I'm just glad I'm not smort enough to have someone like Feynman publicly call me stupid. Imma just keep my head down over here, stick to my stone knives and bearskins, and keep watching Petrov's videos. Yours truly, Grug.
Is all Light related or just relatives? How long is a single light beam? How long can a light beam travel? Do older light beams look different than younger light beams?
Comparing to me, your 93 billion years old grandpa... you're very young, my 27-ish billion years olf grand-grandchild. Funny how your newborn offsprings, my grand-grand-grandchildren, are starting to brag with their almost 14 billion years age.
@@douglaswilkinson5700 But light has momentum...light bends this way, that way...never in a straight line...gravity and all that. Point being, accelerating a thingee takes energy, bending light is not 'free'.
@@pirobot668beta Well, I think the bending of light due to gravity is not so much force being applied, expending energy, rather, its space itself bending. So, to light's perspective, its traveling in a straight line.
"Tired light" is a wonderful example of formulating a hypothesis and then testing it by experiment or observation. In this case the hypothesis failed, but science still progressed.
I do not see much progress here. This failed hypothesis did not led to anything useful. If I propose that there is a small dwarf standing on every nucleon, would falsifying my hypothesis add anything to physics?
@arctic_haze falsifying the "tired photon" hypothesis provided plenty of new data sets that confirmed the "universe expands" hypothesis. What would falsifying your dwarf "hypothesis" contribute to?
@@JosePineda-cy6om This is nothing like the war has been won in the 1960s against the steady state hypothesis. Tired photons did not triggered much research, only some papers on time dilatation in quasars and surface brightness of the galaxies. So yes, technically that was progress but very local and limited one.
Thank you Anton for providing such an eloquent explanation of the subject material! You always provide objective observations backed up with science, facts, and logical reasoning - something that is missing online... May you stay blessed.
Thank you Anton,, for allowing me to reminisce!: Constants change (modulate) over time, haha, is something I pondered as a youngster. I came up with it on my own, and with a little math learning, and chemistry, I quickly admitted defeat with the gain in knowledge to keep me studying and thinking like the adult that I have become. It's been over 30 years now, and the thought brings a slight smile to myself when I think back on it,, kinda like santa. The same type of thought nags me of late when I consider MOND. It's really cute, and I understand how it gets blown out of proportion now that we can freely put these ideas out on the net. Gr8! Peace ☮💜
Even in the darkest of times, Anton is still there covering all the fascinating science topics and calling us Wonderful Persons whilst being the Most Wonderful Person ;)
@@PsillyApeUSAI have a conspiracy theory (××puts on tinfoil hat××) that climate doomers are paid by climate deniers to harm the fight against climate change lmao Because that's precisely what these people do - between false dates and critical alarmism, they push people away from a solution; why should you care about fighting against climate change if everything is doomed and there's nothing anyone could ever do? The worst way to fight climate change is to be an alarmist
New research, published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, suggests a phenomenon called “bursty star formation” that can easily explain the puzzle of apparently high mass galaxies in the early universe. Instead of the steady rate and gradual star formation typically observed in more modern and massive galaxies like the Milky Way, bursty star formation features short, intense periods of stellar birth and death followed by longer, quieter phases. According to the simulations, this flash-bulb approach of bursty star formation can lead to some early galaxies emitting so much light that it inflates their implied mass. Using new simulations, Northwestern University-led team of astrophysicists now has discovered that these galaxies likely are not so massive after all and are young. The apparent anomalies have also been traced to erroneously using standard estimates (called IMF, or initial mass functions) for mass, relevant to the Milky Way in our current universe, to the early universe (See Becky).
@SanityTV_Last_Sane_Man_Alive The tired light concept has been debunked repeatedly since it was first proposed by Fritz Zwicky almost a century ago. Zwicky himself was sceptical about the concept. Tired light will produce dimmer and more blurry objects. However, astrophysical observations do not observe this. In other words, there is no evidence of this. The brightness and clarity of the objects is checked, as a matter of routine procedure by professional astronomers before the redshift is confirmed. Furthermore, the time dilation, as predicted by Einstein’s General Relativity Theory, is actually seen in the decay time of supernova light curves. This confirms that the cosmic redshift and light curves are independent of any hypothetical “tired light.” The CMB also does not support the tired light hypothesis as it would look different if this hypothesis was true. The perfect blackbody spectrum of the CMB, actually observed by our most accurate scientific instruments, contradicts the tired light hypothesis. The hypothesis is not able to explain such a spectrum.
No. If the big bang had been an explosion happening at a specific point in an already existing larger universe, we would get _totally_ different observations.
dum kweshun - since the universe is expanding, shouldn't far away objects appear not only red-shifted, but also larger than they actually are? Because the light coming from them is passing through space that is not only getting stretched in the direction of travel, but also stretched side-to-side? So galaxies from the beginning of galaxy formation would appear magnified compared to how those same galaxies would appear if they were near by?
Perhaps the blurriness should be an issue if it is distortion at larger distances, but one easily modify the hypothesis and say the blurriness will be seen at a bigger scale, just like they modify in string theory for undetected particles by saying they are heavier or require more energy and bigger colliders...
@@jonathanhockey9943No, the blurriness can't be modified that easily, it results from known physical processes. And I think you confuse string theory with supersymmetry.
I love how the young earth creationist crowd was head over heels over the pop sci articles about the big bang being overturned but never bothered to check the source or stick around for the corrections.
@@Soupy_loopy That's the whole point. Creationists always glom on to anything in science that is not understood and anything where the understanding changes based on evidence -- AS IF that boosts their case. It never does, but that doesn't stop them due to their exceedingly motivated reasoning. Have you ever heard them go on and on about the Cambrian Explosion? AS IF it proves that the earth was created in 6 days. If you tell them that it took tens of millions of years and ask which Cambrian fossil is their ancestor, they change the subject and soon enough go on about the Cambrian Explosion being evidence of a young earth again. They never correct themselves, they never bother to get the science right. And they did indeed do it again when this information from JWST came out about the universe looking older than we expect. Because they aren't about finding out what is true. They're about misrepresenting science to try to fit a mythology they've redefined as the capital T Truth.
@@MultiSpeedMetal Yeah I'd forgotten about Last Thursdayism. Oh I must mention there's no such thing as Last Thursdayism because as everyone knows, except you, it really is Last Tuesdayism.
Changing constants over cosmological timescales is one of those areas I've wondered about. It's nice to learn about the evidence that refutes the idea.
Yes, would be interesting to hear the supposed "Mechanism" involved here. As this claim is often made. But never seen the supporting explanation of how or why.
I’m actually on the fence between the two, but I doubt we’re anywhere near the proper evidence to legitimately estimate longer than we currently have just yet. But thanks to various developments, last I checked, the presumed energy of space itself was approximated at 5 protons per cubic meter. In order for space to continue expanding without incurring certain hypotheticals like “cosmic rip” etc… So even “inflation” itself may depend on certain elements brought up by the idea of “tired light”. So throwing out those notions completely may be part of why “crisis in cosmology” is even happening.
@@MarsStarcruiser sure, but until then, the internet is sure to assume that every gap in our knowledge must be affirmative proof of the most ridiculous conclusions.
I like the concept of grabbing new data, and redo the measurements every year using various methods, just to keep a continuous check of things. In a hundred years from now, any differentials would be visible in all these tested data.
Thank you for explaining this propperly because the amount of times i have come across videos and comments of people who don't know any better who say it's that old and all that... Was pulling my heartstrings, now i can sleep a lttle easier knowing fhe public is informed propperly by Anton the Legend.
It is so easy for all of this information to fly directly over everyone's head and become uninteresting, but Anton always seems to present the information in a way that is engaging and informative. Thank you for the amazing content as always!
💔💔💔 my serious condolences for your son and the loss of such a beautiful person that I know he would have grown up to be because you are absolutely beautiful in time thank you for everything!
To my eye, the distant ring galaxy visible inside Hoag’s object actually does look a great deal less in-focus than the foreground galaxy. As evidence against tired light, the claim of equivalent sharpness of image is not compelling.
@@highviewbarbell Anton offered that image as a demonstration of a foreground object and background object being equivalently sharp. As stated in my first comment, to my eye they do not look equivalently sharp. Your first reply agrees with my premise that they are not equally sharp but your explanation for why that is the case is not clear. My inquiry for clarification instead draws a defensive and nonsensical response. Neither object is at an infinite distance.
The thing that made me feel incensed was when I learned there is no scientific base for the multi-verse theory (the one where every decision splits into a identical universe, but where the other decision was taken). But so much media and even some scientists suggest it is more than likely true and there are numberless worlds just like our own existing and being made every second.
@@stephencorsaro954 Its one thing to believe in something, it's another to teach your belief as though it is scientific and to pass it off to the masses as fact
There is though, it is a prediction that falls naturally out of the Schrödinger equation which we have shown to be extremely successful at predicting the functioning of our universe. It’s just that what it is is an interpretation of quantum mechanics which inherently makes it impossible to directly verify, so no it’s not a scientific fact and almost certainly it never will be because we can’t observe it directly, but that is also equally true of all interpretations of quantum mechanics. Compare that to the much more bullshit idea people have that the universe “is most likely a simulation”. That isn’t an idea predicted by any successful theories, it’s basically just religion for nerds, but people do act like that has “real scientific reasoning”
Very nice, Anton! I am constantly trying to point out to people that work on "modified gravity" hypotheses is all very well as a thought experiment, but thinking that it will instantly override all existing observations that disagree with the concept is just plain ridiculous! Think I'll bookmark that article for sharing at them.
The tired light theory makes more sense than assuming a Doppler effect supporting an expanding universe theory. I was a radar operator in the US Navy in the late 1960's. High frequency radars have a shorter effective range and were used in target acquisition systems. Low frequency radars were used for long range identification. High frequency electromagnetic emissions loose their energy more rapidly than low frequency radars. Light is an electromagnetic wave in the human visual spectrum, lower frequencies of light are called infrared. All of these electromagnetic emissions travel through vastness of the universe, they encounter charged particles, clouds of dust, and other electromagnetic waves from many sources. All of these encounters absorb energy from the full spectrum of emissions, the further the source, the more energy is lost. It seems more reasonable to me, that the further away a light source is, the light will be red shifted by the distance and not the velocity or direction of the source. The Hubble Constant is still valid, assuming that all light sources emit a full spectrum of electromagnetic waves. The "Big Bang" or expanding universe theory requires a starting point, a singularity, where nothing existed until it did, Sounds more like a scientific creationist theory. More will be learned in the future. There will be more versions of the James Web Telescope that will be stationed further out in our solar system. We will see much further, We may see billions of new galaxies. We may finally stare into infinity.
_"The tired light theory..."_ Does not exist. No mechanism, no evidence, and no need for it. _"The "Big Bang" or expanding universe theory requires a starting point, a singularity, where nothing existed until it did,"_ Wrong. That just shows that you do not understand what the BBT actually says. _"All of these encounters absorb energy from the full spectrum of emissions, the further the source, the more energy is lost."_ And would also cause blurring. Did you not watch the video?
@visualedtech The red shift is not explained in terms of a doppler effect, its not because the source of the light is moving away. The mathematical theory put it down to an expansion of the very fabric of space, the light is travelling through/in/on a medium that is expanding. The universe and its galaxies are not expanding into something, the universe itself (the fabric of space) is expanding. That's their current best model.
_"they encounter charged particles, clouds of dust, and other electromagnetic waves from many sources"_ All of which cause blurring of distant objects. Which is not seen. Fact is, tired light is considered crackpottery, because it is invoked by said crackpots without having a single viable mechanism. _"The "Big Bang" or expanding universe theory requires a starting point, a singularity, where nothing existed until it did,"_ Nope. That is a flat earth or creationist level explanation for what the BBT says. Hint: it does not say that.
If people only understood the constraints that cosmologists have to deal with when they build an extremely complex model, they might understand. But I doubt it.
An entire 45 min lecture in 15 min plus relevant, no bad teacher jokes or random stories about the 80s. Your our hero Anton 🎉❤😂 If we have a system where we can be tutored by peers it's almost like an open guild now. Kind of a wild time when you consider what might be possible. Then again on what scale? Is there really something generated with the rest of us thinking about it but not really wrestling with the maths. I've had soooo many instincts listening to lecturers that I felt I came up with as a matter of fact from where I know not but then always later on I find myself listening to a professor talk to someone who just wants to talk and all that and you find out the documentarians and lecture hall rock stars have been out there making a living selling white washed science bs, outdated principles and bits of personal bias.
Yeah, I think the University of Ottawa proposal is pretty weak. Doing science, you've got to get as comfortable as possible with knowing that you don't know yet. Thanks Anton.
Impossible to imagine what we don't know! We imagine ourselves as a highly advanced society until something very special comes to light. If our universe is as old as we previously thought, we're still scratching the surface of knowledge. Our history only goes back a few thousand years.
Impossible to imagine what we don't know? Rubbish. That means we would never learn anything. The opposite is true. We imagine things that we don't know. And also imagine things that are false.
I'm certainly no physicist, but a while back I came up with the idea that parts of a wave function that get consumed by black holes cannot collapse backwards through the event horizon. Traveling particles would appear to lose energy the further they get from their source, specifically a decrease of distance traveled squared, and a smaller cubed component, based on the surface area and volume respectively, of the virtual relativistic sphere that the wave function could exist in. This would also let us map the evolution of the density of primordial black holes throughout the lifetime of the universe. Idk how quantum physics would handle collapsing only part of a wave function and letting the other half persist, but I thought it was an interesting idea when I was in college lol (I understand wave functions more now haha) It's fun to try to come up with novel solutions, it's just important to acknowledge them as highly speculative, and not cherry pick evidence that specifically backs up your idea 😊 Much love to all the scientists who are willing to self-criticize 💛
The speed of light in vacuum is c. But our universe has been around a while. Space isn't a vacuum, it's full of electrons and protons, metal ions, EM fields, dust, and 13 billion years of other detritus that builds up over time. Space has a refractive index that varies in unknown ways as light travels to us. Not to mention gravitational effects. It's not "tired", it's bent.
Extra arguments: 1) Light travels at the speed of light, and therefore time slows down to zero from a photon's point of view; so a photon does not have enough time to get tired. 2) Energy has to go somewhere. If light loses energy, where does it go? We'd need some kind of "photon decay". 3) Constants could only change IF no net energy is riding on them. If changing a universal constant by a part per million would cause an energetic change in the universe equivalent to millions of supernovas, then it should require that sort of energy to affect the constant by that much.
Photon man: "I just flew in from Betelgeuse and boy am I tired! Really, you wouldn't believe the traffic I had to squeeze through just to get here. Good old "Juicy" let one rip? ;)
thx Anton, for your clear explanation why tired light hypothesis is probably wrong. Since there were no updates from scientists who endorsed the hypothesis I already thought it might be wrong. Thx for the background information.
i still remember watching the live report on the Higgs-Bosson particle from the VLC in Geneva, when it was called out it was a 'split decision' between our current 'periodic table model' and/or transferring towards a complete overhaul into our view of space-, and time, and how this decision was made based on absolutely nothing more than a nostalgia towards our current system and the loyalty shown towards those scientists that created the periodic table, rather than actual proof. that decision was such an eye-opener for me that my 'grain of salt' idea got only more footing about our origens and science as a whole.
Photons might get "tired" and loose fractions of there energy when they interact with virtual particles. This also makes some virtual particles convert to real matter conserving the constant of energy.
If you can make the equations to show that and demonstrate that this process would create more matter than antimatter... Dude, you could get a Nobel. Seriously, because it would also explain why there's so much matter compared to antimatter.
I admire your videos. Anyway, after having spoken standard English 23 years, I lose some words of your speech. As you speak quite quickly, I suggest as as follows. Please choose the wheel from top of the page. Reduce Speed by 25%(=0,75*). - I wish the best Anton! Awaiting your NeXT video.🤓😃😅
This is comparable to looking at the street light at the top of my street and saying the known universe ends there, 13 billion light years, 28 billion light years... it's still only the street light at the top of our street. More questions, the better... love your Channel Anton!!!! 😊🎉
Reminds me of a t-shirt I saw while browsing through an army surplus store in downtown Toronto over a decade ago. It had the Insignia of some army sniper Squad and contained the words: " you can run but you'll just die tired" 😅 Everyone, everything gets tired by expending energy. Bullets, people. Everything but not photons
Do we really know how old the universe is. I believe it is much older than what we understand. Like other predictions that are just wrong that have to do with the universe. And I’m not a big bang theory guy. It would be impossible for a singularity to expand to what we see now. The physics that could explain this doesn’t exist.
"Do we really know how old the universe is." Yes. That can be determined by different methods, and the results agree with each other. "I believe it is much older than what we understand." Your belief is based on ignorance. You simply don't know all of the observations. "And I’m not a big bang theory guy." What's your alternative? "It would be impossible for a singularity to expand to what we see now. " Why? "The physics that could explain this doesn’t exist." Yes, it does. It's called "General Relativity". Has existed for over 100 years. Ever heard of that?
Photon packet disbursement in gravitational, electromagnetic localities slows light, but this affect is local. Hence tired light is only tired at localities, and cannot exist in non-localities.
So, on the one hand, there would be an unknown mechanism that is stretching out the wavelength of individual photons, perhaps at the quantum scale, involving relatively small amounts of energy. On the other hand, we have an unknown mechanism that is expanding the entire universe, stretching out the wavelength of individual photons in the process, involving staggeringly incomprehensible amounts of energy on a cosmological scale. Hmm....
"involving relatively small amounts of energy. ... involving staggeringly incomprehensible amounts of energy on a cosmological scale" ??? What on Earth are you talking about? The amount of energy obviously is the same in both cases, since they result in the same observed redshift!
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 Are you sure that you understand how cosmological redshift works? As the universe expands, that expansion stretches out the wavelength of the light passing through space. The "staggeringly incomprehensible amounts of energy" to which I refer in that instance is the energy required to expand space, not the energy required to stretch the light. A tremendous amount of energy would indeed be required to expand the universe; that is why physicists say dark energy would have to make up 68% of the energy in the observable universe. It does not follow that stretching the wavelength of light by any other, currently unknown mechanism would require the same amount of energy as is required to expand space itself. For example, if virtual particles created transient spacetime curvatures that have an effect akin to gravitational redshift on passing light, the amount of energy involved would be, relatively speaking, much smaller than that required to expand the universe 😉 Though... in truth, virtual particles do not strike me as a likely candidate for an "unknown mechanism" responsible for observed redshift, since those transient spacetime curvatures should, in theory, cause light to blueshift as it entered them, then redshift as it exited them - with a net wavelength change of zero 🤣
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 It's a fair observation. Either the universe is getting bigger, or stuff inside the universe is getting bigger. I'd say making the universe bigger would need a wee little more energy than stretching a few photons.
I don't remember much of it but my favorite theory on the start is that there's something like a quantum field that some times vibrates and creates/disappears matter, when an area is voided enough some matter becomes stable and stays around. meaning the universe may have just slowly appeared over a large area at one time instead of in sudden bangs. also a question. have we noticed more red shifted lights in one or two directions more than the other directions?
If some of the photons were lost out of the signal, then distant galaxies would appear to dim rather than fade. The photons remaining would still be sharp and in focus. The waves of photons may redshift simply because less of them would cause some of them waves of photons to disappear entirely. Maybe there's a chance they just get grabbed up on their way past a random proton.
3:34 i mean it makes sense if light is considered a wave, it can't move forever and maybe could work with the Doppler effect, the only way we can find out is to get more data. (Not saying it's correct by any means but still we need data to figure out what is actually going on)
In the game of life, walkers will propagate forever unless they hit something. Not that the universe is like that. I'm just saying that it's possible for activity to propagate indefinitely in the right medium. Some waves can move forever.
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 well the osculation of a wave is movement which changes direction so one would thing energy is used to do that unless light has a special thing going on or actually isn't a wave while traveling.
@@deltacx1059 osculation? Do you perhaps mean oscillation? "is movement which changes direction so one would thing energy is used to do that" Do you _really_ want to claim that as waves propagate, energy is consumed, or what?!? If yes, you should read up on basic physics.
Totally agree with the constant it's in real charge over time. And time is also not a constant, in the early stages of Univers. The graph looks like an inverted exponential curve. Starting from infinity.
0:15 Bro, there were hundreds of JWST hype videos, where people made predictions about the distant observations, when the JWST was on the ground. "We will see the birth of the universe. The first generation galaxies and stars. We would see from the birth of the universe to modern day." The collisions, of baby galaxies, from the dusk of the dark age. One thing was right, we can see as far back as they said we would. They didn't find what they said we would.
"We will see the birth of the universe." No scientist ever said that. "They didn't find what they said we would." Yes, they did. You only don't see that reported in the media - because the media likes only sensational news, not "we found what we expected".
Dark matter is dilated mass. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" Einstein wrote - "The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of G.R. predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters (star clusters) whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light." He was referring to the phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". A graph illustrates its squared nature, dilation increases at an exponential rate the closer you get to the speed of light. A "time dilation" graph illustrates the same phenomenon, it's not just time that gets dilated. Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. There is no singularity/black hole at the center of our galaxy. It can be inferred mathematically that dilation is occurring there. In other words that mass is all around us. This is the explanation for galaxy rotation curves. The "missing mass" is dilated mass. Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. To date, 6 very low mass galaxies including NGC 1052-DF2 and DF4 have been confirmed to show no signs of dark matter. This also explains why all planets and all binary stars have normal rotation rates, not 3 times normal. The concept of singularities is preventing clarity in astronomy. Einstein is known to have repeatedly said that they cannot exist. Nobody believed in them when he was alive including Plank, Bohr, Schrodinger, Dirac, Heisenberg, Feynman etc.
Penrose demonstrated singularity to be inevitable. Not sure but I assume massive particles are destroyed before they have a chance to reach light speed anyway. Final issues being information loss due to Hawking radiation but that has also not been observed. Safe to say the event horizon at least has been observed, therefore, a possibility the singularity is behind it as implied.
@@RicardoMarlowFlamenco There is no singularities, Hawking radiation or event horizons. Black holes were popularized by television and movies beginning in the 1960's. What we see in modern astronomy has been known since 1925. This is when the existence of galaxies was confirmed. It was clear that there should be an astronomical quantity of light emanating from our own galactic center.
@@shawns0762 "General Relativity predicts dilation, not singularities. " I already told you several times that GR predicts _both_. Why do you keep repeating this falsehood? "Dilation is the elephant in the room explanation for galaxy rotation curves" Show your math.
You should try to some of them long videos that help with sleep I drift off listening to dark matter and wake up to super nova it’s awesome 🙌 your voice would work Anton 😊
I’m 50. I feel like I’m 80. I can understand if the Universe feels older than it really is. It’s been through a lot. Those black holes really suck the life out of you.
Speaking of tired light, I remember listening to a scientist, Roger Penrose I think it was, who had a theory that the speed of light may not be constant, but may slow down over time. Not being a scientist myself I'm not sure if this would affect the red shift or not or how that slowing down would affect our perception of the age of the universe. Not even sure if it could be proven. Not sure how his theory worked but if I remember correctly it went something like the speed of light would slow down to a critical point and that would be the end of our universe, but the beginning of another big bang and the creation of another universe after ours. It was pretty interesting, but the theory was way out of my league for understanding how the nuts and bolts of the thing actually worked. .
"who had a theory that the speed of light may not be constant, but may slow down over time." It is not implausible under the concepts of inflation. I would even go as far to suggest that this may be a fundamental aspect of time-space. I am not an indentured physicist.
I think its incredible that we are still in the infancy of our understanding and that we continue to challenge theories as our abilities to test them out with technology grows as our knowledge increases. Its must be an exciting time to be a physicist, a scientist of all kinds.
I am glad Anton focuses on physics papers and doesn't work for the government's taxation department. I usually take the log of my revenues. The gentleman, who wrote the papers, has some work ahead of him. This was an excellent video.
Considering what we now know as a gravitational wave background, there can easily be an extra millimeter for every kilometer traveled due to gravitational effects on the photon, and that would add up and look a suspiciously lot like red shifting due to expansion, where the photon travels a non-perfectly linear path due to the photon riding up and down the gravitational waves as they pass through the same volume of space, such that the photon travels actually farther than a perfect line expectation measurement would give without the gravitational wave background. According to some physicists changing the timeline to 27.6B years ago for the Big Bang also gets rid of a lot of the Hubble Tension problems.
Don't believe in the Big Bang I believe it goes on forever and ever James Webb Telescope bring us perfect pictures love our universe .I expect to see chaos if there was a big bang out there. There's no chaos just beautiful galaxies.
If one is estimating the age based on light and telescopes, then one can never say with 100% precision. For that matter, I don't think science is enough to tackle this issue
Using redshift calculations and spectrometry has given us many accurate results. Also, why do you say that Science is not enough to tackle this issue? It is the only way to figure out a solution.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440I think the OG comment was just trying to point out the truth. That no matter how much we try, we are limited to the perspective we've been dealt. There are limitations to what physics and the laws of nature will allow us to achieve, to measure, to observe. The rest is beyond our reach due to the limitations of the perspective we have. It doesn't mean you doubt science, it means you don't let ego get in the way of science. It's unrealistic to think will be able to discover all the answers related to our universe. No matter how far we advance, we will never be able to truly learn what happens when something gets sucked into a black hole? Also no matter how much we advance we will only be able to measure, observe so far around us in the universe UNLESS we (the observer) drastically moves but that would require such an immense distance to make even the smallest difference.. Even then, no matter how much we move there will always be aspects of the universe out of reach to observe due to the rate at which they are seeing the universe expand.. I think that's the kind of stuff the original comment was referring to.. I could be wrong tho..?
I mean, we know light is affected by gravity. It's quite possible that the pull on light along with slingshoting around galaxies likely affects light velocity in many ways in addition to the matter dispersed in space. No part of our universe is ever truly empty. As for the claim, it would blur images, I very much doubt that. No effect like this has ever been observed, telescopes don't work like eyes. Ultimately I think using light is a bad idea for determining the age of the universe. The speed of light is only constant in a perfect vacuum.
Simple put, light changes speed as it interacts with a medium, Cherenkov radiation and such, moving through water, etc. a photon takes years to exit the Sun … however once uninhibited in vacuum it moves exactly at C.
"It's quite possible that the pull on light along with slingshoting around galaxies likely affects light velocity in many ways in addition to the matter dispersed in space." Yes, this has been known for decades, this has been measured, this is taken into account by cosmologists. "The speed of light is only constant in a perfect vacuum." Space is so near to a perfect vacuum that there are only ___VERY___ small effects on light. "Ultimately I think using light is a bad idea for determining the age of the universe." So what else do you suggest? And: Did you consider that we can also measure the ages of indivual stars, and these ages agree in essential all cases with the age of the universe determined in other ways?
"The matrix is older than you know. I prefer counting from the emergence of one integral anomaly to the emergence of the next, in which case this is the sixth version."
The trouble is, Anton didn't actually debunk tired light. What he did was show that if such a phenomenon exists it doesn't exist in the way, or to the extent it was presented, without other new physics
You're the man Anton. That said and wholeheartedly meant I kinda dislike throwing cherry picker shade at this guy even if in this instance it may be warranted. So many awesome things have been discovered from people with new ideas scrubbing old data to fit their idea. Exoplanets, standard candles come to mind right away. For every correct theory using this kind of data mining or cherry picking method there is bound to be countless wiffs.. I don't think this is bad science per se... just somebody who got a little too fixed on something that he wanted to work too much.
I'm sure people in a few centuries from now will watch many of our present day science videos while cringing or laughing at how wrong or simplistic our understanding was. Thats the thing about science, it's always tentative and is subject to be superseded by a better theory. I'm sure whole new fields of physics and even a paradigm shift about how we look at the universe is in our future.
Newton's laws of motion are still valid and in use today. Planetary orbits, rocket trajectories, etc. all use Newton's laws. It's only when dealing with relativistic problems are Einstein's Theories required.
Or maybe everything we know right now will get lost as society collapses worldwide We don't know what will happen, we just like to assume things will get better under the illusion of eternal linear progress, which has turned to not be that eternal nor linear after all
I understand photons don’t experience time from their frame of reference. Would the tired light hypothesis then contradict this principle given that it is premised on photons losing energy over time?
As a female educator I have to point out that in order to debate a topic or propose a difference of opinion one does not have to qualify the author of the original paper as stupid. We would say that weakens the second paper substantially. Proving any hypothesis of this magnitude as disproven simply because there is a wealth of papers is not very good science. Unless something is a 100 percent provable 100 percent of the time it is still in hypothesis form. Take for instance blue LED spectrum, the wealth of data proving it to be impossible or impractical was there. One scientist with a tenacity proved them wrong. The individual utilized for disproving a theory or hypothesis would have failed in their submission as using opinion based verbage....is not how debate and discourse work... There was also a lot of papers on the big bang and look where we are now...rethinking. That's how science works, especially when we the observers are just a pinpoint on a pinpoint in the vastness that is the universe. Love your work Anton, but I feel the quoted piece at 1:49 is speculative. I am not in agreement with either person but ideas are just that, the spark for discovery and discovery happens over and over and some old ideas can have merit or a shred of merit. ❤
It's interesting that you feel the need to specify your gender before making this statement. As a man, I find it much easier to call someone stupid rather than argue with them about why they are wrong.
"Unless something is a 100 percent provable 100 percent of the time it is still in hypothesis form." Thanks for showing that youdon't understand how science works.
@Rishi123456789 come on, someone needs to educate females. Otherwise, they will all end up being teachers and complain about not making enough money for only working half a year.
- Do red stars very far away appear more red due to the "red shift"? - Gravity around a massive star or galaxy causes bending of space-time. It reminds me of the bending of light due to the refractive index of glass. Is the "red shift" just "the prism effect"?
There are several solid mechanisms behind light red shifting without expansion and the ridiculous big bang theory. What would be weird is light not red shifting over 90 billion miles. And the CMB is exactly what you would expect to see in a steady state universe. No matter which way you look, you would see old light that is highly redshifted. It doesn't have to be big bang residue. It can come from just an eternal field of stars. Unfortunately, it is...very blurry.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 Wait... you still think expansion is based on a giant explosion? No one believes that is the cause of expansion anymore. Even the people that still attach the big bang to start of expansion, like some kind of prehensile tail, don't believe that is the reason they believe the universe is expanding at an increasing rate.
@@OakInch You stated that "the CMB ("CME" was a typo, wasn't it?) is exactly what one would expect to see in a steady state universe." No. You have that wrong. "The steady state theory was disproved using two observations: (1) counts of radio sources and (2) cosmic microwave background radiation." "For most cosmologists, the refutation of the steady-state model came with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964, which was predicted by the Big Bang theory." The detection of, and the observations of, the CMB were actually the refutation, and not the evidence for, that you have erroneously claimed.
@@johnrap7203CMB. No. You would expect to see red shifted light in all directions for a more steady state centered theory. It doesn't have to be exact steady state. It can certainly happen with no big bang. You really said nothing that refutes it. If things far away always red shift, due to expansion, or some other reason, and not the big bang, why would you expect anything less than a lot of microwave frequency light in all directions? The CMB does not prove the big bang theory. It proves there is Microwave light coming from all directions. That is it. That is exactly what you would expect from an infinite universe. An endless sea of red shifted light. The current science is that all light red shifts due to accelerating expansion, not the big bang throwing things outwards. So the CMB does not prove the big bang theory. It is just far red shifted light that could come from far away things. The comment about radio sources also is not a proof of the big bang. Basically what I am saying is those things you mentioned are already outdated by newer theories of inflation and exponential expansion which explain red shifted light. I am saying those same theories apply to a non big bang universe. Big bang is just something they tack onto the front of these theories like a prehensile tail.
"There are several solid mechanisms behind light red shifting without expansion" For example? And how do you explain all the _other_ evidence we have for expansion, _additional_ to redshift? "What would be weird is light not red shifting over 90 billion miles." Did you confuse miles and lightyears here, or what? :D "And the CMB is exactly what you would expect to see in a steady state universe. " Show your math. Explain the perfect black body spectrum of the CMBR. Explain its power spectrum. Explain the acoustic peaks. " It can come from just an eternal field of stars. " No, it can't, it would have a totally different spectrum. The combined light of all stars actually _has_ been observed, at a _different_ wavelenght, with a _different_ spectrum from the CMBR.
I'm just glad I'm not smort enough to have someone like Feynman publicly call me stupid. Imma just keep my head down over here, stick to my stone knives and bearskins, and keep watching Petrov's videos. Yours truly, Grug.
Move to Mars, and then come back here-you’ll be able to grok a la Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land…
@@carolynnunes3922 Lazarus Long!
Wrong, Diphthong. Yours truly, Groot.
Yeah, having a popular moron call you stupid can make you feel stupid even if you are not.
😂
I think it was Leo Szilard who said, "Mediocre scientists should be paid not to do science." I must agree. Still waiting for that first check.
I'm joining you. Has to be better than retirement benefits.
Cheque
@@shaynegallagher6006 Mate
Yeah they should just start RUclips channels right?
@@shaynegallagher6006 Check. We are not French barbarians.
Light has every right to get tired.
🥹😅😂🤣Funny! Thanks for the guffaws!
its all relative
Anton missed out at 6:25. Tired light should've been put to bed.
It’s the infinity effect
Is all Light related or just relatives?
How long is a single light beam?
How long can a light beam travel?
Do older light beams look different than younger light beams?
“Time flies when your having fun” -light going from beginning of time to end of time in no time
Thanks!
I'm 27 billion years old and I don't remember a universe being around in my teenage years
You give new meaning to the expression 'Long in the Tooth'
Comparing to me, your 93 billion years old grandpa... you're very young, my 27-ish billion years olf grand-grandchild.
Funny how your newborn offsprings, my grand-grand-grandchildren, are starting to brag with their almost 14 billion years age.
How much you must've changed, and yet, stayed the same
Depends on where you were. We had several move in, and well. . . here we are. Seem to be everywhere now.
Cornpop is a bad dude!
Thank you, Anton, once again for such amazing content ❤
Tired light?
Last time I heard this theory I was in High School...1974!
Damn...that was really 50 years ago?
Light does not experience time since it travels at c.
I graduated '74.
@@douglaswilkinson5700 But light has momentum...light bends this way, that way...never in a straight line...gravity and all that.
Point being, accelerating a thingee takes energy, bending light is not 'free'.
@@pirobot668beta Light bends due to following spacetime curvature, not due to being accelerated.
@@pirobot668beta Well, I think the bending of light due to gravity is not so much force being applied, expending energy, rather, its space itself bending. So, to light's perspective, its traveling in a straight line.
"Tired light" is a wonderful example of formulating a hypothesis and then testing it by experiment or observation. In this case the hypothesis failed, but science still progressed.
I do not see much progress here. This failed hypothesis did not led to anything useful. If I propose that there is a small dwarf standing on every nucleon, would falsifying my hypothesis add anything to physics?
@arctic_haze falsifying the "tired photon" hypothesis provided plenty of new data sets that confirmed the "universe expands" hypothesis. What would falsifying your dwarf "hypothesis" contribute to?
@@JosePineda-cy6om This is nothing like the war has been won in the 1960s against the steady state hypothesis. Tired photons did not triggered much research, only some papers on time dilatation in quasars and surface brightness of the galaxies. So yes, technically that was progress but very local and limited one.
@@arctic_hazeThat is an outstanding example that I thought of decades ago, almost verbatim.
@@jjt1881 What exactly?
Thank you Anton for providing such an eloquent explanation of the subject material! You always provide objective observations backed up with science, facts, and logical reasoning - something that is missing online... May you stay blessed.
Thank You again, Anton for yet another fantastic video! 👏
Very well, and nicely, done!
You are a great science journalist! We appreciate your factual reporting and highly interesting topics! Keep it up:)
Many times I watch your videos just for that beautiful smile in the end. Keep marching Anton, you wonderful person.
Thank you Anton,, for allowing me to reminisce!: Constants change (modulate) over time, haha, is something I pondered as a youngster. I came up with it on my own, and with a little math learning, and chemistry, I quickly admitted defeat with the gain in knowledge to keep me studying and thinking like the adult that I have become. It's been over 30 years now, and the thought brings a slight smile to myself when I think back on it,, kinda like santa. The same type of thought nags me of late when I consider MOND. It's really cute, and I understand how it gets blown out of proportion now that we can freely put these ideas out on the net. Gr8! Peace ☮💜
After all you have been through, thank you for sticking with it and producing these wonderful and knowledgeable videos, Anton.
What has he been through? Did something awful happen to our poor boy Anton 😢
Even in the darkest of times, Anton is still there covering all the fascinating science topics and calling us Wonderful Persons whilst being the Most Wonderful Person ;)
agreed ... its pretty much the only reason I remain subscribed
Dark times?
@AndyWitmyer its midnight here in the UK. thats what he means by dark times.
@Israelisnotourfriend it is ;)
Agree.
Cherry picking data to fit an idea ? Where else may this be happening ?
Pretty much every study everywhere
@@amlord3826 You clearly haven't conducted a single scientific study before.
Sometimes it happens. When I'm talking to my friends. About how many girls I dated.
Climate alarmists
@@PsillyApeUSAI have a conspiracy theory (××puts on tinfoil hat××) that climate doomers are paid by climate deniers to harm the fight against climate change lmao
Because that's precisely what these people do - between false dates and critical alarmism, they push people away from a solution; why should you care about fighting against climate change if everything is doomed and there's nothing anyone could ever do?
The worst way to fight climate change is to be an alarmist
Wonderful as always Anton. Thank you. 😉👍
New research, published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, suggests a phenomenon called “bursty star formation” that can easily explain the puzzle of apparently high mass galaxies in the early universe. Instead of the steady rate and gradual star formation typically observed in more modern and massive galaxies like the Milky Way, bursty star formation features short, intense periods of stellar birth and death followed by longer, quieter phases. According to the simulations, this flash-bulb approach of bursty star formation can lead to some early galaxies emitting so much light that it inflates their implied mass. Using new simulations, Northwestern University-led team of astrophysicists now has discovered that these galaxies likely are not so massive after all and are young. The apparent anomalies have also been traced to erroneously using standard estimates (called IMF, or initial mass functions) for mass, relevant to the Milky Way in our current universe, to the early universe (See Becky).
Busty star lol that's funny. Try EU model is way more logically sound
@SanityTV_Last_Sane_Man_Alive The tired light concept has been debunked repeatedly since it was first proposed by Fritz Zwicky almost a century ago. Zwicky himself was sceptical about the concept. Tired light will produce dimmer and more blurry objects. However, astrophysical observations do not observe this. In other words, there is no evidence of this. The brightness and clarity of the objects is checked, as a matter of routine procedure by professional astronomers before the redshift is confirmed. Furthermore, the time dilation, as predicted by Einstein’s General Relativity Theory, is actually seen in the decay time of supernova light curves. This confirms that the cosmic redshift and light curves are independent of any hypothetical “tired light.” The CMB also does not support the tired light hypothesis as it would look different if this hypothesis was true. The perfect blackbody spectrum of the CMB, actually observed by our most accurate scientific instruments, contradicts the tired light hypothesis. The hypothesis is not able to explain such a spectrum.
I have to say, you are decent,rational,logical & beautiful minded .thank you🌷
It is possible that what we like to call the big bang is merely a local event in a much, much larger universe.
Yes!
It's also possible that this is a simulated hell, and that the only real people are the ones who suffer constant punishment.
Yes it is and I feel like a lot of astronomers talk about this being a real possibility however it’s incredibly hard to prove or disprove this
@@JB52520 This is hell? If so it's a pretty spectacular hell to live in if so.
No. If the big bang had been an explosion happening at a specific point in an already existing larger universe, we would get _totally_ different observations.
Thanks for clearing that uo Anton
dum kweshun - since the universe is expanding, shouldn't far away objects appear not only red-shifted, but also larger than they actually are? Because the light coming from them is passing through space that is not only getting stretched in the direction of travel, but also stretched side-to-side? So galaxies from the beginning of galaxy formation would appear magnified compared to how those same galaxies would appear if they were near by?
Yes, and that has been known for decades, and is taken into account.
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 nice
Perhaps the blurriness should be an issue if it is distortion at larger distances, but one easily modify the hypothesis and say the blurriness will be seen at a bigger scale, just like they modify in string theory for undetected particles by saying they are heavier or require more energy and bigger colliders...
@@jonathanhockey9943No, the blurriness can't be modified that easily, it results from known physical processes.
And I think you confuse string theory with supersymmetry.
Great explanation, you make scientific theories much easier to understand.
I love how the young earth creationist crowd was head over heels over the pop sci articles about the big bang being overturned but never bothered to check the source or stick around for the corrections.
This is irrelevant. This idea is about an older universe, which is the opposite of the creationists saying God created everything not too long ago.
Not trying to be a buzz kill, but the big bang theory is a creationist theory. It's straight out of genesis I.
@@Soupy_loopyLast Thursdayism is the simple explanation for that from a theistic perspective.
@@Soupy_loopy That's the whole point. Creationists always glom on to anything in science that is not understood and anything where the understanding changes based on evidence -- AS IF that boosts their case. It never does, but that doesn't stop them due to their exceedingly motivated reasoning. Have you ever heard them go on and on about the Cambrian Explosion? AS IF it proves that the earth was created in 6 days. If you tell them that it took tens of millions of years and ask which Cambrian fossil is their ancestor, they change the subject and soon enough go on about the Cambrian Explosion being evidence of a young earth again. They never correct themselves, they never bother to get the science right. And they did indeed do it again when this information from JWST came out about the universe looking older than we expect. Because they aren't about finding out what is true. They're about misrepresenting science to try to fit a mythology they've redefined as the capital T Truth.
@@MultiSpeedMetal Yeah I'd forgotten about Last Thursdayism. Oh I must mention there's no such thing as Last Thursdayism because as everyone knows, except you, it really is Last Tuesdayism.
What about the Hubble Constant?
I saw this "older universe" story pop-up on my Facebook page. I knew it was B.S. as soon as I saw it. Thanks for the video! 😊
Changing constants over cosmological timescales is one of those areas I've wondered about. It's nice to learn about the evidence that refutes the idea.
I must’ve missed something, why do they expect tired light to burr? It has other problems, but where exactly does this blurr idea come from?
Yes, would be interesting to hear the supposed "Mechanism" involved here. As this claim is often made. But never seen the supporting explanation of how or why.
I’m actually on the fence between the two, but I doubt we’re anywhere near the proper evidence to legitimately estimate longer than we currently have just yet.
But thanks to various developments, last I checked, the presumed energy of space itself was approximated at 5 protons per cubic meter. In order for space to continue expanding without incurring certain hypotheticals like “cosmic rip” etc…
So even “inflation” itself may depend on certain elements brought up by the idea of “tired light”. So throwing out those notions completely may be part of why “crisis in cosmology” is even happening.
@@MarsStarcruiser Wow, this string is chalk full of the pontification of people pretending knowledge.
@@braxon Lots we don’t know lol. Only time will tell I guess
@@MarsStarcruiser sure, but until then, the internet is sure to assume that every gap in our knowledge must be affirmative proof of the most ridiculous conclusions.
What a great video! Thank you!
I like the concept of grabbing new data, and redo the measurements every year using various methods, just to keep a continuous check of things. In a hundred years from now, any differentials would be visible in all these tested data.
Thanks You for video! Great explanation!
Thank you for explaining this propperly because the amount of times i have come across videos and comments of people who don't know any better who say it's that old and all that... Was pulling my heartstrings, now i can sleep a lttle easier knowing fhe public is informed propperly by Anton the Legend.
Calm down, I'm pretty sure that most people never heard of this to begin with. I didn't, and I watch science channels all the time.
@@Soupy_loopy I ain't talking about you, shush.
@@jaymxu you really just annoy everyone and don't have the self awareness to realize it. It's hilarious 😂
@Thizzamajig Okay lil bro whatever makes you feel a lil more important 💀
@@jaymxu says the guy that writes meaningless novels in comment sections and then thinks he deserves a prize for being insufferable 😂
Finally a good tired light hypothesis explanation, thank you!
It is so easy for all of this information to fly directly over everyone's head and become uninteresting, but Anton always seems to present the information in a way that is engaging and informative. Thank you for the amazing content as always!
💔💔💔 my serious condolences for your son and the loss of such a beautiful person that I know he would have grown up to be because you are absolutely beautiful in time thank you for everything!
VERY COOL 😎! Thanks Anton!
Thank you for this. I'd heard about this hypothesis but had no idea whether it was well founded or not. Your video so helpful.
So much for the University of Ottawa astronomy program. Glad I went to other university.
a very passionate, fantastic video. a very outspoken vibe to it.
Another wonderful video.
To my eye, the distant ring galaxy visible inside Hoag’s object actually does look a great deal less in-focus than the foreground galaxy.
As evidence against tired light, the claim of equivalent sharpness of image is not compelling.
That's due to the resolution of the picture
@@highviewbarbell
So what you're saying is the raw data was in better focus but the picture isn't?
Why would that be?
@@mmaximk are you asking me why a digital picture doesn't have infinite resolution and zoom?
@@highviewbarbell
Anton offered that image as a demonstration of a foreground object and background object being equivalently sharp.
As stated in my first comment, to my eye they do not look equivalently sharp.
Your first reply agrees with my premise that they are not equally sharp but your explanation for why that is the case is not clear.
My inquiry for clarification instead draws a defensive and nonsensical response.
Neither object is at an infinite distance.
The point was, as far away it is, it would not be visible, rather a blur. It is quite clear, maybe need readers?😂
Thank yiu Wonderful Anton !
The best comments from the scientific world recently is the admission of "we don't know. " 😮😂😂😂
Happens very rarely, sadly.
thank you,, did follow this closely.. liked and shared ofcourse..
The thing that made me feel incensed was when I learned there is no scientific base for the multi-verse theory (the one where every decision splits into a identical universe, but where the other decision was taken). But so much media and even some scientists suggest it is more than likely true and there are numberless worlds just like our own existing and being made every second.
Yeah, you could say that they believe in the multiverse by… _blind faith._
There's a difference between science and belief. There always will be. You get to believe in anything you want to even if science says no way.
@@stephencorsaro954 Its one thing to believe in something, it's another to teach your belief as though it is scientific and to pass it off to the masses as fact
There is though, it is a prediction that falls naturally out of the Schrödinger equation which we have shown to be extremely successful at predicting the functioning of our universe. It’s just that what it is is an interpretation of quantum mechanics which inherently makes it impossible to directly verify, so no it’s not a scientific fact and almost certainly it never will be because we can’t observe it directly, but that is also equally true of all interpretations of quantum mechanics.
Compare that to the much more bullshit idea people have that the universe “is most likely a simulation”. That isn’t an idea predicted by any successful theories, it’s basically just religion for nerds, but people do act like that has “real scientific reasoning”
Very nice, Anton! I am constantly trying to point out to people that work on "modified gravity" hypotheses is all very well as a thought experiment, but thinking that it will instantly override all existing observations that disagree with the concept is just plain ridiculous! Think I'll bookmark that article for sharing at them.
And modified gravity does not cause lensing!
This would be a pretty funny resolution to the Crisis in Cosmology, if _all_ of them turned out to be wrong.
That is almost certainly the caseb
You're wrong, Diphthong
We all know what the universe truly is
A crab. The one true constant in time and space.
Quiet heretic. How do you think science works? By open discussion of experimental data?
I thought it was turtles. All the way down!
I have always felt we have alot to learn as it comes to the expected age of the universe. I can't wait to see what we discover
The tired light theory makes more sense than assuming a Doppler effect supporting an expanding universe theory.
I was a radar operator in the US Navy in the late 1960's.
High frequency radars have a shorter effective range and were used in target acquisition systems.
Low frequency radars were used for long range identification.
High frequency electromagnetic emissions loose their energy more rapidly than low frequency radars.
Light is an electromagnetic wave in the human visual spectrum, lower frequencies of light are called infrared.
All of these electromagnetic emissions travel through vastness of the universe, they encounter charged particles, clouds of dust, and other electromagnetic waves from many sources. All of these encounters absorb energy from the full spectrum of emissions, the further the source, the more energy is lost.
It seems more reasonable to me, that the further away a light source is, the light will be red shifted by the distance and not the velocity or direction of the source. The Hubble Constant is still valid, assuming that all light sources emit a full spectrum of electromagnetic waves.
The "Big Bang" or expanding universe theory requires a starting point, a singularity, where nothing existed until it did,
Sounds more like a scientific creationist theory.
More will be learned in the future. There will be more versions of the James Web Telescope that will be stationed further out in our solar system. We will see much further, We may see billions of new galaxies. We may finally stare into infinity.
_"The tired light theory..."_
Does not exist. No mechanism, no evidence, and no need for it.
_"The "Big Bang" or expanding universe theory requires a starting point, a singularity, where nothing existed until it did,"_
Wrong. That just shows that you do not understand what the BBT actually says.
_"All of these encounters absorb energy from the full spectrum of emissions, the further the source, the more energy is lost."_
And would also cause blurring. Did you not watch the video?
@visualedtech The red shift is not explained in terms of a doppler effect, its not because the source of the light is moving away. The mathematical theory put it down to an expansion of the very fabric of space, the light is travelling through/in/on a medium that is expanding. The universe and its galaxies are not expanding into something, the universe itself (the fabric of space) is expanding. That's their current best model.
_"they encounter charged particles, clouds of dust, and other electromagnetic waves from many sources"_
All of which cause blurring of distant objects. Which is not seen. Fact is, tired light is considered crackpottery, because it is invoked by said crackpots without having a single viable mechanism.
_"The "Big Bang" or expanding universe theory requires a starting point, a singularity, where nothing existed until it did,"_
Nope. That is a flat earth or creationist level explanation for what the BBT says. Hint: it does not say that.
Does your high frequency emissions transform into low frequency emissions over time?
Yo .. I think my guy sped up his talking speed in editing. I'm all here for it 🙏🙏 thank you
If people only understood the constraints that cosmologists have to deal with when they build an extremely complex model, they might understand.
But I doubt it.
An entire 45 min lecture in 15 min plus relevant, no bad teacher
jokes or random stories about the 80s. Your our hero Anton 🎉❤😂 If we have a system where we can be tutored by peers it's almost like an open guild now. Kind of a wild time when you consider what might be possible. Then again on what scale? Is there really something generated with the rest of us thinking about it but not really wrestling with the maths. I've had soooo many instincts listening to lecturers that I felt I came up with as a matter of fact from where I know not but then always later on I find myself listening to a professor talk to someone who just wants to talk and all that and you find out the documentarians and lecture hall rock stars have been out there making a living selling white washed science bs, outdated principles and bits of personal bias.
Yeah, I think the University of Ottawa proposal is pretty weak. Doing science, you've got to get as comfortable as possible with knowing that you don't know yet. Thanks Anton.
Love this channel! This one made me laugh.
We are blind men stumbling around in the dark.
Thank you
Impossible to imagine what we don't know! We imagine ourselves as a highly advanced society until something very special comes to light. If our universe is as old as we previously thought, we're still scratching the surface of knowledge. Our history only goes back a few thousand years.
Impossible to imagine what we don't know?
Rubbish. That means we would never learn anything.
The opposite is true. We imagine things that we don't know. And also imagine things that are false.
I'm certainly no physicist, but a while back I came up with the idea that parts of a wave function that get consumed by black holes cannot collapse backwards through the event horizon. Traveling particles would appear to lose energy the further they get from their source, specifically a decrease of distance traveled squared, and a smaller cubed component, based on the surface area and volume respectively, of the virtual relativistic sphere that the wave function could exist in. This would also let us map the evolution of the density of primordial black holes throughout the lifetime of the universe.
Idk how quantum physics would handle collapsing only part of a wave function and letting the other half persist, but I thought it was an interesting idea when I was in college lol (I understand wave functions more now haha)
It's fun to try to come up with novel solutions, it's just important to acknowledge them as highly speculative, and not cherry pick evidence that specifically backs up your idea 😊 Much love to all the scientists who are willing to self-criticize 💛
The speed of light in vacuum is c. But our universe has been around a while. Space isn't a vacuum, it's full of electrons and protons, metal ions, EM fields, dust, and 13 billion years of other detritus that builds up over time. Space has a refractive index that varies in unknown ways as light travels to us. Not to mention gravitational effects. It's not "tired", it's bent.
It is well known that light is "bent" a little bit on the way to us. This can be measured, this is taken into account.
Extra arguments:
1) Light travels at the speed of light, and therefore time slows down to zero from a photon's point of view; so a photon does not have enough time to get tired.
2) Energy has to go somewhere. If light loses energy, where does it go? We'd need some kind of "photon decay".
3) Constants could only change IF no net energy is riding on them. If changing a universal constant by a part per million would cause an energetic change in the universe equivalent to millions of supernovas, then it should require that sort of energy to affect the constant by that much.
Photon man: "I just flew in from Betelgeuse and boy am I tired! Really, you wouldn't believe the traffic I had to squeeze through just to get here. Good old "Juicy" let one rip? ;)
Light cannot be tired. It does not experience time.
I thought you were going to say …” I just flew in, and boy are my arms tired! “
Remember when we all thought our universe was 15 billion years old back in the 90s.
thx Anton, for your clear explanation why tired light hypothesis is probably wrong. Since there were no updates from scientists who endorsed the hypothesis I already thought it might be wrong. Thx for the background information.
Anton has mostly retold a website named "Errors in Tired Light Cosmology". Yes, there are several problems that tired light creates why solving none.
i still remember watching the live report on the Higgs-Bosson particle from the VLC in Geneva, when it was called out it was a 'split decision' between our current 'periodic table model' and/or transferring towards a complete overhaul into our view of space-, and time, and how this decision was made based on absolutely nothing more than a nostalgia towards our current system and the loyalty shown towards those scientists that created the periodic table, rather than actual proof. that decision was such an eye-opener for me that my 'grain of salt' idea got only more footing about our origens and science as a whole.
Photons might get "tired" and loose fractions of there energy when they interact with virtual particles.
This also makes some virtual particles convert to real matter conserving the constant of energy.
If you can make the equations to show that and demonstrate that this process would create more matter than antimatter... Dude, you could get a Nobel.
Seriously, because it would also explain why there's so much matter compared to antimatter.
Yes but any kind of scattering would make the distant sources look diffuse. Anton explains this in his video.
I admire your videos. Anyway, after having spoken standard English 23 years, I lose some words of your speech. As you speak quite quickly, I suggest as as follows. Please choose the wheel from top of the page. Reduce Speed by 25%(=0,75*). - I wish the best Anton! Awaiting your NeXT video.🤓😃😅
This is comparable to looking at the street light at the top of my street and saying the known universe ends there, 13 billion light years, 28 billion light years... it's still only the street light at the top of our street. More questions, the better... love your Channel Anton!!!! 😊🎉
No, that is not comparable at all! No one is talking about where the universe ends! What on Earth are you talking about?!?
Yes, you are correct! Thank you!
Reminds me of a t-shirt I saw while browsing through an army surplus store in downtown Toronto over a decade ago. It had the Insignia of some army sniper Squad and contained the words: " you can run but you'll just die tired" 😅
Everyone, everything gets tired by expending energy. Bullets, people. Everything but not photons
Do we really know how old the universe is. I believe it is much older than what we understand. Like other predictions that are just wrong that have to do with the universe. And I’m not a big bang theory guy. It would be impossible for a singularity to expand to what we see now. The physics that could explain this doesn’t exist.
"Do we really know how old the universe is."
Yes. That can be determined by different methods, and the results agree with each other.
"I believe it is much older than what we understand."
Your belief is based on ignorance. You simply don't know all of the observations.
"And I’m not a big bang theory guy."
What's your alternative?
"It would be impossible for a singularity to expand to what we see now. "
Why?
"The physics that could explain this doesn’t exist."
Yes, it does. It's called "General Relativity". Has existed for over 100 years. Ever heard of that?
Photon packet disbursement in gravitational, electromagnetic localities slows light, but this affect is local. Hence tired light is only tired at localities, and cannot exist in non-localities.
So, on the one hand, there would be an unknown mechanism that is stretching out the wavelength of individual photons, perhaps at the quantum scale, involving relatively small amounts of energy. On the other hand, we have an unknown mechanism that is expanding the entire universe, stretching out the wavelength of individual photons in the process, involving staggeringly incomprehensible amounts of energy on a cosmological scale. Hmm....
"involving relatively small amounts of energy. ... involving staggeringly incomprehensible amounts of energy on a cosmological scale"
??? What on Earth are you talking about? The amount of energy obviously is the same in both cases, since they result in the same observed redshift!
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 Are you sure that you understand how cosmological redshift works? As the universe expands, that expansion stretches out the wavelength of the light passing through space. The "staggeringly incomprehensible amounts of energy" to which I refer in that instance is the energy required to expand space, not the energy required to stretch the light. A tremendous amount of energy would indeed be required to expand the universe; that is why physicists say dark energy would have to make up 68% of the energy in the observable universe.
It does not follow that stretching the wavelength of light by any other, currently unknown mechanism would require the same amount of energy as is required to expand space itself. For example, if virtual particles created transient spacetime curvatures that have an effect akin to gravitational redshift on passing light, the amount of energy involved would be, relatively speaking, much smaller than that required to expand the universe 😉
Though... in truth, virtual particles do not strike me as a likely candidate for an "unknown mechanism" responsible for observed redshift, since those transient spacetime curvatures should, in theory, cause light to blueshift as it entered them, then redshift as it exited them - with a net wavelength change of zero 🤣
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 It's a fair observation. Either the universe is getting bigger, or stuff inside the universe is getting bigger. I'd say making the universe bigger would need a wee little more energy than stretching a few photons.
I don't remember much of it but my favorite theory on the start is that there's something like a quantum field that some times vibrates and creates/disappears matter, when an area is voided enough some matter becomes stable and stays around. meaning the universe may have just slowly appeared over a large area at one time instead of in sudden bangs.
also a question. have we noticed more red shifted lights in one or two directions more than the other directions?
Redshift is caused by an increase in wavelength, not a loss in velocity or energy.
Stay Wonderful, Anton!
It still loses energy though... E = (hc)/λ
The "loss in energy" was a reference to the "Tired light" hypothesis
@@AntonioDellElceUK Which actually sounds far more plausible than a universe expanding at the speed of light :D
If some of the photons were lost out of the signal, then distant galaxies would appear to dim rather than fade. The photons remaining would still be sharp and in focus. The waves of photons may redshift simply because less of them would cause some of them waves of photons to disappear entirely. Maybe there's a chance they just get grabbed up on their way past a random proton.
Conservation of energy does not hold in an expanding universe.
Thank you for prefacing it clearly. Your a paragon of educational professionalism
3:34 i mean it makes sense if light is considered a wave, it can't move forever and maybe could work with the Doppler effect, the only way we can find out is to get more data. (Not saying it's correct by any means but still we need data to figure out what is actually going on)
In the game of life, walkers will propagate forever unless they hit something. Not that the universe is like that. I'm just saying that it's possible for activity to propagate indefinitely in the right medium. Some waves can move forever.
"it makes sense if light is considered a wave, it can't move forever"
Huh? How does that follow?
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 well the osculation of a wave is movement which changes direction so one would thing energy is used to do that unless light has a special thing going on or actually isn't a wave while traveling.
@@deltacx1059 osculation? Do you perhaps mean oscillation?
"is movement which changes direction so one would thing energy is used to do that"
Do you _really_ want to claim that as waves propagate, energy is consumed, or what?!? If yes, you should read up on basic physics.
Totally agree with the constant it's in real charge over time. And time is also not a constant, in the early stages of Univers. The graph looks like an inverted exponential curve. Starting from infinity.
0:15 Bro, there were hundreds of JWST hype videos, where people made predictions about the distant observations, when the JWST was on the ground. "We will see the birth of the universe. The first generation galaxies and stars. We would see from the birth of the universe to modern day." The collisions, of baby galaxies, from the dusk of the dark age. One thing was right, we can see as far back as they said we would. They didn't find what they said we would.
yeah, but don’t pop Anton’s bubbie.
"We will see the birth of the universe."
No scientist ever said that.
"They didn't find what they said we would."
Yes, they did. You only don't see that reported in the media - because the media likes only sensational news, not "we found what we expected".
Great debunking video, thanks.
Dark matter is dilated mass. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" Einstein wrote -
"The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of G.R. predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters (star clusters) whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light."
He was referring to the phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". A graph illustrates its squared nature, dilation increases at an exponential rate the closer you get to the speed of light. A "time dilation" graph illustrates the same phenomenon, it's not just time that gets dilated.
Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. There is no singularity/black hole at the center of our galaxy. It can be inferred mathematically that dilation is occurring there. In other words that mass is all around us. This is the explanation for galaxy rotation curves. The "missing mass" is dilated mass.
Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. To date, 6 very low mass galaxies including NGC 1052-DF2 and DF4 have been confirmed to show no signs of dark matter. This also explains why all planets and all binary stars have normal rotation rates, not 3 times normal.
The concept of singularities is preventing clarity in astronomy. Einstein is known to have repeatedly said that they cannot exist. Nobody believed in them when he was alive including Plank, Bohr, Schrodinger, Dirac, Heisenberg, Feynman etc.
@ConontheBinarian General Relativity predicts dilation, not singularities. Dilation is the elephant in the room explanation for galaxy rotation curves
Penrose demonstrated singularity to be inevitable. Not sure but I assume massive particles are destroyed before they have a chance to reach light speed anyway. Final issues being information loss due to Hawking radiation but that has also not been observed. Safe to say the event horizon at least has been observed, therefore, a possibility the singularity is behind it as implied.
@@RicardoMarlowFlamenco There is no singularities, Hawking radiation or event horizons. Black holes were popularized by television and movies beginning in the 1960's. What we see in modern astronomy has been known since 1925. This is when the existence of galaxies was confirmed. It was clear that there should be an astronomical quantity of light emanating from our own galactic center.
@@shawns0762 "General Relativity predicts dilation, not singularities. "
I already told you several times that GR predicts _both_. Why do you keep repeating this falsehood?
"Dilation is the elephant in the room explanation for galaxy rotation curves"
Show your math.
You should try to some of them long videos that help with sleep I drift off listening to dark matter and wake up to super nova it’s awesome 🙌 your voice would work Anton 😊
I’m 50. I feel like I’m 80. I can understand if the Universe feels older than it really is. It’s been through a lot. Those black holes really suck the life out of you.
Speaking of tired light, I remember listening to a scientist, Roger Penrose I think it was, who had a theory that the speed of light may not be constant, but may slow down over time. Not being a scientist myself I'm not sure if this would affect the red shift or not or how that slowing down would affect our perception of the age of the universe. Not even sure if it could be proven. Not sure how his theory worked but if I remember correctly it went something like the speed of light would slow down to a critical point and that would be the end of our universe, but the beginning of another big bang and the creation of another universe after ours. It was pretty interesting, but the theory was way out of my league for understanding how the nuts and bolts of the thing actually worked. .
Err, did you miss the part of the video where Anton was addressing exactly this? (a change in the constants of nature)
"who had a theory that the speed of light may not be constant, but may slow down over time." It is not implausible under the concepts of inflation. I would even go as far to suggest that this may be a fundamental aspect of time-space.
I am not an indentured physicist.
I think its incredible that we are still in the infancy of our understanding and that we continue to challenge theories as our abilities to test them out with technology grows as our knowledge increases. Its must be an exciting time to be a physicist, a scientist of all kinds.
I am glad Anton focuses on physics papers and doesn't work for the government's taxation department. I usually take the log of my revenues. The gentleman, who wrote the papers, has some work ahead of him.
This was an excellent video.
i’ve always wondered about this
I took a flashlight into my bathroom and my toilet bowl bent the light. Massive dark matter helped.
🙌
Your main account got banned or something so now you're spamming the same unfunny toilet joke everywhere with this one?
Lmfao
Genius
That's a load of crap.
Considering what we now know as a gravitational wave background, there can easily be an extra millimeter for every kilometer traveled due to gravitational effects on the photon, and that would add up and look a suspiciously lot like red shifting due to expansion, where the photon travels a non-perfectly linear path due to the photon riding up and down the gravitational waves as they pass through the same volume of space, such that the photon travels actually farther than a perfect line expectation measurement would give without the gravitational wave background. According to some physicists changing the timeline to 27.6B years ago for the Big Bang also gets rid of a lot of the Hubble Tension problems.
Don't believe in the Big Bang I believe it goes on forever and ever James Webb Telescope bring us perfect pictures love our universe .I expect to see chaos if there was a big bang out there. There's no chaos just beautiful galaxies.
If one is estimating the age based on light and telescopes, then one can never say with 100% precision. For that matter, I don't think science is enough to tackle this issue
Using redshift calculations and spectrometry has given us many accurate results. Also, why do you say that Science is not enough to tackle this issue? It is the only way to figure out a solution.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 why not drop the ego and just ask god for the answer? we dont have to do all this alone you know.
@@johnmarkson1990 did he answer yet?
@@johnmarkson1990
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440I think the OG comment was just trying to point out the truth. That no matter how much we try, we are limited to the perspective we've been dealt. There are limitations to what physics and the laws of nature will allow us to achieve, to measure, to observe. The rest is beyond our reach due to the limitations of the perspective we have. It doesn't mean you doubt science, it means you don't let ego get in the way of science. It's unrealistic to think will be able to discover all the answers related to our universe. No matter how far we advance, we will never be able to truly learn what happens when something gets sucked into a black hole? Also no matter how much we advance we will only be able to measure, observe so far around us in the universe UNLESS we (the observer) drastically moves but that would require such an immense distance to make even the smallest difference.. Even then, no matter how much we move there will always be aspects of the universe out of reach to observe due to the rate at which they are seeing the universe expand.. I think that's the kind of stuff the original comment was referring to.. I could be wrong tho..?
I watch your content daily as an effective antidote to modern science communication.
I mean, we know light is affected by gravity. It's quite possible that the pull on light along with slingshoting around galaxies likely affects light velocity in many ways in addition to the matter dispersed in space. No part of our universe is ever truly empty.
As for the claim, it would blur images, I very much doubt that. No effect like this has ever been observed, telescopes don't work like eyes.
Ultimately I think using light is a bad idea for determining the age of the universe. The speed of light is only constant in a perfect vacuum.
Can't wait to read your peer-reviewed paper.
Mass curves spacetime. Light in a vacuum travels along this curvature.
The velocity of light is a constant to all observers.
Simple put, light changes speed as it interacts with a medium, Cherenkov radiation and such, moving through water, etc. a photon takes years to exit the Sun … however once uninhibited in vacuum it moves exactly at C.
"It's quite possible that the pull on light along with slingshoting around galaxies likely affects light velocity in many ways in addition to the matter dispersed in space."
Yes, this has been known for decades, this has been measured, this is taken into account by cosmologists.
"The speed of light is only constant in a perfect vacuum."
Space is so near to a perfect vacuum that there are only ___VERY___ small effects on light.
"Ultimately I think using light is a bad idea for determining the age of the universe."
So what else do you suggest?
And: Did you consider that we can also measure the ages of indivual stars, and these ages agree in essential all cases with the age of the universe determined in other ways?
My son's taking astronomy . His teacher said he was taking up space in class. Such a good kid 😉
I am tired of hearing so often about tired light. Thanks Anton for debunking this.
"The matrix is older than you know. I prefer counting from the emergence of one integral anomaly to the emergence of the next, in which case this is the sixth version."
I’m tired of Big Bang cosmology when all but one of its predictions are falsified, yet ppl still parrot the same old bs.
If a big bang creates a universe and nobody is there to hear it, did it make a noise?
The trouble is, Anton didn't actually debunk tired light. What he did was show that if such a phenomenon exists it doesn't exist in the way, or to the extent it was presented, without other new physics
@tenbear5 what big bang predictions have been falsified that haven't been explained by inflation
You're the man Anton. That said and wholeheartedly meant I kinda dislike throwing cherry picker shade at this guy even if in this instance it may be warranted. So many awesome things have been discovered from people with new ideas scrubbing old data to fit their idea. Exoplanets, standard candles come to mind right away. For every correct theory using this kind of data mining or cherry picking method there is bound to be countless wiffs.. I don't think this is bad science per se... just somebody who got a little too fixed on something that he wanted to work too much.
I'm sure people in a few centuries from now will watch many of our present day science videos while cringing or laughing at how wrong or simplistic our understanding was. Thats the thing about science, it's always tentative and is subject to be superseded by a better theory. I'm sure whole new fields of physics and even a paradigm shift about how we look at the universe is in our future.
Newton's laws of motion are still valid and in use today. Planetary orbits, rocket trajectories, etc. all use Newton's laws. It's only when dealing with relativistic problems are Einstein's Theories required.
Or maybe everything we know right now will get lost as society collapses worldwide
We don't know what will happen, we just like to assume things will get better under the illusion of eternal linear progress, which has turned to not be that eternal nor linear after all
I understand photons don’t experience time from their frame of reference. Would the tired light hypothesis then contradict this principle given that it is premised on photons losing energy over time?
As a female educator I have to point out that in order to debate a topic or propose a difference of opinion one does not have to qualify the author of the original paper as stupid.
We would say that weakens the second paper substantially.
Proving any hypothesis of this magnitude as disproven simply because there is a wealth of papers is not very good science.
Unless something is a 100 percent provable 100 percent of the time it is still in hypothesis form.
Take for instance blue LED spectrum, the wealth of data proving it to be impossible or impractical was there. One scientist with a tenacity proved them wrong.
The individual utilized for disproving a theory or hypothesis would have failed in their submission as using opinion based verbage....is not how debate and discourse work...
There was also a lot of papers on the big bang and look where we are now...rethinking.
That's how science works, especially when we the observers are just a pinpoint on a pinpoint in the vastness that is the universe.
Love your work Anton, but I feel the quoted piece at 1:49 is speculative.
I am not in agreement with either person but ideas are just that, the spark for discovery and discovery happens over and over and some old ideas can have merit or a shred of merit.
❤
It's interesting that you feel the need to specify your gender before making this statement. As a man, I find it much easier to call someone stupid rather than argue with them about why they are wrong.
"Unless something is a 100 percent provable 100 percent of the time it is still in hypothesis form."
Thanks for showing that youdon't understand how science works.
"As a female educator"
I stopped reading there.
@Rishi123456789 come on, someone needs to educate females. Otherwise, they will all end up being teachers and complain about not making enough money for only working half a year.
- Do red stars very far away appear more red due to the "red shift"?
- Gravity around a massive star or galaxy causes bending of space-time. It reminds me of the bending of light due to the refractive index of glass. Is the "red shift" just "the prism effect"?
There are several solid mechanisms behind light red shifting without expansion and the ridiculous big bang theory. What would be weird is light not red shifting over 90 billion miles. And the CMB is exactly what you would expect to see in a steady state universe. No matter which way you look, you would see old light that is highly redshifted. It doesn't have to be big bang residue. It can come from just an eternal field of stars. Unfortunately, it is...very blurry.
How do you explain Hubble expansion without the Big Bang model, then?
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 Wait... you still think expansion is based on a giant explosion? No one believes that is the cause of expansion anymore. Even the people that still attach the big bang to start of expansion, like some kind of prehensile tail, don't believe that is the reason they believe the universe is expanding at an increasing rate.
@@OakInch
You stated that "the CMB ("CME" was a typo, wasn't it?) is exactly what one would expect to see in a steady state universe."
No. You have that wrong.
"The steady state theory was disproved using two observations: (1) counts of radio sources and (2) cosmic microwave background radiation."
"For most cosmologists, the refutation of the steady-state model came with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964, which was predicted by the Big Bang theory."
The detection of, and the observations of, the CMB were actually the refutation, and not the evidence for, that you have erroneously claimed.
@@johnrap7203CMB. No. You would expect to see red shifted light in all directions for a more steady state centered theory. It doesn't have to be exact steady state. It can certainly happen with no big bang. You really said nothing that refutes it. If things far away always red shift, due to expansion, or some other reason, and not the big bang, why would you expect anything less than a lot of microwave frequency light in all directions? The CMB does not prove the big bang theory. It proves there is Microwave light coming from all directions. That is it. That is exactly what you would expect from an infinite universe. An endless sea of red shifted light. The current science is that all light red shifts due to accelerating expansion, not the big bang throwing things outwards. So the CMB does not prove the big bang theory. It is just far red shifted light that could come from far away things. The comment about radio sources also is not a proof of the big bang.
Basically what I am saying is those things you mentioned are already outdated by newer theories of inflation and exponential expansion which explain red shifted light. I am saying those same theories apply to a non big bang universe. Big bang is just something they tack onto the front of these theories like a prehensile tail.
"There are several solid mechanisms behind light red shifting without expansion"
For example? And how do you explain all the _other_ evidence we have for expansion, _additional_ to redshift?
"What would be weird is light not red shifting over 90 billion miles."
Did you confuse miles and lightyears here, or what? :D
"And the CMB is exactly what you would expect to see in a steady state universe. "
Show your math. Explain the perfect black body spectrum of the CMBR. Explain its power spectrum. Explain the acoustic peaks.
" It can come from just an eternal field of stars. "
No, it can't, it would have a totally different spectrum. The combined light of all stars actually _has_ been observed, at a _different_ wavelenght, with a _different_ spectrum from the CMBR.