Comments on: Quasar Queer, Quasar Near?

By: bnimble

bnimble — Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:19:00 +0000

We've got a few mysteries to cover out there. Quite frankly, I don't know of a decent theory to cover what we see out there. We've got...

Quantized redshifts as uncovered by Tifft 30 years ago. The phenomenon has not yet been put to bed.
If you follow any of Arp's numerous observations on galaxies with multiple associated objects, it appears that the close objects (along what IIRC he would term an ejection axis) have the highest redshifts, and they decrease in sequence the further along the ejection curve they are.
Tired light simply can't involve just distance travelled if redshifts are so different in such a close area

So what are we left with? Something that's mostly a local-to-the-object effect, yet must either apply most of its effect past the boundaries of the radiation-emitting matter (you'd get utterly smeared spectral lines otherwise), or must be an intrinsic property of the matter or emitted radiation itself.

Accounting for the 'general' increase in redshifts with distance, though... has different implications if it's a different phenomenon than with the quasars, or a manifestation of the same thing. (e.g. If it's the same thing, then it's either less likely to be an intrinsic property of the matter, because farther-away things aren't "intrinsically" different)

So what, pray tell, are we dealing with here?

Any thoughts?

By: barakn

barakn — Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:46:26 +0000

Blue shifts have been noted in the Local Group of galaxies. An oft noted example is Andromeda, which is very close by and speeding towards us. Our two galaxies (the two dominant members of the Local Group) are essentially free-falling towards each other, rapidly trading gravitational potential energy for kinetic energy. Many scientists consider them to be on an collision course many years hence, resulting in a giant elliptical galaxy.

By: rickyjames

rickyjames — Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:49:44 +0000

Another possible reason to believe that we don't yet fully understand what happens to photons and mass during long travels through empty space is of course the Pioneer Effect. If it's real.

By: rickyjames

rickyjames — Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:45:21 +0000

There's an excellent overview on tired light over at Wikipedia.

By: rickyjames

rickyjames — Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:35:13 +0000

It is indeed very weird that everything in the Universe is redshifted and nothing is blueshifted. The Hubble constant is all about trying to explain EVERY SINGLE redshift for EVERY SINGLE astronomical object - even if such an explanation seems nuts for things as bright as quasars that should logically appear much dimmer if they're really so far away. Most theorists that object to such an absolute blanket explanation of redshift usually use the words "tired light" as part of their explanation. In other words, there's something unknown in the Universe besides Hubble expansion that's causing all these redshifts, and it's modifying the light (making it redder or "tired")of some nearby objects in a way we don't yet understand. Instant Nobel Prize for the first person to prove that's really happening in even one single case.

By: mtigges

mtigges — Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:35:54 +0000

in the never ending skirmish;

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/evolution.textbooks.ruling/.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:53:28 +0000

I'm curious. What are the other theories for Quasar red-shift? Innate velocity should give us blue shifts, too.

What about gravitational? Spectra formed by gas just above a black hole's boundary should be red-shifted as it climbs out of the hole, right?

-Gordon

By: benhocking

benhocking — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:42:12 +0000

This new theory doesn’t seem to answer the question “Why are all of the quasars moving away from us?”. It seems to me the only two explanations for objects that are consistently red-shifted (and none blue-shifted) are the usual Hubble red-shift (i.e., is a result of the Big Bang and being really, really far away), or a gravitational explanation. The latter would be really interesting if anyone came up with a description that doesn’t violate all other known GR/SR phenomena. (Disclaimer: I did an MS in Phys/Astronomy and my thesis covered alternative space-time metrics.)

By: apsmith

apsmith — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:55:33 +0000

Actually red apples don't absorb red, they absorb the other wavelengths and reflect red. Otherwise red light would look "cyan" colored, and we'd call it cyan, not red.

Of course there are some big differences between spectral colors and perceived colors - "brown" doesn't appear anywhere on the spectrum, for example (nor do "white" and "black"). This wikipedia article is a good start on understanding the complexities. Reproduction of color is a lot harder than it looks!

By: mtigges

mtigges — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:51:13 +0000

It really doesn’t matter what quality of science is being done in the area. It seems clear that there is a mystery. And it also seems clear that quality science is likely able to solve the mystery. And so I think that this story wholly deserves to be on sciscoop and I thank Ricky for it, regardless what exposure it gives to any scientists considered to be fringe by other scientists.

I have resigned myself to living with cranks and pseudo-science practioners. I can live around them. If they for example ever manage to take teaching evolution out of the schools in my jurisdiction, I will move. Faith and ignorance hand in hand is almost impossible to fight.