VCA 7.E. Quantized Red Shifts

Quantized Red Shifts

Yet Varshni's observations represent only one of a number of strange patterns that emerge when modern astronomical data are closely examined. Another interesting pattern has been discerned by William G. Tifft, an astronomer at Steward Observatory, at the University of Arizona at Tucson (TF1-7). His conclusions have perhaps the most disturbing implications of all for the expanding-universe model.

Tifft has observed that the red shifts associated with galaxies tend to be quantized. What this means is that red shifts tend not to be just any numbers but rather multiples of a certain basic unit of about 72 kilometers per second. In general, his studies show that red shifts of galaxies are grouped at 72 kps, 144 kps, 216 kps, 288 kps, and so on.

Let us consider a pair of galaxies close to each other in space. According to Newtonian gravitational theory, these galaxies should be attracting each other gravitationally. Thus they should be orbiting around each other, falling together, or flying apart, and this relative motion should be revealed by a measurable red shift.

Tifft examined the relative red shift of many pairs of galaxies. This value, according to standard theory, would represent not the speed at which the pair is receding from the earth but rather the speed at which one galaxy is moving in orbit around the other, measured along the line of sight from the earth. Simply put, the speed is calculated as follows: The observer measures the red shift of each galaxy in a pair of galaxies. For example, one galaxy may have a red shift of 7,500 kps, and the other may have one of 7,000 kps. This means that one galaxy is at that time moving relative to the other at a speed of 500 kps along the line of sight. But because this speed is due to orbital motion, it will vary according to the positions of the galaxies at different points in time. For example, when the galaxies are moving perpendicular to the line of sight, the relative motion will be zero, and they will have exactly the same red shift at that point.

So if the two galaxies are in fact moving in orbit, the relative red shift will vary smoothly within a definite range of values. Of course, it is not possible to measure this variation for a single pair of galaxies. They would not display any visible motion or change of red shift within the lifetime of the observer. Therefore it is necessary to observe hundreds of pairs of galaxies and calculate their relative red shifts. If we did this, we would expect to find a nearly continuous spread of values, because we would be catching the galaxies at a variety of orbital positions relative to our line of sight.

But Tifft has found this not to be the case. The red shifts are grouped in near multiples of a basic unit-72 kilometers per second. This indicates to Tifft that the measured red shift is a nonvelocity red shift and that the galaxies in each pair are actually not orbiting each other. One might argue that perhaps the red shifts are caused by something other than the Doppler effect, but surely the galaxies must still be orbiting one another. But Tifft points out that even if something other than relative velocity is causing red shifts, orbital motion should still produce a smooth distribution of Doppler-effect red shifts in addition to this. But this is not what he finds.

Tifft's findings apply not only to galaxies moving in pairs, but to whole groups of galaxies. This poses two questions that modern physics cannot answer. The first is, How is it possible for galaxies to have a nonvelocity red shift? Tifft proposes that it is caused by the nature of the galaxies themselves. They produce light that is red shifted because of internal properties having to do with some as-yet unknown law of nature. The second question is, If the red shift is not due to motion, then what is the motion of the galaxies? If they are orbiting, then there should be a continuous range of Doppler shifts, whatever the internal properties of the galaxies might be. Could it be that they are not orbiting? Then, according to Newton's or Einstein's laws of gravity, they should be falling together or perhaps flying apart. They should still be moving relative to one another, but the indication is that they are not. Therefore, according to Tifft, new principles of gravitation are necessary.

There is already evidence that might be interpreted as indicating that Newton's laws may have to be revised, especially in relation to galaxies. For many years, scientists have found great difficulty in accounting for the dynamics of galactic motion in terms of the law of gravity. For example, it may be seen that certain galaxies appear to be orbiting in a cluster, but the dynamics of mass and gravity suggest they should not be arranged in that way. Given their supposed velocities, they would have to be much more massive in order to orbit. But rather than sacrifice the laws of gravity, astronomers have posited the existence of great quantities of invisible dark matter to account for the missing mass. Some say 90% of the mass of the universe is missing.

But another way to deal with this issue is to say that the laws of gravity need revision, and Tifft is suggesting this, based on his research. With new laws of gravity, the need to posit missing mass disappears. Is Tifft right or wrong? As of now, it isn't possible to say. But his ideas do show how scientists, operating with the very limited data they have been able to acquire, are running into all kinds of contradictions in their attempt to comprehend the universe.

Thus far we have discussed pairs and groups of galaxies. We have seen how their red shifts, representing movement relative to one another along an observer's line of sight, should vary smoothly through a wide range of values. But Tifft has found that the red-shift values are quantized in multiples of a constant unit, and thus he concludes that they are not moving at all relative to one another.

But what about the galaxies' absolute movement along our line of sight? Is it possible that the galaxies are also standing still in relation to us-that they are not moving away, as the expanding-universe model tells us they should be?

Tifft argues that they are not moving. If they are moving due to expansion of the universe, their red shifts should span a wide range, covering all possible intermediate values. But Tifft proposes that these red shifts are also quantized. Normal measurements do not show this, but Tifft points out that when the effect of solar motion is subtracted, the quantization of the red shifts becomes unmistakably clear. The red shifts do not vary smoothly but instead come in multiples of a constant number.

Let's take a closer look at this problem. If the red shifts are quantized, as Tifft says they are, then the sun, because of its motion, adds a Doppler effect to those quantized red shifts. What is added will depend on the angle of the distant galaxy's motion relative to the sun's motion. If the galaxy is moving perpendicular to the sun's path, the sun's movement will not add anything. At 0 degrees there would be a negative red shift (i.e., a blue shift), which would be subtracted. At 180 degrees one would add a positive red shift. At points in between, one gets other values. And by adding these values, one breaks up the quantized nature of the red shifts.

To detect the quantization, one has to subtract the red shift due to the sun's motion from the observed red-shift values. Tifft says he has done just that, and has found that galaxies have red shifts arranged in multiples of 72 kilometers per second. Thus he concludes that these are nonvelocity red shifts, and he posits a static universe.

Summarizing his work, Tifft makes the following remarks in the Astrophysical Journal:

The entire set of concepts [developed in these papers] is internally self-consistent and permits predictions which the conventional view does not even suggest. The predictions made have been verified in virtually all cases and offer alternatives to some very puzzling astrophysical problems: the mass discrepancy problem for galaxies, and stellar rotational peculiarities, to name two major ones. Although not discussed specifically in these papers, the origin and evolution of galaxies by collapse are also untenable, as are most of the cosmological concepts based on the "expanding" universe. In view of all the implications which inevitably follow from the discrete red shift hypothesis, it is not surprising that the idea has met extreme resistance. Nevertheless, a set of intimately related significant correlations involving a massive amount of data exists. Showing that the discrete red shift concept is inconsistent with the "expanding universe" or even general relativity or quantum electrodynamics will not eliminate or explain the correlations! [TF5, p. 390]

As we can see from this statement, Tifft's conclusions have not met with a favorable reception in the community of astronomers and astrophysicists. Indeed, they have been greeted largely with a barrier of icy silence. However, Halton Arp independently confirms some of Tifft's findings, and this in turn lends greater weight to Arp's own anomalous observations.

One of Arp's observations is that in groups of galaxies, one member is generally brighter and bigger. This galaxy tends to have a lower red shift than its smaller companion galaxies. Arp suggests the galaxies are all in the same region, at the same general distance from us; therefore the red shifts are not giving velocity effects and distances but indicate something else.

Let us carefully consider the reasoning that leads Arp to this conclusion. One possibility is that the large, bright galaxy is nearby and just happens to be projected against a background of galaxies that are smaller and dimmer because of distance. These galaxies would have larger red shifts as a result of the expansion of the universe.

However, Arp argues that this explanation overlooks the fact that the clusters of galaxies are well defined and that such well-defined clusters cover a small percentage of the sky. It is therefore unlikely that many such clusters should just happen to have a bright foreground galaxy projected in front of them.

As we have already pointed out, Arp believes that galaxies can be ejected from a parent galaxy. What if the relative red shifts of the smaller galaxies are due to their being ejected from the larger parent galaxy in a direction pointing away from us? The problem here is that in this case we would expect some of the smaller galaxies to be ejected in our direction. These would exhibit relative blue shifts, contrary to Arp's observations.

But here is Arp's clinching argument: Not only do these smaller galaxies have positive red shifts relative to their parent galaxies, but these red shifts are quantized, just the way Tifft indicates they should be in his studies. Arp finds peaks at 70, 140, and 210 kps; this agrees well with Tifft's findings of quantization in multiples of 72 kps. As we have seen, this means that they are nonvelocity red shifts. And the fact that the quantization is in relation to the dominant galaxy in the group indicates there is some physical association. Why would the quantization be there if the association is simply coincidental? The fact that it is there indicates that the association is real.

So here we have an example in which we see dim galaxies with high red shifts close to bright galaxies with lesser red shifts, although standard cosmological theory says they should be vastly further away. This raises questions not only about the interpretation of red shifts, but also about the whole procedure of calculating distance according to brightness.

One of Arp's peaks for red-shift differences among groups of galaxies is in the range of 138-144 kilometers per second. This extremely narrow range is highly significant. If these groups are involved in orbital motion, we would expect to find them at different points in their orbits-some galaxies should be coming toward us, while others should be moving away from us. Thus we would expect a much greater spread in velocities than the 6 kps range found in this peak.

As Arp puts it, "The really startling and difficult aspect of the quantization into very narrow peaks is the small latitude it allows for the true orbital or peculiar velocity" (AR2, p. 110). This suggests that the orbital velocities, if present, are very small, too small for the galaxies to be actually orbiting each other according to present physical laws and estimates for the masses of the galaxies. Tifft's ideas about the need for new laws of gravity seem to be confirmed.

Geoffrey Burbidge has summed up the evidence for anomalous red shifts by saying,

I believe that however much many astronomers wish to disregard the evidence by insisting that the statistical arguments are not very good, or by taking the approach that absence of understanding is an argument against the existence of the effect, it is there and many basic ideas have to be revised.
A revolution is upon us whether or not we like it [BR2, p. 103].

What we see from this evidence is that an established model of the universe, built up from years of painstaking scientific work, can be practically demolished by closer scrutiny of the observational data on which it is based. In the end we come back to the observation made by Sukadeva Gosvami in the beginning of his description of the universe:

My dear King, there is no limit to the expansion of the Supreme Personality of Godhead's material energy. This material world is a transformation of the material qualities,... yet no one could possibly explain it perfectly, even in a lifetime as long as that of Brahma. No one in the material world is perfect, and an imperfect person could not describe this material universe accurately, even after continued speculation [SB 5.16.4].

Link to this page: https://prabhupadabooks.com/vca/7/vca-7-e-quantized-red-shifts