Consider the lowly photon ...

<b>[Jim] "It is photon force that needs to be explored-not it's energy."</b>

Hmm. Sounds like it might be a useful way to approach it. Question - what's the difference between photon force and wave force?

<b>LB</b>&gt;&gt; EM energy will probably lose all of its amplitude before it loses all of its frequency.

Thanks LB - I have learned something. I didn't realize that an individual photon could lose energy through amplitude reduction.

I thought that the quantum nature of the photon (one quantum of EM energy, by definition) meant that the energy content of an individual photon is irreducible through loss of amplitude.

I thought that the "amplitude" of an EM wave is proportional to the density of photons making up the wave, and the loss of amplitude over distance is the result of the photon density decreasing as the wave spreads out from its source - not because of a decrease in the amplitude of the individual photons making up the wave. (Hence my questions about "photon density" at the beginning.)

I concluded that any loss of energy by an individual photon would show up as a reduction in frequency of the wave aspect of the photon - which is the red-shift that is observed.

<b>[Shando] "I didn't realize that an individual photon could lose energy through amplitude reduction."</b>

(be careful about the particle names - photons and protons)
(I strongly recommend that everyone re-read every post several times before pushing the button, looking for typos and better wording)

If a photon really is a physical particle, it probably can't lose energy this way. But it probably couldn't really have zero mass, either.

<b>[Shando] "I concluded that any loss of energy by an individual photon would show up as a reduction in frequency of the wave aspect of </b>[the]<b> photon - which is the red-shift that is observed."</b>

The observed red shift of astronomical bodies is not from individual photons, it is from continuous waves.

(Do all of the individual photons lose the same energy, and thus have the same individual red shift? If so, how would that work? If not, wouldn't we see a frequency "smear"?)

When talking about a bulk phenomenon like red shift it just makes so much more sense to think in terms of propagating waves rather than traveling particles.

At least to me.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br /><b>
(be careful about the particle names - photons and protons)
(I strongly recommend that everyone re-read every post several times before pushing the button, looking for typos and better wording)</b>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I can't believe I did that - I re-read it at least 5 times!

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
If a photon really is a physical particle, <b>it probably can't lose energy this way.</b> But it probably couldn't really have zero mass, either.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I don't understand the basis for this statement. What are the ways it could lose energy?

Would you agree that if the photon exists, it's amplitude cannot change and any change in energy is reflected as a change in the frequency of its wave aspect?


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
<b>The observed red shift of astronomical bodies is not from individual photons, it is from continuous waves. </b>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hmmm ... continuous waves of what?

Photons, of course, the frequency of which has been observed to have shifted to a lower level, reflecting the loss of energy enroute.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
<b>(Do all of the individual photons lose the same energy, and thus have the same individual red shift? If so, how would that work? If not, wouldn't we see a frequency "smear"?)</b>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The photons making up the "continuous wave" have all traveled the same distance through the same LCM so why would their red-shift differ?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
<b>
When talking about a bulk phenomenon like red shift it just makes so much more sense to think in terms of propagating waves rather than traveling particles.

At least to me.</b>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I have no bias: particles or wavelets are fine by me, I consider them aspects of an object that we don't understand - like the elephant and the blind men.

Red shift is way too complicated a topic to bring into this thread. Why not also get bogged down with heat,radio and gamma rays? Way too much area to cover.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Red shift is way too complicated a topic to bring into this thread.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Here is the paragraph describing this thread:

The big bang (BB) theory is widely accepted because redshift in distant objects is seen as evidence for an expanding universe. But how strong are the cases for and against the BB? Are we even sure that redshift corresponds to expansion velocity?