1. Introduction to This Corrigendum

jhepgc

Journal of High Energy Physics, Gravitation and Cosmology

2380-4327 2380-4335

Scientific Research Publishing

10.4236/jhepgc.2025.111013

jhepgc-140188

Articles

Physics Mathematics

Erratum to “Data from Twenty-Three FRB’s Confirm the Universe Is Static and Not Expanding”, [Journal of High Energy Physics, Gravitation and Cosmology 2024, 10, 1152-1177]

Lyndon Errol

Ashmore

aIndependent Researcher, Southend-on-Sea, England

02 01 2025

11 01 165 167 6, January 2025 23, January 2025 23, January 2025

2014

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Dispersion measure in an FRB’s signal is produced by the photons of the radio waves interacting with the free electrons in the IGM. In New Tired Light (NTL), redshifts are produced by the photons of light interacting with these self-same electrons and so, one would expect a direct relationship between the DM of an FRB and the redshift of the host galaxy. However, workers in this field assume expansion and weight the DM by dividing it by the scale factor (1 + z) to allow for expansion. Once this weighting is removed, it was predicted back in 2016 (when the first FRB was localized) and later presented at a conference and published in the proceedings that, as more FRB’s were localized, a graph of DM versus ln(1 + z) would be a straight line of gradient (

m_{e} c / 2 h r_{e}

) or 7.32 × 10 ²⁵ m ⁻ ² in SI units. The original paper had twenty-four data points but this has risen significantly to sixty-four useable FRB’s and so this corrigendum updates that paper so that all sixty-four are used. The data give a straight-line graph of gradient 7.12 × 10 ²⁵ m ⁻ ², a difference of 3% from (

m_{e} c / 2 h r_{e}

) predicted nine years earlier.

Redshift Dispersion Measure Fast Radio Bursts FRB’s Tired Light Static Universe IGM

1. Introduction to This Corrigendum

Whilst there are no corrections to the paper itself, since the publication of the original paper [1] the number of localised FRB’s has increased significantly from twenty-four to sixty-four [2] and this makes the results and conclusions much more robust. As a result, the original paper has been updated to include the new results.

2. NTL and a Static Universe

The predicted relationship between DM and ln(1 + z) [1] for a static universe where the weighting for “expansion” has been removed from the $D M_{I G M}$ to give the “true’ value”, $D M_{t r u e}$ , is:

$D M_{t r u e} = (m_{e} c / 2 h r_{e}) \ln (1 + z) + D M_{h o s t}$

Or, in SI units:

$D M_{t r u e} = (7.32 \times 10^{25}) \ln (1 + z) + D M_{h o s t}$

A graph of $D M_{t r u e}$ versus ln(1 + z) is predicted to be a straight line of gradient ( $m_{e} c / 2 h r_{e}$ ) or 7.32 × 10²⁵ m⁻² ( Figure 1 ).

Figure 1 <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.140188-"></xref>Figure 1. Plot of <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> <mi> D </mi> <msub> <mi> M </mi> <mrow> <mi> t </mi> <mi> r </mi> <mi> u </mi> <mi> e </mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </math> versus ln(1 + z) for the 64 FRB’s in a static universe. Note that the gradient is 7.12 × 1025 m−2 compared with the NTL predicted value of 7.32 × 1025 m−2 ( <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> <mrow> <mrow> <msub> <mi> m </mi> <mi> e </mi> </msub> <mi> c </mi> </mrow> <mo> / </mo> <mrow> <mn> 2 </mn> <mi> h </mi> <msub> <mi> r </mi> <mi> e </mi> </msub> </mrow> </mrow> </mrow> </math>), a difference of less than 3%. The intercept (mean host contribution to the DM) gives a value of 1.52 × 1024 m−2 (49 pc∙cm−3)) in agreement with the 50 - 100 pc∙cm−3 host galaxy contribution proposed by several workers in this field. 3. Macquart Relationship for an Expanding Universe

See Figure 2 . The gradient of 990 pc∙cm⁻³ has a 16% difference to the predicted value of 850 pc∙cm⁻³. The intercept of 155 pc∙cm⁻³ is higher than the 50 - 100 pc∙cm⁻³ mean host galaxy contribution proposed by several workers in this field.

4. Conclusions

The extra data has improved the results for both an expanding and static universe.

However, with the weighting for expansion removed from the DM extragalactic to account for a static universe:

Figure 2 Figure 2. Plot of DM (weighted for expansion) versus z for the 64 FRB’s to test the Macquart relationship (DM = 850z). Acknowledgements

The author thanks the workers in this field for their expertise in collecting such precise data without which this paper would not have been possible.

References 1

Ashmore, L. (2024) Data from Twenty-Three FRB’s Confirm the Universe Is Static and Not Expanding. Journal of High Energy Physics, Gravitation and Cosmology, 10, 1152-1177. >https://doi.org/10.4236/jhepgc.2024.103070

Surajit, S., Bhatporia, S. and Weltman, A. (2024) Fast Rado Bursts as Probes of the Late-Time Universe: A New Insight on the Huble Tension. >https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.01974