How Does Expansion Effect the Frequency of Light

Drakkith
Mentor
Messages
23,179
Reaction score
7,656
I have a question. I've been told that expansion "stretches" the light out and causes the redshift. However, the frequency of the light is the number of oscillations in its fields per second correct? How does "stretching" the wave affect the frequency? I know that v=fλ is the equation relating frequency to wavelength, and that increasing the wavelength should decrease the frequency, but is that really all there is too it? Or is it due to the recession velocities similar to normal doppler shift? (Which, for an EM wave still doesn't make sense to me)

Perhaps a better question is how does red/blue shift (for whatever reason) change the frequency of the light? Is it simply in the math and the above equation? I can understand the doppler effect of sound, as each wavefront takes longer to arrive if something is heading away from you, and quicker if it's heading towards you, but I have a hard time understanding this effect on light.
 
Last edited:
Space news on Phys.org
Drakkith said:
I have a question. I've been told that expansion "stretches" the light out and causes the redshift. However, the frequency of the light is the number of oscillations in its fields per second correct? How does "streatching" the wave affect the frequency? I know that v=fλ is the equation relating frequency to wavelength, and that increasing the wavelength should decrease the frequency, but is that really all there is too it? Or is it due to the recession velocities similar to normal doppler shift? (Which, for an EM wave still doesn't make sense to me)

Perhaps a better question is how does red/blue shift (for whatever reason) change the frequency of the light? Is it simply in the math and the above equation? I can understand the doppler effect of sound, as each wavefront takes longer to arrive if something is heading away from you, and quicker if it's heading towards you, but I have a hard time understanding this effect on light.

the wavelength is the distance, in a straight line, between the start and end of a full oscillation. it can be measured from any point on the wave as long as the end is in the same place relatively speaking as the start point, just one oscillation over. stretching the wavelength is therefore a direct reduction in the number of oscillations in a second since the velocity is fixed.
 
Drakkith said:
I have a question. I've been told that expansion "stretches" the light out and causes the redshift. However, the frequency of the light is the number of oscillations in its fields per second correct? How does "streatching" the wave affect the frequency? I know that v=fλ is the equation relating frequency to wavelength, and that increasing the wavelength should decrease the frequency, but is that really all there is too it? Or is it due to the recession velocities similar to normal doppler shift? (Which, for an EM wave still doesn't make sense to me)

Perhaps a better question is how does red/blue shift (for whatever reason) change the frequency of the light? Is it simply in the math and the above equation? I can understand the doppler effect of sound, as each wavefront takes longer to arrive if something is heading away from you, and quicker if it's heading towards you, but I have a hard time understanding this effect on light.

red and blue shift of light frequency in genera is analogous to Doppler in sound waves. The frequency is adjusted in precisely the same way as sound waves with the relative velocity being the factor determining the change in frequency. However with light to get a precise value especially when objects are moving at even a small fraction of the speed of light you need to use SR to adjust the frequency. With SR it doesn't matter whether the object is moving rapidly away or rapidly towards you, the effect is the same. There is a just a difference in velocity. SR treats the observer as not moving and ascribes the velocity to the other object. The effect is that the frequency is factored to a lesser value than it would be without SR.

The radar police use to catch speeders used the doppler effect on light reflected back from the vehicle to determine it's velocity-no SR is required because of the tiny relative velocities.
The light (radar frequency) from approaching vehicles will have a higher frequency than sent, receding vehicles will have a lower frequency. The difference in frequencies when 'played' together creates a pulse-the faster the pulse the greater the difference in velocity between the officer and the speeder.

I won't speculate on why red shift isn't quite so simple to explain in cosmological distances and times. I will say that the relative velocity of galaxies away from us appears to have been accelerating for 5 or 6 billion years. I don't think any definitive explanation of all aspects of the redshift of galaxies is absolutely accepted by many physicists. -It's an open question.
mathal
 
Last edited:
"Cosmological Redshift in FRW Metrics with Constant Spacetime Curvature"

By: Fulvio Melia

ABSTRACT

Cosmological redshift z grows as the Universe expands and is conventionally viewed as a third form of redshift, beyond the more traditional Doppler and gravitational effects seen in other applications of general relativity. In this paper, we examine the origin of redshift in the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metrics with constant spacetime curvature, and show that—at least for the static spacetimes—the interpretation of z as due to the “stretching” of space is coordinate dependent. Namely, we prove that redshift may also be calculated solely from the effects of kinematics and gravitational acceleration. This suggests that its dependence on the expansion factor is simply a manifestation of the high degree of symmetry in FRW, and ought not be viewed as evidence in support of the idea that space itself is expanding.

See: arXiv:1202.0775v1
 
Last edited:
Assuming the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, then the energy density of photons drops like a-4 while their number density goes down as a-3 -> single photons energy decreases as a-1, where a is now the scale factor of the universe.

If you want to be less model-dependent, you can explicitly foliate the spacetime into 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimension (choose your coordinates) and then calculate the photon redshift in this frame, and you get something like
1+z(t) = \exp \left[ \int^{t_0}_t dt \theta/3 \right]
where theta is now related to the metric connection in the coordinates you chose.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
Back
Top