michel123456 Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 (edited) Here below a picture from the Wikipedia article about redshift: So I made a screenshot of this picture and imported into a Cad program. Then I joinded graphically the end of the absorption lines, as accurately as possible, and ended with the following graph: So I thought the Wiki picture is not good. I found this other one from Brian P. Schmidt Nobel lecture page 5 ( http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/schmidt-lecture_slides.pdf ) . And I did the same thing, importing in Cad, joigning the lines, and obtaining this below: Then I did something else: i scaled the image down and put it above the original one: With a spectacular result: the B line above the A is an exact match. Just as if the redshift was not a shift, but a scale. Edited November 5, 2012 by michel123456 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziven Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 A very interested finding. It may have something to do with the changes of the time-space structure caused by gravitation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granpa Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 if x axis represents wavelength then a change of scale is the expected result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted November 5, 2012 Author Share Posted November 5, 2012 (edited) Found this http://tap.iop.org/astronomy/astrophysics/702/file_47550.doc page 2. -------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- Where it seems that I am correct. if x axis represents wavelength then a change of scale is the expected result. Why do you say that? For me a "shift" is a translation, not a scaling. Edited November 5, 2012 by michel123456 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granpa Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 on a logarithmic scale it would indeed be a shift Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnStu Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 you know what michel123456, u r amazing. This post matches with parts of my soon to be published scientific findings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spyman Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 (edited) Why do you say that? For me a "shift" is a translation, not a scaling. The Wikipedia link about Redshift posted in the OP gives the following formulae for cosmological redshift in an expanding universe: [math] 1 + Redshift = \frac {Observed_{wavelength}} {Emitted_{wavelength}} [/math] If we pick a few numbers like: 10, 20 and 40 for emitted wavelengths at the absorption lines and choose a redshift of 2 then we can see that: Emitted ---------10--------20------------------40-- Observed -----------------------------30----------------------------60----------------------------------------------------------120------- When space is expanding and bringing objects more apart then the first and the last photon in a beam will get equally separated too. (In a twice as long beam the photons will get separated twice as much as in the shorter beam.) When the expansion is scalar then the difference between the absorbtion lines will also scale equally. (The *shift* in the separation between the lines has equal rate determined by the redshift factor.) Edited November 6, 2012 by Spyman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziven Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Spyman's interpretation is right. "Shift" is only the feeling of the observer. The essence of redshift is scaling that can be calculated by the redshift formulas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted November 6, 2012 Author Share Posted November 6, 2012 Spyman's interpretation is right."Shift" is only the feeling of the observer. The essence of redshift is scaling that can be calculated by the redshift formulas. Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 For me a "shift" is a translation, not a scaling. This ambiguity is one of the reasons we rely on equations rather than descriptions. When one consults the equation, one sees the exact nature of the shift. "Shift" likely being used because we already had experience with changes in frequency/wavelength from the Doppler effect, which is called the Doppler shift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted December 10, 2012 Author Share Posted December 10, 2012 (edited) has a common Doppler shift* the same characteristic ? *sound wave in the air. Edited December 10, 2012 by michel123456 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpha2cen Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 What is the cause of cosmological redshift? There are three cases in the Figure. Think about it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 has a common Doppler shift* the same characteristic ? *sound wave in the air. Doesn't matter. It's the precedent for using the word "shift" to mean any difference in frequency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spyman Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 has a common Doppler shift* the same characteristic ? *sound wave in the air. Why don't you do the math from the Wikipedia page about Doppler like I did in my post #7, and show us the result? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted December 11, 2012 Author Share Posted December 11, 2012 (edited) If I have to suppose that a single sound has multiple frequencies, then for a moving source the answer is yes. But if one has to compare to what we are observing in the sky, one has to consider 2 objects at 2 different distances from the observer, going away at the same velocity compared to the observer and emitting a same sound of the same frequency. In this case If I understand correctly the 2 sounds will have the same frequency shift (as heard by the observer), because the doppler effect is a function of velocity and not a function of distance. --------- edit So in the sky the doppler effect is caused by a difference in velocity. Please correct me if I am wrong. Edited December 11, 2012 by michel123456 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpha2cen Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 These are redshift apparatuses. Two experiment apparatus have the same result? Upside apparatus is a Doppler shift experiment apparatus. Downside one is a space expansion apparatus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spyman Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 If I have to suppose that a single sound has multiple frequencies, then for a moving source the answer is yes. But if one has to compare to what we are observing in the sky, one has to consider 2 objects at 2 different distances from the observer, going away at the same velocity compared to the observer and emitting a same sound of the same frequency. In this case If I understand correctly the 2 sounds will have the same frequency shift (as heard by the observer), because the doppler effect is a function of velocity and not a function of distance. --------- edit So in the sky the doppler effect is caused by a difference in velocity. Please correct me if I am wrong. If you ONLY consider the doppler effect then yes. But I think it has to be noted that when discussing objects in the "sky" and in the context of your latest threads on the subject, that there are other effects that also can cause a frequency shift. When talking about very distant objects, then cosmological redshift have a much larger impact on the observed shift than relativistic doppler, because galaxies normally move with speeds that are a fraction of light speed while the expansion brings them away with multiples of light speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salonis Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Realizing someone of you (at least on a short while) that starlight is spread through intergalactic lightconductive environment that is not superconductive and therefore has its "operational" losses? Realizing someone of you that no real physical environment is not lossless? In this case, is unnecessary Doppler effect and the redshift is explained a natural way, as "operational" mass/frequency losses of light passing through a lightconductive environment. No doubt you were close to reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 No doubt you were close to reality. But no cigar. You seem to be talking about this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light which is already known to be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salonis Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 But no cigar. You seem to be talking about this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light which is already known to be wrong. Vain I wonder what mental process you've got to cigars? Congratulations. Fritz Zwicky, really hadn't their day in the formulation causes redshift. This is not because of the scattering of light in intergalactic gas, but the loss in inhomogeneous propagation medium. "Fatigue of light" of scattering doesn't cause crashes, but its passage through gravitational field. Any gravitational field, in principle, also by A. Einstein, distorts the Euclidean geometry, and the structure of intergalactic space homogeneity and thus the conductivity of the light! Absolutely lossless is just a Euclidean environment with complete homogeneity. Such, however, does not exist in the real universe. Fritz Zwicky at that time knew nothing of relict radiation. So: As a result of the space gravitational environment it logically generated energyloss for EM waves. Detained energy with this environment logically "heats" and becomes to a secondary source. lowheat radiation - Relic Radiation. If Zwicky had knowledge of existence RR certainly would this connection realized. They are obviously two sides of the same coin: the primary "grinding" = redshift, and secondary radiation RR. If you ask of what elements constitutes that "grinding" environment, they are still hypothetical Smolin's and Socrates discrete elements of the physical vacuum. No formless ether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now