Heh

  • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    This model explores the notion that the forces of nature diminish over cosmic time and that light loses energy over vast distances

    Losing energy… to what?

    • Troy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Wildass hypothesis I just pulled out of my ass with an undergraduate degree in applied physics: maybe interaction with particles emerging from quantum vacuum?

      Okay, that sounds like great technobabble. I’m going to watch star trek now ;)

    • Riskable@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s probably not that the light is losing energy it’s just that the distance it travels over time (the time we “know” is supposed to take for a given distance) appears compressed because of unknown/unseen gravitational forces.

      Think of it like this: If there were only one star in the universe and it emits a particle of light we could calculate the distance it would travel over time. Yet we know that star will still have a gravitational effect on that light… No matter how far away it gets.

      That’s what they mean by light “losing energy”. Is the energy actually “lost”? Not really. Is this slowing (aka appearance of lost energy) caused by dark energy/dark matter or something more fundamental like spacetime itself being stretched or compressed due to the gravity of astronomical objects we can see or “dark matter”/“dark energy” or… ? We don’t really know for certain yet!

      • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        It’s probably not that the light is losing energy it’s just that the distance it travels over time (the time we “know” is supposed to take for a given distance) appears compressed because of unknown/unseen gravitational forces.

        This doesn’t seem to be at all what tired light proposes though. What you’re explaining sounds like red-shift due to an expanding universe. From what I can tell they claim it actually loses energy through interaction with “other things” in the universe.

    • RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      You try being a bright ray of sunshine for everything around you all day every day. Sometimes you just get tired, ya know?

    • xionzui@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      This doesn’t answer the question in the context of this theory, but the current understanding is that light does lose energy as it travels through expanding space. As the space it’s in expands, the wavelength gets longer, and the energy goes down. It doesn’t go anywhere; energy just isn’t conserved in an expanding space-time.

      • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        BTW, thanks! This comment sent me down a fascinating rabbit hole. It had simply never occurred to me that energy conversation didn’t apply in an expanding universe!

      • Live Your Lives@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        “Energy is conserved in general relativity, it’s just that you have to include the energy of the gravitational field along with the energy of matter and radiation and so on.”

        Quote taken from Atzanteol’s article.

      • HereIAm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        If the light loses energy, then it must surely lose it to something? And if your last point that energy isn’t being conserved in our universe, in which case we are either in some deep shit with the first law of thermodynamics, or our universe isn’t an isolated system.