Topic011: The Cosmic Rest Frame, An Unobstructed View, Bill Tifft, 9/2/15

Topic011: The Cosmic Rest Frame, An Unobstructed View, Bill Tifft, 9/2/15

Book figures 3.1 and 3.2

Book figures 3.1 and 3.2

Book figure 3.4

Book figure 3.4

By early 1991 we had detected global quantization, recognized variability of redshift, and had a good model for cosmic corrections due to large scale curvature in time. We were ready to look deeper into space and time using large 21-cm redshift samples, our own and new data becoming available from studies being made at Arecibo. We had begun global work using the galactocentric rest frame, but as my colleague John Cocke kept reminding me, there was the more fundamental cosmic rest frame. To clearly connect with cosmology we needed to connect with and understand the relationship of our quantization studies to the new cosmic background radiation work revealed by the COBE project.

COBE provided a well determined dipole component for the cosmic background which provided us with the starting point for transformation to the cosmic rest frame and posed a fundamental problem we would need to explain in QTC. The slight redshift difference between the two ends of the thermal dipole is explained in classical dynamical cosmology as a Doppler effect due to a several hundred km/s random motion of our galaxy through cosmic space with respect to a uniform highly redshifted thermal background. If galaxies actually had such motions they would totally destroy quantization, and our previous work had already shown that no such motion between galaxies could be present. The cosmic dipole effect is, however, expected in QTC for a different reason explained after further development of QTC, and demonstrated in Seminar 7 in relation to dark matter.

The discovery and evaluation of global quantization from the cosmic reference frame, which began in 1991, is intimately interlinked with our learning how to precisely predict redshift periods, which occurred in 1993. The initial work in 1991 did immediately verify quantization from the cosmic rest frame using our earlier periodicity findings related to 72 km/s. That early study is discussed in section 2.8 of my book. (For book information or acquisition see Post001 and Post002.) Since nearly all subsequent findings come from the merger of the cosmic rest frame with the understanding of the period structure I will first introduce the periodicity story.

Following the discovery of galactocentric global quantization in the 1980s several studies, described in my book, were initiated in the United Kingdom. The most significant study was carried out by Bruce Guthrie and William Napier who, in 1991, published a paper confirming a 36 km/s galactocentric periodicity in dwarf spiral galaxies. This finding is shown in the lower left frame of Figure 5 of the ASP paper where it can be compared directly with our original study shown in the right hand frame concerning wide profile galaxies. The GN data is plotted using the now predicted 73.1918 km/s period. Periodicity confirmation is clear as is the presence of a modulation difference between the 73 and 36 km/s periods. However, there was a very important secondary result of the GN finding. Quantization confirmation was disturbing to the astrophysical community. Quantization of the redshift is totally inconsistent with classical dynamical cosmology and there was a response in the popular press. Sky and Telescope issued a news note which was picked up by the New York Times. Both Scientific American and Discover Magazine contacted me and published articles about my work, Scientific American in December 1992 and Discover in April 1993. A few interesting comments by well known astronomers appear in the Scientific American article, but the scientific community quickly ignored and continues to ignore the implications of redshift quantization. However, as a result of the press, news of my work reached Ari Lehto, a physicist in Finland. In early 1993 I received a letter from Lehto including a paper he had published in 1990, developed with regard to fundamental particle properties, which provided a mechanism that could be applied to precisely calculate redshift periods. The process is remarkably simple, but has incredible implications. I was initially skeptical but it was simple to check and immediately confirmed. I have made some important additions to Lehto’s model, which is now referred to as the Lehto-Tifft (LT) model. The formulation precisely predicts all known redshift periods and appears to be unique and complete. I will discuss the formulation in the next topic. For now some further details regarding findings at the cosmic rest frame need to be presented.

The introductory figure to this blog text contains four frames, only the top two appear on the main page. The upper left frame shows a power spectrum of the GN sample of local dwarf spirals in the galactocentric rest frame (figure 3.1 in my book). The upper right frame shows the power spectrum of Virgo cluster galaxies, using redshifts from a published Arecibo study, viewed from the cosmic rest frame (figure 3.2 in my book and the upper left figure in Figure 8 in the ASP paper). The two samples are completely different but serve to illustrate basic differences between the rest frames. Vertical lines mark predicted LT periods. Note the precise fits to all the strong power peaks in the cosmic rest frame, a level of precision consistently seen in the cosmic frame. The 36 and 73 km/s GN fits are quite real but distorted by including an inhomogeneous profile width range and by being observed from a rest frame where alignment is good locally but far off on the cosmic scale. The lower row of introductory figures at the head if this text (figure 3.4 in my book) shows power contours, at the predicted 36.5958 km/s periodicity, of power in narrow profile dwarf galaxies within pi-theta power searches using the Virgo sample viewed from both rest frames. As previously noted at the end of Topic009, from the galactocentric frame (diagram on right) there is no detectable periodicity at the 36 km/s period of the Virgo sample (x marks the optimum transformations). The left frame shows power contours from the cosmic transformation, where the small rectangle is the COBE dipole vertex error box. The incredible power distribution associated with the dipole vertex now appears at the 36.5958 km/s period and related predicted periods. It is clear that the cosmological principle, that the universe looks the same from all locations or relatively slightly shifted rest frames does not apply in a quantum cosmology. As I will subsequently demonstrate, from the cosmic rest frame we can now detect precisely predicted periodicities in all directions at all z values. The lower right frame in the ASP Figure 8 is a good example of a phase-width diagram in the Cancer region. There are distinct patterns related to morphology and profile width which will be discussed in coming topics. Galactocentric or heliocentric rest frames are not suitable for cosmic quantization work, although long periods or differentials can be seen.

In the final paragraph of this topic I will provide a retrospective explanation of what the cosmic transformation appears to accomplish in QTC, but first I should compare the QTC optimum rest frame with the COBE vertex and compare the (theta, pi, Z) galactocentric (+232, -36, +1) and cosmocentric (-243, -31, +275) transformation constants. As was the case for cosmological corrections the optimum cosmic transformation is best determined by the shortest periods over the largest redshift interval and the widest sky distribution of a sample. This is shown in the upper right frames of the ASP Figure 8 where the power concentration is much smaller than the COBE error box (the edge of which is shown by the vertical line to the right of the adopted (x) transformation. The theta and Z transform values are closely consistent with COBE, but the pi component, related to expansion of the disk of our galaxy, is consistently slightly outside the COBE error box. Transformation to the cosmic rest frame essentially aligns us with the timeline of our galaxy, our temporal flow line in QTC. Because of the radial pi offset our timeline may not be precisely aligned with the CBR, possibly inducing a slight gradient, but is possible in QTC. Turning to the galactocentric and cosmocentric transforms, we see tangential, theta, components are equal and opposite within uncertainty in the solar motion with respect to the local dynamical rest standard (galactic circular motion). This presumably implies that there is no evidence of rotation in the universal frame. The radial, pi, components are essentially identical, implying radial expansion of the galaxy consistent with the QTC dipole two stream outflow model for galaxies. Only Z differs, linking the transformations with the only term which is not a conventional dynamical property of the galaxy itself, although an astute reader may notice that the sum of the cosmic terms is essentially zero. Is something being conserved?

What does QTC say the transformation to the cosmic rest frame accomplishes? The transformation itself provides us with a viewpoint looking back in time along our galaxy’s timeline toward the origin of time. The mass energy of our spatial particle is flowing along that timeline through 3-d time at nearly the speed of light (I will discuss that issue in a later topic) which by aberration folds 3-d time, and all our lookback lines into the (nearly) 1-d line perceived as the 1-d arrow of time. The cosmological correction terms we apply tune us to the particular lookback direction and sample we selected and the periodic pattern appropriate to the sample appears. The process does not simply provide a test for one sample, it simultaneously samples the the entire sky just by moving from sample to sample. There is absolutely no evidence that the redshift can be a classical dynamical property of galaxies.

Topic010       Topic012

2 responses to “Topic011: The Cosmic Rest Frame, An Unobstructed View, Bill Tifft, 9/2/15

  1. Pingback: Topic012: The Quantum Periodicity Structure, Energy Level Decay, Bill Tifft, 10/12/15 | The William Tifft Blog·

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s