Light - For Those Who Are More Educated In This Field

[Polymath257]

Link?

Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

First link. Page 164.

The only other work that comes up with a google scholar search is the book you already linked to.

And no, this isn't just because he works for the Chinese government. Many people do that and their papers are readily available with a simple search. Also, nothing appears on arxiv.org, which is a standard place to put pre-prints.

This guy is a hack.

As for tired light in general, here is a paper that looks at various cosmological models and fits the supernova II data to them to see how well they fit. Tired light comes out with a probability of 0:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.14688.pdf

A more general overview of alternative cosmological models can be found here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2202.12897.pdf

In regard to tired light, they specifically say

But there are two problems:144 1) for a particle to lose energy in an interaction also
implies a momentum transfer that smears out the coherence of the radiation from the
source, and so all images of distant objects would look blurred if intergalactic space
produced scattering, something that is incompatible with present-day observations;
2) the scattering effect and consequent loss of energy would be frequency dependent, which
is again incompatible with what we observe in galaxies.

 

[Polymath257]

Because nothing does not exist. Why do you say it is an issue to be determined when you've already agreed there is no nothing?

And why do you think that there was anything before the BB? Including time?

Again, what is north of the north pole? Nothing. It is a description that does not describe anything.

In exactly the same way, it is possible that 'before the Big Bang' literally does not describe any situation.

 

[Polymath257]

Do we determine the distance of stars by a constant of "light years"?
@exchemist @wellwisher @Ben Dhyan

In astrophysics, it ismuch more common to use the parsec. Light years tend to be used for popular articles because they are easier to explain to people who don't know much physics or astronomy.

 

[Polymath257]

Got it thank you exchemist. Is it special relativty?

Photons are traditionally said to be massless. This is a figure of speech that physicists use to describe something about how a photon's particle-like properties are described by the language of special relativity.
-snip-
As the particle is accelerated to ever higher speeds, its relativistic mass increases without limit. It also turns out that in special relativity, we are able to define the concept of "energy" E, such that E has simple and well-defined properties just like those it has in newtonian mechanics. When a particle has been accelerated so that it has some momentum p (the length of the vector p) and relativistic mass mrel, then its energy E turns out to be given by

E = mrelc2
What is the mass of a photon?

Yes. Continue reading. It literally explains in the next paragraph that with light, m=0 and so E=pc.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And why do you think that there was anything before the BB? Including time?

Because nothing means no spacetime, no space then no time, and since we agree there is no nothing, spacetime would be present before a BB.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes. Continue reading. It literally explains in the next paragraph that with light, m=0 and so E=pc.

Does that not refer to the rest state, not the accelerated state.

 

[Polymath257]

Because nothing means no spacetime, no space then no time, and since we agree there is no nothing, spacetime would be present before a BB.

No. In order for there to be a 'before', time would have to exist. But time is *part* of spacetime and the BB model describes spacetime.

In the strict BB model, time literally cannot be extended to 'before the BB'. Just like latitude literally cannot be extended to 'north of the north pole'.

 

[Polymath257]

Does that not refer to the rest state, not the accelerated state.

In a vacuum, light always goes at the same speed. There is no acceleration.

And, acceleration is irrelevant to the formula E^2 =m^2 c^4 +p^2 c^2. It applies to all particles even in a general relativistic setting.

 

[exchemist]

Do we determine the distance of stars by a constant of "light years"?
@exchemist @wellwisher @Ben Dhyan

That is one of a number of units of distance used in astronomy. There are also "AU" (= astronomical units), which are multiples of the mean radius of the Earth's orbit, and parsecs, which are related to the AU by being the distance from an observer at which light reaching the observer from opposite ends of something 1 AU across makes an angle of one arc second, approx 3.26 light years. There may be others: I'm not an astronomer.

But these are just units of distance, not methods of measurement. Measuring the distance is more complicated. One gets into parallax, standard candles and all sorts of stuff. And eventually, at long enough distances, red shift.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

First link. Page 164.

The only other work that comes up with a google scholar search is the book you already linked to.

And no, this isn't just because he works for the Chinese government. Many people do that and their papers are readily available with a simple search. Also, nothing appears on arxiv.org, which is a standard place to put pre-prints.

This guy is a hack.

As for tired light in general, here is a paper that looks at various cosmological models and fits the supernova II data to them to see how well they fit. Tired light comes out with a probability of 0:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.14688.pdf

A more general overview of alternative cosmological models can be found here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2202.12897.pdf

In regard to tired light, they specifically say

But there are two problems:144 1) for a particle to lose energy in an interaction also
implies a momentum transfer that smears out the coherence of the radiation from the
source, and so all images of distant objects would look blurred if intergalactic space
produced scattering, something that is incompatible with present-day observations;
2) the scattering effect and consequent loss of energy would be frequency dependent, which
is again incompatible with what we observe in galaxies.

There were three contributing astronomers, all hacks?

There will always be BBTers knocking TLTers, as there will always be SSTers knocking BBTers.

 

[Polymath257]

There were three contributing astronomers, all hacks?

There will always be BBTers knocking TLTers, as there will always be SSTers knocking BBTers.

Clearly you don't want to accept the fact that tired light is contradicted by the evidence.

That, of course, does not imply that any version of the BB is correct, but the models that actually fit the evidence are all of this type.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No. In order for there to be a 'before', time would have to exist. But time is *part* of spacetime and the BB model describes spacetime.

In the strict BB model, time literally cannot be extended to 'before the BB'. Just like latitude literally cannot be extended to 'north of the north pole'

Too silly to even respond to, sorry.

 

[Polymath257]

That is one of a number of units of distance used in astronomy. There are also "AU" (= astronomical units), which are multiples of the mean radius of the Earth's orbit, and parsecs, which are related to the AU by being the distance from an observer at which light reaching the observer from opposite ends of something 1 AU across makes an angle of one arc second, approx 3.26 light years. There may be others: I'm not an astronomer.

But these are just units of distance, not methods of measurement. Measuring the distance is more complicated. One gets into parallax, standard candles and all sorts of stuff. And eventually, at long enough distances, red shift.

For solar system measurements, units of millions of kilometers are common. AUs are very common. Parsecs are more common is galactic studies or cosmology. Light years are, in fact, relatively uncommon. They show up mostly in popular accounts.

In cosmology, the red shift value, z, is dominant. It is easily measured. The connection to actual distances is then a separate matter.

 

[Polymath257]

Too silly to even respond to, sorry.

And on what basis do you say that? It follows directly when general relativity is applied to cosmology. That already makes it a serious matter to consider.

You are assuming it makes sense to talk about 'before the Big Bang'. But, since time is part of spacetime, that is precisely the point at issue.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

In a vacuum, light always goes at the same speed. There is no acceleration.

And, acceleration is irrelevant to the formula E^2 =m^2 c^4 +p^2 c^2. It applies to all particles even in a general relativistic setting.

But are there no photons except at C?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Clearly you don't want to accept the fact that tired light is contradicted by the evidence.

That, of course, does not imply that any version of the BB is correct, but the models that actually fit the evidence are all of this type.

It's early days, let the scientific process sort out the sheep from the goats over time.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And on what basis do you say that? It follows directly when general relativity is applied to cosmology. That already makes it a serious matter to consider.

You are assuming it makes sense to talk about 'before the Big Bang'. But, since time is part of spacetime, that is precisely the point at issue.

We go around in circles, you won't admit that BBT does not yet have all the answers, and the 'before BB' question is one, as is 'what is outside the expanding universe' is another. I mean that what may make perfect sense to you is total nonsense to others.

 

[Polymath257]

We go around in circles, you won't admit that BBT does not yet have all the answers, and the 'before BB' question is one, as is 'what is outside the expanding universe' is another. I mean that what may make perfect sense to you is total nonsense to others.

Actually, I have been very careful in how I say things to allow that the BB model is wrong and will need to be modified in the future.

Both of your questions, however, betray a serious misunderstanding of what the BB model says and, frankly, of what any serious model of cosmology would say. You are still working with misconceptions that are about a century out of date.

 

[Polymath257]

It's early days, let the scientific process sort out the sheep from the goats over time.

And it has already determined that tired light is a goat.

 

[Polymath257]

But are there no photons except at C?

Technically, no. Even in light that is interacting with matter, the actual photons move photons move at c.

This is a topic covered in a good E&M class.