# Mechanism of the cosmological redshift

Sunfire
Hello,

I have read that cosmological redshift means a photon is being stretchedby space dilation and thus gets to have longer wavelength

I am unsure if this is true and if yes, why is it true

Many thanks

Mentor
It is a good description, and "true" and "why" are something for philosophy.
However, I think it is quite intuitive in case of photons: You can measure the wavelength. Then you stretch all space, including the space within that wavelength. And then you measure again, and the value increased.

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
These two papers may be of interest:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1081v2
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.0380v1

If you want to interpret cosmological redshifts instead as kinematic redshifts, you can. There is no way to resolve the ambiguity in interpretation, because GR can't talk about the velocity of one object relative to another distant object. We have a FAQ about this: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=508610 [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator:
Sunfire
mfb, as I understand your post, one can consider the photon as a wave propagating through space, having a certain wavelength. Space expansion would then mean stretching of the wavelength of the wave, already positioned in space

Sunfire
If a photon wavelength is being stretched, would atomic nuclei be stretched as well... how would such stretching influence our capability to measure spatial distances, as our rulers would be stretched out too

These are not final statements, I am only trying to see if I am not missing something

Naty1
This can be a confusing subject because 'distance' in cosmology can be defined in different ways....it varies from model to model according to their 'metric'...the calculated distance. When talking about cosmological distances the messiness of curvature in GR is significant. When you read about redshift you are almost always reading about it in the context of the FLRW cosmological model whose metric [distance measure] is an exact solution of Einstein's equations. And writers are assuming observers static with respect to the cosmic microwave background radiation [CMBR]...you can find descriptions in Wikipedia and these forums.

The same number of wave crests ...wavelength is from one to the next.....reach us as were emitted. The finite speed of light means it takes longer for all of them to get here. The earliest ones get stretched the most. Those are the 'CMBR' I treferred to emitted very in the time of our universe. The expansion of wavelength correlates pretty much exactly with expansion of distance that occurred while light was in transit.

This refers to the standard FRW metric and standard cosmological model as does this: The so-called recession "velocity" associated with expansion is actually a 'rapidity' which goes beyond the speed of light 'c'.

Sunfire
bcrowell, it seems that the photon stretching concept is not widely accepted according to the 2nd linked paper on arxiv

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
bcrowell, it seems that the photon stretching concept is not widely accepted according to the 2nd linked paper on arxiv

You're oversimplifying. It's not a question of taking a vote or seeing what is more widely accepted. Neither interpretation is wrong. Our desire to create an intuitive picture clashes with the fact that GR doesn't have tools and concepts that map directly onto these intuitive pictures.

Naty1
bcrowell, it seems that the photon stretching concept is not widely accepted according to the 2nd linked paper on arxiv

You're oversimplifying. It's not a question of taking a vote or seeing what is more widely accepted. Neither interpretation is wrong.

This is the part of the confusion I referred to. Over cosmological distances the light from distant galaxies is redshifted with respect to the frequencies we would observe from an identical nearby stationary source; it arrives here at a different color than an identical ar local source....we observe it as redshifted.

What is happening is that the metric [our agreed upon standard for distance measure] of spacetime between us and the distant galaxies has changed (the universe has expanded) along the path of the photon from here to there, leading to an increase in the wavelength of the light. What causes the redshift is due to calculational models....and different views are ok.

Naty1
would atomic nuclei be stretched as well... how would such stretching influence our capability to measure spatial distances, as our rulers would be stretched out too

generally, no. Not even earth's orbit is stretched:

[Wallace that I quote is a cosmologist who posts here from time to time.]
Does Expansion of Universe affect Earth Orbit

Synopsis: No. Expansion results from the [FRW metric] assumptions of the CP [homogeneity and Isotropic] and those does not apply at solar nor galactic [lumpy] scales

Wallace
“ If anything there is a vanishingly small FRW element to the metric of bound structures. If the FRW metric 'prevail(ed) on all scales and everywhere, even inside gravitationally bound structures or within atoms' then why do galaxies maintain a constant size as the distance between them expands? Commonly we are told that the local mass concentration 'overcomes' the expansion preventing this from occurring. This is one of the worst and most fallacious explanations you could possibly give someone! What really happens then?

Wallace:
The FRW metric is the inevitable result of the cosmological principle, CP. which is that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. The metric is only valid if these principles hold. Consider now a galaxy, solar system or planet. Does the CP hold? No. Is it a remotely useful approximation? Not at all! Unsurprisingly then the dynamics of bodies in these systems and on these scales bears no resemblance to the dynamics of galaxies. So for instance, there is no redshift of light due to a(t) when we observe light from the other side of our galaxy, or from say Andromeda. The FRW metric simply is not valid on these scales.

[and here is areference the the FRW or FLRW model which I mentioned already]
Wallace: #63
….the 'expansion' (which we both definitely agree is a bad term for it!) is a result of the FRW metric, in particular a(t). The metric in the region of bound structure looks nothing like the FRW metric, in particular it has no global time dependence (though will of course evolve). For this reason I stand by the statement that the FRW metric is not valid on scales which are significantly inhomogeneous, since the metric has no component that reflects the global a(t), and hence the FRW picture does not relate to the dynamics of the system.

Naty1
bCrowell:
If you want to interpret cosmological redshifts instead as kinematic redshifts, you can.

yes.
The Kinetmatic interpretation means that CMBR [relic radiation after the big bang] that started out at about 3,000 degrees K early in the universe now arrives at a much cooler 2.7degrees K...it is frequency redshifted meaning it has cooled. Otherwise, particles, atoms,planets,stars and galaxies would not yet have formed....it would be too hot.

Sunfire
Naty1 and bcrowell, thank you for the wealth of information.

Naty1
For further insights on cosmological 'expansion' [which leads to redshift of light] :

phinds of these forums put together a 'balloon analogy summary here
www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy

which helps explain cosmological expansion 'stretching' of space....

with input from a buinch of Physics forums members.

Many interesting details in these two discussions:

from Marcus:
Effort to get us all on the same page (balloon analogy anyone?)

https://www.physicsforums.com/showt...ghlight=Effort+page+(balloon+analogy+anyone?)

and Re: the balloon analogy (please critique)

JGold
It is a good description, and "true" and "why" are something for philosophy.
However, I think it is quite intuitive in case of photons: You can measure the wavelength. Then you stretch all space, including the space within that wavelength. And then you measure again, and the value increased.

I'm new to much of this. Can you please give me your opinion on these measurements of redshift?

I have been informed of the measurements by reading some of Santilli's paper on the redshift of light without relative motion.

Called IsoRedShift as per the papers below that imply lack of expansion of the universe.

I would appreciate any comments primarily on the validity of the measurements or Santilli mathematics.

[1] R. M. Santilli, "Experimental Verifications of IsoRedShift with Possible Absence of Universe Expansion, Big Bang, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy," The Open Astronomy Journal {\bf 3}, 124 (2010), http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-isoredshift.pdf

[2] G. West and G. Amato, "Experimental Conformation of Santilli's IsoRedShift and IsoBlueShift," Journal of Computational Methods in Sciences and Engineering, Vol. 12, pages 169-188 (2012),http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Confirmation-IRS-IBS.pdf

[3] R. M. Santilli, G. West and g. Amato. "Experimental Confirmation of the IsoRedShift at Sun at Sunset and Sunrise with Consequential Absence of Universe Expansion and Related Conjectures, " Journal of Computational Methods in Sciences and Engineering, Vol. 12, pages 165-188 (2012).http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Confirmation-sun-IRS.pdf

If PM is more appropriate, please do so. Thanks!

Mentz114
The Santilli foundation is kooky. Here's a quote from the first paper cited above

As it is the case for sound waves, electromagnetic
waves cannot exist or propagate without a medium.
century conception of the ether as a universal substratum
characterizing all the visible universe, not only light as a
transversal wave, but also all matter as an oscillations of the
ether (strings?), thus preventing the existence of the “ethereal
wind”

JGold
Please leave out the ridicule. I'm interested in his work and want to know if it is valid.

Sometimes we serve humanity best by thinking outside the box. He seems to have experimentally verified these measurements.

Mentz114
Please leave out the ridicule. I'm interested in his work and want to know if it is valid.

Sometimes we serve humanity best by thinking outside the box. He seems to have experimentally verified these measurements.

His experiments are pointless because the theory he claims to be testing is nonsense. It isn't polite to hijack a thread with private theories. Why didn't you start a new thread ?

JGold
I'm not trying to be impolite. If a new thread is better, then I can do that instead. My apologies.

Mentor
It is pointless to discuss that. It is not proper physics at all, and I have no idea how that got published (however, the journals seem to be unrelated to special relativity anyway).

Board rules said:
Generally, in the science discussion forums we do not allow the following:

* Discussion of theories that appear only on personal web sites, self-published books, etc.
* Challenges to mainstream theories (relativity, the Big Bang, etc.) that go beyond current professional discussion
* Attempts to promote or resuscitate theories that have been discredited or superseded (e.g. Lorentz ether theory); this does not exclude discussion of those theories in a purely historical context
* Personal theories or speculations that go beyond or counter to generally-accepted science
* Mixing science and religion, e.g. using religious doctrines in support of scientific arguments or vice versa.
2-4 out of 5, with an ether theory as explicit example.

Eureka321
Perhaps, we should also consider the mechanism of Santilli's IsoRedShift which, to my understanding, is due to quantized absorption of light by very cold individual hydrogen atoms in intergalactic spaces much along Einstein's original conception of the photon.

http://www.i-b-r.org/images/irs-mechanism.jpg

As such, this mechanism is different and independent than molecular mechanisms occurring for scattering and abaorption and seem to provide a plausible origin of a continuous source of energy for the CBR, or not??

Are PF posters aware of the recent PRs i found in a Google search
Scientific News Release by the RMS Foundation
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/Confirm-No-Exp.php
The Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-...10-903915.html [Broken]
List of 512 news releases
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/d...IRS-06-13.xlsx [Broken]
as well as Santilli's strong criticisms of cosmological theories
http://www.i-b-r.org/Prof-Santilli-Interview.html
and his hilarious faces
http://www.i-b-r.org/Prof-Santilli-faces.html

Last edited by a moderator:
Eureka321
The Santilli foundation is kooky. Here's a quote from the first paper cited above

This post is clearly kooky science. To begin, the quoted statement was made by Maxwell, Lorentz and other important physicists who stated that elm 'waves" need a medium to "wave." Santilli merely reproduced their view because it still stands in all its glory and physics via attempted accreditation merely damage the manipulators. Claiming that the R. M. Santilli foundation makes the quoted statement is very damaging to Mentz114 in view of the historical background.

According to clear experimental evidence, elms waves are characterized by transverse oscillations. So, the serious physicists has to solve the question in a plausible way: what is oscillating? A little tiny mass perhaps to please Einstein supporters? Come on! The ether as universal substratum provides a scientific representation of light as its traverse oscillations, and represents all data as far as I know, including refraction, reflections, etc. In order not to be kooky, Mentz114 has to provide an answer to the origin of elem waves via verifiable equations, not trash.

It look like Mentz114 does not tell the real reason that forces him/her out of science, namely, he "fears" that a universal substratum violates Einstein stuff. Unfortunately for him/her he/she has not studied the field prior to spitting because Santilli has shown that a privileged frame at rest with the universal substratum cannot be experimental detected and, therefore, the so hated ether is NOT in conflict with Einstein.

let be serious to continue this exchange. It is said that the study of the ether will allow discoveries beyond imagination.

Agerhell
I'm new to much of this. Can you please give me your opinion on these measurements of redshift?

I have been informed of the measurements by reading some of Santilli's paper on the redshift of light without relative motion.

Called IsoRedShift as per the papers below that imply lack of expansion of the universe.

I would appreciate any comments primarily on the validity of the measurements or Santilli mathematics.

[1] R. M. Santilli, "Experimental Verifications of IsoRedShift with Possible Absence of Universe Expansion, Big Bang, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy," The Open Astronomy Journal {\bf 3}, 124 (2010), http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-isoredshift.pdf

See wikipedia for "Tired light", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light. Santilli seem to have renamed an old theory after himself. He even writes "The cosmological redshift is an isoredshift due to loss of energy by light to the intergalactic medium" which is exactly the same as "tired light". The Santilli mathematics and measurement ideas seems very confused to me.

Mentor
This thread is from 2012 and the crackpot is banned, so I guess we can let this topic rest.