- #1
- 3,309
- 694
I came across this Wikipedia article ,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_redshift, that describes the idea of intrinsic red shift but the references seem old. What is the status of this idea today?
lavinia said:What is the status of this idea today?
lavinia said:I came across this Wikipedia article ,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_redshift, that describes the idea of intrinsic red shift but the references seem old. What is the status of this idea today?
TrickyDicky said:It is just a hypothesis without many followers in the mainstream, but not crackpot or anything like that.
You can find references to a couple of papers in the WP page on the Wolf effect.
twofish-quant said:Among the cosmologists and quasar researchers that I know, it is considered crackpot. (Note here that the Wolfe effect is very different from the Sacks-Wolfe effect).
Yes, and if you show one of those papers to most cosmologists or quasar researchers, you will get a scathing response. This poses a problem since unlike things like modified Newtonian dynamics or the timescape model, which is "non-mainstream but respectable", the reaction of a quasar researcher to something suggesting that the Wolf effect creates a large redshift is likely to be "this paper is so nutty and the mistakes are so basic, that it's sort of pointless to refute it."
TrickyDicky said:Have you read those papers?
Are you a quasar researcher?
If any of these has negative answer, how are you so sure what they would say about them?
Aren't you a little biased by the standard model when deciding what is crackpot about this papers, given the fact that quasars are objects not fully understood by cosmologists?(this is actually an understatement according to the astrophysicists in my university)
It is obvious that words like crackpot are kind of a pet word for anything that doesn't meet the mainstream doctrine, that is fine with me.
But when used to avoid even discussing any new proposal I tend to believe it is a too easy way out, and certainly has nothing to do with science.
This particular approach and problems is shared by 90% of what is published in cosmology and astrophysics, more so in the area of galactic evolution and AGN's. So I guess for you most of what is published in journals is crackpot. Well, you might be right.twofish-quant said:2) a lot of those papers claim that something is happening based on statistical arguments with quasar brightness, but these are problematic because of selection effects and quasar evolution
I difer, just because GRB's are really weird things in comparison doesn't make quasars "very well understood", and people who think that might be deceiving themselves.twofish-quant said:1) quasars are not black boxes and we can resolve them pretty well. the problem with any mechanism that requires intrinsic redshift is that you can look at the quasar to see if the conditions that the papers propose are present, and they aren't
The people at my university seem to think that quasars are very well understood. We understand more about quasars than we do about say exoplanets or gamma ray bursters.
I see, you let the standard view decide for you what kind of stupidity is crackpot or not, no matter how crazy something sounds. That is a way to see these things, conformist way, but not necessarily the best way.twofish-quant said:Except that it's not. If you talk about modified gravity theories, exotic dark matter, non-standard nucleosynthesis, and weird inflation models, all of that is non-standard, but none of that is crackpot.
Good thing you admit that at least.twofish-quant said:It's not *any* new proposal. It's *this* particular proposal. Also, if someone argues that the Wolfe effect has *some* effect on quasar redshift (say at the z=0.1 or z=0.01 level), that would be something interesting to discuss.
I had the impession what those papers propose is not that the quasar redshift is not due to Hubble law in their main proportion but that there might be some contribution from the Wolf effect that would increase in some proportion the redshift they would already have due to Hubble redshift-distance law. I don't see this possibility in itself as so out of touch with what is known about quasars, it depends on the amount of the effect as you pointed out.twofish-quant said:One other thing is that you'll find that the "new proposals" aren't so new. The idea that quasar redshifts aren't due to Hubble expansion is not a new idea.
TrickyDicky said:This particular approach and problems is shared by 90% of what is published in cosmology and astrophysics, more so in the area of galactic evolution and AGN's.
So I guess for you most of what is published in journals is crackpot.
I difer, just because GRB's are really weird things in comparison doesn't make quasars "very well understood", and people who think that might be deceiving themselves.
I see, you let the standard view decide for you what kind of stupidity is crackpot or not, no matter how crazy something sounds.
I had the impession what those papers propose is not that the quasar redshift is not due to Hubble law in their main proportion but that there might be some contribution from the Wolf effect that would increase in some proportion the redshift they would already have due to Hubble redshift-distance law.
I don't see this possibility in itself as so out of touch with what is known about quasars, it depends on the amount of the effect as you pointed out.
Intrinsic redshift is a type of redshift that is caused by the movement of an object itself, rather than the expansion of the universe. It is often seen in galaxies and quasars, and is measured by the Doppler effect.
Cosmological redshift is caused by the expansion of the universe, while intrinsic redshift is caused by the movement of an object. Cosmological redshift is also dependent on the distance of the object, while intrinsic redshift is not.
The current status of research on intrinsic redshift is still a topic of debate. Some scientists believe that it is a valid phenomenon, while others argue that it is a result of measurement errors or other factors.
One of the main pieces of evidence for intrinsic redshift is the observation of high redshift values in objects that are not at great distances. This suggests that the redshift is not solely due to the expansion of the universe.
Scientists study intrinsic redshift through various methods, such as analyzing spectra and measuring the velocity of objects. They also use computer simulations to model the effects of intrinsic redshift and compare them to observed data.