# Sen 2: The mass of a Universe has decreased in 11 times. It is alternative of dark energy

Александр Владимирович Ныч

SEN 2: The mass of a Universe has decreased in 11 times. It is alternative of dark energy.

Ныч Александр Владимирович

Sen 2: The mass of a Universe has decreased in 11 times. It is alternative of dark energy

Origin: http://samlib.ru/n/nych_aleksandr_wladimirowich/sten2eng.shtml

Создан: 19/12/2013, изменен: 29/06/2014, 84k

Статья: Естествознание

SEN 2: The mass of a Universe has decreased in 11 times. It is alternative of dark energy.

____________________________________________________________

> SEN 2: The mass of a Universe has decreased in 11 times. It is alternative of dark energy.

> A. V. Nych ©

> E-mail: nych100@mail.ru

> 19 December 2013

> ABSTRACT

> Theory SEN is based on analysis of phenomena observed in laboratories. Its consecutive application to cosmology problems leads to a complex explanation of Big Bang mechanism, inflation, dark matter (DM), dark energy (DE), high velocity of galaxies streams and low density of a near Universe. SEN leads to conclusion that the Universe mass decreases. In the article new direct data that for a Universe life time its mass has decreased in ≈11 times times are given and it is shown that it explains data which are relating with acceleration of expansion of a Universe and DE.

> Aims. 1) Confirmation of a hypothesis about decreasing of mass of a Universe. 2) A new explanation of data which connect with acceleration of expansion of a Universe and DE.

> Methods. The assembly and comprehensive analysis of the published data connected with density of a Universe and DE.

> Results. 1) For model of a Universe without a DE the found density of a Universe of Ω0 is consistently increased with removal of objects on which determine Ω0, from Ω0=0.09×1.5±1 at z<0.02 to Ω0≈1 at z>3. It confirms that the mass of a Universe decreases with time. 2) The model with decreasing of mass of a Universe does not demand a DE.

> Keywords: cosmology: theory – cosmological parameters – dark energy – the accelerate of Universe expansion – the decrease of Universe mass

> "It will not be exaggeration to tell, that a finding of physical nature

> of Dark energy is a central problem of modern natural science"

> V. Lukash, V. Rubakov (2008)

> 1. Introduction

> In the first article (Nych 2013) it is shown that data about flows of galaxies which known models do not explain, testifies that the mass of a Universe has decreased in NU=7–12 times. And comparison of model of inflation to data about density of a near Universe gives NU=11×1.5±1.

> In this article the data about density of Universe from about 67 scientific publications without special selection are collected. It is shown that for model without DE, the further is objects on which up-to-date density Ω0 is spotted, the bigger up-to-date density is found. So on objects of old Universe with z<0.1 find Ω0<0.05–0.2, on objects of medial Universe with 0.2<z<1 find Ω0=0.3–0.8, and on early objects with z>1 find Ω0=0.6–1.3. It is direct certificate of decrease of Universe mass (DUM).

> Introduction in model DE flattens this dependence, but not enough, so the model with DUM better corresponds to the available data, than model with DE.

> 1.1. Dark energy

> 1.1.1. Discovery history. As a matter of fact DE in a form Λ-member in the basic equation of the general relativity theory (GR) is entered by Einstein in 1917 (Einstein 1917). Since then, along with density and curvature, it is key parametre of cosmological models – stationary Einstein's and nonstationary, Friedman's – Lemaĭtre's, de Sitter's, pulsing, Eddington-Lemaĭtre's, etc. From Einstein's equation is gained about 20 cosmological models which most part contain Λ-member.

> In 1994–1998 have begun work 10 new largest telescopes with a diameter of mirror 8–11 m and a space telescope of Hubble with diameter of mirror 2.4 m (Shustov 2004). It has allowed to observe the flashes of supernew stars 1a type (SN1a) in far galaxies at z>0.3 in a significant amount at satisfactory quality.

> As a result of fulfillment of special programs of observation of far SN1a ("Supernova Cosmology Project" and "High-Z Supernova Search Team") for of choice of cosmological model two groups of cosmologists in 1998 have come to conclusion that the Universe extends with acceleration which is caused by activity of DE, i.e. Λ>0 (Perlmutter et al. 1999; Riess et al. 1998).

> Later, as a result of registration SN1a at z=1.2–1.7, it has been found that to half of age of the Universe a expansion was slowed down, and DE did not play an appreciable role. Therefore considers that DE not expansion together with other Universe, and remains stationary in space and time, that precisely corresponds to Einstein's equation with a stationary Λ. Though at level 1 σ signs are noticed that DE decreases in last 3 billion years (Shafieloo et al. 2007).

> DE is not shown anywhere, except a large-scale cosmology, therefore is termed "dark". According to standard Λ-CDM models, DE in ∼200 times more, than a visible matter (Spergel et al. 2007).

> Other explanations of the gained data on supernew are offered also. It related with quintessence (changeable Λ), evolution SN1a, heterogeneity on the scale of Gpc, waves of space-time, arisen during inflation and having by this time the size comparable with the size of the observed Universe, light absorption SN1a by an intergalactic grey dust.

> But in the majority of works a concept DE, described constant Λ in the basic equation GR, entered by Einstein in 1917 is used (Einstein 1917).

> "For opening of acceleration of Universe expansion by observation for supernew" and causing it DE S. Perlmutter, A. G. Riess and B. P. Schmidt gained the Shaw Award in Astronomy in 2006 and the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2011.

> 1.1.2. A current state of researches of DE by tools. Since opening of acceleration of Universe expansion in 1998 and related to it DE to their research a paramount significance is attached. "It will not be exaggeration to tell, that a finding of physical nature of Dark energy is a central problem of modern natural science" (Lukash, Rubakov 2008).

> Modern tools provide obtaining of numerous and various data about DE. So, if the conclusion about acceleration of Universe expansion in 1998 has been made on basis of observations 42 far (0.18<z<0.83) and 18 close SN1a, by 2009, as a result of execution of special programs, registered 397 SN1a with greatest z=1.55 (Hicken et al. 2009).

> The next "Supernova/Acceleration Probe" (SNAP, USA) project on the basis of a special space telescope with diameter of a mirror 2 m envisions registration 6000 supernew with z to 1.7. Other two special projects of research of the accelerate of Universe expansion and DE – "The Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM)/Omega" (USA) and "SPACE (SPectroscopic All-sky Cosmic Explorer) Building the 3-d Map of the Accelerating Universe" (USA) (Gehrels 2010).

> Now conclusion about acceleration of Universe expansion and DE existence is done also on basis of definition by means of space X-ray telescopes of evolution of masses function of clusters (EMFC), and also by evolution of relation of baryon and unbaryon matter in clusters of galaxies.

> 1.1.3. A condition of DE theory. Despite great quantity of the observant data, we know about DE nature same, as 95 years ago – till now not found any approach to an explanation of microscopic DE nature. The known physicist-theorist in field of quantum field theory, an particle physics, of cosmologies the academician of Russian Academy of Sciences (2009) in one of lectures so has characterised this situation: "As to microscopic nature DE here at us, at theorists, all imaginations are exhausted, necessary essentially new ideas."

> Therefore, until then it is not reached yet clearness in a question about nature DE, in the data on SN1a, etc. it is necessary to distinguish the facts from their interpretations, i.e. hypotheses. The fact is that SN1a at z=0.2–1 have on ≈0.2m smaller luminosity, than follows from the simplest model of the Universe – homogeneous, without an intergalactic dust, without evolution of galactic dust, without DE, with invariable mass. I.e. such simple model is untrue. But that it is caused by acceleration of Universe expansion is meanwhile only one of hypotheses, possible, explaining these facts. Because nature DE, necessary for this acceleration, is absolutely not clear, and its properties are exclusively unusual, moreover, are inconsistent, paradoxical:

> 1. Density DE is constant in time and space, hence, it existed before a Universe birth.

> 2. In process of expansion the Universe mass should increase at the expense of DE since quantity DE in Universe is proportional to its volume, and energy is related with mass by well-known Einstein's formula Е=mc2, which yet had no exceptions and carried out for all known interactions.

> 3. But thus mass, related with DE, does not enter into gravitational interaction and does not enter in Universe density. Otherwise dynamics of Universe was absolutely another, for example, in that case density of gravitational mass of Universe will necessarily exceed critical, and expansion should be replaced on squeezing, – but Universe extend with acceleration. Similar "the problem of a cosmological constant" is known for of quantum fields of particles, which mass-energy should show in a cosmology very strongly, but do not show absolutely.

> 4. DE not shown anywhere, except a cosmology, and only on scale about half of size of the visible Universe whereas all known interactions and the energy and mass related to them are perfectly observed in ground laboratories. And DE a lot – more than all other energies and masses together taken, in 200 times more, than mass of stars.

> 5. The microscopic nature of a DE is absolutely not clear, and the checked up approaches, basically applicable to all known interactions, for description DE, apparently, are not applicable.

> Therefore to be restricted only to this hypothesis prematurely. Its popularity is related by that models with Λ-member were widely known long before – 80 years – before data acquisition about luminosity a far SN1a. And these models are grounded on the general relativity and associated with Einstein's authority. And also that other explanations offered till now, were represented improbable, artificial or are already rejected, since do not correspond another a observed data.

> 1.1.4. The alternative explanations. The data on SN1a is reduced to that SN1a at z≈0.2–1.5 on ≈0.2m, i.e. in ≈1.2 times are less bright, than should, at density of the Universe without DE Ω0=0.27 (Hicken et al. 2009, fig. 1, 2). For the Universe without DE with Ω0=0 a maximum deficiency of luminosity SN1a makes 0.15–0.12m at z≈0.5 (Riess et al. 2004, fig. 7; Tonry et al. 2003, fig. 8, 9). From this fact it is possible to conclude that SN1a are on 10% further, than it is expected for the Universe without DE with Ω0=0.27. Luminosity SN1a calibrate on a short-range supernew with z<0.1.

> In other words, if in short-range Universe Н0=71 km/s/Mpc, at z=0.2–1.5 SN1a shine so as if Н0 makes on 10% less – 64 km/s/Mpc. It means that velocity of Universe expansion is incrementing. For this a DE is necessary.

> The most realistic alternative explanations connect this picture with inhomogeneities of a Universe, including speed of its expansion, and with absorption of radiation SN1a by a space dust.

> 1.1.4.1. Inhomogeneities of a Universe. 1) The inhomogeneities scale in a Universe reaches 1 Gpc and more, therefore large-scale inhomogeneities can simulate acceleration of expansion of a Universe (Bolejko et al. 2011).

> 2) The observed picture is caused not DE and acceleration of expansion of all Universe, and by "local" wave of space-time which has arisen during inflation which size is comparable now with the visible size of the Universe (Kolb, Riotto 2005; Smoller, Temple 2009).

> These hypotheses are close. They are reduced to that only in the near Universe at z<0.1 (<420 Mpc) velocity of expansion considerably more medial (Zehavi et al. 1998; Conley et al. 2007). Jha et al. (2007) have found that velocity of expansion of the short-range Universe on 6.5±1.8% above, than long-range with partitioning boundary z=0.025. Karachentsev et al. (2009) have found that in local Universe H=78±2 km/s/Mpc. However Hicken et al. (2009) find that the deviation of velocity of expansion of the short-range Universe from norm decreases or even changes a sign in process of decrease in a statistical error, and on their data it can make 2% at z=0.015–0.06.

> Recently are gained a data that the size of inhomogeneities in the Universe is much more, than considered earlier. It is not excluded that the size of inhomogeneities has no upper bound. Rudnick et al. (2007) have found that the coldest stain on card WMAP is caused by effect of the Sach-Wolfe in huge void, in which density of radio sources on 20–45% less medial. If this void was empty completely, then, judging on Sach-Wolfe's effect which caused it, it would have the size more than 1 Gpc along a beam of sight and 140 Mpc in a diameter. But since it is empty on 1/3, its size even more, whereas radius of the visible Universe 4 Gpc.

> The size of "dark stream" – greatest wholesale stream of galaxies – more 1 Gpc (Kashlinsky et al. 2008, 2009, 2010).

> Local group (MG) of galaxies moves with velocity ≈600 km/s to a superaggregation of Shepli (Sh) which center is apart 200 Mpc. Clusters being on way and behind MG are moving in same direction .

> Therefore it is impossible to exclude possibility that velocity of expansion on scale of 400 Mpc considerably differs from medial.

> Wide spacing of luminosity SN1a indicate, probably, on heterogeneity of velocity of Universe expansion. The odds of luminosity SN1a at identical z reach 2m. Thus the error of measuring of luminosity SN1a 0.2–0.5m, and the decrease in luminosity SN1a related to acceleration of Universe expansion makes in maximum 0.2m (Hicken et al. 2009, fig. 1; Tonry et al. 2003).

> 1.1.4.2. Dust cosmic. Anomalous decrease in brightness of far supernews SN1a on 0.2m can be connected with insufficiently exact and full account of absorption of their light by galactic and intergalactic dust, especially in a Universe with the decreasing mass because both these factors influence brightness of supernew unidirectionally. In favor of it tell following 8 arguments:

> 1) Light absorption by a galactic dust even in the near Universe is studied insufficiently. Till now here there are revolutionary quite authoritative openings.1)

> Driver et al. (2008) on basis of data about 10000 nearest galaxies of all types have found that the galactic dust absorb in several times more of light, than considered earlier. On average only 11±2% of photons with a wavelength 0.1 micron leaves galaxies. The exit smoothly raises to 87±3% for 2.1 micron. The density of light energy radiated by stars in the near Universe makes 1.6×1035 Wt/Mpc3 from which gets to intergalactic space 1.8 times less, i.e. the dust of galaxies reduces their luminosity on the average on 0.62m.

> Light absorption by an intergalactic dust is studied even less.

> 2) Content of a dust both in galaxies, and in intergalactic space, obviously, evolves quantitatively and qualitatively. The dust content grows in young galaxies, then, in process of burning out and explosions of large stars, it is stabilised, and in old, for example, elliptic galaxies is decreased. Therefore at z=0.2–1 galaxies should have more dust, than in the near (old) Universe, and the dust should be larger. In this case rectifying on reddening SN1a which is grounded on the data about a dust of the Galaxy and the near Universe, should lead to understating of luminosity SN1a, as is observed.

> 3) The Model of the Universe without DE with not depending from z density of an intergalactic grey dust, satisfied to data SN1a even slightly better, than the best model with DE without dust (Riess et al. 2004, fig. 7). Their preference to model with DE is grounded on two ambiguous reasons.

> The first. Under their data the variance of luminosity SN1a makes 0.28m and does not depend from z. It demands, in their opinion, too high velocity of distribution of dust (>1000 km/s), for support of homogeneity of its distribution in process of its replenishing from galaxies in intergalactic space in dilating Universe.

> But if the dispersion not increment with z it not bindingly means the strong restriction on a hypothesis of a grey dust, since a dispersion ∝n–0.5 where n – number of homogeneous sites of a dust along a sight beam, and for low velocity of distribution of a dust and high red shift n>>1 (Corasaniti 2006).

> Velocity of propagation of a dust >1000 km/s also can be provided – in quasars and similar objects.

> But according to some data, given Hicken et al. (2009, fig. 1) which have agglomerated the data about 397 SN1a, a luminosity variance at z>0.25 in ∼2 time more than at z<0.25. It can speak opposite – that light from far supernew transits through nonuniform immersing grey medium with a medial degree of absorption more than (σz>0.252–σz<0.252)0.5≈0.15m.

> The second argument Riess et al. (2004) in favour of model with DE consists that the model with constant density of a dust demands exact adjustment of parametres – then it describe data SN1a not worse, than model with DE. If it so it concerns model with constant density of a dust which they analyzed. Actually the dust density is not constant, and the model with variable density of a dust is very natural and very flexible. Dependence of density of an intergalactic dust from z is unknown now and can be very different since it is spotted by competition between formation and dust distribution on the one hand and dust absorption in processes of stars formation and expansion of the Universe with another.

> Therefore, generally "dusty" the model is capable better describe data SN1a, than private and elementary its variant with constant density of dust which describe data SN1a also or slightly better, than model with DE. Possibility for this is, since models with DE predict smaller luminosity SN1a at the greatest z, than is observed, see (Riess et al. 2004, fig. 7; Tonry et al. 2003, fig. 8, 9).

> As the model with constant density of an intergalactic grey dust describe data SN1a not worse, than model with DE, it follow to note naturalness of cosmic dust, especially in comparison with acceleration of Universe expansion and quantity DE, necessary for this acceleration.

> 4) The mass of dust round far quasars makes ∼109 Mʘ (a little 108–109 Mʘ; Beelen et al. 2006; Markwick-Kemper et al. 2007), that in ∼100 times more, than in large old galaxies, including in our Galaxy. Relation of luminosity of quasars to their mass in 102–4 times more, than for our Galaxy or Sun. Therefore radiation pressure is capable to delete from quasars a particles in size of 0.2 mm and more. Besides, velocity of removal not the largest particles >1000 km/s. Therefore quasars and similar objects can be sufficient suppliers of uniformly distributed intergalactic grey dust.

> 5) Afanasiev et al. (2007) observed a micrometeors out of an extragalactic origin (possibly, congenerous a hondr in the carbon hondrits which a isotopic composition sharply differs from ground). Their size is ∼200 micron and concentration in intergalactic space is estimated in 3.6×10–20м–3. The optical thickness of the Universe related to such particles, on their estimate, can make τ≈0.15. Hence, for z=0.5–1 τ≈0.07–0.1, that makes ≈50% of observed decrease in luminosity SN1a. The rest of light absorption SN1a can provide grey (>0.5–1 micron) dust particles, which is smaller than observed micrometeors.

> 6) On Fig. 1 the odds between the module of distance to SN1a in the empty Universe (Ω0=0) and in other models on the basis of data Riess et al. (2004) (except models with DUM – Ω=1→0.1) are shown. In models with a dust it is supposed that in process of Universe expansion in intergalactic space the grey dust so arrives that its density and light absorption index k remain stationary (Riess et al. 2004).

> Fig. 1. Odds between the module of distance to SN1a in the empty Universe (Ω=0) and in other models Δ(m–M) depending on z on the basis of data Riess et al. (2004). In models with DUM (Ω=1→0.1) dynamics DUM from Ω=1 to Ω0=0.1 it agree with Fig. 2 a. k – light absorption index by grey dust.

> From Fig. 1 is visible that models with constant density of dust correspond to the observed data not worse, than the best model with DE. Besides at DUM from Ω=1 to Ω0=0.1 a demanded density of dust 2 times less, than in the Universe of constant mass with Ω=1.

> 7) Aguirre and Haiman (2000) estimated concentration of an intergalactic grey dust by its infrared radiation. They have found that the observed decrease in luminosity SN1a can be explained only by intergalactic grey dust, without DE, if Ω0=0.2 or less. We will note that the up-to-date density of the Universe less Ω0≈0.1 (see Fig. 2 a). Östman and Mörtsell (2005) find that a wide gamut of models of an intergalactic dust are capable to provide absorption more than 0.2m in z=1.

> 8) The cited data shows that an explanation of decrease in SN1a luminosity by intergalactic grey dust is naturally (unlike a DE), and possibilities for this purpose far are not exhausted, are faster on the contrary – increasing. Especially in the Universe with the decreasing mass in which necessary 2 times less dust, than in the Universe with constant mass. Heterogeneity of Universe expansion and evolution of dust content of galaxies – can give some contribution to observed decrease in luminosity SN1a (on the average at z=0.2–1 galaxies contain more of grey dust, than modern). In the total all termed factors without DE, apparently, just correspond to observed decrease in luminosity SN1a in the Universe with decreasing of the mass.

> 1.1.5. The put forward hypothesis and theory DUM, being part SEN, apparently, can explain the cosmological data for of explanation which is entered the concept DE (decrease in luminosity SN1a is related also with existence of cosmic dust). Communication of this data with DUM is not obvious, and itself DUM is the extremely unexpected, therefore this hypothesis could not be born at once, heuristically, as others, and is a consequence of more blanket SEN. But therefore DUM is quite clear, it is inevitable that will be shown and proved in following publications. Besides SEN (including theory DUM) explains also other cosmological paradoxes: high speeds of flows of galaxies, small density of the near Universe, unbaryon a DM. SEN grounded on the analysis of the physical phenomena observed in laboratories, but it conducts to understanding of physical causes and of mechanism of Big Bang and inflation.

> 1.2. Some used cosmological data.

> Improvement the Hubble's parametre within Н0=65–73 km/s/Mpc, is important achievement of last decades. It allows to count more precisely critical density of Universe ρcr=3H2(8πG)=2.78×1011h2 Mʘ/Mpc3, where h=H/(100 km/s/Mpc). At h=0.65 ρcr=118×109 Mʘ/Mpc3=0.8×10–26 kg/m3.

> Definition of luminosity density of Universe j in K- and B-bands (2.15 and 0.415 micron, Table 1) allows by the measured relation of clusters mass to its luminosity M/L to find medial density of Universe ρ, guessing that the relation of mass density to luminosity density in Universe same, as in clusters – ρ/j=M/L.

> Table 1. Density of Universe luminosity j, density a stars ρst and ρcr/j

> Referenses, notes | jB, jK h108Lʘ/Mpc3 | ρst, 10–3ρcr/h | ρcr/j, hМʘ/Lʘ
> (Efstathiou et al. 1988) 0.46±0.07micron | 1.93+0.8–0.6 B |  | 1500+700–400
> (Bahcall et al. 1995) Ω0=0.17±0.1 | 2B |  | 1350
> (Fukugita et al. 1996) |  | 2.6±1.3 | 
> (Fukugita et al. 1998) ρst=0.17ρb | 2±0.2B | 1.5–4.2 | 1390±140
> (Colless et al. 2001) Kennicutt IMF z=0.11(0–0.3) Salpeter IMF | 2.5±0.2B | 1.6±0.2 2.9±0.4 | 1110±90
> (Norberg et al. 2002) Salpeter IMF | 1.82±0.17B |  | 
> (Kochanek et al. 2001) jK, Kennicutt IMF Salpeter IMF | 7.14±0.75K | 1.9±0.2 3.4±0.4 | 390±40
> (Cole et al. 2001) jK, Kennicutt IMF Salpeter IMF | 5.74±0.86K | 1.6±0.24 2.9±0.43 | 484±71
> (Bell et al. 2003) jK, Salpeter IMF | 5.8±0.9K | 2±0.6 | 480±74
> (Glazebrook et al. 2003) Salpeter IMF, r-band (6200±600A), Kennicutt IMF |  | 2.5–5.5 1.2–2.7 | 
> Average | 2.05B, 6.2K | 2.5 | 1340B, 450K

> From Table 1 a density of stars ρst=0.0025ρcr/h=7×108h Mʘ/Mpc3=4.55×108 Mʘ/Mpc3,   ρst/ρcr=0.0025/h=0.0039   (h=0.65). The relation of stars density in Universe to their luminosity density ρst/j=3.3B and 1.1K Mʘ/Lʘ in B and K band accordingly.

> For spiral galaxies М/LB=1...20, for elliptic 5...90 (Faber, Gallagher 1979). Within standard optical radius the medial galaxy has М/LB≈7 Mʘ/Lʘ (Karachentsev 2001), 3.7–7.5 Mʘ/Lʘ (Glazebrook et al. 2003). The medial relation of stars mass to their luminosity for populations of Galaxy М/LB=3–4 Mʘ/Lʘ (Einasto 2006). The odds are related with DM, a cosmic dust and difference of the Galaxy from "medial".

> 2. DEPENDENCE A FOUND Ω0 FROM Z OF RESEARCHED OBJECTS

> In terms of the hypothesis about DUM represent a great interest the data about the found density of the up-to-date Universe Ω0 depending on remoteness of objects of research and of corresponding cosmological time. If the Universe mass do not change, a found Ω0 not depend from z of objects on which define Ω0, and if changes, we will find different density Ω0, depending on remoteness of observed objects.

> 2.1. The methods of definition Ω0

> 2.1.1. The relation of mass to light of clusters M/L The mass of clusters are finding:

> 1) By velocities of galaxies in clusters, guessing its stationarity and performance of theorem about virial for stationary potential systems Ekin=–2Upot.

> 2) By x-rays characteristics, guessing gravitational equilibrium of plasma in clusters.

> 3) By radius of sphere of zero velocity R0. For Local group and the nearest groups and clusters it is possible to determine radius of sphere of zero velocity R0 on which velocity of Hubble's stream on cluster boundary is equal to zero. The cluster mass is under formula М=R03π2/(8GT02), where T0 – age of Universe (Lynden-Bell 1981; Sandage 1986). For empty Universe T0=1/Н0, for the Universe of critical density T0=2/(3Н0).

> 4) By curvature of light beams in an cluster gravitational field.

> Under the found relation of cluster mass to its luminosity M/L and separately counted up density of luminosity of the Universe j (see Table 1) define density of mass of the Universe, guessing that "luminosity follows mass" – ratio of density of mass to luminosity density in the Universe same, as in clusters – ρ/j=M/L, Ω0=ρ/ρcr.

> The virial method uprates mass if the cluster is not stationary – is in process of formation, decay, collision or relaxation after collision. The same, in general, concerns and a X-ray method. The lens method of definition of mass less others depends on guesses, but it more than others is subject of observant selection.

> 2.1.2. Peculiar velocities. Density are estimating by variance of velocities of galaxies, clusters, wholesale streams relatively of Hubble's stream in corresponding volume. In effect it is application of a virial method for boundless systems where connection of potential and kinetic energy in statistically equilibrium systems is used.

> 2.1.3. Baryons in clusters. By characteristics of x-rays radiation (0.1–10 keV) define mass of radiating gas in an cluster, and also all mass of cluster, guessing that gas is in a hydrostatic equilibrium and that there are no other mechanisms of a counterpressure, for example, related to magnetic fields, activity of nucleuses of galaxies, pressure of not registered warm (10–100 eV) gas. Are finding that the mass of X-ray gas in 4–8 times more of stars mass and in averages ≈12% of clusters mass, and together with stars ≈14% (Allen et al. 2004, 2008, 2002, Ettori et al. 2003). Are assuming that other mass of clusters – DM unbaryon.

> From the theory and model of primary nuclear synthesis (PNS) and the measured content of primary deuterium, and also from amplitude of baryon acoustical oscillations (BAO) in an angular energy distribution of microwave radiation are finding density of baryons in the Universe Ωb=0.0223/h2=0.042 (Spergel et al. 2007). As baryons makes ≈14% of clusters density, are finding Universe density nearby Ω0≈0.042/0.14=0.3.

> In these methods it is supposed that in the Universe as a whole relations of luminosity, a visible substance, baryons, DM unbaryon, same as in clusters of galaxies which are the largest, representative formations in the Universe. Therefore, having measured these relations for clusters, and know one of these magnitudes for the Universe as a whole, are finding the others for the Universe as a whole.

> As the magnitude known for the Universe as a whole, are using most accessible to direct calculation a luminosity of volume unity of the Universe j in visible B (0.42 micron) or near infrared K (2.15 micron) band (see Table 1).

> Also are using density of baryons in the Universe, gained from model of primary nuclear synthesis (PNS) and the data about the content of primary deuterium and other elements, and also from amplitude baryon acoustical oscillations (BAO) in an angular energy distribution of anisotropy of space microwave radiation, Ωb=0.0223/h2=0.042 (h=0.73) (Spergel et al. 2007).

> 2.1.4. Evolution of clusters abundance (ECA, evolution of masses function of clusters – EMFC) is sensitive to Universe density, and also to magnitude σ8 and to spectrum of initial inhomogeneities characterised by magnitude of Г. If Ω0>1, formation of clusters should begin recently, and in an interval z=0–1 major evolution of clusters abundance should be observed. If Ω0<<1 growth of clusters should go in the main at z>1 (Bahcall 1999). Comparing observed EMFC to results of simulation, are spoting the most suitable values Ω0, σ8 and Г. The method is insensitive to Λ (Blanchard et al. 2000; Viana, Liddle 1999).

> 2.2. Results of observations

> 2.2.1. In Table 2 values of the material density of the Universe Ω0 and z of observation objects from the published works or calculated by me (marked *) on data from such works are given. Are given Ω0 for models with and without DE. Confidence probability 68%, if other is not specified.

> Table 2. The found density Ω0 depending on z of researched objects for models with and without DE.

> Publications, method, notes of authors publications | z | Λ | Ω0
> (Linde 1984), inflationary model | 1010 | 0 | 1
> (Netterfield et al. 2002), BAO, h=0.56, ΩBh2=0.022, ΩCDMh[2]=0.13 | 1080 | 0.51 | 0.51±0.2
> (Pryke et al. 2002), BAO, h >0.45, ΩBh2=0.022, ΩCDM h2=0.14 | 1080 | 1–Ω0 | 0.4±0.15
> (Percival et al. 2002), BAO, h=0.67 | 1080 | 1–Ω0 | 0.31±0.06
> (Sievers et al. 2003), BAO, h=0.6 | 1080 | 0.37 | 0.62±0.22
> (Spergel et al. 2007), the best conformity "only WMAP", h=0.55 Model Λ=0, Ω0=1.3, h=0.3 corresponds to data "only WMAP" also, as final Λ=1–Ω0, Ω0=0.238, h=0.732 | 1080 | 0.63 0 1–Ω0 | 0.415 1.3 0.238±0.024
> (Weinberg et al. 1998), laiman-alpha forest, Λ=λ/3 H02=1–Ω0 | 2.5 | 0 1–Ω0 | 0.46+0.12–0.1 0.34+0.13–0.09
> (Falco et al. 1997), 177 radio lenses + 6 lensed quasars + optical lenses z=0.03–3.4 z=0.03–3.4 only radio lenses (in Fig. 2 it is not used) only radio lenses (in Fig. 2 it is not used) | 1.23 | 0 1–Ω0 0 1–Ω0 | 0.51–2 0.64–1.66 0.3–2 0.47–1.38
> (Kochanek 1996), statistics of radio lenses and lensed quasars, (4 lenses from 2200 quasars), z=0.4–1.9 | 1 | 1–Ω0 0 | 0.15–2 (90%) 0.5–1.4(99%)
> (Vikhlinin et al. 2002), ECA, x-rays, h=0.7, z=0.39–1.26 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.3
> (Bahcall, Fan, Cen 1997), ECA, z=0.5–1 | 0.7 | 0 1–Ω0 | 0.3±0.1 0.34±0.13
> (Blanchard, Bartlett 1998), ECA (x-rays) | 0.55 | – | 0.5–1
> (Donahue, Voit 1999), ECA, 14 x-rays. clusters, z=0.3–0.8 5 clusters с z=0.5–0.8 | 0.45 0.65 | 0 1–Ω0 0 | 0.45±0.1 0.27±0.1 0.5–0.05+0.2
> (Dekel 1994), analysis of galaxies streams. Medial the Universe density for all time of its existence | 0.55 | – | 0.5–1
> (Reichart et al. 1999), ECA, x-rays, z=0.14–0.9, Ω0>0.35 (95%) | 0.55 | – | 0.96+0.36–0.32
> (Lumb et al. 2004), ECA, x-rays, 8 clusters, z=0.45–0.62 | 0.55 | 0.7 | 0.3
> (Ettori et al. 2003), Baryons in clusters, 9 clusters z<0.1, 8 clusters z=0.7–1.3, kT=4–10 keV, fstar=0.18(±0.05)fgas . In model Λ=0 fgaz(z<0.1)=1.5fgas(z=0.7–1.3) | 0.51 0.51 1 | 1.3 1–Ω0 0 | 0.34+0.11–0.05 0.33+0.07–0.05 0.5+0.2–0.1*
> (Ettori et al. 2009), Baryons in 60 clusters, kT>4 keV, z=0.3–1.3, ΩBh702=0.0462 Extrapolation of the last lines | 0.516 | 0.59 1–Ω0 0 | 0.35+0.03–0.04 0.32+0.04–0.05 0.55*
> (Nuza, Blanchard 2006), EMFC (x-rays), Г=0.2–0.12 | 0.5 | 0–1 | 0.3–1
> (Perlmutter et al. 1997), 7 supernew SN1а, z=0.35–0.46, Ω0>0.49 (95%) | 0.4 | 0 1–Ω0 | 0.88+0.69–0.6 0.94+0.34–0.28
> (Sadat, Blanchard, Oukbir 1998), ECA, 58 clusters (x-rays), z=0–1 | 0.4 | – | 0.85±0.2(90%)
> (Henry 2004), ECA, 25 clusters z<0.1, 23 z=0.3–0.8, an excess of large clusters and a lack of small is observed | 0.4 | 1–Ω0 | 0.3+0.1–0.05
> (Henry 2000), ECA, 25+14 x-rays clusters, ±0.2 (95%) | 0.38 | 0 1–Ω0 | 0.49±0.12 0.44±0.12
> (Henry 1997), ECA, 24 clusters z=0.05, +9 clusters z=0.32, kT=3–9 keV, Ω0<1 (99%) | 0.32 | 0 1–Ω0 | 0.5±0.4 0.55±0.17
> (Del Popolo 2003), reanalysis (Henry 2000, 2002) with new models and data – because straggling Ω0=0.2–1 in publications. Reanalysis (Eke et al. 1996, 1998) | 0.38 0.33 0.36 | 0 1–Ω 0 | 0.6±0.11 0.58±0.15 0.62±0.16
> (Chiba, Yoshii 1999), statistics 6 lenses-quasars, Λ>0 (98%) | 0.36 | 1–Ω0 | 0.3+0.2–0.1
> (Cheng, Krauss 1999), statistics 5 lenses-quasars | 0.36 | 1–Ω0 | 0.25–0.55
> (Eke, Cole, Frenk 1996), ECA (x-rays), Λ influences a little | 0.4 | 0 | 0.38±0.2*
> (Eke et al. 1998), ECA (x-rays), Ω0<1 (98%), Λ influences a little | 0.33 | 0 >0 | 0.43±0.25 0.36±0.25
> (Hicks et al. 2006), Baryons in 14 x-rays clusters, Fgas=0.09, z=0.17–0.55 | 0.35 |  | 0.42±0.02
> (Carlberg et al. 1996), virial, 16 clusters, z=0.17–0.55 | 0.35 | 0 | 0.2±0.1
> (Carlberg et al. 1997), ECA, 16 clusters, z=0.18–0.55, virial, dynamic | 0.35 | 0 | 0.4±0.2(90%) 0.2±0.1(90%)
> (Allen et al. 2004), Baryons in 26 clusters, Fgas=0.117 h70–1.5 z=0.08–0.9, Fgas=0.094 h70–1.5* | 0.35 | 0.96 0 | 0.25±0.04 0.31±0.06*
> (Allen et al. 2008), Baryons in 6 clusters z=0.06–0.15 42 clusters 5–15 keV z=0.06–1.1; Λ>0 (99.99%), Fgas=0.11 h70–1.5 Fgas=0.088 h70–1.5* | 0.1 0.38 0.38 0.38 | 0–1 0.86 1–Ω0 0 | 0.28±0.06 0.28±0.06 0.28±0.06 0.35±0.1*
> (Vauclair et al. 2003), ECA 6 clusters, h=0.5. Model Λ=0.7 Ω0=0.3 supermakes in 10 times an amount of clusters with z>0.5.   h=0.7* | 0.33 | 0 | 0.85–1 0.42–0.5*
> (Blanchard et al. 2000), ECA, x-rays, method is not sensitive to Λ | 0.33 | 0 1–Ω0 | 0.92+0.25–0.22 0.87+0.35–0.25
> (Blanchard, Bartlett, Sadat 1998), ECA, x-rays | 0.33 | 0 | 0.3–1.2(95%)
> (Viana, Liddle 1999), ECA, Λ does not influence, for Т>6.2 keV for T>4.8 keV at inclusion 5 feeble and far clusters | 0.32 | 0–1 | 0.75±0.3 0.55±0.3 0.3
> (Allen, Schmidt, Fabian 2002), 6 clusters z=0.1–0.46, Fgas=0.11 at Λ>0, Fgas=0.19–0.13 if Λ=0, h=0.5 | 0.31 | 0.95 0 | 0.32±0.03 0.45±0.05
> (Evrard 1997), WF+DJF x-rays cluster samples, fgas(r500)=0.06h–3/2, Ω0h2/3=0.28, Λ does not influence |  | 0.64 | 0.35±0.1
> (Del Popolo, Ercan, Ye'silyurt 2005), ECA, x-rays | >0.3 | 1–Ω0 | 0.35±0.06
> (Sadat, Blanchard 2001), Fgas, BN98 calibration the review of x-rays clusters, EMN96 calibration | 0.4 0.33 | – – | 0.8±0.1 0.65±0.1
> (Wittman et al. 2001), a weak lenses, M/L=560±200 | 0.276 |  | 0.4±0.14*
> (Tinker et al. 2011), ECA | 0.25 | 0–1 | 0.29±0.03
> (Schuecker et al. 2003), ECA 426 clusters, z<0.37, h=0.7, ΩB=0.04 | 0.24 | 0–1 | 0.34±0.03
> (Mantz et al. 2010)ECA 332 x-rays clusters, z<0.5 | 0.2 | 1–Ω0 | 0.23±0.04
> (Colless et al. 2001), 250000 galaxies, jB=(2.5±0.2)108hLʘ/Mpc3, Ωsth=0.0016–0.0029, ΩB=0.15Ω, z<0.4 | 0.11 | – | 0.16±0.06 * (fgas=7fst) *
> (Percival et al. 2001, 2002), 160000 galaxies, z<0.3, ΩB=0.15Ω | 0.09 | 1–Ω0 | (0.2±0.03)/h
> (Bahcall, Cen 1992), mass and correlative functions of clusters | 0.1 | 0–1 | 0.2–0.25
> (Lin et al. 2003), 27 x-rays clusters, М/LK=(47±3)h70, for massive (>3.7 keV) clusters М/LK=(53±3)h70, Baryons in 13 clusters, ΩBh2=0.0224 | 0 0.01- 0.1 | 0–1 | 0.17±0.03 0.19±0.03 0.28±0.03
> (Kopylov, Kopylova 2009), cluster А1775А, M/LK=(29±21) h70 virial, cluster А1775В, М=3.3×1014Mʘ, M/LK=(61±24) h70 | 0.066 0.075 | 0–1 | 0.09±0.07* 0.19±0.08*
> (Kopylov, Kopylova 2010), a virial А1831А, M/LK=(64±33) h70 x-rays, cluster А1831В, M=1.4×1015 Mʘ, M/LK=(56±25)h70 | 0.063 0.075 | 0–1 | 0.20±0.10* 0.18±0.08*
> (Kopylova, Kopylov 2009), virial, 12 clusters UM, M/LK=55±5 12 clusters in field Ursa Major Supercluster, M/LK=60±8 | 0.047– 0.074 | 0–1 | 0.17±0.02* 0.19±0.03*
> (Voevodkin, Vikhlinin 2004), Baryons in clusters, x-rays | 0.05 | – | (0.13±0.07)/h
> (Vikhlinin et al. 2009), fbar, 49 bright x-rays clusters, Ω0h=0.184±0.037 37 clusters zaverage=0.55, ECA, Λ>0 (5 σ ) | 0.05 0.55 0.55 | – 1–Ω0 0.83 | 0.255±0.043 0.3±0.05 0.34±0.08
> (David, Jones, Forman 1995), Fgaz, 10 clusters, M/LV=100–150, Ω0=(0.13–0.2) h50–1/2 | 0.05 | – | 0.16 h50–1/2 0.135(h=0.7)*
> (Reiprich, Bohringer 2002), func. of masses 106 clusters, 1–14 keV | 0.05 | – | 0.12+0.06–0.04
> (Huchra, Geller 1982), dynamic, 92 clusters, M/L=170 | 0.04 | 0–1 | 0.1 (0.18*)
> (Rines et al. 2004), a virial + x-rays, 3–8 keV, 9 clusters, M/LK=(53±5)h, "the effect difficultly compound with the independent methods offering bigger Ω0" | 0.02–0.04 | – | 0.1–0.18 0.12±0.02*
> (Rines et al. 2001), dynamic, x-rays, Coma, М/LK=(75±23)h, M>1015 Mʘ | 0.023 | 0–1 | 0.17±0.05
> (Karachentsev et al. 2003c), virial, M/LB=88–176, group shaping – estimate of mass uprated, R=0.8 Mpc | 0.001 | – | <0.09–0.18*
> (Karachentsev et al. 2000), virial, group NGC6946, M/L=56, D=0.42 Mpc | 0.001 |  | 0.06*
> (Sandage et al. 1972), variance relatively Hubble's stream σ=70 km/s | 0.001 | – | 0.1
> (Karachentsev et al. 2002a, 2003b), σ=25 km/s relatively Hubble's stream | 0.001 | – | 0.02*
> (Karachentsev et al. 2003b), virial, 5 groups to 5Mpc, M/LB=30–65 | 0.001 | – | 0.03–0.07
> (Karachentsev et al. 2003a), virial, Sculptor, M/LB=29±11 | 0.001 | – | 0.03±0.01*
> (Karachentsev et al. 2003с), virial+R0, 2 groups, M/L=16–28 | 0.0007 | – | 0.017–0.03*
> (Karachentsev et al. 2002b), virial+R0, M/LB=38±7, group М81, R0=1Mpc | 0.001 | – | 0.04±0.006*
> (Karachentsev 2005), R0∼1 Mpc, 6 groups, M/LB=10–40 in groups unbaryon DM are not appreciable, j(5 Mpc)=8.7×108 Lʘ/Mpc3 | 0.001 | – | 0.1Rо 0.025j
> (Hanski et al. 2001), virial, M/L, clusters Persej-Fishes, Λ does not influence | 0.0017 | 0–1 | 0.1–0.3
> (Governato et al. 1997), peculiar velocities of CDM-model in Local Universe R=7 Mpc, Ω0>0.3 excluded | 0.0017 | – | <0.08
> (Brown, Peebles 1987)velocities relatively of Hubble's stream | 0.0015 | – | 0.1
> (Davis, Peebles 1983), dynamic – pair correlation of galaxies | 0.0003 | – | 0.2e±0.4
> (Karachentsev 2001), R0=0.96 Mpc, Local group, M/L=23±4 | 0.0002 | – | 0.024±0.004*

> THE NOTE. Quite often authors, owing to "the natural" guess that the Universe mass does not change, the data integrate with the data from other works, which concern other cosmological time. For example, the data on microwave radiation unites with the data on the up-to-date large-scale structure, its development, supernews, lenses, Н0. In result are receiving Ω0≈0.3 – average between initial Ω1000≈1 and modern Ω0≈0.09.

> So Spergel et al. (2007) have received final model Ω0=0.238, Λ=1–Ω0, h=0.732 of data WMAP together with the data about large-scale structure and Н0, which concern to modern cosmological time. At the same time the data "only WMAP" best corresponds to model Ω0=0.415, Λ=0.63 in which the parametre Λ free, that provided best conformity of this model to the data "only WMAP", than two other models – with Λ=0 and Λ=1–Ω0, which have less of free parametres, since at them parametre Λ is not free. And the model Ω0=1.3, Λ=0, h=0.3 corresponds to the data "only WMAP" as well as final model Ω0=0.238, Λ=1–Ω0, h=0.732. So advantage of latest model to which the preference is given, is provided by data which concern to other cosmological time, that in terms of concept DUM is incorrectly, as in used models the Universe mass is constant. In terms of SEN, for definition of cosmological parametres it is necessary to use model with DUM or, at least, to use the data which concern to same cosmological time.

> 2.2.2. According to Table 2 on Fig. 2 a, b dependence of density Ω0 from red shift of objects by which the density is spotted, and corresponding time for models without and with DE, is shown. If in reference a medial value is not specified on Fig. 2 is showed geometrical average of extremes values, for example, Ω0=0.15–2≈0.55. As at z<0.1 influence Λ is inappreciable, all data at z<0.11 are shown in both figures. Empty circles concern objects in the size 1–2 Mpc, without them Ω0(z<0.11)=0.17±0.055.

> Fig. 2 a, b. Dependence of found density Ω0 from red shift z of observed objects by which the density Ω0 is spotted, and corresponding time T(z). At the left (a, Λ=0) – models without DE. On the right (b, Λ>0) – models with DE – flat and with free Λ. Cosmological time are calculated for model of critical density T(z)=t/t0=(1+z)–3/2.

> 3. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS OF OBSERVATIONS

> 3.1. Model without DE (Λ=0). From Fig. 2 a it is visible that in models without DE, the further are located objects on which define Ω0, the bigger Ω0 find. At increase z of explored objects from 0.03 to 7 found density consistently incremented from Ω0=0.14±0.09 to 0.97±0.3.

> Speaking in images, when we look at objects of short-range Universe with z<0.11 we see density Ω0=0.14. When we look at objects of Universe with z=0.22–0.4 we see the density corresponding Ω0=0.5. When we look at objects of Universe with z=0.45–0.75 we find the density corresponding Ω0=0.6. When we look at objects of Universe with z=0.95–1.25 we find the density corresponding Ω0=0.8. When we look at objects of Universe with z>2 we find the density corresponding Ω0=0.97.

> That is, the further we look, the more of mass we see in the Universe. It means that the Universe mass decreases with time with confidence probability more than 99% (3–9σ). Data on Fig. 2a confirm a deduction that to present time the Universe mass has decreased in 11×1.5±1 times (Nych 2013). We will underline that it is direct, immediate deduction from observed data, i.e. within the limits of model without DE the decrease of Universe mass (DUM) is observed fact.

> 3.2. Models with DE (Λ>0). Introduction in model of DE does not changes considerably Ω0 if density is spotted on objects of a near Universe, it is obviously theoretically and is noted by many researchers, for example, Hanski et al. (2001). But at z>0.2, the more z, the more finding a density Ω0 is decreasing in comparison with model without DE, so at z>0.2 a found density remains stationary at level Ω0=0.43±0.186.

> That is possible to consider as one more proof of existence DE – at the guess of an invariance of Universe mass. But in absence of DE this data is acknowledgement of deduction SEN about DUM. Thus, DUM is alternative of DE and acceleration of Universe expansion.

> 3.3. The model with DUM describe the observed data better than model with DE. The DUM is natural and clear, that will be shown and even is proved in separate article, unlike acceleration of Universe expansion and DE. Therefore it is not surprising that the model with DUM corresponds to given data, better than model with DE.

> Really, from Fig. 2 b it is visible that in models with DE the density spotted by objects of the far Universe (z>0.2, Ω0=0.43±0.186), in 3 times more than density spotted by objects of near Universe (z<0.11, Ω0=0.14±0.09) with reliability at level 1.5–2σ (90–95%).

> It means that introduction in model DE does not lead to the satisfactory coordination of Universe density Ω0, spotted on near and far objects, that noted Rines et al. (2004). I.e. even for model with DE at comparison of density Ω0 spotted on near and far objects of Universe on Fig. 2 b is visible the Universe mass is decreasing, though and is not so obvious (90–95%), as on Fig. 2 a (>99%).

> In the range large z=0.4–1.2 model with DE also show the indicative discrepancies. Introduction in model of DE practically does not influence the high density found by gravitational lenses Ω0≈1 (Falco et al. 1997, Kochanek 1996), SN1a Ω0≈0.9 (Perlmutter et al. 1997) and wholesale streams Ω0≈0.75 (Dekel 1994). By these methods find high values Ω0=0.75–1 irrespective of, exists DE or not. On Fig. 2 b it was showed as burst – Ω0=0.8 at z=0.85–1.9 since in this range z the density is spotted only by lenses.

> In model without DE, but with DUM of similar discrepancies no. It is expressed in a smaller mean squared deviation (σ=0.16) even for elementary approximation of straight line (which describes the data on Fig. 2 a almost faultlessly), in comparison with model with DE (σ=0.21).

> It means that put forward hypothesis about DUM better corresponds to the given agglomerated data about Universe density, than a known hypothesis about existence DE and acceleration of Universe expansion.

> 3.4. The analysis of others, more of private data about DE. Such analysis shows that DUM is the alternative to DE and in other cases, since influence of DUM in 11×1.5±1 times on dynamics of its expansion similarly to activity of DE, so the existing dynamic data cannot distinguish these hypotheses.

> It is easy to see qualitatively. In model with DE till half of age Universe it extends with deceleration, as Universe about critical density. Only from middle of age Universe there is appreciable activity DE – deceleration is decreasing. Then the Universe extends without deceleration, as empty, and, at last, as if, with increase of expansion velocity.

> In model with the decreasing Universe mass the dynamics of expansion is very similar – coincides with previous, except the end. Till half of age of Universe it extend with deceleration, as Universe near critical density, as in this continuance its density is close to the critical. To middle of age of Universe its mass considerably decreases (on 40–50% – see Fig. 2 a), and there is appreciable the deceleration decrease. Then the mass prolongs decrease and by this time density makes less 10% critical, i.e. practically Universe extend as empty, without deceleration.

> Available data on DE at level (2–4)σ shows that observed expansion does not correspond to expansion of Universe without DE at any density Ω0 (certainly, at constant mass of Universe). But such data cannot explicitly distinguish expansion at activity DE from expansion at DUM, which very much similar to first, as it is described above. It is probable that calculations of this data for model with DUM will show its preference before model with DE, as the generalised data presented on Fig. 2 shows it. Concretely it should be considered after an enunciating of theory DUM.

> 4. CONCLUSIONS

> 1. For model without DE the DUM in NU=11×1.5±1 times follows directly from observed data. They show consecutive increase of found density Ω0 in 11×1.5±1 times with increase z of observed objects from 0 to >3 (Fig. 2 a).

> 2. DUM it is alternative to acceleration of expansion of Universe and DE. The model with DUM describes the data about density with a smaller dispersion, than model with DE (Fig. 2).

> 3. Dynamics of Universe expansion with the decreasing mass without DE is similar to dynamics of Universe expansion of constant mass with DE. Therefore the cosmological data, for which explanation the new essence – DE is entered, causing acceleration of Universe expansion, – can be explained DUM in NU=11×1.5±1 times. Reduction of luminosity SN1a is caused also by cosmic dust.

> 4. The DUM concept explains: 1) the data connected with acceleration of Universe expansion and DE; 2) high speeds of galaxies flows; 3) low density of a near Universe. And, these three independent groups of data demand identical value of DUM – NU=11×1.5±1 that proves this concept. At the same time the DE concept explains only item 1) and does not explain items 2) and 3).

> Except the complex solution of several cosmological problems, the basic advantage of concept DUM before concept DE is clearness of the physical nature and theory DUM that will be separately explained, and its connectedness within the limits of SEN with earth physics. SEN starts with the analysis of the microeffects observed in laboratories, but at same time leads to understanding of the physical mechanism of a Big Bang, inflation.

> On the other hand DE shown only in a cosmology. Nature DE (Λ) remains an unsolvable problem yet 95 years.

> The physical nature and the theory of DUM and

> DM will be given in the following publication.

> REFERENCES

> Afanasiev V. L., Kalenichenko V. V., Karachentsev I. D. 2007. Detection of an intergalactic meteor particle with the 6-m telescope. Astrophysical Bulletin 62, №4:319. In Russian: В. Л. Афанасьев, В. В. Калениченко, И. Д. Караченцев. Обнаружение межгалактической метеорной частицы на 6-м телескопе. Астрофизический Бюллетень, том 62, №4, с. 319–328

> Aguirre A., Haiman Z. 2000. Сosmological constant or intergalactic dust? Сonstraints from the cosmic far infrared background. ApJ 532: 28. ArXiv: 9907039

> Allen S. W., Schmidt R. W., Fabian A. C. 2002. Cosmological constraints from the X-ray gas mass fraction in relaxed lensing clusters observed with Chandra, MNRAS, 334, L11

> Allen S. W., Schmidt R. W., & Fabian A. C. 2002а, MNRAS, 335, 256

> Allen S. W., Schmidt R. W., Ebeling H., Fabian A. C. and van Speybroeck L. 2004. Constraints on dark energy from Chandra observations of the largest relaxed galaxy Clusters. MNRAS, 353, 457–467

> Allen S. W., Rapetti D. A., Schmidt R. Ebeling W., H., Morris R. G. and Fabian A. C. 2008. Improved constraints on dark energy from Chandra X-ray observations of the largest relaxed galaxy clusters.MNRAS, V.383, Issue3, p.879–896 arXiv:0706.0033v3(astro-ph)

> Bahcall N. A. and Cen R. 1992. Galaxy clasters and dark matter: a low-density unbiened universe? ApJ 398:L81–84

> Bahcall N A, Lubin L M, Dorman V 1995. Where is the dark matter? ApJ 447:L81–L85

> Bahcall N A, Fan X and Cen R 1997. Constraining Ω0 with cluster evolution. ApJ 485: 53.arXiv:astro-ph/9706018v1

> Bahcall N. A. 1999. Cosmology with Clusters of Galaxies. arXiv:astro-ph/9901076v1

> Beelen A., Cox P., Benford D. J. et al. 2006. 350 micron dust emission from high-redshift quasars. ApJ, 642:694–701

> Bell E. F., McIntosh D. H., Katz N., and Weinberg M. D. 2003. ApJ Supplement Series, 149:289–312

> Blanchard A., Bartlett J. G. and Sadat R. 1998. The mean density of the Universe from cluster evolution. arXiv:astro-ph/9809182v1

> Blanchard A. and Bartlett J.G. 1998. What does cluster redshift evolution reveal? AA. 332: L49–L52

> Blanchard A., Sadat R., Bartlett J. G., and Le Dour M. 2000. A new local temperature distribution function for X-ray clusters: cosmological applications. AA 362: 809–824

> Bolejko K., Celerier M.-N., Krasinski A. 2011. Review article. Inhomogeneous cosmological models: exact solutions and their applications. ArXiv:1102.1449v1(astro-ph.CO)

> Brown M. E., Peebles P. J. E. 1987. ApJ 317:588–592

> Chiba M. and Yoshii Y. 1999. New limits on a cosvological constant from statistics of gravitational lensing.ApJ 510:42–53

> Cheng Yu-C. N. and Krauss L. M. 1999.Gravitational lensing statistics and constraints on the cosmological constant revisited.ArXiv:astro ph/9810393v3

> Carlberg R., Yee H. K. C., Ellingson E. et al. 1996. ApJ 462:32–49

> Carlberg R. G., Morris S. L., Yee H. K. C., Ellingson E. 1997. Redshift evolution of galaxy claster densities. ApJ 479:19–22

> Cole S., Norberg P P., Baugh C. M. et al. 2001. The 2dF galaxy redshift survey: near-infrared galaxy luminosity functions. MNRAS 326: 255–273

> Colless M., Dalton G., Maddox S. et al. 2001. The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey: spectr a and redshifts. MNRAS 328:1039–1063

> Conley A. et al. 2007. ApJ 664:13

> Corasaniti P. S. 2006. The Impact of Cosmic Dust on Supernova Cosmology. arXiv:astro-ph/0603833v3

> David L. P., Jones C., and Forman W. 1995 ApJ 445:578–590,

> Davis M., Peebles P. J. E. 1983 ApJ 267:465–482

> Dekel A. 1994. Dinamics of cosmic flows, Anny. Rev. AA 32:371–418astro-ph/9401022

> Del Popolo 2003. Measuring Оm using clusters evolution. A&A 408, 43–49 arXiv:astro-ph/0609085v1

> Del Popolo A., Ercan N., and Ye'silyurt I. S. 2005. Cosmological constraints from clustering properties of galaxy clusters. AA 432, 771–781

> Donahue M.and Voit G. M. 1999. Ω0 from the Temperature-Redshift Distribution of EMSS Clusters of Galaxies. ApJ 523:137–140

> Driver S. P., Popescu C. C., Tuffs R. J., Graham A. W., Liske J., and Baldry I. 2008. The energy output of the Universe from 0.1 to 1000 μm. ApJ 678:101–104

> Einasto 2006. In Russian: Эйнасто Я. Э. 2006. Сказание о тёмной материи. Тарту, издательство "Ильмамаа".

> http://www.astronet.ru/db/msg/1233291 http://www.variable-stars.ru/db/msg/1233291/text.html

> Einstein A.1917. Sitz. Preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. Phys.-Math142

> Efstathiou G., Ellis R. S., & Peterson B. A. 1988. MNRAS 232: 431

> Eke V. R., Cole S., Frenk C. S. 1996MNRAS 282: 263–280

> Eke V. R., Cole S., Frenk C. S., Henry J. P. 1998. Measuring Ω00 using cluster evolution. MNRAS 298:1145–1158

> Ettori S., Morandi A., Tozzi P. et al. 2009. The cluster gas mass fraction as a cosmological probe: a revised study. A&A 501: 61–73. arXiv:0904.2740v2

> Ettori S., Tozzi P., and Rosati P. 2003. Constraining the cosmological parameters with the gas mass fraction in local and z > 0: 7 galaxy clusters. A&A 398: 879–890

> Evrard A. E. 1997.The Intracluster Gas Fraction in x-rays Clusters : Constraints on the Clustered Mass Density. MNRAS 292: 289–297

> Faber S. M. & Gallagher J. S. 1979. Masses and mass-to-light ratios of galaxies. ARA&A17:135

> Falco E E, Kochanek C S and Munoz J A 1998. Limits on cosmological models from radio-selected gravitacional lense. ApJ 494: 47. ArXiv:astro-ph/9707032v1, 1997

> Fukugita M., Ichikawa T., Gunn J. E., Doi M., Shimasaku K., & Schneider D. P. 1996. The Sloan digital sky survey photometric system. AJ 111:1748

> Fukugita M., Hogan C. J., Peebles P. J. E. 1998. The cosmic baryon budget. ApJ 503:518–530

> Gehrels N. 2010. The Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM)/Omega. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1008.4936v1

> Glazebrook K., Baldry I. K., Blanton M. R. et al. 2003. The Sloan digital sky survey: the cosmic spectrum and star formation history. ApJ 587: 55–70

> Governato F., Moore B., Cen R., Stadel J., Lake G.and Quinn T. 1997. The Local Group as a test of cosmological models. New Astronomy V2, Issue 2, P. 91–106

> Hanski M. O., Theureau G., Ekholm T., Teerikorpi P.2001. Kinematics of the local universe IX. The Perseus-Pisces supercluster and the Tolman-Bondi model. AA 378:345–360

> Henry J. P. 1997. A measurement of the density parameter derived from the evolution of cluster x-rays temperatures. ApJ 489:1–5

> Henry J. P.2000. Measuring Cosmological Parameters from the Evolution of Cluster X-Ray Temperatures. ApJ 534:565–580

> Henry J. P. 2002. ASP Conf. Proc. 257, ed. Lin-Wen Chen, Chung-Pei Ma, Kin-Wang Ng, & Ue-Li Pen

> Henry J. P. 2004. X-ray temperatures for the extended medium-sensitivity survey high-redshift cluster sample: constraints on cosmology and the dark energy equation of state. ApJ 609:603–616

> Hicken M., Wood-Vasey W. Blondin M., S., Challis P., Jha S., Kelly P. L., Rest A., Kirshner R. P. 2009. Improved Dark Energy Constraints from∼100 New CfA Supernova Type Ia Light Curves. ArXiv:0901.4804v3(astro-ph.CO)

> Hicks A. K., Ellingson E., Hoekstra H. and Yee H. K. C. 2006. Multiwavelength mass comparisons of the z ∼0.3 CNOC cluster sample. ApJ 652:232Y248

> Huchra J. P., Geller M. J. 1982. ApJ 257:423–437

> Jha S., Riess A. G., & Kirshner R. P. 2007. ApJ 659:122

> Karachentsev I. D., Sharina M. E., and Huchtmeier W. K. 2000. A group of galaxies around the giant spiral NGC 6946. AA 362:544–556

> Karachentsev I. D.2001. "Hidden mass in the Local Universe" Physics-Uspekhi 44(8): 818–821; http://ufn.ru/en/articles/2001/8/i/ In Russian: И. Д. Караченцев 2001. Скрытая масcа в Местной вселенной. УФН, т.171 №8, с.860–863

> Karachentsev I. D., Sharina M. E., Makarov D. I., Dolphin A. E., Grebel E. K., Geisler D., Guhathakurta P., Hodge P. W., Karachentseva V. E., Sarajedini A., and Seitzer P. 2002a. The very local Hubble flow. AA 389:812–824

> Karachentsev I. D., Dolphin A. E., Geisler D., Grebel E. K., Guhathakurta P., Hodge P. W., Karachentseva V. E., Sarajedini A., Seitzer P., and Sharina M. E. 2002b. The M 81 group of galaxies: New distances, kinematics and structure. AA 383:125–136

> Karachentsev I. D., Grebel E. K., Sharina M. E., Dolphin A. E., Geisler D., Guhathakurta P., Hodge P. W., Karachentseva V. E., Sarajedini A. and Seitzer P. 2003a. Distances to nearby galaxies in Sculptor.AA 404:93–111

> Karachentsev I. D., Makarov D. I., Sharina M. E., Dolphin A. E., Grebel E. K., Geisler D., Guhathakurta P., P. W. Hodge, Karachentseva V. E., Sarajedini A., Seitzer P. 2003b.Local galaxy flows within 5 Mpc.AA 398:479–491

> Karachentsev I. D., Sharina M. E., Dolphin A. E., Grebel E. K., Geisler D., Guhathakurta P., Hodge P. W., Karachentseva V. E., Sarajedini A., and Seitzer P. 2003c.Galaxy flow in the Canes Venatici I cloud.AA 398: 467–477

> Karachentsev I. D. 2005. The local group and other neighboring galaxy groups. AJ129:178–188

> Karachentsev I. D., Kashibadze O. G., Makarov D. I. and Tully R. B. 2009. The Hubble flow around the Local Group. MNRAS 393:1265–1274

> Kashlinsky A., Atrio-Barandela F., Kocevski D., and Ebeling H. 2008. A measurement of large-scale peculiar velocities of clusters of galaxies: results and cosmological implications. ApJ 686:49–52. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427345.000

> Kashlinsky A., Atrio-Barandela F., . Kocevski D, . Ebeling H 2009. A measurement of large-scale peculiar velocities of clusters of galaxies: technical details. ApJ 691:1479–1493. ArXiv:0809.3733v2

> Kashlinsky A., Atrio-Barandela F., Ebeling H., Edge A., and Kocevski D. 2010. A new measurement of the bulk flow of x-rays luminous clusters of galaxies. ApJ Letters 712:81–85.

> Kochanek C. S. 1996. The flat-spectrum radio luminosity function, gravitational lensing, galaxy ellipticities, and cosmology. ApJ 473:595-609. ArXiv:astro-ph/9611231v1

> Kochanek C. S., Pahre M. A., Falco E. E., Huchra J. P.and Mader J.2001. The K-Band Galaxy Luminosity Function. ApJ 560:566–579

> Kolb E., Riotto A. 2005. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7167-giant-spacetime-ripples-may-cause-cosmic-expansion.htmlPhysical Review Letters.

> Kopylova F., Kopylov A. 2006. Detailed Study of the Ursa Major Supercluster of Galaxies Using the 2MASS and SDSS Catalogs. ArXiv:astro-ph/0604351v1

> Kopylova F. G., Kopylov A. I. 2009. Analysis of the properties of clusters of galaxies in the region of the Ursa Major supercluster. Astrophysical Bulletin 64, №1:1–23. ArXiv:0912.2503v1 In Russian: Ф. Г. Копылова, А. И. Копылов. Исследование свойств clusters galaxies в области сверхскопления Большая Медведица. Астрофизический бюллетень 64, №1:1–2

> Kopylov А. I. and Kopylova F. G. 2009. The structure of clusters with bimodal distributions of galaxy radial velocities. II: A1775. Astrophysical Bulletin 64, № 3:207–216

> Kopylov A. I. and Kopylova F. G. 2010. Structure of clusters with bimodal distribution of galaxy line-of-sight velocities III: A1831. Astrophysical Bulletin 65, № 3:205–216

> Linde 1984. In Russian: Линде А.Д. Раздувающаяся Вселенная. УФН.144:177–214 (1984). http://ufn.ru/ufn84/ufn84_10/Russian/r8410a.pdf

> Lin Yen-T., Mohr J. J. and Stanford S. A. 2003. Near-ir properties of galaxy clusters: luminosity as a binding mass predictor and the state of cluster baryons. ApJ 591:749–763. ArXiv:astro-ph/0304033v2

> Lukash V. N., Rubakov V. A. 2008. Dark energy: myths and reality. Phys. Usp. 51 283–289. ArXiv:0807.1635(astro-ph) ;.

> In Russian: В. Н. Лукаш, В. А. Рубаков. Тёмная энергия: мифы и реальность. УФН, 2008, №3, т.178:301–308

> Lumb D. H., Bartlett J. G., Romer A. K., Blanchard A., Burke D. J., Collins C. A., Nichol R. C., Giard M., Marty P. B., Nevalainen J., Sadat R., and Vauclair S. C. 2004. The XMM-NEWTONΩ0-Project: I. The X-ray Luminosity-Temperature Relation at z >0.4. arXiv:astro-ph/0311344v2

> Lynden-Bell D. 1981. Observatory, 101, 111http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981Obs...101..111L

> Mantz A., Allen S. W., Rapetti D. and Ebeling H. 2010. The Observed Growth of Massive Galaxy Clusters I: Statistical Methods and Cosmological Constraints. MNRAS, 406, Issue 3, 1759–1772

> Markwick-Kemper F., Gallagher S. C., Hines D. C., Bouwman J.2007. Dust in the Wind: Crystalline Silicates, Corundum, and Periclase in PG 2112+059.ApJ, 668:107–110

> Netterfield C. B., Ade P. A. R., Bock J. J. et al. 2002. A measurement by BOOMERANGof multiple peaks in the angular power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background. ApJ 571:604–614

> Norberg P., Cole S., Baugh C. M. et al. (The 2dFGRS Team) 2002. The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey: The bJ-band galaxy luminosity function and survey selection function. MNRAS, 336, 907–931 astro-ph/0111011v2

> Nuza S. E., Blanchard A. 2006. The baryon mass function for galaxy clusters.AA 452: 47–50

> Nych A. V. 2013. STEN 1: Mass of Universe decreased in 11 times. http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/eng/catalog/pages/13190.html

> Östman L., Mörtsell E. 2005. Limiting the dimming of distant type Ia supernovae. arXiv:0410501v2

> Percival W. J., Baugh C. M., Bland-Hawthorn J. et al. 2001. The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey: the power spectrum and the matter content of the Universe. MNRAS, 327, 1297–1306

> Percival W. J., Sutherland W., Peacock J. A. et al. 2002. Parameter constraints for flat cosmologies from cosmic microwave background and 2dFGRS power spectra. MNRAS 337:1068–1080

> Perlmutter S., Gabi S., Goldhaber G. et al. 1997. Measurements of the cosmological parameters Ω0andΛfrom the first seven supernovae at z>0.35. ApJ 483:565–581. ArXiv:astro-ph/9608192v2

> Perlmutter S., Aldering G., Goldhaber G. et al. 1999. Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae. ApJ 517: 565–586

> Pryke C., Halverson N. W., Leitch E. M. et al. 2002. Cosmological parameter extraction from the first season observations with the degree angular scale interfedometer. ApJ 568:46–51

> Reichart D. E., Nichol R. C., Castander F. J. et al. 1999. A deficit of high-redshift, high-luminosity x-rays clusters: evidence for a high value Ω0? ApJ 518:521–532

> Reiprich T. H. and Bohringer H. 2002. The mass function of an x-rays fluxelimited sample of galaxy clusters.ApJ 567:716–740

> Riess A. G., Filippenko A. V., Challis P. et al. 1998. Observational Evidence fromSupernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant. AJ116:1009–1038

> Riess A. G., Strolger L.-G., Tonry J., et al. 2004. Type Ia Supernova Discoveries at z >1 From the Hubble Space Telescope: Evidence for Past Deceleration and Constraints on Dark Energy Evolution. ApJ 607:665–687. arXiv:astro-ph/0402512v2

> Rines K., Geller M. J., Kurtz M. J., Diaferio A., Jarrett T. H., and Huchra J. P. 2001. Infrared Mass-to-Light Profile throughout the Infall Region of the Coma Cluster. ApJ 561:41–44

> Rines K., Geller M. J., Diaferio A., Kurtz M. J., and Jarrett T. H. 2004. Cairns: the cluster and infal region nearby survey. II. Environmental dependence of infrared mass-to-light ratios. AJ 128:1078–1111

> Rudnick L., Brown S., and Williams L. R. 2007. Extragalactic radio sources andthe WMAP cold spot. ApJ 671:40–44

> Sadat R., Blanchard A. and Oukbir J. 1998. Constraining Ом from X-ray properties of clusters of galaxies at high redshift. AA 329:21–29

> Sadat R. and Blanchard A. 2001. New light on the baryon fraction in galaxy clusters A&A 371:19–24

> Sandage A., Tammann G. A., & Hardy E. 1972.ApJ172:253

> Sandage A. 1986. ApJ 307:1–19. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...307....1S

> Schuecker P., B'ohringer H., Collins C. A., and Guzzo L. 2003. The REFLEX galaxy cluster survey VII. m and 8 from cluster abundance and large-scale clustering. AA 398:867–877

> Shafieloo A., Sahni V. and Starobinsky A. A. 2009. Is cosmic acceleration slowing down? ArXiv:0903.5141v4(astro-ph.CO)

> Shustov 2004. In Russian: Шустов Б. М. Большие оптические телескопы будущего. "Земля и Вселенная", №2, 2004. http://www.astronet.ru/db/msg/1205374 http://ziv.telescopes.ru/rubric/astronomy/index.html?pub=4

> Sievers J. L., Bond J. R., Cartwright J. K. et al. 2003. Cosmological parameters from cosmic background imager observations and comparisons with BOOMERANG, DASI, and MAXIMA. ApJ 591:599–622

> Smoller J., Temple B. 2009. A One Parameter Family of Expanding Wave Solutions of the Einstein Equations That Induces an Anomalous Acceleration Into the Standard Model of Cosmology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences; ArXiv:0901.1639v1 astro-ph.CO

> Spergel D. N., Bean R., Doré O. et al. 2007. Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Three-Year Observations: Implications for Cosmology. ApJS170: 377.ArXiv:astro-ph/0603449v2

> Tinker J. L., Seldon E. S., Wechsler R. H. et al. 2011. Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and the mass-to-number ratio of galaxy clusters. ArXiv:1104.1635v1(astro-ph.CO)

> Tonry J. L., Schmidt B. P., Barris B. et al. 2003. Cosmological Results from High-z Supernovae. ArXiv:astro-ph/0305008

> Vauclair S. C., Blanchard A., Sadat R., et al. 2003a. The XMM-project: II. Cosmological implications from the high redshift L–T relation of X-ray clusters. AA 152:5. arXiv:astro-ph/0311381v1

> Vauclair S. C., Blanchard A., Sadat R. et al. 2003b, A&A, 412, 37

> Viana P. T. P. and Liddle A. R. 1999. Galaxy clusters at 0.3<z<0.4 and the value of Ω0. MNRAS 303: 535–545. ArXiv:astro-ph/9803244v3

> Vikhlinin A., VanSpeybroeck L., Markevitch M. et al. 2002. ApJ 578:107

> Vikhlinin A., Kravtsov A. V., Burenin R. A., Ebeling H., Forman W. R., Hornstrup A., Jones C., Murray S. S., Nagai D., Quintana H., and Voevodkin A. 2009. Chandra cluster cosmology project III: cosmological parameter constraints. ApJ 692:1060–1074

> Voevodkin A. and Vikhlinin A. 2004. Constraining amplitude and slope of the mass fluctuation spectrum using a cluster baryon mass function. ApJ, 601:610–620,

> Weinberg D. H., R. Croft A. C., Hernquist L., Katz N., and Pettini M.. Closing in on Ω0: the amplitude of mass fluctuations from galaxy clusters and the lyman-alpha forest.Submitted to ApJ, September 30, 1998. ArXiv:astro-ph/9810011v1

> Wittman D., Tyson J. A., Margoniner V. E., Cohen J. G. and Dell'Antonio I. P. 2001.Discovery of a galaxy cluster via weak lensing. ApJ 557:89–92

> Zehavi I., et al. 1998, ApJ 503:483

> 2009 http://www.gazeta.ru/science/2009/06/04_a_3206547.shtml

____________________________________________________________

© Ныч Александр Владимирович. Sen 2: The mass of a Universe has decreased in 11 times. It is alternative of dark energy

Origin: http://samlib.ru/n/nych_aleksandr_wladimirowich/sten2eng.shtml

Создан: 19/12/2013, изменен: 29/06/2014, 84k

Статья: Естествознание