![big-bang-8[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/big-bang-81.jpg)
New evidence, based on detailed measurements of the size and brightness of hundreds of galaxies, using The Tolman test for surface brightness, indicates that the Universe is not expanding after all. I’m betting that somewhere, some activist is trying to figure out an angle to blame climate change. (h/t to Roy Spencer)
From Sci-News.com: Universe is Not Expanding After All, Scientists Say
In their study, the scientists tested one of the striking predictions of the Big Bang theory – that ordinary geometry does not work at great distances.
In the space around us, on Earth, in the Solar System and our Milky Way Galaxy, as similar objects get farther away, they look fainter and smaller. Their surface brightness, that is the brightness per unit area, remains constant.
In contrast, the Big Bang theory tells us that in an expanding Universe objects actually should appear fainter but bigger. Thus in this theory, the surface brightness decreases with the distance. In addition, the light is stretched as the Universe expanded, further dimming the light.
So in an expanding Universe the most distant galaxies should have hundreds of times dimmer surface brightness than similar nearby galaxies, making them actually undetectable with present-day telescopes.
But that is not what observations show, as demonstrated by this new study published in the International Journal of Modern Physics D.
The scientists carefully compared the size and brightness of about a thousand nearby and extremely distant galaxies. They chose the most luminous spiral galaxies for comparisons, matching the average luminosity of the near and far samples.
Contrary to the prediction of the Big Bang theory, they found that the surface brightnesses of the near and far galaxies are identical.
Full story: http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html
===========================================================
Physicist Luboš Motl isn’t impressed:
It is quite a bold claim but not shocking for those who have the impression based on the experience that these journals published by World Scientific are not exactly prestigious – or credible, for that matter. The sloppy design of the journal website and the absence of any TEX in the paper doesn’t increase its attractiveness. The latter disadvantage strengthens your suspicion that the authors write these things because they don’t want to learn the Riemannian geometry, just like they don’t want to learn TEX or anything that requires their brain to work, for that matter.
…
The point of the paper is that the expanding Universe of modern cosmology should be abandoned because there is a simpler model one may adopt, namely the static, Euclidean universe. Their claim or their argument is that this schookid-friendly assumption is completely compatible with the observations. In particular, it is compatible with the observations of the UV surface brightness of galaxies.
Read more of what he has to say here: http://motls.blogspot.com/2014/05/claims-universe-is-not-expanding.html#more
The cartoon I published Friday might be prescient.
The paper:
UV surface brightness of galaxies from the local universe to z ~ 5
Int. J. Mod. Phys. D DOI: 10.1142/S0218271814500588
Eric J. Lerner, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc., USA Renato Falomo, INAF–Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova, Italy Riccardo Scarpa, Instituto de Astrofısica de Canarias, Spain
The Tolman test for surface brightness (SB) dimming was originally proposed as a test for the expansion of the universe. The test, which is independent of the details of the assumed cosmology, is based on comparisons of the SB of identical objects at different cosmological distances. Claims have been made that the Tolman test provides compelling evidence against a static model for the universe. In this paper we reconsider this subject by adopting a static Euclidean universe (SEU) with a linear Hubble relation at all z (which is not the standard Einstein–de Sitter model), resulting in a relation between flux and luminosity that is virtually indistinguishable from the one used for ΛCDM models. Based on the analysis of the UV SB of luminous disk galaxies from HUDF and GALEX datasets, reaching from the local universe to z ~ 5, we show that the SB remains constant as expected in a static universe.
A re-analysis of previously published data used for the Tolman test at lower redshift, when treated within the same framework, confirms the results of the present analysis by extending our claim to elliptical galaxies. We conclude that available observations of galactic SB are consistent with a SEU model.
We do not claim that the consistency of the adopted model with SB data is sufficient by itself to confirm what would be a radical transformation in our understanding of the cosmos. However, we believe this result is more than sufficient reason to examine this combination of hypotheses further.
I note that no-one has found a fatal flaw in the paper itself. Red shift has been cited, but Stephen Wilde (May 25, 2014 at 10:57 am) says “There has been some doubt for some time as to whether the red shift phenomenon has been interpreted correctly.“. I too am not totally convinced by Big Bang theory, though I accept that there is a lot of evidence. Wrt this latest paper, while it does not seem credible, I would like to see it disproved on its own merits before completely discarding it.
—
John Peter (May 25, 2014 at 9:25 am) says “[..] The Universe is expanding. If Mother Earth is not the centre then surely everything would not be moving away from us.“. All distances between objects would be increasing, so all objects, viewed from Earth, would appear to be moving away.
Dire Wolf says:
May 25, 2014 at 2:57 pm
“…This leads to the paradox that today can never exist, because no matter how many moments in time pass, there will always be an infinite amount yet to pass before right “now”
Time is relative therefor there is equal infinite possibilities for the present to exist. There is no paradox!
🙂
Time is relative only to the present. It is absolute to the past. The paradox remains.
I still like Carl Sagan’s description: the universe [is] finite but unbounded.
I embrace a simple model. The Big Bang – the Universe – is the current iteration. Eventually, billions of years from now, the universe will collapse upon itself and there will be another big bang. The universe is cyclic.
The universe can be cyclical only if there is sufficient mass to cause the Big Crunch. That is dependent on the addition of unverifiable (at this time) dark energy and dark matter. Otherwise the universe is headed for the Big Chill (entropic destruction). But that begs the question of how the universe began.
albertalad says:
May 25, 2014 at 10:50 am
This paper appears to be deeply flawed. Moreover, BICP2 provided the first direct evidence of gravitational waves rippling through the earliest space-time indicating the very early universe underwent a period of faster then light expansion now known as inflation. Inflation by it’s very nature is indeed an expanding universe.
—————————————————————————
The BICEP2 result needs to be confirmed. The signal was much, much larger than expected and might be due to dust scattered by supernova explosions in our own galaxy. IMHO it’s to early to be a believer.
In reply to Luboš Motl
William:
The point of the paper is that observations do not support the big bang theory. There are piles of unexplained astronomical anomalies which support that assertion. For example: Large scale alignment type anomalies in the ‘cosmic ray background’ (CMB) radiation (confirmed by two different satellite sets of data and two independent team analysis) provide support for the assertion that the 2.7 Kelvin thermal radiation was not produced by a big bang. The big bang did not occur as the universe is eternal.
CMB Large Scale’ Structural’ Anomalies -Violation of the Cosmological Principal?
It is assumed that the 2.7 k thermal radiation that is observed in the sky is radiation left over from the ‘Big Bang’ of cosmology. One of the fundamental logical pillars to support the assertion that the 2.7 k thermal radiation is from the hypothesized ‘Big Bang’ is that the thermal radiation in question should be by appropriately isotropic.
For unexplained reasons the more detailed 2.7k thermal radiation data analysis (WMAP 2.7k thermal radiation analysis) showed the thermal radiation in question to be highly anisotropic with unequivocal observational evidence of multiple very, very large scale ‘structural ‘ anomalies. The recent and more accurate Planck 2.7k thermal radiation analysis has confirmed that the multiple very, very large scale ‘structure’ anisotropic anomalies are real and has in fact increased the structural anomalies in question.
Structural Anomaly
A structural anomaly is an obvious non random pattern in the observational data that cannot be explained by statistical variance or by the underlying fundamental theory. A very large, very clear smiley face that appears when a set of data that is uniform in other regions is displayed is an example of a structural anomaly which likely would indicate a prankster had modified the data.
Structural anomalies forces either the introduction of multiple theory complicating new mechanisms or indicates that the fundamental theory may be incorrect. An example of structural anomalies are the observational anomalies created by Claudius Ptolemy ‘s earth centered model of the solar system. The solar system structural observational anomalies disappear when the theory is changed to a sun based solar system. The solution to removing Ptolemy’s structural anomalies is not to introduce new mechanisms but rather to look for a new fundamental theory or to re-examine the observations with an old discarded fundamental theory.
Picture of Planck structural thermal anomalies
http://profmattstrassler.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/planck_anomalies.jpg
http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/03/21/the-universe-according-to-planck-the-satellite/
http://es.arxiv.org/abs/0704.3736v2
Alignment and signed-intensity anomalies in WMAP data
Firstly, an alignment analysis identifies two mean preferred planes in the sky, both with normal axes close to the CMB dipole axis. The first plane is defined by the directions toward which local CMB features are anomalously aligned. A mean preferred axis is also identified in this plane, located very close to the ecliptic poles axis. The second plane is defined by the directions anomalously avoided by local CMB features. This alignment anomaly provides further insight on recent results (Wiaux et al. 2006a). Secondly, a signed intensity analysis identifies three mean preferred directions in the southern galactic hemisphere with anomalously high or low temperature of local CMB features: a cold spot essentially identified with a known cold spot (Vielva et al. 2004), a second cold spot lying very close to the southern end of the CMB dipole axis, and a hot spot lying close to the southern end of the ecliptic poles axis. In both analyses, the anomalies are observed at wavelet scales corresponding to angular sizes around 10◦ on the celestial sphere, with global significance levels around 1%. Further investigation reveals that the alignment and signed-intensity anomalies are only very partially related. Instrumental noise, foreground emissions, as well as some form of other systematics, are strongly rejected as possible origins of the detections. An explanation might still be envisaged in terms of a global violation of the isotropy of the Universe, inducing an intrinsic statistical anisotropy of the CMB.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.3831.pdf
Lack of large-angle TT correlations persists in WMAP and Planck
The lack of large-angle correlations in the observed microwave background temperature fluctuations persists in the final-year maps from WMAP and the first cosmological data release from Planck. We find a statistically robust and significant result: p-values for the missing correlations lying below 0:24 per cent (i.e. evidence at more than 3 σ) for foreground cleaned maps, in complete agreement with previous analyses based upon earlier WMAP data. A cut sky analysis of the Planck HFI 100 GHz frequency band, the ‘cleanest CMB channel’, returns a p-value as small as 0:03 per cent, based on the conservative mask defined by WMAP. These findings are in stark contrast to expectations from the inflationary Lambda cold dark matter model and still lack a convincing explanation. If this lack of large-angle correlations is a true feature of our Universe, and not just a statistical fluke, then the cosmological dipole must be considerably smaller than that predicted in the best-fitting model.
Centerless expansion necessarily assumes that space is 4-dimensional. Well, is it? It would be possible to prove this by a simple exercise in geometry, but we need interstellar travel in order to accomplish the observations. Just another example of how the Big Bang is understandable only if you entertain unvalidated assumptions.
Just for fun I made an attempt to find if redshift could be caused by the fundamental constant changing with time. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B006IR5VAI
The speed of light is determined by the permeability of the medium it moves through, so light moves through water much slower than a vacuum. It is assumed in these theories that the permeability of a vacuum is constant throughout all time. If we assume free space is truly empty ( einsteinian view) then this would seem to be unassailable, however this was not Maxwells view, and modern Quantum mechanics does support the Maxwellian idea of a quantum flux, an aether A foaming sea of particle/antiparticle pairs being brought into existance and destroyed on average at the same rate. The so-called zero point field. So if free space permeability is defined by the local density of the zero point field then the permeability of free space is alterable, and the velocity of light in free space is no longer a constant. This idea has huge ramifications, for example if we could invent a field, that suppresses the formation of the zero point field locally then we could reduce permeability and increase the speed of light locally, let’s say, in the immediate vicinity of a space craft, the space craft could then advance a distace at above light speed, establish a new zero point dampening field and repeat.
The variability of the speed of light is a very intriguing subject to me, we treat it as a constant but we KNOW for a fact that it is is a varisble. This constrains thinking in much the same way that the TOTALLY UNWARRANTED assumption that climate sensitivity is constant does. Climate sensitivity is not a constant, it is an inverse function of temperature and other unknown factors, yet the climate high priests treat it as a dimensionless number… hmm perhaps it’s 42
The universe expands due to global warming, thats quit obvious and easy to explain. Think about all the gas planetes, the big gas clouds, even the sun like all the other stars are gas objects. And what does gas if you warm it up? Right, it expands. Hubble discovered, that all these gas objects move away from our planet with increasing speed. And there you are, the ultimate proof planet earth is heating up dramatically.
please cite one experiment that shows that space is four dimensional
==============
quantum entanglement very much suggests our view of space-time as x,y,z,t is incomplete.
Gamecock: Eventually, billions of years from now, the universe will collapse upon itself and there will be another big bang. The universe is cyclic.
Not a very scientific idea since it contravenes the principle of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.
So why is any hydrogen left? Wouldn’t stars burn it all in an infinite time?
================
free neutron decay into hydrogen in about 15 minutes.
The universe doesn’t have to be infinite. If it is big enough, everything in it will begin to be replicated, even our entire observable universe.
==================
agreed. making time travel to the past possible, by traveling into the future to an identical observable universe to this one.
Gerry says:
May 25, 2014 at 1:22 pm
“I reckon that scientists should always keep the possibility that, based on history at least, all current theories about anything could be wrong..”
Gerry, perhaps this is a little metaphysical, but if everything we’ve ‘discovered’ should prove to be totally wrong, then there is a good case for discontinuing all such scientific inquiry forever. Landing on the moon and coming back, rovers on Mars… even bridges over a river must be based on some degree of confidence in theories.
I have been an avid follower of cosmology theories for over 50 years. I have seen the rise and fall of a number of theories in that time. (Steady-state vs Big Bang was the last). Like many I followed the mob and adopted the big bang theory as the best paradigm. Then one day I ran across a site called thunderbolts.org. At first I thought that this was just another nutters’ site – but the fact that they got a number of predictions right made me go back and keep reading. This lead to other related sites – on plasma cosmology and the electric universe.
These groups point out that the observable universe is made up of ~98% plasma. To understand the universe you need to understand the physics of plasma. Now you have two groups – astrophysicists who deny electric fields in space (they never use the word electricity even they they talk about magnetic effete all the time, why?) and plasma physicist who say its all due to the properties of plasma.
One group has had most of the research money and so has a very well developed theory and lots of papers. The other group has a less well developed theory with fewer papers. Basically both groups theories describe the observations. However one group requires a “start” (the big bang), resorts to invisible, undetectable matter/energy and the “consensus” view. The other group points to plasma and observations in the lab to explain it all. I now believe in the plasma universe, not the big bang universe.
In terms of some of the evidence commonly used by big bangers to shore up there theory try the following.
1. Google intrinsic redshift and see what papers come up.
2. Look at Arp’s concordance of anomalous redshift galaxies
3. Google CMB caused by water on earth?
4. Read the progress Lerner has been having with fusion (hottest plasma 1.5 billion degrees) and his plans to achieve more energy out than in with 18 months at llp.org
Remember that the big bang or electric universe are both theories. Occams’ razor says the simplest (not most mathematical) theory should be chosen.
Luboš Motl. Isn’t that the guy with the web-site designed by a pre-pubescent Japanese girl?
Regarding the universe, we have no idea.
It starts with Einstein in 1905 and special relativity. Special Relativity has been experimentally confirmed many many times. Einstein then added gravity to the equations to give us General Relativity. This has again been confirmed by observation. Most notably by Eddington in the 1930s. One of Eddington’s post doc students Fr. Georges Lemaitre (yes he was an ordained priest) showed that an implication of General Relativity was that the Universe had started from a single point ( the term Big Bang was a term of abuse coined by Sir Fred Hoyle who hated the theory). Lemaitre also calculated what we now know as Hubble’s Constant and predicted CMB. Now while there are large gaps in the Theory, any alternative explanation of the Universe has to overcome over a century of mathematically derived precise theory and confirming observation. Big Bang Theory is based on so much more than Hubble’s observation of red shift.
Gary Pearse says:
May 25, 2014 at 4:56 pm
Gerry says:
May 25, 2014 at 1:22 pm
I can help here. All scientific theory is open to revision occasioned by discovery of new predictions that prove false. Revision does not mean junking the whole theory. Needed revisions might vary from few and small to many and large. In the latter extreme, you might junk the theory.
Steve B,
That’s interesting about redshift. Back in the late 1970s I was friends with an astronomer who had done his doc and postdoc with Bach (of Bach Globule fame) at UC Berkeley. He told me about a major study of the Coma Cluster that was raising a lot of hackles. Apparently, they were finding that the redshifts within the cluster came in statistical waves that could not hold together under a random gravitational field of sufficient duration. As you mention, there was something distinctly quantum about their distribution, and the statistical analysis was upheld by the best mathematicians around.
The clear inference of the study was that something else was causing at least some significant part of the redshift other than recession, and doing so in a quantum jump at regular intervals over time (in relation to distance of each galaxy of the cluster as calculated by redshift). One of the only obvious explanations for this was that the basic constants of physics might well be changing over time, in quantum steps, but no one was willing to come out and say that. Bach himself was highly guarded about the study, which had never intended to come up with such a finding. He protected my friend and other post-docs from any blowback from working on the study. My friend soon left to take a position at another university, and I never learned what became of the study, if it was even published. I’ve always been curious as to how that issue was resolved, if ever, but it’s not my field, so I never found out.
Still, I’ve always wondered just how reliable redshift theory is as a barometer of recession, or if new theories have come into play. I’m sure a lot has changed since the 1970s. Any ideas on that?
“Secondly nobody can convince me that the mass of even what is known of The Universe could come out of a pea size body more or less exactly 13.7 (or whatever it is) billion years ago. ”
Relative to what? The size of the universe at any stage is not measurable in a way that “the size of a pea” can have meaning.
Yes, even “settled” science isn’t settled. I am amazed at the incredible reaction to this, really, in that there IS NO such thing as “settled science.” The big bang theory is exactly that – a theory. So much of what we see “out there” can be explained by different points of view, and the big bang theory belongs in the black hole that also is a theory. Oddly enough, a theory is strengthened by research that shows information that can validate it, yet, as Einstein stated, one piece of information that disproves it falsifies it. So much money has been spent on ways to “prove” the validity of the big bang, but along comes something that tends to disprove it and it is attacked – sort of like manmade CO2 causes catastrophic global warming, tons of money are spent trying to validate it, and everyone attacks anyone that has the audacity to offer information that tends to disprove it. Love the flip flop of this crowd.
So my frequent galaxy miles are still good!
It is said that as you look out into space you are looking back in time.That means that if you could see far enough out or back in time you would be looking at a baby universe, much smaller than it is today. Theoretically if you could see far enough away and back in time you would see the origin of the universe, the “Big Bang”. This is what the background microwave radiation is all about. We are told the universe emerged from a point. So the instant the point became a dot, time and space began. The universe was tiny. Here is my point. We look out far enough and we see the dot. The irony is we see the dot in all directions. Therefore I conclude we are are the center of the universe, and what is even more amazing is that no matter where we are we would be at the center. All places in the present are unique.
I gather that the authors are claiming that Euclidean geometry works at large scale, without explicitly challenging curved spacetime. This reminds me of the soft version of Copernicanism, in which earth was assumed to move for ease of astronomical calculations, without necessarily arguing for its actual, objective movements (Copernicus himself maintained hard reality & was unhappy with the publisher’s forward supporting hypothetical calculation). In fact geocentrism wasn’t much easier, since Copernicus’ original hypothesis included perfectly circular orbits, as in Aristotle & Ptolemy, rather than the ellipses later found by Kepler, based upon Tycho’s naked eye observations of Mars.
Lubos also said:
“So these three men – and a few others – who are struggling to “liberate” physics from the curved spacetime geometry have to reject simpler parts of modern physics – special relativity as well – and they have to make indefensible or manifestly wrong claims about “mysterious new sources of changing frequency”. The only result of these problematic steps is that they “explain” one function of distance (or redshift) by another function of distance (or redshift) that they freely invented – it means that they don’t explain anything at all. The paper is spectacularly free of correct or meaningful claims or insights.”
I’d prefer to leave this matter to the physicists. Let’s not weaken the case against CAGW by relating it to unrelated (possibly crackpot) theories by analogy. At least that’s my mindset as an engineer.