CMBR as Evidence

[CraigD]

How would you define a redshift that is less than one in words?

A redshift (z value) less than one is associated with an source of electromagnetic radiation (light, radio, etc.) moving away from the observer at a speed less than three fifths (.6) times the speed of light in vacuum ©.

Are you using Einsteins RS formula?

I’m using the formula for the relativistic Doppler effect,

[math]1+ z = \frac{1 + v \cos (\theta)/c}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/math],

Where [math]v[/math] is the velocity of the observed object, [math]\theta[/math] the angle of its motion relative to a line drawn from the observer to it, and [math]c[/math] the speed of light.

 

Assuming for simplicity [math]\theta = 0[/math] (the object is moving directly away from the observer), this follows via simple algebra

[math]\frac{v}{c} = \frac{(z +1)^2 -1}{(z +1)^2 +1}[/math]

 

This allows [math]v[/math] to be easily calculated for any [math]z[/math]. To give an intuitive sense of these formulae, here are a few [math]z[/math] and [math]\frac{v}{c}[/math] value pairs:

z       v/c
 -1    -1
 -0.9  -0.980198019801980198
 -0.8  -0.923076923076923077
 -0.7  -0.8348623853211009174
 -0.6  -0.7241379310344827586
 -0.5  -0.6
 -0.4  -0.4705882352941176471
 -0.3  -0.3422818791946308725
 -0.2  -0.2195121951219512195
 -0.1  -0.1049723756906077348
  0     0
  0.001 0.000999500000249750125
  0.002 0.001998000003992008
  0.003 0.002995500020189341125
  0.004 0.003992000063744511996
  0.005 0.004987500155470703101
  1     0.6
  2     0.8
  3     0.8823529411764705882
  4     0.923076923076923077
  5     0.945945945945945946
  6     0.96
  7     0.969230769230769231
  8     0.975609756097560976
  9     0.980198019801980198
1000     0.999998003996000008

To keep this in perspective, note that the greatest observed [math]z[/math] of an astronomical object (distant galaxy, etc) is about 10.

The values of the RS is determined by a comparison of the spectrums of the object in relation to the Suns spectrums

Although In post #9 I commented that this is “essentially correct”, I fear that you, Mike, are suffering from some confusion about the role of the Sun’s spectrum in routine astronomical spectroscopy. In short, it has none. redshift is measured by comparing distinct emission and absorption lines associated with elements in the spectra of target objects with reference values obtained from benchtop observation of various light emitting and absorbing elemental gases.

For instance, the dimension for hydrogen alpha as expressed in meters is 6.56 x 10-7 meters.

Now if this value is twice the size given, that would be a RS of one.

Correct – though it would read more clearly as “the wavelength of the hydrogen alpha emission line is 6.56 x 10^-7 meters”.

 

However, I don’t see how the rest of the claim

It has nothing to do with math.

can be correct. “This value is twice the size given” is a mathematical statement in word form equivalent to [math]\lambda_{\mbox{observed}} = 2 \lambda_{\mbox{emitted}}[/math]. Avoiding the writing of numbers and mathematical symbols by using their word equivalents and restricting the description to whole numbers (integers) doesn’t make it “have nothing to do with math”. More, the statement

These [spectral redshift] diferences are expressed in meters.

is, IMHO, misleading to the point of being simply and completely wrong. Redshift is expressed as a ratio of wavelengths, an observed wavelength divided by a reference one. A distance divided by a distance is not a distance. It is a dimensionless quantity (also called “unitless quantity”, “pure number”, or “quantity with dimension 1”). To quote the wikipedia article “redshift”:

Redshift (and blue shift) may be characterized by the relative difference between the observed and emitted wavelengths (or frequency) of an object. In astronomy, it is customary to refer to this change using a dimensionless quantity called

z

.

The distinction between a ratio of quantities with units such as meters and the quantities themselves is a very fundimental and important one. :Exclamati

[PhysBang]

One example does not refute Arps observations.

Sure, but every one that people look at in greater detial?

Arps best examples are NGC 7603, AM 2054-2210 and AM 0328-222.

 

To me, these examples are definite proofs that Arps RS anomalies are right.

And I'm sure they'll be good examples until a better picture of them is taken, jsut like all his other examples.

[Mike C]

I’m using the formula for the relativistic Doppler effect,

[math]1+ z = frac{1 + v cos (theta)/c}{sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/math],

Where [math]v[/math] is the velocity of the observed object, [math]theta[/math] the angle of its motion relative to a line drawn from the observer to it, and [math]c[/math] the speed of light.

 

Assuming for simplicity [math]theta = 0[/math] (the object is moving directly away from the observer), this follows via simple algebra

[math]frac{v}{c} = frac{(z +1)^2 -1}{(z +1)^2 +1}[/math]

 

This allows [math]v[/math] to be easily calculated for any [math]z[/math]. To give an intuitive sense of these formulae, here are a few [math]z[/math] and [math]frac{v}{c}[/math] value pairs:

z       v/c
 -1    -1
 -0.9  -0.980198019801980198
 -0.8  -0.923076923076923077
 -0.7  -0.8348623853211009174
 -0.6  -0.7241379310344827586
 -0.5  -0.6
 -0.4  -0.4705882352941176471
 -0.3  -0.3422818791946308725
 -0.2  -0.2195121951219512195
 -0.1  -0.1049723756906077348
  0     0
  0.001 0.000999500000249750125
  0.002 0.001998000003992008
  0.003 0.002995500020189341125
  0.004 0.003992000063744511996
  0.005 0.004987500155470703101
  1     0.6
  2     0.8
  3     0.8823529411764705882
  4     0.923076923076923077
  5     0.945945945945945946
  6     0.96
  7     0.969230769230769231
  8     0.975609756097560976
  9     0.980198019801980198
1000     0.999998003996000008

To keep this in perspective, note that the greatest observed [math]z[/math] of an astronomical object (distant galaxy, etc) is about 10.Although In post #9 I commented that this is “essentially correct”, I fear that you, Mike, are suffering from some confusion about the role of the Sun’s spectrum in routine astronomical spectroscopy. In short, it has none. redshift is measured by comparing distinct emission and absorption lines associated with elements in the spectra of target objects with reference values obtained from benchtop observation of various light emitting and absorbing elemental gases.Correct – though it would read more clearly as “the wavelength of the hydrogen alpha emission line is 6.56 x 10^-7 meters”.

 

However, I don’t see how the rest of the claimcan be correct. “This value is twice the size given” is a mathematical statement in word form equivalent to [math]lambda_{mbox{observed}} = 2 lambda_{mbox{emitted}}[/math]. Avoiding the writing of numbers and mathematical symbols by using their word equivalents and restricting the description to whole numbers (integers) doesn’t make it “have nothing to do with math”. More, the statementis, IMHO, misleading to the point of being simply and completely wrong. Redshift is expressed as a ratio of wavelengths, an observed wavelength divided by a reference one. A distance divided by a distance is not a distance. It is a dimensionless quantity (also called “unitless quantity”, “pure number”, or “quantity with dimension 1”). To quote the wikipedia article “redshift”:

Redshift (and blue shift) may be characterized by the relative difference between the observed and emitted wavelengths (or frequency) of an object. In astronomy, it is customary to refer to this change using a dimensionless quantity called

z

.

The distinction between a ratio of quantities with units such as meters and the quantities themselves is a very fundimental and important one. :Exclamati

 

Harrisons book 'The Science of the Universe, page 234 gives this data.

 

However, as I said, comparisons of the Sun's spectra and the obsereved spectra are compared. Of course I used the photon lengths as an example. But they use the H and K lines of Calcium that are the strongest emmission lines for these comparisons. The Sodium emission lines are also bright enough for these comparisons.

The absoption lines can also be used.

 

So the math here is not really essential except to transform these readings to distance parameters.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

Sure, but every one that people look at in greater detial?

 

And I'm sure they'll be good examples until a better picture of them is taken, jsut like all his other examples.

 

Those examples I gave are 'positive' prints while Arp's book uses 'negative' prints

 

Take NGC 7603, that bridge of stars connecting the 2 objects is not explainable as an individual limb of the other 2 objects alone.

Can you really visualize either one with a single arm that cuts of abruptly?

 

I provided an explanation for this anomaly as an 'Expansion of the Light Waves by an 'intrinxic force' whitin the photons that has different energy levels sincs both objects have different radiation levels. The quasars have much higher radiation levels than the accompaning galaxies.

 

Mike C

[Mohit Pandey]

 

But this also means that if every observed distant galaxy is receding from Earth, that we have a priviledged spot in the Universe? In other words, if there was a Big Bang, it must have happened here, right? Also, once again, not so. Seeing as the observed redshift is the same for all galaxies at the same distance (more distant galaxies are more redshifted, closer ones less), and we're looking in all directions, it means we're sitting inside a 'sphere' that's expanding away, with us at the center. This is true - but only in our frame of reference. If you're sitting on a planet orbiting a star in a galaxy that's receding from Earth at 50% the speed of light, and you look back at Earth, you'll see Earth receding away from you at 50% c. You'll also sit slap bang in the middle of a perfect sphere where the whole universe is uniformly receding away from you.

 

Have we observed red-shift from reference frame other than earth ?

One more thing, John C. Mather and George F. Smoot got Noble Prize 2006 in Physics.. And Noble Prize doesn't give any prize unless it is assured that the work of the individual has been experimented and proved correct. That's why Stephen Hawking has not got the Noble Prize so far as his work on Black Hole has not been observed through our eyes.

Thus, can't we take the existence of CMRB as the proof of BB?

[Mike C]

To All

 

I just became aware of the problem with the CMBR's redshift of 1000 as it was described as a redshift.

 

Now I have noticed that this RS is not properly described as a RS, but rather should be described as a 'temperature' shift.

The reason for this is that light is a 'single line dimension' while the CMBR is a 3 dimensional expansion to conform to the expansion of BB space as a 3 dimensional expansion.

 

So this is where there was some confusion on my part of referring to it as a redshift of 1000.

 

Mike C

[modest]

The de Sitter solution is not static, it was thought to be static only due to the peculiar coordinate system used by de Sitter in originally presenting the metric.

 

You'll have your work cut out for you to establish that a de Sitter universe can even match the existing data.

 

I was looking at some old De Sitter posts and it seems everyone is defining "De Sitter Universe" differently. I think it can mean more than one thing. In its strictest definition it would be the original 5D vacuum solution. However, on the other end of the spectrum, it is sometimes defined as any maximally symmetric expanding solution. This would obviously include our universe. The middle definition is often described as what our universe is turning into - low matter density and exponential expansion. I believe this is the most-common, currently referenced "De Sitter Universe". However, there is so much room for confusion. Then we have the "static metric" and "non-static metric" depending on the solution's choice of Minkowski or Euclidean geometry and our eventual confusion about the globally-static nature of any of the definitions above because of this. And, we can't forget "De Sitter space time" which carries its own connotations, and the "Einstein-De Sitter universe" which is obviously different from De Sitter's original solution or De Sitter space time.

 

- modest :eek:

[PhysBang]

To All

 

I just became aware of the problem with the CMBR's redshift of 1000 as it was described as a redshift.

 

Now I have noticed that this RS is not properly described as a RS, but rather should be described as a 'temperature' shift.

The reason for this is that light is a 'single line dimension' while the CMBR is a 3 dimensional expansion to conform to the expansion of BB space as a 3 dimensional expansion.

 

So this is where there was some confusion on my part of referring to it as a redshift of 1000.

 

Mike C

I'm not sure what difference this makes, as the change in temperature is entirely due to the same factor that gives rise to redshift.

[Mike C]

I'm not sure what difference this makes, as the change in temperature is entirely due to the same factor that gives rise to redshift.

 

No.

Heat energy is transmitted by 'molecular' interactions just like sound waves.

These are also random interactions and therefore 3 dimentional.

 

Light, on the other hand, is created by electron transitions and light photons are 'one line' transitions through the electric fields.

 

Mike C

[PhysBang]

No.

Heat energy is transmitted by 'molecular' interactions just like sound waves.

These are also random interactions and therefore 3 dimentional.

 

Light, on the other hand, is created by electron transitions and light photons are 'one line' transitions through the electric fields.

 

Mike C

I'm not sure what you think this has to do with the CMB. The CMB hasn't really interacted with anything, except gravitationally, since it was generated.

[modest]

No.

Heat energy is transmitted by 'molecular' interactions just like sound waves.

 

You are correct as far as 'heat' is concerned. However, the CMBR is not representative of heat but temperature. It, I think, is beneficial to look at each individual photon. The energy of which is:

 

[math]E=\frac{hc}{\lambda}[/math]

 

Where h is plank's constant, c is the speed of light, and the wavelength of the photon is [imath]\lambda[/imath] or lambda.

 

So, the amount of energy a photon has is inversely proportional to its wavelength. Or, if you stretch the photon out (in 3 dimensions) you lower it's energy. This would be the case in an expanding universe. Stretching spacetime lowers the energy of each photon in that spacetime. This is a very real energy loss that these photons have experienced between the time they were emitted and the time they landed here. The energy loss of a single photon represents the temperature drop of the whole system.

 

Everything works as it should. The 'hotter' universe gives off blackbody radiation at the wavelength we would predict, the universe expands, and we see 'colder' CMBR now - all as it should be. This can be modeled using the equation for adiabatic expansion of a relativistic gas and the result is spot on.

 

-modest

[Mike C]

I'm not sure what you think this has to do with the CMB. The CMB hasn't really interacted with anything, except gravitationally, since it was generated.

 

The CMBR has interacted with space. When space expands, the heat energy displaces itself to fill in the added space.

Although the heat is reduced in local areas, the total energy remains the same in a closed system and the BBT is a closed system.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

You are correct as far as 'heat' is concerned. However, the CMBR is not representative of heat but temperature. It, I think, is beneficial to look at each individual photon. The energy of which is:

 

[math]E=frac{hc}{lambda}[/math]

 

Where h is plank's constant, c is the speed of light, and the wavelength of the photon is [imath]lambda[/imath] or lambda.

 

So, the amount of energy a photon has is inversely proportional to its wavelength. Or, if you stretch the photon out (in 3 dimensions) you lower it's energy. This would be the case in an expanding universe. Stretching spacetime lowers the energy of each photon in that spacetime. This is a very real energy loss that these photons have experienced between the time they were emitted and the time they landed here. The energy loss of a single photon represents the temperature drop of the whole system.

 

Everything works as it should. The 'hotter' universe gives off blackbody radiation at the wavelength we would predict, the universe expands, and we see 'colder' CMBR now - all as it should be. This can be modeled using the equation for adiabatic expansion of a relativistic gas and the result is spot on.

 

-modest

 

How do you measure heat? With a thermometer, right?

The CMBR is portrayed as having a temperature of 2.73K.

 

You can transform this into a wavelength, but this does not make any sense since the CMBR is a 3 dimentional random chaotic distribution similar to a plasma.

 

It is a mixture of different wavelengths of noise that they determined to coincide with the black body curve.

 

So it is just a mixture of 'noises'.

 

Mike C

[PhysBang]

How do you measure heat? With a thermometer, right?

The CMBR is portrayed as having a temperature of 2.73K.

 

You can transform this into a wavelength, but this does not make any sense since the CMBR is a 3 dimentional random chaotic distribution similar to a plasma.

Ummm.... no....

 

"CMBR", unless you are using it in some truly bizarre context, stands for cosmic background microwave radiation. This means that it is radiation; in this case the radiation is in the form of photons. Plasma is not radiation.

It is a mixture of different wavelengths of noise that they determined to coincide with the black body curve.

 

So it is just a mixture of 'noises'.

The CMB is in the form of a black-body spectrum, that is, it is a collection of photons that have the same spectral characteristics as if it was emitted from a perfect absorber and re-emitter. Not simple any collection of noise signals can produce such a spectrum unless the noise is very highly (and strangely) correlated.

[modest]

How do you measure heat? With a thermometer, right?

 

No, heat is different than temperature. But, I'm sure that's not too important to our discussion. Let's stick to using temperature.

 

The CMBR is portrayed as having a temperature of 2.73K.

 

You can transform this into a wavelength, but this does not make any sense since the CMBR is a 3 dimentional random chaotic distribution similar to a plasma.

 

It is a mixture of different wavelengths of noise that they determined to coincide with the black body curve.

 

So it is just a mixture of 'noises'.

 

It seems you've hit the nail on the head. The microwave background radiation is so very smooth that it doesn't resemble noise. What you say: "mixture of different wavelengths of noise" is not the case. It has the same frequency, wavelength, and spectrum anywhere we look. This implies that it was emitted from one source that was in equilibrium over a very short time rather than many sources over a long time. If it came from many sources of colder plasma as you suggest then it would not look as smooth and consistent as it does. Don't forget, it was BBT that not only predicted the CMB but also the spectrum it would have. These predictions have paid off.

 

I've heard many times that astronomers know of no other mechanism that would cause CMB other than a young, hot universe. Your implication that it causes a problem for BBT puzzles me. I don't know of any such problem and the general sentiment is quite the opposite.

 

I also don't understand you objection about it being 3D. It surrounds us - presumably its source filled the universe.

[coldcreation]

... Don't forget, it was BBT that not only predicted the CMB but also the spectrum it would have. These predictions have paid off.

 

I've heard many times that astronomers know of no other mechanism that would cause CMB other than a young, hot universe. Your implication that it causes a problem for BBT puzzles me. I don't know of any such problem and the general sentiment is quite the opposite.

.

 

I've linked this work before regarding the light element production. I mentioned it in post 29 above. Here it is again (as a link) regarding the CMB.

 

The Origin of Helium and the Other Light Elements. Hoyle & Burbidge, 1998

 

The energy released in the synthesis of cosmic He from hydrogen is almost exactly equal to the energy contained in the cosmic microwave background radiation.

 

The conclusion is that, the CMB (along with the observed helium abundance) was produced by hydrogen burning stars over time scales exceeding 100 Gyr.

 

Hoyle and Burbidge provide a physical mechanism capable of thermalizing the radiation.

 

So the notion that the CMB is solely indicative of an early hot dense state is erroneous.

 

 

 

CC

[modest]

Hoyle and Burbidge provide a physical mechanism capable of thermalizing the radiation.

 

Is that an iron whisker's thing? All the paper says is:

 

there must be a physical mechanism operating that is able to thermalize the radiation that is initially released through hydrogen burning as ultraviolet photons from hot stars in starburst situations in galaxies.

 

- modest