Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ExpErdMann
I'm wondering if the extra brightness could be due to applying the Big Bang brightness correction factor (1 + z)^-4 rather than a static universe correction, which could be (1 + z)^-1 or (1 + z)^-2. On this same point, I read an article recently by Disney (in American Scientist), in which he said that the designers of the Hubble telescope did not expect that it would detect stars at the great distances they did. That was the first time I heard that. Of course, they would have been applying the BB correction. Can the extra brightness in the SNe be accounted for this way?
|
Yes and no. What they are observing in the Ellis study is greater variance in the UV magnitude than is found in the local 'type Ia' templates. Without local guidence, we are in unchartered waters.
The (1+z)^4 correction factor is a relativistic as well as a Big Bang requirement. If the magnitude correction is wrong, it would mean either the redshift is NOT due to expansion, or current relativity theory does not correctly define expansion attenuation, or both. In cases I and III, this would also mean that the time dilation correction is also wrong. The time dilation correction shortens the light curves, and without this correction, the light curves observed at high redshift would be much longer than the local sample. If the lightcurve length/magnitude relationship holds up, this would mean these supernova should be truly brighter!
The net result of such a major miscalculation is difficult to assess, but the best clue might be the fact that far fewer supernovae have been observed at cosmic distances than were expected, based upon the local count. If you assume the supernova population is not really greater in local space, the only realistic conclusion is that the extinction factors are much greater than currently calculated, so these distant supernova are again, truly brighter. This line of reasoning also greatly effects the magnitudes of galaxies, quasars all objects at cosmic distances, and the implications are staggering.
It is important to stress that most supernova researchers currently believe that the magnitude errors are very small in spite of the peculiar high energy lightcurves. What is cool, is that no one really knows, and this type of oddity may portend dramatic shifts of reasoning in the future.