Register to reply

Photon frequency loss over time?

by rcgldr
Tags: frequency, loss, photon, time
Share this thread:
ratfink
#19
Jun2-06, 11:37 PM
P: 58
So, is it flat or is it curved?
Garth
#20
Jun3-06, 02:13 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Garth's Avatar
P: 3,273
Quote Quote by ratfink
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
ratfink
#21
Jun3-06, 11:40 PM
P: 58
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.
Garth
#22
Jun4-06, 12:57 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Garth's Avatar
P: 3,273
Quote Quote by ratfink
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
ratfink
#23
Jun4-06, 05:00 AM
P: 58
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
Garth
#24
Jun4-06, 07:40 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Garth's Avatar
P: 3,273
Quote Quote by ratfink
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
Garth
#25
Jun4-06, 09:16 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Garth's Avatar
P: 3,273
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 spacial 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 (Salvador Dali not withstanding!)

Garth
SpaceTiger
#26
Jun4-06, 02:28 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
SpaceTiger's Avatar
P: 2,977
Quote Quote by ratfink
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.
ratfink
#27
Jun4-06, 02:31 PM
P: 58
Thanks Garth,
You see my interest in 'curvature' is entwined with the queston 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?
ratfink
#28
Jun4-06, 02:36 PM
P: 58
Quote Quote by SpaceTiger
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?
Garth
#29
Jun4-06, 02:58 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Garth's Avatar
P: 3,273
Quote Quote by ratfink
Thanks Garth,
You see my interest in 'curvature' is entwined with the queston 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! ) 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 Self creation cosmology. (You can find links to the published articles from that Wikipedia page)

Garth
SpaceTiger
#30
Jun4-06, 03:12 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
SpaceTiger's Avatar
P: 2,977
Quote Quote by ratfink
Do you mean this one?
Do I mean what one?
ratfink
#31
Jun4-06, 03:15 PM
P: 58
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!
ratfink
#32
Jun4-06, 03:20 PM
P: 58
Quote Quote by SpaceTiger
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.
SpaceTiger
#33
Jun4-06, 03:30 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
SpaceTiger's Avatar
P: 2,977
Quote Quote by ratfink
The only previous response that I can find remotely relevant...
This post is what I was referring to:

http://physicsforums.com/showpost.ph...6&postcount=10

Evidence for an expanding universe is also evidence for a curved spacetime.
SpaceTiger
#34
Jun4-06, 03:32 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
SpaceTiger's Avatar
P: 2,977
Quote Quote by ratfink
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.
ratfink
#35
Jun4-06, 03:42 PM
P: 58
Quote Quote by SpaceTiger
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.
ratfink
#36
Jun4-06, 03:55 PM
P: 58
So, would the photographic plate be exposed on both galaxies or only one?
This is what energy conservation is about (and forums for that matter too!)


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Frequency of a photon? Quantum Physics 20
Photon energy, frequency, wavelength Introductory Physics Homework 8
What does the frequency of a photon actually mean? General Physics 4
Frequency of a single photon General Physics 16
Which photon has the higher frequency? Chemistry 15