Papers Creative episodes in a creationist cosmology — Hartnett Creative episodes Variable mass hypothesis In 1974 Hoyle and Narlikar introduced a new type of in a creationist theory of gravitation,8 based on Mach’s principle,9 which Narlikar, Das and Arp have advanced further.10,11 My creationist cosmology is based on the underlying assumption cosmology that the variable mass hypothesis (VMH) embedded in the Hoyle-Narlikar theory is correct. There are several problems John Hartnett with the Hoyle-Narlikar theory, however, the variable mass hypothesis is independent of these, and can be extrapolated Intrinsic redshifts of quasars and galaxies result from to a creationary cosmology—providing the mechanism for the initial zero-inertial-mass of new matter ejected the creation process during Day 4 of Creation Week. from parent galaxies in a grand scheme of creation Over the past 3 to 4 decades a large body of observational that occurred during Day 4 of Creation Week. We evidence has been gathered that points to the possibility see it occurring now in the cosmos due to the finite that high-redshift quasars are physically associated with travel-time of light. The mass of this new matter is low-redshift galaxies. The excess (or anomalous) redshifts quantized, which results in an intrinsic redshift as of these quasars are unlikely to be either of Doppler or hypothesized by Hoyle, Narlikar and Das. However, of gravitational origin.12 Narlikar and Das suggested a their variable mass hypothesis (VMH) fails to agree new source for this excess redshift,10 resulting from the with observations. In a creationist cosmology, accumulation of inertial mass of a newly ejected particle agreement may be found by understanding that by the ever expanding sphere of gravitational influence of the underlying structure is the creative process of the surrounding matter field. God and not a naturalistic model. In this case, the Narlikar and Das have shown that observed quasar origins of the cosmological expansion redshift, and alignments, and redshift bunching around preferred values of the intrinsic redshift of quasar sources, may be can be understood within the framework of this new theory. independent. An empirical analysis is presented For a detailed discussion of the variable mass hypothesis see 11 to help our understanding—yet a fundamental section III of reference 10. Narlikar and Arp describe a underlying theory is still needed. cosmology that is equivalent to the standard F-L cosmology with space curvature constant k = 0, i.e. Euclidean space. Their field equations (see (4) and (5) of reference 11) are conformally invariant, and for mass m = constant, they reduce to those of general relativity. This is the usual This paper develops further some ideas of my relativistic frame. Only when mass m = 0 does it depart, creationary model related to the astrophysical evidence of creating geometrical singularities, which are the space-time quasar ejections from parent galaxies. For an introduction singularities that appear in the general relativistic solutions. The solution of their field equations is found when space- to the topic, the reader should familiarize him/herself with 12 references 1, 2, 3 and 4, as well as Halton Arp’s books.5,6 time is Minkowskian, but particle masses uniformly scale with epoch according to the relation: As discussed in reference 4 and 7, the Friedmann– 2 Lemaître (F-L) solutions of Einstein’s field equations m= χ t , (1) provide the usual basis upon which the redshifts of extra- galactic objects are understood. Those solutions use the where χ is a constant, proportional to the number density Riemannian geometry of the Robertson–Walker metric to of co-moving particles in the reference frame centred on the φ calculate their redshifts. earth with spherical coordinates (r,θ, ). Thus the constant But there is a problem with that picture. Some galaxies χ measures the magnitude of the inertia at some space-time have apparent motions (if the Doppler interpretation is point that is influenced by all particles in its past light cone, applied to their redshifts) that defy the description and often in other words, its past sphere of influence. The parameterχ exhibit anomalously large excess redshifts as compared to implicitly involves a coupling (not stated here, see equation the central dominant galaxy in the cluster. High redshift (7) of ref. 10.) so (1) is dimensionally correct. quasars have also been shown to be associated with, and This means their cosmology, developed around the even ejected from, lower redshift parent galaxies or an VMH, is based on a flat space-time, in which light from Active Galactic Nucleus (AGN). Therefore their measured extra-galactic sources suffers no spectral shift resulting from redshifts are not in agreement with the Hubble Law; nor are space-time expansion. In the following I will also consider they at such great distances as is generally believed. This the redshift resulting from the VMH to be independent of paper will take another look at the anomalous quantized any spatial expansion. Thus the origins of the anomalous redshifts often seen in quasar sources. redshifts found in quasar spectra and the cosmological 108 TJ 19(3) 2005 Creative episodes in a creationist cosmology — Hartnett Papers expansion redshifts found in galaxy spectra are potentially of the associations of quasars with low-redshift galaxies, unrelated. which is assumed by the above equations, as discussed at Given the radial coordinate of a galaxy is r, with an length in reference 1. observer at r = 0. A light-ray leaving the source at t = t0–r/c By re-arranging (7) it can be made to fit the form of (8) reaches the observer at t0 (where c is the speed of light in a but with an additional function, F, hence: vacuum). Since m scales as t2 and the emitted wavelengths + = + + scale inversely to mass, they derive the redshift (z) due to ()1zQ () 1 zi ()1 zG F(,z i zG ) .(9) this process: The function F(zi,zG) is not insignificant and cannot be 2 t neglected to make the theory fit the relationship indicated 1+z = 0 , (2) by the observations, shown by (8). So it would seem that, 2 − r though the VMH model has been successful in some areas, t0 c it doesn’t fit the observed data (eg. table 23.1 (p.335) of ref. which is the consequence of the systematic increase of the 13). See also figure 1 of ref. 1. The inconsistency arises in particle mass with epoch t. trying to get (1) to generate a redshift equation (2). The Machian concept that produces (1) assumes a Rearranging (2) for r/c << t0, we get: three dimensional flat space and that a growing sphere of 2r H gravitational influence expands at the constant speed of 1+z ≈ 1+ = 1+ 0 r,(3) ct0 c light. The surface area of a sphere like this, centred on the which is what Fred Hoyle showed in 1972 following the source of new matter, grows as the radial distance squared. same line of thinking. Therefore we’d expect the mass to grow as time squared. This is similar to the origin of inverse-square laws of Quasar redshifts luminosity and gravitation. Thus, it is reasonable to assume the exponent in (2) is Assuming a galaxy G and quasar Q are both at great the number ‘2’ and furthermore it does approximate to the distance from the observer it follows that: Hubble Law in (3). It may still be correct in some limit 2 2 where (4a) applies to observations. But if the metric is t0 t0 wrong, then for times t close to t (i.e. soon after creation) 1+z = , and 1+z = ,(4a,b) 1 0 G 2 Q 2 the form of (4b) may be wrong. Could it be that this is − r −r − t0 t0t 1 because it too, like the big bang model, is based on an c c incorrect starting assumption—namely that the universe is where t is the time measured in the galaxy frame when 1 both isotropic and homogeneous? the new matter was created in the quasar. This means the A creationary cosmology is fundamentally different— galaxy’s world-line (at t = 0) crossed the m = 0 hypersurface among other things, the starting assumption is a finite before the quasar did (at t = t ), which was created through 1 bounded inhomogeneous, yet isotropic universe. During the ejection from the active nucleus of its parent galaxy. Day 4 of Creation Week the space-time curvature may have Rearranging (4a) we get: been very large near the sources of ejection and hence the −r = 1 metric there would not produce a time-squared dependence. 1 + . (5) ct0 1 zG At this stage we may only speculate what form that took If we define an intrinsic redshift according to the time of and in this paper it is only discussed qualitatively. A creation of matter, relative to the current epoch, we find: quantitative theory is needed, however since these creation ejection events were due to a supernatural process, it is −t1 = 1 possible that the correct theory may be outside the realm 1 + . (6) t0 1 zi of natural law. Substituting (5) and (6) into (4b) results in: Quantization of redshift −2 + = 1 − + 1 One of the observations driving these hypotheses is the 1 zQ + 1 + .(7) 1 zG 1 zi quantization of the redshifts in the light from quasars. Since 1 Now following the line of Hoyle, Burbidge and my previous paper on this subject another quantization Narlikar, (reference 13 and references therein) the observed scheme has been suggested by Bell.14 Bell does not find relationship between the galaxy and quasar redshifts has the same scheme as Karlsson,15–17 but he does support the been observationally determined to be in the form: ejection of new matter (according to the VMH) and intrinsic + = + + redshifts.