Effect and Cause

RANT #13: Astrophysicist and Emeritus Professor David Layzer of Harvard wrote a Scientific American book called Constructing the Univese sometime during '80s- if you're into cosmology this is great reading. As an aside, he emailed when I sent my paper and told me that being professionally ignored is the state of things. In this book he makes the following statement: "the frequency of a photon in an expanding universe continually diminishes." I suggest the lengthening of the Wavelet (diminishing frequency) IS the cause of the currently expanding universe. Einstein showed that when the photon is subjected to gravity (which accounts for black holes) there is a so-called "red-shift" meaning the lengthening of its wavelength, recall that frequency x wavelength = the speed of light (a universal constant). then this could account for its lengthening. We are back to a phenomenal model of popcorn. The energy of a photon is fixed once its created so when it starts to lengthen it will lose height - the probability of "locating" the photon depends on the square of its height at that point along the wavelength. So the longer it travels (still in a straight line from its source) the likihood of locating it gets smaller and smaller as the crest and trough flatten. The second condition on our photon is that its energy = Planck's constant x frequency. So as our stretching photon loses its original enery where is that lost energy? Don't tell me that's now become potential energy - that's a bookkeeping fiction for stored energy. One of fundamental laws of physics is that energy is conserved. Called The First Law of Thermodynamics, it says that all forms of mechanical, gravitational and radiation (heat) energy (suppposedly in all the universe) can be converted into other forms without loss of the total amount. It's often taught that the First Law will always be correct because if another form of energy is found it will just be added as another term in the sum. If all these photons are being stretched over all this space shouldn't that be accounted for in the First Law? Perhaps it's the mysterious "dark energy" that has been postulated in the last 20 years. It might be pointed out that "space" is not just the nothing filling between two objects (across the table or the galaxy) but is populated by virtual sub-atomic particles that pop in and out of existence to give a noumenal account for real interactions. Space was first proposed as substantive bymathematician William Kingdon Clifford in 1870 but was never followed up due to his premature death.