# Thread: does EM energy decrease with red-shifting?

1. The minimum energy carried by a wave of electromagnetic radiation is given by E=fh, right? When an object emitting radiation moves away from us, the radiation emitted in our direction is red-shifted, right? But doesn't that imply that frequency (f) should decrease? Therefore, does the minimum energy of the radiation decrease when it red-shifts?

(If the answer is yes, I'm assuming energy is one of those dilating variables that relativity predicts - like time, length, mass, etc. - of course, "dilating" would be the wrong word in this case).

2.

3. Your premise is correct. Red-shifting indicates a reduction in energy.

In your original post, delete all appearances of the word minimum.
It is not required and it is even misleading.

4. In the extreme case of red-shifting, when the energy approaches zero, and I mean extreme, would that indicate that anything we would perceive of that red-shift arena would ultimnately be an apparition?

5. Yes. As with blue shift the principle of the whole idea derives from the energy-obviously everntually visible light would become either infrared or ultra violet radiation as it continued in the direction of whatever it was going in-provided that we are talking about particles of light-as in photons. When waves it brings in something called the Euler Charateristic (an algebraic topology used to explain geometry-this case being the spacetime continuum-it gets more and more complicated, but is fairly simple when you take it step by step).

Hey streamSystems-i see you're going up in this forum in terms of rank ^^.

6. My rank is an apparition as well, I think.

The further I post, the more red-shifted, far out, it seems my posts are, leading to an "apparition rank".

As a question though, with stellar phenomena, is there any "apparition effect" with some/part of the phenomena of the stars that we perceive?

7. Its possible, i mean if the light was red shifted or whatever the 'apparition' would in effect have appeared from one place out of place from where it was. For instance if a photon travelled towards us at the speed of light then its wavelength would increase-hence frequency, energy etc, but it is possible that somewhere out there that ruptures in the spacetime continuum could in effect speed up light relative to our perception-say if it passed a black hole, and even though the odds are it would not escape-its energy from surviving due to its increase in velocity would increase energy too, this would not be a red shift effect this would be something totally new.

Now if that photon travelled towards us again-we may not see it-it could be an x-ray by now, and who knows from there. It is really at the brink of physics. Stephen Hawking CH, CBE, FRS, FRSA works on black holes and GR (General Relativity)-and the effect of black body radiation, but this is where GR breaks down in black holes and hence the increase in energy of that black hole give to that photon is able to sound logical as spacetime breaks down and quantum physics overlap. At this point quantum physics acertains dominace and any explanation from here is subject to quantum mechanical brick walls-such as Heisenberg's uncertaincy principle, the age old correspondence principle etc. So unless any string theorists care to indulge in this discussion, I'm afraid I can't really contribute any more as I really don't know.

8. Originally Posted by svwillmer
the Euler Charateristic (an algebraic topology used to explain geometry-this case being the spacetime continuum-it gets more and more complicated, but is fairly simple when you take it step by step).
Please take us step by step then, we are here to learn.

9. Well the Euler Characterisitc was originally defined for polyhedra-which is the term for polyhedrons which given an equation gives us a formulae called Euler's formula. I really do not want to go into this topic as I'd have to go into GREAT detail-this is a topic where all the geometry of polyhedra comes into play-from planars to 4 dimensional planars. This is also theoretical physics and has not been proven. It only applies due to the geodesic nature of spacetime and the curves that spacetime can cause-not just curves but full shapes.

Nowadays it is a number that describes one aspect of a topological space's shape or structure-and thats why it applies to spacetime-hence to black holes and its effect on red shift-again this is very theoretical and subject to much criticism

Click here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler_Characteristic] to find out more-then look for theoretical work on red shift. I really cannot say much because it will take a long time-it is a very long theoretical discussion that borders TOE (Theory Of Everything) due to its nature of quantum physics and gravity.

I'm sorry I can't explain it-it really is a mind boggler. Like I said-it gets easier step by step and I can't remember every step! [/url]

10. What though would that phenomena look like.....the apparitions.

I mean, lets discuss the pictures first, and then move onto the more difficult stuff.

Lets just say, as a worst case scenario, that the stars we see represent a general apparition, the percentage of which we are not sure of yet. But, a percentage being the apparition.

What would that apparition look like?

What would be the false image we perceive?

Ghosts, if we are lead to believe, are "apparitions".

So, I guess, what "sky ghost", what great night spirit, would we perceive, if ghosts are to be believed?

It is interesting that many cultures make note of the night sky ghost.

I know.

If we are all certain there IS NO GOD, why don't we say GOD is that apparition and be done with THAT.

GUESS WHAT!!!

Some cultures have done that.

If space-time was combined with a theory of percetion, could we suggest that there could exist, potentially, a universal "apparition" perception, that if we combined a theory of perception with space-time in a way that explained the stars to have an "apparition" quality, breathing life into the concept of a universal "apparition" entity, yet of course an 'apparition" nonetheless, nothing we should be too concerned about, right?

What if that apparition of the universe of stars could be an apparition in our mind's eye, as we know any apparition is?

What if someone wanted to BE that apparition by extending their own mind's eye, relative to the apparition of the stars, to their own "zodiac body"?

Would that person be taken seriously?

11. Originally Posted by svwillmer
I'm sorry I can't explain it-it really is a mind boggler. Like I said-it gets easier step by step and I can't remember every step!
Sorry to appear unkind, but you don't really know what you're talking about do you?

You know, you would do yourself much more credit on this, or any other, forum, by admitting to your ignorance. Some of the people who are most liked and respected here are those who are willing to learn, rather than dish up a casserole of poorly understood technical concepts culled form the web.

12. Guitarist, you have echoed my thoughts exactly.

And BTW, I'm glad to see you have decided to stick around
rather than carry out your earlier threats to abandon this forum.
Â*

13. Guitarist and SteveF, before I do answer what I do know, tell me all you know about spacetime and I'll see if you're able to understand what I'm able to tell you. streamSystems is, so we'll wait for you.

PS streamSystems I am really quite excited by your response-this is what I was thinking about recently-that we may see more things than we should in the universe. I'll go into more detail when these two are worthy. On the note of you two, what I'm saying is THEORY-not science fact-so please bear with me-theory is after all called that because it still has holes that need sealing so please bear with me when I say I know what I'm on about.

14. Yeah, thanks Steve; am I weak-willed or what? If I smoked (I don't) I would never be able to quit.

Anyway.... I freely confess my inability to understand the Euler Characteristic. I have learned some algebraic topology, not much, but I do know a lot of homotopy theory, that part of algebraic topology that seems most relevant here.

I can see the general idea, but ask me for a proof? In your dreams!

(What a way to end a Monday - as if Monday wasn't bad enough!)

15. Originally Posted by svwillmer
tell me all you know about spacetime
Spacetime is a 4-manifold with some special properties,.

You do know what a manifold is, right? And no more WikiWhatever soup, you tell us, in your own words, if you can.

16. Originally Posted by svwillmer
Guitarist and SteveF, before I do answer what I do know, tell me all you know about spacetime and I'll see if you're able to understand what I'm able to tell you. streamSystems is, so we'll wait for you.

PS streamSystems I am really quite excited by your response-this is what I was thinking about recently-that we may see more things than we should in the universe. I'll go into more detail when these two are worthy. On the note of you two, what I'm saying is THEORY-not science fact-so please bear with me-theory is after all called that because it still has holes that need sealing so please bear with me when I say I know what I'm on about.

In the early nighties (last century (I love saying that)), I researched topological mathematics extensively to better understand how to "graph" a true structure of space-time, which is basically what the Euler Characteristic is all about.

I did this while studying Medicine.

Owing to my biological sciences skills, and studying anatomical and physiological topology (aka cells), I though it would be neat if instead of going the pathway of topological mathematics, why not create a new space-tine grid incorportating a theory of perception that is anatomically, anatomically topologically, accurate.

So I did (results at www button below).

My theory contains all the integral topological structures (torus, sphere, moebius, and then some), all worked into a holistic algorithm.

The results have indicated to me that a great portion of the phenomena we view as the stars is in fact a "apparition", this from a new version of mathematical toplogy.

I am also arguing that the infrastructure of mathematics as applied to physics is insufficient to properly understand topology. An extra dimension of time, for instance, is needed to explain how one sphere goes from one place in time to ANOTHER place in time, two spheres each representing a "different time axis" each in a 3-d space matrix (that's also in the www download).

17. I know a manifold is to do with spatial topologies given higher dimensions and the neighbourhoods that lie near euclidian space, thats all I need to know for the theory. You did not answer my question of all you know about spacetime-you basically threw the key out of the window. I'm not into really deep mathematics because it is irrelevant. When I cross the areas of maths I need for physics I investigate it and given the theory that I know all I need to know is the Euler characteristic, if I need to know more I will learn more. I underestimated your understanding it seems. You know a great more than your letting on.

PS streamSystems I'll get back to you when I've read your pdf paper. It's using a lot of memory from my RAM! It is all very intruiging. I can't help but feel overwhelmed by the idea that this could be future science fact.

18. THE TOPOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HUMAN ANTATOMY reflect the workings of our mind and essentially our ability to understand space-time.

We use the decimal system because we have 10 fingers.

Of course, a basic observation, but the topological features of the human thought process gets a lot more complicated the more it is examined.

19. Originally Posted by gib65
But doesn't that imply that frequency (f) should decrease?
You're perfectly correct in your premise, but I just wanted to point out that your reasoning is somewhat circular here.
The electromagnetic radiation is red-shifted because of the change in frequency; it's Doppler Effect in action.

I just wanted to point out that your reasoning is somewhat circular here.
The electromagnetic radiation is red-shifted because of the change in frequency; it's Doppler Effect in action.
Hm, I think this is arse-about

Correct me if I'm wrong: change in EM frequency is the result of the Doppler Effect for EM radiation. This change in frequency is a shift-to-red for bodies emitting EM radiation moving away from the observer, and a shift-to- blue for such bodies approaching the observer.

This implies that these shifts are the result of the Doppler Effect as a result of relative motion, doesn't it? I don't think your because above is justified.

But then, I'm no expert.

21. Guitarist is correct that a red/blue shift can arise as a result of the Doppler effect.

A red shift will also occur as a result of gravitation, as is the case with light emitted from a very massive star.
Â*

22. Well, well! Is this true? I suppose it must be, as, for example, light cannot escape from an infinite gravitational well, i.e. a black hole.

But surely, in general, the red-shift due to the mutual recession of stellar objects will overwhelm any red-shift due to the gravitational field of any individual massive stellar object? I am way out of my league here!

I have a feeling we're in the wrong sub-forum here.

23. Originally Posted by Guitarist
Correct me if I'm wrong: change in EM frequency is the result of the Doppler Effect for EM radiation. This change in frequency is a shift-to-red for bodies emitting EM radiation moving away from the observer, and a shift-to- blue for such bodies approaching the observer.

This implies that these shifts are the result of the Doppler Effect as a result of relative motion, doesn't it? I don't think your because above is justified.
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying: because of the Doppler Effect. Doppler effect = change in frequency due to relative motion. Where's the problem? If it's one of confusing linguistics, I apologize for my hitherto personally unnoticed ambiguity; axiomatic to someone of your fluency I'm sure. Perhaps you could give me a lesson in clarity of word choice and sentence structure, oh wise one.

The electromagnetic radiation is red-shifted because of the change in frequency;
You don't see this as a tautology? Well, I think it is.

And
Perhaps you could give me a lesson in clarity of word choice and sentence structure, oh wise one.
Please leave out the sarcasm, oh aggressive one!

25. Originally Posted by Guitarist