The only difference in one reference to another is the referring to light is energy it possess since light’s energy is dictated by wave length.

E = hc/²

Wavelengths are always described as space stretching light out and we’ll find out this is an acceptable exclamation, but it’s a bit deceiving to the true Nature of our Universe. Light or photons are an excitation of the electromagnetic field and they don’t have any dimensions you cannot stretch to a point that a notion doesn’t make sense,  because light doesn’t have light mass. It must move since it moves @C or the speed of light. It mathematically doesn’t have a reference frame, however we then describe light using an arbitrary frame of reference that we can plot it’s movement along with it’s oscillation and now we can visualize and describe it by it’s wavelength.

Wavelengths are a description of wavelengths, not something it physically has but is. By focusing on it’s wavelengths it then makes sense to say the expansion of space has stretched our lights wavelength but this can be deceiving. So the relativistic Doppler effect even though light is a quantum quantum we could describe it as a singular particle, you can only explain in the Doppler effect when visualizing light as a wave and you can explain it using Newtonian Physics,  which I will right at the end but it’s not physically accurate in a simple way.

As a wave impinges or collides with a surface the crest impacts a certain amount of times over a specific time period. We use seconds of the time period and thus hertz as the frequency the inverse of frequency therefore is how long it takes for a simple crest to arrive after another this is called period, when the object or wall in which our wave is colliding with its moving away from the direction of propagation, then the distance and therefore Time each subsequent crest needs to travel before colliding with our wall increases.

If motionless our wavelength is simply the speed of the waves times the period. However, now our wavelength is the (speed of waves),  (times our new period) and (our new wavelength)  plus (the recession speed of the Wall times the new period). We have one unknown so we can solve the equation:

λ + v x T² = C x T²

We just rearrange it first to isolate the new period and in doing so we can clean it up a bit and introduce a new variable;

λ=CT² (1-v/c)

and now introduces a new variable;

λ =C T² (1-ß)

Beta now when we isolate t we can move c to the left;

λ/c 1/1-ß = T²…….the side lambda over c is the Universe frequency.

We can now calculate the new period or better yet the inverse of the period is the frequency…… f1 1/1-ß = T²

The inverse of frequency is f1 (1-ß) = 1/T²

Our new Redshift frequency is the original frequency minus the same frequency x beta.

f1 (1-ß) = f2 or the ratio between the two v/c speeds.

Now that we see it requires a little extra time for our wave crests to impinge one another, it’s crests distances are  important to know. Relative to who,  as our objects begin receding from each other at relativistic speeds,  like we see from spatial expansion over billions of light years away, the time slows down relative to one another so we need to apply the (Lawrence Transformation) to our new frequency and this is actually really simple. A Lawrence transformation tells us how the perceived dialation of time or contraction of Space appears on a fast moving reference frame compared to someone outside of it. So if we look at the new frequency then….. f² = f1 (1-ß) from our previous Doppler formula this new frequency is what we would expect to see if Time passed the same.

f² = f1 (1-ß) passed at the source of light. However it doesn’t. So we just apply a Lawrence Transformation….now we have our new frequency;

f² = f1 1-ß/1-ß

So now we can predict our new frequencies.

ℑ = 1/1-Β

New frequency at relativistic speeds when Redshift is described as space stretching the wavelength it’s done so because it’s simply easier and technically not wrong, what is happening is that during the lights journey from wherever it was emitted,  Earth’s frame of reference continues to expand or accelerate away from the light’s current position in space. This rate of acceleration decays as the light gets closer. But when the light takes multiple billions of years to reach earth it has a long time to keep accelerating from the Source’s reference frame. Lastly what about a singular photon light can indeed be described as a particle so Redshift should make sense on a particle, but also to the nature of light and it doesn’t, but the light doesn’t have mass. It has momentum so we can simply picture a Newtonian example of a Particle colliding with a wall. Its strength of impact can be strengthened or weakened by moving the wall towards or away from a Particle,  a Newtonian Particle that gets it’s momentum because each particle has it’s own unique frame of reference. Whereas a light’s momentum is dependent on the frame of reference, which measures it,  not to mention to whoever observes the light on impact when it appears to be  travelling at the correct speed of light. So, it’s not a great way to visualize it but conceptually.

Yes, the acceleration away from the point in space means when a particle of light reaches us, it’s lost a lot of it’s momentum, and then that’s why we experience a Redshift of ancient intergalactic.

So Hubble H0 @ 70 mp second

x megaparsec

S x megaparsec

But Why? How relativity Redshifts light the Relativistic Doppler shift.

Groups of waves are seen with “frame of reference”

                 (((((((((((0   )  )   )   )  )    )     )    )

Speed of light, Speed of ball, Speed of waves.

Interesting just take a look and do your own research about the source, the frame of reference of speed of wavelengths and the Doppler Effect and the Lawrence Transformation.

Studied and passed on by CDHogarth

  the Universe is always balancing itself….