The cosmological red shift

Generally, the further away a galaxy is, the “redder” it appears. The spectra, which is the light emitted or absorbed by elements, has a longer wavelength the further away the galaxy is. As you know, a long wavelength photon has less energy than a short wavelength photon.

As a point of clarification, sometimes the cosmological red shift is described as a Doppler effect, which is misleading and confusing. The Doppler effect is observed when either the source or receiver is in motion relative to each other. In the case of sound, the relative velocity with respect to the medium is also involved. The cosmological red shift is not caused by the galaxies physical motion away from us, but from the expansion of spacetime. The energy of a photon is “lost” while traveling through an expanding spacetime field. (Most do not know this but this prediction of general relativity represents an example of the violation of the conservation of energy principle. Where did the energy of the photon go? However, if the universe were to stop expanding and collapse, the “lost” energy would be recovered).

The cosmological red shift initially would seem to represent a problem for a uniform expansion model that expands atoms. If an atom is denser in the past, the electric field around the atom is denser. When an electron “falls” from one energy level to another, a photon is emitted. When the electron “falls” in a denser electrostatic field, the energy released is greater. This means that in the past the spectra produced would be “blue” shifted.

As the blue shifted spectra travels through an expanding spacetime field, it looses energy, as predicted by the uniform expansion model, and general relativity. As it turns out the amount of “extra” energy the spectra starts off with is exactly canceled by the amount the spectra looses while traveling through an expanding spacetime field.

E2/E1 == (T1/T2)^(2/3)
How much greater would be the energy of a photon emitted in the past, T1?
T2 = the present. E2 = present energy of a given spectra
E1 = E2 (T2/T1)^(2/3)

How much energy would this spectra emitted in the past lose while traveling through an expanding spacetime field?

E2 = E1 (T1/T2)^(2/3) = E2 (T2/T1)^(2/3) x (T1/T2)^(2/3) = E2

The two effects cancel, no cosmological red shift.

Motion in an “unobserved” dimension

The physical explanation for the cosmological red shift is that our observable universe is in motion along an “unobserved” dimension. Just as we can image a Flatland universe in motion along an unobserved “vertical” dimension, our observable universe is also in motion along an unobserved dimension.

This motion is also the result of expansion and conforms to the same geometric relationship. Double the age of the universe and the volume described by this “unobserved” part of our universe increases 4 times.

As part of what I call the “unifying conjecture” the unobserved velocity of our universe is proposed to be the square root of 2 times the speed of light. This conjecture allows what Einstein called the “intrinsic” energy of a rest mass to be kenematically described.

Va = velocity along unobserved dimension = c(sqrt2)
K.E. = 1/2 m va^2 = mcc
This is a very easy derivation of Einstein’s famous energy equation.


The cosmological red shift

As a photon “drops” from one energy level to another, it is also in motion along the “unobserved” dimension. It is proposed that the faster the motion along the unobserved dimension, the longer the wavelength that is imparted to the emitted photon. It is a bit like a truck painting a line on a highway. The faster the velocity of the truck, the longer the line drawn on the highway.

Two different distances

The limited expansion model has the cosmological red shift created as a result of the expansion of spacetime. The simplest rate of expansion is that of a “flat” universe, which is one that is perfectly poised between runaway expansion and collapse. Such balance requires no dark energy, or extra, unknown force moving galaxies away from each other. It is the simplest model.

For a “Flat” universe, the wavelength of the spectra from a distant galaxy would be described by

D2/D1 == (T2/T1)^(2/3)

Sample problem. In a 10 billion year old universe, how far back in time is a galaxy observed if the spectra are 2 times longer (z =1)?

D2/D1 == (T2/T1)^(2/3)
2 = (10/T1)^(2/3)
T1 = 3.5 billion years

The galaxy is observed when the universe was 3.5 billion years old in 10 billion year old universe. It would be 10 –3.5 = 6.5 billion light years away. (These would be absolute measures of time in my model)

This rather simple relationship describing the spatial and temporal relationship of galaxies based on cosmological red shift is derived in my model for spatial expansion but it is the same relationship derived using general relativity for a “flat” universe.

The “flat” rate of expansion for the mainstream limited expansion model has problems and has essentially been abandoned. One issue is that the age of the universe. To = Age of universe and in a flat universe, To = 2/3 1/Ho, where Ho = the observed rate of expansion. There are a range of values for Ho, typically galaxies are found to be receding at about 65,000 meters per second per million parsecs of distance. (1 parsec = 3.26 light years). If one does the necessary conversions, 1/Ho = about 15 billion years or less, depending on the Ho used. This would place the age of the universe at about 9 to 10 billion years old. This is a real problem since there are rather extensive studies showing that there are stars in globular clusters that are older than this. How could stars be older than the universe? (Answer, the effect of gravity was greater in the past, which accelerated the evolution of stars).

In the Uniform expansion model the cosmological red shift is produced as a result of the velocity along the unobserved dimension. Since the wavelength produced is proportional to this velocity, the equation that defines the cosmological red shift is

V2/V1 == (T1/T2)^(1/3)

Sample problem, in a 10 billion year old universe, how far back in time is a galaxy observed if the spectra are 2 times longer (z =1)?
V2/V1 == (T1/T2)^(1/3)
1/2 = (T1/10)^(1/3)
T1 = 1.25 (For a 7 billion year old universe T1 = .9 )
The galaxy would be observed when the universe was only 1.25 billion years old, in absolute measures of time and it would be observed 10 –1.25 = 8.75 billion light years away. (7- .9 = 6.1 light years away)

According to the uniform expansion model, the galaxy is further away than the limited expansion model. 8.75-6.5 = 2.25 billion more light years away. (This increased distance would also make type 1a supernovas dimmer).

Age of Universe
(There is more to this distance determination issue since the age of the universe is much younger in the uniform expansion model, if the “unifying conjecture” is correct. The age of the universe is, I believe, √2 2/3 1/Ho, which is about 7 billion years old. I almost did not include this statement in this post, and I probably will only mention this in the classroom presentation. The fact that the figure runs into conflict with the 13.7 billion year old figure so commonly accepted from analysis of the Cosmic Background images is sure to raise some concerns. If the relationship assumed for the “unifying conjecture” were altered a bit, the age of the universe would be 10 billion years old, which is not as radical proposition. The following link is good but it is ambiguous. It rightly states that a flat universe should be 2/3 1/Ho but accepts the 13.7 billion year old age with no stated reservation in the acceptance of dark matter or dark energy being required to keep the model correct.( 2/3 15 = 10 which is less that 13.7) http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101age.html . (In the paper I want to present, the data conforms to an age of the universe of about 7 billion years, consistent with the unifying conjecture. )

Photons as “sailboats”

While it is possible to propose a photon with an electrostatic field “gap” in the structure, which causes the photon to pull itself along in spacetime, it is a rather complex structure for an object that is so small.
The motion of observable spacetime along an unobserved dimension results in an extra dimensional relationship that helps establish a simple geometric explanation as to why photons move.

Drawing of a Flatland universe running into an extra dimensional cone.

If an extra dimensional cone is observed intersecting a Flatland universe, a point will first appear and then an expanding ring. Would the observers in Flatland assume that the expanding ring is the result of circular properties only defined by their observed universe, or would they discover that the reason for the expanding ring is the result of an extra dimensional encounter?

If our observed spacetime were encountering an extra dimensional field with geometric properties similar to the cone effect observed in Flatland, except all over, then the same kind of expanding shell relationship could be imposed. It is argued that photons act like sailboats, the keel is fixed in our observed spacetime, and the “wind” of the unobserved field is pressing on the structure of the photon causing the photon to move.

Light as a wave and particle

Conjecture. The proposed model also eliminates the necessity for a photon to exist as a wave and particle. Photons become line/plane objects with spin. The wave characteristics displayed by Young’s double slit experiment is not the result of the property of the photon, but the probabilistic structure of space-time. Within the confines of a slit, the probabilistic variation of spacetime occurs as each small “grain” of spacetime integrates itself onto the existing structure of reality. This variation within the confines of the slit will induce a deflection to the path of a photon.


Continued to
Dimensional Analysis