I Does expanding space cause cosmological redshift?

Click For Summary
The cosmological redshift is attributed to the geometry of spacetime rather than merely the expansion of space. Photon wavelength is not an absolute measure and depends on the observer's frame of reference, challenging the idea that it remains unchanged in locally flat Minkowskian spacetime. Even in a locally flat region, the universe's curvature affects the perception of redshift, as it is negligible over small distances but significant over cosmic scales. Observers separated by vast distances can detect redshift, while those close together experience negligible shifts. Understanding these principles is essential for accurately interpreting cosmological observations.
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
Moderator's note: Spin-off from another thread due to topic change. In the second link referenced, there is a claim about a physical interpretation of frame field. Consider a family of observers whose worldlines fill a region of spacetime. Each of them carries a clock and a set of mutually orthogonal rulers. Each observer points in the (timelike) direction defined by its worldline's tangent at any given event along it. What about the rulers each of them carries ? My interpretation: each...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K