No. 65: Sep-Oct 1989
A series of articles in the science magazine Mercury so slavishly followed the scientific party line on the meaning of the redshift that G. Burbidge was prompted to pen a rejoinder.
Burbidge reviewed the considerable observational evidence supporting a non-cosmological interpretation of some redshifts. (Such data has been included in past issues of Science Frontiers and in our Catalog Stars Galaxies, Cosmos.) A typical observation is the apparent physical connection (streams of connecting matter) between quasars and galaxies with radically different redshifts. Burbidge remarks:
"Evidence of this kind exists. If it is accepted it means:
- That at least some quasars do lie at so-called cosmological distances.
- That at least some parts of the redshifts of quasars are due to some effect other than the expansion of the universe.
- That quasars are physically related to bright, comparatively nearby galaxies."
Burbidge is not concerned by the fact that some astronomers find the data unconvincing, rather he objects to the so-obvious attempts to brush such anomalous data under the rug. His concluding remarks are pertinent to all of science:
"I cannot end this part of the discussion without making two points which are rarely made, but which are important:
- Evidence of the kind just mentioned which is favorable to the cosmological interpretations of the redshifts does not negate the other evidence. It simply means that the world is a complicated place.
- Only in articles of this kind is one expected to describe such re sults. In articles such as that by Weedman, it is somehow considered all right to totally the noncosmological hypothesis."
"The fairest way to deal with the problem is not to fall back on authority (what eminent authorities believe or don't believe) but to examine the evidence for oneself. The most extensive collection of this evidence is in the book by Halton C. Arp. ...If, after examining the statistics yourself and understanding the evidence, you are unconvinced, so be it. Remember, if the conventional view is correct, all of these apparent juxtapositions must be accidental. Above all, do not be swayed by the views of the authorities, be they Dan Weedman, Allan Sandage, Maarten Schmidt, Chip Arp, or myself. We are fallible, too, and some of us (ask the others!) have axes to grind."
(Burbidge, Geoffrey; "Quasars in the Balance," Mercury, 17:136, 1988.)
Comment. Burbidge, a professor of physics at the University of California at San Diego, has had a long and dis tinguished career in science. He can write and get articles like the one above published. How many young, aspiring astronomers would dare?
Reference. The book mentioned above, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos; is described here.