Some redshift from prism effect of a gravitational lens?

In summary: We have the visible light from those 1A supernovae. Is there any way to discern redshift due to chromatic aberration of gravitational lenses from redshift due to doppler effects? Assuming redshift due to chromatic aberration is a thing, or even if it's not, the light that is bent by gravitational lenses follows a longer path to reach us than the direct path from the source. This results in a larger absolute distance change, which may not have been accounted for in current models of accelerated expansion. Additionally, the effects of chromatic aberration and doppler shift may multiply over cosmic lengths, which may also affect the estimates of accelerated expansion. Further research is needed to determine the extent of these effects and how they should
  • #1
Dustin Maki
10
3
TL;DR Summary
What degree of redshift is attributable to chromatic aberration from gravitational lensing? When the universe was more dense, more of the light traveling during that period was being bent. As red is bent the least, wouldn't everything from that period appear more red regardless of Doppler effects? Is this accounted for in current models describing accelerated expansion?
A quick search turned up Simaciu, Ion. (1997). Chromatic aberration of gravitational lens. 10.13140/2.1.1133.6003.
The math is beyond me so I first made a basic assumption that chromatic aberration of gravitational lenses worked somewhat analogous to a prism in that red is bent less than other colors. So, before anything else, can you confirm or disprove that assumption?

That means the red light most approximates the direct path and would be most abundant along that path while other colors are proportionally more scattered. Would that result in redshift of spectral lines? 2nd assumption, yes.

Beyond about 5 billion years ago, was the universe so dense with galaxies, or other refractory objects that the light from that period which would eventually reach us could be bent(on average) one or more times? If so, it stands to reason that on average, the further from us a light source is, the more times it would have been bent, thus the redder it would become. That would be due to both increased universal density and longer specific path. I don't know how to judge sufficient density, so pending confirmation, 3rd assumption, yes.

Given the above, is the amount of redshift attributable to chromatic aberration of gravitational lenses sufficient to alter the estimates of accelerated expansion?
Is it sufficient to alter estimates of basic expansion rates?

Besides looking at the plausibility of this question in the aggregate. We have the visible light from those 1A supernovae. Is there any way to discern redshift due to chromatic aberration of gravitational lenses from redshift due to doppler effects? Chromatic aberration shift is stepwise per each gravitational lens and Doppler is continuously proportional to distance. That may be a clue.

Assuming redshift due to chromatic aberration is a thing, or even if it's not, the light that is bent by gravitational lenses follows a longer path to reach us than the direct path from the source. A tiny bend in the path results in only a tiny percentage change of distance, but over cosmic lengths that tiny percent can be a very large absolute distance change.

Path error from bending grows with distance from source independent from number of bends provided bends >= 1.
Chromatic aberration shift grows with number of bends.
The probability of bends occurring would grow not with distance from source, but with the longer specific zigzag path which in turn grows with distance from source. The effects multiply. I am not sure if Doppler effects would be similarly multiplied.
Doppler and the sum of all chromatic aberration shifts are additive.

To reiterate from the summary, have these factors been accounted for in accelerated expansion models?
If so, the topic of my next question is "how?"

Nonsequitor: When making a statement that contains a question, is the proper punctuation mark a period or a question mark?
 
  • Like
Likes confusedhome
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
Dustin Maki said:
The math is beyond me so I first made a basic assumption that chromatic aberration of gravitational lenses worked somewhat analogous to a prism in that red is bent less than other colors. So, before anything else, can you confirm or disprove that assumption?

As far as I know there is no such thing as gravitational chromatic aberration. All frequencies are bent equally to my knowledge. This makes sense to me as light isn't passing through a medium with a refractive index that varies with frequency, but through curved spacetime, whose curvature is equal for all frequencies.
 
  • #3
Dustin Maki said:
A quick search turned up Simaciu, Ion. (1997). Chromatic aberration of gravitational lens. 10.13140/2.1.1133.6003.
That paper "models the vacuum as an electron-positron plasma", and appears to be only available via ResearchGate (edit: on closer inspection I see it was published in a Bulgarian journal - presumably not in English, as searching on the exact title only turns up the ResearchGate version and the author's CV). I rather suspect that it isn't a mainstream physical theory.

General relativity certainly does not predict any chromatic aberration, although more or less every other aberration will affect a gravitational lens.
 
  • Like
Likes Drakkith
  • #4
I'm fairly confident such a phenomena would be detectable in all the spectrum analysis performed in cosmology applications. Which is incredibly extensive...

So it's fairly safe to say the article is not mainstream
 
  • Like
Likes Ibix
  • #5
Roflmao I can't shake this visualization of some astrophysicist performing a spectrum analysis of some distant star yelling "Where is the Blooming hydrogen?"
 
  • Like
Likes Drakkith
  • #6
Dustin Maki said:
Summary: What degree of redshift is attributable to chromatic aberration from gravitational lensing? When the universe was more dense, more of the light traveling during that period was being bent. As red is bent the least, wouldn't everything from that period appear more red regardless of Doppler effects? Is this accounted for in current models describing accelerated expansion?

A quick search turned up Simaciu, Ion. (1997). Chromatic aberration of gravitational lens. 10.13140/2.1.1133.6003.
The math is beyond me so I first made a basic assumption that chromatic aberration of gravitational lenses worked somewhat analogous to a prism in that red is bent less than other colors. So, before anything else, can you confirm or disprove that assumption?

That means the red light most approximates the direct path and would be most abundant along that path while other colors are proportionally more scattered. Would that result in redshift of spectral lines? 2nd assumption, yes.

Beyond about 5 billion years ago, was the universe so dense with galaxies, or other refractory objects that the light from that period which would eventually reach us could be bent(on average) one or more times? If so, it stands to reason that on average, the further from us a light source is, the more times it would have been bent, thus the redder it would become. That would be due to both increased universal density and longer specific path. I don't know how to judge sufficient density, so pending confirmation, 3rd assumption, yes.

Given the above, is the amount of redshift attributable to chromatic aberration of gravitational lenses sufficient to alter the estimates of accelerated expansion?
Is it sufficient to alter estimates of basic expansion rates?

Besides looking at the plausibility of this question in the aggregate. We have the visible light from those 1A supernovae. Is there any way to discern redshift due to chromatic aberration of gravitational lenses from redshift due to doppler effects? Chromatic aberration shift is stepwise per each gravitational lens and Doppler is continuously proportional to distance. That may be a clue.

Assuming redshift due to chromatic aberration is a thing, or even if it's not, the light that is bent by gravitational lenses follows a longer path to reach us than the direct path from the source. A tiny bend in the path results in only a tiny percentage change of distance, but over cosmic lengths that tiny percent can be a very large absolute distance change.

Path error from bending grows with distance from source independent from number of bends provided bends >= 1.
Chromatic aberration shift grows with number of bends.
The probability of bends occurring would grow not with distance from source, but with the longer specific zigzag path which in turn grows with distance from source. The effects multiply. I am not sure if Doppler effects would be similarly multiplied.
Doppler and the sum of all chromatic aberration shifts are additive.

To reiterate from the summary, have these factors been accounted for in accelerated expansion models?
If so, the topic of my next question is "how?"

Nonsequitor: When making a statement that contains a question, is the proper punctuation mark a period or a question mark?
This is only of potential concern with strong gravitational lensing. Most lines of sight never encounter strong gravitational lenses, and so never have the chance to encounter any aberration (if it's even possible).

Strong lenses, however, might potentially do this. But certainly not by much (or it'd be readily visible in current images). In particular, the strongest lenses are large galaxy clusters, which contain a very hot gas. This hot gas, being much more dense than the intergalactic medium, might offer some opportunity for increased aberration.

But, like I said, it can't be a large effect or else it'd be really noticeable in current images of strong lenses.

You can find images yourself, but there are a few good ones linked in the Wikipedia article on the matter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_gravitational_lensing
 
  • #7
Just a side note using strong lensing is a very versatile tool to extend the Hubble telescopes range. They and other telescopes extensively use this
 
  • #8
It is certainly a very small effect if it exists at all. However it would be a potential source of error in some fairly popular observations. Mr. Simaciu attached his name to this, so I thought that might warrant at least a cursory look at the science in the paper rather than criticism of where it was published. As a layperson I do not have the knowledge to judge fairly so I invite any comments on the content inside the cited paper. I'll post it here if that is allowed. I just wasn't sure because I downloaded it from research gate. It is one of the few places an interested layperson can get more than just abstracts without a subscription. kimbyd, thanks for your insight. Would the difference between strong lensing and weak be a difference in magnitude or a difference in kind?
 
  • Like
Likes confusedhome
  • #9
Dustin Maki said:
I thought that might warrant at least a cursory look at the science in the paper rather than criticism of where it was published.
You'll notice I quoted from the paper. The point about ResearchGate isn't that stuff posted on ResearchGate is bad, but stuff posted only on ResearchGate suggests it wasn't of sufficient quality to be published elsewhere. This does turn out to have been published elsewhere, but only in a conference proceedings edition of a journal that now appears to be defunct - again, this isn't great evidence of quality. On top of that, the predictions it makes contradict what relativity says about gravitational lensing. And, as @Mordred notes, the effect would show up in spectroscopy, which is a major part of routine astronomical work.

So I think it's been given a perfectly fair hearing.
 
  • #10
Dustin Maki said:
It is one of the few places an interested layperson can get more than just abstracts without a subscription.

You can find lots of papers on arxiv.org, which does not require a subscription.

Dustin Maki said:
I thought that might warrant at least a cursory look at the science in the paper rather than criticism of where it was published.

Everyone who responded has given good reasons why the scientific claims of the paper should not be trusted, regardless of where it was published.
 
  • Wow
Likes confusedhome
  • #11
One note, consider a miniscule change in two parallel beams. Each beam being a different frequency.

Then extend the length of said beam over a distance of let's say 1 parsec.
Even a 1000 the of a degree change of angle would become highly noticable.
That single parsec isn't the gravity well diameter but simply an observer distance after the change.

Lol however small becomes significant with distance to far away observers

Edit keep in mind without seeing the paper itself I am assuming it's an application involving Snell's law and refractive index. Ie rainbow effect through a prism
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes confusedhome
  • #12
Dustin Maki said:
It is certainly a very small effect if it exists at all. However it would be a potential source of error in some fairly popular observations

You can't have it both ways. If it's too small to tell if it exists, it's too small to make a significant change to other measurements.
 
  • Like
Likes Mordred
  • #13
Good way to describe that perspective...

I actually considered the ramifications on Planck datasets. A large factor in judging the universe curvature involves searching out distortions. This was a major advancement in getting a determination in deciding that our universe is incredibly close to flat in terms of lightpath/worldliness.
Consider how many strong gravity wells would be encountered on any frequency surveys as far back as the surface of last scattering. Then imagine what this paper proposes...the randomness of distortions would be
immense...

lol don't mind me I am well practiced at shooting down random non mainstream theories. Coincidentally many of them are on researchgate . Part of the reason is many of the authors of various papers tend to visit other forums to advertise their papers. As one that is part of the administration staff on one of those sites that supports Speculative theories ( within tight rules and regulations). I often see a great deal of theories that are seemingly plausible until one considers the ramifications outside those considered within the paper.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Dustin Maki said:
It is certainly a very small effect if it exists at all. However it would be a potential source of error in some fairly popular observations. Mr. Simaciu attached his name to this, so I thought that might warrant at least a cursory look at the science in the paper rather than criticism of where it was published. As a layperson I do not have the knowledge to judge fairly so I invite any comments on the content inside the cited paper. I'll post it here if that is allowed. I just wasn't sure because I downloaded it from research gate. It is one of the few places an interested layperson can get more than just abstracts without a subscription. kimbyd, thanks for your insight. Would the difference between strong lensing and weak be a difference in magnitude or a difference in kind?
Magnitude. Strong lensing happens when the line-of-sight comes very close to a dense object, and results in arc-like shapes and Einstein rings. Weak lensing occurs with lines of sight that don't come as close, and generally results in just a small shape distortion.
 
  • #15
Dustin Maki said:
Summary: What degree of redshift is attributable to chromatic aberration from gravitational lensing? When the universe was more dense, more of the light traveling during that period was being bent. As red is bent the least, wouldn't everything from that period appear more red regardless of Doppler effects? Is this accounted for in current models describing accelerated expansion?

A quick search turned up Simaciu, Ion. (1997). Chromatic aberration of gravitational lens. 10.13140/2.1.1133.6003.
The math is beyond me so I first made a basic assumption that chromatic aberration of gravitational lenses worked somewhat analogous to a prism in that red is bent less than other colors. So, before anything else, can you confirm or disprove that assumption?

That means the red light most approximates the direct path and would be most abundant along that path while other colors are proportionally more scattered. Would that result in redshift of spectral lines? 2nd assumption, yes.

Beyond about 5 billion years ago, was the universe so dense with galaxies, or other refractory objects that the light from that period which would eventually reach us could be bent(on average) one or more times? If so, it stands to reason that on average, the further from us a light source is, the more times it would have been bent, thus the redder it would become. That would be due to both increased universal density and longer specific path. I don't know how to judge sufficient density, so pending confirmation, 3rd assumption, yes.

Given the above, is the amount of redshift attributable to chromatic aberration of gravitational lenses sufficient to alter the estimates of accelerated expansion?
Is it sufficient to alter estimates of basic expansion rates?

Besides looking at the plausibility of this question in the aggregate. We have the visible light from those 1A supernovae. Is there any way to discern redshift due to chromatic aberration of gravitational lenses from redshift due to doppler effects? Chromatic aberration shift is stepwise per each gravitational lens and Doppler is continuously proportional to distance. That may be a clue.

Assuming redshift due to chromatic aberration is a thing, or even if it's not, the light that is bent by gravitational lenses follows a longer path to reach us than the direct path from the source. A tiny bend in the path results in only a tiny percentage change of distance, but over cosmic lengths that tiny percent can be a very large absolute distance change.

Path error from bending grows with distance from source independent from number of bends provided bends >= 1.
Chromatic aberration shift grows with number of bends.
The probability of bends occurring would grow not with distance from source, but with the longer specific zigzag path which in turn grows with distance from source. The effects multiply. I am not sure if Doppler effects would be similarly multiplied.
Doppler and the sum of all chromatic aberration shifts are additive.

To reiterate from the summary, have these factors been accounted for in accelerated expansion models?
If so, the topic of my next question is "how?"

Nonsequitor: When making a statement that contains a question, is the proper punctuation mark a period or a question mark?
All these effects are accepted by the scientific community and there is a strong need for a standard to compare these effects to. The ‘Cosmic Microwave Background’ is the most logical starting point to obtain a standard, however much research remains to be done.
Since its confirmation of existence each survey has given more detail than the one before it which indicate just how prevalent these effects are since the beginning.
Once we understand the end points of the ‘thermometer’ the better we will be able to determine the degree of these effects in between.
This research is ongoing now, and as much as we would like it can only be accomplished in a finite amount on time which is dependent on the resources allocated to it. Be patient, it will be done
 
  • #16
Really it's been over 19 years since that paper and it's only available on research gate. Can you supply a fully peer reviewed paper showing such a study.
 
  • #17
YouTube: World Science Festival:
The Accelerating Universe
Then follow any path you wish.
 
  • #18
K I never consider anything done on video as a decent reference. I always prefer strong mathematical peer reviewed articles.

Just for a decent reference here is a half decent article on gravitational lensing with the applicable formulas.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.06601 This is how it's handled in mainstream and there is no application with regards to chromatic aberration in any of the formulas within
 
  • #19
Mordred said:
K I never consider anything done on video as a decent reference. I always prefer strong mathematical peer reviewed articles.

Just for a decent reference here is a half decent article on gravitational lensing with the applicable formulas.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.06601This is how it's handled in mainstream and there is no application with regards to chromatic aberration in any of the formulas within
Your choice, thanks for the reference.
 

Related to Some redshift from prism effect of a gravitational lens?

1. What is a gravitational lens?

A gravitational lens is a phenomenon in which the gravity of a massive object, such as a galaxy or a cluster of galaxies, bends and distorts the path of light from a distant object behind it. This creates multiple images of the distant object, making it appear as if it is being magnified or distorted.

2. How does the prism effect contribute to redshift in a gravitational lens?

The prism effect occurs when light passes through a medium, such as a gravitational lens, and is bent or refracted. This bending of light causes the wavelength of the light to change, resulting in a shift towards the red end of the electromagnetic spectrum. This is known as redshift.

3. Can the amount of redshift in a gravitational lens be measured?

Yes, the amount of redshift in a gravitational lens can be measured by analyzing the spectra of the multiple images of the distant object. The amount of redshift can provide valuable information about the mass and properties of the lensing object.

4. How does the amount of redshift vary in different gravitational lenses?

The amount of redshift in a gravitational lens can vary depending on the mass and distribution of the lensing object, as well as the distance between the lens and the distant object. Generally, the larger the mass of the lensing object, the greater the redshift will be.

5. Can the prism effect of a gravitational lens be used to study the properties of dark matter?

Yes, the prism effect of a gravitational lens can provide valuable insights into the properties of dark matter, which is thought to make up a large portion of the mass in the universe. By studying the redshift in gravitational lenses, scientists can better understand the distribution and behavior of dark matter in the universe.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
19
Views
1K
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
553
Replies
55
Views
8K
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
30
Views
6K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Back
Top