TED Conversations

mike fernandes

This conversation is closed.

Gravitational time dilation of photons explains Dark Energy

In the Gravitational Redshift process, a photon's wavelength is stretched & energy is lost by Gravitational Time Dilation. This lost energy by the photon, stretches space (more than already was), & photon's frequency is stretched or redshifted as a consequence. There would also have been a slowing of time, keeping c = c. Wouldn't this mean an expansion or stretching of space, if photon is received with less energy than when emitted?

Process in Quantum Field Theory & Quantum Mechanics:

Following photon along its path between these two gravity wells (galaxies), as this photon is undergoing gravitational red-shifting, it is losing energy, & having its frequency red-shifted. It would be losing a quantum packet of energy as it is being gravitationally red-shifted

This photon would be losing quantum packets at a rate determined by its travel through curved space. The more space is stretched, the more quantum packets of energy were lost. If a photon is received with less energy than when it arrived, those quantum packets are still out there, along its path.

The redshift in photons due to the expansion of the universe, is actually (in part), the cause of the expansion, by the same processes in Gravitational Redshifting. Also, since any frequency redshifting of photons could just of well have been from gravitational redshifting, since they can have the same effect. Looking at it from the prospective of General Relativity. Supported here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/gratim.html#c1

In other words, the energy lost by photons in our universe due to gravitational time dilation & the consequent extra stretching of space, must surely be the source of Dark Energy.

This would also neatly explain what actually happens to the lost energy of photons that have been redshifted.

Also, when you consider all of the different photons out there, across the entire spectrum (not just visible), I believe you have the amounts needed to explain D.E.

Share:
  • thumb
    Mar 15 2012: Ken,
    I think a big part of our problem is how we think about time. Here is a point I made in another thread:
    http://www.ted.com/conversations/10011/what_is_time_4.html
    If you think of time this way, as an effect of motion, such that it is the changing configuration of what exists, turning the future into the past, rather than a foundational vector from past to future, then nothing can be truly separated from its action. There is no such thing as a dimensionless point in time, as that would require freezing the very action creating the events in the first place, much like trying to take a picture with the shutter speed set at zero. So it's not as though the particle is at multiple locations, but that it cannot be exactly specified at any one location. It would be like taking an action shot with a fast shutter speed, vs. a slow shutter speed. You actually get more detail with less information, with the fast shot. That is the position, vs. the slow shutter speed being the wave.
    As for the jets out of the core of galaxy black holes, I think black holes are the eye of the storm and the mass falling into them is radiated back as out these jets. Our own galaxy has been discovered to have enormous gamma ray bubbles. I suspect this is simply the same effect, but without sufficient energy to escape the pull of the home galaxy, so it is falling back in, rather than reaching escape velocity.
    • thumb
      Mar 16 2012: Time is a hard one to get your head wrapped around. Especially in trying to figure out how it effects space during gravitational time dilation, in General Relativity! I need help there, can't deny that.
      • thumb
        Mar 16 2012: Mike,
        I think the four dimensional geometry of spacetime is simply correlation between distance and duration, given the effects of acceleration, gravity, etc. on slowing or speeding atomic activity. Nothing can exceed the speed of light, so if you accelerate mass, the velocity has to be subtracted from the internal action of the electrons, so its clock rate slows. So if you are timing light from an accelerated frame, your clock runs slower, therefore the speed of light seems constant.
        As I mentioned previously, when the idea this means the entire universe can be expanding, as measured by the redshift of distant galaxies, they forgot that they still use C as a constant. If those galaxies are actually moving away from us, in constant lightyears, that's not expanding space, only increasing distance. Which, given that redshift is directly proportional to distance, would have to mean we are at the exact center of the universe. Redshift being due to an optical effect makes much more sense. When light is bent around a gravity field, that is an optical effect, because the source of that light isn't being moved, only the path of the light is affected. Similarly those distant galaxies are not likely to be moving away in some larger frame, just that the light is being lensed in a way that isn't currently appreciated, especially since we can't exactly measure what does happen to light over such distances.
    • thumb
      Mar 17 2012: Thanks John. Time is just a measure of the rate of change.

      Like in General Relativity, as a photon travels through curved space, it takes longer for the photon to travel between two quantum points in space since they are stretched apart, which would mean a stretch in frequency and a slower time would be measured, and c = c.

      I revised my original post to keeping this in mind.
  • thumb
    Mar 15 2012: Mike, (the post didn't load a reply button)
    I think the whole notion of spacetime as causal, blocktime, etc. is wrong. I think spacetime is simply correlation, not causation. Here is someone who goes into it far more extensively than I: http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/
    Physics has come to the conclusion that math is a foundational structure to reality, rather than a reductionistic modeling of the patterns generated by nature. Space doesn't curve, bend, contract, etc. because it has no physical properties. It is simply an infinite equilibrium state. It is the physical elements which interact relativistically. It is said that space is contracted by gravity because the mass measurement points fall together. Einstein originally proposed the cosmological constant to balance this effect, so the universe would be stable. With the discovery of redshift by Hubble, it was presumed the universe must be expanding, because the measurement points, as described by the doppler effect, are moving apart. Since this effect is compounded by distance, it doesn't quite follow the rate of slowing expansion, as proposed by BBT. Thus there must be some "dark energy" sustaining this expansion. Yet it is found to match Einstein's original CC. In fact is is both theorized and proven through studies of background radiation that expansion and gravitational contraction are balanced, resulting in the observable universe being flat, much as a small potion of the earth's surface is flat. What if it really is flat and what we are really seeing is a convection cycle of collapsing mass and expanding radiation? We know that once mass gets dense and hot enough, it burns, ie, turns back into radiation. What if, once radiation cools off enough, it starts to condense back out as sub-atomic particles and starts the whole cycle over again, falling into galaxies? So that redshifted light is what managed to travel only across the open void and not get pulled back into galaxies, at least until it fell in ours.
  • thumb
    Mar 21 2012: I started a new topic to focus on 1 key point: How to measure photon's frequency in general relativity, considering the photon is travelling through curved space:

    http://www.ted.com/conversations/10197/gravitational_red_shift_confus.html
    • thumb
      Mar 17 2012: Seems these would be serious sources of energy for some special spots out in deep space, perhaps between emitting and receiving galaxies, where these two different gravitational time wells balance each other out! Might be a good place took have a look for lots of Dark Energy?
  • thumb
    Mar 16 2012: To clear things up and support original post, that gravitational time dilation of photons during gravitational redshifting would result in a lose of energy from the photons, into the stretching of space, and being the energy source behind Dark Energy.

    Here's a more solid explanation:

    In General Relativity, a photon that looks like it was redshifted by the relative motions of galaxies, could actually have been gravitationally redshifted by gravitational time dilation. The results would be the same! Supported here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/gratim.html#c1

    There are a lot of photons (of all frequencies), out there, and they're all going through gravitational time dilation out there! All of them! Also, galaxies put all sorts of photons out, and there still is all of that cosmic background radiation.

    Since there are a lot of photons out there going through gravitational redshifting, it's not too far of a stretch to say, that is a lot of energy that could potentially lost into space, from gravitational redshifting!

    *side note: what happens when all of that cosmic background radiation falls into the deep gravity wells of galaxies? Depends on source I suppose?

    In other places there would be a gain of energy into space, during gravitational blueshifting, where photons arrive into deeper gravity wells, with more energy than they had, when they left the shallower gravity well.

    The net lose of energy in photons going from higher gravitational fields (heavy galaxies) to lower gravitational fields (lighter galaxies) will have been lost into the stretching of space, again due to the gravitational time dilation of photons during gravitational redshifting. The converse would also be true.
  • thumb
    Mar 16 2012: To clear some things up, and to support original post about gravitational time dilation of photons, during gravitational redshifting, as being the root source of Dark Energy:

    In General Relativity, a photon that was redshifted by the relative motions of galaxies, could actually have been gravitationally redshifted, by gravitational time dilation, and the results would be the same! Supported here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/gratim.html#c1

    There are a lot of photons (of all frequencies), out there, and they're all going through gravitational time dilation out there! All of them! Also, galaxies put out all sorts of photons.

    Since there are a lot of photons out there going through gravitational redshifting, that is a lot of energy lost into space! Again, in some places. Also, in other areas of space, there would be a gain of energy into space, during gravitational blueshifting, where photons arrive into heavier galaxies, with more energy than they had when they left the lighter galaxies, in shallower gravity wells.

    The net lose of energy in photons going from higher gravitational fields (heavy galaxies) to lower gravitational fields (lighter galaxies) will have been lost into the stretching of space, again due to the gravitational time dilation of photons during gravitational redshifting. The converse would also be true.
  • thumb
    Mar 14 2012: Finishing reply to Ken,

    Now if you treated this as a wave pattern, it would be redshifted, ie. longer spaces between each drip. So for the closer galaxies, there is sufficient light that it is like the steady flow, but beyond a certain distance, ie, out past the local cluster, the light starts to "drip." The further out you go and the less frequent the drips/photons are, thus redshift.
  • thumb
    Mar 14 2012: Unless redshift is an optical effect and not actually due to recession, then dark energy isn't necessary. Light has no mass, so it has no gravity, so what holds a quanta of light together in a vacuum? Wouldn't it simply expand, so that the received photon isn't a particular one that traveled billions of lightyears, but is a sampling of the entangled bosons? Light would then be holographic, rather than pixelated.
    This also would eliminate the need for inflation as well having to explain the singularity.
    Also if space actually expands, why does the theory assume a stable speed of light? If two galaxies are x lightyears apart and the universe doubled in size, presumably they would be 2x lightyears apart, but that's not expanding space, just an increased amount of stable space, as measured in lightyears. So space is supposed to expand because light is redshifted, but is stable according to C?
    Remember that galaxies are not simply fixed points in space, but are gravity wells, so the space expanding between them, would be falling into them, possibly then effectively radiated out as the constituent energy of the mass which fell in, so that it is a convection cycle of collapsing discrete mass and expanding holographic energy. Perpetual motion is possible in infinity, because energy is conserved. What radiates away from one area is matched by what radiates in from surrounding areas.
    Remember that math only measures. It doesn't explain. Epicycles were mathematically accurate, because the stars do follow very predictable patterns. It was the physics which didn't make sense. Cosmology is a patchwork, because anomalies are not reasons to question the theory, but opportunities for theorists to make a name by patching it
    • thumb
      Mar 14 2012: I was referring to the gravitational time dilation of photons as being behind the accelerated expansion of our universe. I believe the perceived redshifted photons are the result of the stretched space from the gravitational time dilation process, even out in deep intergalactic space.
      • thumb
        Mar 14 2012: Mike,
        The problem with that, is the lensed light from distant galaxies, passing through intermediate galaxies, would be accelerated on entering them, which would balance out the deceleration from leaving these gravity wells. What the redshift refers to is that the further away they are, the greater the proportion of redshift, such that by the 13.7 billion lightyear limit of what we see, they appear to be receding at close to the speed of light. The obvious answer would be that redshift being proportional to distance, is a function of distance. Meaning that the effect is compounded. For example, when light leaves its source, it has to expand to fill the volume of space and the further away, the greater the rate the volume increases. Since light is considered to be discrete quantum particles, it is assumed they travel as such from the source to the receiver. So the only way for them to be redshifted is if the source is receding. Now if the light expands out to fill that volume and the quantum is primarily a function of how light is released and absorbed by matter, rather than a unit unto itself, the quantum received would be a sample of this expanded wave front, rather than a particular particle of light that had traveled billions of lightyears.
        Some links to consider:
        http://www.fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2008CChristov_WaveMotion_45_154_EvolutionWavePackets.pdf
        http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2007/9/modern-cosmology-science-or-folktale
        • thumb
          Mar 15 2012: Wouldn't it only be balanced out if the photon left and entered the same dimensioned gravity wells though?

          I concede that the redshift of light between galaxies is due to the motion of the galaxies moving away from each other.

          It could be by some other processes, similar to those in gravitational time dilation, that result in an expansion of space from loss of energy in photons. Some other interactions of photons with space, or that result in collisions, maybe.

          Just really seems that the most likely source of energy for Dark Energy, is coming from photons, and gravitational time dilation shows us how it's possible for that specific process to result in an expansion of space due to photons.

          I should make some modifications, corrections perhaps, to my original post, but I'll leave it the way it started.

          Thanks for the links.
    • thumb
      Mar 14 2012: Is this correct john

      Our Milkyway has it's own bubble of expanding space which we are tagged to our local group with it's own bubbles of expansion.does our local group have it's own bubble of expansion? and our own supercluster,bubbles within bubbles?

      That's how i see the current view of space from my couch which means, the average joe and average everything else.
      • thumb
        Mar 14 2012: Ken,
        I'm not a cosmologist myself, but have followed the subject for over thirty years, the last twenty of which I've increasingly come to see a a modern example of epicycles; In which some very basic misconceptions have been accepted and built into the model, such that most of what has been developed over the last century is distorted, with increasingly complex patches required to fit theory to observation. Suffice to say, I get treated as a crank when I go on physics forums, but at least I'm not talking about multiverses.
        Actually the local group(s) are not considered to be expanding, since they are held together by gravity being stronger than expansion. This all boils down to what happens to light when it crosses extremely enormous distances. Something which humanity will never be able to test directly. For one thing light is absorbed by mass as very small units. If it isn't enough energy to push the orbit of the electron in an atom to a higher orbit, it can't be detected and measured. That is a quantum of light, a photon. Since science is obsessed by measurements, it is argued that this is the fundamental nature of light. Yet what if it is only the nature of the relationship between light and mass? What if light exists in a more wholistic form, but can only be measured quantitatively?
        When they take these pictures of very distant galaxies, they essentially have to leave the shutter of the camera open for a long time, to collect enough light. So what if these atoms in the collection surface are like popcorn and have to be heated up by the light, before they "pop" and register a quanta of light? Think in terms of a dripping faucet: When there is a bit of water coming out, it's a flow, but tightened beyond a certain point and it starts to drip, due to the surface tension of water and the force of gravity. Now tighten it further and the drips remain the same size, but they become less frequent. Now if you treated this as a wave pattern, it would be redshifted, ie
        • thumb
          Mar 15 2012: I don't have a problem with cranks

          Sometimes they're the ones that have better insight than the group.Take for instance harlton c arp,though the debacle was somewhat settled within his community his observations still stands as data that should be looked at,it was arp that was trying to tell hawkings 30 years ago that there was evidence of high speed gas jets coming out of some blackholes but hawking paid no attention.As far as i know he has a valid theory that blueshifted spiral galaxies like our own goes through a evolutionary period where it gives birth to qassars,again as far as i know he has more data on this than what they currently have for the existence of dark matter.

          http://arpgalaxy.com/

          It all hinges on whether there is something not quite right about hubbles law or there is an extra component to light we are missing,thanks for the info it saves me trashing through big banger pdf's.

          I know what you mean when it comes to this sudden multiverse crap.Okay they have a great experiment that atoms vibrate,fine but to me from a average joes position,it looks like it's complying to the 6 points gives you a location as the atom doesn't jump all over the place but returns to center.It's a fanciful idea i had one day.

          I see multiverse proponents as dreamers and those that are intelligent that get caught up in it glytch themselves in unending cycles of expansion.

          Could this influence light as it travels?

          http://scitechdaily.com/ultra-fast-outflows-are-common-features-of-black-hole-powered-galaxies/
  • thumb
    Mar 13 2012: I think this will be of interest to you if you haven't already seen it.

    http://scitechdaily.com/dark-matter-core-of-abell-520-differs-from-bullet-cluster/

    and this the heretic of astronomy,this guy has some interesting data that is conveniently ignored.

    http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/from_high_redshift_galaxies_to_the_blue_pacific
    • thumb
      Mar 14 2012: Thanks! That was interesting.

      Black hole powered galaxies and their streams sure put out a lot of high energy photons and other particles!

      Ken brown posted: http://scitechdaily.com/ultra-fast-outflows-are-common-features-of-black-hole-powered-galaxies/.

      Wonder what would the gravity well be like for the photons in those particle jets?
      • thumb
        Mar 15 2012: That's where knowledgeable people like you come into it where is average joes like me can only wildly speculate.if what i can understand of what john is trying to put across is that photons might change flavour as they go intergalactic or get cold.interesting.

        Those ufo's blew me away when i read that article, i immediately thought could this account for a galaxies similar orbit speeds of it's stars but as always i rein myself in as the article says it's findings was in 40%? of total galaxies observed during the run?I better read it again.

        How would photons react when encountering a qassar? which to me are the great mystery of the universe.They are the most powerful objects in the observable universe.