Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Quantized Red-shifts and implications
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 1 of 17 (122870)
07-08-2004 1:57 AM


The discovery that redshifts are quantized was made by Tifft back in the 1970's. He found quantizations in the data that much surpassed the margin of instrumentation error. A summary from http://www.ldolphin.org/staticu.html is below.
From 1975 onward, after a long, careful series of measurements on binary galaxies and galaxies in the Coma cluster, Tifft published several papers indicating that redshift differences between galaxies were not smooth but went in jumps, or were quantised [Tifft, 1977, p.31]. The Coma cluster exhibited this effect in such a way that bands of redshift ran through the whole cluster. Some little time later, Tifft was on sabbatical leave in Italy and lectured on the puzzling quantization effects he had been observing. At one of these lectures he was presented with a list of accurate redshifts using radio measurements of hydrogen with the comment "I am sure you will not find periodicity in here." In this case, the word "periodicity" is referring to the quantisation effect. Astronomer Halton Arp reports on the outcome of Tifft's analysis of this data set by stating: "Not only did the quantization appear in this independent set of very accurate double galaxy measurements, but it was the most clear cut, obviously significant demonstration of the effect yet seen. ...The results were later reconfirmed by optical measures in the Southern Hemisphere..." [Arp, 1987, p. 112].
Many ignored this believing that it was the result of insufficient data.
In 1981, the results of an extensive redshift survey by astronomers Fisher and Tully were published [Fisher & Tully, 1981, p.139]. At first the quantization seemed no where to be found, but when the effects of the motion of the solar system were removed the quntizations "appeared globally across the whole sky" [Tifft & Cocke, 1984, p.492].
Despite this, folks have still unjustly claimed that the quantization is the result of incomplete data.
In 1985 Sulentic and Arp independently confirmed the quantizations again. They "used radio-telescopes to accurately measure the redshifts of over 260 galaxies from more than 80 different groups for an entirely different purpose." When they conducted their analysis they were surprised to find the quantizations appearing as Tifft and Cocke had found.
In the early 90's two scottish astronomers, Bruce Gutherie and William Napier from the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh, tried to prove Tifft and Cocke wrong.
By the end of 1991 they had studied 106 spiral galaxies and detected a quantization of about 37.5 km/s, very close to Tifft's quantum multiple of 36.2 km/s [Schewe & Stein, 1992a, No.61]. By November 1992, a further 89 spiral galaxies had been examined in which a quantization of 37.2 km/s emerged [Schewe & Stein, 1992b, No. 104]. In 1995 they submitted a paper to Astronomy and Astrophysics with the results from a further 97 spiral galaxies showing a 37.5 km/s quantization. Because the prevailing wisdom said the quantization only appeared because of small number statistics, the referees asked them to repeat their analysis with another set of galaxies. This Guthrie and Napier did with an additional set of 117 other galaxies. The same 37.5 km/s quantization was plainly in evidence in this 1996 data set, and the referees accepted the paper [Matthews, 1996, p.759; Corliss, 1996, No. 105, Arp, 1998, p.199-200]. A Fourier analysis of all 399 data points showed a huge spike at 37.5 km/s with a significance of one in a million. The measurement error was about 1/10th the size of the quantization. One comment on the redshift quantization plot stated: "One can see at a glance how accurately the troughs and peaks of redshift march metronomically outward from 0 to over 2000 km/s." [Arp, 1998, p.199].
Scientists, still reluctant to give up on the theory that redshifts are solely caused by doppler shifts have continued claiming that the quantizations are the result of poor or insufficent data.
Some claim research done with the 2dF survey shown here: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0208117 proves that quantized redshifts do not exist. This survey merely proves that quantized redshifts of Quasars do not exist, which is a totally different matter from quantized galaxy redshifts. This is understandable as there are several processes that may cause redshifts of quasars to be different than their neighboring galaxies.
The most recent research done in 2003 by Morely Bell has yet again found quantization of galaxy redshifts. The research is available for review here: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0305/0305112.pdf
The evidence that quantized red-shifts exist is real and the implications are astounding.
If the assumption that delta z (redshift) is solely caused by doppler shifts and therefore z*c = v of recession is removed, many enigmas can be resolved such as dark matter and dark energy, the inability to find an H that fits galaxies at all distances, the problems with galaxies moving with z > .5, star quakes, and the infinite universe to name a few.
The quantized redshifts seem to indicate a change in the light emitters themselves and also to indicate that relative galaxy motion is almost negligible.
The quantization can be explained by an increase in Zero Point Energy over time, which according to Bohr's model of the atom would increase electron orbit energy and cause a quantized blue shift as time proceeds. The theoretics of this are contained here: http://www.setterfield.org/atqustates.html
I would like to see if anyone else has any other explanations for the quantized redshift or if anyone else would like to discuss what the implications of this might be.
This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 07-08-2004 01:06 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Coragyps, posted 07-08-2004 10:34 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 17 (122879)
07-08-2004 3:25 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 17 (122880)
07-08-2004 3:34 AM


This topic was done to death some months ago. It died of natural causes when the recent, more comprehensive astronomical data showed no quantization of red shift.

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-08-2004 6:54 AM wj has not replied
 Message 7 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-08-2004 12:58 PM wj has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 4 of 17 (122897)
07-08-2004 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by wj
07-08-2004 3:34 AM


quote:
This topic was done to death some months ago.
The referenced topic is Quantized redshifts strongly suggest that our galaxy is at the centre of the universe. It was mostly active in mid to late 2002.
I guess it could be done again. Most every theme sooner or later gets recycled into a new topic.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by wj, posted 07-08-2004 3:34 AM wj has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 5 of 17 (122928)
07-08-2004 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hangdawg13
07-08-2004 1:57 AM


which according to Bohr's model of the atom
Bohr's model of the atom? The one he proposed in 1913 and abandoned as hopelessly incomplete in 1925? The one with the electron of a hydrogen atom in a circular orbit? That Bohr's model of the atom?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-08-2004 1:57 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-08-2004 1:02 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4375 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 6 of 17 (122996)
07-08-2004 12:34 PM


To the Original Poster.....
Tell me why:
1) The so called quantised redshifts of Tifft only occur in spirals and only occur in the fainter member of pairs?
Also the so called periodicity varies depending on which data analysis technique used. In other words it's not repeatable.
Another clue - have you heard much of this past the late 1990's?
It seems even Tifft has gone quiet on this issue.
Most astronomers believe that systematic errors in measuring accurate redshifts in dusty spirals (Oh did I mention it is the dustiest spirals that exhibit the behaviour - another clue it is measurement related and not intrinsic to the Universe.)
All in all not convincing.
End result - galaxy redshifts are NOT quantised.
2) The rest of your post is just rambling garbage.

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-08-2004 1:14 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 7 of 17 (122999)
07-08-2004 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by wj
07-08-2004 3:34 AM


This topic was done to death some months ago. It died of natural causes when the recent, more comprehensive astronomical data showed no quantization of red shift.
Could you tell me who what and when?
I gave you a link: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0305/0305112.pdf
to research done in 2003.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by wj, posted 07-08-2004 3:34 AM wj has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 8 of 17 (123000)
07-08-2004 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Coragyps
07-08-2004 10:34 AM


I am still studying this topic from the links I listed, but I believe what is used from Bohr's model is the idea that electron's give off energy in orbit and that to maintain their radius from the nucleus energy must be added to the electron from somewhere, probably the ZPE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Coragyps, posted 07-08-2004 10:34 AM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Chiroptera, posted 07-08-2004 1:12 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 17 (123002)
07-08-2004 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Hangdawg13
07-08-2004 1:02 PM


No. Bohr's model was simply an ad hoc model that had no theoretical justification. It was proposed simply because it seem to give correct results, but with no reasons. For hydrogen. It utterly failed to work for any other atom, and was eventually superceded by quantum mechanics. The Bohr model of the hydrogen atom is more of a historic curiosity than anything else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-08-2004 1:02 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-08-2004 1:16 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 10 of 17 (123003)
07-08-2004 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Eta_Carinae
07-08-2004 12:34 PM


Re: To the Original Poster.....
Thank you for your reply.
The so called quantised redshifts of Tifft only occur in spirals and only occur in the fainter member of pairs?
I have never read anything indicating this. Could you please provide a reference?
Also the so called periodicity varies depending on which data analysis technique used. In other words it's not repeatable.
Not repeatable? As far as I know it has been independently confirmed more than five times.
Another clue - have you heard much of this past the late 1990's?
As I said, the latest research that found periodicity was done in 2003.
Most astronomers believe that systematic errors in measuring accurate redshifts in dusty spirals (Oh did I mention it is the dustiest spirals that exhibit the behaviour - another clue it is measurement related and not intrinsic to the Universe.)
If none of the those who did the research mentioned this, then where did you get this? Please give me a link. Furthermore, variable density of cosmic dust would cause it's own redshift to a greater or lesser degree wiping out any periodicity. This may be one reason quasars do not exhibit periodicity.
All in all not convincing.
End result - galaxy redshifts are NOT quantised.
2) The rest of your post is just rambling garbage.
Please reply politely with an open mind and evidence to back up your statements or do not reply at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Eta_Carinae, posted 07-08-2004 12:34 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Coragyps, posted 07-08-2004 1:23 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied
 Message 14 by Eta_Carinae, posted 07-08-2004 3:55 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 11 of 17 (123005)
07-08-2004 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Chiroptera
07-08-2004 1:12 PM


Thank you for your reply.
Alright, as far as I can tell quantum mechincs really has much more to do with it than Bohr's model anyway. Please tell me the name of the force that pulls the electron towards the nucleus and the force that pushes it away (I forgot their names) and the source of energy for these forces.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Chiroptera, posted 07-08-2004 1:12 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Chiroptera, posted 07-08-2004 2:20 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


(1)
Message 12 of 17 (123006)
07-08-2004 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Hangdawg13
07-08-2004 1:14 PM


Re: To the Original Poster.....
Furthermore, variable density of cosmic dust would cause it's own redshift
Reddening, perhaps, but not redshift. Dust scatters blue light, preferentially letting red be transmitted. Sunsets are the canonical example. Dust doesn't have anything to do with redshift, which is an actual change in wavelength from source to receiver. Different critters entirely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-08-2004 1:14 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 13 of 17 (123014)
07-08-2004 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Hangdawg13
07-08-2004 1:16 PM


In a semi-classical description, the force that pulls the electron into the nucleus is the electrostatic force -- positive charges (protons) and negative charges (electrons) attract. There is no force that pushes it away -- just like there is no force that pushes the earth from the sun or the moon from the earth in their orbits. In the case of the moon about the earth, what is happening is that the moon has a "sideways motion" that is fast enough that the moon is, in a sense, falling, but falling around the earth.
These semi-classical notions don't work very well for atoms -- they are too bizarre to be described by classical mechanics. In fact, "force" is rarely used in quantum mechanics. Instead, energy is used as a surrogate for force (just like in classical mechanics sometimes).
There is an equation that quantum mechanical entities must obey, just like classical objects obey Newton's equation. It is an observed fact that the electron "feels" a potential energy about the nucleus described to a first approximation by Maxwell's equations (more accurate calculations actually require a theory called Quantun Electrodynamics). When this potential energy is put into the quantum mechanical equation, the result is the probability distribution of the electron's position. This probability distribution tells us which postions the electron is more likely to be than others. According to quantum mechanics, we cannot tell, until we actually measure the position, exactly where the electron is going to be. In fact, according to the most widely accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics, the electron doesn't even have a definite position until we measure it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-08-2004 1:16 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4375 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 14 of 17 (123029)
07-08-2004 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Hangdawg13
07-08-2004 1:14 PM


Re: To the Original Poster.....
Check Tifft's original papers. I'll provide some other references later about the fainter member only.
I meant that the amount of the periodicity changes depending on how the data is reduced. Galaxies that appear on one peak shift to another when the data is analysed differently.
Be very careful quoting the Bell/Comeau papers. I just checked into this.
Bell is a millimetre astronomy guy whose background has nothing to so with these kind of observations. He has been on a kick the last few years with supposed intrinsic redshifts for quasars and this Tifft related stuff.
Read carefully - he still avers that redshift is distance related for galaxies - he is arguing for a reduction in the Hubble constant not to question the entire relationship.
ALSO - these papers have been REFUSED for publication. Comeau has not one published paper to his name - I repeat not one. Bell's published papers are primarily on radio recombination line studies and the like plus a couple on quasar redshifts. Nothing on spiral galaxy periodicities - they are refused.
Again I repeat - all these papers have been rejected by the referees. That is very telling. After all, Tiffts original papers were accepted.
I am not an observational astronomer (I'm a theoretical astrophysicist) but the fact they were not published lends me to believe their data analysis was considered questionable. Note that they did not do the observing themselves but took other peoples data and analysed it themselves. You might want to check out the originators work on such data and WHY they have not reported this.
I'll find the references to other workers who have questioned Tiffts results when I have the time.
As I said this issue has been dormant for several years, I don't offhand recall Tifft even doing much on this - though he is retired officially from Arizona.
The reason I said the rest was garbage because it was just a list of crank inferences most of which made little to no sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-08-2004 1:14 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Eta_Carinae, posted 07-13-2004 7:54 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4375 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 15 of 17 (124290)
07-13-2004 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Eta_Carinae
07-08-2004 3:55 PM


**Bump**
Where has the quantised redshift nut gone?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Eta_Carinae, posted 07-08-2004 3:55 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-13-2004 10:38 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024