Rejecting the blurriness criticism

[sahil5d]

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...

[ExpEarth]

Sahil, could you repost that with the quoted material at normal size. Can't readi it!

Matt

[ftessier]

@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.

[ExpEarth]

Thanks, got it!

[RedshiftDrift]

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 behavior are set to Formatted link, Pasting a URL while having text selected will format to a Markdown link.

[poelzi]

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.

[HanDeBruijn]

Upon skimming through it, Stoyan Sargs BSM-SG perspective reminds me of another weird one: Stefan Denaerde - Cosmic Unified Field Theory .

[RedshiftDrift]

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?

[ftessier]

I would block users from the repo in that case.

[ftessier]

Or you can delete any specific comment, ellipsis icon, top right of comment or reply.

[RedshiftDrift]

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.

[RedshiftDrift]

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?

Yes, "dissipated tiny photons" is addressed in case 2c).

I'm editing the old message and will post a better version...

[sahil5d]

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.

[ExpEarth]

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.

[RedshiftDrift]

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].

[ExpEarth]

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.

[RedshiftDrift]

@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:

1. waves have no specific direction of propagation,
2. waves come from everywhere,
3. waves have the same spectral amplitude everywhere,
4. no blurring: the stern wake created by a boat propagates across the lake along a precise direction,
5. the waves on the lake are statistically random with peak amplitude at a wavelength of ~60 cm,
6. CMB waves follow Bose-Einstein statistics that produces a Planck spectrum with a peak amplitude at λ~2 mm.

[budrap00]

Louis,

1. waves have no specific direction of propagation,
2. waves come from everywhere,

1. Expanding spherical wavefronts have no particular direction since they expand in all directions outward from their source.
2. The aggregate of all expanding wavefronts come from everywhere as seen by a 3D-local observer.

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

[ExpEarth]

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.

[budrap00]

Hi Matt,

I now accept the evidence that the CMB energy density and temperature decrease as the photons move towards us.

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?

[ExpEarth]

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.

[budrap00]

@ExpEarth

Let's consider the example of radiation emanating from a star. It is in the form of EM radiation having characteristics of blackbody radiation.

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.

[ExpEarth]

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.

[khuramonline]

@marmetl

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.

So if light is emittiting light during propagation then this mechanism also should preserve the number of photons?

[RedshiftDrift]

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.

[ExpEarth]

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?

[sahil5d]

@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?

[RedshiftDrift]

(Google Bard is not yet available in Canada, but I've seen ChatGPT hallucinate in interesting ways too!)

[RedshiftDrift]

The same instability also sends the photon sideways as well

Does this necessarily have to happen?

Yes, see equations in 2b at the top of this discussion. They are valid for anything that has energy and momentum.

The photon is partly an oscillating magnetic field..

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!

[sahil5d]

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...

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).

[RedshiftDrift]

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.)

[sahil5d]

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.

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.

If the hypothetical Lenz-force is proportional to B, maybe MagLab or ALPS II could test it.

'photon Lenzing' hypotheses will remain pure speculation (just like dark matter, dark energy, inflation, etc.)

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.

[RedshiftDrift]

@sahil5d, written in a more standard notation your Hubble-Force equation F = -H*p would be

$\vec{F} = -H_0 \ \hbar \vec{k} \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~$ (1)

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

the photon has got to be resonant with the atom for an orbital to exist,

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:

• the force is proportional to $\hbar \vec{k}$, as in Eq. (1),
• "the blurriness criticism" (the topic of this discussion) is rejected because each new redshifted photon $\vec{k}'$ is only produced if the number photons in that mode $n_{k'}$ is non-zero. That is, the new redshifted photon is stimulated in the same direction as the original light beam,
• no magnetic field is necessary.

[carlosbelcech]

Thank you Louis. I am also waiting for the paper.

[mikehelland]

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.

[ExpEarth]

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.

[ExpEarth]

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.

[mikehelland]

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?

[ExpEarth]

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

[mikehelland]

Where is the center of the proposed spherical shell?

[ExpEarth]

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:

[mikehelland]

That it is somewhat close to our position is rather anti-Copernican.

[ExpEarth]

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.

[HanDeBruijn]

@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.

This seems to be quite similar to your model. Am I wrong?

[ExpEarth]

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.