Is the Universe Expanding or Has it Already Expanded?

[el66]

Doppler effect appears in waves produced by oscillators witch have “peaks” and “hollows”. These peaks can be condensed or diluted by the Doppler effect. In the light case, a peak represents an amount of photons. But photons is not only produced by oscillators (i.e. nuclear reactions). Radio oscillators pulsating emit photons “in waves”. Incandescent lamp and most stars (except pulsars and quasars) emit photons continuously and irregularly, not “in waves”.
But what is frequency meaning for one or a few photons?
Provided that the photon have not mass, frequency only means energy. So, by redshift effect photon looses energy. By blueshift effect it gains energy. Where this energy comes from? The stable motion of a star produces energy? If this energy is irrelevant to star’s motion, then we can’t make estimations for this motion from the change in energy.

 

[bapowell]

Incandescent lamp and most stars (except pulsars and quasars) emit photons continuously and irregularly, not “in waves”.

Please provide evidence for this statement, as it contradicts known science.

Provided that the photon have not mass, frequency only means energy. So, by redshift effect photon looses energy. By blueshift effect it gains energy. Where this energy comes from?

The photon does not gain/lose energy. In special relativity, we learn that energy depends on the reference frame. This really has nothing to do with light per se, but anything with energy. Take a baseball for example. A baseball has rest energy, $E=mc^2$, so an observer at rest wrt to the baseball measures its energy thusly. But there are also observers that can be in motion relative to the baseball -- they measure a total energy equal to the rest energy plus the kinetic energy of the baseball's motion. The point is that: observers at rest and in motion wrt to an object will disagree about its energy. This is not a violation of the conservation energy -- the energy of the baseball's in its rest frame is always the same; instead, it's a direct result of the postulates of relativity. The same is true for photons.

 

[GeorgeDishman]

Doppler effect appears in waves produced by oscillators witch have “peaks” and “hollows”.

Close, but to avoid confusion: a "wave" is by definition a series of alternate positive or negative peaks crossing zero in between. The "zero" might be a mean value such as sound waves whose peaks are relative to the mean air pressure but for EM waves, usually it is positive or negative field values relative to zero.

These peaks can be condensed or diluted by the Doppler effect.

In the Doppler effect, one peak passes a detector (e.g. your ear) but before the next arrives, there is a change of distance between the detector and source so the next peak travels for a longer or shorter time and hence arrives either later or earlier. That difference adds to the original period of the waves to change its received frequency. They are not "condensed or diluted", rather their spacing is altered.

In the light case, a peak represents an amount of photons.

No. The simplest way to think of a photons is as a short burst of waves encapsulated in a form that can only interact as if it was a particle, i.e. all or nothing. It's equivalent to thinking of it as a particle which has an intrinsic phase which changes at a rate given by its angular frequency.

But photons is not only produced by oscillators (i.e. nuclear reactions). Radio oscillators pulsating emit photons “in waves”. Incandescent lamp and most stars (except pulsars and quasars) emit photons continuously and irregularly, not “in waves”.

Light from an incandescent lamp is lots of photons all at random frequencies and phases - the peaks of one photon have no fixed relationship to those of another. Stars and pulsars are the same, the latter like lamps that are switched on for short periods regulary.

Light from a laser is lots of photons all at virtually the same frequency and with a fixed phase relationship, for example you could think of the peaks at the front of one photon being aligned with those at the end of the previous to produce a continuous wave. That's an analogy that has lots of problems, but it's better than your current misunderstanding.

Photons from radio transmitters are correlated like those from lasers but at lower frequencies. Radioactive gamma rays are random like photons from incandescent lamps but at higher frequencies.

But what is frequency meaning for one or a few photons?

Same as for the continuous signal, it is also a measure of energy when considered as a particle.

Provided that the photon have not mass, frequency only means energy. So, by redshift effect photon looses energy. By blueshift effect it gains energy. Where this energy comes from?

If someone throws a stone at you, it hurts more if you run towards it, less if you run away. The impact energy changes. Same if the thrower is running and you stand still. The same happens with photons, they have no mass (because their momentum is the same as the energy and mass is a function of the difference) but they still have energy and energy is frame-dependent. The energy measured by the thrower is not the same as that measured by the target, but the "change" in energy comes from the kinetic energy of the moving body, the target or the thrower depending on your viewpoint. It is a difference rather than a change though.

 

[mufa]

[most stars emit photons continuously and irregularly, not “in waves”.
"Please provide evidence for this statement, as it contradicts known science.]
Does n't star's light produced by random nuclear explosions? Have we evidence for something else?

 

[bapowell]

Does n't star's light produced by random nuclear explosions? Have we evidence for something else?

Stars do indeed emit photons continuously from nuclear reactions. My issue was with el66's claim that photons were not emitted "in waves", which I interpreted as a rejection of the wave nature of photons (a point he was making elsewhere in the thread.) It appears I've misread his statement.

 

[GeorgeDishman]

Stars do indeed emit photons continuously from nuclear reactions. My issue was with el66's claim that photons were not emitted "in waves", which I interpreted as a rejection of the wave nature of photons (a point he was making elsewhere in the thread.) It appears I've misread his statement.

When we look at the spectrum of the Sun, it is close to a black body with a temperature around 5800K. Is it not more accurate to say the Sun emits thermal radiation due to the heat produced by the nuclear reactions? The photons produced directly by those reactions would have a spectrum characteristic of a much higher temperature.

 

[Lino]

All, I appreciate the this thread has moved on from the OP and earlier posts, but I hope that you don’t mind me reflecting back to those with a question. (If it is more appropriate to move this posting to another / new thread please feel free.)

Consider an ideal scenario whereby there are measurements from standard candles / type IIa supernova at regular cosmological distances (in a particular direction). Original wisdom tells me that the rate of universal expansion (between me and the various supernova) is proportional to the distance, and as I look at more distant ones I am looking back in time - representing the amount of time that the light has been traveling to reach me. More recent wisdom tells me that the rate of expansion has / is increasing (ie in the last 7bl years). Combining these wisdom’s, I think I’m right in saying that, the rate of expansion at any location is greater as the timeline approaches "now", but that the rate of expansion between any two locations increases as the distance between them increases.

Therefore, my questions is: how do I rationalise the measurements from one object (a more distant object) to another (more closer object) – given that it is not possible to get measurements from both that represent the same point in time? It seems a pretty basic question, so I assume that I am missing something, but it is one that I had not thought about previously!

As a second question, and assuming that the above can be resolved, does this imply that there are two points (in the same direction) in the universe where any particular value of redshift applies – one “closer location” where the rate of expansion has “accelerated” sufficiently to produce the result, and one “more distant location” where the accumulation of time / distance produces the result?

Thanks in anticipation.

Regards,

Noel.

 

[bapowell]

When we look at the spectrum of the Sun, it is close to a black body with a temperature around 5800K. Is it not more accurate to say the Sun emits thermal radiation due to the heat produced by the nuclear reactions? The photons produced directly by those reactions would have a spectrum characteristic of a much higher temperature.

You are probably right, but my intent was not discuss the specific mechanism of photon production in stars or the resulting spectral properties. As I said earlier, I was merely taking objection to the claim that photons were not wavelike.

 

[mufa]

I'm sorry, but I have many questions:
Can an electron beam be redshifted? A single electron can be?
A photon beam can be redshifted.A single photon can be? If so,it's energy not be reduced? Once a photon is emitted,then its energy can be reduced?

 

[Drakkith]

I'm sorry, but I have many questions:
Can an electron beam be redshifted? A single electron can be?

Yes and no. Redshift refers to the change in frequency of light. An electron doesn't have a spectrum like light does. HOWEVER, if I shoot an electron at you at 0.1c and you are moving away from me at 0.05c, then you will measure the velocity of the electron coming towards you at 0.05c as well. So the momentum and kinetic energy of the electron is less when measured by you, which is similar to the loss of momentum when light is redshifted. It's just not proper to use the term redshift when referring to matter.

A photon beam can be redshifted.A single photon can be? If so,it's energy not be reduced? Once a photon is emitted,then its energy can be reduced?

Photons are absolutely redshifted. The key is to understand that the energy of the photon isn't being "lost", it is just similar to the electron example up above in that you are moving away from it and will measure it at a different energy level than someone moving towards it or staying stationary.

 

[Naty1]

Post#1:

Should not we say "the universe WAS expanding" rather than "IS expanding" since
the red shift augments as we go back in time to the farthest and therefore the oldest
galaxies?

That's a matter of semantics: Do you say to someone when playing hide and seek "I saw you hiding behind that tree." or do you say : "I see you hiding behind that tree"

All observations are of past events due to the finite speed of electromagnetic radiation. That goes for the cosmological relic radiation as well as an electron microscope.

A reason we say the universe IS expanding is that day after day,year after year, we keep getting more CMBR for a more distant emission sphere and it keeps showing a pattern of expansion...and we have no scientific reason to assume tomorrow will show "oops, expansion has suddenly stopped".

Can an electron beam be redshifted?

Sure, all particles have a particle and a wave nature: The wave nature of a particle is the Debroglie wavelength. for example, cosmological expansion causes things to lose momentum relative to the CMB...this means light redshifts but retains local speed 'c' at
all times while a matter particle loses momentum via a loss in velocity.

Carried along by the Hubble flow.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=614297&page=2


starting about Post #33...

 

[GeorgeDishman]

Combining these wisdom’s, I think I’m right in saying that, the rate of expansion at any location is greater as the timeline approaches "now", but that the rate of expansion between any two locations increases as the distance between them increases.

That is correct.

Therefore, my questions is: how do I rationalise the measurements from one object (a more distant object) to another (more closer object) – given that it is not possible to get measurements from both that represent the same point in time? It seems a pretty basic question, so I assume that I am missing something, but it is one that I had not thought about previously!

We use the measurements we can make from here to calculate the history of the scale factor. For any two randomly separated points, you can then use that history together with their comoving separation to calculate the Hubble distance between them at any given cosmological time.

As a second question, and assuming that the above can be resolved, does this imply that there are two points (in the same direction) in the universe where any particular value of redshift applies – one “closer location” where the rate of expansion has “accelerated” sufficiently to produce the result, and one “more distant location” where the accumulation of time / distance produces the result?

No, the redshift is the ratio of the scale factor now to then. It has always been increasing though at a varying rate (about 7 billion years ago was a minimum but still positive) so the redshift always increases with distance.

 

[Lino]

Wow! Thanks George. I think that I understand what you are saying and it gives me a lot to target my reading at. But there is one concept that is very alien to me, so in prep, can I confirm, are you saying that when such measurements are taken here and now, it is the history of the input variables that cause the results - not just the "final" value of the variables. Is that correct? (I'm trying to understand / compare it to other measurement processes: for example, is this the equivilant to conducting a litmus test and based on the single result being able to understand the history of the acidity of the solution?)

Regards,

Noel.

 

[mufa]

Yes and no. Redshift refers to the change in frequency of light. An electron doesn't have a spectrum like light does. HOWEVER, if I shoot an electron at you at 0.1c and you are moving away from me at 0.05c, then you will measure the velocity of the electron coming towards you at 0.05c as well. So the momentum and kinetic energy of the electron is less when measured by you, which is similar to the loss of momentum when light is redshifted. It's just not proper to use the term redshift when referring to matter.

Sometimes electron has wavelike behaviour,and photon behaves like a particle. I am still can't make out how photons loose momentum provided that the speed is stable, whereas in your example the relative speed of the electron decreases.Thanks.

Photons are absolutely redshifted. The key is to understand that the energy of the photon isn't being "lost", it is just similar to the electron example up above in that you are moving away from it and will measure it at a different energy level than someone moving towards it or staying stationary.
But photons speed is stable.Does n't frequency reduction meaning an energy reduction too?

 

[MDEarl]

This pertains, especially since alchemist mentioned an exponential expansion. Of course the universe continues to expand, but no model to date has been able to describe it without complicated addendums such as dark matter and energy and the cosmo. constant.
I have a mathematical question and hope to get some input from at least one knowledgeable person, and thought I might post it on PF.
In 1922 Alexander Friedmann came out with equations for an expanding universe which still form a basis for GR and cosmology today. To do this he employed Newtonian gravitation and conservation of energy principles, probably assuming they were universally applicable.
Hubble’s law has the form of a simple growth equation, HoR = dR/dt which mathematically requires an exponential value for R. When integrated, it produces an exponential radius of expansion of R=Ro e^Hot. This mandates an exponential volume expansion of the universe, leading to a positive radial acceleration of Hoc and a value for Ho differing from Friedmann’s by √2. The math appears straightforward to me, and I would like to know what I am doing wrong, or why the logic is faulty, especially since the results appear to fit the current picture of the universe perfectly. In my opinion Friedmann would have gone this way if he had the empirical evidence available today, and cosmology would be on the right track...a game changer.

 

[GeorgeDishman]

Wow! Thanks George. I think that I understand what you are saying and it gives me a lot to target my reading at. But there is one concept that is very alien to me, so in prep, can I confirm, are you saying that when such measurements are taken here and now, it is the history of the input variables that cause the results - not just the "final" value of the variables. Is that correct?

It is a curve-fit to a large number of individual point measurements. When we look at a distant galaxy and see a supernova in it, we can measure both the redshift of the galaxy or the supernova and also the brightness. That gives us one point on the curve. Hunderds of such measurement pairs give us the relationship which we can then fit by adjusting parameters in the equations.

(I'm trying to understand / compare it to other measurement processes: for example, is this the equivilant to conducting a litmus test and based on the single result being able to understand the history of the acidity of the solution?)

No, it's like making lots of individual measurements of skin colour versus sugar content of a particular type of apple at different stages of ripening and plotting a graph. Going back to your original question, the graph then let's you estimate the relative difference in sugar content of two apples based on the difference in skin colour even if neither is fully ripe. Similarly, we could tell how far apart two distant supernovae were from their redshifts and our graph of the scale factor.

 

[marcus]

...
In 1922 Alexander Friedmann came out with equations for an expanding universe which still form a basis for GR and cosmology today. To do this he employed Newtonian gravitation and conservation of energy principles, probably assuming they were universally applicable.

Friedmann did not "employ Newtonian gravitation..." Einstein's GR equation came out in 1915 and Friedmann was using it.
Friedmann equation is a simplification of the Einstein GR equation derived by making the simplifying assumption that the universe is approximately uniform (matter evenly distributed, more or less). If it is close enough to uniform, at very large scale, e.g. with same number of galaxies per unit volume everywhere, then you can TREAT IT AS IF IT WERE perfectly uniform and then General Rel geometry simplifies enormously and you get Friedmann equation.

You also get a concept of "universe time" or "Friedmann time" as it is sometimes called, and you get a concept of the scalefactor a(t) that shows how distances increase with time. The Hubble rate H(t) is defined to be a'(t)/a(t). That is the time derivative of a(t) divided by a(t) itself. It is is always changing and in the past has fallen off very rapidly. It is still changing but more slowly now.

Hubble’s law has the form of a simple growth equation, HoR = dR/dt which mathematically requires an exponential value for R.

Ah! I see you use R(t) for the scale factor, instead of a(t). Both notations are in use.

No, the facts do not require exponential growth of R(t). Because H(t) is not constant.
When people write H₀ they mean the CURRENT value of H(t) that it happens to have at present. If H(t) were constant, then you would get an exponential solution for R(t).
But it isn't constant. For about half the history of expansion the R(t) curve has been convex (decreasing slope) and then it had an inflection point and became concave (increasing slope). Far in the future it may have approximately an exponential growth shape. But if you are talking past and present then what you say runs against what's been learned so far.

 

[Drakkith]

Sometimes electron has wavelike behaviour,and photon behaves like a particle. I am still can't make out how photons loose momentum provided that the speed is stable, whereas in your example the relative speed of the electron decreases.Thanks.

Think of it this way. Because the photon cannot lose speed, it MUST lose momentum by losing energy, and since the photon's energy and momentum is determined by it's frequency, it redshifts to a lower frequency. Now, realize that the photon isn't doing anything itself, it is merely a consequence of your frame of reference being different than the frame of reference that emitted the photon.

But photons speed is stable.Does n't frequency reduction meaning an energy reduction too?

Yes. A lower frequency has less energy than a higher frequency. Just like a moving object has less kinetic energy when viewed from something moving away from it's source, the photon will have less energy when viewed from something moving away from it.

 

[mufa]

Yes,I understand this.My petition is other:Why photon should not be an ultra small particle behave as a wave,like the electron does? Why we claim that it is a wave with particle properties and not the opposite,such as the electron?This model,as suggested above by elias2010 not leads to dark energy.

 

[MDEarl]

Thanks Marcus, you’re right. I read somewhere that Friedmann was an early proponent of Einstein’s work and assumed the “classical derivation” of his formulas came first. Not so.
Also, Sorry I used R instead of a, I hope you don’t mind me continuing it, I get confused using a for a distance.
The Newtonian reference has come up in other conversations that I have had…my claim was (is) that G immediately calls in Newton’s law…not necessarily directly, but regardless of the situation, bringing G into an equation brings in Newton. To my knowledge, G is strictly empirically derived from Gmm/r^2. If you can find an exception, please let me know… I’ve been playing with that for a while now, and have not been convinced otherwise yet.
I am a skeptic, particularly regarding complex theories. I have always had a problem with the FLRW (standard) model because of that. I’m retired (like you) and question complicated science. Darwin, Einstein, Wegener, etc. addressed seemingly complex situations with simple overriding laws, they didn’t amend the accepted theories. Every time I hear about dark matter and energy, or bringing back the cosmological constant, parallel universes, etc., I cringe. It reminds me of the “luminiferous ether” which we students used to laugh at in school (LE was way before my time, though). Everyone would make fun of the massless, invisible undetectable medium, very similar to dark stuff today, and wonder “what was going through their minds?”. I’m sure there were probably experiments that seemed to confirm its existence before Michelson/morley and Einstein came along.
It is my opinion that cosmology today needs to somehow go back to basics, rather than adjust the standard model. An exponentially accelerating universe produces amazing results…I have become convinced of its validity. I’ve done a lot of calculations over the past 3 years.
Some tenets of an expon. acc. model (which may differ from standard)

Density of universe is constant (both mass/energy and spatial volume increase correspondingly)
Density of local situations such as a mass (earth) surrounded by expanding space produces Newton’s law (mathematically)
Time is invariant , (I know this seems to have relativistic problems, but relativity works out in the model)
Ho is constant.
Cosmological principle ok
A question on the H(t) … I am not familiar with a changing Ho, is this related to the inflation period that is proposed in the standard model? Have there been measurements to confirm that it is changing?
Also, Alchemist mentions an exponential expansion early in this thread… did he really mean exponential?...(e^Hot)?
Thank you very much for your comments.

 

[Lino]

Thanks George. (Kinda understand and just the info I was looking for.)

Regards,

Noel.

 

[mufa]

De Broglie equation has experimentally confirmed.Why we have to reject the hypothesis photon have a mass instead of the possibility being wrong the relativistic formula for energy?

 

[bapowell]

De Broglie equation has experimentally confirmed.Why we have to reject the hypothesis photon have a mass instead of the possibility being wrong the relativistic formula for energy?

Because experiments have failed to detect a photon mass greater than $10^{-27}$ eV (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Experimental_checks_on_photon_mass.)

 

[harve]

No. The simplest way to think of a photons is as a short burst of waves encapsulated in a form that can only interact as if it was a particle, i.e. all or nothing. It's equivalent to thinking of it as a particle which has an intrinsic phase which changes at a rate given by its angular frequency.
.

George,I read your posts.Can you explain to me what an elegtromagnetic pulse is? Because I thought that is a wave with only one peak represents a big quantity of photons.

 

[Landrew]

My confusion comes from whether objects in space are moving apart, or whether space itself is getting larger. The distinction seems less than clear in most discussions I've seen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

 

[Whovian]

My confusion comes from whether objects in space are moving apart, or whether space itself is getting larger. The distinction seems less than clear in most discussions I've seen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

They're indistinguishable, it's just more convenient to think of it as space expanding.

 

[GeorgeDishman]

Doppler effect appears in waves produced by oscillators witch have “peaks” and “hollows”. These peaks can be condensed or diluted by the Doppler effect. In the light case, a peak represents an amount of photons

No. The simplest way to think of a photons is as a short burst of waves encapsulated in a form that can only interact as if it was a particle, i.e. all or nothing. It's equivalent to thinking of it as a particle which has an intrinsic phase which changes at a rate given by its angular frequency.

George,I read your posts.Can you explain to me what an electromagnetic pulse is? Because I thought that is a wave with only one peak represents a big quantity of photons.

I've added some context as the quotes are quite old.

A single pulse has a DC component so can't be a simply EM signal in space say. If it was a switched DC signal on a wire, you'd have to look at the components of the Poynting Vector and it all gets complicated, however I understand what you are asking. You can consider instead a rectangular wave with narrow, widely separated pulses and zero average value.

A square pulse is the sum of many sine waves, you can get the pattern by taking a Fourier Transform. For a regular series of pulses there are discrete harmonics while for a single pulse you get a continuous spectrum. Either way, you can then break down each sine wave into numbers of photons by dividing the portion of the pulse energy in that frequency by the energy of a single photon. As you say, ultimately you will get a burst of photons but of a mixture of frequencies. Again, each photon can be thought of as a burst of waves and they overlap to create the macroscopic, measurable, sine wave.

That's very different to what the O.P. was saying, that "a peak [of a sine wave] represents an amount of photons".