Can light travel forever?

Jzz

May 10, 2021
122
54
660
This is an interesting question, namely can a photon travel forever if nothing gets in its way? More importantly how does it travel these enormous distances. All our considerable experience with light and electromagnetic radiation goes to show that light follows the inverse square law while propagating. This means that the intensity of the light varies inversely with the square of the distance travelled. In the case of an isotropic radiator such as a star or any distant object, the light also spreads out according to the square of the distance. Thus, it is possible to predict the strength of the signal from any distant radiating source, as for instance, the Voyager space-craft, based on their location. In the case of the Voyager space craft this means that any point in the solar system would receive a signal from the space-craft. How does this equate with the explanation that light travels forever because it is like a stone thrown is space, which with nothing to impede it will travel forever in space? It doesn’t. Any fool with a calculator, should be able to prove that a bunch of solid particles radiating from a point source and travelling for trillions of kilometers, would each be separated from its neighbouring particle by trillions of kilometers. What is the answer? The answer is that light travels in exactly the same way as a wave in the ocean travels, the molecules remain in place and only the energy of the molecule travels, decreasing in intensity according to the inverse of the distance travelled and increasing in area directly with the square of the distance travelled. The individual molecules that make up the wave don’t change in any way at all. The same holds good for light, the original frequency, wave-length and energy of the light (photon) remain unchanged, while the over-all intensity of the wave decreases inversely with the square of the distance. A wave of light, just like a wave in water is a particle, travelling as a wave. In order to get a better understanding of how this works. Pease read my paper on “The Electromagnetic Universe” a link to which is given below:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Atlan0101
Aug 14, 2020
713
126
2,060
This is an interesting question, namely can a photon travel forever if nothing gets in its way? More importantly how does it travel these enormous distances. All our considerable experience with light and electromagnetic radiation goes to show that light follows the inverse square law while propagating. This means that the intensity of the light varies inversely with the square of the distance travelled. In the case of an isotropic radiator such as a star or any distant object, the light also spreads out according to the square of the distance. Thus, it is possible to predict the strength of the signal from any distant radiating source, as for instance, the Voyager space-craft, based on their location. In the case of the Voyager space craft this means that any point in the solar system would receive a signal from the space-craft. How does this equate with the explanation that light travels forever because it is like a stone thrown is space, which with nothing to impede it will travel forever in space? It doesn’t. Any fool with a calculator, should be able to prove that a bunch of solid particles radiating from a point source and travelling for trillions of kilometers, would each be separated from its neighbouring particle by trillions of kilometers. What is the answer? The answer is that light travels in exactly the same way as a wave in the ocean travels, the molecules remain in place and only the energy of the molecule travels, decreasing in intensity according to the inverse of the distance travelled and increasing in area directly with the square of the distance travelled. The individual molecules that make up the wave don’t change in any way at all. The same holds good for light, the original frequency, wave-length and energy of the light (photon) remain unchanged, while the over-all intensity of the wave decreases inversely with the square of the distance. A wave of light, just like a wave in water is a particle, travelling as a wave. In order to get a better understanding of how this works. Pease read my paper on “The Electromagnetic Universe” a link to which is given below:
Not bad at all, but you missed interjecting interference. Light interferes with itself, and the universe is overwhelming loaded down with interference coming from everywhere to any and every center. I've thought about it myself, and the conclusion I came to was that it, any reach and/or spread of light, won't get beyond the radius (horizon to any center (every center)) of the universe ever. In other words, and, I suppose, math, 1/2. It won't ever travel beyond 1/2 because if it did points of the universe would be off centered from the one horizon all of them (to infinity) share, and they aren't. They all mark that horizon the same distance from each of all of them, and they would not do that if light ever traveled beyond the point of radius, 1/2. I figured that that ("1/2") is the point where interference will always reach total (absolute) . . . and continuance's annihilation.
 
Last edited:

Jzz

May 10, 2021
122
54
660
Not bad at all, but you missed interjecting interference. Light interferes with itself, and the universe is overwhelming loaded down with interference coming from everywhere to any and every center. I've thought about it myself, and the conclusion I came to was that it, any reach and/or spread of light, won't get beyond the radius (horizon to any center (every center)) of the universe ever. In other words, and, I suppose, math, 1/2. It won't ever travel beyond 1/2 because if it did points of the universe would be off centered from the one horizon all of them (to infinity) share, and they aren't. They all mark that horizon the same distance from each of all of them, and they would not do that if light ever traveled beyond the point of radius, 1/2. I figured that that ("1/2") is the point where interference will always reach total (absolute) . . . and continuance's annihilation.
Atlan0101, looking at your objection to my post, I find that it is based on several false premises. You seem to be under the impression that any self-interaction that light experiences will result in a reduction in energy, this is not true. You might be aware that trying to jam a radio signal is extremely difficult, unless the jamming signal is at the exact frequency of the signal that is to be jammed. Secondly, even if light does interfere with itself, as shown by Newton in his experiment on the dispersion of light, light combines and then uncombines (if that is a word.) So even if light did undergo self-interference as in your hypothesis, nothing much would happen.
 
Aug 14, 2020
713
126
2,060
Atlan0101, looking at your objection to my post, I find that it is based on several false premises. You seem to be under the impression that any self-interaction that light experiences will result in a reduction in energy, this is not true. You might be aware that trying to jam a radio signal is extremely difficult, unless the jamming signal is at the exact frequency of the signal that is to be jammed. Secondly, even if light does interfere with itself, as shown by Newton in his experiment on the dispersion of light, light combines and then uncombines (if that is a word.) So even if light did undergo self-interference as in your hypothesis, nothing much would happen.
We do not receive light from "forever." Nor do we observe the farthest horizon at any point of it, off centered. We can assume from that that no one anywhere does. We can assume that a radius of '1/2' means something in the universe (that the physic '1/2' means something to the physics of the universe). We are talking the observed, the observable, universe at large, I thought. Farthest observed horizon to farthest observed horizon of it (exactly the same horizon always observed equally distant), or so I assumed.
 

Jzz

May 10, 2021
122
54
660
We do not receive light from "forever." Nor do we observe the farthest horizon at any point of it, off centered. We can assume from that that no one anywhere does. We can assume that a radius of '1/2' means something in the universe (that the physic '1/2' means something to the physics of the universe). We are talking the observed, the observable, universe at large, I thought. Farthest observed horizon to farthest observed horizon of it (exactly the same horizon always observed equally distant), or so I assumed.
Atlan0101, Are you aware that we are seeing light from about 13.5 billion light years away? In fact, this is how the age of the Universe is calculated. Divide a hypothetical distance by a megaparsec and multiply by 70 km/sec approx. until you reach the speed of light and that gives the age of the Universe. New arguments state that although we can almost see to the origin of the Universe, the Universe has continued to expand since that time, which would make the size of the Universe arbitrarily large .
 
Aug 14, 2020
713
126
2,060
The origin of the Universe (U) is a superposition constant. It will always be at and come from the horizon edge of infinities of universes (u). Any universe traveler will always see it out of the horizon ahead, and into the horizon behind. And he would always measure the speed of light to be 'c' whether oncoming ahead or oncoming behind (no matter what external direction it comes to him from (it's a multi-dimensional 'Multiverse Universe')).

Continuing, I'm onto something again -- and continuing because of you (my thanks) -- I've been running with for some time. And I'm not sure yet where it is taking me. For the time being I will just say this, no light escapes out the event 'horizon' of a black hole. And I claim infinities of point singularities exist (as entire universes, infinities of them broad and deep in points / planes, of their own).
 
Last edited:
Aug 14, 2020
713
126
2,060
Thanks to you, among others in their own views not necessarily related, I had to be wrong in my seeing the "Flatland" universe model, or look to universe, being due to gravity. I had to be wrong in my seeing any flattening, such as with galaxies and black holes (their disks and spindle-like jets) to boot, to be due to gravity. You have obvious points to your "Electromagnetic Universe."

Your (following others) electromagnetic 'Sierpinski Carpet' of Universe changes nothing, though, concerning my (following others) gravitational 'Menger Sponge' of Universe. As I see them, they are both pretty obvious (macrocosmic, and, microcosmic).
 
Last edited:
Another important viewpoint is that the reference frame of light is such that it travels anywhere in 0 time. So it can go anywhere all in the same amount of time (0). This is very different in our reference frame that sees light taking a whole year to go one light year.

It was the discovery the neutrinos change from one type to another that falsified the idea that they too travel at light speed. Else, how can something change without having any time to make that change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Atlan0101
Aug 14, 2020
713
126
2,060
I have this in two places because Helio made me see it applies in both, if it applies at all:

Hmmm. I just awoke from my retired old man's nap with this thought having come to mind:

I read that some famous physicist, I don't remember which one, once said that it isn't that an "aether," or "ether," whichever, doesn't exist, it's just that Einstein made it completely superfluous.

Here goes my take once more:

It isn't that dark matter and dark energy don't exist, it's just that, from here / 'Now (t=0)', observable and observed pasts (-) through unobserved and unobservable but still detectable futures (+) to any quantumly entangled distantly unobservable 'Now (t=0)' (again from here / 'Now (t=0)') make them completely superfluous.
-----------------------------------

It's a multi-faceted, multi-dimensional, Multiverse Universe.
 
Last edited:
I read that some famous physicist, I don't remember which one, once said that it isn't that an "aether," or "ether," whichever, doesn't exist, it's just that Einstein made it completely superfluous.
I've stated it that way, but I think it was Einstein himself who said the same, but perhaps using a different phrase for it.

The ether is one of those things where absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence. The Hubble Flow, IMO, is not to be too discounted. :)

But DM is observable indirectly. The Bullet Cluster study is a great example of distinguishing DM from normal matter.

We, as amateurs, were once given a tour during observational time on the 107" at McDonald. The astronomer was studying the ratio of DM to the size of galaxies to see which predictions would hold and which would fail. This was some years ago.

DE is a lot more ad hoc. Though more and better scopes are coming to try and get some sort of handle on it, hopefully.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Atlan0101
Aug 14, 2020
713
126
2,060
"But DM is observable indirectly."

Just what I said about futures (+) to distant Now (t=0): :)

Distant futures (+) are observable ("detectable") "indirectly." What is more, there are awesome tons of unobserved motion, awesome tons of unobserved space and time, mass and energy, 'place' displacement, awesome tons of unobserved curvature 'folds' and vortex vortices pretty closed up in horizon's horizons, to every ounce of 'direct' observation.

Awesome tons of universe 'animation' possible of indirect observability (detectability, that is) but NOT possible of any direct observability. And possibly, I repeat "possibly," misinterpreted as Dark Matter and Dark Energy side by side with Matter and Energy . . . A universe of what 'is' side by side and mixed with a universe of what 'is' rather than a universe of what 'is' side by side and mixed with a universe of what 'was'. The difference between that universe of what 'was' (-) and that universe of what 'is' (0) side by side and mixed . . . acceleration!
 
Last edited:

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
Jzz: Can light travel forever?

I suggest two aspects to this question:

As far as science is concerned, we have observed light travelling as far back as we are able to 'see'.

Second, forever introduces a hypothetical element, in that we do not know the future life (extent) of the Universe. Furthermore, we cannot know the nature of the Universe closer to 'forever'. For example, is it cyclic? Does it restart through a nexus?

Therefore we cannot give an answer.

Cat :)
 
Aug 14, 2020
713
126
2,060
Atlan0101, Are you aware that we are seeing light from about 13.5 billion light years away? In fact, this is how the age of the Universe is calculated. Divide a hypothetical distance by a megaparsec and multiply by 70 km/sec approx. until you reach the speed of light and that gives the age of the Universe. New arguments state that although we can almost see to the origin of the Universe, the Universe has continued to expand since that time, which would make the size of the Universe arbitrarily large .
Are you aware that the ancient Greeks saw time as a wheel rather than a straight line, straight arrow, with a beginning but no end. I'm not a 'Creationist'. I'm not a believer in immaculate or magical beginnings. If you read my posts in my thread 'Origin' you would know how I see things. I deal in infinity and infinities. And I'm not the only one. I describe time turning (uni-verse, versus, turn, one turn, to turn, in-turn (en-trope (tropos)), re-turn).

I say that relativity, observability, breaks down, collapses, into an infinity of uncertainty with all distance gaining from here / now no matter where, no matter when, that is. I say that that is a fast and ever faster universe out there beyond relativity. One that goes beyond, expands beyond, accelerates beyond, the speed of light.

Cat says it recycles and I agree up to a certain point. He sees or used to see (I don't know) a whole singularity of universe as contracting, then bulging, then contracting, then bulging . . . endlessly. I don't see its recycling happening that way. I see all the parts always in recycle, but the whole is timelessly renewed from the parts always being in recycle, like an ocean with depths forever rising from origin to a "life zone" surface itself being forever thinned out and cleaned out, culled, by blackholes only to have the zone always being filled in and renewed from the depths. That is my version of how Stephen Hawking described life always migrating across zones from zones 'going away' (the finite wheels of time "turning" back to origin ("turning" back to infinity)) to always stay in the rising, renewed, life zones. The deathly Utopia always existing, timelessly existing, inside the aborning Frontier. The aborning Frontier always existing, timelessly existing, inside the deathly Utopia. And we can see to the horizons of both. The background event horizon of origin / infinity there, the event foreground event horizons of blackholes.... In any case, countless wheels always "turning," always doing recycle, always in renewal, always renewed. The ultimate "set" radius of the countless many wheels constantly turning, about a constant 13.8 billion years . . . maybe (unless JWT comes up with a different collapsed event horizon of infinity / origin)!
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts