CMBR as Evidence

[PhysBang]

The problem with the iron whiskers is whether or not they can be fine tuned enough to both produce a homogeneous and blackbody radiation while at the same time preserving the optical depth of the universe.

[Mohit Pandey]

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

I think it would be costly to do so . So, scientists may have taken help of Mathematical Modelling.

[Mike C]

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.

 

Plasmas are high energy radiations by the HA's in the stars. However, these radiations are from 'open orbital electron passages' by the protons. They are not BBR's, but instead, are 'sign wave' pulses.

 

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.

 

The radiations received were noises at different wavelengths that when plotted on a chart, fit the BBRC

The range of these noises was from .05 cms to 100 cms.

 

There are, no doubt, a large number of 'dust' particles blown out of the stars that would be perfect absorbers and reradiatere of the BBRC spectrum IMO.

There are a lot of different types of molecules that would do likewise.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

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

 

Have you heard of a thermos bottle? Heat is moleculer radiations.

 

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.

 

It may look smooth on paper but it is a series of points that represented different noise levels.

Space particles and dust are spread throughout space and distribute themselves like a gas would through electron interactions.

 

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.

 

I do not object to it being 3D. After all, these particles will spread out in 3D.

Electron interactions are much stronger than gravity.

 

Mike C

[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.

Have you heard of a thermos bottle? Heat is moleculer radiations.

 

Temperature has the symbol T and is a measure of the average kinetic energy per particle in a system. It is measured with a thermometer and has a scale of Kelvin, Celsius, or Fahrenheit.

 

Heat has the symbol Q and is the measure of thermal energy transferred between systems of different temperature. If something with a lower temperature touches something with a higher temperature then heat is the energy transferred from the higher temperature body to the lower temperature body. It’s scale is joule, calorie, or BTU.

 

In physics the difference between the two is substantial. You have to add more heat to water to raise its temperature one degree than you would gold or glass. You could not describe this difference unless heat were different from temperature. You also could not describe entropy or much in the way of thermodynamics.

 

As is relevant to our discussion: if a volume of gas expands adiabatically (like the universe) - we would say the change in heat is zero. In other words it is a closed system or is not loosing or gaining thermal energy to its surroundings. It is the temperature that drops when the gas expands by PV=nRT.

 

-modest

[Mike C]

Modest

 

Our discussion is primarily semantic.

 

My argument is that the CMBR is basically a 3D 'heat' energy while the galactic redshift observations are single line 'light' dimensions.

 

Mike C

[PhysBang]

And so this makes the Big Bang more acceptable?

[CraigD]

My argument is that the CMBR is basically a 3D 'heat' energy while the galactic redshift observations are single line 'light' dimensions.

This statement reveals, I think, two fundamental confusions that have lead to a lot of unproductive discussion in this thread.

 

First, confusion concerning the description of the CMBR, or any electromagnetic radiation, by a temperature.

 

This confusion can arise from a failure to understand the use of Plank’s law of black body radiation, and related formulae such as Wien's displacement law, simple formulae that allows a spectrum of light of many frequencies (colors) to be described by a single temperature value T. So when a source such as the wikipedia article “cosmic microwave background radiation” states: “[the CMBR] has a thermal 2.725 kelvin black body spectrum”, it means only the observed radiation follows these formulae for T = 2.725 K, not that any matter involved in the radiation actually has a temperature of 2.725 K.

 

Simply put, the CMBR is not heat, but electromagnetic radiation, which is also known as light.

 

Physics writers might arguably avoid this confusion by avoiding references to temperature when describing the CMBR, instead describing it with exactly equivalent phrases like “a black body spectrum peaking at 160.2 GHz”. However, the use of temperature in degrees kelvin is more standard, so readers must avoid the confusion on their own by acquaint themselves with the concepts and formulae underlying the terms.

 

A second source of confusion involves a failure to clearly distinguish between the Relativistic Doppler redshift, which explains the observed redshift of bodies of a known spectrum (such as stars and galaxies) in relative motion, and the Cosmolological redshift, which describes redshift due to the metric expansion of space. The CMBR’s redshift, as predicted and explained by the Big Bang theory, is due to Cosmological redshift. According to this theory, it was not emitted by a body or bodies that moving at a very high velocity relative to us, but by ordinary matter with a ordinary, low relative velocity, followed by a period of extraordinary increase in cosmic scale factor known as “cosmic inflation”.

 

Science readers and discussion participants don’t have to agree with the Big Bang, or any other, theory, but it’s critical, I believe, for them to understand the standard terms used, and the meaning of the theories. If people don’t understand common words and use them in the same way, communication is impossible.

[Mike C]

And so this makes the Big Bang more acceptable?

 

I think that the above was directed to me, so I will answer that.

No.

The interpretation of the galactic redshifts as Doppler was refuted and replaced with the 'subjective' idea of Lemaitrae that space was expanding.

 

So the BBT was born of an idea rather than 'real' science like the Doppler redshifts.

My interpretation of those Doppler redshifts as light (photon) expansions is more credible.

 

Mike C