[Eclogite]

New Science said:

The supporters of the BBU say that those 'anomalous redshifts' are just 'chance alignments' but the examples I gave above, are proof beyond a doubt that Arp is right.
I posted this in the Cosmology sector because this involves the Cosmological Redshift that involves the 'nature' of our universe.

Mike, I agree this would be more appropriate back in the Cosmology section.

However, there is no way in which the examples you gave are 'proof beyond a doubt'. To make such a claim (with what appears to the casual observer as a high emotional content) is decidedly unscientific. It encourages one to take the most negative connotation of the word amateur in your self professed status as an amateur astronomer.

If you insist you have offered proof beyond doubt then the Strange Claims forum may be the right place after all.

[CraigD]

New Science said:

However technically, space is a 'viod' or vacuum with a temperature of 'absolute zero'.

Even more technically, temperature is defined as the average kinetic energy of the particles in an arbitrary volume of space,

where: is the number of particles; and is the kinetic energy of a specific particle.
Solving this for a volume of space containing no particles gives , a case of division by zero. In physics, such a result is considered mathematically undefined, or “meaningless”.

So it would be more correct to say vacuum has not temperature, than to say its temperature is 0° K.

Quote

So the measured temperature is of the space particles such as dust from star eruptions, molecules and the gases.

True.

Interestingly, the temperature of most of the near vacuum of space is very high compared to that of high-density places like Earth’s ground-level atmosphere. Although there’s very little matter in a volume of deep space compared to that in the same volume on Earth, the few particles it has are on average moving very fast, giving a temperature of over 1000000° K, compared to a warm day on Earth of about 300° K. (sources: ”Black Hole Blowback” by Tucker, Tananbaum & Fabian, 3/2007 sciam, wikipedia article “interstellar medium”)

It’s important not to confuse the temperature of space (the average energy of the particles in it) with the black-body equivalent temperature of various electromagnetic radiation, such as the Cosmic Microwave Background (the famous 2.725° K). The latter is not a real temperature – no conventional scientist is claiming that the average kinetic energy of particles in space is 2.725° K – but a convenient equivalent measure of a black-body radiation electromagnetic spectrum peaking at a frequency of about 160 MHz (1.6e8 Hz, in the VHF radio frequency band).

Critically to New Science’s claim,

New Science said:

These particles absorb star radiations and reradiate them as the CMBR to comply with the 2nd Law of Thremodynamics.

, no conventional scientist is suggesting that the CMBR is actually being emitted by some body (such a clouds of interstellar dust and gas) glowing at this temperature. AFAIK, the main constituent of the interstellar medium, hydrogen, isn’t observed to glow significantly at anywhere near as low a frequency as 160 MHz, peaking mostly in the 750 GHz (7.5e14 Hz, in the high-visible, low-ultra-violet light frequency bands).

The extraordinary claim that the CMBR is produced by emissions from interstellar dust and gas requires an extraordinary explanation of how such a thing is possible, explaining both the atomic dynamics and the very even distribution of the CMBR throughout space. Though both are daunting tasks, the latter is especially, as nearly all emissions from ordinary matter, from light-bulb filaments to nebulae in space, are observed to be highly localized around their power sources, while the CMBR is very evenly distributed.

Until such proof is presented, the claim of an ordinary interstellar matter emission source for the CMBR is unsupported speculation.

[peaceharris]

New Science said:

So the measured temperature is of the space particles such as dust from star eruptions, molecules and the gases. These particles absorb star radiations and reradiate them as the CMBR to comply with the 2nd Law of Thremodynamics.

NS

I agree. I think you should create a website explaining the CMBR.

[peaceharris]

CraigD said:

Even more technically, temperature is defined as the average kinetic energy of the particles in an arbitrary volume of space,

where: is the number of particles; and is the kinetic energy of a specific particle.
Solving this for a volume of space containing no particles gives , a case of division by zero.

In my opinion, its plain nonsense to define temperature as the average kinetic energy. Consider the air inside a moving train. Because the train is moving fast, does that mean the air inside the train is hotter?

Your equation is not even dimensionally correct. Do you think temperature and energy has the same dimensions?

Which textbook defines temperature the way you do?

[InfiniteNow]

peaceharris said:

In my opinion, its plain nonsense to define temperature as the average kinetic energy. Consider the air inside a moving train. Because the train is moving fast, does that mean the air inside the train is hotter?

Your equation is not even dimensionally correct. Do you think temperature and energy has the same dimensions?

Which textbook defines temperature the way you do?

It's easier to attack the position of others than to adequately defend your own.

Got anything more than the "In my opinion" quote above, Peachfuzz? If not, shut up and go home. Otherwise, your challenge is to explain how CraigD's post is inaccurate and provide an alternate definition that fits with accepted laws and observations.

[Tormod]

peaceharris said:

In my opinion, its plain nonsense to define temperature as the average kinetic energy.

Wikipedia supports Craig here:

"Wiki" said:

Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in a sample of matter.

Temperature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which textbook do you use, by the way?

[peaceharris]

Tormod said:

Wikipedia supports Craig here:

Wiki has at least included Boltzmann's constant.

Let me explain why you cannot use this formula for particles in space: Particles that escape a star's gravitational field have a very high velocity. Every second, our atmosphere is constantly being bombarded by millions of high speed solar particles.

But only a very small percentage of these get trapped by earth or other planets. The majority of these particles just expand into free space.

When they are sufficiently far from the star which ejected it, their temperature should be calculated using Stefan Boltzmann's law depending on the number of stars per unit volume. This temperature is basically Eddington's temperature of space.

If you calculate the 'temperature' of interstellar particles using the formula based on their average speed, you will get a much higher value. Eddington's formula is the correct formula that should be used when discussing the thermal spectrum radiated by particles in space, and not the one at wikipedia.

[Mike C]

Craig said:

Until such proof is presented, the claim of an ordinary interstellar matter emission source for the CMBR is unsupported speculation.

I quoted in my article about the observed temperature of an interstellar space particle that was at a temperature of 2.3K (corrected).
This was back in 1940 by an Australian astronomer named Andrew McKellar.

This is more convincing to me than Gamows idea of a lrft over remnant from the BB that I consider to be fiction to begin with.

I will post an article on the CMBR tomorrow on the Cosmology sector.

Infinity:
COOL IT. This is a free board and we do not need any bullies here.

NS

[Mike C]

Tormod

The professionals do not support Wilkapedia as entirely accurate.

NS

[CraigD]

peaceharris said:

Do you think temperature and energy has the same dimensions?

Yes. Both are in the same units as work, units of .

In the SI system, temperature is defined in degrees Kelvin, abbreviated K.
, where k is the Boltzmann constant, .

So, the average kinetic energy (E) of the particles in an ideal gas at a room-ish temperature of 300 K is . Assuming the gas in question to be pure nitrogen, each atom of which has mass about 2.32587e-26 kg (M), this gives an average velocity (v) of

peaceharris said:

Consider the air inside a moving train. Because the train is moving fast, does that mean the air inside the train is hotter?

Yes, but not by much, and only when measured by an observer standing still outside of the train.

Because the gas molecules in the train are moving in all directions, it’s a slightly complicated calculation to make, so I won’t show the work here. Assuming the train is moving at a typical speed of 30 m/s, and contains pure nitrogen gas as in the above example, the temperature measure by an outside observer will be about 1.0025 times the temperature measured by an observer in the train, or about .75 K greater.

This may be surprising, because intuitively one might expect any energy gained by molecules moving in the direction of the train to be “offset” by the energy lost by those moving in the opposite direction. Consider, however, that kinetic energy is proportional to velocity squared, and , and an explanation should be apparent.

Quote

Which textbook defines temperature the way you do?

As I recall, all of the introductory ones written withing the last 100 years or so. I don’t have such a textbook at hand, so referenced the wikipedia article “temperature”.

Prior to about 1800, this definition, and the idea of an equivalency between mechanical work and heat, was arguably unknown. Prior to 1800, heat was considered by most people to be a kind of fluid, called phlogiston or caloric, or one of the pre-scientific Four Elements, “Fire”.

[peaceharris]

CraigD said:

Yes. Both are in the same units as work, units of .

No. We can add terms if they have the same dimensions. For example, 1cm+1mm=0.011m. Since you claim energy and temperature have the same dimensions, how much is 1 celcius + 1 Joule?

CraigD said:

AFAIK, the main constituent of the interstellar medium, hydrogen, isn’t observed to glow significantly at anywhere near as low a frequency as 160 MHz, peaking mostly in the 750 GHz (7.5e14 Hz, in the high-visible, low-ultra-violet light frequency bands).

How does 750Ghz equal to 7.5e14? Can you give me a reference for this, how exactly it was determined that hydrogen is the main constituent of interstellar medium and how was it determined that it peaks at 750GHz / 7.5e14Hz?

CraigD said:

So, the average kinetic energy (E) of the particles in an ideal gas at a room-ish temperature of 300 K is . Assuming the gas in question to be pure nitrogen, each atom of which has mass about 2.32587e-26 kg (M), this gives an average velocity (v) of

The average velocity (a vector) is 0. Assuming this is a typo, the average speed ( a scalar) of nitrogen gas at 300K is still not 597m/s. Try referring a textbook and redoing the calculation. You are using a wrong formula.

CraigD said:

Yes, but not by much, and only when measured by an observer standing still outside of the train.

So the temperature of an object depends on the frame of the observer. Nonsense.

[Mike C]

Craig

See my new post on the CMBR in the Cosmology sector.

NS

[CraigD]

peaceharris said:

CraigD said:

Yes. Both are in the same units as work, units of .

No. We can add terms if they have the same dimensions. For example, 1cm+1mm=0.011m. Since you claim energy and temperature have the same dimensions, how much is 1 celcius + 1 Joule?

However, since units of temperature are used only to represent the average kinetic energy of a single particle, and the standard SI unit, K, is very small compared to the standard unit J, adding one of each unit is unusual, and below significance at common levels of precision, as the strange result above suggests.

Some confusion about the units K and J are the result of the convention of not counting “pure” numbers as fundamental physical quantities. So a unit of is considered the same as a unit of energy.

This is true of all the fundamental and derived physical quantities. For example, we speak of 100 people as massing 7900 kg, or an average person in this ensemble as massing 79 kg – we do not claim that the unit of mass kg cannot be used in both cases.

As temperature is by definition a measure of kinetic energy of an individual (eg: a particle of an ideal gas), this kind of double-use of the same type of unit is especially confusing. Although technically meaningful, it’s weird to refer to a projectile like a bullet as having rather than 1400 J, or a human being having an oral temperature of rather than 37° C

If we could not equate temperature and energy, how would it be possible to answer questions such as:
“Inside a vacuum chamber, a projectile massing .05 kg is fired with a speed of 100 m/s into a 1 kg clay target, stopping it. Before the shot, the temperature of the projectile and target are 300 K. After the shot, and allowing time for the target and projectile to reach thermal equilibrium, what is their temperature?”

peaceharris said:

CraigD said:

AFAIK, the main constituent of the interstellar medium, hydrogen, isn’t observed to glow significantly at anywhere near as low a frequency as 160 MHz, peaking mostly in the 750 GHz (7.5e14 Hz, in the high-visible, low-ultra-violet light frequency bands).

How does 750Ghz equal to 7.5e14?

It does not. I made a typographical error. “GHz” should read “THz”. The visible light range of the EM spectrum is conventionally considered to be between 450 and 750 THz, or and cycles/second.

peaceharris said:

Can you give me a reference for this, how exactly it was determined that hydrogen is the main constituent of interstellar medium and how was it determined that it peaks at 750GHz / 7.5e14Hz?

A discussion of the 750 THz peak for hydrogen emission can be found at the wikipedia article “Balmer Series”

That hydrogen is the main constituent of the ISM has been determined several ways:

• By examining the absorption and emission spectra of starlight and nebulae (Spectroscopy)
  
• From observation of the relative abundance of elements in the solar system
  
• As a consequence of cposmological models predicting the relative abundance of the elements
  
• Via space probes and sample return missions, which directly measure the interplanetary medium, which is assumed to resemble the ISM

This measurement is by no means conclusive, as we’ve not actually sampled the ISM, and spectroscopic data is available only for parts of the ISM lit by background start, but most interested people find it compelling. As the technique has be tested and refined in the lab using artificial gas samples, and because the underlying physics is well understood, the reliability of spectroscopic analysis in determining the composition of gasses is high, so predictions of the composition of the ISM are widely accepted.

peaceharris said:

CraigD said:

So, the average kinetic energy (E) of the particles in an ideal gas at a room-ish temperature of 300 K is . Assuming the gas in question to be pure nitrogen, each atom of which has mass about 2.32587e-26 kg (M), this gives an average velocity (v) of

The average velocity (a vector) is 0. Assuming this is a typo, the average speed ( a scalar) of nitrogen gas at 300K is still not 597m/s. Try referring a textbook and redoing the calculation. You are using a wrong formula.

You are correct – “velocity” should read “speed” in the quoted text.

I used the usual formula for kinetic energy, , which is derived from the definition of work, . Manipulated to solve for speed, it’s .

My result of 597 m/s matches that of the “molecular speed calculator” at hyperphysics’s kinetic temperature page.

peaceharris said:

CraigD said:

Yes, but not by much, and only when measured by an observer standing still outside of the train.

So the temperature of an object depends on the frame of the observer. Nonsense.

I wouldn’t call it nonsense, just somewhat useless. Of what possible use is it to know the temperature of a medium in motion relative to you with which you’re not in contact? Even measuring such a temperature would be practically challenging. Nonetheless, a strict interpretation of the physical definition of temperature concludes that the temperature of an object does depend on its motion relative to an observer.

[Mike C]

Craig

This temperature math discussion is 'off' topic.

If you want to do some serious research regarding Arp's work, than compare the radiating spectrums of the objects involved like the Quasars and the companion galaxies and establishing this difference to the discordant redshifts and how they relate.

NS

[Karim Khaidarov]

New Science said:

A blatant example of censorship of science in the united States.

HALTON ARP NS

Dear NS,
thank you very much for initiation of this topic.

Dear colleagues,
I had great pleasure to read Yours interesting and clever messages in this topic.
I am apologist of Dr Arp's works and I tryed to complement his experimental discoveries with my simple theoretical research.
I would be happy if my works dedicated to explanation of redshifts and quasar nature will be interesting for You.
According to rules of the Forum I can't give my links yet.
but You can find my papers very easy via search engines like Google and on my site appearing in my profile.
There are
"TEMPERATURE OF AETHER AND REDSHIFTS"
"SUPERCOMPRESSED STATES of MATERIAL and QUASARS"

I hope You will find answers for most Your question in this papers.
I am ready to discuss and to reply for Your new asks as that will be possible for me.

Respectfully Yours,
Karim Khaidarov, Bourabai Research, Kazakhstan