- 6

- 2

- 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?

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?