info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Hubble Redshift: Light Slows Down in Vacuum
51 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Oct 12, 2017, 12:21:20 PM10/12/17
to
Sabine Hossenfelder (2:29): "Spacetime might affect how light travel through it. It might not be entirely transparent or light of different colors might travel at different speeds." https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=220&v=Abcaz_sJPHw
If light slows down in vacuum, this explains the Hubble redshift (in a STATIC universe):
"...explains Liberati. "If spacetime is a kind of fluid, then we must also take into account its viscosity and other dissipative effects, which had never been considered in detail". Liberati and Maccione catalogued these effects and showed that viscosity tends to rapidly dissipate photons and other particles along their path, "And yet we can see photons travelling from astrophysical objects located millions of light years away!" he continues. "If spacetime is a fluid, then according to our calculations it must necessarily be a superfluid. This means that its viscosity value is extremely low, close to zero"." https://phys.org/news/2014-04-liquid-spacetime-slippery-superfluid.html
Nature: "As waves travel through a medium, they lose energy over time. This dampening effect would also happen to photons traveling through spacetime, the researchers found." http://www.nature.com/news/superfluid-spacetime-points-to-unification-of-physics-1.15437
"Some physicists, however, suggest that there might be one other cosmic factor that could influence the speed of light: quantum vacuum fluctuation. This theory holds that so-called empty spaces in the Universe aren't actually empty - they're teeming with particles that are just constantly changing from existent to non-existent states. Quantum fluctuations, therefore, could slow down the speed of light."
https://www.sciencealert.com/how-much-do-we-really-know-about-the-speed-of-light?perpetual=yes&limitstart=1
Pentcho Valev
If light slows down in vacuum, this explains the Hubble redshift (in a STATIC universe):
"...explains Liberati. "If spacetime is a kind of fluid, then we must also take into account its viscosity and other dissipative effects, which had never been considered in detail". Liberati and Maccione catalogued these effects and showed that viscosity tends to rapidly dissipate photons and other particles along their path, "And yet we can see photons travelling from astrophysical objects located millions of light years away!" he continues. "If spacetime is a fluid, then according to our calculations it must necessarily be a superfluid. This means that its viscosity value is extremely low, close to zero"." https://phys.org/news/2014-04-liquid-spacetime-slippery-superfluid.html
Nature: "As waves travel through a medium, they lose energy over time. This dampening effect would also happen to photons traveling through spacetime, the researchers found." http://www.nature.com/news/superfluid-spacetime-points-to-unification-of-physics-1.15437
"Some physicists, however, suggest that there might be one other cosmic factor that could influence the speed of light: quantum vacuum fluctuation. This theory holds that so-called empty spaces in the Universe aren't actually empty - they're teeming with particles that are just constantly changing from existent to non-existent states. Quantum fluctuations, therefore, could slow down the speed of light."
https://www.sciencealert.com/how-much-do-we-really-know-about-the-speed-of-light?perpetual=yes&limitstart=1
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Oct 13, 2017, 3:26:04 AM10/13/17
to
Two major idiocies of the expanding universe model (there are many more):
"The Multiverse Is Inevitable, And We're Living In It. Alan Guth: "It's hard to build models of inflation that don't lead to a multiverse. It's not impossible, so I think there's still certainly research that needs to be done. But most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking [it] seriously." The Multiverse itself may not give rise to any observable, testable predictions, but arises as a direct consequences of other physical theories that have already been validated." http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/12/the-multiverse-is-inevitable-and-were-living-in-it-synopsis/
Sabine Hossenfelder: "If The Universe Is Expanding, Then Why Aren't We? 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." https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/07/28/most-things-dont-actually-expand-in-an-expanding-universe/
Pentcho Valev
"The Multiverse Is Inevitable, And We're Living In It. Alan Guth: "It's hard to build models of inflation that don't lead to a multiverse. It's not impossible, so I think there's still certainly research that needs to be done. But most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking [it] seriously." The Multiverse itself may not give rise to any observable, testable predictions, but arises as a direct consequences of other physical theories that have already been validated." http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/12/the-multiverse-is-inevitable-and-were-living-in-it-synopsis/
Sabine Hossenfelder: "If The Universe Is Expanding, Then Why Aren't We? 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." https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/07/28/most-things-dont-actually-expand-in-an-expanding-universe/
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Oct 13, 2017, 9:53:15 AM10/13/17
to
"In the mid 1990s two teams of scientists, one led by Brian Schmidt and Adam Riess, and the other by Saul Perlmutter, independently measured distances to Type 1a supernovae in the distant universe, finding that they appeared to be further way than they should be if the universe's rate of expansion was constant. The observations led to the hypothesis that some kind of dark energy anti-gravitational force has caused the expansion of the universe to accelerate over the past six billion years."
https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/dark-energy-may-not-exist
Actually the redshifting occurs in a STATIC, not expanding, universe, and varies EXPONENTIALLY with time. The "finding that they appeared to be further way than they should be" is an illusion due to using an approximation to the exponential function.
Assume that, as the photon travels through space (in a STATIC universe), a factor equivalent to vacuum friction (see relevant references below) slows it down so that the photon loses speed in much the same way that a golf ball loses speed due to the resistance of the air. On this hypothesis the resistive force (Fr) is proportional to the speed of the photon (V):
Fr = - KV
That is, the speed of light decreases with time in accordance with the equation:
dV/dt = - K'V
Clearly, at the end of a very long journey of photons (coming from a very distant object), the contribution to the redshift is much smaller than the contribution at the beginning of the journey. Light coming from nearer objects is less subject to this effect, that is, the increase of the redshift with distance is closer to LINEAR for short distances. For distant light sources we have:
f' = f(exp(-kt))
where f is the initial and f' the measured (redshifted) frequency. For short distances the following approximations can be made:
f' = f(exp(-kt)) ~ f(1-kt) ~ f - kd/λ
where d is the distance between the light source and the observer and λ is the wavelength.
The approximate equation, f' = f - kd/λ, is only valid for short distances and corresponds to the Hubble law.
The original equation, f' = f(exp(-kt)), shows that at the end of a very long journey (in a STATIC universe) photons redshift much less vigorously than at the beginning of the journey. This means that photons coming from very distant objects have undergone some initial "vigorous" redshifting which is unaccounted for by the Hubble law. This explains why the very distant objects "appeared to be further way than they should be if the universe's rate of expansion was constant".
Is there "vacuum friction" that slows down photons? Yes there is:
"This leads to the prediction of vacuum friction: The quantum vacuum can act in a manner reminiscent of a viscous fluid."
http://philpapers.org/rec/DAVQVN
New Scientist: "Vacuum has friction after all."
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20927994.100-vacuum-has-friction-after-all
"So how can a vacuum carry force? One of the first things we learn in classical physics is that in a perfect vacuum - a place entirely devoid of matter - friction can't exist, because empty space can't exert a force on objects traveling through it. But, in recent years, quantum physicists have shown that vacuums are actually filled by tiny electromagnetic fluctuations that can interfere with the activity of photons - particles of light - and produce a measurable force on objects."
http://www.businessinsider.com/casimir-effect-vacuum-space-nanoparticles-2017-4
Pentcho Valev
https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/dark-energy-may-not-exist
Actually the redshifting occurs in a STATIC, not expanding, universe, and varies EXPONENTIALLY with time. The "finding that they appeared to be further way than they should be" is an illusion due to using an approximation to the exponential function.
Assume that, as the photon travels through space (in a STATIC universe), a factor equivalent to vacuum friction (see relevant references below) slows it down so that the photon loses speed in much the same way that a golf ball loses speed due to the resistance of the air. On this hypothesis the resistive force (Fr) is proportional to the speed of the photon (V):
Fr = - KV
That is, the speed of light decreases with time in accordance with the equation:
dV/dt = - K'V
Clearly, at the end of a very long journey of photons (coming from a very distant object), the contribution to the redshift is much smaller than the contribution at the beginning of the journey. Light coming from nearer objects is less subject to this effect, that is, the increase of the redshift with distance is closer to LINEAR for short distances. For distant light sources we have:
f' = f(exp(-kt))
where f is the initial and f' the measured (redshifted) frequency. For short distances the following approximations can be made:
f' = f(exp(-kt)) ~ f(1-kt) ~ f - kd/λ
where d is the distance between the light source and the observer and λ is the wavelength.
The approximate equation, f' = f - kd/λ, is only valid for short distances and corresponds to the Hubble law.
The original equation, f' = f(exp(-kt)), shows that at the end of a very long journey (in a STATIC universe) photons redshift much less vigorously than at the beginning of the journey. This means that photons coming from very distant objects have undergone some initial "vigorous" redshifting which is unaccounted for by the Hubble law. This explains why the very distant objects "appeared to be further way than they should be if the universe's rate of expansion was constant".
Is there "vacuum friction" that slows down photons? Yes there is:
"This leads to the prediction of vacuum friction: The quantum vacuum can act in a manner reminiscent of a viscous fluid."
http://philpapers.org/rec/DAVQVN
New Scientist: "Vacuum has friction after all."
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20927994.100-vacuum-has-friction-after-all
"So how can a vacuum carry force? One of the first things we learn in classical physics is that in a perfect vacuum - a place entirely devoid of matter - friction can't exist, because empty space can't exert a force on objects traveling through it. But, in recent years, quantum physicists have shown that vacuums are actually filled by tiny electromagnetic fluctuations that can interfere with the activity of photons - particles of light - and produce a measurable force on objects."
http://www.businessinsider.com/casimir-effect-vacuum-space-nanoparticles-2017-4
Pentcho Valev
mitchr...@gmail.com
Oct 18, 2017, 3:27:06 PM10/18/17
to
expanding light's wavelength and slowing its frequency and lowering
its energy quantity.
David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
Oct 18, 2017, 3:44:17 PM10/18/17
to
On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 11:21:20 AM UTC-5, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Sabine Hossenfelder (2:29): "Spacetime might affect how light travel through it. It might not be entirely transparent or light of different colors might travel at different speeds." https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=220&v=Abcaz_sJPHw
>
> If light slows down in vacuum, this explains the Hubble redshift (in a STATIC universe):
You are a Cretinous Imbecile
> Sabine Hossenfelder (2:29): "Spacetime might affect how light travel through it. It might not be entirely transparent or light of different colors might travel at different speeds." https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=220&v=Abcaz_sJPHw
>
> If light slows down in vacuum, this explains the Hubble redshift (in a STATIC universe):
Red-shift is Rising Entropy
a loss of Tension on the Horizon
Learn Crochet or Something Else
mitchr...@gmail.com
Oct 20, 2017, 8:36:59 PM10/20/17
to
what is left?
Mitchell Raemsch
mitchr...@gmail.com
Oct 21, 2017, 5:40:05 PM10/21/17
to
0 new messages