Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Matter in space create red shift

  1. Mar 18, 2003 #1
    when light hits a object,its image is tranfered from the object it hit until it hits something else.when the light hits our eyes the last image encoded on the light or photons is whatwe see.so light from other stars travels through space until it hits us,that it why we see them because the light has'nt hit anything else on its way to us to encode another image.so the point is space is not devoid of matter.atoms that did'nt forms stars or planets are despersed throughout space.so as the light is travelling through space the photons hit these atoms or particles in space taking away energy from light as they pass through them.or am i wrong and it more from increasing distance the light has to travel that red shift is caused by because if the heat of the light as it travels is taken by the energy tranfer to space form the cold vaccum.and the light hit nothing else for the frequencys energy level to change why does distance degrade its energy?
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 27, 2003 #2
    what if light was bound by the speed of light but,does effect the lights ontake of energy that would accelerate it faster.it turns it into waves.the photon is repelled from going any faster,but the more energy it take on the faster it oscilates.the frequency it porportional to the amount of extra energy thats not allowed to give it more forward motion faster than light.so waves are created by the force agaist the repulsion.like taking to magnets and have them both likes pushed against eachother.the light photon glides up and down against spacetime like the two magnets repelling eachother.so the red shift is the increase or decrease of the motion of the body is being emitted from,that translates into up and down distance the photon travel at light speed.as the photon is forces into wave motion.this could explain wave propagation in the slit experiment.light at different fequencies are moving up and down at different rates next to each other,so as the photons hit each other all their doing is scattering each other by there hitting each other at all different angles of impact!
  4. Mar 27, 2003 #3

    Someone else, "chosenone", wrote this and I have cleaned up some typos and selected, with italics, phraseology that seems to be a little awkward but with ((phrase))I have tried to select the focus of that author’s argument.

    I applaud – nay, “laud” this too-short essay’s extremely logical insight concerning the phenomenology of light’s direct interaction with matter that has been obfuscated, for decades, by the assumption that light rays are influenced by the gravitational proximity associated with near-misses by them, to atoms and particles.

    Since the mid-1940s when TIME published an item quoting Hubble’s “theory of tired-light” which seemed, to me, to be postulated on the validity of Einsteinian theory (whereby Hubble argued that light rays, on their trip from an astronomical body, passed through myriad galaxys, the stars of which “rubbed-off” iotas of energy that resulted in the red-shift) which had been ignored. The analogy of Doppler audio frequency shift caused by the relative motion through air of a sound-emitting entity seemed, I guess, to be postulated as applicable to light-rays, which, per se, have constant velocity incapable of relative variation.

    Proof of “direct interaction” of light rays with particulates is visually evidenced by the observation of a laser light beam. In a vacuum, unless you are looking directly into the laser beam, the light cannot be seen – however, seeing the beam, provided that that beam is in the visible spectrum (and the rays of which are denied lateral radiation) is only observable because each of the infinite rays that impinge on a “Brownian dust particle” re-radiate isotropically, having inertially impacted and nudged the particle. Some nudgings attributable to near-hits, result in small angle deflections in the forward direction with extremely minor ray-wave- lengthening. Most of these slightly deflected and de-energized rays will escape from the laser-beam, but the few that encounter another particle have a real possibility of being deflected back into being parallel to the ray’s original direction. It is notable that that ray continues at a slightly reduced frequency that ultimately appears, as a shift toward the red, of that iota of shift that spoils the coherence of the laser-beam. “Quod erat demonstrandum!”
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2003
  5. Mar 29, 2003 #4


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    No. The only interaction with matter that causes red-shift is GRAVITY. You can't "rub off" energy from a beam of light.
    No. Doppler shift is not an analogy, it is a real effect. In order for light to not be affected by doppler shifting, it would need to travel at infinite velocity.
    No. Absorption, reflection, and refraction of light do NOT result in red-shift.

    Plagarism? Stand by for banning in 3......2......1.....
  6. Mar 29, 2003 #5
    what about the adding or subtracting of energy from light when being emitted from a source in motion,directly proportional to the frequency not the velocity of light.
  7. Mar 29, 2003 #6
    To mimic the cosmological redshift, a radial distribution of a uniform material source of velocity v(r) in a non-Hubble universe must be isotropic (the same in all directions), an impossibility unless Earthlings have a observer-preferred ("Aristotelian") perspective.
  8. Mar 30, 2003 #7


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Huh? Doppler shift is doppler shift. Like I said, it works exactly the same for light as it does for sound. No mystery here at all. Your local tv station proably has a good explanation of how their doppler weather radar works on their website.
  9. Apr 1, 2003 #8

    What you are describing is a well known effect called Compton Scattering.

    What happens is a photon collides with a particle and gets absorbed and retransmitted. Or possibly scattered. In either case some form of momentum transfer occurs and the energy of the photon is changed.

    The problem is that the amount of energy the photon looses depends on the energy of the photon, the current energy levels (temperature etc) of the thing it hits and what it hits. This produces a non-uniform, highly anisotropic, redshift effect. This is simply not observed.

    Compton scattering can not be the cause of cosmological redshift.
  10. Apr 1, 2003 #9


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Is that the effect that goes on inside a flourescent light bulb? UV light is absorbed and re-emitted in the visible spectrum?
  11. Apr 2, 2003 #10
    I think he's on to something.

    Arn't there theories that redshift is caused by the loss of energy of light due to space dust.
  12. Apr 2, 2003 #11
    Yep, it's called Compton Scattering. It's well known and well understood. Also, absorption or emission by dust/gas is used to determine the temperature and composition of interstellar dust clouds.

    One thing this type of scattering does NOT do, is provide an identical redshift across all photon energies. For that, you need the source to be moving.
  13. Apr 2, 2003 #12


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No, A flourescent tube displays flourescence. The UV light is absorbed and re-emited at a lower frequency, but the mechanism is different than Compton scattering. With flourescence, the Atom absorbs the UV photon causing it to jump up several energy levels. The atom then falls back to ground state in smaller steps, emitting a lower frequency photon at each step. (Multiple low energy photns are emitted for every hgiher energy photon absorbed)
  14. Apr 2, 2003 #13
    well I was thinking the red shift was caused by the use of energy that light does'nt use to accelerate faster but turns it into frequency motion as a wave.what i mean is the photons actually travels in a up and down motion as it travels straight.if light is held from going any faster,the energy that light takes on converts into wave motion,increasing or decreasing it's frequency.it's like two like poles of a magnet,when you try to push them together and they repel against each other,it forces one or both magnets to either side.so light at light speed is vibrating by it's repulsion to spacetime in front of it,forcing it to move as a wave.so l;ike i said light emitted from a body in motion adds or subtracts motion energy from light changing it's frequency!
  15. Apr 2, 2003 #14
    Hello Loren

    Thank you Mr/Ms Booda for anticipating my mind-set regarding Earthling perspective of light radiating entities. I “laud” your logic – Eureka! Voila tout! Hooray!

    Not only do light rays leave a spherical radiating surface isotropically (oriented radially) but also each infinitesimal iota of that surface radiates an infinity of light rays distributed isotropically over 2-pi steradians relative to the position of that iota. The Aristotelian perspective does become possible when observer-preferred modeling is explained for a non-Hubble, non-Hawking, Euclidian universe. First of all, if vision, whether in the eye or telescopic lens etc, is of “tensorial” nature as contrasted with the vectorial nature of radiated light rays, then all rays that are perceived are radially oriented at the point of optical focus, i.e., at a point somewhere between the lens and retina of the eye or the lens/mirror and the photographic plate of the telescope. IOW: The inverse of isotropic applies to vision; the reality of what is seen is truly “in the eye of the beholder”! Consider the following example.
    Let the focal point between the lens and retina of the eye be the apex of the cone of which the base is the visible lighted area of a full moon. Any light ray emitted from the lighted surface that is not directed toward the focal point in the eye will escape through the lateral surface of the cone. It is important to note that this tensorial modeling mediates physics relating to Solar radiant pressure vis-à-vis:
    1. The radial orientation of the tails of comets.
    2. The 3:2 periodicity ratio of planet Mercury,
    3. The relatively large eccentricity of the Mercury orbit.
    4. The rapid perihelion precession of Mercury’s orbit.
    5. The revelation that the distortion of the several planets’ circular orbits have little to do with the potential existence of any imagined Solar-like body at the alternate elliptical foci but rather with a real variable “albedo” influence on each independent planet orbit.

    It is notable that the base of the postulated tensorial cone becomes decidedly smaller when the eye sees the Solar planets. When the light that is viewed is from a distant stellar entity the cone becomes a cylinder meaning that the light rays are parallel and therefore similar to man-made laser light except for frequency and phase (coherence).
    The model quest for clarification of the cause of Eddington-Einstein “pencil” bending of distant light is beyond the scope of this posting. Cheers, Jim
  16. Apr 2, 2003 #15
    Jim (NEO)-

    I appreciate greatly your accolades.

    I relate your "iota" with the compactified space I introduce on my website (through the "www" button below), where I describe the possibility of phase space and/or spacetime inverted into a localized and "Copernican" perspective. I am confused, though, about your examples of the human eye and nearby astronomical phenomena.

    Try focusing your ideas on the redshift discussion at hand. Your reminds me of my imagination, enthusiastic but needing mathematical and experimental verification. If you were to contrast the equations of your theory with those of general relativity, I might be able to see their universal application more clearly.

    -(Mr.) Loren Booda
  17. Aug 7, 2008 #16
    Hope this is not too off topic but I am an amateur photographer and an arm-chair physicist interested in manipulating light to see things that are usually unseen. After thinking about x-ray photography, I got wondering why can't we just slow down light to bring the higher up, invisible spectrum into the visible range? Would it be possible to slow down x-rays (or any other higher-spectrum light) to the visible range using Compton Scattering or by blasting the oncoming x-rays (from some x-ray light source) with slightly slower light coming from the camera / viewers eye? Like putting a ring-light around the lens that emits high-frequency UV to slow down x-rays and possibly gamma light rays to the near visible range?
    Would something like that be theoretically possible?
    Thanks. Keep on mathing.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook