Are Quasars and Galaxies Redshifts Truly Quantized?

[Suede]

hmmm...

Non-cosmological redshifts of spectral lines
Emil Wolf Nature 326, 363 - 365 (26 March 1987); doi:10.1038/326363a0

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v326/n6111/abs/326363a0.html

We showed in a recent report1 (see also refs 2–4) that the normalized spectrum of light will, in general, change on propagation in free space. We also showed that the normalized spectrum of light emitted by a source of a well-defined class will, however, be the same throughout the far zone if the degree of spectral coherence of the source satisfies a certain scaling law. The usual thermal sources appear to be of this kind. These theoretical predictions were subsequently verified by experiments5. Here, we demonstrate that under certain circumstances the modification of the normalized spectrum of the emitted light caused by the correlations between the source fluctuations within the source region can produce redshifts of spectral lines in the emitted light. Our results suggest a possible explanation of various puzzling features of the spectra of some stellar objects, particularly quasars.

 

[Nereid]

Ahhhhh, now we finally get to the heart of the matter, and it has nothing to do with 'nebulium'.

What we are getting at is that all of the notions of expanding space and doppler redshift are predicated on theory that has absolutely no laboratory proof backing any of it.

Um, no.

The theory is the General theory of Relativity (GR), and it has a great deal of "laboratory proof backing" (see Clifford Will's Living Review, for example).

(for 'nebulium' the theory is, at base, QED ... which is most precisely tested theory in science today, period. This theory is also critical for determination of redshifts - all those lines).

Consistency with observation is currently only obtained by fitting models to observation, which without experimental proof, is a big scientific no no.

Sorta ...

In astrophysics, "experimental proof" is not possible* ... one cannot, for example, create a star in one's laboratory, much less a galaxy.

I don't know where you got this "experimental proof" criterion (for astronomy to be a science) from, it has not been part of astronomy or astrophysics ... ever, at least not in the extreme form you say.

Epicycles come to mind.

Is it more radical to believe expansion of space is the cause of redshift or is it more radical to believe a laboratory proven effect could be the cause of it? Pink fairies aside, Wolf has demonstrated redshifting experimentally, and he didn't do it using expanding space.

Well, that's for you yourself to decide ...

However, if you are interested in modern astrophysics, as a branch of science, then you will need to get used to working within the framework I've oh so briefly sketched^.

If you want to discuss the philosophy of science, PF has a section where you can do that (and there are internet discussion fora whose central purpose is such discussions).


* there are some very limited exceptions
^ and if you want to continue participating in discussions in this part of PF, likewise.

 

[Nereid]

hmmm...

Non-cosmological redshifts of spectral lines
Emil Wolf Nature 326, 363 - 365 (26 March 1987); doi:10.1038/326363a0

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v326/n6111/abs/326363a0.html

We showed in a recent report1 (see also refs 2–4) that the normalized spectrum of light will, in general, change on propagation in free space. We also showed that the normalized spectrum of light emitted by a source of a well-defined class will, however, be the same throughout the far zone if the degree of spectral coherence of the source satisfies a certain scaling law. The usual thermal sources appear to be of this kind. These theoretical predictions were subsequently verified by experiments5. Here, we demonstrate that under certain circumstances the modification of the normalized spectrum of the emitted light caused by the correlations between the source fluctuations within the source region can produce redshifts of spectral lines in the emitted light. Our results suggest a possible explanation of various puzzling features of the spectra of some stellar objects, particularly quasars.

(bold added)

Indeed.

The key here is that while many quasars were then (1987) known to be non-stellar objects (i.e. extended sources), for only one had a spectrum of the object outside the brilliant nucleus been obtained* (if the spectrum of the extended object has the same redshift as that of the point source, then clearly the Wolf effect cannot be in play, to any detectable extent).

Since 1987, not only have many quasar host galaxy spectra been reported (they are, without exception, the same as the quasar), but the unified AGN model has been developed (and extensively tested).

I do not know for sure, but I suspect that one important reason you see considerably fewer references to the Wolf effect in relation to extra-galactic objects is the failure of Wolf (or anyone else for that matter) to be able to model an extended source and reproduce the key features in its spectrum.

Just to emphasise an important implication of the success of the unified model: any quantitative explanation of quasar redshifts, using the Wolf effect, would also have to be shown to apply to the redshifts of Seyfert galaxies, across the whole galaxy (not just the redshift of the nucleus).

* 3C273, IIRC, and it's highly unlikely that Wolf would have known about this, as he was not, then, active as an extra-galactic astronomer

 

[Suede]

However, if you are interested in modern astrophysics, as a branch of science, then you will need to get used to working within the framework I've oh so briefly sketched^.

So I've come to see.

This is why Arp got the boot.

Thinking outside the box is verboten.

 

[Nereid]

Interesting.

Optical redshifts due to correlations in quasar plasmas
Lama, W.; Walsh, P.J. Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on Volume 31, Issue 6, Dec. 2003 Page(s): 1223 - 1229

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/27/28301/01265342.pdf?arnumber=1265342

Summary: While it is commonly accepted that cosmic redshifts are caused by the expansion of space, there are some puzzling cases. For example, a number of quasars having very large redshifts appear to be close to galaxies having much lower redshifts. If the standard cosmological model of the universe is correct, then the apparent proximity of quasars and galaxies must be incorrect, and the quasars must be much farther away. Then we are puzzled by the enormous luminosity of the quasars, which must be thousands of times more energetic than an entire galaxy, and by their enormous speeds, which must approach the speed of light. But if the quasar redshifts have a significant contribution from another mechanism besides expansion, then their proximity to low redshift galaxies and the quasar energy and speed puzzles would be resolved. One physical mechanism that produces redshifts is optical correlations. In fact, correlation-induced spectral changes on scattering from gases or plasmas can mimic the major features of redshifts caused by expansion. We will present a high-level, hopefully intuitive, overview of the theory that has been developed over the past decade and try to draw some concrete conclusions about the relevancy of the effect to the redshifts from quasars.

I missed this one ... same comments as on the Wolf paper, except to say that while Wolf would not have been expected to know about some obscure paper or two, in 1987, reporting observations of the spectra of quasar host galaxies, by 2003 Lama and Walsh most definitely should have!

In fact, if they had submitted this to a leading astrophysics journal, rather than a plasma physics one, I doubt it'd have been published (not without extensive edits anyway) - the whole* point of peer-review is to ensure directly pertinent papers, already published, are acknowledged, and their relevant content addressed.

A lesson for you Suede? Check ApJ, MNRAS, etc first ... and read Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions only after you've got the astrophysics papers under your belt.

* well, one of the main ones anyway

 

[Nereid]

So I've come to see.

This is why Arp got the boot.

Thinking outside the box is verboten.

What poppycock!

Arp apparently has no difficulty publishing papers in ApJ (just check ADS).

Further, his (published) theories fail much more badly on the Suede "laboratory proof backing" test than either QED or GR does (seen any physics papers on variable mass, for example?)

But surely the main reason his papers are rarely cited by anyone other than himself today* is that the ideas he published have failed to be independently verified, have been shown to be internally inconsistent, and (above all) have been shown to be inconsistent with all relevant observational results, isn't it?

* except for historical reasons

 

[Suede]

Since 1987, not only have many quasar host galaxy spectra been reported (they are, without exception, the same as the quasar), but the unified AGN model has been developed (and extensively tested).

Yeah, and the AGN model relies on how many variables that have not be experimentally proven?

By tested, I assume you mean fit to observation, not proven in a laboratory.

 

[Suede]

In fact, if they had submitted this to a leading astrophysics journal, rather than a plasma physics one, I doubt it'd have been published (not without extensive edits anyway) - the whole* point of peer-review is to ensure directly pertinent papers, already published, are acknowledged, and their relevant content addressed.

A lesson for you Suede? Check ApJ, MNRAS, etc first ... and read Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions only after you've got the astrophysics papers under your belt.

Yeah that pesky IEEE has been a real thorn in your side hey?

All these plasma engineers treading on astrophysicists turf!

Who do they think they are!

btw, the Wolf theory the IEEE paper is predicated on did come from Nature and ApJ.

 

[Nereid]

Yeah, and the AGN model relies on how many variables that have not be experimentally proven?

None ... everything in the model comes straight out of the standard physics textbook.

By tested, I assume you mean fit to observation, not proven in a laboratory.

Indeed ... just like all of extra-galactic astrophysics (and almost all of the rest of it too).

There are, obviously, no labs that have created a Wolf-Rayet star (for example), to experimentally prove that it has a spectrum like that of astrophysicists' models.

I think it's time we ask a mentor to step in here ... we've gone waaay OT, not only for this thread, but also for this part of PF.

 

[Suede]

Tell you what, let's just leave this as it is.

The readers of this forum can make up their own minds as to what theory better fits reality.

In my opinion, I think I've laid out a pretty convincing case for the plausibility of non-doppler redshifts. Of course, you may not agree with that interpretation, which is fine.

 

[Janus]

This thread has drifted off course too much. Time to end it.