sign in sign up
<<
Home , Static universe

arXiv:1107.2485v2 [physics.gen-ph] 19 Nov 2011 xaso fsae e 5]fradsuso n“tired on discussion a for to [54] due See not due was light”. but . law mechanism, Hubble of undiscovered the expansion that hitherto said a [43] Later to Hubble mechanism. de- life plausible energy no his offer linear in could of he galaxy type but his pletion this Tolman claimed & supported [42] counts Hubble Hubble number idea. light”. this “tired considered that labeled [41] process since depletion been energy has an , observed the become now concepts. has two be- distinguish what the not tween to could it alone different initially observations moving is called but astronomers accepted were This re- some He galaxies how they it. is the perceived as . that though galaxies the space’; as ‘through the in effect’ of location ‘Doppler a motion our the for to ceded due effect, the in expands space as [20]. expand flow not Hubble do system, including solar themselves, our galaxies The cosmo- but [24]. called expansion space, expands–now logical that universe that the and in as expanding apart stationary the dragged essentially is that are galaxies means galaxies the This the a contains distances. derive that all to space for used valid is law metric Hubble universe, bang Robertson-Walker big the expanding considered the where is in it established Nowadays well be cosmos. to the very in to distances extended and great strengthened been since law–has ble ieryrltdt hr aildsac ihacntn of constant a with distance proportionality, radial there were to galaxies related nearby dis- of linearly expanding. their speeds is recession Universe and the the found galaxies that Hubble told nearby been have from redshifts we coming the tances, light between [40] the proportionality in simple a ered h atta h ubelwcnb eie rmgen- from derived be can law Hubble the that fact The for interpretation non-Doppler a suggested [94] Zwicky Doppler a as redshifts his interpreted initially Hubble vrsnetelt 90s hnEwnHbl discov- Hubble Edwin when 1920’s, late the since Ever ewrs xadn nvre ttcuies,tm dilat universe, static universe, expanding answered. ass being Keywords: c of from in number far questions least unanswered still many is the still paper with are obser there data with that mat most agreement apparent dark fits for cold universe necessary Λ is Euclidean standard s galaxies from the of results by evolution law described Hubble universe the that (where expanding q concluded universe is in static It dilation a evidence. time either of for lines univ evidence other expanding and necessary an variations of for lack evidence strong claimed as the used been has years, h ubelw eemndfo h itnemdliadred and modulii distance the from determined law, Hubble The .INTRODUCTION I. H 0 hsrltosi–ubdteHub- the relationship–dubbed This . 5Siln w,Caly60 AAsrla [email protected] Australia; WA 6009 Crawley Hwy, Stirling 35 colo hsc,teUiest fWsenAustralia Western of University the Physics, of School steUies elyexpanding? really Universe the Is Dtd coe 9 2018) 29, October (Dated: ..Hartnett J.G. ec h rtclCadaehrms ii,catastroph- to limit, star mass companion Chandrasekhar after critical a star, the from reach dwarf mass white sufficient a accumulating where explosions relativity, these of general class successfully certain using have a of they origin the that understood believe Astrophysicists sky. nrdcino xtcnnbroi dr”mte and the required (Λ “dark” has energy non-baryonic larger “dark” model exotic at standard of made the introduction were scales, con- observations the larger As called and also model, model. (ΛCDM) cordance matter model–the [58] dark standard factor the cold fudge become Λ now a has as be what some relativity support can by to claimed general it been Einstein’s Though has of it [17]. theory, consequence nature a of as derived phenomenon expansion real cosmological a establishes as that evidence ratory uni- in expanding law the favors Hubble mecha- fact a physical this verse. then a produces universe unless that static and, established a it, be prove [69]. can fa- universe not its nism expanding in does point an it strong for very But evidence a strong is and Galaxy, and the [74], vor, pairs in tests 62] binary numerous 45, pulsar/pulsar [16, by and star system empirically pulsar/neutron solar successfully with the been in has tested which relativity, eral huhn neec hudb rw nteauthor’s the on drawn be here. universe. view static should personal a inference to no universe Though expanding necessary the is compare it of alternative, to concept an the As against and expansion. for cosmological both evidence the review to eas ti h otraiyosral vdneo the of evidence . readily the most of expansion the is it because “ itself. cosmos the ion uenveaeaogtebihetlgtsucsi the in sources light brightest the among are Supernovae oee,t ae hr sn xeietllcllabo- local experimental no is there date, to However, hrfr,i em potn tti oeti time in moment this at opportune seems it Therefore, l vdnefrcsooia xaso oe from comes expansion cosmological for evidence All h bevtoscudb sdt describe to used be could observations the ain.Yttesml non-expanding simple the Yet vations. aa n am-a us luminosity burst gamma-ray and uasar m sytukonmcaim ran or mechanism) as-yet-unknown ome sooyadtetteqeto fthis of question title the and osmology re hscami eiwdi ih of light in reviewed is claim This erse. I H HSCLEVIDENCE PHYSICAL THE II. e oe.I h atrcs,size case, latter the In model. ter mtos rmti eiwi is it review this From umptions. hfso aais o h at80 past the for galaxies, of shifts )poiigasr fanti-. of sort a providing 0) 6= h omlgclrdhf simportant is cosmological The wa.edu.au [24]. ” 2 ically collapses in on itself under its own gravity and ex- the standard model are at cosmological distances, they plodes in a blinding flash of light. The luminosity of should be young objects. Their larger redshifts imply the explosion rapidly increases, peaks, and then slowly younger quasars. Therefore, quasars should be deficient decreases over days and months. By modeling this it in metals at higher redshifts, which should be observed is believed that one can understand what the intrinsic in their metal abundances as a function of epoch. But brightness at the peak of the explosion was and hence observations show no metal deficiency as a function of one can establish, for a certain class of these supernovae, redshift [25, 83]. Quasar environments, based on their a ‘standard candle’. The theory says that the intrinsic emission lines, are generally metal rich with metallicities brightness at the peak of the explosion is the same for all near or above the solar value even to the highest redshifts. supernova in this class–the type Ia, which are identified Considering the history of the expanding universe hy- from the metal content in their spectra. Hence if you pothesis, the burden of proof should really rest with those know their intrinsic brightness you can determine their that make the claim. Hubble first thought that the red- distance in the cosmos. Then using the redshifts of their shifts of the galaxies was due to a Doppler effect (motion host galaxies, the distance modulus, derived from the of the galaxies through space) but as devel- standard cosmology, can be tested with the matter den- oped it was shown theoretically that the effect could be sity (Ωm), the density (ΩΛ) and the Hubble understood as resulting from the expansion of space over constant (H0) as the only free parameters [70]. the period of flight of the from emitter to re- From this method it has been determined not only that ceiver. And the reality is it is claimed to be independent the Universe is expanding but also that the expansion is of the emitter source. If independent then that means accelerating [76]. In order for the observations to fit the the origin of the redshifts comes from a process during standard cosmology it has been necessary to add dark the flight of the from source to receiver. The ex- energy with a non-zero value for the cosmological con- pansion of space itself is the best argument currently for stant (Λ) and also a significant amount of . this. And it follows that together these comprise about 96% The question must be asked, what physical evidence of the mass-energy content of the Universe. Without do we have that the universe is expanding? L´opez- them the ΛCDM (BB) model seriously fails to Corredoira [59] reviewed the evidence for this and other describe the observed luminosities. Besides dark energy questions for cosmology today. This paper reiterates and and dark matter are totally unknown entities in the labo- updates the review of some of those same lines of evi- ratory. Though enormous effort has been made to detect dence. So besides the redshifts themselves what evidence putative dark matter particles from the Galactic halo all exists. efforts have so far failed [2, 3]. One of the consequences of cosmological expansion is time dilation. When the light curves, which show the III. EVIDENCE FOR TIME DILATION rise and fall in luminosity of the supernova explosion, are compared at increasing redshifts their time axes should A. Type Ia supernovae be stretched due to time dilation with respect to the ob- server at the Earth. In other words, processes that follow The type Ia supernova (SN) measurements are the very a flow of time in the distant cosmos are slowed relative best evidence for an expanding universe. In 1998 two in- to Earth time. Such a “time dilation” effect has been dependent projects (the Supernova Cosmology Project clearly observed in the light curves of the type Ia super- and the High-z Supernova Search) confirmed that the novae and is claimed as definitive evidence for expansion Universe was expanding but also announced that it was [32, 75]. Yet, no time dilation has been observed in the accelerating [76]. The supernova light-curve peak lu- luminosity variations of quasars [34, 36], which are meant minosity (L) was correlated to an absolute magnitude to be at very great distances based on their redshifts and (MB ∝−2.5log(L)), which is assumed to be intrinsic to the Hubble law. How can these contradictory claims be that class of supernovae. reconciled? The light curves were adjusted for a stretch factor Add to this evidence suggesting that some quasars are w = s(1 + z) which is claimed to be due to time dila- apparently associated with relatively low redshift galax- tion as a function of epoch (z), the redshift of the source. ies [5, 6, 8, 11, 27], which can only be reconciled if those This is absolutely required in an expanding universe. In quasars are not at their redshift distances but are located fact, it is the only redshift mechanism on offer that re- nearby. And the fact that proper motion is observed quires it. To my knowledge this time dilation factor is in quasars [64, 88, 92] really brings into doubt that at the only evidence for an expanding universe that sets it least some of them must not be at the cosmological dis- apart from a static universe. The Hubble law, or the tances derived from their redshifts. That means that a relationship between the apparent magnitudes and red- large part of a quasar’s redshift must be due to some shifts of galaxies, is not sufficient grounds to establish an as-yet-unknown non-cosmological cause, i.e. not due to expansion. Since Zwicky [94] proposed his idea expansion of space. If verified this is very damaging to many other possible redshift mechanisms have been the- the standard model. And considering that quasars in oretically suggested, though none have gained any sort of 3 general acceptance like cosmological expansion has. To reason. The question then remains what level of circu- date one author has compiled 31 mechanisms giving a lar reasoning has been used for selection of the candidate quantitative description of how large redshifts may pos- type Ia supernovae because they do not (as initially as- sibly be related to distance [65]. sumed for a ‘standard candle’) have the same intrinsic With the analysis of the supernova light-curves the luminosities? stretch factor (w) correction is determined by hand, an Crawford [22] models the luminosities of type Ia super- empirical fit to the best selected data. The study that nova in a static universe and finds that the total energy of showed the most constrained results found a sample of the explosion (area under the light curve) is a far better light curves proportional to (1+z)b where b =1.07±0.06 ‘standard candle’. Therefore assuming that all these type [32]. This seems to be the most definitive measurement of supernova have the essentially the same energy, based of time dilation where b should be identical with unity. on the modeling of the critical Chandrasekhar mass limit However, a possible criticism is that the time under the of the progenitor white dwarf, the product of the peak light-curve could depend on the intrinsic brightness of the luminosity and the width of light curve will be a con- supernovae (i.e. the correction factor s), which might stant. Since the prime characteristic used for selecting vary considerably with the redshift. L´opez-Corredoira these supernovae is the peak absolute magnitude, which [59] provides a very good review of this. is computed using the standard concordance model, there A similar point is made by Crawford [22]: “Since cur- is a strong bias that results in intrinsically weaker super- rent investigators assume that the type Ia supernovae novae being selected at higher redshifts. The absolute have essentially a fixed absolute BB magnitude (with pos- magnitudes cannot be determined without assuming a sible corrections for the stretch factor), one of the criteria cosmological model first. And for constant energy the they used is to reject any candidate whose predicted ab- weaker supernovae must have wider light curves. This solute peak magnitude is outside a rather narrow range. is a selection effect that has width of the light curve in- The essential point is that the absolute magnitudes are creasing with redshift and hence can mimic time dilation calculated using BB and hence the selection of candidates in the resulting selected candidates. is dependent on the BB luminosity-distance modulus.” When Crawford [22] applies his model of absolute en- Basically he is claiming selection bias. Is not this cir- ergy (absolute magnitude in his static model plus cor- cular reasoning? If you select only the candidates that fit rection for width) for each supernova in the same SN Ia the desired luminosity-distance criteria and use them to data sets [51] used to test the standard model he finds the determine the luminosity distance. Since one cannot de- energy of the explosion to be invariant over all redshifts termine the absolute magnitudes of the sources without with a curve-fit slope of 0.047 ± 0.089, which is consis- assuming a cosmology, the standard concordance crite- tent with zero. This means no change over all redshifts. ria (Ωm ≈ 0.3, ΩΛ ≈ 0.7, and H0 ≈ 70 km/s/Mpc) are Using a simple selection model for SN Ia data he shows used to calculate the absolute magnitudes for the candi- their width dependence on redshift, and considering the dates, which must be in a narrow range near MB ≈−19, biased nature of the data, is a very reasonable fit. Hence and the acceptable ones are used to test the same model, no time dilation and no cosmological expansion. Because and therefore determine values for Ωm and ΩΛ. This is no additional energy is needed for the fit, no dark energy confirmed by [26] who state “...for any individual SN Ia, or quintessence is needed either. the intrinsic width is unknown, so without assuming a In an effort to resolve this time dilation question in (1 + z) dilation, the intrinsic width and dilation cannot supernova light-curves a single supernova (1997ex) was be separated.” studied [26] at different epochs separated by months and Nevertheless for the selected supernovae [32] the re- found that the spectral evolution of the source is incon- gression fit to the derived absolute magnitudes (MB) of sistent with no time dilation at a 96.4% confidence level. the sources on the expected 2.5log(1 + z) redshift de- The claim lies in the spectral-feature age that is used to pendence shows that the luminosity is proportional to independently determine the aging of the source at ap- (1 + z)a where a = 0.23 ± 0.07. This means that their proximately monthly intervals. The derived age measure intrinsic luminosity must have slowly decreased as the is then compared to the expected (1 + z) aging. Hence universe evolved. There is no reason why the mass of the the amount of aging in the supernova rest frame should −1 white dwarf progenitor stars for these supernovae should be a factor of (1+ z) smaller than that in the observer increase as the Universe ages, hence resulting in brighter frame. The results were found to be consistent with time explosions. One of the assumptions of the Cosmological dilation. Principle is that the physics of the Universe is the same It should also be mentioned that this latter paper dis- at all epochs. Note Fig. 13 (page 1036) of [76] where cusses the consistency of time dilation seen both in the various SN Ia light curves are shown with different abso- SN light-curve, over monthly timescales, and in the wave- lute magnitudes MB. The brighter sources decline slower lengths of the light seen in the observer frame, i.e. in the than the dimmer sources. The standard explanation for redshifting of the light from the source. This is the impor- this change is the ad hoc introduction of dark energy [91] tant distinction for this review. Are longer timescale time or quintessence [86]. Hence evolution in the size and mass measures consistent with the “femtosecond time dilation” of the galaxies over cosmic time has been assumed as the in the observed redshift of the light from the sources? 4

The concept of the accelerating universe has come from out time dilation [47]. He corrects the published SN Ia the very highest redshift type Ia supernova observations, distance modulii for the time dilation stretch factor and and hence the idea of dark energy (or a cosmological con- compares with his model. The fits are extremely good yet stant) driving the Universe apart. This has resulted from no dark energy term is needed. Ivanov [47] concludes his a deficit of the expected luminosity determined from the paper with the telling remark, “...the discovery of dark standard model with Λ = 0 and that observed in these energy in a frame of the standard cosmological model is distant sources. However it has also been criticized on only an artefact of the conjecture about an existence of the basis of intergalactic dust [1, 33], causing the added time dilation.” deficit and that the presence of grey dust is not inconsis- One can say then that if there exists at least one static tent with the measure on the most distance supernova at model where if one corrects the SN Ia data for no time di- redshift z =1.7 (SN 1997ff) [33]. lation and it fits that model then that creates significant Type Ia supernovae may also have a metallicity de- doubt about the need for dark energy and dark matter pendence on redshift which may mean that the resulting in the first instance. non-zero value of the may require corrections for metallicity by factors as large as the ef- fects of the assumed cosmology itself [77]. This causes B. Quasar luminosity variations an underestimate of the effects of host galaxy extinc- tion; a factor which contributes to the apparent faintness Quasars show variations in their luminosities over of the high redshift supernovae is evolution of the host timescales of weeks to years. This means that quasars galaxy extinction as a function of redshift, caused by the generate and emit their energy from a very small region, presence of molecular clouds and dust. Therefore with since each part of the quasar would have to be in causal a proper treatment of the latter, and if one eliminates contact with other parts on such time scales to coordi- those SN Ia sources not observed before peak brightness nate the luminosity variations. As such, a quasar varying is reached, the evidence for a cosmological constant (and on the time scale of a few weeks cannot be larger than a dark energy) is quite weak. few light-weeks across. The use of standardized SN Ia light curves involves the And to date from extensive observations of quasars no stretch parameter (s) [70] related to both the width of the time dilation has been found in their luminosity vari- light curve and the magnitude at maximum brightness. ations [34, 36]. Hawkins [36] used the light curves of This determined empirically from observational data and over 800 quasars monitored on time scales from 50 days based on events at low redshift, and only assumed to be to 28 years. He divided his data into two groups, for valid at high redshift. “...if a systematic different rela- quasars at low (z < 1) and high redshift (z > 1) and tion holds for high-z events (either in the average value, used Fourier power spectral analysis methods. He com- or in the dispersion, or both) the cosmological applica- pared their spectral energy distributions (SEDs), at high tion of SNe Ia as distance indicators would be called into and low redshifts, to look for changes expected from time question.” [31] dilation. The research has found that the SEDs at high As a result a concerted effort is being made to under- and low redshift are identical. stand what the SN Ia progenitor stars are. This is still be- The research also confirmed an anti-correlation ob- ing debated [31, 37, 93]. How does metallicity affect the served between the luminosity and the amplitude of the mass of the progenitors and hence the SN Ia luminosities? light curves of the quasars. For a sample of quasars, the There is no clear resolution as yet. Howell et al. [37] state more luminous are seen to vary over a smaller range of that “Age may have a greater effect than metallicity–we brightness than the less luminous ones. It would seem find that the luminosity-weighted age of the host galaxy is then that this fact would make it difficult to resolve a correlated with 56Ni yield, and thus more massive progen- time dilation effect. But Fourier analysis provides a way itors give rise to more luminous explosions. This is hard of giving a measure of the variability on different time to understand if most SNe Ia explode when the primaries scales and separate it from magnitude effects. With a reach the Chandrasekhar mass. Finally, we test the find- sufficient time span of the data the degeneracy between ings of [28] that the residuals of SNe Ia from the Hubble time-scale and amplitude (magnitude) can be resolved. diagram are correlated with host galaxy metallicity, and The results of this research is powerful evidence against we find no such correlation.” That is, the dispersion in any time dilation effects in the Universe as a function of the distance modulii from those expected is due to dif- epoch. ference in the metal content of the SN Ia environments. If the quasar do not show time dilation when con- It is worth noting that there have been various at- sidered from the observer’s frame of reference, how can tempts to construct alternate models that fit the SN Ia these measurements be reconciled with the SN Ia mea- data without time dilation. Ivanov [46] has developed a surements? [36] discusses possible explanations to com- quantum gravity static universe model that has a Hub- pensate for the lack of time dilation and involves the ble law resulting from quantum interactions. There is no possibility that time dilation effects are exactly offset by time dilation in his model. The author compares the pre- an increase in the timescale of variations associated with dictions of his model with both SNe Ia and GRBs with- growth (that is thought to power the quasar), 5 or that the variations that are observed are caused by for the burst mechanism [79]. The relevant measures in- microlensing [35], hence not intrinsic to the quasar. The clude the lag time between a band of high energy gamma- latter means the variations do not originate in the quasars rays and a band of lower energy gamma-rays (τlag ), the themselves but along the line of sight at lower redshifts. shortest time over which the GRB light curve rises by In such a case time dilation would not be expected. But half the peak flux of the pulse (τRT ), and the number these would have to occur in the same manner over all of spikes or variations per second in the light curve (V ), timescales. Such explanations are not very satisfactory. which is estimated with respect to a smoothed version of One possible resolution is that the quasars are not at the light curve. The fourth is the estimated time span the cosmological distances indicated by their redshifts that contains 90% of the counts (T90). but are in fact much closer [6, 8, 27]. Of course, the Crawford [21] makes a careful analysis of the tradi- implication is that some quasars are in some way different tional explanation that an inverse correlation between from galaxies (at least the mechanism generating their luminosity and these time measures together with strong redshifts is) but are associated with low redshift galaxies luminosity selection as a function of redshift cancels any [7, 60]. observed time dilation. He confirms that there is an in- verse correlation between luminosity and some time mea- sures. Of the 4 listed above it is strongly seen in 2 of C. GRB luminosity variations them. But using the concordance cosmology strong lumi- nosity selection cannot be achieved. He finds that GRBs Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are flashes of gamma rays out to z = 6.6 show no evidence of time dilation in the raw data and rejects the hypothesis with a probability of associated with extremely energetic explosions observed −6 in the distant cosmos [71]. Assuming their host galaxy 4.4 × 10 . redshift are a good measure of distance, they are the most It may be possible to explain the apparent lack of time luminous sources in the universe. Bursts can last from dilation with a combination of gamma-ray burst selec- ten milliseconds to several minutes. The initial burst is tion, some luminosity evolution and some time measure usually followed by a longer-lived “afterglow” emitted at evolution. But this requires a remarkable coincidence, longer wavelengths, covering all parts of the electromag- where opposite effects exactly cancel, in order to produce netic spectrum (X-ray, ultraviolet, optical, infrared, and the apparent lack of time dilation. However the data are from microwaves to radiowaves). Their peak energies are consistent with a static cosmology in a non-expanding in the gamma ray and X-ray parts of the spectrum. Most universe. Crawford [21] finds that, assuming a static observed GRBs are believed to consist of a narrow beam universe, the total energy of the GRBs is found to be of intense radiation emitted from a supernova [14]. invariant with redshift. This is a similar result that can The claim has been made that GRBs show time be shown in the type Ia supernova data also. dilation in time measures of the gamma ray bursts [15, 18, 19]. Chang [18] attributed the anti-correlation of one time measure with a brightness measure indirectly as IV. EVIDENCE AGAINST EXPANSION evidence of time dilation itself. Norris [68] and Bloom et al. [14] claim that this is the reason why the time dilation A. Angular size test cannot be observed in the raw data. Because a strong lu- minosity dependent selection produces an average lumi- The test of the dependence of the angular size of some nosity that increases with redshift there is a simultaneous sources with redshift was first conceived by Hoyle [38]. selection of time measures that decrease with redshift and In principle, it is simple, but in application not so sim- this cancel the observable effects of time dilation. ple, because of the difficulty in finding a ‘standard rod’, a Shen & Song [82] found a bimodal distribution of type of object that undergoes no evolution in linear size GRBs where the long GRBs are composed of two sub- over time spans of order of the . The classes with different time variability in a time measure, angular sizes of quasars (or quasi-stellar objects (QSOs)) the power density. Their claim is that the averaged vari- and radio galaxies at radio wavelengths, for first ranked ability time scale decreases with the peak flux and is cluster galaxies in the optical, and for the separation consistent with the expected time dilation. of brightest galaxies in clusters or in QSO-galaxy pairs But Hawkins (2010) states that the evidence for time of the same redshift have all been measured. L´opez- dilation from gamma ray bursts is inconclusive. Ini- Corredoira [61] provides an excellent analysis of this and tially, that was because of the uncertainty in the intrin- the Tolman surface brightness test. See also the refer- sic timescales of the bursts, but later, once the redshifts ences contained therein. of bursts were found, the problem of correcting the raw This type of test is related to the Tolman surface data for selection effects involving an inverse correlation brightness test but tests for the angular size (θ) of an between luminosity and time measures made it difficult object as a function of epoch (z). These will vary quite to use GRBs to detect time dilation. differently depending on the cosmology assumed. The Four time measures, determined from the original angular sizes of radio galaxies over a range up to z = 2 gamma-ray observations, are independent of any model show a dependence θ ∝ z−1 [4, 48], which is a static Eu- 6 clidean effect over all scales. Size evolution as a function to 100 the mass of our sun. If this model proves to of redshift is needed for this to fit the standard model. be true it could get around the merger problem. In the standard model evolution in object size is as- As mentioned, the main difficulty with this type of sumed ad hoc and generally is used to make up for any measure is establishing the standard size of the objects deficiency been the modeled and observed size as a func- being observed. However, the cosmological model that tion of redshift. Any discovered θ ∝ z−1 dependence, as uses a very simple phenomenological extrapolation of the predicted by a static Euclidean universe, would be just a linear Hubble law in a Euclidean static universe fits the fortuitous coincidence of the superposition of the angu- angular size vs. redshift dependence quite well, which is − lar size θ(z) dependence in the expanding universe with approximately proportional to z 1. There are no free pa- evolutionary and/or selection effects. However, the fit of rameters derived ad hoc, although the error bars allow a radio source counts was found to be best when no evolu- slight size/luminosity evolution. The type Ia supernovae tion was assumed [23]. L´opez-Corredoira [61] found that, Hubble diagram can also be explained in terms of this when assuming the standard cosmological model as cor- static model with no ad hoc fitted parameter, i.e. no rect, the average linear size of galaxies, with the same dark matter nor dark energy. luminosity, is six times smaller at z =3.2 than at z = 0, and their average angular size for a given luminosity is −1 approximately proportional to z . B. Tolman surface brightness Neither the hypothesis that galaxies which formed ear- lier have much higher densities nor their luminosity evo- Hubble & Tolman [41] proposed the so-called Tolman lution, nor their merger ratio, nor massive outflows due test based on the measure of the brightness of galaxies as to a quasar feedback mechanism are enough to justify a function of epoch. A galaxy at redshift z differs in sur- such a strong size evolution. Without a very strong size face brightness depending on whether there is recession evolution the standard model is unable to fit the angular or not. The units chosen for magnitude determines the size vs. redshift dependence. This requires between 2 and redshift dependence and in bolometric units the surface 4 major mergers per galaxy during its lifetime, which is brightness of identical objects in an expanding universe observationally unjustifiable. Also it is not known how lo- varies by (1+ z)4: one (1+ z) factor due to time dilation cal massive elliptical galaxies have grown as similar sized (a decrease in photons per unit time), one factor (1 + z) galaxies are known at high redshifts. Therefore it follows from the decrease of energy per photon and two factors that the nearby ones must have been much smaller at from the fact that the object was closer to us by (1 + z) high redshift assuming size evolution to be true. And when the light was emitted. In an expanding universe no method is known how spiral galaxies grow through regardless of the units the ratio of surface brightness in mergers and preserve their spiral disk nature. an expanding and non-expanding universe is (1 + z)−3. Some disk galaxies have been found that have no nu- This is independent of wavelength. clear bulge; they are considered to be almost too good Lerner [55] tested the evolution of galaxy size hypothe- to be true [50]. Kormendy et al. [50] ask the ques- sis that is used to fit the standard model to the observed tion:“How can hierarchical clustering make so many gi- angular size of galaxies as a function of redshift. His ant, pure-disk galaxies with no evidence for merger-built method is based on the fact that there is a limit on the bulges?” Simulations show as spirals merge their spi- ultraviolet (UV) surface brightness of a galaxy, because ral disk structure is lost. Seems like no mergers have when the surface density of hot bright stars and thus su- occurred with these galaxies over their lifetimes. And pernovae increases large amounts of dust are produced observations of five brightest cluster galaxies (BCGs) at that absorb all the UV except that from a thin layer. redshifts 0.8

[1] Aguirre, A., & Zoltan, A., (2000) Astrophys. J., 532, 28. (2002) Astrophys. J., 567, 801. [2] Aprile E., et al. (XENON100 Collaboration) (2010) Phys. [12] Bennett, C. L., Halpern, M., Hinshaw, G. et al. (2003) Rev. Lett., 105, 131302. Astrophys. J. Suppl., 148, 1. [3] Aprile E., et al. (XENON100 Collaboration) (2011) [13] Bielby, R.M. & Shanks, T. (2007) M.N.R.A.S., 382, 1196. arXiv/1104.2549. [14] Bloom, J.S., Frail, D.A., and Kulkarni, S.R. (2003) As- [4] Andrews, T.B., (1999) ASP Conf. Series, Vol. 193, A.J. trophys. J., 594, 674. Bunker, and W.J.M. van Breugel (Eds.), Astron. Soc. of [15] Borgonovo, L. (2004) Astron. & Astrophys., 418, 487. Pacific, S. Francisco, 407. [16] Burgay, M., et al. (2003) Nature, 426, 531. [5] Arp, H., Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies, Interstel- [17] Carrera, M. & Giulini, D. (2010) Rev. Mod. Phys., 82, lar Media, Cambridge University Press, Berkeley, CA, 169. 1987. [18] Chang, H-Y. (2001) Astrophys. J., 557, L85. [6] Arp, H., Seeing Red, Redshifts, Cosmology and Aca- [19] Chang, H-Y., Yoon, S-J., and Choi, C-S. (2002) Astron. demic Science, Apeiron, Montreal, 1998. & Astrophys., 383, L1. [7] Arp, H., & Russell, D. (2001) Astrophys. J., 549, 802. [20] Cooperstock, F.I., Faraoni, V., and Vollick, D.N. (1998) [8] Arp, H., & Fulton, C., (2008) arXiv/0802.1587 Astron. J., 503, 61. [9] Ashmore, L., (2009) ASP Conf. Series, Vol. 413, F. Potter [21] Crawford, D.F., (2009) arXiv/0901.4169 (Ed.), Astron. Soc. of Pacific, S. Francisco, 3. [22] Crawford, D.F., (2011) J. of Cosmology, in press, [10] Becker, R. H., Fan, X., and White, R. L. (2001) Astron. journalofcosmology.com/crawford1.pdf J., 122, 2850. [23] Das Gupta, P., Narlikar, J.V., and Burbidge, G.R. (1988) [11] Bell, M.B. (2002) Astrophys. J., 566, 705; Bell, M.B. Astron. J., 95, 5. 10

i TABLE I: Straw poll on how the evidence stacks up.

Evidence Pro Con Comments Hubble law × Derived from SNe Ia distance modulus × Some selection bias, or, intergalactic dust Dark energy × Required from SNe Ia but physically unknown Dark matter × Required from SNe Ia but physically unknown SN 1997ff time dilation × Evidence against no time dilation SN metallicity vs. redshift × Contrary to expectation Quasar proper motion × If verified, very bad for ΛCDM model Quasar metallicity vs. redshift × Contrary to expectation Quasar luminosity variations × Explained with luminosity evolution GRB luminosity variations × × Explained with luminosity evolution Angular size vs. redshift × Explained with ad hoc size evolution Surface brightness vs. redshift × Explained with ad hoc size evolution Galaxy size vs. redshift × × Unexplained by merger theory Galaxy clusters at high redshift × Unexplained ‘too big, too early’ Existence of CMBR × Predicted in 1948 but first observed in 1941 CMBR shadowing by clusters × Results from SZE otherwise unexplained CMBR temperature vs. redshift × × Inconsistent results within the same cloud Quasars and Lyα absorbers × Doubts from MgII absorbers toward GRBs GRBs and MgII absorbers × ‘Astonishing’ nearly all aligned Gunn-Peterson trough × Doubts on redshift of “era of reionization” H1 cloud spacing vs. redshift × × Evidence for both expansion and static

i This is not intended to be definitive as the relative weights for evidences are not assigned.

[24] Davis, T.M., Lineweaver, C.H., and Webb, J.K. (2003) 302. Am. J. Phys. 71, 358. [42] Hubble, E.P. (1936) Astrophys. J., 84, 517. [25] Fan, X., Narayanan, V.K., Lupton, R.H., et al. (2001) [43] Hubble, E.P. (1947) Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac., 59, 153. Astron. J., 122, 2833. [44] Hu, E.M., Cowie, L.L., McMahon, R.G., Capak, P., Iwa- [26] Foley, R.J., Filippenko, A.V., Leonard, D.C., Riess, muro, F., Kneib, J.-P., Maihara, T., and Motohara, K. A.G., Nugent, P., and Perlmutter, S. (2005) Astrophys. (2002) Astrophys. J., 568, L75. J., 626, L11. [45] Hulse, R.A. & Taylor, J.H. (1975) Astrophys. J., 201, [27] Galianni, P., Burbidge, E.M., Arp, H., Junkkarinen, V., L55. Burbidge, G. and Zibetti, S. (2005) Astrophys. J., 620, [46] Ivanov, M.A., (2001) Gen. Rel. and Grav., 33, 479; ER- 88. RATUM, (2003) 35, 939. [28] Gallagher, J.S., Garnavich, P.M., Caldwell, N, Kirshner, [47] Ivanov, M.A., No-time-dilation corrected Super- R.P., Jha, S.W., Li, W., Ganeshalingam, M. and Filip- novae Ia and GRBs data and low-energy quan- penko, A.V. (2008) Astrophys. J., 685, 752. tum gravity, Contribution to the VI Int. Work- [29] Gamow, G. (1948) Phys. Rev., 74, 505. shop on the Dark side of the Universe (DSU2010), [30] Ge, J., Bechtold, J., and Black, J. H. (1997) Astrophys. Guanajuato U., Leon, Mexico, 1-6 June, 2010. J., 474, 67. ivanovma.narod.ru/no-time-dilation10.html [31] Greggio, L. (2010) M.N.R.A.S., 406, 22. [48] Kapahi, V.K. (1987) (IAU [32] Goldhaber, G., Groom, D.E., Kim, A., et al. (2001) As- Symp. 124), A. Hewitt, G. Burbidge, and L. Z. Fang trophys. J., 558, 359. (Eds.), Reidel, Dordrecht, 251. [33] Goobar, A., Bergstr¨om, L., and M¨ortsell, E. (2002) As- [49] Kirkman, D., Tytler, D., Lubin, D., Charlton, J. (2007) tron. & Astrophys., 384, 1. M.N.R.A.S., 376, 1227. [34] Hawkins, M.R.S. (2001) Astrophys. J., 553, L97. [50] Kormendy, J., Drory, N., Bender, R., and Cornell, M.E. [35] Hawkins, M.R.S. (2007) Astron. & Astrophys., 462, 581. (2010) Astrophys. J., 723, 54. [36] Hawkins, M.R.S. (2010) M.N.R.A.S., 405, 1940. [51] Kowalski, M., Rubin., D., Aldering, G., et al. (2008) As- [37] Howell, D.A., Sullivan, M., Brown, E.F., et al. (2009) trophys. J., 686, 749. Astrophys. J., 691, 661. [52] Lamagna, L., Battistelli, E.S., De Gregori, S., De Petris, [38] Hoyle, F. (1959) Paris Symposium on Radio Astronomy M., Luzzi, G., Savini, G. (2007) New Astronomy Re- (IAU Symp. 9, URSI Symp. 1), R.N. Bracewell (Ed.), views, 51, 381. Stanford University Press, Stanford (CA), 529. [53] Lanzetta, K.M., Chen, H.-W., Pascarelle, S., Yahata, N., [39] Hoyle, B., Jimenez, R., and Verde, L. (2011) Phys. Rev. and Yahil, A. (1999) ASP Conf. Series, Vol. 193, A. J. D., 83, 103502. Bunker, and W.J.M. van Breugel (Eds.), Astron. Soc. of [40] Hubble, E. (1929) Proc. of the National Academy of Sci- Pacific, S. Francisco, 544. ences, 15, 168. [54] La Violette, P.A. (1986) Astrophys. J., 301, 544. [41] Hubble, E.P., & Tolman, R.C. (1935) Astrophys. J., 82, [55] Lerner, E.J. (2006) AIP Conf. Proc., Vol. 822, E.J. Lerner 11

and J.B. Almeida (Eds.), AIP, 60. (1997) Astron. J., 114, 722. [56] Lerner, E.J. (2009) ASP Conf. Series, Vol. 413, F. Potter [76] Riess, A.G., Filippenko, A.V., Challis, P., et al. (1998) (Ed.), Astron. Soc. of Pacific, S. Francisco, 12. Astron. J., 116, 1009. [57] Lieu, R., Mittaz, J.P.D., and Zhang, S-N. (2006) Astro- [77] Rowan-Robinson, M. (2002) M.N.R.A.S., 332, 352. phys. J., 648, 176. [78] Scarpa, R., Falomo, R., and Lerner, E.J. (2007) Astro- [58] Lieu, R. (2007) arXiv/0705.2462 phys. J., 668, 74. [59] L´opez-Corredoira, M. (2003) Observational Cosmology: [79] Schaefer, B.E. (2007) Astrophys. J., 660, 16. caveats and open questions in the standard model, in [80] Schilling, G. (2006) Science, 313, 749. Book Recent. Res. Devel. Astronomy & Astrophys., Vol. [81] Shim, H., Chary, R-R., Dickinson, M., Lin, L., Spinrad, 1, 561. H., Stern, D., Yan, C-H. (2011) Astrophys. J., in press, [60] L´opez-Corredoira, M. and Guti´errez, C.M. (2007) As- arXiv/1103.4124 tron. & Astrophys., 461, 59. [82] Shen, R-F. & Song, L-M. (2003) Publ. Astron. Soc. of [61] L´opez-Corredoira, M. (2010) Int. J. of Mod. Phys. D, 19, Japan, 55, 345. 245. [83] Simon, L.E., Hamann, F.W., Pettini M. (2007) Rev. Mex. [62] Lyne, A.G., et al., (2004) Science, 303, 1153. Astron. A. (Serie de Conferencias), 29, 177. [63] McKellar (1941) A., Pub. of the Dominion Astrophysical [84] Songaila, A., Cowie, L.L., Vogt, S., et al. (1994) Nature, Obs. 7(15), 251. 371, 43. [64] MacMillan, D.S. (2005) ASP Conf. Series, Vol. 340, J. [85] Srianand, R., Petitjean, P., and Ledoux, C (2000) Na- Romney and M. Reid (Eds), Astron. Soc. of Pacific, S. ture, 408, 931. Francisco, 477. [86] Steinhardt, P.J. & Caldwell, R.R. (1998) ASP Conf. Ser., [65] Marmet, L. (2011) www.marmet.org/cosmology/redshift/mechanisms.pdfVol. 151, Astron. Soc. of Pacific, S. Francisco, 13. [66] Miralda-Escud´e, J., Haehnelt, M., and Rees, M. J. (2000) [87] Stott, J.P., Collins, C.A., Burke, C., Hamilton-Morris, Astrophys. J., 530, 1. V., and Smith, G.P. (2011) M.N.R.A.S., 414, 445. [67] Molaro, P, Levshakov, S.A., Dessauges-Zavadsky, M., [88] Talbot, J.& Varshni, Y.P., Proper Motion of the quasar and D’Odorico, S. (2002) Astron. & Astrophys., 381, L64. Ton 202, American Astronomical Society, 194th AAS [68] Norris, J.P. (2002) Astrophys. J., 579, 386. Meeting, #73.16; (1999) Bull. Am. Astron. Soc., 31, 952. [69] Peacock, J.A. (1999) Cosmological Physics, (Cambridge: [89] Tejos, N., et al. (2009) Astrophys. J., 706, 1309. Cambridge University Press), pp. 8789. [90] Trujillo, I., F¨orster Schreiber, N.M., Rudnick, G., et al. [70] Perlmutter, S., et al. (1999) Astrophys. J., 517, 565. (2006) Astrophys. J., 650, 18. [71] Piran, T. (2004) Rev. Mod. Phys., 76, 1143. [91] Turner, M.S. (1999) ASP Conf. Ser., Vol. 165, Astron. [72] Prochter, G.E., et al. (2006) Astrophys. J., 648, L93. Soc. of Pacific, S. Francisco, 431. [73] Rauch, M. (1998) Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 36, [92] Varshni, Y.P. (1982) Speculations in Science and Tech- 267 nology, 5, 521. [74] Reynaud, S. & Jaekel, M-T. Notes of a lecture given dur- [93] Wang, B. & Han, Z. (2010) Astron. & Astrophys., 515, ing the International School of Physics Enrico Fermi on A88 Atom Optics and Space Physics (Varenna, July 2007), [94] Zwicky, F. (1929) Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 15, 773. arXiv/0801.3407. [75] Riess, A.G., Filippenko, A.V., Leonard, D.C., et al.