| Author |
Message
|
| Cosmo |
 Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 5:39 am Post subject: CMBR Red Shift |
 |
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 355
|
CMBR as Ideal Gas
The CMBR was promoted originally as having a
redshift of 1000.
Since then, I have discovered that this radiation
is expanding as a 3D expansion with the BBT space.
So I have concluded that this radiation is similar
in behavior to an 'ideal gas' (IG).
This is logical because these radiations are
'spotty' radiations and confined to narrow bands
of point source 'noises' that are plotted on a
graph to conform to the black body radiation form
with the derived temperature of 2.73K.
3D gases would make nothing but noise because of
their 'random' interactions in 3D between the
particles.
The IG complies to a uniform straight line
relation between the temperature and the volume.
So I presume that if we double the temperature
of this radiation, we would have to reduce the
volume to one half of its original size in a
closed system. The BBT is a closed system.
Since doing this is equivalent to a redshift of
one, then we can determine the 3D redshift of
this radiation to its starting source, where the
temperature was 3000K. This was the temperature
of the so called recombination of the plasma to
form matter radiation.
So by turning the clock back to the original
source temperature, I have calculasted the total
available redshift of the BBR to be at 10+ as a
maximum RS rediation. See below:
2.73 x 2e^10.1 = 2996K.
Then if the maximum redshift of this CMBR that
could be accessible as a noise in the deep past
would be just slightly above a redshift of 10.1.
The wavelength of the 3000K temperature noise
should be 9.66e^-7 meters approximately with a
very weak magnitude.
Of course, I do not believe in the BBT, so this
would be a fruitless search but I thought this
evaluation is interesting in itself.
Cosmo |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Dishmaster |
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 6:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 125
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
|
| Yes, for many reasons the CMB can be seen as an Ideal Gas of about 3000 K at a redshift of about 1000 now appearing as a black-body of only 2.7 K. This is the standard explanation. You describe all these facts very well. So, if this all fits into the general picture of a Big Bang scenario, how can you say that you don't "believe" in it? Can you give better explanations for the observations? At least you must admit, that the CMB together with the description as an Ideal Gas is a clear indication that the universe was once much smaller and hotter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cosmo |
| Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 355
|
| Dishmaster wrote: |
| Yes, for many reasons the CMB can be seen as an Ideal Gas of about 3000 K at a redshift of about 1000 now appearing as a black-body of only 2.7 K. This is the standard explanation. You describe all these facts very well. So, if this all fits into the general picture of a Big Bang scenario, how can you say that you don't "believe" in it? Can you give better explanations for the observations? At least you must admit, that the CMB together with the description as an Ideal Gas is a clear indication that the universe was once much smaller and hotter. |
My opinion is that the CMBR is a Thermalized Equalibrium temperature of all the intersteller and intergalactic space particles.
I also think a BB remnant left over from the period in question cannot be a perfect BB Curve because it would have some plasma radiation mixed in with the BBR.
The BBT has no real evidence for its existense because the observations it was based on (Doppler) were refuted and replaced with a 'subjective' expansion of space that sounds unrealistic.
The BBT has too many unanswered questions to be real.
Cosmo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Dishmaster |
| Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 2:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 125
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
|
But the CMB was predicted by Gamow as a direct result of the Friedman equations that describe the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe. The predictions were perfectly confirmed by the discovery of the background radiation. Even the correct temperature was predicted. So, theory and observation fit very well in this sense.
I don't know what you mean with plasma radiation, but the plasma that is now causing the CMB was optically thick. This means, you could only see its surface. Just as our sun. It is also a very hot plasma, but you can only see the BB radiation from its surface. The additional spectral lines (absorption lines) are produced by weakly ionised elements in the atmosphere of the sun. So, without it, it would be a perfect BB.
| Quote: |
| The BBT has no real evidence for its existense because the observations it was based on (Doppler) were refuted and replaced with a 'subjective' expansion of space that sounds unrealistic. |
No idea what you are referring to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Grey_matter5 |
| Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 41
Location: AZ
|
| Dishmaster wrote: |
| how can you say that you don't "believe" in it? |
I don't think it's a matter of believing, it's a matter of convincing oneself through better modelling and in the case of the benchmark model (aka standard model of cosmology) better "w" values for cosmological constant (lambda) and matter. There also seems to be a problem with supernova data to GRB data...
On the other hand, one can push the skepticism as to propose alternative cosmology even. 
Dishmaster:
Website: http://www.mpia-hd.mpg.de/~nielbock/
MPIA is cool, I wish I could try something different. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cosmo |
| Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 355
|
| Dishmaster wrote: |
But the CMB was predicted by Gamow as a direct result of the Friedman equations that describe the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe. The predictions were perfectly confirmed by the discovery of the background radiation. Even the correct temperature was predicted. So, theory and observation fit very well in this sense.
I don't know what you mean with plasma radiation, but the plasma that is now causing the CMB was optically thick. This means, you could only see its surface. Just as our sun. It is also a very hot plasma, but you can only see the BB radiation from its surface. The additional spectral lines (absorption lines) are produced by weakly ionised elements in the atmosphere of the sun. So, without it, it would be a perfect BB.
| Quote: |
| The BBT has no real evidence for its existense because the observations it was based on (Doppler) were refuted and replaced with a 'subjective' expansion of space that sounds unrealistic. |
No idea what you are referring to. |
You better read up on the subject of cosmology and its background astronomy.
The BBT originated from the observations of Slipher, Hubble and Humasons redshifts of the distant galaxies.
At that time and even today, these redshifts were interpreted as Doppler RS's that imply an expanding universe.
BUT, this repeats the discredited Geocentric theory. So a new RS had to be created. Result? the 'expansion of space'.
This idea is purely 'sunjective' with no real evidence for its support.
As far as the prediction of the CMBR, Gamow may have been aware of an Australian astronome (McKeller) that detected an interstellar particle in '1940' that had a temperature of '2.3K'.
This evidence preceded Gamow et al prediction by 10 years and his prediction may have been an instinctive coincidence to McKellers find. However, Gamows temperature prediction for this background radiation was at 10K which is not even close the the 2.73K of the CMBR.
McKellers was very close to the current 2.73K temperature of this radiation.
So, as far as I am concerned, these evidences the BBT is based on is
just subjective ad hoc creations.
Cosmo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Arch2008 |
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 46
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Dishmaster |
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 125
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
|
| Cosmo wrote: |
As far as the prediction of the CMBR, Gamow may have been aware of an Australian astronome (McKeller) that detected an interstellar particle in '1940' that had a temperature of '2.3K'.
This evidence preceded Gamow et al prediction by 10 years and his prediction may have been an instinctive coincidence to McKellers find. However, Gamows temperature prediction for this background radiation was at 10K which is not even close the the 2.73K of the CMBR. |
Never heard of McKeller, so I looked it up. If I understand it correctly, he found a molecule (CN=cyanide) that has a rotational transition equivalent to a temperature of around 2.3K. You need an excitation process to keep all the CN molecules in space radiating. The common explanation is that this is achieved by the 2.73K CMBR. (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB.html)
According to this reference, the prediction of 10K was not given by Gamow, but by Hoyle. But he missed to take further results into account that would lead to a prediction of 5K. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cosmo |
| Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 355
|
| Dishmaster wrote: |
| Cosmo wrote: |
As far as the prediction of the CMBR, Gamow may have been aware of an Australian astronome (McKeller) that detected an interstellar particle in '1940' that had a temperature of '2.3K'.
This evidence preceded Gamow et al prediction by 10 years and his prediction may have been an instinctive coincidence to McKellers find. However, Gamows temperature prediction for this background radiation was at 10K which is not even close the the 2.73K of the CMBR. |
Never heard of McKeller, so I looked it up. If I understand it correctly, he found a molecule (CN=cyanide) that has a rotational transition equivalent to a temperature of around 2.3K. You need an excitation process to keep all the CN molecules in space radiating. The common explanation is that this is achieved by the 2.73K CMBR. (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB.html)
According to this reference, the prediction of 10K was not given by Gamow, but by Hoyle. But he missed to take further results into account that would lead to a prediction of 5K. |
The idea that the energy derived from the CMBR excites this CN molecule is ludicrous.
Seems to me the star light would excite all space particles.
Also, your version of the 2.73 temperature exciting the CN molecule would give it a higher temperature than it is since it would create an equal temperatrure between the 2 components.
How can a particle exist in space at a colder temperature than space itself that is flooded with this cosmic radiation?
Cosmo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Dishmaster |
| Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 125
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
|
| Cosmo wrote: |
The idea that the energy derived from the CMBR excites this CN molecule is ludicrous.
Seems to me the star light would excite all space particles.
Also, your version of the 2.73 temperature exciting the CN molecule would give it a higher temperature than it is since it would create an equal temperatrure between the 2 components.
How can a particle exist in space at a colder temperature than space itself that is flooded with this cosmic radiation? |
It's not my version. This is - as far as I can see - the commonly accepted version. And it is not ludicrous, but it happens all the time.
First one remark: If you look at the spectrum of the CN molecule of the cited website, you see that it the spectral line is in absorption. This means, the quantum transition between two rotational states was driven by the absorption of a matching photon from a continuous background radiation.
Second: The temperature of 2.3K is not the "heat" temperature of the molecule, but its so called "excitation temperature". It is an expression for an energy equivalent driving this transition according to: E = h*nu = k*T, where h and k are constants (Planck and Boltzmann), nu is the photon frequency and T is the temperature. This "excitation temperature" has statistical relevance for the two quantum mechanical states and is not necessarily the same as the commonly known temperature. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excitation_temperature
Third: The BB radiation of the CMB is a continuum with a Planck-like distribution of photons. This means, a BB having a certain temperature also emits photons with energies different from E=k*T. Therefore, there are enough photons with energies equivalent to an energy that can excite the transition of the CN molecule.
Another simplistic example of every day life: You get a sun burn from UV radiation. But your skin is hot, i.e. it radiates in the IR. So, according to your idea, the skin should instead emit UV radiation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cosmo |
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 355
|
| Dishmaster wrote: |
| Cosmo wrote: |
The idea that the energy derived from the CMBR excites this CN molecule is ludicrous.
Seems to me the star light would excite all space particles.
Also, your version of the 2.73 temperature exciting the CN molecule would give it a higher temperature than it is since it would create an equal temperatrure between the 2 components.
How can a particle exist in space at a colder temperature than space itself that is flooded with this cosmic radiation? |
It's not my version. This is - as far as I can see - the commonly accepted version. And it is not ludicrous, but it happens all the time.
First one remark: If you look at the spectrum of the CN molecule of the cited website, you see that it the spectral line is in absorption. This means, the quantum transition between two rotational states was driven by the absorption of a matching photon from a continuous background radiation.
Second: The temperature of 2.3K is not the "heat" temperature of the molecule, but its so called "excitation temperature". It is an expression for an energy equivalent driving this transition according to: E = h*nu = k*T, where h and k are constants (Planck and Boltzmann), nu is the photon frequency and T is the temperature. This "excitation temperature" has statistical relevance for the two quantum mechanical states and is not necessarily the same as the commonly known temperature. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excitation_temperature
Third: The BB radiation of the CMB is a continuum with a Planck-like distribution of photons. This means, a BB having a certain temperature also emits photons with energies different from E=k*T. Therefore, there are enough photons with energies equivalent to an energy that can excite the transition of the CN molecule.
Another simplistic example of every day life: You get a sun burn from UV radiation. But your skin is hot, i.e. it radiates in the IR. So, according to your idea, the skin should instead emit UV radiation? |
That site you posted above gives credibility to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
That article says that the subject matter in that article has reality only when in a ThDy environment.
So it only proves what I have been promoting. That the CMBR is just an 'equalibrium' temperature of a SSU.
Regarding your last sentence, the particle in question absorbs radiation from the Sun and emits the lower radiation as your example says.
So I think my explanation is more realistic because we should know that all the space particles absorb energies from the Sun and stars.
Cosmo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| (Q) |
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 7:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 12 May 2005
Posts: 989
|
| Cosmo wrote: |
Regarding your last sentence, the particle in question absorbs radiation from the Sun and emits the lower radiation as your example says.
So I think my explanation is more realistic because we should know that all the space particles absorb energies from the Sun and stars. |
So what? Particles can absorb and re-emit energy. If we went by your logic, temperature would be measured by what amount of energy being re-emitted from particles.
_________________
I may have no understanding of the current theory of evolution. But that's because science keeps changing it. A few weeks ago I read in the newspaper that it had once again been adjusted & just the other day I discovered a new book called "The New Theory of Evolution" ~~Steven Titchenell : W.V.B.I.G. President. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Dishmaster |
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 125
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
|
| Cosmo wrote: |
That article says that the subject matter in that article has reality only when in a ThDy environment.
So it only proves what I have been promoting. That the CMBR is just an 'equalibrium' temperature of a SSU. |
No, you yourself brought up the discrepancy of temperatures. You might have noticed that 2.3K is smaller than 2.73K. Therefore, the CN gas is not in equilibrium. You wrote:
| Cosmo wrote: |
Also, your version of the 2.73 temperature exciting the CN molecule would give it a higher temperature than it is since it would create an equal temperatrure between the 2 components.
How can a particle exist in space at a colder temperature than space itself that is flooded with this cosmic radiation? |
So, this was the explanation for your concern.
| Cosmo wrote: |
Regarding your last sentence, the particle in question absorbs radiation from the Sun and emits the lower radiation as your example says.
So I think my explanation is more realistic because we should know that all the space particles absorb energies from the Sun and stars. |
This sentence was thought as a reply on your remark above.
Your claim cannot be correct for many reasons. Here is probably the most important one: If the extended interstellar and intergalactic CN would be excited by stellar radiation, the excitation would be higher close to stellar clusters, because there the stellar radiation field is stronger. This would lead to a clear correlation of the measured background radiation with the stellar density. This is not observed. Furthermore, one would see large voids of radiation correlated with the galactic voids. It is known that the gas density and the radiation field is very low between galaxies that are not coupled to galaxy clusters. Also this is not observed. You need an isotropic radiation field for a uniform emission signature of CN. Additionally, the CN gas is probably not uniformly distributed throughout the universe. The nitrogen it contains is not primordial, but produced by stars. As a result, its density must be correlated with stellar density. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cosmo |
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 6:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 355
|
| (Q) wrote: |
| Cosmo wrote: |
Regarding your last sentence, the particle in question absorbs radiation from the Sun and emits the lower radiation as your example says.
So I think my explanation is more realistic because we should know that all the space particles absorb energies from the Sun and stars. |
So what? Particles can absorb and re-emit energy. If we went by your logic, temperature would be measured by what amount of energy being re-emitted from particles. |
????
Cosmo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cosmo |
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 355
|
| Dishmaster wrote: |
| Cosmo wrote: |
That article says that the subject matter in that article has reality only when in a ThDy environment.
So it only proves what I have been promoting. That the CMBR is just an 'equalibrium' temperature of a SSU. |
No, you yourself brought up the discrepancy of temperatures. You might have noticed that 2.3K is smaller than 2.73K. Therefore, the CN gas is not in equilibrium. You wrote:
| Cosmo wrote: |
Also, your version of the 2.73 temperature exciting the CN molecule would give it a higher temperature than it is since it would create an equal temperatrure between the 2 components.
How can a particle exist in space at a colder temperature than space itself that is flooded with this cosmic radiation? |
So, this was the explanation for your concern.
| Cosmo wrote: |
Regarding your last sentence, the particle in question absorbs radiation from the Sun and emits the lower radiation as your example says.
So I think my explanation is more realistic because we should know that all the space particles absorb energies from the Sun and stars. |
This sentence was thought as a reply on your remark above.
Your claim cannot be correct for many reasons. Here is probably the most important one: If the extended interstellar and intergalactic CN would be excited by stellar radiation, the excitation would be higher close to stellar clusters, because there the stellar radiation field is stronger. This would lead to a clear correlation of the measured background radiation with the stellar density. This is not observed. Furthermore, one would see large voids of radiation correlated with the galactic voids. It is known that the gas density and the radiation field is very low between galaxies that are not coupled to galaxy clusters. Also this is not observed. You need an isotropic radiation field for a uniform emission signature of CN. Additionally, the CN gas is probably not uniformly distributed throughout the universe. The nitrogen it contains is not primordial, but produced by stars. As a result, its density must be correlated with stellar density. |
Well, if you want to believe is an idea born of observations that were refuted and accept a theory that left a remnant currently after 13 billion years, than you are welcome to do so.
I believe in the Laws of Physics, its experiments and total observations that are far more credible than somehing created in the human mind.
Cosmo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
