"Although your spectroscopic estimations of  astronomic velocities are fairly reliable when applied to the starry realms belonging to your superuniverse and its associate superuniverses, such reckonings with reference to the realms of outer space are wholly unreliable. Spectral lines are displaced from the normal towards the violet by an approaching star; likewise these lines are displaced towards the red by a receding star. Many influences interpose to make it appear that the recessional velocity of the external universes increases at the rate of more than one hundred miles a second for every million light-years increase in distance. By this method of reckoning, subsequent to the perfection of more powerful telescopes, it will appear that these far-distant systems are in flight from this part of the universe at the unbelievable rate of more than thirty thousand miles a second. But this apparent speed of recession is not real; it results from numerous factors of error embracing angles of observation and other time-space distortions." (134)

The supposed recessional velocities of many red-shifted celestial bodies have now increased sixfold more than the Urantia Papers' prediction, to almost  the speed of light. Such velocities are calculated on the assumption that the red shift is solely due to recessional velocity. And by making this assumption, plus correcting  apparent brightness for the red shift-based distance from us, objects such as high red shift quasars, apparently no larger than our solar system, come out as being brighter than thousands, and even millions of galaxies. Surely such an evidence-based finding should warn us that something may be wrong with the basic premises.

Unfortunately, if it is wrong then the structure of the widely-accepted Big Bang theory of universe origins is in jeopardy--for the original premise came from Hubble's 1929 conclusion, based on his observations with the new 100-inch telescope at Mt. Wilson, that all galaxies within its range were receding with a speed that increases with distance.

Among Hubble's early observations were his re-assessment of the nature of what were known as "white nebulae." He concluded that these were extra-galactic--that is outside of the Milky Way. He then showed that their red shift increased as the white nebula became fainter, from which he concluded the universe must be expanding.

It was immediately obvious that by calculating backwards from the recessional velocity of an expanding universe, one could estimate a point in time when that universe began.  Hubble's original estimate was 500 million years ago. It became 2 billion years by the 1950's, 5 to 10 billion years by the 1960's, and now the average estimate is probably about 15 billion years.

How could all the matter in the universe originate from a tiny bubble in space? Einstein's e = mc²  indicated that matter could be derived from energy, Boltzmann had shown that a doubling of temperature will give a sixteen-fold increase in energy, and laboratory experiments had shown that a photon of light at sufficiently high energy can create an electron-positron pair. Couple that kind of evidence with an admission that the laws of physics, as we know them, must break down under the proposed conditions of temperature and energy density for the Big Bang, and low and behold, we have a situation where anything is possible. And so the Big Bang was born in about 1947 to become an almost fanatically-backed established concept on how we came to be.

But not all agree. For some, the many patches required to make a Big Bang model appear to work in computer modeling theories have spoiled the picture. And even with the patches, there remain observations like the quasar story that simply have no explanation in Big Bang theory. Early protesters were many plasma physicists who soon discovered how difficult it would be to present their objections.

One of the alternatives to account for the peculiarities of quasars simply says that they are not far distant objects but that most are actually in our local system of galaxies.

This hypothesis requires the rejection of the concept that the red shift is solely due to the recessional velocity of a celestial body. In doing so it raises serious questions for the Big Bang hypothesis of universe origins. A reason for this challenge was the observation that maps of galaxies made from data obtained from radio telescopes often show two lobes of radio frequency radiation situated at right angles to the axis of disk-shaped galaxies and immediately adjacent to their center. Jets from the galaxy center were often observed to pass through the lobes. Some times it was noticed that pairs of quasars were  located at exactly the same place as the two lobes of radio frequency radiation. For many years it had been concluded that the radio frequency lobes provided evidence that matter was being ejected from the galaxies. So why should it not be that the quasars were evidence for the same thing?

The answer by the Big Bang proponents was that the quasars are actually in the far distant background way beyond the galaxy, so it is mere coincidence that they appear to be located in the same area as the radio frequency lobes. Further evidence showed that this kind of combination of galaxy, radio frequency or X-ray lobes and quasars was common in Seyfert galaxies--galaxies  which have a highly active center.

next column>

In reply, those who favored the concept of quasars being local used statistical probabilities to indicate that it was highly unlikely that these associations were coincidental. Further observation showed that there are many cases where the association of galaxy, radiofrequency lobes, x-ray emitting objects, quasars and small galaxies is arranged in such a manner as to indicate that we are witness to the creation of new companion galaxies. One possibility is that our Milky Way galaxy is actually the offspring of the giant  Andromeda galaxy.

In support of the interpretation that quasars are local objects, it is proposed that at least part of the red shift of quasars, and like objects, is an indicator of their age rather than of their recessional velocity. The measurement of the red shift for some galaxies, plus their associated quasars and small companion galaxies is also claimed as evidence that their geometrical arrangement is in accord with what would be expected if the jets often seen being emitted from and at right angles to the plane through their active center, is indicative of the path taken by newly created matter that subsequently becomes quasars and small galaxies. This claim assumes the red shift to be an indicator of the age since creation of the new matter.

Halton Arp, in his book Seeing Red (Apeiron Press, Montreal, 1998) provides accounts and pictures of much of the hard evidence for this interpretation of the meaning of the red shift. It differs from that given by the authors of the Urantia Papers in that Arp attributes all of the red shift not accounted for by Doppler effects (i.e. the recessional velocity) to one cause whereas the Urantia paper nominates a number of causes. Age is not one of these, but we need to remember that the authors of the Papers state explicitly in their discussion of the mandate for revelation that they are not in the business of providing us with unearned knowledge--although they are permitted to divulge key information.

To this point our discussion has revolved around the evidence about the red shift rather than its interpretation. The principal evidence in favor of the red shift being intrinsic rather than due to recessional velocity is the often-encountered association of radio frequency and X-ray lobes of active galaxies with the occurrence of matching quasars and the results of statistical analysis of the probability of that association--plus the geometrical arrangements of these components and their correspondence with the jets radiating directly from a galactic center. Also in its favor is that the nearby location afforded to quasars does away with the otherwise incredible outpouring of radiant energy that must be attributed to quasars if their actual distance from us is calculated from a red shift attributed to recessional velocity.

Arp postulates that intrinsic red shift is a measure of the age of matter. This comes about because at the moment of an object's creation, he attributes it with  zero mass.

Mass, Arp says , is Machian. Ernest Mach earned some of his well deserved fame through his postulate that every particle in the universe derives its inertia from the rest of the particles in the universe.

Taking a newly created electron as an example, it would commence its life with zero mass because it has no "knowledge" of any other particle in the universe. Associated with the electron is a wave which is sent out in all directions and provides information to its source. Operating at the speed of light this "knowledge collecting agency" enables the electron to accumulate mass. Mass then is a variable, dependent on its time since creation. However the rate of change would be minuscule and not directly observable by short-lived creatures such as ourselves.

Bizarre as it might appear to be to the unitiated, the concept would not be bizarre to quantum physicists who have become accustomed to bizarre concepts that are now firmly based upon empirical evidence. For example, when one of a pair  of correlated photons is observed, it communicates change to its partner instantaneously, regardless of the distance by which the pair are separated.

How a particle actually gets its mass remains a mystery. Many believe a hypothetical "Higgs particle" is somehow responsible, but even if the existence of the Higgs is eventually confirmed, just how it confers mass may still remain a mystery.

The concept of an "information" wave is not new. Something similar was proposed by quantum physicist, David Bohm, and received much support. However Bohm did not connect his wave with the creation of mass. And can we really assert that Arp's proposal is any more bizarre than that a Big Bang was the means by which a spontaneous explosion created all from nothingness?

Of interest is the fact that the authors of the Urantia Paper have taken, for them, the unusual step of simply stating that our human interpretation of the cause of the red shift is wrong. In relatively few instances have they taken such a step.

Ken Glasziou