<HTML><b>Disclaimer:</b><i> When reading what follows, please be aware that I am not by any stretch of the imagination an expert in the subject of cosmology – what I have is the understanding/knowledge that I have picked up in passing as a fairly average amateur astronomer. Therefore some or all of my interpretation could be flawed and you would be wise to verify it from reputable published sources. This also means that I would welcome correction if I have made erroneous interpretations.</i>
Assuming that you meant the bit about quantized red shifts (if you didn't please let me know which bit you want me to explain a bit more), BB has several implications.
* Space-time came into existence at a specific point in the past. The
universe is therefore neither infinitely large nor infinitely old [1].
* The universe is homogenous on a large scale (at any given time it
appears identical from any point of observation).
* The universe is isotropic (it appears identical in any direction). [2]
The apparent quantization of galactic redshifts [3] (IIRC in quanta of ~72 km/s if one translates z into recessional velocities) can be taken to imply that if an expanding universe is isotropic from our point of observation, then it <i>may</i> not be so from a different point of observation, and thus the principle of homogeneity would collapse. <b>Or</b> it could imply that the universe is not expanding and that what we take to be cosmological red shifts are not in fact cosmological. <b>Or</b> it could imply that the speed of light could be decaying in a quantized manner [4]. <b>Or</b> it could imply that there is some (as yet unknown) mechanism that results in quantization.
Whatever, it is something that I would like to see resolved one way or another.
HTH (or do you wish you'd never asked? [g])
[1] Olbers' paradox is evidence for the non-infinite nature of the universe.
[2] Although it is interesting (to me anyway) with respect to the concept
of space-time is that although the principle of isotropy is meant to hold
for space, it does not do so for time.
[3] It is not yet clear that red-shifts are definitely quantized. The main
proponent of this is U of Arizona astronomer named William Tifft. More
precision is needed in their measurement and more data points are
needed before this can be stated with confidence, although I believe
that the quantization has been confirmed by a study at the University
of Edinburgh. I get the impression (although I may be wrong) that
cosmologists are hoping that with more data and more precision the
'problem' will go away. If not, <i>something</i> is going to need
modification.
[4] A notion that is taken seriously in some respectable quarters. E.g. there is someone (whose name I have forgotten) at Imperial College (U of London) who believes that there is evidence that c was greater immediately after the BB.</HTML>
