Cosmological Redshift, CMB, Olbers' Paradox

[Pentcho Valev]

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." https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170

If Feynman is correct, any wave-based concept of variation of the wavelength of light (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mJTRXCMU6o&t=77s) is unrealistic. It makes sense to advance the following

Axiom: The wavelength of light is invariable.

and examine the logical consequences. First of all, given the formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength), we conclude:

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

It follows that the cosmological (Hubble) redshift is due to light gradually slowing down as it travels through intergalactic space, in a non-expanding universe. The idea that vacuum slows down light has been largely discussed but only in terms of quantum gravity. The implication that the Hubble redshift might be due to speed of light decrease is persistently ignored:

"...in some quantum-gravity models, the speed of photons in gamma rays would be affected by the grainy nature of spacetime..." https://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/255

Sabine Hossenfelder: "It's an old story: Quantum fluctuations of space-time might change the travel-time of light. Light of higher frequencies would be a little faster than that of lower frequencies. Or slower, depending on the sign of an unknown constant. Either way, the spectral colors of light would run apart, or 'disperse' as they say if they don't want you to understand what they say. Such quantum gravitational effects are miniscule, but added up over long distances they can become observable. Gamma ray bursts are therefore ideal to search for evidence of such an energy-dependent speed of light." http://backreaction.blogspot.fr/2017/01/what-burst-fresh-attempt-to-see-space.html

"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

For not so distant stars slow speed of light is manifested as cosmological (Hubble) redshift.

Light from very distant stars (very slow light) is manifested as what is called Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). (I used to regard CMB as coming from nearby vacuum fluctuations, but that was a wrong idea).

Beyond a certain distance, the star light does not reach us at all.

The invisible "very slow light" and the light that does not reach us explain the Olbers' paradox.

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

[Lou]

On Saturday, 3 September 2022 at 19:31:02 UTC+1, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> 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."
https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170

Feynman was lying. He mentions only PMT’s. What other instruments that detect weak
light are there? There aren’t any. And he has no evidence to claim that photomultipliers
detect particles.
We never see the interaction with light at the surface of the detector screen. It’s much
to small a mechanism for our eyes or microscopes to ever see.
Feyman only assumes it’s particles. It just as easily could be wave light quantised
at the detector screen.
Easier in fact considering we can see the wave properties of light with our own eyes
in experiments like the double slit experiment. We know light is a wave.
Some only pretend it’s a particle. A pretence made against all other empirical
observed data.

> If Feynman is correct, any wave-based concept of variation of the wavelength of light (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mJTRXCMU6o&t=77s) is unrealistic. It makes sense to advance the following
>

That video is baloney and has a fundamental flaw. Notice they screwed up big time with their
imaginary compression of light waves emitted by a star that moves to the right near the beginning
of the video.
The light waves are travelling at a constant speed relative to the video/observer frame
And slowing down their speed relative to the source the farther they move from the source
as the source moves from left to right!!
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
What a load of nonsense. There is no evidence this is possible..MMX for instance
shows us that light that has left the source always still travels away from and back
to the source at a constant c relative to *the source*.
Not at a constant c in an observer frame where the observer moves relative to the
source. (As in the video)
Redo the video with the source not moving in the screen. And the light waves
propagating out at constant speeds and wavelengths. And then have the *observer*
move from right to left across the screen.
Now as you move the observer to the left you still get Doppler shifted light observed
by the observer as it moves towards the source..
But the lights wavelength and speed never changes relative to the source in the video frame
(The video frame now being the source frame where the source doesn’t move.)

> Axiom: The wavelength of light is invariable.
>
> and examine the logical consequences. First of all, given the formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength), we conclude:
>
> Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a proportional speed-of-light shift.
>
> It follows that the cosmological (Hubble) redshift is due to light gradually slowing down as it travels through intergalactic space, in a non-expanding universe. The idea that vacuum slows down light has been largely discussed but only in terms of quantum gravity. The implication that the Hubble redshift might be due to speed of light decrease is persistently ignored:
>

Or from any point in the magnetic field of the vacuum absorbing and remitting the wave
light of the range of emitted light at slightly longer frequencies at any one point in the
vacuum. Giving us, over great distances, cosmological redshift.
This already happens in absorption and emission spectral lines as the atoms absorb and
re emit light at slightly longer wavelengths. Use the same mechanism on a smaller scale
for a vacuum propagating the magnetic field of light waves and you have...redshift.

> "...in some quantum-gravity models, the speed of photons in gamma rays would be affected by the grainy nature of spacetime..." https://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/255
>
> Sabine Hossenfelder: "It's an old story: Quantum fluctuations of space-time might change the travel-time of light. Light of higher frequencies would be a little faster than that of lower frequencies. Or slower, depending on the sign of an unknown constant. Either way, the spectral colors of light would run apart, or 'disperse' as they say if they don't want you to understand what they say. Such quantum gravitational effects are miniscule, but added up over long distances they can become observable. Gamma ray bursts are therefore ideal to search for evidence of such an energy-dependent speed of light." http://backreaction.blogspot.fr/2017/01/what-burst-fresh-attempt-to-see-space.html
>

Obviously Sabine hasn’t studied gammaraybursts. Or FRB ‘s for that matter. Notice it is
a well documented fact that the short seconds long profile of the GRB is redshifted to
hours and longer in optical. Even longer in microwaves and to days in radio.
I’ve pointed out this fact for decades on the net.
These delays are consistent with a decay proportional to wavelength.
And Sabines quantum excuse would only be able to explain if the delays in optical were
milliseconds longer than gamma.
Unfortunately the delays of days between gamma and radio are much too great for
any QT explanation.

> "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
>
> For not so distant stars slow speed of light is manifested as cosmological (Hubble) redshift.
>
> Light from very distant stars (very slow light) is manifested as what is called Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). (I used to regard CMB as coming from nearby vacuum fluctuations, but that was a wrong idea).
>

I agree but Ive already said this many times here on Google groups. The CMBR
is the redshifted blackbody emission from distant stars and galaxies redshifted to microwave.
I ve calculated that in a non expanding universe z=1024 is light from
about 10 times the distance from earth then the distance light travels
at z=1.
(So whatever the actual real distance in a non expanding universe galaxies
at z=1 are,....multiply that by about 10x and you get the distance to the
sources that produce the CMBR.)

[Pentcho Valev]

"The CMB is a perfect example of redshift. Originally, CMB photons had much shorter wavelengths with high associated energy, corresponding to a temperature of about 3,000 K (nearly 5,000° F). As the universe expanded, the light was stretched into longer and less energetic wavelengths. By the time the light reaches us, 14 billion years later, we observe it as low-energy microwaves at a frigid 2.7 K (-450° F). This is why CMB is so cold now." https://www.universeadventure.org/big_bang/cmb-origins.htm

No. The wavelength of light is invariable. Frequency and speed vary proportionally, in accordance with the formula

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

The so called CMB is extremely cold because the speed of its photons is extremely slow.

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev