Redshift of Star Light: Proportionality to Distance & Other Theories

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the redshift of star light and its proportionality to distance, specifically addressing the tired-light theory proposed by Fritz Zwicky in 1929. This theory has been ruled out due to two key observations: the time dilation effect observed in distant supernovae, which indicates space expansion, and the mismatch between the predicted spectrum of the cosmic microwave background and its actual blackbody shape. These findings support the current understanding of cosmic expansion as the primary explanation for redshift, dismissing alternative theories like tired light.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of redshift and its implications in cosmology
  • Familiarity with the cosmic microwave background and its significance
  • Knowledge of supernovae and their observational characteristics
  • Basic grasp of the expansion of the universe and its effects on light
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of time dilation in cosmology
  • Study the properties and significance of the cosmic microwave background radiation
  • Examine the historical context and impact of Fritz Zwicky's contributions to astrophysics
  • Explore current theories on cosmic expansion and their observational evidence
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, astrophysicists, students of cosmology, and anyone interested in the mechanisms behind redshift and the expansion of the universe.

msumm21
Messages
247
Reaction score
28
A question regarding the redshift of star light being proportional to the star's distance from us. I suppose there were other, competing explanations for this when it was first observed (e.g. that light somehow loses energy/frequency extremely slowly over large distances), in addition to the currently accepted expansion explanation. Is this true? Any reference (or short explanation) of how other theories were ruled out?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
You can start by having a look at the Wikipedia page for Tired light
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: msumm21
See The Universe at Midnight by Ken Croswell, pages 75-76, on the tired-light theory:

The tired-light theory is not new. It was first proposed by maverick scientist Fritz Zwicky in 1929, a few months after Hubble discovered the distance-redshift relation. But two observations rule it out. First, astronomers see that exploding stars in distant galaxies brighten and fade more slowly than those nearby. This time dilation arises from the expansion of space. To see how, imagine that a star in a far-off galaxy emits one pulse of light toward Earth on January 1 and a second pulse on February 1. Initially, the two pulses are separated by a distance of one light-month. As they travel toward Earth, though, the space between them expands, perhaps doubling; so astronomers receive them two months apart. In the tired-light theory, this should not happen–the pulses of light weaken but do not separate. In fact, astronomers do observe that distant supernovae wax and wane more slowly than nearby ones, agreeing with the idea that space expands and contradicting the tired-light theory.

Second, the tired-light theory disagrees with the observed spectrum of the cosmic microwave background, the big bang's afterglow. This has a specific shape which physicists call a blackbody: it is most intense at one particular wavelength, falls off slowly at longer wavelengths, but rapidly at shorter wavelengths. The universe's expansion degrades the cosmic microwave background's spectrum, stretching it to longer wavelengths, but in a way that preserves the blackbody shape. In contrast, the tired-light theory predicts that as the light composing the cosmic microwave background loses energy, the spectrum ceases to remain a blackbody, contrary to observations.
--from The Universe at Midnight by Ken Croswell. Link: The Universe at Midnight
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
5K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K