<p>Is it proven that the frequency of EMR does not decay (at all, ever), and if not, could the observations that led to Hubble's Law simply be that the frequency of light decays over very large durations/distances?</p>

<p>If it does not decay innately simply due to duration, what about the various interactions it would have with particles / fields / "empty space" over very large distances; could these have a (reducing) effect on the frequency?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-06T08:51:57.037Z
I see from the linked question this has been considered (with fairly inconclusive responses), but am still curious whether strong proof that EMR frequency _never_ decays exists.
sellotape
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-06T08:55:01.467Z
The scientific consensus is very strong: tired light never works. Google it and you'll see why. Just try to avoid the bullshit - if they say it works, it's pseudo-science.
Florin Andrei
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-06T10:46:33.647Z
"Is it proven that..." Science never ever *proves* things. Science disproves things. You develop a hypothesis and then work hard to disprove it. Over time you build up a collection of theories that are usually testable (except for things like [superstrings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory#Lack_of_experimental_evidence)), and have yet to be disproven.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-07T07:25:27.887Z
@uhoh - fair point, I appreciate that and worded it incorrectly. I could ask whether it been disproven yet that light's frequency decays over time? From reading around it seems not, although I'd imagine with the distances and times involved to achieve a measurable change this would prove very difficult to do (on earth, for instance).
sellotape
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-07T08:24:29.360Z
@sellotape this is a really interesting topic and I think there is still a question to be had here. Maybe you can consider changing it to something like "Are there experimental limits to a photon's frequency changing over time?" or something like that. fyi since the inverse relationship between a photon's energy and frequency results in the [Planck constant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant), the time and spatial variation of that is a closely linked topic.
uhoh
<light><hubble-constant>
Could Hubble's Law simply be light's frequency decaying over time?
sellotape
# Could Hubble's Law simply be light's frequency decaying over time?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-05-06)

Is it proven that the frequency of EMR does not decay (at all, ever), and if not, could the observations that led to Hubble's Law simply be that the frequency of light decays over very large durations/distances?

If it does not decay innately simply due to duration, what about the various interactions it would have with particles / fields / "empty space" over very large distances; could these have a (reducing) effect on the frequency?

**Tags:** light, hubble-constant
> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I see from the linked question this has been considered (with fairly inconclusive responses), but am still curious whether strong proof that EMR frequency _never_ decays exists.  
> **username_1**: The scientific consensus is very strong: tired light never works. Google it and you'll see why. Just try to avoid the bullshit - if they say it works, it's pseudo-science.  
> **username_2**: "Is it proven that..." Science never ever *proves* things. Science disproves things. You develop a hypothesis and then work hard to disprove it. Over time you build up a collection of theories that are usually testable (except for things like [superstrings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory#Lack_of_experimental_evidence)), and have yet to be disproven.  
> **username_0**: @uhoh - fair point, I appreciate that and worded it incorrectly. I could ask whether it been disproven yet that light's frequency decays over time? From reading around it seems not, although I'd imagine with the distances and times involved to achieve a measurable change this would prove very difficult to do (on earth, for instance).  
> **username_2**: @sellotape this is a really interesting topic and I think there is still a question to be had here. Maybe you can consider changing it to something like "Are there experimental limits to a photon's frequency changing over time?" or something like that. fyi since the inverse relationship between a photon's energy and frequency results in the [Planck constant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant), the time and spatial variation of that is a closely linked topic.  

---

## 0 answers

