Hoyle-Narlikar Theory

[Dancing David]

Since a large amount of Arp's ejected QSOs theory rests on the idea that Narlikar somehow said that general relativity has a solution which allows for a quasi-steady state universe and objects that aquire mass and have an intrinsic redshift:

I have to ask, would not this show up in all sorts of ways and all sorts of places, and not just in the redshift of objects?

Would not a changing constant for G have some visible impact on the universe that we can observe?

Does it do away with singularities?

Thanks.

 

[BeAChooser]

I have to ask, would not this show up in all sorts of ways and all sorts of places, and not just in the redshift of objects?

Would not a changing constant for G have some visible impact on the universe that we can observe?

Does it do away with singularities?

David ... I'm puzzled why you ask these question, as the answers were previously discussed on threads where you were present. As was pointed out, Narlikar maintains his cosmology keeps all the successes of general relativity, but eliminates the *need* for singularities, inflation, dark matter and dark energy.

http://eprintweb.org/S/authors/All/na/Narlikar contains a number of Narlikar's papers. The first one in the list,

Cosmology and Cosmogony in a Cyclic Universe
Jayant V. Narlikar, Geoffrey Burbidge and R. G. Vishwakarma
Abstract*|*Full text*|*References*|*Citations **arXiv:0801.2965 (January 2008)

is quite recent and interesting reading. It explains the theory in some detail. So is this one:

Modeling Repulsive Gravity with Creation
R. G. Vishwakarma and J. V. Narlikar
Abstract*|*Full text*|*References*|*Citations **arXiv:0705.0544 (May 2007)

And David ... you might like this one:

Comparison of cosmological models using Bayesian theory
Moncy V. John and J. V. Narlikar
Abstract*|*Full text*|*References*|*Citations **astro-ph/0111122 (November 2001)

Finally, note that in addition to Narlikar/Hoyle's theory, there are other theories that posit the creation of mass over time and thus have much the same effect. Self Creation Cosmology (SCC) theory in particular says mass is not constant over time and can be created by mass concentrations. The original SCC paper appeared in 1982 by G.A. Barber. According to http://toolhost.com/Non-standard_cosmology.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-creation_cosmology, "The latest version of the theory is conformally equivalent to canonical GR in vacuo so that test particles follow the geodesics of GR in solar system experiments." They state that SCC theory "does not require unknown dark energy, or exotic dark matter, to be concordant with present cosmological constraints. In particular, as an example of a freely coasting model, in which the universe expands strictly linearly with time, SCC clears basic constraints on nucleosynthesis." And that "in the Jordan conformal frame of the theory the cosmological solution is closed, static, eternal and singularity free. In this frame rulers 'shrink' and atomic clocks 'speed up' as their atoms exponentially gain mass with cosmological time. ... snip ... Finally, SCC predicts a cosmological 'clock-slip' between atomic clock time and ephemeris time. Consequentially, distant spacecraft should appear to suffer a sunwards acceleration equal to cH, as indeed seems to be observed in the Pioneer anomaly."

 

[Wangler]

DDavid,

Perhaps a better thread would have been "intrinsic redshift theories"?

I will have to try to read more of the Narlikar papers that BAC posts.

However, I have recently seen some interesting papers about "plasma redshift" that is touted to account for any numbers of things, including intrinsic redshifts of QSO's and galaxies.

For example:http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401420

 

[Reality Check]

Since a large amount of Arp's ejected QSOs theory rests on the idea that Narlikar somehow said that general relativity has a solution which allows for a quasi-steady state universe and objects that aquire mass and have an intrinsic redshift:

I have to ask, would not this show up in all sorts of ways and all sorts of places, and not just in the redshift of objects?

Would not a changing constant for G have some visible impact on the universe that we can observe?

Does it do away with singularities?

Thanks.

Hi David. I read the Jayant V. Narlikar, Geoffrey Burbidge and R. G. Vishwakarma paper and it does do away with singularities. The C-field energy tensor that it introduces causes the collapse of massive bodies to bounce back (see the text starting on page 10). There is a couple of assumptions that they make around equation 16 ending in the statement "In such circumstances black holes do not form".

I did not see that G changes in this theory.

 

[Dancing David]

Thanks BAC (sometimes it is easier to start over), Wangler and RC!

 

[Dancing David]

BAC, I will read those papers and probably not understand very much, what observations do they predict?

I know that the redshifts are one, should there not be a host of others that should be observable? What could we see in high energy physics?

 

[Dancing David]

Hi David. I read the Jayant V. Narlikar, Geoffrey Burbidge and R. G. Vishwakarma paper and it does do away with singularities. The C-field energy tensor that it introduces causes the collapse of massive bodies to bounce back (see the text starting on page 10). There is a couple of assumptions that they make around equation 16 ending in the statement "In such circumstances black holes do not form".

I did not see that G changes in this theory.

I don't get most of the math in these things, I am but a baby who barely gets calculus.

http://www.site.uottawa.ca:4321/astronomy/index.html#Hoyle-Narlikartheory

makes reference to the G change

this one makes reference to the negative mass possibility

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0080-4630(19650720)286:1406<313:OTHTOG>2.0.CO;2-N

this one talks about negative inertia and possibe negative G

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0305-4470/4/4/012

And while I can pretend to know what this might mean, i can't say that I really do.

 

[Dancing David]

Okay Bac:

This one will defintily make me aware of being human:
http://eprintweb.org/S/authors/All/na/Narlikar/1

In this paper we discuss the properties of the quasi-steady state cosmological model (QSSC) developed in 1993 in its role as a cyclic model of the universe driven by a negative energy scalar field. We discuss the origin of such a scalar field in the primary creation process first described by F. Hoyle and J. V. Narlikar forty years ago. It is shown that the creation processes which takes place in the nuclei of galaxies are closely linked to the high energy and explosive phenomena, which are commonly observed in galaxies at all redshifts. The cyclic nature of the universe provides a natural link between the places of origin of the microwave background radiation (arising in hydrogen burning in stars), and the origin of the lightest nuclei

it will be like reading a foreign language, I will reconise the words but not get the meaning.

Does this allege to show the black body spectrum that Ziggurat said was a crucial part of the current model?

origin of the microwave background radiation (arising in hydrogen burning in stars)

As usual I don't ask because I am fighting but because I really would like to know.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

DDavid,

Perhaps a better thread would have been "intrinsic redshift theories"?

I will have to try to read more of the Narlikar papers that BAC posts.

However, I have recently seen some interesting papers about "plasma redshift" that is touted to account for any numbers of things, including intrinsic redshifts of QSO's and galaxies.

For example:http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401420

.
I'm not sure if there is anything more to 'plasma redshift' than the one or two Ari Brynjolfsson preprints, if you know of any, perhaps you could mention them?

In any case, Ari Brynjolfsson has been trying for quite some time to get his ideas published, but has, so far, failed. While his main paper is very long (68 pages?), you don't have to read too much of it to see why he's having difficulty getting it published - the physics is just as bad as any of the 'alternatives' that have been proposed/promoted in this very forum these last few weeks (Null Physics, for example).

 

[DeiRenDopa]

(parts omitted)

Finally, note that in addition to Narlikar/Hoyle's theory, there are other theories that posit the creation of mass over time and thus have much the same effect. Self Creation Cosmology (SCC) theory in particular says mass is not constant over time and can be created by mass concentrations. The original SCC paper appeared in 1982 by G.A. Barber. According to http://toolhost.com/Non-standard_cosmology.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-creation_cosmology, "The latest version of the theory is conformally equivalent to canonical GR in vacuo so that test particles follow the geodesics of GR in solar system experiments." They state that SCC theory "does not require unknown dark energy, or exotic dark matter, to be concordant with present cosmological constraints. In particular, as an example of a freely coasting model, in which the universe expands strictly linearly with time, SCC clears basic constraints on nucleosynthesis." And that "in the Jordan conformal frame of the theory the cosmological solution is closed, static, eternal and singularity free. In this frame rulers 'shrink' and atomic clocks 'speed up' as their atoms exponentially gain mass with cosmological time. ... snip ... Finally, SCC predicts a cosmological 'clock-slip' between atomic clock time and ephemeris time. Consequentially, distant spacecraft should appear to suffer a sunwards acceleration equal to cH, as indeed seems to be observed in the Pioneer anomaly."

.

There are quite a lot of alternatives to GR in preprints in the gr-qc part of arXiv, including SCC and variations on Narlikar-Hoyle. If you read some of these, you'll see that papers on any alternative that is developed beyond the simple 'internal consistency' stage will include at least outlines of how the ideas could be tested.

One test that was much discussed was GPB (Gravity Probe B); now that the initial results are in, many alternatives to GR have been abandoned.

Garth Barber's SCC was one such casualty (there's a long thread in PhysicsForums on it, started by Garth), though he may have patched it up since. SCC also had problems with banishing CDM from rich clusters, just as MOND (and derivatives) do; I think he solved it by postulating a huge population of intermediate mass black holes (trillions per cluster?) which got created between the surface of last scattering and z ~ 6.

If I remember correctly, one key reason why Narlikar-Hoyle alternatives have little traction today is their inability to account for the CMB, in particular the angular power spectrum; also, perhaps, the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect; SCC has no difficulty here as the CMB is, to all intents and purposes, the same as in 'the Big Bang Theory'.

In any case, apart from Narlikar-Hoyle, I don't think there are any 'eternal creation' ideas left (not counting multiverses, etc), certainly SCC is just like standard LCDM models (the universe it tracks starts as hot and dense).

 

[Wangler]

.If I remember correctly, one key reason why Narlikar-Hoyle alternatives have little traction today is their inability to account for the CMB, in particular the angular power spectrum

I am about halfway through the big Narlilkar et. al. paper, the one pre-printed earlier this year.

I may be mistaken, but I thought they showed a CMB power spectrum plot that showed a reasonable fit of their theory to the WMAP results, with the caveat that they did not count some of the end points of the WMAP data set, due to them being less accurate, apparently.

So, if additional data is collected that would firm up these areas of the CMB spectrum, their theory would face a good test.

So far, from what I have read, one of their biggest issues appears to be sort of run of the mill-the metallicity of our galaxy. It doesn't seem to jive with their theory very well, because they are using stellar fusion to create the CMB, implying that there should be more metallic elements in our galaxy by now.

They brush over that, saying that this problem is solvable, and their busting through the issue is compared to large assumptions made about early stars in BBT.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I am about halfway through the big Narlilkar et. al. paper, the one pre-printed earlier this year.

I may be mistaken, but I thought they showed a CMB power spectrum plot that showed a reasonable fit of their theory to the WMAP results, with the caveat that they did not count some of the end points of the WMAP data set, due to them being less accurate, apparently.

So, if additional data is collected that would firm up these areas of the CMB spectrum, their theory would face a good test.

So far, from what I have read, one of their biggest issues appears to be sort of run of the mill-the metallicity of our galaxy. It doesn't seem to jive with their theory very well, because they are using stellar fusion to create the CMB, implying that there should be more metallic elements in our galaxy by now.

They brush over that, saying that this problem is solvable, and their busting through the issue is compared to large assumptions made about early stars in BBT.

.

Indeed, it seems I mis-remembered (or that QSSC has developed some since I last read it).

One curious omission re the mechanism for producing the CMB in this model: where are the 'metallic whisker shaped grains condensed from supernova ejecta'?

Another shortcoming: MACHO, OGLE, etc constraints on MACHOs in our galaxy's halo (QSSC requires the halo 'dark mass' to be burnt out stars, which are exactly the type of MACHO which MACHO and OGLE etc were designed to find).

And the two points I raised in the other thread, several times, seem to rate no mention at all: an absence of 'light' protons in cosmic rays, and no x-ray or radio (or IR, or ...) wakes around the 'ejected quasars'.

Too, the (LCDM models') consistent conclusions from both weakly and strongly lenses quasars are waved away, I wonder why?

QSSC apparently does not, pace BeAChooser, make testable predictions re both alignments and redshift quantisation ... so no matter how much data on quasar and galaxy distributions you get, with or without redshifts, such data cannot, even in principle, be used to rule out QSSC.

Several (other) possible tests were not mentioned, for example:

* proper motion of quasars; for example, at least a good subset of those 'ejected by M82' should have proper motions that will be unambiguously detectable within the next decade or so

* space motion of galaxies: there are already some estimates of these for our galaxy's satellites; within the next decade or so they should be detectable for most of the galaxies in the Local Group; in QSSC, groups such as the Local Group are expanding/exploding, and estimates of their space motions should be able to test the idea.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

(part omitted)

Another shortcoming: MACHO, OGLE, etc constraints on MACHOs in our galaxy's halo (QSSC requires the halo 'dark mass' to be burnt out stars, which are exactly the type of MACHO which MACHO and OGLE etc were designed to find).

(rest also omitted)

.
Quoting myself ... here is a very recent paper that is quite relevant to Narlikar et al., re MACHOs: The contribution of red dwarfs and white dwarfs to the halo dark matter (bolding added):

The nature of the several microlensing events observed by the MACHO team towards the LMC still remains controversial. Low-mass substellar objects and stars with masses larger than ~1 M_{sun} have been ruled out as major components of a MACHO galactic halo, while stars of half solar masses are the most probable candidates. In this paper we assess jointly the relative contributions of both red dwarfs and white dwarfs to the mass budget of the galactic halo. In doing so we use a Monte Carlo simulator which incorporates up-to-date evolutionary sequences of both red dwarfs and white dwarfs as well as detailed descriptions of our Galaxy and of the LMC. We explore the complete mass range between 0.08 and 1 M_{sun} as possible microlensing candidates and we compare the synthetic populations obtained with our simulator with the results obtained by the MACHO and EROS experiments. Our results indicate that, despite that the contribution of the red dwarf population increases by a factor of 2 the value of the optical depth obtained when taking into account the white dwarf population alone, it is still insufficient to explain the number of events claimed by the MACHO team. Finally, we find that the contribution to the halo dark matter of the whole population under study is smaller than 10% at the 95% conficence level.

 

[Wangler]

Finally, we find that the contribution to the halo dark matter of the whole population under study is smaller than 10% at the 95% conficence level.

Ahh, I imagine they are only considering the population that would be due to the current universe age according to BBT.

If we are talking QSSC, given the CMB and other evidence, we are clearly not in the first cycle.

So, there should be quite a few of these small <Msun stars out there; the paper talks about supposed populations, but they are considering a "single cycle" Big Bang universe.

If we are in cycle 324, for example, their population Monte Carlo may have been based upon the wrong initial conditions. Maybe a Monte Carlo with QSSC assumptions for the population will account for all of the observed events?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Ahh, I imagine they are only considering the population that would be due to the current universe age according to BBT.

If we are talking QSSC, given the CMB and other evidence, we are clearly not in the first cycle.

So, there should be quite a few of these small <Msun stars out there; the paper talks about supposed populations, but they are considering a "single cycle" Big Bang universe.

If we are in cycle 324, for example, their population Monte Carlo may have been based upon the wrong initial conditions. Maybe a Monte Carlo with QSSC assumptions for the population will account for all of the observed events?

.
OK, I'll bite ... can you explain just how, in any significant way, the number of cycles the universe may, or may not, have gone through affects this paper's main conclusions?

I mean, what's being studied is estimates of red and white dwarf populations as contributors to observed microlensing events ... how the halo population of MACHOs came to be either is irrelevant, surely?

 

[Reality Check]

I have found a possible problem with this theory.
Black holes always gain mass except for the minor effect of Hawking radiation. If they are the source of mini-creation events where matter is created near them then they will gain mass even faster since some of that mass will fall into them. Given a universe that has always existed then black holes have an infinite mass and size.
This is fairly obvious so I suspect that it has been addressed before. I would be interested in the resolution.

 

[Wangler]

.
OK, I'll bite ... can you explain just how, in any significant way, the number of cycles the universe may, or may not, have gone through affects this paper's main conclusions?

I mean, what's being studied is estimates of red and white dwarf populations as contributors to observed microlensing events ... how the halo population of MACHOs came to be either is irrelevant, surely?

Alright, got one on the hook; gotta play 'em carefully.......

The paper you linked uses as a basis for it's estimation of the halo population two primary things: various mass functions and stellar evolution models.

The mass fuctions are assuming a galactic density that is based upon standard model galactic evolution.

The stellar evolution models are considering only the possible stellear evolution contributions from the stellar components of our galaxy as it has evolved in the standard model.

A quote from the paper, with my bolding added:

The main sequence mass is obtained by drawing a pseudo–
random number according to the adopted initial mass function.
The time at which a star was born is randomly choosen, previously
assuming that the halo was formed 14 Gyr ago in an
intense burst of star formation of duration ∼ 1 Gyr.

In the QSSC, there are dark massive objects in the galactic neighborhood that have certainly been here longer than 14 Gyr.

So, if we assume the cycle time is on the order of 14 Gyr, and if their estimates account for 10% of MACHO events, I state:

We probably are in the 10th or 11th cycle.


Somebody get me the net .......

 

[Wangler]

I have found a possible problem with this theory.
Black holes always gain mass except for the minor effect of Hawking radiation. If they are the source of mini-creation events where matter is created near them then they will gain mass even faster since some of that mass will fall into them. Given a universe that has always existed then black holes have an infinite mass and size.
This is fairly obvious so I suspect that it has been addressed before. I would be interested in the resolution.

Again, I have only read half of their paper, but the C-field "bounce-back" prevents this from occurring, I think.

What I am curious about (and probably need to read the paper again) is when a black hole can actually be created...they mention them in their paper, but I don't recall any comments like:

"As we have shown, the C-field "bounce-back" prevents the final collapse to a singularity, except on Tuesdays".

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Alright, got one on the hook; gotta play 'em carefully.......

The paper you linked uses as a basis for it's estimation of the halo population two primary things: various mass functions and stellar evolution models.

The mass fuctions are assuming a galactic density that is based upon standard model galactic evolution.

The stellar evolution models are considering only the possible stellear evolution contributions from the stellar components of our galaxy as it has evolved in the standard model.

A quote from the paper, with my bolding added:



In the QSSC, there are dark massive objects in the galactic neighborhood that have certainly been here longer than 14 Gyr.

So, if we assume the cycle time is on the order of 14 Gyr, and if their estimates account for 10% of MACHO events, I state:

We probably are in the 10th or 11th cycle.


Somebody get me the net .......

.

Um, ah, OK, ... I guess ...

But wait! There's more!!

Are you saying that in QSSC stellar evolution proceeds differently than in standard astrophysics? That solar/stellar models are all wrong? That stars form, from ... whatever, with a different initial mass function (IMF, not to be confused with the institution that holds lots of gold) than in standard theory? That ...

If so, then:

* why are there, apparently, no stars older than ~13 billion years?

* where are the stars which do not conform to standard astrophysical theory?

* where are the QSSC stellar evolution models?

* what, in QSSC, is the IMF?

* where are all the end products of these earlier cycles, the (presumably) great numbers of white dwarfs for example?

and so on ...

 

[Reality Check]

From the Jayant V. Narlikar, Geoffrey Burbidge and R. G. Vishwakarma paper:

What happens to such a collapsing object containing a C-field apart from ordinary matter? We argue that such an object does not become a black hole. Instead, the collapse of the object is halted and the object bounces back, thanks to the effect of the C-field. We will refer to such an object as a compact massive object (CMO)or a near-black hole (NBH). In the following section we discuss the problem of gravitational collapse of a dust ball with and without the C-field to illustrate this difference.

This is the last bit in a section where they argue that there will be creation of matter (mini-creation event - MCE) near compact massive bodies. Near-black holes (NBH) are then sufficient for MCE.

Thus the theory predicts that there will be NBH formed, that they act like black holes and that close to massive NBH there will be MCE sparked by incoming bosons (see page 13 of the paper) creating new matter.

Consider a Hoyle-Narlikar universe that just consists of one NBH that is big enough to have matter being created around it by MCE (there will have to be a seeding boson to start off the MCE). Some of the matter will fall into the NBH. The NBH will become more massive. This will increase the number of MCE. The rate of matter being created will increase. The rate of matter falling into the NBH will increase. The NBH will become more massive even faster. We now have a feedback loop in which the NBH keeps on getting more massive and the rate of matter creation keeps on increasing. There is no limit that I can see for this. Therefore a real universe that contains even one NBH will eventually be dominated by that NBH. Add in an infinite amount of time (no beginning to the universe) then the NBH will have an infinite mass and there will be an infinite rate of matter creation.