Be careful reading this. The red shift of the sun is very well known and undisputed. This paper talks about "relative" blueshifts for coronal holes and they are not talking about the general redshift which is very small but measurable with good resolution spectrometers from the ground. The Skylab solar spectrometers did not have sufficient spectral resolution to measure the center to limb variation for example. I checked. You have to suspect the spectral resolution of sounding rocket instruments as fine as they are. Some elements have different red shifts depending on high in the solar atmosphere they arise, those element lower in the atmospher have bigger red shifts as might be expected from both a Compton interpretation and a gravitational interpretation.

Marmet's paper probably has references to the actual measurements and I believe there is a good chart in Thorne's big book "Gravitation" that summarizes all the data. Or you can look it up in my March 1968 paper in Solar Physics. The data has been taken for many years and is clear. Evershed made some of the measurements for many years, but many others have routinely made it. There are considerable differences in the magnitude of the shift depending on when they were measured, indicating that it may vary over the solar cyle depending on solar activity. Compton was well aware of this red shift and ascribed it to the Compton Effect in his long paper on the effect published very early on. Many of the shifts at the limb are greater than the predicted intrinsic gravitational redshift. (I predict that no difference will be seen.)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: John Kierein on 2003-01-14 21:08 ]</font>

Thanks, John K., for the references, but I did not find what you were referring to in anything but your paper (from the late 60s). MTW makes no mention of intrinsic redshift other than the gravitational redshift that is seen as GM/(Rc^2). So, let me get this straight, you're saying after this is taken into account there is a skew relationship. If so, why isn't it talked about in the data analysis of the second paper I cited? They were talking about absolute measurments of spectral lines and not about differential measurements.

The time-varying nature of any phenomenon such as this would, to me, indicate that there is something not right. Please stear me in the direction of some data, if you will.

In his Seeing Red, Halton Arp wrote that quantization of redshifts is a "phenomenon that could not occur if redshifts were caused by velocities."

That's true, is it not? If so, then any convincing evidence for redshift quantization would be fatal for the Big Bang Theory, would it not?

Here is what Halton Arp said about the 2dF and SDSS surveys.

I wonder if Big Bang Theory proponents are in denial about quantization of redshifts.

-Glen

_________________
Glen W. Deen, BSEE
Dayton C. Miller observed the ether wind: "The Ether-Drift Experiment" Reviews of Modern Physics, 5, 202-242 (1933).

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: glendeen on 2003-01-15 09:09 ]</font>

And what are their choices otherwise? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Sounds like sour grapes to me. Arp agreed to the test and nothing came out... that's NOTHING. Now he says that the results aren't correct.

Arp is a good observationalist but has always had a hard time admitting when he was wrong.

I have looked at the histograms of redshift distributions from SDSS and they fit the selection functions exactly. This means that there is no generalized quantization of redshifts at all.

It is very sad that when the data is so clear and when a test is agreed upon by all parties that people won't move on. But pride goeth before the fall.

Dear JS Princeton,

This thread refers to your criticism of my paper at http://home1.gte.net/res00bfl/Redshift_Physics.htm
"THE PHYSICS OF AN EPISODIC QUANTIZED REDSHIFT"

JS, I never said an atom is a sphere. I was writing about hypothetical episodic quantized physical blueshifts in atomic length scales. The issue is what are the implications for the local physics of the Earth over its own lifetime if the observed galaxy and quasar redshifts are intrinsic functions of age (and not Doppler shifts caused by an expanding universe) and the Earth follows a similar pattern of occasionally experiencing a quantized physical blueshift as it ages.

Do you disagree with the following assertion that I make?

An expanding universe in which galaxies exhibit redshifts that are proportional to their distances from the observer is indistinguishable from a static universe in which galaxies experience intrinsic redshifts proportional to the lookback time.

In other words, we can't distinguish between lookback distance and lookback time because each is proportional to the other. As we look back farther in time, we see younger galaxies at greater distances.

If you disagree, please tell me how you would distinguish between an expanding and a static universe merely on the basis of the observed cosmological redshifts.

Intrinsic blueshifting proportional to age (redshifting proportional to lookback time) would mean that young galaxies have longer atomic length scales and older galaxies have shorter atomic length scales. The wavelength of an emitted photon is surely related to the size of the electron orbit that emitted it. An intrinsic blueshift would occur if the length scale of an atom suddenly shrank as a result of some unknown mechanism. If we can't imagine what that mechanism might be, we can at least imagine what the consequences of such an event would be. We can also insist that such sudden scale changes must permeate an entire galaxy and not be restricted to single atoms in order for the effect to be observed as we observe it.

I admit that the above assertion is problematic. Here is an easier (?) alternative theory.

Suppose that Earth is at the center of a spherical lens (or a set of concentric spherical lenses) that is (are) expanding in time. In such a case the galaxy images we see would be projected images that move outward with an apparent recessional velocity that is proportion to the radius of the expanding lens.

What would create such a cosmic lens? It would be created if the speed of light were slower inside the lens and faster outside it. In other words, the lens surface would be the boundary at which the speed of light suddenly changes. This boundary would have to expand at some velocity unknown to me.

The k values are not exactly arbitrary, and the formulae are exact, not approximate. (Please tell me if you found an error.) The value of k is chosen to make some physical quantity ratio invariant. In table I, column a corresponds to making the force ratio invariant, column b corresponds to making the frequency, time, energy, torque, moment of inertia, angular velocity, angular acceleration, and power ratios invariant, and so on.

Column
c makes the electric current ratio invariant,
d makes the acceleration and inductance ratios invariant,
e makes the velocity, charge, magnetic flux, and resistance ratios invariant,
f makes Newton's gravity constant ratio invariant, and
g makes the mass ratio invariant.

Columns b and e are set in bold type because they have multiple quantity ratios that are invariant. Note that in all cases angular momentum, permittivity of vacuum, phase angle, and action are always invariant.

The question is this. If the length scale of matter changes by some ratio L and the frequency of atomic phenomena changes by some ratio N, by what ratios do all the other physical quantities (time, energy, force, velocity, mass, etc.) change? It will be useful to express all ratio relationships in terms of L and N.

Let T = the time ratio. Obviously, T = 1/N. Time is inversely proportional to frequency and the time ratio is equal to the reciprocal of the frequency ratio.

Let W = the energy ratio. Obviously (from dW = hf where h is Planck's constant and f is frequency) W = N. Energy is proportional to frequency and the energy ratio is equal to the frequency ratio.

Let F = the force ratio. Obviously, F = W/L = N/L. Force is energy (work) divided by length, so the force ratio is equal to the frequency ratio divided by the length ratio.

Let V = the velocity ratio. Obviously V = L/T = LN. The velocity ratio is equal to the length ratio divided by the time ratio.

Let A = the acceleration ratio. It may not be obvious that A = V^2/L except from a dimensional analysis, but such an analysis is entirely appropriate for this purpose.

A = V/T
T = L/V
A = V/(L/V) = V^2/L = (LN)^2/L = LN^2

Let M = the mass ratio. Obviously M = F/A = (N/L)/(LN^2) = 1/NL^2

And so on for the other physical quantities. Once you have decided what ratios to make invariant, you can replace the N and L formulas with just an L formula. For example, if you decide to make the frequency invariant, then you can replace N with 1 in every formula. Then you find that if L goes down by 5.6% then the mass density D goes up by 33.5% and so on.

All I said was if frequency is invariant and the wavelength changes by some ratio, then the speed of light must change by the same ratio. This follows from

c = f lambda

where c is the speed of light, f is the frequency, and lambda is the wavelength. Do you find anything wrong with that statement?

Just because I propose a theory that violates a postulate of special and general relativity does not mean I have "no concept" of them. It seems to me that you are introducing technical terms for the purpose of confusing the discussion. What I am actually talking about is an inbound photon from some galaxy suddenly reducing its velocity as it crosses a spherical boundary centered on the Earth. I realize how odd that seems. Nevertheless I am forced to this conclusion by the idea of intrinsic redshifts.

How would you propose to explain intrinsic redshifts in galaxies and quasars?

I find it interesting that you say that recessional velocities have been shown to be larger than the speed of light. That fits with my idea that we are observing projected images of galaxies and not the real galaxies themselves. In this cosmic lens model the images recede at a velocity that is proportional to the expanding lens radius, and there is no speed limit. Since there are many quantization levels, there must be as many concentric lenses.

I did not invent the term "lookback time". See page 313 of Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles, Princeton University Press, 1993.

Lookback time is "the time measured back from the present world time."

Why do you say it has no meaning in physics? I dare say that most readers of this forum know exactly what it means.

Your comment does not apply to my quoted statement. I was just stating facts. Are you disputing those facts? I said nothing about Earth traveling at the speed of light. The theoretical motion of the Milky Way with respect to the Virgo cluster has nothing to do with my reasoning.

Actually wrong? Kindly show me any mathematical errors that you found.

Dimensional analysis is rigorous precisely because it is rudimentary. Show me any errors please. When dealing with ratios, I hope you realize that constants of proportionality cancel out. For example, we usually write the formula for kinetic energy as

e = (1/2) m v^2

but if we compute an energy ratio W = e2/e1, and we define M = m2/m1 and V = v2/v1 then we get

W = MV^2

The (1/2) coefficients cancel out.

Please pay attention. Tables I and II show how physical quantities must vary, given a change in atomic length scale and assuming some particular quantity (say frequency or velocity) is invariant. These relations are purely mathematical and have nothing to do with any observations.

The observations are the redshifts of galaxies and quasars (and stars for that matter), and I daresay that these observations are not in dispute. The disputed idea is that if these redshifts are intrinsic and quantized, then this leads to a universe in which changes in physical atomic lengths occur in episodic quantum jumps as cosmological bodies (galaxies, stars, planets) age. It may be unclear to some whether we are talking about the atoms in the quasars and galaxies or the atoms in the Earth. By the Cosmological Principle, I think we must be talking about both.

Intrinsic means: 1: belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing; 2: originating or due to causes within a body.

What else can an intrinsic redshift or blueshift possibly mean other than a change in the atomic length scale of atoms (size of electron orbits), which governs the wavelength of emitted photons?

My ignorance has no bounds. Does yours? I am not playing games. Are you?

I know enough to say that the Big Bang Theory predicts an expansion of the universe, and that expansion must be smooth and not quantized. If there were any one observation that could falsify the Big Bang Theory, it would be the quantization of quasar and galactic redshifts.

Hence, Big Bang theorists must either quash redshift quantization observations or renounce the BBT.

JS, your error can be excused because you did not read my paper carefully. The time-invariant (or frequency-invariant) regime is mutually exclusive with the velocity-invariant regime. Please re-read the first paragraph following my heading "What Quantities are Invariant During a Quantized Redshift?".

"If a photon's wavelength suddenly changes while its frequency remains constant, then its velocity must change according to c = f lambda. Conversely, if a photon's wavelength suddenly changes while its velocity remains constant, then its frequency must change according to f = c/lambda. So which is it? Is frequency invariant or is the speed of light invariant, or is some other physical quantity such as force or mass invariant? They can't all be invariant, nor can any two of them be invariant in the same hypothetical model."

The question you should be asking is "how does the incoming galactic photon know where to change its velocity?" In other words, how does the photon know when it has crossed the spherical surface of this hypothetical cosmic lens? My answer to that would be that the permittivity of vacuum, epsilon naught, is everywhere the same, but according to the invariant frequency model in Table II, the ratio of the permeability of vacuum, mu naught, in one regime divided by that in another is inversely proportional to the square of the length scale ratios for those regimes.

Next, you should ask how can these concentric lenses be centered on the Earth? Would that not violate the Copernican Principle? Yes it would as far as cosmic photon rays are concerned. Of course, I could be wrong, but I believe that if you put a spectrographic telescope on the Moon or on Mars, you would find an entirely different set of galactic redshifts in each case. Earth orbit is the same as the Earth's surface; so don't start invoking the SST observations as disproving this hypothesis. This strange state of affairs would be because every planet has its own unique history of atomic scale changes, and the observed quantization of redshifts relates to Earth's own unique history.

I know there is a big problem with that idea, but I don't see how it could be otherwise. The problem is that this idea implies that the destination of every photon is determined before the photon is emitted. It must be so because every star and planet must have its own unique set of concentric cosmic lenses. So I don't blame people for rejecting the redshift quantization observations. The consequences for cosmology and astrophysics are just too terrible to contemplate.

-Glen

__________________
Glen W. Deen, BSEE
Dayton C. Miller observed the ether wind: "The Ether-Drift Experiment" Reviews of Modern Physics, 5, 202-242 (1933).

Yes, I disagree heartily. Putting aside the quantized redshifts which I see NO evidence for, one can distinguish between a dynamical and a static universe by looking at other evidences. For example, a microwave background or structure evolution or temperature studies of the distant ISM should all give us indications of whether or not the universe is dynamical or static. The CMB itself puts a huge constraint on static models that has NOT been adequately addressed. Even Agora has not been able to tell us what the CMB is other than blithely declaring it to be a noise signal.

In principle, the steady-staters have a point when they argue that galaxies in an infinite universe could just keep marching away from each other toward infinity. However, then you cannot have evolution or the CMB signature that we see.

Classical treatment of a quantum mechanical problem. There ARE no electron "orbits". Such things do not exist.

Actually, it wouldn't look like a blueshift at all because the mediating forces would have to be the same. What you are describing is something like an evolution in the fine-structure constant. This is actually an idea that is being explored today. However, its application changes a lot of the quantum physics and doesn't just simply "shift" the lines toward the blue. Rather many of the quantum absorption and emission reasonances are changed. Once you decide that a mechanism is changing a fundamental constant you have to consider the constants in parameter space not by the method that you use but rather by appealing to the quantum physics (otherwise you are guaranteed the wrong answer). Such explorations are done in a number of papers by Paul Davies. Look it up.

This is all well and good but utterly untestable and if you are going to create a "magical" lens that cannot be tested realize that what you will end up doing is having to explain away many of the phenomena we know are associated with boundary layers between different media (which is what a lens is). In particular you will have some reflection that will need to be observed. Guess what, it isn't!

This is overly simplistic as I pointed out earlier. In fact, what you HAVE to do is work through the physics. Check out Davies' work and see what I mean.

If only that were all you said. Instead you begin to draw conclusions from a very mundane mathematical situation: physical conclusions which are untenable for very specific reasons. What you need to do is actually LEARN about the theories before you can blindly criticize them. Otherwise you are no better than those that criticize evolution blindly.

What if I said, there's no such thing as air pressure? And then to answer the question, "What, then, allows heavier-than-air objects to become airborn" with the following:

Objects can fly because they reduce their gravity. We can see from Newtonian gravity:

F=MmG/r^2 that if we reduce G enough that the object will fly. Really what happens is a phase transition from the G=6.67*10^-12 to G=0 which isn't that great a jump but allows objects to fly. It is an unknown mechanism but I can work out the details.

Note that this argument is exactly the same in type to yours (only dealing with more familiar observations more common to the general public). It is just wrong because there are so many different things it doesn't take into account. Likewise your argumentation doesn't take into account consistent observations that show that put extreme bounds on changing speed of light. Without addressing these, any proposal is just pie-in-the-sky. Againk, read Davies for the constraints.

There is no evidence for such an "intrinsic" effect. There is evidence for cosmological expansion.

Only globally. There is no local violation of the speed of light for any recessional velocity that is calculable. Globally, one can easily have recessional velocities that are greater than the speed of light. It doesn't violate any physics, and in fact is required by current GR-cosmological models.

You won't give it up even though it's clear there aren't.

Because you use it inappropriately. It is not something manipulable as you would have it. That's nonphysical.

Overdensities and voids are not related in any way to terrestrial phenomena as can be proven simply by looking at what the actual density differences are in terms of g/pc^3. It is on the order of magnitude of 10^-57. That's just not going to account for mass extinctions! Sorry! This indicates you don't know anything about basic astronomical phenomena (like densities of galaxies as compared to densities on Earth).

I GAVE you an independent test of the quantization and you dismissed it for no reason. That's sour grapes. The playing ground was level. Your side lost. And I'm the one who has a problem?

What about at L2? And why is high Earth orbit no good? What about spectroscopic surveys of other planets that have occurred on space probes to those planets? Should they see a different physics there?

In short, you are full of basic nonsense because:

1) there is no evidence for quantized redshifts.

2) you don't know enough physics

3) there are phenomena you simply don't consider (such as the observational evidence for GR and the consistency of fundamental constants taken from astronomical observations).

OK. I have to admit that most of the technical details of this argument are above my head. I'm following the back-and-forth well enough, but always get lost in the math. That said I have a couple questions:

1. I've read quite a bit about the theories attempting to account for red-shift in a steady state universe. How do BB detractors explain the blue shift of object moving towards us (in the expansion model)?

2. If we could find a spinning galaxy that remained at a steady distance from ours (or nearly so) and was at the proper viewing angle; shouldn't we be able to measure both a blue-shift from it's leading edge and a red-shift from it's trailing edge as it spins in relation to us? I thought I remembered a series of such observations from a few years ago. (Any info on that?) Technically this should be measurable even for a galaxy in motion relative to ours, but a relatively motionless one should dispel any nitpicky-ness (well founded or not).

Maybe I'm out on a limb here: But, especially if #2 were true wouldn't that put to rest all the quantization, interstellar dust, and "tired" light arguments? So far as I can see none of them could explain both a blue-shift and a red-shift from the same object.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Rich on 2003-01-15 14:05 ]</font>

Galaxies are not pinned down. They drift through space as they are tugged by the gravitational pull of their neighbors. Big Bang theory predicts that the only galaxies that should show a net blue shift are those that are close enough such that this local speed is greater than the effect of the expansion (which gets larger with distance). And that's exactly what we do see. The only galaxies that show a net blueshift are very, very close to us.

We do.

But those galaxies are, of course, close enough that we can resolve their spacial extent. One striking example I remember was a group that used masers rotating the supermassive blackhole at the center of a nearby galaxy in order to measure the mass of the hole. The masers on one side were blue shifted, the ones on the opposite side were red shifted, displaying perfect Keplerian orbits. Beautiful data.
For galaxies at high redshift, orbital velocities and even peculiar velocities are negligible compared to the Hubble flow.

Don

Thanks.

OK, so how do expansion deniers explain the observation of blue-shifts and red-shifts from the same objects? This just seems like a huge hole in every argument put forth by them to explain away expansion as a source of the doppler shifts, but no one is really talking about it.

Or am I missing something else? (Quite probable really.)

Deniers don't deny simple physics like Doppler shifts, they deny the interpretation of distance-related redshifts as Doppler shifts, i.e. they propose some alternative distance-dependent redshift mechanisms plus some mechanisms for internal redshift generation in the objects like quasars.

There are two types of deniers:

1) Steady-staters. These people aren't around much anymore because their arguments had so many holes poked into them. They agreed that the recessional velocities were real but proposed that the universe might not be expanding. This meant they invoked spontaneous generation of matter (among other things).

2) Intrinsic redshifters. These people are way out of the scientific loop, as it were, but basically say there must be another mechanism that causes redshift that would scale with distance. They don't think that the redshifts on cosmological scales are due to recessional velocities. They do agree, however, that local redshifts (peculiar velocities in the mainstream parlance) are due to velocities. Thus nearby Andromeda's blueshift is accounted for.

I don't understand why it's so hard to extrapolate forwards. We know that the intrinsic redshift is not due to a) tired light or b) gravitation. I am also fairly certain that the JK's "Compton" redshift cannot explain the cosmological redshift either. More than that, the Big Bang has the two other pillars (CMB and nucleosythesis) that really prop it up well. If you just saw the CMB and nucleosynthesis you could predict that the universe would be expanding and that distant galaxies would have recessional velocities that scaled with distance.

Most deniers come from the assumption that the Big Bang is wrong and move from there to decide that the redshift cannot be due to recessional velocities. This, in my opinion, is somewhat backwards.

Even Halton Arp has given indications that he recognizes a cosmological expansion going on. He doubts its magnitude, but alternative explanations to the expanding just are not believable to the vast majority of those working in the field.

Deniers will cry persecution and "I am Galileo!" left and right. I tend to be wary of such pronouncements. If they are right they should be confident they will win in the end. For right now the momentum is decidely against them.

JS Princeton wrote,
Quote:
There is no evidence for intrinsic redshift.
-------
From another group to my question:

How do you evaluate the basic value of an intrinsic redshift? Quote:redshifts are affected by age (eg. quasars closer to the ejecting galaxy have higher redshifts)/.And how can you evaluate a distance based on this?How can you also evaluate the distance of Galaxy based on that affirmation?

Reply:
In my approach the distances of galaxies are not evaluated based upon the size of an intrinsic redshift. My point there was that the evidence from quasars indicates that intrinsic redshifts are a function of age whereby higher redshift quasars are closer to the ejecting galaxy - and therefore presumably younger - than lower redshift quasars associated with the same ejecting galaxy. With regard to galaxies I've taken a different approach. I have calculated distances using the Tully-Fisher relation. My TF equations are type dependent which corrects for the phenomenon where ScI galaxies are more luminous at a given rotational velocity than Sab/Sb galaxies. To test for intrinsic redshifts is a simple matter of comparing the distance calculated from the Tully-Fisher relation with the distance calculated from the Hubble Relation. If the difference between the TF and Hubble distances is great enough the existence of an intrinsic redshift becomes a possibility. However, it must be established that the difference is not a result of errors in TF data or peculiar motions first. This is what I have been working on with great success. Let me share just one example that is typical of the list I've been compiling. The galaxy pgc 12490 has a Tully-Fisher distance of 370 Mpc at which distance its redshift velocity should be 26,640 km sec-1 if the Hubble Constant is 72 or 20,350 if the H0=55. The actual measured redshift of pgc 12490 is 3597 km sec-1 !! If peculiar motions or large scale flows were the cause of this discrepancy the peculiar motions would have to be from 16000 to 23000 km sec-1 depending upon the value of H0 you prefer. Such large peculiar motions are impossible in the standard BB model. Errors in Tully-Fisher data cannot account for this discrepancy. Statistically it would require a TF error that is over 40 standard deviations from the mean error of the cepheid calibrators. I have checked the HI linewidth, inclination, surface brightness, absorption corrections, magnitude, and none of these pieces of data hints at errors large enough to account for this discrepancy. Note that this is just one example. In the sample I've been working with about 20-25% of the galaxies (sample size 200) have discrepancies between TF and redshift distances that cannot be accounted for by data errors. It is also worth noting that in the case of most of these galaxies the redshift discrepancy is extremely negative - implying an extreme blueshifting in the standard view. In the model of Narlikar&Arp, these results may indicate that the galaxies are very old.

Followed by:
Hubble Constant
13.01.2003 02:48 PM

The results I discuss in the post above are so extreme that a plot of TF distance vs. redshift indicates no Hubble Relation at all. This raises the question - How do the Key Project and other studies seem to consistently get H0=72. The answer is simply: they assume the Hubble relation exists in sample selection. For example, if you know a cluster exists with many galaxies at a redshift of about 4000 km sec-1 and your models tell you that the typical peculiar motion should not exceed about 1500 km sec-1, then in your sample you will automatically eliminate any galaxies with redshifts greater than 5500 km sec-1 or less than 2500 km sec-1. In fact in numerous papers this is acknowledged in that they refer to distance and redshift interchangeably. For example a paper addressing the issue of distance limited samples defined distance limited as all galaxies with "velocities less than 1200 km sec-1". The problem with this is that if you actually calculate distances from the TF relationship you find that for many galaxies as I've noted below - there is no relationship between distance and redshift. This explains something else in the literature. Some researchers calibrate the Tully-Fisher relationship using the Hubble distances. These studies always find a huge TF scatter compared to studies that calibrate the Tully-Fisher relationship from cepheid calibrators. In terms of distance modulus I find TF scatter of 0.09 to 0.14 mag and studies that do not account for type dependence find scatter typically from 0.10 mag to 0.40 mag. Using the Hubble relation as a calibration standard you get TF scatter of about 0.80 mag - which is absolutely ridiculous. While an interpretation - this makes sense if the Hubble distances are compromised by large components of intrinsic redshift that cause the Hubble distance to deviate from the true distance.
---------
-This seem an very interesting finding.-

Using the Tully-Fisher relation as a test is good, but it is not the standard candle that is other tests on the Cosmological Distance Ladder. The problem is you have evolutionary effects, metalicity effects, and even reddening effects. A detailed TF analysis corresponds well with the place on the distance ladder that is required.

glendeen: In his Seeing Red, Halton Arp wrote that quantization of redshifts is a "phenomenon that could not occur if redshifts were caused by velocities." That's true, is it not?

Certainly not. If the velocities are quantized, then so will the redshifts be quantized. The velocities can be quantized by quantizing either time or space, the essential ingredients of "velocity". This is what William Tifft, the man who actually "discovered" the quantization of redshifts, does. He argues that the quantization of redshift is explained by the quantization of time

Three-dimensional quantized time in cosmology
W.G. Tifft
Astrophysics and Space Science 244(1-2): 187-210, 1996
Abstract: Starting from a model of 3-d time in units of the Planck energy, it is possible to model fundamental particles and forces. Masses are associated with 3-d volumes of time; forces are related to 4-d space-time structures from which the fine structure constant can be derived. Fundamental particles may then be assembled into larger objects, up to galaxies, within which special relativity is satisfied. The component parts of an object retain a common quantized temporal structure which appears to link the spatially distributed parts together. The flow of time is associated with a flow of the common temporal structure within a general 3-d temporal space. Each galaxy evolves along a 1-d timeline such that within a given galaxy standard 4-d space-time physics is satisfied. The model deviates from ordinary physics by associating different galaxies with independent time-lines within a general 3-d temporal space. These timelines diverge from a common origin and can have different flow rates for different classes of objects. The common origin is consistent with standard cosmology. The radius of temporal space replaces the standard radius of curvature in describing redshifts seen when photons transfer between objects on different timelines. Redshift quantization, discordant redshifts, and other observed cosmological phenomena are natural consequences of this type of model.

Tifft retains a standard cosmological ("Big Bang") framework, but alters the model of space-time, which is responsible for the quantization of redshift. Arp simply uses Tiffts observational reports, while ignoring Tifft's theory, in favor of his own baseless assertion that Big Bang cosmology cannot stand quantized redshifts.

But Arp cannot justify this claim at all, and never has tried. Even if we allow for quantized redshifts, we can retain the redshift distance relationship and the cosmological nature of redshifts, as Tifft does.

Are you suggesting that this detailed TF analysis is already done.I want to see the papers if it is the case.

Well, you can start with these papers and then when you get through with them ask me for more.


2002STIN...0276285S

Steinmetz, Matthias; Navarro, Julio F.

The Physical Origin of Galaxy Morphologies and Scaling Laws

2001PASJ...53..701T

Tutui, Yoshinori; Sofue, Yoshiaki; Honma, Mareki; Ichikawa, Takashi;
Wakamatsu, Ken-Ichi

Hubble Constant at Intermediate Redshift Using the CO-Line Tully-Fisher Relation

2001MNRAS.324..717H


Hendry, M. A.; Rauzy, S.; Goodwin, S. P.; Gribbin, J.

A robust method for measuring the Hubble parameter

2001ApJ...553...47F


Freedman, Wendy L.; Madore, Barry F.; Gibson, Brad K.; Ferrarese, Laura;
Kelson, Daniel D.; Sakai, Shoko; Mould, Jeremy R.; Kennicutt, Robert C., Jr.;
Ford, Holland C.; Graham, John A.; and 5 coauthors

Final Results from the Hubble Space Telescope Key Project to Measure the Hubble Constant

Dear JS,

I am pleased that you did not find any math errors in my paper
http://home1.gte.net/res00bfl/redshift_physics.htm

Oops, I should have qualified my assertion with the added clause, "from redshift observations alone." With that qualification would you still disagree with it?

Isn't the CMBR just the temperature of the underlying extragalactic medium? Arp writes on page 236 of Seeing Red:

"This 'CBR' radiation was almost immediately hailed as another, especially decisive proof of the Big Bang. In fact, it is very difficult to reconcile with the Big Bang in my opinion. The reason for this is that in an expanding universe radiation from different distances would have different temperatures and the very precise black body curve of temperature 2.74K which is observed would be strongly smeared out. Because of this it is necessary to restrict the radiation to a very thin shell at the most distant edge of the universe. This shell is supposed to represent the region in which radiation suddenly 'decoupled' from matter at some arbitrary point near the beginning (i.e. was no longer absorbed and reemitted but flowed freely out into space). For why this shell is so extremely thin, I have never heard a reason."

As to galactic evolution, I thought the Hubble deep field showed evolved galaxies, contrary to expectations for immature galaxies.

As to the CMBR signature, Arp writes:

"Actually this extraordinary smoothness of the CBR seems to be the most important part of the observation. Also it seems to me to be a very strong argument for a non-expanding universe. This comes about because the intergalactic medium can be observed from here to as far as you wish to go without any velocity smearing due to expansion. The integration through this largest of all possible distances is most capable of smoothing out all fluctuations in background radiation received from all depths of the universe. In the non-expanding universe an obvious, an much simpler, explanation for the CBR is that we are simply seeing the temperature of the underlying extragalactic medium."

That sounds pretty good to me. I guess you don't accept it.

This issue might be settled when the data from the Microwave Anisotropy Probe (MAP) is published. Until January 14, the release of this data was scheduled for January 2003. Looking at http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/ms_status.html just now, I see that they changed that to say "Early 2003" on January 14.

I predict that the MAP people will postpone the data release date again because there is a very surprising result that they will want to re-check and figure out how to explain.

Fine. Perhaps someone could help me express this idea in more precise language. I was actually thinking of the de Broglie model of the Bohr hydrogen atom that I learned about in an undergraduate modern physics course.

How about this? The wavelength of an emitted photon is surely related to the size of the ATOM that emitted it.

Now that I look it up, I notice that

1/lambda = f/c = R(1/nf^2 - 1/ni^2), where lambda is the wavelength, f is the frequency, c is the speed of light, R is the Rydberg constant and nf and ni are integers corresponding to the final and initial quantum states.

The Rydberg constant is

R = ke^2/(2 ao h c)

where k is the Coulomb constant, e is the charge of an electron, ao is the Bohr radius, h is Planck's constant, and c is the speed of light.

Until just now, it never occurred to me to attempt to compute how the Bohr radius would vary with L = lambda2/lambda1, the wavelength ratio. I just assumed that it would vary as the first power of L.

According to my invariant frequency theory, k is constant because epsilon naught is invariant. Planck's constant is invariant because angular momentum is invariant. But e (or q) must vary as the square root of L (see my Table II), and of course c must vary as the first power of L because V = L/T and T is invariant.

We are talking about keeping the final and initial quantum states constant. Therefore, the Rydberg constant must vary inversely with the wavelength:

R2/R1 = lambda1/lambda2 = 1/L

Solve the Rydberg constant equation for the Bohr radius.

ao = ke^2/(2 h c R)

Define B = the Bohr radius ratio = ao_2/ao_1.

B = L/(L (R2/R1)) = R1/R2

because the k's, the 2's and the h's cancel, (e2/e1)^2 = L, and c2/c1 = L.

But R2/R1 = 1/L, so R1/R2 = L. Therefore,

B = L.

This should be no surprise because of dimensional analysis. What I am saying is that the size of atoms (Bohr radius) is proportional to the wavelength ratio in the event of a physical matter density change.

I'm sorry. When I said unknown mechanism, I meant unknown not only to me but also to quantum physicists. Classical physics holds at the macro level, and I study macro phenomena. The answers I found satisfy me.

You may have heard that some New Age people claim that Earth has undergone sudden density changes in the past and will do so in the future. This study began to answer the question: if the Earth's wavelength scale changes, how will its mass density change?

As to testing, that may come eventually. But first, this theory must explain what we already know about the Hubble law. The parameters for each concentric lens are the index of refraction (speed of light ratio across the boundary), the radius and center location, and the velocity of expansion of the lens radius. I don't know what the center of these expanding concentric lenses is. If it is the Earth, then we may find a different Hubble law when we observe galaxies from Mars or the Moon. The model would be complicated by the fact that the Milky Way ought to have its own set of concentric lenses centered on it.

One possible consequence of the Milky Way centered cosmic lens theory might be that many satellite galaxies and globular clusters of the Milky Way may appear as images in different forms in opposing hemispheres of the sky nearly 180º apart centered on the galactic nucleus. Each member of such a pair ought to have radial velocities in opposite directions. The reason for this involves another theory that is off topic having to do with bi-directional time flow. One image of such a pair would be the galaxy in its youth growing older and being fairly close but moving away, and the other would be the same galaxy in its old age growing younger and being far away but moving closer. Examples that come to mind are

LMC ~ DDO 208 in Draco
SMC ~ DDO 199 in Ursa Minor
Leo I ~ DDO 216 in Pegasus

Any attempt to match satellite galaxies and globular clusters into supplementary pairs must take the Sun's velocity into account. I would not even consider attempting such a study until the MAP results are in that confirm COBE's determination of the Sun's velocity relative to the cosmic background radiation.

As to reflections, there must be atomic matter in a solid or liquid surface to absorb and re-radiate photons. As far as I know, interstellar space is mostly devoid of matter. The boundary I am talking about would be one in which the permeability of the vacuum had a coherent radial discontinuity that was advancing outward like a spherical wave.

It is indeed simple, and that is probably why you found no errors in it. If you are speaking of applying quantum mechanics to the problem, I don't believe it applies.

All I did was use dimensional analysis. It is so simple that even an engineer like me can do it. The conclusions are untenable only because you reject the premise that a physical blueshift could occur. That's fair. But once you entertain the possibility that a physical blueshift could occur, I think the consequences in my Table II (physical quantity ratios) are mathematically inescapable.

The other conclusions I make are arguable, and I'm willing to argue them.

I assume you are referring to biological evolution. Actually I am convinced that evolution is a fact. Species evolve in the same way that human inventions evolve. I just reject the idea that random variation can create information.

I will read Davies if you will read Arp's Seeing Red.

There is evidence for intrinsic redshifts, but you reject it. I'm sure you know that the claimed evidence is that quasars and BL LAC objects are emitted from galaxy nuclei.

Let me rephrase the question. If you entertained the possibility that intrinsic redshifts in galaxies and quasars might be real, how would you explain them?

I meant globally. The point I was trying to make is that the expanding lens model can reproduce apparent FTL expansion in a static universe.

Clear to you; not to me. I trust Halton Arp on the question of quantization of redshifts. The effects that Arp is finding in the 2dF and SDSS surveys are apparently marginal enough so that "standard" statistical tools don't see them easily. Therefore reasonable people can differ. Both groups are apparently using statistics to prove their pre-conceived points of view.

These surveys are apparently looking into really deep space. If I am right about the concentric lens model, it means that the farther out you look, the smaller and more frequent the discontinuities become, and so the quantized jumps eventually smooth out into a continuum. The rich information for redshift quantization is in the nearby galaxies, but people haven't seen it as such because they presume they are the result of peculiar velocities.

We are talking about the term "lookback time". I meant it exactly as J.L.E. Peebles defined it in his Principles of Physical Cosmology. Please show me how I used it inappropriately because I had no intention of doing so.

You are inferring things that I did not say or even imply. Allow me to re-quote my paper for the convenience of readers of this message.

"The invariant frequency model is much more interesting in terms of the kinds of physics problems it poses. If the invariant frequency model were true, then light rays would refract at density boundaries because the speed of light changes at such boundaries. In that case we would live near the center of a spherical lens, and we would be surrounded by concentric spherical lenses. Every astronomical "object" would be a projected real or virtual image of a real object or of a real image of a real object, etc. Any real object outside the central lens would appear differently, according to whether it is inside or outside the lens's focal sphere. Apparently empty zones would exist at the distances of these focal spheres because any object located in the focal sphere would produce a parallel bundle of rays inside the central lens that could not project an image for the observer to see. Thus any galaxies on a focal sphere for a given observer would be invisible to him."

"The curious fact is that empty zones do exist. They occur at 0.35 and 1.05 Mpc, just 0.35 Mpc (1.14 Mly) nearer and farther than M31, the Andromeda Galaxy at 0.7 Mpc (2.28 Mly). The distance to the luminosity weighted mean of the Virgo cluster of galaxies is 23 ´ 0.7 Mpc = 16 Mpc (52 Mly). It may be relevant that the Tertiary period of Earth's geological history began 66 Mya and ended 2 Mya."

To begin with, I am claiming that objects at the focal distance are invisible when viewed from the center of the lens because their images are projected to infinity. Then I pointed out that the lookback time to M31 is 2.28 million years and the lookback time to the center of the Virgo cluster is 52 million years. I also pointed out that Earth's Tertiary period began 66 million years ago and ended 2 million years ago, and I speculated that there might be a connection.

Evidently I did not explain myself sufficiently. If Earth has experienced episodic density changes in its past, it seems reasonable to suppose that the epochs of these episodes correspond to mass extinction epochs because they might well be catastrophic events themselves or at least be correlated in time with catastrophic events. What I was trying to say is that the voids half way to M31 and half again as far as M31 may be the current locations of the focal distances of two concentric lenses. The focal distance is proportional to the lens radius. If the focal distance were zero 2 million years ago and 1.14 Mly now, it follows that the lens that was created 2 million years ago expanded at the rate of 1.14/2 c = 0.57 c since it would have traveled 1.14 million light-years of distance in 2 million years of time. Let's assume that there is a void in the direction of Virgo that is 26 Mly away, and so that is the present focal distance for that older lens. If we assume its focal distance was zero 66 million years ago, then it evidently expanded at the rate of 26/66 c = 0.39 c. I don't know how far away the Virgo void is, so in retrospect I would have deleted that whole paragraph. At the time I wrote it, I was struck by what seemed to be a co-incidence.

I said nothing about the densities of galaxies, and indeed I fail to see how they would have any relevance. Nor was I talking about the density of Earth. I was only talking about the epochs when the density of Earth presumably changed.

I hope that explanation helped.

My reason is that Arp dismisses it. I don't remember saying that you have a problem. If I did, I apologize. As I wrote above, both groups are using statistics to prove their pre-conceived points.

But I infer from your answer that if the quantization of redshifts could be proved, it would falsify the Big Bang Theory. I'm not saying this to try to win you over to my side. I just want to illustrate how high the stakes are on both sides.

Of course I realize that this is an outrageous prediction. It follows from the idea that the destination of every photon is determined before it is emitted, which is another outrageous idea. That idea follows from the idea that every planet has its own unique history of density changes and hence its own unique set of concentric cosmic lenses. Photons passing through our lenses on their way to some other destination ought not to be disturbed by them. Likewise, photons destined to arrive on Earth should pass through the lenses of other stars without being disturbed. Based on your own beliefs, you should reject all this as being wrong.

No. They look down. To see galaxy redshifts, they need to look up.

However, I could be wrong. Why is Mars red? (I know the standard reason; I just question it.) There have been rumors circulating about the color of the sky as seen from Mars and even the observed colors of color wheels brought to the surface of Mars by spacecraft. The rumors are that NASA had to tweak the colors to make them look "natural".

For that matter, why are Uranus and Neptune blue?

I learned from reading this very thread on this Bad Astronomer bulletin board that the Sun itself has a small but observable and unexplained redshift.

I have enjoyed the time I have spent responding to your criticism. Most of my readers cannot understand my technical articles, and it is a pleasure to have a debate with a knowledgeable critic.

If you think the ideas I have expressed so far in this thread are radical and outrageous, you would really puke if you knew the full extent of my radicalism. I take issue with your characterization of my ideas as being nonsense, and my effort so far has been toward revealing the sense behind them. You are welcome to disagree with them, but I think it is unfair to call them nonsense. If I thought they were nonsense, I would abandon them.

You are correct that I don't know enough physics. I also don't know enough astronomy or celestial mechanics or mathematics. It may surprise you to know that I am a member of the American Astronomical Society. Look me up on page 63 of the 2003 membership directory.

But I also know that most conventional astrophysicists do not think "outside the box." Only amateurs or others with no professional reputation or career at stake can afford to investigate radical ideas and publish them.

-Glen

__________________
Glen W. Deen, BSEE
Dayton C. Miller observed the ether wind: "The Ether-Drift Experiment" Reviews of Modern Physics, 5, 202-242 (1933).

Honestly, I'm not going to look through equations that are based in incorrect physics to look for math errors.

Well, there's still Olber's Paradox to contend with. If you have a finite sized universe with a cosmological constant, that might work, but it's at an unstable equilibrium point.

Absolutely not. This is where Arp gets it completely wrong. The CMB cannot be integrated starlight and this was proven in a few papers once the COBE data came out. The reason for this is because the CMB matches a blackbody curve across the sky to a precision of 1 part in 10^5. This is one of the best examples of a blackbody we have and is absolutely predicted by an isotropic universe that exhibits an intital starting point. Integrated starlight cannot give you a blackbody that uniform across the entire sky. There is NO MODEL THAT EXISTS that can do that with integrated starlight. This is what has caused the death of steady state. Even Arp has backed off since the evidence is so overwhelmingly against him.

Well, it was predicted to exist before it was observed. Reconciling it with the Big Bang wasn't a problem at all.

This is a misunderstanding of the the Surface of Last Scatter. The universe that is expanding goes through phase transitions at different regimes. Inflations uniformity is transferred all the way to the time of last scatter. This is useful because it explains the causality problems that Arp has, but he has worse causality problems because in a steady state model there can be no thermal equilibrium for the integrated starlight. In fact, if you work it out, it happens that the integrated starlight model is the one that gives you the errors, not the Big Bang model.

Well, here's your reason: the thermal history of the universe goes as an exponential in time This implies that as you go back in time the temperature change is exponential and since recombination occurs at a specific temperature there is no way to have an optically thick scattering region.

The scattering cross section doesn't matter to first order in the power spectrum because you're just as likely to scatter into as out of the line of sight. However, anisotropy effects DO occur and are observed. Moreover, the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect shows us that the non-isotropic scattering of the CMB is small on most levels and can be corrected for easily.

But the extragalactic medium cannot be as smooth as the CMB is. The most generous estimates get it to be as smooth as 10% (not 1 part in 10^5).

The evidence shows it is wrong. How can I accept something that is wrong?

There has been issues of timing because the data releases are actually determined by the federal government. The data is actually all reduced and analyzed and ready for presenation but they have to wait for the go-ahead from the federal collaborators. It's been rather stressful around Princeton lately because they know the results but haven't been able to tell anyone yet (due to the nature of the collaboration).

Um... there's bound to be surprising results out of MAP just because it is so sensitive. However, the delay is not because of the scientists but because of the way the collaboration is running.

You can come up with a fiducial "size" of atoms, but the problem is that the electron's probability function extends all the way through space (from infinity to the nucleus). You cannot simply calculate a spherical size for an atom and hope for a meaningful result. We can say atoms are on the order of Angstroms in size and there are size comparisons that can be made between different atoms due to physical considerations (and these are commonly made in chemistry), but they are not even order of magnitude effects.

No, it's related to the energy level of the electron.

Now that's right.

This formula doesn't let you calculate the Bohr radius... only the wavelength of an emitted photon. They are two separate things.

This is all done from an incorrect assumption that the size of the atom is what matters. It is not. Let me repeat: the size of the atom doesn't matter.

No can do. The Bohr radius is not derived in this way. Look up how it is derived.

Dimensional analysis works if you have a physical motivation. This is part of the problem that you run into when you're dealing with new theories because your leading coefficients while non-dimensional may have orders of magnitude attached to them which would change the effect dramatically.

Listen carefully: a blueshift in light will not result from a simple change in the size of an atom. This is because energy is effected by more things than simply space. Changing the size of the atom would likely blueshift some lines, redshift others, and leave others unchanged. This is because some energy levels are in the same spot in space! This means that in order to get the answer right, you have to look at the detailed quantum physics and not just make dimensional arguments coupled with blanket statements.

The Earth's de Broglie wavelength is so ridiculous there's no way I can think of that we could ever hope to measure it.

You're right there. Hubble Law should be accounted for.

Too bad for every change in media you see an observable reflection too. Where is this reflection (hint: it is not seen). Should we be able to see it?

Why of course, this is because we can see the objects that are interior to the hypothetical lens. This means that there should be an added "brightness" that will be lens distorted but reflected back to us from interior sources. This is the problem with "out-there" theories they predict "out-there" phenomena that haven't been observed. If you can find a place where such a phenomenon has been observed, I might take your idea more seriously.

Well, I just looked at a satellite survey of the Milky Way and I can tell you that that is not observed.

Guess what? Those are not the same galaxies They have completely different populations. They are also not 180 degrees apart. Please do your homework.

We have four other CMB experiments that have confirmed it already. Not enough for yah?

[/quote]
As to reflections, there must be atomic matter in a solid or liquid surface to absorb and re-radiate photons. As far as I know, interstellar space is mostly devoid of matter. The boundary I am talking about would be one in which the permeability of the vacuum had a coherent radial discontinuity that was advancing outward like a spherical wave. [/quote]

Nope, reflections only require a boundary. That's because a lens acts as a surface with an optical thickness.

If you think that quantum mechanics doesn't apply to spectra, you are completely misguided.

Which is only of limited use if you have a physical process you are modelling.

No, they are also untenable because you make approximations that are not warranted (like saying quantum mechanics doesn't apply). There are consequences to models and they NEED to be accounted for otherwise we can safely dismiss them.

They give us nothing other than a question of what possible relationships for certain quantities in a limited parameter space might be. This is hardly coherent reasoning, and when objections are made they are summarily dismissed as not being germane to the argument. Such reasoning is specious. You need to take into consideration quantum mechanics or you have no hypothesis.

Done and done. Already read and tossed by me. Davies will be of interest to you because he's actually doing legitimate work in an area you are concerned with.

Check out the other threads. The evidence does not appear to be there.

I would be more comfortable with John Kieran's Compton explanation, I suppose, even though I think the densities he would need for it would be far to uniform and high.

But then what about the bulk? If you find one quantized redshift pair per 1000 redshifts what kind of effect is that? Coincidence train, here we come! (Actually, as I have pointed out, there has been NO observed correllation in all of 2dF data even though the test was agreed to by quantized redshift proponents. Feels like a nail in the coffin to me.)

Peculiar velocities are observed at all scales where they are observable... and they are accounted for INCREDIBLY well be clustering effects. If you corrrect for these effects, suddenly you get back the Hubble Law.

I already explained this. Check back.

It would probably be better to leave this speculation out as you don't have any explanation for it.

Care to give me an estimate on the density changes expected? Or is that out of your league?

Gotcha, so for some reason if you and everything around you changes density everything goes berserk? Why? Everything's changed by the same amount.

But it was agreed to by Arp's group. How can you agree to something and then say when the results don't come out the way you want them to that they don't show anything? That's sour grapes. Why do you follow Arp as though he's the end-authority on the subject? Blind faith?

And if I could prove that the universe was actually the interior of a giant beachball with pin-pricks in it, it would falsify the Big Bang theory. There's just no evidence for me to go down that road.

Theories are built on evidence and, yes, falsified by evidence. But the evidence just isn't there, so I think there are better uses of time. For example, you could start by learning some quantum mechanics.

[/quote]
No. They look down. To see galaxy redshifts, they need to look up.
[/quote]

No such thing as "down" or "up". And they don't just take spectra of planets but also of their limbs and the atmosphere. Is this no good? After all, there should be things in the background. And if the laws of physics are different on different planets you would expect different signatures. This excuse makes no sense to me.

You spend too much time listening at the feet of cranks. You can't be serious that you give Hoagland a chance. This makes me contemplate ending the discussion because it just isn't worth my time.

Why is the sky blue? Why are street lights yellow? Come on, these are all well understood phenomenon. To insinuate that they aren't is a basic paranoia.

Oh, you know that, do you? How many of these folks do you know?

I think you'd do well to read Thomas Kuhn about the structure of scientific revolutions.

I suppose we sort of have the internet to blame for the proliferation of disinformation. However, it is not true that radical ideas only come from outside the mainstream. This is the most unfair characterization that could possibly be made. The most critical people of theory are the people in the scientific community and often times we get into trouble becuase there can be problems with some of the philosophy behind "how do we know what we know". We have mathematical and sound scientific methods that will work in all sorts of arenas and those are what we use. It takes a long time to get familiar with science, but it is possible. I encourage you to continue and read widely including within the mainstream. The WORST thing you can do is float listlessly on the fringe reading Arp and Hoagland and Van Flandern and others until you're convinced there are conspiracies and such. That's just not going to help you get to anywhere but nonsense...

The reason I'm so vitriolic is because I find it dishonest that people present their pet ideas without considering full implications of them. It is hard to do while being outside the scientific community, but really, you can take classes in all the subjects you said you weren't educated in and learn the groundwork. There is a reason to do it, you won't be dismissed.

I have taken the time to do this because it lets me let off a lot of steam. You have to realize that for my invovlement on this board there are thousands of others FAR more qualified that don't deal with this at all because they couldn't be bothered. Why should they be? You don't know what you're talking about. Note this isn't a criticism of you, but just something offered by means of explanation for why it may be hard for you to get edumacated folk to look at your stuff.

If you want to talk to edumacated people, you need to seek them out (and the internet is a place to start, but not neccessarily the place to finish... if you know what I mean).