![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.
that’s the point. Cosmologists are making “best guesses” for the observable universe, based, as you say, n current *evidence* and making them into some sort of truth. Instead of the universe being 6000 years old, it is 13.6 billion instead.
P Wilson says:
May 25, 2014 at 8:06 pm
Apparently you’ve not studied classical physics or observed the world around you. “We” know what the CMB implies because of the laws of thermodynamics, not because of a desire to go all biblical. Are you really this ignorant of the most elementary physics?
Not that the Big Bang “confirms” the creation myths of any religion or belief system. None of them comes close to describing with any specificity what actually happened in the early universe, including the two creation myths in Genesis.
P Wilson says:
May 25, 2014 at 8:10 pm
They’re not making best guesses, but deriving the time since the Big Bang from observations. I suppose you could call that educated guesswork, but it’s based upon increasingly improved observations & derived from laws of physics which are known to operate on the appropriate time frames.
You really ought to study the topics upon which you presume to comment.
No i’m not ignorant of physics, but you might as well say that places (including manmade that record temperatures of 3000K apart from CMR, including acetylene torches are therefore as old as the universe too
Andyj says:
May 25, 2014 at 8:10 pm
You have already seen that I’m peddling nothing but my own take on what has been observed. I told you that I was surprised to discover evidence that expansion is accelerating, & am still not convinced that that observation is valid. But it could be.
You OTOH are rejecting out of pure ignorance all the evidence accumulated since 1929 & the results of theoretical calculations based upon both Einstein’s 1905 theory of relativity & quantum mechanics of subsequent decades. It take a lot of faith on your part to set your own unsupported belief system against the weight of those evidences & successful predictions.
As with all well supported scientific theories, improvements can & will be made. The BBT might even be overturned & replaced some day, but nothing you have said offers support for that outcome. Quite the opposite.
P Wilson says:
May 25, 2014 at 8:14 pm
So you posit now a Cosmic Blowtorcher out there in the intergalactic dark heating up areas of the universe?
Interesting.
Where did I write that the Big Bang theory was used to confirm the bible? I said that it was borrowed from the human desire to have a neat any tidy origin as genesis does. Only on different timeframes with different conjectures.
In truth, we simply don’t know or probably ever will
no. Current cosmology infers a cosmic blowtorch, aka, the Big Bang
P Wilson says:
May 25, 2014 at 8:18 pm
No, it doesn’t. Far from it.
It implies nothing of the sort. It is based upon the laws of thermodynamics. Do you reject all aspects of physics?
P Wilson says:
May 25, 2014 at 8:18 pm
You’re off by 180 degrees. If science wanted something simple, neat & tidy, it would go with steady state, unchanging always been there, as you chose to do, contrary to all evidence.
It is observation of nature that has driven development of the BBT at every point in its history, not a desire to have a story with a beginning. Since at least Hutton, atheistic or at least naturalistic science has wanted a story with a beginning or an end. Nature has said otherwise.
milodonharlani says:
May 25, 2014 at 8:22 pm
that’s right. The great Cosmic Blowtorcher of a Big Bang, based on thermodynamics, that gets more and more convincing as each year goes by…. as it changes so much, and as each observation reveals ever new evidence to support the original assertation of Big Bang.
now that’s enough of Dante for one evening.
Well far be it from me to say that the universe doesn’t change. The one thing that in fact doesn’t change is theit’s infinity, and that infinity can’t expand on itself
P Wilson says:
May 25, 2014 at 8:29 pm
What changes go you imagine have been observed to support your view? The CMB has indeed been found to vary slightly in different directions, but it should hardly be surprising that residual energy is not uniformly distributed throughout spacetime, since neither is matter, ie we have stars & galaxies rather than a uniform soup of hydrogen atoms.
Perhaps it has escaped your notice that objects hotter than their surroundings tend to become cooler & cooler objects warmer. This observation by attentive observers explains the inferences drawn by physicists & cosmologists as to the CMB & the BBT. Hence my reference to the laws of thermodynamics. Since you apparently have a problem with these observations & laws, I’m not surprised that you have decided to retire into the night from whence you came with references to late Medieval poetry.
P Wilson says:
May 25, 2014 at 8:30 pm
A lot of cosmologists would disgree with me, but IMO our universe isn’t infinite, but the universe of universes is. So much for your baseless slur that I’m parroting someone else’s thoughts.
Donot you guys know. It is just a glitch in the Matrix… Once it is realised that the observed untiverse is not making sense, then the machine will reset and we will have forgotten about this. Get ready to all experience dejavu because that is what happens when,….
Do you guys know. Its just an glitch in the observations. Once it is realised…….
[Isn’t dejavu just reheated coffee? .mod]
the 2nd law of thermodynamics is what you are referring to there
oops. I didn’t realise you were a troll. Goodnight
[Who are you addressing? 8<) (We have to keep track of the money received at the troll gates on each shift, you know.) .mod]
Late to the thread as usual. Glad someone finally looked at galaxies in brightness and size. From their data, one can now establish the time lost constant to the red shift. I don’t buy the big bang as it isn’t logical in what we see. We see well defined galaxies out to the 12 billion light year sphere, no matter which way we look when the age of the universe is suppose to be 12.8 billion years. For stars to coalesce into galactic structures would take longer than .8 billion years. I believe light or electromagnetic radiation decays in relationship to time, that 4th dimension). From their data, they may be able to work out what the decay factor is. As part of equation, the level of energy must also have a relationship to the decay. May I also suggest that all electromagnetic radiation decays until it hits around the 12.8 billion year mark when it decays into another form of energy. Could the background radiation we see be light after that transformation? I think the universe is far bigger than we think but we are limited in viewing it due to the life span of light itself.
DirkH says:
Ok, then please cite one experiment that shows that space is four dimensional.
All those high energy experimental physics papers in the journals are validations of the four dimensional space and time. Of course reactors and the atomic bomb are an application. And even GPS would not work correctly if the theory were not taken into account :
Because an observer on the ground sees the satellites in motion relative to them, Special Relativity predicts that we should see their clocks ticking more slowly (see the Special Relativity lecture). Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion.
This is being corrected so that the system can work.
P Wilson says:
May 25, 2014 at 8:38 pm
I’m glad that you recognized to which of the laws of thermodynamics I referred in that case. Do you now see how that particular law combined with the observation of the CMB confirms the BBT?
I hope so. Had you connected those dots earlier, many comments could have been saved.
P Wilson says:
May 25, 2014 at 8:39 pm
I assume that by “troll”, you mean advocate of the scientific method.
Theo Goodwin says:
May 25, 2014 at 1:58 pm
> I haven’t seen your posts in years..
Well, not in years, but it is true I am not posting here as before. I have become bored with the AGW , Climate Change, Climate Disruption saga . One can not always be arguing the same arguments against bad physics. I have also discovered a site of physics questions and answers that keeps my little grey ( white?) cells occupied in answering questions . 🙂
I do check the new posts every morning though.
*******************
jorgekafkazar says:
May 25, 2014 at 6:14 pm
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.
The number of parameters are the same, it is the economy of describing the same system in a generalized manner , with clear postulates and mathematics that separates the two systems that allowed for an expansion of thought about gravity..
********************
george e. smith
HI George,
I had a rude surprise also, not having payed attention since the last course I had in cosmology in 1977. The inflation period has been introduced, with its inflaton to churn this time interval into homogeneity, which was unexplainable otherwise. . The recent results from BICEP2 two pertain to imprinted gravitational wave effects from the inflation period, which is a slice from 10^-34 to 10^-32. seconds.
In the fullness of time, I would expect both theories big bang and steady state to be proved wrong.
If the universe has been designed properly it would be a continuos process of creation of matter and recycling, ever growing, youthful and full of infinite possibilities.
Nothing that science has discovered prohibits the possibility that what I say may be closer to the truth. The contradictions in the big bang theory with their imaginary fixes is starting to make their heads hurt. The static universe would not see so many new suns being born from clouds of hydrogen. Continuos creation would not need the missing middle of our universe, just a seething energy in the vacuum, the missing aether.
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.
————————————————–
Who knew? From what did the big bang arise?
bones says:
May 25, 2014 at 9:19 pm
Dunno how you missed the BICEP results. They were in all the papers.
http://news.sciencemag.org/physics/2014/04/scientists-find-imprint-universe-existed-big-bang
But even before this experimental result, subject of course to further confirmation, there was the theoretical basis, derived from working backwards from observations of the universe.
I always have to wonder what part of “hot, dense state”, people don’t understand. It should be intuitively obvious that mass & energy predate the Big Bang. At least it is to me.
Nor do I know how anyone seriously interested in the topic could have missed the hypotheses seeking to explain what occurred before the Big Bang, even without benefit of the BICEP finding, such as this popular hypothesis:
http://discovermagazine.com/2013/september/13-starting-point
Maybe if people actually studied the BBT before commenting on it, a lot of misunderstanding could be cleared up.