Appendix: Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective
A Creation Model of the Structure of the Universe
Decades of research in astronomy and cosmology have led to
the general belief that the present state of the universe can
ultimately be traced to an initial event popularly known as the
Big Bang. Despite this popularity it should be remembered that
the Big Bang cosmological model is only as valid as the fundamental
premises which support it. Thus the discussion of the proposed
creation model of the universe must necessarily also focus on
the validity of the Big Bang theory, whose basic framework consists
of the cosmological and uniformitarian principles together with
the general theory of relativity. The previous sections of this
article have documented the failure of the uniformitarian principle
to provide confirmation for the geological evolution of the Precambrian
granites. If this principle cannot account for the evolution
of the earth, is it difficult to understand how it can provide
a rational basis for constructing an evolutionary model of the
universe. It may be argued, however, that the edifice of modern
cosmology fits together too well for there to be something wrong
with basic assumptions. This point will receive close examination
in the following discussion of the hot Big Bang Model
(31,32).
The Big Bang Model and the Hubble Relation
About 50 years ago Hubble proposed that the astronomical data
then available seemed to linearly relate the redshift z of a
galaxy with the distance R to [p. 284] the galaxy, and this has become
known as the Hubble relation. Since then galactic redshifts have
been mainly interpreted as Doppler shifts resulting from high
recessional velocities of the distant galaxies and, moreover,
have been generally thought to provide some of the strongest
evidence for the hot Big Bang model of an expanding universe.
(See, however, Hetherington's evaluation (33) of the Hubble relation.)
The reason for confidence in this interpretation is that by using
the general theory of relativity as the mathematical basis for
calculating the space-time development of the primeval fireball,
it is possible to derive the z R Hubble relation (31,32)
provided certain assumptions are made.
Notwithstanding the general belief that the accumulated astronomical
data do support a z R relation,
the fact is that over the past two decades several detailed studies
of redshift distributions have been published which call the
Hubble relation into question. As early as 1962 Hawkins (34)
claimed that the redshift data indicated an approximate quadratic-distance
redshift relation, in particular z R2.22.
More recently the case for a z R2
relation (for low z) was considerably reinforced by the extensive
statistical analyses of Segal (35)
and of Nicoll and Segal (36).
Even though these latter results have been disputed by Sandage
et al. (37), it appears
that Nicoll and Segal (38) have responded
with stronger evidence for a z R2
relation. In fact, Nicoll et al. (39) have gone so far as to
claim statistical invalidation of the Hubble relation for low
values of z. At a minimum the foregoing results make it very
difficult to believe that the redshift data as presently interpreted
actually support the Hubble relation, which is the cornerstone
of Big Bang cosmology.
As noted above, the latest analyses of Nicoll and Segal (38)
show the redshift data more closely fit what is thought to be
the equivalent of a quadratic rather than a linear distance relation.
The reason for qualifying the last statement is because astronomers
measure not distances but apparent magnitudes, which are first
corrected for various factors before being used as a basis for
establishing the magnitude-redshift relation. One important correction
involves the assumption that the galactic light intensity (for
any given frequency interval) as observed on earth is reduced
by two factors of 1 + z, one for the redshift itself, and the other
for the presumed galactic recession. Of course if the galaxies
are not receding, then an unwarranted factor has been introduced
into the magnitude correction procedures, and this would affect
the perceived redshift distributions.
The Big Bang Model and the Cosmic Microwave Radiation (CMR)
In 1978 Penzias and Wilson received the Nobel prize in physics
for their discovery of the CMR in 1965. Since then it has been
widely claimed that this pervasive radiation field is a relic
of the time eons ago when radiation quanta decoupled from matter
in the primeval fireball (31). According to this theory, the
decoupling presumably occurred about 300,000 years after the
Big Bang when the primeval fireball had expanded and its temperature
had dropped to the point where matter and radiation ceased to
interact as it had before. After this time, supposedly about
15 billion years ago, it is believed that this radiation propagated
throughout space in an unobstructed fashion to eventually become
the CMR. It is essential to note that the radiation leaving the
primeval fireball at the time of decoupling was presumably still
quite hot (about 3000°K). The experimental measurements of
the CMR temperature at present reveal that it is very cold (3°K).
But if the radiation from the primeval fireball is assumed not
to interact with matter after the time of decoupling, then how
did this initially [p. 285] hot radiation lose its energy, or temperature,
to later become the 3°K CMR? The standard explanation
is that the general relativistic analysis of the space-time expansion
of the primeval fireball predicts that the decoupled radiation
quanta will lose energy just as a result of the expansion of
the universe. There is, however, nothing in modern experimental
physics which suggests that radiation quanta change energy by
moving through free space. Thus, the standard explanation
for this remarkable thousand-fold energy loss in the decoupled
radiation quanta depends upon an aspect of general relativity
that is unsupported by scientific evidence.
To avoid possible misunderstandings, some recent experimental
results of gravitational effects on photons will be discussed.
Einstein's principle of equivalence, which is independent of
general relativity, does not distinguish whether a photon traversing
a gravitational potential gradient undergoes a change in energy
in transit, or whether its energy is uniquely determined by the
gravitational potential at the point of emission. The earliest
Mossbauer experiments (40) on the gravitational redshift could
not distinguish between these two alternatives, and it was widely
believed that the photon energy could change when passing through
a difference in gravitational potential. But recent experimental
results (41) suggest the photon energy is characterized by the
gravitational potential at the point of emission rather than
varying as the photon moves to a different potential. In the
light of these results it is quite difficult for me to believe
that radiation quanta can undergo energy loss in free space as
predicted in the general relativistic Big Bang model. At this
point my views on the theory of relativity need to be clarified.
I recognize there are some notable experimental results in
physics such as apparent time dilation, the transverse Doppler
effect, the increase in mass with velocity, and the gravitational
bending of light, which are in accord with the predictions of
the theory of relativity. However, these experimental results
cannot be used as confirmations of the special or general theory
of relativity because there are other (albeit far lesser known)
theories which predict similar results. (See for instance North's
(42) review of various alternative theories of gravitation and
their predictions.) Further, recently Rastall (43) and especially
Marinov (44) have shown independently that it is not necessary
to assume the general relativistic framework to obtain many of
the same mathematical results. On the other hand, the question
of whether the Big Bang model is a correct description of the
origin and evolutionary development of the universe is entirely
hinged on the ultimate validity of general relativity's fundamental
postulate, which in principle denies that privileged reference
frames exist. Very germane to this discussion is the recent
admission (45) of an eminent physicist to the effect that the
CMR presents undeniable experimental evidence for the existence
of an absolute reference frame in the universe, a result which
is consistent with Marinov's (44) evidence for absolute space-time
and also with at least one of the earlier gravitational theories
reviewed by North (42). This point is treated in more detail
subsequently and it is shown that the existence of the CMR as
an absolute reference frame is perhaps the most important evidence
that can be adduced for the creation model of the universe as
proposed herein. Before engaging in this discussion further,
it is necessary to complete the present discussion of the CMR
and the Cosmological Principle.
Measurements have shown the spatial distribution of the CMR
is so uniform that it is questionable whether it could have been
produced by the Big Bang scenario as it was originally conceived.
Weisskopf (45)
has recently reviewed the nature of this and other
problems with the Big Bang model, and has discussed [p. 286] the provisional
solutions offered by postulating an explosive expansion in the
very early stages of the Big Bang. Questions still remain, however,
not the least being that the entire scenario assumes some type
of grand unification theory which has yet to be verified. But
is it consistent for cosmologists on one hand to claim that the
universe evolved only through the action of known physical laws
and on the other hand to devise solutions to cosmological problems
by using unverified hypotheses as a basis for those solutions?
We have already noted the failure of the uniformitarian principle
to successfully account for the origin of Po halos in Precambrian
granites, or to provide a basis for synthesis of a piece of granite.
In a similar manner it seems the introduction of unverified
physical concepts as the basis for possible solutions to difficult
evolutionary cosmological problems is just the inevitable result
of the failure to explain the creation of the universe on the
basis of the uniformitarian principle. In any event, the newly
proposed expansionary modification to the Big Bang only deals
with the earliest instants of the Big Bang, after which it is
supposed the expansion of the primeval fireball continues as
envisioned in the original Big Bang model. As we shall soon
see, it appears there may be a contradiction involved in the
theoretical development of expansion of the fireball.
|