Explanation for cosmological red shift of light

[typodrive]

Based on my interpretation of physicist Subhajit Waugh’s theory, “Unified Physics and Cosmology: the Theory of Everything”, the three dimensional universe we seem to occupy was spawned by a four dimensional big bang with our resulting 4D hyperballoon structure expanding at the constant speed of light.
From this, and with apologies to Mr. Waugh, my interpretation is that as our hyperballoon structure expanded, it’s inner and outer two layered fourth dimensional thickness became thinner as it expanded just as the rubber in a balloon thins as more air is pumped in.
After about 13.6 billion years since the big bang this 4D thickness is now about 1.616255×10−35 meters which is the Planck length. This is why our universe seems three dimensional and from our 3D perspective this is where the fourth spatial dimension has gone. It is what we perceive as the quantum realm.
Back to the red shift question, this all implies that the Planck “constant”, h is actually a variable and it becomes smaller as our universe continues to expand at the constant speed of light.
Therefore from the equation where f is the frequency of the light,
f=E/h
As we go back in time, h would be a larger value and all celestial bodies would emit light at longer wavelengths than those today. Their light would be redder and that would explain the redshift phenomena.

 

[promytius]

I was unaware of this theory. That was a nice explanation; I shall look into this more. Thank you.

 

[marcin]

Cosmological redshift increases with the expansion, so it increases with time. Your redshift decreases with time. Nonetheless, I like the idea of thickness of the surface of hypersphere. For me, this thickness is temporal, but you just need to multiply it by c to make it spatial. From my point of view, temporal thickness is the timespan of the "present moment" of all the elementary particles.

 

[typodrive]

Cosmological redshift increases with the expansion, so it increases with time. Your redshift decreases with time. Nonetheless, I like the idea of thickness of the surface of hypersphere. For me, this thickness is temporal, but you just need to multiply it by c to make it spatial. From my point of view, temporal thickness is the timespan of the "present moment" of all the elementary particles.

Cosmological redshift is generally accepted as the increase in wavelength that light undergoes as a result of traveling through an expanding universe, however if the Planck "constant" is actually a variable that decreases as the universe expands and the wavelength of emitted light does not actually vary over distance traveled, as theorized, then that would also provide a different explanation for the cosmological red shift.
Perhaps, as an example, the cosmological red shift of light from an object 2 billion light years away could be estimated using the calculated value of the Planck "variable" when the universe was 2 billion years younger, then compared to the actual redshift. Just a thought.

 

[marcin]

Your Planck constant h decreases with time, so your frequency f=E/h increases with time (for E=const), so your wavelength λ/c=1/f=h/E decreases with time, so your redshift decreases with time, so it becomes the blueshift. Cosmological redshift increases with the expansion, so it increases with time.

 

[Helio]

Cosmological redshift is generally accepted as the increase in wavelength that light undergoes as a result of traveling through an expanding universe, ...

For those who enjoy history....

Einstein and others, especially de Sitter, assumed the universe was static (not expanding) since this had been the view of space forever. Thus, the large redshifts observed first by Slipher were assumed to be Doppler redshifts as if the "white" nebulae (spiral galaxies) were moving incredibly fast through space.

Einstein's 1917 model, however, could not explain the redshifts. De Sitter's GR model did explain redshifts, but he had simplified his model to exclude all matter. It was clear to all there was a problem that needed resolved. Edington announced this dilemma at a RAS meeting (Jan. 1930) in London . Lemaitre read the RAS publication of the meeting and informed Edington that he had already resolved the problem and that he had published his paper in 1927 (Belgium journal). This was the birth of model that became the BBT as it explained redshift with the expansion of spacetime. The normal Doppler shift explanation fails since the expansion of space at greater distances is faster than c.

 

[typodrive]

Your Planck constant h decreases with time, so your frequency f=E/h increases with time (for E=const), so your wavelength λ/c=1/f=h/E decreases with time, so your redshift decreases with time, so it becomes the blueshift. Cosmological redshift increases with the expansion, so it increases with time.

In physics, a redshift is an increase in the wavelength

Your Planck constant h decreases with time, so your frequency f=E/h increases with time (for E=const), so your wavelength λ/c=1/f=h/E decreases with time, so your redshift decreases with time, so it becomes the blueshift. Cosmological redshift increases with the expansion, so it increases with time.

 

[Atlan0001]

So fast it is "spooky action at a distance" (Albert Einstein) maybe.

Maybe, but only maybe, a bit of cosmic history:

This year on Earth is our recorded year 2025CE, and we observe a certain distant Horizon to be about 13.7 billion light years from us per a certain red shift.

Somewhere in the universe (u), even maybe in this galaxy, there may be a dead star system at 5-billion years PCE (Past (Earth) Common Era) that may have observed exactly the same distant Horizon, at exactly the same red shift, we observe at 2025CE . . . at their advanced species' point in time 2025CE.

Somewhere in the universe (u), even maybe in this galaxy, there may be a star system just now aborning at 5-billion years BCE (Before (Earth) Common Era) that may observe exactly the same distant Horizon, at exactly the same red shift, we observe at 2025CE . . . at their advanced species' point in time 2025CE.

Albert Einstein, it is said, took a mind's eye trip to the constant of the speed of light and found there, in superposition Horizon, an irresistibly immovable constant cosmological horizon of physics. Possibly 13.7 billion years in a SPACETIME past history. Possibly 13.7 billion years in a SPACETIME future history. And possibly both at one and the same time (t='1' ('Unity')), as being Planck Horizon constant ('1' (as opposed to the '0'-point center(s) (entangling spontaneously concurrently occurring (t=0) REALTIME NOW (t=0))). The binary base2 being '1' and/or '0' even for the "mind's eye" of Einstein.

 

[marcin]

@typodrive and you have a decrease in your wavelength

 

[typodrive]

You are correct, my cosmological redshift decreases with time. However we are looking at redshifts in the past which increase the further back we look. My theory which is based on Subhajit Waugh's theory, “Unified Physics and Cosmology: the Theory of Everything”, states that the universe from its birth as a four dimensional big bang has been expanding at a constant speed of light for it's 13.6 billion years. Check it out. His 108 page theory made me a believer. For instance his simple calculation for the value of the Hubble constant is 71.002 km/s/Mpc which falls right between the two competing measured values of 69.8 and 74. Also he is awaiting data from the Euclid telescope which could prove his claim that our universe is curved and not flat.

 

[marcin]

No. The further back we look, the higher is the redshift of light emitted in the past and observed TODAY.

I did the same calculation, I've got very similar result and I'm not waiting for a confirmation, that spacetime is flat

 

[typodrive]

No. The further back we look, the higher is the redshift of light emitted in the past and observed TODAY.

I did the same calculation, I've got very similar result and I'm not waiting for a confirmation, that spacetime is flat

 

[marcin]

Albert Einstein, it is said, took a mind's eye trip to the constant of the speed of light and found there, in superposition Horizon, an irresistibly immovable constant cosmological horizon of physics. Possibly 13.7 billion years in a SPACETIME past history. Possibly 13.7 billion years in a SPACETIME future history. And possibly both at one and the same time (t='1' ('Unity')), as being Planck Horizon constant ('1' (as opposed to the '0'-point center(s) (entangling spontaneously concurrently occurring (t=0) REALTIME NOW (t=0))). The binary base2 being '1' and/or '0' even for the "mind's eye" of Einstein.

If you'll keep thinking about your 0/1 binary base (especially in your From a drop of water... thread ), you may end up like FrankDiMeg12 on physicsdiscussionforum.org with his ON/IN BALANCE: https://physicsdiscussionforum.org/i-have-the-grand-unified-theory-of-physics-t3043.html
That's not his only post like this and there were many more of them before they were deleted.

 

[typodrive]

We are in agreement. "The further back in time we look, the higher is the redshift emitted in the past and observed TODAY". Why are we arguing about this? As far as confirmation that spacetime is flat, you and just about every physicist who exists believe that spacetime is flat. Mr. Waugh's explanation, without getting into his theory, is based on doing galaxy counts within equal sized sectors of space. As the distance increases he predicts that the number of galaxies per sector will decrease if spatial curvature exists. This would prove his thesis and is actually a planned study by the Euclid team.

 

[marcin]

Why are we arguing about this?

I am, because your redshift is in contradiction with both the past and the future cosmological redshift. You slightly misspelled my words in the quotation, but it makes a difference. The redshift of light at the moment of its emission is zero, so there is no "redshift emitted in the past ". Redshift increases from zero at the moment of the emission of light, so it increases from the past to the future. If you want to look back, then the OBSERVED redshift decreases to zero with the backward time to the moment of the emission of light.

As the distance increases he predicts that the number of galaxies per sector will decrease if spatial curvature exists. This would prove his thesis and is actually a planned study by the Euclid team.

I admit, that this proof would be valid.

 

[typodrive]

If you'll keep thinking about your 0/1 binary base (especially in your From a drop of water... thread ), you may end up like FrankDiMeg12 on physicsdiscussionforum.org with his ON/IN BALANCE: https://physicsdiscussionforum.org/i-have-the-grand-unified-theory-of-physics-t3043.html
That's not his only post like this and there were many more of them before they were deleted.

Marcin, I just recently joined up with this forum and am confused. Where did Atlan0001 come from and what do his rantings have to do with the redshift discussion?

 

[marcin]

@typodrive You need to ask him about it.

 

[typodrive]

I am, because your redshift is in contradiction with both the past and the future cosmological redshift.

I admit, that this proof would be valid.

One more time. If Planck's constant is actually a variable that gets smaller as the universe expands, then toward the future there would be a blueshift and looking back at the past would be a redshift because of this.

Marcin, I just recently joined up with this forum and am confused. Where did Atlan0001 come from and what do his rantings have to do with the redshift discussion?

 

[marcin]

One more time. If Planck's constant is actually a variable that gets smaller as the universe expands, then toward the future there would be a blueshift and looking back at the past would be a redshift because of this.

One More Time: You slightly misspelled my words in the quotation, but it makes a difference. The redshift of light at the moment of its emission is zero, so there is no "redshift emitted in the past ". Redshift increases from zero at the moment of the emission of light, so it increases from the past to the future. If you want to look back, then the OBSERVED redshift decreases to zero with the backward time to the moment of the emission of light.

Marcin, I just recently joined up with this forum and am confused. Where did Atlan0001 come from and what do his rantings have to do with the redshift discussion?

You need to ask him about it.

 

[typodrive]

Ok Marcin, I understand all that. I 'm saying, for instance, that light, we receive from a cosmological object, that was emitted 2 billion years ago, will have a redshift, based on the value of a variable Planck "constant" at the time of emission, which would have had a larger value than it has today. Plain and simple. The question is does this whole scenario of a Planck "constant" that shrinks with time make any sense to you as a possibility of our reality? There's a lot more being implied here than just redshifts but, If for instance, we could calculate the estimated value of the Planck "variable" over the history of the universe and match the redshifts through time to the calculated values, that could prove the original thesis.

 

[Atlan0001]

If you'll keep thinking about your 0/1 binary base (especially in your From a drop of water... thread ), you may end up like FrankDiMeg12 on physicsdiscussionforum.org with his ON/IN BALANCE: https://physicsdiscussionforum.org/i-have-the-grand-unified-theory-of-physics-t3043.html
That's not his only post like this and there were many more of them before they were deleted.

I wouldn't say forty years with it is a short time. And nothing has come up to direct me away from a realization of my own in a fundamental binary base2 concept of the base since I first ran into a parallel in Planck "c=1" . . . plus. Particularly, since I ran into Chaos Theory's universal fundamental binary base2 fractal structure of things.

Remembering and realizing the Trojans from my own careers since then sent me into the probabilities and possibilities.... Nothing I've found concerning Relativity and Quantum Mechanics breaks up my modeling now, just expands, tweaks, and confirms it. It is amazing how few can really see or understand the horizon constant wall that goes up between the breakdown and loss of a relativity and the equal but opposite buildup and gain of a relativity. Or see and understand the real meaning of quantum discrete quanta, both microcosmically and macrocosmically.

It's a physics, philosophy, and cosmology, metaphysical game a close student of history for seventy years ("History always repeats in large aspect even if rarely in fine details" -- Will Durant), plus a sixty years long career and interest after career in computers, being deeply involved in the incredible speed of evolution, with a natural bent for space(s), time(s), and superpositioning, and reading the general minds of many such as Einstein and Hawking, even such as Lewis Carroll, can play. Could your mind and attention span, your concentration, hold all that together?

 

[marcin]

@Atlan0001 Yes. I'm sorry. I forgot about causality, which shapes us all. There may be a very serious problem with a theory or with you, if everything improves and confirms your theory for 40 years, but you're the only one that can see it. What horrifies me, is that my theory is 2 years old and I may be on a similar path. What's even more horrifying (with the blink of an eye this time), is that our theories share some physical aspects, but someone's thread is not a place to talk about them.

 

[marcin]

Ok Marcin, I understand all that. I 'm saying, for instance, that light, we receive from a cosmological object, that was emitted 2 billion years ago, will have a redshift, based on the value of a variable Planck "constant" at the time of emission, which would have had a larger value than it has today. Plain and simple.

https://forums.space.com/threads/explanation-for-cosmological-red-shift-of-light.70083/#post-613825
Your Planck length must increase with time if you want to have a redshift (observed today) with your formula.

The question is does this whole scenario of a Planck "constant" that shrinks with time make any sense to you as a possibility of our reality? There's a lot more being implied here than just redshifts but, If for instance, we could calculate the estimated value of the Planck "variable" over the history of the universe and match the redshifts through time to the calculated values, that could prove the original thesis.

Your variable Planck constant is not stupid and it could make sense in terms of the expansion. If you want to keep a constant radiation energy of a photon while its wavelength is expanding, you increase the Planck constant inversely proportionally to the decresing photon's frequency, so that their product (energy) E=h⋅f remains constant. That would resolve a problem of vanishing radiation energy that is decreasing with the expansion. Leonard Susskind has another explanation - this vanishing energy is changed to work, which increases the volume of the expanding universe.

 

[billslugg]

Marcin, I just recently joined up with this forum and am confused. Where did Atlan0001 come from and what do his rantings have to do with the redshift discussion?

Atlan0001 is one of our more imaginative posters. His utterances transcend our simple logic.

 

[marcin]

@billslugg If you're not ironic, then how does 0/1 binary base transcend a simple logic? If it does, then what does your simple logic (which I greatly appreciate) tell you about this binary concept in terms of cosmology?

By the way once more, fbb2 0|1 (unity) is primal / fundamental binary base2, 0 (null- or non-unity) and/or (+/-) 1 (unity), plus (+) and minus (-), parity. There are two universes positive energy matter and negative energy anti-matter, always blended, always blending, always paired particle to particle, wave to wave, string to string, Flatland to Flatland, and so on, almost always balanced; 'Casimer effect-like three dimensions, three plate 'Flatlands', but deadly, at once potentially quite useful, where and when crossing the divide of Mirror (they are mirror energy and matter) and become unbalanced.

And of course it is integral with its elements of (infinite (infinitesimal) / infinitesimal (infinite / infinity) absolutism, c = 0|1 (unity), G = 0|1 (unity), h = 0|1 (unity), T = 0|1 (unity) .... where '0' is (null unity (0-point (portal): the primal / fundamental entity of the open, and opening, system)). It's really very simple, fundamental binary base2 0|1, plus parity bit, is. You can't possibly go below (above) and/or above (below) it in space. You can't possibly go before (after) and/or after (before) it in time. Now that is stability.

It is more than symbolic, more than its symbol, the twisted doughnut ring; the twist circling in on itself. As an absolute it is one of the constants in nature and physics, possibly THE constant in nature and physics: Its value: [primal / fundamental] binary base2 '0|1' ('0' and/or '1'). The absolute of top and bottom, up and down. The absolute of outside and inside. The absolute of 'unity' and 'null unity'....

That's a small sample.

@typodrive I'm really sorry for cluttering up your thread.