Photon frequency loss over time?

In summary, there was once a theory that part of the red-shift observed in far away galaxies could be due to a time or distance related decrease in the frequency of light, in addition to the doppler effect. This theory has been abandoned by mainstream science due to evidence from multiple cosmological tests, including the cosmic microwave background, the formation of large scale structure, and the evolution of star formation with redshift. The "tired light" theory was proposed in the 1920s by Fritz Zwicky, and while it was viable for a few decades, it has since been disproven by various experiments and observations. Other theories, such as inflation, have been able to provide more accurate explanations for the observed red-shift in distant galaxies.
  • #1
rcgldr
Homework Helper
8,854
630
I remember reading an article many years ago that there was a theory that part of the red-shift we observe from far away galaxy's could be do to a time (or distance) related reduction in frequency of light, in addition to the "doppler" effect. Has this theory ever re-surfaced again (it may have been 10 or more years ago that I read this article)?
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
Maybe you read about cosmological redshift.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=278 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
Jeff, what do you imagine those photons give up their energy to? Eventually they must glow, don't you think?
 
  • #4
neutrino said:
Maybe you read about cosmological redshift.
Possibly, but I'm pretty sure that there was an inference that it was more than just space stretching or speed that contributed to red shift. Maybe it was related to dark matter or something similar between an observered galaxy and the earth.

It wasn't clear, but I assume the strecthing of the space in universe is due to the decrease in graviational fields as objects move away from each other?
 
  • #5
Do you mean the tired light theory as first proposed by fritz Zwicky (1927?).
Photons lose energy as they travel and since E = hf the frequency reduces and wavelength increasesd. They are redshifted.
He put it down to gravitational effects.
 
  • #6
ratfink said:
Do you mean the tired light theory as first proposed by fritz Zwicky (1927?).
Photons lose energy as they travel and since E = hf the frequency reduces and wavelength increasesd. They are redshifted.
He put it down to gravitational effects.
That's probably what I read, athough I'm not quite old enough to have remembered it went first published. Has this theory been abandonded now?
 
  • #8
Jeff Reid said:
That's probably what I read, athough I'm not quite old enough to have remembered it went first published. Has this theory been abandonded now?

Tired light theory hasn't been taken seriously by the mainstream for quite some time. It was a viable alternative for several decades after it was proposed (20s), but the CMB and other cosmological tests have since put it very firmly to sleep.
 
  • #9
Let me put this another way! Instead of just quoting ‘cosmological tests’ it would help if you stated what they are.
As far as I know, we have the Tolman surface brightness test and supernovae time dilation. Any more?
The Tolman surface brightness test was always 'iffy' as it relied on models on how galaxies aged. On nearby galaxies it showed that expanding models were probably nearer the truth than static models. But this was on nearby galaxies (three in the same cluster?)
However the HUDF came along and now the tolman test comes out very firmly in favour of a static universe.
That leaves us with ‘time dilation.’ Supernovae light curves’ are stretched which agrees with the expanding theory whilst quasar light curves are not stretched – which agrees with the static universe. Since this is the same phenomenon, until such time as anyone can come with a theory that unifies these effects then the jury must remain out.
CMB? Didn’t you tell me that the axis of evil is still there on the latest data?
If the clumps are aligned about our solar system and galactic plane then even that has a problem. Furthermore, the horizon problem in the CMB is only solved by inflation and that has no experimental verification whatsoever!
So we can neglect cosmological tests and the CMB to rule out a static universe – unless you know of any other?
 
  • #10
ratfink said:
Let me put this another way! Instead of just quoting ‘cosmological tests’ it would help if you stated what they are.

The abundances of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, the formation of large scale structure, star formation rate vs. redshift, the Soltan argument, evolution of morphology with redshift, supernova time dilation, GRB time dilation, and much more, I'm sure. The CMB, abundances, and large scale structure all constitute multiple tests of BB predictions.


However the HUDF came along and now the tolman test comes out very firmly in favour of a static universe.

Eric Lerner is a well-known crank. Those results come about from one of the effects I mentioned above -- the evolution of star formation with redshift. High-z galaxies are nothing like low-z ones, so as you've suggested, the test is not very useful. It may have some value at low redshifts and where galaxies haven't evolved much, but it's still not a very strong test.


CMB? Didn’t you tell me that the axis of evil is still there on the latest data?

The "axis of evil" is a sign of possible contamination in the data at low multipoles. The vast majority of the information in the CMB lies at high multipoles, where the standard model fits the data to very high precision. The CMB is a very dramatic test of mainstream theory -- it comes as no surprise to me that most of the laymen advocating steady state models don't understand the WMAP results.


Furthermore, the horizon problem in the CMB is only solved by inflation and that has no experimental verification whatsoever!

Wrong again. Inflation is actually doing quite well lately. The universe has continued to be consistent with flat, now to a precision of a few percent. Furthermore, the fluctuations in both the CMB and large scale structure (see the "genus" test) have been shown to be gaussian, another prediction of inflation. Finally, the WMAP measurements indicate a spectral slope just slightly deviant from unity, just as predicted by inflation.
 
  • #11
the Soltan argument,
I suspect this is not well known among PF readers; could anyone provide both a succinct summary of what it is? Also, when was it first published? And how widely has it been used (in cosmology)?
 
  • #12
it would be nice if an actual physicist or student would have metioned that the question is scientifically invalid- since photons have no tau- thus they can't do anything 'over time' to begin with-
 
  • #13
setAI said:
it would be nice if an actual physicist or student would have metioned that the question is scientifically invalid- since photons have no tau- thus they can't do anything 'over time' to begin with-
A good point.

Observed cosmological red shift is to do with the way the photon is being observed, compared with how it was emitted.

A photon is emitted by one atom and absorbed by another much later in the universe's history. Cosmological curvature results in a time dilation between the two, but should not that time dilation affect the mass of the atom as well as the frequency of the photon? i.e. if there is a de Broglie frequency associated with the atom's rest mass.

Just a thought.

Garth
 
  • #14
setAI said:
it would be nice if an actual physicist or student would have metioned that the question is scientifically invalid- since photons have no tau- thus they can't do anything 'over time' to begin with-

They can certainly change as a function of coordinate time, which is usually what people mean by "time" in cosmology.
 
  • #15
Eh Up!
Space tiger tells us that
The universe has continued to be consistent with flat, now to a precision of a few percent.
Garth says
Cosmological curvature results in a time dilation between the two,
A contradiction I fear!
Which means that neither knows what they are talking about?
 
  • #16
ratfink said:
A contradiction I fear!
Not at all.

Cosmological curvatue is space-time curvature, the present mainstream model is concordant with a spatially flat, or near flat universe.

The isotropic and homogeneous space-like foliations appear to have a flat geometry even though they are embedded in a 4D space-time that has curvature.

This curvature is represented by the scale function R(t) as well as the (space) curvature constant k.

I hope this helps.

Which means that neither knows what they are talking about?
You might well be right - "cosmologists are often in error but never in doubt"

But I will let SpaceTiger speak for himself. :smile:

Garth
 
Last edited:
  • #17
Nereid said:
I suspect this is not well known among PF readers; could anyone provide both a succinct summary of what it is? Also, when was it first published? And how widely has it been used (in cosmology)?

The Soltan argument basically compares the present day mass density of black holes to the integrated luminosity density of quasars. The idea is that supermassive black holes are expected to grow by mass accretion -- a process that radiates energy that we see in the form of active galactic nuclei. If we add up the total radiated energy from AGN over the history of the universe, we can infer how much mass was accreted. If our ideas about AGNe and cosmology are correct, this inferred accreted mass density ought to be comparable to the mass density of black holes. In general, the luminosity and mass accretion rate are related by

[tex]L=\epsilon \dot{M}c^2[/tex]

The efficiency, [itex]\epsilon[/itex], is not known in general, but has characteristic values of order 0.1 in most black hole accretion theories. The Soltan argument can be used in several ways -- for example, to infer the efficiency of accretion. In the present context, it can be used to support the expansion paradigm. Using a reasonable value for the efficiency, the present-day mass density of black holes is comparable (to within an OOM) to the inferred accreted mass density:

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0203082" [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
ratfink said:
A contradiction I fear!
Which means that neither knows what they are talking about?

To the contrary, Garth knows quite a bit about GR. I won't insult you and suggest that you didn't know that the universe had been measured to be flat, but when two ideas seem to contradict one another, it's always wise to consider the possibility that you might yourself be misunderstanding something about them.
 
  • #19
So, is it flat or is it curved?
 
  • #20
ratfink said:
So, is it flat or is it curved?
The consensus of opinion is the WMAP data is consistent with spatially flat universe. Such a spatially flat 3D hyper-surface would be embedded in a 4D curved space-time.

The curvature of space-time is revealed by working out all the components of the Riemannian tensor with the Robertson-Walker metric in which k = 0, they are not all zero. It is this 4D space-time curvature that describes the gravitational field.

The peculiar thing about the GR cosmological solution is when all the Riemannian components are zero, in the empty universe case, then the 3D space hyper-surface is not flat but hyperbolic and expanding linearly.

My caveat on that consensus opinion is, as the WMAP data is angular in nature and conformal transformations preserve angles, it is also consistent with a spatially conformally flat universe.

Garth
 
Last edited:
  • #21
Thanks garth,
Sorry for the delay, been stargazing - the alignment of the planets is brill at present!
So, what you are saying is that it has taken nearly one hundred years and several COBE type satellite results to show that in X,Y,Z coordinates space is flat - which is what they thought it looked like at the beginning?
Out of interest, what evidence is there that space is curved in 4D space time?
Thanks.
 
  • #22
ratfink said:
Thanks garth,
Sorry for the delay, been stargazing - the alignment of the planets is brill at present!
So, what you are saying is that it has taken nearly one hundred years and several COBE type satellite results to show that in X,Y,Z coordinates space is flat - which is what they thought it looked like at the beginning?
At the beginning they also thought space was static.
Out of interest, what evidence is there that space is curved in 4D space time?
Thanks.
Gravitation.
It particular, the finer details of the orbits of planets such as Mercury and the trajectories of light rays passing close to the Sun follow the geodesics ('straight -lines') through a curved 4D space-time as predicted by GR.

Garth
 
  • #23
Well no, These are local perturbations and I am sure we are all happy with that. In this thread we are looking at the universe in total. When we look at the Universe as a whole, in 3d it is flat and in 4d it is supposedly curved? I was just wondering which way it curves in 4D space (do we know?) and what evidence do we have?
Ta
 
  • #24
ratfink said:
Well no, These are local perturbations and I am sure we are all happy with that. In this thread we are looking at the universe in total. When we look at the Universe as a whole, in 3d it is flat and in 4d it is supposedly curved? I was just wondering which way it curves in 4D space (do we know?) and what evidence do we have?
Ta
Sorry I misunderstood your question.

Astrophysics, and scientific cosmology, is the application of the physics 'down here' in the laboratory to observations of the universe 'out there'.

The 'down here' bit in GR are the solar system experiments that verify the predictions of the theory. These verify the understanding that "space is curved in 4D space time".

Once GR is accepted as an accurate description of gravitational fields the GR field equation is solved for the cosmological case, with a maximally symmetric space, which is homogeneous and isotropic.

This yielded the Friedmann models that are then verified by:
1. Hubble red shift.
2. BB nucleosynthesis predicting a 3/4 H and 1/4 He composition by mass of the primordial gas exiting the BB. This is concordant with the present day element relative abundance mix taking 10 Gyrs. worth of stellar nucleosynthesis into account.
3. The CMB.
4. The relative abundance of some rare isotopes that were produced in the BB, although these are often model dependent and do not constitute a hard prediction.

The standard model also requires, Inflation, non-baryonic DM and DE which have been able to be combined into a self consistent model. Although I have an issue with this as they have not been discovered in laboratory physics.

However, the veracity of the first three predictions are grounds for confidence in the basic GR understanding that ""space is curved in 4D space time".

Garth
 
Last edited:
  • #25
Also there is large scale gravitational lensing of distant quasars by nearer galaxies. Although this is not quite on the cosmological scale.

I was just wondering which way it curves in 4D space (do we know?) and what evidence do we have?
As far as this question is concerned the curvature of space-time around the Sun has a definite direction, light rays are bent towards the Sun as they pass close by. However cosmological curvature has no such direction in space. Instead it is revealed as a time dilation.

The expression "space-time curvature" is a mathematical one that may be confusing. It may have a spatial component as well as a temporal one. The temporal 'curvature' though manifests itself as a time dilation - you cannot 'bend' time in the normal sense (http://www.tauworkshop.com/DaliWatch.JPG [Broken] not withstanding!)

Garth
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #26
ratfink said:
Out of interest, what evidence is there that space is curved in 4D space time?

A flat spacetime would just be Minkowski space. In a spatially flat FRW universe, the 4D curvature manifests itself as expansion or contraction. Therefore, for these purposes, we should be able to answer, "What is the evidence that the universe is curved in 4D?", in the same way as, "What is the evidence that the universe is expanding?". Ratfink can just refer to the responses I already gave in reference to the latter question.
 
  • #27
Thanks Garth,
You see my interest in 'curvature' is entwined with the question of "where does the energy go" in the BB theory.
Photons of light have a longer wavelength on arrival than when these same photons set off. Ergo, their frequency and hence energy is therefore less.
So in BB, where did this energy go and how did they lose it?
Now the standard BB answer is that it went into "curving space". BUT we know from this thread that space in the x,y,z coords is flat - so it must have gone into curving space time?
But if space time is a mathematical concept then how do photons curve it in becomng redshifted?
 
  • #28
SpaceTiger said:
To the contrary, Garth knows quite a bit about GR. I won't insult you and suggest that you didn't know that the universe had been measured to be flat, but when two ideas seem to contradict one another, it's always wise to consider the possibility that you might yourself be misunderstanding something about them.
Do you mean this one?
 
  • #29
ratfink said:
Thanks Garth,
You see my interest in 'curvature' is entwined with the question of "where does the energy go" in the BB theory.
Photons of light have a longer wavelength on arrival than when these same photons set off. Ergo, their frequency and hence energy is therefore less.
So in BB, where did this energy go and how did they lose it?
Now the standard BB answer is that it went into "curving space". BUT we know from this thread that space in the x,y,z coords is flat - so it must have gone into curving space time?
But if space time is a mathematical concept then how do photons curve it in becomng redshifted?
The standard BB GR answer is actually the energy did not go anywhere, because energy is not conserved, and not to be expected to be conserved, in an "improper energy theorem" such as GR.

This question vexed Einstein, Hilbert and Klein and others until it was resolved by Emmy Noether (great name for a relativist! :smile:) who coined the phrase "improper energy theorem".

You can read more about Noether's work in Nina Byers paper E. Noether's Discovery of the Deep Connection Between Symmetries and Conservation Laws.

If you are interested in an alternative published theory that tries a different approach you might be interested in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_creation_cosmology [Broken]. (You can find links to the published articles from that Wikipedia page)

Garth
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
ratfink said:
Do you mean this one?

Do I mean what one?
 
  • #31
Nah,
energy is conserved.
if a photon has enough energy to expose a photographic plate on galaxy x, then surely it cannot expose it on galaxy y? It must have lost energy on the way.
Are you saying that whilst a photon exposes a photo of their hols on their plates it also exposes a photo on our photographicplates even though it 'lost energy' on the way? No way!
 
  • #32
SpaceTiger said:
Do I mean what one?

Ratfink can just refer to the responses I already gave in reference to the latter question.
The only previous response that I can find remotely relevant is
it's always wise to consider the possibility that you might yourself be misunderstanding something about them.
 
  • #33
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
ratfink said:
Nah,
energy is conserved.

No, Garth is correct, energy is not always conserved in GR. If you've done research you believe contradicts this, please don't post it here, submit it to the Independent Research forum.
 
  • #35
SpaceTiger said:
No, Garth is correct, energy is not always conserved in GR. If you've done research you believe contradicts this, please don't post it here, submit it to the Independent Research forum.
This is incorrect. Energy conservation in GR is in dispute. Some say that energy is not conserved others say it is due to 'curvature'. I hope that this is not a 'warning' because you wish to avoid answering valid questions.
 
<h2>1. What is photon frequency loss over time?</h2><p>Photon frequency loss over time refers to the decrease in the frequency of a photon as it travels through space. This phenomenon is a result of the expansion of the universe and the interaction of photons with matter and energy.</p><h2>2. How does photon frequency loss occur?</h2><p>Photon frequency loss occurs primarily due to the expansion of the universe, which causes the wavelengths of photons to stretch out over time. This stretching leads to a decrease in frequency, as frequency is inversely proportional to wavelength.</p><h2>3. What is the impact of photon frequency loss?</h2><p>The impact of photon frequency loss is significant in understanding the evolution of the universe. It affects the measurement of cosmic distances and the properties of light from distant objects. It also has implications in the study of dark energy and the fate of the universe.</p><h2>4. Can photon frequency loss be reversed?</h2><p>No, photon frequency loss cannot be reversed. Once a photon's frequency decreases, it cannot be increased again. However, the effects of photon frequency loss can be accounted for in calculations and measurements.</p><h2>5. How is photon frequency loss measured?</h2><p>Photon frequency loss is measured using various techniques, including spectroscopy and redshift measurements. These methods involve analyzing the wavelengths of light from distant objects and comparing them to the expected values based on the expansion of the universe.</p>

1. What is photon frequency loss over time?

Photon frequency loss over time refers to the decrease in the frequency of a photon as it travels through space. This phenomenon is a result of the expansion of the universe and the interaction of photons with matter and energy.

2. How does photon frequency loss occur?

Photon frequency loss occurs primarily due to the expansion of the universe, which causes the wavelengths of photons to stretch out over time. This stretching leads to a decrease in frequency, as frequency is inversely proportional to wavelength.

3. What is the impact of photon frequency loss?

The impact of photon frequency loss is significant in understanding the evolution of the universe. It affects the measurement of cosmic distances and the properties of light from distant objects. It also has implications in the study of dark energy and the fate of the universe.

4. Can photon frequency loss be reversed?

No, photon frequency loss cannot be reversed. Once a photon's frequency decreases, it cannot be increased again. However, the effects of photon frequency loss can be accounted for in calculations and measurements.

5. How is photon frequency loss measured?

Photon frequency loss is measured using various techniques, including spectroscopy and redshift measurements. These methods involve analyzing the wavelengths of light from distant objects and comparing them to the expected values based on the expansion of the universe.

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
57
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
23
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
968
  • Cosmology
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
863
Back
Top