Gravitational Redshift & Expanding Spherical Wavefronts

[budrap00]

Proof of concept.
https://thisislanduniverse.com/2024/09/25/gravitational-redshift-expanding-spherical-wavefronts/

[Francois-Zinserling]

This is the push-gravity link to cosmology I have been hoping for. It adds words and numbers to what has only been the vague beginning of thoughts in my mind. I shall have to read it a few times more but already the significance is apparent.
Are you the author, @budrap00 ?

[Francois-Zinserling]

oh my word apologies for this long post.

[HanDeBruijn]

This same energy problem haunts 'growing earth' models.

Why then adhere to those models? Especially for the latter there is an alternative. NO energy problem at all !!

[sahil5d]

If you argue for "push gravity" (Fatio, Le Sage) because you don't like a 1/r^2 force without some great number of pushing corpuscles, then you're going to have a big problem with charge having a 1/r^2 force for attraction and repulsion. How do you explain charge attraction and charge repulsion... with more corpuscles??

I strongly feel that "push gravity" (Fatio, Le Sage) is so wrong that it has to be stamped out in ACG discussions. ACG is presenting itself as an authority to refute the big bang theory, and we can't have half the group advocating unparsimonious, never-observable, pushing corpuscles.

[ExpEarth]

@sahil5d

That would include Bud's model too. As I pointed out below, his mechanism is a prescription for a pushing gravity model. The mainstream does not like Le Sage models, but they don't like tired light models either. Would you like to cancel tired light as well? Where does it end?

[sahil5d]

No, I would like to cancel receding-galaxies-expanding-space. The criterion is not [against mainstream], it's [against stupid].

[ExpEarth]

Hence my leaning toward e.g. quasars as the recyclers of matter to aether. See aether here as the coupled/paired photons as proposed by Annila et al, and also loosely by Rueda and Haisch's ZPF. With coupled photons it is possible to combine photons into a particle with a net zero E and B fields, yet with the full energies of the combined photons. Somewhat like destructive waves, not just incidentally but perfectly coupled on their paths. This allows these photon pairs to penetrate matter and ordinary matter would seem transparent to it, except for direct collisions with particles.

You are getting so close to it, Francois. But wait. You want matter to be converted to aether (paired photons) in quasars. Remember that we already have matter being converted to photon energy in stars. Where does new matter then form in your model to complete the cycle? I would prefer to have heavier atoms being converted to hydrogen inside quasars, as this creates new mass overall and sets up new stellar fusion. As for the aether (paired photons), you have it being formed in quasars specifically. How about if we have disordered photon pairs being processed by all particles into perfectly overlapping photons (the aether in your model). Or disordered aether into ordered aether. The disordered aether is what could give the pushing force for gravity. Just suggestions.

[Francois-Zinserling]

Hi, Matt. I shouldn't have said 'leaning' so much as 'just beginning to think' since I don't have a model for the quasars. I just pulled it out of thin air, seeing as quasars are known to be ejecting streams of 'something', and they're pretty much found everywhere.

You're also right that there needs to be a recycling source of 'matter-to-hydrogen' and not just photons or photon pairs. Photons (and pairs) would be the ultimate break-down in my opinion and the sources of the pairs remain elusive.

2 x photon pairs (with opposite circular polarisation for each pair) can be achieved when an electron pair (spin up and down) annihilates with a positron pair (spin up and down). No new or illegal physics here, but just an unusual environment needed to set this up.

The 'hydrogen recycler' is different as it has to shred atoms down to protons (+ electrons) and neutrons (which decay to proton+electron) which has all the ingredients for new hydrogen. Stars build up in the table of elements though and don't break down the nuclei. So the recycler is somewhere else - not stars. Maybe in the quasars, more likely, like you suggest.

Pair production (from photons or pairs) is a possibility, but that would require photon pairs for electrons/positrons, and different energy photon pairs for protons/anti-protons, which immediately begs the question: "Where is the anti-matter?". Other possibilities are possible if we can ditch that abomination called 'quarks'.

As @budrap00 mentioned elsewhere, ordinary photons don't have penetrating capacity and can thus not account for gravity. Same would be for disordered pairs - matter would no longer be transparent because their E and B fields are 'visible' to atoms. On the other hand ordered pairs would fly right through atoms as if it is emty space. A slight lapse in the phase of the 2 photons in the pair could decouple it within vicinity of a charged particle, or I am thinking it might need a direct collision to change the pair into something else.

It is a good suggestion that maybe we could find a different mechanism that re-orders the pairs, which would likely be happening within the surface area (of a special object). This will have me thinking for a while :)

[ExpEarth]

@Francois-Zinserling

Pair production (from photons or pairs) is a possibility, but that would require photon pairs for electrons/positrons, and different energy photon pairs for protons/anti-protons, which immediately begs the question: "Where is the anti-matter?". Other possibilities are possible if we can ditch that abomination called 'quarks'.

Well, I'm not sure about that. You might want to check out Arto Annila's video chapter 3 "What is Everything Made of" from his book "Back to Reality". He's pretty convincing that everything is made of photons, quarks included.

As @budrap00 mentioned elsewhere, ordinary photons don't have penetrating capacity and can thus not account for gravity. Same would be for disordered pairs - matter would no longer be transparent because their E and B fields are 'visible' to atoms.

This is why I have the absorption happening in filaments connecting to the particle centres. On the other hand, how can that square with the Allais effect? Yes, still much to think about!

[Francois-Zinserling]

I've noticed Arto's stance on quarks. I believe he is playing to the audience and this is unfortunately where he and I part ways. Quarks will become known as one of the biggest obstacles ever to be thrown in the path of physics.

I still need your filaments to grow on me .. or in me ... if I understand it correctly. It relates a lot to string-theory which broke my brain when I tried to study it. At least you haven't invoked muliple new dimensions in your model.

[ExpEarth]

@budrap00

I'm not following the basic message on your page, Bud. This seems to be saying that a gravitational redshift happens to photons as they move through space, since they move out of bigger and bigger regions of space (with more and more mass). But at the same time the photons are moving at each moment towards regions having the same mass density as where they came from. That would create a blueshift that perfectly balances the redshift. Maybe I'm missing the main point somewhere?

The figures and equations to me seem more appropriate when applied to my shell model. If we imagine photons moving inwardly from the shell, then at each point they are pulling away from a bigger shell segment. But to avoid the problem just mentioned, we need also to invoke the Ni shell solutions that I mentioned in my shell model.

[budrap00]

I'm afraid I don't see any connection between the demonstration, that a redshift-distance relation can be derived by applying a standard gravitational-redshift formalism to an expanding spherical wavefront, and pushing gravity. The purpose of the demonstration is to provide a standard physical account of the cosmological redshift that is independent of the recessional velocity interpretation.

The cause of the energy loss in the ESW model is the direct, incremental absorption of the ESW by the intervening galaxies encountered during the expansion. No invisible mechanism is required. Pushing gravity (or any other invisible gravitational mechanism) is superfluous to the ESW model. Gravity is not a "force"; it is an effect that arises when matter and energy (electromagnetic radiation) interact.

[Francois-Zinserling]

@budrap00

The cause of the energy loss in the ESW model is the direct, incremental absorption of the ESW by the intervening galaxies

Push-gravity is based on aether absorption (or energy conversion if you want to overcome the PG energy problem). An incremental absorption of a spherical wave (given there are near-infinite points of ESW emissions scattered around within the observer's cosmic wall) is a perfect description of the action at play to create push-gravity. In your model it now opens (for me) a link from PG to cosmology.

An ordinary electromagnetic wave (light such as the glow of a galaxy) as an ESW does not (cannot) penetrate through matter. It is absorbed into the surface where matter exists, and passes where there is no matter, as you also say. Although this action may reduce the intensity of the wave, it cannot 'weaken' the individual photons. This action reduces the number of photons. At a distant point from the emitter you will either receive the photons, or you will receive nothing. Other emitters cannot help to strengthen the ESW signal (intensity) again, because photon directions would be wrong and observation would be a mess.

One can go one step further and say photons are weakened when they pass close to mass. Maybe even just a little bit when they pass far from mass. This is correct - their wavelengths lengthen - but they are also scattered (bent) off their original path. If this were the cause of all cosmo redshift, this would have made all distant objects unobservable, or at best the night-sky would be smeared out like Einstein Rings.

As to your last comment,

Gravity is not a "force"; it is an effect that arises when matter and energy (electromagnetic radiation) interact.

Normal electromagnetic radiation cannot penetrate matter and can thus not be the agent of gravity. I thought you had mentioned this before but seems I have my wires crossed. My apologies to you and the person who did mention this.

[budrap00]

Although this action may reduce the intensity of the wave, it cannot 'weaken' the individual photons. This action reduces the number of photons. At a distant point from the emitter you will either receive the photons, or you will receive nothing.

If anything quantum theory/particle physics is an even bigger mess than ΛCDM. Invoking the badly misconstrued quantum-scale photon concept to assess the behavior of the cosmological scale phenomenon of an expanding spherical wavefront is a category error. It's like trying to understand a forest by studying the cellular structure of a leaf. On the other hand the cellular structure of a leaf is on firm footing while the photon-as-particle concept has no basis in physics.

A photon is a wave quantum; it is the minimum energy for an electromagnetic wave of any given frequency. By definition that wave quantum is the energy of one complete wave cycle. If you doubt that I suggest you look up the definition of Planck's constant. A photon is not a particle unless you redefine the meaning of "particle" to encompass something that does not share any characteristics with those objects that are normally considered particles - small objects that are three dimensionally localized and have rest mass.

Normal electromagnetic radiation cannot penetrate matter and can thus not be the agent of gravity.

I have no idea why you think some undefined "agent of gravity" has to penetrate matter. Is that a PG concept?

[HanDeBruijn]

@ExpEarth writes:

That would create a blueshift that perfectly balances the redshift.

Quote from Wikipedia. Isaac Newton proved the Shell theorem and stated that:

• A spherically symmetric body affects external objects gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point at its center.
• If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e. a hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object's location within the shell.

An elaborate theory is found in the Seeliger's Paradox page at my website.
For the ESW model by @budrap00 Newton's second statement means that the force upon a "photon" inside a hollow sphere is exactly zero. There is only a force directed to the center of the spherical wave, as has been correctly assumed. Thus there is NO blueshift that perfectly balances the redshift.

we need also to invoke the Ni shell solutions that I mentioned in my shell model.

Using GR Ni shell solutions as a panacea for the problems in cosmology that are mainly caused by GR ??

[HanDeBruijn]

Constants: mass density $\rho = 10^{-26}\mbox{ }kg/m^3$ , gravitational constant $G=6.67430\times 10^{-11}\mbox{ }N m^2/kg^2$ , lightspeed $c=299 792 458\mbox{ }m/s$ .
Variables: $R_{esw}=$ radius of expanding spherical wave, $M=$ mass inside $R_{esw}$, $r_S=$ Schwarzschild radius, $z=$ redshift.
Then we have for the Gravitational redshift of a Spherically symmetric gravitational field inside the wavefront, which is Bud's theory (I think):

$$ M = \rho\frac{4}{3}\pi R_{esw}^3 \quad ; \quad r_S = \frac{2GM}{c^2}\quad ; \quad 1+z = \left(1-\frac{r_S}{R_{esw}}\right)^{-1/2} $$

It follows that the radius of the wavefront must be greater than the Schwarzschild radius:

$$ 1-\frac{r_S}{R_{esw}} \gt 0 \quad \Longrightarrow \quad r_S \lt R_{esw} $$

$$ \frac{2G}{c^2}\rho\frac{4}{3}\pi R_{esw}^3 \lt R_{esw} \quad \mbox{where} \quad H^2 = \frac{8}{3}\pi G \rho $$

The Hubble parameter $H$ according to ΛCDM is recognized. Better take that instead of an average cosmological density:

$$ \frac{H^2}{c^2} . R_{esw}^3 \lt R_{esw} \quad \Longrightarrow \quad R_{esw} \lt \frac{c}{H} $$

Conclusion: Bud's expanding wavefront radius is always smaller than the standard Hubble length in cosmos. And the redshift would become infinitely high at that place. But does it?

Edit.

The average density is a free parameter in the model but the results are highly sensitive to this particular value.

If things are replaced by the Hubble parameter, as suggested, then we still have the infamous Hubble tension, but all of your graphs become similar.

$$ \frac{r_S}{R_{esw}} = \frac{2G}{c^2}\rho\frac{4}{3}\pi R_{esw}^3/R_{esw} = \frac{H^2}{c^2}R_{esw}^2 = x^2 $$

where $x=H/c.R_{esw}$ is a dimensionless quantity and so

$$ z = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-x^2}}-1 \quad \mbox{with} \quad 0 \le x \lt 1 $$

[Francois-Zinserling]

I actually thought my effort wasn't too unreasonable. Given that an (agreed upon) mechanistic explanation for electrostatic effects still does not exist on this day. Just as it doesn't for gravity.

That's a video of a basic high-school experiment. And no, not all photons are visible, but every field in electromagnetics consists of photons. Real, not virtual. An electric or magnetic field is just as invisible, but its effect is real and visible. If you place an electron (or a small (-) charged sphere) in the middle of those spheres, it will immediately accelerate toward one of the spheres. What do you propose accelerates an electron in a field? Curved space maybe? No. Well, yes, if you can first define how to curve nothing.
We know electrons can be pushed (not pulled - never pulled!) by a photon. What is so unreasonable about the proposal?

If we settle for the high-school explanation that 'charge is emitted from the particle' and that gravity 'pulls on things', then there's no need for any more questions and we can all go home.

[sahil5d]

The force description alone is better. No nonsense, no failed predictions.

You still haven't answered, Will a photosensor detect what you're claiming?

What do you propose accelerates an electron in a field?

I don't think there is a "thing" pushing it. I just know that the particles are in a volume, the particles have properties, and a force calculation on those properties accurately computes their acceleration, and I am content with that.

There are other adventures to be had in galactic-scale gravity and nuclear-scale charge.
https://github.com/orgs/a-cosmology-group/discussions/122#discussioncomment-10455190

[Francois-Zinserling]

The force description alone is better.

Then you must be happy to define gravity as a pulling force too, with no knowledge needed of what causes the apparent force.

and I am content with that

You're happy to accept that there are invisible fields that push or pull particles around, but not interested in what is actually doing the pushing. You accept the force calculation without understanding the underlying mechanism, just as you want to accept the MOND equations, which are completely ad-hoc.

The answer to your question is no.

PG offers naive solutions (not formalised nor published) for both of your adventures (galaxies and nuclei). We are working on it.

[HanDeBruijn]

We are working on it.

For how many centuries to come? Sorry, can't resist ..

[budrap00]

@Francois-Zinserling

You raise some interesting points. Let's start here:

The ESW model you propose can be compared to a 'hand partially in front of a flashlight' which reduces the intensity of the beam.

There are two problems with this analysis. First a beam of light emitted from an artificial device deployed in your laboratory or backyard is not analogous to an ESW with a 100Gly+ radius because the two systems are not the same. In terms of both scale and structure they are dissimilar even though they are both forms of electromagnetic radiation.

You also seem to be confusing intensity with energy. Redshift measures energy loss via E=hf (where h is Planck's constant and f is frequency). In a cosmological redshift spectral lines are displaced toward increasingly lower frequencies (longer wavelengths) for light arriving from greater distances. In your hand in front of a flashlight example you are reducing the amount of light (intensity) that is arriving but not the energy of the light that does arrive.

In the case of an ESW both things happen. An ESW has a far field, large scale wave structure. At some sufficiently large radius, say 100Gly, the ESW will have some total energy and the intensity will be given by the total energy divided by the surface area. Ignoring for the moment absorption by intervening matter, as the ESW expands the intensity will decline as 1/r^2 while the total energy remains constant (there is no energy loss and thus no redshift).

Introducing galactic encounters into the ESW model does produce an energy loss. That is the energy lost, due to absorption by the galaxies, which produces a "redshift" of the ESW toward lower energies of the electromagnetic spectrum. Assuming some average cosmological value for matter density you can then apply standard gravitational-redshift math to the ESW over successive cosmological distances to generate a redshift-distance relationship - as demonstrated.

It is important to note that even though standard gravitational math is being employed here to calculate the redshift, the physical model does not have a gravitational field - it has a matter field. The matter field of the Cosmos is observed but no one has ever observed a gravitational field, only gravitational effects. That is the one of the underlying points of this demonstration and analysis - the gravitational field concept is not only superfluous, its prominence renders unlikely the possibility of understanding gravitational effects on physically realistic terms.

At a point of measurement there is no way the ESW can know that is was weakened at some far-off point elsewhere.

The answer to this is part of standard electromagnetic theory but the explication of a null geodesic is couched in so much conceptual gibberish it is difficult to grasp the central point. This quote from the linked article is about as reasonably coherent as theorists get on the subject:

A null geodesic is the path that a massless particle, such as a photon, follows. That's why it's called null, it's interval (it's "distance" in 4 D spacetime) is equal to zero and it does not have a proper time associated with it.

Throwing out the photon-as-particle fairy tale and substituting "electromagnetic wave" for "spacetime" you can say that in the 4D realm of an electromagnetic wave there exists no such thing as spatial or temporal separation. We human observers however, being 3D material bodies, can only perceive 4D structure in "time slices". What in 4D is a timeless entity, is to a 3D observer, a time divided process that flows from emission to absorption.

Neither one of those perspectives, the 3D or 4D, is more "correct" than the other. Physical reality has two distinct frames, the 3D frame of matter and the 4D frame of electromagnetic radiation (which is the fundamental form of energy). It has those two distinct frames because they describe the relationship between the two distinct physical states - matter and energy - that comprise the fundamental states of the Cosmos.

It is in that context that it can be said that the surface of an ESW is an undifferentiated unit - what happens to the surface at any point from a 3D perspective happens to the entirety of the surface as a spatio-temporally undifferentiated unit in 4D.

[ExpEarth]

@budrap00

You can choose that route if you wish, and you are making some kind of progress with it. In the end I think you will be limiting the scope of your model. There are so many questions you will be unable to address. Good luck!

[budrap00]

@HanDeBruijn
I really don't understand what you are getting at. The ESW model is not a complete and accurate description of the cosmological redshift mechanism? I didn't say it was. I described it as a proof of concept, a demonstration that a standard physical model of an expanding spherical wavefront could be used to generate a cosmological redshift using standard gravitational math. It does just that - and that's all it does.

I do not claim that the ESW model is complete and accurate; it is at best a rough draft in terms of the math. The physical description is however quite robust. There are ESWs (in theory and by observation). That an ESW would have its total energy decremented by absorption as it expands it through the Cosmos seems an unavoidable outcome. That the energy loss would be reflected in a redshift is hardly a stretch.

The problem with the GR math that I used to calculate the redshift is that it does not take into account the variability of light speed under gravitational conditions. If it did the asymptote would probably flatten out and look more like the tired light models you cite.

The problem with most of those models is that they have contrived, often quantum-scale, hypothetical mechanisms for generating the redshift - the physics isn't very realistic. It doesn't matter if the math works in some sense; the physics doesn't.

Strained hypotheses are the coin of the realm in modern theoretical physics and that approach has proven to be of little value, having produced two nonsensical standard models that are wildly discordant with empirical reality even though the math "works" or is self-consistent, or something.

[HanDeBruijn]

@ExpEarth .

Your suggestion that each galaxy sits at the centre of its own black hole universe does not make sense.

Nope. Think about it. It does make sense.
But your suggestion that our galaxy sits at the centre of a thick shell Ni universe does not make sense.

A photon [ .. ] will experience a gravitational blueshift from the galaxies in front.

Nope. The galaxies in front form a "hollow ball". Hence, in Bud's model, they produce a zero gravitational field and NO blueshift.

[HanDeBruijn]

@budrap00 .

relevance to physics is decremented and obscured by that abstraction.

Sorry Bud. Care that I'm giving up after such bizarre replies?

[budrap00]

@HanDeBruijn
That's fair I guess. I find the inability to distinguish between math and physics bizarre.

[HanDeBruijn]

Most people understand what it means to be "the same".

[budrap00]

Most people understand that different things have different names because they are different, or not the same.

[HanDeBruijn]

The Wikipedia page about Gravitational redshift contains a section named Prediction of the Newtonian limit using the properties of photons. The following interesting formula is in there:

$$ z = \frac{1 - \exp\left(-\frac{r_S}{2R_e}\right)}{\exp\left(-\frac{r_S}{2R_e}\right)} $$

I do not understand why that is not immediately simplified to

$$ 1+z = \exp\left(\frac{r_S}{2R_{esw}}\right) \quad \mbox{with} \quad R_e = R_{esw} $$

With our own findings converted into

$$ \frac{r_S}{2R_{esw}} = \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{H.R_{esw}}{c}\right)^2 = \frac{1}{2}x^2 $$

And so finally

$$ 1+z = \exp\left(\frac{r_S}{2R_{esw}}\right) = \exp\left(\frac{1}{2}x^2\right) $$

where Black = @budrap00 , Red = @HanDeBruijn , Green = @mikehelland , Blue = this comment

Notes. The green graph for Mike Helland is derived from

$$ d = \frac{c}{H}\frac{z}{1+z} \quad \Longrightarrow \quad z = \frac{x}{1-x} \quad \mbox{with} \quad x = \frac{H}{c}d $$

And the red line for myself (and Mike if $d_t\rightarrow d$) is derived from

$$ d = \frac{c}{H}\ln(1+z) \quad \Longrightarrow \quad z = e^x-1 \quad \mbox{with} \quad x = \frac{H}{c}d $$

I think this is what Unified Alternative Cosmology is supposed to mean.