Shecoda
02-20-2005, 04:05 AM
Married to a theory
Facing nearly universal opposition, astronomer couple reject big-bang hypothesis for steady-state model
By Bruce Lieberman
STAFF WRITER
February 16, 2005
HOWARD LIPIN /Union-Tribune
Research by Margaret and Geoffrey Burbidge, published in The Astrophysical Journal this month, calls into question a basic tenet of the big-bang theory.
At the American Astronomical Society meeting last month in San Diego, astronomer Margaret Burbidge briefed her colleagues about a curious discovery in the galaxy NGC 7319.
The spiral galaxy, one of five in a tightly clustered group called Stephan's Quintet lying in the direction of the constellation Pegasus, is a staggering 300 million light-years from Earth.
But what was more intriguing, Burbidge reported, was that a quasar measured to be much farther away than the galaxy itself nevertheless appeared to reside inside it.
How could a celestial object measured at one distance from Earth be part of a galaxy that is so much closer?
The silence that followed Burbidge's talk – there was only one question – revealed the answer astronomers in the room were undoubtedly thinking: It can't.
The quasar and the galaxy displayed two separate redshifts – the astronomical yardstick used to measure the universe – and therefore couldn't be in the same place. In most astronomers' minds, the only logical answer was the quasar was far behind the galaxy, shining through it toward Earth.
Advertisement
Accepting Burbidge's analysis would mean questioning the pillar of modern cosmology, upending nearly a century of astrophysics and throwing the prevailing theory about the origin of the universe – the big bang – into doubt. Reason enough for the silence.
"The probability that this is accidental is very small indeed," Geoffrey Burbidge, Margaret's husband and professional partner for half a century, declared in a booming voice after his wife's presentation.
"It comes back to the question no one wants to discuss, and that is very high redshift quasars are associated with very low redshift galaxies."
But when it comes to questioning redshifts, all but a few astronomers say the Burbidges are just wrong. After all, they say, the observation that light waves from distant objects are stretched by the time they reach Earth – and therefore shifted into the red part of the light spectrum – is vital evidence of an expanding universe in which objects are receding from one another.
The observation that redshifts increase the farther away the object was first described by American astronomer Edwin Hubble in the 1920s.
That discovery proved that the universe was expanding. In the years that followed, two primary theories competed to explain this phenomenon.
One of them was the big-bang theory, which proposed that space and time emerged from a single, infinitely small point of infinite energy that exploded in a fireball of creation and set into motion an expanding universe. Over time, according to this model, the spaces between galaxies grow ever larger.
"The other competing theory was the steady state model. Today, the Burbidges support a revised version. The original steady state model proposed an expanding universe in which new matter is continually produced to compensate for ever widening volumes of space. Overall density, as a result, remains constant.
Early on in the debate between the two theories, astronomers found that quasars, believed to be energetic cores of remote galaxies, become more numerous the farther away they looked.
That finding was critical in helping to discredit the steady-state model, which requires that objects are distributed evenly throughout the universe.
The Burbidges question the validity of redshift measuring for quasars; doing so challenges the notion that quasars are more numerous the farther away astronomers look.
Hardly any other astronomers stand in the Burbidge camp on this issue.
"It's not that we don't want them to be right," British astronomer and author Martin Rees said of the Burbidges' contrary views on cosmology.
"It would be marvelous if astronomy had discovered something fundamentally new, some new cause of the red shift. And thinking that, I'm rather disappointed that they just have these same few examples over the last 30 years of galaxies looking linked to quasars, which most of us don't find compelling.
This is a long article. For the rest go to:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050216/news_lz1c16theory.html
Facing nearly universal opposition, astronomer couple reject big-bang hypothesis for steady-state model
By Bruce Lieberman
STAFF WRITER
February 16, 2005
HOWARD LIPIN /Union-Tribune
Research by Margaret and Geoffrey Burbidge, published in The Astrophysical Journal this month, calls into question a basic tenet of the big-bang theory.
At the American Astronomical Society meeting last month in San Diego, astronomer Margaret Burbidge briefed her colleagues about a curious discovery in the galaxy NGC 7319.
The spiral galaxy, one of five in a tightly clustered group called Stephan's Quintet lying in the direction of the constellation Pegasus, is a staggering 300 million light-years from Earth.
But what was more intriguing, Burbidge reported, was that a quasar measured to be much farther away than the galaxy itself nevertheless appeared to reside inside it.
How could a celestial object measured at one distance from Earth be part of a galaxy that is so much closer?
The silence that followed Burbidge's talk – there was only one question – revealed the answer astronomers in the room were undoubtedly thinking: It can't.
The quasar and the galaxy displayed two separate redshifts – the astronomical yardstick used to measure the universe – and therefore couldn't be in the same place. In most astronomers' minds, the only logical answer was the quasar was far behind the galaxy, shining through it toward Earth.
Advertisement
Accepting Burbidge's analysis would mean questioning the pillar of modern cosmology, upending nearly a century of astrophysics and throwing the prevailing theory about the origin of the universe – the big bang – into doubt. Reason enough for the silence.
"The probability that this is accidental is very small indeed," Geoffrey Burbidge, Margaret's husband and professional partner for half a century, declared in a booming voice after his wife's presentation.
"It comes back to the question no one wants to discuss, and that is very high redshift quasars are associated with very low redshift galaxies."
But when it comes to questioning redshifts, all but a few astronomers say the Burbidges are just wrong. After all, they say, the observation that light waves from distant objects are stretched by the time they reach Earth – and therefore shifted into the red part of the light spectrum – is vital evidence of an expanding universe in which objects are receding from one another.
The observation that redshifts increase the farther away the object was first described by American astronomer Edwin Hubble in the 1920s.
That discovery proved that the universe was expanding. In the years that followed, two primary theories competed to explain this phenomenon.
One of them was the big-bang theory, which proposed that space and time emerged from a single, infinitely small point of infinite energy that exploded in a fireball of creation and set into motion an expanding universe. Over time, according to this model, the spaces between galaxies grow ever larger.
"The other competing theory was the steady state model. Today, the Burbidges support a revised version. The original steady state model proposed an expanding universe in which new matter is continually produced to compensate for ever widening volumes of space. Overall density, as a result, remains constant.
Early on in the debate between the two theories, astronomers found that quasars, believed to be energetic cores of remote galaxies, become more numerous the farther away they looked.
That finding was critical in helping to discredit the steady-state model, which requires that objects are distributed evenly throughout the universe.
The Burbidges question the validity of redshift measuring for quasars; doing so challenges the notion that quasars are more numerous the farther away astronomers look.
Hardly any other astronomers stand in the Burbidge camp on this issue.
"It's not that we don't want them to be right," British astronomer and author Martin Rees said of the Burbidges' contrary views on cosmology.
"It would be marvelous if astronomy had discovered something fundamentally new, some new cause of the red shift. And thinking that, I'm rather disappointed that they just have these same few examples over the last 30 years of galaxies looking linked to quasars, which most of us don't find compelling.
This is a long article. For the rest go to:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050216/news_lz1c16theory.html