Expanding Universe and the Red Shift

What is this 'echo', and what did it reflect from. If the answer is other objects floating in space, it seems the 'signal' would be very small.
I'll take a stab at an understandable explanation. It takes light some amount of time to travel to us, right? So if we look at a galaxy that's 50 million light years away, we're seeing it as it was 50 million years ago. So looking out very far is looking back in time. If we see a really distant galaxy 10 billion light years away, we're seeing it as it was 10 billion years ago. Look past those, and you'll see whatever was there at the beginning of time. Those photons have been travelling 13.7 billion years, since the universe first cooled enough to allow photons to pass through, and are just now arriving at our instrument.
 
The reason none of those explanations works is because of a misunderstanding of the term "red shift". Red shift doesn't mean the light becomes more red; it may do so, or it may become less red.

Red shift is the same thing as the Doppler Effect. You know how with train whistles and police sirens, they are higher pitched when they are approaching you and lower when they are moving away? Of course, the whistle doesn't change pitch just as it passes you.

Let's say the train's whistle is at 1000 cycles per second, and the train is moving towards you at 10 metres per second. It sounds its whistle when it is 100 metres away, and keeps sounding until it is 100 metres past. That takes 20 seconds in all.

But the speed of sound is about 330 metres per second. So the very first sound from the whistle takes about a third of a second to reach you. The first 10 seconds worth of whistle is squashed into 9.7 seconds - when the train is right beside you, the time taken for the sound to reach you is negligible.

And similarly, as the train moves away from you, it takes 10.3 seconds for all the sound to reach you until the whistle cuts off when the train is 100 metres away.

So in the as the train moves towards you, all the sound is shifted upwards in pitch by about 3%, to about 1031 cycles per second, and as it moves away the pitch drops by about 3%, to 971 cycles per second.

Now, here's the thing: If the train played a tune on its whistle rather than a constant tone, the same effect would apply to all the notes, and to the durations of the notes.

How does this apply to the Cosmological Red Shift? I'm glad you asked! :D

Light emitted by stars is neither a single pure frequency nor a perfect continuous spectrum. Every chemical element has a number of characteristic frequencies at which it can emit or absorb light - these frequencies depend on the number of electrons in the atoms. Here is a picture of part of the spectrum of our Sun.

These spectral lines are very useful because they let us detect what elements are present in a given star. They also provide a marker as to what frequency the light was originally emitted at, and allow us to tell if it has been shifted by the Doppler Effect.

So if we know of a set of lines that look like this:

RED || ||| | | || || || | | | ||| BLUE

And when we look at the visible light of a particular star, we see:

RED ||| | | || || || | | | ||| | | | BLUE

We can see that by sliding the spectrum of the star to the right, suddenly all the lines match up. That means that the light has been shifted redwards, what we call a "red shift".

The Cosmic Sunset won't do this; it just decreases the amount of blue light and increases the amount of red light.

Degrading Light won't do this either. We'd simply stop seeing the spectral lines at the blue end; the ones at the red end would remain in place.

Multi-Speed Light wouldn't do it. I don't see how multi-speed light would have any effect at all (in this situation).

One thing that works is the Doppler Effect.

Another is the "Tired Light" conjecture, which suggests that over very very long distances, light gradually loses energy. Unfortunately, that contradicts Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and the First Law of Thermodynamics, so it's not taken very seriously.
 
Which just struck me as a really good argument against the "the Universe is a simulation" idea. If the Universe was a simulation, we'd see all these glitches and discontinuities as patches were rolled out. Like Mercury would suddenly start following Newtonian mechanics instead of Relativity, and then would jump in its orbit when they fixed it.
 
Which just struck me as a really good argument against the "the Universe is a simulation" idea. If the Universe was a simulation, we'd see all these glitches and discontinuities as patches were rolled out. Like Mercury would suddenly start following Newtonian mechanics instead of Relativity, and then would jump in its orbit when they fixed it.


Hmmm... this could explain the biblical flood story.

Way back in the simulation something went wrong and the Earth got covered in water. Obviously this was not supposed to happen so the programers had to do some hasty fiddling with the code and restart the whole thing. The Ark and it's inhabitants were simply templates for getting stuff going again.

I think the code needs a lot more fiddling!
 
If our meager exploration of space as taught us anything, it's that our ideas about the universe rarely survive close examination of the things we're speculating about. Our ability to draw conclusions about the structure of the universe as a whole is questionable.
Nahh, I think it's just your ability to draw conclusions that's questionable.
 
Actually my answer is the same to all three:

Not all stars/galaxies are red shifting, only the majority. Some are blue shifting towards us. This is to be expected because some stars/galaxies may be under the influence of other forces like gravity. All three hypothesis above fail to explain the existance of any blue shift.
quote]
Obviously the universe is never totally static. I would have thought that a blue shift would be more difficult to explain in an expanding universe than a relatively static one. Especially given that an expanding universe creates the opposite of a blue shift (red shift). Surely whatever causes a blue shift in an expanding universe could also apply to relatively static one. If not, please why not.
 
ynot,

Just thought I say that all of your questions were reasonable. You don't have to label yourself "naive" or call your ideas "half-baked" just because they aren't in the majority. Doubt is very healthy.

Heck, I just learned that astronomers have this red shift measurement down more accurately than I had thought before. Yay for me.

Thanks - I think it is more my own opinion that the ideas I have submitted may be naïve and half-baked as they come more from a collection of random thoughts over many year rather than any form of researched scientific study.
 
Obviously the universe is never totally static. I would have thought that a blue shift would be more difficult to explain in an expanding universe than a relatively static one. Especially given that an expanding universe creates the opposite of a blue shift (red shift). Surely whatever causes a blue shift in an expanding universe could also apply to relatively static one. If not, please why not.

We explain red shift by motion. If the object is moving away from us - as all really distant objects are, because the expansion of the Universe overwhelms their individual motion - then the light is red shifted. If the object is moving towards us, like some of the galaxies in our local group, then the light is blue shifted.

None of your three explanations allow for blue shift at all.
 
The universe is undoubtedly expanding.
I don't understand your reasoning here. Fading out and disappearing? You mean getting more and more dim because they are now farther away? If that's what you're saying, then I guess if you lived for a few hundred million years and compared how bright the stars are now versus when you were younger (if you have a good memory), then just maybe you might notice a difference. But in time spans less than that, such as our <80 years of making extra-galactic observations, the remote galaxies will be hardly at all further than they were 80 years ago. This reminds me of the janitor at a museum telling a visitor that a particular fossil is 15 million and 20 years old: "When I first started working here 20 years ago, they told me it was 15 million years old then."
I don't see how your last sentence follows from the first two. Yes, there are galaxies every which way we look. What was that about moving beyond our current view?

If something is constantly travelling away for me, I expect that it will end up being so far away that it will end up being out of my field of vision. Likewise, if the universe is constantly expanding and constantly travelling away, I would expect distant parts of it to travel out of my field of vision (not naked eye vision of course). Surely if the expansion is uniform and constant, very distant objects would be travelling away from my relative position at an ever accelerating and extremely rapid rate.

With the sunset, we start with a full spectrum of white light, and remove some of the blue light, so the remaining light tends to have more red photons. But with receding galaxies, the individual photons have been shifted down in frequency. There are speficic frequencies of light that stars emit, which can be measured extremely accurately, and are due to the nature of the sub-atomic processes that created a photon. Those specific frequencies are shifted down in frequency with distant galaxies, not just that the higher-frequency ones have been weeded out.
Again, this wouldn't explain the red shift I duscuss above.

I didn’t particularly like this one either.

Well, we have a pretty good handle on the speed of light, plus even if infrared travels faster, we'd also by now be seeing the bluer colors, which even though they're younger, would still be getting to us in the right proportion. Plus, it doesn't explain the red shift as discussed above.

It is not a matter of one eventually catching up with the other, it is the quantity delivered. I am suggesting that if the infrared was travelling faster than the ultraviolet and a greater quantity of infrared was reaching the retina, that the object emitting the light would appear more red in colour. If two conveyor belts that shared the same start and finish points were delivering a substance, wouldn’t one that was travelling twice the speed of the other deliver twice the amount of substance?
 
I'll simplify

1) And this cosmic dust would be what?
2) Degrading light. Any study or demonstration of this phenomena?
3) Multi-speed. See #2

1) Don't know. I was not trying to prove it, just suggest it.
2) After much internet searching I found http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE425.html Tired light is new to me.
3) No. Do you know of any study or demonstration that disproves this suggestion?
 
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the facts falsify your different hypotheses. If you can come up with others that fit the observed facts, that would be great. So far, no one has come up with anything other than the Big Bang/Inflation model that works.
Sorry - Forgot to say - I didn't have a bubble - just some ideas
 
Also, a fine brainstorm of possible alternative explanations. Sometimes, the good ideas that don't bear out in reality are the most interesting ones to explore. You're doing what scientists do.

I had a lousy science program in high school. We studied almost exclusively correct hypotheses. We rarely formulated our own. This was the cram your head with facts philosophy of teaching. It would have been much more engaging and enlightening had we brainstormed possible alternative explanations and then explored their viability. Science is actually better at eliminating ideas than confirming them. You can often disprove a hypothesis absolutely, but you can never prove one absolutely.
Thanks for your kind words - You think you had it bad? You only had a lousy program. I had a lousy School. (is that a Monty Python skit I here?). It was so bad I left the education system at age 14. And have been trying to educate myself ever since.
 
Thanks

The sun looks yellow because the blue part of the spectrum is scattered. Note that the blue doesn't disappear, it's just scattered. That's why the rest of the sky looks blue. If there were space dust scattering blue light, we should see a blue sky, even at night.
I didn't mean to say the process was the same (or even similar) as it is in a sunset. I was simply suggesting that there might be something (anything) in space that effects light so that when the light is observed after having travelled a great distance, it appears red.

If this were the case, the different parts of the spectrum wouldn't synch up. If we see a star get eclipsed by a planet, we should see the red part of the spectrum eclipsed at a different time from when the blue part gets eclipsed.
I am only suggesting a relatively small difference in speed so the effect would only be apparent over immense distances.
 
The universe undoubtedly has a redshift. It's not clear that it's actually expanding.

The Big Bang is the best explanation yet for the sum of evidence. That doesn't mean it's a good explanation...
The light at the end of the tunnel may not be a train after all!
 
It is not a matter of one eventually catching up with the other, it is the quantity delivered. I am suggesting that if the infrared was travelling faster than the ultraviolet and a greater quantity of infrared was reaching the retina that the object emitting the light would appear more red in colour.


1. That's not what would happen.
2. That's not what we see.
3. That's not what "red shift" means.

If two conveyor belts that shared the same start and finish points were delivering a substance, wouldn’t one that was travelling twice the speed of the other deliver twice the amount of substance?

No.
 
I didn't mean to say the process was the same (or even similar) as it is in a sunset. I was simply suggesting that there might be something (anything) in space that effects light so that when the light is observed after having travelled a great distance, it appears red.

Well, the light doesn't appear red, so this is kind of pointless. The spectrum as a whole is shifted towards lower frequencies, which is entirely different.
 
Thought I would thank everyone for the contributions. I really get a buzz from this stuff but unfortunately I’m not able to spend much time on the forum (too busy - self employed and the boss is a slave driver).

I don't mean to be confrontational in saying this but sometimes I wonder if some of you respond to threads from an almost dogmatic belief position. “I know this, and this doesn’t agree with that, so that is wrong”. It’s always easier to accept a new idea if it supports a currently held idea. This applies equally to myself as well of course and is in no way mean to relate to replies to my post. In fact I have been impressed with the quality of response and will learn heaps from it - Thanks again.
 
I don't mean to be confrontational in saying this but sometimes I wonder if some of you respond to threads from an almost dogmatic belief position. “I know this, and this doesn’t agree with that, so that is wrong”.

It's not a question of dogma, it's a question of your conjectures not matching observed facts - including the fact of red shift, which is the whole reason you proposed them in the first place.

None of the three mechanisms you suggested would produce red shift. That is the problem.
 
It's not a question of dogma, it's a question of your conjectures not matching observed facts - including the fact of red shift, which is the whole reason you proposed them in the first place.

None of the three mechanisms you suggested would produce red shift. That is the problem.
Thanks to the replies, I now have a better understanding of the expanding universe/red shift (but not by any means complete of course) and agree with your comment above. I havn't given up on chalenging the validity of the issue however - I would like to revisit the point I was trying to make with conveyor belt question so will phrase it differently in the hope of getting a yes answer . . .

There are two machine guns. One fires 100 rounds per second and the other fires 200 rounds per second. If both are fired at a target for one second, would one gun fire twice as many bullets in to the target than the other?.
 

Back
Top Bottom