Interacting ring galaxies designated as Arp 147. Credit: NASA, ESA,
                            and M. Livio (STScI)

                        Faster Than Light: Part Two
                                May 15, 2009
                                      
    If distance calculations based on redshift are inaccurate, what does
    that mean for the consensus opinion about the age or the size of the
                                 Universe?

   In the 1960s astronomers discovered quasi-stellar objects, better
   known as quasars. They have extremely large redshifts, implying that
   they are located near the farthest edge of the observable Universe.
   Quasars are referred to as "quasi-stellar" because they are relatively
   small, often little more than a light-year in apparent diameter, at
   their assumed distance, yet emit so much energy that they are thought
   to be the most powerful continuously radiant objects in the Universe.
   The only other active energy sources detectable at such vast distances
   are gamma ray bursters (GRB). However, GRBs last for mere minutes,
   whereas quasars shine continuously in output. They remain as bright as
   when then were first discovered.

   Some astronomers soon found that many quasars are associated with
   spiral galaxies (like M82) and appear to be near the galaxy instead of
   billions of light-years distant. Based on other data, such as quasars'
   anomalous apparent brightness when compared with their redshifts,
   Hubble's expanding Universe theory was called into question.
   Long before the quasar problem arose, though, Edwin Hubble himself was
   moved to suggest that inflation might not have taken place in the
   "early" Universe. He thought that new observational data was necessary
   in order to decide whether it was definitive. In 1947, he was waiting
   for the new 200-inch telescope at Mt. Palomar to be built:

   "It seems likely that redshift may not be due to an expanding
   Universe, and much of the speculations on the structure of the
   universe may require re-examination... We may predict with confidence
   that the 200-inch will tell us whether the red-shifts must be accepted
   as evidence of a rapidly expanding Universe, or attributed to some new
   principle of nature." (Publications of the Astronomical Society of the
   Pacific Vol. 59, No. 349).

   Unfortunately, nothing definitive has resulted from astronomers
   working with the Hale telescope or the many space-borne telescopes
   that have been launched since then. Instead, redshift and inflation
   have become something of a dogma among the astronomical community and
   new, ever more arcane mathematical excursions have been added to the
   mix, as was discussed in part one.

   Although many observations contradict the consensus view, and have
   been doing so for 40 years or more, those data are ignored or
   marginalized. High redshift quasars, as previously mentioned, are
   found in axial alignment with galaxies that possess substantially
   lower redshift. Indeed, they are sometimes connected to those lower
   redshift galaxies by "bridges" of luminous material.

   Halton Arp was the lone voice among a crowd of scientists who
   conformed to the standard Big Bang model when he began to publish
   papers that did not demonstrate that inflation--or the Big Bang
   hypothesis--was valid. As Edwin Hubble predicted, Arp's research using
   the 200-inch Hale reflector demonstrated "some new principle of
   nature."

   One of the more interesting images that substantiates the need for a
   revised cosmology is NGC 4319 and its companion quasar, Markarian 205.
   Arp called attention to the fact that the lower redshift galaxy is
   physically connected to the higher redshift quasar. A filament between
   the two objects violates the measured distances because no such
   connection should be possible. After all, NGC 4319 (from redshift
   calculations) is said to be about 600 million light-years from Earth,
   while Markarian 205 is around a billion light-years away.
   If these objects are physically connected they must reside locally
   with each other at the same distance from Earth. The discrepancy in
   their redshifts has to be from some other factor not related to their
   distances--there must be something intrinsic to their makeup that
   leads to the deviation.

   Arp assembled a Catalog of Discrepant Redshift Associations that
   describes anomalous structure or physical links among objects with
   radically different redshifts. Some of the observations show quasar
   pairs being ejected in opposite directions from active galaxies. This
   led to the so-called ejection model of galaxy formation. In brief,
   high redshift quasars around galaxies, such as the aforementioned M82,
   are the "daughters" of the mature galaxy. Their various redshifts do
   not indicate distance, but age from the time of ejection.

   Arp speculates that the redshift measurement of quasars is composed
   not of a velocity value alone, but also depends on what he calls
   "intrinsic redshift." Intrinsic redshift is a property of matter, like
   mass or charge, and can change over time. According to his theory,
   when quasars are ejected from a parent galaxy they possess a high
   intrinsic redshift, z = 2 or greater.

   As the quasars move away from their origin within the galactic
   nucleus, their redshift properties begin to decrease until they reach
   somewhere near z = 0.3. At that point, the quasar resembles a galaxy,
   albeit a small one. The inertial moment of ejection is eventually
   overcome and the mass of the quasar increases while the speed of
   ejection decreases, until it may become a companion galaxy. It is in
   that way that galaxies form and age, evolving from highly redshifted
   quasars, to small irregular galaxies, and then into larger barred
   spirals.

   Other examples of fast-moving quasars in front of slower moving
   galaxies, or connected to them with luminous filaments, have been
   observed. NGC 7603, for instance, a distorted spiral galaxy with a
   single arm, is joined by that arm to a smaller companion with a much
   higher redshift. Within the bright material of the arm are two other
   objects, each with redshifts different from the galaxy pair.

   There is nothing conclusive in the mainstream scientific journals
   about Arp's data as of this writing. His telescope time was cut off
   many years ago by the decision makers who allot that time to various
   research groups. His revelations concerning problems with consensus
   dogma were considered too intolerable, so he was summarily censured by
   his peers. However, the evidence he continues to gather and promote
   ought to make us stop and think: is the Big Bang dead? How big and how
   old is the Universe if redshift readings are not reliable indicators
   of distance?

   Stephen Smith