|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Static universe - revisited
In two previous threads "static universe" and "static universe
- reply" I gave reference to papers that argue that "Observational evidence favors a static universe". Unfortunately the discussion in these threads got bogged down in s series of claims and counter-claims that only touched on the major result of these papers. In addition many may have found that the length of the 96 page paper daunting. Here I will give a very brief outline of the crucial results. For all references, caveats and full details see arXiv 1009.0953: http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.0953 (it includes a table of contents, hyperlinks and several minor corrections) or see the JCos papers. A major difference between cosmologies in an expanding universe and that in a static universe is time dilation. Whereas a tired light process could explain the energy loss of photons it cannot produce the effect of time dilation on the rate of arrival of photons. In an expanding universe cosmology the equations for the distance modulus and for the angular size include a term, (1+z), to allow for time dilation. Since the similar equations for a static-universe cosmology do not include this term its presence (or absence) makes a suitable test for determining whether the universe is expanding. It is assumed that the static universe obeys the perfect cosmological principle. The same everywhere and at all times. Tolman surface brightness. Sandage and Lubin analyzed the surface brightness of early-type galaxies. A re-analysis using current Big Bang (BB) equations and combining the two color bands (and for the Sersic radius 2.0) gives an exponent of 2.16+/-0.13. The expected exponent is 4. The difference is attributed to luminosity evolution. A critical part of this analysis is the calibration of the absolute luminosity (and hence the SB) for the absolute radii of the galaxies. Thus BB is used to compute the radii of the distant galaxies. The surface brightness has a dependence on the radius of SB = 9.29 + 2.83log(absolute radius). Assuming that for a static universe the radii are all larger by a factor (1+z) then the static universe exponent is 2.16 - 2.83/2.5 = 1.03(+/-0.14) which is in excellent agreement with the expected value of 1. Note Lubin and Sandage claim that their results are inconsistent with a static universe. However they used their own tired-light model which is different to the simple model used here. Angular size. Recently Lopez-Corredoira (2010) used 393 galaxies with redshift range of 0:2 z 3:2 and found that in agreement with much earlier work the data was consistent with a Euclidean geometry and was totally unable to fit the data to an expanding universe. Type 1a supernovae. Here the analysis is more complex and is based on the assumption that these supernovae have constant energy and not constant peak luminosity. There is no observational difference between peak luminosity and total energy for nearby supernovae. The total energy is a product of the peak luminosity and the width of the light curve. The critical part of the analysis is that the distant supernovae have been selected to have a very small variation in their peak luminosity computed with BB. In a static universe this means that the selected supernovae are biased to a lower luminosity (by a factor of 1+z). Then if on average their total energy is constant then their widths are biased to larger values. On average a selection bias of (1+z) to lower luminosity corresponds to a selection bias of (1+z) in width. Exactly what is observed. A fit of total energy verses redshift has a function (19.070+\-042) + (0.047+\-0.089)2.5log(1 + z) which is consistent with zero slope. Thus no evidence of dark energy! Gamma ray bursts. A remarkable characteristic of gamma ray bursts is that the raw observations of the various time measures (burst duration, spike rise time and spike rate) do not show any significant variation with redshift (out to z=6). The standard explanation is that there is an inverse relationship between absolute luminosity and the time measures and the lack of variation in the time measures is due to selection effects. In a static universe the lack of variation is expected and the relationship with absolute luminosity is spurious and due to the use of an incorrect distance modulus. Galaxy luminosity function. It is shown that E-S_a galaxies have a well defined luminosity distribution with a peak that has essentially the same shape at all redshifts but the position of the peak varies with redshift. When analyzed for a static cosmology the magnitude of this peak has a constant value independent of redshift with a Chi^2 of 6.1 for 3 degrees of freedom. Quasar luminosity distribution. At a fixed redshift the SDSS quasars essentially have a power law distribution (exponential in magnitude). Since the distance modulus is additive and for a small range of redshifts is essentially constant it can be derived from the distribution of magnitudes within that redshift range. The sum of the probability of detection for each quasar in the range multiplied by the exponential of the luminosity function is set equal to the expected number of quasars. The only complication is the co-moving volume and density of the quasars. Assuming the reasonable assumption that the the static universe has the same volume as a function of z as BB and that the quasar density is constant the analysis shows a well defined preference for a static universe. A BB model can only fit the data if it has a density evolution. Quasar variability in time. Hawkins has analyzed the time variability of 800 quasars over time scales from 50 days to 28 years. He finds that there is no dependence of the time variability on redshift. The Butcher-Oemler effect. They observed that the fraction of blue galaxies in galactic clusters appears to increase with redshift. Andreon, Lobo & Iovino (2004) examined three clusters around z=0.7 and did not find clear-cut evidence for the effect. To quote one of their conclusions: "Twenty years after the original intuition by Butcher & Oemler, we are still in the process of ascertaining the reality of the Butcher-Oemler effect". David F. Crawford |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Static universe - revisited
[ The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] On Apr 18, 7:05 pm, davd wrote: [...] A major difference between cosmologies in an expanding universe and that in a static universe is time dilation. Whereas a tired light process could explain the energy loss of photons it cannot produce the effect of time dilation on the rate of arrival of photons. The process would also scatter photons, and take the deposited energy and dump it somewhere. That somewhere would start glowing rather strongly. Neither eventuality has been observed. In an expanding universe cosmology the equations for the distance modulus and for the angular size include a term, (1+z), to allow for time dilation. Since the similar equations for a static-universe cosmology do not include this term its presence (or absence) makes a suitable test for determining whether the universe is expanding. It is assumed that the static universe obeys the perfect cosmological principle. The same everywhere and at all times. Tolman surface brightness. Sandage and Lubin analyzed the surface brightness of early-type galaxies. A re-analysis using current Big Bang (BB) equations and combining the two color bands (and for the Sersic radius 2.0) gives an exponent of 2.16+/-0.13. The expected exponent is 4. The difference is attributed to luminosity evolution. The exponent is meaningless without additional assumptions. Either there is evolution between the various galaxies (which are at substantially different points in space-time) or there is not. Either way tired light does not cut it, as the exponent would be equal to 1 not 2. [....] Angular size. Recently Lopez-Corredoira (2010) used 393 galaxies with redshift range of 0:2 z 3:2 and found that in agreement with much earlier work the data was consistent with a Euclidean geometry and was totally unable to fit the data to an expanding universe. Thanks for having us find http://arxiv.org/pdf/1002.0525v1 by ourselves. It is a red flag when the result is directly contradicted by SN1a observations. Redshift vs distance/velocity is not linear past a certain point, acceleration of expansion. Disagree on the result but the data cannot be denied. I am moderately amused that you toss the evolutionary arguments in Lubin & Sandage out the window but buy - at face value - every assumption used in a paper that agrees with you. Type 1a supernovae. Here the analysis is more complex and is based on the assumption that these supernovae have constant energy and not constant peak luminosity. Eh? The point of using the SN1a as a standard candle is that they have constant luminosity. Barring redshift moving things around, how do you imagine you could retain constant luminosity (thus constant peak luminosity, and constant energy output) WITHOUT having a constant peak luminosity? There is no observational difference between peak luminosity and total energy for nearby supernovae. The total energy is a product of the peak luminosity and the width of the light curve. The critical part of the analysis is that the distant supernovae have been selected to have a very small variation in their peak luminosity computed with BB. What? The standard-ness of SN1a's isn't model dependent. It is true whether or not the big bang is real or not, as it is observational fact (within a few %). In a static universe this means that the selected supernovae are biased to a lower luminosity (by a factor of 1+z). You are wishing and hoping. Supernovae searches use telescopes, not models, in finding events. Then if on average their total energy is constant then their widths are biased to larger values. Except there is no bias other than apparent magnitude. You are making the case against yourself. On average a selection bias of (1+z) to lower luminosity corresponds to a selection bias of (1+z) in width. Exactly what is observed. A fit of total energy verses redshift has a function (19.070+\-042) + (0.047+\-0.089)2.5log(1 + z) which is consistent with zero slope. Thus no evidence of dark energy! BAM! Unsubstantiated claim out of left field. Take the existing SN1a observations, eg the Union(1,2) data set. Eg, http://supernova.lbl.gov/Union/figur...n2_mu_vs_z.txt , then plot magnitude vs redshift, eg http://supernova.lbl.gov/Union/figur...bble_slide.pdf , then make the obvious conclusion. Or, better yet, review the work of those who have already done that particular work. http://supernova.lbl.gov/Union/ Some good information there. Gamma ray bursts. ....have literally zero bearing on cosmology at this point in time. A remarkable characteristic of gamma ray bursts is that the raw observations of the various time measures (burst duration, spike rise time and spike rate) do not show any significant variation with redshift (out to z=6). The standard explanation is that there is an inverse relationship between absolute luminosity and the time measures and the lack of variation in the time measures is due to selection effects. In a static universe the lack of variation is expected and the relationship with absolute luminosity is spurious and due to the use of an incorrect distance modulus. Which means the entire cosmic distance ladder is blown to crap, which you should be able to establish as the methods and their relationships are well published. Galaxy luminosity function. It is shown that E-S_a galaxies have a well defined luminosity distribution with a peak that has essentially the same shape at all redshifts but the position of the peak varies with redshift. When analyzed for a static cosmology the magnitude of this peak has a constant value independent of redshift with a Chi^2 of 6.1 for 3 degrees of freedom. A Chi^2 of 6.1 isn't all that good. Quasar luminosity distribution. At a fixed redshift the SDSS quasars essentially have a power law distribution (exponential in magnitude). Since the distance modulus is additive and for a small range of redshifts is essentially constant it can be derived from the distribution of magnitudes within that redshift range. The sum of the probability of detection for each quasar in the range multiplied by the exponential of the luminosity function is set equal to the expected number of quasars. The only complication is the co-moving volume and density of the quasars. Assuming the reasonable assumption that the the static universe has the same volume as a function of z as BB and that the quasar density is constant the analysis shows a well defined preference for a static universe. A BB model can only fit the data if it has a density evolution. Since no quasars are observed locally or 'anywhere near locally', evolution is highly likely. You need to think your claims through a bit better, David. Quasar variability in time. Hawkins has analyzed the time variability of 800 quasars over time scales from 50 days to 28 years. He finds that there is no dependence of the time variability on redshift. And? The Butcher-Oemler effect. They observed that the fraction of blue galaxies in galactic clusters appears to increase with redshift. Andreon, Lobo & Iovino (2004) examined three clusters around z=0.7 and did not find clear-cut evidence for the effect. To quote one of their conclusions: "Twenty years after the original intuition by Butcher & Oemler, we are still in the process of ascertaining the reality of the Butcher-Oemler effect". David F. Crawford I'm not seeing the relevance of this to anything. I do note you've ceased discussion of the CMBR which is *THE* principle piece of evidence in favor of the big bang theory. Why is that? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Static universe - revisited
In article
, davd writes: For all references, caveats and full details see arXiv 1009.0953: http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.0953 (it includes a table of contents, hyperlinks and several minor corrections) or see the JCos papers. Perhaps a brief mention on how a static universe is gravitationally stable would be in order. Tolman surface brightness. I think anyone with experience in this area knows that the observational difficulties, unknown evolution etc makes it difficult, otherwise there would be several independent confirmations of the effect. Keep in mind that (at least in the standard cosmology) the signal-to-noise ratio in a given band goes down like the TENTH power of (1+z). Angular size. Recently Lopez-Corredoira (2010) used 393 galaxies with redshift range of 0:2 z 3:2 and found that in agreement with much earlier work the data was consistent with a Euclidean geometry and was totally unable to fit the data to an expanding universe. No-one can seriously claim that the angular-size test can tell us anything about cosmology, mainly due to actually measuring the angular size, again due to evolution and observational effects. It is no coincidence that current cosmological models are based on the CMB and other, more "modern" results, as opposed to the classic tests. Type 1a supernovae. Here the analysis is more complex and is based on the assumption that these supernovae have constant energy and not constant peak luminosity. There is no observational difference between peak luminosity and total energy for nearby supernovae. The total energy is a product of the peak luminosity and the width of the light curve. The critical part of the analysis is that the distant supernovae have been selected to have a very small variation in their peak luminosity computed with BB. In a static universe this means that the selected supernovae are biased to a lower luminosity (by a factor of 1+z). Then if on average their total energy is constant then their widths are biased to larger values. On average a selection bias of (1+z) to lower luminosity corresponds to a selection bias of (1+z) in width. Exactly what is observed. A fit of total energy verses redshift has a function (19.070+\-042) + (0.047+\-0.089)2.5log(1 + z) which is consistent with zero slope. Thus no evidence of dark energy! This is a relatively straightforward argument. If correct, it would be important. Why not try to get just this argument published in a reputable journal? Quasar variability in time. Hawkins has analyzed the time variability of 800 quasars over time scales from 50 days to 28 years. He finds that there is no dependence of the time variability on redshift. At least in his earlier papers, Hawkins actually used the fact that there was less variability at low redshift to support his idea that a significant fraction of the variability of many quasars is due to microlensing (which has since been disproved, but not because of anything to do with the redshift dependence). |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Static universe - revisited
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:31:03 EDT, Phillip Helbig wrote:
Perhaps a brief mention on how a static universe is gravitationally stable would be in order. Possibly Crawford's "surface tension" achieves this, if it means (as other models do) that matter is gravitationally depressed into the surface of an additional large dimension. This manifests as a gravitational scalar which overcomes small local gravity effects, so distant objects don't attract eachother. Possibly this effect also works in elliptical galaxies and globular clusters to prevent collapse. Does anyone really understand how they remain stable? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Static universe - revisited
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:30:16 EDT, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Apr 18, 7:05 pm, davd wrote: Tolman surface brightness. Sandage and Lubin analyzed the surface brightness of early-type galaxies. A re-analysis using current Big Bang (BB) equations and combining the two color bands (and for the Sersic radius 2.0) gives an exponent of 2.16+/-0.13. The expected exponent is 4. The difference is attributed to luminosity evolution. The exponent is meaningless without additional assumptions. Either there is evolution between the various galaxies (which are at substantially different points in space-time) or there is not. Either way tired light does not cut it, as the exponent would be equal to 1 not 2. This is a profoundly unfair reply as Crawford continued (and you snipped): "A critical part of this analysis is the calibration of the absolute luminosity (and hence the SB) for the absolute radii of the galaxies. Thus BB is used to compute the radii of the distant galaxies. The surface brightness has a dependence on the radius of SB = 9.29 + 2.83log(absolute radius). Assuming that for a static universe the radii are all larger by a factor (1+z) then the static universe exponent is 2.16 - 2.83/2.5 = 1.03(+/-0.14) which is in excellent agreement with the expected value of 1." What? The standard-ness of SN1a's isn't model dependent. No, but the data is published in model-dependent ways. 10 years ago I collected supernova data to do some independent analysis, but the raw data is rarely available; instead it comes in prepared form where time dilation has already been factored in, etc. So I made no headway. Except there is no bias other than apparent magnitude. You are making the case against yourself. There is a big problem in SN 1a data which is that the peak luminosities drop off at large redshift. Malmquist bias means we should be seeing higher peak luminosities at high z. This is a fundamental problem but doesn't seem to be troubling researchers, and it should be. Why isn't it? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Static universe - revisited
On Apr 23, 12:17am, Eric Flesch wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:30:16 EDT, Eric Gisse wrote: On Apr 18, 7:05 pm, davd wrote: Tolman surface brightness. Sandage and Lubin analyzed the surface brightness of early-type galaxies. A re-analysis using current Big Bang (BB) equations and combining the two color bands (and for the Sersic radius 2.0) gives an exponent of 2.16+/-0.13. The expected exponent is 4. The difference is attributed to luminosity evolution. The exponent is meaningless without additional assumptions. Either there is evolution between the various galaxies (which are at substantially different points in space-time) or there is not. Either way tired light does not cut it, as the exponent would be equal to 1 not 2. This is a profoundly unfair reply as Crawford continued (and you snipped): "A critical part of this analysis is the calibration of the absolute luminosity (and hence the SB) for the absolute radii of the galaxies. Thus BB is used to compute the radii of the distant galaxies. The surface brightness has a dependence on the radius of SB = 9.29 + 2.83log(absolute radius). Assuming that for a static universe the radii are all larger by a factor (1+z) then the static universe exponent is 2.16 - 2.83/2.5 = 1.03(+/-0.14) which is in excellent agreement with the expected value of 1." It is not at all unfair. He's picking and choosing the data he wants, and arbitrarily adjusting things to get the answer he wants. What? The standard-ness of SN1a's isn't model dependent. No, but the data is published in model-dependent ways. 10 years ago I collected supernova data to do some independent analysis, but the raw data is rarely available; instead it comes in prepared form where time dilation has already been factored in, etc. So I made no headway. http://supernova.lbl.gov/Union/ Scroll down to the light curve data section. Isn't that what you want? Except there is no bias other than apparent magnitude. You are making the case against yourself. There is a big problem in SN 1a data which is that the peak luminosities drop off at large redshift. Malmquist bias means we should be seeing higher peak luminosities at high z. This is a fundamental problem but doesn't seem to be troubling researchers, and it should be. Why isn't it? What do you mean 'higher peak luminosities'? The luminosity of a SN1a is constant to within a few percent, which is why they are so important. Seeing less of them at higher redshifts than at lower redshifts with the same kind of instrument isn't a big surprise, given that the apparent magnitude falls off fairly quickly. You can see the falloff directly with the Union1 and 2 datasets [1] - note the existence of several magnitude 45 objects. Those are *HARD TO SEE*. [1] - http://supernova.lbl.gov/Union/figur...n2_mu_vs_z.txt |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Static universe - revisited
On Sat, 23 Apr 11 18:58:34 GMT, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Apr 23, 12:17am, Eric Flesch wrote: There is a big problem in SN 1a data which is that the peak luminosities drop off at large redshift. Malmquist bias means we should be seeing higher peak luminosities at high z. This is a fundamental problem but doesn't seem to be troubling researchers, and it should be. Why isn't it? What do you mean 'higher peak luminosities'? The luminosity of a SN1a is constant to within a few percent, which is why they are so important. The *integrated* luminosity is modelled as constant, but the peak luminosity inversely varies with the width of the light curve, which is why it's essential to map out the full light curve for each SN1a. Seeing less of them at higher redshifts than at lower redshifts with the same kind of instrument isn't a big surprise, given that the apparent magnitude falls off fairly quickly. My point, obviously, is that at high z we should preferentially be seeing those SN1a which have higher peak luminosity (and thus, narrower light curves), because of Malmquist bias. But the opposite happens - at high z, we see SN1a with lower peak luminosity and broader light curves (after FRW-modifying the raw data). This outcome is statistically unlikely, and the longer it continues as new SN1a are added, the more it indicates a fundamental problem with the FRW model. I'm happy to be told that my picture is out of date, and that recent data shows results consistent with Malmquist expectations, should that be so. Otherwise we have a BIG problem which is currently being dealt with by pretending it isn't there. What Disney calls a "scandal". Eric Flesch |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Static universe - revisited
On Apr 24, 8:00*am, Eric Flesch wrote:
[...] Seeing less of them at higher redshifts than at lower redshifts with the same kind of instrument isn't a big surprise, given that the apparent magnitude falls off fairly quickly. My point, obviously, is that at high z we should preferentially be seeing those SN1a which have higher peak luminosity (and thus, narrower light curves), because of Malmquist bias.*But the opposite happens - at high z, we see SN1a with lower peak luminosity and broader light curves (after FRW-modifying the raw data). No, the opposite does not happen. The overwhelming majority of the SN1a dataset is biased towards low z supernovae. The term 'Malmquist bias' is a fancy way of saying there is a selection bias against things you can't see with an instrument of finite sensitivity. The population of high z data is small in comparison [z ~ 1.4, apparent magnitude 45!] - isn't that textbook Malmquist bias? You'll note that the increasingly-broad light curves at high z matches the predictions of the big bang theory. This outcome is statistically unlikely, and the longer it continues as new SN1a are added, the more it indicates a fundamental problem with the FRW model. I'm happy to be told that my picture is out of date, and that recent data shows results consistent with Malmquist expectations, should that be so. Otherwise we have a BIG problem which is currently being dealt with by pretending it isn't there. What Disney calls a "scandal". Eric Flesch |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Static universe - revisited
Eric Flesch wrote:
at at high z we should preferentially be seeing those SN1a which have higher peak luminosity (and thus, narrower light curves), because of Malmquist bias. That would only be true if this were a magnitude-limited sample, i.e., if the criterion for observing a SN1a were (only) that it's above a certain apparent luminosity. You can (and observers do) avoid Malmquist bias by choosing other selection criteria. In this case the SN1a are all chosen to be close enough to be well above the limiting magnitude of the survey, so Malmquist bias doesn't occur. -- -- "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]" Dept of Astronomy & IUCSS, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA "Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral." -- quote by Freire / poster by Oxfam |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Static universe - revisited
On Mon, 25 Apr 11 11:20:14 GMT, Jonathan Thornburg wrote:
Eric Flesch wrote: at at high z we should preferentially be seeing those SN1a which have higher peak luminosity (and thus, narrower light curves), because of Malmquist bias. That would only be true if this were a magnitude-limited sample, i.e., if the criterion for observing a SN1a were (only) that it's above a certain apparent luminosity. You can (and observers do) avoid Malmquist bias by choosing other selection criteria. In this case the SN1a are all chosen to be close enough to be well above the limiting magnitude of the survey, so Malmquist bias doesn't occur. That does not follow because either way you are magnitude-constraining the sample. The only way to avoid Malmquist bias would be by discarding the fainter narrow-width lightcurves, but these would be precisely the high-z SN1a that everyone wants. I would be pleased to read a paper on how they have catered for this problem -- haven't seen such a paper thus far. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Static Universe | davd | Research | 49 | July 21st 11 12:59 PM |
Static universe - reply | davd | Research | 6 | April 16th 11 06:57 AM |
Static Universe | davd | Research | 0 | April 2nd 11 10:32 AM |
Accelerated expansion of the Universe - revisited | Juergen Barsuhn | Research | 31 | April 21st 10 03:58 PM |
Static = no Inertia | G=EMC^2 Glazier | Misc | 1 | January 19th 06 07:51 PM |