Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

B Why is the redshift not the result of something else

  1. May 24, 2016 #1
    A high GHz mobile signal needs to be close to your house for you to get a good signal without the mast frying nearby residents with too many watts.
    A LW radio signal on the other hand can be transmitted from a far away country with a less watts.
    This is because shorter wave lengths are absorbed more by obstacles like walls.
    So if there's lots of dust between you and the light from a star in a far off galaxy would not this dust absorb more of the shorter wave lengths leaving more of a redness the further you look.
    Another explanation that could cause further away galaxies to be more red would be the degrading of high frequency light over time and space towards red.
    Does high frequency light get more absorbed by dust I suspect it does.
    Does high frequency light degrade over space and time I suspect it does.
    Another explanation is that black holes could distort far of light causing it to warp and become longer in it's wave length.
    Another explanation is that super massive black holes in the center of galaxies could cause very slight warps relative to extra dimensions over the whole of space causing the light from stars to appear to be getting further and further away.
    Yet Another explanation could be that light sources are interfering with each other causing the general light further away to shift to the red.
    Hell there could be loads of neutron stars distorting light such that it shifts to the red.

    In fact thinking about it I can't think of many static universe types where there wouldn't be a redshift of some sort the further out you looked.

    If you ask me the big bang theory is mostly blind belief backed by a nation who is obsessed with bombs where claiming that the ultimate super bomb created the universe is too lovely an idea to be wrong. Maybe Science isn't full of religious nutters mapping more concentric circles to patch up the wrong idea but just maybe it is. Having a beginning to everything or a completeness to everything like in string theory does allow people to assume we are living somewhere divine which may have a creator but such thought may never be actually truly mathematically reflecting properly whats actually there.

    Am I mistaken is there more evidence than redshift and redshift like effects if so what is this evidence and where might I read about it.

    Personally my theory is one that works with large extra dimensional space and lower dimensional spacial convergence at small scales in a universe that is never perfectly of any spacial integer dimension range. Apparently recently someone even found evidence of large extra dimensional space but I may be wrong and just because one large extra dimensional space model is proven wrong doesn't automatically make them all wrong like many have claimed.

    So whats your view are you pretty certain the big bang is real and what evidence is backing your view or do you think something else is going on, whats your view and whats your evidence. Is infact the best solution one that utilities multiple theories like We use Relativity and Quantum Mechanics today for optimal solutions.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 24, 2016 #2
    Red shift is not just a matter of shorter wavelengths getting blocked.
    The light from distant objects has characteristic patterns of light emission and absorbtion associated with different chemical elements.
    These identifying lines are shifted to longer wavelengths, so we can see for example the characteristic lines for hydrogen, but they are stretched out, appearing to be at a lower frequency than hydrogen emission lines which are generated locally.
     
  4. May 24, 2016 #3

    George Jones

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    "Tired light" theories are disfavoured by observations. Gravitational time dilation in expanding universe models predicts that the rate at which photons leave a distant source is larger than the rate at which photons are received here. This leads to observable effects that are not predicted by tired light theories.

     
  5. May 24, 2016 #4

    Bandersnatch

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    To bounce off rootone's post, this is not redshift:
    hqdefault.jpg
    This is redshift:
    http://lcogt.net/files/styles/fourcol-image/public/Screen%20shot%202011-12-08%20at%209.46.21%20AM.png [Broken]


    Incidentally, it requires both relativity and quantum mechanics to explain.

    A good overview of the evidence pointing towards BB as a good description of reality can be found here:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#evidence
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2017
  6. May 24, 2016 #5

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There is an effect called extinction that accounts for the reddening and dimming of astronomical bodies due to dust in the interstellar and intergalactic medium. It has been extensively studied. For an overview, see http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~ay216/08/NOTES/Lecture05-08.pdf. The 'tired' light idea has long been discredited as already noted. Gravitational redshift is not a viable explanation without a huge population of compact objects across lines of sight to distant bodies. There is no evidence of such a population [which would have other rather obvious consequences]. In short, most conceivable alternative explanations for redshift have been studied at length and found to lack credibility The case for the Big Bang is also pretty solid. It explains many things that would otherwise defy explanation and buried its chief competitor, continuous creation or steady state theory, decades ago.
     
  7. May 24, 2016 #6
    So what your saying is either light speed isn't constant over large distances due to some unforeseen spacial pronominal like say for example gas slowing the light down (causing the reduction in photon emission energy as a co factor with light luminosity) or there is something out there in the void pulling it all apart called dark energy. So why is gas caused photon emission slow down not a good explanation is there any evidence standing in the way of this explanation. it's also possible black holes could slow light down from more direct electromagnetic courses by effecting photons. If you ask me seeming as we haven't found evidence of either dark energy or something else causing the photon emission energy to drop I'd say it's fair game. The only thing stopping people researching enough alternate theories beyond euclidean static universes or 4D expanding universes is a lack of human imagination scientific dogma and almost blind belief much like assuming the sun went round the earth. I think that it's possible the big bang theory is nothing more than pigeon superstition when in fact all we really know for sure is something is missing in whats yet been observed.

     
  8. May 24, 2016 #7

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Conspiracy theory and idle speculation/personal theory are not allowed here. Thread locked.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook