Jinsuk Kim

You said "Energy will not generally be the same if it's measured from two different frames of reference." I don' oppose. In this case, obviously I agree with you. I said "If E(t1)=E(t2), there is no problem." Please don't miss "If"

Mt. MigL, I know why frames matter. I agree with you. Let's see one frame, train, the other frame, ground. Energy of a moving cat in the train frame is different from energy in ground frame. I understand. But what do you mean "it can create particles that are orders of magnitude more massive/energetic than a proton's rest mass/energy" Energy is increased after collision while considering kinetic and potential energy? Please explain me again.

Hello, Mr.swansont, I didn't reply you, but I feel it's better to reply you to make some consensus with you. You said that "Energy is only conserved in the same frame of reference. Energy is not invariant." Maybe you mean: Space is expanding time t1 Space(t1) Energy of photon=E(t1) : Frame 1 time t2 Space(t2) Energy of photon=E(t2) : Frame 2 Because two frames are different, we cannot say that energy isn't coserved or invariant though E(t1) > E(t2). I understand you exactly? O.K. I don't oppose you. But now I will say the meaning of my comments. If E(t1)=E(t2), there is no problem. The big bang theory is not challenged by this problem. But because E(t1) isn't same with E(t2), the physicists have a job to explain this problem. If this problem isn't explained completely as general understanding(not special person, theory), "It can be at least the weakness of the big bang theory. If we insist that energy must be conserved, in other expression, if we insist that E(t1) should be same with E(t2), it can be the evidence that big bang theory is wrong." Reasonable Doubt is necessary for scientists. I think, as shown above, this problem is worthwhile to doubt.

Mr. Q-reeus, you said that"it's poor etiquette to cut & paste a quote like above without detailing precisely where it came from - including page number and/or paragraph.". I am sorry. "Theories predicted that after a Big Bang, there would have been a tremendous release of radiation. And now, billions of years later, this radiation would be moving so fast away from us that the wavelength of this radiation would have been shifted from visible light to the microwave background radiation we see today." was copied from your recommendation from https://www.universetoday.com/106498/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/ Please don't be unhappy because of me. My English is poor and using this foum is also poor. But I have no mind to make you unpleasant. Rather I thank your comments. Especially I thank you because you told me that the loss of photon energy has been already discussed. It is important and I was surprised because I really didn't know it. If you have time, please give me your comments continuously for the other discussions . Mr. Strange, you recommended that "Energy conservation is not (always) conserved in GR http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html" O.K. I know, but for GR, let's discuss later. We can have the opportunity to discuss GR seriously. Thank you. Mr. swansont, as you say, we were discussing energy conservation. To summarize, the loss of energy occurs in the expansion of space. "The law of energy is not conserved." We cannot say that it is true or false because it was not confirmed experimentally. This argument will be brought up for two similar reasons. - It is necessary ahead to make a new theory. - It is necessary unavoidably to maintain the theory Maybe the loss of photon energy will be the second case. So I said "It can be at least the weakness of big bang theory. If we insist that energy must be conserved, it can be the evidence that big bang theory is wrong."

-The CMB essentially confirms the Big Bang theory. In the late 1940s Alpher and Herman reasoned that if there was a big bang, the expansion of the universe would have stretched and cooled the high-energy radiation of the very early universe into the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum, and down to a temperature of about 5 K. - The cosmic microwave background was first predicted in 1948 by Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman.[19][20][21][22] Alpher and Herman were able to estimate the temperature of the cosmic microwave background to be 5 K, though two years later they re-estimated it at 28 K. - Measurements of the CMB have made the inflationary Big Bang theory The above comments are copied from Wikipedia. I know well why people consider CMB as the evidence of the big bang theory. But I suppose CMB isn't sufficient to be the direct evidence of expansion of space. Let's leave this issue and if we have the other opportunity to discuss this as a main issue, talk about at that time after the examination of Alpher and Herman's papers.

"Theories predicted that after a Big Bang, there would have been a tremendous release of radiation. And now, billions of years later, this radiation would be moving so fast away from us that the wavelength of this radiation would have been shifted from visible light to the microwave background radiation we see today." - The above comment cannot become the evidence of the big bang theory compared to "redshift", so I said "indirect evidence". - Now I can't immediately show you but I suppose that CMB data "2.7 K" was feedbacked to the big bang theory. So I said "self-supporting evidence".

It's not confirmed experimentally that energy is not conserved or invariant. Such insist is only the theory and cannot be accepted objectively. So the loss of photon energy cannot be accepted as "deserved". It can be at least the weakness of big bang theory. If we insist that energy must be conserved, it can be the evidence that big bang theory is wrong.

Your advice is very helpful and proper to my argument. I completely agree with you. I attach some comments. In relation to “energy lost via photon redshift is gained elsewhere~” 1. This is related(similar) to my alternative. I proposed that the redshifts of stars explained by expansion of space are due to the reduction of frequency according to the distance of propagation. It means the energy of photon, E=hν is decreased in the propagation route by a certain unknown reason, for example, aether, dark matter, or vacuum. The relation between the frequency and distance can be obtained from the careful review of redshift results. In relation to “Another camp says no, on a cosmological scale energy is not conserved” 2. The law of energy conservation is also very important in the big bang theory. The big bang theory was developed from it. - Equation including kinetic, potential, and dark energy(sorry, equation is not marked)- May we say that energy cannot be conserved in the big bang theory? 3. Though the big bang theory was developed in detail, we should not forget that the biggest weakness of big bang theory is that it has only one evidence, redshift. As you know, CMB is an indirect and self-supporting evidence. So should we abandon the law of conservation of energy for redshift? Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to find an alternative? I was surprised at your comment “Another camp says no, on a cosmological scale energy is not conserved”. I didn't know that the loss of photon energy has been already discussed. Later, when I say this, I will say that this is not my own idea.

Let’s assume that frequency is reduced by expansion of space. Then the energy of photon is reduced by E=hf. This is against the law of energy conservation. Though the energy of photon is small, but we have no reason why the law of energy conservation is destroyed. The law of energy conservation must be kept and the big bang theory was developed from it. In the big bang theory, it doesn’t need anything, for example energy, to obtain 1 m3 space. Space of 1 m3 is unconerned with energy so it cannot be replaced by the energy of one electron or all the energy in the universe. This means that though the energy of photon is small, but it should not be reduced by expansion of space. We can suppose that the reduced energy of photon can be transferred to something. But it is just the alternative in the previous discussion, and space doesn’t need to be expanded to explain redshift.

Your question is good. But please read carefully the following. The wavelength of light becomes very different when it passes through the cluster or not. So the present CMB data showing the complete black body radiation in all directions is impossible and it implies big bang theory is wrong. ~ but the observed CMB radiation is too isotropic(one part in 100,000).

This is not the observed result. It is the logical ibference. The wavelength of light doesn't change at all in the galaxies because the space of the galaxies doesn't expand.

Thank you Mr. Beecee. I suppose you understand my key idea. Later let's discuss more about other issues.

Now, at last you understand me. Please look carefully my evaluations. And evaluate on your own and compare with the observed results. The present expansion ratio of space during lights pass through the cluster of 10 million light years size is H0 x 10 7 years = 7.25x10-4. This ratio corresponds to the variation of wavelength of light (Δλ/λ) in the space except clusters. Hubble constant is estimated as H=21.7H0 (z=11, R(t)=0.084) at 430 million years after big bang when GN-z11 or our galaxy were born, H=1.7H0 (z=1, R(t)=0.503) at 6 billion years after big bang. The expansion ratios of space during lights pass through the cluster of 10 million light years size are H x 10 7 years = 0.01569 and 0.00123 at 430 million years and 6 billion years after big bang. The wavelength of light becomes very different when it passes through the cluster or not. So the present CMB data showing the complete black body radiation in all directions is impossible and it implies big bang theory is wrong. If the number and size of clusters are underestimated, this may be unchanged because in the past when the universe was small too many lights passed through the galaxy clusters, but the observed CMB radiation is too isotropic(one part in 100,000). It needs to be emphasized that CMB data from the telescope exactly pointing at the far distant galaxy cluster should be quite different with the black body radiation according to 2.72548±0.00057 K temperature.

I revise λ2/λ1 as Δλ/λ in the previous comment. The present expansion ratio of space during lights pass through the cluster of 10 million light years size is H0 x 10 7 years = 7.25x10-4. This ratio corresponds to the variation of wavelength of light (Δλ/λ) in the space except clusters. - The wavelength of light doesn't change at all in the galaxies because the space of the galaxies doesn't expand. - The wavelength of light should be different when it passes through the galaxy or not. However, this is contradictory to the observed result. λ1→(Galaxy Area)→λ1 Frequency(wavelength) doesn’t change because the space of galaxy doesn’t expand. λ1→(Vacant Area)→λ2 Frequency(wavelength) changes because the space of vacant area expands. λ2 is very different from λ1.

Which of the followings is more reasonable? - Space expands. - The energy of photon, E=hν is decreased in the propagation route by a certain unknown reason. CMB results cause the contradiction of big bang theory - The wavelength of light doesn't change at all in the galaxies because the space of the galaxies doesn't expand. - The wavelength of light should be different when it passes through the galaxy or not. However, this is contradictory to the observed result. So, the big bang theory is wrong. The space except galaxy clusters expands during lights pass through the clusters which do not expand. The present expansion ratio of space during lights pass through the cluster of 10 million light years size is H0 x 10 7 years = 7.25x10-4. This ratio corresponds to the variation of wavelength of light (λ2/λ1) in the space except clusters. Hubble constant is estimated as H=21.7H0 (z=11, R(t)=0.084) at 430 million years after big bang when GN-z11 or our galaxy were born, H=1.7H0 (z=1, R(t)=0.503) at 6 billion years after big bang. The expansion ratios of space during lights pass through the cluster of 10 million light years size are H x 10 7 years = 0.01569 and 0.00123 at 430 million years and 6 billion years after big bang. The wavelength of light becomes very different when it passes through the cluster or not. So the present CMB data showing the complete black body radiation in all directions is impossible and it implies big bang theory is wrong. If the number and size of clusters are underestimated, this may be unchanged because in the past when the universe was small too many lights passed through the galaxy clusters, but the observed CMB radiation is too isotropic(one part in 100,000). It needs to be emphasized that CMB data from the telescope exactly pointing at the far distant galaxy cluster should be quite different with the black body radiation according to 2.72548±0.00057 K temperature.

I propose the redshifts of stars explained by expansion of space are due to the reduction of frequency according to the distance of propagation. It means the energy of photon, E=hν is decreased in the propagation route by a certain unknown reason, for example, aether, dark matter, or vacuum. The relation between the frequency and distance can be obtained from the careful review of redshift results. If we cannot accept the expansion of space, how can CMB be explained? I suppose we should accept that the temperature of universe is 2.7 K and matters in universe radiate thermally in the microwave range of frequencies like a black body.

- The wavelength of light doesn't change at all in the galaxies because the space of the galaxies doesn't expand. - The wavelength of light should be different when it passes through the galaxy or not. However, this is contradictory to the observed result. So, the big bang theory is wrong. The space except galaxy clusters expands during lights pass through the clusters which do not expand. The present expansion ratio of space during lights pass through the cluster of 10 million light years size is H0 x 10 7 years = 7.25x10-4. This ratio corresponds to the variation of wavelength of light (λ2/λ1) in the space except clusters. Hubble constant is estimated as H=21.7H0 (z=11, R(t)=0.084) at 430 million years after big bang when GN-z11 or our galaxy were born, H=1.7H0 (z=1, R(t)=0.503) at 6 billion years after big bang. The expansion ratios of space during lights pass through the cluster of 10 million light years size are H x 10 7 years = 0.01569 and 0.00123 at 430 million years and 6 billion years after big bang. The wavelength of light becomes very different when it passes through the cluster or not. So the present CMB data showing the complete black body radiation in all directions is impossible and it implies big bang theory is wrong. If the number and size of clusters are underestimated, this may be unchanged because in the past when the universe was small too many lights passed through the galaxy clusters, but the observed CMB radiation is too isotropic(one part in 100,000). It needs to be emphasized that CMB data from the telescope exactly pointing at the far distant galaxy cluster should be quite different with the black body radiation according to 2.72548±0.00057 K temperature.