Register to reply

Curvatue Cosmology for a static stable universe

Share this thread:
David Crawfor
#1
Mar17-10, 07:52 PM
P: 10
Curvature Cosmology is a cosmology based on two hypotheses. The first,
curvature redshift, is an interaction between photons and curved spacetime
and produces the observed Hubble redshift. It can also explain the
anomalous Pioneer 10 acceleration.
The second, curvature pressure, is a reaction between spacetime and a hot
plasma such that the hotter the plasma the higher the pressure that tries
to flatten the space curvature. This pressure provides a stable static universe.
The net result is a tired light cosmology that is in excellent agreement
with observations without needing expansion, inflation, dark matter or dark energy.
All of the standard objections to tired light models are fully overcome.
The basic model has one free parameter, the average density of the universe.
The model predicts a Hubble constant of 64.4 km/s/Mpc and a cosmic microwave
background temperature of 2.62 K.
Much of the theory has been published in major journals. In 2006 I wrote a
book "Curvature Cosmology", Brown-Walker Press, which describes this cosmology.
Since then I have corrected some theoretical errors and greatly expanded the
observations that have been used to test the model.

A free copy of this second edition is available on my web site:
http://www.davidcrawford.bigpondhosting.com
The pdf document has 150 pages and its size is 1.14 Mbytes.
I would be delighted to receive comments or criticisms especially
after you have read the book.
Phys.Org News Partner Space news on Phys.org
Mysterious molecules in space
After early troubles, all go for Milky Way telescope
Prospects for the 2014 Perseids
marcus
#2
Mar17-10, 09:33 PM
Astronomy
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
marcus's Avatar
P: 23,114
Dr. Crawford, thanks for telling us about the revised edition of your book. You have a substantial list of publications in professional journals plus unpublished papers available on arxiv. I noticed that the list includes some published and unpublished writings on your static universe concept, so I went through and picked out what I thought might be relevant to this discussion. Please point me to any I missed, especially if they are available on arxiv, or are otherwise online.

D.F. Crawford, "Photon Decay in Curved Space-time", Nature, 277(5698), 633-635 1979.

D.F. Crawford, "Photons in Curved Space-Time", Aust. J. Phys. 40, 449-457 1987.

D.F. Crawford "A New Gravitational Interaction of Cosmological Importance" Astrophys. J. 377 1-6 1991.

D.F. Crawford "A Static Stable Universe" Astrophys. J.410 488-492 1993.

D.F. Crawford "Angular Size in a Static Universe" Astrophysics J.440 466 1995.

D.F. Crawford "The Quasar Distribution in a Static Universe" Astrophys. J. 441 488 1995.

D.F. Crawford "Curvature Pressure in a Cosmology with a Tired-light redshift" Aust. J. Phys. 52 753 1999.

D.F. Crawford "Curvature Cosmology", (BrownWalker Press), 2006.

D. F. Crawford “No Evidence of Time Dilation in Gamma-Ray Burst Data” arXiv:0901.4169.

D. F. Crawford “Type 1a supernovae agree with a static universe” arXiv:0901.4172

I am not familiar with this static universe model, or perhaps only through second-hand hear-say. It gets my attention and respect your having published in NATURE and in ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL. I will take a look, though I may not have anything intelligent or enlightening to say (since it is pretty unusual, somewhat out of my ken, I suspect.)
Good luck with it.
nicksauce
#3
Mar17-10, 10:18 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
nicksauce's Avatar
P: 1,275
Does your model predict/explain the CMB power spectrum?

marcus
#4
Mar17-10, 10:39 PM
Astronomy
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
marcus's Avatar
P: 23,114
Curvatue Cosmology for a static stable universe

Dr. Crawford, I had a look at your recent arxiv posting
http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.4172
and was surprised by this in section 11, on page 13:
"Curvature-cosmology (Crawford, 2006, 2009a) is a complete cosmology that
shows excellent agreement with all major cosmological observations without
needing dark matter or dark energy."

You see since the whole thing is quite unfamiliar to me, I had assumed right off that it was a "tired light" type of model where, because of some curvature effect the photons lose energy and become redshifted as they travel over long distances. But if you propose to dispense not only with expansion but also with dark matter, then it seems to be a more ambitious program.
You will have had to address observed phenomena such as gravitational lensing by clusters, the bullet cluster collision and such, the mapping of dark matter clouds by weak gravitational lensing, the stability of clusters and so forth. I suppose this is covered in the online (second) edition of your book. I intend to have a look at the book as time permits.
David Crawfor
#5
Mar17-10, 11:05 PM
P: 10
Quote Quote by nicksauce View Post
Does your model predict/explain the CMB power spectrum?
Yes it does. Please see Chapter 6
Regards
David
Hoku
#6
Mar18-10, 01:21 AM
P: 166
Questions:

1) Of the resources available on the subject, which would you recommend for the layman?
EDIT: After reading the first 6-pages of the introduction, I see that 1) the book is the most updated, relevant resource and 2) it is written in very simple language that should not loose a layman willing to do additional research as needed. I will have to skip some of the math sections. Based on the introduction, the book seems to be very organized and like it will lead the reader through these new ideas easily.

2) Do any of the resources address the reasons so many people are saying, per the WMAP, that spacetime is flat and not curved?
EDIT: I'm still curious about this question.

(And, just out of personal curiosity, does a "static, stable universe" imply a spacetime that existed before the big bang? )
EDIT: After reading the first 6-pages, I see that the question of "emergence" is moot in curvature-cosmology because there was no "bang" in curvature-cosmology for spacetime to either preceed or emerge from.
Dmitry67
#7
Mar18-10, 01:29 AM
Dmitry67's Avatar
P: 2,456
Whats about entropy? If Universe exists forever, then we face old Boltzman questions about the heat death... Where do you take supply of Hydrogen in the Enternal Universe?
Garth
#8
Mar18-10, 04:03 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Garth's Avatar
P: 3,273
Quote Quote by David Crawfor View Post
Curvature Cosmology is a cosmology based on two hypotheses.
The first:curvature redshift, is an interaction between photons and curved spacetime
and produces the observed Hubble redshift. It can also explain the
anomalous Pioneer 10 acceleration.

The second: curvature pressure, is a reaction between spacetime and a hot
plasma such that the hotter the plasma the higher the pressure that tries
to flatten the space curvature. This pressure provides a stable static universe.
David, could you explain simply the second hypothesis?

I understand hot plasma to have positive density, pressure and energy contents, all of which under GR would 'increase curvature', not flatten it. the Einstein static model would require either a cosmological constant (unstable) or negative pressure [itex]p = -\frac{1}{3}\rho [/itex].

Garth
David Crawfor
#9
Mar18-10, 03:24 PM
P: 10
Quote Quote by Dmitry67 View Post
Whats about entropy? If Universe exists forever, then we face old Boltzman questions about the heat death... Where do you take supply of Hydrogen in the Enternal Universe?
This topic is covered (I hope fully) in the book. I believe that the standard argument
about increase in entropy is flawed when applied to the universe.
All the elements are continually recycled. The very high temperature inter-galactic
plasma breaks down heavier elements into lighter ones.
David Crawfor
#10
Mar18-10, 03:28 PM
P: 10
Quote Quote by Garth View Post
David, could you explain simply the second hypothesis?

I understand hot plasma to have positive density, pressure and energy contents, all of which under GR would 'increase curvature', not flatten it. the Einstein static model would require either a cosmological constant (unstable) or negative pressure [itex]p = -\frac{1}{3}\rho [/itex].

Garth
This is a very speculative hypothesis and rather than give a brief glib statement I would rather you to chapter 4 in the book. Don't hesititate to call me if you find any inconsistencies or
bad arguments.
David Crawfor
#11
Mar18-10, 03:33 PM
P: 10
Quote Quote by Hoku View Post
Questions:

2) Do any of the resources address the reasons so many people are saying, per the WMAP, that spacetime is flat and not curved?
EDIT: I'm still curious about this question.

(And, just out of personal curiosity, does a "static, stable universe" imply a spacetime that existed before the big bang? )
EDIT: After reading the first 6-pages, I see that the question of "emergence" is moot in curvature-cosmology because there was no "bang" in curvature-cosmology for spacetime to either preceed or emerge from.
In curvature cosmology the cosmic background radiation has a completely different origin. Hence the conclusions drawn from WMAP about flat spacetime, etc. are not relevant.
qsa
#12
Mar18-10, 07:54 PM
P: 362
Quote Quote by David Crawfor View Post
This topic is covered (I hope fully) in the book. I believe that the standard argument
about increase in entropy is flawed when applied to the universe.
All the elements are continually recycled. The very high temperature inter-galactic
plasma breaks down heavier elements into lighter ones.
Then, where did matter come from in the first place. can you speculate? time is concrete in your system, or is it? does you theory imply that the universe goes dead(matter disperses) and then somehow comes alive. What about colapse of the universe, or that is also irrelevat to your theory. Like you stated, static universes have been proposed before, does yours have any strong philosophical implication or your way is just more robust , and that is all.
David Crawfor
#13
Mar18-10, 09:42 PM
P: 10
Quote Quote by qsa View Post
Then, where did matter come from in the first place. can you speculate? time is concrete in your system, or is it? does you theory imply that the universe goes dead(matter disperses) and then somehow comes alive. What about colapse of the universe, or that is also irrelevat to your theory. Like you stated, static universes have been proposed before, does yours have any strong philosophical implication or your way is just more robust , and that is all.
I consider curvature cosmology to be a first order theory in that the universe is static and time is unbounded. Whether or not there is a beginning or end to time requires a deeper and more profound theory.
Hoku
#14
Mar18-10, 10:05 PM
P: 166
qsa,

Your question, "then where did matter come from" applies to any cosmological model. Where did matter come from in the Big Bang? That answer is no more easily found. Also, I don't see why his proposal should change the relativity of spacetime. I wouldn't expect it should need to. Finally, the "collapse" of the universe is just as much a mystery with the Big Bang as I would expect it is with Curvature Cosmology. With the Big Bang, we don't know if it will end in a rip, thus ending forever, or if it will cycle back with a "big bounce".

I don't believe Dr. Crawford is trying to promote any "philosophical" ideas aside from the notion that the universe can be better explained without all of these "mysterious forces" like dark matter and dark energy. Curvature Cosmology is testable and, because he wants to know the truth as much as all of us, he welcomes the integriy of the idea to be challenged.

Dr. Crawford is highly educated and published where it counts. He has provided a link to the first 150 pages of his book, free of charge. It is written very clearly. Let's be grateful that Dr. Crawford has reached out to us and make him feel welcome. Once we've read his book, I think he is open to productive confrontations that have direct relevance to specific ideas in the book.
Dmitry67
#15
Mar19-10, 01:49 AM
Dmitry67's Avatar
P: 2,456
Whats about Black Holes?

You can say that they are recycled too via Hawking radiation. However, the rate of such evaporation is extremely very low. In static universe the rate of formation of Black Holes and their evaporation must be in equlibrium, while in the part of our universe we observe they are not balanced. How it is explained?

Thank you
Chronos
#16
Mar19-10, 04:40 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Chronos's Avatar
P: 9,380
I fail to see how you can dismiss dark matter, for example - the bullet cluster.
nutgeb
#17
Mar19-10, 02:58 PM
P: 294
The standard and most powerful argument against 'tired light' theories is that they are inconsistent with evidence of so-called 'time dilation' of elapsed time between certain events of relatively standard duration, such as supernova durations, which increases in proportion to emission distance (z+1). See, e.g., Blondin et all 2008.

Dr. Crawford disagrees with the analsyses that have confirmed the existence of such time dilation, and has extensively documented his counter-analysis. However, to date there seems to be no acceptance of his counter-analysis as discrediting the primary research. The counter-analysis is far too complex for me (and I suspect most of us) to offer any independent judgment as to whether it has merit. So it will have to be sorted out by the experts. If there is in fact an increase in measurement times of 'standard events' which is proportional to distance (z+1), then it appears to me to be fairly conslusive proof that the universe is expanding and that Dr. Crawford's theory must be incorrect.

By the way, I personally don't like the use of the term 'time dilation' in this context because it evokes the concept of SR time dilation which is irrelevent to the actual phenomenon. The effect is more aptly described as a time delay in receiving the second any two serially-emitted photons. That delay should increase exactly in the same proportion as the expansion of the universe between the times of emission and reception; this coincides with the physical stretching of the radial length of the 2-photon string itself, as measured in the observer's rest frame.
David Crawfor
#18
Mar19-10, 03:23 PM
P: 10
Quote Quote by Dmitry67 View Post
Whats about Black Holes?

You can say that they are recycled too via Hawking radiation. However, the rate of such evaporation is extremely very low. In static universe the rate of formation of Black Holes and their evaporation must be in equlibrium, while in the part of our universe we observe they are not balanced. How it is explained?

Thank you
As I have explained in my book I don't believe in black holes. I fully support General Relativity but I argue that curvature pressure not only prevents the ultimate collapse but can produce the jets that are seen in quasars etc.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Cosmology: Horizon of the universe Advanced Physics Homework 1
What if the Universe had this cosmology Cosmology 6
The Stable Universe General Discussion 1
Dark Matter need not be for a stable Universe! Sez'an'amateur... General Physics 10