Yes. It is an attempt to explain what he has observed. There certainly could be other explanations.
If that hypothesis is correct then we pretty much have to throw out all of our physics to date. Stuff that we have tested and use every day.
I'm not sure I follow you here. The physics we use on a daily basis are germane to the environment that planet earth is traveling through. If we found ourselves in another part of the galaxy things might be different. There are certainly many areas where we couldn't even survive. It is an assumption on our part that the universe behaves exactly the same way at all locations. The plasma guys have some ideas in this area. What portion of our physical science would Arp's hypothesis invalidate?
If you use 3C273 as an example, a German microwave radio telescope shows that a colliding object is moving through another larger galaxy. Collisions create high energy radiations that explains why the quasars are radiating high energy wavelengths that I consider to account for their higher redshifths.
In an expanding universe how is it that galaxies can collide? Aren't we all supposed to be moving away from each other as a result of the Big Bang? How does a far distant quasar end up in front of a relatively close galaxy? I believe some of the galaxies in our local group are blue shifted. That would indicate we are moving towards each other. What caused the change in directions? On the other hand if redshift has something to do with age, then it would just indicate that we have some older companions. Perhaps our parent galaxy. I really don't know LeGrande, but I find the study stimulating and I appreciate the time you are taking to respond.
It is also an explanation that adequately accounts for Halton Arps 3 primary observations that he uses to support his hypothesis.
I don't think you are giving Arp a fair shake here. There are many more than 3 perculiar observations that have been made. His hypothesis is based as much on quantized redshift and relative location of galaxies and quasars throughout the universe.
We know that Quantum Mechanics and Relativity are incompatible. Both have rock solid theories and experimental evidence to back them up, and yet it is as if they are operating in different universes. That is where the real research is occurring today and when some Genius pops up and explains it all we will all go, "Of Course, it was obvious!"
That is a possibility and I hope that it happens. My fear is that our cosmologists are locked into some seriously flawed ideas. When they get observational data that goes against the preferred model they invent some new untestable and exotic phenomenon to explain the new observations. Dark energy and matter fall into this category. We can't detect it, we can't explain it, yet we must believe that it exists in great quantities in order to maintain the status quo of a Big Bang universe. We are expected to take it on faith. Sounds like religion to me.
The dissidents feel that the weight of new observational data coming in from our space probes and telescopes will eventually tip the balance. What the plasma guys lack is an encompassing theory to replace the old worn out theories we are currently fed. I agree that there are some bright young minds on both sides of the issue that are working towards this end. It will be revolutionary for sure and Quantum Mechanics and Relativity may both end up in the scrap heap. I hope it happens sooner rather than later so that our tax dollars can be utilized in truly productive science.
Basically he is hypothesizing white holes, repulsive gravity, changes in the way the electromagnetic frequencies work, matter moving at the speed of light, etc. Now it may be true that other parts of the universe have different rules, but almost all of our observations indicate that our galaxy is typical (and that is what the Hubble observation was all about). By extrapolation, that means that the rest of the Universe should operate under the same rules as our own galaxy does.
In an expanding universe how is it that galaxies can collide? Aren't we all supposed to be moving away from each other as a result of the Big Bang? How does a far distant quasar end up in front of a relatively close galaxy? I believe some of the galaxies in our local group are blue shifted. That would indicate we are moving towards each other. What caused the change in directions? On the other hand if redshift has something to do with age, then it would just indicate that we have some older companions. Perhaps our parent galaxy. I really don't know LeGrande, but I find the study stimulating and I appreciate the time you are taking to respond.
Just like locally, because of the Sun, we can 'violate' the laws of thermodynamics. 'Locally' in terms of the Universe collisions between systems happen all the time. I don't recall but our galaxy and another one are on a collision course (Andromeda?) It is just that the farther away something is, the less likely it becomes for us to run into it. At a certain distance it becomes impossible for to members to ever meet up. Also like I mentioned earlier, Hawking is speculating that there may have been multiple Big Bangs and that would certainly account for galaxies smashing into each other : ) I think this stuff is fun too.
I don't think you are giving Arp a fair shake here. There are many more than 3 perculiar observations that have been made. His hypothesis is based as much on quantized redshift and relative location of galaxies and quasars throughout the universe.
I haven't read his book and he hasn't been proven wrong, yet. The big problem is that he is dealing with stuff that is at the extreme limits in both terms of resolution and time. He may very well be right, it is just that the odds of some Patent clerk coming along and turning decades of physics upside down is astronomical : ) As our observational abilities increase we will either verify his observations or discredit them, but we are probably 10 to 20 years away from being able to do that.
One of the big problems with science today is that the Scientists have gotten 'smart' and a lot of the research is in areas that are not experimentally verifiable, like string theory and the plasma theories (at least not yet). The scientists have found Religion : ) If you can't prove them wrong then you have to keep funding.
. I hope it happens sooner rather than later so that our tax dollars can be utilized in truly productive science.
If you look at history, most of the ground breaking work wasn't done at research facilities. Research facilities are good at applying and expanding the principles someone else developed. Our money is generally better spent on specific projects, we tend to get a much better bang for the buck. The other thing that I have noticed is that sometimes we have to wait for the old guard to die off to give the new ideas opportunities.
As a gambling man though, I wouldn't bet on either QM or Relativity getting bumped off. Just like Einstein didn't disprove F=MA (he just refined it) the next theory will do the same. That is the truly awesome thing about science, tiny improvements can make huge changes in our world.