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.
I'm not aware of him getting into that kind of speculation although I'm sure others have looked at his observations and done so. Arp is an observational astronomer. From what I've read he is saying that quasar ejection is what appears to be happening but he has not described any mechanism. In my opinion the idea of white holes and repulsive gravity is just fanciful thinking. It sounds good in a science fiction novel but I don't think there is such a thing in our universe. I'm also not a fan of black holes. You might want to give me some flack on this point so let me explain first.
I do admit that while you can't directly observe a black hole there are some compelling secondary observations that clearly support the idea of black holes. There was a recent study of the stars at the center of our galaxy. If gravity is king then the orbits they exhibit make a strong argument in support of a massive black hole (lots of gravity but no visible light) at the center of the Milky Way. The plasma cosmologists are not convinced. Their view is that traditional cosmologists use the weakest force in the universe (gravity) to explain everything that is going on. In order to make their model work they have to conjure up entities that have huge gravitational fields (black holes and dark matter). Never mind that you can't detect them, you just have to have faith that they exist. I don’t think that God wants us to use faith when it comes to exploring the physical world we experience. That is an area where He wants us to use our intellect in our search for truth. Mathematical constructs have their place as they can be very helpful in pointing the way in our research efforts. The problem comes when the theorists become so enamored with their equations that they refuse to let go of bad ideas in the face of contradictory observations.
The electrical force is exponentially more powerful than the gravitational force. The plasma folks make a reasonable case that many of the observations we see can be better explained using the plasma (electrical) model. I think that one of the reasons the model has not gained a wider following is that it is incomplete. The description of the ‘galactic circuits’ they envision doesn’t point to what the source of this power might be. A theory needs to be presented that can either be built up or knocked down by observational research. Another factor that slows the progress in this field is that the traditional cosmologists are not required to study plasma physics. The traditional guys have a hard time understanding the plasma guys because they don’t speak the language (or the difficult math) of plasma physics. The old guard could fix this problem with the stroke of a pen, making the subject required for new astrophysics graduate students, but since the old guard got by without an understanding of plasma they see no need for the young turks to learn it. As you said, maybe another young patent clerk with the needed skill set will come along to make sense of it all. This brings to mind the light of Christ which is an entirely different subject that I won’t go into today. There is too much already on the plate in our discussion.
To move our conversation along we can look towards the earlier example of the engine that runs our galaxy and point out another possible solution. Anthony Peratt of the Los Alamos National Laboratory is one of the leading plasma scientists in the world. His work in the area of galactic engines is most interesting. One advantage that plasma research has is that it is scalable. Because of this you can take known absolutes from the lab to gain some insight as to what the effects would be at larger and larger scales. As you can imagine, an electric force needed to run the galaxy is way beyond what we could ever produce in the lab.
The following was clipped from his Wikipedia write up.
Peratt developed a computer simulation of galaxy formation, based on research concerning Birkeland currents using (at the time) the fastest supercomputer available. Peratt was investigating laboratory scale Birkeland currents and used experimentally justified scaling laws to see what would happen at galactic scales. The book "The Big Bang Never Happened" (1991) by Eric Lerner gives an account of this. Peratt discovered the dynamic effects that occur in intense Birkeland currents, named Peratt Instabilities. These arc discharges occur in plasma torches, z-pinched plasma filaments, and high energy density electrical discharges. Peratt claims that evidence exists that the instability can also be found on astrophysical scales.
As I said, the language of the plasma guys is not what we see very often on Nova or in our popular science magazines. Peratt’s web page has a short flash video of the simulation spoken of in the Wikipedia article. Look in the upper left hand corner here.
So now that we have two models for our galactic engine, gravitational and electrical, neither of which can be seen in visible light. Which model is better supported with the observable data? Does the copious amount of x-rays and radio waves pouring out of the center of many galaxies give us a clue? The black hole crowd claims that they are thrown off as a result of matter going over the event horizon. This is another unverifiable theory as there is no way of testing it (just have faith brother). The plasma proponents say that x-rays and radio waves are routinely produced in the lab using the electrical force. We would have no x-ray machines if we needed to shield a little piece of a black hole to make it work.
By extrapolation, that means that the rest of the Universe should operate under the same rules as our own galaxy does.
Even though there is no proof, it does make sense that all galaxies behave the same way. My earlier comment was geared more towards the different areas within any given galaxy. In particular, the center of the galaxy is a vastly different place than our neighborhood regardless of which model you use. It would be extremely violent in either case, perhaps more so in the electrical model. The fundamental laws that we observe here on earth may become distorted in such a charged environment. Superconductivity is an example where this occurs. It went undiscovered until we had the technology to cool things to absolute temperatures. I’m confident that we’ll be surprised at how the galactic center works once it’s all been hammered out.
If you can't prove them wrong then you have to keep funding.
The main stream media get’s their stories from the old guard elites. My fear is that this group isn’t ready to give up their turf to a bunch of dissident scientists, many of whom come from an electrical engineering background. Oh the horror of it. I’m not sure they will ever gracefully accept the egg on their faces for leading us down a dead end path for the better part of a century.
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.
This is so true. The Internet is changing the dynamic here. It gives the dissidents more of a voice.
As a gambling man though, I wouldn't bet on either QM or Relativity getting bumped off.
I will have to disagree with you here. I’m a grand unified theory kind of thinker. It remains the holy grail of physics and it is nowhere in sight yet but I do think that one day we will have a theory in place that ties it all together. Cheers.