Having not been around for the "Quantized Redshift" discussion which was closed about a year ago, I wonder if it is appropriate to raise this matter again?

I quote from the original post in that thread by astronomy:
Of course a number of serious astronomers have put forward evidence, including W Tifft, Guthrie, Napier, Arp and others. I prefer the word "periodicity" rathert than "quantization" because it is not strict quantization but rather a strong tendency.

There are several reasons which I mention briefly for raising this again:

1. There is a way of looking at this promoted by Arp and Narlikar, that it is not a redshift with distance, but a blue shift with time. This means that matter jumps in frequency at regular intervals, so we simply see distant galaxies as all galaxies were in the past, red shifted.

2. This basis does not lead to us being at a special place because wherever you are you see the same steps of red shift in time.

3. I suspect that the reference to there being no evidence now is based on an analysis method that assumes that redshifts accurately measure distances and can be worked on as a vector field. This is not true in the Arp-Narlikar proposal and so the evidence is actually destroyed.

4. The galaxy red shift data of W Tifft continued to show the periodicity of redshifts after removal of the CMBR once the measurement was made. This would randomize data if there was not a real effect.

5. Guthrie and Napier doubted Tifft's data and did their own analysis using new data and finding quantization.

6. Some surveys show the periodicity very clearly as this one:


7. The periodicity found in the above survey is totally consistent with it being a standing wave formation that has a corresponding period geological cycle of 586 million years using the latest Hubble constant. This geological cycle is reported by a number of geologists, but the accurate period is attributable to Prof S Afanasiev of Moscow in his book "Nanocycles method". Assuming that this is a correct match does incidentally allow an accurate value for the Hubble constant of 71.2 km/s/Mpc, with the possibility of several digits greater accuracy.

8. W Tifft reported in the late 1970s about a dozen periodicities. These same periodicities are predicted by the Harmonics theory and it has no variable parameters to fiddle (unlike other cosmologies). The match is at p<10^-10 level.

I cannot tell which is the correct part of the forum for this. Please
move it if somewhere else seems more appropriate.

In order to test the ideas outlined below, I would like to get some
sky survey data. I need both galaxies and quasars for the same
SMALL area of sky. I do not want terrabytes of data, something
like a few MB from a selected sky area would most suit. I would
appreciate advice and perhaps a little assistance from any
experienced astronomers in doing this.

According to Halton Arp, quasars are not at cosmological distances, but
are ejected by nearby galaxies. They are ejected in pairs along the main
axis of the galaxies at fairly regular intervals. Arp gives many
examples of such pairs and they certainly look good to me as they do
indeed have matched pairs for red shift. The closest pairs often have
very high red shifts that then drop as you go outward from the galaxy,
typically in a sequence like (1+z) = 3, 2.4, 2, 1.6, 1.3, 1.06 (from
memory) which values have common ratios of 1.23. He and Narlikar explain
the high red shifts when ejected as due to the matter having lower
vibration frequency and that the frequency increases as the quasar's
matter comes into wave contact with other matter. These ideas are very
consistent with my own ideas about the wave structure of matter and the
increases of frequency of matter over time. Narlikar has shown that his
equations are a general situation in which the standard physics
equations are a special case that assumes mass of particles remains
constant.

I have just been doing some back of the envelop calculations to see how
often the quasar frequencies would change. From galaxy dynamics and the
fact that the quasars do not achieve escape velocity (they probably
eventually go into orbit like our magellanic clouds), I estimate that
they must be ejected at a velocity of the order of 500 km/s. For
galaxies seen other than edge on, this value could be be measured as
~half the difference of the matched pairs velocities unless the random
component is too high. The distances of consecutive quasars after they
are shot out I have assumed are about 50,000 light years from
remembering the photos of Arp. So dividing 50,000 light years by 500
km/s gives the time interval between successive quasar ejections. If I
did the calculation right the answer is very roughly 30,000,000 years.
This is near to the 27,000,000 year mass extinction period and would
certainly explain mass extinctions, because huge changes would happen in
the mass of particles in the quasar at this interval, but as a
consequence the particle masses in the galaxy would also change by a
modest amount. It is worth mentioning that the solar system is believed
to pass through the plane of the galaxy roughly every 30,000,000 years
also. That same figure would apply over much of the galaxy, not just
where we are. So it seems to be a system wide oscillation.

This idea can be tested out much more thoroughly by getting details of
Arps quasar pairs and measuring what we can about them. The ejection
velocity should be able to be determined by the rate of deceleration of
the quasars which only go a certain distance from the galaxy. In fact, I
think that the Magellanic clouds are residual ones of these ejections
long afterwards when they have become more or less in line with ordinary
matter frequencies. I would note that our galaxy does not appear to be
an active galaxy at the present time based on the size of the black hole
at its centre and the lack of extremely bright quasars nearby.

My prediction is that such analysis should show that the ejection period
matches some known mass extinction period or some known geological period.

Just one thing that doesn't make sense to me yet. The phase of the
quasar events is such that we are 1/4 of the way between events right
now. This is calculated by ln(1.06)/ln(1.23) being the most recent
events compared to the event interval. The events themselves would take
place at the galaxy core, so there would be a time delay to reach us. We
are just 30,000 light years from the centre of the galaxy and at the
speed of light any effect would reach us in negligible time compared to
the 1/4 of 30,000,000 years. However on the 27,000,000 year cycle we are
about half way between events and not 1/4. This is a problem with the
idea unless the effect reaches us from the galaxy centre at a speed much
less than the speed of light. It would have to be a speed of the order of
500 km/s which I suppose is quite conceivable of the quasars are
themselves ejected at 500 km/s.

Just a thought (and you might wait for a mod to weigh in), you could ask this on the Q&A forum too. I wouldn't put all this info in there due to the ATM content, but I don't think it would hurt to ask for help in finding the data.

__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"

I didn't see a Q&A forum or I would have gone there. Will go wandering the corridors again. Thanks Kelfazin!

I have been doing some research on discordant redshift related issues for a while now (nothing major, just a layman probing the issue). Here's just a few places you could use:

NASA Extragalactic Database (NED)
HyperLeda
Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS)
Simbad

__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in a crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website and My BLOG] [Nimblebrain forums]

Thanks Ari. I did look at Sloan before but couldn't find a way to get a small sample from a specific part of the sky.

I just tried the first one of these, putting in a location, a small radius and selecting galaxies and quasars, selecting text with tab separation and a few other settings and pressed go and got ... a crash error! Help, I need an experienced driver.

Second forum from the top, right under About BAUT

http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answers/

__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"

SDSS website is somewhat complex, hard to find stuff there. Right now I don't remember if it even has the option you want...

Well, here's radial search, check out also other search options at the left in the linked page.

NED is little picky about the format of given coordinates, here's some help on that.

Entering coordinates like this works:

RA or longitude = 01h02m03.4s
DEC or Latitude = +15d16m17s

Or you can give them as degrees like this:

RA or longitude = 1.2
DEC or Latitude = 3.4

But as I tried these and some other things I didn't get any crash errors, at worst I got a "Bad RA or longitude" error. I don't know what could cause that. But perhaps we can make a test search, a really simple one, put these values into NED's near position search:

RA or longitude = 1
DEC or Latitude = 2
Search Radius (arcmin) = 10

And then click "Near position search". I get a list of 17 objects starting from a galaxy called "APMUKS(BJ) B005719.36+014338.1".

__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in a crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website and My BLOG] [Nimblebrain forums]

For SDSS, I think you'll find that you have to put in a coordinate which lies within the survey area in order to get meaningful results. See http://www.sdss.org/dr6/coverage/index.html and take a look at the survey coverage images to get an idea of which coordinates you can put in.

There are Galaxy Clusters around the Cosmic Voids. The Cosmic Voids diameter is usually about 30 Mps and grows. We observe a multiple distance between Galaxy Clusters and a redshift because the expansion of the Cosmic Voids.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization

Why don't you reproduce the above graph using data from larger surveys such as the two-degree field galaxy redshift survey, or the larger Sloan Digital Sky Survey?

Thanks everyone, I managed to get some samples of like 1000 or so objects successfully and get them into a spreadsheet.

Thanks czeslaw, I am familiar with most of the material in wikipedia on this.

Matt.o, I am interested in doing some analysis of these surveys (or small parts of them), and have asked some questions elsewhere on getting such data (with some success).

My main interest in this thread is to discuss some of the issues. I think the most important one is that I suspect that the latest methods of analysis might not be sensitive to the methods used by Tifft, Arp and the USA-Australian project shown in the above graph. I would like someone who understands the methods used to discuss that with me if possible. But I will explain what I understand of ideas that I arrived at independently of Arp which agree with his as I understand them.

Consider the possibility that the masses of particles are not constant over time, but experience increases of certain amounts at intervals of time. The result would be that all spectral frequencies would increase in steps at intervals of time. When we look at distant galaxies, we would see them as they were long ago when all galaxies had lower frequencies, so comparing them to the laboratory frequencies we would see them as red shifted.

For the pattern to be seen it seems sufficient to reduce all redshifts to the CMBR rest frame. There is no problem when observing a small area of sky (so called pencil beams like the above example) because the correction for our motion is essentially the same for all the galaxies in the sample. Once reduced to this rest frame the pattern should be visible over the whole sky. This does not mean that we are at the centre of the Universe, because all locations see the same pattern of steps of frequency.

The large surveys done over the whole sky will not show these effects if they do not correct for our motion relative to the CMBR. Also, I am unsure if some surveys also do comparison between pairs of galaxies other than ours and another. If they do, they will use vector differences based on the redshift being a true measure of distance and it being a vector field. If Arp and I are right then it is not a vector field. For example consider two galaxies that are seen from here and are exactly 90 degrees apart in the sky. let us say that we see each as having a 72 km/s red shift. It is natural to assume that if the two galaxies have no random motions that they will see each other as having sqrt(2)*72 km/s red shifts. But that would not be the case. They would either see a 72 km/s or a 144 km/s difference because the frequencies are changing in steps of 72 km/s and no actual motion is involved. We cannot tell which of those two would be the answer.

Does this make sense?

From the above quoted wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization

I want to explain why, if Arp is right, the Hawkins result is expected to be null and the Arp result is successful. According to Arp, QSOs are not at cosmological distances implied by redshift but have two componets to the redshift that he calls "internal" and I guess "external" or cosmological. The periodicity in QSO redshifts is in the internal component so that it shows up in samples that are nearby (all at small z compared to the periodicity in log(1+z)). The Hawkins result includes QSOs which are distant and therefore have large cosmological redshifts. This will totally blur out all the peaks in the internal redshift. When Arp uses only bright QSO then he effectively selects the nearby ones that all have small external z component so no blurring results.

The problem is that when analysis is done to compare two models, you cannot make the assumptions of one model when testing the other. Unfortunately these procedures are so ingrained that it happens without people realizing.

If quasars are not cosmological how does one explain damped lyman alpha systems and their accompanying metal systems? Has Arp ever addressed this? You can't just study one aspect of quasars and ignore the other aspects, especially when there is prodigious amounts of data available.

Also (I just posted a suggestion on accessing the SDSS data on the other thread), if you want to actually show that this ejection scenario is real, you need to perform a cross-correlation analysis on a very large sample of uniformly selected galaxies and quasars, like that in SDSS or 2dF. I'm not aware that anyone has actually done this, with proper controls for the quasar selection function.

Looking at individual galaxies is nice and all, but there are hojillions of galaxies out there, and you would expect plenty of chance alignments if you are not careful in how you select sources. The sampling should be uniform and random. You can't just find one (or even "many," as you claim Arp has) "aligned" system and claim it represents some new physics.

__________________
"What do you care what other people think?" -- Richard Feynman
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Feynman, at the conclusion of his Challenger report

First, which methods do you think are insensitive (per my bold, in your post)? Specifically, which of the papers reporting quasar redshift analyses have you based your suspicions on?

Second, if you want to understand the methods used in a particular, published quasar redshift paper, I think BAUT's Q&A section would be a more appropriate place to start ... just as long as you don't phrase questions aimed at better understanding in a way that leaves readers with the strong impression that you're merely promoting an ATM idea.

Third, if you don't have access to, or don't even know of, the relevant published papers, then again the Q&A section is a much better place than this ATM section.

You might like to review the relevant posts in the (very long!) More from Arp et al. thread, here in this ATM section.

The Arp et al. idea re quasars/QSOs was covered quite extensively in that thread, and under the new ATM policies, reviving an ATM idea in a closed ATM thread is permitted only when quite specific conditions are met (e.g. a relevant new paper is published)*.

*For details, see Fraser's posts in the two key About BAUT threads discussing the new ATM policy; they are the first two About BAUT links in my previous post.

Hi Amber Robot

My knowledge of this stuff is more confined to the aspect of quantized red shifts for which I have a theoretical explanation that correctly predicts many of the observations. So my main interest is in establishing whether the reports by Tifft, Arp etc are real, and whether methods used by other people on bigger surveys do not find results because of reasons, such as those that I have outlined, that have not been properly understood and allowed for.

I knew what lyman series where but had to look up about the damped part. What is the problem here? Is it that these absorption lines are at high red shift? Also, I assume that the problem with low metals is that this is taken to mean that the material is primordial? Both of these observations (assuming I have understood correctly) are expected results if Arp is correct and quasars are new matter created by ejection of energy from a galaxy, because it is effectively primordial.

Regards
Ray

Hi Parejkol

The "other thread" has now joined us in this thread.

Yes, what you have described is exactly what I want to do. However I want to start with a small section of sky and limited data in order to do some preliminary investigations and analysis. I understand the statistical side much better than the astronomy, so that will not be a problem for me as long as I can get advice on the technical astronomical aspects. My objective is to have a test that clearly distinguishes the different theoretical possibilities without favoring any one.

One problem when I looked at this some time back was that quasar surveys were generally not complete and so the samples were already biased. That problem would appear to have been overcome with the extensive surveys in the last decade or two.

Regards
Ray

Hi Nereid

Thanks for the welcome, and your assistance here and also the various material around the forum. I have been reading the various threads on ATM, writing papers, rules for posting etc. and have found it very useful. At some future point after the Harmonics Theory thread has run its course, I might seek advice on writing and trying to publish a paper or two. The big problem is that I have done too much research that is interlocking and so it is not clear to me which parts would be most sensible to try and publish first (without getting rejected for being too far out of the mainstream). Probably I should raise these issues in that thread.

Thanks again, I can see that is so. I missed seeing the Q&A section initially.

Regards
Ray

I look forward to your discussion, and analytical treatment, of selection effects (biases, etc) in quasar surveys ... starting with your definitions of 'quasar' ...

In the spectra of quasars there exist absorptions from neutral hydrogen at redshifts that range from the redshift of the quasar itself to lower values. If the redshift from a quasar is not cosmological, then none of the redshifts of the intervening hydrogen can be cosmological either.

No. My reference to the metals are that at the redshifts of some of the strongest hydrogen absorptions (those that exhibit damped lyman-alpha lines) there are also absorptions from various elements like carbon and oxygen at various states of ionization.

What I'm trying to get across is that talking about whether quasars are at cosmological distances by looking at the "quantization" of their redshifts and their line-of-sight proximity to galaxies without mentioning all the spectroscopy data is like arguing about whether Kangaroos could possibly support their own weight while walking because their front legs are so short.

I will use objects with "QSO" in the appropriate column ... I suppose that is my definition.

My earlier comment referred to the fact that people found quasars on a haphazard basis originally so that you could not assume the sample was unbiased. For example Arp might have looked near nearby galaxy axes (though I do note that he was able to predict the results of a subsequent strip survey done by others).

I am assuming that these big surveys are intended to be complete to some magnitude and that they have a consistent definition. Please set me straight if I am wrong about that!

Your points are taken, and I do not expect to satisfy them. However if Arp is right, I think it possible that the hydrogen is associated with the nearby quasar and has an intervening redshift because it is being party influenced by the quasar and partly by the galaxy as to its red shift.

I think that if a very clear case can be made for strong statistical associations between low red shift galaxies and high redshift quasars then the case for non-cosmological red shifts will be established. Then everyone will look for the answers to these other questions in a new light.

Sorry I still don't get what the problem is about the carbon and oxygen. Why is this consistent with old distant quasars and not new close quasars?

Ok. You should definitely read the latest SDSS Quasar data release paper, available from astro-ph here:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0806

which discusses the quasar selection function. If you are going to perform any statistics with the SDSS data, you absolutely *need* to take the selection function into account. Otherwise, any results you derive are likely to be due to the way quasars were picked for followup spectra. See my comments on this thread (and the rest of the thread in general) for more on redshift "quantization."

EDIT:
Make sure you understand what that actually means. The data release paper above is a good start, but the documentation internal to the SDSS (in particular the Algorithms page in the help section) is also important reading, if you want to understand why SDSS calls one thing a quasar and one thing a galaxy.

__________________
"What do you care what other people think?" -- Richard Feynman
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Feynman, at the conclusion of his Challenger report

You'll want to look at this article.

As light makes its 10 billion year journey from a distant quasar, it is deflected and focused by the gravitational pull of dark matter and galaxies, an effect known as gravitational lensing. The SDSS researchers definitively measured the slight brightening, or "magnification" of quasars and connected the effect to the density of galaxies and dark matter along the path of the quasar light. The SDSS team has detected this magnification in the brightness of 200,000 quasars.

This explains why there "seems" to be an overdensity of high redshift quasars around lower redshift galaxies. Arp's wild explanations of "galaxies ejecting quasars" and "variable mass" have become extraneous and unneeded.

Then you 'll want to read through this 2-year-old BAUT thread where Ryan Scranton, the lead researcher associated with the above-mentioned journal article showed up and made some significant clarifications on the issue.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

How many of the ~600 "obscured AGN" in the Chandra Bootes field* are quasars (or QSOs), in the rtomes classification scheme?

*The arXiv preprint: A rich bounty of AGN in the 9 square degree Bootes survey: high-z obscured AGN and large-scale structure

Because it is consistent with the "standard model" of cosmology and many studies of the Intergalactic Medium (IGM). In the local quasar model one would have to attempt to explain the presence of these metal systems and their ionization structure.

Another piece of evidence that quasars are at cosmological distances are that many of them have actually been observed to be at the centers of distant galaxies! Now, it is possible that all of those that have are just pure coincidence, but there have been studies that relate the properties of the quasars to their host galaxies.

All I'm saying is that to make an argument about whether quasars are at cosmological distances or not based solely on their relative positions to galaxies is ignoring a vast amount of information that bears strongly on the question.