3 ms·

Not an expert but the major issue to me seems that the proposed model CCC+TL makes use of tired light (TL) which is an almost 100 year old idea with no supporti

Not an expert but the major issue to me seems that the proposed model CCC+TL makes use of tired light (TL) which is an almost 100 year old idea with no supporting evidence or theoretical underpinning, at least according to Wikipedia [1]. The paper assumes TL but does not otherwise address it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

jvanderbot 3y ago
I'm also not an expert, but the article states "It’s been tested and has been shown to match up with several observations, such as about how galaxies are spread out and how light from the early universe has evolved."
- danbruc 3y ago
  Sure, it matches some observations, it would be pretty useless if it did not, but it has to match all of them. But my point with the use of tired light is that there seems to not even be a workable theory how this could work. The idea is that light loses energy as it travels through space and therefore shifts towards red, but nobody can say how this would work. An early but immediately discarded idea was that light bumps into matter on its way and loses energy in those interactions, but that does not work because it would make everything look blurry as light scatters in all directions due to those interactions. As far as I can tell from a few minutes of reading, nothing was ever proposed that could work and matches with observations. But the CCC+TL paper ignores that, assumes that TL is true, and works from there.
perihelions 3y ago
That article reads to me as if that theory is outright incompatible with the experimental evidence. Like: tired light predicts the wavelength of light from distant sources gets increased. Expanding universe predicts that—and additionally, that distant objects will be appear to be undergoing time dilation, by the same factor as their redshift. Astronomical observations of distant supernovas' light curves shows the latter. Here's a page focused on explaining this stuff: https://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm https://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm - "The tired light model does not predict the observed time dilation of high redshift supernova light curves. This time dilation is a consequence of the standard interpretation of the redshift: a supernova that takes 20 days to decay will appear to take 40 days to decay when observed at redshift z=1."
- pfdietz 3y ago
  Tired light is well debunked. Tired light would affect the energy of photons, but not their density. Blackbody radiation at a given temperature not only has a specific spectrum, but also a specific energy density. A putative tired light effect would not preserve the latter matching the spectrum. Note that the cosmic background radiation we see today is blackbody radiation (including its energy density) to very high precision.

jvanderbot 3y ago

I'm also not an expert, but the article states "It’s been tested and has been shown to match up with several observations, such as about how galaxies are spread out and how light from the early universe has evolved."

danbruc 3y ago
Sure, it matches some observations, it would be pretty useless if it did not, but it has to match all of them. But my point with the use of tired light is that there seems to not even be a workable theory how this could work. The idea is that light loses energy as it travels through space and therefore shifts towards red, but nobody can say how this would work. An early but immediately discarded idea was that light bumps into matter on its way and loses energy in those interactions, but that does not work because it would make everything look blurry as light scatters in all directions due to those interactions. As far as I can tell from a few minutes of reading, nothing was ever proposed that could work and matches with observations. But the CCC+TL paper ignores that, assumes that TL is true, and works from there.

perihelions 3y ago

That article reads to me as if that theory is outright incompatible with the experimental evidence. Like: tired light predicts the wavelength of light from distant sources gets increased. Expanding universe predicts that—and additionally, that distant objects will be appear to be undergoing time dilation, by the same factor as their redshift. Astronomical observations of distant supernovas' light curves shows the latter. Here's a page focused on explaining this stuff: https://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm https://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm - "The tired light model does not predict the observed time dilation of high redshift supernova light curves. This time dilation is a consequence of the standard interpretation of the redshift: a supernova that takes 20 days to decay will appear to take 40 days to decay when observed at redshift z=1."

pfdietz 3y ago
Tired light is well debunked. Tired light would affect the energy of photons, but not their density. Blackbody radiation at a given temperature not only has a specific spectrum, but also a specific energy density. A putative tired light effect would not preserve the latter matching the spectrum. Note that the cosmic background radiation we see today is blackbody radiation (including its energy density) to very high precision.