Note on the lost haltonarp.com discussions

Last week Ritchie Annand found that the full content of haltonarp.com discussion board is available in the Wayback Machine, here’s the link. It seems that there might not be much point for me to continue posting those discussions, because they still might become available again in the haltonarp.com too. The whole point of my postings was to make the discussions available while they are not available otherwise and it seems that that point is not valid anymore.

Well, of course posting the discussions here would be a way to spare people of looking at that ugly red theme. 🙂

Advertisements

Lost haltonarp.com discussions – Hubble’s “The Problem of the Expanding Universe” Transcribed

This is part of a reconstruction of some of the discussions that went on in the discussion board of haltonarp.com. Few years ago the site was reconstructed and the discussions went offline. They haven’t been seen since until now.

Hubble’s “The Problem of the Expanding Universe” Transcribed

Ritchie Annand 2005-07-20 02:59:34

Vincent did me the great favor of giving me access to a copy of Edwin Hubble’s 1942 paper on which he has scanned the two most important graphs here. I’ve done a transcription of the paper (sans the graphs) and I’ve posted it here.

After reading it, I think you’ll agree that Hubble was a very smart man. It’s a bit surprising to realize, for example, that he (and perhaps others) knew full well that an expanding universe would require an enormous amount of unseen matter.

I think in the end, he’s going to end up having been proven right, as well.

My favorite quote from the paper:

Thus the use of dimming corrections leads to a particular [expanding] kind of universe, but one which most students are likely to reject as highly improbable. Furthermore, the strange features of this universe are merely the dimming corrections expressed in different terms. Omit the dimming factors, and the oddities vanish. We are left with the simple, even familiar concept of a sensibly infinite universe.

Cheers!

— Ritchie

ted rusk 2005-07-29 00:21:46

This really is an important paper that deserves a new look. It shows clearly that Hubble was not a “proponent” of expansion/Big Bang. After all, he refers to expansion as a “problem”, and a daunting one. Yet it is a cliche that he “discovered the expansion of the universe”. The problems he raises here have still not been resolved.

Ari Jokimäki 2005-07-30 09:31:31

Thanks Richie! This is much appreciated!

Edward Duffy 2005-08-01 23:31:14

Help out a layman. Is he saying that the fact that distant objects (light that originated 100s of millions of years ago) appear to be rapidly moving away from each other and the fact that individual components of local systems are not may indicate that the universe was once expanding but has slowed down or stopped?

Edward Duffy 2005-08-01 23:52:37

Another silly question: Do you get the same type of blueshift from an object that is moving toward us and an object that is moving away, but at a declining rate? Luminosity would increase in either case right? If so how do you know the diffence between an object that is moving toward us and one that is just slowing down?

Ritchie Annand 2005-08-03 12:35:10

Quoting Edward Duffy:
Help out a layman. Is he saying that the fact that distant objects (light that originated 100s of millions of years ago) appear to be rapidly moving away from each other and the fact that individual components of local systems are not may indicate that the universe was once expanding but has slowed down or stopped?

No, in this instance, I believe that he’s saying that the expanding universe theory of the period (still applies today, as far as I know) requires that even though space itself is expanding, local collections of galaxies do not drift apart from one another (gravity?). The distance between galaxy clusters, though, would.

Radial velocities of the members of the Local Group, listed in Table I, suggest that the law of red shifts probably does not operate within the group … If the universe is expanding, the group maintains its dimensions as the theory requires.

— Ritchie

Edward Duffy 2005-08-03 21:24:43

Thanks, He did seem to be saying though that the observance of clusters moving faster the farther out you look is not an indication that they are doing so now, but that the universe was expanding faster in the past than it is now. I’d never heard that interpretation before.

Ari Jokimäki 2005-08-04 07:25:29

Quoting Edward Duffy:
Do you get the same type of blueshift from an object that is moving toward us and an object that is moving away, but at a declining rate?

No, you get redshift from the object moving away, even if it’s at a declining rate. Amount of redshift is just getting smaller in that case. When the object stops (relative to us), redshift is zero, and only when the object starts moving to our direction it starts to blueshift.

Quoting Edward Duffy:
Luminosity would increase in either case right?

No, object moving away decreases in luminosity (because it’s getting further away from us).

Edward Duffy 2005-08-04 19:46:23

Thanks again

Ritchie Annand 2005-09-04 09:47:30

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
No, you get redshift from the object moving away, even if it’s at a declining rate. Amount of redshift is just getting smaller in that case. When the object stops (relative to us), redshift is zero, and only when the object starts moving to our direction it starts to blueshift.

You know, Ari, there is something odd that comes out of that, and perhaps this is related to the mechanism issue you had in another post…

BBT has gone out of its way in recent years to say that overall redshift isn’t due to velocity, because that leaves some things hard to explain, but rather due to the expansion of space (how that affects individual photons… good question).

But if you have something that’s a distance away from us, and has no redshift or an actual blueshift, then by this logic there are two components to this. There would have to be a redshift due to the expansion of space with a higher velocity ‘towards’ us imposed on top of that.

Unless there are claims that gravity actually slows the expansion of space in local regions 😉

I don’t know if that introduces any asymmetries at all. Would this be mathematically identical? Even if we introduced a sideways component? Would any asymmetries be high enough to measure? Would we have to go to the target object (err, no small feat 🙂 and measure from there?

Alrighty, I’ll admit I have no idea 🙂

— Ritchie

Ari Jokimäki 2005-09-05 09:52:39

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
BBT has gone out of its way in recent years to say that overall redshift isn’t due to velocity, because that leaves some things hard to explain, but rather due to the expansion of space (how that affects individual photons… good question).

I used to think that too, but currently I think that BBT has never said redshift is due to velocity, because I believe it has the same equation for redshift as it had did 80 years ago. So I think that it’s just a misconception which has probably arised due to terminology which has always equated redshift with velocity. Also, the introductory layman level BB books, papers, etc. usually start with description of regular Doppler shift, which does nothing more than clouds the real issue.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
But if you have something that’s a distance away from us, and has no redshift or an actual blueshift, then by this logic there are two components to this. There would have to be a redshift due to the expansion of space with a higher velocity ‘towards’ us imposed on top of that.

Of course mainstream would conclude that blueshifted objects are nearby, unless we have other distance indicators to those objects, and even then those other distance indicators would probably be suspected (as redshift distance is not to be doubted).

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
Unless there are claims that gravity actually slows the expansion of space in local regions 😉 I don’t know if that introduces any asymmetries at all.

That’s an interesting question. One thing I have been thinking is that if gravity slows or halts the expansion, you would get expanding regions that are surrounded by non-expanding regions (i.e. the voids they claim are there). I think that those expanding regions would work like lenses, because when a beam of light travels through expanding space, that beam of light should expand too. My question is, are those lenses ideal, so that we should see distant galaxies clearly? I think not. You would get lenses (expanding regions) with quite strange shapes, so I think images of distant galaxies should be distorted. Unless light has some property that is able to keep that beam together against the feeble force of space expansion.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
Would this be mathematically identical?

I don’t think so, but I’m under the impression that BB-theory doesn’t address it. Way I have understood it is that local effects are ignored when expansion of the universe is considered, and expansion is ignored when local dynamics are considered. But I’m not sure about this.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
Even if we introduced a sideways component?

I once suggested in a BABB-discussion, tongue halfway in the cheek, that if we ever detect proper motions in quasars, then the mainstream might explain it by sideways motions due to asymmetric expansion. 🙂

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
Would any asymmetries be high enough to measure?

It is hard to evaluate, but I think that, as I said above, we should be able to see some effect when we look very distant objects.

But I admit too that I actually have no idea, this is all just quessing. 🙂

Ritchie Annand 2005-09-28 22:50:57

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
I used to think that too, but currently I think that BBT has never said redshift is due to velocity, because I believe it has the same equation for redshift as it had did 80 years ago. So I think that it’s just a misconception which has probably arised due to terminology which has always equated redshift with velocity. Also, the introductory layman level BB books, papers, etc. usually start with description of regular Doppler shift, which does nothing more than clouds the real issue.

I’m not so solid on the entire history of the expanding space versus velocities debate. The space-itself-expands seems to have solidified with inflation theory, perhaps before. When I was younger, I did not have access to the same range of materials – the implication of a ‘real’ velocity from an explosion was strong, although relativity with no preferred frame would have come into play.

Hard to think what good alternative to regular Doppler shift could be used as introductory material…

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
Of course mainstream would conclude that blueshifted objects are nearby, unless we have other distance indicators to those objects, and even then those other distance indicators would probably be suspected (as redshift distance is not to be doubted).

That’s a problem when there aren’t enough other reliable yardsticks to use for measuring. Beyond a certain point, galaxies start to be considered as being ‘anomalous sizes’, etc. when their redshift is high enough. The pre-made assumption that high redshift means that the galaxy must be younger and thus different means that the expectation is that the galaxy will be different, which screws up any attempt to apply local standards to distant objects as a reliable ‘candle’.

Ah, but I’m ranting. I think there’s possibly something interesting in more local objects. After all, despite any intrinsic redshifting component, there is a cosmological one as well. I wonder if local objects have or lack some part of the cosmological component to redshift. Taking Arp’s ‘quantized redshifts’ to heart, perhaps a local anomaly might show it, or perhaps redshifts step down when passing through something in particular outside of the local group?

Of course, there’s also the possibility that the local group is actually larger than has been ascertained, and the larger redshift ones have merely been a priori excluded.

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
That’s an interesting question. One thing I have been thinking is that if gravity slows or halts the expansion, you would get expanding regions that are surrounded by non-expanding regions (i.e. the voids they claim are there). I think that those expanding regions would work like lenses, because when a beam of light travels through expanding space, that beam of light should expand too. My question is, are those lenses ideal, so that we should see distant galaxies clearly? I think not. You would get lenses (expanding regions) with quite strange shapes, so I think images of distant galaxies should be distorted. Unless light has some property that is able to keep that beam together against the feeble force of space expansion.

That’s an interesting thought, although I’d bet mainstreamers would insist that the space that expands ‘more’ to make up for the shortfall caused by gravity ‘holding back’ local pockets of space are indistinguishable in every way.

Mind you, if you take a look at things from a geometry point of view, you could perhaps claim that at the edges of the big valley that local galaxy groups are in, that the very edges would be slightly steeper than they otherwise should be.

I don’t know how we would detect any of these cases – it seems hard enough to know what’s actually being looking at, never mind that it could be 1% different from what it ‘really’ is 😉

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
I don’t think so, but I’m under the impression that BB-theory doesn’t address it. Way I have understood it is that local effects are ignored when expansion of the universe is considered, and expansion is ignored when local dynamics are considered. But I’m not sure about this.

I think we might have to go further back than the Hubble paper here to find out why expansion and local effects are allowed to be so independent of one another.

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
I once suggested in a BABB-discussion, tongue halfway in the cheek, that if we ever detect proper motions in quasars, then the mainstream might explain it by sideways motions due to asymmetric expansion. 🙂

*laugh*! Halfway is right 🙂

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
It is hard to evaluate, but I think that, as I said above, we should be able to see some effect when we look very distant objects.

But I admit too that I actually have no idea, this is all just guessing. 🙂

Even harder is to come up with effects that can’t be ‘explained away’. Oh, wait a minute… that’s all effects – I forgot *grin*.

It’s a bit tough for laymen and semi-laymen to do the crunching that would tell us whether different combinations cosmological and proper motions are distinguishable when summed up in a real system. It could turn out, like many other things, to cancel out to something that needs to be measured… and that measurement depends on something which may be wrong as it stands.

Ah well, there will be other avenues of ‘attack’. I’m just pleased as punch that as we are looking further and further into the cosmos, it’s starting to look pretty darned ordinary and not a lick “younger” than it looks locally 🙂

— Ritchie Annand

Ari Jokimäki 2005-09-29 08:36:52

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
I’m not so solid on the entire history of the expanding space versus velocities debate.

I’m not sure about it, but if we could track down when it was that scale factors of the universe were introduced to BBT, then we would know when redshift stopped being due to velocity (that is, if it ever was).

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
Hard to think what good alternative to regular Doppler shift could be used as introductory material…

I would say that leave the Doppler part out and just say how it actually is (although there is not much to say in that case).

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
I wonder if local objects have or lack some part of the cosmological component to redshift. Taking Arp’s ‘quantized redshifts’ to heart, perhaps a local anomaly might show it, or perhaps redshifts step down when passing through something in particular outside of the local group?

In Arp’s model, it’s an issue of age of the objects. If local group has common origin, it is (perhaps) to be expected that most objects have the same redshift (secondary ejections have higher redshift).

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
Of course, there’s also the possibility that the local group is actually larger than has been ascertained, and the larger redshift ones have merely been a priori excluded.

Yes, here is a paper about it: Arp (1987).

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
I think we might have to go further back than the Hubble paper here to find out why expansion and local effects are allowed to be so independent of one another.

I agree, that arises from the theory of relativity.

Btw, what’s “semi-layman”, someone who hangs his doctor diploma to the wall only for 3 or 4 days a week? 🙂

Ritchie Annand 2005-10-01 04:44:15

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
I’m not sure about it, but if we could track down when it was that scale factors of the universe were introduced to BBT, then we would know when redshift stopped being due to velocity (that is, if it ever was).

My Googling skills are really failing me today 🙂

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
I would say that leave the Doppler part out and just say how it actually is (although there is not much to say in that case).

Considering that they don’t really know how the expansion of space affects individual photons, perhaps couching it in “mundane” terms is all they can do 🙂 Then again, after reading that book last week, perhaps they are fuzzy on the concept of photon in the first place. What would stretch with space? The probability wave surrounding the photon?

I read a rant last week somewhere that we should be teaching quantum physics first, in high school, and then introduce classical later. Sounds like a bad idea at first blush, and we certainly wouldn’t be getting grade 10 students to do math in Hilbert space, but perhaps qualitatively. It would fire up some imaginations… oh, and probably make more kids drop science class. Okay, maybe it is a bad idea at second blush too 🙂

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
In Arp’s model, it’s an issue of age of the objects. If local group has common origin, it is (perhaps) to be expected that most objects have the same redshift (secondary ejections have higher redshift).

It can’t solely be that, or else we wouldn’t have a general progression of redshifts with distance. There really is a cosmological component.

Unless, of course, things really are younger the further out we look. In which case, we really would have a Big Bang *grin* 😉

That’s one thing I must admit I would love to know… is where the “seeds” for the big galaxy groups we know and love came from. In a static/semi-static universe the way it looks at present, if you really get Seyferts spawning other things, it seems like you’d almost need some hellishly big super-Seyferts spitting out the seeds for the mega-Seyferts that spawned the local group, Centaurus, Fornax, Virgo, etc. Either that, or you need an interesting recycling mechanism that we have not yet observed.

I mean, we could have mere Seyferts spitting these things out, but in the examples I’ve seen, the ejecta don’t get all that far before they turn into real galaxies. Either that, or there’s some ‘drunken walk’ math that makes these series of galaxy formations come out as separate clusters. Or, perhaps it would look less mysterious if we had a proper 3-D map of the universe with the proper correction factors applied.

How many generations are in the local group, anyhow? I wonder. I know it may be complicated by the fact that Seyferts often eject over and over again.

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
Yes, here is a paper about it: Arp (1987).

Now that’s classic Arp! Mixing local group membership and redshift quantization into the same paper. I think he should have split them up for general consumption, but what the hey 🙂 If I read it correctly (I really was just skimming), there are members of the local group that undergo quantization? That’s interesting. I had it in the back of my head that quantization might require something outside of our local group somehow, be it a shell of bounding materials or what have you. Damn, I want to know what that quantization is all about.

Thanks for the pointer to the paper, Ari 🙂

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
I think we might have to go further back than the Hubble paper here to find out why expansion and local effects are allowed to be so independent of one another.

I agree, that arises from the theory of relativity.

You think so? How would relativity help say that local pockets stay free of expansion? Hmmm, maybe something in the ‘geometry of spacetime’ could be employed in the explanation, but wouldn’t there have to be something going on at the edges?

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
Btw, what’s “semi-layman”, someone who hangs his doctor diploma to the wall only for 3 or 4 days a week? 🙂

*laugh* I was thinking about several steps below Pro-Am. Someone who may have heard the jargon (like me), but hasn’t done a magnitude plot, paper, or even been willing to sit out in the cold at 3 am in the swamp to catch a glimpse of a nebula (like me) 😉

— Ritchie Annand

Ari Jokimäki 2005-10-01 08:50:00

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
It can’t solely be that, or else we wouldn’t have a general progression of redshifts with distance. There really is a cosmological component.

Yes there is, but I’ve seen David Russell saying that it is due to ages of objects as well. Think about two galaxies that have been born at the same time (say 10 billion years ago). Galaxy A lies right beside Milky Way, and galaxy B lies one billion lightyears away. We see no redshift in galaxy A. When we look at galaxy B, we look one billion years to the past, therefore we see galaxy B as 9 billion years old. Now, if redshift decreases as objects get older, we would see that galaxy redshifted, because we see younger galaxy than galaxy A.

One thing I’m not quite sure of is what that means. To me it suggests that almost all galaxies we are able to see have been born at the same time. Otherwise we wouldn’t see redshift so nicely distance related. I think your super-Seyferts might not be so far fetched, but what was the object that spat out those super-Seyferts?

If you are trying to draw the big picture, I think you need to remember that galaxies should also be destroyed somehow. If there is new matter created in cores of galaxies and that new matter is then ejected and it then creates another galaxy, which probably then starts creating matter, etc. So, if you don’t destroy galaxies, and if your universe is infinitely old, you end up with universe very tightly packed with galaxies.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
Unless, of course, things really are younger the further out we look. In which case, we really would have a Big Bang *grin* 😉

Well, sort of. But we still would have static space. There is also an upside in this. Think about how all these signs of universal evolution are tossed to our direction as if they would prove that universe is not infinitely old and static. Now, if you have all galaxies in our visible universe born at roughly the same time, you don’t have any problems explaining those signs of evolution, they are expected!

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
Damn, I want to know what that quantization is all about.

I have to confess that I’m not very bought on the quantization. 😦

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
Thanks for the pointer to the paper, Ari 🙂

It was my pleasure. 🙂 Btw. here’s another paper that has some Local Group stuff in it: Arp (1994)

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
You think so? How would relativity help say that local pockets stay free of expansion?

BBT is based on theory of relativity, so if BBT says that, then the theory of relativity says it too. First thing would be to find out which is true (in theory), expansion doesn’t occur inside matter concentrations, or expansion occurs but gravity holds matter concentrations together.

Argh, this thread is starting to corrupt, I wonder if this post will be visible at all. I also wonder if anyone else is even reading this thread anymore, as it is now on the page 2 of “New Cosmology”. I know I’m usually browsing only the front page. Hmm… I wonder if there is some active discussion still going on on page 8 (ok, I checked, there were some posts from august of this year, I have to check other pages too).

Ritchie Annand 2005-10-04 04:20:38

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
Yes there is, but I’ve seen David Russell saying that it is due to ages of objects as well. Think about two galaxies that have been born at the same time (say 10 billion years ago). Galaxy A lies right beside Milky Way, and galaxy B lies one billion lightyears away. We see no redshift in galaxy A. When we look at galaxy B, we look one billion years to the past, therefore we see galaxy B as 9 billion years old. Now, if redshift decreases as objects get older, we would see that galaxy redshifted, because we see younger galaxy than galaxy A.

One thing I’m not quite sure of is what that means. To me it suggests that almost all galaxies we are able to see have been born at the same time. Otherwise we wouldn’t see redshift so nicely distance related. I think your super-Seyferts might not be so far fetched, but what was the object that spat out those super-Seyferts?

I can’t see the all-born-at-the-same-time alternate quite working, simply because ejecta close to active galaxies are so additionally redshifted, and then become less so with time (but never below a certain cosmological redshift).

It would imply, I think, yet another mechanism or variation that produces redshift: youth of ejected material plus original age of the matter/energy no matter what its state. In other words, quasars would have a certain redshift because the energy/matter ancestry they came from was the same age as ours (but took so many billion years to radiate here), and an additional redshift because it was newly reformed as matter.

I miss David Russell in these forums. The last exchange I remember having with him was here. A very perceptive and astute man, that.

If you are trying to draw the big picture, I think you need to remember that galaxies should also be destroyed somehow. If there is new matter created in cores of galaxies and that new matter is then ejected and it then creates another galaxy, which probably then starts creating matter, etc. So, if you don’t destroy galaxies, and if your universe is infinitely old, you end up with universe very tightly packed with galaxies.

I and a few folks (including you!) were babbling on a little bit about that topic in the cosmogony forum here. That’s the one spot with matter creation theories that just doesn’t sit well with me yet is that I haven’t seen the opposite end of it.

William Mitchell and his “Bye Bye Big Bang: Hello Reality” book did one of the best general jobs of outlining the parameters of a good new theory. I don’t remember the particulars (his book will make it back onto my reading rotation at some point), but the basic idea was “endless recycling universe”, emphasis on recycling.

Well, sort of. But we still would have static space. There is also an upside in this. Think about how all these signs of universal evolution are tossed to our direction as if they would prove that universe is not infinitely old and static. Now, if you have all galaxies in our visible universe born at roughly the same time, you don’t have any problems explaining those signs of evolution, they are expected!

I wouldn’t rule out a “fireworks model”. If there really was space already, then there’s no problem explaining flatness or evolution. That said, most of the observations coming out of telescopes these days seem to be initially “hey, these look younger” followed by “oh god, there are things that look anomalously normal at that distance”, so evolution may not end up being a factor.

I despise BBT for its backhanded shenanigans, but the question of whether there was a start or not is still not resolved. That said, we should be able to find some actual signs of it once we can trash the redshift-equals-real-velocity-or-space-expansion assumption.

I have to confess that I’m not very bought on the quantization. 😦

It’s not 100% compelling, but Arp wouldn’t be the only force behind the issue. I’ve seen some of the other things that otherwise lead to weird “we are the center of the universe” implications, like the ‘shells’ found in pencilbeam surveys. The “Fingers of God” effect is still strange – and the mainstream explanation, the Virial theorem seems too “pat” an answer. It feels an awful lot like the paper I came across “disproving” Arp by removing detail from the sample and then applying overly simplistic stats to say, “see? since you don’t really know which way the galaxies are going, then the redshifts are all by chance!”. Utter tripe 🙂

I don’t know if I can knock virial on the head like that, but it seems thrown up as a barrier to objections, rather than being fully integrated and something BBT is “proud” of.

It was my pleasure. 🙂 Btw. here’s another paper that has some Local Group stuff in it. ..

Actually, this is a more interesting paper. Little snippets like other galactic groups having a redshift spread of over four times what the ‘orthodox’ local group does. Or “many studies of more distant groups have consistently confirmed the propensity for companions to have higher redshift than the most massive galaxy in the group”.

BBT is based on theory of relativity, so if BBT says that, then the theory of relativity says it too. First thing would be to find out which is true (in theory), expansion doesn’t occur inside matter concentrations, or expansion occurs but gravity holds matter concentrations together.

I’d love to know as well! If the latter, it seems like there would be some possibility of discernible effects.

Argh, this thread is starting to corrupt, I wonder if this post will be visible at all. I also wonder if anyone else is even reading this thread anymore, as it is now on the page 2 of “New Cosmology”. I know I’m usually browsing only the front page. Hmm… I wonder if there is some active discussion still going on on page 8 (ok, I checked, there were some posts from august of this year, I have to check other pages too).

*laugh* Perhaps we can poke the webmaster into giving us sorting by last post date 🙂

I, too, was sitting there dreading the next message in the forum that would push this to page 2 🙂

‘S a fun thread, though. I like the way your brain ticks, Ari 🙂

— Ritchie Annand

Ritchie Annand 2005-10-04 04:21:29

FYI: The limit on posts here is 7,500 characters 🙂

Dangit 🙂

Ari Jokimäki 2005-10-04 09:39:22

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
I can’t see the all-born-at-the-same-time alternate quite working, simply because ejecta close to active galaxies are so additionally redshifted, and then become less so with time (but never below a certain cosmological redshift).

Well, it works for objects that have been born at the same time. But there might be a problem in why most of galaxies seem to follow redshift distance relation, we might expect more diversity because there should be new objects born constantly. Maybe there was a burst of activity ~15 billion years ago which then resulted a lot of new galaxies being born almost same time creating the illusion of the redshift distance relation we see today.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
It would imply, I think, yet another mechanism or variation that produces redshift: youth of ejected material plus original age of the matter/energy no matter what its state. In other words, quasars would have a certain redshift because the energy/matter ancestry they came from was the same age as ours (but took so many billion years to radiate here), and an additional redshift because it was newly reformed as matter.

But wouldn’t this work to the wrong direction? I mean that this would create even more diversity to the redshifts, so we would end up worse situation with redshift distance relation than with all galaxies simply starting with certain redshift.

Let’s consider an example case. First, suppose that all galaxies have z = 10 when they are born, and suppose that redshift drops by one with each billion years. Consider two galaxies (A and B) born at the same time, say 5 billion years ago. Galaxy A is one billion lightyears from us and galaxy B is two billion lightyears from us. So, actual redshift for galaxies A and B now would be z = 10 – 5 = 5. But, when we look at A, we don’t see it as 5 billion years old, instead we see it 4 billion years old because there is a distance of one billion lightyears between us and A. So we see redshift of z = 10 – 4 = 6 for A. For B it’s same thing except we see it only 3 billion years old, so the z = 10 – 3 = 7 for B. Let’s assume further that both galaxies have ejected new objects (A2 from A and B2 from B) when they were only 200 million years old (note that I’m using million = 10^6 and billion = 10^9). So they are now 4.8 billion years old. We see A2 as 3,8 billion years old so the redshift of A2 is z = 10 – 3.8 = 6.2. We see B as 2.8 billion years old making it’s redshift z = 10 – 2.8 = 7.2.

Now, let’s see how this works out with your suggestion. Same assumptions except that newly born object, in addition to z = 10 initial redshift, inherits it’s parent’s redshift. And for simplicity assume that A and have no parents. So A still has redshift z = 6 and B has z = 7. A2 has z = 10 – 3.8 + 6 = 12.2 and B2 has z = 10 – 2.8 + 7 = 14.2.

So we see that in the case of your suggestion, the redshift difference between the parent and the new object is considerably larger than in the first case. And the age difference of them is only 200 million years.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
I and a few folks (including you!) were babbling on a little bit about that topic in the cosmogony forum here. That’s the one spot with matter creation theories that just doesn’t sit well with me yet is that I haven’t seen the opposite end of it.

I agree. There is lot of stuff that needs clarification and that is one of the most outstanding issues, in my opinion.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
That said, most of the observations coming out of telescopes these days seem to be initially “hey, these look younger” followed by “oh god, there are things that look anomalously normal at that distance”, so evolution may not end up being a factor.

You might be right about that.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
I despise BBT for its backhanded shenanigans, but the question of whether there was a start or not is still not resolved. That said, we should be able to find some actual signs of it once we can trash the redshift-equals-real-velocity-or-space-expansion assumption.

I’m not sure I understand you here, are you suggesting that the age of universe might be finite in static universe?

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
The “Fingers of God” effect is still strange – and the mainstream explanation, the Virial theorem seems too “pat” an answer.

Thanks, I didn’t know that there is this kind of explanation attempt. Btw, I think that you don’t need quantized redshifts to explain fingers of god effect, I think that simply existence of intrinsic redshift (with or without quantization) is enough to produce it.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
Or “many studies of more distant groups have consistently confirmed the propensity for companions to have higher redshift than the most massive galaxy in the group”.

Yes, it’s very interesting issue.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
I’d love to know as well! If the latter, it seems like there would be some possibility of discernible effects.

I don’t think so, the amount of expansion in, say, Solar system would be so small that we wouldn’t have any chance of seeing it.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
‘S a fun thread, though. I like the way your brain ticks, Ari 🙂

Same applies very well to you Richie, thanks for the compliment! 🙂

Ritchie Annand 2005-10-08 10:39:47

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
Well, it works for objects that have been born at the same time. But there might be a problem in why most of galaxies seem to follow redshift distance relation, we might expect more diversity because there should be new objects born constantly. Maybe there was a burst of activity ~15 billion years ago which then resulted a lot of new galaxies being born almost same time creating the illusion of the redshift distance relation we see today.

Hmmm… so many things would have to be the case. The formation of new objects in the present era of quasar/galaxy formation seems to be of a relatively random distribution. I can’t see just the present era being that much more random in its time distribution for creating child galaxies that we wouldn’t notice a profound randomness in prior generations.

Also, if there is an evolution of galactic forms at all as well, I’m not sure if the age difference between late-type spirals and elliptical galaxies, which I surmise to be fairly large given their stellar populations, is well represented enough in the redshift spread between the two types. I’ve read a few papers on how late-type spirals are systematically red-shifted, and it causes a definite (and commonly ignored, I imagine 🙂 bias, but still with significant enough redshift overlap that I can’t really see age being that much of a sole determinant of redshift.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
It would imply, I think, yet another mechanism or variation that produces redshift: youth of ejected material plus original age of the matter/energy no matter what its state. In other words, quasars would have a certain redshift because the energy/matter ancestry they came from was the same age as ours (but took so many billion years to radiate here), and an additional redshift because it was newly reformed as matter.

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
But wouldn’t this work to the wrong direction? I mean that this would create even more diversity to the redshifts, so we would end up worse situation with redshift distance relation than with all galaxies simply starting with certain redshift.

What I meant to imply in my scenario is that if you had a common origin of matter, the redshift would be based on the ‘absolute age’ of the matter that was emitting the radiation. Newly-created matter would reverse this redshift trend temporarily, “bucking the curve” as it were, but then with the increasing age of the object, it would rejoin the curve that reflected the matter’s true absolute age.

It would certainly cause a redshift-distance relationship, and explain the quasars’ excess redshift. That said, it’s more likely to be utter bunk 🙂

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
I agree. There is lot of stuff that needs clarification and that is one of the most outstanding issues, in my opinion.

Reasoned dissension has got to stop being a taboo subject 🙂

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
That said, most of the observations coming out of telescopes these days seem to be initially “hey, these look younger” followed by “oh god, there are things that look anomalously normal at that distance”, so evolution may not end up being a factor.

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
You might be right about that.

Ted Rusk, Mike Petersen and Nick White have my great thanks for tracking down links to such articles and posting them in the forums.

The constant surprise of the people being interviewed is often amusing 🙂

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
I’m not sure I understand you here, are you suggesting that the age of universe might be finite in static universe?

I wouldn’t say that’s my first choice, but if we don’t have any matter destruction, then you may have a finite age, but the strong disconnect in many cases between redshift-as-velocity (either of space or matter) makes an actual expansion of space seem silly, or at least extremely overstated. So if there’s a start, my vote would be for space already being there 🙂

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
Thanks, I didn’t know that there is this kind of explanation attempt. Btw, I think that you don’t need quantized redshifts to explain fingers of god effect, I think that simply existence of intrinsic redshift (with or without quantization) is enough to produce it.

I haven’t seen any anti or really much pro talk on virial theorem as an actual explanation of things. I’d like to see a skeptic take it on.

As to the Fingers of God, indeed, quantization is likely not as much at fault as distances based on redshift assumptions that are not reliable 🙂

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
I don’t think so, the amount of expansion in, say, Solar system would be so small that we wouldn’t have any chance of seeing it.

Perhaps the solar system is too small, but then again, how much verification do we have for the heliopause/interstellar winds theories of why the Voyager probes went off course? Of course, it may be that, or have other, equally mundane explanations, or even odd ones like having mismeasured the distance because there are some actual redshift effects even at that short distance making the probes appear at a different distance than they actually are 🙂

Not something you can run too many experiments on very quickly or cheaply 🙂

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
Same applies very well to you Richie, thanks for the compliment! 🙂

I call ’em as I see ’em, and you’re welcome 😉

— Ritchie Annand

Ari Jokimäki 2005-10-10 08:09:37

I more or less agree with your first comment.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
What I meant to imply in my scenario is that if you had a common origin of matter, the redshift would be based on the ‘absolute age’ of the matter that was emitting the radiation. Newly-created matter would reverse this redshift trend temporarily, “bucking the curve” as it were, but then with the increasing age of the object, it would rejoin the curve that reflected the matter’s true absolute age.

It would certainly cause a redshift-distance relationship, and explain the quasars’ excess redshift. That said, it’s more likely to be utter bunk 🙂

There’s one problem with that, or not so much a problem, but a strangeness. To produce redshift-distance relation with redshift decreasing with age, you need roughly linear decrease over large periods of time. But you, if I understood you correctly, suggest that at first the decrease follows either non-linear (or linear but much steeper decrease), and then it suddenly turns into linear (or less steep) decrease which creates the redshift-distance relation. That point where redshift decrease changes it’s nature is strange, at least if you can’t give any reason why it should work that way. My reasoning here is due to the fact that I don’t think it’s possible to do this kind of redshift decrease with a simple exponential decreasing, because I think it wouldn’t create linear enough decrease for the redshift-distance relation.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
Ted Rusk, Mike Petersen and Nick White have my great thanks for tracking down links to such articles and posting them in the forums.

Hear, hear!

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
The constant surprise of the people being interviewed is often amusing 🙂

True. There’s a lot of mixed signals coming out of these studies of cosmological evolution, some find signs of evolution, some find signs of non-evolution. I wonder what we could come up with if we would do a study on Local group with presumption that there should be signs of evolution inside Local group, would we get same kind of distribution of mixed signals, as they are getting from for example Hubble Deep Field?

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
I wouldn’t say that’s my first choice, but if we don’t have any matter destruction, then you may have a finite age, but the strong disconnect in many cases between redshift-as-velocity (either of space or matter) makes an actual expansion of space seem silly, or at least extremely overstated. So if there’s a start, my vote would be for space already being there 🙂

Well, I think there has to be some kind of matter destruction scheme ongoing. It might be just due to decay of matter if not anything else. If quasars are created out of new matter in nuclei of galaxies, then perhaps that new matter is created out of old matter that has fallen in to the nucleus.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
I haven’t seen any anti or really much pro talk on virial theorem as an actual explanation of things. I’d like to see a skeptic take it on.

I have to say that I didn’t understand that Wikipedia article, especially in the sense that how it is applied to the “Fingers of God” effect.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
Perhaps the solar system is too small, but then again, how much verification do we have for the heliopause/interstellar winds theories of why the Voyager probes went off course? Of course, it may be that, or have other, equally mundane explanations, or even odd ones like having mismeasured the distance because there are some actual redshift effects even at that short distance making the probes appear at a different distance than they actually are 🙂

Finding some kind of effect in the Solar System would mean that there is a need for a revision to the Big Bang theory, because expected effect really is so small that you shouldn’t be able to notice anything. Ned Wright writes: “Cooperstock et al. computes that the influence of the cosmological expansion on the Earth’s orbit around the Sun amounts to a growth by only one part in a septillion over the age of the Solar System”. He goes on: “Even on the much larger (million light year) scale of clusters of galaxies, the effect of the expansion of the Universe is 10 million times smaller than the gravitational binding of the cluster”.

Btw, I noticed that the thread becoming corrupted is probably a browser related issue, Netscape shows this thread correctly, but IE shows the text starting to migrate to the left.

Ritchie Annand 2005-10-24 12:03:35

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
There’s one problem with that, or not so much a problem, but a strangeness. To produce redshift-distance relation with redshift decreasing with age, you need roughly linear decrease over large periods of time. But you, if I understood you correctly, suggest that at first the decrease follows either non-linear (or linear but much steeper decrease), and then it suddenly turns into linear (or less steep) decrease which creates the redshift-distance relation. That point where redshift decrease changes it’s nature is strange, at least if you can’t give any reason why it should work that way. My reasoning here is due to the fact that I don’t think it’s possible to do this kind of redshift decrease with a simple exponential decreasing, because I think it wouldn’t create linear enough decrease for the redshift-distance relation.

Just sounding out some possibilities. I don’t know how to calculate whether ejected galaxies have an age difference that can be totally accounted for by their age in a ‘fireworks’ model. If it could, then there’s no need for my spurious “correction”.

Of course, I’m not really going to put my weight behind a fireworks model at the moment either 😉

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
True. There’s a lot of mixed signals coming out of these studies of cosmological evolution, some find signs of evolution, some find signs of non-evolution. I wonder what we could come up with if we would do a study on Local group with presumption that there should be signs of evolution inside Local group, would we get same kind of distribution of mixed signals, as they are getting from for example Hubble Deep Field?

It’s going to be a little hard when inclusion in a galactic group, especially the Local one, has a questionable cut-off point 🙂

Some rules behind change in the composition of galaxy groups would be an utter revolution in cosmology. BBT very likely has the age wrong in spades, but apart from that, it could give us some clue as to whether things are recycling or not. If we see an even mix of galaxy ages in clusters as far as our instruments can detect into the future, then it’s hard to come up with something other than recycling to explain it.

If we see things tending towards more and more Seyfert and super-Seyfert-like galaxy composition with fewer normal members towards one spot in the sky, then we have to revisit the “no privileged frame” idea somewhat, and it makes a fireworks-style scenario more likely.

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
Well, I think there has to be some kind of matter destruction scheme ongoing. It might be just due to decay of matter if not anything else. If quasars are created out of new matter in nuclei of galaxies, then perhaps that new matter is created out of old matter that has fallen in to the nucleus.

There are some possibilities there. Since quasar ejection seems extremely periodic, there might be some process that goes on past a certain critical point that rips old matter apart.

As a complete flight of fancy, perhaps our understanding of antimatter is incomplete at this point… we expect that if it’s out there, that it would be in great clumps, and we can’t explain the asymmetry very well, but perhaps matter is just the normal form, and antimatter is part of an energetic process past a certain energy that happens to reset matter back to hydrogen. From what I know of particle accelerators, the only matter creation events you get at nuclear masses and above are either mesons or proton-antiproton pairs – not even alpha particles.

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
I have to say that I didn’t understand that Wikipedia article, especially in the sense that how it is applied to the “Fingers of God” effect.

Me neither; I’ve yet to find a good layman’s explanation. I haven’t been through all of this paper, but I think this one look promising.

Again, it may be a matter of people needing to come up with a theory for something that does not actually happen, in order for the framework to work 😉

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
…”Cooperstock et al. computes that the influence of the cosmological expansion on the Earth’s orbit around the Sun amounts to a growth by only one part in a septillion over the age of the Solar System”. He goes on: “Even on the much larger (million light year) scale of clusters of galaxies, the effect of the expansion of the Universe is 10 million times smaller than the gravitational binding of the cluster”.

Good to find some estimates that an effect would have at certain scales. Well, there goes a good local test for a lensing effect 🙂

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
Btw, I noticed that the thread becoming corrupted is probably a browser related issue, Netscape shows this thread correctly, but IE shows the text starting to migrate to the left.

You know what? I figured it out. Well, it’s still confusing as to WHY this would be a problem – I’ll bring it to our webmaster’s attention 🙂 The a.css style for “message_block_quote” has a padding: 5px; That should work, but on IE it creeps. It works if changed to individual padding excluding padding- bottom. Go figure 🙂

— Ritchie Annand

Ari Jokimäki 2005-10-25 09:11:34

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
Just sounding out some possibilities.

Understood, and I salute you for that, Richie. It’s nevertheless an interesting possibility.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
I don’t know how to calculate whether ejected galaxies have an age difference that can be totally accounted for by their age in a ‘fireworks’ model. If it could, then there’s no need for my spurious “correction”.

I had a rethink on this. I think that what I said earlier is not a problem after all, there’s nothing strange in redshift first decreasing rapidly and then settling to a linear decrease. But the problem arises when the redshift approaches zero, because the approach toward zero redshift is linear, so we would expect it to continue past zero and we would get linearly increasing blueshift. We don’t see very blueshifted galaxies out there, so it looks like that redshift settles to zero. Of course we can just say that the redshift decrease just stops at zero, but to me that seems to be a magic event that a linearly progressing function would just stop at certain point.

But perhaps it happens so that first there’s your rapid decrease, then linear phase which then changes to exponential curve closing in to the zero. I’m sure that this could be achieved with some complex function. It’s just that all these events in the curve progression reminds me about the progression of the space expansion in the Big Bang theory (you know, inflation, steady, deceleration, acceleration…) and I don’t know if I want to construct something similar, as it seems a bit artificial to me. 🙂

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
Of course, I’m not really going to put my weight behind a fireworks model at the moment either 😉

Same here, not behind any model. I’m just satisfied getting familiar with the observations, never mind the theories. My current cosmological model is that there is no cosmological model, perhaps I should write a book about it, hmm… title might be “Grand Unified Non-theory”.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
Some rules behind change in the composition of galaxy groups would be an utter revolution in cosmology. BBT very likely has the age wrong in spades, but apart from that, it could give us some clue as to whether things are recycling or not. If we see an even mix of galaxy ages in clusters as far as our instruments can detect into the future, then it’s hard to come up with something other than recycling to explain it.

Good point. Of course, we could just keep on pushing the age of universe further and further to keep the BB alive.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
If we see things tending towards more and more Seyfert and super-Seyfert-like galaxy composition with fewer normal members towards one spot in the sky, then we have to revisit the “no privileged frame” idea somewhat, and it makes a fireworks-style scenario more likely.

Yes, at any case I think that there’s going to be some signs of evolution we would have to explain away (as it is claimed that there’s lot of evidence for the cosmic evolution).

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
There are some possibilities there. Since quasar ejection seems extremely periodic, there might be some process that goes on past a certain critical point that rips old matter apart.

Why periodic? I don’t recall seeing that suggested.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
As a complete flight of fancy, perhaps our understanding of antimatter is incomplete at this point… we expect that if it’s out there, that it would be in great clumps, and we can’t explain the asymmetry very well, but perhaps matter is just the normal form, and antimatter is part of an energetic process past a certain energy that happens to reset matter back to hydrogen. From what I know of particle accelerators, the only matter creation events you get at nuclear masses and above are either mesons or proton-antiproton pairs – not even alpha particles.

I don’t know enough about particle physics to say anything to this. I gained a certain amount of distaste for the whole field after getting familiar with Copenhagen interpretation. 😉

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
Me neither; I’ve yet to find a good layman’s explanation. I haven’t been through all of this paper, but I think this one look promising.

Again, it may be a matter of people needing to come up with a theory for something that does not actually happen, in order for the framework to work 😉

Well, yes it seems so. Although I didn’t read it thoroughly yet, but it seems to offer the peculiar velocities as the answer. I’m under the impression that the FOG-effect is way too large to be explained by peculiar velocities.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
You know what? I figured it out. Well, it’s still confusing as to WHY this would be a problem – I’ll bring it to our webmaster’s attention 🙂 The a.css style for “message_block_quote” has a padding: 5px; That should work, but on IE it creeps. It works if changed to individual padding excluding padding- bottom. Go figure 🙂

…[applauds]… I noticed your post about it, is it really happening only in threads I’m involved with?

Ritchie Annand 2005-10-26 11:50:02

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
I had a rethink on this. I think that what I said earlier is not a problem after all, there’s nothing strange in redshift first decreasing rapidly and then settling to a linear decrease. But the problem arises when the redshift approaches zero, because the approach toward zero redshift is linear, so we would expect it to continue past zero and we would get linearly increasing blueshift. We don’t see very blueshifted galaxies out there, so it looks like that redshift settles to zero. Of course we can just say that the redshift decrease just stops at zero, but to me that seems to be a magic event that a linearly progressing function would just stop at certain point.

I don’t know… it’s always possible that the blueshifted galaxies, perhaps everything in the ‘Great Attractor’, are older than us even including the travel time of the light to get to us 🙂

But perhaps it happens so that first there’s your rapid decrease, then linear phase which then changes to exponential curve closing in to the zero. I’m sure that this could be achieved with some complex function. It’s just that all these events in the curve progression reminds me about the progression of the space expansion in the Big Bang theory (you know, inflation, steady, deceleration, acceleration…) and I don’t know if I want to construct something similar, as it seems a bit artificial to me. 🙂

Oh god, please don’t have multi-curve functions as a first guess! Auuugh, inflation theor… 🙂

Same here, not behind any model. I’m just satisfied getting familiar with the observations, never mind the theories. My current cosmological model is that there is no cosmological model, perhaps I should write a book about it, hmm… title might be “Grand Unified Non-theory”.

You know how hard it is to get expensive galaxy-probing telescopes built based on a theory that there’s nothing out there? 🙂

I like the way Kuhn talked about things… you have to have some sort of paradigm to test things against, even if it’s wrong. That said, the ‘ scientific revolution’/’paradigm-busting’ part takes one heck of a frustratingly long time 🙂

Good point. Of course, we could just keep on pushing the age of universe further and further to keep the BB alive.

You know that’s going to be the default position if redshift directly correlating with actual/expandatory velocity starts to shimmy or fall 🙂

Yes, at any case I think that there’s going to be some signs of evolution we would have to explain away (as it is claimed that there’s lot of evidence for the cosmic evolution).

I’m not so sure about that – a lot of evolutionary signs seem to disappear when more powerful telescopes get involved or the observation time is increased. That said, everyone is also just looking for galaxies seeming younger regardless of which direction they look. It’d be a pretty good insult if things were actually only younger in one direction 🙂

Bah, you never know what we’re going to find out there if we keep looking harder, so keep building those telescopes!

Why periodic? I don’t recall seeing that suggested.

Ah, periodic wasn’t the right word. What would suffice properly? Ah yes, episodic is what I really meant. Since quasars seem to be emitted with great time lags in-between, it’s a strong possibility that the process requires some threshold or critical conditions to occur. It could be mass buildup in the center, or a magnetic bottle forming or bursting… who knows?

I don’t know enough about particle physics to say anything to this. I gained a certain amount of distaste for the whole field after getting familiar with Copenhagen interpretation. 😉

Oh, I hate the freaking Copenhagen interpretation. It really feels far too much like saying “the math will do us just fine forever; there’s no possibility of peering behind the curtains, so why bother?” Yeah, so full of promise for the future 😉

Still, I reserve the most sulf’ry flatuence for those who do things like “we don’t understand quantum mechanics, we don’t understand consciousness, therefore consciousness exists and is explainable only in the mysteeeerious quantum mechanical world. Ooogity boogity boo!

Actually, I encountered some interesting things in particle physics when I went looking. I have quiet a few books from the 80’s and 90’s, but the interesting things I came across lately were things like: sure, energy can create particles, but it appears that you actually need a close encounter with a charged particle to do it (why?). Another surprise was to find out that no matter how much energy you pumped in, you could never produce any normal matter more complicated than proton-antiproton pairs. It’s either smaller particles, mesons and the like heavier than two protons, and proton-antiproton pairs.

So you would never get anything higher than hydrogen or hydrogen ions directly out of energy->matter conversions. Antiprotons attacking other nuclei might catalyze a reformation into energy, then back to hydrogen/protons.

It’s just a thought, ‘cos I liked your suggestion, and we haven’t heard hide nor hair of a decent recycling explanation. I don’t know how Arp and Narlikar’s ever-increasing mass stops its march towards infinite heaviness 🙂

Well, yes it seems so. Although I didn’t read it thoroughly yet, but it seems to offer the peculiar velocities as the answer. I’m under the impression that the FOG-effect is way too large to be explained by peculiar velocities.

I haven’t seen anything definitive. It seems a little like dark matter, that when you run the numbers, you come up short, but if you cook it up for more layman or the benefit of sympathizers and neglect any factor of 5 disparities, it becomes the truth 😉 I just wish I could see a proof and a rebuttal 🙂

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
…[applauds]… I noticed your post about it, is it really happening only in threads I’m involved with?

I don’t know – I went looking for other threads, and I think we’re the only ones with the full-on blockquoting habit, so we truly notice it (well, we only notice it when we use IE 🙂

I haven’t tried it yet, but it seems so terribly unlikely that IE would have a hissyfit over an ä. Maybe the browser has a personal vendetta. Care to share? 😉

— Ritchie Annand

Ritchie Annand 2005-10-27 08:40:12

You know what? It might be a good idea to reply in a new forum posting so that we get front page billing again – *chortle* 🙂

— Ritchie

Lost haltonarp.com discussions – Fermi’s Paradox and Arpian Cosmology

This is part of a reconstruction of some of the discussions that went on in the discussion board of haltonarp.com. Few years ago the site was reconstructed and the discussions went offline. They haven’t been seen since until now.

Fermi’s Paradox and Arpian Cosmology

nick white 2005-02-08 22:42:23

Has anyone ever pondered whether Arpian cosmology has something to say about Fermi’s Paradox or not? I would be interested to hear your opinions. http://seti.astrobio.net/news/article105.html

Does Arpian cosmology lead to the conclusion that humans are the front runners in space travel? Or does it not put such heavy constraints on such matters. Should we have expected to see ET by now in an Arpian cosmos? Regards!

Ari Jokimäki 2005-02-09 08:00:28
When you colonize a galaxy, do you colonize every planet of every solar system?

When do you colonize a galaxy? Is 10 billion years old galaxy old enough to be colonized? Or is it too old for staying, perhaps everyone are gone already?

Is Earth appealing to other civilizations? Atmosphere of the Earth is filled with oxygen, which is quite dangerous gas because it is very reactive. Is life on Earth special because it can utilize oxygen, or is oxygen utilization universal feature of life?

Is curiosity universal feature of life? Maybe most civilizations don’t ever leave their home planet even if they would have the capability to do so.

Has the Earth been colonized already? Is it best way to colonize a planet by planting a seed of life there and wait for it to evolve, and then contact the place after 5 billion years?

If colonization is not going to happen, then it is a question about how long period of time there is on average between visits from other civilizations. In that case we are dealing with average distance between civilization, average lifetime of civilization, etc.

Ritchie Annand 2005-02-09 09:59:02

Quoting nick white:
Has anyone ever pondered whether Arpian cosmology has something to say about Fermi’s Paradox or not? I would be interested to hear your opinions. http://seti.astrobio.net/news/article105.html

Does Arpian cosmology lead to the conclusion that humans are the front runners in space travel? Or does it not put such heavy constraints on such matters. Should we have expected to see ET by now in an Arpian cosmos? Regards!

Given the way humans spread, and the rate at which that spread is increasing, it might not be unreasonable to assume that we could be the first intelligent life… in our galaxy at least. That’s assuming a diaspora, and the math would seem to indicate intelligent life would have spread in this time.

However, if they were either not given to colonization, or the spread was really slow, then we haven’t a hope of detecting them unless they’re looking – long distance communication has tended towards the undecipherable even here on Earth in the short time we’ve had it.

We’ve also tended to slow down population growth as our species matures. Certainly there will be a bit of a frontier attitude helping spread population on new planets, but that only goes so far. If no FTL communications end up being possible, then maintaining a government over such vast distances might be problematic – which also might serve to limit the spread of a species (although that does shut the door on some of our science fiction fantasies 🙂

More sinisterly, if Arp’s variable mass hypothesis was in effect, would that end up being inimical to life over time? 😉

Just speculating 🙂

— Ritchie

nick white 2005-02-09 20:46:38

Hi all. If we consider all the Sun-like stars in the Galaxy which are 500 million years *older* than the Sun (for argument’s sake), and a small fraction harbour life, then I think it’s reasonable that some of that life must be able to move around the Galaxy. There are many many possible reasons for why we’re unaware of them but all those reasons have to mop up all the civilisations possibly out there, so as to obscure them from us, as it were. On balance it seems to me, given the possible numbers out there, that one, and that’s all it takes, just one, civilisation has been all over this Galaxy. The timescales are very favourable.

A drastic way out of this situation is to argue that we’re the only ones here. I’m not aware of any fundemental physical reason as to why such travel can’t be undertaken, but as pointed out above, could Arpian cosmology that involves variable mass put a timescale on how long life can last in the Galaxy once it’s got going? More generally, if we think along the lines of anthropic principles, does us being here say something about our universe that allows us to constrain Arp’s ideas in some way?

Edward Duffy 2005-02-13 02:25:10

Given the fractal nature of everything else in the universe I don’t think it’s outside the realm of possibility that life evolves in a somewhat parallel manner throughout the galaxy. The fact that we haven’t come across any yet may be because we are at the forefront of technological development, along with many others. If so, first contact will likely cause a frantic tech race among civilizations and things will develop quite rapidly for a while. That, or we’re the backwater ignoramouses of the galaxy, interesting to observe, but not to strike up a conversation with.

nick white 2005-02-15 10:47:35

Edward, seems odd to me though if ET has been out there for millions of years that we haven’t picked up signs of them, ie. signals not actually intended for us. When I started this thread I hadn’t read the new Arp articles on this site, one of which discusses briefly this issue – would seem Arp thinks we’re unlikely to recognise signals from advanced civilisations. However, there’s surely a range of intelligence out there, some of which we could pick up on. Only one civilisation is needed to take a passing interest in Earth.

The trick is to look/send signals which are sufficiently similar to those created by natural phenomena that someone might be tuning in, but not too similar so that we actually think the signal is natural. For example, with hind sight, initially thinking pulsars were ET signals was a mistake because what ET would send a signal that is so similar in appearance to that of a pulsar? Somebody somewhere would be saying “Don’t transmit that, they’ll just think it’s a pulsar”.

I briefly had a *wild* idea that some quasars might be the result of continuously pumped lasers being beamed in our direction – inspired by ideas concerning some quasars being in our galaxy (laser stars) and those concerning ET communication using laser pulses. I then thought, “Yeah, but then the signal would just look like an extra-galactic quasar, so what’s the point?”.

ted rusk 2005-02-16 16:06:37

When we study an ant colony, we do not attempt to contact the queen; any civilization millions of years older than we would likely take this view. But it is quality of intelligence, not quantity, that really matters. A whale has a brain the size of a minivan, but we do not talk with them, and they’re right here. Now, the fundamental difference between us and whales is that they float around in an all-encompassing ocean, singing songs and sucking up krill, practically invulnerable due to their great size, while we are tiny little surface dwellers; not strong, not fast, not fierce, not armoured, substandard physical senses and so on; subject to a far greater range of calamities than ocean-dwellers, needing to find food, shelter, clothing, transportation, extended education, defence, entertainment, etc., etc. Whales in their imperious majesty need none of these things, and so we have little in common and they basically ignore us. But it is our very neediness which has caused us to develop an advanced material culture, a seeking curiousity, and most of all modes of co-operation; these are the qualities which truly define us, and which make possible any kind of cosmic exploration. Whether ET is like us or like whales will be entirely dependent on these environment-driven factors. Water, oxygen, sililcates and so on are ubiquitous, but they do not always function the same way. On Titan, for instance, methane is water and water is rock. Considering the vast distances and near-infinite possibillities for evolution, it is not perhaps so surprising we have not found our cosmic doppelgangers, especially since we have only been looking less than fifty years…

nick white 2005-02-19 16:38:14

Ted, at face value the odds still look favourable that we’d see some sign of some intelligence out there. As I keep stressing, it only takes one to show sufficient interest, even if the relationship ends up like that between man and dog, with us on the wrong end of the stick. We’ve only been flying for around 100 years and have already reached the Moon, although grabted millions of years have passed before we got that far. A similar life form to us which is only a few tens of thousands years more “advanced” would perhaps be sufficiently similar to ourselves as to be interested in us. I use the word advance with some caution since it’s easy to slip up and see evolution as a means of permanent advancement, rather than an adaptation process.

If evolution contains a convergent aspect to it, as outlined here regarding eyes, http://www.karger.com/gazette/64/fernald/art_1_5.htm then maybe aliens will not be so different from us.

BTW, I’m no closer to knowing whether Arp’s cosmology offers a fundemental stumbling block to communication with ET.

Lost haltonarp.com discussions – Questions about Arpian cosmology

This is part of a reconstruction of some of the discussions that went on in the discussion board of haltonarp.com. Few years ago the site was reconstructed and the discussions went offline. They haven’t been seen since until now.

Questions about Arpian cosmology

Mike Cogan 2005-05-16 15:40:55
Hi everyone!
I recently read “Kicking the Sacred Cow” by James P. Hogan. He has a section which summarizes some of the observations and implications of those obsevations made by Halton Arp. I found it extremely interesting and will be looking for his books as soon as I can get to a good library (there are none around here). Big Bang cosmology is generating more and more dubious explanations for observed phenomena as time goes on.
I have some questions about Arp’s universe, and have so far been unable to find answers elsewhere. I thought I’d try here — maybe someone here can help me. Thanks in advance.
1. I’m having a bit of trouble understanding the minor axis ejection concept. Using the standard model of our own galaxy as an example, it seems that Arp’s observations show quasars to be ejected in the plane of the galactic disc, along opposite spiral arms….is this correct or am I missing something? Are all spirals then ejecting quasars? Ejection at the axis of rotation would seem to make more sense (less resistance), so maybe I’m reading the descriptions wrong?
2. Arp’s universe is classified as a steady-state universe. It would seem to me that for a steady-state universe, matter needs to be destroyed as well as created. Otherwise, extrapolations into the past would contain less and less matter, beginning in a single primordial object (whether Seyfert analog or quasar). So where is the mechanism and/or observation of matter being destroyed?
3. The Virgo and Fornax superclusters are mentioned as pairs. Where (approximately) would they have been ejected from?
4. Has anyone created a 3-D map for the local supercluster as observed in Arp’s universe for the mathematically challenged of us?
5. There seem to be two different “life-cycles” for ejected quasars, according to Arp’s diagram. Is there a observed reason some quasars eventually become companion galaxies and others become BL LAC before breaking up into a cluster of galaxies? What is the proportion, or the chance, of ejected quasars developing into one or the other?
6. Have all of the observed galaxies today gone through an active stage in which they eject quasars, or is this something that happens to only a proportion of quasars in the process of becoming galaxies?
7. Mass increases with age in Arp’s universe. What consequences does this have for the oldest objects? Would they undergo gravitational collapse?
8. Is there any indication of how long it takes for a newly created quasar to reduce its redshift? Does this happen at a steady rate or an exponential one? How long would it take a newborn quasar to settle down into, say, our galaxy at the present time?
9. Is there any indication of how long ago the Virgo Supercluster would have consisted of a single central Seyfert type galaxy?
10. Were the Milky Way’s companion galaxies and globular clusters then ejected from the Milky Way? Is this a process that is continuing today?

Ari Jokimäki 2005-05-17 08:42:31
Hi Mike!

Good set of questions you have there! Maybe too good, I think that many of them don’t have answers yet.

Quoting Mike Cogan:
I recently read “Kicking the Sacred Cow” by James P. Hogan. He has a section which summarizes some of the observations and implications of those obsevations made by Halton Arp. I found it extremely interesting and will be looking for his books as soon as I can get to a good library (there are none around here).

Many of Dr. Arp’s published papers are online, you can find them from NASA ADS, just write “Arp” to the “Authors”-box and click “send query”. Another place is arXiv.org’s astro-ph where you can access newer papers that haven’t been published yet. Many of the papers are quite readable even for a layman. Meanwhile I’ll have a go with your questions, but don’t get your hopes up, I’m no expert.

Quoting Mike Cogan:
1. I’m having a bit of trouble understanding the minor axis ejection concept. Using the standard model of our own galaxy as an example, it seems that Arp’s observations show quasars to be ejected in the plane of the galactic disc, along opposite spiral arms….is this correct or am I missing something? Are all spirals then ejecting quasars? Ejection at the axis of rotation would seem to make more sense (less resistance), so maybe I’m reading the descriptions wrong?

Other parts of this question I don’t know, but I’m under the impression that ejections occur only in galaxies that have active nucleus (AGN).

Quoting Mike Cogan:
2. Arp’s universe is classified as a steady-state universe. It would seem to me that for a steady-state universe, matter needs to be destroyed as well as created. Otherwise, extrapolations into the past would contain less and less matter, beginning in a single primordial object (whether Seyfert analog or quasar). So where is the mechanism and/or observation of matter being destroyed?

Well, actually Arp’s universe is classified as a static universe. This term is continuously been confused with steady state universe, but they are different. In steady state universe space expands and trace amounts of matter is created in extragalactic space (you might have heard of this, as this is the model of the universe that Fred Hoyle was advocating). In static universe space doesn’t expand.

I believe that the matter creation/destruction mechanism is said to be in the cores of active galaxies, hence the ejections of quasars made of new matter, but I’m not sure about this.

On a general level, there is two possibilities for this. 1: Matter is transformed to energy and energy is then transformed back to matter. 2: Matter/energy is destroyed altogether and new matter/energy is created. Problem with 2 is that how do you create same amount of matter/energy as you destroy, probably the same process should handle both creation and destruction. Problem with 1 might be entropy, which is said to increase all the time, so either universe is a perpetual machine (overall entropy would be constant in this case) or there is some new matter/energy created.

Questions 3-5: Sorry, I don’t know.

Quoting Mike Cogan:
6. Have all of the observed galaxies today gone through an active stage in which they eject quasars, or is this something that happens to only a proportion of quasars in the process of becoming galaxies?

I don’t know, but I quess they have gone through the active stage, because I think that all objects should be in on the recycling process.

Quoting Mike Cogan:
7. Mass increases with age in Arp’s universe. What consequences does this have for the oldest objects? Would they undergo gravitational collapse?

Perhaps there is a upper limit to mass increase, some kind of saturation point?

Question 8: Sorry, I don’t know.

Quoting Mike Cogan:
9. Is there any indication of how long ago the Virgo Supercluster would have consisted of a single central Seyfert type galaxy?

In principle it would be possible to calculate this, but you should know all the ejections that have took place there, which is a very difficult thing to establish. Also you need to know the ejection velocity, and there are also gravitational effects distorting the situation. So, I’m quite sure that there currently is no such indication.

Quoting Mike Cogan:
10. Were the Milky Way’s companion galaxies and globular clusters then ejected from the Milky Way? Is this a process that is continuing today?

I’m not sure if globular clusters are considered ejected objects, but it is possible that Milky Way has been ejecting at some point. If ejections occur only in galaxies having AGN, and if Milky Way has an AGN, then perhaps it is still going on. But I doubt it, though.

Well, I didn’t help much. 🙂 You must understand that Arp’s model is a work in progress, there are lot of unanswered questions. But be sure to check up the papers, I’m sure you’ll find them interesting.

Ritchie Annand 2005-05-17 09:02:51

Quoting Mike Cogan:
Hi everyone!

I recently read “Kicking the Sacred Cow” by James P. Hogan. He has a section which summarizes some of the observations and implications of those obsevations made by Halton Arp. I found it extremely interesting and will be looking for his books as soon as I can get to a good library (there are none around here). Big Bang cosmology is generating more and more dubious explanations for observed phenomena as time goes on.

Sounds like an interesting book. I’m a little worried at one review that said he considers part-positively Intelligent Design – just came off a big rant at a Humphries supporter myself, but the lack of empirical cross-checking in many fields today, especially in the ‘harder-to-check’ subjects, is… disconcerting. I’ll have to pick up a copy 🙂

I have some questions about Arp’s universe, and have so far been unable to find answers elsewhere. I thought I’d try here — maybe someone here can help me. Thanks in advance.

Well, we’ll give it a good college try – there are some things that are still open to interpretation.

1. I’m having a bit of trouble understanding the minor axis ejection concept. Using the standard model of our own galaxy as an example, it seems that Arp’s observations show quasars to be ejected in the plane of the galactic disc, along opposite spiral arms….is this correct or am I missing something? Are all spirals then ejecting quasars? Ejection at the axis of rotation would seem to make more sense (less resistance), so maybe I’m reading the descriptions wrong?

From his Seeing Red, I gather that the implication is that both kinds of ejection occur. Most of the quasar ejections you see would be ejections vertically out of the core, but ejections on the minor axis don’t make it out of the disc.

I can imagine spiral arms forming out of this phenomenon, but Arp doesn’t spend time on the subject. He does have some diagrams of what looks like ‘captured’ quasars – symmetric blobs in the disc itself. I can track down the objects if you’re interested.

2. Arp’s universe is classified as a steady-state universe. It would seem to me that for a steady-state universe, matter needs to be destroyed as well as created. Otherwise, extrapolations into the past would contain less and less matter, beginning in a single primordial object (whether Seyfert analog or quasar). So where is the mechanism and/or observation of matter being destroyed?

We were discussing that over in the Cosmogony forum, actually 🙂 I’m not sure I agree with Arp and Narlikar’s variable mass hypothesis, personally, but I can’t discount it out of hand. It needs a reverse process. Either that, or the universe’s age is finite, and will eventually suffer a “mass death” 🙂

3. The Virgo and Fornax superclusters are mentioned as pairs. Where (approximately) would they have been ejected from?

I didn’t see anything actually relating the two, save for showing that identical processes were operating in each. Haven’t heard of them being pairs in that sense, but I don’t know all of Arp’s works.

4. Has anyone created a 3-D map for the local supercluster as observed in Arp’s universe for the mathematically challenged of us?

Now that would be wonderful!

I suppose someone could compile it together from the SIMBAD database, but there are a number of objects that, by redshift, aren’t conventionally considered part of the local supercluster.

5. There seem to be two different “life-cycles” for ejected quasars, according to Arp’s diagram. Is there a observed reason some quasars eventually become companion galaxies and others become BL LAC before breaking up into a cluster of galaxies? What is the proportion, or the chance, of ejected quasars developing into one or the other?

I don’t know as we’ve observed enough objects to give that a definite answer. It is still, as far as I know, tough to get telescope time on objects with discrepant objects 🙂

6. Have all of the observed galaxies today gone through an active stage in which they eject quasars, or is this something that happens to only a proportion of quasars in the process of becoming galaxies?

I don’t think so. As far as I’ve been able to tell, some quasars just smoothly go on to age to be normal galaxies, and further ejections are actually made by the original parent galaxy.

7. Mass increases with age in Arp’s universe. What consequences does this have for the oldest objects? Would they undergo gravitational collapse?

Perhaps. What would such a final phase look like, though, if we wanted to look for it?

8. Is there any indication of how long it takes for a newly created quasar to reduce its redshift? Does this happen at a steady rate or an exponential one? How long would it take a newborn quasar to settle down into, say, our galaxy at the present time?

That’s a calculation I can’t make off the top of my head 🙂 The ejections are supposed to start with a velocity of about 0.1c and eventually slow down… perhaps to around 0.0001c (300 km/s – at least that’s the figure for normal galactic velocities I remember) Could take a while.

9. Is there any indication of how long ago the Virgo Supercluster would have consisted of a single central Seyfert type galaxy?

That follows from your last question. I’d also be interested to know 🙂

Then, of course, come the question… “what came before that?”

I think we’ll need to track down the ‘recycling mechanism’, which we should be able to see in action in the sky somewhere, is, and we’ll have a better handle on that question 🙂

10. Were the Milky Way’s companion galaxies and globular clusters then ejected from the Milky Way? Is this a process that is continuing today?

I’m not entirely sure precisely how globular clusters relate to the Milky Way. Andromeda is more likely to be a progenitor galaxy. The Magellanic Clouds may be children.

You raise good questions. Sorry that I’m too much on the layman side to give you the hard data you need, but between here and the Bad Astronomy boards, you may find what you’re looking for. Pay special attention to David Russell; he’s published a few very good papers on topics in this area.

Welcome aboard!:)

— Ritchie