Skip to content

Redshift Quantization

Back in year 2000, Halton Arp held this lecture on his career as an astronomer, and his findings related to the redshift of Quasars. Of the many things he discovered and recorded back in the 1970s, two things stand out. One was the fact that some Quasars are visibly in front of objects that should be closer to us based on redshift calculations. The other thing he noted was that redshifts aren’t uniformly distributed. Some redshifts are more common than others. I.e. redshifts are quantized phenomena.

These findings flew in the face of accepted theory at the time, which held that redshift is uniformly distributed and directly linked to speeds. These assumptions formed in turn the basis for the Big Bang theory, as well as many assumptions related to Black Holes. If Halton Arp’s observations were correct, all of this would have to be reconsidered.

This was too much for many theorists to accept, so they made Halton Arp a persona non grata. Instead of considering the evidence collected by Mr. Arp, they ignored it. But the cat was out of the bag and evidence in support of Halton Arp’s findings are piling up.

I was reminded of this by one of my readers (cilo) who made a comment about this on my previous post. According to him, the James Webb Space Telescope has collected more data in support of Halton Arp’s findings. It appears that the phenomenon of redshift quantization is becoming increasingly difficult to deny.

This means that there’s something profound about the universe that current theory isn’t able to explain. If we stick to the idea that redshift is purely speed related, we get that some speeds are more common than other speeds. In the context of an expanding universe, we get some distances less likely to contain objects than other distances. The universe around us becomes layered, and this is not what current theory stipulates.

Alternatively, we’ll have to accept that not all redshifts are speed related, in which case we have to consider alternative hypothesises of which there are two: One is the tired light hypothesis that suggests that light becomes redder over time due to loss of energy. The other hypothesis, suggested by Halton Arp, is that matter grows more massive over time. Halton Arp called this intrinsic redshift because it says something about the age of the objects observed rather than their distance. I.e. redshifts are intrinsic to objects without regards to distances or speeds.

It should be noted that we don’t have to choose one redshift or another. They may all exist together in which case we get a complex mix of factors rather than the clean sterility of conventional astrophysics where only a few variables play a role.

Having established that speed related redshifts can only be quantized if speed itself is quantized, or if matter in an expanding universe is distributed in layers around us, we can go on to consider the tired light hypothesis.

For light to tire without scatter, we require some highly fluid low energy substance to fill the universe, and since no such substance is currently considered to exist in conventional theory, tired light has been dismissed as an impossibility. But if we allow for an aether of zero-point particles we get that light may fade in energy without being scattered. We also get that the light will fade in discrete steps due to the particle nature of the aether. However, these steps are likely to be too small to be the cause of redshift quantization.

The tired light hypothesis is also unable to explain Halton Arp’s observation that redshift seems to be independent of distance. Only Halton Arp’s intrinsic redshift can explain this part of the puzzle. Objects start off redshifted and become bluer over time in a process dubbed mass condensing. But why would mass condensation happen in discrete steps sufficiently large to be noticed by astronomers?

I’ve proposed in my physics that mass condensation is due to a hypothesized ability of protons to absorb photons. If this is a straight forward process, a proton will grow in mass by a photon every now and again. However, this would show up as a fairly uniform process with many tiny steps. It wouldn’t be the relatively large steps that have been observed, so it appears that mass condensation must be something more complex. It may be that photons build up on the surface of protons without making them noticeable larger before some threshold is reached where the photons rearrange themselves into the fabric of the protons. But here, I’m only speculating.

There’s plenty of room for speculation at this point, and I’m not going to pretend I have an answer to what may be going on. However, one thing is becoming increasingly clear. Redshift isn’t as straight forward a subject as many have made it out to be. Observations don’t fit theory, and this gap between observations and theory has been around for some fifty years.

Haton Arp
The original uploader was Reuben at English Wikipedia. – Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons by Sreejithk2000 using CommonsHelper., CC BY 2.5, Link

This Post Has 2 Comments

  1. I heard Halton at the SIS Conference in 2001. He spoke after the late Wal Thornhill.
    The intrinsic redshift seems to indicate that protogalaxies start off high z when they are most energetic, at birth when they are most dim. The cooler, they become the lower z and brighter they appear.

  2. I associate radioactivity with excess neutrons; the more neutrons in a nucleus, the more unstable, therefor U235 is used instead of Uranium238, which is waaay more abundant.
    These extra neutrons will, of course increase nuclear mass, drawing the electron orbits inward, raising the released photon’s frequency when an excited electron drops back into a deeper well. Neutron masses are significant enough to cause discrete and well spaced blue shift. I checked the spectra for C13 and 14. I suspect a hole in my theory for lighter atoms.
    Wherefrom the source of neutrons bombarding the entire universe? Protons and electrons squeezed in a plasma z-pinch? Neutron stars with limited reach, explaining nearer stars looking young/ red? Do neutron stars even exist, or are they mathturbatory artifacts of black holism?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Back To Top

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. More information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.