Could redshift be caused by time speeding up?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter paulharter
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Redshift Time
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of whether observed cosmological redshift could be attributed to time speeding up rather than the expansion of the universe. Participants explore theoretical implications and challenge the validity of this idea, considering its alignment with established physics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that if the universe were not expanding and time were speeding up, this could account for the observed cosmological redshift, suggesting that wavelengths of light would appear longer due to changes in the passage of time.
  • Others argue against this notion, stating that time cannot be "sped up" as it serves as a reference for measuring physical processes.
  • A participant questions how mainstream cosmology rules out the possibility of physical processes occurring at different rates in the past as an explanation for redshift, indicating a desire for clarification on this aspect.
  • Another participant emphasizes that redefining time would be necessary if physical processes were to be considered as varying over time, as time is typically defined in relation to clocks.
  • Some contributions reference advanced theories, such as ultra hyperbolic Cauchy integrals, suggesting that there are complex ideas that are not widely considered in mainstream physics.
  • There are expressions of frustration regarding the nature of the discussion, with some participants feeling that the thread is not suitable for developing personal theories.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus, as there are competing views on the validity of the idea that redshift could be explained by time speeding up, with some firmly rejecting the notion while others seek to explore it further.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in the discussion include a lack of clarity on the definitions of time and the assumptions underlying the claims about physical processes. The conversation reflects varying levels of expertise among participants, with some expressing a desire for informed explanations.

paulharter
Messages
5
Reaction score
1
This has been bothering me for ages so I'm posting here in the hope someone can answer.

If the universe was not expanding and if time was not constant but instead was speeding up why would this not fully account for observed cosmological redshift? Wavelengths of light released long ago would appear longer as seconds are shorter than when the light started its journey.

And I guess no Big Bang or dark matter.
 
Space news on Phys.org
paulharter said:
This has been bothering me for ages so I'm posting here in the hope someone can answer.

If the universe was not expanding and if time was not constant but instead was speeding up why would this not fully account for observed cosmological redshift? Wavelengths of light released long ago would appear longer as seconds are shorter than when the light started its journey.

And I guess no Big Bang or dark matter.
Sorry to say, but this is nonsensical. You cannot "speed up" time as time is your reference.

Edit: This is also clearly not an A level thread. I am going to relabel it to B.
 
I'm happy to be "relabelled" as I no physicist.

But it is not nonsensical. I am asking exactly that. Might not the "constant" reference of time actually be the thing that is changing. You give no reason why this could not be so.
 
Did you read the PF Rules when you joined? It specifically states we are not here to develop personal theories.

(And theorizing is more than stringing together scientific sounding words in a seemingly random order)
 
paulharter said:
But it is not nonsensical.
From a physics point of view it is.
paulharter said:
ou give no reason why this could not be so
I did. Generally, time is part of the definition of what "slow" means. It elapses at a rate of one second per second. (We are here talking proper time, you can get things like time dilation if you start using coordinate time, but that is something different.)
 
I think it's a fair question to ask:

How does mainstream cosmology rule out the possibility that physical processes took place at a different rate in the past; as opposed to distant galaxies receding, as an explanation for redshift?

I don't know the answer (I'm no cosmologist) but it doesn't seem like a question that can't be answered.
 
PeroK said:
How does mainstream cosmology rule out the possibility that physical processes took place at a different rate in the past;
This would mean redefining time as time is defined with respect to clocks - which are nothing but physical processes.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
Did you read the PF Rules when you joined? It specifically states we are not here to develop personal theories.

I am far from expounding theories but was hoping for informed explanation of something that has been bothering me in a field in which I have no expertise. Clearly this is the wrong place to ask.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK
Maybe he has read about the ultra hyperbolic cauchy Intergrals for linear functions.

It is a theory far beyond. But not many physicists ever want to think about such possibilities. And many physicists don't know it of course
 
  • #10
paulharter said:
I am far from expounding theories but was hoping for informed explanation of something that has been bothering me in a field in which I have no expertise. Clearly this is the wrong place to ask.
 
  • #11
Orodruin said:
This would mean redefining time as time is defined with respect to clocks - which are nothing but physical processes.
Might it not be meaningful to compare the rates of physical processes at different times to each other? Might light traveling between them offer a way to do this? I'm really just asking the same question.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
11K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K