There aint no cure for those Redshift Blues

Redshift is a term for the doppler effect on electromagnetic radiation, similar to the change in pitch of a train whistle as it speeds away from the station.  For visible light, when objects are speeding away, the light waves stretch towards the red end of the spectrum, hence the term Redshift. For objects getting closer to the observer the light waves are compressed towards the blue end of the spectrum so that’s called blueshift.  In space, it’s believed that redshift can be used to measure distance as well as speed.  According to theory, celestial bodies with higher redshifts are farther away, and some objects indicate that the universe is “inflating” or expanding.  The rate of universal inflation is thought to be increasing over time as well, based on analyzing the electromagnetic spectrum of distant galaxies and quasars.  However, during the past decade, a search for the effects of time dilation on distant quasars with high redshift has been conducted by astronomer Mike Hawkins of the Royal Observatory Edinburgh.  The results seem to challenge the long held assumptions of big bang and inflation theories.  To Hawkins surprise, no evidence for time dilation was found.

“To my amazement, the [light signatures] were exactly the same,” he says. “There was no time dilation in the more distant objects.”

High redshift quasars are supposed to blink at a slower rate than their closer low redshift counterparts.  Observations prove otherwise.  Is redshift data being interpreted properly?

There are some astronomers who would not be surprised.  They say that the redshift data is best explained by processes other than big bang expansion.  They may be right because many high redshift objects (allegedly more distant) have been observed interacting with low redshift objects (allegedly closer), of which Arp 87 is a magnificent example.

Interacting galaxies Arp87. Image credit: Hubble Heritage Project

Halton Arp is a professional astronomer who, earlier in his career, conducted Edwin Hubble’s nova search of M31, the Andromeda Galaxy.

His biography states:

Arp discovered, from photographs and spectra with the big telescopes, that many pairs of quasars (quasi-stellar objects) which have extremely high redshift z values (and are therefore thought to be receding from us very rapidly – and thus must be located at a great distance from us) are physically connected to galaxies that have low redshift and are known to be relatively close by. Because of Arp’s observations, the assumption that high red shift objects have to be very far away – on which the Big Bang theory and all of “accepted cosmology” is based – has to be fundamentally reexamined!

Arp published his Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies in 1966 cataloging 338 galaxies with odd characteristics and interactions, involving objects with different redshifts. Arp was essentially banned from American academia for his observations that questioned accepted orthodoxy.  Fortunately he found a home at the Max Planck Institute in Germany where he has continued his research.  Among numerous publications, Arp also published the book Seeing Red in 1998.

Peculiar galaxy Arp85. Image credit: © Don Scott 2008 The Holin A. Grotch Observatory

Another conundrum casting doubt on big bang and inflation theories involves the fact that there are six unexpected redshift peaks that show up in the electromagnetic spectrum.  Conventional thinking has resulted in explanations that include galaxies being distributed in concentric shells, or “primordial bubbles” .  Invoking the legacy of Ptolemy’s epicycles, which proved mathematically that the Earth is the center of the universe, the idea of concentric shells puts Earth front and center once again, which is mathematically proven of course.

Is there an alternative explanation for the six redshift peaks and the lack of time dilation?

Halton Arp states in his essay, “Is Physics Slowly Changing?“

This brings us to the conventional assumption of extragalactic redshifts as representing large recessional velocities versus the evidence for their being an intrinsic property of young matter. The key here is the rock upon which science is founded – the observations. Large redshifts differences are observed between whole extragalactic objects which are at the same distance. Intrinsic redshifts are required. But now what is the consequence of having low mass fundamental particles? It is simply that low mass electrons transitioning between atomic orbits will emit and absorb lower energy photons, i.e. they will appear redshifted compared to atoms with heavier particles.

Could these redshift peaks be an intrinsic property of matter, stepping through lower energy states as excited atoms relax?
A paper published by Bell, M.B. suggests it could be.

Six peaks that fall within the redshift window below z=4 are visible. Their positions agree with the preferred redshift values predicted by the decreasing intrinsic redshift (DIR) model. A power spectrum analysis of the full data set confirms the presence of a single significant power peak at the expected redshift period.

Bell and Arp are not alone. Eric Lerner, author of The Big Bang Never Happened, is conducting his own research on redshift.

Lerner states:

“But observations show that in fact the surface brightness of galaxies up to a redshift of 6 are exactly constant, as predicted by a non-expanding universe and in sharp contradiction to the Big Bang. Efforts to explain this difference by evolution–early galaxies are different than those today– lead to predictions of galaxies that are impossibly bright and dense.”
“The Big Bang theory requires THREE hypothetical entities–the inflation field, non-baryonic (dark) matter and the dark energy field to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Yet no evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities.”

In order for theory to match observation, the big bang inflation model requires things that exist only in the minds of the theorists.  Mathematical constructs such as dark matter, dark energy and concentric shells of primordial bubbles identify but a few. Hawkins adds another “epicycle” in explaining that the lack of expected time dilation involves primordial black holes, formed shortly after the big bang.
Hawkins admits “This is a controversial suggestion. Most physicists favor dark matter consisting of hitherto undiscovered subatomic particles rather than primordial black holes.”

A large amount of tax money is handed out for scientific research, yet all we often receive in return is akin to faerie dust and unicorns.  In response to this crisis in cosmology about 500 scientists, engineers, researchers and independent supporters have signed An Open Letter to the Scientific Community

The letter states:

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

We have the right to have a voice about the kinds of research, and the theories that drive them, which our money supports. Scientists also have a right, if not the responsibility, to conduct honest research, free of agendas or pressures to conform. When facts don’t match ideas, it’s only the ideas that can change because the facts have no choice but to remain the same.

Timothy Ray Erney

Explore posts in the same categories: Astronomy, Astrophysics, Cosmology

Tags: arp, big bang, expansion, intrinsic redshift, lerner, redshift

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.