My Lecture on the Redshift – Curt Weinstein (posted 2014-10-13)
If we mean by redshift the lengthening of a light wave, then three phenomena qualify to be addressed as a redshift. First, light escaping from an optical denser material, such as water, to an optical less dense material, such as air, undergoes a lengthening of its wave, a redshift. Second, light finding a receding receptor (eye) or light from a receding transmitter (light bulb) or from both undergoes a lengthening of its wave, a redshift. Third, light escaping from gravity undergoes a lengthening of its wave, a redshift. Thus, I intend to discuss three cases. As you may recall from elementary physics, the energy of a light photon (wave) is equal to Plank’s Constant (h) times the lights frequency (ν). Light is known from its energy; if the energy changes, the light has changed.
In the first case, as light escapes from water to air, the light’s wavelength increases with its speed. In fact, its frequency stays the same. Thus, the same light that was in the water is now in the air – there is no change in energy. Yes, it has a different (longer) wavelength. However, it also has a greater speed. The net frequency change is zero. I will mostly ignore the first case. Stars, which are optically denser near their surface and become less optically dense as you recede from them (more or less, emitting mass and energy from a sphere), have light that undergoes a redshift due to refraction. As all refraction-caused redshifts, the energy does not change: same frequency.
In the second case, motion changes the energy available from the light – Doppler Shift. If I throw a ball at you and you catch it, you have absorbed 0.5mv(v) worth of (kinetic) energy (m=mass of ball, v= speed of ball relative to you). If on the other hand, you run from the ball and catch it, the picture changes. You have absorbed (0.5)(m)(v-w)(v-w) worth of energy (v-w = net speed of ball relative to you). Of course, I put into the ball the full (0.5)(m)v(v) worth of energy. Where did the extra energy go? Conceptually, the extra energy is in the moving person who catches the ball (of course, the person includes the caught ball here). To stop, the moving person also has to stop the extra mass of the light.
In the third case, the energy must be in the star’s gravity field – where else, if anywhere? Light by escaping from gravity is reddened. Only the gravity is to blame for the loss of energy of the light.
I. Definitions and Birth
The term redshift refers to the displacement spectrum (usually from an astronomical object) toward longer wavelengths. In the optical spectrum, “red” represents the longest visible wavelength; thus, the term redshift. Mostly the redshift of starlight is attributed to the Doppler Effect, which is a change in wavelength resulting from the relative motion of the source and observer (e.g., of light waves).[i]
The American astronomer Edwin Powell Hubble reported in 1929
that the distant galaxies were receding from the
Milky Way system, in which Earth is located, and that their
redshifts increase proportionally with their increasing distance.
This generalization became the basis for what is called Hubble’s law,
which correlates the recessional velocity of a galaxy with its distance from Earth.
That is to say, the greater the redshift manifested by light emanating
from such an object, the greater the distance of the object
and the larger its recessional velocity (see also Hubble’s constant).
This law of redshifts has been confirmed by subsequent research
and provides the cornerstone of modern relativistic
cosmological theories that postulate that the universe is expanding.[ii]
II. An Alternative Redshift
The standard redshift comes from the relative motion of bodies. As the source and sink recede from each other, the sink registers a redshift (longer wave length). The available energy from the light decreases.
Now I give you a hint. Wavelength is not the correct measure, although it is highly correlated with the correct measure. When light leaves water and enters air, the light undergoes a lengthening of its wavelength. The light, however, does not lose energy. The wavelength increases but its speed also increases, so that its frequency remains the same. The energy of the light, which is measured by its frequency, does not change. What we have here is a redshift without a change in (available) energy of the light; repeat -- the frequency does not change.
In analogy, we may expect a change in wavelength for interstellar voyages of light as the light wave moves through different optical densities, e.g., from more interstellar gas to less. Does such a change, however, evoke a change in frequency (or merely the paired set: wavelength and speed; that is, not frequency)? Conceptually, the light wave is changed when it changes frequency. A change in wavelength does not mean the energy of the light wave is changed; it could be just its appearance (a mask).
And now we ask a most interesting question: what does a gravity well do to a light wave? We expect a redshift as the light climbs out of a gravity well. Let me backtrack; a “gravity well” is my name for a region of strong gravity (such as the center -- or surface -- of a star) from which the light escapes into a region of lesser gravity. For example, light escaping from a star (under strong gravity), and as the light escapes into the universe, does it undergo a redshift due to the change in gravity? As physicists say today (10/5/2014 7:17:27 PM) the speed of light is independent of the degree of gravity (at least for usual levels found around here – observable universe).[iii] Therefore, if there is a redshift, then it is not accompanied by a parallel speed change; that is, the frequency changes. If the frequency changes, then the energy of the light changes.
We have a confounding, of course, with the optical density of the star; frankly, the star is a typical lens (more mass here and less there). We would expect the refraction environment to produce a redshift, all by itself. But that redshift (due to refraction) is an energy-conserving redshift. That means, we would expect the light to speed as the density of matter shrinks (as the wavelength increases). Another way of looking at the phenomenon: But that redshift (without angular refraction, but just due to leaving a piece of “rectangular” glass) is an energy-conserving redshift – the light speeds as the wavelength lengthens – the frequency is the same.
Considering what has been written above, we have two types of redshifts. First, there is the redshift of the light wave but without an accompanying change in frequency (energy constant). Second, there is the redshift of the light wave with an accompanying change in frequency (energy changes) (Doppler or Gravity genesis).
When the source and the sink move apart, the available energy of the light wave is reduced (redshift). When pseudo-refractively[iv] a redshift is found, the available energy of the light is unchanged (frequency is unaffected); it’s lengthening of the wave (redshifting) is with a speeding of the light.
III. What’s gravity got to do with it?
If we ignore the redshift due to refractive considerations, we may yet find a redshift due to gravitational considerations – the gravity well. In this case, energy is sucked out of the light wave as it leaves the star, as it goes to “infinity and beyond” (taken from Toy Story, a children’s movie) (as it approaches infinity). I am saying energy is taken from the light wave as it moves away from the star. And now, how do we differentiate a redshift due to relative motion and a redshift due to climbing gravity?
IV. Hubble
Since the early 1960s astronomers have discovered cosmic objects known as quasars that exhibit larger redshifts than any of the remotest galaxies previously observed. The extremely large redshifts of various quasars suggest that they are moving away from Earth at tremendous velocities (i.e., approximately 90 percent the speed of light) and thereby constitute some of the most distant objects in the universe.i
Well, are these quasars moving away from Earth at ~0.9 c? Maybe, they are just large, large stars that, of course, exhibit large, large gravities. With their large gravity, we would expect a redshift. In fact, we might expect a redshift proportional to their distance from us (since their gravity sucks the energy out of the emitted light -- more distance, more loss of energy to the gravity field).
Why should the redhifted stars be large instead of fast? Fast explains, although I don’t know why they are fast (oh, yea, Big Bang). On Earth, under different sets of conditions, when there is an explosion, we find the more distant masses moving more slowly than the closer masses. In contrast, in “outer space” we say that the more distant objects are moving more quickly. There are many explanations for the difference, so I will not pursue. Considering largeness as an explanation for the redshift (instead of fastness in retreating), I see the question: why are the largest stars the reddest? The answer is the gravity hole, and if you pursue, the gravity hole (if other gravities don’t interfere) for a long, long distance. I have argued that, unlike the redshift caused by refraction, the redshift caused by gravity is an energy eating redshift, and, if so, gravity’s redshift is more similar to movement’s redshift. But gravity’s redshift continually eats energy, whereas movement’s redshift is a constant redshift (as long as the movement is at a constant velocity [relative to what? Relative to the initiating gravity from the measuring gravity.]).
So the big redshifts that had implied that distant matter is moving a some high speed can be alternatively explained. Maybe the distant matter is large. It is large because we can see it (as in I can see a truck before I can see the fly on its windshield).[v] [Stellar dust, dark matter, gravities, gasses and the like may distort the image of the distant mass; if the mass is large enough, we see it anyway – truck vs. fly.] The big redshifts are from the big stars that have the big gravities.
I am not against the Hubble Redshift; I just think that there is another explanation that is as least, if not more, feasible.
V. Red faced
So if I have a red face – is it from:
1. moving away at a “constant” speed (except the further I am, the faster I am)? Or
2. coming out of a greater refractive index (it’s long-shifted but it’s not lower energy)? Or
3. climbing out of a gravity well (the well is deep and very, very long)?
If you simply believed Hubble, is your face now red from embarrassment?
VI. Mental wanderings
A. Here’s a great question regarding black holes. Are they black or are they “infrared” (conceptually)? Maybe a violet ray fights gravity and becomes the we-don’t-detect-this infrared wave. Maybe it’s not that light can’t escape – maybe it just doesn’t escape with “high” (enough) energy (to be easily detected).
B. Far out question: Is this feasible? Gravity, of course, escapes from a black hole; maybe the gravity is merely a very low electromagnetic wave (GEM wave – gravitational-electro-magnetic wave)?
[i] http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/494505/redshift Text is modified from a copy taken in 9/16/2014.
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] I do not believe that, but for now, it’s close enough.
[iv] If light leaves glass for air, we have an obvious refraction of light, except when the interface is normal (right angle). Anyway, all I mean by pseudo-refraction is the case where the light leaves at right angles, so there is no bending. In the case referred to in the text, refraction with bending is allowed.
[v] Do not attempt this feat from the expected path of the truck.
If we mean by redshift the lengthening of a light wave, then three phenomena qualify to be addressed as a redshift. First, light escaping from an optical denser material, such as water, to an optical less dense material, such as air, undergoes a lengthening of its wave, a redshift. Second, light finding a receding receptor (eye) or light from a receding transmitter (light bulb) or from both undergoes a lengthening of its wave, a redshift. Third, light escaping from gravity undergoes a lengthening of its wave, a redshift. Thus, I intend to discuss three cases. As you may recall from elementary physics, the energy of a light photon (wave) is equal to Plank’s Constant (h) times the lights frequency (ν). Light is known from its energy; if the energy changes, the light has changed.
In the first case, as light escapes from water to air, the light’s wavelength increases with its speed. In fact, its frequency stays the same. Thus, the same light that was in the water is now in the air – there is no change in energy. Yes, it has a different (longer) wavelength. However, it also has a greater speed. The net frequency change is zero. I will mostly ignore the first case. Stars, which are optically denser near their surface and become less optically dense as you recede from them (more or less, emitting mass and energy from a sphere), have light that undergoes a redshift due to refraction. As all refraction-caused redshifts, the energy does not change: same frequency.
In the second case, motion changes the energy available from the light – Doppler Shift. If I throw a ball at you and you catch it, you have absorbed 0.5mv(v) worth of (kinetic) energy (m=mass of ball, v= speed of ball relative to you). If on the other hand, you run from the ball and catch it, the picture changes. You have absorbed (0.5)(m)(v-w)(v-w) worth of energy (v-w = net speed of ball relative to you). Of course, I put into the ball the full (0.5)(m)v(v) worth of energy. Where did the extra energy go? Conceptually, the extra energy is in the moving person who catches the ball (of course, the person includes the caught ball here). To stop, the moving person also has to stop the extra mass of the light.
In the third case, the energy must be in the star’s gravity field – where else, if anywhere? Light by escaping from gravity is reddened. Only the gravity is to blame for the loss of energy of the light.
I. Definitions and Birth
The term redshift refers to the displacement spectrum (usually from an astronomical object) toward longer wavelengths. In the optical spectrum, “red” represents the longest visible wavelength; thus, the term redshift. Mostly the redshift of starlight is attributed to the Doppler Effect, which is a change in wavelength resulting from the relative motion of the source and observer (e.g., of light waves).[i]
The American astronomer Edwin Powell Hubble reported in 1929
that the distant galaxies were receding from the
Milky Way system, in which Earth is located, and that their
redshifts increase proportionally with their increasing distance.
This generalization became the basis for what is called Hubble’s law,
which correlates the recessional velocity of a galaxy with its distance from Earth.
That is to say, the greater the redshift manifested by light emanating
from such an object, the greater the distance of the object
and the larger its recessional velocity (see also Hubble’s constant).
This law of redshifts has been confirmed by subsequent research
and provides the cornerstone of modern relativistic
cosmological theories that postulate that the universe is expanding.[ii]
II. An Alternative Redshift
The standard redshift comes from the relative motion of bodies. As the source and sink recede from each other, the sink registers a redshift (longer wave length). The available energy from the light decreases.
Now I give you a hint. Wavelength is not the correct measure, although it is highly correlated with the correct measure. When light leaves water and enters air, the light undergoes a lengthening of its wavelength. The light, however, does not lose energy. The wavelength increases but its speed also increases, so that its frequency remains the same. The energy of the light, which is measured by its frequency, does not change. What we have here is a redshift without a change in (available) energy of the light; repeat -- the frequency does not change.
In analogy, we may expect a change in wavelength for interstellar voyages of light as the light wave moves through different optical densities, e.g., from more interstellar gas to less. Does such a change, however, evoke a change in frequency (or merely the paired set: wavelength and speed; that is, not frequency)? Conceptually, the light wave is changed when it changes frequency. A change in wavelength does not mean the energy of the light wave is changed; it could be just its appearance (a mask).
And now we ask a most interesting question: what does a gravity well do to a light wave? We expect a redshift as the light climbs out of a gravity well. Let me backtrack; a “gravity well” is my name for a region of strong gravity (such as the center -- or surface -- of a star) from which the light escapes into a region of lesser gravity. For example, light escaping from a star (under strong gravity), and as the light escapes into the universe, does it undergo a redshift due to the change in gravity? As physicists say today (10/5/2014 7:17:27 PM) the speed of light is independent of the degree of gravity (at least for usual levels found around here – observable universe).[iii] Therefore, if there is a redshift, then it is not accompanied by a parallel speed change; that is, the frequency changes. If the frequency changes, then the energy of the light changes.
We have a confounding, of course, with the optical density of the star; frankly, the star is a typical lens (more mass here and less there). We would expect the refraction environment to produce a redshift, all by itself. But that redshift (due to refraction) is an energy-conserving redshift. That means, we would expect the light to speed as the density of matter shrinks (as the wavelength increases). Another way of looking at the phenomenon: But that redshift (without angular refraction, but just due to leaving a piece of “rectangular” glass) is an energy-conserving redshift – the light speeds as the wavelength lengthens – the frequency is the same.
Considering what has been written above, we have two types of redshifts. First, there is the redshift of the light wave but without an accompanying change in frequency (energy constant). Second, there is the redshift of the light wave with an accompanying change in frequency (energy changes) (Doppler or Gravity genesis).
When the source and the sink move apart, the available energy of the light wave is reduced (redshift). When pseudo-refractively[iv] a redshift is found, the available energy of the light is unchanged (frequency is unaffected); it’s lengthening of the wave (redshifting) is with a speeding of the light.
III. What’s gravity got to do with it?
If we ignore the redshift due to refractive considerations, we may yet find a redshift due to gravitational considerations – the gravity well. In this case, energy is sucked out of the light wave as it leaves the star, as it goes to “infinity and beyond” (taken from Toy Story, a children’s movie) (as it approaches infinity). I am saying energy is taken from the light wave as it moves away from the star. And now, how do we differentiate a redshift due to relative motion and a redshift due to climbing gravity?
IV. Hubble
Since the early 1960s astronomers have discovered cosmic objects known as quasars that exhibit larger redshifts than any of the remotest galaxies previously observed. The extremely large redshifts of various quasars suggest that they are moving away from Earth at tremendous velocities (i.e., approximately 90 percent the speed of light) and thereby constitute some of the most distant objects in the universe.i
Well, are these quasars moving away from Earth at ~0.9 c? Maybe, they are just large, large stars that, of course, exhibit large, large gravities. With their large gravity, we would expect a redshift. In fact, we might expect a redshift proportional to their distance from us (since their gravity sucks the energy out of the emitted light -- more distance, more loss of energy to the gravity field).
Why should the redhifted stars be large instead of fast? Fast explains, although I don’t know why they are fast (oh, yea, Big Bang). On Earth, under different sets of conditions, when there is an explosion, we find the more distant masses moving more slowly than the closer masses. In contrast, in “outer space” we say that the more distant objects are moving more quickly. There are many explanations for the difference, so I will not pursue. Considering largeness as an explanation for the redshift (instead of fastness in retreating), I see the question: why are the largest stars the reddest? The answer is the gravity hole, and if you pursue, the gravity hole (if other gravities don’t interfere) for a long, long distance. I have argued that, unlike the redshift caused by refraction, the redshift caused by gravity is an energy eating redshift, and, if so, gravity’s redshift is more similar to movement’s redshift. But gravity’s redshift continually eats energy, whereas movement’s redshift is a constant redshift (as long as the movement is at a constant velocity [relative to what? Relative to the initiating gravity from the measuring gravity.]).
So the big redshifts that had implied that distant matter is moving a some high speed can be alternatively explained. Maybe the distant matter is large. It is large because we can see it (as in I can see a truck before I can see the fly on its windshield).[v] [Stellar dust, dark matter, gravities, gasses and the like may distort the image of the distant mass; if the mass is large enough, we see it anyway – truck vs. fly.] The big redshifts are from the big stars that have the big gravities.
I am not against the Hubble Redshift; I just think that there is another explanation that is as least, if not more, feasible.
V. Red faced
So if I have a red face – is it from:
1. moving away at a “constant” speed (except the further I am, the faster I am)? Or
2. coming out of a greater refractive index (it’s long-shifted but it’s not lower energy)? Or
3. climbing out of a gravity well (the well is deep and very, very long)?
If you simply believed Hubble, is your face now red from embarrassment?
VI. Mental wanderings
A. Here’s a great question regarding black holes. Are they black or are they “infrared” (conceptually)? Maybe a violet ray fights gravity and becomes the we-don’t-detect-this infrared wave. Maybe it’s not that light can’t escape – maybe it just doesn’t escape with “high” (enough) energy (to be easily detected).
B. Far out question: Is this feasible? Gravity, of course, escapes from a black hole; maybe the gravity is merely a very low electromagnetic wave (GEM wave – gravitational-electro-magnetic wave)?
[i] http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/494505/redshift Text is modified from a copy taken in 9/16/2014.
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] I do not believe that, but for now, it’s close enough.
[iv] If light leaves glass for air, we have an obvious refraction of light, except when the interface is normal (right angle). Anyway, all I mean by pseudo-refraction is the case where the light leaves at right angles, so there is no bending. In the case referred to in the text, refraction with bending is allowed.
[v] Do not attempt this feat from the expected path of the truck.