Quasars and Pulsars by Dewey B Larson

Quasars and Pulsars

DEWEY B. LARSON

Preface

Probably no question has come up more frequently in the question andanswer sessions following the presentations of my new physical theory that Ihave made to college audiences during the past few years than this:

What does your theory say about the quasars?

Of course, as a general physicaltheory it has a great deal to say about quasars, but unfortunately theobservational data on these objects have not heretofore been adequate toenable setting up the kind of a conclusive comparison of theory withobservation which would show that what the new theory has to say about thequasars is a correct representation of the facts, and not just another additionto the bumper crop of speculations. Recent developments have improved thissituation very materially, and I now feel that the time is ripe to furnish adetailed answer to the perennial question. For good measure, I am throwingin some comments about the pulsars, which are commonly associated withthe quasars as the foremost astronomical “mysteries” at the moment.

This should be a particularly appropriate time to demonstrate that there is a physical theory now available which can produce a complete and consistentexplanation of all of the newly discovered astronomical phenomena,including the quasars and the pulsars, inasmuch as there is a growingrealization in astronomical circles that conventional physical theory hasfailed to meet the challenge of the new discoveries. As Fred Hoyle recently painted out in a lecture before the Royal Astronomical Society, the totalinadequacy of conventional theory in these new areas calls for a “radicalrevision of the laws of physics.” Professor Hoyle’s suggestion was that his profession should “stick to the astronomy and force the physics to fit,” butthis is easier said than done, and it should therefore be of considerableinterest to the astronomers to find that there is already a physical theory inexistence that fits the new discoveries without having to be forced.

In order that the presentation may be intelligible to those who are notfamiliar, or not sufficiently familiar, with my previous publications, I amundertaking to trace the development of thought all the way from the

concept of a universe of motion, on which the whole theoretical system is based, to the quasar, and to show that once the “motion” concept issubstituted for the now untenable concept of a universe of matter, theexistence of quasars and pulsars is a necessary consequence a rather distantconsequence, to be sure, but an inevitable one. The development of thoughtwill be similar to that in Beyond Newton, except that the subject of thatvolume, gravitation, is one of the basic phenomena of the universe, and thechain of deductions leading from the fundamental postulates to theconclusions of the work is short, whereas in the case of the quasars it is verylong.

This plan of presentation will, of course, require going over some groundthat was covered in my previous books, particularly the first in the series,

The Structure of the Physical Universe

; but in view of the fact that a dozenyears have passed since that book was written, another look at the situationis no doubt justified. In the meantime I have continued my studies in thisarea, and I have had the benefit of discussion and correspondence with agreat many individuals who are interested in my findings. As a result, I have been able to clarify a number of paints that were previously somewhat hazy,and to devise some further analogies, improvements in terminology, andother aids to understanding of the aspects of the theory that have given themost difficulty to those who have undertaken to follow the logicaldevelopment.

Very few changes of a substantive nature have been required by reason of the progress made in the last decade surprisingly few, in view of the fact thatthe original work opened up a whole new field of thought-but there have been some significant changes of and an entirely new concept of the logical basis of the theoretical system has emerged. The general reciprocal relation between space and time is, of course, the key element in the new structure of theory; as I have stressed by calling it the Reciprocal System, and the logicalstatus of this relationship is therefore a matter of prime importance, eventhough I have established its validity by verifying its consequences rather than relying upon the legitimacy of its antecedents. The reciprocal relationwas originally derived from a study of a large amount of empirical datawhich I analyzed during the inductive phase of the investigation thatultimately led to the development of the new system of theory, and in myfirst publication I described it as a purely empirical result: an extrapolationfrom experience. Subsequent studies indicated that the relation was notwholly empirical; that it could be deduced from some elementary

considerations with respect to the relation of space to time, and in the later books it was portrayed as a semi-empirical conclusion. Now, after muchadditional consideration, it has become evident that this reciprocal relationcan be derived deductively from the most general kind of premises.

All existing physical theory is based on the assumption that the universe inwhich we live is a universe of matter, one in which the fundamental entitiesare “elementary units” of matter existing in a framework provided by spaceand time. As brought out in the text, this concept is no longer tenable, because many ways are now known in which matter can be transformed intonon-matter, and obviously that which can be changed into something else isnot basic. There clearly must be some common denominator underlying bothof these interconvertible entities. This is not the kind of an issue on whichthere can be a legitimate difference of opinion. If matter is the basicconstituent of the universe, as current theory assumes, then it cannot bechanged into anything but some other form of matter. Conversely, if matter can be transformed into non-matter, as we now know that it can, then it isnot the basic constituent of the universe, and conventional physical theory isfounded on a false assumption. There is no escape from these cold, hardfacts.

The “matter” concept must therefore be replaced, and the only alternative insight is the concept of a universe in which the fundamental entities are unitsof motion rather than units of matter. A change to the concept of a universeof motion cannot be avoided; at the most, it can only be delayed. Thesignificance of this point, in the present connection, lies in the fact that thereciprocal relation between space and time, on which my new system of theory is based, is a necessary consequence of the “motion” concept. Oncethis concept of the nature of the universe is accepted, the reciprocal relationfollows automatically.

The argument in favor of the Reciprocal System that was presented in my previous publications can be summarized in this manner:1.

Existing theory, in the words of a prominent physicist quoted in thisvolume, is a “multitude of different parts and pieces that do not fittogether very well,” and it gives the wrong answers, or no answers atall, to many of the important questions that arise.2.

The Reciprocal System is a fully integrated theoretical structurederived in its entirety from a single set of basic premises, and it is a