redshift

an increase in the wavelengths of the lines in the spectrum of the radiation source (shift of the lines towards the red part of the spectrum) compared to the lines of the reference spectra. Redshift occurs when the distance between the radiation source and its receiver (observer) increases (see Doppler effect) or when the source is in a strong gravitational field (gravitational redshift). In astronomy, the largest redshift is observed in the spectra of distant extragalactic objects (galaxies and quasars) and is considered as a consequence of the cosmological expansion of the Universe.

Redshift

lowering the frequencies of electromagnetic radiation, one of the manifestations of the Doppler effect. Name "K. with." due to the fact that in the visible part of the spectrum, as a result of this phenomenon, the lines are shifted to its red end; K. s. observed in radiation of any other frequencies, for example, in the radio range. The opposite effect associated with increasing frequencies is called blue (or violet) shift. Most often, the term "K. with." is used to designate two phenomena—the cosmological cosmological s. and gravitational K. s.

Cosmological (metagalactic) K. s. called the decrease in radiation frequencies observed for all distant sources (galaxies, quasars), indicating the distance of these sources from each other and, in particular, from our Galaxy, i.e., about the non-stationarity (expansion) of the Metagalaxy. K. s. for galaxies was discovered by the American astronomer W. Slifer in 1912-14; in 1929 E. Hubble discovered that K. s. for distant galaxies it is greater than for nearby ones, and increases approximately in proportion to the distance (K. s. law, or Hubble's law). Various explanations for the observed shift of spectral lines have been proposed. Such, for example, is the hypothesis of the decay of light quanta over a time of millions and billions of years, during which the light from distant sources reaches the earthly observer; according to this hypothesis, the energy decreases during decay, which is also the reason for the change in the radiation frequency. However, this hypothesis is not supported by observations. In particular, K. s. in different parts of the spectrum of the same source, within the framework of the hypothesis, should be different. Meanwhile, all observational data indicate that K. s. does not depend on frequency, the relative change in frequency z = (n0≈ n)/n0 is exactly the same for all radiation frequencies not only in the optical, but also in the radio range of a given source (n0 ≈ the frequency of a certain line in the source spectrum, n ≈ the frequency of the same line, registered by the receiver; n

In the theory of relativity, Doppler K. s. is considered as a result of slowing down the flow of time in a moving frame of reference (the effect of the special theory of relativity). If the velocity of the source system relative to the receiver system is u (in the case of metagalactic spacecraft, u ≈ this is the radial velocity), then

═(c ≈ the speed of light in vacuum) and according to the observed K. s. it is easy to determine the radial velocity of the source: . It follows from this equation that at z ╝ ¥ the speed v approaches the speed of light, always remaining less than it (v< с). При скорости v, намного меньшей скорости света (u << с), формула упрощается: u » cz. Закон Хаббла в этом случае записывается в форме u = cz = Hr (r ≈ расстояние, Н ≈ постоянная Хаббла). Для определения расстояний до внегалактических объектов по этой формуле нужно знать численное значение постоянной Хаббла Н. Знание этой постоянной очень важно и для космологии: с ней связан т. н. возраст Вселенной.

Up until the 50s. 20th century extragalactic distances (measurement of which, of course, is associated with great difficulties) were greatly underestimated, in connection with which the value of H determined from these distances turned out to be greatly overestimated. In the early 70s. 20th century for the Hubble constant, the value H = 53 ╠ 5 (km/sec)/Mgps is accepted, the reciprocal value is T = 1/H = 18 billion years.

Photographing the spectra of weak (distant) sources for measuring CV, even when using the largest instruments and sensitive photographic plates, requires favorable observation conditions and long exposures. For galaxies, displacements z » 0.2 are measured with confidence, corresponding to a velocity u » 60,000 km/sec and a distance of more than 1 billion ps. At such speeds and distances, Hubble's law is applicable in its simplest form (the error is about 10%, i.e., the same as the error in determining H). Quasars are, on average, a hundred times brighter than galaxies and, therefore, can be observed at distances ten times greater (if space is Euclidean). For quasars, z » 2 and more are actually recorded. With displacements z = 2, the speed is u » 0.8×s = 240,000 km/s. At such velocities, specific cosmological effects already come into play ≈ non-stationarity and curvature of space ≈ time; in particular, the concept of a single unambiguous distance becomes inapplicable (one of the distances ≈ the distance along the K. s. ≈ here, obviously, is r = ulH = 4.5 billion ps). K. s. testifies to the expansion of the entire part of the universe accessible to observations; this phenomenon is commonly referred to as the expansion of the (astronomical) universe.

Gravitational K. with. is a consequence of the slowing down of the pace of time and is due to the gravitational field (the effect of the general theory of relativity). This phenomenon (also called the Einstein effect, the generalized Doppler effect) was predicted by A. Einstein in 1911 and has been observed since 1919, first in the radiation of the Sun and then in some other stars. Gravitational K. with. it is customary to characterize the conditional velocity u, which is formally calculated using the same formulas as in the cases of cosmological cosmological s. Conditional velocity values: for the Sun u = 0.6 km/sec, for the dense star Sirius B u = 20 km/sec. In 1959, for the first time, it was possible to measure the gravitational force due to the Earth's gravitational field, which is very small: u = 7.5 × 10-5 cm/sec (see Mössbauer effect). In some cases (for example, during a gravitational collapse), coexistence should be observed. both types (in the form of a total effect).

Lit.: L. D. Landau, E. M. Lifshits, Field Theory, 4th ed., M., 1962, ╖ 89, 107; Observational foundations of cosmology, trans. from English, M., 1965.

G. I. Naan.

Wikipedia

Redshift

Redshift- shift of spectral lines of chemical elements to the red side. This phenomenon may be an expression of the Doppler effect or gravitational redshift, or a combination of both. The shift of spectral lines to the violet side is called the blue shift. For the first time, the shift of spectral lines in the spectra of stars was described by the French physicist Hippolyte Fizeau in 1848, and he proposed the Doppler effect caused by the radial velocity of the star to explain the shift.

Most quasars radiate intensely radio waves. When astronomers pinpointed the positions of these radio sources in visible-light photographs, they discovered star-like objects.

To establish the nature of strange celestial bodies, photographed their spectrum. And we saw something completely unexpected! These "stars" had a spectrum that differed sharply from all other stars. The spectra were completely unfamiliar. In most quasars, they did not contain not only the well-known and characteristic lines of hydrogen for ordinary stars, but at first glance it was impossible to detect in them a single line even of any other chemical element. A young Dutch astrophysicist M. Schmidt, who worked in the USA, found out that the lines in the spectra of strange sources are unrecognizable only because they are strongly shifted to the red region of the spectrum, but in fact these are lines of well-known chemical elements (primarily hydrogen).

The reason for the shift of the spectral lines of quasars was the subject of great scientific discussions, as a result of which the vast majority of astrophysicists came to the conclusion that the redshift of the spectral lines is associated with the general expansion of the Metagalaxy.

In the spectrum of objects 3C273 and 3C48, the redshift reaches an unprecedented value. The shift of the lines towards the red end of the spectrum may be a sign of the source moving away from the observer. The faster the light source moves away, the greater the redshift in its spectrum.

It is characteristic that in the spectrum of almost all galaxies (and this rule has no exceptions for distant galaxies), the lines in the spectrum are always shifted towards its red end. Roughly speaking, the redshift is proportional to the distance to the galaxy. This is precisely what is expressed THE LAW OF THE RED SHIFT, which is now explained as the result of the rapid expansion of the entire observed collection of galaxies.

Removal speed

The most distant galaxies known so far have a very high redshift. The corresponding removal velocities are measured in tens of thousands of kilometers per second. But the redshift of the 3S48 object surpassed all records. It turned out that it is carried away from the Earth at a speed of only about half the speed of light! If we assume that this object obeys the general redshift law, it is easy to calculate that the distance from the Earth to the 3C48 object is 3.78 billion light years! For example, in 8 1/3 minutes a beam of light will reach the Sun, in 4 years - to the nearest star. And here almost 4 billion years of continuous superfast flight is a time comparable to the life span of our planet.

For object 3C196, the distance, also found from the redshift, turned out to be 12 billion light years, i.e. we caught a ray of light that was sent to us even when neither the Earth nor the Sun existed! Object 3S196 is very fast - its speed of removal along the line of sight reaches 200 thousand kilometers per second.

Age of quasars

According to modern estimates, the ages of quasars are measured in billions of years. During this time, each quasar radiates tremendous energy. We do not know the processes that could cause such energy release. If we assume that we have a superstar in which hydrogen “burns out”, then its mass should be a billion times greater than the mass of the Sun. Meanwhile, modern theoretical astrophysics proves that with a mass of more than 100 times greater than the sun, the star inevitably loses stability and breaks up into a number of fragments.

Of the currently known quasars, the total number of which is more than 10,000, the closest is 260,000,000 light years away, the most distant is 15 billion light years. Quasars are perhaps the oldest of the objects that we observe, because from a distance of billions of light years, ordinary galaxies are not visible in any telescope. However, this “living past” is still completely incomprehensible to us. The nature of quasars has not yet been fully elucidated.

rev. from 12/11/2013 - ()

The big bang theory and the expansion of the universe is a fact for modern scientific thought, but if you face the truth, it never became a real theory. This hypothesis was born when, in 1913, the American astronomer Vesto Melvin Slipher began to study the spectra of light coming from a dozen known nebulae and concluded that they were moving away from the Earth at speeds reaching millions of miles per hour. Similar ideas were shared at that time by the astronomer de Sitter. At one time, de Sitter's scientific report aroused interest among astronomers around the world.

Among these scientists was also Edwin Powell Hubble (Edwin Habble). He also attended a conference of the American Astronomical Society in 1914 when Slifer reported on his discoveries related to the movement of galaxies. Inspired by this idea, Hubble set to work in 1928 at the famous Mt. Wilson Observatory in an attempt to combine de Sitter's theory of the expanding universe with Sdyfer's observations of receding galaxies.

Hubble reasoned roughly as follows. In an expanding universe, we should expect galaxies to move away from each other, with more distant galaxies moving away from each other faster. This means that from anywhere, including Earth, an observer should see that all other galaxies are moving away from him, and, on average, more distant galaxies are moving away faster.

Hubble believed that if this is true and actually takes place, then there must be a proportional relationship between the distance to the galaxy and the degree of redshift in the spectrum of light coming from galaxies to us on Earth. He observed that in the spectra of most galaxies this redshift really takes place, and galaxies located at greater distances from us have a greater redshift.

At one time, Slifer noticed that in the spectra of galaxies that he studied, the spectral lines of light of certain planets are shifted towards the red end of the spectrum. This curious phenomenon has been called "redshift". Slifer boldly attributed the redshift to the Doppler effect, which was well known at the time. Based on the increase in "redshift", we can conclude that the galaxies are moving away from us. This was the first big step towards the idea that the entire universe is expanding. If the lines in the spectrum shifted towards the blue end of the spectrum, then this would mean that the galaxies are moving towards the observer, that is, that the Universe is narrowing.

The question arises, how could Hubble find out how far each of the galaxies he studied is from us, he did not measure the distance to them with a tape measure? But it was on the data on the remoteness of galaxies that he based his observations and conclusions. This was indeed a very difficult question for Hubble, and it still remains a difficult one for modern astronomers. After all, there is no measuring instrument that can reach the stars.

Therefore, in his measurements, he adhered to the following logic: for a start, one can estimate the distances to the nearest stars using various methods; then, step by step, you can build a "cosmic distance ladder", which will allow you to estimate the distances to some galaxies.

Hubble, using his method of approximation of distances, derived a proportional relationship between the magnitude of the redshift and the distance to the galaxy. Now this relationship is known as Hubble's law.

He believed that the most distant galaxies have the highest redshift values ​​and therefore move away from us faster than other galaxies. He took this as proof enough that the universe is expanding.

Over time, this idea became so firmly established that astronomers began to apply it in the exact opposite way: if the distance is proportional to the redshift, then the distance to galaxies can be calculated from the measured redshift. But, as we have already noted, Hubble determined the distances to galaxies not by direct measurement. They were obtained indirectly, based on measurements of the apparent brightness of galaxies. Agree, his assumption of a proportional relationship between the distance to the galaxy and the redshift cannot be verified.

Thus, the expanding universe model potentially has two flaws:

- First of all, the brightness of celestial objects can depend on many factors, not only on their distance. That is, distances calculated from the apparent brightness of galaxies may not be valid.

- Secondly, it is quite possible that the redshift has nothing to do with the speed of the movement of galaxies.

Hubble continued his research and came to a certain model of the expanding universe, resulting in the Hubble law.

To explain it, we first recall that, according to the big bang model, the farther the galaxy is from the epicenter of the explosion, the faster it moves. According to Hubble's law, the rate at which galaxies are receding must be equal to the distance to the epicenter of the explosion multiplied by a number called the Hubble constant. Using this law, astronomers calculate the distance to galaxies based on the magnitude of the redshift, the origin of which is not fully understood by anyone,

In general, they decided to measure the Universe very simply; Find the redshift and divide by the Hubble constant and you get the distance to any galaxy. In the same way, modern astronomers use the Hubble constant to calculate the size of the universe. The reciprocal of the Hubble constant has the meaning of the characteristic time of the expansion of the Universe at the current moment. This is where the legs of the time of the existence of the Universe grow from.

Based on this, the Hubble constant is an extremely important number for modern science. For example, if you double the constant, then you also double the estimated size of the universe. But the fact is that in different years different scientists operated with different values ​​of the Hubble constant.

The Hubble constant is expressed in kilometers per second per megaparsec (a unit of cosmic distances equal to 3.3 million light years).

For example, in 1929 the value of the Hubble constant was 500. In 1931 it was 550. In 1936 it was 520 or 526. In 1950 it was 260, i.e. dropped significantly. In 1956, it dropped even further, to 176 or 180. In 1958, it dropped further to 75, and in 1968 it jumped up to 98. In 1972, its value ranged from 50 all the way to 130. Today, the Hubble constant is generally considered to be 55. All of these changes led one astronomer to humorously say that the Hubble constant would be better called the Hubble variable, which is the current convention. In other words, it is believed that the Hubble constant changes with time, but the term "constant" is justified by the fact that at any given moment in time at all points in the universe, the Hubble constant is the same.

Of course, all these changes over the decades can be explained by the fact that scientists have improved their methods and improved the quality of calculations.

But the question arises: What calculations? We repeat once again that no one will be able to really verify these calculations, since a tape measure (even a laser one) that could reach the neighboring galaxy has not yet been invented.

Moreover, even in the ratio of distances between galaxies, sensible people do not understand everything. If the universe is expanding, according to the law of proportionality, uniformly, why then do many scientists get such different values ​​\u200b\u200bof the quantities, based on the same proportions of the rates of this expansion? It turns out that these proportions of expansion as such also do not exist.

The learned astronomer Viger observed that, when astronomers take measurements in different directions, they get different expansion rates. Then he turned his attention to something even stranger: he discovered that the sky can be divided into two sets of directions. The first is a set of directions in which many galaxies lie in front of more distant galaxies. The second is a set of directions in which distant galaxies are without foreground galaxies. Let's call the first group of space directions "area A", the second group - "area B".

Viger discovered an amazing thing. If in our studies we confine ourselves to distant galaxies in region A and only on the basis of these studies we calculate the Hubble constant, then one value of the constant will be obtained. If you do research in area B, you get a completely different value of the constant.

It turns out that the rate of expansion of the galaxy, according to these studies, varies depending on how and under what conditions we measure the indicators coming from distant galaxies. If we measure them where there are foreground galaxies, then there will be one result, if there is no foreground, then the result will be different.

If the universe is really expanding, then what could cause foreground galaxies to influence the speed of other galaxies in such a way? The galaxies are so far apart that they can't blow on each other like we blow on a balloon. Therefore, it would be logical to assume that the problem lies in the mysteries of the redshift.

This is exactly what Viger argued. He suggested that the measured redshifts of distant galaxies, on which all science is based, are not related to the expansion of the Universe at all. Rather, they are caused by a completely different effect. He suggested that this previously unknown effect is associated with the so-called aging mechanism of light approaching us from afar.

According to Wieger, the spectrum of light that has traveled through a huge space experiences a strong redshift only because the light has traveled too far. Wiger proved that this happens in accordance with physical laws and is surprisingly similar to many other natural phenomena. In nature, always, if something moves, then there is always something else that prevents this movement. Such obstructing forces also exist in outer space. Viger believes that as light travels vast distances between galaxies, the redshift effect begins to show up. He associated this effect with the hypothesis of aging (reducing the strength) of light.

It turns out that light loses its energy, crossing space, in which there are certain forces that interfere with its movement. And the more the light ages, the redder it becomes. Therefore, the redshift is proportional to the distance, not the speed of the object. So the farther the light travels, the more it ages. Realizing this, Wiger described the Universe as a non-expanding structure. He realized that all galaxies are more or less stationary. And the redshift is not related to the Doppler effect, and therefore the distances to the measured object and its speed are not related. Viger believes that redshift is determined by an intrinsic property of light itself; thus, he argues that light, after traveling a certain distance, simply gets older. This does not prove in any way that the galaxy to which the distance is measured is moving away from us.

Most modern astronomers (but not all) reject the idea of ​​light aging. According to Joseph Silk of the University of California at Berkley, “aging light cosmology is unsatisfactory because it introduces a new law of physics.”

But the theory of light aging presented by Wiger does not require radical additions to existing physical laws. He suggested that in intergalactic space there is a certain kind of particles that, interacting with light, take away part of the energy of light. The vast majority of massive objects contain more of these particles than others.

Using this idea, Wiger explained the different redshifts for regions A and B as follows: light passing through the foreground galaxies encounters more of these particles and therefore loses more energy than light not passing through the region of the foreground galaxies. Thus, the spectrum of light crossing obstacles (regions of the foreground galaxies) will experience a larger redshift, and this leads to different values ​​for the Hubble constant. Wiger also referred to additional evidence for his theories, which was obtained from experiments on objects with slow redshifts.

For example, if you measure the spectrum of light coming from a star located close to the disk of our Sun, then the amount of redshift in it will be greater than in the case of a star located in the far region of the sky. Such measurements can only be made during a total solar eclipse, when stars close to the solar disk become visible in the dark.

In short, Wiger explained redshifts in terms of a non-expanding universe in which the behavior of light differs from the idea accepted by most scientists. Wiger believes that his model of the universe gives more accurate, realistic astronomical data than those given by the standard model of the expanding universe. This old model cannot explain the large difference in the values ​​obtained when calculating the Hubble constant. According to Viger, slow redshifts may be a global feature of the Universe. The universe may very well be static, and hence the need for the big bang theory simply disappears.

And everything would have been fine: we would have said thanks to Wiger, scolded Hubble, but a new problem appeared, previously unknown. That problem is quasars. One of the most striking features of quasars is that their redshifts are fantastically high compared to those of other astronomical objects. While the redshift measured for a normal galaxy is about 0.67, some of the redshifts of quasars are close to 4.00. Currently, galaxies have also been found whose redshift coefficient is greater than 1.00.

If we accept, as most astronomers do, that they are ordinary redshifts, then quasars must be by far the most distant objects ever discovered in the universe and radiate a million times more energy than a giant spherical galaxy, which is also hopeless.

If we take Hubble's law, then galaxies (with a redshift greater than 1.00) should move away from us at a speed exceeding the speed of light, and quasars at a speed equal to 4 times the speed of light.

It turns out that now it is necessary to scold Albert Einstein? Or are the initial conditions of the problem still incorrect and the redshift is the mathematical equivalent of processes about which we have little idea? Mathematics is not wrong, but it does not give an actual understanding of the processes that take place. For example, mathematicians have long proved the existence of additional dimensions of space, while modern science cannot find them in any way.

Thus, both of the alternatives available within conventional astronomical theory run into serious difficulties. If the redshift is taken as a normal Doppler effect, due to spatial absorption, the indicated distances are so huge that other properties of quasars, especially energy emission, are inexplicable. On the other hand, if the redshift is not related, or not entirely related to the speed of movement, we have no reliable hypothesis as to the mechanism by which this is produced.

Convincing evidence based on this problem is difficult to obtain. Arguments on one side, or questions on the other, are based primarily on the apparent association between quasars and other objects. Apparent associations with such redshifts are offered as evidence in support of a simple Doppler shift, or as "cosmological" hypotheses. Opponents argue that associations between objects whose redshifts differ indicate that two different processes are at work. Each group stigmatizes opponents' associations as fake.

In any case, for this situation, we must agree that the second component (velocity) of the redshift is identified as another Doppler change produced in the same manner as the normal redshift of absorption, and must be added to the normalshift to give the mathematical representation ongoing processes.

And the actual understanding of the ongoing processes can be found in the works of Dewey Larson, for example, in this passage.

Redshifts of quasars

Although some of the objects now known as quasars were already recognized as belonging to a new and separate class of phenomena due to their special spectra, the actual discovery of quasars can be traced back to 1963, when Martin Schmidt identified the spectrum of the radio source 3C 273 as shifted by 16% towards the red. . Most of the other defining characteristics originally attributed to quasars had to be determined when more data was accumulated. For example, one early description defined them as "star-like objects coinciding with radio sources." But modern observations show that in most cases quasars have complex structures that are definitely not like stars, and there is a large class of quasars from which radio emission has not been detected. The high redshift continued to be a hallmark of a quasar, and its distinguishing characteristic was considered to be an observed range of magnitudes expanding upwards. The secondary redshift measured for 3C 48 was 0.369, well above the primary measurement of 0.158. By early 1967, when 100 redshifts were available, the highest value was 2.223, and by the time of publication it had risen to 3.78.

Extending the redshift range above 1.00 raised questions of interpretation. Based on previous understanding of the origin of the Doppler shift, a recession redshift above 1.00 would indicate that the relative velocity is greater than the speed of light. The general acceptance of Einstein's view that the speed of light is the absolute limit made such an interpretation unacceptable to astronomers, and the mathematics of relativity was resorted to to solve the problem. Our analysis in Volume I shows that this is a misapplication of mathematical relationships in situations in which these relationships can be used. There are contradictions between the values ​​obtained as a result of observation and obtained by indirect means. For example, by measuring speed by dividing the coordinate distance by the hourly time. In such examples, the mathematics of relativity (Lorentz's equations) are applied to indirect measurements in order to bring them into agreement with direct measurements taken as correct. Doppler shifts are direct measurements of velocities that do not require correction. A redshift of 2.00 indicates a relative outward motion with a scalar value twice the speed of light.

Although the problem of high redshift was circumvented in traditional astronomical thought by a trick of the mathematics of relativity, the accompanying distance-energy problem proved to be more intractable and resisted all attempts at resolution or subterfuge.

If quasars are at distances indicated by cosmology, that is, at distances corresponding to redshifts, according to the fact that they are ordinary recession redshifts, then the amount of energy they emit is much greater than can be explained by the known process of energy generation or even by any plausible speculative process. On the other hand, if the energies are reduced to credible levels by assuming that the quasars are much closer, then conventional science has no explanation for the large redshifts.

Obviously something needs to be done. One or the other limiting assumption should be abandoned. Either there are previously undiscovered processes that produce much more energy than already known processes, or there are unknown factors that push the redshifts of a quasar beyond the usual recession values. For some reason, the rationale of which is hard to fathom, most astronomers believe that the redshift alternative is the only thing that needs revision or expansion in existing physical theory. The argument most often put forward against the objections of those who lean in favor of a non-cosmological explanation of redshifts is that the hypothesis required to be measured in a physical theory should only be accepted as a last resort. Here's what these individuals don't see: the last resort is the only thing left. If we exclude the modification of the existing theory to explain the redshifts, then the existing theory should be modified to explain the magnitude of energy generation.

Moreover, the energy alternative is much more radical in that it requires not only completely unknown new processes, but also involves a huge increase in the scale of generation, beyond the currently known level. On the other hand, all that is required in a redshift situation, even if a solution based on known processes cannot be obtained, is a new process. He does not pretend to explain anything more than is now recognized as the prerogative of the known process of recession; it is simply used to generate redshifts at less distant spatial locations. Even without new information from the development of the theory of the universe of motion, it should be obvious that the redshift alternative is a much better way to break the current impasse between quasar energy and redshift theories. That is why the explanation resulting from the application of the Reverse System theory to solve the problem is so significant.

Such reasoning is somewhat academic, since we accept the world as it is, whether we like it or not what we find. However, it should be noted that here, again, as in many examples on the previous pages, the answer that appears as a result of a new theoretical development takes the simplest and most logical form. Of course, the answer to the quasar problem does not include a break with most basics, as astronomers who lean in favor of a non-cosmological explanation for redshifts would expect. As they view the situation, some new physical process or principle should be included to add a “non-velocity component” to the quasar redshift recession. We find that no new process or principle is required. The extra redshift is simply the result of added speed, speed that escaped awareness due to the inability to be represented in the traditional spatial frame of reference.

As stated above, the limiting value of the explosion velocity and redshift are two resulting units in one dimension. If the explosion velocity is equally divided between two active dimensions in the intermediate region, the quasar can be converted to motion in time if the redshift component of the explosion in the original dimension is 2.00 and the total redshift of the quasar is 2.326. By the time Quasars and Pulsars were published, only one quasar redshift had been published, exceeding 2.326 by any significant amount. As pointed out in that work, the redshift of 2.326 is not an absolute maximum, but the level at which the transition of the quasar movement into a new status occurs, which, as allowed in any event, can take place. Thus, the very high value of 2.877 assigned to the quasar 4C 05 34 indicated either the existence of some process, as a result of which the transformation, which could theoretically occur at 2.326, was delayed, or a measurement error. In view of the lack of other available data, at the time the choice between the two alternatives seemed undesirable. Many additional redshifts above 2.326 have been found in subsequent years; and it became apparent that the expansion of quasar redshifts to higher levels is a frequent phenomenon. Therefore, the theoretical situation was revised and the nature of the process operating at higher redshifts was elucidated.

As described in Volume 3, the redshift factor of 3.5, which prevails below the level of 2.326, is the result of an equal distribution of seven units of equivalent space between the dimension parallel to the dimension of movement in space and the dimension perpendicular to it. Such an equal distribution is the result of the action of probability in the absence of influences in favor of one distribution over another, and other distributions are completely excluded. However, there is a small but significant probability of unequal distribution. Instead of the usual distribution of 3½ - 3½ of seven speed units, the division could become 4 - 3, 4½ - 2½, and so on. The total number of quasars with redshifts above the level corresponding to the 3½ - 3½ distribution is relatively small. And it was not expected that any random group of moderate size, say 100 quasars, would contain more than one such quasar (if any).

A skewed distribution in a dimension has no significant observable effects on lower velocity levels (although it would produce anomalous results in a study such as Arp's pooling analysis if it were more common). But it becomes apparent at higher levels, as it results in redshifts that exceed the usual limit of 2.326. Due to the second degree (square) nature of the inter-regional connection, the 8 units involved in the explosion velocity, 7 of which reside in the intermediate region, become 64 units, 56 of which reside in that region. Therefore, possible redshift factors above 3.5 are increased in steps of 0.125. The theoretical maximum corresponding to a distribution in only one dimension would be 7.0, but the probability becomes insignificant at some lower level, presumably somewhere around 6.0. The corresponding redshift values ​​peak around 4.0.

An increase in the redshift factor due to a change in the distribution in the dimension does not include any increase in distance in space. Therefore, all quasars with redshifts of 2.326 and above are at approximately the same distance in space. This is the explanation for the apparent discrepancy involved in the observed fact that the brightness of quasars with extremely high redshifts is comparable to that of quasars with a redshift range of about 2.00.

The explosions of stars, which set off a chain of events leading to the emission of a quasar from the galaxy of origin, reduce much of the matter of the exploding stars to kinetic and radial energy. The rest of the stellar mass breaks down into gas and dust particles. Some of the scattered material penetrates the sectors of the galaxy surrounding the explosion region, and when one such sector is ejected as a quasar, it contains fast-moving gas and dust. Because the maximum particle velocities are higher than the speeds required to escape the gravitational pull of individual stars, this material gradually makes its way out and eventually takes the form of a cloud of dust and gas around the quasar - the atmosphere, as we can call it. Radiation from the stars that make up the quasar travels through the atmosphere, increasing the absorption of lines in the spectrum. The scattered material surrounding a relatively young quasar moves with the main body, and the redshift absorption is approximately equal to the amount of radiation.

As the quasar moves outward, its constituent stars grow older, and in the final stages of existence, some of them reach acceptable limits. Then such stars explode in the already described Type II supernovae. As we have seen, explosions eject one cloud of products outward into space, and a second similar cloud outward in time (equivalent to ejection inward into space). When the speed of the explosion products ejected in time is superimposed on the speed of the quasar, which is already near the sector boundary, the products pass into the space sector and disappear.

The outward movement of the explosion products thrown into space is equivalent to the inward movement in time. Therefore, it is the opposite of the quasar's outward motion in time. If the inward movement could be observed independently, it would create a blueshift, since it would be directed towards us, not away from us. But since such motion occurs only in combination with the outward motion of the quasar, its effect is to reduce the resulting outward velocity and redshift magnitude. Thus, the slow moving products of the secondary explosions move outward in the same way as the quasar itself, and the inverse velocity components simply delay their arrival at the point where the transformation into motion in time takes place.

Therefore, a quasar in one of the last stages of its existence is surrounded not only by an atmosphere moving with the quasar itself, but also by one or more particle clouds moving away from the quasar in time (equivalent space). Each cloud of particles contributes to the absorption of redshift, which differs from the amount of emission by the amount of inward velocity imparted to the particles by internal explosions. As pointed out in the discussion of the nature of scalar motion, any object moving in this way can also acquire vector motion. The vector velocities of the quasar components are small compared to their scalar velocities, but they can be large enough to create some measurable deviations from the scalars. In some cases, this results in redshift absorption above the emission level. Due to the outward velocities resulting from the secondary explosions, all other redshift absorptions other than emission values ​​are below the emission redshifts.

The velocities given to the emitted particles do not have a significant effect on the recession z, as does an increase in the effective velocity beyond the 2.326 level; therefore, the change takes place in the redshift coefficient and is limited to steps of 0.125, the minimum change in this coefficient. Therefore, the possible absorption of redshifts occurs through regular quantities differing from each other by 0.125z ½. Since the z-value of quasars reaches a maximum at 0.326, and all redshift variability above 2.326 arises due to changes in the redshift coefficient, the theoretical values ​​of possible redshift absorption are identical for all quasars and coincide with the possible redshifts of emission.

Since most observed high redshift quasars are relatively old, their constituents are in a state of extreme activity. This vectorial motion introduces some uncertainty into the emission redshift measurements and makes it impossible to demonstrate an exact correlation between theory and observation. In the case of redshift absorption, the situation is more favorable, since the measured extinction values ​​for each of the more active quasars form series, and the relationship between the series can be demonstrated even when the individual values ​​have a significant degree of uncertainty.

As a result of the explosion, the redshift is the product of the redshift factor and z ½ , with each quasar with a recession rate z less than 0.326 having its own set of possible redshift absorptions, and successive members of each series differ by 0.125z 2 . One of the largest systems in this range explored so far is quasar 0237-233.

It usually takes a long period of time to bring a significant number of quasar stars to the age limit that triggers explosive activity. Accordingly, redshift absorption that differs from emission values ​​does not appear until the quasar reaches the redshift range above 1.75. However, it is clear from the nature of the process that there are exceptions to this general rule. The outer, newly accreted portions of the origin galaxy are mostly composed of younger stars, but special conditions during the galaxy's growth, such as a relatively recent conjunction with another large population, can introduce a concentration of older stars into the part of the structure of the galaxy ejected by the explosion. . Older stars then reach age limits, and initiate a chain of events that create redshift absorption at the quasar life stage earlier than usual. However, it does not appear that the number of old stars included in any newly emitted quasar is large enough to generate internal activity leading to a system of intense redshift absorption.

In the higher redshift range, a new factor comes into play; it accelerates the trend towards greater absorption of redshifts. In order to introduce into the dusty and gaseous components of a quasar the velocity increments necessary to trigger the absorption system, a significant intensity of explosive activity is usually required. However, beyond two units of explosion velocity, there is no such limitation. Here, the diffuse components are subject to cosmic sector conditions that tend to reduce the inverse velocity (equivalent to an increase in velocity), creating additional redshift absorption during normal quasar evolution, without the need for further energy generation in the quasar. Therefore, above this level, “all quasars exhibit strong absorption lines.” Stritmatter and Williams, from whose communication the above statement is taken, go on to say:

“It looks like there is a threshold for the presence of absorbed material in redshift emission around 2.2.”

This empirical conclusion is consistent with our theoretical discovery that there is a definite sector boundary at redshift 2.326.

In addition to redshift absorption in optical spectra, to which the above discussion pertains, redshift absorption is also found at radio frequencies. The first such discovery in the emission from the quasar 3C 286 aroused considerable interest due to the rather common impression that an explanation was required to explain the absorption of radio frequencies, different from that of the absorption of optical frequencies. The first researchers came to the conclusion that the redshift of radio frequencies occurs due to the absorption of neutral hydrogen in some galaxies located between us and the quasar. Since in this case the redshift absorption is about 80%, they considered the observations as evidence in favor of the cosmological redshift hypothesis. Based on the theory of the universe of motion, radio surveillance does not contribute anything new. The absorption process operating in quasars is applicable to radiation of all frequencies. And the presence of redshift absorption at radio frequency has the same significance as the presence of redshift absorption at optical frequency. The measured redshifts of radio frequencies for 3C 286 during emission and absorption are of the order of 0.85 and 0.69, respectively. With a redshift factor of 2.75, the theoretical redshift absorption corresponding to an emission value of 0.85 is 0.68.

The light emitted by a star, when viewed globally, is an electromagnetic oscillation. When viewed locally, this radiation consists of light quanta - photons, which are energy carriers in space. We now know that the emitted light quantum excites the nearest elementary particle of space, which transfers the excitation to the neighboring particle. Based on the law of conservation of energy, in this case the speed of light must be limited. This shows the difference between the propagation of light and information, which (information) was considered in Section 3.4. Such an idea of ​​light, space and the nature of interactions has led to a change in the idea of ​​the universe. Therefore, the concept of redshift as an increase in wavelengths in the spectrum of the source (shift of lines towards the red part of the spectrum) in comparison with the lines of reference spectra should be reviewed and the nature of the occurrence of this effect should be established (see Introduction, paragraph 7 and ).

The redshift is due to two reasons. First, it is known that the redshift due to the Doppler effect occurs when the movement of the light source relative to the observer leads to an increase in the distance between them.

Secondly, from the point of view of fractal physics, redshift occurs when the emitter is placed in a region of a large electric field of a star. Then, in a new interpretation of this effect, light quanta - photons - will generate several

a different oscillation frequency compared to the terrestrial standard, in which the electric field is negligible. This influence of the electric field of the star on the radiation leads both to a decrease in the energy of the nascent quantum and to a decrease in the frequency characterizing the quantum; accordingly, the radiation wavelength = C / (C is the speed of light, approximately equal to 3 10 8 m / s). Since the electric field of the star also determines the star's gravity, we will call the effect of increasing the radiation wavelength by the old term "gravitational redshift".

An example of a gravitational redshift is the observed line shift in the spectra of the Sun and white dwarfs. It is the effect of the red gravitational shift that is now reliably established for white dwarfs and for the Sun. The gravitational redshift, equivalent to speed, for white dwarfs is 30 km/s, and for the Sun - about 250 m/s. The difference between the redshifts of the Sun and white dwarfs by two orders of magnitude is due to the different electric fields of these physical objects. Let's consider this issue in more detail.

As mentioned above, a photon emitted in the electric field of a star will have a changed oscillation frequency. To derive the redshift formula, we use relation (3.7) for the photon mass: m ν = h /C 2 = Е/С 2 , where Е is the photon energy proportional to its frequency ν. Hence we see that the relative changes in the mass and frequency of the photon are equal, so we represent them in this form: m ν /m ν = / = Е/С 2 .

The change in the energy AE of the nascent photon is caused by the electric potential of the star. The electric potential of the Earth, due to its smallness, is not taken into account in this case. Then the relative redshift of a photon emitted by a star with electric potential φ and radius R is equal in the SI system.

RED SHIFT, an increase in wavelengths (reduction in frequencies) of the electromagnetic radiation of a source, manifested in a shift of spectral lines or other details of the spectrum towards the red (long-wave) end of the spectrum. The redshift is usually estimated by measuring the shift in the position of the lines in the spectrum of the observed object relative to the spectral lines of a reference source with known wavelengths. Quantitatively, the redshift is measured by the magnitude of the relative increase in wavelengths:

Z \u003d (λ in -λ exp) / λ exp,

where λ prin and λ isp - respectively, the length of the received wave and the wave emitted by the source.

There are two possible causes of redshift. It may be due to the Doppler effect, when the observed source of radiation is removed. If, in this case, z « 1, then the removal velocity is ν = cz, where c is the speed of light. If the distance to the source decreases, a shift of the opposite sign is observed (the so-called violet shift). For objects in our Galaxy, both red and violet shifts do not exceed z= 10 -3 . In the case of high speeds comparable to the speed of light, redshift occurs due to relativistic effects even if the source speed is directed across the line of sight (transverse Doppler effect).

A special case of the Doppler redshift is the cosmological redshift observed in the spectra of galaxies. Cosmological redshift was first discovered by V. Slifer in 1912-14. It arises as a result of an increase in the distances between galaxies, due to the expansion of the Universe, and on average grows linearly with increasing distances to the galaxy (Hubble's law). For not too large redshifts (z< 1) закон Хаббла обычно используется для оценки расстояний до внегалактических объектов. Наиболее далёкие наблюдаемые объекты (галактики, квазары) имеют красные смещения, существенно превышающие z = 1. Известно несколько объектов с z >6. With such values ​​of z, the radiation emitted by the source in the visible region of the spectrum is received in the IR region. Due to the finiteness of the speed of light, objects with large cosmological redshifts are observed as they were billions of years ago, in the era of their youth.

Gravitational redshift occurs when the light receiver is in an area with a lower gravitational potential φ than the source. In the classical interpretation of this effect, photons lose part of their energy to overcome the forces of gravity. As a result, the frequency characterizing the energy of the photon decreases, and the wavelength increases accordingly. For weak gravitational fields, the value of the gravitational redshift is equal to z g = Δφ/с 2 , where Δφ is the difference between the gravitational potentials of the source and the receiver. It follows that for spherically symmetric bodies z g = GM/Rc 2 , where M and R are the mass and radius of the radiating body, G is the gravitational constant. A more accurate (relativistic) formula for non-rotating spherical bodies is:

z g \u003d (1 -2GM / Rc 2) -1/2 - 1.

Gravitational redshift is observed in the spectra of dense stars (white dwarfs); for them z g ≤10 -3 . The gravitational redshift was discovered in the spectrum of the white dwarf Sirius B in 1925 (W. Adams, USA). Radiation from the inner regions of accretion disks around black holes should have the strongest gravitational redshift.

An important property of any type of redshift (Doppler, cosmological, gravitational) is the absence of dependence of z on the wavelength. This conclusion is confirmed experimentally: for the same radiation source, the spectral lines in the optical, radio, and X-ray ranges have the same redshift.

Lit.: Zasov A. V., Postnov K. A. General astrophysics. Fryazino, 2006.