jthtiger
jthtiger t1_jcnttul wrote
Reply to comment by ZylonBane in Where do photons go if they've been emitted but are destined to never be absorbed, and would these photons traveling ad infinitum define the edge of the universe (even if space itself were still larger)? by mysteryofthefieryeye
Position isn't the right word probably. Velocity is more accurate yes, but it's the velocity of the object that emits that cause the wavelength to be stretched.
My point was that the wavelength does not continue to stretch over time. So a photon won't redshift into nothing-ness.
The velocity of the photons does not change over time and therefore will not drift apart.
jthtiger t1_jcnq4bb wrote
Reply to comment by FMLAdad in Where do photons go if they've been emitted but are destined to never be absorbed, and would these photons traveling ad infinitum define the edge of the universe (even if space itself were still larger)? by mysteryofthefieryeye
Redshift is (from my understanding) a single moment, not continuous. Light travels at a constant rate, so the wavelength is not CONTINUALLY expanding. If it did, then one of the wave fronts would have to be travelling at a different speed. The redshift is only caused by the difference in position of the object that emitted them from when two waves were emitted.
jthtiger t1_jcnvjfn wrote
Reply to comment by ZylonBane in Where do photons go if they've been emitted but are destined to never be absorbed, and would these photons traveling ad infinitum define the edge of the universe (even if space itself were still larger)? by mysteryofthefieryeye
Hmmm. As always, physics answers brings more questions. Thanks for imparting some knowledge.