Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userIs space really expanding? A counterexample
73
0
0.0
(
0
)
Authors
Michal Chodorowski
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
In all Friedman models, the cosmological redshift is widely interpreted as a consequence of the general-relativistic phenomenon of EXPANSION OF SPACE. Other commonly believed consequences of this phenomenon are superluminal recession velocities of distant galaxies and the distance to the particle horizon greater than c*t (where t is the age of the Universe), in apparent conflict with special relativity. Here, we study a particular Friedman model: empty universe. This model exhibits both cosmological redshift, superluminal velocities and infinite distance to the horizon. However, we show that the cosmological redshift is there simply a relativistic Doppler shift. Moreover, apparently superluminal velocities and `acausal distance to the horizon are in fact a direct consequence of special-relativistic phenomenon of time dilation, as well as of the adopted definition of distance in cosmology. There is no conflict with special relativity, whatsoever. In particular, INERTIAL recession velocities are subluminal. Since in the real Universe, sufficiently distant galaxies recede with relativistic velocities, these special-relativistic effects must be at least partly responsible for the cosmological redshift and the aforementioned `superluminalities, commonly attributed to the expansion of space. Let us finish with a question resembling a Buddhism-Zen `koan: in an empty universe, what is expanding?
rate research
Read More
The Hubble law, determined from the distance modulii and redshifts of galaxies, for the past 80 years, has been used as strong evidence for an expanding universe. This claim is reviewed in light of the claimed lack of necessary evidence for time dilation in quasar and gamma-ray burst luminosity variations and other lines of evidence. It is concluded that the observations could be used to describe either a static universe (where the Hubble law results from some as-yet-unknown mechanism) or an expanding universe described by the standard Lambda cold dark matter model. In the latter case, size evolution of galaxies is necessary for agreement with observations. Yet the simple non-expanding Euclidean universe fits most data with the least number of assumptions. From this review it is apparent that there are still many unanswered questions in cosmology and the title question of this paper is still far from being answered.
The interpretation of the expanding universe as an expansion of space has recently been challenged. From the geodesic equation in Friedmann universe models and the empty Milne model, we argue that a Newtonian or special relativistic analysis is not applicable on large scales, and the general relativistic interpretation in terms of expanding space has the advantage of being globally consistent. We also show that the cosmic redshift, interpreted as an expansion effect, containts both the Doppler effect and the gravitational frequency shift.
We present an example showing that a family of Riemann surfaces obtained by a general plumbing construction does not necessarily give local coordinates on the Teichmueller space.
The heliocentric redshifts ($z_mathrm{hel}$) reported for 150 Type Ia supernovae in the Pantheon compilation are significantly discrepant from their corresponding values in the JLA compilation. Both catalogues include corrections to the redshifts and magnitudes of the supernovae to account for the motion of the heliocentric frame relative to the `CMB rest frame, as well as corrections for the directionally coherent bulk motion of local galaxies with respect to this frame. The latter is done employing modelling of peculiar velocities which assume the $Lambda$CDM cosmological model but nevertheless provide evidence for residual bulk flows which are discordant with this model (implying that the observed Universe is in fact anisotropic). Until recently such peculiar velocity corrections in the Pantheon catalogue were made at redshifts exceeding 0.2 although there is no data on which to base such corrections. We study the impact of these vexed issues on the 4.4 $sigma$ discrepancy between the Hubble constant of $H_0 = 67.4 pm 0.5$ km/s/Mpc inferred from observations of CMB anisotropies by Planck assuming $Lambda$CDM, and the measurement of $H_0 = 73.5 pm 1.4$ km/s/Mpc by the SH0ES project which extended the local distance ladder using Type Ia supernovae. Using the same methodology as the latter study we find that for supernovae whose redshifts are discrepant between Pantheon and JLA with $Delta z_mathrm{hel} > 0.0025$, the Pantheon redshifts favour $H_0 simeq 72$ km/s/Mpc, while the JLA redshifts favour $H_0 simeq 68$ km/s/Mpc. Thus the discrepancies between SNe Ia datasets are sufficient to undermine the claimed `Hubble tension. We further note the systematic variation of $H_0$ by $sim$ 6-9 km/s/Mpc across the sky seen in multiple datasets, implying that it cannot be measured locally to better than $sim$ 10% in a model-independent manner.
The EPR paradox and the meaning of the Bell inequality are discussed. It is shown that considering the quantum objects as carrying with them instruction kits telling them what to do when meeting a measurement apparatus any paradox disappears. In this view the quantum state is characterized by the prescribed behaviour rather than by the specific value a parameter assumes as a result of an interaction.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
