.
As you explain
which is the most common photon-matter interaction, but not the only one. Photon-matter interactions happen even if the photon is not resonant with an atom’s energy level (photoionization works for any energy of the photon), or even when the interacting matter does not have internal degrees of freedom (like the electron). Yet, in every case, the entire photon disappears and another one is re-emitted.
@sahil5d your equation (1) above is actually reproduced in the Stimulated-Transfer-Redshift model. But instead of an average (which hides the quantum nature of the process), the quantum equation describes photons that disappear and other ones that re-appear with a slightly smaller energy.
Without defining every term (sorry @HanDeBruijn, you’ll have to wait for the published paper), I reproduce the equation here
which gives the dipole force $\vec{F}$ (as discussed by @carlosbelcech here) as a function of the photons of momentum $\hbar \vec{k}$ that disappear, the photons of momentum $\hbar \vec{k}‘$ that re-appear, the number of photon $n_k$ and $n_{k’}$ in each quantum state and probability amplitudes $C$. The other terms express conservation of energy and momentum, and the strength of the interaction (via $\Delta$ and $g$ which all have units of $s^{-1}$).
The important characteristics to note in this equation are:
Thank you Louis. I am also waiting for the paper.
Is the assumption that by rejecting the blurriness criticism, tired light becomes tenable?
Because that’s not a really good reason to reject known science. The blurriness (or lack thereof) isn’t tired light’s biggest problem. That’s the measured time dilation of Cepheid’s and supernovae. Tired light can’t get around that.
The two big problems for TL models are the one you mention and also the temperature-redshift relation for the CMB. Otherwise, TL does better than Big Bang. I can account for both of these in my cosmological model.
Concerning the time dilation problem in TL models, I actually have two explanations and I am not sure which one is better.
In some other discussions, Mike noted that TL alone cannot explain it, because photons will all be subject to the same tiring effect during their travels from point A to point B. If two photons were emitted were emitted at A with a time difference t , they will arrive at B with the same time difference.
However, this interpretation applies only if we adopt a photon-based model of light, i.e., light is composed of more or less independently operating photons. We can instead look at a wave of light as an ensemble of photons, where the wavelength of the entire wave is reflected in the wavelength of the constituent photons of the wave. I have argued in my model (#204) that the CMB radiation for example adjusts its photon number and energy by exchanging energy with a photon-like spacetime. In this case CMB radiation emitted at a remote point A will actually have a reduced photon number when it reaches us at B. It is this feature that allows the CMB to remain as blackbody radiation in my model. Now looking at a wave train of duration t at A, the duration at point B will be increased to t (1+ z ). This would account for the time dilation seen in supernovae and remote quasars.
On the other hand, there is a competing explanation which could also hold in my model. In my model the universe consists of a shell of plasma situated at the Hubble radius which holds 95% of the universe’s mass. In Newtonian gravity and also GR, it is assumed that the interior metric of such a shell would be flat and Minkowski. That’s what I thought too. However, there is new work by Ni, Neslusan and deLyra which points to a different interpretation. Here is the paper by DeLyra et al: https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.02012 These authors argue that there is a repulsive gravitational field inside a spherical shell, which tends to push matter inside the shell towards the shell. The shell also induces a gravitational redshift on light leaving the shell and moving towards the interior, and a blueshift in light heading from the interior towards the shell. While it’s a gravitational redshift, this can also be described as a TL redshift. (Previously, we had a big discussion here about whether light actually loses energy in the gravitational redshift). If energy is lost by light to the “gravitational field”, as deLyra et al say, then that counts as TL redshift to me. This explanation could also have relevance to your time dilation model, Mike.
So I am divided on which explanation is best and would welcome input on that.
It’s not my intention to discourage you, because I’m in the same boat by pursuing fringe theories. That said, I’m not sure I understand the first solution, but the second solution seems overly geocentric. Why would a ring of plasma be centered around our galaxy in particular?
Here’s another try on the first explanation. Let’s imagine a pulse of light emitted over a time interval t and having a linear dimension x . The Hubble redshift can be imagined acting on this wave train in two different ways. In one way, each of the constituent photons is individually redshifted. In this case we might suppose that the time interval and linear extension are unchanged at point B compared to the emission point A. This would be the situation you described previously. But we can also imagine that the Hubble redshift acts on the whole wave train, changing the photon number in the train and also its wavelength. The whole wave train then can increase in its linear dimension and in the time it takes to pass a point: time dilation.
On the second explanation, you didn’t read it right. The spherical shell of plasma exists around the whole universe, not the galaxies (though you’ve got me thinking now that there could be smaller shells there too). See the figure in #204
Where is the center of the proposed spherical shell?
It’s somewhere close to our position. It’s a bit off centre, enough to possibly explain the observed small anisotropies in the CMB, quasar counts, etc. Here is the figure from my paper:
That it is somewhat close to our position is rather anti-Copernican.
It does seem that way. But it should be possible to verify our position, by checking all the CMB temperatures near our position. My prediction is that there would be regions close to us where the temperature drops below 2.7 K.
Mine is not the first paper to have the Milky Way close to the cosmic centre. More recently, there was some evidence presented that supermassive black holes get bigger over time: https://doi:10.3847/1538‐4357/acac2ede . If the oldest galaxies are near the centre in my model, that would fit this data.
@ExpEarth . You have been the author of a review of SEEING RED by Halton Arp, right? Then you must have read the following on page 236 of the book about the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR): >Very weak photons, indicative of low temperature and coming smoothly from all directions around us, were discovered accidentally in 1965. This “CBR” radiation was almost immediately hailed as another, especially decisive proof of the Big Bang. In fact it is very difficult to reconcile with the Big Bang in my opinion. The reason for this is that in an expanding universe radiation from different distances would have different temperatures and the very precise black body curve of temperature 2.74 K which is observed would be strongly smeared out. Because of this it is necessary to restrict the radiation to a very thin shell at the most distant edge of the universe. This shell is supposed to represent the region in which radiation suddenly “decoupled” from matter at some arbitrary point near the beginning (i.e. was no longer absorbed and reemitted but flowed freely out into space). For why this shell is so extremely thin, I have never heard a reason.
Yes, you are wrong! That figure by Arp shows the Big Bang conceptualization of the CMB somehow originating at a shell at a specific time and cooling with spacetime expansion ever since. I would agree with Arp that that picture is totally unrealistic. Below is a common graphic you will surely have seen. My eggshell model looks superficially similar to this, but there is no expansion (except by mass accretion at the edges). The shell is instead a cold, dusty plasma and this is where the CMB originates. It is redshifted to the 2.7 K CMB under the action of gravity in my model.