Video Article: The Destiny of the Universe

Pentcho,

Slowing light produces blue shift. It does so in a medium of higher refractive index, which equates to Polarisation Mode Dispersion (PMD) which slows the bulk propagation speed due to interaction density.

A GRIN lens shows this by having an effective graded density, producing curved light paths and non-linear blue shift. When light re-emerges from the denser medium it reverts to local c and reverts (redshifts) back to it's original wavelength. All this is irrefutably proved in optical science experimentation.

I agree cosmic redshift does not prove accelerated expansion, but you have again wrongly identified the cause of the redshift. That does not aid the task of getting physics back on track so more care is needed not to give dissent a worse reputation than it already has.

Consider; If space with a wave embedded within it expands, what might you expect to happen to the wavelength? In an intelligent approach accelerated expansion can be shown to be self defeating.

Best wishes

Peter

Hubble Redshift = Slowed Light II

"Vacuum has friction after all (...) But what if the vacuum itself creates a type of friction that puts the brakes on spinning objects? (...) Now, Alejandro Manjavacas and F. Javier García de Abajo of the Institute of Optics at the Spanish National Research Council in Madrid say these forces should slow down spinning objects. Just as a head-on collision packs a bigger punch than a tap between two cars one behind the other, a virtual photon hitting an object in the direction opposite to its spin collides with greater force than if it hits in the same direction. So over time, a spinning object will gradually slow down, even if equal numbers of virtual photons bombard it from all sides."

It takes a Divine Albert's world to draw the above analogy and conclude that vacuum friction slows down spinning objects, and at the same time purge any thought that vacuum friction could in the same way slow down photons that we find Hubble redshfted:

"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev

Petcho,

Space makes things spin not stop spinning. It's a gyrokinetic effect which is well verified and quantified, yet with a cause no better understood (generally) then any other fundamental of nature. Of course there is a limiting factor, which the stuff the Madrid guys identify will contribute to, but space has the exact opposite effect than the one they describe. Things always keep spinning, as observation shows. Their science is as well thought through and evidenced as most! But crimestop seems to make all look away from evidence (including you so far I'm afraid!).

Put any matter in space and it will start to rotate on a virial radius. You only need to look into space to see the evidence. Even probes we place in space would do so without stabilising provisions. There are scores of papers on it. This is probably as good as any;

Spontaneous Intrinsic Rotation, 2011.

I hope that helps.

Peter

Peter,

I went through the linked paper but appears a bit too specialized for my understanding.

Now, if as you say "Space makes things spin..." (which I suspect as well though without understanding how),does space spin classical and quantum objects differently?

Akinbo

Akinbo,

Space seems to treat objects as objects with no barrier to race creed or class. I suspect we've just stupidly invented those.

Peter

Hubble Redshift = Slowed Light III

A combination of texts that confirms the idea of the Hubble redshift as an expression of the slowing down (or tiring, to use an euphemism) of light by vacuum friction (in a STATIC universe):

Paul Davies: "As pointed out by DeWitt, the quantum vacuum is in some respects reminiscent of the aether, and in what follows it may be helpful to think of space-time as filled with a type of invisible fluid medium, representing a seething background of vacuum fluctuations. Although the mechanical properties of this medium can be strange, and the image should not be pushed too far, it is sometimes helpful to envisage this "quantum aether" as possessing a type of viscosity."

"Shine a light through a piece of glass, a swimming pool or any other medium and it slows down ever so slightly, it's why a plunged part way into the surface of a pool appears to be bent. So, what about the space in between those distant astronomical objects and our earthly telescopes? COULDN'T IT BE THAT THE SUPPOSED VACUUM OF SPACE IS ACTING AS AN INTERSTELLAR MEDIUM TO LOWER THE SPEED OF LIGHT like some cosmic swimming pool?"

Mario Cosentino: "Nous savons que l'espace inter-galactique est loin d'être vide et nous ne connaissons pas toutes les interactions que les photons, nous venant des supernovae, subissent au cours de leur très long parcours. Si les photons en interagissant avec le vide quantique viendraient à perdre de l'énergie, sans diffusion, alors toutes les interprétations seraient fausses et l'Univers ne serait pas en expansion accélérée. Ainsi la théorie de la "lumière fatiguée" d'Einstein, et d'autres, garde toute sa pertinence."

Pentcho Valev

Hubble Redshift = Slowed Light IV

Einsteinians also consider energy loss of photons caused by vacuum friction but insist that their "model of dissipation" has nothing to do the tired light model, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

Sabine Hossenfelder: "What is the viscosity of space-time? (...) If space-time was viscous, the photons would lose energy during their travel. (...) Yeah, Einstein was right, again. (...) Our model of dissipation and the tired light are different in two ways. An obvious one is that in our case this emergent spacetime induced effect could be there in principle for any particle not just for photons. The second, and more important point, is that the energy dissipation is in our case an energy dependent effect (mainly effective only for very high energy particles) which as such would give a very different signature w.r.t. tired light."

Pentcho Valev

Hubble Redshift = Slowed Light V

Eugene I. Shtyrkov, The Evolved-Vacuum Model of Redshifts: "There are also alternative models of redshifts which obey the redshift-distance relation and based on an idea of gradual change of light parameters due to interaction between light and matter while the light is traveling gigantic distances through space for a very long time. There are two candidate ways for such interaction to cause redshifts: gradual energy loss by the photon due to absorption during propagation of light with a constant velocity (tired-light model, see, for instance, [8]) and propagation of light with the variable velocity and without absorption in free space (variable-light-velocity models). (...) Thus we come to a very important conclusion: the induction wave, and hence the light one, must travel in vacuum with conservation of wave length even when the parameters are time dependent. (...) ...we obtain a simple differential equation for the light velocity: dc(t)/dt = -Ho.c(t) (15) (...) Although reproducing the conclusions of the tired-light model, namely, about simultaneous decreasing the electric field strength and frequency, this model has a different physical interpretation. Instead of energy loss due to absorption at constant light velocity, this mechanism is based on gradual change of the vacuum parameters that results in declining of the electric field strength. The electromagnetic wave is gradually slowing down, with conservation of the initially shifted wavelength (lambda)_shift. The frequency perceived by observers at any point on the light path depends on the light velocity at the observation time."

Clearly variable-speed-of-light interpretations of the Hubble redshift (for a STATIC universe) converge to an equation of the type dc(t)/dt = -Ho.c(t) (I presented it as dV/dt = -K'V). Mainstream cosmologists should not stay too long in this position.

Pentcho Valev

Hubble Redshift = Slowed Light VI

Philosophers help science to die:

"Popper's purpose with his letter in Nature was to discuss the generally accepted expansion of the universe in relation to theories that explained Edwin Hubble's redshift data on the assumption of special mechanisms operating in a static universe. According to one alternative the speed of light decreased with time, while another alternative (the class of "tired light" hypotheses) assumed that light gradually lost energy during its journey through empty space from the nebulae to the Earth. Clearly inspired by Milne, Popper examined two alternatives to the relativistic theory of cosmic expansion, arguing that they agreed in regard to observable effects, that is, they led to galactic redshifts of the kind predicted by the expansion theory. "The three theories are logically equivalent," he wrote, "and therefore do not describe alternative facts, but the same facts in alternative languages." But does the universe really expand? Or does the speed of light instead decrease? Or is it rather the case that the frequency of photons changes with the distance they travel? According to Popper, the question was "not more legitimate than, when prices of goods fall throughout the economic system, to ask whether 'in reality' the value of money has increased or the value of the goods has decreased."

Pentcho Valev

Hubble Redshift = Slowed Light VII

Paul Davies: "I have argued that a heuristic way to regard dynamic vacuum energy effects is by appealing to a sort of vacuum friction. This leads to mechanical back-reaction effects, such as the slowing of rotating black holes or the viscous drag between moving plates. It also leads to particle creation from the vacuum."

Question: Does vacuum friction lead to the Hubble redshift as well?

Einsteinians:

"No! Help! Help! Divine Einstein! We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all live in an expanding universe, expanding universe, expanding universe. Yes we all live in an expanding universe, expanding universe, expanding universe."

"We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all live in an expanding universe, expanding universe, expanding universe. Yes we all live in an expanding universe, expanding universe, expanding universe."

Pentcho Valev

Hubble Redshift = Slowed Light IX

"New evidence, based on detailed measurements of the size and brightness of hundreds of galaxies, indicates that the Universe is not expanding after all, says a team of astrophysicists led by Eric Lerner from Lawrenceville Plasma Physics. (...) Therefore if the Universe is not expanding, the redshift of light with increasing distance must be caused by some other phenomena - something that happens to the light itself as it travels through space."

As the photon travels through space (in a STATIC universe), it bumps into vacuum particles and as a result loses speed in much the same way that a golf ball loses speed due to the resistance of the air.

Pentcho Valev