We present a new redshift (RS) versus photon travel time ( ) test including 171 supernovae RS data points. We extended the Hubble diagram to a range of z = 0,0141–8.1 in the hope that at high RSs, the fitting of the calculated RS/ diagrams to the observed RS data would, as predicted by different cosmological models, set constraints on alternative cosmological models. The Lambda cold dark matter (ΛCDM), the static universe model, and the case for a slowly expanding flat universe (SEU) are considered. We show that on the basis of the Hubble diagram test, the static and the slowly expanding models are favored. 1. Introduction The basic premise of the big bang theory is that the universe is expanding. The velocity of expansion can be expressed by the linear relationship , where is the velocity of light, is the redshift (RS), is the comoving proper distance of the emitting object, and is the Hubble constant [1]. Since one cannot measure the supposed universal expansion experimentally, different tests based on observational data have been proposed [2–4] to provide evidence for the expansion hypothesis. (i) The Tolman surface brightness test [5], (ii) the time dilation test, (iii) the cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature as a function of the RS test, (iv) the apparent magnitude versus distance test, and (v) the angular size versus RS test were proposed as possible observational evidence for the expanding space supposition. Recently, López-Corredoira [6] critically reviewed the results of these tests and concluded that on the basis of previous tests, convincing evidence for the cosmic expansion hypothesis is still lacking. Over this, as pointed out by LaVioletta [7], Crawford [8], and López-Corredoira [9], the static universe model fits the observational data better than expansion models. At present, there is no decisive experimental proof in favor of or against the supposed universal expansion. Recently, an early idea for testing the universal expansion, proposed by Sandage 1962 [10], by measuring the change of RS of galaxies owned to the deceleration rate of the expansion is gaining increasing interest (Steinmetz et al. [11]). The test, however, requires measurements of Doppler velocity drifts with an accuracy of ~1？cm？s？1？yr？1 which is not feasible at the present time, but new techniques for frequency measurements developed by Loeb [12] and Murphy et al. [13], for example, promise an effective means to prove or improve the？？expansion hypothesis in future experiments. In this paper, we compare the observed Hubble diagram compiled from 171 supernovae
References
[1]
E. P. Hubble, “A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 167–173, 1929.
[2]
A. Sandage, The Universe at Large. Key Issues in Astronomy and Cosmology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1997.
[3]
A. Sandage and J. M. Perlmutter, “The surface brightness test for the expansion of the μ, I—properties of Petrosian metric diameters,” The Astrophysical Journal, vol. 350, pp. 481–491, 1990.
[4]
A. Sandage and L. M. Lubin, “The Tolman surface brightness test for the reality of the expansion,” The Astronomical Journal, vol. 121, no. 5, pp. 2271–2288, 2001.
[5]
E. P. Hubble and R. C. Tolman, “Two methods of investigating the nature of the nebular redshift,” The Astrophysical Journal, vol. 82, p. 302, 1935.
[6]
M. López-Corredoira, “Observational cosmology: caveats and open questions in the standard model,” http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310214.
[7]
P. A. LaVioletta, “Is the universe really expanding?” The Astrophysical Journal, vol. 301, pp. 544–553, 1986.
[8]
D. A. Crawford, “Observational evidence favors a static universe,” The Journal of Cosmology, vol. 13, pp. 3875–3946, 2011.
[9]
M. López-Corredoira, “Angular size test on the expansion of the Universe,” International Journal of Modern Physics D, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 245–291, 2010.
[10]
A. Sandage, “The change of redshift and apparent luminosity of galaxies due to the deceleration of selected expanding universes,” The Astrophysical Journal, vol. 135, no. 2, p. 319, 1962.
[11]
T. Steinmetz, T. Wilken, C. Araujo-Hauck, et al., “Laser frequency combs for astronomical observations,” Science, vol. 321, no. 5894, pp. 1335–1337, 2008.
[12]
A. Loeb, “Direct measurement of cosmological parameters from the cosmic deceleration of extragalactic objects,” The Astrophysical Journal Letters, vol. 499, no. 2, pp. L111–L114, 1998.
[13]
M. T. Murphy, Th. Udem, R. Holzwarth, et al., “High precision wavelengths calibration of astronomical spectrographs with laser frequency combs,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, vol. 380, no. 2, pp. 839–847, 2007.
[14]
H. Wei, “Observational constraints on cosmological models with the updated long gamma-ray bursts,” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, vol. 2010, article 020, 2010.
[15]
A. G. Riess, L. G. Sirolger, J. Tonry et al., “Type Ia supernova discoveries at from the hubble space telescope: evidence for past deceleration and constraints on dark energy evolution,” The Astrophysical Journal, vol. 607, no. 2, pp. 665–687, 2004.
[16]
E. L. Wright, “A cosmology calculator for the World Wide Web,” Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, vol. 118, no. 850, pp. 1711–1715, 2006.
[17]
F. Zwicky, “On the redshift of spectral lines through interstellar space,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 15, no. 10, pp. 773–779, 1929.
[18]
J. P. Vigier, New Ideas in Astronomy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1988.
[19]
J. Moret-Bailly, “The difficult determination of Impulse Stimulated Raman Scattering redshift against Doppler redshift,” http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0110525.
[20]
L. A. Marosi, “Does the Hubble constant really represent recession velocity? A new interpretation of the cosmic redshift,” The General Science Journal. In press.
