Cosmological Red Shift

Russ_Watters:

Thank you sir for your attempt at clarification. It has focused my mind on the main points of confusion which your and paddoboy's assertions have raised for me given my reading of the Big Bang and associated Inflation and expanding universe claims and concepts.

The current relevant concepts I understand as follows:

Cosmological Recession: Is this a 'through space' recession of the galaxies in question; or is it just an 'observational artifact' due to extended pathway or distance photon travels from source to receiver? My reading and understanding of current explanations is that no actual motion through space is involved, but the 'value' of redshifting being interpreted in terms of recession velocity in order to use those 'values' in equations more conveniently. In other words, it is a convenience, not actual cosmological motion like the real through space relative motional recessions-closings which ordinarily applies in observed terms of normal physical Doppler type perspectives.

[ At this stage I must humbly impose on our moderator to clarify if the cosmological recession "component" actually involves motional separation through space above and beyond the normal non-expanding case in local-space; similar to the 'weak field' perspective of General Relativity reducing to Newtonian in very small local weak field context where these interactions between receiver and photon occur as I described earlier in the discussion. Mr penner sir, can you adjudicate or help in any way that would put me and those discussing with me "on the same page" on this point? ]


Wavelength and Frequency during absorption: At reception, the frequency value(s) is a function of relative motional state (and or gravitational well oscillatory rate state of the relevant process active in the absorption dynamics) of the receiver system during photon absorption. This process in no way affects the photon's intrinsic wavelength,as the 'interaction' parameters affect only the rate at which the two (receiver and photon) proceed to 'merge' (for want of a better word) during absorption process. So if the wavelength is as it is at interaction and even before that, then any claims that a photon has been 'stretched' in wavelength is, as I understand it, not consistent with what Russ_Watters and paddoboy have asserted (which is, that an unexplained, locally unconnected, motional relativity of a cosmological component nature also affects photon wavelength at reception, and in addition to normal through space component relative motion of the ordinary Doppler type).


The CMB photons Conundrum: If your assertion that cosmological recessional velocity component is to be treated as real (and not just a calculation convenience value or term) recession as per Doppler concept, then one must also consistently explain why the CMB coming from all directions are all redshifted roughly similarly. By consistently explained, I mean, how can the Earth (receiver) be effectively moving in all directions at once in order to supposedly affect the frequency at detection of all the many-radials incoming photons equally (except for local through space 'moving' as earlier described in normal Doppler scenario), such that all the claimed redshifting value is determined at local detection end and no part of such value having anything to do with the "stretching" analogies used in current Expanding Universe theory?

These are my concerns based on what has been asserted in some responses to the OP; and which assertions have confused me as to what the conventional expansion theory actually claims and explains. That is the best I can do to set out the three points of confusion I am now trying to clear up for myself, with the patient assistance of yourselves and our kind and learned moderator (if he is available; and not put off by any lack of clarity on my part).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Paddoboy:

Please see my reply to Russ_Watters just above. Your queries are all covered in that, with my further clarification as to the remaining specific points of confusion in my mind since your and his assertions. Thank you for reading and responding to my previous.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is a thinly veiled creationist view of an earlier "quantized redshift" idea shown to be wrong in every important respect. It belongs in pseudoscience.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You seem to have tremendous patience for these two guys who are infesting this forum with inaccuracies..

1. SR Doppler Shift can be both red / blue, and caused due to relative motion. We have blue shifted light from andromeda being in local group and moving towards us. But for remote galaxy, whose light is primarily red shifted, the red shift is caused by both spacetime expansion (GR) and Doppler (SR), this doppler red shift is due to peculiar velocities of those galaxies, and very difficult to isolate from the resultant recorded. Note that doppler Red Shift does nothing to the photon or to the light wave.

2. But the spacetime expansion based redshift, so called cosmological Red Shift, does change the wavelength of Photon..

You have rightly raised the CMBR issue, please see my Post #72 as quoted below,....despite this both these guys, so called mainstream supporters, are incorrectly interpreting the mainstream....common problem here with these supporters of mainstream.

 

Duplicate Post...

 

Triplicate Post..

 

Well actually no. What I infest this forum with [

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

] are accepted mainstream facts and theories. It is your own picture of 21st century cosmology that leaves much to be desired and that have been moved out of the science sections.

https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11859.html
http://users.df.uba.ar/sgil/physics_paper_doc/papers_phys/cosmo/doppler_redshift.pdf
Your last sentence is of course totally wrong. Doppler red/blue shift and cosmological red/blue shift both have the same effects of lengthening/shortening the wavelength of light/photon: They just do it by different means and mechanisms.
Also worth adding here.....

Let me add here which I did previously, if you or expletive deleted are asking why should expanding space lengthen a photon wave length, then obviously that can also be applied to Doppler as well as Cosmological and gravitational.
As far as I know, we don't know, just as I said before.....We also do not know why or how the BB banged....or why gravity exhibits itself when spacetime is curved/warped/twisted in the presence of mass.
We don't know why, but scientists are still working on those issues and maybe one day we will know. A QGT? Maybe.
What we do know with utmost certainty is that they do happen and we can predict and explain from those results.

As does Doppler.

Yes, the CMBR pervades all of spacetime at a 2.7K.....So?
And no, I don't believe I am misinterpreting the mainstream as you seem to be totally ignoring it.

In summing, Cosmological red/blue shift are accepted cosmological phenomena that happens because spacetime is expanding.
If you or anyone else are claiming anything else, or have any evidence as to any invalidity in this aspect of cosmology, or anything else of a concrete nature, then you are bound [if you are a student of real science] to take it to the powers that be and/or write up a paper for peer review.
Afterall what you are suggesting/proposing [I'm not sure which] if true and applicable, would see the beginning of the end for the present overwhelmingly supported GR theory and cosmology in general.
I suspect though as with Olber's paradox, gravitational waves doubts, and SMBH's and galactic centers, you have nothing other than a desire.

 

Mr Paddoboy, cosmological Redshift so far detected is only Red type...not blue.

Now I will make one more attempt to clear the cobwebs....


1. The doppler Red shift is due to relative motion between emitter and observer at the time of emission...So let us say there are two observers having different relative speeds with the emitter, then the doppler shift as recorded for them will be different, suggesting nothing physically happening to photon........Hope you understand.

2. on the other hand cosmological red shift has got nothing to do with relative motion....we have observed z = 7, does it mean that the relative speed between that galaxy and earth is 7c ? No it does not. The emitted photon experiences the spacetime expansion and physically the wavelength changes...

Think of CMBR, how could they have red shifted with z = 1000+, if there was no change due to spacetime expansion. And please note Gravitational Red/blue shift has nothing to do with relative motion.

 

Correct, and that's because the Universe/spacetime is expanding.
If the Universe/spacetime was contracting, we would see a Cosmological blueshift.

Wrong, when there is motion between two observers, the lightwaves/photons are stretched/lengthened. Fact:

Correct in the fact that cosmological redshift has nothing to do with motion between two observers, rather it is as you say a result of spacetime expansion, which just like the Doppler effect, lengthens/stretches the wave lengths of light/photons.
But who said anything different?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

??? Are you doing a fairy tale assignment?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Who said that CMBR was not stretched/lengthened due to spacetime expansion?
And who said gravitational red shift had anything to do with relative motion?
The red shifting of light waves/photons are the result of three different processes, Doppler, Cosmological and gravitational:
Why the confusion?
Cosmological redshift happens: It is a fact: It happens because spacetime is expanding and stretching/lengthening the light/photon waves.
As with your confusion re Olber's paradox, and SMBH's, and gravitational waves, you seem to have an inbuilt desire to invalidate that which you are unable to logically invalidate.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect
The relativistic Doppler effect is the change infrequency (and wavelength) of light, caused by the relative motion of the source and the observer (as in the classical Doppler effect), when taking into account effects described by the special theory of Relativity:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Diagram 1. A source of light waves moving to the right, relative to observers, with velocity 0.7c. The frequency is higher for observers on the right, and lower for observers on the left.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Diagram 2. Demonstration of aberration of light and relativistic Doppler effect.

In Diagram 2, the blue point represents the observer, and the arrow represents the observer's velocity vector relative to its surroundings. When the observer is stationary, the x,y-grid appears yellow and the y-axis appears as a black vertical line. Increasing the observer's velocity to the right shifts the colors and the aberration of light distorts the grid. When the observer looks forward (right on the grid), points appear green, blue, and violet (blueshift) and grid lines appear farther apart. If the observer looks backward (left on the grid), then points appear red (redshift) and lines appear closer together. The grid has not changed, but its appearance for the observer has.


Diagram 3 illustrates that the grid distortion is a relativistic optical effect, separate from the underlyingLorentz contraction which is the same for an object moving toward an observer or away.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Diagram 3. The grey ellipse is a sphere moving relativistically at a constant velocity relative to an observer (blue dot); its oblate shape, as seen from our perspective, is due to Lorentz contraction. The colored ellipse is the sphere as seen by the observer. The background curves represent a grid (in xy coordinates) that is rigidly linked to the sphere; it is shown only at one moment in time.


Understanding relativistic Doppler effect requires understanding the Doppler effect, time dilation, and the aberration of light. As a simple analogy of the Doppler effect, consider two people playing catch. Imagine that a stationary pitcher tosses one ball each second (1 Hz) at one meter per second to a catcher who is standing still. The stationary catcher will receive one ball per second (1 Hz). Then the catcher walks away from the pitcher at 0.5 meters per second and catches a ball every 2 seconds (0.5 Hz). Finally, the catcher walks towards the pitcher at 0.5 meters per second and catches three balls every two seconds (1.5 Hz). The same would be true if the pitcher moved toward or away from the catcher. By analogy, the relativistic Doppler effect shifts the frequency of light as the emitter or observer moves toward or away from the other.

 

Simply stated, the cosmological redshift occurs because the curvature of spacetime was smaller in the past when the universe was younger than it is now. Light waves become stretched en route between the time they were emitted long ago, and the time they are detected by us today.
http://cecelia.physics.indiana.edu/life/redshift.html

 

paddoboy:


You said this in a reply to The God:

That is a re-iteration of the understanding which the OP and my responses to it already separated in explanations because you and Russ-Watters asserted even the cosmological component also involved motional and not in-transit space-expansion effects directly on the photon during that transit rather than at receiver. I don't understand how you don't see the contradiction between what you earlier asserted and what you now assert in re-iteration of what The God and OP explanations and mine stated already.


Your further post to thread in general says:

Apparently you now do admit, citing your own authoritative .edu explanations, that The God and OP view of cosmological component of redshift was correct; as being due to in-transit effects on photon in transit across intervening Big Bang, Gravitational and or Other "curvature-affected" spacetime?

Does this mean, paddoboy, that you are effectively retracting (on behalf of yourself and Russ_Watters) your earlier assertions that Doppler and Motional affects (apart from source and receiver respective local gravitational well states) are responsible for observed redshift including the cosmological space-expansion component? Please advise.

Before you reply, may I presume to point out to you my own understandings, from reading the relevant theory, the very great effective difference between frequency and wavelength. I feel this is necessary because in your responses you appear to miss the respective physical and logical implications that frequency and wavelength aspects separately present for the understanding of which aspect is active and which aspect is passive during photon emission and photon absorption:

1-The received frequency is a perceived property which can have a value which may vary depending on motional (and local gravitational well state involved) between the photon and receiver during reception processes.

2-The wavelength on the other hand is an inherent property or value initially determined at source, and, unless attenuated by in-transit factors such as expanding spacetime, or "curvature" effects, as you just agreed on, would remain as initially determined at source until it reached receiver. Even during absorption process, any Doppler relative motion factor effects would not actually compress or stretch that initial wavelength; since faster or slower absorption rate is a function of local motional relativity between photon and receiver, to give the "perceived" frequency aspect, but without actually changing the wavelength whose 'peaks' and 'troughs' are passing into the receiver more or less speedily, so giving a "perception" of shorter or longer wavelength (in "perceived frequency" terms) but in fact not changing the actual inherent wavelength at all.

Allowing for all the foregoing factors and understandings, and your above change of view, it would seem that the only way left for a "wavelength" (forget the "perceived frequency" which may be affected locally at reception by applicable gravitational and motional factors as explained) to be changed is by either spacetime expansion as per current cosmological 'stretching' and or intervening interactions via scattering, absorption-re-emission and quantum processes involving energy and matter content in space and the virtual energy processes of space quantum vacuum itself.

Concluding: The answers to God and OP question seems to have come full circle; from no in-transit 'stretching', to yes in-transit stretching by expanding spacetim as per conventional explanations. The question as to what mechanism can connect expanding spacetime to photon to produce such 'stretching' as observed via cosmological component of redshift, is still an open question. I don't know of any such mechanism. And the conventional expansion theory has not provided one either, unless I am mistaken. If I am mistaken, please correct.

That's all I can say until a mechanism is claimed and identified and explained by someone, anyone, here or in the relevant scientific theory. Thank you The God, paddoboy, Russ-Watters, and all involved, for a very enlightening discussion.

 

Please show me where I have contradicted myself, or retract that untrue claim.
Let me reiterate the points I have made:
Doppler shift is a result of relative motions between two masses:
Cosmological redshift is a result of spacetime/universe expanding.
Both Doppler and Cosmological redshift result in the same thing.....the lengthening/stretching of light/photon waves.
Both are caused by different mechanisms as detailed.
The "controversy" fabricated by yourself and the god, appears to rest on "by what mechanism" causes the light to stretch.
I have also addressed that at least twice, which you seemed to have brushed over at least twice. Most recent being in post 87.

Like our divine friend, you appear confused as do your posts.
I have never doubted Cosmological, Doppler or gravitational redshift:
It is standard cosmology. I suggest though that you could alleviate your own confusion and that of your posts by coming out and saying what you believe happens or what exactly are you looking for.
Let me make it simple for you.
Do you believe we see cosmological redshift?
Do you accept the universe/spacetime is expanding?
Do you accept standard accepted cosmology?
Do you have problems with GR?

[1] You have been advised, and [2] I don't speak for Russ: Why would you even suggest something so insulting as that?
An apology is in order.

You have my answers and I believe they are simple enough.
What you otherwise presume is your concern.
Standard cosmology stands as is unchallenged by any apparent fabricated anomaly that you or the god suggest.

No change of view by me at all...although it appears plenty of apparent word repeat confusion by yourself: Yes I have ignored some of your repeatable text.

I have addressed that twice with reference to yourself:Most recent in post 87:
Not really sure how you could miss it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Irrespective Cosmological redshift happens and is recognised like Doppler by the stretching/lengthening of light waves and is caused by the expansion of intervening spacetime.

Do you deny that?

Just as I explained to you in post 87 and at least two other times, we also do not know why the BB banged, or why gravity exhibits itself when spacetime is curved/warped/twisted in the presence of mass.
None of that though invalidates the model one iota, nor accepted standard cosmology if that is what you are claiming:
Unless of course as I asked the god, that you have another model that invalidates the incumbent or that explains more than the current incumbent theories do.
I certainly do not believe either is available by yourself or the god.

 

The above 3 posts are from the OP, post 1. 7 and 8.

I think it admirably shows that the god simply just cannot accept cosmological redshift among with his other problems with standard accepted cosmology and the reasons for the many red herrings and pedant issues being fabricated.

 

Paddoboy

This statement was made by Russ Watters and you supported it all along.....now of course it is clear that you have abandoned him...

It is good that you agree that Cosmological Redshift has nothing to do with relative motion....but there is still one more point which you must understand, which is being incorrectly held by you, courtesy Russ watters...

Doppler Redshift causes no change in the photon (do not confuse recording of doppler red/blue shift as physical change in photon), but on the other hand cosmological red shift (and Gravitational Red/blue shift) physically changes the wavelength. Hope it is clear and you will agree, despite you supporting Russ watters wrong notion on this too in earlier posts.


PS : This is mainstream interpretation not mine.....It proves that how you guys misinterpret the mainstream, Mods must intervene and ensure that no recognised blind mainstream supporter like you, misrepresent the prevalent notion. This avoidable argument on mainstream notion could have been avoided, if you knew.

 

Thats the typical paddoboy.......You never know when and how he changes track.....and he wont even admit or acknowledge.

 

Except of course as I have explained: Expletive deleted is confused and totally wrong, as you are.
Of course you could show me where I have made any contradictory statements with regards to cosmological and/or Doppler red shift: But you can't and you'll do what you do best when you are backed into a corner: Forget about it and start another anti mainstream thread, based on your lack of knowledge about accepted mainstream cosmology.

And I'm certainly not misinterpreting the mainstream as you seem to be totally ignoring it.

Cosmological redshift happens: It is a fact: It happens because spacetime is expanding and stretching/lengthening the light/photon waves.
As with your confusion re Olber's paradox, and SMBH's, and gravitational waves, you seem to have an inbuilt desire to invalidate that which you are unable to logically invalidate or which you fail to understand.

Please refer to posts 90, 91 if you are actually interested in the accepted mainstream application of cosmological redshift.
All interested parties need to please check out post 94 which reveals why this totally fabricated and circular argument has been going on for so long and the obvious baggage that the deniers do have.

 

I don't think you're quite getting what "relative motion" means.

Far away galaxies are not moving... with respect to their local surroundings.

Space is expanding.

So the conclusion is, the space the far away galaxies are in is moving, because more space is getting created between here and there. And the far away galaxies are just moving along with their local space.

See how that works? That's what everyone who knows what's going on is trying to tell you.

This is utterly, irremediably wrong.

First, there is no "special redshift" for cosmology and astrophysics. Just like there's no special gravity or color or weak or electromagnetic force for cosmology and astrophysics. It's the same redshift we see here on Earth from any object moving away from us. The fallacy you are committing here is called "special pleading," and you can see exactly why it's called that.

Second, Doppler shift of the only single kind there is does alter the photon; it changes its energy. You can tell that because if you measure the wavelength or the frequency, you will find them at that lower energy. Or, for that matter, if you measure its momentum, since you seem to want to do particle-style measurements because you're uncomfortable with wave mechanics.

"Special redshift for cosmology and astrophysics" is not even fringe, much less mainstream. Nobody I've seen but you ever talked about a "special redshift for cosmology and astrophysics." Ever. Anywhere. That's so far out of the mainstream you can't even see it from there.

 

It is indeed fringe. To be specific, it is associated with the quantized redshift noted by William G. Tifft, who was investigating the Coma cluster at the time, and misinterpreted results related to gravitational lensing as being evidence of the quantization of redshift. This idea seems to resurface periodically because of its popularity with the young Earth creationist community. Here is an example (one of many dozens of such sites):

https://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=7

Their basic agenda is the same as that of the Ptolemists; to place the Earth in a special place at the center of the universe where a personal deity also chooses to reside.

If space is "stretching" resulting in accelerating expansion, it puts us that much nearer the center of any expansion, you see?

 

The above by Russ clarifies his position as to his claim nothing happens to the photon.
I prefer my own stated version and disagree with him on that point.
But as he rightly explains in the next post, the issue at hand is as he says.
the god, and expletive deleted are clambering for a mechanism or reason as to why cosmological redshift happens.

The crux of the matter is of course cosmological redshift does happen...spacetime/Universe is expanding...GR is still overwhelmingly supported along with those two scenarios.
The god as I have shown in post 94 does not accept cosmological redshift, so as an extension he also denies spacetime/universal expansion as well as GR [among a host of other overwhelmingly supported mainstream theories].
YEC's and other God botherers are continually trying to find fault with 21st century mainstream cosmology.

I hope that clears up the picture and circular debate that now appears to be happening in this thread.