The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Can the CMBR be blue-shifted into an earlier form?  (Read 7244 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Can the CMBR be blue-shifted into an earlier form?
« Reply #25 on: 15/10/2012 18:43:30 »
is it this one you're referring to? Gravitational Effects on Light Propagation.  I'm not sure if you can call that anything more than a hypothesis so far.

Found it at Millennium Relativity. "Millennium relativity is a new theory in relativistic physics that replaces Einstein's special and general theories of relativity.  More than ten years of research into the accepted body of experimental evidence leads to the discovery of significant flaws in the underlying foundations of both relativistic and classical physics." and so it belongs to New Theories here, not mainstream physics, until validated by unique experiments proving a discrepancy with Relativity.
 

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Can the CMBR be blue-shifted into an earlier form?
« Reply #26 on: 15/10/2012 18:54:09 »
K, that makes sense :) Although one thing, if you're discussing a time dilation/contraction too you must then specify relative what frame you define it. In this case it would be the CBR as I understand you? When it comes to F1 relative F0 you then should expect a similar blue and red shift for both, generally seen, as both then must relate their dilations etc to the cosmic background radiation. I think you need to go into why you need to define two different SpaceTime coordinates relative how those entities (F1 F0) move a little more for me to get it.

If you're assuming that the plasma cooled differently depending on relative motion/acceleration for those measuring I think you are correct, and if using the CBR as the 'preferred frame' defining it you will find each observer to have its own 'time scale', although all of them related through Lorentz transformations. It's tricky in that different uniform motions must bring with it different time dilations etc, relative what is measured locally. And there, as you point out, you also have relativistic blue shift which differs from normal blue shift (ambulance sound). Assuming you can ignore relativistic blue/red shift you can simplify it a little :)

But you need to define relative what you measure the effects as I think.
==

K. it's been fun Phractality :)

The CMBR originated when all that matter existed as a hot plasma, and the plasma cooled to a about 3000 K, making it transparent. Soon after that galaxies formed, and they may serve to define the reference frame which I am calling F0. Essentially all the visible matter and dark matter in the visible universe appears to be approximately comoving relative to the CMBR. For the present discussion, we may ignore proper motions, such as the fact that Andromeda is approaching us at about .001 c. Since galaxies formed from the same matter which had produced the CMBR, and since momentum is conserved, I see no point in distinguishing between F0 and the reference frame of the CMBR. In terms of space-time, the CMBR is F0 at t = 0. (My F0 clocks are set to zero at the moment when the plasma in their vicinity became transparent. I understand it, that happened at about the same time everywhere in F0. Hence the extremely small observed variations in the color temperature of the CMBR.

Since the time transformation between F0 and F1 depends on the x coordinate, the plasma must have become transparent earlier at points with greater x values. So you can't synchronize all F1 clocks to the moment when the plasma became transparent. Instead, you can choose one value of x where F0 and F1 clocks were set to zero at the same instant.

As I (mis)understand it, the 2.7 K appearance of the CMBR is the redshifted 3000 K radiation from the hot plasma. That corresponds to z = -.9991. (Definition of z.) In comoving coordinates, relativity does not enter into the formula for z due to the "apparent" velocity due to expansion of space. The redshift of the CMBR is just the non-relativistic Doppler shift. So I guess light-travel distance to the source of the CMBR is increasing at .9991 c. (The relativistic redshift formula for z = -.9991 yields -.5997 c. Anyway, that's what I get from Wolframalpha.)

An observer passing Earth in F1 would be looking at the same CMBR we are, but it would be blueshifted in the direction of relative velocity. Since the relative velocity is real, you need to apply the relativistic z formula to the velocity of .9682 c. That is a combination of Doppler shift, length contraction and time dilation. Wolframalpha calculates that z = 6.867, which means the observed frequency is 7.867 times the frequency observed at the same location in F0, which would be a color temperature of 21.24 K. The same observer looking back would see z = -.8729, so the observed frequency would be .1271 times that observed by Earthlings, for a color temperature of 0.343 K.




 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Can the CMBR be blue-shifted into an earlier form?
« Reply #27 on: 15/10/2012 19:10:38 »
That one was tricky :) and this one "Since galaxies formed from the same matter which had produced the CMBR, and since momentum is conserved, I see no point in distinguishing between F0 and the reference frame of the CMBR." even more so Phractality. Give me some time here to see what arguments I can come up with. You sure have thought about it :)
==

You might find this interesting Phractality SimilarAGO.pdf
« Last Edit: 15/10/2012 19:25:06 by yor_on »
 

Offline Nikstlitselpmur

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Can the CMBR be blue-shifted into an earlier form?
« Reply #28 on: 15/10/2012 19:27:36 »
That's gravity Nik :)



If anyone can prove it otherwise I'm very interested :) but as far as i know the light disappearing from the far observers frame of reference will, in a thought up 'comoving' frame, or better expressed, 'at rest' with that light propagating, still be there, happily making its way.

 The energy contained in an electromagnetic wave is finite, not infinite. If energy is stripped from an electromagnetic wave by interaction with gravity, it follows that the EMW will eventually be depleted of energy after  enough interactions.
 

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Can the CMBR be blue-shifted into an earlier form?
« Reply #29 on: 15/10/2012 19:29:25 »
Light loses energy due to gravity at its origin,as it travels through space and away from its point of origin, this was predicted by general relativity, and proven by Radek Wojtak of the Niels Bohr Institute. The  universe may in fact extend trillions of light years beyond the Hubbles field of view because the light from these distant objects loses most of its energy before it comes close enough to observe. CBR may in fact be the extent of the distance light can travel before it fades away, as objects beyond this limit would still emit radiation which travels farther than light due to the energy imparted at origin, Red shifting light has less energy than blue shifting light, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays  have more energy than radio waves, microwaves, infrared, and visible light, and therefor travel farther.

Light from beyond the Hubble limit can never reach us because the distance between us and the source is increase faster than the speed of light. The CMBR that we see comes from stuff that was close to the Hubble limit when the plasma first became transparent.

Photons are like stretchable millipedes crawling toward one another at the speed of millipede relative to the surface of an expanding balloon. Each of the millipede's legs can only move at the speed of millipede relative to the surface of the balloon. As the balloon expands, the millipedes get longer (redshifted). The farther apart two ants are, the faster the distance between them is being stretched. There is a certain distance beyond which they can't get any closer together without exceeding the speed of millipede. That distance is the Hubble limit of the balloon.

In the present problem, we're not concerned with the effects of gravity. Photons are redshifted because they are stretched by the expansion of space. (The millipedes get stretched by the expansion of the balloon, not because they are crawling uphill.) The original big bang theory assumed that gravity was slowing the expansion because the universe was assumed to be finite in size. If the universe is homogeneous, isotropic and infinite in size, then the gravitational potential is the same everywhere, there is no uphill or downhill, and gravity does not resist the expansion of space.

X-rays and radio waves have the same Hubble limit. It is determined by the speed of light and the rate of expansion, not by the wavelength of the light. Once a photon is emitted, it may travel infinite distance in infinite time, but it will never get any closer to an observer who is beyond the Hubble limit.
 

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Can the CMBR be blue-shifted into an earlier form?
« Reply #30 on: 15/10/2012 19:53:37 »
Nikstlitselpmur? Can you prove that light lose energy propagating? If you mean that it is frame related I agree but if you treat a light quanta in situ, then it never lose any energy. Better link up what you state there.

It is true that redshifted light light is received with less energy than it had when it was emitted. Where the redshift is due to a real relative velocity, the difference is just a matter of whose reference frame it is measured in. Light from a source in the Andromeda Galaxy is blueshifted due to the approach speed of .001 c. Those photons pack more energy in our reference frame than in Andromeda's reference frame.

If you are using inertial coordinates (unstretchable tape measures), rather than comoving coordinates (unstretchable chain links), you can say that our reference frame is moving away from the source of the CMBR, and the energy loss is a result of switching reference frames. In comoving coordinates, the increasing distance is called "apparent", and both the source and observer are in the same comoving reference frame. So a different explanation of the energy loss is required.

Is energy is conserved in comoving coordinates? Is the energy lost by redshifted photons matched by the energy equivalent of new space?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Can the CMBR be blue-shifted into an earlier form?
« Reply #31 on: 15/10/2012 20:08:02 »
yeah, but Nik is referring to gravitational blue and red shift, right? But even so your analogue might work Phractality as a gravitational potential indeed is a distorted topology according to relativity although it's the equivalence principle that steps in here. Anyway Nik, refute this and prove them wrong :) You will then have taken your first significative step towards a new definition, and possibly also redefining relativity.

There is another point that's confusing me here, easy to do I admit :) and as you say Phractality, I'm not that used to thinking comoving.

Assuming that everything made of matter is comoving, how does it do it? the answer should be gravity right? But in a expanding universe, assuming expanses opening between galaxies with different vectors, will this comoving principle still hold? If it does then the universe should need to perfectly isotropic and homogeneous, shouldn't it? And the comoving we see around our galaxy is already a approximative definition, as I understands it?

==

BTW Nic, if you don't mind, what has your ideas to do with Phractality's? You saw something you thought of as a common nominator or? Was it the question for the thread??
 

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Can the CMBR be blue-shifted into an earlier form?
« Reply #32 on: 15/10/2012 20:37:08 »
Nic, light escaping from a neutron star is redshifted quite a lot due to gravity, but all that happens in a short distance. If we're talking about light from a star close to a super-massive black hole, the redshift continues to increase to a somewhat greater distance from the black hole. Those are the rare and extreme cases. Once you get out of those really deep gravity wells, gravitational redshift is very minor. The gravity lens associated with some super clusters of galaxies is barely enough to produce Einstein rings. That's a far cry from the magnitude of the redshift associated with the CMBR. The CMBR comes from diffuse light sources before matter began to condense to form stars, galaxies, etc. So it did not have to climb out of any deep local gravity well.

Perhaps you are thinking of the theory that the expansion is driven by left over momentum from the big gang, and gravity is trying to pull it all back to the original singularity from which it originated. That idea stems from Newton's shell theorem, which assumes infinite empty space outside of the largest shell of matter. If the universe is infinitely large, then there is no largest shell and no emptiness beyond it. In that case, gravity pulls equally in all directions, not back toward the nonexistent singularity.
 

Offline Nikstlitselpmur

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Can the CMBR be blue-shifted into an earlier form?
« Reply #33 on: 15/10/2012 20:42:35 »


BTW Nic, if you don't mind, what has your ideas to do with Phractality's? You saw something you thought of as a common nominator or? Was it the question for the thread??

Scientists are willing to change their theories to accommodate new evidence, Radek Wojtak presents new evidence, even Einstein had to change his theory of a static universe and Lambda to accommodate Hubble's observations.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Can the CMBR be blue-shifted into an earlier form?
« Reply #34 on: 15/10/2012 21:01:33 »
Yep, but he wanted a 'static universe' for philosophical reasons, it fitted also the observations at that time, around 1917 as I understand. Radek Wojtak present a hypothesis, and he need to find a way to prove it experimentally first as I see it, and making it present data that refutes the other definition.
 

Offline Nikstlitselpmur

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Can the CMBR be blue-shifted into an earlier form?
« Reply #35 on: 15/10/2012 21:04:57 »


Light from beyond the Hubble limit can never reach us because the distance between us and the source is increase faster than the speed of light. The CMBR that we see comes from stuff that was close to the Hubble limit when the plasma first became transparent.



When Einstein first proposed his theories of general and special relativity he thought the Universe was static,(not expanding) in order to facilitate this he created what he called "Lambda" or the Universal Constant. However when Hubble provided proof that the Universe was in fact expanding in the form of red shifting, Einstein was forced to reconsider, and called it (Lambda) the biggest blunder of his career.As time progressed, astronomers and physicists realized that not only is the Universe expanding, the speed of expansion is increasing, so they devised their own Lambda, in the form of a Univerisal Constant, the ever increasing expansion at ever increasing speeds factor.

 The Universe would appear identically the same if the point of observation was within the gravitational well of a Reissner-Nordström BH, yet in fact be static, and not expanding, merely the perception of expansion is observed because the observer is receding.

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Can the CMBR be blue-shifted into an earlier form?
« Reply #36 on: 16/10/2012 05:35:44 »
That's true Nik, you can apply a receding/shrinking point of view towards us existing as matter, instead of defining it as a expansion, as they become mirrors of each other. Distance is a weird subject in relativity too. I've just reread Radeks hypothesis about light relating it to time dilations and I'm not sure what's so different with it compared to Einsteins treatment of it with 'clocks'? They will still only be a consequence of 'frames of reference' meaning always demanding relative comparisons between your local clock/ruler and some other frame? What exactly do you find different with it?
 

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Can the CMBR be blue-shifted into an earlier form?
« Reply #37 on: 16/10/2012 18:13:23 »
That's true Nik, you can apply a receding/shrinking point of view towards us existing as matter, instead of defining it as a expansion, as they become mirrors of each other. Distance is a weird subject in relativity too. I've just reread Radeks hypothesis about light relating it to time dilations and I'm not sure what's so different with it compared to Einsteins treatment of it with 'clocks'? They will still only be a consequence of 'frames of reference' meaning always demanding relative comparisons between your local clock/ruler and some other frame? What exactly do you find different with it?
I'm not up to speed on this type of model. It sounds like a choice of how you define your standards of length and time. If your standard unit of length is defined as constant at the point of highest gravitational potential, like the middle of a cosmic void, then your meter stick at the bottom of a gravity well will be shorter in terms of that defined constant length.

The standards in use by mainstream science, today, are defined in relation to a constant speed of light and a physical standard (caesium atom emission) of wavelength/frequency. Those standards are defined as constant, regardless of where the caesium atom is located with respect to gravitational potential. The result is warped space-time. You could define space-time as flat, rather than warped, allowing gravitational potential to affect the wavelength/frequency of the caesium emission.

Another possibility would be to adopt the Hubble limit as a standard unit of length, making the visible universe a constant size. If the expansion of space accelerated, other units of length would grow longer in proportion to the visible universe.

People tend to regard their definitions as sacred cows. If somebody else worships a sacred goat, it's time for jihad!
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Can the CMBR be blue-shifted into an earlier form?
« Reply #37 on: 16/10/2012 18:13:23 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length