Part IX
The Cosmological Redshift Revised.
1. Objective
The aim of this paper is to analyze the current model of the cosmological redshift. The intention is to show from various perspectives that the redshift of a galaxy's light cannot represent its recessional velocity. Primarily, this is achieved by showing the Hubble constant as not indicating the rate of expansion of the universe and the age of the universe not to be the fraction one over the Hubble constant. It will be further argued that the cosmological model does not comply with essential physical rules. It will, in addition, be shown that an expanding universe model does not comply with observation. The big bang theory is therefore brought into question.
2. The Origin of the Concept.
In 1929 Edwin Powell Hubble, an American astronomer (1889-1953) applying the work of Vesto Melvin Slipher (1875-1969), with the assistance of Milton Lasell Humason (1891-1972) first published the paper that established the relationship between redshift and distance for galaxies. Through his observations made on the 100 inch telescope at Mount Wilson, he found that the redshift of the light from distant galaxies was proportional to their distance from us, now known as Hubble's law.
Knowledge of the causes of redshift was limited at that time. There were only two likely candidates for it. The first was that of gravity. However, redshift due to direct gravitational effect was soon rejected. It was reasoned that galaxies of similar masses would have similar redshifts, that would not vary with distance. An increase in distance would not increase redshift, merely the dimming. Scientists were left with but one alternative - the Doppler effect.
The Doppler effect is the stretching of the wavelength of light, due to the source of the light moving away from the observer, or the observer moving away from the source. Those first astronomers whose interests lay in this field, pondered over whether the redshift was due to the motion of the galaxies through space. They thought the galaxies could all be flying apart from an explosion centred on the Milky Way, giving rise to a Doppler effect.
3. Abandoning of the Doppler Effect.
The scientific community, quickly formed the opinion that the form of expansion explicable by the Doppler effect was suspect. It would mean that the Earth would have to have an unlikely preferred position at the centre of the universe and its expansion. however, by this time, they were convinced that the redshift was an indication of uniform motion, and what was required was an alternative explanation to that of the Doppler effect. The principle factor in the continued acceptance of Hubble's discovery as evidence of an expanding universe, was the fact that models for the expansion were by then well established. They had been developed from Einstein's general theory of relativity by De Sitter, Einstein, Eddington, Lemaitre and Friedmann in the period 1917-24. They had found that Einstein's equations allowed for the universe to be either expanding or contracting. So the majority of the astronomers of the day were comfortable in continuing to accept that the redshift was due to the motion of the galaxies. They felt this showed that the universe is expanding which suggested that it must have had a definite origin at a certain moment in time. This notion was used subsequently to support the big bang model.
The result was that little or no effort was put into going back to first principles to see if an alternative explanation could be found to that of the expansion of the universe. Instead, it was postulated that the observed effect would be achieved if the space between the galaxies was expanding, which would comply with the equations of general relativity. It was argued that the redshift was explained by the expansion of the space stretching the wavelength of the light, in proportion to the length of time the light was travelling through it. This explanation was called the cosmological redshift, although the explanation of the physical mechanism for achieving it has always been regarded as speculative.
Since Hubble's discovery in 1929, considerable research has gone into modifying the Hubble constant. There was an initial problem. The initial time scale for the expansion of the universe, two billion years, implied by Hubble's measurements, was soon found to be inconsistent with the age of the Earth. Today, improved distance estimates, put the notional expansion time scale at 10 to 20 billion years compared to the Earth's age of 4.5 billion years. however, this is referred to merely to show where the research emphasis has lain in the recent past and why the search for an alternative theory has been neglected. The various values given for the Hubble constant do not affect the arguments put forward in this paper.
4. A Comparison of the Doppler with the Cosmological Redshift.
The reason for this comparison is to show that neither the Doppler nor the cosmological redshift can be used to find the rate of expansion or age of the universe. There is no aspect of the cosmological redshift that makes it more suitable than the Doppler redshift for these calculations.
The supposed constant rate of expansion of the universe, is also known as the coefficient of proportionality as expressed in the Hubble law. It is the Hubble constant 'h0', which is required to be the speed of recession of a galaxy divided by its distance from us. The putative age of the universe since the notional big bang, is consequently, one over Hubble's constant, 1/h0 that is to say, the distance of a galaxy divided by its recessional velocity.
For this comparison it is agreed common ground that the distance of a galaxy can be measured from the brightness of its light, by comparing it with that of like galaxies of known distance. Likewise, if the galaxies have a recessional velocity, which is not admitted, it will be relative to the amount of redshift of their light. Subject to the observations set out below, the redshift is normally translated into a velocity by the formula redshift equals velocity of galaxy over the speed of light. It is also appreciated that this is a Newtonian equation that will break down at speeds close to the speed of light, but it is quite adequate for the Hubble law as used in this paper.
Let us first apply the Doppler concept to these simple equations. It is well understood that the action of the Doppler effect occurs the instant light leaves its moving source. A further adjustment to the wavelength of the light takes place when it arrives at the receiver, to allow for the receiver's motion. The source in this case is the galaxy when it is at the location, in the past, from where we are measuring it. So the Doppler measurement is a past measurement of speed relative to our present motion. When we look at a distant galaxy to measure its distance from us, we are looking at it in a position that it occupied at some time in the past. This is because the light that we see and which forms the image of the galaxy at one's eye, has taken time to travel to us across space. We are therefore measuring a past distance.
This is a well known concept and is in no way controversial. To illustrate the idea imagine that at the instant of reading this, the light from all the stars in the universe, was switched off. Let's not worry how it happened or who did it, simply let no more light be produced by any of the stars. It is common ground that here on Earth we would not notice any difference at first. It would take approximately eight and a half minutes for the light that is already on its way from the Sun to reach us. It would not be until after that time that we would see our Sun go out. Even then we would be left with the rest of the night sky intact. It would take another four years before we would see the nearest star to us go out. It would take another two years after that for the next star to disappear. Gradually over many years the stars in our Milky Way would go out in the order of their distance from us. It would take 75,000 years for the stars at the furthermost part of the Milky Way from us to disappear from our night sky. 78,000 years later the light from the Large Magellanic Cloud would start to go, taking approximately another 33,000 years. Then in various stages, each of millions of years, the galaxies and then clusters of galaxies would disappear, until after 12 billion years the light from the most remote galaxies now visible through powerful optical telescopes would likewise go out. So from start to finish it would take about 12 billion years for the last faint glimmer detectable here on Earth to disappear and leave us in total darkness. This is supposing that we were sufficiently ingenious to find some way of surviving without the heat and light from the Sun, so that our successors would still be around to make the observations.
From this extreme illustration it is readily apparent that light from galaxies situate at different distances cannot in the Doppler model, convey information to us either instantaneously or simultaneously. So to interpret the redshift observed by Hubble as being Doppler effect measuring a galaxy's recessional velocity would be erroneous. Even if, as seems extremely unlikely, it had been possible at the big bang, to impart the different amounts of energy of motion to each galaxy, required to increase speed in proportion to distance, we could not tell the age of the universe from their light. It cannot be the case as presently alleged, that the light from all galaxies gives the same result; i.e. that a galaxy's past distance divided by its past recessional velocity, is the present age of the universe. This means that the same information from all over the universe, that gives a common age for it, would have to be seen both instantaneously and simultaneously. This requirement for instantaneous and simultaneous communication is impossible, as was illustrated by the notional putting out of the light in the universe.
The measurement of the delayed red shifted light can be likened to a fossil record. The fossil light from each galaxy, from a different depth in space, has existed for a different length of time. Any attempt to say that the fossil light sources are all from the same depth in space, is manifestly wrong.
Let us see if we fare any better using the cosmological model for the redshift.
5. The Cosmological Model and the Problem with the Look Back Time.
In this model we have the confusing situation of seeing galaxies at their past ages but with their present distances and recessional velocities. This model differs in two respects from the Doppler model. The first is that unlike the Doppler redshift, where the velocity may be regarded as approximately constant, the cosmological redshift of a galaxy's light indicates its final speed, after having been uniformly accelerated from zero. This means that for the cosmological model, the average speed for the distance travelled by any galaxy is half that indicated by the redshift. For the cosmological model this doubles the age of the universe compared with that derived from the Doppler model.
The second is a problem with the cause of the redshift that is used to ascertain the supposed recessional velocity. In this model the redshift did not come about at the time the region of space expanded and pushed the galaxies into place. The stretching of the light occurred after the event, that is to say, after the galaxy had reached its new position. In this model the light from the galaxy's new position is stretched on its way back to Earth, due to space expanding as the light travels through it. Consequently the light acquires too high a redshift value for the galaxy's original location and speed. It can be said that in this model the amount by which the light is stretched is the measure of the expansion of the region of space through which it passed. Although accurate within this model, the argument is somewhat misleading, as the light has further to travel back on the down leg, than the galaxy did on the up leg. This is because in this model, the space through which the light has to travel continues to expand during the light's transit. The greater the amount of travel time for the light, the more inaccurately its dimming will represent the distance the galaxy was at when the light left it. It will also cause the redshift to exaggerate the recessional velocity. In this model we interpret the image we see as the galaxy as it was in the past but with an exaggerated dimming which we correlate to distance and with an exaggerated redshift which we correlate to recessional speed. If this model were correct, the degree of this exaggeration would be equal to the galaxies past position and recessional velocity being transposed to their current values. The constant rate of expansion of space that gives galaxies their recessional velocity is known as the scale factor.
In essence, our computation for the age of the universe is of an apparent present distance divided by an apparent present recessional velocity. These confusing values are thought to be accrued as the light travels from a past position of the galaxy to the Earth's present position. This spread of time values for the redshift, puts us in no better position than when we used the Doppler explanation for it. The dilemma still exists, that although we may know the current distance and recessional speed of a galaxy, they give us exactly the same result for the age of the universe as we would have obtained at any time and distance of the galaxy since the notional big bang. The predicament is, that when we receive a past image at our eye we expect the information it conveys to relate to that past time. The amount by which this past age should differ from our present time is the travel time of the light taken to reach us (known as the look back time). Unfortunately we have the paradox that instead of seeing different past ages appropriate to the different galaxies 'look back times', they all display the same age to us, and what is more, in this model they always have. We have the impossible situation of supposedly seeing all the galaxies continuously indicating the same unchanging age for the universe. This impossibility indicates that since distance cannot be confused with any other parameter, we are precluded, in this instance, from attributing the redshift to motion. There has to be an alternative model that involves an increase in redshift in proportion to the distance the light has travelled, that does not require the universe to expand. [For the author's submission as to the cause of the redshift see 'Time: The Hidden Dimensions of the Missing Physics', Chapter 11].
The question we now have to ask ourselves is: why is it our calculation does not give the age of the universe? The reason lies in the fact that the redshift does not represent a 'rate' of expansion of the universe. In this model, it is simply expressed to indicate the recessional velocity of a galaxy at a given distance relative to us. however such equating of the redshift with recessional velocity is implausible. In this model it can at best be thought of as merely indicating that it is space that is expanding pushing everything apart. On the other hand it does not indicate how long it has been expanding. It cannot be taken as giving a rate of expansion of the universe, relative to the passage of time. We are simply comparing like with like. For example, in the quotient for the age of the universe, 1/h0 which in turn can be written as distance over velocity, our numerator is the dimming effect on light for a given distance and the denominator is merely the redshift effect on the same light for the same distance. Such a computation must always give the same result, whether or not the redshift is regarded as a notional recessional velocity.
The qualitative and quantitative proofs of this are as follows:-
The redshift is interpreted in this model as indicating that the galaxies are moving away from us at a rate that increases relative to the distance they are from us. This is a quasi form of acceleration, but it is not true acceleration. The reason is that true acceleration is rate of change of velocity relative to time, whereas in this instance we only have change of velocity relative to distance. Normally, when different objects are traveling at different speeds but are undergoing the same rate of acceleration, they will have taken different times to get up to their respective speeds. In this case however, all the different speeds have been attained in the same time, that is to say, since the big bang. Their different speeds are relative to their distances from the observer. Consequently the time factor cannot be gleaned from the redshift. We are unable to say, for this model, that distance is equal to velocity multiplied by time for each galaxy. We can only say that distance is equal to velocity. So we are left with the constant - distance denoted by dimming over distance denoted by velocity - which as a truism does not give a clue as to the passage of time. We do not at the present moment have a method of discovering from the light we see from the galaxies, the age of the universe since the notional big bang, or even of determining that the universe is actually expanding.
The notation used to obtain the current value of 13.7 billion years for the age of the universe, can be shown to be defective as follows. Using v=dh0 where v is the recessional velocity of the galaxy, d is distance and h0 is Hubble-s constant. If we divide both sides by h0 we get d=v/h0. Then if d in this instance is mistakenly expressed as vt, we erroneously derive t=1/h0. In this instance t is taken to be the time taken since the big bang, i.e. the age of the universe, whereas it is actually a constant, the direct opposite of time and aging. It can be seen from this result that the quasi accelerating expansion, with the recessional speed relative to distance - as distinct from time - is not accounted for. The fact that in this model, the light from a distant galaxy has a look back time relative to its image, while measurements for its distance and redshift are thought to be current with a constant coefficient of proportionality, make it impracticable as a tool to find the age of the universe.
The problem is not solely with the light. In this model the observed light conveys the current location of the galaxies, indicating a notional expansion of the universe. To illustrate the underlying physical problem we can, for the sake of argument, ignore the light emitted from the galaxies and concentrate on their physical positions and movement. Let us assume the postulate to be accurate, that the rate of expansion of the universe is caused by the space between the galaxies expanding at a uniform rate (the scale factor). In that event, the scale factor expansion can be applied to the space between us and any other galaxy. Over an interval of time such a galaxy will gradually move away from us. The initial distance to that galaxy will, after it has moved on, be replicated by another galaxy, which previously had been closer to us but which the expansion pushes outwards to that distance. This apparent movement of the galaxies away from us at a uniform rate has been called the Hubble flow. Such a model creates the problem that in due time successive galaxies will take up distances that their more remote neighbours previously had. The passage of time ensures, that in terms of distance, there will be a constant repositioning relative to us on Earth, of all the galaxies in the universe in the direction of the Hubble flow.
Naturally, because the scale factor is constant, when a distance is replicated the degree of redshift must also be replicated. For any given distance from us, light that is transmitted back to us will always have the same redshift. In terms of the proportion between distance and redshift, there can be no change with time, so that astronomers who only had these two parameters to work from, cannot possibly construct a big bang model. The quotient of distance divided by recessional velocity, which for normal motion through space would give the the time taken, will for motion due to the expansion of the intergalactic space, merely yield an unhelpful constant. The quotient will give the same constant age for the universe in all epochs and at all distances.
6. The Problem of the Propagation and Travel Time of the Light.
If the redshift does not represent the recessional speed, then what does it represent? We already know the answer to this. It was one of the original parameters when the cosmic redshift theory was initiated. It is the amount of stretching of the wavelength of the light that is proportional to the time the light has taken to travel from its source to us, which equates to distance. however, I do not agree with the proponents of the cosmic expansion theory, as to how the stretching of the light's wavelength occurs, and to what it represents. They propound, wrongly in my submission, that the wavelength of the light will stretch if the space it is passing through stretches. They state, in addition, that the stretching of space gives the light a greater distance to travel, with a longer travel time.
In so doing they overlooked the three initial postulates, that are generally accepted for the propagation of light. First, that light is propagated at a constant speed, as was determined in the equations of James Clerk Maxwell. Second, that light has a constant closing speed at the eye of an observer, regardless of the speed of the transmitting source, as was determined by the work of Willem De Sitter. Third, that light has a constant closing speed at the eye of an observer, regardless of the speed of the observer, as confirmed by the work of Michelson and Morley. It is therefore the case, that the closing speed of light and consequently the time the light takes to reach its destination, are unaffected by any notional stretching of, or increase in, space, after the light has been initially propagated.
7. The Problem of Stretching a Photon.
Consider what supposedly happens to the wavelength of the light as it passes through the notionally expanding and stretching space. It is conjectured that the stretching of space also stretches the light. To do this the light must have its photons stretched. However, this is not possible. The reason being, that to keep the speed of light constant, as the wavelength of the photon stretches its frequency reduces. So the overall length of a photon is always the gross product of the wavelength multiplied by the number of oscillations, of that wavelength, required to maintain the photon's length and speed for a given time dilation of an observer. Therefore, if the stretching of space does not have the physical mechanism to stretch a photon's external overall length, it follows that it does not have the mechanism to stretch the photon's internal wavelength. Photons are immune to the stretching of space, and so therefore, are their wavelengths. We must look for some other reason for the observed progressive redshift with distance.
8. The Problem of Creating Energy.
There is a further reason why the stretching of space cannot of itself cause a redshift. This is the need to adhere to the law of the conservation of energy. The conservation law states that energy cannot be destroyed or created. Electromagnetic waves,which includes light, are a pure form of energy that cannot be increased by passing it across space. An energy audit of the light is the product of the energy in a photon, that is to say, its frequency, and the number of photons per second. This has to remain constant as between its source and receiver, unless acted upon by an intervening gravitational mass. Without such external intervention, all that can happen to the light's energy is that it becomes diffused in accordance with the inverse square law.
Light is not red shifted by its propagation and motion alone. The motion has to be across a time differential to enable, not only the wavelength to be stretched but the frequency also to be adjusted. There has to be a time differential between the source and receiver of the light, in other words, a time field. No amount of the stretching of space will cause such a time field. At any given instant there needs to be a time differential from one side of the light wave to the other. Unless there is such a time differential across the wavelength of the photon the wavelength cannot be stretched. It is this potential difference in time across the light wave that is the essential mechanism to vary its frequency and maintain the energy audit. The redshift is the result of the physical mechanism, necessary for the conservation of energy, that maintains the harmonious symmetry between frequency, wavelength and photon flux, across a time field differential.
The increase in distance between two points does not alter the potential difference in time, between those points. Accordingly, when light is passed from a source that has dilated time to a receiver that has contracted time, the light will be red shifted in proportion to the time differential, irrespective of any increase in the distance separating them. Likewise, if the source and receiver of the light have the same degree of time dilation, so that there is no time differential between the two, the light will be seen at the receiver's eye, without any redshift. This must be the case with the light from two galaxies of similar masses, motion, and time domains, which will pass light from one to the other without redshift. This will be so, regardless of distance or variation of distance, that is to say, expansion of the universe.
If this simple audit rule is not adhered to, then we would have the impossible situation of the light's wavelength being stretched without mechanism to reduce its frequency and increase its photon flux. This would have the consequence of breaching the conservation law, by creating energy at the eye of the receiver. As a result, there has to be a reason for the cosmological redshift that is cumulative and independent of motion or the expansion of space.
9. The Problem with Analogies and Instantaneous Light.
There are difficulties in invoking analogies of stretched elastic bands or rubber balloons with marks on them that move apart in the course of the stretching. Such analogies have been used to illustrate the type of expansion that scientists thought would explain the redshift observed by Hubble. However, these analogies are misleading, and would be so even if it were possible to stretch space and light. They can only illustrate the physical distribution of matter in a universe expanding in accordance with the cosmological model and do not take into account the roll that the light from the galaxies has to play. Compared with the cosmic distances in the universe, the elastic band and balloon, are so small that the light from all parts of them can be regarded as reaching one's eye at the same instant. In such analogies the red shifted light would need to travel at an infinitely fast speed, with no look back time for the galaxies images.
When light is taken into account, the question to be addressed is, if the universe is expanding like an inflating balloon, would we see things the way we do? The answer has to be an unequivocal 'no'. As was discussed above, the distance, speed and distribution of the galaxies in this model are current, while the light conveying the images is unquestionably from the past. The consequence of this is that expanding universe models are self contradicting and are simply not sustainable.
In an expanding universe model the discrepancy between what we see and what we ought to see, turns on the fact that it would not be possible for us to receive fossil light, as we do. It must be remembered, that in such a model, the further back in time the images of the galaxies were generated, the closer the galaxies were to us and each other. So when we are looking back in time the impossibly bizarre rule that has to be applied to calculate the travel time of light is, 'the longer the look back time the shorter the distance the light has to travel'. The built-in conflict in such a rule means that the past distance between the galaxies is always shorter than the distance indicated by the look back time. Insupportably the time required for the light to notionally traverse the past distance is less than the look back time.
The situation can be readily illustrated by examining the extreme position, where the look back time is 13.5 billion years, almost to the notional big bang itself. At that time all matter was supposedly very close together, so the travel time of the light between any two points would be very short. The light from even the most distant protogalaxies would have only taken a few years to reach the region of space we occupy. In other words the light from those protogalaxies should have come and gone say 13.4 billion years ago and not be visible to us now. We cannot see the same light twice. This means that if we follow the look back timeline for all galaxies, from the big bang to the present day, comparing it with the notional travel time of the light, most of the universe would be invisible to us. Thankfully, in reality we do not see this, and we can settle for the expansion model being wrong. It must be the case, that the distances we calculate for the sources of fossil light are true distances, which precludes any possibility of the universe having expanded from a point source, as in the big bang model.
10. Conclusions.
It is common ground that the further out we look into space, the further back in time the images we see were formed. There is nothing in either the Doppler effect or the cosmological effect, that alters that situation. As has been set out above, neither of these two models of the redshift are supported by observation. The flawed reasoning behind the current cosmological model may be summed up in the following general terms.
If the universe is expanding, which is not admitted, it would be quite reasonable to try to measure its age by dividing the distance galaxies have travelled by the speed of recession. There is nothing inherently wrong with the equation. The problem is that, contrary to previously held opinion, it cannot be readily transposed to an expanding universe of the cosmological redshift model. In such a model, a galaxy's redshift (its recessional velocity) is caused by the expansion of the intergalactic space and not by the galaxy's motion through that space. This fundamental difference precludes the use of the formula to find the age of the universe, if for no other reason than the result is always a constant. Variables such as the age of the universe and the look back time, of a galaxy's image, are simply not quantifiable by it.
In the past, to explain such a model, a misleading analogy has been used, which was appropriate only for Doppler redshift models. It is of a road race, where the runners are all pulling away from each other because they are running at different speeds. In such a case the distances and relative speeds of any two runners can be used to calculate how long they have been running, in other words, to find the age of the race. The reason it is misleading is due to the fact that the distances and speeds of the runners are relative to a fixed and static starting line. On the other hand, in the cosmological redshift model, the universe does not have a fixed starting line. In that model it is the road itself that is moving apart while the runners are simply marking time on the same piece of road. Everything, including the start and finishing lines on the road, are moving apart relative to everything else. In the case of actual road runners, they all run at their own different but constant speeds, which will not vary the further apart the runners get. Galaxies, on the other hand, appear from their redshifts to increase their speeds the further apart they get. In the cosmological race of the galaxies, as we have seen, the proportionality of speed (redshift) to distance of galaxies is given by the Hubble constant 'h0'. So the formula 1/h0, cannot be used to find the ongoing age of the cosmological race, that is to say, the age of the universe. The reason is that it is the inverse of a constant, which is likewise a constant. To have a constant for an ever increasing age is a contradiction in terms.
If the redshifts that we can see, do not indicate the universe's age, then we cannot say that the universe is expanding or that it started from a big bang. The only other model that allows the universe to be expanding without a big bang start, is one that has already been discredited. It is the steady state model, originally put forward in 1948 by Hoyle, Bondi and Gold. The theory propounded that the universe is uniform in space and unchanging in time, its expansion being fuelled by constant spontaneous creation of matter. It was subsequently displaced by new evidence.
There are a growing number of sound scientific reasons, which prevent us from assuming, as in the past, that the observed redshift is motion related. If it is not, then both the big bang theory and the steady state theory, are ruled out. Furthermore, those explanations of phenomena that have been misconstrued and manipulated so as to be dependant on the big bang, such as the microwave background radiation, Olbers' paradox and young galaxies, will all have to be reworked. We are now obliged to examine new theories such as The Tempo Field Theory, which has time as the agent for gravitational effect. It relies on well proven experiments to establish a cumulative redshift that is not motion related but is proportional to the distance the light has travelled, in accord with Hubble's observations. Using conventional physics it fulfils the essential prerequisite referred to above, of reworking and accounting for the microwave background radiation, Olbers' paradox and young galaxies. We are in exciting times!
Readers are invited to contribute feedback by giving their observations on Parts 1-9.
