Kramer

Swansont I don't know what you mean by that. ------I said: 1 – Two electric charges, moving parallel each other, with relativistic velocity, have a limited electromagnetic interaction between 0 and double, via FE +,-- FB. a) Two electric charges with the same sign, moving parallel each other in opposite senses, both with relativistic velocity the limit of which is ”C” have a repelling electromagnetic interaction equal FE + FB = 2FE = 2FB that’s mean double. b) Two electric charges with the same sign, moving parallel each other in same senses, both with relativistic velocity the limit of which is ”C” have an attractive electromagnetic interaction equal FE -- FB = 0. c) Two electric charges with different signs, moving parallel each other in same senses, both with relativistic velocity the limit of which is ”C” have an attractive electromagnetic interaction equal FE -- FB = 0. d) Two electric charges with different signs, moving parallel each other in opposite senses, both with relativistic velocity the limit of which is ”C” have an attractive electromagnetic interaction equal FE + FB = 2FE =2FB. I will continue. Please correct reasons of Kramer II. If we have a bunch of electrons or protons in accelerator, this is the case b) If we have in accelerator, let say a gold ion and I suppose is not stripped by all electrons, this case is much more complicated, because particles in gold ion will continue to move in their own movement plus will take place in common movement of ion, from accelerator. In the case of golden ion , inside it , we’ll have the fore kind of combinations and I think exist possibility that he will blow up or will collapse in mini black hole. I suppose that this may happens even if “V” <”C”.

Swansont Neither one is necessarily wrong, as you have not said what the net force is in the Kramer II case. There is an attractive force, and a repulsive force. The repulsion is bigger, so there is no contradiction. --------Thanks. It was very helpful. But---- ( Don’t mind superficiality and curiosity of Kramer II –they are annoying like horse fly) But… may I hasten two conclusion - question ?: 1 – Two electric charges, moving parallel each other, with relativistic velocity, have a limited electromagnetic interaction between 0 and double, via FE +,-- FB. 2 – Isn’t this phenomena troublesome in accelerators, and hasn’t it been observed as a fact? Pugwen Am I missing something, or is there no sketch? Sorry. I tried …but drawing was so ugly that my computer was embarrassed and refused to send and paste over there. Again -- sorry for my computer…

Two controversial observations. (A lay man confused in elementary physics knowledge) In this ugly sketch are two frames: first in movement with V velocity in X direction. , the second frame is in rest. In the moving frame are two electric charges with the same sign, and the observer (Kramer I). They don’t feel the movement. For the Kramer I-- the charges are not moving, He used Coulomb law and determine that charges which have the same sign create a force that repels each other. In the rest frame is another observer --- Kramer II. He observe a different phenomena: there are two electric charges, which have the same sign and are moving parallel in X direction with V velocity. The moving charges create electromagnetic fields, which interacting with each other, create an attractive force between charges. Question: How can coexist two different reality? Which Kramer is wrong?

Prophet 12 Kramer, You are on to something, and you make great sense about it. ------ Thanks for your encouragement. I don’t see my thread as a “great sense” rather than as one lost in doubt and eager for answers by every body benevolent. As for the rest of your post I have my reserve: 1 – I don’t consider debate in science site as a fight in arena, this is the cult about champions and losers about fans and haters. Maybe this cult so highly appreciated in our country, is a big stimulus for perfection. It incites fighters to prepare themselves for the most fitter to achieve triumph. I am in the side of losers, because I am a loser. 2 – I see debate in science not as fight between peoples but as a cooperation of the people in fight with nature, which hold secrets with so hostility. Swansont Seeing that this is a science site, this would seem to be a problem. ------- This is a science site that allows speculations. I think is the most democratic site loved by people, which are free to express doubts, ideas, suggestions about science (Even naïve, crazy, weird ones) but with a cultured manner in debate. Only with a prize --- invalided ones have place in trash-can, this condition is approved by participant that debate in this site. The rest of your sentence about the ‘ problem” is an ‘enigma problem’ for me that i am not able to solve. I hope you will be kind to give a clue. Acceleration is not velocity. -------I think that after acceleration particle will continue to move with a new constant velocity. The question that divide us is: has or not suffered any change the particle in itself, in its characters ( mas. radius, frequence)? Is there any experiment that backs any of this up ------- I do no. May be any physicist will be kind to give any answer. I think that is a weird fakt: A hydrogen or gold atom, striped by electron is put in acceleration, achieve a high velocity, collide with another his body -- and a shower of many different particles burst ( with their charges, mass, movements) ready and brand new as from a box. How? The ready answer is : The kinetic energy of accelerated particle has create new particles via Einstein E = M*C^2 . Is sufficient this kind of answer? Hence my speculation hypothesis: During acceleration of “ion”, accelerator insert inside ion “Unique sub-particles” the blocks that build the same photons and mass particles, only with different configuration of charges. The collision freed the jailed sub-particles and they are free to recombine them selves via their charges in different exotic, and further in stabile common particles

Swansont Plenty of lay people learn about science. All scientists were once lay people. ------ I have to admit that I am not this kind of people. I see the science of physic like an amount of scrambled puzzles, where many intelligent people have spend their life to solve enigmas for creating a reliable panorama. Alas with many holes, with many patches. It is different -- solving enigmas from trying to unscramble. The solvers are scientist, instead they that try to unscramble with guessing are speculators. I am one of them, I try to put different pieces of puzzle in the holes. If they fit, I think I am in the right direction. This is a shame but that is true. Thanks for suggestion but is a little late for me. The basic idea of relativity is that moving at a velocity has no effect on the physic. ------ Here we don’t understand each other. I think that the effect of movement over the object in movement happens when the velocity change value. This change (acceleration) of velocity without doubt must leave imprint in the moving object. Let me develop my “ideas” about movement. 1- 1- Movement is a natural, inseparable property of mass or mass-less mater. 2- Do not exist mater out of movement, Do not exist movement without mater. 3- There exist three kind of velocity: a- “C’ velocity, is property of mass-less particles ( photons and their fields) and sub particles (from my failed thread about Unique Sub Particle). b- “V” the common velocity of mass particles, which is caused by interaction with photons or neutrinos or by their fields. c- “Vg” gravity velocity. It is different from common velocity “V” because is reflection of gravity movement of unique sub particles, stripped by electromagnetic movement. Electron and proton in their pure structure, created from their sub particles, are absolute stationary as whole. This because electromagnetic and gravity forces of sub particles are in absolute equilibrium, even though sub-particles in themselves evolve with C velocity toward each other. 2- Electron and proton move from their absolute stationary status in a relative stationary status when “absorbs” one or some photons in their structure. Preceding direction of movement of photons cause the direction of movement of whole structure. Insertion of photon in the structure of electron or proton change the structure: radius and mass which I take in consideration in formula with “Vg” I have no idea what this means. -- It’s not important -- never mind. Because it's wrong. It doesn't agree with what we observe. If formula of Einstein ( m = γ * mo) is wrong, then formula of Lorentz is in doubt. If “γ” can cause change of dimensions of space then why not the radius of particle? Oh. I forget that particles have not radius.! I think that to give a categorical judgment if wrong or right about formulas: 1—KE = γ* m0e * C^2 ; 2 –KE = (γ - 1) * m0e * C^2; 3—KE = (γ* Mplank * scrt α* C * Vge) 4 –KE = (1-((1-β^0.5)^0.5 +Vge) ) * Mplank*scrt α *C*Vge) you need to operate with very high velocity to observe differences. The calculation of the above formulas for electron particle , with V = 0.999999*C gave those result: 1---- KE =5.789158303*10^-11 J 2-----KE = 5.78091199 *10^-11 J. 3---- KE = 5.789158198*10^-11 J. 4 ----KE = 5.781958198*10^-11 J. (3 ,4 are my interpretations) (I doubt in observation about conclusion

Swansont No derivation or discussion, just that it has the right units? It's hard to get more arbitrary than that, unless you're willing to drop any pretense of science. ------ Right! Without derivations, without high math there is not science. I have never pretended to make science, how can a layman?. But they that make science didn’t gave me a convincing answer about: How reflected in Lorentz formula the fact of “what” is forced to move by “ outside cause” (a mini black hole, an electron, one gold ion, one neutrino – a star) ? How velocity influence on the object that it forced to move, what kind of changes velocity cause on the object and how? Which character of object forced to move is linked with velocity and how? Which not? There were a couple of untested models, not part of relativity or the standard model, that predicted mini black holes. Few people thought there was any chance at all that they were going to make black holes. ------- Sure. In both of them is out-casted the hated “mass”==== that base concept of reality. Because kinetic energy depends on mass, as well as speed. KE = ------- So KE = ( gamma – 1 ) * me*C^2 . Why not KE = (gamma –1)*Mu.p.*C*Vge? At least will have a relation only between “V” and “Vg”. It is the same result. Here Mu.p. is extrapolated Mplank, for real value of electric charge. By the way in your formula for KE we have on the right side: gamma is a dimension-less number, C^2 is a constant, the only which change is “m “ that is m is the only proportional with KE. Why then modern physic has discarded Einstein formula : Mup = m *gamma? If mass goes up, speed goes down for a given kinetic energy. Right! We have probably hundreds if not thousands of experiments that confirm that relativity is right the way it is, which falsifies any modifications unless they are really, really small; haw small is given by the experimental error of the experiments. -----? ACG$2 It's not that they tried, it's that there was a lot of speculation about it in the popular press, and the statement was made to put the doom-sayers to rest. --- Maybe you are right. Then i am the only crackpot to believe that unique particle: Mu.p. = (e / (4*pi*epsilon0 *G)^0.5) is the ultimate reliable thing of reality.

Swansont What reasoning? Why you would arbitrarily place a gravitational potential term in the equation hasn't been justified. What is re in your equation? ------ I made a question: Why it is irrelevant in Lorens formula the mass of particle that is moving? I made this question because the “ gravitational potential term” has dimensions of velocity. So I think this is a kind of velocity “Vge” that oppose the out caused velocity “V”. So I think is not arbitrarily. ------ You say that experimentally is proved validity of formula. As I have listen in T.V. the scientist in CERN made a statement that they have not detected any tiny black hole. Why needed this statement? They tried in this direction? Why they tried if they were sure about the negative result? I think that is not jet proved experimentally for an absolute statement. ------ I see that scientist of CERN try to use heavier ions to achieve results with lower velocity. This is an indirect link between velocity and the mass of ions. May be this has nothing to do with my reasoning. But even if I might be wrong, I will go further in my reasoning. The out caused velocity over the mass particles influence changes in structure of particle: in its radius and with this cause change of the mass of particle that is will change (augment) “Vge” (as I intend electron particle). So in fact the revised formula above will take this form: S = C / (( C^2 –V^2) – Vge * S) Solved this formula ( With fingers as teach us Mr. ACG50) step by step we’ll find that S achieve a maximum value “ before “ V= C , and further go faster down toward S=1 for V=C That means that particle has reached the Plank area. This “before” V = C I think is important.

I think mater and anti mater hate each other via gravity opposition! This is only a thought.

Mr. Eugen My suggestion was in support of your idea that if change position of detector.....etc..Only my idea is not for one point but for all point of detector giving him an adequate configuration.. Sorry if i attracted from your dispute with mr. Popcorn. I too don't believe in "weirdness of quantum", but i am not sure about the wave of particle disconected with particle. I think that particle, let it be a mass particle or a photon, posses field which don't go further than 3.48181868*10^7 cm for unity charge. Again if you see my interference a nuisance, disregard it. .

Swansont The Lorentz formula doesn't "go weird", though, as you can't actually travel at c. And it has the bonus of being experimentally confirmed, many, many times. ----- when i asked what or who is moving with "v" velocity, i wanted to understand if there is any difference between the object that is moving is a black hole or an electron. In the Lorens formula i didn't see any difference. I think that experimentally confirmed not infinity as in Lorens formula but same-thing very big. If we take in consideration gravity velocity for example that of electron: " Vge = (G*me / re)^0.5 = 1.4687201*10^-11 cm/sec" and rewrite Lorens formula: S = C / (( C^2 - V^2 ) + Vge ) The result will be (for V=C) = 2.011812*10^22 but not zero. This is exact the rate between Mplank (extrapolated toward real electric charge) and mass of electron, or with all other characters of electron particle. Has been this kind of reasoning confirmed or discarded?

When we speak about relativity we intend Lorens formula S = C / (C^2 - V^2) ^ 0.5. As a lay man i don't understand about velocity "V" of what is the issue? If it is about velocity of mass particles, then how this fact is reflected in the above formula? The special relativity was discovered in 1905. In general relativity there is another kind of velocity Vg = ( G*M / R) * 0.5. I think Special relativity is wrong because it does not take in consideration this fact. And naturally as everything in physic, go weird so in the Lorens formula go weird when divide by zero..

What will happen if we put instead of a flat detector, one wave form - half circle detector? Sure, after have calculated the wave length we'll have only black or white but not waves display. Am i wrong?

When Swansont say that “ dimensions of electron particle are zero “ I see here something illogical. But as quantum mechanic theory has eroded too many concepts of reality, and with sophisticated method of high math has sold them as a new reality I think that here needed many than an explanation. If electron is particle it must have dimensions, it can’t be a point, which mean zero dimensions. If electron is a point zero dimensional, it can’t be a particle. Call it, if you want, a center of a wave, but not a particle. A question without answer: How much is the density of mass of electron?.

If theory is going against logic , the theory is wrong.

ACG50 Yes. You are very bright to distinguish the inside….of the box.

SWANSONT Come up with a way to test the idea, and then test it. ------ Well---I will wait until experiment will show that anti-hydrogen bounce up. That too weird: space is not substance but it acts up on substance. Any explanation about how it happens? I dare to request. This makes no sense to me. ------A polite answer, Thanks. But… Isn’t time measured by number of cycles, Aren’t cycles the root of illusion of time? Even in linear movement everyone can find comparison between numbers of cycles, and the rate with unity, and this way it may be called flow of time. "Filled with virtual particles" is not the same as "made of virtual particles" ====Ha. Do you mean that space has structure and that the fabric of space is wowed from virtual particles?! It’s going from weird concept in weirdness itself. Any data about density of them in cubic cm? Isn’t there a possibility that this structure of space degrade the frequency of light? Any data about forces that cause them to create a stable or un-stable space? Any difference between them and abrogated aether? And many- many questions bring your statement ” space is made of virtual particles”. It's a blackbody distribution. The shape of the distribution indicates the temperature of the source. Zero frequency doesn't make sense. -----The map of dispersion of microwaves show different spot that presents different temperatures from different places of black body.. Are there any spots with zero grad K? After moment “zero plus” from command “let it be light “, there was a full specter, from which to us arrived (degenerated in microwaves ) only visible frequencies: what was the fate of ultra and infra waves? Microwave ovens usually have frequencies around 2.4 GHz, in a fairly narrow spectrum. ---- I don’t see any big difference in frequency with space microwaves. Am I wrong? If I am not : why is difference in their energy? Why not cook with them.? The blackbody spectrum's shape depends on temperature. ==== That’s true. But isn’t true the vice verse: temperature is caused by waves-length? Those are typically protons. If you scatter off of a proton, you don't see that photon, because it has changes direction ------ I suppose that waves have particular structure with the same sub-particles as the mass particles. It differs only composition of charges. In this meaning not only the scattering effect, but mostly the movement near charged particles change the frequency of light. This influence is more active, especially, for the waves with low frequencies , which cause the red shift of them. This influence must be very weak but in the long trip of many parsecs it becomes observable. You need a much more complete model than this if you want to posit stellar origins for the CMB. You have to answer why it looks pretty uniform and why it looks thermal with the temperature it has. ------ There was a paradox against the infinity of universe: If universe was infinity the sky would be full of light by the infinity stars (suns). Let say: the sky is full of light, but with a light of low quality --- microwaves. It is strange the nature of reasoning pro or contra.

SAMBRIDGE A photon is different than pure energy itself. Energy in the macroscopic scale is always conserved within any closed system. On extremely small scales, it may be possible for it to be created or destroyed through improbability and uncertainty of its existence such as with virtual matter/anti-matter pairs. -------- So the fate of photon is in the “hand of improbability or uncertainty” if I grasped right your meaning. This mean that photon may be “ annihilated “ even without arriving in earth or be moving in eternity with out any change in frequency. Or it may change in frequency via expansion of space, as assume modern cosmology. May be: change of frequency of visible light photon in microwaves may have at all different cause! I don’t believe in” uncertainty “or in “virtual’s”. Whatever be the phenomena it must have a cause to happen, each change must have a law, every participant in change must be real. SAMBRIDGE If you're asking if a photon get's destroyed, photon's get destroyed all the time. If you're asking if energy get's destroyed however, even when it does in small amounts get destroyed or created, the balance is usually sustained, energy get's destroyed in virtual pairs as much as it's created, so even in that instance there is still a conservation. Energy already in existence doesn't really go away. ------I really don’t understand you or maybe “my lay-man’s notion for photons” is wrong. I think that photons are particles of light. As particles they have energy which is equal h*f. They may be in packet of different coherent waves, in this case they have a common frequency (for this I am not sure), Ones can’t imagine photon without it’s movement with C velocity.. Now -- photons of light, with origin in sun, move in all directions. A few of them hit the earth. Here, they are absorbed , as you say, by mass particles. The process of absorption for me is an enigma, --- may you give me a clue about how? You say that here is the death of photons, because they exist only in C velocity. Right! Because particles that absorb them are relative stationary. But why not speculate that linear velocity of photon is transformed in circular, or even spherical? Why not suppose that electrons and photons are structured with the same sort of sub-particles? ----- Again. What about those photons that does not hit earth ? What about their end? Well that's too bad because they aren't religions. ----- May be not to bad if you try to throw out of science all those weird transcendent statements, but it is bad because a lay - man like me, with scarce knowledge, is not fit for this. They are not --- but they grist in their mills. Swansont Can't parse this. ----- Can we leave aside my linguistic deficits? My English is lame because is not learned in school. No, they are not "welded in the fabric of space" so there is no force. Space is not a substance ----- That too weird: space is not substance but it acts up on substance. Any explanation about how it happens? What if I speculate a gross that space is not empty, but it is filled with the sub-particles of antimatter that are missing in the islands of mater called galaxies? Relativity disagrees, and relativity is a wildly successful scientific mode ------- That ‘s right but when we speak about flow of time, maybe it is true only for circular movement. In this case the flow of time is proportional with frequency and this is inverse proportional with flow of time. Space isn't a substance, so it can't have a temperature. ------- Now some physicists say that empty space (isn’t this vacuum?) is filled with virtual particles, which pop in and out existence, via uncertainty principle. Isn’t this in contradiction of your statement? On the other hand; the lower frequency of waves brings the lower temperature: of which? Of the space or the waves? If frequency becomes zero, for example constant field (if they exist), how much will be temperature? Microwaves in a microwave oven aren't from a thermal source and don't represent thermal equilibrium. Thermodynamically speaking they do work on whatever you put into them to cook. --------Sure they cook my food, I repeat this “experiment” every day, so – it is undisputable fact. May be I was wrong comparing the two kind of microwaves, which may have different frequency in the span of microwaves. Can I have a numerical value for both, please? Because I have had a wrong idea that the “afterglow microwaves” must be used for cooking, in the interstellar trip. (Or for production of electrostatic energy, like from microwaves of m.w.oven in my home experiment) My wrong idea was created by the dimension of holes in metallic door’s set of oven. No. It's the distribution of wavelengths (or frequencies) that dictates the temperature. ____ That “dictates” push me to ask: by what means? Dark matter does not interact electromagnetically. Mesons have exceedingly short half- lives - where would they come from? Debris? What debris? ----The truth, I don’t remember where I read once that in each cubic meter of space are N particles. What about Dirac’s sea? For me is more interesting than dark matter which, I think with myself, is a crutch. The bottom line is that if light interacted with it, there's a chance we could see it. And if light scattered off of it, we wouldn't see those photons coming from a source. They scattered and went off in a different direction! ------- I think that photons of light are a bunch of different frequency waves, and those that are more vulnerable to be derailed from the pack are those with lower frequency, like infra, micro and radio waves. . Little anecdote is supposed to mean what, exactly? ----- Nothing specific. Only a justification for my skepticism.

That exactly: Convergence of WHAT? In math. doesn't exist that question. In physic you tell me.

SAMBRIDGE A photon is different than pure energy itself. Energy in the macroscopic scale is always conserved within any closed system. On extremely small scales, it may be possible for it to be created or destroyed through improbability and uncertainty of its existence such as with virtual matter/anti-matter pairs. -------- So the fate of photon is in the “hand of improbability or uncertainty” if I grasped right your meaning. This mean that photon may be “ annihilated “ even without arriving in earth or be moving in eternity with out any change in frequency. Or it may change in frequency via expansion of space, as assume modern cosmology. May be: change of frequency of visible light photon in microwaves may have at all different cause! I don’t believe in” uncertainty “or in “virtual’s”. Whatever be the phenomena it must have a cause to happen, each change must have a law, every participant in change must be real.

AJB mathematics and science are rather intertwined. ------They must be divided in interpretation of limits: In math convergence has the limit zero. In physics there is something, very very small but nevertheless something.

SWANSONT No, you haven't been clear. It's hard to parse what you mean, which is why I ask for clarification. I am assuming that English isn't your first language ------ I did what I could, to make clear my questions. About my English, I have had, in another thread, your zero valuation. I have noticed that sometime some core Englishmen pretend that don’t understand, with aim to embarrass conversant and to show their supremacy or when they don’t bother themselves for a grammar analysis. Sure this is not the case. If they don't interact, the only change will be due to the expansion of the universe ----- From your categorical sentences is excluded any other cause for change of E.M. waves frequency, except when they loose energy by the collision with mass bodies and when their wave length suffer deformation (stretching) from space’s expansion. Doesn’t it seems like waves are welded in the fabric of space? By what kind of force? Because the amount of expansion depends on how much time has elapsed since the big bang. ------ I think that ‘flow of time’ is a human illusion. When human began to count with fingers and to make comparison between periodic natural phenomena, like day-night, sessions, and with them to count live-lengths and other important personal issues. It has nothing to do with space. Space itself doesn't actually have a temperature. That's a somewhat lazy reference to the microwave background having a thermal signature with a temperature of ~2.7 K, which is due to the expansion. ------ Doesn’t it mean that temperature of space in itself is zero Kelvin? And, temperature of –2.7 K isn’t it temperature of microwaves photons via: De Vien constant / wave-length? Isn’t my ‘finger numeration’ right? Here another head scratch: If temperature of microwaves is so low, why microwave –oven doesn’t work as a fridge? The expansion caused the cooling. It happened over billions of years, not instantaneously. ------- If I understand right, it has to do with intensity of photons in the unity volume of space that decide the temperature of universe or fridge? Not the temperature of photons in itself? No. ----- A categorical and hermetic answer, for my questions. Anyway I insist in the idea that the alleged theory is nothing else but the span of two Plank, estreme status of the world of particles vested in cosmology. No. ---- Another categorical hermetic answer. Why wouldn’t be zero Kelvin temperature of a volume of space, if it will be privet by waves? Aren’t waves cause of temperature? And yet when I asked you said you didn't know, so I will ask again: what micro particles? ------ Let say : alleged particles of dark mater, neutrinos, mesons, and debris of all kind. It helps to understand the theory you are criticizing. It helps a lot. Me no. On the contrary. When I was a kid I asked my grandma; why rain rains from clouds? “The scientific” her answer was: The goddesses hidden in the clouds are washing their pants. SAMBRIDGE Where is their death? Where they get absorbed by a particle. ------ And those that do not collide with particles?

ACG52 . The only physics you've taken is Ex-lax. You also seem to have trouble counting That's what your fingers are for. -----I wanted to bribe you mister b.p. for to leave me alone. For this i increased you from grade 2 to 3. Now I degrade you again as a rude interlocutor. SWANSONT Photons are wasted in open space? Re-emitted photons will depend on the interaction and material involved. Photons are wasted in open space? ---- Your cautious responses and interrogation sentences, which express doubt about validity of my questions, disappoint me. Haven’t I been clear in my thread, that I am confused about where ends the fate of photons of light? Forget for a while if they are created by the “sun of Big Bang” or by the suns of universe. Forget about that minimal percent of them, which hit cosmic bodies and are reemitted, even though it presents a plus in my doubt. I asked about photons that trip always in space. You affirm that photons not change their frequency in their trip in space. Is it true? If yes then what is their fate? Will they continue their trip unchanged in infinity? If their frequency change, does this in any way result in microwaves? Why not in radio waves, or in longer wavelengths? . If you are referring to the black body spectrum, it depends on temperature. The sun emits a lot of visible light because the surface is at around 6000 K. The microwave background has cooled because of the expansion and is what you would expect of something at around 2.7 K. ---- Isn’t black body spectrum result of Plank work? ( For joke---temperature of sun is twice higher than the “ Sun of big bang”. One plus for my controversy.) -----That yours “ background has “cooled” because of expansion” confuse me? Are photons cooled by the low temperature of space? Or by the expansion of space? I think those are two different causes. What has to do expansion of space (if it were any), with temperature of photons. After this logic the photons that hit the space today find an expanded space and they must be cooled instantaneous in microwaves (if this is the limit of their age) , So, I think, the expansion of space must not be the cause of cooling the photons.(alias of reduction of their frequency in microwaves) The logic leads in a controversial hypothesis: Creation of microwave background exist as the cause of lowest temperature of space, which is its property. Maybe creation of a wave has its initials of its life in higher limit of temperature ( higher Plank energy area, temperature and space) and the end of it’s life in Zero Kelvin , in lowest Plank energy area, space and temperature. Indeed in lowest Plank area radius of particle is inverse proportional with temperature. ---- By the way, is it possible to obtain zero Kelvin in outer space inside a metallic box which impede entrance of microwaves? You brought it up ---- Yes. I brought it up as a controversial argument that frequency change even by collision of photons with mass particles, and degrade waves in microwaves. Existence of micro particles in space is a fact. And your point would be what, exactly? ----- Short. A theory that take for base a myth merits to be considered with skepticism and doubt.

Swanson "Let ther e be light" is Biblical, not scientific. ----- It is taken by a popular masterpiece of a star phys. math. ist When photons are absorbed, the material absorbing the photon gains the energy. That material can emit more photons. Photon number is not a conserved quantity. ----- The question was about the photons that are wasted in open space. The emitted photons re-emitted----- aren’t they of microwaves frequency? “Non conserved quantity of photons” it is interesting issue for me to think about it. Plank graphic? The sun emits photons of many wavelengths. -----Forget for while the ignorance of a L.M. Let say Plank diagram of dependence of intensity energy by frequency. In fact it seems that in space predominate the energy of micro-waves as they are most numerous. Seems like Plank diagram is inversed when the suns emit 70% visible light and in space exist only low frequency waves. This is in fact this thread about. Where is visible light emitted by suns-- in eons? Which micro particles? -----I do no. You tell me. Maybe those that create “after glow”? Value of what? The microwave background radiation? It's a prediction of the Big Bang. ----- Exact. For this is the thread. Big Bang can’t predict, it is predicted by people that create theory, hypothesis, myths. ( Like predecessor physicist of the author, the name of which is mentioned in that masterpiece) ACG53 You lack humor in physic!

Swanson About first your short rebut I have nothing to debate: opinion issues. I only may assure you that if we put in overall voting our opinions, my will bit yours with near three-git. About second your explanation: ”If these were "aged" photons, you should be able to measure a spectrum depending on their age and source, instead of a value that's predicted by the expansion of the universe.” here please I need some explanations to disperse my doubts: 1- Where are now photons of “ let it be light” and what had happen with their energy ? 2- Where have ended photons of all suns of all their times, and is any method to calculate their approximate energy? Where is it gone that energy? 3- Aren’t microwaves part in Plank graphic and doesn’t they coexist in the packet of photons together with other “high frequency waves” emitted by “let it be light - Sun “ . or in the light of normal suns afterwards? 4- Why ruled out any possibility that the photons may have loosed waves with high frequency as more vulnerable to be swallowed by micro particles that fill the space and degrade them in low frequency ? 5-What is this “value predicted by the expansion of universe? Who from?. Ou –ou .I forget about Mr Agostine. In the moment of creation of universy , was created time and space . Nevertheless that this was a sound authority in physic, I again want to ask: Where is the place that photons created by suns have been “annihilated”?

Controversial : Photon --- the place of its birth -- in the sun. Where is the place of its death? ( A puzzled lay –man) The sun is created to illuminate the earth days as a candle, in the same as the moon on the night. Here is nothing to ask because it is so evident. What puzzled me is about of the abundance in the amount photons of sun’s productions. The science now has calculated that only a fraction of fraction is used for the aim for which it is created, that is --- to illuminate the earth. But -- nobody has the right to blame the abundance…because the abundance bring the prices down. So, --- the puzzle that gave me sleeplessness is: where on earth ends the runaway unused photons of the sun? Anecdote says that when was asked Einstein about this he answered: if you shut a photon in front of you, after some long time it will hit you in the back. I wonder, if is it the same young photon, or becomes an older one? Somebody of moderators assured me that the frequency of photons doesn’t change when it travel. Yes. This is the answer for my wondering---- photons stays always yang. But, (damn your skepticism Kramer): how comes that photons of that biggest sun, in the year 370000.23 , year of “let it be light”, with a temperature 3000 grade, becomes so old after only 16 billion years traveling? Microwaves!? What? ---- Do you think that C.M.B. are maybe aged photons of universe’s suns (both - live and dead ones) ,wandering and lost in space? I du no! You tell me.