1
New Theories / Re: Olber's Paradox
« on: 07/04/2024 00:26:54 »Photons have been detected, so we know they exist. The inverse square law is still approximately true because there are lots and lots of photons being emitted by stars.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Photons have been detected, so we know they exist. The inverse square law is still approximately true because there are lots and lots of photons being emitted by stars.
No.While I appreciate all of the comments made so far, they are unfortunately rather dated, and also miss many of the significant points that were made about the propagation of light. Some comments have been, made without thinking at all, a consequence I suppose of age. Granted Olber′s paradox IS old and IS based on Isaac Newton′s premise that the Universe was both static and infinite in extent. Today the view (well supported by empirical evidence) is that the Universe is both finite in age and extent. But what is the modern take on Olber′s paradox?
It does more or less the opposite.
Here's what WIKI says
"Olbers's paradox, also known as the dark night paradox, is an argument in astrophysics and physical cosmology that says that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal static universe. "
Olber was clever enough to recognise the importance of the most commonplace observation; it gets dark at night.
That would imply that single photons suddenly poof out of existence for no obvious reason. It's not like photons consume energy to move.
Galileo summed up the argument very neatly: eppur si muove.
However, it did seem to work. @Kryptid has already mentioned quite a lot about this. Moreover, I don't think we had any idea about how common black hole or neutron stars mergers actually are. The equipment probably is failing to detect a lot of them but it doesn't seem to matter - there are so many of them every year.
Theories such as quantum mechanics are never "proven", theories are considered viable if they are consistent with observation and experimentation.
Quantum mechanics explains the 3 polarizers results. It also gives the exact intensity of light that results. This means that the quantum theory is a good theory to use in this situation.
You have a conjecture that it is a diffraction effect, but you can only back up your claim with vague arm waving. If you had some mathematics that supported your conjecture then it would be worth considering, but you don't so it isn't worth considering.
Unsupported conjectures are not theories, they're just guesses.
Those CMBR emissions are currently proposed to represent the photons emitted when protons and electrons combined to create the first hydrogen atoms in the universe. Those photons were then stretched by the metric expansion of the universe to a much longer wavelength than they started off as. For that reason, photons emitted by any nearby hydrogen recombination would have much shorter wavelengths and thus would not match those produced by the CMBR.
It isn't dodgy at all. The gravitational waves produced by a black hole merger event is predicted by general relativity to have a very distinct pattern to it. I have a book written long before the first gravitational wave detection that details this pattern. The fact that LIGO has two arms at right angles to each other is critical in detecting it because gravitational waves produce a contraction of space along one axis while producing a stretching along the other axis. As the wave passes, this stretching and contraction reverses and then cycles again and again.
The first problem I see is that no one, that I am aware of, thinks that light is no longer real when light travels from point A to point B. I think you are mistaking the mathematics that describe light with the actual photons themselves. The light does not travel as an abstract mathematical wave form, the wave form is a mathematical description about aspects of a photon.
Those CMBR emissions are currently proposed to represent the photons emitted when protons and electrons combined to create the first hydrogen atoms in the universe. Those photons were then stretched by the metric expansion of the universe to a much longer wavelength than they started off as. For that reason, photons emitted by any nearby hydrogen recombination would have much shorter wavelengths and thus would not match those produced by the CMBR.
If your dark matter dipoles don't interact with electromagnetic radiation, then how is it at all relevant as a medium for the propagation of light?
Doesn't sound like a good fit to me. Dark matter isn't distributed evenly throughout the Universe whereas an aether presumably would be (or at least a lot more so than dark matter).
On the basis of the present expressions, we calculate the energy, momentum, and spin angular momentum of a photon, derive the relations between the photon size and wavelength, and reveal the differences between a photon and its copy.
On the basis of the present expressions, we calculate the energy, momentum, and spin angular momentum of a photon, derive the relations between the photon size and wavelength, and reveal the differences between a photon and its copy.
the length of a photon is half of the wavelength, and the radius is proportional to square root of the wavelength; a photon can ionize a hydrogen atom at the ground state only if its radius is less than the Bohr radius; a photon and its copy have the phase difference of {\pi} and constitute a phase-entangled photon pair;
Here are a couple of research papers you can look into regarding the size and shape of a photon:
Electromagnetic fields, size, and copy of a single photon arXiv: arxiv.org:1604.03869 explores the concept of a photon's shape depending on its energy. It delves into how a photon might resemble a thin stick or a plate based on specific conditions.
The Size and Shape of a Single Photon Scientific Research Publishing: www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=10928 discusses the concept of effective size based on wavelength and the limitations of assigning a strict size to a photon.
Great. Could you please provide a link to one of these experiments?
@McQueen
Please do Allow a few randomly absurd thoughts...
Can " Space " bend over itself?
Could the ' Higgs field ' twist, tangle, entangle in on itself?
Can ' Relativistic mass ' not produce a similar, but not the same, effect such as Gravity?