Question regarding accellerating expansion of the universe.

[turbo]

If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that photons do lose energy (to the "vacuum field") by some yet-to-be-specified process as they travel through space, but there is some kind of threshold energy per photon, below which the photons no longer interact with either the "vacuum field" or our detectors. Once each photon has been redshifted to this very long wavelength it then continues traveling through space "ad infinitum" without losing any more energy. Is that it?

There is no "threshold", it's just that longer and longer wavelengths travel through the vacuum fields with less and less interference.

Problem with this is, when combined with your assumption of an infinitely old universe of infinite size (back to Olber's paradox again), this implies that everything in the universe is bathed in an infinitely dense flux of these low-energy photons (think about it - from every point in the universe you have line-of-sight in every direction to a source of these low energy photons).

Let's use the analogy of an electrical signal. We have a detector (AC voltmeter) that allows us to sense signals above and below ground in a copper conductor. If there is an AC signal on the conductor, our meter can detect it. If, however, the AC is of sufficiently long wavelength, it becomes indistinguishable from DC, and at some point (depending on the averaging time that our meter uses to measure AC) it cannot be detected by our meter. Let's say that the total peak-to-peak voltage of this signal is 120 volts, spanning the range from -60V relative to ground to +60V relative to ground. You could superimpose a million of these "slow" AC signals on that conductor, in their natural distributions (because they do not arrive phase-synchronized) and those signals would be entirely invisible to our meter. They would be impossible to recognize, since they would average out to the ground state at which our meter is referenced.

We can only sense EM waves relative to the ground state of the media through which they propagate. If light interacts with the EM fields of the quantum vacuum and loses energy in the process, it will be redshifted into undetectability (relative to the ground state), and Olber's Paradox is gone, leaving open the possibility of a temporally and spacially infinite U.

 

[moving finger]

There is no "threshold", it's just that longer and longer wavelengths travel through the vacuum fields with less and less interference.

We need to get this straight. Are you saying that each photon continues to lose energy to this "vacuum field", regardless of photon wavelength? It must be the case either that the photons are ultimately absorbed after a finite time or they continue indefinitely, each losing energy but never quite ending up with zero energy.

Either way, you have a problem, because energy is not destroyed. If they are ultimately absorbed then we are back to the "dusty universe" version of Olber's paradox - the absorbing medium (in an infinite universe of infinite extent) must become as hot as the stars themselves. If they continue indefinitely then we have the problem I highlighted in my previous post - every point in the universe must be bathed in an infinite flux-density of high-wavelength photons.

Which paradox would you prefer?

Let's use the analogy of an electrical signal. We have a detector (AC voltmeter) that allows us to sense signals above and below ground in a copper conductor. If there is an AC signal on the conductor, our meter can detect it. If, however, the AC is of sufficiently long wavelength, it becomes indistinguishable from DC, and at some point (depending on the averaging time that our meter uses to measure AC) it cannot be detected by our meter. Let's say that the total peak-to-peak voltage of this signal is 120 volts, spanning the range from -60V relative to ground to +60V relative to ground. You could superimpose a million of these "slow" AC signals on that conductor, in their natural distributions (because they do not arrive phase-synchronized) and those signals would be entirely invisible to our meter. They would be impossible to recognize, since they would average out to the ground state at which our meter is referenced.

All this shows is that an AC detector is insensitive to DC. What relevance does this have to the problem that your cosmology implies we should all be bathed in an infinite flux-density of photons?

Do you agree that your cosmology implies that we should all be sitting in a bath of infinite flux-density long-wavelength photons?
MF

 

[turbo]

We need to get this straight. Are you saying that each photon continues to lose energy to this "vacuum field", regardless of photon wavelength? It must be the case either that the photons are ultimately absorbed after a finite time or they continue indefinitely, each losing energy but never quite ending up with zero energy.

Lets move away from the photon model and consider EM as waves propagating through Einstein's ether (link to the 1920 talk is posted above). EM waves lose energy to the field and decrease in frequency as a result. Ultimately, they become insensible to us as EM waves because their frequency is so low.

Either way, you have a problem, because energy is not destroyed. If they are ultimately absorbed then we are back to the "dusty universe" version of Olber's paradox - the absorbing medium (in an infinite universe of infinite extent) must become as hot as the stars themselves. If they continue indefinitely then we have the problem I highlighted in my previous post - every point in the universe must be bathed in an infinite flux-density of high-wavelength photons.

Which paradox would you prefer?

There is no problem with Olber's Paradox, because in an infinite Universe the vacuum field in any location can only interact with EM within its visible universe, in other words with light that comes from near enough not to have been shifted into insensibility by interaction with billions of light years of the vacuum field.

All this shows is that an AC detector is insensitive to DC. What relevance does this have to the problem that your cosmology implies we should all be bathed in an infinite flux-density of photons?

Do you agree that your cosmology implies that we should all be sitting in a bath of infinite flux-density long-wavelength photons?
MF

No, this cosmology implies that EM waves from far enough away are redshifted into indetectability, and that the average effect of these very long waves is indistinguishable from the ground state of the vacuum field. EM is only sensible to us when it oscillates with respect to the EM field. If you think of this as waves in a field instead of a individual photons shooting around, it makes perfect sense.

 

[moving finger]

this cosmology implies that EM waves from far enough away are redshifted into indetectability, and that the average effect of these very long waves is indistinguishable from the ground state of the vacuum field. EM is only sensible to us when it oscillates with respect to the EM field. If you think of this as waves in a field instead of a individual photons shooting around, it makes perfect sense.

OK, I finally see. Your argument rests on the basis that your redshifted photons have 100% wavelike properties, and (because they “are insensible to us”) they never take on particle-like properties. This means they are not only insensible to us, but must also be insensible to everything else in the universe.

Interesting idea.

MF

 

[turbo]

OK, I finally see. Your argument rests on the basis that your redshifted photons have 100% wavelike properties, and (because they “are insensible to us”) they never take on particle-like properties. This means they are not only insensible to us, but must also be insensible to everything else in the universe.

Interesting idea.

MF

That's pretty much the case, although I would sharpen the explanation just a bit and say that all EM exhibits wave properties, EM signals NEED an aether (vacuum EM field) through which it can propagate, and the interaction of the EM waves with the propagating fields results in a very gradual reduction of the energy of the wave.

I know I posted the link to Einstein's 1920 Leyden address above, but here it is again.

http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

By 1920, Einstein had convinced himself that an EM ether (the spelling in the translated talk) was absolutely essential to the transmission of light through "empty" space. He was also convinced that a gravitational ether was absolutely required. The difference is that his gravitational ether was dynamical, as required, but he could not make GR accommodate a dynamical EM ether, so he stripped it of ALL properties except the ability to transmit EM. I think he made a critical mistake here, and that the gravitational and EM ethers are the same - the EM field of the vacuum.

In my ZPE gravitation model, the EM fields of the vacuum are the ground state of our universe, and they can be polarized/densified by the presence of mass. Since they are the EM aether, EM propagating through these fields can be slowed, refracted, etc, just like light is slowed, refracted, etc by propagating through transparent media in classical optics. My entire motivation when I started studying this a year ago was to model gravitational lensing in terms of classical optics. I found intersections between the classical aethers and ZPE fields, and then started modeling densification and polarization in terms of a differential in the gravitational infall rates of matter and antimatter. If the Athena project ever manages to produce experimentally useful quantities of anti-hydrogen, we will know very quickly if this model has legs. If the model is supported, there may be no need for gravitons, Higgs bosons, dark matter, dark energy, etc. The observed properties of the universe may perfectly consistent with an infinite steady-state universe, with which Einstein would have been quite comfortable.

 

[Chronos]

... There is no problem with Olber's Paradox, because in an infinite Universe the vacuum field in any location can only interact with EM within its visible universe, in other words with light that comes from near enough not to have been shifted into insensibility by interaction with billions of light years of the vacuum field.

What parts of an infinitely old universe would not be visible at any given location? And how does the energy of an EM wave get absorbed by this vacuum EM aether without raising it's ground state? And if it does raise the ground state, why is it not now infinite? This unexplained loss of energy is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics and rewriting those laws was something even Einstein never contemplated:

"Thermodynamics is the only physical theory of universal content which, within the framework of the applicability of its basic concepts, I am convinced will never be overthrown." — Albert Einstein

 

[johninf]

They do not compensate adequately for relavistic effects.

How do scientists compensate for relativistic effects when measuring the expansion of the universe using type 1a supernove?

Thanks
Glenn

The shapiro effect , slowing down of light due to gravity.
And the motion of the Earth the solar system, and the milky way are not taken into acount .
This is why the expanding universe is a false picture.
Hubble , knew about this but blundered ahead until his theories were made law and fact.