tests for the expansion of the...

Tests for the Expansion of the

Universe

Martín López-CorredoiraInstituto de Astrofísica de Canarias

(Tenerife, Canary

islands, Spain)

May 2015

Expansion of the Universe1)

Is

a static

Universe

theoretically

impossible?

•

Collapse

solved by Einstein with general relativity introducing a cosmological constant.

•

Stability can be solved: e.g. some variations of the Hoyle-Narlikar

conformal theory of gravity (Narlikar

& Arp 1993); considering homogeneous scalar perturbations in

the context of f(R) modified theories of gravity (Boehmer

et al. 2007), variation of fundamental constants (Van Flandern

1984, Troiitski

1987), etc.

•

Olber's

paradox solved with extinction, absorption and reemission of light, fractal distribution of density and the mechanism which produces the redshift

of the galaxies

(Bondi

1961) .

Expansion of the Universe2) Does

redshift

mean expansion?

“It

seems

likely

that

red-shifts may not

be due

to

an

expanding

Universe, and

much

of

the speculation

on

the

structure

of

the

universe

may require

re- examination”

(Hubble 1947)

Edwin Hubble (1889-1953)


redshift

mean expansion?

Tired

light

hypothesis:

Fritz Zwicky

(1898-1974)

Proposed

by Zwicky

in 1929:

E(r)=hν(r) =hνemisión

e-H0 r/c

Due

to

the

interaction

of

the

photon

with

matter

or

other

photons, it

loses energy

(E) along

its

path; therefore, it

loses frequency(ν), i.e. a redshift

is

produced.

PROBLEMS (with some solutions in the literature):-

The

interaction

of

the

photon

should

not

give

a straight

path, so blurring

is

expected

in the

images.- Scattering

depends

on

frequency.


redshift

mean expansion?

Tired

light. Recent

solutions:

-

Interactions

in “Raman”

coherent

scattering

with

atoms

of

H in state

2s or

2p (Moret-Bailly; Gallo); or

with

electrons

(Marmet

& Greber; Brynjolfsson)

-

Scattering

when

crossing

an

inhomogeneous

and

turbulent

plasma (Wolf; Roy et al.) [blurring]

-

Interference

with

vacuum

excitations, which

behave

as an

ether

(Vigier); non-linear electrodynamics in photon propagation through the intergalactic magnetic fields (Mosquera

et al.); or

grav. interaction

with

wave

packets

of

the

space-time curvature

(Crawford) or

with

gravitons

(Ivanov; Van Flandern)


redshift

mean expansion?

Other

solutions

in terms

ofgravitation:

-

Ordinary

gravitational

redshift

of

general relativity

(Bondi; Baryshev) between

two

regions

of

different

potential; differences

of

Weyl curv. of

space-time between

two

regions

(Lunsford; Krasnov

& Shtanov; Castro)

- Inertial

induction

(machian) in whichthe

gravity

depends

on

the

relative

velocity

and

acceleration

between

twoBodies

(A. Ghosh)

-

Gravity

quantization

(Broberg)

Variable mass, time,…:- Variable mass

in particles, growing

with

the

ageof

the

objects, and

the

frequency

of

spectral

lines

depends

on

the

electron

mass

(Hoyle & Narlikar).

- The

photon

looses

energy

because

it

emits

otherphotons

of

lower

energy

(3 K?) (Roscoe; Joos

& Lutz; Mamas)

-

Photon

has mass

(Roscoe; Bartlett & Cumalat) and

it

grows

secularly

(Barber).

-

Time scale

variations

instead

of

a unique

cosmological

time (Garaimov; Segal; Budko; Fischer) due

to

exotic

cosmological

effects

or

due to quantum effects (Alfonso-Faus; Urbanowski)

NGC 4319+Mrk 205

Original HST image processed by Lempel 2002

Diagram of features observed in the median filtered image by Cecil & Stockton (1985)

High-pass filtered image(Sulentic & Arp 1987)

z=0.006

QSOz=0.070

Expansion of the Universe 3) anomalous z

NGC 3067+3C 232

Stocke et al. (1991),Carilli et al. (1989)

Emission of the 21 cm line at the velocity of thegalaxy NGC 3067

QSO, z=0.533

z=0.005

Expansion of the Universe 3) anomalous z

NGC 7603(López-Corredoira & Gutiérrez 2002)

Expansion of the Universe3) anomalous z

Is NGC 7603 similar to M51?

NEQ3

(Gutiérrez & López-Corredoira 2004)

Expansion of the Universe3) anomalous z

4) Other problems with QSOs

Boyle et al. (2000) con datos del 2dF

Expansion of the Universe-

Extremely high luminosity at high z.

- Huge dispersion in magnitude-redshift relation.- The luminosity decreases strongly with time.- Periodicity in QSOs redshifts.-

Host galaxies are sometimes too bright, other times

too faint (not observed).-

Some host galaxies are not disturbed nor ionized

by the huge radiation of the QSO.- QSOs do not present time dilation.- Faraday rotation is not proportional to redshift.- No evolution in metallicity, X-ray properties,…-

IGM structure derived from absorption lines in

QSOs finds inconsistencies (e.g., further structure in the transverse direction than in line-of-sight; uniformity unexplained by standard model; etc.)

Absence of bright radio QSOs at low zBell (2006)

Expansion of the Universe4) Other problems with QSOs

From the standard Cosmology:

Expansion of the Universe4) Other problems with QSOs

-

However, in spite of all these problems, thereis a good argument in favour of cosmological redshiftsfor QSOs: their host

galaxies angular size

is in general

larger for lower z

(Arp-Burbidge-Narlikar ejection theory may explain this, but ad hoc).

Expansion of the Universe5) Redshift variations

Liske et al. (2008): solid dz/dt, dotted dv/dt

First proposed by Sandage (1962):

dz/dt=(1+z)H0

-H(z)

(~ 1 cm/s/yr).

This is possibly observable with a 40 m. telescope over a period of ~20 yr using 4000 h of observing time (Liske et al. 2008)

Expansion of the Universe6) TCMBR

(z) test

Variation of microwave background radiation temperature with z. This temperature is obtained from its relationshipwith the excitation in atomic/molecular transitions due to theabsorption of radiation.

Universe in expansion:

TCMBR

(z)=2.73(1+z) K

Static Universe:

TCMBR

(z)=2.73 K

-

MacKellar (1941) detects with this method in Cyanmolecules a background radiation temperature of 2.3 K


(z) test

Noterdaeme et al. (2011): TCMBR

(z) = (2.725 ±

0.002) ×

(1 + z)1.007 ±

0.027

Nonetheless, there are other results which disagree this dependence (Krelowski et al. 2012; Sato et al. 2013). There might be some excess temperature due to collisional excitation (Molaro et al. 2002) or bias due to unresolved structure in low space resolution mapping (Sato et al. 2013).


(z) test

However, Zaldarriaga et al. (2001): temperature of intergalactic medium is constant (~ 20000 K) with z, against what would be expected with expansion

Expansion of the Universe7) Time dilation test

Proposed by Wilson (1939)

Universe in expansion:

-

Due to the motion,pulses of intrinsic period T are observed with period T(1+z).

Static Universe:

-

Pulses of intrinsic period T, are observed with period T.

Expansion of the Universe

Results of the test:

-

Goldhaber et al. (2001): in SNIa the periods are proportional in average to (1+z)1.07+/-0.06 (photom.); Blondin et al. (2008): (1+z)0.97+/-0.10

(with spectra)

-

Hawkins (2010): in quasars, there is no time dilation

-

Crawford (2009): in γ-ray bursts, there is no time dilation

7) Time dilation test

Expansion of the Universe

Test with SNIa by Goldhaber et al. (2001):

Dilation width (w) vs. (1+z);

s=w/(1+z)

7) Time dilation test

Expansion of the Universe7) Time dilation test

Skepticism on the result with SNIa:

-

Leaning (2006): most (18/22) SNIa light curves can be fitted without time dilation by allowing a modificacion of zero-point of the calibration within the uncertainties (see also Brynjolfsson 2004).

-

Selection effects (Crawford 2011, LaViolette 2012, Ashmore 2012).

-

Other hypotheses without expansion (eg., variable mass [Narlikar & Arp 1997], cosmochronometry [Segal 1997], variable speed of light [Holushko 2012]) also predict a factor (1+z)

-

Are not there variations of T due to evolution?

Expansion of the Universe8) Hubble diagram test

Variation of apparent magnitude vs. z, up to high values of z

LaViolette (1986), Schade et al. (1997), etc.

Today, the test favours the staticrather than expanding Universe(with Ωm

=0.24, ΩΛ

=0.76), but the dark energy and/or evolution

of galaxies can solve the

discrepance with the expanding model.

LaViolette (1986): cD galaxies and radiogalaxies;Solid line: static UniverseDashed line: expanding Universe (q0

=0.5)

Expansion of the Universe8) Hubble diagram test

Variation of apparent magnitude vs. z, up to high values of z

López-Corredoira (2010)

With SNIa (supposed to be without evolution), the standard model works, but some static models also fit the data.

Expansion of the Universe 9) Tolman testProposed by Hubble & Tolman in 1935:Surface brightness (flux per unit angular area) proportional to (1+z)-n

, with z=Δλ/λ

(redshift)

If AB magnitudes are used, the dimming factor is (1+z)1-n

Universe in expansion: n=4

- A factor (1+z) due to the loss ofenergy in each photon.

-

A factor (1+z) due to time dilation.

-

Two factors (1+z) due to the increase of angular size in each direction.

Static Universe: n=1

- A factor (1+z) due to the loss ofenergy in each photon

Expansion of the Universe 9) Tolman test

Results of the test:

- Lubin & Sandage (2001): n=1.6-3.2 depending on theconsidered filter and initial hypothesis (expansionor static) up to z=0.9

- Lerner (2006), Lerner et al. (2014): n≈1, with data in UV-visibleof the Hubble Space Telescope up to z~5.

- Andrews (2006): n=0.99+/-0.38, n=1.15+/-0.34, with twodifferent samples of cD galaxies (brightest galaxies in acluster of galaxies)

Expansion of the Universe 9) Tolman test

No variation with redshift of NUV and FUV surface brightness (comparing the fluxes at rest) of disc galaxies with M between 17.5 and 19.0.

This is consistent with a static Universe without evolution of galaxies; and would need a strong evolution to make it compatible with standard cosmology.

(Lerner et al. 2014)

Expansion of the Universe10) Angular size test

Kapahi (1987): Angular size of QSOs (filled circ.) and radio galaxies (empty circ.)

With the present-day cosmologicalparameters

The test favours the static rather than expanding Universe (with Ωm

=0.24, ΩΛ

=0.76).

Standard cosmology claims that evolution

of galaxies size explains the discrepance with the expanding model

but this evolution is too strong

LaViolette (1986), Kapahi (1987) Andrews (2006), López-Corredoira (2010), etc.


The test favours the static rather than expanding Universe (with Ωm

=0.24, ΩΛ

=0.76).

Standard cosmology claims that evolution

of galaxies size explains the discrepance with the expanding model

but this evolution is too strong

López-Corredoira (2010)


The necessary evolution to make compatible the standard cosmology is too strong and it cannot be explained by:

•Early galaxy formation with much higher densities.•Luminosity evolution.•Merger ratio.•Massive outflows due to a quasar feedback mechanism.

(López-Corredoira 2010)

Expansion of the Universe11) UV Surface brightness limit


With expansion Static

Dashed line indicates the máximum UV Surface brighness (Lerner 2006), which is exceded for the expanding Universe but not for static one.

Expansion of the Universe12) Alcock-Paczynski test


Using anisotropic 2-point correlation function

… but we must take into account the redshift distortions produced by peculiar velocities of the gravitational infall

SDSS-IIIBOSS galaxies




Using several sources of data, from six cosmological models, four of them are excluded at 95% C.L. and two of them fit the data:•ΛCDM•Static with tired light


(Melia & López-Corredoira 2015)SDSS-III/BOSS dataConfidence level contours of 68.3% C.L, 95.4% C.L., 99.73% C.L. The concordance ΛCDM in the cross.

With BAO peak data, ΛCDM with standard values of parameters is also excluded at 99.34% C.L. and static with tired light, but also an expanding Universe with Rh

=ct or wCDM with:

TEST EXPANSION STATICTCMBR

(z) Good

fit. Excess

temperature

at high

z due

to

collisional

excitation

or due

to

unresolved

structure.

Time dilation Good

fit

for

SNIa. Unexplained

absence

of

time dilation

for

QSOs

and

GRBs.

Selection

effects, or

ad hoc modification

of

the

theory

or the

zero

point

calibration, or evolution

of

SNIa

periods.Hubble diagram Good

fit

but

requires

the introduction

of

dark

energy and/or

evolution

of

galaxies.

Good

fit

for

galaxies. Good

fit for

SNIa

with

some

models.

Tolman

(SB) Requires

strong

evolution

of SB.

Good

fit.

Angular size Requires

too

strong

evolution of

angular sizes.Good

fit.

UV SB limit Anomalously

high

UV SB at high

z.Good

fit.

Alcock-Paczynski Non-good

fit

for

the standard

model

but

good

fit with

other

wCDM

models

Good

fit

for

tired

light.

tests for the expansion of the...

Documents