It is generally accepted that the history of the expansion of the universe can be exactly described by the concordance model, which makes specific predictions about the shape of the Hubble diagram. The redshift-magnitude Hubble diagram in the redshift range z = 0.0104 - 1 seems to confirm this expectation, and it is believed that this conformity is also valid in the high redshift range. However, this belief is not undisputed. Recent work in the high redshift range of up to z = 8.1 has shown that the shape of the Hubble diagram deviates considerably from the predictions made by the Lambda cold dark matter model. These analyses, however, were based on mixed SN1a and gamma ray burst data, and some astronomers argue that this may have biased the results. In this paper, 109 cosmology-independent, calibrated gamma ray burst z / μ data points are used to calculate the Hubble diagram in the range z = 0.034 to z = 8.1. The outcome of this analysis confirms prior results: contrary to expectations, the shape of the Hubble diagram turns out to be exponential, and this is difficult to explain within the framework of the standard model. The cosmological implications of this unexpected result are discussed.
KeywordsRedshiftGamma Ray BurstsHubble DiagramExponential SlopeHubble’s Law&LambdaCDM Model
Einstein, A. (1917) Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie, Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin), S. 142-152. [Cosmological Observations about the General Theory of Relativity, Proceedings of the Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences, Vol. 142-152.]
Hubble, E.P. (1929) A Relation between Distance and Radial Velocity among Extra-Galactic Nebulae. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 15, 167-173. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.15.3.168
Einstein, A. and deSitter, W. (1932) On the Relation between the Expansion and the Mean Density of the Universe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 18, 213-214. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.18.3.213
Friedmann, A. (1922) über die Krümmung des Raumes. Zeitschrift für Physik, 10, 377-386. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01332580
Moffat, J.W. and Toth, V.T. (2012) Modified Gravity: Cosmology without Dark Matter or Einstein’s Cosmological Constant. arXiv:0710.0364v7[astro-ph]
Mitra, A. (2011) An Astrophysical Peek into Einstein’s Static Universe, No Dark Energy. International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 1, 183-199. https://doi.org/10.4236/ijaa.2011.14024
Mitra, A. (2013) Energy of Einstein’s Static Universe and Its Interpretation for the ΛCDM Cosmology. International Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, No. 3, Article ID: 007.
Mitra, A. (2014) Why the Big Bang Model Does Not Allow Inflationary and Cyclic Cosmologies though Mathematically One Can Obtain Any Model with Favorable Assumptions. New Astronomy, 30, 46-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newast.2013.12.002
Lòpez-Corrediora, M. (2017) Tests and Problems of the Standard Model in Cosmology. Foundations of Physics, 47, 711-768. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-017-0073-8
Lerner, E.J. (2018) Observation Contradict Galaxy Size and Surface Brightness Predictions That Are Based on the Expanding Universe Hypothesis. MNRAS, 477, 3185-3196. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty728
Lòpez-Corrediora, M. (2018) Problems with the Dark Matter and Dark Energy Hypothesis, and Alternative Ideas. arXiv: 1808.09823
Crawford, D.A. (2011) Observational Evidence Favors a Static Universe. The Journal of Cosmology, 13, 3875-3946.
Perlmutter, S., et al. (1999) Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae. The Astrophysical Journal, 517, 565-586. https://doi.org/10.1086/307221
Riess, A., et al. (1998) Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant. Astronomical Journal, 116, 1009-1038. https://doi.org/10.1086/300499
Schmidt, B.P., et al. (1994) The Expanding Photosphere Method Applied to SN 1992am AT CZ = 14600 km/s. Astronomical Journal, 107, 1444-1452. https://doi.org/10.1086/116957
Schäfer, B.E. (2006) The Hubble Diagram to Redshift > 6 from 69 Gamma-Ray Bursts. arXiv:astro-ph/0612285
Marosi, L.A. (2013) Hubble Diagram Test of Expanding and Static Cosmological Models: The Case for a Slowly Expanding Universe. Advances of Astronomy, 2013, Article ID: 917104. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/917104
Marosi, L.A. (2014) Hubble Diagram Test of 280 Supernovae Redshift Data. Journal of Modern Physics, 5, 29-33. https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2014.51005
Marosi, L.A. (2016) Modelling and Analysis of the Hubble Diagram of 280 Supernovae and Gamma Ray Bursts Redshifts with Analytical and Empirical Redshift/Magnitude Data. International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 6, 272-275. https://doi.org/10.4236/ijaa.2016.63022
Izzo, L., Capozziello, S., Covone, G. and Capaccioli, M. (2009) Extending the Hubble Diagram by Gamma Ray Bursts. Astronomy and Astrophysics, 508, 63-67. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/200912769
Demianski, M., Piedipalumbo, E. and Rubano, C. (2011) The Gamma-Ray Bursts Hubble Diagram in Quintessential Cosmological Models. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 411, 1213-1222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17751.x
Cardone, V.F., Capozziello, S. and Dainotti, M.G. (2009) An Updated Gamma Ray Bursts Hubble Diagram. arXiv: 0901.3194v2
Liu, J. and Wei, H. (2015) Cosmological Models and Gamma-Ray Bursts Calibrated by Using Padé Method. General Relativity and Gravitation, 47, 141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10714-015-1986-1
Wei, H. (2010) Observational Constraints on Cosmological Models with the Updated Long Gamma Ray Bursts. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2010, 14. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2010/08/020
Betoule, M., et al. (2014) Improved Cosmological Constraints from a Joint Analysis of the SDSS-II and SNLS Supernova Samples. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 568, Article No. A22. arXiv:1401.4064 https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201423413
Marosi, L.A. (2017) Is the Velocity Interpretation of the Redshift of Spectral Lines in Accordance with Astronomical Data? International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 7, 248-254. https://doi.org/10.4236/ijaa.2017.74021
Lineweaver, C.H. and Barbosa, B. (1998) Cosmic Microwave Background: Implications for Hubble Constant and the Spectral Parameters n and Q in Cold Dark Matter Critical Density Universes. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 329, 799-808.
Grubbs, E. (1950) Sample Criteria for Testing Outlying Observations. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 21, 27-58. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177729885
Wright, E.I. (2006) A Cosmology Calculator for the World Wide Web. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 118, 1711-1715. https://doi.org/10.1086/510102
Blanchard, A., Douspis, M., Rowan-Robinson, M. and Sarkar, S. (2003) An Alternative to the Cosmological “Concordance Model”. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 412, 35-44. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20031425
Marosi, L.A. (2017) Non Velocity Interpretation of the Cosmic Redshift—Cosmological Implications. http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/ResearchPapers-Cosmology/Download/6954
Friedmann, W.L. (2017) Cosmology at a Crossroads: Tension with the Hubble Constant. Nature Astronomy, 1, 0169. arXiv: 1706.02739
Nielsen, J.T., Guffanti, A. and Sarkar, S. (2016) Marginal Evidence for Cosmic Acceleration from Type Ia Supernovae. Scientific Reports, 6, Article No. 35596. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep35596