Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Curvatue Cosmology for a static stable universe

  1. Mar 17, 2010 #1
    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:
    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.
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 17, 2010 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Re: Curvature Cosmology for a static stable universe

    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 You have a substantial list of publications in professional journals plus unpublished papers available on arxiv. I noticed that the list includes some published and unpublished writings on your static universe concept, so I went through and picked out what I thought might be relevant to this discussion.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.
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2010
  4. Mar 17, 2010 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Does your model predict/explain the CMB power spectrum?
  5. Mar 17, 2010 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Re: Curvature Cosmology for a static stable universe

    Dr. Crawford, I had a look at your recent arxiv posting
    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.
  6. Mar 17, 2010 #5
    Yes it does. Please see Chapter 6
  7. Mar 18, 2010 #6

    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? :tongue:)
    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.
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2010
  8. Mar 18, 2010 #7
    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?
  9. Mar 18, 2010 #8


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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].

    Last edited: Mar 18, 2010
  10. Mar 18, 2010 #9
    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.
  11. Mar 18, 2010 #10
    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.
  12. Mar 18, 2010 #11
    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.
  13. Mar 18, 2010 #12


    User Avatar

    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.
  14. Mar 18, 2010 #13
    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.
  15. Mar 18, 2010 #14

    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.
  16. Mar 19, 2010 #15
    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
  17. Mar 19, 2010 #16


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I fail to see how you can dismiss dark matter, for example - the bullet cluster.
  18. Mar 19, 2010 #17
    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., http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.3595v1.pdf" [Broken].

    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.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  19. Mar 19, 2010 #18
    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.
  20. Mar 19, 2010 #19
    Please read the chapter on supernovae which refutes the standard analysis.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  21. Mar 19, 2010 #20
    My main argument about dark matter is that nearly all arguments for it rely on the virial theorem which computes the mass from velocity dispersion. However it explicitly requires that the velocities used are actual velocities. I argue that the observed redshifts can be corrupted by curvature redshift and are not true measurements of the actual velocities. I must re-look at the bullet cluster.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook