PDA

View Full Version : Quantized redshifts ATM?



iantresman
2006-May-05, 04:09 PM
This message is in response to a suggestion from antoniseb in another thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=41175).

I was wondering why a query regarding Quantized redshifts is considered "against the mainstream". I am well aware that some ATM proponents have picked up on quantized redshifts, but I don't understand why such observations are assumed as such when there are so many other researchers who do not appear to have an ATM agenda.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

antoniseb
2006-May-05, 05:23 PM
Thanks for taking it here. It was a very off-topic side thread in the Q&A area. Basically, Quantized Redshifts is associated with Arp's ideas, and may be accepted by a subset of the intrinsic redshift theories, but has no part in mainstream astronomy. Quantized redshifts is very different from the idea that there are walls of galaxies between voids, and so sometimes we'll have a view in which the redshifts are clustered together just because of placement.

iantresman
2006-May-05, 05:44 PM
So quantized redshifts, as mere observations, are not ATM. But some of Arp's work may be considered so?

Regards,
Ian Tresman

antoniseb
2006-May-05, 05:51 PM
The term quantized redshift implies an interpretation that is not mainstream. The observations of specific red shifts, and any attempt to group them is fine. quantized redshift is an idea that quasars are ejected from active galactic nuclei in pairs, in opposite directions, on a regular basis, and that there is an intrinsic redshift which decays for these quasars as they spend more time away from the core of these galaxies. Thus the redshifts we see for quasars asociated with one galaxy in particular will have specific discreet values, slightly offset by doppler redshifts associated with their movement relative to each other.

This is not a mainstream idea. Trying to shoehorn it into a mainstream observation that there are walls and voids is not a very useful thing to do. Doing so muddies the vocabulary used to describe a specific theory and its difference from the mainstream.

iantresman
2006-May-05, 06:41 PM
Surely not. I thought that when Tifft first observed "quantized redshifts" in galaxies, he had no ATM motive in mind. See for example:


Redshift quantization in compact groups of galaxies (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1983ApJ...268...56C&db_key=AST&d ata_type=HTML&format=&high=42ca922c9c30614) (1983) Cocke, W. J.; Tifft, W. G. [Online in full (http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1983ApJ...268...56C)


Likewise when Bill Napier tested for quantized redshift, although he was aware of Arp's work, all he was doing was testing an observation. See Testing for quantized redshifts. The project. (Part I (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1996Ap%26SS.244...57N&db_key=AST &data_type=HTML&format=&high=42ca922c9c03420) | Part II (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1996Ap%26SS.244..111N&db_key=AST &data_type=HTML&format=&high=42ca922c9c03420))

So again, I can't see how the observation of "quantized redshifts", and the science behind testing for it can be considered ATM. That would assume an a priori assumption that the observation might lead to ATM "thoughts".

Regards,
Ian Tresman

antoniseb
2006-May-05, 07:06 PM
Ian, Napier would not have used the term if he wasn't examining Arp's claims, and he refers to Arp's work in the first paragraph. The Cocke & Tifft paper is 23 years old, and again, following up on Arp claims. These are not evidence that this is a mainstream concept.

I will not discuss this further as I feel somewhat irritated by your efforts to move ATM subject matter into the mainstream sections of this forum, and so will now differ to other moderators, who hopefully are less emotionally attached to the issues.

iantresman
2006-May-05, 08:55 PM
I am also somewhat irritated that observations can be deemed ATM. I am reminded of the Church who refused to look through Galileo's telescope. It wasn't what he saw that was heretical, it was the theory based on those observations.

Likewise, redshift quantisations as an observation cannot be considered ATM by any stretch of the imagination. However, Arp's theories... absolutely.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

snarkophilus
2006-May-05, 09:37 PM
I am also somewhat irritated that observations can be deemed ATM.

I think it's not so much the observations, but the terminology used to describe them. To call those observations quantized redshifts implies that there is an underlying process leading to those observations that is ATM, rather than simple statistics. If you were to simply refer to the measurements as quasar redshift mesaurements, then there would be no issue, but to use this terminology is ATM because of its inherent connotations.

Does that sound acceptable?

Nereid
2006-May-05, 09:54 PM
FWIW, Tifft's work is almost universally considered to be ATM - the observational data may be OK, but the analyses and conclusions marginal (at best).

Perhaps this goes to the heart of what constitutes 'mainstream'?

Datasets, such as SDSS, are what they are, systematics and all.

Analyses are what they are, assumptions, priors, etc and all.

In terms of what would (likely) constitute an operational definition of 'mainstream', "quantised redshifts" are in the same bucket as Arpian ideas of 'local' quasars - ATM.

peteshimmon
2006-May-05, 10:16 PM
Mmmm...seems a bit like categorising
infinities. Mainstream is aleth one,
ATM is aleth two, anything that b....r says
is aleth three....

iantresman
2006-May-05, 10:22 PM
I think it's not so much the observations, but the terminology used to describe them. To call those observations quantized redshifts implies that there is an underlying process leading to those observations that is ATM, rather than simple statistics. If you were to simply refer to the measurements as quasar redshift mesaurements, then there would be no issue, but to use this terminology is ATM because of its inherent connotations.

Does that sound acceptable?

From what I can gather, they have been called a lot of things over the years. While they are quasar or galaxy observation, they have a distinctive characteristic, of which "quantisation" sounds reasonable. Ari Jokimaki noted other terminology, including:


Redshift discretization
Redshift-magnitude bands
Redshift periodicities
Redshift quantization
Redshift distribution gaps
Cosmic density waves
QSO or, Quasar clustering
Preferred redshifts


So surely "quantisation" is not such a loaded term as it's used in so many other contexts.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

iantresman
2006-May-05, 10:24 PM
FWIW, Tifft's work is almost universally considered to be ATM - the observational data may be OK, but the analyses and conclusions marginal (at best).

So who's analyses Tifft's data in a "mainstream way", and what make their analysis more mainstream than Tifft's?

Regards,
Ian Tresman

dgruss23
2006-May-05, 11:56 PM
Here (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2000A%26A...358....1K&db_key=AST &data_type=HTML&format=&high=3e5c03c80a24218) is a paper that finds statistically significant maxima and minima in the redshift distribution of the Ly-alpha forest. They also find a periodicity signal.

Note that there is a difference between the presence of maxima and minima and the presence of periodicity. You can have the former without the latter. The former simply means you have a non-uniform distribution of the absorption line redshifts. The latter (periodicity) results from an observed regular pattern in the redshift distribution.

The authors do not describe their results as "quantization". Would this paper be considered ATM?

Cougar
2006-May-06, 05:00 AM
Quantised redshifts is a mainsteam minority peer-reviewed observation.
If it's minority, I wouldn't call it mainstream. And whether this "observation" is real is certainly the subject of controversy. Most of the "observed" features can be explained by selection effects, the strongest of which are emission lines passing through the pass bands of the survey filters. See Tang and Zhang's June 2005 paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506366) wherein they "find there is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency.... or at any other frequency."

And there is a big difference between major journals and obscure journals. You might even say the difference is discretized.

Cougar
2006-May-06, 05:11 AM
Likewise, redshift quantisations as an observation cannot be considered ATM by any stretch of the imagination.
As I pointed out in the other thread, whether this "observation" is real is certainly the subject of controversy. Most of the "observed" features can be explained by selection effects, the strongest of which are emission lines passing through the pass bands of the survey filters. See Tang and Zhang's June 2005 paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506366) wherein they "find there is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency.... or at any other frequency."

WARNING: The paper doesn't stop there. Arp supporters may have trouble sleeping upon review of this paper.

iantresman
2006-May-06, 09:59 AM
If it's minority, I wouldn't call it mainstream. And whether this "observation" is real is certainly the subject of controversy. Most of the "observed" features can be explained by selection effects, the strongest of which are emission lines passing through the pass bands of the survey filters. See Tang and Zhang's June 2005 paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506366) wherein they "find there is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency.... or at any other frequency."

And there is a big difference between major journals and obscure journals. You might even say the difference is discretized.

But minority mainstream is not against the mainstream, just as many details in mainstream astronomy is the sum of its minority parts.

Tang and Zhang say in their paper:


"a periodicity around Δz=0.67 is detected in the full sample of SDSS QSOs, as shown in Fig. 9; however a periodicity of Δz=0.67 0.05 or any other frequency is not found in the 2dF QSOs" (Page 8) [Paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506366)]

Though I don't understand why overall they rule it out.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

dgruss23
2006-May-06, 04:14 PM
As I pointed out in the other thread, whether this "observation" is real is certainly the subject of controversy. Most of the "observed" features can be explained by selection effects, the strongest of which are emission lines passing through the pass bands of the survey filters. See Tang and Zhang's June 2005 paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506366) wherein they "find there is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency.... or at any other frequency."

WARNING: The paper doesn't stop there. Arp supporters may have trouble sleeping upon review of this paper.

Bell (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603169) responded to this paper by Tang & Zhang showing the flaws in their analysis.

I'd forgotten, but I also pointed out the problem with their analysis as a test of Arp's model here (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=587858&postcount=528).

Jerry
2006-May-09, 02:10 AM
From what I can gather, they have been called a lot of things over the years. While they are quasar or galaxy observation, they have a distinctive characteristic, of which "quantisation" sounds reasonable. Ari Jokimaki noted other terminology, including:


Redshift discretization
Redshift-magnitude bands
Redshift periodicities
Redshift quantization
Redshift distribution gaps
Cosmic density waves
QSO or, Quasar clustering
Preferred redshifts


So surely "quantisation" is not such a loaded term as it's used in so many other contexts.

Regards,
Ian Tresman
I agree with antinoseb on this one regarding quantified redshifts usually being ascribed to the theories of Arp, although Bell also uses the term when not necessarily refering to Arpian interpretations. I prefer the term 'intrinsic redshifts', because I no longer think they are periodic.

We are, or should be reaching a time when the distinction between mainstream and ATM concepts is no longer based upon objective critical analysis. "Peer Review" is no longer an acceptable criteria. The reason is simple: Peer Review bumps the thesis up against the known body of research and theories and looks for some level of conformity. But a number of impeachable ideas have slipped through the review process and are now considered mainstream. I am speaking primarily of Inflation, Dark Matter and Dark Energy, which are either untestable; or are the replacement conclusion of failed hypothesis - or both.

folkhemmet
2006-May-09, 04:13 PM
Jerry says:
"We are, or should be reaching a time when the distinction between mainstream and ATM concepts is no longer based upon objective critical analysis. "Peer Review" is no longer an acceptable criteria. The reason is simple: Peer Review bumps the thesis up against the known body of research and theories and looks for some level of conformity. But a number of impeachable ideas have slipped through the review process and are now considered mainstream. I am speaking primarily of Inflation, Dark Matter and Dark Energy, which are either untestable; or are the replacement conclusion of failed hypothesis - or both."

What if, however, dark matter detectors find these elusive still hypothetical particles some time during the next decade or so? Would you still consider dark matter as untestable? If these particles fail to show up within the next decade or so when the detectors reach the sensitivity required to make definitive statements about their existence or lack thereof, then we should not yet say that dark matter is untestable. Let's wait and see. Perhaps CDM will have to be abandoned if no particles turn by 2020 or so. However, a discovery of these particles would, beyond a reasonable doubt, establish the validity of the CDM theory. We would be just as sure that these particles exist as we are sure that hydrogen and other elements exist. I am all for testing theories and being skeptical of the mainstream (not just in science but also in politics), but it would be a great achievement of humanity if CDM was definitively detected. It would mean that we would know what is 25% of the mass-energy budget of the universe. My point is that there is much we still don't know, but that does not mean we should fail to recognize that there may be things that can be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps in contrast to Jerry, I would like to believe that we making significant progress in terms of understanding cosmic evolution even though we may never be able to fully understand the earliest moments of the universe.

As for Jerry's point about peer review, I totally agree. There have been many times throughout the history of science when peer review laughed off ideas that were ATM but are now accepted facts. Alternatives to Aristotle's scientific ideas were ignored or dismissed for centuries. Plate tectonics, also once an ATM theory, was laughed at when that now well-established idea was first put forward. This also true in socioeconomics: ideas about creating a more just and sustainable world in which the current power structures have to be dismantled are laughed at or called "too radical." It's like trying to get the establishment to get rid of the establishment.

I agree with Jerry about inflation. I recommend astro-ph/0605135. Inflation is looking very shaky these days. The lack of large-scale power in the CMB is a direct contradiction of inflation. Moreover, the strange alignments in this ancient radiation also contradict inflation. Most cosmologists say that these odd features are just statistical flukes. I am suspicious of this take. Anomalies usually tell you that something is wrong with the current thinking. People need to start seriously reconsidering inflation instead of trying to modify inflation in an epicyclical manner to accommadate these CMB oddities.

Gillianren
2006-May-09, 05:00 PM
Alternatives to Aristotle's scientific ideas were ignored or dismissed for centuries.

Surely this was before the peer review process.

Look, I'll admit the system is flawed--what system isn't?--but there are also quite a lot of examples of peer review approving things that radically changed science. And once a mechanism for plate tectonics was found, it was, after all, accepted, and it only took a few decades.

What's more, peer review is useful for weeding out things like, oh, cold fusion. Peer review is useful for encouraging scientists to find more evidence, surely a good thing. Peer review is useful because it is a clear system for determining what goes in journals, helping to eliminate charges of favoritism or elitism, though admittedly still open to the "they laughed at Galileo" argument, which is immune to all defense.

Further . . . what are you going to replace it with?

iantresman
2006-May-09, 11:15 PM
Surely this was before the peer review process.

[..] Further . . . what are you going to replace it with?

You don't need to replace it, just modify it. For starters, no anonymous peers, peers declaring an interest where necessary, peer comments made public, an appeal process.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

Cougar
2006-May-10, 03:58 AM
Bell (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603169) responded to this paper by Tang & Zhang showing the flaws in their analysis.
Of course he did because Tang & Zhang specifically tested Bell's decreasing intrinsic redshift (DIR) model and found no evidence for a periodicity. They used both the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the 2dF QSO Redshift Survey. Bell just used the SDSS. I haven't analyzed both papers, but it sounds like a bit of ego may be creeping into the data.... or the interpretation of it.

papageno
2006-May-10, 10:25 AM
You don't need to replace it, just modify it. For starters, no anonymous peers,...
So that unsatisifed ATM authors can harass them and put pressure on them?
What makes you think that a review will be more dispassionate if the reviewers are not anonymous?
Why do you think our vote in an election is anonymous?




... peers declaring an interest where necessary,....
The editors know the reviewers: it is their job to pick the right ones. And there are usually more than one reviewer per paper.




peer comments made public,...
The authors receive the comment. They can make them public if they choose so.





... an appeal process.
Which can be done with the editors.

All this can be seen in Van der Togt's complaints (http://www.paradox-paradigm.nl/%5CPhysics%20Letters%20A.htm).

dgruss23
2006-May-12, 06:37 PM
Of course he did because Tang & Zhang specifically tested Bell's decreasing intrinsic redshift (DIR) model and found no evidence for a periodicity. They used both the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the 2dF QSO Redshift Survey. Bell just used the SDSS. I haven't analyzed both papers, but it sounds like a bit of ego may be creeping into the data.... or the interpretation of it.

If you haven't analyzed both papers, how do you conclude that ego is creeping into the interpretation of the data? Much is made about the statistics of Arp's examples being a posteriori, but I'd say we should object even more strongly to conclusions about papers that are a priori. :)

Not to mention I did provide a detailed explanation of one problem with the Tang&Zhang study as it applies to Arp et al.