Vacuum Friction and Hubble Redshift

http://philpapers.org/rec/DAVQVN
Paul Davies: "This leads to the prediction of vacuum friction: The quantum vacuum can act in a manner reminiscent of a viscous fluid."

https://www.newscientist.com/article...tion-after-all
New Scientist: "Vacuum has friction after all. In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle says we can never be sure that an apparent vacuum is truly empty. Instead, space is fizzing with photons that are constantly popping into and out of existence before they can be measured directly. Even though they appear only fleetingly, these "virtual" photons exert the same electromagnetic forces on the objects they encounter as normal photons do."

http://www.nature.com/news/superflui...hysics-1.15437
Natu "As waves travel through a medium, they lose energy over time. This dampening effect would also happen to photons traveling through spacetime, the researchers found."

If correct, the above statements unequivocally lead to the conclusion that the Hubble redshift is due to vacuum friction. The Universe is STATIC, not expanding.

Pentcho Valev

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ro/olbers.html
"Olbers' Paradox: Why is the Sky Dark at Night? If the universe were infinite and filled with stars in a uniform distribution, then every line of sight would terminate on the surface of a star and should be bright. To be sure, those further away would be fainter, but there would be more of them. Careful analysis suggests that the sky should be as bright as the surface of an average star. Noting that the night sky is obviously not that bright, there are two lines of explanation. First, the universe appears to be of finite age and that light from stars at an infinite distance would not have reached us in the age of the universe. Second, we observe that the universe is expanding and that stars further away from us are receding at a faster rate. The result of this expansion is that the light from more distant stars is Doppler shifted more toward the red and beyond a certain distance would not contribute significantly in the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum."

A third line of explanation:

Light slows down as it travels through the space vacuum, an effect caused by vacuum friction. For not so distant stars this is expressed as Hubble redshift but beyond a certain distance the star light does not reach us at all..

Even the initial speed of light can be slowed down (so Halton Arp's "intrinsic redshift" can be explained) and this has already been proved:

http://phys.org/news/2016-03-optical-slower.html
"Researchers at the University of Ottawa observed that twisted light in a vacuum travels slower than the universal physical constant established as the speed of light by Einstein's theory of relativity. (...) In The Optical Society's journal for high impact research, Optica, the researchers report that twisted light pulses in a vacuum travel up to 0.1 percent slower than the speed of light, which is 299,792,458 meters per second. (...) If it's possible to slow the speed of light by altering its structure, it may also be possible to speed up light. The researchers are now planning to use FROG to measure other types of structured light that their calculations have predicted may travel around 1 femtosecond faster than the speed of light in a vacuum."

http://phys.org/news/2016-04-hanbury...ch-remote.html
"In a paper, published in Science Advances today, the researchers demonstrate that for light from a source such as the Sun, random fluctuations of intensity give rise to correlations of twisted light beams. (...) "Twisted light is all around us and occurs naturally," said Omar S. Magaña-Loaiza, first author of the study and a Ph.D. student in Boyd's team."

http://rt.com/news/225879-light-speed-slow-photons/
"Physicists manage to slow down light inside vacuum (...) ...even now the light is no longer in the mask, it's just the propagating in free space - the speed is still slow. (...) "This finding shows unambiguously that the propagation of light can be slowed below the commonly accepted figure of 299,792,458 metres per second, even when travelling in air or vacuum," co-author Romero explains in the University of Glasgow press release."

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015.../1191422035480
"The speed of light is a limit, not a constant - that's what researchers in Glasgow, Scotland, say. A group of them just proved that light can be slowed down, permanently."

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story...ut-touching-it
"Although the maximum speed of light is a cosmological constant - made famous by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and E=mc^2 - it can, in fact, be slowed down: that's what optics do."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxJ7_tbbIsg
"Glasgow researchers slow the speed of light"

Pentcho Valev

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...62407911603059
New Scientist: "Vacuum has friction after all. A ball spinning in a vacuum should never slow down, right? Wrong. It turns out quantum effects can create a type of friction in the void."

http://www.nature.com/news/superflui...hysics-1.15437
Natu "As waves travel through a medium, they lose energy over time. This dampening effect would also happen to photons traveling through spacetime, the researchers found."

HYPOTHESIS: As the photon travels through space (in a STATIC universe), it bumps into vacuum particles and as a result loses speed in much the same way that a golf ball loses speed due to the resistance of the air.

On this hypothesis the resistive force (Fr) is proportional to the velocity of the photon (V):

Fr = - KV

That is, the speed of light decreases with time in accordance with the equation:

dV/dt = - K'V

Clearly, at the end of a very long journey of photons (coming from a very distant object), the contribution to the redshift is much smaller than the contribution at the beginning of the journey. Light coming from nearer objects is less subject to this effect, that is, the increase of the redshift with distance is closer to LINEAR for short distances. For distant light sources we have:

f' = f(exp(-kt))

where f is the initial and f' the measured (redshifted) frequency. (The analogy with the golf ball requires that it be assumed that the speed of light and the frequency vary while the wavelength remains unchanged.) For short distances the following approximations can be made:

f' = f(exp(-kt)) ~ f(1-kt) ~ f - kd/L

where d is the distance between the light source and the observer and L is the wavelength. The equation f'=f-kd/L is only valid for short distances and corresponds to the Hubble law. The equation f'=f(exp(-kt)) shows that, at the end of a very long journey (in a STATIC universe), photons redshift much less vigorously than at the beginning of the journey. This provides an alternative explanation of the observations that brought the 2011 Nobel Prize for Physics to Saul Perlmutter, Adam Riess and Brian Schmidt.

Pentcho Valev