**2. Big bang and "tired light"**

From the historical beginning, misgivings about the hypothesis space expansion have produced the Doppler effect which causes redshifts in starlight and have been summed up by Shoa [1]. This hypothesis together with observed redshifts leads to Hubble's law [2], which provides the main scientific evidence for the Big Bang theory. Since that time, no one has questioned this fundamental hypothesis except a small number of opponents, such as proponents of "tired light" [1, 3, 4]. During Hubble's time, only redshifts smaller than 0.1 were involved; then, this hypothesis would not invoke too great a controversy. After all, astronomers find that the Hubble's law is a useful empirical relation that could be used to help them to manage many of their astronomical observations. With small redshifts, both Special and General Relativity Theories give similar predictions [5]. Yet today, we are dealing with redshifts larger than 3 and up to 10 or higher. The new problem is that both relativity theories predict for cases involving far distances with much higher values for redshift than that found in the Hubble's law [5]. There are also problems in physical interpretations associated with large redshifts. For example, for redshift greater than 1, the light emitting source would have to travel at speed greater than light. For an object traveling with such a speed, we would lose sight of it, leading to the assumption there is an event horizon beyond that no object can be seen. But in reality, we are still seeing objects having redshift much greater than 1, and recently NASA has sent out a space telescope, Webb, with specific objectives to observe those distant objects.

There is also a problem with how a universe could support billions of multi-solar mass objects all accelerating outward at speed much greater than light. To maintain such a system requires massive amount of energy. It is creative for someone to suggest there is some unknown energy called "dark energy." But to support this preposition, the universe must consist of some 67% of this dark energy with all the visible masses and all forms of known energy making up only some 5%. There is already a problem in being able to explain how the visible universe came to exist; it would be much more difficult to explain how this many times larger dark energy could come to be.

It should be noted that, as recently as 2020, astronomers over the world working on redshift have called for new physics to explain this phenomenon [6].

Tired light theory uses a different hypothesis that redshift is due to energy loss because of interaction between photons in light waves and material particles present in space, such as hydrogen. Although it is claimed that such a hypothesis is based on physical principles that consists of (a) electromagnetic field theory, (b) the mass-energy equivalence, (c) the quantum light theory, and (d) the Lorentz theory [1], it is difficult to see how those principles have been applied to give the final expression for redshift in the tired light theory. Because matter-energy equivalence is an accepted physical principle, it cannot be used to justify the statement "the electromagnetic field and material particles can be considered the same thing," as reported [1]. Similarly, assertive statements, like "The average wavelength of the visible light is 5.5 x 10<sup>7</sup> m, being the diameter of a photon" [1], is difficult to justify as photon is an arbitrarily chosen unit

*Wave Propagation Theory Denies the Big Bang DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.103848*

associated with the energy, not the wavelength of a light wave. As dark spectral lines are also redshifted, it is difficult to justify that a dark pulse could suffer energy loss. There is arbitrariness in deriving some of the mathematical statements as well.

Without any doubt, a comprehensive electromagnetic field theory for principle (a) will cover the rest of the physical principles, (b) to (d), as stipulated in the tired light theory [1].
