This work was supported by the
National Science and Engineering Research Council and
The Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics of
the National Research Council of Canada
I. Introduction
There
is a serious controversy about the Big Bang model because it
shows an increasing number of deficiencies. This is
illustrated by Flam, who states [1] "As doubts built about the oncefavored model
explaining how structures are formed in the Universe, new
theories are jockeying in a cosmological freeforall".
Let
us compare some models. The steadystate model uses "the
perfect cosmological principle," in which the
universe presents the same largescale view to all fundamental
observers at all times. We will also consider Einstein's
model, which adds a cosmological constant L
to balance the attraction of matter. An important point,
common to those models, is of course the universal law of
gravitation. All matter is attracted with a force
proportional to the Cavendish constant G_{C}, and inversely proportional to the square of the
distance. It did not seem possible in the past to observe
gravitational forces at very large cosmological distances.
Therefore, gravitational forces were not tested at cosmological
distances. Recent observations of gravitational
interaction at cosmological distances now suggest a solution
based on these new observations.
The
use of the universal law of gravitation in the Big Bang model
leads to a prediction of the critical density r, of the universe that differs
from observations by about two orders of magnitude. This
difference is interpreted to be caused by some "missing
mass".
We
will see that the problem of critical density of matter in the
universe (and missing mass) is related to a common problem for
which all popular models (the Big Bang, Einstein's and steady
state model) require an equivalent correction (the cosmological
constant L) related to a common
phenomenon: The range of gravitational forces.
II. Reason that Led to the Big Bang Model.
An
important reason that led astrophysicists to prefer the Big Bang
model (of Friedmann cosmology of a close universe) is because
the first Einstein model (the geometrodynamical model) is
clearly unstable without the cosmological constant. This
instability is a consequence of the use of the standard
universal law of gravitation. Two suggestions have been
given in order to try to solve this problem. Einstein
suggested adding a cosmological constant L
to his field equations. That constant adds a repulsive
force at large distances [2]. This second Einstein model with L¹0 has another problem of
stability. It is stable only for a critical value of L_{C}.
For any increase in size, the universe expands forever.
For any decrease, it will recontract forever. This
Einstein universe has therefore another kind of instability.
An
equivalent of Einstein's cosmological constant has been
presented in various forms by different authors, but most
cosmologists have rejected it. George Gamow and many
astronomers refer to the cosmological term as the biggest
blunder of Einstein's life. Even very recently, Hawking
states [3] that the
addition of a cosmological constant L
is: ". . . the biggest mistake of his (Einstein's) life."
In 1917, de Sitter suggested [4] another model that includes a cosmological repulsion
term of the Einstein type to balance the attraction of gravity
at large distances. Another hypothesis considers that L=0. This is the Big Bang model, a
model that is unstable in time, since it starts with a Big Bang
and ends with the Big Crunch.
Following
those considerations, many astrophysicists have preferred the
Big Bang model because it was hoped that this alternative would
lead to predictions compatible with the universal law of
gravitation without being obliged to add any gravitational
repulsive constant as was suggested by Einstein.
After
more than 60 years of development of this theory and decades of
observation, it is calculated that an equivalent of the
cosmological constant is still necessary. There is no way
to avoid it.
III. A Force Equivalent to the Cosmological
Constant
We
have seen that an arbitrary constant L
is required in Einstein's static universe. However, it is
not always realized that an equivalent cosmological constant is
now necessary in the Big Bang model.
Hawking
recently stated [3]:
"In order to find a model of the universe in which many
different initial configurations could have evolved to
something like the present universe, a scientist at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Alan Guth, suggested
that the early universe might have gone through a period of
vey rapid expansion. This expansion is said to be
inflationary."
Hawking
goes on writing [3]
that the inflationary model requires special extra energy and
writes:
"This special extra energy can be shown to
have an antigravitational effect: it would have acted just
like the cosmological constant that Einstein introduced into
general gravity when he was trying to construct a static
model of the universe".
Hawking
then discusses that force, and writes: ". . . the
repulsion of (matter due to) the effective cosmological
constant". This clearly shows that a repulsive
force, acting just like the cosmological constant L, is absolutely necessary in the Big
Bang model.
The
Big Bang model also leads to a critical density of matter r, in the universe. Since
that density is not observed, one has assumed that there is some
unobserved dark matter. Some dark matter may also be
necessary to explain the recently discovered huge structure
called "The Great Attractor". Lindley [5] concludes: ". . . that
the Cold Dark Matter can be saved at least in modified form,
if a nonzero cosmological constant is resurrected."
How
can so many astrophysics reject Einstein's model so easily
because of the cosmological constant, and then later use an
equivalent constant of repulsion "just like the Einstein's
cosmological constant" [3] to try to save the Big Bang model? How can
cosmologists repeat that a cosmological constant was "the
biggest mistake of his (Einstein's) life" [3] when the equivalent of such
a constant is now copied by the new cosmologists?
IV. Main Unsolvable Difficulties of the
Big Bang Model.
Apart
from the fact that the Big Bang model does not solve the problem
of the cosmological constant, many more proofs exist showing
that the Big Bang model in unacceptable. Only a few
examples are recalled here.
A. Time Zero.
When
the universe was at time t=0, the density of the universe was
infinite. This is a singularity. It is argued [6] that spacetime itself did
not exist for times less than zero. How could the universe
be created from nothing [6] (no space, no time)? The universe cannot be the
result of a quantum fluctuation [6] that appeared before the existence of space and
time
B. Critical Value of G.
From
the Big Bang model, the first natural length of the universe is
the Planck length. Then the typical radius of the universe
was about 10^{33} cm.
However, we observe today that the universe has a radius of 10^{28} cm. This is a decrease of 10^{61} times in curvature. It corresponds to an
extreme flatness of Euclidean geometry [6].
The
fundamental mechanism of the Big Bang is that it started by a
fast expansion that was slowed down by the forces of
gravity. Cosmologists find interesting the question
whether the forces of gravity are weak enough so that the
universe will end in a dispersion of matter into an infinite
space or if the forces of gravity are strong enough so that the
universe will collapse rapidly into a Crunch.
Consequently,
in the Big Bang model, it is assumed that two completely
independent mechanisms balance forces of expansion and retention
of matter acting in opposite directions. From the Big Bang
hypothesis [6], one
must conclude that the universal gravitation constant G, is such
that it happens (by chance) that all 61 digits of the parameter
used to calculate the gravity necessary to stop the expansion of
the universe is exactly the same as the first 61 digits of the
parameter required in the calculation of the energy of expansion
that appeared at the instant of the Big Bang. The
probability of having two, so nearly identical physical
constants in nature, resulting from two completely unrelated
hypotheses is extremely suspicious. This difficulty is
mentioned by Linde [6].
The problem of the critical value of G does not exist in the
model presented here.
In
fact, this highly critical constant cannot exist with an
accuracy of 61 digits because the Cavendish constant G_{C}, is not considered to be a constant and varies by
many more orders of magnitude, as will be seen in subsection
VA.
C. Age and Isotope Problems.
There
are hundred of papers and books with examples showing that the
Big Bang model is not compatible with observations. Recent
data show striking incompatibility. For example, certain
galaxies appearing completely mature were observed by Simon
Lilly [7] in 1988 at
the enormous redshift of 3.395. This puts these galaxies
so far back in time that the Big Bang scheme does not allow
sufficient time for their formation. The report [8] mentions: ''the
appearance of a mature galaxy so soon after the Big Bang
poses a serious threat."
The
discovery in 1989 of the Great Wall, 700 million light years
across, is also incompatible with the Big Bang model.
Margaret Geller of the HarvardSmithsonian Center for
Astrophysics comments [9] on her discovery: "No known force could produce
a structure this big since the universe was formed."
Very recently, Paul Steinhardt [10] states the equivalent: "There wasn't enough
time in the history of the universe for gravity to pull
together these structures." There is a general
consensus on this point.
Finally,
the distribution of isotopes in the universe, claimed to be a
consequence of the Big Bang, also does not agree with many
observations. The most recent disagreement is the case of
the Sun, where a reliable measurement can be made. Only 1%
of the predicted amount of lithium is observed in the Sun [11].
Discussions related to the above problems have been published [12], [13].
V. Variation of Gravitational Constant
Considering
that the gravitational constant is so critical (up to the 61^{st} digit), one cannot conceive that it is (relativity)
greatly varying as a function of time or space. This
variation leads to new difficulties.
A. NonConstancy of the Cavendish
Constant
It
is claimed that just at the moment of the Big Bang, all forces
(weak, strong, electromagnetic, and gravity) were unified.
This is the basic argument to establish the Grand Unified Theory
(GUT). All the individual fundamental forces of nature
appeared later. Therefore, at the time of the Big Bang,
gravity did not exist as it does now.
Some
time after the Big Bang, gravitational forces developed.
Therefore G is not constant. Many articles have been
written about the nonconstancy of the Cavendish constant G_{C} [4]. Dirac
[2] was among the first
to formulate a change of gravitational constant. As early
as 1937, Dirac, using numerology, suggested that the
gravitational Cavendish constant G_{C} was varying in time. Dirac pointed out that the
ratio between the age of the universe and the atomic unit of
time (e^{2}/mc^{3}) is the same as the ration between the electrical
force between the proton and the electron and the gravitational
force between these particles. Since the first ratio is a
function of the age of the universe, G_{C} is continuously changing. Dirac chose the
equation:


B. Energy Conservation
It
might not be possible to follow the logic that inspired Dirac
about the near mathematical coincidence related to the variation
of G, but this hypothesis, used for five decades, illustrates
another serious difficulty. When G is changing, the energy
of the system is changing. Consequently, the change of the
Cavendish constant G contradicts the most fundamental law of
physics: "The Principle of MassEnergy Conservation".
Hawking states: [3]
"The total energy of the universe is zero." It
cannot stay zero if G is changing with time.
The
change of the Cavendish constant G (assumed here) has nothing to
do with the change of gravitational force when radiation is
generated (and a corresponding amount of mass disappears).
Of course, radiation pressure prevents the collapse of parts of
the universe and contributes to the decrease of the
gravitational pull.
Let
us recall that the transformation of mass into radiation does
not change the total energy of the system when everything is
taken into account, and when one considers that there is energy
conservation in any close system.
C. A Second Big Bang?
Following
the problems raised by the Big Bang hypothesis, Hawking uses the
equivalent of a second Big Bang in an attempt to explain the
inflationary universe. He explains [3] that the total massenergy of the universe in the
first Big Bang is zero. Then he writes: "Twice
zero is also zero." Then he states [3] "Thus the universe can
double the amount of positive matter energy and also the
negative gravitational energy . . .". This is
equivalent of a second Big Bang. It is this way that the
inflationary expansion of the universe is explained [3].
What
is the probability of a second Big Bang at the same place over
such a short time interval (a small fraction of a second)? How
many Big Bangs should we expect?
VI. Characteristics of a Gravitational Field
A. Finite Range of Gravitational Forces
We
have seen in section IV that the equivalent of a cosmological
constant is just as necessary in the case of the Big Bang model
as in the case of Einstein's static universe. This means that
all models require, at large distances, that the strength of the
gravitational field go down more rapidly than the 1/r^{2} function predicted by Newton's law. In other
words, a gravitational field with an infinite with an infinite
range is not acceptable?
In
principle, it is not necessary to use a cosmological constant
that neutralizes the gravitational forces at large
distances. One shows that strong and weak nuclear forces
have a finite range. We do not say that there is another
force at large distance that neutralizes nuclear forces.
We might use the same terminology but, of course, an appropriate
description must be given to the field.
The
importance of a finite range of gravitational interaction is
that it does not lead to an infinite potential in an infinite
universe. Before describing a test to determine the range of
interaction of gravitational forces, we need to explain the
exact meaning of the phenomenon we are looking for.
B. Definition of a Finite Range
When
we say that a gravitational field has a finite range, we mean
that this gravitational field at cosmological distances
decreases more rapidly that the 1/r^{2} function and produces no observable effect beyond
this range. We do not specify here whether the rapid
decrease of the gravitational field at large distances is due
to:
a) The property of the gravitational field itself
(for example curvature);
b) The property of space that supports the
gravitational field;
c) matter that might damp the gravitational field
in space;
d) the disappearance in time (annihilation) of
some matter that produced the gravitational field (for example
due to the transformation of matter into radiation that has
escaped the original location);
e) the possibility that the graviton has a
nonzero mass; or
f) any other cause.
VII. Evaluation of the "Range of Gravitational
Forces"
Since
we mentioned that the gravitational force has an effective
limited range of interaction, let us evaluate that range.
It is generally agreed that this range is enormously longer that
the finite range of weak and strong nuclear forces. Since
all planets in the solar system follow (almost perfectly) the
inverse quadratic law of gravitation, the 1/r^{2} law is substantiated in the solar system.
The
next range to consider is that of galaxies. At distances
up to about 50 000 light years, galactic rotation appears around
a center. It is well known that galactic rotation does not
follow Kepler laws. Hypotheses have been presented to explain
the motion of stars around the nucleus of galaxies. For example,
some suggest the dark matter hypothesis while others use a
change in the gravitational force (Milgrom [18][20]).
One
can conclude that for a range of the order of the radius of
galaxies (about 50 000 lightyears) at least some gravitational
interaction certainly exist but some might argue that gravity
may not behave strictly as Newton's law.
The
largest observed structures in the universe, showing central
gravitational interaction, are clusters of galaxies. One can
estimate that the approximate practical maximum range of
gravitational interaction is about 10 to 20 million light years
[21]. This range seems
large, but it is about (1/1000) of the size of the universe (as
calculated assuming the Big Bang model).
Beyond this limit is the Great Wall, discovered by
M. J. Geller and J. P. Huchra [13] in 1988. Its name suggests that it may not have a
spherical geometry; its pattern stretches over 700 million light
years. It does not appear to be associated with a central
gravitational force.
On
an even larger scale, P. J. E. Pebbles plotted the locations of
nearly one million galaxies. The plot shows lines or
threads of clusters of galaxies forming superclusters.
Charles Bennett [22]
produced a similar plot of a million galaxies "Splashed
across a section of the cosmos." Those threads of
galaxies are interwoven in a complicated way to form a pattern
that astrophysicists have dubbed the cosmic tapestry. It is
clear that this tapestry does not reveal the existence of a
central gravitational attraction. The distribution of
galaxies looks in fact, like what one expects for the
distribution of atoms that form complex molecules. The
lines of galaxies are similar to chains of atoms in certain
molecules. In these plots, one can almost see rings (of
superclusters) as in molecule benzene.
One
must conclude that astrophysical data cease to show the effect
of gravitational attraction for distances larger than about 10
or 20 million lightyears.
It
can also be seen that the universe is much older that predicted
by the Big Bang theory. Here are a few examples. In
the case of certain superclusters, Tully and Fisher state [13]. "They were just too
big to have formed in the twenty billion years since the Big
Bang". Paul Steinhardt, [1] a cosmologist at the university of Pennsylvania
explains: "There wasn't enough time in the history of the
universe for gravity to pull together these structures".
In the case of the Great Wall, it is estimated to have taken
about 150 billion years to form [13]. These observations support the notion that the
universe is much older than 15 billion years. Powell [24] concludes recently: "Globular
clusters such as M13 appear to be older than the latest
estimate of the age of the universe". John
Gribbin [25],
studying the spectrum of quasars entitled his paper: "Astronomers
Double the Age of the Universe".
VIII. Controversies on Infinities.
Forces
with a limited range of interaction are not new in
physics. It is a useless argument to insist that a force
has an infinite range, if that force exists until only 16
billion years (according to the Big Bang). Astrophysicists
have difficulties accepting that the universe is "infinite" in
size, while, at the same time, they readily accept that the
range of interaction of gravitational forces in infinite.
Even if cosmologists believe that the range of gravitational
forces in infinite, this hypothesis is applied in a finite
universe when the Big Bang model is used.
IX. Proposed
Model
The
Big
Bang
theory
uses
certain
observations
to
justify
its
existence.
However,
an
unlimited and ageless universe better explains astrophysical
observations. Here the word ageless is as defined in
Webster's dictionary [26]: "Valid or existing unaltered at all times".
The universe described by W. D. MacMillan [27] is more compatible with
current observations than the Big Bang model. According to
MacMillan, it is not necessary that "the universe as a
whole has ever been or ever will be essentially different
from what it is today"[28]. MacMillan believed that radiation emitted by
stars could be reconverted into matter. This excellent
model also satisfies the "Perfect Cosmological Principle".
This description was written well before Dirac's first statement
of the theory of pair production. MacMillan's theory was
rejected because of the lack of evidence then, that gamma rays
could be converted into matter. However, two decades
later, Bondi, Gold and Hoyle developed an almost similar model,
"The SteadyState Theory" [29], in which matter in the universe is not formed from
gamma rays, but is formed from "nothing" (of course, certainly,
without physical evidence). Finally, our choice of an
unlimited space is not foreign to the philosophical difficulty
of conceiving an end to space. Another argument is given
in subsection X, below.
X. Deficiencies of the Big Bang Model
Scientifically,
it can be shown that the best proofs claimed to support the Big
Bang model are unjustified. These proofs can easily be
interpreted in favor of another model. Let us discuss the
following arguments: a) The cosmological Red Shift and the
Doppler effect: b) The 3K background radiation; c) The critical
density of the universe; and d) The Olbers paradox. Other
arguments have been discussed above in subsection IVc
a)
The cosmological redshift can be logically explained by a
mechanism other than the Doppler effect. There is another
natural mechanism that can produce a nonDoppler Red Shift [30]. It is based on the
nonelastic collision of photons on atoms or molecules in
space. This nonDoppler Redshift has been successful in
explaining a Redshift on the Sun [31], [32] and
in many other observations [33][36]. A
similar effect is expected everywhere else in the universe.
b)
The origin of the 3 K radiation is more logically explained [34][36] by the Planck radiation emitted by cold matter in an
unlimited universe. Since the universe (and the plasma it
contains) is at 3K, therefore blackbody radiation is emitted by
that matter. The problem of a lack of thickness of plasma
does not exist since the universe is unlimited. This
interpretation is compatible with the high homogeneity of the 3K
radiation observed, with an inhomogeneity smaller than 1/25000 [22].
c)
The problem of the critical density r,
of matter in the universe has been mentioned above in discussing
dark matter. Our unlimited ageless universe does not
require such a critical value.
d)
Olbers paradox can be explained without the Big Bang. In fact,
Olbers paradox does not exist [36] since the sky is uniformly bright when one looks at
the correct wavelength (»1mm)
generated by its temperature of 3K. The full amplitude of
the Planck blackbody spectrum received from space is caused by
the emission of radiation of the universe at 3K and proves that
the universe has a depth of at least several trillion
lightyears.
XI. Transparent Matter in the Universe.
With
the choice of the unlimited ageless universe, one has to explain
the observed red shift by a mechanism other than a Doppler
shift. One has seen that from the inelastic transmission
of photons in space [30], [35], a
red shift similar to a Doppler effect is always produced.
There
have been many discussions about nondetectable gases (or dark
matter) in the universe. Cold atomic hydrogen is easy to observe
in the universe, because it has a transition in the radio range
due to the coupling between the spin of the electron and the
spin of the proton (forming atomic hydrogen). A transition
between those configurations produces radiation at 21 cm, and is
easily detected in the radio range. There are however,
serious indirect observations (in galaxies or with the Great
Attractor) that show that there is still a much larger amount of
matter in the universe. That undetected matter is called
Dark Matter. David Lindley [5] defines Dark Matter in the following way; "Dark
Matter is the invisible stuff that dynamical studies of
galaxies and clusters of galaxies indicate must be there,
but which can't be seen".
With
regard to H_{2} and its extreme transparency, it is known that the
most abundant atom in the universe is hydrogen. Atomic
hydrogen is chemically active, much more than molecular
hydrogen. For example, two colliding atomic hydrogen atoms
(H) can combine to from molecular hydrogen (H+H®H_{2}+hn). This mechanism of formation of H_{2} is highly probable during threebody
collisions. However, because of the strong binding
energy of the atoms in H_{2} and
due to the low temperature of the interstellar gas (»3K), two colliding H_{2} particles at 3 K do not have enough energy and will
not dissociate back into atomic hydrogen atoms. This
illustrates how molecular hydrogen H_{2} is much more stable than H. Of course, when
these particles (H and H_{2}) are
bombarded with photons, they might react to produce ionization,
excitation and induced dissociation. Other mechanisms are
also possible, especially the Compton effect as mentioned by
Kierein [37].
Consequently,
since the universe has an average temperature of 3K, for the
reason given above and during the unlimited age of the universe,
one expects that, at equilibrium, much hydrogen must have passed
from the atomic form, into the form of molecular hydrogen H_{2}.
Spectroscopy
shows that molecular hydrogen is one of the most transparent
gases in the universe. It has no dipole transition in the
radio range, in the infrared, in the visible, and even in the
UV, up to the far UV at 110.8 nm [2]. Even rotation and vibration states of the
ground state cannot be observed because they are all forbidden
dipole transitions. The second and third UV lines of H_{2} are located at 109.2 and 107.7 nm. These three
lines correspond to transitions B^{1}S_{u}X^{1}S_{u} in
states (0,0), (1,0) and (2,0). Thanks to the transparence
of H_{2} one is able to view the
universe at very large distances. However, H_{2} cannot be detected by spectroscopic means. The
only observable radiation from H_{2} at 3K is the wide Planck spectrum at its own
temperature (already observed but erroneously interpreted as a
background cosmic radiation).
There
are many misleading statements about the detection of hydrogen
in the universe. Without making the distinction between
the atoms and the molecules, it is stated [38] that: "masses of
hydrogen are easily detectible out to considerable
distances in the universe". This is awful error,
since the molecular form of hydrogen (H_{2}) is possibly the most
transparent gas in the universe.
Furthermore
one cannot argue that H_{2} does not exist in space because it would be
dissociated by UV radiation. If there were actually a
large intensity of farUV radiation in the universe, neutral
atomic hydrogen would ionize. This is not the case, since
the 21 cm radiation is well observed and therefore proves that H
is not generally ionized. Consequently, in those
circumstances, we expect that the farUV radiation in space,
which does not have enough intensity to ionize most of the
atomic hydrogen, will also not have enough intensity to react
and dissociate most of H_{2}.
It is well known that it takes more energy to ionize molecular
hydrogen than atomic hydrogen.
We
have seen that molecular hydrogen in space is responsible for
another interaction: Collisions of photons on hydrogen are
always slightly inelastic [30], [35] in
transmission and lead to a nonDoppler red shift. It has
been measured that more than one atom/cm^{3} of atomic hydrogen has been measured between stars
inside our galaxy. Due to the transparency of H_{2}, there might be, on
the average, the equivalent of 0.01 mol/cm^{3} of the much more abundent H_{2} in the universe, which would account for the observed
cosmological red shift in the universe [30].
XII. Distance of Quasars
A. Dependence of Red Shift on Source
Temperature
It
has been calculated [30], [35]
that photons have a very slightly inelastic interaction when
transmitted through the gases of space, which gives them a
redshift compatible with the observed redshift in the
cosmos. This is done using electromagnetic theory and
quantum mechanics without the need of any new "ad hoc" physical
hypotheses. This red shift generally appears
indistinguishable from the Doppler shift. The energy lost is
transformed into very low frequency radio waves. It has
been seen that this mechanism [30], [35]
leads to red shifts which explain the red shift on the Solar
limb [31], the
apparent velocity of recession of some early type stars (KTerm)
[33][35], the different average
shift of binary stars, and others red shifts [33][35] of astrophysical interest. This mechanism uses
the well known Larmor equation:






B. Redshift of Quasars
The
case of a light source having a much higher equivalent
temperature as in quasars has not been previously
considered. It is observed that quasars emit a spectrum
with an extraordinary wide spectral band. The continuum of
radiation extends up to the far UV and even into the soft Xray
range. It is reported [39]¸ that there is: "a blue bump peaks somewhere in
the extreme ultra violet and probably into the soft Xray
around 40 Angstrom".
Synchrotron
radiation is believed to be the source of such a
spectrum. The length of coherence of the radiation
is much smaller that the length of coherence of the Planck
spectrum of an ordinary hot star (since the bandwidth is
larger). This is easily understood considering the
physical meaning of the Fourier transform. One finds that
the equivalent temperature of the quasar is then a few million
degrees. Let us consider an efficient temperature of about
2 million degrees for a typical quasar.
Theory
[30], [32] shows that due to the
short length of coherence, quasars must naturally show a much
larger redshift than other stars located at the same distance
(i.e. light going through an equal thickness of gas).
Equation (4) shows that the red shift produced by hydrogen is
proportional to the square of the temperature. From (4),
the relative red shift (per interaction) of the two objects is:




C. Comparison with Observations
Quasars
have then, a redshift about 1600 times larger than a typical
star whose light intersects the same column density of
gas. That quasar would then be 1600 times closer than
expected from their red shift (when one has used the Doppler
instead of the Hubble interpretation). This result is of
interest because the standard model shows several difficulties
related to quasars:
a) The unacceptable red shiftdistance
relationship,
b) their unphysical brightness, and
c) the abnormal red shift of quasars that are
physically associated with closer galaxies as reported by Arp [12].
A)
Narlikar shows that when the red shift of galaxies is plotted
against their faintness, a straight line is obtained [40]. However, the
corresponding plot for quasars plotted against their faintness
produces a random scatter of points [40]. It is surprising that quasars located at
larger distances do not appear less bright, unless the redshift
of quasars is not due to their great distance. The model
calculated here shows that the red shifts of quasars do not
primarily depend on the distance, but depend on their equivalent
temperature. This explains why the red shiftdistance
relationship is seriously defective in quasars.
B)
The belief that gammaray quasars can be as bright as 100
trillion suns [41]
is more than astonishing. In July 1991, the discovery in
Virgo of a Quasar (3C279) emitting 10 million times more energy
than the entire Milky Way was announced [42]. More recently, HS1946+7658 in Drago was
reported to emit "more energy that 1.5 quadrillion suns"
[43]. However,
from the above calculations, the same quasar can be at least
about 1000 times closer. Therefore its absolute brightness
should be at least one million times less. This solves the
problem of the unacceptable brightness of quasars and brings
their absolute brightness to about the same magnitude as normal
galaxies.
C)
The large red shifts of quasars, interpreted as a Doppler
phenomenon, are called into question when they are found to be
associated with galaxies. Many years ago, Burbidge [44] suggested noncosmological
redshifts of quasars. Many of those associations have been
reported by Arp [12],
[37], suggesting that
quasars are much closer. One prominent example is the case
of Stephan's quintet. This close association of galaxies shows
that NGC 7331 and other high red shifted members are linked [12] to the low red shifted NGC
7320. Also, in the chain of galaxies VV172, one of them
has an excess redshift of 21 000 km/s. Numerous other examples
have been observed [12].
A
systematic study should be done. If the distance of
quasars is corrected due to their high effective temperature,
one should be able to verify that the red shiftdistance
relationship of quasars fits the expected linear function (as in
the case of galaxies) as expected by Narlikar [40].
XIII. Conclusion
New
observations are compatible with the unlimitedageless universe
model. It is unnecessary and unrealistic to invent a new
principle after each new discovery. For example, in
defending the Big Bang cosmology, Davis states: "In some
of the newer (Big Bang) theories, we are inventing a new
physical principle for every new observational fact"
[1].
We
do not agree, as stated [3], that: "a scientific theory is just a
mathematical model we make to describe our observations: is
exist only in our minds".
Acknowledgment
The
author wished to thank Dr. Y. Varshni and Dr. L. Marmet for
reading and commenting on this manuscript.
References
[1] F. Flam, "In Search of a New
Cosmic Blueprint". Science, Vol. 254, pp. 11061108. 1991.
[2] K. R. Lang, "Astrophysical
Formulae", New York: SpringerVerlag, p. 582, 580, 156. 1980.
[3] S. W. Hawking, "A brief
History of Time", Bantam Books, p. 151, 127, 128, 129.
1988.
[4] C. W. Misner, K. H. Thorne,
and J. A. Wheeler, "Gravitation", San Francisco: W. H. Freeman
p. 758, 1121, 598. 1973.
[5] D. Lindley, "Cold Dark
Matter Makes an Exit" Nature, Vol. 349, p. 14. 1991.
[6] A. Linde, "Particle Physics
and Inflationary Cosmology", Phys. Today, Vol. 40, pp. 6168,
Sept. 1987.
[7] S. L. Lilly, "Discovery of a
Radio Galaxy at a Redshift of 3.395", Astrophys. J. Vol.
161, p. 333, Oct. 1988.
[8] S. L. Lilly, "News Notes"
Sky and Telescope, Vol. 76, No: 2, p. 124, Aug. 1988.
[9] M. Geller, Boston Globe,
Nov. 17, 1989.
[10] P. Steinhardt, cited by F.
Flam, "In Search of a New Cosmic Blueprint", Science, Vol. 254,
pp. 110601108, 22 Nov. 1991.
[11] "News Notes" Sky and
Telescope Vol. 82, No: 6, p. 586, Dec. 1991.
[12] H. Arp, "Quasars,
Red Shifts, and Controversies" Interstellar Media,
Berkeley CA,. pp. 198, 1987.
[13] E. Lerner "The Big Bang
Never Happened" New York, Random House, p. 466, 1991.
[14] C. Brans and R. H. Dicke,
"Mach's Principle and a Relativistic Theory of Gravitation"
Phys. Rev. Vol. 124, pp. 925, 935. 1961.
[15] W. T. Ni., "Theoretical
Framework for testing Relativistic Gravity IV: A Compendium of
Metric Theories and their postNewtonian limits". Astrophys. J.
Vol. 176, pp. 769796, 1972.
[16] C. M. Will, "Relativistic
Gravity in the Solar System, II: Anisotropy in the Newtonian
Gravitational Constant", Astrophys. J. Vol. 169, pp. 141156,
1971; Also K. Nordvedt, Jr. and C. W. Will, "Conservation laws
and Preferred Frames of Gravity", Astrophys. J. Vol. 177, pp.
775792, 1972.
[17] J. Wang, "Astrophysical
Constraints on the Gravitational Constant" Astrophysics and
Space Science, Vol. 184, pp. 3136, 1991.
[18] M. Milgrom, "A
Modification of the Newtonian Dynamics as a Possible Alternative
to the Hidden Mass Hypothesis", Astrophys. J. Vol. 270, pp.
365370, 1983.
[19] M. Milgrom, "A
Modification of the Newtonian Dynamics: Implication for
Galaxies" Astrophys. J. Vol. 270, pp. 371383, 1983.
[20] M. Milgrom, "A
Modification of the Newtonian Dynamics: Implication for Galaxy
Systems" Astrophys. J. Vol. 270, pp. 384389, 1983.
[21] C. W. Allen, Astrophysical
Quantities, University of London: Atlone Press, pp. 310, 1973.
[22] C. Bennett, "Mapping
the Cold Glow of the Big Bang", New Scientists, Vol. 130, pp.
3539, Aug. 10, 1991.
[23] R. Jayawardhana,
"Confirmation at Last for a Completely Smooth Universe", New
Scientist, Vol. 131, No: 1788, p. 24, Sept. 28, 1991.
[24] C. S. Powell, "Born
Yesterday" Scientific American, Vol. 266, No: 5, pp. 2830, May
1992.
[25] J. Grabbin, "Astronomer's
Double Age of the Universe" New Scientists, Vol. 133, No: 1802,
Jan. 4, 1992.
[26] "Webster Electronic
Thesaurus" MerriamWebster Inc. and Proximity Technology, 1987.
[27] W. D. MacMillan, "Some
Mathematical Aspects of Cosmology", Science, Vol. 62, pp. 6372,
1925.
[28] W. D. MacMillan,
Astrophys. J. Vol. 48, p. 35. 1918.
[29] R. Schlegel, Steady State
in Chicago, Vol. 26, No: 9 pp. 601604, 1958.
[30] P. Marmet, "A New NonDoppler Redshift"
Physics Essays, Vol.
1 pp. 2432, 1988.
[31] P. Marmet, "Red Shift of Spectral Lines
in the Sun's Chromosphere", IEEE Trans, Plasma Sci., Vol.
17, No: 2, pp. 238244, April 1989
[32] P. Marmet, "A New NonDoppler Redshift",
Physics Department, Université Laval, Québec, Canada, pp. 64,
1981.
[33] P. Marmet, "NonDoppler Redshift of some
Galactic Objects", IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. 18. No: 1,
pp. 5660, 1009.
[34] P. Marmet, "The Big Bang Cosmology Meets an
Astronomical Death" 21st Century, Science and Technology,
Vol. 3, No: 2, pp. 5259, 1990.
[35] P. Marmet, "The Deceptive
Illusion of the Big Bang Cosmology", Physics in Canada,
(Canadian Association of Physicists), Vol. 46, No: 5, pp.
97101, 1991.
[36] P. Marmet, "The 3K Microwave Background and
Olbers's Paradox" Sci. Lett., Vol. 240, p. 705, May 6,
1988.
[37] J. Kierein, "Implication
of the Compton Effect Interpretation of the Red Shift", IEEE
Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. 18, No: 1, pp. 6163, 1990.
[38] H. Arp. "Exploding the Big
Bang Hypothesis", Physics Today, pp. 8586, July 1991.
[39] B. J. Wilkes, "The
Emerging Picture of Quasars" Astronomy, Vol. 19, pp. 3541,
1991.
[40] J. Narlikar, "What if the
Big Bang Didn't Happen? New Scientist, pp. 4851, Mar. 2 1991.
[41] F. Flam, "Quasars: Ablaze
with Gamma Rays". Science, Vol. 256, pp. 311, 1992.
[42] Astronomy Express, "Gamma
Ray Beacon" Sky and Telescope, Vol. 82, P. 350, Oct. 1991.
[43] Astronomy Express, "Most
Luminous Objects" Sky and Telescope, Vol. 823, No: 5, p. 492,
1992.
[44[ E. M. Burbidge and G. R.
Burbidge, "Redshift of Quasistellar Objects and Related
Extragalactic Systems", Nature, Vol. 222. p. 735, 1969.
This is an updated version of:
IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science,
Vol. 20. No: 6, pp. 958964, 1992
Return to: List of Papers on the Web
Go to: Frequently Asked Questions
Return to Top of Page