- Thank you received: 0
Quantized redshift anomaly
18 years 11 months ago #14417
by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
Found at
metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=630
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><center>'Seeing Red'
by Halton Arp</center>
There is now a fashionable set of beliefs regarding the workings of the universe, greatly publicized as the Big Bang, which I believe is wildly incorrect. But in order to enable people to make their own judgments about this question, we need to examine a large number of observations. Observations in science are the primary and final authority.
More than 10 years have passed and, in spite of determined opposition, I believe the observational evidence has become overwhelming, and the Big Bang has in reality been toppled. There is now a need to communicate the new observations, the connections between objects and the new insights into the workings of the universe - all the primary obligations of academic science, which has generally tried to suppress or ignore such dissident information.
(It makes one wonder, perhaps with profit, whether there are other uncertain assumptions on which much of our lives are built, but of which we are innocently overconfident.)
The present book is sure to outrage many academic scientists. Many of my professional friends will be greatly pained. Why then do I write it? First, everyone has to tell the truth as they see it, especially about important things. The fact that the majority of professionals are intolerant of even opinions which are discordant makes change a necessity. Those friends of mine who also struggle to get the mainstream of astronomy back on track mostly feel that presenting evidence and championing new theories is sufficient to cause change, and that it is improper to criticize an enterprise to which they belong and value highly. I disagree, in that I think if we do not understand why science is failing to self-correct, it will not be possible to fix it.
At this point, I believe we must look for salvation from the non-specialists, amateurs and interdisciplinary thinkers - those who form judgments on the general thrust of the evidence, those who are skeptical about any explanation, particularly official ones, and above all are tolerant of other people's theories. (When the complete answer is not known, in a sense everyone is a crackpot - Gasp!)
If the cause of these redshifts is misunderstood, then distances can be wrong by factors of 10 to 100, and luminosities and masses will be wrong by factors up to 10,000. We would have a totally erroneous picture of extragalactic space, and be faced with one of the most embarrassing boondoggles of our intellectual history.
Because objects in motion in the laboratory, or orbiting double stars, or rotating galaxies all show Doppler redshifts to longer wavelengths when they are receding, it has been assumed throughout astronomy that redshifts always and only mean recession velocity. No direct verification of this assumption is possible, and through the years many contradictions have arisen and been ignored. The evidence presented here is, I hope, convincing because it offers many different proofs of intrinsic (non-velocity) redshifts in every category of celestial object.
It is interesting to note that at first, Einstein felt this solution was incorrect. Later he said it was correct, but of no consequence. Finally he accepted the validity of this solution, but was so unhappy with the fact that it was not a stable solution, i.e., it either collapsed or expanded, that he retained the cosmological constant he had earlier introduced in order to keep the universe static. (This constant was later referred to as the cosmological fudge factor.)
In 1924, Hubble persuaded the world that the "white nebula" were really extragalactic, and a few years later announced that the redshifts of their spectral lines increased as they became fainter. This redshift-apparent magnitude relation for galaxies became known as the Hubble law ( through lack of rigor, often referred to as the redshift-distance relation). At this point Einstein dropped his cosmological constant as a great mistake, and adopted the view that his equations had been telling him all along, that the universe was expanding. Thus was born the Big Bang theory, according to which the entire universe was created instantaneously out of nothing 15 billion years ago.
This really is the entirety of the theory on which our whole concept of cosmology has been rested for the last 75 years. It is interesting to note, however, that Hubble, the observer, even up to his final lecture before the Royal Society, always held open the possibility that the redshift did not mean velocity of recession but might be caused by something else.
In his seminal book Realm of the Nebulae Hubble wrote: "On the other hand, if the interpretation as velocity shifts is abandoned, we find in the redshifts a hitherto unrecognized principle whose implications are unknown."
In the ensuing years the evidence discussed in the present book has built up to the point where it is clear that the velocity interpretation can now be abandoned in favor of a new principle which stands on a firm observational and theoretical foundation.
But of course, the stunning aspect of the ROSAT observations was that two quasars of redshift .63 and .45 are actually physically linked by a luminous connection to a low redshift object of z= .007. When I showed this to the local experts, there were alarmed states followed by annoyance.
This result made it clear that the compact and interacting groups were just a more concentrated ensemble of young, non-equilibrium companion galaxies which had been ejected more recently from the parent galaxy, and were composed of material of higher redshift. Aside from being empirically true, this interpretation solves all the conventional paradoxes of the failure of the galaxies to merge into a single galaxy on a cosmic time scale, and also explains the unbearable presence of "discordant" redshifts.
In later chapters we will show that galaxies and quasars tend to occur at certain preferred redshifts. This quantization implies that galaxies do not evolve with smoothly decreasing redshifts, but change in steps.
One major point of the present book is to try to make it impossible to ignore the enormous amount of mutually supporting significant evidence which all points to the same conclusion.
In the face of 28 years of accumulated evidence, to go on proclaiming that quasars are out at the edge of the universe seems unpardonable.
Summary - Alignments, Quasars, BL Lac's and Galaxy Clusters
1) Objects which appear young are aligned on either side of eruptive objects. This implies ejection of protogalaxies.
2) The youngest objects appear to have the highest redshifts. This implies that intrinsic redshift decreases as the object ages.
3) As distance from the ejecting central object increases, the quasars increase in brightness and decrease in redshift. This implies that the ejected objects evolve as they travel outward.
4) At about z= .3 and about 400 kpc from that parent galaxy the quasars appear to become very bright in optical and X-ray luminosity. This implies there is a transition to BL Lac Objects.
5) Few BL Lac objects are observed implying this phase is short-lived.
6) Clusters of galaxies, many of which are strong X-ray sources, end to appear at comparable distances to the BL Lac's from the parent galaxy. This suggests the clusters may be a result of the breaking up of a BL Lac.
7) Clusters of galaxies in the range z= .4 to .2 contain blue, active galaxies. It is implied that they continue to evolve to higher luminosity and lower redshift.
Abell clusters from z= .01 to .2 lie along ejection lines from galaxies like CenA. Presumably they are evolved products of the ejections.
9) The strings of galaxies which are aligned through the brightest nearby spirals have redshifts z= .01 to .02. Presumably they are the last evolutionary stage of the ejected protogalaxies before they become slightly higher redshift companions of the original ejecting galaxies. (p166-7)
Quantization of Redshifts
The fact that measured values of redshift do not vary continuously but come in steps- certain preferred values- is so unexpected that conventional astronomy has never been able to accept it, in spite of the overwhelming observational evidence. Their problem is simply that if redshifts measure radial components of velocities, then galaxy velocities can be pointed at any angle to us, hence their redshifts must be continuously distributed. For supposed recession velocities of quasars, to measure equal steps in all directions in the sky means we are at the center of a series of explosions. This is an anti-Copernican embarrassment. So a simple glance at the evidence discussed in this Chapter shows that extragalactic astronomy and Big Bang theory is swept away. (p195)
On the theoretical front it has become more persuasive that particle masses determine intrinsic redshifts and that these change with cosmic age. Therefore episodic creation of matter will imprint redshift steps on objects created at different epochs. In addition it appears increasingly useful to view particle masses to be communicated by wave like carriers in a Machian universe. Therefore the possibility of beat frequencies, harmonics, interference and evolution through resonant states is opened up. (p195)
My attitude toward this result is that in a Machian universe there must be some signal carrier for inertial mass coming from distant galaxies. (p202)
In the phenomena of quantization, we have a connection from the redshifts of the quasars, to the redshifts of the galaxies, to the properties of the solar system and finally to the properties of fundamental particles like the electrons. The quantization of physical parameters would seem to be governed by the laws of non-local physics, i.e. like quantum mechanics in which the fundamental parameter appears to be time- for example the repetition rate of a spinning electron. It is clear that we are not running out of problems to solve. In fact, contrary to some rumors that we are reaching an end to physics, the more we learn the more primitive our previous understanding appears, and the more challenging the problems become. (p223)
On Academia and 'Belief' in Scientific Theories
After about 45 years, I now know that if the academic theoreticians at that time had not forced his observations into fashionable molds, we might at least not have started off modern cosmology with the wrong fundamental assumption. We could be much further along in understanding our relation to a much larger, older universe - a universe which is continually unfolding from many points within itself.
..the problem is pervasive throughout astronomy and, contrary to its projected image, endemic throughout most of current science. Scientists, particularly at the most prestigious institutions, regularly suppress and ridicule findings which contradict their current theories and assumptions.
One thing has been accomplished, though I now understand what should be called the statistics of nihilism. It can be reduced to a very simple axiom: "No matter how many times something new has been observed, it cannot be believed until it has been observed again."
In view of all the other evidence known to show that quasars, and 3C273 in particular, belonged to the Virgo Cluster, I gloomily came to the ironic conclusion that if you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality.
I had long ago learned that colloquia were events of intense social pressure, and that comments from the floor which questioned the assumptions of the speaker and were not explainable in a few sentences were neither understood nor welcome.
The greatest mistake in my opinion, and the one we continually make, is to let the theory guide the model. After a ridiculously long time it has finally dawned on me that establishment scientists actually proceed on the belief that theories tell you what is true and what is not true! Of course that is absurd - observations and experiments describe objects that exist- they cannot be "right" or "wrong". Theory is just a language that can be used to discuss and summarize relationships between observations. The model should be completely empirical and tell us what relationships between fundamental properties are required.
This is the kind of theory we are looking for - simple, capable of being visualized- one that can connect together the puzzling observational facts that presently confound understanding. It seems to me that this should be the working hypothesis that is useful in opening up new directions of investigation until further paradoxes are encountered. We are certainly not at the end of science. Most probably we are just at the beginning!
In 1964, Fred Hoyle and Jayant Narlikar proposed a theory of gravitation (I would now prefer to call it a theory of mass) which had its origin in Mach's principle. According to this theory every particle in the universe derives its inertia from the rest of the particles in the universe. Imagine an electron just born into the universe before it has time to "see" any other particles in its vicinity. It has zero mass because there is nothing to operationally measure it against. As time goes on it receives signals from a volume of space that enlarges at the velocity of light, and contains larger and larger numbers of particles. Its mass grows in proportion to the number and strength of the signals it receives.
But in a very fundamental sense, the Machian physics which we depend on to fit the observations- that is what bridges the gap between classical dynamics and quantum mechanics. Because the particle "feels" the mass with which it communicates inside its light horizon, it is in contact through an electromagnetic wave whose particle aspect materializes and dematerializes like a quantum.
Cosmologically, the physics that assumes particle masses constant with time is not valid. What goes on in the rest of the universe affects what happens everywhere else. In addition to the pictures they form in their minds,
I think it is very important for humans to realize that the fundamental particles that make up their bodies and brains, and thus they themselves, are in some ill understood way in continual contact with the rest of the universe.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><center>'Seeing Red'
by Halton Arp</center>
There is now a fashionable set of beliefs regarding the workings of the universe, greatly publicized as the Big Bang, which I believe is wildly incorrect. But in order to enable people to make their own judgments about this question, we need to examine a large number of observations. Observations in science are the primary and final authority.
More than 10 years have passed and, in spite of determined opposition, I believe the observational evidence has become overwhelming, and the Big Bang has in reality been toppled. There is now a need to communicate the new observations, the connections between objects and the new insights into the workings of the universe - all the primary obligations of academic science, which has generally tried to suppress or ignore such dissident information.
(It makes one wonder, perhaps with profit, whether there are other uncertain assumptions on which much of our lives are built, but of which we are innocently overconfident.)
The present book is sure to outrage many academic scientists. Many of my professional friends will be greatly pained. Why then do I write it? First, everyone has to tell the truth as they see it, especially about important things. The fact that the majority of professionals are intolerant of even opinions which are discordant makes change a necessity. Those friends of mine who also struggle to get the mainstream of astronomy back on track mostly feel that presenting evidence and championing new theories is sufficient to cause change, and that it is improper to criticize an enterprise to which they belong and value highly. I disagree, in that I think if we do not understand why science is failing to self-correct, it will not be possible to fix it.
At this point, I believe we must look for salvation from the non-specialists, amateurs and interdisciplinary thinkers - those who form judgments on the general thrust of the evidence, those who are skeptical about any explanation, particularly official ones, and above all are tolerant of other people's theories. (When the complete answer is not known, in a sense everyone is a crackpot - Gasp!)
If the cause of these redshifts is misunderstood, then distances can be wrong by factors of 10 to 100, and luminosities and masses will be wrong by factors up to 10,000. We would have a totally erroneous picture of extragalactic space, and be faced with one of the most embarrassing boondoggles of our intellectual history.
Because objects in motion in the laboratory, or orbiting double stars, or rotating galaxies all show Doppler redshifts to longer wavelengths when they are receding, it has been assumed throughout astronomy that redshifts always and only mean recession velocity. No direct verification of this assumption is possible, and through the years many contradictions have arisen and been ignored. The evidence presented here is, I hope, convincing because it offers many different proofs of intrinsic (non-velocity) redshifts in every category of celestial object.
It is interesting to note that at first, Einstein felt this solution was incorrect. Later he said it was correct, but of no consequence. Finally he accepted the validity of this solution, but was so unhappy with the fact that it was not a stable solution, i.e., it either collapsed or expanded, that he retained the cosmological constant he had earlier introduced in order to keep the universe static. (This constant was later referred to as the cosmological fudge factor.)
In 1924, Hubble persuaded the world that the "white nebula" were really extragalactic, and a few years later announced that the redshifts of their spectral lines increased as they became fainter. This redshift-apparent magnitude relation for galaxies became known as the Hubble law ( through lack of rigor, often referred to as the redshift-distance relation). At this point Einstein dropped his cosmological constant as a great mistake, and adopted the view that his equations had been telling him all along, that the universe was expanding. Thus was born the Big Bang theory, according to which the entire universe was created instantaneously out of nothing 15 billion years ago.
This really is the entirety of the theory on which our whole concept of cosmology has been rested for the last 75 years. It is interesting to note, however, that Hubble, the observer, even up to his final lecture before the Royal Society, always held open the possibility that the redshift did not mean velocity of recession but might be caused by something else.
In his seminal book Realm of the Nebulae Hubble wrote: "On the other hand, if the interpretation as velocity shifts is abandoned, we find in the redshifts a hitherto unrecognized principle whose implications are unknown."
In the ensuing years the evidence discussed in the present book has built up to the point where it is clear that the velocity interpretation can now be abandoned in favor of a new principle which stands on a firm observational and theoretical foundation.
But of course, the stunning aspect of the ROSAT observations was that two quasars of redshift .63 and .45 are actually physically linked by a luminous connection to a low redshift object of z= .007. When I showed this to the local experts, there were alarmed states followed by annoyance.
This result made it clear that the compact and interacting groups were just a more concentrated ensemble of young, non-equilibrium companion galaxies which had been ejected more recently from the parent galaxy, and were composed of material of higher redshift. Aside from being empirically true, this interpretation solves all the conventional paradoxes of the failure of the galaxies to merge into a single galaxy on a cosmic time scale, and also explains the unbearable presence of "discordant" redshifts.
In later chapters we will show that galaxies and quasars tend to occur at certain preferred redshifts. This quantization implies that galaxies do not evolve with smoothly decreasing redshifts, but change in steps.
One major point of the present book is to try to make it impossible to ignore the enormous amount of mutually supporting significant evidence which all points to the same conclusion.
In the face of 28 years of accumulated evidence, to go on proclaiming that quasars are out at the edge of the universe seems unpardonable.
Summary - Alignments, Quasars, BL Lac's and Galaxy Clusters
1) Objects which appear young are aligned on either side of eruptive objects. This implies ejection of protogalaxies.
2) The youngest objects appear to have the highest redshifts. This implies that intrinsic redshift decreases as the object ages.
3) As distance from the ejecting central object increases, the quasars increase in brightness and decrease in redshift. This implies that the ejected objects evolve as they travel outward.
4) At about z= .3 and about 400 kpc from that parent galaxy the quasars appear to become very bright in optical and X-ray luminosity. This implies there is a transition to BL Lac Objects.
5) Few BL Lac objects are observed implying this phase is short-lived.
6) Clusters of galaxies, many of which are strong X-ray sources, end to appear at comparable distances to the BL Lac's from the parent galaxy. This suggests the clusters may be a result of the breaking up of a BL Lac.
7) Clusters of galaxies in the range z= .4 to .2 contain blue, active galaxies. It is implied that they continue to evolve to higher luminosity and lower redshift.
Abell clusters from z= .01 to .2 lie along ejection lines from galaxies like CenA. Presumably they are evolved products of the ejections.9) The strings of galaxies which are aligned through the brightest nearby spirals have redshifts z= .01 to .02. Presumably they are the last evolutionary stage of the ejected protogalaxies before they become slightly higher redshift companions of the original ejecting galaxies. (p166-7)
Quantization of Redshifts
The fact that measured values of redshift do not vary continuously but come in steps- certain preferred values- is so unexpected that conventional astronomy has never been able to accept it, in spite of the overwhelming observational evidence. Their problem is simply that if redshifts measure radial components of velocities, then galaxy velocities can be pointed at any angle to us, hence their redshifts must be continuously distributed. For supposed recession velocities of quasars, to measure equal steps in all directions in the sky means we are at the center of a series of explosions. This is an anti-Copernican embarrassment. So a simple glance at the evidence discussed in this Chapter shows that extragalactic astronomy and Big Bang theory is swept away. (p195)
On the theoretical front it has become more persuasive that particle masses determine intrinsic redshifts and that these change with cosmic age. Therefore episodic creation of matter will imprint redshift steps on objects created at different epochs. In addition it appears increasingly useful to view particle masses to be communicated by wave like carriers in a Machian universe. Therefore the possibility of beat frequencies, harmonics, interference and evolution through resonant states is opened up. (p195)
My attitude toward this result is that in a Machian universe there must be some signal carrier for inertial mass coming from distant galaxies. (p202)
In the phenomena of quantization, we have a connection from the redshifts of the quasars, to the redshifts of the galaxies, to the properties of the solar system and finally to the properties of fundamental particles like the electrons. The quantization of physical parameters would seem to be governed by the laws of non-local physics, i.e. like quantum mechanics in which the fundamental parameter appears to be time- for example the repetition rate of a spinning electron. It is clear that we are not running out of problems to solve. In fact, contrary to some rumors that we are reaching an end to physics, the more we learn the more primitive our previous understanding appears, and the more challenging the problems become. (p223)
On Academia and 'Belief' in Scientific Theories
After about 45 years, I now know that if the academic theoreticians at that time had not forced his observations into fashionable molds, we might at least not have started off modern cosmology with the wrong fundamental assumption. We could be much further along in understanding our relation to a much larger, older universe - a universe which is continually unfolding from many points within itself.
..the problem is pervasive throughout astronomy and, contrary to its projected image, endemic throughout most of current science. Scientists, particularly at the most prestigious institutions, regularly suppress and ridicule findings which contradict their current theories and assumptions.
One thing has been accomplished, though I now understand what should be called the statistics of nihilism. It can be reduced to a very simple axiom: "No matter how many times something new has been observed, it cannot be believed until it has been observed again."
In view of all the other evidence known to show that quasars, and 3C273 in particular, belonged to the Virgo Cluster, I gloomily came to the ironic conclusion that if you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality.
I had long ago learned that colloquia were events of intense social pressure, and that comments from the floor which questioned the assumptions of the speaker and were not explainable in a few sentences were neither understood nor welcome.
The greatest mistake in my opinion, and the one we continually make, is to let the theory guide the model. After a ridiculously long time it has finally dawned on me that establishment scientists actually proceed on the belief that theories tell you what is true and what is not true! Of course that is absurd - observations and experiments describe objects that exist- they cannot be "right" or "wrong". Theory is just a language that can be used to discuss and summarize relationships between observations. The model should be completely empirical and tell us what relationships between fundamental properties are required.
This is the kind of theory we are looking for - simple, capable of being visualized- one that can connect together the puzzling observational facts that presently confound understanding. It seems to me that this should be the working hypothesis that is useful in opening up new directions of investigation until further paradoxes are encountered. We are certainly not at the end of science. Most probably we are just at the beginning!
In 1964, Fred Hoyle and Jayant Narlikar proposed a theory of gravitation (I would now prefer to call it a theory of mass) which had its origin in Mach's principle. According to this theory every particle in the universe derives its inertia from the rest of the particles in the universe. Imagine an electron just born into the universe before it has time to "see" any other particles in its vicinity. It has zero mass because there is nothing to operationally measure it against. As time goes on it receives signals from a volume of space that enlarges at the velocity of light, and contains larger and larger numbers of particles. Its mass grows in proportion to the number and strength of the signals it receives.
But in a very fundamental sense, the Machian physics which we depend on to fit the observations- that is what bridges the gap between classical dynamics and quantum mechanics. Because the particle "feels" the mass with which it communicates inside its light horizon, it is in contact through an electromagnetic wave whose particle aspect materializes and dematerializes like a quantum.
Cosmologically, the physics that assumes particle masses constant with time is not valid. What goes on in the rest of the universe affects what happens everywhere else. In addition to the pictures they form in their minds,
I think it is very important for humans to realize that the fundamental particles that make up their bodies and brains, and thus they themselves, are in some ill understood way in continual contact with the rest of the universe.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.311 seconds