I Does expanding space cause cosmological redshift?

p78653
Messages
6
Reaction score
2
The cosmological redshift is generally assumed to be due to space expansion.

But if spacetime is locally flat Minkowskian then surely photon wavelength should not change?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
p78653 said:
The cosmological redshift is generally assumed to be due to space expansion.
No, it isn't "assumed" to be due to anything. It is calculated to be due to the spacetime geometry of the universe and the relationship of the worldlines of light rays to the worldlines of comoving observers.

p78653 said:
if spacetime is locally flat Minkowskian then surely photon wavelength should not change?
No, this is not correct. There is no such thing as "photon wavelength" independent of a particular observer measuring the photon, or more precisely "light ray" (since we are not talking about quantum physics here and "photon" is a quantum concept).
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron and PeroK
p78653 said:
But if spacetime is locally flat Minkowskian then surely photon wavelength should not change?
This statement is analogous to the claim that because the surface of the Earth is locally flat Euclidean great circle paths can't cross again. The key point is that "locally flat" is an approximation that is only exactly true over a region of zero size. Actually, curvature is negligible over a small region, but never totally absent.

In an ideal FLRW universe you and I could independently verify that we each see the CMB as isotropic. If we were megaparsecs apart then as soon as we could see each other we would be able to see redshift in each other. But if we were only a meter apart our redshift would be something like ##10^{-18}## - unmeasurably small. It'd be 140 million years before we were 1cm further apart (assuming us being over-dense can be neglected - in fact our gravitational attraction would overwhelm our expansion velocity on a timescale of fractions of a microsecond). It would be totally fine to ignore cosmological curvature over human time scales. Just as you don't bother accounting for the curvature of the Earth when you tile a floor, but you need to worry about it when planning a city.
 
  • Like
Likes cianfa72, Klystron and Vanadium 50
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
Back
Top