Understanding Photon Decay in Vacuum: Rate, Influence, and Causes

[proteus13]

What is the rate at which protons decay in vacuum? i don't mean radioactive decay, I mean the rate at which light looses intensity as it travels through empty space.

Also, does this decay influence wavelength, sort of dropping the frequency down as light looses intensity?

What causes light to decay in the first place, excluding dust and gas, I mean the decay of traveling through vacuum?

I have took a quick search before posting, but found a similar question only in the aspect of radioactive decay, yet in the 3d software I use "decay" is a common term when working with lights, for example a good way to emulate natural decay in the atmosphere is "quadratic decay", so excuse me if decay is not a suitable term, I'd rather not use attenuation, since it assumes interaction of light with matter, not solely traveling through empty space.

 

[Janus]

Photons do not decay as they travel through vacuum. The reason that light intensity falls off with distance is that the same light is spread out over a larger area. Imagine you have a light source with a sphere around it with a radius of 1 unit. The light striking the inside of that sphere will be at a certain intensity per square unit.

Now expand the size of the sphere to a radius of 2 units. The same amount of light is emitted by the source, but now the sphere has 4 times the inside surface area. The light intensity per square unit of surface will drop by 1/4.

In terms of photons, think of it as photons per sec hitting a given sized surface area. The further away the surface is, the more spread out the photons and the fewer per sec will hit an equally sized area.

So the frequency does not change as an actual loss of energy per photon does not change, and the intensity falls off by the square of the distance.

 

[Chronos]

Photons do not age, given they travel at 'c'. Tired light is a theory without legs.

 

[proteus13]

Janus - thanks once again, you are most helpful, so the reason light "decays" as it travels is its photon density gets sort of "diluted"

What about photons that travel at sub c speed? There are plenty of mechanics that slow down photos that are being recognized by the mainstream. If for example a photon hits a high charge electron, it will emit a gamma ray, thus the photon will loose power, but does this only translate in lower velocity or also a frequency reduction?

What about the CMB? Isn't it basically tired radiation, shifted to reduce its frequency into the microwave and below range over the course of ~14 billion years?

Anyone ever considered the CMB itself to be tired, basically exhausted radiation from just beyond the horizon of the visible universe? A sort of very slow, almost stationary, low frequency and extremely low energy potential radiation. Gravity attracts light, so motionless, exhausted radiation would be attracted by the gravitational pull of galaxies to form a sort of cocoon inside as well as around galaxies, or may I say using modern terminology - DARK MATTER, such exhausted photons would be undetectable from afar, only measurable locally in the form of CMB, but they will nevertheless have their gravitational influence, would perfectly fit the phenomenon of gravitational lensing, causing the effect of direct radiation not being able to pass through the actual LENS, which is considered empty space, since it wouldn't be empty at all, it would be full of almost stationary photons which will attenuate the direct light, leaving only the light that travels around the lens and gets bent by its gravity.

All this talk of the milky way as well as other galaxies having too little matter to account for all the gravity - if the empty space in between systems, stars and planets is actually full of such low energy, stationary particles of different density, which are almost entirely undetectable, yet influenced and influencing the forces of gravity.

The most distant galaxies seem to be faintly detectable in the infrared spectrum, the mainstream view is the wavelengths have been stretched by the expansion of the universe, but what if that decay of frequency is due to the long distance photons travel and get "tired" instead? Radiation which began as high intensity gamma or x rays but gets diminished into infrared and lower radio noise by the time it reaches us.Sorry about all the questions, but after all this is the purpose of the forum. I am hoping for an answer considering what I asked, not just labeling it as right or wrong according to the mainstream without any explanation or whatsoever. I mean if it takes light a million light years to "decay" to a measurable extent, then it would be pretty much impossible proving it doesn't get tired, and the redshifts we observe would be based on the distance traveled, not on expansion of space.

 

[Janus]

No mainstream physics recognizes the slowing of photons. Photons always[\i] travel at c. Any change in energy is reflected in a change of frequency/wavelength. If photon of more distant objects it would be easily noticeable when watching planets and such eclipsing more distant objects.

The "Tired Light" hypothesis has been rejected as a possible explanation for the CMB; It just doesn't work.

The problems include:

All frequencies of light would have to be effected equally so that there is no compression or stretching of the spectrum.
Mechanisms that could lead to energy loss also tend to lead to blurring of the light which we do not see.

It can't be made to match the supernovae observations that show the expansion of the universe as expanding

It doesn't explain the associated time dilation of cosmologically distant events.Now, as a Mentor, I must warn you that much of your last post would be considered overly speculative by forum guidelines and as such, not allowed at PF.

 

[proteus13]

Sure, no problem, wouldn't want to confuse the mainstream doctrine

The problems you mentioned are easy to address, but I will take it elsewhere, since discussing it will violate forum rules

 

[Chronos]

And we wouldn't wish to offend the true 'believers' of 'alternative science', would we? Take this nonsence where neither group will be offended.

 

[proteus13]

It is really necessary to demonize everything that falls out of conformity? Need I remind you whatever was considered mainstream throughout the history always turned wrong and at some point was replaces by something better?

You say you wouldn't like to offend what you imply I am, yet your very post serves that exact purpose, a least honorable act for one labeled "advisor", and also a pretty lame one.

It is you who is the believer, I do not require belief - I only obey logic and evidence, tired light may be a legless theory, but at least it requires only one leg to be assumed in order to account for all observed phenomena - redshifts, CMB, density drops, missing mass, heck even gravity and quantum mechanics indirectly, where the standard model requires a number of assumptions, based on previous assumptions and wishful interpretations, supported from collapse by even more assumptions, each one more preposterous than the other. And last time I checked the scientific principle, Occam's Razor, requires the least number of assumptions possible, something which the standard model strongly violates, in reality standard big bang cosmology obeys the ANTI Razor, which dictates it is OK to assume and make as many wild guesses as you like to make a theory stick, basically an encouragement to build on wrong and crooked foundation. The worst of all is you know all too well this is true and it is only your obligation that forces you not only to conform and deny it, but worse - ridicule it, something that has become the norm in scientific circles to discredit inconvenient ideas which threaten the integrity of the mainstream, and when ridicule becomes the dominant preservation mechanic of science - we definitely have a problem, since ridicule is the least scientific method of all. Vanity keeps whispering how cool it is to conform, in fact shouting loud enough to make you arrogant and ignorant at the same time, silencing the weak voice of reason.

I've already quit discussion and said I will take it elsewhere, yet you felt obligated to post your little, feeble attempt of an insult, an act not only the blunt confirmation of what I just wrote, but also a flame bite, coming from a "scientific advisor" - well done sir! You're probably very proud of yourself... and relax, I don't take offense from people like you ;)

 

[qraal]

Sure, no problem, wouldn't want to confuse the mainstream doctrine

The problems you mentioned are easy to address, but I will take it elsewhere, since discussing it will violate forum rules

Thing is it's not doctrine. Speculation spouted as fact is "doctrine" because those who defend it are typically dogmatic about it - tired light theories are a perfect example as they're continually proposed, refuted and then reproposed with some ad hoc physics thrown in, with zero observational value. The dogmatism of critics of the mainstream and their corresponding arrogance is incredible, but predictable too.

 

[ZapperZ]

Locked, pending moderation.

Zz.