Newsgroup: it.discussioni.misteri
Titolo: correzione - Redshift controversy

In effetti, (non e' un truccaccio) , ho scambiato l'editore per
l'autore. Ma l'errore e' utile perche' consente di sapere che gli
autori erano ben sei "eminenti" dubbiosi della teoria del
Big Bang e non il solo Arp.
 
https://books.google.it/books?id=WTUH9Pe4j54C&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=The+redshift+controversy
"+-+di+W.+A.+Benjamin+1973&source=bl&ots=ZXhR2gSJEz&sig=hNKRnU8vuB0eR-bYSULWreK9cmU&hl=it&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjq5_Wg_MzKAhUCxxQKHVvzBJMQ6AEIIDAA#v=onepage&q=The%20redshift%20controversy%22%20-%20di%20W.%20A.%20Benjamin%201973&f=false
 
 
Nel tempo si sono aggiunti molti altri dubbi:
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
 
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/quasars/
 
 
The Cosmological Constant and the Redshift of Quasars
 
( Last checked 2011/02/14 - The estate of Paul Marmet )
 
Return to: List of Papers on the Web
Go to: Frequently Asked Questions
 
Paul Marmet
 
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
 
<><><><><><><><><><>
 
Abstract
 
We discuss how the cosmological constant that is used in Einstein's model 
has an equivalent in the Big Bang model.  That model requires a critical 
density of matter that leads to the problem of dark matter.  We show that 
data on new cosmological structure and on a non-Doppler redshift mechanism 
lead to an unlimited and ageless universe.  We also explain why quasars 
appear to be unusual objects and have a large redshift while being 
physically much closer to us than usually claimed.  One can see that their 
luminosity is about the same as standard galaxies and not as millions of 
galaxies as believed previously.  One can also explain why the luminosity 
distance relationship observed in galaxies is not observed in quasars.
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 once-favored model explaining how structures 
are formed in the Universe, new theories are jockeying in a cosmological 
free-for-all".
 
Let us compare some models.  The steady-state model uses "the perfect 
cosmological principle," in which the universe presents the same large-scale 
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 GC, 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 
LC.  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 non-zero 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 space-time 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 1028 cm.  This 
is a decrease of 1061 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 GC, is not considered to be a constant and varies by many 
more orders of magnitude, as will be seen in subsection V-A.
 
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 
Harvard-Smithsonian 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 61st digit), one cannot conceive that it 
is (relativity) greatly varying as a function of time or space.  This 
variation leads to new difficulties.
 
A. Non-Constancy 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 non-constancy of 
the Cavendish constant GC [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 GC was 
varying in time.  Dirac pointed out that the ratio between the age of the 
universe and the atomic unit of time (e2/mc3) 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, GC is continuously changing.  Dirac 
chose the equation:
(1)
 
Where Ho is the Hubble parameter and GC the Cavendish gravitational constant 
[2]. Many other models with changing G have been suggested.  For example, 
the Dicke-Brans-Jordan theory [4] assumes that the gravitational constant 
depends on where and when the experiment is performed (as well as on mass 
and the radius of the gravitational source). Other models (of a change of 
the Cavendish constant) were studied[14]. Ni's theory of gravity [15] and 
other two-tensor or vector-tensor theories [16] have preferred a "universal 
rest frame" and give a velocity dependence on the gravitational constant. 
Even very recently [17], the variation of G has been used in cosmology and 
particle physics to relate constants with space-time of ten dimensions. 
Wang [17] uses the equation (dG/G)@-10-11 per year.  The reader should 
realize how big this variation of 10-11 per year is in comparison with the 
required criticality of 10-61 seen in subsection IV-B.
 
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 Mass-Energy 
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 mass-energy 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/r2 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.  he 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/r2 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 non-zero 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/r2 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 light-years) 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 
light-years.
 
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 Steady-State 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 IV-c 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 
non-Doppler Red Shift [30].
It is based on the non-elastic collision of photons on atoms or molecules in 
space.  This non-Doppler Redshift has been successful in explaining a 
Redshift on the Sun [31], [32] and in many other observation[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 light-years.
 
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 non-detectable 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 H2 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®H2+hn). This mechanism of formation of H2 is highly probable during 
three-body collisions.   However, because of the strong binding energy of 
the atoms in H2 and due to the low temperature of the interstellar gas 
(»3K), two colliding H2 particles at 3 K do not have enough energy and will 
not dissociate back into atomic hydrogen atoms.  This illustrates how 
molecular hydrogen H2 is much more stable than H.  Of course, when these 
particles (H and H2) 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 H2.
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 H2 are located at 109.2 and 107.7 nm.  These three lines 
correspond to transitions B1Su-X1Su in states (0,0), (1,0) and (2,0). 
Thanks to the transparence of H2 one is able to view the universe at very 
large distances.  However, H2 cannot be detected by spectroscopic means. The 
only observable radiation from H2 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 (H2) is possibly the most transparent gas in 
the universe.
Furthermore one cannot argue that H2 does not exist in space because it 
would be dissociated by UV radiation.  If there were actually a large 
intensity of far-UV 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 far-UV 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 H2.  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 non-Doppler red shift.  It has been 
measured that more than one atom/cm3 of atomic hydrogen has been measured 
between stars inside our galaxy.  Due to the transparency of H2, there might 
be, on the average, the equivalent of 0.01 mol/cm3 of the much more abundent 
H2 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 
(K-Term) [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:
 
(2) to calculate the energy loss W, during the interaction of light with 
particles like hydrogen.  In this equation, a=Dv/Dt is the acceleration, e 
is the electron charge, Dv is the change of velocity due to momentum 
transfer, Dt is the time during which the electron is interacting (the 
coherence time of the interacting light), eo is the permittivity of vacuum, 
and c is the velocity of light in vacuum.
It is clear that this mechanism depends on the coherence time of the emitted 
radiation.   It is also known that the length of coherence of radiation in 
the case of blackbody radiation is a function of temperature T of the 
emitter.  The relative energy loss R per interaction is:
 
(3) One calculates [30], [35], that
 
(4) where M=e2h/(3peoc5me2C4), h is the Planck constant. Thus, M=2.73´10-21 
K-2
 
From this mechanism, it has been calculated that an average density of 0.01 
atom/cm3 is sufficient to produce a red shift equal to the Hubble parameter. 
In other words, it is no longer necessary to assume an expansion of the 
universe, because there is enough gas in the universe to produce the same 
red shift.  The calculations have been made using a typical effective 
temperature T of 50 000 K, compatible with the temperature of very bright 
stars in galaxies [30], [32].
 
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 X-ray range.  It 
is reported [39]¸ that there is: "a blue bump peaks somewhere in the extreme 
ultra violet and probably into the soft X-ray 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:
 
(5) Where R is the relative energy loss of photons and the subscripts Q and 
S refer to a quasar and a star respectively.
(6) One finds that the relative red shift (with respect to the star 
temperature of 50 000K) is equal to:
 
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 shift-distance 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 
shift-distance relationship is seriously defective in quasars.
 
B) The belief that gamma-ray 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 non-cosmological 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 shift-distance 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 unlimited-ageless 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. 
1106-1108. 1991.
[2] K. R. Lang, "Astrophysical Formulae", New York: Springer-Verlag, 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. 61-68, 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 post-Newtonian limits". Astrophys. 
J. Vol. 176, pp. 769-796, 1972.
[16] C. M. Will, "Relativistic Gravity in the Solar System, II: Anisotropy 
in the Newtonian Gravitational Constant", Astrophys. J. Vol. 169, pp. 
141-156, 1971; Also K. Nordvedt, Jr. and C. W. Will, "Conservation laws and 
Preferred Frames of Gravity", Astrophys. J. Vol. 177, pp. 775-792, 1972.
[17] J. Wang, "Astrophysical Constraints on the Gravitational Constant" 
Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 184, pp. 31-36, 1991.
[18] M. Milgrom, "A Modification of the Newtonian Dynamics as a Possible 
Alternative to the Hidden Mass Hypothesis", Astrophys. J. Vol. 270, pp. 
365-370, 1983.
[19] M. Milgrom, "A Modification of the Newtonian Dynamics: Implication for 
Galaxies"  Astrophys. J. Vol. 270, pp. 371-383, 1983.
[20] M. Milgrom, "A Modification of the Newtonian Dynamics: Implication for 
Galaxy Systems"  Astrophys. J. Vol. 270, pp. 384-389, 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. 35-39, 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. 28-30, 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" Merriam-Webster Inc. and Proximity 
Technology, 1987.
[27] W. D. MacMillan, "Some Mathematical Aspects of Cosmology", Science, 
Vol. 62, pp. 63-72, 1925.
[28] W. D. MacMillan, Astrophys. J. Vol. 48, p. 35. 1918.
[29] R. Schlegel, Steady State in Chicago, Vol. 26, No: 9 pp. 601-604, 1958.
[30] P. Marmet, "A New Non-Doppler Redshift"  Physics Essays, Vol. 1 pp. 
24-32, 1988.
[31] P. Marmet, "Red Shift of Spectral Lines in the Sun's Chromosphere", 
IEEE Trans, Plasma Sci., Vol. 17, No: 2, pp. 238-244, April 1989
[32] P. Marmet, "A New Non-Doppler Redshift",  Physics Department, 
Université Laval, Québec, Canada, pp. 64, 1981.
[33] P. Marmet, "Non-Doppler Redshift of some Galactic Objects", IEEE Trans. 
Plasma Sci. Vol. 18. No: 1, pp. 56-60, 1009.
[34] P. Marmet, "The Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death" 21st 
Century, Science and Technology, Vol. 3, No: 2, pp. 52-59, 1990.
[35] P. Marmet, "The Deceptive Illusion of the Big Bang Cosmology",  Physics 
in Canada, (Canadian Association of Physicists), Vol. 46, No: 5, pp. 97-101, 
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. 61-63, 1990.
[38] H. Arp. "Exploding the Big Bang Hypothesis", Physics Today, pp. 85-86, 
July 1991.
[39] B. J. Wilkes, "The Emerging Picture of Quasars" Astronomy, Vol. 19, pp. 
35-41, 1991.
[40] J. Narlikar, "What if the Big Bang Didn't Happen? New Scientist, pp. 
48-51, 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 Quasi-stellar 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. 958-964, 1992
Contact e-mail address.
Return to: List of Papers on the Web
Go to: Frequently Asked Questions
Return to Top of Page
<><><><><><><><><><><><> 
 
 

 l'autore.
 
ma dai ?  tu che fa un errore del genere ? incredibile .
 
-- 
DrMorbius