For a Dynamic Future
©Copyright Andrew R. Hall Abstract Inventions 2015-2017. All rights reserved.
The Hubble Constant may not mean an expanding Universe
On this page I am presenting a proposed new universal constant related to the observed age of the universe and the Hubble constant. Consideration of this constant, its constituents and relationships casts doubt on the expanding universe interpretation.
The Hubble constant was first calculated based on observations by Edwin Hubble in 1929 and was linked to George Lemaitres 1927 theory of the expanding universe. It is a surprising shift in frequency of the light from distant stars.
The frequency shift appears to be based on the distance travelled by the light. It is currently interpreted as the recessional velocity of galaxies increasing with distance.
There are a couple of observations that can be made about the initial linking of Hubbles observations with the interpretation of an expanding universe.
The first is the estimate of the constant wasn't very accurate. 500km/s/MPc versus the 67-73km/s/MPc quoted today.
The second is that its use as evidence for Lemaitres theory of cosmic expansion was not whole heartedley endorsed by Hubble. In his 1931 letter to William de Sitter, Hubble deferred to William de Sitter's authority in linking Hubble's evidence for the redshift with Lemaitres theory of cosmic expansion.
In doing this Hubble effectively disassociated himself from the theory for which his observations are taken as the evidence.
Hubble wrote, along with Humanson, to de Sitter, "The interpretation, we feel, should be left to you and the very few others who are competent to discuss this matter with authority."
It seems in hindsight that an interpretation was made by the scientific authorities of the time despite the misgivings of those providing the evidence. It was chosen because there was an accepted, mathematically based theory, that the evidence could be interpreted as supporting.
On this page I would like to present an alternate set of considerations. Perhaps, the Hubble constant is actually the evidence against the assumption of homogenous vacuum.
It appears that the Hubble constant H0, when multiplied by the age of the universe is a constant. Given that the universe is supposed to be expanding and time is always increasing i.e. going forward this is a bit of a surprise. I have called this constant H1 for now.
The age of the universe is given by the following expression as shown previously on my page "All the time in the universe". The observant reader will note that this expression is also made up only of constants.
However, H1 also appears to be a constant as shown in the expression below:-
It is a rather simple expression for a huge and surprising number. A number that encapsulates the observable universe.
The expression for H1 can be rearranged, once H1 is established, to give an estimate for H0. This a retrospective prediction or a check on the accuracy of the calculation of H0 assuming H1 and Tu.
Evaluating this expression for H0 gives a reasonable correlation with current measurements of the Hubble constant evaluating to 2.09555648224845e+21 per second or 67.167km/s/MPc is the usually quoted units. Since H0 is in units of per second, multiplying it by time in seconds gives a dimensionless constant.
In this context, the Hubble constant appears to be one of a related set of universal constants does not seem to tally with the idea of expansion of the universe.
A more intuitive idea could be that the universe is actually a huge fixed size bubble of vacuum, which is proposed as full of low density energy, and that there is a change in density of this medium distributed through the universe. This leads to the observation of light slowing as it travels from the edge towards the centre. The Hubble constant then is the observation of the rate of change of vacuum density with distance.
Obviously, that runs counter to the idea of a the Big Bang theory and the expanding universe interpretation of Hubble's constant. However, if we refuse to consider alternatives to existing ideas we do run the risk of being trapped by our own lack of imagination.
On the plus side, it does provide a fixed size rational construct that can be examined. It is a possible starting point for a deductive theory of universal constants.
From the current wikipedia article, "In December 1941 Hubble reported to the American Association for the Advancement of Science that results ... did not support the expanding universe theory."
To contact Andy please e-mail email@example.com
ORCID ID 0000-0002-8237-238X