[salt (OP)]

We all know it takes energy to go from point a to b, is it possible that the frequency of a photon decays very slightly. I am talking about a truly small amount due to the time contraction, but it would explain why all things are moving away from us and moving faster at farther distances according to the redshift observed. Or it could be a small part of the red shift and not the complete cause.

[imatfaal]

We all know it takes energy to go from point a to b, ...

nope - only takes energy if you want to accelerate or you need to overcome opposing force. 

[yor_on]

What is the frequency of a photon?

[syhprum]

f=c/λ

[Bored chemist]

"is it possible that the frequency of a photon decays very slightly. "
Nope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

[yor_on]

I don't know Syhprum. you can look at it your way. But I prefer to think of it as a energy, equivalent to a frequency if over larger timescales, assuming a 'stream' of particles.

To me the photon does not have a frequency. It has a energy, but that energy can through Einstein explanation of the photoelectric effect, via Planck's constant 'h', (E=hf) be presented as that 'e'nergy of a photon is proportional to a waves 'f'requency. So there is a equivalence through that. And equivalences and symmetries are important phenomena in SpaceTime, but intensity and amplitude doesn't apply to a single photon at all. If you look at Maxwell's equations light becomes a electromagnetic radiation consisting of oscillations (waves) in the electric and magnetic fields, 'perpendicular' (at a right angle) to each other. Waves describe polarization, refraction, interference (quenching and reinforcing itself, via two waves interfering) etc, but they do not tell you about photons. And that's where 'equivalences' becomes important. And so this, to me that is, is all about trying to find a common ground for the concept of photon fitting the concept of waves. This is a good description of that.

"The frequency of the oscillations in a beam of light is proportional to the energy in each photon, as demonstrated by the photoelectric effect, and in the case of light is related to the color of the light. The intensity of the beam is proportional to the number of photons. The polarization of light (that is explained by Maxwell) is related to the quantum-mechanical concept of spin. You can see the photon as a little top spinning around an axis that coincides with the direction of propagation. But while in classical mechanics an object can spin only in one direction at a time, in quantum mechanics you have the paradoxical and counter-intuitive fact that an object can spin lets say clockwise and counterclockwise at the same time.

It is like having two "realities" existing at the same time. It takes a while to get used to this new idea and to accept it. A photon spinning in one direction corresponds to a rotating electric field, and to what is called circular polarization. A photon that spins in both directions at the same time gives you, under the right circumstances, plane polarization, which means the electric field is oriented always in the same direction."

[salt (OP)]

I realize that it takes no energy to maintain a state but without it there would be no photon or indeed no motion at all.

[JP]

salt, if the frequency changes, the energy of the photon changes, which is what syphrum's equation tells you.  Photons don't lose energy just by moving, so their frequency won't change.

[salt (OP)]

in regard to frequency decay, we observe the universe by looking at what we can see or looking at the interactions of what we can't see. We still do not know how magnetism gravity even electromagnetic radiation are created or what in reality they really are. we have names for particles like quarks and call them fundamental particles but if the whole universe started as a pin point that points to a system that is in fact mostly space and may be a set of particles that are to small to be seen by us at this point. How do you see that which is to small to see?

[imatfaal]

Salt - re-read what you are posting
"we observe the universe by looking at what we can see" - yes
"looking at the interactions of what we can't see" - errrr!
and so on and so forth
Science postulates many things that seem to be beyond normal imagination - however those things proposed become vital to xplaining known facts.  No matter how much it seems that the ideas start from nothing, when you dig down and learn the theory you realise that the ideas start from sold experimental fact. 

in the end; we see what is too small to see through the microscope of theory

[JP]

in regard to frequency decay, we observe the universe by looking at what we can see or looking at the interactions of what we can't see. We still do not know how magnetism gravity even electromagnetic radiation are created or what in reality they really are. we have names for particles like quarks and call them fundamental particles but if the whole universe started as a pin point that points to a system that is in fact mostly space and may be a set of particles that are to small to be seen by us at this point. How do you see that which is to small to see?

All that is well and good, but what does it have to do with frequency decay? 

Our best observations, experiments and theories all show that frequency of light doesn't decay as it travels through a vacuum.  The completeness of our fundamental theories doesn't matter to this.

[yor_on]

Salt, maybe it has to do with the we define distances and dimensions. There seems to be two (at least) 'realities' existing, a very small one and the one we 'see' normally. The universe is nowadays looked upon as something existing due to what is called 'symmetry breaks'. Transitions from one state to another, (ice to water) and  the general idea is that when the universe experience such a transition, it brings with it new phenomena like Electro Magnetism. So what we define as 'real' today is a result of those symmetry breaks. It doesn't prove that the universe 'is' that way, except from where we stand observing it.