Are Quasars and Galaxies Redshifts Truly Quantized?

[Nereid]

[...]

Bell, M. B.; McDiarmid, D.
Six Peaks Visible in the Redshift Distribution of 46,400 SDSS Quasars Agree with the Preferred Redshifts Predicted by the Decreasing Intrinsic Redshift Model
The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 648, Issue 1, pp. 140-147.

"The periodicity detected is in linear z, as opposed to log(1+z). "
The stack of papers I put together in the OP shows how they are all related by the .062 harmonic, as does the harmonic table.

Linear.

Indeed*.

Which part of the following, from my post, do you think I should clarify?

"The latter [0.062] is that predicted by M. B. Bell, among others ("the second model").

Ryabinkov et al. find that neither [the first model nor the second model] is consistent with their data."

How about another quote from Ryabinkov et al. (bold added)?

To our knowledge, there are two models discussed in literature which suggest different periodical sets of preferred redshifts. The first model [...].
The second one was proposed by Bell (e.g., Bell 2002, 2004) for the “intrinsic” redshifts of QSOs and extended on a set of preferred redshifts of galaxies by Bell & Comeau (2003).

"Bell 2004" is "Bell M.B., 2004, ApJ, 616, 738"; this paper is one of the key ones that Bell and McDiarmid (2006) (above) cite.

* except, of course, for the pesky detail of the inconsistencies in definitions of velocity/redshift!

 

[Suede]

Indeed*.

Which part of the following, from my post, do you think I should clarify?

"The latter [0.062] is that predicted by M. B. Bell, among others ("the second model").

Ryabinkov et al. find that neither [the first model nor the second model] is consistent with their data."

How about another quote from Ryabinkov et al. (bold added)?

"Bell 2004" is "Bell M.B., 2004, ApJ, 616, 738"; this paper is one of the key ones that Bell and McDiarmid (2006) (above) cite.

* except, of course, for the pesky detail of the inconsistencies in definitions of velocity/redshift!

They didn't refute Bell's 2006 findings.

 

[Nereid]

They didn't refute Bell's 2006 findings.

That paper's abstract says (among other things; bold added):

Six peaks that fall within the redshift window below z=4 are visible. Their positions agree with the preferred redshift values predicted by the decreasing intrinsic redshift (DIR) model.

That's the model published in "Bell 2002, 2004".

Bell's "2006 findings" are merely an application of his model, published earlier, to SDSS data.

Of course, Ryabinkov et al. do not "refute" anything; "refutation" is what happens in mathematics, not science*.

In science, the critical test^ is consistency with (all) relevant experimental and observational results.

Bell and McDiarmid (2006) fails this consistency test - both wrt the actual SDSS data (Schneider et al. 2007, already cited), and wrt an independent analysis using different data (Ryabinkov et al. 2007, which you cited).

It doesn't get much more powerful than that.


* except, perhaps, in the limited sense of flawed maths in a theoretical paper
^ once internal consistency and consistency with the other parts of science the idea relies upon have been established.

 

[Suede]

That paper's abstract says (among other things; bold added):

That's the model published in "Bell 2002, 2004".

Bell's "2006 findings" are merely an application of his model, published earlier, to SDSS data.

Of course, Ryabinkov et al. do not "refute" anything; "refutation" is what happens in mathematics, not science*.

In science, the critical test^ is consistency with (all) relevant experimental and observational results.

Bell and McDiarmid (2006) fails this consistency test - both wrt the actual SDSS data (Schneider et al. 2007, already cited), and wrt an independent analysis using different data (Ryabinkov et al. 2007, which you cited).

It doesn't get much more powerful than that.


* except, perhaps, in the limited sense of flawed maths in a theoretical paper
^ once internal consistency and consistency with the other parts of science the idea relies upon have been established.

They didn't refute Bell's 2006 findings in that paper.

Again, I point the .062 harmonic as further evidence against the other papers that supposedly refute Bell's work which used "significantly" reduced datasets.

The other papers refuting Bell found no peaks at all IIRC, so obviously, this paper is in direct conflict with them no?

In fact this paper supports what Bell was saying about peak formation at least right? If I was a betting man, I'd wager that if they conducted a Fourier analysis as Hartnett did, they would find evidence of the .062 harmonic.

 

[Chronos]

A grad student sure as hell better not touch this hot potato if he wants to have any future at all in establishment physics right now. I think they would be better served to pursue the data where ever it may lead but not say a word of it or their beliefs to anyone at the present moment.

When Arp came forward with his findings, he had his telescope time yanked, had his funding cut, and was shoved out the door. Right behind him was Hoyle. Alfven had his work corrupted to the point where it is unrecognizable. Radical ideas are often met with blind hostility because they challenge belief systems. A change in physics away from our current path isn't going to happen until the old hands retire, which is probably going to be pretty soon since the baby boomers are just coming of retirement age.

That's pretty hard core, don't you think? Grad students are unwilling to risk their careers on a controversial stand? In my experience, there are about 10 grad students for every career opportunity out there and 90% of them would gladly pursue any viable research project to get a leg up on the competition. It is unsurprising the vast majority choose cutting edge over trailing edge ideas.

Your Arp bio is decievingly brief. He was not shown the door the first time he made a controversial claim, it was his intransigence over time that led to his demise. To my knowledge, Hoyle was never 'shown the door', and who was that miscreant who corrupted Alfven's work without his knowledge or consent? I see no evidence supporting your 'blind hostility' or sinister 'belief systems' assetions.

 

[Suede]

That's pretty hard core, don't you think? Grad students are unwilling to risk their careers on a controversial stand? In my experience, there are about 10 grad students for every career opportunity out there and 90% of them would gladly pursue any viable research project to get a leg up on the competition. It is unsurprising the vast majority choose cutting edge over trailing edge ideas.

Your Arp bio is decievingly brief. He was not shown the door the first time he made a controversial claim, it was his intransigence over time that led to his demise. To my knowledge, Hoyle was never 'shown the door', and who was that miscreant who corrupted Alfven's work without his knowledge or consent? I see no evidence supporting your 'blind hostility' or sinister 'belief systems' assetions.

I don't think its hard core, I think its reality.

I also think its part conditioning.

When you come out of grad school, you've been conditioned to accept certain things and think in a certain way. While learning the rigorous mathematics, you aren't taught to stop and think if the things being postulated actually relate back to reality. You aren't taught the importance of falsafiable experimentation in scientific theory.

I don't see how any grad student could seriously challenge the scientific dogma today and still expect to land himself any kind of a job.

As for Arp, he was punished for trying to falsify redshift = distance. Of course he made many, many, many controvertial claims. That dogged pursuit of truth led him out the door. He questioned just about everything, which is what scientists are suppose to do. He did what Nereid is doing right here and now. Only Arp was on the other side of the argument. And for arguing scientific facts, he got the boot.

 

[Nereid]

They didn't refute Bell's 2006 findings in that paper.

Indeed.

However, Ryabinkov et al. (2007) analysed their data using the intrinsic redshift model Bell published ("DIR"); the same model he (Bell) cites in his 2006 paper.

Again, I point the .062 harmonic as further evidence against the other papers that supposedly refute Bell's work which used "significantly" reduced datasets.

I do not understand this; would you mind clarifying please?

The other papers refuting Bell found no peaks at all IIRC, so obviously, this paper is in direct conflict with them no?

Details matter, a lot.

Ryabinkov et al. (2007) analysed absorption line systems (ALS) in the spectra of quasars.

The Schneider et al. (2007) paper includes an analysis of the consistency, completeness, etc of the fourth edition of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Quasar Catalog. Among the results reported is that they could not reproduce Bell's 2006 finding. The redshifts reported in that catalogue are those of the quasars themselves.

The model Bell tests, in his 2006 paper, is "DIR" (decreasing intrinsic redshift). IIRC, the domain of applicability of this model, according to Bell (its author) is all extragalactic objects - quasars, galaxies, SNe, GRBs, clusters, the IGM, ALS, ...

There is no explicit conflict between Ryabinkov et al. (2007) and Schneider et al. (2007) ... they report analyses of different things.

In fact this paper supports what Bell was saying about peak formation at least right?

I don't think so.

Again, Bell's analysis was done within the framework of a hypothesis (or hypotheses) built on his DIR model.

AFAIK, that model is very specific about what redshift peaks can form, how, and where.

If I was a betting man, I'd wager that if they conducted a Fourier analysis as Hartnett did, they would find evidence of the .062 harmonic.

Who, Ryabinkov et al. (2007)?

Well, as their source data is freely available, and as Fourier analyses a la Hartnett can be done on a PC, why not do such an analysis yourself, and publish the results?

 

[Nereid]

Suede, I'm curious about the 0.062 harmonic intrinsic redshift.

Do you know if anyone has reported finding this effect in the lab? If so, would you be kind enough to provide a reference?

Part of my curiosity comes from reading the following recently, in another thread in this section of PF:

"[my threshold of belief] requires falsifiable experimentation and testable physics before I buy into the theory"

"I'll believe in [...] when we can produce one in a lab."

 

[Suede]

Suede, I'm curious about the 0.062 harmonic intrinsic redshift.

Do you know if anyone has reported finding this effect in the lab? If so, would you be kind enough to provide a reference?

Part of my curiosity comes from reading the following recently, in another thread in this section of PF:

"[my threshold of belief] requires falsifiable experimentation and testable physics before I buy into the theory"

"I'll believe in [...] when we can produce one in a lab."

Actually, yes.

Polarization-induced spectral changes on propagation of stochastic electromagnetic beams
Jixiong Pu, Olga Korotkova, Emil Wolf, Phys. Rev. E 75, 056610 (2007)
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PLEEE8000075000005056610000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

Correlation-induced Doppler-type frequency shifts of spectral lines
E. Wolf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 2220 - 2223 (1989)
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v63/i20/p2220_1

Invariance of the Spectrum of Light on Propagation
Emil Wolf Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 1370 - 1372 (1986)
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v56/i13/p1370_1

Redshifts and Blueshifts of Spectral Lines Emitted by Two Correlated Sources
E. Wolf, Phys. Rev. Letters, 58, 2646, 1987
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/WolfPRL1.pdf


Wolf found the effect, which was then experimented on by:

G.M. Morris and D. Faklis, Opt. Commun. 62, 5 (1987)

another one
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v58/i25/p2649_1

 

[Suede]

Quoting Peratt:

Scientists have long believed that only the Doppler effect or Gravity as described by Einstein could account for wavelength shifts in the spectrum of light as it travels through space. Where neither factor applies, scientists have always assumed spectral invariance—the spectrum remains the same no matter how far the light travels. This is the case with ordinary sources—called "Lambertian" after Johann Heinrich Lambert—such as the blackbody radiation from stellar surfaces.

In the past few years, however, experiments have shown that there is a third way to shift spectral lines. This mechanism involves non-Lambertian sources that emit beamed energy, such as lasers and devices producing synchrotron light. The discoverer of this new effect is physicist Emil Wolf, who, along with Max Born, wrote the definitive textbook Principles of Optics.

A mechanic analog to Wolf's discovery is a pair of tuning forks with nearly identical resonant frequencies (pitches). If these forks are connected together mechanically by, say, a sounding board, the coupling is strong and the resonant frequencies tend to get "dragged down" to lower ones. In other words, the wavelength is lengthened, or redshifted. This phenomenon has been verified experimentally with light waves and for sound waves from coupled speakers.

The actual frequency shift due to the Wolf effect depends on the geometry. As the illustration above shows, whether an observer sees a redshift or a blue shift depends on his or her locations with respect to the source.

The mechanism can be extended from the case of two radiating point sources to that of a whole collection of such objects, for example a plasma cloud. Wolf and his colleagues have shown that such a cloud can produce shifts that closely mimic the Doppler effect.

 

[Suede]

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~korotkov/

Very recently we have shown [24], [28] that if a source generating a random beam is electromagnetic then its polarization can affect the shifts of spectral profiles of generated fields in the far-zone. Previously this effect was attributed only to coherence properties of sources.

DR. OLGA KOROTKOVA

oh yeay baby, we need more researchers like her IMHO.

24. J. Pu, O. Korotkova and E. Wolf, “Invariance and non-invariance of the spectrum and of the degree of polarization of stochastic electromagnetic beams on
propagation”, Opt. Lett. 31, 2097-2099 (2006).
It has been known for some time that the spectrum of light may change on propagation, even in free space. The theory of this phenomena was developed within the framework of scalar theory. In this paper we generalize it to electromagnetic beams, generated by planar, secondary, stochastic sources. We also derive an electromagnetic analog of the so-called scaling law. When this law is satisfied the normalized spectrum of the beam is the same throughout the far zone and is the same as the normalized source spectrum. We illustrate our analysis by an example.


28. O. Korotkova, J. Pu and E. Wolf, “Effects of source polarization and source coherence on far-zone spectra of stochastic beams" (submitted to
Phys. Rev. E).
It was shown some years ago that the spectrum of a stochastic scalar field depends not only on the source spectrum but also on the degree of coherence of the source. In this paper we show that there are electromagnetic sources, whose degree of polarization also affects the spectrum of the radiated field. We illustrate the analysis by diagrams which show the far-zone spectra of some stochastic electromagnetic beams generated by sources of different states of coherence and different degrees of polarization. The spectra of the radiated field depend both on coherence properties of the source and its degree of polarization and are found to be different in different directions of observation.

 

[Nereid]

Suede, I'm curious about the 0.062 harmonic intrinsic redshift.

Do you know if anyone has reported finding this effect in the lab? If so, would you be kind enough to provide a reference?

Actually, yes.


Correlation-induced Doppler-type frequency shifts of spectral lines
E. Wolf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 2220 - 2223 (1989)
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v63/i20/p2220_1

Invariance of the Spectrum of Light on Propagation
Emil Wolf Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 1370 - 1372 (1986)
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v56/i13/p1370_1

Redshifts and Blueshifts of Spectral Lines Emitted by Two Correlated Sources
E. Wolf, Phys. Rev. Letters, 58, 2646, 1987
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/WolfPRL1.pdf


Wolf found the effect, which was then experimented on by:

G.M. Morris and D. Faklis, Opt. Commun. 62, 5 (1987)

another one
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v58/i25/p2649_1

Thanks.

I'm a little puzzled ... Morris and Faklis did not report a 0.062 harmonic intrinsic redshift; in fact, they didn't experiment with electromagnetic waves at all (at least, not in the paper you cite).

Where are the experimental (lab) results which report a 0.062 harmonic intrinsic redshift published?

In any case, Wolf's result (effect) would be applicable only to objects that appear as point sources, wouldn't it?

 

[Suede]

Thanks.

I'm a little puzzled ... Morris and Faklis did not report a 0.062 harmonic intrinsic redshift; in fact, they didn't experiment with electromagnetic waves at all (at least, not in the paper you cite).

Where are the experimental (lab) results which report a 0.062 harmonic intrinsic redshift published?

In any case, Wolf's result (effect) would be applicable only to objects that appear as point sources, wouldn't it?

Read the next papers down.

Those deal with electromagnetic sources.

 

[Nereid]

I'm a little puzzled ... Morris and Faklis did not report a 0.062 harmonic intrinsic redshift; in fact, they didn't experiment with electromagnetic waves at all (at least, not in the paper you cite).

Where are the experimental (lab) results which report a 0.062 harmonic intrinsic redshift published?

In any case, Wolf's result (effect) would be applicable only to objects that appear as point sources, wouldn't it?

Read the next papers down.

Those deal with electromagnetic sources.

I'm not seeing it ... "Redshifts and Blueshifts of Spectral Lines Emitted by Two Correlated Sources E. Wolf, Phys. Rev. Letters, 58, 2646, 1987" refers to the Morris and Faklis work, and explicitly states that it's an acoustic experiment; "another one" (last on your list) is the same (bold added):

Wolf has recently shown that the spectrum of radiation from an extended source changes on propagation unless a certain scaling condition is obeyed by the degree of spectral coherence across the source. For a large class of source-coherence functions, the change may be such as to produce red shifts or blue shifts of spectral lines. We have performed an acoustic experiment with two small partially correlated sources and demonstrated Wolf’s prediction of frequency shifts of spectral lines by this mechanism.

In none of these did I see anything about a 0.062 harmonic intrinsic redshift; are there any such papers published?

 

[Suede]

I think the important thing here is that redshift due to non-doppler related causes has been proven experimentally in the lab, while redshift due to expasion of space has not.

This fundamentally leads me to conclude non-doppler causes as the primary cause of redshift, since Occam's razor applies.

If you're going to call me a hypocrit because they haven't gotten around to the .062 harmoic in experiments of non-doppler redshift yet, then so be it.


For you budding researchers out there, this might be an area worthy of a Nobel prize left as of yet unexplored.


I WANT CREDIT IF YOU GET IT FOR THE IDEA THOUGH!




24. J. Pu, O. Korotkova and E. Wolf, “Invariance and non-invariance of the spectrum and of the degree of polarization of stochastic electromagnetic beams on
propagation”, Opt. Lett. 31, 2097-2099 (2006).
It has been known for some time that the spectrum of light may change on propagation, even in free space. The theory of this phenomena was developed within the framework of scalar theory. In this paper we generalize it to electromagnetic beams, generated by planar, secondary, stochastic sources. We also derive an electromagnetic analog of the so-called scaling law. When this law is satisfied the normalized spectrum of the beam is the same throughout the far zone and is the same as the normalized source spectrum. We illustrate our analysis by an example.


28. O. Korotkova, J. Pu and E. Wolf, “Effects of source polarization and source coherence on far-zone spectra of stochastic beams" (submitted to
Phys. Rev. E).
It was shown some years ago that the spectrum of a stochastic scalar field depends not only on the source spectrum but also on the degree of coherence of the source. In this paper we show that there are electromagnetic sources, whose degree of polarization also affects the spectrum of the radiated field. We illustrate the analysis by diagrams which show the far-zone spectra of some stochastic electromagnetic beams generated by sources of different states of coherence and different degrees of polarization. The spectra of the radiated field depend both on coherence properties of the source and its degree of polarization and are found to be different in different directions of observation.

 

[Nereid]

I think the important thing here is that redshift due to non-doppler related causes has been proven experimentally in the lab, [...]

As an extremely high-level summary, this is undoubtedly true.

However:

a) blueshift due to non-doppler related causes has also been proven experimentally in the lab ... very few astronomical objects have blueshifted spectra

b) the physical conditions under which either red- or blue-shift ("due to non-doppler related causes") have been demonstrated do not reproduce those found in the ISM, the IGM, stellar atmospheres, PNe, SNRs, etc ... nor do they come within a dozen OOM of doing so*

c) the causes of Wolf shift (or some generalised effect) would leave easily detected signatures in line spectra (either emission, absorption, or both)*, not least unambiguous polarisation features ... none of these have been observed (AFAIK)

d) as galaxies and AGNs appear to be homogeneous classes of object, wrt their spectra^, the Wolf effect would need to operate in all observed galaxies and AGNs ... including our own Milky Way galaxy. AFAIK, no papers reporting detection of the Wolf effect in any component of our galaxy (ISM, stars, PNe, ...) have been published

e) of direct relevance to this thread, no quantisation, periodicity, discretisation, ... has been reported in any published papers on the Wolf effect*; in fact, as I read it, this effect predicts continuous, non-discrete red- and blue-shifts.

(no doubt there's more).

As this section of PF is not the place to discuss speculative ideas, how about we leave the Wolf effect out of it?

* unless I have misread the papers, which is, of course, entirely possible
^ of course these spectra vary enormously; however, AFAIK the variation is entirely of degree, not kind; one model each suffices to account for all spectral features

 

[Suede]

Everything you say is true.

However, there is no proof refuting the claim that the Wolf effect is responsible for the redshift.

So here we have several papers showing harmonics in observed redshifts and several papers showing a possible cause for redshift that has been proven in the laboratory.

Until a paper is produced explicity showing there is no possible way the Wolf effect could be the cause of observed redshifts, Occams razor applies.


You're asking me to believe that expansion of space causes redshift with no laboratory proof, when I have a paper showing it could possibly be due to a known laboratory proven cause. How could I possibly believe the expanding space theory?

 

[Nereid]

Everything you say is true.

However, there is no proof refuting the claim that the Wolf effect is responsible for the redshift.

Indeed.

There's also no proof refuting the claim that invisible pink fairies are responsible for the redshift.

So here we have several papers showing harmonics in observed redshifts

And several others reporting an inability to independently verify this.

and several papers showing a possible cause for redshift that has been proven in the laboratory.

Indeed.

And those papers reported quite specific redshifts (and blueshifts) under conditions derived from a published theory.

Until a paper is produced explicity showing there is no possible way the Wolf effect could be the cause of observed redshifts, Occams razor applies.

Are you sure?

As I already noted, the Wolf effect is, in essence, a prediction from a theory (to do with quantum optics, or something similar).

The usual course, in modern science, is to develop the theory so that it can apply to (or in) physical circumstances characteristic of the system of interest (galaxies, AGNs, the ISM, whatever). That (more advanced) theory is then used to develop hypotheses that are testable (in principle at least), and the astronomical databases are then mined, or new observations taken, to do the actual testing.

The correct application of Occam's Razor, in this case, would be to say that the Wolf effect is not relevant in astrophysics (at least of extragalactic objects) because the physical conditions under which it can produce redshifts (and not blueshifts) are, very clearly, not those of the ISM, accretion disks, etc.

Another way to say this: a theory has no applicability outside its (explicit or implicit) domain.

Invisible pink fairies are a good illustration: their domain of applicability does not include the ISM or IGM.

You're asking me to believe that expansion of space causes redshift with no laboratory proof, when I have a paper showing it could possibly be due to a known laboratory proven cause. How could I possibly believe the expanding space theory?

I, Nereid, am not asking you to believe (or not believe) anything!

This last bit, in the post of yours I'm quoting, is a good example of the logical fallacy known as False Dichotomy (among other names) - do you see why?

It also contains a rather deep misunderstanding of modern astrophysics, as science.

For example, is there any "laboratory proof" that the two prominent green 'nebulium' lines are caused by forbidden transitions of doubly ionised oxygen? No, there's not ... if only because no lab can create a vacuum hard enough for the metastable excited state to decay by electronic transition (rather than collision).

(there are thousands of similar examples, across just about all chapters in the physics textbook, many far more extreme than [OIII] lines)

Further, in this case, "possibly" must count as an extreme understatement; when it gets to being "plausible" then maybe we should start paying attention.

Finally, the core requirement of modern (astro)physics is consistency: theories must be internally consistent, consistent with other well-established theories (where their domains of applicability overlap), and above all consistent with all relevant experimental and observational results. Viewed from this perspective, "expansion of space causes redshift" is an almost textbook-perfect example of consistency.

 

[Suede]

For example, is there any "laboratory proof" that the two prominent green 'nebulium' lines are caused by forbidden transitions of doubly ionised oxygen? No, there's not ... if only because no lab can create a vacuum hard enough for the metastable excited state to decay by electronic transition (rather than collision).

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.

Consistency with observation is currently only obtained by fitting models to observation, which without experimental proof, is a big scientific no no. Epicycles come to mind, highly consistent and also highly wrong.

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.

 

[Suede]

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.

 

[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.