Quasars and Quantization of Redshifts
 

In 1967, G. Burbidge, along with many others, shows that Quasars Redshifts have discreet values.

It is the quasars redshifts quantization, confirmed, by Halton Arp.

K.G. Karlsson discovers the empirical law, here shown, governing these values.

The maximums of the distribution curve of the redshifts, obtained by G. Burbidge, closely coincide with the values calculated by K.G. Karlsson.

As a consequence, when Halton Arp gives values of redshift for those quasars associated with a galaxy, , he takes into account the law of Karlsson and he makes a correction to take into account the parent galaxy's proper motion. So he hereby eliminates the inherent bias in the measurement of these systems of objects.

Debate :

1. It is no more than Numerology!
   Certainly, this law of Karlsson is empirical. But is it necessary to recall that physics is full of laws established empirically at first,and justified only much later?

2. They are artefacts!
   The observations are statements which were realized, by experienced astronomers, without prejudging interpretations which could be made. Arp, Burbidge or Karlsson are not specifically the authors of these statements.

3. It is a selection effect !
   Yes, there is a selection effect. But this selection is justified by the nature of the observed quasars. Quasars which obey the law of K.G. Karlsson, have or would have a physical and/or historic connection with a " parent galaxy" (bridges of matter, alignments). This is what justifies the numerical corrections of Halton Arp on redshifts. The corrections are taken, by some as errors, but this is only the elimination of a bias of observation.
   If we do not select, and thus make no corrections, then of course the quantification disappears, and a bias is produced by the statistical integration of all the data. Here is one of the causes of the incomprehension of Halton Arp by the upholders of the orthodoxy.

4. That does not agree with the Big Bang !
   Who knows all the physical laws of the Big Bang?
   The theory of Big Bang is not an eternal truth. One day, we shall have to take into account all the observations, even those which disturb.

5. New observations :  §
   These observations realized more recently, on a bigger number of quasars, do not show this law of Karlsson. As a consequence it would be logical to think that it would be due only by an artefact provoked by an insufficient sampling of the number of quasars. It is what is allowed by a majority of astrophysicists today.

6. Let us look at this closer :
   When Karlsson, Burbidge and others make their observations, they make them on the first quasars which were discovered, that is on the most brilliant. In other words on those which are the most close to the solar system, that is on the first slice of our universe. And there they find this periodicity.
   The later observations show nothing. Why?
   But simply because quasars, even if they are subjected to the law of Karlsson, are also subdued, you should not forget it, to the cosmological redshift.
   To distinguish these two effects is totally impossible considering the state of our techniques. Therefore the good faith of all the observers is not in question.
   Thus we can suppose that if we could measure the physical distance of quasars, without using the redshift method, we would find the law of Karlsson for every slice of our universe.

Documents

1. In favour :
   http://www.wbabin.net/physics/tdm26.pdf. - T. De Mees.
   Supercompressed states of material and quasars - Karim A. Khaidarov.
   The distribution of redshifts in new samples of QSOs - G. Burbidge & W.M. Napier.
   How Non-Velocity Redshifts in Galaxies Depend on Epoch of Creation - Halton Arp.
   New Light on Redshift Periodicities - H. Arp
   Quasar redshifts and nearby galaxies - K.G. Karlsson

2. Opposition :
   http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/qso-rsa.htm - Robert S. Fritzius.
   http://www.tls-tautenburg.de/research/meus/active_galaxies/VPM.html