![big-bang-8[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/big-bang-81.jpg?quality=83)
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dire Wolf says:
May 25, 2014 at 5:53 pm
I’m OK with a finite local universe among an infinite number of other universes, each with its own physical laws. Some of those other universes might also share our own laws, but be in different states of evolution according to them. A lot of these multiverses wouldn’t last long, disappearing like bubbles of sea foam (to use a typical analogy), while others persisted on the cosmic beach, in a sort of cosmological natural selection. If our bubble be massive enough, maybe it will not contract or pop but keep growing (whether at an accelerating pace or not) until simply fading away on the receding spacetime tide, as more energetic universes invade its wispy space. Such collisions could result in new bubble formations, aka Big Bangs.
Of course, the problem is that theorizing other universes beyond ours with physics that doesn’t match ours is, by definition, unverifiable in any specific way. I am all for religion, as long as we label it as such. This certainly falls into that camp.
anna v says: “…You sound horrified , like the church, who could not accept the heliocentric system, which was the most economic mathematical mode of those times…”
Actually, the Copernican system had more epicycles than the Ptolemaic.
greytide says: “Just come back from a cruise & we almost fell off the edge of the Earth. I always knew it was flat but no one would believe me.”
Did you see any sign of Columbus’s fourth ship? It’s out there somewhere.
“””””…..DMA says:
May 25, 2014 at 11:20 am
I have been watching this group of scientists (http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/) for several years and have been very impressed with their advances in fusion that have real promise to provide cheap , clean power in the near future. Dr. Lerner seems well informed and grounded in sound science……”””””
Well you can probably keep on watching them for quite a few more years. Well they have quite a gig going, and we are paying for their fun. They will probably keep at it till they are ready to retire, then they will pass it off to a new generation of taxpayer’s leeches, to keep on fleecing the gullible.
Edward Teller gave us the first not so cheap, and not so clean fusion energy, but unfortunately he couldn’t throttle it back to a useful power level, and it went knida pear shaped.
Mother nature, already provides us with somewhat clean but also somewhat inaccessible energy; but it has the opposite problem. It is spread out like butter on the carpet, and it’s a bit tricky to scrape it off, an collect it in useful quantities.
But at least, she put it a safe distance away from us; unlike Edward Teller.
Gravity sucks, which is how mother nature does it. But electromagnetism, doesn’t suck; it pushes, and there isn’t anything fixed to push against.
So nyet on that clean green cheap thing. Like Carl Sagan, these guys will go to their graves, having accomplished nothing, but come up with a good gig for themselves.
ferdberple says:
May 25, 2014 at 4:49 pm
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.
————————————–
And where did all those neutrons come from? They aren’t evident at present.
Not the first paper to suggest this with actual measured data. Another has been done on the lack of colour shift with distant exploding or super bright stars.
Unhappy with Einstein I’m what people call a flat earther. I simply do not believe there is “dark matter and “dark energy” out there because it is not here. These are inventions (whitewash) to cover the problems of Einsteinian theories not working out on paper.
Fred Hoyle made the best theory. After all, the wavelength of a splash in water is not a constant because speed increases with distance as the wavelength becomes longer. The trouble with measuring velocity of light is problematic due to local gravity distorting time. The velocity of light at ~300km/s is a constant, here! V=d/t
What is unity. Nobody has empirically proved time can go faster than unity between massive objects or in the centre of one.
“””””…..from Anna V.
Now we think we have evidence from the first 10^-34 seconds from the beginning, to 10^-32 seconds where the model expects gravitational waves to dominate. …..””””
Gosh Anna, is the number really 10^-34 seconds ??
And here all these years, I had thought that “Archeo-physics” covered just the first 10^-43 seconds, after the BB (bottom end of the 1/f noise spectrum), where all the really interesting physics happened. Now you tell me that it didn’t end till eons later; a billion times longer than I thought.
Looks like I am going to have my work cut out for me, trying to catch up on all that stuff I missed
g
Ron Balsys:
“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.”
That *.org link up there redirects to a fairly dubious looking site.
And I’ll throw a big fat CHEMTRAILS into this post to make sure a moderator sees 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.“.
Mike Jonas says:
All distances between objects would be increasing, so all objects, viewed from Earth, would appear to be moving away.
So, assuming the speed of light is a constant then we ought to know what part of the red shift we stand in.
We cannot. so cannot verify this paper is incorrect.
safeprayer says:
May 25, 2014 at 4:49 pm
Not a very scientific idea since it contravenes the principle of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.
===================
Gravity overrules your 2nd Law.
I’m comfortable with an expanding universe. The expansion had to start sometime. A Big Bang covers that nicely. What was there before Big Bang? It seems to me the universe was there.
I believe there is sufficient mass to cause a Big Crunch cum Big Bang, the beginning of the next cycle. Since this is billions of years out, I’m not concerned that we can’t identify that mass yet.
Dire Wolf says:
May 25, 2014 at 6:26 pm
I consider such speculation metaphysics rather than religion. But the present cosmological models also embody metaphysical assumptions.
The multiverse hypothesis makes testable predictions, hence is theoretically falsifiable. Thus it is science rather than religion.
String theory, in its advanced M forms, actually derives multiverses, so the hypothesis is not pure speculation, but a testable hypothesis. It might not presently be testable, although at least on astrophysicist thinks she has found evidence in its support, a purportedly observed Cold Spot in the CMB radiation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Mersini-Houghton
Thank you for the references, though they do not provide the information needed to verify the falifiability of the theory. I would be intrigued to hear what sorts of falsifiable predictions it has made — and tested — which would exclude a universe. Just because a theory of multiverse can match data does not mean that it has matched data that a universe theory cannot match. If it does no more than cover the same ground, then Occam’s Razor comes into play.
If the cosmos is infinite in time and space, then it’s paradox to suggest that something unbounded (infinite) can expand on itself, and even if it were expanding, it would have to be expanding into something (Hey presto , expanding into more infinite universe).
As for the beginning of time: Can on conceive of a moment that did not precede another moment?
Andyj says:
May 25, 2014 at 6:39 pm
Before rejecting an hypothesis, I’d suggest your studying it.
There are at least two kinds of dark matter. One is ordinary matter (baryonic) that is or has been until recently simply too dim to be detected. Science finds more of this matter all the time, such as “rogue planets”, ie free floating bodies of planetary size orbiting the center of mass of their galaxies rather than a star, which previously were not even known to exist. They may well contain more mass than planets orbiting stars.
Non-baryonic matter is more conjectural, but observations of gravity lenses suggests it too exists.
It’s still a theory you have there. The odd straw floating downstream does not mean it is autumn but contributed by? Yes.
The fact we can look out in any direction to see the beginnings of time suggest the universe is expanding to the speed of light yet the red shift does not add up. And if it is equidistant and no shift in the speed of light in all directions suggest we are not flying fast on a wavefront and measuring light speed is relative to ones location.
This is what we know which encourages this paper.
Well, we don’t have much comprehension as to relativity of perspective, for we might claim to see things moving away from us, thus asssuming we’re the centre of the universe, whilst if we were 3 billion light years away from where we are, we might be seeing things differently, and then utter a conclusion, like a tablet of stone thrown from heaven, that something else was the universal truth.
To me the Big Bang theory appears irrational and my mind rejects it on principle as an explanation for the universe’s existence. I don’t have a problem with the idea of the galaxies moving apart from one another in Euclidean 3-dimensional space, but that is not the idea of the Big Bang theory. There the idea is that space and time are expanding too! But the idea of the expansion of time and space implies that they are expanding relative to an absolute frame of reference that is not expanding but is invariant in scale. The idea of space and time expanding relative to themselves would be meaningless and absurd. Yet precisely this absurd idea is central to the Big Bang theory.
In spite of this essential absurdity though, Big Bang cosmologists claim to be able to plot the course of universal expansion backwards to an absolute starting point of the universe some 13.6(?) billion years ago in absolute time – a miraculous, uncaused event that occurred at a moment in no time and no space wherein all time, space and energy exploded into existence from absolute nothing. Something coming from absolute nothing is a miracle, no matter how it may be disguised in esoteric cosmologists’ technobabble as a “singularity” and miracles are the stuff of religion, not science. The reason for their being eschewed by science is not that they can’t happen, but that they don’t explain anything and the purpose of a scientific theory is to explain something. “Explaining” that the universe arose spontaneously out of nothing is no explanation at all really and therefore the Big Bang “theory” is a false theory from the get-go in my view.
Whenever I contemplate the Big Bang theory I somehow get the feeling that I am being asked to believe at least five impossible things before breakfast.
Magic Turtle says:
May 25, 2014 at 7:19 pm
Before rejecting the well-supported theory, it might be a good idea to make the slightest effort to try to understand it first, which it appears you haven’t & don’t.
The Big Bang Theory does not posit that the universe arose spontaneously out of nothing, for starters.
Don’t worry about the big bang. It was obviously taken straight from Genesis as a method of giving origin to things.
See a broken window pane. Assume the cause was a stone. Or was it a bullet? Or was it an earth tremor?
It is difficult to trace the cause of even recent unobserved events, as there is little that binds a cause to an effect as such. There is no contiguity between a cause and an effect as such.
Think how much more preposterous it is to infer the universe from what we see from our perspective in th e21st century
P Wilson says:
May 25, 2014 at 7:24 pm
No, it wasn’t. Dunno if you’re kidding or not. Hard to tell sometimes.
The Big Bang is about as well supported by observational evidence, coherent theory, confirmational predictions & every other sort of test that make up the scientific method as almost any other theory you might name.
That is not to say that it won’t be improved, but that applies to the theories of geocentrism, gravitation, oxygen combustion, atomic matter, geological superposition, disease germs, evolution, relativity, quantum mechanics, DNA genetics & any other well established scientific theory you might name. For instance that the expansion of the universe might be accelerating came as something of a shocker to me. I’m still not totally convinced.
yes. A conjecture supported by even more conjecture, so to quote Butler “Their notions fitted facts so well, that which was which they could not tell”
Andyj says:
May 25, 2014 at 7:29 pm
IMO the paper doesn’t directly question the Big Bang. It just says that you can use Euclidean geometry at intergalactic scales.
“Theory” in science doesn’t mean the same thing as in common parlance. The Multiverse Theory only recently was elevated to that exalted status from an hypothesis because of advances in its mathematical explanation & some (admittedly questionable) observations. It’s hard to look back before the Big Bang & beyond our own universe. But not impossible.
You said:
IMO the paper doesn’t directly question the Big Bang. It just says that you can use Euclidean geometry at intergalactic scales.
On dark & black stuff. You should of read the bit where I stated:-
“It’s still a theory you have there. The odd straw floating downstream does not mean it is autumn but contributed by? Yes.”
I did not question the paper on that. I question the big bang theory that was equated from Einstein’s theory into the bible. The crazier theories you postulate .. Guesses upon guesses for those holes in that theory the worse it gets. Do you believe in global warming or something?
milodonharlani says:
May 25, 2014 at 7:22 pm
“The Big Bang Theory does not posit that the universe arose spontaneously out of nothing, for starters.”
Then how, and from what does the Big Bang theory propose that the universe did arise, O superior comprehending one?
we can go around in circles and see how the steady state theory is correct, and use supporting evidence to show how it holds.. Making facts fit the notion is the chief aim of cosmology..
We know almost nothing of the universe to form even a conjecture
P Wilson says:
May 25, 2014 at 7:31 pm
Again, please study the Big Bang Theory before presuming to comment on it out of total ignorance.
It’s not a conjecture supported by more conjecture, but originally an hypothesis supported by an ever increasing number of observations until it became a theory, which has yet to be shown false. It’s also an unavoidable consequence of other well-supported physical theories, such as relativity.
If you have a better hypothesis or theory, please offer evidence in its support, or better yet, provide some observation which shows the BBT false. Please start with your alternative explanation for the cosmic microwave background radiation. Thanks.
Big Bang was chosen over Steady State as it was so much like how the bible gave a neat and tidy origin to the universe. Humans like everything to fit into a “categorical imperative” that they contrive in their minds.