I agree we need a 3rd party to check his work, but is someone referencing their own prior work really unscientific? I mean Einstein certainly built on his previous work as he was developing General Relativity. As long as the previous studies are replicated and whatnot it doesn't seem like a deal breaker. Just needs someone else to jump on and try to poke holes in it.
I get it though. He has a catalog of work, and his previous works pushed his research in this direction. If he's thorough, and his data is good, peers will have trouble poking any holes in any of his papers. But if he's a crackpot, then it shouldn't be hard.
Would love to see: A.) Further studies on this. B.) What happens when we also ignore all observations of galaxies visible via gravitational lensing regardless of spin vs only use galaxies visible through gravitational lensing for the calculation. Curious to see if the different gravitational effects ever so slightly skew the red shift.
@@troyjacobs8530 Your statement is vague and could have a couple different (polar opposite meanings). If however you are suggesting confirmation bias... That would be premature. First, it is called a hypothesis, and hypothesis testing occurs for a reason. Second, the very undetailed methodology and the implied hypothesis doesn't suggest I am looking for an outcome one way or the other. 3.) The hypothesis testing is clearly falsifiable, meaning it could prove the implied hypothesis false, which would be great, because then we would know. 4.) I don't actually expect with 100% certainty that the results would necessarily prove the hypothesis false or true, we might be absolutely no better off than before, but we also could be, which in itself makes it worth testing. 5.) And finally, while I am not personally vested in the results being one way or the other... if I were, that would also be fine, so long as any possible biases were addressed both functionally and literarily in the research and the paper... but also... I am not conducting the research.
I applaud this scientist for putting their unconventional ideas out there for consideration knowing there will be the usual backlash. More scientists should do this.
There are too much biases in the scientific community. Good that someone thinks 'out of the box'. And this seems to be a computer scientist. Hope they will not ignore him.
I believe there's actually a lot of evidence for re-visiting tired light. I was making connections with galactic spin and red shift and galactic density, and acceleration many years ago. Mostly just using schwarzschild formulae. It almost seemed to obvious to me, and whenever I tried to have discussions on the matter with people more educated than me, they just shut me down and called me a crackpot. It was very discouraging.
This is one of those subjects where I really have to keep my bias in check. I know the timescales involved are so long that they’ll never have even the slightest impact on my life, but, for the sake of the future, I desperately hope that the expansion of the universe is slower than we think or entirely incorrect. Can’t let that desire cloud the evidence though
@@tinfoilhomer909the idea of several elements on the periodic table being different only because they have different numbers of protons doesn't make sense to me. It's more likely that they are simply different state of matter
@@Mr.Anders0n_ The only reason ANY elements are different from each other is the number of protons per atom. There are different states like solid, liquid, gas, and plasma, but the same atom can pass through all those states without changing its number of protons and the properties that go with that number, which define the element.
@@NuisanceMan i know. I was just trying to give the other guy an example of "I reject a scientific fact with strong evidence and consensus because I don't like it and I think I'm smarter than everybody else".
@@tinfoilhomer909 The idea that whether it makes sense to _you_ would have any impact on the nature of reality is rather silly. The world is what it is, whether you understand it or not. If you don't, that just means the world is different from what you think.
Not sure why I keep coming back to it lately, but this thought that I'm not looking at, oh say Andromeda as it looked 2.5 million years ago, but rather I'm looking at a smear of time roughly 152,000 years wide, from the near edge of it's disk to the far edge.
Yes, I am skeptical about the big bang theory and dark matter/energy. There could be just something we're totally missing about the nature of the universe that would rewrite our understanding of it. The debunking of the phlogiston theory centuries ago where beforehand most scientists supported it well gives cadence to my uncertainty
I mean that's just science, though. We make observations and come up with a theory that explains them. When we learn new things we change the theory. We're all just making our best guesses all the time. However, that doesn't mean they're bad guesses. They're the best we can do with what we know right now. What we know is always changing. That's the fun and exciting part.
@@redmadness265 The Big Bang and Dark Matter is a result of people going "Well the math doesn't TOTALLY math, but let's just add a bunch of assumptions to make it work" It's honestly pretty bad a science and anyone who mindlessly follows it shouldn't be allowed to call themselves a scientist. It's a best fit model, but you should be open-minded enough to accept that it might not be the answer.
Nobody co-authored "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" either. It only takes one scientist to come up with something great. 99.999% of them will be wrong, but hey...
No no no, the Cult that controls academia insists that the speaker of truth travel in packs all of whom are authorized and funded by the appropriate authorities.
No no no, the speaker of the truth must always travel in packs authorized and funded by the people in authority. There is no truth outside of this system. Visit any university and find out.
Why would the spin direction of a distant galaxy matter? We still have the same relative speeds. The distant galaxy has the half that is "flying away" and the other half that is "flying toward" ... It shouldn't matter which way the distant galaxy spins. One side will be a little faster and the other side will be a little slower.
You're right but there's more to it. A single galaxy isn't the problem, because as you say half will be moving towards and half away from us, the observers. The problem is if there are large scale eddies in the universe in the galactic filaments and gas clouds forming galaxies, then we could have a situation where randomly by chance slightly more galaxies near to the Milky Way just happen to spin in one direction than the other. That bias could be due to large clouds of hydrogen flowing towards or away from us over very large scales, like billions of light years, and those flows could bias the red shifts. Unless we take account of these different spin directions, and understand the reasons for spin differences in different hemispheres of our night sky, our distance and redshift calculations could be slightly wrong, and that might be enough to affect results like the Hubble tension.
i agree 100%. clockwise from the top is counterclockwise from below, ie direction of spin just depends on your perspective! should be zero correlation recession velocity
@@traylor2502it cannot matter! Galaxies all spin and whether it’s clockwise or counterclockwise only depends on your angle of view. Take a clock, it’s spins counterclockwise when seen from behind, and clockwise from the front. There is literally no difference
"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened."
The oldest galaxies are the ones most red shifted and are also the ones in the densest areas of the young Universe. I wonder how much that matter density affects the light as it leaves the source? The density of the interstellar medium would affect the amount of light absorbed and then reemitted at a lower frequency, (redder), as well as reflecting the light at oblique angles, also shifting it towards the red. Energy does dissipate over time and distance, more by spreading out than by slowing down, in the empty medium of space, but much of space is far from empty, so light from a very distant source would have a great many interactions along the way, including other energies. Gravity curves space, rather than light but that spatial curve, mostly from "dark matter", would also make for a longer route for the light to take to our telescopes, would that change the red shift? As for which way the galaxies turn, that is totally a matter of perspective!
@@chuckevans2792 As with almost all of cosmology: We can't test it. All the observations are fed through the "main" theory and if something doesn't fit, it gets tweaked until it does. Why do you think we "need" dark matter and dark energy? Because without such boogeymans the main theory is off by 2000%.
@@soundsoflife9549 Pretty sure at this point that just means "We need to make a new JWST 20x bigger". I wouldn't expect anything like that in the next 20 years.
Ya I was surprised they were ignoring the movements of galaxies and earth and it is a 1% effect. That, though small, seems important if we ever want to get a full picture. I love watching FloatHeadPhysics youtube channel and thinking I believe what he says to be true but can reality really be that way! It seems so glitched the universe we live in. If you haven't seen his channel I very highly recommend it, he explains a lot of Einstein special relativity subjects in the most clear way possible that makes it understandable for even average people to grasp. SUch a good channel. This channel is awesome too.
I had someone claiming to be a physics student try to argue with me when I made a comment about issues with redshift measurements on a previous video. I hope he sees this video, and understands why I said there are other explanations for the redshift we see. Just because it appears that further objects are moving faster, doesn't mean they definitely are, it's only the best explanation we have of the data.. *for now*
Well no scientist today claims to know the true origins of the universe otherwise the cosmology departments would all be having an indefinite vacation. So what are you actually trying to convey here?
Spinning objects resist movement and changes in orientation. Maybe two objects spinning in opposite direction resist movement and changes in orientation in slightly different ways.
Maybe galaxies closer to us tend to spin one way because they condensed out of a larger spinning blob of diffuse matter, perhaps with vortexes in it, like a smoke ring. It doesn't matter whether our galaxy also spins that same way - either way, we'd see a bias because galaxies that are further away would be more likely to be spinning the opposite way to the majority of local ones.
I appreciate your consideration of this result even with the concerns expressed. Too many times something unusual is simply discarded out of hand. “More study needed” is always a valid response. Kind of like “I don’t know”!
When my particles were younger they travelled millions of light years, climbing out of gravitational potential wells both ways, in the snow, and they never red-shifted. And that's the way they liked it!
My best guess for galaxies that don't rotate as expected is, they're products of recent galactic merges. As galaxies merge, stars from each galaxy group into their own spiral arms, and their black holes orbit for a while before they merge.
"Tired Light Hypothesis Gets Re-Tired" this had boomers in 2001 rolling in the aisles with laughter when they saw it on the newsreel before the B-picture in the movie theater
What kind of tyres is the tyred light using. Some brands are not up to the challenge of such a long journey. Are they watching the inflation settings? Is the tread holding up OK? Rotating the tyres to keep them balanced? Hope it is out for them.
Honestly Anton, I follow you since 2016, keep doing what you are doing. I wonder, with all those amazing discoveries, would it be worth a thought to take it to the next level. Like to consider creating a team to make awesome 30min short-documentaries like noone has done before. Documenatries on a particular topic based on recent literature. Some great visuals, great voiceover by professional voice actors. Damn
Instead of creating a whole new theory because of one observation, it's so much easier to assume galaxy rotation speed changes over time. Especially considering we know we don't quite understand gravity. Also, possibly linked: Less Dark matter in the early universe. Which seems to be supported by evidence that young galaxies aren't as dominated by dark matter.
I'll be honest, I just love the idea of tired light. Photons have no mass, yet they still get tired?! Imagine how they'd feel if they had as much mass as me!
There are many questionable concepts in physics, and one of the most dubious is the photon. Planck originally introduced it as a purely empirical workaround to calculate the energy distribution of black body radiation. However, some dumbass later claimed it to be a real entity without substantial justification. As for 'tired light,' this term was actually coined by critics of Zwicky's hypothesis to mock his idea. In reality, Zwicky proposed that redshift occurs because light waves lose energy as they travel through the interstellar medium. Anyone can observe a similar effect by dropping a stone into water and watching the waves stretch and lengthen as they move further from the point of impact.
This chap sounds like Wegener. One man with the right explanation. But then Cosmology is a difficult job- trying to decide what's in someone's attic by looking through their letter-box, especially if treading the party-line keeps your funding coming.
Eventually, the tide has started turning again. This is the first non-mainstream video Anton did in many years. I predict that in five years time there will be many more. Bravo Anton, now that you have acquired knowledge, go back using your own head. You can do a lot for science from your position.
One of my questions about Physics is - How do the researchers account for the fact that space containing little mass expands faster than space (say, a galaxy or huge clouds of hydrogen) that contains larger amounts of mass? What about the Voids where there is very little mass at all? Is the differentiated rate so negligible as to be meaningless? Space would expand faster where there is little mass because we know that time passes more slowly in areas of more mass, like the surface of earth as opposed to a satellite 1000 miles above the surface of earth. Over 13 Billion years, it might make a difference in all calculations of distance. Just curious.
gravity doesn't affect the expansion rate, the expansion pressure comes from the fabric of space itself (regardless if that space is occupied by matter or not). so there's no difference in the expansion rate inside galaxies compared to intergalactic voids. but what stops the galaxies stretching out is that gravity is dwarfing the expansion rate trillions of times stronger. the stretching will never be significant inside galaxies until the expansion rate wins gravity. and in slower time regions the expansion will be just that much more insignificant.
@@babstra55 That is the question - does space expand faster in areas of very low mass as opposed to areas of high mass? Have there been any measurements or mathematics done on this subject? I’m not even sure how one would measure such a thing. We know that Time moves faster in low mass areas than in high mass areas. I would love to know.
@@d1d234 you're mixing two very different things. gravity or matter in general has NO effect on the dark energy expansion of space which is believed to in some (unknown) way to be caused by vacuum energy of the space itself. they're two unrelated phenomena. and the reason why we don't have a good theory for it is because understanding the fabric of space itself requires theory of quantum gravity (or some way of getting around it) which we don't yet have. general relativity only gives us a rough description for how mass/energy curves space, it says nothing about what the fabric of that space is actually constructed of. we need to figure out that smallest scale fine structure before we can understand why DE expansion ends up being 10^120 times weaker than vacuum energy would imply. so space (DE) expands at the same rate everywhere there's space, even if that space is occupied by matter. and where there's matter its gravity locally stretches that space, but the vacuum expansion still happens under it just the same. (which is at an incredibly weak pace compared to that local gravity, so local gravity easily wins and keeps galaxies intact.)
@@babstra55 I thought that the James Webb has recently discovered that Space IS expanding at different rates. The European Space Agency published an article on March 11, 2024 saying this exact thing. The Hubble Tension is a real thing and, apparently, not the result of measurement errors. The expansion of Space appears not to be the same in all directions or volumes of Space.
@@d1d234 the papers on that differ wildly. most conclude there's no (new) issue and the early measurements were analysed in a statistically misleading way, but then some of those debunks had used statistically misleading methods as well. so now it's really unclear if JWST showed anything new about it or not, we need more different groups studying the same data to get a better consensus. but right now it looks more like all measurements regardless of method point to ~70kms/Mpc hubble constant. that said, even if hubble constant wasn't constant, it doesn't necessarily mean DE doesn't work like we think it does. it might just as well point to a problem in inflation theory, which is the basis for why we even think universe should be homogenic. but OTOH universe looking homogenic was the reason why we needed inflation theory in the first place, so we're in a bit of circular logic here. so if hubble constant turns out to be variable the issue likely isn't how space expands but that inflation theory was wrong to begin with: space wasn't homogenic, there was no need to explain why causally disconnected regions of universe looked the same. I'm not saying that's the explanation, but just as an example of what else it could be than mass affecting DE.
I once believed that the redshift was due to doppler effect. Then watching the sailing channel Delos they were diving and viewed some fish that redshifted light that reflected off their skin. Then found out about particle absorption of light, sometimes referred as Compton Scattering. So essentially a photon interacts with a particle, atom size or smaller, and gives some of it's energy to the particle, speeding up the particle and lowering the frequency of the photon. For me it seems a much better fit, because the universe is filled with particles, probably just as dispersed as the microwave background. And if it is the cause, then we should see an even amount of red shift everywhere we look, with greater redshift the further distance away, and this is what we observe. With the big bang, via space itself expanding, everything should be expanding like a balloon, with the outer part expanding faster. We do not see this, as far as I remember, we observe as if we are the center of the universe, just like it should if it was due to particle absorption. As for the blurred images that are supposedly supposed to happen, the light that travels to us is traveling quite a ways, so it wouldn't make it if it scattered. Secondly, when light travels through pure water, or even particles, it is not blurred, when there is lots of mixed contaminated in the mix thats where the blur comes from. So the images shouldn't be blurry. Pretty sure when I looked it up it came from a guy that was trying to push the big bang theory, or space expanding, and essentially claimed he disproved it, I don't recall seeing anything substantial in his old paper.
Just consider this possibility. Think about galaxies as basically clocks. They all started at the same time, but some go one way the others the other way. When we calculate the red shift, we are essentially synchronizing the clocks and we call that "distance". It would work with our normal physics for the ones that go in the same direction, but for the others, there will be a discrepancy because there is extra movement in the other direction. Of course it would grow as more time has passed. It's probably not linear like you would expect an actual clock because it's the whole mass that turns and the middle is not affected as much as the outer rings, but you get the idea. If it's true you might find some discrepancies as well if galaxies are not in a plane with us. Things move in space time, not just space, so a clock going one direction and coming back to it's origin is not the same as one that went in the other direction. That difference should show in the overall energy we detect. Something to consider anyway. I don't pretend it's the case.
I've had a theory for a long time that various fields cause light to redshift. We have electromagnetic fields, gravitational fields and other fields that go throughout the universe. If they slowed light then the more distant galaxies will have more redshift and appear farther away and moving faster than they are
Einstein's relativity explains this variation perfectly. I love how they refuse to accept the simplest of answers when they're against a change in the norm.
F.Zwicky maybe would be confused now. The term lazy light is also unhappily chosen. There must be something other hindering sources for protons or just density of dark matter changes the flow etc. Thanks Anton, great thematic which could lead into something bigger that we currently don't understand.
Dang, I remember hearing about the Tired Light hypothesis in my 8th grade science book from this creationist school (🤮) I went to as a kid. And it was so outdated it still referenced the solar neutrino problem as "unresolved". Wild.
Wait, that wasn't already factored in when measuring redshift? That was one of the first things I thought about when first hearing about redshift. I kind of figured it was.
I remember I had a theory a long time ago. I've had vivid lucid dreams every time I sleep since I was a kid, and when I was a bit more obsessed with watching/reading astronomy stuff I had one about dark matter/dark energy. It was kinda gorgeous, watching things kinda sped up. Big bang, stars, all that but the most interesting part to me was seeing and I don't know "intuitively" (my dream my brain) recognizing that black holes absorbing light in its present affected or cancelled out their past, their travel path through space, leaving behind like a shadow/dark energy that was once there in its place. Weird but fun. Brain kinda saying "hey, this is why the universe is dark rather than bright and full of light. Like time travel connection for photons all quantum-like." It was weird but great. I love having spacey dreams like those.
@@demonsorrows except nothing ever falls into a black hole from an outside perspective, it simply flattens out and reaches the moment of stillness event horizon and then fades in brightness, paused at moment. However effectively yes, it could be seen to create a deleting mechanism of 'stored data' traveling in images of electromagnetic radiation, but this is simply a far more complex topic than merely a shadow nor is it a method of deleting "actual" content of the past. If you're talking about quantum loop gravity theories than it might be a little bit different, however it seems you're arguing for an entanglement of temporality of light molecules being deleted and thus no longer extant in record in any moment of observation????
@@ShortKingofKings Not an argument for or against it, just a fun theory from a lucid dream. Didn't need to "um, actually.." XD Could be close, more likely dead wrong, but so were most ideas about all of this stuff before more was learned. Build ideas, expand, learn, expand, build ideas, on and on.
The universe is god. It's literally incredible and amazing how everything (evolution, etc) just....works. Because if it doesn't, the universe will automatically "correct" it.
@@mondopinion3777 Well thankya. I'm probably bottom rung compared to the vast majority of people that watch this channel. But, I like learning about new stuff even if I'm not fully educated or literate on the topic.
"Seeing red". As we are rightly angry. Dogmas in science, are worst than kriptonyte for Superman. Arp knew and paied so much for his freedom. Not as much as Giordano Bruno, but he became the moron of the village, in the opinion of too many astronomers. What a shame for them, what a pity for him. R.I.P. ⚘
And he was trivially wrong. Which is why he is only invoked by the crackpot fringe these days. Not that many took him seriously even back in the day. He stuff about quasars was comedy gold!
@@davejones7632 May be or some day, we'll discover he was not so wrong. From the '60s, it was told us how protons were made by 3 quarks and now, that they could be 5. I saw the rise and fall of string theory and the debate is still open. If I could see future...
@@PietroColombo-em5mz Sorry? Arp was shown to be wrong long ago. Nothing is going to change that. He saw connections between quasars and nearby galaxies that simply didn't exist. And were shown not to exist. They are not suddenly going to star existing! We are not going to suddenly see galaxies giving birth to mini-galaxies like wet mogwai! Lol. Quasars are at cosmological distances. As proven long since. They have zero correlation with nearer galaxies, as shown long since. Arp was a fruitloop. As was shown long since. He is only invoked by the unqualified crackpot fringe.
Not an astrophysicist, just a passionate space and physics geek, but for years have intuitively felt that redshift measurements are missing a component leading to significant measurement errors. Maybe I should go work with this fellow since we seem to be on the same wavelength.
There’s definitely something misunderstood about viewing very distant objects. The way light travels over time isn’t clear. And our timescales for analyzing are very short. To think the sky we see is a snapshot of million year old light would imply we can look at the past earth from light years away. But that’s a sort of paradox in itself.
@@davejones7632 He got the prediction down to the actual 2-3k measured by Penzias and Wilson in 1965, while Gamow, Dicke and others were 5-50k, often fudging after the fact.
@@kevinwong6588 And always denied the big bang! So, he was trivially wrong, wasn't he? He couldn't explain the CMB. He lost the support of practically all of his former steady-state colleagues. As Dennis Sciama said, he was taking it too far with some of the stuff he supported. So, none of it is really relevant, is it? He was wrong. That is all that needs to be said.
I’m no astrophysicist but I tend to think of it like ripples in a pond. The source of light is the center of the ripple. As it goes outward the hight of the peak goes down light the brightness. The distance between peaks expands creating a redshift. The distance between peaks also creates a time dilation effect because it takes more time between each peak.
Tired light hypothesis is an idle mind’s explanation. What actually happens (my hypothesis) is that photons’ energy is attenuated by interaction with all the atomic and subatomic particles it encounters as it travels through the universe. This directly explains that more the distance traveled by light it is more red shifted. It does not exclude the red shift contributed by Doppler effect.
More like the quantum foam might do this. The value of c depends on the fine structure constant which in turn involves the resistivity of vacuum. What causes that must be the quantum foam, I mean it's right there and related to causality. So why wouldn't it drag on light?
here that repulsion from an underdensity is important and that the dominant influences causing the observed flow are a single attractor - associated with the Shapley concentration - and a single previously unidentified repeller, which contribute roughly equally to the CMB dipole.[...] We conclude that the dipole repeller is not a fictitious structure induced by an ‘edge of the data’ effect, and that subsets of the data, chosen either by distance or galaxy type, uncover a basin of repulsion that ‘pushes’ the Local Group in the direction pointed by the CMB dipole.
I have proposed a variation of the TL hypothesis in which the light loses energy to the medium it travels through which is the quantum field akin to waves on water losing energy as they travel. This causes the waves to shift to longer wavelengths and is different to the TL hypothesis which proposed that light is redshifted due to it interacting with matter during its journey. For light to redshift means it is losing energy which contradicts conservation laws so this energy must be going somewhere.😊
Exactly. Photons travel at the speed of light (obviously) and at the speed of light, time basically stops. So photons should not experience any time at all, no matter the distance they travel. So how could light become "tired" when there was no time for it to experience to become tired in/with? That said, light can become stretched over time as it passes through the universe and that stretching is a property of space/time itself. Also, as you said, what is "time" anyways? I'm going to sit down now, this is too much to think about in one sitting....
Minor not-pick, Anton: the Earth (as an example) *rotates* on its axis, and makes 365 and a bit rotations as it *revolves* relative to the Sun. The Sun *rotates* once for about 26 Earth rotations. The Sun *revolves" around the galactic core over about 270 million Earth revolutions around the Sun. I know - it's a language thing.
Before you claim that photons do not experience time, you should describe what time is. We define it through the passage of light through a given distance. How do you set the distance between galaxies? Based on the redshift? But this is also the property of light.
Are you familiar with Bell Inequalities? Look them up on TH-cam for some demonstrations. Photons behave as though all events which will happen along their route are summed. To put this into lorentz terms, the "problem" with light not experiencing time is that a photon travels an infinitely short distance from its perspective, but that distance itself contains both space and time from other perspectives. When you remember that light does not travel instantly (something relativity requires to calculate properly), the concept of length contraction becomes problematic. Consider an object traveling perpendicular across a contracted path such that the two will intersect. You can't plot where this will occur with light - it's an invalid question as the photon doesn't experience any space or time, yet it clearly does. We have to invoke a preferential reference frame to make sense of the scenario.
There are much more things happening in light than we know. It is not only ''tired light'' but light as everything else undegoes through process of entropy.
Maybe someone can fact-check this. Can't Red shift be calculated by a. change is velocity, or alternatively b. change in mass. They discount change in mass because it would require too much mass change to create the effects seen. What if you add other factors into it such as rotation which is closely linked to mass
I'm that annoying guy who pops up every time redshift is mentioned to say that I'm not buying it. The whole dynamically exponentially expanding universe(fast and slow base don what's needed to balance observation smack of absolute OTT curve fitting. Redshift is the crux of this problem and really the only concrete basis for any expansion at all. All the other evidence is circumstantial and correlative. I have long stated that I believe at some point we will find that red shift likely to be 'not caused by what we think' and then we will have to rethink expansion and all kinds of science will be able to move forwards. I think we're in the early stages of that now with the results coming in from JWST. I absolutely don't think we have reached the point yet where cosmologists are ready to look for new models, but rather we're just going to keep on tweaking existing models to try and make them fit the unfittable data for quit some time. Like what we did with spacetime expanding at different rates to fit the data. Fitting a model to data is more appealing than to say that 'some things are unknown and when more data comes in we will have a better chance at a model.", I mean a career cosmologist won't just sit around waiting for Nancy, Luvior or OST help fill in the blanks, but, for now JWST is doing a bang up job at showing how current models are the opposite of robust.
Recently I have started thinking that maybe it is time dilation for the distant objects. For instance, if time in a distant galaxy in the past was slower relative to us, some things would remain the same but on the slower scale (an emission from hydrogen like H-alpha would be based on time relative to the atom). For instance, frequencies of light originating from a region where time is slower would result in a redshift as the frequency remains the same relative to its origin, but here a second is shorter resulting in lower frequency and thus redshift.
Galaxies that are farthest away from us are travelling away faster than the closer ones. We see the farther ones when the universe is 10 million years old. We see the closer ones when the universe is 10 billion years old. Seems to me this shows the expansion is slowing since the younger ones are travelling faster.
Well light from different sources can interact with each other. We look at distant light not knowing how the outgoing light that has traveled from our location might interact with the incoming light
You know this reminds me of what they used to believe about gamma ray bursts back in the late 1960s. They believed the gamma ray bursts had to be happening within our own galaxy. Any further away they believed would violate Einstein's E=MC squared. BBC's Horizon series did a whole episode about this back in 2001 or so called Death Star. They sent a satellite up to study gamma ray bursts and discovered they were evenly spaced across the sky proving they were outside our galaxy, in fact billions of light years away which seemed to break E=MC squared.
The main problem this seems to underline is that much of what we claim to know about how the universe works is based on certain assumptions that have not been fully proved. If one of those assumptions is found to be false, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
You are right about the basic assumptions. They not only is not proven, but they are conflicting - For example - how Space is a "Pure Vacuum" and producing Kasimir Effect? How this Vacuum providing "Gravitational Waves" when even "Gravity Do Not Exist" After they proposing "Gravitational Field"? Light has no mass, but have momentum and had Gravitational Red Shift? Why Space is not expanding locally, but expanding faster and faster on grand distance? The correct basic assumptions can be found in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
Not a theory, but I was wondering if "tired light" could explain anything about the big bang rapid expansion. A period of time where light actually took a "long time" to move a distance which appears as a rapid expansion because we assumed light was constant.
It's not that light is stretched by expansion but rather that photons are adsorbed and reemited over and over and over losing energy with each encounter. Space is NOT empty in any direction.
It's a scalar tensor field. You can have "higher' or "more" energy and not have to increase anything except the field scale. Also shifting from high to low energy is a transformation and usually dependant on energy level "wells" not... Like "amount of raw power" because that's not a real thing, much like heat is just the oscillation of particles, energy can be higher if it's considered more "primed" or more "accessible" not "more energetic". Thus it's not a matter of quantities and amounts we're discussing anyway, but rather their potential for activity type that has shifted
In general, wouldn't redshift itself be a measure of how fast an object was going away from us (billions of years ago) and not a measure of how fast it is going? Or do they take multiple measurements of redshift and note the later one in time has an increased value meaning expansion?
there is no "universe time", since time behaves differently in different areas of space, like due to gravity. so the concept of "now, but billions of lightyears away" is... weird, imo. from my limited understanding of time, considering "information that has travelled from a distant place at the speed of light to us reaching us" as the "now" of that place is the most beneficial one as to the core of your question, as i understand it: what you're looking at is the "cosmic distance ladder" - we know the redshift of things that we can measure the distance of by other means (cephid variables, certain types of novas, and whatnot). there's a correlation between the distances and the redshift from how fast it's going away from us. this is, to my understanding, at the core of the expanding universe hypothesis. after a certain point, we can no longer use the other methods of measuring the distance, due to limitations of our technology. at that point, the redshift is the best distance indicator that we have. so, yeah, the speed at which it's going away from us is the way we measure the distance of these super-far away objects - at least to my understanding
You’re not necessarily measuring speed or distance, but how long the light took to travel to us. It’s based on a lot of assumptions about how dusty the universe is, and the colour of starlight and galaxy types.
Red shift interferes with my theory that the universe is infinite, has always existed, with masses in motion due to previous collisions/explosions of starts/ejections, or due to gravitational effects of nearby mass acquaintances. Individual stars form on occasion when enough masses combine, attracting other masses into orbit, eventually collapsing into black holes and, with luck, are able to put together their own galaxies. My theory is a little weak (actually, the whole thing is just a hair-brained scheme) where I assume that when a black hole at the center of a galaxy evaporates, the stars in the arms of the galaxy depart along tangent paths, keeping the whole thing going. The Big Bang can still be accommdated, provided it was just a local event, but red shift won't fit without assuming that unobserved dark matter is lurking, and that's just too much for me.
Light being in a weird particle and/or wave state kinda messes with things, waves can attenuate, particles just keep going until they hit something, weird stuff
Maybe some of the beam had a different polarity and got deflected, thus creating a more sparce distribution of photos left in the beam, measured as red shift? It sounds very much like when polarity shift as a beam of light is rotated.
Intriguing - we need to be careful about drawing conclusions from single author papers, as long as they are associated with established research organisations and have some provenance. It is an intriguing idea, it may not be correct, but if it can shift thinking in a new direction, then it did its job, even if later refuted. The RS conclusions and HT have their problems, even some aspects of the BB theory have been questioned in recent years to explain aspects of the Universe, including the asymmetry between matter and anti-matter, so there is a lot to still be determined. Follow up studies are required that is for sure, even a small, 0.5% change in RS values has serious implications so it should not be ignored.
As the son of a physicist who was taught about red shift at about age 9, I can confidently say that the term 'red shift' is a shift to a longer wavelength from a shorter one. The reason is that the universe expands from every point, so it has to occur to the light traveling through it, say for billions of years. I have read that if the universe only expanded from one point, time dilation would from one vantage point would give you an age for the universe of around 3,000 years.
There are a lot of interesting thought experiments revolving around TL and VSL. Even if incorrect, an alternative view can help to show the problems in more plausible theories that would not otherwise be identified. > This is occurring in SR where people are identifying issues at the center of Relativity. At worst it just means Relativity can be improved.
L Shamir cites 8 of his own papers out of 120 total citations. If he is pursuing an unpopular theory, and his prior papers contribute to the continuity of his research culminating with this paper (as indeed they do), it would be improper for him not to cite them.
The Earth does not go around the galaxy in a perfect elliptical shape. We are closer to the center in some spots than we are in others; however, those transitions more inward or more outward takes thousands of years to transition. I have wondered if it looks like the expansion is increasing because of our relative motion away or toward the objects we use to measure it.
In university we took a class in Euclidean geometry but when doing proofs, we were asked to alter one proposition. For instance, parallel lines do meet at infinity. Some weird and wonderful results eventuated. I think this might have been done to free up our minds for Quantum theory. For me, at least it didn't work. I wonder what cosmology would look like if we hypothesized that the tired light theory is correct.
I think as light comes towards us and as space expands away from us some waves/particles of light get tugged on by the expansion of space and pulled back ever so slightly. Maybe different colours weigh less and get effect by what ever is expanding space a little different
We are either looking up the gravitational current or down the current in any one location and direction. The small 1% ripple turns to a 3% wave looking from a greater distance.
Could the increased bais in tension be attributable to the dilation of space over time? Thanks for keeping the subject light😅😅❤ thank you wonderful Anton
Tired Light hypothesis has NEVER been disproved! - it's just considered too "crazy" to touch. There's a modern Science and University culture problem, not with these "crazy" ideas - it's about who decides what's "Science" and how much money and prestige you'll end up with if you disagree. "Tired" is just a name given to the phenomenon of losing energy. I don't see how it should blur images of distant objects? Also, the relative galaxy rotations and the Hubble Tension aren't the main areas of where Tired Light is useful, but rather alternative theories to the Big Bang (gradually falling into increasingly harsher troubles), like the Plasma Universe. Anyways, the very fact you decided to give this subject some platform means, that Big Bang problems slowly pour out of the scientific saloon.
A photon checked into a hotel. The concierge asked if the photon had any bags. The photon replied: No I am travelling light.
No,*
that photon is a jerk
How is a photon like an abandoned church?
I nearly pissed my pants on that one ❤
@@mondopinion3777. I’m sorry. I just do not get it.
Thanks Anton. A classic case of "further study is needed". Referencing one's own work for proof is not necessarily a confidence builder.
I agree we need a 3rd party to check his work, but is someone referencing their own prior work really unscientific? I mean Einstein certainly built on his previous work as he was developing General Relativity. As long as the previous studies are replicated and whatnot it doesn't seem like a deal breaker. Just needs someone else to jump on and try to poke holes in it.
I get it though. He has a catalog of work, and his previous works pushed his research in this direction. If he's thorough, and his data is good, peers will have trouble poking any holes in any of his papers. But if he's a crackpot, then it shouldn't be hard.
Would love to see:
A.) Further studies on this.
B.) What happens when we also ignore all observations of galaxies visible via gravitational lensing regardless of spin vs only use galaxies visible through gravitational lensing for the calculation.
Curious to see if the different gravitational effects ever so slightly skew the red shift.
Sounds like a good way to find biases in your dataset
@troyjacobs8530 should a statement like that not be followed by a "because..."
@@areyouavinalaff, should a statement like that not end with a question mark?
@@MucaroBoricua here you go...?
@@troyjacobs8530 Your statement is vague and could have a couple different (polar opposite meanings). If however you are suggesting confirmation bias... That would be premature.
First, it is called a hypothesis, and hypothesis testing occurs for a reason.
Second, the very undetailed methodology and the implied hypothesis doesn't suggest I am looking for an outcome one way or the other.
3.) The hypothesis testing is clearly falsifiable, meaning it could prove the implied hypothesis false, which would be great, because then we would know.
4.) I don't actually expect with 100% certainty that the results would necessarily prove the hypothesis false or true, we might be absolutely no better off than before, but we also could be, which in itself makes it worth testing.
5.) And finally, while I am not personally vested in the results being one way or the other... if I were, that would also be fine, so long as any possible biases were addressed both functionally and literarily in the research and the paper... but also... I am not conducting the research.
Fascinating. I agree about the reservations, but it needs to be seriously looked at.
And imagine folks getting big salaries to do it! Stay in school kids!
I applaud this scientist for putting their unconventional ideas out there for consideration knowing there will be the usual backlash. More scientists should do this.
There are too much biases in the scientific community. Good that someone thinks 'out of the box'. And this seems to be a computer scientist. Hope they will not ignore him.
I believe there's actually a lot of evidence for re-visiting tired light. I was making connections with galactic spin and red shift and galactic density, and acceleration many years ago. Mostly just using schwarzschild formulae. It almost seemed to obvious to me, and whenever I tried to have discussions on the matter with people more educated than me, they just shut me down and called me a crackpot. It was very discouraging.
Wasn't it A.Einstein who was ignored or even declinened with thinking out of the box?
Traveling that fast must be tiring. They deserve a break.
Light is extremely slow if anything they are slacking!
#1 best particle
✅️
As far as the photon is concerned, NO TIME has passed since its origin.
@@juimymary9951 says quantum entanglement 😂
This is one of those subjects where I really have to keep my bias in check. I know the timescales involved are so long that they’ll never have even the slightest impact on my life, but, for the sake of the future, I desperately hope that the expansion of the universe is slower than we think or entirely incorrect. Can’t let that desire cloud the evidence though
the idea of constant expansion doesn't make any sense to me at all. More likely, the universe is a steady state.
@@tinfoilhomer909the idea of several elements on the periodic table being different only because they have different numbers of protons doesn't make sense to me. It's more likely that they are simply different state of matter
@@Mr.Anders0n_ The only reason ANY elements are different from each other is the number of protons per atom. There are different states like solid, liquid, gas, and plasma, but the same atom can pass through all those states without changing its number of protons and the properties that go with that number, which define the element.
@@NuisanceMan i know. I was just trying to give the other guy an example of "I reject a scientific fact with strong evidence and consensus because I don't like it and I think I'm smarter than everybody else".
@@tinfoilhomer909 The idea that whether it makes sense to _you_ would have any impact on the nature of reality is rather silly.
The world is what it is, whether you understand it or not. If you don't, that just means the world is different from what you think.
Great discussion. Glad you were open minded. As usual.
this feels a bit like a nothingburger to me.
Not sure why I keep coming back to it lately, but this thought that I'm not looking at, oh say Andromeda as it looked 2.5 million years ago, but rather I'm looking at a smear of time roughly 152,000 years wide, from the near edge of it's disk to the far edge.
Then take a glance at Cirus A - The dog star , at the heel of Orion. You'll be looking at it, 8-9 years ago.
I love clicking on an Anton video *as soon as the notification pops up* then watching the view count go up in real time.
This is why i take anything we "know" about space and planets with a grain of salt
Yes, I am skeptical about the big bang theory and dark matter/energy. There could be just something we're totally missing about the nature of the universe that would rewrite our understanding of it. The debunking of the phlogiston theory centuries ago where beforehand most scientists supported it well gives cadence to my uncertainty
I mean that's just science, though. We make observations and come up with a theory that explains them. When we learn new things we change the theory. We're all just making our best guesses all the time. However, that doesn't mean they're bad guesses. They're the best we can do with what we know right now. What we know is always changing. That's the fun and exciting part.
@@redmadness265 The Big Bang and Dark Matter is a result of people going "Well the math doesn't TOTALLY math, but let's just add a bunch of assumptions to make it work" It's honestly pretty bad a science and anyone who mindlessly follows it shouldn't be allowed to call themselves a scientist. It's a best fit model, but you should be open-minded enough to accept that it might not be the answer.
@@mNag Yes. It's all based off of some superfluous and difficult to observe data
Wonderful as always Anton. Thank you. ✌️🙂👍🤘
I don't know why but I never questioned tired light. Interesting video.
I always have to wait to see Anton's "smile & wave" before my viewing is complete. I can't help but smile back.
Nobody co-authored "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" either. It only takes one scientist to come up with something great. 99.999% of them will be wrong, but hey...
Please, do not make light of this!
No no no, the Cult that controls academia insists that the speaker of truth travel in packs all of whom are authorized and funded by the appropriate authorities.
I see the censorship so you must be a college professor
No no no, the speaker of the truth must always travel in packs authorized and funded by the people in authority. There is no truth outside of this system. Visit any university and find out.
Why would the spin direction of a distant galaxy matter? We still have the same relative speeds. The distant galaxy has the half that is "flying away" and the other half that is "flying toward" ... It shouldn't matter which way the distant galaxy spins. One side will be a little faster and the other side will be a little slower.
Could be correlation, rather than causation.
You're right but there's more to it. A single galaxy isn't the problem, because as you say half will be moving towards and half away from us, the observers. The problem is if there are large scale eddies in the universe in the galactic filaments and gas clouds forming galaxies, then we could have a situation where randomly by chance slightly more galaxies near to the Milky Way just happen to spin in one direction than the other. That bias could be due to large clouds of hydrogen flowing towards or away from us over very large scales, like billions of light years, and those flows could bias the red shifts. Unless we take account of these different spin directions, and understand the reasons for spin differences in different hemispheres of our night sky, our distance and redshift calculations could be slightly wrong, and that might be enough to affect results like the Hubble tension.
EXACTLY
It shouldn't matter but it does. So now we have to have a closer look at it.
i agree 100%. clockwise from the top is counterclockwise from below, ie direction of spin just depends on your perspective! should be zero correlation recession velocity
@@traylor2502it cannot matter! Galaxies all spin and whether it’s clockwise or counterclockwise only depends on your angle of view. Take a clock, it’s spins counterclockwise when seen from behind, and clockwise from the front. There is literally no difference
The most beautiful thing in science is the "je ne sais quoi.." Imagine present-day science scrutinised in 100 years.
Careful, every time we find a bug in the simulation, they have to fix it and restart everything.
I think it's the pan-galactic empire of white mice doing it
"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened."
Deja vu
@@Mr.Anders0n_ The first simulation was too perfect
@@yt.personal.identification humans just need that suffering to be convinced. Also, the problem of choice needed to be solved ;)
The oldest galaxies are the ones most red shifted and are also the ones in the densest areas of the young Universe. I wonder how much that matter density affects the light as it leaves the source? The density of the interstellar medium would affect the amount of light absorbed and then reemitted at a lower frequency, (redder), as well as reflecting the light at oblique angles, also shifting it towards the red. Energy does dissipate over time and distance, more by spreading out than by slowing down, in the empty medium of space, but much of space is far from empty, so light from a very distant source would have a great many interactions along the way, including other energies. Gravity curves space, rather than light but that spatial curve, mostly from "dark matter", would also make for a longer route for the light to take to our telescopes, would that change the red shift?
As for which way the galaxies turn, that is totally a matter of perspective!
I wonder how we could test your matter density theory...if true, no interstellar medium needed.
@@chuckevans2792 As with almost all of cosmology: We can't test it.
All the observations are fed through the "main" theory and if something doesn't fit, it gets tweaked until it does.
Why do you think we "need" dark matter and dark energy? Because without such boogeymans the main theory is off by 2000%.
We need to make a new JWSP 20x more powerful!
@@chuckevans2792 Dark matter is fake!
@@soundsoflife9549 Pretty sure at this point that just means "We need to make a new JWST 20x bigger".
I wouldn't expect anything like that in the next 20 years.
Redshift calculations have never been correct.. they have only been the best we have..
They’ve been “correct” just “testable and reconsiderable”… if light is tired why is it not blurry?
@@letsomethingshine why would the images be blurry? Does the wavelength of light determine its resolution?
Ya I was surprised they were ignoring the movements of galaxies and earth and it is a 1% effect. That, though small, seems important if we ever want to get a full picture. I love watching FloatHeadPhysics youtube channel and thinking I believe what he says to be true but can reality really be that way! It seems so glitched the universe we live in. If you haven't seen his channel I very highly recommend it, he explains a lot of Einstein special relativity subjects in the most clear way possible that makes it understandable for even average people to grasp. SUch a good channel. This channel is awesome too.
This may make exploring the frontier safer and feasible for humans and food. God willing.☀️👩🌾✨💫🪐
Make adjustments and correct the math, get proof, record your findings and put it to the test and do it again… and again. It might be awhile.
Great video, wonderful person
I had someone claiming to be a physics student try to argue with me when I made a comment about issues with redshift measurements on a previous video. I hope he sees this video, and understands why I said there are other explanations for the redshift we see. Just because it appears that further objects are moving faster, doesn't mean they definitely are, it's only the best explanation we have of the data.. *for now*
Well no scientist today claims to know the true origins of the universe otherwise the cosmology departments would all be having an indefinite vacation. So what are you actually trying to convey here?
@@MJ-revered "Safe and effective."
Yeah sometimes science is way, way, way to sure of itself.
Sadly some students believe in settled science.
No, they definitely are. We just don’t know how exactly how fast.
Maybe watch the video again, or listen more to the physics student.
@@jtjames79 Still in science you are free to contribute your own ideas.
Spinning objects resist movement and changes in orientation. Maybe two objects spinning in opposite direction resist movement and changes in orientation in slightly different ways.
Maybe galaxies closer to us tend to spin one way because they condensed out of a larger spinning blob of diffuse matter, perhaps with vortexes in it, like a smoke ring. It doesn't matter whether our galaxy also spins that same way - either way, we'd see a bias because galaxies that are further away would be more likely to be spinning the opposite way to the majority of local ones.
I appreciate your consideration of this result even with the concerns expressed. Too many times something unusual is simply discarded out of hand. “More study needed” is always a valid response. Kind of like “I don’t know”!
When my particles were younger they travelled millions of light years, climbing out of gravitational potential wells both ways, in the snow, and they never red-shifted. And that's the way they liked it!
Turns out the mad scientist that they used to call crazy had some pretty novel, hypothesis and theories
My best guess for galaxies that don't rotate as expected is, they're products of recent galactic merges. As galaxies merge, stars from each galaxy group into their own spiral arms, and their black holes orbit for a while before they merge.
That's a pretty wild guess, and I don't think it accounts for all the evidence already established.
I don't think any have been found that rotate "normally".
"Tired Light Hypothesis Gets Re-Tired" this had boomers in 2001 rolling in the aisles with laughter when they saw it on the newsreel before the B-picture in the movie theater
What kind of tyres is the tyred light using. Some brands are not up to the challenge of such a long journey.
Are they watching the inflation settings? Is the tread holding up OK? Rotating the tyres to keep them balanced?
Hope it is out for them.
Bonger spotted, in the us Tire and Tire, Tired and Tired are all spelled the same
Better check the shocks as well, they often go on a journey of this distance.
@@gabrieldavis5794 ... Tyred is Tired, and Tired is Tyred. Set your keyboard to English UK and see all the fun ways to spell wurds rong.
That question is what has NASA keeping such a close eye on the Tesla.
Honestly Anton, I follow you since 2016, keep doing what you are doing. I wonder, with all those amazing discoveries, would it be worth a thought to take it to the next level. Like to consider creating a team to make awesome 30min short-documentaries like noone has done before. Documenatries on a particular topic based on recent literature. Some great visuals, great voiceover by professional voice actors. Damn
Instead of creating a whole new theory because of one observation, it's so much easier to assume galaxy rotation speed changes over time. Especially considering we know we don't quite understand gravity. Also, possibly linked: Less Dark matter in the early universe. Which seems to be supported by evidence that young galaxies aren't as dominated by dark matter.
I'll be honest, I just love the idea of tired light. Photons have no mass, yet they still get tired?! Imagine how they'd feel if they had as much mass as me!
no mass ? sure ?
@@EscapeRealityMedia No rest mass.
@@lundsweden and yet, they have kinetic energy.
@@tinfoilhomer909 Yes, they do.
There are many questionable concepts in physics, and one of the most dubious is the photon. Planck originally introduced it as a purely empirical workaround to calculate the energy distribution of black body radiation. However, some dumbass later claimed it to be a real entity without substantial justification. As for 'tired light,' this term was actually coined by critics of Zwicky's hypothesis to mock his idea. In reality, Zwicky proposed that redshift occurs because light waves lose energy as they travel through the interstellar medium. Anyone can observe a similar effect by dropping a stone into water and watching the waves stretch and lengthen as they move further from the point of impact.
This chap sounds like Wegener. One man with the right explanation. But then Cosmology is a difficult job- trying to decide what's in someone's attic by looking through their letter-box, especially if treading the party-line keeps your funding coming.
Anton going wild with the topics lately 😅
Love it
Eventually, the tide has started turning again. This is the first non-mainstream video Anton did in many years. I predict that in five years time there will be many more.
Bravo Anton, now that you have acquired knowledge, go back using your own head. You can do a lot for science from your position.
One of my questions about Physics is - How do the researchers account for the fact that space containing little mass expands faster than space (say, a galaxy or huge clouds of hydrogen) that contains larger amounts of mass? What about the Voids where there is very little mass at all? Is the differentiated rate so negligible as to be meaningless? Space would expand faster where there is little mass because we know that time passes more slowly in areas of more mass, like the surface of earth as opposed to a satellite 1000 miles above the surface of earth. Over 13 Billion years, it might make a difference in all calculations of distance. Just curious.
gravity doesn't affect the expansion rate, the expansion pressure comes from the fabric of space itself (regardless if that space is occupied by matter or not). so there's no difference in the expansion rate inside galaxies compared to intergalactic voids.
but what stops the galaxies stretching out is that gravity is dwarfing the expansion rate trillions of times stronger. the stretching will never be significant inside galaxies until the expansion rate wins gravity. and in slower time regions the expansion will be just that much more insignificant.
@@babstra55 That is the question - does space expand faster in areas of very low mass as opposed to areas of high mass? Have there been any measurements or mathematics done on this subject? I’m not even sure how one would measure such a thing. We know that Time moves faster in low mass areas than in high mass areas. I would love to know.
@@d1d234 you're mixing two very different things. gravity or matter in general has NO effect on the dark energy expansion of space which is believed to in some (unknown) way to be caused by vacuum energy of the space itself. they're two unrelated phenomena. and the reason why we don't have a good theory for it is because understanding the fabric of space itself requires theory of quantum gravity (or some way of getting around it) which we don't yet have. general relativity only gives us a rough description for how mass/energy curves space, it says nothing about what the fabric of that space is actually constructed of. we need to figure out that smallest scale fine structure before we can understand why DE expansion ends up being 10^120 times weaker than vacuum energy would imply.
so space (DE) expands at the same rate everywhere there's space, even if that space is occupied by matter. and where there's matter its gravity locally stretches that space, but the vacuum expansion still happens under it just the same. (which is at an incredibly weak pace compared to that local gravity, so local gravity easily wins and keeps galaxies intact.)
@@babstra55 I thought that the James Webb has recently discovered that Space IS expanding at different rates. The European Space Agency published an article on March 11, 2024 saying this exact thing. The Hubble Tension is a real thing and, apparently, not the result of measurement errors. The expansion of Space appears not to be the same in all directions or volumes of Space.
@@d1d234 the papers on that differ wildly. most conclude there's no (new) issue and the early measurements were analysed in a statistically misleading way, but then some of those debunks had used statistically misleading methods as well. so now it's really unclear if JWST showed anything new about it or not, we need more different groups studying the same data to get a better consensus. but right now it looks more like all measurements regardless of method point to ~70kms/Mpc hubble constant.
that said, even if hubble constant wasn't constant, it doesn't necessarily mean DE doesn't work like we think it does. it might just as well point to a problem in inflation theory, which is the basis for why we even think universe should be homogenic.
but OTOH universe looking homogenic was the reason why we needed inflation theory in the first place, so we're in a bit of circular logic here. so if hubble constant turns out to be variable the issue likely isn't how space expands but that inflation theory was wrong to begin with: space wasn't homogenic, there was no need to explain why causally disconnected regions of universe looked the same.
I'm not saying that's the explanation, but just as an example of what else it could be than mass affecting DE.
I once believed that the redshift was due to doppler effect. Then watching the sailing channel Delos they were diving and viewed some fish that redshifted light that reflected off their skin. Then found out about particle absorption of light, sometimes referred as Compton Scattering. So essentially a photon interacts with a particle, atom size or smaller, and gives some of it's energy to the particle, speeding up the particle and lowering the frequency of the photon. For me it seems a much better fit, because the universe is filled with particles, probably just as dispersed as the microwave background. And if it is the cause, then we should see an even amount of red shift everywhere we look, with greater redshift the further distance away, and this is what we observe. With the big bang, via space itself expanding, everything should be expanding like a balloon, with the outer part expanding faster. We do not see this, as far as I remember, we observe as if we are the center of the universe, just like it should if it was due to particle absorption. As for the blurred images that are supposedly supposed to happen, the light that travels to us is traveling quite a ways, so it wouldn't make it if it scattered. Secondly, when light travels through pure water, or even particles, it is not blurred, when there is lots of mixed contaminated in the mix thats where the blur comes from. So the images shouldn't be blurry. Pretty sure when I looked it up it came from a guy that was trying to push the big bang theory, or space expanding, and essentially claimed he disproved it, I don't recall seeing anything substantial in his old paper.
This is a known effect with dust clouds, and astronomers account for it.
Interesting information. I see myself going down an investigative rabbit hole today.
Do you actually believe that cosmologists are unaware of basic information about how light behaves?
Just consider this possibility.
Think about galaxies as basically clocks.
They all started at the same time, but some go one way the others the other way.
When we calculate the red shift, we are essentially synchronizing the clocks and we call that "distance".
It would work with our normal physics for the ones that go in the same direction, but for the others, there will be a discrepancy because there is extra movement in the other direction. Of course it would grow as more time has passed.
It's probably not linear like you would expect an actual clock because it's the whole mass that turns and the middle is not affected as much as the outer rings, but you get the idea. If it's true you might find some discrepancies as well if galaxies are not in a plane with us. Things move in space time, not just space, so a clock going one direction and coming back to it's origin is not the same as one that went in the other direction. That difference should show in the overall energy we detect.
Something to consider anyway. I don't pretend it's the case.
I've had a theory for a long time that various fields cause light to redshift. We have electromagnetic fields, gravitational fields and other fields that go throughout the universe. If they slowed light then the more distant galaxies will have more redshift and appear farther away and moving faster than they are
Einstein's relativity explains this variation perfectly. I love how they refuse to accept the simplest of answers when they're against a change in the norm.
@4:25, talks about rotating galaxies, the the one behind him rotates...backward.🙃
F.Zwicky maybe would be confused now. The term lazy light is also unhappily chosen. There must be something other hindering sources for protons or just density of dark matter changes the flow etc. Thanks Anton, great thematic which could lead into something bigger that we currently don't understand.
Dang, I remember hearing about the Tired Light hypothesis in my 8th grade science book from this creationist school (🤮) I went to as a kid. And it was so outdated it still referenced the solar neutrino problem as "unresolved". Wild.
Wait, that wasn't already factored in when measuring redshift? That was one of the first things I thought about when first hearing about redshift. I kind of figured it was.
>light doesn't experience time.
>travel makes light tired.
Interesting I've been thinking about this all week.
I remember I had a theory a long time ago. I've had vivid lucid dreams every time I sleep since I was a kid, and when I was a bit more obsessed with watching/reading astronomy stuff I had one about dark matter/dark energy. It was kinda gorgeous, watching things kinda sped up. Big bang, stars, all that but the most interesting part to me was seeing and I don't know "intuitively" (my dream my brain) recognizing that black holes absorbing light in its present affected or cancelled out their past, their travel path through space, leaving behind like a shadow/dark energy that was once there in its place. Weird but fun. Brain kinda saying "hey, this is why the universe is dark rather than bright and full of light. Like time travel connection for photons all quantum-like."
It was weird but great. I love having spacey dreams like those.
@@demonsorrows except nothing ever falls into a black hole from an outside perspective, it simply flattens out and reaches the moment of stillness event horizon and then fades in brightness, paused at moment. However effectively yes, it could be seen to create a deleting mechanism of 'stored data' traveling in images of electromagnetic radiation, but this is simply a far more complex topic than merely a shadow nor is it a method of deleting "actual" content of the past. If you're talking about quantum loop gravity theories than it might be a little bit different, however it seems you're arguing for an entanglement of temporality of light molecules being deleted and thus no longer extant in record in any moment of observation????
I had a couple epiphanies about the universe at that age too, I think if you told yours to Tesla he might have thought it a real leap of insight.
@@ShortKingofKings Not an argument for or against it, just a fun theory from a lucid dream. Didn't need to "um, actually.." XD
Could be close, more likely dead wrong, but so were most ideas about all of this stuff before more was learned. Build ideas, expand, learn, expand, build ideas, on and on.
The universe is god. It's literally incredible and amazing how everything (evolution, etc) just....works. Because if it doesn't, the universe will automatically "correct" it.
@@mondopinion3777 Well thankya. I'm probably bottom rung compared to the vast majority of people that watch this channel. But, I like learning about new stuff even if I'm not fully educated or literate on the topic.
Check out Halton ARP. He pointed at intrinsic red shift half a century ago!
"Seeing red". As we are rightly angry. Dogmas in science, are worst than kriptonyte for Superman. Arp knew and paied so much for his freedom. Not as much as Giordano Bruno, but he became the moron of the village, in the opinion of too many astronomers. What a shame for them, what a pity for him. R.I.P. ⚘
And he was trivially wrong. Which is why he is only invoked by the crackpot fringe these days. Not that many took him seriously even back in the day. He stuff about quasars was comedy gold!
@@davejones7632 May be or some day, we'll discover he was not so wrong. From the '60s, it was told us how protons were made by 3 quarks and now, that they could be 5. I saw the rise and fall of string theory and the debate is still open. If I could see future...
@@PietroColombo-em5mz Sorry? Arp was shown to be wrong long ago. Nothing is going to change that. He saw connections between quasars and nearby galaxies that simply didn't exist. And were shown not to exist. They are not suddenly going to star existing! We are not going to suddenly see galaxies giving birth to mini-galaxies like wet mogwai! Lol. Quasars are at cosmological distances. As proven long since. They have zero correlation with nearer galaxies, as shown long since. Arp was a fruitloop. As was shown long since. He is only invoked by the unqualified crackpot fringe.
Not an astrophysicist, just a passionate space and physics geek, but for years have intuitively felt that redshift measurements are missing a component leading to significant measurement errors. Maybe I should go work with this fellow since we seem to be on the same wavelength.
HAHA!! This is fun!! Halton Arp said this YEARS and YEARS ago! I LOVE IT!!
And Arp was trivially wrong. His quasar stuff was comedy gold, mind you. Arp took a wrong turn down Crackpot Alley, and never found his way out.
It should be obvious to any thinking person, that there is more to redshift than relative velocities.
There’s definitely something misunderstood about viewing very distant objects. The way light travels over time isn’t clear. And our timescales for analyzing are very short. To think the sky we see is a snapshot of million year old light would imply we can look at the past earth from light years away. But that’s a sort of paradox in itself.
Right said Fred (Hoyle)
Yeah, well Fred could never explain the CMB. Among other things.
@@davejones7632 He got the prediction down to the actual 2-3k measured by Penzias and Wilson in 1965, while Gamow, Dicke and others were 5-50k, often fudging after the fact.
@@kevinwong6588 And always denied the big bang! So, he was trivially wrong, wasn't he? He couldn't explain the CMB. He lost the support of practically all of his former steady-state colleagues. As Dennis Sciama said, he was taking it too far with some of the stuff he supported. So, none of it is really relevant, is it? He was wrong. That is all that needs to be said.
I really like that this study is purely empirical.
I’m no astrophysicist but I tend to think of it like ripples in a pond. The source of light is the center of the ripple. As it goes outward the hight of the peak goes down light the brightness. The distance between peaks expands creating a redshift. The distance between peaks also creates a time dilation effect because it takes more time between each peak.
Tired light hypothesis is an idle mind’s explanation. What actually happens (my hypothesis) is that photons’ energy is attenuated by interaction with all the atomic and subatomic particles it encounters as it travels through the universe. This directly explains that more the distance traveled by light it is more red shifted. It does not exclude the red shift contributed by Doppler effect.
More like the quantum foam might do this. The value of c depends on the fine structure constant which in turn involves the resistivity of vacuum. What causes that must be the quantum foam, I mean it's right there and related to causality. So why wouldn't it drag on light?
here that repulsion from an underdensity is important and that the dominant influences causing the observed flow are a single attractor - associated with the Shapley concentration - and a single previously unidentified repeller, which contribute roughly equally to the CMB dipole.[...] We conclude that the dipole repeller is not a fictitious structure induced by an ‘edge of the data’ effect, and that subsets of the data, chosen either by distance or galaxy type, uncover a basin of repulsion that ‘pushes’ the Local Group in the direction pointed by the CMB dipole.
Great info as ever!!!
I have proposed a variation of the TL hypothesis in which the light loses energy to the medium it travels through which is the quantum field akin to waves on water losing energy as they travel. This causes the waves to shift to longer wavelengths and is different to the TL hypothesis which proposed that light is redshifted due to it interacting with matter during its journey. For light to redshift means it is losing energy which contradicts conservation laws so this energy must be going somewhere.😊
That Hubble Tension visualization tho ... 😍
one of the issues with "tired light" is that photons don't experience any proper time according to relativity. But what is time anyway, I guess.
Exactly. Photons travel at the speed of light (obviously) and at the speed of light, time basically stops. So photons should not experience any time at all, no matter the distance they travel. So how could light become "tired" when there was no time for it to experience to become tired in/with? That said, light can become stretched over time as it passes through the universe and that stretching is a property of space/time itself. Also, as you said, what is "time" anyways? I'm going to sit down now, this is too much to think about in one sitting....
Minor not-pick, Anton: the Earth (as an example) *rotates* on its axis, and makes 365 and a bit rotations as it *revolves* relative to the Sun. The Sun *rotates* once for about 26 Earth rotations. The Sun *revolves" around the galactic core over about 270 million Earth revolutions around the Sun. I know - it's a language thing.
Before you claim that photons do not experience time, you should describe what time is. We define it through the passage of light through a given distance. How do you set the distance between galaxies? Based on the redshift? But this is also the property of light.
Onerock has been disproved by many in various ways. There's some Rock-salt for ya.
Are you familiar with Bell Inequalities? Look them up on TH-cam for some demonstrations. Photons behave as though all events which will happen along their route are summed.
To put this into lorentz terms, the "problem" with light not experiencing time is that a photon travels an infinitely short distance from its perspective, but that distance itself contains both space and time from other perspectives. When you remember that light does not travel instantly (something relativity requires to calculate properly), the concept of length contraction becomes problematic. Consider an object traveling perpendicular across a contracted path such that the two will intersect. You can't plot where this will occur with light - it's an invalid question as the photon doesn't experience any space or time, yet it clearly does. We have to invoke a preferential reference frame to make sense of the scenario.
because space itself is expanding, the greater the dist the more profound the affect
There are much more things happening in light than we know. It is not only ''tired light'' but light as everything else undegoes through process of entropy.
Maybe someone can fact-check this. Can't Red shift be calculated by a. change is velocity, or alternatively b. change in mass. They discount change in mass because it would require too much mass change to create the effects seen. What if you add other factors into it such as rotation which is closely linked to mass
I'm that annoying guy who pops up every time redshift is mentioned to say that I'm not buying it. The whole dynamically exponentially expanding universe(fast and slow base don what's needed to balance observation smack of absolute OTT curve fitting. Redshift is the crux of this problem and really the only concrete basis for any expansion at all. All the other evidence is circumstantial and correlative. I have long stated that I believe at some point we will find that red shift likely to be 'not caused by what we think' and then we will have to rethink expansion and all kinds of science will be able to move forwards.
I think we're in the early stages of that now with the results coming in from JWST. I absolutely don't think we have reached the point yet where cosmologists are ready to look for new models, but rather we're just going to keep on tweaking existing models to try and make them fit the unfittable data for quit some time. Like what we did with spacetime expanding at different rates to fit the data.
Fitting a model to data is more appealing than to say that 'some things are unknown and when more data comes in we will have a better chance at a model.", I mean a career cosmologist won't just sit around waiting for Nancy, Luvior or OST help fill in the blanks, but, for now JWST is doing a bang up job at showing how current models are the opposite of robust.
Recently I have started thinking that maybe it is time dilation for the distant objects. For instance, if time in a distant galaxy in the past was slower relative to us, some things would remain the same but on the slower scale (an emission from hydrogen like H-alpha would be based on time relative to the atom). For instance, frequencies of light originating from a region where time is slower would result in a redshift as the frequency remains the same relative to its origin, but here a second is shorter resulting in lower frequency and thus redshift.
Fantastic analysis. Thank you!
Thanks Anton. Very intriguing, hurt my brain a little though.
I can only think if it’s spinning the opposite direction way to us- the Red shift is coming towards us rather then moving with us 🤷🏼♂️
Galaxies that are farthest away from us are travelling away faster than the closer ones. We see the farther ones when the universe is 10 million years old. We see the closer ones when the universe is 10 billion years old. Seems to me this shows the expansion is slowing since the younger ones are travelling faster.
Well light from different sources can interact with each other. We look at distant light not knowing how the outgoing light that has traveled from our location might interact with the incoming light
It is about time💜 nou our colective is awere of it it becomes high time to grow in the maturing🌈🌱
You know this reminds me of what they used to believe about gamma ray bursts back in the late 1960s. They believed the gamma ray bursts had to be happening within our own galaxy. Any further away they believed would violate Einstein's E=MC squared. BBC's Horizon series did a whole episode about this back in 2001 or so called Death Star. They sent a satellite up to study gamma ray bursts and discovered they were evenly spaced across the sky proving they were outside our galaxy, in fact billions of light years away which seemed to break E=MC squared.
The main problem this seems to underline is that much of what we claim to know about how the universe works is based on certain assumptions that have not been fully proved. If one of those assumptions is found to be false, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
You are right about the basic assumptions. They not only is not proven, but they are conflicting - For example - how Space is a "Pure Vacuum" and producing Kasimir Effect? How this Vacuum providing "Gravitational Waves" when even "Gravity Do Not Exist" After they proposing "Gravitational Field"? Light has no mass, but have momentum and had Gravitational Red Shift? Why Space is not expanding locally, but expanding faster and faster on grand distance? The correct basic assumptions can be found in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
I'd imagine the only thing more exciting for a physicist proving a theory is correct is proving that a theory is incorrect
Not a theory, but I was wondering if "tired light" could explain anything about the big bang rapid expansion. A period of time where light actually took a "long time" to move a distance which appears as a rapid expansion because we assumed light was constant.
It's not that light is stretched by expansion but rather that photons are adsorbed and reemited over and over and over losing energy with each encounter. Space is NOT empty in any direction.
When a photon red shifts it goes from higher energy to lower energy, where does the energy difference go (via conservation of energy)?
To the expansion of space-time?
I don't know, but it would be my guess.
@@MCsCreations That would mean light is responsible for dark energy, wouldn't it 🤔
@@EnkiduIX kind of... I don't really know.
As I said, it's just a guess.
It's a scalar tensor field. You can have "higher' or "more" energy and not have to increase anything except the field scale. Also shifting from high to low energy is a transformation and usually dependant on energy level "wells" not... Like "amount of raw power" because that's not a real thing, much like heat is just the oscillation of particles, energy can be higher if it's considered more "primed" or more "accessible" not "more energetic". Thus it's not a matter of quantities and amounts we're discussing anyway, but rather their potential for activity type that has shifted
@@EnkiduIX Other way around, the expansion of spacetime causes the redshift
The claims "proven to be incorrect" can always change once we learn MORE because we are still ignorant on many things we "think" we know
In general, wouldn't redshift itself be a measure of how fast an object was going away from us (billions of years ago) and not a measure of how fast it is going? Or do they take multiple measurements of redshift and note the later one in time has an increased value meaning expansion?
there is no "universe time", since time behaves differently in different areas of space, like due to gravity. so the concept of "now, but billions of lightyears away" is... weird, imo. from my limited understanding of time, considering "information that has travelled from a distant place at the speed of light to us reaching us" as the "now" of that place is the most beneficial one
as to the core of your question, as i understand it: what you're looking at is the "cosmic distance ladder" - we know the redshift of things that we can measure the distance of by other means (cephid variables, certain types of novas, and whatnot). there's a correlation between the distances and the redshift from how fast it's going away from us. this is, to my understanding, at the core of the expanding universe hypothesis. after a certain point, we can no longer use the other methods of measuring the distance, due to limitations of our technology. at that point, the redshift is the best distance indicator that we have. so, yeah, the speed at which it's going away from us is the way we measure the distance of these super-far away objects - at least to my understanding
You’re not necessarily measuring speed or distance, but how long the light took to travel to us. It’s based on a lot of assumptions about how dusty the universe is, and the colour of starlight and galaxy types.
Red shift interferes with my theory that the universe is infinite, has always existed, with masses in motion due to previous collisions/explosions of starts/ejections, or due to gravitational effects of nearby mass acquaintances. Individual stars form on occasion when enough masses combine, attracting other masses into orbit, eventually collapsing into black holes and, with luck, are able to put together their own galaxies. My theory is a little weak (actually, the whole thing is just a hair-brained scheme) where I assume that when a black hole at the center of a galaxy evaporates, the stars in the arms of the galaxy depart along tangent paths, keeping the whole thing going. The Big Bang can still be accommdated, provided it was just a local event, but red shift won't fit without assuming that unobserved dark matter is lurking, and that's just too much for me.
Thank you for sharing your find.
Seeing a galaxy rotating in wrong direction always makes me sick.
Light being in a weird particle and/or wave state kinda messes with things, waves can attenuate, particles just keep going until they hit something, weird stuff
I like that the cosmic filament model looks like brain cells. It'd be more fun if we're just part of a larger cosmic brain, but still so tiny.
Maybe some of the beam had a different polarity and got deflected, thus creating a more sparce distribution of photos left in the beam, measured as red shift? It sounds very much like when polarity shift as a beam of light is rotated.
Intriguing - we need to be careful about drawing conclusions from single author papers, as long as they are associated with established research organisations and have some provenance.
It is an intriguing idea, it may not be correct, but if it can shift thinking in a new direction, then it did its job, even if later refuted. The RS conclusions and HT have their problems, even some aspects of the BB theory have been questioned in recent years to explain aspects of the Universe, including the asymmetry between matter and anti-matter, so there is a lot to still be determined.
Follow up studies are required that is for sure, even a small, 0.5% change in RS values has serious implications so it should not be ignored.
As the son of a physicist who was taught about red shift at about age 9, I can confidently say that the term 'red shift' is a shift to a longer wavelength from a shorter one. The reason is that the universe expands from every point, so it has to occur to the light traveling through it, say for billions of years. I have read that if the universe only expanded from one point, time dilation would from one vantage point would give you an age for the universe of around 3,000 years.
There are a lot of interesting thought experiments revolving around TL and VSL.
Even if incorrect, an alternative view can help to show the problems in more plausible theories that would not otherwise be identified.
>
This is occurring in SR where people are identifying issues at the center of Relativity. At worst it just means Relativity can be improved.
L Shamir cites 8 of his own papers out of 120 total citations. If he is pursuing an unpopular theory, and his prior papers contribute to the continuity of his research culminating with this paper (as indeed they do), it would be improper for him not to cite them.
The Earth does not go around the galaxy in a perfect elliptical shape. We are closer to the center in some spots than we are in others; however, those transitions more inward or more outward takes thousands of years to transition. I have wondered if it looks like the expansion is increasing because of our relative motion away or toward the objects we use to measure it.
Thanks!
"I've got an hypothesis."
"What's your evidence that backs up your claim?"
"It's 'trust me bro' conclusive".
🙄
🍄
In university we took a class in Euclidean geometry but when doing proofs, we were asked to alter one proposition. For instance, parallel lines do meet at infinity. Some weird and wonderful results eventuated. I think this might have been done to free up our minds for Quantum theory. For me, at least it didn't work. I wonder what cosmology would look like if we hypothesized that the tired light theory is correct.
It isn't a 'theory'. By scientific standards it doesn't even qualify as an hypothesis. No mechanisms, no evidence, no predictions.
Thank you wonderful Anton!
I think as light comes towards us and as space expands away from us some waves/particles of light get tugged on by the expansion of space and pulled back ever so slightly. Maybe different colours weigh less and get effect by what ever is expanding space a little different
We are either looking up the gravitational current or down the current in any one location and direction. The small 1% ripple turns to a 3% wave looking from a greater distance.
Could the increased bais in tension be attributable to the dilation of space over time? Thanks for keeping the subject light😅😅❤ thank you wonderful Anton
Tired Light hypothesis has NEVER been disproved! - it's just considered too "crazy" to touch. There's a modern Science and University culture problem, not with these "crazy" ideas - it's about who decides what's "Science" and how much money and prestige you'll end up with if you disagree. "Tired" is just a name given to the phenomenon of losing energy. I don't see how it should blur images of distant objects? Also, the relative galaxy rotations and the Hubble Tension aren't the main areas of where Tired Light is useful, but rather alternative theories to the Big Bang (gradually falling into increasingly harsher troubles), like the Plasma Universe. Anyways, the very fact you decided to give this subject some platform means, that Big Bang problems slowly pour out of the scientific saloon.
Thank you.