Post by: WendelBuhbi on 26/03/2021 09:30:43
A model of expanding time in a stationary universe is shown to match the travel times and redshifts produced by a model of expanding space. This model can be easily adapted to match the observed acceleration of redshifts with zero additional parameters. This results in a new redshift-distance relation with a constant that has units that differ from Hubble's constant, H0.
Introduction
Current measurements of the expansion rate of the universe don't agree, and hundreds of solutions have been proposed. The hypothesis proposed here is that space does not expand between galaxies, but time does. The idea is first introduced in a non-relativistic universe that expands linearly. Second, the hypothesis is shown to lend itself to non-linear variations, one of which matches the observations of an accelerating universe.
Linearly Expanding Space
To understand the expanding time hypothesis, let's first make a basic model of expanding space.
Due to the expansion of space, it will take a photon longer than 100 million years (My) to reach a galaxy that is presently 100 million light years (Mly) away. The increase in travel time is accompanied with a decrease in energy called cosmological redshift. To compute the time delays and redshifts, a computer model is used that places a series of targets 100 Mly apart. A photon is emitted when the model starts, and the time is logged when the photon reaches a target. Everything in the model is moving away from the photon's source according to Hubble's law, v=H0D. This stretches the wavelength of the photon, allowing us to calculate the redshift (z) using (wavelength_observed - wavelength_original) / wavelength_original.
The timestep for the program is 1 My, and the speed of light is 1 Mly/My. The value used here for H0 (variable "H0" in the code) is 74 km/s/Mpc, the often cited SH0ES team measurement. This is first converted to km/s/Mly, or 22.69 km/s/Mly. This is then converted to Mly/My/Mly so it fits with the units of time and the natural units of the speed of light used, which is 0.0000756 Mly/My/Mly.
Source Code (Javascript)
c = 1 // Mly / My
H0 = 0.0000756 // Mly / My / Mly
photon = {
x: 0, // distance traveled in Mly
wavelength: 500 // original wavelength in nm
}
// create targets at distance 100 Mly apart
nextTarget = 0
targets = []
for (var i = 100; i <= 10000; i+=100)
targets.push({x: i, start: i})
// time starts at zero
t = 0
while (targets[nextTarget]) {
// increment time by 1 My
t++
// move the photon forward at c + H0 * D
dx = c + photon.x * H0
photon.x += dx
// the expansion of space stretches the wavelength
wavelength = photon.wavelength * dx
// calculate z using the current and original wavelength
z = (wavelength - photon.wavelength) / photon.wavelength
// move the targets
for (target of targets)
target.x += target.x * H0
// if the photon has reached a target
if (targets[nextTarget].x <= photon.x) {
//output the time, the distance, and the z
console.log(t, targets[nextTarget].start, z)
nextTarget++
}
}
Linearly Expanding Time
Now let's compare that to a model with the same time delays, but where the distance between galaxies does not increase. In such a model, the photon's experience of time will deviate from the master clock of the non-relativistic model. In a relativistic universe, the photon does not experience time, which will be discussed in a later section. For now, we will consider the photon to have a clock that begins synchronized with the model's master clock and gradually falls behind by some constant. For this to work, the constant involved cannot have the same units as Hubble's constant, H0. To show that this is not the traditional Hubble's constant, H0, the subscript 0 is dropped and the constant is referred to only as H. H will have the units of years per million light years.
In this model, the photon experiences a time interval of Δt' that is a function of its distance D:
Δt' = Δt - HD
Here Δt represents the time interval that passes on the master clock, and H=0.0000756 My/Mly. When H is multiplied by D in Mly, the Mly cancel out, For D=1 Mly, HD=0.0000756 My, which is subtracted from the model's timestep, Δt, of 1 My, resulting in Δt'.
The photon then advances at c for a time of Δt':
Δx = cΔt'
The photon will still move at c, according to the time that it thinks has passed. But the photon is actually moving at less than c compared to the time that passes on the master clock. The photon will also oscillate at its original frequency compared to the time it thinks has passed. For an original frequency ν and original wavelength λ, the new frequency ν' is:
ν' = vΔt' = Δx / λ
To the photon, it is oscillating at its original frequency and traveling at c. But to the master clock, which hasn't slowed down, the photon will be oscillating at a lower frequency and traveling at less than c. Comparing the original frequency and the observed frequency, gives us the redshift (z).
Source Code (Javascript)
c = 1 // Mly / My
H = 0.0000756 // My / Mly
photon = {
x: 0, // distance traveled in Mly
frequency: 6e5 // original frequency in hz
}
// create targets at distance 100 Mly apart
nextTarget = 0
targets = []
for (var i = 100; i <= 10000; i+=100)
targets.push({x: i, start: i})
// time starts at zero
t = 0
while (targets[nextTarget]) {
// increment the master clock by 1 My
t++
// find the time interval experienced by the photon for this distance
dt = 1 - photon.x * H
// move the photon forward at c for the time interval
dx = c * dt
photon.x += dx
// calculate the photons frequency over this interval
frequency = photon.frequency * dt
// calculate z using the current and original frequency
z = (photon.frequency - frequency) / frequency
// if the photon has reached a target
if (targets[nextTarget].x <= photon.x) {
//output the time, the distance, and the z
console.log(t, photon.x, z)
nextTarget++
}
}
Using the same value for H as we did for H0 in the previous code (but using different units) produces the same time delays and redshifts as the model of expanding space.
Accelerating Redshifts
Modern measurements of redshifts and distances differ from the predictions of the basic expanding models in the previous section. The current expansion rate seems to be faster than it was in the past.
The expanding time model in the previous section was meant to identically mimic Hubble's law. If Hubble's law needs extra parameters, such as dark energy, to fit the modern observational data, then identically mimicking Hubble's law is no longer necessary.
A photon in the linearly expanding time model experiences a time interval of Δt - HD. Since the expanding time model is no longer restricted by a linear Hubble's law, other forms can be explored. For example, we can divide Δt by 1 + HD, rather than subtract, and get the same basic effect as D increases.
In the form of 1 + HD, the constant H must have the units of inverse distance. To make this more intuitive, we're going to break with the tradition of multiplying distance by a constant, and instead divide distance by a constant, giving us 1 + D/H and giving the constant H units of distance.
By putting variations on a theme, I devised similar but different mathematical models to compare:
hypothesis 1: Δt' = Δt - HD
hypothesis 2: Δt' = Δt / (1 + D/H)
hypothesis 3: Δt' = Δt / (1 + D/H)2
hypothesis 4: Δt' = Δt / (1 + (D/H)2)
The next step was to compare these hypotheses against the observational data. For that I used the Supernovae Cosmology Project's data. I converted the distance modulus to co-moving distance, and ran models for the hypotheses and showed the results against the observational data. The code for this is at the bottom of this document. The inverse square variation, hypothesis 3, is a very good fit of the data, for H=25 Gly.
A New Redshift-Distance Relation
Whether or not the interpretation of redshifts proposed here is considered possible or necessary, because it fits the acceleration of the redshifts, it can be used as an accurate predictor of z and distance given one or the other. The hypothesis is:
When used to calculate redshifts, the standard pattern arises that at z=1, Δt'=0.5Δt, and at z=2, Δt'=0.333Δt, and so on, such that:
Therefore:
This formula predicts the observed z and D of a galaxy in an expanding universe that is accelerating, without a cosmological constant or dark energy.
Post by: WendelBuhbi on 26/03/2021 09:36:18
(https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/img/supernovae4.png)
Red is hypothesis three, (1 + D/H)2
Post by: Halc on 26/03/2021 12:06:26
The timestep for the program is 1 My, and the speed of light is 1 Mly/My. The value used here for H0 (variable "H0" in the code) is 74 km/s/Mpc, the often cited SH0ES team measurement. This is first converted to km/s/Mly, or 22.69 km/s/Mly. This is then converted to Mly/My/Mly so it fits with the units of time and the natural units of the speed of light used, which is 0.0000756 Mly/My/Mly.Hubble's 'constant' is not a constant at all, but rather a value that has remained stable to within its known precision within the history of human's ability to know of it. Mly/My/Mly reduces to 1/My which is just the inverse of the age of the universe. Your relatively high choice of 74 km/s/Mpc yields an age of 13.2 BY for the universe. If constant expansion is to be correctly modeled, H0 is not a constant at all, but rather the inverse of the cosmological time, which you are incrementing with the simulation. You need to reflect this in your code.
If done correctly, light will eventually get here from any distance (say over 13.5 Bly). Given your H0 treated as a constant, this will not be the case.
Adding dark energy (and thus accelerated expansion) into the gears complicates all that considerably, and light will once again not ever get here from a sufficiently large distance (say over 16 Bly), but this is due to acceleration of expansion, and should not occur with flat expansion that is neither accelerated nor decelerated.
Post by: WendelBuhbi on 26/03/2021 21:14:43
Hubble's 'constant' is not a constant at all, but rather a value that has remained stable to within its known precision within the history of human's ability to know of it. Mly/My/Mly reduces to 1/My which is just the inverse of the age of the universe. Your relatively high choice of 74 km/s/Mpc yields an age of 13.2 BY for the universe. If constant expansion is to be correctly modeled, H0 is not a constant at all, but rather the inverse of the cosmological time, which you are incrementing with the simulation. You need to reflect this in your code.
I think that's taken for account in the code by advancing the targets at their proper distance (target.x) rather than co-moving distance (target.start).
The output of the program tracks with the expected z's in a simple, basic expanding universe.
Post by: Halc on 27/03/2021 13:58:41
But you’re not. I’m looking at the upper code that seems to assume cosmological (comoving) coordinates, proper distance. Consider the lines:Hubble's 'constant' is not a constant at all, but rather a value that has remained stable to within its known precision within the history of human's ability to know of it. Mly/My/Mly reduces to 1/My which is just the inverse of the age of the universe. Your relatively high choice of 74 km/s/Mpc yields an age of 13.2 BY for the universe. If constant expansion is to be correctly modeled, H0 is not a constant at all, but rather the inverse of the cosmological time, which you are incrementing with the simulation. You need to reflect this in your code.
I think that's taken for account in the code by advancing the targets at their proper distance (target.x) rather than co-moving distance (target.start).
Code: [Select]
// increment time by 1 My
t++
// move the photon forward at c + H0 * D
dx = c + photon.x * H0
photon.x += dx
This is using a constant H0 despite time increasing as the loop goes on.This becomes apparent if you reverse time and attempt to extrapolate backwards. Your targets are not going to end up all at the big bang at the beginning of time.
So better is to get rid of H0 and define T0=13200 (time of emission of photon, at t=0).
Then dx = c + photon.x / (T0+t)
or you could just eliminate T0 and start the simulation at t=13200 instead of t=0
Now the expansion is unaccelerated and any object receding at velocity v will continue to recede at velocity v at all times. Your code (both of them) has the universe undergoing exponential acceleration.
Some general comments on the code:
You should put targets at least out to 15000 (beyond the Hubble radius), not stopping at 10000. If that produces problems, there is a problem with the code. In particular, the photon should still reach them all.
Moving the targets with target.x += target.x * H0 is again producing exponential movement, not linear. You’d see this if you plot target distance over time, say every billion years.
The second half of the post considers what you call linear expanding time, whatever that means since time isn’t something that expands.
What you seem to be attempting is plotting the same action using comoving coordinates, comoving distance (as opposed to proper distance). You then interpret this as light speed slowing down (decrease in comoving distance per second) when light speed is defined as proper distance per second. So if you change c over time instead of the proper size of a comoving meter over time, then all the constants (G for intance) need to be adjusted. Earth would be shrinking steadily and losing mass, violating all sorts of conservation laws.
No, c remains constant (proper distance per time) and it is comoving distance that changes, growing with the space between galaxies so that they remain at constant location in the coordinate system. This interpretation obeys conservation laws and leaves most of the ‘constants’ constant.
Post by: WendelBuhbi on 27/03/2021 14:22:28
Sorry for slow replies, but I’ve limited time to put to this. I’m also insufficiently familiar with java to write anything in it. I’m more used to more type-strict languages like C where variables need to be declared before being used.
That's actually true in Java as well, where you declare a variables type first, but this code is Javascript, which is different and faaaar looser. :-)
Quote
Moving the targets with target.x += target.x * H0 is again producing exponential movement, not linear. You’d see this if you plot target distance over time, say every billion years.
Ah. That's a good point, but keep in mind the photon's source is stationary in this frame.
The expansion of space needs to increase the distance between the photon and its source, as well as the source from the targets. Due to the Hubble flow, the photon appears to pick up speed away from the source. It will however be moving at c relative to any target it meets.
Here are the values it produces. Does it not match expectations?
(https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/img/graph_z_expanding.png)
Quote
The second half of the post considers what you call linear expanding time, whatever that means since time isn’t something that expands.
True. But that is the hypothesis being proposed.
Quote
What you seem to be attempting is plotting the same action using comoving coordinates, comoving distance (as opposed to proper distance). You then interpret this as light speed slowing down (decrease in comoving distance per second) when light speed is defined as proper distance per second. So if you change c over time instead of the proper size of a comoving meter over time, then all the constants (G for intance) need to be adjusted. Earth would be shrinking steadily and losing mass, violating all sorts of conservation laws.
In this hypothesis there are no co-moving coordinates, because there is no expanding space or changing scale factor.
The idea isn't that light slows down, but cosmologically redshifted light experiences time differently.
Post by: Halc on 27/03/2021 17:18:39
The expansion of space needs to increase the distance between the photon and its source, as well as the source from the targets. Due to the Hubble flow, the photon appears to pick up speed away from the source. It will however be moving at c relative to any target it meets.Your image shows distance (what kind of distance unspecified) vs redshift.
Here are the values it produces. Does it not match expectations?
I'm not even talking about how the light appears to anybody. I'm saying your targets are accelerating, which will be obvious if you plot distance of the target over time. A given inertial object (galaxy say) will, in the absence of acceleration of expansion, retain its velocity relative to any other inertial object. So for instance, if two rocks are 100MLy apart and stationary relative to each other (constant proper separation over time), then they'll stay at that separation forever despite the Hubble flow. The Hubble flow just means that at least one of those objects isn't stationary relative to the local Hubble flow. It would be said to have a nonzero peculiar velocity.
Anyway, you seem to posit all your targets as having zero peculiar velocity, and thus they recede from each other due to expansion of space, but the separation velocity of a given target should be fixed over time, not accelerating. Your simulation has them accelerating.
Quote
Then you need to define what it means for time to expand. Time gets bigger over time? Does that sentence make any sense??QuoteThe second half of the post considers what you call linear expanding time, whatever that means since time isn’t something that expands.True. But that is the hypothesis being proposed.
Quote
In this hypothesis there are no co-moving coordinates, because there is no expanding space or changing scale factor.You're seemingly scaling c over time, so there is a scale factor, the very same one in fact. Are you discarding conservation of mass, momentum and energy then? What prediction does your model make by which it can be falsified?
Quote
The idea isn't that light slows down, but cosmologically redshifted light experiences time differently.That was another comment on the code. Light doesn't experience time. Light follows a null geodesic which separates all events along its path with zero interval. Thus light cannot experience time for the same reason that a photon cannot define a frame of reference.
Post by: Halo_Nova on 27/03/2021 18:24:46
Post by: WendelBuhbi on 28/03/2021 00:15:25
Then you need to define what it means for time to expand. Time gets bigger over time? Does that sentence make any sense??
Time dilates over distance, is more like it.
The idea, is that the time interval applied to the photon decreases with distance.
In a non-relativistic theory, this entails the photon having a clock that begins synced with the master clock, and falls off.
In a relativistic theory, it would have to mean something different.
Such as the photon veering into a time-like trajectory.
I don't really know it, but it seems like something in the Minkowski metric could be changed giving the photon a trajectory that gains time, which we observe as redshifts. The light cone would like the one in red:
(https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/img/lightcones.png)
Post by: puppypower on 28/03/2021 15:45:38
Acceleration is one part distance and two parts time; d/t/t, while velocity is one part distance and one part time; d/t. Your time model actually suggests a type of universal GR connection in the universe, instead of just a SR connection, and the relative motion=velocity connection that is now popular. This extra is connected to the second time vector of acceleration.
Picture, modeling acceleration as d/t1/t2, where t1 does not have to be equal to t2 . To simplify, an example, let us assume only t2 is changing with t1, but the t1 clock is not changing.
As an example, say we invented an antigravity prototype. We drop it off a ledge to test it. Without the device operative, it would fall at 32ft/sec/sec. The device, when operative, falls at 32ft/sec/1.01sec. This analysis could be used to model antigravity, while assuming the earth's gravity is not changing; t1 is steady.
I call the extra time vector, t2, time potential, since it can alter things in t1 time. If we have a quantum jump to another quantum state, in zero time, this zero is really talking about t1. The t2 or time potential is causing this, time jump, being detached from t1.
Dark matter enhances the GR balance of the universe. Old assumptions of t1=t2 may not still apply in this case. We may not know until we can see dark matter in the lab.
Post by: Halc on 29/03/2021 00:26:23
Time dilates over distance, is more like it.In standard physics (of which relativity is a part), those words do not convey meaning, so I must try to understand your redefinition of terms.
The idea, is that the time interval applied to the photon decreases with distance.
In a non-relativistic theory, this entails the photon having a clock that begins synced with the master clock, and falls off.
In a relativistic theory, it would have to mean something different.
Again, photons do not have clocks. The interval between events on a light-like worldline is zero, so I don't see how that can 'fall off'. So I don't understand your redefinition of 'interval' or what you mean by photons having clocks.
Quote
Such as the photon veering into a time-like trajectory.That means that there can be an inertial object (one stationary in its own frame) with which light cannot keep up. Are you really suggesting that? In your picture, one event at the origin, the other outside the red curved light cone, but inside the blue one delimiting the boundary between time-like worldlines and space-like worldlines. There can always be an inertial object whose worldline connects any two events with time-like separation, and here you have a photon going to the left which is outrun by a stationary object. Sounds pretty contradictory, so maybe I'm not understanding your words immediately above.
OK, I'm referring to Minkowski spacetime, and the universe definitely isn't Minkowskian. If I fire a ballistic object to the left at a peculiar velocity of just under light speed, its peculiar velocity will drop off dramatically over the sort of time frame indicated in your chart. So it will stay within the bounds of your red curve and not outrun light. BTW, what's the green curve then?
It seems then like all you're proposing is a relabeling of standard units with new ones with different meanings. You redefine velocity as comoving distance over time, not proper distance over time as is used in standard physics terminology. This just generates confusion. Invent new words to describe new things. Don't hijack existing words that already have their physics definitions.
Post by: WendelBuhbi on 29/03/2021 21:00:05
Again, photons do not have clocks. The interval between events on a light-like worldline is zero, so I don't see how that can 'fall off'. So I don't understand your redefinition of 'interval' or what you mean by photons having clocks.
I am by no means an expert, but I am familiar with this. Is the "formal" way to say this s2 = c2t2 - x2? And s=0 for a photon. The spacetime interval is invariant?
I think what the hypothesis is saying is that either the photon travels on a worldline that only looks like the null geodesic where redshifts can be ignored, or the null geodesics themselves are not uniform over cosmological distances.
Imagine photon A from galaxy A is emitted in the direction of galaxy B which emits photon B.
In general relativity, photon's A and B could follow the same null geodesic, assuming they were heading the same direction.
In this hypothesis, the path through spacetime a photon takes changes as D increases to cosmological scales. Either the photon leaves the null geodesic when it redshifts, or photon A and B are on two separate geodesics that just happen to overlap for a bit.
I'm sure to experts in relativity, neither sounds particularly appealing.
Any idea which is less wrong?
Quote
That means that there can be an inertial object (one stationary in its own frame) with which light cannot keep up. Are you really suggesting that? In your picture, one event at the origin, the other outside the red curved light cone, but inside the blue one delimiting the boundary between time-like worldlines and space-like worldlines. There can always be an inertial object whose worldline connects any two events with time-like separation, and here you have a photon going to the left which is outrun by a stationary object. Sounds pretty contradictory, so maybe I'm not understanding your words immediately above.
That's more or less the jist of it.
A photon from a galaxy with redshifts z=1 should experiencing time at 1/2 the rate as we do.
Moving at > 0.5c in the other direction, would, hypothetically, be able to outrun that significantlly redshifted light.
We should be able to test for this, by finding extra Doppler shifts by looking at high-z galaxies on the horizon at different times of the years:
(https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/img/dopplertest.png)
Keep in mind, an expanding universe will alter the shape of our light cones. It just happens to warp all lightcones as one.
This hypothesis warps each observers light cone individually. It would hypothetically be possible then, to broad cast a signal to the edge of our Hubble volume, where the redshifted signal is picked up, corrected, and retransmitted, and the signal leaving our Hubble volume. Communication between Hubble volumes.
Also, that's a solution to the "horizon problem".
Quote
OK, I'm referring to Minkowski spacetime, and the universe definitely isn't Minkowskian. If I fire a ballistic object to the left at a peculiar velocity of just under light speed, its peculiar velocity will drop off dramatically over the sort of time frame indicated in your chart. So it will stay within the bounds of your red curve and not outrun light. BTW, what's the green curve then?
The green curve matches Hubble's law (v=H0D, expanding space without acceleration/dark energy) and the linear expanding time (Δt'=Δt-HD).*edit* linear
Post by: puppypower on 30/03/2021 13:19:32
If the frequency decreased, but the wavelength did not change, the wave would need to become a composite wave; wave split and addition to maintain the old wavelength. If we take two waves with the same frequency and wavelength, using a slight time delay, the frequency can sustain and become disproportionate from the composite wavelength. It is all about timing.
We can simulate this type of red shift in the music studio, where the pitch can be raised or lowered by increasing or decreasing the vibrational frequency at the speaker. This can create the same output affect, as a red or blue shift, but without motion in space, except at the speaker. We do not need the entire room moving or the entire room expanding into space. The frequency shift will be a source affect.
General Relativity has been confirmed and is quite useful, but it has a major limitation; and potential update, that is never talked about, except by me. This limitation explains the second time vector of GR acceleration.
The second time vector can be understood by first looking at a star, such as our sun. GR will cause a space-time affect, where the center of the star obtained the most contracted space-time reference. In terms of the star's material and photon frequency, the same core, ironically, has the fastest material time intervals; gamma. Distances are consistent for the space-time reference and the materials; both become contracted. But time goes in two different directions; GR reference time gets slower, but material-photon time intervals get faster in all references.
There is are two time vectors, one connected to the GR space-time reference affect, and other connected to material-photon frequencies, which go in the opposite direction. The largest stars display more space-time contraction, but their material frequencies, get hotter and faster at all references in that star. T1 and T2 do not move in the same direction. Only the space variable; d, goes in the same direction, since both space-time and material distances contract; one part distance and two parts time.
GR, as written, has limited usefulness, since it cannot predict phases of matter, which is what t2 is all about. Material and photon frequencies tell us things about materials. In Special Relativity; SR, we have velocity, which is one part distance and one part time. There is only t1 and d, but no t2. If there was t2 in special relativity, as a rocket ship approached the speed of light, all material/energy in the ship, would blue shift; get hotter. Life would not be able to travel that way. But since SR is one part time and one part distance, the t2 affect should not occur. Particle accelerators appear to show this. However, since these experiments lack GR based t2, we will not get the same material phases with and without t2.
I will end with a question, the answer of which that can bring this all together. If we could stand inside a blackhole, and observe the universe, from the black hole reference, what would we see? assume only space-time and no material or energy opacity to block the view.
Post by: Halc on 30/03/2021 16:49:31
I am by no means an expert, but I am familiar with this. Is the "formal" way to say this s2 = c2t2 - x2? And s=0 for a photon. The spacetime interval is invariant?In Minkowski spacetime, the spacetime interval between any two events is frame invariant.
I admittedly don't know how GR applies such relations, and I need to be careful about applying Minkowski properties to non-Minkowskian spacetimes. For instance, it is possible to send light from Earth aimed near a black hole and have it come right back at us and get detected here. If I integrated along that light worldline, I'd get a succession of zero intervals which obviously don't add up to zero since the start and end events here on Earth are clearly time-like separated.
I think what the hypothesis is saying is that either the photon travels on a worldline that only looks like the null geodesic where redshifts can be ignored, or the null geodesics themselves are not uniform over cosmological distances.
Quote
Imagine photon A from galaxy A is emitted in the direction of galaxy B which emits photon B.Only if photon B is emitted exactly when photon A passes by the emission point of B. They will subsequently share the same worldline, yes.
In general relativity, photon's A and B could follow the same null geodesic, assuming they were heading the same direction.
Quote
In this hypothesis, the path through spacetime a photon takes changes as D increases to cosmological scales. Either the photon leaves the null geodesic when it redshifts, or photon A and B are on two separate geodesics that just happen to overlap for a bit.So you're proposing something other than what I just said above. The photon from galaxy A has aged more and will not forever track with the new photon emitted by B. That's a pretty extraordinary claim which requires some pretty extraordinary evidence.
You claim that light ages. The falsification test seems simple enough. Fire a laser at some target somewhere, triggered by old light received from a distant object. The light continuing on to the target from the distant object should arrive later than the 'new light' from the laser pulse.
Or did I misunderstand?
Quote
I'm sure to experts in relativity, neither sounds particularly appealing.Einstein's relativity is based on the premise that light will be measured to move at c relative to any local inertial frame. You're seemingly denying that premise, and thus all of relativity theory with it.
Quote
A photon from a galaxy with redshifts z=1 should experiencing time at 1/2 the rate as we do.How can you possibly figure that?
Relative to the cosmological frame, the time experienced by any given object is a function of its peculiar velocity, which is negligible for any known galaxy. Hence time is experienced at about the same rate for that galaxy as our own.
Relative to our inertial frame of reference (say the redshift as seen from Earth of a spaceship departing at high speed, a redshift of z=1 indicates a receding speed of 0.6c which results in the ship time being dilated by 20% relative to Earth frame, not 1/2 as you suggest.
Quote
Moving at > 0.5c in the other direction, would, hypothetically, be able to outrun that significantlly redshifted light.Light, redshifted or not, moves at c in any direction, as per the premise of Einstein's theories. Speed of light is not a function of speed of the emitting object. This has been demonstrated repeatedly by countless experiments.
Quote
We should be able to test for this, by finding extra Doppler shifts by looking at high-z galaxies on the horizon at different times of the yearsThe light from any object, close or distant, is shifted equally due to the changing velocity of Earth as it orbits.
Your assertions appear to contradict what is actually measured.
Quote
It would hypothetically be possible then, to broad cast a signal to the edge of our Hubble volume, where the redshifted signal is picked up, corrected, and retransmitted, and the signal leaving our Hubble volume. Communication between Hubble volumes.Cannot happen since the new light doesn't go at any different speed than the new light. There is no way to communicate outside our event horizon (which is outside the Hubble volume, but not by a whole lot). The Hubble radius is determined by the current value of the Hubble 'constant'. The event horizon is determined by the rate of acceleration of expansion, not by the rate of expansion.
Post by: puppypower on 31/03/2021 12:17:42
I will end with a question, the answer of which that can bring this all together. If we could stand inside a blackhole, and observe the universe, from the black hole reference, what would we see? assume only space-time and no material or energy opacity to block the view.
What I would expect to see, if I was sitting on a black hole, is our universe would appear to be much closer to the black hole, than the universe appears from our earth reference. Distant galaxies might appear so close as to be analogous to be part of a galactic solar system that is also occupied by the black hole.
If the laws of physic are the same in all references, and we know the black hole generates gravity, because distances appear so much closer to the BH reference, the black hole's gravity can impact these distant things, easier, than we would expect in our more expanded earth reference.
If there is no preferred reference, the energy balance will appear to be different from the POV of the black hole reference, due to its easier integration with close looking distant things. The BH will appear to influence these distant galaxies with its gravity, due to them being so close. Dark matter could be explained by black hole references, making its gravity appear close enough to touch distant objects, and thereby have an impact at extreme distances, we do not expect to be significant, based on our earth reference. The event horizon is not one thing for all references, with the universe much smaller for a black hole.
The speed of light is the same in all references, so from the black hole reference, the speed of light can reach these closer distant things, faster, than in our reference; time potential. Time potential allows one to move in time, apart from distance. The speed of light only applies to space-time or integrated d/t1=c, but not t2. The black hole has plenty of left over t2, from the compression of space-time; d/t1. Its space-time reference is nearly red lined, but its acceleration and force output continues; t2.
Post by: WendelBuhbi on 02/04/2021 21:14:25
So you're proposing something other than what I just said above. The photon from galaxy A has aged more and will not forever track with the new photon emitted by B. That's a pretty extraordinary claim which requires some pretty extraordinary evidence.
Correct.
They take the same route through space, but not through time, so it's a slightly different route through spacetime.
The evidence of this claim is the redshifts themselves.
Quote
You claim that light ages. The falsification test seems simple enough. Fire a laser at some target somewhere, triggered by old light received from a distant object. The light continuing on to the target from the distant object should arrive later than the 'new light' from the laser pulse.
Indeed.
Also consider a probe out past Jupiter that can detect supernovae.
If a supernova occurs at a high enough z, this hypothesis says (I think) that the probe could send us a message about the supernova that reaches us before the supernova does.
Quote
Relative to our inertial frame of reference (say the redshift as seen from Earth of a spaceship departing at high speed, a redshift of z=1 indicates a receding speed of 0.6c which results in the ship time being dilated by 20% relative to Earth frame, not 1/2 as you suggest.
I think that's relativistic Doppler effect.
My calculations for z=1 of cosmological redshift put the observed frequency at half the original.
Post by: Halc on 02/04/2021 22:54:13
Any redshift is a coordinate effect and as such is accompanied by a corresponding increase in wavelength. The speed and energy of the photon is thus identical to one recently emitted at the same current wavelength. Yes, there are ways to directly measure wavelength, and your idea suggests that redshift somehow changes the frequency without a proportional change in wavelength. Seems trivial to falsify.So you're proposing [that] the photon from galaxy A has aged more and will not forever track with the new photon emitted by B. That's a pretty extraordinary claim which requires some pretty extraordinary evidence.Correct.
They take the same route through space, but not through time, so it's a slightly different route through spacetime.
The evidence of this claim is the redshifts themselves.
Quote
Also consider a probe out past Jupiter that can detect supernovae.That would work if the supernova event was really precise and of course very close to the line of sight of Jupiter. I think something more regular and precise like a pulsar would be a better thing to time. Supernovas take a couple minutes to occur. They don't just blink on, and knowing where to watch is tricky. Not sure if a pulsar can be seen at significant distance.
If a supernova occurs at a high enough z, this hypothesis says (I think) that the probe could send us a message about the supernova that reaches us before the supernova does.
Quote
My calculations for z=1 of cosmological redshift put the observed frequency at half the original.By definition, yes. 1+z=femit/fobs
So that's true of galaxies and of departing rockets and says nothing about the time experienced by the thing being observed. You said:
Quote
A photon from a galaxy with redshifts z=1 should experiencing time at 1/2 the rate as we do.which is a frame-dependent statement, and incorrect relative to either of the obvious choices of frames that I mentioned.