No Expanding Universe? The Problem Of Galactic Surface Brightness

A new study has been published in the International Journal of Modern Physics D that calls the notion of expanding space and the Big Bang into question. The study was conducted by Eric Lerner over at Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (LPP). This study is the second such study published by Lerner that calls the current Big Bang model into question. The previous study was pushed in the Astrophysical Journal back in 2007.

Both studies address a problem with the surface brightness (apparent luminosity divided by apparent surface area) of observable galaxies. If the universe is actually expanding, current dark matter models predict that the surface brightness of distant galaxies will be much less than that of nearby galaxies. If it is not expanding, then the surface brightness of distant and nearby galaxies should be the same.

Both studies found that the surface brightness is, in fact, the same. To quote Lerner, "The conventional, Big Bang, explanation of this observation is that the distant galaxies have extremely high intrinsic surface brightness but with cosmological dimming, by coincidence, they appear to have the same surface brightness as nearby ones. One of the big problems with this explanation is that the implied intrinsic surface brightness is much larger than that observed for any nearby galaxies and may be physically impossible."

Lerner notes that, "Of course, you can hypothesize that galaxies were much smaller, and thus had hundreds of times greater intrinsic surface brightness in the past, and that, just by coincidence, the Big Bang dimming exactly cancels that greater brightness at all distances to produce the illusion of a constant brightness, but that would be a very big coincidence.”

Dr. Renato Falomo of the Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova, Italy, was amazed at the results saying, "It is amazing that the predictions of this simple formula are as good as the predictions of the expanding Universe theory, which include complex corrections for hypothetical dark matter and dark energy."

These studies aren't the only problems with the current expanding universe theory. The red shift of quasars also poses some serious problems that have yet to be addressed by Big Bang theorists. Edwin Hubble is famous for discovering the so-called "Hubble law." Hubble found that the brightness of galaxies are correlated with a shifting of their spectra towards the red end of the light spectrum. Generally speaking, the dimmer a galaxy appears to be, the more red shifted its spectra will be. It is theorized that this takes place because galaxies are rapidly moving away from us (expanding space), which induces a Doppler shift of their spectra. However, it is possible that this red shifting may be caused by something other than "expanding space."

In order for the Big Bang expanding universe theory to be true, all objects must obey this "law" of cosmology. However, quasars do not follow this rule. If one plots the brightness of galaxies over their red shift, you'll see a line of dots going right up the middle of the graph. If one does the same thing with quasars, you get a scatter plot. Mainstream cosmologists write this off by claiming distant quasars are ultra massive super-duper bright objects. However, if red shift is not caused by the Doppler effect, then quasars become normal sized objects in relation to everything else we observe in space.

But there are other problems with the super-duper gigantic quasar theory. Noted astronomer Halton Arp found that the red shift of quasars are quantized when taken in relationship to galaxies that are visually nearby to them. When one looks at quasars, they are almost always found in an apparent visual relationship to a host galaxy. Arp's theory is that quasars are ejected from those host galaxies, and then "grow up" to become full sized galaxies in the future.

"Quantized" red shift means the red shift appears to occur in discrete intervals. That is, if you take a plot of quasar red shifts, and transform them against the rest frame of their host galaxy, you'll find a cluster of red shifts that are nearly the same, then there will be a gap in the plot, then another cluster that are nearly the same, then a gap, and so forth.

The only way to explain these gaps in the plot under a Big Bang model is for the theorists to claim that the Earth is somehow at the exact center of the universe, and that the quasars formed in concentric shells around our current position in space. Such a claim harkens back to Mid-Evil science, when astronomers though the Earth was the center of the universe, and everything revolved around the Earth.

Yet there are still more problems with quasars. Many distant quasars appear to be physically connected to nearby galaxies by streams of plasma. The most famous example of this comes from galaxy/quasar pair NGC 7603. There are many more examples of this occurring in space. Each time an apparent connection is observed, mainstream astronomers write it off to being a random chance alignment, with the quasar just "appearing" to be connected, but actually being far behind the galaxy in question. In the case of NGC 7603, astronomers looking at the problem theorized the odds of such a random chance alignment occurring in space are on the order of 3 billion to 1.

At this point, I think we should be asking ask ourselves just how many more observations mainstream astronomers are going to write off as "coincidences."

You can listen to Lerner and Arp describe these problems for yourself in this full length documentary.

Part 1

Part 2

If that documentary piqued your interest, be sure to check out these other documentaries:

Thunderbolts of the Gods

Symbols of an Alien Sky

The Electric Comet

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

hopefully this will open a door for new science, real one !

a reply to: KrzYma

You mean maybe these guys will use there reeal science to create the first microwave! Or airplane!


Science has been real for centuries...and before the dark ages millennia.if I misunderstood ya I apologize.

a reply to: ArtemisE

I mean science without limitations, like:
- no faster than light ( mc2 )
- creation from nothing (Big Bang)
- no environment energy (fossil fuel only)
- and and and

a reply to: KrzYma

Science is always questioning these sorts of ideas and these perceived limitations; that's what science does...

...i.e., it is quite nearly the definition of science to "Question everything that we think we know". It is the job of science to look at what we believe to be explanations of nature, and then attempt to verify that those explanations are true.

A case in point would be the scientists who have presented the hypothesis mentioned by the OP. The next step by those scientist will be to attempt to prove the hypothesis that they have presented, and have others scrutinize the hypothesis/proof in order to find any holes in their ideas (just like these scientists mentioned in the OP are trying to find holes in the current standard model).

A while ago while pondering the Big Bang and the unlikeliness of the low entropy state of it I had an idea, which could most likely easily explain the low entropy and the quatisized redshift effect as we'll. it also fits nicely with the idea that the universe is a holographic projection, but that isn't a requirement.

Based on the idea that the universe is some form of cellular automata, what if it all started out as 1, or at least a very small number of bits. And as the cellular automata progresses, the bits effectively divide and the resolution becomes higher. Think of the effect you see when loading a JPEG, vague at first and then coming to focus.

It would mean the total size of he universe stays the same, but the Planck length is constantly or periodically decreasing. I wish I had time to work out the maths on this one!

At least now the idea is in the wild if no-one else has encountered it and someone can run with it

a reply to: asciikewl

Yes I am pretty sure thats similar to the big bang idea or modern science, but with a twist.

I would say that there is '1' totally related 'substance' that is the energetic and material 'stuffness/somethingness' of all things that have ever been, all things that are, and all things that will ever be.

This is similar to the original '1' you speak of.

Big bang theory and the likes, suggest this '1', was '1' point, that contained everything. Well the interesting thing I suppose is the nature of space, of pure nothing space, or inner energetic space.

Because if it is pure nothing space, it could be that the nature of 'the 1', just needed to 'spread out' into nothing space, to then start its reactions, and novel relationships between its newly situated parts at newer greater distances apart from one another, because the introduction of 'distance...or...space'.

The biggest problem in my mind, or one of them, is the seemingly inescapable notion that a infinite range of nothing exists outside the material universe. Or the material universe exists on this, or in this.

this would mean that theoretically, every point of the material universe, can be separated, and carved down to the most simplest smallest parts, and then each of those smallest parts (real small, when considering there are billions of atoms in a small portion of your pinky nail, and considering there are more smaller parts that make them up, and im talking about everything that is large and stuck together and built up, separating it all into its smallest possible parts, and then separating them by infinite nothing space each...and then what?) can be separated by infinite space, and then what?

Infinite nothing space surrounding the material universe means a particle of energy can travel in real distance from the edge of the material universe, infinitely far in any direction. The sheer true absurdity of this notion is sheerly true and absurd. And I think it begs the question why is all this stuff stuck together. Well forget asking 'why does a bunch of stuff, or a certain amount of stuff exist at all?' because there is no answer, its just that 'something exists, something has always existed, something will always exist', thats the most true statement that can be made. But you can ask 'if something has always existed', and infinite nothing space exists surrounding it, why hasnt the something that exists, split up, broken up, and a long time ago, started traveling on its own into the infinite nothingness? And the answer is, who knows.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
A case in point would be the scientists who have presented the hypothesis mentioned by the OP. The next step by those scientist will be to attempt to prove the hypothesis that they have presented, and have others scrutinize the hypothesis/proof in order to find any holes in their ideas (just like these scientists mentioned in the OP are trying to find holes in the current standard model).

This has already happened with Halton Arp mentioned in the OP. Arp posted on his website that he was disappointed that not one notable scientist agreed with his claim about redshift problems. I personally looked at the claim in some detail with as little bias as possible and I also think his claim was wrong.

Regarding the paper published earlier this month, there hasn't been much time for the scientists involved in the original study in 2001 (Lori M. Lubin and Allan Sandage, "The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion.) to respond to the re-analysis of their own data mentioned in the paper cited in the OP:

In this paper we present a new implementation of the Tolman test based on a comparison of the UV surface brightness of a large sample of disk galaxies from the local Universe to z ~ 5 as well as a critical re-analysis of previously-published data.

They cite that paper and two others regarding previously published data. So, we need to give Sandage and Lubin a chance to review this re-analysis and respond, but Sandage and Lubin's paper claimed to conclusively rule out the findings of this paper so one or the other must be wrong; they can't both be right. Here is a link to their 2001 paper on arXiv:

The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion.

We conclude that the Tolman surface brightness test is consistent with the reality of the expansion. We have also used the high-redshift HST data to test the ``tired light'' speculation for a non-expansion model for the redshift. The HST data rule out the ``tired light'' model at a significance level of better than 10 sigma.

"a significance level of better than 10 sigma" means it's nearly impossible statistically for the tired light model to be correct, and what the new paper is suggesting is a tired light model, apparently.

Lastly, note that Lerner, et al don't claim their paper suggests the expanding universe model should be thrown out:

We do not claim that the consistency of the adopted model with SB data is sufficient by itself to confirm what would be a radical transformation in our understanding of the cosmos. However, we believe this result is more than sufficient reason to examine this combination of hypotheses further.

At least they are more diplomatic than people like Stephen Crothers, who thinks he can convince scientists he's right by saying they are all idiots.

Bottom line: it's certainly going to be interesting to see the responses of Allan Sandage and Lori Lubin and their peers to this paper, but we need to give them some time to review it.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
...The biggest problem in my mind, or one of them, is the seemingly inescapable notion that a infinite range of nothing exists outside the material universe. Or the material universe exists on this, or in this..

Well, if it is nothing, then it doesn't exist. So there is no "infinite range of nothing" that exists outside the material universe, because there may be no such place as "outside the material universe". You can't even say it's "nothingness", because that implies that nothingness is something. In that respect, it may be even less than nothingness.

Of course, I can't explain (or even begin to fathom) what "nothing" is or what it means; I'm not sure the average human mind can grasp "nothingness". However, just because I can't imagine it does not mean that it is not true.

It's like the old question, "where does all the space for space come from?"

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Right or wrong, I'm a big fan of Arp. I think he makes some sense, and our current cosmology is clearly fundamentally flawed. We just haven't devised a more consistent one yet. I'm not convinced that it will be Arp's when we do, but I wouldn't be surprised that when we do come up with a better cosmological model, that Arp might be credited with having lead the charge.
I'll always be a fan of the iconoclasts.

The full paper on Arxiv:
arxiv.org...

In regards to the Sandage and Lubin paper, the Lerner paper says:

These conclusions [Sandage and Lubin] are not supported by the data for two main reasons. The first one is that, for the static scenario, Lubin and Sandage set the distance to d = (c/H0)ln(1 + z), which is valid only for the Einstein-de Sitter static case. This is not the cosmology we are testing here, where the Hubble relation is hypothesized to be d= cz/H0 at all redshift. The conversion factors (presented in their Table 8) to transform arc seconds to pc in the non-expanding model are therefore different in our model.

The second reason is that the local sample includes only first rank cluster galaxies, while the high-z sample includes about 20 normal galaxies in each of three different clusters. This means that their distant galaxies are on average smaller and less luminous, and therefore are not directly comparable to local ones because of the well known absolute magnitude-SB relation.

Lerner isn't so much disputing the Lubin paper's conclusions. It's more like he's saying they basically presented a red-herring argument. It's certainly possible for both papers to be right, given that Lubin tested a useless cosmological theory. That leaves us with an Occam's Razor argument, which obviously favors Lerner.

Part of me wonders if Lubin tested the super-simple Euclidean model that Lerner used and found out that there was no dimming, and then tried the Einstein-de Sitter model so they could make the claim that the Tolman test invalidates a static universe.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: ImaFungi
...The biggest problem in my mind, or one of them, is the seemingly inescapable notion that a infinite range of nothing exists outside the material universe. Or the material universe exists on this, or in this..

Well, if it is nothing, then it doesn't exist. So there is no "infinite range of nothing" that exists outside the material universe, because there may be no such place as "outside the material universe". You can't even say it's "nothingness", because that implies that nothingness is something. In that respect, it may be even less than nothingness.

Of course, I can't explain (or even begin to fathom) what "nothing" is or what it means; I'm not sure the average human mind can grasp "nothingness". However, just because I can't imagine it does not mean that it is not true.

It's like the old question, "where does all the space for space come from?"

If a 'piece of the somethingness that exists', can travel a real distance away from the universe, then 'distance is real'. Thats all the nothingness of space outside of material means.

Imagine being in an ocean, and looking all around and only seeing ocean as far as you can see, and imagine having a ball with you. Then imagine traveling 999999999999999999999999999999999999 light years west from where you started, and there was still ocean all around. But now imagine that instead of ocean, there is nothing, take away energy and matter and ocean and air and fields and energy and matter and stuff, OK.

Now imagine all that exists is you and a ball. Imagine in theory you can live for 1000000000000000000000000 years and have an energy supply to thrust you near the speed of light which will last 1000000000000000000000000 years (but these details arent important, im just trying to explain to you what I mean by nothing). Then imagine you leave the ball where you start, and travel for your life at your speed in any direction, or there are 10000000 clones of you in the same situation starting at that ball, and all travel for their lives at the speed of light in differing directions away from the ball.

After the time elapses, no matter what you say and think... the distance between them will be 'a real difference', not a something, or a concept... bleh bleh blah blah.... it will be 'true'...it would be true that distance exists.

This does not mean 'space or nothing is a something', in this context or example. This means that two pieces of something, can be oriented in a potential infinitely spatial/distant arrangement. If the word large is used in this manner; a house is larger then a grain of sand. The could it not be used in the manner of saying; if surrounding the material universe is the complete lacking of stuffness/somethingness/materialessness/energylessness, that area, which real distances are able to be made and traversed, is an infinitely large area, of fundamental essencelessness?

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

replying so I can come back later.

originally posted by: KrzYma
hopefully this will open a door for new science, real one !

Yeah, mainstream science is evil, and we can prove it by... uh... science?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
this would mean that theoretically, every point of the material universe, can be separated, and carved down to the most simplest smallest parts, and then each of those smallest parts (real small, when considering there are billions of atoms in a small portion of your pinky nail, and considering there are more smaller parts that make them up, and im talking about everything that is large and stuck together and built up, separating it all into its smallest possible parts, and then separating them by infinite nothing space each...and then what?) can be separated by infinite space, and then what?

What you're basically describing is another "dimension," where rather than objects/energy traveling in a line from Point A to Point B, they're falling into themselves. Another aspect of reality that we perceive or label as "size." Get enough stuff falling into itself, and you got gravity.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ya know, I also have an issue with this statement by you Arbitrageur:

"This has already happened with Halton Arp mentioned in the OP. Arp posted on his website that he was disappointed that not one notable scientist agreed with his claim about redshift problems."

That is not true.

You can see Margaret Burbidge agree with Arp in the flesh, right there on video. And there are dozens of papers that were published by several scientists agreeing with Arp on the quantized red shift problem. I count Burbidge as "notable." Here's a whole list of papers arguing that quasar red shift is quantized.

The early papers showing quantized red shift all had problems because they didn't do the rest frame transformation that Arp demonstrated was necessary. However, I've never seen a paper that refutes Arp's final paper on this subject, which is linked in the OP.

Go find me a paper that show's he's wrong on this. I've never seen one.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ya know, I also have an issue with this statement by you Arbitrageur:

"This has already happened with Halton Arp mentioned in the OP. Arp posted on his website that he was disappointed that not one notable scientist agreed with his claim about redshift problems."

That is not true.

I paraphrased a bit and therefore didn't put Arp's statement in quotes, but I'll do that here, these are Arp's own words from his own site, quoting now:

www.haltonarp.com...

Personally I can say that after more than 30 years of evidence disputed by widely publicized opinions that the bridge was false, I was saddened that not one prominent professional has now come forward to attest that it is, in fact, real.

So I admit my statement "Arp posted on his website that he was disappointed that not one notable scientist agreed with his claim about redshift problems" wasn't exactly what he said but I didn't claim it was. I think the paraphrasing is somewhat reasonable, but now you have his exact words.

By the way here is the post where I described the process I used to evaluate his claim:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yeah, I'm not going to bother arguing about the bridge on Markarian 205 because there's better examples out there, like NGC 7603 or the Einstein Cross.