From: cflatter@nrao.edu (Chris Flatters)
Subject: Re: Quantisation of REDSHIFT
Reply-To: cflatter@nrao.edu
Organization: NRAO
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 00:41:55 GMT

In article 6M6@well.sf.ca.us, metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern) writes:
>baresson@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (pete.oram) writes:
>
>> 1. Are there any other significent details that would shed any light on the
>> reason for this phenomena?
>
>     Just that the redshift quantization is in the light from the galaxies,
>not in the analysis.  No periodicity of galaxy redshifts shows up in the raw
>data.  Only after the raw redshifts are corrected for motion of the Earth
>around the galactic center does the periodicity pop out.
>
>> 2. What statistical methods did Guthrie & Napier use to disprove the
>> quantisation?
>
>     See their paper in MNRAS for Dec. 1, 1991, or a popularized summary in
>Sky & Telescope for Aug. 1992, p. 128-129.  They choose a completely new and
>independent sample of galaxies with better distribution, being careful not to
>duplicate any used in the original investigations.  The effect still showed
>up.
>
>> 3. Does this have any implications for 'Big Bang'?
>
>     Taken on its face, the quantization appears to argue that cosmological
>redshift is not due mainly to velocity, because it is impossible to imagine
>how the velocities of galaxies can be quantized for us unless we are in a
>special place in the universe.  As such, this observational result is
>evidence (not proof) against the big bang.
>
>> 4. What other explanations are there for the redshift quantisation if it
>> doesn't just correspond to the velocity of the source?
>
>     If redshifts are quantized for us and are caused by velocity alone, they
>cannot be quantized for most other observers.  So either we are in a special
>place in the universe, or cosmological redshift is not due mainly to
>expansion velocity.  Either way violates premises on which the big bang
>theory rests.  So other explanations all involve alternative cosmologies. For
>example, I have my own proposed explanation in a forthcoming book.  To
>oversimplify greatly, it is easier to quantize energy than velocity.

Quantized redshifts can be explained in the standard cosmological model
if galaxies tend to cluster around points in a (nearly) uniform
lattice.  For example, if galaxies lie at points in a cubic lattice
with a cell size of 37.2/h Mpc (where h is the Hubble constant in units
of 100 km/s) other galaxies would been seen to have redshifts that were
multiples of 37.2 km/s when looking along the axes of the cube (since
the standard model predicts that the apparent velocity of recession is
linearly related to distance by the Hubble constant).  More realistic
models (such as the Voronoi foam, where galaxies are confined to
sheets, filaments and clusters surrounding voids) also produce similar
effects (see the paper by Williams et al., MNRAS, 252:43p for a
discussion of cell models applied to redshift quantization and some
good references).

In favour of this explanation we can note that a cell scale size of
about 40/h Mpc is in the same ball park as the characteristic linear
dimension of the galactic voids seen in the CfA survey (median size
29/h Mpc) and is of the right order to explain the observed
galaxy-galaxy correlation peak at about 5/h Mpc.  It does, however,
conflict with the 128 km/s periodicity reported by Broadhurst et al. in
pencil beam surveys (which isn't a cause for concern unless surveys
covering a wider area of sky also show 128 km/s quantizations).  More
worrying is the fact that Guthrie and Napier report that their
periodicity disappears when the redshifts are corrected for the
estimated velocity of the Sun with respect to the local group.  

	Chris Flatters
	cflatter@nrao.edu


Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.physics,sci.environment