Redshift quantization
| Scientific Theory | |
|---|---|
| Name | Redshift quantization |
| Type | Observational claim in cosmology |
| Author(s) | William G Tifft, K. G. Karlsson, Napier & Guthrie, Halton C Arp and others |
| Keywords | redshift periodicity, quantization, Karlsson peaks, galactocentric, intrinsic redshift, Big Bang |
| Year | 1976 onward |
Redshift quantization, also called redshift periodicity, is the claim that the redshifts of galaxies and quasars are not distributed smoothly but cluster around preferred, regularly spaced values. If the claim holds, it is difficult to reconcile with redshift as a simple measure of recession velocity, since a genuine distribution of velocities and distances should be continuous. It is therefore among the strongest observational arguments for an intrinsic, non-velocity component in redshift, and against the Big Bang interpretation of the redshift–distance relation.
The observational claim
The effect was first reported by the astronomer William G Tifft of the University of Arizona in the 1970s, who found that galaxy redshifts appeared to fall into steps rather than a continuum. Subsequent work identified periodicities of roughly 72 km/s and various submultiples.
The most careful confirmations came from Bruce Guthrie and William Napier, who in 1990 reported a periodicity of similar magnitude in a sample restricted to bright spiral galaxies. Their final analysis concluded that extragalactic redshifts are quantized in the galactocentric frame of reference — that is, after correcting for the Sun's motion within our own galaxy — with periodicities of about 37.5 km/s among field galaxies and loose groups, and about 71.1 km/s in dense cluster environments. They argued the result could not be attributed to statistical artefacts, selection procedures, or flawed reduction techniques.
For quasars, K. G. Karlsson reported in 1971 a periodicity in log(1 + z), producing preferred values near z ≈ 0.061, 0.30, 0.60, 0.96, 1.41 and 1.96 — the Karlsson peaks. Halton C Arp regarded these as direct evidence that quasar redshifts contain a large intrinsic component, consistent with his ejection model. See Quasar.
Why mainstream analyses miss it
Proponents argue that the standard statistical tools are the wrong instruments for the effect. The correlation function, the most widely used method of testing for periodicity, does not detect the claimed quanta. Arp's explanation is that the redshift quanta represent temporal steps in redshift, and therefore cannot logically be folded together with the two spatial dimensions as the correlation function does.
The other point of contention is the reference frame. The periodicity appears only after transforming to the galactocentric frame; analyses performed in the heliocentric frame wash it out. Proponents regard this as physically meaningful and a sign the effect is real; critics regard the correction as an extra degree of freedom.
Criticisms from researchers on this wiki
Redshift quantization is examined at length by researchers catalogued here, both as an observational claim and as a phenomenon demanding a physical mechanism:
- William G Tifft — the originator of the claim, whose work on the quantized redshift and its implications for a non-expanding universe is documented on his page.
- Martin Kokus — has examined quantization alongside other anomalies in Cosmological Coincidences.
- Testing the Hypothesis of Redshift Quantization in Iwanowska Galaxy Lines Connected with our Galaxy and M31 — an independent observational test of the hypothesis.
- The Physics of an Episodic Quantized Redshift — an attempt to supply a physical account of redshift changing in discrete steps rather than continuously.
- Suggestion for Unifying Two Types os Quantized Redshift of Astronomical Bodies — proposes a common framework for the galaxy and quasar periodicities.
- Redshift in Absolute Space: Periodicity of Quasars and Other Cosmological Implications — treats quasar periodicity within an absolute-space cosmology.
- The Redshift and the Zero Point Energy — connects redshift behaviour to zero-point energy rather than expansion.
The common thread is that a quantized redshift is not merely an anomaly to be explained away but a positive clue about the mechanism producing redshift — pointing toward intrinsic, episodic or field-based causes rather than recession. Further material is indexed under Category:Cosmology.
The dispute over the evidence
The claim has been contested repeatedly, and the exchange is instructive. Hawkins and colleagues reported in 2002 that quasar redshifts show no periodicity; their methodology was challenged by Napier and Burbidge in 2003. Tang and Zhang reported the same negative result with larger datasets in 2005 and 2008; Fulton and Arp contradicted them in 2012, and Fulton and colleagues again in 2018, arguing that the Karlsson peaks are statistically demonstrable when the data are correctly selected and referred to the proper frame.
Mainstream astronomy maintains that the periodicities are artefacts of selection and small samples, notes that claimed values have ranged widely — from under 6 km/s to about 72 km/s — and observes that large modern surveys do not reproduce them. Proponents reply that the negative analyses repeatedly use inconsistent sample selection and the wrong reference frame, and that the disagreement is methodological rather than evidential.