Discussion:
Hubble Redshift : Stretched Wavelength or Slowed Speed?
(trop ancien pour répondre)
Pentcho Valev
2023-04-27 23:44:58 UTC
Permalink
The formula

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

says that decrease of frequency is paired either with decrease of speed or with increase (stretching) of wavelength. The latter alternative has an apocalyptic power - if it is the false one, nothing will remain of modern cosmology, not even of modern physics. And yet the idea that photons can be stretched is not just false - it is preposterous.

"No experiment has ever been performed that verifies that expanding space can indeed alter the wavelength of an already moving photon."


Actually, no observation has ever shown that a length or a distance between any two things has been stretched by space expansion. The wavelength of photons is no exception.

Cosmologists are plagued by (actual or anticipated) questions like:

If the universe is expanding, then why aren't we, why no length has been observed to stretch, why no two things have been observed to move apart pushed by expansion, etc.

In order to alleviate the problem, cosmologists have tweaked the theory. Our theory predicts expansion, cosmologists have decided, only for pure voids (the annoying questions automatically become pointless). For spaces where stretching or moving apart is observable and the annoying questions are relevant, our theory predicts no expansion at all. The universe is expanding, but there are nonexpanding patches:

Sabine Hossenfelder: "The solution of general relativity that describes the expanding universe is a solution on average; it is good only on very large distances. But the solutions that describe galaxies are different - and just don't expand. It's not that galaxies expand unnoticeably, they just don't. The full solution, then, is both stitched together: Expanding space between non-expanding galaxies...It is only somewhere beyond the scales of galaxy clusters that expansion takes over." https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/07/28/most-things-dont-actually-expand-in-an-expanding-universe/

"Space DOES NOT Expand Everywhere...Is the space inside, say, a galaxy growing but overcome by the gravitational attraction between the stars? The answer is no. Space within any gravitationally bound system is unaffected by the surrounding expansion."


How can stretching occur if part of space is expanding and the other part is not expanding? Light is stretched as it travels in the space between galactic clusters, then stretching stops as the light enters a cluster, then stretching continues as the light leaves the cluster, etc? Idiotic, isn't it?

There is no stretching. The redshift known as "cosmological" (or "Hubble") is due to the speed of light slowing down as photons travel through vacuum, in a non-expanding universe. Accordingly, the cosmic microwave background, CMB, is very, very slow light, very, very highly redshifted, coming from very, very far away.

Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
2023-04-28 09:01:26 UTC
Permalink
Physicists worship Feynman but persistently ignore this statement of his:

Richard Feynman: "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles. You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles." QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter p. 15 https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170

Feynman's words prove nothing but still they make "stretching" of light sound unrealistic. Generally, the concept of VARIABLE wavelength of light



is preposterous if "light is made of particles". That is, the particle model of light implies that the wavelength of light can only be an invariable proportionality factor in the formula

(speed of light) = (wavelength)(frequency)

Surprisingly at first sight, VARIABLE wavelength of light is incompatible with the wave model of light as well:

Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary." http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf

This interpretation implies that the emitter is CHASING the emitted crest - that is the reason why, when the next crest is emitted, the distance between the two crests is smaller than when the emitter is stationary. As chasing becomes faster and faster (the speed of the emitter increases), the distance between crests approaches zero - the emitted crests remain in the vicinity of the emitter for a long time (preposterous, isn't it?):



The variation of the wavelength of light with the speed of the emitter contradicts the principle of relativity. If the wavelength varied, the emitter could regularly measure the variations inside his spaceship - so he would know his spaceship's speed without looking outside. If, for instance, measurements inside the spaceship show that the wavelength has decreased, the emitter will conclude that his spaceship is now moving faster than before.

For light waves, there can be no chasing. No matter how fast the emitter is moving, the speed of the emitted crest relative to the emitter remains constant, c. Accordingly, when the next crest is emitted, the distance between the two crests remains unchanged - the same as when the emitter is stationary.

Conclusion: According to both particle and wave models of light, the wavelength of light depends only on the nature of the emitting substance and is constant otherwise.

"The wavelength of light is constant" will become the fundamental axiom of future, Einstein-free physics. Here are some corollaries:

Corollary 1: Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a proportional speed-of-light shift.

Corollary 2: If the emitter and the observer travel towards each other with relative speed v, the speed of light relative to the observer is c' = c+v, as posited by Newton's theory.

Corollary 3: Spacetime and gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist. LIGO's "discoveries" are fakes.

Corollary 4: Light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as ordinary falling bodies - near Earth's surface the accelerations of falling photons is g = 9.8 m/s^2. Accordingly, there is no gravitational time dilation.

Corollary 5: The so-called cosmological (Hubble) redshift is due to the speed of light gradually slowing down as light travels through vacuum, in a non-expanding universe.

Corollary 6: The dark sky in the Olbers' paradox can be explained by two facts. 1. Low-speed, high-redshifted light (known as CMB), coming from very distant sources, is invisible. 2. Beyond a certain distance, the star light does not reach us at all (its speed is reduced to zero).

Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Loading...