Black Body Cmb Radiation – Indication For Infinite Universe As Stated By Einstein

[exchemist]

I'm proposing the comprehensive Einstein cosmology model.[/size] [/size]

It gives full explanation about our Universe.[/size]

As Einstein have stated, our universe is Infinite in its age and in its size.[/size]

There is no expansion in space and no acceleration expansion – Those ideas are just unrealistic.[/size]

There is no need for Dark mass, Dark energy and any sort of divine power to explain our universe.[/size]

 

 

 

Yes, the CMB is just one pillar of the comprehensive Einstein cosmology model.[/size]

However, we have to understand the real meaning of the CMB before moving ahead.[/size]

 [/size]

So just to summarize this section:[/size]

1. The CMB is a reflection of our CURRENT universe.[/size]

2. The Black body radiation indicates that the universe in infinite.[/size]

3. The amplitude of the CMB gives an indication for the density mass in the Universe.[/size]

 [/size]

If this is clear we will move ahead.[/size]

You don't seem to understand how science works. You are still unable to point to anything about your ideas that makes them superior, in other words able to account for more observed phenomena. This is common with cranks: they are so obsessed with what they think they have devised that they forget the basic point of models in science, which is to account for the observations!

 

You MUST link your ideas firmly back to explaining observations in a consistent way: otherwise you are not doing science.

[JMJones0424]

The black body radiation is a direct product of Infinite Universe size (not age).

Einstein had stated clearly that the Universe is infinite in its age and size.

 

 

Lets start by the following:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0207286

"The recent measurements of the power spectrum of Cosmic Microwave Background anisotropies are consistent with the simplest inflationary scenario and big bang nucleosynthesis constraints. However, these results rely on the assumption of a class of models based on primordial adiabatic perturbations, cold dark matter and a cosmological constant."

OK, I'll be a bit more tactful.  I do not understand why you are conflating black-body radiation with the cosmic background radiation.  I do not understand why you presume black-body radiation has anything at all to do with the age or size of the universe.  I do not understand how the source you've linked supports your claim at all.

 

"We can easily prove that any infinite object must have a black body radiation."  If it can be easily proved, then easily prove it.

 

"1. if we take an isolated enclosure box and set one LED (or any kind of requested source for Light/Heater) inside this box, we should get a box with internal black body thermal radiation. - (Lets call it A - box)"

 

I take issue with the very first step in your reasoning.  Why should we assume an isolated enclosure box is equivalent to a black body?  Every box that I know of does not fit this description.  What box are you referring to?  Do you understand what "idealized" means?

Edited May 27, 2017 by JMJones0424

[OceanBreeze]

 

O.K.

Let's focus on the Black body radiation

Black Body

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body

 

"An ideal body is now defined, called a blackbody. A blackbody allows all incident radiation to pass into it (no reflected energy) and internally absorbs all the incident radiation (no energy transmitted through the body). This is true for radiation of all wavelengths and for all angles of incidence. Hence the blackbody is a perfect absorber for all incident radiation.^[10]" 

In the article it is also stated that: 

"An approximate realization of a black body as a tiny hole in an insulated enclosure"

 

1. if we take an isolated enclosure box and set one LED (or any kind of requested source for Light/Heater) inside this box, we should get a box with internal black body thermal radiation. - (Lets call it A - box)

 

<snip the rest of the nonsense>

 

 

Your very first step is wrong, and since everything else you said follows from that, everything you said is wrong.

 

To begin with, an LED does not emit due to thermal excitation; it is a cold emitter. Leaving that fact aside, your idea of an isolated box with an internal source does not work because only an observer who is outside the box will see the black body radiation! The reason is, a black body must be able to absorb any radiation that falls into it, and only emit thermal radiation due to its body temperature. The absorption requirement can only be met if the observer is outside of the box. (if you are inside the box you will see any radiation that falls in, as well as the thermal radiation)

 

So, you can make the box infinite in size and call it the universe as it exists today, but all observers (us) are inside that box and we will not see black body radiation. The universe, as it exists today, is not a black body radiator at least for any observer who is inside it. That means, if we accept the steady state model, the universe was never a black body radiator!

 

In light of that understanding, the fact that we DO see the CMBR and it DOES fit the profile for black body radiation, that is very strong evidence against the steady state model and supports the Big Bang model which theorizes the universe was a dense hot plasma 13.7 billion years ago from which nothing but thermal radiation could escape; a near perfect black body radiator.

 

The cosmic microwave background that we see today is a relic of how the universe was 13.7 billion years ago, and it was very different than the universe as it is today. The BBT, as imperfect as it may be, is the best theory we have in terms of matching our observations.

[mrg]

Boy howdy, I'm familiar with flat earthers, geocentrists, and such -- but I'm surprised at the level of steady-stater activity on this forum.

[Super Polymath]

Boy howdy, I'm familiar with flat earthers, geocentrists, and such -- but I'm surprised at the level of steady-stater activity on this forum.

I see what you're doing.

 

The universe is 3 dimensional. They give the term "flat space time" to deceive, they mean level 1 multiverse. 

Edited May 27, 2017 by Super Polymath

[davdan]

To begin with, an LED does not emit due to thermal excitation; it is a cold emitter. 

 

Well, as I have stated:

 

1. if we take an isolated enclosure box and set one LED (or any kind of requested source for Light/Heater) inside this box,

 

 

We can use any requested source of light or heater instead on that LED.

 

your idea of an isolated box with an internal source does not work because only an observer who is outside the box will see the black body radiation! The reason is, a black body must be able to absorb any radiation that falls into it, and only emit thermal radiation due to its body temperature. The absorption requirement can only be met if the observer is outside of the box. (if you are inside the box you will see any radiation that falls in, as well as the thermal radiation)

 

I disagree with you.

 

Please see the following explanation:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body

 

Cavity with a hole[edit]

A widely used model of a black surface is a small hole in a cavity with walls that are opaque to radiation.^[10] Radiation incident on the hole will pass into the cavity, and is very unlikely to be re-emitted if the cavity is large. The hole is not quite a perfect black surface — in particular, if the wavelength of the incident radiation is longer than the diameter of the hole, part will be reflected. Similarly, even in perfect thermal equilibrium, the radiation inside a finite-sized cavity will not have an ideal Planck spectrum for wavelengths comparable to or larger than the size of the cavity.^[11]

Suppose the cavity is held at a fixed temperature T and the radiation trapped inside the enclosure is at thermal equilibrium with the enclosure. The hole in the enclosure will allow some radiation to escape. If the hole is small, radiation passing in and out of the hole has negligible effect upon the equilibrium of the radiation inside the cavity. This escaping radiation will approximate black-body radiation that exhibits a distribution in energy characteristic of the temperature T and does not depend upon the properties of the cavity or the hole, at least for wavelengths smaller than the size of the hole.^[11] See the figure in the Introduction for the spectrum as a function of the frequency of the radiation, which is related to the energy of the radiation by the equation E=hf, with E = energy, h = Planck's constant, f = frequency.

At any given time the radiation in the cavity may not be in thermal equilibrium, but the second law of thermodynamics states that if left undisturbed it will eventually reach equilibrium,^[12] although the time it takes to do so may be very long.^[13] Typically, equilibrium is reached by continual absorption and emission of radiation by material in the cavity or its walls.^{[3][4][14][15]} Radiation entering the cavity will be "thermalized"; by this mechanism: the energy will be redistributed until the ensemble of photons achieves a Planck distribution. The time taken for thermalization is much faster with condensed matter present than with rarefied matter such as a dilute gas. At temperatures below billions of Kelvin, direct photon–photon interactions^[16] are usually negligible compared to interactions with matter.^[17] Photons are an example of an interacting boson gas,^[18] and as described by the H-theorem,^[19] under very general conditions any interacting boson gas will approach thermal equilibrium.

 

The hole in the cavity is needed so that the "Radiation incident on the hole will pass into the cavity, and is very unlikely to be re-emitted if the cavity is large".

 

So, once the radiation gets in the cavity, (which is isolated enclosure), It will be reflected by the internal walls of this  isolated enclosure cavity:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body#/media/File:Black-body_realization.png

 

Therefore, we can get the black body radiation signature.

We will use the hole again to measure this black body radiation signature. So, this signature had been created inside the  isolated enclosure cavity:

Edited May 27, 2017 by davdan

[OceanBreeze]

 

 

The hole in the cavity is needed so that the "Radiation incident on the hole will pass into the cavity, and is very unlikely to be re-emitted if the cavity is large".

 

Right.

 

So, once the radiation gets in the cavity, (which is isolated enclosure), It will be reflected by the internal walls of this  isolated enclosure cavity

 

 

Right again. The incident radiation will be thermalized by bouncing off of the cavity walls for a period of time. Once equilibrium is reached, only the thermalized radiation will escape.

 

As your source says: “This escaping radiation will approximate black-body radiation that exhibits a distribution in energy characteristic of the temperature T and does not depend upon the properties of the cavity or the hole, at least for wavelengths smaller than the size of the hole”

 

The way I understand that, it is only the escaping thermal radiation that approximates black body radiation. The radiation inside the box must consist of the incident radiation (from whatever the outside source may be) as well as the thermalized radiation from the cavity walls. Therefore, the radiation inside the box will not be the same as the radiation that is escaping, that is, the radiation inside the box will not be black body. There always must be radiation falling in for the box to reach equilibrium, and the infalling radiation is not black body radiation.

 

That is the only way it makes sense to me, but maybe I am misunderstanding something.

[JMJones0424]

davdan- As you have not stated, why are you tying black-body radiation to either the size or the age of the universe?  The article you linked does not at all support your claim.  In fact, it seems to me to support the consensus view.  Fundamentally, I don't understand why you are using the concept of black-body radiation to have any determining relationship with the CMBR.  I have not read of anything that would suggest such a thing is the case.  What support do you have for your claim that the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation should be taken to be equivalent to black-body radiation?  And if you do presume such a thing, what tests can show that your presumptions are invalid?

Edited May 31, 2017 by JMJones0424

[davdan]

 

It seems that you have missed the real meaning of black body. 

Please read again Pg 23. 

In any case, lets look at the following example of our photosphere: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body#/media/File:Idealized_photosphere.png

 

"An idealized view of the cross-section of a star. The photosphere contains photons of light nearly in thermal equilibrium, and some escape into space as near-black-body radiation."

 

In this case, the photosphere acts as a cavity.

So, the radiation is reflected back and forth by the edges of the photosphere.

Hence, it is an isolated aria as a cavity.

In other words, a black body signature is a direct outcome from a radiation which exists in an isolated aria due to the reflections from the internal walls (or edges).

 

davdan- As you have not stated, why are you tying black-body radiation to either the size or the age of the universe?  

 

Well, once you understand the real meaning of the CRM black body radiation, you will understand that in order to achieve it the Universe MUST be infinite in its size. 

 

It doesn't give an indication about its age. However, I would assume that in order to get an infinite Universe (in its size) it is a mandatory request to have an infinite universe in its age. In any case, based on Einstein cosmology module the Universe must be infinite in its size and in its age.

 

The article you linked does not at all support your claim.  In fact, it seems to me to support the consensus view. 

 

Consensus way doesn't mean the correct way.

Just to remind you that at some point of time in our history the consensus was that the earth is Flat. Later on the consensus was that the Earth is the center of the Universe. So, consensus is nice to its limited time frame. Currently we are living under the BBT consensus. Once we will be abale to eliminate this obsical from our Eyes, we will see why Einstein cosmology module is the correct view.

Edited May 31, 2017 by davdan

[exchemist]

 [/size]

It seems that you have missed the real meaning of black body.[/size] [/size]

Please read again Pg 23.[/size] [/size]

In any case, lets look at the following example of our photosphere:[/size] [/size]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body#/media/File:Idealized_photosphere.png[/size]

 [/size]

"An idealized view of the cross-section of a star. The photosphere[/size] contains photons[/size] of light nearly in thermal equilibrium, and some escape into space as near-black-body radiation."

 [/size]

In this case, the photosphere acts as a cavity.[/size]

So, the radiation is reflected back and forth by the edges of the photosphere.[/size]

Hence, it is an isolated aria as a cavity.[/size]

In other words, a black body signature is a direct outcome from a radiation which exists in an isolated aria due to the reflections from the internal walls (or edges).[/size]

 

 

 

Just to remind you that at some point of time in our history the consensus was that the earth is Flat.

There is no cavity or wall in a star. The photons are simply continually re-absorbed and re-emitted by the plasma-phase matter of the star. That is identical to what is hypothesised for the big bang.

 

P.S. Nobody educated has believed in a flat Earth since about 300BC.

Edited May 31, 2017 by exchemist

[davdan]

There is no cavity or wall in a star. The photons are simply continually re-absorbed and re-emitted by the plasma-phase matter of the star. That is identical to what is hypothesised for the big bang.

 

Yes, the explanation about the Photons which is re-emitted by the plasma-phase matter of the star is quite clear.

However, the hypothesised for the big bang is not clear.

How can you explain this re-emitted process in a bang (even if it is a BIG BIG bang...)

 

With regards to the BBT theory for Black body radiation (If I understand correctly):

After the Big bang the radiation wasn't black body and based on our current universe - it is not expected to get any black body radiation.

Just at a very narrow time in the history of our universe - about 380,000 years ago, it is believed that radiation gets its black body signature.

Our scientists expect us to believe that this narrow and limited time frame of black body signature is what we see today.

 

Why the CMB can't represent our current Universe?

Why only the one when the universe was exactly 380,000?

But now its age (based on BBT) is almost 13.8 Billion.

So, what about the radiation from 10 Billion years ago, 1 Billion or even when it was 1 year old?

Why they insist for only 380,000 years old just in order to meet their assumptions/calculations?

 

Don't forget that we get the CMB from all directions and from all distances.

 

Theoretically - based on redshift we can extract age/distance.

 

So, the CMB must include wide spectrum from galaxies/mass at different ages and distances.

Please be aware that the CMB might includes radiations from outside the visible Universe.

In any case, some of it might be from the time when the universe was at age 380,000 (had a blackbody signature), and most of it should come from other time frames (without blackbody signature).

 

Therefore, it is absolutely not logical to assume that this black body signature is specifically comes from a 380,000 age universe.

 

 

Edited May 31, 2017 by davdan

[exchemist]

Yes, the explanation about the Photons which is re-emitted by the plasma-phase matter of the star is quite clear.

However, the hypothesised for the big bang is not clear.

How can you explain this re-emitted process in a bang (even if it is a BIG BIG bang...)

 

With regards to the BBT theory for Black body radiation (If I understand correctly):[/size]

After the Big bang the radiation wasn't black body and based on our current universe - it is not expected to get any black body radiation.[/size]

Just at a very narrow in the history of our universe - about 380,000 years ago, (and based on some unrealistic assumptions) it is believed that radiation gets its black body signature.[/size]

Our scientists expect us to believe that this narrow and limited time frame of black body signature is what we see today.[/size]

 [/size]

Why the CMB can't represent our current Universe?[/size]

Why only the one when the universe was very young?[/size]

But now its age (based on BBT) is almost 13.8 Billion.[/size]

So, what about the radiation from 10 Billion years ago, 1 Billion or even yesterday?[/size]

Why they insist for only 380,000 years old?[/size]

As I understand it, the CMBR comes from the "surface of last scattering", which was the point at which the plasma condensed into neutral atoms and thus became transparent, i.e. ceased to absorb and re-emit, and thus to scatter, the radiation.

 

This was, as I understand it, black body radiation then and has been ever since. All that has changed is that the distribution has red-shifted to lower frequencies as the universe has expanded. (You can of course have a black body spectrum corresponding to an emitter at any temperature you like.)

 

I do not know where you get this idea about it only becoming black body radiation 380,000 years ago. Can you cite a reference for that?

[davdan]

I do not know where you get this idea about it only becoming black body radiation 380,000 years ago. Can you cite a reference for that?

 

http://www.bigbangcentral.com/microwave_page.html

 

"According to the Big Bang mathematical model, the CMB radiation we measure today originated from a spherical surface (hot plasma gas) when the universe was only about 380,000 years old and it almost perfectly matches the spectrum of a black body at 2.75 degrees Kelvin."

 

 

 

Our scientists have no clue about the real size of the invisible universe.

Some claim that its maximal diameter is 90 BLY.

Some other consider that it might be bigger - even infinite.

 

However, it is clear for most of them that based on the current shape of universe it is not expected to have a black body radiation.

Therefore, they are looking for help from that "surface of last scattering" which took place (based on BBT) when the Universe was quite young.

 

I wonder why they don't consider an option that the CMB is a simple reflection of our current Universe.

Edited May 31, 2017 by davdan

[exchemist]

http://www.bigbangcentral.com/microwave_page.html

 

"According to the Big Bang mathematical model, the CMB radiation we measure today originated from a spherical surface (hot plasma gas) when the universe was only about 380,000 years old and it almost perfectly matches the spectrum of a black body at 2.75 degrees Kelvin."[/size]

 

 [/size]

 [/size]

Our scientists have no clue about the real size of the invisible universe.[/size]

Some claim that its maximal diameter is 90 BLY.[/size]

Some other consider that it might be bigger - even infinite.[/size]

 [/size]

However, it is clear for most of them consider that based on the current shape of universe it is not expected to have a black body radiation.[/size]

Therefore, they are looking for help from that [/size]"surface of last scattering" which took place (based on BBT) when the Universe was quite young.[/size]

 

I wonder why they don't consider an option that the CMB is a simple reflection of our current Universe.

Your quoted article is saying that the CMBR was emitted when the universe was 380,000 YEARS OLD, i.e. 380,000yrs after the big bang. This is NOT 380,000 years AGO.

 

According to the model the universe is about 13.8bn yrs old. So this event occurred 13.4bn years ago, if the model is right.

 

So it makes perfect sense: at some point about 380,000 yrs after the big bang you had a ball of plasma, in which the radiation was in thermal equilibrium, black-body style, just like a star, and then, as neutral atoms formed the universe became transparent and the radiation was no longer continually absorbed and re-emitted. So that is what we see echoing round the universe today, stretched out by the intervening expansion of space. Where is the problem with this?

 

As for your remark that the radiation was NOT a black-body before the plasma condensed, why do you say that? The implication of the model is that it would have been a black-body spectrum from the big bang itself,surely? Why would it NOT be?

 

Addendum: re your last question the answer is that the radiation emitted from the galaxies at present, is NOT a black body spectrum corresponding to an emitter at <3K, which is what is observed. Stars in the current universe are quite a bit hotter, are they not?

Edited May 31, 2017 by exchemist

[davdan]

According to the model the universe is about 13.8bn yrs old. So this event occurred 13.4bn years ago, if the model is right.

So it makes perfect sense: at some point about 380,000 yrs after the big bang you had a ball of plasma, in which the radiation was in thermal equilibrium, black-body style, just like a star, and then, as neutral atoms formed the universe became transparent and the radiation was no longer continually absorbed and re-emitted. So that is what we see echoing round the universe today, stretched out by the intervening expansion of space. Where is the problem with this?

 

No, there is a severe error in this model.

 

1. What is the chance to create any sort of ball due to a bang?

2. What is the chance to get a clear surface without any gaps or holes in the Plasma/matter?

3. What is the chance to get a smooth and fixed density inside that ball at any given moment?

4. How can we achieve the radiation reflection process from that surface if the ball expands at ultra high speed during the inflation process?

 

In all the explanations about the Black body signature it is related to a constant cavity without any sort of inflation in its size, without any gapes or holes in its surface and with a fixed internal density.

 

So, what is the chance to achieve all of those requirements during the inflation process and for very long period of time?

 

Sorry, I estimate that the chance for that is virtually zero.

 

How can you compare this process to a star?

How can anyone believe in such fiction?

Edited June 1, 2017 by davdan

[JMJones0424]

Consensus way doesn't mean the correct way.

Just to remind you that at some point of time in our history the consensus was that the earth is Flat. Later on the consensus was that the Earth is the center of the Universe. So, consensus is nice to its limited time frame. Currently we are living under the BBT consensus. Once we will be abale to eliminate this obsical from our Eyes, we will see why Einstein cosmology module is the correct view.

 

FFS, don't be an idiot.  I simply asked for evidence that supported your claim.  It is true that at some point in the past, the average moron thought the Earth was flat.  This is not in any way support for your claim.  Just to remind you, you made a claim, and appealing to ignorance is no justification for your claim.  People laughed at Galileo, but people also laughed at Bozo the clown.  Support your claim!  Consensus means that that the majority of people that have observed the evidence have concluded that a particular explanation of observed phenomena is appropriate.  You are arguing that the consensus view is not appropriate.  As such, you should be able to provide more than platitudes as evidence.

[exchemist]

 

No, there is a severe error in this model.

 

1. What is the chance to create any sort of ball due to a bang?

2. What is the chance to get a clear surface without any gaps or holes in the Plasma/matter?

3. What is the chance to get a smooth and fixed density inside that ball at any given moment?

4. How can we achieve the radiation reflection process from that surface if the ball expands at ultra high speed during the inflation process?

 

In all the explanations about the Black body signature it is related to a constant cavity without any sort of inflation in its size, without any gapes or holes in its surface and with a fixed internal density.

 

So, what is the chance to achieve all of those requirements during the inflation process and for very long period of time?[/size]

 

Sorry, I estimate that the chance for that is virtually zero.[/size]

 

How can you compare this process to a star?

How can anyone believe in such fiction?[/size]

A ball is exactly what you get from a bang.

 

You don't need or get a "clear surface". A plasma is opaque.

 

You expect a "smooth" composition if it starts from just radiation, as is proposed. There are no "lumps" in radiation, you see.

 

You don't need to have "reflection". It is not "reflection" that gives a star its black body spectrum.

 

 

 

Regarding the part of my reply you have snipped off and not responded to, I take it you now agree that the CMBR cannot be a "reflection" of current radiation from stars.

Edited June 1, 2017 by exchemist