mikehelland / hubbles-law Goto Github PK

"CPT says that reversing time, mirroring space and flipping the charges in a process doesn't change the probability of said process. If an atom absorbs a slow photon and an electron is kicked out by it, the revere can happen. An anti-ion captures a positron, and emitts a slow photon. Of course you don't have to have a whole anti-ion for this, if an atom interacts with slow photons than either quarks or electrons interact with slow photons, so positron or anti quark reactions should have produced slow photons in particle accelerators in my opinion."

"So you think photons slow down, which implies they change invariant mass. Basically they obtain restmass, they become a different kind excitation in terms of QFT. And we know these have to interact with ordinary matter, we can see them in telescopes. But if you know anything about QFT, you know if you rotate a feynman diagramm you also get a valid feynman diagramm, and ammong other things due to a 90° rotation absorbtions can become emissions. So the question is, if there is interaction with these slow photons, why didn't we see these slow photons created in particle physics experiments?"

https://twitter.com/StartsWithABang/status/1347645432499822592

This criticism is that is photons were slower than c, they should arrive after gravitational waves.

A: Black holes evaporate

https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/is-new-hydrogen-being-created-in-the-universe/

" Hawking radiation can also produce ‘new’ protons and hence ‘new’ hydrogen. "

"So you think photons slow down, which implies they change invariant mass. Basically they obtain restmass, they become a different kind excitation in terms of QFT. "

Since any light interacting with a lens will be absorbed and re-emitted as fresh photons (D=0, v=c), that shouldn't be a problem.

A satisfactory resolution to this would be a demonstration of photon momentum, and an explanation of what happens during the redshift.

" red shift isn't possible without clock desynchronization, ie, you will see the source's clock run at a slower speed than your own. Coherent red shift is not logically even possible without clock desynchronization. But clock desynchronization is fundamentally incompatible with your steady state universe for two distant observers who are stationary relative to each other. "

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13365973&postcount=1383

We know how much light we get from distant sources. The sky is dark at night, and astronomers have gotten very good at measuring exactly how dark it is, in all wavelengths from gamma to radio waves.

The CMB is almost two orders of magnitude more powerful than the next brightest background (the Cosmic Ultraviolet-Optical Background), and several orders of magnitude larger than most other backgrounds. So no, there isn't a wealth of photons out there to get the energy you need.

https://twitter.com/Feynman04950010/status/1348021817328459777

If the photon loses frequency during its journey, but not wavelength, the z values of light measured by frequency or wavelength should differ, and they are observed to be consistent photons traveling at c.

The conjecture is that photons redshift, and the deducted energy produces a new photon, which are detected as the CMB.

How often is a new photon produced this way?

Let's say a photon is emitted with wavelength of 499.65 nm, which is energy of 2.481420854598219 eV.

It's going to travel 1 million light years, and using a value of 74 km/s/Mpc for Hubble's constant, convert that ly/y/Mly and that is 0.0000756.

After 1 million years then, it's speed would be 0.9999244 c.

c = freq_emit * wavelength
c * 0.9999244 = freq_new * wavelength

freq_emit * wavelength = (freq_new * wavelength) / 0.9999244

0.9999244 * freq_emit * wavelength = freq_new * wavelength

0.9999244 * freq_emit = freq_new

E=hf

0.9999244 * freq_emit * h = freq_new * h

0.9999244 * E_emit = E_new

E_new = 0.9999244 * 2.481420854598219

The original photon would be redshifted to an energy of 2.481233 eV, it would have emitted new photons with a total energy of 0.0001875954 eV.

If that were one photon, it would have a wavelength of 6609127.569226111 nm.

"The CMB has a thermal black body spectrum at a temperature of 2.72548±0.00057 K. The spectral radiance dEν/dν peaks at 160.23 GHz, in the microwave range of frequencies, corresponding to a photon energy of about 6.626 ⋅ 10−4 eV"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic...ave_background

A CMB photon has energy 0.0006626 eV, and wavelength 1871177.075 nm.

So... assuming a fresh local CMB photon has that energy, how many millions of years would it take a photon to pop out another photon at that energy?

0.0006626 eV / 0.0001875954 eV My-1 = 3.532069549679789 My

So... according to all this, a photon in the visible spectrum should pop out a CMB photon every 3.5 million years.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13318863#post13318863

Perhaps, but you didn't think through the reference frame issues. You have a serious velocity addition problem. One can have c be invariant and still have an internally consistent kinematics, because c is both unique and limiting. You can’t have various values for an invariant speed, especially if those possible values include speeds that non-photon particles can and do also have.

Imagine an Observer A in an inertial frame. Imagine another observer, B, moving at velocity -.1c towards A. A emits a particle out towards B at .1c as seen by A.

A *—-> <—-B

How fast is that particle moving towards B, as seen by B? This is a pretty basic problem in kinematics, one that any good physical model ought to be able to answer consistently. In a classical system, the answer would be .2c. In special relativity, the answer is slightly less, about .198c. And whichever kinematics one uses, A can answer the question, based on its own local observations, about what B should be seeing. As could any other inertial observer based on their own determinations of the relevant velocities.

But your own model can’t do that if the speed of some particles moving as slow as .1c can also be invariant the way c is. Suppose that a particle comes by from a distant galaxy, traveling in direction AB.

A *—-> <—-B
p—->

Its speed is .1c, so once it passes A, it travels towards B at velocity .1c as measured by A, just like the first particle. So, that means the two particles have the same velocity, right?

Well, in your model, if the particle from a distant galaxy happens to be a photon, this would only hold true for A. A sees both the photon and the particle he emitted traveling at .1c towards B, but what does B see? According to you, B would also see that photon traveling towards him with a speed of .1c, while the particle that A emitted travels at or about .2c.

This is why Ziggurat is telling you your model is inconsistent: different observers trying to use it couldn’t even give the same answer to a question as basic as: do two particles moving in the same direction at .1c relative to A have the same velocity? And if so, what is that velocity?

Alternatively, if the speed of that distant photon isn’t invariant, and is allowed to vary among observers, your model has a different problem: it gives different answers for v = c - H*D depending on who’s looking, and even worse, in what direction they are looking, because galaxies one was moving towards would appear closer than the ones one was moving away from. The universe would not look isotropic to such observers. Which includes earth-based observers.