B Could redshift be caused by time speeding up?

[paulharter]

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.

 

[Orodruin]

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.

 

[paulharter]

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.

 

[Vanadium 50]

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)

 

[Orodruin]

But it is not nonsensical.

From a physics point of view it is.

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.)

 

[PeroK]

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.

 

[Orodruin]

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.

 

[paulharter]

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.

 

[MacRudi]

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

 

[kartikeya bathla]

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.

 

[paulharter]

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.

 

[paulharter]

I noticed the thread from 2009 which answers my question fairly well

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/universe-expanding-or-time-speeding-up.366055/