Galactic Redshift is not a Doppler Effect

[Marius]

 

Light is an electro-magnetic wave and has Energy (E=h*f)

Like any wave, the light wave looses some of this energy as it passes vast distances of space (due to interactions with free electrons, plasma, gas clouds, and so on).

As it looses energy, its frequency automatically decreases- because E=h*f, where h= constant (of Planck)

As its frequency decreases, light is shifted to red- because red light has the lowest frequency of the visible light spectrum.

Therefore, Hubble's interpretation of galactic redshift as a Doppler effect/recessional velocity is wrong. The universe is NOT expanding and modern cosmology is in an universal error of intergalactic proportions ever since.

 

 

Edited December 31, 2021 by Marius

[Genady]

30 minutes ago, Marius said:

As it looses energy, its frequency automatically decreases

This is incorrect.

[Marius]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

This is incorrect.

Why ? If E=h* frequency, and E decreases, while h remains constant, then frequency must decrease too. Its basic maths.

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, Marius said:

Why ? If E=h* frequency, and E decreases, while h remains constant, then frequency must decrease too. Its basic maths.

Because E=hf is energy of one photon. Light consists of many photons, let's say N. The energy of light is E=Nhf. This E decreases because N decreases, not f.

[John Cuthber]

6 minutes ago, Marius said:

Why ? If E=h* frequency, and E decreases, while h remains constant, then frequency must decrease too. Its basic maths.

Where do you imagine that the energy goes?
Here's a tired old theory that you seem to b trying to rehash.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light#Specific_falsified_models

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Where do you imagine that the energy goes?
Here's a tired old theory that you seem to b trying to rehash.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light#Specific_falsified_models

The photons are absorbed by gas clouds etc. that are mentioned in the OP. 

Edited January 1, 2022 by Genady

[John Cuthber]

Just now, Genady said:

The photons are absorbed by gas clouds etc. that you've mentioned in your OP. 

My OP?

Happy new year!

 

[Genady]

Just now, John Cuthber said:

My OP?

Happy new year!

 

Sorry, didn't notice the change. Corrected. Happy New Year to you as well.

BTW, cosmological redshift actually is not a Doppler effect, but for a different reason that has nothing to do with the OP.

[beecee]

4 hours ago, Marius said:

 

Light is an electro-magnetic wave and has Energy (E=h*f)

Like any wave, the light wave looses some of this energy as it passes vast distances of space (due to interactions with free electrons, plasma, gas clouds, and so on).

As it looses energy, its frequency automatically decreases- because E=h*f, where h= constant (of Planck)

As its frequency decreases, light is shifted to red- because red light has the lowest frequency of the visible light spectrum.

Therefore, Hubble's interpretation of galactic redshift as a Doppler effect/recessional velocity is wrong. The universe is NOT expanding and modern cosmology is in an universal error of intergalactic proportions ever since.

 

 

A couple of points, firstly you should post in the correct section, if you have any evidence that you believe contradicts mainstream interpretation, secondly, know what mainstream is thoroughly before attempting to discredit it.

There are three types of redshift, Doppler, cosmological, and gravitational.

In essence, you are wrong.

https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/c/cosmological+redshift#:~:text=The Doppler shift would be,when the photons were emitted.

Laboratory experiments here on Earth have determined that each element in the periodic table emits photons only at certain wavelengths (determined by the excitation state of the atoms). These photons are manifest as either emission or absorption lines in the spectrum of an astronomical object, and by measuring the position of these spectral lines, we can determine which elements are present in the object itself or along the line of sight.

However, when astronomers perform this analysis, they note that for most astronomical objects, the observed spectral lines are all shifted to longer (redder) wavelengths. This is known as ‘cosmological redshift’ (or more commonly just ‘redshift’) and is given by:

extract:

For example, in a distant binary system it is theoretically possible to measure both a Doppler shift and a cosmological redshift. The Doppler shift would be determined by the motions of the individual stars in the binary – whether they were approaching or receding at the time the photons were emitted. The cosmological redshift would be determined by how far away the system was when the photons were emitted. The larger the distance to the system, the longer the emitted photons have travelled through expanding space and the higher the measured cosmological redshift.

[Marius]

Because E=hf is energy of one photon. Light consists of many photons, let's say N. The energy of light is E=Nhf. This E decreases because N decreases, not f.

Because of the particle-wave duality, one photon IS one light wave, and the frequency of this light wave will shift to red as it looses energy.  A single photon particle-light wave will still loose energy as it hits other particles such as free electrons, as some of its cinetic energy is transfered to those particles. So the frequency of one photon particle-light wave will still drop with energy loss and shift to red.

Edited January 1, 2022 by Marius

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, Marius said:

Because of the particle-wave duality, one photon IS one light wave, and the frequency of this light wave will shift to red as it looses energy.  A single photon particle-light wave will still loose energy as it hits other particles such as free electrons, as some of its cinetic energy is transfered to those particles. So the frequency of one photon particle-light wave will still drop with energy loss and shift to red.

Nope, photons don't do that. They don't loose energy. They are created and annihilated in interactions with other particles.

[Marius]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

Nope, photons don't do that. They don't loose energy. They are created and annihilated in interactions with other particles.

If a photon particle/light wave cant loose energy, then it means it cant change its frequency either. It is forever fixed and therefore no redshift is possible.

[Genady]

15 minutes ago, Marius said:

If a photon particle/light wave cant loose energy, then it means it cant change its frequency either. It is forever fixed and therefore no redshift is possible.

This is almost correct. Photon never looses energy in any locality. It's because the space itself expands, it has different energies in different localities, i.e. in different local frames of reference. 

Consider for example you driving in a car. In your frame of reference the car is not moving and thus has zero kinetic energy. However for a pedestrian on the street, the car is moving with some speed v and has a kinetic energy m(v^2)/2.  

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Marius said:

If a photon particle/light wave cant loose energy, then it means it cant change its frequency either. It is forever fixed and therefore no redshift is possible.

Well to be fair there are some inelastic scattering processes involving photons (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raman_scattering ), but as these involve scattering, they change the direction of the photon as well, so they cannot be responsible for the red shifts we observe.

[Marius]

Quote

This is almost correct. Photon never looses energy in any locality. It's because the space itself expands, it has different energies in different localities, i.e. in different local frames of reference. 

 I don't agree that space expands. That is the conclusion of my OP, that space doesnt expand and there is no need for such illogical and unproven assumptions in order to explain the cosmological redshift. My explanation for cosmological redshift implies that the universe is static, and you can't use Hubble's assumptions based on space expansion to convince me that a light wave cannot loose energy, because the physics formula for a light wave implies that it will loose energy when its frequency decreases, and vice-versa. And that formula does not apply in an expanding space, but in a static space, because we dont live in an expanding space and no one has actually made an experiment in an expanding space to know how light behaves there. These are just opinions and speculations, mostly science-fiction like worm-wholes, dark energy and other non-proven non-sense. 

 

 

Edited January 1, 2022 by Marius

[swansont]

15 hours ago, Marius said:

Like any wave, the light wave looses some of this energy as it passes vast distances of space (due to interactions with free electrons, plasma, gas clouds, and so on).

Scattering tends to change the direction of the light, so it would not get to us. Scattering is not the cause of galactic redshift.

As John Cuthber has already mentioned, “tired light” is not a viable explanation 

 

1 hour ago, Marius said:

 I don't agree that space expands. That is the conclusion of my OP,

!

Moderator Note

You will need more than that. You need a model and evidence to support it. Not just a bald assertion. This has been pointed out to you before.

Moved to speculations while we await support for your idea.

 

[MigL]

The explanation you've given for 'light losing energy' has been shown to be incorrect.
It cannot happen as you describe.
And, as Genady explained, energy is frame dependent.

1 hour ago, Marius said:

My explanation for cosmological redshift implies that the universe is static, and you can't use Hubble's assumptions based on space expansion to convince me that a light wave cannot loose energy, because the physics formula for a light wave implies that it will loose energy when its frequency decreases, and vice-versa.

Instead of starting from the assumption that the universe is static, and then incorrectly applying physics to support that assumption, why not apply known/accepted physics to the actual observations, and see where that leads ?

[Marius]

Quote

This is

 almost correct. Photon never looses energy in any locality.

Except it does, according to the formula E=hf. A drop in frequency (associated with redshift) means a drop in energy too. 

Quote

It's because the space itself expands, it has different energies in different localities, i.e. in different local frames of reference.

And why would I assume such non-sense that 'space itself expands' ? When I can explain the galactic redshift in static space with a simple formula that relates energy to frequency ?  

 And as far as I know light doesnt care about 'local frames of reference', according to modern physics it is not affected by the frame of reference at all.

 

Quote

Consider for example you driving in a

 car. In your frame of reference the car is not moving and thus has zero kinetic energy. However for a pedestrian on the street, the car is moving with some speed v and has a kinetic energy m(v^2)/2.

 

This is a very weak anology because a photon doesnt have mass like a car, and its speed is independent of the inertial frame of reference. The energy of light will be the same regardless of what frame of reference you are in. 

Edited January 1, 2022 by Marius

[Genady]

12 minutes ago, Marius said:

... as far as I know ...

This is where your problem is. Bye-bye.

[MigL]

7 minutes ago, Marius said:

The energy of light will be the same regardless of what frame of reference you are in. 

Absolutely not !
You can't measure the energy of light from its own rest frame, because, as yu correctly state it doesn't have a valid rest frame.
As measured from any other frame, the measurement will be frame dependent.

[swansont]

41 minutes ago, Marius said:

The energy of light will be the same regardless of what frame of reference you are in. 

!

Moderator Note

Only one challenge to mainstream science per thread, please. If you’re going to base an idea on the Doppler shift being wrong, then you’ve got to demonstrate that first

 

[Janus]

17 hours ago, Marius said:

 

Like any wave, the light wave looses some of this energy as it passes vast distances of space (due to interactions with free electrons, plasma, gas clouds, and so on).

 

 

46 minutes ago, Marius said:

And why would I assume such non-sense that 'space itself expands' ? When I can explain the galactic redshift in static space with a simple formula that relates energy to frequency ?  

 

Well, for one, the mechanism you use to explain this frequency shift ( quoted above) would not result in the type of frequency shift we see.  All these types of interactions are wavelength dependent, meaning that the effect you get from them depends on the wavelength of the light (An example of this type of wavelength dependent effect would be light at the blue end of the spectrum being scattered more by our atmosphere*)   Thus you would see different amounts of shift in spectral lines at different points of the spectrum, and not the uniform shift we see across the whole spectrum.  It's not enough to say you can relate energy to frequency when the mechanism that you attribute this change to would not produce the results we observe.

* In fact, the very mechanism you base your argument on would also produce scattering.  We do not see significant scattering in light from distant galaxies. (because, quite frankly, there isn't enough stuff out there between our galaxy and them to produce it.  The amount of material a photon passes on its way between a galaxy 13 billion ly away and our galaxy is roughly equivalent to the amount it passes crossing 1 meter of air at sea level.)

[Marius]

4 hours ago, MigL said:

The explanation you've given for 'light losing energy' has been shown to be incorrect.
It cannot happen as you describe.

Why ? Because he says 'that's incorrect', when I make a perfectly correct statement, and 'almost correct', when I make another perfectly correct statement ? Which he contradicts by making a weak/incorrect analogy with a car, ignoring the fact that a photon has no mass and its speed is independent of the inertial frame of reference, while the car has mass and its speed IS dependent on the frame of reference ? 

Quote

And, as Genady explained, energy is frame dependent.

But a car is not a photon, and his 'explanation' is disregarding basic physics.

Quote

Instead of starting from the assumption that the universe is static, and then incorrectly applying physics to support that assumption, why not apply known/accepted physics to the actual observations, and see where that leads ?

It leads to galaxies traveling much faster than light speed, because space itself expands at warp speeds faster than Jean Luke Piccard's Enterprise, which makes him unable to boldly go where no man has gone before, because space flies faster than his ship. But I guess that is much more reasonable to believe than that the universe is static and light looses energy as it travels billions of light years. It also leads to Cosmological Crysis after Cosmological Crysis, but I guess that is also a much better alternative- so stick with it. 

 

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Absolutely not !
You can't measure the energy of light from its own rest frame, because, as yu correctly state it doesn't have a valid rest frame.
As measured from any other frame, the measurement will be frame dependent.

So the speed of light is frame dependent too ? Or just its energy ? Enlighten me, please. Because in the car analogy the speed of the car was frame dependent, and the kinetic energy difference was based on this very fact.

 

Edited January 1, 2022 by Marius

[Marius]

You can't measure the energy of light from its own rest frame, because, as yu correctly state it doesn't have a valid rest frame.
As measured from any other frame, the measurement will be frame dependent.

Of course it doesnt have a valid rest frame, thats why Genady's analogy with the car at rest is extremely counter intuitive and doesnt explain anything at all for how light's energy is frame dependent. Can you give me a better example, so I can understand what frames of reference are you talking about, and what is the math which you are applying to calculate the Energy of light for each frame ?

 

[beecee]

4 hours ago, MigL said:

Instead of starting from the assumption that the universe is static, and then incorrectly applying physics to support that assumption, why not apply known/accepted physics to the actual observations, and see where that leads ?

Now that makes much more sense then the unsupported rhetoric in the OP!