IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Closed Thread
Old 28th January 2021, 12:48 PM   #1961
Reformed Offlian
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 1,020
Originally Posted by Nakani View Post
Yes because it is in the real universe. Not a hypothetical one containing a single star in a vacuum billions of lightyears across.
Well, in that case perhaps the light wouldn't scatter. Not because the light isn't particles, but because there'd be nothing in space to scatter it. Was that what you meant all along?

But it's also not clear to me why it would ever redshift.
Reformed Offlian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2021, 12:57 PM   #1962
hecd2
Graduate Poster
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,356
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
You'd do it by placing it in a spacetime where either space expands or time increases the photon's path through spacetime.
No, doesnít work. You can never get light arising at different locations to have different speeds at any point in space if Maxwellís equations are an accurate description of electromagnetism.
hecd2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2021, 12:58 PM   #1963
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,693
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
You said my geodesics have nothing to do with what you're talking.

I learned I'm wrong.
But have you learned what I am talking about? Have you learned why frequency change cannot happen without desynchronization? Have you figured out why your posited cosmology doesn't allow for desynchronization?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2021, 01:02 PM   #1964
theprestige
Suspended
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 62,475
Originally Posted by Nakani View Post
Thank you for responding to my posts, I wanted to see if I could suggest some possibilities for 'tired' light but I'm having trouble communicating. I don't know how you keep it so classy all the time.
The problem is that tired light is already well-trodden ground. Cosmologists and physicists have been grappling with possibilities for tired light for decades, and have been forced to reject them all because of experimental observations that rule them out.

Mike's entire body of work in this thread is based on ignoring experimental observations in favor of flogging his own idea. This idea being fractally wrong, as it is both internally inconsistent and inconsistent with observation.

It's fine that you're interested in the tired light idea and want to join Mike in his exploration. Unfortunately you don't seem to have noticed that you're not landing on a research vessel already out at sea on the verge of a new discovery. You're stepping onto a research vessel that rammed the pier within seconds of launching, and is currently sinking beneath the harbor's waves. And you're getting pissy at the people on the shore who are telling you to think about maybe donning a life jacket.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2021, 01:03 PM   #1965
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
But have you learned what I am talking about? Have you learned why frequency change cannot happen without desynchronization? Have you figured out why your posited cosmology doesn't allow for desynchronization?
My posited cosmology is to add a new class of geodesics to spacetime for massless particles, which are equal to the null geodesic at non-cosmological scales, ie HD=0, but then diverge.

The geometry of spacetime with this new class of geodesic would like this:



A horizontal line that crosses all photon geodesics would show photons at different frequencies, just as we observe at cosmological scales.

If that has nothing to do with what you're talking, then you're right, and my model cannot produce clock desync.

Get over it.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2021, 01:24 PM   #1966
Nakani
Graduate Poster
 
Nakani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Acho Dene Koe
Posts: 1,036
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Photons don't have fixed size. A detector may collapse the wave function of a photon into something quite small, but prior to collapse photons can become very large as they travel. So there won't be gaps in the sense you mean it, though the distinction won't matter in a lot of cases.
In our previous post, in our hypothetical situation where the light is unimpeded by matter or forces, you said the light would not scatter at any distance.(don't worry I don't think you are a scatter denier)

This expansion of photon size would explain this. In my universe light and sound are a lot alike. I see it, instead of a bunch of big photons, as one continuous photon.
Nakani is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2021, 01:29 PM   #1967
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,693
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
My posited cosmology is to add a new class of geodesics to spacetime for massless particles, which are equal to the null geodesic at non-cosmological scales, ie HD=0, but then diverge.

The geometry of spacetime with this new class of geodesic would like this:

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubble.../geodesics.png

A horizontal line that crosses all photon geodesics would show photons at different frequencies, just as we observe at cosmological scales.

If that has nothing to do with what you're talking, then you're right, and my model cannot produce clock desync.

Get over it.
No, you haven't learned. Let's try this again:

Let's say you have two observers separated by some large but fixed distance away from each other, and they are both stationary relative to each other. Observer 1 sends a light signal to observer 2 at year 0. It takes a long time to get there, say, X years. X can be as large as you want, shouldn't matter here. Then on year X, observer 1 sends another light signal to observer 2.

Does observer 2 receive the 2nd signal at 2X years? Or something different? Because from everything you have described, it should still take X years to travel from observer 1 to observer 2, and so the signal should arrive at 2X years. I don't need any of the details of what that signal's trajectory was like, all I need to know is if it's the same the 2nd time. If that's the case (and again, everything you have said so far indicates that it should be), then their clocks aren't desynchronized. Despite the travel time delay, observer 2 will see observer 1's clock running at the same rate as his own (and vice versa).

If it's NOT the case, then you have not adequately described your hypothesis, because we would need to know how and why the same signal takes a different amount of time to travel the same distance.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2021, 01:34 PM   #1968
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Despite the travel time delay, observer 2 will see observer 1's clock running at the same rate as his own (and vice versa).
Understood.

Quote:
If it's NOT the case, then you have not adequately described your hypothesis, because we would need to know how and why the same signal takes a different amount of time to travel the same distance.
You're right.

If I send a signal to my bluetooth headphones, or to a galaxy 2 billion light years away, wait 2 seconds and do it again, the receiver will receive the signals 2 seconds apart.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2021, 01:35 PM   #1969
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,693
Originally Posted by Nakani View Post
In our previous post, in our hypothetical situation where the light is unimpeded by matter or forces, you said the light would not scatter at any distance.(don't worry I don't think you are a scatter denier)

This expansion of photon size would explain this. In my universe light and sound are a lot alike. I see it, instead of a bunch of big photons, as one continuous photon.
It's definitely not one continuous photon. Photons are created by physical processes, and the physical processes that create them from a star will create many individual ones.

However...

Photons don't come with labels. Since experimental resolutions are always limited, in many cases it may be impossible to distinguish between different photons. As an abstract example, if I put two photons with equal energy into a box one at a time, and then later on open up the box and take them out one at a time, I can't tell which photon I took out first.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2021, 01:37 PM   #1970
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,693
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
If I send a signal to my bluetooth headphones, or to a galaxy 2 billion light years away, wait 2 seconds and do it again, the receiver will receive the signals 2 seconds apart.
Yes. That's a scenario where the clocks are synchronized. And if the clocks are synchronized, then any light from one to the other cannot change frequency, because the frequency is just another form of a clock.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2021, 01:43 PM   #1971
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Yes. That's a scenario where the clocks are synchronized. And if the clocks are synchronized, then any light from one to the other cannot change frequency, because the frequency is just another form of a clock.
Sure.

It was my intention to ask you the most fundamental flaw of my hypothesis in order to show I could successfully resolve it.

I begin with the empirical fact of redshift, reduced energy in E=hf, means reduced frequency and v=fw means reduced velocity, which leads to the hypothesis v=c-HD.

And since that, and how it adds a new class of geodesics to spacetime, is all I have to respond with, and since that response doesn't resolve your criticism, my conclusion is that I have not successfully resolved a fundamental flaw in my hypothesis.

Reality Check could accept when I admitted I was wrong. Just a thought.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2021, 02:17 PM   #1972
Nakani
Graduate Poster
 
Nakani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Acho Dene Koe
Posts: 1,036
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
It's definitely not one continuous photon. Photons are created by physical processes, and the physical processes that create them from a star will create many individual ones.
I was trying to describe the many individual pulses becoming one as it left the star but I cut it short. I was going ask what divided the photons. How do I know one from the next.

However...

Quote:
Photons don't come with labels. Since experimental resolutions are always limited, in many cases it may be impossible to distinguish between different photons.
You're not saying there is nothing, just we haven't seen it yet.

Quote:
As an abstract example, if I put two photons with equal energy into a box one at a time, and then later on open up the box and take them out one at a time, I can't tell which photon I took out first.
They are the same one.
Nakani is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2021, 03:40 PM   #1973
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,693
Originally Posted by Nakani View Post
You're not saying there is nothing, just we haven't seen it yet.
No, I'm saying there's nothing. It's a little more obvious with massive particles which interact than it is with photons which don't, but quantum mechanics is pretty explicit on this point. Identical particles cannot be distinguished from each other even in principle.

Quote:
They are the same one.
They are identical, but the total number matters. Two is different than one, three is different than two, etc.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2021, 05:08 PM   #1974
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Yes. That's a scenario where the clocks are synchronized. And if the clocks are synchronized, then any light from one to the other cannot change frequency, because the frequency is just another form of a clock.
Ok.

Say two galaxies, G1 and G2, are separated by 1 billion light years. A one way trip takes 1.04 billion years (at H=74 km/s/Mpc).

Sending light signals back and forth.

Photon1 - leaves G1 at t=0
Photon1 - arrives G2 at t=1.04
Photon2 - leaves G2 at t=1.04
Photon2 - arrives G1 at t=2.08
Photon3 - leaves G1 at t=2.08
Photon3 - arrives G2 at t=3.12
Photon4 - leaves G2 at t=3.12
Photon4 - arrives G1 at t=4.16
Photon5 - leaves G1 at t=4.16
Photon5 - arrives G2 at t=5.20

Looking at just the arrival times per galaxy

Photon2 - arrives G1 at t=2.08
Photon4 - arrives G1 at t=4.16

Photon1 - arrives G2 at t=1.04
Photon3 - arrives G2 at t=3.12
Photon5 - arrives G2 at t=5.20

*edit* And since those clock readings are consistent, redshift is therefore impossible.

Last edited by Mike Helland; 28th January 2021 at 05:11 PM.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2021, 05:41 PM   #1975
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,693
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
And since those clock readings are consistent, redshift is therefore impossible.
Yes.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2021, 05:43 PM   #1976
Nakani
Graduate Poster
 
Nakani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Acho Dene Koe
Posts: 1,036
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, I'm saying there's nothing. It's a little more obvious with massive particles which interact than it is with photons which don't, but quantum mechanics is pretty explicit on this point. Identical particles cannot be distinguished from each other even in principle.
The edge of a particle can be defined by a threshold of interaction. Light is always light so it cannot be tested in this way. How do you know photons get bigger as they travel?

How close do these identical particles indistinguishable from the other have to be, before they are one? Is it when there is nothing between them?



Quote:
Me: They are the same one.
Quote:
They are identical, but the total number matters. Two is different than one, three is different than two, etc.
Most definitely, It was an observation from a temporary point of view

Last edited by Nakani; 28th January 2021 at 05:44 PM.
Nakani is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2021, 06:03 PM   #1977
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Yes.
And if the energy received was the energy re-transmitted, and each photon arrived with less energy than the last, that's irrelevant?
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2021, 07:21 PM   #1978
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,693
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
And if the energy received was the energy re-transmitted, and each photon arrived with less energy than the last, that's irrelevant?
No, it's not irrelevant. But it doesn't get you out of the frequency requirement. If you want the light to lose energy, you've got to find some other way to do it.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2021, 07:26 PM   #1979
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,693
Originally Posted by Nakani View Post
The edge of a particle can be defined by a threshold of interaction. Light is always light so it cannot be tested in this way.
Sure it can be.

Quote:
How do you know photons get bigger as they travel?
Single photon double slit experiments are an easy example.

Quote:
How close do these identical particles indistinguishable from the other have to be, before they are one?
They aren't one, they are indistinguishable. And strictly speaking, that applies regardless of distance. If you want to know more, you can do some reading here.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2021, 07:31 PM   #1980
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, it's not irrelevant. But it doesn't get you out of the frequency requirement. If you want the light to lose energy, you've got to find some other way to do it.
I'm documenting the issue in my bug tracker.

From the data, we know that a photon arrives at a specific galaxy every 2.08 billion years. That's the frequency in which the photons arrive.

What's the best way to word the frequency requirement?

Something like this:

The frequency of a photon cannot decrease unless the frequency of photon arrival rates between two points decreases when ping-ponged back and forth?
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2021, 07:49 PM   #1981
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,693
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I'm documenting the issue in my bug tracker.

From the data, we know that a photon arrives at a specific galaxy every 2.08 billion years. That's the frequency in which the photons arrive.

What's the best way to word the frequency requirement?

Something like this:

The frequency of a photon cannot decrease unless the frequency of photon arrival rates between two points decreases when ping-ponged back and forth?
That would work, although you can make it a bit more general. So for example, if pulses of light are sent at some frequency, the individual photon frequency will change by the same factor as the pulse frequency changes.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th January 2021, 11:30 AM   #1982
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
So for example, if pulses of light are sent at some frequency, the individual photon frequency will change by the same factor as the pulse frequency changes.
If I emit a blue photon every 1 second, I don't think it'll turn red by emitting one every 2 seconds.

What is the justification for the frequency requirement?
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th January 2021, 12:13 PM   #1983
Nakani
Graduate Poster
 
Nakani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Acho Dene Koe
Posts: 1,036
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Sure it can be.
Just checking to see if that is what you meant.

Quote:
Single photon double slit experiments are an easy example.
I'm sorry, I haven't been giving this conversation my full attention.

Quote:
They aren't one, they are indistinguishable. And strictly speaking, that applies regardless of distance. If you want to know more, you can do some reading here.
I am really appreciating your time. I was reminded of overlapping waves and got embarrassed. I forgot the way transverse waves intersect.

The individual bursts of light will continue on their trajectory. In a sense it is 'one' light but technically it is still divided by the original directions initiated at the source.

Funny story, I think we are talking about the same thing. I hear light 'particle' or 'packet' and nails go down a chalk board. After a bit of reading, it seems things are mostly figured out. I assumed there were some problems with the current consensus and stand corrected.

The only major piece missing, is how does light travel from A to B?
Nakani is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th January 2021, 12:23 PM   #1984
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,693
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
If I emit a blue photon every 1 second, I don't think it'll turn red by emitting one every 2 seconds.
The change I'm referring to is between the emitter and the receiver. If the emitter emits at 1 Hz and switches to 2 Hz, that doesn't matter and that's not what I was talking about. If the emitter emits at 1 Hz and the receiver receives at 2 Hz, that does matter. Any change between the emitter and the receiver has to be by the same factor for both pulse frequency and light frequency, since both serve as clocks.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th January 2021, 12:27 PM   #1985
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,693
Originally Posted by Nakani View Post
The only major piece missing, is how does light travel from A to B?
I don't think I understand what you're asking about. Is this about high light in general travels? Are you saying that the specifics of its travel are the relevant question for cosmology? Something else entirely?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th January 2021, 12:31 PM   #1986
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The change I'm referring to is between the emitter and the receiver. If the emitter emits at 1 Hz and switches to 2 Hz, that doesn't matter and that's not what I was talking about. If the emitter emits at 1 Hz and the receiver receives at 2 Hz, that does matter. Any change between the emitter and the receiver has to be by the same factor for both pulse frequency and light frequency, since both serve as clocks.
So the reasoning is thus:

premise 1) Photons are clocks with reliable frequency
premise 2) Two observers at rest with respect to each other have synced clocks
therefore, a change in photon frequency requires a desynced clock
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th January 2021, 12:42 PM   #1987
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,693
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
So the reasoning is thus:

premise 1) Photons are clocks with reliable frequency
premise 2) Two observers at rest with respect to each other have synced clocks
therefore, a change in photon frequency requires a desynced clock
Basically. There are exceptions to premise 2, though. For example, gravitational time dilation will desynchronize clocks at different gravitational potentials, even if both clocks are at rest relative to each other. But that scenario requires an asymmetry between the clocks, and there isn't any similar asymmetry available for your cosmological model. But even in such a case, the desynchronization still must go hand in hand with a change in photon frequency.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th January 2021, 01:55 PM   #1988
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Basically.
>premise 1) Photons are clocks with reliable frequency

Can we be 100% certain of this for every conceivable time scale?

Is this actually fundamental, or is this a consequence of Newton's first law of motion and/or special relativity?


We observe a decrease in light's frequency. We think that's impossible on its own, so we put the light into expanding space and that does the trick.

My hypothesis is that photon's are not reliable clocks at cosmological scales. Based on the observation they lose frequency.


Assumption) light travels at a constant speed forever never losing energy or frequency on its own.

Hypothesis) light does not travel at a constant speed forever, it loses speed, energy and frequency

Criticism) light never loses frequency on its own

The criticism affirms there is a conflict between the hypothesis and assumption (about traveling to infinity) it seeks to correct.

Do I have that right?
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th January 2021, 02:17 PM   #1989
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,693
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
>premise 1) Photons are clocks with reliable frequency

Can we be 100% certain of this for every conceivable time scale?
Yes. The frequency of a photon is tied directly to the oscillation which created it. Each vibration of the photon is therefore exactly like a pulse from a clock. This is immutable.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th January 2021, 02:53 PM   #1990
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Yes. The frequency of a photon is tied directly to the oscillation which created it. Each vibration of the photon is therefore exactly like a pulse from a clock. This is immutable.
That the photon has an initial energy/frequency related to the emission event is intuitive.

Are there some unstated premises that allow us to conclude it holds that energy/frequency to infinity?

*edit* Put another way, if it's "tied directly", what is it that ties it, and how does it work over an infinite distance?

Last edited by Mike Helland; 29th January 2021 at 02:59 PM.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th January 2021, 03:15 PM   #1991
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,693
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
That the photon has an initial energy/frequency related to the emission event is intuitive.

Are there some unstated premises that allow us to conclude it holds that energy/frequency to infinity?

*edit* Put another way, if it's "tied directly", what is it that ties it, and how does it work over an infinite distance?
Distance isn't relevant, causal connection is. With, say, a vertically polarized photon, the electric field pointing in the upward direction is a result of positive charge from the source having moved downward (and vice versa). The frequency of the photon is tied to the frequency of the source, and distance cannot change that. There are ways you could postulate a signal being unable to travel out to infinity. But frequency change of the sort you posited cannot be among them.

As for working over an infinite distance, why is that a problem? Shouldn't things be able to go infinitely far, if nothing actually stops them?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th January 2021, 03:52 PM   #1992
Nakani
Graduate Poster
 
Nakani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Acho Dene Koe
Posts: 1,036
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I don't think I understand what you're asking about. Is this about how light in general travels? Are you saying that the specifics of its travel are the relevant question for cosmology? Something else entirely?
I mean, science has analyzed the heck out of light. It seems the only thing up for debate is how it travels through a vacuum.

But, I'm a guest here. I dont want to distract the discussion.
Nakani is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th January 2021, 04:10 PM   #1993
theprestige
Suspended
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 62,475
Originally Posted by Nakani View Post
I mean, science has analyzed the heck out of light. It seems the only thing up for debate is how it travels through a vacuum.

But, I'm a guest here. I dont want to distract the discussion.
How does any particle travel through a vacuum? Momentum and inertia, yes?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th January 2021, 04:30 PM   #1994
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Distance isn't relevant, causal connection is. With, say, a vertically polarized photon, the electric field pointing in the upward direction is a result of positive charge from the source having moved downward (and vice versa). The frequency of the photon is tied to the frequency of the source, and distance cannot change that.
Ok.

So we're thinking here of the photon as an oscillator in motion.

Let's say it is oscillating at 1 Ghz, and moving at 300,000 km/s.

That means for every clock cycle, the photon has traveled 0.3 m.

My hypothesis postulates the photon is traveling at 150,000 km/s when it has a z=1 (from cosmological redshift without peculiar velocities).

Now, the the photon is oscillating at the same frequency, for each clock cycle it will have traveled 0.15 m.

Here was have a frequency that stays consistent, but e wavelength that decreases.

The energy of the photon (E=hf) will have stayed the same.

If the idea was to explain the observed redshifts, we missed the target.

In that case, for v=c-HD to be correct, the wavelength would have to stay the same, and the frequency decreases. The photon is oscillating at 1 Ghz. It redshifts. Now it has less energy, and oscillates at a lower frequency.

You say that's impossible.

I say, the observed redshifts might suggest they are doing that.

You say, they are not doing that, but as space expands, there is clock desyncrhornization and that's the frequency change.

It looks to me like the "fundamental flaw" is that the redshift mechanism I'm proposing is unknown. Which I don't consider a fundamental flaw in the idea, because it's the reason for proposing it.

But I suspect that is unlikely to sway you this time.

So let's go back to the clocks.

There are two observers at rest with respect to each other. In special relativity, their path through spacetime is strictly time-like, and their clocks show the progression of proper time equally.

Correct?
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th January 2021, 05:24 PM   #1995
hecd2
Graduate Poster
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,356
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Ok.

So we're thinking here of the photon as an oscillator in motion.

Let's say it is oscillating at 1 Ghz, and moving at 300,000 km/s.

That means for every clock cycle, the photon has traveled 0.3 m.

My hypothesis postulates the photon is traveling at 150,000 km/s when it has a z=1 (from cosmological redshift without peculiar velocities).

Now, the the photon is oscillating at the same frequency, for each clock cycle it will have traveled 0.15 m.

Here was have a frequency that stays consistent, but e wavelength that decreases.

The energy of the photon (E=hf) will have stayed the same.

If the idea was to explain the observed redshifts, we missed the target.

In that case, for v=c-HD to be correct, the wavelength would have to stay the same, and the frequency decreases. The photon is oscillating at 1 Ghz. It redshifts. Now it has less energy, and oscillates at a lower frequency.

You say that's impossible.

I say, the observed redshifts might suggest they are doing that.

You say, they are not doing that, but as space expands, there is clock desyncrhornization and that's the frequency change.

It looks to me like the "fundamental flaw" is that the redshift mechanism I'm proposing is unknown. Which I don't consider a fundamental flaw in the idea, because it's the reason for proposing it.

But I suspect that is unlikely to sway you this time.

So let's go back to the clocks.

There are two observers at rest with respect to each other. In special relativity, their path through spacetime is strictly time-like, and their clocks show the progression of proper time equally.

Correct?
All of this is moot because you cannot have light propagating at different speeds at the same location, which your idea requires, without breaking electromagnetism in a way that is categorically unfixable. No more needs to be said.
hecd2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th January 2021, 05:43 PM   #1996
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
All of this is moot because you cannot have light propagating at different speeds at the same location, which your idea requires, without breaking electromagnetism in a way that is categorically unfixable. No more needs to be said.
I have a categorically awesome solution.



Two null geodesics (blue) in spacetime.

Each point on the blue geodesic is a starting point for a photon, which diverges along the green geodesics.

A photon emitted now meets up with a photon emitter later at different speeds.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th January 2021, 05:59 PM   #1997
hecd2
Graduate Poster
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,356
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I have a categorically awesome solution.

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubble...geodesics2.png

Two null geodesics (blue) in spacetime.

Each point on the blue geodesic is a starting point for a photon, which diverges along the green geodesics.

A photon emitted now meets up with a photon emitter later at different speeds.
Doesnít work. Take any point in space. Electromagnetism precludes light propagating at that location at two different speeds, no matter how you claim that light was emitted. Itís a complete falsification of your idea.
hecd2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th January 2021, 06:02 PM   #1998
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,818
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
Doesnít work. Take any point in space. Electromagnetism precludes light propagating at that location at two different speeds, no matter how you claim that light was emitted. Itís a complete falsification of your idea.
You can falsify a theory with an observation.

But you can't falsify an observation with a theory.

Light redshifts. That's the observation.

That tells us there's something more than EM theory from the 1800's going on.

The something else is commonly accepted as the expansion of space.

If space can expand, then time can also dilate. My hypothesis describes time dilation in photon paths through spacetime.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th January 2021, 09:47 PM   #1999
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,693
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Ok.

So we're thinking here of the photon as an oscillator in motion.
No. Go even more basic than that. You donít have to think of the photon as an oscillator, itís just a signal. The up part of the field is due to the source charge moving down. The down part up the field is due to the source moving up. Those two events are separated in time at the source. They are separated in time at the detector. If the times between them have changed between the source and the detector, then their clocks are out of sync, by definition. Signal speed doesnít matter for this conclusion, all you need to note is that each part of the wave is itself a signal.

Quote:
There are two observers at rest with respect to each other. In special relativity, their path through spacetime is strictly time-like, and their clocks show the progression of proper time equally.

Correct?
Make them inertial (not accelerating), then yes.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th January 2021, 09:53 PM   #2000
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,693
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
You can falsify a theory with an observation.

But you can't falsify an observation with a theory.

Light redshifts. That's the observation.

That tells us there's something more than EM theory from the 1800's going on.

The something else is commonly accepted as the expansion of space.

If space can expand, then time can also dilate. My hypothesis describes time dilation in photon paths through spacetime.
You are trying to draw an equivalence which doesnít exist. When space expands, everything in that space experiences that expansion. If you want time itself to dilate in anything like an analogous manner, then everything has to experience that time dilation. But thatís not what you are doing. You want different things to experience time differently, depending on how far they have travelled. That is very, very different. You cannot reconcile that with special relativity.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:40 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.