Investigating the structure of time

Unfortunately, it is correct to call this supposed quantization a hypothesis rather than an observation. Cosmological observations are often fraught with systematic errors, so a significant amount of theory must be brought to bear to turn the data produced by observations into evidence for particular theories or hypotheses. Over the years, many people have attempted to hypothesize that certain data sets, when analyzed in certain ways, showed quantization. This requires that the analysis is correct and that there is not systematic error in the data that might lead that analysis to improperly report quantization.

In the end, the analysis does not work when applied to the best available data that takes known sources of systematic error into account and reduces that error.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I believe to prove the existence of time you must be able to predict the future: should your prediction be TRUE you will have negated time however by the TIME you return to said moment time it will have passed. i.e. by travelling into the future (to the end of time) you will also travel to the beginning of time but when you return YOU will have travel onwards.Thus you can never reach such a point.

---=--->
---=--->
---=--->

How many times can you traverse?

"You have just armed a nuclear bomb..."-Under Seige (I believe.)
"Apparently it's impossible to k*ll the b*st*rd."-Snatch.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Exactly -- it's not plausible, which is half the explanation. The other half is people with agendas like to see patterns but are bad at math.

If you look for peaks in a power spectrum of a random-looking distribution of points, you will find them, always. The problem is most people are very bad at being able to tell if the peaks in a power spectrum are significant, because that's a detailed question in probability theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization#Evaluation_and_criticism

http://crankastronomy.org/anomalies/quantizedz.html

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Doppler_Effect#.22Quantized_redshift.22

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks for this rp. I had not previously known anything about the subject.

I find the appeal of this dodgy, or non-existent, phenomenon to creationsts rather intriguing - clearly another thing to look out for on discussion forums.....

 

Yes, thanks. That clears it up a bit.

So, the explanation is that the periodicity is due to error bars on a Gaussian distribution?

Aren't those error bars (power plotted against frequency) VERTICAL? I'm familiar with some of this equipment, like mixing down an optical signal such as a red shift to view it on a spectrum analyzer (which usually has a choice of filters). Those filters have roll offs. You mean to say, someone used the equipment who did not understand this? They would have needed to mistake filter bandwidths for quantization. Possible, even if unlikely.

That story is getting old, since bicep2, not to mention the Penrose rings.

Curiouser and curiouser. I just found out, Guth used Penrose diagrams and the Higgs Mexican Hat / Goldstone potential in one of his late 1990s descriptions of inflationary theory. Today, Penrose refers to Guth's inflation theory as fantasy, even after the revelations about Baryon Acoustic Oscillation.

It seems much easier to get to the crux of science questions by ignoring certain individuals here. I probably need to broaden the scope of my resistance to disinformation beyond these forums.

Anyone who reads ANYTHING written by a crank and believes it at face value is also a crank. It really doesn't help to designate some crank's ideas as MAINSTREAM COSMOLOGY, nor to tell people who haven't read those accounts they are illiterate. Don't tell me it's easy to sort out these things. Roger Penrose couldn't. A Nobel prize winning physicist "Plasma Cosmology" couldn't. If you think you can, think harder.

This would be funny if it wasn't also stupid and unnecessary.

 

No -- the significance of specific peaks on power spectrum when every such sample has some peaks.

 

No you did not. I had never seen that link before. For a very long time I have held the opinion that the observed red shift was a combination of Doppler effect with the source and detectors speeds plus a stretching of the photo while it travels between. An idea formed so long that I think I did not read it any where. (So search as you may, you will not find any source). - I just deduced it myself from facts I knew and logic (possibly not correct, but it seems to give the correct result).

I knew most have a very wrong idea about photons. They think of photons as little balls of EM energy, but I had measured some as 35 cm long. In general, the longer the upper state life time is, the longer the photon it produces with radiative decay will be (if process is not disturbed by a collision - that causes "pressure broadening."). It is a Delta T x Delta E related thing, but I won't go much into that now. Just a hint: long lifetime = large Delta T and:
A very long photo, such as those of the green line of the northern lights is several meters long. Has extremely large number of cycles and by Fourier theory an extremely precise energy (The opposite of a pressure broaden line) so its Delta E is very tiny.

I imagined a head to tail chain of 1 meter photons traveling from point A to B, whose separation is increasing ONLY*, by the expansion of the universe. The number of these 1 meter photons, N, does not change because while the front one is being absorbed by B, a new one is being created at A, always with length (set by the energy of the transition). I. e. if these N photons always fill the space between A&B, then they must grow longer with the expansion of the universe as the separation between A & B is increasing with the expansion of the universe. - I. e. are "red shifted" by the expansion of the universe.

* No relative speed, no Doppler effect. I think the more standard POV is that the red shift is due only to the Doppler effect, but I'm not an expert in this.

But the point is moot now as you (in post 25) seem to accept rpenner's post 23, arguments that the "quantization" is just a statistical artifact. (Not real, as I suggested in post 7.)

 

You were correct (that it was likely a statistical artifact) as far as I can tell, BillyT.

I searched and initially could find no more authoritative description of the quantization of redshifts exists that is not influenced by creation science, and that is a shame.

However, then I found this:

https://briankoberlein.com/2014/05/30/seeing-red/

Which seems to close the case on Tifft's original observation by including very large numbers of observations from the Sloan Digital Sky survey which included 930,000 galaxies and 120,000 quasars. What Tifft thought he observed has now been ruled a side effect of a clustering of galaxies, in some cases particularly with respect to the Coma cluster, multiple images of galaxies were being gravitationally lensed. So this analysis makes perfect sense to anyone who is not a creation scientist.

"Of course there is another pattern that has arisen, and that is the one where every time somebody writes about how quantized redshift and Arp’s non-inflationary universe model doesn’t match the data, a flood of amateur commenters hit your page to declare how wrong you are. They troll your comments and send you angry personal messages. They’ll post link after link to other papers, and demand you go through each one in detail. When you don’t accept their view they accuse you of bias and closed mindedness."

Those commenters and trolls would be creation scientists, who somehow believe that any location of Earth that is not the center of the universe threatens their relationships with their personal G-d.

Sound like any forum you know?

 

20 years ago, what we just did (find the right answer to riddle of the quantization of redsifts) would have been impossible to track down. I know because I tried. Marvelous.

Now if only there were a way to take down all those creationist pseudoscience propaganda websites, that would be even better.

 

No doubt a humiliating backdown ('redshift quantization') is eased considerably if one can then lash out at a 'common enemy', knowing it will invoke a popular sentiment.
Thing is, that tactic could be seen in your case as being especially ironic given your long-standing, only recently shed avatar contained the famous line:
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize. (Voltaire)"
So you would in fact ban such creationist folks right to air their beliefs. Hmm....doesn't quite seem to match the spirit of that avatar quote.

Just to rub more salt in, Dan, given you are a reformed Jew (evidently a wing of Judaism not subscribing to Genesis account of things), you might like to check just who is the true author of that famous quote. No, it wasn't Voltaire: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire#Misattributed
You will need to scroll down some, but when you find the two variants, sandwiched in between....

 

There are many works/data analysis by so called mainstream guys concluding Red Shift Quantization, but it is interesting to note that after some work by our Stephen Hawking, the concept of RSQ is consigned to what not.......I cannot comment if it is there or not, or if at all it is measurable, but surely Hawking would have been a big looser if RSQ is proven as reality.

 

Evidently, there is NO QRS. For background in understanding the gravitational lensing in the Coma cluster, I recommend Evalyn Gates ' book Einstein's Telescope. She doesn't mention QRS specifically, but background is provided which allows even a layman to understand one of the major applications of interferometry not available when Tifft noted QRS in the Coma cluster.

Clusters of galaxies produce gravitationally.lensed images which may appear as QRS regions, or be interpreted as different parts of the same galaxy. They are not.

 

And as Thomas Jefferson (or was it Abraham Lincoln?) once said, “Never trust quotes you find on the internet.”

I read a translation of Voltaire's Candide in high school (right after Catcher in the Rye), and the quote did sound like something he might have said. Damned internet can't even get one liners right.

I didn't know that Voltaire also was a White Supremacist, but like the Jefferson quote, that also makes perfect sense. "We must cultivate our garden." should have been a dead giveaway. Candide openly derides authorities of both government and church, the latter perhaps foreshadowing Hitler's treatment of Judaism in Mein Kampf. I get it. No more German quotes, other than from Einstein, who also counsels us not to trust quotes you find on the internet. I prefer weeds to gardens, and if nature didn't, we would have neither.

The antique pencil sharpener (I originally thought it was an antique meat grinder with a puppy) isn't a problem then? It helps to know that you are a crank, even if you are only a junior assistant pencil sharpener. Mathematicians use a lot of pencils, don't they? Wouldn't want a tip to break without one would we? Go figure. I also use a lot of pencils, but then I'm also prone to chronic constipation. Better than the misattributed Voltaire quote, at least.

 

I'm sure the sentiment perfectly reflects what he believed. And I agree entirely with it. And yes, it pays to check sources carefully.

Only your word it's not really a meat grinder for disposing of dispatched opponents! (Well talk about serendipity - you added that bit in red just as I was about to post!)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

http://www.voltaire.ox.ac.uk/www_vf/about_voltaire/didnt_say.pdf

 

That sounds exactly like your behavior. The mention of Dunning-Kruger in another thread was too on the mark.

All the information that rpenner provided was there on the wikipedia page that you cited.