Quote:
Originally Posted by rtomes
In addition I propose a new test that will make this even clearer. The new test is to look at samples of quasars and galaxies that have very different redshifts (say > .01) and are very nearby in the sky (specifically that they are unlikely to be chance associations by statistical arguments) and to test the two models by the following procedure.
Make a scatter diagram of galaxy redshift versus quasar brightness.
Just to make it perfectly clear, the things being plotted are taken one from the quasar and one from the galaxy.
Consider the expected outcomes if each of the rival theories is correct.
Big Bang: If the galaxy and quasar are really at very different distances and not really associated with each other in space, then there is absolutely no real relationship between the galaxy redshift and the quasar brightness. The result should be that objects will be scattered over a rectangle with zero correlation coefficient.
Alternative: If the quasars really are associated with much closer by galaxies then the galaxy redshift is a better measure of the quasar true distance than the quasar redshift is. This means that the scatter diagram should be tighter than the scatter diagram of quasar brightness versus quasar redshift.
If either of these results happens then it is a very clear proof of that theory as regards the redshifts of quasars. There are other possible outcomes (intermediate correlations) which would indicate that both theories are wrong.
Would astronomers agree that this proposal is a valid test and a very clear result should be obtainable?
|
I'm not sure that it would be that simple. The deeper surveys have dramatically expanded the number of quasars at fainter redshifts. Even in some of Arp's more recent papers you find he has to apply magnitude cuts to identify the quasars he argues are associated with local galaxies. You also have to deal with the fact that in Arp's model, quasar luminosity increases as redshift decreases, so quasars at the same distance of a local galaxy would still have a range of magnitudes - perhaps too much scatter for deciding between the models as you've proposed.
But it wouldn't hurt to investigate it and see what you find. You also should look at a paper published in ApJ Letter last year by Morley Bell which contrasts the quasars - which don't seem to show much of a magnitude redshift relation, with radio galaxies - which do show a fairly tight magnitude redshift relation.
Quote:
|
Would they agree that if the alternative outcome above is found then it does disprove the big bang?
|
You should also keep in mind that if quasars were shown to be local, that could be interpreted such that the universe expands and there is an underlying Hubble law upon which the quasar intrinsic redshifts would be superposed. So, I'd argue that the answer is "no" - even if there was compelling proof that quasars are local, the Big Bang theory could still be valid.
__________________
"The scientist who asks the right question reconnoiters a new patch of the unknown, and may, with luck, bring it within the constricted but expanding boundaries of the known."
~Timothy Ferris (The Red Limit) 1982
|