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

[superdave]

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

 

[Drakkith]

Per the paper:

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 further this combination of hypotheses.

Also:

Based on these observations, it is therefore not true that a static Euclidean Universe can be ruled out by the Tolman test

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.

 

[superdave]

In interviews, they make a strong implication that the universe is not expanding.

“It is amazing that the predictions of this simple formula are as good as the predictions of the expanding Universe theory, which include complex corrections for hypothetical dark matter and dark energy,” said study co-author Dr Renato Falomo of the Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova, Italy.

Dr Riccardo Scarpa from the Instituto de Astrofısica de Canarias, Spain, who is a co-author of the study, added: “again you could take this to be merely coincidental, but it would be a second big coincidence.”

Therefore if the Universe is not expanding, the redshift of light with increasing distance must be caused by some other phenomena – something that happens to the light itself as it travels through space.

“We are not speculating now as to what could cause the redshift of light,” Mr Lerner said.

”However, such a redshift, which is not associated with expansion, could be observed with suitable spacecraft within our own Solar System in the future.

 

[Matterwave]

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.

 

[Drakkith]

In interviews, they make a strong implication that the universe is not expanding.

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.

 

[my2cts]

it requires that some unknown, unobserved phenomena conveniently causes a redshift of light in exactly the same manner as recession velocity.

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.

 

[Drakkith]

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.

What do you mean by "constant loss"?

 

[Chronos]

Eric Lerner is a pop sci writer who has been pushing this kind of nonsense for over twenty years. See http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html for discussion.

 

[elerner]

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.com/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/the-growing-case-against-the-big-bang/ The work of about two dozen researchers is cited and it is by no means comprehensive.

 

[Chronos]

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.

 

[Drakkith]

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.

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 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.com/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/the-growing-case-against-the-big-bang/ The work of about two dozen researchers is cited and it is by no means comprehensive.

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?

 

[Drakkith]

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?

 

[D H]

Thread closed pending moderation.