Ageing of light?

[Gaga_X]

Is light (photons, EM radiation) eternal, or does it somehow 'age' (lose energy) over loooong periods of time (billions of years)?

This could explain why more distant galaxies are more red shifted. Rather than due to acceleration away from us, could red shift be caused by 'ageing' of light? More distant galaxies are more red shifted because their light was emitted longer time ago, and closer galaxies are less red shifted because their light is 'younger'??? This would mean that universe maybe isn't expanding after all, it may be static, or even shrinking. And there would be no need for 'dark energy' or 'dark matter'.

 

[origin]

Is light (photons, EM radiation) eternal, or does it somehow 'age' (lose energy) over loooong periods of time (billions of years)?

No it does not age.

This could explain why more distant galaxies are more red shifted. Rather than due to acceleration away from us, could red shift be caused by 'ageing' of light?

No

More distant galaxies are more red shifted because their light was emitted longer time ago, and closer galaxies are less red shifted because their light is 'younger'???

No

This would mean that universe maybe isn't expanding after all, it may be static, or even shrinking. And there would be no need for 'dark energy' or 'dark matter'.

It also could mean that universe is expanding.
Why are the red shifts indicating that the universe is acclerating - has the light started aging faster recently?
Whether the universe is expanding or not has nothing to do with dark matter.

Edited to add - Welcome to the forum.

 

[drwayne]

This sounds like a variation of the idea known as "tired light".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

Wayne

 

[Gaga_X]

This sounds like a variation of the idea known as "tired light".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

Wayne

Thank's, that's exactly what i was thinking.

Is light (photons, EM radiation) eternal, or does it somehow 'age' (lose

energy) over loooong periods of time (billions of years)?

No it does not age.

I think I have read somewhere that, in theory, elementary particles do 'age' on the huge time scales, measured in googols of years(10 to the power 100), and eventually 'dissolve'. That's why I thought something similar could happen
to photons/ radiation.

Whether the universe is expanding or not has nothing to do with dark matter.

Wasn't dark matter introduced primary to explain accelerated expansion of the universe, since without it gravitation would cause acceleration to slow down?

Thanks for the welcome.

 

[origin]

Wasn't dark matter introduced primary to explain accelerated expansion of the universe, since without it gravitation would cause acceleration to slow down?

No, that was dark energy.

Dark matter is the 'stuff' that is theorized to be responsible for the way galaxies rotate and interact. There appears to be alot more mass than can be seen, hence the term 'dark matter'.

 

[yevaud]

Variations in the propagation time of light dependent on color is a property of the Loop Quantum Gravity Hypothesis, but at this point in time, it is appearing less and less likely that LQG is correct.

Just thought I'd throw that in.

 

[ramparts]

Speaking of LCG, do Smolin and friends have an explanation yet for the Fermi results putting the kibosh on Lorentz invariance violations? I'm really looking forward to seeing that...

 

[yevaud]

Yes. Amelino-Camelia and Smolin are now out of the game.

Fermi - GBM/LAT collaboration results: http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1832

 

[darkmatter4brains]

I think I have read somewhere that, in theory, elementary particles do 'age' on the huge time scales, measured in googols of years(10 to the power 100), and eventually 'dissolve'. That's why I thought something similar could happen
to photons/ radiation.

I suspect that you're thinking of the proposals that protons may eventually decay. It's more like 10^15 yrs if I recall correctly? This is required by certain GUT (Grand Unified Thoery) candidates, but it is far from "fact" at this point.

 

[darkmatter4brains]

Speaking of LCG, do Smolin and friends have an explanation yet for the Fermi results putting the kibosh on Lorentz invariance violations? I'm really looking forward to seeing that...

So, LQG proposes to do away with Lorentz Invariance or allow violations of it at least, or am I misunderstanding something? From all the QFT I have studied, which isn't much really (some QED), Lorentz invariance is like a cornerstone of those theories. It's hard to picture something that would do away with that to be any help in unification?