THE STEADY STATE IN MIND

Roberto Bartali

Introduction
Every one, almost one time during his life, ask himself why the Universe is like it is
and from where everything came from. These are precisely the questions that Cosmology,
the branch of astronomy interested in the study of the Universe as a whole, try to answer.
During the history, many answers are given: from a simple sphere containing all the
stars to an infinitely large and growing forever Universe, to an expanding and contracting
cycling Universe and a Universe as a multiple Universe system. Many theories was issued
but only a few survived after the analysis of the observational data available due to a series
of instruments each day more sensitive installed on artificial satellites.
In the first decades of the XX century, people though that the Universe was a
immense static collection of stars. The only galaxy known was the Milky Way.
Two discoveries changed dramatically this vision of the Universe:
1- Spiral nebulae are galaxies placed well outside our own thanks to the discovery of
Cepheid variables
2- Spectroscopic lines from all galaxies are a red shifted
In a few years the size of the Universe grows to the limits of the imagination. When Albert
Einstein published the General Theory of Relativity, nobody, nor him, imagined how big
and dynamical might be the Universe. For this reason, he was forced to place a special
constant into his equations (the cosmological constant) in order to maintain the Universe
static. During the following decades, this constant was abandoned and re-taken again
because there are still some holes to be filled.
Advances in physics and better instruments, seemed to clarify the unknowns, but the
effect was exactly the opposite, more and more questions. The first and the more logical
theory presented was the Big Bang, but it start with something that escape to the
imagination of the most: a singularity; physics laws do not work there. During many years,
and even now, cosmologist try to evade the singularity, because it is something too much
difficult to understand, formulating alternative theories. One of these is the Steady State
Theory (SST), the object of this work. In the different sections of this work, I will explain
how the SST try to model our Universe and why it fails in doing so, giving to the Standard
Big Bang (SBB) the possibility to be a better model for the Cosmos, but even this theory
have its own problems, so, until now we have just a part of the answer.

The Steady State Theory background

The Universe is expanding, so if we go back in time, all the matter it contains, must
be enclosed into an infinitely small portion of space, a point with infinite mass: the
singularity. Some cosmologist agree, even when they do not understand this fact, but two
people give an alternative option: Sir Herman Bondi and Thomas Gold. Later, Fred Hoyle
join the group.

1
 Figure 1
Creators of the Steady State
Theory, From left to right:
Thomas Gold, Herman Bondi
and Fred Hoyle.
From:
http://www.cf.ac.uk/maths/wic
kramasinghe/hoyle.html
http://www.iucaa.ernet.in/~libr
ary/photogal/visit/visit.htm
http://www.edition-
steinherz.de/Die_Autoren/Tho
mas_Gold/thomas_gold.html
Herman Bondi, mathematical physicist and
astronomer, born in Vienna (Austria) in 1919, he is a professor of theoretical astrophysics
and cosmology at Cambridge University in England.
Thomas Gold is an astronomer and professor at the Cornell University, he was born
in Vienna (Austria) in 1920.
Fred Hoyle was an English astronomer, professor of astronomy at University of
Cambridge, born in Bingley (England) in 1915 and died in 2001 also in England.
When in 1931 George Lemaitre, proposed for the first time the “Primeral Atom”
theory, late known as “The Big Bang”, it seems to explain how metal atoms was formed for
the first time, so this theory gain importance, even when it needs the singularity. But in a
paper published in 1946, Fred Hoyle [1] demonstrate that all heavy element until Iron,
could be produced by fusion in the stars and then expelled when the star explode as a
supernova. This paper was a fundamental background for Bondi and Gold to produce their
Steady State Theory in 1948 [2], because there are no reason to have a singularity
producing the matter that fill the Universe. They worked alone, at first, but from the
beginning, they get the collaboration of Fred Hoyle, but he not appears in the first paper, he
appears on successive published papers. This is the reason why the three people share the
credit.

The Steady State Theory

In this section I will explain the basic concept that form the theory, the contents is
based on a series of papers published in 1948 and successive years.
The core of the Steady State Theory (SST) is the follow “The Universe is postulated
to be homogeneous and stationary in its large scale appearance as well as in its physical
laws” [2]. This statement is an extension of the Cosmological Principle (CP), that they call
the Perfect Cosmological Principle (PCP). The PCP is a consequence of the homogeneity,
that is: the Universe is the same everywhere on large scale, if there are differences, they
only account on a local basis.
Bondi and Gold, assumes that if the structure of the Universe depends on physical
laws, it is logical that the physical laws are dependent of the structure of the Universe, so
this is a stability statement.
If the Universe is homogenous, almost on a large scale, not necessarily it must be
also isotropic. Normally these two things are assumed to be simultaneously true, but for
Bondi and Gold, they are not: it may be isotropic because observations of the local and far
Universe suggest it.

2
 In an expanding homogeneous Universe where the velocity of galaxies is
proportional to distance, to not contradict the PCP, it is necessarily the continuum creation
of new matter because the density decrease as the galaxies goes away one from the other.
The minimum rate of creation must be 1 proton per liter per billion year or 10^-43 gram per
second per cubic centimeter. The matter created is in form of hydrogen atoms. For a
stationary Universe, this is a fundamental behaviour, but this proceedings infringe the
hydrodynamic principle. This is not a problem, as they say, because it is not possible to
verify experimentally this principle with a sufficient precision, it is only approximately
true.
The Universe is described by a De Sitter metric. This imply that it is infinite both
spatially and temporarily. If the recession velocity of a galaxy tend to the speed of light, the
effect of the matter tend to zero for an observer at distance.
The motion of matter follows a particular pattern, it has a preferred motion, even
when it is possible to have some local deviations. Applying statistical averaging methods it
is always possible to find the preferred direction of motion.
The motion within two particular masses is not constant, there is a relative
acceleration. The velocity of recession of galaxies is proportional to the distance, so it is
accelerated.
The ratio of condensed to uncondensed matter must be constant, so, new galaxies
must be formed in order to fill the space of the older galaxies that moved away. This imply
that, on large scale, the Universe present a broad range of galaxy ages. The range of ages is
strictly related to the expansion rate, a very old galaxy may be very far from our observing
point if the expansion rate is high, so may be not visible in a specific volume of space.
Therefore there must be in any volume of space, galaxies with a very broad range of age.
The observed range of age of galaxies in any volume of space is independent of the
time of the observation and it is independent of the place. In any volume there must be
galaxies with the same distribution of ages.
The Universe is not in thermodynamic equilibrium, there are much more energy in
the form of matter than in the form of radiation. Much more energy is radiated than it is
absorbed by matter.
An observer mast measure a constant finite quantity of matter everywhere and every
time, if he do it with the same apparatus, so the conservation of mass/energy law is not
violated. But, when the velocity of recession tends to the speed of light, the matter go to an
unobservable state. So, for maintain the conservation, it is necessarily true the creation of
new matter.
Two coincidences are permanent and related: 1) the ratio of the electric and
gravitational force between a proton and an electron equal to 10^39 and 2) the ratio of the
characteristic length that define the expansion of the Universe to the radius of the electron
equal to 10^39.
The average luminosity of galaxies must be constant, light from a distant galaxy is
not a representation of that galaxy in an earlier stage of evolution.

The Quasi Steady State Theory

This is a modification of the original work of Bondi, Gold and Hoyle. This is a work
of G. Burbidge, F. Hoyle and J.V. Narlikar published in 1994 [3]. This work is an intent to
show that SST agree with the observational evidences and the major discoveries that

3
impulsed the SBB theory to a great level of credibility. The Quasi Steady State Theory
(QSS) retake the original continuous creation of matter and bring it to the extreme case
where matter is created every where by a very large number of condensed massive objects.
In other word, they create a Universe with many tiny Big Bangs each one is the result of a
great condensation of matter. Almost all the strangest phenomena observed in the Universe,
are well explained with this new theory.

A case against the Steady State theory

Anthropic Principle
The Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP) by Dicke and the Strong Anthropic Principle
(SAP) by Carter and Wheeler, proved that a Steady State Universe in not feasible [5]. The
WAK state that the Universe must be consistent with the existence of intelligent life. The
SAP state that intelligent life must evolve somewhere in any physically realistic Universe.
The arguments against SST are clear, if the universe is not evolving, than also the life never
evolved, because the Universe is always the same or static. Why, then, life evolved at
certain time and not before? If the conditions in any part of the Universe are the same, why
there are not an infinite number, or at least, an infinite old intelligent life species? If a very
old intelligent civilization evolved, why they do not colonize all the Universe?
But SST do not discard evolution at all, because galaxies are formed by the new matter
created, this matter is in form of hydrogen atoms, they form stars and stars form galaxies.
SST also agree with the formation of all heavy elements into the core of the stars, all of
these are evidences of the evolution.
For the Big Bang this is not a problem, because the theory is based on the evolution
of the whole observable and not observable Universe from the initial singularity.

Microwave Cosmic Background

The Cosmic
Microwave Background
(CMB) is the radiation
emitted by the Big Bang
when it begin to be
transparent, approximately
300 Ky after the event. The
temperature of the Universe
when it begin to expand was
enormous, as the expansion
go on, the temperature falls.
If we see in different directions we have to observe
Figure 2 the same background signal coming from the Big
The map of the Cosmic Microwave
Background. Bang. (Figure 2) Today we have to measure a
From: A Short history of the Universe temperature of about 2.73K, the spectrum of this
signal must be like a perfect black body, with a peak
emission in the microwave band. (Figure 3) because when the photons start to be visible,
electromagnetic radiation was of a broad range of energy. The CMB was measured also
with other instruments and other wavelength, obviously with less precision, but the result
was the same, so this is the proof that it really came from the Big Bang.

4
 The CMB, when
discovered in 1964 by
radiosatronomers in New
Jersey, was the best and long
expected proof of the reality
of the Big Bang. The name
Big Bang was coined by
Figure 3
The black body
spectrum of the CMB
centered on the
microwave region.
From: A short history
of the Universe

Hoyle in a derisively form,

but instead of that, the term
lasts.
This is the biggest problem for the SST, because it is very difficult to explain
without the logic of the Big Bang. If the Universe begin with a very hot plasma, it is logical
to think that with time and expansion, the temperature must be lowered, this is necessary
for the conservation of energy. After a certain time, if the matter is expanding, the Doppler
effect tell us that the wavelength of photons must be redshifted. The amount of the redshift
is proportional to the relative recessing speed of the matter respect to us, really we are
recessing respect to the CMB.
The SST explain this in a much more complicated manner [4] and in two distinct
forms. First it assumes that a very high mass objects (like black holes) in the range of
10^16 solar masses create and expel enormous quantity of matter, these are mini Big
Bangs. The degradation of the radiation on the center of these massive object is the fuel for
the CMB.
The second is using the concept of thermalization of light from the stars. This works
as follow. The carbonaceous interstellar grains absorbs visible and UV light, then they
reemit EM in the IR band. This IR is absorbed by Iron whiskers that reradiate into the
microwave band.
The anisotropy of the CMB is also explained with the aids of those Iron whiskers in
the sense of different density. In the same paper [4] they find another form to explain it.
They argue that the radiation in the far IR from galaxies, due to the Iron whiskers, is not as
homogeneous as explained with thermalization of light, so it permit small differences like
observed by COBE.

Inflation of the early phase of the Universe

In 1981 A. Guth, proposed the inflation of the Universe in its early age. This is
because there was no apparent reason to have a universe as flat as we are observing now.
This is one of the observational evidences that can not be explained by the Big Bang. To be
as flat and uniform (Figure 4) it must be many times larger than it is. The theory of Guth
state that starting at the age of 10^-35 seconds, it doubled its radius almost 100 times.
With no inflation the universe may be only 10^-25 cm, but after this period of
exponential grow it is 10^69 times bigger. The inflation period last for only a tiny fraction

5

Figure 4
The inflation make the Universe as flat as
we can see today.
From: A short history of the Universe
Figure 5
The Big Bang, start with a singularity, then it inflate for being the size it is
now by a normal expansion rate.
From: Scientific American Oct. 1990
of time (Figure 5), it ends when the
universe was 10^33 seconds old. The size
of the visible universe is then much less
than its physical dimension. A so large
expansion is not violating the Theory of
Relativity, because it is not the mass of the
universe that travel, but it is the Universe
as a whole, in other words it is the space-time
which is expanding. The violation, would be if
anything try to travels at ultraluminal speed into
the space-time, in this case is the space-time
itself that travels at ultraluminal speed.
6
Continuous creation of matter
The fundamental principle behind
the SST is the continuous creation of
matter (Figure 6). This is not contradictory
with other as good theories. The Hawking
radiation is the generation of particles
from the event horizon of a black hole,
quantum physics allow the creation of
Figure 6 particles from the vacuum. The SBB model
Matter is created continuously to fill voids needs also the creation of atoms from the
created by the expansion
From: La profonditá dello spazio
primeral plasma, this creation is not from the
vacuum, but is a natural behaviour of the
elementary particles that join together to form atoms if the temperature is sufficiently low.
If these particles satisfy certain conditions, can be created to be in accord to SST
[6], so in this field the SST has no trouble. The trouble is the form why they are generated.
The SBB also require the creation of particles during the inflation phase.
When Fred Hoyle adopted the SST [7] in 1948, he found that matter really can be
created and if start to condense, may form galaxies. This matter are created in different
form and also of very different kind depending on the necessity. If this matter has to fill the
empty space left by the expansion, it has to expand also, even when it condense to form
galaxies. So this matter poses the sufficient Kinetic energy to move, in a parabolic universe,
without the intervention of the Big Bang, but it is not clear the way it can do that if
coalesce.

Radio galaxies, quasars, Seyfert, Gamma ray Burst and the age of the universe
The SST seems to have the right answer to all questions. The ejection of hot gas
from this sources is explained by the QSS as a direct evidence of the creation of matter.
Even the gamma ray burst phenomenon is only an object that is capable of create matter, if
it lie at cosmological distance. All radio and AGN sources are called Mini Creation Events
or MCE.
The observable number of radio objects in the universe is not constant as the SST
states nor they are all with the same luminosity. There are much more faint than luminous.
If they have the same luminosity, then there are more object at greater distance.
QSS state, as SST, that the universe is infinitely old, but the average age of objects
are 3x10^11 years, this figure is 1/3 of (1/H0) or P. This is a mathematical trick, because if
the universe is infinite in time, there must be in every volume of space, galaxies of all
possible ages. They said that oldest are lost because they are too far, but there must be an
infinite number of galaxies from the age of 0 to infinity. So from where goes out the value
of 3x10^11 years?
The observable universe is not as uniform in ages, if we see too far in time and too
far in distance (large values of z) we can see much more young galaxies then old. This is
another thing well explained by the SBB, but not by the SST. Everything, inclusively the
time, starts from the Big Bang, the evolution needs some billion years to form galaxies, so
why we have globular clusters so old? Another problem is why, if the universe is so
homogeneous, matter start to collapse to form galaxies? A partial answer for this came
from the Quantum Mechanic, but there is no observational evidence yet that suggest the

7
application of Quantum Cosmology, we have only some mathematical models and
computer simulations.
QSS on this is very simplistic, galaxies are filled of death stars, many generations of
them, the time is infinite, so we can have an infinite number of generations, so QSS explain
very easy the problem of the dark matter. Dark matter is no other thing that burn out stars.
In the case of having many, not infinite, generations of stars, the abundance of
heavy elements in the universe must be much greater than it is, because heavy elements are
formed into stars, as Hoyle demonstrated nearly 60 years ago. But observational evidence
tell us that it is not true, there are still much more hydrogen than metals.
For the Big Bang, dark matter is very important, because is the 90% of the total
matter in the universe. Without the dark matter there is no apparent and reasonable
explanation for the behaviour of the universe. Simply, galaxies and galaxy clusters might
do not exist. The rotation curve of any galaxy is largely dependent to the quantity of dark
matter present.

Element abundance in the Universe

The SST method of matter creation permit the creation of particles in large quantity
up to 1000 solar masses, by the MCE or their mini Big Bangs. These particles may be
protons or hydrogen atoms as steated in the first version of the SST, but in the enhancement
of the theory, the QSS, there are flexibility. It permit the creation of very short lived
particles, Planck particles, [3] that decays into baryons octets and radiation. Of this octects,
only those n and p may survive and decay into protons. A neutron and a proton, when
combined create a Helium atom, so only 2, of the original 8 ended as Helium. This is the
25% that the SBB also is capable to form. The same way all other isotopes generated by the
SBB are also generated by the QSS. The only difference is that in the SBB they are formed
by only one event, the Big Bang, and in the QSS by a very large number of events, many
mini big bangs.

Expansion of the Universe

The energy for the expansion is
created by the large number of Planck
particle that decay to form matter. In a
infinite universe, this particles are
continuously created everywhere. The Big
Bang is the origin of everything in only one
instant in time (Figure 7), it is better to say
that also the time was originated by this event. In the
Figure 7
The Big Bang and the expansion of QSS, time is infinite in the past and in the future, so
matter the expansion is governed by an infinite number of
From: La profonditá dello spazio mini Big Bangs. Why they are all in phase to permit
the expansion? If they are created at random, then the
sum of momenta may be 0. But SST and QSS state that matter moves in a preferred
direction. What kind of event, even in the infinitely past, determined this direction? Why
this direction and not any other?
In the Big Bang contest, there is not a preferred direction, because everything moves
away in all possible directions.

8
Density of matter
The determination of the density of the universe is very important because we can
know if the universe fate is the eternal expansion or the contraction. To measure the density
we have to take the average calculated mass of a typical galaxy and then multiply it by the
number of galaxies in certain volume. This volume must be as large as possible, in the
order of 100 Mpc across. The size of the volume is important, because we have to
remember that the homogeneity is valid only on large scale. If we only calculate the density
in the nearest universe, our results are very far away from the reality. This is because we
live in a denser part of the universe, the local group of galaxies. The average calculated
density is 10^-7 atoms per cubic centimeter, or 10^-31 grams per cubic centimeter. We
have, extrapolating 1 billion Sun masses per 100 cubic Mpc.
The density decrease as the expansion goes on but in a different rate, density
decrease by a factor of 8 when the expansion double the radius of the universe. It is clear
that if we do this calculation in inverse, we have to reach an infinitely denser universe, the
singularity.
The value of the energy constant k, which value tell us if the universe is flat, close
or open, is relative to the actual density and the critical density. The omega parameter is the
ratio of these two densities. If omega is >1 then the universe will contract and will be
denser and hotter until a new singularity. If omega is <1 the universe will expand forever
and all galaxies will disappears when the hydrogen ends. All in a few decades of billion
years.
The density of matter is a problem because there are much less visible matter than it
will be necessary to explain the movement of galaxies. So the real value of the density is
unknown and therefore also the fate of the universe. We can only measure the density based
on the visible matter, but dark matter will change drastically our best prediction.
The SBB try to explain this with the dark matter in one of the possible forms or
even with the two form together: cold and hot.
The SST resolve this problem with the hypothesis that just a fraction of the total
mass [7] is in form of condensed matter (galaxies), all the rest is in form of aisled particles.
But this is not a feasible explanation, because of the gravitational attraction. If these
particles are sufficiently closer, they must collapse and form new galaxies. The only way
this do not occurs is if the distance between particles is very large or the energy of the
relative velocity is greater than the gravitational attractive energy. But if the latter is true,
we can not have an Universe at all, because particles never had chance to form any galaxy.
Another error of the SST is the assumption of the uniformity of the density due to
the continuous creation of matter, they said that it is very difficult to measure the mass and
the luminosity of very distant galaxies (this is true) because there are many variables that
can affect the measurement. For this reason they measure the density of the local patch of
the universe. As I said early, we live in a “family” of galaxies very closer one to the other,
so the omega parameter they may derive is very different to the derived using the Big Bang
theory.

9
Conclusions
Not all of a theory is wrong and not all is true, when the theory try to explain the
Universe it is very difficult to find a unique and exact solution. Another principle state that
a theory can only be disproved, not proved. This is specially true for Cosmology. All
theories try to fit with some kind of observation or physics law, but they do it only partially.
If some data fit the observation, another data do not. This is why, we have not a completely
satisfactory cosmological theory that explain how the Universe works.
With the limitations of the instruments and the lacks of solid physics theories, SST
seems to be a good choice for the Universe for its time. It was an intermediate step between
the classical Newtonian and the most radical Big Bang and the follower quantum models.
Even when its major principle was based on the unchanging Universe, during decades their
authors tried to modify the original work in order to demonstrate that the new data and
observations can fit in. This seems to be a hopeless attempt to survive a death. But this
attempt is not fruitlessly, because it permit the evolution of new theories or the
confirmation of others. If there is no doubt, there is no reason to search for a new solution.
The SST, like any other theory, was attacked from the first time, but it is normal,
because, as I said above, there is no theory that completely explain Nature, also it is
impossible to start without some bias. It is precisely this bias that lead to fail in something
during the development of a theory, and when the theory is about something, almost
unknown, the probability of fail is very high.
The Big Bang model is today the most accepted because it explain almost all the
observational evidences we have. There are still, to explain and resolve, two big problems:
1 - the homogeneity and isotropy of the CMB
2 – dark matter
The first is responsible to the formation of all the matter in the universe, in a perfect
homogeneous and isotropic one, there is no possibility for atoms to condense into stars and
galaxies. If, as we observe, there are some inhomogeneities, then atoms can condense an
form stars due to the gravitational attraction, but which process create those
inhomogeneities?
The second is responsible for the fate of the universe and for understanding the
dynamic of the actual observed universe.
The SST and the modified QSS are very clear on this. The continuous creation of
matter, and the infinitely old universe, solve the first problem because there is no needs to
have “a first time”. The infinitely old universe, with many generations of death stars, also
solve the second.
Like other theories, when the evidences do not fit within the theory, there are
mathematical tricks, like constants, that solve the problem. Cosmology is precisely a field
where mathematics, at first, and no physics explain how things works.
The Steady State is a self adjusting model, their authors have the ability to create a
new model each time a new observational evidence is available and seems to be against
their theory. This way, if one read only their work, believe that everything is all right, but
many times their models are just a desperate game. They refuse the Big Bang, but they use
the same argument to demonstrate the creation of matter, so implicitly they accept it. They
refuse the idea of singularity because the laws of physics do not work there, (they are right)
but they use extremely massive objects to prove the creation near the Schwarzschild radius,
this is only a different name for that.

10
 Sometimes they find more than one form to demonstrate certain phenomenon, if one
case is not satisfactory, there are other that can be.
I think that the Steady State theory is obsolete, as in its fundamental expression.
The new Quasi Steady State is almost the same as the Big Bang with the difference
that they refuse the idea of a Universe that sometime have to be started. Even if the
Universe always existed, as they say, it is physically impossible that never started, so they
just skip the problem of the creation. Out of this fact, they uses almost the same arguments
as the followers of the Big Bang do.
When confronted to all the evidences that discard the principal postulates of the SST
and QSS, Hoyle, find an escape route: the oscillating universe, this way the universe will
stay infinitely old but it expand and contract forever in an infinite number of cycles.
The continuous effort to adapt the theory to the observed data is also an evidence of
the “evolution”, in fact, their theory is the most dynamical that exist (changing year after
year), but they say that the Universe is static at large scale. There is a contradiction behind
other.
All of these facts are the reason why their credibility is low and why, for much
mathematical demonstration they do, people have almost abandoned the SST, because it is
relatively easy to show what we want to see in mathematical form, there is always a
constant that can save the day, but observational evidence are a much more different thing
to put in the right place into a theory.
After all, maybe the true is between the two rivaling theories.

References
[1] Hoyle F., The synthesis of the elements from Hydrogen, Royal Astronomical Society,
1946
[2] Bondi H., Gold T., The steady state theory of the expanding Universe, Royal
Astronomical Society, 1948
[3] Burbridge G, Hoyle F., Narlikar J.V., Quasi Steady State Cosmology, International
Astronomical Union, 1994
[4] Hoyle F., Burbridge G., Narlikar J.V., Astrophysical deductions from the Quasi Steady
State Cosmology, Royal Astronomical Society, 1994
[5] Tipler F., Anthropic principle arguments against Steady State cosmological theories,
The Observatory, 1982
[6] Liboff R., Charged particles creation in the Steady State Universe, Astrophysical
Journal 384, 1992
[7] Hoyle F., A new model for the expanding Universe, Royal Astronomical Society, 1948

* Disney M.J., The case against Cosmology, Astrophysical Journal 0009020v1, 2000
* Silk. J, A short history of the Universe, Scientific American Library, 1999
* Gamow G., La creazione dell’ universo, Mondadori, 1962
* Quintana H., Espacio tiempo y universo, Alfaomega, 2002
* Lowell B., Le profonditá dello spazio, Mondadori, 1970
* Murdin P., Enciclopedia of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Intitute of Physics, 2001
* Wright L.E., Errors in the Steady State and Quasi SS models, 2003
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
* Gingerich O., Is steady state cosmology really dead?, 1972

11
www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1972/JASA3-72GINGERICH.html
* The Big Bang Model vs The Steady State,
http://www.studyworld.com/newsite/ReportEssay/Science/Earth/The_Big_Bang_Model_vs
__The_Steady_State-402768.htm

* Scientific American, Oct. 1990, Nov. 1994

* Scientific American, special edition Cosmos, Jan. 2001
* Astronomy, May 1987, Dec 1989, Jun 1990, Jul 1991, Apr 1992, Aug 1992, Feb 1998,
Dec 2002
* Sky and Telescope, Feb 1996, Oct 2003
* Nuovo Orione, Sep 1992
* L’ Astronomia, Jul/Aug 1981

12