Redshift. Gravitational redshift See what “redshift” is in other dictionaries

Displacement and neutralization of biopathogenic bands The question of the possible movement of biopathogenic bands has always arisen. The American scientist K. Bird argued that biopathogenic zones are moved by large masses of iron. Solovyov S.S. reports that craftsmen in Latvia

The light emitted by a star, when viewed globally, is an electromagnetic vibration. When viewed locally, this radiation consists of light quanta - photons, which are carriers of energy in space. We now know that the emitted quantum of light 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 should be limited. This shows the difference between the propagation of light and information, which (information) was considered in section 3.4. This idea of ​​light, space and the nature of interactions led to a change in the understanding of the universe. Therefore, the concept of red shift as an increase in wavelengths in the spectrum of a source (shift of lines towards the red part of the spectrum) compared to the lines of reference spectra should be reconsidered and the nature of the occurrence of this effect should be established (see Introduction, paragraph 7 and).

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

Secondly, from the perspective of fractal physics, a red shift 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 earthly standard, whose electric field is insignificant. This influence of the star's electric field on the radiation leads to both a decrease in the energy of the nascent quantum and a decrease in the frequency that characterizes the quantum; accordingly, the radiation wavelength = C/ (C is the speed of light, approximately equal to 3 10 8 m/s). Since the star’s electric field also determines the star’s gravity, the effect of increasing the radiation wavelength will be called the old term “gravitational redshift.”

An example of gravitational redshift is the observed shift of lines in the spectra of the Sun and white dwarfs. It is the effect of gravitational red shift that has now been reliably established for white dwarfs and for the Sun. The gravitational redshift, equivalent to velocity, for white dwarfs is 30 km/s, and for the Sun - about 250 m/s. The difference in 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 stated 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 = E/C 2, where E is the photon energy, proportional to its frequency ν. From here we see that the relative changes in the mass and frequency of the photon are equal, so we present them in this form: m ν /m ν = / = E/C 2.

The change in 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 in the SI system is equal.

change from 12/11/2013 - ()

The theory of the Big Bang and the expansion of the Universe is a fact for modern scientific thought, but if we face the truth, it never became a real theory. This hypothesis arose when, in 1913, American astronomer Vesto Melvin Slipher began studying 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. The astronomer de Sitter shared similar ideas at that time. At one time, de Sitter’s scientific report aroused interest among astronomers around the world.

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

Hubble reasoned approximately 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 any point, including Earth, an observer should see all other galaxies moving away from him, and, on average, the more distant galaxies are moving away faster.

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

At one time, Slifer noticed that in the spectra of the galaxies he studied, the spectral lines of light of certain planets were shifted towards the red end of the spectrum. This curious phenomenon was called "redshift." Slifer boldly attributed the red shift to the Doppler effect, which was well known at the time. Based on the increase in redshift, we can conclude that 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, this would mean that the galaxies are moving towards the observer, that is, that the Universe is shrinking.

The question arises, how could Hubble find out how far away each of the galaxies he studied is from us, he didn’t measure the distance to them with a tape measure? But It was on data on the distance of galaxies that he based his observations and conclusions. This was indeed a very difficult question for Hubble, and it still remains difficult 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: first, you can estimate the distances to the nearest stars using various methods; Then, step by step, a “cosmic distance ladder” can be constructed, which will allow us to estimate the distances to some galaxies.

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

He believed that the most distant galaxies have the greatest redshift values ​​and therefore move away from us faster than other galaxies. He accepted this as sufficient evidence that the universe is expanding.

Over time, this idea became so established that astronomers began to apply it in reverse: if distance is proportional to 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 indirectly by measuring them. They were obtained indirectly, based on measurements of the apparent brightness of galaxies. Agree, his assumption about the proportional relationship between the distance to the galaxy and the redshift cannot be verified.

Thus, the expanding universe model potentially has two flaws:

- Firstly, 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 galaxies at all.

Hubble continued his research and came to a certain model of the expanding Universe, which resulted in Hubble's law.

To explain it, we first recall that, according to the big bang model, the further a galaxy is from the epicenter of the explosion, the faster it moves. According to Hubble's law, the rate at which galaxies recede 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 no one fully understands.

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 expansion time of the Universe at the current moment. This is where the legs of the time of the existence of the Universe grow.

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 distance equal to 3.3 million light years).

For example, in 1929 the value of the Hubble constant was equal to 500. In 1931 it was equal to 550. In 1936 - 520 or 526. In 1950 - 260, i.e. dropped significantly. In 1956, it dropped even more: to 176 or 180. In 1958, it dropped further to 75, and in 1968 it jumped to 98. In 1972, its value ranged from 50 to 130. Today, the Hubble constant is generally considered to be 55. All these changes led one astronomer to humorously say that the Hubble constant would be better called the Hubble variable, which is currently accepted. In other words, the Hubble constant is considered to change with time, but the term “constant” is justified by the fact that at any given moment in time, in all points of 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 kind of calculations? We repeat once again that no one will be able to really check these calculations, since a tape measure (even a laser one) that could reach a neighboring galaxy has not yet been invented.

Moreover, even in the relationship between the distances between galaxies, not everything is clear to sensible people. If the Universe is expanding, according to the law of proportionality, uniformly, for what reason then do many scientists obtain such different values ​​​​of quantities based on the same proportions of the rates of this expansion? It turns out that these expansion proportions as such also do not exist.

The learned astronomer Viger noted that, when astronomers take measurements in different directions, they get different expansion rates. Then he noticed 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 the set of directions in which distant galaxies are found without foreground galaxies. Let's call the first group of space directions “region A”, the second group - “region B”.

Viger discovered an amazing thing. If you limit your research to distant galaxies in region A and only on the basis of these studies calculate the Hubble constant, you will get one value for the constant. If you do research in area B, you will get a completely different value for the constant.

It turns out that the rate of expansion of the galaxy, according to these studies, changes 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 indeed expanding, what could cause foreground galaxies to have such an influence on the speed of other galaxies? Galaxies are at a huge distance from each other; they cannot 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 red shift.

This is exactly what Viger reasoned. He suggested that the measured redshifts of distant galaxies, on which all science is based, are not at all related to the expansion of the Universe. 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 traversed a huge distance experiences a strong red shift only because the light travels too far. Viger proved that this happens in accordance with physical laws and is surprisingly similar to many other natural phenomena. In nature, if something moves, there is always something else that prevents this movement. Such interfering forces also exist in outer space. Wieger believes that as light travels the vast distances between galaxies, a redshift effect begins to appear. He associated this effect with the hypothesis of aging (decrease in strength) of light.

It turns out that light loses its energy when crossing space in which there are certain forces that interfere with its movement. And the more the light ages, the redder it becomes. Therefore, redshift is proportional to the distance, not the speed of the object. So the further the light travels, the more it ages. Realizing this, Viger described the Universe as a non-expanding structure. He realized that all galaxies are more or less stationary. But the red shift is not associated with the Doppler effect, and therefore the distances to the measured object and its speed are not related to each other. Wieger believes that redshift is determined by an intrinsic property of light itself; thus, he argues that light, after traveling a certain distance, simply becomes older. This in no way proves that the galaxy to which the distance is being 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 Wieger 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 light's energy. The vast majority of massive objects contain more of these particles than others.

Using this idea, Wieger 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 foreground galaxies) will exhibit a greater redshift, and this results in different values ​​for the Hubble constant. Viger also referred to additional evidence for his theories, which was obtained from experiments on objects with non-velocity redshifts.

For example, if you measure the spectrum of light coming from a star located close to the disk of our Sun, then the red shift 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, Wieger explained redshifts in terms of a non-expanding Universe in which light behaves differently from the idea accepted by most scientists. Wieger believes that his model of the universe provides more accurate, realistic astronomical data than that provided by the standard model of an expanding universe. This older model cannot account for the large differences in the values ​​obtained when calculating the Hubble constant. According to Viger, low-velocity redshifts may be a global feature of the Universe. The universe may well be static, and therefore the need for the big bang theory simply disappears.

And everything would be fine: we would say thank you to Viger and scold Hubble, but a new problem appeared, previously unknown. This 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 quasars' redshifts are close to 4.00. Currently, galaxies have also been found with a redshift coefficient greater than 1.00.

If we accept, as most astronomers do, that they are ordinary offset redshifts, then quasars must be by far the most distant objects ever discovered in the universe and emitting 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 be moving 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 Albert Einstein should be scolded? Or are the initial conditions of the problem incorrect and the red shift is the mathematical equivalent of processes about which we have little idea? Mathematics is not wrong, but it does not provide actual understanding of the processes taking place. For example, mathematicians have long proven the existence of additional dimensions of space, while modern science can't find them at all.

Thus, both of the alternatives available within conventional astronomical theory face serious difficulties. If the redshift is accepted as a normal Doppler effect, due to spatial absorption, the indicated distances are so enormous 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 motion, we have no reliable hypothesis as to the mechanism by which it is produced.

Conclusive 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 simple Doppler variation, or as "cosmological" hypotheses. Opponents counter that associations between objects at different redshifts indicate that two different processes are at work. Each group brands opposing associations as bogus.

In any case, when applied to 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 absorption redshift, and should be added to the normal offset, giving a mathematical reflection ongoing processes.

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

Redshifts of quasars

Although some objects now known as quasars were already recognized as belonging to a new and separate class of phenomena due to their special spectra, the real discovery of quasars can be dated back to 1963, when Martin Schmidt identified the spectrum of the radio source 3C 273 as red-shifted by 16%. . Most of the other defining characteristics originally attributed to quasars had to be determined as more data was accumulated. For example, one early description identified them as “star-like objects consistent with radio sources.” But modern observations demonstrate that in most cases quasars have complex structures that are definitely not star-like, and there is a large class of quasars from which no radio emission has been detected. A high redshift continued to be a hallmark of a quasar, and its distinguishing characteristic was considered to be an observed range of magnitudes that expanded upward. The secondary redshift measured at 3C 48 was 0.369, significantly higher than 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.

The expansion of the redshift range above 1.00 raised questions about interpretation. Based on previous understanding of the origin of the Doppler shift, a recession redshift greater than 1.00 would indicate that the relative speed more speed Sveta. The general acceptance of Einstein's view that the speed of light is the absolute limit made this 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 an incorrect application of mathematical relations in situations in which these relations can be used. There are contradictions between the values ​​obtained as a result of observation and those obtained by indirect means. For example, by measuring speed by dividing the coordinate distance by the hour time. In such examples, the mathematics of relativity (Lorentz's equations) is applied to indirect measurements to bring them into agreement with the direct measurements taken to be correct. Doppler shifts are direct measurements of velocities that do not require correction. A redshift of 2.00 indicates relative outward motion with a scalar magnitude of twice the speed of light.

Although traditional astronomical thought had circumvented the high redshift problem through a trick of the mathematics of relativity, the accompanying distance-energy problem proved more recalcitrant and resisted all attempts at resolution or contrivance.

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

Clearly something needs to be done. One or another limiting assumption must 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 quasar's redshifts beyond normal recession values. For some reason, the rationality of which is difficult to understand, most astronomers believe that the redshift alternative is the only thing that requires revision or expansion in the existing physical theory. The argument most often advanced against the objections of those who favor a non-cosmological explanation of redshifts is that a hypothesis requiring measurement in a physical theory should be accepted only as a last resort. But here's what these individuals don't see: the last resort is the only thing left. Barring modification of the existing theory to explain 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 currently known levels. 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. It 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 the new information gained from the development of the theory of the universe of motion, it should be obvious that the alternative to redshift is much The best way break the current impasse between quasar energy and redshift theories. This is why the explanation that comes from applying the Inverse System theory to solve the problem is so significant.

Such conclusions are somewhat academic, since we accept the world as it is, whether we like or not what we find. It should be noted, however, that here again, as in many of the examples on the preceding pages, the answer which emerges from the new theoretical development takes the simplest and most logical form. Of course, the answer to the quasar problem does not involve breaking with most fundamentals, as expected by astronomers who favor a non-cosmological explanation for redshifts. The way they view the situation, some new physical process or principle must be included to add a “non-velocity component” to the redshift recession of quasars. We find that no new process or principle is required. The extra redshift is simply the result of added speed, speed that has escaped awareness due to its inability to be represented in the traditional spatial frame of reference.

As stated above, the limiting quantity of 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 explosion component of the redshift in the original dimension is 2.00 and the total redshift of the quasar is 2.326. At the time of the publication of Quasars and Pulsars, only one quasar redshift had been published that exceeded 2.326 by any significant amount. As stated in that work, the redshift of 2.326 is not an absolute maximum, but the level at which the quasar's motion transitions to a new status, which, as is allowed in any event, can take place. Thus, the very high value of 2.877 assigned to quasar 4C 05 34 indicated either the existence of some process that delayed the transformation that could theoretically occur at 2.326, or a measurement error. In the absence of other available data, a choice between two alternatives seemed undesirable at the time. In subsequent years, many additional redshifts above 2.326 were discovered; and it became obvious 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 clarified.

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 motion in space and the dimension perpendicular to it. This equal distribution is the result of the operation 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 chance of unequal distribution. Instead of the usual distribution of 3½ - 3½ of seven speed units, the division may become 4 - 3, 4½ - 2½ and so on. The total number of quasars with redshifts above the level corresponding to the distribution 3½ - 3½ is relatively small. And it would not be expected that any random group of moderate size, say 100 quasars, would contain more than one such quasar (if any at all).

The skewed distribution in the measurement does not have significant observable effects on the levels of lower rates (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 because it results in redshifts exceeding the normal limit of 2.326. Due to the second degree (square) nature of the inter-regional connection, the 8 units involved in the explosion speed, 7 of which are in the intermediate region, become 64 units, 56 of which are in this region. Therefore, possible redshift factors above 3.5 are increased in steps of 0.125. The theoretical maximum corresponding to a distribution in just 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.

The increase in redshift due to a change in distribution in a dimension does not include any increase in distance in space. Therefore, all quasars with redshifts of 2.326 and higher 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 at extremely high redshifts is comparable to that of quasars in the redshift range of about 2.00.

The stellar explosions that trigger the chain of events leading to the emission of the quasar from the galaxy of origin reduce most of the matter of the exploding stars to kinetic and radial energy. The remainder of the stellar mass breaks down into gas and dust particles. Some of the scattered material penetrates into 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 speeds are higher than the speeds required to escape the gravitational pull of individual stars, this material gradually works its way out and eventually takes the form of a cloud of dust and gas around the quasar - an atmosphere, as we might call it. Radiation from the stars that make up the quasar passes through the atmosphere, increasing the absorption of lines in the spectrum. The diffuse material surrounding the 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 become older, and in the final stages of their lives, some of them reach acceptable limits. Such stars then 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 during time (equivalent to ejection inward into space). When the speed of the explosion products ejected during time is superimposed on the speed of the quasar already located near the sector boundary, the products move into the space sector and disappear.

The outward movement of explosion products thrown into space is equivalent to the inward movement in time. Therefore, it is opposite to the outward movement of the quasar in time. If the inward motion could be observed independently, it would create a blueshift because it would be directed toward us rather than 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. Thus, the slow-moving products of 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 conversion to time motion takes place.

Consequently, 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 clouds of particles moving away from the quasar in time (equivalent space). Each cloud of particles contributes to the absorption of a redshift that differs from the magnitude of the emission by the amount of inward velocity imparted to the particles by internal explosions. As stated in the discussion of the nature of scalar motion, any object moving in this way can also acquire vectorial motion. The vector velocities of the quasar components are small compared to their scalar velocities, but they can be large enough to produce some measurable deviations from the scalar quantities. In some cases this results in redshift absorption above the emission level. Because of the outward direction of the velocities resulting from the secondary explosions, all other absorption redshifts that differ from the emission values ​​are below the emission redshifts.

The velocities imparted to the emitted particles do not have a significant effect on the recession z as does increasing 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, possible absorption of redshifts occurs through regular values ​​that differ from each other by 0.125z ½. Because the z-value of quasars peaks at 0.326, and all redshift variability above 2.326 arises from changes in the redshift coefficient, the theoretical values ​​of possible redshift absorption are identical for all quasars and coincide with the possible values ​​of emission redshifts.

Because 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 because the measured absorption values ​​for each of the more active quasars form series, and the relationship between series can be demonstrated even when there is a significant degree of uncertainty in the individual values.

As a result of the explosion, the redshift is the product of the redshift coefficient and z ½ , with each quasar with a recession rate z less than 0.326 having its own set of possible absorption redshifts, and the successive members of each series differing by 0.125 z 2 . One of the largest systems in this range that has been studied so far is quasar 0237-233.

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

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

“It looks as if there is a threshold for the presence of absorbed material in the emission redshift of about 2.2.”

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

In addition to redshift absorption in optical spectra, to which the above discussion relates, 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 fairly common impression that an explanation of the absorption of radio frequencies requires an explanation different from that of the absorption of optical frequencies. The first researchers concluded that the radio frequency redshift occurs due to the absorption of neutral hydrogen in some galaxies located between us and the quasar. Since the redshift absorption in this case 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 observations do not contribute anything new. The absorption process at work in quasars applies 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 radio frequency redshifts of 3C 286 during emission and absorption are on the order of 0.85 and 0.69, respectively. At a redshift factor of 2.75, the theoretical redshift absorption corresponding to an emission magnitude of 0.85 is 0.68.