steve@kontron.UUCP (Steve McIntosh) (07/17/85)
Does anybody know the current status of the Big Bang vs Steady State
controversy? I know that as of a few years ago, most research took the
big bang as an operational theory, but a lot of researchers didn't.
I left off at the point that people were discussing the possibility
that the red-shift observed in the spectra from distant objects may not
be due to doppler effects, but from the cumulative gravitational effect
on photons from the billions and billions of atoms they come close to
during the trip. (Also that the massive red-shift observed from quasars
may be caused when the photons climb out of a massive gravity well.)
[My wife and I have a mixed marriage - I'm for steady state and she,
er... ]
===============================================
| Steve McIntosh, Kontron electronics, Irvine |
===============================================
"Science Fiction - sticks to your mind, not to your hand!"ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (07/21/85)
> Does anybody know the current status of the Big Bang vs Steady State > controversy? I know that as of a few years ago, most research took the > big bang as an operational theory, but a lot of researchers didn't. > The Big Bang is the overwhelming winner in terms of verifiable predictions (like the relationship between the microwave background and the primordial abundances of elements. I suppose it is possible that the Big Bang is a "local" event in some sense and the larger universe (which would have to be unobservably large) is steady state, but the equilibrium state of the universe might not be to your liking. If your question is meant as an opinion poll then I should say that the number of agnostics on this topic is small, but not zero, and the number of researchers who actively believe some competing theory is *very* small. > I left off at the point that people were discussing the possibility > that the red-shift observed in the spectra from distant objects may not > be due to doppler effects, but from the cumulative gravitational effect > on photons from the billions and billions of atoms they come close to > during the trip. (Also that the massive red-shift observed from quasars > may be caused when the photons climb out of a massive gravity well.) Passing a concentration of matter does not necessarily cause any *net* redshift. After all the photon will blueshift as it approaches a concentration and redshift as it leaves. Any net effect will be due to the universe changing (expanding) while this is going on. The evidence that quasars are at their apparent distance includes 1) Nearby quasars are surrounded by a halo of light that looks just like the outer parts of a galaxy. In other words quasars look like a very bright source of radiation embedded in a more or less ordinary galaxy at the apparent redshift. 2) Individual nearby quasars are frequently found in clusters of galaxies with the same redshift whose individual members look like galaxies should look at the apparent distance of the quasar. 3) A handful of quasars show multiple images due to gravitational lensing by closer galaxies. These lense are understandable *only* if quasars are at their apparent distances. There are probably other arguments,but these are the ones that have impressed me the most. > > =============================================== > | Steve McIntosh, Kontron electronics, Irvine | > =============================================== > "Science Fiction - sticks to your mind, not to your hand!" *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** -- "Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac Borrow his money." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan Department of Astronomy University of Texas
gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (07/21/85)
> Does anybody know the current status of the Big Bang vs Steady State > controversy? I know that as of a few years ago, most research took the > big bang as an operational theory, but a lot of researchers didn't. Big bang is the current consensus. > I left off at the point that people were discussing the possibility > that the red-shift observed in the spectra from distant objects may not > be due to doppler effects, but from the cumulative gravitational effect > on photons from the billions and billions of atoms they come close to > during the trip. (Also that the massive red-shift observed from quasars > may be caused when the photons climb out of a massive gravity well.) There are several alternative mechanisms for both the cosmological and quasar red-shift. From the previous round of discussions on the topic, it transpired that very few working astronomers put much stock in the alternative theories. That doesn't prove much one way or the other..