Why does our universe cheat?

[FreyaRed]

14 billion years ago there was star in a galaxy. It produced a photon with 2.8 eV which we see as green. Over billions of years this photo traveled through universe and reached a detector in IR Telescope on Earth Due expansion of our baryonic universe the green color turned in IR photon with 0.4 eV. Where disappeared energy of 2.4 eV. ? When we have been taught energy doesn't get lost.

[Static_In_The_Attic]

As for our solar system it’s filled with cheaters. Neptune is in love with Venus however he like Uranus & put a ring on Saturn. As for Pluto he was playing in the lab with Mercury & he fuck up so much he was downgraded & is no longer a planet. WTF?

[Staximus]

Don't try to make sense of the universe, it's beyond the understanding or comprehension of our limited intelligence. It's too big. Science (pseudoscience) can't explain it, it's all just a bunch of useless speculation, equations, and theories that we can't prove. It's interesting to think about, but we do not have the tools or the knowledge to prove anything.

[abc3643]

A 2.8 eV photon will have a wavelength of 441.3 nanometers. That's blue, not green. Where did you get this misinformation?

[Panthero80]

Total energy is not lost, but useable energy is lost.

[jahaims]

You just don't understand it

[PaleDale]

It is the frequency

[FreyaRed]

Photons have no mass therefore no kinetic energy but their energy is stored in electromagnetic frequency.
Gama ray photos have several million more times energy than visible light photons. A green photon has more energy than infrared photon.

[PaleDale]

Correct, and IF has more than radio waves

[Fftggg]

"Photons can lose energy as they travel through the universe, primarily due to cosmological redshift, which is caused by the expansion of space. This expansion stretches the wavelength of the photons, effectively lowering their energy. Additionally, photons can lose energy through interactions with matter, such as collisions with particles or absorption and re-emission by dust." From google.

[abc3643]

That's false. Photons do have ""kinetic energy" in a sense.

Classically, the kinetic energy, K, of something that has mass is: K = mv^2 / 2
Momentum, p, is: p=mv

Now, a photon's energy is hν where h is Planck's constant and ν (not v) is "nu" which is the frequency of the photon.

Using the mass-energy equivalence, E=m^c^2...
"m" = E/c^2 = hν/c^2
That's a photon's "inertial mass" based on its frequency.
And momentum is a product of inertial mass and speed, so the momentum of a photon is:
p = (hν/c^2) c = hν/c = h/λ where λ is the wavelength.

And photons most definitely do have momentum. If they didn't, solar panels wouldn't work.
Solar panels work based on the photoelectric effect.
A photon striking a material's surface won't eject a photon unless that photon has a certain minimum energy called the work function, ɸ. The remaining kinetic energy of the resultant "photoelectron" is K = hν - ɸ.

[FreyaRed]

@abc3643 I think you're wrong or Wikipedia lies. Photons interact with atom depending on their energy level. High energy photons can interact with atom cores while causing isomeric atom cores (charged ones) which can discharge creating photons with lower energy and neutrinos. Photons with lower energy move electrons from atom shells but don't interact with atom cores.

[abc3643]

I have a BS in Physics from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute earned 40 years ago on this coming Thursday.

I know what photons do.

[Fftggg]

@abc3643 I appreciate for your explanation sir.
What could you say about the accuracy of my statement?

[abc3643]

@Fftggg I can't comment, but I can believe it.

There's still a lot we don't know - and we can't know - at this stage of development.
Voyager I is the furthest human made object in space. It is about 168 AU or 25 billion km distant. As far as that is (about 1 light day away), that's nothing. How can we know with certainty the physical properties of space itself at much further distances? Imagine being a scientist ant living in the wheat fields of Kansas. The only thing you know of is that the world is more or less flat and filled with wheat. If you've never even seen a puddle, you can't even conceive of an ocean. Similar comments can be made about mountains. WE know of these things because we've been to these places. But, the scientific bugs in Kansas might not even imagine oceans or mountains; their science is all based on the properties and life in the wheat fields of Kansas.

I am not sure I came across very well, but there are "VSL theories" - variable speed of light theories. What if a "fundamental physical constants" weren't so fundamental and varied over time and space? (Indeed, the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant isn't fundamental; it's the value of an integral involving other constants. Even c, the speed of light, is 1/sqrt (mu_0 * epsilon_0) which are two constants involving the permiability and permittivity of free space.) c DOES vary depending on the medium you are in... So, it is conceivable that the nature of space itself changes over a distance we have yet to experience. For instance, if epsilon_0 changes and has a different value a billion light years away, then c will change and have a different value there.