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

Origin of the Hubble Red-Shift

  1. Sep 15, 2010 #1
    Suppose that some time in the future a clever
    group of theorists and experimentalists finally
    devise a way to accurately determine the value
    of the Hubble Constant. Say by an interferometer
    connected to a quantum computer. Everything
    works fine in the lab and is checked and checked
    again. The trouble starts when photons from
    distant stars and galaxies appear to be giving
    null results (like the Michaelson-Morely surprise).
    A dilemma. IE, stars that should be receeding from
    us at great speed appear to be motionless after
    all corrections are applied. At first, the mainstream
    guys declare the experiment is bunk, but everything
    still works in the lab. After much chatter, a scape-goat
    PhD is selected to inform the community that the
    the red-shift is not inertial(Doppler), but is probably
    gravitational. The Big Bang becomes history...and
    Einstein's Cosmological Constant is put back into GR.
    Psycho-Ceramics (crack-pots) come out of the closet
    to explain the so-called "gravitational red-shift", but
    only confuse the issue with theories such as "starmass
    increase" as stars get further from the observer, and
    "dark property" photon drains to account for the photon
    energy loss vs distance traveled.

    Finally, a bored grad student digs up some simple
    black-hole equations and finds out that the singularity
    is at the surface of a black-hole, contrary to the popular
    belief that the singularity is at the center of a black-hole.
    IE, at the center of a black-hole clocks run at normal
    speed and at the surface are slowed to a stop relative
    to clocks at the center. The grad student now sees
    the visible universe as just another very large black-hole;
    where clocks slow-down as they get further from an
    observer, until they stop near 14 billion LY away. Einstein's
    static universe becomes mainstream, the "big-bang" idiots
    are fired from their cushy (but low paid) university jobs
    and become taxi-cab drivers. Princeton offers the grad
    student a great job and Einstein's old house...and she
    lives happily ever after...the beginning.

    Comments, flames, insults, objections, etc, etc will be
    greatefully accepted. Have fun.
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 16, 2010 #2
    The cosmological constant (lambda) is still in general relativity. On small scales its negligible, but its key for cosmology. The red-shift from the hubble flow cannot be explained solely by GR effects local to the source. The expansion of the universe is an observed fact. Only a bad scientist would say its impossible for the universe to be static; but the hubble red-shift is as certain as the sun being spheroidal.

    Your hypothetical story doesn't make any sense. Our measurements of the hubble constant are pretty good, definitely good enough that we can be sure that there is something going on.

    And, I don't know why you decided to add a completely random and unrelated note about black-holes, but that makes perhaps even less sense. You clearly have no understanding of general relativity or cosmology. Before you start wildly proposing new and unneeded explanations, you should try to actually learn the present theories. Then, maybe, you can work on something new.
  4. Sep 16, 2010 #3
    I think I can resolve your mental state when you wrote that message
    with some definitions I have for "intuitiveness" and "stick-to-itiveness".
    Your "stick-to-itiveness" blinds you to the equivalences of the "black-hole"
    and of the "visible universe". You think you will mysteriously become
    intuitive after some time being a stick-to-itive. Don't get me wrong...
    we need stick-to-itives. They are the teachers and experimentalists I
    have great respect for. The intuitives are the theorists...I am an intuitive...
    you are not. Without us, you would have nothing to study. We ask "why",
    you simply "don't know why". Teachers have various methods for dealing
    with intuitives, yours is very common and mundane. Obviously, you have
    not "learned" much.
  5. Sep 16, 2010 #4
    physicsforums are not about me, or you; they are about the science. And once again, you have avoided responding to any of the issues I brought up in my previous response.

    You have, exactly, illustrated the problem. You are an 'intuitive' (definition from my dictionary: "using or based on what one feels to be true even without conscious reasoning"), i.e. you're trying to intuit answers to the questions of the universe which, oddly enough, require reasoning instead of wild guessing.

    Just because you're proposing something contrary to common opinion doesn't mean its 1) novel, 2) insightful, 3) the slightest bit educated, 4) sensible; or 5) even vaguely coherent. Your idea that the hubble doppler shifts are due to local GR effects is an old idea, and while those local effects are taken into consideration they are insufficient to explain the observations.

    The fact that you clearly haven't even taken the time to read the wikipedia articles on this subject, far from reading/understanding a textbook or physics course, is insulting to the scientific community. Additionally, I have numerous times (in this post and others) given specific reasons and instances as to where your logic is lacking, flawed or non-existent---yet you ignore those responses and either redirect the topic or move to ad hominem issues, is insulting to me, and the PF community. If you want somewhere to rant about your wildy-unfounded physical theories, this is not it; try children's science fiction. If you have any actual questions or topics to discuss logically, and scientifically, I or anyone else here would be happy to participate.
  6. Sep 16, 2010 #5
    Why would clocks stop 14 Bly away if there was no big bang? You are suggesting that universe is 14 billion years old and static?
  7. Sep 16, 2010 #6
    No, but it can be explained by GR effects relative to an expanding spherical wavefront at the point of its observation.

    The only observed fact is a correlation between the cosmological redshift and distance of a galaxy - period. The expansion of the "Universe" as an explanation of that fact is at best a hypothesis. There is no empirical data that proves the "Universe" is expanding let alone emprical data that proves that the cosmos comprises a singular entity that can be treated as a "Universe".
  8. Sep 16, 2010 #7
    First of all, I believe the local theories to be crack-pottery, as you do. Mine is
    global in that it takes all of the universe's mass to produce a stopped clock
    on its surface (14 billion LY from the observer/center), just like on the surface of a
    black-hole. I'm not saying that there are massive bodies out there red-shifting
    light from their neighboring stars, nor do I propose that we are at a favored
    position in the universe. I am saying that whaterver object we observe has
    to have a slower relative clock speed to us as observers; but if we traveled to
    that object we would find that the object's clocks run no slower than our own.
    That it has to do with relative clocking, not absolute clocking. In SR it happens
    that way for motion, and I suggest that it is that way for GR too.

    Secondly, I think crack-pottery only insults you...not me or the PF community.
  9. Sep 16, 2010 #8
    How so?

    That's a good point, the observed fact is that correlation. The only existing (reasonable) explanation is isotropically increasing distances which is defined as the expansion.

    That's only true to the extent that there is no empirical data to prove anything, any good scientist leaves room for doubt in all things---which is why I specifically made the sun comment (I wanted to avoid the flat-earth subject).

    This is just semantics, the universe is defined as that which is the cosmos and is a ~single entity.
  10. Sep 16, 2010 #9
    GR time dilation effects are dependent on the potential at that location, if the entire universe's mass/energy is causing this effect, if would be ~homogenous in space, and therefore not account for redshifts.

    Yes, of course, such things are included explicitly in all GR formalisms, and all calculations of redshifts.

    Crack-pottery doesn't insult me, you not reading my responses insults me. I said, what insults the community is unfounded claims, and a systematic refusal to authentically seek (or even be open to) the existing canon of information and research, and opinion.
  11. Sep 16, 2010 #10
    Why do clocks stop on the surface of a black hole? A warp in the
    space-time continuum? What's that mean?
  12. Sep 16, 2010 #11
    Clocks don't stop at the event horizon, the light coming from them is infinitely red-shifted. A clock passing the event horizon experiences nothing in particular.
  13. Sep 16, 2010 #12
    Sorry, I hate it when that happens to me. What is it that they say about
    "learning more and more about less and less?"
  14. Sep 16, 2010 #13
    For time dilation effects (solely) to account for hubble red-shifts, there would have to be a difference (inhomogeneity) in the rate at which clocks tick, and therefore in the metric tensor of the universe in those different areas. Because the redshifts are observed isotropically, we would have to be the only place in the universe which is not time-dilated to account for the hubble shifts. Not only does that not make sense (for instance, because the universe is observed to be very homogenous on large scales), it also contradicts your claim that your theory is invariant to location in the universe.
  15. Sep 16, 2010 #14
    Clocks stop on the surface of a black-hole relative to an observer in a
    near zero g field. They run at something like half-speed at the event
    horizon to an observer in a near zero g field. And clocks onboard a
    rocket going 0.707c relative to us experience nothing in particular
    either. But, one second ticks transmitted back to earth would be
    received 2 seconds apart...did I do the arithmatic ok?
  16. Sep 16, 2010 #15
    Sure, but the key here is a difference between the observing clock and the event-horizon clock.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook