New paper says universe not expanding - should it be taken seriously?

  1. Eric J. Lerner, long time Big Bang opponent, has published a paper that I don't really understand but claiming it indicates the universe is not expanding. Can anyone actually help to point out why or why not his observations should be given consideration? It was Published in Int. Journal of Modern Physics D.

    Link to paper
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Drakkith

    Staff: Mentor

    Per the paper:
    Also:
    They don't claim that the universe isn't expanding, only that the Tolman test (a test based on galactic surface brightness) doesn't rule out a static universe.
     
  4. In interviews, they make a strong implication that the universe is not expanding.

     
  5. Matterwave

    Matterwave 3,816
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    All I can say is that this view is a fringe one in the overall physics community. If it's not explicitly contradicted by experiment, we cannot rule it out, but it's not a theory that a whole lot of people are working on right now.
     
  6. Drakkith

    Staff: Mentor

    Their personal views are irrelevant. They have found that galaxy surface brightness might support a non-expanding model. I say might because it requires that some unknown, unobserved phenomena conveniently causes a redshift of light in exactly the same manner as recession velocity. IE the redshifted light acts as if the object were moving away, which causes the absorption and emission lines to shift but keeps their "fingerprint" intact.

    Note that I am not saying the authors shouldn't be taken seriously, I am saying that the data of one phenomena can easily fit within multiple contradictory models without a problem. The key is explaining a great many phenomena with one model, which the standard cosmological model does extremely well. Better by far than any other model out there.
     
  7. That is quite possible.
    Any mechanism producing a constant loss of energy per distance/time unit of the observed magnitude will do. The recession hypothesis is only an interpretation of the red shift It does not explain the value of the Hubble constant, it is a free parameter fixed only by observation.
    Since the energy loss is extremely small it will be very hard to rule out the possibility that cosmologists are overlooking something.
     
  8. Drakkith

    Staff: Mentor

    What do you mean by "constant loss"?
     
  9. Chronos

    Chronos 9,872
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  10. hmm. But the papers I write on cosmology and fusion are published in peer-reviewed journals, while Dr. Wright long ago self-published his remarks on his own blog--no peer review was attempted. Our new one on surface brightness was peer-reviewed as well. You can read it here http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0275 and reply to the science, rather than referring to Wright's 17-year-old self-published writing. I and my co-authors are scarcely the only ones pointing to the many weaknesses of the concordance model. You can find a summary of the contradictions between observation and just about every prediction of the concordance model here: http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.c...mology/the-growing-case-against-the-big-bang/ The work of about two dozen researchers is cited and it is by no means comprehensive.
     
  11. Chronos

    Chronos 9,872
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    In all fairness to Dr. Lerner, his rebuttal to Dr. Wright is here: http://bigbangneverhappened.org/p25.htm. Let the reader decide. Allow me to add that peer review does not confer credibility. It merely asserts the logic chain has no obvious flaws - in the opinion of the reviewer. I think it is prudent to reassess any opinion that is poorly received by the science community at large. Not every opposing view is motivated by a mainstream conspiracy to suppress dissent.
     
  12. Drakkith

    Staff: Mentor

    So? One's a blog, the other is a paper. Big difference. Dr. Wright's blog, at least to my understanding, simply explains the current understanding of the LCDM model as accepted by the mainstream scientific community, so why would it be peer-reviewed when the data already is?

    I feel as if most of those against the BBT have the idea of, "it doesn't predict everything perfectly, therefore it's wrong", regardless of how well it does work. Also, after reading a bit of your site, it seems as if the fact that the BBT is constantly being worked on and changed here and there is something you frown upon. Why is that?
     
  13. Drakkith

    Staff: Mentor

    As for the paper, do I understand it correctly when I say that it claims that the surface brightness of distant galaxies is too bright for the current BBT to account for? If so, what reasons are there for proposing that expansion is incorrect instead of considering that early galaxies were brighter than current galaxies are?
     
  14. D H

    Staff: Mentor

    Thread closed pending moderation.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Similar discussions for: New paper says universe not expanding - should it be taken seriously?
Loading...