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

UV Galaxy Surface brightness says no expansion

  1. Sep 21, 2005 #1

    CarlB

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Claims universe not expanding:
    http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509611

    Another recent article about redshifts being apparently wrong:

    Research on candidates for non-cosmological redshifts
    "The paradox of apparent optical associations of galaxies with very different redshifts, the so-called anomalous redshift problem, is around 35 years old, but is still without a clear solution and is surprisingly ignored by most of the astronomical community. Statistical correlations among the positions of these galaxies have been pointed out by several authors. Gravitational lensing by dark matter has been proposed as the cause of these correlations, although this seems to be insufficient to explain them and does not work at all for correlations with the brightest and nearest galaxies. Some of these cases may be just fortuitous associations in which background objects are close in the sky to a foreground galaxy, although the statistical mean correlations remain to be explained and some lone objects have very small probabilities of being a projection of background objects.
    The sample of discordant redshift associations given in Arp's atlas is indeed quite large, and most of the objects remain to be analysed thoroughly. For about 5 years, we have been running a project to observe some of these cases in detail, and some new anomalies have been added to those already known; For instance, in some exotic configurations such as NGC 7603 or NEQ3, which can even show bridges connecting four object with very different redshifts. Not only QSOs but also emission-line galaxies in general are found to take part in this kind of event. Other cases are analyzed: MCG 7-25-46, GC 0248+430, B2 1637+29, VV172 and Stephan's Quintet."
    http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509630

    Comments?

    Carl
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 22, 2005 #2

    hellfire

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    As far as I know there are three phenomena directly related to expansion: redshift, Tolman’s surface brightness test and cosmological time dilation. Any static model must fit with all three and struggle against an overwhelming number of observations which support expansion. I cannot estimate the quality of the first paper, but I would like to know whether it is (or will be) published in any journal besides of the “Proceedings of the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference”.
     
  4. Sep 22, 2005 #3

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    Definitely a minority opinion, Carl. Don't even get me started on Arp. His 'freak' catalogue of galaxies is a 'handwaving' exercise. Arp has a grudge, and has commercially exploited it with his bogus books. He cherry picks evidence supporting his pseudo-science and ignores the rest. An arxiv paper that vaguely supports his views does not constitute clear and convincing evidence. I can cite dozens of arxiv papers that blow Arp's baloney right out of the skillet, if desired. My advice - steer clear of crackpot sites.
     
  5. Sep 22, 2005 #4

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Wait a minute Chronos - the OP paper is Lerner not Arp and he is describing further observational evidence that claims to contradict the FRW expanding universe model.

    Instead of writing it off without any other consideration, for the sake of good scientific practice, we should at least see if his understanding of FRW models and their predictions is correct, whether the observations he cites can be substantiated and whether they are actually inconsistent with those models.

    I am studying his paper at the moment and already I have one or two questions about it, I'll get back soon, meanwhile does anybody else have considered criticism of Lerner's paper?

    Garth
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2005
  6. Sep 22, 2005 #5

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Well there is this other paper on today's arXiv A large population of galaxies 9 to 12 billion years back in the history of the Universe.
    So they seem to be describing the same effect, though using a different data set, but explaining it as an enhanced star formation period in the early universe. That makes sense to me.

    Garth
     
  7. Sep 23, 2005 #6

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    Agreed, Garth. It was late and I was hasty. I need to reread the paper to see what other options he has in mind. Anyways, To understand Lerner's point, I recommend this series of papers by Alan Sandage:

    The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion. IV. A Measurement of the Tolman Signal and the Luminosity Evolution of Early-Type Galaxies
    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0106566
    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0106563
    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0102214
    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0102213
     
  8. Sep 23, 2005 #7

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    thanks for flagging that one Garth. It seems like a good find----published in Nature (a good sign yes?) I read as much as I could understand at one sitting and it made sense. A lot of UV (around 1500-2500 angstrom) light coming from galaxies with z = 1.4 to 5 indicates rapid star formation. And there would have to be rapid star formation if there were going to be lots of galaxies in the early universe. I'm heading for bed and this will give me something to dream about----ancient galaxies busily forming stars.
     
  9. Sep 23, 2005 #8

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

  10. Oct 2, 2005 #9
    Finally got around to reading Eric J. Lerner's paper mentioned in the OP.

    Learner seems to have done a good job of putting together a good paper. I did not find any sloppy treatment of data or his analysis. Priori assumptions and selections of variables seem reasonable and objective. There are no unexplained 'leaps', as I call them, of logic or of hope and faith seen in so many papers.

    The postulate of 'Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe' is based on the comparison of FRW prediction of redshift (z+1^3) relation to surface brightness; measured in the UV range the relation turns out to be z+1^0.83, according to Lerner in section 3, last sentence, (the pages are not numbered). In my studies, FRW does not provide much foundation for the relationship of redshift to galaxy surface brightness, it is one of those things that seemed to 'fit' at the time.

    Lerner mentions several instances where data compatible with his view has been explained away with the waving of hands and an attitude of "let's not open this can of worms because we don't have a solid case and if we attack FRW we are going to be ridiculed".

    I personally have no problem with the idea that z needs a better foundation than Hubble gave it. There is getting to be a rising tide of questions about it, I say good. I've read all I could find on the history of Hubble's Parameter and tests of it over many years; there is, in my mind, sufficient doubt to warrant a directed effort to better understand redshift and in general do a lot more observational work on stellar distance measurement. Surface Brightness, Luminosity, Lensing, Background Projection, etc. all have very significant error bars.

    Lerner's view of Expansion is clearly not the only view that could be seen in the recent data, but I would certainly not discount it. His paper deserves reading.
     
  11. Oct 2, 2005 #10

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Please be aware that the Hubble was not very comfortable with the idea that redshift is due to cosmological expansion. He established a general relationship between the distances of objects and their redshifts. Where possible, he used "standard candles" like cepheid variables, and as he studied more and more distant objects and the "standard candles" became harder to measure reliably or were entirely unavailable, he and his cohorts (Halton Arp among them) had to resort to things like relating surface brightness, galaxy morphology and angular size to estimate the distances. These fellows did the tough observational work and established a general realationship between distance and redshift. It was cosmological theorists that seized this relationship and proclaimed that the Universe is expanding.

    It is not surprising that Arp accumulated so many odd galaxies and clusters of galaxies odd morphologies, many apparently interacting, but with redshifts that (if interpreted strictly as cosmological distance) would make such interactions impossible. Whenever he made such observations, the Big Bang crowd routinely dismissed them as "selection error", "chance alignment", etc, etc, and ultimately shunned him when he refused to toe the BB orthodox line. It's too bad that theorists get to control the money and the telescope time of observational astronomers who make observations that conflict with their theories. Arp was a top-notch observer, and like Hubble he refused to believe that cosmological expansion was the only possible explanation for the redshift relationship they so painstakingly produced.

    Interestingly, every single one of Arp's observations of interaction between objects with discordant redshifts is rejected by the BB adherents for one reason or another. This is because if even one of them is real, the BB is in trouble. Conversely, the discovery of the CMB (one data point!) is routinely touted as "proof" of the correctness of the BB theory, both in the press and in textbooks. Statements such as that are patently dishonest. Here are a couple of reasons:

    1) Gamow's most refined prediction at the time of Penzias and Wilson's discovery was too high by over an order of magnitude. Eddington and others had been predicting a temperature of "empty" space calculated from the EM flux of all visible glowing "stuff" going back into the 1800's. Predictions of 3-7 degrees absolute were the norm, and Eddington's calculation was at the low end of this range, VERY close to today's accepted value. Gamow predicted 50 degrees and then puffed out his chest and crowed when he was proven wrong, claiming success.

    2) Even if Gamow had been right (or even close!), agreement with one observation (a single data point) does not "prove" a model. The correct temperature had also been predicted by many physicists using non-expanding models of the universe, and many of these predictions were far more accurate than Gamow's. Is Eddington's steady state model "proven" because he accurately predicted the temperature of the CMB? Of course not, and neither is the BB, despite the routine indoctrination foisted upon aspiring astronomers/cosmologists today.
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2005
  12. Oct 5, 2005 #11

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    Be also aware that Lerner is not exactly reknowned in the physics community. Historically, he is math challenged, but, talks a mean 'plasma physics' and 'tired light' theory [see Ned Wright's site for discussion]. I'm not going to butt heads again with turbo over Arp. He admires Arp. I think Arp is a crackpot.

    I think it is very disengenuous to suggest Eddington has any claim to having 'predicted' the CMB temperature. He even admitted his basis for 'predicting' a background temperature was fundamentally flawed. And so were his premises for predicting a steady state universe. Gamow, while predicting the wrong 'temperature' [based on a very inaccurate approximation of the Hubble flow], was wrong for the right reasons. But his basis for predicting the CMB existed was very correct.
     
  13. Oct 5, 2005 #12

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    You're right. I do admire Halton Arp. He has the discipline and the persistence to make routine observations over and over again, and when he makes observations that conflict with the concordance view that all redshift is cosmological, he publishes those results. Hubble would have been proud of his perserverence and his honesty.

    You call him a "crackpot" and accuse him of holding a grudge. If you see his work through the filter of the peer group of "concordance cosmologists" (think Junior High, folks), you will get an extremely negative slant on his work. If you will look at the work that he did with Hubble, especially the observations relating galaxy morphology, surface brightness, and angular size to the distance-redshift relationship, you will understand that Arp is a disciplined, skilled observational astronomer.

    Observation is reality. Theory can approximate reality to the extent in that it can remain consistent with observation. A REAL theory can distinguish itself by making predictions that can be confirmed with observation. The adherents of the BB theory dodge and backfill relentlessly while not offering any falsifiable predictions. This is not healthy.
     
  14. Oct 8, 2005 #13

    SpaceTiger

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I took a brief glance at this paper. It just blows my mind that this guy is trying to compare Lyman Break Galaxies to a local population. These things are thought to be vigorously star forming, probably well in excess of anything seen locally. That they would have much higher surface brightnesses is no surprise at all.
     
  15. Oct 8, 2005 #14

    SpaceTiger

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Single data point? Alright, let's step through this. As you understand it, how is the CMB used to constrain cosmology? We can see whether or not your arguments are fair.
     
  16. Oct 8, 2005 #15
    while on the subject of crackpots...

    Immanuel Velikovsky, friend of einstien, heretic scholar

    http://www.thunderbolts.info/velikovsky-ghost.htm

    the relevence being the reference to Arp, Lerner and "the big bang that can't be fixed"

    http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050401sofar.htm

    For me personally it was while reading Velikovsky as a youngter not so long ago that opened my eyes up to the revisionist history of old world myths in light of current cosmological "truths" especially with me being polynesian and all

    ...as you were
     
  17. Oct 8, 2005 #16

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    Agreed, I consider Arp a crackpot... right up there with Flanders and Beardon... He writes junk populist books filled with errors, has a website to promote them, ignores inconvenient facts, is severely math challenged, and whines like a beaten puppy when criticized.
     
  18. Oct 8, 2005 #17
    Turbo-1 here. First off, I apologize for the change in my user name. I moved recently and had to change ISP's and I neglected to edit my user profile accordingly. Apparently, it was time to update my password, and I never got the notification (my fault entirely!). I have tried to get my password reset for the past couple of days to no avail, so I have created an alter-ego until this can be sorted out. Temporarily I am Turbot - an unattractive creature with an optimistic outlook - always looking up! :rofl:

    Anyway, my point was that no single observation or prediction can "prove" a scientific model. This is a fallacy. A model can be falsified by a single observation incontrovertably contradicting a prediction, but it cannot be proven by a single correct one. Despite this, many well-meaning people cite Penzias and Wilson's discovery of the CMB as the pivotal observation that "proved" BB and killed Steady State. A typical example is this:

    Statements such as this are mere cheerleading for the home team, and defy the scientific method. No single accurate prediction can prove a model. Physicists and astronomers had been predicting for 60 years previous to Gamow that "empty" space would have a base temperature that can be calculated by adding the impinging energy flux from all visible sources. Typical predictions ranged from about about 3-7 deg K. Contrary to what Dr. Wright states in his wonderful tutorial, the observation of a background temperature of 2.7 deg K in no way falsifies Steady State and in no way differentiates that model from BB, except that Gamow's most refined prediction of the afterglow of the BB was over an OOM too hot.

    http://www.dfi.uem.br/~macedane/history_of_2.7k.html

    By the time that Penzias and Wilson made their discovery, Gamow had refined his prediction of the CMB to 50 deg K, over 10 times the observed temperature. This observation of the CMB did not "prove" the correctness of the BB, nor did it prove the correctness of the Steady State model. No single correct prediction can prove a model. The observation of the CMB could in no way falsify SS, since the correct background temperatures had been predicted for ovre 60 years under that model, and at best it could constrain Gamow's Hot Big Bang and force him to reconsider the temperature of the BB afterglow. Gamow very quickly ratcheted his temperature estimate back close to the measured value and claimed that he had correctly predicted the CMB.

    The "nickel" comment is a reference to Gamow's earliest prediction of 5 deg K. Unfortunately, the truth is that Pensias and Wilson found a few pennies where he "lost" a half-dollar.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 8, 2005
  19. Oct 8, 2005 #18

    SpaceTiger

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Whether or not you consider the discovery of the CMB to be the death of the steady-state universe is not important anymore. Why? Because further analysis of the information contained within the CMB has provided us with many, many more data points about the state of our universe. The standard model predicted the CMB power spectrum to very high precision, including all of the detailed structure of the acoustic peaks and the accompanying polarization spectrum. This (along with many other reasons) is why a modern astronomer would laugh at you if you suggested that the universe was not expanding, not just because of the discovery of the CMB.
     
  20. Oct 8, 2005 #19
    Can you explain why further refinements of CMB measurements refute the Steady State theory?

    Can you demonstrate how early predictions of the BB model regarding the future measurements of the CMB have validated the BB model? Please cite pre-COBE sources that predict the strong dipole anisotropy and the various multipole anisotropies. I expect that you will have a wealth of references and I eagerly await them.
     
  21. Oct 8, 2005 #20

    SpaceTiger

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    To my knowledge, there is no theory of CMB anisotropies in a steady state cosmology, but if you have something that suggests otherwise, I'd be happy to look at it.


    Of course. The basic structure of the CMB power spectrum was predicted back in the late 60s and early 70s. An excellent paper on the subject is

    Peebles & Yu 1970

    Here you'll see basic predictions concerning acoustic oscillations in the baryon-photon fluid (see, in particular, page 831). Residuals are expected from the Sachs-Wolfe effect; that is, doppler shifts from photons climbing in and out of potential wells. Even the smaller-scale peaks (detected first by WMAP) are mentioned here.

    More precise predictions were made later as the cosmological parameters were measured via other means. This includes the supernova results (for dark energy), large scale structure measurements (for [itex]\Omega_m[/itex]), and nucleosynthesis calculations ([itex]\Omega_b[/itex]). The WMAP team then did a fit to the CMB power spectrum, considering a variety of cosmological parameters, and lo and behold, the best-fit parameters matched those measured by other means. The CMB is much more than evidence for an expanding universe, it's evidence for dark matter and dark energy as well.

    The volume of references on this subject is enormous and I think you'll have to be more specific in your request (or do the search yourself). Several of things I've mentioned are already referenced in the "Classic Papers" sticky, so that's a good place to start.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: UV Galaxy Surface brightness says no expansion
  1. Expansion of galaxies (Replies: 1)

Loading...