Evidence for a
Download
1 / 42

Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data from HUDF Eric J. Lerner - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 129 Views
  • Uploaded on

Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data from HUDF Eric J. Lerner Lawrenceville Plasma Physics. GEOMETRICAL TESTS OF TWO HYPOTHESES 1) FRW Expanding universe (Big Bang) Euclidean non-expanding universe with z=(H/c)distance, as in local universe

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data from HUDF Eric J. Lerner ' - hachi


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

Evidence for a

Non-Expanding Universe:

Surface Brightness Data

from HUDF

Eric J. Lerner

Lawrenceville Plasma Physics


GEOMETRICAL TESTS OF TWO HYPOTHESES

1) FRW Expanding universe (Big Bang)

Euclidean non-expanding universe with

z=(H/c)distance, as in local universe

(non-geometric cause of redshift)


Galaxy size and

surface brightness

Big Bang Prediction:

z~(z+1)F(z)

Euclidean non-expanding:

z is constant

Big Bang Prediction:

Surface brightness (ABMag)~1/(1+z)3

Euclidean non-expanding:

Surface brightness is constant


DATA SETS

HIGH z:

HUDF “z” 850 nm

Photometric z:

i drops z~6

v drop z~4.9

NICMOS z=2.5-4

LOW z:

GALEX FUV 155 nm NUV 230 nm

Medium Sample MIS

Spectroscopic z from SDSS


SAMPLE SELECTION

SB~1.5, at-galaxy  must be closely matched

SB~M0.6 , match M

Lower size cutoff 0.07” for Hubble, 1.8” for SDSS+GALEX, must match rz=R

Sufficient sample size


UNITS:

Absolute luminosity defined here as:

M=m(AB)-5 log z

M(abs)=M-43

Milky Way L= 1.5x1010Ls

M= 23.26

Surface brightness in magnitudes/arsec2

r=half light radius

SB=m+2.5 log(r2)

Milky Way SB= 24 magnitudes/arsec2

At z=6 SB for BB is down by 343


HIGH Z-LOW Z PAIRS

z obs. gal log r(kpc) N M

6 910 130 -0.91 34 23.5-24.5

0.165-0.205 154 121 -0.91 60

4.9 910 154 -0.82 61 23.5-24.5

0.135-0.165 154 130 -0.82 50

2.5-4 910 217 -0.58 32 23.5-24.5

0.135-0.165 232 205 -0.58 76


COMPARE NUV HUDF SAMPLES

USING FWHM/2 AS RADIUS MEASURE

z obs. gal N M

3.3 910 212 12 23.5-24.5

2.7 775 209 13 23.5-24.5

1.9 606 209 15 23.5-24.5

2.7 775 209 13 24.5-25.5

1.9 606 209 24 24.5-25.5

1.1 435 207 11 24.5-25.5


RESULTS

Z Log SB

6 -0.06+0.03

4.9 -0.13+0.07

3.2 0.30+0.12


K z 1 0 17 0 25 k z 0 09 0 15

=k(z+1)0.17+0.25

=k(z)0.09+0.15


BIG BANG EVOLUTION HYPOTHESIS

GALAXIES ARE ACTUALLY HUNDREDS OF TIMES BRIGHTER

AND MUCH SMALLER

BUT THIS PRODUCES HYPOTHETICAL GALAXIES THAT ARE HAVE 40-100 TIMES THE SB OF ANY EXTANT GALAXIES AND ARE PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE


SURFACE BRIGHTNESS DATA EXCLUDES BIG BANG GEOMETRY BUT IS AN EXCELLENT FIT TO EUCLIDEAN NON-EXPANDING GEOMETRY

Implications:

Observable universe is infinite in spatial and temporal extent

Redshift-distance relationship is non-geometric in origin. Laboratory test of relationship should be possible with modified LIGO


WHY DO WE NEED A NEW WORLD MODEL? EXCELLENT FIT TO EUCLIDEAN NON-EXPANDING GEOMETRY

1) BB requires increasing numbers of hypothetical entities without observational evidence—inflation, non-baryonic matter, dark energy—and free parameters. Reduces predictive power.

2) BB violates well-confirmed physical laws—conservation of baryon number


3) Basic predictions BB makes EXCELLENT FIT TO EUCLIDEAN NON-EXPANDING GEOMETRY

are contradicted by observation:

a) light element predictions are wrong-Li in particular

b) geometric–size, surface brightness—predictions wrong

c) age of universe is wrong—voids at least five times too old, high z galaxies are too old

d) Gaussian CBR is wrong


BASIC ASSUMPTIONS OF PLASMA COSMOLOGY EXCELLENT FIT TO EUCLIDEAN NON-EXPANDING GEOMETRY

SINCE THE UNIVERSE IS NEARLY ALL PLASMA, ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCES ARE EQUAL IN IMPORTANCE WITH GRAVITATION

SINCE WE NEVER SEE EFFECTS WITHOUT CAUSES, WE HAVE NO REASON TO ASSUME AN ORIGIN IN TIME FOR THE UNIVERSE—AN EFFECT WITHOUT A CAUSE

SINCE EVERY PART OF THE UNIVERSE WE OBSERVE IS EVOLVING, WE ASSUME THAT THE UNIVERSE ITSELF IS EVOLVING AS WELL.


PLASMA SCALE INVARIANTS EXCELLENT FIT TO EUCLIDEAN NON-EXPANDING GEOMETRY

VELOCITY IS SCALE INVARIANT

TIME SCALES AS LENGTH

1 Gy, 30kpc scales to

3s, 10 cm


PLASMA FILAMENTATION EXCELLENT FIT TO EUCLIDEAN NON-EXPANDING GEOMETRY

AND STRUCTURE FORMATION

Pinch effect draws currents in plasma at all scales into force free filaments, concentrating matter

and magnetic fields

Gravitation acts on condensed matter in filaments to compress it further. As gravitational condensation rotates through filament field, new, smaller set of filaments set up.

Filaments act to drain angular momentum from condensation, allowing further compression.


LARGE SCALE STRUCTURE EXCELLENT FIT TO EUCLIDEAN NON-EXPANDING GEOMETRY

Plasma filamentation model:

No time problem

Instability theory:

Filament Formation V=(m/M)c= 160km/s

Stable filament V=(m/M)3/4 c= 1070 km/s

Orbital velocity of condensed objects

160km/s<V<1070 km/s

Plasma must be collisional

for gravitational condensation

nR=1019/cm2


PLASMA FOCUS AS LABORATORY MODEL FOR QUASARS EXCELLENT FIT TO EUCLIDEAN NON-EXPANDING GEOMETRY

Model of quasars based on the dense plasma focus device show how dense, magnetically confined plasmoids (toroidal vortex) can produce tightly collimated beams of electrons and ions:

Good quantitative agreement with observations of density, velocity, B field, radius, radiation spectrum


GALACTIC PRODUCTION OF He, D EXCELLENT FIT TO EUCLIDEAN NON-EXPANDING GEOMETRY

M = 1.8n-2

Intermediate mass stars

4<M<12

Produce He, very little CNO

Throughout proto-galaxy

He=.21-.23

p+p->d+3.3mb 2% of thermonuclear power

prediction (1989) 2.2x10-5


PLASMA MODEL OF CBR EXCELLENT FIT TO EUCLIDEAN NON-EXPANDING GEOMETRY

CBR energy produced by first generation stars in galaxies

UV energy absorbed and thermalized by dust

microwave energy isotropized, thermalized by electrons in magnetized plasma filaments emitted by QSOs, AGNs, Herbig Haro objects


KEY PREDICTION OF PLASMA CBR MODEL: EXCELLENT FIT TO EUCLIDEAN NON-EXPANDING GEOMETRY

universe not transparent at

>100-200 microns

Using IR-21cm correlation for 301 IR bright galaxies, we find evidence(1993)

for absorption at 8

Confirmed with 850 microns SCUBA data(SLUGS)


More confirmation wmap alignment with supercluster lieu observations of sz effect

More confirmation: EXCELLENT FIT TO EUCLIDEAN NON-EXPANDING GEOMETRY

WMAP alignment with supercluster

Lieu observations of SZ effect


A Flux-Number Test of Absorption EXCELLENT FIT TO EUCLIDEAN NON-EXPANDING GEOMETRY

For IR and optical sources ,excluding the brightest ones,

N~S-1.1

Implies fractal distribution N~D2.2 n~D-0.8

For radio sources, excluding the brightest ones,

N~S-0.9

S~D-2.44

Implies absorption A~D.44 compared with D.32 up to 300 Mpc


Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.


Armenzano Observatory cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University

Danish Space Research Institute

Escola Municipal de Astrofísica, Brazil

European Southern Observatory

Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics

High Altitude Observatory, NCAR

Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica

Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik

Observatoire de Lyon

Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden

Service d'Astrophysique, CEA

Space Research Institute, Russia

Special Astrophysical Observatory of RAS

Università di Bari

Cambridge University

College de France

Cornell University

Indian Institute of Technology

Padua University

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Jet Propulsion Laboratory


ad