The end of the universe is cancelled

Professor Hawking, we have a problem. Nasa, the American space agency, is expected to announce this week that it has proved the existence of "dark energy", a cosmic force that counteracts gravity and will keep the universe expanding forever.

The announcement will effectively demolish the theory that life will be wiped out in a "Big Crunch" when the universe collapses, and should end decades of academic dispute over the forces at work on the universe.

In the past, scientists ranging from Prof Stephen Hawking, the Cambridge University physicist, to Albert Einstein, have argued that the universe eventually will stop expanding and then implode under the force of gravity, destroying all life.

Nasa's research indicates, however, that this analysis is wrong. Using a satellite - the Microwave Anistropy Probe (Map) - which has spent the past year peering into deep space, Nasa has discovered a pattern of "hot spots" which, it says, proves that the universe is accelerating.

This means that "dark energy" - the only force that could cause this acceleration - does exist, and that the universe is expanding too quickly to collapse under gravity, ruling out the possibility of a "Big Crunch".

Prof Anthony Lasenby, an astrophysicist at Cambridge University, told The Telegraph that the announcement would transform our view of the universe. "It will be an epoch-making event," he said.

Another scientist explained: "It is like throwing a ball in the air. If gravity were the only force at work, the ball would eventually slow down and then start to fall back. What this shows is that the ball is not slowing down but is in fact accelerating away."

The Nasa discovery is understood to be one of the most significant in the history of cosmology and, coming only days after the loss of the space shuttle Columbia, will provide a timely reminder of the value of the agency's scientific work.

The behaviour of the universe is a subject that has troubled some of the greatest minds in science.

In 1917, in order to balance the equations in his General Theory of Relativity, Einstein argued that an unknown force - which he labelled the "cosmological constant" - was counteracting gravity and keeping the universe a constant size. In the wake of subsequent astronomical evidence that the universe was expanding, however, he abandoned this idea, calling it his greatest mistake.

The new data will show that Einstein's attempt to fiddle his equations using this "cosmological constant" may have been right, albeit for entirely the wrong reasons.

In his 1998 bestseller A Brief History of Time, Prof Hawking claimed that the universe would eventually implode.

This assessment was challenged in 1997 when, after observations from ground-based telescopes, astronomers began to argue that gravity was counteracted by a "dark energy" that was causing the universe to expand at an ever-increasing rate.

Nasa's study, however, the most detailed of the whole sky, is poised to settle the controversy. It uses measurements of the heat left over from the Big Bang, in which the universe was born 14 billion years ago, to demonstrate that the universe is expanding rapidly and is safe from collapse.

Last night Prof Hawking remained undaunted by the Nasa findings, saying that he had continued working on his theories and had discovered that they were "quite compatible with the universe expanding forever" and the existence of dark energy.

Although Nasa's discovery means that the universe will go on forever, the same is not true for human life. As the universe expands, all the energy needed to keep the stars and galaxies alight will be used up.

What will remain is a universe full of black holes, which after trillions of years, will explode to leave nothing but dark energy.

But what if the underlying theory is itself flawed? What if the observations that have been made of the universe have been misinterpreted? See the article in the current issue of New Scientist that questions the constancy of c, the speed of light.

And what about the observations of astronomer and cosmologist Halton Arp? The numerous observations over the years by this famous Cal Tech scientist have no explanation in present cosmological theory. Yet the observations remain, though unanswered.

For additional information about Dr, Halton Arp's observations see:

Arp's Catalog Of Peculiar Galaxies

Seeing Red:Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science

A dissident astronomer
declares war against
mainstream hegemony

Unrepentant bigbang critic Halton Arp
claims telescope time also for scientists
checking the alternative cosmological models

FOT0: (c) VESA SANTAVUORI

Halton Arp at his office in München, January 1999

A well known bigbang-critic, astronomer Halton Arp says that the line he pursues in astronomy has been systematically obstructed for years now by professional fellow scientist. He is fed up and wants to go to war against the establishment.

In his new book "Seeing Red" he attacks the mainstream scientific community saying that critical new observational material has been intentionally put aside. Halton Arp says that there is an urgent need to democratize the procedures of how science is made and the results published worldwide.

Arp says that he has been able to produce new observational material which shows that the bigbang-model is dead. In his new book Arp also gives nasty examples of how he has been verbally stabbed on the back in an attempt to kill him as a professional scientist.

He claims that big telescope time is allowed only to scientists who are observing deep sky events presumed to confirm the mainstream theories. Scientific publications accept only those parts of the results supporting the mainstream party line. Decisions are made by a relatively small group of people, a sort of scientifical clergy, who think they have got the right to decide what people should think.

Science is an all too important thing to be left only to those few to decide, Arp says. The whole system needs to be reformed so that also the public will be able to follow what''s going on inside science, which are the main competing theories, and why and how those theories came about. The big mainstream media organisations must have courage enough to publish also the controversial scientific theories.

Politics
and science

Arp compares the situation with politics. In the western world basic requirement is that the goals of all political parties be openly discussed in public. Concerning astronomy the situation is such that the goals of only one party are discussed openly in public.

Halton C. Arp, 71, is a very well know dissident scientist in the western world. About twenty years ago he was denied the right to use the Palomar telescope in United States, because he didnt change his observation projects. Arp was observing peculiar galaxies and other objects, with some phenomena undermining the prevailing bigbang theory. While still working with Palomar, he didnt succeed in gaining acceptance of these observations.

Arp decided, so he says, to make a point, to protest, because he was sure that he was on the right track and because he hought that he should have been allowed to pursue his observations.

Now he is making science in exile in Europe. He has an emeritus status as a visiting scientist at the prestigious Max Planck -institute in Garching near München. He says that he is very grateful to the Germans on personal level, he has been nicely welcomed in Germany. But on the other hand he deplores the chilly way the scientific community worldwide has reacted to the controversial parts of his scientific work.

"I had to fight very hard to be able to get for example this one published", he says when we meet at his office in Garching. He taps with his fingers on a paper at his office table. It is a brand new article from Astronomy and Astrophysics, which is a well known mainstream official science publication. If your article is published there it means a sort of official confirmation that your work has been taken seriously by the mainstream community.

Arps report is published in the section "Letters to the Editor".

Despite his age Halton Arp gives an alert impression. His voice sounds young, and he does not look like a man in his 70s. He starts to joke about his own situation when I ask him which is his plan to soldier on.

"Fight, fight, talk, talk", he says. That is the only way despite the fact that the situation has for years been frozen to resemble a sort of ancient greek play, where everybody has his or hers own role, role which never changes, and the play goes on and on in a endless cycle with no variations.

Disputed
quasars

Bigbang-theory is based on the idea that the Universe is still expanding after a gargantuan explosion about 15 billion years ago. That explosion was exceptional in such a way that it had no center. It happened so as to say everywhere. While the expansion continues, new space is created between the galaxy clusters, theory says.

The expansion marker is the so called redshift in spectra, which can be seen when the light from distant sources is directed through a prism. The larger the redshift value (z) is, the further away the galaxy is situated, and the faster it is moving away from us, due to the expansion of the Universe.

Halton Arp says that he has found evidence showing that certain relatively nearby systems are connected by sort of bridges of matter to certain quasars, which are supposed to be very far away. Those are high redshift quasars connected with low redshift galaxies.

Galaxies, like our Milky way, are vast systems composed of hundreds of billions of stars. That is a fact which everybody agrees upon. It's the quasars where the disagreement starts.

According to Arp certain galaxies throw out quasars, which on their turn develop into new galaxies when time goes by. So the active galaxies are often surrounded by quasars, which are sort of moons surrounding the mother galaxy. The nearer the quasars are to the mother galaxy, the higher redshifted the quasars are. [See graphics Arp3.gif, it's from the article from Astronomy and Astrophysics 341, L5-L8 (1999)] The high redshift tells that the quasar is made from new matter. When the quasar grows older, the redshift value goes down correspondingly, Arp's theory says.

The bigbangers think that quasars are extremely luminous objects or systems situated very far away, possibly galaxies or central parts of galaxies. The main idea for mainstreamers is that the quasars are situated very far away because they are high redshit objects.

Now Arp says that he has brand new observational evidence showing that active galaxies are really ejecting quasars.

He deplores the fact that the galaxy-quasar systems he has found are not inspected with the best telescopes. That's why he has not got an official universal confirmation to his findings. He says that he has to rely on help his friend astronomers give him. One of them is a chinese astronomer. The problem is that this friend has access only to a relatively small telescope.

FOT0: (c) VESA SANTAVUORI

"And of course, there was (quasar) 3C273 sitting right on the end of a strong, continuous filament connected right back to (galaxy) M49!" (From "Seeing Red", page 150) -- Halton Arp showing a X-ray contour map prepared from ROSAT data.

Creatonism
and bigbang

If the Arp findings were confirmed, that would lead in cosmology to a model which would say that there never was a starter bigbang. Or that the "old big bang is a special case, local case, of the true general picture". The more general basic model would say that the Universe has always existed, that the Cosmos has no start and no end.

It is one version of the so called steady state theory. Different versions of it has been presented also by some other scientists in Britain, France, United States and India, most famous of them beeing the briton Fred Hoyle. In Finland the steady state theory was supported by a professional astronomer called Toivo Jaakkola, who died in 1995.

In his letter to a friend Jaakkola recalls how he was told to change his line in Finland almost in the same way as Arp was told in USA. Says Jaakkola about Arp: "The Galilei of our time at the mercy of inquisition."

When I met Arp in München in January 1999, he also made a point concerning the influence the deep philosophical beliefs do have on the dispute in cosmology between steady state models and bigbang theories. In western world there is a thought model, deeply rooted in peoples minds, that everything must always start from something, or at sometime.

Many scientists supporting bibgbang-theory are mimicking the theory of Creationism, the ultra religious idea that world was created by a God about 8000 years ago. But what else than an extreme form of creationism is a belief that the whole Universe popped up into existence suddenly and out of nothing 15 billion years ago, asks Arp.

"Paranoia
at margins"

A French cosmology specialist, professor Jean-Pierre Luminet admits that Halton Arp has made "some remarquable observations". But Luminet claims also that when other astronomers have been studying the systems Arp has observed,
those other astronomers have not found those crucial matterbridges Arp speaks about.

About the difficulties in publishing, Luminet says that also the mainstream scientits do have difficulties, and that only about 50 procent of them do have their work published. Succes rate in gaining big telescope time is only about 5 procent, he adds. To that Arp notes that "fashionable astronomers get 100 percent of their work published."

Luminet regrets the fact that Arp has drifted into the margins because of his relatively exceptional observations. "The scientists working on margins fairly often do develop a certain amount of paranoia", Luminet says. That is a boutade, but such semirude remarks are a part of heated scientifical disputes. As a person Luminet clearly has a very businesslike and cordial attitude towards Arp and Arp's work.

FOT0: (c) VESA SANTAVUORI

Professor Luminet in Paris explaining bigbang models.

Luminet himself is a jovial person. He speaks fast but clear French and is very enthusiastic about his own work. But he is also willing to answer questions which do not necessarily conform with his own ideas.

He is very much of a frenchman in that sense that the more enthusiastically he explains something, the nearer he comes -- from time to time his face do almost touch mine. He keeps an eyecontact all the time, and speaks the faster the nearer he moves to his discussion partner.

As a cosmologist Luminet is rather on the mainstream side. He has an official position at the Observatory in Paris (Meudon), and he supports some, but not all, bigbang-related models.

In January 1999 he had an exposition in Paris at the new French National Library. The name of the exposition was "Figures du Ciel" (Figures of the Heavens). That was a very, very beautiful presentation about the development of human ideas concerning Cosmos from antiquity to today. It included some documents never before seen in public, coming from various historical archives. (A richly illustrated book "Figures du Ciel" is still available.)

Parameters which Luminet likes.

Among the bigbang theories figured a new version of it, a version professor Luminet is very enthusiastic about. He says that actually the dispute concerning the bigbang-model is "un peu passé déjà". It was caused by the fact that only one very special case of bigbang was studied, and that for decades.

Possible bigbangmodels are many, its a very rich theory, he says. If you give different values to that models basic parameters, you get a Universe which is totally in line with the newest observations, says Luminet.

Halton Arp admits that there are many variations to the Big Bang model. But he stresses that "the essential point is that if the redshifts are not distance indicators -- as demonstrated by the quasars and young galaxies -- then we do not know the distances, luminosities or any other fundamental properties. All variations of old assumptions are unworkable and we have to start with completely new theories."

Newest new in cosmology is a so called topological small Universe, -- [here in French] and [here in English] -- with a radius of may be only about 5 billion light years. That would make an Universe vastly smaller that the one we are now seeing with the best telescopes. The furthest objects observed so far seem to be at distances of over ten billion light years.

Inside
mirrors

Luminet thinks that Universe may look larger than what it is, because it its folded on itself. Inside such a Universe the light moves on demultiplied curved trajectories, in a sort of chrystalline structure, as in a multidimensional kaleidoscope mirror.

That Universe would have a multitude on virtual curbed walls like scales in a gargantuan onion. Light would travel inside that mirrored structure to all possible directions, coming towards you from different directions. That's why a galaxy could be seen from Earth as situated in many different places and at very different distances in deep space.

A strange model, but Luminet thinks it's a real possibility. Right now there are observations made to confirm that model. "In years to come, this is a model which will be discussed a lot", professor predicts.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.