> >>Quantization is like pregnancy. Either you are or you aren't.
> >
> >Not in this case. If red shift is both quantized and also due to
> >recessional velocity, and if the matter is receding and/or if other
> >factors are contributing to red shift, then the quantized peaks may be
> >smeared by noise from the other factors.
>
> Maybe, but this sounds like a case of save the hypothesis at all costs.
I'm very dubious about quantized redshifts but Bill's suggestion is to the
point. In a general relativistic cosmology there are 3 possible sources of redshifts:
1) Gravitational - i.e., the sort of thing we see in spectra of white
dwarfs &c,
2) Shifts due to a general expansion of space (responsible for the
Hubble velocity-distance relation & often loosely attributed to a
Doppler shift), &
3) Doppler shifts due to motion of a source relative to the comoving frame
in which the expansion (if there is one) is homogeneous & isotropic.
1) is generally not significant for the cosmological problem, as was shown in the early
discussions of quasars. The center of mass of a cluster of galaxies will share in the
general expansion & each member of the cluster will thus have its spectrum affected by
2). But the members of the cluster will be moving with respect to that center of mass
& thus have velocities which will contribute to 3). Thus when we look at the spectra of
all the members of the cluster we'll see a statistical distribution of redshifts around
the value given by 2), the width of the distribution being determined by the mass & size
of the cluster.
IF for some reason there were a "quantization" in cluster distances then the
quantization in redshifts would be smeared out due to 3). & the same thing could be
extended to superclusters. Thus we wouldn't expect to see nice sharp steps in redshift.
But I can hardly emphasize the IF strongly enough. I can think of some ad hoc
mechanisms for such a quantization but I don't believe them.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/