The points in “6 Conclusion” are interesting reading, example: “(1) Rather than due to an expanding Cosmos, observed redshifts to distant galaxies can be interpreted as the evolution of particle masses after conformal transformation of the FLRW metric into static or Minkowski space. This recovers the Friedmann equations and the evolution of energy densities, and importantly, leaves measurements such as redshifts invariant.” “(7) Finally, the presence of conformal inhomogeneities in our Universe can offer a simultaneous solution to the Hubble tension, the discrepant measurements in the amplitude of matter fluctuations as well as the preference for a non-standard lensing amplitude in CMB anisotropies, provided we are located in an underdense conformal region of space. Conformal inhomogeneities can furthermore enhance redshifts to distant galaxies, causing larger distances and older ages to be attributed to galaxies in clusters and consequently larger masses and population sizes than otherwise expected for those. Another effect is a mass bias for the inferred masses of galaxy clusters, where masses inferred from lensing are larger than those inferred dynamically or kinematically. It is worth highlighting that these predictions agree qualitatively with trends identified in current observations and may thus be worthwhile further investigating.” My note, if we use this new cosmology model, it seems the cosmology calculators based upon FLRW metric would not provide reliable distances for objects showing look back or light-time distances or comoving radial distances as measured from Earth. Such distance measurements, energies claimed, and masses, would be *inflated* 
After reading this article and 29-page PDF cited, I ask, is the Big Bang model ready to be thrown out?
The 29-page PDF does briefly discuss testing. "This multitude of possibilities motivates generally testing, across the vast spacetime, for phenomenological variations in the effective time, length and mass scales of the observed behaviour of different matter species as in Eq. (48), or likewise in the fundamental couplings. Note in this context that while the Minkowskian picture is physically equivalent to the standard cosmological picture both at the classical and quantum level [24] and observationally indistinguishable from it, it offers a different basis for theoretical
The reference 'Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based on the expanding universe hypothesis', "...the angular radius of an object in a non-expanding universe declines with redshift, while in an expanding universe this radius increases for redshifts z > 1.25."
I use Ned Wright calculator, https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/toolbox/calculators.html
Thanks, I see this now using the calculator like Ned Wright. "This gives a scale of 4.255 kpc/" and the other I listed. I am surprised I do not see much discussion or reporting on this issue concerning BB cosmology as well as the very large comoving radial distances where space expands much faster than c velocity.
If the BB expanding Universe model has problems with galaxy sizes mapped to specific redshift values, it would be good to see this clearly explained to the public IMO.
I agree with Edwin Hubble without disgreeing with your analysis of " New research looking at the cosmological constant problem suggests the expansion of the universe could be an illusion"
Helio, Ned Wright calculator does show this (along with others) when looking at the angular size distance and scale map to 1 arcsecond size shown. However, as the redshifts get larger and larger, the size gets smaller and smaller
From what I could gather from EricLerner comments (post #10), somewhere around redshift 1.25 or larger, angular sizes mapped to redshift values apparently runs into problems. Some may enjoy this information on the Hubble Constant and how difficult that measurement has been through the decades.
.Thanks. It‘s logical that galaxies appear smaller for greater distances after this “sweet spot”.Helio, Ned Wright calculator does show this (along with others) when looking at the angular size distance and scale map to 1 arcsecond size shown. However, as the redshifts get larger and larger, the size gets smaller and smaller
Yes, the first years of measuring distances had some temporary hiccups. Cepheid variables were soon understood, which produced far more accurate results. Recall that those excessive rates were based on Slipher’s small set of redshift data. Hubble and Humason soon produced a far more robust redshift-distance data.
The beginning of the science of BBT is about 1E-12 sec from the true t=0 beginning. Physics seems to work fine here; religion and philosophy offer the better stories for t=0, IMO.
This post seems to suffer from its own criticism. In particular, so much of the BBT is just conjectures at this point that it is definitely inappropriate to call it "the accepted one". In reality, it is the one that is taught in college courses, and, in order to pass college courses, you need to at least appear to have accepted it and be able to manipulate info with it. But, there are obvious problems with it, and, unless and until "dark matter" and "dark energy" can be discovered and given equations of state like the other parameters in General Relativity or some successor theory, it is definitely good science to look for other explanations of our observations. Too much of the BBT itself is just "conjectures" that are tuned to observations without any other basis for their existences. (Yes, I have read the BBT bullets posts.)
Thanks for your comments and the convenient link. I took a quick look at the pdf and my first impression is there is nothing really new here. The fact that the k= 0 FLRW solution is conformal to Minkowski space is well known, The mathematics is all "straightforward." The fly in the ointment is that the interpretation of the solution in terms of the static Minkowksi metric seems to be a lapse into a version of "bimetric" model. The solution when interpreted in terms of the actual proper distances and times is still an expanding cosmology. In short "tau" is not proper time, a(tau) * d tau is the time recorded by local clocks. The metric of the cosmos is still g_ab = Omega^2 * eta_ab, not eta_ab. I don't think such a "bimetric" interpretation is convincing.After reading this article and 29-page PDF cited, I ask, is the Big Bang model ready to be thrown out?
Ref - Cosmology in Minkowski space, https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6382/acdb41, 02-June-2023.
My note, from the 29-page PDF report cited, from the introduction. “This article explores the implications of casting cosmology into different spacetime geometries as a simple mathematical manipulation that leaves physical measurements unaffected but can reveal new physical insights. Clearly, the Minkowski spacetime occupies a special place among the metrics one can transform the cosmic geometry into, being static and flat as well as the spacetime of special relativity and quantum field theory or indeed of the entire Standard Model. Hence, a particular focus is put on casting cosmology into Minkowski space. “3.1.2 Redshift Importantly, as shown in the following, despite the static geometry of the Universe in Sec. 3.1.1, cosmological observations are still redshifted. However, rather than due to the expanding space, redshift is caused here by evolving particle masses [21, 22] (also see Ref. [23]).”
My thought. Plenty here to chew on for the Big Bang. CMB is referenced 10x and inflation, 15x in the paper. It seems that GR math can be used to explain much in cosmology without an expanding universe model used
That's not in dispute since, as I said, it is weak around z > 10. The CMBR is z = 1089, but the CMBR is itself demonstrable and has met the predictions of the BBT on many levels, including the isotropy, anisotropy, power spectrum, wavelength, etc. The CMBR was about to be discovered with microwave antennae by Peeples & Dicke (Princeton), but the Bell scientists stumbled into it as a noise problem. The Princeton team knew, as did others (e.g. Gamow), that the Recombination event necessarily would be in the microwave band to reveal the event when expansion cooled the universe down to about 3000K.
I too don't like anything that appears as ad hoc science. The current model works very well, which does require dark matter. So was DM invented to accommodate BBT, or was the model made more robust after its discovery? DM was first discovered in 1933 (Fritz Zwicky), but there were not other lines of evidence to support Zwicky's hypothesis. Once the velocity distribution of stars orbiting Andromeda revealed far more matter had to be incorporated to explain their non-Keplerian motions, the DM began to get some real attention. I was fortunate on a McDonald tour to meet with an astronomer during his run to measure DM around dwarf galaxies in order to improve the distribution of DM models for various size galaxies.
It's pointless to argue, IMO, any theory that has a t=0 beginning, IMO. BBT does not come close to addressing the pre-Planck time moments because science is likely never going to be able to do this. Of course, some scientists pretend otherwise because it has brings attention and notoriety, perhaps.
Better still would be demonstrate how the "not fitting" would falsify the theory, and win the Nobel. The tons of efforts to tweak the BB model are rarely as ad hoc as you suggest. Any new discovery needs to see both how it fits BBT and how it doesn't. If it does fit the theory, then this is less valuable than if it doesn't. Anomalies will reveal more than another item on the Big Bang Bullet list, not that I would object.
When in high school, we drug a John boat out to the middle of an iced lake in order to ice fish with some way to safely return if the ice broke. It was a little tiring to drag it out but more tiring to chop through the thick ice, which we never accomplished.
It doesn't hurt to assume the ice is thin, but it is wise to consider all the given data for how robust it is.Astronomers are well-aware of observational bias. BBT is not conjecture; this is a closed-minded viewpoint.
]
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram