Redshift, simply explained Metaphysics

D

dkane75

Registered Member
1. We all know that objects appear smaller, the further back in the past that the line of sight recedes.

2. This is the same as saying that the space-dimensional context of the universe is smaller at more distant points along the line of sight.

3. And since (following Minkowski/Einstein) space and time are simply different ways of referring to spacetime, we can just as easily say that the time-dimensional context of the universe is smaller at more distant points. (It is larger at points closer to the observer.)

4. At their source, therefore, electromagnetic waves will appear to exist within a more compressed time-dimensional context than when they have arrived at the observer.

5. The observer will witness this as an expanded frequency (i.e. redshifted).

6. The redshift phenomenon has been satisfactorily explained (the "Big Bang" is hooey).

Q.E.D.
 
Last edited:
Hum,
strangely, it seems from what you wrote, that there was, by implication, a bigbang event!
 
dkane75 said:
Would you mind clueing me in
Click to expand...

Hum,
you were saying that have solved the redshift phenomenon by saying that the universe is expanding...(thus Big Bang" is hooey) ?

As you say, the universe was smaller in the past...(thus Big Bang" is truey)
 
dkane75,
1. We all know that objects appear smaller, the further back in the past that the line of sight recedes.
Click to expand...
Objects appear smaller because of distance, not because of 'time' differentials.
2. This is the same as saying that the space-dimensional context of the universe is smaller at more distant points along the line of sight.
Click to expand...
Uh, no. That is only saying that objects appear closer together the more distant they are. If the most distant object we could see was one thousand light years away, the observable universe would be much smaller (two thousand light years diameter) than it is when we can see objects ten billion light years away. You do know that distance is not measured by redshift, don't you?
3. And since (following Minkowski/Einstein) space and time are simply different ways of referring to spacetime, we can just as easily say that the time-dimensional context of the universe is smaller at more distant points. (It is larger at points closer to the observer.)
Click to expand...
Minkowski/Einstein spacetime uses a lattice of rods and clocks based on 'flat' spacetime. In SR spacetime (Minkowski), all rods are exactly the same length.The distance between each clock is measured by the speed of light which is defined to be a constant in SR. A meter is defined to be the distance light travels in 1/299,792,458 seconds. The only way to vary the length of a meter is to vary the duration of a second.
4. At their source, therefore, electromagnetic waves will appear to exist within a more compressed time-dimensional context than when they have arrived at the observer.
Click to expand...
We cannot 'see' or detect electromagnetic waves at a distance, only when they strike our eyes or our instruments. But, like fenceposts, if we could see the waves, they would only appear closer together at a distance, not actually be closer together.
5. The observer will witness this as an expanded frequency (i.e. redshifted).
Click to expand...
No, what you are attempting to describe is a change in the wavelength of light, the distance between peaks. Cosmological redshift is a change in the wavelength of light while the light is in transit. That is why the other posters said you were describing the expansion of the universe, because space itself is expanding while the light is in transit, stretching the wavelength of the light while it is in transit to us. This mechanism will not work in flat Minkowski spacetime, but is OK in General Relativity. It will not work in Minkowski spacetime because the length of a measured meter must increase while the light is in transit to us. For a meter to increase in length from the early universe to the present-day universe, either time has to beat at a different rate or the speed of light has to vary. Special Theory only allows 'time' to beat at different rates due to a velocity difference between the frames of reference, and the speed of light is defined as a constant in vacuum. In Minkowski spacetime, the redshift we observe can only be attributed to Doppler shift because of relative velocity, not an expanding vacuum which is increasing the rate of expansion with time.
 
Let me give an extraordinarily easy example so I won't be leaving anyone behind. The more complicated that you make this, the easier it is to get lost!

Say there is a soccer ball (A) 10 feet away from you and another one (B) 100 feet away.

Ball A will appear to exist within a larger spatial context than ball B.

Now, if someone kicks ball B so that it comes even with ball A, ball B's spatial context will appear to grow smoothly larger until it equals the size of ball A's spatial context.

At this point, it is vital to realize that spatial dimensionality and temporal dimensionality are simply different ways of referring to the same thing: spacetime.

This means that we can also say that, in the beginning, ball A's temporal context is larger than ball B's temporal context. (This just means that time appears to be moving more slowly at ball A than at ball B.)

Then, as ball B is moving, its temporal context increases until it "cathces up" with ball A.

Now, let us replace our balls with light waves.

A distant light wave will appear as if its temporal context is constantly increasing as it approaches an observer. This is identical with saying that its frequency is constantly decreasing, and that it is constantly becoming more "redshifted".

All of this is meant to show that if "dimensional perspective" holds with regard to spatial dimensionality (which is obviously does, being that distant objects appear smaller than the same objects that are closer), then it must necessarily apply to temporal dimensionality, causing approaching energy waves to appear to lose their frequency.

In order to truly appreciate what I am trying to say, you are going to have to forget all of that crap that has built up in your mind over the years concerning the "Big Bang". All of it is perfectly absurd. I am asking you to put on your philosopher's cap, which will allow you to make well grounded judgements. I know that this is something that you science types are not used to, but trust me... in the long run, you will really thank me!
 
Ok. I read your explanation. Let's focus on this part. I have my philosopher's hat on.

dkane75 said:
A distant light wave will appear as if its temporal context is constantly increasing as it approaches an observer. This is identical with saying that its frequency is constantly decreasing, and that it is constantly becoming more "redshifted".
Click to expand...

How can a lightwave "appear" as anything until it reaches an observer (us)? In other words, how do you quantify the wavelength of a photon that is still a billion light years away, as part of your argumant?

I have a philosophical conundrum with this.
 
@dkane75
Hum,
Lets suppose you are right; perhaps we could suppose that the `flow` of time was not the same in the past as it is now... (?)

(BTW, i would remind you that the expansion of spacetime is not solely reliant on the mechanism of redshift. ie discovering that faeries stretch the electromagnetic radiation does not invalidate the bigbang theory or any other theory.
It could be that the increase in the wavelength/decrease in the frequency of EM radiation is not the reason why we see a `redshifting` of light. But there are other indicators that show spacetime is expanding)

But the current redshift theory is so simple that it is difficult to think of anything else that could replace it and be compatible with the other distance indicators.

Z +1 = {T,now / T, past}
 
Time is not a dimension so any explanation involving time is wrong.

IF the universe is expanding, over one light second (186,282 miles) it comes out to about the diameter of an atom for that second, which light will ignore anyway since it travels at a constant speed so any explanation involving an expanding universe is wrong.
 
The properety of light called "wavelength", which is a spatial evolution over time, will be affected by the expansion of space. This much is obvious. The speed of propagation of a photon (c) has nothing to do with the issue.
 
kaneda said:
Time is not a dimension
Click to expand...

You have a reason to say that?
Perhaps we should use the term `freedom` to avoid confusion.

so any explanation involving time is wrong.
Click to expand...

Sry, i was just helping/clarifying what dkane75 was meaning. i believe that dkane75 was suggesting that time flowed at a different rate. I could have been mistaken.

(i actually know that that explanation involving time is probably wrong, due of observations on the coupling constant alpha; and i already have an adequate and verified explanation for the redshift)

since it travels at a constant speed so any explanation involving an expanding universe is wrong.
Click to expand...

Er, do you not see that because light always travels at a constant speed, and that spacetime were expanding that is why we have a redshift?
 
I know how threads like these always degenerate into name-calling and you-know-what comparisons, and I am not going to play along. You see, I am not your typical internet denizen who gives a rat's ass about what other posters have to say. I am just here to share my discoveries, and if you are not interested in them, then please let me be!

A couple of years ago, I wrote my magnum opus, called First Metaphysics. It is an attempt to thoroughly ground all possible sciences, by way of discovering the "ontological wherefrom" of dimensionality-as-such. To summarize, it basically says that the "existential self" is the absolute foundation of the "measuring self". In other words, all possible ways of measuring (dimensionalizing) are contingent upon the very moods that determine the way in which we understand ourselves and the world around us.

My metaphysics is nothing other than a "philosophy of dimensionality", and it has nothing to do with the bookstore notion of metaphysics (which is just occultism/esotericism). The bottom line is just that dimensionality is simply a invented construct that we layer atop the phenomenal universe, in order to attempt to fully dominate it.

Those who think that the dimensions are "ontologically real", in my opinion, are identical with those who aspire to full dominion over the whole ball of wax. This seems to me to be a profoundly pitiful form of existence.

It has taken me many a year to realize that is only by surrendering myself to the arbitrarity of the universe that I am able to live as a truly free being. I am happier than I have ever been in my life, due in no small part to the fact that I have been able to apply my philosophical discoveries directly to the world of immediate observation.

I know that the logical positivism of the scientific establishment is a drug unlike any other, in terms of being able to view the world as an absolutely precise mathematical formula. However, there cannot ever be such a thing as absolute precision. Our observations always hit the "brick wall of uncertainty", whether you are talking about investigating the quantum world or the cosmos.

We simply cannot get around the fact that we are each limited by our perspectives. The further into the infinite (whether the infinitely small or the infinitely large) that we try to peer, the less is our ability to discern. It is obvious how this problem applies to the crude world of spatial dimensionality and everyday objects, but it is far from obvious how it applies to temporal dimensionality and light waves.

Our universe is truly one-dimensional, and scientists call this dimension "spacetime". Whether we cast this notion in terms of volume or duration is arbitrary. The point is that the dimensions are the result of our subjective experience of the singular mass of energy that is the universe (they are the "forms of the intuition", as Kant put it). That is, ultimately, our notions of dimensional measurability cannot possibly apply to the universe as a whole, because in that case, the observer has been removed from the equation.

To put it simply, the universe, as it is, will necessarily remain a mystery.
 
dkane75 said:
I am not your typical internet denizen who gives a rat's ass about what other posters have to say. I am just here to share my discoveries, and if you are not interested in them, then please let me be!
Click to expand...

Hmmm... wouldn't that reduce your posts to 'preaching' then?

I think it is the responsibility of the knowledgable posters to point out that you are wrong. Otherwise, some other young thinkers that stumbled across your post might mistake your 'take' on things as fact... not only would that put the young thinkers on the wrong track, but it would (I think) be bad for the reputation of this website.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top