# The range of light

It occurs to me that the empirical evidence shows that there is a point out in space where light stops coming from.

Putting aside the expansion of the universe for a second, and focusing strictly on the evidence:

• what would the universe look like if light had a finite range?

• isn't that what the universe looks like?

Recall Hubble's Law,$v = H_0D$

The range of light is $H_0 D = c$

Also recall that Edwin Hubble stressed the point that $v$ is apparent recessional velocity. It is the apparent recessional velocity, not the actual recessional velocity. He proposed that rather than Doppler shifts, these redshifts are a "new principle of nature".

Ignoring the theories and strictly examining the empirical evidence, does it make sense that light could have a finite range?

-
What evidence exactly are you asking to focus on, given that you are not considering the expansion of the universe? – David Z Dec 20 '11 at 21:24
Light redshifts until it disappears. That's empirically true, and seems consistent with the hypothesis that light has a finite range. – mobydikc Dec 20 '11 at 21:28
"Light redshifts until it disappears." Uhm...no. "That's empirically true" No it's not. In fact we can see all the way to the last scattering surface in every direction. The reason we can't see beyond that is not that light is worn out but that the universe we're looking at is opaque at that time. – dmckee Dec 20 '11 at 22:06
Your equations are trivially the same, and both refer to velocities not ranges (distances?) could you edit? – Nic Dec 21 '11 at 13:28
I think the range equation makes sense rearranged: D = c/H0 gives the distance at which the Doppler shift would reduce the frequency of incoming light to zero. Answers can then address whether at some point in the future when there is more history since opacity, this limit might apply. – trichoplax Jan 28 '15 at 23:50