On Thursday, 15 September 2022 at 21:53:52 UTC+1, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Richard Feynman: "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light
behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles. You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light
has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles."
https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170
If Feynman is correct, the wave-based concept of variation of the wavelength of light (illustration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mJTRXCMU6o&t=77s) is unrealistic. It makes sense to advance the following
Axiom: The wavelength of light is invariable.
This axiom, combined with the formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength), produces the following corollaries:
Corollary 1: Any frequency shift is caused by a proportional speed-of-light shift.
Corollary 2: If the emitter and the observer (receiver) travel towards each other with relative speed v, the speed of light as measured by the observer is c' = c+v, as per Newton's theory.
Corollary 3: Spacetime and gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist.
Corollary 4: Light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as ordinary falling bodies - near Earth's surface the accelerations of falling photons is g = 9.8 m/s^2. Accordingly, there is no gravitational time dilation.
Corollary 5: The Hubble redshift is due to light slowing down as it travels through vacuum. The universe is not expanding.
Sorry, but this is a contradiction that you make Pentch.
You have ignored your own axiom.
If you say that the wavelength of light is invariable then how does it maintain it’s wavelength either in the source or observer frame if light slows down? Do the maths or make a computer simulation of light slowing down in
the source frame. You will notice that it is inevitable that the distance between each waves crest will diminish the farther these adjacent crests
travel from the source. This means that the wavelength is changing in
both the source and observer frame. And of course this is whether or
not you are doing the simulation for a non expanding model of the universe,
or just simulating how wavelengths respond in a lab simulation of light
slowing down as it travels in a source frame.
How can you and others like Eric accept this contradiction between your
own axioms and corollary?
For that matter you have ignored another consequence of your reducing speed
of photon over distance. Because not only will the wavelength become smaller over distance in a non expanding model....it will be observed as having the same frequency as it did when first emitted! Because if light of a particular wavelength and speed slows down it is a natural consequence of geometry
that the observed frequency will increase. That’s because although the light is travelling slower the wavelength is also getting shorter. And the net result is that the frequency stays the same for the observer. And thus in your
own axiom/corollary no cosmological redshift will be observed!
I can offer you a way out but it involves scrapping the photon. And sticking with waves because a wave only model can accommodate redshifting of
light over distance in a non expanding model without having to lose speed.
So Pentcho, to paraphrase Star Wars: “Come away from the dark side Pentch, give up your evil master of the Photon “
Corollary 6: The dark sky in the Olbers' paradox can be explained by the fact that very slow light coming from very distant sources (known as CMB) is invisible.
More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)