On Friday, August 22, 2025 at 6:25:53 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 9:20 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: *>> We have been discussing the cosmological redshift and your claim that we have "at best a very imprecise definition" of the wavelength of light. But that is simply not true, we have an extremely precise definition of the wavelength of light. and the cosmological red shift was discovered using optical telescopes that's operation can be completely understood by treating light as if it was composed of classical waves. So if space is expanding then why is it silly to say the LENGTH of the wave is expanding with it? If it is not then what does "expanding space" even mean? * *> It could mean that the average distance between galaxies, with the exception of those in the local group,* *The reason the local group of galaxies are not moving away from us with the expansion of space is because gravity is strong enough to hold them in place. Because of the galaxies movement through space (not through the expansion of space) they could even be moving towards us and us and display a blueshift as the Andromeda galaxy does. * *I know. AG * * > is increasing.* *If the red shift is caused by the movement of galaxies through space rather than the expansion of space itself then why does the speed of that movement depend on the distance the galaxy is from earth rather than some other place? Was Galileo wrong and his medieval persecutors right, is the Earth the center of the universe? Do you really wanna go down that road? * *No. I accept that the redshift is caused by the expansion of space, but I want what you're not interested in; to have model which explains the phenomenon. You don't have such a model, but what's worse, you're unaware that you don't have a model. What you do have is a silly story that makes no sense. AG * *> Other than as a quantum number, see if you can define the wave length of a photon. AG* *The energy of a photon is directly proportional to its frequency and inversely proportional to its wavelength. E = hν. ( E is the photon's energy and h is Planck's constant* *So the 'wavelength" is a quantum number related to a photon's energy. I have no problem with that. But obviously you are unable to understand my issue. Since the photon seems to be a point particle with no spatial dimension (and no time), the notion that expanding space "stretches" its value, makes no sense. Recently, you tried to explain this by applying classical theory, which again shows me you're out of your depth on this issue. AG* * > You have a story you've fallen in love with, which makes zero sense when you think about it.* *Do you really believe you've thought more deeply about this matter than every physicist has since 1925? Have you considered the possibility that maybe you're the one who is confused, not them? * *I can only say I have thought more deeply on this issue than you or Brent. I'm asking a legitimate question, and neither you nor Brent understand it. AG * *> if photons lose energy as the universe expands, where does the lost energy go?* *You've asked this question before and I've answered it before, the energy doesn't go anywhere it is simply lost * *It has to go somewhere, in some form. Or maybe it dissapates. If you claim it just disappears, then you're affirming magic. Relying on GR is a mistake IMO. AG* *because in General Relativity the conservation of energy is just an approximation that gets worse as the region of space you're dealing with gets larger. Energy is conserved in Newtonian physics and even in Special Relativity because they are both working within flat Minkowsky spacetime, it doesn't curb due to the presence of mass/energy, and so we have time-translation symmetry (the laws of physics don't change over time) and according to Noether's theorem that means energy is conserved. But our universe is not flat it's expanding. So when I said "in General Relativity conservation of energy is just an approximation" was itself just an approximation of the truth because in General Relativity there is not even a unique way to define what energy is at the global level because there is not a unique way to define a time coordinate at the global level. * * > why don't the wave lengths of material particles, such as electrons, also decrease in energy as well, under the same circumtance? AG, * *As far as we know electrons are point particles, they occupy no space and thus are not affected by space's expansion. I don't know if electrons really are point particles, but so far at least they seem to be. Protons and neutrons are certainly NOT point particles, they have an internal structure and are made up of quarks,* *I know. But photons also seem like point particles, yet the waves you claim exist, extend spatially so they can be stretched. When you reach the point in your thinking that you realize you have no clue what you're asserting, some progress on this issue becomes possible.AG* * but the distance between quarks doesn't increase as space expands for the same reason that distances between the Milky Way and other galaxies in the local group are not increasing, a force is holding them in place, except in the case of subatomic particles the force is not gravity but is the Strong Nuclear Force mediated by gluons.* *I know. AG * * John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* rs= -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/006b96d1-ca25-4983-b288-7f1fac6996e2n%40googlegroups.com.
