Hello together, I’m new here in this forum and I hope that we’ll have god discussions! I’m very interested in cosmology and “origin-questions” in general, so I want to start with a cosmological subject. In today’s schools everyone is taught, that the “redshift” of the galaxies in our universe is caused due to the expansion of the universe. Let me explain briefly what is commonly meant “redshift”. The atoms of a chemical element on our earth, for example hydrogen, can absorb and emit light with particular wavelengths. This values of wavelengths are discrete and well known. Now when we examine the light from distant galaxies, it’s possible to see, by which wavelengths for example the hydrogen atoms on these distant galaxies absorb and emit light. The result is that these wavelengths are bigger, thus redder, compared with the wavelengths measured on earth. This is called the “redshift” of the galaxies. And now what can we do with this observation? Its most famous interpretation is called the “doppler-interpretation”. When a police car with “bluelight” is moving in our direction, we can hear its sound of a certain tone. As soon as the police car has passed, we can hear that the tone has declined. Nearly the same effect is assumed to cause the redshift of the galaxies in the universe. Thus the doppler-interpretation of the well known and commonly observed redshift tells us that all galaxies are moving away from us with a particular velocity. This interpretation is also a hint (sometimes it is also called a proof) for the Big Bang, because when the galaxies are moving away from us now, they must have been more near sometimes in the past and, if we calculate back till to the beginning, all galaxies and other object must have been at a single point – this is called the big bang. Now you may ask where the problems are with this view. Let me explain it: In the last 40 years there have been made several observations that seem to contradict this common view. Evidence for so called “noncosmological” redshifts comes from three directions: 1) Patterns in the values of the observed redshifts that cannot be understood in terms of the standard cosmologies. This pattern are discrete values of redshift which repeat periodically for which the number of observed galaxies is very high while for redshift-values between this discrete peaks there are almost none galaxies. 2) Physical associations between pairs or small groups of objects with very different redshifts. 3) Statistical evidence suggesting that some classes of objects are physically associated with other classes generally having very different redshifts. This observations have been made by well known astronomers as Halton Arp, William Tifft, Geoffrey Burbidge and others and the certainty of its actually occurrence is very high. In addition this observations won’t fit in a big bang cosmology, because they undermine the basic assumptions of the standard model such as the hubble-law and the development of galaxies etc.. What do you think of this observations? Have you ever heard about it? Sincerely Christian
What do you think of this observations? Have you ever heard about it? Halton Arp is a crackpot. And this thread belongs in Pseudoscience.
Just because a statement questions accepted theory doesn't make it pseudoscience. A serious post deserves a serious answer. -> Christian It would help if you presented some references to back up your claims.
Hello Q, This is an interesting statement, but I think you make it too simple for yourself. Science always is bound on observations and not on theories at first place. This is important here, because Halton Arp is known most of all for his observations and there are his observations which question standard cosmologies. OBSERVATIONS can’t belong to pseudoscience – they were mere measured. On the other hand what can belong to pseudoscience is the INTERPRETATION of a particular observation. And I admit that his interpretation of his own observations is certainly worthy to discuss. But that isn’t my intention of this thread. I rather wonder how to interpret this observations in the frame of a standard big bang cosmology and this is what I’ve intended to discuss here. Do you know his observations and have you got any ideas how to interpret them in a standard cosmology-frame? Let hear! Sincerely Christian
Hello HydrOmatic, Thank you! It’s really true! Of course! Unfortunately, most articles I read aren’t available online. Nevertheless I’ll give you the references of which I think they are the most important: 1) For the first claim with the pattern in the redshift-distribution of galaxies a very recent and serious reference would be Napier and Guthrie “Quantized Redshifts: A Status Report”, Journal of astrophysics and astronomy, (1997) 18, 455-463. If you also want an online reference, I can give you a paper of a creationist physicist who picked up this topic (see here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv16n2_CENTRE.pdf). Please don’t denounce this paper, because it’s written by a creationist. If you have problems with creationism, please don’t read his conclusions, but just the explanation of this redshift-effect in the early sections of his paper. Regrettably it’s the only online reference I can suggest to you. 2) For the second and third claim I suggest the books written by Halton Arp. The most recent one is (1999) “Seeing red”. A more earlier one would be (1987) “Quasars, redshift and controversies”. As an example of his observations I can give you an other online reference of a creationist (see here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/487.asp). I hope this references will help you to come further. Sincerely Christian
Thanx Christian ! I can't believe I haven't read about these observations before. I think those are very strong indications that the BB model is incorrect, which has been my belief for quite a while now..
I`m not convinced by his arguments. There does seem to be a higher statistical apparent association with nearby Galaxys and distant quasars, but this may be due to the layout of large scale structures in the universe (walls and sheets) and the affect of gravitational lensing etc... The apparent bridge of matter , imho, is only an optical illusion. The study of supernova, as a distance indicator seems to tie in with the figures that we can derive from red-shift values. The red-shift hasn`t been proved to have a direct linear connection with recession/distance , it may even have varied over time, but it seems to be a big jump to suggest that it is totally wrong.
Hello blobrana, Could you please explain further how to get this high statistical association with nearby galaxies and apparently distant quasars assuming the actually observed layout of large scale structures? It’s right that gravitational lensing could contribute to this statistical association, but it’s not easy to prove this in every case. A famous instance of gravitational lensing is the so called “Einstein cross” where four high redshift quasars are arranged in every direction around a low redshift galaxy. In his book “Seeing red” Halton Arp wrote that he has found a luminous connection between one of these quasars and that galaxy suggesting that not even this famous example is doubtless a actual case of gravitational lensing. On the other hand I want to admit here that this argument is applicable against the reality of this claimed associations and certainly is worthy of further investigations. I want to doubt this statement. Halton Arp writes about this image given in my second link: “It is clear from this earlier image that the bridge linking the galaxy and the quasar is distinct and well away from any pixel bleeding.” (cited from “Sky & Telescope”, August 1995, p. 9). This instant of associated objects having very different redshifts is very good investigated over many years. None who isn’t bound on a hubble law would claim this objects aren’t associated. But even if this was right and this two object are not associated on account of not yet understood reasons there are many other cases where the same effect is observed. Sometimes not quasars and galaxies are connected, but two or more galaxies with very different redshifts. Have you ever seen more of such pictures? Would you argue that in every of this cases the association would be an optical illusion? This is an interesting point. Can you give me any references? First it’s important that not all objects in our universe are affected by this observations in the same way. Very conspicuous in this context are quasars and seyfert-galaxies. It’s possible that for some objects the hubbe law stays correct. But the big bang itself can hardly get saved, because all our information about the early universe and thus the development of galaxies etc. would be totally wrong. Second it is – so far as I know – well known that there are problems to determine the hubble constant. Arp thinks this is due to the amount of noncosmological redshift in nearby and more distant galaxies, which complicates the determination of the hubble constant. If the astronomers took into consideration the contribution of noncosmological redshift in the total amount of redshift, it possibly would be easier to find the correct value of the hubble constant (provided the universe is expanding at all). Greetings Christian PS: More information about Arp and his work you'll find on his homepage: http://www.haltonarp.com/
Isn't it that obsrvations are made to support or deny a theory? It starts with a hypothesis(usually based on an obeservation, true), and the observations and experiments either support or oppose the theory, and then another is made, in a attempt to explain why the first one did or didn't work, which is then tested, etc. etc. Some crackpots simply don't know that there are already observations that are explained contrary to their theories, and some simply refuse it, citing excuses. So, is there a thoery to explain these observations? And can it be tested independently so others can verify it? Repetition is the key, and so far, the current theories of how the universe works have stood up to repeated scrutiny. This may change, however, as we develop new, more accurate, and different ways to measure things.
@Christian Knobel <font size="2">Sorry</font> i haven`t any references for you but i think that pioneering work was done by <b>Allan Sandage</b> , using supernovas as markers for the hubble constant, his work was no doubt carried on ... The statistical associations were derived from the southern large scale survey of galaxies, (<i>lost that link,</i>). The galaxies are mostly arranged along narrow sheets surrounding giant voids. Anyone else got any links?
Chris Rather than using Creationist web sites, which are hardly paragons of reliable information, try quoting the original paper. For example, Guthrie and Napier, Ap. J., 1997 and Guthrie and Napier, MNRAS, 1990 . Rather interestingly, The author of an Annual Review article on redshifts admits that the verification of this data is important but they are not convinced. Admittedly that paper is also out of date nowadays. It's also worth noting that the work of Guthrie and Napier is good, solid science trying to find evidence for a possibly unknown effect first announced by Tifft in the 1970's. They may be onto something, they may not. FWIW, I don't think Arp's hypothesis has any legs. An old saw in science is that the exception does disprove the rule. You only need one exception to disprove something. There are more QSO's without associated host galaxies than there are with. This, to me, says Arp is wrong.
Christian, have a look at This recent HST image. Given the very high density of galaxies in this image it would be 'easy' to find apparent connections and links between the lensed arcs and a galaxy. I for one think this is what Arp is doing. Some galactic clusters are very big and very dense. QSO's are reasonably evenly distributed so its not that hard to find some optical associations. I for one would be much more convinced if there where a significant number of QSO's found that where near no clusters and yet had a field galaxy in the 'foreground'. If you have evidence of such a correlation I'd be interested in it. And yes, I've got "Quasars, Redshift's and controversies" and was not convinced.
Hello Gifted, yes you’re right in your explanation of how works science. However what I wanted to do in my reply was to stress that eventually every theory or model of the universe have to account for the (yet known) observations. The big bang model is a theoretical scenario in the first place and it often looks convincing because of its simplicity and elegance, which is a great advantage of this model. My point of criticism in this context is that briefly the universe isn’t as simple as often propagated by those who support the big bang. Greetings Christian
Hello blobrana, I haven’t read this work, but I’m aware of the possibility to measure distances with supernovas as markers. So far as I know this method has the disadvantage that observed supernovas are very rare. Yes, that’s clear. But how do this structures account for the frequently observed associations? For instance a galaxy is very closely surrounded by three quasars having all very different redshifts. Greetings Christian
Hello Thed, Thank you for this links! I didn’t know that they are available on the internet. By the way, sorry for citing creationists literature, but at the end of Humphreys’ paper there’s a good list of up-to-date literature concerning this phenomenon. I think this reserve is possibly derived from the strangeness of this observations. They are doubtless a mystery and a puzzle. In addition it has to be noted that since that time further investigations have confirmed the effect and expanded to bigger samples of galaxies (see the paper of Guthrie and Napier). It’s true that Guthrie and Napier achieve good work and science and publish their results in well established magazines. In this context I also want to remark an important difference. It’s a difference whether an effect is observed or an effect can be explained in the frame of a theory. The latter doesn’t apply to our phenomenon yet, but nevertheless the effect is observed and will maintain independently whether an explanation is found or not. Guthrie and Napier wrote in their most recent paper in the abstract: “Two galactocentric periodicities have so far been detected, ~71.5 km s(sup -1) in the Virgo cluster, and ~37.5 km/s for all other spiral galaxies within ~2600 km/s. The formal confidence levels associated with these results are extremely high.“ Since the time of its first detection the effect always has been confirmed and the samples of elected galaxies has expanded further. The more accurate the redshift-values of the investigated galaxies has been known, the more distinct the strange effect has been turned out. Greetings Christian
Hello Thed, Thank you for the picture. You certainly raised up a very interesting question. In respect of your intention the picture looks very impressive. But on the other hand taking such images wouldn’t have been possible till the hubble space telescope came up (see text of the picture) and this or similar telescopes weren’t available at the time when Arp was writing his first book. Do you think the famous instance with the galaxy and the quasar “makarian” will be explained in this way? Yes, I’ll look what I can do. Greetings Christian
