Kinematic Origin of Cosmological Redshift: Bunn & Hogg

In summary: This paper investigates the implications of the intergalactic opaque for the evolution of the cosmic UV luminosity density and its sources. They find that the hydrogen photoionization rate is remarkably flat over the Lya forest redshift range covered, indicating that star-forming galaxies likely dominate the photoionization rate at z>~3. Combined with direct measurements of the galaxy UV luminosity function, this requires only a small fraction f_esc~0.5% of galactic hydrogen ionizing photons to escape their source for galaxies to solely account for the entire ionizing background.
  • #1
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
4,446
558
arXiv:0808.1081 (cross-list from physics.pop-ph) [ps, pdf, other]
Title: The kinematic origin of the cosmological redshift
Authors: Emory F. Bunn, David W. Hogg
Comments: 14 pages. Submitted to Am. J. Phys
Subjects: Popular Physics (physics.pop-ph); Astrophysics (astro-ph); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); Physics Education (physics.ed-ph)
A common belief among cosmologists is that the cosmological redshift cannot be properly viewed as a Doppler shift (that is, as evidence for a recession velocity), but must instead be viewed in terms of the stretching of space. We argue that the most natural interpretation of the redshift is in fact as a Doppler shift, or rather as the accumulation of many infinitesimal Doppler shifts. The stretching-of-space interpretation obscures a central idea of relativity, namely that of coordinate freedom, specifically the idea that it is always valid to choose a coordinate system that is locally Minkowski. We show that, in any spacetime, an observed frequency shift can be interpreted either as a kinematic (Doppler) shift or a gravitational shift by imagining a family of observers along the photon's path. In the context of the expanding Universe, the kinematic interpretation corresponds to a family of comoving observers and hence seems to be the more natural one.
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
Wolram, I was just coming to the forum to post the same link!
This paper has an interesting interpretation of the redshift as the cumulative effect of an infinite sequence of infinitesimal Doppler shifts!

One imagines an infinite number of observers distributed along the path of the light, each observer with his own reference frame.

As the light goes from one observer to the next, it experiences a Doppler shift.

This produces the same effect exactly---one gets the same answer. I think it is an excellent paper. Thanks for posting it!
 
  • #3
Hi Wolram,

I agree it is an interesting paper. It is broadly supportive of the ideas we have been discussing in the Superluminal Recession and Cosmological Redshift thread. I note the following excerpt:

"We should not compute velocities at a fixed instant of cosmic time (either t = te or t = t0); rather, we should compute the velocity of the galaxy at the time of light emission relative to the observer at the present time. After all, if a distant galaxy’s redshift is measured today, we wouldn’t expect the result to depend on what the galaxy is doing today, and certainly not on what the observer was doing long before the age of the dinosaurs."

The authors pursue a complicated analysis of 4-vectors to illustrate this point. But I think the same point is illustrated more simply by the diagram I attached to an earlier post in the Superluminal Recession thread. It shows that Doppler recession velocity should be calculated as the relative difference between the emitter's recession velocity at the time of emission, and the receiver's recession velocity at the time of reception, or:

[tex] v_{doppler} = \frac{v_{e} + v_{r}}{2}[/tex]

One normally thinks of Doppler redshift as being derived from the discrete velocity difference between the emitter and receiver. This paper treats it as an accumulation of infintesimal velocity changes along the route, but I think it amounts to the same thing.

It's interesting that these authors consider Doppler redshift and gravitational redshift to be alternative concepts rather than elements of a combined solution. I need to think more about that. I wish the paper were more clear about exactly what aspect of gravitational redshift they are referring to.

Also, rather strangely, although the paper claims that the accumulated Doppler redshifts must calculate the same result as the traditional cosmological redshift formula, I don't see where they directly prove that to be true. They seem to rely on an indirect string of logic.

Jon
 
Last edited:
  • #4
G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

This is quite interesting paper.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.4177

Evolution of the Intergalactic Opacity: Implications for the Ionizing Background, Cosmic Star Formation, and Quasar Activity

Authors: C.-A. Faucher-Giguere, A. Lidz, L. Hernquist, M. Zaldarriaga (Harvard University)
(Submitted on 26 Jul 2008)

Abstract: We investigate the implications of the intergalactic opacity for the evolution of the cosmic UV luminosity density and its sources. Our main constraint is our measurement of the Lya forest opacity at redshifts 2<z<4.2 from 86 high-resolution quasar spectra. In addition, we impose the requirements that HI must be reionized by z=6 and HeII by z~3, and consider estimates of the hardness of the ionizing background from HI to HeII column density ratios. The derived hydrogen photoionization rate is remarkably flat over the Lya forest redshift range covered. Because the quasar luminosity function is strongly peaked near z~2, the lack of redshift evolution indicates that star-forming galaxies likely dominate the photoionization rate at z>~3. Combined with direct measurements of the galaxy UV luminosity function, this requires only a small fraction f_esc~0.5% of galactic hydrogen ionizing photons to escape their source for galaxies to solely account for the entire ionizing background. Under the assumption that the galactic UV emissivity traces the star formation rate, current state-of-the-art observational estimates of the star formation rate density appear to underestimate the total photoionization rate at z~4 by a factor ~4, are in tension with recent determinations of the UV luminosity function, and fail to reionize the Universe by z~6 if extrapolated to arbitrarily high redshift. A theoretical star formation history peaking earlier fits the Lya forest photoionization rate well, reionizes the Universe in time, and is in better agreement with the rate of z~4 gamma-ray bursts observed by Swift. Quasars suffice to doubly ionize helium by z~3 and likely contribute a non-negligible and perhaps dominant fraction of the hydrogen ionizing background at their z~2 peak. [Abridged]

and

http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.2641
Evidence against non-cosmological redshifts of QSOs in SDSS data

Authors: Sumin Tang, Shuang Nan Zhang
(Submitted on 16 Jul 2008 (v1), last revised 18 Jul 2008 (this version, v2))

Abstract: In the unusual intrinsic QSO redshift models, QSOs are ejected by active galaxies with periodic non-cosmological reshifts, thus QSOs are generally associated with active galaxies, and certain structures will be revealed in the QSO redshift distribution. As the largest homogeneous sample of QSOs and galaxies, SDSS data provide the best opportunity to examine this issue. We review the debates on this issue, focused on those based on SDSS and 2dF data, and conclude that there is no strong connection between foreground active galaxies and high-redshift QSOs. The existence of two dips in the SDSS QSO redshift distribution at z=2.7 and 3.5 has recently re-ignited those controversial debates on the origin of QSO redshift. It also turned out that both dips are totally caused by selection effects and after selection effects have been corrected, the two dips disappear and no structure in the redshift distribution of SDSS DR5 sample. These results support that the reshifts of QSOs are cosmological.
 
Last edited:

1. What is the "Kinematic Origin of Cosmological Redshift"?

The Kinematic Origin of Cosmological Redshift is a scientific theory proposed by Bunn and Hogg that explains the observed redshift in the light from distant galaxies as a result of the expansion of the universe. It states that the redshift is not due to a Doppler shift caused by the motion of the galaxies, but rather the stretching of space itself.

2. How does this theory differ from the traditional explanation for cosmological redshift?

The traditional explanation for cosmological redshift is the Doppler shift model, which states that the redshift is caused by the motion of the galaxies away from us. The Kinematic Origin of Cosmological Redshift, on the other hand, proposes that the redshift is a result of the expansion of space and is not related to the motion of the galaxies.

3. What evidence supports the Kinematic Origin of Cosmological Redshift?

The Kinematic Origin of Cosmological Redshift is supported by several lines of evidence, including the observation that the redshift of distant galaxies increases with distance, the observation that the redshift is isotropic (the same in all directions), and the observation that the redshift is not affected by the motion of the galaxies.

4. Are there any potential flaws or criticisms of this theory?

Like any scientific theory, the Kinematic Origin of Cosmological Redshift has faced criticism and has potential flaws. Some critics argue that it does not adequately explain all observations of redshift, and others propose alternative theories to explain the phenomenon. However, the theory is still widely accepted and has been supported by multiple observations and experiments.

5. How does the Kinematic Origin of Cosmological Redshift impact our understanding of the universe?

The Kinematic Origin of Cosmological Redshift has significant implications for our understanding of the universe. It supports the idea that the universe is expanding and provides evidence for the Big Bang theory. It also has implications for our understanding of dark energy, as the stretching of space is thought to be driven by this mysterious force. Overall, this theory helps us to better understand the fundamental workings of our universe and its evolution over time.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
16K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
38
Views
9K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Cosmology
Replies
8
Views
2K
Back
Top