Could redshift be caused by time speeding up?

In summary, the conversation was about the possibility of the universe not expanding and time not being constant but instead speeding up, which could potentially explain the observed cosmological redshift. The original poster was asking for an explanation and questioning if this could rule out the Big Bang theory and dark matter. However, another user pointed out that this idea is nonsensical from a physics point of view and goes against the definition of time. The conversation then shifted to discussing if it is possible to compare the rates of physical processes at different times and if light could be used as a means to do so. Eventually, it was determined that this topic goes beyond mainstream cosmology and is more of a personal theory.
  • #1
paulharter
5
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
  • #2
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.
 
  • #3
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.
 
  • #4
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)
 
  • #5
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.)
 
  • #6
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.
 
  • #7
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.
 
  • #8
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 PeroK
  • #9
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.
 

1. What is redshift and how is it related to time?

Redshift is a phenomenon observed in astronomy where the light emitted from distant objects such as galaxies or stars appear to have longer wavelengths, towards the red end of the spectrum. This is a result of the Doppler effect, where the object is moving away from the observer causing a shift in the light's wavelength. Time is related to redshift because the rate at which time passes is affected by the object's movement through space.

2. How is redshift currently explained by scientists?

Currently, redshift is explained by the expansion of the universe. This theory, known as the Big Bang theory, suggests that the universe is continually expanding and objects are moving away from each other. As a result, the light emitted from these objects appears to have a longer wavelength, causing redshift.

3. Can time speeding up cause redshift?

While it is an interesting theory, there is currently no scientific evidence to support the idea that time speeding up can cause redshift. The current explanation of redshift through the expansion of the universe is widely accepted by the scientific community.

4. How do scientists measure redshift?

Scientists use a tool called a spectrograph to measure the redshift of an object. This instrument separates light into its component wavelengths, allowing scientists to determine the amount of redshift by comparing the observed wavelength to the expected wavelength of a stationary object.

5. Could redshift be caused by something other than the expansion of the universe?

While the current explanation of redshift through the expansion of the universe is widely accepted, there are other theories that have been proposed. These include the idea of tired light, where the light itself becomes tired and loses energy as it travels through space, causing redshift. However, there is currently no evidence to support these alternative theories and the expansion of the universe remains the most widely accepted explanation for redshift.

Similar threads

B Experimental evidence on cosmological redshift
    • Cosmology
Replies
34
Views
2K
B What value of z (redshift) equals apparent superluminal recession?
    • Cosmology
Replies
28
Views
1K
B Cosmological time dilation of high-redshift quasars
    • Cosmology
Replies
8
Views
1K
I Some redshift from prism effect of a gravitational lens?
    • Cosmology
Replies
18
Views
2K
I Problem interpreting a Distance-Redshift Plot
    • Cosmology
2
Replies
55
Views
8K
I Gravity does negative or positive work with cosmos redshift?
    • Other Physics Topics
Replies
7
Views
2K
Behavior of redshift over time
    • Cosmology
Replies
11
Views
1K
I Does dark-energy require a source of energy?
    • Cosmology
Replies
2
Views
537
B Do we directly observe redshifted galaxies receding >c?
    • Cosmology
Replies
17
Views
2K
B Difference between special relativity and redshift?
    • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top