Saturday, August 8, 2009
Red Shift Z In The Wild II
Redshift Z and distance for 2003
Redshift Z and distance for 2006
Reader jeant8 commented that the unusual redshift values shown in my previous redshift post may be due to changes in the believed value of certain constants that occurred over the years that the data was collected. It's an interesting idea, and to test it I split out the years that had several observations posted by NASA. These were the years 2003 and 2006. The results are shown in the charts above. The data used for these charts is the same data used in the previous post.
The 2003 collection almost looks right. There's only one problem. Redshift values of 3.8 and 4.3 are both assigned to the distance of 12 billion light years. That's a change of ~12% in redshift z with no change in distance. There should be at least ~0.25 billion lights years difference between those two redshift z values.
The 2006 data seems to be more problematic. Not only are the curves not smooth there's actually the case where a low redshift is assigned to a much greater distance than two higher redshift values.
So it seems the problems with NASA's redshift values cannot be explained by changes over the years in redshift interpretation. Values from the same timeframe are inconsistent. It should be pointed out that not only do the values in the two charts presented here come from the same timeframe, they come from the same team of astronomers using the same equipment. That would seem to weed out a lot of possible explanations on why the data appears to be wrong.