Quantized redshift anomaly

Tommy,

Re the “two flavors” of red shift quantization. Please forgive the sloppy terminology.

The two flavors I was referring to were:

1) The Tifft effect, first noticed in the Galaxies of the Coma cluster. Tifft continued his observations, finding the effect in other groupings of Galaxies, between Galaxy pairs, in the red shift of minor Galaxies compared to a large central Galaxy. This work eventually lead to the conclusion that the Tifft effect was global in extent, and present in all the Galaxies in the sky. These observations have been confirmed, and are generally accepted as real as far as I know. The size of the effect is such that the period, or the step magnitude, is 37.6 km/sec. The magnitude of the effect is so small that one would expect the random velocities of the Galaxies to completely smear out the effect to yield an homogeneous distribution of red shifts. But the effect is observed. It is telling us something. But what is it telling us?

2) Quasar red shifts seem to be a different type of effect. The quantized steps are much larger than seen in the Tifft effect, having a magnitude of about 17000 km/sec., and they are generally associated with rather peculiar objects, such as Quasars, Seyfert Galaxies, Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN), and strong radio sources.

The Tifft effect and the quasar quantization may well be related, and possibly be caused by the same phenomena, but the difference in magnitude and the types of objects involved suggest there may be two different causes, and we shouldn’t be too quick to jump to conclusions.

Bottom line is that we don’t have an even remotely plausible idea to explain the observations. On the up side, we can be sure that there are still big things to be discovered and that’s where all the fun is.

John

The whole topic of redshift is a mystery to me and none of the papers I read clarify anything yet. Why do astronomers use the yardstick "H" or the Hubble Constant scaled at 70km/kps? That can be stated in "SI" units as 1nm/s^2 which is much better. The "SI" units are easy to use and everyone would understand more if things like"H" were demystified and replaced. All the units used in the BB model should be translated into the common "SI" units. Now we have quantized redshift and the word quantum is overused all the time. Afterall anything can be quantified. What is observed is a lot of galaxies are observed at one redshift and not another redshift-right? And the other view is that there is an equal number of galaxies at any redshift-right? That seems very simple to prove.

I looked over the links about this and can't come to any other conclusion then that ...

There is some extremely strange physics involved ... if ... the data is not faulty in some way. I can understand why it would be rejected and ignored like a red-headed stepchild.

As I understood it, a random sampling of galaxie's red shifts (presumably from all over the sky) ... showed "clumping" of redshift values at multiples of 72 k/sec (and other integral fractions thereof) rather than the expected, smooth looking graph derived from random data points. Of course, this makes no sense in the physical world we are accustomed to. There is no evidence of "quantum structure" on this scale. The largest possibly quantum effect that was ever postulated was the estimate of planetary periodicity in our solar system, e.g. the prediction of Uranus orbit (as I recall).

If these redshifts are random and not experimentally modified by some unknown technical factor ... they, by themselves would rule out the present Standard Model ... because ... even if there was some sort of quantization of galactic redshift originating in the galaxy itself, we could not observe it by the means stated (random selection of galaxies) ... because ... galaxies (in our standard model universe) MUST be in random postitions (or random clumps) and NOT in concentric shells centered on the Earth.

If the universe were expanding and galaxies have random positions ... then ... their redshift-by-velocity at such random positions would totally disguise their redshift-by-quantization given the huge uncertainties of position of distant galaxies. That is, to identify with confidence such a quantization factor, we would have to know the distance of that galaxy with very great precision to separate out one type of redshift from the other. It couldn't be seen in any randomly collected data ... in principle.

If we postulate that redshift is due to the distance over which light travels thereby producing "tired light", a Steady State universe fares no better for much the same reasons . We could not, in principle separate out the tired light effect from the quantizaiton effect given the uncertainties in distance.

For this to be a real effect of astrophysics, the galaxies are logically constrained to lie in concentric spheres centered on the Earth ... regardless of whether one is pro standard model or con or any other model offered. And ... if galaxies are in such spheres ... then ... they won't be in concentric spheres as seen from other galaxies way out in one those concentric spheres. So ... the universe is no longer isotropic (a primary tenet of physics).

If the effect is "real" (and it would appear to be), I see perhaps a few roads to go down.

1) The universe is an artificial construct and the programmer has revealed himself by making a "mistake".

2) The observed universe is arranged in concentric shells with us near the center ... but this is "somehow" natural.

3) Some effect in the nature of space, light, light velocity, etc. changes the light to give the appearance of quantization even though it starts out completely random, i.e. as in order out of chaos-theory like Jupiter's Red Spot.


I'll take #3. Anybody think of any other avenue of escape?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br />Anybody think of any other avenue of escape?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In both VM and MM cosmologies, redshift for galaxies is not primarily a distance indicator, and redshift for quasars is not at all a distance indicator. For one example of a replacement interpretation, if redshift were primarily gravitational rather than Doppler in origin, then this just means that galaxies to some degree and quasars to a much greater degree come in certain preferred sizes, much the way atoms do. -|Tom|-

[Jim] "The whole topic of redshift is a mystery to me ... "

No sh*t. It would help (A LOT) if you paid more attention to what you read.

The units you quote for the Hubble Constant are not right. And they don't convert into the SI units you mentioned. The correct units for the Hubble Constant also do not convert into the SI units you mentioned.

===

Hmmm. It would also help (A LOT) if you understood more of what you read. When are you going to learn how to use units? The units part of a physical quantity is at least as important as the magnitude part of a physical quantity. If you get either one one of them wrong the whole thing is wrong.

True, it takes some time and effort. But once you learn this you will be able to stop telling us (over and over) " ... I don't understand any of this ... ".


Regards,
LB

BTW, the correct units for the Hubble Constant ARE in SI units. Always have been.