- #1

- 97

- 2

I have some issues with the current understanding of the cosmological red shifts and their interpretation using the spatial variation in the metric with time.To make the argument clear, I'm also posting pictures. The universe is depicted as the surface of a sphere but that doesn't affect the reasoning.

Let's say a star just started sending light from its hydrogen atoms to Earth at time t1. The light traveled through space for a certain amount of time during which the universe expanded a certain amount. At time t2 the light reached the earth.Current cosmological understanding tells us that the emitted light in the original spectra got stretched as it traveled from the local space of the source to intergalactic space due to expansion of the universe and we receive the redshifted light in our local space.The assumption here is that light is coupled to the spatial metric (which can be called the fabric of space) at a certain time in such a way that as the metric changes, the light wavelength changes. Now we know that our local space exists and does not vary with time and it exists for the source as well.

So what I can't comprehend is: if the light is so inherently coupled to the metric that it stretches as the metric changes timewise and spatially between the source local space and intergalactic space, wouldn't the same coupling cause it to blueshift as it enters our local space?I would expect that case rather than light not being affected as in the regular explanations of cosmic redshift. That would mean that we shouldn't see any redshifting as long as metric does not change locally(local space).In the case that we accept that the local metric changes, then we would see a redshift associated with it. However that would mean our destruction probably due to effects on massive objects.

I have a feeling that its possible that light is the vibration of space itself but space is not perfectly elastic and that there are some losses by hysteresis over long distances.These losses are apparently not frequency dependent (as the astronomical data shows same redshift for all frequencies as far as I know)

So does anybody have any ideas?Maybe I'm missing a point somewhere?

Let's say a star just started sending light from its hydrogen atoms to Earth at time t1. The light traveled through space for a certain amount of time during which the universe expanded a certain amount. At time t2 the light reached the earth.Current cosmological understanding tells us that the emitted light in the original spectra got stretched as it traveled from the local space of the source to intergalactic space due to expansion of the universe and we receive the redshifted light in our local space.The assumption here is that light is coupled to the spatial metric (which can be called the fabric of space) at a certain time in such a way that as the metric changes, the light wavelength changes. Now we know that our local space exists and does not vary with time and it exists for the source as well.

So what I can't comprehend is: if the light is so inherently coupled to the metric that it stretches as the metric changes timewise and spatially between the source local space and intergalactic space, wouldn't the same coupling cause it to blueshift as it enters our local space?I would expect that case rather than light not being affected as in the regular explanations of cosmic redshift. That would mean that we shouldn't see any redshifting as long as metric does not change locally(local space).In the case that we accept that the local metric changes, then we would see a redshift associated with it. However that would mean our destruction probably due to effects on massive objects.

I have a feeling that its possible that light is the vibration of space itself but space is not perfectly elastic and that there are some losses by hysteresis over long distances.These losses are apparently not frequency dependent (as the astronomical data shows same redshift for all frequencies as far as I know)

So does anybody have any ideas?Maybe I'm missing a point somewhere?