Length Contraction & Galaxies: Time Dilation Adjustments

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concepts of length contraction and time dilation as they relate to galaxies moving away from us in an expanding universe. Participants explore whether we observe contracted lengths of galaxies due to their motion and how this relates to adjustments made for time dilation in supernova observations.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that galaxies moving away from us should appear contracted in length, similar to how time dilation is adjusted for in supernova light curves.
  • Others argue that Lorentz contraction does not apply to galaxies due to their separation and the curvature of spacetime, which prevents them from being in the same inertial frame.
  • It is suggested that noticeable contraction would only occur if a galaxy is moving away at a significant fraction of the speed of light.
  • Participants question the meaning of "going away from us" in the context of curved spacetime, noting the lack of a single inertial frame covering both us and distant galaxies.
  • Some clarify that adjustments made for supernova observations relate to redshift rather than time dilation, emphasizing that time dilation cannot be properly defined in an expanding universe.
  • A participant introduces a hypothetical scenario involving a galaxy at redshift z and Hubble velocity v, questioning the relationship between cosmological time dilation and the Lorentz factor.
  • Another participant challenges the definition of "Hubble velocity," suggesting it may not have a well-defined meaning in curved spacetime.
  • There is a discussion about the factor B in relation to redshift and its comparison to the Lorentz factor, with some asserting that they are not directly related.
  • A later reply points out that maintaining a constant distance to a home galaxy is only feasible if one is within a certain range, otherwise it would require superluminal speeds.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the application of length contraction and time dilation to galaxies. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus reached on the implications of these concepts in the context of an expanding universe.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of velocity in curved spacetime, the ambiguity surrounding the application of Lorentz contraction, and the unresolved nature of time dilation in an expanding universe.

vinven7
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
Since galaxies are moving away from us, shouldn't they be contracted in length than they would be if they were at rest (wrt us)? In other words, are we observing increasingly shrunken galaxies as we look deeper into space?

When measuring supernova light curves, we do adjust for time dilation, so it seems natural that length would also be shortened. But I have not heard this explicitly mentioned as such.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
vinven7 said:
Since galaxies are moving away from us, shouldn't they be contracted in length than they would be if they were at rest (wrt us)?
Is it Lorentz contraction that you have in mind? Lorentz contraction does not apply here because it is only applicable to two objects that are in the same inertial frame. Galaxies are too far apart from one another to be in the same inertial frame, because there is too much curvature between them. A frame that was inertial for one galaxy would not even be approximately inertial for the other.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vinven7
Unless the galaxy is going away from us at a significant fraction of the speed of light, there wouldn't be any noticeable contraction.
 
mathman said:
Unless the galaxy is going away from us at a significant fraction of the speed of light

"Going away from us" in what sense? Spacetime is curved; there is not a single inertial frame that covers both us and the distant galaxy. So there is no invariant meaning to the "relative speed" of us and the other galaxy.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vinven7
vinven7 said:
When measuring supernova light curves, we do adjust for time dilation

No, we adjust for redshift, which is not the same thing. There is no way to properly define the "time dilation" of a distant object in an expanding universe. But we can directly observe the redshift of light emitted by a distant object, and adjust for that.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vinven7
vinven7 said:
Since galaxies are moving away from us, shouldn't they be contracted in length than they would be if they were at rest (wrt us)? In other words, are we observing increasingly shrunken galaxies as we look deeper into space?

Yes, in the following sense. Let I be an agent from a galaxy far away. I am so cordial to my galaxy that I keep the distance to home constant. I can do that by adjusting observed hydrogen spectrum from home galaxy be normal. In this galaxy I was dispatched, I am moving very fast. I report home that time dilation and lengh contraction take place in this galaxy that is moving very fast.
 
PeterDonis said:
No, we adjust for redshift, which is not the same thing. There is no way to properly define the "time dilation" of a distant object in an expanding universe. But we can directly observe the redshift of light emitted by a distant object, and adjust for that.

Thank you. I think I misunderstood what the origin of "time dilation" is and PF has saved me yet again!

I have a follow up question. Let us say that we have a galaxy at redshift z and some Hubble velocity 'v'. This galaxy is observed to have a cosmological time dilation by a factor 'B' {ie, a supernova would fade in time B*T when observed in this galaxy as compared to a time T when observed in our rest frame, say}. Does the factor B work out to be the same as what we would observe if the galaxy had been in our inertial frame moving with a velocity v? ie, how does B compare with 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)
 
vinven7 said:
Let us say that we have a galaxy at redshift z and some Hubble velocity 'v'.

What is the "Hubble velocity"? Do you mean the speed of light times the redshift? In a curved spacetime, there is no well-defined meaning to the relative velocity of two objects that are spatially separated.

vinven7 said:
his galaxy is observed to have a cosmological time dilation by a factor 'B' {ie, a supernova would fade in time B*T when observed in this galaxy as compared to a time T when observed in our rest frame, say}

Once again, this is not "time dilation"; this is redshift. The factor B is just 1 + z, where z is the redshift.

vinven7 said:
how does B compare with 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)

It has no relation, because v isn't well-defined to begin with. See above.
 
sweet springs said:
I am so cordial to my galaxy that I keep the distance to home constant.

This only works if you are close enough to your home galaxy. If you are further away than the Hubble distance, you would have to move faster than light to keep the distance to home constant.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
6K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 63 ·
3
Replies
63
Views
6K
  • · Replies 78 ·
3
Replies
78
Views
6K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
941
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
4K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K