I'm looking for the paper that showed that first showed Arp was wrong by computing the Two Point Correlation Function. Does anyone have a reference to where and when that paper was published? Or am I just thinking of something else, and there's newer better evidence. I'm playing stump the Bad Astronomer on another site, and can't find the paper I'm looking for. Thanks muchly.

Showed Arp was wrong about what? He's made numerous claims and it is doubtful that any one observation would disprove all of them.

Welcome to the board jhallum!

Sorry. His claims about quasars being emitted from Galaxies, most recently rediscussed in Burbidge etal, ApJ (2003) , 591:690-694.[/quote]

The most recent article disputing any of Arp's claims that I have found was this one .

I did an ADS search looking for any other recent papers that disputed Arp's findings and did not find any, but I did come across this paper which I haven't seen before that finds evidence for quantization in quasar absorption systems.

Then here is this paper and this paper by Morley Bell that find evidence for ejection of quasars and quantization. And there was the recent study of NGC 7603 which provides another independent example of the kind of ejection that Arp claims to be finding.

I've just never been overwhelmed by these systems that Arp keeps trotting out. I can think of about 10+ systems that he's published over the past 20 years, and he's starting to rehash old systems like M82, and NGC 1066 again. I would think he would need more systems for his work to reach that critical mass of "interesting to all".

That's the thing ... new systems keep popping up all the time. Here's a list I just put together of the galaxies Arp has proposed (since 1982) have ejected quasars and I may have missed some because I did this quickly:

M-33, M-82, NC 3628, Arp 220, NGC 470/474, NGC 3516, NGC 1097, NGC 4235, NGC 4258, PG 1211+143, NGC 3067, NGC 4319, NGC 520, NGC 3842, NGC 450, NGC 5334, NGC 7814, NGC 7625, NGC 7479, NGC 7448, NGC 4651, NGC 383, IC 1767, M-49, M101, NGC 5985, NGC 5832, NGC 5548, NGC 6212, NGC 5689, NGC 4151, NGC 2992, NGC 1365, NGC 1672.

Many of these have only recently been discovered to have associated quasars and some have discovered the quasars independent of Arp. The model Arp has put together is one where Seyfert galaxies eject quasars as high redshift objects that evolve to lower redshift as they age and move further from the parent galaxy.

A few years ago right after this this model was published (ApJ 496,661)Chu discovered the association with NGC 3516 which fits this pattern predicted. Recently Bell has discovered the same pattern for the quasars associated with NGC 1068 (not on the above list) and once again if you look at the NGC 7603 example we see the pattern repeated there as discovered by Lopez-corredoira.

NGC 3628, Arp 220 NGC 470/474 and many others on the list above are more recently discovered associations or associations for which additional quasars have been identified - which is apparently the case with M-82 (hence the new paper).

As to critical mass for demonstrating a scientifically viable case, the point has already been passed by all reasonable standards. The model is predictive and examples such as the NGC 7603 study linked to above - which Arp himself had nothing to do with - have been discovered after the model's publication and are consistent with the predictions of the model.

My sense of the situation is that most researchers really don't know what Arp is saying except in the most general terms and are very unfamiliar with the empirical evidence in his favor. It takes time to read up on any alternate theory and if you're busy with your own research you will understandably be less likely to devote the time needed to aquaint yourself with a model that admittedly seems ridiculous relative to standard views.

The problem is, Arp just picks quasars near galaxies and says they are associated. He tries to make a case that they are ejected along a line, but the data he chose to publish in "Seeing Red" shows they don't fall in a line; not even close. So he then proposes a mechanism to show why they fall along an arc.

But that's a big logical no-no: you can't say they fall in a line when they don't, then backpedal when someone points out they aren't. I read that book, and if that's what he is using to make his point, his point is definitely not made on me.

The whole key to this, the whole key, is to compare the number of quasars near galaxies (for some definition of "near") to those in the field; far from galaxies. This is what the two-point correlation study would show. I don't know if this has been shown yet.

However, we do trash Arp's "intrinsic redshift" pretty thoroughly in this thread.

Phil's points lead me back to the subject at hand:

Somewhere, long ago, when I was an undergrad Astronomer, I read Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies, and then we discussed in class the fallacies of the argument, one of which was listed above by Phil.

Another fallacy was demonstrated by the application of the Two Point Angular Correlation Function. The function is a statistical measure of clumping of a distribution of objects. I distinctly remember reading a work by someone who applied this function and showed that the the function expected by Arp's distribution (which should show clumping on small angular scales), did not match the observed distribution of sources at the time. This is the paper I can't find anymore.

cyreks reply:

In defense of Arp:

He has provided two excellent examples in NGC 7603 and AM 2054-2210 that are 100% conclusive about his redshift anomoly.
The sad thing about his examples is that a lot are poor examples.

Vera Rubin selected one that he obviously should not have included since she easily refuted it. However, one disproof does not disprove his two given above and a few others that are not quite as conclusive.

Regarding his explanation that quasars are ejected from galaxies, I disagree.
These ejections are the result of collisions where the emerging material is the smaller galaxies remains. These jets, so to speak, have counter jets where the colliding galaxy enters the larger galaxy. At the entry point, there is very little disturbance (hardly noticible) and it increases as the entering galaxy moves toward the center where it creates the greatest amount of collisions and disturbance where the appearance of an emerging jet caused Arp to adopt his idea..

I hope he would abandon the idea of quasar ejections and adopt the idea of expanding light waves as the cause of his anomoly.

Arp has not backpedaled here. If you look at his earliest examples, they were based primarily upon statistical association. NGC 520 was an early example that seemed to indicate an ejection line. None of his first chapter examples in Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies fall along an ejection line.

What has happened is that some of his newer examples appear to identify ejectional lines and there is a trend of decreasing redshift with increasing distance from the parent galaxy. NGC 3516 and NGC 5985 are some of his more recent examples. But I do not see where Arp ever said that ejected quasars must fall along discrete lines.

Then there is this intriguing pattern identified by Bell . NGC 7603 has a pair of quasars in the filament connecting the Seyfert to its higher redshift companion.

But Arp’s evidence has evolved past purely statistical arguments (although that is still part of the argument). He’s published X-ray studies that show the jets leading out to the quasars. Will a two-point correlation account for a trend of decreasing redshift with increasing distance from the parent and alignment with X-ray/radio jets? NGC 7603 shows a physical connection. The specific examples Arp has identified have to be explained. This could be done with a concerted effort to study quasar proper motions. Arp even proposed that in his most recent paper on M-82. If it was shown that the quasars he has proposed were ejected had no proper motion, then that would be a significant blow to his case.

The Ly-alpha forest is the topic of the first part of that thread and it’s probably the strongest argument against all quasars being ejected as Arp claims. But did you see the article I cited above which finds evidence for quantization in quasar absorption systems? In the context of Arp’s argument I think it would be most important to study the Ly – Alpha forest for those quasars that Arp has claimed are ejected. It also possible that the parent galaxy is ejecting these absorbing clouds. There can be little doubt that galaxies are ejecting matter.

Evidence for intrinsic redshifts goes beyond quasars. That is why I said to jhallum that there is unlikely to be any one observation that would put an end to all of Arp’s claims. I have also not seen a specific refutation of the Narlikar&Arp 1993 proposed model for intrinsic redshifts.

Clearly, I need to read about this more. I have not heard of any quantization in quasar redshifts.

I'll be honest and say I am leaning heavily against intrinsic redshift, mainly due to the history of the proponents making claims which were wrong. This generally knocks the underpinnings out of a new theory. However, I will read the articles when I get a chance, but it'll be a while.

There have been a few examples. Sharp published several papers in the 1980's and early 90's that claimed to show that several of Arp's examples of galaxies with intrinsic redshifts were wrong. But one of those examples was NGC 7603 which more recent observations indicate may be one of the strongest examples of what has been suggesting.

Last fall a big deal was made about NGC 4319 and Markian 205 when it was claimed that an image demonstrated that the connection between them is not real. It was further claimed that absorption from NGC 4319 was found in the quasar spectra which demonstrates it is in the background. But then Arp pointed out that the images do show the connection with higher resolution and he further pointed out that the absorption line was about 10x fainter than expected which he interprets as evidence that the quasar is in fact 90% in front of the galaxy.

And so it seems to go.

I understand what you're saying. I've been collecting a file of articles on the Ly-Alpha forest since that thread you linked to was posted because I do think Arp needs to contend with it, but I've been so busy (partly because I'm here so much ) that I have not had a chance to read them.

I genuinely am open minded about this. If someone could show that several of the strongest examples that Arp and others have identified could not under any circumstances actually be ejected quasars, then I would have to carefully re-evaluate my assessment. I've recently felt that NGC 7603 is the strongest case so that would be a key one for someone to find a way to knock down.

I've also had a paper under review for almost 4 months and when that matter is resolved I'd like to share my own results here which do make a case for intrinsic redshifts in normal galaxies. The fact that I've been able to find a signal for intrinsic redshifts in my own samples is part of the reason I take Arp's model seriously at this time.

What were the other fallacies?

I've been doing some additional searching on ADS and I came across this study which is the type of thing you're referring to. How do you assess their results?

Then there is this interesting test that was proposed to try to resolve the matter. The paper has only been cited once in a summary of the year's research results review paper so it appears that nobody has yet applied this test.

The article I linked to above by Zhu and Chu titled The association between quasars and the galaxies of the Virgo cluster clearly presents evidence for an association between Virgo cluster galaxies and quasars. This is exactly the type of study jhallum was asking about.

What Zhu and Chu did was look for a correlation between the Large Bright Quasar Survey (LBQS) and Virgo cluster galaxies. There were 178 quasars and 1436 galaxies in the sample. The galaxy sample was broken into Virgo cluster members, possible members, and background galaxies which had sample sizes of 1061, 232, and 143.

They found strong evidence for a correlation between Virgo cluster members on angular distances of 5 to 40 arc min. Significantly the galaxies identified as background galaxies exhibited no such correlation. What these results mean is that the quasars are not randomly distributed with respect to the Virgo cluster member galaxies, but are randomly distributed with respect to the background galaxies.

So this test is consistent with the view that the quasars in the Virgo cluster region are associated with the Virgo cluster galaxies. I did not find any reference that refuted this result.

It is the type of study I was interested in, but not the study I was thinking about. I'll take a look at it.

Anybody come across another study on the Two point correlation function?

That's a great question and the answer is "no" because they tested for that possibility. Its explained on pages 302-303 of the paper, but they conclude that section this way:


And there is more. They show that for brighter quasars the correlation is stronger at larger angular distances. This is exactly what would be expected because the quasars are thought to brighten as they age and move further from the parent galaxies. The fainter quasars - as would be expected in Arp's model, show a stronger correlation closer to the galaxies.

So as with the other examples we've discussed, its not simply a matter of objects being placed near each other in the sky. They are placed in specific ways that are consistent with Arp's model.

The statistical significance of their result is 7.5 sigma.

Why are they thought to brighten with age?

dgruss23, are you keeping secret a new alternative mechanism for the "ejection" scenario until you get it published or something? :-$ I could almost buy a "slingshot" scenario following a near-direct galactic collision whereby a sizable chunk of the newly merged and reconstituted galactic nuclei gets flung out into space at very high speed.... but hypothesizing that a single galaxy just spontaneously "ejects" a quasar that has to "look around" to determine its redshift reading... just doesn't do it for me.

[Notice I said "almost." ]

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

As for Zhu a

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

In his model they evolve into normal galaxies. So as they age they would be expected to brighten -until the point at which they have actually become normal galaxies.

No. My own analysis actually has nothing to do with quasars. It involves evidence for intrinsic redshifts in normal spiral galaxies.

That's why its so important to establish whether or not this is happening on empirical grounds first. It is possible to separate the empirical model from theory that explains it. Arp's empirical model makes testable predictions. If ultimately those predictions and the model hold up then it becomes necessary to explain how it is happening.

I liken it to the continental drift situation. Wegener's evidence for continental movements was not going to be widely accepted until a mechanism was provided. Once a plausible mechanism and evidence for that mechanism was discovered, the concept of moving continents became accepted.

Arp's in the same boat. I wouldn't expect too many to be convinced without the mechanism. And I have no problem with somebody saying they won't accept it without the mechanism. But I would hope that unless convincing contradictory evidence is provided - which it hasn't been to this point - that it can at least be acknowledged that Arp could be right.

And if we're going to be consistent, then we have to acknowledge that it is not the standard operating procedure of mainstream astronomers to reject the plausibility of a hypothesis simply because the mechanism is not understood. Consider several of the current examples:

1. Dark energy is accepted by almost all astronomers even though the exact nature of this dark energy is pretty much entirely in the realm of speculation at this point.

2. Non-Baryonic dark matter has been accepted for over two decades even though it has yet to be identified. In addition to it not being identified, there are currently quite a few problems with CDM models. The models do not reproduce the angular momentum of galaxies correctly and they predict many more small companions than are actually observed.

3. The resolution to the matter-antimatter problem is still in the realm of hopeful speculation involving CP invariance and kaon decays.

4. We had another thread that discussed the fact that time is not fuzzy on the Planck scale as expected. The problem of course being that the fuzziness was needed to avoid problems associated with the initial moments of the Big Bang. So the problem returns and has no current resolution given that the observations have not identified the expected fuzziness.

My point is not that these problems could not be resolved, but that all models have unexplained issues. Certainly most astronomers accept the validity of the Big Bang despite the various unresolved problems. Consistency demands that unless it can be shown that Arp's model is contradicted in some irresolvable way, it is viable too. That doesn't mean everybody has to accept it, but just that it can't be declared invalid without evidence to back up that position.

The only problem with this is that the evidence for intrinsic spans quasars through normal galaxies. In addition, the kind of redshift anomalies were talking about are much larger than is currently expected. The prevailing view is that peculiar motions do not exceed 1500 km s-1. The deviations were talking about range from several thousand km s-1 in normal galaxies up through tens of thousands in quasars.

So if you want to attribute it to slingshot type mechanisms, then you're actually somewhat against the mainstream in your own right!

=D>

For example this paper that just came out tonight on the Los Alamos preprint server.

Edited to add this article which also came out on Los Alamos tonight.

Maybe I'll be back with more. I've only gotten through the first 5 abstracts on tonights posting.

Yep. Here is this article by the proponents of the baryonic dark matter alternative.

It was never just "a" paper, it was a whole bunch of papers spanning about a decade, during the course of which Arp became "estranged" from the astronomical community. When I was a grad student, the original topic for my master's thesis was to be Arp's papers. I never got around to Arp (but the poor fools gave me an M.S. anyway!). I have been all over the ever handy NASA Astrophysics Data System, reliving the old days, and already have amassed 47 papers in the exchange (only the "big" ones). It is a complicated affair. Eventually, the astronomical community stopped paying attention to Arp because he was so wrong so much of the time. So nowadays nobody bothers to "refute" any of his papers, which is why you find very few of Arp's current papers cited by anybody but Arp & friends. You have to dig into the past to find anything.

Basically, Arp began to claim an association between QSO's in 1966 (Peculiar Galaxies and Radio Sources, Science 151(3715):. 1214-1216, March 1966, Peculiar Galaxies and Radio Sources, Astrophysical Journal 148: 321, May 1967). It was an entirely statistical argument, which attracted immediate attention, and several followups by critics punching holes in the agruments (i.e., Radio Sources and Arp's Peculiar Galaxies, van der Laan & Bash, Astrophysical Journal 152: 621, May 1968; Evidence on the isotropy of faint sources, R.G. Hughes & M.S. Longair, Monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 135: 131, 1967).

The debate went on through the 1970's, petered out in the 1980's, and basically vanished after 1990. The most severe criticisms of Arp's statistics are probably The NGC 520 chain of quasars, M.F. Barnothy, Astronomical Journal 79: 8, January 1974; Statistical Studies of the Quasar-Galaxy Associations, J.-L. Nieto, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 70: 219, November 1978; Comment on quasar-galaxy associations, D.W. Weedman, Astrophysical Journal 237: 326-330, April 1, 1980; Quasars near companion galaxies - A comment on Arp's statistics, I.W.A. Browne, Astrophysical Journal Letters 263: L7-L8, December 1982; and Quasars, companion galaxies and Poisson statistics, A. Webster, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 200: 47P-49P, August 1982.

I don't have time for more now, but you can follow the references & citations in the paper's linked, to find Arp's original & response papers (he did not respond directly to many of his critics). As far as I am concerned, Arp's statistical argument is a shambles. He never recovered from the drubbing he got during the 70's and early 80's. His recent works are equally uninspiring. He claims to this day to see bridges & other connections between galaxies & quasars, but his claims have a bad record for standing up to scrutiny, to the extent that these days they are often not scrutinized at all, on the assumption that they are a-priori wrong. That may not look fair, and it may not be fair, but it's the way things are. See, for instance, The nature of VV76 (NGC 4496A,B), Filippenko, Shields & Sargent, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 100: 1233-1241, October 1988, where spectroscopy reveals that Arp's bridge is an optical superposition (one source clearly behind the other, and not connected to it). Several of his other bridges have suffered the same fate at the hands of the spectroscope.

Arp & Burbidge continue to make the case, and both have become very bitter about it over the years, and it shows. Unfortunately for them, it certainly appears to me that the idea is simply wrong, and they just don't get it.

Well, that was a goldmine. Thanks, Tim.

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

This could be as much an indictment of the mainstream as of Arp. Researchers that have against the mainstream views are outcasts? Nobody bothers to pay attention to the papers they publish that went through the refereeing process and were published in ApJ? This is hardly relevant to whether or not Arp is right.


But if you look at the papers you've cited you'll find that many of those papers are cited in later papers by Arp himself. So he did respond.

This is the conclusion from the paper by I.W.A. Browne that you linked to above:

Browne disagrees with Arp's statistical analysis, but still comes up with a statistically significant result on the order of 10 million to one against the quasars being randomly distributed around the galaxies.

Here was Arp's response to the NGC 520 criticism.

As for the NGC 4496A rebuttal, a similar thing happened with NGC 7603 but further results do not back up the earlier criticism.


Then there is the Zhu and Chu paper I've cited on this thread. It not only confirms the association, but it also confirms patterns predicted by Arp. This is what many people fail to grasp because as you point out people don't bother to pay attention to Arp anymore. Early on it was largely a matter of quasars being near galaxies - purely statistical, but it has become apparent that the higher redshift quasars are found closer to the parent galaxies than the lower redshift quasars. As I noted earlier, the Zhu and Chu study confirms this pattern in that the fainter quasars are correlated with the Virgo galaxies most strongly at smaller angular distances while the brighter quasars are correlated more strongly at larger angular distances. So you're not just disputing statistics, you're disputing statistics and the empirical model that has been derived. Not surprisingly, NGC 7603 fits this empirical model perfectly. As does the NGC 1068 result of Bell .

As for Arp's own recent papers, there are X-ray results , quasars aligned along the minor axis of NGC 3516 in which the redshift decreases in quasars more farther from the Seyfert, quasars with the same pattern aligned along the minor axis of NGC 5985 to note just a few examples. His empirical model is was published in ApJ in 1998 .

Not to mention that the associations are predominately found near Seyfert, disturbed, and Starburt galaxies - which is significant in understanding the patterns.

Sweeping statements about the level of inspiration his papers provide is not a valid argument for or against his position. Again that's an indictment of the mainstream. We just assume that refereed papers in ApJ are wrong because of the authors last name? And I've already pointed out a few examples in which the earlier scrutiny has not stood up to further scrutiny.

Fair has nothing to do with it. If it was about fair then it would actually be scientifically valid to say Arp is wrong on the grounds that most astronomers think he is wrong.

Such as NGC 7603 … which it turns out the scrutiny was wrong about.

How does it show? Or is this also assumed like the assumption that they are wrong? Yeah he's a bit sarcastic in his book at times, but that hardly equates to bitterness. Its more intended as humor. Its not as if he hasn't been called a few things by people - definitely a two way street on this one.

No, the problem is that the mainstream has in fact failed to make a solid case that they are wrong. Nobody will convince them they are wrong by ignoring their examples (which you admit is being done) and failing to grasp their theory well enough to be able to make valid criticisms against it.

I will add one more reference, to an obscure and hard to find paper. Nevertheless, it is very important in the matter of whether or not QSO's are at "cosmological" or "local" distances. The authors here have compared the redshifts of the emission & absorption spectra of quasars. The emission lines come from the quasar, while the absorption lines (the 'Lyman-alpha forest") come from clouds of neutral hydrogen distributed along the line of sight to the quasar. They demonstrate that the redshifts of the absorption spectra are less than the redshifts of the emission spectra, for quasars at all redshifts. The implication is that they really are at cosmological distances.

I found the paper a few years ago, lost it, and found it again last year; the citation, that is, I don't have a copy of the paper, though I read the original at the Caltech astronomy library. Their diagram is most impressive, showing the line of QSO redshifts, and then the forest of redshifts of the absorption spectra, all below the line. Furthermore, all of the 6.4% of the absorption redshifts that are greater than the emission redshifts, are only barely so, and are all consistent with absorption from moving clouds in the quasar itself. Although the abstract is on the ADS, the paper itself is not on the web anuwhere that I can find.

Evidence consistent with the cosmological interpretation of quasar redshifts
Liang, En-Wei; Qin, Yi-Ping
Publications of the Yunnan Observatory (ISSN 1001-7526), 90(2): 16 - 21 (2002)

Abstract We select a sample including 401 sources in which both absorption and emission redshifts are available from the table 1 in Hewitt and Burbidge (1993). The sample is the largest one for the investigation of the quasar redshifts so far. It is found that most of the absorption redshifts (93.6%) are smaller than the corresponding emission redshifts, and the result is consistent with the conclusion drawn from a small sample in 1970s. The result indicates that the redshifts of quasars are indeed distance indicators. That is consistent with the cosmological interpretation of quasar redshifts.

Tim, the article you’re referring to is found on the Los Alamos preprint server . I’m glad you brought it up because its exactly the kind of off target criticisms that pop up when the mainstream spends two decades making a priori assumptions that anything Arp publishes is wrong.

I’ll clarify for those that are following this discussion. Extragalactic objects have both emission and absorption spectral lines. The emission lines are produced by the extragalactic object and the absorption lines are produced by absorbers in the line of sight between the object and the observer. In the case of quasars there are many absorptions lines at various redshifts – some similar to the quasar and some quite a bit lower.

What Qin et al proposed was that if redshifts are cosmological, then all quasar absorption systems should be at lower redshifts than the emission spectrum created by the quasar itself. Not surprisingly, this is exactly what they find. So they conclude this is evidence against Arp – and here is where their ignorance of Arp’s model comes into play. They presume that if Arp is right there ought to be absorption redshifts higher than the quasar emission redshift. And they are of course wrong.

First, in Arp’s model redshift decays with age – meaning that objects with more excess redshift are younger than objects with less excess intrinsic redshift. Second, in his model quasars are ejected from active galaxies and move out – away from the parent galaxy.

If you had a higher redshift absorption line superimposed upon a lower redshift emission line for a quasar, then that would be indicating that the absorber was younger than the quasar in Arp’s model. But that’s not expected to happen very often for a very simple reason – ejected matter (quasars or other) is moving outward from the parent galaxy. So the younger absorber would have to be ejected faster than the older quasar in order to catch up to it to form absorption lines in the quasar spectra. My point is that the older quasars have moved away by the time younger matter is emitted. So the highly touted figure is exactly what Arp would expect too.

The authors show just how little they understand the expectations of Arp’s model quite nicely:

That claim doesn’t hold up to scrutiny of Arp’s expectations. Nor does this:

Here we go again. What they fail to recognize here is that you would not expect gas clouds ejected from the quasar toward the observer to have measured blueshifts – but rather blueshifted relative to the expected cosmological component of the ejected matter’s redshift (yes most seem to fail to recognize that in Arp's model there is a cosmological redshift distance component too). Its still going to be redshifted because its younger and because it’s a certain distance from the Milky Way. This is like the incorrect criticism in my old introductory astrophysics textbook in which it was claimed that Arp must be wrong because there are no blueshifted quasars. In fact there are quasars that are doppler blue-shifted relative to the redshifts predicted in the quantized states - such as the Arp/Hazard triplets .

But there is another aspect of the absorbers that needs to be addressed. As I pointed out earlier on this thread. The absorbers show quantization. Here is the paper that identifies the quantization and Arp/Burbidge had nothing to do with it - but many of the quantized states match up with the quantized states previously identified in quasars. Quantization is a clear violation of the standard redshift interpretation.

It seems to me that Arp only tends to see Quasars which are ejected away from us (redshifted) rather than ejected toward us (blueshifted). If this is the case, he ideas have a problem with his analysis of quesars. One would expected to see them ejected in every possible direction (if they truly had anything to do with the host galaxies which are supposedly ejecting them).

Then again, Arp did find some amazingly-disrupted galaxies, so not everything connected with his observations is questionable.

Redshift seems to be a pretty strong tool in astrophysics/cosmology. Type 1a Supernovae are also a strong tool. I do not think that many people take his ideas concerning redshift seriously.

However, Arp keeps it interesting, even if some of his ideas seem to be wrong.

I love his peculiar galaxies, so I should give him some credit for some of his ideas.

ljbrs :roll:

__________________
"There is in the universe neither center nor circumference." Giordano Bruno Born 1548. Torched 1600.

No, it is not.

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.

But, in any case, the idea that redshifts are quantized is unacceptably bad, and people like Tifft should be smart enough not to make such an obvious mistake. The observations do not indicate quantized redshifts, they indicate periodic redshifts. The observed phenomenon is that of periodicity, and not quantization. If redshifts were actually quantized, there would be empty gaps, forbidden redshifts that are never seen at all, since the quantization rule does not allow them, in much the same way as light emitted by an atom is indeed quantized.

Although I consider the data to be weak at best, periodicity is a perfectly acceptable consequence of ordinary cosmology. The periodicity manifests itself in the observations by some redshifts being more common than others. But if the redshift is a distance indicator, and objects are distributed in large scale, cosmic filamentary structure, then the objects along the filaments will have the "preferred" redshifts that show up in the observations of periodicity.

So even if Tifft does fit quantization into standard cosmology, it does not strike me as indicated by the data anyway, so it doesn't matter.

That's all I have time for, I'll get around to Arp tomorrow or something.

Actually that's not true as I was explaining above. Arp does not say that there is not a general expectation of increasing redshift as distance increases. What he is saying is that there are intrinsic components which are very large for quasars and smaller for more normal galaxies.

In his model if you have a newly created quasar ejected from a nearby galaxy perhaps its redshift is z=2.00 based upon its young age (younger quasars are expected to have larger redshifts). Now if its ejected toward us with some particular ejectional velocity its measured redshift might only be z=1.80 for example as a result of the ejection. So that is the blueshifting. The quasar is overall redshifted, but it is blueshifted relative to what it should have. The Arp/Hazard triplets I pointed to in my last post are nice examples of this phenomenon.

Yeah those galaxies are amazing.